Logical Analysis of two more traditions

Now that our discussion has reached this stage, it is worthy that we examine some more traditions which are referred to by the Wahhabis.

1. Ibn Maja narrates in his Sahih as such:

           

Mohammad Ibn Yahya, Muhammad Ibn Abdullah, Al-Riqashi, Wahab, Abdur Rahman Ibn Yazid Ibn Jaber, have narrated to us from Qasim ibn Mokhaimara from Abi Saeed: “Verily Prophet Muhammad (s) prohibited make construction on graves”.  [1]

Ahmad bin Hanbal in his al-Musnad narrates one tradition with two chains of narration. Here we narrate both of them:

2. Narrated Hassan, Ibn Lahiaah narrated, Baraid Ibn Abi Habib narrated from Naim servant of Umme Salamah. She said: ‘Prophet of God prohibited to build (construction) on grave or plaster-moulding.’ [2]

3. Ali Ibn Ishaq narrated, Abdullah ibn Lahiaah, narrated Boraid ibn Abi Habib from Naeem, servant of Umme Salama: ‘Prophet prohibited to plaster-mould a grave or build (make construction) on it or sit on it.’ [3]

To prove the weakness of the first tradition suffice it is to say that one of the narrators is Wahab who is completely (unknown) and it is not known which ‘Wahab’ is the narrator of this tradition. In Mizan al-‘i’tidal seventeen Wahabs are mentioned and it is not known that this Wahab is which one of them where most of them are regarded to be fabricators of traditions and known liars. [4]

The major problem of the second and third traditions is the presence of ‘Abdulla ibn Lahi’a.  Al-Dhahabi writes about him as such: 

                           

Ibn Ma’in has said that he is weak and his tradition cannot beargued upon. [5] Al-Humaydi narrated from Yahya bin Sa’id that he does not count him to be of any significance.

We shall now pass from the controversies in the sanad and turn over to the following matter. All the historians and Islamic muhaddithun (traditionists) have narrated that the holy body of the Holy Prophet (s) was buried by the approval of his companions in the house and chamber of his wife Ayesha. In selecting the place of his burial, the companions have relied on the tradition narrated by Abu Bakr from the Holy Prophet (s)  that any Prophet who dies in any place should be buried in that very place. [6]

The question arises here that if the Holy Prophet (s) had really prohibited construction over the grave then how was it that he was buried under the ceiling and his grave became such that it possessed a structure. It is a matter of laughter when some of the dry and rigid Wahhabis say that what is forbidden is making the structure over the grave and not the burial of body under the structure and the Holy Prophet (s) was buried under the structure and not that a structure was made over his grave. [7]

Such an interpretation of the tradition shows no motive other than explaining one external fact (burial of the body of the Holy Prophet (s) under a structure) and if one Wahhabi was not faced with such a fact he would have ordered both these acts to be haram (forbidden).

Basically at this juncture we ask the Wahhabis some questions:

Is it that only the original construction over the grave of the dead person forbidden and if someone has already made such a construction then is its continuity not forbidden although its original construction was forbidden?

Or is it that the original construction and its continuity both are forbidden?

If only the original construction is forbidden and their continuity was not forbidden, then the question arises that why the Government of Sa’ud destroyed by force the traces of Messengership and the houses of the household of the Holy Prophet (s) and the domes of his children and companions who were already buried under the structures.

Moreover, this supposition is against the verdicts (fatawa) of founders of Wahhabism such as Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyya.

The former says:

   

“It is obligatory to destroy the structures made over the graves and after gaining power for its destruction it is not permissible to let it remain and to preserve it even for one day.”

With this explanation it is not correct for a Wahhabi to select the first alternative of our question. Thus he is bound to select the second and say that the construction over the grave is haram in both the cases.

At this moment, a question will arise as to why the Muslims buried the holy body of the Prophet (s) under a roofed place. Although it is true that they did not originally construct over his grave yet they acted in such a way that the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) was already having a structure.

Here a Wahhabi has only one route of escape and that is for explaining the physical action of the Muslims he will say: Preservation and continuation of grave is forbidden when original construction takes place over the grave and if at the time of the original construction, there was no grave then its continuation (no matter if it is in the form of construction over grave) is not haram.

Such dissociation has no reason other than justifying one external fact (action of Muslims).

Wahhabism entangled in the contradiction between the school of thought and the practice of Muslims

This point is not the only instance where the Wahhabism has been caught in the scuffle of contradiction between its school of thought and the deeds of Muslims.

It has been aimlessly struggling in other instances too. It strictly prohibits tabarruk of the remains of the Holy Prophet (s) and say: “Stone, soil etc are of no use.” On the other hand we see the Muslims constantly kissing and touching the stone (hajr al-‘aswad) or kissing the curtain of the Ka’ba or seeking tabarruk from its door and walls which according to Wahhabis bears no result.

They have prohibited construction of mosque near the grave of the awliya Allah whereas in the entire Islamic lands, mosques exist near the graves. Even besides the grave of Hamza there was a mosque which the transgressive Sa’udis have destroyed. At present the grave of the Holy Prophet (s) is in the mosque and the Muslims perform prayers around there.

Preparing an argument instead of adopting a realistic approach

In order to destroy the tombs of the graves of Imams (‘a) buried in Baqi’ the Wahhabis embarked on resorting to arguments and so to speak have found an excuse.  They say that the land of Baqi’ is an endowed (waqfi) land and maximum use should be made from this land and every kind of obstruction from reaping the benefits should be removed. Construction of a structure over the graves of the household of the Prophet (s)  is an obstacle from utilising a part of the land of Baqi’, because, although burial is possible in the sanctuary and the shrine, the same cannot be done under the foundations and surrounding walls. Therefore, such constructions should be destroyed till the enitre land of Baqi’ is exploited for useful purposes.

The Response and Refutation:

Undoubtedly such reasoning is nothing but a kind of biased judgment. The Wahhabi judge (qadi) wishes to destroy, by any means, the traces of the household of the Holy Prophet (s) and even if he was unable to find any reason he would still think of destroying them under the cover of force. On account of such a mentality he started to conjure up a pretext and hence brought up the matter of endowment of the land of Baqi’.

Moreover the idea that Baqi’ is an endowed land is nothing more than an imagination since:

Firstly, no book that we could rely on, whether of history or tradition (hadith), mentions that Baqi’ is endowed (waqfi). Instead it is possible to say that Baqi’ was a waste land where the people of Medina used to bury their dead. In this case, such a land will be considered to be amongst the ‘properties belonging to no particular person’ (al-mubahat al-‘awwaliyya) and any kind of appropriation over it is permissible.

In previous times, greed and avarice of the people in possessing the dead and barren land was insignificant and there was no money and power in developing and flourishing them. Moreover, the people living in villages had not yet started to migrate to cities and no issues related to land and no people such as land profiteers existed and no institute by the name of land exchange had come into existence. Thus most of the lands were not having owners and they remained as they were and were counted to be part of wastelands.

During these periods the people of every city, village and hamlet allocated a part of the land for the burial of their dead or if someone would become the first in burying his dead once on a piece of land, others would follow suit. As such, they would convert the land into a graveyard without anyone seeking possession of it and making it a waqf for burying the dead.

The land of Baqi’ was no exception to this rule. The lands in Hijaz and Medina were not of much value and with the presence of waste lands around Medina, no wise person would have created an endowment over cultivable land. In a place where waste land is plentiful and cultivable land very scanty, surely the waste land (which is counted to be the property belonging to no particular person) will be used.

Incidentally, history too confirms this reality. Al-Samhudi in Wafa’ al-wafa’ fi akhbar dar al-Mustafa writes:

“The first person who was buried by the Holy Prophet (s) in Baqi’ was ‘Uthman ibn Maz’un (the companion of the Holy Prophet). When Ibrahim, son of the Holy Prophet, died, the Prophet (s) ordered him to be buried near ‘Uthman. From then on, people were inclined to bury their dead in Baqi’ and they cut off the trees (to make space).  Each tribe appropriated one piece of the land for themselves”.

Thereafter he says:

“The land of Baqi’ was having a tree by the name of gharqad. When the people buried ‘Uthman ibn Maz’un over there the tree was cut off.” [8]

The tree of gharqad is the same wild tree found in the deserts of Medina.

From these words of al-Samhudi we draw a clear conclusion that the land of Baqi’ was a dead land where, after the burial of one companion everyone took a part of it for their respective tribes and the name of waqf has never been seen in history. Instead, history shows that the part or section of Baqi’ where the Imams (‘a) have been buried was the house of ‘Aqil bin Abi Talib and the holy bodies of these four Imams (‘a) were buried in the house which was related to Bani Hashim.

Al-Samhudi writes:

“Abbas bin ‘Abd al-Muttalib was buried near the grave of Fatima bint Asad in the cemetery of Bani Hashim which was in the house of ‘Aqil.” [9]

He also narrates from Sa’id bin Muhammad bin Jubayr that he has seen the grave of Ibrahim, son of the Holy Prophet (s), in the house which was the property of Muhammad bin Zayd bin ‘Ali.

He further narrates that the Holy Prophet (s) buried the body of Sa’d bin Mu’adh in the house of Ibn Aflah which was around Baqi’ and possessed a structure and dome.

All these show that the land of Baqi’ was not endowed (waqfi) and the pure bodies of our Imams (‘a) have been buried in the houses owned by themselves.

Under these cricumstances, is it correct to destroy, under the pretext of waqf, the traces and signs of the household of the Holy Prophet (s)?

Let us suppose, just for argument’s sake, that the land of Baqi’ was a waqf. But is there any hint about the circumstances in which the waqf was made? Perhaps the one making the waqf has given permission for construction over the grave of noble personalities. So, because we do not know, we should interpret a believer's deeds as right, and not accuse him of offence.

Under these situations, destroying these domes and houses will be considered forbidden (haram) and going against the divine laws.

The qadi Ibn Bulayhid and his supporters knew well that the idea of waqf was one kind of preparing a reason and carving an argument. Even if they were not having such reason, they would have still destroyed the signs of the Holy Prophet (s) because this is not the first time they have destroyed the traces of Messengership. In the year 1221 AH when they gained control over Medina for the first time, they destroyed the traces of Messengership. Later, when they were expelled from the land of Hijaz by the ‘Uthmani forces, all the structures were again re-built. 

Notes :

[1] Sahih Ibn Maja, vol. 1 p. 474.

[2] Ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 6 p. 299.

[3] Ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 6 p. 299.

[4] al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-‘i’tidal, vol. 3 pp. 350 to 355.

[5] al-Dhahabi, Mizan al-‘i’tidal, vol. 2 p. 476 under the title ‘Abdulla ibn Lahi’a; Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 1 p.  444.

[6] Ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 1 p. 7; Sahih al-Tirmidhi, vol. 2 p. 139; Ibn Sa’d, al-Tabaqat,  vol. 2 p. 71; and others.

[7] Muqbil bin al-Hadi al-Wadi, Riyad al-janna, (Kuwait), p. 269.

[8] al-Samhudi, Wafa’ al-wafa’ fi akhbar dar al-Mustafa, vol. 2 p. 84.

[9] al-Samhudi, Wafa’ al-wafa’ fi akhbar dar al-Mustafa, vol. 2 p. 96.