Ibn Taymiyyah – Al-Sharif Hatim Al-'Awni

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:

the reason for its existence was present during the time of the Prophet ﷺ, and
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:

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

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).
These two definitions were given by Imām al-Shāṭibī. See Al-`Itiṣām 1/47.
As the author previously explained in his article, “Sunnah of the Rightly-Guided Caliphs” (Arabic).

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.

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”.
See Sh. Ibn `Uthaymīn’s reminder of the Battle of Badr here – English translation on p. 51 here (PDF).
Reported by Abū Dāwud and others.
Reported by Al-Bukhārī and others.