Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Jewish Monkeys?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

31 minutes ago, The Batman said:

I would love to see the content of the hadith in full.

حدثني محمد بن قولويه، والحسين بن الحسن بن بندار القمي، قالا :حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، قال: حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد، عن يونس بن عبد الرحمن، ان بعض أصحابنا سأله وأنا حاضر، فقال له: يا أبا محمد ما أشدك في الحديث، وأكثر انكارك لما يرويه أصحابنا، فما الذي يحملك على رد الأحاديث؟ فقال: حدثني هشام بن الحكم أنه سمع أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: لا تقبلوا علينا حديثا الا ما وافق القرآن والسنة، أو تجدون معه شاهدا من أحاديثنا المتقدمة، فان المغيرة بن سعيد لعنه الله دس في كتب أصحاب أبي أحاديث لم يحدث بها أبي، فاتقوا الله ولا تقبلوا علينا ما خالف قول ربنا تعالى وسنة نبينا صلى الله عليه وآله فانا إذا حدثنا، قلنا قال الله عز وجل، وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله.

قال يونس: وافيت العراق فوجدت بها قطعة من أصحاب أبي جعفر عليه السلام ووجدت أصحاب أبي عبد الله عليه السلام متوافرين، فسمعت منهم وأخذت كتبهم، فعرضتها من بعد على أبي الحسن الرضا عليه السلام فأنكر منها أحاديث كثيرة أن يكون من أحاديث أبي عبد الله عليه السلام .وقال لي: ان أبا الخطاب كذب على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام لعن الله أبا الخطاب، وكذلك أصحاب أبي الخطاب يدسون هذه الا حديث إلى يومنا هذا في كتب أصحاب أبي عبد الله عليه السلام، فلا تقبلوا علينا خلاف القرآن فانا ان تحدثنا حدثنا بموافقة القرآن وموافقة السنة، انا عن الله وعن رسوله نحدث، ولا نقول قال فلان وفلان، فيتناقض كلامنا، ان كلام آخرنا مثل كلام أولنا، وكلام أولنا مصادق لكلام آخرنا، فإذا اتاكم من يحدثكم بخلاف ذلك فردوه عليه وقولوا أنت اعلم وما جئت به، فان مع كل قول منا حقيقة وعليه نورا، فما لا حقيقة معه ولا نور عليه فذلك من قول الشيطان.

Muhammad b. Qulawayh and al-Husayn b. al-Hasan b. Bandar al-Qummi – Sa’d b. ‘Abd Allah – Muhammad b. ‘Isa b. ‘Ubayd:

One of our companions asked Yunus b. ‘Abd al-Rahman, while I was present, saying, “O Abu Muhammad, why are you strict concerning ahadith, and why do you frequently reject what our companions narrate? What is your reason for rejecting ahadith?” So, he replied, “Hisham b. al-Hakam told me that he heard Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, saying: ‘Do not accept any hadith which is attributed to us except what agrees with the Qur’an and the Sunnah, or except if you find corroboration for it from our earlier ahadith. This is because al-Mughirah b. Sa’id, may Allah curse him, has interpolated into the books of my father’s companions ahadith which my father never narrated. Therefore, fear Allah, and do not accept anything which is attributed to us if it contradicts the Word of our Lord, the Most High and the Sunnah of our Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, for we, whenever we narrate, we say: {Allah, the Almighty, the Most Glorious, said} and {the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, said}.’”

Yunus said: “I came to Iraq and found some of the companions of Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, and I also found that the companions of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, were numerous. So, I heard (ahadith) from them and also collected their books; and I later presented them to Abu al-Hasan al-Rida, peace be upon him, and he rejected a lot of their ahadith, stating that they were not ahadith of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. And he said to me, ‘Verily, Abu al-Khattab lied upon Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. May Allah curse Abu al-Khattab and the companions of Abu al-Khattab. They are interpolating these ahadith, up till this day of ours, in the books of the companions of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. Therefore, do not accept anything attributed to us which contradicts the Qur’an, because whenever we speak, we speak what agrees with the Qur’an and the Sunnah. We narrate from Allah and from His Messenger. And we never say {so-and-so said}; otherwise our words would contradict. Verily, the words of the last of us is the same as the words of the first of us, and the words of the first of us confirm the words of the last of us. So, whenever anyone comes to you with a hadith which contradicts this, reject it from him and say {You know, and what you have brought}. This is because with every statement from us there is reality, and upon it is light. As such, whatsoever has no reality with it and no light upon it, then it is from the words of Shaytan.”

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

This seems like straight out of The Book of Funny Hadiths - because it's comical, ridiculous, and stupid; and also because Bukhari et al specialise in those kind of hadiths.

There is no shariah among animals, they don't have marriages and infidelity. They aren't held accountable to what is written in Quran or any other book of the Ahl-e-Kitab. The hadith contradicts the basic philosophy of Islam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

حدثني محمد بن قولويه، والحسين بن الحسن بن بندار القمي، قالا :حدثنا سعد بن عبد الله، قال: حدثني محمد بن عيسى بن عبيد، عن يونس بن عبد الرحمن، ان بعض أصحابنا سأله وأنا حاضر، فقال له: يا أبا محمد ما أشدك في الحديث، وأكثر انكارك لما يرويه أصحابنا، فما الذي يحملك على رد الأحاديث؟ فقال: حدثني هشام بن الحكم أنه سمع أبا عبد الله عليه السلام يقول: لا تقبلوا علينا حديثا الا ما وافق القرآن والسنة، أو تجدون معه شاهدا من أحاديثنا المتقدمة، فان المغيرة بن سعيد لعنه الله دس في كتب أصحاب أبي أحاديث لم يحدث بها أبي، فاتقوا الله ولا تقبلوا علينا ما خالف قول ربنا تعالى وسنة نبينا صلى الله عليه وآله فانا إذا حدثنا، قلنا قال الله عز وجل، وقال رسول الله صلى الله عليه وآله.

قال يونس: وافيت العراق فوجدت بها قطعة من أصحاب أبي جعفر عليه السلام ووجدت أصحاب أبي عبد الله عليه السلام متوافرين، فسمعت منهم وأخذت كتبهم، فعرضتها من بعد على أبي الحسن الرضا عليه السلام فأنكر منها أحاديث كثيرة أن يكون من أحاديث أبي عبد الله عليه السلام .وقال لي: ان أبا الخطاب كذب على أبي عبد الله عليه السلام لعن الله أبا الخطاب، وكذلك أصحاب أبي الخطاب يدسون هذه الا حديث إلى يومنا هذا في كتب أصحاب أبي عبد الله عليه السلام، فلا تقبلوا علينا خلاف القرآن فانا ان تحدثنا حدثنا بموافقة القرآن وموافقة السنة، انا عن الله وعن رسوله نحدث، ولا نقول قال فلان وفلان، فيتناقض كلامنا، ان كلام آخرنا مثل كلام أولنا، وكلام أولنا مصادق لكلام آخرنا، فإذا اتاكم من يحدثكم بخلاف ذلك فردوه عليه وقولوا أنت اعلم وما جئت به، فان مع كل قول منا حقيقة وعليه نورا، فما لا حقيقة معه ولا نور عليه فذلك من قول الشيطان.

Muhammad b. Qulawayh and al-Husayn b. al-Hasan b. Bandar al-Qummi – Sa’d b. ‘Abd Allah – Muhammad b. ‘Isa b. ‘Ubayd:

One of our companions asked Yunus b. ‘Abd al-Rahman, while I was present, saying, “O Abu Muhammad, why are you strict concerning ahadith, and why do you frequently reject what our companions narrate? What is your reason for rejecting ahadith?” So, he replied, “Hisham b. al-Hakam told me that he heard Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, saying: ‘Do not accept any hadith which is attributed to us except what agrees with the Qur’an and the Sunnah, or except if you find corroboration for it from our earlier ahadith. This is because al-Mughirah b. Sa’id, may Allah curse him, has interpolated into the books of my father’s companions ahadith which my father never narrated. Therefore, fear Allah, and do not accept anything which is attributed to us if it contradicts the Word of our Lord, the Most High and the Sunnah of our Prophet, peace be upon him and his family, for we, whenever we narrate, we say: {Allah, the Almighty, the Most Glorious, said} and {the Messenger of Allah, peace be upon him and his family, said}.’”

Yunus said: “I came to Iraq and found some of the companions of Abu Ja’far, peace be upon him, and I also found that the companions of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him, were numerous. So, I heard (ahadith) from them and also collected their books; and I later presented them to Abu al-Hasan al-Rida, peace be upon him, and he rejected a lot of their ahadith, stating that they were not ahadith of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. And he said to me, ‘Verily, Abu al-Khattab lied upon Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. May Allah curse Abu al-Khattab and the companions of Abu al-Khattab. They are interpolating these ahadith, up till this day of ours, in the books of the companions of Abu ‘Abd Allah, peace be upon him. Therefore, do not accept anything attributed to us which contradicts the Qur’an, because whenever we speak, we speak what agrees with the Qur’an and the Sunnah. We narrate from Allah and from His Messenger. And we never say {so-and-so said}; otherwise our words would contradict. Verily, the words of the last of us is the same as the words of the first of us, and the words of the first of us confirm the words of the last of us. So, whenever anyone comes to you with a hadith which contradicts this, reject it from him and say {You know, and what you have brought}. This is because with every statement from us there is reality, and upon it is light. As such, whatsoever has no reality with it and no light upon it, then it is from the words of Shaytan.”

Thank you, I have seen this beautiful hadith before from you bro.

I was wondering about the hadith in al-Kafi in the Book of Food.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, The Batman said:

Thank you, I have seen this beautiful hadith before from you bro.

I was wondering about the hadith in al-Kafi in the Book of Food.

I already told you. If a hadith contradicts reality, it is a fabrication. If you think that monkeys started existing only 4000 years ago, then there is nothing I can do about that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

I already told you. If a hadith contradicts reality, it is a fabrication. If you think that monkeys started existing only 4000 years ago, then there is nothing I can do about that.

No, no brother. I am saying I want to see the hadith to see if it does have something like that in it. (which undoubtebly contradicts reality).

I have not seen the hadith yet, so I will judge it (based on the hadith you brought forth - Qur'an, Sunnah and Reality) after I see it.

Once again, may Allah bless you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, The Batman said:

No, no brother. I am saying I want to see the hadith to see if it does have something like that in it. (which undoubtebly contradicts reality).

I have not seen the hadith yet, so I will judge it (based on the hadith you brought forth - Qur'an, Sunnah and Reality) after I see it.

Once again, may Allah bless you.

You mentioned that hadith first. I would think you were going to quote it. Anyway, I have no reason to spend my precious time searching for a fabricated hadith.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 minutes ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

You mentioned that hadith first. I would think you were going to quote it. Anyway, I have no reason to spend my precious time searching for a fabricated hadith.

Hold on a sec, I will try and find it. You can judge it after you see it bro.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Quote

This is because with every statement from us there is reality, and upon it is light. As such, whatsoever has no reality with it and no light upon it, then it is from the words of Shaytan.”

If knowledge like science is reality but it does not necessary have light upon it, is it from shaytan? Well i wonder what about statements that have reality but not light.

Edited by Dhulfikar
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
12 hours ago, The Batman said:

Uhh don't you know the Holy Qur'an says some people were transformed into humans and pigs? Why isn't that a good reason to say it is haram - for that reason?

I'll assume you meant 'apes'. It doesnt say that they were literally morphed into apes and pigs, it says they were made to be 'apes, despised'. As someone has already said, even if it did happen as you interpret, all apes and pigs that exist could not be descendants of the metamorphosed ones, so why should it be relevent to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
4 minutes ago, Ruq said:

I'll assume you meant 'apes'. It doesnt say that they were literally morphed into apes and pigs, it says they were made to be 'apes, despised'. As someone has already said, even if it did happen as you interpret, all apes and pigs that exist could not be descendants of the metamorphosed ones, so why should it be relevent to them.

Although the hadiths confirm it was literal, and with hadith we do Tafsir of The Holy Book. But for Qur'anists, they obviously rather interpret The Book by their own desires.

In anyway, I was never implying these monkeys which are here today are descendants of those morphed monkeys. I was replying to why your claim that it is a bad reason to believe that is the reason to why monkeys are haram to eat. That these animals are the types of animals that were chosen for humans to morph into. So these animals are not amongst the "likable" animals in Islam.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
6 minutes ago, The Batman said:

Although the hadiths confirm it was literal, and with hadith we do Tafsir of The Holy Book. But for Qur'anists, they obviously rather interpret The Book by their own desires.

In anyway, I was never implying these monkeys which are here today are descendants of those morphed monkeys. I was replying to why your claim that it is a bad reason to believe that is the reason to why monkeys are haram to eat. That these animals are the types of animals that were chosen for humans to morph into. So these animals are not amongst the "likable" animals in Islam.

 

And hadith can be wrong for a multitude of reasons. That they have characteristics that are not 'likeable' is exactly why people are compared to them, yet monkeys and pigs are considered far more 'likeable' by people than rats and spiders and fleas, even by Jews and Muslims; Jews and Muslims just dont eat pigs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 minutes ago, Ruq said:

And hadith can be wrong for a multitude of reasons. That they have characteristics that are not 'likeable' is exactly why people are compared to them, yet monkeys and pigs are considered far more 'likeable' by people than rats and spiders and fleas, even by Jews and Muslims; Jews and Muslims just dont eat pigs.

However, the particular hadith pointing out that it was a literal transformation into monkeys and pigs is not wrong, not even linguistically.

There is a scale as to which creatures are liked the most, one thing for sure pigs won't be on the "likable" side - for Muslims, as opposed to horses and what not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

it is not a prophetic narration.

The narration is mauquf. It was Amr's own experience and he does not claim to have listened to the monkeys but what he understood from the situation.


In Fath al-Bârî, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî gives a more detailed narration of this event from `Amr b. Maymûn:
I was in Yemen tending the sheep of my people up upon an elevation. A male monkey came with a female and laid his head on her hand. Then a smaller monkey came and beckoned towards her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the cheek of
the first monkey and followed him. He mated with her while I looked on. Then she returned and gently tried to slip her hand back under the cheek of the first monkey, but he woke up suddenly, smelled her, and cried out.

Then the monkeys gathered round and he began screaming while pointing towards her with his hand. The monkeys went all about and came back with that monkey that I recognized. They dug a pit for the two of them and stoned them both. So I had witnessed stoning being carried out by other than Adam’s descendants.

Ibn Hajar writes inFath al-Bârî :
It is not necessary that an event that looks like adultery and stoning was really a case of adultery and capital punishment. He merely described it that way because it looked like these things. It does not mean that legal accountability was being applied to animals.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

If someone can actually move the throne of the queen in a blink and someone other than prophets could talk to birds then certainly one could interpret the actions of animals.

btw does anyone have miraat or other resource to check the status of following for us...

al-kafi
The Imam (a.s.) said,
"Certain birds were given to al-Kalbia lady to help her in her mourning for al-Husayn (a.s.).
When she saw them she asked, "What are these?" They told her that they were a gift to help her in mourning for al-Husayn (a.s.)."

H 1269, Ch. 118, h 4
Muhammad ibn Yahya has narrated from Muhammad ibn Ahmad from Muhammad ibn alHusayn from Muhammad ibn Ali from ‘Asim ibn Hamid from Muhammad ibn Muslim who
has said the following. "One day I was in the presence of abu Ja‘far (a.s.) that a pair of turtledove came and sat on the wall and exchanged voices as they usually do. Abu Ja‘far (a.s.)
then also exchanged voices with them for a while. They then flew away and on the other wall the male sounded to the fame for a while and then both of them flew away. I then asked The
Imam (a.s.), "May Allah take my soul in service for your cause, "What were these birds?" The
Imam (a.s.) said, "O ibn Muslim, all that Allah has created, such as birds, animals or other things that have life they obey us better than people. The male dove was suspicious about the female and she denied it on oath which the male did not accept. Then she asked if he would abide by the decision of Muhammad ibn Ali? He agreed and told him that he had wronged his pair then he believed her."


I (Narrator: Dawud bin Farqad) was sitting in the house of Imam Jafar Sadiq(a.s) and I saw pigeon who was cooing for a long time.

Imam Jafar Sadiq(a.s) looked at me and asked, O Dawud, Do you know what this bird is saying ?

I replied, "May I sacrifice myself for you! No, I don't know."
Imam(a.s) said, "It is cursing the killers of Hussain ibn Ali (a.s). Therefore, Choose pigeons as birds in your houses."

Ref: Kamil Al Ziyarat P 196

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

@DigitalUmmah

Stories like these - Don't believe everything. The Shia scholar claims that during hajj season monkeys held protests (and started revolution) and blocked the highway between Makkah and Madina when one of their companions were hit by a car:

 

Edited by notme
Link to anti Shia site removed.
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, aansoogas said:

it is not a prophetic narration.The narration is mauquf. It was Amr's own experience and he does not claim to have listened to the monkeys but what he understood from the situation.

Actually, he declared explicitly that the she-monkey had committed adultery. He did not mention that as a guesswork or his "interpretation." He gave it as a fact.

The question is whether he was lying or telling the truth - about the adultery of the she-monkey.

Quote

In Fath al-Bârî, Ibn Hajar al-`Asqalânî gives a more detailed narration of this event from `Amr b. Maymûn:
I was in Yemen tending the sheep of my people up upon an elevation. A male monkey came with a female and laid his head on her hand. Then a smaller monkey came and beckoned towards her, so she gently slipped her hand out from under the cheek of
the first monkey and followed him. He mated with her while I looked on. Then she returned and gently tried to slip her hand back under the cheek of the first monkey, but he woke up suddenly, smelled her, and cried out.

Then the monkeys gathered round and he began screaming while pointing towards her with his hand. The monkeys went all about and came back with that monkey that I recognized. They dug a pit for the two of them and stoned them both. So I had witnessed stoning being carried out by other than Adam’s descendants.

Where is the chain of narration of this?

Quote

Ibn Hajar writes inFath al-Bârî :
It is not necessary that an event that looks like adultery and stoning was really a case of adultery and capital punishment. He merely described it that way because it looked like these things. It does not mean that legal accountability was being applied to animals.

He declared explicitly that she had committed adultery. He did not say: "I think..." or "It seems ..." He said, "She had committed adultery." There is a difference between these statements.

5 hours ago, aansoogas said:

If someone can actually move the throne of the queen in a blink and someone other than prophets could talk to birds then certainly one could interpret the actions of animals.

Animals and birds talking do occur due to Allah's miracles, and His beloved servants hear them. Examples are in the Qur'an. Meanwhile, in this case of al-Bukhari's hadith, the narrator was a kafir. Don't tell me he was a saint who could hear animals?!

1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

Stories like these - Don't believe everything. The Shia scholar claims that during hajj season monkeys held protests (and started revolution) and blocked the highway between Makkah and Madina when one of their companions were hit by a car

You mean that narration in Sahih al-Bukhari is a huge lie? Also, are you suggesting that the video clip from "the Shia scholar" and the narration of al-Bukhari are of the same category?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

 

In response to the sarcastic title from a Shiachatter who makes fun of the narration of Amr bin Maymoun:

If you want to make jokes on Amr bin Maymoun for saying that he saw monkeys stone a monkey for committing adultery, then be my guest. This is the same narrator that narrates all those narrations in praise of Ali in Musnad Ahmad.

Oh, wait! Now he is reliable again?! Make up your minds.

Furthermore, Shias believe in Jewish monkeys since it is authentically narrated in Al Kafi, in the Book of Food, under the second chapter and fifth hadith, that lizards, mice, MONKEYS, and pigs, were transformed from humans into those creatures, and therefore, it is haram to eat them in Shiasm.

Therefore, it shouldn't be that strange for Shias to accept this strange narration from Amr bin Maymoun, since they believe that monkeys used to be people.

 

In response to Farid.

If you think this is an adequate answer, it isn't.

If a liar comes and tells me that he grew wings and flew, and then tells me that China exists, his obvious statement of truth doesn't change the fact that he lied, in the most obvious and hilarious way. But I regress, you can continue believing this silly hadith, but don't think you actually gave a logical rebuttal. Even the liars know that Imam Ali [as] was something special, a good liar mixes truth with falsehood.

This is the problem with people from these websites, they couldn't debate their way out of a wet cardboard box.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Quote

In response to the sarcastic title from a Shiachatter who makes fun of the narration of Amr bin Maymoun:

If you want to make jokes on Amr bin Maymoun for saying that he saw monkeys stone a monkey for committing adultery, then be my guest. This is the same narrator that narrates all those narrations in praise of Ali in Musnad Ahmad.

Oh, wait! Now he is reliable again?! Make up your minds.

Furthermore, Shias believe in Jewish monkeys since it is authentically narrated in Al Kafi, in the Book of Food, under the second chapter and fifth hadith, that lizards, mice, MONKEYS, and pigs, were transformed from humans into those creatures, and therefore, it is haram to eat them in Shiasm.

Therefore, it shouldn't be that strange for Shias to accept this strange narration from Amr bin Maymoun, since they believe that monkeys used to be people.

 

If prophet did that then it must be the sunnah of prophet and must be preserved but today we don't see any such sunnah in any islamic sect about the rulings for animals(ie-monkeys).

What is stopping you to say this hadith as weak/fabricated in sahih bukhari?

Edited by MOHAMMAD MOHD
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Amr b Maymun is not even a sahabi... he is a Tabaee. Ahlus Sunnah pretty much are unanimous on prophetic narrations but there is a difference of opinion on non-prophetic.

Secondly, it is his own account. He did obviously interpret what he saw... no monkey came to him to tell about what they were actually doing.

13 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Actually, he declared explicitly that the she-monkey had committed adultery. He did not mention that as a guesswork or his "interpretation." He gave it as a fact.

The question is whether he was lying or telling the truth - about the adultery of the she-monkey.

Where is the chain of narration of this?

He declared explicitly that she had committed adultery. He did not say: "I think..." or "It seems ..." He said, "She had committed adultery." There is a difference between these statements.

Animals and birds talking do occur due to Allah's miracles, and His beloved servants hear them. Examples are in the Qur'an. Meanwhile, in this case of al-Bukhari's hadith, the narrator was a kafir. Don't tell me he was a saint who could hear animals?!

talking about a personal experience is not about lying or telling the truth. This narration from a Tabai is a personal account and nothing more than that and there are other books where this account is mentioned with chain of narrators like al Muzzi's tahzib al kamal where chain consists of shabab bin sawar, abdul malik bin muslim from isa bin hattan from amr bin maymun etc.

[Edit: do not curse other site members.]

Edited by notme
Language
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aansoogas said:

Amr b Maymun is not even a sahabi... he is a Tabaee. Ahlus Sunnah pretty much are unanimous on prophetic narrations but there is a difference of opinion on non-prophetic.

Does that really matter? Would it have made any difference if he had been a Sahabi? Would a lie become true simply because a Sahabi had narrated it?

Besides, he accepted Islam during the lifetime of the Prophet (peace be upon him and his family). However, it is not recorded that he met the Messenger of Allah.

Quote

Secondly, it is his own account. He did obviously interpret what he saw... no monkey came to him to tell about what they were actually doing.

Well, why has al-Bukhari recorded it in his Sahih? He declared explicitly that the she-monkey committed adultery. This claim of his was either true or a false accusation against an innocent monkey :muslima:. Al-Bukhari obviously recorded the athar because he believed 'Amr's accusation of zina against the she-monkey.

1 hour ago, aansoogas said:

Astaghfirullah... curse be on you for calling a Tabai kafir for no reason.

Are you then saying that 'Amr was a Muslim when he witnessed the trial of the she-monkey?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 08 April 2016 at 7:59 AM, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Well, according to our reports, when Allah transforms anyone into an animal, he dies within three days, without leaving any offspring. 'Allamah al-Majlisi, may Allah be pleased with him, stated this in his Bihar:

أقول: قد ورد في أخبارنا أيضا موافقا لما روي عن ابن عباس، كما في تفسير العسكري عليه السلام: كانوا كذلك ثلاثة أيام، ثم بعث الله عليهم ريحا ومطرا فجر بهم إلى البحر وما بقي مسخ بعد ثلاثة أيام، وأما التي ترون من هذه المصورات بصورها فإنما هي أشباهها لاهي بأعيانها ولا من نسلها.
 

وروى الصدوق في العلل بإسناده عن عبد الله بن الفضل قال: قلت لأبي عبد الله عليه السلام قول الله عز وجل " ولقد علمتم الذين اعتدوا منكم في السبت فقلنا لهم كونوا قردة خاسئين " قال: إن أولئك مسخوا ثلاثة أيام، ثم ماتوا ولم يتناسلوا، وإن القردة اليوم مثل أولئك، وكذلك الخنزير وسائر المسوخ ما وجد منها اليوم من شئ فهو مثله، لا يحل أن يؤكل لحمه (1) (الخبر).
 

وروى في العيون بإسناده عن علي بن محمد بن الجهم قال: سمعت المأمون يسأل الرضا عليه السلام عما يرويه الناس من أمر الزهرة، وأنها كانت امرأة فتن بها هاروت وماروت، وما يروونه من أمر سهيل: أنه كان عشارا باليمن. فقال عليه السلام: كذبوا في قولهم أنهما كوكبان، وإنهما كانتا دابتين من دواب البحر، فغلط الناس وظنوا أنهما الكوكبان، وما كان الله ليمسخ أعداءه أنوارا مضيئة، ثم يبقيهما ما بقيت السماء والأرض، وإن المسوخ لم يبق أكثر من ثلاثة أيام حتى ماتت، وما تناسل منها شئ، وما على وجه الأرض اليوم مسخ، وإن التي وقعت عليها اسم المسوخية مثل القرد والخنزير والدب وأشباهها، إنما هي مثل ما مسخ الله عز وجل على صورها قوما غضب الله عليهم ولعنهم، بإنكارهم توحيد الله وتكذيبهم رسله (الخبر) (2).
 

أقول: فقد ثبت بهذه الاخبار أن هذه الحيوانات ليست من نسل هؤلاء المسوخ ولا من نوعهم، وإنما هي على صورهم. وقد عرفت أن المسخ ليس تناسخا، لان الروح لم ينتقل إلى بدن آخر، وإنما تغيرت صورة البدن، وأما التناسخ بمعنى انتقال

It is apparently an error to assume that there were no monkeys on the earth before the time of Prophet Musa (peace be upon him). There certainly were monkeys long before then - in Africa, Asia, North America, South America, Europe, Australia and so on. The few who were transformed into monkeys in Israel (in the Middle East) died three days later without producing any (monkey) offspring, as the hadiths (and also science) confirm. Moreover, as the second hadith above shows, the monkeys and pigs and others today have absolutely no link with the transformed humans of the past.

Reply from brother Farid:

Quote

I have looked up the responses on the Shiachat thread and I have found that there is not a single post worth responding to with the exception of this post. The thread started has attempted to refute me by quoting narrations that suggest that a transformed animal does not live past three days in order to counter the authentic hadith from Al-Kafi that I have quoted earlier.

This is refuted by the fact that all the narrations presented are extremely weak.

The first narration comes from the path of Tafseer Al-Askari, which is a rejected Tafseer by Shia standards.

The second narration comes through the path of Sahl bin Ziyad, who was weakened by the early Shia scholars. Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Eisa Al-Ash’ari kicked him out of Qum and accused him of being a liar. (See Al-Najashi p. 184)

The third narration is not only weak, but comes from the Nasibi Ali bin Mohammad bin Al-Jahm. Refer to Al-Mufeed min Mu’jam Rijal Al-Hadith p. 408 and p. 387 which refer to him as such and points out that he hated his father because he gave him the name: Ali.

In other words, the correct stance by Shias, according to authentic Shia hadiths, is that monkeys and pigs were once humans, and therefore, it is haram to eat them. Since this is the correct Shia stance, it shouldn’t be an issue to believe that monkeys practice stoning. If you don’t want to believe this, then I once again suggest rejecting ALL the narrations of the “crazy man” Amr bin Maymoun, even the ones that support your beliefs (i.e. hadith of Ali sleeping in the Prophet’s bed, that he is mawla of the believers after the Prophet, etc).

Prediction: Thread starter will continue to reject the authentic hadith in Al-Kafi and accept the weak hadiths since he values his own rationale over the authentic statements of Ahlulbayt.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

I have looked up the responses on the Shiachat thread and I have found that there is not a single post worth responding to with the exception of this post. The thread started has attempted to refute me by quoting narrations that suggest that a transformed animal does not live past three days in order to counter the authentic hadith from Al-Kafi that I have quoted earlier.

Farid can't stop lying. Can he? I quoted the sahih hadith of Imam al-Rida (peace be upon him) which orders us to reject any hadith which contradicts the Qur'an, or the mutawatir Sunnah, or reality. But, yeah, the hadith is not worth replying to - because the Nasibi has no reply to it. Unlike in the religion of the Nawasib, the human-made, fallible rijal system does not determine absolute truth for us. It is useful. But, we have other tools which supersede rijal in a lot of cases.

In any case, I did not quote those ahadith in reply to the liar, Farid. His servant, Abul Hussain, can check that again for him.

1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

This is refuted by the fact that all the narrations presented are extremely weak.

The first narration comes from the path of Tafseer Al-Askari, which is a rejected Tafseer by Shia standards.

The second narration comes through the path of Sahl bin Ziyad, who was weakened by the early Shia scholars. Ahmad bin Mohammad bin Eisa Al-Ash’ari kicked him out of Qum and accused him of being a liar. (See Al-Najashi p. 184)

The third narration is not only weak, but comes from the Nasibi Ali bin Mohammad bin Al-Jahm. Refer to Al-Mufeed min Mu’jam Rijal Al-Hadith p. 408 and p. 387 which refer to him as such and points out that he hated his father because he gave him the name: Ali.

Sahl b. Ziyad is a disputed figure, and was only weakened by "some" (not "the") early Shi'a scholars. In recent years, we have scholars who have done new researches about him, and have concluded that he was thiqah. (I used to consider him da'if [based on my previous extreme rijal of al-Muhsini]. But, upon a re-examination of his case [and, of course, of others too], I am inclined to consider him thiqah, because (i) Shaykh al-Kulayni has trusted his ahadith in al-Kafi and has narrated a lot from him [which is a sign of reliability among the early Shi'ah]; (ii) Shaykh al-Tusi in his Rijal [which was later than Fihrist and Istibsar] called him thiqah and also relied upon his ahadith in al-Tahdhib; (iii) Shaykh al-Saduq has trusted his ahadith in al-Faqih; (iv) Sahl is one of the narrators of Kamil al-Ziyarat and Tafsir al-Qummi; and (v) al-Khazzar al-Qummi has authenticated his ahadith in Kifayat al-Athar).

1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

In other words, the correct stance by Shias, according to authentic Shia hadiths, is that monkeys and pigs were once humans, and therefore, it is haram to eat them.

Even if we reject the other three reports (and we do not), we still reject your "authentic" hadiths. You have graded them based upon their sanad only. In our madhhab, the matn is more important than the sanad, and it must be authentic before the hadith can be authentic. In the current case, the matn of your "authentic" ahadith fails one of the tests set by Imam al-Rida (peace be upon him) and other Imams. So, we reject them. Once again, unlike in your failed sect, the rijal is not infallible and does not determine absolute for us.

1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

it shouldn’t be an issue to believe that monkeys practice stoning.

Any human being with the slight level of intelligence knows that it is an issue to claim that monkeys follow the Shari'ah.

1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

If you don’t want to believe this, then I once again suggest rejecting ALL the narrations of the “crazy man” Amr bin Maymoun, even the ones that support your beliefs (i.e. hadith of Ali sleeping in the Prophet’s bed, that he is mawla of the believers after the Prophet, etc).

A liar does not always lie. For instance, there are instances when you (Farid) speak the truth, even though you are a cursed Nasibi liar. Also, according to your "sahih" hadith, Shaytan spoke the truth to Abu Hurayrah, even though he was a terrible liar. If the ahadith of 'Amr are supported by our authentic ahadith, we accept them, based upon the authenticity of the matn.

3 hours ago, notme said:

To the OP: explain the purpose of this discussion. If the explanation is not satisfactory, the topic will be closed.

The purpose is to demonstrate how the two "Sahihs" of Sunnis - al-Bukhari and Muslim - can dumb the intelligence of otherwise brilliant chaps. Imagine someone publicly claiming that monkeys practice the Shari'ah of stoning for adultery:

1 hour ago, Abul Hussain Hassani said:

it shouldn’t be an issue to believe that monkeys practice stoning.

Wouldn't it be helpful to help others too, before they become like this due to the two "Sahihs"?

Edited by أبو فاطمة المحمدي
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
9 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

Well, why has al-Bukhari recorded it in his Sahih? He declared explicitly that the she-monkey committed adultery. This claim of his was either true or a false accusation against an innocent monkey :muslima:. Al-Bukhari obviously recorded the athar because he believed 'Amr's accusation of zina against the she-monkey.

Are you then saying that 'Amr was a Muslim when he witnessed the trial of the she-monkey?

not obviously....

al-Bukhari recorded this athaar as he believed that Amr told, what he (Amr) himself believed in.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
3 hours ago, أبو فاطمة المحمدي said:

The purpose is to demonstrate how the two "Sahihs" of Sunnis - al-Bukhari and Muslim - can dumb the intelligence of otherwise brilliant chaps. Imagine someone publicly claiming that monkeys practice the Shari'ah of stoning for adultery:

anyone can claim whatever he wants to claim. But the problem would only arise when people would make such claims a part of their beliefs or as something to be considered while making jurisprudential decisions etc.

There are also strange Shia narrations which ordinarily would never make sense... some even authenticated by Majlisi like that of Enaak etc and one could present them while trying to counter or ridicule shia books. and that is seemingly the approach being promoted here.

@notme

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets look at this hadith from a logical perspective, and then we'll make a judgement whether or not its a lie.

1- Either this occurrence happened by a miracle.

2- Or, monkeys naturally have the ability to stone female adulterers among their ranks.

There is no third option.

Number one is impossible because Allah [swt] did not place a sharia upon the animal kingdom, there is no "zina" among them. If this is the case, then Allah cannot order the chimpanzees to kill another animal from their species unjustly by the way of miracle, since they are not bound by sharia laws such as zina. A cow cannot commit zina against another cow. 

Number two is also impossible, because as we know ladies and gentlemen, monkeys do not stone other monkeys for "making zina," let atone dig a pit and make a stoning ceremony. they don't have the intellectual capability.

So what will you people say now? Show us why my argument is wrong. You know whats sad, that we are actually having this conversation about monkeys holding stoning execution ceremonies and the fact that we have to actually argue with Sunnis about it not being true. 

Edited by Abu-Jafar Herz
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...