Narrated 'Amr bin Maimun:
During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance I saw a she-monkey
surrounded by a number of monkeys. They were all stoning it,
because it had committed illegal sexual intercourse.
I too, stoned it along with them.
(Sahih Boekhari - Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188)
I just give you the explanation about one hadith mentioned above (Sahih Boekhari - Volume 5, Book 58, Number 188)
The had?th is categorized as mauquf (lit. "stopped"), meaning that it is a saying traced to that of a Companion(R). Therefore, since it is clear that this had?th is not a saying of the Prophet(P), much less ascribed to him, it cannot be a basis for a ruling in Islam.
Secondly, the key phrase in the above had?th is "During the pre-lslamic period of ignorance", which the critics had obviously overlooked. While we concede that above had?th is indeed accepted as authentic, we would also argue that according to the principles of criticism of the had?th, the matn of the had?th above would be rejected even if it had been ascribed to the Prophet(P). 'Abd?r Rahm?n I. Doi has outlined this principle by stating that
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. Now one possibility in explanation according to some interpreter , how the Hadith might have been injected when it was actually something else or fake:
Abu Muhammad said: He could have seen the monkeys stoning a she-monkey, so he imagined that they were stoning her because she commited 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.
The points we have made should make it clear that ?Amr? bin Ma?m?n 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.Conclusions
It is clear that where the had?th 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 jah?liyyah, which is in total contradiction to Islamic principles and norms. Thus, the claim that this had?th 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.THIS HADITH IS NOT IN ANY MEANS ATTRIBUTED TO THE PROPHET(SAW) BUT TO A PERSON WHO DESCRIBED IT ABOUT BEORE THE ISLAM (WHICH MEANS THAT WAS IN AGE OF JAHALIAH).
SO IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SUNNIS DO NOT ACCEPT ALL THE AHADITH WHICH ARE AGAINST THE TEACHINGS OF ISLAM OR TEACHINGS OF QURAN OR WHICH CONTRADICT COMMON OTHER AHADITH AND THEIR MANNER.ALL THE AHADITH WHICH HAVE BEEN MENTIONED THERE ARE NOT ACCEPTED BY SUNNIS AS AUTHENTICATED AS WELL AS ALL THE AHADITHS IN SAHIH BUKHARI ARE NOT CONSIDERED AS AUTHENTICATED EQUALLY. INFACT SOME AHADITH WHICH HELP TO EXPLAIN THE QURAIC VERSES CONTEXT ARE CONSIDERED MORE AND ON THE BASIS OF PRINCIPLES OF AHADITH MENTIONED ABOVE.