Bukhari

� Fiqh al-Hadith
The deniers object: SA This is a hadith for which there is neither rational nor transmitted proof. As for reason, it is clear... up to his statement: And as for transmission, it is known that at no time was the Shari‘ah revealed upon animals; they have always been free and unburdened by the legal code, neither were they commanded to perform any act of worship, nor was any of their actions ever deemed a crime... up to the end EA {أقول :} I am extremely astonished that you are still unfamiliar with what constitutes a hadith; you repeatedly refer to the statement of a Companion as a hadith. This incident is narrated by ‘Amr ibn Maymun rahimahullah, who is a Tabi‘i. Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah says: «مخضرم مشھور، ثقہ عابد» [تقريب التهذيب:427] Also see [تهذيب التهذيب:96/8]

O Sir! Just as you have declared this story to be against reason and transmission, the opponents of Islam also declare this Qur’anic story to be false: when Qabil killed Habil, after killing him he regretted it and was bewildered as to what to do. So Allah sent a crow, as is stated:

«فَطَوَّعَتْ لَهُ نَفْسُهُ قَتْلَ أَخِيهِ فَقَتَلَهُ فَأَصْبَحَ مِنَ الْخَاسِرِينَ» «كَيْفَ يُوَارِي سَوْءَةَ أَخِيهِ قَالَ يَا وَيْلَتَى أَعَجَزْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِثْلَ هَـذَا الْغُرَابِ فَأُوَارِيَ سَوْءَةَ أَخِي فَأَصْبَحَ مِنَ النَّادِمِينَ» «فَبَعَثَ اللَّـهُ غُرَابًا يَبْحَثُ فِي الْأَرْضِ لِيُرِيَهُ كَيْفَ يُوَارِي سَوْءَةَ أَخِيهِ قَالَ يَا وَيْلَتَى أَعَجَزْتُ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِثْلَ هَـذَا الْغُرَابِ فَأُوَارِيَ سَوْءَةَ أَخِي فَأَصْبَحَ مِنَ النَّادِمِينَ» [المائدۃ : 31،32،33]

That is, Qabil’s soul prompted him to kill his brother Habil, so he killed him and became one of the losers. Then Allah sent a crow that scratched the earth (with its beak) to show him how to hide the corpse of his brother. Qabil said, “Alas! Am I unable to be like this crow and hide the corpse of my brother?” So he became remorseful.

Just as this Qur’anic story is authentic, so too is the other, because both have the same outcome: just as a manifestation of Allah’s power appeared for the purpose of teaching and admonition, and one crow buried another, similarly, in order to instill the virtue of the pre-Islamic era in the heart of a Companion, this act was witnessed among monkeys. Just as you declare this authentic incident to be against reason and transmission, you should also declare this Qur’anic incident to be so, and freely and openly object to Allah: that they (the animals) are unburdened and free, so what need is there for them to act in a legal (Shari‘ah) manner? Whereas it is established that this crow was in fact an angel, who came in the form of a crow for the purpose of teaching, and killed and buried another real crow; similarly, these monkeys, who were all jinn, appeared in the jungle in the form of monkeys and demonstrated a marvel of divine power to a disbelieving polytheist.

It is stated in Fath al-Bari:

«فلعل ھؤلاء كانوا من الجن، وإنھم من جملة المكلفين ... إلی قوله : فلا يستلزم إيقاع الكتليف علی الحيوان.»

“These were from among the jinn, and they, like humans, are legally responsible (mukallaf); thus, the allegation that animals are legally responsible is removed.” [فتح الباري:160/7]

You (the objector, the deniers of hadith) have also quoted in your treatise, in [ص : 16], the statement of Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr from ‘Ayni, and further on it is clearly stated:

«كانوا من الجن، لأن العبادات في الجن والإنس دون غيرھا.»

“That is, they were from among the jinn, and the jinn and mankind are those who are legally responsible for worship, not others.” [عمدة القاري:300/16]

Thus, your objection is removed, and this does not cast any blemish on the authenticity of the narration, because the basis upon which you have discussed the narration up to half a page on page [17] of your treatise, and have hypothetically established the unreliability of the narrators, is invalidated.

Now let us present to you the statement of Karmani regarding this narration; he says:

«الحديث المذ كور في معظم الاصول التي وقفنا عليھا.»

“That is, this narration is from among the principal sources and is highly reliable.” [فتح الباري:433/15]

In short, there can be no criticism of the aforementioned narration in any way.

Fiqh al-Hadith
Imam Bukhari rahimahullah states:
«حَدَّثَنَا نُعَيْمُ بْنُ حَمَّادٍ، حَدَّثَنَا هُشَيْمٌ، عَنْ حُصَيْنٍ، عَنْ عَمْرِو بْنِ مَيْمُونٍ، قَالَ:" رَأَيْتُ فِي الْجَاهِلِيَّةِ قِرْدَةً اجْتَمَعَ عَلَيْهَا قِرَدَةٌ قَدْ زَنَتْ فَرَجَمُوهَا فَرَجَمْتُهَا مَعَهُمْ»
“Nuaim bin Hammad narrated to us (he said): Hushaym narrated to us, from Husayn, from Amr bin Maymun (the Tabi‘i), who said: I saw in the time of Jahiliyyah a female monkey who had committed adultery, and the monkeys gathered around her, then they stoned her, and I stoned her along with them.” [صحيح البخاري : 3849]
↰ All the narrators in the chain of this narration are trustworthy and reliable.
Nuaim bin Hammad has been declared trustworthy and reliable by the majority of hadith scholars.
Hushaym’s narration from Husayn bin Abdur-Rahman is considered to be based on direct hearing, because he did not practice tadlis (concealment) from Husayn. See: Sharh ‘Ilal al-Tirmidhi by Ibn Rajab [2؍562]
For corroboration of Hushaym, see: Tarikh Dimashq by Ibn Asakir [49؍292]
Amr bin Maymun was a well-known Tabi‘i and a “trustworthy worshipper.” See: [التقريب : 5122]
This narration from Amr bin Maymun has been narrated in detail by Isa bin Hattan. [تاريخ ابن عساكر 292/49، 293]
Besides Sahih Bukhari and Tarikh Dimashq, this narration is also found in the following books:
Al-Tarikh al-Kabir by Bukhari [6؍367]
See Mustakhraj al-Isma‘ili and Mustakhraj Abi Nu‘aym al-Asbahani [فتح الباري 7؍160، 161]
[التاريخ الكبير للامام ابن ابي خيثمة ص569]
This narration of the Tabi‘i is neither a statement of the Messenger nor of a Companion, but only the statement of a Tabi‘i. Now, what is meant by “monkeys” in this statement? From the words of Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr, it is understood that these monkeys were jinn. See: [فتح الباري 160/7]
The existence of jinn is established from the Noble Qur’an; see: Surah al-Ahqaf [آيت : 29] and others. Do the deniers of hadith and the deniers of the punishment of stoning object to the fact that the jinn stoned a female jinn who had committed adultery? Are not the jinn a morally responsible creation?
Note: ① Stoning the married adulterer is established from authentic and mass-transmitted (mutawatir) hadiths; for example, see: Sahih Bukhari [6814] and Sahih Muslim [1702] and Nazm al-Mutanathir min al-Hadith al-Mutawatir [174، حديث : 182]
Note ②: The fact that jinn can take the form of animals is established from authentic hadiths; for example, see: Sahih Muslim [ح2236 وترقيم دارالسلام : 5839], and Muwatta Imam Malik [976/2، 977ح1894]
Note ③: To say, in defense of the adulterous jinn who took the form of a monkey, that “the poor monkey was wronged”—what else can this be called except support for adulterous jinn (and adulterous humans)? The deniers of hadith should prove that, according to them, adultery is permissible for the jinn!

Hadith Commentary:
Ismail has narrated the entire account as follows: Amr ibn Maymun says, "I was in Yemen among my people’s goats on a high place when I saw a monkey bring a female monkey and lay her hand under his head and fall asleep. Meanwhile, a small monkey came and signaled to the female monkey. She quietly pulled her hand out from under the head of the first monkey and went away with the small monkey. He had intercourse with her while I was watching. Then the female monkey returned and quietly tried to put her hand back under the head of the first monkey, but he woke up and let out a scream, so all the monkeys gathered.

He kept pointing towards the female monkey and kept screaming.

Eventually, the other monkeys went here and there and brought back the small monkey.

I recognized him. Then they dug a pit for them and stoned both of them to death, so I witnessed the act of stoning (rajm) among animals as well."

Hadith Commentary:
➊
The details of this incident are as follows:
Amr ibn Maymun says that I was grazing my goats in Yemen when I saw a monkey bring a female monkey, and he placed her hand under his head and fell asleep.
During this time, a young monkey came.
He signaled to the female monkey, so she quietly took her hand out from under the monkey and went away with the young monkey, then they copulated; I was watching them.
After they finished, the female monkey returned and tried to put her hand back under the monkey’s head.
At that moment, he woke up and let out a scream, so the monkeys gathered.
He was pointing towards the female monkey and was wailing.
Eventually, the other monkeys went here and there and brought back the young monkey, whom I also recognized. Then they dug a pit for them, made both of them stand in it, and stoned them to death.
At that time, I saw the act of stoning (rajm) among animals, apart from humans.
(Fath al-Bari: 7/202)

➋
The deniers of hadith have objected to this narration, saying: How did Amr ibn Maymun understand that this monkey committed adultery (zina), since there is no system of marriage among animals, nor was the female monkey anyone’s wife? Then what is the meaning of stoning them? To attribute zina to a non-accountable being and then to establish the legal punishment of stoning upon them is a strange matter. But is it far-fetched to think that the purpose was to illustrate the evil, filth, and corruption of zina?
Zina and immorality are so disgraceful that Allah Ta’ala has created an aversion to it even in some animals, and they carried out the punishment of stoning for this act. Accordingly, Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah has narrated a similar incident: A stallion was brought for breeding to the mare from whose womb he was born, but the stallion did not copulate with her. Then people kept the mare in a closed room and covered her with cloth, and brought the stallion to her, so he copulated.
When he smelled his mother’s scent, out of shame, he bit off his own genital organ.
Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah says: When Allah Ta’ala created such perception in a horse, which is far behind monkeys in intelligence and cleverness, then it is not impossible for monkeys to have such perception, who in many habits resemble humans.
(Fath al-Bari: 7/203)

➌
It should be clear that all the narrators of this narration are trustworthy and reliable; Amr ibn Maymun himself was a famous Tabi’i and a trustworthy worshipper.
No objection has been raised regarding the chain of transmission of this narration; however, from the perspective of the content, it has been considered questionable. In our view, to manifest the filth and evil of zina, Allah Ta’ala showed His sign to Amr ibn Maymun, which he then narrated. Sometimes such perception is possible among animals, as is evident from the incident mentioned by Hafiz Ibn Hajar rahimahullah.

➍ Hafiz Ibn Hajar has also mentioned the possibility that these monkeys were actually jinn who had taken the form of animals, and jinn, like humans, are legally accountable (mukallaf) and the legal punishments (hudud) are enforced upon them. The existence of jinn is established from the Noble Qur’an (), and their taking the form of animals is also established from authentic hadith, as a jinn once took the form of a snake and killed a young man from the Ansar.
(Sahih Muslim, Kitab al-Salam, Hadith: 5839 (2236))
If jinn, having taken the form of monkeys, commit zina, then why should the legal punishment not be enforced upon them, when the stoning of a married adulterer is established from authentic and mass-transmitted hadith?
In any case, from the perspective of transmission and reason, there is no objection to this hadith of Sahih Bukhari.
The deniers of hadith are compelled by their habit.
And Allah knows best and is the One sought for help.