Share on facebook
Share on twitter

Revisiting the Cold-Blooded Murders of Abu Afak and Asma bint Marwan

The following cases of Muhammad ordering his bandits to heartlessly murder an old man and defenseless woman while nursing her child, simply because they lampooned him in poetry, are taken from the oldest extant history of Muhammad’s life, Sirat Rasulullah, translated by noted Islamicist Alfred Guillaume:


Abu Afak was one of the B. Amr b. Auf of the B. Ubayda clan.  He showed his disaffection when the apostle killed al-Harith b. Suwayd b. Samit and said:

“Long have I lived but never have I seen
An assembly or collection of people
More faithful to their undertaking
And their allies when called upon
Than the sons of Qayla when they assembled,
Men who overthrew mountains and never submitted,
A rider who came to them split them in two (saying)
“Permitted”, “Forbidden”, of all sorts of things.
Had you believed in glory or kingship
You would have followed Tubba

The apostle said, “Who will deal with this rascal for me?”  Whereupon Salim b. Umayr, brother of B. Amr b. Auf, one of the “weepers”, went forth and killed him. Umama b. Muzayriya said concerning that:

You gave the lie to God’s religion and the man Ahmad!
By him who was your father, evil is the son he produced!
A “hanif” gave you a thrust in the night saying
“Take that Abu Afak in spite of your age!”
Though I knew whether it was man or jinn
Who slew you in the dead of night (I would say naught).

(Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi, tenth impression 1995], p. 675)


When the apostle heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?”  Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her.  In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!”  When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people.

Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint [girl] Marwan.  She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.”  That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma; before that those who were Muslims concealed the fact. The first of them to accept Islam was Umayr b. Adiy who was called the “Reader”, and Abdullah b. Aus and Khuzayma b. Thabit.  The day after Bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam. (Ibid., p. 676)

Some modern Muhammadan propagandists have sought to question the historicity of these murders on the grounds that they do not have an isnad or chain of transmitters by which to assess the veracity of these events. Because of this criticism we are going to cite from a plethora of scholars, all of whom presuppose that these merciless homicides actually took place by the direct orders of Muhammad himself.

The following reference comes from the writing of a world-renowned authority and scholar on Islam, Rev. Prof. William Montgomery Watt. Words in brackets [] are mine:

In Medina itself the victory [Badr] considerably strengthened Muhammad’s position, which had perhaps been deteriorating during the previous few months when it looked as if he was unlikely to achieve anything… Two persons who had written poems against him – ‘Asma’ bint Marwan of Umayyah b. Zayd and Abu ‘Afak of B. ‘Amr b. ‘Awf were killed by persons belonging to their own or related clans, but nothing was said and no blood feud followed. (W. M. Watt, Muhammad at Medina [Oxford At The Clarendon Press, 1956], p. 15)

Out of the same awareness of the importance of the ideological aspect sprang events like the assassinations of ‘Asma’ bint Marwan and Abu ‘Afak who had made verses criticizing Muhammad, and the expulsion from Medina of the Jewish tribe of Qaynuqa’. (Ibid., p. 18)

It is convenient at this point to narrate the subsequent history of this ‘pagan opposition’, since it never was of prime importance in the affairs of Medina. Abu Qays died before Badr, and the other leading men also held aloof from Muhammad, though there were some converts among the rank and file, presumably some younger men. Those who remained pagans were bitter about the advance of Islam. In particular, ‘Asma’ bint Marwan (of Umayyah b. Zayd of Aws Manat), the wife of a man of Khatmah, composed verses taunting and insulting some of the Muslims. If those quoted by Ibn Ishaq are genuine, the chief point was that the persons addressed were dishonouring themselves by submitting to a stranger not of their blood. Shortly after Badr (according to the most probable version), a man of Khatmah called ‘Umayr b. ‘Adi (or Udayy) went to the house of ‘Asma’ by night and killed her. Muhammad did not disapprove, no one dared take vengeance on ‘Umayr, and many of the clan (and perhaps of the rest of Aws Manat) now professed Islam openly; some of these are said to have been secret believers previously. The assassination of ‘Abu Afak of ‘Amr b. ‘Awf about the same time by a man of his clan had similar motives and probably similar effects, since some sections of ‘Amr b. ‘Awf were close to Aws Manat both in outlook and in physical situation. Abu ‘Afak had taunted his hearers with allowing an outsider to control their affairs, a man who confused right and wrong and who aimed at kingship. After these events we may assume that there was little opposition to Muhammad among the pagans… (Ibid., p. 178)

We now quote some of Islam’s greatest scholars, historians and/or commentators, beginning with following early witness to these homicides:


Then (occurred) the sariyyah of Umayr ibn ‘Adi Ibn Kharashah al-Khatmi against ‘Asma Bint Marwan, of Banu Umayyah Ibn Zayd, when five nights had remained from the month of Ramadan, in the beginning of the nineteenth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah. ‘Asma was the wife of Yazid Ibn Zayd Ibn Hisn al-Khatmi. She used to revile Islam, offend the Prophet and instigate the (people) against him. She composed verses. ‘Umayr Ibn ‘Adi came to her in the night and entered her house. Her children were sleeping around her. There was one whom she was suckling. He searched her with his hand because he was blind, and separated the child from her. He thrust his sword in her chest till it pierced upto her back. Then he offered the morning prayers with the Prophet at al-Madinah… The Apostle of Allah said to him: Have you slain the daughter of Marwan? He said: Yes. Is there something more for me to do? He said: No. Two goats will butt together about her. This was the word that was first heard from the Apostle of Allah. The Apostle of Allah called ‘Umayr, basir (the seeing).


Then occurred the sariyyah of Salim Ibn ‘Umayr al-‘Amri against Abu ‘Afak, the Jew, in Shawwal in the beginning of the twentieth month from the hijrah of the Apostle of Allah. Abu Afak, was from Banu ‘Amr Ibn ‘Awf, and was an old man who had attained the age of one hundred and twenty years. He was a Jew, and used to instigate the people against the Apostle of Allah and composed (satirical) verses. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr who was one of the great weepers and who had participated in Badr, said: I take a vow that I shall either kill Abu ‘Afak or die before him. He waited for an opportunity until a hot night came, and Abu ‘Afak slept in an open place. Salim Ibn ‘Umayr knew it, so he placed the sword on his liver and pressed it till it reached his bed. The enemy of Allah screamed and the people, who were his followers rushed to him, took him to his house and interred him. (Ibn Sa’ad’s Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir, English translation by S. Moinul Haq, M.A., PH.D assisted by H.K. Ghazanfar M.A. [Kitab Bhavan Exporters & Importers, 1784 Kalan Mahal, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002 India), Volume II, pp. 30-31; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Ibn Hisham, the Muslim editor who expunged material from Ibn Ishaq’s sirah he didn’t like or deemed to be unreliable, kept the story of these murders intact:

After Abu Afak was murdered, Asma wrote a poem blaming Islam and its followers of killing their opponents.

When Muhammad heard what she had said he said, “Who will rid me of Marwan’s daughter?” Umayr b. Adiy al-Khatmi who was with him heard him, and that very night he went to her house and killed her. In the morning he came to the apostle and told him what he had done and he [Muhammad] said, “You have helped God and His apostle, O Umayr!” When he asked if he would have to bear any evil consequences the apostle said, “Two goats won’t butt their heads about her”, so Umayr went back to his people. Now there was a great commotion among B. Khatma that day about the affair of bint Marwan. She had five sons, and when Umayr went to them from the apostle he said, “I have killed bint Marwan, O sons of Khatma. Withstand me if you can; don’t keep me waiting.” That was the first day Islam became powerful among B. Khatma.

The day after bint Marwan was killed the men of B. Khatma became Muslims because they saw the power of Islam.

Umayr was the first one to convert amongst the men of Khatma, he was called “the reciter” and Abdallah ben Aws and Khazima bin Thabit. (Ibn Hisham, Al-Sira al-Nabawiyya, p. 306)

Another Muslim authority, Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, whose work Ash-Shifa’ bi-ta’rif huquq Mustafa (“Healing by the Recognition of the Rights of the Chosen One”) is still considered a classic and must reading by Muslim scholars till this day, used these homicides as examples of what would happen to anyone who would dare mock Muhammad:

In a sound hadith the Prophet commanded that Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf be killed. He asked, “Who will deal with Ka’b ibn al-Ashraf? He has harmed Allah and His Messenger.” He sent someone to assassinate him without calling him to Islam, in distinction to other idol-worshippers. The cause of that lay in his causing harm to the Prophet. That indicates that the Prophet had him killed for something other than idol-worship. It was for causing him harm. Abu Rafi’, who used to harm the Messenger of Allah and work against him, was also killed.

Similarly on the Day of the Conquest, he ordered the killing of Ibn Khatal and his two slavegirls who used to sing his curses on the Prophet.

In another hadith about a man who used to curse the Prophet, the Prophet said, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Khalid said, “I will,” so the Prophet sent him out and he killed him.

‘Abdu’r-Razzaq mentioned that a man cursed the Prophet, causing the Prophet to say, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Az-Zubayr said, “I will.” He sent az-Zubayr and he killed him.

It is related that a woman used to curse the Prophet and he said, “Who will save me from my enemy?” Khalid ibn al-Walid went out and killed her.

It is related that a man forged lies against the Prophet and he sent ‘Ali and az-Zubayr to kill him.

Ibn Qani’ related that a man came to the Prophet and said, “Messenger of Allah, I heard MY FATHER say something ugly about you, SO I KILLED HIM,” and that did not distress him.

Ibn ‘Abbas said that a woman from Khatma satirised the Prophet and the Prophet said, “Who will deal with her for me?” A man from her people said, “I will, Messenger of Allah.” The man got up and went and killed her. He told the Prophet who said, “Two goats will not lock horns over me.” (Muhammad Messenger of Allah (Ash-Shifa of Qadi ‘Iyad), Qadi ‘Iyad Musa al-Yahsubi, translated by Aisha Abdarrahman Bewley [Madinah Press, Inverness, Scotland, U.K. 1991; third reprint, paperback], pp. 378-379; bold and capital emphasis ours)

As a sidenote, pay careful attention to the man who murdered his own father for mocking Muhammad without a word of rebuke or punishment from Muhammad!

The translator has a note identifying the woman from Khatma:

A tribe allied to the Aws. She was ‘Usma’ bint Marwan. (Ibid., p. 378)

Unlike the claims of some modern Muhammadan propagandists, this renowned authority seemed oblivious to the fact that these cold-blooded murders have no historical basis but are fraudulent tales, and therefore should never be submitted as evidence for anything!

A more recent Muslim biography also refers to these vicious homicides: 

Muslims Kill Abu ‘Afk and Asma

Before the victory of Badr the Muslims used to fear the Madinese non-Muslims, for they were still too weak to return any aggression inflicted upon them. But when they returned victorious from Badr, Salim ibn ‘Umayr took upon himself the job of getting rid of Abu ‘Afk, a tribesman of Banu ‘Amr ibn ‘Awf. The latter was a poet who composed verses disparaging Muhammad and the Muslims and inciting his own tribe to rise against them. Even after Badr, Abu ‘Afk still composed and disseminated abusive verse. Salim attacked Abu ‘Afk in his sleep in his own yard and killed him. Likewise, ‘Asma’, daughter of Marwan, of the tribe of Banu Umayyah ibn Zayd, used to insult Islam and the Prophet by encouraging bad feeling against the Muslims. The Battle of Badr did not make her reconsider. One day, ‘Umayr ibn ‘Awf attacked her during the night while she was surrounded by her children, one of whom she was nursing. ‘Umayr was weak of sight and had to grope for her. After removing the child from his victim, he killed her; he then proceeded to the Prophet and informed him of what he had done. When her relatives returned from the funeral, they asked him whether he had killed her. “Indeed so,” said ‘Umayr, “You may fight me if you wish. By Him Who dominates my soul, if you should deny that she composed her abusive poetry, I would fight you until either you or I fall.” It was this courage of ‘Umayr that caused the Banu Khutmah, the tribe of ‘Asma’s husband, to turn to Islam. Having converted to Islam but fearing persecution at the hand of their fellow tribesmen, some of them had hidden their conversion. Henceforth, they no longer did so. (Muhammad Husayn Haykal, The Life of Muhammad, tran. Isma’il Raji al-Faruqi [American Trust Publications, USA 1976; Malaysian edition by Islamic Book Trust], p. 243)

The following Salafi Muslim site brings up Asma’s homicide to justify the cold-blooded murder of a Jewish slave girl who disparaged Muhammad to her master:

4 – Similar things happened at the time of the Messenger of Allaah, such as the hypocrite who was killed by Umar without the permission of the Prophet, when the hypocrite did not agree with the ruling of the Prophet. Then Qur’aan was revealed approving ‘Umar’s action. And there was the daughter of Marwaan who was killed by that man, and the Prophet called him the supporter of Allaah and His Messenger. That is because the one whose execution becomes necessary because of his plot to corrupt the religion is not like one who is executed because of his sin of zina and the like. End quote from al-Saarim al-Maslool (285-286). And Allaah knows best. (Islam Question and Answer, General Supervisor: Shaykh Muhammad Saalih al-Munajjid, 103739. Regarding the hadeeth about the blind man who killed his slave woman who had borne him a child (umm walad) because she reviled the Prophet; bold and underline emphasis ours)

Once again, these Muslims must have been in the dark about employing fraudulent stories to prove their case, especially ones that cast their prophet in such a bad light.(1)

It should be obvious why all these authorities cited these examples of Muhammad’s sanctioning cold-blooded homicide. They believed that, despite the fact that the books which cited these cases didn’t provide an isnad or chain of transmitters, the early date of these works was a sufficient basis to assume that Muhammad did have his men carry out these murders.

And finally, we saved the best for last. There is a specific narration, which provides a chain deemed to be reliable by specific scholars, to substantiate the historicity of the murder of Asma bint Marwan. It comes from the hadith collection of Abu Dawud. After citing the murder of Asma bint Marwan, this next Sira makes the following comments:

Reported by Ibn Ishaq – Ibn Hisham (4/379), through a chain about which he did not mention clearly whether he himself heard. It is part of a report narrated in connection with the death of ‘Asma’, and so is weak. However it obtains strength from the trustworthy narrative in Abu Dawud as in the following note.

Ibid. It was also documented by Abu Dawud in his Sunan (4/528-29/The Book of Hudud, rulings on those who insulted the Prophet. He follows a chain other than that of Ibn Ishaq through a chain that is Connected and its transmitters reliable as ruled by Ibn Hajar in Bulugh Al-Maram (2/241). Nasa’i has also collected this report in his Sunan (7/107-108) as well as Tabarani in his Kabir. (A Biography of the Prophet of Islam In the Light of Original Sources: An Analytical Study, by Dr. Mahdi Rizqullah Ahmad, translated by Syed Iqbal Zaheer [Darussalam Publishers and Distributors, Riyadh, Jeddah, Sharjah, Lahore, London, Houston, New York; First Edition: November 2005], Volume 1, Chapter 6: Events and Expeditions between Badr and Uhud, pp. 431-432; bold and underline emphasis ours)

This brings me to my other point. This oft-repeated Muslim canard fails to explain why Muslim historians, scholars, expositors etc., would include such stories when these anecdotes portray Muhammad in such a negative light. The most unpleasant events in early Islam have the strongest probability of really having occurred because it is inconceivable that Muslims would make them up on their own or receive them from non-Muslims. After all, if the enemies of Islam created these reports to discredit Muhammad why would respectable Muslims such as Ibn Ishaq and Qadi Iyad include them? Why didn’t they simply omit such details especially when they make Muhammad look so cruel and evil?

In fact, one of the arguments that Muslims employ to demonstrate the veracity of the Quran is to point to references where Muhammad is rebuked for some mistakes or sins he committed (cf. Q. 9:43; 40:55; 47:19; 8:1-2; 80:1-10). Muslims claim that these examples prove that Muhammad couldn’t have authored the Quran since he wouldn’t rebuke himself if he did. But this same logic also applies to these Islamic narrations that present Muhammad as a cold-blooded murderer, since why would any god-fearing Muslim want to paint such a picture of his/her prophet being a vicious cold-blooded killer? The fact that such anecdotes exist argues quite strongly for their veracity, since Muslims normally omit negative references to their prophet. They wouldn’t retain or concoct them.

It should be further noted that even modern western scholars, specifically those who almost always defend Muhammad and Islam, take these stories as genuine historical events. By using modern historical, textual and critical methods, these scholars invariably end up concluding that these anecdotes have a ring of truth to them due to how embarrassing they are for the Muslim position. Reputable historians, apologists, polemicists and students of Islam correctly reason that these are reliable traditions precisely because no Muslim scholar would dare create such negative portrayals and depictions of his/her prophet, nor would s/he want to preserve such narrations especially if they originated from non-Muslim circles.

The preceding factors give us good grounds for assuming that these vicious and cold-blooded murders are genuine events in the life of Muhammad and his followers. These harsh anecdotes and accounts cannot, therefore, be explained away in terms of the (alleged) unreliability of the source documents.

In light of the foregoing, we have the following questions for Muslims to answer:

Please explain why would Muslim sources contain anecdotes which present Muhammad in such a negative light? Why would believers include narrations that present Muhammad as a cold-blooded murderer?

Moreover, why would Muslims create such stories in the first place? It is often the tendency of people to overlook or hide the mistakes, sins, and errors of their leaders or heroes. People normally tend to make their heroes look better, not worse. This would especially be the case with Muslims who love Muhammad more than anything and view him as the greatest prophet and the best of creation. So why would Muslims make up stories that make Muhammad look evil?

If a Muslim says that these stories originated from unbelievers then why would people who loved Muhammad more than their own lives want to circulate them? Why would god-fearing Muslims pass on the lies and fraudulent tales of unbelievers, especially when such stories serve to aid the disbelievers in their attempt to discredit and malign Muhammad?

So much for the desperate and feeble Muhammadan attempts to explain away their prophet’s orders to have a centenarian and a nursing mother murdered simply because they mocked him for his pretensions and evil acts.


(1) Lest these same dawagandists try to call into question Abu Dawud’s report of Muhammad praising the murder of a Jewish slave girl for mocking him, we will let this same Salafi website establish its historical veracity for them:

1 – The ruling on the hadeeth.

This hadeeth was narrated by Abu Dawood (4361), and via him and via another isnaad also by al-Daaraqutni (3/112). It was also narrated by al-Nasaa’i in al-Mujtaba (4070) and in al-Sunan al-Kubra (2/304); by Ibn Abi ‘Aasim in al-Diyaat (no. 249); by al-Tabaraani in al-Mu’jam al-Kabeer (11/351); by al-Haakim in al-Mustadrak (4/394); and by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7/60). All of them narrated it via several isnaads from ‘Uthmaan al-Shahhaam, from ‘Ikrimah, from Ibn ‘Abbaas, with variations in wording and length of the reports.

This is a hasan isnaad, and its narrators are thiqaat (trustworthy). Hence the hadeeth was accepted by Abu Dawood and al-Nasaa’i who narrated it but did not comment on it, and it was also narrated by Imam Ahmad. Al-Majd Ibn Taymiyah said: Ahmad quoted it as evidence according to the report of his son ‘Abd-Allaah. End quote from Nayl al-Awtaar (7/208). Al-Haakim said: It is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim although they [al-Bukhaari and Muslim] did not narrate it. It was classed as saheeh by al-Dhahabi in his Talkhees, and by Ibn Hajar in Buloogh al-Maraam (363), where he said: Its narrators are thiqaat. Shaykh al-Albaani said in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel (5/91): Its isnaad is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim. End quote.

It is supported by the report narrated by al-Shi’bi from ‘Ali, which says that a Jewish woman used to revile and disparage the Prophet. A man strangled her until she died, and the Messenger of Allaah declared that no recompense was payable for her blood.

Narrated by Abu Dawood in al-Sunan (4362) and via him by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra (7/60) and by al-Diya’ al-Maqdisi in al-Mukhtaarah (2/169).

Shaykh al-Albaani said in Irwa’ al-Ghaleel (1251): Its isnaad is saheeh according to the conditions of the two shaykhs (al-Bukhaari and Muslim), but he classed it as da’eef in Da’eef Abi Dawood because of interruptions.

Perhaps it is most likely that the hadeeth is mursal. Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar said in Tahdheeb al-Tahdheeb (5/68): al-Daaraqutni said in al-‘Ilal: al-Shi’bi did not hear anything from ‘Ali except a single phrase, and he did not hear anything else.

It is as if what he meant was what al-Bukhaari narrated concerning stoning from him [al-Shi’bi] from ‘Ali, when he stoned a woman and said: “I stoned her in accordance with the Sunnah of the Prophet.” End quote from Ibn Hajar.

But the mursal reports of al-Shi’bi are acceptable according to many scholars. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said in al-Saarim al-Maslool (p. 65): This hadeeth is jayyid, because al-Shi’bi saw ‘Ali and narrated from him the hadeeth of Shuraahah al-Hamdaaniyyah. At the time of ‘Ali he was in his twenties, and he was a Kufan. It is proven that he met him, so the hadeeth is muttasil (connected). Moreover, even if it is mursal because it is unlikely that al-Shi’bi heard it from ‘Ali, it still may be used as evidence according to scholarly consensus, because in their view the mursal reports of al-Shi’bi are saheeh, and they do not know of any mursal reports from him that are not saheeh. Moreover he is one of the most knowledgeable of people of the hadeeth of ‘Ali, and the most knowledgeable about the trustworthy (thiqaat) among ‘Ali’s companions. End quote.

There is another corroborating report for this story that was narrated by Ibn Sa’d in al-Tabaqaat al-Kubra (4/210), where he says:

Qubaysah ibn ‘Uqbah told us: Yoonus ibn Abi Ishaaq narrated to us, from Abu Ishaaq, that ‘Abd-Allaah ibn Ma’qil said: Ibn Umm Maktoom stayed in the house of a Jewish woman in Madeenah, the paternal aunt of an Ansaari man. She was kind to him, but she annoyed him with regard to Allaah and His Messenger, so he took hold of her and hit her and killed her. The matter was referred to the Messenger of Allaah and he said: By Allaah, O Messenger of Allaah, she was kind to me, but she annoyed me with regard to Allaah and His Messenger, so I hit her and killed her. The Messenger of Allaah said: “May Allaah cast her away. There is no recompense for the shedding of her blood.”

The narrators of this isnaad ARE THIQAAT (TRUSTWORTHY).

To sum up these reports, the basic story IS PROVEN IN THE SAHEEH SUNNAH, but was there one incident or several?

It seems that it was one incident. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah was inclined towards this view when he said:

This – the fact that it was one incident – is indicated by the words of Imam Ahmad, because it was said to him concerning the report of ‘Abd-Allaah: Are there any ahaadeeth about the execution of the dhimmi if he reviles [the Prophet]? He said: Yes, such as the hadeeth about the blind man who killed the woman. He said: He heard her reviling the Prophet – and ‘Abd-Allaah narrated these two hadeeth from him.

This is supported by the fact that for there to have been two blind men who were both treated kindly by two women who both repeated slurs against the Prophet, each one of whom was killed by the blind man acting alone and in both cases the Messenger of Allaah adjured the person responsible to come forward, is something very unlikely.

Al-Saarim al-Maslool (p. 72, 73).

But there remains the problem of how to reconcile between the differences which are mentioned in the report about the way in which the Jewish woman was killed – was it by strangling or by stabbing with a sword in her stomach?

Ibn Taymiyah mentioned two possibilities: the possibility that Ibn Umm Maktoom strangled her then stabbed her, and the second possibility, which is that there was a mistake in one of the two reports.

See: al-Saarim (p. 72). (Islam Q&A, 103739. Regarding the hadeeth about the blind man who killed his slave woman who had borne him a child (umm walad) because she reviled the Prophet; bold and capital emphasis ours)

Related articles