Alhassanain(p) Network for Heritage and Islamic Thought

A Study in the Philosophy of Islamic Rites

Author: Ayatullah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr

Table of Contents

Preface 3

The Link Between The Absolute Is A Two-Fold Problem  5

Rites Are Practical Expressions 9

Subjectivity Of Purpose And Self-Denial 11

The Inner Feeling of Responsibility 14

General Outlook At Rites 16

The Inner Feeling of Responsibility 19

Conclusion: The Social Aspect of Worship 21

Preface

Rites enjoy an important role in Islam. Their injunctions represent an important part of jurisprudence and a worshipping conduct which formulates a noticeable phenomenon in the daily life of the pious.

The system of rites in Islamic jurisprudence represents one of its static facets which cannot be affected by the general trend of life or the circumstances of civil progress in man's life except by a small portion, contrary to other judicial aspects which are flexible and dynamic.

The method of application and utilization of these judicial aspects is affected by the circumstances pertaining to civil progress in man's life, such as the system of deals and contracts.

In the sphere of worship, the man of the age of electricity and space prays, fasts, and performs the pilgrimage just as his ancestor from the age of the stone mill used to pray, fast and perform the pilgrimage.

It is true, however, that in the civil aspect of getting prepared to perform a rite. this person may differ from that: for this travels to his place of pilgrimage in a plane, while that used to travel with a camel caravan. And when this covers his body-while saying his prayers or during other occasions-with clothes manufactured by machines, that covered his body with clothes he hand-sewed. But the general formula of worship, as well as its method and legislation, is the same. The necessity of its application has never suffered any change, nor has its legislating value been affected or shaken by the continuous growth of man's control over nature and his own means of living.

This means that Islamic Sharia (Jurisprudence) has not prescribed prayer, fasting, pilgrimage, and other Islamic rites temporarily, or as a juridical formula limited to conditions such Sharia lived in its early epochs of history. Rather, it enjoined these rites on man while he uses atomic energy to mobilize the engine, just as it has enjoined them on man while ploughing his field with a hand plough.

Thus do we derive the deduction that the system of rites deals with the permanent needs in the life of man, for whom they are created, and which remain the same inspite of the continuous progress in man's life-style. This is so because the application of a fixed prescription requires a fixed need. Hence, this question comes up:

Is there really a fixed need in the life of man ever since jurisprudence started its cultivating role, remaining as such until today, so that we may interpret-in the light of its stability-the stability of the formulae whereby jurisprudence has treated and satisfied this same need, so that in the end we can explain the stability of worship in its positive role in man's life?

It may seem, at first look, that to suggest such a fixed need of this sort is not acceptable, that it does not coincide with the reality of man's life when we compare today's man with the man of the future. We certainly find man getting continuously further-in the method, nature of problems, and factors of progress of his own life-from the circumstances of the tribal society, his pagan problems, worries, limited aspirations, and the method of treating and organizing these needs, wherein appeared the concluding jurisprudence. Therefore, how can rites-in their own particular juristic system-perform a real role in this field which is contemporary to man's life-span, inspite of the vast progress in means and methods of living? If rites such as prayers, ablution, ceremonial washing (ghusul), and fasting had been useful during some stage in the life of the bedouin man- taking part in cultivating his behaviour; his practical commitment to clean his body and keep it from excessive eating and drinking- these same goals, by the same token, are achieved by modern man through the very nature of his civilized life and the norms of social living. So, it would seem that these rites are no longer a necessary need as they used to be once upon a time, nor have they retained a role in building man's civilization or solving his sophisticated problems ! But this theory is wrong.

The social progress in means and tools- for example, in the plough changing in man's hand to a steam or electric machine-imposes a change in man's relationship to nature and to whatever material forms it takes. Take agriculture, for example, which represents a relationship between the land and the farmer; it develops materially in form and context according to the norm of development described above.

As regarding worship, the latter is not a relationship between man and nature, so that it would be affected by such sort of development or progress. Rather, it is a relationship between man and his Lord. This relationship has a spiritual role which directs man's relationship to his brother man. In both cases. However, we find that humanity historically, lives with a certain number of fixed needs faced equally by the man of the age of oil (i.e:, animal oil used for lighting) as well as that of the age of electricity. The system of rites in Islam is the fixed solution for the fixed needs of this sort, and for problems whose nature is not sequential; instead, they are problems which face man during his individual, social and cultural build-up. Such a solution, called "rites," is still alive in its objectives until today, becoming an essential condition for man to overcome his problems and succeed in practicing his civilized vocations.

In order to clearly know all this, we have to point out some fixed lines of needs and problems in man's life, and the role rites play in satisfying such needs and overcoming such problems.

These lines are as follows:

1) the need to be linked to the Absolute

2) the need for subjectivity in purpose and self-denial

3) the need for inner feeling of responsibility to guarantee execution The system of rites is a way to organize the practical aspect of the relationship between man and his Lord; therefore, it cannot separate his evaluation from that of this very relationship and of its role in man's life. From here, both of these questions are inter- related:

First: What is the value achieved through the relationship between man and his lord in his civilized march? And is it a fixed value treating a fixed need in this march, or is it a sequential one linked to temporal needs or limited problems, losing its significance at the end of the stage limiting such needs and problems?

Second: What is the role played by rites as regarding that relationship and what is the extent of its significance as a practical dedication to the relationship between man and God?

What follows is a summary of the necessary explanation concerning both questions:

The Link Between The Absolute Is A Two-Fold Problem

The observer, scrutinizing the different acts of the stage-story of man in history, may find out that the problems are different and the worries diversified in their given daily formulas.

But if we go beyond these formulas, infiltrating into the depth and essence of the problem, we will find one main essential and fixed problem with two edges or contrasting poles wherefrom mankind suffers during his civilized advancement along history. Looking from one angle, the problem is loss and nonentity which is the negative side of the problem.

And from another angle, the problem is extreme in entity and belonging. This is expressed by connecting the relative facts to which man belongs to an Absolute, thus expressing the positive side of the same problem. The Concluding Jurisprudence (of Islam) has given the name "atheism" to the first problem, which it expresses very obviously, and the name "idolatry" and Shirk (believing in one or many partners with God) as also an obvious expression of it. The continuous struggle of Islam against atheism and Shirk is, in its civilized reality, a struggle against both sides of the problem in their historical dimensions.

Both angles of the problem meet into one essential point, and that is: deterring man's advancing movement from a continuously good imaginative creativity. The problem of loss means to man that he is a being in continuous loss, not belonging to an Absolute, to Whom he can support himself in his long and hard march, deriving help from His Absolutism and Encompassment, sustenance, and a clear vision of the goal and joining, through that Absolute, his own movement to the universe, to the whole existence, to eternity and perpetuity, defining his own relationship to Him and his position in the inclusive cosmic framework.

The movement at loss without the aid of an Absolute is but a random movement like that of a feather in the wind, the phenomena around it affect it while it is unable to affect them. There is no accomplishment or productivity in the great march of man along history without a connection to and promulgation with an Absolute in an objective march.

This same connection, on the other hand, directs the other side of the problem, that of extreme entity, by changing the "relative" to an "absolute," a problem which faces man continuously. Man weaves his loyalty to a case so that such loyalty freezes gradually and gets stripped of its relative circumstances within which he was accurate, and the human mind will derive out of it an "absolute" without an end, without a limit to responding to its demands. In religious terminology, such an "absolute" eventually changes to a"god" worshipped instead of a need that requires fulfillment. When the "relative" changes to an "absolute," to a "god" of this sort, it becomes a factor in encircling man's movement, freezing its capacities to develop and create, paralyzing man from performing his naturally open role in the march:

Do not worship another "god" beside God else you should become forsaken. (Quran XVII:22)

This is a true fact applicable to all "gods" mankind made along history, albeit if they were made during the idolatry stage of worship or its succeeding stages. From the stage of tribe to that of science, we find a series of "gods" which mankind treated as an "absolute" and which deterred mankind, who worshipped them, from making any accurate progress.

Indeed, from the tribe to which man submitted his alliance, considering it as an actual need dictated by his particular living circumstances, he went then to the extreme, changing it to an "absolute," without being able to see anything except through them. Hence, they became an obstacle in his way for advancement.

It was to science that modern man deservedly granted alliance, as it paved for him the way to control nature. But he sometimes exaggerated such an alliance, turning it to an absolute alliance, with which he was infatuated, an "absolute" to worship, offering it the rites of obeisance and loyalty, rejecting for its own sake all ideals and facts which can never be measured by meters or seen by microscopes.

Accordingly, every limited and relative thing, if man wove out of it, at a certain stage, an absolute to which he thus relates himself, becomes at a stage of intellectual maturity a shackle on the mind that made it, because of its being limited and relative.

Hence, man's march has to have an Absolute.

And He has to be a real Absolute capable of absorbing the human march, directing it to the right path no matter how much advancement it achieves or how far it extends on its lengthy line, wiping out all "gods" that encircle the march and deter it.

Thus can the problem be solved in both of its poles. Such a remedy is shown by what Divine Jurisprudence has presented man on earth: The Belief in God as the Absolute to Whom limited man can tie his own march without causing him any contradiction along his long path.

Belief in God, then, treats the negative aspect of the problem, refusing loss, atheism and nonentity, for it places man in a position of responsibility: to whose movement and management the whole cosmos is related. Man becomes the vicegerent of God on earth. Vicegerency implies responsibility, and a reward man receives according to his conduct, between God and resurrection, infinitude and eternity, while he moves within such a sphere of responsible and purposeful movement.

Belief in God also treats the positive aspects of the problem-that of the extreme in entity, forcing restrictions on man and curbing his swift march-according to this manner:

First This aspect of the problem is created by changing the limited and relative to an "absolute" through intellectual exertion and by stripping the relative of its circumstances and limitations. As for the Absolute provided by the belief in God, this has never been the fabrication of a stage of the human intellect, so that it may become, during the new stage of intellectual maturity, limited to the mind that made it. Nor has it ever been the offspring of a limited need of an individual or a group, so that its becoming absolute may place it as a weapon in the hand of the individual or group in order to guarantee its illegal interests. For God, the Praised, the Sublime, is an Absolute without limits, one whose fixed Attributes absorb all the supreme ideals of man, His vicegerent on earth, of comprehension and knowledge, ability and strength, justice and wealth. This means that the path leading to Him is without a limit; hence, moving towards Him requires the continuity and relative movement and a relative acceleration of the limited (man) towards the Absolute (God) without a stop.

O thou man! Verily thou art ever toiling on towards thy Lord- painfully toiling, but thou shalt meet Him (Quran, LXXXIV:6)

He grants this movement His own supreme ideals derived from comprehension, knowledge, ability and justice, as well as other qualities of that Absolute, towards Whom the march is directed. The march towards the Absolute is all knowledge, all potential, all justice and all wealth. In other words, the human march is a continuously successive struggle against all sorts of ignorance, incapacity, oppression and poverty.

As long as these are the very goals of the march related to this Absolute, they are, then, not merely a dedication to God, but also a continuous struggle for the sake of man, for his dignity, for achieving such supreme ideals for him:

And if any strive (with might and main), they do so for their souls: for God is free of all needs from all creation. (Quran. XXIX:6)

He, then, that receives guidance benefits his own soul: but he that strays injures his own soul. Nor art thou set over them to dispose of their affairs. (Quran, XXXIX:41) On the contrary, whimsical absolutes and false gods cannot absorb the march with all its aspirations, for these manufactured absolutes are the children of an incapable man's brain, or the need of the poor man, or the oppression of the oppressor; therefore they are jointly are linked to ignorance, incapacity and oppression. They can never bless man's continuous struggle against them.

Second: Being linked to God Almighty as the Absolute Who absorbs all of the aspirations of the human march means at the same time rejecting all of those whimsical absolutes which used to cause excessive entity. It also means waging a continuous war and an endless struggle against all sorts of idolatry and artificial worship. Thus, man will be emancipated from the mirage of these false absolutes which stood as an obstacle in his path towards God, falsifying his goal and encircling his march:

But the Unbelievers, their deeds are like a mirage in sandy deserts, which the man parched with thirst mistakes for water; until when he comes up to it, he finds it to be nothing: but he finds God (ever) with him. (Quran, XXIV:38)

Are many lords differing among themselves better, or the One God, Supreme and Irresistible? If not Him, ye worship nothing but names which ye have named, ye and your fathers, for which God hath sent down no authority. (Quran, XII: 39-40)

Such is God your Lord: to Him belongs all Dominion. And those whom ye invoke besides Him have not the least power. (Quran, XXXV:13)

If we consider the main slogan God put forward in this respect: "There is no god but Allah," we will find out that it links the human march to the True Absolute with the rejection of every artificial absolute. The history of the march, in its living actuality, came across the ages to emphasize the organic link between this rejection and that strong and aware tie to God Almighty. For as far as he goes away from the True God, man sinks in the labyrinth of different gods and lords.

Both rejection and the positive link to "There is no god but Allah" are but two faces for one fact: the fact which is indispensable to the human march along its lengthy path. It is but the Truth which is worthy of saving the march from loss, helping it exploit all its creative energies, emancipating it from each and every false and obstructing absolute.

Rites Are Practical Expressions

Just as man was born carrying in him all potentials of the experience on life's stage, plus all seeds of its success, such as awareness, activity and conditioning, so was he born tied by nature to the Absolute.

This is so because his relationship with the Absolute is one of the requirements of his own success whereby he overcomes the problems facing his civilized march, as we have already seen, and there is no experience more sustaining and inclusive, more meaningful, than this of Faith in man's life. It has been a phenomenon attached to man since time immemorial During all stages of history, such a social and continuous attachment proves-through experience-that escaping towards the Absolute, aspiring towards Him from beyond borders lived by man, is a genuine inclination of man no matter how diversified the shapes of such inclination are, how different its methods and degrees of awareness.

But Faith, as an instinct, is not enough to guarantee bringing to reality an attachment to the Absolute in its correct form, for that is linked to the Truth through the method of satisfying such an instinct. The correct behaviour in satisfying it in a manner parallel to all other instincts and inclinations, being in harmony with it, is the only guarantee of the ultimate benefit of man. Also, the behaviour according to or against an instinct is the one that fosters the instinct, deepens, eliminates or suffocates it.

So do the seeds of mercy and compassion die within man's self through the continuous and practical sympathizing with the miserable, the wronged, and the poor.

From this point, Faith in God, the deep feeling of aspiring towards the unknown and the attachment to the Absolute have all to have some direction which determines the manner of satisfying such feeling and the way to deepen it, fixing it in a way compatible with all other genuine feelings of man.

Without a direction, such feeling may have a setback and may be afflicted with various sorts of deviation, just like what happened to the strayed religious feeling during most epochs of history.

Without a deepened conduct, such feeling may become minimized, and the attachment to the Absolute ceases to be an active reality in man's life capable of exploiting good energies. The religion which laid the slogan of "There is not god but Allah," promulgating with it both rejection and affirmation, is the Director.

Rites are factors which perform the role of deepening such feeling, for they are but a practical expression and an expression of the religious instinct; through it this instinct grows and gets deepened in man's life.

We notice, too, that in accurate rites-being a practical expression of the link to the Absoluteboth affirmation and rejection promulgate. They are, thus, a continuous confirmation from man to his link with God Almighty and the rejection of any other "absolute" of those false ones. When one starts his prayers by declaring that "God is Great" (Allaho Akbar), he confirms this rejection. And when he declares that God's Prophet is also His Servant-Slave and Messenger, he confirms this rejection. And when he abstains from enjoying the pleasures of life, abstaining from enjoying even the necessities of life for the sake of God (as in the case of fasting), defying the temptations and their effects, he, too, confirms this rejection.

These rituals have succeeded in the practical sphere of brining up generations of believers, at the hands of the Prophet (peace be upon him) and his succeeding pious leaders, those whose prayers embodied within their own selves the rejection of all evil powers and their subjection, and the "absolutes" of Kisra and Caesar got minimized before their march as did all "absolutes" of man's whims.

In this light do we come to know that worship is a fixed necessity in man's life and civilized march, for there can be no march without an "absolute" to whom it is linked, deriving from him its ideals. And there is no "absolute" that can absorb the march along its lengthy path except the True Absolute (God), the Glorified. Besides Him, artificial "absolutes" definitely form, in one way or another, an absolute which curbs the march's growth. Attachment to the True Absolute, then, is a fixed need. And there can be no attachment to the True Absolute without a practical expression of this attachment, confirming it and continuously fixing it.

Such a practical expression is none but worship. Therefore, worship is a fixed need.

Subjectivity Of Purpose And Self-Denial

In each stage of the human civilization, and in each period of man's life, people face numerous interests whose achievement requires a quantitative action to some degree. No matter how diversified the qualities of these interests are or the manner of brining them to life from one age to another is, they can still be divided into two sorts of interests:

One: interests whose materialistic gains and outcomes go to the individual himself, on whose work and endeavour depends the achievement of that interest;

Two: interests whose gain go to those other than the direct worker or group he belongs to. In this second kind are included all sorts of labour which aim at an even bigger goal than the existence of the worker himself, for every big goal cannot be usually achieved except through the collective efforts and endeavours of a long period of time.

The first sort of interests guarantees the inner motive of the individual: its availability and effort to secure it, for as long as the worker is the one who reaps the fruits of the interest and directly enjoys it, it is natural to find in him the effort to secure it and the work for its sake.

As for the second kind of interests, here the motive to secure these interests is not sufficient, for the interests here are not only the active worker's; and often his share of labour and hardship is greater than that of his share of the huge interest. From here, man needs an upbringing of subjectivity of purpose and self-denial in motive, i.e., that he must work for the sake of others, the group.

In other words, he has to work for a purpose greater than his own existence and personal materialistic interest. Such an upbringing is necessary for the man of the electricity and atom age as it equally is for the man who used to fight with the sword and travel on camel-back. They both confront the worries of construction and of the great aims and situations which demand self-denial and working for the sake of others, sowing the seeds whose fruits may not be seen by the person who sowed them.

It is necessary, then, to raise every individual to perform a portion of this labour and effort not merely for his own self and his personal materialistic interests, so that he will be capable of contributing with self-denial, of aiming at a purely "objective" goal.

Rites perform a large role in this upbringing. These, as we have already seen, are acts of man performed for the sake of achieving the pleasure of Almighty God. Therefore, they are invalid if the worshipper performs them just for his own personal interest. They are improper if the purpose behind them is a personal glory, public applause, or a dedication for his own ego, within his circle and environment. In fact, they even become unlawful acts deserving the punishment of the worshipper himself! All this is for the sake of the worshipper who tries, through his worship, an objective purpose, with all what this implies of truthfulness, sincerity and he will totally dedicate his worship to Almighty God alone.

God's Path is purely one of the service of all humanity. Each act performed for the sake of God is but an act for the sake of God's servants, for God is totally sufficient, independent of His servants. Since the True Absolute God is above any limit, specification, not related to any group or biased to any particular direction, His Path, then, practically equates that of ALL mankind's. To work for God, and for God alone, is to work for people, for the good of all the people. It is a psychological and spiritual training that never ceases to function.

Whenever the jurisdic path of God is mentioned, it can be taken to mean exactly all mankind's path. Islam has made God's Path one of the avenues to spend Zakat, meaning thereby: to spend for all humanity's good and benefit. It also urged to fight for the Cause of God in defense of all the weak among humans, calling it Jihad, i.e., "fighting for the Path of God;"

Those who believe (in God) fight in the cause of God, and those who reject Faith fight in the cause of Evil: so fight ye against the friends of Satan: feeble indeed is the cunning of Satan. (Quran, IV: 76)

Besides, if we come to know that worship demands different types of endeavour, as it sometimes imposes on man only some physical exertion, as in prayer; and sometimes psychological, as in fasting; and other times financial, as in Zakat; and yet a fourth one an exertion on the level of self-sacrifice or danger, as in Jihad. If we come to know all this, we will be able to figure the depth and capacity of the spiritual and psychological training practiced by man through different rites for the objective purpose, for giving and contributing, for working for a higher goal in all different fields of human endeavour.

On this basis can you find the vast difference between a person who grew up on making endeavours to please God, brought up to labour without waiting for a compensation on the working grounds. and that who grew up always measuring a work according to the extent he can achieve of his own personal interest, basing it on the gain he gets from it, not comprehending-out of this measuring and estimating-except the language of figures and market prices. A person like this one can be none other than a merchant in his own social practices, regardless of their field or type.

Considering upbringing on the objective purpose. Islam has always tied the value of a work to its own impulses, separating them from its results. The value of an act in Islam is not in what results and gains it brings forth to the worker or to all people; rather it is the motives behind it, their purity, objectivity and self-denial. For example, the person who reaches the discovery of a medicine for a dangerous disease, thereby saving the lives of millions of patients. God does not evaluate his discovery according to the size of its results and the number of those patients it saves from death; rather He estimates it according to the feelings and desires which formulate within the discoverer the motive to make an effort to make that discovery. If he did not make his effort except to get a privilege that enables him to sell it and gain millions of dollars.

This deed of his is not considered by God to be equal except to any other purely commercial deed, for the egoistic logic of the self-centered motives, just as they push him to discover a medicine for a chronic disease, may as well push him in the same degree to discover means of destruction if he finds a market that buys them. A deed is considered commendable and virtuous if the motives behind it go beyond the ego: if it is for the sake of God and the servants of God. According to the degrees of self denial and the participation of God's servant in its making, a deed is elevated and highly evaluated.

The Inner Feeling of Responsibility

If we observe humanity in any of its historical periods, we will find it following a particular system of its life, a specific manner in distributing rights and responsibilities among people, and that according to the amount it acquires of securities for its members to cling to this system and to its implementation, it will be closer to stability and the achievement of the general goals expected from that system.

This fact is equally true concerning the future, as well as the past, for it is an established fact of man's civilized march along its lengthy range.

Among the securities is that which is objective, such as penalties enforced by the group to punish the individual who transgresses beyond his limits. And among them is that which is inner, i.e., man's inner feeling of responsibility towards his social obligations, towards whatever obligations the group demands of him, determining, spontaneously, his own rights.

In order to be an actual fact in man's life, the inner feeling of responsibility needs the belief in. a supervision from whose knowledge not an atom's weight in earth or sky escapes and to a practical application through which such a feeling grows, and according to which the feeling of such an inclusive supervision lays roots.

The supervision, for whose knowledge not even an atom's weight escapes, is created in man's life as a result of his link with the True Absolute, the all-Knowing, the Omnipotent, the One Whose knowledge encompasses everything. This link with His self saves man the need for such a supervision, thus enabling the creation of an inner feeling of responsibility.

The practical application, through which this inner feeling of responsibility grows, materializes through practicing rites. For worship is the duty imposed by the Unseen, and by this we mean that checking it externally is impossible. Any external measures to enforce it can never be successful, for it stands through the self's own purpose and the spiritual attachment to work for God; this is a matter which can not be included in the calculation of a subjective supervision from the outside, nor can any legal measure guarantee that either. Rather, the only capable supervision in this respect is the one resulting from the attachment to the Absolute, the Unseen, the One from Whose knowledge nothing escapes.

The only possible assurity on this level is the inner feeling of responsibility. This means that the person who practices worship is performing a duty which differs from any other social obligation or project when he borrows and pays back, or when he contracts and adheres to the conditions. When he borrows money from others and he returns it to the debtor, he performs a duty which lies within the range of social supervision's monitoring; hence, his estimation of the predictment of social reaction dictates to him the decision to do so.

The ritual duty, towards the Unknown, is one whose inner implication none knows except God, the Praised, the Omnipotent, for it is the result of the inner feeling of responsibility.

Through religious practices, such an inner feeling grows, and man gets used to behaving according to it. Through the medium of such feeling can we find the good citizen. It is not sufficient for good citizenship that a person is anxious to perform the legal rights of others only because of his apprehension of the social reaction towards him should he be reluctant to do so. Rather, good citizenship is achieved by the man who does not relax his own inner feeling of responsibility.

In Islam, we notice that it is often recommended to perform optional rites secretly, rather than publicly. There are even rites which are secretive by nature such as fasting, for it is an inner curb which cannot be checked externally. There are rites for which a secretive environment is chosen, avoiding the public stage, such as the nightly Nafl optional prayers whose performance requires after midnight time.

All this is for the sake of deepening the aspect of worshipping the Unseen, linking it more and more to the inner feeling of responsibility. Thus, this feeling gets deepened through the practice of rites, and man gets used to behaving on its basis, forming a strong guarantee for the good individual's discharge of his duties and obligations.

General Outlook At Rites

If we cast a general look at the rites we have observed in this book, comparing them with each other, we can then derive some general outlooks at these rites. Here are some of these general outlooks. The Unseen In Explaining Rites We came to know previously the important role worship plays in man's life and that it expresses a fixed need in his civilized march.

From another aspect: if we scrutinize and analyze the particulars, in the light of advanced science, to be acquainted with the pieces of wisdom and secrets which Islamic jurisprudence expresses in this regard and which modern science has been able to discover.

This wonderful agreement between the outcomes of modern science and many particulars of Islamic jurisprudence, and whatever rules and regulations it decided, expresses a dazzling support for the position of this jurisprudence, deeply emphasizing its being God-inspired. In spite of all this, however, we quite often face unseen points in worship, i.e., a group of details whose secret cannot be comprehended by the person practicing worship, nor can he interpret them materialistically; for why must sunset prayer be three prostrations while the noon-time prayer more than that? And why should each rekaa include bowing down once instead of twice, two prostrations instead of one? Other questions of this sort can also be put forth.

We call such as aspect of worship which cannot be interpreted, "unseen." We find this aspect, in one manner or another, in most rites brought forth by the Islamic jurisprudence. From here, we can consider obscurity in the meaning we have already mentioned as a general phenomenon in rites and one of their common characteristics .

This obscurity is linked to the rites and to their imposed role jointly, for the role of rites, as we have already come to know, is to emphasize the attachment to the Absolute and deepen that practically. The bigger the element of submission and yielding in a worship is, the stronger its effect in deepening the link between the worshipper and his Lord.

If the deed practiced by the worshipper is understood at all its dimensions, clear in its wisdom and benefit in all details, the element of submission and yielding gets minimized, and it will be dominated by motives of interest and benefit, no more a worship of God as much as it is a deed of benefit practiced by the worshipper so that he might derive advantage out of it, benefiting of its results.

Just as the spirit of obedience and attachment in the soldier grows, getting deepened through military training, by giving him orders and requiring him to perform them with obedience and without discussion, so does the feeling of the worshipping person grow and get deepened in its attachment to his Lord through requiring him to practice these rites in their unseen aspects with submission and yielding.

For submission and yielding require the assumption of the existence of an unseen aspect and the attempt not to question this unseen aspect of worship. Demanding its interpretation and limitation of interest means stripping worship of its reality-as a practical expression of submission and obedience- and measuring it by measurements of benefit and interest like any other deed.

We notice that this obscurity is almost ineffective in rites representing a great general interest, one that conflicts with the personal interest of the worshipper, as is the case with Jihad which represents a great general interest which contrasts the desire of the person performing it to preserve his life and blood, and also in the case of Zakat which represents a great interest which contrasts the strong desire of the person paying it to preserve his wealth and property. The issue of Jihad is very well understood by the person performing it, and the issue of Zakat is generally understood by the person who pays it; neither Jihad nor Zakat thus loses any element of submission and obedience (to God), for the difficulty of sacrificing life and property is what makes man's acceptance of a worship-for which he sacrifices both life and property-is indeed a great deal of submission and obedience. Add to this the fact that Jihad and Zakat and similar rites are not meant to be merely aspects of upbringing just for the individual, but also for the achievement of social benefits secured thereby. Accordingly, we observe that obscurity is highlighted more and more in rites dominated by the educating aspect of the individual, such as prayer and fasting.

Thus do we derive the conclusion that the unseen in worship is strongly linked to its educating role in attaching the individual to his Lord, deepening his relationship with his Lord.

When we observe the different Islamic rites, we find in them an element of inclusion of all different aspects of life. Rites have never been limited to specific norms of rituals, nor have they been restricted to only needs which embody the manner of glorifying God, the Praised, the High, like bowing, prostrating, praying and invoking; rather, they have been extended to include all sectors of human activity. Jihad, for example, is a rite. It is a social activity. Zakat is a rite. It, too, is a social activity, a financial one. Fasting is a rite. It is a nutritious system.

Both ablution and Ghusu1 (ceremonial washing) are norms of worship. They are two ways of cleaning the body. This inclusion of worship expresses a general trend of Islamic upbringing aiming at linking man, in all his deeds and activities, with Almighty God, converting each useful deed to worship, no matter what field or type. In order to find a fixed basis for this trend, fixed rites were distributed to the different fields of human activity, preparing man to train himself on pouring the spirit of worship over all his good activities, and the spirit of the mosque over all places of his works; in the field, the factory, the shop or the office, as long as his deed is a good one, for the sake of God, the Glorified, the High. In this respect, Islamic jurisprudence differs from two other religious trends, one: a trend to separate worship from life; and the other: a trend to limit life to a narrow frame of worship as do monks and mystics.

As for the first trend, it separates worship from life, leaving worship to be conducted at places made especially for it. It requires man to be present in these places in order to pay God His dues and worship Him, so much so that when he gets out of them to different fields of life, he bids worship farewell, giving himself up to the affairs of his life until he goes back again to those holy places. From here came Islamic jurisprudence to distribute the rites on the different fields of life, urging the practice of ritual rites in each good deed. It explains to man that the difference between the mosque, which is God's house, and man's home is not in the quality of building or slogan; rather, the mosque has deserved to be God's house because it is the yard whereupon man practices a deed that goes beyond his ego and wherefrom he aims at a bigger goal than that dictated by the logic of limited materialistic interests, and that this yard ought to extend to include all life's stages. Each yard, whereupon man does a deed that goes beyond his self, aiming thereby to achieve the pleasure of God and all people, does, indeed, carry the mosque's spirit.

As for the second trend, which restricts life in a narrow frame of worship, it tried to confine man to the mosque instead of extending the meaning of the mosque to include all the yards which witness a good deed of man.

This trend believes that man lives an inner conflict between his soul and body, and that he cannot accomplish one of these two duality of worship and different activities of life paralyze worship and obstruct its constructive upbringing role to develop man's motives and make the objective, enabling him to go beyond his ego and narrow personal interests in various scopes of his deeds.

God, the Glorified and Praised, never insisted on being worshipped for the sake of His own Person, since He is independent of His worshippers, so that He would be satisfied with a worship of this sort, nor did He ever put Himself as the goal and objective of the human march, so that man may bow his head down to Him within the scope of his worship, and that is it! Rather, He meant such worship to build the good person who is capable of going beyond his ego, participating in a bigger role in the march.

The exemplary achievement of this cannot be reached except when the spirit of worship gradually extends to other activities of life, for its extension-as we have already seen-means an extension of objectivity of purpose and the inner feeling of responsible behaviour, ability to go beyond the self to be in harmony with man within this inclusive cosmic frame, with eternity, immortality that both encompass him.

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.