Jewish Monkeys?

[Farid]

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.

[Abu Jasim Al-Salafi]

Jazakallah khair brother Farid.

[Ibn Yahya]

Jewkeys

[Umar bin Khattab]

Why do shias find this narration strange when their scholars preach....

[Ebn Hussein]

Theodor Herzl replied back to you, Ustadh Farid.

What a braindead Rafidi, I mean these are their "knowledgable ones". His argument is that a good liar mixes the truth with falsehood. Well, what falsehood did this evil liar come up with? A bunch of narrations in praise of Ali and then in the midst of them a narration about monkeys stoning each other. Who exactly did this Nasibi liar tried to hurt? Ali? Undermine his status? How did his falsehood caused any khurafah in the mighty Ummah of Ahl Al-Sunnah?! As for the hadith being "silly". Nothing is silly that has been sanctified by the shari3a. Talking animals, infants etc. are all sanctified in the shari3a and not silly or khurafat. Khurafat are things like a cellar-boy, being invented by 4 thugs who claimed to be his only representatives and that the dumb Shiites must pay them khumus and then, when the lie was about to get exposed, they simply claimed that the non existing freak went into the ultra-occultation (ghaybah kubra). Now that's silly, especially if one rests his entire Aqidah and Akhirah on that nonsense.

[Farid]

@ Ebn Hussein: I honestly face-palmed.

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.


 

[Hani]

i published a research on the possibility of tawatur in shia books, let them reply to it if they can, it proves they can't have  tawatur in their books.

[Hani]

I quoted narrations by abu hurayrah once from their books praising the 12 imams, they said he mixes lies with truths, now they regurgitate the same dumb arguments.

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

http://listverse.com/2013/08/10/10-amazing-human-behaviors-in-apes-and-monkeys/

[Abu Jasim Al-Salafi]

http://listverse.com/2013/08/10/10-amazing-human-behaviors-in-apes-and-monkeys/

What is the point of this? What do you want to get to?

[Farid]

He seems to be suggesting that apes can imitate man. So stoning is not a far fetched action.

[Abu Jasim Al-Salafi]

He seems to be suggesting that apes can imitate man. So stoning is not a far fetched action.

Maybe. Allah-u Aa'lam

[Farid]

Al Muhamadi from Shiachat responded. I have nothing more to add to him since the weakness and reliablity of reports, in his mind, are ultimately up to his own biases. He rejects what he doesn't like and accepts what he likes. It seems he is more than happy in his forums expressing his views in front of people that will mindlessly agree with him.

He has been invited here before and I extend an invitation for him to join us on Zello as well.

[Hani]

He seems to be suggesting that apes can imitate man. So stoning is not a far fetched action.

Actually if you follow NatGeo, Annimal planet and Discovery back in the day. This action by ape communities is not strange at all since apes are very complex, they commit murder, take revenge, cheat on their mates, form gangs etc...

Note: Arabs never knew the differences between monkeys and apes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2009/mar/09/chimp-zoo-stones-science


The narrator said he saw this a long time ago in Jahiliyyah, first of all he could have easily concluded wrongly and misjudged the situation (He's no zoologist). Secondly, he could have also been a very small kid at the time and he didn't understand what was happening.

I add, the tables were turned when we showed authentic Shia reports where the infallible himself says apes were humans etc... A far stranger belief than the event they quoted.

That's the situation so far, the rest is just Shia humiliating themselves by showing that their Authentication of Hadith is tied to their whims and desires. If they like something they bend the rules to make it authentic, if they dislike it they bend the rules to weaken it.

Good job.

He writes:

Al-Bukhari obviously recorded the athar because he believed 'Amr's accusation of zina against the she-monkey.

And Kulayni believed the Qur'an is corrupt that's why he recorded authentic reports in his book about it.

LINK TO THREAD FOR THOSE WHO WISH TO FOLLOW:
http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235036915-jewish-monkeys/?page=3

Ibn al-Ghada'iri on Sahl bin Ziyad:

 - سَهْلُ بنُ زِياد، أبُو سَعيد، الآدَميُّ، الرازيُّ.
كانَ ضَعيفاً جِدّاً، فاسِدَ الرِوايةِ والدِينِ.
وكانَ أَحْمَدُ بنُ مُحَمَّد بن عِيْسى الأشعريُّ أخْرَجَهُ من قُم، وأظْهَرَ البَراءَةَ منهُ، ونَهَى الناسَ عن السماع منهُ والرِواية عنهُ.
ويَروِي المَراسِيْلَ، ويَعْتَمِدُ المَجاهِيْلَ.

Fehrest al-Tusi:

سهل بن زياد الآدمي
الرازي، أبو سعيد ضعيف، له كتاب، أخبرنا به ابن أبي جيد عن محمد بن الحسن عن محمد بن يحيى عن محمد بن أحمد بن يحيى عنه، و رواه محمد بن الحسن بن الوليد عن سعد، و الحميري عن أحمد بن أبي عبد الله عنه.

Ibn Dawoud:

سهل بن زياد الادمي ابو سعيد الرازي د، دى، كر (ست) ضعيف (غض) ضعيف فاسد الرواية وكان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى أخرجه من قم ونهى الناس عن السماع عنه (جش) كان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى يشهد عليه بالغلو والكذب وأخرجه من قم إلى الري

Najashi:

سهل بن زياد أبو سعيد الآدمي الرازي
كان ضعيفا في الحديث، غير معتمد فيه. وكان أحمد بن محمد بن عيسى يشهد عليه بالغلو والكذب وأخرجه من قم إلى الري وكان يسكنها، وقد كاتب أبا محمد العسكري عليه السلام على يد محمد بن عبد الحميد العطار للنصف من شهر ربيع الآخر سنة خمس وخمسين ومائتين. ذكر ذلك أحمد بن علي بن نوح وأحمد بن الحسين رحمهما الله

Ibn ShahrAshoub:

سهل بن زياد الآدمي أبو سعيد الرازي، ضعيف له كتاب

Al-Jawahiri:

سهل بن زياد : أبو سعيد الآدمي ، الرازي ، روى في كامل الزيارات ، وتفسير القمي - ضعيف جزما أو لم تثبت وثاقته

[Ibn Yahya]

I personally believe that what 'Amr saw happened but may have just been monkeys throwing stones at another for territorial reasons (which they are capable of doing even to humans http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/623808/Monkeys-killer-priest-stoned) but he may have interpreted this as a stoning for zina Allaahu a3lam as humans tend to try and link animal behaviour to their own to try and understand them. Is this an acceptable view?

[Farid]

^ I agree 100%.

[al-kulayni]

Salam,

Umar has posted the video 

[Abu Jasim Al-Salafi]

He rejects what he doesn't like and accepts what he likes.

That's why it is better to call the Rafidha (أهل هوى).

[Al Dukhan]

MashaAllah at least Abu huraira r.a cared for monkeys too, unlike their ahadith masters who "fabricated" hadiths and allowed even one can do mutah with "animals"! And i can't believe any she money would  ever like to get " raped " by any human male without knowing shariah, and ofcourse being a 'illiterate' animal who can't sign agreement & even talk.