Need full response about shia objections on Bukhari

[fgss]

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.

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?

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.

[fgss]

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

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.

Blame is on the person who added such words not on bukhari.

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

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.

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 answer:

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?

Getting really really desperate, yes they were at war, do you need a declaration of war?

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").

Start answering some questions and reveal your disbelief even further

[fgss]

When you isolate any single narration or verse of Quran you will never understand properly. In order to clearly understand the matter you have to read all related narrations or verses of Quran about the matter under study.

Here are related ahadith to the hadith under question i.e of Bukhari, Book 76 Medicine, Hadith 9. All these are narrated by Anas bin Malik r.a.

Chapter 15:
The chapter of those who wage war from the people who are disbelievers and those turned renegades.

Narrated Anas:

Some people from the tribe of `Ukl came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and embraced Islam. The climate of Medina did not suit them, so the Prophet (ﷺ) ordered them to go to the (herd of milch) camels of charity and to drink, their milk and urine (as a medicine). They did so, and after they had recovered from their ailment (became healthy) they turned renegades (reverted from Islam) and killed the shepherd of the camels and took the camels away. The Prophet (ﷺ) sent (some people) in their pursuit and so they were (caught and) brought, and the Prophets ordered that their hands and legs should be cut off and that their eyes should be branded with heated pieces of iron, and that their cut hands and legs should not be cauterized, till they die.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6802, Book 86, Hadith 32.

Chapter (16):
The Prophet (saws) did not cauterize those who fought and of those who were renegades

Narrated Anas:

The Prophet (ﷺ) cut off the hands and feet of the men belonging to the tribe of `Uraina and did not cauterise (their bleeding limbs) till they died.

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6803, Book 86, Hadith 33

Chapter (17):
No water was given to those turned renegades and fought, till they died

Narrated Anas:

A group of people from `Ukl (tribe) came to the Prophet (ﷺ) and they were living with the people of As- Suffa, but they became ill as the climate of Medina did not suit them, so they said, "O Allah's Messenger (ﷺ)! Provide us with milk." The Prophet (ﷺ) said, I see no other way for you than to use the camels of Allah's Apostle." So they went and drank the milk and urine of the camels, (as medicine) and became healthy and fat. Then they killed the shepherd and took the camels away. When a help-seeker came to Allah's Apostle, he sent some men in their pursuit, and they were captured and brought before mid day. The Prophet ordered for some iron pieces to be made red hot, and their eyes were branded with them and their hands and feet were cut off and were not cauterized. Then they were put at a place called Al- Harra, and when they asked for water to drink they were not given till they died. (Abu Qilaba said, "Those people committed theft and murder and fought against Allah and His Apostle.")

Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6804, Book 86, Hadith 34

Chapter (18):
The Prophet (saws) branded the eyes of those who fought

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").
‏
Reference: Sahih al-Bukhari 6805, Book 86, Hadith 35

Chapter (2): The ruling on Muharibin and Apostates


Anas reported:
Eight men of the tribe of 'Ukl came to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and swore allegiance to him on Islam, but found the climate of that land uncogenial to their health and thus they became sick, and they made complaint of that to Allah's Messenger (ﷺ), and he said: Why don't you go to (the fold) of our camels along with our shepherd, and make use of their milk and urine. They said: Yes. They set out and drank their (camels') milk and urine and regained their health. They killed the shepherd and drove away the camels. This (news) reached Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and he sent them on their track and they were caught and brought to him (the Holy Prophet). He commanded about them, and (thus) their hands and feet were cut off and their eyes were gouged and then they were thrown in the sun, until they died. This hadith has been narrated on the authority of Ibn al-Sabbah with a slight variation of words.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1671 b, Book 28, Hadith 13

Anas reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) pierced their eyes because they had pierced the eyes of the shepherds.

Reference: Sahih Muslim 1671 h, Book 28, Hadith 19

And the punishments given to them were as per order of Allah.

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.

[muslim720]

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.

[ShiaMan]

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 - 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Blame is on the person who added such words not on bukhari.

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.

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.

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 answer:

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?

Getting really really desperate, yes they were at war, do you need a declaration of war?

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").

Start answering some questions and reveal your disbelief even further

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.

[ShiaMan]

@GreatChineseFall - what questions do you have???

[GreatChineseFall]

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???

You complained about the narration in Bukhari and that you don't believe in a limb-chopping eye-gouging prophet. Then after you were shown wrong by a Quranic verse you tried to save face and claimed that "opposite hands and feet and all limbs are different." So my first questions are:

(1) Do you still stand by your first statement that you don't believe in a limb-chopping eye-gouging prophet?
(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?
(3)If yes, what do you have an issue with, the "all" part or the "limbs" part.
    (a) If limbs, can you show where that is mentioned?
    (b) If all, can you show where that is mentioned?

You then tried to save face by claiming that they weren't causing corruption and the verse doesn't apply stating that they weren't causing corruption by saying that "they committed a crime but were not calling for others to do it or replicate their actions so they were not causing corruption". Then I showed you another time wrong by showing a shia narration that indeed the incident happened. So my other questions are:

(4) Do you still stand by your statement that one only causes corruption by calling others to do or replicate it?
(5) Do you accept the narration quoted from al Kafi?

Then you tried to say that they weren't at war so the verse doesn't apply to them anyway. So I will give you another narration from al Kafi:

‘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’.

(6) Do you still stand by your statement that the verse does not apply to the one who steals and kills?
(7) Do you accept the narration from al Kafi?
( Do you accept that they plundered them? (How do you suppress the smilies?)

Then you started about eye-gouging and thirst etc. and my final question for now is:

(9) Do you accept retribution as a punishment?
(10) Do you have a problem with being punished with several punishments for several crimes?

[ShiaMan]

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.

(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.
    (a) If limbs, can you show where that is mentioned?
    (b) If all, can you show where that is mentioned?

Ayah says opposite hand/foot
Narration says hands and feet

(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:
1.
the act of corrupting or state of being corrupt.
2.
moral perversion; depravity.
3.
perversion of integrity.
4.
corrupt or dishonest proceedings.
5.
bribery.
6.
debasement or alteration, as of language or a text.
7.
a debased form of a word.
8.
putrefactive decay; rottenness.
9.
any corrupting influence or agency.

They didnt do any of the above.

(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.

( 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.
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.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Now my turn:
Did the ayah come first or this incident happen first (if they are related)?

If the incident happened first and then the ayah was sent, was the aah sent as a correction to the Prophet meaning he made a mistake?

If the ayah came first, then did the Prophet not see it fit to follow Allah's commands exactly and only punish them with 1 punishment?

I get it - you are trying your best to safeguard the sanctity of Bukhari at the expense of the Prophet.

[muslim720]

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.

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.

Do you not realize that while the same narration is in your books that those people used the camels to replenish themselves and then squandered them?  As I always tell Shias, our methodology to understand a scenario is to collect all the authentic reports pertaining to it and then making a judgment.  If you read other narrations regarding this incident, found in the same Sahih Bukhari, you will realize that these camels (set free to run amok) were given as Zakat.  Furthermore, these men committed murder and became disbelievers.

Narrated Anas bin Malik:  A group of eight men from the tribe of 'Ukil came to the Prophet and then they found the climate of Medina unsuitable for them.  So, they said, "O Allah's Apostle! Provide us with some milk."  Allah's Apostle said, "I recommend that you should join the herd of camels."  So they went and drank the urine and the milk of the camels (as a medicine) till they became healthy and fat.  Then they killed the shepherd and drove away the camels, and they became unbelievers after they were Muslims.  When the Prophet was informed by a shouter for help, he sent some men in their pursuit, and before the sun rose high, they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut off.  Then he ordered for nails which were heated and passed over their eyes, and whey were left in the Harra (i.e. rocky land in Medina).  They asked for water, and nobody provided them with water till they died (Abu Qilaba, a sub-narrator said, "They committed murder and theft and fought against Allah and His Apostle, and spread evil in the land.") (Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 52, Number 261)

Narrated Anas:  Some people from 'Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, so Allah's Apostle allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine) but they killed the shepherd and drove away all the camels. So Allah's Apostle sent (men) in their pursuit to catch them, and they were brought, and he had their hands and feet cut, and their eyes were branded with heated pieces of iron and they were left in the Harra (a stony place at Medina) biting the stones. (Sahih Bukhari, volume 1, #234)

How much more corruption do you need?  And what do you understand of murder in return for mercy (of providing someone replenishment)?  But of course, if it is in Sahih Bukhari, you will go to extreme lengths to try to disprove it.

To shatter your final point, the reason why those things were done to them was because the Prophet [saw] found out that those Bedouins did the same exact thing to the shepherd. 

"The Prophet [saw] branded their eyes because they had branded the eyes of the herdsmen". (Al-Muntaqaa by Ibn al-Jarood, volume 1, Pg. 216)

And before you do a Sam Shamoun (from Answering Islam), let me assure you that the verse (Qur'an 5:33-34) was revealed after this incident.  In other words, this incident occurred before the revelation of the verses so it followed the rules of qisas.

http://www.answering-christianity.com/bassam_zawadi/counter_rebuttal_to_people_of_ukl.htm

PS - line 'em up, we will go through them all in an afternoon and leave nothing for your madhhab to hide behind by evening, lol!

[fgss]

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.

Brother I think you have missed some narrations. Everything is clearly mentioned there. Consider all narrations on this matter.

WHY EYE GOUGING? Because they did the same with shepherd.
Anas reported that Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) pierced their eyes because they had pierced the eyes of the shepherds. Sahih Muslim 1671 h, Book 28, Hadith 19.

WHY THIRST?
All sort of punishments given to those people were as per order of ALLAH. Not giving water is a kind of torture, which is also Crucifixion. (Different meanings of crucify, Visit, http://www.dictionary.com/browse/crucify)

those people were actually at war with Allah and Prophet so the penality applys to them correctly. Reverting back to disbelief after accepting Islam is also like declaring war agaisnt Allah and Prophet.

(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"). Sahih al-Bukhari 6805, Book 86, Hadith 35.

And Abu Qilaba is one of the narrator of Hadith, who is narrating from Sahabi Anas bin Malik directly.

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.

Neither any shia nor Imam Bukhari had put those words. It's the translater who did this. As those words in parenthesis are not part of original hadith in arabic. And no one is bound to accept such addition.

حَدَّثَنَا مُسَدَّدٌ، حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ زُرَيْعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ ـ رضى الله عنه ـ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صلى الله عليه وسلم كَانَ يَطُوفُ عَلَى نِسَائِهِ فِي لَيْلَةٍ وَاحِدَةٍ، وَلَهُ تِسْعُ نِسْوَةٍ‏.‏ وَقَالَ لِي خَلِيفَةُ حَدَّثَنَا يَزِيدُ بْنُ زُرَيْعٍ، حَدَّثَنَا سَعِيدٌ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ، أَنَّ أَنَسًا، حَدَّثَهُمْ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم‏.‏

While such words are in narration of AL-KAFI and declared sahih by Baqir Majlisi.

Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Ahmad ibn Muhammad from Ali ibn al-Hakam from Hisham ibn Salim who has said the following: “Abu ‘Abd Allah(as) said:.. At dawn Jibril descended with a dish of mashed meat and wheat from paradise and said, ‘O Muhammad, this is made for you by al-Hur al-‘In. You can eat it with Ali and his children; it is not proper that people other than you eat it.’ The Messenger of Allah, Ali, Fatimah, al-Hassan and al-Husayn ate it (the food that Jibril had brought from paradise) and it gave the Messenger of Allah the ability in matters of going to bed with his wives which was equal to that of forty men, thus he (the Messenger of Allah) could go to bed with all of his wives in one night if he so wanted.’”
(Al-Kafi: H 10221, Ch. 190, h 41 ; Majlisi said: Sahih in Miraat ul Uqool 20/422)

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.

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.

Dear Brother, I never said to ignore everything in paranthesis. I said this only for narration concerning visiting wives. because those words are not part of original hadith in arabic. While words of Abu Qibala (who is narrator of the hadith) are part of hadith in arabic. Ignoring/rejecting words in parenthesis is not based on my personal choice but on facts. We have to accept the facts regardless of whether we like or not.

Arabic wording of hadith:

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.‏

[Abu Jasim Al-Salafi]

ShiaMan, would you like to engage in a debate?

[ShiaMan]

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.
Do you know in Bukhari there are more versions of this hadith without "()". Then there is a hadith that says the Prophet was under a magic spell and believed he slept with all his wives and someone had to break those spells.
Do you believe this? How can you believe this?

So either you say Bukhari is not sahih meaning everything is correct in it OR you say yes the Prophet's (saw) sexual prowess stories are correct.

So that I do not offend anyone, I am only providing links to these hadith. It is up to you to reject them or accept them:
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/5/21
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/67/148
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/76/79
http://sunnah.com/bukhari/78/93

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.

[ShiaMan]

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.

[ShiaMan]

ShiaMan, would you like to engage in a debate?

Aren't we already engaged?

How old are you? Did the blue color and large font size imply something?

Sure

[Abu Jasim Al-Salafi]

ShiaMan, would you like to engage in a debate?

Aren't we already engaged?

How old are you? Did the blue color and large font size imply something?

Sure

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.

[fgss]

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.

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.

[muslim720]

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 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.

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

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.

(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.

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?

Ayah says opposite hand/foot
Narration says hands and feet

The 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.

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.

And there we have it, the go to excuse of every shia when he is cornered. I didnt ask you about the book, I asked you about the narration and reasons for accepting or rejecting it. As far as your excuse goes, then I too am a shia. I too believe al Kafi has plenty of false ahadith. I too believe we must use our common sense to reject the most ridiculous narrations from it.

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.

Yet you rejected the narrations from al Kafi before without any consideration. Cut the act for a second, as I said, everyone knows that you just rejected a Quranic verse. The most mature way of handling it would be admitting your mistake but you chose to throw anything at your disposal, from discussing definitions of words, to counting hands and feet (I cant believe you seriously wanted to say that you have no issue with one hand and one foot, but have an issue with both hands and feet as if there is a fundamental difference !!!), to discussing whether armed robbery is fasaad or not.

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.

[ShiaMan]

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.

I just thought it was funny that somehow the big bold blue font is supposed to mean or imply something. if you are 10 years old, I get it. If you are 50, I would say how immature and foolish.

I am not sure what PalTalk is. How we engage in dialogue on TwelverShia.Net. They are looking for ways to boost viewership.

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.

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

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.
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.

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?

But there is no real surprise here since you spent days trying to convince me that the Prophet made mistakes. perhaps he forgot he was a mercy to the Worlds and happily chopped away at someone's limbs...I mean extremities.

PS. Only exception is Ubayy bin Khalaf who may or may not have been killed by the Prophet at Uhud.