Re: Hajj and the Saudis (II)

Also published in Daily Trust

Inasmuch as I recognize Malam Adamu Adamu’s right to castigate the Saudis, which he is obviously obsessed with, I can’t make sense of how he often tries, in disguise, to refute some fundamental aspects of Islamic creed and practices under the pretext of criticizing their policies. Incidentally, from my personal experience with them, I believe that even if they are actually aware of his campaign they will not give a damn because they are probably too busy handling some more influential critics around the world.

By the way, the Saudis are just like all the other Muslims; they don’t enjoy any special status in Islam, and honestly speaking they have never claimed that either.  Also their official policies and cultural practices are not necessarily always Shari’a compliant.

Nevertheless, it is obvious that most of the issues on which Malam Adamu castigates the Saudis are actually established Islamic precepts, not the Kingdom’s official policies or cultural practices. He should have therefore addressed the issues intellectually to present his counterviews in order to prove how and where the Saudis have misunderstood them.

For example, in his last week’s column, he alleged that the actual motive behind the Saudis’ opposition to some historical sites was simply because they wanted to destroy the legacy of the apostle of Allah, and to buttress his allegation he cited some instances, which are actually either inaccurate or irrelevant in that context for that matter. After all, he should have first of all established the specific religious significance of such sites from the Qur’an or the authentic Hadiths before castigating the Saudis for destroying it. By the way, neither of the two verses he quoted applies in the particular context in question.

Basically, in Islam, historical sites are preserved or eliminated according to their specifically established religious significance and/or the dictates of public interests. For instance, they can be removed for the expansion of the holy sites e.g. the Grand Mosque of Mecca or the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina to accommodate as many worshippers as possible, or in order to undertake any physical development projects to facilitate human and vehicular traffic flow or for any other overriding public interest.

Interestingly enough, all personal effects of the apostle of Allah and those of some of his pious companions, which the Saudis were able to collect are appropriately preserved and are on display in appropriate places in the Kingdom.

Also the gigantic and sophisticated infrastructure and facilities which are constantly constructed in all the holy sites in Mecca and Medina by the Saudis are too substantial and too conspicuous to be ignored even by the worst envious person on earth.

Also notwithstanding the authenticity or otherwise of the historical accounts given by Malam Adamu to discredit the process of the formation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and irrespective of whether or not the Saudis are guilty of the charges he made against them, there will always be some people who will uphold and promote the only genuine form of Islam anyway. This is in spite of its detractors particularly those turbaned Persian priests whose modern day Zoroastrian Empire was resuscitated by Khomeini in 1979 on the bases of his ridiculously fabricated political theory i.e. Wilayatul-Faqeeh, which has no basis even in their already deviant ideology.

In any case, Islam is generally cautious towards historical sites attached to religion, because so many people are easily tempted into going extreme there to the extent of uttering or committing some polytheistic practices under the pretext of revering the pious individuals to whom such sites are rightly or wrongly attributed.

 King Abdul-Aziz (founder of Saudi Arabia) and some of his sons 

 

Therefore, it is not the Saudis who for instance prohibited the erection of big structures on graves or the construction of mosques near and/or in recognition of graves; instead it was the apostle of Allah himself who prohibited it (see Hadith No 969, Sahih Muslim and Hadiths No 1244 and 825 in Sahihul Bukhari and Sahih Muslim respectively).

Also it is not the Saudis who prohibited the act of embarking on a journey purposefully to pay spiritual homage to any specific religious site except to the Grand Mosque of Mecca, the Prophet’s Mosque in Medina and Al-aqsa Mosque in the occupied Palestinian territory, instead it was the apostle of Allah himself who prohibited it (see Hadiths nos 1864 and 1397 in Sahihul Bukhari and Sahih Muslim respectively). Moreover, it is not the Saudis who prohibited performing a prayer before a grave; instead it was the apostle of Allah who prohibited it (see Hadith No. 972 Sahih Muslim).

Incidentally, even the apostle of Allah himself was not actually buried inside his mosque, instead he was buried in his wife’s (Aisha RA) room where he died, and in the process of expanding the mosque to accommodate more worshippers, his whole house was incorporated into the mosque, however, Aisha’s room was spared and secluded as it contains his grave and the graves of two of his pious companions i.e. Abubakr and Umar (RA).

Therefore, Malam Adamu’s attempt to draw an irony against the Saudis for allegedly neglecting the prophet’s heritage while preserving their own heritage sites e.g. Darat al-Malik Abd al-Aziz in Riyadh, is not accurate, because such a heritage is not given any kind of religious relevance in the Kingdom whatsoever, and nobody visits it with the intention of earning any Godly reward.

Likewise, his attempt to draw a paradox against the Saudis for not celebrating the Maulud Day while they celebrate their National Day is also inaccurate, because National Day is not considered a religious practice at all and nobody expects to earn any Godly reward for celebrating it. Whereas Maulud is considered a religious practice by those who do it, which necessarily requires sound grounds from the noble Qur’an and/or an authentic Hadith to justify its supposed religious relevance.

It is obvious that Malam Adamu simply confuses the concept of heresy in Islamic religious terminology i.e. Bid’ah with its literal linguistic meaning hence his evidently wrong conclusions. For the sake of clarity, Bid’ah in Islamic terminology means any belief or act done with a view to earning Godly reward while it is not provided for in the Qur’an or the authentic prophetic Sunnah, neither is it analogically deduced from such sources by the generality of the companions of the apostle of Allah.

Moreover, in his opposition to the status-quo in Saudi Arabia, it is clear that Malam Adamu wishes to see mausoleums and shrines all over the holy city of Mecca and Medina as in Qum or Najf for instance, where a visit or even a simple search on YouTube is enough for one to behold how turbaned Shiite monks preside over some worship rites that are fundamentally contrary to Islam, yet they falsely attribute them to the noble progeny of the apostle of Allah. This will never happen in Mecca and Medina, God willing.