Imam Hakim bi Amrillah and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre

[Guest]

I was doing some reading when I came upon something interesting. On October 19 1009 Imam Hakim bi Amrillah(PBUH) ordered the destruction on the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. I read something about riots just before and that may have something to do with it. I was just wondering if anyone knew of a possible reason/the reason for Imam Hakim bi Amrillah(PBUH) order.

[Guest]

I was just wondering if anyone knew of a possible reason/the reason for Imam Hakim bi Amrillah(PBUH) order.

First we have to know if it was really Imam Hakim's order. Didn't he order the recontruction of the Church at some point or the construction of 3 other churches? If he was the one who ordered the destruction, why would he have ordered later its reconstruction?

[Guest]

No it was Imam Zahir(PBUH) that ordered the reconstruction of the church. And yes it is a historical fact that Imam Hakim bi Amrillah(PBUH) ordered the destruction.

[danish4u]

yeah its was imam order to destruct the church coz (as a 1 source of history) that the church was working against fatmid empire etc
and if we see this occassion from political point of view i think it is a good decision....... nothing to be worried

[Ustad-Bahadur-Singh]

This indeed very disturbing. Why would the Fatimid Imam destroy Christianity's holiest shrine, the place where according to Christians Jesus was burried and ressurected? Destroying such an important holy place even for political reasons is very disturbing. If someone could shed some light on this event?
How could someone who considers himself the sucessor to the Prophet, who saved the holy icons of Mary and Jesus in the Kaaba from destruction , destroy such a holy shrine?

[star_munir]

I dont think that church was destroyed and was not re-built. If there is any reference to it from any Ismaili history book do share..

[yaali101]

I am not certain of the reason that the Imam would have destroyed the church - I am not the Imam. However, I can offer possible explainations of why it could have been reasonable to destory the church. If the church was working against the Fatamid empire, it could be justified by the Imam to destroy it. As we believe, the Imam knows all and would do something that will indeed benefit us all. It could have been that the church might have led the Fatmid empire to a war, etc. where many people would have lost thier lives.
Also, there was a mention that this was one of the "holiest" churches. Well, in my belief there is no such thing as a "holy" shrine - except the heart. All churches, synagogues, temples, and even the Jamat Khanes are made up of earthly elements, which carry no significance. Remember, the benefit is that these are places we can get together, organize and pray (which can be done in any other structure). My point, however, was that there must have been a reason behind destroying the church.

[Ustad-Bahadur-Singh]

yaali101 said:

However, I can offer possible explainations of why it could have been reasonable to destory the church. If the church was working against the Fatamid empire, it could be justified by the Imam to destroy it. As we believe, the Imam knows all and would do something that will indeed benefit us all. It could have been that the church might have led the Fatmid empire to a war, etc. where many people would have lost thier lives.

As I understand from your post you consider the Holy Sepulcher to be "just" a building. So how can "just" a building conspire against the Fatimid empire? And even if it did is this a justification for destroying the holiest shrine of Christianity. Even the most wretched creature like Omar ibn al Khattab did not destroy a single church in Jerusalem even though the Byzantine Empire was fighting against him. As far as my memory goes there were no Christian terrorists hiding in the Holy Sepulcher for a sort of last stand like it was the case with Sikh terrorists in 1984 in the Golden Temple complex in Amritsar. In that case the Indian government's army did damage the Akal Takht to 25 percent but it was in no way its prime intention and in fact it presented apologies for the damage. In the case of the Fatimid Imam Hakim we are dealing with another situation. So again I ask what the reasons were for such an act. I am not writing this to insult anyone here as I have profound respect for Ismaili sacred literature and traditions. I just want to understand.

yaali101 said:

Also, there was a mention that this was one of the "holiest" churches. Well, in my belief there is no such thing as a "holy" shrine - except the heart. All churches, synagogues, temples, and even the Jamat Khanes are made up of earthly elements, which carry no significance. Remember, the benefit is that these are places we can get together, organize and pray (which can be done in any other structure).

As much as this may be true on a mystical level it remains that:
a. this does not take away the zahiri sacrality of sacred building especially those buildings considered to be the holiest shrines in a religion.
b. even if for you as an Ismaili the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is "just" a building, it nevertheless remains the very heart of Christianity. Even if one does not share the beliefs of Christians the fact that you believe that they are not as batini as you does NOT justify destroying their holy shrines.


kind regards

[Virgo2]

As I understand from your post you consider the Holy Sepulcher to be "just" a building. So how can "just" a building conspire against the Fatimid empire? And even if it did is this a justification for destroying the holiest shrine of Christianity. Even the most wretched creature like Omar ibn al Khattab did not destroy a single church in Jerusalem even though the Byzantine Empire was fighting against him.

Dear brother,

During the time of Imam Hakim, Christians were very active in destroying the Fiaimid Imamat and it is believed that they operated from the Church of Holy Sepulcher.

I believe Prophet Muhammad had destroyed a church in Africa because the Christians tried to destroy his mission there.

Omar Ibn al Khattab probably did not destroy a single church but he did worse: He destroyed the House of Ali, the House of Prophet's daughter!

Virgo2

[ShamsB]

As I understand from your post you consider the Holy Sepulcher to be "just" a building. So how can "just" a building conspire against the Fatimid empire? And even if it did is this a justification for destroying the holiest shrine of Christianity. Even the most wretched creature like Omar ibn al Khattab did not destroy a single church in Jerusalem even though the Byzantine Empire was fighting against him.

Dear brother,

During the time of Imam Hakim, Christians were very active in destroying the Fiaimid Imamat and it is believed that they operated from the Church of Holy Sepulcher.

I believe Prophet Muhammad had destroyed a church in Africa because the Christians tried to destroy his mission there.

Omar Ibn al Khattab probably did not destroy a single church but he did worse: He destroyed the House of Ali, the House of Prophet's daughter!

Virgo2

Sasriakal Ustad Paaji

If you look at the underlying causes of the command to destruct the church, which were political in nature and not religious. The destruction of the church in that time and space was necessary to quell traitors that were bent on destroying the peace.
The church had ceased being a place of worship as it was being used for other purposes.

If you look at Ismaili History, you will find that during times of rule, Ismaili Rulers were tolerant and other faiths flourished alongside islam and ismailism.

BTW..i do enjoy your signature..do you have any more like that?

Sasriakal.....

Shams

[Ustad-Bahadur-Singh]

Dear Shams

thank your for your reply. It is precisely because of the renowned tolerance of the Fatimid rulers towards other faiths that this destruction of the Holy Sepulcher contrast with the normal attitude and that it still remains a mystery to me as to why it happened. Regarding Omar ibn al Khattab, needless to say that I am not a fan of his, as love for Ali is incompatible with respect of Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Muawiah and Yazid.


People ask me if I am a muslim or a kafir...
If kufr is to reject Omar then yes I am a kafir!
And if love for Ali is Islam then I am a Muslim!

[karimqazi]

Ya Ali Madad everyone,

People ask me if I am a muslim or a kafir...
If kufr is to reject Omar then yes I am a kafir!
And if love for Ali is Islam then I am a Muslim!

This reminds me of a farman made by Imam Sultan Mohammed Shah in which He said that if you have love of Ali and you have less bandegi it will still be okay (in Kalaam-e-Imame-Mubin).

[star_munir]

Ya Ali Madad
At many times it is diffcult for us humanbeing to understand
the acts of Imam. It not means the He has done
some thing wrong. In hinduism one can get examples
like Krishna stealing butter . Although stealing
is bad thing but there was His reason for doing
this act for benefit of people !
Prophet Muhammad {PBUH} said, "Whichever way Ali
turns,the Right is in the same direction."

[Ustad-Bahadur-Singh]

With all due respect, there is a difference between stealing butter as a child from the butter belonging to the women who all treated Krishna as their own son and destroying the holiest ite of Christianity. I am still not seeing what could be a justification for such a sacriledge if indeed it was ordered by the Fatimid Imam.

[star_munir]

Dear Ustad Bahadur,
That was just a little example to point out that if you say Krishna as Lord of entire world will He steal butter? But it was His game. He was doing it for reason. If you say it was when Krishna was Kid then yet other example infront of you is of Raam. You may know about Agni Pariksha of Sita and what happened to Sita in end? Why that happened ? Again there was reason of Raam for doing it. Similalry We can't judge or argue by actions. About the church destroyed by Imam I have not that in Noorum Mubin. I will check in other ismaili history books may be there I get this incidence as well as answer of your question.

[Admin]

Just added:

Stern: A Fatimid Decree of the Year 524 AH/1130 AD

The large collection of the Turkish and Arabic manuscripts at the St Catherine Monastery in Sinai contains several Decrees issued by various Fatimid Caliphs and in particular Mustealian Fatimid Caliphs. In some of those we find confirmation of the covenant of Prophet Muhammad with the Christians for their protection. Stern publishes here one of the Decree of the Regent Abd al Majid in this article.

Download link scroll bottom of page:

http://ismaili.net/heritage/node/28721