The Story of Ma'iz ibn Malik: The Prophet's Mercy and the Strict Conditions for Proving Adultery

Islam is not thirsty for blood — and the case of Ma’iz ibn Malik is one of the clearest proofs of this. The narration is frequently misrepresented by opponents of Islam. A careful reading of the authentic hadith literature reveals both the extreme strictness of Islam’s evidentiary requirements for adultery and the profound mercy of the Prophet ﷺ throughout the entire episode.

The First Narration — And Its Weakness

A narration circulated via Ibn Jurayj — transmitted through Abu al-Zubayr, on the authority of Abd al-Rahman ibn al-Samit the cousin of Abu Hurayrah — contains the following account: Al-Aslami came to the Prophet ﷺ and testified against himself four times that he had committed adultery. Each time, the Prophet ﷺ ignored him. On the fifth approach, the Prophet ﷺ questioned him in detail: “Did you have intercourse with her? Until that part of you disappeared into that part of her — just as the kohl stick disappears in the kohl container and the bribe disappears in the well?” He confirmed this, confirmed he knew what adultery was, and stated that he wanted the Prophet ﷺ to purify him. He was then ordered to be stoned.

After the stoning, the Prophet ﷺ overheard two of his companions speaking disparagingly about the man who had been executed. He then passed by the carcass of a donkey and called them over, commanding them to eat from it. When they protested, he said: “What you have done to your brother’s honour just now is worse than eating from it. By the One in Whose Hand is my soul, he is now in the rivers of Paradise, drowning in them.”

The Authentic Narration — Sahih al-Bukhari

The Authentic Narration — Sunan Ibn Majah

The Two Ways Adultery Is Proven in Islamic Law

From the authentic narrations, two things are established with certainty. The crime of adultery cannot be proven except in one of two ways:

First: The adulterer or adulteress testifies against themselves four times.

Second: Four witnesses who witnessed the act of intercourse itself come forward.

Note, brothers in Allah, that the Lawgiver has been extraordinarily strict in the process of proving adultery. It is not impossible — but it is close to impossible — to find four witnesses who did not merely see a naked man and a naked woman, but who witnessed the actual act of adultery. In the overwhelming majority of cases throughout Islamic history, the first condition is the operative one: the person testifies against themselves four times voluntarily. If someone testifies against himself only three times and then another person accuses him — that accuser will receive eighty lashes as the hadd punishment for an accusation he cannot prove.

Islamic law does not permit the punishment for adultery to rest on suspicion. The act must be proven to an absolute certainty — 100%.

Ma’iz Came Voluntarily — He Was Not Brought by Force

Ma’iz ibn Malik came to the Prophet ﷺ himself. The vice police did not bring him. He was not caught red-handed. No one threatened him. Ma’iz, may Allah be pleased with him, came remorseful and repentant to Allah. He came confessing his sin, seeking purification. So what was the position of the Messenger ﷺ?

Did he say to his companions: “Catch him, don’t let him escape — prepare the hole and the stones”? No. The narration of Sunan Ibn Majah explicitly records that the Prophet ﷺ turned away from him the first time, the second time, and the third time. He did not seek to confirm the confession. He did not rush to punishment. This is the opposite of eagerness for blood.

Why Did the Prophet ﷺ Use That Precise Wording?

An objection is sometimes raised: why did the Prophet ﷺ use explicit language in his questioning of Ma’iz rather than saying “did you commit adultery?” or “did you commit fornication?”

The answer is that all of these general words carry multiple meanings in the Arabic language. For example:

The word zina (adultery) encompasses more than the physical act — it was narrated from the Prophet ﷺ in Sahih Muslim that he said: “The eyes commit adultery by looking” and “the hand commits adultery by touching.” A confession of zina in general terms would therefore not be legally unambiguous.

The word fahisha (immorality) refers to everything obscene in word or deed — it includes adultery but includes much else besides.

As for the word wata’ (intercourse) — consider the phrase “sitting on a grave and intercourse upon it.” Does intercourse in this context mean adultery? It does not.

Because a man’s life and death, his worldly fate and his afterlife, his lineage and his children, all depended upon a single word — the Prophet ﷺ used precise language to remove every shadow of ambiguity. This was not coarseness. It was mercy. The Prophet ﷺ was trying, in every way available to him, to establish that perhaps this man had not actually committed the act — that perhaps he had only kissed, winked, or looked. He was searching for a way to spare him, not a way to condemn him. The narration of Ibn Majah records that when Ma’iz fled upon being struck by the first stones, the Prophet ﷺ asked: “Why did you not leave him?” — further evidence that he was not eager to carry out the punishment.

Did any of the Companions laugh when they heard this word? Did the Prophet ﷺ smile when he said it? Was Ma’iz himself ashamed? The answer in every case is no — because the Companions understood that this was not a casual conversation. This was a judicial proceeding in which one word could determine a man’s life or death. The gravity of the situation was understood by all present.

Why Did Prophet Muhammad ﷺ Say “أنكتها/Anektha” in Sahih Bukhari? A Linguistic and Legal Refutation