Q. Is there anything in
the Qur'an or authentic Sunnah that prohibits
non-Muslims from entering the sacred precinct (Kaaba)
or any of the other "Muslim holy sites"? If not, how did this policy
get started?
A. The land in which
the Muslim holy sites are located is referred to as the Hijaz
-- that strip of land in which Mecca and Medina are situated. Sura 9 unequivocally lets us know that those who
worship other than Allah are not allowed to visit those places -- even if they
are related to the (Muslim) inhabitants thereof -- (see 9:2,17,23,28)
Obviously, Sura 9 is in reference to those who
are specifically hostile to the Muslims. It may be argued by some that 4:91
conditions those verses, saying that if they do not wage war against us, then
we are not allowed to fight them, and therefore they may be allowed to visit
the holy sites. But 4:91 is NOT in reference to the holy sites, and only speaks
of when it is correct to commence or desist from retaliatory action. It has
nothing to do with visiting the holy places. It may also be argued that the
Jews and Christians are in a different category to unbelievers, for they are
recognized by Allah as monotheists in principle, and the Qur’an even counts
them among those who are entitled to heaven. This is certainly true, and
indeed, there is evidence (however arguable) to show that there were Christians
and Jews living there after the death of the Prophet.
But recognizing the professed monotheism of these two
religions, and their status in light of 9:28 is somewhat problematic. Whether
we wish to admit it or not, the relationship between Islam and the other two
major monotheistic religions had rapidly deteriorated to the point where we
KNOW by observation that if unfettered access to these sites were allowed, then
there would be security concerns. Those places are supposed to be sites in
which there are NO security concerns, hence the grounds for restriction. The
Qur’an says: "Who are more wicked than those who seek to bar the mention
of God…(see 2:114). In light of this truth, and in
spite of our recognition of the People of the Book, and in spite of the fact
that ideal pluralism, as envisioned by the Qur’an, would allow peaceful
cohabitation with the People of the Book, we cannot be inattentive to reality
-- that Islam's holy sites are to be areas in which all preventive measures
must be taken to ensure safety and security. This therefore is in accordance
with the Islamic maxim: "Dar al-mafaasid yuqaddam ala jalb
al masalih" -- which in function means that
pragmatic outlook lets us know that the repelling of evil is given precedence
to doing that which may, under normal circumstances, be better.
There is another rule too that dictates "Affliction
is to be removed" -- and in the case of security concerns of the Hijaz, we must remove anything that threatens
the Muslim peace of mind. That being said, one must still tackle the issue of
Christians and Jews being there after the Prophet's death. As explained
elsewhere in this site, Islam's laws are institutionally based, except when
specifically ordered for all and sundry. The presence -- if indeed there was --
of non-Muslims was a small one, and those non-Muslims were not in a position to
cause problems, for they were a few slaves or people with a specific task. One
may extend this to modern times to mean that if the guardians of Islam's holy
sites were to allow certain repair personnel, or medical personnel, or heads of
state to visit, this permissibility may not be seen as breaking Islamic law,
although such allowance would cause controversies on several grounds. At the
point of seeming to overly berate the point, I must stress that pragmatism must
take precedence over idealism, and therefore, given the current state of
affairs, the ban on all non-Muslims seems to fit within the Islamic law that
seeks prevention before cure. And Allah knows best.
Posted January 19, 2002