Category Archives: Mawlid/ Milad/ Mawlood

Milad and Napoleon

Napoleon (1769 – 1821) and The French Army supported and Aided Celebrations of Mawlid.
It is mentioned by J. Christopher Herold regarding Celebration of Mawlid and Napoleon.
The Cairo notables seemed that they were not going to keep the festival. Napoleon therefore encouraged them, providing both a place and funding. Cairo celebrated for three days –sufis danced in the streets until they fell over from exhaustion, the French soldiers had fanfares and fireworks. During this time, Bonaparte was the guest of the sheikh Al Bakri. ‘In his black uniform, buttoned up to the neck, he made stark contrast with the sheikhs in their ceremonial robes, turbans, nodding to the rhythm of the verses of the Koran and telling their beads’ (Herold, J.C. in his book Bonaparte in Egypte, published in 1962, taken from
This was also mentioned in عجائب الآثار في التراجم والأخبار by Abdul Rahman Jabarti (1756 – 1825) who lived at the time of Napoleon,
He said when he was talking about the events of 1213 h the month of Rabi al Awwal, when Napolean came to Egypt.
وفيه سأل صاري العسكر عن المولد النبوي ولماذا لم يعملوه كعادتهم فاعتذر الشيخ البكري بتعطيل الأمور وتوقف الأحوال فلم يقبل وقال لابد من ذلك وأعطى له ثلثمائة ريال فرانسا معاونة وأمر بتعلق تعاليق وأحبال وقناديل واجتمع الفرنساوية يوم المولد ولعبوا ميادينهم وضربوا طبولهم ودبادبهم وأرسل الطبلخانة الكبيرة الى بيت الشيخ البكري واستمروا يضربونها بطول النهار والليل بالبركة تحت داره وهي عبارة عن طبلات كبار مثل طبلات النوبة التركية وعدة آلات ومزامير مخلفة الأصوات مطربة وعملوا في الليل حراقة نفوط مختلفة وسواريخ تصعد في الهواء.
which roughly translated as
When the commander of army asked (Shaykh al Bakri) regarding birthday of Prophet peace be upon him, that why it has been stopped when it was your habit to celebrate? Shaykh al Bakri excused because of delaying in the matters. He did not accept his excuse and aided the shaykh with three hundred french currency saying it is must to celebrate, and ordered for fireworks and Lamps. The French gathered on the day of Mawlid and played the Tabal (The drum). And a drum was sent to the house of shaykh al Bakri and played it day and night.. That was a huge Tabal like the Nauba (a Musical instrument) made in turkey, There were other instruments as well and different types of fluets….
During the French occupation of Egypt, Napoleon ordered that people should celebrate the Mawlid, and he donated to this project himself and attended it personally, because it entails opposing Islaamic legislation and included mixing between men and women, and is a form of following desires and committing prohibitions. (Taareekh Al-Jabarti 306/2)
He established it on the grounds of corrupting people’s faith, and some of those who celebrate the Mawlid are mercenaries who are there in order to make money out of this celebration, while others are common people who imitate others and seek to fulfill their religious emotions even if it is through an innovation.


[Courtesy: Reliablefatwas]

Due to the sudden glut of quarter-baked molvis propagating the blatant lie that the Deobandi Akaabir had approved of the Meelad, a need has developed to elaborate on what the Deobandi Akaabir had actually stated regarding this matter. The new breed of liberal modernists contend that the Akaabir did not object to the Meelad, but only to Haraam actions such as singing, dancing, free-mixing, and the like. In order to give expression to their shaytaani desire to institute bid’ah into the pure Deen, these modernists read the fatwas of the Akaabir with glasses tinted with bid’ah colours. Thus they intentionally misread and misuse quotes such as the following from Fatwa Rashidiyya:

“The actual extolling of Wilaadat (birth of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace)) is praiseworthy.” (Fatwa Rashidiyyah)

It is indicative of the deviousness, or the serious mental handicap, of these bid’atis, that they appear unable to see through the bid’ah-coloured blinkers and understand the unambiguous fatwa contained in the very same section of the book banning all Meelad prohibitions. At the end of this short explanation we shall quote excerpts of this fatwa which these liberal bid’atis have deviously opted to ignore.

Even the greatest Jaahil has been granted sufficient intellect to understand the simple factors of prohibition that will be expounded upon below. Anyone who seeks the truth sincerely will not fail to understand that the prohibition is as clear as daylight. Those who seek to hide behind the skirts of their Ulama who permit these sessions will not escape divine retribution. They all come under the purview of the verse of the Qur’an:



Firstly, let us define what the Meelad is. In the widespread understanding of the Ulama and the laity alike, the Meelad is a gathering that has been accorded a particular form. It is generally associated with a specific occasion, or with a particular date, particularly in the month of Rabiul Awwal, and it is cloaked with a specific procedure. A significant proportion of the people regard the Meelad as a Sunnah practice. In fact, in practice and in belief a great proportion of the proponents of Meelad treat it with greater importance than prescribed acts of Sunnah, and even Waajib acts, as shall be soon demonstrated with a simple ‘litmus test’. These characteristics of the Meelad separate it completely from a simple extolling of the birth and life of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Let us now cite an example gathering to demonstrate that even the greatest Jaahil is instinctively able to understand the difference between the Meelad and the type of gathering that was approved by the Akaabir of Deoband.

The Salafis also hold gatherings in which the life of the Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), including his blessed birth, is commemorated. But no-one, not even the greatest Jaahil, will call such events ‘Meelad’. Every Jaahil will understand instinctively that there is a difference between such an event and the Meelad. Even the extreme Barelwi bidatis will admit that the Salafi event extolling the birth and life of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is not a Meelad.

Now understand that this difference between the Salafi event and the Meelad which is instinctively comprehensible to even the greatest Jaahil, is exactly the reason why the Shariah differentiates between the two. While the Meelad in its current form is a clear bid’ah, the event held by the Salafi comes under the banner of Mustahab acts – as are all gatherings, devoid of Haraam attachments, arranged to propagate any aspect of the Deen.

The Salafi event is not beset with the numerous attachments that have become inseparably attached to the Meelad. On the other hand, the Meelad has been institutionalised into a particular form that is treated with greater importance than even actions that have been explicitly prescribed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as Sunnah. This undue emphasis placed on an action not found in the Sunnah is in itself a cause for the Meelad to be a clear bid’ah according to principles accepted by Ijma’ (consensus of the Fuqaha).

Numerous other acts in our history, such as the Nafl Jamaat on the night of 15th of Shab’an, had been branded bi’dah unanimously by the Fuqaha of all madh-habs, long before such acts had the chance to reach the level of emphasis the Meelad holds today. The same fatwa of bid’ah is infinitely more applicable to the Meelad today, considering only the fact that such acts unanimously branded as bid’ah by the fuqaha were never accompanied with the whole host of other Haraam attachments that afflict a great proportion of Meelad gatherings today. Furthermore, it is significant that the Fuqaha issued fatwas of complete blanket prohibition to such acts, rather than stating that the bid’ah can continue whilst educating the masses and encouraging them to remove the Haraam attachments and restrictions which naturally become practically inherent in the very definition of the act.

Even those Ulama who had permitted the simple forms of Meelad in their eras had issued fatwas of complete blanket prohibition on acts that had not approached anywhere close to the level of emphasis, and association to a particular day or month, which accompany all Meelad gatherings today. The significant proportion of Meelad gatherings today that are accompanied by even worse forms of transgression only serve to aggravate the degree of prohibition. 

Thus it is an act of futility and deception to cite even those Ulama who had permitted the ‘Meelad’ of their times, to justify the permission for Meelad today.


Before applying a simple ‘test’ to demonstrate just one factor of prohibition of the Meelad, let us cite a few examples of actions, practices, or events that are actual integral parts of the Deen prescribe explicitly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), unlike the Meelad.

The fasting on Mondays and Thursdays is an actual Sunnah prescribed explicitly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Tahajjud salaat, Ishraaq and Awwabeen prayers are actual Sunnah acts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). The Sunnah beard of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was proclaimed to be a Shi’ar (a distinguishing salient feature of the Muslims). All these practices are part and parcel of the Deen. There is no doubt about their status as acts of ibaadah instituted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) himself.

EVERY single sunnah practice prescribed by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) such as the examples above were upheld meticulously by the Sahabah, Tabi’een, Tab-e-Tabi’ieen, and the Auliya of all ages. In fact, the only objective measure through which the identity of the true lovers of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) can be determined is ‘fanatic’ adherence to each and every Sunnah. The effect of true love, not fake hollow love held by lovers of bid’ah, is that one cannot bear to imagine the possibility of omitting any Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). 

Numerous anecdotes of the true Auliya illustrate the intense grief and internal commotion they experienced due to an accidental omission of Tahajjud, or a particular fast on Monday, or missing one Rak’at for one of the Jama’at prayers, or forgetting to perform khilaal during wudhu, or any other Sunnah of their beloved.

Now observe carefully whether the omission of any of the above practices, whose ‘Sunniyat’ (Sunnah status) is beyond any doubt, is liable to cause even the slightest grief to the proponents of Meelad. Let alone the odd accidental omission of a fast on Monday, or a Rak’at in Jama’at, or any other Sunnah acts, the flagrant repeated omission of acts labelled as the Shi’ar of the Muslims fail to cause the slightest stir. Yet, all these practices are Sunnah prescribed directly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) for whom bidati fraudsters deceptively profess intense love for.

Now observe the litmus test in action: 

The omission of the Meelad gathering on a particular day or month, or the omission of any other constituent of Meelad which has become inherently attached to it, is liable to cause much greater grief, controversy, and commotion then the intentional, perpetual omission of any of the Sunnah practices cited as examples – whose Sunnah status is beyond any doubt.

Both the Ulama and the laity, in practice and/or in belief, regard the Meelad on a particular day, or during a particular month, as a more important act of ibaadah then many of the sacred Sunnah practices instituted explicitly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

While the fist-length beard, the trousers above the ankles, and other prescribed Sunnats of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) have been established directly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) as the Shi’ar of the believers, a significant proportion of the bid’atis have supplanted the real Shi’ar with their bid’ah Shi’ar of Meelad of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Meelad of Hazrat Easa (alayhis salaam), Meelad of Hazrat Abdul Qadir Jilaani, Meelad of local Peer Sahib, Meelad of their holy cows, etc. Whilst many regard non-participants of the Meelad as deviants, some even go as far as branding as Gustakh-e-Rasul, i.e. the worst of Kaafirs, those who refuse to participate in this bid’ah event.

The above facts are undeniable proof that not only the Meelad has become an integral part of the ‘Deen’ of the Ahlul bid’ah, thus rendering it a bid’ah action, it has also entrenched itself into their ‘Deen’ even more than acts prescribed as Sunnah explicitly by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).


We shall now elaborate on just one example of an act proclaimed as bid’ah by Ijma’ (consensus). The Nafl Jama’at arranged on the auspicious night of the 15th of Shab’an, and the Nafl Jama’at arranged on another night in Rajab, called Salaatul Raghaib, were proclaimed to be bid’ah unanimously by the Fuqaha of all madh-habs.

Take note of the fact that Nafl Jam’aat is a praiseworthy act of Ibadah in the Maliki, Shafi’i and Hanbali madh-habs. In the Hanafi madh-hab the Nafl Jam’aat is also permissible if it occurs extemporaneously, without organisation or invitation to others, and if it is limited to only three or four people. Openly inviting others to the Nafl Jam’aat renders it into a bid’ah practice in the Hanafi madh-hab.

The Fuqaha of all madh-habs branded the Salatul Nisf Shab’an and Salatul Raghaib as bid’ah because it was institutionalised in a manner that created the risk of people believing it to be a Sunnah on that particular day. Of significance is the fact that, other than being associated with a particular day or month, Salatul Nisf Sha’ban was never afflicted with any of the numerous Haraam attachments that afflict all Meelad gatherings today.

In a treatise dedicated to this issue, Shaykh al-Izz ibn al-Salam summarized the reasons based on which there was agreement of the fuqaha that these Nafl congregations were bid’ah. He states several times that the reason for prohibition was because the masses would think that this Salaat in the manner it is performed has its origin in the Sunnah:

“When a scholar performs this Salaat al-Ragha’ib in congregation with the public then the masses will think that it is the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), hence he would be attributing a falsehood to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by his example. Sometimes one’s practical example is similar to verbal expression.”

Of relevance to the argument that Meelad is merely an extolling of the life of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Shaykh al-Izz ibn al-Salam refutes the contention that Salatul Raghaib was merely a Nafl Jama’at, and thus an act of ibaadah clearly permitted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam):

“As for the hadith of Anas and ‘Itban ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with them), there is a difference between them and Salat al-Ragha’ib because being led in Salat al-Ragha’ib gives the impression to the public that it is a Sunnah and a symbol (salient feature) of the Deen whereas what is reported in the Hadith of Anas and ‘Itban (may Allah be pleased with them), is a rare circumstance, hence the public does not believe that it is Sunnah, rather they believe that it is permissible.”

Reiterating this elsewhere, he says:

“Salaat al-Ragha’ib with its peculiarities conveys the impression to the public that it is a Sunnah from the Sunnahs of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and this is the factual position.”


Hazrat Eesa (alayhis salaam) is as amongst the greatest of Prophets. His rank is such that Allah (azza wa jal) granted him such unique powers as the ability to speak as a baby, to grant life to the dead, to cure the leper, and many other unique miracles, all with the permission of Allah. Hazrat Easa’s (alayhis salaam) rank is infinitely greater than any of the numerous saints of this Ummah whose birthday or death-day is celebrated often by the Ahlul Bid’ah. However, despite the fact that the specific day of birth of Hazrat Easa (alayhis salaam) was an auspicious day, the Shariah did not accord any special status to the days occurring on the same date in subsequent years.

While Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) placed special emphasis on the two Eids, the day of Aashura, Yaum-ul-Arafat, Lailat-ul-Qadr, never did he once arrange a special gathering to commemorate the miraculous birth of Hazrat Easa (alayhis salaam), or the birth of any of 124,000 Prophets who had preceded Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

If Muslims today decide to institute a Meelad-e-Hazrat Easa gathering annually in order to commemorate the birth and life of this unique Prophet (alayhis salaam), choosing the 26th December to facilitate labouring under the self-deception of differentiating themselves from the Kuffaar, then such an act would be branded a despicable Bid’ah by the Shari’ah.

On the other hand, if a group of Muslims decide to hold an informal event to expound upon the miraculous birth and life of Hazrat Easa, without institutionalising it into a particular form to be associated with a particular date or time of year, or without any other attachments that would render it a bid’ah, then such a gathering would be regarded as Mustahab by the Shariah.

The distinction between the two is so clear that even a child is able to understand it instinctively.


The unanimous stance of the Deobandi Akaabir is represented by the following excerpts found in the very same section of the book from which the new fast growing breed of bidati ‘deobandis’ selectively quote from in order to justify their inclinations to the Barelwis:

“The customary act of moulod is bid’ah and haraam. Speak about Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) no one forbids this. But do so as was practised during Quroon-e-Thalaathah (Khairul Quroon). Neither were there moulood functions nor qiyaam (standing) when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned. All of us have been commanded to follow the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. We have not been commanded to follow the Khalaf (the later era Ulama whom the deviates quote for giving credibility to bid’ah). Allaamah Ibnul Haaj who was among the very senior authorities (of the Shariah) says in Madkhal: “From among the many bid’aat which have been innovated, with the belief that it is from among the great acts of ibaadaat and the projection of the shi-aar of Islam, is moulood which they do in the month of Rabiul Awwal. It is a conglomeration of bid’ah and acts of haraam……Even if it (the moulid) is without these evils and only food is served with the intention of moulid, and brothers are invited to participate, and the function is free from all the (haraam) mentioned earlier, then too it is bid’ah merely on the basis of the intention (that the function is moulid), for verily, it is an accretion in the Deen. It is not of the acts of the Salaf of the past. It has not been narrated that any of them had intended moulid. We follow the Salaf. Thus, for us is permissible only that which was permissible for them.”… Maulana Abdur Rahmaan Al-Maghribi Al-Hanafi, says in hi Fataawa: “Verily, moulid is bid’ah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Khulafa-e-Raashideen and the Aimmah Mujtahideen neither advocated it not practised it.” …Maulana Naseeruddeen Al-Adwi Ash-Shaafi’, in response to a question said: “It should not be practised because it has not been narrated from the Salaf-e-Saalih. It was innovated after the era of Quroon-e-Thalaathah in a wicked age. We do not follow the Khalaf (those of the later eras) in matters which the Salaf had abstained from. Following them is adequate. What then is the need for innovation?”…Shaikhul Hanaabilah Sharfuddeen (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The function of moulid (celebrating the birthday) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), which some of the wealthy practise every year, along with its evil acts, it by itself is a bid’ah which was innovated by one who follows his lust, and who does not know what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded.” (Al-Qaulul Mu’tamad)…Qaadhi Shuhaabuddeen Daulatabaadi (rahmatullah alayh) says in his Fataawa Tuhfatul Qudhaat when asked about maulid: “It should not be held because it is an innovation, and every innovation is dhalaalah, and every dhalaalah will be in the Fire. That what the juhhaal (ignoramuses) do in the beginning of every Rabiul Awwal is baseless. They stand when the birth of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned, and they think that his Rooh (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is present. Their thinking is baatil. In fact this belief is shirk. The Aimmah have prohibited such acts.” (Extracts from Faraawa Rashidiyyah)

Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi cites Mujaddid Alf-e-Thani as saying:

“Qutb Rabbaani Sayyid Ahmad Sarhindi Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani states in his Maktubaat: “If the Sufis of the age act justly and view the weakness of Islam and the prevalence of falsehood, it will be incumbent on them not to follow their shuyookh in acts besides the Sunnah, and that they should not regard fabricated acts as their Deen with the excuse that it was the amal of their shuyookh, for verily, following the Sunnah is the only Way and the repository of goodness and barakaat. In following anything other than the Sunnah is danger upon danger. And, it is on the Messenger to only deliver the Message.”

In response to a questioner who had mentioned: “I have heard that your Shaikh, Haaji Imdaadullah would also listens to moulood.”, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) said: 

“Refer to Baraani-e-Qaatiah for a detailed elaboration of moulood gatherings. Hujjat cannot be made with the statements and acts of the Mashaaikh. On the contrary, Hujjat is with the statements and acts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the statements of the Mujtahideen (rahmatullah alayhim).Hadhrat Naseeruddeen Chiraagh Dehlwi (quddisa sirruhu) said that when someone would cite as Hujjat an act of his Shaikh, Sultaan Nizaamuddeen (quddisa sirruhu), he (Hadhrat Naseeruddeen) would say: ‘The action of the Shaikh is not Hujjat.’ Hadhrat Sultaanul Auliya approved of this response.” (Fataawa Rashidiyyah, page 111) 

Further on, he says: 

“Since this function (of moulid) had not existed during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) nor during the ages of the Taabi’een and Tabe Taabi’een and the age of the Aimmah Mujtahideen it is bid’ah.”


By Mujlisul Ulama

Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) commenting on the desensitization of the even very senior Ulama and on the imperative importance of reviving the Sunnah, said:

“These customary practices are indeed evil. Great learned and intelligent men also become entangled in these customs. On account of wide scale prevalence, they lack the courage to oppose these customs. Indeed this is a great deficiency (in the Ulama). They should confront and oppose the customs with courage and power. Without resolute opposition, not only will elimination of the customs be difficult, but it will become almost impossible.

Ameer Shah said that he had met great Thiqah Buzrugs (very reliable and authentic Ulama who were in fact also Auliya). Hadhrat Shah Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh)’s family is a renowned and very great Ilmi family in India. (Great Ulama and Auliya are related to this noble family).     Ameer Shah said that in this noble family there were some (evil) customs. e.g. instead of saying ‘Assalamu Alaikum’, they would say ‘Aadaab’ (or some other customary form of un-Islamic greeting).

Although Hadhrat Shah Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh) detested this custom, however, due to the overpowering influence of customary practice, perhaps he had little hope of reforming people, hence the opportunity for severity (in opposition) did not arise. (Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali has presented his criticism very mildly due to the seniority of Hadhrat Shah Abdul Azeez rahmatullah alayh).

When Hadhrat Sayyid Sahib  (rahmatullah alayh) visited Hadhrat Shah Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh), he (Sayyid Sahib) said: “Assalamu Alaikum”. Shah Abdul Azeez, pleasantly commented in surprise: “Who is this person who has come reviving the Sunnah?” According to the Hadith the reviver of a Sunnah will receive the reward of a hundred shuhada (martyrs).”    [End of Hadhrat Thaanvi’s malfooth]

Even great, renowned and accomplished Ulama too are sometimes overwhelmed by the universal prevalence of haraam customs. Having been reared in a culture of bid’ah and baatil customs, and being in the company of Ulama who have already been desensitized by the entrenched bid’ah in which their communities are mired, these Ulama fall by the wayside, and notwithstanding their understanding, knowledge and abhorrence for the customs, they slink into lethargy and inertia, failing in the Waajib obligation of Amr Bil Ma’roof Nahyi Anil Munkar. This is most dangerous for themselves and for the Ummah. The example of Hadhrat Shah Abdul Azeez (rahmatullah alayh) who is among the greatest Ulama in our Silsilah, conspicuously illustrates the maladies of desensitization, silence and failure to proclaim the Haqq. These maladies render elimination of baatil and bid’ah almost impossible as is confirmed by Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi in the aforementioned Malfooth.

Now, it is preposterous and downright stupid to say that what the senior Ulama have done and said is correct even if their actions and views are in conflict with the Shariah. The criterion of Haqq is the Shariah – the Qur’aan and the Sunnah, not the personal views of the senior Ulama nor the dreams and mukaashafaat (inspirational revelations) of the Auliya.

The senior Ulama who came many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and who had condoned moulood and even participated therein, had become desensitized and so overwhelmed by the force of the prevalent custom and culture that their intellectual discernment became clouded. Thus they failed to realize that a practice which was originated by an evil king more than six centuries after the Sahaabah – a practice of flamboyance, waste and merrymaking – a practice which they unanimously agree did not exist in Islam during the first six hundred years of its history – they failed to realize that it was a detestable bid’ah.

With spurious arguments, they mutilated the Ahaadith to fabricate baseless interpretations in the despicable endeavour to  justify the bid’ah of moulood. In so doing they aided in the entrenchment of the haraam moulood bid’ah which was and still is given the status of ibaadat of such importance that deniers of its validity are branded kaafir.

The argument that the views of Ulama being Daleel for the validity of a custom which has no origin in the Sunnah and which, on the contrary, comprises of a number of evils, is the inspiration of shaitaan. It is among the wiles of shaitaan and is called Talbeesul Iblees (deception of Iblees). Castigating and prohibiting such obedience to the Ulama which conflicts with the Shariah, the Qur’aan Majeed states:

“They (Bani Israaeel) took their ulama and their shaikhs as gods besides Allah……..”

Milad & the Present-Day “Deobandis”

By Mujliisul Ulama



Maajin (Moron-Jaahil) so-called ‘muftis’ not worth tuppence, are abortively struggling to promote current ‘mawlid’ practices as permissible. It is the claim of these morons that this is an issue of valid difference of opinion of the Math-habs. This stance which the jaahil ‘muftis’ and ‘molvis’ masquerading as ‘Deobandis’, are peddling is baseless (baatil), and has no validity in the Shariah. They cite some big names of Shaafi’ Ulama who had appeared on the scene 600, 700 and a 1000 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and expect Muslims in general, and genuine Ulama in particular to swallow. But deglutition is a deficiency of morons, not of men of Aql.

On the assumption that the big names had claimed permissibility for current haraam mawlid bid’ah functions, it will be rejected with contempt. The views of Ulama who mounted the platform of Islam many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and centuries after the codification of the Four Math-habs of Islam, have absolutely no Shar’i status if in conflict with the  Shariah as was handed to the  Ummah from the era of Khairul Quroon. It is imperative to view the fatwas of scholars, be they big names and big guns, in the light of several immutable principles of Islam which are:

(1)  The Shariah was finalized and perfected during the very age of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah.

In this regard, the Qur’aan Majeed states explicitly with emphasis:

“This Day have I perfected for you (O Muslimeen!) your Deen, and (on this Day) have I completed for you My Favour (the Shariah of Islam), and I have chosen for you Islam as Deen.” [Surah Al-Maaidah, Aayat 3]

The completion, perfection and finalization of Islam with its Shariah preclude addition, deletion and alteration. All new practices presented in the hues of ibaadat have no room in Islam. The addition of new so-called ‘ibaadat’ practices implies the falsity of the aforementioned Qur’aanic aayat. It implies that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) departed at a time when the Deen had not yet been finalized, and despite imperfection of the Deen, Nubuwwat had ended. All such implications are kufr.

(2)  Ibaadat is only what was taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah. 

In this regard, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“He who innovates in this Amr (Deen) anything which is not of it, verily it is mardood (rejected and accursed).”

“The vilest of things are innovations (acts of bid’ah), and every bid’ah is dhalaalah (deviation leading to Jahannam).”

“Verily, Allah deprives every person of bid’ah from Taubah.”

These are just a couple of Ahaadith cited randomly. There is a deluge of Ahaadith in condemnation of bid’ah.

(3)  Ibaadat is only such worship/ practices which existed during the  Khairul Quroon.

Any practice promoted as ibaadat, which was innovated after Khairul  Quroon is mardood. Regarding the authority and authenticity of the effects of Khairul Quroon,  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Honour my Sahaabah, for they are your noblest, then those after them (the Taabieen), then those after them (the  Tab-a-Taabi’een). Thereafter kizb (lies/falsehood) will become prevalent.”

“The best of my Ummah, is my Age, then those after them (i.e.  after the Sahaabah), then those after them (the Taabi’een), then those after them (the Tab-e-Taabi’een). Thereafter will appear people who will (of their own accord) testify without being called on to testify. They will abuse trust and will not be trustworthy. They will pledge, but not fulfil (their pledges/promises). Among them  obesity (haraam fatness) will become prevalent………Then will come people who will love obesity.” 

On the basis of the aforementioned inviolable three Shar’i principles, all mawlid practices regardless of their nature and deceptive ‘beauty’ and ‘correctness’ are all the products of falsehood and obesity. All these innovated practices deceptively described and named, are acts of dhalaalah which lead to the Fire of Jahannam. A salient feature of these merrymaking garrulous and gluttonous singing, eating and feasting festivals of bid’ah is, the factor of ‘obesity’ mentioned and deprecated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Excessive feasting produces physical obesity which causes spiritual emaciation. These haraam ‘mawlid’ birthday functions emulated from the kuffaar – specialize in feasting and fun. People devour food like gluttons at these festivals falsely presented as ibaadat.

The entire year these miserable votaries of bid’ah forget Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sunnah. But for sustaining their nafsaani practices and desire for fun and festival, they sully the name of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by hoisting their bid’ah sayyiah (evil bid’ah) in the very name of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Aiding the deviates are the maajin  ‘muftis’ who compound jahaalat with jahaalat. They disgorge utter tripe ‘fatwas’ which none of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband had ever ventured.

The Akaabir Ulama of Deoband were always in the forefront of the Jihad against bid’ah, including the bid’ah of mawlid/moulood/meelaad. Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi, the Founder of Darul Uloom Deoband, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi – unanimously the greatest Aalim of Ahl-e-Deoband – Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and many other glittering Stars of Uloom and Taqwa which had emblazoned the firmament of Shar’i Uloom, Taqwa and Wara, were all branded kaafir over and over again by the people of Barelwi with whom today the ulama-e-soo’ masquerading as ‘deobandis’ are beginning to strike up alliances. Our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband had remained steadfast until the very last moments of their earthly lives in their stance and condemnation of Bid’ah. They had unanimously proclaimed meelaad with all its paraphernalia bid’ahbid’ah sayyiah.

When a misunderstanding developed in the wake of a booklet attributed to Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh), the Shaikh of the three Akaabir Ulama mentioned above, Hadhrat Gangohi and Hadhrat Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayhim) said firmly that Haaji Sahib should “consult us” in these matters. “We did not become bay’t to Haaji Sahib to ascertain the status of Hadith”. In matters of the Shariah, Haji Sahib had to refer to these illustrious Akaabir of Deoband who were his Mureeds.

In this belated age we find youngster moron ‘molvis’ citing  from the texts of Shaafi’ Ulama who arrived on the scene 7, 8, and 10 centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in their despicable attempt to negate the unequivocal Fatwa of the Ulama of Deoband on the issue of meelaad, yet they dub themselves ‘deobandis’. They are plain stupid, lacking in entirety in foresight and understanding. It is haraam for such morons to speak on Deeni issues. They should restrict their efforts to teaching Nooraani Qaaidhah, for they do nothing but mislead the masses with their convoluted fatwas of stupidity which provide unfettered latitude for the perpetuation of the haraam khuraafaat of all prevalent bid’ah sayyiah mawlid/meelaad practices and functions of merrymaking designed to foster haraam obesity as prophesized by  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

These cranks who attempt to subtly negate the Fatwa of prohibition of the Akaabir of Deoband to appease the Ahl-e-Bid’ah should remove their masks of deception and renounce the flimsy veneer of ‘deobandi’ism’ which they flaunt to mislead and misguide others.

Mawlid/meelaad bid’ah is not a matter of valid difference of the Math-habs. Our Akaabir have condemned it on the basis of it being Bid’ah Sayyiah. There is nothing ‘hasanah’ (beautiful) about this bid’ah regardless of what the 7th, 8th  and 10th century Shaafi’ Ulama may have said. The views of the centuries-later Shaafi’ Ulama on the bid’ah of mawlid are baatil. Such views are pure personal opinion devoid of Shar’i substance. They had proffered noShar’i daleel for permissibility. No one’s  personal opinion bereft of Shar’i dalai-il is Hujjat (proof/evidence) against the explicit and emphatic Shar’i Fatwa of Prohibition of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband.

Regardless of the ‘charity’ which the initial mawlid practice may have catered for, the fact is irrefutable that the  opinion of permissibility was  extremely short-sighted. It is such  opinions which have culminated in the  evil of current  day bid’ah mawlid festivals which are riddled with haraam and vice.

The names of Ibn Hajar, Suyuti, Shaukaani, Sakhawi, Qurafi (Rahmatullah alayhim), etc. – all having  appeared on the scene many centuries  after Khairul Quroon – do not alter the Shariah by one jot or dot. All the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and Tabe Taabi’een  were fully aware of Rasulullah’s day of birth and what a wondrous and blessed occasion it was for humanity.  No  one’s love for Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) superseded the love which the Sahaabah cherished in their hearts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). If there was any goodness whatsoever in the kuffaar practice of celebrating birthdays of  Ambiya or if such stupid functions had  been valid expressions of love, the Sahaabah would have been the very  first to have initiated mawlid/meelaad just as they had initiated and embedded  in Islam Taraaweeh in the current form as well as some other practices of Ibaadat.

The Sabab/Illat or raison d’etre cited  by the Bid’atis for permissibility of mawlid existed to a greater degree during the age of the Sahaabah and the Khairul Quroon era. Despite its  existence and despite the stupendously greater love the Sahaabah cherished for Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam), they never initiated any  practice which had even a slight resemblance to bid’ah, and by this we mean such bid’ah which initially may have been without the haraam, fisq and fujoor of current evil mawlid  merrymaking, nafsaani functions of singing and feasting.

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would not have deprived the Ummah of Thawaab  (Reward) by remaining silent of meelaad had it been an ibaadat and an amal of merit. Lailatul Qadr, Lailatul Baraa’ah, the Nights of the two Eids, the Day of Aashura and the Day of  Arafaat are days of ibaadat and great spiritual treasures and reward.  Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) actively promoted these auspicious days and nights. He instructed fasting and Nafl ibaadat for these occasions. Yet, he remained completely silent about the day of his blessed birth. If it  was a day of ibaadat to be observed and to gain thawaab, then the silence of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would have been
irreconcilable with his mission of  Nubuwwat. His very silence and his  abstention from hoisting his day of birth on the Ummah as a day of  observance is the clearest evidence damning the bid’ah sayyiah meelaad practices which the miscreants have innovated in emulation of the Yahood and Nasaara who celebrate the birthday anniversaries of the holy personages.

Meelaad has been hoisted on the Ummah as if it is an ibaadat of the highest merit. It has been given a status far superior to even Lailatul Qadr, and those who abstain from it are branded kaafir.  In fact, our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband have been labelled kaafir over and over by the Qabar Pujaari sect (the Barelwis) for proclaiming that their meelaad is bid’ah. 

The argument that mawlid if practiced ‘correctly’ is permissible is moronic. Bid’ah, said Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) is never beautiful. Bid’ah is ugly. It is satanic. It is shaitaan’s most potent trap. There is no beauty in innovation presented in the form of ibaadat. It is simply not  ibaadat. It was unknown in the era of Khairul Quroon. It is a centuries-later innovation, and the only flimsy basis the votaries of this bid’ah can disgorge is the personal opinion, unsubstantiated by Nusoos or Shar’i Usool – opinions of some Shaafi’ Ulama of many centuries after Khairul Quroon – after finalization and perfection of Islam. Islam can never be adorned and beautified with innovated practices. If there had been a need for enhancing the beauty of Islam with added and innovated acts disguised as ‘ibaadat’, Allah Ta’ala would not have finalized and terminated Nubuwwat. The door of Nubuwwat would have been left open as it was left open until Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The very finalization and termination of the long Chain of Nubuwwat is the strongest evidence for the butlaan (nullity  and falsehood) of the bid’ah ‘ibaadat’ funfare festival of mawlid/meelaad.

Our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband were among Baqiyaatus Salf. They were glorious remnants of the Salfus Saaliheen of the Khairul Quroon epoch. They did not spew out personal opinion – opinion unsubstantiated with Shar’i daleel. Every Fatwa of our Akaabireen is structured on solid Shar’i dalaa-il. The Prohibition of meelaad stated by the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband is unlike the fatwas of personal opinion of the muta-akh-khireen Shaafi’ Ulama. The Akaabir of Deoband were genuine Fuqaha of the kind who had flourished during the Khairul Quroon. Today moron so-called ‘deobandi’ molvis of the haatibul  lail class flaunt their jahaalat with their stupid, abortive attempts to neutralize the Fatwa of Prohibition which the Ulama of Deoband had and still resolutely propagate.

One moron, maajin cardboard molvi with his rodomontade attitude bordering on insolence and disrespect for the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband, disgorged: “In almuhanad al mufanad the bible or gospel of the aqidah of the scholars of deoband its clearly mentioned mawlood free of haraam bidat is acceptable.”  

This insolent upstart claiming to be a ‘deobandi’ lacks the rudiments of Akhlaaq. The Kitaab which he mentions so insolently is NOT the ‘bible or gospel’ of the Aqeedah of the Akaabir of Deoband. While our beliefs have been outlined and briefly explained in that Kitaab in refutation of the Barelwi sect’s slander, it is not the ‘bible and gospel’ of the Ulama of Deoband. Al-Muhannad was authored by Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Sahaaranpuri (rahmatullah alayh). The moron molvi should read Hadhrat Khalil Ahmad’s Baraahin-e-Qaatiah to gain insight and to better understand his explicit criticism of meelaad and all acts of bid’ah of the Qabar Pujaari sect.

The correct approach is to cite what Maulana Khalil Ahmad Sahaaranpuri says in his Baraahin-e-Qaatiah. The issue at hand, is the current-day Satanist functions dubbed ‘meelaad/mawlid/moulood’. But perhaps he is too dense in his Aql to understand Baraahin-e-Qaatiah. During our student days in Jalalabad, one South African student suggested to Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) to introduce in the syllabus for the benefit of South African students, the Kitaab Baraahin-e-Qaatiah to basically equip them against the Barelwi Bid’atis when they return to South Africa. Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) commented: “To understand Baraahin-e-Qaatihah there is a need for Aql.”  We leave you at this conundrum to decide the lack of Aql in these moron youngster upstart maajin, cardboard molvis who lack the ability to distinguish between light and darkness. They  simply are bereft of Aql.

The type of ‘meelaad’ for which permissibility is accorded in Haft-e-Maslah which is attributed to Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah  alayh), the Shaikh of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband, which was his private practice and totally devoid of the slightest act of haraam, is also banned by the Akaabir Ulama. In fact, when the booklet, Haft-e-Mas’alah was read out to Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh), he commented: “Take it into the bathroom and burn it out.” He had discerned the kitaab attributed to his Shaikh as being a source of fitnah and misguidance, hence his reaction. (The bathroom was chosen for burning the book because the fire was always lit there for warming the water.)

When critics reported this episode to Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh) who was at that time living in Makkah Mukarramah, he commented:

“In the Name of Allah, the Merciful; the “Most ’Merciful. We praise Him and recite Durood upon His gracious Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam).

This epistle is from Faqeer lmdaadullah Chisti to all friends generally.

“In these days some letters from Hindustan have reached this Faqeer. The purport of these letters was that certain people hold detestable views about Molvi Rashid Ahmad (Gangohi) Sahib. The writers of the letters wished to know what attitude they should hold about Molvi Sahib (Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi). On behalf of this faqeer (i.e. Haaji Imdaadullah Sahib) publicize that:

Molvi Rashid Ahmad Sahib is an Aalim-e-Rabbaani (an Aalim of Allah) and a Faadhil-e-Haqqaani (a true and qualified Aalim of the Deen). He is the resemblance of the Salf-e-Saaliheen (the great and pious authorities of the Deen of former times). He is an authority of the Shariat and Tareeqat (the branch of Islam dealing with spiritual purification and development). He is engaged in the Pleasure of Allah and His RasooI (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) night and day. He keeps alive the profession of imparting the knowledge of the Hadith Shareef. After Molvi Muhammad lshaq, he (MauIana Gangohi) is the one who keeps alive this knowledge. In Hindustan, Molvi Rashid Ahmad is an unique example and an outstanding personality.

Molvi Sahib (Maulana Gangohi) provides solutions to most intricate masaa’il. Approximately fifty persons qualify annually by him in knowledge of Hadith Shareef. He is totally immersed in following the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He is engrossed in the love of Rasool-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He is the proclaimer of Haqq and the hadith, “They fear not the insult of the insultors.”, aptly fits him.

He reposes total tawakkul (trust) in Allah Ta’ala and he abstains totally from bid’ah. His profession is the dissemination of the Sunnah. He transforms people of defective belief into persons of correct belief. This is his trade. His companionship (suhbat) for the people of Islam is a tremendous boon and an alchemy. Sitting in his company  induces the remembrance of Allah, and such remembrance is the sign of Men of Allah.

He is a muttaqi (pious and full of fear for Allah). He is detached from this world. He aspires for the Aakhirat. He has excelled in tasawwuf and sulook. The rich and the poor are equal in his sight. His gaze is focussed equally on all. He is a man without worldly desire and without ego.

The praise which this Faqeer (i.e. Haaji lmdaadullah) has lauded on him (Maulana Gangohi) in the book, Ziyaaul Quloob, is the Haqq. Now my love and opinion for him have increased by a far greater degree than before. I consider him (Maulana Gangohi) as a  medium for my najaat (salvation in the Aakhirat).

I declare most emphatically that he who condemns Molvi Rashid Ahmad, hurts my heart. I have two wings.

One is Molvi Qasim Naanotwi, (the founder of Darul Uloom Deoband) who has passed away, and the other is Molvi Rashid Ahmad. This remaining wing of mine is now also being made a target (for vilification) by people. 

The Aqeedah (belief) of Molvi Rashid Ahmad and myself is the same. l too regard bid’ah to be evil. In matters of the Deen whoever is the opponent of Molvi Rashid Ahmad is likewise my opponent as well as the opponent of Allah and of His Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Some juhaIaa (ignoramuses) who distinguish between Tareeqat and Shariat do so because of their lack of understanding. Tareeqat minus Shariat is unacceptable in the Court of Allah Ta’ala. Cleanliness of heart is even attained by the kuffaar. The condition of the heart is like a mirror. The mirror is dirty. The dirt on the mirror can be removed with urine as well as rose water. But the difference is a question of tahaarat (Shari purification) and Najasat (impurity). The recognition, therefore, of a Wali of Allah is the Standard of ittibaa-e-Sunnah (following the Sunnah). He who follows the Sunnah is the friend of Allah. If one is a mubtadi  (bid’ati) one is absolutely false.”

Haaji Imdaadullah, Makkah Muazzamah 25th Zil-Qadh 1310

The votaries of this mawlid festival and birthday party celebration acquired from Christians, should not cite 600 and 700 and 1000 year later Shaafi’ Ulama for permissibility. They should cite the Sahaabah. They should present Daleel from the Khairul Quroon. They should structure their case on Nusoos of the Shariah, not on the personal opinions and personal practices of centuries-later Shaafi’ Ulama. Even today many misguided miscreant Hanafi Ulama, due to weakness in spirit and deficiency in Ilm, appease the Bid’atis by accepting their haraam bid’ah practices as ‘valid difference of opinion’. The views of such juhala are totally devoid of Shar’i substance.

When discussing the Shariah, they should not argue like the Yahood and Christians who have mangled and mutilated the Shariats of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam) beyond recognition with their personal opinions of ahwaa. Allah Ta’ala, severely reprimanding this type of attitude of the Bani Israaeel, states in the Qur’aan Shareef:

“They (the Bani Israaeel) take their scholars  and saints as gods (arbaab) besides Allah…”

The Ulama who flourished six and seven centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are not our ‘gods’. We do not submit to their personal opinions. Their views can never override the Shariah. What existed during the era of Khairul Quroon is the Shariah, not that which was cultivated by innovation centuries thereafter regardless of the artificial ‘beauty’ with which the bid’aat are deceptively adorned.

One moron molvi, displaying his jahaalat in the miserable attempt to peddle the idea that the senior Ulama of Deoband practised some ‘purified’ brand of moulood, avers:

“The mawlood that is free from any haraam n innovation was practised by our seniors.”

This comment is devious and dishonest. Our seniors did not practise any kind of moulood. Who were those seniors? Let the moron mention their names. Every type of moulood is bid’ah. There is no moulood free of haraam factors. Every moulood is bid’ah sayyiah. The deceptive appellation ‘bid’ah hasanah’ given to moulood functions allegedly ‘free of haraam’ is a gross error. It is a snare of shaitaan – Talbeesul Iblees. Some sincere Ulama by virtue of their short-sightedness and failure to comprehend the exact nature and meaning of bid’ah fell into the snare of deception and believed that there could be a kind of moulood free of haraam. Since moulood per se is bid’ah regardless of other haraam elements attached or unattached, it may not be described as bid’ah hasanah.

Bid’ah Hasanah is an act institution introduced to safeguard or to revive a Sunnah institution. Bid’ah Hasanah is not the innovation of a new practice of ibaadat which was unknown to the Salaf-e-Saaliheen of the Khairul Quroon era. Moulood has not been introduced to revive or protect any existing Sunnah, practice or teaching of Islam. It is a pure fabrication of the nafs which has deluded even many senior Ulama, especially among the Shawaafi’ later-day Ulama who appeared on the scene many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

Commenting on the deception of ‘bid’ah hasanah’ with which shaitaan has adorned bid’ah acts such as moulood, Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani, the Mujjadid of Islam’s second millennium, said:

“Some people say that bid’ah is of two kinds: Hasanah and Sayyiah. Hasanah is a virtuous act which came into being after the era of our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the era of the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, and it is not an eliminator of any Sunnah. Sayyiah is an innovated act which eliminates Sunnah.

However, this Faqeer does not discern any beauty in any kind of bid’ah whatsoever. There is nothing discernable in it besides zulmat (spiritual darkness) and kudoorat (spiritual contamination).Whoever today sees goodness and beauty in any innovated act because of weakness of baseerat (spiritual insight), will most certainly know tomorrow (at the time of Maut), after the acquisition of sharpness in baseerat (when all veils of darkness will be removed) that the only consequence of it (bid’ah hasanah) is regret and loss.

Sayyidul Bashr, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever innovates in this Deen of ours anything which is not of it, it (and he) is mardood.” Now when something is mardood, then from whence has it acquired beauty (husn)? And, Rasulullah (alayhis salaam) said: “…………………..Verily, every innovation is bid’ah, and every bid’ah is dhalaalah (misguidance, deviation from the Haqq)”. Thus, when every innovation is bid’ah and every bid’ah is dhalaalah, then what is the meaning of husn (beauty) in bid’ah?

It is also understood from the Ahaadith that every bid’ah is the eliminator of Sunnah, and elimination is not restricted to some acts of bid’ah. Thus, every bid’ah is sayyiah (evil). Nabi (alayhis salaam) said: “Whenever a people innovates a bid’ah there is  a corresponding elimination of Sunnah.”

“When the mind is properly applied, it will become apparent that some acts which (some) Ulama and Mashaaikh have described as bid’ah hasanah, are in reality eliminators of Sunnah. ……………….Similar are all innovated acts of bid’ah. They all are excesses on the Sunnah from some angle or the other. An excess (on the Sunnah) is abrogation (cancellation) And, abrogation is an eliminator (of Sunnah). Therefore, make incumbent on yourself submission to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and be contented with following his noble Ashaab (radhiyallahu anhum), for verily they are like the Stars. Whomever of them you follow, you will be guided.`

“…………Verily, every Sunnah and bid’ah are opposites to each other. The presence of the one necessarily eliminates the other. Thus, the revival of one is the elimination of the other. How then is it proper to describe bid’ah as being hasanah when its necessary corollary is the elimination of Sunnah?………………………….At this juncture there is an objection even though this will be heavy on the majority because of the widespread prevalence of bid’ah. But, soon tomorrow (at the time of Maut) will they realize whether we are on hidaayat or they.

“It is narrated that when the Promised Al-Mahdi (Imaam Mahdi) will intend the implementation of the Deen and the revival of the Sunnah in his era, an Aalim of Madinah who is accustomed to act according to bid’ah which he believes to be hasanah and an accessory of the Deen, will say in surprise that this person (Imaam Mahdi) intends to eliminate our Deen. Then Imaam Mahdi will order him to be executed, for he (Imaam Mahdi) will regard as evil what that Aalim believes to be hasan (beautiful).”

(The following question was posed to Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani):

“Regarding the issue of reciting maulid: What is wrong in reciting the Qur’aan and reciting qaseedas (na’ts) and praises with a beautiful voice? Why is the prohibition in this case?” Hadhrat Mujaddid responded:

“It has generated in the heart of this Faqeer that as long as this avenue (of moulood) is not closed totally, the maniacs (of the nafs) will not desist from it. If we grant a little leeway, it will lead to considerable (indulgence).”

“Thus, the fortunate one is he who enlivens a Sunnah from the abandoned Sunan, and he kills a bid’ah from the prevalent bid’ah. This is the era heralding a thousand years since the era of the Noblest of Mankind, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Signs and Indications of Qiyaamah and the Impending Hour have become manifest. The Sunnah has become hidden due to the recession of the era of  Nubuwwah, and bid’ah has become prominent as a consequence of the widespread prevalence of falsehood.

The dissemination of bid’ah culminates in the destruction of the Deen. Honouring bid’ah leads to the demolition of Islam. Perhaps you have heard the Hadith: “Whoever honours a man of bid’ah, verily he has aided in the demolition of Islam.” Therefore, it is only appropriate to apply the focus fully and to make the utmost effort to disseminate a Sunnat from the Sunan, and to eliminate a bid’ah from the bid’aat. It is imperative to establish the commands of Islam at all times, especially during these times of the weakness of Islam. This is reliant on the dissemination of the Sunnah and  the elimination of bid’ah.

It appears that some of the predecessors (such as the Shaafi’ Ulama of the later eras) had discerned ‘beauty’, hence they approved of some such acts. But this Faqeer does not agree with them in this issue. I do not see any beauty in even a single act of bid’ah. I discern in it nothing but darkness and contamination.

“May Allah Ta’ala grant the Ulama of this age the taufeeq to totally refrain from describing bid’ah as hasanah, and may Allah Ta’ala grant them the taufeeq to abstain from issuing fatwas condoning it even if the act of bid’ah (acts such as moulood) appears to them glittering like the morning light, for verily the deceptions of shaitaan are massive in acts besides the Sunnah.

“In former times due to the power of Islam, the darkness of bid’ah was overshadowed. Perhaps some of that darkness which was overshadowed (by the radiance of Islam) appeared to be nooraani in the rays of Islam’s Noor. Thus, this imagination led to the opinion of husn despite there being absolutely no husn (in the acts of bid’ah) in reality. However, in the current age Islam has become weak. It may not now be imagined that the darkness of bid’ah could be tolerated, hence it is not proper now to apply the fatwa of the Mutaqaddimeen and the Muta-akh-khireen. Verily, for every era there are different ahkaam.” [Al-Fathur Rahmaani]

Hadhrat Qutb Rabbaani Sayyid Ahmad Sarhindi Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) was the Mujaddid who appeared at the commencement of Islam’s second millennium. Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that this Deen will be purified by a Mujaddid whom Allah Ta’ala will dispatch at the beginning of every century. The few extracts (above) reveal the gross error of those who have passed off moulood as ‘bid’ah hasanah’. They all are the victims of shaitaan’s Talbeesul Iblees snares. Citing Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani, the following appears in Fataawa Rashidiyyah of Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh):

“Qutb Rabbaani Sayyid Ahmad Sarhindi Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani states in his Maktubaat: “If the Sufis of the age act justly and view the weakness of Islam and the prevalence of falsehood, it will be incumbent on them not to follow their shuyookh in acts besides the Sunnah, and that they should not regard fabricated  acts as their Deen with the excuse that it was the amal of their shuyookh, for verily, following the Sunnah is the only Way and the repository of goodness and barakaat. In following anything other than the Sunnah is danger upon danger. And, it is on the Messenger to only deliver the Message.”

The following are more citations from Fataawa Rashidiyyah:

> “The customary act of moulood is bid’ah and haraam. Speak about Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) no one forbids this. But do so as was practised during Quroon-e-Thalaathah (Khairul Quroon). Neither were there moulood functions nor qiyaam (standing) when Rasulullah  (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned. All of us have been  commanded to follow the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. We have not been commanded to follow the Khalf  (the later era Ulama whom the deviates quote for giving credibility to bid’ah).

> “Maulana Abdur Rahmaan Al-Maghribi Al-Hanafi, says in his Fataawa: “Verily, moulid is bid’ah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Khulafa-e -Raashideen and the Aimmah Mujtahideen neither advocated it not practised it.”

> Allaamah Ibnul Haaj who was among the very senior authorities (of the Shariah) says in Mudkhal: “From among the many bid’aat which have been innovated, with the belief that it is from among the great acts of ibaadaat and the projection of the shi-aar of Islam, is moulood which they do in the month of Rabiul Awwal. It is a conglomeration of bid’ah and acts of haraam……Even if it (the moulid) is without these evils and only food is served with the intention of moulid, and brothers are invited to participate, and the function is free from all the (haraam) mentioned earlier, then too it is bid’ah merely on the basis of the intention (that the function is moulid), for verily, it is an accretion in the Deen. It is not of the acts of the Salaf of the past. It has not been narrated that any of them had intended moulid. We follow the Salaf. Thus, for us is permissible only that which was permissible for them.”

> “Maulana Naseeruddeen Al-Adwi Ash-Shaafi’, in response to a question said: “It should not be practised because it has not been narrated from the Salaf-e-Saalih. It was innovated after the era of Quroon-e-Thalaathah in a wicked age. We do not follow the Khalaf (those of the later eras) in matters which the Salaf had abstained from. Following them is adequate. What then is the need for innovation?”

> “Shaikhul Hanaabilah Sharfuddeen (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The function of moulid (celebrating the birthday) of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), which some of the wealthy practise every year, along with its evil acts, it by itself is a bid’ah which was innovated by one who follows his lust, and who does not know what Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded.” [Al-Qaulul Mu’tamad]

> “Qaadhi Shihaabuddeen Daulatabaadi (rahmatullah alayh) says in his Fataawa Tuhfatul Qudhaat when asked about maulid: “It should not be held because it is an innovation, and every innovation is dhalaalah,  and every dhalaalah will be in the Fire. That what the juhhaal  (ignoramuses) do in the beginning  of every Rabiul Awwal is baseless. They  stand when the birth of Nabi (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam) is mentioned, and they think that his Rooh (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam) is present. Their thinking  is baatil. In fact this belief is shirk.  The Aimmah have prohibited such acts.” [Extracts from Fataawa Rashidiyyah]

Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) says in his Fataawa Rashidiyyah:

> In response to a questioner who had mentioned: “I have heard that your Shaikh, Haaji Imdaadullah would also listen to moulood.”, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Refer to Baraaheen-e-Qaatiah for a detailed elaboration of moulood gatherings. Hujjat cannot be made with the statements and acts of the Mashaaikh. On the contrary, Hujjat is with the statements and acts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the statements of the Mujtahideen (rahmatullah alayhim).

Hadhrat Naseeruddeen Chiraagh Dehlwi (quddisa sirruhu) said that when someone would cite as Hujjat an act of his Shaikh, Sultaan Nizaamuddeen (quddisa sirruhu), he (Hadhrat Naseeruddeen) would say: ‘The action of the Shaikh is not Hujjat.’ Hadhrat Sultaanul Auliya approved of this response.” [Fataawa Rashidiyyah, page 111]

On page 132, he says: “Since this function (of moulid) had not existed during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) nor during the ages of the Taabi’een and Tabe Taabi’een and the age of  the  Aimmah Mujtahideen it is bid’ah.


Unlike the Shariats of the Ambiya who preceded Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), which had not been bestowed with the blessing of Divine Protection, the Shariah of Khaatamul Ambiya, Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has been offered Allah’s Protection against all satanic intrusions from both without and within. Thus, the Qur’aan Hakeem states:

“We have revealed the Thikr, and most certainly We are its Protectors.”

With the dual agencies of the Ulama-e-Haqq and the genuine Huffaaz, has Allah Azza Wa Jal protected His Deen from the kind of mutilation and metamorphosis to which all previous Shariats have been subjected by their respective followers. The Office of the Ulama-e-Haqq has been divinely established to guard the meanings and the laws of the Deen, while the institution of Huffaaz guards the text of the Qur’aan Majeed.

Every man of Ilm is aware that the Dalaa-il of the Shariah are ensconced in Four Edifices, namely, Kitaabullaah, Sunnatur Rasool, Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas-e- Shar’i. It should therefore be understood that any person, especially if he professes to be a scholar, who attempts to accord Shar’i recognition, credibility and acceptance to an institution, tenet, practice, custom, belief, ideology, etc. has  to incumbently structure his proposal on the basis of the Dalaa-il of the Shariah. Any self-professing ‘scholar’ such as these pseudo-deobandies who are on a hike to bamboozle the ignorant and unwary with the names of recognized Ulama who have erred in their views, who seeks to ascribe Shar’i status to the personal opinions and the faasid qiyaas of some Ulama without structuring his case on  mthe Divine Rock of Dalaail-e-Ar’ba’ah, is a moron par bunkum. In other words, a plain jaahil whose ideas excreted by his brain are fit for the sewerage drain.

That the Proof of Haqq is not the name or view of a Shaikh/Aalim, is the following unequivocal statements of the Akaabir Authorities of the Shariah:

“He who takes (as daleel) the rarities (and obscure views) of the Ulama, has made his exit from Islam.”  _Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab Sha’raani

“Haaji Sahib (i.e. Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah, the Shaikh of the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband) is not the name of any Shar’i Daleel. Therefore to mention Haaji Saahib in relation to Shar’i issues is baseless.” [Fataawa Rashidiyyah]

While there are numerous similar declarations of the Authorities, these two will suffice for this brief treatise.

Thus, just as ‘Haaji Saahib’ is not among the Dalaa-il of the Shariah, so too, are the Shaafi’ Ulama or the Ulama of any  Math-hab of the Muta-akhireen, not among the Dalaa-il of the Shariah. Ulama such as Ibn Hajar Haitami, Ibn Hajar Asqalaani, Qaadhi Iyaadh, Sakhaawi, Suyuti and others,  (rahmatullaah alayhim), who appeared on the Islamic horizon many centuries, even a 1000 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu  alayhi wasallam), are not the designations for Shar’i Dalaa-il. Their personal opinions unbacked by Shar’i Dalaa-il, may not be hoisted as Shar’i Ahkaam. And, this has greater emphasis when their personal opinions are in flagrant conflict with the Nusoos of the Shariah.

Great Ulama too err and are known to terribly slip and commit such blunders which cannot be  reconciled with the Shariah, and which leave one aghast. Such views shall be set aside without harshly criticizing the Aalim of Haqq who has erred in his understanding. Such errors area due to a variety of factors which shall not be dealt with at this juncture.

Consider Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) who is an acknowledged Aalim Rabbaani, Aarif Billaah, Hujjatullaah, and among the greatest Stars of Uloom, Wara and Taqwa produced by Daarul Uloom Deoband. In the initial phase of his life he too had grievously erred by believing that meelaad minus the haraam factors is permissible. Thus, the kitaab, Haft Mas’alah, attributed to Hadhrat Haaji Sahib, was actually written by Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). He read it to Haaji Sahib who approved of it. However, after exchanging several letters with Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) – letters in which the discussion of participating in meelaad was elaborately discussed with solid Shar’i Dalaa-il from both parties, Hadhrat Thanvi ultimately conceded his error and retracted his opinion of permissibility. In fact, in one letter, the effect of Hadhrat Gangohi’s reprimand was: It is surprising for an Aalim of your status to utter such drivel.

Ulama who are genuine Ulama are not daunted by the names of great Ulama when others seek to cite their blunders as hujjat. The rulings of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of the Khairul Quroon are Hujjat for us, not the personal opinions of Ulama who appeared many centuries after the perfection announced in the  Qur’aan Majeed:

“This Day have I perfected for you your Deen, and completed for you My Favour, and have chosen Islam for you as Deen.”

Furthermore, let the moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis understand that there is Ijma’ of all Authorities of the Shariah, including all those Ulama whom they have mentioned as condoners of meelaad, that the current forms of mawlid/meelaad are bid’ah and haraam. There is not a single one of the Shaafi’ Ulama whose names the morons have cited, who has ever claimed mawlid in general is permissible.

According to them, all the vices associated with meelaad programmes and functions are haraam. The accompaniment of these evil elements renders mawlid haraam and bid’ah even according to those Shaafi’ Ulama who have claimed, albeit erroneously, permissibility for such mawlid functions which are devoid of the haraam khurafaat which bedevil each and every mawlid function wherever it is held on earth. Just view the advertising pamphlet of the current carnival-type mawlid function which is being organized by the Syrian deviate, one Shaikh Ninowy and his clique of singers and stage performers.

With all these haraam elements silhouetted in the background, these pseudo-deobandi molvis should hang their heads in shame if they still have any vestige of Imaani haya, for supporting mawlid with the opinions of the senior Shaafi’ Ulama who never had ever condoned the Ninowy  type of haraam, Satanism perpetrated in the name of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi  wasallam). By disseminating the  statements of the Shaafi Ulama whose opinions of jawaaz apply to other types of functions in a different setting, did these morons serve the Cause of Haqq? Did they serve the Cause of Haqq which our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband had resolutely advanced? Did they serve the Cause of the Sunnah?

What will the ordinary masses understand from such statements of jawaaz juxtaposed at this time in the month of Rabiul Awwal with its prevalence of absolutely haraam, shaitaani functions of meelaad/mawlid? Lamenting the dearth of Aql in the Ulama of his time, Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh), pouring out his heart, said:

“May Allah Ta’ala grant the Ulama of this age the taufeeq to totally refrain from describing bid’ah as hasanah, and may Allah Ta’ala grant them the taufeeq to abstain from issuing fatwas condoning it even if the act of bid’ah (acts such as moulood) appears to them glittering like the morning light, for verily the deceptions of shaitaan are massive in acts besides the Sunnah.

One only needs to be just to understand the zulm which these moron molvis are inflicting on the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by disgorging the flotsam of their compound jahaalat

The custom of moulood did not have even an existence in the imagination of the Salfus Saaliheen. From the inception of Islam until well after completion of the sixth century of the Hijri era was there no existence for this bid’ah practice even in the imagination of the Ummah. It was only after the sixth century that this bid’ah sayyiah was fabricated by an evil king aided by a faasiq molvi. Ibn Hajar Asqalaani (rahmatullah alayh) comments on the founder of this bid’ah:

He was extremely vituperative towards the Aimmah and Ulama of the Salaf. He was a man with a khabeeth (filthy, evil) tongue. He was a moron, extremely arrogant and short-sighted. In Deeni matters he was very lax. ……..Allaamah Ibn Najjaar said: ‘I have seen the consensus of people on his falsehood and weakness.” [Lisaanul Meezaan].

Allaamah Ahmad Bin Muhammad Misri-Al-Maaliki said: “The Ulama of the Four Math-habs are unanimous in their condemnation of this act (of mawlid).”  [Al-Qoulul Mu’tamad] 

The baseless opinions of some Ulama are of no significance since opinion minus Dalaa-il from the Nusoos of the Shariah, are the effects of men’s  minds. Such opinions may not be passed off as ahkaam of the Shariah which is the product of Wahi, not the disgorgement of the minds of men. That there is not a single Nass of the Shariah which can be presented to substantiate the bid’ah of meelaad, is well borne out by the statement of even Jalaluddeen Suyuti (d.911 Hijri) whom the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and the pseudo-deobandi moron molvis cite as a basis for permissibility of mawlid/meelaad. Despite having spoken in praise of mawlid, Imaam Suyuti is constrained to concede: “There is no Nass for it (for its permissibility). But there is qiyaas (reasoning).”

This is a clear admission of the total absence of daleel from Kitaabullaah, Sunnah of the Rasool and Ijma’. He mentions ‘qiyaas’, but regrettably and lamentably the qiyaas he presents in support of this bid’ah is faasid  (corrupt) and devoid of Shar’i substance. It is indeed surprising how even senior Ulama can slip and fall into blunder. Despite them being fully aware of the irrefutable fact that for six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) there was no existence of this bid’ah, and that the originator of this evil bid’ah was a faasiq king aided and abetted by a faasiq molvi, they still fell victim to such a grievous error which due to its wide prevalence was accepted as valid by later Ulama.

Indeed, when Ulama adopt  silence in the face of bid’ah and munkar, these evils become entrenched in the Ummah. With the passage of time people, including Ulama and Mashaaikh become desensitized, the notoriety and villainy of the evil then appear insignificant to them. And, this rings the bells for Divine Punishment on a universal scale. There was a time in India, when even in the homes of reliable Mashaaikh and Ulama, the Masnoon Salaam had receded into oblivion. Even in the homes of genuine Mashaaikh some customary form of salutation was in vogue, hence when Hadhrat Sayyid Sahib (rahmatullah alayh) arrived at the home of Shah Abdul Azeez and proclaimed loudly from outside: “ASSALAAMU ALAIKUM!”, the Shah, with pleasant surprise said: “Who is this Reviver of the Sunnah? There was a need for a robust Aalim of Haqq of the calibre of Sayyid Sahib (rahmatullah alayh) to revive and establish the Sunnah in a society raked with bid’ah sayyiah to such an extent that even the Thiqaaat among the Ulama and Mashaaikh were silenced by desensitization. The very same evil desensitization had overtaken many Ulama who had simply accepted the bid’ah of moulood. With much naivety they soothed their conscience with a variety of utterly baseless arguments and interpretations wholly unfit of Ulama.

Having lapped up the spurious and stupid arguments of the Barelwi bid’atis, the pseudo-deobandi moron, cardboard molvis, also present Ibn Hajar Haitami’s view in substantiation of meelaad without understanding that just like ‘Haaji Imdaadullah Sahib’ is not the name of a Shar’i Daleel, so too is Haitami not the name of a Shar’i Daleel. Besides this fact, Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah alayh) never condoned the type of flagrant and immoral mawlid festivals and coon-funfare functions prevalent nowadays everywhere where such haraam merrymaking parties are held. Denouncing the evil of haraam meelaads (haraam according to Haitami), he says in Fataawa Hadithiyyah:

“…There is no doubt in the fact that the first kind of (meelaad) functions (in which haraam activities take place) are prohibited and unlawful on the basis of the Shariat’s well-known  principle: ‘Elimination of harms has priority over acquisition of benefits.”

Therefore, if it is known that even a single Shar’i evil will be taking place in any meelaad function, then it will be disobedience to Allah Ta’ala to participate in it. He will be sinful (for participating). Assuming that the participant engaged in a good deed at the function, it will not compensate for the evil found at the function………Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded total abstention from all kinds of evil deeds. Hence, there is no permission for indulging in evil, be it negligible.”

Although Ibn Hajar Haithami (rahmatullah alayh) is in grievous error for condoning meelaad functions which are totally devoid of the current haraam practices and evils which bedevil every mawlid merrymaking festival prevalent nowadays, he nevertheless categorically proclaims haraam all these shaitaani mawlid carnivals for which the pseudo-deobandi juhhaal molvis are excreting stupid arguments gleaned from the Barelwi Bid’atis.

Also in Fataawa Hadithiyyah, Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah alayh) states very explicitly: “Many people stand up at the time of the mention of Rasulullah’s birth during the meelaad function. This is bid’ah. There is no Hadith, etc. confirming this act.” Qiyaam (standing) is in fact a fundamental act in the mawlid’s of today. The well-known kitaab, Ghaayatul Maraam of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah explicitly states:

“Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) attends every meelaad function. It is therefore Fardh to stand in honour. The one who does not stand is a kaafir.”

Providing even the slightest leeway for permissibility of this bid’ah as the pseudo-deobandi morons do, is to support the prevalent kinds of haraam, evil mawlid functions which are believed to have greater importance than Salaat in certain quarters.

The first among the great and illustrious Ulama to have written a refutation of the bid’ah of meelaad was Allaamah Shaikh Taajuddeen Faakihaani (rahmatullah alayh). In refutation of this bid’ah sayyiah, he writes in his Al-Mawrid fil Kalaam ma-a Amalil Mawlid:

“I know not of any basis for this mawlid, neither from the Kitaab (Qur’aan) nor from the Sunnah. Nor is it narrated from those Ulama (Salfus Saaliheen) who were the Authorities of the Deen, and who had supported with diligence the narrations of the Salfus Saaliheen.

This mawlid is bid’ah. The Ahl-e-Baatil had originated it, and carnal lusts of the worshippers of the stomach have nourished it. ………Neither did the Sahaabah nor the Pious Taabi-een practise this (bid’ah of mawlid). And, if I am questioned about it in the Divine Presence (on the Day of Qiyaamah), I shall give this same response.

It is not mustahab nor even mubah (permissible) because an innovation in the Deen cannot be permissible. This is the Ijma’ of  the Muslimeen. Thus mawlid is either Makrooh (Tahrimi) or Haraam.

Allaamah Hasan Ibn Ali (rahmatullah alayh) states in  Tareeqah Radde-Ahl-e-Bid’ah: “The meelaad function which jaahil sufis had innovated, there is no basis for it in the Shariah. On the contrary, it is bid’ah sayyiah consisting of numerous evils.”

Shaikh Muhammad Abu Bakr Makhzumi Maaliki (rahmatullah alayh) states in Manhal Sharh Raafi: “Among the evil acts of abomination and evil prohibitions in this age is the function of mawlid. Ummats of the previous Ambiya were destroyed for innovating new acts in the Deen.”

Allaamah Alaauddeen Ibn Ismaaeel Ash-Shaafi (rahmatullah  alayh) says in his Sharhul Ba’th Wan Nushoor: “Mawlid is bid’ah.  Its perpetrator is deserving of criticism.”

In Shariah Ilaahiyyah it is said:  “Undoubtedly, an evil bid’ah which is prevalent in countries and cities is the mawlid function. It has no basis in the Dalaa-il of the Shariah, not in the Qur’aan and not in the Hadith.”

Innumerable Ulama who were Authorities of the Deen had  criticized moulood, declaring it bid’ah sayyiah. All of them stated their case on the basis of the Dalaa-il of the Shariah while those Ulama who appeared many centuries after the era of Khairul Quroon condoned this bid’ah purely on the basis of personal opinion without being able to present a single daleel from the Shariah. They simply held on to narrations of general import and submitted these to personal opinion, conjecturing what they wished to imagine. Furthermore, the permission which they had baselessly opined was restricted to such mawlid functions which were devoid of the many munkaraat (evil acts) which incumbently accompany all moulood carnival parties and functions organized in this day and age.

Mawlid is not simply one isolated act of bid’ah. Its villainy brings about the vilest form of mutilation of the Deen. Hadhrat Bakr Bin Abdullah Al-Muzni (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “My Intercession is confirmed for my entire Ummah except for bid’atis.” According to the Hadith, bid’atis are Kilaabun Naar (Dogs of the Fire).

The Ahl-e-Bid’ah and now even the pseudo-deobandi juhhaal molvis who present the names of Ulama of the 7th— 10 centuries in their abortive bid to substantiate validity for the satanic bid’ah of moulood failed to comprehend their own stupidity for having failed to cite the name of even a single Sahaabi, Taabi’een and Tab-e-Taabi’een. They miserably inflict blindness on themselves by believing that there was no six century vacuum prior to the innovation of their haraam bid’ah sayyiah mawlid/meelaad carnival function. The fossilization of their Aql and calcification of their Baatin do not allow them to understand that a function which has no trace whatsoever in the Khairul Quroon, and which came into vogue only more than six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) can never be accorded the status of ibaadat. It is one of the vilest forms of Shar’i mutilation and interpolation.

Even Ulama of Ibn Hajar’s and Suyuti’s status have fallen by the wayside and had failed to understand that the employment of Qiyaas to confirm permissibility for an entirely new innovation in the form of ‘ibaadat’ which did not exist during the Khairul Quroon era while the raison d’etre (Illat) cited by them did exist, is Faasid Qiyaas. The Illat of love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was never more conspicuous and more profound than its presence in the age of the Sahaabah and the subsequent eras, yet these great and illustrious Devotees of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) did not innovate any birthday celebration practices in Rasulullah’s honour. Any qiyaas which substantiates an act which is glaringly bid’ah is undoubtedly, faasid (corrupt) and baseless, regardless of its author. The claim of it being Mustahab, i.e. the type of mawlid devoid of the rubbish haraam khuraafaat associated with the carnival functions of this day, is erroneous and surprising for men of Ilm to make. The Ulama who have made this spurious claim had failed to apply their minds, for even a Mandoob/Mustahab act, there is the need for Shar’i Daleel. It is said in Raddul Muhtaar:Nudb is a Shar’i Hukm. Daleel for it is imperative.”

We are most fortunate that Allah Ta’ala has demarcated for us the limits of obedience which is owed to the Ulama. In this regard, the Qur’aan declares:

“They (Bani Israaeel) took their ahbaar (molvis and shaikhs) and their ruhbaan (sufis) as gods besides Allah….”

The errors and slips of the Ulama portend the gravest danger for the Ummah. Precisely for this reason did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) say: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah the Aimmah Mudhilleen (Ulama who misguide).”  

In another Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I fear for my Ummah three acts: The slip of an Aalim, the disputing of a munaafiq with the Qur’aan and the denial of Qadr (Taqdeer).”   
Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) said: “Do you know what will demolish Islam? The slip of the Aalim, the disputing of the munaafiq using the Qur’aan and the hukm (fatwa) of the Aimmah Mudhilleen demolish Islam.”

Of the category of dangerous slips by the Ulama is the slip of Allaamah Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) who is reported to have said: “If in this (mawlid) there was only abasement of shaitaan and the happiness of the people of the Muslimeen, then it would suffice (for permissibility).”    Sakhaawi either did not apply his mind or he was in some state of devotional ecstasy or he was overwhelmed by the widespread prevalence of this bid’ah, hence his intellectual discernment became clouded or this statement has been wrongly attributed to him. Far from bid’ah being an abasement for shaitaan, it is an act which is exceedingly delightful to him. Bid’ah brings to him such happiness which knows no bounds. All acts of bid’ah innovated into the Deen are the inspirations and adornments of Iblees. Obviously he will be the happiest when the Muslim Ummah indulges in bid’ah. Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Iblees loves bid’ah more than what he loves sin.” Muslims repent for the sins they comment, but not for bid’ah. There are two reasons why they do not repent for bid’ah:

(1) They believe that their bid’ah is ibaadat, so why should they repent?  

(2) Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that Allah Ta’ala deprives every bid’ati from making Taubah.

As for the “happiness of Muslims” is concerned, only the juhala and the slaves of lust derive happiness from bid’ah, fun-festivals, merrymaking parties and birthday celebrations emulated from the Nasaara.

A graver and incredible slip of Allaamah Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) is his observation: “The People of the Cross (the Christians) have made the birthday of their Nabi (in fact their ‘god’) their great day of eid (i.e. Christmas day). The People of Islam are more deserving of honouring (their Nabi by means of birthday celebration).”

This is indeed a shocking and lamentable slip committed by an Aalim of the Deen. His observation confirms that mawlid is in emulation of the Christian’s festival of Christmas. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever emulates a people is of them.”   

He also said that Muslims will imitate the Yahood and Nasaara in the minutest detail right into the “lizard’s hole”. Mullah Ali Qaari, refuting the blunder of Sakhaawi, says in his Al-Mouridir Rawi fil Moulidin Nabawi: “I say that we have been commanded (by Rasulullah–sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to oppose the Ahl-e-Kitaab.” 

After the Conquest of Makkah when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) set of on the Jihad Campaign of Hunain, they passed by a tree known to the Mushrikeen by the name, Zaat Anwaat. They used to hang their weapons on this tree, gather around it and pass the time. It was not a tree of worship. They used to halt here for a short while. This tree became a landmark for the Mushrikeen.

Among those who were with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) were some new Muslims who were as yet ignorant of the tenets and principles of the Shariah. They said: “O Rasulullah! Establish for us a Zaat Anwaat just as they (the Mushrikeen) have a Zaat Anwaat.” Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said  in surprise: “Subhaanallaah! This is just as the nation of Musaa (alayhissalaam) said: ‘Make for us a god (idol of worship) just as they (the idolaters) have gods (idols of worship.  – Surah A’raaf, Aayat 138). I take oath by Him in Whose Power is my life! You (Muslimeen) will most certainly follow the ways of those before you (i.e. the Yahood and Nasaara).” [Tirmizi]

Sakhaawi’s slip is of this dimension and gravity. But, we do not take our Ulama as “gods besides Allah”. Thus, in addition to mawlid being bid’ah is Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. Its hurmat is therefore compounded. Zaat Anwaat was not an idol. The kuffaar used it merely as a halting place, and they hung their weapons on this tree while they relaxed. However, since it had become a famous landmark for them, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) rejected the request on the basis of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. In fact, he likened the request to the request of Bani Israaeel who had asked Nabi Musaa (alayhisalaam) to make for them an idol when they had seen some idolaters worshipping idols. Although the element of worship was not in Zaat Anwaat, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) abhorred the request of the new Muslims because of the element of Tashabbuh.

From Rasulullah’s abhorrence for Tashabbuh Bil Kuffaar the ludicrousness and abhorrence of Sakhaawi’s justification of mawlid (i.e. the mawlid minus all the haraam paraphernalia which are associated with today’s haraam meelaad carnival festivals) can be better understood.

Thus, regardless of whose name is cited, be he the greatest Allaamah of the age, his view, if unsubstantiated by the Dalaa-il of the Shariah will never enjoy Shar’i acceptance and credibility, and if in conflict with the Shariah, will be mardood. All those Ulama who have accorded credibility to moulood functions have gravely slipped and erred despite their permissibility being related to only such functions which are devoid of any munkaraat. The very festival of mawlid devoid of munkaraat is bid’ah sayyiah. It is a vile act given the  form  of ibaadat. But Ibaadat was only that which was taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah, and this has reached us via the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the genuine Fuqaha. Whilst Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and the others are accepted and authentic Ulama, they are nowhere near the status of the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon. They had missed that golden era of Islam by many centuries, and were influenced by the widespread prevalence of the bid’ah of mawlid.

Again it should be emphasized that the permissibility attributed to the likes of Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and Suyuti (rahmatullah alayh), narrated by the Ahl-e-Bid’ah, Ahl-e-Hawa and lately by the moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis is absolutely no daleel for the votaries of mawlid because the function for which Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and others have predicated permissibility is something widely different from the carnival for which the miscreants of today are claiming permissibility. The two acts while having the same designation,  viz., moulood/mawlid/meelaad, are different in entirety. The difference is as divergent as east and west or heaven and hell. Even those Ulama are unanimous in condemning the type of Satanism of the age which is termed ‘mawlid’. There is not a single name which the morons can present in support of the satanic mawlid festivals and haraam parties of these times.

The arguments of all the other Shaafi’ Ulama who arrived on the Islamic scene many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and who are presented as ‘daleel’ by the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and  pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi rabble are similarly spurious and utterly bereft of Shar’i evidence. Since this treatise is only a brief response to the flotsam disgorged by the pseudo-deobandi miscreants, we shall by pass the drivel of this train which has been derailed from the Straight Course of the Shariah.

(1) One of these jaahil pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis, in a stupid cell phone message, alleged in support of the bid’ah sayyiah moulood:

“yes some of seniors say its fine if practiced correctly In al muhanad al mufanad the bible or gospel of the aqidah of the scholars of deoband its clearly mentioned mawlood free of haraam n bidat is acceptable Others say cautious view is not to do bec it will lead to other wrongs”

This insolent moron, firstly lacks understanding of the essential rudiments of adab. Although he professes to be a ‘deobandi’, he insolently refers to the kitaab, the  name of which he is unable to even pronounce correctly, as the ‘gospel and bible’ of the Ulama of Deoband. The name of the Kitaab is Al-Muhannad alal Mufannnad. In this Kitaab, Hadhrat Khalil Ahmad Sahaaranpuri (rahmatullah alayh) answers a list of questions posed by the then Muqallid Ulama of Haramain Shareefain. It is not Deoband’s text book of Aqeedah.

The moron appears not to have the haziest idea of the meaning of mawlood/mawlid/moulood/meelaad. It is not the view of the Ulama of Deoband that any type moulood function is permissible, “if practiced correctly”. The moron should define a mawlood function which is practiced correctly. What type of function is that in relation to the Ulama of Deoband. What meelaad is to the Barelwi and other juhala is well-known. But what is the meaning of a moulood function as far as the Ulama of Deoband are concerned? If the moron had known, he would not have spoken drivel.

Every moulood function organized on specific dates or held as a birthday celebration in ‘honour’ of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) regardless of ‘correct’ or incorrect observances is bid’ah according to the Ulama of Deoband. Even if such a function is without music, and without the conglomeration of other haraam factors which are compulsorily associated with meelaad festivals, then too it remains bid’ah. What is permissible according to theUlama of Deoband is Thikr-e-Wilaadat bila Quyood, i.e. speaking or lecturing about the events surrounding the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in general, without stipulating a day in Rabiul Awwal and without organizing a function to celebrate the birthday of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The Ulama of Deoband explicitly stipulate for permissibility of bayaans on the birth of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) bila quyood (without the attachment of stipulations). It should be a normal bayaan as all other discourses without the accompaniment of any fanfare and festival. For the benefit of the moron and his ilk, thikr-e-wilaadat bila quyood has absolutely no resemblance with moulood festivals, even with such festivals bereft of the other haraam elements which are incumbently attached to the haraam meelaad parties.

The moron then says in his stupid cell phone message:

“In our context bec it has become synonymous wit haraam an erroneous views better is not to do it”

The atrocity of the terminology displays the atrocity of the heart and brain. Despite the moron conceding that the moulood functions in vogue are haraam, he deemed it appropriate to broadcast comments to dent the stance of prohibition of the Ulama of Deoband who have steadfastly prohibited all moulood functions.There are no such functions which come minus haraam. Did the moron acquit himself with wisdom with his shaitaani attempt to weaken the stance of the Akaabir of Deoband? Does he display foresight in spuriously arguing that there is scope of permissibility?

The moron, pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi says in his message:

“The mawlood that is free from any haraam n innovation was practised by our seniors So no point in pretending it does not exist.”

This is a blatant and a foul lie and slander uttered against the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband. They did not practise any type of moulood functions. Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh), in the beginning of his Ilmi career, had grievously erred by attending such moulood functions where haraam was not perpetrated. After his lecture, he would leave. Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) severely objected and reprimanded him for even such cautious participation. Finally, Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh) conceding his error abandoned attending any type of moulood function. The claim that the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband did not participate in any moulood functions is not a ‘pretence’. It is a fact of which the moron is ignorant.

Again the moron in his haraam cell phone message alleges:

“U could brush it under the carpet but when the opposition present it to u wit referenced citations u gonna be knocked off ur feet”

The brainless moron molvi does not realize what his mouth excretes. There had never ever been any attempt by any of the Ulama-e-Haqq right from the inception of this meelaad Satanism from the seventh century when it was innovated, to ‘brush the bid’ah rot under the carpet.’ The Ulama-e-Haqq in every generation, in general, and the Ulama of Deoband in particular in the last and this centuries, have confronted head-on all kinds of bid’ah including the Satanism of moulood.

Innumerable kutub have been written by the Ulama-e-Haqq from the very era of the inception of this meelaad innovation by the faasiq king of Irbal. In every age the Ulama have refuted in their kutub the Satanism of this bid’ah. The Ulama of Deoband have written numerous kutub refuting in detail every spurious argument proffered by the votaries of this bid’ah sayyiah in defence of their haraam meelaad festivals.

We fail to understand how the moron has concluded his idea of the issue having been swept under the carpet. It appears that his jahaalat of the history underlying moulood bid’ah has constrained him to make this stupid averment. Whatever trash he has spewed up has been gleaned from the stupid articles written by the Qabar Pujaari Barelwi sect. If the moron had made a proper research of this issue by studying the Kutub which the Ulama-e-Haqq had written, he would then not have so stupidly advertised the density of his sensorial faculty.

He further says: “Fact of the matter is it is a matter of diff of opinion.” This too is a blatant lie based on the moron’s stupidity. There is absolutely no difference in the ranks of the Ulama-Haqq in the prohibition of all moulood functions which are currently in vogue. Even those Ulama who believe erroneously that meelaad without the rubbish khuraafaat is permissible, are in unanimity with the Ulama who proclaim current moulood functions haraam. Even those who differed with the prohibition of even such mouloods minus the haraam rubbish factors, are constrained to concede that there is no Daleel from the Salaf for validating this function. Thus, even Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) is compelled by the reality to say in his Fataawa: “The act of moulood shareef has not been narrated from any of the Salfus Saalih of the Three Noble Ages. Verily, it was innovated thereafter.” Mullah Ali Qaari has narrated this fatwa of Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) in his Al-Mauridir Rawi fil Moulidin Nabawi.

Even Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) who inclined to excesses and faasid qiyaas in this sphere, was constrained to concede in his Fatwa, narrated by Suyuti (rahmatullah alayh) in his Husnul Maqsid fil Amalil Moulid: “The basis of the Moulid amal is bid’ah which has not been narrated from anyone of the Salfus Saalih of Quroon-e-Thalaathah.”

The moron states: “Al-Imam as-Suyuti authored an entire treatise on the recommendation of the mawlid celebration.”

The 10th century Imaam Suyuti’s treatise is simply one mass of personal opinion. It does not contain a single Shar’i daleel. The case for permissibility of even such functions devoid of rubbish could not be sustained by Imaam Suyuti in terms of Shar’i Dalaa-il, hence he was constrained to concede that only qiyaas can be used. But, as mentioned earlier, the qiyaas used for meelaad is faasid. Imaam Suyuti’s treatise is not the Qur’aan nor the Hadith nor the Ijma’ of the Ummah.

The moron molvi, in his abortive haraam attempt to provide stupid cover for the current day satanic meelaad functions, states: “al-Imam an-Nawawi’s shaykh, head of the famous Syrian school, Dar al-Hadith al-Ashrafiyyah, the great Shafi`i jurist and traditionist, Abdur Rahman ibn Ismail, well-known as Abu Shamah. He states in his Risalah,

“And among the best innovated actions in these times are those actions that take place every year coinciding with the birth of the Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) such as charity, good deeds, personal beautification, joy, and so forth, as they speak of love and reverence for the beloved Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam)…”

This is not a Shar’i daleel for innovating ‘ibaadat’. Ibaadat consists of only the practices imparted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). A practice innovated by an evil king in the seventh century is not ibaadat, and may not be promoted as such. Abu Shaamah, regardless of his status has grossly erred in his  personal opinion unsubstantiated by any Shar’i daleel.

Charity and good deeds are valid throughout the year. Stipulating specific days without Shar’i basis for charity is bid’ah. Charity does not require anniversary celebrations in emulation of the Yahood and Nasaara. The Sahaabah never deemed it appropriate to practise charity and good deeds on the occasion of Rasulullah’s birthday despite their profound love and devotion for Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

The Shariah has appointed the Day of Jumuah and the Days of Eid for personal adornment, joy and so forth. The Shariah has not set aside Rasulullah’s day of birth for these acts. The innovation of these acts on another plane is bid’ah since it is an unsubstantiated innovation into the Deen. Regarding such innovations, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Every bid’ah is dhalaalah and every dhalaalah will be in the Fire.”  There are numerous haadith in severe condemnation of bid’ah.

“Speaking of love and reverence for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)”, is not a birthday act for Muslims. This is part of the Muslim’s daily life, and the best way of expressing such love, devotion and honour is by adoption of the Sunnah in every walk of life. This birthday party type of ‘love and honour’ is like the love and devotion which the kuffaar superficially and deceptively express on Christmas Day, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day and Stupid’s Day. These are all moronic days inspired by shaitaan.

Abu Shaamah’s argument is baseless being bereft of Shar’i substance. We do not appoint our Ulama as “gods’ besides Allah Azza Wa Jal as the Yahood and Nasaara did to their ahbaar and ruhbaan and to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). We have a glittering Shariah with its radiant Dalaa-il which constitute the Bedrock of the stance of the Ulama of Deoband.

Another moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi, blurted out the following blatantly false message on his phone:

“And all these great people will approve of the mawlood which u so eager to promote which is carring on today”

The falsehood of this lie is conspicuous. Not a single of the great Ulama who had permitted their specific type of moulood had ever condoned the haraam, shaitaani meelaad function in vogue today. The moron’s claim is absolutely false. All of them have slated the evil accretions in the kind of moulood which they had permitted.

Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) who condones the kind of meelad minus haraam acts, says: “There are two kinds of functions where the birth (of Rasulullah–sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned:

(1) Such functions where impermissible activities take place Such a function is absolutely not permissible……Most meelaad functions are of this kind.. 

(2) Such functions which are devoid of evil and impermissible acts 

……Many people stand when mention of the birth is made. This is bid’ah. There is no Hadith, etc. to substantiate this practice….”

Two facts are noteworthy in the aforementioned statements of Ibn Hajar:

(1) All current forms of meelaad are bid’ah sayyiah and haraam. He belies the moron who peddles the idea that he (Ibn Hajar) and the other Ulama are in support of the type of moulood practices currently in vogue.

(2) Ibn Hajar’s self-contradiction which neutralizes his claim of permissibility of the first kind of moulood. In the aforementioned statement, Ibn Hajar condemns and bans qiyaam (standing up) when the performers sing their ‘Ya Nabi’ songs or when the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned during the meelaad performance. He labels qiyaam as bid’ah, and his daleel for it being bid’ah is that there is no Hadith substantiation for this practice. Yet he forgot that there is no Hadith substantiation for even the whole meelaad function. Thus, his condemnation of qiyaam because of no Hadith basis while condoning meelaad which also has no basis, not only no basis in the Hadith, but no basis in Islam for more than six centuries, is illogic. For the same reason that Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) regards qiyaam to be bid’ah, should he likewise have believed that meelaad too is bid’ah. The common denominator for both acts being bid’ah and not permissible is the total lack of Hadith and Khairul Quroon support.

Furthermore, the lopsided, illogic arguments which Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and others of the same school offer for permissibility of their kind of meelaad, could have been extended to qiyaam as well. Just as they have mangled Ahaadith of general import to extravagate permissibility for the bid’ah of their specific kind of meelaad, so too could they have mutilated by means of baseless extrapolation the Hadith: “Stand for your sayyid (chief).”, to eke out substantiation for the bid’ah of qiyaam. After all, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the greatest Sayyid. If qiyaam was ordered for small-timer worldly chieftains, then this Hadith could have acted as a “great daleel” for substantiating the bid’ah of meelaad qiyaam. However, this logic had not occurred to Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and others. After all, the whole ‘logic’ underlying the permissibility of even the first kind of meelaad is illogic and baseless. There can never be permissibility for bid’ah.

We conclude this brief refutation of the baatil of moulood/ mawlid /melaad with this summary for quick reference:

(1) There is total Ijma’ (Consensus) of all Ulama of all times and ages that the type of moulood in vogue is bid’ah sayyiah (evil bid’ah) and haraam due to the many haraam elements with which these festivals are associated.

(2) Some Shaafi’ Ulama who appeared many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) condoned such meelaad functions which were devoid of haraam elements. They believed that their specific type of meelaad which consisted of only praising Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam, feeding people and giving charity, is commendable, hence they described it as ‘bid’ah hasanah’.

(3) There is absolutely no Qur’aan and Hadith support for the bid’ah hasanah type of moulood functions. In fact, the accretion of moulood was innovated by the vile king of Irbal more than six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Thus, for the first more than six centuries, the Ummah never knew what meelaad is. 

(4)  The difference on this issue is not a difference of the four Mathhabs. It is simply a difference between Haqq and  baatil. The votaries of meelaad, i.e. the first type of meelaad minus the haraam elements, were clearly in error. For them it had become an emotional issue, hence their intellect became clouded. There are valid reasons for this lamentable error of the senior Ulama. However, this is not the juncture for elaboration.

(5) All moulood functions are haraam bid’ah sayyiah. Participation in any type of meelaad festival is a major sin.

“Then We have established you on a Shariah regarding (all your) affairs. Therefore, follow it, and do not follow the vain desires of those who do not know.”  [Qur’aan]

Mawlid/Meelad Queries


Question: The Ahlul Bid’ah in an article, backed up their moulood celebrations with sayings from some prominent scholars such as Ibn Hajar, Qustulaani, Ibn Jauzi and others, and even Haji Imdaadullah, the Shaikh of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi. What answer is there for this proof which the Barelwis cite?

Answer (Mujlisul Ulama): We are not the muqallideen of ‘prominent scholars’. We are the Muqallideen of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), and we follow the Shariah as it existed during the era of Khairul Quroon.

The Shariah is the Deen which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah taught and practised. Innovations having a façade of ibaadat, which were introduced centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), have no validity in terms of the Shariah.

Even if thousands of ‘prominent scholars’ support the bid’ah of moulood, it will remain bid’ah sayyiah (evil innovation). Ibaadat is what had existed during Khairul Quroon and substantiated by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and imparted to posterity by the Fuqaha of our Math-hab.

We are not awed by the names of the prominent scholars which the Qabar Pujaaris (grave-worshippers) cite in substantiation of their evil bid’ah of moulood which consists of acts of fisq, fujoor and shirk. The personal opinions of prominent scholars – opinions unsubstantiated by the Nusoos of the Shariah, remain the opinions of people, and regardless of the lofty stature of the prominent scholars, their opinions may not be hoisted on to the Ummah as if these acts are practices of the Sunnah or deeds commanded by the Shariah.

If a moulood practice is totally bereft of any of the rubbish actions with which the Qabar Pujaaris adorn their satanic exhibitions of merrymaking functions, such as the unadulterated personal practice of Haji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh), then too, it does not constitute a Shar’i act of ibaadat which could be imposed on others. In fact, it is not permissible to invite others to personal acts of devotion even if such acts are devoid of any of the evil flotsam of the Bid’atis. Personal expressions of devotion and love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are to be restricted to the privacy of the home by the individuals engaging in them. They should not be flaunted as acts of Masnoon ibaadat or presented to the Ummah as if they are deeds commanded by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and practised by the Sahaabah. 

Moulood is a baseless practice which has no origin in the Sunnah. The many acts of fanfare, fun, singing, clowning, feasting and merrymaking, render the function haraam and participation in these bid’ah practices is haraam. The moulood practices in vogue, as practised by the Grave-Worshippers, should not be confused with the simple and private act of Haji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh).

It will be salubrious for the Qabar Pujaaris to understand that we are not members of Bani Israaeel whom the Qur’aan Majeed castigates: “They take their (prominent) scholars and their saints as gods besides Allah…” That was the practice of Bani Israaeel. We, the followers of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) acquire our Deen from the Sahaabah via the transmission Chain of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh). Our Islam does not begin 8 centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the advent of Shaikh Subki (rahmatullah alayh), for example, nor does our Islam begin with any of the prominent scholars who appeared on the scene centuries after the Sahaabah. These prominent scholars mentioned by the Qabar Pujaaris are not our arbaab (gods) who we are required to worship. The rulings of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the Fuqaha override such views and practices of centuries-later Ulama which lack Shar’i substantiation.

It will do the Qabar Puja mob well to reflect the following naseehat of Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Kabeer Rifaa’i (rahmatullah alayh) who was a ‘prominent scholar’ and a great Wali:

“Respected People! What is it that you are doing? You say Haarith said so; Baayazid said so; Mansur Hallaj said so. Instead of saying so, say that Imaam Shaafi’ said so; Imaam Ahmad (Bin Hambal) said so; Imaam Maalik said so; Imaam Abu Hanifah said so. The statements of Baayazid can neither lower nor elevate you. On the contrary, Imaam Maalik and Imaam Shaaf’i indicate the path of Najaat (Salvation) and the Shariah.”

So, we are not interested in opinions and practices of Ulama who appeared on the scene many centuries after the Sahaabah. Any of their practices which are alien to the Shariah as it existed during the era of Khairul Quroon have no Shar’i validity. Furthermore, we shall, Insha-Allah, dissect the statements of the prominent scholars in subsequent articles.


Question: What is the Shar’i ruling on Meelaad? Many early Ulama such as Allamah Suyuti, Ibn Taimiyyah, Allaamah Ibn Kathir, etc. said that it is permissible. In the UK some people march around the city singing naats (songs) when celebrating meelaad. Is this correct? A promoter of meelaad says that Thuwaibah was the slave of Abu Lahab. When she informed him that a son (Muhammad – sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was born in his brother’s house, he set her free. After the death of Abu Lahab he was seen in a dream in which he said: ‘I am in severe punishment, but this is lessened on Mondays.’ Then he showed his forefinger and said that he would suck it. It was with this finger that he indicated that Thuwaibah was free when she informed him of the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Ibn Jawzi states: ‘Abu Lahab is the kaafir who is mentioned specifically in the Qur’aan.’ If such a person can be rewarded for celebrating meelaad of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), then imagine how great the reward would be for a Muslim who celebrates it.”

Answer (Mujlisul Ulama0: Firstly, what the early Ulama understood of meelaad is in sharp contrast to the Hindu-type of meelaad rituals of fisq and fujoor which accompany the meelaad celebrations of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and Qabar Pujaaris (Grave Worshippers). The meelaad celebrations in vogue are evil bid’ah – haraam bid’ah which shaitaan has adorned for the Qabar Puja sect. Such Hindu-type of celebrations are never permissible even according to those early Ulama who had participated in meelaad functions which have no basis in the Sunnah.

The episode pertaining to Abu Lahab has absolutely no relationship with the bid’ah milaad customs in vogue. He freed a slave woman. The claim that he had celebrated milaad will not be believed by even the baboons. To claim that Abu Lahab the kaafir was rewarded for celebrating milaad is a black lie fabricated by the people of bid’ah. Freeing a slave has no relationship with the stupid customs in which the bid’atis indulge.

To understand whether an act is ibaadat or not, one has to refer to the great authorities of the Khairul Quroon era (the first three ages of Islam). Whatever was ibaadat in that era is Islamic ibaadat. What was innovated 700 and 800 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is not ibaadat.

Proof for the validity of ibaadat is not Ibn Taimiyyah and Subki, etc. who came 7 centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). They should cite the Sahaabah and the Taabieen as proof. But, they jump from the age of the Sahaabah and seek evidence for their innovations from the statements of Ulama who appeared 7 and 8 centuries after the perfection and completion of Islam. Their claims are absolutely baseless. They have no grounds on which to stand. They have nothing in the Qur’aan, Ahaadith and Fiqah to support their drivel haraam meelaad merrymaking functions.

Subki, Ibn Kathir and the other Ulama who appeared on the scene 7, 8 and 10 centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are not the Proofs of the Shariah. As far as Ibn Taimiyyah is concerned, he was a deviate who subscribed to views of shirk and kufr. The Sahaabah, Taabi-een and Tab-e-Taabieen are the Proofs of Islam. In this regard, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Honour my Sahaabah, for verily they are your noblest; then those after them (the Taabieen), then those after them (Tab-e-Taabieen). Thereafter will prevail falsehood.”

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also said in this regard: “The best of ages is my age, then the next age, then the next age. Then after them (the Sahaabah, Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen) will come such people who will (hasten) to testify without being asked to testify. They will be treacherous people who cannot be trusted. They will take vows without fulfilling them. Among them will prevail obesity……Then will come people who will love obesity.”

Those who love the fun and merrymaking, the feasting and singing of these deceptive ‘religious’ functions of bid’ah meelaad in which numerous evils are committed, are the people among whom prevail falsehood and obesity (ugly fatness). Their stomachs are bloated with all the haraam food they devour in the name of the Deen. Their hollow ‘love’ vociferously professed for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is a canard – a dastardly false slogan designed for their own deception and the deception of the stupid public who indulges in the singing, dancing and merrymaking.


By Mujlisul Ulama


A Sister seeking clarification on her confusion, writes:

Since the inception of this month I have had very confusing feelings towards what the correct practices regarding the 12th Rabbi Ul’ awaal are-if any??

I have known that it is bidah to celebrate Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)  birthday in any form as he did not celebrate it himself.

I have recently received many messages and announcements of moulanas giving bayaans in Mallinson road musjid; Stanger musjid and hilaal musjid on the seerah of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Ml Khatani was giving a lecture earlier today at musjid hilaal on the Mubarak life of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). This confuses me as it coincides with the 12th celebrations. I do understand the importance of lectures especially when receiving information on our beloved nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Is this something we should acknowledge but not be a part off? or do we ignore every association with meelads during this month? 

As a layman and toddler in deeni knowledge it has caused much chaos I my mind. 

Kindly assist me on how to proceed as I’m very confused this year–Im aware its bidah and mostly practiced by barelwi Muslims yet it’s being highlighted by some who aren’t barelwi? 

Is highlighting seerah and having lectures ok?

Or does it fall under the banner of celebrating and acknowledging the 12th Rabbi Ul’ awaal. 

Jazakallah khayr for your time and response.

(End of letter)


All functions, lectures and celebrations held in the month of Rabiyul Awwal with regard to Rasulullah‘s mubaarak Seerah are bid’ah. These seerah functions during the month of Rabiyul Awwal are recent developments. These moulanas have strayed from the Straight Path and are competing with the Barelwi Bid’atis on this issue. The different groups have their own styles of celebrations. But all are haraam.

The Deen is not their motivation. They are bereft of sincerity. They are out to  gain  followers. They despicably use the Deen for  objectives of the dunya and the nafs.

Listening to lectures on the Seerah is not bid’ah. But the functions of seerah arranged specifically for the month of Rabiyul Awwal are  acts of bid’ah. That is why they give prominence to the seerah during the month of Rabiyul Awwal.

They have the whole year  for giving bayaans on the Seerah, but they opt to behave like dumb devils the  whole year, and  when Rabiyul Awwal  comes, they  stupidly jump on to the  bid’ah ‘seerah’ bandwagon in an attempt to compete with the Qabar Pujaari Barelwi Bid’atis for who meelaad in Rabiyul Awwal is more important than the daily Fardh Salaat. In so doing, they acquit themselves like moron clowns for they are  the emulators of the grave-worshippers.

Stay far from these Bid’ah practices and these Bid’ati molvis who are experts in the satanic art of compromising and concealing the Haqq. It comes in the Hadith that Bid’atis are ‘THE DOGS OF THE FIRE’. They plunder and pillage the Shariah in the very name of Islam.  Rasulullah (Sallallahu alayhi wasallam) described them as GHUTHA’ (Trash/Rubbish/Flotsam).

(Insha Allah, an article or two will be posted soon refuting the arguments of these bid’atis).

Historical Analysis of Date of the Birth & Death of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ

In the name of Allah, indeed all praise is due to Allah and may peace and blessings be upon the Messenger of Allah.

Allah says in the Quran:

“Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is no more than a Messenger, and indeed (many) Messengers have passed away before him. If he dies or is killed, will you then turn back on your heels (as disbelievers)? And he who turns back on his heels, not the least harm will he do to Allah, and Allah will give reward to those who are grateful.” [Quran 3:144]

The Prophet (salallaahu alayhi wasallam) informed us that some of the Muslims will begin to follow the ways of the non-Muslims. He (salallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:

“Surely, you will follow the ways of those nations who were before you, so much so that even if they entered a hole of a lizard, you would enter it.”

They said, “O Messenger of Allah, do you mean to say that we will follow the Jews and the Christians?”

He replied, “Whom else [other than them]?” [Narrated by Abu Sa’eed; collected by Bukhaari & Muslim]

Out of their love for Jesus (Eesa alayhissalaam), the Christians innovated into their religion by specifying the 25th of December as his birthday and celebrating it, even though there is no origin to it.

Unfortunately Muslims came later, and out of their love of the Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) they specified 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal as his birthday (Mawlid), which also does not have an origin. The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as well as his companions never took this as a day of celebration.

This innovation, Milad-un-Nabi, is not only not legislated but even historically incorrect. It cannot be established for certain that the birthday of the Prophet was 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal. The scholars greatly differed over the actual date of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). By the permission of Allah, this article will outline some of these opinions and therefore establish the historic invalidity of specifying the 12th of Rabee’ al-Awwal as the date of his birth.

The biographers and historians differed concerning the day and month of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This is something for which there is good reason, as it was not known what status this newborn would achieve; his situation was like that of any other newborn. Hence no one can state with certainty the date of his birth (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Among the matters on which there is a strong consensus with regard to his birth (sallllaahu alayhi wasallam) is the definition of the year and the day. 

With regard to the Year: 

It was the Year of the Elephant. Ibn al-Qayyim (may Allah have mercy on him) said: 

“There is no difference of opinion concerning the fact that he (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was born in Makkah, and that his birth was in the Year of the Elephant.” [Zaad al-Ma‘aad fi Hadiy Khayr al-‘Ibaad, 1/76]

Muhammad ibn Yoosuf as-Saalihi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Ibn Ishaaq (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “(It was) the Year of the Elephant.”

Ibn Katheer said: “This is the well-known view of the majority.” 

Ibraaheem ibn al-Mundhir al-Hizaami, the Shaykh of al-Bukhaari, said: “This is the opinion concerning which none of the scholars has any doubt. Khaleefah ibn Khayyaat, Ibn al-Jazzaar, Ibn Dihyah, Ibn al-Jawzi and Ibn al-Qayyim went further and narrated that there was consensus on this matter.””
[Subul al-Huda wa’r-Rashaad fi Seerat Khayr al-‘Ibaad, 1/334, 335]

Dr. Akram Diya’ al-‘Umari (may Allah guide him) said: 

“In fact the reports that say otherwise all have flawed isnaads; they suggest that he was born ten years, or twenty-three years, or forty years, after the Year of the Elephant. But the majority of scholars are of the view that he was born in the Year of the Elephant. This is supported by the modern study undertaken by both Muslim and Orientalist researchers who stated that the Year of the Elephant corresponds to the year 570 CE or 571 CE.” [As-Seerah an-Nabawiyyah as-Saheehah, 1/97]

With regard to the Day: 

It was a Monday. He (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was born on a Monday, his mission began on a Monday and he died on a Monday. 

It was narrated that Abu Qataadah al-Ansaari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was asked about fasting on Mondays and he said: “That is a day on which I was born and on it my mission began – or Revelation came to me.””  [Narrated by Muslim, 1162.]

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “Those who say that he was born on Friday 17th Rabee’ al-Awwal were mistaken.”

This was narrated by al-Haafiz Ibn Dihyah from what he read of the book I’laam ar-Wara bi A’laam al-Huda by one of the Shi’ah. Then Ibn Dihyan stated why it was da’eef (weak), and it deserves to be classed as da’eef because it is contrary to the text. [As-Seerah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/199]

With regard to the point on which there is scholarly disagreement, that has to do with defining the month and the day of the month. We have come across many opinions concerning that, including the below. 

The difference of opinion with regards to the Mawlid [1]

1) 1st of Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Muhammad ibn Muhammad ibn Munhad [in It’haaf al-Waraa].

2) 2nd of Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Ibn Sa’d [in Tabaqaat], Ibn Katheer [in Bidaayah wa an-Nihaayah] and Zarqaanee [in Sharh al-Mawaahab]. 

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “It was said that he was born on the second of the month. This was stated by Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr in al-Isti’aab, and was narrated by al-Waaqidi from Abu Ma’shar Nujayh ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan al-Madani.” [As-Seerah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/199]

3) 8th of Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Ibn Abdil Barr [in al-Isti’aab], Ibn Hajr al-Haythami [in Sharh Matn al-Hamziyah] and al-Qastalaanee [in al-Mawaahab al-laduniyyah].

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “It was said that he was born on the eighth of the month. This was narrated by al-Humaydi from Ibn Hazm, and was narrated by Maalik, ‘Aqeel, Yoonus ibn Yazeed and others from az-Zuhri from Muhammad ibn Jubayr ibn Mut’im. Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr narrated that the historians regarded it as saheeh; it was stated definitively by al-Haafiz al-Kabeer Muhammad ibn Moosa al-Khawaarizmi, and was regarded as most likely to be correct by al-Haafiz Abu’l-Khattaan ibn Dihyah in his book at-Tanweer fi Mawlid al-Basheer an-Nadheer.” [As-Seerah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/199]

4) 9th Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Shiblee an-Nu’maani [in Seerah an-Nabi], Sayyid Sulayman al-Masufooree [in Rahmat al-‘aalameen] and also Safee ar-Rahmaan al-Mubaarakfooree in [Raheeq al-Makhtoom / The Sealed Nectar]

5) 10th Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Al-Waaqidee [in Taareekh], Ibn Katheer [in al-Bidaayah wa an-Nihaayah] and Ibn Sa’d [in Tabaqaat]

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “It was said that he was born on the tenth of the month. This was narrated by Ibn Dihyah in his book, and was narrated by Ibn ‘Asaakir from Abu Ja’far al-Baaqir. It was also narrated by Mujaalid from ash-Sha’bi.” [As-Seerah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/199]

6) 11th Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzee [in al-Muntadham]

7) 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Ibn Hishaam [in Seerah an-Nabawiyyah], Ibn Hibbaan [in ath-Thiqaat] and al-Bayhaqi [in Dalaail an-Nubuwwah]

Ibn Katheer (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “It was said that he was born on the twelfth of the month. This was stated by Ibn Ishaaq. It was narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah in his Musannaf from ‘Affaan from Sa’eed ibn Meena’ that Jaabir and Ibn ‘Abbaas said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) was born in the Year of the Elephant on Monday 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal; on Monday his mission began, on Monday he was taken up to heaven, on Monday he migrated, and on Monday he died. This is the well-known opinion according to the majority. And Allah knows best.” [As-Seerah an-Nabawiyyah, 1/199]

8) 17th Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Ibn Dahiyyah by some of the Shia scholars [in al-Bidaayah wan-Nihaayah]

9) 18th Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Ibn Katheer, he said this is the opinion of the Majority [in al-Bidaayah wa an-Nihaayah] and also Muhammad Husayn Haykal, he narrated it from Ibn Ishaaq [in Hayaat Muhammad]

10) The first Monday of Rabee’ al-Awwal: Mentioned by Ibn Abdul-Barr [in al-Isti’aab] and Ibn Sayyid an-Naas [in ‘Uyoon al-Athar]

11) 18th Ramadhan: Mentioned by Ibn Kalby and also Zubayr ibn Bakkaar [narrated by Ibn Hajar in Fath al-Baaree]; also mentioned by Ibn Asaakir [Tareekh ad-Dimishq]

12) Before the Year of the Elephant by 15 years: Mentioned by Kalby, upon the authority of Abu Saalih, upon the authority of Ibn Abbaas

13) There are ten years between his birth and the Year of the Elephant: Mentioned by Ya’qoob al-‘Atamy, upon the authority of Ja’far ibn Abee al-Mugheerah…

14) The month of Muharram: Mentioned by Haykal [in Hayaat Muhammad]

15) The month of Safar: Mentioned by al-Qastalaanee [in al-mawaahib] and Muhammad Hussayn Haykal [in Hayaat Muhammad]

16) The month of Rajab: Mentioned by Muhammad Husyan Haykal [in Hayaat Muhammad]

17) Rabee’ al-Aakhar: Mentioned by al-Qastalaanee [in al-Mawaahib]

18) The day of the Elephant: Mentioned by Hajaaj ibn Muhammad upon the authority of Ibn Abbaas [in Seerah Nabawiyyah of adh-Dhahabee]


Eighteen different opinions have been mentioned above, some stronger than others, which demonstrates the historical inaccuracy in specifying the Mawlid an-Nabawi on the 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal.

The fact that so many different opinions exist, and yet no authentic Hadith, also shows that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wa sallam) himself, the noble companions (may Allah be pleased with them), the great Imaams of Hadith and early pious scholars attached no importance to this matter.

What appears to us to be the case is that the strongest opinion concerning the birth of the Prophet (salalllaahu alayhi wasallam) is that he was born between the eighth and the twelfth of Rabee’ al-Awwal.

Some Muslim mathematicians and astronomers have determined that the Monday in question was the ninth of Rabee’ al-Awwal. It may be that this is another opinion, and it has some merit. That corresponds to 20th April 571 CE. This is what the authors of some modern books on Seerah (Prophet’s biography) regard as most likely to be correct, including Professor Muhammad al-Khudari and Safee ar-Rahmaan al-Mubaarakfooree. 

Abu’l-Qaasim as-Suhayli (may Allah have mercy on him) said: “The mathematicians say that his birth occurred in the solar month of April, on the twentieth of that month.” [Ar-Rawd al-Unuf, 1/282]

Prof. Muhammad al-Khudari said: “The Egyptian astronomer Mahmoud Basha (d. 1885 CE) who was well-versed in astronomy, geography and mathematics, and wrote several books based on his research stated that it was on the morning of Monday 9th Rabee’ al-Awwal, which corresponds to 20th April 571 CE. That corresponds to the first year following the elephant incident. He was born in the house of Abu Taalib in Shi’ab Banu Haashim.” [Noor al-Yaqeen fi Seerat Sayyid al-Mursaleen (p. 9). See also ar-Raheeq al-Makhtoom (p. 41).]

In regards to the date of Death

In regards to the date of the death of Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), there is no difference of opinion concerning the fact that it occurred on a Monday.

The report narrated from Ibn Qutaybah, saying that it occurred on a Wednesday, is not correct. Perhaps what he meant is that the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was buried on Wednesday, which is correct.

With regard to the year of his death, there is no difference of opinion concerning the fact that it was in 11 AH. 

With regard to the month of his death, there is no difference of opinion concerning the fact that it was in Rabee’ al-Awwal. 

With regard to the date of his death in that month, there is a difference of opinion among the scholars. 

1) The Majority are of the view that it occurred on12th Rabee’ al-Awwal.

2) Al-Khawaarizmi was of the view that it occurred on 1st Rabee’ al-Awwal.

3) Ibn al-Kalbi and Abu Mikhnaf were of the view that it occurred on 2nd Rabee’ al-Awwal. As-Suhayli was inclined to favour this view and al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) regarded it as most likely to be correct.

The most well-known view is that of the majority, which is that the death of the Prophet (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) occurred on 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal 11 AH. [See ar-Rawd al-Unuf by as-Suhayli (4/439, 440); as-Seerah an-Nabawiyyah by Ibn Katheer (4/509); Fath al-Baari by Ibn Hajar (8/130).]

Hence we can see that the stronger opinion for this date of 12th Rabee’ al-Awwal, it is the date of death of our Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and not his birth. And Allah knows best.

We ask Allah to protect us from bid’ah (innovations) and to bless us by helping us to follow. May Allah bless our Prophet Muhammad.


[1] The strength or weakness of each opinion has not been researched, as the objective behind this article is to only demonstrate the difference of opinion regarding the date.

Critical Review of Gibril Haddad’s refutation of Mufti Taqi Usmani regarding Mawlid

By Muzzammil Husayn

This is the article critically reviewing various objections that Shaykh Gibril Haddad has brought up concerning an article regarding the Mawlid written by Mufti Taqi Usmani. We have used red as the colour of the text directly quoting Shaykh Haddad verbatim from his article as it appears on his website, The article by Mufti Taqi can be found on the website and is entitled; “Rabi’ul-Awwal”.

In reply to Mufti Taqi’s comment:

“Thus the birth of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was the most significant and the most remarkable event in human history.”

Gibril Haddad says:

“This is a confession by Mufti Taqi `Usmani that the night of the Mawlid Sharif is of greater significance and merit than Laylat al-Qadr”

Mufti Taqi didn’t say this but said:
“the birth of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, was the most significant and the most remarkable event in human history.” Merit (fadilah) is one thing, which is not determined by ‘aql but nass, and significance and impact is another thing which can be measured by empirical tools of reasoning and history.

In reply to Mufti Taqi’s statement:

“Rabi’ul-Awwal is the most significant month in the Islamic history, because humanity has been blessed in this month by  the birth of the Holy Prophet Muhammad Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam” 

Haddad strangely says:

“This is true, yet the author further down (item #17) annuls the benefit of his own statement by denying the validity of any specific day of that month as an appropriate or preferable date for celebrating Mawlid and goes so far as to condemn the choice of that date as a reprehensible innovation.”

This assumes just because a date is significant, this fact has no benefit if the date is not specified for celebration! Does this mean Haddad gives no significance to the Hijrah because he does not celebrate it? There are many events of history that were significant but we are not ordered to celebrate it, and nor do we – this does not annul the benefit of their significance. Rather to celebrate a particular date with the intention of acquiring the blessing of that day – when it has not been established – would be to accuse the Sahabah and Tabi’in of ignorance of that virtue and our superior knowledge, as it is not established any of them specified a particular day in Rabi’ al-Awwal for celebration or extra good deeds. And the Sahabah were the most earnest of people for goodness, so to establish a practice – the determinant reason for which was present in their time, in this case the virtue of the month/day – which the Sahabah did not do is precisely the definition of bid’ah, as stated by Hafiz Ibn Kathir: Under Qur’an 46:11 of his Tafsir, he says in no ambiguous terms: “As for the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah, they say about every action and statement not established from the Sahabah (Allah be pleased with them): it is bid’ah, because if it were good, they would have beaten us to it, because they did not leave a quality from the qualities of excellence except they hastened towards it.”

أما أهل السنة والجماعة، فيقولون في كل فعل وقول لم يثبت عن الصحابة رضي الله عنهم هو بدعة لأنه لو كان خيراً لسبقونا إِليه، لأنهم لم يتركوا خصلة من خصال الخير إِلا وقد بادروا إِليها

[Al-Shatibi and others put obvious conditions to this general rule as follows: that the determinant factor for such a good deed was present in the time of the Sahabah – which is found here – and the act is not merely a means to a greater objective but is taken as a religious recommendation and commendation in itself – as is clearly the case with Haddad here]

Surely the first ones to recognise the virtue of Rabi’ or a particular day thereof, and the excellence of increasing in acts of goodness therein, would have been the Sahabah? Since they missed it (!), it is bid’ah to specify a day for extra good deeds thinking it is more virtuous as it implies the Sahabah were ignorant of its virtue. For his proof, Haddad says:

“the night of the Mawlid Sharif is of greater significance and merit than Laylat al-Qadr which is the position of some of the Maliki Imams as cited by Abu al-`Abbas al-Wansharisi (d. 914) in his encyclopedia of Maliki fatwas titled _al-Mi`yar al-Mu`rab wa al-Jami` al-Mughrib fi Fatawa Ahl Ifriqya wa al-Andalus wa al-Maghrib (11:280-285)”

Remember, “some” normally means “more than one,” but this encyclopaedia only cites one person stating this view. Another example of Haddad’s dishonesty. Furthermore, one errant view is not a proof.

Haddad quotes a recent scholar who encourages inventing two new Eids in the year:

“The two nights of the distinguished noble birth and the magnificent Prophetic Ascension appear to be the very best of the nights of the world without hesitation nor doubt… and if this is the case then such as these two nights [MAWLID and MI`RAJ] deserve to be taken henceforth each as a recurring festival among other recurring festivals (`Eid min al-A`yad) and as a seasonal celebration (mawsim) among other seasonal celebrations devoted to good deeds and striving. Therefore those dates should be respected and venerated, the Book of Allah should be recited in them, and in their honor deeds should be performed that indicate joy and happiness at their immense merit as well as thankfulness to Allah Most High for His blessings and favors in them. This the Law in no way denies nor condemns, and no reprimand nor prohibition can be directed at those who perform this whatsoever”

Al-Shatibi al-Maliki while discussing the part of his definition of bid’ah that bid’ah is something that “rivals the Shari’ah,” he says:

“Meaning, it [i.e. bid’ah] resembles a method of the Shari’ah, although is in fact not so, rather is in conflict with it. An explanation of its [bid’ah’s] resemblance with it [Shari’ah], is from a number of perspectives…From them is sticking firmly to specified forms and ways, like dhikr in the form of congregation with one voice, and adopting the day of the birth of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as an ‘Id, and what resembles that.”

وقوله في الحد : ” تضاهي الشرعية ” ; يعني أنها تشابه الطريقة الشرعية من غير أن تكون في الحقيقة كذلك ، بل هي مضادة لها من أوجه متعددة :
منها : وضع الحدود; كالناذر للصيام قائما لا يقعد ، ضاحيا لا يستظل ، والاختصاص في الانقطاع للعبادة ، والاقتصار من المأكل والملبس على صنف دون صنف من غير علة .
ومنها : التزام الكيفيات والهيئات المعينة ، كالذكر بهيئة الاجتماع على صوت واحد ، واتخاذ يوم ولادة النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم عيدا ، وما أشبه ذلك

[although some may object that this conflicts with the dhikr-in-unison from the asghal of the Sufiyah, such dhikr is only allowed as a means to acquire the state of ihsan, and when it is only treated as a means and does not become widely regarded as a formal religious practice, it will not fall under the category of bid’ah.]

Hence, adopting that particular day as ‘id is precisely what al-Shatibi determined as bid’ah.

It is recorded in al-Mi’yar al-Mu’rib (7:102-3) that al-Shatibi was asked about bequeathing one third of one’s inheritance (the maximum that can be bequeathed) as a charitable donation to the mawlid, and he replied: “Bequeathing one third as a charitable donation to establish the night of mawlid of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace): it is known that establishing mawlid according to the way recognised amongst the people is an invented bid’ah, and every bid’ah is misguidance, so spending to establish a bid’ah is not permissible, and the will will not be effective, rather it is necessary for the Qadi to cancel it, and to return the one third to the heirs which they distribute amongst themselves – and may Allah curse those poor people (or it could mean: the Sufi “faqirs”) who seek such wills to be executed.”

الوصية بالثلث ليوقف على إقامة ليلة مولد النبي صلى الله عليه و سلم فمعلوم أن إقامة المولد على الوصف المعهود بين الناس بدعة محدثة و كل بدعة ضلالة فالإنفاق على إقامة البدعة لا يجوز و الوصية به غير نافذة بل يجب على القاضي فسخه و رد الثلث إلى الورثة يقتسمونه فيما بينهم و أبعد الله الفقراء الذين يطلبون إنفاذ مثل هذه الوصية

Notice, he says “according to the way recognised amongst the people,” indicating that it is this form that is bid’ah – i.e. treating it as an annual ‘id, saying it has virtue and thus deserves extra devotion which the Sahabah did not realise, taking it as a religious recommendation for that specific day etc. Of course, if “mawlid” means only recollecting the birth of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and expressing joy upon doing so without any of these restrictions, who can condemn that?

Mufti Taqi Usmani said:

“The dates of these two Eids do not correspond to the birthday of any of the outstanding persons of Islamic history, nor can their origin be attributed to any particular event of history that had happened in these dates.”

Gibril Haddad says in response:

“Secondly, it is patently false that the origin of the two `Eids cannot be attributed to any particular event of history that had happened on these dates as the books of Tafsir are replete with the story of the sacrifice of Ibrahim (as) with his son Isma`il (as) on the occasion of which was offered a huge ram as stated in the Holy Qur’an.”

Where is the proof that Ibrahim’s sacrifice happened on the 10th of Dhu al-Hijjah? It is clear that the reason for placing the date at that time was because that is the time of Hajj as said by Mufti Taqi, even if the sacrifice is to follow the Sunnah of Ibrahim (‘alayhi al-salam). Mufti Taqi is therefore correct that the date of the two ‘Ids cannot be attributed to the date of an event that happened on that day. This is why the udhiyah is not tied down to the particular day of ‘Id – it is permissible to perform the sacrifice on the day of ‘Id or a couple of days after. If it was the case that Ibrahim (‘alayhi al-salam) performed the sacrifice on that day and that is why ‘Id was ordained on that day, the sacrifice would not be allowed on the following two days. It seems it is a habit of Haddad to force a clearly false interpretation on a text and then attack a straw-man.

Regarding Mufti Taqi’s statement:

“The prophets of Allah are the persons of the highest status amongst all human beings. But the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, or his noble companions never observed the birthday or anniversary of any of them. Even the birthday of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, which was the most happy day for the whole mankind was never celebrated by the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, himself, nor by his blessed Companions.”

Haddad says:

“As for the rest of the paragraph I am sorry to say it is a blatant lie, the Prophet expressly commemorated his own birthday – as did the early Umma in his wake – by fasting every Monday. He and they treated his birthday as the cause and driving factor (`illa) for this act of devotion as shown in the Sahih and as illustrated by the commentators of those narrations, among them Ibn Khuzayma and his student Ibn Hibban, each one of them in his Sahih. And this suffices as evidence for those endowed with sight.”

He accuses Mufti Taqi of lying (and I doubt he was really “sorry to say” that), whereas the facts he lists have nothing to do with what Mufti Taqi mentioned. Mufti Taqi is clearly referring to the annual birthday – i.e. the 12th of Rabi’ al-Awwal – that it was never observed or celebrated. The Monday fast is one method prescribed in the Sunnah for remembering the birth of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) – so why is this Sunnah method of observing this remembrance not emphasised but the yearly mawlid which was never practised in the formal way it is today?

The so-called “Wahhabi Misconception of Usul”

Mufti Taqi Usmani wrote:

“Had there been room in Islamic teachings for the celebration of birthdays or anniversaries, the birthday of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, would have undoubtedly deserved it more than the birthday of any other person. But that is against the nature of Islamic teachings.”

In his reply, Gibril Haddad wrote:

“This is a Wahhabi misconception of Usul which was refuted notably by the Ghumari Shuyukh (see item #23), namely, that Tark (not doing something) is NOT a proof that something is condemned or that it is not praiseworthy, as the Prophet did not, in his lifetime, do absolutely everything that was praiseworthy or permissible. The same goes for the early generations. Rather, the criteria for judging if something belongs on the accepted side of Shari`a and is endorsable by the Sunna or not, is to evaluate it in the balance of the Qur’an and Sunna: whatever is confirmed by them is part of them and whatever violates them is rejected.”

Notice he describes the principle of leaving what the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) left a “Wahhabi misconception of Usul”. He also says the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the early generations did not do everything praiseworthy – and yet it is those who say they did do everything praiseworthy that are accused of denigrating them!

Ibn Kathir said: “As for the Ahl al-Sunnah wa l-Jama’ah, they say with regards to every action and statement not established from the Companions: it is bid’ah, because had there been [any] good [besides what is established from them], they would have beat us to it, as they did not leave a trait from the good qualities, except they hastened to it.” (Tafsir ibn Kathir, p. 1703)

Shaykh Ahmad al-Sirhindi – the founder of Gibril Haddad’s tariqah – said: “We abstain from good bid’ah, even if its light is like the break of dawn, because bid’ah inevitably removes a sunnah. If one does something which he (upon him be peace) did not do, he is in opposition to him in this [practice], and if he did not do something that he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did do, that is also the case.” And he forbade verbalising the intention before Salah for this very reason. [The view of Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani has been discussed at great length in a previous post, which can be found at this link: Moulood and the Shariah ]

Also Shatibi discussed the issue of Tark in al-I’tisam [Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad ‘Uthmani in hismagnum opusFath al-Mulhim has quoted from al-Shatibi regarding the issue of tark (not doing something). The relevant pages from the mentioned book can be found at this link:]. He explains that some (religious) things were left out even though their reasons were present – these are bid’ah; and some things were left out but their reasons were not present which should be assessed by the scholars based on the pricniples of the Shari’ah. The same was expressed by Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi [Mawlana Ashraf ‘Ali Thanawi’s discussion in Wa’azus Suroor can be found at this link:]. Al-Shatibi then said: “Indeed, here, silence over the ruling of the performance of an act or leaving [it] when the factor demanding it is present, is [equivalent to] the consensus of all who are silent that there is no excess to what was, since if that [excess] was suitable according to the Shari’ah or permissible they would have done it, and they would be more deserving of comprehending it and beating [us] in practising it, because it is not correct that the legal cause was ineffective in the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the caliphs after him and then it came into effect . For this [reason] Malik said, ‘Do you believe people today are more desirous of good than those who have passed?’

The author of al-Hidayah probably the most widely-accepted and influential text on Hanafi fiqh says:

ولا يتنفل في المصلى قبل صلاة العيد ” لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يفعل ذلك مع حرصه على الصلاة ، ثم قيل الكراهة في المصلى خاصة ، وقيل فيه وفي غيره عامة لأنه صلى الله عليه وسلم لم يفعله

“One should not pray on the Musalla [of Id] before the Salat al-‘Id because the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not do that despite his enthusiasm for Salah. Moreover it was said the detestability was for the Musalla specifically, and it was said for the Musalla and other than it generally because he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) did not do it.”

Also the Maliki faqih Abu ‘Abd Allah Muhammad ibn ‘Ali al-Haffar (d. 811 H) said, echoing many of the points made by Mufti Taqi Usmani and supporting the so-called “Wahhabi misconception of Usul”:

وليلة المولد لم يكن السلف الصالح وهم أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والتابعون لهم يجتمعون فيها للعبادة، ولا يفعلون فيها زيادة على سائر ليالي السنة، لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يعظم إلا بالوجه الذي شرع فيه تعظيمه، وتعظيمه من أعظم القرب إلى الله، لكن يتقرب إلى الله جل جلاله بما شرع، والدليل على أن السلف الصالح لم يكونوا يزيدون فيها زيادة على سائر الليالي أنهم اختلفوا فيها، فقيل إنه صلى الله عليه وسلم ولد في رمضان وقيل في ربيع، واختلف في أي يوم ولد فيه على أربعة أقوال، فلو كانت تلك الليلة التي ولد في صبيحتها تحدث فيها عبادة بولادة خير الخلق صلى الله عليه وسلم، لكانت معلومة مشهورة لا يقع فيها اختلاف ولكن لم تشرع زيادة تعظيم …

ولو فتح هذا الباب لجاء قوم فقالوا يوم هجرته إلى المدينة يوم أعز الله فيه الإسلام فيجتمع فيه ويتعبد، ويقول آخرون الليلة التي أسري به فيها حصل له من الشرف ما لا يقدر قدره، فتحدث فيها عبادة، فلا يقف ذلك عند حد، والخير كله في إتباع السلف الصالح الذين اختارهم الله له، فما فعلوا فعلناه وما تركوا تركناه، فإذا تقرر هذا ظهر أن الاجتماع في تلك الليلة ليس بمطلوب شرعا، بل يؤمر بتركه

“The pious predecessors, that is the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and the Successors, did not congregate for worship on the night of the mawlid, and they would not increase therein over the rest of the nights of the year, because the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) is not glorified except in the manner in which his glorification has been established in the Shari’ah; and his glorification is from the greatest acts of nearness to Allah, but one should seek proximity to Allah with what has been legislated in the Shari’ah. The proof that the Salaf did not increase on that [night] more than the rest of the nights is that they differed over it; so it has been said he (Allah bless him and grant him peace) was born in Ramadan and it has been said in Rabi’, and the day on which he was born has been disputed according to four different views. So if it was the case that on the night in the morning of which he was was born acts of worship were invented in it due to the birth of the best of creation (Allah bless him and grant him peace), it would have been specified and well-known containing no controversy. But increased glorification has not been legislated…If this door is opened, some people will say the day of Hijra is a day in which Allah honoured Islam so they would gather therein and increase in worship, and others will say in the night of Isra he attained immeasurable honour so they invent worship therein, and this will have no boundary. And all good is in following the Pious Salaf for which Allah has selected them; so whatever they do, we do and whatever they left we leave. When this is realised, it becomes clear gathering on this night is not legally required, rather one is ordered to leave it.” (Al-Mi’yar al-Mu’rib 7:99-100)

Were al-Shatibi, Imam Malik, al-Haffar, Ibn Kathir, al-Marghinani and Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani all following a “Wahhabi misconception of Usul”?

Celebrating Birthday’s is a Pagan Custom

Mufti Taqi Usmani writes:

In fact, commemorating the birth of a distinguished person has never been prescribed by any religion attributing itself to divine revelation. It was originally a custom prevalent in pagan communities only. Even Christmas, the famous Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ finds no mention in the Bible or in the early Christian writings.

Shaykh Gibril Haddad writes, in response to this:

Here we find three errors. First, and this is the gravest error, the author denies that the commemoration of the birth of a distinguished person was ever prescribed by any heavenly religion as if he never heard that the Prophet was ordered to dismount from the Buraq during Isra’ and pray at the spot where `Isa (as) was born precisely for that reason and no other. The narration goes, “Then he [Allah bless him and give him peace] reached a land where the palaces of al-Shaam became visible to him. Gibril said to him: ‘Alight and pray.’ He did so and remounted, then the Buraq continued his lightning flight and Gibril said: ‘Do you know where you prayed?’ He said no. Gibril said: ‘You prayed in Bayt Lahm, where `Isa ibn Maryam was born.’” Narrated as part of a longer hadith from Anas by al-Nasa’i with a sound chain and from Shaddad ibn Aws by al-Bayhaqi who declared it sound in Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (2:355-357), and by al-Tabarani in al-Kabir and al-Bazzar with a sound chain as indicated by al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa’id and Ibn Hajar in Mukhtasar Zawa’id Musnad al-Bazzar (1:90-91 #32). Secondly, the prescription of the commemoration of the birth of Christ *was* prescribed in the early Christian Church, even if its chronological proximity to the pagan commemoration of the winter solstice was co-opted by the political authorities as a means to recycle prevalent social customs in certain regions including those of pagan origins. Thirdly, what flimsier way to adduce evidence is there than to cite tampered Scriptural texts in order to infer or disinfer a Shari`a ruling?

I wished to analyse this quote of GF Haddad, as it offers us an example of where under greater scrutiny, it is he who is flimsy and, in fact, plain dishonest:

Narrated as part of a longer hadith from Anas by al-Nasa’i with a sound chain

Note, he does not mention who considered the chain of al-Nasa’i sound. Al-Nasa’i’s chain of narration contains two narrators that were criticised: Yazid ibn ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Malik (d. 130 H) of whom al-‘Asqalani said “reliable, sometimes erring” (saduq rubama wahim) (Taqrib) and Ya’qub ibn Sufyan said “there is weakness in his hadith” (fi hadithihi lin), although other narrator-critics praised him; and Makhlad ibn Yazid (d. 193 H) of whom al-‘Asqalani said “reliable, he made errors” (saduq lahu awham) (Taqrib) although others praised him. Along with the slight weakness in the chain, there is nakarah(objectionability on the grounds of conflicting with stronger narrations) in it as mentioned by Ibn Kathir who mentions this narration in his Tafsir and says “in it is severe nakarah(objectionability) and gharabah (strangeness).”

عن أنس بن مالك، وفيها غرابة ونكارة جداً وهي في ” سنن النسائي ” المجتبى ولم أرها في الكبير، قال: حدثنا عمرو بن هشام

and from Shaddad ibn Aws by al-Bayhaqi who declared it sound in Dala’il al-Nubuwwa (2:355-357)

Although al-Bayhaqi declared it sound (despite the presence of a questionable narrator), Ibn Kathir said in his tafsir after mentioning this narration from al-Bayhaqi’s Dala’il:

“This hadith from Shaddad ibn Aws was narrated in its length by Imam Abu ‘Abd al-Rahman ibn Abi Hatim in his Tafsir from his father from Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn al-‘Ala al-Zabidi with it. There is no doubt that this hadith, I mean the hadith narrated from Shaddad ibn Aws, contains parts, from which is what is sahih (authentic) as mentioned by al-Bayhaqi, and from which is what is rejected (munkar) like the prayer in Bayt Lahm (Bethlehem) and al-Siddiq’s asking about the description of Bayt al-Maqdis and other than that. Allah knows best”

وقد روى هذا الحديث عن شداد بن أوس بطوله الإمام أبو عبد الرحمن بن أبي حاتم في تفسيره عن أبيه عن إسحاق بن إبراهيم بن العلاء الزبيدي به، ولا شك أن هذا الحديث – أعني الحديث المروي عن شداد بن أوس – مشتمل على أشياء، منها ما هو صحيح كما ذكره البيهقي، ومنها ما هو منكر كالصلاة في بيت لحم، وسؤال الصديق عن نعت بيت المقدس، وغير ذلك، والله أعلم.

Ibn Kathir, therefore, considers the part about praying at Bayt Lahm – which is described as the birthplace of ‘Isa – rejected. The hadith from Shaddad only comes through the route of Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn al-‘Ala ibn Zibriq (d. 238) who was said to lie by Muhammad ibn ‘Awf (as mentioned in Taqrib) and al-‘Asqalani considered him “truthful with many errors” (saduq yahimu kathiran), while Shu’ayb Arna’ut said he is truthful but weak when narrating from ‘Amr ibn al-Harith and this particular hadith comes through this route; so, is weak.

Besides the weakness of its chain, the reason Ibn Kathir considered it munkar (rejected) is probably because of other narrations which clearly state Buraq took them straight to the Bayt al-Maqdis without any stops in the journey; one such narration is narrated by Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman from the Musnad Ahmad (38:356) with a sound (hasan) chain according to Shu’ayb al-Arna’ut [the narrators are the narrators of the two Sahihs besides ‘Asim ibn Bahdalah who is reliable], which states “we, Jibril and I, did not part from its back [i.e. Buraq’s] until I came to Bayt al-Maqdis.” Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah mentioned the narration of praying at Bayt Lahm in his Zad al-Ma’ad and said “it is unsound.”

The following is where Haddad was clearly dishonest:

and al-Bazzar with a sound chain as indicated by al-Haythami in Majma` al-Zawa’id

Al-Haythami in Majma’ al-Zawa’id says, after mentioning the narration of Shaddad ibn Aws: “Al-Bazzar and al-Tabrani in al-Kabir narrated it…In it is Ishaq ibn Ibrahim ibn al-‘Ala, considered trustworthy by Yahya ibn Ma’in and weakned by al-Nasa’i.”

رواه البزار والطبراني في الكبير ، إلا أن الطبراني قال فيه : ” قد أخذ صاحبك الفطرة ، وإنه لمهدي . وقال في وصف جهنم كيف وجدتها ؟ قال : مثل الحمة السخنة ” . وفيه إسحاق بن إبراهيم بن العلاء ، وثقه يحيى بن معين ، وضعفه النسائي

And this Haddad claims is an indication of its soundness from al-Haythami though he makes no such judgement.

and Ibn Hajar in Mukhtasar Zawa’id Musnad al-Bazzar (1:90-91 #32)

This conjunction suggests to the reader Ibn Hajar also indicated to the soundness of this report of Shaddad ibn Aws from al-Bazzar; however, al-‘Asqalani does not say it is sound at all in Mukhtasar Zawa’id Musnad al-Bazzar, and he himself says Ibn Zibriq (Ishaq ibn Ibrahim) one of the narrators of the chain “errs excessively.”

The important point to note about this narration is, therefore, the chains of narration are not without fault and Ibn Kathir deemed the prayer at Bayt Lahm munkar because of its contradiction with stronger reports which do not mention this and which state he went straight to Bayt al-Maqdis without pause. Gibril Haddad deceptively claimed Haythami and Asqalani indicated the chain is sound and he himself assessed the chain of Nasa’i to be sound without supporting this assertion. Furthermore, this can hardly be considered a prescription/order to commemorate (= remember) the birth of ‘Isa if the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when told to pray did not know where he was.

Secondly, the prescription of the commemoration of the birth of Christ *was* prescribed in the early Christian Church, even if its chronological proximity to the pagan commemoration of the winter solstice was co-opted by the political authorities as a means to recycle prevalent social customs in certain regions including those of pagan origins

In exact contradiction to this statement, the Catholic Encyclopaedia states: “Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church. Irenaeus and Tertullian omit it from their lists of feasts; Origen, glancing perhaps at the discreditable imperial Natalitia, asserts (in Lev. Hom. viii in Migne, P.G., XII, 495) that in the Scriptures sinners alone, not saints, celebrate their birthday; Arnobius (VII, 32 in P.L., V, 1264) can still ridicule the “birthdays” of the gods.” The Encyclopaedia goes on to mention that the first time it was celebrated was two centuries after Christ.

From this it is clear the early Church in fact scorned the celebration of birthdays and had no knowledge of the celebration of the birth of Christ. Based on this, Mufti Taqi’s claim, that revealed religions did not prescribe the celebration of birthdays and that this was prevalent only amongst pagans, holds true. And, it seems, Haddad’s assertion above, that the commemoration of the birth of Christ was prescribed in the early Church, is simply fabricated and has no basis in fact.

The Prophet and Observing Anniversaries

Mufti Taqi said:

“In original Islamic resources, also we cannot find any instruction about the celebration of birthdays or death anniversaries. Many Companions of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, passed away during his life-time. His beloved wife Sayyidah Khadijah, Radi-Allahu anha, passed away in Makkah. His beloved uncle Sayyidna Hamzah, Radi-Allahu anhu was brutally slaughtered during the battle of Uhud. But the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, never observed their birthday or their death anniversaries, nor did he ever advise his followers to celebrate his own birthday in Rabi’ul-Awwal.”

GF Haddad responds:

The above again shows strange or rather tragic (for such a celebrated author) ignorance of the Sunna. We already established beyond doubt that the Prophet celebrated his birthday by fasting. As for death anniversaries, the Prophet definitely visited his wife and uncle’s graves on a regular basis as well as his mother’s. Al-Bayhaqi narrates that the Prophet used to visit the graveyard of the martyrs of Uhud annually and punctually – “`ala ra’si kulli hawl”. Al-Bayhaqi also narrated in Shu`ab al-Imaan (6:201 #7901) that the Prophet said: “Whoever visits the grave of his parents or the grave of one of them every Friday, he will be forgiven and [his name will] be written among the pious sons.” (Man zaara qabra abawayhi aw ahadihima fi kulli Jumu`ah, ghufira lahu wa kutiba barran). And he is without the shadow of a doubt the most pious of all pious sons. Also, al-Bazzar narrates that the Prophet visited the Jannat al-Ma`la graveyard in Makkah, where his dear wife Sayyidah Khadijah was buried and called the whole place a blessed graveyard: “Ni`ma al-Maqbarah Hadhihi.” Imam Ja`far al-Sadiq narrated with his chain from al-Hasan ibn `Ali that Fatima the daughter of the Prophet used to visit every Jumu`a the grave of her uncle Hamza ibn `Abd al-Muttalib – may Allah be well-pleased with all of them! – which she had marked with a rock in order to recognize it, and she used to pray and weep there as narrated by `Abd al-Razzaq in his Musannaf, al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan, al-Hakim in his Mustadrak and he declared its chain sahih, and Ibn `Abd al-Barr in al-Tamhid.

Firstly, Haddad’s proofs are irrelevant to Mufti Taqi’s statement. Mufti Taqi is referring to specifying the dates of the death or birth in the year to celebrate, as is the case with the mawlid. None of the examples in Haddad’s tirade prove this. If fasting on Mondays really is mawlid in the sense that is commonly understood, why not just fast on Mondays, and why does that not spring to mind when the word “mawlid” is used? Of course, Mufti Taqi is not condemning remembrance in general or visitation of graves in general. He himself says in the article under question: “The life of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, is, no doubt, the most important source of guidance for all the Muslims, and every Muslim is under an obligation to learn and study the events of his life [i.e. including the birth], and to follow the practical example set by him in every sphere of life. The narration of his pious biography (the Seerah) in itself is a pious act, which invites the divine blessings, but the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah have not prescribed a particular time or method for it. This pious act should be performed in all the months and at all the times [i.e. without restrictions].” Therefore, Haddad’s reply is of no consequence to Mufti Taqi’s original comment. But what it does reveal is his clear dishonesty:

Haddad wrote:

As for death anniversaries, the Prophet definitely visited his wife and uncle’s graves on a regular basis as well as his mother’s.” Note the use of the word “definitely” and “a regular basis.

Based on this a general reader would think that the authentic collections and hadiths [as he said “definitely”] prove that he time and time again visited the graves of his wife, mother and uncle. But there is no sound evidence for this. There is the famous narration in Sahih Muslim of visiting his mother – once – but not “on a regular basis.” As for his “proofs”:

Haddad wrote:

Al-Bayhaqi narrates that the Prophet used to visit the graveyard of the martyrs of Uhud annually and punctually – “`ala ra’si kulli hawl”.

He did not give any reference for al-Bayhaqi’s narration and I did not find it in the Ziyarat al-Qubur section of al-Sunan al-Kubra (Muhammad ‘Abd al-Qadir ‘Ata ed. 4:127-35) It is found in Musannaf of ‘Abd al-Razzaq (Habib A’zami ed. no. 6716) but ‘Abd al-Razzaq’s shaykh is unknown (he says “from a man from the people of Madinah”) and the narration is a mursal of Muhammad ibn Ibrahim al-Taymi who met very few of the Sahabah, so his irsal is likely from another Tabi’i whose identity is unknown. The narration is, therefore, certainly weak, and cannot be the basis for a “definite” assertion that he visited his uncle Hamzah every year.

Haddad wrote:

Al-Bayhaqi also narrated in Shu`ab al-Imaan (6:201 #7901) that the Prophet said: “Whoever visits the grave of his parents or the grave of one of them every Friday, he will be forgiven and [his name will] be written among the pious sons.” (Man zaara qabra abawayhi aw ahadihima fi kulli Jumu`ah, ghufira lahu wa kutiba barran).

In the edition of Mukhtar Ahmad al-Nadwi, he explains the narration (also found in Tabrani’s Mu’jams) is mawdu’ or close to mawdu’ (al-Jami’ li Shu’ab al-Iman, 10:297-8, no. 7522) Thus his inference that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) visited his parents on every Friday (as he said: “he is without the shadow of a doubt the most pious of all pious sons”) based on such a weak narration is invalid.

Haddad wrote:

al-Bazzar narrates that the Prophet visited the Jannat al-Ma`la graveyard in Makkah, where his dear wife Sayyidah Khadijah was buried and called the whole place a blessed graveyard: “Ni`ma al-Maqbarah Hadhihi.”

I did not find this in the relevant sections of the Zawa’id of al-Bazzar by al-Haythami (Kashf al-Astar) or in Majma’ al-Zawa’id. Haddad’s statement therefore, that “the Prophet definitely visited his wife and uncle’s graves on a regular basis as well as his mother’s”, is a clear example of dishonesty.

Gibril Haddad quotes:

Comment [from Brother Ahmad I on msa-ec mail list, 11 July 2000]: The Ulama of Deoband celebrated their hundred years anniversary of Darul Uloom Deoband in which they called Indhira Ghandi who was dressed in a Sarrie. She was seated on the stage while hundreds of Ulama were seated on the ground. Was this Islamic? Early Muslims did not celebrate hundred years establishment of Islam which was far more important that the establishment of Darul Uloom Deoband. According to you, our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) did not celebrate birthdays and anniversaries. If the Ulama-e-Deoband claim to be true followers of the Sunnah, why then did they celebrate the hundred year anniversary of Darul Uloom Deoband? Was this not a Bid`at?

Indira Gandhi was not invited to the Dar al-‘Ulum event. She came without invitation of her own accord and at the time she was prime minister [Mawlana Rab Nawaz discusses the issue of Indira Gandhi attending the event at Dar al-‘Ulum Deoband:].

The hundred year conference would be a one-time event that is not confused with being part of religion. The formal annual mawlid, on the other hand, is taken as part of religion, and for some it is so integral that it defines who is a “Sunni” and who is not. This is therefore an example of qiyas ma’a al-fariq (an invalid analogy), as the Dar al-‘Ulum event is different in this important respect to the formal mawlid.

Gibril Haddad says:

Nor is his harping on “the example of Christmas” when referring to Muslims acceptable. One well-known contributor on the newsgroupsoc.religion.islam, `Abd al-Rahman Lomax, said in a thread titled “Re: Al-Mawled (6/7) : Even worse!” Date: 22 Sep 1996: “I remember my first ‘Eid al-Fitr, in Tucson. This was a largely student community, with a few older Muslims including professors at the University of Arizona at Tucson. My clearest memory is of the sub-teen daughters of some of these families getting up on the tables and dancing to the encouragement of nearly everyone, with drum music coming over the P.A. system. This was not mawlid, this was ‘Eid ul-Fitr! Times have changed. But it is not clear to me that the more sober ‘Eids I have seen in recent years are closer to the actual sunna than that first ‘Eid. I’ll leave it to someone else to cite the relevant hadith; suffice it to say that the Prophet did, it appears, encourage having *fun* on ‘Eid, and that dancing and at least some form of music were actually encouraged.” Following Mufti Taqi Usmani’s reasoning in the above paragraph, if enough “bad” displays such as the above had been witnessed on `Eid, then `Eid celebrations should have been banned, either in absolute terms or in temporary and local terms. But isolated incidents are never a proof in ruling for or against something.

This is an incorrect deduction, as Mufti Taqi Usmani’s reasoning applies to that which has no basis in the early generations, that is, the formal annual celebration of the mawlid. The ‘Id is an established celebration of Islam, so will not be banned based on sinful activities. The rule is as follows: “When a ruling wavers between Sunnah and innovation, avoidance of Sunnah is given priority. And that which wavers between obligatory and innovation, it should be practised with caution.”

The Usul of Bid’ah and the Salaf

Mufti Taqi said:

“The Holy Qur’an has clearly pronounced on the occasion of the last Hajj of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam: “Today, I have completed the teachings of your religion.” [Al-Maida 5:3] It means that all the teachings of Islam were communicated to the Muslims through the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam. No one is allowed after it to add any thing to them as a part of religion. What was not a part of religion during the lifetime of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, can never become part of it. Such additions are termed by the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, as Bid’ah or innovation.”

Gibril Haddad commented:

“Comment: This is the weakest paragraph in the entire fatwa as it is entirely borrowed from the Wahhabi conception of bid`a, which violates the principles and methods of the Jumhur of Sunni `Ulema as to what constitutes bid`a and what does not. The Ulema have clarified this major methodological innovation in many useful publications which we have summarized elsewhere and there is no space nor need to reproduce this material here. Suffice it here to quote the words of Sayyid Muhammad al-Maliki – Allah keep him and all our impeccable Ulema and true Teachers – in one of his fatwas on Mawlid: “There is no doubt that such singing, dancing, reciting of poetry, and banging the drum [as narrated in the authentic Sunna] was for joy at being with the Prophet , nor did he condemn nor frown upon such displays in any way whatsoever. These are common displays of happiness and lawful merriment, and similarly to stand up at the mention of the birth of the Prophet is an ordinary act that shows love and gladness symbolizing the joy of creation: it does not constitute worship, nor law, nor Sunna!” It is also ironic that the verse they quote: { This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favor unto you} (5:3) was revealed on a Monday, the day of his Mawlid – Allah bless and greet him and his Family – according to some reports narrated by Ibn `Asakir as mentioned by al-Salihi in _Subul al-Huda_ (1:401).”

I will first address Haddad’s “ignorance of the Sunnah” (which he unduly accused Mufti Taqi of as shown above). He refers to a report that the verse (5:3) was revealed on a Monday,and yet ignores the well-known narration found in Sahih al-Bukhari and Sahih Muslim that the verse was revealed on a Friday on the Day of ‘Arafah! Yet, Haddad quotes this little-known narration that contradicts the accepted narration to make an invalid point. The established and authentic narration in Arabic is as follows:

أن رجلا من اليهود قال له يا أمير المؤمنين آية في كتابكم تقرءونها لو علينا معشر اليهود نزلت لاتخذنا ذلك اليوم عيدا قال أي آية قال اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم وأتممت عليكم نعمتي ورضيت لكم الإسلام دينا قال عمر قد عرفنا ذلك اليوم والمكان الذي نزلت فيه على النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم وهو قائم بعرفة يوم جمعة

Next, Haddad says:

“This is the weakest paragraph in the entire fatwa as it is entirely borrowed from the Wahhabi conception of bid`a.”

It is in fact borrowed from the attitude of the early Salaf towards innovations, the explicit statements of Imam Malik to this effect and his muqallids, Ibn Waddah, al-Turtushi, and others, in particular al-Shatibi, and the statements of other pre-Wahhabi scholars and revivers.

Al-Shatibi quotes Ibn Habib al-Maliki: Ibn al-Majishun narrated to me: that he heard Malik say: “Whoever innovates in this ummah anything which its predecessors [i.e. the Sahabah] were not upon, then he has claimed that Allah’s Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace) betrayed the messengership, because Allah says: ‘This day have I perfected for you your religion, and I have completed My favour upon you, and I am pleased with Islam as your religion.’ (5:3) So whatever was not religion then is not religion today.” (Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi (d. 790), al-I’tisam, Mashhur ibn Hasan Al Salman ed. 2:306-7)

قال : وقد حدثني ابن الماجشون : أنه سمع مالكا يقول : من أحدث في هذه الأمة شيئا لم يكن عليه سلفها ؛ فقد زعم أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خان الرسالة ؛ لأن الله يقول : اليوم أكملت لكم دينكم وأتممت عليكم نعمتي ورضيت لكم الإسلام دينا ، فما لم يكن يومئذ دينا ؛ فلا يكون اليوم دينا

Similarly, the same Ibn al-Majishun reported from Imam Malik: “Whoever innovates an innovation in Islam, believing it to be good, then he has claimed Muhammad (Allah bless him and grant him peace) betrayed the messengership, because Allah says: ‘This day have I perfected for you your religion, and I have completed My favour upon you, and I am pleased with Islam as your religion.’ (5:3) So whatever was not religion on that day, is not religion today.” (ibid. 1:62)

من ابتدع فى الاسلام بدعة يراها حسنة فقد زعم أن محمدا صلى الله عليه وسلم خان الرسالة الخ

In the same way, Mujaddid al-Alf al-Thani Imam al-Sirhindi wrote: “From where do they judge that bid’ah, newly-invented in the perfect religion and the desired Islam [an allusion to Qur’an 5:3], is good after the perfection of the blessing [of Islam]?” (Al-Maktubat Vol 2, Letter 20)

It is therefore untrue that Mufti Taqi Usmani borrowed this principle from the “Wahhabis.” ‘Allamah Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri gave several sources from where the Deobandi elders acquired their strong opposition to bid’ah, and none of those sources are “Wahhabi”. He wrote: “Bid’ah is that which is not found in the Book, the Sunnah and the ijtihad of a mujtahid whose ijtihad is accepted. Moreover, if it is from that which is not confused with matters of the Shari’ah like a groom riding on a horse on the day of his marriage, this is not bid’ah although the matter may be futile (laghw); and if it is from that which is confused with matters of the Shari’ah like [specifying] the third and fortieth [day for reciting the Qur’an] after the death of a deceased individual, this is a bid’ah. [Several] works have been compiled on the refutation of bid’ahs. From the works of the Malikis is Ibn al-Hajj’s Madkhal and from the Hanbalis are the works of Ibn Taymiyyah who was the standard bearer in refuting bid’ah and from the Hanafis is [Ahmad al-Rumi’s] Majalis al-Abrar and some of the works of ‘Allamah Qasim ibn Qutlubugha. And the pithiest and greatest [work] to know the foundations of refuting bid’ahs is al-I’tisam bi l-Kitabi wa l-Sunnah by al-Shatibi the Maliki in two volumes.” (Al-’Arf al-Shadhi, vol. 4, pp. 135-6)

Regarding Shaykh Muhammad al-‘Alawi al-Maliki, he clearly says that the mawlid celebration is a “customary” (‘adi) matter, and when it is so, and not taken as part of religion, no one can claim it is innovation in religion. However Mufti Taqi pointed out in his response to him that this is not a distinction the common Muslims make:

‘Alawi al-Maliki wrote:

“Gathering for the purpose of the noble prophetic birth is nothing but a customary practice, and is not at all part of worship, and this is what we believe and take as our religion before Allah Most High.” Then he said: “We announce that specifying one night besides another for this gathering is the greatest estrangement from the Messenger (Allah bless him and grant him peace).”

Mufti Taqi replies:

“There is no doubt that commemorating the noble Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) and describing his biography is from the greatest of blessings and the most virtuous of fortunes when it is not restricted to a day or date, nor is the belief of worship associated with it in gathering on a particular day in a particular form.Thus, gathering to commemorate the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and grant him peace) with these conditions is in essence permissible, not deserving condemnation or blame.

“However, there is another approach adopted by many verifying and scrupulous scholars, which is that this gathering, although permissible in reality, many people believe it is from the objective acts of worship or from the religious obligations, and they specify for it specific days, along with what some of them mix with it of weak beliefs and illegal practices. Moreover, it is difficult for the general people to observe the subtle differences between custom and worship [i.e. religion]. Hence, if these scholars, by observing these matters, the importance of which cannot be denied, chose to prevent such gatherings, observing the principle of “blocking the means,” and recognising that repelling harms is favoured over attaining benefit, then they are holding firmly to proofs of the Shari‘ah, and thus do not deserve condemnation or blame. The course in these matters is like the course in matters which are open to ijtihadi difference, every man encouraging and giving fatwa according to what he believes to be true, and adopts the religion of Allah according to it, and at the same time not shooting the arrows of criticism at another mujtahid who holds an opposing view.”

(Mufti Taqi and Mufti Rafi’, taqriz of Mafahim)

History and Origin of the Mawlid

Mufti Taqi said:

“It was after many centuries [Albalagh Note: According to Maulana Yusuf Ludhinavi it was in the year 604 A.H.] that some monarchs started observing the 12th of Rabi’ul-Awwal as the birthday of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, without a sound religious basis, and the congregations in the name of Maulood or Milad were held where the history of the birth of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, used to be narrated.”

I will address GF Haddad’s reply in parts, and will highlight more examples of his dishonesty:

“As stated by al-Sayyid Muhammad al-Maliki in his Fatwa _Hawl al-Ihtifal bi Dhikra al-Mawlid al-Nabawi al-Sharif_ (10th ed. p. 15): “The first to observe the celebration of the Mawlid was the Prophet himself by fasting on Mondays because it was the day of his birth as narrated in Sahih Muslim. This is the soundest and most explicit textual proof for the licitness of commemorating the Noble Prophetic Mawlid.”

Nobody denies the licitness of commemorating the prophetic birth (i.e. mentioning it, discussing it, remembering it, reading about it etc.) or fasting on Mondays, but Mufti Taqi Usmani’s comment is regarding specifying the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal for a formal celebration, and taking that as part of religion. Haddad continues:

“In the light of such a proof what does it matter that “after many centuries some monarchs started observing the 12th of Rabi’ul-Awwal” as the Mawlid date, and who can believe such a lie as to claim that such observance was “without a sound religious basis”? Is this what the reliable authorities say, or is it just the opinion of some latecomers unfamiliar with the differences of the Ulema and the principles of the Shari`a?”

Yes, reliable authorities have said observing this date as a formal religious celebration (‘id) is bid’ah, like al-Shatibi, who was quoted above. It certainly matters that a date was specified, and GF Haddad himself demonstrated why this is problematic. He alluded in his comments that this night – the 12th of Rabi’ – is more virtuous in the year than any other night, and therefore is deserving of extra acts of goodness, devotion and celebration. This is precisely what makes it a bid’ah, as it means the Sahabah did not discover this merit, and as Imam Malik said, holding such a view would be to accuse the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) of betraying the risalah as he did not convey to us the blessedness of this particular night in the year and the extra acts that should be done in it. Is this not disrespect towards the Prophet (sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam) and his noble Sahabah?

Now, for a revealing example of Haddad’s dishonesty:

“When the critics are unable to disprove the lawful on the basis of the foundations of the Religion, they turn to vacuous opinion unaware that in the field of opinion there are plenty of more trusted sources than themselves. Imam al-Dhahabi wrote in his Siyar A`lam al-Nubala’ (Arna’ut ed. 22:335-336): He [Muzaffar the King of Irbil] loved charity (sadaqa)… and built four hospices for the poor and sick… and one house for women, one for orphans, one for the homeless, and he himself used to visit the sick… He built a madrasa for the Shafi`is and the Hanafis… HE WOULD FORBID ANY REPREHENSIBLE MATTER TO ENTER INTO HIS COUNTRY”

The ellipses in this paragraph were placed for a very specific purpose: that the reader remains ignorant of exactly what makes these original celebrations problematic. In the last ellipses, al-Dhahabi said: “He would spread table-cloths therein, and he frequently attended Sama’, and he had no pleasure in anything besides it.” Because Sama’ is a controversial practice, GF Haddad decided he would hoodwink his readers by not translating that particular part. But there’s more: Haddad continues his quotation:

“As for his celebration of the Noble Mawlid al-Nabawi, words are too poor to describe it. The people used to come all the way from Iraq and Algeria to attend it. Two wooden dais would be erected and decorated for him and his wife… the celebration would last several days, and a huge quantity of cows and camels would be brought out to be sacrificed and cooked in different ways… Preachers would roam the field exhorting the people. Great sums were spent (as charity). Ibn Dihya compiled a ‘Book of Mawlid’ for him for which he received 1,000 dinars. He [Muzaffar] was modest, a LOVER OF GOOD, AND A TRUE SUNNI who loved scholars of jurisprudence and scholars of hadith, and was generous even to poets. He was killed in battle according to what is reported.””

Firstly, the part in capital in Arabic is “khayyiran sunniyyan” (i.e. generous, Sunni). It does not say “a true Sunni” (sunniyyun haqqan). Al-Dhahabi probably only said “Sunni” to contrast him from the Shi’ah, some of whom also ruled near this period.

Anyhow, Haddad purposefully placed the first ellipses where it is, as al-Dhahabi mentioned here: “In it were musicians and men of play, and he would come down everyday at ‘Asr and stand at every pavilion and watch/take enjoyment from (the music and play).” (wa fiha jawq al-maghani wa al-la’ib, wa yanzilu kulla yawmin al-‘asra fayaqifu ‘ala kulli qubbatin wa yatafarraj)

This is certainly forbidden. Ibn Khallikan mentions other acts of futility that would take place during this mawlid.

Regarding ‘Umar ibn al-Hasan Abu al-Khattab ibn Dihyah (542 – 633), who was the major scholarly figure behind the Sunni institutionalisation of the annual mawlid celebration, al-‘Asqalani said: “he was accused [of lying] in his transmission, although from the vessels of knowledge. He entered into what did not concern him.” Then al-‘Asqalani shows an example of him reporting a false lineage for himself. “Al-Hafiz al-Diya’ [al-Maqdisi] said: ‘His condition does not appeal to me. He frequently criticised the Imams.’ Then he said: ‘Ibrahim al-Sanhuri reported to me that the mashayikh of the West wrote criticism and weakening of him.’ He said: ‘And I saw from him many things which proves that.’” Al-‘Asqalani then showed he gave false information regarding the narrators from whom he took the Muwatta’. Ibn al-Najjar said: “I found the people in agreement on his lying , his weakness and his false claim to have heard what he did not hear.” It also says: “He was Zahiri in madhhab, and insulted the Imams and Salaf a lot, and had a revolting tongue, an idiot, very arrogant, with little insight in matters of religion, lax.” Al-‘Asqalani also reported other criticism. (Lisan al-Mizan, Abu Ghuddah ed. 6:80-8)

All this in fact proves the contention of the Majlisul ‘Ulama quoted by GF Haddad:

“From the above excerpts one can judge the shameless audacity of the statement of Majlis al-`Ulama or rather al-Juhala’ which said:

“MAINTAINING A CUSTOM WHICH WAS ORIGINATED BY IRRELIGIOUS PERSONS. It has already been explained elsewhere in this article that the originators of Meelad custom were irreligious persons. Six hundred years after our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), the irreligious ruler of Irbal, assisted by irreligious learned men, invented and established this custom. Thus, those who organize Meelad functions and those who participate in them are in reality assisting to establish a practise introduced by evil men. They are aiding and abetting in the fostering of a custom which is in total conflict with the Shari’ah of Islam. It is a great crime to maintain and encourage customs and practices which were brought into being by those who had no connection with the Deen, more so, when these customs and practices are a conglomeration of un-Islamic elements”.

Observe how they begin with a lie and end with a greater lie, progressing from calling King Muzaffar and the Ulema of the Umma as “irreligious” until they end up saying they “had no connection with the Deen”! Is not the curse of Allah on the heads of the liars?”

Note Haddad’s insults: “shameless audacity,” “Juhala,” “begin with a lie and end with a greater lie”… He bases all this on “the above excerpts” which were neatly edited to remove the singing, music, futile play, and according to Ibn Khallikan, even acting. And he also makes no mention of the proofs mentioned before in the very same booklet by the Majlusul ‘Ulama, proving their contention:

“Six centuries after our Nabi ( صلى الله عايه وسالم) an irreligious ruler initiated this custom in the city of Mosul. Imaam Ahmad Bin Muhammad Bin Bisri Maaliki (rahmatullah alayh) writes in his Kitaab, AL-QOULUL MU’TAMAD:

“Allaamah Muizzuddin Hasan Khwaarzimi (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Kitaab: ‘The Ruler of Irbal, King Muzaffar Abu Saeed Kaukari, was an irreligious king. He ordered the Ulama of his time to act according to their opinions and discard the practice of following any of the Math- habs. A group among the learned men inclined towards him. He (this king) organized Moulood sessions during the month of Rabiul Awwal. He was the first of the kings to have innovated this practice.’ (AL-QOULUL MU’TAMAD)

“This irreligious ruler squandered vast sums of public funds in the organization and upkeep of these celebrations which had no sanction in Islamic Law. Allaamah Zahbi (rahmatullah alayh) – died 748 Hijri- says: “Every year this ruler spent three hundred thousand (from the Baitul Maal) on Moulood celebrations.” (DOULUL ISLAM)

“So, this practice of Moulood was originated by irreligious people. In the year 604 Hijri this king, Muzaffaruddin Koukari, introduced this custom with the aid of some learned people whose purpose was to gain the wealth and honour of this world. A notable and a prime instigator in the origination of this custom wasone Molvi Amr Bin Dahya Abul Khattab who died in the year 633 Hijri. He was a great supporter of the worldly and irreligious king of Irbal who introduced this custom. The evil character of this irreligious learned man is a fact upon which there exists unanimity among the great and pious learned men of Islam. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Askalaani (rahmatullah alayh) says about this Molvi who was responsible to a great extent for the innovation of Moulood customs: “He was a person who insulted the Jurists of Islam and the pious learned men of former times. He had a filthy tongue. He was ignorant, excessively proud, possessed no insight in matters pertaining to the Deen and he was extremely negligent as far as the Deen was concerned.” (LISAANUL MIZAAN)

“Hafiz Ibn Hajar Askalaani (rahmatullah alayh) further adds: “Allaamah Ibn Najjaar (rahmatullah alayh) said: ‘I have witnessed unanimity of opinion among the people as to him (this irreligious Molvi), being a liar and an unreliable person.’ ” (LISAANUL MIZAAN)”

Thus the Majlisul ‘Ulama booklet shows there were irreligious elements to Kukuburi (al-Malik al-Muzaffar) and the scholar ‘Umar ibn Dihyah, quoting Lisan al-Mizan of Ibn Hajar al-‘Asqalani. It is clear from this that Haddad had no real intent to address the actual arguments and proofs presented by these scholars, but instead to deceive readers into believing they in fact had no proofs at all.

Mufti Taqi said:

“The narration of his pious biography (the Seerah) in itself is a pious act, which invites the divine blessings, but the Holy Qur’an and the Sunnah have not prescribed a particular time or method for it. This pious act should be performed in all the months and at all the times.”

GF Haddad replies:

“According to Usmani’s own criterion, the above advice is an invitation to bid`a because conferences and talks about the Sira have no precedent in the Sunna nor in the practice of the pious early centuries!”

Surely, even a layman can see the absurdity in this? Of course talks/narrations of the Sirah have precedent in the Sahabah. If it was said that this is all they did, and this was their sole mission, it would not be far off. How else was the Maghazi/Sira/Hadith literature transmitted to us, if it were not for the Sahabah sitting down with students, teaching them and narrating to them these things? Sirah and Maghazi, including events around the prophetic birth, are found in books of Sirah and books of Hadith, with chains back to the Sahabah themselves. It appears Haddad was so blinded in his defence of “mawlid” that he only saw from the actions of the Sahabah what he wished to see. Haddad continues:

“As for the assertion that “this pious act should be performed in all the months and at all the times” its absurdity is evident for all to see in light of the prohibition of the same act in the month of Rabi` al-Awwal and specifically the 12th of that month, although these two times fall within the time frame of “all the months and at all the times”!”
Its absurdity is not evident, as Mufti Taqi condemns the specification and restriction of the formal mawlid celebration to this date when it is done religiously, as the date is not established in the Qur’an and Sunnah or practice of Sahabah.

Mufti Taqi said:

“This difference of opinion [on the exact date in Rabi’ al-Awwal of the prophetic birth] is another evidence to prove that the observance of the birthday is not a part of the religion, otherwise its exact date would have been preserved with accuracy.”

Haddad replies:

“Comment: Another wholly original and innovative speculative analogy leading to a false proof without firm basis in the Religion…”

Note, he says this is “wholly original” and “innovative.” Yet, we find in the 8th (or early 9th) century, Abu ‘Abd Allah al-Haffar (d. 811) saying exactly the same:

وليلة المولد لم يكن السلف الصالح وهم أصحاب رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم والتابعون لهم يجتمعون فيها للعبادة، ولا يفعلون فيها زيادة على سائر ليالي السنة، لأن النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم لا يعظم إلا بالوجه الذي شرع فيه تعظيمه، وتعظيمه من أعظم القرب إلى الله، لكن يتقرب إلى الله جل جلاله بما شرع، والدليل على أن السلف الصالح لم يكونوا يزيدون فيها زيادة على سائر الليالي أنهم اختلفوا فيها، فقيل إنه صلى الله عليه وسلم ولد في رمضان وقيل في ربيع، واختلف في أي يوم ولد فيه على أربعة أقوال، فلو كانت تلك الليلة التي ولد في صبيحتها تحدث فيها عبادة بولادة خير الخلق صلى الله عليه وسلم، لكانت معلومة مشهورة لا يقع فيها اختلاف ولكن لم تشرع زيادة تعظيم…ولو فتح هذا الباب لجاء قوم فقالوا يوم هجرته إلى المدينة يوم أعز الله فيه الإسلام فيجتمع فيه ويتعبد، ويقول آخرون الليلة التي أسري به فيها حصل له من الشرف ما لا يقدر قدره، فتحدث فيها عبادة، فلا يقف ذلك عند حد، والخير كله في إتباع السلف الصالح الذين اختارهم الله له، فما فعلوا فعلناه وما تركوا تركناه، فإذا تقرر هذا ظهر أن الاجتماع في تلك الليلة ليس بمطلوب شرعا، بل يؤمر بتركه

“The pious predocessors, that is the Companions of Allah’s Messenger (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) and the Successors, did not congregate for worship on the night of the mawlid, and they would not increase therein over the rest of the nights of the year, because the Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) is not glorified except in the manner in which his glorification has been established in the Shari’ah; and his glorification is from the greatest acts of nearness to Allah, but one should seek proximity to Allah with what has been legislated in the Shari’ah. The proof that the Salaf did not increase on that [night] more than the rest of the nights is that they differed over it; so it has been said he (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam) was born in Ramadan and it has been said in Rabi, and the day on which he was born has been disputed according to four different views. So if it was the case that on the night in the morning of which he was was born acts of worship were invented in it due to the birth of the best of creation (sallallahu alayhi wa sallam), it would have been specified and well-known containing no controversy. But increased glorification has not been legislated…If this door is opened, some people will say the day of Hijra is a day in which Allah honoured Islam so they would gather therein and increase in worship, and others will say in the night of Isra he attained immeasurable honour so they invent worship therein, and this will have no boundary. And all good is in following the Pious Salaf for which Allah has selected them; so whatever they do, we do and whatever they left we leave. When this is realised, it becomes clear gathering on this night is not legally required, rather one is ordered to leave it.” (Al-Mi’yar al-Mu’rib 7:99-100)

Mufti Taqi wrote:

“It is often observed, especially in the Western countries, that the people hold the Seerah meetings where men and women sit together without observing the rules of hijab prescribed by the Shariah. The teachings of the Holy Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, are obviously against such mixed gatherings. How can a Seerah meeting bring fruits where such fundamental teachings of the Shariah are openly violated?”

Haddad replied:

“This never invalidates the ruling of desirability that applies to the principle.”

This is a pointless statement as Mufti Taqi did not deny the desirability of the principle of commemorating the Prophetic biography through talks/speeches.

Regarding the comment posted by Haddad:

Allama Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) states: “One must not leave visiting the graves just because some illegal activities are taking place, for example, inter-mingling of sexes. Mustahabbaat (recommended acts) should not be left out because of this type of illegal activities. It is necessary for the people to visit the graves *and* stop the Bid`a”. (Fatawa Shaami: Kitabul Jana’iz – Discussion on visiting the graves)

Allama Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) has stated categorically that inter-mingling of sexes will not make any Mustahab act Haraam or avoided. There were idols in the Kaaba before Makkah was conquered, but Muslims did not leave out performing the Tawaaf (circumbulation) or Umrah because of the idols. Yes,when Almighty Allah gave them the power, they eventually destroyed the idols.

When people go for Haj, there is inter-mingling of sexes at the airport, in the plane, during Tawaaf,at Mina and at Muzdalifah, yet no one puts a stop to Hajj. In Meelad gatherings, at least men and women sit separately and women are with Hijab. In the Nikah assembly, inter-mingling of sexes occurs and most of the women do not come with Shar`i Hijab. Will the Majlisul Ulama issue Fatwas condemning Nikah gathering to be Haraam? If not, why then is your entire effort spent to make Meelaad functions Haraam?”

Firstly, in Radd al-Muhtar ‘ Allamah Shami was quoting Ibn Hajar al-Haythami and did not make that statement from himself. Examples of Hajj, Nikah etc. are invalid analogies, as these are prescribed elements of Shari’ah, whereas the formal annual religious celebration of the prophetic birth on a specific night of Rabi’ al-Awwal finds no basis. Anyhow, there is proof from the Hanafi Imams that when even a desirable act is mixed up with haraam elements, the desirable act itself should be altogether avoided – a principle known as sadd al-dhara’i.

Examining the Narrations presented as proofs for Mawlid

[Mufti Abu Hajira d.b]

Bismillahi Ta’ala,

At the outset I wish to mention that normally I do not entertain these kind of point by point matters, as most of it were done during my time on Sunniforum. However, everything from sunniforum is now lost so much of these points are resurfacing. I have been informed of this particular video of Imam Isaa Henderson where he presents solid proofs for the establishing of Mawlid Gatherings. I do not know of him, and my observations are purely on this video and what he mentions.

Also, my observation are not through proper tahqeeq rather what is in my mind at the time of writing this and cursory look up on the references so that they can be mentioned. Also, please do not consider this a refutation rather academic observation, which I am penning down simply because the ones who have requested me mentioned that Imam Isaa has jam packed all solid proofs and have shaken things up. So this is an attempt to show my brethren that there is always more than what meets the eye.

His video is mentioned:

The first clear evidence mentioned by him in this particular video:

➡(0:15)  Fasting on Mondays was by way of celebrating his own birthday.

Observation : 

The narration about Rasulullah ﷺ keeping fast on Monday is presented in most Shama’il books. However to deduce ruling from that hadeeth is has further problems. 

a. The Shurrah of the hadeeth do mention that Rasulullah ﷺ mentioning that he was born on this day, and that wahi was revealed to him on this day brings about the virtue of fasting on this day. However, if that reasoning is to be taken, then that in itself is virtue of monday and not of the wilada itself. The virtue of wiladah ought to be separate from monday. This is a technical aspect to the issue. Some may understand it and other may just see it as superflous. 

The fruit of this technicality is that if we consider this fasting to be honoring of the wiladah itself, then Rasulullah ﷺ included another illah (reason) for fasting to it, i.e wahi being revealed on the day. So the honor of wiladah itself becomes a portion of the honor given to Monday. This is not the case. Honor of the wilada is definitely higher and more virtuous.

If we consider this honoring for Monday, then all the different reasons for fasting on the day become aparent, and wiladah becomes one of other reasons to fast on Monday.

Mulla Ali Qari rahimahullah quotes from al Teebi rahimahullah that clearly that a day in which fortunate action occurs deserves to be remembered. However, this rememberance is by way of fasting.

مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح (4/ 1415)
 وقال الطيبي: اختيارا للاحتمال الثاني أي فيه وجود نبيكم، وفيه نزل كتابكم، وثبوت نبوته، فأي يوم أولى بالصوم منه

المفاتيح في شرح المصابيح (3/ 41)
 “وسُئل عن صوم الاثنين”: راوي هذا الحديث أيضًا أبو قتادة، عن عمر: أنه سأل رسولَ الله عليه السلام عن صوم يوم الاثنين، فأجابه بما يدل على أن هذا اليومَ مباركٌ وصومَه محبوبٌ.

b. This is what we understand from most shuruhaat of this hadeeth that the takhsees of honor is for Monday and not for wiladah in these cases. Although wiladah has been used as the illah for affording this honor. This would mean that if the Mawlid has to be held using this hadeeth as a basis, it should be on Mondays and not specific day of the year or even non-specific days of the year. 
It would infact impose that you not only take the celebration of mawlid from that hadith, rather also the modality of celebration as well. The way Rasulullah ﷺ is by fasting, and he tells sahaba that it is for remembering his birth, and someone turns around and make it the day of Eid which is a day of eating and enjoying? Moreover, when Rasulullah ﷺ shows that a gratitude is specifically being given in a certain manner, now it becomes incumbant to do it in that manner as well, AND in those times (i.e weekly on mondays and not yearly) as well.

➡(0:43) The sheikh also misunderstood the wording of this hadeeth and mentioned that the sahaba radi allahu anhum asked “when should I fast?”. This is not part of the hadeeth. rather Rasulullah ﷺ was questioned about fasting on Mondays. 

صحيح مسلم (2/ 820)
عَنْ أَبِي قَتَادَةَ الْأَنْصَارِيِّ، رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ سُئِلَ عَنْ صَوْمِ الِاثْنَيْنِ؟ فَقَالَ: «فِيهِ وُلِدْتُ وَفِيهِ أُنْزِلَ عَلَيَّ»

This is replete in the Shuruhaat of this hadeeth. Shuruhat mention discussion on it. muhaditheen mention that 

“Is the question of Sahabi about whether Rasulullah ﷺ fasted on Monday” ,
“Why is Rasulullah ﷺ fasting on Monday”

is explicit in nature of the question asked. Sahaba is not inquiring which days to fast, rather why do Rasulullah ﷺ seclude Monday for fasting. 

مرقاة المفاتيح شرح مشكاة المصابيح (4/ 1415)
أي سئل عن فضيلته لأنه لا مقال في صيامه، فهو من الأسلوب الحكيم اهـ وفيه أن الظاهر أن السؤال عن العلة فيطابق الجواب السؤال، وعلى تقدير أن يكون السؤال عن نفس الصوم فالمعنى هل فيه فضل، فحينئذ ما ذكره أيضا فصل الخطاب لا من الأسلوب الحكيم في الحوادث

➡(0:48) The intention has not been given as “because it is the day I was born” rather multiple intention as I have alluded above. “And because I was revealed upon in this day”. (See hadeeth wordings above)

➡(1:22) The sheikh puts a rhetorical question that “How dare anyone say that Sahaba did not practice the mawlud?” 

I feel this question is incorrect. The Sheikh is side-stepping the entire discussion whether the fasting among the Sahaba is for mawlud or for any other reason. For indeed we have other riwayaat which mention fasting of Mondays and Thursdays

سنن الترمذي ت بشار (2/ 113)
745 – حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو حَفْصٍ، عَمْرُو بْنُ عَلِيٍّ الفَلاَّسُ، قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا عَبْدُ اللهِ بْنُ دَاوُدَ، عَنْ ثَوْرِ بْنِ يَزِيدَ، عَنْ خَالِدِ بْنِ مَعْدَانَ، عَنْ رَبِيعَةَ الجُرَشِيِّ، عَنْ عَائِشَةَ قَالَتْ: كَانَ النَّبِيُّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ يَتَحَرَّى صَوْمَ الاِثْنَيْنِ وَالخَمِيسِ

or the Saheeh Hadeeth that deeds are taken up on Mondays and Thursday so Rasulullah wishes to be in state of fasting

سنن أبي داود (2/ 325)
 إِنَّ نَبِيَّ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ كَانَ يَصُومُ يَوْمَ الِاثْنَيْنِ وَيَوْمَ الْخَمِيسِ، وَسُئِلَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ، فَقَالَ: «إِنَّ أَعْمَالَ الْعِبَادِ تُعْرَضُ يَوْمَ الِاثْنَيْنِ وَيَوْمَ الْخَمِيسِ»

سنن الترمذي ت بشار (2/ 114)
 أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: تُعْرَضُ الأَعْمَالُ يَوْمَ الاِثْنَيْنِ وَالخَمِيسِ، فَأُحِبُّ أَنْ يُعْرَضَ عَمَلِي وَأَنَا صَائِمٌ.

It is understood that Sahaba did regard fasting on Mondays and Thurdays as a fulfillment of above, then to make takhsees of Sahaba’s aml for the first hadeeth only is incorrect.

➡(1:35) Definition of Mustadrak 

The Sh. talks about al-Mustadrak and defines it as a book which takes da’eef riwayat out and only keeps the saheeh. This is incorrect and would technically be a big blunder on the Sheikh’s part. al-Mustadrak has to do with Shara’it of Sihhah instead of making Tasheeh of some book. 

In light of this, al-Mustadrak in fact takes the conditions of authenticity of another book and compiles ahadeeth which were not put in the previous book. The Mustadrak in video is al-Mustadrak al-Hakim ala shart sahihayn. The Mustadrak takes the considtions of authenticity of Sahih Bukhari and Sahih Muslim and presents ahadeeth which fulfil those conditions. 

علوم الحديث ومصطلحه (1/ 124)
والمستدركات جمع مستدرك، وهو ما استدرك فيه ما فات المؤلف في كتابه على شرطه. وأشهرها ” مستدرك الحاكم النيسابوري على الصحيحين ”

علم فهرسة الحديث (ص: 16)
 وَالمُسْتَدْرَكُ: في اصطلاح المحدثين هو كل كتاب جمع فيه مُؤَلِّفُُهُ الأحاديث التي استدركها على كتاب آخر مِمَّا فاته على شرطه مثل ” المستدرك على الصحيحين ” للحاكم النيسابوري (405 هـ)

This does not mean that these ahadeeth are authenticated by Imam Bukhari and Muslim. In fact there are ahadeeth in al-Mustadrak which Sheikhein would not have put in their Saheeh. So Sheikh’s definition is pretty flawed.

The “blunder” I spoke above would be to say Imam Hakim presented ahadeeth from Bukhari and Muslim which were Saheeh and left out those not Sahih. How wierd would that be? : )

➡(1:55) Allama Suyuti rahimahullah’s fatwa in al Hawi lil Fatawa

The sheikh then mentions about Allamah Suyuti rahimahullah’s mention of aqeeqah for Rasulullah ﷺ and talk about the fatawa of imam Suyuti rahimahullah (al-Hawi lil Fatawa). This is ajeeb. Because:

1. The sheikh is establishing celebration of mawlid, the actual fa’l (action) of celebration as sunnah! Not only that, but gathering, feeding, langar etc. (2:15) But Imam Suyuti rahimahullah in this very fatwa says, “Sheikh al Islam Hafiz ibn al Hajar was asked about Mawlid and he mentioned that the original action of mawlid is a Bid’ah. It has not been mentioned by a single person from the Salaf as-Salih from the first three generations. However along with that goodness and its contrary are included within it. So whoever discretion in it goodness and abstains from its contrary (ills) then it is bid’ah hasanah otherwise not.”

الحاوي للفتاوي (1/ 229)
وقد سئل شيخ الإسلام حافظ العصر أبو الفضل ابن حجر عن عمل المولد، فأجاب بما نصه: أصل عمل المولد بدعة لم تنقل عن أحد من السلف الصالح من القرون الثلاثة، ولكنها مع ذلك قد اشتملت على محاسن وضدها، فمن تحرى في عملها المحاسن وتجنب ضدها كان بدعة حسنة وإلا فلا

Then where is the sheikh quoting from that Rasulullah ﷺ established it as sunnah?

2.  Imam Suyuti rahimahullah himself does not regard it all as a sunnah because just after this discussion he mentions mawlid as a mustahab.

الحاوي للفتاوي (1/ 230)
والعقيقة لا تعاد مرة ثانية، فيحمل ذلك على أن الذي فعله النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم إظهار للشكر على إيجاد الله إياه رحمة للعالمين وتشريع لأمته كما كان يصلي على نفسه لذلك، فيستحب لنا أيضا إظهار الشكر بمولده بالاجتماع وإطعام الطعام ونحو ذلك من وجوه القربات وإظهار المسرات

3. Since Imam Suyuti rahimahullah is a Shafi’i in is madhab, a mustahab when mixed with munkarat (problemetic issues) is NOT abandoned rather the munkarat are prohibited from and mustahabat are enacted upon. It is for this reason he mentions in the same fatwa (again from Hafiz Ibn Hajar)

الحاوي للفتاوي (1/ 229)
وأما ما يعمل فيه فينبغي أن يقتصر فيه على ما يفهم الشكر لله تعالى من نحو ما تقدم ذكره من التلاوة والإطعام والصدقة وإنشاد شيء من المدائح النبوية والزهدية المحركة للقلوب إلى فعل الخير والعمل للآخرة، وأما ما يتبع ذلك من السماع واللهو وغير ذلك فينبغي أن يقال: ما كان من ذلك مباحا بحيث يقتضي السرور بذلك اليوم لا بأس بإلحاقه به، وما كان حراما أو مكروها فيمنع، وكذا ما كان خلاف الأولى. انتهى

➡(3:05) narration of relief of Abu Lahab

The generic responses to this narration to establish mawlid can be found else where. I will just put my observation.

صحيح البخاري (7/ 10)
لم ألق بعدكم غير أني سقيت في هذه بعتاقتي ثويبة

1. If the hadeeth has to be used for establishing barakah of the birth of Rasulullah ﷺ then that is accepted regardless that barakah of wilada of Rasulullah ﷺ is definitely there.

2. If the hadeeth is being used to establish rewards for muslimeen, then this is far fetched. Since the dhahir of the wording of Bukhari indicate decrease (this decrease is also mubham…decrease of what). 

3. Just as he explained the meaning of bid’ah i.e to establish a particular reward for particular action without basis. Then here too that which can be established is “decrease” and not reward. 

4. Even if we say that decrease in adhab is kind of a reward, then logic demands that if someone is in jannah he should gain positive reward of it.. then this is logic and ray’. We cannot establish these things with qiyas.

5. He has mentioned the conundrum of theological paradox of adhab not being reduced and adhab of kafir being reduced here with statement from Ibn Hajar rahimahullah that this is because of the karamah of Rasulullah ﷺ. I wonder if Ibn Hajar rahimahullah entire ibarah actually establishes this or not.

فتح الباري لابن حجر (9/ 145)
وَكَانَ أَبُو لَهَبٍ أَعْتَقَهَا فَأَرْضَعَتِ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ ظَاهِرُهُ أَنَّ عِتْقَهُ لَهَا كَانَ قَبْلَ إِرْضَاعِهَا وَالَّذِي فِي السِّيَرِ يُخَالِفُهُ وَهُوَ أَنَّ أَبَا لَهَبٍ أَعْتَقَهَا قَبْلَ الْهِجْرَةِ وَذَلِكَ بَعْدَ الْإِرْضَاعِ بِدَهْرٍ طَوِيلٍ وَحَكَى السُّهَيْلِيُّ أَيْضًا أَنَّ عِتْقَهَا كَانَ قَبْلَ الْإِرْضَاعِ وَسَأَذْكُرُ كَلَامَهُ قَوْلُهُ أُرِيَهُ بِضَمِّ الْهَمْزَةِ وَكَسْرِ الرَّاءِ وَفَتْحِ التَّحْتَانِيَّةِ عَلَى الْبِنَاءِ لِلْمَجْهُولِ قَوْلُهُ بَعْضُ أَهْلِهِ بِالرَّفْعِ عَلَى أَنَّهُ النَّائِبُ عَنِ الْفَاعِلِ وَذَكَرَ السُّهَيْلِيُّ أَنَّ الْعَبَّاسَ قَالَ لَمَّا مَاتَ أَبُو لَهَبٍ رَأَيْتُهُ فِي مَنَامِي بَعْدَ حَوْلٍ فِي شَرِّ حَالٍ فَقَالَ مَا لَقِيتُ بَعْدَكُمْ رَاحَةً إِلَّا أَنَّ الْعَذَابَ يُخَفَّفُ عَنِّي كُلَّ يَوْمِ اثْنَيْنِ قَالَ وَذَلِكَ أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ وُلِدَ يَوْمَ الِاثْنَيْنِ وَكَانَتْ ثُوَيْبَةُ بَشَّرَتْ أَبَا لَهَبٍ بِمَوْلِدِهِ فَأَعْتَقَهَا … قَوْلُهُ بِعَتَاقَتِي بِفَتْحِ الْعَيْنِ فِي رِوَايَةِ عَبْدِ الرَّزَّاقِ بِعِتْقِي وَهُوَ أَوْجَهُ وَالْوَجْهُ الْأَوْلَى أَنْ يَقُولَ بِإِعْتَاقِي لِأَنَّ الْمُرَادَ التَّخْلِيصُ مِنَ الرِّقِّ 
وَفِي الْحَدِيثِ دَلَالَةٌ عَلَى أَنَّ الْكَافِرَ قَدْ يَنْفَعُهُ الْعَمَلُ الصَّالِحُ فِي الْآخِرَةِ لَكِنَّهُ مُخَالِفٌ لِظَاهِرِ الْقُرْآنِ قَالَ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى وَقَدِمْنَا إِلَى مَا عَمِلُوا من عمل فجعلناه هباء منثورا 
وَأُجِيبَ أَوَّلًا بِأَنَّ الْخَبَرَ مُرْسَلٌ أَرْسَلَهُ عُرْوَةُ وَلَمْ يَذْكُرْ مَنْ حَدَّثَهُ بِهِ وَعَلَى تَقْدِيرِ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَوْصُولًا 
فَالَّذِي فِي الْخَبَرِ رُؤْيَا مَنَامٍ فَلَا حُجَّةَ فِيهِ وَلَعَلَّ الَّذِي رَآهَا لَمْ يَكُنْ إِذْ ذَاكَ أَسْلَمَ بَعْدُ فَلَا يُحْتَجُّ بِهِ 
وَثَانِيًا عَلَى تَقْدِيرِ الْقَبُولِ فَيَحْتَمِلُ أَنْ يَكُونَ مَا يَتَعَلَّقُ بِالنَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ مَخْصُوصًا مِنْ ذَلِكَ بِدَلِيلِ قِصَّةِ أَبِي طَالِبٍ كَمَا تَقَدَّمَ أَنَّهُ خُفِّفَ عَنْهُ فَنُقِلَ مِنَ الْغَمَرَاتِ إِلَى الضَّحْضَاحِ 
وَقَالَ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ مَا وَرَدَ مِنْ بُطْلَانِ الْخَيْرِ لِلْكُفَّارِ فَمَعْنَاهُ أَنَّهُمْ لَا يَكُونُ لَهُمُ التَّخَلُّصُ مِنَ النَّارِ وَلَا دُخُولُ الْجَنَّةِ وَيَجُوزُ أَنْ يُخَفِّفَ عَنْهُمْ مِنَ الْعَذَابِ الَّذِي يَسْتَوْجِبُونَهُ عَلَى مَا ارْتَكَبُوهُ مِنَ الْجَرَائِمِ سِوَى الْكُفْرِ بِمَا عَمِلُوهُ مِنَ الْخَيْرَاتِ 
وَأَمَّا عِيَاضٌ فَقَالَ انْعَقَدَ الْإِجْمَاعُ عَلَى أَنَّ الْكُفَّارَ لَا تَنْفَعُهُمْ أَعْمَالُهُمْ وَلَا يُثَابُونَ عَلَيْهَا بِنَعِيمٍ وَلَا تَخْفِيفِ عَذَابٍ وَإِنْ كَانَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَشَدَّ عَذَابًا مِنْ بَعْضٍ 

قُلْتُ وَهَذَا لَا يَرُدُّ الِاحْتِمَالَ الَّذِي ذَكَرَهُ الْبَيْهَقِيُّ فَإِنَّ جَمِيعَ مَا وَرَدَ مِنْ ذَلِكَ فِيمَا يَتَعَلَّقُ بِذَنْبِ الْكُفْرِ وَأَمَّا ذَنْبُ غَيْرِ الْكُفْرِ فَمَا الْمَانِعُ مِنْ تَخْفِيفِهِ وَقَالَ الْقُرْطُبِيُّ هَذَا التَّخْفِيفُ خَاصٌّ بِهَذَا وَبِمَنْ وَرَدَ النَّصُّ فِيهِ 
وَقَالَ بن الْمُنِيرِ فِي الْحَاشِيَةِ هُنَا قَضِيَّتَانِ إِحْدَاهُمَا مُحَالٌ وَهِيَ اعْتِبَارُ طَاعَةِ الْكَافِرِ مَعَ كُفْرِهِ لِأَنَّ شَرْطَ الطَّاعَةِ أَنْ تَقَعَ بِقَصْدٍ صَحِيحٍ وَهَذَا مَفْقُودٌ مِنَ الْكَافِرِ الثَّانِيَةُ إِثَابَةُ الْكَافِرِ عَلَى بَعْضِ الْأَعْمَالِ تَفَضُّلًا مِنَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى وَهَذَا لَا يُحِيلُهُ الْعَقْلُ فَإِذَا تَقَرَّرَ ذَلِكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ عِتْقُ أَبِي لَهَبٍ لِثُوَيْبَةَ قُرْبَةً مُعْتَبَرَةً وَيَجُوزُ أَنْ يَتَفَضَّلَ اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ بِمَا شَاءَ كَمَا تَفَضَّلَ عَلَى أَبِي طَالِبٍ وَالْمُتَّبَعُ فِي ذَلِكَ التَّوْقِيفِ نَفْيًا وَإِثْبَاتًا 

قُلْتُ وَتَتِمَّةُ هَذَا أَنْ يَقَعَ التَّفَضُّلُ الْمَذْكُورُ إِكْرَامًا لِمَنْ وَقَعَ مِنَ الْكَافِرِ الْبِرُّ لَهُ وَنَحْوُ ذَلِكَ وَاللَّهُ أعلم

The crux of above discussion is that Ibn Hajar rahimahullah says that any decrease or benefit for a non muslims is domain of Allah and He shall decide what he wishes to pardon or not. Al bayhaqi has mentioned (as in above text) that the jahannam is for the sin of kufr, but it is perhaps possible for Allah to lighten the adhaab which was necessitated by other than kufr. 

All in all, the ibarah has no emotionalism in it about barakah or fadh of mawlid.

6. Moreover if the ibarah is to be used then it only mentions this benefit on monday. Again a takhsees for Monday is being made and the speciality is for Monday. Hence If something so grand and so significant such as Eid al Mawlid is to be established, then it should be weekly monday and not some singular day of the year. This is the scheme throughout all such narratives.


* The Title of the post is our’s.

Moulood and the Shariah

[Majlisul Ulama of South Africa]



IBAADAT (WORSHIP) IN ISLAM is  restricted to only ritual acts, practices and customs of worship  which were taught by Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  practised by his noble Companions and the illustrious  personalities of Islam in the  initial three eras of Islam known  as Khairul Quroon (Noblest Ages).

Irrespective of the appeal and  beauty any act/practice of  apparent worship may possess, it  will not be Ibaadat in Islam if it  has no basis in the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) – and the concept of  the Sunnah is what was known, understood, practised and  propagated by the Sahaabah,  Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen in  the period known as Khairul  Quroon. Thus, if anyone insists  on performing Salaat at sunrise,  midday (Zawwaal) and sunset, it  will not be said that such performance is Salaat. It will be a  haraam bid’ah (innovation)  notwithstanding its external  form of Salaat. If someone fasts  on the Days of Eid, such fasting will not be Ibaadat, but will be  haraam bid’ah, the consequence  of which is nothing but the Fire  of Jahannum. Since these acts  which are in conflict with the teachings of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), they  will not be classified as Ibaadat notwithstanding their external  forms of worship.

If someone performs four raka’ts ‘Fardh’ for Fajr instead of the  commanded two raka’ts, such  performance will not be Ibaadat  irrespective of the beauty of the external form of the act. It will be  a haraam bid’ah.

The customary practices of  Moulood/Meelaad have to be  examined on this criterion of the  Shariah. Did Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  teach the observance of  Moulood? Did the Sahaabah, the  Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen  observe Moulood? If they had  observed the custom,  undoubtedly, it will be classified  as Ibaadat. If they did not, it will  not then be Ibaadat. This article  will show that with the  accompaniment of many evil and  haraam factors, the custom of Moulood is haraam and bid’ah. It  has no support in the Qur’aan  and Hadith. It is an utterly  baseless custom which has no  relationship with Islam.


(O  Believers! Obey Allah, and obey the Messenger…)
THE SOURCES OF ISLAMIC Law  (the Shariah)  are  four,  viz.,

I. The Qur’aan
II. The Sunnah
III. Ijmaa’ or the Consensus of  opinion of the Jurists
IV. Qiyaas or the Analogical  reasoning process of the Jurists  of Islam.

The abovementioned four  PRINCIPLES constitute the basis  of Islamic law. If any act or  practice is substantiated or  proved on the firm foundations  of the abovementioned four  Principles of the Islamic Shariah  then such an act or practice  constitute ISLAMIC LAW and as  such is the DIVINE LAW of ALLAH, and no member of the  Ummah has the right to reject  such an act or practice. On the  other hand if any act, practice or  custom conflicts with the four  abovementioned Principles or if  any act or practice cannot be substantiated on the basis of the  four Islamic Principles of the  Shariah then it will stand  condemned in the Eyes of the  Shariah and as such it will have  to be rejected as a bad  innovation. . . an evil introduction  into the Deen of Allah.

The custom of Meelaad as  celebrated nowadays cannot be  substantiated on the basis of the  four Principles of Islamic Law. It  is an absolute necessity to prove  conclusively that this custom of  Meelaad in its present form of prevalence is sanctioned by any  of the Principles of Islamic Law  before it (this custom) could be  accorded an Islamic status.  Insha’Allah, in this article it shall  be proved that the prevailing  customary celebrations of  Meelaad have no Islamic status  whatsoever and these constitute  gross transgression of Allah Ta’ala’s Law because they (these  forms of Meelaad celebrations)  have been innovated into the  Deen of Islam.

Allah Ta’ala says in the Holy  Qur’aan:
“Then, We have established you on a Shariah (Law-Path) with regard to affairs. Therefore follow it (this Shariah) and do not follow the desires of those who do not know.”  

Allah Ta’ala commands in this  verse of the Holy Qur’aan total  submission to His Law. This verse  of the Holy Qur’aan emphatically  prohibits the following of  any  practice or custom which is not  sanctioned by the Shariah. Any  custom which has no basis in the  Shariah is described by Allah  Ta’ala in this verse as “the desires of those who do not know.”  Further in this article it shall be shown that these Meelaad  celebrations of today have no  sanction in the Shariah of Allah  Ta’ala.

Elsewhere in the Holy Qur’aan  Allah Ta’ala states:
“What! Have they partners who have ordained for them such things of which Allah has not granted permission?”  

This verse of the Holy Qur’aan  clearly deprecates any  introduction of practices and  customs within the Deen. Only  such customs and practices have the favour of Allah for which  there exist Divine Sanction.  Insha’Allah, it shall be shown  that the customary Meelaad  celebration was not ordained by  Allah or His Rasool (Sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but was an un-Islamic innovatory practice which crept into the Ummah with the  aid of such persons who had no  love for the Deen.

In another verse of the Holy Qur’aan Allah Ta’ala says: “Whatever the Rasool brings to  you, accept it. And, whatever he  (the Rasool) forbids you of,  abstain from it.”  

Insha’Allah, it shall be proved  that this custom of Meelaad was  not given to us by our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  nor was it ever practised by the  beloved Sahaabah of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Furthermore, it shall be proved  that this custom did not exist  among Muslims for a full six  centuries after the demise of our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Muhaddith Hadhrat Qaadhi  Thanaa-ullah (rahmatullah alayh)  narrates the following Hadith: “Verily, a statement is not  accepted if not practised upon  it. And, a statement and a  practice are not accepted without a sincere intention. And, the  statement, the practice and the  niyyat (intention) are not accepted if they are not in  accord with the Sunnah.”   [IRSHAADUT  TAALIBEEN]

Hadhrat Gauthul Azam Sayyid  Abdul Qadir Jeelani al-Hanbali (rahmatullah  alayh) states:
“A statement without practice is  not accepted. Nor a practice  without sincerity and without the  correct Sunnah (method).” [FATHE  RABBAANI]

Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri  (rahmatullah alayh) states:
“A statement, an act and an intention is only in order if these  are in conformity with the  Sunnah.” [TALBEES IBLEES]

Hadhrat Ahmad Bin Abul Hawari  (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The  deed of a person is null if he  practises it without following the Sunnah.”  [AL-I’TISAAM]

From the aforegoing statements  it will be clear that an action will  be described as Islamic only if it  is executed in conformity with  the Sunnah of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  and the Sunnah of his Sahaabah  (radhiyallahu anhum). We have included here the Way of the  Sahaabah in the Sunnah because  our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), himself described  the Way of the Sahaabahs as ‘the Sunnah’, and commanded strict  obedience to the Sunnah of his  Sahaabah  (radhiyallahu  anhum).  Hence, the Holy Messenger of  Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  said:
“Regard my Sunnah and the  Sunnah of my righteous Khulafaa  as obligatory upon you.”  

With regard to the Sunnah of  Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Sahaabah, the  Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“Those who live after me will  witness much controversy.  Therefore, my Sunnah and the  Sunnah of the pious and  righteous Khulafaa are incumbent upon you. Hold firmly  onto it. Cling to it (the Sunnah) with your jaws. Beware of  innovation. Every new thing (i.e.  new practice introduced as part  of the Deen) is an innovation  (Bid’ah). And every Bid’ah  (innovation) is error  manifest.”  [TIRMIZI,  IBN  MAJAH,  ABU  DAWOOD]

In explaining this Hadith, Mullah  Ali Qaari (rahmatullah alayh) said  that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) commanded obedience  to the Sunnah of the Khulafaa  after him because they  (Rasulullah’s Khulafaa) only acted  in accordance with the Sunnah of  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This is stated in  Mirkaatul Mishkaat.

Now, this custom of Meelaad is  not to be found anywhere in the  Holy Qur’aan. Allah Ta’ala has not  commanded this customary  Meelaad celebration. Neither can  any substantiation for it be  found in the Hadith of our Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), nor in the practices of the noble  Companions of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). No one can deny the great and true  love which the Sahaabah had for  our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Is there any person  who can claim greater love for  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) than the Sahaabah?  Can any person claim that he has  understood the Qur’aan and the  Ahaadith better than the great  and learned Sahaabah of our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? Can any person claim that the Sahaabah did not know how to manifest their love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), and that Muslims of nowadays know how to manifest love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? Now let us ask: What  is the reason for celebrating Meelaadun-Nabi? Whatever  answer the upholders of the customary Meelaad will give we shall say that, that very same reason existed during the time of the noble Sahaabah. Yet, despite  its existence the Sahaabah of our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not keep Meelaadun Nabi  celebrations. The love of the  Sahaabah for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is  indisputable. The Sahaabah had  greater cause for rejoicing at the  birth of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). The Sahaabah  had greater cause than us for the manifestation of their love for  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). The Sahaabahs had  greater cause to commemorate  the Holy Birth of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) than  us. Yet, not a single Sahaabi ever  initiated or celebrated Meeladun  Nabi. This custom was unknown  to the Sahaabah, and it was  unknown to the Tabieen (the  followers of the Sahaabah). The  great Jurists of Islam did not   initiate this practice. They  celebrated no Meelaadun-Nabi. In  fact for a full six hundred years  after our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) this custom was not in  vogue among Muslims. Surely if  this custom had any merit in it  the great and beloved Sahaabah  of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) could not have  overlooked it. If this custom had  any Islamic significance surely, the great Fuqahaa (Jurists) and  the Muhadditheen would not  have shunned it. How is it  possible that a custom which was  originated and introduced into  the Deen six centuries after our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  could be accorded Islamic status  and assigned the category of  near-compulsion)?



The History of Islam is fourteen  centuries old. But the history of  Meelaad celebration is seven  centuries old. The Golden ages of  Islam  – the era of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  of  the  Sahaabah, of the Taabieen, and of the Tabe-Taabieen (Quroone Thalaathah) had long passed, yet the custom  of Meelaad was not initiated. Six  centuries after our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) an  irreligious ruler initiated this custom in the city of Mosul.  Imaam Ahmad Bin Muhammad  Bin Bisri Maaliki (rahmatullah  alayh) writes in his Kitaab, AL-QOULUL MU’TAMAD:

“Allaamah Muizzuddin Hasan  Khwaarzimi (rahmatullah alayh)  states in his Kitaab:
‘The Ruler of Irbal, King Muzaffar  Abu Saeed Kaukari, was an irreligious king. He ordered the  Ulama of his time to act  according to their opinions and  discard the practice of following  any of the Mathhabs. A group  among the learned men inclined  towards him. He (this king)  organized Moulood sessions  during the month of Rabiul Awwal. He was the first of the  kings to have innovated this  practice.’” [AL-QOULUL  MU’TAMAD]

This irreligious ruler squandered  vast sums of public funds in the  organization and upkeep of these  celebrations which had no  sanction in Islamic Law. Allaamah  Zahbi (rahmatullah alayh) – died  748 Hijri- says:

“Every year this ruler spent three  hundred thousand (from the  Baitul Maal) on Moulood celebrations.” [DOULUL ISLAM]

So, this practice of Moulood was  originated by irreligious people.  In the year 604 Hijri this king,  Muzaffaruddin Koukari, introduced this custom with the aid of some learned people whose  purpose was to gain the wealth  and honour of this world. A  notable and a prime instigator in  the origination of this custom was one Molvi Amr Bin Dahya Abul Khattab who died in the year 633 Hijri. He was a great supporter of the worldly and  irreligious king of Irbal who  introduced this custom. The evil  character of this irreligious learned man is  a fact upon which  there exists unanimity among the  great and pious learned men of  Islam. Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalaani  (rahmatullah alayh) says about  this Molvi who was responsible  to a great extent for the  innovation of Moulood customs:

“He was a person who insulted the Jurists of Islam and the pious learned men of former times. He  had a filthy tongue. He was ignorant, excessively proud,  possessed no insight in matters pertaining to the Deen and he was extremely negligent as far as  the Deen was concerned.” [LISAANUL MIZAAN]

Hafiz Ibn Hajar Askalaani  (rahmatullah alayh) further adds: “Allaamah Ibn Najjaar (rahmatullah alayh) said: ‘I have  witnessed unanimity of opinion  among the people as to him (this  irreligious Molvi), being a liar and  an unreliable person.’” [LISAANUL  MIZAAN]

Every unbiased Muslim will realise  from the aforegoing discussion  that the Moulood custom was  introduced by evil men and given  prominence by evil men. Islamic  History bears testimony to this  fact. Right from its inception all the great and pious Ulama and  Jurists of Islam have condemned  this innovation and have warned  against participation in these un-Islamic functions. There exists  consensus of opinion among the  true learned Ulama of Islam that  the customary Meelaad functions  are not permissible. Our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has  warned against the introduction  of customs into the Deen of Islam. Said our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

“Whoever introduces into this  Deen of ours something which is  not of it, is condemned.”  

The Sahaabah of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  great detestation for any new  custom which tried to raise its  head in the Deen. The Sahaabah  did not tolerate in the least bit any new form of worship or  custom which anyone desired to  bring into the Deen. We shall  illustrate the detestation for  innovation which the Sahaabah  had, with  a  few  examples:

1) A man sneezed in the presence  of Abdullah Ibn Umar  (radhiyallahu anhu) and said:
Alhamdulillah Wa salaamu alaika ya rasulallah

Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu  anhu) immediately rebuked this  person and said that our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) taught us to recite: Alhamdulillahi ‘Alaa Kulli Haal when we sneezed. 

This Hadith has been narrated by  Tirmizi. The point which we have  to ponder here, is Abdullah Ibn  Umar’s rebuke because this man  recited Wa salaamu alaika ya rasulallah after the words  Alhamdulillah. In reality the  recital of the sentence: Assalaamu alaika ya rasulallah is an act of merit. The more we remember Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) the more thawaab we get. In fact, we have been commanded to constantly  offer salutations to our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  However, despite this, Hadhrat  Abdullah Ibn Umar (one of the  great Sahaabah) rejected this  form of recitation after one has  sneezed. And, the reason as  explained by Hadhrat Abdullah  Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was that this formula was not taught to us by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

2) “Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Masood  (radhiyallahu anhu) was informed  of a group of people who sat in  the Musjid after Maghrib Salaat.  One among them would say:  ‘Recite Allahu Akbar so many  times; recite Subhaanallah so  many times; and recite  Alhamdulillah so many times!’  The group would then do as was  instructed (by its leader). Abdullah Ibn Masood  (radhiyallahu anhu) arrived at the  Musjid and when he heard what  they were reciting he said: ‘I am  Abdullah Ibn Masood. I take  oath by Allah besides whom  there is no object of worship,  that you have innovated a dark  Bid’ah, or you are regarding  yourselves superior to the  Companions of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).’” [AL-’ITISAAM  and  MAJAALISUL  ABRAAR]

The point to note here is that  these people were merely reciting Takbeer and glorifying Allah  Ta’ala with Tasbeeh and Tahmeed.  Now we ask: What is wrong in  reciting Alhamdulillah? What is  wrong in reciting Subhaanallah? Why did Abdullah Ibn Masood  (radhiyallahu anhu) who was  among the great Sahaabah of  our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) describe the reciting  of Takbeer, Tahmeed  and Tasbeeh of this group as a  “dark  Bid’ah”? The only reason is that  the form, the manner in which  this group was reciting the  greatness of Allah was not taught by our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). The Sahaabah  did not recite the praises in the  way this group did, hence it was  regarded as a dark and evil  innovation by such a great and  learned Sahaabi as Abdullah Ibn  Masood (radhiyallahu anhu).

3) “Ibn Masood (radhiyallahu  anhu) heard that some people  gathered in the Musjid and were  reciting Laa-ilaaha ilallah and  Durood Shareef aloud. He went  to them and said: ‘This (way of recital) was non-existent during the  time of the Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). I regard you as  innovators’. Ibn Masood  (radhiyallahu anhu) repeated this  over and over until these people  were ejected from the Musjid.”  [FATAWA QADHI KHAN]

It must be noted here that these  people were only reciting Laa-ilaaha il-lal-lah and Durood Shareef, and both these are acts  of Ibaadat of a very high order. Despite this, Hadhrat Ibn Masood  (radhiyallahu anhu) had these  people ejected from the Musjid  and described them as innovators  because they were reciting these  two forms of Thikr in a manner  not taught by our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and in a manner not practised by the  noble Sahaabah of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Further, Hadhrat Ibn Masood  (radhiyallahu anhu) said:

“This method was not in vogue  during the time of Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)”.

This statement of Hadhrat Ibn  Masood (radhiyallahu anhu)  clearly means that if a form of  worship was not instructed by  our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then it will be a Bid’ah.  If the Sahaabah did not entertain  any new systems or new ways of worship then we have no right  whatsoever of introducing into  Islam any new way or form of  worship.

4) “Mujahid says that Urwah Bin  Zubair and himself entered the  Musjid and saw Abdullah Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) sitting  near to the room of Aishah  (radhiyallahu anha). Some people  in the Musjid were performing  the Dhuhaa prayers (the Salaat  which is performed sometime  after sunrise). We asked Ibn  Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) about  the Salaat being performed by  these people. He replied that it was a Bid’ah innovation.” [BUKHARI – MUSLIM]

It should be remembered that  Salaatud-Duhaa has been  narrated by many Sahaabah. It is  an act of Ibaadat which carries  considerable reward. We are encouraged to perform this Salaat. The great pious men of  Islam hardly omit this Salaat.  However, despite this fact,  Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) described the  Dhuhaa Salaat of this particular  group of people as Bid’ah. The  reason for branding it as Bid’ah is  the fact that these people originated a new method of  performing this prayer. They  congregated and performed this  Salaat conspicuously in the  Musjid, and this method of performing it in congregation  form was not instructed by our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

Many such examples could be cited to illustrate the dislike  which the Sahaabah of our Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) had  for innovation. If the practice of  innovation was tolerated in Islam  there would be no pure Islam left.  However, Allah Ta’ala has blessed  this Ummah with righteous and  steadfast Ulama who diligently  defended the pure Deen of Allah  through this long corridor of fourteen centuries against the  onslaught of innovation.


The Islamic Law Books state  unambiguously that to regard  something which is either Mubah  (permissible) or Mustahab  (preferable and meritorious) as Waajib (compulsory) is in fact  Bid’ah Say-yiah or an evil  innovation which has to be  shunned. To assign anything to a  category other than prescribed  for it by the Shariah is  tantamount to rejection of the  Law of Allah, for Allah has assigned to an act, e.g. to the  category of Mustahab and the  servants of Allah give it a  different classification. For  example, should someone argue  that because Salaat is a high  form of Ibaadat we shall perform  four rakaats Fardh in Fajr instead  of the ordained two; the washing  of limbs in Wudhu thrice is Sunnat, but we shall now make it  Waajib, etc., then needless to say  such transgressions will be Bid’ah Say-yiah and the perpetrator of  these will be condemned as he is  rejecting the stipulations  and  classifications  assigned  by Allah  Ta’ala to the various Islamic rules  and laws. Similar is the case of  the innovators of the Moulood  functions. Nowhere has Allah  Ta’ala commanded this practice;  our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not instruct or  advise the Sahaabah about this custom; the Sahaabah after the  demise of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not  introduce this custom; the great  Imaams of Islamic Law like  Imaam Abu Hanifah, Imaam Malik,  Imaam Shaafi and Imaam Ahmad  Bin Hambal did not practise this custom, nor did they advise  anyone about it. Yet today this  customary Meelaad celebration is  regarded as an integral part – a  compulsory part of the Deen.  Those who indulge in this  practice of Meelaad generally  regard this function to be more  important than even the  compulsory Salaats.

The very fact that those who  organize and participate in these  functions degrade and revile  those who do not take part in  them is ample proof that these  functions are regarded as  compulsory. In many places in  India we see blood flowing  because some refuse to take part  in these functions. Those who do  not participate in Meelaad  customs are branded as Kaafirs  and Heretics. Yet it is not  permissible to brand even one  who neglects his compulsory Salaats as a Kaafir. The attitude  and the actions of those who are  in the forefront of this custom  clearly indicate that this practice  is regarded as compulsory. This is  a notoriety and a great falsehood  committed against the Deen of  Allah, for Allah Ta’ala and His  Holy Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not accord the  customary Meelaad function any Islamic status. In fact it was non-existent for centuries after  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) as mentioned  previously. Besides this aspect  there are many other evils  attendant to the customary  Meelaad functions which we shall  discuss, Insha’Allah, in the  ensuing lines.


There are many wrongs and evils  attendant to the present forms  of celebrating Meelaad. These are  as follows:

1)  The Compulsory Nature  assigned to Meelaad by its  votaries.

2)  The practice of Qiyaam or  standing in reverence when the  Salaami or Salawaat is recited.

3)  Meelaad functions regarded  as being of greater importance  than Salaat and performance of  Salaat in Jamaat.

4)  Qawwaali – Music at Meelaad  functions.

5)  Reciting of verses which  transgress the limits of  legitimate praise, thus assigning  a position of Divinity to our Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

6)  The congregation of various  types of people such as Fussaaq  (open and rebellious sinners),  immoral people with evil  intentions, etc.

7)  Singing at these functions by young boys and girls.

8)  Intermingling of the sexes at  such gatherings.

9)  Salaat and its performance by  Jamaat neglected on a mass scale.

10)  Abstention from the  Command of Amr Bil Ma’roof  Nahy anil Munkar when these  become necessary  at  these  functions.

11)  Israaf or waste of  money in unnecessary ventures.

12)  Soliciting public funds for  the upkeep and organization of  these functions.

13)  Tashab’buh Bil Kuffaar.

14)  Maintaining a custom which  was originated by irreligious  persons.

15)  Reviling and branding as  unbelievers and heretics those  who do not participate in these  functions.

16)  Regarding the distribution of  sweetmeats as essential to these functions.

17)  The belief that the Soul of  our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) presents itself at these functions.

The un-Islamic factors  mentioned above accompany  Meelaad functions. Sometimes all  these are present in a single  function, and sometimes all are  not present. Nevertheless, even if  all these factors are not present  at once in a single Meelaad  function, the function will still be  un-Islamic because of the presence of at least several of the  enumerated un-Islamic elements.

We shall now proceed to discuss  these factors which are  responsible for the customary  Meelaad functions being un-Islamic and as such to be  shunned.


It has already been stated  previously that it is a crime to  accord any act or practice a  status other than that accorded  to it by the Shariah. If even a Mustahab act is regarded as  compulsory it becomes necessary  to forgo that act and rectify  one’s belief and attitude with  regard to this particular act. Now when the Shariah does not even  permit a Mustahab act being  regarded as compulsory, it  stands to reason to say that an  act which has no sanction in the Deen will be condemned to a  much greater extent when it is  regarded as compulsory. And, the  attitude and manner of the  votaries of Meelaad clearly indicate that this practice of  Meelaad is regarded as a  compulsory Islamic duty. The  customary Meelaad practices do  not even qualify to be classified  in the Mustahab category for it  was completely unknown to the  Messenger of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his noble  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum)  and the great Jurists and Ulama  of Islam. On the assumption if all  the malpractices prevalent and attendant to the present-day  Meelaad function could be  eliminated then too, it could not  be accorded a compulsory or a  Sunnah status because this  practice did not exist in Islam for  the first six hundred years of  Islamic History. In other words  this customary Meelaad function  just does not have any basis in Islamic Law.


The practice of standing during  the recitation of the Salaami is  without any Islamic foundation.  This practice could not be  established on the basis of any statement or practice of our Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), of  the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu  anhum) and of the Jurists of  Islam. But the votaries of  Meelaad claim that it is Fardh (Compulsory) to make Qiyaam  (stand) during these Meelaad  functions. They proceed further  to commit an act of extreme  gravity by branding as Kaafir the one who does not make this  Qiyaam of the Meelaad  celebration. Yet, it could never  ever be substantiated that one  who does not make the Qiyaam is  a Kaafir. The Kitaabs written by  the votaries of Moulood  unambiguously state that the  one who does not make the  Qiyaam is a Kaafir. Now, what is  the basis of making such a grave  statement? Our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not like  people to stand in his respect  even when he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was alive, leave alone  after his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) death. It is a proven  fact that our Holy Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  detested people standing for him  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).  Read the following Hadith and  you will see the light dispelling  the darkness which enshrouds  this practice. Hadhrat Anas  (radhiyallahu anhu), one of the  closest of Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Sahaabah  narrates the following Hadith:

“There was none whom the  Sahaabah loved as much as  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). When they saw  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) they did not stand  because they knew that he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  detested this (practice of standing).” [TIRMIZI-MUSNAD  AHMAD]

The above-mentioned Hadith  which all the learned men of  Islam accept as being authentic,  proves that our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) disliked  standing for him. Who can question the love which the  Sahaabah had for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)?  However, despite the burning  love and the total submission  which the Sahaabah offered Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) the Sahaabah did not  stand in respect of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) for  the simple reason that Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  disliked such a practice. Now  when this was the case during  the very lifetime of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam),  then reason demands that the  dislike of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) for this practice  of Qiyaam will be greater after  his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  death and in his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) absence.

If this Qiyaam was necessary whenever we talk or discuss or mention the Holy name of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then surely Qiyaam (standing) would have been incumbent upon us on the  following occasions:

(a) During Tashah-hud (i.e. when  sitting in the second rakaat of  any Salaat). In this sitting  posture of Salaat we recite At-tahi-yaat, and during this recital  the following salutations for our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  occur: “Salaams upon you, O  Nabi.”

However, no one ever stands up  during his Salaat when he recites  the above salutations in Tashah-hud.

(b) If we happen to be sitting and  the Muath-thin during Athaan  call out: Ashadu Anna Muhammadur Rasulullah then we do not stand up.  Even though Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Holy name is mentioned in the Athaan ten  times a day no one stands at the  mention of Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) name, if he happens to be  seated.

(c) During a lecture when the  lecturer speaks about the Holy  Birth of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) or when he  mentions the name of Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), no one stands in reverence at the  mention of Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Holy name.

(d) When we recite the Kalimah then  we do not stand at the mention  of the Holy name of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

(e) Allah Ta’ala has instructed us to  recite Durood Shareef on  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). But when anyone  recites Durood he does not stand  when mentioning the Holy name  of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).

(f) During the Khutbah on Friday the  name of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned  several times, but everyone  remains seated. No one stands up  when the Imaam who recites the  Khutbah says: Allahumma Salli ‘Alaa Muhammad

(g) In the Holy Qur’aan the name of  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned on several  occasions, but when we recite  the relevant verses containing the  name of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) we do not stand,  and we are not commanded to  stand by Allah Ta’ala.

(h) In the Holy  Qur’aan Allah Ta’ala says:

Verily, Allah and His Malaa-ikah  send salaat upon the Nabi, O you who believe send salaat and  salaam upon him.  

However, despite Allah Ta’ala commanding us in the abovementioned verses to recite salutations on our Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) we  do not stand at the recital of  Durood because we are not  commanded to do so. Allah Ta’ala  only commands the recitation of  salutations and not Qiyaam  or  standing when we recite these  salutations.

Thus, it is abundantly clear that  the Shariah does not command  or exhort us to stand when the  Holy name of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is  taken. If it was necessary to stand  in respect of the name of  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) then it would be a  greater necessity to stand in  respect when the Glorious Name  of Allah Ta’ala is mentioned. But  no one ever stands when the  Name of Allah Ta’ala is mentioned  or when glorifications unto Allah Ta’ala are recited.

The fact that people stand only when  Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) name is sung in the Meelaad Salaamis is ample proof  that they do not stand in respect and reverence at the mention of our Nabi’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) name. If they did in reality stand for the respect of  our Nabi’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) name then they would  have stood whenever the Holy  name of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was mentioned.  But in that case life would become very difficult for the  votaries of Meelaad because if  the lecturer happens to deliver a  lecture on the life of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  he mentioned the name of our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  a hundred times, our supporters  of Meelaad would have to jump  up every time the name of our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned. Hence, it is clear  that people stand during the  recital of Salaamis not because of reverence for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but  because of force of custom. They  stand because it is customary to  stand when these Salaamis are  recited. They stand because the  crowd stands. And, this standing  or Qiyaam was the invention of irreligious persons. Nowhere in  the  Shariah could this Qiyaam be  established. Thus the majority of  people stand because it is a  custom (made compulsory by the  innovators of the Meelaad) of  these functions.

Others again stand because of a  reason which is much more  dangerous than the reason for  which the majority of people  stand. Some cherish the belief that the Soul of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  presents itself at these sessions  of Meelaad, hence it is necessary  to stand in respect. This is a  fallacious and a highly misleading  belief. This belief leads to Shirk  or association with Allah Ta’ala in  an attribute which is exclusive in  Divinity. Let us assume that A  holds a Meelaad function in his  home, B does the same in his  home, C also has a Meelaad  celebration and D does likewise;  also Meelaad functions are taking place in various Musaajid all over  the world. Now let us assume  that these functions happen to  take place at the same time and  the Salaami is being recited at  these various venues at one and  the same  time. A is under the impression that Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Soul  is present at his function, B, C, D  and the people in the various  Musaajid all over the world are  under the same impression. We  have assumed that the Salaami is  being recited at the same time in  the various places, hence it will  follow that our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is present at the  place of A, B, C, D, etc., at one  and the same time. In other  words this belief means that our  Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  is present here, there and  everywhere at one and the same  time. This is bestowing the  Divine Attribute of Omnipresence upon our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Thus this belief  assigns to our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Divinity by way of according Omnipresence to  our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This is in reality the  commission of Shirk which is a  capital crime – a crime most  heinous in the Eyes of Allah.


Whenever these functions take  place in places other than  Musaajid wholesale neglect of  Salaat occurs. People are more  concerned with the Meelaad celebration than with their  Salaat. They are ostensibly  gathered to remember MUHAMMAD, RASULULLAH (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but  they very conveniently overlook and transgress the MESSAGE  and the LAWS brought and  taught to us by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). If  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was present today,  what would he (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) say at this wholesale  massacre of Salaat – the most  important Pillar (as far as practice  is concerned) of Islam – and  especially so by those who claim  to sing his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) praises and make  claims to being the sole  repositories of his (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) love! The  Meelaad function proceeds while  the time for Salaat passes by.  What kind of love – what kind of  demonstration of love for  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is this?

Those who participate in these  functions do not make any  special preparations to perform  Salaat in Jamaat which is  Sunnatul Muakkadah, yet they  see that elaborate and special  preparations are made for a  custom which has no origin in  the Shariah of Islam – for a  custom which contains many  innovations.


There exists no difference of  opinion among the Fuqahaa (the  Jurists of Islam) like Imaam Abu  Hanifah, Imaam Maalik, Imaam  Shaafi, Imaam Hambal,  etc, on  the prohibition of music. We  shall content ourselves at this juncture to say that MUSIC is  strictly and unanimously  prohibited in Islam. At some of  these functions qawwaali with  the accompaniment of music  takes place. This, indeed is an  open and a flagrant violation of  the law of Allah. Its evil is  emphasised when it takes place  at a function ostensibly organized in honour of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).


Many a time such poetry is  composed and sung at these  functions, which are blasphemous. Much of the  subject matter of these verses is  unsubstantiated, much is mere  figments of the composer’s  imagination, and some verses go  so far as to deify our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This,  needless to say, amounts to the  capital crime of SHIRK.


People of all types frequent and  gather at these functions.  Audacious and rebellious sinners,  people of immoral characters  merely attend these functions to  listen to the sweet voices of  young boys and girls singing, and  for casting surreptitious and evil  glances at members of the  opposite sex – and this too is strictly forbidden in Islam.


Seclusion and separation of the  sexes is a compulsory law in  Islam. Islam demands the  strictest separation of the sexes.  The Law of Islam is categoric in banning women from coming  even to Musaajid for purposes of  Salaat. Salaat is the greatest  practical obligation imposed  upon the Believers by Allah Ta’ala,  yet Allah Ta’ala did not decree the  performance of Jumu’ah Salaat  on women. The performance of  Salaat in Jamaat has not been  ordained by Shariah for women.  Our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) in fact said that  woman’s noblest and best Salaat  is her Salaat performed alone in  the darkest corner of her home.  Now when it is not even  permissible for females to come  to the Musjid for Salaat purposes,  how can it be permissible for  them to attend these Meelaad functions? Their presence at  these Meelaad functions is a very  strong factor establishing the  prohibition of these functions.  Wherever intermingling of sexes  takes place Shaitaan is present to  plunge man into the tentacles of immorality. Our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said so. Even if it  is possible to screen the females completely from the men, then  too, it is not permissible for them  to emerge from their homes to  attend these functions for the  simple reason that the Shariah  has decreed that they may not  emerge from their homes for  even Salaat in the Musjid.


When evil and sin occur it is the  duty upon a Muslim to either  speak out against it if he is able  to do so, or alternatively, he must  withdraw from the place wherein  the un-Islamic practices are being  carried out. Now at these celebrations many of the wrongs  listed on above take place, but no  one will speak out against these  even though convinced of it  being un-Islamic. They will not  speak out against the crimes  committed against Allah nor will  they leave the venues where such  wrongs are being perpetrated in  the Holy Name of Islam. They  choose to be silent compatriots  in these evils. In so doing they are  inviting Allah Ta’ala’s Wrath upon  themselves by shunning the  extremely important Islamic  Injunction of Commanding what  is good and prohibiting what is  evil.


Great sums of money and  considerable time in labour are  squandered in organizing these  customs which have no Islamic  origin or sanction. Money which  could be utilized for the poor, the  needy, the widows and the  orphans are squandered in  preparing elaborate Meelaad  celebrations. Money is spent unnecessarily in the hiring of  tents, halls, cooking utensils,  eating utensils, for the  preparation of foods, for  engaging the qawwaal, etc. In  short this whole affair becomes a  mere frivolous party attendant  with wrongs and evils.


Many a time the organizers  engage in public collections in  order to accumulate funds to  organize such functions. Charity  is extracted from the public  under the pretences of  organizing an “Islamic” function.  Rich and poor eat the food  prepared of this charity. The  Muslim public who attend these functions indulge in merrymaking at the expense of the charities collected.


The celebration of birthdays and  anniversaries has no connection  with Islam. This is an exclusive  custom of the Kuffaar. Our Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did  not celebrate birthdays and  anniversaries. Nor did the  Sahaabah or the great learned  Jurists of Islam. Such celebrations  have no basis in the Shariah. In  upholding these innovatory  customs Muslims are in fact  imitating the Kuffaar and this our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  has strictly forbidden.

The Hindus have customs of  celebrating the anniversaries of  the death or the birthdays of  their holy people, and so have  the Christians as well as the Rawaafidh sects which have gone  astray. In reality Muslims too  have imitated the Kuffaar in the  introduction of  these  customs.  The Sahaabah of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)  never celebrated the birthday of  our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor did the great  learned Jurists and Ulama of  Islam. In fact the Muslim innovators have resorted to a greater ignorance than their non-Muslim counterparts (in custom  and innovation). The non-Muslim  celebrate the birthdays and  death anniversaries of their holy  men on a fixed day each year.  But, the Muslim innovators celebrate the birthday of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) on various dates throughout the  year. They do so on different  dates yet they call these various  celebrations MEELAAD or  MOULOODUN-NABI which means  the BIRTH of the NABI (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).


It has already been explained  elsewhere in this article that the  originators of the Meelaad  custom were irreligious persons.  Six hundred years after our Nabi  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) the  irreligious ruler of Irbal assisted  by irreligious learned men invented and established this  custom. Thus, those who organize Meelaad functions and those who participate in them are in reality assisting to establish a practice introduced by evil men. They are aiding and abetting in the fostering of a custom which is in  total conflict with the Shariah  of  Islam. It is a great crime to  maintain and encourage customs  and practices which were brought into being by those who had no  connection with the Deen, more  so, when these customs and  practices are a conglomeration of  un-Islamic elements.


One of the vilest of habits which  exists in those who desire to  establish these un-Islamic  customs is to brand as Kaafir or  unbeliever whoever does not agree with their views or do not  participate in these Meelaad  functions. Indeed, these  innovators have not shied from  even branding as Kaafir great Ulama, Auliya and pious men of  Islam. At every corner they  produced Kaafirs. It seems that  their only function is to maintain  innovatory customs and to brand  Muslims as Kaafir. The votaries of  these customs have written in their books that those who do  not make the Qiyaam, etc. are  Kaafir. They have written that to  make Qiyaam at these ceremonies is FARDH (Compulsory). What blasphemy they utter! They seem to be totally unconcerned of the Allah, the Greatest, the most  High, hence they  proceed without any hesitation to  pronounce as Kaafir the great  Auliyaa and Ulama of Islam. This  factor of reviling the non-participants is a very strong  reason for the non-permissibility  of this innovatory practice.


This too, is a further  transgression committed against  the Law of Allah. This custom of  distributing sweetmeats at these  functions is regarded as compulsory. A gross falsity  perpetrated in the name of Islam.


This factor has already been  explained under the section  dealing with Qiyaam, and it was  shown there how the crime of  Shirk is resultant on this belief.


Imaam Ahmad Bin Muhammad  Bin Bisri Maaliki (rahmatullah  alayh) states:

“And, the Ulama of the four Math-habs (Hanafi, Shaafi, Hambali and Maaliki) are unanimous in condemning this practice (i.e. Moulood).” [AL-QOULUL  MU’TAMAD]

“Imaam Abul Hassen Ali Bin Fadhl  Muqeddisi (rahmatullah alayh) states in his Kitaab,  JAAMIUL  MASAA-IL: 
‘The practice of Moulood was not  of the practices of the great,  pious predecessors (SALFE  SAALIH). It was introduced after  the QUROONE THALAATHAH (the  three periods following our Nabi  –– which he––  described as the  “best of times”). It (Moulood) was  innovated during the age of evil  (i.e. of evil people). We do not  follow a practice introduced by  later people, if the pious  predecessors did not practice it.  It suffices for us to follow the  Salfe Saaliheen. And, we have no need to innovate new customs.” [AL-QOULUL MU’TAMAD]

Imaam Ibnul Haaj states:
“Among the Bid’ahs (innovations) which these people have introduced is the practice of Moulood during the month of Rabiul Awwal. They believe that  the Moulood is among the great  acts of Ibaadat (worship) and the  customs of Islam. This practice  consists of Bid’ahs and Haraam  acts.  [MUDKHAL]                                                                  
Imaam Shamsul A-immah Taajud-din Faakahaani says in his  Risalah:
“I know of no basis for this  practice of Moulood as regards  the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. It  has not been reported from any  of the greet Ulama and Imaams  who were the Leaders of the  Deen and who held on firmly to  the ways of the greet  predecessors. In reality, this practice of Moulood is a Bid’ah  innovated by evil people who  were followers of lust  …”

Allamah Abdur-Rahman Mughzi  (rahimahullah) states in his  Fataawa:
“Verily, the practice of Moulood is  a Bid’ah. The Messenger of Allah (salpallaahu alayhi wasallam) did  not order or practise it, nor did  his Khulafaa (his representatives)  or the Jurists of Islam.” [SHARATUL ILLAHIY-YAH]

Besides the abovementioned  opinions and statements of the  Jurists of Islam there are many  other references on the subject.  The true Ulama and the Jurists of  Islam have condemned and  branded this practice as  forbidden right from the very  time it was introduced as part of  the Deen of Allah, i.e. 600 years after our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). In every age the true  and uprighteous learned men of Islam have opposed and rejected  this practice. Shaikhul Islam Ibn  Taimiyyah Hambali (rahmatullah  alayh) rejected this practice in his  Fataawa. Imaam Jasiruddin Shafi  (rahmatullah alayh) condemned  this practice in Irshaadul Akhyaar,  and so did Hadhrat Mujaddid Alfe  Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) (See Maktoobaat, PartV).

The discussion of these pages is  sufficient, in fact more than  sufficient for the unbiased seeker  of the Truth to arrive at the right  – the Islamic conclusion, that the  customary Moulood practices are  not permissible in terms of the Shariah. Never mind what the  votaries of these innovatory  practices say, just remember that  this custom of Meelaad was not  ordered by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam); it was not  practised by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam); it  was not practised by even one  Sahaabi of our Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) – the Sahaabah  did not practise it; the great  Imaams and Jurists of Islam did  not practise it. It (Meelaad) was  introduced in Islam by men who  loved this life and its pleasures  –  it was innovated 600 years after Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). These are facts which  even the votaries of Meelaad do  not refute. May Allah save us and  all Muslims from all un-Islamic  customs, Aameen.


The protagonists of the custom  of Moulood/Meelaad or the  celebration of the birthday of  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) present a number of  spurious and baseless arguments  in support of their un-Islamic  practice. Qur’aanic verses and Hadith narrations totally  unrelated to their innovated  practice are cited, distorted and  falsely interpreted to deceive  those who lack Islamic knowledge. Among their spurious  arguments is their statement:

“Man must thank and show his  appreciation to the Almighty for  the bounty in the person  of  the  Holy Prophet (peace be upon  him).”  

According to the upholders of  Moulood the purpose for this  innovation is to thank Allah. It is  thus a thanksgiving day. For  offering thanks to Allah Ta’ala for  the great bounty in the form of  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), a day is set aside in  the year when praises are sung  and food is eaten and  merrymaking is adopted. But,  what is the Islamic proof for  setting aside a day in the year to  offer thanks in this way for this  wonderful Bounty? From whence  did these people obtain their  direction for celebrating the  birthday of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? Did the Sahaabah not love Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)?  Were the Sahaabah unaware of  the birthday of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? Did  the Sahaabah not realize that  they had to offer thanks on a  special day for the great bounty?  The Bounty had come to them in  the first instance. The Bounty  had extricated them from the  dregs of kufr and barbarism. How  is it that they did not see it fit to  set aside a day for Moulood  celebration? Were they then  deficient in their love for  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? The innovation of  Moulood does in fact imply that  the Sahaabah-e-Kiraam were  unaware of the way in which to  manifest their love for Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and  that this ‘favour’ was conferred  centuries after the Sahaabah to  the innovators who had  introduced the Meelaad custom  which is in fact an inheritance  acquired from irreligious persons.


The upholders of the customary  Moulood celebration contend  that this is their day of Durood,  hence they claim:

“….praises are sung in his honour,  blessings and salutations of  Peace are showered upon him,…”  

It is indeed peculiar for those  who raise the slogan of Hubb-e-Rasool (love for the Rasool) to appoint a short time in a day per year for reciting Durood on Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). A Muslim is supposed  to recite Durood daily. If a Muslim one who claims to love Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) – recites Durood daily as he should, then what is the meaning of a  special day for singing praises  and showering blessings and  salutations? This a Muslim does  daily or should do daily, not once  a year in a function of  merrymaking where violations of  the Shariah are perpetrated. Their claim is utterly meaningless.

Who taught the Ummah about the recitation of Durood? How  did the Sahaabah recite Durood?  Surely they did not have a day in the year for this important act of  Ibaadat and demonstration of love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)! The Sahaabah  recited Durood and so did the  Ummah thereafter. When Durood constitutes part of the Muslim’s  daily Thikr, then of what purpose is the fixation of a day for Durood  and singing of praises? What Shar’i proof do these people have  for their innovation? Nothing at  all! Muslims are required to recite  Durood the way the Sahaabah  recited Durood, not in the new  fangled way innovated by  irreligious persons.


Attempting to substantiate their  innovation of Meelaad, the votaries of this custom seek to draw support from the ways of  the kuffaar, thus they say:

“All the religions of the world, at some or other time, celebrate certain days of the year since time  immemorial.” “In Islam these days  have a special significance;…”  

Why look askance at the ways of  non-Muslims when Islam has  clear directions for the Ummah? What is the need for this comparison? The need is there to eke out miserable support for the  baseless suppositions and baatil customs of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah. A Muslim should not refer to the  method of the kuffaar. Our days  of celebration have been clearly explained and enumerated by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Islam’s Days of Celebration do not include Meelaad/Moulood. Islam does not know of any ‘Prophet’s Day  Celebration’ as the Meelaad-preachers are dubbing of recent.  If this custom had significance  whatsoever, the Sahaabah would  have been the very first persons to have  celebrated  Meelaad.  After  all, days of celebration – existed “since time immemorial”.  The Sahaabah with their over-brimming love for the Rasool (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did  not require the advice of anyone  regarding  the  fixation  of  a specific day for Durood and  praise-singing. They did not  require anyone to remind them of the birthday of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). But, their deliberate and conscious  abstention from innovating a day  of celebration which in Islam is in  fact not a day of celebration, is  ample testimony for the claim  that Meelaad-day  has  neither  origin nor sanction in the  Shariah, nor is there any significance in it. On the contrary, the Wrath of Allah Ta’ala descends on the innovators of  baatil customs.


Further arguing their baseless  case, the supporters of Meelaad  say:

“The aim is the remembrance of  those great souls who sacrificed themselves in contributing to the upkeep of Islam and in so doing bring home to the future  generations the responsibilities  they have to bear as far as Islam  is concerned.”

Irrespective of any aim and any  benefit, no one has the right to  innovate a practice and assign it  a religious status. The aim, no  matter how laudable, does not  justify bid’ah which changes the  purity of the Sunnah. Furthermore, the Sahaabah were well aware of such laudable aims.  Did they not understand the kind of aim expressed in the aforementioned statement? The  welfare of Islam and the Ummah  and the love of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were  foremost and uppermost in their  minds and ingrained in their hearts, but they never considered  the need to celebrate a day for the “remembrance of great souls” who had sacrificed themselves for the “upkeep of Islam”. This is indeed a baseless claim in support of the bid’ah of Moulood.
If there was any Islamic validity and need for the enactment of  days of celebration in remembrance of great souls who had sacrificed for the sake of Islam, the Sahaabah would have been the first to have initiated  this process. But, Islamic history bears testimony that no such days of remembrance or days of celebration were introduced by the Sahaabah or by the illustrious authorities of the Shariah for centuries after the demise of  Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Great and noble souls  such as Sayyidush Shuhadaa Hadhrat Hamzah,Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan and countless Sahaabah were martyred in the Path of Islam. Besides the  Shuhadaa (Martyrs), numerous  Sahaabah sacrificed their all in their Service of love and devotion for Islam and the Rasool of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). But never did Islam enact a day of celebration in honour and in remembrance of any of its most valiant Sons who shook the world from top to bottom. But, the  Ahl-e-Bid’ah considered it appropriate centuries later to innovate customs and festivals inherited from pagan kuffaar.  Such innovated customs were merely disguised with an Islamic hue by the introduction of Islamic  acts of Ibaadat. Since there is no Islamic precedent nor any valid Shar’i  basis for the Moulood festival, this practice is utterly  baatil and un-Islamic.


Among their arguments in favour of Meelaad is their baseless  interpretation of the following  Qur’aanic aayat:

“And remind them of the days of  Allah.”  

They present their  misinterpretation as follows:

“The days are those wherein Allah  has sent His bounties unto His servants…… Those who believe  know that above all the gifts  from Allahu Ta’ala none is more apparent in greatness than the very person of the Holy Prophet  of Allah (peace be upon him)……. Then surely to celebrate the day  of his coming cannot be branded  as an innovation or as an  unfounded custom or ritual.”  

Why should it not be branded as  such? When this custom has no beginning in Islam, when it was an unknown practice to the Sahaabah and when it did not exist for many centuries after the  demise of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), then why should it not be branded as an unfounded and a baatil custom of  evil innovation? Did the  Sahaabah not realize that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was the greatest  Bounty of Allah Ta’ala upon mankind? Why did the Taabieen  and those after them not appreciate this fact? In the logic of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah the Sahaabah and the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and all the illustrious Souls who lived in Khairul Quroon (the three noblest ages succeeding the age  of Rasulullah sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) did not understand or appreciate this greatest of Allah’s Bounties, hence they did not innovate Meelaad. The Ulama-e-Haqq abstain from this baseless, innovated and unfounded custom  just as the Sahaabah had abstained, just as the Taabieen and their followers had abstained.  But, the votaries of this custom spit venom and brand as kufr abstention from their innovated baatil!

The noble Nabi of Allah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his illustrious Sahaabah were fully  aware of the meaning of the  aforementioned aayat. They, better than all, understood what  was meant by “the  days  of  Allah”. If this aayat even remotely  suggested days of celebration,  then undoubtedly, Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would have ordered the observance of Meelaad and other days in remembrance of the sacrifices of the great souls in the  cause of Islam. But there is absolutely nothing of this sort of festival and custom ordered by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor did the Sahaabah ever introduce any such festival or  celebration. The Ahl-e-Bid’ah are  audaciously implying that they possess a greater understanding of the aayat (mentioned above) than Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sahaabah.

By reminding people of past great events of admonition, kindness and favours of Allah Ta’ala  (referred to as “the days of Allah” in the aayat) is meant nothing other than naseehat – giving good counsel, warning and admonishing.It does not mean the enactment of celebrations and festivals on specific days of the years. There is no basis whatever in the Shariah for this  interpretation advanced by the supporters of Moulood festivities.  The emphasis of Islam is on reminding of the days of Allah,  i.e. Naseehat, hence Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Deen  is  Naseehat”. Islam does not stipulate that the process of  reminding about the “days of Allah” be on specific days of the year.

While the Qur’aan Majeed says: “Remind them of the days of  Allah”, the Ahl-e-Bid’ah say:  “Remind them on particular days  of the birth of the Nabi.” But, the Qur’aan does not mention this.  Bounties do come within the scope of the meaning of “days of Allah”, but the Islamic way of “reminding” is not the innovation  of customs, rituals and festivals which have no sanction in the Shariah. The interpretation of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah is thus baatil.


In support of Meelaad, its votaries cite the following aayat: “Say (O Muhammad) with the descent of Allah’s Bounty and Mercy the believers should be happy.” 

Arguing the Meelaad case on the  basis of this verse, the Ahl-e-Bid’ah say:
“Here the Holy Qur’aan clearly sanctions the fact that the  believers should rejoice the bestowal of the gifts from Allahu  Ta’ala. ……Thus to be happy, to rejoice and to celebrate the coming of the most supreme of Allah’s Gifts is an action of compulsory gratitude to Allah Almighty in accordance with the Divine command.”  

To be happy and to rejoice over the bounties and gifts of Allah Ta’ala are one thing. No sensible person has ever denied this fact or taken up cudgels against it. But, to forge customs and to innovate unfounded practices and  to introduce festivals akin to the festivals of paganism are entirely different issue which have nothing whatever to do with the expression of the Mu’min’s happiness for the Bounty of the Blessed Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). The argument of Haqq  is not directed against lawful and valid rejoicing, happiness and gratitude. The argument is in refutation and in denial of the  baatil Meelaad and customary evil  festivals of the Bid’atis –  functions of merrymaking and  haraam – functions where dagga smoking qawwaals preside with their haraam musical instruments; where fussaaq and fujjaar gather,  where they sing the night through, where the raucous clamour of Hubb-e-Rasool is  dinned throughout the night but  the Fajr Salaat is abandoned at the altar of this conception of ‘Hubbe Rasool’ which sanctions all the haraam acts of flagrant  transgression. This conception of  ‘Hubb-e-Rasool’ of-the Ahl-e-Bid’ah of our time tolerates the destruction of almost every Sunnah of Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). This is not an expression of love and gratitude.  It is the manifestation of the bestiality of the carnal nafs  floundering in the sea of  shaitaani deception and baatil.

It is not an Islamic teaching to fix specific days for the innovation of celebrations to express happiness  and to rejoice and be grateful for  the bounties of Allah Ta’ala. If expression of gratitude and happiness had to be by means of  annual festivals and celebrations  then the Sahaabah would have been the first to have done so.  The conspicuous absence of  Meelaad celebration in the ranks  of the Sahaabah and the Taabieen  speaks volumes for the fallacy of  the Bid’ati claim. The Ahl-e-Bid’ah are implying that the Sahaabah  were ungrateful to Allah Ta’ala for  the greatest of Bounties since they did not indulge in Moulood.  Yet, they were the happiest and the most grateful of Muslims for the Boon of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), but their happiness, rejoicing and gratitude did not assume the form of Meelaad celebration.  They never specified any ‘Prophet’s Day’. Happiness and  gratitude stem from the heart  and manifest themselves on the external body of the Mu’min in the form of IbaadatNafl Salaat in solitude, Saum, Sadqah, Thikrullah and service to the servants of Allah Ta’ala. Islamic  happiness and expression of gratitude to Allah Ta’ala do not consist of singing and merrymaking under Deeni guise. The Mu’min expresses his undying  loyalty and remembrance for  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) by the inculcation of  the Sunnah – by following the  Sunnat teachings and practices  in the minutest detail. Love for the Rasool (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) means total obedience  to him, hence the Qur’aan Shareef  declares:

“Say (O  Muhammad!): If you love  Allah then follow me (Muhammad).”  

Love for Allah and love for the Rasool are enshrined in  submission and obedience to the  Command and to the Sunnah,  not in singing praises and listening to songs sung by dagga-smoking qawwaals with the  accompaniment of haraam  musical  instruments. The whole  customary Meelaad celebrations  in vogue among the Ahl-e-Bid’ah  is one huge trick and deception  of shaitaan talbees-e-Iblees.

The claim that celebration of  Moulood “is an action of compulsory gratitude, to Allah  Almighty in accordance with  Divine command”, is a vile fabrication– a lie spoken in the  Name of Allah Ta’ala. Let them  produce the “Divine command”  which commands Meelaad  celebration, Qur’aanic verses  totally unrelated to this bid’ah  are not proof for this baatil claim.  Those who venture such falsehood in the Name of Allah Azza Wa Jal should heed well the following warning of Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam):

“He who speaks a lie on me deliberately should prepare his abode in the Fire (of Jahannum).”


Arguing their case, the votaries  of customary Moulood celebrations present certain  narrations attributed to Hadhrat  Abu Bakr, Hadhrat Umar, Hadhrat Uthmaan and Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhum). Some such narrations are:

“He who hath spent in the recital  of Moulood-un-Nabi one dirham then he shall be my companion in  Jannat.”  (This narration is attributed to Hadhrat Abu Bakr  –  radhiyallahu  anhu).

“He who hath kept in veneration  the Moulood-un-Nabi of the Holy Prophet (on whom be peace) he  hath kept Islam alive.”  (Attributed  to Hadhrat Umar– radhiyallahu anhu)

“He who hath spent one dirham  in the recital of Moulood-un-Nabi  he is as he had been a participant  in the battles of Badr and Hunain.”  (Attributed to Hadhrat  Uthmaan – radhiyallahu  anhu).

“He who revered Moulood-un-Nabi and was instrumental in its recital, he shall leave this world  upon Iman and shall enter Jannat without reckoning.”  (Attributed  to Hadhrat Ali – radhiyallahu  anhu).

No wonder that the participants  in the customary Moulood  celebrations ignore the  performance of Salaat and rather  spend the night listening to  drunken qawwaals singing and  drumming away their tablas until  just before Fajr. But as the  Muath-thin is about to call the  Fajr Athaan they slink away like shayaateen into their beds. This  easy prescription of  “entering  Jannat without reckoning” as  long as Moulood was upheld has  made people audacious and careless about Deeni Commands.

The  abovementioned  narrations  in the first place do not appear in  any of the highly placed authentic  Books of Hadith. Let the  supporters of customary Moulood  celebrations present the proof  for the authenticity of these narrations. Secondly, why did the  Khulafa-e-Raashideen not  participate in Moulood celebration? Narrations in this  regard are being attributed to the Khulafa-e-Raashideen, but why  did they not organize customary  Moulood celebrations if indeed  this custom was of the significance mentioned in these narrations attributed to them?

Assuming that the narrations are  correct, then too, here is no  substantiation for the customary  Moulood functions prevailing in  the ranks of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah.  There is no argument in the fact  that speaking, discussing and  feeling ever grateful for the Birth  (Moulood) of the Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are all acts of  merit, barkat and thawaab. It was  never contended that it is wrong  to discuss the Moulood (Birth) of  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). But, the customary  Moulood functions with its  accompaniment of haraam  factors is the target for the criticism of the Ulama-e-Haqq. If  Hadhrat Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu  anhu) mentioned the significance  of Moulood, he meant thereby  the Birth of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), which was a great or the greatest boon to  mankind and Jinnkind. He did not  refer to the type of Meelaad  function in vogue today. He  never meant by Moulood, the  functions consisting of qawwaali,  etc. There never existed the  customary Moulood function  during the time of the Sahaabah  nor for centuries thereafter. It is,  therefore, highly deceptive to  extract a mere word from a narration and claim that the term  refers to a present-day baatil  custom which has neither origin  nor sanction in the Shariah.

If the customary Meelaad celebration had any basis in the Sunnah and if the Khulafa-e-Raashideen did in fact speak so glowingly of  these practices as is being alleged, then the least expected of them was practical expression of such an important celebration which is purported to secure the entry of its votaries into Jannat without reckoning. The fact that the early six centuries of Islam were without this customary Meelaad practice is sufficient proof for the Meelaad custom being a bid’ah (an innovation). It is typical of the perpetrators of bid’ah to clasp at any straw to eke out support for their un-Islamic practices.

The Ahl-e-Bid’ah have all along presented a variety of spurious ‘proofs’ and baseless arguments in  substantiation of their innovated practice of Meelaad. Their latest attempt consists of presenting ‘hadith’ narrations which have absolutely no standing of authenticity in the Shariah. They tender narrations claiming that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) himself spoke highly of the custom of Meelaadunnabi. Other narrations cited, allege that the Khulafa-e-Raashideen exhorted the observance of this practice.

It is a well-established Islamic fact that the custom of Meelaad or Moulood never existed in Islam for approximately six centuries from the time of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). If  there was any merit  in this practice of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah, surely Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah would have upheld it. But all Shar’i facts and Islamic  history testify that Meelaad did  not exist during the time of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), the Sahaabah and for  centuries after them.

Such fallacious ‘proofs’ and miserable attempts of the Bid’ati group should be dismissed as claims devoid of substance.

A blatant attempt to justify  the  custom of Meelaad is made by an  effort to enlist Hadhrat Mujaddid  Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh).  Thus, the votaries of  Meelaad  allege:

“Imaam Rabbani Mujaddid Alfi  Sani, in his writings, says of Mauludun-Nabi: ‘What matters   when the Qur’aan is recited sweetly and when praises are sung in honour of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him)!” e

Indeed, nothing matters to recite  the Qur’aan Majeed sweetly and to sing the praises of Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). But,  Meelaad of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah is not  mere sweet recitation of the  Qur’aan nor is it merely a session  where-praises are sung in honour of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). The many evils  associated with this custom of  the Ahl-e-Bid’ah can never be  justified or supported by an unrelated statement of Hadhrat Mujaddid (rahmatullah alayh). It  is necessary for the Bid’ati group to state the context in which Hadhrat Mujaddid (rahmatullah  alayh) made his statement.  Furthermore, it is incumbent for  the supporters of Meelaad to  inform Muslims what exactly Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani  said directly in reference to the  practices of bid’ah. Since it is a forgone conclusion that the  upholders of Meelaad will never  act honestly by informing people  of Hadhrat Mujaddid’s view on bid’ah, we shall do so. It is highly  misleading to describe the  customary Meelaad simply by  asserting that it is merely “sweet  recitation of the Qur’aan and  singing of praises in honour of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).” The present Moulood is a bid’ah custom – a bid’ah  sayyiah (evil innovation), which the votaries of bid’ah describe as  bid’ah hasanah (beautiful innovation). In refutation of their contention of bid’ah hasanah we shall reproduce verbatim the view of Hadhrat Imaam Rabbaani Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) as it appears  in the book, Endless Bliss, a publication of the Turk, Huseyn Hilmi Isik who incidentally is a great enemy of the Ulama of Deoband and a supporter of Moulood and other acts of bid’ah:


“The happiest, the most fortunate  person is he who recovers one of the forgotten sunnats and annihilates one of the widespread  bid’ats in a time when irreligiousness is on the increase. We are now in such a time when  a thousand years have elapsed  after the Best of man kind  [Hadhrat Muhammad]. As we get  farther from the time of  happiness of our Prophet, the  sunnats are gradually being covered and, lies being on the increase, the bid’ats are spreading. A hero is needed who will uphold the sunnats and stop,  expel the bid’ats. To spread bid’ats  is to demolish Islam. To respect those who make up and commit bid’ats, to deem them great will  cause Islam to perish. It is declared in a hadith, “He who says  ‘great’ about those who commit bid’ats has helped the demolition  of Islam”. The meaning of this should be given die consideration  on. Utmost energy should be spent in striving for uncovering  one sunnat and annihilating one  bid’at. For strengthening Islam  any-time, especially when Islam  has become so weak, it is necessary to spread the sunnats  and demolish the bid’ats. The  former Islamic savants, having seen maybe some beauty in the  bid’ats, gave some of them the name of hasana [beautiful]. But  this faqir [Imaam-Rabbani means  himself] do not follow them in this respect; I do not regard any  of the bid’ats as beautiful. I see all  of them as dark and cloudy. Our  Prophet declared: “All bid’ats are  aberration, deviation from the  right way”. In such a time as this when Islam has become weak, I  see that salvation and escaping Hell is in holding fast to the  sunnat; and destruction of the  deen is, no matter how, in falling for any bid’at. I understand that  each bid’at is like a pickaxe to  demolish the building of Islam  and all sunnats are like brilliant stars to guide you on a dark night. May Allahu Ta’ala give  enough reasonableness to the  hodjas of our time so that they  will not say that any bid’at is  beautiful or permit any bid’at to  be committed. They should not tolerate bid’ats even if they seem  to illuminate darknesses like the  rising of the sun! For, the satans  do their work easily outside the  sunnats. In the early times, Islam  being strong, the darknesses of  bid’ats were not conspicuous,  but, maybe, along with the world-wide powerful light of Islam, some of those darknesses passed  as bright. Therefore they were said to be beautiful. Whereas,  those bid’ats did not have any  brightness or beauty, either. But now, Islam having become weak and disbelievers’ customs and  even the symptoms of disbelief  having become settled [as fashion] among Muslims, each  bid’at has displayed its harm, and  Islam, without anyone noticing it,  has been slipping away. Our hodjas should be most vigilant in  this respect, and they should not  pioneer the spreading of bid’ats  by saying, “it is permissible to do  so and so”, or “such and such things is not harmful”, and  putting forward the old fatwas.  Here is the place for the saying,  “The deen will change in process  of time”. It is wrong for disbelievers to use this saying as  tongs for demolishing Islam and  settling the bid’ats and disbelief.  The bid’ats having covered all the  world, this age roosts like a dark  night. The sunnats being on the  decrease, their lights blink like  fire-flies flying here and there in  dark night. As the committing of  bid’ats increases, the darkness of  the night has been increasing and  the light of sunnat has been  decreasing. But the increasing of  the sunnats would decrease the  darkness and increase the light.  He who wishes may increase the darkness of bid’at, thus strengthening the devil’s army! And he who wishes may increase  the light of sunnat, thus  strengthening the soldiers of  Allahu Ta’ala! Know well that the end of the devil’s army is calamity,  loss. He who is in the army of  Allahu Ta’ala will attain endless bliss.”

The above excerpt very adequately states the viewpoint  of Hadhrat Mujaddid on the  question of practices dubbed  bid’ah hasanah.


A bid’ati molvi speaking in  support of innovation of Meelaad  celebrations argued that Meelaad  “is the origin of all other Eids”.  In  view of it being the “origin” of  Eidul Fitr and Eidul Adha (according to the bid’ati), there is  the need to celebrate Meelaad in  the way the qabar pujaari sect is  presently doing. If Meelaad was  the origin of the other Eids, why  neither Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) nor the  Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum)  ever taught or practised this  custom? Why is the Shariah  totally silent about Meelaad if it was indeed a practice of any significance?

Meelaad celebrations are ostensibly organized to express love and  honour for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). But who had greater love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) – the  Sahaabah or those given up to acts of grave-worship? We see the Sahaabah rigidly clinging to  the minutest details of  Rasulullah’s (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) Sunnah – even to such detailed acts which are not imposed on the Ummah by the  Shariah. On the contrary we find  the loud-mouthed grave-worshippers shunning almost  every Sunnat act of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). We  find clean-shaven fussaaq –  dagga smoking qawwaals –  singing the praises of Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) with  the accompaniment of haraam  musical instruments. Are these  fujjaar superior in love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) than the noble  Sahaabah who offered their  blessed bodies as shields to protect the mubaarak body of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) from the spears and  arrows of the kuffaar? But never did any of the Sahaabah innovate  this custom of Meelaad.

That the Sahaabah had the highest degree of love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) cannot be contested.  Therefore, the best and the most  acceptable ways of expressing love for and honouring Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) can  be obtained from only the Sahaabah. Any person who even  implies that he has greater love  for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) than the Sahaabah or  that his way of expressing such  love is better than the way of the  Sahaabah is undoubtedly a  shaitaan. When Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded obedience to the Way of the Sahaabah, it will be  quite obvious that those who  deviated from the Path of the  Sahaabah are the followers of  shaitaan.

If Meelaad was the mother of the other Eids, then surely Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) would have explained the  importance of upholding this so-called “eid Meeladun Nabi”. But, we find that for centuries, from the age of the Sahaabah, the Ummah did not know anything  about this innovated custom of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah. Only after six  centuries had passed did the  bid’ah of Meelaad celebration  rear its head in the Ummah.

The  custom of Meelaad originated in  the year 604 A.H. in the city of  Mosul at the behest of the evil  king Muzaffaruddin Kaukri Ibn Irbal. Huge sums of money misappropriated from the Baitul Maal were squandered on festivals in the name of Meelaadun Nabi. Evil and haraam  were perpetrated under cover of Hubb-e-Rasool. Today the qabar  pujaaris are branding the people of the Sunnah as kaafir since  they refuse to uphold a practice which has neither origin nor sanction in Islam – leave alone it being the origin of the Eids.

The bid’ati molvi in asserting that  the festive of Meelaad is the  origin of the Islamic Eids has only  exhibited his profound ignorance.  He has demonstrated that the  bid’ati mind derives greater pleasure in customs and practices unconnected to the Sunnah.

A custom which was introduced six hundred years after Rasulullah  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) can never be accorded the  significance which the acts of  the Sunnah enjoy. Why do the people of bid’ah consider the ways of the Sahaabah insufficient for the  expression of love and honour to  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam)? Why is the Tareeqah of the Sahaabah not accorded the  same concern, vigour and importance as some Muslims prefer to give to innovated customs such as Meelaad? Did the Sahaabah organize any  festival? Other than the two Eids, Islam is conspicuous for its lack of festivals and celebrations. Even the Eids were not festivals and occasions of celebration as  people of our times understand celebration to mean. The way to celebrate Eid is recorded in detail in the Sunnah. Haraam activities  do not constitute part of the Islamic celebration of Eid. Eid too,  while a day of happiness, is a day  of Ibaadat. Frivolities do not form part of Islamic and Sunnah culture. Qawwaali, brigades and  other western-orientated displays  of the nafs are the tools of shaitaan. Such activities do not form part of the Sunnah, but they  do form part of the Customary Meelaad celebrations of the qabar pujaari sect.

The 12th day of Rabiul Awwal is  accorded Shar’i status and great displays of love (albeit hollow) for  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are made on these occasions of Meelaad. Did the Sahaabah then not know that  Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was born on this day?  Why did they not uphold this day  as a day of Eid? Why did Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) not instruct them to  celebrate this day as a day of Eid  and festivity? The votaries of this  custom designate this day as “a  day of resolution”. But why has  the Shariah never described this  day as a “day of resolution”? Why  did the Sahaabah, despite their  profound love for Nabi-e-Kareem  (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) not stipulate this day as a day of resolution? Yes, we all know that Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) has described the  Night of Baraa’t as the Night of  Stocktaking. And, we know that  Lailatul Qadr has been described  as a very auspicious Night. And,  we have been apprized by Islam that the 10th Muharram is a great  day – not because of the Shahaadat of Hadhrat Husain (radhiyallahu anhu), but because  of a number of other factors. The  10th Muharram was a day of  auspiciousness long before the martyrdom of  Hadhrat Husain (radhiyallahu anhu). But, qabar pujaaris emulating the Shiahs,  have introduced Shiah beliefs into Islam.

It is indeed a queer phenomenon that those who shout the loudest  about love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) are the worst criminals violating the  Sunnah of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). What else is to be expected from mobs of grave-worshippers. Such  vile innovators who displace and murder the Sunnah will be buffeted from Haudh-e-Kauthar on the Day of Qiyaamah by Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and the Malaaikah.  May Allah Ta’ala save us from such  calamities.

Love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is not qawwaali-singing and slogans. Love for Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is obedience to the  Sunnah, everyday obedience.


A molvi arguing the case for Meelaad celebrations says:

“The day is essentially a day of  rededication and resolution to do good things and not to practice ‘falsehood, forgery, bribery and corruption.”  

Rededication and resolution are daily practices or should be daily practices of Muslims. The Sunnah  of Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) commands daily Muhaasabah (Reckoning of one’s deeds) and Muraaqabah (Meditation on various aspects of  the Aakhirah, etc.) But, to the  bid’atis it is a practice to be resorted to once a year on the occasion of Meelaad. The irony is  that even on the day of Meelaad, the participants in these celebrations do not rededicate themselves to good. Meelaad  celebrations consist primarily of the following ingredients: 

Qawwaali singing.
⚫ Music. Public  feasting.
Haraam brigade trumpeting and marching in emulation of the kuffar.
⚫ Singing songs of praise. 
⚫ Some such songs being  excessive veneration to the  degree of shirk and kufr.
Niaaz or the distribution of food parcels supposed to be blessed.

There is no piety in these celebrations. There is absolutely no resemblance to the Sunnah in  these festivals ostensibly organized to praise Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and to “rededicate” oneself to do  good. People have organized and attended these customary Meelaad celebrations for many  years, but none ever emerges with  piety. Such celebrations have never converted the evil. These celebrations are totally devoid of roohaaniyat. How can roohaaniyat permeate a function which is bereft of Deen? No one has ever learnt anything of the Deen from  these celebrations. No one has acquired any Deeni knowledge from the talks of speakers at these celebrations. They do not speak what Rasulullah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) spoke. They do not teach what the Sahaabah  practised.

The baatil of the Meelaad-qabar pujaari group is manifest from their beliefs. Among their beliefs is that Meelaad is superior to even the Fardh Salaat. A single Meelaad session compensates for  a year’s Salaat omitted. This attitude of the bid’atis appeals to ignorant people who find the  Ibaadat of Islam difficult impositions. For such people the celebrations of merry-making appear very alluring since everything done in these  celebration’s is pleasant to the nafs of man – singing, music,  feasting, etc., are most satisfying  pursuits to the bestial nafs of  man.