Mujib
03-30-2004, 10:13 PM
What was the purpose of having four different mihrabs in the Haram?
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Answered by Shaykh Gibril Haddad
Question:
1) What was the purpose of having four different mihrabs in the Haram until 1917 when the Wahabbis / Salafis destroyed them?
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Wa `alaykum as-Salam:
Each mihrab was not only for Salat but also indicated the circle of learning of one of the four Sunni Schools taught in the Haram as per the many old illustrations and photographs of the Haram showing the structures housing the teaching circles to that effect.
2) When were they first erected
I expect temporary structures were in place as early as the time when the Tabi`in would gather around the learned Companions and others that were making pilgrimage or were teaching there on a regular basis at that time. Perhaps even before these structures crystallized as the symbols and Mekkan locations of the Four Schools centuries later, Mihrabs must have been erected for the Fuqaha' that taught there to be able to lead the prayer from their spot and not at all necessarily as a divisive measure--unlike what the critics of the Madhahib love to claim.
3) What was the evidence (deduced from a primary text, statement/action of the companions, Tabi'in, or Taba at Tabi'in) for doing so?
The same as the evidence for having tens or hundreds of Islamic Schools under a single roof, namely, the various teaching masters around whom gathered generations of Muslims to learn their Religion in all the great mosques of the world including the Umawi in Damascus, which still has several mihrabs to this day.
4) If there was no evidence from the sources listed in question number 3 but instead the approval of the Ulema, alone, for hundreds of years of the practice is cited as the evidence for its permissibility/desirability, then the next question that comes to mind is, Did the Ulema agree the permissibility of erecting four mihrabs before/during their erection? Or were they erected and then the Ulema stayed silent on the issue and this silence was deemed as being approval?
There is nothing to having many mihrabs erected in a single mosque. Unity is completely irrelevant to such external structures but is a matter of hearts and minds, as witnessed to by the disunity of the Muslims today despite their praying behind a single mihrab in Makka or Madina.
5) Are there any Ulema who follow traditional Sunni Methodology (i.e. follow one of the four, authentic, surviving madhabs and who espouse either Maturidi or Ashari aqeedah) who would like to see the four Mihrabs return to the Haram? If so, Why? If no, then Why not?
As in the replies to the first three questions those mihrabs signified the Schools of Islam and its wealth of learning and teaching, which those that destroyed the mihrabs aimed to destroy and still do. It is that heritage we are defending, not its superstructures which are meaningless unless their raison d'etre is recovered and protected.
6) Do you, or any Ulema, think that the presence of four mihrabs, each designated for a different madhab, contributed in some way to the establishment of the belief in the minds of the masses (not the scholars) that it was not permissible to pray behind an Imam from a madhab other than their own?
Since the premise of the question is false, the question itself is spurious: the masses never held such a belief. That they did is a pseudo-historical construct (reflected in books such as Mir'at al-Haramayn) that aims to justify one of the programs of re-formation of Islam. That program is still going on at the hands of well-known innovators posing as traditionists.
Hajj Gibril
Source: Hanafi Fiqh List - www.sunnipath.com
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Answered by Shaykh Gibril Haddad
Question:
1) What was the purpose of having four different mihrabs in the Haram until 1917 when the Wahabbis / Salafis destroyed them?
__________________________________________________ ___________________
Wa `alaykum as-Salam:
Each mihrab was not only for Salat but also indicated the circle of learning of one of the four Sunni Schools taught in the Haram as per the many old illustrations and photographs of the Haram showing the structures housing the teaching circles to that effect.
2) When were they first erected
I expect temporary structures were in place as early as the time when the Tabi`in would gather around the learned Companions and others that were making pilgrimage or were teaching there on a regular basis at that time. Perhaps even before these structures crystallized as the symbols and Mekkan locations of the Four Schools centuries later, Mihrabs must have been erected for the Fuqaha' that taught there to be able to lead the prayer from their spot and not at all necessarily as a divisive measure--unlike what the critics of the Madhahib love to claim.
3) What was the evidence (deduced from a primary text, statement/action of the companions, Tabi'in, or Taba at Tabi'in) for doing so?
The same as the evidence for having tens or hundreds of Islamic Schools under a single roof, namely, the various teaching masters around whom gathered generations of Muslims to learn their Religion in all the great mosques of the world including the Umawi in Damascus, which still has several mihrabs to this day.
4) If there was no evidence from the sources listed in question number 3 but instead the approval of the Ulema, alone, for hundreds of years of the practice is cited as the evidence for its permissibility/desirability, then the next question that comes to mind is, Did the Ulema agree the permissibility of erecting four mihrabs before/during their erection? Or were they erected and then the Ulema stayed silent on the issue and this silence was deemed as being approval?
There is nothing to having many mihrabs erected in a single mosque. Unity is completely irrelevant to such external structures but is a matter of hearts and minds, as witnessed to by the disunity of the Muslims today despite their praying behind a single mihrab in Makka or Madina.
5) Are there any Ulema who follow traditional Sunni Methodology (i.e. follow one of the four, authentic, surviving madhabs and who espouse either Maturidi or Ashari aqeedah) who would like to see the four Mihrabs return to the Haram? If so, Why? If no, then Why not?
As in the replies to the first three questions those mihrabs signified the Schools of Islam and its wealth of learning and teaching, which those that destroyed the mihrabs aimed to destroy and still do. It is that heritage we are defending, not its superstructures which are meaningless unless their raison d'etre is recovered and protected.
6) Do you, or any Ulema, think that the presence of four mihrabs, each designated for a different madhab, contributed in some way to the establishment of the belief in the minds of the masses (not the scholars) that it was not permissible to pray behind an Imam from a madhab other than their own?
Since the premise of the question is false, the question itself is spurious: the masses never held such a belief. That they did is a pseudo-historical construct (reflected in books such as Mir'at al-Haramayn) that aims to justify one of the programs of re-formation of Islam. That program is still going on at the hands of well-known innovators posing as traditionists.
Hajj Gibril
Source: Hanafi Fiqh List - www.sunnipath.com