A BRIEF REFUTATION

OF THE FLOTSAM OF THE

PSEUDO--‘DEOBANDI’
PSEUDO
MORON, CARDBOARD MOLVIS

By:
Mujlisul Ulama of South Africa
PO Box 3393
Port Elizabeth, 6056
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

ALL MOULOOD FUNCTIONS AND

FESTIVALS ARE HARAAM BID’AH SAYYIAH
Maajin (Moron-Jaahiel) so-called ‘muftis’ not worth tuppence, are
abortively struggling to promote current ‘mawlid’ practices as
permissible. It is the claim of these morons that this is an issue of
valid difference of opinion of the Math-habs. This stance which the
jaahil ‘muftis’ and ‘molvis’ masquerading as ‘Deobandis’, are
peddling is baseless (baatil), and has no validity in the Shariah. They
cite some big names of Shaafi’ Ulama who had appeared on the
scene 600, 700 and a 1000 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam), and expect Muslims in general, and genuine Ulama in
particular to swallow. But deglutition is a deficiency of morons, not
of men of Aql.
On the assumption that the big names had claimed permissibility
for current haraam mawlid bid’ah functions, it will be rejected with
contempt. The views of Ulama who mounted the platform of Islam
many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), and
centuries after the codification of the Four Math-habs of Islam, have
absolutely no Shar’i status if in conflict with the Shariah as was
handed to the Ummah from the era of Khairul Quroon. It is
imperative to view the fatwas of scholars, be they big names and big
guns, in the light of several immutable principles of Islam which are:
(1) The Shariah was finalized and perfected during the very age of
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah.

In this regard, the Qur’aan Majeed states explicitly with

emphasis:
“This Day have I perfected for you (O Muslimeen!) your Deen, and
(on this Day) have I completed for you My Favour (the Shariah of
Islam), and I have chosen for you Islam as Deen.”
(Surah Al-Maaidah, Aayat 3)

The completion, perfection and finalization of Islam with its Shariah

preclude addition, deletion and alteration. All new practices
presented in the hues of ibaadat have no room in Islam. The addition
2
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

of new so-called ‘ibaadat’ practices implies the falsity of the

aforementioned Qur’aanic aayat. It implies that Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam) departed at a time when the Deen had not yet
been finalized, and despite imperfection of the Deen, Nubuwwat had
ended. All such implications are kufr.

(2) Ibaadat is only what was taught by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) and the Sahaabah.
In this regard, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“He who innovates in this Amr (Deen) anything which is not of it,
verily it is mardood (rejected and accursed).”

“The vilest of things are innovations (acts of bid’ah), and every bid’ah
is dhalaalah (deviation leading to Jahannam).”

“Verily, Allah deprives every person of bid’ah from Taubah.”

These are just a couple of Ahaadith cited randomly, There is a deluge

of Ahaadith in condemnation of bid’ah.

(3) Ibaadat is only such worship practices which existed during the
Khairul Quroon.
Any practice promoted as ibaadat, which was innovated after Khairul
Quroon is mardood. Regarding the authority and authenticity of the
effects of Khairul Quroon, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)
said:
“Honour my Sahaabah, for they are your noblest, then those after
them (the Taabieen), then those after them (the Tab-a-Taabi’een.
Thereafter kizb (lies/falsehood) will become prevalent.”

“The best of my Ummah, is my Age, then those after them (i.e. after
the Sahaabah), then those after them (the Taabi’een), then those
after them (the Tab-e-Taabi’een). Thereafter will appear people
who will (of their own accord) testify without being called on
to testify. They will abuse trust and will not be trustworthy. They
will pledge, but not fulfil (their pledges/promises). Among them
3
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

obesity (haraam fatness) will become prevalent………Then will

come people who will love obesity.”

On the basis of the aforementioned inviolable three Shar’i principles,

all mawlid practices regardless of their nature and deceptive ‘beauty’
and ‘correctness’ are all the products of falsehood and obesity. All
these innovated practices deceptively described and named, are acts
of dhalaalah which lead to the Fire of Jahannam. A salient feature of
these merrymaking garrulous and gluttonous singing, eating and
feasting festivals of bid’ah is, the factor of ‘obesity’ mentioned and
deprecated by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Excessive
feasting produces physical obesity which causes spiritual emaciation.
These haraam ‘mawlid’ birthday functions emulated from the
kuffaar – specialize in feasting and fun. People devour food like
gluttons at these festivals falsely presented as ibaadat.
The entire year these miserable votaries of bid’ah forget
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and his Sunnah. But for
sustaining their nafsaani practices and desire for fun and festival,
they sully the name of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) by
hoisting their bid’ah sayyiah (evil bid’ah) in the very name of Nabi-e-
Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Aiding the deviates are the
maajin ‘muftis’ who compound jahaalat with jahaalat. They disgorge
utter tripe ‘fatwas’ which none of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband
had ever ventured.
The Akaabir Ulama of Deoband were always in the forefront of
the Jihad against bid’ah, including the bid’ah of
mawlid/moulood/meelaad. Hadhrat Maulana Qaasim Nanotwi, the
Founder of Darul Uloom Deoband, Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmed
Gangohi – unanimously the greatest Aalim of Ahl-e-Deoband –
Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi and many other glittering Stars of
Uloom and Taqwa which had emblazoned the firmament of Shar’i
Uloom, Taqwa and Wara, were all branded kaafir over and over
again by the people of Barelwi with whom today the ulama-e-soo’
masquerading as ‘deobandis’ are beginning to strike up alliances.
Our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband had remained steadfast until the
very last moments of their earthly lives in their stance and
4
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

condemnation of Bid’ah. They had unanimously proclaimed meelaad

with all its paraphernalia bid’ah – bid’ah sayyiah.

When a misunderstanding developed in the wake of a booklet

attributed to Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh), the
Shaikh of the three Akaabir Ulama mentioned above, Hadhrat
Gangohi and Hadhrat Nanotwi (rahmatullah alayhim) said firmly said
that Haaji Sahib should “consult us” in these matters. “We did not
become bay’t to Haaji Sahib to ascertain the status of Hadith”. In
matters of the Shariah, Haji Sahib had to refer to these illustrious
Akaabir of Deoband who were his Mureeds.
In this belated age we find youngster moron ‘molvis’ citing from
the texts of Shaafi’ Ulama who arrived on the scene 7, 8, and 10
centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in their
despicable attempt to negate the unequivocal Fatwa of the Ulama of
Deoband on the issue of meelaad, yet they dub themselves
‘deobandis’. They are plain stupid, lacking in entirety in foresight and
understanding. It is haraam for such morons to speak on Deeni
issues. They should restrict their efforts to teaching Nooraani
Qaaidhah, for they do nothing but mislead the masses with their
convoluted fatwas of stupidity which provide unfettered latitude for
the perpetuation of the haraam khuraafaat of all prevalent bid’ah
sayyiah mawlid/meelaad practices and functions of merrymaking
designed to foster haraam obesity as prophesized by Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
These cranks who attempt to subtly negate the Fatwa of
prohibition of the Akaabir of Deoband to appease the Ahl-e-Bid’ah
should remove their masks of deception and renounce the flimsy
veneer of ‘deobandi’ism’ which they flaunt to mislead and misguide
others.
Mawlid/meelaad bid’ah is not a matter of valid difference of the
Math-habs. Our Akaabir have condemned it on the basis of it being
Bid’ah Sayyiah. There is nothing ‘hasanah’ (beautiful) about this
bid’ah regardless of what the 7th, 8th and 10th century Shaafi’ Ulama
may have said. The views of the centuries-later Shaafi’ Ulama on the
bid’ah of mawlid are baatil. Such views are pure personal opinion
5
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

devoid of Shar’i substance. They had proffered no Shar’i daleel for

permissibility. No one’s personal opinion bereft of Shar’i dalai-il is
Hujjat (proof/evidence) against the explicit and emphatic Shar’i
Fatwa of Prohibition of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband.
Regardless of the ‘charity’ which the initial mawlid practice may
have catered for, the fact is irrefutable that the opinion of
permissibility was extremely short-sighted. It is such opinions which
have culminated in the evil of current day bid’ah mawlid festivals
which are riddled with haraam and vice.
The names of Ibn Hajar, Suyuti, Shaukaani, Sakhawi, Qurafi
Rahmatullah alayhim), etc. – all having appeared on the scene many
centuries after Khairul Quroon – do not alter the Shariah by one jot
or dot. All the Sahaabah, Taabi’een and Tabe Taabi’een were fully
aware of Rasulullah’s day of birth and what a wondrous and blessed
occasion it was for humanity. No one’s love for Nabi-e-Kareem
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) superseded the love which the Sahaabah
cherished in their hearts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). If
there was any goodness whatsoever in the kuffaar practice of
celebrating birthdays of Ambiya or if such stupid functions had been
valid expressions of love, the Sahaabah would have been the very
first to have initiated mawlid/meelaad just as they had initiated and
embedded in Islam Taraaweeh in the current form as well as some
other practices of Ibaadat.
The Sabab/Illat or raison de’etre cited by the Bid’atis for
permissibility of mawlid existed to a greater degree during the age of
the Sahaabah and the Khairul Quroon era. Despite its existence and
despite the stupendously greater love the Sahaabah cherished for
Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), they never initiated any
practice which had even a slight resemblance to bid’ah, and by this
we mean such bid’ah which initially may have been without the
haraam, fisq and fujoor of current evil mawlid merrymaking,
nafsaani functions of singing and feasting.
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would not have deprived
the Ummah of Thawaab (Reward) by remaining silent of meelaad
had it been an ibaadat and an amal of merit. Lailatul Qadr, Lailatul
Baraa’ah, the Nights of the two Eids, the Day of Aashura and the Day
6
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

of Arafaat are days of ibaadat and great spiritual treasures and

reward. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) actively promoted
these auspicious days and nights. He instructed fasting and Nafl
ibaadat for these occasions. Yet, he remained completely silent
about the day of his blessed birth. If it was a day of ibaadat to be
observed and to gain thawaab, then the silence of Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) would have been irreconcilable with his
mission of Nubuwwat. His very silence and his abstention from
hoisting his day of birth on the Ummah as a day of observance is the
clearest evidence damning the bid’ah sayyiah meelaad practices
which the miscreants have innovated in emulation of the Yahood
and Nasaara who celebrate the birthday anniversaries of the holy
personages.
Meelaad has been hoisted on the Ummah as if it is an ibaadat of
the highest merit. It has been given a status far superior to even
lailatul Qadr, and those who abstain from it are branded kaafir. In
fact, our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband have been labelled kaafir over
and over by the Qabar Pujaari sect (the Barelwis) for proclaiming
that their meelaad is bid’ah.
The argument that mawlid if practiced ‘correctly’ is permissible is
moronic. Bid’ah, said Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah
alayh) is never beautiful. Bid’ah is ugly. It is satanic. It is shaitaan’s
most potent trap. There is no beauty in innovation presented in the
form of ibaadat. It is simply not ibaadat. It was unknown in the era of
Khairul Quroon. It is a centuries-later innovation, and the only flimsy
basis the votaries of this bid’ah can disgorge is the personal opinion,
unsubstantiated by Nusoos or Shar’i Usool – opinions of some Shaafi’
Ulama of many centuries after Khairul Quroon – after finalization
and perfection of Islam. Islam cannever be adorned and beautified
with innovated practices. If there had been a need for enhancing the
beauty of Islam with added and innovated acts disguised as
‘ibaadat’, Allah Ta’ala would not have finalized and terminated
Nubuwwat. The door of Nubuwwat would have been left open as it
was left open until Hadhrat Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). The very
finalization and termination of the long Chain of Nubuwwat is the

7
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

strongest evidence for the butlaan (nullity and falsehood) of the

bid’ah ‘ibaadat’ funfare festival of mawlid/meelaad.

Our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband were among Baqiyaatus Salf. They

were glorious remnants of the Salfus Saaliheen of the Khairul Quroon
epoch. They did not spew out personal opinion – opinion
unsubstantiated with Shar’i daleel. Every Fatwa of our Akaabireen is
structured on solid Shar’i dalaa-il. The Prohibition of meelaad stated
by the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband is unlike the fatwas of personal
opinion of the mutak-kireen Shaafi’ Ulama. The Akaabir of Deoband
were genuine Fuqaha of the kind who had flourished during the
Khairul Quroon. Today moron so-called ‘deobandi’ molvis of the
haatibul lail class flaunt their jahaalat with their stupid, abortive
attempts to neutralize the Fatwa of Prohibition which the Ulama of
Deoband had and still resolutely propagate.
One moron, maajin cardboard molvi with his rodomontade
attitude bordering on insolence and disrespect for the Akaabir
Ulama of Deoband, disgorged: “In Almuhannad alal Mufannad, the
bible or gospel of the Aqidah of the scholars of deoband its clearly
mentioned mawlood free of haraam and bid’ah is acceptable.”

This insolent upstart claiming to be a ‘deobandi’ lacks the rudiments

of Akhlaaq. The Kitaab which he mentions so insolently is NOT the
‘bible or gospel’ of the Aqeedah of the Akaabir of Deoband. While
our beliefs have been outlined and briefly explained in that Kitaab in
refutation of the Barelwi sect’s slander, it is not the ‘bible and
gospel’ of the Ulama of Deoband. Al-Muhanad was authored by
Hadhrat Maulana Khalil Ahmad Sahaaranpuri (rahmatullah alayh).
The moron molvi should read Hadhrat Khalil Ahmad’s Baraahin-e-
Qaatiah to gain insight and to better understand his explicit criticism
of meelaad and all acts of bid’ah of the Qabar Pujaari sect.
The correct approach is to cite what Maulana Khalil Ahmad
Sahaaranpuri says in his Baraahin-e-Qaatiah. The issue at hand, is
the current-day Satanist functions dubbed
‘meelaad/mawlid/moulood’. But perhaps he is too dense in his Aql
to understand Baraahin-e-Qaatiah. During our student days in
8
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Jalalabad, one South African student suggested to Hadhrat

Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) to introduce in the syllabus for the
benefit of South African students, the Kitaab Baraahin-e-Qaatiah to
basically equip them against the Barelwi Bid’atis when they return to
South Africa. Hadhrat Masihullah (rahmatullah alayh) commented:
“To understand Baraahin-e-Qaatihah there is a need for Aql.” We
leave you at this conundrum to decide the lack of Aql in these moron
youngster upstart maajin, cardboard molvis who lack the ability to
distinguish between light and darkness. They simply are bereft of
Aql.
The type of ‘meelaad’ for which permissibility is accorded in
Haftah-e-Maslah which is attributed to Haaji Imdaadullah
(rahmatullah alayh), the Shaikh of our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband,
which was his private practice and totally devoid of the slightest act
of haraam, is also banned by the Akaabir Ulama. In fact, when the
booklet, Haftah-e-Mas’alah was read out to Hadhrat Maulana
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh), he commented: “Take it
into the bathroom and burn it out.” He had discerned the kitaab
attributed to his Shaikh as being a source of fitnah and misguidance,
hence his reaction.
When critics reported this episode to Haaji Imdaadullah
(rahmatullah alayh) who was at that time living in Makkah
Mukarramah, he commented:
"In the Name of Allah, the Merciful; the "Most ’Merciful. We praise
Him and recite Durood upon His gracious Nabi (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam).
This epistle is from Faqeer lmdaadullah Chisti to all friends
generally.
"In these days some letters from Hindustan have reached this
Faqeer. The purport of these letters was that certain people hold
detestable views about Molvi Rashid Ahmad (Gangohi) Sahib. The
writers of the letters wished to know what attitude they should hold
about Molvi Sahib (Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi). On behalf of
this faqeer (i.e. Haaji Imdaadullah Sahib) publicize that:
Molvi Rashid Ahmad Sahib is an Aalim-e-Rabbaani (an Aalim of
Allah) and a Faadhil-e-Haqqaani (a true and qualified Aalim of the
9
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Deen). He is the resemblance of the Salf-e-Saaliheen (the great and

pious authorities of the Deen of former times). He is an authority of
the Shariat and Tareeqat (the branch of Islam dealing with spiritual
purification and development). He is engaged in the Pleasure of
Allah and His RasooI (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) night and day. He
keeps alive the profession of imparting the knowledge of the Hadith
Shareef. After Molvi Muhammad lshaq, he (MauIana Gangohi) is the
one who keeps alive this knowledge. In Hindustan, Molvi Rashid
Ahmad is an unique example and an outstanding personality.
Molvi Sahib (Maulana Gangohi) provides solutions to most
intricate masala-il. Approximately fifty persons qualify annually by
him in knowledge of Hadith Shareef. He is totally immersed in
following the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). He is
engrossed in the love of Rasool-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam). He is the proclaimer of Haqq and the hadith, "They fear
not the insult of the insultors.”, aptly fits him.
He reposes total tawakkul (trust) in Allah Ta’ala and he abstains
totally from bid'ah. His profession is the dissemination of the
Sunnah. He transforms people of defective belief into persons of
correct belief. This is his trade. His companionship (suhbat) for the
people of Islam is a tremendous boon and an alchemy. Sitting in his
company induces the remembrance of Allah, and such remembrance
is the sign of Men of Allah.
He is a muttaqi (pious and full of fear for Allah). He detached
from this world. He aspires for the Aakhirat. He has excelled in
tasawwuf and sulook. The rich and the poor are equal in his sight.
His gaze is focussed equally on all. He is a man without worldly
desire and without ego.
The praise which this Faqeer (i.e. Haaji lmdaadullah) has lauded
on him (Maulana Gangohi) in the book, Ziyaaul Quloob, is the Haqq.
Now my love and opinion for him have increased by a far greater
degree than before. I consider him (Maulana Gangohi) as a medium
for my najaat (salvation in the Aakhirat).
I declare most emphatically that he who condemns Molvi Rashid
Ahmad, hurts my heart. I have two wings.

10
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

One is Molvi Qasim Naanotwi, (the founder of Darul Uloom

Deoband) who has passed away, and the other is Molvi Rashid
Ahmad. This remaining wing of mine is now also being made a target
(for vilification) by people.
The Aqeedah (belief) of Molvi Rashid Ahmad and myself is the
same. l too regard bid’ah to be evil. In matters of the Deen whoever
is the opponent of Molvi Rashid Ahmad is likewise my opponent as
well as the opponent of Allah and of His Rasool (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam).
Some juhaIaa (ignoramuses) who distinguish between Tareeqat
and Shariat do so because of their lack of understanding. Tareeqat
minus Shariat is (unacceptable in the Court of Allah Ta'ala.
Cleanliness of heart is even attained by the kuffaar. The condition of
the heart is like a mirror. The mirror is dirty. The dirt on the mirror
can be removed with urine as well as rose water. But the difference
is a question of tahaarat (Shari purification) and Najasat (impurity).
The recognition, therefore, of a Wali of Allah is the Standard of
ittibaa-e-Sunnah (following the Sunnah). He who follows the Sunnah
is the friend of Allah. If one is amubtadi (bid’ati) one is absolutely
false.”
Haaji Imdaadullah =, Makkah Muazzamah 25th Zil-Qadh 1310

The votaries of this mawlid festival and birthday party celebration

acquired from Christians, should not cite 600 and 700 and 1000 year
later Shaafi’ Ulama for permissibility. They should cite the Sahaabah.
They should present Daleel from the Khairul Quroon. They should
structure their case on Nusoos of the Shariah, not on the personal
opinions and personal practices of centuries-later Shaafi’ Ulama.
Even today many misguided miscreant Hanafi Ulama, due to
weakness in spirit and deficiency in Ilm, appease the Bid’atis by
accepting their haraam bid’ah practices as ‘valid difference of
opinion’. The views of such juhala are totally devoid of Shar’i
substance.
When discussing the Shariah, they should not argue like the
Yahood and Christians who have mangled and mutilated the Shariats
of Nabi Musaa (alayhis salaam) and Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam)
11
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

beyond recognition with their personal opinions of ahwaa. Allah

Ta’ala, severely reprimanding this type of attitude of the Bani
Israaeel, states in the Qur’aan Shareef:
“They (the Bani Israaeel) takes their scholars
and saints as gods (arbaab) besides Allah…”

The Ulama who flourished six and seven centuries after Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are not our ‘gods’. We do not submit to
their personal opinions. Their views cannever override the Shariah.
What existed during the era of Khairul Quroon is the Shariah, not
that which was cultivated by innovation centuries thereafter
regardless of the artificial ‘beauty’ with which the bid’aat are
deceptively adorned.
One moron molvi, displaying his jahaalat in the miserable attempt
to peddle the idea that the senior Ulama of Deoband practised some
‘purified’ brand of moulood, avers:
“The mawlood that is free from any haraam n innovation was
practised by our seniors.”

This comment is devious and dishonest. Our seniors did not practise
any kind of moulood. Who were those seniors? Let the moron
mention their names. Every type of moulood is bid’ah. There is no
moulood free of haraam factors. Every moulood is bid’ah sayyiah.
The deceptive appellation ‘bid’ah hasanah’ given to moulood
functions allegedly ‘free of haraam’ is a gross error. It is a snare of
shaitaan – Talbeesul Iblees. Some sincere Ulama by virtue of their
short-sightedness and failure to comprehend the exact nature and
meaning of bid’ah fell into the snare of deception and believed that
there could be a kind of moulood free of haraam. Since moulood per
se is bid’ah regardless of other haraam elements attached or
unattached, it may not be described as bid’ah hasanah.
Bid’ah Hasanah is an act/institution introduced to safeguard or to
revive a Sunnah institution. Bid’ah Hasanah is not the innovation of a
new practice of ibaadat which was unknown to the Salaf-e-Saaliheen
of the Khairul Quroon era. Moulood has not been introduced to
revive or protect any existing Sunnah, practice or teaching of Islam.

12
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

It is a pure fabrication of the nafs which has deluded even many

senior Ulama, especially among the Shawaafi’ later-day Ulama who
appeared on the scene many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam).
Commenting on the deception of ‘bid’ah hasanah’ with which
shaitaan has adorned bid’ah acts such as moulood, Hadhrat
Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani, the Mujjadid of Islam’s second millennium,
said:
“Some people say that bid’ah is of two kinds: Hasanah and
Sayyiah. Hasanah is a virtuous act which came into being after the
era of our Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the era of the
Khulafa-e-Raashideen, and it is not an eliminator of any Sunnah.
Sayyiah is an innovated act which eliminates Sunnah.
However, this Faqeer does not discern any beauty in any kind of
bid’ah whatsoever. There is nothing discernable in it besides zulmat
(spiritual darkness) and kudoorat (spiritual contamination). Whoever
today sees goodness and beauty in any innovated act because of
weakness of baseerat (spiritual insight), will most certainly know
tomorrow (at the time of Maut), after the acquisition of sharpness in
baseerat (when all veils of darkness will be removed) that the only
consequence of it (bid’ah hasanah) is regret and loss.
Sayyidu Bashr, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said:
“Whoever innovates in this Deen of ours anything which is not of it, it
(and he) is mardood.” Now when something is mardood, then from
whence has it acquired beauty (husn)? And, Rasulullah (alayhis
salaam) said: “…………………..Verily, every innovation is bid’ah, and
every bid’ah is dhalaalah (misguidance, deviation from the Haqq)”.
Thus, when every innovation is bid’ah and every bid’ah is dhalaalah,
then what is the meaning of husn (beauty) in bid’ah?
It is also understood from the Ahaadith that every bid’ah is the
eliminator of Sunnah, and elimination is not restricted to some acts
of bid’ah. Thus, every bid’ah is sayyiah (evil). Nabi (alayhis salaam)
said: “Whenever a people innovates a bid’ah there is a corresponding
elimination of Sunnah.”
“When the mind is properly applied, it will become apparent that
some acts which (some) Ulama and Mashaaikh have described as
13
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

bid’ah hasanah, are in reality eliminators of Sunnah.

……………….Similar are all innovated acts of bid’ah. They all are
excesses on the Sunnah from some angle or the other. An excess (on
the Sunnah) is abrogation (cancellation) And, abrogation is an
eliminator (of Sunnah). Therefore, make incumbent on yourself
submission to the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam),
and be contented with following his noble Ashaab (radhiyallahu
anhum), for verily they are like the Stars. Whomever of them you
follow, you will be guided. `
“…………Verily, every Sunnah and bid’ah are opposites to each other.
The presence of the one necessarily eliminates the other. Thus, the
revival of one is the elimination of the other. How then is it proper to
describe bid’ah as being hasanah when its necessary corollary is the
elimination of Sunnah?...............................At this juncture there is an
objection even though this will be heavy on the majority because of
the widespread prevalence of bid’ah. But, soon tomorrow (at the
time of Maut) will they realize whether we are on hidaayat or they.
“It is narrated that when the Promised Al-Mahdi (Imaam Mahdi)
will intend the implementation of the Deen and the revival of the
Sunnah in his era, an Aalim of Madinah who is accustomed to act
according to bid’ah which he believes to be hasanah and an
accessory of the Deen, will say in surprise that this person (Imaam
Mahdi) intends to eliminate our Deen. Then Imaam Mahdi will order
him to be executed, for he (Imaam Mahdi) will regard as evil what
that Aalim believes to be hasan (beautiful).”
(The following question was posed to Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani):
“Regarding the issue of reciting maulid: What is wrong in reciting the
Qur’aan and reciting qaseedas (na’ts) and praises with a beautiful
voice? Why is the prohibition in this case?” Hadhrat Mujaddid
responded:
“It has generated in the heart of this Faqeer that as long as this
avenue (of moulood) is not closed totally, the maniacs (of the nafs)
will not desist from it. If we grant a little leeway, it will lead to
considerable (indulgence).”
“Thus, the fortunate one is he who enlivens a Sunnah from the
abandoned Sunan, and he kills a bid’ah from the prevalent bid’ah.
14
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

This is the era heralding a thousand years since the era of the
Noblest of Mankind, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Signs
and Indications of Qiyaamah and the Impending Hour have become
manifest. The Sunnah has become hidden due to the recession of
the era of Nubuwwah, and bid’ah has become prominent as a
consequence of the widespread prevalence of falsehood.
The dissemination of bid’ah culminates in the destruction of the
Deen. Honouring bid’ah leads to the demolition of Islam. Perhaps
you have heard the Hadith: “Whoever honours a man of bid’ah,
verily he has aided in the demolition of Islam.” Therefore, it is only
appropriate to apply the focus fully and to make the utmost effort to
disseminate a Sunnat from the Sunan, and to eliminate a bid’ah from
the bid’aat. It is imperative to establish the commands of Islam at all
times, especially during these times of the weakness of Islam. This is
reliant on the dissemination of the Sunnah and the elimination of
bid’ah
It appears that some of the predecessors (such as the Shaafi’
Ulama of the later eras) had discerned ‘beauty’, hence they
approved of some such acts. But this Faqeer does not agree with
them in this issue. I do not see any beauty in even a single act of
bid’ah. I discern in it nothing but darkness and contamination.
“May Allah Ta’ala grant the Ulama of this age the taufeeq to
totally refrain from describing bid’ah as hasanah, and may Allah
Ta’ala grant them the taufeeq to abstain from issuing fatwas
condoning it even if the act of bid’ah (acts such as moulood)
appears to them glittering like the morning light, for verily the
deceptions of shaitaan are massive in acts besides the Sunnah.
“In former times due to the power of Islam, the darkness of
bid’ah was overshadowed. Perhaps some of that darkness which was
overshadowed (by the radiance of Islam) appeared to be nooraani in
the rays of Islam’s Noor. Thus, this imagination led to the opinion of
husn despite there being absolutely no husn (in the acts of bid’ah) in
reality. However, in the current age Islam has become weak. It may
not now be imagined that the darkness of bid’ah could be tolerated,
hence it is not proper now to apply the fatwa of the Mutaqaddimeen

15
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

and the Muta-akh-khireen. Verily, for every era there are different
ahkaam.” (Al-Fathur Rahmaani)
Hadhrat Qutb Rabbaani Sayyid Ahmad Sarhindi Mujaddid Alf-e-
Thaani (rahmatullah alayh) was the Mujaddid who appeared at the
commencement of Islam’s second millennium. Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam) said that this Deen will be purified by a Mujaddid
whom Allah Ta’ala will dispatch at the beginning of every century.
The few extracts (above) reveal the gross error of those who have
passed off moulood as ‘bid’ah hasanah’. They all are the victims of
shaitaans Talbeesul Iblees snares. Citing Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani, the
following appears in Fataawa Rashidiyyah of Hadhrat Maulana
Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh):
“Qutb Rabbaani Sayyid Ahmad Sarhindi Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani
states in his Maktubaat: “If the Sufis of the age act justly and view
the weakness of Islam and the prevalence of falsehood, it will be
incumbent on them not to follow their shuyookh in acts besides the
Sunnah, and that they should not regard fabricated acts as their
Deen with the excuse that it was the amal of their shuyookh, for
verily, following the Sunnah is the only Way and the repository of
goodness and barakaat. In following anything other than the Sunnah
is danger upon danger. And, it is on the Messenger to only deliver the
Message.”

The following are more citations from Fatawa Rashidiyyah:

* “The customary act of moulod is bid’ah and haraam. Speak about
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) no one forbids this. But do so
as was practised during Quroon-e-Thalaathah (Khairul Quroon).
Neither were there moulood functions nor qiyaam (standing) when
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned. All of us have
been commanded to follow the Salaf-e-Saaliheen. We have not been
commanded to follow the Khalf (the later era Ulama whom the
deviates quote for giving credibility to bid’ah).
Allaamah Ibnul Haaj who was among the very senior authorities
(of the Shariah) says in Mudkhal: “From among the many bid’aat
which have been innovated, with the belief that it is from among the
great acts of ibaadaat and the projection of the shi-aar of Islam, is
16
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

moulood which they do in the month of Rabiul Awwal. It is a

conglomeration of bid’ah and acts of haraam……Even if it (the
moulid) is without these evils and only food is served with the
intention of moulid, and brothers are invited to participate, and the
function is free from all the (haraam) mentioned earlier, then too it is
bid’ah merely on the basis of the intention (that the function is
moulid), for verily, it is an accretion in the Deen. It is not of the acts
of the Salaf of the past. It has not been narrated that any of them
had intended moulid. We follow the Salaf. Thus, for us is permissible
only that which was permissible for them.”

* “Maulana Abdur Rahmaan Al-Maghribi Al-Hanafi, says in hi

Fataawa: “Verily, moulid is bid’ah. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam), the Khulafa-e-Raashideen and the Aimmah Mujtahideen
neither advocated it not practised it.”

* “Maulana Naseeruddeen Al-Adwi Ash-Shaafi’, in response to a

question said: “It should not be practised because it has not been
narrated from the Salaf-e-Saalih. It was innovated after the era of
Quroon-e-Thalaathah in a wicked age. We do not follow the Khalaf
(those of the later eras) in matters which the Salaf had abstained
from. Following them is adequate. What then is the need for
innovation?”

* “Shaikhul Hanaabilah Sharfuddeen (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The

function of moulid (celebrating the birthday) of Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam), which some of the wealthy practise every year,
along with its evil acts, it by itself is a bid’ah which was innovated by
one who follows his lust, and who does not know what Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded.” (Al-Qaulul Mu’tamad)

* “Qaadhi Shuhaabuddeen Daulatabaadi (rahmatullah alayh) says in

his Fataawa Tuhfatul Qudhaat when asked about maulid: “It should
not be held because it is an innovation, and every innovation is
dhalaalah, and every dhalaalah will be in the Fire. That what the
juhhaal (ignoramuses) do in the beginning of every Rabiul Awwal is
17
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

baseless. They stand when the birth of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) is mentioned, and they think that his Rooh (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam) is present. Their thinking is baatil. In fact this belief
is shirk. The Aimmah have prohibited such acts.”
(Extracts from Faraawa Rashidiyyah)

Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) says in

his Fataawa Rashidiyyah:
* In response to a questioner who had mentioned: “I have heard
that your Shaikh, Haaji Imdaadullah would also listens to moulood.”,
Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) said:
“Refer to Baraani-e-Qaatiah for a detailed elaboration of moulood
gatherings. Hujjat cannot be made with the statements and acts of
the Mashaaikh. On the contrary, Hujjat is with the statements and
acts of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the statements of
the Mujtahideen (rahmatullah alayhim).
Hadhrat Naseeruddeen Chiraagh Dehlwi (quddisa sirruhu) said that
when someone would cite as Hujjat an act of his Shaikh, Sultaan
Nizaamuddeen (quddisa sirruhu), he (Hadhrat Naseeruddeen) would
say: ‘The action of the Shaikh is not Hujjat.’ Hadhrat Sultaanul Auliya
approved of this response.” (Fataawa Rashidiyyah, page 111)
On page 132, he says: “Since this function (of moulid) had not
existed during the era of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), the
Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) nor during the ages of the Taabi’een
and Tabe Taabi’een and the age of the Aimmah Mujtahideen it is
bid’ah.

THE SHARIAH - ITS PRISTINE PURITY

SAFEGUARDED BY ALLAH AZZA WA JAL
Unlike the Shariats of the Ambiya who preceded Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam), which had not been bestowed with the
blessing of Divine Protection, the Shariah of Khaatamul Ambiya,
Muhammadur Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has been

18
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

offered Allah’s Protection against all satanic intrusions from both

without and within. Thus, the Qur’aan Hakeem states:
“We have revealed the Thikr, and most certainly We are its
Protectors.”

With the dual agencies of the Ulama-e-Haqq and the genuine

Huffaaz, has Allah Azza Wa jal protected His Deen from the kind of
mutilation and metamorphosis to which all previous Shariats have
been subjected by their respective followers. The Office of the
Ulama-e-Haqq has been divinely established to guard the meanings
and the laws of the Deen, while the institution of Huffaaz guards the
text of the Qur’aan Majeed.
Every man of Ilm is aware that the Dalaa-il of the Shariah are
ensconced in Four Edifices, namely, Kitaabullaah, Sunnatur Rasool,
Ijmaa’ and Qiyaas-e- Shar’i. It should therefore be understood that
any person, especially if he professes to be a scholar, who attempts
to accord Shar’i recognition, credibility and acceptance to an
institution, tenet, practice, custom, belief, ideology, etc. has to
incumbently structure his proposal on the basis of the Dalaa-il of the
Shariah. Any self-professing ‘scholar’ such as these pseudo-
deobandies who are on a hike to bamboozle the ignorant and
unwary with the names of recognized Ulama who have erred in their
views, who seeks to ascribe Shar’i status to the personal opinions
and the faasid qiyaas of some Ulama without structuring his case on
the divine Rock of Dalaail-e-Ar’ba’ah, is a moron par bunkum. In
other words, a plain jaahil whose ideas excreted by his brain are fit
for the sewerage drain.
That the Proof of Haqq is not the name of view of a Shaikh/Aalim,
is the following unequivocal statements of the Akaabir Authorities of
the Shariah:
“He who takes (as daleel) the rarities (and obscure views) of the
Ulama, has made his exit from Islam.” (Allaamah Abdul Wahhaab
Sha’raani)

“Haaji Sahib (i.e. Hadhrat Haaji Imdaadullah, the Shaikh of the

Akaabir Ulama of Deoband) is not the name of any Shar’i Daleel.
19
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Therefore to mention Haaji Saahib in relation to Shar’i issues is

baseless.” (Fataawa Rashidiyyah)

While there are numerous similar declarations of the Authorities,

these two will suffice for this brief treatise.
Thus, just as ‘Haaji Saahib’ is not among the Dalaa-il of the
Shariah, so too, are the Shaafi’ Ulama or the Ulama of any Math-hab
of the Muta-akhireen, not among the Dalaa-il of the Shariah. Ulama
such as Ibn Hajar Haitami, Ibn Hajar Asqalaani, Qaadhi Iyaadh,
Sakhaawi, Suyuti and others, (rahmatullaah alayhim), who appeared
on the Islamic horizon many centuries, even a 1000 years after
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), are not the designations for
Shar’i Dalaa-il. Their personal opinions unbacked by Shar’i Dalaa-il,
may not be hoisted as Shar’i Ahkaam. And, this has greater emphasis
when their personal opinions are in flagrant conflict with the Nusoos
of the Shariah.

Great Ulama too err and are known to terribly slip and commit
such blunders which cannot be reconciled with the Shariah, and
which leave one aghast. Such views shall be set aside without
harshly criticizing the Aalim of Haqq who has erred in his
understanding. Such errors are due to a variety of factors which shall
not be dealt with at this juncture.
Consider Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh)
who is an acknowledged Aalim Rabbaani, Aarif Billaah, Hujjatullaah,
and among the greatest Stars of Uloom, Wara and Taqwa produced
by Daarul Uloom Deoband. In the initial phase of his life he too had
grievously erred by believing that meelaad minus the haraam factors
is permissible. Thus, the kitaab, Haftah Mas’alah, attributed to
Hadhrat Haaji Sahib, was actually written by Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf
Ali Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh). He read it to Haaji Sahib who
approved of it. However, after exchanging several letters with
Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah alayh) –
letters in which the discussion of participating in meelaad was
elaborately discussed with solid Shar’i Dalaa-il from both parties,
Hadhrat Thanvi ultimately conceded his error and retracted his
20
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

opinion of permissibility. In fact, in one letter, the effect of Hadhrat

Gangohi’s reprimand was: It is surprising for an Aalim of your status
to utter such drivel.
Ulama who are genuine Ulama are not daunted by the names of
great Ulama when others seek to cite their blunders as hujjat. The
rulings of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen of the Khairul Quroon are
Hujjat for us, not the personal opinions of Ulama who appeared
many centuries after the perfection announced in the Qur’aan
Majeed:
“This Day have I perfected for you your Deen, and completed for you
My Favour, and have chosen Islam for you as Deen.”

Furthermore, let the moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis

understand that there is Ijma’ of all Authorities of the Shariah,
including all those Ulama whom they have mentioned as condoners
of meelaad, that the current forms of mawlid/meelaad are bid’ah
and haraam. There is not a single one of the Shaafi’ Ulama whose
names the morons have cited, who has ever claimed mawlid in
general is permissible.

According to them, all the vices associated with meelaad

programmes and functions are haraam. The accompaniment of
these evil elements renders mawlid haraam and bid’ah even
according to those Shaafi’ Ulama who have claimed, albeit
erroneously, permissibility for such mawlid functions which are
devoid of the haraam khurafaat which bedevil each and every
mawlid function wherever it is held on earth. Just view the
advertising pamphlet of the current carnival-type mawlid function
which is being organized by the Syrian deviate, one Shaikh Ninowy
and his clique of singers and stage performers.
With all these haraam elements silhouetted in the background,
these pseudo-deobandi molvis should hang their head in shame if
they still have any vestige of Imaani haya, for supporting mawlid
with the opinions of the senior Shaafi’ Ulama who never had ever
condones the Ninowy type of haraam, Satanism perpetrated in the
name of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). By disseminating the
21
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

statements of the Shaafi Ulama whose opinions of jawaaz apply to

other types of functions in a different setting, did these morons
serve the Cause of Haqq? Did they serve the Cause of Haqq which
our Akaabir Ulama of Deoband had resolutely advanced? Did they
serve the Cause of the Sunnah?
What will the ordinary masses understand from such statements
of jawaaz juxtaposed at this time in the month of Rabiul Awwal with
its prevalence of absolutely haraam, shaitaani functions of
meelaad/mawlid? Lamenting the dearth of Aql in the Ulama of his
time, Hadhrat Mujaddid Alf-e-Thaani (rahmatullah alayh), pouring
out his heart, said:
“May Allah Subhaanahu Wa Ta’ala grant tawfeeq to the Ulama of
the age to abstain from saying that bid’ah is hasanah, and that they
should not issue fatwa of practising it….for verily, the deceptions of
shaitaan are immense in things besides the Sunnah.”

One only needs to be just to understand the zulm which these

moron molvis are inflicting on the Sunnah of Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam) by disgorging the flotsam of their compound
jahaalat.
The custom of moulood did not have even an existence in the
imagination of the Salfus Saaliheen. From the inception of Islam until
well after completion of the sixth century of the Hijri era was there
no existence for this bid’ah practice even in the imagination of the
Ummah. It was only after the sixth century that this bid’ah sayyiah
was fabricated by an evil king aided by a faasiq molvi. Ibn Hajar
Asqalaani (rahmatullah alayh) comments on the founder of this
bid’ah:
“He was extremely vituperative towards the Aimmah and Ulama of
the Salaf. He was a man with a khabeeth (filthy, evil) tongue. He was
a moron, extremely arrogant and short-sighted. In Deeni matters he
was very lax. ……..Allaamah Ibn Najjaar said: ‘I have seen the
consensus of people on his falsehood and weakness.”
(Lisaanul Meezaan).

22
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Our booklet, The Question of Customary Meelaad, discusses this evil

molvi and the evil king in greater detail.
Allaamah Ahmad Bin Muhammad Misri-Al-Maaliki said: “The
Ulama of the Four Math-habs are unanimous in their condemnation
of this act (of mawlid).” (Al-Qoulul Mu’tamad) The baseless opinions
of some Ulama are of no significance since opinion minus Dalaa-il
from the Nusoos of the Shariah, are the effects of men’s minds. Such
opinions may not be passed off as ahkaam of the Shariah which is
the product of Wahi, not the disgorgement of the minds of men.
That there is not a single Nass of the Shariah which can be presented
to substantiate the bid’ah of meelaad, is well borne out by the
statement of even Jalaluddeen Suyuti (d.911 Hijri) whom the Ahl-e-
Bid’ah and the pseudo-deobandi moron molvis cite as a basis for
permissibility of mawlid/meelaad. Despite having spoken in praise of
mawlid, Imaam Suyuti is constrained to concede: “There is no Nass
for it (for its permissibility). But there is qiyaas (reasoning).”

This is a clear admission of the total absence of daleel from

Kitaabullaah, Sunnah of the Rasool and Ijma’. He mentions ‘qiyaas’,
but regrettably and lamentably the qiyaas he presents in support of
this bid’ah is faasid (corrupt) and devoid of Shar’i substance. It is
indeed surprising how even senior Ulama can slip and fall into
blunder. Despite them being fully aware of the irrefutable fact that
for six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) there
was no existence of this bid’ah, and that the originator of this evil
bid’ah was a faasiq king aided and abated by a faasiq molvi, they still
fell victim to such a grievous error which due to its wide prevalence
was accepted as valid by later Ulama.
Indeed, when Ulama adopt silence in the face of bid’ah and
munkar, these evils become entrenched in the Ummah. With the
passage of time people, including Ulama and Mashaaikh become
desensitized, the notoriety and villainy of the evil then appear
insignificant to them. And, this rings the bells for Divine Punishment
on a universal scale. There was a time in India, when even in the
homes of reliable Mashaaikh and Ulama, the Masnoon Salaam had
receded into oblivion. Even in the homes of genuine Mashaaikh
23
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

some customary form of salutation was in vogue, hence when

Hadhrat Shah Ismail Shaheed (rahmatullah alayh) arrived at the
home of Shaikh ………?????……and proclaimed loudly from outside:
“ASSALAAMU ALAIKUM!”, Shaikh, with pleasant surprise said: “Who
is this Reviver of the Sunnah? There was a need for a robust Aalim of
Haqq of the calibre of Shah Ismail Shaheed (rahmatullah alayh) to
revive and establish the Sunnah in a society raked with bid’ah
sayyiah to such an extent that even the Thiqaaat among the Ulama
and Mashaaikh were silenced by desensitization. The very same evil
desensitization had overtaken many Ulama who had simply accepted
the bid’ah of moulood. With much naivety they soothed their
conscience with a variety of utterly baseless arguments and
interpretations wholly unfit of Ulama.
Having lapped up the spurious and stupid arguments of the
Barelwi bid’atis, the pseudo-deobandi moron, cardboard molvis, also
present Ibn Hajar Haitami’s view in substantiation of meelaad
without understanding that just like ‘Haaji Imdaadullah Sahib’ is not
the name of a Shar’i Daleel, so too is Haitami not the name of a
Shar’i Daleel. Besides, this fact, Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah
alayh) never condoned the type of flagrant and immoral mawlid
festivals and coon-funfare functions prevalent nowadays everywhere
where such haraam merrymaking parties are held. Denouncing the
evil of haraam meelaads (haraam according to Haitami), he says in
Fataawa Hadithiyyah:
“…There is no doubt in the fact that the first kind of (meelaad)
functions (in which haraam activities take place) are prohibited and
unlawful on the basis of the Shariat’s well-known principle:
‘Elimination of harms has priority over acquisition of benefits.”
Therefore, if it is known that even a single Shar’i evil will be taking
place in any meelaad function, then it will be disobedience to Allah
Ta’ala to participate in it. He will be sinful (for participating).
Assuming that the participant engaged in a good deed at the
function, it will not compensate for the evil found at the
function………Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) has commanded
total abstention from all kinds of evil deeds. Hence, there is no
permission for indulging in evil, be it negligible.”
24
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Although Ibn Hajar Haithami (rahmatullah alayh) is in grievous error

for condoning meelaad functions which are totally devoid of the
current haraam practices and evils which bedevil every mawlid
merrymaking festival prevalent nowadays, he nevertheless
categorically proclaims haraam all these shaitaani mawlid carnivals
for which the pseudo-deobandi juhhaal molvis are excreting stupid
arguments gleaned from the Barelwi Bid’atis.
Also in Fataawa Hadithiyyah, Ibn Hajar Haitami (rahmatullah
alayh) states very explicitly: “Many people stand up at the time of
the mention of Rasulullah’s birth during the meelaad function. This is
bid’ah. There is no Hadith, etc. confirming this act.” Qiyaam
(standing) is in fact a fundamental act in the mawlid’s of today. The
well-known kitaab, Ghaayatul Maraam of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah explicitly
states:
“Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) attends every meelaad
function. It is therefore Fardh to stand in honour. The one who does
not stand is a kaafir.”

Providing even the slightest leeway for permissibility of this bid’ah as

the pseudo-deobandi morons do, is to support the prevalent kinds of
haraam, evil mawlid functions which are believed to have greater
importance than Salaat in certain quarters.
The first among the great and illustrious Ulama to have written a
refutation of the bid’ah of meelaad was Allaamah Shaikh Taajuddeen
Faakahaani (rahmatullah alayh). In refutation of this bid’ah sayyiah,
he writes in his Al-Mawrid fil Kalaam ma-a Amalil Mawlid:
“I know not of any basis for this mawlid, neither from the Kitaab
(Qur’aan) nor from the Sunnah. Nor is it narrated from those Ulama
(Salfus Saaliheen) who were the Authorities of the Deen, and who
had supported with diligence the narrations of the Salfus Saaliheen.
This mawlid is bid’ah. The Ahl-e-Baatil had originated it, and
carnal lusts of the worshippers of the stomach have nourished it.
………Neither did the Sahaabah nor the Pious Taabi-een practise this
(bid’ah of mawlid). And, if I am questioned about it in the Divine
Presence (on the Day of Qiyaamah), I shall give this same response.
25
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

It is not mustahab nor even mubah (permissible) because an

innovation in the Deen cannot be permissible. This is the Ijma’ of the
Muslimeen. Thus mawlid is either Makrooh (Tahrimi) or Haraam.

Allaamah Hasan Ibn Ali (rahmatullah alayh) states in Tareeqah Radd-

e-Ahl-e-Bid’ah: “The meelaad function which jaahil sufis had
innovated, there is no basis for it in the Shariah. On the contrary, it is
bid’ah sayyiah consisting of numerous evils.”

Shaikh Muhammad Abu Bakr Makhzumi Maaliki (rahmatullah alayh)

states in Manhal Sharh Raafi: “Among the evil acts of abomination
and evil prohibitions in this age is the function of mawlid. Ummats of
the previous Ambiya were destroyed for innovating new acts in the
Deen.”

Allaamah Alaauddeen Ibn Ismaaeel Ash-Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh)

says in his Sharhul Ba’th Wan Nushoor: “Mawlid is bid’ah. Its
perpetrator is deserving of criticism.”

In Shariah Ilaahiyyah it is said: “Undoubtedly, an evil bid’ah which is

prevalent in countries and cities is the mawlid function. It has no
basis in the Dalaa-il of the Shariah, not in the Qur’aan and not in the
Hadith.”

Innumerable Ulama who were Authorities of the Deen had criticized

moulood, declaring it bid’ah sayyiah. All of then stated their case on
the basis of the Dalaa-il of the Shariah while those Ulama who
appeared many centuries after the era of Khairul Quroon condoned
this bid’ah purely on the basis of personal opinion without being
able to present a single daleel from the Shariah. They simply held on
to narrations of general import and submitted these to personal
opinion, conjecturing what they wished to imagine. Furthermore,
the permission which they had baselessly opined was restricted to
such mawlid functions which were devoid of the many munkaraat
(evil acts) which incumbently accompany all moulood carnival
parties and functions organized in this day and age.
26
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Mawlid is not simply one isolated act of bid’ah. Its villainy brings
about the vilest form of mutilation of the Deen. Hadhrat Bakr Bin
Abdullah Al-Muzni (radhiyallahu anhu) narrated that Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “My Intercession is confirmed for
my entire Ummah except for bid’atis.” According to the Hadith,
bid’atis are Kilaabun Naar (Dogs of the Fire).
The Ahl-e-Bid’ah and now even the pseudo-deobandi juhhaal
molvis who present the names of Ulama of the 7th— 10 centuries in
their abortive bid to substantiate validity for the satanic bid’ah of
moulood failed to comprehend their own stupidity for having failed
to cite the name of even a single Sahaabi, Taabi’een and Tab-e-
Taabi’een. They miserably inflict blindness on themselves by
believing that there was no six century vacuum prior to the
innovation of their haraam bid’ah sayyiah mawlid/meelaad carnival
function. The fossilization of their Aql and calcification of their Baatin
do not allow them to understand that a function which has no trace
whatsoever in the Khairul Quroon, and which came into vogue only
more than six centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)
can never be accorded the status of ibaadat. It is one of the vilest
forms of Shar’i mutilation and interpolation.
Even Ulama of Ibn Hajar’s and Suyuti’s status have fallen by the
wayside and had failed to understand that the employment of
Qiyaas to confirm permissibility for an entirely new innovation in the
form of ‘ibaadat’ which did not exist during the Khairul Quroon era
while the raison detre (Illat) cited by them did exist, is Faasid Qiyaas.
The Illat of love for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) was never
more conspicuous and more profound than its presence in the age
of the Sahaabah and the subsequent eras, yet these great and
illustrious Devotees of Nabi-e-Kareem (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)
did not innovate any birthday celebration practices in Rasulullah’s
honour. Any qiyaas which substantiates an act which is glaringly
bid’ah is undoubtedly, faasid (corrupt) and baseless, regardless of its
author. The claim of it being Mustahab, i.e. the type of mawlid
devoid of the rubbish haraam khuraafaat associated with the
carnival functions of this day, is erroneous and surprising for men of
Ilm to make. The Ulama who have made this spurious claim had
27
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

failed to apply their minds, for even a Mandoob/Mustahab act, there

is the need for Shar’i Daleel. It is said in Raddul Muhtaar: “Nudb is a
Shar’i Hukm. Daleel for it is imperative.”

We are most fortunate that Allah Ta’ala has demarcated for us the
limits of obedience which is owed to the Ulama. In this regard, the
Qur’aan declares:
“They (Bani Israaeel) took their ahbaar (molvis and shaikhs) and their
ruhbaan (sufis) as gods besides Allah….”

The errors and slips of the Ulama portend the gravest danger for the
Ummah. Precisely for this reason did Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) say: “Verily, I fear for my Ummah the Aimmah Mudhilleen
(Ulama who misguide).” In another Hadith, Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam) said: “I fear for my Ummah three acts: The slip of an
Aalim, the disputing of a munaafiq with the Qur’aan and the denial
of Qadr (Taqdeer).” Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu)
said: “Do you know what will demolish Islam? The slip of the Aalim,
the disputing of the munaafiq using the Qur’aan and the hukm
(fatwa) of the Aimmah Mudhilleen demolish Islam.”
Of the category of dangerous slips by the Ulama is the slip of
Allaamah Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) who is reported to have said:
“If in this (mawlid) there was only abasement of shaitaan and the
happiness of the people of the Muslimeen, then it would suffice (for
permissibility).” Sakhaawi either did not apply his mind or he was in
some state of devotional ecstasy or he was overwhelmed by the
widespread prevalence of this bid’ah, or this statement has been
wrongly attributed to him, hence his intellectual discernment
became clouded. Far from bid’ah being an abasement for shaitaan, it
is an act which is exceedingly delightful to him. Bid’ah brings to him
such happiness which knows no bounds. All acts of bid’ah innovated
into the Deen are the inspirations and adornments of Iblees.
Obviously he will be the happiest when the Muslim Ummah indulges
in bid’ah. Hadhrat Sufyaan Thauri (rahmatullah alayh) said: “Iblees
loves bid’ah more than what he loves sin.” Muslims repent for the

28
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

sins they comment, but not for bid’ah. There are two reasons why
they do not repent for bid’ah:
(1) They believe that their bid’ah is ibaadat, so why should they
repent?
(2) Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said that Allah Ta’ala
deprives every bid’ati from making Taubah.

As for the “happiness of Muslims” is concerned, only the juhala and

the slaves of lust derive happiness from bid’ah, fun-festivals,
merrymaking parties and birthday celebrations emulated from the
Nasaara.
A graver and incredible slip of Allaamah Sakhaawi (rahmatullah
alayh) is his observation: “The People of the Cross (the Christians)
have made the birthday of their Nabi (in fact their ‘god’) their great
day of eid (i.e. Christmas day). The People of Islam are more
deserving of honouring (their Nabi by means of birthday
celebration).”

This is indeed a shocking and lamentable slip committed by an Aalim

of the Deen. His observation confirms that mawlid is in emulation of
the Christian’s festival of Christmas. Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) said: “Whoever emulates a people is of them.” He also
said that Muslims will imitate the Yahood and Nasaara in the
minutest detail right into the “lizard’s hole”. Mullah Ali Qaaeu,
refuting the blunder of Sakhaawi, says in his Al-Mouridir Rawi fil
Moulidin Nabawi: “I say that we have been commanded (by
Rasulullah –sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to oppose the Ahl-e-Kitaab.”

After the Conquest of Makkah when Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam) set of on the Jihad Campaign of Hunain, they passed by a
tree known to the Mushrikeen by the name, Zaat Anwaat. They used
to hang their weapons on this tree, gather around it and pass the
time. It was not a tree of worship. They use to halt here for a short
while. This tree became a landmark for the Mushrikeen.
Among those who were with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) were some new Muslims who were as yet ignorant of the
29
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

tenets and principles of the Shariah. They said: “O Rasulullah!

Establish for us a Zaat Anwaat just as they (the Mushrikeen) have a
Zaat Anwaat.” Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said in
surprise: “Subhaanallaah! This is just as the nation of Musaa (alayhis
salaam) said: ‘Make for us a god (idol of worship) just as they (the
idolaters) have gods (idols of worship. – Surah A’raaf, Aayat 138). I
take oath by Him in Whose Power is my life! You (Muslimeen) will
most certainly follow the ways of those before you (i.e. the Yahood
and Nasaara),” (Tirmizi)
Sakhaawi’s slip is of this dimension and gravity. But, we do not
take our Ulama as “gods besides Allah”. Thus, in addition to mawlid
being bid’ah is Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. Its hurmat is therefore
compounded. Zaat Anwaat was not an idol. The kuffaar used it
merely as a halting place, and they hung their weapons on this tree
while they relaxed. However, since it had become a famous
landmark for them, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) rejected
the request on the basis of Tashabbuh bil Kuffaar. In fact, he likened
the request to the request of Bani Israaeel who had asked Nabi
Musaa (alayhi salaam) to make for them an idol when they had seen
some idolaters worshipping idols. Although the element of worship
was not in Zaat Anwaat, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam)
abhorred the request of the new Muslims because of the element of
Tashabbuh.
From Rasulullah’s abhorrence for Tashabbuh Bil Kuffaar the
ludicrousness and abhorrence of Sakhaawi’s justification of mawlid
(i.e. the mawlid minus all the haraam paraphernalia which are
associated with today’s haraam meelaad carnival festivals) can be
better understood.
Thus, regardless of whose name is cited, be he the greatest
Allaamah of the age, his view, if unsubstantiated by the Dalaa-il of
the Shariah will never enjoy Shar’i acceptance and credibility, and if
in conflict with the Shariah, will be mardood. All those Ulama who
have accorded credibility to moulood functions have gravely slipped
and erred despite their permissibility being related to only such
functions which are devoid of any munkaraat. The very festival of
mawlid devoid of munkaraat is bid’ah sayyiah. It is a vile act given
30
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

the form of ibaadat. But Ibaadat was only that which was taught by
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and the Sahaabah, and this
has reached us via the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and the genuine
Fuqaha. Whilst Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and the others are
accepted and authentic Ulama, they are nowhere near the status of
the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of the Khairul Quroon. They had
missed that golden era of Islam my many centuries, and were
influenced by the widespread prevalence of the bid’ah of mawlid.
Again it should be emphasized that the permissibility attributed
to the likes of Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) and Suyuti (rahmatullah
alayh), narrated by the Ahl-e-Bid’ah, Ahl-e-Hawa and lately by the
moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis is absolutely no daleel for
the votaries of mawlid because the function for which Ibn Hajar
(rahmatullah alayh) and others have predicated permissibility is
something widely different from the carnival for which the
miscreants of today are claiming permissibility. The two acts while
having the same designation, viz., moulood/mawlid/meelaad, are
different in entirety. The difference is as divergent as east and west
or heaven and hell. Even those Ulama are unanimous in condemning
the type of Satanism of the age which is termed ‘mawlid’. There is
not a single name which the morons can present in support of the
satanic mawlid festivals and haraam parties of these times.
The arguments of all the other Shaafi’ Ulama who arrived on the
Islamic scene many centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam), and who are presented as ‘daleel’ by the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and
pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi rabble are similarly spurious and
utterly bereft of Shar’i evidence. Since this treatise is only a brief
response to the flotsam disgorged by the pseudo-deobandi
miscreants, we shall by pass the drivel of this train which has been
derailed from the Straight Course of the Shariah.

31
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

THE SPURIOUS CONTENTIONS OF THE

JAAHIL MOLVIS
(1) One of these jaahil pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvis, in a
stupid cell phone message, alleged in support of the bid’ah sayyiah
moulood:
“yes some of seniors say its fine if practiced correctly
In almuhanad al mufanad the bible or gospel of the aqidah
of the scholars of deoband its clearly mentioned mawlood
free of haraam n bidat is acceptable Others say cautious
view is not to do bec it will lead to other wrongs”

This insolent moron, firstly lacks understanding of the essential

rudiments of adab. Although he professes to be a ‘deobandi’, he
insolently refers to the kitaab, the name of which he is unable to
even pronounce correctly, as the ‘gospel and bible’ of the Ulama of
Deoband. The name of the Kitaab is Al-Muhannad alal Mufannnad.
In this Kitaab, Hadhrat Khalil Ahmad Sahaaranpuri (rahmatullah
alayh) answers a list of questions posed by the then Muqallid Ulama
of Haramain Shareefain. It is not Deoband’s text book of Aqeedah.
The moron appears not to have the haziest idea of the meaning
of mawlood/mawlid/moulood/meelaad. It is not the view of the
Ulama of Deoband that any type moulood function is permissible, “if
practiced correctly”. The moron should define a mawlood function
which is practiced correctly. What type of function is that in relation
to the Ulama of Deoband. What meelaad is to the Barelwi and other
juhala is well-known. But what is the meaning of a moulood function
as far as the Ulama of Deoband are concerned? If the moron had
known, he would not have spoken drivel.
Every moulood function organized on specific dates or held as a
birthday celebration in ‘honour’ of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) regardless of ‘correct’ or incorrect observances is bid’ah
according to the Ulama of Deoband. Even if such a function is
without music, and without the conglomeration of other haraam
factors which are compulsorily associated with meelaad festivals,
then too it remains bid’ah. What is permissible according to the
32
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Ulama Deoband is Thikr-e-Wilaadat bila Quyood, i.e. speaking or

lecturing about the events surrounding the birth of Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) in general, without stipulating a day in
Rabiul Awwal and without organizing a function to celebrate the
birthday of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
The Ulama of Deoband explicitly stipulate for permissibility of
bayaans on the birth of Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) bila quyood
(without the attachment of stipulations). It should be a normal
bayaan as all other discourses without the accompaniment of any
fanfare and festival. For the benefit of the moron and his ilk, thikr-e-
wilaadat bila quyood has absolutely no resemblance with moulood
festivals, even with such festivals bereft of the other haraam
elements which are incumbently attached to the haraam meelaad
parties.

The moron then says in his stupid cell phone message:

“In our context bec it has become synonymous wit
haraam an erroneous views better is not to do it”

The atrocity of the terminology displays the atrocity of the heart and
brain. Despite the moron conceding that the moulood functions in
vogue are haraam, he deemed it appropriate to broadcast
comments to dent the stance of prohibition of the Ulama of
Deoband who have steadfastly prohibited all moulood functions.
There are no such functions which come minus haraam. Did the
moron acquit himself with wisdom with his shaitaani attempt to
weaken the stance of the Akaabir of Deoband? Does he display
foresight in spuriously arguing that there is scope of permissibility?
The moron, pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi says in his
message:
“The mawlood that is free from any haraam n
innovation was practised by our seniors
So no point in pretending it does not exist.”

This is a blatant and a foul lie and slander uttered against the Akaabir
Ulama of Deoband. They did not practise any type of moulood
functions. Hadhrat Thanvi (rahmatullah alayh), in the beginning of
33
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

his Ilmi career, had grievously erred by attending such moulood

functions where haraam was not perpetrated. After his lecture, he
would leave. Hadhrat Maulana Rashid Ahmad Gangohi (rahmatullah
alayh) severely objected and reprimanded him for even such
cautious participation. Finally, Hadhrat Maulana Thanvi (rahmatullah
alayh) conceding his error abandoned attending any type of
moulood function. The claim that the Akaabir Ulama of Deoband did
not participate in any moulood functions is not a ‘pretence’. It is a
fact of which the moron is ignorant.

Again the moron in his haraam cell phone message alleges:

“U could brush it under the carpet but when the
opposition present it to u wit referenced citations
u gonna be knocked off ur feet”

The brainless moron molvi does not realize what his mouth excretes.
There had never ever been any attempt by any of the Ulama-e-Haqq
right from the inception of this meelaad Satanism from the seventh
century when it was innovated, to ‘brush the bid’ah rot under the
carpet.’ The Ulama-e-Haqq in every generation, in general, and the
Ulama of Deoband in particular in the last and this centuries, have
confronted head-on all kinds of bid’ah including the Satanism of
moulood.
Innumerable kutub have been written by the Ulama-e-Haqq from
the very era of the inception of this meelaad innovation by the faasiq
king of Irbal. In every age the Ulama have refuted in their kutub the
Satanism of this bid’ah. The Ulama of Deoband have written
numerous kutub refuting in detail every spurious argument
proffered by the votaries of this bid’ah sayyiah in defence of their
haraam meelaad festivals.
We fail to understand how the moron has concluded his idea of
the issue having been swept under the carpet. It appears that his
jahaalat of the history underlying moulood bid’ah has constrained
him to make this stupid averment. Whatever trash he has spewed up
has been gleaned from the stupid articles written by the Qabar
Pujaari Barelwi sect. If the moron had made a proper research of this

34
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

issue by studying the Kutub which the Ulama-e-Haqq had written, he

would then not have so stupidly advertised the density of his
sensorial faculty.
He further says: “Fact of the matter is it is a matter of diff of
opinion.” This too is a blatant lie based on the moron’s stupidity.
There is absolutely no difference in the ranks of the Ulama-Haqq in
the prohibition of all moulood functions which are currently in
vogue. Even those Ulama who believe erroneously that meelaad
without the rubbish khuraafaat is permissible, are in unanimity with
the Ulama who proclaim current moulood functions haraam. Even
those who differed with the prohibition of even such mouloods
minus the haraam rubbish factors, are constrained to concede that
there is no Daleel from the Salaf for validating this function. This,
even Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) is compelled by the reality to say
in his Fataawa: “The act of moulood shareef has not been narrated
from any of the Salfus Saalih of the Three Noble Ages. Verily, it was
innovated thereafter.” Mullah Ali Qaari has narrated this fatwa of
Sakhaawi (rahmatullah alayh) in his Al-Mauridir Rawi fil Moulidin
Nabawi.
Even Ibn Hajar Qustulaani (rahmatullah alayh) who inclined to
excesses and faasid qiyaas in this sphere, was constrained to
concede in his Fatwa, narrated by Suyuti (rahmatullah alayh) in his
Hisnul Maqsad fil Amalil Moulid: “The basis of the Moulid amal is
bid’ah which has not been narrated from anyone of the Salfus Saalih
of Qyroon-e-Thalaathah.”

The moron states:

“Al-Imam as-Suyuti authored an entire treatise on
the recommendation of the mawlid celebration.”

The 10th century Imaam Suyuti’s treatise is simply one mass of

personal opinion. It does not contain a single Shar’i daleel. The case
for permissibility of even such function devoid of rubbish could not
be sustained by Imaam Suyuti in terms of Shar’i Dalaa-il, hence he
was constrained to concede that only qiyaas can be used. But, as
mentioned earlier, the qiyaas used for meelaad is faasid. Imaam

35
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Suyiti’s treatise is not the Qur’aan nor the Hadith nor the Ijma’ of the
Ummah.
The moron molvi, in his abortive haraam attempt to provide
stupid cover for the current day satanic meelaad functions, states:
“ al-Imam an-Nawawi’s shaykh, head of the famous Syrian school,
Dar al-Hadith al-Ashrafiyyah, the great Shafi`i jurist and traditionist,
Abdur Rahman ibn Ismail, well-known as Abu Shamah. He states in
his Risalah,

“And among the best innovated actions in these times are those
actions that take place every year coinciding with the birth of the
Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallam) such as charity, good deeds,
personal beautification, joy, and so forth, as they speak of love and
reverence for the beloved Prophet (sallAllahu alayhi wasallm)…”

This is not a Shar’i daleel for innovating ‘ibaadat’. Ibaadat consists of

only the practices imparted by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam). A practice innovated by an evil king in the seventh
century is not ibaadat, and may not be promoted as such. Abu
Shaamah, regardless of his status has grossly erred in his personal
opinion unsubstantiated by any Shar’i daleel.
Charity and good deeds are valid throughout the year. Stipulating
specific days without Shar’i basis for charity is bid’ah. Charity does
not require anniversary celebrations in emulation of the Yahood and
Nasaara. The Sahaabah never deemed it appropriate to practise
charity and good deeds on the occasion of Rasulullah’s birthday
despite their profound love and devotion for Nabi-e-Kareem
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
The Shariah has appointed the Day of Jumuah and the Days of Eid
for personal adornment, joy and so forth. The Shariah has not set
aside Rasulullah’s day of birth for these acts. The innovation of these
acts on another plane is bid’ah since it is an unsubstantiated
innovation into the Deen. Regarding such innovations, Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Every bid’ah is dhalaalah and every
dhalaalah will be in the Fire.” There are numerous haadith in severe
condemnation of bid’ah.

36
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

“Speaking of love and reverence for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi

wasallam)”, is not a birthday act for Muslims. This is part of the
Muslim’s daily life, and the best way of expressing such love,
devotion and honour is by adoption of the Sunnah in every walk of
life. This birthday party type of ‘love and honour’ is like the love and
devotion which the kuffaar superficially and deceptively express on
Christmas Day, Father’s Day, Mother’s Day and Stupid’s Day. These
are all moronic days inspired by shaitaan.
Abu Shaamah’s argument is baseless being bereft of Shar’i
substance. We do not appoint our Ulama as “gods’ besides Allah
Azza Wa Jal as the Yahood and Nasaara did to their ahbaar and
ruhbaan and to Nabi Isaa (alayhis salaam). We have a glittering
Shariah with its radiant Dalaa-il which constitute the Bedrock of the
stance of the Ulama of Deoband.
Another moron pseudo-deobandi cardboard molvi, blurted out
the following blatantly false message on his phone:
“And all these great people will approve of the mawlood
which u so eager to promote which is carring on today”

The falsehood of this lie is conspicuous. Not a single of the great

Ulama who had permitted their specific type of moulood had ever
condoned the haraam, shaitaani meelaad function in vogue today.
The moron’s claim is absolutely false. All of them have slated the evil
accretions in the kind in moulood which they had permitted.
Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) who condones the kind of meelad
minus haraam acts, says: “There are two kinds of functions where the
birth (of Rasulullah –sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned: (1)
Such functions where impermissible activities take place Such a
function is absolutely not permissible……Most meelaad functions are
of this kind.. (2) Such functions which are devoid of evil and
impermissible acts ……Many people stand when mention of the birth
is made. This is bid’ah. There is no Hadith, etc. to substantiate this
practice….”
Two facts are noteworthy in the aforementioned statements of
Ibn Hajar:

37
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

(1) All current forms of meelaad are bid’ah sayyiah and haraam. He
belies the moron who peddles the idea that he (Ibn Hajar) and the
other Ulama are in support of the type of moulood practices
currently in vogue.

(2) Ibn Hajar’s self-contradiction which neutralizes his claim of

permissibility of the first kind of moulood. In the aforementioned
statement, Ibn Hajar condemns and bans qiyaam (standing up) when
the performers sing their ‘Ya Nabi’ songs or when the birth of
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is mentioned during the
meelaad performance. He labels qiyaam as bid’ah, and his daleel for
it being bid’ah is that there is no Hadith substantiation for this
practice. Yet he forgot that there is no Hadith substantiation for
even the whole meelaad function. Thus, his condemnation of
qiyaam because of no Hadith basis while condoning meelaad which
also has no basis, not only no basis in the Hadith, but no basis in
Islam for more than six centuries, is illogic. For the same reason that
Ibn Hajar (rahmatullah alayh) regards qiyaam to be bid’ah, should he
likewise have believed that meelaad too is bid’ah. The common
denominator for both acts being bid’ah and not permissible is the
total lack of Hadith and Khairul Quroon support.
Furthermore, the lopsided, illogic arguments which Ibn Hajar
(rahmatullah alayh) and others of the same school offer for
permissibility of their kind of meelaad, could have been extended to
qiyaam as well. Just as they have mangled Ahaadith of general
import to extravagate permissibility for the bid’ah of their specific
kind of meelaad, so too could they have mutilated by means of
baseless extrapolation the Hadith: “Stand for your sayyid (chief).”, to
eke out substantiation for the bid’ah of qiyaam. After all, Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) is the greatest Sayyid. If qiyaam was
ordered for small-timer worldly chieftains, then this Hadith could
have acted as a “great daleel” for substantiating the bid’ah of
meelaad qiyaam. However, this logic had not occurred to Ibn Hajar
(rahmatullah alayh) and others. After all, the whole ‘logic’ underlying
the permissibility of even the first kind of meelaad is illogic and
baseless. There can never be permissibility for bid’ah.
38
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

SUMMARY
We conclude this brief refutation of the baatil of moulood/ mawlid /
melaad with this summary for quick reference:
(1) There is total Ijma’ (Consensus) of all Ulama of all times and ages
that the type of moulood in vogue is bid’ah sayyiah (evil bid’ah) and
haraam due to the many haraam elements with which these festivals
are associated.

(2) Some Shaafi’ Ulama who appeared many centuries after

Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) condoned such meelaad
functions which were devoid of haraam elements. They believed
that their specific type of meelaad which consisted of only praising
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam, feeding people and giving
charity, is commendable, hence they described it as ‘bid’ah
hasanah’.

(3) There is absolutely no Qur’aan and Hadith support for the bid’ah
hasanah type of moulood functions. In fact, the accretion of
moulood was innovated by the vile king of Irbal more than six
centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Thus, for the
first more than six centuries, the Ummah never knew what meelaad
is.

(4) The difference on this issue is not a difference of the four Math-
habs. It is simply a difference between Haqq and baatil. The votaries
of meelaad, i.e. the first type of meelaad minus the haraam
elements, were clearly in error. For them it had become an
emotional issue, hence their intellect became clouded. There are
valid reasons for this lamentable error of the senior Ulama.
However, this is not the juncture for elaboration.

(5) All moulood functions are haraam bid’ah sayyiah. Participation

in any type of meelaad festival is a major sin.

39
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

“Then We have established you on a Shariah regarding (all your)

affairs.
Therefore, follow it, and do not follow the vain desires of those who
do not know.” (Qur’aan)

THE BID’AH OF MOULOOD AND THE

CONUNDRUM OF PROMINENT SCHOLARS
Q. The Ahlul Bid’ah in an article, backed up their moulood
celebrations with sayings from some prominent scholars such as
Ibn Hajr Qustulaani, Ibn Jauzi and others, and even Haji
Imdaadullah, the Shaikh of Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thanvi.
What answer is there for this proof which the Barelwis cite?

A. We are not the muqallideen of ‘prominent scholars’. We are the

Muqallideen of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), and we
follow the Shariah as it existed during the era of Khairul Quroon. The
Shariah is the Deen which Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) and
the Sahaabah taught and practised. Innovations having a façade of
ibaadat, which were introduced centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu
alayhi wasallam), have no validity in terms of the Shariah.

Even if thousands of ‘prominent scholars’ support the bid’ah of

moulood, it will remain bid’ah sayyiah (evil innovation). Ibaadat is
what had existed during Khairul Quroon and substantiated by the
Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and imparted to posterity by the Fuqaha of
our Math-hab.

We are not awed by the names of the prominent scholars which

the Qabar Pujaaris (grave worshippers) cite in substantiation of their
evil bid’ah of moulood which consists of acts of fisq, fujoor and shirk.
The personal opinions of prominent scholars – opinions
unsubstantiated by the Nusoos of the Shariah, remain the opinions
of people, and regardless of the lofty stature of the prominent
scholars, their opinions may not be hoisted on to the Ummah as if
these acts are practices of the Sunnah or deeds commanded by the

40
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

Shariah.

If a moulood practice is totally bereft of any of the rubbish

actions with which the Qabar Pujaaris adorn their satanic exhibitions
of merrymaking functions, such as the unadulterated personal
practice of Haji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh), then too, it does
not constitute a Shar’i act of ibaadat which could be imposed on
others. In fact, it is not permissible to invite others to personal acts
of devotion even if such acts are devoid of any of the evil flotsam of
the Bid’atis. Personal expressions of devotion and love for Rasulullah
(sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are to be restricted to the privacy of the
home by the individuals engaging in them. They should not be
flaunted as acts of Masnoon ibaadat or presented to the Ummah as
if they are deeds commanded by Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) and practised by the Sahaabah.

Moulood is a baseless practice which has no origin in the Sunnah.

The many acts of fanfare, fun, singing, clowning, feasting and
merrymaking, render the function haraam and participation in these
bid’ah practices is haraam. The moulood practices in vogue, as
practised by the Grave-Worshippers, should not be confused with
the simple and private act of Haji Imdaadullah (rahmatullah alayh).

It will be salubrious for the Qabar Pujaaris to understand that we

are not members of Bani Israaeel whom the Qur’aan Majeed
castigates: “The take their (prominent) scholars and their saints as
gods besides Allah…” That was the practice of Bani Israaeel. We, the
followers of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) acquire our Deen
from the Sahaabah via the transmission Chain of Imaam Abu Hanifah
(rahmatullah alayh). Our Islam does not begin 8 centuries after
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) with the advent of Shaikh
Subki (rahmatullah alayh), for example, nor does our Islam begin
with any of the prominent scholars who appeared on the scene
centuries after the Sahaabah. These prominent scholars mentioned
by the Qabar Pujaaris are not our arbaab (gods) who we are
required to worship. The rulings of the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen and

41
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

the Fuqaha override such views and practices of centuries-later

Ulama which lack Shar’I substantiation.

It will do the Qabar Puja mob well to reflect the following

naseehat of Hadhrat Sayyid Ahmad Kabeer Rofaa’i (rahmatullah
alayh) who was a ‘prominent scholar’ and a great Wali:

“Respected People! What is it that you are doing? You say

Haarith said so; Baayazid said so; Mansur Hallaj said so. Instead of
saying so, say that Imaam Shaafi’ said so; Imaam Ahmad (Bin
Hambal) said so; Imaam Maalik said so; Imaam Abu Hanifah said so.
The statements of Baayazid can neither lower nor elevate you. On
the contrary, Imaam Maalik and Imaam Shaaf’i indicate the path of
Najaat (Salvation) and the Shariah.”

So, we are not interested in opinions and practices of Ulama who

appeared on the scene many centuries after the Sahaabah. Any of
their practices which are alien to the Shariah as it existed during the
era of Khairul Quroon have no Shar’i validity. Furthermore, we shall,
Insha-Allah, dissect the statements of the prominent scholars in
subsequent auricles.

This is a brief response to the misleading article of the Qabar

Pujaaris. Insha’Allah, if Allah Ta’ala bestows the taufeeq, a detailed
rebuttal of the khuraafaat (drivel) of the Qabar Pujaaris shall be
issued.

IS MEELAAD PERMISSIBLE?
Q. What is the Shar’i ruling on Meelaad? Many early Ulama such as
Allamah Suyuti, Ibn Taimiyyah, Allaamah Ibn Kathir, etc. said that it
is permissible. In the UK some people march around the city singing
naats (songs) when celebrating meelaad. Is this correct? A promoter
of meelaad says that Thuwaibah was the slave of Abu Lahab. When
she informed him that a son (Muhammad – sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) was born in his brother’s house, he set her free. After the
death of Abu Lahab he was seen in a dream in which he said: ‘I am in
42
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

severe punishment, but this is lessened on Mondays.’ Then he

showed his forefinger and said that he would suck it. It was with this
finger that he indicated that Thuwaibah was free when she informed
him of the birth of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Ibn Jawzi
states: ‘Abu Lahab is the kaafir who is mentioned specifically in the
Qur’aan.’ If such a person can be rewarded for celebrating meelaad
of the Nabi (sallallahu alayhi wasallam), then imagine how great the
reward would be for a Muslim who celebrates it.”
A. Firstly, what the early Ulama understood of meelaad is in sharp
contrast to the Hindu-type of meelaad rituals of fisq and fujoor
which accompany the meelaad celebrations of the Ahl-e-Bid’ah and
Qabar Pujaaris (Grave Worshippers). The meelaad celebrations in
vogue are evil bid’ah – haraam bid’ah which shaitaan has adorned
for the Qabar Puja sect. Such Hindu-type of celebrations are never
permissible even according to those early Ulama who had
participated in meelaad functions which have no basis in the Sunnah.
We have written two booklets on this subject, which are available.
Insha-Allah, a more detailed book shall be prepared to demolish the
baseless and stupid arguments of the Qabar Pujaaris.
The episode pertaining to Abu Lahab has absolutely no relationship
with the bid’ah milaad customs in vogue. He freed a slave woman.
The claim that he had celebrated milaad will not be believed by even
the baboons. To claim that Abu Lahab the kaafir was rewarded for
celebrating milaad is a black lie fabricated by the people of bid’ah.
Freeing a slave has no relationship with the stupid customs in which
the bid’atis indulge.
To understand whether an act is ibaadat or not, one has to refer to
the great authorities of the Khairul Quroon era (the first three ages
of Islam). Whatever was ibaadat in that era is Islamic ibaadat. What
was innovated 700 and 800 years after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) is not ibaadat.
Proof for the validity of ibaadat is not Ibn Taimiyyah and Subki, etc.
who came 7 centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).
They should cite the Sahaabah and the Taabieen as proof. But, they
43
 MOULOOD FUNCTIONS

jump from the age of the Sahaabah and seek evidence for their
innovations from the statements of Ulama who appeared 7 and 8
centuries after the perfection and completion of Islam. Their claims
are absolutely baseless. They have no grounds on which to stand.
They have nothing in the Qur’aan, Ahaadith and Fiqah to support
their drivel haraam meelaad merrymaking functions.
Subki, Ibn Kathir and the other Ulama who appeared on the scene 7,
8 and 10 centuries after Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) are
not the Proofs of the Shariah. As far as Ibn Taimiyyah is concerned,
he was a deviate who subscribed to views of shirk and kufr. The
Sahaabah, Taabi-een and Tab-e-Taabieen are the Proofs of Islam. In
this regard, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Honour my
Sahaabah, for verily they are your noblest; then those after them (the
Taabieen), then those after them (Tab-e-Taabieen). Thereafter will
prevail falsehood.”
Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) also said in this regard: “The
best of ages is my age, then the next age, then the next age. Then
after them (the Sahaabah, Taabieen and Tab-e-Taabieen) will come
such people who will (hasten) to testify without being asked to
testify. They will be treacherous people who cannot be trusted. They
will take vows without fulfilling them. Among them will prevail
obesity……Then will come people who will love obesity.”
Those who love the fun and merrymaking, the feasting and singing
of these deceptive ‘religious’ functions of bid’ah meelaad in which
numerous evils are committed, are the people among whom prevail
falsehood and obesity (ugly fatness). Their stomachs are bloated
with all the haraam food they devour in the name of the Deen. Their
hollow ‘love’ vociferously professed for Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi
wasallam) is a canard – a dastardly false slogan designed for their
own deception and the deception of the stupid public who indulges
in the singing, dancing and merrymaking.

44