You asked a famous scholar of the present time about the ruling on Mawlid celebrations and the evidence for their legitimacy, and he answered that they are among the unrestricted public interests. What is your opinion on this?

The questioner : I asked a famous scholar of the present time for his opinion on holding Mawlid celebrations and for the legal evidence permitting them. He answered that the evidence for them is that they are among the unrestricted public interests, meaning that there is a benefit for the Muslims in them, even if the Salaf did not practice them. What is the answer to this? Then what is the ruling...

The Shaykh : I do not know if the one who gave this answer knows what unrestricted public interests are, and when they become legitimate interests. I suspect that he does not know what a legitimate unrestricted public interest is. I give an example: the one who claims the legitimacy of these Mawlid celebrations on the grounds that they are unrestricted public interests and that they realize a benefit for the Muslims is like the one who legislates all these terrestrial laws that did not descend from the Lord of the Worlds. Undoubtedly, all disbelievers, open sinners, and wicked people agree that there are benefits in these laws. Undoubtedly, we agree with them that there are benefits in these laws. But where was the Lord of the Worlds before these laws? Did He not bring a law from Himself, from which no falsehood comes from before it or from behind it? The answer is certainly that He brought it to us. So when we claim that there are benefits for the Muslims in these newly invented matters, that means one of two things: either our religion is not complete, and this is naturally disbelief in the Qur'an , or these laws and these religious innovations have nothing to do with Allah, and this is the truth in which there is no doubt. Unrestricted public interests are those in which people find events and matters to which they are compelled to resort because they actually realize a benefit for them without any contradiction of the Shari'ah. But this is not sufficient; rather, it is necessary that this unrestricted public interest did not have its cause present in the time of the Prophethood and the Message, but rather this cause for adopting it occurred afterwards. This research is, in reality, one of the pearls of Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) in his book "Iqtida' al-Sirat al-Mustaqim Mukhalafat Ahl al-Jahim", because he speaks about newly invented matters with words containing great detail. He says: Every matter that occurred after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) that can be described as good or as containing a benefit must be one of two things: either the cause for adopting it was present in his time (peace and blessings be upon him), or the cause was not present in his time but occurred after him. In the first case, when the cause for adopting it is present, it is not permissible to adopt it at all, for the reason we mentioned, which is that the Shari'ah is complete. An example of this is what is agreed upon to this day: what came in the Shari'ah regarding leaving off the adhan in the prayer of the two festivals. To this day, there is no adhan for the prayer of the two festivals. This was the case in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), unlike the five daily prayers, as is well known. So if someone says, "My brother, there is a benefit in the adhan for the prayer of the two festivals, which is alerting people to the arrival of the time," it is said to them, based on our understanding of the words of Ibn Taymiyyah, which is the truth without doubt: this expected benefit of this adhan was present in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), and the cause for the legitimacy of this adhan is present. Otherwise, what new thing would there be for us? The answer, without exception, is no; there is no difference from this aspect. It is the same whether we call the adhan now, where the claimed benefit is present, or if it was called in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), where the benefit is present. So how did the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) not legislate this from Allah? Naturally, because Allah is the one who legislates. How did He not legislate this adhan, when it is supposed that the call is legislated because of the benefit it realizes? This is the good innovation or the unrestricted public interest: it is not such if the cause for adopting it was present in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And this is clear, if Allah wills, to everyone. And you measure by this all, or most, of the religious innovations that have spread in the Islamic world today, unfortunately. All these religious innovations for which it is said, "My brother, what is wrong with it? My brother, it has a benefit"—if there were a benefit in them, it would have been legislated in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), because the cause for their legislation was present. This is the first section: either the cause is present in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and it was not adopted, in which case it is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire; or the cause occurred after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and was not present. Here comes a new research from the words of Ibn Taymiyyah. It appears at first glance that, since the cause was not in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) but occurred later, it can be said: "By Allah, since the cause was found later, and it is not necessary to adopt what it necessitates, which is the benefit, attributing a deficiency to the Shari'ah as we mentioned in the first case, it seems at first glance that it can be said that this religious innovation or this unrestricted public interest should be adopted." The answer is no; it is necessary to detail the matter. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: It is looked at; if the cause that occurred after it was not present is due to the negligence of the Muslims in adopting the rulings of the religion, then it is also a return to the fact that every religious innovation is misguidance and every misguidance is in the Fire, even if it realizes a benefit, because this benefit could be realized by another means taken from the Shari'ah itself. An example from our reality today: the taxes imposed in many types and numerous names. These taxes, without doubt, aim at what? Filling the state treasury so that it can carry out the interests of the nation. Yes, it is very clear that there is a benefit and a utility in this. But this benefit, which is imposing taxes, was not in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Who necessitated adopting it? Our negligence in applying our Shari'ah. There are sources of income for zakah, sources for collecting funds, including zakah and many other things explicitly mentioned in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. These have been neglected today absolutely. So it became an urgent necessity for those who do not adopt Islam as a Shari'ah to invent new means to realize what they missed due to their neglect of the legitimate means and causes. This is our research in the issue of the Mawlid. The Mawlid is an unrestricted public interest! We say: Was the cause for acting on this benefit present in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) or not? If they say it was necessary, why was the celebration not legislated? And if they say it was not necessary and only occurred three hundred years and more after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), we ask them: Is this that occurred due to the Muslims' adherence to their religion and the Sunnah of their Prophet, or due to their turning away from it? Here a precise and very precise scientific research will take place. Can they say, "No, this is due to their adherence to the Sunnah"? If that were the case, the earliest people of the Sunnah, the Companions of the Messenger and the Tabi'un and those after them, would have been more deserving of it, because they were undoubtedly more eager to adhere to the Sunnah and to good than we are. So nothing remains but that this happened due to the Muslims' turning away from adhering to the Sunnah. And finally, I remind you of something: if this topic is good, by occasion, or more than one occasion, I said that we have a celebration for the birth of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), but there is a great difference between our celebration and their celebration. Our celebration is a recommended practice based on the words of the Messenger, and their celebration is an innovation against the words of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). It was said to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): "What do you say about fasting on Monday?" He said: Or the Qur'an contains it. So the celebration of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) for his birth is by fasting on Monday, every week. A celebration, not every year. A celebration every week, and a legislated celebration, not a celebration once a year and an unlegislated celebration.
"So this difference between us is sufficient *** And every vessel emits what is in it"