Hadith 4368

حَدَّثَنَا مُحَمَّدُ بْنُ بَشَّارٍ ، حَدَّثَنَا ابْنُ أَبِي عَدِيٍّ ، عَنْ هِشَامٍ ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ ،عَنْ أَنَسِ بْنِ مَالِكٍ بِهَذَا الْحَدِيثِ نَحْوَهُ زَادَ ثُمَّ نَهَى ، عَنِ الْمُثْلَةِ ، وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ وَرَوَاهُ شُعْبَةُ ، عَنْ قَتَادَةَ ، وَسَلَّامُ بْنُ مِسْكِينٍ ، عَنْ ثَابِتٍ جَمِيعًا ، عَنْ أَنَسٍ لَمْ يَذْكُرَا مِنْ خِلَافٍ وَلَمْ أَجِدْ فِي حَدِيثِ أَحَدٍ قَطَّعَ أَيْدِيَهُمْ وَأَرْجُلَهُمْ مِنْ خِلَافٍ إِلَّا فِي حَدِيثِ حَمَّادِ بْنِ سَلَمَةَ .
A similar tradition has also been transmitted by Anas bin Malik through a different chain of narrators. This version adds: He then forbade disfiguring. This version does not mention the words “ from opposite sides”. This tradition has been narrated by Shubah from Qatadah and Salam bin Miskin from Thabit on the authority of Anas. They did not mention the words “from opposite side”. I did not find these words “their hands and feet were cut off from opposite sides”. In any version except in the version of Hammad bin Salamah.
Hadith Reference سنن ابي داود / كتاب الحدود / 4368
Hadith Grading الألبانی: صحيح  |  زبیر علی زئی: صحيح بخاري (1501، 5685)
Hadith Takhrij « تفرد بہ أبو داود، انظر حدیث رقم : (4364)، (تحفة الأشراف: 1385)، وقد أخرجہ: مسند احمد (3/177) (صحیح) »
Explanation & Benefits
Shaykh Umar Farooq Saeedi
Benefits and Issues:
This punishment is in accordance with the Qur’anic command.
The explicit ruling is present in the text of the Noble Qur’an, Surah al-Ma’idah, verse 33, and this act cannot be termed as mutilation (mithlah), because it is a prescribed legal punishment (hadd shar‘i), and the matter of retribution (qisas) was carried out with these people.
As for mutilation (mithlah), which has been prohibited, it refers to cutting the limbs of a corpse after killing, which is in no way permissible in Islam.
Source: Sunan Abu Dawood – Commentary by Shaykh Umar Farooq Saeedi, Page: 4368