Bismika Alllahuma

Una diversión de poca polémica con respecto a un hadith que se registra en el al-Bukhari de Sahih ha emergido y está siendo circulada recientemente por algunos apostates del Islam. Naturalmente, los misionarios cristianos habían decidido también saltar en el carro de la banda de música de manchar Islam con una interpretación de este hadith también. Se registra el hadith como sigue:

Volumen 5, libro 58, número 188:

Compartimiento narrado Maimun de Amru del `: “Durante el período pre-lslamic de la ignorancia vi un ella-mono rodeado por un número de monos. Eran todos que lo empedraban, porque había confiado cópula sexual ilegal. I también, empedrado le junto con ellos.”

La premisa básica de su “carga” es que el profeta (P) había pedido empedrar de un ella-mono, y que lapidation para zina (fornication) se extiende a los animales también.

De nuevo a fundamentos: La aplicación Isnad y Matn

La citación completa del hadith según lo registrado por el al-Bukhari es como sigue:

¹

En un escrutinio más cercano del hadith sobre-registrado, cualquier persona perito en las ciencias del Hadith (al-hadith del ulum) vería inmediatamente el error de tal demanda cuando matn (texto) y isnad (cadena de la transmisión) del hadith se estudia.

En primer lugar, la persona que pronunció las palabras antedichas no era el profeta Muhammad (p) mismo, pero por uno de sus compañeros por nombre del compartimiento de Amru del `Maimun (r).

Lo que sigue es la cadena de la transmisión para este hadith:

Se categoriza el hadith como mauquf (se encendió. “parado”), significando que es un refrán remontado a el de un compañero (R). Por lo tanto, puesto que está claro que este hadith no es un refrán del profeta (p), atribuido mucho menos a él, no puede ser una base para una decisión en Islam.

En segundo lugar, la frase dominante en el hadith antedicho es “durante el período pre-lslamic de la ignorancia”, que los críticos habían pasado por alto obviamente. Mientras que concedemos eso sobre hadith se acepta de hecho como auténtico, también discutiríamos que según los principios de la crítica del hadith, matn del hadith arriba sea rechazádole aunque había sido atribuido al profeta (p). `Abdur Rahman I. Doi ha contorneado este principio indicando eso:

As far as the Matn is concerned, the following principles of criticism of the Hadith are laid down:

(1) The Hadith should not be contrary to the text or the teaching of the Qur’an or the accepted basic principles of Islam.
(2) The Hadith should not be against the dictates of reason or laws of nature and common experience.
(3) The Hadith should not be contrary to the Traditions which have already been accepted by authorities as reliable and authentic by applying all principles.
(4) The Hadith which sings the praises and excellence of any tribe, place or persons should be generally rejected
(5) The Hadith that contains the dates and minute details of the future events should be rejected.
(6) The Hadith that contains some remarks of the Prophet which are not in keeping with the Islamic belief of Prophethood and the position of the Holy Prophet or such expressions as may not be suitable to him, should be rejected.²

Interestingly, Ibn Hajar in his Fath al-Bari had discussed at length the exegesis of the above hadith. He quotes from Ibn Abd al-Barr as follows:

Ibn Abd al-Barr has denounced this report of ‘Amru Ibn Maimun and said: “It includes attributing adultery to a creature not assigned (with distinction between lawful and unlawful) and implementation of legal punishment on animals. This is denounced before scholars”.³

Then Ibn Hajar responds to the above argument of Ibn Abd al-Barr:

…I answer that the event being similar to that of adultery and stoning does not necessitate that it is really adultery or legal punishment. It is called so because it is similar to it, so it does not necessitate assignment of animals (with distinction between lawful and unlawful).⁴

In other words, even if we assume for the sake of the argument that the claims of the apostates are true and the above hadith is indeed ascribed to the Prophet(P), the critics will still not be able to make the charge that the Prophet(P) had ordered the stoning of a she-monkey.

Ibn Qutaiba makes further commentary on the above hadith as follows:

They said: You narrated that some monkeys stoned a she-monkey for fornication. If the monkeys stoned her while she is married, the hadith would be funnier. According to this example, you cannot be sure for perhaps monkeys implement many rulings of the Torah! Or probably they embrace Judaism! So, if the monkeys are Jews, then perhaps the pigs are Christians!

Abu Muhammad ['Abdullah Ibn Qutaiba, d. 276 A.H.] said: In response to this sneer we state that the narrative of monkeys is neither on authority of Allah’s Messneger (peace be upon him) nor any of his Companions; it is merely something mentioned by ‘Amr Ibn Maimon. Muhammad Ibn Khalid Ibn Khadash told me that Muslim Ibn Qutaiba said on authority of Hashim on authority of Hasin on authority of ‘Amr Ibn Maimon that he said, “A she-monkey had committed fornication during Jahiliyyah, so the monkeys stoned her and I stoned her with them”.

Abu Muhammad said: He could have seen the monkeys stoning a she-monkey, so he imagined that they were stoning her because she committed fornication, this cannot be known except by supposition because monkeys do not express themselves and the one who sees them gathering cannot tell whether they fornicate or not. This is a supposition. Perhaps, the old man knew she had fornicated for some reason we do not know for monkeys are the most fornicating animals. Arabs refer to them as examples of (exaggerated) fornication and say: “fornicating more than a monkey”. Unless fornication is common among them, they would not be used as an example. There is none closer to man in marriage and jealousy than them. The animals get hostile with one another, jump over and punish one another. Some bite, some scratch, some break and some smash. Monkeys stone with their hands whom Allah created as man stones. If they stoned one another for a cause rather than fornication and the old man thought it is fornication, it would not be far. If the old man knew about fornication by some evidence and that stoning was for it, it would not be far either because - as I have informed you - they are the most jealous among animals and the closest to man regarding understanding.⁵

The points we have made should make it clear that ‘Amru bin Maimun was relating his thinking or perception prior to the advent of Islam - how he had foolishly believed that even monkeys had committed adultery! It happened during a period whereby the pre-Islamic Arabs would indulge in the most detestable acts such as burying their daughters alive and doing the tawaf while they were naked. Thus this means that Islam has elevated the status of mankind by making them more rational and mindful of their actions, a conclusion that the haters and enemies of Islam would certainly not like to admit.

If the above hadith is used to condemn Islam with regards to treatment towards animals, then the Bible has the following to say:

If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he must be put to death, and you must kill the animal. If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.⁶

In other words, an animal that has committed its sin of adultery is liable to be punished for a “crime” it is unaware of in the first place, according to the Bible.

Conclusions

It is clear that where the hadith regarding the stoning of a she-monkey for adultery is concerned, it is simply a recollection of a Companion (R) of the Prophet (P) regarding this maltreatment of animals during the pre-Islamic period of jahiliyyah, which is in total contradiction to Islamic principles and norms. Thus, the claim that this hadith is the basis from which the lapidation for married adulterers in Islam came about is nothing more than a damp firecracker hurled by the haters and enemies of Islam. That their view of Islam had been tainted by deep ignorance, hatred, paranoia and xenophobia is no big secret, and this latest polemic is ipso facto a confirmation of their current condition.

And only God knows best.

1. Muhammad bin Isma’il ‘Abdallah al-Ja’far (Imam al-Bukhari), Sahih al-Bukhari, Vol. 5, Bk. 58, No. 188 [back]
2. ‘Abdur Rahman I. Doi, Introduction to the Hadith (A.S. Nordeen, 2001), p. 15 [back]
3. Ahmed Ibn `Ali Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalani, Fath al-Bari [back]
4. ibid. [back]
5. Ibn Qutaiba, Ta’wil Mukhtalaf Al-Hadith, pp. 255-256 [back]
6. Leviticus, 20:15-16 [back]