Many
people get emotional when talking about sites associated with the Prophet’s
(saw) companions or ahlul bayt. Others try to defend the Saudis no matter what
they do. I hold no brief either for those who venerate graves, or for the
Saudis.
I have
interests in archaeology, as well as many other subjects, and my best learning
part (age 20-30) was spent in the West, in a secular environment, with a
scientific approach. So destruction of historic sites and artifacts pains me as
much as it would anyone else.
It
bothers me that I have this interest, while the Prophet (saw) ordered
destruction of sites where shirk was committed, and artifacts with them. For
example, we are told that he had all idols destroyed, in the Ka`aba as well as
whole of Arabia. Had they been preserved in a museum, they would have led us to
study at least the art of pagan Arabs. We could have seen how their religion
developed, and how their culture was shaped.
Not only
that, he (saw) also forbade all things that could lead a future generation to
re-engage in shirk. He sent Ali (ra) to level the graves to one palm’s height,
and destroy the buildings that housed idols. My sense of history and
archaeology tells me that preservation of those buildings would have given us
knowledge of the Arab temples. But that knowledge about Arab pagan worship and
about the rituals for their dead, has been permanently removed from us.
Shouldn’t my enlightened scientific mind consider it a loss to humanity? In
contrast, where these have been preserved e.g. in Egypt, we have been able to
decipher a great deal about the people of those times.
However,
he (saw) asked the Sahaba to quickly pass those sites where Allah (swt) had
sent His retribution. Those sites are today devoid of idols, but we do not know
when those idols were removed. I have not found any mention of broken pieces of
idols in Saudi Arabia.
Contrast
this with Pakistan. We have an abundance of maqbaras, and ancient graveyards
that any nation can be proud of. These are kept in good repair, and we have
pirs who preside over their ancestors’ graves and those who regard the dear
departed as living. We have dedicated vast jagirs (and freed them from income
tax, with serfs to toil on the land) for the upkeep of these graves. Naturally,
these pirs themselves have large landholdings, or are related to these big land
owners. They pay nothing to the state, but they have big clout, so they are
returned to power, where they make sure that the ordinary people get poorer and
poorer, while they get richer and richer, passing on the liabilities of the
state to the poor.
However,
we have these ancient and new maqbaras, and that is what counts. If we were to
study the patterns on these graves, the color and method of production of the
tiles on the roofs of these maqbaras, wouldn’t it be educational. It could
boost the tourist industry – just like in Iran and Central Asia. Studies in
those enlightened lands have resulted in volumes written about them; knowledge
has grown; even the tiles are being reproduced in the same way as earlier, and
they fetch dollars, too, for these scientifically aware states. Alas for us.
Coming
back to KSA, on the net I can see the dwellings of Thamud at Madaene Sualeh and
other sites. I can see the houses and forts at Khyber that the Jews left
behind. The Wahhabi movement has not destroyed these. Access, however, is
restricted, just like at other sites all over the world, and one is discouraged
from staying too long in such places, according to the injunction of the
Prophet (saw).
I can see
the graveyards at Makkah, Madinah, Uhud, etc. When I went there (2005), graves
of various Sahaba and Sahabiyaat were pointed out to me, but of course, there
were no plaques to mark the individual graves, but there were plain stones,
according to Sunnah.
What the
Wahhabi movement removed were signs which this Ummah, like the previous ones,
was using to venerate, and seek interdiction from, the departed. Our people
have been told that to say that these people in the graves are dead, is
blasphemy. The departed should be considered alive, and asked for help and
intercession on our behalf. Naturally, the populace goes to seek help from the
departed and even from the trees planted around the graves. This has the added
benefit of preserving old culture and customs, so we are actually in a
continuum, not cut off from our past. Something to rejoice!
Yet, the
Prophet (saw) did not allow these benefits to the people of his times.
Is that
the answer? Were (naoozobillah) those Sahabis Bedouin or paindoo Arabs? so all
temptation of shirk had to be removed from them. We consider ourselves far more
advanced and cultured. We know the difference between shirk and culture, so all
is allowed to us! In the words of Hali:
Magar muslamanon peh kushada hein saree rahein
In Jordan
- another enlightened state, I see that temples are being restored in Petra to
their former glory. Tourists will flock to these sites, and some will start the
rites observed by the Nabateans or the Romans.
I also remember the destruction of
the Bamiyan Buddhas in Afghanistan. It hurt me. I thought:
“These
barbarian Taliban, don’t they know better. They are destroying the finest
examples of art of the Buddhist civilization in Afghanistan. Scientists have
wondered how the people of those times managed to carve such fine huge statues
on cliff faces. Now those are gone forever. Does it matter that I had seen
Japanese tourists saying prayers to these Buddhas.
La ikraha fid deen
so should we say: If they
want to do shirk, let them”.
But the
Prophet (saw) ordered removal and destruction of such things.
I went
for Hajj in 2005 with a Tableeghi group, which included some Barelvis as well.
There I discovered that the Tablighi group was not apolitical. Our group leader
and some others from our group would clandestinely meet with their locally
resident leaders, and occasionally hint at the corruption of Saudi society, and
how soon they would be able to come to power and reverse all that the Saudis
had done.
Far more
sinister was the attitude of the Iranians, and the Turks, both with exaggerated
sense of grave veneration. The Iranians in particular would congregate at
graves, try to start a procession, raise slogans, etc. and the Saudi police had
to disperse them.
Maybe the
Saudis felt compelled to remove the markings so that this congregation of
bidati people would not take place, which could also create a law and order
situation.
So what
is the conclusion? Are the graves of the Sahaba and ahle bayt, landmarks of
early Islam, or can they lead to shirk, and must be removed?
I see the
modernization of Makkah and Medinah, and I long for the pristine desert city
look of these cities in the times of the Prophet (saw). But it is true, too,
that Hajj has become easy and within reach of a lot of people, who otherwise
would not have been able to perform it. It is also true that expansions and
incorporation of neighborhoods has taken place throughout history.
We should
also be careful not to confuse the Wahhabi movement with the Saudi dynasty.
The Saudi
dynasty is a kingship. All evils of kingship will eventually appear in it. The
Wahhabi movement was a purification movement. When its Ulema get close to
kings, the corruption of power will afflict them, too. Yet, when the
destruction of landmarks is for prevention of shirk, it should be appreciated.
When it is only for the benefit of the dynasty, it should be condemned, but not
laid at the door of the movement.
In
conclusion, the Wahabi movement achieved the purification of Saudi society from
physically perceptible shirk, in line with the Prophet's (saw) injunctions. Any
excesses we see today may be to prevent the resurgence and reassertion of Shias
and other venerators of graves.
