|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 15, 2016 8:53:34 GMT
If I wanted to prove showing enthusiasm and fervor for the birth day of the greatest ni`mah ever given by Allah, `azza wa jalla, then I can rely on numerous other verses and hadiths for that Do you then believe Muslims should do something to mark the "birthday" of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam), whether the 12th of Rabi al-'Awwal or whichever other day of that month one believes to be the birthday (i.e. anniversary of the date of birth) of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam)? And do you believe this is proven from "numerous verses and hadiths"? If this is what you are claiming, and your apparent words suggest that you are claiming this, then you are effectively accusing the Sahabah and Tabi'in of collectively failing to act on this religious recommendation, that is proven from "numerous verses and hadiths". As al-Shatibi explains in his al-I'tisam, this is the nature of bid'ah: To express a good opinion of the later innovators* and a bad opinion of the Salaf. He also shows that those who justify bid'ahs commit the fallacy of misapplying general textual evidence to prove something that is done in a specific way for which specific proof is required. And no, no one is saying you should not be happy at the birth of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam). [* Upon historical investigation, it appears the first to introduce Mawlid celebrations, i.e. birthday celebrations, of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) in Rabi al-Awwal were the Fatimid Shi'ah. But you will probably dismiss this historical evidence because it goes against what some "authorities" mentioned and such investigations are "Albani-like".] This implicit bad opinion of the Salaf from those who support Mawlid is not new. Some great names of the past even said there is a time on Monday (the day of Mawlid) when du'a must be accepted - and this claim was made by drawing an analogy with Friday, not based on experience or experiment. If this was true, did the Sahabah and Tabi'in fail to grasp that this night had this special significance based on an analogy with Friday? Once we realise that our benchmark for Din is the practice of the early generations, and not the accretions of the later generations, these absurd emotionally-driven outbursts in defence of popular practices by individuals like yourself are pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by Deoband on Dec 15, 2016 15:05:09 GMT
Also, in addition to the above, one should note that it wasn't just al-Suhayli that they relied upon as the quotes clearly mention وغيره Lastly, what's your point in bringing all this to the table? You do realize that all that you're doing is trying to prove why Muslims shouldn't express happiness on the birthday of the Prophet (Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam)? What a lowly endeavor. Good luck with that. The discussion would become more fruitful if we can identify a common reference point which both you and Mufti Zameel agree to. Mufti Zameel's stance is crystal-clear: "Due to the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in the month of Rabiul Awwal, people attach extra virtue to the month itself. This is wrong."While you do not agree to the fact that people are actually guilty of this, you seem to agree to the fact that such an attachment of virtue to the month itself would be an evil, hence your attribution of "Suu al-Zann" (harbouring evil thoughts) to Mufti Zameel for harbouring such evil thoughts about the people. In other words, Mufti Zameel's assertion that the people attach extra virtue to the month of Rabiul Awwal, due to the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in that particular month, is "Suu al-Zann" (harbouring evil thoughts) on the people. Here are a few statements of yours in which you make it clear that Mufti Zameel is guilty of "Suu al-Zann" (harbouring evil thoughts about the poeple) for his belief that people attach extra virtue to the month of Rabiul Awwal, or make it appear to attach extra virtue to Rabiul Awwal, due to the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in that particular month: This is just your own subjective opinion that people are celebrating the Mawlid in Rabi` al-Awwal due to “extra virtue(s)” whereas others would say it's because it’s “extra relevant” to do so in that month for the obvious reasons... It is suu al-Zann for you to continuously make it seem that whatever “reward” they’re attaching to such mawlid gatherings is only in the ukhrawi sense and therefore is unwarranted. The clear implication of your attribution of "Suu al-Zann" to Mufti Zameel is that if people actually did attach virtue to the month itself, or any particular time or day of the month, or even "making it appear" to hold extra virtue "in the ukhrawi sense", then it would be an evil? Thus, both you and Mufti Zameel agree to the following fact, which can then act as a common reference point: "Holding the belief that the month of Rabiul Awwal itself holds extra virtue (in an ukhrawi sense) due to the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in that particular month, is an evil."Please do correct me if I have misunderstood your position and this is NOT a common reference point which both you and Mufti Zameel can concur upon. Of course, where you seem to differ with Mufti Zameel, is that people are not actually guilty of this evil, hence you deem Mufti Zameel to be guilty of Suu al-Zann upon the people. |
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 15, 2016 17:24:28 GMT
“The clear implication of your attribution of "Suu al-Zann" to Mufti Zameel is that if people actually did attach virtue to the month itself, or any particular time or day of the month, or even "making it appear" to hold extra virtue "in the ukhrawi sense", then it would be an evil?
Thus, both you and Mufti Zameel agree to the following fact, which can then act as a common reference point:
"Holding the belief that the month of Rabiul Awwal itself holds extra virtue (in an ukhrawi sense) due to the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in that particular month, is an evil."
Please do correct me if I have misunderstood your position and this is NOT a common reference point which both you and Mufti Zameel can concur upon.”
Salaam “Deoband” (sounds odd doesn’t it? Maybe you should add the yaa’ al-nisba to it. But perhaps you will reply in your defense saying you know people with the name “Milad”, lol!).
What you’ve stated above is accurate. But I will say that I’ve never come across anyone, scholar or commoner alike, in my own personal experience or in my readings who has explicitly and directly attached mawlids in Rabi` to be extra virtuous, in the ukhrawi sense, relative to all other times. I maintain my stance that they only partake in mawlids in Rabi` out of either mere convenience sake (“hey, I got an invitation to attend a mawlid in Rabi`, I guess I’ll go and learn something”), it’s *extra relevant* to do so in this month, or because my elders have encouraged me to attend due to a tasawwuf-based reasons, i.e. the Salawat/Salam has spiritual benefits. What’s important at this juncture is to also keep in mind that perhaps it may be the case that if you were to pointedly ask a commoner on his way to a mawlid in Rabi`: “Hey, do you think you’re getting extra reward in the hereafter by attending this mawlid you’re going to right now in this month?” And he might reply back saying “yes, I do.” But given the amount of experience I have in sitting in mawlid gatherings with commoners in the Levant or with those from the Subcontinent, I feel confident in saying that in his mind, when he replies to such a question his thought process will be as such: “Well, I am going to do dhikr and send salawat/salam, so that obviously means I will get rewarded, so my answer is ‘yes’!”. His mind will not venture towards any comparison of any “extra virtue” in the ukhrawi sense in *this specific month* versus all other times. And making this distinction is absolutely critical before passing on judgments on this practice. This is precisely why I kept saying it’s “suu al-Zann” to say otherwise and this is also why I said that Zameel’s analogy of applying the qawa`id to the mawlid is no way analogous to how a mukallaf teenager attempts to figure out of if his wudu broke by applying the rules of taharah that he learnt from ta`leem al-haqq back in maktab. The case is much more nuanced and intricate than this and the scholars have taken this into consideration.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 15, 2016 18:19:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 15, 2016 19:18:43 GMT
Off-topic. For the record, I am not him nor have I consulted with him on this matter. If you have issues with him then feel free to contact him directly. It's not relevant to our discussion here. By the way, i saw your earlier post and I will reply shortly in shā' Allāh |
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 15, 2016 23:54:01 GMT
“Do you then believe Muslims should do something to mark the "birthday" of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam), whether the 12th of Rabi al-'Awwal or whichever other day of that month one believes to be the birthday (i.e. anniversary of the date of birth) of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam)? And do you believe this is proven from "numerous verses and hadiths"?”
I believe it is mubāh/mustahabb to do so with innumerable benefits that result from it in one’s life. What I was referring to when I said that was that expressing “fervor” and “enthusiasm” on his (Sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) birthday can be validated by "numerous verses and hadiths". For example, when I read:
وَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ إِلَّا رَحْمَةً لِلْعَالَمِينَ
قل بفضل الله وبرحمته فبذلك فليفرحوا
لا يؤمن أحدكم حتى أكون أحب إليه من والده وولده والناس أجمعين
then I do feel a sense of “fervor” and “enthusiasm” each time Rabi` comes around because it is a reflection of that momentous point in history where creation was blessed with this “rahmah” unlike any other rahmah. Is it that difficult to comprehend that such an expression can emanate due to these verses and hadiths?
“If this is what you are claiming, and your apparent words suggest that you are claiming this, then you are effectively accusing the Sahabah and Tabi'in of collectively failing to act on this religious recommendation, that is proven from "numerous verses and hadiths".”
See above. My apparent words in no way, shape, or form accused the Sahabah of any type of failing in any regard whatsoever. But since you brought up the Sahabah, I don’t feel I’m on page with what you’re accusing them of since we know:
قال معاوية رضي الله عنه إن رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم خرج على حلقة يعني من أصحابه فقال ما أجلسكم قالوا جلسنا ندعو الله ونحمده على ما هدانا لدينه ومن علينا بك قال آلله ما أجلسكم إلا ذلك قالوا آلله ما أجلسنا إلا ذلك قال أما إني لم أستحلفكم تهمة لكم وإنما أتاني جبريل عليه السلام فأخبرني أن الله عز وجل يباهي بكم الملائكة. - النسائي
And when I read what Hassan ibn Thabit said and others like how al-`Abbas said:
وَأَنْتَ لَمَّا وُلِدْتَ أَشْرَقَتِ الْأَرْض فضاءت بِنُورِكَ الْأُفُقُ فَنَحْنُ
فِي ذَلِكَ الضِّيَاءِ وَفِي النُّور وسبل الرشاد نخترق
You can call it a wijdaani interpretation if you like, but somehow I don’t feel like he had a straight-face when he recited this specific line, I prefer to imagine he was gleaming with “fervor” and “enthusiasm”.
“As al-Shatibi explains in his al-I'tisam, this is the nature of bid'ah: To express a good opinion of the later innovators* and a bad opinion of the Salaf. He also shows that those who justify bid'ahs commit the fallacy of misapplying general textual evidence to prove something that is done in a specific way for which specific proof is required.”
Then as mentioned before in my very first post, you can start applying this rule of al-Shatibi’s to the Sufi practices of the Deobandi murshidūn that I stated. Can you tell me where is the “specific proof” for the “specific way” that the murīdūn/khulafā’ of Shaykh Zakariyya do loud dhikr while sitting in a group and swinging their heads from right-to-left chanting the dhikr “into their hearts”? Can you tell me where is the “specific proof” for the “specific” number that Shaykh Thanvi prescribes for certain adhkār and then mentions not to exceed this? Can you tell me where is the “specific proof” for Deobandi Naqshbandi murshidūn prescribing a daily recital of khatm khwajgan? Can you tell me where is the “specific proof” for the specific salawāt for different days of the week from Dala’il al-Khayrat that some Deobandi murshidūn prescribe? Can you tell me the “specific proof” that the specific order found in the Manzil is to be read on a daily basis for protection as prescribed by Deobandi murshidūn? And the list is endless. Have you taken a poll that the Deobandi murīdūn know that this is not a fard, wājib, Sunnah, or mandūb but they have only been prescribed to them as a means to do good and that there are many dunyawi benefits to it? I must’ve not been informed about that poll.
So go ahead and apply your Shatibi definition of bid`ah to all of these across the board too. I'll be waiting here patiently for your fatwas against them.
As an aside, I noticed this from your article on bid`ah elsewhere too, that you rely almost exclusively, minus a few of the Deobandi akabir, on al-Shatibi’s definition of bid`ah. Why not quote from Hanafi authorities, or as you would like to put it, “mujtahid scholars” and “indispensable key transmitters” of the Hanafi madhhab? What’s up with the over-reliance on al-Shatibi each time the topic of bid`ah comes up? This is an all-together different topic which I hope I can pursue with you in a different thread at a later time.
“And no, no one is saying you should not be happy at the birth of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam).”
Then you shouldn’t have an issue with people trying to imagine that momentous day similar to al-`Abbās.
"[* Upon historical investigation, it appears the first to introduce Mawlid celebrations, i.e. birthday celebrations, of the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam) in Rabi al-Awwal were the Fatimid Shi'ah. But you will probably dismiss this historical evidence because it goes against what some "authorities" mentioned and such investigations are "Albani-like".]"
Something being done by others is not always a proof for the impermissibility of it as is well-known.
“This implicit bad opinion of the Salaf from those who support Mawlid is not new.”
Sū al-Zann.
"Once we realise that our benchmark for Din is the practice of the early generations, and not the accretions of the later generations, these absurd emotionally-driven outbursts in defence of popular practices by individuals like yourself are pointless.”
Sorry, is what you mean by “accretions” not being from the “practice of the early generations” in reference to the mawlid? Or are you referring here to the Deobandi Sufi practices that I mentioned previously? ;-)
825 years worth of accretions across the lands and madhahib and yet only a handful of obscure individuals spoke out against it? This has to be greatest ball-dropping blunder our scholars have ever done in our Ummah’s history, don’t you think? Well it’s good to know you finally came around in 2016 and took that wool over everyone’s eyes that was put on by the Fatimids.
Wa as-Salam
AN
|
|
|
|
Post by sunniseeker on Dec 16, 2016 11:31:31 GMT
assalaamu 'alaykum, From: islamqa.org/shafii/shafiifiqh/30192The above reasoning by Ibn Hajar shows that time can be rendered virtuous or sanctified by virtue of its connection with that which is sacred. The month of Rabi' al Awwal is rendered great by no other reason than it's attribution to the Greatest Bounty of our Lord. Other great events also occurred within this month, such as the Hijrah. Just as Ibn Hajar reasons, are we not allowed to emphasise our gratitude for the immense favour Allah Ta'ala bestowed upon us in this month? Ibn Qayyim also mentions in his Zaad al Ma'aad that Allah Ta'aala's blessings are placed in three things - people, places and time. So no doubt the month of Rabi' is blessed with Allah Ta'aala. Further, it is generally accepted by ijma that the piece of land wherein the Prophet sallAllahu 'alayhi wasallam is buried is the most sanctified place on Earth...this is again due to no other reason than it's attribution to the him salAllahu 'alayhi wasallam. I am not sure, but I think this is something that the later ulama agreed upon and is not supported by any nusus. So I don't see why it should be problematic to view anything attributed to the Prophet salAllahu 'alayhi wasallam as blessed - be it his time, the places he associated with and also the people who connected to him. Allahumma salli wa sallim wa baarik 'alayhi was 'ala aalihi. |
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 16, 2016 13:15:59 GMT
“ Then as mentioned before in my very first post, you can start applying this rule of al-Shatibi’s to the Sufi practices of the Deobandi murshidūn that I stated. Can you tell me where is the “specific proof” for the “specific way” that the murīdūn/khulafā’ of Shaykh Zakariyya do loud dhikr while sitting in a group and swinging their heads from right-to-left chanting the dhikr “into their hearts”? Can you tell me where is the “specific proof” for the “specific” number that Shaykh Thanvi prescribes for certain adhkār and then mentions not to exceed this? Can you tell me where is the “specific proof” for Deobandi Naqshbandi murshidūn prescribing a daily recital of khatm khwajgan? Can you tell me where is the “specific proof” for the specific salawāt for different days of the week from Dala’il al-Khayrat that some Deobandi murshidūn prescribe? Can you tell me the “specific proof” that the specific order found in the Manzil is to be read on a daily basis for protection as prescribed by Deobandi murshidūn? And the list is endless. Have you taken a poll that the Deobandi murīdūn know that this is not a fard, wājib, Sunnah, or mandūb but they have only been prescribed to them as a means to do good and that there are many dunyawi benefits to it? I must’ve not been informed about that poll. So go ahead and apply your Shatibi definition of bid`ah to all of these across the board too. I'll be waiting here patiently for your fatwas against them. Oh and how could I have forgotten to add to the above the 40-day khurūj of the Tablighis. Were they also polled to determine if they believe designating an amount is bid`ah or not? Because it sure doesn't seem like it to me when they continuously follow me demanding I give 40 days in the path of Allah. |
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 16, 2016 14:10:16 GMT
It can’t be sū’ al-ẓann if it is based on reality. I have already mentioned two examples of where such mistaken beliefs have actually taken place, and it is not hard to see how such beliefs arise given the way Mawlid (i.e. the innovated celebration of the birth-anniversary of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam)) is observed. Hence, the structure that gives rise to these mistaken beliefs, which amount to innovation in religion, must be avoided - based on the principle already outlined.
Shaykh Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qasṭallānī (851 – 923), a great and learned imām of his time from Egypt, states in his well-known work al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyya, while discussing the time of the birth of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam):
“Since Friday, on which Ādam (peace be upon him) was created, has been singled out for a period which no Muslim slave encounters, asking Allāh therein for good, except Allāh shall give it to him, what is your thought about the period in which the master of the messengers was born?” (al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyya, 1:142)
Al-Qasṭallānī is apparently claiming that since there is a special moment on Friday when supplications are accepted as proven from the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and the ṣaḥābah, there must be a special moment on Monday on which supplications are accepted, since the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was born on a Monday! He deduces this from the ḥadīth in which the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) mentioned this virtue of Friday, adding that Ādam (‘alayhissalām) was created on Friday. But the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) did not say it is because Ādam (‘alayhissalām) was created on this day that there is a period of time when supplications are accepted, and nor did he say it is at the particular time of the day when he was created that supplications are accepted. In fact, he mentioned other significant events besides the creation of Ādam (‘alayhissalām) that occur/red on Friday.
Hence, it appears al-Qasṭallānī is drawing a baseless analogy with Friday to state Monday has a special period when supplications are accepted. Al-Zurqānī (1055 – 1122 H), a great Mālikī scholar from Egypt, commenting on this passage recognises the problem in this claim and states: “This is on Monday, and the most likely of that which has been reported is that it was at its start, so effort should be made to find this [time]. However the author bears the responsibility for [the claim] that there is a period in it like the period of Friday, because if he means that this day and its like [i.e. whenever Monday reoccurs] till the Day of Judgement is similar to the period of Friday or better, this evidence of his does not support this conclusion; and if he means that very [historical] period [in which he was born], then the period of Friday was not present at that time and its virtue only came a long time after that in authentic ḥadīths, so it is not possible for them to have been together to make comparisons between them; also, that [i.e. the specific time in which he was born] has come to an end and this [i.e. the period of Friday in which supplications are accepted] has remained till today. The lawgiver has stated this explicitly and did not comment on the period of his birth or its equivalents [i.e. every recurring Monday]; thus it is necessary for us to suffice with what has come to us from him, and not innovate anything from our minds, which come short in comprehension, except with what has been stipulated.” (Sharḥ al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyya, 1:249)
Shaykh Shihāb al-Dīn al-Qasṭallānī even argues the night of Mawlid is superior and more virtuous (afḍal) than Laylat al-Qadr, giving three reasons why he believes this, i.e. the night of Mawlid is when he (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) appeared while Laylat al-Qadr was bestowed to him; Laylat al-Qadr is honoured by the descent of angels while the night of Mawlid by his (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) appearance; Laylat al-Qadr is for the ummah while his appearance is for all existence. (al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyya, 1:145). In response, al-Zurqānī writes: “What the author has written and approved has been responded to. Al-Shihāb (Ibn Ḥajar) al-Haytamī said: ‘There is ambiguity in this, as well as drawing proof from what does not give the conclusion that has been claimed; because if it is meant that that night and its anniversary on every year till the Day of Judgement is more virtuous than Laylat al-Qadr, these evidences do not result in that, as is obvious. And if that very night itself is meant, Laylat al-Qadr was not even present at that time, but rather its excellence over all other nights of the year came in authentic ḥadīths a long time after the birth, so it is not possible for them to have been together to make comparisons between them at all. Thus, it is necessary for us to suffice with what has come to us from him, and not innovate anything from our minds, which come short in comprehension, except with what has been stipulated from him (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam); while, even if we were to accept that the night of his birth is superior, there would be no benefit to it, as there is no point in regarding times as virtuous unless there is extra virtue to good deeds in it. As for regarding a point in time as virtuous in which there is no good deed in it, there is no great benefit to this.’ This is where his statement ends, and it is sound.” (Sharḥ al-Mawāhib al-Ladunniyya, 1:255)
In response to Qasṭallānī’s statement, Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī states: “Al-Qasṭallānī made a strange comment when he said the night of Mawlid is more virtuous than Laylat al-Qadr based on three reasons that he mentioned, since these [reasons] do not confer absoluteness, while extra virtue is only for worship in it being superior as evidenced by the text of the Qur’ān: ‘Laylat al-Qadr is better than a thousand months,’ (97:3); this virtue is not known for the night of his birth, upon him peace and salutation, neither from the Book nor from the Sunnah, and nor from any of the scholars of the ummah.” (al-Mawrid al-Rawī; Majmū‘ Rasā’il al-‘Allāmah al-Mullā ‘Alī al-Qārī, 5:437)
A similar reasoning to Qasṭallāni’s is found in a recent defence of the Mawlid by Sayyid Muḥammad ‘Alawī al-Mālikī. He writes: “From his (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) statement on the excellence of Friday and enumeration of its distinctions, ‘in it was created Ādam’, is derived the ennoblement of a time in which it is proven that it is the birth of any prophet that was from amongst the prophets (upon them peace), so what of the day on which the best prophet and most noble messenger was born? This ennoblement is not limited to that day itself, but it will be specific [to that day] and have generality for its type [i.e. anniversary/weekly reoccurrence], whenever it reoccurs as is the condition of Friday.” (Ḥawl al-Iḥtifāl bi Dhikrā al-Mawlid al-Nabawī al-Sharīf, p. 140)
You have yourself regarded it as "sū al-zann" to claim that some believe there is actual virtue (faḍl) to the days of Rabī‘, yet it is a fact that some do.
Ibn al-Ḥājj (d. 737), writing many centuries ago, stated that people regard the annual Mawlid celebrations as a ritual practice, rather than one of relevance, convenience or organisation: “Amongst the bid‘ahs they have innovated – while believing that it is from the greatest of rituals – and has been publicised as a symbol [of the religion] is: the Mawlid that they practise in the month of Rabī‘ al-Awwal.” (al-Madkhal, 2:2)
|
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 16, 2016 14:11:10 GMT
A spontaneous or personal expression of gratitude or feeling of happiness at the Prophetic birth or any other event of significance or merit is not in question here. If a random Monday arrives, for instance, and as a consequence it comes to a person’s mind that this was the day on which the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) was born, and he spontaneously says alḥamdulillāh, thanks Allāh and sends ṣalawāt on the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), no one can question that. It is when a time or date is ritualised without evidence from Sharī‘ah: it is made into a period of extra religious observance and a public symbol of the religion, e.g. by referring to it as an ‘Īd (– to the point that some scholars of the past discouraged fasting on it!) that it becomes a problem. This will create the mistaken belief of Rabī‘ al-Awwal holding extra merit and reward for acts of goodness. Of course, Monday is ritualised for fasting, but the 12th of Rabī‘ al-Awwal or any other day of that month is not.
Ibn Ḥajar’s analogy is problematic because marking the day of ‘Āshūrā’ (10th of Muḥarram) was approved by the Lawgiver, the Shāri‘ (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), himself; and the best of generations, the ṣaḥābah and tābi‘īn, saw it as a recommendation to observe the fast of ‘Āshūrā’, while they did not see it as a precedent to mark, in a religious or ritual manner, the anniversaries of other significant days of the year. Ibn Ḥajar’s justification for the Mawlid is of course post-hoc: It wasn’t that scholars sat contemplating on the significance of the ḥadīth of ‘Āshūrā’, and then came to the conclusion that we should observe Mawlid or the anniversaries of other significant events in history; rather, the Mawlid was already around, and the ḥadīth of ‘Āshūrā’ was used as a post-hoc justification.
|
|
