Refutation of the Mawlid (Celebration of the Prophet's (saws) Birthday)

by Brother Abû Rumaysah

 

Prologue

A Refutation of some of the Arguments used by those who advocate this Innovation.

Discussion of the hadeeth The Prophet (SAW) performed Aqeeqah for himself after his Prophethood.

As-Suyutee said,

"Another primary text has occurred to me by which the legitimacy of the Mawlid can be derived, namely what is reported by al-Bayhaqee from Anas that "the Prophet (SAW) performed Aqeeqah for himself after his prophethood."And it occurs that his grandfather Abdul Muttalib performed the Aqeeqah for him when he was a child of seven years, and the aqueeqah is not repeated a second time. So therefore this is to taken to mean that what the Prophet (SAW) did was to openly manifest gratitude for Allaah making him the mercy for the universe and to legislate this for his ummah, just as he used to do by his sending salaam upon himself. Therefore it is recommended for us that we openly manifest gratitude for his birth." (‘Husnul Maqsad’ of as-Suyutee contained in his ‘Haawi lil Fataawi’)

These words were also quoted by the commentator to ‘al-Muwaahib al-Laduniyyah’ (1/140) - az-Zarkaanee.

The reply to this hadeeth:

1. When Imaam Maalik was asked about this hadeeth he replied, "do you see the Companions of the Messenger of Allaah (SAW), for whom the aqeeqah was not performed in the days of Jaahiliyyah, performing Aqeeqah for themselves in Islaam? This is from the rejected (narrations)" [quoted from him by ibn Rushd al-Maaliki in the ‘Book of Aqeeqah’ of his work ‘al-Muqaddamaat al-Mumahhadaat’ 2/15]

2. Abu Dawood said in his ‘Masaa’il Imaam Ahmad’ his work in which he reports from him "I heard Ahmad….so Ahmad said, ‘Abdullaah bin Muharrar from Qataadah from Anas that ‘the Prophet (SAW) performed Aqeeqah for himself’. This hadeeth is munkar (rejected) due to the weakness of Abdullaah bin Muharrar’" [This was report was also mentioned by ibn al-Qayyim in his ‘Zaad al-Ma’aad’ and ‘Tuhfatul Mawdood bi Ahkaamil Mawlood’ (pg.51)]

3. Ibn Hibbaan said in his ‘Kitaab al-Majrooheen’ (2/29) in the biography of Abdullaah bin Muharrar, "he reported from Qataadah from Anas that ‘the Prophet (SAW) performed Aqeeqah for himself after Allaah had sent him as a Prophet.’…he (ibn Muharrar) used to be from the best of the servants of Allaah, except that he was from those that would lie without knowing it, and reverse (the meanings) of the narrations without understanding…..Abu Ishaaq at-Taalaqaanee said, ‘I heard ibn al-Mubaarak saying: if I was given the choice of entering paradise or accuse Abdullaah ibn Muharrar. I would choose to accuse him and then enter Paradise. For when I saw him I found dung to be more beloved to me than him.’ [this report is also narrated by Imaam Muslim in the introduction to his saheeh]. I (ibn Hibbaan) heard ad-Daarimee saying, ‘I heard Yahyaa bin Ma’een saying: Abdullaah bin Muharrar is not trustworthy and precise (thiqah)’"

4. al-Bazzaar said, "….from Abdullaah bin Muharrar from Qataadah from Anas that the Prophet (SAW)….Abdullaah bin Muharrar was alone in reporting the hadeeth and he is severely weak, one would find written from him what is not found with other than him." [‘Zawaa’id al-Bazzaar alaa Kutub as-Sitta’ in the chapter ‘Qadaa al-Aqeeqah’]

5. al-Bayhaqee said, "Abdullaah bin Muharrar reported a munkar (rejected) hadeeth concerning the Prophet’s performing Aqeeqah for himself …[quotes the hadeeth]…..Abdur Razzaaq said, ‘indeed they (scholars of hadeeth) abandoned Abdullaah bin Muharrar due to the state of this hadeeth and it is reported from another perspective from Qataadah and yet another perspective from Anas and it is nothing." [‘Sunan al-Kubraa’ (9/300) of al-Bayhaqee. Chapter: ‘al-Aqeeqah Sunnah’] This is the reference from which as-Suyutee quotes the hadeeth, yet it is strange that he did not quote the rest of al-Bayhaqee’s words.

6. an-Nawawee said, "as for the hadeeth that he -i.e. ash-Shayraazee - mentioned concerning the Prophet’s performing Aqeeqah for himself, then it was reported by al-Bayhaqee with his isnaad from Abdullaah bin Muharrar from Qataadah from Anas…[hadeeth]…and this hadeeth is false (baatil). Al-Bayhaqee said: this is a rejected hadeeth…(quoting previous words of Bayhaqee)….and Abdullaah ibn Muharrar is da’eef, being agreed upon to be so by the memorising scholars. He (Abdullaah ibn Muharrar) is abandoned." [‘Majmoo’ Sharh Muhadhdhab’ (8/330) of an-Nawawee chpt: ‘Aqeeqah’]

7. al-Mizzi in his biography to Abdullaah ibn Muharrar endorses the above words of Abdul Razzaaq. [‘Tahdheeb al-Kamaal’ of al-Mizzi]

8. adh-Dhahabee said during the course of presenting the biography of Abdullaah ibn Muharrar, "Ahmad said: the people have abandoned his hadeeth. Al-Jawzajaanee said: destroyed. Ad-Daaruqutnee and a group (of scholars) said: abandoned. Ibn Hibbaan said: he used to be from the best of the servants of Allaah except that he would lie without knowing it, and reverse (the meanings) of the narrations without understanding…." [‘Meezaan al-I’tidaal’ of adh-Dhahabee]

9. ibn Hajr al-Asqalaanee said, "his saying - i.e. ar-Raafi’ee - it is reported that he (SAW) performed Aqeeqah for himself after his prophethood by al-Bayhaqee from the hadeeth of Qataadah from Anas. He (ibn Hajr) said: it is munkar, it contains Abdullaah bin Muharrar and he is severely weak. Abdur Razzaaq said…[the words previously quoted]. I (ibn Hajr) say: as for the other perspective from Qataadah then I have not found it as a hadeeth of the Messenger (SAW), all that is reported is in this regards is that Qataadah used to pass rulings on this as related by ibn Abdul Barr. Rather al-Bazzaar and others were certain that Abdullaah bin Muharrar is alone in reporting this hadeeth from Qataadah. As for the other perspective still from Anas then it is reported by Abu ash-Shaykh in ‘al-Adaahee’ and ibn Ayman in his ‘Musannaf’ via the route of Abdullaah bin Muthnaa from Thamaamah bin Abdullaah bin Anas from his father. An-Nawawee said in ‘Sharh Muhadhdhab’: this hadeeth is false." [‘Talkhees al-Habeer’ 4/147 of ibn Hajr chpt: ‘al-Aqeeqah’]

10. Likewise in Fath al-Baree he declares the hadeeth from all of it’s various perspectives to be da’eef. [Sharh Baab Imaatatul Adha]

11. Therefore az-Zarqaanee in his ‘Sharh Muwaahib’ (1/140) follows up his quote by quoting the verdicts of ibn Hajr and an-Nawawee on this hadeeth and then saying, "therefore to use it to derive the legitimacy (of the Mawlid) is not correct."

    [Taken from 'al-Qawl al-Fasl' of Shaykh Ismaa'eel al-Ansaaree with summary]

    Ibn Taymiyyah on the Mawlid.

    Ibn Taymiyyah says, "…because the Eeds are legislated laws from amongst the laws, so it is necessary to follow them, and not to innovate them, and the Prophet (SAW) had many lectures, treaties, and great events that happened on a number of (documented) days such as the Day of Badr, Hunain, al-Khandaq, the Conquest of Mecca, the occurrence of his hijrah, his entry to Madeenah…and none of this necessitated that these days be taken as days of Eed. Rather this sort of thing was done by the Christians who took the days in which great events happened to Jesus as eeds, or by the Jews. Indeed the Eed is a legislated law, so what Allaah legislates is followed, otherwise do not innovate in this religion that which is not part of it.

    And like this is what some of the people have innovated, either in opposition to the Christian celebration of the birthday of Jesus, or out of love for the Prophet (SAW) and in honour of him. And Allaah will reward them for this love and ijtihaad, but NOT FOR THE BID’AH of taking the day of the birth of the Prophet (SAW) as an eed - this along with the difference of the people as to when he was born. For indeed this (celebration) was not done by the salaf, despite the existence of factors that would necessitate it and the lack of any factors that would prevent them from doing so if it were indeed good. And if this was genuinely good or preferable then the salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them, would have more right to doing so then us, for they had more severe love and honour of the Prophet (SAW) in following him, obeying him, and following his command, and reviving his sunnah inwardly and outwardly, and spreading that which he was sent with, and performing jihaad for this in the heart, with the hand and upon the tongue. So indeed this was the way of the Saabiqeen al-Awwaleen from the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar, and those that followed them in good.

    And you will find the majority of these (who celebrate the birthday) in ardent desire of these sort of innovations - alongwith what they have of good intention and ijtihaad for which reward is hoped for - but you would find them feeble in following the command of the Messenger, that which they have been commanded to be eager and vigorous in, indeed they are of the position of one who adorns the Mushaf but does not read what is in it or reads what is in it but does not follow it. Or the position of one who decorates the mosques but does not pray in them, or prays in them rarely…

    And know that from the actions are those that have some good in them, due to their including types of good actions and including evil actions such as innovation etc. So this action would be good with respect to what it includes of good and evil with respect to what it contains of turning away from the religion in it’s totality, as is the state of the hypocrites and faasiqeen. This has what has afflicted the majority of the ummah in the later times. So upon you is two manners (of rectification):

    1. that your desire be to follow the sunnah inwardly and outwardly, with respect to yourself specifically and those that follow you, and you enjoin the good and forbid the evil.

    2. that you call the people to the sunnah in accordance to ability, so if you were to see someone doing this (celebration) and he were to not leave it except for an evil greater than it, then do not call him to leaving the evil so that he may perform something more evil than this….[a page omitted in which he explains this principle]

    So honouring the mawlid, and taking it as a festive season (mawsam) which some of the people have done, there is a great reward in it due to the good intention and the honouring of the Messenger (SAW) because of what I have previously stated to you - that it is possible that something be good for some of the people and be denounced/considered to be ugly by the strict believer. This is why it was said to Imaam Ahmad about some of the leaders, that he spent 1000 dirhams upon the mushaf or similar to this. So he replied, ‘leave them, for this is better than them spending it on gold (jewellery).’ This despite the fact that the madhhab of Imaam Ahmad was that it is abhorrent to decorate the mushafs, and some of the companions (of Ahmad) interpreted this to mean that the money was spent in renewing the pages and writing. But this is not the intent of Ahmad here, his intention here was that this action had a benefit in it, and it also contained corruption due to which it became abhorrent. But these people, if they did not do this, would have substituted this for a corruption that contained no good whatsoever, for example spending upon one of the books of evil…" [Iqtidaa Siraat al-Mustaqeem 2/618+ my copy has the tahqeeq of Shaykh Naasir al-Aql]

    He says in another place of the same book, "there is no doubt that the one who practices these - i.e. the innovated festive seasons - either the mujtahid or muqallid will have the reward for his good intention and the what the action contains of legislated actions, and will be forgiven for what it contains of innovation if his ijtihaad or taqleed contains one of the excuses (that would lift this sin from him)…."

    He continues: "But this does not prevent one from detesting and prohibiting it and to replace it with a legislated action containing no bid'ah.... Just as the Jews and Christians may find benefit in their worship because it is possible that their worship includes an aspect of what is legislated but this does not necessitate that you perform their actions of worship or you report their words because all of the innovations contain evil that outweighs their good, this due to the fact that if their good outweighed the evil then why would the Sharee'ah have disregarded it? So we depend upon the fact that it's sin is greater than it's benefit and this necessitates forbiddance."

    He continues: "And I say: it's sin is removed from some of the people due to the reason of ijtihaad or other than it, as the sin of usury and alcohol (from dates) which has been differed about (by the salaf) is removed from the salaf (who allowed it), then despite this it is necessary to explain it's condition and not to follow those that considered it permissible.... So this is sufficient evidence in explaining that these innovations include corruptions of belief or condition contradicting what the Messenger (SAW) came with, and that what benefit they contain is marjooh (not to be relied upon) and it not correct to use for objection"

    He continues: "As for what they contain - i.e. these innovated festive seasons such as the Mawlid - of benefit then they are opposed by what they contain of the corruption of innovations that outweigh the benefit, alongwith with what has preceded of the corruptions of belief and state - that the hearts become content with it at the expense of a large number of Sunnahs to the extent that you find that the elite and the general masses preserve this in a way that they do not preserve the Taraaweeh's or the five prayers...." mentioning many more cases.[al-Qawl al-Fasl (pg. 102) of Shaykh Ismaa’eel al-Ansaaree]

    A number of points can be seen here:

    1. ibn Taymiyyah regards the mawlid as a bid’ah which the strict believer is not allowed to follow.

    2. he allows it only for those who would leave this bid’ah for a greater bid’ah.

    3. he states that those practising this, either out of taqleed or ijtihaad, will get reward for their good intentions, but they will get no reward for their practising it.

    4. that they will not get the burden of the sin of the innovation if their taqleed of ijtihaad contains the excuses that would life this from them.

       Did Ibn Katheer Author a Book Endorsing the Mawlid?

       From ‘al-Qawal al-fasl fee al-Ihtifaal bi Mawlid Khayr al-Rusul’ (pg. 110+) of Shaykh Ismaa’eel al-Ansaaree: As for the claim of the author of the letter published in the magazine ‘al-Mujtama’ (no.559), while listing the authors who considered the celebration of the Mawlid to be permissible and their works (concerning this), that the author of ‘Kashf al-Dhunoon fee Usaamee al-Kutub wa al-Funoon’ mentioned on page 319 that al-Haafidh ibn Katheer authored a number of treatise concerning the noble Mawlid. From amongst them: ‘Jaami al-Aathaar fee Mawlid al-Nabiyy al-Mukhtaar’ in three volumes, ‘al-Lafdh al-Raa’iq fee Mawlid Khayr al-Khalaa’iq’ and it is succinct. And his claim that ibn Fahd mentioned that ibn Katheer authored a book which he entitled, ‘Mawrid as-Saadee fee Mawlid al-Haadee.’ And his saying that al-Haafidh as-Sakhaawee had a book concerning the Mawlid entitled, ‘at-Tibr al-Masbook fee Dhail as-Sulook’ – then all of this is a grievous error having no basis for being correct. As for ‘Jaami al-Aathaar fee Mawlid al-Nabiyy al-Mukhtaar’ then we looked up ‘Kashf al-Dhunoon’ to ascertain the truth of his words and we found it under the letter ‘jeem’ (pg.533) and the text is, ‘Jaami al-Aathaar fee Mawlid an-Nabiyy al-Mukhtaar of Shams ad-Deen Muhammad bin Naasir ad-Deen ad-Dimishqee, died in the year 842, being in three volumes commencing with the words, "all praise is due to Allaah Who displayed Muhammad as the most purest of the Universe…"

       And we found under the letter ‘laam’ page 1559 the words, ‘al-Lafdh al-Raa’iq fee Mawlid Khayr al-Khalaa’iq’ a short booklet by al-Haafidh Shams ad-Deen Muhammad bin Naasir ad-Deen ad-Damishqee who died in the year 842.’

       And we found under the letter ‘meem’ page. 1910 the words, ‘al-Haafidh as-Sakhaawee mentioned in his ‘Daw al-Laami’ a group who wrote concerning the Mawlid of the Prophet (SAW) from amongst them al-Haafidh… ibn Naasir ad-Deen ad-Damishqee who authored in this regards ‘Jaami al-Aathaar fee Mawlid an-Nabiyy al-Mukhtaar’ in three volumes and a booklet ‘al-Lafdh al-Raa’iq fee Mawlid Khayr al-Khalaa’iq’ and it is shorter than the one mentioned before it…’

       As for ‘Mawrid as-Saadee fee Mawlid al-Haadee’ then the claim of the author of that article that ibn Fahd attributed it to ibn Katheer is without basis for ibn Fahd said in ‘Lahdh al-Alhaadh bi Dhail Tabaqaat al-Huffaadh’ (pg. 320-321) under the biography of ibn Naasir ad-Deen ad-Damishqee, ‘he authored, and some of them concerned the Mawlid of the Prophet (SAW) and it is ‘Jaami al-Aathaar fee Mawlid al-Mukhtaar’ in three volumes, and ‘Tawdeeh al-Mushtabah’… and ‘Mawrid as-Saadee fee Mawlid al-Haadee’…..’ And this which is mentioned by ibn Fahd is declared with certainty by as-Sakhaawee and ash-Shawkaanee…. So it becomes clear with all of this that the claims of the author of that article published in ‘al-Mujtama’ magazine has no basis.

       Then what ibn Katheer mentions in the section on the Prophetic biography in his ‘Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’, and in his lengthy ‘Seerah’ and in the sections of ‘Ikhtisaar Seerah ar-Rasool’, and in his stand alone treatise on the Mawlid published with the tahqeeq of Salaah ad-Deen al-Manjad, and in his revision to the Mawlid of his shaykh Kamaal ad-Deen Abee Ma’aalee Muhammad bin Alee al-Ansaaree contained in the section detailing ‘Dalaa’il an-Nubuwwah’ in his ‘Bidaayah wan Nihaayah’ – he does not present anything in these concerning the celebration of the Mawlid of the Prophet (SAW) and neither of the evil practices that have occurred amongst the later generations with respect to the Mawlid. Therefore as long as the matter is like this then we cannot accept the claim of the author of that article. [fn: and what Muhammad bin Alawee al-Maalikee vainly thinks in his work ‘al-Ihtifaal bi Mawlid an-Nabawiyy ash-Shareef’ (pg. 38) that the ‘Mawlid’ of al-Haafidh ibn Katheer is from those works that present celebrating the Mawlid of the Prophet is not correct.]

       As for the saying of the author of that aricle that as-Sakhaawee authored a book about the Mawlid entitled ‘at-Tibr al-Masbook fee Dhail al-Sulook’ then this is also incorrect… as-Sakhaawee said in his autobiography contained in ‘Daw al-Laami li A’yaan al-Qarn at-Taasi’ (8/17) while listing his works, ‘and ‘at-Tibr al-Masbook fee Dhail alaa Taareekh al-Maqreezee as-Sulook’ containing the events and deaths (of scholars) since the year 45 to this day in 4 volumes’ so this is what as-Sakhaawee himself clarifies and it is clear that the subject matter of the book is not the Mawlid even though it may contain things connected to the Mawlid.

       ---