There is one trashy Islamophobe who cites the following Hadith:-

Anas reported that a person was charged with fornication with the slavegirl of Allah's Messenger (ﷺ). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) said to 'Ali:

Go and strike his neck. 'Ali came to him and he found him in a well making his body cool. 'Ali said to him: Come out, and as he took hold of his hand and brought him out, he found that his sexual organ had been cut. Hadrat 'Ali refrained from striking his neck. He came to Allah's Apostle (ﷺ) and said: Allah's Messenger, he has not even the sexual organ with him. (Sahih Muslim 2771)

The enemy of Islam has raised many objections against Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam). Some objections are as under:-

  1. Nauzubillah! He is claiming that Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) became "jealous" and he ordered the killing of that man.

  2. It was a mere accusation that was proven false but still Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) ordered Ali (May Allah Grant Peace To Ali) to kill that man without even investigating the incident.

  3. That atheist has objected that according to Islam, four witnessess should be present in order to testify that adultery or fornication has taken place, yet we see that Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) ordered the killing of that man without any witness ever testifying that fornication or adultery ever took place. According to that Atheist, why did not Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) asked for four witness if he himself followed the Quran?

  4. He is also claiming that this allegation against that man was raised by Prophet Muhammad (Salllallahu'alayhiwassalam) himslef!

Dear Brothers in Islam, please answer my question, as I am asking this question to defend the honor of Prophet Muhammad (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam).

May Allah protect us all from such Fitna. Ameen.

1 Answer 1


The actual wording of the hadith says أم ولد which means that it refers to Mariyah al-Qibtiyyah, the mother of the Prophet's son Ibrahim. The accused was a person who had accompanied her from Egypt, sometimes claimed to be her cousin. He would visit her too often and people speculated that he was attracted to her and had relations with her. It is inferable that he persisted even though he knew of the rumors about him and had previously been warned about his inappropriate behavior.

Responses to the objections in order:

  1. Jealousy in the sense of envy is not applicable when someone wrongs you by violating your rights. If a burglar robs someone of their property then do you say to the victim that they are being jealous of the robber's prosperity? This wasn't two men competing in courting an unmarried woman that one would become jealous of the success of another.

    On the other hand, having غيرة regarding one's rights is actually a positive thing and called for in Islam.

    قال سعد بن عبادة: لو رأيت رجلا مع امرأتي لضربته بالسيف غير مصفح، فبلغ ذلك النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم فقال:أتعجبون من غيرة سعد، لأنا أغير منه، والله أغير مني

    Sa`d bin Ubada said, "If I found a man with my wife, I would kill him with the sharp side of my sword."

    When the Prophet (ﷺ) heard that he said, "Do you wonder at Sa'd's sense of ghira (self-respect)? Verily, I have more sense of ghira than Sa'd, and Allah has more sense of ghira than me."


    And being devoid of it is condemned and disgraceful:

    ثلاثة لا ينظر الله عز وجل إليهم يوم القيامة: ... والديوث

    There are three at whom Allah will not look on the Day of Resurrection: ... and the cuckold.

    Sunan an-Nasai

  2. The person entered in the private chamber of the Prophet's Umm al-Walad and was alone with her repeatedly. This part wasn't just an accusation that turned out to be false, rather it was true and would have been proven through the reports of witnesses.

    It is an insult and offense against the honor of a man for another man to enter upon his wife or concubine. Insult against the Prophet ﷺ is punishable by death - "in and of itself". It wasn't necessary to ascertain whether fornication had taken place.

    However, the Prophet ﷺ did investigate the issue as that is what Ali was sent to do - i.e. to investigate and enforce punishment if its criterion was fulfilled. In some more elaborate versions of the hadith (such as in Musnad al-Bazaar) it is implied that Ali was instructed to pass the judgement based on what he observed. A translation of the conversation between the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ and Ali ibn Abi Talib at this occasion is present in Musnad Ahmad:

    عن علي، رضي الله عنه قال قلت يا رسول الله إذا بعثتني أكون كالسكة المحماة أم الشاهد يرى ما لا يرى الغائب قال الشاهد يرى ما لا يرى الغائب

    Ali (رضي الله عنه) said: I said: O Messenger of Allah (ﷺ), when you send me on a mission, should I go and do what you tell me to do (with no delay) or witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out?

    He said: 'Witness and find out what someone who is not there cannot find out.'

    Musnad Ahmad

    It is also possible that the Prophet knew the truth and the outcome of Ali's visit and that he had sent him so that the truth would be known and would exonerate the parties. It is similar to the judgement of Solomon (see in Bukhari), where he commanded for a child to be cut in half, his intent was not to really divide the child rather he knew that giving that impression will resolve the matter in some other way.

    As a result of Ali's act it was established that the person was an eunuch. Hence the person could not have committed fornication, nor was his visit considered an insult anymore since it is not an insult if a eunuch visits the harem, just as it is not an insult if a woman or child does it.

  3. As stated above, this is not a case of fornication alone, rather there is a separate crime of committing an insult to the Prophet ﷺ:

    وما كان لكم أن تؤذوا رسول الله ولا أن تنكحوا أزواجه من بعده أبدا إن ذلكم كان عند الله عظيما

    And it is not [conceivable or lawful] for you to harm the Messenger of Allah or to marry his wives after him, ever. Indeed, that would be in the sight of Allah an enormity.

    Quran 33:53

    Insult to the Prophet ﷺ is punishable by death and Ibn Taymiyyah has cited this incident in his book al-Sarim al-Maslul 'ala Shatim al-Rasul. The evidence criterion for Insult and Ta'zir is different from that of fornication. If the Prophet had charged him for fornication then the punishment for that would have been public lashing \ stoning not beheading like this, and it is only for the punishment of fornication that four witnesses would have been required to have seen the actual act of intercourse.

  4. I am not sure what this objection means and why it is an objection. Maybe his concern is addressed in the previous points. Otherwise if he is claiming something then he should first provide citation for his claim and then elaborate what is wrong with it.

  • Very good analogy. Zazakallah Khairan
    – GyL 209
    Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 11:45
  • 1
    @Umh - I would like to add here that Holy Prophet (Sallallahu'alayhiwassalam) always used to advise Sayyiduna Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) to first listen to the case of both the parties before making a judgement (See Musnad Ahmad 1285 &1211). So the words "Strike his neck" should be viewed in proper context. This means strike his neck after correctly judging him. Sayyiduna Ali (Radhi'allahu'anhu) was a great judge.
    – Ren
    Commented Aug 31, 2020 at 8:46
  • Your answer leaves so many questions - (1) You say the punishment was based on witness account. But shouldn't the prophet not have known by revelation about the veracity of the witness accounts? (2) The hadith doesn't indicate there was four witnesses. Was there any follow-up trial for the false witnesses? (3) Why an actual trial process was skipped? Doesn't Islamic law allows the accused to defend himself? And if proven shouldn't he get a chance to repent before punishment is carried out? And isn't the proper trial for fornication is stoning? Commented Apr 28 at 19:46
  • (4) If trustworthy companions of the prophet can give false witness like this (surely the Prophet wouldn't pass judgment so quickly unless they were trustworthy), how can we trust hadiths which are also conveyed by the companions? Commented Apr 28 at 19:48
  • Read and attempt to understand the answer, your questions are addressed in it.
    – UmH
    Commented Apr 29 at 2:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .