nor did the blood reach the grave of the Prophet—may Allah bless him and grant him peace—or the Rawdah, nor did any killing take place inside the mosque. As for the Kaaba, Allah has honored and exalted it and made it inviolable. Allah has not enabled anyone (1) to desecrate it, either before Islam or after it. Rather, when the People of the Elephant advanced against it, Allah inflicted upon them the well-known punishment.
As the Most High says:
“Have you not seen how your Lord dealt with the People of the Elephant? Did He not cause their scheme to go astray? He sent against them birds in flocks, pelting them with stones of baked clay, and made them like eaten straw.”
[Surah al-Fīl: 1–5]
And the Most High says:
“Indeed, those who disbelieve and bar others from the path of Allah and from the Sacred Mosque—which We have appointed for all people alike, whether those residing there or those coming from afar—and whoever intends therein any deviation through wrongdoing, We shall make him taste a painful punishment.”
[Surah al-Hajj: 25]
Ibn Masūd—may Allah be pleased with him—said:
“If a man in Aden-Abyan intended to commit sacrilege within the Sanctuary, Allah would make him taste a painful punishment.” (2)
Imam Ahmad narrated it in his Musnad both as a statement of Ibn Masūd and as a report traced back to the Prophet (3).
It is well known that [among] the people most extreme in unbelief were the Bātinī Qarmatians, who killed
(1) MS A reads: “no one was able”; MSS S, B, R, N, and M read: “He did not enable anyone.”
(2) MSS A and B read: “the painful punishment.”
(3) The hadith of Abd Allah ibn Masūd—may Allah be pleased with him—is found in *al-Musnad* (al-Maārif ed.), 6/65–66 (no. 4071). Shaykh Ahmad Shākir—may Allah have mercy on him—said: “Its chain of transmission is sound. The hadith also appears in *Majma al-Zawāid*, 7/70, where its author states: ‘It was narrated by Ahmad, Abū Yalā, and al-Bazzār, and Ahmad’s narrators are narrators of the *Sahīh*.’ Ibn Kathīr cited it in *al-Tafsīr*, 5/571, from *Tafsīr Ibn Abī Hātim*, who narrated it from Ahmad ibn Sinān, from Yazīd ibn Hārūn. At its conclusion, after Shuba’s statement, Yazīd said: ‘He did narrate it as *marfū* (attributed to the Prophet).’ Ibn Kathīr said: ‘Ahmad also narrated it from Yazīd ibn Hārūn through the same chain. I [Ibn Kathīr] say: This chain is sound according to al-Bukhārī’s criteria, though its being *mawqūf* (a statement of Ibn Masūd) is more likely than its being *marfū*. Shuba therefore firmly maintained that it was *mawqūf* and formed part of Ibn Masūd’s own words. It was likewise narrated as *mawqūf* by Asbāt and Sufyān al-Thawrī, from al-Suddī, from Murra, from Ibn Masūd.’ This is an arbitrary judgment on the part of Shuba and then Ibn Kathīr. Yazīd ibn Hārūn’s statement, as narrated by Ibn Abī Hātim, is a wise observation and a subtle indication: his point is that Shuba reported from his teacher that it was *marfū*. Thus, he transmitted it as *marfū*, even though he regarded it as *mawqūf* as a matter of personal opinion. The *marfū* attribution is an addition made by a trustworthy narrator and is therefore accepted. We accept a narrator’s report but are not bound by his opinion. As for the fact that narrators other than Shuba transmitted it as *mawqūf*, this does not constitute a defect in the *marfū* version, for the *marfū* attribution is an addition made by a trustworthy narrator, as we have stated.”