Did Monkeys Stone for Zina? Refuting the Sahih al-Bukhari Objection
The enemies of Islam often mock Sahih al-Bukhari because of the narration of Amr ibn Maymun regarding monkeys stoning another monkey during the pre-Islamic period. They ask: how can monkeys stone anyone, and how did Amr ibn Maymun know that zina had occurred?
The objection is weaker than it looks. It depends on pretending that the report is a Prophetic legal ruling, when it is actually a personal eyewitness report from the pre-Islamic period. It also ignores the fact that animals, especially primates, are capable of coordinated behavior, tool use, jealousy, aggression, and even stone-throwing.
“I saw during the pre-Islamic period a monkey that had been surrounded by other monkeys after she had committed adultery. They stoned her, and I stoned her along with them.”
The critics then ask:
How can monkeys be stoned?
How did Amr ibn Maymun know that those monkeys had committed zina?
Why would such a report appear in Sahih al-Bukhari?
The Report Is Not from the Prophet ﷺ
The first and most important point is that this narration is not from the words of the Prophet ﷺ.
It is not a hadith where the Prophet ﷺ taught a ruling. It is not a command from the Prophet ﷺ. It is not a legal proof for applying Islamic law to animals. Rather, it is an eyewitness report from Amr ibn Maymun al-Awdi, who witnessed this scene during the pre-Islamic period.
Amr ibn Maymun al-Awdi was Abu Abdullah al-Kufi. He lived during Jahiliyyah and the time of Prophethood, then accepted Islam, but he did not meet the Prophet ﷺ. Therefore, the scholars counted him among the senior Tabi‘un, not among the Companions.
The narration is not saying that Islam legislated stoning for monkeys. It is not saying that monkeys have Shariah punishments. It is simply reporting something Amr ibn Maymun said he saw before Islam.
This distinction destroys most of the objection.
It Is Not Prophetic Sunnah
The authentic Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ must be accepted. But a personal report from one of the Tabi‘un about something he saw does not rise to the level of Prophetic Sunnah.
This matters because the critic is attacking the report as if it were a legal teaching from the Prophet ﷺ. It is not.
Even if someone questions Amr ibn Maymun’s interpretation of what happened between the monkeys, that does not undermine the Sunnah, because this report is not from the Prophet ﷺ in the first place.
This is the strongest answer. We do not need to pretend that every assumption of a Tabi‘i about animal behavior is binding revelation.
Why Did Al-Bukhari Mention It?
Al-Bukhari did not cite this report to establish a legal punishment for animals. Rather, the report is connected to the biography of Amr ibn Maymun and the fact that he lived during the pre-Islamic period.
In other words, the report serves as a historical indicator that Amr ibn Maymun witnessed events before the coming of Islam.
“If this narration is authentic, then al-Bukhari narrated it as evidence that Amr ibn Maymun lived during the Jahiliyyah, and he did not care about the assumptions that he assumed during Jahiliyyah.”
Source: Al-Jami‘ li Ahkam al-Qur’an 1/442
So the narration was not included to prove a fiqh ruling. It was included because of what it indicates about Amr ibn Maymun’s life and era.
Ibn Qutaybah’s Balanced Answer
Ibn Qutaybah directly addressed those who mocked this narration.
He explained that it is possible Amr saw monkeys stone a female monkey and assumed that it was because of zina, and that no one knows this with certainty except through conjecture, because monkeys do not disclose their inner realities. It is also possible that Amr knew this through signs and indications that we do not know.
Ibn Qutaybah then mentioned that monkeys are known for sexual behavior and jealousy, and that Arabs even used the expression “more adulterous than a monkey.” He also stated that monkeys resemble humans in certain social behaviors, including jealousy, and that animals may attack, punish, bite, scratch, or strike one another.
Source: Ta’wil Mukhtalif al-Hadith 255–256
This answer is precise. Ibn Qutaybah does not force the report into a legal ruling. He gives two possibilities:
First, Amr ibn Maymun may have interpreted the event based on what he saw.
Second, there may have been signs in the animals’ behavior that made the matter clear to him.
Either way, the report is not Prophetic legislation.
Ibn Abd al-Barr’s Objection
Some scholars found the wording problematic, especially the attribution of zina to animals that are not morally accountable.
“This is considered reprehensible by a group of scholars: attributing adultery to someone who is not accountable, and carrying out the prescribed punishments on animals.”
Source: Al-Isti‘ab fi Ma‘rifat al-Ashab 3/1206
This objection is not against the Prophet ﷺ, because the report is not from him. It is a concern about how the action was described.
Ibn Hajar’s Answer to Ibn Abd al-Barr
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar answered this objection clearly.
“The fact that the incident was in the form of zina and stoning does not necessarily mean that it is zina in reality or a prescribed punishment. Rather, it was called that because it resembles it, so that does not necessarily mean that the animal is subject to any obligation.”
Source: Fath al-Bari 7/160
This is the key distinction.
The event resembled zina and stoning in outward form. That does not mean monkeys are legally accountable, nor does it mean they were applying Islamic hudud.
The narration uses human language to describe an observed animal event. It does not mean animals are morally accountable under Shariah.
Did the Monkeys Stone According to Shariah?
No.
The narration does not say that the monkeys were applying Shariah law. It does not say they were morally responsible like humans. It does not say they were legally required to stone anyone.
Rather, it describes animal behavior observed by Amr ibn Maymun.
The monkeys’ action was not a legal punishment in the Islamic sense. It was an animal behavior witnessed by the narrator. The report does not establish “the law of zina among monkeys.”
This is similar to the Qur’anic mention of the crow that taught the son of Adam how to bury the dead. The crow was not following a legal burial code. Rather, Allah caused a scene to occur from which a human being learned.
The crow was not acting according to a revealed burial law for crows. It was an animal action from which a human being learned.
So when animals perform a striking action, it does not automatically mean they are following Shariah.
The Longer Version of the Report
Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar mentioned that al-Isma‘ili narrated the story at length from another route, from Isa ibn Hattan, from Amr ibn Maymun.
“I was in Yemen with my family’s sheep, and I was on a high place. A monkey came and placed its hand on her head. Then a smaller monkey came and nudged her, so she gently pulled her hand out from under the head of the first monkey and followed him, and he fell on her while I was watching. Then she returned and began to gently put her hand under the cheek of the first monkey. He woke up frightened, smelled her, and cried out. The monkeys gathered, and he began to cry out and gesture toward her with his hand. The monkeys went right and left, then they brought that monkey whom I recognized. They dug a hole for them and stoned them. I saw stoning among other than the sons of Adam.”
Source: Fath al-Bari 7/160
This longer version answers the question: “How did Amr know?”
He did not merely see monkeys randomly throwing stones. He claimed to have seen the sequence of events before and after the act.
Another Detailed Version
A similar report is mentioned in the books of rijal and hadith commentary.
I entered the mosque of Kufa and found Amr ibn Maymun al-Awdi sitting with some people. A man said to him: “Tell us the most amazing thing you saw in the pre-Islamic period.”
Amr said that he was in the land of Yemen and saw many monkeys gathered. He saw a male and female monkey lying down together. The female placed her hand under the neck of the male and they slept. Then another male monkey came and nudged her from under her head. She withdrew her hand from under the first monkey’s head, went with the other male not far away, and he had intercourse with her while Amr was watching.
Then she returned to her place and attempted to place her hand back under the first monkey’s neck as before. The first monkey noticed, got up, and smelled her. The monkeys gathered, and after some time the other male was brought. Amr recognized him. The monkeys took both of them to a sandy place, dug a hole, placed them in it, and stoned them until they died.
Amr said: “By Allah, I saw stoning before Allah sent Muhammad ﷺ.”
References mentioned for these detailed reports include:
- Tahdhib al-Kamal fi Asma’ al-Rijal 22/265
- Al-Tawdih li Sharh al-Jami‘ al-Sahih 20/470
- Siyar A‘lam al-Nubala’ 5/86
- Fath al-Bari 7/160
Whether one accepts every detail of Amr’s interpretation or not, the objection “how did he know?” is answered by the extended narration: he claimed to have directly witnessed the act and then witnessed the reaction of the monkeys afterward.
Al-Albani’s Criticism of the Report
Shaykh al-Albani criticized the report and considered it problematic.
“This is a reprehensible report, because how can a person know that monkeys marry, and that it is part of their nature to protect their honour, so that whoever betrays them they kill him?! Then let us assume that this is something that happens among them, so how did Amr ibn Maymun know that the stoning of monkeys was only because they committed adultery?!”
Source: Mukhtasar Sahih al-Bukhari 2/535
This criticism actually strengthens the main response: even if a scholar questions the report or Amr’s interpretation, it still does not harm the Sunnah because it is not from the Prophet ﷺ.
The critic’s mistake is acting as if doubting this report equals doubting a Prophetic hadith. That is false.
The Story Is Not Impossible
Even if one does not treat Amr’s interpretation as certain, the basic story is not impossible. The animal world contains strange and surprising behavior.
Ibn Qutaybah mentioned in Uyun al-Akhbar that the Arabs said:
Source: Uyun al-Akhbar 172
Ibn Taymiyyah also stated that similar things had been observed.
“People have seen something similar in our time in other than monkeys, even birds.”
Source: Majmu‘ al-Fatawa 11/545
So the idea of animals displaying jealousy, punishment, or strange social behavior is not absurd.
Ibn Hajar’s Example from Horses
Ibn Hajar also mentioned a report from Abu Ubaydah Mu‘ammar ibn al-Muthanna in Kitab al-Khayl, from al-Awza‘i.
Ibn Hajar then said that if such understanding can occur in horses, despite horses being less intelligent than monkeys, then it is even more possible in monkeys.
Source: Fath al-Bari 7/161
The point is not to build law from animal behavior. The point is that animals sometimes display astonishing reactions that modern critics should not dismiss too quickly.
Reports of Strange Animal Behavior
Shaykh Umar al-Ashqar mentioned in Al-‘Aqidah fi Allah an example involving ants, where an ant was allegedly cut up by other ants after repeatedly calling them to something that was not there.
He also mentioned that the animal world contains many wonders. People have seen video clips of animal behavior that would sound unbelievable if merely narrated theoretically, such as a tiger showing compassion toward a newborn monkey after killing its mother, protecting it from hyenas, and carrying it to a tree.
For more examples, one may refer to Dr. Umar al-Ashqar’s Al-‘Aqidah fi Allah, pp. 111–168.
The animal world is full of unusual behavior. The correct approach is not to treat every strange animal report as impossible merely because it sounds unusual to modern ears.
Scientific Plausibility: Primates Use Tools and Stones
From the perspective of animal behavior, the report is not impossible. Primates are intelligent animals. They use tools, respond socially, display jealousy, engage in group aggression, and may use stones or other objects.
For your info: this scan is cited as My Modern Scientific Encyclopedia — Animals of the World, page 31. It is being used to support the point that chimpanzees and similar primates are intelligent animals capable of using tools such as sticks and stones. This does not prove the narration by itself, but it does show that the basic idea of primates using objects violently or deliberately is not absurd.
Foreign newspapers have also reported cases of chimpanzees gathering stones in advance and throwing them at zoo visitors with planning and premeditation.
This screenshot references reporting about a chimpanzee that collected stones and later threw them at visitors. The point is not that this proves Amr ibn Maymun’s report, but that planned stone use among primates is not some fantasy invented by Muslims.
This second screenshot makes the same point: primates can display planning, aggression, and stone-throwing behavior. Therefore, mocking the narration as biologically impossible is ignorant.
Modern observations of primates make the report plausible.
The incorrect argument is this:
Modern science proves the narration authentic.
That second claim is too strong and unnecessary. Science can show that the behavior is not absurd, but the report itself is assessed through hadith transmission and historical reporting.
Reference Links on Chimp Stone-Throwing
This report discusses a chimpanzee that gathered stones in advance and later threw them at zoo visitors. It is useful as supporting evidence that primates can plan and use stones aggressively.
This report also discusses premeditated stone-throwing behavior in a chimpanzee, supporting the broader point that stone use by primates is not impossible or absurd.
Al-Hamidi’s Claim About the Report Being Inserted
Al-Hamidi claimed that this narration was found in some copies of Sahih al-Bukhari but not all of them, and he suggested it may have been inserted into the book.
Ibn Hajar rejected this claim.
The meaning of Ibn Hajar’s response is that al-Hamidi’s suspicion is not reliable and leads to a corrupt methodology: if one can dismiss a report from Sahih al-Bukhari merely by imagining insertion, then the door is opened to dismissing anything in the book without evidence.
So al-Hamidi’s claim does not stand as a valid objection.
Were These Monkeys Transformed Humans?
No. There is no evidence that the monkeys in this report were originally humans who had been transformed.
Some people claimed that these monkeys were remnants of previous humans transformed as punishment. This claim is false.
The books of hadith mention that those who were transformed did not live long and did not produce offspring. Therefore, it is wrong to claim that these monkeys were transformed Jews from the Sabbath-breaking community or descendants of transformed people.
The correct position is that these were actual monkeys, not transformed humans. The report should not be forced into a baseless theory about transformed nations.
The People of Arabia Had Experience with Animals
Another point often ignored is that the people of the Arabian Peninsula were not detached from animals the way many modern urban critics are. They lived with animals, guarded crops from them, observed their habits, and had practical knowledge of animal behavior.
The extended version of the report even mentions that Amr ibn Maymun was guarding palm trees or livestock in Yemen. So the setting itself explains why he was observing them closely.
There Are Monkeys in Yemen
The report mentions Yemen, and monkeys exist in Yemen to this day. They are known to attack crops and cause damage.
This supports the basic geographical plausibility of the report. The setting is not random or impossible.
Qur’anic Examples of Animals Performing Extraordinary Acts
Those who mock this report should be consistent. The Qur’an itself mentions animals performing striking and meaningful actions.
The Qur’an mentions the birds of Ababil that struck Abraha’s army with stones of baked clay. It mentions the crow that showed burial. It mentions the hoopoe that observed the people of Sheba and reported their condition to Prophet Sulayman عليه السلام. It mentions the ant that warned the other ants about the coming army of Sulayman عليه السلام.
If someone accepts that Allah can mention extraordinary animal behavior in the Qur’an, then mocking every strange animal report in hadith literature is not an intellectual argument. It is selective ridicule.
Mocking the Name “Maymun”
Some deniers mock the narrator’s name, saying that “Maymun” resembles the Arabic word used for monkey.
This is childish.
First, Maymun means blessed or auspicious. It is an Arabic name connected to blessing. One may say mawlud maymun, meaning a blessed birth.
Second, even if someone’s name resembled the name of an animal, this would not be a defect. Arabs used names connected to animals, tribes, and natural things. Examples include names such as Usamah, Zaynab, and tribal names such as Banu Kalb.
Mocking a narrator’s name is not scholarship. It is the behavior of someone who has no argument left.
The Strongest Summary of the Issue
There are two valid layers to the answer.
Second, the event is not biologically impossible. Primates and other animals can display jealousy, group aggression, tool use, punishment-like behavior, and stone-throwing.
This is the balanced answer. We do not need to overstate the report, and we do not need to surrender to cheap mockery either.
Conclusion
It is not a Prophetic ruling, not Islamic legislation for animals, and not evidence that monkeys are morally accountable under Shariah. It is an eyewitness report from Amr ibn Maymun about something he said he saw during the pre-Islamic period.
Some scholars allowed the possibility that Amr correctly understood what happened, while others criticized the certainty of attributing zina to animals. Either way, the report remains outside Prophetic legislation and does not damage the Sunnah.
The claim that such behavior is impossible is also weak. Primates are capable of tool use, stone-throwing, social aggression, jealousy, and coordinated behavior.
The strongest response is simple: this report is a historical narration from a Tabi‘i, not a legal hadith from the Prophet ﷺ. Those mocking it are attacking a strawman.
...[[Monkey Adultery]] The enemies of Islam often mock Sahih al-Bukhari by raising the narration of Amr ibn Maymun regarding monkeys...