Refutation of Pro-Saint Veneration Arguments Based on the Statements of the Jurists

Below is a partial translation of a series of telegram posts (*,*,*,*,*) written by Ustadh Alaa’ Hasan.

I will present—Allah willing—a series throughout the month of Ramadan refuting the misconceptions related to the jurists of the madhhabs, whom the pseudo-Sufis use as a shield to justify polytheistic practices. We will also examine the resolution of certain problematic issues found in the jurists’ statements.

Part 1:

The Argument from the Widespread Presence of Shrines and Polytheistic Practices as Evidence of Scholarly Approval:

Some opponents argue that the construction of domes over graves and the establishment of shrines as places of visitation has been widespread in the Islamic world for over seven hundred years. Given that these practices have been openly observed and no known record of widespread scholarly condemnation, they claim that such customs have persisted until today. From this, they conclude that the ummah accepted these matters and did not amount to major shirk.

Among the most prominent figures to advance this argument are the opponents of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, such as his brother Sulaymān, Ibn ‘Afāliq, Ibn Dāwūd, Ibn Jirjīs, and others.

Shaykh Sulaymān ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb says in his refutation of his brother, Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb:

ومعلوم عند العامّ والخاصّ أن هذه الأمور التي تكفِّرون بها قد ملأت بلاد المسلمين من أكثر من سبعمائة عام... والناس يسافرون إليها من جميع الأمصار أعظم مما يسافرون إلى الحج

“It is well known to both the common people and the elite that these matters for which you declare people to be disbelievers have filled the lands of the Muslims for more than seven hundred years... and people travel to them from all regions more than they travel for ḥajj.” [End quote]

He then concludes from this:

فمن أين لكم أن المسلم الذي يشهد أن لا إله إلا الله وأن محمدًا عبده ورسوله إذا دعى غائبًا أو ميتًا أو نذر له أو ذبح لغير الله، أو تمسح بقبر أو أخذ من ترابه أن هذا هو الشرك الأكبر الذي من فعله حبط عمله وحل ماله ودمه؟

“So from where did you get that a Muslim who testifies that there is no deity but Allah and that Muḥammad is His servant and messenger—if he calls upon someone absent or deceased, or vows to them, or sacrifices to other than Allah, or wipes himself against a grave or takes from its soil—that this constitutes major shirk, by which one’s deeds are nullified and one’s wealth and blood become lawful [to take]?”

But this line of reasoning is invalid for several reasons:

1. Scholarly silence does not indicate approval

The absence of public denunciation by scholars does not mean they approve of these practices. The reason may have been the weakness of scholarly authority or the suspension of the enjoining of good and forbidding evil during that period. Silence cannot be taken as evidence of legal acceptance.

Scholars have responded to such an argument before. For example, when al-Ḥākim narrated a ḥadīth prohibiting writing on graves, he remarked:

ليس عليه العمل، فقبور العلماء والصالحين مكتوب عليها وهو عمل أخذه الخلف عن السلف

“This is not acted upon, for the graves of scholars and the righteous have writing on them, and this is a practice the latter generations inherited from the former.”

But did the scholars accept al-Ḥākim’s claim?

1) Al-Ḥāfiẓ al-Dhahabī refuted al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī, saying:

ما قلتَ طائلاً، ولا نعلم صحابيًا فعل ذلك، وإنما هو شيء أحدثه بعض التابعين فمن بعدهم، ولم يبلغهم النهي

“You have said nothing of substance. We do not know of any Sahabi who did such a thing. Rather, it was innovated by some of the Tabi‘i and those after them, and the prohibition had not reached them.”

2) Imām al-Ubbī also criticized him in his commentary on Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, stating:

"وما ذكر –يعني: الحاكم– من أنه عملٌ أخذه الخلف عن السلف لا يُسلَّم له؛ لأن أئمة المسلمين لم يُفتوا بالجواز، ولا أوصوا أن يُفعل ذلك بقبورهم، بل تجد أكثرهم يُفتي بالمنع، ويكتب ذلك في تصنيفه. وغاية ما يُقال: إنهم يُشاهدون ذلك ولا يُنكرون، ومن أين لنا أنهم يرون ذلك ولا يُنكرون؟ وهم ينصون في كتبهم وفتاويهم على المنع

“What al-Ḥākim mentioned—that it is a practice inherited by the latter generations from the former—is unacceptable. The imams of the Muslims did not issue legal verdicts permitting it, nor did they request that such things be done with their graves. On the contrary, most of them issued verdicts prohibiting it and wrote as much in their works. At most, one could say they witnessed these actions and did not denounce them. But how can we be certain they saw them and remained silent? When, in fact, they clearly state in their writings and fatwas that such acts are prohibited.”

3) Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī also refuted al-Ḥākim, noting that scholars may indeed witness the construction of domes over graves without voicing objection. However, al-Haytamī nullifies the argument from their supposed approval, clarifying that reliance on such approval is only valid when the crisis is resolved.

Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī says in his refutation of al-Ḥākim al-Naysābūrī:

وبفرضها، فالبناء على قبورهم –أي: الصالحين– أكثر من الكتابة عليها في المقابر المسبلة، كما هو مُشاهد، لاسيما في الحرمين ومصر ونحوها، وقد علموا بالنهي عنه، فكذا هي، فإن قلت: هذا إجماعٌ فعلي، وهو حجة كما صرحوا به؟ قلتُ: ممنوع، بل هو أكثري فقط؛ إذ لم يُحفظ ذلك حتى عن العلماء الذين يرون منعه، وبفرض كونه إجماعًا فعليًا فمحل حجيته –كما هو ظاهر– إنما هو عند صلاح الأزمنة بحيث ينفذ فيها الأمر بالمعروف والنهي عن المنكر، وقد تعطَّل ذلك منذ أزمنة

“Even if we assume it [to be true], the construction over the graves of the righteous—meaning: domes—is more prevalent than writing on them in endowed cemeteries, as is plainly observed in the Two Sanctuaries, Egypt, and the like. And they knew of the prohibition regarding it—so the same applies here. If you say: this constitutes a practical consensus (ijmā‘ ‘amalī), which is valid proof, as has been explicitly stated? I reply: that is not conceded. Rather, it is merely predominant, for this was not transmitted even from scholars known to prohibit it. And even if we were to concede it as a practical consensus, its authority—as is apparent—only holds in times of righteousness, in which the enjoining of good and the forbidding of evil are upheld. That has been suspended for ages.”

Reflect on al-Haytamī’s statement regarding the domes: “as is plainly observed in the Two Sanctuaries, Egypt… And they knew of the prohibition regarding it.”

This is a clear testimony from him that the scholars were aware of the prohibition against building over graves, yet still fell short in forbidding the wrong—if a contemporary scholar were to say this, they would accuse him of being a Wahhābī who disparages the scholars of the ummah!

And if the scholars refuted al-Ḥākim for using such an argument in a minor issue like writing on graves—and al-Ḥākim lived in the fourth century AH—then how much more so in the later, more corrupt eras?

2 – Testimonies of Early Scholars on the Corruption of the Status Quo and the Spread of Innovations

The spread of these practices was not the result of the ummah’s acceptance. Ḍiyā’ al-Dīn al-Muqbilī, who lived more than a century before the da‘wah of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhāb, pointed to the obligation of fighting such people. Speaking about those who supplicate to the inhabitants of graves, he said:

ومن أنكر هذا قالوا: جلمود مخذول، ولا يحب الأولياء، أو نحو ذلك من عبارات لهم، فهؤلاء زادوا على من قال: {مَا نَعْبُدُهُمْ إِلَّا لِيُقَرِّبُونَا إِلَى اللَّهِ زُلْفَى}، وليس لهؤلاء من علاج غير السيف، ولكن أهل السيف الآن أجهل خلق الله، وأشدهم اغترارًا بتلك الأساليب، حيوانات مختلفة الطباع من ثعالب وسباع يعمها سلب الفلاح. والله المستعان

“And if anyone condemns this, they say: ‘He is a wretched, forsaken person who does not love the saints,’ or similar phrases. These people have gone beyond those who said: {We only worship them so that they may bring us nearer to Allah} [39:3]. There is no remedy for such people but the sword. But the people of the sword today are the most ignorant of Allah’s creation and the most deceived by such practices—beasts of differing natures, foxes and predators alike, united only in their lack of success. And Allah is the one whose help is sought.”

There are also statements from Ṣan‘ Allāh al-Ḥanafī and Imām al-Birkawī—both of whom predate the da‘wah—regarding such practices being major shirk, which we have omitted for the sake of brevity. The point here is simply to indicate their existence.

And Allah knows best.

PartTwo: Distinguishing Between Construction in Endowed and Privately-Owned Cemeteries

Opponents argue that some madhhabs differentiate between the ruling on construction in endowed (musabbalah) cemeteries and in privately owned ones, holding that the prohibition applies only to the former. They use this distinction as a pretext to justify building structures over graves.

At the outset, this distinction found among the Shāfi‘īs was not intended to justify building over graves but rather to ease restrictions on people in managing their private property so that their interests—such as building homes and the like—would not be obstructed. Therefore, they only applied the ruling of karāhah (dislike).

However, this disagreement has little practical relevance since the vast majority of shrines built over the graves of saints are located in endowed cemeteries, not on private property, as Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī pointed out—a statement which will be quoted later. Accordingly, the opponents’ reliance on this distinction is nothing more than a diversion and has no bearing on the core issue in dispute.

Indeed, Imām al-Adhra‘ī—one of the independent jurists of the Shāfi‘ī school—supported the opinion that building over graves is categorically prohibited, whether in endowed or privately owned cemeteries. He said, may Allah have mercy on him:

“The correct view regarding construction over graves is what is entailed by the unqualified statement of Ibn Kij, namely, prohibition—without distinction between private ownership and otherwise—due to the general nature of the prohibition, and because of the reprehensible innovation it involves, as well as the waste of wealth, extravagance, ostentation, and imitation of tyrants and disbelievers. The prohibition stands even without all of this.”

Indeed, this opinion favored by al-Adhra‘ī is not the relied-upon position among the later Shāfi‘ī scholars. However, the important point is to clarify that the view, which does not make a distinction, is neither novel nor anomalous; rather, it is an established opinion within the school, contrary to what the opponents claim.

Nonetheless, we concede this distinction, as we have already noted that it lies outside the core point of contention.

For this reason, Imām Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī did not hesitate to issue a fatwa requiring the demolition of domes and mosques built over graves in endowed cemeteries, such as the domes in the Qarāfah of Egypt. He said in Tuhfat al-Muḥtāj:

وجب على ولاة الأمر هدم الأبنية التي في المقابر المسبلة، ولقد أفتى جماعةٌ من عظماء الشافعية بهدم قبة الإمام الشافعي –رضي الله عنه–، وإن صُرف عليها ألوف من الدنانير؛ لكونها في المقابر المسبلة، وهذا –أعني المقابر المسبلة– مما عمَّ وطمَّ، ولم يتوقه كبير ولا صغير، فإنا لله وإنا إليه راجعو

“It is obligatory upon the authorities to demolish the structures found in endowed cemeteries. A number of eminent Shāfi‘ī scholars issued fatwas mandating the demolition of the dome over Imām al-Shāfi‘ī—may Allah be pleased with him—even though thousands of gold dinars were spent on it because it is located in an endowed cemetery. And this matter—meaning the endowed cemeteries—has become widespread and all-encompassing, not avoided by the great or the small. Truly, to Allah we belong, and to Him we return.”

He also said in another passage from Tuhfat al-Muḥtāj:

ومن المسبلة قرافة مصر... وقد أفتى جماعة من العلماء بهدم ما بُني فيها، وقد أفتى جمعٌ بهدم كل ما بقرافة مصر من الأبنية، حتى قبة إمامنا الشافعي التي بناها بعض الملوك، وينبغي لكل أحدٍ هدم ذلك، ما لم يخشَ مفسدة، فيتعيَّن الرفع للإمام

“Among the endowed cemeteries is the Qarāfah of Egypt... A number of scholars have issued fatwas for the demolition of what has been built therein, and a group has issued fatwas for demolishing all the structures in the Qarāfah of Egypt—even the dome of our Imām al-Shāfi‘ī, which was built by one of the kings. It is incumbent upon everyone to demolish such structures unless one fears causing harm, in which case the matter must be referred to the ruler.” [End quote]

In response to those who distinguish between the graves of the righteous and others, al-Haytamī said:

المنقول المعتمد كما جزم به النووي في شرح المهذب حرمة البناء في المقبرة المسبلة، فإن بُني فيها هدم، ولا فرق في ذلك بين قبور الصالحين والعلماء وغيرهم، وما في (الخادم) مما يخالف ذلك ضعيف لا يُلتفت إليه، وكم أنكر العلماء على باني قبة الإمام الشافعي وغيرها، وكفى تصريحهم في كتبهم إنكارًا.. فاعتمد ذلك ولا تغتر بما يُخالفه

“The reliable and transmitted position, as affirmed by al-Nawawī in his Sharḥ al-Muhadhdhab, is that building in an endowed cemetery is prohibited. If anything is built therein, it must be demolished without distinction between the graves of the righteous, the scholars, or others. What is mentioned in al-Khādim, to the contrary, is weak and should not be considered. Many scholars condemned the one who built the dome over Imām al-Shāfi‘ī’s grave and other such structures, and their clear statements in their books are sufficient as condemnation...So rely upon this, and do not be deceived by anything that contradicts it.”

This position taken by Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī reflects his zeal for the religion and his scholarly integrity—unlike some who scour the books for slips and odd opinions merely to justify reprehensible acts out of opposition to the Salafis.

As for the claim made by the saint venerators that the reason for demolition is merely to prevent crowding or constriction upon the people—this is refuted by the explicit words of al-Haytamī.

He states in al-Fatāwā al-Fiqhiyyah al-Kubrá:

لا يجوز على المعتمد بناء القبر في المقبرة المسبلة، سواء أظهر ببنيانه تضييقًا في الحال أم لا ، وهي التي اعتاد أهل البلد الدفن فيها وإن لم يعرف لها مسبل

“It is not permissible, according to the relied-upon opinion, to construct over a grave in an endowed cemetery, whether or not the construction visibly causes constriction at the time. This applies to cemeteries that the people of the town are accustomed to using for burial, even if there is no known endowment deed.”

Al-Haytamī even listed some practices related to graves among the major sins. He says in al-Zawājir:

الكبيرة الثالثة والرابعة والخامسة والسادسة والسابعة والثامنة والتسعون: اتخاذ القبور مساجد، وإيقاد السرج عليها، واتخاذها أوثانًا، والطواف بها، واستلامها، والصلاة إليها

“The ninety-third, ninety-fourth, ninety-fifth, ninety-sixth, ninety-seventh, and ninety-eighth major sins are: taking graves as places of worship, kindling lamps upon them, treating them as masjids, circumambulating them, touching them for blessing, and praying toward them...”

Al-Haytamī also says:

وأسباب الشرك الصلاة عندها واتخاذها مساجد أو بناؤها عليها. والقول بالكراهة محمول على غير ذلك ؛ إذ لا يُظن بالعلماء تجويز فعل تواتر عن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لعنُ فاعله، وتجب المبادرة لهدمها وهدم القباب التي على القبور، إذ هي أضر من مسجد الضرار

“The causes of shirk include praying at graves, taking them as places of worship, or constructing over them. The opinion that such acts are merely disliked applies to other contexts, for it is not conceivable that the scholars would permit an act for which it is mass-transmitted that the Prophet ﷺ cursed its doer. There must be prompt action to demolish such structures and the domes built over graves, for they are more harmful than the mosque of al-Ḍirār.”

Imām al-Damīrī, speaking about the Qarāfah of Egypt, said:

فمن المُسبل قرافة مصر؛ فإن ابن عبد الحكم ذكر في تاريخ مصر أن عمرو بن العاص أعطاه المقوقس فيها مالاً جزيلاً، وذكر أنه وجد في الكتاب الأول: أنها تربة الجنة، فكاتب عمر بن الخطاب في ذلك، فكتب إليه يقول: إني لا أعرف تربة الجنة إلا لأجساد المؤمنين، فاجعلها لموتاهم. وقد أفتى الشيخ بهاء الدين ابن الجميزي وتلميذه الظهير التزمنتي بهدم ما بُني بها

“Among the endowed lands is the Qarāfah of Egypt. Ibn ‘Abd al-Ḥakam mentioned in his History of Egypt that ‘Amr ibn al-‘Āṣ was given a large sum of money there by al-Muqawqis. He also mentioned that in the earlier record, it was described as ‘the soil of Paradise.’ So he wrote to ‘Umar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb about it, who replied: ‘I know no soil of Paradise except for the bodies of the believers—so designate it for their dead.’ Shaykh Bahā’ al-Dīn Ibn al-Jamīzī and his student al-Ẓahīr al-Tazmantī both issued fatwas for demolishing what had been built upon it.”

Ibn al-Nahhās al-Shāfiʿī said:

ومنها: البناء في المقبرة المُسبلة وقد تقدم أن ذلك حرامٌ يجب هدمه باتفاق العلماء، وأنه لا يُمكن أحد من البناء فيها... وأما البناء على القبر في غير المُسبلة فهو بدعة مكروهة. قال ابن بشير المالكي في كتابه: وليست القبور موضع زينة ولا مباهاة، ولهذا نهى عن بنائها على وجهٍ يقتضي المباهاة، والظاهر أنه يحرم مع هذا القصد، ووقع لمحمد بن حكم فيمن أوصى أن يُبنى على قبره أن تُبطل وصيته، ويُنهى عنها ابتداءً

“Among them is construction in endowed cemeteries, and it has already been mentioned that this is prohibited and must be demolished by consensus of the scholars and that no one should be allowed to build therein… As for building over a grave in a non-endowed area, it is an objectionable innovation. Ibn Bashīr al-Mālikī said in his book: Graves are not places for adornment or pride, and for this reason, building over them in a manner that implies ostentation is forbidden. It is apparent that if such a motive is present, then it is ḥarām. It was also reported from Muḥammad ibn Ḥakam regarding someone who bequeathed that a structure be built over his grave that the bequest must be invalidated and prohibited from the outset.”

He also said:

ومنها: ما يُفعل عند القبر كالصندوق والدربزين، وذلك بدعة مخالفة للسنة، وأكثر ما يفعلون ذلك في قبور الصالحين الذين هم أولى الناس باتباع السنة

“Among them is what is done at graves, such as boxes and railings; this is an innovation contrary to the Sunnah, and it is most often done at the graves of the righteous—who are the very people most deserving of adherence to the Sunnah.”

Al-ʿAllāmah al-Manāwī said in Fayḍ al-Qadīr:

فإن كان في مُسبلة أو موقوفة حرُم بناؤه، والبناء عليه، ووجب هدمه. قال ابن القيم: المساجد المبنية على القبور يجب هدمها حتى تسوى الأرض؛ إذ هي أولى بالهدم من الغاصب. وأفتى جمعٌ شافعيون بوجوب هدم كل بناءٍ بالقرافة، حتى قبة إمامنا الشافعي رضي الله عنه التي بناها بعض الملوك

“If it is in an endowed or waqf cemetery, then building it and building upon it is prohibited and must be demolished. Ibn al-Qayyim said: Masjids built over graves must be demolished until the ground is leveled, for they are more deserving of demolition than property seized unjustly. A group of Shāfiʿīs issued fatwas obligating the demolition of every structure in the Qarāfah, even the dome over our Imām al-Shāfiʿī—may Allah be pleased with him—which was built by one of the kings.”

From the totality of these citations, the following points become clear:

1. The construction of domes in endowed cemeteries is unanimously prohibited, and it is disliked in privately owned land according to the relied-upon position in the Shāfiʿī school.

2. There are scholars within the Shāfiʿī school, such as Imām al-Adhraʿī, who did not differentiate between endowed and private cemeteries in ruling it prohibited.

3. This difference of opinion has little practical bearing—as previously noted—because all the shrines of the righteous today are not located on privately owned land.

4. The rationale for demolition is not crowding or constriction, as claimed by the saint venerators. Nor is there any exception made for the graves of the righteous, according to the relied-upon opinion, as stated explicitly by al-Haytamī.

Yes, there were indeed some who diverged from this view with fringe opinions and objected to al-Haytamī among the marginal commentators (aṣḥāb al-ḥawāshī) from very late periods. However, they were refuted by their contemporaries—also among the marginal commentators—and we will present their peers’ responses in upcoming sections, Allah willing.

Part Three: Citing the Statements of Some Jurists to Justify Vows Made to the Graves of the Righteous

Opponents—as well as some later scholars who objected to the daʿwah of Shaykh Muḥammad ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb—have claimed that certain jurists permit making vows (nadhr) to the persons of the saints and do not consider it major shirk. They have also cited a statement by Ibn Taymiyyah in which he views vows made to graves as a sin and minor shirk, which led them to believe that he did not regard it as major shirk.

However, this is a misinterpretation of the statements of those jurists—indeed, a distortion of their words—for there are two distinct types of vows:

The first type is a vow made to the grave’s inhabitant or as an act of veneration toward the grave. This constitutes major shirk, and Ibn Taymiyyah explicitly stated that the one who does so has apostatized—as will be shown.

The second type is a vow directed toward matters related to the grave or site itself, such as lighting it or similar acts. This type is considered a sin and an innovation by Ibn Taymiyyah, while some jurists permitted it.

This issue has even caused confusion among some Salafis—some of whom took a lenient view and assumed the matter to be one of legitimate scholarly disagreement or ambiguity, while others thought that the jurists had fallen into major shirk. But neither of these assumptions is correct.

The clarification is as follows:

When someone says, “I made a vow to the site,” or “to the grave,” the preposition “to” (lām) may be understood as referring to the interests of the site or to the poor associated with that location—similar to saying, “I made a vow to the village,” meaning: for the benefit of the village. Or, “I made a vow to the masjid,” meaning: for the maintenance or needs of the masjid.

This does not imply belief in lordship (rubūbiyyah)—as some have misunderstood.

Linguistically, the phrasing is sound, and the error lies only in the leniency of certain jurists, who failed to consider that the general public often intends something else entirely, as al-Adhraʿī pointed out (his statement will be cited later).

However, this leniency occurred in their time according to the prevailing custom—during an era of doctrinal purity—when rulers would take care of certain graves in the Qarāfah to facilitate legitimate visitation. They would allocate funds or oil for cleaning the site, lighting it, or feeding the poor. As a result, some jurists began to categorize such acts alongside those who make vows to masjids or for hospitality and similar causes.

What follows is a clarification of Ibn Taymiyyah’s and the jurists’ position, clearing them of the misinterpretations made of their words:

First: The text cited by those who claim permissibility actually states: Whoever vows oil, wax, gold, or silver to be placed at the grave of a prophet or a saint, then his vow is a sin, and it is not permissible to fulfill it. The scholars differed on whether he must offer an expiation equivalent to breaking an oath.

Opponents of the call to tawḥīd have cited this passage—including Ibn Dāwūd in al-Ṣawā‘iq wal-Ru‘ūd, and Sulaymān ibn ʿAbd al-Wahhāb in al-Ṣawā‘iq al-Ilāhiyyah—to claim that Ibn Taymiyyah considered making vows to the saints to be minor shirk, akin to showing off (riyā’), and not major shirk.

However, Shaykh al-Islām says elsewhere:

من ينذر لميت من الأنبياء والمشايخ كمن نذر للشيخ جاكير وأبي الوفاء أو المنتظر، أو الست نفيسة... إلى أن قال: ولا يجوز أن يُعبد الله إلا بما شرع. فمن نذر لغير الله فهو مُشركٌ أعظم من شرك الحلف بغير الله، وهو كالسجود لغير الله

“Whoever makes a vow to a deceased person from among the prophets or shaykhs, such as making a vow to Shaykh Jākir, Abū al-Wafā’, the Awaited One, or al-Sitt Nafīsa…[he says later:] It is not permissible to worship Allah except by what He has legislated. So whoever makes a vow to other than Allah is a mushrik—more severely than one who swears by other than Allah. It is like prostrating to other than Allah.”

He also says:

فإن العبادة لغير الله أعظم كفرًا من الاستعانة بغير الله، فلو ذبح لغير الله متقربًا به إليه لحرم، وإن قال فيه بسم الله، كما قد يفعله طائفة من منافقي هذه الأمة، وإن كان هؤلاء مرتدين لا تُباح ذبائحهم بحال

“Worship directed to other than Allah is greater disbelief than seeking assistance from other than Allah. So if someone were to slaughter an animal for other than Allah, intending thereby to draw near [to the recipient], it would be unlawful—even if he said over it ‘In the name of Allah’—as some hypocrites in this ummah do. If such people are apostates, then their slaughtered meat is not lawful under any circumstance.”

Reflect on Ibn Taymiyyah’s statement: “If such people are apostates, then their slaughtered meat is not lawful under any circumstance.”

It was incumbent upon the opponents to gather all of Ibn Taymiyyah’s statements on the issue before forming a conclusion.

Second: The Intent of Some Shāfiʿī Jurists Regarding Vows to Graves

As for the Shāfiʿī jurists from whom statements were reported permitting vows to saints’ graves, their intent differed from how some contemporaries have understood it. They disapproved of making vows as an act of devotion to the saint; rather, they permitted vows made for the interests of the grave site or for the benefit of the poor residing nearby.

Some people would say, “I have made a vow to the site,” meaning: for the interests of the location—just as one might say, “I have made a vow to the village,” meaning: I will distribute meat to its inhabitants—not as an act of devotion to the village itself.

However, since such vows became a means leading to shirk and a source of confusion for the general public, some of the verifying scholars declared the vows of the common people to be entirely invalid—such as Imām al-Adhraʿī, one of the independent jurists of the Shāfiʿī school. He said in Qūt al-Muḥtāj fī Sharḥ al-Minhāj:

أما النذور للمشاهد التي بُنيت على قبر ولي أو شيخ، فإن قصد بها—وهو الغالب من العامة—تعظيم البقعة أو القبر أو التقرب إلى من دُفن فيها، فهذا نذر باطل غير منعقد، فإنهم يعتقدون أن لهذه الأماكن خصوصيات لا تُفهم، ويرون أن النذر لها مما يدفع البلاء، ويستجلب به النماء، ويُستشفى به من الأدواء... فهذا الفعل من البدع الفاحشة التي عمت بها البلوى، وفيها مضاهاة اليهود والنصارى الذين لُعنوا في الحديث الصحيح على تعاطيهم ذلك على قبور أنبيائهم

“As for the vows made to shrines that have been built over the grave of a saint or shaykh: if the intent behind them—which is most often the case with the general public—is to venerate the site or the grave, or to seek nearness to the one buried therein, then such a vow is invalid and non-binding. This is because they believe these places possess hidden special qualities that cannot be comprehended. They assume that making vows to them repels harm, brings prosperity, and brings healing from illnesses…This practice is among the heinous innovations that have become widespread, and it resembles the practices of the Jews and Christians, who were cursed in the authentic ḥadīth for doing so at the graves of their prophets.”

Al-Adhraʿī was among the foremost students of Taqī al-Dīn al-Subkī, which demonstrates that this issue is not exclusive to Ibn Taymiyyah.

Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī also transmitted al-Adhraʿī’s statement and affirmed it, then added:

لأن القُرب إنما يُتقرب بها إلى الله تعالى لا إلى خلقه، على أن محل هذا كله حيث لا عُرف مطرد في زمن الناذر

“For acts of devotion are to be directed only to Allah, not to His creation. All of this applies where there is no firmly established custom at the time of the one making the vow.”

Reflect on al-Haytamī’s description that the reason for invalidating the vow is that it constitutes an act of devotion—‘ibādah—which refutes the saint venerator’s claim that it is not shirk.

Al-Haytamī further clarified that the issue ultimately relates to linguistic convention. The jurists intended by such vows acts of service for the site or for the poor—not for the person buried in the grave.

Indeed, there is no doubt that the jurists who accepted such vows—based on this linguistic interpretation—were lenient. However, the point is to clear them of the claims falsely attributed to them by the pseudo-Sufis.

The Endorsement of al-Adhraʿī’s View Among Later Scholars:

The correct position is that of al-Adhraʿī and those scholars who agreed with him, because it aligns with the reality of the people: it is extremely difficult for the general public to distinguish between a vow made for the interests of a grave and one made to the occupant of the grave himself.

The verifying Shāfiʿī scholar Abū Bakr al-Khaṭīb al-Ḥaḍramī also supported this view. He said:

وأنت خبير بأن العامي الجاهل الصرف يخفى عليه ملاحظة أن هذا التصدق لا يُعتقد إلا في القُرب، ومعرفة ما هو قربة، فليتنبه لما يجيئون به للولي أو قبره أو مشهده وهو ميت، فإن الغالب أنهم يقصدون به تعظيم ذات الولي أو قبره أو مشهده، وذلك باطل

“You are well aware that the pure, ignorant layperson is unaware that such acts of charity are not valid unless they are made with the understanding that they are acts of devotion and that he must know what constitutes a devotional act. So let one be alert to what people bring to the saint, or to his grave or shrine, while he is deceased—for in most cases, they intend thereby to venerate the person of the saint, his grave, or his shrine. This is invalid.”

Al-Bujayrimī likewise affirmed al-Adhraʿī’s view. In his marginal gloss on al-Khaṭīb al-Shirbīnī’s commentary, where the latter states: “The vow is valid if it is intended for the mosque or other such purposes…,” al-Bujayrimī adds:

وإن قصد به—وهو الغالب من العامة—تعظيم البقعة أو القبر أو التقرب إلى من دُفن فيها، فهذا نذر باطل غير منعقد، فإنهم يعتقدون أن لهذه الأماكن خصوصيات لا تُفهم، ويرون أن النذر لها مما يدفع البلاء

“But if the intent—which is the prevailing one among the general public—is to venerate the site or the grave or to seek nearness to the buried one, then such a vow is invalid and non-binding. They believe these places have hidden special qualities and consider that making vows to them wards off calamities.”

Al-Bujayrimī inserted the words of al-Adhraʿī into his gloss for the purpose of clarification, without explicitly attributing them to him—indicating that he accepted his statement.

Al-Bujayrimī’s marginalia are relied upon by the later Shāfiʿī scholars. So, reflect on this.

Recommended Reading:

Ibadah Discourse