Thread by @IbneKhan01

DEOBANDI HATRED FOR MAWLID

Deobandis present themselves as traditional Sunni Ĥanafīs to the world and present the deceptive book Muhannad, written by Khalīl Aĥmad Ambethwi [1269-1346 AH / 1852-1927 CE] in order to prove they agree with the beliefs and practices of the Sunnis.

In this book their scholar claims to permit Mawlid however it is known that Deobandis scorn and ridicule celebration of Mawlids.

This is the defining characteristic of Deobandis – they have a book, an áqīdah and a fatwā for all seasons. When they meet Sunni scholars outside the

subcontinent, they claim that their áqīdah is described in Muhannad; but in their fatāwā and Urdu books, they scorn those very things as bidáh or shirk.

Let us now look to the Urdu writings of the Deobandis regarding Mawlid and standing in reverence, qiyām, during them.

This on page 141 of Barāhīn concerning standing in reverence during Mawlid, qiyām:

“...or for this reason that his ﷺ pure soul, which is in the world of souls arrives to this world of beholding [áālam e shahādat] and the Qiyām, the standing is to show respect to it –

this is also sheer stupidity. Because standing up on this basis should be during the moment of his birth – now, where does such birth occur every day repeatedly?

Thus, repeating the birthday [of the Prophet ﷺ] is similar to the gathering* of Hindus, celebrating the birthday of

Kanhaiya;** or similar to the Rafidis who enact the story of the martyrdom of Ahl al-Bayt every year; [we seek Allah's refuge] ma'adhAllah! This would be identical to play-acting the birth of the Prophet ﷺ, and this ugly act is in itself worthy of blame, forbidden and sin.

Rather, these people are worse than those communities*** because, they do it on a specific date, and here they have no restriction - they do these innovations whenever they like. There is no example of such a thing in the sharīáh, that is to take a hypothetical

basis and act upon it in reality; rather this is ĥarām in sharīáh...”

*sāñg means a play, a show. sāñg banānā means: to arrange a play for entertainment. Hindus make such tableaux and plays, commemorating the birth of Krishna - who according to their mythology was born in a

dungeon and known as Kanhaiya.

**Krishna, a mythical figure, whom Hindus consider as their god.

***It is worse than Hindus celebrating and Rāfiđīs.

Barāhīn al-Qāţiáh was written by the very same author of Muhannad, and it is in this very book that he spewed the blasphemous

statement which led to Takfīr upon him. Deobandis may claim that Khalīl was talking about permissible Mawlid in Muhannad and he talks about impermissible Mawlid in Barāhīn. Let us leave the verbose, convoluted passages of Barāhīn and reach for short and straightforward

fatāwā elsewhere. In Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah:

Question: “Gathering of Mawlid, standing up during Mawlid, to burn incense and aloe; put carpets and benches; to fix a date and other such things which are famous in our times: is it permissible to celebrate Mawlid in this fashion or

not? If it is permissible, what is the proof, and the proof should be from the four categories.”

Answer: “This kind of a gathering was not present in the time of the Pride of the World [RasūlAllāh ﷺ] nor during the times of companions, nor their followers or their followers and

the mujtahid imāms. This was innovated six hundred years later by a king about whom most historians write that he was corrupt, a transgressor [fāsiq]. Therefore this kind of a gathering is a heretical innovation [bidáh đalālah]. The author of Madkhal and others have written

against its permissibility and many books and fatāwā are being written even to this day. There is no need to look further for evidence; the sufficient proof for its impermissibility is in the fact that nobody has celebrated it in the righteous centuries; if you want to see more

about its corruption, you can look up lengthy fatāwā [against it]. Allāh táālā knows best.”

Khalīl Aĥmad’s attestation: “The answer is correct.”

This fatwā makes no pretense or splits hairs – it clearly says that it was a reprehensible innovation of a corrupt king.

The interesting part of this fatwā is that Khalīl Aĥmad has attested it and you have seen his tune in Muhannad. In another fatwā, which specifies celebration of Mawlid without Qiyām:

Question: “Arranging a gathering to celebrate a mawlid without Qiyām, and with only authentic

narrations; is it permissible or not?”

Answer: “Arranging a gathering to celebrate Mawlid is impermissible in any manner; and to invite people for a recommended action is not allowed.”

This is reiterated here:

Question: “Is it permissible to attend a gathering of Mawlid in

which only authentic narrations are retold; where there is no frivolity, nor mention of fabricated and false narrations?”

Answer: “It is not permissible, due to other reasons.”

These are from Fatāwā Rashīdiyyah of Rashid Aĥmad Gangohī [1244-1323 AH / 1829-1905 CE], another one

of the blasphemers. Elsewhere he writes:

“[Written] by the humble servant Rashīd Aĥmad – may Allāh forgive him – after salām, I say: [Celebration of] Mawlid as it is in vogue is a bidáh; and because of accompanying dislikeable actions, it is prohibitively dislikeable;

and standing up [Qiyām] is also bidáh due to its being specified; and it is disliked to listen to the singing of young boys as it can lead to temptation.”

Rashīd Aĥmad is evasive in the below answer, because the questioner mentions Shāh Ábd al-Ázīz Dihlawī celebrated both

Mawlid and attended úrs; let Deobandis prove Mawlid and úrs conducted in the age of Rashīd Aĥmad were different from that of Shāh Ábd al-Ázīz. As for the reprehensible things done by fāsiq people, such as intermixing of sexes or singing, dancing and music – no Sunni scholar has

permitted it; Abu’l Ĥasan Nadwī has himself mentioned that Alahazrat condemned it.

Question: “The blessed Mawlid and úrs which does not have any action contrary to the Sharīáh; such as those held by the master, Shāh Ábd al-Ázīz may Allāh have mercy on him; do you deem it

permissible or not? Did Shāh sahib really celebrate Mawlid or hold the úrs?”

Answer: “To arrange for a gathering to celebrate Mawlid – even if it is done without any action contrary to the Sharīáh, but it is done as a function and by inviting people therefore, it is not right to

do it in this age; the answer for úrs is also the same. Many things were permissible [mubāĥ] in the past, but became impermissible in a later age. The gathering for úrs and Mawlid are also like this.”

How did Shāh Ábd al-Ázīz attend a gathering of Mawlid or úrs – without

arrangements for people to gather or calling them to gather on a specific day and date? Is any function in Deoband done without arrangements or calling people to attend on a specific day and date? Such as the one in which Hindu swamis are invited to share their wisdom?

Do ‘religious’ Deobandis have the courage to condemn it?

The questioner asks about Mawlid and that it was celebrated by Shāh Waliyullāh and his father Shāh Ábd al-Raĥīm Dihlawī as mentioned in Durr al-Thamīn; that Imām Suyūţī said that it was commendable [mustaĥsin] in Ĥusn

al-Maqşid. In this fatwā, Rashīd Aĥmad appears rather relenting but only superficially, because he has to squirm out of a tight situation – he cannot call Shāh Waliyullāh as an innovator, nor can he permit Mawlid. Obviously, Rashīd Aĥmad is not straddling, because Shāh Ábd

al-Ázīz has mentioned that gathering is permissible and scholars have overwhelmingly said the basis of Mawlid is to commemorate the ‘happiness upon the birth of the Messenger ﷺ’:

“It is permissible to donate reward any day and deserves reward – there no date or time appointed

by the sharīáh; it is also permissible to do it on the same day of birth or the day of passing. Thus, if he does not consider it necessary to do it on a certain day, but does it as he would do on any other day; and by this act of donating reward, he does not cause any harm to

common people, then there is no harm in it. Everybody considers such an act permissible. The action of Shāh Ábd al-Raĥīm Dihlawī was also like this, and nobody can bring this as proof for the bidáh of our age. Moreover, that kind of giving food was for donating reward as it only

says [in the citation]: ‘relation with the Prophet.’ There is no mention of any word that says: “happiness of his birth” nor mention of gathering to remember his birth. Thus there is no proof in it to celebrate Mawlid. Also, in Suyūţī’s time, there were no innovations [bidáh]

like our age. See Barāhīn e Qāţiáh for a detailed analysis of Suyūţī’s Maqşid. Allāh táālā knows best.”

The questioner asks whether Mawlid is permissible and that Ĥājī Imdādullāh also listens to Mawlid; but Rashīd
is not impressed:

“See Barāhīn e Qāţiáh for a detailed analysis

of Mawlid gatherings; the words or actions of elder
scholars or sufi shaykhs [mashāyikh] cannot be considered a proof. Rather only the words or actions of the Lawgiver ﷺ or the opinions of Mujtahid imāms are
considered proof [to make anything permissible]”

This has not changed much in today's age. Taqī Uthmanī writes in his Fatāwā about Barelwis being a distinct sect from the majority of Muslims due to heretical innovation in belief and practice:

“and from their heretical beliefs is that the Messenger knows the unseen [ghayb]”

“and from their heretical practices is the commemoration of celebrations not established from the Qur’ān or Sunnah and considering them recommended [Mawlid]”

Here he mentions why the elders of Deoband celebrate Pakistani independence day but consider the Mawlid an innovation;

one being religious and the other a national one:



Mawlid is not celebrated because it is a religious matter without precedence, and thus is a prohibited addition into the religion; in comparison to independence day, which is celebrated to thank Allāh for

His blessings but is nonetheless a secular festivity.

We ask, is Pakistan a greater blessing or is the sending of RasūlAllāh ﷺ a greater blessing? Which is more worthy of being marked out as a day of thankfulness to Allāh?

From this it is clear that Deobandis are no different to Wahhābīs when it comes to the matter of Mawlid; this is only one of the many positions that they conform with the Najdīs.

The following are some answers from the official Dār al-Iftā of Deoband regarding Mawlid.

According to them, Mawlid was started by a Christian. I suppose desperation leads to such strange claims. They also mention that Mawlid is the practice of innovators who are ignorant of the religion.