Bidʿa
The concept of ‘bidʿa’ (بدعة(, often translated as ‘innovation’, holds a pivotal place in Islamic jurisprudence, encapsulating the tensions between tradition and change within the Muslim religious practice. The term derives from the Arabic root ‘b-d-ʿa”, which means to begin something without precedent. Within Islamic discourse, ‘bidʿa’ is utilised to categorise practices or beliefs introduced into the religion that were not present during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The Quran does not explicitly mention ‘bidʿa’ in the context of religious innovation, yet its ethos significantly informs the later Islamic understanding of the term. The Quranic worldview is rooted in the idea of a singular, unchanging divine message, as seen in Surah Al-Ahzab,
سُنَّةَ ٱللَّهِ فِى ٱلَّذِينَ خَلَوْا۟ مِن قَبْلُ ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّةِ ٱللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًۭا ٦٢
“That was the Way of Allah in the case of those who passed away of old, and you will not find any change in the Way of Allah” (Q. 33:62).
While the Quran does not directly address ‘bidʿa’ in the context of religious innovation, its principles lay the groundwork for later interpretations. The Quranic ethos advocates for steadfastness in following the divine message, as evident in verses that emphasise adherence to established practices and warn against deviating from them. Surah Al-Imran states,
وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ ٱلْإِسْلَـٰمِ دِينًۭا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِى ٱلْـَٔاخِرَةِ مِنَ ٱلْخَـٰسِرِينَ ٨٥
“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers” (Q. 3:85).
وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِى ٱلْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ ٱللَّهِ ۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ ١١٦
“And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah’s Path. They follow nothing but conjectures, and they do nothing but lie” (Q. 6:116).
In Surah Al-Rum, the division of religion into sects is criticized, which scholars like Sayyid Qutb in “Fi Zilal al-Quran” interpret as a warning against innovations leading to division,
مِنَ ٱلَّذِينَ فَرَّقُوا۟ دِينَهُمْ وَكَانُوا۟ شِيَعًۭا ۖ كُلُّ حِزْبٍۭ بِمَا لَدَيْهِمْ فَرِحُونَ ٣٢
“Of those who split up their religion (i.e. who left the true Islamic Monotheism) and became sects, [i.e. they invented new things in the religion (Bid’a), and followed their vain desires], each sect rejoicing in that which is with it” (Q. 30:32).
The Ḥadīth corpus provides a more direct elucidation of ‘bidʿa’. A frequently cited Ḥadīth, “The evilest matters in religion are those that are newly invented, for every newly invented matter is an innovation, every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Hellfire” (Sunan al-Nasā’ī, 1578). This Ḥadīth forms the cornerstone of the traditionalist argument against religious innovation. However, a critical examination reveals varied interpretations among Islamic scholars.
The Quranic verses and Ḥadīths related to ‘bidʿa’ reveal a layered and multifaceted concept. The Quran’s emphasis on following the divine guidance and avoiding division provides a basis for the later elaboration of ‘bidʿa’ in Ḥadīth literature. The Ḥadīths themselves, while seemingly straightforward, are subject to varying interpretations by scholars across Islamic history.
Prominent classical scholars have engaged deeply with the concept of ‘bidʿa’. Imam Al-Shafi’i (150–204 AH/767–820 CE), a foundational figure in Islamic jurisprudence, distinguished between ‘bidʿa Ḥasana’ (commendable innovation) and ‘bidʿa sayi’a’ (reprehensible innovation), a categorisation not explicitly found in the Quran or Ḥadīth but derived through ijtihād (independent reasoning). This distinction is pivotal in understanding the multifaceted nature of ‘bidʿa’ in Islamic thought. For instance, Al-Shafi’i’s categorisation is referenced in his seminal work, “Al-Risala” (Al-Shafi’i, “Al-Risala”, trans. Majid Khadduri, 1987). Imam Malik ibn Anas (93–179 AH/711–795 CE), another towering figure in Islamic jurisprudence, reportedly viewed ‘bidʿa’ as an expansive concept, encompassing both positive and negative manifestations, depending on their alignment with the Quran and Sunna (Malik ibn Anas, “Al-Muwatta”, 1989). This perspective underscores the importance of aligning innovations with the foundational texts of Islam.
In later Islamic thought, the concept of ‘bidʿa’ underwent further elaboration and diversification. Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328 CE), for example, adopted a stringent stance against most forms of ‘bidʿa’, arguing that the early generations of Muslims (Salaf) did not practice them, thus they should be avoided (Ibn Taymiyya, “Majmu’ al-Fatāwā”, 1988). This perspective is often cited in contemporary Salafist discourses against religious innovation. Conversely, Sufi interpretations, as seen in the works of scholars like Al-Ghazali (1058–1111 CE), often embraced certain types of ‘bidʿa’ that were seen as enhancing spiritual experience and devotion, provided they did not contradict the Quran and Sunna (Al-Ghazali, “Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din”, 1981). In contemporary academic discourse, the discussion of ‘bidʿa’ often intertwines with broader themes of Islamic legal theory and the dynamism of Islamic jurisprudence. Wael B. Hallaq, in “A History of Islamic Legal Theories” (1997), provides a nuanced analysis of the development of legal theories surrounding ‘bidʿa’, highlighting the adaptability and interpretative nature of Islamic legal thought. Similarly, Sherman A. Jackson, in “Islamic Law and the State” (1996), explores the role of ‘bidʿa’ in the context of state power and legal authority in Islamic history, offering insights into the political dimensions of religious innovation.
The conservative approach to ‘bidʿa’ (innovation) in Islamic jurisprudence often draws heavily on the interpretations of medieval scholars, most notably Ibn Taymiyya. A hallmark of Ibn Taymiyya’s jurisprudence is his firm stance against any religious innovation, premised on the belief that such practices represent a deviation from the authentic teachings of Islam as practised by the Prophet Muhammad and his companions. In his comprehensive work “Majmu’ al-Fatawa,” Ibn Taymiyya presents a detailed exposition of this view, arguing that the introduction of any new practice in religion not explicitly sanctioned by the Quran and Sunna leads to misguidance (Ibn Taymiyya, Taqi ad-Din Ahmad. “Majmu’ al-Fatawa”. Riyadh: Dar Alam al-Kutub, 1991). Central to the conservative viewpoint is a literal interpretation of certain Ḥadīths that categorically condemn innovation. One of the most frequently cited Ḥadīths in this context is “Kullu bidʿa’tin ḍalālah” (Every innovation is a misguidance). This Ḥadīth, interpreted in its most literal and broad sense, serves as a foundational principle for conservative scholars. It is used to argue that any deviation from the practices established during the Prophet’s era, regardless of its intention or outcome, is inherently misguided and, therefore, unacceptable.
Conservative scholars maintain that the Islamic tradition established by the Quran and Sunna is complete and perfect. They argue that this perfection renders any addition or modification unnecessary and potentially harmful to the purity of the faith. For these scholars, strict adherence to the practices of the Prophet and his companions is paramount. They assert that this adherence safeguards the Muslim community from fragmentation and ensures the preservation of Islam in its original form. The conservative approach, thus, places significant emphasis on the early generations of Muslims (the Salaf) as the ideal standard for Islamic practice.
This perspective has led conservative scholars to critique contemporary practices they view as ‘bidʿa’. These include religious ceremonies like the celebration of Mawlid and certain societal customs and uses of modern technology that have been integrated into religious practices. The conservative viewpoint is often characterised by vigilance against what is perceived as the creeping influence of non-Islamic traditions and modern innovations into the realm of religious observance.
In the modern context, the conservative interpretation of ‘bidʿa’ presents both a bastion of tradition and a challenge in the face of evolving societal needs. While it is lauded by its proponents for preserving the original purity of Islamic practices, it also faces criticism for its potential inflexibility and resistance to change, even in matters unrelated to core religious beliefs or rituals. Conservative Islamic scholars maintain a stringent stance against ‘bidʿa’, grounded in the belief that the Islamic tradition, as established during the Prophet Muhammad’s time, represents a complete and perfect system of religious practice. This viewpoint posits that the Quran and Sunna provide comprehensive guidance for all religious and moral life aspects.
Central to this argument is that the Prophet Muhammad’s life and teachings constitute an ideal and flawless model for Muslims. Since his practices were divinely guided, any addition or alteration to these practices is deemed unnecessary and is viewed with suspicion. This perspective is reinforced by Ḥadīths such as “Kullu bidʿa’tin ḍalālah” (Every innovation is misguidance), which are interpreted to mean that any deviation from the established practice is an error (Ibn Taymiyya, Taqī ad-Din Ahmad. “Majmu’ al-Fatāwā”). Conservative scholars assert that Islamic law (Sharīʿa), derived from the Quran and Sunna, is all-encompassing and timeless. It provides sufficient guidance for any situation or challenge, rendering innovations redundant and potentially misleading. A key concern in the conservative argument against ‘bidʿa’ is the potential for subjective interpretations of Islam, which could lead to fragmentation within the Muslim community.
1. Subjective Interpretations: Allowing ‘bidʿa’, according to conservative scholars, opens the door to personal or cultural interpretations of religious practices. This subjectivity could result in practices more aligned with individual or societal preferences rather than with the authentic teachings of Islam.
2. Potential for Deviation: There is a worry that once ‘bidʿa’ is accepted, it could set a precedent for further deviations from the original teachings of Islam. Over time, this could lead to significant alterations in religious practice, potentially diluting or distorting the essence of the faith.
3. Historical Precedents: Conservative scholars often cite historical instances where religious innovations led to sectarianism and division within the Muslim community. They argue that adhering strictly to the practices established during the Prophet’s time is crucial to prevent such fragmentation.
While conservative scholars advocate for strict adherence to the Quran and Sunna, they recognise the role of ijtihād in Islamic jurisprudence. However, they emphasise that ijtihād should be exercised within the boundaries set by the primary sources and should not introduce new practices that have no basis in these sources.
Ijtihād, in the conservative view, is a tool for interpreting and applying the principles of the Quran and Sunna to new situations rather than a means for introducing new practices or beliefs. The exercise of ijtihād is bounded by the Quran’s and Sunna’s overarching principles. It is acceptable only when it helps understand and implement Islam’s teachings more effectively without deviating from the established norms.
The concept of ‘Religious innovation’ in Islamic theology pertains to practices or beliefs adopted as religious that are not prescribed by Allah. This discussion evaluates the theological implications of engaging in or promoting such practices, particularly how they are viewed within Islamic jurisprudence. ‘Religious innovation’ refers to introducing religious practices or beliefs not sanctioned by divine command. These innovations are often considered acts of ‘bidʿa’ and can involve either adding new practices to the religion or altering existing ones. This concept is particularly relevant when individuals consider certain acts as bringing them closer to Allah, which are not grounded in the Quran or Sunna. The core of this issue lies in contravening direct divine command as stipulated in the Quran and Sunna. Islamic theology holds that religious practices and beliefs should strictly align with what is ordained by Allah. Any deviation from this, whether through modification or invention of religious practices, is seen as creating a form of religion not authorised by Allah.
أَمْ لَهُمْ شُرَكَـٰٓؤُا۟ شَرَعُوا۟ لَهُم مِّنَ ٱلدِّينِ مَا لَمْ يَأْذَنۢ بِهِ ٱللَّهُ ۚ وَلَوْلَا كَلِمَةُ ٱلْفَصْلِ لَقُضِىَ بَيْنَهُمْ ۗ وَإِنَّ ٱلظَّـٰلِمِينَ لَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌۭ ٢١
“How can they believe in others who ordain for them things which God has not sanctioned in the practice of their faith? Judgment would have already been made between them without God’s decree concerning the final decision. The evildoers will have a grievous punishment” (Q. 42:21).
A pertinent example is provided in the Quran in Surah Al-Tawbah where Allah criticizes the People of the Book for taking their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah,
ٱتَّخَذُوٓا۟ أَحْبَارَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـٰنَهُمْ أَرْبَابًۭا مِّن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ وَٱلْمَسِيحَ ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ وَمَآ أُمِرُوٓا۟ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُوٓا۟ إِلَـٰهًۭا وَٰحِدًۭا ۖ لَّآ إِلَـٰهَ إِلَّا هُوَ ۚ سُبْحَـٰنَهُۥ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ ٣١
“They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their desires without being ordered by Allah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Taurat (Torah) and the Injīl (Gospel)) to worship none but One Ilah (God – Allah) La ilaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)” (Q. 9:31).
This verse is interpreted to mean that obeying religious leaders in matters that contradict Allah’s command is akin to attributing divine authority to them. This analogy is reinforced in Ḥadīth literature, where Prophet Muhammad clarifies that obeying religious leaders in matters that contravene divine command is tantamount to worshipping them (Tirmidhi and Musnad Ahmad). Individuals who follow or propagate an innovated form of religion, thereby attributing to themselves or others a share in divine authority, are considered to have deviated from the monotheistic foundation of Islam. However, Islamic jurisprudence differentiates between intentional fabrication and actions borne out of misunderstanding. The latter may be forgiven, provided the individual’s actions do not become a source of misguidance for others.
سَيَقُولُ ٱلَّذِينَ أَشْرَكُوا۟ لَوْ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ مَآ أَشْرَكْنَا وَلَآ ءَابَآؤُنَا وَلَا حَرَّمْنَا مِن شَىْءٍۢ ۚ كَذَٰلِكَ كَذَّبَ ٱلَّذِينَ مِن قَبْلِهِمْ حَتَّىٰ ذَاقُوا۟ بَأْسَنَا ۗ قُلْ هَلْ عِندَكُم مِّنْ عِلْمٍۢ فَتُخْرِجُوهُ لَنَآ ۖ إِن تَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا ٱلظَّنَّ وَإِنْ أَنتُمْ إِلَّا تَخْرُصُونَ ١٤٨
“The idolaters will say, ‘If God had willed, we would not have ascribed partners to Him- nor would our fathers- or have declared anything forbidden.’ In the same way, those before them continually denied [the truth] until they tasted Our punishment. Say, ‘Have you any knowledge that you can show us? You follow only supposition and tell only lies.'” (Q. 6:148).
Upon careful analysis, it becomes evident that numerous detrimental consequences are associated with innovations. These harmful effects should not be overlooked or underestimated, as they have the potential to significantly impact various aspects of our lives and society as a whole. It is essential to delve deeper into these innovations’ negative implications to understand their challenges comprehensively and explore potential solutions to mitigate their adverse effects. We can gain a deeper knowledge by critically examining the drawbacks and considering alternative approaches. For instance,
1. Innovations in religious practices, such as assigning specific days for fasting or prayers, can lead to secondary effects like extravagance and misplaced beliefs. For example, the innovation of Salat al-Raghaib involves additional customs like feasting and extravagant dressing, which may detract from the spiritual essence of the practice.
2. Many innovations stem from the erroneous belief that certain days or practices hold special merit. This misconception leads to prioritising certain practices over others, which should have been endorsed by the Prophet Muhammad, potentially skewing the balance of religious observance.
3. Every act of innovation in Islam is typically associated with some form of false belief or error, leading individuals away from the authentic teachings of Allah. These beliefs often manifest as undue reverence for non-sanctioned acts, adversely affecting one’s spiritual state.
4. Innovations can induce a false respect for certain practices which lack any legitimate basis in Islam. Even if an individual does not explicitly believe in the superiority of an innovative act, treating it as a form of worship can implant a deep-seated reverence that conflicts with true Islamic belief.
5. Innovations are seen as contradictory to the faith practised and preached by the Prophet Muhammad. They often result in a form of hypocrisy, however slight, as practitioners of innovations may find themselves torn between obedience to the Prophet and their inclinations.
6. The practitioners of innovations are likened to esteemed figures like Abu Jahl and Abdullah Ibn Ubayy for their worldly status despite their opposition to the Prophet. This comparison underscores the dilemma faced by those engaging in innovations caught between genuine religious observance and personal or societal pressures.
Now that we have grasped a basic definition, we should explore some historical developments around bidʿa. The period of the Prophet Muhammad and the immediate years following his demise represent a crucial phase in Islamic history for understanding the concept of ‘bidʿa’. During the lifetime of the Prophet Muhammad, the idea of ‘bidʿa’ was primarily understood in the context of maintaining the purity and authenticity of the newly established Islamic faith. As recorded in Ḥadīth collections, the Prophet’s teachings often adhered strictly to the revelations and his Sunna. A key Ḥadīth “Whoever introduces into this matter of ours that which does not belong to it, it will be rejected.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2697, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 1718), highlights the Prophet’s caution against innovations in religious matters. Contextual Implementation: Instances from the Sīra demonstrate his approach to ‘bidʿa’. For example, the Prophet’s acceptance of differing Qira’at showcases flexibility within the framework of divine revelation.
Following the Prophet’s death, the Al-Khulafā’ Al-Rāshidūn faced the challenge of governing an expanding Muslim community while remaining faithful to the Prophetic tradition. Caliph Abu Bakr’s Approach: Abu Bakr’s tenure was marked by his commitment to preserving the Quran and Sunna. His stance against apostasy and his decision to compile the Quran into a single book reflects his efforts to prevent ‘bidʿa’ in religious practices. ʾUmar ibn Al-Khattab, known for his administrative acumen, introduced several practices (considered ‘bidʿa Ḥasana’, promising innovations) such as compiling the Islamic calendar and establishing the Tarawih prayers in congregation. His actions demonstrate a pragmatic approach to ‘bidʿa’, aligning with the spirit of Islam while addressing contemporary needs.
Classical and contemporary scholars have analysed this period to understand the early Muslim community’s approach to ‘bidʿa’. Scholars like Ibn Al-Jawzi in “Talbis Iblis” examins the early community’s efforts to preserve the purity of Islamic teachings while being responsive to the needs of a growing Ummah. Modern academics like Khaled Abou El Fadl in “Speaking in God’s Name: Islamic Law, Authority and Women” offer a revaluation of the concept of ‘bidʿa’, arguing that the early Muslim community was more dynamic and adaptive than often portrayed in traditional narratives.
The Prophetic era and the period of the Rightly Guided Caliphs represent a foundational phase in developing the concept of ‘bidʿa’. The Prophet’s teachings provide a clear guideline against unfounded religious innovations, yet his actions also display a certain flexibility within the divine framework. The caliphal period, particularly under ʾUmar ibn Al-Khattab, illustrates a practical application of ‘bidʿa’, acknowledging the evolving needs of the Muslim community.
The initial perceptions and responses to ‘bidʿa’ during the Prophetic era and its immediate aftermath lay the groundwork for the complex and nuanced understanding of the concept in Islamic jurisprudence. It underscores the importance of contextualising religious innovations within the broader framework of Islamic teachings and the socio-historical realities of the Muslim community. This period offers valuable insights into the dynamic interplay between tradition and change in the early development of Islamic thought.
During the Umayyad era, there was a significant transformation in the understanding and use of the concept of ‘bidʿa’. Originally, ‘bidʿa’ was solely a theological concept, but it gradually became a powerful political tool. The Islamic jurists of that time had the task of redefining the boundaries of ‘bidʿa’ to maintain the unity of the Islamic state. As the Umayyad period progressed, the concept of ‘bidʿa’ underwent notable changes. It evolved from being primarily a theological concept to becoming a political legitimisation and control tool. The caliphs and their supporters were clever in using the label of ‘bidʿa’ to discredit and suppress oppositional religious practices, thus consolidating their rule (Hodgson, M. “The Venture of Islam”, 1974). In response to this political manipulation, influential jurists such as Imam Malik and AlAwza’i played a crucial role in redefining the concept of ‘bidʿa’ more nuancedly. They aimed to balance preserving religious traditions and addressing the practicalities of governing a vast and diverse Islamic state (Melchert, C. “The Formation of the Sunni Schools of Law”, 1997). Their goal was to ensure the stability and coherence of the Islamic society by carefully reconsidering the scope and implications of ‘bidʿa’.
By expanding the understanding and usage of ‘bidʿa’, the Umayyad era witnessed a theological and political transformation and a complex interplay between religious authority and political power. The evolving concept of ‘bidʿa’ served as a tool for the caliphs to assert their authority and suppress dissent. At the same time, the jurists worked diligently to redefine the boundaries of ‘bidʿa’ in a way that would safeguard the integrity of the Islamic State and its diverse community.
uring the Abbasid Period, there was a significant diversification in Islamic thought. The promotion of intellectual pursuits by the Abbasids led to the emergence of various theological and philosophical schools of thought. This period was marked by a dynamic and lively discussion surrounding the concept of ‘bidʿa’. Scholars debated defining the boundaries and exploring the implications of ‘bidʿa’ (Makdisi, G. “The Rise of Colleges: Institutions of Learning in Islam and the West”, 1981).
One of the notable developments during this period was the emergence of rationalist approaches to ‘bidʿa’. Schools like the Mu’tazila brought new perspectives and ideas to the concept, often challenging the traditionalists. This resulted in debates and disagreements regarding what should be considered acceptable innovation within Islamic practice (Watt, W.M. “Islamic Philosophy and Theology”, 1985).
Another critical aspect of the Abbasid Period was the rise of Sufism, which introduced unique practices and interpretations that were sometimes seen as innovative. Sufi leaders, such as Al-Ghazali, played a crucial role in navigating the concept of ‘bidʿa’. They emphasised the importance of inner spiritual renewal while staying within the boundaries of Sharīʿa (Al-Ghazali, “Ihya’ ‘Ulum al-Din”, 1981).
The Umayyad and Abbasid periods were instrumental in shaping the discourse on ‘bidʿa’, reflecting the complexities and dynamism of the Islamic world during these times. The concept evolved from a tool for political control to a subject of intricate theological debate, illustrating the adaptability of Islamic jurisprudence to changing contexts. This evolution in the understanding of ‘bidʿa’ reveals the intellectual and spiritual growth of the Muslim community over time.
The Abbasid era, in particular, marked a flourishing of intellectual thought that greatly influenced Islamic legal and theological frameworks. The diverse approaches to ‘bidʿa’, from the rationalist arguments of the Mu’tazila to the spiritual interpretations of Sufi scholars, highlight the multifaceted nature of Islamic jurisprudence. These different perspectives fostered a rich tapestry of ideas and contributed to the development of Islamic thought. The development of the concept of ‘bidʿa’ during the Umayyad and Abbasid eras underscores the dynamic interplay between religious doctrine, political power, and intellectual thought in Islamic history. This period laid the groundwork for subsequent Islamic legal and theological developments, reflecting the enduring nature of the discourse on religious innovation within the Muslim tradition. The study of ‘bidʿa’ during this period provides valuable insights into the evolution of Islamic thought and the complexities of its interpretation.
For instance, examining the impact of political developments on the understanding and application of ‘bidʿa’ during the Umayyad and Abbasid periods or delving into specific theological debates and their influence on the concept. Furthermore, exploring the contributions of individual scholars and their unique perspectives on ‘bidʿa’ could provide a deeper understanding of the concept’s complexities. For example, studying the works of prominent jurists like Imam Malik and Al-Awza’i or delving into the teachings of Sufi scholars like Al-Ghazali can shed light on the diverse interpretations and applications of ‘bidʿa’ during this time.
Additionally, examining the social and cultural context of the Umayyad and Abbasid periods could offer valuable insights into the factors that shaped the understanding and perception of ‘bidʿa’. Analysing historical events, intellectual movements, and the broader socio-political landscape can provide a comprehensive picture of how the concept of ‘bidʿa’ evolved and influenced Islamic thought.
The period of the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphates witnessed significant developments in the understanding and application of the concept of ‘bidʿa’. From being primarily a theological concept to becoming a tool of political control, ‘bidʿa’ underwent notable transformations during this time. The Umayyad era saw the redefinition of ‘bidʿa’ boundaries to maintain the unity of the Islamic state. In contrast, the Abbasid era witnessed a diversification of thought and the emergence of various perspectives on ‘bidʿa’. These periods offer a wealth of material for further research and provide valuable insights into the evolution of Islamic thought and the complexities of the concept of ‘bidʿa’.
Bidʿa Ḥasana
The concept of ‘bidʿa Ḥasana’ (commendable innovation) and ‘bidʿa sayi’a’ (reprehensible innovation). In Islamic jurisprudence, innovations refer to practices or beliefs introduced into the religion that were not present during the time of the Prophet Muhammad. The general ruling among many scholars is that such innovations are undesirable, as they deviate from the original teachings of Islam. Despite the general aversion to innovation, some scholars differentiate between ‘good’ (bidʿa Ḥasana) and ‘bad’ (bidʿa say’ia) innovations. This categorisation often relies on historical precedents and the practices’ perceived benefits or harms. To understand this phenomenon, we should explore ʾUmar’s Endorsement of Tarāwīh, a frequently cited example in this discourse. The Caliph ʾUmar’s remark regarding the Tarāwīh prayer during Ramaḍān, “How good this innovation is?” This statement is often interpreted as an acknowledgement that specific innovations if aligned with the spirit of Islamic teachings, can be beneficial (Al-Ṭabarī, Muhammad ibn Jarir. “Tarikh al-Ṭabarī”). Scholars dissecting this statement argue that ʾUmar’s endorsement was not of innovation in a general sense but instead of a practice that had roots in the Prophet’s teachings but was not institutionalised until his time.
Opponents of categorising innovations often refer to Quranic verses that emphasise adherence to the revelations and the teachings of the Prophet. They argue that categorising innovations as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ introduces subjectivity into religious practices, potentially leading to deviations from authentic Islamic teachings.
Opponents of categorising innovations often refer to Quranic verses that emphasise
adherence to the revelations and the teachings of the Prophet. They argue that categorising
innovations as ‘good’ or ‘bad’ introduces subjectivity into religious practices, potentially
leading to deviations from authentic Islamic teachings.
وَإِذَا قِيلَ لَهُمْ تَعَالَوْا۟ إِلَىٰ مَآ أَنزَلَ ٱللَّهُ وَإِلَى ٱلرَّسُولِ قَالُوا۟ حَسْبُنَا مَا وَجَدْنَا عَلَيْهِ ءَابَآءَنَآ ۚ أَوَلَوْ كَانَ ءَابَآؤُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ شَيْـًۭٔا وَلَا يَهْتَدُونَ ١٠٤
“When it is said to them, ‘Come to what God has sent down, and to the Messenger,’ they say, ‘What we inherited from our forefathers is good enough for us,’ even though their forefathers knew nothing and were not guided” (Q. 5:104).
The argument that certain widespread practices, not explicitly sanctioned in the Quran and Sunna but not condemned either, can be considered ‘good’ innovations is critically examined. Scholars argue that the mere prevalence of practice does not equate to a consensus (ijma) within the Muslim community and should not be used to justify innovations.
The debate over innovation in Islamic jurisprudence reflects a complex interplay between adherence to traditional Islamic teachings and the evolving practices of the Muslim community. While some scholars advocate for a flexible approach that allows for the categorisation of innovations, others adhere to a more rigid interpretation that views any deviation from the established practices of the Prophet’s time as undesirable. This discourse underscores the ongoing challenge within Islamic scholarship of balancing the preservation of religious integrity with the realities of a diverse and evolving Muslim community.
The critical question is whether a practice considered ‘good’ and innovative is genuinely an innovation or an extension of the Sunna not explicitly practised during the Prophet’s time. This differentiation is crucial in understanding whether such practices contradict the fundamental principle that “each innovation is an error,” as stated in various Ḥadīths. The Criterion of Goodness: For an innovation to be categorised as ‘good’, it must be substantiated with evidence of its alignment with Islamic principles. We will examine whether practices often labelled as ‘good’ innovations, like the Tarāwīh prayer, meet the criteria set by Sharīʿa.
The Tarāwīh prayer, while not a compulsory part of the Islamic ritual, was practised by the Prophet Muhammad. However, its institutionalisation in a congregational form by Caliph ʾUmar raises questions about its classification as an innovation. ʾUmar’s Justification: Investigating ʾUmar’s rationale behind organising the Tarāwīh prayer in a congregational format and the subsequent labelling of this act as a ‘good innovation’ provides insights into the understanding and application of ‘bidʿa’ in early Islamic history.
The discussion on ‘bidʿa’ in Islamic jurisprudence, especially concerning practices like the Tarāwīh prayer, reflects the nuanced approach required in classifying and understanding innovations. The analysis underscores the need for a careful and contextual interpretation of innovations in Islamic law, considering both historical practices and contemporary applications.
One prominent example is the compilation of the Quran into a single text after the Prophet Muhammad’s death. During the Prophet’s life, the Quranic revelation was ongoing, and the text remained uncompiled to accommodate potential amendments. Posthumously, the cessation of revelation necessitated the compilation of the Quran. Though technically an innovation in its literal sense, this act aligns with the Sunna and hence is not considered ‘bidʿa’ in Sharīʿa terms.
Another example is the directive given by the Prophet Muhammad to ʾUmar regarding the expulsion of Jews from Khaybr and Christians from Najran, which was implemented after the Prophet’s death. While ʾUmar’s actions occurred posthumously, they were in direct accordance with the Prophet’s instructions, thus exempting them from being labelled innovations in a Sharīʿa context. Abu Bakr’s War on Zakat Defaulters: Another instance is Abu Bakr’s decision to wage war against those who refused to pay Zakat after the Prophet’s passing. Despite its posthumous nature, this decision was based on the established Islamic principle of Zakat, upholding the spirit of the Prophet’s teachings.
The principle guiding the classification of actions as innovations hinges on their utility and alignment with Islamic teachings. Actions deemed valid and not contradicting the Prophet’s teachings are generally not classified as innovations. If a situation arises posthumously that necessitates specific actions that do not oppose any explicit prohibition by the Prophet, they may be adopted without being considered innovations. Actions in Line with Islamic Principles: Actions that the Prophet did not practise due to certain hindrances, which were later resolved, can be considered for adoption if they align with the overall principles of Islam.
Islamic jurisprudents often diverge into two main viewpoints regarding the permissibility of actions. One group believes that what is not explicitly prohibited is permissible. The other contends that only actions explicitly commanded or exemplified by the Prophet are permissible. The latter viewpoint further divides into two schools of thought: those who adhere strictly to the Prophet’s words, deeds, or affirmations (rejecting the principle of analogy) and those who accept commands based on the Prophet’s teachings or their implications, thus recognising the principle of analogy.
The Prophet Muhammad expressed concerns about potential errors scholars commit in interpreting religious texts and the impact of misguided leaders. This statement, recorded by several Companions, underscores the importance of vigilance in religious interpretation and leadership. Implications for Contemporary Islamic Thought: This warning is particularly relevant in contemporary discussions where the role of Ulama and Sufis is scrutinised, especially regarding their interpretations and innovations in Islamic practices.
A notable example of an alleged innovation is the introduction of the Adhan for Eid prayers. Historically, this practice was not observed during the Prophet’s time but was later introduced by a ruler and subsequently contested by the Muslim community. Analysing the Rationale and Opposition: Despite being seemingly strong and rooted in Islamic principles of remembrance of Allah, the argument for Adhan in Eid prayers is classified as an innovation due to its absence in the Prophet’s practice. The Prophet’s consistent omission of Adhan in Eid prayers is interpreted as an intentional Sunna, thereby rendering any alteration in this practice an innovation.
If a need for a specific action existed during the Prophet’s time, and he chose not to act on it, it is considered that he did not recognise its necessity. Such an omission is viewed as a Sunna, guiding Muslims against adopting practices not endorsed by the Prophet. Implications for Religious Innovations: This principle challenges the legitimacy of religious innovations introduced based on perceived virtues or needs not acknowledged or practised by the Prophet. It questions the validity of practices like delivering sermons before Eid prayers, which were introduced for reasons different from the Prophet’s intentions.
Discerning permissible acts and innovations requires a nuanced understanding of the Prophet’s teachings and practices in Islamic jurisprudence. The analysis highlights the importance of adhering to the Sunna in determining the permissibility of religious practices and cautions against innovations introduced by religious leaders or scholars that deviate from the Prophet’s example. This study contributes to the broader discourse on the role of Ulama and Sufis in shaping Islamic practices, emphasising the need for careful and authentic interpretation of Islamic teachings.
The Prophet Muhammad is quoted as saying, “When people introduce an innovation, Allah withdraws from them Sunna in an equal measure” (Iqtidā’ aṣ-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm li-Mukhālafat Aṣḥāb al-Jahīm).
This statement underscores the potential spiritual risks associated with innovations, suggesting that introducing non-sanctioned practices could diminish established Sunna. Implications for Spiritual Practice: The analogy that if one’s heart is filled with innovation, there leaves no room for Sunna can be likened to consuming unhealthy food, which diminishes the appetite for nutritious sustenance. This metaphor illustrates that unwarranted innovations could overshadow or replace authentic religious practices.
Historical examples indicate that rulers have introduced various practices, such as unjust taxes and punishments, out of a deviation from the principles of justice and equality as emphasised in Islam. These innovations are critiqued for not aligning with the model of the Rightly Guided Caliphs and just rulers like ʾUmar bin Abd Al-Aziz. The failure of some Ulama to adhere strictly to the Quranic teachings is highlighted. The Quran states,
قَدْ نَرَىٰ تَقَلُّبَ وَجْهِكَ فِى ٱلسَّمَآءِ ۖ فَلَنُوَلِّيَنَّكَ قِبْلَةًۭ تَرْضَىٰهَا ۚ فَوَلِّ وَجْهَكَ شَطْرَ ٱلْمَسْجِدِ ٱلْحَرَامِ ۚ وَحَيْثُ مَا كُنتُمْ فَوَلُّوا۟ وُجُوهَكُمْ شَطْرَهُۥ ۗ وَإِنَّ ٱلَّذِينَ أُوتُوا۟ ٱلْكِتَـٰبَ لَيَعْلَمُونَ أَنَّهُ ٱلْحَقُّ مِن رَّبِّهِمْ ۗ وَمَا ٱللَّهُ بِغَـٰفِلٍ عَمَّا يَعْمَلُونَ ١٤٤
“Thus We have made you a just nation, that you be witnesses over mankind” (Q. 2:144).
Which emphasises the ideal of being a balanced and just community. Deviations from this ideal by the Ulama have led to misinterpretations and unwarranted innovations. For the best understanding of bidʿa, we should explore some famous examples. Perhaps the most wellknown innovation is the Mawlid, celebrating the Prophet Muhammad’s birth, occupying a unique and sometimes contested position in Islamic tradition. While not established during the Prophet’s lifetime, it has become a significant cultural and religious event in many Muslim communities worldwide.
Furthermore, it is essential to note that Mawlid celebrations have gained religious significance and serve as a platform for fostering community cohesion and reinforcing cultural identity. Through commemorating the Prophet Muhammad’s birth, Muslim communities come together to express their love and admiration for the Prophet, reinforcing their shared values and beliefs. This communal aspect of Mawlid celebrations is crucial in promoting unity and solidarity among Muslims worldwide.
Before delving into the Islamic tradition of Mawlid, it is crucial to understand the cultural and religious landscape of pre-Islamic Arabia, often referred to as Jahiliyyah (the Age of Ignorance). This era was characterised by tribal affiliations and polytheistic beliefs, where numerous deities were worshipped in various regions. Commemorative practices were often tied to tribal histories and significant events rather than celebrating individual life events like birthdays. The prevalent social customs were deeply rooted in honour, oral poetry, and complex tribal laws (Hoyland, Robert G. “Arabia and the Arabs: From the Bronze Age to the Coming of Islam.” (Routledge, 2001).
By exploring the historical and cultural context of pre-Islamic Arabia, we can better grasp the transformative nature of the emergence of Islam and the subsequent establishment of Mawlid celebrations. Understanding the cultural backdrop against which Mawlid developed allows us to appreciate the significance and impact of this religious observance within the broader Islamic tradition. Through a comprehensive analysis of Mawlid’s evolution, this paper seeks to shed light on the multifaceted aspects of this celebration and its enduring importance in contemporary Muslim societies.
The arrival of Islam brought about a significant change in cultural practices. The Islamic belief system, focused on monotheism and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad, gradually replaced the polytheistic and tribal customs of Jahiliyyah. The Quran and Ḥadīth, the primary sources of Islamic teachings, do not explicitly mention the celebration of birthdays or similar personal commemorations. Instead, the emphasis was placed on commemorating religious events such as the revelation of the Quran and significant battles. This early Islamic perspective shifted the focus from individual glorification to collective religious observance (Nasr, Seyyed Hossein. “Islamic Life and Thought.” Albany: State University of New York Press, 1981).
The celebration of the birth of Prophet Muhammad, known as Mawlid, was first recorded several centuries after his passing. This celebration, which has become an essential part of Islamic tradition, is believed to have originated in Egypt during the 10th and 11th centuries under the Fatimid Dynasty, known for their Shia Islamic caliphate. The Fatimids held grand celebrations for various events, including the birthdays of significant figures in Shia Islam (Halm, Heinz. “The Fatimids and their Traditions of Learning.” I.B. Tauris, 1997).
As the tradition of celebrating Mawlid spread, it took on different forms and expressions across the Islamic world. Local customs, theological interpretations, and the political climate of various regions influenced this diversification. In some areas, Mawlid became a platform for reciting poetry praising the Prophet and delivering sermons highlighting his life and teachings. Additionally, it became an occasion for communal feasting and community gatherings.
During its early stages, the acceptance of Mawlid celebrations was common. The practice varied greatly and was often influenced by the ruling authority’s stance on religious ceremonies and gatherings. However, over time, Mawlid became more widely accepted and embraced by different communities, contributing to its continued popularity and significance in Islamic culture.
From its inception, the practice of Mawlid has sparked various scholarly interpretations and debates within the Islamic community. This diversity of opinions has led to a rich and complex discussion surrounding the celebration of the Prophet’s birth.
On the one hand, some scholars view the celebration of Mawlid as a positive innovation (‘bidʿa Ḥasana’). They argue that commemorating the Prophet’s birth expresses love, reverence, and gratitude towards him. In their view, the Prophet’s emphasis on remembering and revering key religious events provides a foundation for legitimising the celebration of Mawlid (Al-Suyuti, Jalal ad-Din. “al-Hawi lil-Fatawi”).
On the other hand, some scholars oppose the celebration, categorising it as an unnecessary innovation (‘bidʿa’) not practised by the Prophet or his immediate followers (Salaf). According to them, every religious practice should have a direct basis in the Quran and Ḥadīth. Since Mawlid lacks such a basis, it should not be observed (Ibn Taymiyya, Taqi adDin Ahmad. “Majmu’ al-Fatawa”)
These differing perspectives contribute to a nuanced and ongoing discourse surrounding the celebration of Mawlid. While some emphasise the importance of expressing love and reverence for the Prophet through this practice, others prioritise adherence to established religious traditions. As a result, the debate continues to evolve, with scholars engaging in rigorous analysis and interpretation of historical texts and teachings.
The practice of celebrating the Mawlid, also known as the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, began to emerge several centuries after his passing. Interestingly, the earliest recorded Mawlid celebrations can be traced back to the Fatimid Dynasty in 10th and 11th century Egypt. The Fatimids, who followed the Shia branch of Islam, were renowned for their extravagant and elaborate public commemorations of religious events. These included the birthdays of Ahl al-Bayt and other significant figures in Islamic history. A comprehensive research conducted by Farhad Daftary in his book “The Isma’ilis: Their History and Doctrines”, published by Cambridge University Press in 1990, provides valuable insights into the Fatimid practices and traditions. This rich tradition of celebrating the Mawlid was integral to the Fatimid’s approach to institutionalising religious festivals. It is worth noting that this practice was relatively less common in Sunni traditions during the same period.
As the tradition of Mawlid spread beyond the Fatimid Caliphate, it gradually entered various Sunni communities, particularly in the 12th century and later. Local customs, theological leanings, and socio-political factors prevalent in different regions of the Islamic world influenced the adoption of Mawlid.
1. Cultural Integration: In regions like Persia and later in the Indian subcontinent, Mawlid festivities incorporated local cultural elements such as poetry recitals, Sufi gatherings, and public sermons. This integration with regional traditions played a significant role in popularising the celebration of Mawlid across diverse Muslim communities (Schimmel, Annemarie. “And Muhammad is His Messenger: The Veneration of the Prophet in Islamic Piety.” University of North Carolina Press, 1985).
2. Role of Sufi Orders: Sufi orders, focusing on the love and veneration of the Prophet Muhammad, played a crucial role in the spread of Mawlid celebrations. Sufi sheikhs and poets like Jalaluddin Rumi contributed to the development of a rich body of literature that celebrated the Prophet’s life and virtues, which was often recited during Mawlid gatherings (Rumi, Jalaluddin. “The Essential Rumi.” Translated by Coleman Barks, HarperOne, 2004).
3. Political Patronage: In some cases, Mawlid celebrations received support from ruling elites, who saw them as opportunities to display their piety and strengthen their religious legitimacy. This was particularly evident during the Mamluk Sultanate in Egypt and the Ottoman Empire, where Mawlid was celebrated with grandeur and ceremony (Ayalon, David. “The Mamluks in Egyptian and Syrian Politics and Society.” Brill, 2004).
The observance of Mawlid, the celebration of the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, varied significantly across different Islamic communities. This variation can be seen in three key aspects: the nature of the festivities, the rituals practised, and the theological debates surrounding the observance.
1. Public vs Private Celebrations: Mawlid was a public event with large gatherings and elaborate festivities in some regions. These celebrations would often include processions, parades, and public speeches. On the other hand, in specific communities, Mawlid was observed more quietly within homes or local communities. Here, the focus was on intimate gatherings, where individuals would come together to recite the Prophet’s biography, offer prayers, and engage in acts of charity.
2. Ritual Practices: The rituals associated with Mawlid celebrations varied greatly. They ranged from recitations of the Prophet’s biography and Qur’anic recitations to communal feasts and charity. Some communities would organise special lectures or sermons on the life and teachings of the Prophet, while others would engage in collective prayers and hymns. The specific practices observed during Mawlid depended on the cultural and religious traditions of the community in question.
3. Theological Debates: The spread of Mawlid celebrations was not without controversy. Some Islamic scholars argued that Mawlid, an innovation not practised by the Prophet or his companions, should not be part of Islamic tradition. They believed that adhering strictly to the Qur’an and Sunna, the teachings and practices of the Prophet, was the only way to ensure the authenticity of religious observance. This debate was particularly pronounced among scholars emphasising a conservative interpretation of Islamic teachings.
In their arguments against the observance of Mawlid, these scholars highlighted the importance of avoiding any practices that the Prophet or his companions did not directly prescribe. They believed that introducing new rituals or celebrations could lead to the dilution of Islamic identity and the blurring of the lines between Islamic and non-Islamic religious practices.
However, it is essential to note that the debate surrounding Mawlid is only sometimes agreed upon within the Islamic community. While some scholars reject its observance, others argue it is a legitimate expression of love and respect for the Prophet Muhammad. They believe that as long as the celebrations are conducted in a manner that does not contradict Islamic teachings, they can foster spiritual connection and unity among Muslims.
The observance of Mawlid varied greatly across different Islamic communities. It was marked by differences like the celebrations, the rituals practised, and the theological debates surrounding its legitimacy. The ongoing discourse surrounding Mawlid reflects the diverse perspectives within the Islamic community and the continuing endeavour to strike a balance between religious tradition and cultural expressions of faith.
The celebration of Mawlid, which marks the birth of the Prophet Muhammad, has been a subject of extensive discussions and debates among Islamic scholars throughout history. While the Quran and Ḥadīth do not explicitly mention Mawlid, classical scholars have approached this topic by considering the broader principles of Islamic jurisprudence and the concept of bidʿa.
Endorsement by Some Scholars: Among the classical scholars who support Mawlid celebrations, Jalal ad-Din al-Suyuti stands out as a prominent figure. Al-Suyuti, a respected jurist and theologian from 15th-century Egypt argued that Mawlid was a commendable event that allowed Muslims to express joy and gratitude for the birth of the Prophet Muhammad. In his renowned work “al-Hawi lil-Fatawi,” al-Suyuti provided a solid foundation for celebrating Mawlid within the framework of Islamic law. He asserted that since the celebration of Mawlid does not contradict the teachings of Sharīʿa and promotes a closer adherence to the Prophet’s instructions, it should be regarded as a positive innovation (bidʿa Ḥasana) (al-Suyuti, Jalal ad-Din. “al-Hawi lil-Fatawi”).
Opposition by Other Scholars: On the other hand, there are scholars like Ibn Taymiyya, a prominent theologian from the 14th century and a leading figure in the Hanbali school of jurisprudence, who opposed the practice of Mawlid. Ibn Taymiyya, while acknowledging the importance of love and reverence for the Prophet, argued that adding events like Mawlid to religious practices was unnecessary and could potentially lead to reprehensible innovation (bid’ah say’iah). He emphasised the significance of adhering strictly to the religious practices established during the time of the Prophet and his companions (Ibn Taymiyya, Taqi ad-Din Ahmad. “Majmu’ al-Fatāwā”).
The debate surrounding Mawlid, the celebration of the Prophet Muhammad’s birthday, has been a topic of discussion among Islamic scholars and jurists throughout history. Their opinions on Mawlid vary, influenced by different jurisprudential methodologies and interpretations of Islamic tradition.
Within the diverse landscape of Islamic jurisprudence, different madhhabs (schools) have expressed varying opinions on Mawlid. Some scholars from the Maliki and Shāfiʻī schools have found space to accommodate its celebration within their jurisprudential frameworks. They argue that Mawlid allows one to express love and devotion to the Prophet Muhammad and reflect on his exemplary life and teachings. On the other hand, scholars from the Hanafi and Hanbali schools have taken a more cautious approach, emphasising the avoidance of innovations in religious practices and highlighting the importance of adhering strictly to the Quran and Sunna. Sufi Scholars’ Perspectives: Sufi scholars who emphasise the spiritual aspect of Islam have generally been proponents of Mawlid. They view it as an occasion to deepen their connection with the Prophet Muhammad and express their love and devotion to him. In various Sufi traditions, Mawlid has been celebrated with recitations of poetry, songs, and stories about the Prophet’s life, aiming to inspire spiritual growth and foster a sense of unity among the believers. These scholars argue that Mawlid serves as a reminder of the Prophet’s teachings and his role as a mercy to humanity, encouraging followers to emulate his noble qualities daily.
The debate over Mawlid continues in modern times, reflecting broader discussions about religious practice, innovation, and tradition in Islam. Scholars and intellectuals have offered different perspectives, advocating for various approaches. Some contemporary scholars advocate for a more flexible interpretation of Islamic tradition. They suggest that practices like Mawlid can enhance religious experience and community cohesion, provided they do not contradict fundamental Islamic principles. These scholars argue that Islam is a dynamic and living faith that can adapt to the changing needs of its followers. They highlight the importance of considering the spiritual and social benefits of Mawlid celebrations, such as fostering a sense of unity and strengthening the bond among Muslims. However, they also emphasise the need for caution and ensuring that such celebrations do not deviate from the core teachings of Islam.
Conversely, conservative scholars often maintain that Mawlid is an unnecessary innovation. They stress the importance of strictly following the Quran and Sunna as the primary sources of guidance in Islamic practice. These scholars argue that the Prophet Muhammad and his companions did not celebrate Mawlid during their time, and therefore, introducing such celebrations would be a departure from the established practices of the early Muslim community. They caution against any practices that are not firmly rooted in the teachings of the Prophet and urge Muslims to focus on the core rituals and principles of Islam.
As the debate over Mawlid continues, it reflects the ongoing endeavour to balance preserving the integrity of Islamic traditions and accommodating Muslim communities’ evolving needs and aspirations. It also highlights the broader discussions about religious practice, innovation, and tradition in Islam as Muslims navigate the complexities of the modern world while remaining faithful to their religious commitments.
The scholarly perspectives on Mawlid reflect a broader dialogue within Islamic jurisprudence regarding religious innovation, tradition, and how Muslims express their devotion and connection to the Prophet Muhammad. The diversity of opinions on Mawlid highlights the rich tapestry of Islamic scholarly thought and the ongoing discourse within the Muslim world.
The celebration of Mawlid found a significant advocate in the Ottoman Empire, where it was embraced and institutionalised with royal support. The Ottomans, who ruled from the 14th to the early 20th century, were crucial in promoting and formalising Mawlid celebrations. Under their reign, Mawlid evolved from a primarily local and spiritual observance into a grandiose, state-sponsored event.
The Ottomans incorporated Mawlid into their religious and political calendar, establishing it as an annual event marked by elaborate festivities. Sultan Selim II (1566–1574) is often credited with initiating the tradition of state-sponsored Mawlid celebrations. These events included recitations of the Prophet’s biography, Sufi dhikr, and the distribution of food to the public (Elias, Jamal J. “Aisha’s Cushion: Religious Art, Perception, and Practice in Islam.” Harvard University Press, 2012). The Ottomans used Mawlid to strengthen their political legitimacy and reinforce the Sultan’s role as the protector and patron of Islam. These celebrations also served to unify the diverse subjects of the Empire, fostering a sense of communal identity centred around shared religious devotion (İnalcık, Halil. “The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age 1300–1600.” Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1973).
The celebration of Mawlid in the Ottoman Empire was intricately linked with the politics of legitimacy and authority. As the caliph and the seasonal head of the Islamic world, the Sultan utilised Mawlid to project his image as a pious and devout ruler, underlining his role in upholding and propagating Islamic traditions.
1. Royal Processions and Public Celebrations: Mawlid festivities often included processions featuring the Sultan and high-ranking officials, reinforcing the political hierarchy. The public nature of these celebrations was crucial in projecting the image of the Ottoman ruler as a benevolent and religiously committed leader (Farah, Caesar E. “The Politics of Interventionism in Ottoman Lebanon, 1830–1861.” I.B. Tauris, 2000).
2. Integration of Mawlid with Sufi Practices: The Ottoman embrace of Sufism shaped the nature of Mawlid celebrations. Sufi orders, enjoying patronage from the Ottoman court, infused the celebrations with spiritual rituals, poetry, and music, further elevating the event’s religious significance (Lewis, Bernard. “The Emergence of Modern Turkey.” Oxford University Press, 2001).
The celebration of Mawlid in the Ottoman Empire was a religious observance and a significant cultural event reflecting the Empire’s diverse artistic and cultural traditions. This period saw the development of unique forms of religious art, music, and literature centred around Mawlid.
Ottoman poets, artists, and musicians contributed to a rich corpus of Mawlid-related works, including illuminated manuscripts of the Prophet’s biography, calligraphic works, and religious hymns (Necipoğlu, Gülru. “The Age of Sinan: Architectural Culture in the Ottoman Empire.” Reaktion Books, 2005). Mawlid in the Ottoman Empire illustrated the interplay between religious observance and cultural expression, showcasing how religious events could be imbued with local artistic and cultural practices, thereby becoming a part of the broader cultural fabric (Grabar, Oleg. “The Formation of Islamic Art.” Yale University Press, 1987).
The Ottoman Empire’s patronage and celebration of Mawlid played a crucial role in the historical evolution of this practice. It transformed Mawlid from a local, spiritual observance into a grand state-sponsored event, intertwining it with the political and cultural life of the Empire. This period in Islamic history exemplifies how political powers can profoundly adapt and elevate religious observances, influencing their form, significance, and practice.
Festivals
Eid, a festival, is named after a recurring event. This implies that it is held at a place often visited by people and during a specific period when a particular act is regularly performed. Similarly, any gathering that takes place periodically falls into the same category. Innovations can be found within all of these categories. There are two main types of seasonal festivals:
1. Sanctifying days that hold no religious significance in Sharīʿa is a practice our pious ancestors did not observe. There is no basis to consider these days as sacred, such as:
Rajab festivities
The first Thursday and the following Friday night in the month of Rajab are celebrated as “Al-Raghaib” by the ordinary people. Islam does not recognise the sanctity of this day or night. This practice was first reported after the 4th century (H). A fabricated Ḥadīth is presented to support this practice, which, according to religious scholars, has no authenticity.
It claims the sacredness of this specific day and night, recommending fasting during the day and praying at night. Engaging in prayer and fasting, especially on this day and night, is an innovation that should be strictly prohibited. This particular day and night should be treated like any other. One should not engage in any specific actions these days to give the impression that they hold special significance. Similarly, in the middle of the month of Rajab, a particular day is singled out for a specific prayer called “Salat Umm Dadu.” However, according to Sharīʿa, this prayer has no religious sanction.
2. To commemorate a specific day on which a particular event occurred does not imply that the day itself is sanctified, as similar circumstances may have also appeared on other days.
Eid Khum Ghadeer
While returning from his farewell pilgrimage, the Prophet delivered a sermon on the 18th of Dhul Hijja at Khum Ghadeer. He urged everyone to follow the Qur’an and provided advice regarding his household, as reported by Zayd bin Arqam and recorded in the Ḥadīth collection of Muslim. However, certain interpolations have been made by misguided individuals in this report. They even claim that the Prophet had explicitly commanded the appointment of Ali as the Caliph and had seated him in a prominent position. The Companions, however, conspired and concealed this command of the Prophet. This was an act of great injustice and transgression. Such an act was impossible to carry out, as it would not have been possible for someone to conceal this statement.
Furthermore, considering the excellent conduct and integrity of the Companions, it is inconceivable that they would commit such a monstrous act. Our concern here is not the issue of Imama. Our objection lies in declaring this specific day special, as it lacks sanction in Sharīʿa. Our righteous predecessors did not attach any significance to this day, nor did the Prophet’s family consider it special. Special days are only those designated as such by Sharīʿa. Therefore, we should follow the Sharīʿa rather than indulge in something new and fantastical. If this particular day is said to hold a special place because the Prophet delivered a sermon on that day, he did so on many other days. Likewise, he provided advice on several occasions. There were days when significant events occurred, such as the battles of Badr, Hunain, and Khandaq, the conquest of Makkah, the Hijra, and then reaching Madina. However, no particular significance is attached to these days. Christians are guilty of this practice, as they commemorate days of particular importance in the life of the Prophet Jesus. The Jews also follow this practice. In Islam, however, Allah has already prescribed certain days for religious festivals, and only those designated days hold this position. We should not invent new festivals and add them to our religion.
Milad
The same holds for treating the Prophet’s birthday as a sacred day. Muslims do so in imitation of the Christians who celebrate Jesus’ birthday with much pomp and show. They do so out of their love and respect for the Prophet. Allah would reward them for their love for the Prophet rather than for innovation. Nonetheless, it should not be celebrated as a holy day. Firstly, there is a divergence of opinion about the exact date of his birth. Moreover, early Muslims did not celebrate it as a holy day, although they could have done so without obstacles. If it had been a truly good thing, early Muslims would have celebrated it, as they loved the Prophet more than we did and were more virtuous than we were. However, they did not do so.
Expressing love for the Prophet should not be done by holding Milad functions. The ideal way is to follow him both inwardly and outwardly. He should be followed, his directives implemented, his Sunna revived, and his Message propagated. Once it is established that something is an innovation and one commits it, he would not receive any reward but rather earn Allah’s displeasure. Anniversary functions may be held in memory of historical events, but they cannot be organised in the belief of earning Allah’s reward.
Strive to make the heart, hand, and tongue work in his cause. This was the way early Muslims, both Muhājirūn and Anṣār and subsequent generations of pious Muslims maintained it.
Although zealous innovation practitioners may receive some reward for their sincerity and good intentions, they are not as enthusiastic about following Sharīʿa. They resemble someone who decorates their copy of the Qur’an with gold and silver but does not recite it or does not put its teachings into practice. They are also like someone who decorates a mosque but does not pray there. Another likeness is someone who lights lamps and spreads carpets in the mosque yet prays there infrequently. Decorating a mosque is not sought by Sharīʿa and can lead to hypocrisy and arrogance. Such matters distract individuals, making them indifferent to religious duties and causing other problems. The same point is made in the Ḥadīth: “When a community indulges in misdeeds, it takes to decorating mosques” (al-Sunan al-wāridah fī alfitn).
We should not overlook the fact that there are acts that contain both evil and good elements. They are considered good because Sharīʿa prescribes a part of them, but they are evil because a part of them is invented. These acts may be regarded as good if abandoning them might lead to forsaking faith, as in hypocrites and transgressors. Many modern-day Muslims suffer from this, as they have adopted such acts.
The reformer must adhere outwardly and inwardly to the Sunna in these cases. They should instruct their disciples to do the same. They should recognise and practice virtue while discerning and avoiding evil. Next, they should invite people to the Sunna as much as possible. If they observe someone engaging in an undesirable act and stopping them from it would cause them to engage in something worse or abandon an obligatory act, they should not ask them to give up that undesirable practice. If there is some goodness in their practice of innovation, try to change it using the goodness sanctioned by Sharīʿa. Humans are instinctively drawn to adopt something and give up another when offered an alternative. It is inappropriate for anyone to abandon goodness unless they do something better. The practitioners of innovation and those who have forsaken the Sunna are equally condemned. There are many critics of innovation who themselves do not follow the Sunna, and many of them are even worse than those who practice innovation.
Religion is based on the twin principles of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Both principles are complementary and can only be established with the other. One cannot enjoin good unless they forbid evil. One should ask others to worship Allah and, at the same time, forbid them from worshipping anyone other than Allah. The credal statement of Islam is: “There is no true god but Allah.” Man is meant to act, not to abandon. When we ask someone to abandon doing something, it is done to ask them to do its alternative. Since evil acts close the door to goodness, it is essential to give them up so that one is in a better position to do good. Some people may expect to receive great rewards for celebrating the Prophet’s birthday. They may receive these rewards due to their sincerity, love, and regard for the Prophet. As mentioned earlier, Allah may accept the deeds of even those who are not true believers.
Imam Ahmad was once told that a particular ruler had spent one thousand dinars on the Qur’an. He replied, “Do not stop him, for it is the best thing on which he has spent his money” (Iqtidā’ aṣ-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm li-Mukhālafat Aṣḥāb al-Jahīm). This was said despite considering decorating the Qur’an as an undesirable act. This remark is because although the ruler’s action was not good, it had a hidden virtue. If rulers did not spend money on good causes, they would likely waste it on evil deeds lacking goodness. It would have been much worse if the ruler had spent the same amount of money on sports, pleasure, enjoyment, or Greek books instead of decorating the Qur’an. A reformer should, therefore, possess insight into religious wisdom. When observing deeds, they should assess their merits and demerits and strive to gain a good understanding of the degrees of good and evil. In cases of conflicting positions, they should give preference to the more important over the lesser one. This is the essence of the Messenger’s teachings. It is a notable characteristic of Islamic scholars that, in situations of confrontation, they emphasise the greater good, reject greater evil, and act by more weighty arguments.
There are three degrees for deeds:
1. Good acts that are prescribed by Sharīʿa and are desirable at all times.
2. Good acts that contain elements of goodness, either derived from Sharīʿa or based on the sincerity and good intention of the doer.
3. Acts that are utterly devoid of goodness, either leading to the abandonment of a good act or being an evil act in itself.
The Ulama of our days need to understand this point well. They should pay attention to the principles and prerequisites of faith and not waste their energies on peripheral and marginal issues. They should avoid emphasising points that are not important in Sharīʿa, such as the outward appearance of people or criticising Muslims based on their worldview, which only puts Muslims on an unnecessary trial.
The first degree is related to following the Sunna both outwardly and inwardly, verbally and practically. It is obligatory to have knowledge of and teach the Sunna in all matters, academically and practically. The Sunna should be prescribed and practised, following the example of the early Muslims, the Muhājirūn and the Anṣār, and their successors.
The second degree is mainly observed in the conduct of later Muslims. Most scholars and commoners fall into this category. They are better than those who do not perform good deeds or whose misdeeds are evil acts like unbelief, falsehood, cheating, and ignorance.
Thus, those who engage in certain rituals of worship, even if part of it is undesirable, such as fasting continuously or renouncing natural desires like monks, or spending nights in worship without any sanction in Sharīʿa, such as the first night of the month of Rajab, are better than those who do not have any good deeds to their credit. Many of those who object to these new and invented forms of worship are themselves neglectful of worshipping Allah and lack good knowledge. They are not inclined to do good deeds, yet they oppose acts that are not prescribed in Sharīʿa without following the Sharīʿa themselves. A Muslim should adopt all that is good and avoid all evil. They should enjoin goodness and forbid evil without caring about public criticism, whether from the Ulama or the hypocrites.
The third category includes important days in Sharīʿa, such as the tenth of Muharram, the day of ʾArafa, the two days of Eid, and the first ten days of Dhul Hijjah. While these days hold particular importance, people often indulge in innovations on these days, which should be stopped.
Tenth of Muharram
Regarding the innovation on the tenth of Muharram, some people engage in practices such as expressing sorrow, holding gatherings, and committing acts that are innovations. Neither Allah nor the Prophet has asked or allowed such practices. The early Muslims and the Prophet’s family did not engage in these acts.
On this day, Allah granted martyrdom to Hussain, the Prophet’s grandson and the leader of the youth in Paradise, along with his family members. Allah humiliated those who committed this act of injustice. While it is a tragic event in Muslim history, it should be treated like any other tragedy. However, practitioners of innovations have invented various practices, including adding reports that slander the Companions who had no involvement in this incident.
Fatima, Hussain’s daughter, reports on the authority of her father that the Prophet said: “‘We are from Allah and to Him we should return.’ If one recites this as many times as he is reminded of a suffering, Allah will reward him each time as much as he did when the calamity struck him” (Iqtidā’ aṣ-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm li-Mukhālafat Aṣḥāb al-Jahīm).
Commemorating a particular day or days of mourning is not sanctioned by Islam; such practices were more common in the days of Jahiliyah. By inventing such practices, these people have deprived themselves of fasting on this particular day, even though fasting on this day is in line with Sharīʿa.
Some people have invented the practices above, while their opponents have introduced further new practices. For example, they take baths, shake hands, and spend more money on their households on this particular day, citing certain Aḥadīth to support their stance. However, these Aḥadīth are false and fabricated.
The Month of Rajab
The same holds for the month of Rajab, one of the sacred months. As this month approached, the Prophet invoked: “O Lord! Grant us blessings in the month of Rajab and Sha’ban and extend them to Ramaḍān” (Mishkat al-Masabih 1369). There is no other authentic report regarding the superiority of this month. All reports to this effect are inauthentic.
A Ḥadīth that is not proven authentic may be used to encourage others. However, it should not be circulated once proven to be a fabricated report. If one recounts it, they should specify its nature, for the Prophet said: “One who reports a Ḥadīth on my authority and regards it as inauthentic is one of those who tell lies” (Mishkat al-Masabih, 199).
Fifteenth Night of Sha’ban
The same principle can be applied to the fifteenth night of the month of Sha’ban. Multiple reports say this night is widely regarded as a blessed occasion. Some devout predecessors associate it with particular supplications and acts of worship. Nevertheless, there are dissenting opinions from prominent scholars of earlier generations who question this belief.
However, the majority of scholars, including Imam Ahmad, tend to consider it to be a significant night.
It is important to note that fasting specifically on this day is discouraged and not endorsed in Sharīʿa. Celebrating it as an exceptional day and preparing elaborate meals is seen as an innovation. Likewise, congregating in the mosque at night and engaging in special prayers are innovations. Sharīʿa does not permit the organisation of gatherings on a specific day with fixed times, attendance requirements, and prescribed quantities for voluntary prayers.
Innovations on Blessed Days
Some individuals tend to engage in acts of innovation on blessed days, both in a spatial and seasonal sense. This makes their actions even more egregious as they appear to transgress Sharīʿa rules. One example is the conduct on the day of ʾArafa. There is unanimous agreement among Muslims that this is prohibited. However, practitioners of innovation persist in this wrongdoing. They gather at the grave of a saint on that specific day and follow the same path pilgrims took to reach ʾArafa. Allah does not authorise this innovation; it is a manufactured ritual established as a rival to Hajj. Furthermore, it promotes the idea of using graves as gathering places.
Similarly, it is forbidden to travel to Bait al-Maqdis to stay there, as pilgrims do at ʾArafa. This is a clear error. While visiting Bait al-Maqdis for prayer and devotional confinement is desirable, it should only be done for these purposes. Bait al-Maqdis is one of the three mosques for which it is permissible to undertake a journey. However, visiting it during the Hajj season is undesirable, as it implies setting a specific time for the visit when there is no designated time for this purpose.
Moreover, such a practice confuses Bait al-Maqdis with Hajj and presents it as a rival to the Ka’aba. Sharīʿa does not endorse this un-Islamic act. Many visitors to Bait al-Maqdis even perform the same rituals there, such as circumambulation of Sakhara, shaving their hair, and performing other specific and exclusive rituals to Hajj. Similarly, it is also undesirable to circumambulate the dome of Mount Jabal at ʾArafa.
Musical Instruments in Eid
Using musical instruments and wearing silk clothes is considered undesirable during Eid. This practice is not permissible on any day other than Eid. Both practices are equally criticised for deviating from the Sunna and promoting innovation
Eid should be celebrated in the same manner as earlier Muslims did. One should offer prayers, give charity during Eid al-Fitr, and sacrifice an animal during Eid al-Adha. However, some individuals neglect these acts prescribed by Sharīʿa. They may also fail to recite Takbīr or receive sermons that exclude females, even though the Prophet used to address both males and females. Some sermons may also lack substance. Additionally, some individuals do not follow the Sunna by sacrificing animals inside the place of prayer.
Religion involves performing all prescribed acts and preaching the same. It also includes abstaining from forbidden actions and discouraging others from doing them. Unfortunately, this Sunna has been largely abandoned. Females no longer participate in Eid or Jumma prayers despite the Prophet’s effort to ensure their presence. He even took special measures, such as having Ayesha borrow clothes from her sister, to facilitate their participation.
Gatherings at Specified Locations
There are three types of spatial gatherings:
1. A place that does not have any special status in Sharīʿa.
2. It is a special place, but visiting it for worship is not obligatory.
3. It is a place where one should worship, but it should not be taken as a gathering place.
These types of gatherings are mentioned in Aḥadīth. For example, in one instance, someone vowed to sacrifice an animal at a specific place called “Bawana”. The Prophet asked if there were any idols or shrines of the polytheists there. When the person replied no, the Prophet instructed him to fulfil his vow. Later, we will discuss the Prophet’s statement, “Do not make my grave a place of gathering” (Sunan Abu Dawud, 2042) and ʾUmar’s statement, “Do not take places associated with the Messengers as gathering places.”
The first category includes places that do not hold any significance in Sharīʿa. These places
are ordinary and should not be treated differently. Visiting such places or gathering there for
prayer, supplication, or remembrance of Allah is a clear error. If such a place has connections
to polytheism, it is even more harmful to visit. This behavior resembles idolatry or serves as
a means to it. In the past, priests would visit places associated with idols, believing that it
would bring them closer to God.
Lamps and Vows
Regardless of the intention, whether for prayer, supplications, reciting the Qur’an, remembering Allah, or any religious duty, it is prohibited to visit a particular place with the expectation of receiving a reward. It is even more prohibited to vow to light a specific place, believing that it will help fulfil one’s desires. Unfortunately, many misguided individuals hold this belief. All scholars agree that such offerings are forbidden. This also applies to making vows to feed fish in a specific river or giving money to the custodians of a particular place. These actions show disobedience to Allah. These custodians resemble the priests who used to reside in the temples of Lat, Uzza, and Manat. They exploited the ordinary people and prevented them from following the path of Allah. These custodians resemble the priests to whom the Prophet Ibrahim said: “‘What are these idols to which you are inclined?’ (Q. 21:52).” They replied: ‘Nay, but we found our fathers doing so.’ He said: ‘Do you observe what you have been worshipping, you and your ancient fathers? Verily, they are enemies to me, save the Lord of the worlds’ (Q. 26:75-77).
Making a vow to give something to the custodians of such places amounts to disobedience to Allah. This type of vow is akin to what unbelievers and idolaters make. Performing such a vow is prohibited. Instead, one should spend that money on charitable works such as constructing mosques or donating it to poor devout Muslims. This also applies to places believed to contain the graves of Messengers or pious individuals or where it is believed that a pious person had stayed, even if it is not true. It falls into the second category if it is indeed such a place.
Fake Graves of Saints
Numerous places are claimed to contain graves of saints, but many of these claims are false. For instance, it is often said that Ubayy Ibn Kaab is buried near the eastern gate of Damascus, but this is not true. All scholars agree that he is buried in Madina, not Damascus. Therefore, the grave near the eastern gate of Damascus is not that of the Prophet’s Companion, Ubayy Ibn Kaab. Similarly, it is claimed that the Prophet Hud is buried near a wall of the central mosque in Damascus, but no authentic report supports this claim. Some reports suggest that he died in Yemen, while others believe he is buried in Makkah. He had no connection to Syria.
There is a belief that Uwais al-Qarni is buried outside the Western gate of Damascus, but this claim is also incorrect. There is no evidence that he died in Damascus, and his visit to Syria is not documented. He travelled from Yemen to Iraq, and some believe he was killed in the Battle of Ṣiffīn, while others report that he died in Iran. There are conflicting reports, but none of them place him in Syria. Another false grave in Syria is said to be that of the Prophet’s wife, Umm Salma. However, she never visited Syria and did not travel after the Prophet’s death. She passed away in Madina.
Hussain’s Head
There is a widely spread belief that a shrine in Cairo contains Hussain’s head. However, it is essential to note that all scholars have dismissed this belief. It is worth mentioning that there is another place, Asqalan, that is also mentioned in this context, but it is yet another false report. Some individuals claim that Hussain’s head was brought from Asqalan to Cairo for burial, but historical evidence contradicts this claim. In reality, Hussain’s head was taken to Kufa to be presented to Ibn Ziyad, as documented by reliable historical accounts.
In addition to these claims, there are also unfounded assertions that Hussain’s head was taken to Syria for inspection by Yazid. However, it is essential to clarify that these claims are also untrue. The Companions mentioned in this event belong to Iraq, not Syria. Therefore, there is no historical basis to support the notion that Hussain’s head was taken to Syria.
Furthermore, there are several graves associated with renowned figures that are claimed to be significant. However, it is necessary to emphasise that these reports are untrue; therefore, these places do not hold any historical or religious significance. It is worth noting that while some individuals may revere these graves out of ignorance, even if they were the graves of saints, it does not justify the acts of innovation committed at these fake graves.
The Prophet’s Footsteps
In this category, we encounter places claimed to bear the imprint of the Prophet’s foot and other relics. One such imprint is found in Bait al-Maqdis, mistakenly believed to be the imprint of the Prophet’s foot. Some misguided individuals even consider it to be the imprint of Allah’s footsteps. In Damascus, a mosque called “Masjid Qadam” supposedly houses an imprint believed to be that of Prophet Moses’ foot. However, this story is unfounded, as Prophet Moses never visited Damascus or its surroundings.
Seeing a Saint in a Dream
Certain places are associated with the Prophets and saints based solely on reports of someone seeing a particular Prophet or saint at that specific place in a dream. However, in Islam, a place does not hold any special significance and should not be considered a place of visit or worship. The people of the Book follow these practices, and some ignorant Muslims imitate them. Furthermore, in adopting the ways of unbelievers, some Muslims have started drawing pictures of Messengers and saints. For example, in Damascus, a mosque called “Masjid Kaf'” had an impression of a palm attributed to Ali. However, Allah destroyed it.
There are many places in different countries, including Hijaz, to which such reports are attributed. For instance, a cave is on the right side from Badr to Makkah. According to a famous story, this is the same cave where the Prophet and Abu Bakr sought shelter during their migration from Makkah to Madinah. However, this story is entirely false. The cave in question is situated on Mount Thawr near Makkah, and all the people of Makkah are familiar with it.
Reverence of Inanimate Objects
One should not revere this or any other place without sanction in Sharīʿa. Holding a particular place in esteem is improper, as it resembles idolatry. Reverence for physical objects is worse than seasonal reverence, as it is closer to idol worship than reverence for intangible things. Sharīʿa ensures that anything even remotely associated with polytheism is forbidden. Therefore, praying near a grave is prohibited, regardless of whether people hold the grave in esteem or not. This is done to prevent grave worship.
Places Associated with Innovation and Masjid Dirar
All of these places are similar to Masjid Dirar, which was founded on false beliefs. As a consequence, the entire structure was demolished. Masjid Dirar was built to cause discord among Muslims and support the enemies of Allah and His Messenger. Therefore, Allah instructed Prophet Muhammad not to pray there and instead directed him to demolish it. These false shrines have also been established as rivals to mosques, which are the houses of Allah. This is a Satanic scheme to venerate those whom Allah has not commanded to be revered, to make people bow before those who cannot harm or benefit them, and to divert people from the path of Allah. We understand that Allah’s way of worship is to follow precisely what He has prescribed through His Messenger. Another objective is not to give these places a unique position for gatherings. Due to frequent visits, they have become places of assembly.
Genuine Graves
Most of the graves of saints are not genuine. Genuine graves are rare. Some scholars believe that the only genuine grave of a messenger is that of Prophet Muhammad. There is also an argument that Prophet Ibrahim’s grave is genuine. We have confirmed reports about the graves of particular saints. However, it is difficult to pinpoint the exact location of these graves. For instance, we know that many Companions are buried in Bab al-Sagheer in Damascus, but due to multiple disturbances over time, their graves cannot be accurately identified. Even if we are sure about the precise location of a specific grave, this does not justify any acts of innovation at that site
Action Without knowledge
Engaging in action and worship without knowledge is more desirable than engaging in action and worship against knowledge. If Sharīʿa had sanctified reverence for graves, steps would have been taken to preserve the record of graves. The Muslim Ummah, whose faith is perfect, would have also been blessed with knowledge about graves. In general, custodians of graves circulate fantastic reports about the excellence of graves and shrines under their charge. They earn their livelihood through these practices and unlawfully consume others’ earnings. They are also guilty of diverting people from the path of Allah.
Stories like someone asking for something at a grave and having their request readily granted by Allah or someone making a vow and fulfilling their desire are familiar. Idolatry gained popularity in the same way. Idolaters in India make vows to idols, and some of their wishes are occasionally fulfilled by chance, which they attribute to the favour of the idols.
Vows or Offerings
It is recorded that the Prophet forbade making vows as they bring no benefit. Making vows in legal matters is useless as Allah only makes a miser spend his money in this way. Furthermore, graves cannot harm or benefit anyone, so making illegal vows at graves serves no purpose.
Erecting Shrines
Under the second category, some places have something special about them, but they should not be considered shrines or places for offering prayers and other acts of worship. These are places where the graves of the Prophets and saints are located. Such a practice is condemned by the Prophet, both implicitly and explicitly. According to a report by Abu Huraira recorded in Abu Daud’s collection, the Prophet said, “Do not turn your houses into graves. Do not take my grave as a gathering place, but rather send blessings upon me. Your blessings will reach me, no matter where you are” (Sunan Abi Dawud, 2042).
Sending Blessings at the Prophet’s Grave
Some individuals doubt the credibility of one of the narrators of this Ḥadīth. However, the Ḥadīth remains authentic, as other sources also report it. For example, Abul Al-Ala reports, based on the authority of Zayn al-Abidīn, that he witnessed someone visiting and supplicating near the Prophet’s grave. Zayn al- Abidīn prohibited this act and narrated the Ḥadīth he had received from his father and grandfather: “The Prophet said, ‘Do not turn my grave into a place of gathering and do not turn your houses into graves. Your blessings upon me will reach me no matter where you are.'” (Sunan Abi Dawud, 2042).
According to the report narrated by Sohail Ibn Ali Suhail, Hasan, Ali’s grandson, saw him near the Prophet’s grave. Hasan invited Ali to have food, but Ali declined the invitation. Hasan then asked Ali in surprise about his visit to the Prophet’s grave. Ali replied that he had been there to send blessings. He advised Hasan to send blessings when entering the mosque instead, quoting the Prophet’s words:
“Do not make my grave a place of gathering. You should send blessings on me, which will reach me no matter how far you are. Allah’s curse be upon the Jews who turned the graves of the Prophets into places of worship” (Iqtidā’ aṣ-Ṣirāṭ al-Mustaqīm li-Mukhālafat Aṣḥāb alJahīm)
Aisha reported that Umm Habibah and Umm Salamah mentioned a church they saw in Abyssinia with graven images. They mentioned it to the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, and he said, “Verily, when a righteous man among them would die, they would build a place of worship over his grave and carve these images within it. They will be the worst to Allah on the Day of Resurrection” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 427).
Ibn Abdul Barr explained the reasoning for this prohibition, writing: “The Messenger of Allah warned his companions and the rest of his nation from the evil deeds of nations who prayed over the graves of their prophets and took them as directions and places of prayer, just as the idolaters used to prostrate to them and revere them. That is the greater idolatry (al-shirk alakbar). The Prophet told them that it displeases Allah, angers Him, and He is not pleased with it, fearing that they would mimic their ways” (al-Tamhīd 5/45).
Several authentic reports from the Prophet (ṣ) and his companions stress the importance of prohibiting places of worship in or around graves. Jundub reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said: “Verily, those before you would take the graves of their prophets and righteous as places of prayer. Do not take graves as places of prayer. I forbid you from doing so” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 532).
It is important to note that although the Prophet’s grave is considered the most revered grave on earth, he forbade people from gathering there. Therefore, it can be inferred that assembling at all other graves would be even more strictly prohibited. Besides forbidding his grave from becoming a gathering place, the Prophet advised people not to turn their houses into graves. This means that a house becomes like a grave if prayers, supplications, and recitation of the Qur’an are not performed there. He directed that most acts of worship be performed at home rather than near graves, as some so-called Muslims do, following the practices of unbelievers. According to Abdullah Ibn ʾUmar, the Prophet said: “You should offer some of your prayers at home and not make them like graves.” (Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 432).
Besides prohibiting the turning of the Prophet’s grave into a shrine visited frequently by many people, he instructed that blessings be sent upon him, which would reach him regardless of distance. Another report confirms that one’s blessings would be conveyed to him no matter where one is. Therefore, it is not appropriate to turn his grave into a shrine that is frequently visited by a large number of people. Our blessings on the Prophet are conveyed to him, as stated in several Ḥadīths. Abu Hurairah reported on the authority of Abu Daud that the Prophet said, “Whoever greets me, his greetings would be conveyed to my soul, and I would return his greeting” (Sunan Abu Dawood, 2041).
Abu Daud also recorded a report by Aws Ibn Aws in which the Prophet said, “Send more blessings on me on Friday night and day, as they will be presented before me.” When the Companions asked how their blessings would be presented to him after his death, he replied, “Allah has forbidden the earth from consuming the body of His Messengers.” (al-Sunan alKubrá 5854). The expression “Eid” used in the Prophet’s ḥadīth refers to a place intentionally chosen by people to gather, especially for worship. For example, Allah has designated the Sacred Mosque, Mina, Muzdalifah, and ʾArafa as places where people gather for supplication, worship, and remembrance of Allah. The polytheists also had specific places designated for this purpose. However, with the advent of Islam, these places lost all their sanctity.
Saint’s Graves
The same principle applies to the graves of Messengers and saints, whether authentic or counterfeit. This rule applies to the graves of all Muslims. According to the Sunna, it is essential to show respect for a Muslim’s grave, as it serves as the final resting place of the deceased. Therefore, one should refrain from littering or stepping on it. The Ulamadiscourage sitting or reclining on graves and avoiding disrespectful words or actions near graves is also essential. When visiting graves, offering blessings and prayers for the deceased is recommended. The level of obligation may vary depending on one’s status.
Supplication for the Dead
Burayda narrates that when the companions went to the graveyard, the Prophet directed them to make this supplication: “Greetings be upon the believing and Muslim inhabitants of this place. We will meet you soon if Allah wills. We seek peace for you and us.” (Sahih Muslim). According to Ibn Abbas, on observing the graveyard in Madina, the Prophet said: “Peace be upon you, O inhabitants of graves! May Allah forgive you and us. You preceded us, and we are to follow you” (Bulugh al-Maram 595).
According to Ḥadīth, it is learned that the Prophet offered funeral prayers for the martyrs of Uhud eight years after the battle. Abu Daud, on the authority of Uthman, relates that after burying the dead, the Prophet faced the grave and directed his companions, saying: “Seek forgiveness and steadfastness for your brother, as he is about to be questioned.”
This was the conduct of the Prophet that he directed his Ummah to follow. He would do the same whenever he buried the dead, visited graves, or passed by them. He would greet them as he did the living ones. Additionally, this constitutes a supplication for the dead, similar to how one offers supplication for living beings. While praying for the dead, one prays for oneself and all Muslims. This was also the practice of the Prophet and the early Muslims. Sharīʿa prescribes this practice; his companions followed the same when visiting the Prophet’s grave.
Ibn Batta relates that someone asked Nafi’ about Ibn ʾUmar visiting the Prophet’s grave; he reported that when Ibn ʾUmar arrived on his journey, he would enter the mosque of Medina and then go to the graves. Ibn ʾUmar would say, “Peace be upon you, O Messenger of Allah. Peace be upon you, O Abu Bakr. Peace be upon you, O my father” (al-Sunan al-Kubrá lilBayhaqī 10271).
Visiting Graves
Visiting graves, even the graves of unbelievers, is permissible. In a narration by Abu Hurairah in the collection of Muslims, it is reported that the Prophet said: “I asked Allah’s permission to pray for the forgiveness of my mother, but it was denied. However, I was allowed to visit her grave” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 976b).
It is also reported in Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim that when the Prophet visited the grave of his mother, he cried so much that it moved others to tears. He then said, “I sought Allah’s permission to pray for her forgiveness, but it was refused. However, visiting graves has been permitted. Therefore, visit graves as it reminds one of death” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 976). The Prophet said, “I had previously prohibited you from visiting graves. Now, however, you may visit them” (Sunan Ibn Mājah 1571).
Visiting an Unbeliever’s Grave
From the above Ḥadīth, it is clear that the Prophet initially prohibited visiting graves but later permitted it. This change in his stance occurred because such visits serve as a reminder of death and the Hereafter. The Prophet’s permission applies to both Muslim and non-Muslim graves, allowing Muslims to visit the graves of both. The purpose served by visiting a grave can be attained regardless of whether it is the grave of a Muslim or a non-Muslim. Therefore, it is permissible to do so. However, forgiveness may only be sought for a Muslim by the Prophet’s Sunna, as it is exclusive to Muslims. Nevertheless, a reminder of death can still be obtained from the grave of a non-Muslim.
Undertaking a Journey to Visit Graves
There is a disagreement among the Ulama regarding the permissibility of undertaking a journey to visit graves. Some ulama consider it impermissible and a sin because they view it as an innovation. They argue that early Muslims did not undertake such journeys. According to a Ḥadīth cited in Al-Bukhari and Muslim, one may only journey to the Ka’aba, the Prophet’s Mosque, and Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem. This directive is general and applies to all journeys, whether for visiting a mosque, a tomb, or any other place seeking Allah’s pleasure. To support their view, these Ulamacite the following report: When Abi Basrah saw Abu Huraira returning from Mount Tur, the place where Allah had spoken to Prophet Moses, he said, “Had I seen you before going there, you would not have undertaken this journey.” The Prophet said, “A journey can only be undertaken to visit three mosques.”
Based on this Ḥadīth, Abi Basrah concluded that Mount Tur and similar places fall into the category of places for which one should not undertake a journey. The same applies to undertaking a journey to visit a mosque other than the three specified in the Ḥadīth.
On the other hand, another group of Ulama considers such a journey permissible. Scholars like Al-Ghazzali and others hold this view from the later period. However, this view is not shared by any classical scholar. According to them, the directive is not absolute, and a journey undertaken to visit one’s parents, scholars, friends, or for other permissible worldly matters is perfectly acceptable. However, all scholars agree that committing innovation at graves is unlawful.
Mosques at Graves
It is strictly forbidden to pray near graves, consider graves as mosques, or erect mosques at graves. The Qur’an and Sunna categorically prohibit these actions. All scholars unanimously prohibit the construction of mosques at graves. Hanbali, Maliki, and Shafi’i scholars deem it unlawful, while others consider it undesirable. However, there is no doubt that such acts are forbidden. A Ḥadīth in the collection of Muslim, narrated by Jundub, reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, those before you would take the graves of their prophets and righteous as places of prayer. Do not take graves as places of prayer. I forbid you from doing so” (Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 532).
Therefore, mosques built at the graves of Prophets, saints, and kings are unlawful. All scholars agree that it is undesirable to pray in such mosques. Hanbalis consider prayers offered in such mosques unacceptable due to the Prophet’s prohibition and curse.
The matter becomes even more severe if such a mosque is built on unlawful land. For example, some mosques have been built at the graves of saints by usurping land or converting a madrasah for this purpose. Such actions violate many rules, such as:
1. The land of a graveyard should only be used for burying dead bodies and cannot be used for any other purpose.
2. A mosque cannot be built on a public thoroughfare.
3. The graves of other Muslims are sometimes dug and removed to make space for such buildings.
4. Public toilets are attached to such buildings, which is inappropriate as the graves of Muslims should be kept away from impurity.
5. Taking graves as mosques is forbidden.
6. Lighting lamps at graves is cursed, according to the Prophet.
7. Such practices imitate the ways and rituals of the People of the Book.
It is worth noting that while religious scholars strongly object to wearing attire resembling that of unbelievers, they do not object to practices that imitate the ways of unbelievers, possibly because some religious scholars benefit from such acts.
In conclusion, the exploration of ‘bidʿa’ in Islamic jurisprudence reveals a multifaceted and dynamic aspect of Islamic history and religious practice. The concept, originating as a means to ensure fidelity to the practices of Prophet Muhammad, has evolved through various interpretations by classical and later scholars, reflecting a spectrum from acceptance to stringent rejection. This evolution mirrors the broader historical, theological, and political developments within the Islamic world, from the Umayyad and Abbasid eras to contemporary times. Diverse schools of thought, including Sufism and rationalist movements like the Mu’tazila, have contributed to this rich tapestry of understanding, often in response to the practical challenges of governing and maintaining religious integrity. Practices such as the celebration of Mawlid and the institutionalization of Tarāwīh prayers highlight the ongoing relevance and complexity of ‘bidʿa’ in shaping Muslim religious life. The paper underscores the importance of contextual and authentic interpretation, calling attention to the nuanced role that ‘bidʿa’ plays in the continuity and adaptation of Islamic traditions. This discussion not only enhances our understanding of Islamic jurisprudence but also invites reflection on the broader themes of innovation, tradition, and the dynamic nature of religious practice.