OTHER OBJECTIONS

OBJECTION

Majlisul Ulema wrote on page 8:- “Ibn Masood (radi Allahu anhu) heard that some people gathered in the Musjid and were reciting ‘Laa-ilaaha ilallah’ and Durood Shareef aloud. He went to them and said: ‘This (way of recital) was non-existent during the time of the Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). I regard you as innovators.’ Ibn Masood (radi Allahu anhu) repeated this over and over until the people were rejected from the musjid”.

FATAWA QAADHI KHAN

It must be noted here that these people were only reciting Laa-ilaaha illallah and Durood Shareef, and both these are acts of Ibaadat of a very high order. Despite this, Hazrat Ibn Masood (radi Allahu anhu) had these people ejected from the musjid and described them as innovators because they were reciting these two forms of Thikr in a manner not taught by our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) and in a manner not practiced by the noble Sahabah of Rasulullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). Further, Hazrat Ibn Masood (radi Allahu anhu) said: “This method was not in vogue during the time of Rasulullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam)”.

This statement of Hazrat Ibn Masood (radi Allahu anhu) clearly means that if a form of worship was not instructed by our Nabi (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) then it will be a Bid'ah. If the Sahaba did not entertain any new systems or any new ways of worship then we have no right whatsoever of introducing into Islam any new way or form of worship.

OUR ANSWER

There are two answers to this misleading attempt:-

1. You are also Bid’ati and act upon Haraam as well. You shout “Naara Takbeer” during your Jalsas when the lecturer makes a good point. You do not pass Fatwa against that and do not stop that loud Zikr.
   
   Moulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi writes: “Zikr is correct in whatever way it may be”. (i.e., loud or soft) (Fatawa Rashidia, pg. 251) According to your Fatwa, Moulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi has become a Bid’ati. Why then do you people make so much noise about Bid’at? Your Elders are Bid’atis themselves!
    
2. The qoutation of “Fatawa Qazi Khan” is explained in “Fatawa Bazaazia”: “To make Zikr with a loud voice is permissible as it happens in Azaan, Khutba, Jumma and Haj. This issue is explained in Fatawa Kharia Tharaly. Whatever is mentioned in Fatawa Qazi Khan, it means harmful loudness (is Bid’at)”. (Fatawa Bazaazia, pg. 378)
   
   It became obvious from here that Hazrat Ibn Masood (radi Allahu anhu) called those people Bid’atis who were making Zikr with harmful loudness. It is possible that they may have been making loud Zikr at the time of Jamaat or that this might cause harm to the Deen.

This “proof” which Majlisul Ulema presented to prove that Meelad functions are Bid’at did not help them at all. Rather it made them Bid’atis because Moulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi wrote eight Fatawa in “Fatawa Rashidia” proving that loud Zikr is permissible.

OBJECTION

On page 7, Majlisul Ulama wrote (N.B. Transliterations were in Arabic):

A man sneezed in the presence of Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) and said: “Al-Hamdu lil laahi was salaamu 'ala rasoolil laahi”.

Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) immediately rebuked this person and said that our Nabi (Salla lahu alayhi wa sallam) taught us to recite : “Al-Hamdu lil lahi 'ala qulli haalin” when we sneezed. This Hadith has been narrated by Tirmizi.

The point which we have to ponder here, is Abdullah Ibn Umar's rebuke because this man recited was, “Salaamu 'alar rasoolil laah”, after the words “Al-Hamdu lillaahi”. In reality, the recital of the sentence was “Salaamu 'alar rasoolil laah” is an act of merit. The more we remember Rasulullah Sallal lahi alayhi wa sallam the more thawaab we get. In fact, we have been commanded to constantly offer salutations to our Nabi sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam. However despite this, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) (one of the great Sahabah) rejected this form of recitation after one has sneezed. And, the reason as explained by Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) was that this formula was not taught to us by Rasulullah sallal lahu alayhi wasallam.

OUR ANSWER

From this Hadith it is proven that people should not add any thing to that what is being proven in Shari’ah. It is stated in “Durre Mukhtaar”: “Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said, ‘Do not mention me (my name) at the time of sneezing and at the time of slaughtering’”. (Durre Mukhtaar, Kitaabuz Zabaih)Therefore, the saying of that person's, “Assalaamo Ala Rasulillah” falls under the prohibited command. It was the duty of Hazrat Ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) to stop that person from committing a prohibited act, and, Alhamdulilah, we also stop people from performing prohibited acts.

We say that the reason of stopping was because this man established the rule of greeting by saying “Assalaamo Ala Rasulillah” at such an occasion in which there was already a fixed rule of Shari’ah to say “Al hamdo lillah”. This was against the Shari’ah and a change in the Deen. What relation can this incident have with the celebration of Melaad Shareef? The increase and creation of good and virtuous deeds in Islam is in accordance with this Hadith, “Whosoever establishes a virtuous path in Islam will be rewarded.” (Mishkaat, Babul I’lm). This (Melaad) is not against the Shari’ah, and it does not cause a change in the Deen. In fact, it is a virtuous deed in which a person is rewarded.

In conclusion, I wish to state with regards to the Hadith of sneezing that, that person added “Assalamo Ala Rasulillah” which was in contradiction to the Nahi (prohibition) of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). Therefore, Hazrat Ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) did his duty and stopped him.

Practices attached to Melaad are not prohibited in Shari’ah, so to make analogy of non-prohibited practices on the prohibited practices is incorrect and based on ignorance.

Majlisul Ulama have used wrong analogies throughout their book, “Moulood and the Shari’ah”, to prove Melaad as Haraam, which makes very clear the height of their “Islamic knowledge”.

OBJECTION

On pages 8-9, Majlisul Ulama wrote:

“Mujahid says that Urwah Bin Zubair and himself entered the Musjid and saw Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) sitting near to the room of Aishah (radhiyallahu anha). Some people in the masjid were performing the Dhuhaa prayers (the Salaat which is performed sometime after sunrise). We asked Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) about the Salaat being performed by these people. He replied that it was a Bid'ah innovation”. (Bukhari-Muslim)

It should be remembered that Salaatud-Duhaa has been narrated by many Sahaabah. It is an act of Ibaadat which carries considerable reward. We are encouraged to perform this salaat. The great pious men of Islam hardly omit this salaat. However, despite this fact, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Umar (radhiyallahu anhu) described the Dhuhaa Salaat of this particular group of people as Bid'ah. The reason for branding it as Bid'ah is the fact that these people originated a new method of performing this prayer. They congregated and performed this salaat conspicuously in the Musjid, and this method of performing it in congregation form was not instructed by our Nabi sallal lahu alayhi wa sallam”.

OUR ANSWER

This argument is not useful at all for the deniers of Melaad celebration, because Hazrat Ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) regards this Salaat of Dhuhaa as Bid’ate Hasanah. Khaatamul Mohaddeseen, Imam Zurqani (radi Allahu anhu) quotes a narration from Sha'bi in “Sharah Mawaahib”: “I have heard Ibn Umar saying, ‘Muslims have not invented anything better than Salaatud Dhuhaa (Chaasht)’. Ibn Shaiba reports from Hakam Bin Abdullah Bin Ishaaq Bin Al A'raj, who said, ‘I asked Ibn Umar about Salaatud Dhuhaa. He replied, ‘It is Bid’at and what a good Bid’at it is’.” (Sharah Mawaahib Le Zurqaani, pg. 13, with the reference of Anwaare Saate’ah, pg. 84)

The Ulama of Islam said that this was not the denial on Salaatud Dhuhaa itself because this is Bid’ate Hasanah according to Hazrat Ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhuma) as well. In fact, people were reading this Salaat with the proper arrangement in the Masjid like Fardh Salaat, and this was against the Hadith.

Imam Tirmizi reported a Hadith from Hazrat Umar, Jabir, Abu Sa’eed, Abu Hurairah, Ibn Umar, Hazrat Aisha, Abdullah Ibn Mas’ ood and Zaid Bin Khalid (radi Allahu anhum) that Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) said, “O people, read your Nafil Salaat at home”.

Hazrat Ibn Umar (radi Allahu anhuma), through his Ijtihaad (authoritative interpretation), found this practice of some people against the Hadith, and for this reason he declared it as Bid’at. We also say that if anything is being invented against the Quraan and the Hadith (Sunnah) it is an evil Bid’at. 

Therefore, this argument cannot be used against Meelad celebration, because Meelad celebration is not against any commandment of the Quraan or the Hadith.

OBJECTION

Majlisul Ulema writes under the title:- “WHAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES OF ISLAM SAY ABOUT MOULOOD - Imam Ahmad bin Muhammed bin Basri Maaliki (radi Allahu anhu) states: “And, the Ulama of the four Mathhabs (Hanafi, Shafi, Hambali and Maaliki) are unanimous in condemning this practice (i.e. Meelaad )”. (Al Qoulul Mu'tamad).

OUR ANSWER

Allama Burhanuddin Halbi (radi Allahu anhu) writes refuting this: “Undoubtedly, Ibne Hajar has originated Meelad from Sunnah, and similarly, did Hafiz Imam Suyuti, and both of them severely refuted the saying of Allama Maliki that Meelaad is evil Bid’at”. (Sirat Halbia, pg. 80). A quotation that had been refuted by great Ulema like Hafiz Ibn Hajar and Imam Suyuti (radi Allahu anhuma) is the kind of proof of Majlisul Ulema against Meelad.

OBJECTION

Majlisul Ulema wrote:- Imaam Ibnul Haaj states: “Among the Bid'ahs (innovations) which these people have introduced is the practice of Moulood during the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal. They believe that the Moulood is among the great acts of Ibadaat (worship) and the customs of Islam. This practice consists of Bid'ahs and Haraam acts”. (Mudkhal, pg. 20)

ANSWER

Imaam Ibnul Haaj did not write anything in “Madkhal” against Meelad itself in the manner that Majlisul Ulema expressed themselves. He only said that Meelad is a Bid’at. We shall elaborate on the point of “Bid’at” later in the book. 

Imaam Qastalaani (radi Allahu anhu) explains the statement of Ibnul Haaj: “Imaam Ibnul Haaj has discussed in detail and refuted those things which people have invented through their carnal desires; adding singing with prohibited instruments in Meelad. Allah reward Ibnul Haaj for his good intentions”. (Mawahibul li Duniya, Vol. 1, pg. 27)

Allama Ibnul Haaj (radi Allahu anhu) did not deny the very celebration of Meelad itself but those actions which are not permissible in Islam. Every Sunni Muslim also disapproves of un-Islamic activities if that take place in Meelad.

Allama Yousuf Salihi (radi Allahu anhu) comments on the statement of Ibnul Haaj: “Allama Ibnul Haaj did not condemn Meelad itself. But, he refuted those assemblies which contain un-Islamic and prohibited activities. He called Meelad Bid’at. This is against what he has first said (he approved of Meelaad). Maybe he meant Bid’at to be Bid’at-e Hasannah (good innovation)”. (Sobolul Huda War Rishad, Vol. 1, pg. 453)

OBJECTION

Majlisul Ulema writes: “Shaikhul Islam, Taimiyyah Hambali, rejected this practice in his Fatawa”. ( pg. 21) 

OUR ANSWER

Ibne Taimiyyah was a misled person, so his Fatawa against Meelaad carries no weight in our view.

Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalaani (radi Allahu anhu) writes in “Ad Durarul Kaamina” that: “Ibne Taimiyyah wrote in ‘Aqeedah Hamvia’ and in ‘Waastia’ in which mention is made about Allah's Face and Hand and Shin are real Attributes of Allah, and Allah Ta’ala is sitting on the Arsh (Throne) physically. Some people have regarded Ibne Taimiyyah as Zindiq (heretic) because he used to say that you cannot seek help from Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam).

“Some Ulema have said that he was a Hypocrite because he used to say that Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) made mistakes at 13 occasions and went against the Quraan. His fight was for Government (position) only, he was defeated every time. He tried to gain power again and again but he failed every time. He (Ibne Taimiyyah) said that Hazrat Uthman (radi Allahu anhu) was a lover of wealth; Abu Bakr (radi Allahu anhu) was old and he did not know what he was doing; Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) became a Muslim in childhood and the Imaan of a person in his childhood is not reliable according to one group”. (Ad Durarul Kaaminah, Vol. 2, pg.155).

The grudge for Hazrat Ali (radi Allahu anhu) is a sign of a Hypocrite. A person who has this type of filthy belief has no right to represent Islam.

Hafiz Ibne Hajar (radi Allahu anhu) writes further: “Sheikh Naqi’uddin Subki has written many books refuting Ibne Taimiyyah because Ibne Taimiyyah regarded travelling with the intention of visiting the blessed grave of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) as Haraam. Ibne Hajar Asqalaani says that this thought of Ibne Taimiyyah is really disgusting”.

The charges of infidelity on Ibne Taimiyyah are approved by Mullah Ali Qari. For further reference please consult “Sharah Shifa Ala Nasseemir Riaz”, Vol. 3, pg. 514, and “Fatawa Hadisia”, pg. 99, 173.

Thus far, Majlisul Ulema has failed in producing concrete proof against the celebration of Meelad.

OBJECTION

Majlisul Ulema wrote: “In India, we see blood flowing because some refuse to take part in these functions”.

OUR ANSWER

Is Majlisul Ulema bold enough to admit who causes this bloodshed? In fact, Muslims will be shocked to learn that fanatical and aggressive Wahabis and Deobandis embark on a campaign to cause bloodshed and kill innocent Muslims. The incident at Azaadville bears testimony to this fact. To refresh the memory of the Muslim public, a few years ago a band of Wahabi and Deobandi followers killed an innocent Muslim, Sheik Mohayuddin Shaheed, just because he participated in Meelad!

OBJECTION

Majlisul Ulema wrote: “So this practice of Moulood was originated by irreligious people. In the year 604 Hijri this king, Muzaffaruddin Koukari, introduced this custom with the aid of some learned people whose purpose was to gain the wealth and honour of this world. A notable and a prime instigator in the origination of this custom was one Molvi Amr Bin Dahya Abul Khattab who died in the year 633 Hijri. He was a great supporter of the worldly and irreligious king of Irbal who introduced this custom.

“Every unbiased Muslim will realise from the aforegoing discussion that the Moulood custom was introduced by evil men and given prominence by evil men. Islamic history bears testimony to this fact. Right from its inception, all the great and pious Ulama and Jurists of Islam have condemned this innovation and have warned against participation in these un-Islamic functions. There exists consensus of opinion among the true learned Ulama of Islam that the customary Meelad functions are not permissible”.

OUR ANSWER

We have already proven with the reference of Hafiz Ibne Kaseer (radi Allahu anhu) that:-

1. Meelad was not originated by King Muzaffar. In actual facts, Meelad existed before him. There is no evidence to suggest that he was the founder of Meelad functions.
    
2. He was not an evil man. Ibne Kaseer writes that he was a pious man, just, kind and learned.
    
3. Hafiz Ibne Kaseer (radi Allahu anhu) wrote about Sheikh Amr Bin Dahya Abul Khattab saying that Sheikh Bin Dahya wrote a book in favour of Meelad. There is no mention whether he was an evil man or a good man. 

Let us examine one of the statements of Majlisul Ulema from the above quotation: “Moulood custom was introduced by evil men and given prominence by evil men”.

We will be presenting a few evidences to show the readers that what type of people gave prominence to Moulood and wrote books in the favour of Moulood celebration. Were they evil or good people? You be the judge.

1. Allama Jalaaluddin Suyuti (radi Allahu anhu) is a renowned scholar of Islam and possessed the true love of Rasooullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). Sheikh Anwar Shah Kashmiri Deobandi writes about Imam Suyuti: “According to me, it is possible to see Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) in the awakening state. As it is reported from Imam Suyuti that he saw Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) twenty-two times and he asked Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) regarding some Ahadith. He amended those Ahadith after Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) rectified them”. (Faizul Baari, Vol. 1, pg. 304, Cairo)

Imam Suyuti (radi Allahu anhu) writes about Meelad: “According to me, gatherings, recitations of the Quraan, mentioning incidents of the holy life of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) and mentioning those signs which appear at the time of his birth are amongst the good innovations in which a person is rewarded because in this there is respect, love and expression of happiness for the arrival of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam)”. (Al Haavi Lil Fataawa, Vol. 1, pg. 189)

According to the Majlisul Ulema, Imam Suyuti (radi Allahu anhu), who was blessed twenty-two times with the Ziyaarat (visit) of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) in a wakeful state, is an evil man. Allah forbid! Why? Because he gave prominence to Meelad?

2. Shareh Bukhari Imam Qastalaani (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “In the month of the birth of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) Muslims always had assemblies. In the nights of that month they gave charities and expressed happiness. They always increased good deeds in those nights. They always made arrangements to read the Meelad of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) with the auspicious (hope) that Allah show His blessings upon them. One of the experienced Barakah (blessing) of Meelad is that, that the year passes upon them peacefully. May Allah send His Blessings and Favour upon that person who took Meelaad-un-Nabi as Eid, so this Eid should become reason of hardness upon that person who has disease in his heart”. (Mawahe bul Le Dunya, Vol.1, pg. 27, Egypt)

Imam Qastalaani (radi Allahu anhu) made Du’a for those people who took Meelad as Eid and he said that this Eid becomes very painful for those whose hearts are sick. Majlisul Ulema proved by writing the book against Meelad that they are in severe pain about the Meelad celebrations and by people taking Meelad as their Eid.

According to the Fatawa of Majlisul Ulema, Imam Qastalaani (radi Allahu anhu) is an evil man because he has given prominence to Meelad. Allah forbid!

3. Hazrat Sheikh Abdul Haqq Mohaddith Delwi (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “All Muslims have always celebrated Meelad functions in the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal. They always gave charities in the nights of that month and expressed their happiness. This is a common practice of Muslims that they particularly make mention of those incidents which are related to the birth of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam)”. (Ma Sabata Bis Sunnah, pg. 102)

According to the Fatwa of Majlisul Ulema, Sheikh Abdul Haqq (radi Allahu anhu) is an evil man because he has given prominence to Meelad. Allah forbid!

4. Mullah Ali Qari (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “Firstly, we see that it is permissible to arrange an assembly of Meelad. It is permissible to participate in that assembly for the purpose of listening to the praises and character of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam). Inviting people and expressing happiness is permissible. Secondly, we do not say that it is Sunnah to celebrate Meelad on any fixed night. Anyone who believes that it is Sunnah to celebrate Meelad on any fixed night (and not in any other night) is a Bid’ati because the Zikr of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) is required all the time. Yes, in the month in which Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) was born, has more preference”. (Al Mouridur-ravi fil Moulidin Nabi, pg. 6-7)

A great Muhaddith like Mullah Ali Qari (radi Allahu anhu) regarded Meelad as permissible, but the thought of him being evil man according to the Fatwa of Majlisul Ulama is preposterous! Allah forbid!

5. Allamah Ibn Abedeen Shami (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “Every person who is truthful in the love of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) should express happiness in the month of Rabi-ul-Awwal . He should arrange an assembly for the Meelad of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam) in which the incidents of his birth are explained with correct Ahadith. There is a strong hope from Allah that such a person will be included in the group of pious people with the intersession of Rasoolullah (sallal laahu alaihi wasallam)”. (Jawahi Rul Bihaar, Vol. 3, pg. 340 with reference to Sharhul Moulid Le Ibne Hajar)

What a beautiful quotation of Allamah Shaami (radi Allahu anhu) about Meelad! But, according to the Fatwa of Majlisul Ulama (Allah forbid!) he has become an evil man.

6. Haji Imdaadulllah Muhajir Makki (radi Allahu anhu) writes: “The way of life of a Faqeer (himself) is this. I participate in Meelad celebrations. In fact, I consider it a means of blessings and arrange it every year and in Qiyaam (standing) I find enjoyment”. (Faisalah Haft Mas'ala, pg. 5, Madani Qutub Khana, Lahore)

Hazrat Haji Imdaadullah (radi Allahu anhu) is the spiritual mentor or Peer-o-Murshid of Moulana Qassim Nanotwi, Moulana Rashid Ahmed Gangohi and Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi. The members of Majlisul Ulema, Y.M.M.A. and all other Deobandis are devotees of the above mentioned Ulema. The Peer-o-Murshid of these three Ulemas participated in Meelad throughout his life and he enjoyed doing this. According to the Fatwa of Majlisul Ulema, Haji Imdaadullah (radi Allahu anhu) has become an evil man. Allah forbid! It is common sense that if someones Peer-o-Murshid is an evil man, then all the Mureeds (devotees) are evil people as well. With the enthusiasm of making Meelaad Haraam, Majlisul Ulema have made the entire Deobandi fraternity into evil people. “ The lamp of the house has burnt the house”.