2 3

THE REALITY OF MEELAAD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SHARIAH Mufti Siraj Desai First Edition January 2013 Publication No. B08/13 Al Farouq Publications 240 Haworthia Drive, Malabar, Port Elizabeth, South Africa PO Box 4280, Korsten, Port Elizabeth, 6014 Telephone: +27 (0) 41 457 1501 Fax: +27 (0) 41 457 1326 Mobile: +27 (0) 84 574 9891 Email: sdesai@telkomsa.net www.pedarululoom.co.za | www.askmufti.co.za
Al Farouq Publications is a department of Darul Uloom Abu Bakr, Port Elizabeth, South Africa 4

CONTENTS PAGE The Blessed Birth he of Our Rasool 7

Bidah according to Shariah 8 Customary Meelaad Celebrations 9 Answering a common argument 10 The Virtue of the Noble Birth is not new 11 Amar bil Maroof and Nahi anil MUnkar 13 Meelaad function in perspective 14 Only Two Eids for Muslims 15 SECTION ONE: Violations in Meelaad 16 Qiyaam or Standing for Meelaad 19 False Aqaaid and Innovations 20 Imitating the Kuffar 20 History and Origins of Meelaad 21 The Birthday of Nabi Eesa 22 When was the practice of Meelaad started 22 Driving the Meelaad process 23 The first promoter of Meelaad 24 The first praise writer of Meelaad 26 A Summary of the Meelaad origin 27 The origin of Qiyaam or standing 28 SECTION TWO: Erroneous arguments 29 The ordinary nature of Our Masters Birth 35 Greater than his Birth was his Mission 36 SECTION THREE: Q & A on Maulood 40 SECTION FOUR: Miscellaneous Arguments 51 Qiyaam or Standing 51 The Shaafi Mazh-hab and Meelaad 54 The principle of abandonment 55 Rasoolullah used to fast on Mondays 57 Why Sahaaba never celebrated Meelaad 58 Why Rasoolullah never did Meelaad 58
5

Lighter Punishment for Abu Lahab 59 Rasoolullah made Aqeeqa for himself 60 Bidah condemned in the Quran 61 The Mass Meelaad Program 63

The Divinely imposed fight against Bidah 64

6

_____ _ __ ____ ____ ___ ____ _____ ___ __ INTRODUCTION In February last year two functions dubbed Meelaad Jalsas were held at the Movement Hall in Port Elizabeth. The first gathering was in celebration of the Birth of Rasoolullah _, while the second was to celebrate the Day of Tasmiyah or Naming of Rasoolullah _. This get-together was attended by local Imams as well as speakers from other parts of South Africa and abroad. This year again it appears the same functions will be organised in similar fashion. Many Muslims are attending these Meelaad celebrations while being totally of the Islamic status and ruling in this regard. It is imperative for a Muslim to acquaint himself with the law of Shariah before going headlong into any venture, regardless how good and outwardly noble it might seem. In this booklet, we examine the Islamic nature and validity of such functions in order to answer questions pertaining to its permissibility. It must be born in mind that the issue of Meelaad, also called Maulood has been discussed in much detail by Ulema of the past; so we shall certainly repeat some of their erudite arguments in this debate, while at the same time provide answers to new arguments that have evolved over recent years. The writer has endeavoured to be more objective, logical, and pragmatic in the treatment of this issue, in the hope that reason and understanding will prevail over emotion and dogmatism. We appeal to readers to approach this issue with an open mind, for: sometimes years of indulgence in a particular practice makes it difficult to suddenly accept a new ruling that overturns cherished values and long-maintained views. May Allah Taala grant us all true guidance and acceptance of the truth, aameen.
7

THE BLESSED BIRTH OF OUR RASOOL _

At the outset, we must make it clear that we do not oppose any form of expression of joy and happiness over the birth of Our Master and Rasool _. How dare we do that! The remembrance of Our Rasool _ is an act of worship, and His Blessed Birth is one of the greatest Bounties ever to be conferred on this World. How dare we condemn the vocalization of love for Our Master, or the display of joy on his Advent into this world! To revise the story of that Noble Birth, and to rehearse the Seerah of Our Beloved Master _ is an act of tremendous virtue and merit. Such a practice draws immense reward and blessings, and even wards off calamities. The observance of Durood is part of our worship and an integral facet of our Iemaan. Sending salawaat and salaam upon Allahs Beloved Messenger _ are acts commanded by Almighty Allah. No Muslim, no matter how weak in iemaan, will deny this. The Name of Our Rasool _ cannot be taken without uttering salaat and salaam. Readers should, therefore, not misconstrue any criticism of meelad celebrations as an opposition to salawaat and salaam, or as an objection to reviving and revising the Blessed Birth of Our Master _. It is imperative that we separate the two issues and view them objectively.

HAZRAT ABDULLAH BIN MASUD AND ZHIKRULLAH On one occasion, Abdullah bin Masud _ came across a group of people in the Musjid of Kufa who were engaged in a collective zhikr. He reprimanded them for perpetrating an act of bidah so soon after the demise of Rasoolullah _ and he had them evicted from the musjid. This action of Ibni Masud _ was directed against what he perceived as a bidah. Will this be considered a condemnation of the zhikr of Allah? Will any intelligent person claim that Ibni Masud _ was lashing out at people engaged in the zhikr of Allah? Certainly not! Ibni Masuds reprimand was for the way they were conducting the zikr of Allah, not for the zhikr itself. Likewise, any criticism levelled in this booklet against meelaad celebrations must be considered in the same context. Our argument is not against salaat and salaam, but against the method adopted to express this great act of worship and the accompanying haraam factors that actually taint this glorious expression. We, therefore, appeal to readers,
8

especially those who support or indulge in these meelad celebrations to read the contents of this booklet with an open and clear mind, with a view to understanding truth from falsehood, and not to jump to hasty conclusions based on emotion and impulse.

BIDAH ACCORDING TO SHARIAH

As an introduction to the discussion, it is necessary to broach the topic of bidah in the light of Shariah. A simple definition of bidah is as follows: Bidah is any new act for which a cause or reason existed during the first three eras of Islam and in spite of which that act was not done during those eras by Rasoolullah, or the Sahaaba, or the Ulema who succeeded them. (Sunnat and Bidah by Mufti Shafee Uthmani sahib/ ) Application of the above definition in examples: Athaan for Eid salaah: The reason for athaan is to invite people towards the five daily salaah. This reason existed even during the time of Rasoolullah _, for even then there was a need to invite people for Eid salaah. Yet, in spite of this need, athaan for Eid salaah was never practised by him or his Sahaaba. To introduce this today will be defined a bidah. Dua after Janaaza Salaah: The need for dua existed in the time of Rasoolullah _ and his Sahaaba as it exists today, but they never made any dua after Janaza salaah. To introduce dua after Janaaza Salaah today will fall under the definition of bidah. Celebrating the First Revelation: It is commonly known that the first revelation was Surah Alaq and occurred on the 17th night of Ramadaan. Elsewhere in this treatise we will prove from the Holy Quran that the Bounty of Risaalat was an even greater Blessing to this Ummat than the Noble Birth. Risaalat means the appointment of Our Master as a Rasool of Allah. Today if someone decides to commemorate the day of the first revelation as a day of eid or a day of celebration, such an act will be regarded as a bidah because the basis of such an act existed in the time of Rasoolullah _ and his Sahaaba, yet these great luminaries never conducted such celebrations. If anyone had a need to celebrate the first wahi it should be the Sahaaba who had every reason to thank Allah for the Wahi of The Quran since they
9

were the first beneficiaries and first recipients of that revelation. The need for such a celebration and commemoration existed even then, yet such an act was never practiced, nor envisaged, not even encouraged. In matters like these, it would be the height of foolishness to

claim these practices had never occurred to the minds of the Sahaaba or that they had never thought of celebrating events of this nature. Deen was a way of life for the Sahaaba; pleasing Allah was their ultimate goal; they had left no stone unturned in the attainment of this objective. Sahaaba had acquired all good of Shariah that there was to require. In this regard see the statement of Hazrat Huzhaifa _ further on.

THE CUSTOMARY MEELAAD CELEBRATIONS

The present-day meelaad celebrations can be easily judged on the basis of this definition of bidah. The purpose of meelaad is to express joy and happiness over the Blessed Birth of Rasoolullah _ and this purpose existed even in the time of the Sahaaba. In fact, the love the Sahaaba had for The Master _ was far superior and more intense than the collective love of the entire Ummat. They had a greater need and stronger motivation to rejoice over the Noble Birth, yet not a single Sahaabi ever conducted a function to celebrate or commemorate the Noble Birth. In fact, the meelaad was unheard of for the first four centuries of Islam. In spite of their love and their zeal to express such love for The Messenger of Allah _, they never celebrated an act of this nature. The same could be said of the Ulema and Grand Scholars who came after the Sahaaba. They, too, were among the forerunners in practising Shariah and championing its cause. Yet, these intellectual giants and spiritual luminaries never introduced an act of this nature to the Muslims. Were these saintly people unacquainted with the greatness of this Noble Birth?

THE STATEMENT OF HUZHAIFA BIN YAMAAN _

Hazrat Huzhaifa bin Yaman _ said: if An act of worship was not done by the Sahaaba, then you, too, should not do it, for indeed the former people (i.e. the Ashaab of Rasoolullah _) did not leave for the latter people any scope (to make additions to the Deen)
10

ANSWERING A COMMON MEELAAD ARGUMENT

Some learned men argue that if the Shariah is silent on a particular act and the prohibition of that act is not mentioned in the Holy Quran or in The Sunnah or in the lives of the Sahaaba, then it must be permissible. They invoke the Fiqhi principle that Ibaahat (permissibility) is the original rule in all things. On this basis they claim that meelaad celebrations have not been directly or explicitly prohibited by the Quran and Sunnah so it cannot be haraam. There are several answers to this objection. Firstly, the Fiqhi principle cited above is not as straight-forward as it seems. If it was, then the door of innovation will be flung wide open. Every Zaid, Bakr, and Amar would step forward to introduce a new act of worship into Islam and justify it by claiming that the Quran and Sunnah are silent on the matter; hence, it should be permissible. Surely, such a concept makes a total mockery of Shariah Law and reduces our Deen to( a) shambles. A study of the books of Fiqh will reveal that this rule applies in the following circumstances: a) Edible items (foods) that were not commented on by Shariah; b) Basic needs of people that are freely available, such as water, grass, wood, etc. c) Business practices and transactions that were in vogue in the time of Rasoolullah _ and were allowed to continue. d) This principle does not apply to acts of worship like salaah, zhikr, tilaawat of Quran, fasting, Hajj, etc. The method and mode of these acts were already finalized in the time of Our Rasool _. Salawaat

and Durood fall within this category; hence, one cannot argue that silence of Shariah on a new method of Durood is proof of permissibility. The Shariah is silent on celebrating a Day of Wahi or the Day of Hijrat (which was another exceedingly joyous occasion for the Sahaaba). Likewise, Shariah is silent on celebrating the last revelation, which was another major event in Islam. In fact there is categorical proof in the hadith of the significance of this moment. In spite of such silence, celebrating any one of the abovementioned three events would be deemed an act foreign to Islam and unacceptable.
11

Secondly, a practice or event that existed in the time of Rasoolullah _ and his Companions, but was not given any special significance or status in terms of Shariah, will not fall under this rule. We gave examples of this under the explanation and meaning of bidah earlier. Permissibility in the absence of categorical prohibition can only be considered when the reason and motive for such an act never existed in the time when Revelation was in progress. Thirdly, permissibility of an act on which Shariah is silent is only tenable when that act does not clash with other principles of Shariah and does not comprise factors that are haraam or makrooh. Fourthly, the silence of all the Sahaaba and the silence of all the great Scholars of Islam who came after the Sahaaba on the non-observance of Meelaad is itself a form of Ijmaa or consensus that this is NOT a practice of Shariah. Learned people are well aware that Ijmaa or Consensus of Opinion is a strong Sharee Proof. In the light of the aforesaid we can safely say that the silence of Shariah on these matters actually proves that these activities are not sanctioned by Shariah and have not been institutionalised by Islam.

THE VIRTUE OF NOBLE BIRTH IS NOT NEW

The Birth of Rasoolullah _ is nothing new to this Ummat; this was not an event that happened recently, as every sane person knows. The Noble Birth happened before the eyes of the Arabs, and that incident was well known to all the Sahaaba. Historians and Scholars of Hadith have written about it for centuries after the Sahaaba. It follows that any activity related to this event must be sanctioned by Allah and His Messenger. If, for arguments sake, the Noble Birth was a new event that the Sahaaba had never experienced, like some of the modern-day inventions affecting our Deen, then it would be perfectly acceptable to draw analogies between it and other injunctions of Shariah in order to arrive at a ruling. It would then be permissible to invent activities related to it based on Islamic principles and precedents. If there is no law in Quran and Sunnah to govern a new matter that affects the Ummat today, then it is imperative to use Qiyaas or analogical reasoning to arrive at a conclusive ruling on the new issue. This is precisely the purpose and object of Qi12 yaas; to create rulings for matters that never existed before. Examples of this are numerous, such as modern business transactions; modern-day banking and Islamic finance; the use of modern technology and means of transport; the ruling on television, modern musical instruments, and new methods of gambling; studying of various secular sciences; new forms of employment; establishment of Islamic Institutes and seminars; modern methods of printing Qurans and Islamic Books; publishing of Qurans with translation into a multitude of different languages; spreading Islam via the internet and other electronic means; the list is endless. Since all these activities were not ruled upon by Quran and Sunnah because

they never existed during those times, it will be necessary to invoke the principle of Qiyaas to formulate rulings for them. It is indicative of the comprehensive and encompassing nature of our Shariah that through the principle of Qiyaas based on Quran and Sunnah, we can formulate rules and regulations for any new issue that arises in any given era. That makes our Shariah so complete and allows the Ummat to practise their Deen till the end of time. The folly of the meelaad proponents is that they use such analogical reasoning in support of meelaad when the reality is that the silence of Shariah on a matter that existed during the period of revelation is itself a ruling on the matter. When Allah remained silent on an issue, it is brazenly foolish to invent acts of worship related to such a matter. When Allah Taala commanded the fast of shoora and the commemoration of Eidul-Adh-haa, but remained silent on the celebration of Meelad, it was surely not due to mere coincidence or any oversight on His part (naoothu billah). It simply meant that in the Eyes of Allah the commemoration of the Noble Birth was not going to be part of Shariah. This answers the common claim of the Meelad group that if Shariah is silent on a certain activity then it such a sign of its permissibility.

SILENCE ON RIBAA
Hazrat Umar _ is reported to have said that Rasoolullah _ left this world without explaining fully the verse of Riba. He further instructed that people should, therefore, avoid ribaa and everything that is remotely connected to ribaa. (Tafseer Ibni Katheer) Today if anyone adds a
13

new definition to ribaa thus legalizing modern-day usury and interest on the basis that the Shariah is silent on the exact explanation of Ribaa (as is evident from this statement of Sayyiduna Umar _), then such a claim will be vehemently rejected and opposed. The underlying reason for such rejection will be that the concept and practice of Ribaa existed in the time of Rasoolullah _ and his Sahaaba, and any silence on this matter was not due to forgetfulness or oversight, and consequently, is not a license for anyone afterwards to invent new rules and laws related to ribaa. Let the issue of meelaad be understood in the same vein. The fact the Shariah had not attributed any significance or special activity to the day of meelaad should be a loud and clear statement to the supporters of meelad that they, too, should refrain from rushing in where angels fear to tread by assigning to the Noble Birth acts of worship without Divine sanction. It is not permissible to invent a virtue for any event that Shariah has left unmentioned, when it is well established that such an event existed during the era of Prophethood and Divine Revelation. And Allah Taala knows best.

THE INJUNCTION OF AMAR-BIL MAROOF AND NAHI ANIL MUNKAR

Amar bil-maroof and nahi anil munkar are salient features of this Deen that provide a buffer against bidah and interpolation of Shariah. One of the main reasons why the religions of the Christians and Jews were adulterated and interpolated, and at times even mutilated beyond recognition, was the neglect of their leaders to command good and condemn evil. Allah Taala states in the Holy Quran: And they (the Jews and Christians) never prevented each other from the sins that they committed; despicable indeed is that which they perpetrated. (Surah 5, verse 79) Commenting on this verse, Rasoolullah _ stated: When the Bani Israel fell into sin, their Ulema prohibited them, but they disobeyed the Ulema. The Ulema

then continued associating with them in their gatherings and market places; they ate and drank with them, until Allah merged the hearts of the Ulema with the ordinary people (so they all started thinking alike in sin and transgression). And Allah cursed them on the tongues of Dawood and Eesa son of Maryam (alayhimus-salaam). This is because of their sin and transgression. The narra14 tor of this hadith says that Rasoolullah _ was reclining when he said the above. Suddenly he sat up and exclaimed: By that Being in Whose Hand lies my life! This duty shall not be neglected until you turn people (forcefully) towards the Haqq! (Musnad Ahmed) The merging of hearts is a punishment from Allah Taala for neglecting the sacred trust of prohibiting sin and evil. People, even Ulema, eventually become desensitized towards evil and transgression. The word Itidaa used in the above aayat refers to an act that transgresses the limits set by Allah Taala. This is what happens in bidah. Perpetrators of bidah commit excesses in Deen and fall into extremism. Allah then punished the Jews and Christians by stripping their iemaan of any sensitivity towards bidah. Gradually, false beliefs were tolerated, accepted, and incorporated into their Deen, thus paving the way for total adulteration of their original Shariah. It is thus established that bidah is an insidious and sinister plan hatched by Shaytaan to bring about the adulteration of Deen. Since the time of the Sahaaba (radhiyallahu anhum), the fight against bidah was aggressively maintained, and thanks to these efforts Islam still exists in its pristine pure state as it was revealed to Our Master _. Rasoolullah _ said: He who observes an evil should change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then (he should change it) with his tongue; and if he is (even) incapable of this, then (he should at least detest it) with his heart, and this is the lowest form of iemaan. (Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim)

THE MEELAAD FUNCTION IN PERSPECTIVE

The Meelaad functions in vogue today, without exception, comprise entertainment in the form of naat recitals to the beat of drums, while the audience simultaneously enjoy refreshments and furtive glances at the women who parade in front of the stage in their refinement, some with hair completely uncovered, intermingling of men and women, and all the while the Praises of Rasoolullah _ are being sung with great alacrity and purpose. In some Meelaad functions women will render the naat recitals, or groups of both men and women will do the recitals. Jamaats are formed specially for this purpose, in resemblance of the kuffar style bands. Looking at Meelad celebrations in some specific areas one would
15

find dancing as well, as part of the zhikr of certain misguided Sufi sects. In addition there is photography and videoing of the event. Over and above these practices, there are also the false beliefs that accompany the meelad that needs to be examined, as well as statements made by speakers at the event. For this reason we have divided this treatise into several sections. The first section will deal with condemnation of the evils that happened at that gathering, the second section will refute the false statements and fallacious reasoning of the speakers, especially those of Shaikh Fakhrud-Deen Uwaisi and Shaikh Yahya Ninowy, who were the keynote speakers at this event. The remaining two sections are dedicated to common arguments for and against Meelaad, and Questions and Answers pertaining to Meelaad. All arguments and counter-arguments this shall be done in the light of Quran and Sunnah, Insha Allah.

________________________

ONLY TWO EIDS FOR MUSLIMS It is reported in Saheeh Bukhari that when Rasoolullah arrived in Madinah after the Hijrat he found the people there (including Muslims) celebrating two festival days. According to commentators these two days were Neeroz and Maharjaanfestive days of the Persiansthat were being celebrated since before Islam. (Aunul-Mabood). The Messenger of Allah remarked: Allah has replaced these two days with something far greater: Eidul-Fitr and Eidul Adh-haa From this hadith we learn that Muslims have only the two Eids that are celebrated in a specific way.
16

SECTION ONE
VIOLATION OF THE SUNNAH
The biggest sin committed at this function is the violation of the Sunnah of Our Master _. This was a gathering to ostensibly express love for the Messenger of Allah, yet the participants, with the full blessing and sanction of the learned Scholars, violated Our Masters sunnah in every way possible.

1) VIOLATION OF HIJAAB OR PURDAH

In the Port Elizabeth Meelaad event it was observed that men and women sat right next to each other, in one tent. They brushed past one another and were in full view of each other; women were seated right in front of the stage upon which sat all the delegates and leaders of the meelaad function. At one stage, a woman even walked onto the stage for some reason. The sunnah of Hazrat Muhammad Mustafa _, whose remembrance they came to rekindle, was totally abandoned. Hazrat Muhammad _ taught us hijaab; he brought about the segregation of men and women; he practically observed the purdah with the women of his Ummat, who were all his spiritual daughters. The Books of Hadith are replete with examples and incidents of such purdah. In SaheehulBukhari the marriage of Hazrat Zaynab (radhiyallahu anha) is mentioned in detail. At that stage the law of Hijaab had not yet been revealed, so men and women were all seated together in one room. At the end of this Nikah, Allah Taala revealed the law of Hijaab and, henceforth, men and women were not allowed to intermingle. After that there was not a single instance in the life of Our Beloved Master _ where men and women sat together in one room or enclosure, in a manner that they could see each other. It is equally haraam for women to see men, as it is for men to look at women. This teaching of Rasoolullah _ was sadly and actively trampled upon in this so-called Zikr-e-Rasool gathering.

2) PHOTOGRAPHY AND VIDEOING

The whole event was televised. Photographs were taken of the whole proceedings; participants were using their mobile phones to video the
17

event. Rasoolullah _ came to stamp out picture making and photography, but the meelaad celebrators promoted this in broad fashion. Not only that, they actively encouraged people to watch this event on their television sets. A special screen was set up in the adjacent tent to follow the proceedings taking place inside the hall. The hadith of Bukhari Shareef states: The worst punished people on the Day of Judgment shall be the

picture-makers.

3) SINGING WITH DRUMS

The nazams and qaseedas were sung to the beat of a drum. The drum or duff is only permitted in Shariah on two occasions: during jihaad and at the time of a nikah. And even on those two occasions there is no singing or merry-making. The duff is not allowed while singing qaseedas or nazams. Those Ulema who claim permissibility of the duff have misunderstood the application of the ahadeeth related to this item. Duff is a musical instrument, and all musical instruments were made haraam. Our Master _ pronounced it as part of his mission to stamp out musical instruments. However, he excluded the duff for the occasion of jihad and nikaah. This was a special concession. It is, therefore, not permissible, according to the Usool of Islam, to extend this concession to any other occasion besides jihad and Nikah. In other words, on any occasion besides jihad and Nikah, the original ruling of prohibition of musical instruments will apply.

4) EATING AT TABLES
It was the Sunnah of Nabi Muhammad _ to eat on the floor. Tables existed in his time and were used by the Romans for their meals, but he shunned this style. In a hadith narrated by Imam Tirmizhi, as reported by Anas bin Maalik, it appears that Rasoolullah never ate food on a raised table. In those days the Romans used tables that were low, with short legs, almost like the coffee tables of today. They sat on the floor but placed the food on these tables when eating. But Our Rasool _ shunned this mode of eating entirely and instructed that the food be placed level with the eater. Some Ulema have mentioned that sitting at tables for meals replaces the sunnah of sitting on the floor, and that too evolves into a bidah. Replacing a sunnah with an act that is the total
18

opposite is, according to some Ulema, a bidah. When we have a masnoon way of doing a certain act, then to replace it with a method that is foreign to Islam or that was invented by kuffar, is a sin. Rasoolullah _ taught and emphasized a certain way of cleansing the mouth and teeth, that is, the use of miswaak. To replace the miswaak with a toothbrush in a such a way that one does not use the miswaak at all and suffices with only the toothbrush, is an abandonment of the sunnah and a sinful bidah.

5) THE IMPORTANT SUNNAH OF THE BEARD

People spearheading this event and who were in the forefront of the proceedings either had short, designer beards or no beard at all. Even the grand shuyookh sported neatly trimmed and tidied beards. This is not a time when we will argue about which mazh-hab allows what, whether the beard is faradh or sunnah. This is a time when we claim to express love for our Rasool _. Where has that love gone when it comes to the beard? How does it behove a clean shaven man to express love for the Master? With what face can a man with shortened and trimmed beard say he loves his Rasool _ when his appearance and countenance is a far cry from that of the Master? When leaders promote such mutilation of the Sunnah, what can we expect from the followers? Such a position betrays our loud claims of Hubb-e-Rasool. At this juncture it is worth citing the pertinent words of a poet:

Translation: You display outer love for the Rasool _, yet you disobey him; This, I swear, is incredibly amazing! If your love for him was indeed sincere; then the lover is obedient to the one whom he loves! 6) NON-MASNOON DUAS
Instead of reciting the masnoon duas that appear in the Sunnah of Our
19

Rasool _ the leaders of this meelaad celebration chose to render duas that were made up by individuals. This, too, is a neglect of sunnah to a certain extent. While we do not brand these non-masnoon duas as haraam or bidah, but it must be born in mind that the books of hadith are replete with the most wonderful of duas for our worldly and spiritual needs. These duas should be given first preference, instead of self-styled duas. Likewise, the masnoon or sunnat forms of durood were discarded in favour of self-styled and concocted wordings of salaat and salaam. Hazrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi and Hazrat Shaikh Zakariyya (Allah have mercy on their souls) compiled in one booklet all the various forms or salaat and salaah that appear in the Quran and Sunnah, and encouraged the ummat to read these instead of newly invented forms. Again, we fail to see a true expression of love for Rasoolullah _. The lovers of Rasoolullah _ should be obsessed with duas that were taught to the Ummat by Our Master _ and that should be their primary focus. In most cases, these newly invented duas are purely for ostentation and show. Rasoolullah _ prohibited duas that are adorned with poetry and flowery language. The above factors constitute violation of the Sunnah that people perpetrated at the Meelaad function. This makes a mockery of the idea of having a gathering to express hubb-e-Rasool or Love for the Rasool _ We now look at other Sharee violations of the Meelaad gathering.

QIYAAM OR STANDING FOR SALAWAAT

It must be understood that the gathering of meelaad does not innocently comprise of eating, drinking, singing, and expressing joy over The Noble Birth. There is something more sinister to this than meets the eye. In fact, there are serious discrepancies in Aqeeda that accompany the meelaad. The unwary public view this as a jalsa to commemorate the birth of Rasoolullah _, but the Aqeeda that underlie a function of this nature is in conflict with Shariah. One such corrupt belief is the notion that The Blessed Rooh of Rasoolullah _ attends such a gathering. Towards the end of this publication, under the Q and A section, we have explained the falsity of this belief.
20

FALSE AQAAID AND INNOVATIONS

Besides the abovementioned practices and beliefs, it has been observed over the years that promoters and organisers of the Meelad function have developed a culture of innovative practices and adulterated beliefs. This is the backdrop against which the Meelaad function must be viewed. The Meelad function is just one of several components that make up a brand of Islam that is alien to mainstream Muslims and that cannot trace its origin to the khayrul-quroon or the golden eras of Islam: the Era of Our Rasool, his Sahaaba, and the illustrious Ulema who came after them. The Meelaad, therefore, should not be regarded as an isolated practice, set aside from a host of other practices and beliefs that form part of this innovative brand of Islam. It is a completely new set of

beliefs and a combination of newly founded practices that cannot be reconciled with the age-old, orthodox aqeeda code of the Ahlus-Sunnah wal -Jamaaah. By this token, it is clear that the supporters of a Meelaad function are supporting a hybrid and concocted form of Islam that is incompatible with Shariah.

CONSIDERING MEELAAD AND QIYAAM COMPULSORY

Another false Aqeeda that has been maintained for years by certain segments of the Meelaad supporters is that these events are compulsory. While modern-day Scholars who support the Meelaad will argue to the contrary, it can never be denied that this belief WAS adopted in the past, and is STILL maintained in some quarters. Under our Q and A section we shall mention an incident of people who were forced out of the Musjid because they refused to stand for Salaat and Salaam. This is not an isolated incident. This happened in Cape Town, Durban, and right here in Port Elizabeth as well. It thus proves that such an aqeeda still exists today. Remember Meelaad is a universal practice, not confined to one country or region. When writing a critique of this practice we must take into account the broader application of Meelaad and not confine it to a particular region.

TASHABBUH OR IMITATING OF NASAARA

Under the next heading when we discuss the history of Meelaad it will emerge that celebrating and commemorating the Birth of a Prophet of
21

Allah was first done by Christians, who began celebrating the nativity of their Prophet Jesus (Sayyiduna Eesa _) two centuries after he had ascended into the heavens upon the Command of Allah. Muslims imitated the Christians in this sense; they, too, felt the need to celebrate the Birthday of their Holy Prophet. Such tashabbuh or imitation is haraam. The Ulema are unanimous that to imitate kuffar in a religious matter is totally forbidden, as mentioned in the Fiqhi Encyclopaedia (Kuwait) under the heading Tashabbuh. Undoubtedly the Christians regarded the celebration of their Prophets birthday as a religious event, and so do Muslims. Had the Meelaad been an act ordained and promoted by Shariah then the question of tashabbuh does not arise at all. For example, the beard is a waajib act ordained by Quran and Sunnah. That the Jews and some Christians sport beards will not render it an imitative practice because this injunction was already legislated by Allah and His Rasool _. The same cannot be said about the Meelaad, for it appears those who innovated the Meelaad probably did so out of imitation of the Nasaara. We have thus listed a number of un-Islamic and anti-Shariah elements related to both belief and practice that render the Meelaad celebration outside the pale of Islamic sanction.

HISTORY OF MEELAAD
At this juncture it is imperative that we provide readers with some background to the origins of the Meelaad celebration. When and where did this practice begin, and by whom, are probably questions that many seek answers to. Here follows a brief explanation of the history of Meelaad. It was stated earlier that Meelaad functions of any sort were unheard of in the first four centuries of Islam. This practice never existed during the khayrul-quroon or the Golden Eras of Islam, which comprise the era of our Master, his illustrious companions, and the Ulema who succeeded them. Even one hundred years after this Golden Era there was no trace of Meelaad celebrations. This is a fact that even the most die-hard and

radical supporters of Meelaad cannot deny.

22

THE ORIGINS OF MEELAAD

Celebrating the birthdays of Kings and famous people was an age-old tradition among the kuffar nations of the past. Birthdays of kings, high-ranking nobility, and other important figures were always celebrated with huge feasts whilst such dates were invariably declared public holidays. In ancient Egypt, the pharaohs ordered businesses to close on their birthdays and gave enormous feasts for hundreds of servants. In ancient Rome, the emperor gave huge parties in honour of his own birthday, which included parades, circuses, and gladiatorial combat. THE BIRTHDAY OF NABI EESA (ALAYHIS-SALAAM) Two centuries after the ascension of Nabi Eesa (alayhis-salaam), the Christians latched onto the idea of celebrating his miraculous birth, though that move was mainly to combat and rival pagan Romans who used to celebrate the birthday of the invincible sun god, Mithras (Naoothubillah), on 25 December. Eventually this date became the official birth date of Nabi Eesa (alayhis-salaam), though today the notion that 25 December is the birth date of Nabi Eesa (AS) has been thoroughly refuted by the Christians themselves. The practice of celebrating birthdays of gods and goddesses was quite common among the Greeks and Persians. When was the practice of Meelaad started among Muslims? Well, according to Imam Taqiyyud-Deen Miqreezi, a famous historian of the eighth century Hijri, the Fatimid Regime in Egypt were the first people to introduce this concept to Muslims. The Fatimids belonged to the Ismaili Shiah Sect and history bears mute testimony to the atrocities that this regime perpetrated against Sunni Muslims during its reign over Egypt and surrounding Muslim lands. These people claimed to be descendants of Hazrat Fatima (Radhiyallahu anhaa) but Allama Ibni Katheer has debunked this claim as spurious and false. Instead, he states that the progenitor of the Fatimid clan was actually a Jewish slave who had embraced Islam. Ibn Katheer then goes on to enlist a host of brutalities and destruction that the Fatimids carried out against Muslims and their properties. (See Al-Bidayah wan-Nihaayah) Al-Miqreezi narrates that this Regime actually introduced six types of
23

birthday celebrations during their rule. These were: The Noble Birth of Our Rasool _ The Birth of Sayydinua Ali _ The Birth of Hazrat Fatima (radhiyallahu anhaa) The Birth of Hazrat Hasan _ The Birth of Hazrat Husain _ The birthday of the current Ruler. Each of these birthday celebrations was a festival on its own. Thousands were splurged on eating, feeding, drinking, music, dancing and other frivolities, not to mentioned the other acts of bidah involving rituals and customs. Being Shiahs, they had other shirk and kufr customs that formed part of their Meelaad celebrations. This, then was how the Meelaad or Maulood came to be introduced to the Ummat; by a kaafir Shiah sect known as Ismails, in the fifth century. Ulema are unanimous that the Ismaili Shiahs are kaafir.

DRIVING THE MEELAAD PROCESS FORWARD

While the Fatimid Shiah regime had managed to impose their customary birthday celebrations on the Muslims in Egypt, nowhere else in the Muslim

world were such celebrations held. Not in the Haramayn, not in Iraq, not in Syria, not even in Turkey. It took one hitherto unknown entity, Mulla Umar bin Muhammad, to transport this Meelaad to the land of Iraq after copying it from the Fatimid Shiahs. The first person to introduce the Meelaad celebrations to Muslims in Iraq was Umar bin Muhammad of Mosul, Iraq, as mentioned in the book Seerat-e-Shaami by Shaikh Muhammad bin Yusuf Shaami. This occurred round about the beginning of the seventh century Hijri. So just who was Umar bin Muhammad? According to Shaikh Abu Shaama, he was known as Mulla Umar bin Muhammad and was among the pious people of Mosul (Al-Baaith alaa inkaaril-bidah wal hawaadith by Shaikh Abdur-Rahman bin Ismail Abu Shaama). However, Mulla Umar bin Muhammad was no aalim or Scholar of Deen. He has not been listed among the Scholars of Hadith or Fiqh, and was not versed in any branch of Islamic knowledge. A man may be pious within himself, but if he possesses no knowledge of Deen, his actions might not necessarily be in accordance with Shariah.
24

Likewise, the actions of such an individual do not constitute valid Sharee proof; in fact, such a man cannot even validate his own actions, let alone provide a basis for the practices of other Muslims. Those who are versed in the field of Asmaa-ur-Rijaal (critical analysis of narrators) will understand well that Scholars of Hadith will criticise a narrator or brand him as unreliable in spite of his personal piety and righteousness. The criteria is the reliability of the narrator in terms of knowledge and integrity. In matters of this nature, piety is not taken into account. How many a pious person will fall foul of Shariah due to lack of Islamic knowledge. Having said this, we note that some Scholars have roundly and severely condemned the self same Mulla Umar bin Muhammad. Allama TaajudDeen Faakihaani referred to him as an evil-monger and one of who followed his base nafs; the Author of Towdheehul-Maraam states that Umar bin Muhammad was not reliable in Shariah because he listened to music and singing (during the Meelaad celebrations); the author of Qurratul-Uyoon said that this Umar bin Muhammad was an open faasiq and perpetrated a bidah by introducing the Meelaad celebration. All these references are taken from a detailed treatise on the History of Meelaad by Hazrat Moulana Abdus-Shakoor sahib Mirzpuri RA. This is an Urdu publication available in Pakistan. From the above it is clear that in spite of some historians attesting to the piety of Umar bin Muhammad, this man was by no means an authority on Shariah, and possessed absolutely no Sharee credentials. On the other hand, there were several reputed Scholars who severely censured his character and integrity. Even if Mulla Umar bin Muhammad was an accredited Scholar of Deen, his individual action alone cannot be construed as evidence to substantiate the permissibility of Meelaad when it flies in the face of Sharee Proofs. Historians cannot pinpoint exactly what his motives were in introducing Meelaad to the Iraqi people, but clearly Umar bin Muhammad copied the Fatimid style Meelaad and brought it to Iraq. But this new Bidah would have died its own death in Iraq, had it not been for another key instigator who gave this act prominence.

THE FIRST PROMOTER OF MEELAAD

The first man to give wide-scale circulation to Meelaad celebrations was
25

a King known as Muzaffar Abu Saeed Koukabri, the sovereign of Irbil in Northern Iraq, (also pronounced Erbil) who was born in Mosul in the

year 549 AH. After witnessing the first Meelaad to be celebrated by the said Umar bin Muhammad, King Muzaffar was so highly impressed that he decided to take these festivities a to a whole new level. He was, thus, the first person to promote the Meelaad in Iraq in no small way. As a King and one noted for hospitality and generosity, he was able to conduct these celebrations on a huge and unprecedented scale. Like the Fatimids did, he gave massive feasts spending enormous amounts of money on food, drink, and entertainment to celebrate the Meelaad. The historical data on the Meelaad of King Muzaffar borders on outright exaggeration, but that does not detract from the glamour and glitter that accompanied this Meelaad. Looking at the character and integrity of this King, as we did with Umar bin Muhammad, historians have levelled a mixture of praise and condemnation at King Muzaffar. Some writers have praised his generosity, justice, fairness, and boldness against the enemy, while others went on to condemn his indulgence in music, dancing, and general laxity in certain aspects of Shariah. A much more serious indictment against the integrity of this King was his open abandonment of taqleed of the four maz-habs and active promulgation of the same to his subjects. Allama Ahmad bin Muhammad Maaliki states in his book Al-Aqowlul-Mutamad: The King of Erbil Muzaffar Abu Saeed Koukabri was an extravagant person and used to instruct the Ulema of his time to practise on their own ijtihaad and research and not follow the mazh-hab of anyone else; eventually a large group of Scholars and learned people inclined towards his ideas and methodology. Allama Ibni Rajab writes in Tabaqaatul-Hanaabilah that a pious Aalim, Shaikh Nasrud-Deen bin Abdul-Azeez of Harran, once disposed of wine that belonged to King Muzaffar Abu Saeed, and harshly criticised the King for this evil. Had it not been for the Shaikhs popularity among the masses, King Muzaffar would have had him beheaded. This is, therefore, the condition of the first mass promoter of Meelaad, a worldly King, who lacked Sharee credentials, was criticized by biographical experts of Islam, and indulged in music and wine.
26

THE FIRST PRAISE WRITER OF MEELAAD

Let us now turn our attention to another factor that gave further impetus to the Meelaad celebrations: the first book on Meelaad. This dubious distinction was held by one Shaikh Abul-Khattab Umar bin Husain bin Dahya Kalbi, who hailed from Spain and was born in 544 A.H. After hearing of King Muzaffars Meelaad celebrations, Ibn Dayha came to Irbil in 604 whilst on his way to Khurasaan, and wrote a book titled At-Tanweer fee Mualidil Basheer wan Nazheer, which he read out in the presence of the King. The book contained details of the Blessed Nativity of Rasoolullah r, miracles at the time of his Birth and general support for the practice of Meelaad. Immensely please with support from an ostensibly learned Scholar, King Muzaffar awarded Ibn Dahya a gift of 1000 dinars for this book. The need arises once again to consider the critical analysis of the integrity and reliability of Ibn Dahya as provided by the Ulema of this science. We summarise the comments of some of the famous Ulema in this field. It must be born in mind that the criticism levelled at Ibn Dahya by these Ulema was not because he had written a book in support of Meelaad. This had absolutely nothing to do with their biographical analysis of the man. Their comments were clinical and totally impartial; they assessed his integrity and reliability purely on the basis of information that they had gleaned from their research and interaction with the man.

Imam Thahabi states that Dhiyaa Maqdisi says: I met Abul-Khattab Ibn Dahya in Isfahan and his condition never impressed me. He spoke much ill of the Imams. The Scholars of Morocco criticized him and branded him as weak in hadith. In spite of his in-depth study of hadith, Ibn Dahya still narrated hadith irresponsibly and hazarded wild guesses. Ibnun-Najjaar says: Ibn Dahya made numerous claims about his sources of hadith but I discovered that Ulema agreed he was a liar, weak in hadith, and that he falsified his credentials. The signs of this were quite noticeable in his speech and actions, and the heart refused to accept his claims. He was also a fool, very arrogant, abusive with his tongue, and negligent in matters of Deen. He claimed to be a descendant of Dahya Kalbi AND Hazrat Husain (Radhiyallahu anhu)! (Siyar Alaamun-Nubalaa) Imam Thahabi also mentions in Tazhkiratul-Huffaz that this Ibn Dahya wrote a poem in his maulood book praising King Muzaffar, but it was later discovered the the poem had been plagiarized from the collection
27

of another poet, Asad bin Mamaati! Allama Damashqi states: Ibn Dahya was of the Zaahiri Mazhab. He frequently spoke ill of the other Imams (before him). He was not reliable in hadith. A large group of Scholars branded him weak. He has several writings that are baseless, incoherent, offensive, and misleading. Kindi said that his claim of being a descendant of the Sahaabi Hazrat Dahya Kalbi (radhiyallahu anhu) was false. According to all Scholars of Hadith, the Sahaabi Dahya had no descendants (thus confirming the lie of Ibn Dahya) (Shazhraatuz-Zhahab). Imam Suyooti says: In spite of his knowledge and good memory he was inconsistent and unreliable in his narrations and made very expansive claims (such as) claiming ijaazah in certain hadith works but not being able to ratify the same. (Tabaqaatul-Huffaaz) Imam Abu Zurah called him an unknown entity in hadith (Al-Jarah watTadeel) Allama Ibn Hajar states: Ibn Dahya used to make claims that had no reality. Abul-Qaasim bin Abdus-Salaam told me that Ibn Dahya claimed he had memorized the entire Tirmizhi and Saheeh Muslim. I then tested him by writing five ahadeeth of each in a separate note-book and presented these to him. He rejected the five hadith of Tirmizhi as zhaeef and denied knowledge of the five from Saheeh Muslim! We can quote a number of other works that bear the same testimony. The above will surely suffice to proof that Abul-Khattab Ibn Dahya, the first man to write a book on Meelaad, was a liar, fraud, unreliable, arrogant, conceited, a chancer in hadith, a plagiarizer, a ghayr-muqallid, and one who insulted the pious predecessors.

A SUMMARY OF THE ORIGIN OF MEELAAD

We can thus summarize the historical development of Meelaad in the description: Meelaad celebrations were founded by Ismaili Shiahs in Egypt, copied and transported to Iraq by an unknown, unreliable, faasiq, evil-mongering, bidatee layman, and was then promoted in Iraq and given prominence by a King who indulged in music and wine, and was also an active ghayr-muqallid; finally the stamp of approval for Meelaad celebrations came from another ghayr-muqallid, one Abul-Khattab Umar bin Hasan bin Dahya, whose disgraceful and dishonourable reputation
28

was just laid bare a moment ago. The above is enough evidence for the seeker of truth to understand the reality of Meelaad and its Sharee position. How on earth can a practice that was started by kuffar and promulgated by evil-doers and ghayrmuqallids

ever enjoy even a semblance of recognition by our Pure and Illustrious Shariah? The very ethos of Shariah militates against such a concept.

THE ORIGIN OF QIYAAM OR STANDING

It seems appropriate to wind off this section with a look at the origin of standing for salaat and salaam. Where did this practice originate? Who was the first person to stand and offer durood in a Meelaad function? Well, I shall have to disappoint readers on this one. There just does not seem to be any trace of an originator for the Qiyaam of Meelaad. Earlier on I made reference to a comprehensive book on the history and origins of Meelaad by Hazrat Moulana Abdus-Shakoor sahib Mirzapuri (rahmatullahi alayh). After attempting to trace the origin of Qiyaam in Meelaad, he writes: .after much research I have arrived at the conclusion that there is just no trace of the originator of Qiyaam in Maulood. We, therefore, have to accept that, like a muqtadi without an Imaam, the Meelaad celebrators, in their practice of Qiyaam or standing, are muqallids (followers) of an unknown entity. They are followers, most certainly, but their Imam and leader in this practice is majhool (unknown) (Taareekh-e-Meelaad page 120)

Rasoolullah _ said: Whoever introduces a path of evil and is followed thereupon, shall earn the sin of that evil, and the burden of sin of all those who followed him in that evil without the least bit of decrease in their sins. Narrated by Tirmizhi, who said this hadith is hasan saheeh
29

SECTION TWO
THE ERRONEOUS ARGUMENTS OF SHAIKH NINOWI AND SHAIKH UWAISI
In his introduction to the keynote speaker, Shaikh Uwaisi made claims in support of the meelad function that were totally inconsistent with Shariah. We shall now proceed to refute these fallacious and fictitious claims. As the Holy Quran describes... their arguments are false (baatil) according to their Lord... (Surah Shra)

THE FICTITIOUS YOWMUT-TASMIYAH

Shaikh Uwaisi averred that this get-together is to celebrate the name-giving of Rasoolullah _ which he labelled as yowmut-tasmiyah (or the day of name-giving). He went on to explain that Rasoolullah _ was born on 12 Rabiul-Owwal and was named seven days later. So the meelad celebrations took place on 12 Rabiul-Owwal (which was the previous Saturday) and seven days later (19 Rabiul-Owwal) they were celebrating the day that Rasoolullah _ was named.

REBUTTAL OF THE CLAIM In the first instance, the seventh day after birth is not what Shaikh
Uwaisi actually claims. If Rasoolullah _ was born on Monday, then the seventh day will be the Sunday. Everyone knows this. We practice on this masala every time a baby is born. Aqeeqa is made on the seventh, and that is when the name of the baby is kept. And if parents failed to do it on the seventh, then Shariah says that it should be done on the seventh day in the following week, or any week thereafter but on the day that would be the seventh. This is mentioned in all the books of fiqah. Shariah, has therefore, placed emphasis on the day and not the date. Hence, the claim the Messenger of Allah _ was named on 19 Rabiul-

Owwal is false and erroneous. The actual seventh day should be the Sunday, or in terms of dates, the 18 Rabiul-Owwal. The claim of celebrating the Day of the Tasmiyah, therefore, falls flat on its face. Assuming the date is the pivotal factor here, then the seventh day should be 18 Rabiul-Awwal, for we stated earlier that one has to count
30

the day of the birth as the first day. Such fallacious thinking lacks the support of coherent and authentic proof. Looking at the matter factually, some books of Seerah state that Rasoolullah _ was named the day he was born, not on the seventh day after birth. In the Seerah of Allama Ibn Hibban (RA) it is reported that Hazrat Aamina (radhiyallahu anhaa) saw a dream in which she was ordered: when you deliver your baby then name him Muhammad. The inference gleaned from this narration is that he was named straight after birth. In Al-Qowlul-Mubeen of An-Najjaar the indication is that he was named by Abdul-Muttalib by the Kaaba, on the day he was born. The author of Seerah Halabiya and Seerah Shaami also made reference to the Blessed Name being given the day of his Birth. There is, therefore, no certainty that our Master _ was named on the seventh day after birth.

TAHDEETH BIN-NIMAH AND MEELAAD

In his introduction Shaikh Uwaisi also mentioned the last verse of Surah Dhuhaa, wherein Allah Taala commands: And as for the Nimat of your Lord, so rehearse it. The Shaikh then adduces from this verse that the Birth of Rasoolullah _ is the greatest Nimah or Favour from Allah, and this gathering of meelaad is to proclaim and rehearse this Bounty of Our Lord. The inference is, therefore, that the meelaad gathering is one way of practising on this verse.

REBUTTAL OF THE CLAIM

Firstly, the above verse is addressed to Rasoolullah r himself. He is commanded to rehearse and proclaim the favours of His Lord. The whole Surah Dhuha is based around the life of Allahs Messenger r and the bounties that Allah Taala bestowed upon him. There are eleven verses in this Surah and each verse is addressed directly to Rasoolullah r. If celebrating the Noble Birth was referred to in this verse then surely The Messenger of Allah r himself would be the first to practise and to order such celebrations. If there was any inference in this regard from this verse, then it would not have been missed by the Messenger of Allah r or his Sahaaba. To entertain such an idea is ridiculous and unacceptable. It is presumptuous and the height of ignorance to believe that modern scholars could draw an inference from this verse that the Sahaaba and
31

former Scholars failed to comprehend in spite of the basis for such an inference having existed even in their times. Secondly, when neither the Messenger of Allah r nor his Sahaaba understood this verse to mean celebrating the meelaad, to adduce such a verse as proof in support of meelaad celebrations is completely contrary to Islamic Principles of Jurisprudence and Tafseer. Thirdly, we accept unequivocally that the Noble Birth ranks among the greatest Bounties of Allah on this Ummat. But the verse of Surah Dhuhaa that commands the proclaiming of Allahs Bounties does not mean that special functions should be held for this purpose, or Eid-like celebrations should be hosted with fanfare and festivities, as is done in the customary meelaad celebrations of today. This is not remotely connected to the verse in question. Fourthly, if we accept that proclaiming the great Bounty of the Noble

Birth falls within the purview of this verse, no one can deny that there exists other great bounties that are equally glorious and deserving of rehearsal, such as the Risaalah of Our Rasool r , the First Wahi, the Completion of the Quranic Revelation, etc. Why single out one event for celebration and exclude the rest? Fifthly, if expressing joy over the Birth of Our Rasool r is one way of fulfilling the Command of Allah in this verse, why should it be done in a gathering, only on the 12 Rabiul-Owwal? Shall we rehearse this bounty once a year only? And shall we await a large gathering before doing so? If this is the case then we have committed a great disservice to the Honour and Rank of Our Master.

TIME IN RELATION TO RASOOLULLAH _

The Shaikh went on to state that in relation to The Messenger of Allah _ there is no time before or after himall time is his..

REBUTTAL OF THIS CLAIM

The above statement actually elevates the status of Rasoolullah _ to the level of Allah (Allah Forbid!). Rasoolullah _ strictly prohibited this in the following hadith: Do not exaggerate my praises (falsely) as the Christians exaggerated the praises of Eesa bin Maryam. I am naught by His slave, so say: The slave of Allah and His Rasool (Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim)
32

If Islam allowed it, we, the Ummat of Rasoolullah _ would worship him; we would make sujood to his grave; we would leave no stone unturned in idolizing and deifying this most wonderful and glorious creation of Allah; such is the unbound love this Ummat has for their Rasool _. But Allah has forbidden this, and Rasoolullah _ himself strictly prohibited it as the hadith overleaf clearly states. We are bound by the Commandments of Allah and His Rasool _, and not the dictates of our nafs or emotions. Regardless of what emotions are evoked from within, or what our hearts yearn for, we shall only praise our Rasool _ within limits prescribed by Shariah. In relation to Allah our belief is that there is no time before or after Him. Allah Himself is time. His existence is not preceded or superseded by time. Time does not overtake Allah, and all time belongs to Him only. To attribute this to The Messenger of Allah _ is ascribing a partner to Allah in His Divine Sifaat or Attributes. That is undoubtedly a form of shirk.

THE FALLACIOUS REASONING OF SHAIKH NINOWI

In a Jumuah lecture delivered at Musjidut-Taqwa on 10 Feb 2012, Port Elizabeth Shaikh Ninowi presented a few arguments in support of meelaad celebrations. Before we rebut the erroneous claims of the Shaikh, it must be said that instead of offering spiritually and morally uplifting advice, the Shaikh chose to promote his ideology and creed from the Jumuah platform. This is tantamount to abuse of this sacred forum, while it also displays the insecurity of people who at every opportunity deem it necessary to defend a position that they themselves know is groundless and insubstantial.

ARGUMENT 1
The Shaikh argued that Shariah has ordained the commemoration of the Sacrifice of Sayyiduna Ebrahim _, when he was commanded to sacrifice his son Ismail, who was eventually expiated with a ram from Jannah. This resulted in the annual Qurbani that Muslims observe throughout the world. The Shaikh then said that if we can celebrate the sacrifice of Nabi Ebrahim _ then why shall we not celebrate the Birth of Our Rasool _, who was the greatest Messenger of all?

33

REBUTTAL OF THE ARGUMENT

Such reasoning is extremely flimsy and baseless for the following reasons: Firstly, we dont celebrate the sacrifice of Nabi Ebrahim, we commemorate it as an act of worship. There is nothing in the sacrifice to celebrate about. But, this act was so loved by Allah Taala that he ordained it for the Ummat of Muhammad r as well. On the contrary, no commemoration of Meelaad has been ordained by Shariah. This alone highlights the difference between the two acts. Secondly, this very argument of the Shaikh is in fact proof that meelad celebrations are not part of Shariah, for the One who ordained the commemoration (not celebration) of Hazrat Ebrahim us sacrifice is the Same Being Who brought about the wonderful Birth of Our Rasool r, with all the unique and miraculous happenings that accompanied it. When That Supreme Being commanded that we commemorate the first and not the second, who are we to innovate the celebration of the event and attribute to Almighty Allah that which He had never ordained? Our celebrations must be in conformity to the Command of Allah. If the Blessed Birth had to be celebrated like the sacrifice of Nabi Ebrahim u, would Allah not have revealed such a command to His Rasool r and his Companions? The fact that He didnt is sufficient evidence to prove that such a birthday celebration is not part of Islam.

ARGUMENT 2
Shaikh Ninowi goes on to argue that the Friday gathering is a commemoration of the creation of Nabi Adam _, which he then rephrases as the birth of Nabi Adam _. So, the Shaikh avers, that if we gather weekly to celebrate the birth of Nabi Adam _, then why can we not meet to celebrate the birth of Hazrat Muhammad _?

REBUTTAL
This is another attempt to co-opt the minds of the unwary public and of people who are ignorant of Shariah. I am sure many in the audience were far from convinced with this line of argumentation. Firstly, Jumuah was not ordained to celebrate anyones birth or creation. Jumuah was a day of virtue since the time Allah Taala created the World, long before Adam came into existence. It is precisely for this reason that
34

Allah chose to bring about major events on this day, one of which was the creation of Nabi Adam _, and another being the congregational prayers. So Jumuah was not ordained because of the creation of Adam, _ instead Adam _ was created on Friday because of the long-standing virtue of this Day. Secondly, when the Jumuah salaah was ordained for the Sahaaba in Madinah, Rasoolullah _ never furnished the creation of Nabi Adam _ as a reason for the Jumuah gathering. There is no proof of this in the hadith at all. The Shaikh may not conjure up a reason for the Jumuah that cannot be substantiated from hadith. Such sophistic argumentation is unbecoming of men of knowledge. Thirdly, many other major events are recorded on the day of Jumuah, such as the creation of Jannat, the ascension of Nabi Eesa _, as well as the advent of Qiyaamat. It therefore, means that we cannot pin-point one particular event as an act of commemoration on this day. The fact is that all these events are testimony to the virtue of Jumuah; not the other way around. When Allah Taala offered the Jews a Holy Day, they chose Saturday, while the Christians chose Sunday, thus leaving the greatest day for the Muslims. In short, the Friday congregational prayers are not offered out of any celebration or commemoration. There is absolutely

no vestige of proof for this in Shariah. Such a claim is baseless and devoid of truth. Lastly, we repeat the answer provided earlier, that the Friday khutba and salaah were ordained by Allah, whereas nothing has been ordained for the Meelaad. The Shaikh is attempting to draw an analogy between Jumuah and Meelaad celebrations, but such an analogy if fallacious, because there is just no similarity between the two. There is no common factor (illah) that unites both acts, and there is absolutely no similarity between the nature of the two events.

ARGUMENT 3
Shaikh Ninowi attempted to sway public opinion in favour of meelad by citing incidents in the Quran-e-Kareem where the births of certain Ambiyaa are mentioned, such as the birth of Nabi Moosa _ in Surah Qasas, the birth of Nabi Eesa _ in Surah Maryam, and the birth of Maryam _ herself in Surah Aala Imraan. He claims that if we read the births of these great people in the Quran almost daily, why shall we not read the
35

birth of Our Rasool _?

REBUTTAL
Again, the argument of the Shaikh is actually our proof against meelaad. Simple reason tells us that The Quran Shareef was revealed by Allah, and He chose to mention the Births of these Ambiya and NOT the Birth of Our Rasool _. That in itself proves that there is no significance in Shariah to meelad celebrations, for if there was, then at least Almighty Allah would have mentioned the Noble Birth in the Holy Quran. The main reason why Almighty Allah mentioned the births of these Ambiyaa (alayhimus-salaam) in the Quran-e-Kareem was to underline and highlight his Power. In all these incidents we see the Amazing Qudrat and Might of Allah Taala. Nabi Eesa _ was born miraculously without a father. Nabi Yayha _ was born to Nabi Zakariyya _ when the latter was 80 years old and his wife, who was slightly younger, had been barren for all the years of their marriage. Nabi Moosa _ was dropped into the River Nile soon after birth for fear that he would be killed by Firouns men; he was later on picked up by the family of Firoun, breast -fed by his own mother in the palace of Firoun and reared right under the noses of his enemies. All this points to the greatness of Allah Taala and His Supreme Ability to protect His Chosen Servants in ways that baffle the human mind. Furthermore, one may recite the story of The Noble Birth at any given time of the year; it is contrary to Sharee principles to confine it strictly to Rabiul-Owwal.

THE ORDINARY NATURE OF OUR MASTERS NOBLE BIRTH _

At this juncture the question arises as to why was Our Rasool _, the Greatest of all of Allahs creation, not granted a miraculous and unique birth? He was conceived and born in the normal way that every human being is born. There are several answers to this, as listed hereunder: a) Allah Taala wanted Our Rasool _ to integrate with his people and develop a close connection with them. This was only possible if they perceived him as a normal, ordinary human being. In this way, he could benefit his Ummat even more. Had he been born in a miraculous way, his followers would perceive him as an extraordinary and supernatural human being, and this concept would
36

prevent that openness and close interaction that was needed for spiritual benefit. b) Had he been born in a miraculous way, his Ummat would have

worshipped him like the Nasaara worshipped Nabi Eesa _. (Even today, with the Noble Birth being as ordinary as it was, a segment of the Ummat have already propelled Our Master to the level of Godhood Allah forbid imagine what would be the situation had he been born through a miracle!) c) Allah Taala wanted to show the world, that His Greatest Messenger _ would come from the most humblest of beginnings.

PROOF OF THE AUTHENTICY OF THE QURAN

The fact that the Noble Birth of Our Master _ is not mentioned in the Quran is further proof that the Holy Quran came from Allah and was not authored or fabricated by His Messenger. Had it been Muhammad _, The Messenger of God, who had wrote and edited the Quran, then surely, along with mentioning the births of the other Messengers and Apostles, he would have also included mention of his own birth. If he was going to sell the idea of a Divine Quran, common sense would demand that he also recorded an account of his own birth, along with whatever miracles occurred at that time. And miracles there certainly were, for the books of hadith record many extraordinary events and miraculous happenings at the time of his Blessed Birth. These could have been added to the Quran by Muhammad _. But since he had no say in the writing of the Quran, nor dared he make any additions or omissions in this regard, the Birth of Muhammad _ was never mentioned or even alluded to anywhere in The Holy Quran. This is another proof of the Divine Nature of The Holy Quran.

GREATER THAN THE BIRTH IS HIS MISSION

Nowhere in the Holy Quran is there any mention of the Noble Birth, nor any virtue or praise thereof. However, in verse 164 of Surah Aala Imraan, Allah The Almighty boasts of His Special Favour upon the Believers in the following words: Most Certainly Allah has conferred upon the Believers a great favour when he sent to them a Rasool from among themselves; he recites to them the Verses of
37

Allah, and he purifies them and he teaches them The Book and Wisdom. Almighty Allah chose to extol and glorify the Mission and Risaalat of His Beloved Rasool _ as a favour on this Ummat. This proves that the Prophethood of Our Nabi _ was a greater nimat on this Ummat than his actual Birth. The Noble Birth heralded the advent of Our Rasool _, but his Divine Appointment as a Messenger was the direct means of guidance to the entire world. Despite that fact the Divine Mission of Rasoolullah _ was, in Quranic Terms, a greater Bounty of this Ummat, the idea of celebrating the inception and beginnings of this Divine Mission was never ever mooted or commanded. It is, therefore, not possible to use the births of the Ambiyaa in The Quran Shareef as a basis for celebrating the Birth of Our Master _.

ARGUMENT 4
It is argued that Muslims commemorate the day of shoora (i.e. 10 Muharram) by fasting and giving sadaqah, and this particular day is connected to Nabi Moosa _. Upon arriving in Madinah the Messenger of Allah was informed that the Jews were celebrating the tenth of Muharram as the day when Allah Taala granted Moosa and his followers salvation from Firoun. Nabi Moosa _ and the Bani Israel fasted on this day as a gesture of thanksgiving to Allah. Upon hearing this, Rasoolullah _ remarked: We have a greater right to Moosa than the Jews Consequently, he fasted on this day and commanded the Sahaaba to do the same. The

fast of shoora is to express thanks to Allah for salvation, so why should we not express thanks to Allah for the Noble Birth, which was a greater nimat or Bounty?

REBUTTAL
In the first instance, the fast of shoora was ordained upon this Ummat by Allah Taala before Ramadaan, as mentioned by Allama Ibnul -Qayyim Jowzi (rahmatullahi alayh) in Zaadul-Maaad. When the fast of Ramadaan was made compulsory, the fast of shoora became nafl or optional. On the other hand, no amal or act of worship was ordained for the day Rasoolullah _ was born. It is, therefore, erroneous to draw an analogy between the fast of shoora and celebrating the Birth of Ra38 soolullah _ when the first was established through Divine Command while the second was neither commanded nor encouraged. Rasoolullah _ said: Regarding the Fast of shoora, I have hope in Allah that it will compensate for the previous years sins. (Muslim Shareef) This hadith speaks of the virtue of shoora, and prescribes the practice of fasting with a special reward. The same cannot be associated with any other day. Sacred time and virtues are only decreed by Almighty Allah; we, His servants have no right to do so. Secondly, the Day of shoora was sacred since the time of Nabi Adam _, as is evident from the works of hadith on this subject. As with the Day of Jumuah, the Day of shoora was ordained as sacred since the time Allah Taala created the heavens and earth; Allah Taala chose this day for certain important historical events. Thirdly, shoora is spent in fasting, not in celebration and merrymaking. On the assumption that the analogy between meelad and shoora is valid, then people should be fasting and giving sadaqa, instead of eating, singing, and celebrating. Rasoolullah _ himself fasted on a Monday and encouraged the Ummat to do so, for this was the day he was born. We encourage those who have a penchant for celebrating meelaad to rather fast every Monday to thank Allah Taala for the Nimat of the Noble Birth. Such an act will be more in conformity to Shariah than a meelad celebration that has no basis or origin in Islam.

FURTHER CLAIMS OF SHAIKH NINOWI

In the course of his Jumuah talk the Shaikh stated that everything came from The Rasool of Allah The Quran, The Deen, All knowledge, etc. He goes further to say that we dont know the prophets, we only know him, they all came through him

REBUTTAL OF THE CLAIM

The above statements are so serious that they border on kufr! It is a known and accepted fact that The Quran and this entire Deen of Islam came from Allah. Allah Taala declares in Surah Maa-idah, verse 15: Indeed, A Noor and A Clear Book has come to you from Allah Again, in Surah Nisaa, verse 170 Allah Taala states: O Mankind! Certainly The Rasool has
39

come to with the Truth from Your Lord. The claim that everything came from The Rasool of Allah contradicts the above verses of the Holy Quran. This is contrary to the belief of Islam. The Rasool of Allah himself admitted that If I attained guidance, then it is only through that which My Rabb revealed to me. (Surah Saba, verse 50). This theme is found throughout the Holy Quran. Islam teaches that all knowledge and Scripture came from Allah, via His Messengers. DISRESPECT TO THE AMBIYAA ALAYHIMUS-SALAAM The second statement of the Shaikh cited above betrays serious disrespect

to the other Messengers of Allah. Islamic teaching and belief demand that we revere and respect all the Messengers of Allah, but hold Our Rasool as the greatest of all. It is contrary to the teaching of Rasoolullah _ to speak disparagingly of the other Messengers while praising him. One who does so has not shown true love to Our Master. The statement that we don't know the other prophets is grave and constitutes a negation of Islamic belief that acknowledges the status and rank of all Allahs Messengers. Allah Taala says: These are the Messengers; we gave some rank over others; (Surah Baqarah). In Surah Anaam, where Allah Taala mentions the names of seventeen Ambiyaa all in one place, He states: And we granted all virtue over the (rest of the world) (Surah Anaam, verse 86) Rasoolullah _ refered to the other Ambiyaa as his brethren; he praised their achievements and extolled their high rank. Our belief is that Our Master Muhammad _ is the greatest of all Messengers, but at the same time we maintain great respect for all the other Ambiyaa and Rusul sent by Allah Taala. We know only the Shariah of Our Master, but we also respect and revere the unadulterated and original Law Codes of all previous Messengers. We believe that none of the Ambiya or Rusul can match the status, stature, and greatness of Our Master. We also confirm that the Shariah of Our Master is far superior and more perfect than all the Shariahs before, but we hold in high esteem all the Divine Law Codes that came from Allah Taala. A sign of true iemaan and love for Rasoolullah _ is that we do not praise him at the expense of the dignity of other Ambiyaa (alayhimus-salaam)
40

SECTION THREE
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON MAULOOD
IN RESPONSE TO OUR LAST PAMPHLET AGAINST MEELAAD, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WERE POSTED BY READERS: Q: Are there any other acts of bidah besides the moulood?
A: Muslims have introduced many other acts of bidah. The people who promote and support the present-day meelaad also commit other bidah acts such Urs, Giyarwee, Niyaaz, Baal Mubaarak, second faatiha after salaah, loud zikr immediately after the faradh salaah, athaan at the time of burial, dua after salaatul-janaazah, offerings to graves, 3-day, 7-day, 40day, and 100-day memorials for the dead, kissing the thumbs and placing them over the eyes when hearing the Name of Rasoolullah _ in the athaan, etc. Besides these, general acts of bidah found in other communities are: loud recitation of the dua after athaan by the muezzin; dua by the muezzin before juma khutba and in between the two khutbas; recitation of the verse Innallah wa malaaikatahu etc before athaan and before the Juma khutba, raising the hands when reading the sunnat dua after athaan. Q: Is meelaad and qiyaam prohibited in the Holy Quran? A: The present-day Meelaad celebrations are prohibited by Quran-eKareem, Sunnat-e-Shareefa, Ijmaa or consensus of the Sahaaba, and Qiyaas, all of which constitute the major sources of Islamic Law. We briefly produce these proofs hereunder: Proof from Quran: a) In Surah Shoora, verse 21 Allah Taala states: Do they have associates who have ordained for them matters of Deen that Allah has not permitted? This verse condemns the innovation of anything in Deen which Allah has not permitted. The Birth of Rasoolullah is not something new. The unique happenings that occurred at the time of this Noble

Birth were not hidden from the Sahaaba. In spite of this, Allah and His Rasool did not command or even encourage the Sahaaba to celebrate the Noble Birth, nor did they initiate such a practice on their own, de41 spite the unparalleled love they had for Allahs Rasool. When in spite of there being a reason or cause for a certain act, Allah Taala did not mention it in The Quran or Sunnah, then it clearly means that Allah has not permitted that act. If celebrating the Birth of Rasoolullah was an act of special merit then Allah would have certainly given permission for this. It is not possible that Allah would hide from His servants an act that warranted special reward and merit. That it was not commanded or encouraged by Allah is proof that there is no special significance in such a celebration. If anyone attributes special reward or significance to meelaad celebrations then such a person is claiming, though not in word but certainly in action, that Allah had overlooked an act of great merit. We seek Allahs protection from such blasphemy. All those who follow the promoters of customary Meelaad functions will fall within the scope of verse 21 of Surah Shoora, for they stand guilty of following associates who have ordained for them matters of Deen that Allah has not permitted. b) In Surah Maaidah Allah Taala asks: Is it the Law of Jaahilyyah that they seek? The interrogatory clause in this sentence is an imperative one. In other words, by posing this questions Allah Taala is actually prohibiting the acts and practices of the Jaahilyya or times of ignorance. Jaahiliyya refers to the period of history prior to Islam. As explained earlier under the history of Meelaad, long before Islam the Christians had invented the practice of celebrating the birth of their Prophet Nabi Eesa (alayhissalaam). And even before that pagan Romans were celebrating birthdays of their gods and goddesses. Muslims of latter generations have adopted the same celebrations that come from the era of Jaahiliyya. From this angle, the customary meelaad celebrations fall under practices of ignorant times, and therefore, stands condemned. Proof from Hadith: Whoever introduces into this matter of ours (i.e. Islam) that which does not belong to it, will be rejected. (Bukhari) This hadith speaks of an act that does not belong to Islam; that is not part of Islam; an act that is not of this Deen. Meelaad celebration is not an act of Deen. Acts that belong to Deen must be established through Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa of the Sahaaba, or Qiyaas. The latter is based on the first three. The meelaad cannot be substantiated from any of these primary sources of Islamic knowledge. This hadith, therefore, proves that Meelaad celebrations are not permissible.
42

Proof from roof Ijmaa of Sahaaba: The Sahaaba possessed the greatest love
for Rasoolullah in the entire Ummat. Their love for him was unmatched and phenomenal. Yet, neither during his lifetime, nor after his demise, did they ever celebrate his birth nor encourage others to do so. When the cause or reason for any act was known to the Sahaaba, and they never practised it, then it proves conclusively that such an act is not part of Deen and that the Sahaaba were all unanimous on the exclusion of such an act from Islam. It is a principle of Fiqh that when the first three generations of Islam had unanimously shunned a certain practice for which they had good reason to do, that constitutes Ijmaa or consensus that such an act is wrong and not part of Deen. As explained earlier, the Sahaaba had good reason to celebrate the Birth of Our Rasool _ for they had the greatest love for him, and they also knew that he fasted on Mondays because that was the day he was born. In spite of this, they neither did it, not encouraged others

to celebrate the Meelaad. This is a unanimous decision among the Sahaaba that meelaad celebration is not part of Deen. Proof from Qiyaas: Qiyaas or analogical reasoning also indicates that Meelaad is just not part of Shariah. If we should search for a celebration in Islam that closely resembles Meelaad, we would find it in the Aqeeqa. Shariah had ordained celebrating the birth of a child through aqeeqa; that is, cooking the meat and inviting people. The purpose of this is to thank Allah for the child and also ward off calamities and harm from the baby. But aqeeqa is only done once in a lifetime. This is not a recurring act that has to be performed year in and year out. Likewise, the Aqeeqa of Rasoolullah _ was done at the time of his birth. It was never repeated ever again. Proof of this will appear in Section Four. Even if a Scholar were to present proof that Rasoolullah _ made an Aqeeqa for himself later in life, we will still argue that it was done once and never again. So this line of Sharee reasoning clearly shows that the birth of even a Prophet is not celebrated except once, and that is when that Prophet is born. Q: What is your proof that standing for salawaat is haraam?
43

A: There are two reasons why standing and reading salawaat is not permissible. The first reason: Salawaat is an act of worship. This no one can deny. Rasoolullah _ taught the Sahaaba how to read salawaat; he taught them the wording of salawaat, like he taught them the thikrs and duas of salaah. In all these teachings he never once indicated that there is special merit in standing and reading salawaat. Those who introduced the standing salawaat must adduce proof for this new method of worship. This is a a special and peculiar act. To include this into our mode of worship we must have evidence from Sharee sources; we cannot conjure up acts of worship or add to our established acts of worship things that appeal to our whims and fancies. If standing and reading salawaat had any significance then The Messenger of Allah would have instructed the Sahaaba to do this. They were the first people to be privy to all the special acts of Deen. Again, salawaat is not a new act of worship. Salawaat upon our Rasool is as old as The Quran and as old as the Sunnah. To make an addition to an existing ibaadat, such as standing for the ibaadat of salawaat, that was not done in former times fits the description of bidah like a glove. Second reason: There are many who stand and read salawaat because they really and truly believe the Messenger of Allah comes into their presence. Such a belief is false, so whoever stands and makes salawaat, even though he or she does NOT hold that belief, is actually imitating people of false beliefs and promoting an act that was done by people of corrupt beliefs. Some of the leaders in Meelaad have gone on record as enunciating this belief. Q: Why did Moulana Thanwi and Moulana Ganghoi oppose Haji Imdaadullah if you said his moulood is not wrong. A: Hazrat Moulana Thanwi and Hazrat Moulana Rasheed Ahmed Ganghoi prohibited this moulood because of the bidah and haraam factors that had crept into the moulood celebrations by people in their times. Today we are repeating the same fatwa of prohibition. They did not oppose the moulood of Haji Imdaadullah; instead they opposed the moulood of people who turned this whole thing into a farcical bidah.
44

Q: Why do you say it is wrong to make salawaat standing when we do it in janaaza salaah and after the qunoot of witr?

A: In Salaatul Janaaza and Qunoot we are not instructed to read ONLY salawaat; there are other duas to be read as well. So the salaawat read in these two salaahs are part of a selection of duas. The purpose of standing in qunoot and janaaza salaah is NOT for the salawaat; instead the standing posture is part of the faraaidh of these two salaah. If Allah commanded us to stand in qunoot and janaaza mainly because salawaat is recited therein, then your argument would make sense. But as it is, the purpose of standing is not for salawaat. For this reason, if one does not recite the salawaat in Qunoot or in Salaatul-Janaaza, both these acts of worship would be valid. Hence one cannot infer from this that standing for salawaat is a special act. Furthermore, this argument is actually proof that standing for salawaat is NOT an Islamic practice. Allah Taala commanded us to stand and read the salawaat in Salaatul-Janaazaa and the qunoot of witr. Had this standing been mainly and solely for the purpose of salawaaat then Allah Taala would have commanded us to stand for salawaat at other times as well. When Almighty Allah did NOT do that, it meant that standing for salawaat has no special significance in Islam. Q: Is it permissible to stand for salaam to the Holy Prophet _? I definitely do not believe that the Holy Prophet _ is present in that gathering. Can one stand and make the zikr of Allah? A: We answered this above. You might not have the belief that the Messenger of Allah is present in that gathering, but by standing you are supporting such a belief; you are imitating people who do hold such beliefs; you are also creating the impression that you subscribe to such a belief. Assuming in that gathering of meelaad there are some who hold the belief that the Blessed Rooh of Allahs Messenger _ arrives in that gathering. Whilst you may not believe it, by joining the others who are standing with this false belief, you are promoting and supporting a belief of shirk. This in itself is sinful. In Surah 6, verse 68, Allah Taala says: And do not sit in the company of those who commit injustice after being advised This verse prohibits associating with those who commit injustice, one form of which is holding false beliefs. Furthermore, we explained above
45

that one must have valid Sharee evidence to prove that standing for salaat or salaam is a specific act of merit. If Shariah did not stipulate the sources of Islamic practices then everyday someone will come out with a new act of worship and attribute it to Shariah. This will result in a free for all, and will leave our beautiful Deen mangled beyond recognition. We must adhere to the Usool or Principles of Shariah in all matters. Without these principles and guidelines, the floodgates of bidah will open, and in the process we lose all trace of the Sunnah (Allah Forbid!). Q: You say the Prophet _ cannot be in many places at the same time but do you not believe that certain auliya were able to deliver 30 different jumuah lectures in different places at the same time. Also it is well documented that certain auliya were able to travel very far distances in very short times. A: Firstly, we do not believe that a wali can deliver lectures in 30 different places at one and the same time. Maybe that is your belief, but certainly not ours. Stories like these regarding the Auliyaa are mentioned in many books, but few of them can actually be ratified via authentic chains of transmission. Without authentic sanad we cannot accept such incidents. Shariah does not encourage circulation of false information based on spurious and groundless tales. Secondly, the Rooh of Allahs Messenger _ being in more than one place at the same time is an important

matter of Aqeedah. And Aqeedah must be proven from Quran and Sunnah. Any belief related to Rasoolullah _ is important and of major significance, so it has to be verified from one of these two sources. The presence of The Mubaarak Rooh of Rasoolullah _ is unusual and beyond human understanding; hence, we require proof for it from Quran, Sunnah, or Fatwa of the Sahaaba. Any act attributed to the Messenger of Allah _ must be authenticated by the Sahaaba via a proper and reliable chain of transmission. Rasoolullah _ said: Whoever attributes a lie to me should prepare his abode in Hell! One who claims that Rasoolullah _ comes into a meelaad gathering and cannot produce proof for this from Quran and Sunnah, has attributed a lie to Rasool of Allah _, the consequence of which have just been mentioned.
46

If your claim is that people saw Auliyaa in 30 places at one and the same time, then bring me just one witness who can say, truthfully and honestly, in the Name of Allah, that he or she has seen Rasoolullah even in one Meelaad venue, let alone 30! As for people travelling long distances in a short time, that is totally irrelevant to the topic under discussion. These are miracles of the Auliyaa which we believe in an accept, provided they are authenticated by reliable sources. We cannot base our beliefs on possibilities, probabilities, assumptions, and guesswork. These hypothetical and imaginary claims do NOT constitute Islamic Proof. Allah Taala rejects such proof in the Holy Quran, in the following statement: They follow naught but conjecture and they only surmise. (Surah Anaam , 148)

FAISLA HAFT MASALA AND HAJI IMDAADULLAH

Q: I want to enquire about Hajee Imdaadullah, the sheik of Moulana Gangohi and Moulana Qasim Nanotwi the founder of Darul Uloom Deoband. He wrote a book called faisla haft masla wherein he celebrates the virtues of the meelad as well as standing for salawaat. Would you regard his behaviour as shirk therefore making him a mushrik as you have labelled the people who celebrate the meelad? A: Firstly, we must make it abundantly clear that we have NOT labelled Meelaad celebrators as Mushriks. This is a slanderous accusation. Secondly, in Faisla Haft Masala Haji Imdaadullah (rahmatullahi alayh) did not celebrate the virtues of meelaad as you put it. Haji Imdaadullah (rahmatullahi alayh) never conducted the customary meelaad, as people are doing today. He convened a gathering for the remembrance of Rasoolullah _ within strict limits. There was no public gathering, no persons under 40 were allowed to attend; all attendees were among the auliyaa of his time; there were no women, nor eating and refreshments; no music or drums, nor any singing. In short, his was not a gathering of fun and joy, and had none of the fanfare of modern times. Instead, it was a gathering of intense ibaadat, submission to Allah and to The Messenger of Allah _. It is therefore, pointless and presumptuous to attempt to create an analogy between the meelaad of today and that of Haji Im47 daadullah (rahmatullahi alayh). Most importantly, the meelaad he convened was free from any of the false beliefs associated with the Meelaadis of today. Thirdly, it must be well understood that the actions of the auliya do not represent Sharee proof. If a Wali of Allah practiced an action that is not established from valid and recognised Islamic Sources, such an act cannot be adopted by the Ummat at large. While we will respect the auliyaa and revere them, their individual actions are no proof for the validity or

permissibility of an action. We will say that the Wali has either erred in his judgment, or that there are special circumstances beyond his control that led him to adopt a certain action. For this reason, when the famous wali of Allah, Mansoor al-Hallaj made the claim, I am the Truth the Ulema of his time issued a fatwa of kufr against him and had him executed. Among the most senior Aalim of the time to sign the fatwa of kufr was Imam Junaid Baghdadi (rahmatullahi alayh), himself a great Wali of Allah. The sources of Sharee evidence are Quran, Sunnah, Practices and Statements of majority of Sahaaba, and Analogical Reasoning based on the first three. Even the individual action of a Sahaabi does not represent Sharee proof when the majority of the Sahaaba had opposed it. There are numerous statements and actions recorded in the lives of the Auliyaa that seemingly contradict Shariah. The Ulema have never sanctioned those actions, nor used them as a basis or proof. It is at this juncture that many of the current, modern Sufi sects have fallen foul of Shariah. They belief and accept whatever the Sufis of their order say and do, albeit in total contravention of Shariah. Q: Please explain to me the status of Haaji Imdaadullah the sheik of Moulana Gangohi and Moulana Nanotwi the founder of Darool Uloom Deoband. He used to love to celebrate the moulood as well as stand whilst making salawaat. If he were here would you condemn him as you have condemned the people who had such a lovely moulood program in Port Elizabeth last year? A: In the first instance, a Wali of the calibre of Haji Imdaadullah would never attend Meelaad gatherings of the nature conducted nowadays, for these gatherings, as we proved earlier in this treatise, are proliferated with a host of un-Islamic practices. We also doubt that Shariah would
48

consider these gatherings as lovely programs. In the previous answer we explained the circumstances under which the moulood of Haji Imdaadullah was conducted. Also note that we do not condemn people when explaining the Law of Sharee, rather we condemn the practices of people and their un-Islamic actions. We are taught to hate the evil action and not the person who did it. Q: Is it true that if you go for 11 meelaads then that is equivalent to 1 Hajj? A: It is not true that attending 11 meelads is equivalent to 1 Hajj. This is a heinous lie. Any virtue for good deeds must be established from Quran or Sunnah. There is no mention in the Quran of meelad at all, and meelaad never existed in the time of Rasoolullah _ nor in the time of the Sahaba; it was , therefore, impossible for such a virtue to be mentioned in the Quran Shareef or Sunnat-e-Kareema. This is totally fabricated and false. We cannot make up our own virtues for certain practices. The invention of such a false virtue only serves to prove that the meelaad is a bidah. Similar fictitious virtues for Meelaad have been attributed to Auliyaa such as Sirri Saqati (rahmatullahi alayh), Hasan Basri (rahmatullahi alayh). These are all fabrications of unholy people desperate to give legitimacy to their false beliefs. Q: When exactly was the birth of Rasoolullah _ ? A: A study of the historical works of Islam will reveal that there are at least eight different views among the historians as to the DATE when the Noble Birth occurred. All historians are unanimous that the Messenger of Allah _ was born on a Monday, for this is established from Saheeh hadith. There is also Ijmaa or consensus that he was born in the month of Rabiul-Owwal. As regards the date, we summarise hereunder the different

versions: 1) Shaikh Saifur-Rahman Mubarakpuri has taken the view that Rasoolullah r was born on 9 Rabiul-Owwal, as mentioned in his famous book Al-Raheequl-Makhtoom. 2) Allama Dimyaati authenticated the narration that mentions 10 Rabiul-Owwal as the correct date.
49

3) Most of the former historians and a large group of Muhadditheen are of the view that 8 Rabiul-Owwal is the correct date of birth. Imam Humaidi and his ustaad Allama Ibn Hazm preferred this view. 4) One view among the historians is 17 Rabiul-Owwal. 5) Shaikh Ibn Abdul-Barr states that the correct date of birth is 2 Rabiul-Owwal. 6) The 18 Rabiul-Owwal has been narrated by Allama Abin Abi Shayba in his Musannaf, but he considered this a weak narration. 7) The 19 Rabiul-Owwal has also been furnished as the date of birth of our Rasool r, but not many Ulema subscribe to this view. 8) It has also been narrated that the Messenger of Allah r was born on 8 Ramadaan, and a large number of former Scholars have authenticated this view. 9) Besides the above, there is the famous view of 12 Rabiul-Owwal as mentioned by the historian Muhammad bin Ishaaq. Why most Ulema are loathe to accredit this view is because Imam Maalik questioned the integrity and credibility of Muhammad bin Ishaaq in narration of hadith. Besides point 1, all the other quotations are from As-Seeratul Al-Halabiyya by Imam Ali bin Burhanuddeen Al-Halabi RA Q: The Tableegh Jamaat have regular Ijtimas all over the show. If the Meelaad is a bidah, why don't you call the Ijtimaas also bidah? Further, the Tableeghis go for three days, ten days, forty days, four months etc. Are these not bidah? Whats the difference between this and Meelaad? A: There is a big difference between the Tableeghi Ijtimaa and Meelaad. The Ijtimaa consists of taleem and ibaadat; people offer five times salaah with jamaat, they read Quran, tahajjud, Ishraaq, Owwabeen, etc.; they sit in taleemi halqas learning and teaching; they read ahadeeth on the virtues of amaal; they engage in zhikr; they listen to the lectures of senior Ulema. The whole purpose of the Ijtimaa is to reform the nafs and propagate Islam, and to bring Muslims back to the basics of Deen. At the Ijtimaa there is no intermingling of men and women; in fact women don't attend the Ijtimaas. There is no merry-making and singing, no
50

drums or music. The Tableeghis do not subscribe to the belief that the Blessed Rooh of Rasoolullah _ comes into their gatherings. They don't stand for Salaat and Salaam. In short, the Ijtimaa is not accompanied by the wrongs that are an integral part of the Meelaad functions. This shows the huge difference between the two. We don't say the Ijtimaa is a sunnat, neither do the Tableeghis believe or claim this. They don't regard it as compulsory, though they urge people to attend for the benefit of dawah and tableegh. Nothing of this sort is found in Meelaad. As for the practice of people going out in jamaat for three days, ten days, forty days, etc, this is permissible and praiseworthy. No one believes this to be sunnat or faradh. There is no haraam activity that accompanies these jamaats. When they go out for tableegh work they do the same amaal that are performed at the Ijtimaa as listed above. So again, there

is a big difference between this and the Meelaad. Tableegh or propagation of Deen itself was a sunnat of Rasoolullah _. None can deny this. The Jamaats go out to do tableegh by inviting people towards salaah and good actions. The same cannot be said about Meelaad because in that gathering people are encouraged to break out of the confines of the Sunnat. Q: Is it permissible to attend a Meelaad function without believing in what they believe and practice; just to see what happens and what goes on? A: The Fuqaha or Jurists of Islam have ruled that if a Walimah function is accompanied by haraam activities like singing or dancing, then it is not permissible to attend such a Walimah. Yet the Walimah is an established sunnah and according to some Ulema it is waajib to attend a Walimah when invited. When attendant haraam factors prevent one from attending a Sunnat function, where will it be permissible to attend a Meelaad that is accompanied by haraam factors, bearing in mind that the Meelaad is nowhere near sunnat? And Allah Taala knows best
51

SECTION FOUR
MISCELLANEOUS ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST MEELAAD
QIYAAM OF MEELAAD:: WHY DO PEOPLE STAND AT A MEELAAD FUNCTION
Most people who stand up for salaat and salaam in a meelaad function don't even understand the underlying reason for such an act. The common perception is that they are standing out of respect for Rasoolullah _ or respect for the durood. Lets consider this reasoning from all angles. STANDING OUT OF RESPECT If people stand out of respect for Rasoolullah _ then it means, according to their belief, that the Messenger of Allah _ enters that gathering. One cannot stand out of respect for someone who is not present in the gathering. I wonder how many Muslims are aware that Rasoolullah _ prohibited the Sahaaba from standing up for him whenever he entered a gathering? The hadith, which is found in Musnad-e-Ahmed and Abu Dawood, goes as follows: Abu Umama narrates that one day Rasoolullah _ came out leaning on a stick. So we stood up for him. He then said: DO NOT STAND UP LIKE THE NON-MUSLIMS DO, OUT OF RESPECT FOR EACH OTHER. Since then the Sahaaba would not stand up for him because of his dislike for this practice. At this point, it might be argued that Rasoolullah _ would stand up for Hazrat Fatimah (radhiyallahn anhaa) when she would visit him and vice versa. This appears to contradict the hadith mentioned before. The answer is actually quite straight-forward. His standing up for Fatimah and her reciprocation was solely because of the mutual love father and daughter had. This was not done out of respect and reverence. When Hazrat Jaar Tayyar returned from the battle of Muta, Rasoolullah _ was so overjoyed to see him, that he jumped up and embraced Hazrat Jafar. This, too, was done out of deep love, not formal respect and reverence. All this familiar with Seerah will know of the intense love he had for
52

Jafar Tayyar _. What Rasoolullah _ prohibited was standing up in reverence and formal respect. Such an act, in the words of Rasoolullah _, was imitation of the kuffar. As mentioned earlier, if anyone claims that the Messenger of Allah _ is

present in that gathering then because this is an extraordinary happening, they must produce proof for this from the four sources of Shariah, viz. Quran, Sunnah, Ijmaa and Qiyaas. Is there any precedent in the Islamic Texts that the Messenger of Allah had indeed appeared in gatherings of durood, on which we can base such a claim, or from which we may draw an analogy? I remind readers that for proof possibilities and probabilities are not considered. Some may quote the experiences of certain Auliyaa. Well, it must be well understood that experiences of auliyaa do not constitute Sharee proof. While such experiences may be true in relation to the Auliyaa of the past (Allah have mercy on them), in todays times when such Auliyaa are nowhere to be found, we will reject the very notion itself.

THE DREAM OF HAZRAT SALMAA (RADHIYALLAHU ANHAA)

Shaikh Uwaisi, in one of his writings, cites a dream that Hazrat Salmaa (Radhiyallahu anhaa) saw just after the slaying of Hazrat Husain . In this dream Rasoolullah tells her: I have just witnessed the slaying of Husain. From this he purports to derive support for his belief that The Messenger of Allah _ can appear in a gathering of Meelaad. Well, this claim is easily refuted by a fact we mentioned earlier, that dreams are not Sharee proof. What a disgrace for a man of so-called learning to attempt to wring out proof for Aqeeda from dreams! Secondly, this dream does not mean that the Messenger of Allah was present at Karbala when Hazrat Husain was being so brutally attacked and martyred. It means that the scenes of Karbala were brought before Rasoolullah _ whilst he was in his Blessed Resting place, like he witnessed the Janaaza of King Najaashi whist he was in Madinah; hence he offered the Janaza salaah of King Najashi. STANDING OUT OF LOVE If after reading our previous comments, the reason for standing is now changed from respect to love, as we explained in the relationship be53 tween father and daughter, then that obviously shows a vacillation born out of either insincerity or uncertainty. We then say, if you claim you are standing out of love for Allahs Messenger then your other actions totally betray such love. We mentioned how sunnats are abandoned at Meelaad functions. The actions of these people belie their claims of love for the Messenger of Allah. RESPECTING THE DUROOD If the claim is that people stand out of respect for the durood itself, then the obvious questions are: why don't they stand when they recite durood at home? Why don't they stand up when the khateeb recites durood during the khutbah? Why don't they stand when a lecturer recites durood so many times during his bayaan? Why dont they stand out of respect when they read the durood in tashahhud? In the meelaad function itself, salaawat in the forms of qaseedas were recited by singers on the stage. Why did they not stand when those naats and qaseedas were recited? Instead of standing, they all remained seated enjoying refreshments and other frivolities. What a contrast of behaviour! The above argument refutes the claim that people are standing up out of respect for the durood. Besides the above two reasons, there does not seem to be any other reason or wisdom for standing up when salaat and salaam are recited. We have proven that both reasons are false. It thus proves that the only reason for standing up in meelaad is to perpetuate an innovative custom initiated and cultivated by people of the past who lacked Islamic knowledge and gudiance. And who can be more misleading than he who follows his

desires without any guidance from Allah? (Quran: Surah Qasas verse 50) What would the reaction be of meelaad celebrators if some members of the party were to remain seated whilst the rest stood up for the salaat and salaam? We have incidents on record that such people were insulted and even physically assaulted for remaining seated. Some were asked to leave the musjid or the gathering! Is this not enough proof that standing for durood has developed into an act of bidah?
54

THE SHAAFI MAZH-HAB AND MEELAAD

Some claim that according to the Shaafi maz-hab meelaad is permissible because Shaafi Scholars of the past, like Imams Suyooti, Sakhaawi, Subki, Ibni Hajar Haitami, (rahimahumullah) etc, had issued fatwas condoning and allowing meelaad functions. The answer to this claim is twofold. Firstly, if some Shaafi Ulema sanctioned Meelaad it does not necessarily mean that this is the standard position of the Shaafi mazh-hab because the proofs these Scholars furnished are in no way exclusive to the Principles of Shaafi FIqh. In like manner, today some claimants to the Hanafi mazh-hab actually practise Meelaad but that does not render the Meelaad part of the Hanafi mazhhab. This should be well understood. Secondly, we must place on record that some narrations regarding meelad attributed to these Ulema are unsubstantiated. Anyone who attributes such a claim to ulema should adduce authentic references in support. Authentic references must include a reliable sanad or chain of transmission through which these narrations were transmitted. Without this we cannot accept or place reliance on reports that wobble between truth or fabrication. Thirdly, we acknowledge that there was a minority group among Ulema of the past who sanctioned meelaad gatherings and ruled that such acts were permissible in Shariah. However, those Ulema had pronounced this ruling in relation to meelaad functions that were devoid of haraam practices. These haraam activities, as mentioned in detail in part one of this booklet, include music, drums, photography, videoing, mixed gatherings of men and women, etc. These great Imams would never condone an act that violated Shariah to the extent that men and women intermingled freely. The fact seemed to have been conveniently overlooked that while permitting Meelaad celebrations these Ulema also roundly condemned music and dancing that would occur in some Meelaad functions. We also need to consider the differences between some of the Meelad functions of before and those that occur nowadays. a) In those days people never attached fabricated virtues and narrations to the meelaad gathering as people have done in latter years. There were no false beliefs linked to meelaad.
55

b) In those functions participants never stood up for salaat and salaam. They never believed in this. In fact, the qiyaam of meelaad only started in the last century. c) In those days people never believed that the Blessed Rooh of Rasoolullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was present in such gatherings. This proves that the meelad approved of by Shaafi Ulema of the past differed vastly from the present-day celebrations. The fatwa issued by todays Ulema is directed primarily at the modern-day, customary meelaad celebrations. It would be foolish and short-sighted of Muslims not to realize that certain rules will change according to the times. We thus see a huge difference in the two types of practices with regards to belief and practice.

Assuming that some Scholars had given permission for meelad in former times, the majority of Ulema both past and present have condemned this as a bidah. For the masses it is incumbent to follow the majority of Ulema. Let me hasten to add that all the arguments presented by these Shaafi Scholars of before in support of Meelaad have been conclusively and comprehensively answered by latter Ulema. These answers are mentioned throughout this booklet.

THE PRINCIPLE OF ABANDONMENT

Another question that commonly arises at this juncture is why should a permissible act like the meelad be abandoned because of the haraam activities? Why not stop the haraam activities and allow the meelad to continue? To lend a leg to this argument it is contended that if people start committing haraam acts in Juma or Taraweeh Salaah, will these amaal be abandoned because of the haraam activities, or will the Ulema put a stop to the haraam activities and allow the amaal to continue? THE ANSWER: Surprisingly, this argument of laymen was presented by some Ulema of the past, yet the answer is glaring and straight-forward. It is for this reason we argue that those who attribute a fatwa of permissibility on mee56 lad to past Ulema, should ensure that their source of information is authentic; because it boggles the mind how Ulema of repute could furnish such an unstable and ragged argument in support of meelad. Surely, there is some fabrication somewhere along the line of transmission. It is an accepted principle of Shariah that when a SUNNAT act comprises haraam, the sunnat MUST necessarily be discarded. We quote the words of some high-ranking Scholars in this regard: When a matter revolves around sunnat and bidah, its abandonment is necessary Moulana Shamsul-Haq Afghaani in his book : The Struggle of the Hanafi Ulema against Bidah Allama Ibni Nujaim says: That which vacillates between a technically waajib act and a bidah shall be abandoned, as in the case of a sunnah. (Ibid) Allama Ibnul-Hummam says: Any act that comprises sunnah and bidah shall be discarded, because to discard a bidah is waajib, but performing a sunnah is not waajib. (Ibid) Imam Mulla Ali Qaari (RA) is also on record as having said the same. From the above we learn that when a SUNNAH act entails bidah, then the sunnah act must be stopped. The Jurists did not attempt to stop the bidah and continue with the sunnah. Instead they ruled that the very sunnah act should be discarded. The meelad can never be termed a sunnah. When a Sunnah shall be abandoned because of the bidah that it entails, then it makes greater sense to abandon a mubaah or permissible act if it is based on haraam factors. This is unlike Jumuah or Taraweeh salaah, and to draw an analogy between this and Meelaad is highly misleading. Jumuah is faradh, so there is no question of abandoning Jumuah salaah because of any haraam that might occur. Likewise Taraweeh is sunnah Muakkadah; a sunnah act that shall not be omitted except for compelling reasons. At the most, Meelad can arguably be termed a mubaah act; if that mubaah act invites haraam, and comprises violation of Shariah, it will become compulsory to abandon the whole act in its entirety. Furthermore, the haraam activities mentioned earlier have continued to plague all meelad functions for decades; there is just no way that the organisers can put a stop to the attendant haraam factors. It is wishful thinking and an attempt to provide moral justification for the meelad

57

celebrations, to say the haraam should be stopped and not the meelad iself. That will never happen in a hundred years. The best is to follow the ruling of the former Jurists: When an act entails haraam and bidah, that act must be abandoned with immediate effect.

THE MESSENGER OF ALLAH USED TO FAST ON MONDAYS

An argument in favour of Meelaad is that Rasoolullah _ used to fast every Monday, and the reason he gave was that Monday was the day of his birth. They conclude from this that since he observed fast, it follows that there is some merit in celebrating the birthday of Our Nabi _.

ANSWER
Firstly The Messenger of Allah observed a fast on Mondays out of thanksgiving, whereas The Meelaad celebrators do the opposite: they dont fast, they feast! Secondly, this was his practice EVERY Monday, not only on the 12 Rabiul -Owwal. Had Rasoolullah _ done this in the month of Rabiul-Owwal only, that would be sufficient grounds to convene Meelaad in this month. Instead, The Messenger of Allah fasted every Monday. Thirdly, this argument is actually in our favour. It proves that Rasoolullah _ was aware of the need to thank Allah for his Birth. But neither did he instruct the Sahaaba to fast on Mondays, nor did he initiate any form of celebration. All he did was to fast as a token of gratitude to Allah Taala. We advise our brothers who are into Meelaad: Follow this sunnah and advocate it among your followers. Encourage them to fast every Monday, and let that day be the day they remind themselves of His Great Birth. Thats far better than stepping out of line with Shariah by introducing new methods of celebration. Fourthly, there was another reason why Rasoolullah _ fasted on a Monday. We reproduce the Blessed Words of the Rasool _ himself: Deeds are presented to Allah every Monday and Thursday. So I love to be fasting when my Deeds are presented Narrated by Tirmizhi, Nasaai, and Abu Dawood. It is thus clear that fasting on Monday has an additional benefit and was not done solely because of the Noble Birth that occurred on this day.
58

WHY SAHAABA NEVER CELEBRATED MEELAAD

Some advocates of the Meelaad function say that the Sahaaba and Ulema after them had no need to observe Meelaad, since they were close to the Blessed Era of Our Rasool and their love for him was outstanding. Today, love for the Rasool has dwindled, people are far away from the Prophetic Era, and there is general laxity in fulfilling the Sunnah. The Meelaad is a means bringing people closer to the Sunnah and re-affirming their love for Rasoolullah _.

ANSWER
Firstly, how is it possible to revive the Sunnah, or bring people closer to the Sunnah, when the whole Meelaad is based on practices that are IN TOTAL CONFLICT with the Sunnah? At the start of this treatise we outlined factors that occur in these Meelaad functions which are in complete violation of the Sunnah. While the motive is laudable, the means to achieve this motive are unacceptable and wayward. One can never achieve the desired results when the means are corrupt. Secondly, how is it possible to meet ONCE a year and expect such a venture to generate love for Our Master _? To achieve that goal, people should be encouraged on a weekly if not daily basis, like many of our Ulema are doing. And the simple way to make this happen is to have

daily public talks or to use the Jumua platform to highlight the Sunnat Tareeqah of Our Master _. Such a program should be pursued with great urgency. Actually, this and similarly arguments are symptomatic of people clutching at straws in desperation to provide some legitimacy to the practice of Meelaad. These are just excuses and cannot justify the act in any way whatsoever. Arguments must be based on Sharee proof, not mere projected visions and ideas the attainability of which itself is doubtful and obscure.

WHY RASOOLULLAH _ NEVER DID MEELAAD

Another rather ridiculous argument in support of Meelaad, one that does not even warrant a mention, is that Rasoolullah _ never instructed or initiated Meelaad because he feared it would become Faraz on his
59

Ummat, like he never continued with Taraweeh for more than three nights. He said he feared it would become Faraz on the Ummat.

ANSWER
Such a claim is preposterous. Can there be anything more ludicrous and absurd than a notion of this nature? How can such lies be attributed to Allahs Pure and Divine Messenger? Maaazhallah! If the Messenger of Allah had practised Meelaad celebrations once or twice and then discontinued it, there would be some merit to this argument. Then it would be reasonable and valid to draw a similarity between it and Taraweeh, because this is exactly what happened in Taraweeh. He did it for few nights then stopped. Rasoolullah _ himself provided the reason for discontinuing Taraweeh: I Feared it would become compulsory on you The reality is that the Messenger of Allah _ never mentioned or practised Meelaad at all. How dare we say that his refusal to do so was because he feared it would be made compulsory on the Ummat? How can something that never was, be made compulsory on the Ummat? What mockery of our Pure Shariah!! Allah Taala protect us from such vagaries of belief, aameen. Furthermore, this can only be acceptable if it comes from the Messenger of Allah himself. The Ummat has no right or mandate to make such decisions with the regards to Amaal. Had The Messenger of Allah expressed this as a reason for not conducting Meelaad, it would be valid., as he mentioned this in relation to the Taraweeh Salaah. Attributing such a notion to The Messenger of Allah is attributing a lie to His Great Name, and from this we seek Allahs Refuge.

LIGHTER PUNISHMENT FOR ABU LAHAB

It is argued that someone saw Abu Lahab in a dream after his death, and enquired about his condition in the hereafter. Abu Lahab replied that every Monday Allah lightens his punishment by allowing him to drink water from between his forefinger and thumb, and this was granted to him because of his freeing the slave girl Thuwayba upon hearing of the birth of Rasoolullah _. The argument states that here is an example of an act that is repeated every Monday in commemoration of the Birth of Rasoolullah _.
60

ANSWER
There are several responses to this argument. First: this was a dream and laws of Shariah are not established through dreams. Dreams can become supportive of an already established act, but cannot function as independent proof or evidence for something new. Second: The narration in Bukhari merely states that Abu Lahab was granted brief reprieve from

Jahannum because of setting free the slave Thuwayba. There is no mention of a Monday or that he had set her free upon hearing the news of Our Masters birth. The emancipation of a slave is a good and virtuous act in Islam. According to this narration of Bukhari, Abu Lahab seems to have been granted some form or recompense for this good act. Normally, kuffar are not benefitted in the hereafter from acts of good that they did in this world. However, since Thuwayba has breastfed Allahs Messenger, it is possible that Abu Lahab was granted a special concession in this case. Ibn Saad mentions in his Tabaqaat that Abu Lahab had set free Thuwayba just after Rasoolullah had made hijrat to Madinah, not at the time of his birth. Some Seerah books do mention the common belief that she was set free after she gave Abu Lahab the news of the Blessed Birth, but authentic sources do not support this. On the assumption that he had indeed set her free the Day Allahs Messenger was born, we will repeat what was mentioned earlier that on the strength of this dream, Meelaad celebrations should then take place Mondays and NOT on 12 Rabiul-Owwal. The narration in Bukhari states that the punishment of Abu Lahab is reduced on Mondays, NOT 12 Rabiul-Owwal. In any case, how flimsy can a practice get when it has to be propped up by dreams instead of Sharee Proofs.

RASOOLULLAH _ MADE AQEEQAH FOR HIMSELF

Another argument for Meelaad is that many years after his Noble Birth Rasoolullah _ made his own aqeeqah, in spite of the fact that his Grandfather had offered his aqeeqa seven days after he was born. Allama Suyooti narrated this hadith in the Book of Imam Bayhaqi. This shows that to commemorate the Noble Birth with a good act is sunnat.
61

ANSWER
The hadith in question is not authentic. Imam Nawawi says it is baatil (false), and he cites Bayhaqi as saying that it is rejected. (Al-Majmoo, the Chapter on Aqeeqah); Imam Ahmad rejected the authenticity of this hadith (Tuhfatul-Maudood of Ibnul-QayyimChapter 19); Allama Ibn Hajar, too, declared that the narration of Rasoolullah making his own aqeeqa is weak and unacceptable. (Fathul-Baari, vol 9, page 595 Al-Maktaba Shaamilah). There is nothing further to be added once it is established that the aqeeqa hadith is false. Such narrations are too weak to serve as a basis for any Sharee ruling.

BIDAH CONDEMNED IN THE QURAN

GOOD ACTS ARE NOT TO BE INNOVATED WITHOUT SANCTION In Surah Hadeed, verse 27 Almighty Allah States: And the Monasticism that they innovated, We did not ordain it for them. (They did it purely) to seek the Pleasure of Allah); and they never observed it in the manner it should have been observed;
In this verse Allah Taala uses the term Ibtada which is a derived from the word bidah and means to innovate or to invent something new. Allah Taala refers to the Nasaara and their practice of Monasticism. This was a way of life adopted by the Christians whereby they cut themselves off from society and vowed never to marry or to indulge in worldly pleasures. The Holy Quran clearly states that this lifestyle they adopted was without sanction from Allah, though their motives were to please Allah. They invented it on their own accord without Divine Permission. This was a bidah that had no sanction from Allah. In this case Allah Taala did not consider the motive for innovating Monasticism, which

was to seek Allahs Pleasure. We derive from this verse that bidah has
62

no sanction from Allah regardless of what motives people have for creating the bidah. It is of note here that the practice of Monasticism was not based on any unlawful activity. It was an act that placed pressure on the nafs and provided strength to the soul. Per se it was a good act and designed to achieve a noble purpose. It had not attendant haraam factors. Yet, Allah condemned it because they had innovated it, and most importantly, they had made it compulsory on themselves. This verse is very distinctly conveys the following principles governing bidah: a) Any act of worship that is done without Sanction from Allah is termed bidah according to the Quran. b) Monasticism was not condemned by Allah before the Nasaara introduced it into their lives. In other words, The Shariah of Nabi Eesa (alayhis-salaam) was SILENT on the permissibility or prohibition of Monasticism. But the moment they innovated this as an act of ibaadat, it was condemned by Allah, simply because it did not have Allah Taalas approval and sanction. c) Once an act is defined as bidah, the motives for such an act are inconsequential. The motive cannot justify the wrong act. Even if a bidah is committed for the purpose of earning Allahs Pleasure, it remains a bidah and it remains waajib for all to abstain. We ask readers to apply these principles to the act of Meelaad to get a conclusive answer from the Holy Quran itself.
63

THE MASS MEELAAD PROGRAM

Meelaad activists are now taking this process to greater heights by organising a mass Meelaad procession that will take to the streets in Cape Town this Rabiul-Owwal. The motive for this whole exercise is to ostensibly show people Islam and highlight the life of Our Beloved Master. This particular plan only shows that there are no limits to the lengths people will go in practising their meelaad. It also shows that this event is not governed by any Islamic principles. It is just one whole free-for-all, no-holds-barred celebration. How can this be an act of worship when it is not bound by any rules and regulations? Precisely for this reason has the Meelaad undergone so many changes, additions, extensions, and revolutions over the centuries since its inception. A Meelaad procession that goes through the streets is similar to the Taziyah procession of the Shiahs in Muharram, and the different types of parades and processions the Hindus conduct during their weddings and festive occasions. This is a bidah within a bidah; one wrong compounded. There is no Islamic sanction for this. We appeal to Muslims who value their Deen and appreciate their Islamic ideals, to avoid these street parades that are carried out in the name of Islam. Upon deeper reflection, a Muslims heart will strongly attest to the un-Islamic nature of this practice. Allah Taala guide us all to the method of Islam that pleases Him aameen.

64

THE DIVINELY IMPOSED FIGHT AGAINST BIDAH :

Abdullah bin Masud narrates that Rasoolullah _ said: Every Nabi sent to his people by Allah before me had disciples and companions who held fast to his sunnat and adhered to his commandments. Then there arose after them a generation of people who preached what they never practised, and practised what they were not commanded to do. Whoever fights these people with the hand is a true believer, and whoever fights them with the tongue is a true believer, and whoever fights them with the heart is a true believer. And beyond this there is not even an atoms worth of iemaan. (Narrated in Saheeh Muslim)