Ibn Muflih said:

"Our Shaikh said: Mutilation is permissible for them. They may do it for retribution and revenge, or they may refrain from it, and patience is better. This applies as mutilating them does not contribute to Jihad nor serve as a deterrent against similar acts. However, if widespread mutilation invites them to faith or deters them from aggression, then it falls under the implementation of legal punishments and legitimate Jihad. The incident at Uhud was not of this nature, hence patience was better. But when the predominant concern is the right of Allah, then patience applies there."  Book: Al-Furu‘, Chapter: On Captives: It is Forbidden to Kill Them.

It is clear from this text that Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) considered mutilation of the enemy permissible if it serves as deterrence or retribution. However, patience is preferable when it is merely personal vengeance. Allah will not increase the reward of Jihad through mutilating the bodies of enemies, nor is your act -your excess in revenge and mutilation of a larger number of enemies- equivalent punishment for what the enemies did to the bodies of Muslims. Rather, a Muslim fights to elevate the word "La ilaha illa Allah" (There is no god but Allah), not to mutilate corpses. Patience is better for you if you are believers, for Allah’s vengeance against your enemies on the Day of Judgment is far greater and more severe than your vengeance against them.  Furthermore, the incident at Uhud -where the body of Hamzah, the uncle of the Prophet (ﷺ), was mutilated- was not of this kind. Its intent was ordinary revenge, not the realization of legitimate religious objectives. Thus, patience and refraining from retaliation in kind were deemed better.

Therefore, Ibn Taymiyyah did not consider mutilation absolutely prohibited; rather, it is restricted to achieving a legitimate religious interest -such as deterring the enemy- while the original principle encourages self-discipline through patience and advocacy through tolerance. This is consistent with the words of Allah in verse 126 of Surah Al-Nahl: "And if you punish [an enemy], punish with an equivalent of that with which you were harmed. But if you are patient, it is better for those who are patient." Al-Qurtubi stated in his exegesis: "The majority of Quranic commentators agree that this verse is Medinan and was revealed concerning the mutilation of Hamzah on the day of Uhud."

This does not necessitate agreement with Ibn Taymiyyah’s view on this matter, although I personally fully concur with him. Nor does it preclude differing with the opinions of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) -as I have occasionally done- with a sound heart and adherence to what we deem best, far removed from personal whims and desires.

Yet, Islam Bahiri uniquely presents a divergent reading of the text quoted by Ibn Muflih, resulting in a distorted understanding of Ibn Taymiyyah’s intent. Bahiri interpreted Ibn Muflih’s quotation of Ibn Taymiyyah as follows: "Mutilating them brings an increase in Jihad and serves as a deterrent against them, and it falls under the implementation of legal punishments and Jihad, and it involves deterring them!"

What odd reading, one bound to produce peculiar conclusions! A seeker of truth needs no great effort to deduce this, the matter merely requires returning to Ibn Muflih’s original text and comparing it with the wording Bahiri attributed to Ibn Muflih. By identifying the phrases and terms Bahiri selectively chose (placing them in parentheses), the following outcome emerges:

"(Our Shaikh) said: Mutilation is permissible for them. They may do it for retribution and revenge, or they may refrain from it, and patience is better. This applies as (mutilating them does) not (contribute to Jihad) nor (serve as a deterrent) against similar acts. However, if widespread mutilation invites them to faith or (deters them from aggression, then it falls under the implementation of legal punishments) and legitimate Jihad. The incident at Uhud was not of this nature, hence patience was better. But when the predominant concern is the right of Allah, then patience applies there."

Here, it becomes glaringly obvious that Bahiri -lacking a perceptive heart-concealed two crucial phrases: "not" and "nor", thereby distorting the meaning of the quoted text after omitting, reordering, and misplacing significant passages from Ibn Muflih’s original. This constitutes a form of logical fallacy or misrepresentation, methods that undermine the integrity of any scholarly inquiry!

In the absence of a perceptive heart, Bahiri grows increasingly extreme and bold in opposing the guidance of the Prophet (ﷺ), stating: "What happened during the first 700 years is the greatest catastrophe," despite the Prophet (ﷺ) saying: "The best of generations is my generation, then those who follow them, then those who follow them...".

Summary:

1. Perhaps Islam Bahiri’s audacity in misrepresentation stems from his confidence that most of his listeners will not verify his credibility through research and scrutiny.
2. This audacity in attacking the Islamic heritage, accusing it of bloodlust and brutality, and attributing fragile beginnings to it, is enough to mislead the general public, both Muslims and non-Muslims.
3. Quoting texts out of context and contradicting definitive texts are examples of scholarly misconduct.
4. Academic research requires a sound and perceptive heart, as stated in the verse: "For indeed, it is not the eyes that are blind, but the hearts in the breasts that are blind" [Al-Hajj: 46].

https://youtu.be/PV3eDexMS3w?si=W569zv2gJHGDoJPI