Category Archives: Mawlid/ Milad/ Mawlood


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.