REPLY TO THE 17 OBJECTIONS POSED BY MAJLISUL ULAMA

FIRST OBJECTION

Meelad celebration is declared as Haraam and an evil Bid’at because of the following reasons:

1. The compulsory nature assigned to Meelad by its votaries.
    
2. It was completely unknown to the Messenger of Allah, his noble Sahabah and the great Jurists and Ulema of Islam (pg.12).

OUR ANSWER

1. No Sunni Muslim believes that Meelad celebration is compulsory. We believe that the Meelad celebration is Mustahab (recommended). Alamma Ismail Haqi (radi Allahu anhu) quotes in “Tafseer Ruhul Bayaan”: “Imam Jalaaluddin Suyuti has said that it is Mustahab for us to celebrate Meelad of the Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) as to thank Allah”. (Ruhul Bayaan, Vol. 9, pg. 56). Majlisul Ulema claims that Meelad is not even Mustahab (pg. 12). 

I could present many facts to prove that the Meelad celebration is Mustahab, but would prefer to leave you, the reader, with the view and belief of the great Imam Suyuti (radi Allahu anhu). Let us see what Fatwa Majlisul Ulema will give on Imam Jalaaluddin Suyuti (radi Allahu anhu)!

CHALLENGE

If Majlisul Ulema is honest in their claim that the Ahlus Sunnah Wa Jamaah believe that Meelad celebration is necessary, then they must show us the proof of who wrote that?
 

2. It is true that in the time of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), the period of the Sahabah and in the period of the Tabi’in, Meelad was not celebrated as it is done in the present form. But the Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), Sahabah or Tabi’in did not prohibit it as well. This is an accepted principle of Shari’ah that the performance of something is proof of Jawaaz (permissibility), and not doing it is NOT the proof of it’s prohibition. The same principle has been explained by Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi in “Nashrut-Teeb”, pg.87, published by World Islamic Publishers, Delhi. Your claim that the Sahaba did not celebrate Meelad is destroyed by your own leader! In fact, this style of argument is childish and not academic. Please try to find some other proofs so that you may be heard!

The Holy Prophet (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), the Sahabah and the Tabi’in did not have Ijtima, Ghust, forty days or Shab Ghuzari. The present form of “Tableegh” activities are completely unlinked with Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), the Sahabah, Tabi’in and Jurist Imams (radi Allahu anhum). Following the same principles, why don’t you also regard these “Tableegh” related activities as Haraam? I suppose that you have taken Shari’ah as your slave-girl, therefore, Shari’ah must give ruling according to your desire. Allah forbid!

SECOND OBJECTION

The Meelad celebration is declared as Haraam and an evil Bid’at by Majlisul Ulama due to the following reasons:-

1. The practice of Qiyaam or standing in reverence when the Salaami or Salwaat is recited.
    
2. The votaries of Meelad believe that it is Fardh (compulsory) to make Qiyaam (standing) during these Meelad functions.
    
3. They proceed further to commit an act of extreme gravity by branding as Kaafir the one who does not make this Qiyaam in the Meelad celebration.
    
4. Kitaabs written by the votaries of Moulood ambiguously state that the one who does not make Qiyaam (standing) is a Kaafir.
    
5. Hazrat Anas (radi Allahu anhu) narrates the following Hadith: “There was none whom the Sahabah loved as much as Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). When they saw Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), they did not stand because they knew that he detested this (practice of standing)”. (Tirmizi ; Musnad Ahmed) (pg. 12) In the commentary of this Hadith, Majlisul Ulama writes that the “Sahabah did not stand in respect of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) and that Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) disliked such a practice”. (pg. 13)
    
6. Majlisul Ulama write: Why don't you people stand when Rasoolullah’s (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) name is mentioned in Tashahud, lectures, reciting of the Kalima, Khutba, etc.? Why you do not stand when the Quraan is recited or when Allah's name is mentioned? (I have summarised this question) (pg. 13 -4)
    
7. Others again stand because of a reason which is much more dangerous than the reason for which the majority of people stand. Some cherish the believe that the Soul of our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) presents itself at these sessions of Meelad, hence it is necessary to stand in respect. This is a fallacious and a highly misleading belief. This belief leads to Shirk or association with Allah Ta'ala in an attribute which is exclusive in Divinity. Let us assume that A holds a Meelad function in his home, B does the same in his home, C also has a Meelaad celebration and D does likewise also. Meelaad functions are taking place in various masaajids all over the world. Now let us assume that these functions happen to take place at the same time and the Salaami is being recited at these various venues at once at the same time. A is under the impression that Rasoolullah's (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) Soul is present at his function. B, C, D and the people in the various masaajid all over the world are under the same impression. We have assumed that the Salaami is being recited at the same time in the various places, hence it will follow that our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is present at the place of A, B, C, D, etc. at one and the same time. In other words, this belief means that our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is present here, there and everywhere at one at the same time. This is bestowing the Divine Attribute of Omnipresence upon our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). Thus, this belief assigns to our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) Divinity by way of according Omnipresence to our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). This is in reality the commission of Shirk which is a capital crime - a crime most heinous in the Eyes of Allah (pg. 15)

OUR ANSWER

1. The Peer-o-Murshid (Spiritual leader) of the Ulema-e-Deoband, Hazrat Haji Imdadullah Muhaajir Makki (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “The way of life of this Faqeer (Muhaajir Makki) is that I participate in the assembly of Moulood, and I celebrate this function every year and regard this assembly as a source for blessings and I find enjoyment in Qiyaam (standing)”. (Faisala Haft Mas'ala, pg. 5, printed by Madani Qutub Khana, Multan, Pakistan).

The following issues are proven from the above quotation of Hazrat Haji Imdadullah (radi Allahu anhu): 

1. The Peer-o-Murshid says that Qiyaam is Ja’iz (permissible) and that he finds enjoyment in it. The Mureeds say that it is Haraam and evil Bid’at. I am sure that both cannot be correct. If the Mureeds are correct then it would mean that the Murshid has commited an act which is Haraam and evil Bid’at. But, if the Murshid is correct, then the Mureeds have given a wrong Fatwa on the Murshid for committing a Haraam and an evil Bid’at. Is this the Adab (respect) shown by the Ulema-e-Deoband for their spiritual leader? The Majisul Ulama do not feel ashamed in addressing themselves as spiritual students of such a person, on one hand, yet this noble personality practiced something which they condemned as unacceptable.
    
2. Committing Haraam makes a person a sinner and to announce the sin makes a person a Fasiq-e-Mo'lin (an open sinner). It is Haraam to make Bai't (allegiance) on the hand of a Fasiq-e-Mo'lin. The spiritual Silsila (order) of the Majlisul Ulama becomes munqa-te (inconsistent) if their Murshid committed a Haraam act (which is Qiyaam). Why then do their Mashaa’ikh deceive people by making them their Mureeds, since they have no consistent spiritual order.

2. This is another false and baseless accusation. No one has ever said that the act of Qiyaam in Meelaad functions is Fardh. Aa'la Hazrat, Imam Ahle Sunnat, Moulana Ahmed Raza Khan (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “Qiyaam is consistently practiced by famous Imams. None of them refuted or denied this. Therefore, it is Mustahab (recommended)”. (Iqaamatul Qiyaamah, pg. 19, Noori Qutub Khana).

CHALLENGE

You are requested to quote from an authentic source to prove that we have declared Qiyaam in Salaato-Salaam as Fardh.

APPEAL

We appeal to the public who follow the Ulema-e-Deoband that they should ask them proof for their claims. If they cannot present a proof, which I am certain that will be unable to, then at least tell them to please stop lying and to stop causing Fitna.

3. Another baseless accusation and an open lie. We have never ever branded anyone as Kaafir just because he does not participate in the act of Qiyaam (standing). Qiyaam is only regarded as Mustahab according to us. One who leaves a Mustahab act is not even a sinner, let alone becoming a Kaafir. Those who stop the people from taking part from Qiyaam or Meelaad are absolutely wrong because they are stopping people from taking part in a Mustahab act.

Aa'la Hazrat (radi Allahu anhu) or any other Ulema-e-Ahle Sunat have given the Fatwa of Kufr only against those people who were Mirza’i or those who insulted Almighty Allah and His Rasool (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). Even till today, their blasphemous statements are being published in their books. 

Now read carefully what Moulana Murtuza Hassen Naazim-e Taaleemat-e Darul Uloom Deoband has to say in this regard: “Khan Bereilvi says that some Ulema of Deoband do not accept Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) as Khaatamun Nabiy’yeen, regard the knowledge of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) equal to animals and the insane, and regard Shaytaan as more knowledgeable than Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), therefore, they are Kaafirs. All the Ulema of Deoband say that this ruling of Khan Saheb is correct. Whoever makes this type of statement is a Kaafir Murtad (apostate) and cursed one. Bring your Fatwa. We will endorse it as well. One who does not regard these type of Murtads (apostates) as Kaafir, he is also Kaafir. These beliefs are indeed blasphemous”. ( Ashaddul Azaab, pg. 11).

“If, according to Khan Saheb, some Ulema of Deoband were really like that as he thought, than it was Fardh (compulsory) on Khan Saheb to declare them as Kaafirs. If he did not call them Kaafirs, then he himself would have become Kaafir”. (Ashaddul Azaab, Moulana Murtaza Hassen Dar Banghi, pg. 12).

The following issues are proven from the above two statements from “Ashaddul Azaab”:-

1. Aa'la Hazrat (radi Allahu anhu) did not regard anyone as Kaafir because of not participating in Meelaad or Qiyaam.
    
2. Aa’la Hazrat (radi Allahu anhu) only regarded those people as Kaafirs who insulted Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam).
    
3. The principles upon whom the Fatwas of Kufr were given are accepted between Deobandi and Sunni Ulema.
    
4. Aa'la Hazrat (radi Allahu anhu) was compelled by the Shari’ah to issue Fatwas of Kufr upon those people, otherwise he himself would have become Kaafir.
    
5. Aa'la Hazrat (radi Allahu anhu) had given the Fatwa of Kufr on only few people - those who wrote blasphemous statements, and those who after understanding fully these statements, regarded them as accurate and in the spirit of Islam and Shari’ah.

CHALLENGE

We challenge Majlisul Ulema and all their affiliates to prove that which recognised Sunni Aalim has written that those who do not participate in Qiyaam are Kaafirs. If they can prove their claims, I will leave Sunnism to join them.

APPEAL

I appeal to the Tableegi Jamaat: Obtain the proof from your Ulema, because if you are able to obtain this proof from your Ulema, you will win me over in your mission. Lots of others will come with me as well and your job will become easier as well as you have been trained to convert people from Islam into the fold of Tableegism. We are prepared to come and join you just with one condition - just obtain the proof for us. If you are unable to do so, then do the real Tableegh and tell your Ulama, “Shame on you. What do you want to achieve through lying?” The people are not fools out there. Please stop lying!

4. This is another lie. If Kitaabs are written by the Meelaad supporters whereby it is stated that those who do not make Qiyaam are Kaafirs, why then did you not give the name of at least one Kitaab? Readers, please phone and write to Majlisul Ulama and the Y.M.M.A. and demand from them at least one of the names amongst of those Kitaabs.

5. Moulana Mohammed Zakaria, the author of “Tableeghi Nisaab”, explains the Hadith of Hazrat Anas (radi Allahu anhu) in “Sharah Shama’ile Tirmizi”: “This Hadith indicates towards the high degree of humbleness of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) did not like (that people should stand for him), although he is possessor of high glory and is Master of both the worlds. Therefore, the Sahabah sometimes did not stand due to the love because Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) disliked it as it is the requirement of this narration (of Hazrat Anas) and sometimes they used to stand due to the demand of love”.

It is stated in “Abu Dawood” that, “Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) used to talk to us in the masjid. When Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) used to stand, we used to stand up and we used to remain standing till Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) used to get into the hom21;. (Sharah Shamaa’ile Tirmizi, pg. 342, Maktaba Rahmania , Lahore).

Moulana Zakaria explains the reason for not standing, “Qazi Ayaz (radi Allahu anhu) says that, ‘Qiyaam is prohibited whereby somebody well known is sitting and rest of the people are standing. Therefore, in the Hadith of prohibition (from Qiyaam), it is also said, ‘ do not stand as the Ajmees (non- Arabs) stand for their chiefs’”. (Sharah Shamaa’ile Tirmizi, pg. 342)

Moulana Zakaria writes further: “Imam Nowvi says that it is Mustahab to stand for Ulema, respectful and noble people”. (Sharah Shamaa’ile Tirmizi, pg. 342).

Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi has written a long story about Moulana Qassim Nanotwi and Hakim Abdus Salaam. “Hakim Abdus Salaam had a desire to meet Moulana Nanotwi who was at the time sitting with many people. When Hakim Abdus Salaam arrived, everybody stood up to pay respect to him”. (Arwahe Salaasa, pg. 230, story number 215, Islami Academy, Lahore.)

The narration of “Abu Dawood” proves that the Sahabah used to stand for Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) and the reason for prohibition was also dealt with. Imam Nowvi (radi Allahu anhu) said: “It is Mustahab to stand for Ulema and Moulana Nanotwi and all his fellows stood up to pay respect for Hakim Abdus Salaam”.

I suppose that Majlisul Ulama are quick to condemn others and are lazy to study the literature of their own elders. Do we have to teach the Majlisul Ulama about their household matters also!

6. This objection is not worth any consideration. If Allah gives Tawfeeq to someone that every Zikr he recites or listens to from the beginning to the end in a standing position, it is a good practice and we will not stop him. We will not tell him to only stand at the time that the Salaami is recited and to remain seated for the other Ibaadah . It is difficult for people to stand in a Meelad assembly from the beginning to the very end, so they stand up when the birth of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is being mentioned or when the Salaami is read. 

Why did the Ulema of Deoband open a Darul Uloom in Deoband and not in Makkah? Why do South African Tableeghis have Ijtijma during the Easter holidays and not in the December holidays? Why did Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi write “Nashruteeb” in the Zikr of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) and not write a separate book about the Zikr of Allah only? Can someone prove Hurmat (prohibition) with these types of silly arguments?

7. Majlisul Ulema's spiritual guide, Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, writes: “Mohammed Al Hazrami Majzoob was a possessor of amazing qualities and miracles. Once, he performed Jummah and gave Khutbah in 30 cities at the same time. He could be present in many cities in the same night”. (Jamalul Auliya, pg. 188, Maktaba Islamia, Lahore).

Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi believed and trusted this story, therefore, he has included it in his book, “Jamalul Auliya”. The presence of Mohammed Al Hazrami in many places was accomplished with his physical body. The physical world is a restricted place. Mohammed Al Hazrami was the servant of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). He indeed achieved this station because of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). One can now imagine the powers and the station of the mubarak (blessed) Soul of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) who is the Master and Chief of all the Prophets. So the possibility of his soul being present in many places should not even be an issue of debate amongst Muslims.

If it was Shirk to believe that one person can be present in many places, then according to your own Fatwas, your elder, Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi, is a Mushrik because he believed in the correctness of the story of Mohammed Al Hazrami. Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi mentioned the story in his book and did not refute it. This proves that this story is authentic according to him and correct in his view.

Moulana Qassim Nanotwi explains the meaning of this verse “An Nabi Yu Aula Bil Mu’menina Min Anfosihim ....” by saying: “Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) has such nearness with his Ummah that even their souls do not have, because in this verse the word ‘Aula’ is in the meaning of ‘Aqrab’ (nearest)." (Tahzeerun Naas, pg.14, Darul Isha’at, Karachi).

According to the explanation of Moulana Nanotwi, the meaning of the verse will be “The Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is nearer to the Believers then their own lives”. Our lives are “present”. Nobody can deny this fact because if the life is absent then it would mean that we are dead. Our being alive proves that our life is “present”.I cannot seem to understand that when our life itself is “present” and the one who is nearest to us than our own lives, is regarded as being “absent”. If someone believes that the Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is “present”, then he is a Mushrik! What logic is this? Will the Majlisul Ulema or any other Deobandi Aalim be able to prove that the one who is nearest to our lives is absent? Let's see how much logic you can have behind your arguments.

Hazrat Haji Imdadullah Muhaajr Makki (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “Our Ulema fight in the issue of Meelad Shareef. The Ulema believed in its permissibility as well. When the side of permissibility exists, why then is there so much hardness on this issue? For us, it is sufficient to follow the people of Haramain (Makkah and Medina). At the time of Qiyaam one should not have the belief of Tawallud (that Rasoolullah - sallal laahu alaihi wasallam - is born now). The possibility of the arrival of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) in the Meelad assembly is not wrong because the bodily world is restricted to time and place, but the spiritual world is free from both. So the arrival of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is not far from being possible”. (Shamaime Imdaadiya, pg.50, Madani Qutub Khana, Multan).

THE SUBJECT OF “OMNIPRESENT”

This is another false accusation that Sunnis believe Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) to be omnipresent. This is not the belief of the Ahle Sunnah Wa Jamaah, neither is it the meaning of the words “Haazir” and “Naazir”. The word “omnipresent”, according to the Oxford Dictionary, means “present everywhere”. When the word “Haazir” and “Naazir” is used for Almighty Allah it means “Knower” and “Seeir” and does not mean to be present everywhere. (See details in “Fatawa Shami”, Vol. 3, pg. 337). The meaning of the word “Haazir” in the Arabic dictionary is, “one who can be seen with the naked eye.” (For refrence, refer to “Sarrah”, pg. 170; “Mukhtaarus Sihaah”, pg. 159; “Mufreedaat Imam Raaghib”, pg. 372). The meaning of the word “Naazir” is “blackness of the eyeball in which the pupil of the eye is”. Sometimes, the eye itself is called Naazirah ( Reference “Mukhtaarus Sihaah”, pg. 691) 

It is now proven that the words “Haazir” and “Naazir” according to its literal meaning are not suitable for Almighty Allah. Whenever it is used for Allah it is used with Ta’weel (re-interpretation), as explained above.

CHALLENGE

We challenge Majlisul Ulama to prove that the words “Haazir-o-Naazir” means “omnipresent”. (N.B.: not from Urdu to English or modern Arabic dictionaries because they are not based on Quranic Arabic). The literal meaning of the words “Haazir-o-Naazir” has been explained above and the Mu’awwal (re-interpreted) meaning of the words “Haazir-o-Naazir” for Allah is “Knower” and “Seeir”. I have consulted many dictionaries to look for the word “omnipresent” and in all the dictionaries there are no meanings even close to the meaning of the words “Haazir-o-Naazir”. I found that “omnipresent” is not the meaning of the words “Haazir-o-Naazir” at all. 

The words “Haazir-o-Naazir” in its literal meaning is never used for Allah Ta'ala. Therefore, in the 99 Names of Allah, one would not find the Names of “ Haazir” and “Naazir”. Nowhere in the Quraan or Hadith are the names “Haazir” and “Naazir” used as Allah's Names. No one can prove that the Sahabah or Tabi’in or Jurist Imams have ever used the words “Haazir” and “Naazir” for Allah Ta'ala.

THE USE OF THE WORD “HAAZIR-O-NAAZIR” FOR THE HOLY PROPHET (SALLAL LAAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM)

Since it is proven that “Haazir-o-Naazir” does not mean “omnipresent” nor is it an Attribute of Allah Ta'ala which is impossible to manifest in the servants of Allah, like Uluhiyyat (Divinity). The Ulema have used the words “Haazir-o-Naazir” for Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). Hazrat Sheikh Abdul Haq Muhaddis Delwi (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is Haazir-o-Naazir on the deeds of his Ummah”. (Haashiya Akhbarul Akhyaar, pg. 155).

THE CONCEPT OF “HAAZIR-O-NAAZIR” USED FOR RASOOLULLAH (SALLAL LAAHU ALAIHI WASALLAM)

Imam Ahle Sunnat, Hazrat Sayed Ahmed Sa’eed Qazmi (radi Allahu anhu) states: “When the word Haazir-o-Naazir is used for Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam), it does not mean that the physical body of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is everywhere and that he is present in front of everybody. This in fact means that as the soul exists in every part of the body similarly the light filled reality of the Soul of both the worlds (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) exist in every atom of the worlds. Based on that Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) arrives with his spirituality and lightfulness in many places at one time. Many times, the Pious observe the beauty of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) in a state of wakefulness with their physical eyes”. (Taskeenul Khawatir fi Mas’alatil Haazir wan Naazir,pg.13, Maktabah-e-Haamdya, Lahore).

Nowhere in the above definition has it been mentioned that “Haazir-o-Naazir” means “omnipresent”. It seems that the entire research of Majlisul Ulema is based on the issues which they have heard of or assumed.