…to our deep regret, by incorporating the Prophet’s – salla Allahu ʿalayhi wa-sallam – grave into the mosque. For there is no essential difference between burying him inside the mosque at the moment of his death—far be it from the Companions to do so—and what later generations did when they expanded the mosque and thereby brought the grave within its limits. In either case the same objection applies, exactly as al-Hafiz al-ʿIraqi and Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyya have already pointed out. This view is further supported by the fact that Saʿid ibn al-Musayyab, one of the transmitters of the second hadith cited above, is involved. Is it fitting, given his acknowledged learning, merit, and courage in speaking the truth, to suppose that he remained silent toward those who violated a hadith he himself transmitted? Or should we rather attribute to him the stance that he did not protest, as claimed by those who say, “None of the Salaf ever objected to it”? In reality, their statement—if only they understood—constitutes a manifest reproach against the entire Salaf. Incorporating a grave into a mosque is an obvious reprehensible act to anyone who knows those earlier hadiths and their meanings. It is impossible to ascribe ignorance of them to all the Salaf; certainly some, if not most, knew them with certainty. If that is so, we must conclude that they did in fact object, even though no explicit text has reached us, for history has not preserved every single event. How, then, can it be claimed that they never objected? May God forgive us. A further indication of their ignorance is their follow-up assertion: “Likewise, since the Muslims—Companions and others—entered Damascus, the grave within the Umayyad Mosque has always been there, and no one ever objected.” What a strange and astonishing line of reasoning! They imagine that everything they see today…