Assalam O Alaikum,
I am sure there must be a response on all the objections raised by shias on some narrations of Sahih Bukhari.
plz share with me pdf file of such response, if you have that.
Jazak Allah.
إِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
Sahih International
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
Quoteإِنَّمَا جَزَاءُ الَّذِينَ يُحَارِبُونَ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ وَيَسْعَوْنَ فِي الْأَرْضِ فَسَادًا أَن يُقَتَّلُوا أَوْ يُصَلَّبُوا أَوْ تُقَطَّعَ أَيْدِيهِمْ وَأَرْجُلُهُم مِّنْ خِلَافٍ أَوْ يُنفَوْا مِنَ الْأَرْضِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ لَهُمْ خِزْيٌ فِي الدُّنْيَا ۖ وَلَهُمْ فِي الْآخِرَةِ عَذَابٌ عَظِيمٌ
Sahih International
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment,
Go ahead, mock this and show us your true colors towards Islam.
were those people causing corruption?
Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels.
Also opposite hands and feet and all limbs are different.You are clutching at straws now, where does it say limbs? Where does it say all?
What about eyes & iron-branding them?Sure, just change your statement "The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We do not believe in a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Prophet." to "The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We believe in a limb-chopping but not in an eye-gouging Prophet." and you will be taken more seriously.
Quotewere those people causing corruption?
Would you mind classifying this behaviour then?QuoteThen they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels.QuoteAlso opposite hands and feet and all limbs are different.You are clutching at straws now, where does it say limbs? Where does it say all?QuoteWhat about eyes & iron-branding them?Sure, just change your statement "The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We do not believe in a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Prophet." to "The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We believe in a limb-chopping but not in an eye-gouging Prophet." and you will be taken more seriously.
There you go with your selective reading and reasoning. The words in the ayah "يُحَارِبُونَ" or yarhiboona refers to war. Were these people at war with Allah and the Prophet? Were they creating corruption as in fitna?
Sure they killed the shepherd - the punishment of which is death, not maiming and eye-gouging.
Looks like your disdain for the Prophet still continues...
في الكافي محمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد عن محمد بن يحيى عن طلحة بن زيد قال، سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: كان أبى عليه السلام يقول، ان للحرب حكمين إذا كانت الحرب قائمة لم تضع أو زارها ولم يثخن أهلها فكل أسير أخذ في تلك الحال فان الامام فيه بالخيار ان شاء ضرب عنقه وان شاء قطع يده ورجله من خلاف بغير حسم، وتركه يتشخط في دمه حتى يموت، وهو قول الله تعالى: انما جزاء الدين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فسادا ان يقتلوا أو يصلبوا أو تقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلاف أو ينفوا من الأرض ذلك لهم خزى في الدنيا ولهم في الآخرة عذاب عظيم الا ترى ان المخير الذي خيره الله الامام على شئ واحد وهو الكفر وليس هو على أشياء مختلفة، فقلت لأبي عبد الله صلوات الله عليه: قول الله تعالى، (أو ينفوا من الأرض)؟ قال: ذلك لطلب ان تطلبه الخيل حتى يهرب فان أخذته الخيل حكم عليه ببعض الاحكام التي وصفت لك والحديث طويل أخذنا منه موضع الحاجة
(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah asws having said: ‘A group of sick people from the Clan of Zabba came to Rasool-Allah saww. So Rasool-Allah saww said to them: ‘Encamp near me saww, so when you get better I saww shall send you all upon your way’. So they said, ‘Get us out of Al-Medina’. So he saww sent them (some) camels as charity, and they used to drink from their urine and eat from their milk.So when they were cured and became strong, they killed three people who were looking after the camels. (The news of) that reached Rasool-Allah saww, so he saww sent Ali asws towards them, and they were found to be in a valley, wandering around, not being able to get out from it, somewhere near Yemen. So he asws captivated them and came with them to Rasool-Allah saww. Thus this Verse was Revealed [5:33] But rather, the Recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Rasool and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world. Thus Rasool-Allah saww chose the cutting, so he saww had their hands and their feet cut off on opposite sides’
You are evading my questions, were they causing corruption or not? Where does it say limbs? Where does it say all?QuoteThere you go with your selective reading and reasoning. The words in the ayah "يُحَارِبُونَ" or yarhiboona refers to war. Were these people at war with Allah and the Prophet? Were they creating corruption as in fitna?
Sure they killed the shepherd - the punishment of which is death, not maiming and eye-gouging.
Looks like your disdain for the Prophet still continues...
You are looking for a cop out, are you saying that in Jafari fiqh, that hands and feet are only cut off of warriors in a war? Al Kulayni mentions this incident, as a matter of fact the verse I quoted is according to the following narration in al Kafi actually revealed at this incident:Quoteفي الكافي محمد بن يحيى عن أحمد بن محمد عن محمد بن يحيى عن طلحة بن زيد قال، سمعت أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: كان أبى عليه السلام يقول، ان للحرب حكمين إذا كانت الحرب قائمة لم تضع أو زارها ولم يثخن أهلها فكل أسير أخذ في تلك الحال فان الامام فيه بالخيار ان شاء ضرب عنقه وان شاء قطع يده ورجله من خلاف بغير حسم، وتركه يتشخط في دمه حتى يموت، وهو قول الله تعالى: انما جزاء الدين يحاربون الله ورسوله ويسعون في الأرض فسادا ان يقتلوا أو يصلبوا أو تقطع أيديهم وأرجلهم من خلاف أو ينفوا من الأرض ذلك لهم خزى في الدنيا ولهم في الآخرة عذاب عظيم الا ترى ان المخير الذي خيره الله الامام على شئ واحد وهو الكفر وليس هو على أشياء مختلفة، فقلت لأبي عبد الله صلوات الله عليه: قول الله تعالى، (أو ينفوا من الأرض)؟ قال: ذلك لطلب ان تطلبه الخيل حتى يهرب فان أخذته الخيل حكم عليه ببعض الاحكام التي وصفت لك والحديث طويل أخذنا منه موضع الحاجة
(It has been narrated) from Abu Abdullah asws having said: ‘A group of sick people from the Clan of Zabba came to Rasool-Allah saww. So Rasool-Allah saww said to them: ‘Encamp near me saww, so when you get better I saww shall send you all upon your way’. So they said, ‘Get us out of Al-Medina’. So he saww sent them (some) camels as charity, and they used to drink from their urine and eat from their milk.So when they were cured and became strong, they killed three people who were looking after the camels. (The news of) that reached Rasool-Allah saww, so he saww sent Ali asws towards them, and they were found to be in a valley, wandering around, not being able to get out from it, somewhere near Yemen. So he asws captivated them and came with them to Rasool-Allah saww. Thus this Verse was Revealed [5:33] But rather, the Recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His Rasool and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world. Thus Rasool-Allah saww chose the cutting, so he saww had their hands and their feet cut off on opposite sides’
Prediction: You will continue to ignore my questions and focus on the eye gouging to save face, try it and see where that gets you.
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 67, Hadith 6
Good question. I didn't add it and I guarantee no shia did either but there it is.Narrated Anas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 67, Hadith 6
Would you care to tell us why the words "have sexual relations with" are in parenthesis? They are in parenthesis because they are inserted into the narration. The correct translation of the hadith should be, "Narrated Anas: The Prophet used to visit all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives” (Bukhari ::Volume 7 :: Book 62 :: Hadith 6)".
What is wrong with a man visiting all of his wives? Justice and equality (in polygamous society) necessitates that a man visits, and checks upon, all of his wives. Visiting your wives does not mean you had sexual intercourse with them.
Good question. I didn't add it and I guarantee no shia did either but there it is.
The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We do not believe in a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Prophet.
OMG, you got me.The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We do not believe in a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Prophet.
We know you don't believe in Prophet Muhammad(saws), but thanks for admitting this so openly. You might also not believe in the prophet, who chopped off the hands of thieves, are ordered the one who consumed alcohol to be lashed, etc, since it would go against your narrow minded and confided understandings.
So Mr. Ignorant. Care to research a bit, before making absurd claims about Prophet(saws). The reason why the Prophet applied such a brutal punishment to those Bedouins was because the Prophet found out that those Bedouins did the same exact thing to the shepherd. It was an appropriate punishment. FOr details refer this article:OMG, you got me.The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We do not believe in a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Prophet.
We know you don't believe in Prophet Muhammad(saws), but thanks for admitting this so openly. You might also not believe in the prophet, who chopped off the hands of thieves, are ordered the one who consumed alcohol to be lashed, etc, since it would go against your narrow minded and confided understandings.
Appropriate punishment for the crime behooves the Prophet. Limb-chopping, eye-branding followed by killing by thirst does not
AND then going around sleeping with all 9 wives in the same night.Gifts for ignorant propagandists like you.
The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We do not believe in a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Prophet.
Narrated Anas:
The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 76, Hadith 9
Perhaps this is what ISIS and Taliban use to justify their violent behavior.
Narrated Anas:
The Prophet (ﷺ) used to go round (have sexual relations with) all his wives in one night, and he had nine wives.
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 67, Hadith 6
Wrong prediction. Limbs aka hands and legs. Prophet allegedly cut them off when the ayah called for alternate; no mention of eyes. These people were not at war with the Prophet and hence this would not be applicable to them. Unless you can prove they were at war.
نِي الْفَضْلُ بْنُ سَهْلٍ الأَعْرَجُ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ زُرَيْعٍ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ التَّيْمِيِّ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ إِنَّمَا سَمَلَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَعْيُنَ أُولَئِكَ لأَنَّهُمْ سَمَلُوا
Anas reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) pierced their eyes because they had pierced the eyes of the shepherds.
As for your question - were they causing corruption? No, they committed a crime but were not calling for others to do it or replicate their actions so they were not causing corruption.You are really getting more and more desperate, are you saying that according to Jafari fiqh, one is considered to cause corruption ie fasad only when he is calling others to do or replicate it? Dont think you can get away with such easy statements, you have shown your colors and unless you reject Jafari fiqh too, it will only get worse.
Furthermore, the ayah calls for whoever is at war with Allah and the Prophet so answer my question - were they at war with the Prophet?
حَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادٌ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلاَبَةَ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّ رَهْطًا، مِنْ عُكْلٍ ـ أَوْ قَالَ عُرَيْنَةَ وَلاَ أَعْلَمُهُ إِلاَّ قَالَ مِنْ عُكْلٍ ـ قَدِمُوا الْمَدِينَةَ، فَأَمَرَ لَهُمُ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِلِقَاحٍ، وَأَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَخْرُجُوا فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا وَأَلْبَانِهَا، فَشَرِبُوا حَتَّى إِذَا بَرِئُوا قَتَلُوا الرَّاعِيَ وَاسْتَاقُوا النَّعَمَ، فَبَلَغَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم غُدْوَةً فَبَعَثَ الطَّلَبَ فِي إِثْرِهِمْ، فَمَا ارْتَفَعَ النَّهَارُ حَتَّى جِيءَ بِهِمْ، فَأَمَرَ بِهِمْ فَقَطَعَ أَيْدِيَهُمْ وَأَرْجُلَهُمْ وَسَمَرَ أَعْيُنَهُمْ، فَأُلْقُوا بِالْحَرَّةِ يَسْتَسْقُونَ فَلاَ يُسْقَوْنَ. قَالَ أَبُو قِلاَبَةَ هَؤُلاَءِ قَوْمٌ سَرَقُوا، وَقَتَلُوا، وَكَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِيمَانِهِمْ، وَحَارَبُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ.
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of people from `Ukl (or `Uraina) tribe ----but I think he said that they were from `Ukl came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels' urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet (ﷺ) before midday. He ordered to cut off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water. (Abu Qilaba said, "Those were the people who committed theft and murder and reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle").
OMG, you got me.
Appropriate punishment for the crime behooves the Prophet. Limb-chopping, eye-branding followed by killing by thirst does not AND then going around sleeping with all 9 wives in the same night.
See, this is why when a Shia says, "brother, let us discuss so that we may benefit", in my head, I translate it to, "brother, listen to my verbal diarrhea because there is no way I will listen to yours".
Both the hadiths - regarding limb-chopping and "sleeping with all of his wives in one night" - have been clarified. In fact, we have given you the same narrations from your own texts. Yet you wish to bury your head in sand and pretend you are right.
Wallaahi, the intellectual dishonesty - well, dishonesty in general - with which you Shias approach discussions is shameful and it reflects the sort of education you receive from your mosques and learning centers. Didn't you say that we accomplish nothing and all we do is talk among ourselves? Wallaahi, that is what you do! Your scholars and their refutations (of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jama'ah) sound shatterproof in your majaalis. But when they share an equal and neutral platform with our scholars, like Al-Mustakillah debates, they run away with their tails tucked between their legs.
Brother, you are right, Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. No doubt, it is in Quran. Likewise whatever Prophet did as mentioned in above hadith is also as per Quran. Surah Maida 33. He was following orders of Allah. Now will anyone blame Allah for this? No. Then why so much blame on Bukhari on same thing?Sorry brother - eye gouging and crucifixion are completely different. What about the killing by thirst? Also these people were not at war with Allah or the Prophet so again, does not apply.
Maida 33:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.
Cutting hands and feets is clearly mentioned in maida 33 but not eye gouging. But there is a word crucify as well, which means to persecute, tear apart, put to death etc. Eye gouging is also crucifixion.
This penality was given to those people as per orders of Allah, because not only they violated the orders of Prophet but also caused corruption on earth. Similiar narrations are also in shia books.
Any thing that goes against the Quran must be rejected not which is in accordance with the Quran.
Prophet is a mercy only for those who believe in him and follow him, not for those who oppose him and wage war against him, violate his orders etc. It is also in Quran.
Surah Tauba 33.
It is He who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to manifest it over all religion, although they who associate others with Allah dislike it.
We have to follow orders of Allah and His prophet, even though polytheist may dislike or hate.
This is absolute rubbish, whoever added such words in brackets is himself responsible/accoutable for this before Allah. These words are not part of original hadith in arabic. And we are not bound or forced to accept such nonsense interpretation of hadith. Going to your wives does'nt only mean that you do sexual activities.I agree it is rubbish. Yet there it is. And no shia put it there. And that is the whole point of this discussion that not everything in Bukhari can be taken for what it is.
Blame is on the person who added such words not on bukhari.
You are getting desperate, my prediction is still partially true as you didnt answer all my questions and you brought up the eye gouging again. I will repeat my question for a third time:
Where does it say all?
Hands and legs? You are trying very hard, where does it say legs? And since when are hands commonly known as limbs?
Do you reject the narration from al Kafi? Do you mind then telling us when the said verse was revealed?
Are you saying that in Jafari fiqh hands and feet are only cut off of war criminals, not bandits?
As for the eye gouging, as is usual with shia's, you only read one narration without ever looking into narrations that are related to it.Quoteنِي الْفَضْلُ بْنُ سَهْلٍ الأَعْرَجُ، حَدَّثَنَا يَحْيَى بْنُ غَيْلاَنَ، حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ زُرَيْعٍ، عَنْ سُلَيْمَانَ التَّيْمِيِّ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ، قَالَ إِنَّمَا سَمَلَ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَعْيُنَ أُولَئِكَ لأَنَّهُمْ سَمَلُوا
Anas reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) pierced their eyes because they had pierced the eyes of the shepherds.
As for your answer:QuoteAs for your question - were they causing corruption? No, they committed a crime but were not calling for others to do it or replicate their actions so they were not causing corruption.You are really getting more and more desperate, are you saying that according to Jafari fiqh, one is considered to cause corruption ie fasad only when he is calling others to do or replicate it? Dont think you can get away with such easy statements, you have shown your colors and unless you reject Jafari fiqh too, it will only get worse.QuoteFurthermore, the ayah calls for whoever is at war with Allah and the Prophet so answer my question - were they at war with the Prophet?
Getting really really desperate, yes they were at war, do you need a declaration of war?Quoteحَدَّثَنَا قُتَيْبَةُ بْنُ سَعِيدٍ، حَدَّثَنَا حَمَّادٌ، عَنْ أَيُّوبَ، عَنْ أَبِي قِلاَبَةَ، عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ، أَنَّ رَهْطًا، مِنْ عُكْلٍ ـ أَوْ قَالَ عُرَيْنَةَ وَلاَ أَعْلَمُهُ إِلاَّ قَالَ مِنْ عُكْلٍ ـ قَدِمُوا الْمَدِينَةَ، فَأَمَرَ لَهُمُ النَّبِيُّ صلى الله عليه وسلم بِلِقَاحٍ، وَأَمَرَهُمْ أَنْ يَخْرُجُوا فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَبْوَالِهَا وَأَلْبَانِهَا، فَشَرِبُوا حَتَّى إِذَا بَرِئُوا قَتَلُوا الرَّاعِيَ وَاسْتَاقُوا النَّعَمَ، فَبَلَغَ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم غُدْوَةً فَبَعَثَ الطَّلَبَ فِي إِثْرِهِمْ، فَمَا ارْتَفَعَ النَّهَارُ حَتَّى جِيءَ بِهِمْ، فَأَمَرَ بِهِمْ فَقَطَعَ أَيْدِيَهُمْ وَأَرْجُلَهُمْ وَسَمَرَ أَعْيُنَهُمْ، فَأُلْقُوا بِالْحَرَّةِ يَسْتَسْقُونَ فَلاَ يُسْقَوْنَ. قَالَ أَبُو قِلاَبَةَ هَؤُلاَءِ قَوْمٌ سَرَقُوا، وَقَتَلُوا، وَكَفَرُوا بَعْدَ إِيمَانِهِمْ، وَحَارَبُوا اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ.
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
A group of people from `Ukl (or `Uraina) tribe ----but I think he said that they were from `Ukl came to Medina and (they became ill, so) the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the herd of (Milch) she-camels and told them to go out and drink the camels' urine and milk (as a medicine). So they went and drank it, and when they became healthy, they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) early in the morning, so he sent (some) men in their pursuit and they were captured and brought to the Prophet (ﷺ) before midday. He ordered to cut off their hands and legs and their eyes to be branded with heated iron pieces and they were thrown at Al-Harra, and when they asked for water to drink, they were not given water. (Abu Qilaba said, "Those were the people who committed theft and murder and reverted to disbelief after being believers (Muslims), and fought against Allah and His Apostle").
Start answering some questions and reveal your disbelief even further
For limbs - refer to the post by Fahad Sani who mentions the limbs post.There are no limbs mentioned, if you think they are show the arabic yourself. The funny thing is I quoted a totally unrelated narration in Arabic and it was simply missed, for the second time now.
Whatever Abu Qibala said is in paranthesis and just before your post, Fahad Sani said to ignroe everything in paranthesis. These people came to the Prophet so there were clearly not at war. They killed someone and should be punished as murders.Coming from someone who has to jump through several loopholes and make a crazy detour to claim that whoever steals land from Fatima and angers her angers the Prophet and so angers Allah and so is an enemy of Allah doesnt really sound convincing. And technically yuhaaribuna also means to plunder ( not yarhiboona, that looks more like something that is derived from embracing or welcoming)
Plus the ayah calls for either...or punishment and not all of the above and of course nothing about the thirst.They are not punished for corruption only which the verse relates to, they are also punished as a retribution for what they did to the shepherds which is covered in another verse.
@GreatChineseFall - what questions do you have???
‘I asked Abu Abdullah asws about the one who cuts-off the road of the people (bandits), so I said, ‘The people are saying that the Imam asws has a choice regarding that. He asws can do whatsoever he asws likes to’. He asws said: ‘It is not that he asws does whatsoever he asws likes to, but he asws does with them in accordance to their crime. The one who cuts-off the road and murders and seizes the property, so he asws would cut-off his hands and his feet, and crucify him. And the one who cuts-off the road and murders, but does not seize the property, he asws would have him killed. And the one who cuts-off the road and seizes the property, but does not murder, he asws would have his hand and his leg cut
off from opposite sides. And the one who cuts-off the road, and does not seize the property and does not murder, so the Imam asws would have him exiled from the land’.
(1) Do you still stand by your first statement that you don't believe in a limb-chopping eye-gouging prophet?Yes, the Prophet while just was also Merciful. His administration of punishment would always fit the crime.
(2) You said "opposite hands and feet and all limbs are different." Can you confirm that you dont have an issue with cutting off opposite hands and feet but you have an issue with all limbs?Ayah says opposite hands/foot aka limbs under specific circumstance so no issues.
(3)If yes, what do you have an issue with, the "all" part or the "limbs" part.Ayah says opposite hand/foot
(a) If limbs, can you show where that is mentioned?
(b) If all, can you show where that is mentioned?
(4) Do you still stand by your statement that one only causes corruption by calling others to do or replicate it?So that we are on the same page, corruption defined by dictionary.com:
(5) Do you accept the narration quoted from al Kafi?Nope. Al-Kafi has plenty of false hadith. We do not consider any book sahih. Each hadith is validated on its own merit.
(6) Do you still stand by your statement that the verse does not apply to the one who steals and kills?Yes.
(7) Do you accept the narration from al Kafi?No.
(8) Do you accept that they plundered them? (How do you suppress the smilies?)The hadith I quoted states they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. Where was the plundering?
(9) Do you accept retribution as a punishment?Sure.
(10) Do you have a problem with being punished with several punishments for several crimes?I have a problem with wrong punishment for wrong crime.
Brother - did I insert "(sexual relations)" in Sahih Bukhari? No. You want me to selectively read it by ignoring everything in paranthesis?
The ayah mentioned with regards to those who fight against Allah and Muhammad is not applicable to the hadith in Bukhari because:
1) those people were not at war with Allah nor the Prophet
2) the ayah calls for either punishment A or B or C and not all of the above.
3) killing by thirst is not mentioned.
So did the Prophet misunderstand?
We are discussing problems with Bukhari. I listed 2 simple ones and then another one where Abu Huraira claims we will see Allah (might be a different thread here). There are a lot more like this.
Sorry brother - eye gouging and crucifixion are completely different. What about the killing by thirst? Also these people were not at war with Allah or the Prophet so again, does not apply.
I agree it is rubbish. Yet there it is. And no shia put it there. And that is the whole point of this discussion that not everything in Bukhari can be taken for what it is.
For limbs - refer to the post by Fahad Sani who mentions the limbs post.
Whatever Abu Qibala said is in paranthesis and just before your post, Fahad Sani said to ignroe everything in paranthesis. These people came to the Prophet so there were clearly not at war. They killed someone and should be punished as murders. Plus the ayah calls for either...or punishment and not all of the above. and of course nothing about the thirst.
Maida 33:
Indeed, the penalty for those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger and strive upon earth [to cause] corruption is none but that they be killed or crucified or that their hands and feet be cut off from opposite sides or that they be exiled from the land. That is for them a disgrace in this world; and for them in the Hereafter is a great punishment.
You did not insert that phrase in parenthesis but after having clarified the hadith for you, I thought you would have the decency to drop the matter. Wallaahi, I do not know what type of people you associate with but one of my spiritual teachers taught me early on that when a report bears the name of the Prophet [saw], the last thing you should do is mock it, even if it is weak or fabricated.Brother - I am not mocking the Prophet. All I am saying is that there are ahadith in Bukhari that are not sahih and I cited this as an example.
Also, I agree (based on facts) not everything b/w two covers of Bukhari is sahih/correct. But most of the things are correct as comapred to other hadith collections specially narrations of Prophet s.a.w.w. Bukhari and other books as well also contains personal views/opinions of Sahabah, Tabi'in and Taba Tabi'in which are based on their understanding. Which may or may not be true. Same thing applys for narrations of Ahlebait in shia books. We have to match them with Quran and Sunnah.That is all I am saying brother.
Aren't we already engaged?ShiaMan, would you like to engage in a debate?
Aren't we already engaged?ShiaMan, would you like to engage in a debate?
How old are you? Did the blue color and large font size imply something?
Sure
The Narration about the People of Ulk and their crime and their punishments. I think I see why are not all on the same page about it. There are several narrations about it.
The narration I initially quoted states, "he cut their hands and feet "
The other narrations state, "he ordered their hands and feet "
That is the issue and what I am saying is wrong about the narration. The Prophet did not himself cut the hands and feet and brand their eyes. He may have issued the edict to have this done but HE ABSOLUTELY DID NOT DO IT HIMSELF.
{Quran 21:107} And We have not sent you but as a mercy to the worlds.
The Prophet (saw) was a mercy to all the worlds. As such, he never once raised his hands or swords at anyone. Not in any war and not to punish anyone.
Even in Uhud when all the sahaba but a few deserted him, he did not resort to fighting. His mercy was such that even if his enemy would have asked for his sword, he would have given it to him. In this case, had any of the criminals begged him for clemency, he would have had to oblige since HE WAS SENT AS A MERCY.
So did the Prophet go to wars - yes
Did the Prophet have POWs executed when required - yes
Did the Prophet have people punished for their crimes - yes
Ruling the punishment and executions was Allah's justice.
Not partaking in the execution of the rulings was the Prophet's mercy.
If any of you think the Prophet carried out the maiming, I will continue this discussion. Else the matter is closed for me and I am rejected the hadith I initially quoted.
Brother - I am not mocking the Prophet. All I am saying is that there are ahadith in Bukhari that are not sahih and I cited this as an example.
You seem to be quite hung up on limb.
Dictionary.com --> Limb=a part or member of an animal body distinct from the head and trunk, as a leg, arm, or wing
so simple english lesson for you: hadith says Prophet cut of their hands and legs. summary or paraphrase = limbs. I thought you would have more to offer but I guess not. Quite common for people who have a disdain for the Prophet.
So first you have an issue with a limb chopping prophet, then you have no issue under specific circumstances. How you are able to contradict yourself in the next sentence is beyond me. Surely, you don't want to suggest that you were initially trying to say that you have an issue with a limb-chopping prophet under all circumstances?(1) Do you still stand by your first statement that you don't believe in a limb-chopping eye-gouging prophet?Yes, the Prophet while just was also Merciful. His administration of punishment would always fit the crime.(2) You said "opposite hands and feet and all limbs are different." Can you confirm that you dont have an issue with cutting off opposite hands and feet but you have an issue with all limbs?Ayah says opposite hands/foot aka limbs under specific circumstance so no issues.
Ayah says opposite hand/footThe verse says hands and feet from opposite sides because it is talking about multiple people. The narration similarly is talking about multiple people and says hands and feet.
Narration says hands and feet
So that we are on the same page, corruption defined by dictionary.com:We are talking about fasaad, not any english word.
Nope. Al-Kafi has plenty of false hadith. We do not consider any book sahih. Each hadith is validated on its own merit.
That is the issue and what I am saying is wrong about the narration. The Prophet did not himself cut the hands and feet and brand their eyes. He may have issued the edict to have this done but HE ABSOLUTELY DID NOT DO IT HIMSELF.
Great, first of all, what does my age have to do with anything? Secondly, I am ready to engage in a debate on PalTalk, go to the room called (عمر الفاروق صهر علي الكرار) in the Islamic section. What topic do you want to have a debate about? Also, I am free to use any font colour and size I want.
Obviously, Prophet s.a.w.w had ordered to punish them as per orders from ALLAH. He did not himself done this. That's why I shared all narrations about this matter. You can never understand properly by just relying on one or two narrations. You have to consider all information. If one narration does not suit you, its ok you can reject it but what about other narrations. Similarly, there are many narrations about ghadir e khumm which are terribly weak and fabrications but this done not mean event of ghadir is entirely false. You are not forced to accept each and everything from bukhari or from any other book, choice is yours. But atleast accept the facts which are in accordance to Quran. Obedience to Allah is more important than all. This punishment is in Quran. Prophet acted as per Quran. There is nothing wrong in that.That is all I am saying. The narration that states the Prophet cut off the hands and legs of those people is wrong.
You cited two and not only we explained both but also showed the same from your own texts. Before bringing more, provide a counter-rebuttal or throw in the towel (on those points) so that we can move on.Well, Brother Fahad Sani agrees with me that the narration that states the Prophet cut of hands and legs himself is not accurate. That is my point only.
If you dont know the difference between a hand and a foot (which are extremities) and an arm and a leg (which are limbs) then all hope is lost. I cant believe you provide the evidence against yourself. And the only reason you are hung up on this, is because you were caught rejecting a Quranic verse and you will throw anything at your disposal instead of admitting it.Only you would argue limbs versus extremities. I stand corrected as I was using limbs to mean hands and feet when clearly limbs are arms and legs and extremities are hands and feet.
The only person who is trying to protect the sanctity of anything is you, not the sanctity of Bukhari as you shamelessly attack that, not al Kafi as you have no problem rejecting anything that doesnt please you, not even the Prophet as you insist on having people follow a different way than him (maybe in your view he can encourage mut'ah and never do it, maybe in your view he can order killing and "maiming" but not do it himself, but for us he is a real source of emulation), no the only sanctity worth defending is the sanctity of your ego. Just so you know, a lot of the kuffaar in Mekkah didnt really disbelieve in the Prophet, it was their ego and their arrogance and stubbornness that prevented them from accepting the truth.There it is folks. If not believing that the Prophet ever physically punished someone himself makes me a kaffir, then by all means call me Kaffir #1. Now, Br. Fahad Sani also agrees with me that the Prophet never carried out the punishment himself so is he in this category too now?
Well, Brother Fahad Sani agrees with me that the narration that states the Prophet cut of hands and legs himself is not accurate. That is my point only.
There it is folks. If not believing that the Prophet ever physically punished someone himself makes me a kaffir, then by all means call me Kaffir #1. Now, Br. Fahad Sani also agrees with me that the Prophet never carried out the punishment himself so is he in this category too now?
Only you would argue limbs versus extremities. I stand corrected as I was using limbs to mean hands and feet when clearly limbs are arms and legs and extremities are hands and feet.
After having said that, nothing changes in our discussion since the Prophet did not and could not cut off anyone's hands, feet, arms, legs other limbs, extremities or appendages.
Sure they killed the shepherd - the punishment of which is death, not maiming and eye-gouging.Here you were discussing what is appropriate, not whether or not it was the Prophet who did it. If it was about the person, you shouldnt even bring up this.
These people were not at war with the Prophet and hence this would not be applicable to them.
Appropriate punishment for the crime behooves the Prophet.Here again you are talking about what is appropriate as if the punishment wasnt appropriate. And by the way also contradicting directly what you last said, here you apparently admit that the Prophet can punish other people as long as it is approprate unlike your last statement that the Prophet would never punish.
eye gouging and crucifixion are completely different. What about the killing by thirst? Also these people were not at war with Allah or the Prophet so again, does not apply.Here again you are discussing what is applicable, not what is merciful.
These people came to the Prophet so there were clearly not at war. They killed someone and should be punished as murders. Plus the ayah calls for either...or punishment and not all of the above. and of course nothing about the thirst.Again not a single word about who did it and how merciless it is, just what is applicable and just.
Yes, the Prophet while just was also Merciful. His administration of punishment would always fit the crime.Here you literally say his administration, not the person which further shatters your excuse that it was about the Prophet and that you were objecting to whether "it fits the crime" or not.
Here again about what is applicable not what is merciful.(6) Do you still stand by your statement that the verse does not apply to the one who steals and kills?Yes.
I have a problem with wrong punishment for wrong crime.Here again you are contradicting yourself. You literally say "You may believe the Prophet capable of this things but not me" after you just said that it's ok if their hands are cut off their eyes are gouged out and that they are killed, you just had a problem with the feet and the thirst.
They stole - cut off their hands but why their legs?
They gouged his eyes - gouge back
They killed him - kill them
Still don't know why their legs were chopped and why they were not given water and killed while thirsty.
You may believe the Prophet capable of this things but not me.
The Prophet (saw) was a mercy to all the worlds. As such, he never once raised his hands or swords at anyone. Not in any war and not to punish anyone.
Brother, narration is authentic but words were not properly used by the narrator in that particular narration. It happen when you narrate something to others. Some narrators narrate few things while others elaborate. You have to first consider all narrations then make any conclusion. As it is evident from other related narrations that Prophet ordered to punish them but did not carried the punishment himself. Its very clear and no one is saying that Prophet himself cut of hands and feet. Main point is that the incident is authentic and as per teachings of Quran. There is nothing wrong in that.But GreatChineseFall is insisting that the Prophet did cut of the "extremities". I am in agreement that the narrations that state "he ordered" are correct and the one that says "he cut off..." is inaccurate.
As usual terrible reading, where did I bring up kufr? I said you resemble the kuffaar in their stubbornness. It's obvious to everyone that when you chose to attack Bukhari for one of his narrations you didnt think of the verse or the shia narrations, but once they were shown to you instead of admitting your mistake, which is what a truth seeking person would do, you come with excuses one more ridiculous and pathetic than the other and at the same time contradicting each other. That is pure stubbornness, it is not a truth seeking mentality.Right because only kuffar are stubborn.
But let me cut this short very quickly. I have two questions for you:1) While Allah is surely Rahman and Raheem, He is also Hakam (Judge), Adl (Just), Hasib (Bringer of Judgement), Mumit (Bringer of Death), Muntaqim (Avenger), Darr (Afflictor). The ayah is about those who fight against Allah and the Prophet and what punishment that are to receive for it. It is devoid of mercy but that does not mean Allah is devoid of mercy or the Prophet is devoid of it.
(1) Are you saying that the verse I quoted is devoid of any mercy?
(2) You consider a person being merciful if he doesnt do a merciless act himself but ORDERS(not adviced, not suggested, not inspired, no ORDERED) other people to do that for him? For example, if a president of a country doesnt kill anyone himself but orders his military to bomb innocent children and women, he still might be a merciful guy to you? This definitely would explain a lot.
Or do you think Yazid, if he didnt kill Hussain himself, just ordered it was being merciful?
Now as for the other narration about visiting the 9 wives on the same night for sexual pleasures, I would concede defeat if were not for these other narrations:
Narrated Qatada:
Anas bin Malik said, "The Prophet (ﷺ) used to visit all his wives in a round, during the day and night and they were eleven in number." I asked Anas, "Had the Prophet (ﷺ) the strength for it?" Anas replied, "We used to say that the Prophet (ﷺ) was given the strength of thirty (men)." And Sa`id said on the authority of Qatada that Anas had told him about nine wives only (not eleven).
Chapter: Having sexual intercourse and repeating it. And engaging with one's own wives and taking a single bath (after doing so)
Sahih al-Bukhari
Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 268
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet (ﷺ) used to visit all his wives in one night and he had nine wives at that time.
Chapter: A Junub person) can go out and walk in the market or anywhere else
Sahih al-Bukhari
Vol. 1, Book 5, Hadith 282
Narrated Anas bin Malik:
The Prophet (ﷺ) used to pass by (have sexual relation with) all his wives in one night, and at that time he had nine wives.
Chapter: Whoever had sexual intercourse with all his wives and then took one bath only
Sahih al-Bukhari
Vol. 7, Book 62, Hadith 142
But then as a clarification, we find more absurdity:
Narrated Aisha:
Magic was worked on Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) so that he used to think that he had sexual relations with his wives while he actually had not (Sufyan said: That is the hardest kind of magic as it has such an effect). Then one day he said, "O `Aisha do you know that Allah has instructed me concerning the matter I asked Him about? Two men came to me and one of them sat near my head and the other sat near my feet. The one near my head asked the other. What is wrong with this man?' The latter replied the is under the effect of magic The first one asked, Who has worked magic on him?' The other replied Labid bin Al-A'sam, a man from Bani Zuraiq who was an ally of the Jews and was a hypocrite.' The first one asked, What material did he use)?' The other replied, 'A comb and the hair stuck to it.' The first one asked, 'Where (is that)?' The other replied. 'In a skin of pollen of a male date palm tree kept under a stone in the well of Dharwan' '' So the Prophet (ﷺ) went to that well and took out those things and said "That was the well which was shown to me (in a dream) Its water looked like the infusion of Henna leaves and its date-palm trees looked like the heads of devils." The Prophet (ﷺ) added, "Then that thing was taken out' I said (to the Prophet (ﷺ) ) "Why do you not treat yourself with Nashra?" He said, "Allah has cured me; I dislike to let evil spread among my people."
Sahih al-Bukhari
Vol. 7, Book 71, Hadith 660
Right because only kuffar are stubborn.
I have been saying all along that the Prophet would not do such a thing. For you imply that I am being stubborn may have been correct had I not known about the punishments ordered by the Prophet after wars and specifically after the Banu Qurayza incident. This event happened after all those incidents towards the tail end of the Prophet's life.
Perhaps my mistake was that I only highlighted the "he cut" narration when I should have quoted the "he ordered" narration and shown them to be different. But I am sure you would have found some syntax/linguistic/grammatical/etc argument to get around the crux of the matter.
Thanks for quoting me from beginning to end. I was going to do the same. The discussion started off with me saying the Prophet did not "cut" off someone's limbs (extremities since I have been corrected). Then we digressed into comparing the incident with the ayah and how close (or not) they were related. Then I ended with the Islam allows eye4eye punishment so cutting of their hands if that is what they did is ok, same goes for legs, eyes, etc. I was highlighting the differences between the ayah and the narrations of the incident.
Of course, I said the Prophet was fair in his administration of the punishment of the crime. I did not say in his execution of the crime so pardon me for assuming that even the most basic Muslims knows the Prophet issued the verdicts but the execution of the verdict was carried out by Muslims.
All you have done in successfully showing is that you will dance and run around in circles rather than get to the main issue at hand - did the Prophet cut off their 'extremities' or not?
These people were not at war with the Prophet and hence this would not be applicable to them.
(6) Do you still stand by your statement that the verse does not apply to the one who steals and kills?Yes.
Even though there is a clear edict to never mutilate the body of anyone including dogs, but this is in Sahih Bukhari so it must be right. What happened to the Rehmat-al-alameen?
1) While Allah is surely Rahman and Raheem, He is also Hakam (Judge), Adl (Just), Hasib (Bringer of Judgement), Mumit (Bringer of Death), Muntaqim (Avenger), Darr (Afflictor). The ayah is about those who fight against Allah and the Prophet and what punishment that are to receive for it. It is devoid of mercy but that does not mean Allah is devoid of mercy or the Prophet is devoid of it.
2) Yazid's example is not applicable simly because Imam Hussain had committed no crime. The Prophet was merciful to the family of the victims and at the same time Just to the criminals.
I have a problem with wrong punishment for wrong crime.
May Allah curse me, ShiaMan, if I even for a split second in this discussion about this narration tried to argue that the punishment was not legitimate regardless of the punisher.
I am quite shocked that you openly lie and curse yourself, but as I said, I will have nothing to stand on if you do curse yourself. May Allah indeed curse you if you lied.Wait you to say,
I am quite shocked that you openly lie and curse yourself, but as I said, I will have nothing to stand on if you do curse yourself. May Allah indeed curse you if you lied.Wait you to say,
"May Allah curse everyone who thinks the Prophet carried out the punishment himself;
May Allah curse anyone who wrote/said/narrated this hadith alluding to the Prophet cutting of someone's hands and feet himself."
The oath that is Harām under all circumstances
The oath which is Harām under all circmstances and which one can never take is that of dissociating with Allah (S.w.T.) and His religion. For example a man says;
“If I do not perform this particular action, I shall be dissociated with Allah (S.w.T.) and His religion.” Such an oath is certainly Harām.
In the same way if one says:
“If I do not do this, I would have disbelieved in the Holy Prophet (S), or I would have rejected the Mastership of ‘Ali (a.s.), or I would become a disbeliever.” Such a vow is also Harām. It is Harām whether one wishes to prove the truth or to lay emphasis upon a fact.
The Holy Prophet (S) heard a person taking such an oath. He (S) said, “Woe be unto you, if you leave the religion of Muhammad (S) then which religion would you follow?”
The narrator says that the Holy Prophet (S) did not speak to this man till the end of his life.15
Imam Ja’far as-Sadiq (a.s.) informed Yūnus Ibn Zabyan:
“O Yūnus! Do not speak about dissociating from us in an oath. One who takes oath from it, whether for a true thing or a falsehood, he really becomes dissociated from us.”16
I am quite shocked that you openly lie and curse yourself, but as I said, I will have nothing to stand on if you do curse yourself. May Allah indeed curse you if you lied.Wait you to say,
"May Allah curse everyone who thinks the Prophet carried out the punishment himself;
May Allah curse anyone who wrote/said/narrated this hadith alluding to the Prophet cutting of someone's hands and feet himself."
I never asked you to curse other people, if you want to play that game, you first:
I, ShiaMan, do not believe that the Prophet ordered the punishment as a result of the quoted verse, may Allah curse him if he did do that as a result of that verse, as he would disprove his prophethood and I would renounce my faith
Assalam O Alaikum,
I am sure there must be a response on all the objections raised by shias on some narrations of Sahih Bukhari.
plz share with me pdf file of such response, if you have that.
Jazak Allah.
Are you saying that Allah would curse the Prophet?
Way to avoid incriminating yourself by putting it on the Prophet.
69:44If you are so certain about your stance that the Prophet could have never ever ordered this punishment in this specific case as a result of that verse, then he will NOT be cursed because the condition is not fulfilled. And he will not be cursed in any case, just your invocation of a curse will be recorded. Same if you say "if the one I know as al Mahdi was really Shaytan in disguise and caused nothing but corruption on earth, then may Allah curse him"
Sahih International
And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,
Sahih International
We would have seized him by the right hand;
Sahih International
Then We would have cut from him the aorta.
Are you saying that Allah would curse the Prophet?
Way to avoid incriminating yourself by putting it on the Prophet.
First of all, I am asking you to say it, I didnt say anything
Second of all, you might want to read up on what a conditional statement is:Quote69:44If you are so certain about your stance that the Prophet could have never ever ordered this punishment in this specific case as a result of that verse, then he will NOT be cursed because the condition is not fulfilled. And he will not be cursed in any case, just your invocation of a curse will be recorded. Same if you say "if the one I know as al Mahdi was really Shaytan in disguise and caused nothing but corruption on earth, then may Allah curse him"
Sahih International
And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings,
Sahih International
We would have seized him by the right hand;
Sahih International
Then We would have cut from him the aorta.
The invocation of the curse only follows if the condition applies, if you are certain about the condition not being true then it should not be a problem for you. Keep backpeddling but you have brought this on yourself.
The whole discussion has been about the Prophet chopping peoples 'extremities' himself or others doing it. Bukhari said the Prophet did it himself bu there are other narrations from Bukhari and others that clearly state others did it.
That was the discussion. You brought up verses and other narrations, etc.
To you, the alleged lover and follower of the Sunnah of Muhammad "And if Muhammad had made up about Us some [false] sayings" is possible.Good so if its not possible for you, such a conditional statement will never take effect, so you can say it. Keep backpeddling
To us shias, the lovers of Muhammad (saw) a conditional statement where the Prophet may make up something false IS NOT POSSIBLE!
But I will not do tafkir on you. People on this group who claim to 'love the Prophet' are so good at tafkir so I will let them decide.
The whole discussion has been about the Prophet chopping peoples 'extremities' himself or others doing it. Bukhari said the Prophet did it himself bu there are other narrations from Bukhari and others that clearly state others did it.
The whole discussion has been about the Prophet chopping peoples 'extremities' himself or others doing it. Bukhari said the Prophet did it himself bu there are other narrations from Bukhari and others that clearly state others did it.read this thread brother from the beginning.
Could you show us the hadiths in Bukhari (and other sahih hadiths as well) that clearly state others did it.
The whole discussion has been about the Prophet chopping peoples 'extremities' himself or others doing it. Bukhari said the Prophet did it himself but there are other narrations from Bukhari and others that clearly state others did it.read this thread brother from the beginning.
Could you show us the hadiths in Bukhari (and other sahih hadiths as well) that clearly state others did it.
The Prophet was sent as a mercy to mankind. We do not believe in a limb-chopping, eye-gouging Prophet.
Narrated Anas:
The climate of Medina did not suit some people, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to follow his shepherd, i.e. his camels, and drink their milk and urine (as a medicine). So they followed the shepherd that is the camels and drank their milk and urine till their bodies became healthy. Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. When the news reached the Prophet (ﷺ) he sent some people in their pursuit. When they were brought, he cut their hands and feet and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron.
Sahih al-Bukhari
Book 76, Hadith 9
Perhaps this is what ISIS and Taliban use to justify their violent behavior.
errr, were those people causing corruption? Also opposite hands and feet and all limbs are different. What about eyes & iron-branding them?
Your true colors are that you would rather protect the sanctity of Bukhari than the Prophet.
Point is IF people cause corruption in the lands then Islam gives the authorities the right to:
1. CUT OFF their legs and arms!
2. To crucify them
That's ISIS like enough to the kuffar whom you desperate Rafidis try to impress by attacking Bukhari not realising that there are barely any differences between the verse and the hadith (something the kuffar even figured out). You think iron-branding makes any difference? Ok, from now on go to any kafir and everybody else for that matter and proudly say:
I am a Rafidi, not an extremist Sunni-Wahhabi who is driven by the evil Bukhari and its leg chopping and Iron-branding narrations. I DO not condone Iron-branding, I am not a savage after all, I only condone - based on the Qur'an - the CUTTING OF limbs (alternative legs and hands), and CRUCIFIXION for people who do Muharibah. You know that punishment in which the victim is tied or nailed to a large wooden beam and left to hang for several days until eventual death from exhaustion and asphyxiation, it's a form of punishment in Saudi Wahhabia you know. But Imam Zaman (3aj3aj) forbid that I believe in barbaric narrations that report incidents such as iron-branding, that's Bukhari dude, we Shias don't believe in these lies.