Blasphemy
As for the chain of authorities, every version of the story originates with Uthman ibn Muslim al-Shuhham narrating from ‘Ikramah, may Allah have mercy on them. There are no other credible chains to support this story. Uthman al-Shuhham was considered reliable by some scholars, but plenty of others criticized and rejected his narrations. He narrated very few hadith as compared to other narrators, whom he usually narrated from Muslim ibn Abi Bakrah, and even fewer hadith from ‘Ikramah. He is in no way an agreed upon narrator. Al-Dhahabi writes: قال يحيى القطان يعرف من حديثه وينكر وقال النسائي ليس بالقوى Yahya al-Qattan said: His narrations are sometimes acknowledged or rejected. Al-Nasa’i said: He is not strong. Source: Mīzān al-I’tidāl 3/60 And Al-Mughaltay writes: وقال أبو أحمد الحاكم عثمان بن مسلم أبو سلمة الشحام ليس بالمتين عندهم Abu Ahmad al-Hakim said Uthman ibn Muslim, Abu Salamah, is not solid in their view. Source: Ikmāl Tahdhīb al-Kamāl 9/194 And Ibn Hajar writes: وكذا أبو أحمد وقال ليس بالمتين عندهم وقال الدارقطني بصري يعتبر به Likewise was said by Abu Ahmad that he is not solid in their view. Al-Daraqutni said he is a Basran in need of further consideration. Source: Tahdhīb al-Tahdhīb 7/161 And Al-Arna’ut writes: وفي عثمان كلام ينزله عن رتبة الصحيح There is a discussion on Uthman about lowering him from the level of soundness. Source: Takhrīj al-Musnad 34/131 Ibn ‘Adi also mentioned him in his book of weak narrators, although he did not consider him weak per se, writing: عُثْمَانُ الشَّحَّامُ لَيْسَ لَهُ كَثِيرُ حَدِيثٍ وَمَا رَأَى بِهِ بَأْسًا فِي رِوَايَاتِهِ Uthman al-Shuhham does not have many traditions, but there is no objection seen in his narrations. Source: al-Kāmil fī Ḍuʻafā’ al-Rijāl 6/293 However, just because Ibn ‘Adi saw nothing wrong in his narrations does not mean he considered him above scrutiny. Imam Muslim included only one narration of Uthman al-Shuhham from Muslim ibn Abi Bakrah in his Sahih collection. This indicates that Imam Muslim considered his chain from Ibn Abi Bakrah to be authentic, but he did not narrate his chain from ‘Ikramah. Thus, the presence of Uthman al-Shuhham in the Sahih does not mean every narration from him was considered authentic by Imam Muslim. Hence, the problematic hadith of the blind man is based on the authority of a questionable narrator, who narrated an unusually small number of hadith, who was criticized and rejected by some scholars, and whose narrations are otherwise not widely-regarded as legal evidence. On this basis alone, Muslims are not required at all to accept the authenticity of the story or the legal ruling it supports. If, for the sake of argument, Uthman al-Shuhham’s chain from ‘Ikramah is sound and the story is true, there are certainly missing details from the text that are needed to properly contextualize it. An anomalous (shadh) narration cannot overrule many more verses of the Quran and authentic hadith. It is a well-established rule in Islam that legal punishments such as executions, flogging, or imprisonment can only be carried out by executive authorities. Ibn Muflih writes: تَحْرُمُ إقَامَةُ حَدٍّ إلَّا لِإِمَامٍ أَوْ نَائِبِهِ It is forbidden to establish a legal punishment unless it is done by the leader or his deputy. Source: al-Furū’ wa Taṣḥīḥ al-Furū’ 10/29 And according to the Kuwaiti Encyclopedia of Fiqh: اتَّفَقَ الْفُقَهَاءُ عَلَى أَنَّهُ لاَ يُقِيمُ الْحَدَّ إلا الإمام أَوْ نَائِبُهُ وَذَلِكَ لِمَصْلَحَةِ الْعِبَادِ وَهِيَ صِيَانَةُ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَأَمْوَالِهِمْ وَأَعْرَاضِهِمْ The jurists came to a consensus that a legal punishment may not be implemented unless by the leader or his deputy. That is in the best interest of people, which is to safeguard their lives, their property, and their reputations. Source: al-Mawsū’at al-Fiqhīyah al-Kuwaytīyah 17/144 This principle, known in the West as due process, is essential to civil society. Citing the hadith of the blind man to circumvent it is a very dangerous proposition. If the incident did in fact occur, then the slander (waqi’) and disparagement (shatm) committed by the woman must have been done in manner that was aiding or inciting enemy forces, as the Muslims in Medina at the time were fighting a defensive war against the idolaters of Mecca. Ibn Taymiyyah considered the possibility of this interpretation, writing: الوجه الثالث أن هذا وإن كان حدا فهو قتل حربي أيضا فصار بمنزلة قتل حربي تحتم قتله وهذا يجوز قتله لكل أحد A third view is that, if this was a legal punishment, then it was also the killing of a combatant. Thus, she had the status of an enemy combatant who must be killed. This type of killing is permissible for anyone. Source: al-Ṣārim al-Maslūl 1/286 The Prophet (ṣ) did not kill people just for insulting him. Many people insulted him, cursed him, and harmed him, yet he was forgiving, patient, and forbearing. The legal maxim of no-harm requires that one can only harm others if it is necessary to avoid a greater harm. The Prophet (ṣ) also would not have allowed a man to designate himself as judge, jury, and executioner. If the Prophet (ṣ) did in fact pardon the man for killing his concubine, it could only have been in such a case that she was aiding or inciting the enemy. No one needs permission from authorities to fight or kill someone who is waging war against them.
I did have some prior knowledge by hearing JAG calling it not very sahih once or a similar Hadith to it