Did Abdul-Mâlik Build the Dome of the Rock
to Shift
the Hajj from Mecca to Jerusalem?
by Hesham Azmy
This
article is a translated adaptation from Dr. Mustafa As-Siba'i,
"As-Sunnah
wa makanatuha fe At-Tashri' Al-Islami"
Published
March, 30th, 2003
The Jewish Orientalist Goldziher claimed that the Umayyad Caliph Abdul-Malik Ibn Marawan built Dome of the Rock to prevent people of Syria and Iraq from pilgrimage to Mecca, and in order to religiously justify this act, his friend Al-Zuhri fabricated the hadith of “Do not set out on a journey …….”. Goldziher wrote in his book “Muslim Studies”,
When the Umayyad Caliph 'Abd al-Mâlik wished the stop the pilgrimages to Mecca because he was worried lest his rival 'Abd Allâh b. Zubayr should force the Syrians journeying to the holy places in Hijâz to pay him homage, he had to recourse to the expedient of the doctrine of the vicarious hajj to the Qubbat al-Sakhra in Jerusalem. He decreed that the obligatory circumambulation (tawâf) could take place at the sacred place in Jerusalem with the same validity as that around the Ka'ba ordained in Islamic Law. The pious theologian al-Zuhrî was given the task of justifying this politically motivated reform of religious life by making up and spreading a saying traced back to the Prophet, according to which there are three mosques to which people may make pilgrimages: those in Mecca, Medina and Jerusalem.This is indeed one of wonders of forgery, distortion and manipulation of historical facts.
(Goldziher, Muslim Studies, Volume 2, pages 44-45)
First: Trustworthy historians did not disagree concerning the fact that the one who built Dome of the Rock was Al-Walid Ibn Abdul-Malik, this was stated by Ibn ‘Asaker, At-Tabari, Ibn-ul-Athir, Ibn Khaldun, Ibn Kathir and others. They never mentioned a single report relating its building to Abdul-Malik. Undoubtedly, its building –as Goldziher claimed- to be the new Ka’bah would be one of the greatest and most significant events in the history of Islam and Muslims, and it is impossible for such event to pass without documentation especially those historians used to document far less significant events like dates of scholars’ demise, names of official judges, etc.. If Abdul-Malik built it, they would mention it, but they mentioned its building in the biography of Al-Walid, and they were trustworthy historians and well-versed in documenting history. Yes, it was mentioned in the book of “Al-Hayawan” by Al-Dumairy on authority of Ibn Khalakan that Abdul-Malik built the Dome, the text reads,
Abdul-Malik built it and people used to stand at it on the Day of ‘Arafat.But this is a weak report and contradicts what is agreed upon by masters of history. Moreover, the text does not imply that he built it to divert pilgrimage from Mecca; but people used to stand at it by themselves. This was a common practice in many Islamic cities whom scholars repetitively discouraged. There is a big different between pilgrimage to it and standing at it simulating standing of pilgrims on ‘Arafat in order that those who couldn’t perform pilgrimage may share the pilgrims in heavenly rewards. This practice was not confined to Dome of the Rock; people of every Islamic city used to gather in the middle of the city and stand as pilgrims do on ‘Arafat.
Secondly: The exact text of the hadith does not include the word “pilgrimage” (in Arabic Al-Hajj) at all. It actually reads,
“Do not set out on a journey except to three Mosques: Al-Masjid Al-Haram, the Mosque of God’s Apostle and the Mosque of Al-Aqsa (Jerusalem)”.It does not invite people to perform pilgrimage to Jerusalem, but Mr. Goldziher transmitted the hadith as,
“three Mosques to which people may make pilgrimage”.This is indeed the scientific honesty and scientific research!!! Even if we supposed that Al-Zuhri fabricated this hadith to please Abdul-Malik, then why did not he explicitly invite people to perform pilgrimage in Jerusalem?! This hadith does none but indicate the virtues of Jerusalem, praying and visiting it not limited with a certain time which is already stated by the Qur’an (Confer the Holy Qur’an 17:1). So, how the purpose of Abdul-Malik (of diverting pilgrimage from Mecca to Jerusalem) could be achieved by the aid of this hadith?!!
Thirdly: The incident as claimed by Goldziher
is totally irrational, because establishing a building to make people perform
pilgrimage to is an overt act of disbelief. So, how could Abdul-Malik -
who used to be called “Pigeon of the Mosque” for his excessive praying
- do such an act?!
In addition, his enemies accused him of many awful things, but
they neither accused him of disbelief nor slandered him for building the
Dome. If this matter were established, they would put it first in the list
of accusations.
Fourthly: Al-Zuhri was born in 51 or 58 A.H., while Abdullah Ibn-ul-Zubair was killed in 73 A.H. So, Al-Zuhri then would be 22 or 15 years old. Is it possible for him at that age to be so reputable among Muslim nation that they accept from him a fabricated hadith inviting them to pilgrimage in Jerusalem instead of Mecca?!!
Fifthly: Historical reports are clear concerning the fact that Al-Zuhri neither knew nor met Abdul-Malik during Ibn-ul-Zubair’s lifetime. Al-Zahabi mentioned that Al-Zuhri visited Abdul-Malik for the first time in about 80 A.H. (Ibn ‘Asaker reported that it was in 82 A.H.) and he was so young that Abdul-Malik tested him and advised him to seek knowledge in Madinah. So how could anyone claim that Al-Zuhri fulfilled the desire of his friend Abdul-Malik and fabricated a hadith to divert pilgrimage from Mecca to Jerusalem during the era of Ibn-ul-Zubair?!!
Sixthly: The hadith of “Do not set out on
a journey ……..” was narrated by all references of Sunnah, and it is reported
through chains of transmitters other than Al-Zuhri’s. Imam Al-Bukhari reported
it on authority of Abu Sa’eed Al-Khidri without Al-Zuhri’s chain. Imam
Muslim reported it from three different chains of transmitters, only one
of them was through Al-Zuhri. So, Al-Zuhri was not the only one who transmitted
this hadith as Goldziher claimed, but there were others who shared him
as shown above.
When Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah was asked about the ruling
of visiting and praying in Jerusalem, he answered,
It is established in both Sahihs that the Prophet (peace be upon him) said, “Do not set out on a journey except to three Mosques: Al-Masjid Al-Haram, the Mosque of God’s Apostle and the Mosque of Al-Aqsa (Jerusalem)”. It is stated in both Sahihs on authority of Abu Sa’eed, Abu Hurairah and others. It is an acceptable hadith whom scholars agreed upon its authenticity, acceptance and belief.Seventhly: Al-Zuhri narrated this hadith on authority of his Sheikh Sa’eed Ibn-ul-Musaiyyb, and it is well-known that Ibn-ul-Musaiyyb would never stay silent if Al-Zuhri fabricated this hadith on his authority to please the Umayyads who hurt and persecuted him. Sa’eed Ibn-ul-Musayyib died in 93 A.H. i.e., 20 years after death of Ibn-ul-Zubair, so how would he keep silent all this period especially we knew he never feared power or pressure?!!
Appendix 1: Position of Al-Zuhri as a Scholar:
Ibn Sa’d, the author of “Al-Tabaqat”, said,
Al-Zuhri is trustworthy, well-versed in science, Hadith and narration and a collective theologian.Imam Ahmed said,
Al-Zuhri is the best man in Hadith and of the best chain of reporters.Ibn Abi Hatem said,
Abu Zar’ah was asked, “Which chains of reporters are most authentic?” he answered, “Four! The first is that of Al-Zuhri on authority of Salem on authority of his father”.Ibn Habban said in his book “Ath-Theqat” (i.e., The Trustworthy),
Muhammad Ibn Muslim Ibn Shehab Al-Zuhri Al-Qurashi: his nickname is Abu Bakr, he witnessed ten of the Companions and was the best memorizer (of Hadith) in his time and the best narrator of texts. He was a pious theologian. People used to report on his authority.Saleh Ibn Ahmed said,
My father told me, “Al-Zuhri is Madani (i.e., from Madinah), Tab’i (i.e., a disciple of Prophet’s Companions) and trustworthy".Az-Zahabi in “Tathkerat-ul-Huffaz” (i.e., The Reminder of Memorizers) said,
He is the master of memorizers (of Hadith), the Imam, the Rock.Ibn Hajar in “Tahzib-ul-Tahzib” (i.e., Refining of the Refined) said,
He is Abu Bakr, the jurist, the memorizer (of Hadith), the Madani (i.e., from Madinah), one of Imams and masters and the scholar of Hijaz and Sham.Ibn Hajar also said in “At-Taqrib” (i.e., The Approximation),
He is the authoritative theologian and the memorizer (of Hadith). It is agreed upon his magnificence and excellence.Reporters of Hadith scholars and critics agreed upon his authenticity and honesty. Many people narrated on his authority e.g., Malek, Abu Hanifah, ‘Ataa Ibn Abi Rabah, ‘Umar Ibn Abdul-‘Aziz, Ibn ‘Aiyynah, Al-Laith Ibn Sa’d, Al-Awza’i, Ibn Guraig, …etc.. Both Sahihs of Al-Bukhari and Muslim, the four Sunans, Muwatta of Malek, Musnads of Ash-Shaf’i and Ahmed and others included hadiths on his authority.
This is the position of Al-Zuhri as a scholar and this is the opinion of Muslim scholars about him; none accused him of something that did not happen nor doubted his honesty and truthfulness. But Goldziher, the Jewish Orientalist, was ready to accuse him of fabricating hadith and telling lies just to please the Ummayad Caliph!
Appendix 2: The Relationship between Al-Zuhri and The Umayyads:
Mr. Goldziher claimed that the relationship between Al-Zuhri and the Ummayd Caliphs gave them the change to use him in fabricating hadiths that serve their desires. We do not see how this relationship could be a sign of using him. We used to see scientists and scholars close to Kings and Caliphs without this affecting their honesty and truthfulness especially a magnificent theologian like Al-Zuhri, there is none that might affect his honesty and piety. On the contrary, we find this relationship was a means to guide Caliphs whenever they went wrong. For example, it is mentioned in “Al-‘Uqd-ul-Farid”,
Al-Zuhri once visited Al-Walid Ibn Abdul-Malik, so the latter said, “What about this hadith whom people of Syria narrate?”Look how the relationship between a man like Al-Zuhri and a Caliph like Al-Walid is beneficial to the nation! Is this the position of a man who submits to desires of rulers and Caliphs?! On the contrary, he defends the Faith, protects the Sunnah from falsehood of forgers and prevents the Caliph from being misguided by false narratives.
-“Which hadith, o Commander of Believers?” Al-Zuhri said
-“They narrate that if God gives a servant kingship over his people, He documents for him the good deeds and not the bad deeds!” Al-Walid said
-“False, o Commander of Believers! A Prophet Caliph or a Caliph not Prophet is more honourable in the sight of God?” Al-Zuhri said
-“A Prophet Caliph.” Al-Walid said
-“Well, God (glory be to Him) said to His Prophet David, “O David! We did indeed make thee a Caliph on earth: so judge thou between men in truth (and justice): nor follow thou the lusts (of thy heart), for they will mislead thee from the Path of God: for those who wander astray from the Path of God, is a Penalty Grievous, for that they forget the Day of Account.” (Holy Qur’an 38:26). This is a threat –o Commander of Believers- to a Prophet Caliph, what about a Caliph not Prophet?” Al-Zuhri said
-“People do misguide us away from Faith.” Al-Walid said
(Ibn Abd-Rabbuh, Al-‘Uqd-ul-Farid, Volume 1, page 60).
Then look what Ibn ‘Asaker narrates in his book “Tarikh Demashq” (i.e., The History of Damascus) on authority of Imam Ash-Shaf’i,
The Caliph Hesham Ibn Abdul-Malik asked Ibn Shehab Al-Zuhri about the exegesis of “… and to him who took on himself the lead among them, will be a Penalty grievous.” (Holy Qur’an 24:11).This is what Ash-Shaf’i documented more than 8 centuries ago, before Mr. Goldziher came to existence and accused Al-Zuhri of forgery due to his relationship with Caliphs. Is not this story an enough proof that his relationship with Caliphs was far from affecting his honesty and piety. A man saying to the Caliph, “No father is yours!” which is a very derogatory expression is certainly not a man that may fear the power of the Caliphs or submit to their whims and desires to utter falsehood against the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him).
-“Who took on himself the lead among them?” Hesham asked
-“He is Abdullah Ibn Saloul.” Al-Zuhri answered
-“Liar! Nay, he is Ali Ibn Abi Taleb.” Hesham said
-“I’m a liar?! No father is yours! I swear by God if a caller from the sky told me that God made lying lawful, I would never lie. Such-and-such persons reported that the one who took on himself the lead among them is Abdullah Ibn Saloul.” Al-Zuhri said while filled with fury.
If Al-Zuhri were really a forger of Hadith, then why did not
his contemporaries denounce or criticize him? Why did not his Sheikh (teacher)
Sa’eed Ibn-ul-Musayyib - who never feared the power of the Umayyads - denounce
him? On the contrary, all his contemporaries authenticated him. Was that
out of fear? If so, then why did not scholars during the era of ‘Abbasids
criticize him especially he was close to the Umayyads?!
Aren’t the silence of his teachers - especially Sa’eed Ibn-ul-Musayyib
- toward him, reporting on his authorityy by all scholars of the time, then
his authentication by scholars of the ‘Abbasids’ era - despite his relationship
with the Umayyads - evident proofs that his reputation is above suspicion?
And God knows best.