Documentary on Jannatul Baqi - AhlulBayt TV

THE DESTRUCTION OF JANNAT AL BAQEE - A CASE OF WAHHABI ICONOCLASM

To Download the full article , please click Here

Safar Jannatul Baqi Madina Munawwara - Video

Building Mosques Over Graves is Allowed in Islam

Here is our Proofs......

Pre-Islamic instances of mosques built over graves:

The following list is merely indicative and should not be treated as exhaustive:

1. Prophet Dawood (a.s.) in Quds, Israel

2. Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.) in Hebron, Israel

3. Prophet Is’haaq (a.s.) in Hebron

4. Prophet Yaqoob (a.s.) in Hebron

5. Prophet Yusuf (a.s.) in Hebron

All these graves were elevated structures of stones and remained in this condition even after the spread of Islam in Quds. (Kashf al-Irteyaab, pg 306)

Even Ibn Taimiyyah admits that the structure over Prophet Ibrahim’s (a.s.) grave existed when Islam reached Hebron and in the very presence of companions, none of whom raised any objection. Only thing is the door to the mausoleum (of Prophet Ibrahim (a.s.)) remained closed till 400 AH.
(Majma’ al-Fataawaa of Ibn Taimiyyah vol 27 pg 141)

List of some instances to prove the point that building graves is as old as Islam itself:

1. Existence of the structure i.e. Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) chamber inside which he (s.a.w.a.) lies buried. (Akhbaar al-Madinah vol. 1 pg 81)

Initially the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) room where he lies buried did not have walls. It was Umar b. Khattab who first constructed walls around it and gave it the shape of a structure.
(Wafaa al-Wafaa be Ikhtiyaar al-Mustafa, vol. 2 pg 521)

In fact, constructing and re-constructing walls around the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) grave was an ongoing effort with Ayesha, Abdullah b. Zubair (during his brief reign in Medina) and Mutawakkil, among others.

2. Constructing a mosque over the grave of Hazrat Hamzah (a.s.). (Ibid)

3. Grave of Ibrahim – son of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) in the house of Muhammad b. Ali b. Zaid. (Ibid)

4. Building a structure over the grave of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) in the year 372 AH. (Sair-o- Aalam-e-Nobala vol 1 pg 251)

5. Building a structure over the grave of Zubair in the year 386 AH. (Al-Muntazim, vol. 14 pg 377)

6. Building a structure over the grave of Sa’d b. Maaz in the second century. (Sair-o-Aalam-e-Nobala vol. 13 pg 285)

7. Embellishing the grave of Imam Bukhari – compiler of Sahih-e-Bukhari in 256 AH. (Al-Tabaqaat al-Shaafiyyah al-Kubra, vol. 2 pg 234)

8. Abbaside Emperor Haroon al-Rashid constructed a dome over the tomb of Ameerul Momineen (a.s.) during his reign in the second century. (Sair-o-Aalam-e-Nobala vol. 16 pg 251)

If leveling graves to the earth was ever mandated in Islam we can be certain that Haroon al-Rashid would definitely have done it given his animosity with the Ahle Bait (a.s.) of the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his role in the murder of the Prophet’s grandson – Imam Moosa b. Jafar al-Kazim (a.s.). On the contrary, we find that he has constructed a dome as a mark of respect for someone who he did not particularly love.

9. The respected companion of the Prophet (a.s.) – Hazrat Salman-e-Muhammadi (r.a.) passed away in 36 AH. Khateeb-e-Baghdadi writes about his tomb – His grave is present even today near the palace of Kasra in Madaaen, Iraq. It is well-known heritage site and has a structure over it. (Taarikh-e-Baghdadi, vol. 1 pg 163)

10. Regarding Talhah b. Abdullah – who died while fighting the caliph of his time, Ibne Batutah writes in his journal, “His grave is at the entrance of the city and over the grave is a dome and a mosque.” (Safarnaameh Ibn Batutah, vol. 1 pg 208)

When this is the respect accorded by the Muslims to the grave of a companion who died on falsehood, graves of those like the Imams of the Ahle Bait (a.s.) who were martyred on truth and were in fact Imams of truth, deserve even more embellishment, veneration and respect.

11. Muhammad b. Idris al-Shaafei – Imam Shaafei, one of the four jurists of the Sunni school, passed away in 204 AH. Zahabi writes, “The entire city collectively constructed a dome over his grave.” (Duwal al-Islam pg 344)

Building mosques over graves is advocated by Sihaah-e-Sittah (the six compendiums of traditions regarded as highly reliable by the Ahle Tasannun)

While these Muslims are quick to advance traditions from Sahih-e-Bukhari and Sahih-e-Muslim that suit their motive to brand accepted Islamic practices as apostasy, they appear oblivious to the scores of other traditions that reject their contention.

1. Umar’s grave has a structure

Bukhari narrates in his Sahih in the Book of Janaaiz:

When Umar was stabbed, he sent his son Abdullah with a message to Ayesha to – ask her – If I can be buried with my two companions i.e. in her room, next to the Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and Abu Bakr.

Ayesha replied: I wanted the spot for myself, but I will prefer him (Umar) to myself today.

It had been her custom that if a man from among the companions requested her for that spot, she would always refuse. She herself gave the following instructions before her death: Bury me with my lady-friends (the wives of the Prophet in al-Baqi but do not bury me with the Prophet in the house, for I dislike to be held in reverence).

Ibn Umar came back with the news whereupon Umar said: Nothing in the world was more important to me than that resting-place. (Sahih-e-Bukhari, Book of Janaaiz)

2. Elevation of graves

Abu Bakr b. Ayyaash narrates that Sufyan al-Tammar told me that he had seen the grave of the Prophet elevated and convex. (Sahih-e-Bukhari, vol. 2 book 23, tradition 473)

It is established that the Messenger of Allah (s.a.w.a.) placed a rock on top of Usman b. Maz’un’s (r.a.) grave. (Sunan-e- Abi Dawud, Al-Bayhaqi in al-Kubra, vol. 3, pg 412)

The detailed report states that the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.a.) asked a man to place a rock on top of Usman b. Maz`un’s grave; when he was unable to move it, he rolled up his sleeves and helped him till the whiteness of his arms was visible. Usman b. Maz`un was the first of the migrants buried in Baqi. Ibrahim, the Holy Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) son, was buried next to him.

Kharijah b. Zaid states: I can see myself when we were young men in the time of Usman (b. Affaan). The strongest one of us in high jump was he who could jump over the grave of Usman b. Maz`un and clear it. (Sahih-e-Bukhari in Chapter: (Placing) a stalk on top of the grave; Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baari vol. 3 pg 256 of 1959 ed., Al-Bukhari in his Al-Tarikh al-Saghir vol. 1 pg 42)

These references are clear evidences for raising the grave and elevating it above the surface of the earth.

Al-Shawkaani, a leading Salafi scholar, admitted that the Salaf built up the graves high as proved from above references.

Ibn Hibban (in his Sahih-e-Ibn Hibban) who according to many Sunni scholars ranks as the most reliable scholar after Bukhari and Muslim has documented his visitation (Ziyaarah) to the tomb of Imam Ali b. Moosa al-Reza (a.s.) in Mashshad, Iran:

I have done ziyaarah of his tomb many times, during my stay at Tus. Whenever I got into any difficulty I went to the grave of Imam Ali b. Moosa al-Raza (s.a.) and asked Allah for the fulfillment of my need. Every time I was answered and my difficulty was removed. This is such a reality that I found it to be true no matter how many times I did it. May Allah grant us death in the true love for Prophet (s.a.w.a.) and his blessed Ahle Bait! (Ibn Abi Haatim al-Raazi, Kitab al-Theqah, vol. 8 pg 457, tradition 14,411)

Interpretation of traditions that prohibit building of graves

It is clear from the Holy Quran and the Prophet’s (s.a.w.a.) Sunnah and actions of the righteous ancestors that building of graves is permitted and even recommended in case of esteemed personalities. Then, how does one reconcile the apparent prohibition in some traditions?

The answer is simple for those who understand the tone and tenor of such traditions. Many scholars have explained it in their works – only if these so-called Muslims would have referred to these books. Perhaps, they have referred but chose to hide the truth!

Both the Ibne Hajars (Haythami and Asqalaani) among other scholars have advanced a rationale for such traditions, which is so plain that even a Muslim child will understand it.

Ibn Hajar al-Haythami, who had no love lost for the Shias, in his al-Zawaajir an Iqtiraf al-Kabaair elaborates on the tradition under question that the prohibition for building graves is if the prayer is performed towards or on the grave and this is only if one prays so close to it that if while praying the prayer of those attentive (looking down), the grave would be within one’s sight. (Al-Zawaajir an Iqtiraf al-Kabaair)

This was the method of the prayers of Jews and Christians and hence the prohibition. No one in the history of Islam took this tradition as proof of prohibition for the building of tombs/shrines over righteous Muslims as Muslims do not worship in this manner.

Likewise, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalaani states: In view of the fact that the Jews and Christians were taking the graves of their Prophets (a.s.) as their Qiblah for the purpose of respect, and were paying attention towards them at the time of their prayers, their graves took the position of idols. Hence, 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 blessing (tabarruk) and not for prostration or paying attention towards them, he will never be included in this prohibition (as mentioned in Surah Kahf (18): Verse 21) (Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani, Fath al-Baari vol. 3 pg 208)

قبر کو مس کرنے اور چومنے میں کوئی مسئلہ نہیں: احمد بن حنبل

صحیح بخاری کے مشہور شارح، بدر الدین عینی، اپنی کتاب عمدۃ القاری شرح صحیح بخاری، جلد ۱۴، صفحہ ۴۷۱؛ میں رقمطراز ہیں


وقال أيضا وأما تقبيل الأماكن الشريفة على قصد التبرك وكذلك تقبيل أيدي الصالحين وأرجلهم فهو حسن محمود باعتبار القصد والنية وقد سأل أبو هريرة الحسن رضي الله تعالى عنه أن يكشف له المكان الذي قبله رسول الله وهو سرته فقبله تبركا بآثاره وذريته وقد كان ثابت البناني لا يدع يد أنس رضي الله تعالى عنه حتى يقبلها ويقول يد مست يد رسول الله وقال أيضا وأخبرني الحافظ أبو سعيد ابن العلائي قال رأيت في كلام أحمد بن حنبل في جزء قديم عليه خط ابن ناصر وغيره من الحفاظ أن الإمام أحمد سئل عن تقبيل قبر النبي وتقبيل منبره فقال لا بأس بذلك قال فأريناه للشيخ تقي الدين بن تيمية فصار يتعجب من ذلك ويقول عجبت أحمد عندي جليل يقوله هذا كلامه أو معنى كلامه وقال وأي عجب في ذلك وقد روينا عن الإمام أحمد أنه غسل قميصا للشافعي وشرب الماء الذي غسله به

(ہمارے شیخ زین الدین نے) اسی طرح کہا کہ شریف مکانات/جگہوں کو تبرک کی نیت سے چومنے، اور اسی طرح نیک لوگوں کے ہاتھوں اور پیروں کو چومنا، یہ قصد و نیت کے اعتبار سے حسن اور ممدوح ہے۔ ابو ہریرہ نے امام حس سے کہا کہ مجھے وہ جگہ دکھائیں جہاں نبی پاک نے چوما۔ اور وہ ان کی ناف تھی، وہ انہوں نے وہ چوما، اس وجہ سے کہ نبی پاک کے آثار اور اولاد کی وجہ سے تبرک حاصل کریں-
اور ثابت البنانی انس کا ہاتھ تب تک نہ چھوڑتے جب تک چوم نہ لیتے، اور کہتے کہ اس ہاتھ نے نبی پاک کا ہاتھ مس کیا ہے۔ اسی طرح امام احمد بن حنبل سے قبر رسول اور منبر رسول و چومنے کے بارے میں پوچھا گیا، تو انہوں نے جواب دیا کہ اس میں کوئی حرج نہیں
شیخ فرماتے ہیں کہ میں نے دیکھا کہ ابن تیمیہ اس پر حیران ہوئے اور کہا: عجیب ہے! امام احمد تو میرے نظر میں بہت جلیل القدر ہیں، اور وہ اس طرح کی باتیں کر رہے ہیں- اور اس ضمن میں یہ بھی عجیب ہے- اسی طرح امام احمد سے مروی ہے کہ وہ امام شافعی کی قمیص دھوتے اور اس پانی کو پی جاتے جس سے قمیص دھوئی ہوتی


ابو ہریرہ کی جس روایت کی بات ہو رہی ہے، وہ مجمع الزوائد، جلد ۹، صفحہ ۱۰۵؛ پر یوں درج ہے

15045- وعن عمير بن إسحاق قال: رأيت أبا هريرة لقي الحسن بن علي فقال له: اكشف عن بطنك حيث رأيت رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم يقبل منه، فكشف عن بطنه فقبله.
15056- وفي رواية: فقبل سرته.
رواه أحمد والطبراني إلا أنه قال: فكشف عن بطنه ووضع يده على سرته.
ورجالهما رجال الصحيح غير عمير بن إسحاق وهو ثقة.

عمیر بن اسحاق نے کہا کہ میں نے دیکھا کہ ابو ہریرہ امام حسن سے ملے، اور کہا کہ اپنے پیٹ کو میرے لیے آشکارہ کریں جہاں میں نے دیکھا کہ نبی پاک نے چوما۔ پس انہوں نے آشکارہ کیا، اور انہوں نے چوما۔ اور دوسری روایت میں ہے کہ ان کے ناف کو چوما۔ احمد اور طبرانی نے روایت کی، اور راوی سارے ثقہ ہیں سوارئے عمیر بن اسحاق کے، اور وہ ثقہ ہیں

امام احمد کے جس قول کی طرف نشاندہی کی، وہ ان کی العلل و المعرفۃ الرجال، جلد ۲، صفحہ ۴۹۲؛ پر یوں درج ہے


3243 – سألته عن الرجل يمس منبر النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم ويتبرك بمسه ويقبله ويفعل بالقبر مثل ذلك أو نحو هذا يريد بذلك التقرب إلى الله جل وعز فقال لا بأس بذلك

امام احمد سے پوچھا گیا کہ ایک شخص منبر رسول کو چھوتا ہے، اور چھونے اور اسے چومنے سے تبرک حاصل کرنا چاہتا ہے۔ اور وہ یہ کام قبر کے ساتھ بھی کرتا ہے اور اس کا ارادہ اللہ کا قرب حاصل کرنا ہے۔ احمد بن حنبل نے جواب دیا کہ اس میں کوئی حرج نہیں


اب لگائیے شرک کے فتوے !!!

The Shared History of Saudi Arabia and ISIS

The Saudi regime has imprisoned its moderate Islamists and allowed its radicals to cause mayhem in the Levant. It is uncertain whether those radicals are indirectly or directly sponsored by the Saudi regime. But it is certain that the regime shares their hatred of Shia Muslims, the Assad and Maliki regimes, Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran. While the Saudi regime cannot realistically bomb its rivals, jihadis are performing the role with precision.

A recent report argues that ISIS or the ‘Islamic State’ is largely a self-funded movement, drawing on a wide range of sources. The Saudi regime is not one of them. The report debunks ex-Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s accusations that his country faces the threat of terrorists funded directly by Saudi Arabia. Yet the prominence of Saudis in its rank and file is yet to be explained. Notwithstanding the Saudi offensive to absolve itself from any connection with Islamic State, these groups have demonstrated a certain affinity not only with the Saudi religious tradition but also its political history.

From Beirut to Baghdad, Saudi radicals who have joined ISIS and other similar militia are determined to eliminate their rivals and enemies, and finally establish their dream Islamic state. Evidently those Saudi jihadis now fighting for Islamic State are not satisfied with their own allegedly Islamic state, known as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. They are the generation of the 1990s—young, connected, unruly and full of zeal in support of an Ummah, narrowly defined as a Sunni community that excludes all others in the world of Islam. This is not surprising: they have grown up in Saudi Arabia, whose Wahhabi form of Islam crushes religious diversity.

Yet the exodus of young Saudis to neighbouring Arab countries must not be seen through a purely religious lens. Above all, it is a product of Saudi policies that use religion in the service of the state. The Saudi state itself was produced by an earlier version of the conflicts we are witnessing today in the Levant. As early as 1912 the founder of the Saudi kingdom, Ibn Saud, created tribal militia called the Ikhwan and indoctrinated its fighters in the art of killing Muslims who objected to his own political authority on the ground that they were kafir—infidels. He enlisted the tribal youth of the Arabian Peninsula in a jihad against all those who resisted his hegemony. His first state was called Dawlat Najd and Hijaz, as it incorporated Central Arabia and the Western province where the holy cities of Mecca and Madina are located. The founder assumed several titles, including Emir, Imam and Sultan, before he settled on the title of King, at the suggestion of the British colonial power.

The creation of modern Saudi Arabia is unique in the Arab world as it was a jihadi project from the very beginning. Unlike in other Arab states where the youth are introduced to a mythologized nationalist narrative about history, Saudi youth are indoctrinated into the unique jihadi narrative of the state as one that came into being as a result of the efforts of a pious leader who energised his people, saved them from blasphemy and eradicated un-Islamic beliefs and practices.

The Saudi fighters of the twenties had a special dislike for statues and graves. They arrived in Mecca and Medina in the mid-1920s and immediately went on a rampage, searching for signs of blasphemy. They destroyed graves and imposed on the population strict codes of conduct. No woman was to be seen in the streets and no tobacco was to be consumed in public. They immediately marked the beginning of their rule by implementing a series of measures, from rounding people up to perform prayers to monitoring public morality.

From Ibn Taymiyyah To Daish (ISIS/ISIL) – by Sidq Miqal

The gruesome incineration of the Jordanian Pilot by Da’ish (ISIS) in Iraq has shocked many around the world. However, more than countering merely the violence and the mayhem, the current challenge posed by ISIS uprising is how to clearly define the factors and the actors. We need to understand that the prominent ideological factor that seems to motivate ISIS –and its Jihadist brethren from Mali to Indonesia- revolves round the concept of political authority in Islam. This ideology is not only driven by the teachings of the medieval Islamic scholar, Ibn Taymiyyah, but has also encouraged political violence and extremism in the name of Islam. Hence, it is important to examine the extent to which this ideology has predisposed the jihadist mindset of ISIS and others. So, let’s examine the radical political ideology of Ibn Taymiyyah and its influence on the ideological motivations of ISIS as well as the implications of his ideas for ISIS agenda.

And so the method on how to kill Al-Kassasbeh was not some dreamed up concoction, but stemmed from Islam as the quest on how to execute him circulated the Muslim world. In the burning scene video (see 1:00 above) ISIS gave the Islamic edict straight from the top Islamic authority of Ibn Taymiyya’s jurisprudence:http://shoebat.com/…/watch-horrific-video-isis-burning-pow…/

Several competing theories abound to explain the ISIS uprising, broadly revolving round socio-economic, political, and religious issues and the politics of post-colonial dominance and impunity, with despotic regimes motivating resistant movements to transform themselves into violent armed groups. One discourse that has remained less well examined is the theoretical claim that ISIS and all other Deobandi and Salafi jihadists have been deeply influenced by the religious and ideological teachings of the radical medieval Islamist, Ibn Taymiyyah. Let’s focus on the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah because there is no other Islamic theologian who has had as much influence on radical political ideology of Islam as Ibn Taymiyyah. The ideology itself is constructed on the concept that a legitimate political authority must be based on the Quran and the Sunna. Thus, it becomes a duty for all Muslims to ensure that Islamic law is implemented in society. As such, it is argued that most Islamic theologians, including reformers, revivalists and Islamists either from the Sufi or Sunni tradition, from the Wahhabis to Sayyid Qutb to Maududi and to Osama Bin Laden have in one way or the other attacked the validity of secular political authority. They have also questioned the authority of Muslim but secular political leaders who have failed both in their personal and political lives to uphold correct Islamic ideals.

How do we relate the concept and practice of Ibn Taymiyyah’s political ideology to the ISIS call for an Islamic state? Let’s make an attempt to examine the development of the concept of legitimate political authority in Islam, followed by an analysis of its radical and violent implications, how it was transited down to ISIS and why such ideology is a potent tool for Jihadist mobilisation efforts. Some of the lessons that ISIS and other contemporary Jihadists have drawn from Ibn Taymiyyah are as follows:

Ibn Tamyiyyah and Political Islam:

Ibn Taymiyyah was born in Harran, an old city within the Arabian Peninsula between Sham and Iraq (Al-Sham is an old name that represents the areas of Syria, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon) in the year 1263. Ibn Taymiyyah became a professor of Islamic law. His political ideology was very unpopular with political leaders at the time and he was imprisoned in both Syria and Egypt. He portrayed Islam as a political ideology by which Muslims ought to explain and justify the ends and means of all organized social action. In this sense the ideology of political authority in Islam is more than merely a religion in the narrow sense of theological belief, private prayer and ritual worship. Ibn Taymiyyah picked up some religious elements in Islam and turned them into an ideological precept.