Post by StudentOfTheDeen on Aug 17, 2023 11:55:05 GMT
Building Over Graves in the Hanafi Madhhab
Response to Shahid Ali Barelwi
Response to Shahid Ali Barelwi
On August 20 (2022), Shahid Ali Barelwi published a facebook post with the title: “Wahhabi/Deobandi Objection Upon Building Domes Over Graves”.
The Judgement of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān
In the post, Shahid Ali Barelwi cites Aḥmad Riḍā Khān as follows:
The original passage from Aḥmad Riḍā Khān is as follows:
A relatively small mistake is Shahid Ali’s referring to Tanwīr al-Abṣār and Jāmi‘ al-Biḥār as two separate books of Tumurtāshī. It is actually one book with the name: Tanwīr al-Abṣār wa Jāmi‘ al-Biḥār. Another small mistake is the ḍabṭ of al-Tumurtāshī. It is “Tumurtāshī”, not “Tamartāshī”. (Fatāwa al-Turmurtāshī, Dār al-Fatḥ, p19)
What Tumurtāshī Said
Encouraged by this judgement of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān, Shahid Ali says:
The source of this statement is al-Tumurtāshī (d. 1007 H) in Tanwīr al-Abṣār. The complete sentence is as follows:
“The grave must not be coated with clay nor a structure raised over it. It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred.”
Tanwīr al-Abṣār, and its commentary by ‘Alā al-Dīn al-Ḥaṣkafī, al-Durr al-Mukhtār, are texts well-known for sometimes being awkwardly worded. (Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī, Maktabat al-Bushrā, p12) This is the case here, as Tumurtāshī’s statement: “It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred” does not refer to building over the grave (binā’ ‘ala ‘l-qabr), but coating the grave with clay (taṭyīn).
Ibn ‘Ābidīn’s Clarification
This would be clear by simply referring to the well-known and widely read commentary on al-Durr al-Mukhtār, Radd al-Muḥtār, of Ibn ‘Ābidīn:
Ibn ‘Ābidīn explains that Tumurtāshī’s statement “It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred” refers to taṭyīn as clear from the text he is quoting from. Tumurtāshī is quoting from al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah, as evident from his own commentary on Tanwīr al-Abṣār i.e. Minaḥ al-Ghaffār (which has not yet been printed). Here is an image from the manuscript of Minaḥ al-Ghaffār making this clear:
The statement “It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred” in al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah is regarding taṭyīn not binā’ ‘ala ‘l-qubūr. The following are images from the most recent edition of al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah (p133; 322), making this clear:
In al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah, Sirāj al-Dīn al-Ūshī (d. 569 H) cites al-Tajrīd for the impermissibility of taṭyīn and cites another work for its permissibility, and says the latter is what is preferred.
Hence, it is categorically clear that the source that Tumurtāshī was using for his statement “It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred” was about taṭyīn. Ibn ‘Ābidīn further states:
“As for building over the grave, I have not seen anyone who considered its permissibility to be preferred.”
In other words, from the scholars capable of tarjīḥ (giving preference to one view over another), like al-Ūshī, QāḍīKhān, Marghīnānī etc., none of them said the preferred view (mukhtār) is it being permissible to build structures on the grave. In fact, the only recorded verdict from the early authorities is its impermissibility.
Shahid Ali’s Conclusion Based on a Mistaken Citation
Shahid Ali concludes based on this mistaken citation:
One question is, how does this conclusion follow from the citations? If the preferred view is of permissibility, why should building over the graves be impermissible for common Muslims? According to Shahid Ali’s understanding, there are two views: impermissibility and permissibility, and the latter is preferred. There’s no indication of any distinction between ordinary Muslims and non-ordinary Muslims from the passage of al-Durr al-Mukhtār that he is basing this judgement on.
Shahid Ali says he has studied Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī, which explains how the fatwā position of the Ḥanafī madhhab is arrived at. He must surely have seen the warnings in Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Mufti against following mistaken citations? Ibn ‘Ābidīn states in Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī that sometimes many later books have an error because of following a misreading from an earlier source, and he details four examples (p13-17). It is true that al-Ṭaḥṭāwī misread Tumurtāshī’s statement to be referring to binā’ ‘ala ‘l-qubūr. (al-Ṭaḥṭāwī ‘ala ‘l-Durr, DKI, 3:121), probably because he did not check the original source: al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah. But neither Aḥmad Riḍā Khān nor Shahid Ali have that excuse, given that Ibn ‘Ābidīn has shown that by referring to the original source, it is clear Tumurtāshī was referring to taṭyīn not binā’ ‘ala ‘l-qubūr.
Aṣḥāb al-Tarjīḥ vs Muqallidīn
From his studies of Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī, Shahid Ali should also be aware of the Ṭabaqāt (ranks) of the Ḥanafī Fuqahā’, and whose judgement in the Ḥanafī madhhab is given consideration. The personal judgement of later Muqallidīn Muftīs, like ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī, al-Tumurtāshī, al-Ḥaṣkafī, Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī, ‘Abd al- Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī etc. hold no weight when they are at odds with the clear verdicts of the early authorities of the Ḥanafī madhhab.
Shahid Ali’s verdict that “fatwā is given” on the permissibility of building structures above the graves of saints and scholars derives from his allegiance to Barelwism i.e. his bid‘ah and hawā, not from adherence to the Ḥanafī madhhab. His citation of texts from the Ḥanafī madhhab is mere posturing. It is not a genuine attempt to understand what the madhhab says.
The True Ḥanafī Stance
In explaining the actual position of the madhhab, Ibn ‘Ābidīn refers to Sharḥ al-Munyah, which is consistent with all earlier texts:
For why the Prophet’s ﷺ grave is exempted from this, see here.
Wahhābīs Calling for Dismantling Structures Over Graves?
Shahid Ali also claims it is “Wahhābīs” who call for taking down unlawful structures over graves. Yet, Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, who Shahid Ali does not regard to be Wahhābī, said it was Shāfi‘ī scholars who called for removing the unlawful structure over Imām Shāfi’i’s grave, as it was in public land. Similarly Imām Shāfi‘ī himself said the imāms of Makkah ruled that such structures be taken down. See here.
UPDATE (15/03/23): Addressing Other Citations
To support Shahid Ali, a notorious Barelwi has offered other citations. Even if for argument’s sake, these citations do show what they intend for them to show (i.e. it being permissible to build over the graves of awliya’, scholars, etc.), it does not change Shahid Ali’s misunderstanding of Tumurtashi’s passage which he then used to build a false case on.
The Barelwi refers to Ibn ‘Abidin’s citations from Jami‘ al-Fatawa and a work by ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (a famous Hanafi scholar from 3-400 years ago).
Jami‘ al-Fatawa was written by a little-known Turkish scholar from the 9th century of Hijrah. His complete text (from a master’s thesis that critically edited a portion of his work) is as follows:
Not only does the author quote the view with “qila”, which normally indicates weakness, he contrasts it with the official, accepted view of the madhhab. Ibn ‘Abidin probably only quoted it to make readers aware of the existence of this weak view. It is obviously inadmissible as evidence in support of this view. Al-Alusi refers to the view of it being permissible to build structures over the graves of the righteous as “a rejected view (qawl batil)”. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, 15:260)
(It is haram to build over the grave for the purpose of adornment, and it is makruh tahrimi to build over it for the purpose of strengthening the grave. Ibn ‘Abidin (& al-Tahtawi before him) clarifies elsewhere that the karahah is tahrimiyyah.)
In his footnotes to Radd al-Muhtar, al-Rafi‘i quotes al-Nabulusi’s view that it is permissible to build over the graves of the righteous. He also refers to Ibn ‘Abidin quoting a “similar” passage from al-Nabulusi in the Karahiyyah section of Radd al-Muhtar. Ibn ‘Abidin (apparently approvingly) quotes al-Nabulusi only about covering the grave with sheets, not about building over the grave. So, there is no indication that Ibn ‘Abidin agrees with Nabulusi’s view on building over graves.
Nabulusi was unquestionably a learned scholar. However, as a result of his adoption of some extreme Sufi ideas, he held problematic views like the permissibility of musical instruments and the belief that the punishment of disbelievers will eventually turn to sweetness in Hellfire. (See Sa‘id Fudah et al’s recently published Inqilab ‘Adhab Ahl al-Nar.) His view on this issue is inadmissible just like these other views.
Taken from HERE
The Judgement of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān
In the post, Shahid Ali Barelwi cites Aḥmad Riḍā Khān as follows:
The original passage from Aḥmad Riḍā Khān is as follows:
A relatively small mistake is Shahid Ali’s referring to Tanwīr al-Abṣār and Jāmi‘ al-Biḥār as two separate books of Tumurtāshī. It is actually one book with the name: Tanwīr al-Abṣār wa Jāmi‘ al-Biḥār. Another small mistake is the ḍabṭ of al-Tumurtāshī. It is “Tumurtāshī”, not “Tamartāshī”. (Fatāwa al-Turmurtāshī, Dār al-Fatḥ, p19)
What Tumurtāshī Said
Encouraged by this judgement of Aḥmad Riḍā Khān, Shahid Ali says:
The source of this statement is al-Tumurtāshī (d. 1007 H) in Tanwīr al-Abṣār. The complete sentence is as follows:
ولا يُطَيَّن ولا يُرْفَع عليه بناء وقيل لا بأس به وهو المختار
“The grave must not be coated with clay nor a structure raised over it. It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred.”
Tanwīr al-Abṣār, and its commentary by ‘Alā al-Dīn al-Ḥaṣkafī, al-Durr al-Mukhtār, are texts well-known for sometimes being awkwardly worded. (Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī, Maktabat al-Bushrā, p12) This is the case here, as Tumurtāshī’s statement: “It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred” does not refer to building over the grave (binā’ ‘ala ‘l-qabr), but coating the grave with clay (taṭyīn).
Ibn ‘Ābidīn’s Clarification
This would be clear by simply referring to the well-known and widely read commentary on al-Durr al-Mukhtār, Radd al-Muḥtār, of Ibn ‘Ābidīn:
Ibn ‘Ābidīn explains that Tumurtāshī’s statement “It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred” refers to taṭyīn as clear from the text he is quoting from. Tumurtāshī is quoting from al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah, as evident from his own commentary on Tanwīr al-Abṣār i.e. Minaḥ al-Ghaffār (which has not yet been printed). Here is an image from the manuscript of Minaḥ al-Ghaffār making this clear:
The statement “It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred” in al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah is regarding taṭyīn not binā’ ‘ala ‘l-qubūr. The following are images from the most recent edition of al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah (p133; 322), making this clear:
In al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah, Sirāj al-Dīn al-Ūshī (d. 569 H) cites al-Tajrīd for the impermissibility of taṭyīn and cites another work for its permissibility, and says the latter is what is preferred.
Hence, it is categorically clear that the source that Tumurtāshī was using for his statement “It has been said there is no harm in it, and this is what is preferred” was about taṭyīn. Ibn ‘Ābidīn further states:
وأما البناء عليه فلم أر من اختار جوازه
“As for building over the grave, I have not seen anyone who considered its permissibility to be preferred.”
In other words, from the scholars capable of tarjīḥ (giving preference to one view over another), like al-Ūshī, QāḍīKhān, Marghīnānī etc., none of them said the preferred view (mukhtār) is it being permissible to build structures on the grave. In fact, the only recorded verdict from the early authorities is its impermissibility.
Shahid Ali’s Conclusion Based on a Mistaken Citation
Shahid Ali concludes based on this mistaken citation:
One question is, how does this conclusion follow from the citations? If the preferred view is of permissibility, why should building over the graves be impermissible for common Muslims? According to Shahid Ali’s understanding, there are two views: impermissibility and permissibility, and the latter is preferred. There’s no indication of any distinction between ordinary Muslims and non-ordinary Muslims from the passage of al-Durr al-Mukhtār that he is basing this judgement on.
Shahid Ali says he has studied Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī, which explains how the fatwā position of the Ḥanafī madhhab is arrived at. He must surely have seen the warnings in Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Mufti against following mistaken citations? Ibn ‘Ābidīn states in Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī that sometimes many later books have an error because of following a misreading from an earlier source, and he details four examples (p13-17). It is true that al-Ṭaḥṭāwī misread Tumurtāshī’s statement to be referring to binā’ ‘ala ‘l-qubūr. (al-Ṭaḥṭāwī ‘ala ‘l-Durr, DKI, 3:121), probably because he did not check the original source: al-Fatāwā al-Sirājiyyah. But neither Aḥmad Riḍā Khān nor Shahid Ali have that excuse, given that Ibn ‘Ābidīn has shown that by referring to the original source, it is clear Tumurtāshī was referring to taṭyīn not binā’ ‘ala ‘l-qubūr.
Aṣḥāb al-Tarjīḥ vs Muqallidīn
From his studies of Sharḥ ‘Uqūd Rasm al-Muftī, Shahid Ali should also be aware of the Ṭabaqāt (ranks) of the Ḥanafī Fuqahā’, and whose judgement in the Ḥanafī madhhab is given consideration. The personal judgement of later Muqallidīn Muftīs, like ‘Abd al-Ghanī al-Nābulusī, al-Tumurtāshī, al-Ḥaṣkafī, Ibn ‘Ābidīn, Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī, ‘Abd al- Ḥaqq al-Dihlawī etc. hold no weight when they are at odds with the clear verdicts of the early authorities of the Ḥanafī madhhab.
Shahid Ali’s verdict that “fatwā is given” on the permissibility of building structures above the graves of saints and scholars derives from his allegiance to Barelwism i.e. his bid‘ah and hawā, not from adherence to the Ḥanafī madhhab. His citation of texts from the Ḥanafī madhhab is mere posturing. It is not a genuine attempt to understand what the madhhab says.
The True Ḥanafī Stance
In explaining the actual position of the madhhab, Ibn ‘Ābidīn refers to Sharḥ al-Munyah, which is consistent with all earlier texts:
Jābir narrated: “The Messenger of Allāh (Allāh bless him and grant him peace) forbade plastering graves and writing on them [more than required for identification (see: Ḥalbat al-Mujallī, 2:628)] and building over them.” Muslim narrated it, as did Abū Dāwūd and al-Tirimidhī. The latter authenticated it…It is recorded from Abū Ḥanīfah that it is makrūh (taḥrīmī) to erect a structure over it whether a house, dome or something similar based on the ḥadīth that was just mentioned. (Ghunyat al-Mutamallī, p600)
For why the Prophet’s ﷺ grave is exempted from this, see here.
Wahhābīs Calling for Dismantling Structures Over Graves?
Shahid Ali also claims it is “Wahhābīs” who call for taking down unlawful structures over graves. Yet, Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī, who Shahid Ali does not regard to be Wahhābī, said it was Shāfi‘ī scholars who called for removing the unlawful structure over Imām Shāfi’i’s grave, as it was in public land. Similarly Imām Shāfi‘ī himself said the imāms of Makkah ruled that such structures be taken down. See here.
UPDATE (15/03/23): Addressing Other Citations
To support Shahid Ali, a notorious Barelwi has offered other citations. Even if for argument’s sake, these citations do show what they intend for them to show (i.e. it being permissible to build over the graves of awliya’, scholars, etc.), it does not change Shahid Ali’s misunderstanding of Tumurtashi’s passage which he then used to build a false case on.
The Barelwi refers to Ibn ‘Abidin’s citations from Jami‘ al-Fatawa and a work by ‘Abd al-Ghani al-Nabulusi (a famous Hanafi scholar from 3-400 years ago).
Jami‘ al-Fatawa was written by a little-known Turkish scholar from the 9th century of Hijrah. His complete text (from a master’s thesis that critically edited a portion of his work) is as follows:
“It is (prohibitively) disliked to build over the grave…It was said that it is not disliked to build (over the grave) if the deceased is from the mashayikh, ‘ulama’ and saadaat.”
Not only does the author quote the view with “qila”, which normally indicates weakness, he contrasts it with the official, accepted view of the madhhab. Ibn ‘Abidin probably only quoted it to make readers aware of the existence of this weak view. It is obviously inadmissible as evidence in support of this view. Al-Alusi refers to the view of it being permissible to build structures over the graves of the righteous as “a rejected view (qawl batil)”. (Ruh al-Ma’ani, 15:260)
(It is haram to build over the grave for the purpose of adornment, and it is makruh tahrimi to build over it for the purpose of strengthening the grave. Ibn ‘Abidin (& al-Tahtawi before him) clarifies elsewhere that the karahah is tahrimiyyah.)
In his footnotes to Radd al-Muhtar, al-Rafi‘i quotes al-Nabulusi’s view that it is permissible to build over the graves of the righteous. He also refers to Ibn ‘Abidin quoting a “similar” passage from al-Nabulusi in the Karahiyyah section of Radd al-Muhtar. Ibn ‘Abidin (apparently approvingly) quotes al-Nabulusi only about covering the grave with sheets, not about building over the grave. So, there is no indication that Ibn ‘Abidin agrees with Nabulusi’s view on building over graves.
Nabulusi was unquestionably a learned scholar. However, as a result of his adoption of some extreme Sufi ideas, he held problematic views like the permissibility of musical instruments and the belief that the punishment of disbelievers will eventually turn to sweetness in Hellfire. (See Sa‘id Fudah et al’s recently published Inqilab ‘Adhab Ahl al-Nar.) His view on this issue is inadmissible just like these other views.
Taken from HERE