|
Post by abunoor on Dec 16, 2016 15:19:11 GMT
"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."
From your post it becomes clear that the issues you see with the mawlid were indeed recognized by scholars of the past since you yourself quote the censuring of al-Qastallani's shatahāt by ibn Hajar al-haytami, Al-Zurqani, Mulla `Ali al-Qari, and Shaykh al-Sayyid ibn al-`Alawi al-Makki al-Maliki. But why did you stop at that and finish it off with your own opinion regarding the hukm on the mawlid? In spite of Al-Qastallani's slips, can you share al-Zurqani's opinion on the mawlid from exactly the same book you quote from? Can you likewise share what ibn Hajar al-haytami states from his fatawa and other works of his regarding the mawlid? Why don't you share Mulla `Ali al-Qari's glowing and vivid descriptions of the mawlid from the same book, al-mawrid al-rawi, that you quote from? Can you explain why they didn't arrive at the same hukm as you did?
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 16, 2016 16:33:47 GMT
From your post it becomes clear that the issues you see with the mawlid were indeed recognized by scholars of the past since you yourself quote the censuring of al-Qastallani's shatahāt by ibn Hajar al-haytami, Al-Zurqani, Mulla `Ali al-Qari, and Shaykh al-Sayyid ibn al-`Alawi al-Makki al-Maliki. I quoted Sayyid Muḥammad ‘Alawī al-Mālikī to show that he made a similar mistaken reasoning to that of Qasṭallānī, not that he censured him. Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī said in his al-Fatāwā al-Ḥadīthiyya, while explaining that the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) once rose quickly at the revelation of a verse: “He did not get up quickly in order to make it a ruling of Sharī‘ah for his ummah, so that they do the like of what he did. Once it is established that his sudden rising was only for the panic [that occurred at the revelation of the verse], which is why the ṣaḥābah (raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum) raised their heads in panic, and that this cause, which is the panic, went away with the revelation of…, it becomes clear to you that standing after reciting this verse is not sunnah. This is why it has not been related from him (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) nor from his companions that they stood upon reciting the verse after this [incident]. This proves that his (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) action and their action was only for a cause which has now gone. Thus, to do that now is a bid‘ah – it should not be carried out as it will suggest to the general people that it is recommended. “Similar to this is the practice of many when his (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) birth is mentioned, and his mother’s delivery of him, to stand up. This is also bid‘ah, in which nothing has been transmitted; although people only do that out of reverence for him (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), so the common people will be excused for that as opposed to the elite.” ( al-Fatāwā al-Ḥadīthiyya, p. 80) [Expanding on this, ‘Allāmah Ẓafar Aḥmad al-‘Uthmānī writes: “From what ought to be known is that the standing-up that is customary at the Mawlid is not from what we are discussing at all. No evidence points to it, neither strong nor weak. In fact, it is from the inventions of the minds and the insinuations of the souls and a new legislation. It is not correct to add it to the disagreements and the judgements of the scholars. This is the reality. But one not from the people of discretion and fatwa, who is deceived by the disagreement of the scholars and believes it to be from the matters of ijtihād in which there is disagreement amongst the people of knowledge, without being extreme in this nor repudiating those who condemn it, should be excused. A scholar is not so, because he has come short in reflection, due to being overcome by passion. This is what is apparent, even if in fact he too has an excuse in reality which we have not discovered – so we hope he is excused in the presence of Allāh, while we are excused in denouncing him for we are unaware of hidden realities. This is the truth that is to be followed.” ( I‘lā’ al-Sunan, 17:425) In other words, the customary standing-up at the mention of the Prophetic birth is innovation, regardless of the apparent disagreement over it by later scholars.] The same principle that Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī himself outlines applies equally to the Mawlid: the ritual observance of the birth-anniversary of the Prophet (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam), since it too suggests that there is a religious desirability to doing certain good actions on this month. Ibn Ḥajar al-Haytamī said most Mawlids contain evils: “The Mawlids…that are practised, most comprise of good like charity, dhikr, ṣalāt and salām on the messenger of Allāh (ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) and praise of him, as well as evil, in fact many evils – even if it was nothing besides women looking at strange men – and some don’t have evil, but these are few and rare. No doubt the first type [which do have evil/s] is prohibited based on the famous and established principle that averting evils has priority over acquiring benefit.” ( al-Fatāwā al-Ḥadīthiyya, p. 150)
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 16, 2016 17:12:54 GMT
You also quoted ibn al-Hājj al-Maliki but you didn't care to explain why despite his issues with some of the evils that have crept into the mawlid he still asks people to single out the Rabi and to honor it with worship therein: فَكَانَ يَجِبُ أَنْ يُزَادَ فِيهِ مِنْ الْعِبَادَاتِ وَالْخَيْرِ شُكْرًا لِلْمَوْلَى سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى عَلَى مَا أَوْلَانَا مِنْ هَذِهِ النِّعَمِ الْعَظِيمَةِ وَإِنْ كَانَ النَّبِيُّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - لَمْ يَزِدْ فِيهِ عَلَى غَيْرِهِ مِنْ الشُّهُورِ شَيْئًا مِنْ الْعِبَادَاتِ وَمَا ذَاكَ إلَّا لِرَحْمَتِهِ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - بِأُمَّتِهِ وَرِفْقِهِ بِهِمْ لِأَنَّهُ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - كَانَ يَتْرُكُ الْعَمَلَ خَشْيَةَ أَنْ يُفْرَضَ عَلَى أُمَّتِهِ رَحْمَةً مِنْهُ بِهِمْ كَمَا وَصَفَهُ الْمَوْلَى سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَى فِي كِتَابِهِ حَيْثُ قَالَ {بِالْمُؤْمِنِينَ رَءُوفٌ رَحِيمٌ} [التوبة: ١٢٨] . لَكِنْ أَشَارَ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - إلَى فَضِيلَةِ هَذَا الشَّهْرِ الْعَظِيمِ «بِقَوْلِهِ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - لِلسَّائِلِ الَّذِي سَأَلَهُ عَنْ صَوْمِ يَوْمِ الِاثْنَيْنِ فَقَالَ لَهُ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - ذَلِكَ يَوْمٌ وُلِدْتُ فِيهِ» فَتَشْرِيفُ هَذَا الْيَوْمِ مُتَضَمِّنٌ لِتَشْرِيفِ هَذَا الشَّهْرِ الَّذِي وُلِدَ فِيهِ. فَيَنْبَغِي أَنْ نَحْتَرِمَهُ حَقَّ الِاحْتِرَامِ وَنُفَضِّلَهُ بِمَا فَضَّلَ اللَّهُ بِهِ الْأَشْهُرَ الْفَاضِلَةَ وَهَذَا مِنْهَا لِقَوْلِهِ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - «أَنَا سَيِّدُ وَلَدِ آدَمَ وَلَا فَخْرَ» وَلِقَوْلِهِ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - «آدَم وَمَنْ دُونَهُ تَحْتَ لِوَائِي» انْتَهَى. وَفَضِيلَةُ الْأَزْمِنَةِ وَالْأَمْكِنَةِ بِمَا خَصَّهَا اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بِهِ مِنْ الْعِبَادَاتِ الَّتِي تُفْعَلُ فِيهَا لِمَا قَدْ عُلِمَ أَنَّ الْأَمْكِنَةَ وَالْأَزْمِنَةَ لَا تَتَشَرَّفُ لِذَاتِهَا وَإِنَّمَا يَحْصُلُ لَهَا التَّشْرِيفُ بِمَا خُصَّتْ بِهِ مِنْ الْمَعَانِي. فَانْظُرْ رَحِمَنَا اللَّهُ وَإِيَّاكَ إلَى مَا خَصَّ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى بِهِ هَذَا الشَّهْرَ الشَّرِيفَ وَيَوْمَ الِاثْنَيْنِ. أَلَا تَرَى أَنَّ صَوْمَ هَذَا الْيَوْمِ فِيهِ فَضْلٌ عَظِيمٌ لِأَنَّهُ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - وُلِدَ فِيهِ. فَعَلَى هَذَا يَنْبَغِي إذَا دَخَلَ هَذَا الشَّهْرُ الْكَرِيمُ أَنْ يُكَرَّمَ وَيُعَظَّمَ وَيُحْتَرَمَ الِاحْتِرَامَ اللَّائِقَ بِهِ وَذَلِكَ بِالِاتِّبَاعِ لَهُ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - فِي كَوْنِهِ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - كَانَ يَخُصُّ الْأَوْقَاتَ الْفَاضِلَةَ بِزِيَادَةِ فِعْلِ الْبِرِّ فِيهَا وَكَثْرَةِ الْخَيْرَاتِ. أَلَا تَرَى إلَى قَوْلِ الْبُخَارِيِّ - رَحِمَهُ اللَّهُ تَعَالَى - «كَانَ النَّبِيُّ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - أَجْوَدَ النَّاسِ بِالْخَيْرِ وَكَانَ أَجْوَدَ مَا يَكُونُ فِي رَمَضَانَ» فَنَمْتَثِلُ تَعْظِيمَ الْأَوْقَاتِ الْفَاضِلَةِ بِمَا امْتَثَلَهُ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - عَلَى قَدْرِ اسْتِطَاعَتِنَا (فَصْلٌ) فَإِنْ قَالَ قَائِلٌ قَدْ الْتَزَمَ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - مَا الْتَزَمَهُ فِي الْأَوْقَاتِ الْفَاضِلَةِ مِمَّا قَدْ عُلِمَ وَلَمْ يَلْتَزِمْ فِي هَذَا الشَّهْرِ مَا الْتَزَمَهُ فِي غَيْرِهِ. فَالْجَوَابُ أَنَّ الْمَعْنَى الَّذِي لِأَجْلِهِ لَمْ يَلْتَزِمْ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - شَيْئًا فِي هَذَا الشَّهْرِ الشَّرِيفِ إنَّمَا هُوَ مَا قَدْ عُلِمَ مِنْ عَادَتِهِ الْكَرِيمَةِ فِي كَوْنِهِ - علَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - يُرِيدُ التَّخْفِيفَ عَنْ أُمَّتِهِ وَالرَّحْمَةَ لَهُمْ سِيَّمَا فِيمَا كَانَ يَخُصُّهُ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ -. أَلَا تَرَى إلَى قَوْلِهِ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - فِي حَقِّ حَرَمِ الْمَدِينَةِ «اللَّهُمَّ إنَّ إبْرَاهِيمَ حَرَّمَ مَكَّةَ وَأَنِّي أُحَرِّمُ الْمَدِينَةَ بِمَا حَرَّمَ بِهِ إبْرَاهِيمُ مَكَّةَ وَمِثْلَهُ مَعَهُ» ثُمَّ إنَّهُ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - لَمْ يَشْرَعْ فِي قَتْلِ صَيْدِهِ وَلَا فِي قَطْعِ شَجَرِهِ الْجَزَاءَ تَخْفِيفًا عَلَى أُمَّتِهِ وَرَحْمَةً لَهُمْ فَكَانَ - عَلَيْهِ الصَّلَاةُ وَالسَّلَامُ - يَنْظُرُ إلَى مَا هُوَ مِنْ جِهَتِهِ وَإِنْ كَانَ فَاضِلًا فِي نَفْسِهِ يَتْرُكُهُ لِلتَّخْفِيفِ عَنْهُمْ فَمَا أَكْثَرَ شَفَقَتَهُ - صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ - بِأُمَّتِهِ جَزَاهُ اللَّهُ عَنَّا خَيْرًا أَفْضَلَ مَا جَزَى نَبِيًّا عَنْ أُمَّتِهِ هَذَا وَجْهٌ.... فَعَلَى هَذَا فَتَعْظِيمُ هَذَا الشَّهْرِ الشَّرِيفِ إنَّمَا يَكُونُ بِزِيَادَةِ الْأَعْمَالِ الزَّاكِيَاتِ فِيهِ وَالصَّدَقَاتِ إلَى غَيْرِ ذَلِكَ مِنْ الْقُرُبَاتِ فَمَنْ عَجَزَ عَنْ ذَلِكَ فَأَقَلُّ أَحْوَالِهِ أَنْ يَجْتَنِبَ مَا يَحْرُمُ عَلَيْهِ وَيُكْرَهُ لَهُ تَعْظِيمًا لِهَذَا الشَّهْرِ الشَّرِيفِ وَإِنْ كَانَ ذَلِكَ مَطْلُوبًا فِي غَيْرِهِ إلَّا أَنَّهُ فِي هَذَا الشَّهْرِ أَكْثَرُ احْتِرَامًا كَمَا يَتَأَكَّدُ فِي شَهْرِ رَمَضَانَ وَفِي الْأَشْهُرِ الْحُرُمِ فَيَتْرُكُ الْحَدَثَ فِي الدِّينِ وَيَجْتَنِبُ مَوَاضِعَ الْبِدَعِ وَمَا لَا يَنْبَغِي... What you're trying so hard to do by using these scholars is fallacious because you're whole argument is that Rabī` has no significance whatsoever and no one should single it out at all and that doing so is bid`ah. Neither Ibn Hajar al-Haytami or anyone else you quoted is saying that and in fact based on what we see above, it's exactly the opposite of what you're erroneously using them for. Don't try to pass off their quotes as proof for your stance when it's against it. If it is a proof for you then go ahead and show their explicit words to the effect that mawlid in Rabi` is a bid`ah, period. Don't quote to me about qiyam when the discussion at hand has nothing to do with it. You set out to prove that mawlid in the month of rabi` is an evil innovation and no one you've quoted in support for your stance has said that and in fact have said the opposite. In short, you have failed miserably in what you've sought out to prove and all of your references have said otherwise and have now backfired on you.
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 16, 2016 17:25:40 GMT
Again, the issue throughout has not revolved around innovations such as men and women looking at one another, musical instrument, qiyam, etc. It is completely off-topic for you to throw that into the discussion now in an attempt to sneakily make it seem as if these classical giants are on your side. And I'm not going to allow you to get away with that so easily. So stick by the topic and prove that the very act of mawlid in rabi` is an innovation, as youve maintained throughout the thread, from these same scholars even if there's no qiyam, gender interaction, or musical instruments.
|
|
|
Post by sunniseeker on Dec 16, 2016 22:03:29 GMT
What is the proof that it has to be spontaneous or random? Regarding Ibn Hajar's analogy being problematic - isn't that the nature of all qiyas i.e. drawing analogy from from the nusus in the absence of direct nass in that regard? Also, Imam Lacknawi has a fatwa on the permissibility of mawlid and it addresses issues regarding fixing dates, gathering people etc. If people give it more due than is established then that is the fault of the those people, not the asl itself.
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 17, 2016 16:32:05 GMT
Again, the issue throughout has not revolved around innovations such as men and women looking at one another, musical instrument, qiyam, etc.. Why, based on your principles, would the Qiyam be incorrect?
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 17, 2016 18:41:48 GMT
I called it an "innovation" because that's what it is but I didn't state the qiyām is from the innovations of sayyi'āt. If, on occasion, I do feel doing it during a mawlid then I'll do it based on grounds that notable fuqahā' in each of the schools have allowed it such as Shaykh al-Islam, the Grand Mufti of his time, the great mufassir, Abū al-Su`ūd al-`Imādī al-Hanafī.
|
|
|
Post by Zameel on Dec 17, 2016 23:00:37 GMT
Ibn Daqiq al-‘Īd (625 – 702 H) writes: قد منعنا إحداث ما هو شعار في الدين. ومثاله: ما أحدثته الروافض من عيد ثالث، سموه عيد الغدير. وكذلك الاجتماع وإقامة شعاره في وقت مخصوص على شيء مخصوص، لم يثبت شرعا “We have indeed been forbidden from inventing something that is a salient feature of the religion, like what the Rawāfiḍ invented, of a third ‘Īd which they call ‘Īd al-Ghadīr. And similarly [we are forbidden from] assembling and making it a salient feature for a specific occasion in a specific way that has not been established in Sharī‘ah.” ( Iḥkām al-Aḥkām, 1:170) Al-Shāṭibī explicitly includes “adopting the day of the birth of the Prophet ( ṣallāhu ‘alayhi wasallam) as an ‘Īd” amongst bid‘ahs. The following statement of Ḥāfiẓ Zayn al-Dīn Ibn Rajab al-Ḥanbalī (736 – 795) is also relevant to the above: “It is reported from Ma‘mar from Ibn Ṭāwūs from Ṭāwūs, he said: The Messenger of Allāh said: ‘Do not treat any month as an ‘Īd, nor any day as an ‘Īd.’ ( Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 4:291)* The basis of this is that it is illegal for Muslims to treat as ‘Īd beside what the Sharī‘ah has come with of it being treated as ‘Īd, which is the day of Fiṭr, the day of Aḍḥā and the days of Tashrīq, and these are the ‘Īds of the year, and Friday, the ‘Īd of the week, and anything besides this [not established in Sharī‘ah], to treat it as ‘Īd or a [religious] season is a bid‘ah having no basis in the Sharī‘ah.” ( Laṭā’if al-Ma‘ārif, Dār Ibn Khuzaymah, p. 285)* * ‘Abd al-Razzāq also narrates from Ibn Jurayj from ‘Aṭā’ ibn Abī Rabāḥ: “Ibn ‘Abbās would forbid fasting the whole of Rajab, so that it is not treated as an ‘Īd.” ( Muṣannaf ‘Abd al-Razzāq, 4:292)
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 18, 2016 1:54:04 GMT
Yet, despite that, ibn Rajab for some reason after quoting the Hadith of fasting on Mondays in the section on Rabī` in his Latā'if states: إشارة إلى استحباب صيام الأيام التي تتجدد فيها نعم الله على عباده فإن أعظم نعم الله على هذه الأمة إظهار محمد صلى الله عليه وسلم لهم وبعثته وإرساله إليهم Moreover, he speaks specifically about the birth of the Prophet, Sallallāhu `alayhi wa sallam, and given what we know regarding his intent for writing his book we can safely conclude that he permits speaking about his birth in a "majlis" (group) in Rabī` and specifically gathering in it for that very purpose. And of course fasting in it out of gratefulness. So once again we see that the issues you're pointing out were all known to those before yet they still supported the mawlid in Rabī`; thus rejecting your conclusion that the very gathering itself in Rabī` is a bid`ah sayyi'ah.
|
|
|
Post by abunoor on Dec 18, 2016 17:56:42 GMT
Ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali (d. 597 Hijri) said that from the specialities of the mawlid is that it leads to security throughout the year and glad tidings that all wishes and desires will be fulfilled (AN: these are dunyawi benefits noted through tajaarib, NOT ukhrawi) as stated by al-Halabi in his famous work on Seerah. Ibn Tughreel al-Hanafi wrote a work in support of the mawlid in Rabi` in the 7th century Hijri, al-Hafiz Abu Shaama al-Shafi`i wrote approvingly concerning the mawlid also in the 7th century Hijri, and al-Hafiz ibn Dihya al-Kalbi al-Andalusi al-Maliki also wrote a work in 604 Hijri permitting the mawlid and submitted it to King Muzaffar. As you know, al-Hafiz Abu Shama was the head of the famed Dar al-Hadith al-Ashrafiyyah as well as shaykh of al-Nawawi. Ibn Tughreel was also a prominent Hanafi scholar who wrote a thabat of all the teachers he heard from and he eventually died in Egypt. Al-Hafiz ibn Dihya al-Kalbi al-Andalusi al-Maliki took from his teachers in Andalus then went on to take from teachers in Morocco then parts of Africa into Egypt then on to the Hijaz, `Iraq, Khurasan, and then Shaam. Given the fact that he submitted his work on the mawlid to King Muzaffar, one can assume that the work was likely propagated widely by the King himself since it would support his own annual public mawlid. Additionally, the Maliki scholar, al-Turtushi (d. 520 Hijri) who resided in Alexandria under the rule of the Fatimids authored an extensive work on bid`ah and included in it all sorts of innovations but never mentioned the mawlid. Why is that? Furthermore, we know that the historian, al-Azafi, also documented the practice of the mawlid in Rabi` in Makkah also in the 7th century Hijri. All of the above indicates that the practice of the mawlid became widespread, from Shaam to the Hijaz and on to Egypt all before 700 Hijri with statements of scholars from all four madhahib dating as far back as 850 years ago (e.g. ibn al-Jawzi al-Hanbali).
Now I ask you in turn, were there not any “mujtahid scholars” or mujtahid scholars within the madhahib in the past 850 years? Our scholars were extremely meticulous and thorough and it would be virtually inconceivable, or at the very least highly improbable, that they ALL would see the practice of the mawlid in Rabi` being so widespread amongst scholars and laymen alike and not utter a peep against it. It is a lot more believable that a mujtahid scholar would see various practices and remain silent on it if they felt there was nothing wrong with them than to believe that they would see widespread innovations around them and choose to remain silent all their lives. Holding this opinion for all those who never wrote anything in approval of the mawlid makes a lot more sense than to think they silently were against it.
|
|