Al-Kahf: (21) "And likewise, We caused them to be discovered..."
Then the youths sent one of their number—and it was, according to more than one report, Yamlikha. What happened thereafter is what Allah Almighty pointed to with His saying, "And likewise, We caused them to be discovered," meaning: just as We caused them to sleep and then awakened them. The reference is to both the sleeping and the awakening, with the singular pronoun being used in consideration of what was mentioned and the like.
Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam said in his Amali: The reference is to the specific awakening—that is, the awakening after that long sleep. The root of al-uthur (discovery/stumbling), as Al-Raghib stated, is falling upon one’s face. It is said, "He stumbled (athara) a stumbling (uthuran/itharan)" when he falls on his face; hence the proverb, "A thoroughbred rarely stumbles," and the saying, "He who walks on a leveled path is safe from stumbling." Then it was metaphorically applied to becoming informed of a matter without having sought it.
Imam al-Mutarrizi said: Since every person who stumbles looks at the place where he stumbled, al-uthur was used to mean gaining knowledge and awareness. In this, it is a well-known metaphor based on the relation of causality, even if the mention of it by lexicographers suggests it is literal. Al-Ghawri considered it literal for becoming informed of a matter that was hidden, leaving the metaphorical aspect as it is.
The first object of "We caused to be discovered" is omitted for the sake of generalization, meaning: "Likewise, We made people aware of them." Abu Hayyan said: The people of their city, "so that they might know"—that is, those whom We made aware of them, through witnessing their extraordinary conditions—"that the promise of Allah is true," meaning His promise, may He be exalted, regarding the Resurrection. This is provided the promise is understood in its verbal-noun sense and its object is implied, or that it refers to what He has promised—namely, the Resurrection—with the verbal noun being interpreted as the passive participle. It is also permissible that it refers to all of His promises or all that He has promised, with the mentioned case being included primarily.
"Is true" means: truthful, with no falsehood in it, or established and certain to occur, inevitably. It is said that this is because their long, unconventional sleep and their awakening were like death and resurrection.
"And that the Hour"—that is, the Resurrection, which in the language of the Sharia is an expression for the time when all creatures are raised for reckoning and recompense—"is no doubt in it." That is, one should not doubt the possibility of its occurrence now, because for those who doubt it, after examination and investigation, there remains nothing to rely upon except the reliance on the [fact of] improbability. Their knowledge of the occurrence of this strange affair and wondrous state—which, if they had heard of it without verifying its occurrence, they would have deemed improbable and doubted just as they doubt the Hour—breaks the power of that improbability and demolishes that reliance. Therefore, they should not doubt.
Some verifiers said, regarding the explanation of the link between the knowledge mentioned and the discovery: "Whoever witnesses that He, Majestic is His Grace, took their souls and withheld them for three hundred years or more, preserving their bodies from decay and disintegration, and then sent their souls back to them, will not have a shred of doubt remaining that His promise is true, and that He will resurrect those in the graves, returning their souls to them so that He may reckon with them and reward them according to their deeds."
You know that deriving knowledge of reckoning and recompense from discovering the state of the people involves a degree of deliberation. It was objected that the requirement for the Resurrection is the restoration of bodies after their parts have scattered, whereas the story involves the long preservation of bodies—so how does this compare to that? The claim that "whenever the long preservation of bodies needing food and drink is proven, the power of the Almighty to restore them after the scattering of their parts is proven a fortiori" is not universally accepted. It was answered that the mentioned long preservation indicates His power over what was mentioned by way of inference; let this be pondered.
Perhaps the most apparent way to explain the sequence is what was mentioned first. It is clarified as follows: The state of the youths—as they slept for that extended period and those numerous years, their souls withheld from action, their senses and perceptions suspended without the release of vapors from food and drink, nor the onset of illnesses or diseases, their bodies preserved from decay and disintegration, and kept in their original state of freshness and youth as in previous years—until their senses and perceptions returned to their state, their souls were released from their restraints and sent to manage their bodies and engage their servants and helpers. They saw the matter as it was; the helpers were the same helpers. They did not deny anything they had known in their city, and they did not remember their long imprisonment from action in the seat of their authority. This, compared to the state of those who rise from their graves after their perceptions have ceased and their souls have been withheld, then, upon being released, find dwellings inhabited and houses as if they had never been ruined, saying before suffering the pangs of death: "Who has raised us from our sleeping place?"—in terms of strangeness, it is from the same category. Only an ignorant or obstinate person would deny this. The occurrence of the first [event] removes the doubt concerning the possibility of the second, since it was based in reality on improbability, as you heard previously, due to the invalidation of the arguments of those who deny physical resurrection.
Yes, there is hiddenness in the sequence of knowledge that the Resurrection will occur inevitably upon the mere discovery of the state of the youths. The obvious conclusion is that such knowledge results from the information of the Truthful One regarding its occurrence and from its possibility in itself. However, since the aforementioned discovery was a cause for knowledge of possibility, and was like the final part of the cause for the disbelievers who had received the report of the Truthful One, it was said that knowledge of it resulted from it. Likewise, there is hiddenness in the sequence of knowledge that everything Allah promised is true upon the mere discovery. I have not seen any of the eminent scholars attempt to explain this, so reflect on it.
It is clear that the mention of His saying, "And that the Hour is no doubt in it," after His saying, "that the promise of Allah is true," according to the interpretation you have heard, is beyond reproach. This is not a case of mentioning possibility after occurrence in order to make it [the occurrence] seem more precious, as some have claimed. Some have said: The appearance is that His saying, "that the promise of Allah is true," means everything He, Glory be to Him, promised is realized, and He makes His saying, "and that the Hour is no doubt in it," a specification after a generalization, in the sense that there is no doubt in its realization. This is a possibility in the verse, but there is room for debate regarding the claim of its "appearance," so do not be negligent.
"When they dispute"—this is a circumstantial clause for "We caused them to be discovered." It was placed before the goal (the discovery) to show the completeness of the care in mentioning it. Abu Hayyan, Abu al-Baqa, and others permitted it to be a circumstantial clause for "so that they might know," but this was countered by the fact that it implies the dispute happens after the discovery, whereas this is not the case; and by the fact that the dispute existed before the knowledge and was ended by it, so how could its time be the time [of the discovery]? There is room for debate on this.
It was permitted to be a circumstantial clause for "true" or for "promise," and this is as you see. The root of al-tanazu' is mutual pulling; it is used for contention/quarrelling. In terms of its original meaning, it is transitive by itself; in terms of contention, it is transitive with fi (in), as in His saying, "If you dispute over a matter."
The pronoun in "they dispute" refers to the same people to whom the pronoun in "so that they might know" returned; that is, "Likewise, We caused the people, or the inhabitants of their city, to discover the companions of the Cave while they were disputing among themselves about their affair," contending over it so that the disagreement might be lifted and the truth be made clear. The pronoun in "their affair" also returns, it is said, to the object of "We caused to discover," and the affair meant is the Resurrection. The significance of attributing it to them is their interest in its concern and their standing upon the reality of its state.
They differed about it: some affirmed it, some denied it, some said souls are resurrected without bodies, and others said both are resurrected together, which is the correct school of thought among Muslims. It is narrated that after Allah Almighty struck upon the ears of the youths and a long time passed, none of their people—from whom they had secluded themselves—remained, and others had come. Their king was a Muslim, but the people of his kingdom differed on the issue of Resurrection, as detailed. This troubled the king, so he went out, wore haircloth, and sat in ashes. Then he prayed to Allah the Mighty and Majestic and said: "My Lord, You see the difference of these people; send them a sign that will make it clear to them."
Allah Almighty appointed a shepherd who had been caught in the rain. He kept working on what Decius had used to seal the door of the Cave until he opened it and drove his flock inside. The next day, they were awakened from their sleep, and they sent one of them to buy food. He entered the market and began to find the faces unrecognizable and the roads unknown. He saw faith manifest in the city, so he went out, hiding, until he saw a man from whom he bought food. When he looked at the coins, he did not recognize them, as they were of Decius's mint, looking like the skins of a quarter. He accused him of having a treasure and said: "You must show me where it is, or I will take you to the king." He replied: "These are from the mint of the king. Is your king not so-and-so?" The man said: "No, our king is so-and-so," and his name was Indosis. People gathered and took him to the king, while he was afraid. The king asked him about his situation, and he told him the story.
The king had heard that youths had gone out during the time of Decius. He called the elders of his city, and among them was a man who possessed their names and genealogies. He asked him, and he told him about it. He asked the youth, and he said: "He spoke the truth." Then the king said: "O people, this is a sign that Allah Almighty has sent to you." Then he went out, along with the inhabitants of the city, and the youth with them. When the king saw the youths, he embraced them and rejoiced for them. He saw them sitting, their faces radiant, their clothes not worn. They spoke with him and told him what they had encountered from Decius. While they were before him, they said to him: "We entrust you to Allah Almighty, and may peace, and the mercy of Allah Almighty be upon you. May Allah Almighty protect you and protect your kingdom, and we seek refuge in Allah from the evil of the jinn and men."
Then they returned to their sleeping places, and Allah Almighty took their souls. The king stood by them and placed his garments over them, and commanded that each one of them be placed in a coffin of gold. When night came and he slept, they came to him in a dream and said: "You intended to place each of us in a coffin of gold, but do not do so. Leave us in our Cave; from the dust we were created, and to it we return." So he placed them in coffins of teak and built a mosque at the door of the Cave.
It is narrated that when the youth was brought to the king, he said: "Who are you?" He said: "I am a man from the people of this city," and he mentioned that he had left yesterday or a few days ago, and he mentioned his house and people whom no one knew. The king had heard that youths had been lost in the early times and that their names were written on a tablet in the treasury. He called for the tablet, looked at their names, and found he was one of those people. The youth said: "These are my companions." The people and those with him rode out. When they reached the door of the Cave, the youth said: "Leave me so that I may enter to my companions and bring them the good news, for if they see you with me, they will be terrified." He entered and gave them the good news, and Allah Almighty took their souls. The trace of them was hidden from the king and those with him, and they could not find them, so they built a mosque over them. Their standing upon their state was through the information of the youth, and they relied upon their truthfulness; this is the meaning of "causing them to be discovered."
Other versions are narrated. It is said: The pronoun "their affair" refers to the youths, and the affair refers to the situation and condition that existed before the discovery—meaning, "Likewise, We caused people to discover the companions of the Cave while they were discussing their affair among themselves and what happened to them during the time of the tyrannical king, of conditions and horrors." Perhaps they had received this from myths and the mouths of men, but they did not know whether they remained alive or if destruction had befallen them.
The fa (so) in His saying, "So they said, 'Build'," based on the first view, is eloquent without doubt, according to the etiquette of Quranic abbreviations, as if it were said: "And likewise, We caused people to discover the companions of the Cave while they were disputing the matter of Resurrection, so they verified it and knew that these were a sign of Our signs, then Allah took their souls after the purpose of the discovery was achieved, so they said, 'Build'..." and so on. Similarly, according to the second view, it is as if it were said: "And likewise, We caused people to discover the companions of the Cave while they were discussing their affair and what had happened to them in the time of the tyrannical king, and they did not know what state they were in, so they stood upon their states, and what they had been ignorant of became clear to them, then Allah took their souls after the purpose of the discovery was achieved, so they said, 'Build'..."—that is, some of them said, "Build over them"—that is, over the door of their cave—"a structure." It is in the accusative as a direct object. This is as Al-Raghib said, and it is singular, having no plural. Abu al-Baqa said: It is the plural of bunyana, like sha'ir and sha'ira. It is also said it is in the accusative as a verbal noun. This saying from "some" was, according to some, out of concern for the youths, for they were stingy with their soil, so they requested a building at the door of their cave so that people would not interfere with them.
They permitted, in His saying, "Their Lord is most knowing of them"—after saying it is an interpolation—that it could be from the speech of the disputing discoverers. It is as if they discussed their affair and passed speech among themselves regarding their lineage, their conditions, and the duration of their stay. When they could not be guided to the reality of that, they delegated the knowledge to Allah, the Knower of the unseen. It could also be from the speech of Him, Glory be to Him, as a refutation of those delving into their affair—either from the discoverers or from those who lived in the time of the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace—in which case it would be an iltifat (shift in person) according to one of the schools.
It is said: The pronoun "their affair" refers to the youths, and the affair meant is the state and condition after the discovery, meaning: "When they dispute among themselves the management of their affair and their state when they died: how to act regarding them and how to elevate their status?" Or: "When they dispute among themselves their affair regarding death and life," as it became light for them after the discovery and they did not know whether they had died or slept as in the first time. On this, "when" (idh) would be acting upon an implied verb, or a circumstance for His saying, "Those who prevailed in their affair said: 'We will surely build a mosque over them'," and His saying "So they said" would be conjoined to "they dispute." The preference for the past tense is to indicate that this saying is not something that continues and renews like the dispute.
Some eminent scholars stated that the fa on the first two meanings is for immediate sequence, and on the second, it is eloquent. It is as if it were said: "Remember when they dispute whether they died or slept, then they finished the dispute regarding that and became concerned with elevating their status and making their affair famous, so they said, 'Build'..." and so on. Al-Zamakhshari mentioned the possibility that the pronoun "their affair" belongs to the discoverers, and that the meaning of "their affair" is the affair of their religion, which is the Resurrection; and the possibility that the pronoun belongs to the youths, and the meaning then is: when people discuss among themselves the affair of the companions of the Cave and talk about their story and the sign Allah manifested in them; or when they dispute among themselves the management of their affair when they died: how to hide their place and how to block the path to them. He made "when" in these aspects a circumstance for "We caused to discover."
The author of al-Kashf stated that the fa on the first is inevitably eloquent, and on the other two it is for immediate sequence. As for the second of them, it is clear. As for the first of them, it is because when they discussed their story and their condition and the sign Allah manifested in them, they said: "Leave that, and build over them a structure," meaning: "Take to what is more important," until the end of what he said. The possibility of making the fa eloquent on this first is not far-fetched. The connection of the circumstance to "We caused to discover" on the other two views, and likewise on what we quoted just now, is nothing, because their discovery is not at the time of the dispute in what was mentioned, but before it. Making the time of the dispute extended, occurring in part of it the discovery and in another part the dispute, is forced, as is clear, while there is nothing to justify adding it to the dispute, which is delayed in occurrence.
It is related in Al-Bahr that the pronoun in "so that they might know" returns to the companions of the Cave, and the meaning is: We caused them to be discovered so that they [the people] might increase in knowledge that the promise of Allah is true, etc. He made this the goal of the discovery through their standing, because of it, upon the duration of their stay, by what they verified of the changing of the centuries. He made "when they dispute" in this a beginning of a report about the people who were raised in their time, and he specified the disputed affair as the matter of the building and the mosque. He chooses, in this case, for the circumstance to be attached to "Remember." It is not hidden that making that pronoun refer to the youths, even if it leads to interpreting "know" as you heard, is not far from the intended meaning of the noble arrangement if one ignores external matters like the reports. No one, to my knowledge, has gone to the possibility that the pronouns in His saying, "when they dispute among themselves their affair," return to the youths, like the pronoun in "so that they might know," and "when" is a circumstance for "We caused to discover," and the affair disputed is the amount of the time of their stay. Their dispute in it is the saying of some, "We have stayed a day or part of a day," and the saying of the other in refutation, "Your Lord is most knowing of what you have stayed." Since the condition was not clear and no consensus was reached on a specific amount, the dispute remained in the status of the remaining; so its time was extended, and it was correct to be a circumstance for the discovery, and the pronoun in "so they said" belongs to the discoverers, and the fa is eloquent, meaning: "And likewise, We caused the people to discover the youths at the time of their dispute regarding the duration of their stay, so they might increase in knowledge of the Resurrection, and so what happened, happened, and they had an affair among the people, such an affair, so they said, 'Build'..." and so on. This was because of the burden in it, along with the lack of support for it from the reports.
Then, what was mentioned regarding the possibility of "Their Lord is most knowing of them" being from His speech, Glory be to Him, brought to refute the disputing discoverers, is not free from remoteness. As for the last possibility, it is very remote. The apparent meaning is that it is a narration about the discoverers, and it is extremely fitting for the dispute over their affair being about death and life.
What is required by the speech of many commentators is that the goal of the two groups—those who said "Build over them a structure" and those who said "We will surely take a mosque over them"—is to honor and exalt them. The "those who prevailed in their affair" refers, as Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Qatadah, to the rulers. This is suited by "we will surely take," rather than "take" in the imperative form, by which the first group expressed their desire, for such an action is attributed by the rulers to themselves. The pronoun "their affair" here is, it is said, for the relative pronoun which refers to the rulers. The meaning of their prevailing in their affair is that if they wanted a matter, it did not become difficult for them, and no one came between it and them, as was said regarding His saying, "And Allah is predominant over His affair."
Some eminent scholars mentioned that the pronoun belongs to the companions of the Cave, and "those who prevailed" refers—it is said—to the Muslim king, or the guardians of the companions of the Cave, or the leaders of the town, because whoever has the victory in this dispute must be one of these. It is mentioned in the story that the king placed a mosque at the door of the Cave and made for it every year a great festival. From Al-Zujaj, this indicates that when their affair appeared, the believers in the Resurrection prevailed, because mosques are only for those who believe in it—he ended.
The first view is weakened by the expression indicating plural, and the second—if by "guardians" is meant guardians by lineage, as in their saying "guardians of the murdered person"—is weakened because no such guardians for the companions of the Cave were found in the reports when they were discovered. Many interpreted the relative pronoun as the king and the Muslims, and there is no remoteness in applying "guardians" to them, as in His saying, "The believing men and believing women are allies of one another." This indicates that the first group was not such. It has been narrated that they were disbelievers and wanted to build a church or a factory for their disbelief, so the believers prevented them and built a mosque over them. The appearance of this report is that the mosque is the opposite of the church. What Ibn Abi Hatim narrated from Sa'id ibn Jubayr—that the king built a church over them and wrote at its top "The sons of the pillars [aristocrats], the sons of the nobles"—is apparent in the lack of opposition, and perhaps it is the truth, because it is not correct that "mosque" here should mean what is called by that name today—a place of prayer for the Muhammadans—but rather the place of worship for the believers of that nation. They were, as you heard, originally Christians, even if there is another view on the matter that you will hear soon, God willing. Their place of worship is called a church. The appearance of what preceded is that the mosque was taken so that Allah Almighty might be worshipped in it by whomsoever He willed.
Abu Hatim narrated from Al-Suddai that the king said: "I will surely take a mosque near these righteous people, and I will surely worship Allah Almighty in it until I die." From Al-Hasan, it was taken so that the companions of the Cave might pray in it when they woke up, and this is built on the view that they did not die but slept as they slept the first time. Some went to this; it is even said they do not die until the Mahdi appears and they are among his supporters. There is no reliance on that, and it is in my view the closest thing to superstitions.
Then it is not hidden that on the view that the first group requesting the building of the structure over them was disbelieving, the goal of the discovery was not realized in all the discoverers. It does not follow that "Their Lord is most knowing of them" is a passage for exalting the affair of the companions of the Cave. Perhaps that group did not verify their condition and that they had slept for that period and then been raised, so they requested the obscuring of the Cave over them and referred their affair to their Lord, Glory be to Him, and Allah Almighty is most knowing of the reality of the condition.
Al-Hasan and Isa al-Thaqafi read "ghulibu" with the ghayn dammah and the lam kasrah, as the verb being passive. It is explained by this that a group of the believing discoverers wanted nothing to be built over them and their place not to be interfered with, while another group of them wanted building and for the Cave not to be obscured. The first group could not prevent them and found themselves overpowered, so they said: "If there must be a structure, then we will surely take a mosque over them."
This is and it is argued from the verse for the permissibility of building over the graves of the righteous and taking a mosque upon them, and the permissibility of praying in that. Among those who mentioned this is Al-Shihab al-Khafaji in his glosses on Al-Baydawi. It is a vain, void, corrupt, and stagnant saying. For Ahmad, Abu Dawud, Al-Tirmidhi, Al-Nasa'i, and Ibn Majah narrated from Ibn Abbas, saying: The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "Allah Almighty cursed the female visitors of graves and those who take mosques and lamps over them." And Muslim: "Beware, those who were before you used to take the graves of their prophets as mosques, so I forbid you from doing that." Ahmad from Usamah, and he and the two Shaykhs and Al-Nasa'i from Aisha, and Muslim from Abu Hurayrah: "Allah Almighty cursed the Jews and Christians; they took the graves of their prophets as mosques." And Ahmad and the two Shaykhs and Al-Nasa'i: "Those people, when a righteous man among them died, they built a mosque over his grave and pictured those images in it. Those are the worst of creatures on the Day of Resurrection." And Ahmad and Al-Tabarani: "Among the worst of people are those whom the Hour overtakes while they are alive, and those who take graves as mosques." And Abd al-Razzaq: "Among the worst of my nation are those who take graves as mosques." Also, the Children of Israel took graves as mosques, so Allah Almighty cursed them, in addition to other authentic reports and explicit narrations.
Ibn Hajar mentioned in Al-Zawajir that it occurred in the speech of some of the Shafi'is that taking graves as mosques, praying toward them, touching them, circumambulating them, and the like, are among the major sins. It is as if he took this from what was mentioned of the hadiths. The manner of taking a grave as a mosque is clear, for he, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, cursed whoever did that regarding the graves of the prophets, peace be upon them, and made whoever did that regarding the graves of the righteous among the worst of creatures before Allah on the Day of Resurrection. Thus, there is a warning for us. Taking a grave as a mosque means praying upon it or toward it. In that case, his saying "and praying toward them" would be redundant unless taking them as mosques is meant to be only praying upon them. Yes, this taking is only headed toward if the grave is the grave of someone exalted, such as a prophet or a wali, as indicated by the narration: "when there was a righteous man among them." Hence our companions said: Praying toward the graves of prophets and awliya is forbidden for the sake of seeking blessing and exaltation, so they stipulated two things: that it be the grave of an exalted person, and that the intention be to pray toward it. Similar to praying upon it is seeking blessing and exaltation. That this action is a major sin is clear from the hadiths, and it is as if he analogized to it every exaltation of the grave, such as lighting lamps upon it for the sake of exaltation and seeking blessing, and circumambulating it as well. It is not a far-fetched analogy, especially since it was explicitly stated in some of the mentioned hadiths the cursing of whoever takes a lamp upon a grave. Thus, the statement of the companions regarding the dislike of that is carried to the case where it is intended for exaltation and seeking blessing from the one in the grave.
Some Hanbalis said: A man's intention to pray at the grave seeking blessing from it is the very act of opposing Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and innovating a religion that Allah the Mighty and Majestic did not permit, due to the prohibition of it. Then, by consensus, the greatest of forbidden acts and causes of shirk is praying at them and taking them as mosques or building over them. It is mandatory to hasten to demolish them and the domes that are upon graves, as they are more harmful than the Mosque of Harm, for they were founded on disobedience to the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, because he, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, forbade that and commanded the demolition of elevated graves. It is mandatory to remove every lamp or light upon a grave; its endowment and vow are not valid.
In Al-Minhaj and its commentary by the mentioned scholar: "It is disliked to whiten the grave with plaster and to build upon it in its sanctuary or outside it in non-communal graveyards, unless there is fear of it being dug up, or a beast digging it, or a flood demolishing it. It is forbidden to build in communal graveyards. Likewise, it is disliked to write upon it due to the authentic prohibition regarding the three, whether writing his name or other than it on a tablet at his head or elsewhere." Yes, Al-Adhra'i researched the prohibition of writing the Quran because it exposes it to indignity by being trampled and defiled by the pus of the dead when burial is repeated and rain occurs. Writing his name was recommended merely for identifying him over the passing of years, especially the graves of prophets and the righteous, because it is a path to the recommended notification. And when Al-Hakim narrated the prohibition, he said: "The action is not upon it now, for the imams of the Muslims from the East and the West have written upon their graves; so it is an action taken by the latecomers from the predecessors." This is rebutted by denying this generality, and even assuming it, building upon their graves is more than writing upon them in communal graveyards, as is witnessed, especially in the Two Holy Cities, Egypt, and their likes. They have known of the prohibition of it, so it is the same. If you say: It is an actual consensus, so it is an argument as they stated, I say: It is denied; rather, it is only a majority [practice], since it is not recorded even from the scholars who see its prohibition. And assuming it is an actual consensus, the place of its being an argument, as is apparent, is only when times are righteous such that commanding good and forbidding evil is carried out, and that has been suspended for ages.
If the grave itself were built upon without need from what has passed—as is apparent—or a wall or dome built upon it in a communal graveyard, like dead land they are accustomed to burying in, or it is endowed for that—rather, it is more fitting—it must be demolished, as it is forbidden for its sanctity, as in Al-Majmu', because of the constriction it causes, with the fact that the building becomes permanent after the decay of the dead, so people are forbidden from that spot. Is the building what is customary of making four square stones surrounding the grave with the sticking of each head of them to the head of the other with firm plaster considered building or not? Because it is not called building in usage. What tends toward the first is because the cause of permanence is present here. A group has issued a fatwa for the demolition of all buildings in the Qarafa of Egypt, even the dome of Imam al-Shafi'i, may Allah have mercy upon him, which some kings built. It is for everyone to demolish that unless he fears mischief from it; in that case, referring it to the Imam is mandatory, taking from the speech of Ibn al-Ri'ah in Al-Sulh.
In Sahih Muslim from Abu al-Hayyaj al-Asadi: Ali, may Allah honor his face, said to me: "Shall I not send you upon what the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, sent me? Do not leave a statue without effacing it, nor an elevated grave without leveling it." Ibn al-Humam said in Fath al-Qadir: "This is carried to what they used to do of elevating graves with high, fine building." The hadiths and the speech of the fair-minded scholars who follow what was reported from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and what came from the righteous predecessors, are more numerous than to be counted.
Do not say: The verse is apparent in that what was mentioned is from the laws of those before us, and it has been used as an argument. It has been narrated that he, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said: "Whoever sleeps through a prayer or forgets it..." the hadith, then he recited His saying, "Establish prayer for My remembrance," and it is a statement to Musa, peace be upon him, and the context is argument. Muhammad argued for the permissibility of dividing water by way of muhay'ah (alternation) by His saying, "It has a share" (the verse), "And inform them that the water is shared between them." Abu Yusuf argued for the execution of retaliation between male and female by the verse, "And We ordained for them therein." And Al-Karkhi for its execution between the free and the slave, and the Muslim and the dhimmi, by that verse revealed regarding the Children of Israel, and to other than that.
We say: Our school regarding the law of those before us, even if it is that it binds us upon the condition that our Sharia [does not abrogate it], it is not absolutely, but only if Allah Almighty narrated the story to us without denial; and the denial of His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, is like the denial of Him, the Mighty and Majestic. You have heard that he, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him, cursed those who take mosques upon graves, provided that what was mentioned as being from the laws of those before us is prohibited. And how could taking mosques over graves be from the previous laws with what you have heard of the cursing of the Jews and Christians for having taken the graves of their prophets as mosques?
The verse is not like the verses we mentioned just now regarding the argument of the imams by them; there is nothing in it more than the narration of the saying of a group of people and their resolve to do that. It is not presented in a way of praising them or inciting others to follow them. So whenever it is not proven that there is an infallible one among them, their action—let alone their resolve—does not indicate the legitimacy of what they were intending.
What strengthens the lack of trust in their action is the saying that the meaning of them is the princes and sultans, as narrated from Qatadah. The speaker may say: "The first group were believers who knew the lack of legitimacy of taking mosques over graves, so they signaled the building at the door of the Cave, blocking it and preventing any interference with his companions; but the princes did not accept it from them, and it angered them until they swore to take the mosque." And the first ones did not signal for burial—though it is apparent that it is what is legitimate then for the dead, as it is legitimate for us—because they did not verify their death, and they were prevented from verifying it, as Abd al-Razzaq and Ibn al-Mundhir narrated from Wahb ibn Munabbih, due to the awe that was cast upon them. Hence they said: "Their Lord is most knowing of them."
And if you insist on having a good opinion of the second group, you may say: Their taking a mosque over them is not in the style of taking mosques over graves, which is forbidden and the doer of which is cursed. It is only taking a mosque near them and near their cave. The explicit mention of "nearness" came in a narration of the story from Al-Suddai and Wahb. Such a taking is not forbidden, for the utmost that follows from that is that the relation of the mosque to the Cave in which they are is like the relation of the Prophet's mosque to the exalted resting place, may Allah Almighty bless the one in it and grant him peace. Their saying "We will surely take... over them" would be, in this case, for the sake of conforming to the saying of the group "Build over them."
And if you wish, you may say: That taking was upon the cave, above the mountain in which it is. In the report of Mujahid, the king left them in their cave and built a mosque over their cave. This is closer to the appearance of the wording, as is not hidden. All of this is only needed on the view that the companions of the Cave died after being discovered. As for the view that they slept as they slept the first time, it is not needed, as has been said.
In sum, it is not for anyone who has the slightest intelligence to go to the contradiction of what the authentic reports and explicit narrations have spoken, relying on the argument of this verse, for that is the peak of error and the extremity of lack of restraint. I have seen those who permit what the ignorant do at the graves of the righteous—of elevating them, building them with plaster and brick, hanging lamps upon them, praying toward them, circumambulating them, touching them, and gathering at them at specific times—in addition to other things, arguing with this noble verse and what came in some narrations of the story of the king making for them a festival every year, and his placing them in coffins of teak, and analogizing one thing to another. All of this is opposing Allah and His Messenger, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, and innovating a religion that Allah the Mighty and Majestic did not permit.
It is enough for you in knowing the truth to follow what the companions of the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, did at his grave, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him—and it is the best grave on the face of the earth, rather, better than the Throne—and to stand upon their actions in their visiting him and giving peace to him, may Allah's peace and blessings be upon him. So follow that and ponder what is here and what is there, and Allah the Almighty will take charge of your guidance.
Then know that they differed in determining the location of the mosque and the cave, and some of the sayings have passed you. In Al-Bahr, it is said that in the Levant there is a cave in which there are dead people, and their neighbors claim that they are the companions of the Cave, and over them is a mosque and a building called Al-Raqim, and with them is a dog's remains. In Andalusia, in the direction of Granada, near a village called Lusha, there is a cave in which there are dead people, and with them is a dog's remains, and most of them have had their flesh removed, and some are holding together. Past centuries have passed, and we have not found anyone who knew their affair, and some people claim they are the companions of the Cave. Ibn Atiyyah said: I entered upon them and saw them in the year 504, and they were in this condition, and over them is a mosque, and near them is a Roman building called Al-Raqim, as if it were a decayed palace, some of its walls remaining, and it is in a wilderness of earth in ruins. At the top of the fortress of Granada, near the dome, are remains of an ancient city said to be the city of Decius; we found wonders in its remains—he ended. When we were in Andalusia, people used to visit this cave and mention that they err in their number if they count them, and that there is a dog with them, and people travel to Lusha to visit them. As for what he mentioned of the ancient city, I have passed over it countless times and witnessed in it large stones. The location of that in Andalusia is made more likely by the abundance of the religion of the Christians there, to the point that it is the land of their great kingdom, and because reports of what is in the furthest place from the land of Hijaz are stranger and further from being known except through revelation from Allah Almighty—he ended.
The report of Ibn Abbas and Mu'awiyah, which preceded, weakens what was claimed to be more likely, because Mu'awiyah did not enter Andalusia. The naming of the Andalusian Christians in their prose and poetry, and the addressing of their commoners, as in Al-Bahr also, does not yield benefit. Many have relied on the fact that it is in Tartus, and Allah Almighty is most knowing.
