Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.
Limits and Punishments set by Allah (Hudood)
Sahih al-Bukhari 6802
Historical Context and Background
This incident involves members of the 'Ukl tribe who embraced Islam but later apostatized, committing theft and murder. The Prophet's treatment was specific to their crimes of highway robbery (hirabah) combined with apostasy.
Legal Analysis of the Punishment
The punishment prescribed aligns with Quranic injunction for hirabah (Quran 5:33): execution, crucifixion, amputation of alternate limbs, or exile. The Prophet combined elements considering the severity of their crimes - murdering the shepherd and stealing camels after benefiting from Muslim charity.
Scholars note this was not arbitrary cruelty but precise legal implementation. The branding prevented their recognition in afterlife according to some interpretations, while non-cauterization ensured they would die from their wounds as mandated for such severe crimes.
Scholarly Interpretations
Imam Malik and Ash-Shafi'i considered this a specific case combining multiple capital crimes. Abu Hanifa distinguished between different types of hirabah punishments.
Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani explains the comprehensive punishment addressed their apostasy, theft, murder, and breach of trust after receiving hospitality and healing.
Contemporary Understanding
Modern scholars emphasize this ruling was for specific historical context with strict evidentiary requirements. Most contemporary jurists require Islamic governance and strict legal procedures before implementing such punishments, focusing instead on prevention and rehabilitation where possible.