Home > The 40 Hadith of Nawawi > Hadith 14 of Nawawi
Hadith number 14 of the collection of the 40 hadiths of Imam an-Nawawi, in a faithful English translation.
Updated on 10 September 2026 at 2:45 AM
📖 25 min readThis hadith belongs to the collection of the 40 hadiths of Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him), the most studied hadith compilation in the world: foundations of faith, worship and character, all authentic narrations.
he incurs death. This meaning is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by the narrations of Ibn Abbas, Abu Hurayra, Anas ibn Malik and others.
We mentioned Anas's hadith before: these three traits are the right of Islam by which the blood of whoever testifies there is no deity but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah becomes lawful. Killing by each of these three traits is agreed among the Muslims.
As for the married man's fornication: the Muslims agreed its punishment is stoning until death; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) stoned Ma'iz and the woman of Ghamid. There was in the Qur'an, whose wording was abrogated: "The elder man and woman: if they fornicate, stone them both, as exemplary punishment from Allah: and Allah is Mighty, Wise."
Ibn Abbas derived stoning from the Qur'an by the word of the Most High:
"O People of the Book! Our messenger has come to you, explaining much of what you concealed of the book, and pardoning much."
Al-Ma'ida, 41
He said: whoever disbelieves in stoning has disbelieved in the Qur'an without noticing. Then he recited this verse, saying: stoning was of what they concealed. An-Nasa'i and al-Hakim report it, saying: a sound chain. [Az-Zuhri likewise.] It is also derived from His word:
"We sent down the Torah, wherein is guidance and light: the prophets who submitted judged thereby the Jews," to His word: "and judge between them by what Allah sent down."
Al-Ma'ida, 44
Az-Zuhri said: it reached us that it was sent down regarding the two Jews whom the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) stoned, saying: I judge by what is in the Torah, and commanded the two: so he stoned them. Muslim reports in his Sahih from al-Bara ibn Azib's hadith the story of the two Jews' stoning, saying in his hadith: Allah then sent down:
"O messenger! Let not those who hasten into disbelief grieve you," and sent down: "whoever judges not by what Allah sent down: they are the disbelievers," regarding all the disbelievers.
Al-Ma'ida, 41
Imam Ahmad reports it, having: Allah then sent down: "Let not those who hasten into disbelief grieve you," to His word: "if you are given this, take it": they say: come to Muhammad: if he rules you burning and lashing, take it; if he rules you stoning, beware, to His word: "and whoever judges not by what Allah sent down: they are the disbelievers"; he said: regarding the Jews. The story of the two Jews' stoning is reported from Jabir's hadith, and he says in his hadith: Allah then sent down:
"If they come to you, judge between them, or turn away from them," to His word: "and if you judge, judge between them with equity."
Al-Ma'ida, 42
Allah, the Most High, first commanded detaining the fornicating women until death takes them, or Allah appoints them a way. Allah appointed them the way: in the Sahih of Muslim, from Ubada, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said: "Take from me, take from me: Allah appointed a way: the virgin by the virgin: a hundred lashes and exile a year; the married by the married: a hundred lashes and stoning."
A group of scholars took this hadith's apparent, obligating the married man a hundred lashes, then his stoning: as Ali did with Shrarah al-Hamdani, saying: I lashed her by Allah's book, and stoned her by the Prophet's Sunna (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). It indicates Allah's book has the fornicators' lashing without distinguishing married and virgin, and the Sunna came with the married one's stoning specifically, deriving it from the Qur'an too.
This view is famous of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and Ishaq; it is al-Hasan's view and a group of the predecessors. Some said: if the two married are elders, lash and stone; if young, stone without lashing: for the elder's sin is uglier, especially by fornication: Ubayy ibn Ka'b's view; reported from him in raised form, its raising not authentic: also a narration from Ahmad and Ishaq. As for "a soul for a soul": its meaning is that the bound one, if he kills a soul wrongfully deliberately, is killed by it. The Qur'an indicates it by His word:
"We prescribed for them therein: a soul for a soul."
Al-Ma'ida, 45
and the Most High says:
"O you who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the slain: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the female for the female."
Al-Baqara, 178
Of the generality of His word "a soul for a soul," images are excepted: the father killing his son. The majority: he is not killed for him; it is authenticated of Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, and reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by multiple routes, their chains criticized.
Malik said: if he kills him deliberately, doubtless, like slaughtering him: he is killed for him; if he wounded him with sword or stick, he is not killed. Al-Batti said: he is killed for killing him by all forms of deliberateness, by the generalities.
Of them: the free man killing a slave. The majority: he is not killed for him; hadiths came therein, chains criticized. It is said: he is killed for another's slave, not his own: Abu Hanifa's and his companions' view. It is said: he is killed for his slave and another's: a narration from ath-Thawri, and a group of hadith people's view, by Samura's hadith, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever kills his slave: we kill him; whoever maims him: we maim him." Imam Ahmad and others criticized it. They agreed no retaliation between slaves and free in limbs, indicating this hadith is set aside, not acted upon: it is of what argues what is meant by His word "a soul for a soul" being the free, for he mentions it after retaliation in limbs, which is specific to the free.
Of them: the Muslim killing a disbeliever: if a combatant, he is not killed for him without disagreement; for killing the combatant is licit beyond doubt. If a protected or covenanted one: the majority is he is not killed for him too. In the Sahih of al-Bukhari, from Ali, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "A Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever." Abu Hanifa and a group of Kufa's jurists said: he is killed for him. Rabi'a reports from Ibn Abi Layla, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that he killed a man of the qibla folk for a man of the protected folk, saying: "I am more entitled than whoever kept his covenant." This is mursal, weak: Imam Ahmad, Abu Ubayd, Ibrahim al-Harbi, al-Juzajani and Ibn al-Mundhir deemed it weak, and ad-Daraqutni said: Ibn Abi Layla is weak: the hadith establishes no proof even connected: how when mursal? Al-Juzajani said: Rabi'a took it only from Ibrahim ibn Abi Yahya, from Ibn al-Munkadir, from Ibn Abi Layla; and Ibn Abi Yahya is abandoned in hadith. In Abu Dawud's mursal reports is another mursal hadith: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) killed, on Khaybar's day, a Muslim for a disbeliever he killed by treachery, saying: "I am most entitled and worthy of whoever kept his covenant." This is Malik's and Medina's people's school: killing by treachery requires no compensation: the Muslim is killed for the disbeliever therein; upon this they carried Ibn Abi Layla's hadith too, assuming its soundness.
Of them: the man killing a woman: he is killed for her, without disagreement. In the book of Amr ibn Hazm, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The man is killed for the woman." It is authenticated that he killed a Jew who killed a maidservant. Most scholars: nothing is due to the man's heirs. It is reported from Ali that half the compensation is due them: for the woman's compensation is half the man's: the view of some predecessors, and Ahmad in a narration.
As for the religion-abandoning, community-leaving one: the intended is whoever left Islam, apostatized, and separated from the Muslims' community, as explicit in Uthman's hadith. He is excepted with those whose blood is protected by the two testimonies, for what he was upon before apostasy, Islam's ruling binding upon him after it. Hence he is given respite, and asked to return to Islam. On his obligation of making up worship missed during apostasy: a famous disagreement among the scholars. He may also leave his religion and leave the community while admitting the two testimonies, claiming Islam: as if he denies a pillar of Islam, insults Allah and His messenger, disbelieves in some angels or prophets, or books mentioned in the Qur'an, knowing it.
No distinction in this between man and woman, with most scholars. Some said: the woman is not killed when apostatizing, as the war-house's women are not killed in war: only their men are killed. This is Abu Hanifa's and his companions' view: they assimilated the arising disbelief to the original. The majority distinguished: the arising one is graver for the preceding Islam: hence whoever apostatizes is killed among those not killed of war's people: the dying elder, the infirm and the blind, who are not killed in war.
His saying: "the religion-abandoning, community-leaving one" indicates that were he to repent and return to Islam he is not killed: for he is no longer a religion-abandoner nor community-leaver after his return. Were it said: his exception among those whose blood is protected by the two testimonies indicates he is killed though admitting the two testimonies, as the married fornicator is killed and the killer: indicating the apostate's repentance is not accepted, as reported from al-Hasan; or carrying that upon whoever apostatized born Muslim: his repentance not accepted: the repentance of whoever was a disbeliever, then embraced Islam, then apostatized is accepted: the view of some scholars, among them al-Layth ibn Sa'd, Ahmad in a narration, and Ishaq. It is said: he was excepted from the Muslims for what he was upon before his religion's separation, as established; and he is not like the married fornicator and killer: their killing is required as punishment for their past crime, unescapable. The apostate: killed for an attribute existing presently: leaving his religion and separating from the community. When he returns to his religion and conformity with the community: the attribute by which his blood was permitted is negated: his blood's permissibility lifts. And Allah knows best.
Were it said: an-Nasa'i reports from Aisha's hadith, may Allah be pleased with her, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said: "A Muslim man's blood is not lawful except by one of three things: a married fornicator, stoned; a man killing deliberately: killed; and a man leaving Islam, warring against Allah and His messenger: killed, or crucified, or exiled from the land." This indicates joining apostasy and warfare intended. It is said: Abu Dawud reports Aisha's hadith, may Allah be pleased with her, with another wording: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "A Muslim man's blood testifying there is no deity but Allah and that Muhammad is the messenger of Allah is not lawful except in one of three: a man fornicating after marriage: stoned; a man going out warring against Allah and His messenger: killed, or crucified, or exiled from the land; or killing a soul: killed for it." This indicates whoever is found of the Muslims' warriors: the choice is given the imam over him absolutely, as Medina's scholars say, Malik and others. The first narration may carry that his leaving Islam means leaving Islam's rulings: and may carry its apparent. Whoever says the warfare verse is specific to apostates argues by it: whoever apostatizes and wars, the verse's deed is done to him; whoever wars without apostasy, the Muslims' rulings are established: retaliation and theft's amputation. This is a narration from Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, but not famous of him. Some predecessors said likewise the warfare verse is specific to apostates: among them Abu Qulaba and others. In any case, Aisha's hadith's wordings, may Allah be pleased with her, vary: reported from her raised and as Companion's statement. Ibn Mas'oud's hadith, may Allah be pleased with him: its wording varies not, established, its soundness agreed.
It is said to this: the Muslim's killing came besides these three traits. Of it: in sodomy, from Ibn Abbas's hadith, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Kill the doer and the one done to." Many scholars took it, like Malik and Ahmad, saying: it requires death in every case, married or not. Uthman is reported saying: "A Muslim man's blood is not lawful except by four": mentioning the preceding three, adding: "and a man doing Lut's people's deed." Of it: whoever approaches a forbidden woman: the command killing him is reported.
It is reported the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) killed whoever married his father's wife. A group of scholars took that, obligating his killing absolutely, married or not.
Of it: the sorcerer. In at-Tirmidhi, from Jundub's hadith, in raised form: "The sorcerer's punishment is a sword strike." He mentions the correct is his Companion's statement upon Jundub. It is a group of scholars' school: Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Malik, Ahmad, Ishaq. But these say: he disbelieves by his sorcery: his ruling is the apostates' ruling.
Of it: killing whoever unites with a beast: a raised hadith came, and some scholars say it.
Of it: whoever abandons prayer is killed among many scholars, while saying he is not a disbeliever: mentioned before fully.
Of it: killing the wine drinker the fourth time: the command came from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by multiple routes, and Abd Allah ibn Amr ibn al-As, may Allah be pleased with him, and others took it. Most scholars: killing was abrogated; the fourth-time drinker is reported brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and he killed him not. In the Sahih of al-Bukhari: a man was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) for wine: a man cursed him, saying: how often he is brought! The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Curse him not: he loves Allah and His messenger." He killed him not for that.
Killing the thief the fifth time is reported; some jurists are said to adopt it.
Of it: reported from him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "When two caliphs are pledged, kill the latter of them." Muslim reports it from Abu Sa'id's hadith. Al-Aqili deemed weak all this chapter's hadiths.
Of it: his saying: "Whoever comes to you while your affair is united upon one man, wanting to split your staff or disperse your gathering: kill him." In a narration: "strike his head with the sword, whoever he be." Muslim reports it too, from Arfaja's narration.
Of it: whoever brandishes the weapon: an-Nasa'i reports from Ibn az-Zubayr's hadith, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said: "Whoever brandishes the weapon then lays it down: his blood is void." Reported from Ibn az-Zubayr raised and as Companion's statement. Al-Bukhari said: it is Companion's statement only. Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked this hadith's meaning and said: I know not what this is. Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh said: "He means whoever brandishes his weapon then lays it upon the people, parading them: his killing becomes lawful." It is the Haruriyya's school: they parade men, women and children. Aisha is reported with what contradicts Ishaq's interpretation: al-Hakim reports, from Alqama ibn Abi Alqama's narration, from his mother, that a boy brandished the sword on his master in Sa'id ibn al-As's emirate, and it slipped from him; the people restrained him. The master entered upon Aicha: she said: I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say: "Whoever points a blade at one of the Muslims intending killing him: his blood becomes due." His master took him and killed him. Al-Hakim said: sound by the two shaykhs' condition. It is authenticated of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said: "Whoever is killed over his wealth is a martyr." In a narration: "and whoever is killed over his blood is a martyr." If a man's wealth or blood is intended: let him defend by the easier. This is al-Shafi'i's and Ahmad's school, may Allah have mercy on them both. Must he intend not killing him, or not? Two narrations from Imam Ahmad. A group held: whoever intends his wealth or blood, killing him is permitted outright. A thief entered Ibn Umar's home: he rose to him with the sword, had the people not interposed he would have killed him. Al-Hasan was asked about a thief entering a man's house with a blade: he said: "Kill him with any killing you can over him." These permitted his killing even fleeing without offense: among them Abu Ayyub as-Sakhtiyani.
Imam Ahmad reports from Ubada ibn as-Samit's hadith, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said: "Your house is your sanctuary: whoever enters upon you in your sanctuary: kill him." But weakness is in its isnad.
Of it: killing the Muslim spy if spying for the disbelievers upon the Muslims: Ahmad paused; some of Malik's companions permitted it, and Ibn Aqil of our companions; Malikis said: if it repeats of him, killing him is permitted. Whoever permitted it argued by the Prophet's word (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) regarding Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a, when he wrote the letter to Mecca's people, informing them of the Prophet's march (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) toward them, ordering them vigilance: Umar sought permission killing him; he said: he witnessed Badr. He said not: he did nothing making his blood lawful; but explained by an obstacle to killing: witnessing Badr, and Allah's forgiveness of Badr's people. That obstacle is negated for whoever comes after.
Of it: what Abu Dawud reports in the mursal reports, from Ibn al-Musayyib's narration, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever strikes his father: kill him." It is reported connected by another route, not authentic; and Allah knows best.
Know that among these mentioned hadiths are some neither authentic nor by which any considered speaker is known: like the hadith "Whoever strikes his father: kill him," and the thief's fifth-time killing hadith. All the remaining texts can return to Ibn Mas'oud's hadith: for it contained that the Muslim's blood becomes lawful only by one of three: leaving his religion and separating from the Muslims' community; fornicating while married; killing a soul wrongfully. It is taken that the Muslim's killing is lawful only by one of three kinds: leaving the religion, shedding forbidden blood, and violating forbidden privates. These three kinds render the Muslim's blood lawful, without others.
As for violating the forbidden private: the hadith mentions it is fornication after marriage: this, and Allah knows best, by way of example: for the married man's blessing completed by attaining this desire through marriage: when he attains it thereafter by a forbidden private, his blood becomes lawful.
The marriage condition may lapse, another condition succeeding: the private never becoming lawful, either absolutely like sodomy, or for the one uniting: like whoever unites with a forbidden woman by contract or otherwise. Is this attribute equivalent to marriage, succeeding it? This is the scholars' dispute's place. The hadiths indicate it succeeds, sufficing for permitting blood.
As for forbidden bloodshed: does inciting fitna leading to bloodshedding stand in its place? Like dispersing the Muslims' community, splitting the staff, pledging a second imam, informing the disbelievers of the Muslims' shames? This is the dispute's place. Umar is reported with what indicates permitting killing by such. Likewise brandishing the weapon seeking killing: does it stand for killing in permitting blood? Ibn az-Zubayr and Aisha saw it standing for true killing therein. Likewise highway robbery alone: does it permit killing? For it is the probable place of forbidden bloodshedding; and Allah's word, the Mighty and Majestic:
"Whoever kills a soul without a soul or corruption in the earth: it is as if he killed the people all."
Al-Ma'ida, 32
indicates killing a soul is permitted by two things: the first: by a soul; the second: by corruption in the earth. In corruption in the earth enter: warfare, apostasy and fornication: all that is corruption in the earth. Likewise wine's repetition and persistence are the probable place of forbidden bloodshedding. The Companions agreed, in Umar's era, may Allah be pleased with him, upon its punishment: eighty lashes, making drunkenness the probable place of the false accusation requiring eighty lashes. When the delegation of Abd al-Qays came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and he prohibited them intoxicants and fermentation in jars, he said: "One of you rises to his cousin" (meaning when he drinks) "striking him with the sword." Among them was a man afflicted by such a wound: he hid it in shyness toward the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). All this returns to permitting blood [by killing, establishing killing's probable places] in place of its reality. But was it abrogated, or does its ruling remain? This is the dispute's place. As for leaving the religion and separating from the community: its meaning is apostasy from Islam's religion though he brings the two testimonies: whoever insults Allah and His messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while admitting the two testimonies: his blood becomes lawful: he thereby left his religion.
Likewise scorning the Qur'an's codex, casting it into impurities, or denying what is known of the religion by necessity: like prayer and the like of what exits the religion. Does leaving one of Islam's five pillars stand in its place? This builds upon: does he exit the religion completely thereby or not? Whoever sees it exiting the religion: it is, with him, like leaving the two testimonies and denying them. Whoever sees it not exiting the religion: they differed: does he attach to the religion-abandoner in killing, for leaving a building of Islam; or not, for exiting not the religion?
Of this chapter: what many scholars said of killing the inviter to innovations: they saw it like exiting the religion, being its antechamber and means: were he to conceal it and call to other, his ruling is the hypocrites' when concealing; when calling to it, his crime is aggravated by corrupting the community's religion. Commanding killing the Khawarij and killing them is authenticated of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the scholars differed over their ruling. Some said: they are disbelievers: killed for disbelief. Some said: they are killed only for corruption in the earth: shedding the Muslims' blood and declaring them disbelievers: Malik's view and a group of our companions, permitting initiating fighting them and finishing the wounded. Some said: were they to call to what they are upon, they are killed; were they to show it without calling, they are not fought. This is an explicit text of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and Ishaq, returning to fighting whoever calls to a gross innovation. Some saw no initiating fighting them until they begin fighting, or by what permits their fighting: bloodshed and the like: as reported from Ali, may Allah be pleased with him: al-Shafi'i's view and many of our companions. It is reported by multiple routes that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded killing a man who prayed, saying: "Were he killed, it would have been the first fitna and its last." In a narration: "two men of my community would not have differed until the Dajjal emerges." Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and others report it. Killing the innovator is argued by this when his killing restrains his malice from the Muslims and decides the fitna's matter. Ibn Abd al-Barr and others report from Malik's school: permitting killing the innovation's inviter. The killing texts all returned to what is in Ibn Mas'oud's hadith, may Allah be pleased with him, by this estimate: praise be to Allah.
Many scholars say of much of these texts we mentioned here: abrogated by Ibn Mas'oud's hadith: that has observation of two sides: the first: it is not known Ibn Mas'oud's hadith was later than all those texts, especially as Ibn Mas'oud is of the early Emigrants, and many of those texts are reported by late-embracing Islam ones: like Abu Hurayra, Jarir ibn Abd Allah and Mu'awiya: all reported the fourth-time wine drinker's killing hadith. The second: the specific is not abrogated by the general though the general be later: in the correct view of the scholars' majority: for the specific's indicating its meaning is by text, the general's by the apparent among the most: the apparent abolishes not the text's ruling.
It is reported the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded killing a man who lied about him in his lifetime: a man of the Arabs said: "the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent me, commanding me judging your bloods and wealths." This is reported by multiple routes, all weak; in some: this man had proposed to a woman of them in ignorance: they refused marrying him; when he said them this speech they believed him, and he united with that woman: this man fornicated, ascribing its permissibility to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): that is disbelief and apostasy from the religion. In the Sahih of Muslim: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded Ali killing the Copt entering upon his child's mother, Marya, people speaking of it; when Ali found him emasculated he left him. Some carried it on the Copt not yet Muslim, and the covenanted one doing what harms the Muslims: his pact annulled: how if he harmed the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? Some said: rather he was Muslim, but prohibited without ceasing, until people spoke of him in the Prophet's bed (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and harming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in his bed permits blood: but when his innocence appeared by sight, Marya's innocence appeared to people: the death-permitting cause ceased.
It is reported from Imam Ahmad that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) could kill besides these three causes in Ibn Mas'oud's hadith, and other than him has not that: as if indicating he could punish by killing seeing it beneficial: for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is preserved from transgression and injustice; other than him has not that: transgression by desire is not guaranteed against him. Abu Dawud said: I heard Ahmad asked about Abu Bakr's hadith: "was it for anyone after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?" He said: it was not for Abu Bakr to kill a man except by one of three; and it was for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to kill. Abu Bakr's indicated hadith: a man spoke to Abu Bakr, treating him rudely; Abu Barza said: shall I not kill him, O successor of the Messenger of Allah? Abu Bakr said: "It was for none after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)." Upon this the hadith of commanding killing this Copt is explained, and likewise the thief's killing command hadith, if authentic: for it has the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanding killing him the first time, and they dissuaded him: he amputated; then he did it four times, commanding killing him, dissuaded, amputating until his four limbs were amputated, then killed the fifth time: and Allah knows best.