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 faithful English translation.
Contents
Updated on 07 October 2026 at 4:51 AM
📖 30 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 shall incur death. And this sense is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by the narrations of Ibn 'Abbas, Abu Hourayra, Anas ibn Malik and others.
We have already mentioned the hadith of Anas: these three traits are the right of Islam by which the blood of whoever attests there is no god but Allah and that Mouhammad is the messenger of Allah becomes lawful. And execution by each of these three things is consensus among the Muslims.
As for the fornication of the married man: the Muslims agreed that its punishment is stoning until death; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) stoned Ma'iz and the woman of Ghamid. And there was in the Quran, whose wording was abrogated, "The old man and the old woman, if they fornicate, stone them both, an exemplary punishment from Allah, and Allah is Mighty, Wise."
Ibn 'Abbas deduced stoning from the Quran by the words of the Most High,
"O people of the Book! Our messenger has come to you, making clear to you much of what you hid of the Book, and pardoning much."
Al-Ma'ida, 41
He said: whoever therefore disbelieves in stoning has disbelieved in the Quran without realising it. Then he recited this verse and said, stoning was of what they hid. An-Nasa'i and al-Hakim report it, and he said, with an authentic isnad. [Az-Zouhri likewise.] It is also deduced from His words,
"We sent down the Torah, in which is guidance and light: the prophets who submitted judged by it those who became Jews," up to His words, "and judge among them by what Allah sent down."
Al-Ma'ida, 44
Az-Zouhri said: it has reached us that it was sent down concerning 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 he ordered the two, and he stoned them. And Mouslim reports in his Sahih from the hadith of al-Bara ibn 'Azib the story of the stoning of the two Jews, and says in his hadith, Allah then sent down,
"O messenger! Let not those who hasten into disbelief grieve you," and sent down, "and whoever judges not by what Allah sent down, they are the disbelievers," concerning the disbelievers all.
Al-Ma'ida, 41
And Imam Ahmad reports it, and with him, Allah then sent down, "Let not those who hasten into disbelief grieve you," up to His words, "if this be given you, take it": they say, come to Mouhammad; if he gives you an opinion by burning and the whip, take it; if he gives you an opinion by stoning, beware, up to His words, "and whoever judges not by what Allah sent down, they are the disbelievers"; he said, concerning the Jews. And the story of the stoning of the two Jews is reported from the hadith of Jabir, and he says in his hadith, Allah then sent down,
"If they come to you, judge between them, or turn away from them," up to His words, "and if you judge, judge between them with equity."
Al-Ma'ida, 42
Allah the Most High had first commanded the detaining of the fornicating women until death take them, or Allah assign them a way. Allah assigned them therefore the way: in the Sahih of Mouslim, from 'Obada, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said, "Take from me, take from me: Allah has assigned the way: the virgin by the virgin, a hundred lashes and exile a year; the married man by the married man, a hundred lashes and stoning."
A group of scholars took the apparent of this hadith, and made obligatory a hundred lashes of the married man, then his stoning, as 'Ali did with Chourah al-Hamdani, and said, I whipped her by the Book of Allah and stoned her by the sunna of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). That indicates that the Book of Allah contains the whipping of fornicators without distinction between married and virgin, and the Sunna came with the stoning of the married one only, deducing it also from the Quran.
This is the famous view of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and of Ishaq; it is the view of al-Hasan and part of the righteous Ancients. Part of them said: if the two married ones are old men, whip and stone; if young, stone without whipping, for the sin of the old man is uglier, especially by fornication: the view of 'Ubayy ibn Ka'b; it is reported from him in raised form, and its raising is not authenticated; it is also a narration of Ahmad and Ishaq. As for "a soul for a soul", its meaning is that the obligated one, if he kills a soul without right, deliberately, is killed by it. The Quran indicates it by His words,
"And We prescribed for them therein: a soul for a soul."
Al-Ma'ida, 45
and the Most High says,
"O you who have believed! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the slain: the free man for the free man, the slave for the slave, the female for the female."
Al-Baqara, 178
From the generality of His words, "a soul for a soul," images are excepted: that the father kill his son. The majority: he is not killed by him; that is authenticated from 'Omar, may Allah be pleased with him, and reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by multiple channels whose chains were disputed.
Malik said: if he killed deliberately, without doubt, as by slaughtering, he is killed by him; and if he wounded him with a sword or a stick, he is not killed. And al-Batti said: he is killed for killing him by every form of deliberate, by the generalities.
Among them: that the free man kill a slave. The majority: he is not killed by him; hadiths have come therein, with disputed chains. It has been said, he is killed by the slave of another, not by his own: the view of Abu Hanifa and his companions. It has been said, he is killed by his slave and the slave of another: a narration of ath-Thawri, and the view of part of the people of hadith, for the hadith of Samoura, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Whoever kills his slave, we kill him; whoever amputates him, we amputate him." Imam Ahmad and others criticised it. And they agreed there is no retaliation between slaves and free men in the limbs, and that indicates this hadith is set aside, not acted upon; it is part of that by which one argues that intended by His words, "a soul for a soul," are the free men, for he mentions it after retaliation in the limbs, which is specific to the free.
Among them: that the Muslim kill a disbeliever. If he be belligerent, he is not killed by him without disagreement, for the death of the belligerent is lawful without any doubt. And if he be protected or under covenant, the majority is that he is not killed by him either. In the Sahih of al-Boukhari, from 'Ali, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "A Muslim is not killed for a disbeliever." And Abu Hanifa and a group of jurists of Koufa said, he is killed by him. And 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 people of the qibla for a man of the people of the covenant, and said, "I am more entitled than the one who honoured his covenant." And that is mursal, weak: Imam Ahmad, Abu 'Obayd, Ibrahim al-Harbi, al-Jouzajani and Ibn al-Moundhir graded it weak, and ad-Daraqoutni said, Ibn Abi Layla is weak; the hadith establishes no proof even connected, how then if mursal?
Al-Jouzajani said, Rabi'a took it only from Ibrahim ibn Abi Yahya, from Ibn al-Mounkadir, from Ibn Abi Layla, and Ibn Abi Yahya is abandoned in hadith. And in the mursal of Abu Dawoud, another mursal hadith: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) killed, on the day of Khaybar, a Muslim for a disbeliever he had killed by treachery, and said, "I am the most entitled and worthiest of whoever honoured his covenant." And that is the school of Malik and the people of Medina: death by treachery requires not the compensation; the Muslim is killed therein for the disbeliever; and upon that they carried the hadith of Ibn Abi Layla also, supposing its authenticity.
Among them: that the man kill a woman: he is killed by her, without disagreement. And in the letter of 'Amr ibn Hazm, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "the man is killed for the woman." And it is authenticated that he killed a Jew who had killed a servant girl. Most of the scholars: nothing is due the heirs of the man. And it is reported from 'Ali that half the compensation is due them, for the compensation of the woman is half the compensation of the man: the view of part of the righteous Ancients, and of Ahmad in a narration.
As for whoever abandons his religion, separating from the community: intended is whoever left Islam, apostasised, and separated from the community of the Muslims, as stated explicitly in the hadith of 'Outhman. He is excepted with those whose blood is inviolable by the two testimonies, because of what he was upon before apostasy, the rule of Islam being obligatory upon him after it. That is why he is given the delay, and asked the return to Islam. Upon his obligation of making up what he missed, of the time of apostasy, of worships, is a famous disagreement among the scholars. He may also abandon his religion and separate from the community while admitting the two testimonies, claiming Islam, as were he to deny a thing of the pillars of Islam, or insult Allah and His messenger, or disbelieve in some of the angels or prophets, or the books mentioned in the Quran, knowing it.
No distinction herein between man and woman, with most of the scholars. Some said, the woman is not killed when she apostasises, as the women of the people of the house of war are not killed in war, only their men being killed: the view of Abu Hanifa and his companions, who assimilated the supervening disbelief to the original. The majority distinguished the two: the supervening is graver, by what precedes it of Islam; that is why whoever apostasises is killed among those not killed of the people of war, the dying old man, the infirm and the blind, who are not killed in war.
His words, "whoever abandons his religion, separating from the community," indicate that if he repents and returns to Islam he is not killed, for he is no longer abandoning his religion nor separating from the community after his return. Were it said, the excepting of this one among those whose blood is preserved of the people of the two testimonies indicates he is killed even were he to admit the two testimonies, as the married fornicator is killed, and the murderer: that indicates the repentance of the apostate is not accepted, as reported from al-Hasan; or that it bears upon whoever apostasised, born Muslim: his repentance is not accepted. The repentance of whoever was a disbeliever, then embraced Islam, then apostasised, is accepted: the view of part of the scholars, among them al-Layth ibn Sa'd, Ahmad in a narration, and Ishaq.
It is said: he was excepted from the Muslims because of what he was upon before the separation of his religion, as established; and he is not like the married fornicator nor the murderer, whose death is required in punishment of their past crime without their being able to avoid it. As for the apostate, he is killed for an attribute existing in the state: the abandoning of his religion and separation from the community. When he returns therefore to his religion and conformity with the community, the attribute by which his blood was authorised is annulled, and the authorisation of his blood is lifted. And Allah knows best.
Were it said, an-Nasa'i reports from the hadith of 'Aicha, may Allah be pleased with her, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said, "The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful save by one of three things: the married fornicator, stoned; the man who killed deliberately, killed; and the man who leaves Islam, making war upon Allah and His messenger, killed, or crucified, or exiled from the land," that indicates the joining of apostasy and war is intended. It is said, Abu Dawoud reports the hadith of 'Aicha, may Allah be pleased with her, with another wording: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "The blood of a Muslim man who testifies there is no god but Allah and that Mouhammad is the messenger of Allah is not lawful, save in one of three things: the man who fornicates after marriage, stoned; the man gone out to war against Allah and His messenger, killed, or crucified, or exiled from the land; or whoever kills a soul, killed by it."
That indicates whoever is found among the warriors of the Muslims, the choice is given to the imam over him in the absolute, as the scholars of Medina say, Malik and others. The first narration can be carried upon that his leaving Islam designates his leaving the rules of Islam, and it can be carried upon its apparent. Whoever says the verse of war is specific to apostates argues by that: whoever apostasises and makes war, there is done to him what is in the verse; and whoever makes war without apostasy, the rules of the Muslims are established upon him, retaliation and amputation in theft. It is a narration of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, but not famous of him. And part of the righteous Ancients said likewise that the verse of war is specific to apostates, among them Abu Qoulaba and others. In every state the wordings of the hadith of 'Aicha, may Allah be pleased with her, diverge: it is reported from her in raised form, and stopped at the Companion. And the hadith of Ibn Mas'oud, may Allah be pleased with him: its wording does not diverge, established, its authenticity being consensus.
But it is said to that, the death of the Muslim has come outside these three traits. Among that: in sodomy, from the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Kill the actor and the receiver." And many scholars took it, like Malik and Ahmad, and said, it requires death in every state, married or not. It is reported from 'Outhman that he said, "The blood of a Muslim man is not lawful save by four things," mentioning the three preceding ones and adding, "and the man who did the deed of the people of Lout." Among that: whoever unites with a forbidden woman, the command to kill him is reported.
It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) killed whoever married the wife of his father. Part of the scholars took it, and made obligatory his death in the absolute, married or not.
Among that: the sorcerer. In at-Tirmidhi, from the hadith of Joundoub, in raised form, "The punishment of the sorcerer is a stroke of the sword." And he mentions the correct is his version stopped at the Companion upon Joundoub. It is the school of a group of scholars, 'Omar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, Malik, Ahmad, Ishaq. But these say, he disbelieves by his sorcery, his judgement is therefore that of the apostates.
Among that: the death of whoever unites with a beast; a hadith in raised form has come, and part of the scholars says it.
Among that: whoever abandons the prayer is killed with many scholars, while saying he is not a disbeliever; the mention preceded, developed.
Among that: the death of the wine drinker at the fourth time; the command therein has come from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by multiple channels, and 'Abd Allah ibn 'Amr ibn al-'As, may Allah be pleased with him, and others took it. And most of the scholars, the death was abrogated; and it is reported that the drinker was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) at the fourth time, without his killing him. And in the Sahih of al-Boukhari, a man was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) for wine, and a man cursed him saying, how often he is brought! The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Curse him not, for he loves Allah and His messenger." And he killed him not for that.
The death of the thief at the fifth time is reported, and it is said certain jurists adopted it.
Among that: what is reported from him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "When two caliphs receive the oath of allegiance, kill the second of them." Mouslim reports it from the hadith of Abu Sa'id. Al-'Aqili graded all the hadiths of this chapter weak.
Among that: his words, "Whoever comes to you while your affair is united upon one man, wanting to cleave your staff or disperse your assembly, kill him." And in a version, "strike his head with the sword, whoever he be." Mouslim reports it also, from the narration of 'Arfaja.
Among that: whoever brandishes the weapon. An-Nasa'i reports from the hadith of Ibn az-Zoubayr, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who said, "Whoever brandishes the weapon then puts it down, his blood is null." It is reported from Ibn az-Zoubayr in raised form and stopped at the Companion. Al-Boukhari said, it is only stopped at the Companion. Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, was asked of the sense of this hadith and said, I know not what it is. Ishaq ibn Rahouwayh said, "He means whoever brandishes his weapon then puts it down upon the people, deploying it before them: his death is lawful." It is the school of the Hourrites, deploying the men, the women and the children. And it is reported from 'Aicha what contradicts the explanation of Ishaq: al-Hakim reports, from the narration of 'Alqama ibn Abi 'Alqama, from his mother, that a boy brandished the sword upon his master, in the emirate of Sa'id ibn al-'As, and it escaped him, and the people detained him.
His master entered upon 'Aicha, and she said, I heard the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say, "Whoever points an iron at one of the Muslims wanting to kill him, his blood becomes obligatory." His master took him therefore and killed him. Al-Hakim said, authentic according to the condition of the two shaykhs. And it is authenticated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he said, "Whoever is killed for his wealth is a martyr." And in a version, "and whoever is killed for his blood is a martyr." If therefore the wealth or blood of a man is intended, let him defend it by the easiest. It is the school of ash-Chafi'i and Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on them. Must he have the intention of not willing to kill, or not? Two narrations exist of Imam Ahmad. Part adopted, whoever wants his wealth or his blood, it is lawful to kill him outright.
A thief entered upon Ibn 'Omar: he rose towards him with the sword, save that the people interposed, and he would have killed him. Al-Hasan was asked of a thief who entered the house of a man with an iron, and he said, "Kill him by any death you can upon him." Those permitted his death even were he to flee without offence, among them Abu 'Ayyoub as-Sakhtiyani.
Imam Ahmad reports from the hadith of 'Obada ibn as-Samit, 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 there is in its chain a weakness.
Among that: the death of the Muslim spy, if he spies for the disbelievers upon the Muslims. Ahmad suspended it; part of the companions of Malik permitted it, and Ibn 'Aqil of our companions; and of the Malikites it is said, were it repeated of him, his death is permitted. Whoever permitted it argued by the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) concerning Hatib ibn Abi Balta'a, when he wrote the letter to the people of Mecca, informing them of the march of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) towards them and ordering them vigilance; 'Omar asked permission to kill him, and he said, he attended Badr. He said not therefore, nothing of his blood is lawful; but he explained it by the existence of a bar to his death, his attending of Badr and the pardon of Allah to the people of Badr. That bar is annulled for whoever comes after him.
Among that: what Abu Dawoud reports in the mursal, from the narration of Ibn al-Mousayyib, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever strikes his father, kill him." It is reported connected by another channel, not authentic, and Allah knows best.
Know that among these mentioned hadiths are some that are not authenticated, nor by whom a considered saying is known, like the hadith, "whoever strikes his father, kill him," and the hadith of the death of the thief at the fifth time. All the other texts can be returned to the hadith of Ibn Mas'oud, for the hadith of Ibn Mas'oud contained that only by one of three things does the blood of the Muslim become lawful: that he abandon his religion and separate from the community of the Muslims, or fornicate being married, or kill a soul without right. It is taken therefore that the death of the Muslim is lawful only by one of three genres: the abandoning of religion, the shedding of forbidden blood, and the violation of forbidden sex. These three genres are those that make the blood of the Muslim lawful, without others.
As for the violation of the forbidden sex, the hadith mentions it is fornication after marriage; and that, and Allah knows best, is by way of example, for to the married one the favour was complete by attaining that desire by marriage; when he therefore attains it afterwards by a forbidden sex, his blood becomes lawful.
The condition of marriage may be annulled, another condition replacing it: that sex never become lawful, either in the absolute, as sodomy, or towards whoever unites in it, like whoever unites with a woman forbidden him by contract or other. Is that attribute equivalent to marriage, replacing it? There lies the place of disagreement among the scholars. The hadiths indicate it replaces it and suffices for authorising the blood.
As for the shedding of forbidden blood, does the sedition leading to bloodsheds replace its rank, like the scattering of the community of the Muslims, the dividing of the staff, the oath of allegiance to a second imam, the informing of the disbelievers of the dishonours of the Muslims? There lies the place of disagreement. It is reported from 'Omar what indicates the authorisation of death by the like. And likewise, does the brandishing of the weapon to demand death replace death in the authorisation of blood? Ibn az-Zoubayr and 'Aicha saw it equivalent to true death. And likewise, does brigandage alone authorise death? For it is the probable place of the forbidden bloodsheds, and the words of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic,
"Whoever kills a soul without murder nor corruption on earth, it is as though he killed the people all."
Al-Ma'ida, 32
indicate the death of a soul is authorised by two things, the first by the soul, the second by corruption on earth. Enter into corruption on earth: war, apostasy and fornication, for all of that is corruption on earth. And likewise the repetition of drinking wine and persistence are the probable place of the forbidden bloodsheds. The Companions agreed, in the time of 'Omar, may Allah be pleased with him, upon its punishment, eighty lashes, making drunkenness the probable place of the false accusation requiring eighty lashes. And when the delegation of 'Abd al-Qays came to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and he forbade them the intoxicating drinks and fermentation in jars, he said, "One of you rises towards his cousin," that is, when he drinks, "and strikes him with the sword."
And there was among them a man afflicted with a wound of that, hiding it out of modesty before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). All of that comes therefore to authorising blood, establishing the probable places of death in its true place. But was that abrogated, or does its rule remain? There lies the place of disagreement. As for abandoning religion and separating from the community, its sense is the apostasy from the religion of Islam, even were he to come with the two testimonies; whoever therefore insults Allah and His messenger (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) while admitting the two testimonies, his blood becomes lawful, for he has thus abandoned his religion.
Likewise were he to despise the book of the Quran, cast it into impurities, or deny what is known of the religion by necessity, like the prayer and the like of what makes leave the religion. What replaces the abandoning of some pillar of the five pillars of Islam? It rests upon, does he leave the religion completely by that or not? Whoever sees him leaving the religion, he is, with him, like the abandoning of the two testimonies and their denial. Whoever sees him not leaving the religion, they diverged: is he attached to the abandoner of religion in death, because he abandoned one of the buildings of Islam, or not, because he left not the religion?
Of this chapter: what many scholars said of the death of the caller to innovations, considering that to resemble the leaving of the religion, being its antechamber and way towards it: were he to hide it and call to other, his judgement is that of the hypocrites when they hide; and when he calls to it, his crime is aggravated by the corruption of the religion of the community. The command of killing the Kharidjites and their death is authenticated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and the scholars diverged over their judgement. Some said, they are disbelievers, killed for their disbelief. Some said, they are killed only for their corruption on earth, the shedding of the bloods of the Muslims and their declaring them disbelievers: the view of Malik and part of our companions, who permitted beginning combat against them and finishing off the wounded.
Some said, were they to call to that upon which they are, they are killed; were they to expose it without calling, they are not fought. And here is an explicit text of Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and of Ishaq, returning to the fighting of whoever calls to a grave innovation. Some saw not the beginning of combat against them until they begin with combat, or with what authorises their combat, the shedding of blood and the like, as reported from 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with him: the view of ash-Chafi'i and many of our companions. It is reported by multiple channels that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded the death of a man who prayed, and said, "Had he been killed, that would have been the first trial and its last." And in a version, "two men of my community would not have diverged until the coming out of the Dajjal." Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, and others report it.
It is argued thereby the death of the innovator when his death restrains his malice from the Muslims and decides the matter of the trial. And Ibn 'Abd al-Barr and others report from the school of Malik the authorisation of the death of the caller to innovation. The texts of death all returned therefore to what is in the hadith of Ibn Mas'oud, may Allah be pleased with him, by this estimation, and praise is to Allah.
Many scholars say of many of these texts we mentioned here that they are abrogated by the hadith of Ibn Mas'oud; that is disputable from two sides. The first: it is not known that the hadith of Ibn Mas'oud was posterior to all these texts, especially as Ibn Mas'oud is of the first Emigrants, and many of these texts are reported by those whose Islam was late, like Abu Hourayra, Jarir ibn 'Abd Allah and Mou'awiya, all of whom reported the hadith of the death of the wine drinker at the fourth time. The second: the specific is not abrogated by the general even were the general posterior to it, in the correct upon which the majority of the scholars is, for the demonstration of the specific of its sense is by text, and that of the general by the apparent with most; the apparent therefore abolishes not the rule of the text.
It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded the death of a man who lied about him during his life: a man of the Arabs said, "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) sent me and commanded me to judge your bloods and your wealth." And it is reported by multiple channels, all weak; and in certain of them, this man had asked in marriage a woman among them in ignorance, they refusing to marry him; and when he said these words to them, they believed him and united with that woman; this man therefore fornicated and attached the authorisation of that to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), that being disbelief and apostasy from the religion. And in the Sahih of Mouslim, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded 'Ali to kill the Copt who entered upon the mother of his child, Marya, the people speaking of it; when 'Ali found him emasculated, he left him.
Some carried that upon the Copt not yet being Muslim, and that the protected one doing what harms the Muslims, his covenant is annulled, how then if he harms the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)? And some said, rather he was Muslim, but it was forbidden him without ceasing, until the people spoke concerning him in the bed of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), and harming the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in his bed authorises blood; but when his innocence appeared by the sight, the innocence of Marya appeared to the people, and the cause authorising death ceased.
It is reported from Imam Ahmad that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) could kill outside these three causes of the hadith of Ibn Mas'oud, and other than him has no right to it, as though indicating he could punish by death seeing that useful, for the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is preserved from transgression and injustice, and other than him has not that, for transgression by passion is not guaranteed against him. Abu Dawoud said, I heard Ahmad asked of the hadith of Abu Bakr, "Was it permitted to anyone after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)?" He said, it was not permitted to Abu Bakr to kill a man save by one of three things, and it was permitted to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to kill. And the indicated hadith of Abu Bakr: a man spoke to Abu Bakr and reviled him, and Abu Barza said, shall I not kill him, O successor of the Messenger of Allah?
Abu Bakr said, "That was permitted to none after the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him)." Upon that is explained the hadith of the command to kill that Copt, and likewise the hadith of the command to kill the thief, were it authentic, for it contains that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded his death at the first time and he was dissuaded of it, so he amputated; then he repeated it four times, commanding his death and being dissuaded of it, amputating until his four limbs were amputated, then he was killed at the fifth, and Allah knows best.