The Devil Among the Angels

Category: Belief / Spirituality

Think about it: how did Satan live among the angels before he disobeyed Allāh? He was an obedient worshiper, outwardly similar to the angels. He resembled them in terms of the long prostrations and other acts of external worship he performed, so he was included in Allāh’s command for the angels to prostrate to Ādam (AS). However, while he may have resembled the angels in terms of his external worship, it is impossible for him to have resembled them in terms of his internal worship. In other words, it is not possible that his worship transcended his external dimension and involved his internal dimension. Had his worship been both external and internal, he would have purified his nafs through it and avoided committing his tremendous act of disobedience toward Allāh. Even someone who purifies his nafs to a far lesser extent than the angels do through their worship, as is the case with human believers in general, could not possibly disobey Allāh Most High with the sort of brazen defiance, obstinance, and arrogance that Satan showed his Lord.

This proves that Satan’s plentiful, angel-like worship did not suffice to purify his nafs or increase his īmān. It was insufficient in spite of its abundance and the considerable obedience that he had shown Allāh before defying Him. After all, it was external worship unaccompanied by internal worship: worship with the limbs, not worship with the heart. This illustrates the danger of being beguiled by external worship when this comes at the cost of neglecting internal worship — a grave and destructive danger.

I pondered some more. How did Satan perceive the angels before his act of disobedience? Did he revere them? I hardly think so! Given that he would not deign to follow them when they prostrated to Ādam, I suppose he considered himself above them. He did not hold any of them in high enough regard to feel shame over differing with them — something he did with a combination of obstinance and arrogance that nearly veiled the light of the heavens and the earth with its darkness! When someone has lived performing the external worship that the angels perform, he does not fall to this level of depravity all of a sudden. His arrogance and deception can only have grown and compounded over the course of years, finally reaching an extent that is absolutely without parallel.

How, then, did Satan perceive the noble angels before his act of disobedience? He must have despised and ridiculed them internally! Perhaps he considered them gullible and foolish, believing himself worthier than they were of closeness to Allāh, leadership, and distinction. Perhaps he viewed Jibrīl (AS) as someone whose position better suited himself!

This is the state of people deluded by their own external worship when their internal worship falls short of it. Self-admiration enters their worship and corrupts it completely. Their worship becomes a cause of total ruin rather than one of total salvation.

These people are the Khawārij of old times and new. They surpass all other people in worship with the limbs and are the most vacant when it comes to worship with the heart. For this reason, do not be surprised if you find that they are the most ill-mannered individuals, the most repulsive in their dealings with others, and the boldest perpetrators of all forms of corruption. They have “interpretations” that remind me of Iblīs’s own interpretation. They also bring to mind the feigned knowledge of Dhū al-Khuwayṣirah, who opposed the Master of the First and the Last — blessings and peace be upon him and all of his folk.

Originally published 22 Rajab 1443 / 23 February 2022.

Did the Salaf Completely Reject Kalām?

Category: Belief

Certain statements made by the imāms of the Salaf dispel the notion that they disapproved of kalām in an absolute manner. These statements include expressions of praise for people who used kalām to defend correct doctrines and refute followers of desires (ahl al-ahwā’).

After all, `ilm al-kalām is:

• argumentation using rational proofs in defense of the doctrines of faith, and
• refutation of mubtadi`ah¹ who deviate in creed from the approaches of the Salaf and Ahl al-Sunnah.

This is how Ibn Khaldūn defined it.² This definition lends support to the explanation that scholars like al-Bayhaqī provided for statements relayed from Imām al-Shāfi`ī and others — statements that might be misunderstood to express categorical disapproval of kalām.

Scholarly precedents make it clear that none of the exemplary Salaf censured kalām in an absolute manner, and statements that appear to do so require qualification. Examples of such precedents are found in the works of Ibn Taymīyyah and those of al-Dārimī before him. Whether these two scholars were correct or not, they undertook refutations that made use of rational proofs from outside of the Qur’ān and the Sunnah. However, regardless of what precedents are shown to them, the extremists among those who claim Salafīyyah will continue to insist that the Salaf categorically censured kalām.

Consequently, one of the best ways to undercut their line of argumentation is to show them one of the imāms of the Salaf complimenting someone from the same era for his proficiency in kalām and his refutation of those who follow desires! I am referring to what has been authentically related from Imām Mālik bin Anas. He says the following in praise of his shaykh Ibn Hurmuz (d. 148 H):

He was proficient in kalām and refuted those who follow desires. He was one of the most knowledgeable people concerning the heresies (lit. “desires”) over which they differed.

This was reported by al-Fasawī in al-Ma`rifah wa ‘l-Tārīkh³ and by al-Khaṭīb in al-Faqīh wa ’l-Mutafaqqih⁴ with an authentic chain of transmission from Imām Mālik. Imām Mālik’s use of the word “kalām” in this context leaves no room for haphazard rejection of what his statement signifies. If they say: “He was referring to ‘kalām’ that is not blameworthy,” then we can respond: “Likewise, al-Shāfi`ī’s disapproval was aimed at blameworthy kalām, not praiseworthy kalām!”

The purpose of this is to demonstrate that the Salaf did not condemn kalām categorically. By God, I know that all of this was not needed [to establish such an obvious premise], but it is sometimes necessary for us to respond to such arguments in hope that the perplexed might be guided.

Originally published 18 Ṣafar 1443 / 25 September 2021.

This post has also been translated by The Kaafiyah Channel.

---

1. i.e. perpetrators of bid`ah.
2. Tārīkh Ibn Khaldūn 1/580
3. Al-Ma`rifah wa ‘l-Tārīkh 1/652
4. Al-Faqīh wa ’l-Mutafaqqih 2/423

Essentials of Faith vis-à-vis the Qur’ān

Category: Qur’an & Hadith / Belief

1. Believing that it was revealed by Allāh — Exalted is He — to the Final Messenger ﷺ.

This point actually encompasses the remaining pillars of belief in the Qur’ān:

2. Believing all that it says to be true. After all, how could it not be true when it is the guidance of Allāh (Glorified and Exalted is He)?

3. Believing that it is Allāh’s guidance for all peoples, the constitution of the Muslim Ummah, and the first and ultimate source of its beliefs, laws, values, and ethics. It is the foundation of its civilization.

4. Believing that its guidance to the religion of Islām shall remain preserved until Allāh chooses to take up the souls of the believers, which will occur shortly before the Hour that will only befall the worst of creation. Anything short of this would mean that Islām is not preserved, in which case there could be no Muslims.

5. Honoring it, revering it, and worshipping by reciting it as it deserves to be recited. This is done by properly enunciating its words, seeking to understand its meanings, and contemplating its guidance.

All Muslim sects believe in these fundamentals, for otherwise they would not be Muslims to begin with.

As for those who believe that the Qur’ān is created, they have not contradicted any of these fundamentals. Consequently, the difference of opinion concerning this is not a difference concerning the fundamentals of faith in the Qur’ān. It is about subsidiary details (furū’ ẓannīyyah). It is only because of the Fitnah of Khalq al-Qur’ān, the manner in which people were forced to adopt a position, people assuming the worst (sū’ al-ẓann) of their opponents, and Satan’s efforts to sow strife in the Ummah that this issue took up such a great space in the Islamic tradition as it did.

As for those who try to suggest that belief in the createdness of the Qur’ān fundamentally contradicts any of the preceding essentials of belief in the Qur’ān, they have committed a transgression that has no connection to reality or justice.

This is why it has not been reported that any of the Companions — may Allāh be pleased with them — delved into this issue, while they all affirmed these fundamentals of faith that are necessary for belief in the Qur’ān.

It is incumbent on all Muslims — if they want unity and cohesion — to leave off disputes about the speculative (ẓannī) subsidiary issues of creed and hold fast to the indisputable fundamentals that unite them.

Originally published 4 Dhu ‘l-Ḥijjah 1442 / 14 July 2021.

On Open and Closed Societies

Category: Belief / Society & Politics

Exposing some forms of misguidance requires nothing more than publicizing them, because their falsehood is that clear. Disciplined openness (which respects the boundaries of the Sharī`ah) prevents these beliefs from spreading under the cover of darkness. 

This is why bāṭinī groups, which conceal their false doctrines, are only able to attract followers in closed societies. The nature of these societies allows such groups to pretend that suppression is all that prevents them from declaring their beliefs openly. In reality, what prevents them from being open is how clearly false and absurd those beliefs are.

When bāṭinī groups exist in an open society, as the hypocrites did in the society of the Prophet ﷺ, they will not be able to win followers with their beliefs. They will be like clandestine gangs, hiding their criminal activities from the eye of the law. 

Originally published on 23 Muḥarram 1431 / 9 January 2010.

Knowledge is Noble

Category: Belief

Part of what makes knowledge so noble is that you need it for everything—even for dealing with falsehood. If you wish to support the truth and refute falsehood, then in addition to having detailed knowledge of the truth, you will require detailed knowledge of the falsehood that you wish to refute. The statement reported from `Umar b. al-Khaṭṭāb (may Allāh be pleased with him) suggests as much: “The handholds of Islām will be undone, one by one, when people who do not recognize Jāhilīyyah begin to emerge in Islām.”

How noble knowledge is! One cannot abandon it even in that which one is obligated to abandon: falsehood.

Originally published 27 Shawwāl 1430 / 17 October 2009.

A Firm Foundation of Faith: The Key to Sincerity

Category: Belief / Spirituality

The one thing that makes it easy to attain sincerity toward Allāh (ikhlāṣ) is having a firm foundation of faith: one that is grounded in proof of the truth of Muḥammad’s ﷺ Prophethood. Beyond that, all a believer needs to do is abandon heedlessness. He can accomplish this by remembering that Allāh is watching him and that He alone provides happiness in this world and the next. 

As for someone whose faith has a shaky foundation⁠ — like a person whose faith is blind and uncertain — ikhlāṣ is the most difficult thing for him to attain.

Originally published 20 Muḥarram 1431 / 6 January 2010.

A Tale of Two Sins

Category: Belief / Spirituality

For a believer, a sin is a brief slip on the path to Allāh Most High. The believers’ sins are momentary lapses that occur when they are overcome by desire or by Satan.

For a heedless person, sinning is a way of life. He plans to sin. He spends a great deal of time thinking about how to commit sins. As a result, he is in a state of sin for as long as thoughts of sin preoccupy him.

The sins of believers require nothing more than asking for forgiveness (istighfār), because they are immediately followed by repentance (tawbah). As for the heedless, they have to change their way of living. The change required of them is very similar to what is entailed by hijrah, or migrating to Allāh and His Messenger by leaving lands of disbelief for lands of Islām. They need to awaken their īmān from its slumber so that they can distance themselves from Satan and the heedlessness of desire.

Originally published 19 Muḥarram 1431 / 5 January 2010.

The Philosophy of Beauty

Category: Belief / Spirituality

Some people only see beauty in beauty itself. Others see beauty not only in beauty itself, but also in hating ugliness. A third group sees that without ugliness, it would not be possible to recognize beauty: they love ugliness because it allows them to discern beauty in the first place. 

Which of the three has the greatest appreciation of beauty? I sent this question to a number of respected friends, scholars, and preachers, and they gave me different answers. 

In truth, the reason for these differences has to do with the philosophy and definition of beauty. Those who see beauty in wisdom will belong to the third group, and they have the greatest appreciation of beauty. They find beauty in everything and love the beauty in everything. This, in fact, represents the perfection of īmān and the pinnacle of contentment with Allāh’s Decree and Wisdom.

Originally published 22 Shawwāl 1430 / 12 October 2009.

The Relationship Between Bid`ah and Maṣlaḥah Mursalah

Category: Belief / Fiqh

Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah devised two conditions for determining whether a newly-introduced matter is a prohibited innovation (bid`ah) or a permissible means to a valid objective (maṣlaḥah mursalah).¹ His purpose in devising these conditions was to distinguish bid`ah from maṣlaḥah mursalah — not to define bid`ah itself. This has created confusion over how his words should be understood, causing the meaning of bid`ah to be overlooked.

• Ibn Taymīyyah’s Conditions •

Here are Ibn Taymīyyah’s two conditions. A newly-introduced matter will only be bid`ah if:

1. the reason for its existence was present during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, and
2. acting upon it was possible during the time of the Prophet ﷺ.

This means that a newly-introduced matter will only be bid`ah — rather than maṣlaḥah mursalah — if these conditions are fulfilled and the Prophet ﷺ still did not perform the act in question. If he did not perform the act in spite of both conditions being met, this indicates that its omission from the revealed law was deliberate. Introducing such an act would therefore be contrary to the intent of the law.

In contrast, the following would fall under maṣlaḥah mursalah:

• Anything that was not needed during the time of the Prophet ﷺ (such as the first adhān of Jumu`ah, which only became a need when Madīnah expanded during the time of `Uthmān bin `Affān — may Allāh be pleased with him).
• Anything that was needed, but not possible to implement (such as compiling the Qur’ān into a single volume, because revelation remained ongoing while the Prophet ﷺ was alive).

• What Makes an Act Bid`ah? •

Ibn Taymīyyah provided a precise standard for distinguishing between bid`ah and maṣlaḥah mursalah. However, many modern researchers and supposed specialists overlook the fact that it is not a definition of bid`ah. It cannot override or replace the definition of bid`ah in matters of worship.

According to this definition, for an act to be considered bid`ah, a person must perform that act as a form of worship and religious devotion in and of itself.

Bid`ah has therefore been described as:²

• “a method in the religion that is invented, imitates the legitimate method, and is followed in order to seek what is sought through that legitimate method.”
• “a method in the religion that is invented, imitates the legitimate method, and is followed with the intention of exaggeration in worship of Allāh.”

To mention an example, the first adhān for Jumu’ah is not a form of bid`ah³ for one of two reasons:

1. It is an action from a Companion that actually originated in a Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ (mawqūf lahu ḥukm al-raf`).
2. It is a maṣlaḥah mursalah.

However, this additional adhān would not be a maṣlaḥah mursalah if we considered it an act of worship — in and of itself — through which we could draw closer to Allāh Most High. On the other hand, if the intent behind the act is to draw closer to Allāh by facilitating worship and aiding the realization of worship’s benefits, then it is not inherently an act of worship. It remains within the category of maṣlaḥah mursalah.

Another example of maṣlaḥah mursalah is setting up an endowment of cars to transport people to masjids, seeking closeness to Allāh through the benefit that this endowment helps to actualize — and not through the means itself, because the means is not [inherently] a devotional act.

 • Modern Misconceptions •

Some people in our time overlook these details of Shaykh al-Islām’s position on the distinction between bid`ah and maṣlaḥah mursalah. What we have described is at least how his position ought to be understood, or else it simply represents the correct approach to the issue. After all, the words of Shaykh al-Islām are not proof on their own, nor are those of any other scholar.

The proper understanding of this topic eludes these individuals. If an action was possible and called for during the time of revelation, [but there is no specific precedent for it in the Sunnah,] then they deem that action “bid`ah”. In other words, they deem “bid`ah” every newly-introduced matter that meets these two qualifications. They disregard the condition for bid`ah that applies to matters of worship: believing that the newly-introduced matter itself is a form of religious devotion that brings one closer to Allāh. They fail to distinguish between:

• seeking closeness to Allāh through the [specific] means [by which one attains a benefit], which is bid`ah;
• and seeking closeness to Allāh through the legitimate benefit [that one attains through a means], which is maṣlaḥah mursalah.

The fact that these people tend to approve of Al-Shāṭibī’s definition of bid`ah further indicates that most of them have not understood the topic properly. Al-Shāṭibī’s definition requires that an intention of worship be present in order for something to be bid`ah. However, these people deem certain forms of maṣlaḥah mursalah “bid`ah” even though this condition of intending worship is not fulfilled.

For example, some of them have declared that prayer niches (miḥrābs), minarets, extra steps on pulpits (minbars), and row-straightening lines on prayer rugs are all forms of bid`ah. In other words, these things are not valid forms of maṣlaḥah mursalah. The motive for them was present during the time of the Prophet ﷺ and implementing them was possible. They claim: “The fact that the Prophet ﷺ did not do these things indicates that their omission was deliberate, because they were not legislated [by Allāh].” They say this because all of these things fulfill the conditions that we mentioned: the need for them was present, and their implementation would not have been difficult — much less impossible!

In the process, these people have ignored the condition for considering an act bid`ah: that the act be intended as a form of worship. When the intent is not to make something a form of worship, but rather a means to facilitate worship in a manner that the Sharī`ah has not prohibited, then it falls under maṣlaḥah mursalah and has nothing to do with bid`ah.

Oddly enough, they contradict themselves and overlook other matters that should be bid`ah according to their approach. One example is separating rows of men and women in the masjid with thick curtains — or, in some cases, even permanent barriers that divide them completely. Separating rows of men and women was possible during the time of the Prophet ﷺ. The same reason for doing so was present during that time: the natural attraction between the two genders. In spite of this, the Prophet ﷺ did not do it!

To be consistent, proponents of this faulty approach would need to declare this practice an innovation as well. However, it seems that the eye of tabdī` lacks objectivity: it picks and chooses what it declares “bid`ah” based on its own desires.

---

• Postscript: Barriers in the Masjid •

My own view is that placing barriers between men and women in the masjid is not a form of bid`ah. However, I discourage it for other reasons. Among them:

• They frequently hinder the ability of women to follow the Imām properly in prayer.
• The Sharī`ah did not intend absolute gender segregation. Exaggeration in segregating the two genders has had unintended negative consequences for gender relations. We can see this with our own eyes in societies where this sort of exaggerated segregation exists. If this had been the objective of the Lawgiver, then He would not have refrained from mandating it. However, He allowed a sort of limited mixing in order to prevent certain harms and actualize certain benefits.

Originally published 27 Jumādā al-Ākhirah 1435 / 27 April 2014.

---

1. Maṣlaḥah means benefit. Maṣlaḥah mursalah is used here to indicate some benefit that, while a valid objective in the sharī`ah, is not supported by a specific text or an analogy with a specific ruling. For more on the distinction between bid`ah and maṣlaḥah mursalah, see this section of Sh. Ḥātim’s forthcoming book, Muḥaḍarāt fī ‘l-Bid`ah wa ‘l-Mubtadi` (PDF, Arabic).
2. These two definitions were given by Imām al-Shāṭibī. See Al-`Itiṣām 1/47.
3. As the author previously explained in his article, “Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs” (Arabic).

The Ruling of Celebrating the Birth (Mawlid) of the Prophet ﷺ

Category: Belief / Fiqh

I. The Ruling of Mawlid

First, let it be said that any discussion of Mawlid must remain academic and objective. It should not deny the scholarly difference of opinion concerning this practice, nor should it deny that some highly esteemed `ulamā’ deemed it recommended (with certain conditions).

Though he concluded that Mawlid is a form of bid`ah, consider that Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah himself excused those who celebrate it. In fact, he held that there is an immense reward for them in it. He says:

Someone may revere the Mawlid, making it a celebration, and have an immense reward in it due to his good intention and his reverence for Allāh’s Messenger ﷺ. It is as I have explained to you: an act may be good on the part of some people [even though it is] objectionable on the part of a believer who has been shown the correct approach.

Iqtiḍā’ al-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm, 2/126

• Details of the Ruling •

Secondly, let us turn to the details of Mawlid’s ruling.

If someone uses the day of Mawlid to remind people of the Prophet’s ﷺ Sīrah, or to inspire love for him in Muslims’ hearts, then this is permissible as long as the observance is kept free of:

• excesses, such as istighāthah;
• vices, such as free-mixing of men and women;
• superstitions, such as the belief that the Prophet ﷺ attends in person; and
• belief in any special religious virtue attached to reminding people on a particular day.

One simply uses the date of the Prophet’s ﷺ birth as an opportunity to call it to mind, just as preachers remind people of the Battle of Badr on the 17th of Ramaḍān, the Conquest of Makkah on the 20th of Ramaḍān, and the Migration of the Prophet to Madīnah ﷺ at the beginning of the Hijrī year. This is permissible because it is not linked to belief in any innovated form of worship. When these conditions are fulfilled, the observance goes from being a prohibited bid`ah to being a permissible maṣlaḥah mursalah.¹ These conditions make Mawlid gatherings a mere means of achieving a legitimate objective: reminding people of the Prophet’s ﷺ Sīrah and igniting love for him in their hearts.

I find it necessary to always emphasize that the permissibility of Mawlid events rests on the following points.

• These lessons or celebrations, which must be free of prohibited matters, are not held due to some belief that Mawlid observances are acts of worship in and of themselves. The date of the Prophet’s ﷺ birth is simply used as an opportunity to achieve a valid objective.
• The calendar date of the Prophet’s ﷺ birth does not have any particular, established virtue.
• The categorically false beliefs, statements, and practices found in many Mawlid events must be addressed.

When these conditions are met, I do not find Mawlid to be a form of bid`ah, nor do I find any reason to disavow it or those who partake in it.

I also see no problem with completely refusing to partake in Mawlid for the sake of avoiding the problems and vices present in many celebrations. This is acceptable as long as those who take this position do not go to extremes in opposing the practice. They should recognize it as a matter of valid ijtihād and avoid censuring those who consider Mawlid permissible within the parameters that we mentioned. If these conditions are met, then this opposing view is also a valid position, and it is not without merit.

In practice, we find that something similar to what we described already takes place in Saudi Arabia without raising any objection. Each year, many Jumu`ah sermons and masjid lectures are delivered in opposition to Mawlid as its date draws near, either in the last Jumu`ah khuṭbah before Mawlid or on the evening prior to it. These often begin with some mention of the Prophet’s ﷺ virtues and his rights over his Ummah, then conclude by mentioning vices associated with Mawlid gatherings. This is actually a form of partaking in Mawlid that I consider permissible. It simply is not called “Mawlid”.

The works that Salafī scholars have written (and continue to write) for Ramaḍān gatherings are another example of what we described. Take, for example, the book of Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymīn — may Allāh have mercy on him — and other books that contain reminders of the Battle of Badr and the Conquest of Makkah on their respective dates of occurrence.² Shaykh Ibn `Uthaymīn intended for his book to be read to people in masjids every year. It was his hope, and the hope of everyone who would like to be rewarded continuously for this sort of work, that these readings would continue each Ramaḍān and become widespread among Muslims. We find in our masjids that this is, in fact, what happens — and it recurs every year! Habitually reading about these battles on particular days does not make this practice a form of bid`ah, because specifying these days is not meant to be an act of religious devotion. It is a matter of taking advantage of dates to make lessons more impactful, to make past events more memorable, and to remind ourselves of Allāh’s great blessings to us on these great occasions in Islām’s history.

As a form of middle ground, many of those who partake in Mawlid decide not to restrict their observances to a specific annual date. They hold gatherings for reminding people of the Prophet’s ﷺ virtues numerous times throughout the year. As long as these gatherings remain free of the vices associated with some Mawlid celebrations, there is nothing wrong with them at all. The condition is that one must not consider this sort of event a form of worship that is pursued for its own sake.

• Conclusion •

It is now clear that we must distinguish between two forms of Mawlid:

(1) A form of Mawlid that is a permissible means to a valid objective (maṣlaḥah mursalah).

This occurs when someone intends to use the date of the Prophet’s ﷺ birth to remind people of his life and awaken love for him in their hearts. One does not believe in any special religious virtue that justifies singling this date out with worship, nor does one believe in anything else that is not supported by evidence.

This is the form of Mawlid that earned the approval of many eminent scholars, including Abū Shāmah, Ibn Nāṣir al-Dīn, and numerous others.

(2) A form of Mawlid that is bid`ah even if it is free of excesses and vices.

This occurs when someone believes:

• that this particular day is distinguished by some special religious virtue;
• that linking acts of worship to this particular day increases one’s reward for those acts;
• or that holding celebrations on this particular day is desirable in and of itself — just as acts of worship legislated by Allāh are desirable in and of themselves.

This is the form of Mawlid that earned the censure of many eminent scholars, including Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymīyyah and others.

Originally published 12 January 2012 / 20 Rabī`al-Awwal 1433.

---

II. Responding to Objections

I shared a detailed ruling on Mawlid yesterday, and some objections have been raised to it. I will summarize the most important of these below and follow each with a response.

First Objection: The form of “permissible Mawlid” that you have described does not exist anywhere.

Response: If we accept for the sake of argument that no such Mawlid exists, then the article serves as a corrective for existing Mawlid gatherings.

Second Objection: There is a difference of opinion concerning the actual date of the Prophet’s ﷺ birth. How can a particular day (e.g. the 12th of Rabī` al-Awwal) be singled out?

Response: This would be a valid objection if my article had singled this day out for some specific act of worship. My position does not do so. On the contrary, it is similar to assigning a day of the year for reminders of some other important matter.

Consequently, rather than being grounds for objection to my position, the disagreement concerning the exact date of the Prophet’s ﷺ birth actually supports what I said. [I emphasized that there is no special religious virtue linked to the date of his ﷺ birth, and the disagreement surrounding the date makes this even clearer.]

In any case, the strongest opinion is that the Prophet ﷺ was born on the 12th of Rabī` al-Awwal. The next strongest opinion is that he ﷺ was born on the 9th of Rabī` al-Awwal. The first opinion is reported from Ibn `Abbās through an authentic chain of transmission, and it is the view of the generality of Sīrah authorities. The second opinion comes from an attempt to reconcile narrations with calculations made by the astronomer Maḥmūd Pāshā in his book, Natā’ij al-Afhām fī Taqwīm al-`Arab Qabl al-Islām.

Third Objection: How can we do something that the Ṣaḥābah, the Tābi`ūn, and the Atbā` al-Tābi`īn never did? Do we love the Prophet ﷺ more than they did?

Response: This is a valid objection to those who believe that Mawlid is a special act of worship legislated for a particular day. Such a belief would be bid`ah without a doubt.

However, this objection is meaningless to those who regard Mawlid as a maṣlaḥah mursalah that acquaints people with the Prophet ﷺ and awakens love for him. A maṣlaḥah mursalah does not need to have come to us from the Salaf. People, including those who object to Mawlid, have always used permissible things to facilitate good deeds and acts of worship — even if those permissible things were not found among the Salaf themselves.

If someone told those who object to Mawlid:

Minarets (for the adhān) and miḥrābs (for imāms) are forms of bid`ah. If they were any good, we would have precedents for them from the Prophet ﷺ and his Companions!

then what would they say in response to this?

Those who require that a maṣlaḥah mursalah be reported from the Salaf in order to be valid have innovated in the religion, opposed scholarly consensus, and fallen into self-contradiction.

Fourth Objection: This entails resemblance (tashabbuh) of the disbelievers, as they celebrate the birthday of `Isā, peace be upon him.

Response: Not every kind of “resemblance” is ḥarām, as we have repeatedly explained. The Prophet ﷺ said: “Differ from the Jews. They do not perform prayer in their leather socks (khuffs) or sandals.”³ Yet there is consensus that praying barefoot is valid and not prohibited.

Furthermore, the Prophet ﷺ ordered us to fast on `Āshūrā’ in gratitude to Allāh for saving Mūsā — peace be upon him — from Pharaoh on that day. The Prophet ﷺ said: “We have more right to Mūsā than they do.”⁴ He did not say: “In order to differ from them, we will not fast and will not show gratitude.” Rather, our gratitude is made evident through fasting in order to challenge them, because we have a greater right to Mūsā than [disbelievers] do.

If resembling them does not prevent us from thanking Allāh for saving “their” prophet, peace be upon him, then why should an imagined resemblance prevent us from showing happiness and gratitude for the birth of our Prophet ﷺ? In fact, celebrating our Prophet ﷺ is one of the greatest ways in which we can distinguish ourselves from the disbelievers. Few distinctions could be greater than this given that they do not believe in him ﷺ.

Fifth Objection: Do not open the door to evil or fitnah. Mawlid is ḥarām because it is a door to excess and to shirkī practices.

Response: Blocking the door to evil is accomplished by opening the door to good. The conclusion that I have provided opens a door to good and clarifies errors. This is the proper way of blocking the means to evil (sadd al-dharā’i`). Forbidding permissible things under the pretext of “blocking the means to evil” is not the proper way. Just as we block the means to exaggeration about the Prophet ﷺ, we must also block the means to prohibiting lawful things on the basis of excess and extremism.

In any case, the point is that innovated Mawlids are still being held. Those that contain excesses, free-mixing of the genders, and other vices continue to exist. This position serves to explain the danger of these gatherings and their contradiction of the Sharī`ah just as it explains the valid way of celebrating the Prophet’s birth ﷺ.

Sixth Objection: There are statements from scholars declaring Mawlid a form of bid`ah and censuring it.

Response: There are far more statements from scholars who have permitted it with certain conditions. The ijtihād of one scholar is not rebutted with the ijtihād of another scholar. The authority that we refer back to is evidence:

فَإِنْ تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ إِنْ كُنْتُمْ تُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الْآخِرِ ۚ ذَٰلِكَ خَيْرٌ وَأَحْسَنُ تَأْوِيلًا

If you differ in anything, then refer it to Allāh and the Messenger if you really believe in Allāh and the Last Day. That is best and the fairest resolution.

Qur’ān, Al-Nisā’ 59

Finally, I explained in my previous post that I respect the view of those who prohibit Mawlid altogether — provided that they also respect the position of those who allow it conditionally. If they censure this opposing position, then their stance is itself worthy of rebuke: they will have opposed the conclusive scholarly consensus that there can be no censure in issues of valid ijtihād.

Originally published 11 Rabī`al-Awwal 1434 / 23 January 2013.

---

1. A maṣlaḥah mursalah is “some benefit that has neither been affirmed nor negated by a specific text, but that is consistent with the objectives of the Sharī`ah as supported by a comprehensive reading of the corpus of sacred texts.” For more information, see “The Relationship Between Bid`ah and Maṣlaḥah Mursalah”.
2. See Sh. Ibn `Uthaymīn’s reminder of the Battle of Badr here – English translation on p. 51 here (PDF).
3. Reported by Abū Dāwud and others.
4. Reported by Al-Bukhārī and others.