does being a sunni rest on celebrating the mawlid
it does not, but in our times, invariably it is an indication.
---
as for imam fakihani's refusal, imam suyuti wrote a point-by-point rebuttal. and with due respect to imam fakihani, his objections were anyway not logical and he contradicted himself. indeed, the definition of mandub he gives is strange and contradicting early ulama like izzuddin ibn abd'as Salam.
furthermore, i sense a whiff of deobandi stench from your objections and if you are not careful, you may get kicked out uncermoniously. it is quite likely that you are an innocent bystander who unfortunately chose to sit with a stinking blacksmith by a cesspool. naturally, if the fire did not get you, at least the smoke from his forge and stench from the pool touched you.
do not sit with deobandis because they lie and insinuate.
---
i would like to know which ulama of the first three centuries conducted
khatm bukhari which deoband school seems to have no problem.
i know a tablighi who goes on long trips of tabligh but still when he comes home fights with his wife; and when his mother intervenes, he beats his mother. therefore, going into tabligh is forbidden because they teach you to beat your mothers.
---
among other lies circulated is that we sunnis make it a point of aqidah; whereas the truth is that the deobandis try to deflect criticism from their utterly wahabi ideas by crying wolf that sunnis blame them for not celebrating mawlid.
this is like criticising imam a'azam raDiyallahu anhu for mentioning wiping upon mests in his
fiqh al-akbar. is wiping upon mests a point of aqidah? but then, there was a prevalent disease among ahl al-bid'ah who denied it. so he included it to show that though it is not a very important point, but in our times only the ahl al-bid'ah reject it.
---
i don't want to comment on modern scholars, [
edited, see below] there are scholars like badruddin al-hasani or al-kattani who have no problem with celebrating the mawlid.
ibn taymiyyah in his
iqtida'a sirat al-mustaqim, was lenient on mawlid (but you can be forgiven because you are not capable of your own research; you are just repeating the mendacity of your deobandi friends).
as for al-fakihani's essay [by the way, it is a short two paragraph fatwa! but those with disease in their hearts try to make it out as if it is a huge big book.] : can you tell me if you have ever seen it? (i DON'T want a 'reference' from suyuti's paper; i
know it. the detractors of the mawlid usually take it from suyuti's refutation and try to act as they have seen both works.)
i will come back to intellectual dishonesty that is the hallmark of heretics including deobandits and wahabi-salafi-anthropomorphists by quoting that which suits them essentially behaving like the yahudi - citing only what fancies their own nafs.
----
as for quoting mawlana al-alawi, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. but with deobandi-wahabis, this cannot be expected, as they have do not have any shame.
hum ko un sey ĥayaa ki hai ummīd
jo nahiN jaantey ĥayaa kyā hai
they attempt to bring proof from those very books which refute them! you are deliberately misrepresenting al-alawi as if he disapproved of the mawlid whereas, he wrote a treatise proving its validity. but you are not bothered with that.
---------------------
an example of your behavior is of a guest invited in a grand palace who happened to see the host bringing in raw meat. that meat was washed and cleaned (and the residue filth and blood cleaned, removed and thrown away). the host cooked the meat and made very special and tasty biryani, the aroma of which filled the air. even the neighbors are attracted by its smell. this biryani was served to the guest in expensive chinaware; but he hardly bothers about it. he does not eat it
[and even if he does it secretly, he does not tell] and goes out in the street yelling at everyone about the residue filth. so what if the meat was washed? so what if it was from halal source? so what if a respectable person prepared a savory dish from it? HOW CAN YOU FORGET THE FILTH?
[it so happened that some grand and respectable men mistook that the raw meat was cooked as it is and so refused to partake; but such people in the whole neighborhood can be counted on the fingers of one hand]
my man! the filth was meant to be removed and once removed, why don't you enjoy the feast?
epilogue: however, the guest who was apalled at the biryani, goes to a toilet-cleaners home in the neighborhood who also happens to be a kafir; the toilet-cleaner offers him sweets in his unhygenic* home in a soiled plate; this aforementioned guest happily gobbles it down.
jin ko shirini-e-meelad sey ghin aati hai
aankh key andhey unheN kawwa khilaa jatey haiN
--------------
*verily, the polytheists are unclean.
update: i had mistaken shaykh uthman dan fodio with another contemporary scholar; many thanks to wadood for pointing that out. in fact, i had written bin bayyah while comparing with shaykh badr al-hasani and then changed it. and to make amends, i will look up the sirah of shaykh uthman dan fodio.
