Iqtiḍāʾ al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm - Ibn Taimiya - (2/251)

Iqtiḍāʾ al-Ṣirāṭ al-MustaqīmIbn Taimiya

of Madinah; had this been a practice well known among the people of Madinah, Rabiʿah’s companions would not have found it strange and objected to it. Indeed, Muḥammad ibn al-Ḥasan’s mention of the incident in his book—together with al-Zubayr ibn Bakkār’s transmission of it from him—shows that in the time of Mālik and his peers they were unfamiliar with such an act; for had it been widespread among them, it would not have been singled out in a composed work in a manner that conveys surprise. Furthermore, the men sitting with Rabiʿah—scholars and jurists in their own right—censured the deed, whereas Rabiʿah let it pass.

At most, then, the matter is one over which there is disagreement. Rabiʿah’s reasoning, “Each person is rewarded only for what he intends,” amounts to no more than tacit consent to something he disapproved of; for had the man intended to pray there, Rabiʿah would have stopped him—just as he would have stopped him had he wanted to pray at a prohibited time. What Rabiʿah meant—Allah knows best—was that whoever harbors a righteous intention is rewarded for that intention even if the act itself is not prescribed, provided he does not deliberately contravene the Law; in other words, although this supplication is not legislated, its doer is rewarded because of his good intention.

From this one may conclude that they were unanimously agreed that the practice is not recommended, that the site itself possesses no special merit, and that any benefit derives solely from the supplicant’s intention.

As for Rabiʿah’s decision not to censure the man, unlike his companions, several explanations are possible: perhaps the report that the Prophet—peace and blessings be upon him—forbade turning his grave into a festive gathering place and praying there had not reached him, for Rabiʿah, as Aḥmad said, had limited knowledge of the transmitted reports; or the report had reached him but he did not regard this particular act as falling under that prohibition; or he did not see it as unlawful at all, considering it merely disliked (makrūh), and censuring what is disliked is not obligatory; or he thought

(1) The word amran is omitted in MS A. (2) The printed edition reads: “arādahu Rabiʿa.” (3) The printed edition reads: “on the view that supplication at the grave is not recommended.” (4) In MS Aṭ: “that spot.” (5) In MS B: “or that it had reached him.” (6) In MSS J and D: “or that this had reached him and he did not adopt it.”

المدينة، وإلا لو كان هذا أمرا (١) معروفا من عمل أهل المدينة لما استغربه جلساء ربيعة وأنكروه. بل ذكر محمد بن الحسن لها في كتابه مع رواية الزبير بن بكار ذلك عنه، يدل على أنهم على عهد مالك وذويه، ما كانوا يعرفون هذا العمل، وإلا لو كان هذا شائعا بينهم لما ذكر في كتاب مصنف، ما يتضمن استغراب ذلك. ثم إن جلساء ربيعة - وهم قوم فقهاء علماء - أنكروا ذلك، وربيعة أقره. فغايته: أن يكون في ذلك خلاف ولكن تعليل ربيعة له بأن لكل امرئ ما نوى، لا يقتضي إلا الإقرار على ما يكره، فإنه لو أراد الصلاة هناك لنهاه، وكذلك لو أراد الصلاة في وقت نهي. وإنما الذي أراده (٢) - والله أعلم - أن من كان له نية صالحة أثيب على نيته، وإن كان الفعل الذي فعله ليس بمشروع، إذا لم يتعمد مخالفة الشرع - يعني فهذا الدعاء، وإن لم يكن مشروعا، لكن لصاحبه نية صالحة يثاب على نيته. فيستفاد من ذلك: أنهم مجمعون على أنه (٣) غير مستحب، ولا خصيصة في تلك (٤) البقعة، وإنما الخير يحصل من جهة نية الداعي، ثم إن ربيعة لم ينكر عليه متابعة لجلسائه: إما لأنه لم يبلغه أن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم نهى عن اتخاذ قبره عيدا، وعن الصلاة عنده. فإن ربيعة - كما قال أحمد - كان قليل العلم بالآثار. أو بلغه (٥) ذلك لكن (٦) لم ير مثل هذا داخلا في معنى النهي، أو لأنه لم ير هذا محرما، وإنما غايته أن يكون مكروها، وإنكار المكروه ليس بفرض. أو أنه رأى

(١) أمرا: ساقطة من (أ) . (٢) في المطبوعة: أراده ربيعة. (٣) في المطبوعة: على أن الدعاء عند القبر غير مستحب. (٤) في (أط) : ذلك البقعة. (٥) في (ب) : أو أنه بلغه. (٦) في (ج د) : أو بلغه ذلك ولم ير.