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.

Analysis of Hadith of Jabir

The tradition of Jabir is one of the references which the Wahhabis rely on to prove the matter of prohibition of construction of the grave. This tradition has been narrated in different ways in the books of Sihah and Sunan of the Ahl al-Sunnah and in all the references we see the names of Ibn Jurayh and Abu al-Zubayr.

We shall investigate them by narrating all the phases of tradition with their references and then mention our own views regarding the scale of its competency based on logical reasoning.
Muslim narrates in his Sihah in the chapter

                        

‘Prohibition to plaster-mould or make construction on a grave’
The tradition of Jabir is reported with three chains of narration, and with two texts. The first one is:

1.“It is narrated from Abu Bakr bin Shaybah, (who said) Hafs bin Ghiyath narrated to us, from Ibn Jurayh, from Abu al Zubayr from Jabir who said that The Prophet of God (s) prohibited the plastering of graves and prohibited anyone from sitting or constructing over them”

 2.

 

 Here the text of the tradition is indicated to be the same but its chain of narration differs slightly from the first.

3.



“The Holy Prophet (s) prohibited the plastering of graves.” [1]

Sahih al-Tirmidhi narrates one tradition with one chain of narration.

in chapter entitled



‘Abominability of plaster moulding and writing on graves’

4.

 “The Holy Prophet (s) prohibited us from plastering the graves and writing on them, and from making and constructing over them.”

Thereafter al-Tirmidhi narrates from al-Hasan al-Basri and al-Shafi’i that they have permitted growing of flowers over the grave. [2]

Ibn Maja narrates a tradition with two texts and two chains of narration in his Sahih in the chapter entitled:
   
‘What it is been said, is about prohibition of building, plaster-moulding and writing on graves (engraving)’

5. & 6.

                                                                                            

                                                                                     

It is narrated from Azhar ibn Marwan, Muhammad-ibn-Ziad said Abdul Wareth has narrated to us from Ayub from Abi-Zubairfrom Jaber that Prophet (s) of God has prohibited from plaster-moulding on graves.

Abdullah-ibn-Saeed narrated us, Hafs from Ibn Jarih from Sulaiman Ibn Musa from Jaber that Prophet (s) of God has prohibited to engrave anything on graves.[3]

After narrating this tradition, the commentator al-Sindi, quotes al-Hakim al-Naysaburi and says:

“The tradition is Sahih but not practical because the Islamic leaders from East to West have been writing over the graves. This is a practice which the people have adopted from the past generations.”

al-Nasa’i narrates in his Sahih in the chapter of with two chains of narration and two texts:

7. & 8.

                                        

Yousuf bin Saeed reported to us that Hajjaj narrated from ibn ibn Jarih who said I heard from Abu Zubair who heard Jabir he said that Prophet (s) of God prohibited to plaster-mould or build on a grave or someone sitting on it.

Imran ibn Musa reported to us who said, narrated to us Abdul Warith, who said narrated to us Ayub, from Abi Zubair, from Jabir who said that Prophet (s) of God prohibited to plaster mould graves. [4]

In the Sunan of Abu Dawud (vol. 3, p. 216) chapter of tradition of Jabir is narrated with two chains of narrations and two texts:

9. & 10.

    

“…..Abu Dawud says: “The Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited us from writing over the grave or from raising it.”

Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal in his al-Musnad has narrated the tradition of Jabir as follows:

11.

         

From Abd al-Razzaq from Ibn Joraih who reported from Abu Zubair that Jabir Ibn Abdullah said that I heard from Prophet (s), he prohibited people from sitting on grave or plaster- moulding or building on it. [5]

These were the various forms of the tradition that have been narrated with different chains of narration and texts. Now let us see whether the tradition can be rationalized or not.

Points of Weakness in this Tradition

The tradition of Jabir is faced with a series of problems that no logical reasoning can be based on it.

Firstly: In all the chains of transmission of this tradition, Ibn Jurayh [6] and Abu al-Zubayr [7] have either both come together or at least one of them has been mentioned. Now if the position of these two persons is clarified, then it would be needless to discuss about other people who have come in the chains of transmission of this tradition. Although a section of the narrators are from the unknown and weak still by clarifying the position of these two people it is not required to discuss and talk about the others.

Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani narrates in Tahdhib al-tahdhib about Ibn Jurayh quoting from the distinguished scholars as follows:

Yahya bin Sa’id was asked about the hadith of Ibn Jurayh to which he said: ‘If Ibn Jurayh does narrate a tradition from the book, he cannot be relied upon’. It was said to him that he uses akhbarani (technical term used in isnad followed by identification of the transmitter from whom the report was obtained), to which he said, ‘It’s nothing… all of it is weak.’

He narrates from Ahmad bin Hanbal that if Ibn Jurayh says:

                                                                                             

                                                                          

“..that so and so said such and such then he has narrated a false tradition.”

Malik bin Anas says: In the matter of traditions Ibn Jurayh is like one who collects twigs in the darkness of night. (where his hand will be bitten by snake and scorpion).

From al-Darqutni, who says:

                                  

Keep away from the craftiness (presenting the false to be true) of Ibn Jurayh for he plays a dirty hypocrisy. Whenever he hears a tradition from a weak person, he presents it in such a manner that as if it was from a reliable person.

From Ibn Hibban who says that: Ibn Jurayh plays trickery in tradition. [8]

With such judgements from the scholars of ‘ilm al-rijal can one rely on the tradition of such a person and in contrast to the decisive path of the Muslims who were always renovating the graves of awliya Allah and respecting them, is it possible to have confidence in such a narrator?

About Abu al-Zubayr’s position, Ibn Hajar narrates the following sentences from the scholars of rijal:

The son of Ahmad bin Hanbal narrates from his father who narrates from Ayyub that he (i.e. Abu al-Zubayr) was weak in hadith.

Ibn Hajar narrates from Shu’ba that Abu al-Zubayr did not know how to recite his prayers properly. Again he narrates from him as such: “I was in Mecca when a person came to Abu al-Zubayr and asked him some questions to which the latter started to defame him. I told him that he was accusing a Muslim. He replied: He has made me angry. I informed him that since he was defaming everyone who made him angry I would no longer narrate any tradition from him.”

Again Ibn Hajar asked Shu’ba as to why he stopped narrating tradition from Abu al-Zubayr. He replied: “I saw him openly performing bad deeds.”

Ibn Hajar narrates from Ibn Abi Hatim that he asked his father about the character of Abu al-Zubayr to which he replied: “His traditions are written but they cannot be relied upon.”

Ibn Hajar further narrates from him that the latter informed Abu Zur’a that people were narrating traditions from Abu al-Zubayr and asked him whether he could be relied or not.

He replied: ‘The tradition of only a trustworthy person can be used as an argument (a sarcastic remark to indicate that he was not a trustworthy person)’.

This is the position of these two persons who have come in all the chains of narration of the tradition. Is it possible to rely on a hadith that is reported by these two persons?

Even if we assume that others mentioned in the references are reliable (while in fact some of them like ‘Abd al-Rahman bin ‘Aswad were accused of being liars), can such a tradition be used as argument when its narrators are these two people.

Is it really fair that with such a tradition that is having such a weak authencity, one can destroy the traces of household of the prophet and his companions and find fault with the actions of the Muslims in these fourteen centuries?

Secondly: The tradition is a matter of concern from the viewpoint of text. This is because of the fact that the narrators have not heeded sufficient attention to memorising its text. And this concern is such that a person loses confidence in them. Now we shall describe the kind of concern:

The tradition of Jabir has been narrated in seven forms whereas the Holy Prophet (s) has mentioned that in one form. Here are the descriptions of the seven forms:

1. The Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited plastering of the graves and resting or constructing a structure over them. (Tradition no 1, 2 and 9).

2. The Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited plastering of graves.

(Tradition no.5 and 8).

3. The Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited plastering, writing, constructing and walking over the graves.  (Tradition no.4).

4. The Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited writing over the graves.

(Tradition no.6).

5. The Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited sitting over the grave or plastering and constructing and sitting over it. (Tradition no.10)

6. The Holy Prophet (s) has prevented from sitting, plastering or constructing over the grave.

(Tradition no.11) This one differs from the first where in the first form resting is prohibited while here sitting is prohibited).

7. The Holy Prophet (s) has prohibited from sitting, plastering, constructing and writing over the grave or raising the grave. Here, the prohibition of writing over the grave and raising the grave is added.

Apart from this, there are some differences and contradictions among the interpretations. In the first case, resting is mentioned; in the third case walking is mentioned and in the fifth and sixth case we find sitting.

With such problems, no jurisprudent (faqih) can rely upon this tradition.

Thirdly: Assuming that the chains of narration of this tradition are reliable, it does not indicate more than that the Holy Prophet (s) prevented construction over graves. However, preventing one thing is no proof of its being prohibited because prohibition sometimes is of haram type and sometimes of makruh type and prohibition has been mostly used in the makruh sense in the discourse of the Holy Prophet (s) and other religious leaders.

It is true that the first meaning of prohibition that is to say in real term is ‘nahi’ which is same as haram and till a proper terminology for another meaning is not found, we can never take it to be makruh, yet the scholars and the fuqaha have not taken this tradition to be anything but in the makruh sense. For example, al-Tirmidhi in his Sahih narrates the tradition under the chapter

A clear proof that it is makruh is the same which al-Sindi, commentator of Sahih Ibn Maja narrates from al-Hakim al-Naysaburi who says that none of the Muslims have acted upon this prohibition. That is to say he has not presented it to be a prohibition in the haram sense calling to witness the fact that all Muslims have been writing on the graves.

Another proof that this prohibition is in the makruh sense is the consensus of the Islamic scholars upon the permissibility of construction over the grave except that if the land is endowed.

The commentator of Sahih Muslim in his commentary of this tradition writes:

    

“Construction over the grave in the land belonging to the owner of the grave is makruh and in the endowed land is haram. Al-Shafi’i has emphasised upon this matter and even brought the tradition under the title of chapter.” [9]

                                                                                       

However, it is obvious that a thing being makruh does not become an obstacle. The fact being that sometimes due to a series of affairs that makruh gets eliminated. Whenever renovation of grave becomes the source of protection of the originality of Islam or the source of manifestation of love for the owner of grave which God has made their love obligatory or the source of protection of Islamic signs or becomes the cause for the visitors to recite Qur’an and invocation under the shade of the structure over the grave than surely not only such benefits (which arise from the construction over the grave) eliminate the makruh element but make them mustahab (recommended).

The decree of mustahab or makruh changes under various pretexts. It is likely that a makruh becomes good due to some pretext or a series of mustahabi (recommended) affairs become abominable due to some other events because makruh and mustahab of one thing is nothing but expedient for being hated or loved respectively. But these expedients are effective under the condition that no obstacle nullifies their expediences and effects and this matter is clear for those people who are acquainted with Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh).

 Notes :

    [1] Sahih Muslim, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 3 p. 62.

    [2] Sunan al-Tirmidhi, (ed. by ‘Abd al-Rahman Muhammad ‘Uthman, al-Maktaba al-salafiyya), vol. 2 p. 208.

    [3] Sahih Ibn Maja, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 1, p. 473.

    [4] Sahih al-Nasa’i (printed with commentary of Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti), vol. 4 pp. 87-88 .

    [5] Ibn Hanbal, al-Musnad, vol. 3 p. 295 and p. 332, and he narrates from Jabir in the mursal form on p. 399.

    [6] He is ‘Abd al-Malik bin ‘Abd al-‘Aziz bin Jurayh al-‘Umawi.

    [7] He is Muhammad bin Muslim al-‘Asadi.

    [8] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, (Dar al-ma’arif al-nizamiyya), vol. 6 p. 402, 404 and p. 506.

    [9] Sahih Muslim, (Egypt), vol. 3 p. 62.

Analysis of the tradition from Sahih Muslim

HADITH OF ABU AL-HAYYAJ

Now it is the time to closely examine the hadith which the Wahhabi scholars narrate. Here we produce a tradition from Sahih Muslim:

             

Narrated to us Yahya bin Yahya, Abu Bakr bin Abi Shayba and Zuhayr bin Harb (on the authority of) Waki’ who narrates from Sufyan who narrates from Habib bin Abi Thabit who narrates from Abu Wa’il who narrates from Abu al-Hayyaj that ‘Ali told him: “I assign you for a task which the Holy Prophet (s) assigned me for the same. Do not leave any picture but that which you erase nor any high grave but that you level it.” [1]

The Wahhabis have utilized this tradition as a pretext without paying attention to the authenticity and logic of the tradition.

Our Views about this Tradition

Whenever we wish to derive an Islamic ruling from a hadith, it should possess two conditions:

1. The authenticity of tradition should be correct; that is to say, the narrators of tradition should be such people that one could rely on their sayings.

2. The instruction of tradition should be clear upon the purpose.

That is to say the words and the sentences of the tradition should clearly prove our purpose such that if we give the same tradition to a person well versed in language and aware of its specifications, he would be able to derive the same meaning as we derive.

Unfortunately, this tradition is worthy of criticism from both these points especially the second, where one can find no relation with its purpose.

From the viewpoint of authenticity (isnad), the traditionalists (those expert in the science of hadith) do not accept the reliability of the persons narrating this tradition because we see that its narrators are people like (1) Waki’ (2) Sufyan al-Thawri (3) Habib bin Abi Thabit and (4) Abu Wa’il al-‘Asadi. 

A traditionalist such as Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-’Asqalani has criticised them in his book Tahdhib al-tahdhib to such an extent that it throws doubt and uncertainty on the authenticity of the aforementioned tradition and other traditions narrated by them.

1. For example he narrates from Ahmad bin Hanbal about Waki’ that:

“He has committed mistakes in 500 traditions.” [2]                                                                                                             

He also narrates from Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi about Waki’ that:

        

                                                                                  

 “He used to narrate the tradition according to its meaning (rather than narrating the precise text) while his mother-tongue was not Arabic”. [3]

2. About Sufyan al-Thawri, he narrates from Ibn al-Mubarak that:  

                                                                                                                                          

                                                         

“Sufyan was narrating a tradition when I suddenly arrived and noticed that he was deceiving in tradition. When he saw me, he felt ashamed.” [4]

Deception in any tradition in whatever meaning it may be interpreted shows that there had been no equity, truthfulness and realism in such a man that he has presented the untrue things to be true.

In the translation of Yahya al-Qattan, he narrates from him that Sufyan tried to present to me an unreliable person to be reliable but eventually he was unsuccessful. [5]

3. About Habib ibn Abi Thabit, he narrates from Ibn Hibban that:

                                                                                                                                            

“He was deceiving in tradition.”

He also narrates from al-Qattan that:

                                                                                                            

                                                                                                                                              

“His traditions cannot be followed because they are not firm.”[6]

4. About Abi Wa’il he says:

“He is from the nawasib and from the deviators from (the path) of ‘Ali (‘a) [7]

It is worthy of attention that in the entire sihah sitta only one tradition is narrated from Abu al-Hayyaj and that is the same which we have discussed already. It shows that a person, whose share from the Prophetic knowledge was only one tradition, was not a man of tradition at all. Therefore, it becomes difficult to rely on him. When the reference of tradition possesses such shortcomings, then no jurisprudent (faqih) can pass a verdict (fatwa) based on such a weak reference.

The ‘instruction’ of tradition is no less important than its reference as the following words in this tradition testify:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                

Now we will discuss the meaning of these two words i.e.

(a).  and

(b).

(a). The word in dictionary means high and elevated and it has been said that

      is a high place overlooking the other place.”   [8]

The author of al-Qamus who is having greater validity in the arrangement of meaning of words says:

                                                                                         

 with vowel of () is named as something ‘high’ and ‘the hump of a camel’.

Therefore the word () in absolute term is called as ‘height’ and in particular that height which is in the shape of a hump of a camel. By referring to the past, we have to see the objective pertains to which kind of height.

(b).The word  in dictionary means ‘to restore equilibrium’, ‘to make equal’ and ‘to set right the crooked’.

                                                 

                         

. He made it straight; Arab says - I wanted to set right the crooked which was not smoothened. It also comes in the meaning of ‘a faultless product’.

The Holy Qur’an says:

                                                                                                                                       

“Who creates, then makes complete”. (A’la: 2)

After knowing the meanings of phrases and words, we have to see what this tradition means!

Two possibilities exist in this tradition. We have to select one of the two by paying attention to the individual meanings and other logical possibilities, the first one of it is:

1. One possibility is that Prophet (s) ordered Abul-Haiyyaj to destroy the elevated graves and level them to the ground.

This possibility which the Wahhabis rely upon is rejected due to the following reasons:

Firstly, the word  does not mean ‘to destroy’ or ‘to demolish’ and if it meant so then they should have said:

                                                                                                      

Level them to the ground while we do not find such words in the tradition.

Secondly, if it is meant what they say then why the scholars of Islam have not given such a verdict (fatwa)? It is because leveling of grave to the ground is against the Islamic Sunnah which says that a grave should be slightly higher than the ground level and all the jurisprudents (fuqaha) of Islam have given verdict (fatwa) over this matter that a grave should be higher than the level of ground by one span.

In the book al-Fiqh ‘ala al-madhahib al-‘arba’a, as per the verdicts (fatawa) of the four well-known Imams (Hanifa, Malek, Shafe’i and Hanbal), we read as such:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

“It is recommended (mustahab) that the soil of grave be higher than the ground by one span.” [9]

By paying attention to this matter we are bound to interpret the tradition in some other way to which we shall now refer.

2. Second possibility is that he was ordered to make the top of the grave uniform, even or flat and not like the graves which are made in the shape of the hind of a fish or the hump of a camel.

Therefore, the tradition is a witness to this fact that the top of a grave should be even and flat and not in the shape of the hind of a fish or a hump which is common among some of the Ahl al-Sunnah. All the four well-known Imams of Ahl al-Sunnah, except al-Shafi’i, have given fatwa that the grave is recommended to be so. Thus this tradition conforms to the Shi’a scholars who say that a grave apart from being above the ground should be even and flat. [10]

Incidentally, Muslim, the author of Sahih has himself brought this tradition and another tradition which we shall soon discuss under the title     

                                                                                                                

and similarly al-Tirmidhi and al-Nasa’i have brought this tradition in their Sunan under the aforementioned title. This title gives the meaning that the surface of grave should be even and flat and if it meant that the graves should be made level to the ground then it was necessary to change the title and name it as  

Incidentally, in Arabic language if  is ascribed to any thing (like grave) it means that the thing itself should be flat and even and not that it should be made equal with any thing (like ground).

Here we produce another tradition which Muslim has narrated in his Sahih and this tradition too contains the same contents which we have approved.

                                             

The narrator says: We were with Fudala bin ‘Ubayd in Rome when one of our companions died. Fudala ordered that his grave be made uniform and said that he had heard the Holy Prophet (s) giving instructions for the leveling of graves. [11]

The key to understanding this tradition lies in acquiring the meaning of the word  which posseses three possible meanings. By paying attention to the legal presumptions one of them should be selected. Here are the three possibilities:

1. One meaning is ‘to destroy the structure over the graves!’ This possibility is false because the graves which were in Medina were not possessing structure or dome.

2. Another meaning is ‘to level the surface of the grave to the ground’. This is against the Sunnah (practice) of the Prophet (s) which is conclusive that the grave should be above the ground by one span.

3. Lastly it could mean ‘to surface the grave and make even the uneven portions and hence bring it out from the shape of hind of a fish or hump of a camel’. This meaning is exact and precise and needs no reason for proving this interpretation.

Now let us see how the famous commentator of Sahih Muslim, al-Nawawi, interprets the tradition. He says:

                                               

“It is Sunnah (tradition) that the grave should not possess excessive height above the ground and should not have a shape of a hump of a camel. However it should be one span above the ground and should be even.” [12]

This sentence shows that the commentator of Sahih Muslim has derived the same meaning as we have derived from the word . That is to say, Imam al-Nawawi recommended and advised that the surface of the graves should not possess the shape of the hind of a fish and they should be made uniform, flat and even, not that they should be levelled with the ground or that the grave and the structure on it should be destroyed.

It is not only we who have interpreted the tradition as such but al-Hafiz al-Qastallani too in his book Irshad al-sari fi sharh Sahih al-Bukhari has interpreted the tradition as we have. He says:

“It is the sunnah that a grave should be surfaced and we should never abandon this Sunnah just because surfacing of the grave is the motto of the rawafid. When we say that the Sunnah is surfacing of grave (having no difference with the tradition of Abu al-Hayyaj) it is because

                                                         

The objective is not to make the grave on par with the ground but the objective is to make the surface of the grave flat and even although being above the ground level. [13]

Moreover, if the objective of recommendation was to destroy the structures and domes over the graves then why didn't ‘Ali (‘a) himself destroy the domes over the graves of the Prophets existing during his own time!? Besides, he was the ruler over the Islamic lands and places like Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Iraq, Iran and Yemen, which were full of such structures over the graves of the Prophets and were within his sight.

Forgoing all that we have said even if we assume that Imam (‘a) ordered Abu al-Hayyaj to level all the elevated graves on par with the ground, still the tradition never bears testimony over the necessity of destroying the structures over the graves since Imam (‘a) has said:

                                                                                                                                      

i.e. ‘destroy the graves’, but has not said:

                           

‘There is no building and no dome (dome of grave) unless I made them separate’.

Moreover our discussion is not about grave itself but about construction and structures over the graves where people occupy themselves under the shade of these structures and recite the Qur’an, invocation and prayers. Which part of this sentence bears testimony for the destruction of the structures surrounding the graves which in fact facilitates the visitors to worship and recite Qur’an and protects them from extreme heat or cold!

Two more possibilities in tradition

In the end we are bound to present two more possibilities in the tradition:

(1) It is possible that this and some other similar traditions are pointing to a series of graves of the past people where people took the graves of the pious and virtuous people as their qibla instead of performing prayers towards the true qibla. They used to perform prayers over the grave and the picture which was near the grave and were refraining from facing the true qibla which God has selected.

Thus the tradition has no connection to the graves which have never been prostrated upon by the Muslims but have recited prayers near them facing the divine qibla (Ka’ba).

And if they expedite in visiting the graves of the pious people and worship God near their pure bodies and the holy graves, it is because of the high esteem these dignified places have acquired due to the burial of their bodies. We shall discuss about them later on.

(2) By  is meant the portrait of idols and by  is meant the graves of polytheists which were still respected by their near and far ones.

Over here we shall narrate the verdicts of the four scholars of Sunni school of thought:

                                                                           

It is makruh (abominable) to build a house, dome, school or mosque over the grave.” [14]

With such consensus existing amongst the four Imams how can the judge of Najd insist that construction over the grave is haram (prohibited)!?

Moreover, its being makruh is itself not having a decisive and correct reference especially when construction over the grave provides a means of worship for the visitor to the grave of Prophets and pious people.

Notes :

[1] Sahih Muslim, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 3 p. 61; Sunan al-Tirmidhi, bab ma ja’a fi taswiyat al-qabr, vol. 2 p. 256; and Sunan al-Nasa’i, bab taswiyat al-qabr, vol. 4, p. 88.

[2] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 11, p. 125.

[3] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 11 p. 130.

[4] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 4 p. 115.

[5] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 11 p. 218.

[6] Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani, Tahdhib al-tahdhib, vol. 2  p. 179.

[7] Ibn Abi al-Hadid al-Mu’tazili, Sharh Nahj al-balagha, vol. 9 p. 99.

[8] Al-Munjid.

[9] al-Fiqh ‘ala al-madhahib al-‘arba’a, vol. 1, p.  420.

[10] al-Fiqh ‘ala al-madhahib al-‘arba’a, vol. 1, p. 420. Therefore, no groups from the Islamic tradition have acted upon this tradition, except the Shafi’i’s and the Shi’a.

[11] Sahih Muslim, kitab al-jana’iz, vol. 3 p. 61.

[12] al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim, vol. 7, p. 36.

[13] al-Qastallani, Irshad al-sari, vol. 2 p. 468.

[14] al-Fiqh ‘ala al-madhahib al-‘arba’a, vol. 1, p. 421.