Summary
Overview of the Monkey Narration and Its Place in Sahih al Bukhari
Imam al Bukhari narrates from Amr ibn Maymun that, in the time before Islam, he saw a female monkey surrounded by other monkeys. They stoned her, and he joined them in stoning her. Some narrations add that this occurred because she had committed zina. This report is recorded in Sahih al Bukhari under number 3849 (Sahih al Bukhari 3849).
Al Bukhari also reports the same story in al Tarikh al Kabir through the route of Nuaym ibn Hammad, from Hushaym, from Abu Balj and Husayn, from Amr ibn Maymun. In this wording, monkeys gathered around a she monkey and stoned her, and Amr ibn Maymun stoned her with them, without any mention of zina (al Tarikh al Kabir 6–367).
Some ulama said that, if this route is authentic, al Bukhari only mentioned it to show that Amr ibn Maymun lived during the time of Jahiliyyah. He did not give weight to Amr’s understanding of zina, nor did he intend to establish any Sharia ruling regarding animals (al Tarikh al Kabir 6–367; Tafsir al Qurtubi 2–171 to 173).
Al Humaydi’s Objection Regarding Its Presence in Sahih al Bukhari
Al Humaydi says in Jam al Sahihayn that Abu Masud al Dimashqi reported this story from Amr ibn Maymun in the two Sahih books, with the wording that monkeys gathered around a she monkey and stoned her, and that he stoned her with them. However, Abu Masud did not specify where al Bukhari placed it.
Al Humaydi says that when he searched for it, he found it in some copies of Sahih al Bukhari but not in others. Because of this, he suggested that it might be from the unclear or confused material, and that it may have been inserted into al Bukhari’s book
Al Qurtubi transmits this claim from al Humaydi and adds that, in the route of al Nuaymi from al Farabri, who is the well known main transmitter of Sahih al Bukhari, there is nothing at all about the monkey story. For this reason, some said that it may be from the strange or unclear parts of the book (Tafsir al Qurtubi 2–171 to 173).
Ibn Hajar’s Defence That the Report Is Truly Part of Sahih al Bukhari
Al Hafidh Ibn Hajar says that the monkey narration exists in most of the original manuscripts of Sahih al Bukhari that the hadith experts examined. He says that it is sufficient proof that Abu Dharr al Harawi, the hafiz, narrated it from his three precise shaykhs, all from al Farabri, the main transmitter of the Sahih.
Ibn Hajar further states that al Ismaili and Abu Nuaym both included this narration in their Mustakhraj works on Sahih al Bukhari, and that Abu Masud included it in his Atraf. Because of this, the claim that the report is not in Sahih al Bukhari at all is incorrect.
He explains that this narration fell out of the copy of al Nasafi, and that the hadith following it also fell out. However, he says this does not mean that it is not part of the Farabri transmission, because the Farabri route contains additions not found in the Nasafi route, and Ibn Hajar had already identified many such cases.
Ibn Hajar adds that to claim something was inserted into Sahih al Bukhari that is not from al Bukhari contradicts what the ulama hold, namely that everything al Bukhari included is authentically attributed to him. He warns that such talk opens the door to doubting all reports in the Sahih, which is a corrupt belief. He says he explained this in detail so that weak people are not deceived by the words of al Humaydi (Fath al Bari 6–367).
Ibn Abd al Barr’s Objection to the Chain and the Meaning
Imam Ibn Abd al Barr says that Amr ibn Maymun is a great tabi i from Kufa, and that he is the one who saw the stoning by monkeys in Jahiliyyah, if the report is authentic. However, he says that its narrators are unknown, so the story is not used as proof (al Istiab 14–9, on the margin of al Isabah).
He explains that the longer version of the story goes through Abd al Malik ibn Muslim, from Isa ibn Hattan, and that neither of them are from those whose narrations are relied upon. Because of this, the detailed wording should not be depended upon
He further says that a group of people of knowledge rejected the report because it attributes zina to one who is not legally responsible and applies the hadd of stoning to animals. He adds that, if the report were authentic, then they would have to be jinn, since legal responsibility only applies to humans and jinn (Tahdhib al Kamal 22–265 to 266; Lisan al Mizan 4–393 to 394).
Ibn Hajar’s Defence of the Narrators in the Longer Version
Ibn Hajar responds to Ibn Abd al Barr in Lisan al Mizan and says that the narrators of the longer version are not unknown. He reports that Ibn Main and others declared Abd al Malik ibn Muslim trustworthy. He also notes that Isa ibn Hattan is mentioned by Ibn Hibban in al Thiqat among the reliable people of Basrah (Lisan al Mizan 4–393 to 394).
He points out that al Bukhari’s own route, from Nuaym, from Hushaym, from Husayn and Abu Balj, from Amr ibn Maymun, is a shorter route without the extra details. This sound route weakens Ibn Abd al Barr’s criticism of the longer version reported by al Ismaili (Fath al Bari 6–367).
Al Qurtubi’s Support for the Chain
Al Qurtubi says that, in one narration in al Bukhari’s Tarikh, the wording is Haddathana Husayn in this report. This removes the concern that Hushaym used unclear wording, since the connection to Husayn is openly stated. He also notes that Husayn is joined with Abu Balj in this route, which strengthens it further (Tafsir al Qurtubi 2–171 to 173).
Al Albani’s Initial Doubts and His Later Acceptance
Al Albani says in Mukhtasar Sahih al Bukhari that the report appears very strange at first glance. He asks how a human could know that monkeys marry, have honour, or kill one who violates it, and how Amr ibn Maymun could know that the stoning was because of zina.
He suggests that the problem may lie in the chain, either through Nuaym ibn Hammad, who is weak and accused, or through Hushaym because of his use of unclear wording
He then says that this doubt weakens when it is known, as Ibn Abd al Barr himself mentions, that Abbad ibn al Awwam narrated the same story from Husayn with the shorter wording, just as Hushaym did. Abbad is trustworthy and is a narrator of al Bukhari and Muslim.
He adds that Isa ibn Hattan narrated the longer detailed wording from Amr ibn Maymun, and that al Ismaili recorded it. Isa was declared trustworthy by al Ijli and Ibn Hibban.
Because of this support, al Albani says that Ibn Hajar inclined to strengthening the report, unlike Ibn Abd al Barr who weakened it, and al Albani agrees with Ibn Hajar’s assessment (Mukhtasar Sahih al Bukhari 2–535 to 536).
Ibn al Tin’s View on Transformation and Its Correction
Ibn al Tin suggested that the monkeys in the story may have been from the offspring of those who were transformed into monkeys as a punishment, and that the ruling of stoning remained among them. He then corrected himself and said that those who are transformed do not have offspring.
Ibn Hajar says that this correction is the correct position, because it is firmly established in Sahih Muslim from the hadith of Ibn Masud that Allah did not destroy a people and then give them descendants. Therefore, those who were transformed had no offspring (Fath al Bari 11–301 to 303).
Al Zajjaj, Ibn al Arabi, and the Answer of the Majority
Abu Ishaq al Zajjaj and Imam Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi held that monkeys present today are from the offspring of transformed people. They relied on the report in Sahih Muslim in which a desert lizard was brought to the Prophet ﷺ and he said that perhaps it was from a transformed nation, and he mentioned that a nation from Bani Israil went missing and he thought it might be the mouse.
The majority of the ulama replied that these words were said before revelation clarified the matter of transformation and offspring. Nothing came later from the Prophet ﷺ to confirm that any animal alive today is from transformed humans, while the hadith of Ibn Masud clearly negates offspring for transformed nations.
Ibn Hajar adds that it is not necessary for the monkeys in Amr ibn Maymun’s story to be from transformed people at all. He suggests that when those who were transformed were made to look like monkeys while their understanding remained, the original monkeys may have mixed with them and copied some of their actions. These behaviours could then have continued as habits among monkeys (Fath al Bari 11–301 to 303).
Ibn Hajar’s Description of Monkey Behaviour
Ibn Hajar explains that monkeys are discussed specifically because they have sharper minds than many animals and can be taught various actions. They laugh, become excited, imitate what they see, and display strong jealousy similar to humans. The male often confines himself to one female, and jealousy may drive him to punish one who violates what he considers exclusive.
He also notes that female monkeys carry their young like human mothers, that monkeys sometimes walk on two legs, use their hands to take and eat food, have divided fingers with nails, and have eyelashes. He uses this to show that monkeys can display complex behaviour resembling human actions in matters of honour.
He further mentions a report from Abu Ubaydah Ma mar ibn al Muthanna, from al Awzai, about a young horse that refused to mate with its mother, was tricked into doing so, then bit off its own private part when it realised what had happened. Ibn Hajar says that if such understanding occurs in horses, which are less intelligent than monkeys, then it is even more plausible in monkeys (Fath al Bari 11–301 to 303).
Ibn Abd al Barr’s Objection About Zina and Hadd for Animals and the Reply
Ibn Abd al Barr reiterates that the report is objectionable because it attributes zina to animals and applies the hadd punishment to those who are not legally responsible. He repeats that, if the report were authentic, then perhaps the beings involved were jinn, since jinn are legally responsible (Lisan al Mizan 4–393 to 394).
The reply given by the ulama is that the event merely resembled zina followed by stoning. Amr ibn Maymun described it using familiar terms because of the resemblance, not because it was real zina or a true hadd punishment. This resemblance does not mean that Sharia rulings were actually applied to animals.
Al Albani’s Final View on Authenticity and Meaning
Al Albani concludes that the support from Abbad ibn al Awwam’s route from Husayn, along with Isa ibn Hattan’s longer version recorded by al Ismaili, and the statements of the ulama regarding Isa’s reliability, remove much of the apparent strangeness of the report.
For this reason, he says that Ibn Hajar inclined to strengthening the narration, and al Albani follows him in accepting it as a report from a trustworthy tabi i about something he personally witnessed (Mukhtasar Sahih al Bukhari 2–535 to 536).
Turning the Tables on the Shia
In Shia sources, there is a report of an animal that realised it had committed intercourse with its sister, tore off its own private part with its teeth, and then died (Ilal al Sharai 1–17; Wasa il al Shia 20–366; Tafsir al Safi 1–415; Tafsir Nur al Thaqalayn 1–430; Qisas al Anbiya 61 to 62).
In Tafsir al Qurtubi it says: As for what he mentioned from the story of Amr, al Humaydi (Al Humaydi is Muhammad ibn Abi Nasr Futuh, Abu Abdillah al Azdi al Andalusi, the Dhahiri jurist,and companion and student of Ibn Hazm. He wrote Jam al Sahihayn and Tarikh al Andalus, and he died in the year 488 AH. See Siyar 19/120.) mentioned in Jam’ al Sahihayn (collection of the two Sahih books) that Abu Masud al Dimashqi (Abu Masud is Ibrahim ibn Muhammad ibn Ubayd, the hafidh, who wrote the book Atraf al Sahihayn (sections and routes of the two Sahih books). He died in the year 401 AH. See Siyar 17/227.) related that for Amr ibn Maymun al Audi there is, in the two Sahih books, a report from the narration of Husayn from him. He said: I saw in the Jahiliyyah a she monkey.
Monkeys gathered around her and they stoned her, so I stoned her along with them. This is how Abu Masud related it, and he did not mention in which place al Bukhari brought it in his book. So we searched for that and we found it in some copies and not in all.
It was mentioned in the book Ayyam al Jahiliyyah (Days of the time of ignorance before Islam). In the narration of al Nuaymi (Al Nuaymi is Ahmad ibn Abdillah, Abu Hamid al Sarkhasi, who lived in Herat and narrated Sahih al Bukhari from al Farabri. He died in the year 386 AH. See Siyar 16/448.) from al Farabri (Al Farabri is Muhammad ibn Yusuf, Abu Abdillah, the main narrator who transmitted Sahih al Bukhari from al Bukhari. He died in the year 320 AH. See Siyar 10/15.) there is nothing at all of this report about the monkey, and perhaps it is from the confusing and unclear things in the book of al Bukhari. (Al Hafidh Ibn Hajar replied to this statement of al Humaydi in Fath al Bari 7/160. He said that the hadith is mentioned in most of the original manuscripts that they saw, and he said that it is enough as a proof that Abu Dharr al Hafiz brought it from his three shaykhs, the precise imams, from al Farabri. He also mentioned that al Ismaili and Abu Nuaym brought it in their Mustakhraj works, and that Abu Masud brought it in his Atraf. See 6/367.)
What al Bukhari said in al Tarikh al Kabir was: Nuaym ibn Hammad said to me, Hushaym (Hushaym is Ibn Bashir. Abu Balj is Yahya ibn Sulaym, or Ibn Abi Sulaym. Husayn is Ibn Abd al Rahman.) informed us, from Abu Balj and Husayn, from Amr ibn Maymun, who said: I saw in the Jahiliyyah monkeys gathered around a she monkey, and they stoned her, so I stoned her along with them. In it there is no wording, “she had committed zina”.
If this narration is authentic, then al Bukhari only brought it as an indication that Amr ibn Maymun lived long enough to reach the Jahiliyyah, and he did not give any importance to the assumption that he assumed during the Jahiliyyah.
Abu Umar mentioned Amr ibn Maymun in al Istiab, and that his kunyah (teknonym, name by which one is called as father of someone) was Abu Abdillah.
He is counted among the the greatest of the tabiʿin from the people of Kufa, and he is the one who saw the stoning in the Jahiliyyah from the monkeys, if that is authentic, because its narrators are unknown. (This is in volume 14, page 9, on the margin of al Isabah.)
Al Bukhari mentioned it from Nuaym, from Hushaym, from Husayn, from Amr ibn Maymun al Audi, in a shortened form. He said: I saw in the Jahiliyyah a she monkey that committed zina, so they stoned her, meaning the monkeys, so I stoned her along with them.
And Abbad ibn al Awwam also narrated it from Husayn, just as Hushaym narrated it, in a shortened form.
As for the story in its full wording, it goes through Abd al Malik ibn Muslim, from Isa ibn Hattan, and neither of them are from those whose narrations are used as proof. (Al Mizzi brought this full story in Tahdhib al Kamal 22/265–266, and al Dhahabi in Siyar Aʿlam al Nubala 4/159, and Ibn Hajar in Lisan al Mizan 4/394, and he attributed it to al Ismaili in his Mustakhraj.)
According to a group of people of knowledge, this is something rejected, because it attributes zina to one who is not mukallaf (legally accountable), and it establishes hudud (fixed legal punishments) upon animals.
If it were authentic, they would be from the jinn, because ibadat (acts of worship) are only for humans and jinn, and not for others. (Al Hafidh Ibn Hajar replied to this statement of Ibn Abd al Barr in Lisan al Mizan 4/393–394. He said that its narrators are well known, and he transmitted the declaration of trustworthiness of Abd al Malik ibn Muslim from Ibn Main and others. He also said that Isa ibn Hattan was mentioned by Ibn Hibban in al Thiqat, and that he counted him among the people of Basrah.)
Tafsir Al Qurtubi (2/171-173)
His saying: “Haddathana Nuaym ibn Hammad” (d. 228 AH): In the narration of some of them it is: Haddathana Nuaym, without naming his father. He is al Marwazi who settled in Egypt, and al Bukhari rarely brings a connected report (mawsul fully connected) from him. Rather, his habit is to mention him with the wording of taliq (suspended narration).
In the narration of al Qabisi (d. 403 AH) it occurred: Haddathana Abu Nuaym (d. 219 AH). Some of them said this is correct, but that is a mistake.
In al Bukhari’s narration in al Tarikh (6/367) in this hadith it is: Haddathana Husayn. By that, one is safe from what is feared of tadlis (concealing a issue in the chain) by Hushaym (d. 183 AH), the one who narrates from him. He also joined with Husayn Abu Balj (d. 148 AH).
His saying: “I saw in the Jahiliyyah a female monkey”
Qirdah is with a kasrah on the qaf and a sukun on the ra, meaning one female monkey.
His saying: “Monkeys gathered against her” is with a fathah on the ra, as a plural.
Al Ismaili (d. 371 AH) brought this story from another route in a longer form, from the route of Isa ibn Hattan, from Amr ibn Maymun. He said: I was in Yemen with family sheep, and I was on a high place. A male monkey came with a female monkey and he placed his hand under her as a pillow. Then a smaller monkey came and signalled to her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the head of the first monkey and followed him.
He fell upon her while I was watching. Then she returned and started to put her hand back under the head of the first one gently. He woke up alarmed, smelled her, and screamed. The monkeys gathered, and he began to scream and point to her with his hand.
The monkeys went right and left, then they brought that monkey, and I recognised him. They dug a hole for the two of them and stoned them. I truly saw stoning outside the children of Adam.
The view of Ibn al Tin and what is relied upon
Ibn al Tin (d. 611 AH) said: Perhaps these were from the offspring of those who were transformed (maskh transformation). So that ruling remained among them. Then he said: The one who is transformed does not have offspring.
Ibn Hajar said: This is what is relied upon, because it is established in Sahih Muslim (d. 261 AH) (2 2663) that the transformed one has no offspring. And in it, from the hadith of Ibn Masud, raised (marfu attributed to the Prophet ﷺ) (2/2662): “Allah did not destroy a people and then make for them offspring.”
The odd view and the answer of the majority
Abu Ishaq al Zajjaj (d. 311 AH) and Abu Bakr ibn al Arabi (d. 543 AH) went to the view that the monkeys that exist are from the offspring of those who were transformed. This is an odd view. Those who went to it relied on what is also established in Sahih Muslim (2 1949), that the Prophet ﷺ, when a desert lizard was brought to him, said: “Perhaps it is from the generations that were transformed.” And he said about the mouse: “A nation from Bani Israil went missing, and I do not think it is except the mouse.”
The majority (al jumhur the majority of the ulama) answered that he said that before it was revealed to him what the reality of the matter is in that, and for that reason nothing came from him with certainty on any of that. Unlike the negation, because he stated it with certainty, as in the hadith of Ibn Masud.
But it is not necessary that the monkeys mentioned be from offspring. Rather it is possible that those who were transformed, when they became in the form of monkeys, while their understandings remained, original monkeys mixed with them because of likeness in form. Then they took from them some of what they saw of their actions, and they preserved it, and it became among them.
The monkey was singled out for this because it has more sharpness than other animals, and it can be taught every craft, unlike most animals. From its traits is that it laughs, becomes excited, and imitates what it sees. In it there is strong jealousy like the human, and none of them goes to anyone besides his mate.
He usually does not leave it except that what is placed in it of jealousy carries it to punish the one who attacked what was not exclusive to him among the females. From its special traits is that the female carries her young in the way of a human.
Sometimes the monkey walks on its two legs, but it does not keep doing that. It takes things with its hand and eats with its hand. It has fingers divided to fingertips and nails. Its eyelids have eyelashes.
The objection of Ibn Abd al Barr and the response
Ibn Abd al Barr (d. 463 AH) criticised the story of Amr ibn Maymun and said: In it there is attributing zina (fornication) to one who is not mukallaf (legally responsible), and carrying out the hadd (fixed punishment) on animals, and this is rejected among the people of knowledge. He said: If the route is authentic, then perhaps they were jinn (jinn creation), because they are among those who are mukallaf (legally responsible).
He only said that because he spoke about the route that al Ismaili (d. 371 AH) brought.
It was answered that it is not necessary, just because the form of the event looks like zina and stoning, that it was zina in reality, nor a hadd. Rather that was said because it resembles it, so that does not require placing legal responsibility on an animal.
The claim of al Humaydi and its response by Ibn Hajar
Al Humaydi (d. 488 AH) made a strange claim in al Jam bayn al Sahihayn. He claimed that this hadith occurred in some copies of al Bukhari, and that Abu Masud (d. 401 AH) alone mentioned it in al Atraf. He said: It is not in the copies of al Bukhari at all, so perhaps it is from the reports inserted into the book of al Bukhari.
What he said is rejected. The hadith is in most of the main copies that we found. It is enough that Abu Dharr al Harawi (d. 434 AH), the hafiz (master memoriser), narrated it from his three shaykhs, the three precise imams, from al Firabri (d. 320 AH), as proof. Likewise, al Ismaili (d. 371 AH) and Abu Nuaym (d. 430 AH) included it in their mustakhraj (independent extraction with their own chains), and Abu Masud (d. 401 AH) included it in his Atraf.
Yes, it fell out from the narration of al Nasafi (d. 295 AH), and also the hadith after it. That does not require that it is not in the narration of al Firabri (d. 320 AH), because his narration has extra ahadith compared to the narration of al Nasafi. I have pointed out many of them earlier, and later, if Allah wills.
As for allowing that something could be added into Sahih al Bukhari that is not from it, then this goes against what the ulama are upon, of judging every report that al Bukhari included in his book as sahih (authentic), and their agreement that it is firmly established that it is attributed to him. What he said is a corrupt imagination, and it opens the door to not trusting everything in the Sahih. Because if it is allowed in one report not specified, it is allowed in every single report, and then no one would trust anything in the book. The agreement of the ulama goes against that.
The route that al Bukhari brought pushes away Ibn Abd al Barr’s weakening of the route that al Ismaili brought. I have been long in this place so that a weak person does not get deceived by the words of al Humaydi and rely on them, because it is apparent corruption.
Abu Ubaydah Mamar ibn al Muthanna (d. 209 AH) mentioned in his book al Khayl, from the route of al Awzai (d. 157 AH), that a young horse was brought to mate with its mother, and it refused. She was then put into a house and covered with a cloth, and it mated with her.
When it smelled the scent of its mother, it went to its private part and cut it off with its teeth from its root. If this level of understanding exists in horses, even though they are farther from sharpness than monkeys, then it being possible in monkeys is more fitting.
Fath Al Bari (11/301-303)
al Albani said: “This report is very strange at first glance. How a human could know that monkeys marry, that they care about honour, and that they kill one who betrays it. Even if this really happened, how could Amr ibn Maymun know that the stoning was because of zina.
The problem might come from the chain. Either it is from Nuaym ibn Hammad, who is weak and accused, or from the narration of Hushaym using an ambiguous wording, since he was known for tadlis.
However, this doubt is weakened because Ibn Abd al Barr mentioned that the report was also narrated by Abbad ibn al Awwam from Husayn, just as Hushaym narrated it, but in a shorter form. Abbad is trustworthy and is from the narrators of al Bukhari and Muslim.
In addition, Isa ibn Hattan narrated it from Amr ibn Maymun in a longer and detailed form, and al Ismaili reported it. Isa was declared trustworthy by al Ijli and Ibn Hibban. His detailed version removes much of the apparent strangeness found in the short narration of Nuaym.
Because of this, Ibn Hajar inclined to strengthening the report, unlike Ibn Abd al Barr who weakened it.”
Mukhtasar Sahih al Bukhari, Muhammad Nasir al Din al Albani (2/535-536)
Turning the Tables on the Shia
It has been mentioned in the books of the Rafidah (Rafidah) that some animals had their male organ cut off because it had intercourse with its sister.
Al Saduq said: “Muhammad ibn al Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn al Walid narrated to us. He said: Ahmad ibn Idris and Muhammad ibn Yahya al Attar both narrated to us. They said: Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Yahya ibn Imran al Ashari narrated to us. He said: Ahmad ibn al Hasan ibn Ali ibn Faddal narrated to us, from Ahmad ibn Ibrahim ibn Ammar. He said: Ibn Nuwayh narrated it, from Zurarah. He said: Abu Abd Allah عليه السلام said: By Allah, I was informed that some animals were presented with their sister. When he went upon her and she went upon him, she uncovered herself to him and he realised that she was his sister. He then pulled away from her, seized his private part with his teeth, tore it off, and then fell down dead.” (‘Ilal al Sharai‘, al Saduq, vol 1, p 17. Also Wasa’il al Shi‘ah, al Hurr al ‘Amili, vol 20, p 366. And al Tafsir al Safi, al Fayd al Kashani, vol 1, p 415. And Tafsir Nur al Thaqalayn, al Huwayzi, vol 1, p 430. And Qisas al Anbiya’, al Jazairi, pp 61 to 62.)
How did the animal disguise itself from its brother?
Is it known among animals that the one who has intercourse with his sister kills himself??
