Need full response about shia objections on Bukhari

[fgss]

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.

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.

[GreatChineseFall]

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?

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.

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.

Give it up man, nobody believes you. After having employed anything at your disposal to save face, you now try it with the whole "I dont believe the Prophet did such a thing". Unfortunately for you, what you wrote earlier stands as proof against your new excuse, so let's see how the discussion went and what you said:

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.

Here again, you were attacking what is applicable or not, not discussing who did what.

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.

(6) Do you still stand by your statement that the verse does not apply to the one who steals and kills?

Yes.

Here again about what is applicable not what is merciful.

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.

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.


Then you make this 180 and say:

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.

But let me cut this short very quickly. I have two questions for you:
(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?

[ShiaMan]

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.
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?

But let me cut this short very quickly. I have two questions for you:
(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?

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.

Once again, you want to hung up on technicalities so I will keep it simple for you as well.

My 2 questions:
Did the Prophet himself directly cut off an extremity (at least one) of any of those criminals?
Can the Prophet be put under a magic spell?

[muslim720]

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

One narration, all from Anas bin Malik [ra], repeated - even the one already refuted with the words "have sexual relation with" inserted in it - regurgitated to paint a certain picture of our narrations when similar narrations exist in your own books.

The details of his visit are found in this narration: Urwa reported on the authority of his father:
‘Aisha said: "O my nephew, the Messenger of Allah (pbuh) did not prefer one of us to other in respect of his division of time of his staying with us.  It was very rare that he did not visit any of us any day.  He would come near each of his wives without having any intercourse with her until he reached the one who had her day (i.e. her turn) and passed his night with her...." (Sunan Abū Dawūd Hadīth 2135) 

The same narration can be found in Musnad Ahmad (No. 23621), Baihaqi's Sunan Al-Kubra (No. 13434, 14754) and Mustadrak Al-Hakim (No. 2710).

Finally, it is also found in Sunan Darqutni (No.3781) too with more explicit wording.  Imam Shaukani [rah] has taken the hadith on same account.  He writes, "Similarly it is allowed for the husband to enter upon the wife [even if, it being] without her turn [to spend night with] and to come closer to her and touch her except the intercourse as in the Hadith of Aisha mentioned above."

Other than the phrase that the Prophet [saw] had the "strength of thirty men", nothing in these narrations suggest that he used to have sexual relations with all of them in one night.  That phrase, that the Prophet [saw] had the "strength of thirty men", are the words of a Companion [ra].  I would take Aisha's [ra] words over the words of a Companion [ra] - when it comes to intimate relations between the Prophet [saw] and his wives [ra] - since she was someone who would be visited.  The words of the wives [ra] of the Prophet [saw] take precedence over the words of a Companion [ra] when it comes to details about intimacy.

[muslim720]

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

With regards to this narration, I had to do some research and even reach out to my teacher to get a better grasp before typing a response.

In one place I read that this narration does not enjoy the "multiplicity of chains of transmission that inspire a great deal of confidence in its historicity".  The author was leaning more on the side of this being a weak or fabricated report.  We know that while Sahih Bukhari is the most authentic book after the Qur'an, it is not entirely infallible.

The second point is that the Prophet [saw] would think he did something when he did not.  Was the matter related to religion or transmitting the deen?  No!  It was only limited to his marital affairs.  Therefore, to extrapolate this narration to insinuate that he [saw] was having a lapse when it came to the religion is nothing short of committing a fallacy.  Not to forget, the Prophet [saw] was infallible, especially when it came to passing on the Divine Revelation.

The third point, an extension of the second point, is that the Prophet [saw] himself recognized that something was off (for the lack of a better term), clearly indicating that the magic spell was indeed very weak and short-lived.  It happened and the Prophet [saw] noticed that something was not adding up.  Not only did he [saw] realize that there was a problem (you will realize this if you read other reports of the same account) but it was Allah [swt] who informed him of the situation and guided him to the cure.  This re-emphasizes what I said (that the matter was limited to his marital affairs only, not religious obligation) and it also proves that the spell did not affect his direct connection with Allah [swt].  It did not remove him or distance him from Allah [swt].

Is it problematic for a prophet [asws] to be affected by magic?  The Qur'an provides us the answer: "Then behold! Their ropes and sticks, through their magic, appeared to him as though they moved fast.  So Moses conceived fear in him.  But We said, “Fear not! Surely, you will have upper hand.  And throw what is in your right hand.  It will swallow what they have fabricated.  What they have fabricated is only a magician’s trick, and magician never succeeds no matter where his reach" (Qur'an 20:66-69)

The last point I wish to make (something my teacher shared with me) is a build-up upon the previous point.  This type of magic or "betwitchment" is understood as the one when someone plays a card trick on you or creates an optical illusion (like in the case of Musa [asws] where ropes were made to appear and move as snakes).  Your eyes play a trick on you until you quickly realize the farce.  Black magic exists but contrary to popular belief, it is quite weak.  The confusion arises - and the reason why people take exception against this narration - is due to the fact that they think that magic is super powerful and long-lasting which it is not.  No where does the narration suggest the long-lasting effect of this episode nor does it say anything regarding the seriousness of the spell except that the Prophet [saw] thought he had done something which he had not (and that too, it was limited to his marital affair, not religious).

[GreatChineseFall]

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?

Whatever floats your boat, so you still insist that the verse is not applicable?

"even the most basic Muslims knows the Prophet issued the verdicts but the execution of the verdict was carried out by Muslims." So why did you question the narration by rejecting that the verse does not apply?

"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."

Right right, well unfortunately for you, feet were not cut off as retribution but as application of the verse which you questioned remember?

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?

I am sure you are talking about an edict only for the Prophet saws(which one btw?) and not for all muslims.

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.

Going off-tangent as usual, how is one more merciful by not doing it himself.
" The Prophet was merciful to the family of the victims and at the same time Just to the criminals." So if the Prophet did it himself, he was NOT merciful to the families?? What are you even talking about?

And last but not least:

I have a problem with wrong punishment for wrong crime.

As I said, you dont care about the sanctity of Bukhari or al Kafi or the Prophet, all you care about is the sanctity of your ego. Wallahi, your deception is so obvious, I can't even believe you think you can pull this off. People like you who have no shame in propagating something they themselves do not believe, are also the hardest to discuss with despite their potential ignorance. But I know how to deal with your kind if you only have an atom of fear for Allah. Forget about everything I said, simply repeat this sentence:

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.

Let's see who is more truthful, you or Imam al Bukhari.

[ShiaMan]

Our discussion continued on ShiaChat http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235039824-bukhari/?page=4#comment-2937373

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.

And now for 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.

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

[ShiaMan]

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."

[GreatChineseFall]

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

And before you try to be smart this time, let me quote you a very important narration:

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

[ShiaMan]

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

Are you saying that Allah would curse the Prophet?

Way to avoid incriminating yourself by putting it on the Prophet.

How come no one is calling for kufr fatwa for what GreatChineseFall has said.

[MuslimK]

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.

Walaikum Salam,

Check this link - Response to a Shia website (answering-ansar now ShiaPen):
http://forum.twelvershia.net/general-sunni-vs-shia/'unacceptable-repulsive'-narrations-in-bukharimuslim-answering-shia-website/msg2455/#msg2455

[GreatChineseFall]

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:

69:44
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.

If 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"
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.

[ShiaMan]

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:

69:44
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.

If 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"
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.
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.

[GreatChineseFall]

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.

You can try as hard as you want but you know it wasnt like that. You attack a narration from Bukhari where extremities are cut off. I bring you a verse and ask you to be consistent, now if you were truthful about what you claim here the expected response would be something like:
"That is a verse talking about punishment that could be done by anyone, this narration talks about the Prophet, that's what I am having trouble with" Instead you came with your "errr, were those people causing corruption? Also opposite hands and feet and all limbs are different. What about eyes & iron-branding them?"

And you still didnt show the "edict to never mutilate" apparently applicable to only the Prophet. Can you show me this "edit"? I am still waiting

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.
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.

Good so if its not possible for you, such a conditional statement will never take effect, so you can say it. Keep backpeddling

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

Could you show us the hadiths in Bukhari (and other sahih hadiths as well) that clearly state others did it.

[ShiaMan]

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.

[Abu Muhammad]

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.

I did but I could not find as per what you said i.e. there are hadiths in Bukhari and others that clearly state others did it.

The closest I could find from your post is just this:

"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."

Since you wrote that there are narrations that clearly state others did it, you need to provide your evidence for that. So again, could you show us your claim that there are hadiths in Bukhari (and other sahih hadiths as well) which CLEARLY STATE others did it e.g. Abu Bakar or Umar or Anas etc.

[Ebn Hussein]

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.

[Ibn Yahya]

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.

Ahsant akhi. The Shi'is are total whores to Orientalists and people interested in Islam. They go on twitter and fb to show anything that makes sunnis look bad to their non muslim buddies so that they see them as the friendly pc "real" muslims at the expense of Sunnis living in the west.

Its very showing of the vain and dogmatic nature of contemporary Shii activism