A centuries-old disagreement over how — and whether — to mark the Prophet’s birth has too often been reduced to a quarrel about loyalty. The deeper question is what remembrance is meant to produce.
Badr Jan
Every year, as the month of Rabi’ al-Awwal opens, two familiar sounds rise across the Muslim world. In one street there are gatherings, recitation, poetry and cauldrons of food carried out to the poor. In another there is a sermon warning that the occasion has no basis in the practice of the earliest generations. Both are offered in the name of the same man. Both claim the same love.
Eid Milad-un-Nabi, known more widely as Mawlid al-Nabi, is observed by many Muslims as an occasion to recall the birth, life, character and message of the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). For those who keep it, it is not a birthday in the ordinary sense. It is an annual return to a life they regard as the standard against which their own conduct is measured.
But the observance has never been a settled matter. Its permissibility and its form have been debated by Muslim scholars for centuries, and the debate continues in mosques, seminaries and now in comment sections. That disagreement deserves to be reported honestly — not flattened into a contest over who loves the Prophet more.
The case for remembrance
Those who observe Mawlid describe its purpose in a single word: remembrance.
The Qur’an itself frames the Prophet’s coming as an act of divine mercy: “And We have not sent you except as a mercy to all the worlds.” (al-Anbiya, 21:107) It identifies him as the pattern a believer is to follow: “Indeed, in the Messenger of Allah you have an excellent example for whoever hopes in Allah and the Last Day and remembers Allah often.” (al-Ahzab, 33:21) And it testifies to his character in terms that leave little room for qualification: *”And indeed, you are of a great moral character.”* (al-Qalam, 68:4)
Gatherings held on the occasion tend, accordingly, to centre on the Seerah — the documented life of the Prophet. Speakers trace his orphaned childhood, the reputation for honesty he held before prophethood, the years of persecution in Makkah, the migration to Madinah, his conduct toward those who fought him, his insistence on the rights of the poor, and the farewell sermon in which he addressed questions of blood, property and the equality of human beings.
Supporters of the observance also cite the Qur’anic instruction to send blessings upon the Prophet: *”Indeed, Allah and His angels send blessings upon the Prophet. O you who believe, send blessings upon him and greet him with peace.”* (al-Ahzab, 33:56) A gathering built around that practice, they argue, is a gathering built around a command.
The case against
The principal objection rests on the concept of bid’ah — innovation in matters of worship.
Scholars who reject Mawlid argue that acts of devotion require specific warrant from the Qur’an and the Sunnah, and that neither the Prophet nor his Companions nor the generations immediately following them established an annual commemoration of his birth. Had such an observance carried religious merit, the argument runs, those closest to him would have been the first to keep it. That they did not is treated as evidence in itself.
This position is not, as it is sometimes portrayed, a deficiency of affection. It is a methodological commitment: that the safest expression of love for the Prophet is strict adherence to what he actually instituted, and that additions to worship — however sincere — risk displacing what was prescribed.
Critics within this camp also point to practices that have attached themselves to Mawlid in some regions over time, including excess, extravagance and expressions of veneration they consider to exceed proper limits. That concern is separate from the question of the observance in principle, and the two are often unhelpfully merged.
Where the scholarship actually stands
Those who permit Mawlid draw a distinction that sits at the heart of the dispute: between introducing a new act of worship and organising lawful activities on a chosen occasion. Recitation of the Qur’an, charity, remembrance of Allah, religious instruction and study of the Seerah are, on this view, individually permissible; convening them on a particular date does not make them otherwise, provided nothing prohibited enters the gathering.
The scholarly record reflects this split rather than resolving it. Organised public Mawlid observances appear in the historical sources centuries after the Prophet’s lifetime — associated first with Fatimid Egypt, and later, in a widely documented Sunni instance, with the ruler of Irbil in northern Iraq in the early thirteenth century, whose celebrations drew scholars and crowds alike. Some jurists of the era criticised particular ceremonies attached to these events; others defended the underlying practice. The Egyptian scholar Jalal al-Din al-Suyuti devoted a treatise to arguing its permissibility.
Two points follow, and both are frequently lost. First, Mawlid was not practised uniformly across thirteen centuries; its forms varied by region, period and school. Second, opposition to it is not a recent invention either. The disagreement is old, documented, and conducted between scholars who shared a common reverence for the man in question.
It is, in other words, a dispute of jurisprudence — not of allegiance.
The unnecessary war
That distinction collapses easily in practice. Those who observe Mawlid sometimes imply that abstention betrays a coldness toward the Prophet. Those who reject it sometimes address fellow Muslims as though a difference of legal reasoning were a departure from the faith.
Both moves damage the community they claim to defend. The Qur’an is direct on the point: *”And hold firmly to the rope of Allah, all together, and do not become divided.”* (Aal ‘Imran, 3:103)
Difference of interpretation is not a modern failure of the Ummah; it is a feature of its intellectual history, and the classical scholars who disagreed most sharply were often those most careful to preserve one another’s dignity. A believer who keeps Mawlid can avoid what contradicts Islamic principles without indicting those who abstain. A believer who abstains can hold that position without disparaging those following a recognised scholarly opinion.
What survives the argument
Strip the dispute away and what remains is the harder question — the one neither side contests.
The Qur’an sets the measure of love plainly: “Say: If you love Allah, then follow me, and Allah will love you and forgive you your sins.” (Aal ‘Imran, 3:31) Love, on this reading, is not a feeling to be announced. It is a claim to be substantiated.
That is the demand that outlasts the calendar. It is easy to speak of the Prophet’s mercy; it is considerably harder to show mercy while angry. It is easy to praise his honesty; harder to keep it when dishonesty would pay. Patience under pressure, restraint in victory, generosity without audience, refusal to humiliate an opponent — these were the recorded habits of the man, and they are not seasonal.
The same applies to the charity that so often accompanies the occasion. Meals distributed, families supported, orphans remembered: these reflect what the Prophet insisted upon repeatedly. But a duty discharged once a year is not a duty discharged. The obligation toward the poor does not close when Rabi’ al-Awwal ends.
The point of it all
Whether a Muslim observes Eid Milad-un-Nabi or does not, the substance of the Prophet’s message is unaffected: the worship of one God, the establishment of justice, care for the weak, honour toward parents, the keeping of family ties, truthful speech, and the treatment of human beings with dignity.
In a period defined by division and easy outrage, that message has not lost its relevance — least of all among those arguing about how best to honour it. The most meaningful commemoration is not attendance at a gathering but the conversion of remembrance into character, of love into obedience, and of devotion into service.
May Allah grant the Muslim Ummah love for His Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), understanding of his Sunnah, unity upon truth, and the strength to carry his character into ordinary life. Ameen.
