Explaining the contradiction in the hadeeth of Killing one committing bestiality (sex with animal)
THE MUNKIRUL HADEETH APOSTATES ATTACKING THE HADEETH ONCE AGAIN USING THEIR LOW I.Q
Imam tirmidhi after recording this hadeeth in his Jami` (1455) via the chain :
`Amr ibn abi `Amr from Ikrimah from Ibn `Abbas from the messenger “Whomever you see having relations with an animal then kill him and kill animal.” So it was said to Ibn ‘Abbas: “What is the case of the animal?” He said: “I did not hear anything from the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) about this, but I see that the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) disliked eating its meat or using it, due to the fact that such a (heinous) thing has been done with that animal.”
After mentioning this hadeeth he Says that he doesn’t know of this hadeeth to come from any other route except from( this one mentioned above)
قَالَ أَبُو عِيسَى هَذَا حَدِيثٌ لاَ نَعْرِفُهُ إِلاَّ مِنْ حَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ عَنِ النَّبِيِّ صلى الله عليه وسلم
In Sunan abi dawood (4464) after mentioning the same narration with almost the same chain i.e. `Amr ibn abi `Amr from Ikrimah from Ibn `Abbas he says
“ لَيْسَ هَذَا بِالْقَوِيِّ”
This is not strong.
But in the very next narration he brings another hadeeth with another chain Ibn ‘Abbas said:
There is no prescribed punishment (hadd) for one who has sexual intercourse with an animal.
The main chain here is `Asim from Abu Razin from Ibn `Abbas .
Imam abu dawood after mentioning this narration says
قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ كَذَا قَالَ عَطَاءٌ وَقَالَ الْحَكَمُ أَرَى أَنْ يُجْلَدَ وَلاَ يَبْلُغَ بِهِ الْحَدَّ . وَقَالَ الْحَسَنُ هُوَ بِمَنْزِلَةِ الزَّانِي . قَالَ أَبُو دَاوُدَ حَدِيثُ عَاصِمٍ يُضَعِّفُ حَدِيثَ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو .
That `ata (ibn abi raibah) said the same thing (i.e. reported the same thing or has the same opinion). Al-Hakam said that I see that he should be flogged but not to the extent that it reaches (the prescribed flogging limit of ) had. Al-Hasan said he is on the level of a zaani. Imam abu dawood says that (this) hadeeth of `asim weakens the (earlier mentioned) hadeeth of `amr ibn abi `amr (wherein ibn abbas was quoted saying kill both the fa`il and maf`ool)
Moving on,
Imam Tirmidhi the master of `Ilal (hidden defects) brought this hadeeth of killing the doer in his `Ilalul Kabeer (1/236, H :427 and 428 Shamela). This shows that this hadeeth of killing is problematic .
Moving on, Imam tirmidhi in his `Ilal mentions the verdict of Imam Bukhaari on this
سَأَلْتُ مُحَمَّدًا عَنْ حَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو , عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ , عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ فَقَالَ: عَمْرُو بْنُ أَبِي عَمْرٍو صَدُوقٌ , وَلَكِنْ رَوَى عَنْ عِكْرِمَةَ مَنَاكِيرَ , وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ فِي شَيْءٍ مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَنَّهُ سَمِعَ عَنَ عِكْرِمَةَ. قُلْتُ لَهُ: فَأَبُو رَزِينٍ سَمِعَ مِنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ؟ فَقَالَ: قَدْ أَدْرَكَهُ. وَرَوَى عَنْ أَبِي يَحْيَى , عَنِ ابْنِ عَبَّاسٍ قَالَ مُحَمَّدٌ: وَلَا أَقُولُ بِحَدِيثِ عَمْرِو بْنِ أَبِي عَمْرٍو
I asked Muhammad (Ibn Isma`eel al-bukhaari) about the hadeeth of `Amr ibn abi `Amr
from `Ikrimah from Ibn `Abbas (of killing the one committing bestiality). He replied “ `Amr ibn abi `Amr is truthful but he reports from rejected narrations from `Ikrimah and did not record anything from those narrations and he heard from `Ikrimah [1]. I (Abu `Esa Tirmidhi) said to him (Bukhari) so (what about the other hadeeth wherein no killing is mentioned , in that hadeeth) has Abu Razin heard from Ibn `Abbas ? He (bukhari) said “ yes he caught him (i.e. his era/meeting) and he narrated from Abi Yahya from Ibn Abbas but did not narrate the hadeeth what `Amr ibn abi `Amr narrated (about killing the animal and the one committing sex with it)
[1] 1- البخاري، حيث قال: “روى عن عكرمة في قصة البهيمة فلا أدري سمع أم لا”.نقله ابن حجر في “تهذيب التهذيب”،
Imam Bukhari said ” he narrated from `ikrimah about the verdict of bestality and i do not know if he heard from him or not
و(قال أحمد بن حنبل :”كل أحاديثه عن عكرمة مضطربة”، لكنه نسب الاضطراب إلى عكرمة لا إلى عمرو)، كما في “شرح العلل” لابن رجب.
And Ahmad ibn Hanbal said “ all the narrations (of `Amr ibn Abi `Amr) from `Ikrimah are mudhtarib “ but ahmad did attributed the idtiraab to `Ikrimah and not `Amr ibn abi `Amr
[Ref: as it comes in Sharh `Ilal of Ibn Rajab]
Tirmidhi also himself pointed out towards this when he said
“وإنما يعرف هذا الحديث عن ابن عباس عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم من هذا الوجه. وروى محمد بن إسحق هذا الحديث عن عمرو بن أبي عمرو فقال :”ملعون من عمل قوم لوط” -ولم يذكر فيه القتل- وذكر فيه “ملعون من أتى بهيمة”.اهـ.
And we know of this hadeeth from Ibn `Abbas from the Messenger of Allah from this route. And Muhammad ibn Ishaq narrated this hadeeth from `Amr ibn abi `Amr that said (thrice) “ cursed is the one who does the act of Loot” and did not mention about killing the one (committing bestiality)
And imam also said quoting the mawqoof narration from ibn `Abbas which denies hadd on the one committing bestiality
وقال الترمذي عقبه : ” وقد روى سفيان الثوري عن عاصم عن أبي رزين عن ابن عباس أنه قال : ( من أتى بهيمة فلا حد عليه ) حدثنا بذلك محمد بن بشار حدثنا عبد الرحمن بن مهدي حدثنا سفيان الثوري ، وهذا أصح من الحديث الأول ، والعمل على هذا عند أهل العلم وهو قول أحمد وإسحاق “.
And this (hadeeth) is authentic from the former one and the people of knowledge practise upon this and this is also the statement of Ahmad and Ishaaq
Imam khattabi who wrote his famous work `Ma`alimus-Sunan’ when the students started self interpreting and wrongly understanding hadeeth works , in that he said
قال الخطابى في “المعالم”(3/296) معلقا على صنيع أبي داود : “يريد أن ابن عباس لو كان عنده في هذا الباب حديث عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يخالفه”. اهـ.
And if Ibn `Abbas had the hadeeth from this way (i.e. killing the one committing bestiality) then he wouldn’t have opposed it”
[Ref: Ma`alimus-sunan 3/296]
And what confirms that Imam khattabi was so sure that the verdict of Ibn `Abbas was not conflicting and was the same i.e. no hadd on the one committing bestiality is that
وأخرجه –أيضا- عبد الرزاق (13497) عن (الثوري)، وابن أبي شيبة (28503) عن (أبي بكر بن عياش ، وأبي الأحوص) … ثلاثتهم عن عاصم، عن أبي رزين، عن ابن عباس به.
وهذا سند حسن .
`Abdur razzaq in his Musannaf (13497) from Thawri and likewise ibn abi Shaibah (28503) from Abi bakr ibn `Ayyash and Abil-Ahwas and all of them narrating from `Asim from Abi razin from Ibn `Abbas (the same verdict of ibn `Abbas) and these are fair chains
وجاء في “الموسوعة الفقهية” (24/33) : ” ذهب جماهير الفقهاء إلى أنه لا حد على من أتى بهيمة لكنه يعزر , لما روي عن ابن عباس رضي الله تعالى عنهما أنه قال : من أتى بهيمة فلا حد عليه
And it has come in Mawsoo` al-Fiqhiyyah Kuwaiti (33/24) that the majority of the fuqaha follow that there is no had upon the one committing bestiality but only ta`zeer due to what has been narrated from Ibn `Abbas that there is no hadd punishment for it.
Nawab siddiqui hasan khan from the ahl al-hadeeth also say that the hadeeth mentioning killing is not Hujjah rather ta`zeer is the right punishment., Mullah `ali qari al-Hanafi said likewise that the killing is taken to be harsh punishment and not literal killing. Ibn Hajar says that the hadeeth mentioning killing is weak, the one mentioning ta`zeer is saheeh.
Yahya ibn Ma`een also has rejected this from `Amr ibn abi `Amr despite authenticating him
2- يحيى بن معين ، حيث قال :”عمرو بن أبي عمرو ثقة ، ينكر عليه حديث عكرمة عن ابن عباس أن النبي -صلى الله عليه وسلم- قال: اقتلوا الفاعل والمفعول به”.نقله ابن عدي في”الكامل”(5/116)
[Ref: Ibn `Adi in his Kaamil ad-dhu`afa (5/116)]
Imam al`Ajli also said the same that after authenticating him that this narration from this route is rejected
4- العجلي، حيث قال:”عمرو بن أبي عمرو مولى المطلب بن عبد الله بن حنطب ثقة ينكر عليه حديث البهيمة”.”الثقات”(2/181)
وعليه = فالحديث منكر من هذه الطريق.
[Ref: Thiqat 2/181]
This is because there are two main routes for this
من رواية داود بن الحصين عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس
and another one
يرويها عباد بن منصور عن عكرمة عن ابن عباس :
and both have defects in them but details aren’t required for now because the one who objected to this won’t anyways have any idea what’s going on given the fact that his reliance on exposing the prophetic hadeeth’s contradiction is the English version of an online website
As for why does the website/darrussalaam edition claim al-Albani graded it this way then i did not go into that at all because the point is that the evidence and most importantly the mutaqaddimeen have deemed this weak due to what has been briefly highlighted above without going into much details. So once that is clear, it doesn’t matter much why some scholars graded it to be acceptable . If time permits i will check if what is attributed to Shaykh nasiruddin al-Albani is actually true and if so then why and post it here later on biidhnillah.
A point to remember : Hadeeth verification principle by ibn rajab famous expert in the science of `ilal
والإعلال بمثل هذا –مخالفة الراوي لمرويه- طريقة مسلوكة لدى الحفاظ الكبار من صيارفة الحديث، فقد قال الحافظ ابن رجب في “شرح العلل”(2/888) -وناهيك به جلالة في هذا الفن- :
“قاعدة في تضعيف حديث الراوي إذا روى ما يخالف رأيه”.وقال :”قد ضعف الإمام أحمد وأكثر الحفاظ أحاديث كثيرة بمثل هذا”…
وذكر لها أمثلة فلتراجع هناك.
and as the master `Abdur rahman Mu`allami al-Yemeni saahibu Tankeel against the Majnoon of Imam abu hanifa the turkish kawthari, said that when the Imams of research and investigation deem something weak despite the chain’s apparent correctness then it is due to the hidden defect …..
” إذا استنكر الأئمة المحققون المتن وكان ظاهر السند الصحة، فإنهم يتطلبون له علة .
فإذا لم يجدوا علة قادحة مطلقاً حيث وقعت= أعلوه بعلة ليست بقادحة مطلقاً ، ولكنهم يرونها كافية للقدح في ذلك المنكر ، فمن ذلك إعلاله بأن راويه لم يصرح بالسماع هذا مع أن الراوي غير مدلس
