Dealing with Contentious Mosques and Sites in Madinah

One of the first trends relating to the contemporary mosque architecture in Madinah, which
the phenomenon of the Prophet’s Mosque has inspired and set in motion, was that which
could be defined as architectural corrective measures. Such implied policies and actions
intended to cure some problematic, or outright wrong, architectural tendencies and activities
in the city.

It is a known fact that even the Prophet’s Mosque needed to be cleansed of some
inappropriate elements. Those elements were linked with the Prophet’s burial chamber and
some of the Mosque’s most important segments.

It was natural that the matter translated itself into the issuance and strict application of more
comprehensive codes of conduct as regards visiting the Prophet’s grave and its burial
chamber, as well as when praying and performing all those spiritual and intellectual activities
as are normally performed inside mosques. Any out-and-out indications of religious
innovations (bid’ahs), misunderstandings, sectarianism and bigotry, with respect to both
individual and institutionalized levels, were to be purged and kept away.

In passing, the Prophet’s Mosque throughout its long, colourful and sometimes politically and
ideologically turbulent history was rarely immune to those hurtful things. For example,
during the Mamluk period, the Mosque featured more than one mihrab (praying niche),
promoting and nurturing thereby potential disagreements and divisions, even if they fell
within the parameters of the jurisprudential permissibility.

It has been recorded that during the reign of Mamluk Sultan Inal or Aynal (d. 1461), along
with the existing main mihrab, another one was added for a Hanafi imam (prayer leader).
That was so because the Mamluks belonged to the Hanafi School of Islamic jurisprudence
(madhhab). The Hanafi madhhab was introduced in Madinah approximately in 1323. Before
that, there were only the Maliki and Shafi’i madhhabs in the city.

Indeed, the matter must have been more serious than it seemed. It might have represented
only tip of the iceberg. This is gauged from what was transpiring for centuries in Makkah,
Madinah’s twin city.

Hence, Ibn Jubayr, a medieval Spanish (Andalusian) traveller who visited Madinah in 1184,
reported that when he was in Makkah in the month of Ramadan in 1184 - about 69 years
before the establishment of the Mamluk sultanate - as a sign of Muslim disunity and
disintegration, there were five simultaneous Tarawih (the Prayer associated with the holy
month of Ramadan) congregations inside al-Masjid al-Haram: the Shafi’i, which had
precedence over the others, Hanafi, Hanbali, Maliki and even the Zaydi congregation. The
last was a Shi’ah branch that followed the Zaydi Islamic jurisprudence. Ibn Jubayr refers to
the parts of the Mosque that belonged to those congregations, the mihrabs (praying niches)
and the candles used for lighting and adornment at those specific locations.

The Mosque was also sometimes unsuitably and excessively decorated, especially the
Prophet’s burial chamber. Some ingredients carrying the Shi’i spirit and substance were also
from time to time included. Needless to say that such was the case only when Madinah was
politically under the sway of some Shi’i influences.
The world of Sufism frequently played its role too.

Some potential folktales and yet superstitious beliefs, with regard to some decorative and
functional aspects of the Mosque, might have furthermore existed. During his visit, Ibn
Jubayr said that in the upper part of the mihrab that was in the south wall, inside the
maqsurah, was a square yellow stone, one span square and of a bright and shining surface,
that was said to be the mirror of Chosroes of the Sasanian Empire.

Moreover, above this in the mihrab there was a nail driven into the wall, and on it was a kind
of small casket of which no one knew the origin but which men said might have been the
drinking-cup of Chosroes. “God best knows the truth of all this”, was Ibn Jubayr’s inference.

Therefore, when a fire engulfed and burned the Prophet’s Mosque in the holy month of
Ramadan in 1256, many people regarded the incident as an act, as well as portent, of
Almighty God which aimed to remind the people of their authentic duties as the servants of
God and followers of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

The fire was also meant to purify one of the holiest Muslim sites of its relative physical and
metaphysical impurities stemming from the architectural form and overall function of the
Mosque, which were accumulated over ages by diverse socio-political players and their often
conflicting spiritual proclivities and alignments.

Metaphorically speaking, just as the holy month of Ramadan and the noble act of fasting in it
“scorch” and “whittle away” people’s sins, as well as purify their bodies, minds and souls, so
did the fire accomplish the same, so to speak, to the Mosque, and indirectly, by means of
serving as a spiritual sign and caveat, to the people.

Following the enthronement of the Saudis and their strategies for maintenance and
expansions of the Prophet’s Mosque, the Mosque was meant to retain its own intrinsic purity,
splendour and greatness, along with those of the city of Madinah. In actual fact, those were
heavenly favours and standards, transcending the levels and scopes of individuals, rulers,
systems and governments.

Everyone is to be subjected to the significance and authority of the Prophet’s Mosque and
Madinah, serving them and others on their behalf. No person, ideology or organisation is to
attempt to rule over them and subject them to its fleeting terrestrial authority and power.
Nobody is to feel bigger than any aspect of Madinah, or truly significant and in actual charge
when in the city. Doing so connotes sheer arrogance as well as ignorance, and is tantamount
to a form of blasphemy.

Being a ruler in Madinah, or just living in it, is a combination of privilege, responsibility and
trust, the latter two obviously outweighing the former, especially in difficult and challenging
times. No wonder that the Prophet (pbuh) depicted Madinah as a purifier, purifying people as
the bellows eliminates the impurities of iron, and a place where faith retreats as a snake does
to its hole.

It follows that actualizing the status of Madinah as the holy city of the Prophet (pbuh) and a
sanctuary as well as the site of global Islamic pilgrimage, and actualizing the status of the
Prophet’s Mosque as the second holiest and most important mosque on earth, must reside at
the top of the agenda of all persons in Madinah, together with all of the city’s official
institutions and establishments.
As part of those instantaneous at once conceptual and architectural corrective measures
initiated by the Saudis and inspired by the Prophet’s Mosque, was the elimination of the
phenomenon of funerary architecture which comprised tombs, shrines and tomb-mosques.
The syndrome was seriously dogging the entire Muslim community for centuries. Due to its
unparalleled significance and so, the number of prominent persons buried in its burial
grounds, Madinah proved a fertile ground not only for the toleration of the funerary
architecture hazard, but also its proliferation.

When Ibn Jubayr visited Makkah and Madinah - about a century before Mamluk sultan
Qalawun (d. 1290) erected a dome over the room with the Prophet’s grave, making it
resemble a massive mausoleum - he reported that both holy cities, but especially Madinah
and its al-Baqi’ cemetery near the Prophet’s Mosque, were awash with domed tombs and
mausoleums. So much so that Ibn Jubayr concluded as regards the situation in the al-Baqi’
cemetery: “The tombs in this cemetery are more than can be counted, for it is the burial place
of the greater part of the Companions, Migrants and Helpers (Madinah natives)”.

Those places were visitation sites and with them some hugely problematic activities were
associated, such as prayers, seeking blessings and supplications. People believed that the
places were special spirituality-wise and thus, praying and supplicating at them, procuring
blessings by certain means (tabarruk), and tawassul (the use of a means to arrive at or obtain
the favour of Allah) were correspondingly rewarding.

So sensitive were the beliefs and acts allied with those places that every now and then some
people’s faith and their affiliation with authentic Islam were in jeopardy. And so special is the
city of Madinah that once inside, many visitors and pilgrims simply lost control of their
rationality and surrendered to their overwhelming excitement and outpouring emotions
instead. With their rationality weakened, such people increased their spiritual vulnerability.

For example, when towards the end of the 19th century, Muhammad al-Wilati visited
Madinah as a pilgrim, he detailed all the tombs and shrines of the al-Baqi’ cemetery and the
Uhud burial ground with its martyrs, which he had visited. He stressed how he supplicated at
all of them and how he did tawassul, that is, how he used the persons interred in the graves as
a means to obtain the favour of Allah. However, he often also said that he used the persons in
the graves as a means to obtain the favour of the Prophet (pbuh), and through him, in turn, the
favour of Allah.

A similar tone resonates from many other books of hajj (pilgrimage) travels, such as the one
written by Muhammad al-Sanusi (d. 1900) titled al-Rihlah al-Hijaziyyah, and the one written
by Ibn al-Tayyib (d. 1758) titled the Travels of Ibn al-Tayyib.

The most prominent tomb-mosque which was rightly destroyed by the Saudis was the one
associated with the grave of Hamzah b. ‘Abd al-Mutallib, the Prophet’s uncle, at Uhud where
he and the rest of Uhud martyrs had been buried.

Ibn Jubayr mentioned it as the first of a great many venerated tombs and shrines in Madinah,
both in al-Baqi’ and on the slopes of the Uhud mountain. He said: “Over the tomb of Hamzah
has been built a mosque, and the tomb lies in a court north of it with the martyrs beside him”.

However, Ibn al-Tayyib described Hamzah’s grave as one with a high dome and a door with
plated iron. It was surrounded by a big building, equipped with an ablution place, and nearby
there was a mosque. As if Ibn al-Tayyib spoke of the mosque and its court with the domed
tomb as two separate entities. Al-Wilati, on the other hand, explicitly stated that over
Hamzah’s grave there was a domed tomb and a mosque. Which could be construed as the
grave having been enclosed by the tomb, and the tomb, in turn, by the mosque.

At any rate, it seems as though all authors spoke about the same thing, depending on whether
they regarded the abutting court as part of the mosque proper, or not. Similarly, different
historical epochs, during which the mosque and its adjoining facilities looked and perhaps
functioned differently, prompted different authors to pass somewhat different conclusions.

Towards the same end is a small mosque that was located near the right side of the Bab
(Gate) al-Baqi’. According to Ibn al-Tayyib, “it is said that the Prophet (pbuh) stood in it
when he went out to ask for forgiveness of the dead buried at al-Baqi’. It is also said that it is
the Zaweyya (tomb or mausoleum?) of ‘Aqil b. Abi Talib, where he and many relatives of the
Prophet (pbuh) were buried.” It was widely held that supplications were accepted there.

However, most other authors, like al-Samahudi and al-Wilati, distinguished spatially between
the Mosque of Ubayy b. Ka’b, which bordered al-Baqi’, the tomb or mausoleum (qubbah) of
‘Aqil nearby, and a fixed stone inside an enclosure to the right of ‘Aqil’s qubbah, where the
Prophet (pbuh) is believed to have stood when he went out to seek Allah’s forgiveness for the
dead buried at al-Baqi’.

The mosque mentioned by Ibn al-Tayyib and the mosque of Ubayy b. Ka’b, as per the
accounts of al-Samahudi and al-Wilati, appear to be one and the same. To Ibn al-Tayyib,
however, it represented a multiplex, so to speak, entailing three notions and three tangible
constituents. But to al-Samahudi and al-Wilati, it was an independent part in a whole. The
mosque was also called the mosque of al-Baqi’.

As a small digression, the presence of the Prophet’s grave with its room inside the Prophet’s
Mosque cannot be taken as an excuse for validating funerary architecture. This is so because
the Prophet (pbuh) was not buried in his Mosque. As per a divine injunction, he was buried in
his house which adjoined the Mosque.

Following the massive expansion of the Mosque by the Umayyad Caliph al-Walid b. ‘Abd al-
Malik, the house (room) with the grave was incorporated into the Mosque. It is difficult to
say whether that was a wrong course of action. Yet, some of the scholars denounced al-Walid
for that, but he believed that there was nothing wrong with it for the sake of expanding the
Mosque.

What is more, the house (room) with the grave was always treated, both conceptually and
architecturally, as inside-yet-outside of the Mosque. Nobody was allowed to develop and
accord it undue attention and reverence.

On the flip side, it could also be said that in that manner, the Prophet’s grave was forever
protected and brought under the absolute care and custody of the entire Muslim community
(ummah). It belonged to the ummah and the ummah within the context of its second most
important mosque, was set to look after it.

Later, when based on their own reckoning and for their own reasons the Mamluks added an
enclosure (maqsurah) and an enormous dome to the Prophet’s burial chamber - making the
structure resemble a mausoleum like all those mausoleums that dotted the centres of the
Mamluk rule - that was truly a questionable and controversial undertaking. The action was
closer to impropriety than appropriateness. It never stopped dividing opinion.

Even al-Samahudi, who did not hesitate to commend the Mamluk sovereigns for their
contributions to the development of the Mosque and Madinah - especially Sultan Qayit Bey,
his contemporary - seemed not to be in agreement with the introduction of the dome. To him,
that was a case of intending a good, but ending up doing a bad thing, or a case of using a
blameworthy means for accomplishing a praiseworthy goal.

Most contemporary fatwas (Islamic rulings or edicts) support the view that erecting the dome
over the Prophet’s grave was wrong, but maintain that calling for the destruction of the dome
would be unfeasible as it could cause fitnah (trial, sedition, civil strife) and could lead to
chaos among the ordinary people and the ignorant. The following is a view on the matter
extracted from an article titled “The green dome in Madinah: its history and the ruling on its
construction and on leaving it as it is”. The article is from a scholarly website
www.islamqa.info.

According to the article, the reason why the dome, though objectionable, has not been - and
may never be - demolished, is as follows. “The scholars have explained the shar’i rulings
concerning the building of this dome and its obvious effects on the followers of bid’ah who
have developed an attachment to this structure and its color, and they praise and venerate it a
great deal in their poetry and writings. Now it is up to the authorities to implement these
fatwas, and this is nothing to do with the scholars. 

The reason why it is not demolished is so as to ward off fitnah and for fear that it may lead to
chaos among the ordinary people and the ignorant. Unfortunately the ordinary people have
only reached this level of veneration towards this dome because of the leadership of
misguided scholars and imams of innovation. They are the ones who incite the ordinary
people against the land of the two holy Sanctuaries and its ‘aqeedah and its manhaj. They are
very upset about many actions that are in accordance with shari’ah in our view and contrary
to innovation in their view. 

Whatever the case, the shar’i ruling is quite clear, and the fact that this dome has not been
demolished does not mean that it is permissible to build it or any dome over any grave, no
matter what grave it is. Shaykh Salih al-‘Usaymi said: ‘The fact that this dome has remained
for eight centuries does not mean that it has become permissible, and being silent about it
does not indicate approval of it or that it is permissible. Rather the Muslim authorities should
remove it and put it back as it was at the time of the Prophet (pbuh). They should remove the
dome and the adornments and engravings that are found in the mosques, above all the
Prophet’s Mosque, so long as that will not lead to an even greater fitnah. If it would lead to
an even greater fitnah, then the ruler should postpone the matter until he finds an opportunity
for that’” (islamqa.info/en/110061).

Furthermore, as part of the ongoing Saudi campaign of corrective measures inspired by the
quintessence of the Prophet’s Mosque, many other mosques were either destroyed or totally
abandoned and made inaccessible to visitors. Such were generally small mosques that
honoured and memorialized some events from the history of Madinah during the Prophet’s
era wherein the Prophet (pbuh) directly participated.

However, no authentic spiritual significance has been attached to any of them, nor were they
recommended by the Prophet (pbuh) and his immediate and rightly-guided successors to be
built and visited. Moreover, the authenticity of many historical justifications and the exact
geographical locations, warranting the existence of those mosques, have also been seriously
questioned by many scholars. Numerous scholars of Madinah, including Malik b. Anas,
regarded as makruh (disliked or repugnant) visiting those mosques and historical sites
connected to the Prophet (pbuh).

An example of those virtually abandoned mosques, which are increasingly rendered

inaccessible to visitors, are the seven mosques found at the scene of the Battle of Trench, or
Khandaq, about three kilometres from the Prophet’s Mosque. There are in fact only six
mosques there. However, they are called “Seven Mosques” because people for some reason
used to add the mosque of the two qiblahs (masjid al-qiblatayn) to the existing group of six.
The latter mosque is about three kilometres further to the north-east and is normally visited
with those six mosques in one go. That is maybe the reason why they are seen as making up a
single company of (seven) mosques.

The six mosques are very small, featuring mostly one small arcade, or a simple small prayer
room, and a tiny courtyard. Their roofs are flat (three mosques), vaulted (one) and domed
(one). The smallest mosque is that of Fatimah al-Zahra’ - earlier called the mosque of Sa’d b.
Mu’adh - and is only 12 square meters. The mosque is made up only of an enclosed courtyard
without any structure.

The mosques do not contain any worthwhile spiritual or architectural value. They serve as
modest landmarks that commemorate certain events and personalities relating to the Battle of
Trench.

For example, one of them and certainly the oldest, most frequented and most targeted with
prayers and supplications, is called al-Fath (Conquest). The mosque was built where the
Prophet (pbuh) is said to have prayed and supplicated during the battle, following which the
encounter ended in Muslim victory. There, additionally, the Prophet (pbuh) might have
received the Qur’anic chapter (surah) called al-Fath.

The first person who built the al-Fath mosque was the Umayyad governor in Madinah - later
the Caliph – ‘Umar b. ‘Abd al-‘Aziz (‘Umar II) (d. 720). Before that, the mosque was just a
small musalla, that is, an open space for prayers with no, or very least, structural
configuration. As the governor, ‘Umar II was also responsible for expanding the Prophet’s
Mosque on behalf of the then Umayyad Caliph al-Walid b. ‘Abd al-Malik, which was part of
his unprecedented urbanization drive for the city of Madinah.

Another mosque is called the mosque of the companion Salman al-Farisi, who came up with
the idea of digging trenches as a form of city-defence for the battle, and who led and
supervised their construction. The mosque lies about 20 meters south of the al-Fath mosque.
In all likelihood, it, too, was built by ‘Umar II.

The remaining four mosques are connected with the prominent companions: ‘Ali b. Abi
Talib, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, ‘Umar b. al-Khattab and Fatimah al-Zahra’ (Sa’d b. Mu’adh).
They were built considerably after the first two and stood in close proximity to each other. Of
the four, the earliest one was the mosque of ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. This is based on a report by Ibn
Jubayr who in the 12th century mentioned only the presence of three mosques: al-Fath and
those of Salman al-Farisi and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib. The same was done by Ibn Battuta (d. 1377)
when he about two centuries later visited Madinah.
However, there are reports from the 15th and 16th century that apart from the three mosques,
there was a fourth one as well, but it crumbled long before and its traces almost disappeared.
This is based on accounts by al-Samahudi (d. 1505) and Muhammad al-Nahrawani (d. 1580).

Based on al-Nahrawani’s narrative, it was unknown which exactly the fourth mosque that lay
in utter ruins was, when exactly it was built and by whom. He also narrated that the Prophet
(pbuh) prayed in the al-Fath mosque and in the mosques that surrounded it - presumably the
mosques of Salman al-Farisi, ‘Ali b. Abi Talib, and perhaps the one which remained
unidentified. Nevertheless, al-Samahudi believed that the fourth mosques was that of Abu
Bakr al-Siddiq.

In conjunction with the Khandaq mosques, Muhammad al-Nahrawani for no clear reasons
mentioned the mosque of the two qiblahs (masjid al-qiblatayn) as well. That casts some extra
light on why today the six mosques at the Khandaq scene are called “Seven Mosques”.

It seems as though the al-Fath mosque and those of Salman al-Farisi and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib
were most prominent and most visited, even after the other three had been erected. Of the
latter, the mosque of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq was most recognised, even though, sporadically, it
suffered a lot structurally.

This is on the basis of reports, firstly, by Sir Richard Burton who visited Madinah in 1853
and reported the presence of four mosques in the area: al-Fath and those of Salman al-Farisi,
‘Ali b. Abi Talib and Abu Bakr al-Siddiq; and secondly, by Ibrahim Rif’at Basha who visited
Madinah in 1902 and reported only about three mosques: al-Fath and those of Salman al-
Farisi and ‘Ali b. Abi Talib.

The problem with this type of mosques, buildings and places is that unjustifiable religious
import has been gradually attached to them at the hands of lots of people. Whereas the
Prophet (pbuh) has not said, nor indicated, anything to that effect. So serious can the matter
become that the soundness of many people’s spirituality could be at stake. If left unchecked,
a great many religious innovations, misunderstandings and fallacies can be invented and
articulated in the process.

And the spiritual deterioration and contamination of only a single person – let alone groups –
are so serious and damaging to be tolerated. It is the responsibility of everyone, especially of
the authorities, scholars and ordinary but enlightened people in Madinah, to make sure that
such does not happen.

The principle of “prevention is better than cure” should be observed. Taking preventative
measures is one of the things prescribed by Islam and its Shari’ah. Ibn al-Qayyim gave
ninety-nine examples illustrating this principle, and after giving the ninety-ninth example he
said: “Taking preventative means is one-quarter of responsibility, for there are commands
and prohibitions. The commands are of two types, one of which is the end in itself and the
other is the means to that end. And prohibitions are of two types, the thing that is prohibited
because it is evil in and of itself, and the means that lead to that evil. So preventing the means
that lead to that which is haram (prohibited) is one quarter of the religion”
(islamqa.info/en/answers/11669).

The Prophet (pbuh) was explicit that in Madinah his Mosque, his grave, the graves of the
people of the al-Baqi’ cemetery, the graves of the martyrs of Uhud, and the mosque of Quba’,
are only supposed to be appropriately visited. Doing so is a praiseworthy act and contains a
significant spiritual merit.

Certainly, there is no legitimate or shar’i evidence to suggest that those mosques should be
singled out for visits, as there is in the case of the mosque of Quba’. As is well known, acts of
worship should be based on following the Qur’an and Sunnah, not on innovations.

Moreover, the companions of the Prophet (pbuh) were the best people and their generation
the best and most exemplary generation of Islam. They were the keenest of all people to
follow the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh). However, none of them are known to have visited
those mosques and historical sites. If that was a good thing, they would have been the first
ones to do it.

People should be properly educated. They should be discouraged from visiting those places
and regarding them as special in connection with their spiritual well-being and development.
Doing so should be seen, above all, as an important preventative measure.

It was narrated that al-Ma’rur b. Suwayd said: “We went out with ‘Umar b. al-Khattab and
we came across a mosque on our route. The people rushed to pray in that mosque, and ‘Umar
said: ‘What is the matter with them?’ They said: ‘This is a mosque in which the Messenger of
Allah (pbuh) prayed.’ ‘Umar said: ‘O people, those who came before you were destroyed
because they followed such (practices) until they made them places of worship. Whoever
happens to be there at the time of prayer, let him pray there, and whoever is not there at the
time of prayer, let him continue his journey’” (islamqa.info/en/answers/11669).

This means – according to Ibn Taymiyah - that the Prophet (pbuh) had not singled out that
place for prayer; he prayed there only because he happened to be staying there. Hence ‘Umar
thought that imitating him outwardly without having the same reason for doing so did not
count as following the Prophet (pbuh). Singling out that place for prayer was like the
innovations of the People of the Book which had led to their doom, so he forbade the
Muslims to imitate them in this manner. The one who did that was imitating the Prophet
(pbuh) in outward appearances, but he was imitating the Jews and Christians in his intention,
which is the action of the heart. The action of the heart is what counts, because following in
one’s intention is more serious than following in outward appearances
(islamqa.info/en/answers/11669).

In another example, it is narrated that ‘Umar b. al-Khattab heard that some people were
visiting the tree under which the Prophet (pbuh) had accepted the bay’ah (pledge of
allegiance) of people, so he commanded that it should be cut down
(islamqa.info/en/answers/11669).

(The article is an excerpt from the author’s forthcoming book titled “Appreciating the Architecture of
Madinah”)