Al-Bab Al-Hadi Ashar: A Treatise on the Principles of Shiite Theology

Al-Bab Al-Hadi Ashar: A Treatise on the Principles of Shiite Theology42%

Al-Bab Al-Hadi Ashar: A Treatise on the Principles of Shiite Theology Author:
Publisher: www.al-islam.org
Category: Fundamentals Of Religion

Al-Bab Al-Hadi Ashar: A Treatise on the Principles of Shiite Theology
  • Start
  • Previous
  • 15 /
  • Next
  • End
  •  
  • Download HTML
  • Download Word
  • Download PDF
  • visits: 4681 / Download: 2398
Size Size Size
Al-Bab Al-Hadi Ashar: A Treatise on the Principles of Shiite Theology

Al-Bab Al-Hadi Ashar: A Treatise on the Principles of Shiite Theology

Author:
Publisher: www.al-islam.org
English

Section 3: Allah’s Privative Qualities

1. Allah Is Not Compounded

83. Concerning His privative(salbiyya) qualities, which are seven. First, the Most High is not compounded(murakkab) , otherwise He would be in need of members, and that which is in need(muftaqir) is possible (existence).

84. When he finished the positive qualities, he began on the privative ones. The first (the positive) are called the qualities of perfection(kamal) , and the second the qualities of glory(jalal) . And if you will, all the qualities may be qualities of glory. For the affirmation of His Power means the negation(salb) of impotence(‘ajz) in Him, and the affirmation of knowledge means the negation of ignorance in Him, and likewise for the other qualities. And in truth what can be understood by our reason(al-ma‘qul lana) of His qualities is nothing but negation(sulub) and relationships(idafat) . And the limit(kunh) of His essence and qualities is veiled from the consideration(nazar) of reason(‘uqul) . And no one knows what He is but He Himself.

85. Now the author mentioned here seven qualities. The first is that He is not compounded. And a compounded thing is one which has parts. And the opposite of compounded is single(basit) , and it is what does not have parts. And composition(tarkib) is sometimes objective, as the composition in bodies of atoms(jawahir) and accidents(a‘rad) ; and sometimes it is mental(dhihni) , as the composition of quiddity(mahiyya) and limits(hudud) , like the composition of genera(ajnas) and species(fusul) .

And a compounded thing in both senses is in need of its parts, because it is impossible for it, objectively or subjectively, to be realized and distinguished without its parts. And its parts are other than it, because the part can be separated from it. And the part is not called the whole. And that from which a thing can be separated is distinct from it. Then a compounded thing is in need of something else, hence, it is possible (existence). Therefore, if the Most Exalted Creator were compounded He would be possible (existence), and that cannot be.

2. Allah Is Not A Body

86. Second, He is not a body(jism) , nor an accident(‘arad) , nor an atom(jawhar) , otherwise He would have need of a place(al-makan) , because it is impossible for body to be separated from originated things. Then He would be an originated thing, and that is impossible.

87. The Most High Creator is not a body, contrary to the Anthropomorphists(mujassima) . And body is that which has length and breadth and depth. And accident is that which alights(al-hall) in a body and has no existence without it. And the proof that the Most High is not an accident or a body is of two kinds: (1) First, if He were one of these two He would be possible existence. But this necessity is false; hence, that which necessitates it is false also. And for the explanation of this necessity – we know of necessity(bid-darura) that every body needs a place, and every accident needs a locus(mahall) .

And place and locus are other than body and accident. Hence, they are in need of something other than themselves. And that which needs something else is the possible. Hence, if the Most High Creator were a body or an accident He would be possible existence. (2) Second, if He were a body, He would be an originated thing, and that is impossible. And in explanation of this, no body can be quit of originated things. And that which cannot be quit of originated things is itself an originated thing, as we have previously explained. Hence, if He were a body, He would be an originated thing. But He is prior. Then contradictories would have to agree, and that is impossible.

88. And it is not possible that He be in a place(makan) , for He would then have need of it, nor in a direction, for He would then have need of it.

89. And these two qualities are negative. (1) The first is that He is not in a place, contrary to the Christians and some of the Sufis. And what is understood by incarnation (hulul – alighting) is the inhering(qiyam) of one entity(mawjud) in another entity in succession. And if they intend this meaning, then it is false. For then the necessary would have to be in need, and that cannot be. And if they intend some other meaning, then first of all we would have to conceive it, and afterwards pass judgment on it, either rejecting it or affirming it.

90. (2) Second, He is not in a direction(jiha) . And direction is the goal(maqsad) of a moving object, and is connected with the world of sense. And the Karramites thought that He was in the direction of heaven(fawqiyya) , and they supposed this from the literal meaning of a text(naql) , and that is false. Because, if He be in a direction, then either He does not need it, in which case He will not alight in it, or else He does need it, in which case He would be the possible. And the literal traditional meaning possesses interpretations(ta’wilat) and bearings(mahamil) which are mentioned in their proper place.

For since corporeality(jismiyya) and what follows from it has on rational grounds been proved impossible for Him, then either (a) another interpretation is necessary – for it is impossible to use both (tradition and reason), otherwise contradictories would have to agree, or (b) both must be rejected, in which case both of the contradictories would have to be removed (a logical impossibility), or (c) tradition must be used and reason rejected, in which case reason also would have to be rejected, because of the rejection of its foundation (reason is fundamental(asl) , tradition is consequent(far‘) – if the former is rejected the latter is impossible). So (d) the fourth possibility remains, namely, the use of reason and the interpretation of tradition.1

91. And pleasure(al-ladhdha) and pain(al-alam) are not valid for Him, because it is impossible for the Most High to have a physical constitution(mizaj) .

92. Pain and pleasure are things that we perceive internally(wijdani) , hence, they do not need explanation. And it has been said of them that pleasure is the perception of what is agreeable with regard to its being(min hayth) agreeable, and pain is the perception of what is disagreeable(munafi) with regard to its being disagreeable. And pleasure and pain may be either sensuous or mental. If the perception is by the senses they are sensuous, and if it is by the mind they are mental.

Since this is determined, we say that pain is impossible for the Most High, as all reasonable beings agree, since He is subject to nothing that is disagreeable (munafi – contrary to His nature). And pleasure, if it be sensuous, is likewise impossible for Him, because it results from having a physical constitution, and a physical constitution is impossible for Him, otherwise He would be a body. And if it be mental, the philosophers have affirmed it for Him, also the founder of the Ya‘qubigga (sect)2 from among us.

For the Most High Creator is qualified by His perfection, which is worthy of Him, for it is impossible for Him to have any imperfection. Nevertheless, He perceives by His essence and His perfection. Hence, He is the Most Glorious Perceiver and the Most Exalted Perceiver by the most complete perception, and by pleasure we mean nothing other than that.

93. But the scholastic theologians have restricted their statements to the denial of pleasure to Allah, either because of their belief that mental pleasure (also is) denied to Allah, or because of its not having been mentioned in the Majestic Law. For the qualities of Allah and His names are restricted, and it is not permissible for any but Him to venture into them, except with His permission. And even if pleasure is possible for Allah from the point of view of (human) reason, yet it is not polite (to attribute it to Him), because it may perhaps be impossible (for Him) for some reason or other which we do not know.

94. Nor does He unite with other than Himself, because union(al-ittihad) is absolutely impossible for Him.

95. Union may be used in two senses, figurative and real. (1) Figurative union is one thing’s becoming another thing in being(al-kawn) or in corruption(al-fasad) . (For an example of being – water becomes mist; of corruption – seed in the ground dies and becomes a new plant). Either (a) there is no addition(idafa) of another thing, as their saying that water becomes air and air becomes water; or (b) there is an addition of something else, as it is said that dirt becomes mud by the addition of water to it. (2) And real union is when two entities become one entity.

96. Since that is determined, know that the first is altogether impossible for the Most High, because created being(al-Kawn) and corruption are impossible for Him. And as for the second, some Christians say that He has united with Christ, for they say that the divinity(lahutiyya) of the Creator has united with the humanity(nasutiya) of Isa. And the Nasriyya say that He has united with Ali. And some of the Sufis say that He has united with those who know God(‘arifin) . Now, if they mean something other than what we have mentioned it is first necessary to conceive it, then to pass judgment upon it.

And if they mean what we have mentioned (namely, real union), then it is altogether false, because union is in itself impossible (there is no such thing as real union). Therefore, it is impossible that it should be proved (to occur) in anything else. Now it is impossible, because if after the union of two entities they continue to exist, there is no union, because they are two, not one, and if they become non-existent together, this also is not union, but a third entity, and if one of them becomes non-existent and the other continues to exist, this also is not union, because non-existence cannot unite with existence.

3. Allah Is Not A Locus For Originated Things

97. Third, the Most High is not a locus(mahall) for originated things, because of the impossibility of His being acted upon(infi‘al) by anything else, and the impossibility of imperfection in Him.

98. Know that there are two ways of considering(i‘tibaran) the qualities of the Most High: (1) The first of these refers to the essential Power itself and the essential Knowledge itself and to the other qualities themselves. And (2) the second refers to the connection(ta‘alluq) which these qualities have with the things determined(muqtadayat) by them, such as the control of Power over that which is decreed(maqdur) , and of Knowledge over that which is known. And, according to this second sense, there is no dispute about these qualities, being things which are relative, in addition (to the essence), and changing as the things with which they are connected change and vary.

99. But in regard to the first sense, the Karramites thought that the qualities are originated things and are renewed in like manner as the things with which they are connected are renewed. They said that He was not Powerful at first, but later became Powerful, and that He was not knowing, but later became Knowing. And the reality is contrary to this, for what is renewed in what they mentioned is the relative connection. And if they mean that, it is self-evident.

Otherwise, it is false for two reasons: (1) First, if His qualities are things originated and renewed, it would be necessary for Him, to be acted upon and to change. But the necessity is false, hence, that which necessitates it is false also. And there are two proofs of this. (a) First, His qualities are essential, and their change would require the change of the essence and its being acted upon. And (b) second, the origin of the qualities would necessitate the origin of His ability to be a locus for them, and that would require the passibility and changeableness of the locus. But it is impossible for the nature(mahiyya) of the Most High to be subject to change and passibility. Hence, His qualities are not originated, which is what we sought.

(2) Second, the qualities of the Most High are perfect qualities, because it is impossible for them to have imperfection. And if they were originated and renewed He would not have perfection. And not having perfection is imperfection – and Allah, the High, the Great, is exalted above that!3

4. Allah Is Not Visible

100. Fourth, ocular vision(ru’ya) of the Most High is impossible, because everything which can be seen possesses direction. For it is of necessity either opposite to one, or else it is like something opposite. Then He would be a body, and that is impossible. And in the word of the Most High (to Moses):

“Thou shalt not see me” (7:143). 4

– and lan is the eternal negative.

101. The philosophers and the Mu‘tazilites hold that the vision of Him with the eye is impossible, because of his being incorporeal(mujarrad) . And the Anthropomorphists(mujassima) and Karramites hold that it is possible to see Him with the eye face to face. And the Ash‘arites believe that God is incorporeal, and (yet) say that the vision of Him is valid, contrary to the opinion of all sane men. And some of the Ash‘arites say, “By vision we do not mean the impression(intiba‘) (of the object on the optic nerve) or the issuing of rays, but the state which is acquired from the vision of an object after the acquisition of the knowledge(‘ilm) of it.”

And others of them say that the meaning of the vision of Him is that He uncovers Himself(yankashifu) to believing creatures on the Last Day like the uncovering of a visible full moon. And the reality is that if they mean by that a complete manifestation(al-kashfu’t-tamm) , then that is admitted, for on the Day of Resurrection perfect knowledge(al-ma‘rifa) will become necessary(daruri) . Otherwise, it cannot be conceived except as ocular vision, and that is false both by reason and tradition.5

102. (1) It is false by reason, because if He be visible He must be in a direction, and therefore be a body, which is false, as has been previously shown. For every visible thing is either opposite, or is like something opposite(fi hukmi’l-muqabil) , as the image in a mirror, and that is necessarily true. And everything opposite or like an opposite is in a direction. Hence, if the Most High Creator be visible He must be in a direction, which is false. (2) And it is also false by tradition, for several reasons6 .

(a) First, when Moses asked for a vision (of Him) he received the answer,

“Thou shalt not see me” (7:143).

And lan is the eternal negative according to the lexicographers. And since Moses did not see Him, certainly no one else has seen Him. (b) Second, in the word Allah

“No vision taketh in Him, but he taketh in all vision” (6:103).

He describes Himself by denying that eyes can perceive Him. Hence, proving that He is visible is a fault.

3. Third, He made a great matter of their seeking for a vision of Himself, and attached blame to it, and threatened (the guilty), saying,

“But a greater thing than this did they ask Moses! for they said, “Show us Allah plainly!” and for this their wickedness did the fire-storm lay hold on them (4:153).

“They who look not forward to meet Us say, "If the angels be not sent down to us, or unless we behold our Lord…" Ah! they are proud of heart, and exceed with great excess!” (25:21).

5. Allah Has No Partner

103. Fifth, a partner(ash-sharik) is denied to Him, because of tradition, and because of their hindering one another (in case of a plurality of deities), in which case the orderliness of existence would be destroyed, and because He would have to be compounded, since two necessaries would share in being necessarily existent, in which case there would have to be a distinguisher(ma’iz) .

104. Scholastic theologians and philosophers have agreed in denying to the Most High a partner, for several reasons: (1) First, the traditional proofs which point to this, and also the agreement of the prophets, which is here a proof, because their veracity does not rest on their affirmation of the Unity. (2) Second, the proof of the scholastic theologians, which is called “the proof of hindrance.” And that is taken from the word of the Most High,

“Had there been in either heaven or earth gods beside Allah, both surely had gone to ruin” (21.22).

And this means that if He had a partner, the destruction of the orderliness of existence would follow of necessity, and that is false. In explanation of this – if the will of one of the two (gods) came into connection with the production of a moving body, then undoubtedly it is possible for the other god to will its rest, or it is not. (a) If it is possible, then undoubtedly either the will of both will be carried out – in which case opposites would have to be reconciled, or else the will of neither of them will be carried out – in which case the body would have neither motion nor rest, or the will of (only) one of them will be carried out, in which case two evils will result:

(a) First, preponderance(tarjih) without any one to give preponderance, and (β) second, the impotence of the other (god). (b) If it is not possible for the other god to will its rest, then it necessarily follows that he is impotent. For there is no hindrance except the connection of the will of that other god (with the body). But impotence on the part of gods is false, and preponderance without one to give preponderance is impossible. Hence, the destruction of the orderliness of existence would be necessary, and that also is impossible.

105. (3) Third, the proof of the philosophers and its explanation. If there be in existence a Necessarily Existent, then both of the gods must be possible existence, for in this case they would both share in being necessarily existent. And undoubtedly, they can either be distinguished from one another or they cannot, for if they cannot be distinguished they do not acquire duality. And if they can be distinguished, it is necessary that each one of the two be compounded of that in which they are one, and that by which they are distinguished. And every compounded thing is possible existence. Hence, they both are possible existences, and this was contrary (to our premises).

6. Allah Has no Idea or State

106. Sixth, ideas(ma‘ani) and states(ahwal) are denied to the Most High. Because if He were Powerful by His Power and Knowing by His Knowledge and so forth He would have need in His qualities of that idea. Then He would be possible existence, and this is contrary (to our premises).7

107. The Ash‘arites hold that the Most High is Powerful by His Power and Knowing by His Knowledge and Living by His Life, and so for all His other qualities, and that these are prior ideas in addition to His essence and inhering in it. And the Bahshamiya say that the Most High is equal to(musawi) any other essence, and is distinguished from other essences by a state(hala) which is called godhood(uluhiyya) .

And this state produces in Him four states: being powerful, knowing, being alive, and existing. And state(hal) according to them is a quality belonging to an entity(mawjud) , and existence(wujud) and non-existence(‘adam) do not possess this quality. And they say that the Most High Creator is Powerful in relation to(bi-i‘tibar) that state of being powerful and Knowing in relation to that state of knowing, and so for the other qualities. And the fallacy of this contention is necessary(daruri) , for a thing is either an entity or a non-entity, since there is no middle ground.8

108. And the philosophers and the investigators(muhaqqiqun) among the scholastic theologians say that the Most High is Powerful by His essence, and so for the other qualities. And when we say, “the essence is Knowing and is Powerful,” what is imagined to be an addition(za’ida) is relative and is addition only in the mind, not objectively. And this is the reality in our opinion, because if He were Powerful by His Power(qudra) or state of being powerful(qadiriyya) , and Knowing by His Knowledge(‘ilm) or state of knowing(‘alimiyya) , and so forth, then it would follow that the Necessary would have need of something else in His qualities. Because these ideas and states are distinct from His essence absolutely. And everything which is in need of something else is possible existence. And if His qualities be in addition to His essence, then He would be possible existence, which is contrary to our premises.

7. Allah Is Self-Sufficient And Has No Need

109. Seventh, the Most High is self-sufficient(ghaniyy) and not in need, for the necessity of His existence apart from anything else requires that He be without need of anything else, and that everything besides Him be in need of Him.

110. Among His negative qualities is His being absolutely self-sufficient and not in need of another, neither in His essence nor in His qualities. For the necessity of His existence, which has been established for Him, requires His being absolutely without need as regards all things beside Himself. For if He were in need(muhtaj) He would have to want(iftaqara) something, and then He would be possible existence, and Allah is exalted above that! Rather the Creator, whose greatness is glorious, is without need of anything besides Himself. And everything (that is) is an emanation (rashha – oozing) amongst the emanations of His existence, and a mote(dharra) amongst the motes in the rays of his munificence.

Notes

1. “The Mu‘tazilites have agreed in rejecting comparison (tashbih) of Him of every sort, as to direction or locus or form or body or limitation or motion or decrease or change or impression, and they have made it incumbent to explain (ta‘wil) the figurative (mustashabih) verses” (Shahrastani, p. 29). This was a protest against the anthropomorphism of the Hanbalites and Karramites who took literally the statements of the Qur’an about Allah’s hands, face, His sitting on His throne, etc.

The Ash‘arites also rejected this anthropomorphism, but they felt it was impious to pry into the nature of Allah and try to explain what was meant by His hands and His throne. Hence, they simply affirmed that “Allah has settled Himself upon His throne,” that He “has a countenance – and two hands –and two eyes, without asking how (bila kayfa)” (creed of al-Ash‘ari, Macdonald, “Development,” pp. 294, 190). The Shi‘ites follow the Mu‘tazilites in holding that the anthropomorphisms must be explained (ta’wil).

2. The translator had written “the author of ‘Ya‘qut,’” which I have corrected by conjecture. R.A.N.

3. See note on par. 58: The Sifatians held that the divine qualities were eternally inherent in the essence of Allah. The Mu‘tazilites rejected this doctrine, because “if the qualities share in priority they would share in godhood also,” and the multiplicity of eternal existence would have to result, and this they denied. They said that the qualities were not in addition to the essence, but were the essence itself. Thus, Allah is Knowing by His essence, not by His Knowledge, and is Powerful by His essence, not by His Power. (Shahrastani, p 29, Macdonald, “Development,” p. 136, Sell, “The Faith of Islam,” third edition, pp. 194, 195).

4. The full Verse of the Holy Qur’an is the following:

“And when Musa came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Musa fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers.” (7:143).

5. “They have agreed in denying the vision of Allah the Most High with the eyes in the future life” (Shahrastani, p. 29). The Shi‘ites agree wholly with the Mu‘tazilites in this matter.

Al-Ash‘ari said, “We believe that Allah at the Day of Resurrection will be visible to the eyes, as the moon is seen upon the night of the full moon; the believers will see Him… We teach that Moses besought Allah that he might see Him in this world; then Allah revealed Himself to the mountain and turned it into dust and taught Moses thereby that he could not see Him in this world. (Q. 7:143). (Macdonald, “Development,” p. 295).

And according to the creed of an-Nasafi, “That there is a Vision (ru’ya) of Allah the Most High is allowed by reason and certified by tradition (naql). A proof on authority has come down with the affirmation that believers have a Vision of Allah the Most High in Paradise and that He is seen, not in a place or in a direction or by facing or the joining of glances or the placing of a distance between him who sees and Allah the Most High” (Macdonald, “Development,” p. 310).

6. This is in reply to the Ash‘arites who said that the Vision of Allah was denied Moses only in this world.

7. See Macdonald, “Development,” p. 160.

8. See note on par. 58: The Sifatians held that the divine qualities were eternally inherent in the essence of Allah. The Mu‘tazilites rejected this doctrine, because “if the qualities share in priority they would share in godhood also,” and the multiplicity of eternal existence would have to result, and this they denied. They said that the qualities were not in addition to the essence, but were the essence itself. Thus, Allah is Knowing by His essence, not by His Knowledge, and is Powerful by His essence, not by His Power. (Shahrastani, p 29, Macdonald, “Development,” p. 136, Sell, “The Faith of Islam,” third edition, pp. 194, 195).

Construction of Mosque Near The Graves of Pious People

Is construction of mosque near or in front of the grave of pious people permissible or not? Supposing it is permitted, then what is the main purpose of the tradition (hadith) of the Holy Prophet (s) regarding the actions of Jews and Christians as it has come in a tradition that the Holy Prophet (s) has cursed these two groups for considering the graves of their Prophets as objects of worship? Moreover, is construction of mosque near the graves of the Awliya inseparable with what has come down in this tradition!?

Answer: By paying attention to the general principles of Islam, construction of mosques, in the vicinity of graves of the awliya and pious d oesn’t not have the least problem. This is because the purpose of construction of mosque is nothing more than worshipping Allah near the grave of His beloved who has become the source of receiving gifts. In other words, the aim of establishing mosque in these instances is that the visitors to the Divine leaders either before or after their ziyarat, perform their duty of worship (‘ibadat) over there in as much as neither ziyara to graves is forbidden (even from the viewpoint of Wahhabis) nor performing of salat, after or before ziyarat. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the construction of mosque near the graves of awliya for the purpose of worshipping Allah and performing divine duties is forbidden.

By paying attention to the story of Ashab al-Kahf it is deduced that this action was a custom prevalent in the previous religions and Qur’an has narrated that without any criticism. When the incident of Companions of Kahf was disclosed to the people of that time after 309 years, they expressed their views about the ways of honouring the Companions of Kahf. One group said that a structure should be made over their grave (so that apart from honouring them their names, signs and memories are kept alive). Qur’an expresses this view as such:

    فَقالُوا ابْنُوا عَلَيْهِمْ بُنْيَانًا

“…..Erect an edifice over them…., (Kahf 18:21)”

Another group said that a mosque should be built over their grave (and in this way tabarruk sought). The Islamic commentators are unanimous in their views.1 that the suggestion of the first group was related to the polytheists and the suggestion of the second group was that of the monotheists. The Qur’an, while narrating this saying, says:

    قَالَ الَّذِينَ غَلَبُوا عَلَىٰ أَمْرِهِمْ لَنَتَّخِذَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ مَسْجِدًا

Those who prevailed in their affair said: We will certainly raise a masjid over them. (Kahf 18:21)2

History has it that the period of occurrence of the incidence of Companions of Kahf was the period of victory of monotheism over polytheism. There was no more of the sovereignty of the polytheists, nor their calling the people towards idol-worshipping. Naturally, this victorious group will be the same monotheist group, especially, that the content of their suggestion was the matter of construction of mosque for the sake of worshipping Allah. This itself is a witness that those making the suggestion were monotheists and God-worshippers.

If really the construction of mosque over or near the grave of the holy persons is a sin or polytheism, then why the monotheists made such a suggestion and why Qur’an narrates this without any criticism? Is not the narration of Qur’an together with this silence a testimony upon its permissibility? It is never proper that God narrates the sign of polytheism from a group but without specifically or implicitly criticising them. And this reasoning is the same ‘assertion’ which has been explained in ‘ilm al-‘usul. (Methodology)

This event shows that it has been one kind of lasting conduct amongst all the monotheists and was one way of honouring the one in grave or a means of seeking tabarruk.

It was reasonable and polite of the Wahhabis that before arguing about hadith, they should first have sought the reference from the Holy Qur’an and then attempted the analysis of the tradition.

Now we shall discuss and examine their reasonings.

Reasoning Of Wahhabis That Construction Of Mosque Near Grave Is Forbidden

By presenting a series of traditions, the Wahhabis have analysed the matter of construction of mosque near the grave of pious people to be forbidden. We shall examine all such traditions:

Bukhari in his Sahih under the chapter ofيكره من إنخاذ المساجد على القبور narrates two traditions as such:

    لما مات الحسن بن الحسن بن عليّ ضربَت إمراته القُبة عل قبره سنة ثم رفعت فسمعوا صائحاً يقول الأهل وجدوا

    ما فقدوا فاجابه الأخر بل يئسوا فانقلبوا

1. When al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin ‘Ali passed away his wife made a dome (a tent) over his grave and after one year she removed it. It was heard that one person cried out: “Have they found that which they had lost”, another person replied: “No they have become disappointed and have given up.”

    لعن الله اليهود والنَّصار إتخذوا قبور انبيائهم مسجداً قالت (عائشة) ولولا ذلك لابرزُوا قبره غير أنَّي أخش أن يُتخذ مسجداً

2. May the curse of Allah be upon the Jews and Christians (for) considering the graves of their Prophets as mosques. She (Ayesha) said: “If it was not for this fear that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) would become a mosque, the Muslims would have kept his grave open (and not put up a barrier around it).

3. Muslim has narrated in Sahih the same tradition with slight variation. As such we confine ourselves to narrating only one text.3

    ألا وإن من كان قبلكم كانُ,ا يتَّخذون قبور أنبيائهم وصالِحيهم مساجد ألا فلا تتخذوا القُبور مساجد إنى أنهاكُم عن ذلك

Know that people before you took the graves of their Prophets and the pious people as mosques. Never take the graves as mosques, I forbid you from that.4

    إن أُم حبيبة وأم سلمة ذكرتنا كنيسة رأيتها بالحبشة فيها تصاوير لرسول الله (صلى الله عليه وأله) فقال رسول الله

    إن أولئك إذا كان فيهم الرجُل الصالح فما بنوا على قبره مسجداً وصوَّروا فيه تلك الصُور أولئك شرار الخلق عند

    الله يوم القيامة .

4. Umm Habiba and Umm Salama (Wives of the Holy Prophet) saw a prophet's picture in the country of Ethiopia (when they had travelled to that place along with a group). The Holy Prophet (s) said: They are such people that whenever a pious man dies amongst them they construct a mosque over his grave and draw his picture on it. They are the worst of the people before God on the Day of Judgement.5

al-Nasa’i narrates from Ibn ‘Abbas in his Sunan under the chapter:

    التغليط في اتخاذ السُرج على القبور

as such:

    لعن الرسول زائرات القبور والمُتخذين عليها المساجد والسُرج

5. The Holy Prophet (s) has cursed those ladies who visit the grave and those who take them as mosques and light a lamp over it.6

Ibn Taymiyya who is the leader of such beliefs and Muhammad ibn ’Abd al-Wahhab sharing his views interpret the aforesaid traditions in such a manner that building mosque over or near the grave of pious people is not permitted.

Thus Ibn-Taymiyya writes:

    قال عُلمائنا لا يجوز بناء المسجد على القبور

“Our scholars have said that it is never allowed to construct a mosque over the grave.”7

A Probe into The Context of Traditions

Now we have to pay attention to the contents of the traditions and derive its correct meanings. We should not remain negligent to this principle and it is as such: As one verse (ayah) can remove the ambiguity of another verse and help its correct interpretation, in the same way, one tradition too can remove the ambiguity and interpret another tradition.

The Wahhabis have stuck to the apparent meaning of one tradition and relied on that in such a manner that any kind of building of mosque over or near the graves of awliya is prohibited whereas if they would have collected all the traditions together, they would have understood the objective of the Holy Prophet (s) in sending this curse.

The Wahhabis have closed the door of ijtihad and thus committed too many mistakes in understanding many of the traditions.

Superficially, it is possible that the authenticity of the traditions be reliable and its narrators trustworthy. Since the deliberation on the references of these traditions will lengthen our discussion, we shall limit ourselves to their contents only.

Our Views about This Matter

Awareness about the objective of the traditions is related to throwing light on the actions of the Jews and Christians near the graves of their respective Prophets because our Holy Prophet (s) has prevented us from the actions which they used to do. If the limits of their actions are clarified, then surely the limits of haram in Islam too would be clarified.

In the previous traditions there exist evidences which testified to the fact that they took the graves of their prophets as their qibla and refused from paying heed to the true qibla. More still, they were worshipping their prophets near their graves instead of worshipping Allah or at least were taking partners with God in their worship.

If the context of the traditions is this that we do not choose their graves to be their qibla and do not consider them as partners with God in worship, then we can never consider the construction of mosque over or near the graves of the pious and virtuous as haram where the visitors neither take their graves to be as their qibla nor do they worship them. Moreover, they worship the one God facing the qibla in their salat and the aim of constructing mosque near the graves of awliya Allah is only to seek tabarruk from their places.

What is important is that it should be proved that the aim of the tradition (that we should not take their graves as mosques) is the same as what we have just said. Here are the evidences:

1. The tradition of Sahih Muslim (4th tradition) elucidates the other traditions because when the two wives of the Holy Prophet (s) explained to him that they had seen a portrait of a Prophet in a Ethiopian church, the Holy Prophet (s) said:

“They are such people that whenever a pious person passes away they would construct a mosque over his grave and put up his portrait in that mosque.”8

The purpose of putting portraits near the graves of pious people was that people would worship them such that they considered the portrait and grave to be their qibla or still more, consider them as idols for worship and prostration. Worshipping of idols is nothing but placing the idol in front and respecting and falling into humiliation before them.

The probability which we are having in this tradition, keeping in mind the actions of the Christians who were and are always inclined towards human worship and are always worshipping portraits and statues, is very worthy of attention. With such strong probability we can never rationalize with the help of this tradition, the prohibition of construction of mosque over or near the grave of awliya Allah which is devoid of such embellishments.

2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his al-Musnad and Imam Malik in his al-Muwatta’ narrate the tradition that the Holy Prophet (s) after prohibiting the matter of construction of mosque said:

“Allah, do not make my grave as an idol which is subject to worship”9

This sentence shows that they were behaving with the grave and the portrait which was next to it like one idol and taking them as their qibla and still more is worshipping them in the form of idol.

3. Pondering over the tradition of Ayesha (2nd tradition) will elucidate this fact to a greater extent. After narrating the tradition from the Holy Prophet (s) she says:

“If it was not for the fear that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) would be taken as mosque the Muslims would have kept his grave open”. (They would have not constructed a barrier around the grave)

Now it should be seen that from what aspects the barrier and wall around the grave can become an obstacle? Undoubtedly the barrier will prevent the people from reciting salat over the grave, from worshipping the grave as one idol or at least from taking it as a qibla. However, performing salat near the grave without worshipping the grave or considering it as a qibla is absolutely possible, whether there exists a barrier or not and whether the grave is open or hidden. This is because for fourteen centuries the Muslims have been performing salat near the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) facing the qibla and have been worshipping Allah without the barrier preventing them from doing this action.

To sum up, the appendix of the hadith which is the text of the sayings of Ayesha clarifies the contents of the tradition because Umm al-mu’minin says: ‘In order that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) would not be taken as mosque, they kept his grave hidden from the eyes of the people and constructed a barrier around it.’ Now it should be seen as to what extent this barrier can serve as an obstacle.

A barrier can prevent from two things:

1. The grave from taking the shape of idol and the people from standing in front of it and worshipping it since with the presence of a barrier, people are unable to see his grave to be able to treat it as an idol.

2. The grave from becoming a qibla since fixing it as a qibla is the outcome of seeing and we can never compare it with the ka’ba which is a qibla in all the situations whether it is seen or not. This is because ka’ba is a universal conventional qibla in all the conditions, making no difference if it is seen or not. However taking the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) as a qibla for the attendants in the mosque will be related to those who offer salat in his mosque and such a deviation is more achievable in case the grave is uncovered and seen; but when the grave is concealed the thought of prostrating over his grave even in the form of qibla is much less. Due to this, Umm al-mu’minin says that if no possibility existed for considering the grave as mosque (ie. prostrating over the grave) it would have been kept uncovered. Moreover, such a deviation takes place more when the grave is seen and much less when the grave is hidden.

3. Most of the commentators of the tradition offer the same interpretation as we have done.

Al-Qastallani in Irshad al-sari says: For keeping alive the memories of their past ones, the Jews and Christians were fixing the portraits of their virtous ones near their graves and worshipping their graves. However, their sons and successors, under the influence of whisperings of shaytan, started to worship the portraits near the graves. Thereafter he narrates from Tafsir al-Baydawi as follows:

    لما كانت اليهود والنصارى يسجدون لقبور الأنبياء تعظيماً لشأنهم ويجعلونها قبلة يتوجهون في الصلاة نحوها

    واتخذوها اوثاناً ، مُنِع المسلمون في مثل ذلك فاما من إتخذ مسجداً في جوار صالح وقصد التبرك بالقُرب منه لا

    للتعظيم ولا للتوجيه إليه فلا يدخل في الوعيد المذكور .

“In view of the fact that the Jews and Christians were taking the graves of their Prophets as their qibla for the purpose of respect, and were paying attention towards them at the time of their prayers, their graves took the position of idols. For this reason the Muslims have been forbidden from this action. However, if someone constructs a mosque near the grave of a pious person for the purpose of seeking tabarruk and not for worshipping or paying attention towards them, he will never be included in this prohibition.”10

It is not only al-Qastallani who in his commentary on Sahih Bukhari interprets this tradition as such but also al-Sindi, the commentator of Sunan al-Nasa’i speaks with the same effect. We mention some of them here.

    إتخذوا قبور انبيائهم مساجد أي قبلة للصلاة ويُصلون إليها أو بنوا مساجد عليها يُصلون فيها ولعلَّ وجه الكراهة

    أنه قد يُفض إلى عباده نفس القبر .

“The outcome of his dispensation is this that construction over the grave is haram and occasionally makruh. If the grave is considered as qibla it is haram, since it may lead to the worship of the one buried, otherwise it is makruh.”11

Again he says:

    يُحذر أمته أن يصنعوا بقبره ما صنع اليهود والنصارى بقبور أنبيائهم من إتخاذهم تلك القبور مساجد إما بالسجود

    إليها تعظيماً لها أو يجعلها قبلة يتوجهون في الصلاة إليها .

“He (i.e. the Holy Prophet) prohibits his ummah from treating his grave in the same manner as what the Jews and the Christians have done to the graves of their Prophets. This is because, in the name of honor and respect, they were prostrating over the grave or considering it as their qibla.”12

Regarding this matter, the commentator of Sahih Muslim says:

“If the Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited us from considering his grave and other graves as a mosque, it is due to this reason that the Muslims should stop from exaggerating his honour which might lead to infidelity. Thus, when the Muslims were compelled to develop the mosque of the Holy Prophet (s) and place the chamber of the prophet’s wives and the chamber of Ayesha in the middle of the mosque, they fixed a round wall around the grave so that it could not be seen and the Muslims would not prostrate over it. The speech of Umm al-mu’minin too is a witness to the same:

    لولا ذلك لأبرزوا قبره غير أنه اخش أن يُتخذ مسجداً

If it was not for this fear that his grave (i.e. the grave of Holy Prophet) would become a mosque, the Muslims would have kept his grave open (and not put up a barrier around it).

Another commentator says: “The words of Ayesha are related to that period when the mosque was not developed nor extended. After extension and the admittance of her chamber inside the mosque, the chamber was made in the shape of a triangle so that nobody could perform salat over the grave. Thereafter he says that the Jews and Christians were worshipping their Prophets near their graves and were taking them as partners in their worship. With such evidence and perception of the tradition, one cannot understand any meaning other than this.”

We shall now overlook all these evidences and will approach this issue from another angle:

Firstly, the tradition is applicable to a situation where a mosque is constructed over the grave and this matter does not bear any relation to an adjacent place of the buried. In all the buried places, the mosque is placed near the grave of Imams (a’imma) and awliya in such a manner that the mosque is separated from the shrine. In other words, we are having one shrine and one mosque. The shrine is set aside for ziyarah and tawwasul and the mosque near that, for the worship of Allah. Therefore these adjacent places (shrines) are outside the scope and contents of the tradition assuming that the contents of the traditions are the same as what the Wahhabis say.

Basically speaking how can it be said that the construction of mosque over the grave is haram or makruh whereas Masjid al-Nabi (mosque of the Holy Prophet) is placed near his grave?

If the companions of the Holy Prophet (s) are like the stars which should be followed then why, in this case, we should not follow them. They extended the mosque in such a manner that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) and the shaykhayn have been placed in the middle of the mosque.

If really, construction of mosque near the grave of Holy Imams was unlawful, then why the Muslims expanded the mosque of the Holy Prophet (s) from every angle; while the mosque during the time of the Holy Prophet (s) was placed on the eastern side of the grave, after the expansion, the western side of the grave too became the part of the mosque.

Is it that following theسلف i.e. predecessors and beingسلفي which the Wahhabis are always proud of, means that we should follow them in one instance and disobey them in another?

From this description, it becomes clear that to what extent the sayings of Ibn al-Qayyim that in Islam, grave and mosque do not exist together are baseless and against the path of Muslims. Secondly, we do not derive any meaning from these traditions other than the Holy Prophet (s) prohibiting construction of mosque over or near the graves of the awliya. However, no argument exists to prove that this prohibition is a haram prohibition. Instead, it is possible that this prohibition is a makruh prohibition just as Bukhari has interpreted the traditions and discussed them under the title;

    باب ، يكره من اتخاذ المساجد على القبور

Chapter: It is aversion to build mosques on graves.13

Another testimony is that this matter has come along with the curse upon female visitors to the grave.14 Surely visiting the graves is makruh and not haram for the ladies.

If the Holy Prophet (s) has cursed this group, this curse is no testimony of it being haram because in many of the traditions those committing makruh acts have been cursed too. In tradition, it is mentioned that those who travel alone or eat alone or sleep alone are cursed.

In the end we remind that the construction of mosque over the grave of pious people was an act which was in vogue in the beginning of Islam.

Al-Samhudi says: “When the mother of Ali (‘a), Fatima bint Asad, passed away, the Holy Prophet (s) ordered that she be buried in a place where today stands a mosque named as ‘Grave of Fatima’. He meant that the place of grave of Fatima appear as a mosque in later time. Again he says: “Mus’ab bin ‘Umayr and ‘Abdulla bin Jahsh were buried under the mosque which was built over the grave of Hamza.”15

He further says that in the 2nd century there existed a mosque over the grave of Hamza.16

This mosque existed till the domination of the Wahhabis. They demolished this mosque on these unfounded reasons.

Notes

1. Refer to Tafsir al-Kashshaf of al-Zamakhshari, Ghara’ib al-Qur’an of al-Naysaburi, and others.

2. Sahih al-Bukhari, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 2, page 111.

3. Sahih al-Bukhari, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 2, page 111; Sunan al-Nasa’i, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 2 p. 871

4. Sahih Muslim, vol. 2 p. 68.

5. Sahih Muslim, kitab al-masajid, vol. 2, p. 66.

6. Sunan al-Nasa’i, (ed. Mustafa Halabi), vol. 4, p. 77

7. Ibn Taymiyya, Ziyarat al-qubur, p. 106.

8.إن اولئك إذ كان فيهم الرجل الصالح فمات بنوا على قبره مسجداُ وصورا فيه تلك الصور

9. Ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 3, p. 248

10. al-Qastallani, Irshad al-sari; and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-bari, vol. 3, p. 208 approve this view. Prohibition is applicable under circumstances where the grave appears in the manner which was in vogue amongst the Jews and Christians. Otherwise there is no problem and objection.

11. Sunan al-Nasa’i, (al-Azhar edition), vol. 2, p. 21.

12. Sunan al-Nasa’i, (al-Azhar edition), vol. 2, p. 21.

13. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 2, p. 111

14. Sunan al-Nasa’i, (Egyptian edition), vol. 3, p. 77.

15. Al-Samhudi, Wafa’ al-wafa’ fi akhbar dar al-Mustafa, (ed. Muhammad Muhyiuddin), vol. 3, p. 897.

16. Al-Samhudi, Wafa’ al-wafa’, (ed. Muhammad Muhyiuddin), vol. 3, p. 922 and 936.

Construction of Mosque Near The Graves of Pious People

Is construction of mosque near or in front of the grave of pious people permissible or not? Supposing it is permitted, then what is the main purpose of the tradition (hadith) of the Holy Prophet (s) regarding the actions of Jews and Christians as it has come in a tradition that the Holy Prophet (s) has cursed these two groups for considering the graves of their Prophets as objects of worship? Moreover, is construction of mosque near the graves of the Awliya inseparable with what has come down in this tradition!?

Answer: By paying attention to the general principles of Islam, construction of mosques, in the vicinity of graves of the awliya and pious d oesn’t not have the least problem. This is because the purpose of construction of mosque is nothing more than worshipping Allah near the grave of His beloved who has become the source of receiving gifts. In other words, the aim of establishing mosque in these instances is that the visitors to the Divine leaders either before or after their ziyarat, perform their duty of worship (‘ibadat) over there in as much as neither ziyara to graves is forbidden (even from the viewpoint of Wahhabis) nor performing of salat, after or before ziyarat. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the construction of mosque near the graves of awliya for the purpose of worshipping Allah and performing divine duties is forbidden.

By paying attention to the story of Ashab al-Kahf it is deduced that this action was a custom prevalent in the previous religions and Qur’an has narrated that without any criticism. When the incident of Companions of Kahf was disclosed to the people of that time after 309 years, they expressed their views about the ways of honouring the Companions of Kahf. One group said that a structure should be made over their grave (so that apart from honouring them their names, signs and memories are kept alive). Qur’an expresses this view as such:

    فَقالُوا ابْنُوا عَلَيْهِمْ بُنْيَانًا

“…..Erect an edifice over them…., (Kahf 18:21)”

Another group said that a mosque should be built over their grave (and in this way tabarruk sought). The Islamic commentators are unanimous in their views.1 that the suggestion of the first group was related to the polytheists and the suggestion of the second group was that of the monotheists. The Qur’an, while narrating this saying, says:

    قَالَ الَّذِينَ غَلَبُوا عَلَىٰ أَمْرِهِمْ لَنَتَّخِذَنَّ عَلَيْهِمْ مَسْجِدًا

Those who prevailed in their affair said: We will certainly raise a masjid over them. (Kahf 18:21)2

History has it that the period of occurrence of the incidence of Companions of Kahf was the period of victory of monotheism over polytheism. There was no more of the sovereignty of the polytheists, nor their calling the people towards idol-worshipping. Naturally, this victorious group will be the same monotheist group, especially, that the content of their suggestion was the matter of construction of mosque for the sake of worshipping Allah. This itself is a witness that those making the suggestion were monotheists and God-worshippers.

If really the construction of mosque over or near the grave of the holy persons is a sin or polytheism, then why the monotheists made such a suggestion and why Qur’an narrates this without any criticism? Is not the narration of Qur’an together with this silence a testimony upon its permissibility? It is never proper that God narrates the sign of polytheism from a group but without specifically or implicitly criticising them. And this reasoning is the same ‘assertion’ which has been explained in ‘ilm al-‘usul. (Methodology)

This event shows that it has been one kind of lasting conduct amongst all the monotheists and was one way of honouring the one in grave or a means of seeking tabarruk.

It was reasonable and polite of the Wahhabis that before arguing about hadith, they should first have sought the reference from the Holy Qur’an and then attempted the analysis of the tradition.

Now we shall discuss and examine their reasonings.

Reasoning Of Wahhabis That Construction Of Mosque Near Grave Is Forbidden

By presenting a series of traditions, the Wahhabis have analysed the matter of construction of mosque near the grave of pious people to be forbidden. We shall examine all such traditions:

Bukhari in his Sahih under the chapter ofيكره من إنخاذ المساجد على القبور narrates two traditions as such:

    لما مات الحسن بن الحسن بن عليّ ضربَت إمراته القُبة عل قبره سنة ثم رفعت فسمعوا صائحاً يقول الأهل وجدوا

    ما فقدوا فاجابه الأخر بل يئسوا فانقلبوا

1. When al-Hasan bin al-Hasan bin ‘Ali passed away his wife made a dome (a tent) over his grave and after one year she removed it. It was heard that one person cried out: “Have they found that which they had lost”, another person replied: “No they have become disappointed and have given up.”

    لعن الله اليهود والنَّصار إتخذوا قبور انبيائهم مسجداً قالت (عائشة) ولولا ذلك لابرزُوا قبره غير أنَّي أخش أن يُتخذ مسجداً

2. May the curse of Allah be upon the Jews and Christians (for) considering the graves of their Prophets as mosques. She (Ayesha) said: “If it was not for this fear that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) would become a mosque, the Muslims would have kept his grave open (and not put up a barrier around it).

3. Muslim has narrated in Sahih the same tradition with slight variation. As such we confine ourselves to narrating only one text.3

    ألا وإن من كان قبلكم كانُ,ا يتَّخذون قبور أنبيائهم وصالِحيهم مساجد ألا فلا تتخذوا القُبور مساجد إنى أنهاكُم عن ذلك

Know that people before you took the graves of their Prophets and the pious people as mosques. Never take the graves as mosques, I forbid you from that.4

    إن أُم حبيبة وأم سلمة ذكرتنا كنيسة رأيتها بالحبشة فيها تصاوير لرسول الله (صلى الله عليه وأله) فقال رسول الله

    إن أولئك إذا كان فيهم الرجُل الصالح فما بنوا على قبره مسجداً وصوَّروا فيه تلك الصُور أولئك شرار الخلق عند

    الله يوم القيامة .

4. Umm Habiba and Umm Salama (Wives of the Holy Prophet) saw a prophet's picture in the country of Ethiopia (when they had travelled to that place along with a group). The Holy Prophet (s) said: They are such people that whenever a pious man dies amongst them they construct a mosque over his grave and draw his picture on it. They are the worst of the people before God on the Day of Judgement.5

al-Nasa’i narrates from Ibn ‘Abbas in his Sunan under the chapter:

    التغليط في اتخاذ السُرج على القبور

as such:

    لعن الرسول زائرات القبور والمُتخذين عليها المساجد والسُرج

5. The Holy Prophet (s) has cursed those ladies who visit the grave and those who take them as mosques and light a lamp over it.6

Ibn Taymiyya who is the leader of such beliefs and Muhammad ibn ’Abd al-Wahhab sharing his views interpret the aforesaid traditions in such a manner that building mosque over or near the grave of pious people is not permitted.

Thus Ibn-Taymiyya writes:

    قال عُلمائنا لا يجوز بناء المسجد على القبور

“Our scholars have said that it is never allowed to construct a mosque over the grave.”7

A Probe into The Context of Traditions

Now we have to pay attention to the contents of the traditions and derive its correct meanings. We should not remain negligent to this principle and it is as such: As one verse (ayah) can remove the ambiguity of another verse and help its correct interpretation, in the same way, one tradition too can remove the ambiguity and interpret another tradition.

The Wahhabis have stuck to the apparent meaning of one tradition and relied on that in such a manner that any kind of building of mosque over or near the graves of awliya is prohibited whereas if they would have collected all the traditions together, they would have understood the objective of the Holy Prophet (s) in sending this curse.

The Wahhabis have closed the door of ijtihad and thus committed too many mistakes in understanding many of the traditions.

Superficially, it is possible that the authenticity of the traditions be reliable and its narrators trustworthy. Since the deliberation on the references of these traditions will lengthen our discussion, we shall limit ourselves to their contents only.

Our Views about This Matter

Awareness about the objective of the traditions is related to throwing light on the actions of the Jews and Christians near the graves of their respective Prophets because our Holy Prophet (s) has prevented us from the actions which they used to do. If the limits of their actions are clarified, then surely the limits of haram in Islam too would be clarified.

In the previous traditions there exist evidences which testified to the fact that they took the graves of their prophets as their qibla and refused from paying heed to the true qibla. More still, they were worshipping their prophets near their graves instead of worshipping Allah or at least were taking partners with God in their worship.

If the context of the traditions is this that we do not choose their graves to be their qibla and do not consider them as partners with God in worship, then we can never consider the construction of mosque over or near the graves of the pious and virtuous as haram where the visitors neither take their graves to be as their qibla nor do they worship them. Moreover, they worship the one God facing the qibla in their salat and the aim of constructing mosque near the graves of awliya Allah is only to seek tabarruk from their places.

What is important is that it should be proved that the aim of the tradition (that we should not take their graves as mosques) is the same as what we have just said. Here are the evidences:

1. The tradition of Sahih Muslim (4th tradition) elucidates the other traditions because when the two wives of the Holy Prophet (s) explained to him that they had seen a portrait of a Prophet in a Ethiopian church, the Holy Prophet (s) said:

“They are such people that whenever a pious person passes away they would construct a mosque over his grave and put up his portrait in that mosque.”8

The purpose of putting portraits near the graves of pious people was that people would worship them such that they considered the portrait and grave to be their qibla or still more, consider them as idols for worship and prostration. Worshipping of idols is nothing but placing the idol in front and respecting and falling into humiliation before them.

The probability which we are having in this tradition, keeping in mind the actions of the Christians who were and are always inclined towards human worship and are always worshipping portraits and statues, is very worthy of attention. With such strong probability we can never rationalize with the help of this tradition, the prohibition of construction of mosque over or near the grave of awliya Allah which is devoid of such embellishments.

2. Ahmad ibn Hanbal in his al-Musnad and Imam Malik in his al-Muwatta’ narrate the tradition that the Holy Prophet (s) after prohibiting the matter of construction of mosque said:

“Allah, do not make my grave as an idol which is subject to worship”9

This sentence shows that they were behaving with the grave and the portrait which was next to it like one idol and taking them as their qibla and still more is worshipping them in the form of idol.

3. Pondering over the tradition of Ayesha (2nd tradition) will elucidate this fact to a greater extent. After narrating the tradition from the Holy Prophet (s) she says:

“If it was not for the fear that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) would be taken as mosque the Muslims would have kept his grave open”. (They would have not constructed a barrier around the grave)

Now it should be seen that from what aspects the barrier and wall around the grave can become an obstacle? Undoubtedly the barrier will prevent the people from reciting salat over the grave, from worshipping the grave as one idol or at least from taking it as a qibla. However, performing salat near the grave without worshipping the grave or considering it as a qibla is absolutely possible, whether there exists a barrier or not and whether the grave is open or hidden. This is because for fourteen centuries the Muslims have been performing salat near the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) facing the qibla and have been worshipping Allah without the barrier preventing them from doing this action.

To sum up, the appendix of the hadith which is the text of the sayings of Ayesha clarifies the contents of the tradition because Umm al-mu’minin says: ‘In order that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) would not be taken as mosque, they kept his grave hidden from the eyes of the people and constructed a barrier around it.’ Now it should be seen as to what extent this barrier can serve as an obstacle.

A barrier can prevent from two things:

1. The grave from taking the shape of idol and the people from standing in front of it and worshipping it since with the presence of a barrier, people are unable to see his grave to be able to treat it as an idol.

2. The grave from becoming a qibla since fixing it as a qibla is the outcome of seeing and we can never compare it with the ka’ba which is a qibla in all the situations whether it is seen or not. This is because ka’ba is a universal conventional qibla in all the conditions, making no difference if it is seen or not. However taking the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) as a qibla for the attendants in the mosque will be related to those who offer salat in his mosque and such a deviation is more achievable in case the grave is uncovered and seen; but when the grave is concealed the thought of prostrating over his grave even in the form of qibla is much less. Due to this, Umm al-mu’minin says that if no possibility existed for considering the grave as mosque (ie. prostrating over the grave) it would have been kept uncovered. Moreover, such a deviation takes place more when the grave is seen and much less when the grave is hidden.

3. Most of the commentators of the tradition offer the same interpretation as we have done.

Al-Qastallani in Irshad al-sari says: For keeping alive the memories of their past ones, the Jews and Christians were fixing the portraits of their virtous ones near their graves and worshipping their graves. However, their sons and successors, under the influence of whisperings of shaytan, started to worship the portraits near the graves. Thereafter he narrates from Tafsir al-Baydawi as follows:

    لما كانت اليهود والنصارى يسجدون لقبور الأنبياء تعظيماً لشأنهم ويجعلونها قبلة يتوجهون في الصلاة نحوها

    واتخذوها اوثاناً ، مُنِع المسلمون في مثل ذلك فاما من إتخذ مسجداً في جوار صالح وقصد التبرك بالقُرب منه لا

    للتعظيم ولا للتوجيه إليه فلا يدخل في الوعيد المذكور .

“In view of the fact that the Jews and Christians were taking the graves of their Prophets as their qibla for the purpose of respect, and were paying attention towards them at the time of their prayers, their graves took the position of idols. For this reason the Muslims have been forbidden from this action. However, if someone constructs a mosque near the grave of a pious person for the purpose of seeking tabarruk and not for worshipping or paying attention towards them, he will never be included in this prohibition.”10

It is not only al-Qastallani who in his commentary on Sahih Bukhari interprets this tradition as such but also al-Sindi, the commentator of Sunan al-Nasa’i speaks with the same effect. We mention some of them here.

    إتخذوا قبور انبيائهم مساجد أي قبلة للصلاة ويُصلون إليها أو بنوا مساجد عليها يُصلون فيها ولعلَّ وجه الكراهة

    أنه قد يُفض إلى عباده نفس القبر .

“The outcome of his dispensation is this that construction over the grave is haram and occasionally makruh. If the grave is considered as qibla it is haram, since it may lead to the worship of the one buried, otherwise it is makruh.”11

Again he says:

    يُحذر أمته أن يصنعوا بقبره ما صنع اليهود والنصارى بقبور أنبيائهم من إتخاذهم تلك القبور مساجد إما بالسجود

    إليها تعظيماً لها أو يجعلها قبلة يتوجهون في الصلاة إليها .

“He (i.e. the Holy Prophet) prohibits his ummah from treating his grave in the same manner as what the Jews and the Christians have done to the graves of their Prophets. This is because, in the name of honor and respect, they were prostrating over the grave or considering it as their qibla.”12

Regarding this matter, the commentator of Sahih Muslim says:

“If the Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited us from considering his grave and other graves as a mosque, it is due to this reason that the Muslims should stop from exaggerating his honour which might lead to infidelity. Thus, when the Muslims were compelled to develop the mosque of the Holy Prophet (s) and place the chamber of the prophet’s wives and the chamber of Ayesha in the middle of the mosque, they fixed a round wall around the grave so that it could not be seen and the Muslims would not prostrate over it. The speech of Umm al-mu’minin too is a witness to the same:

    لولا ذلك لأبرزوا قبره غير أنه اخش أن يُتخذ مسجداً

If it was not for this fear that his grave (i.e. the grave of Holy Prophet) would become a mosque, the Muslims would have kept his grave open (and not put up a barrier around it).

Another commentator says: “The words of Ayesha are related to that period when the mosque was not developed nor extended. After extension and the admittance of her chamber inside the mosque, the chamber was made in the shape of a triangle so that nobody could perform salat over the grave. Thereafter he says that the Jews and Christians were worshipping their Prophets near their graves and were taking them as partners in their worship. With such evidence and perception of the tradition, one cannot understand any meaning other than this.”

We shall now overlook all these evidences and will approach this issue from another angle:

Firstly, the tradition is applicable to a situation where a mosque is constructed over the grave and this matter does not bear any relation to an adjacent place of the buried. In all the buried places, the mosque is placed near the grave of Imams (a’imma) and awliya in such a manner that the mosque is separated from the shrine. In other words, we are having one shrine and one mosque. The shrine is set aside for ziyarah and tawwasul and the mosque near that, for the worship of Allah. Therefore these adjacent places (shrines) are outside the scope and contents of the tradition assuming that the contents of the traditions are the same as what the Wahhabis say.

Basically speaking how can it be said that the construction of mosque over the grave is haram or makruh whereas Masjid al-Nabi (mosque of the Holy Prophet) is placed near his grave?

If the companions of the Holy Prophet (s) are like the stars which should be followed then why, in this case, we should not follow them. They extended the mosque in such a manner that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) and the shaykhayn have been placed in the middle of the mosque.

If really, construction of mosque near the grave of Holy Imams was unlawful, then why the Muslims expanded the mosque of the Holy Prophet (s) from every angle; while the mosque during the time of the Holy Prophet (s) was placed on the eastern side of the grave, after the expansion, the western side of the grave too became the part of the mosque.

Is it that following theسلف i.e. predecessors and beingسلفي which the Wahhabis are always proud of, means that we should follow them in one instance and disobey them in another?

From this description, it becomes clear that to what extent the sayings of Ibn al-Qayyim that in Islam, grave and mosque do not exist together are baseless and against the path of Muslims. Secondly, we do not derive any meaning from these traditions other than the Holy Prophet (s) prohibiting construction of mosque over or near the graves of the awliya. However, no argument exists to prove that this prohibition is a haram prohibition. Instead, it is possible that this prohibition is a makruh prohibition just as Bukhari has interpreted the traditions and discussed them under the title;

    باب ، يكره من اتخاذ المساجد على القبور

Chapter: It is aversion to build mosques on graves.13

Another testimony is that this matter has come along with the curse upon female visitors to the grave.14 Surely visiting the graves is makruh and not haram for the ladies.

If the Holy Prophet (s) has cursed this group, this curse is no testimony of it being haram because in many of the traditions those committing makruh acts have been cursed too. In tradition, it is mentioned that those who travel alone or eat alone or sleep alone are cursed.

In the end we remind that the construction of mosque over the grave of pious people was an act which was in vogue in the beginning of Islam.

Al-Samhudi says: “When the mother of Ali (‘a), Fatima bint Asad, passed away, the Holy Prophet (s) ordered that she be buried in a place where today stands a mosque named as ‘Grave of Fatima’. He meant that the place of grave of Fatima appear as a mosque in later time. Again he says: “Mus’ab bin ‘Umayr and ‘Abdulla bin Jahsh were buried under the mosque which was built over the grave of Hamza.”15

He further says that in the 2nd century there existed a mosque over the grave of Hamza.16

This mosque existed till the domination of the Wahhabis. They demolished this mosque on these unfounded reasons.

Notes

1. Refer to Tafsir al-Kashshaf of al-Zamakhshari, Ghara’ib al-Qur’an of al-Naysaburi, and others.

2. Sahih al-Bukhari, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 2, page 111.

3. Sahih al-Bukhari, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 2, page 111; Sunan al-Nasa’i, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 2 p. 871

4. Sahih Muslim, vol. 2 p. 68.

5. Sahih Muslim, kitab al-masajid, vol. 2, p. 66.

6. Sunan al-Nasa’i, (ed. Mustafa Halabi), vol. 4, p. 77

7. Ibn Taymiyya, Ziyarat al-qubur, p. 106.

8.إن اولئك إذ كان فيهم الرجل الصالح فمات بنوا على قبره مسجداُ وصورا فيه تلك الصور

9. Ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 3, p. 248

10. al-Qastallani, Irshad al-sari; and Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Fath al-bari, vol. 3, p. 208 approve this view. Prohibition is applicable under circumstances where the grave appears in the manner which was in vogue amongst the Jews and Christians. Otherwise there is no problem and objection.

11. Sunan al-Nasa’i, (al-Azhar edition), vol. 2, p. 21.

12. Sunan al-Nasa’i, (al-Azhar edition), vol. 2, p. 21.

13. Sahih al-Bukhari, vol. 2, p. 111

14. Sunan al-Nasa’i, (Egyptian edition), vol. 3, p. 77.

15. Al-Samhudi, Wafa’ al-wafa’ fi akhbar dar al-Mustafa, (ed. Muhammad Muhyiuddin), vol. 3, p. 897.

16. Al-Samhudi, Wafa’ al-wafa’, (ed. Muhammad Muhyiuddin), vol. 3, p. 922 and 936.


4

5

6

7