ibn Taymiyyah on Mawlid
- Thread starter Aqdas
- Start date
H
huseyin
he has a book called 'sirat-el mustakim.everyboody knows that ibni teymiyye was a nonmadhab
Mohammed Azam
sunniport user
huseyin said:
Actually, he claimed to be a Hanbali.
Mohammed Azam
sunniport user
Aqdas said:
You mean this quote?:
Shaikh ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyya's Opinion on the Celebration of the Mawlid
This is Imam Ibn Taymiyya's opinion about Mawlid from: "the Collected Fatwas," ("Majma' Fatawi Ibn Taymiyya,") Vol. 23, p. 163: "fa-t'adheem al-Mawlid wat-tikhaadhuhu mawsiman qad yaf'alahu ba'ad an-naasi wa yakunu lahu feehi ajra `adheem lihusni qasdihi t'adheemihi li-Rasulillahi, salla-Allahu `alayhi wa sallam"
"To celebrate and to honor the birth of the Prophet (s) and to take it as an honored season, as some of the people are doing, is good and in it there is a great reward, because of their good intentions in honoring the Prophet (s)."
Sword Of Allah
sunniport user
Mohammed Azam said:
Asalamo `alaykum wa rahmatullah brother,
Does the quote still exist in the book? I cant find it. Maybe the wahabis taken it out. Allah hu alam. There used to be a quote about the mawlid in the majmoo fatawa ibn taymiyya but it has since been edited.
Mohammed said:
Ibn Taymiyya was a very devout hanbali and qadiri at that. Ibn Taymiyya's love for Ghauth Al Ahdham Shaykh Abdul Qadir Jilani al-hanbali (Raheemahullah) is evident from his books the most famous being sharh futuh al ghaib[FONT=Times New Roman (Arabic)]فتوح[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman (Arabic)]الغيب [/FONT]which can still be found in volume 10 of his enourmous 37 volume majmua fatawa ibn taymiyya.
H
huseyin
Ibni Taymiyyah was a heretic nonmadhab .and opinionleader of Salaffis
H
huseyin
Ibni Taymiyyah used to say:Allahu taala has a body and directions.huseyin said:
reference:Tajad-din us-Subki
I will get more references about heretic Ibni taymiyyah
Sunni Student
sunniport user
The Fatwa regarding the Mawlid from Ibn Taymiyyah does exist but if we look at the complete context of what he says he actualy refutes it but has a concept that if those that celebrate it will end up doing something more evil than celebrate the mawlid then no one should stop such people celebrating the Mawlid.
Thats how they interprate the Fatwa and thats how it seems to me to, Probably the main point of the fatwa for those who accept the Mawlid is where he says that Allah will reward them for there good intentions and for their love.
Anyway here is the complete fatwa:
Ibn Taymiyyah says, "…because the Eeds are legislated laws from amongst the laws, so it is necessary to follow them, and not to innovate them, and the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) had many lectures, treaties, and great events that happened on a number of (documented) days such as the Day of Badr, Hunain, al-Khandaq, the Conquest of Mecca, the occurrence of his hijrah, his entry to Madeenah…and none of this necessitated that these days be taken as days of Eed.
Rather this sort of thing was done by the Christians who took the days in which great events happened to Jesus as eeds, or by the Jews. Indeed the Eed is a legislated law, so what Allaah legislates is followed, otherwise do not innovate in this religion that which is not part of it.
And like this is what some of the people have innovated, either in opposition to the Christian celebration of the birthday of Jesus, or out of love for the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) and in honour of him.
And Allaah will reward them for this love and ijtihaad, but NOT FOR THE BID’AH of taking the day of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) as an eed - this along with the difference of the people as to when he was born.
For indeed this (celebration) was not done by the salaf, despite the existence of factors that would necessitate it and the lack of any factors that would prevent them from doing so if it were indeed good. And if this was genuinely good or preferable then the salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them, would have more right to doing so then us, for they had more severe love and honour of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) in following him, obeying him, and following his command, and reviving his sunnah inwardly and outwardly, and spreading that which he was sent with, and performing jihaad for this in the heart, with the hand and upon the tongue. So indeed this was the way of the Saabiqeen al-Awwaleen from the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar, and those that followed them in good.
And you will find the majority of these (who celebrate the birthday) in ardent desire of these sort of innovations - alongwith what they have of good intention and ijtihaad for which reward is hoped for - but you would find them feeble in following the command of the Messenger, that which they have been commanded to be eager and vigorous in, indeed they are of the position of one who adorns the Mushaf but does not read what is in it or reads what is in it but does not follow it. Or the position of one who decorates the mosques but does not pray in them, or prays in them rarely…
And know that from the actions are those that have some good in them, due to their including types of good actions and including evil actions such as innovation etc. So this action would be good with respect to what it includes of good and evil with respect to what it contains of turning away from the religion in it’s totality, as is the state of the hypocrites and faasiqeen. This has what has afflicted the majority of the ummah in the later times. So upon you is two manners (of rectification):
Thats how they interprate the Fatwa and thats how it seems to me to, Probably the main point of the fatwa for those who accept the Mawlid is where he says that Allah will reward them for there good intentions and for their love.
Anyway here is the complete fatwa:
Ibn Taymiyyah says, "…because the Eeds are legislated laws from amongst the laws, so it is necessary to follow them, and not to innovate them, and the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) had many lectures, treaties, and great events that happened on a number of (documented) days such as the Day of Badr, Hunain, al-Khandaq, the Conquest of Mecca, the occurrence of his hijrah, his entry to Madeenah…and none of this necessitated that these days be taken as days of Eed.
Rather this sort of thing was done by the Christians who took the days in which great events happened to Jesus as eeds, or by the Jews. Indeed the Eed is a legislated law, so what Allaah legislates is followed, otherwise do not innovate in this religion that which is not part of it.
And like this is what some of the people have innovated, either in opposition to the Christian celebration of the birthday of Jesus, or out of love for the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) and in honour of him.
And Allaah will reward them for this love and ijtihaad, but NOT FOR THE BID’AH of taking the day of the birth of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) as an eed - this along with the difference of the people as to when he was born.
For indeed this (celebration) was not done by the salaf, despite the existence of factors that would necessitate it and the lack of any factors that would prevent them from doing so if it were indeed good. And if this was genuinely good or preferable then the salaf, may Allaah be pleased with them, would have more right to doing so then us, for they had more severe love and honour of the Prophet (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) in following him, obeying him, and following his command, and reviving his sunnah inwardly and outwardly, and spreading that which he was sent with, and performing jihaad for this in the heart, with the hand and upon the tongue. So indeed this was the way of the Saabiqeen al-Awwaleen from the Muhajiroon and the Ansaar, and those that followed them in good.
And you will find the majority of these (who celebrate the birthday) in ardent desire of these sort of innovations - alongwith what they have of good intention and ijtihaad for which reward is hoped for - but you would find them feeble in following the command of the Messenger, that which they have been commanded to be eager and vigorous in, indeed they are of the position of one who adorns the Mushaf but does not read what is in it or reads what is in it but does not follow it. Or the position of one who decorates the mosques but does not pray in them, or prays in them rarely…
And know that from the actions are those that have some good in them, due to their including types of good actions and including evil actions such as innovation etc. So this action would be good with respect to what it includes of good and evil with respect to what it contains of turning away from the religion in it’s totality, as is the state of the hypocrites and faasiqeen. This has what has afflicted the majority of the ummah in the later times. So upon you is two manners (of rectification):
- that your desire be to follow the sunnah inwardly and outwardly, with respect to yourself specifically and those that follow you, and you enjoin the good and forbid the evil.
- that you call the people to the sunnah in accordance to ability, so if you were to see someone doing this (celebration) and he were to not leave it except for an evil greater than it, then do not call him to leaving the evil so that he may perform something more evil than this….[a page omitted in which he explains this principle]
Sword Of Allah said:
Assalamu alaikum brother Saifullah.
Don't be too surprise if you discover that the said statement by Shaykh Ibnu Taymiyyah is missing from the book since the la-madhhabis are famous for doing tahreef!
To my knowledge Shaykh Ibnu Taymiyyah was always a Hanbali and a Qadiri albeit some of his fatwa's contradict the teachings of ahl as-Sunnah.
tazkiyya2003
sunniport user
This statement WHEN QUOTED IN FULL
actually does not support the mawlid but is against it
actually does not support the mawlid but is against it
abu Hasan
Administrator
even if you discount the fact that the translation above by 'sunni student' tries hard to force the fatwa in the wahabi straitjacket, it still doesn't revile the mawlid.
actually, the 'full context' presented here is only half of it; the discussion starts with ibn taymiyyah refuting the practise of rawafiD [he calls them ahl al-ahwa'a] of celebrating the day of 'ghadir khumm' and goes on talking about how eyd is only that which is ordained by shari`ah.
it is frustrating to discuss with people who keep moving the goalpost. ibn taymiyyah's fatwa is quoted by sunni scholars to say: 'hey, look. even your highest authority does not think it is that bad'.
and in that context, quoting ibn taymiyyah is perfectly valid. because, he says:
'as for respecting the mawlid and taking it as a festival [season] - which some people do, they may receive a great reward because of their good intention and respecting the prophet sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam. just like i have mentioned it earlier: some people consider that to be good, which a strict believer may find offensive..' /end quote iqtiDa as-sirat al-mustaqim
-----
ibn taymiyyah's reasoning is strange. he is in effect saying: 'okay, if a man does sajdah, he gets a great reward because of his intention to show his humility to his Lord, not just because he bows down'
'if a man smiles at another muslim, he gets a reward for his intention to show his affection/geniality to another muslim; not because of showing his teeth.'
or that 'a man gets reward when he fasts because of his intention to obey the Lord, not because he abstains from food and drink..'
d-uh?
anyway, ibn taymiyyah says:
fa ta'aDhim al-mawlid wa't tikhadhihi mawsiman: qad yaf`aluhu ba'ad an-nas wa yakunu lahu fihi ajrun `aDHim li Husni qaSdihi wa ta`aDHimihi li Rasulillah sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam.
----
this point is quoted not as the final word in the proof of mawlid, but as an additional one. which means, mawlid is permissible, even if ibn taymiyyah had said otherwise.
Allah ta'ala knows best.
Last edited:
I
ibn abi al-hanafi
Strange reasoning
You should be amazed at the strange reasoning these people bring forth.
One time I was discussing the mawlid issue with local salafi in our neighbourhood and i quoted Ibn Taymiyya (from Shaikh Hisham Kabbani / GF Haddad's article on Mawlid) and he gave me a strange reasoning.
He asked me: Is praying more namaz (salah) bidah or not ?
I said, obviously not bidah. You get more reward for praying more.
He commented: we just prayed Asr 4 rakats, how about you pray 8 or 16 rakats !! will you get more sawab ? and he kept babbling: isn't this also under praying more ?
It is true, these people come up with strange reasoning.
You should be amazed at the strange reasoning these people bring forth.
One time I was discussing the mawlid issue with local salafi in our neighbourhood and i quoted Ibn Taymiyya (from Shaikh Hisham Kabbani / GF Haddad's article on Mawlid) and he gave me a strange reasoning.
He asked me: Is praying more namaz (salah) bidah or not ?
I said, obviously not bidah. You get more reward for praying more.
He commented: we just prayed Asr 4 rakats, how about you pray 8 or 16 rakats !! will you get more sawab ? and he kept babbling: isn't this also under praying more ?
It is true, these people come up with strange reasoning.
As-salamu 'alaykum,
No doubt Ibn Taymiyya were at loggerheads with Ahl us-Sunna wal-Jama'a on a number of issues... Here is an informative article:
What Do The Scholars Say About Ibn Taymiyya?
No doubt Ibn Taymiyya were at loggerheads with Ahl us-Sunna wal-Jama'a on a number of issues... Here is an informative article:
What Do The Scholars Say About Ibn Taymiyya?
Answered by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
What do the scholars say about Ibn Taymiyya?
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,
Before answering the question, it is imperative to understand that extremism and immoderation is disapproved of in the Shariah. Islam is a religion of moderation and teaches its followers to be moderate in all spheres and walks of life. Being extreme in one way or another would entail going against the pristine teachings of Allah Most High and His beloved Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace).
Allah Most High says:
“Thus, have We made of you an Umma justly balanced, that you might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves…” (Surah al-Baqara, V: 143)
The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said in a Hadith:
“Beware of extremism in religion, since those before you were only destroyed by extremism.” (Sunan Nasa’i, Musnad Ahmad and others)
Hence, Islam is a middle way between excess and laxity. It is a path that is between the harshness found in the Sharia of Moses (peace be upon him) of killing one’s self as a form of repentance, paying one quarter from one’s wealth as Zakat and other such matters, and the laxity found in the Shariah of Jesus (peace be upon him) of the permissibility of alcohol, clothes not being considered impure with filth and other such matters.
It is a path that is in between the extremism and neglect found amongst the various deviated sects. It lies in between the belief of those who rejected destiny altogether (qadariyya) and those who considered destiny to have sole control over human actions (jabariyya). The path lies in between the ideologies of the Khawarij (who considered sinners to be out of the fold of Islam) and the Murji’a (who believed committing sins to have no consequence at all), and in between the position of the anthropomorphist (mushabbiha) who likened the attributes of Allah to His creation and those who completely rejected the attributes of Allah Most High (Mu’tazila).
It is also a religion that lies between law and spirit, between intellect and love, and between theology and spirituality. It rejects the concept of the Jews of everything being based on intellect and reasoning and the concept of the Christians of everything being based on love and affection. Rather, Islam teaches its followers to combine between the paths of Iman and Ihsan, and the paths of law and spirit. This is the straight path mentioned in the opening Surah of the Qur’an which we recite daily in our prayers: “Show us the straight way” (Surah al-Fatiha, V: 6) (See: Mulla Jiwun, Nur al-Anwar ala matn al-Manar, P: 5-6)
Thus, it is vital to have a balanced approach in all aspects of our Deen. Unfortunately, some people become extreme in one way or another. Some only take consideration of the outward meaning of the Sacred Law in that they reject the spiritual and inner dimensions of Islamic rulings, whilst others, on the other hand, believe love and spirit to be everything. Both these approaches are incorrect as explained earlier.
With regards to Imam Ibn Taymiyya (Allah have mercy on him), certain Muslims consider him to be the greatest thing to have happened in Islamic history. He is regarded as the Shaykh al-Islam giving his views precedence over the views of all other Mujtahid Imams. They consider him to be immune from committing any errors and mistakes, hence his opinions are considered to be the final and absolute understanding of Islam. On the contrary, some Muslims consider him to be severely deviated and completely out of the fold of Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama’ah. Some even go to the extent of considering him to be out of the fold of Islam!
Once a brother asked me what I thought of Imam Ibn Taymiyya (Allah have mercy on him) and I replied by saying that I acknowledge his works and have respect for him, although I disagree with certain views of his. Then he asked me what I thought of Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi (Allah have mercy on him) and I replied by saying that he was one of the greatest authorities of Islam in terms of spirituality and Ihsan. The brother said: “How is it possible for you to respect both these personalities. You either like Imam Ibn Taymiyya and reject Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi, or you agree with the views of Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi and dislike Imam Ibn Taymiyya. I said, “I am sorry to say that I like and respect both these personalities, whether you like it or not.” There are not two camps here for me to be included in, I explained, and that if I belong to one camp, I automatically come out of the other.
The fact is that there are certain Muslims who make Takfir of Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi and consider Imam Ibn Taymiyya to be the greatest scholar in history, whilst others consider Imam Ibn Taymiyya to be Kafir and Shaykh Ibn al-Arabi to be the greatest authority in all aspects of Islam. Both these approaches are unbalanced and incorrect.
The position of the majority of this Umma’s scholars, both past and present, with regards to Imam Ibn Taymiyya (Allah have mercy on him) is that they respect him as a scholar and acknowledge his works, but disagree with certain views of his wherein he chose to go against the mainstream understanding of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah Wa al-jama’ah. This viewpoint is held by most of the contemporary scholars, both from the Indian Subcontinent and the Arab and Muslim world.
Imam Taqi al-Din ibn Taymiyya al-Harrani was a famous Hanbali scholar of Qur’anic exegesis, Hadith and jurisprudence. He was endowed with a compelling writing style and a keen memory and was an eloquent writer whose works numbered many. His legal verdicts (fatawa) are printed in many volumes and his works in refutation of the Shi’as and other subjects are second to none. Many Ulama, such as Imam Dhahabi and others, have great words of praise for him.
Despite this, the Imam made grave errors in certain matters concerning tenets of faith (aqida) and jurisprudence (fiqh). He chose certain positions in Fiqh that went against the mainstream understanding of the Ulama from the four Sunni Schools of Islamic law. He was mainly a follower of the Hanbali School, but he held certain opinions that went against the mainstream Hanbali position also, hence the Ulama did not consider him to be the final authority in that School.
Similarly, some of his positions with regards to the tenets of faith, mentioned in his works such as al-Aqida al-Wasitiyya, were a cause of a lot of controversy and he was rightfully refuted by Scholars such as Imam Subki, Ibn Hajar al-Haytami and others. He differed with the other Ulama on many issues such as the permissibility of Tawassul, travelling specifically to visit the grave of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and other such maters. His position with regards to the attributes of Allah Most High caused him to be imprisoned in Cairo and Damascus, and the Ulama pointed out his erroneous approach.
One of the great scholars of Hadith and Islamic Creed from the Indian Subcontinent, Imam Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri (Allah have mercy on him) has refuted Imam Ibn Taymiyya in many of his works including his commentary of Imam al-Bukhari’s Sahih, Faydh al-Bari. In one of his Urdu works, he states:
“Ibn Taymiyya and others came close to anthropomorphism, in that they took the literal meaning of certain verses of the Qur’an.” (Malfuzat Muhaddith Kashmiri (Urdu), P: 242)
He further states that, Imam Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn al-Qayyim (his student) at times rejected authentically proven Hadiths when they went against their positions. There are many examples of this. Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani has also condemned Ibn Taymiyya for rejecting authentic (sahih) Hadiths when they go against his position. Shaykh Abd al-Aziz al-Dehlawi (Allah have mercy on him), after studying Ibn Taymiyya’s Minhaj al-Sunnah, was immensely distressed by his undermining of the Ahl al-Bayt (members of the Prophet's family) and the Sufis.
Imam Anwar Shah al-Kashmiri then mentioned that his teacher Shaykh Mawlana Husayn Ahmad al-Madani (Allah have mercy on him) was quite unsympathetic towards Imam Ibn Taymiyya. He even disliked the title of “Shaykh al-Islam” being used for him, hence he became upset when Shaykh Muhammad Zakariyya al-Kandahlawi (Allah have mercy on him) used this title for Imam Ibn Taymiyya in one his works.
He then goes on to say that the most balanced approach with regards to Imam Ibn Taymiyya is the approach of Imam Dhahabi, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and others, in that one may benefit from his great and extensive works, but be wary of his isolated positions that number many in matters of Creed (usul) and particulars of Islamic jurisprudence (furu’). This is the position of our (Deobandi) scholars. (Malfuzat Muhaddith Kashmiri, P: 413-414)
Shaykh Taqi Usmani (may Allah preserve him) has also mentioned a similar stance with regards to Imam Ibn Taymiyya. He states:
“As far as the opinions of Allama Ibn Hazm, Allama Ibn Taymiyya and Allama Ibn al-Qayyim are concerned, with due respect to their lofty status and rank, they have chosen certain positions that go against the mainstream scholars of this Ummah…” (Fiqhi Maqalat, 2/21)
One of the renowned scholars of the world over, Shaykh Abul-Hasan al-Nadwi (Allah have mercy on him) dedicated an entire chapter from his work covering the life and achievements of Imam Ibn Taymiyya. The respected Shaykh’s renowned work in Arabic Rijal al-Fikr Wa al-Da’wa looks at the lives and achievements of figures such as Umar ibn Abd al-Aziz, Hasan al-Basri, Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, Imam Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari, Imam al-Ghazali, Jalal al-Din al-Rumi and others and also Imam Ibn Taymiyya. This takes us back to the aspect of having a balanced approach; hence Shaykh Nadwi reflects on the lives and works of great luminaries in the field of Islamic spirituality (tasawwuf) and also has space in his work for Imam Ibn Taymiyya.
The same attitude has been taken by many Arab scholars also. The late renowned scholar of Hanafi Fiqh and principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra (Allah have mercy on him) of Egypt states in his Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya:
“The founder of the Wahhabi movement, Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, studied the works of Imam Ibn Taymiyya in depth and became more extreme. He put Ibn Taymiyya’s views into practice rather than keep them in theory. Thus, they (Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab and his followers) destroyed many graves of the Companions (Sahaba) and extended the meaning of innovation in a manner that was not heard of before…” (Tarikh al-Madhahib al-Islamiyya, P: 199)
Having said the above, the same author (Imam Abu Zahra) then dedicated a whole volume mentioning the life and works of Imam Ibn Taymiyya. He first compiled a series of four books shedding light on the lives and works of the four Mujtahid Imams (Abu Hanifa, Shafi’i, Malik and Ahmad), and thereafter, he compiled another series of four books that covered the biographies of other Imams, including Imam Ibn Taymiyya.
Imam Zahid al-Kawthari (Allah have mercy on him) is renowned for his Hanafism, Sunni-ness and his refutation of the Wahhabis, yet one of his main students Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda (Allah have mercy on him) not only relates and quotes from Imam Ibn Taymiyya in many of his works, rather he edited and published one of his works titled “Risalat al-Halal Wa al-Haram” (Book of the lawful and unlawful and some principles of monetary transactions) and on the cover of the book (and also inside) he mentioned the name of Ibn Taymiyya with the title Shaykh al-Islam.
Many other major contemporary scholars of the Arab world, from Damascus and elsewhere, have also taken the same stance. Scholars such as Shaykh Muhammad Sa’id Ramadhan al-Buti, Shaykh Wahba al-Zuhayli, Shaykh Mustafa al-Bugha, Shaykh Mustafa al-Khin, Shaykh Abd al-Latif al-Farfur and many others often quote Imam Ibn Taymiyya in their respective works, but with caution and discernment, and they warn others of Ibn Taymiyya’s isolated and controversial opinions.
Therefore, in conclusion, the balanced approach concerning the figure of Imam Ibn Taymiyya is that we acknowledge his extensive services to the Din. We acknowledge his accomplishments and benefit from his works that are in accordance with the mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah Wa al-Jama’ah and Sunni Islam, and reject that which is not in accordance with the majority of this Umma’s scholars. We respect him as a scholar, hence avoid condemning him totally, but we do not consider him to be an authority in matters of faith, Creed and jurisprudence. We leave his controversial views and opinions in tenets of faith to Allah Most High and concentrate on that which we need to learn and know of. This is the fair and balanced approach maintained by the majority of the scholars concerning controversial personalities.
And Allah knows best
Muhammad ibn Adam al-Kawthari
Darul Iftaa, Leicester, UK
Sunni Student
sunniport user
abu Hasan said:
I think we should refrain from Quoting Ibn Taymiyyah's Fatwa on the Mawlid, what his main point is that if those that practice the Mawlid are doing so by not practising a even greater evil then let them practice it, so this clearly shows that he was against it, why do we even need to quote Ibn Taymiyyah there are countless Scholars who have endoresed it including scholars the Salafis respect, such as Ibn Kathir, Ibn Jawzi, Ibn Hajar and many more.
What I have said above is evident from the following extract of the fatwa
So honouring the mawlid, and taking it as a festive season (mawsam) which some of the people have done, there is a great reward in it due to the good intention and the honouring of the Messenger (sallallaahu `alaihi wasallam) because of what I have previously stated to you - that it is possible that something be good for some of the people and be denounced/considered to be ugly by the strict believer. This is why it was said to Imaam Ahmad about some of the leaders, that he spent 1000 dirhams upon the mushaf or similar to this. So he replied, ‘leave them, for this is better than them spending it on gold (jewellery).’