Destruction of Green Dome and Prophet's tomb and churches (Mecca, woman, worship)

[pbmaise]

Islam's highest religous man, the Grand Mufti Abdul-
Aziz ibn Abdullah Al Shaykh, began calling for the destruction of churches in a fatwa issued 15 March 2012. So far Muslims have burned over 1000 churches. He recently reissued it since obviously not enough is done.

In Mosul instead of destroying the Catholic cathedral, images and stainglass were removed and it is now a mosque. Don't all Catholics still look at the building itself? Is it a shirk to go 1/2 way?

His fatwa for the destruction of the Green Dome and the tombs of the Prophet, Abu Bakr and Umar below it, are the most difficult to understand.

This is an Islamic structure dating to 1247. It is true that while the dome and tombs remain, it enables pilgrims to venerate the dead. That is forbidden and tawhid.

However, doesn't cleansing of all physical evidence the Prophet take away from Saudi Arabia one of the prime reasons to visit? Yes it is tawhid to pawn tickets to view the remains of dead men and takes away from God. Are Muslims that view the tomb or fail to destroy it commiting shirk?

However, when oil runs out, tourism will be very important. Americans and Canadians will continue to develope larger reserves and are just starting to explore vast natural gas fields frozen below oceans.

Revenue is already drastically lower.

Further, the whole point of a pilgrimage is to view evidence from the past.

Perhaps the tombs may be relocated or closed to all so at a later date future Muslims and non-Muslims may see something from the past that is currently rejected in the present.

Thoughts? Keep or destroy the Prophet's tomb?
Comply or selectively ignore a fatwa?

[PDXNative2Houston]

One thing to note is that a fatwa may or may not be legally binding, as it is after all an opinion and should only be applied within the time/region the fatwa was issued in.

With that said, that's a *very* odd fatwa. We've had churches in the region for the past 2000 years, I imagine some Islamic scholar in the last 1400 years since the Prophet's death would have issued such a fatwa previously if it was valid. I'm curious as to what is his entire reasoning and what was the evidence behind his ijtihad.

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by PDXNative2Houston

One thing to note is that a fatwa may or may not be legally binding, as it is after all an opinion and should only be applied within the time/region the fatwa was issued in.

With that said, that's a *very* odd fatwa. We've had churches in the region for the past 2000 years, I imagine some Islamic scholar in the last 1400 years since the Prophet's death would have issued such a fatwa previously if it was valid. I'm curious as to what is his entire reasoning and what was the evidence behind his ijtihad.

I agree on all the points you made.
I would like to add another point, even in times of war we are to avoid destroying any houses of worship. although it is not directly stated it can be inferred from Rule 6. How could some one be in a house of worship, if it was permissable to destroy it?
Before engaging in battle, the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) instructed his soldiers:

1. “Do not kill any child, any woman, or any elder or sick person.” (Sunan Abu Dawud)

2. “Do not practice treachery or mutilation.(Al-Muwatta)

3. Do not uproot or burn palms or cut down fruitful trees.(Al-Muwatta)

4. Do not slaughter a sheep or a cow or a camel, except for food.” (Al-Muwatta)

5. “If one fights his brother, [he must] avoid striking the face, for God created him in the image of Adam.” (Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim)

6. “Do not kill the monks in monasteries, and do not kill those sitting in places of worship. (Musnad Ahmad Ibn Hanbal)

7. “Do not destroy the villages and towns, do not spoil the cultivated fields and gardens, and do not slaughter the cattle.” (Sahih Bukhari; Sunan Abu Dawud)

8. “Do not wish for an encounter with the enemy; pray to God to grant you security; but when you [are forced to] encounter them, exercise patience.” (Sahih Muslim)

9. “No one may punish with fire except the Lord of Fire.” (Sunan Abu Dawud).

10. “Accustom yourselves to do good if people do good, and to not do wrong even if they commit evil.” (Al-Tirmidhi)


- See more at: 10 Islamic Rules of War | 1000 Good Deeds

[FutureTown]

Also, he is not Islam's highest figurehead. There won't be one till the end of times when Jesus (AS) comes around. He might be a religious leader for his people. He's not my leader, though.

[Woodrow LI]

Originally Posted by FutureTown

Also, he is not Islam's highest figurehead. There won't be one till the end of times when Jesus (AS) comes around. He might be a religious leader for his people. He's not my leader, though.

True
We have no "Highest Eathly Religious Authority" there is no living man that can speak for all Muslims or establish religious rules for all Muslims.
All living Muslims are equal in all matters.

[pbmaise]

Woodrow

I very much appreciate the statement you made on an idealistic level.

"All living Muslims are equal in all matters."

When I met The Sultan of Brunei, I was impressed how warmly I was received in his home. True, the largest home in the world, but a home.

I admit I have not met the King of Saudi Arabia, however was schooled with family members of the Shah of Iran.

I did not have long time to speak personally with the Sultan, so I limited my statement to three words

"Protect your forests"

As a Roman Catholic, it was incredible.

Of course, someday the other 50% of the 32,000 guests that day might have an equal say as a man instead of meeting the Sultan's wives.

[pbmaise]

However,
I didnt start this thread to speak about women.

Rather it is destruction of evidence of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

In further researching the calls to destroy his tomb and the Green Dome, I found:

"Sami Alawi, the founder and former director of Mecca’s Hajj
Research Center and opponent of the destruction of Mecca’s
historic sites, estimates that over 300 antiquity sites in Mecca
and Medina have already been destroyed, such as the house
of the first caliph, Abu Bakr, which was levelled to make
room for the Mecca Hilton Hotel."


" An ancient house belonging to the Prophet Mohammed was recently razed to make room for a public toilet facility."

Source and small video at

https://worldshiaforum.wordpress.com...na-by-ali-taj/

It is type of documented demolition I find hard to understand.

What is so wrong in preservation of the past?

[pbmaise]

PDX2

It is good you are curious. So am I.

" The latest proposal to destroy the green dome as well as the
chambers surrounding the Prophet ’ s ( pbuh ) tomb is the
brain -child of one ‘Ali ibn ‘ Abd al-‘ Aziz al-Shabal , a professor
at Muhammad ibn Saud University in Riyadh . His 61-page
document has been circulated among the supervisors of al-
Masjid al- Nabawi in Madinah . The chambers ( or rooms) were
the dwellings of the Prophet ’ s family"

Does anyone have a link to this document?

Source: Saudi plan to destroy the Prophet

It should be noted the above source, while containing some factual information like:

" The Saudis have already removed all identification markers
from the graves of the Companions of the Prophet ( pbuh )
and Ahl al- Bayt ( members of the Prophet ’ s family ) . "

The above article has a political slant as it views destruction of all evidence of the Prophet (SAW) to being done to cement one sect of Islam as being the only valid sect.

That view differs from my prior statement that destroying all evidence of the past was to prevent tawhid.

[pbmaise]

Woodrow
I am fixated on why destroy all evidence Islam's past and put in place toilets, hotels, and Starbucks.

This isn't the first call to destroy the past.

1. In 2007 the Green Dome was repainted silver. The Silver Dome is or was a football stadium in Pontiac Michigan. Destroying the green color was indeed a possible first step to reduce the shock when it was torn down. My vote is for a Walmart if/when they do.
The only reason this subject rises to public attention is it is the tomb and removal of bodies to unmarked graves that appears extremist.


2. " It is revealing that
everything related to ‘ Abd al-‘ Aziz ibn Saud , founder of the
Saudi “ kingdom ” has been preserved . Even the tip of the
spear that he used to attack the Mismak Fortress and that
broke and got stuck in the door, has been preserved . ‘ Abd
al-‘ Aziz’ s shoes , swords, and robes , etc . are all preserved.
This is obviously neither a bid‘ ah or shirk as far as the House
of Saud is concerned but anything related to the noble
Messenger ( pbuh ) that the Muslims respect is immediately
denounced as bid‘ ah and shirk."

Source
https://worldshiaforum.wordpress.com...na-by-ali-taj/

Pull quote :
Muslims should ask themselves whether the artefacts of Ibn
Saud are more important than the final resting place of the
noble Messenger of Allah?

[PDXNative2Houston]

PBMaise, thank you for responding...I'm actually more curious as to why the fatwa was given to destroy Churches versus the destruction of Islamic historical sites. While we may or may not agree with the destruction of Islamic historical sites, the reasoning as to why is because the scholarship in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia has determined that people are using these sites in forms of idolatry.

For instance it's not unheard of for folks on pilgrimage to go and ask the Prophet Muhammad (saw), or members from his family, for assistance at their grave sites. For example they may visit the grave of the Prophet (saw) and ask, "Oh Prophet of Allah, please ask Allah to make me the wealthiest of the wealthy and cure me of my ills." This is clear and utter shirk (the greatest sin in Islam), and I believe the scholars in the region have decided to destroy the sites to discourage this behavior. I am not saying I personally agree or disagree with their conclusion to just destroy the sites, but this is their reasoning.

Now the destruction of Churches I can *not* wrap my head around. I can't seem to come up with a valid reason for this fatwa, or any historical precedent that would allow such action.