Entry of Non-Muslims (Polytheists) into the Mosque
Here, it should also be mentioned that some of our people become very upset and angry if they see a non-Muslim in a mosque. They think that something unusual or wrong has happened. Their zeal is actually a result of ignorance of the issue. The reality is that it does not matter if a non-Muslim or polytheist, i.e., Hindu, Sikh, or Christian, enters a mosque. Because it is proven that the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم himself allowed non-Muslims to enter the mosque.
As for the claim that these people are impure, there is no doubt about that, but their impurity is legal (hukmi), not sensory (hissi). Moreover, it does not matter whether they are People of the Book or not, because the entry of both is established.
In short, the majority of scholars hold the view that we have just mentioned. However, there are slight differences in the opinions of Imams and jurists. For example, the Hanafis believe in the absolute permissibility of polytheists or disbelievers entering the mosque. Imam Malik, Maliki jurists, some Zahiri scholars, and among the Shafi’is, Al-Muzani hold the view of absolute prohibition.
The general Shafi’is differentiate between the Haram Mosque (in Makkah) and other mosques, stating that no non-Muslim can enter the Haram Mosque. But if a non-Muslim enters other mosques, there is no harm. It has also been said that there should be a distinction between People of the Book and non-People of the Book; entry of those from the People of the Book is not objectionable, but entry of non-People of the Book is not permissible.
Whereas those who argue for permissibility or impermissibility and those who differentiate or do not differentiate have evidences. Upon examination, the first view of the majority of scholars, i.e., permissibility, is established.
Thus, the fundamental reason for the difference of opinion in this matter is the disagreement over whether the impurity of the non-Muslim is legal (hukmi) or sensory (hissi). This is why the opinions of Imams and jurists differ regarding the permissibility or impermissibility of a non-Muslim entering the mosque. Among them:
Arguments of the Opponents:
Imam Malik, the Maliki jurists, some of the Ahl al-Zahir, and among the Shafi’is, Imam Muzani (may Allah have mercy on him) do not consider it permissible for a polytheist or non-Muslim to enter the mosque. Their argument is primarily based on the verse from Surah At-Tawbah, verse number 28, in which Allah Almighty says:
﴿يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ فَلَا يَقْرَبُوا الْمَسْجِدَ الْحَرَامَ بَعْدَ عَامِهِمْ هَٰذَا﴾
O you who have believed, indeed the polytheists are unclean, so let them not approach al-Masjid al-Haram after this, their [final] year.
And since the polytheists used to come to the Sacred House (Kaaba) for pilgrimage, they also brought with them grain and other commercial goods, which greatly benefited the people of Makkah. But when they were forbidden to come near the Sacred Mosque, it was natural that the Muslims feared a shortage of these goods and the threat of poverty and famine. To dispel this fear, Allah Almighty revealed the latter part of this verse, in which He says:
﴿وَإِنْ خِفْتُمْ عَيْلَةً فَسَوْفَ يُغْنِيكُمُ اللَّهُ مِن فَضْلِهِ إِن شَاءَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلِيمٌ حَكِيمٌ﴾
And if you fear poverty, Allah will enrich you from His bounty if He wills. Indeed, Allah is Knowing and Wise.
The words of this verse:
إنما المشركون نجس
That the polytheists are unclean.
Based on this, it has been said that it is not permissible for any polytheist to enter the mosque. And from the same verse, the words:
فلا يقربوا المسجد الحرام بعد عامهم هذا
That after this, they should not come near the Sacred Mosque.
This has been used as an argument that while they may enter other mosques, it is absolutely not permissible for them to enter the Sacred Mosque (Makkah).
The second argument of the opponents is the meaning of a hadith narrated in Sahih Muslim, Abu Dawood, An-Nasa’i, Ibn Majah, Musnad Ahmad, and some other hadith collections from Hazrat Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman (may Allah be pleased with him), who met the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) on the road but stepped aside and went to perform ghusl (ritual bath). Then he returned and said that he was in a state of janabah (major ritual impurity) and had not yet performed ghusl. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
المسلم لا ينجس
A Muslim is not impure or unclean.
Similarly, another hadith narrated from Hazrat Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) in Sahihain, Sunan al-Arba’ah, Musnad Ahmad, and some other books, where he narrates that he met the Prophet (peace be upon him) somewhere on the roads of Madinah but slipped away quietly, performed ghusl, and then returned. The Prophet (peace be upon him) asked:
إين كنت يا أبا هريرة ؟
O Abu Hurairah, where were you?
I replied:
كنت جنبا فكرهت أن أجا لسك وأنا على غير طهارة
I was in a state of janabah, and I did not like to sit in your gathering without being purified.
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
سبحان الله إن المؤمن لا ينجس
Allah is pure; indeed, the believer is not impure or unclean.
The apparent meaning of these hadiths is that a believer and Muslim is not impure, while their implied opposite also suggests that a non-Muslim is impure. Using this opposite implication as evidence, the Malikis and others have prohibited the entry of disbelievers and polytheists into the mosque.
Their fourth argument is a hadith mentioning the arrival of the delegation of Bani Thaqif. When the Prophet (peace be upon him) seated them in the mosque, the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them) were surprised and said:
قوم أنجاس
These are impure people.
They also use these words of the Companions as evidence. However, the answer to their argument is present in the same hadith, which we will mention later.
They also argue from another hadith narrated from Hazrat Abu Tha’labah (may Allah be pleased with him) in Bukhari, Muslim, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi, Musnad Ahmad, where he says that he told the Prophet (peace be upon him) that they live in the area of the People of the Book and eat and drink from their utensils. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
إن وجدتم غيرها فلا تأكلوا فيها وإن لم تجدوا فاغسلوها وكلوا فيها
If you can find other utensils, do not eat from theirs. But if you cannot find other utensils, then wash their utensils and eat and drink from them.
In Abu Dawood and Musnad Ahmad, it is also mentioned that Hazrat Abu Tha’labah (may Allah be pleased with him) said:
إنهم يأكلون لحم الخنزير ويشربون الخمر
That those people eat pork and drink wine.
According to them, the command to wash the utensils is due to their impurity. However, this is not the case. Rather
Response of those who affirm permissibility to the opponents and arguments for permissibility:
The majority of scholars who do not consider it objectionable for a non-Muslim to enter a mosque respond to those who object by saying:
➊ The first point is that the impurity of a polytheist means that they are ritually impure in terms of belief and ruling. They are not physically or sensually impure or unclean. Their interpretation of the verse is supported by the fact that Allah Almighty mentioned at the beginning of Surah Al-Ma’idah, especially in its fifth verse, the women from whom marriage is permissible, and said:
﴿وَالْمُحْصَنَاتُ مِنَ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ مِن قَبْلِكُمْ﴾
And the chaste women from among the People of the Book who have believed are lawful for you.
So, the women of the People of the Book are permitted for Muslims to marry. And it is obvious that by marrying such a woman, it is impossible that her husband would never come into contact with her sweat. Yet, there is no ruling that the husband must perform ghusl (ritual bath) merely because of contact with her sweat. Rather, the husband is required to perform ghusl for the same reasons as the husband of a Muslim woman.
Thus, it is clear that the sweat of a non-Muslim is not impure, nor are they themselves physically impure. Their impurity is a ruling impurity, not a sensory one. The same can be inferred from the permissibility of eating the food of the People of the Book for Muslims, because in Surah Al-Ma’idah, verse 5, Allah Almighty said:
﴿وَطَعَامُ الَّذِينَ أُوتُوا الْكِتَابَ حِلٌّ لَّكُمْ وَطَعَامُكُمْ حِلٌّ لَّهُمْ﴾
And the food of the People of the Book is lawful for you.
And when their women are lawful and their food is lawful, how can they themselves be physically impure? Rather, their impurity is a ruling impurity, not sensory. This is also the answer to the objection that polytheists are impure and unclean; their impurity is ruling, not sensory. Their second and third arguments are based on the same hadiths.
➋ As for the matter of seating the delegation of Thaqif in the Prophet’s mosque, this incident does not support the objectors but rather goes against them. Because when the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, saw that the Prophet, peace be upon him, had seated them in his mosque, they were surprised and said:
قوم أنجاس
These are impure people.
If this statement had ended there, then indeed the objectors would have had a point. But it did not end there; rather, the Prophet, peace be upon him, replied to them saying:
إنما أنجاس القوم على أنفسهم
The burden of their impurity is upon themselves.
These words of the Prophet, peace be upon him, are clear evidence that he negated their sensory impurity, which is the point of dispute, and clarified that their impurity is ruling and metaphorical, i.e., impurity of belief, not sensory or physical impurity.
➌ Regarding the command of the Prophet, peace be upon him, to wash the utensils of disbelievers and polytheists, the objectors argue that since they are impure, their entry into the mosque is not permissible. Those who permit entry respond to this argument by saying:
The Prophet, peace be upon him, did not command the Companions living in the territory of the People of the Book to wash their utensils because their utensils could not be protected from their moisture, nor because they were physically impure. Therefore, their moisture is impure and their utensils are unclean, and they were commanded to wash their used or dirty utensils. This is not the case. Rather, the command to wash their utensils was based on the fact that those people cooked pork and drank wine in their utensils, as is clear from the narration of a Companion in Abu Dawood and Musnad Ahmad:
إنا أرضنا أرض أهل الكتاب وإنهم ليأكلون لحم الخنزير ويشربون الخمر فكيف نصنع بآنيتهم وقدورهم
We live in the land of the People of the Book, and they eat pork and drink wine. How can we use their pots and pans?
Thus, the command to wash their utensils was not because those people were physically impure, but because they consumed impure and forbidden things, so that the effects of those forbidden things could be washed away from their utensils. Furthermore, Abu Dawood, Musnad Ahmad, and Musannif Ibn Abi Shaybah narrate that Jabir, may Allah be pleased with him, said that they participated in battles with the Prophet, peace be upon him, and found the utensils and water skins of the polytheists and used them.
ولا يعيب ذلك عليهم
And the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not consider this blameworthy for us.
This also shows that polytheists are not physically impure such that their entry into the mosque would be impermissible. Moreover, if the command to wash their utensils was due to their physical impurity, then the Prophet, peace be upon him, would not have stipulated the condition of the absence of other utensils, i.e., إن لم تجدوا غيرها, that if you do not find other utensils, then wash and use theirs. Because there is no difference between utensils that are not impure and utensils that have been purified by washing. Both are pure. So what is the meaning of the absence of other utensils besides theirs?
This was actually to instill hatred towards them, indicating that they are impure and unclean in belief and metaphorically, not physically or sensually impure.
➍ Regarding the words of the objectors from Surah At-Tawbah, verse 28:
﴿إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ﴾
And similarly the Prophetic statement:
إن المسلم لا ينجس
And a Muslim is not impure.
And SubhanAllah:
إن المؤمن لا ينجس
That a believer is not impure.
From the opposite meaning of these, it is argued that disbelievers and polytheists are impure. Those who permit the entry of disbelievers and polytheists into the mosque respond with a fourth answer that these statements are meant to create hatred in people’s hearts towards them and to clearly show their disgrace, not because they are physically impure. There is also evidence that this hatred and disgrace is intended, as is evident from many hadiths and incidents. For example:
Firstly: It is mentioned in Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and other hadith books about the Prophet, peace be upon him:
إنه توضأ من مزادة مشركة
The Prophet, peace be upon him, performed ablution with the water skin of a polytheist woman.
Secondly: Similarly, regarding the Commander of the Faithful, Umar Farooq, may Allah be pleased with him, it is narrated in Sahih Bukhari and other sources including Musannif Abd al-Razzaq, Shafi’i, and Sunan al-Kubra al-Bayhaqi:
إنه توضأ من جرة نصرانية
He performed ablution from the water jug of a Christian woman.
Thirdly: Abu Dawood and Musnad Ahmad narrate from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with them, that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ate cheese brought from the Byzantines and Christians.
Fourthly: In Musnad Ahmad, Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, narrates:
إن يهودية دعت النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم إلى خبز الشعير وإهالة سنخة فأجابها
A Jewish woman invited the Prophet, peace be upon him, to eat barley bread and a greasy stew, and he accepted her invitation.
Fifthly: It is a well-known incident that the Prophet, peace be upon him, ate the meat of a goat belonging to a Jewish woman of Khaybar, which she had gifted to him.
Sixthly: Marriage and intimacy with a woman from the People of the Book has been made lawful by Allah Almighty in the Qur’an.
Seventhly: The permissibility of eating the food of the People of the Book for Muslims, as mentioned earlier with reference to Surah Al-Ma’idah, verse 5.
Eighthly: Sahih Bukhari, Sahih Muslim, and Ibn Khuzaymah, among other hadith books, narrate the incident of Thumamah ibn Uthal, the ruler of Yamamah and chief of the Banu Hanifah tribe, who was tied to a pillar of the Prophet’s mosque for three days.
All these hadiths and incidents indicate that when disbelievers and polytheists are called impure in the verses and hadiths, it refers to metaphorical or belief-based impurity. The purpose is to cause avoidance of association and to instill hatred, not that they are physically or sensually impure.
No difference between the People of the Book and those who are not:
The incident of Thumamah bin Uthal (may Allah be pleased with him) also makes it clear that there is no difference between the People of the Book and those who are not People of the Book in this matter. Rather, both are the same because Thumamah bin Uthal (may Allah be pleased with him) was not from the People of the Book (Jews and Christians), but was (at that time) a common non-Muslim polytheist.
Imam Bukhari (may Allah have mercy on him) has specifically dedicated a chapter in his Sahih:
باب دخول المشرك المسجد
The narration about the entry of a polytheist into the mosque
And under this chapter, he has brought the very hadith of Thumamah bin Uthal (may Allah be pleased with him). This indicates his inclination that, according to him, a non-Muslim, i.e., a disbeliever or polytheist, whether from the People of the Book or not, can enter the mosque. Imam Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) has narrated from the majority of scholars, both Salaf and Khalaf, that a disbeliever is not inherently impure. And the same opinion is held by Al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam, known as Ba’i’ al-Muluk.
Muqbil, in “Al-Manar,” has described the argument for the impurity of disbelievers based on Surah At-Tawbah, verse 28 ﴿إِنَّمَا الْمُشْرِكُونَ نَجَسٌ﴾ as a misconception. He further explained and stated that this is an attempt to impose a newly invented reform on the words of Allah and His Messenger (peace be upon him). However, Imam Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him) disagreed with this view and did not fully agree.
His disagreement or lack of agreement is only regarding the cause or reason. Otherwise, on the main issue, he himself agrees with the majority of scholars and is even a strong supporter of the view that disbelievers are not impure.
Imam Khattabi (may Allah have mercy on him), while adopting the permissibility of a polytheist entering the mosque in his “Ma’alim al-Sunan,” wrote that he may enter the mosque in case of necessity. For example, if he has a creditor in the mosque who is not coming out, he may enter. Similarly, if he has a case to present before a judge who is sitting in the mosque, it is permissible for him to go into the mosque to establish his right. And for other such matters, his entry into the mosque is permissible.
Imam Khattabi wrote this while explaining a hadith of Abu Dawood, which is also in Bukhari and Muslim, in which Hazrat Anas (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that a man (who was a polytheist and non-Muslim) came riding his camel into the Prophet’s Mosque, sat his camel down, and asked, “Which one of you is Muhammad (peace be upon him)?” while the Prophet (peace be upon him) was leaning among the companions. We said to this man:
هذا الابيض المتكي
“Those fair-skinned ones who are leaning.”
A similar hadith with a good chain is also narrated from Hazrat Ibn Abbas (may Allah be pleased with them both) in Abu Dawood.
In the same chapter, a third hadith is narrated from Hazrat Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) mentioning the Jews entering the mosque while the Prophet (peace be upon him) was present. However, this hadith is weak.
However, since the issue itself is established by other hadiths, what is the need for this hadith? The intention is only to clarify its weakness.
As for the issue of disbelievers, polytheists, Jews, Hindus, Christians, or Sikhs participating in the construction of a mosque and working on it, the matter is the same: if their entry into a completed mosque is permissible, then how can it be forbidden in a mosque under construction?
However, it is necessary that the officials or administration act with sufficient caution and prudence in this matter. They should prefer to assign work to a contractor who is himself Muslim, whose laborers are also Muslims or at least Muslims working on the mosque’s construction, especially engineers and supervisors who should definitely be Muslims. Because sometimes such situations have occurred.
A living example of this is a very large grand mosque built in a city of the United Arab Emirates. It was constructed under the supervision of a biased non-Muslim. He expressed such hidden malice in the large hall’s dome and other smaller domes that when the sun is present, wherever you pass around the mosque, the dome’s curvature and painting create the religious symbol of Christians, the cross or crucifix, in the sunlight. To avoid such devilry from such people, they should be kept away from mosque construction.
