Talk:Mawlid/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

vandalism

Somebody is inserting vandalism in the first paragraph but somehow that does not appear in 'edit this page': how do you deal with that??? Arahmim1 23:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I've removed the block of text prior to the bolded title. Is that good? I don't know much about what I've deleted; although it was obviously out of place. If someone is an expert, please see if there was material that should remain in the article. Thanks --Treeears 23:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

the strange thing was that somebody had added vandalism without it actually showing up in 'edit this page' and by the time you arrived on the scene, that was gone (except my warning sign). How's that possible for somebody to vandalize without changing 'edit this page'??? Arahmim1 00:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Section for Disputes

I noticed that there is no section in this article for disputes. While it does mention up front that many but not all Sunni Muslims celebrate this day, I think the article would be enriched on expanding the pros and cons people see from different perspectives (i.e., for or against). MezzoMezzo 21:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

While someone did appear to add a section about different views, it was an issue to the point where I saw the need to remove it. It was very clearly written from the perspective of a religious Muslim rather than neutral; it was more of a religious polemic than an encyclopedic article. "Allah knows best" and unnecesary praise of Muhammad don't add to the educational value of the article. In addition, someone also added a link for Ahlus Sunnah wa'l Jammah after Sunni Muslims who celebrate Mawlid. This is a bias, as Salafis who oppose Mawlid also often refer to themselves with this term, so that issue itself is disputed. It doesn't belong in this article. MezzoMezzo 14:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Madih nabawi

If anyone knows, could they please add some information that shows why the section on Madih nabawi is part of the Mawlid article? I didn't see an obvious connection between the two subjects in the article. Is Madih nabawi traditionally performed during Mawlid or something?

Also, this article seems to be fairly comprehensive. Does it really warrant a stub tag?

Looking at the history I can't remember. Madih nabawi is often a part of Mawlid, but the description doesn't seem Mawlid specific. Hyacinth 13:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Arabic script

I've added it, and removed the Arabic-script tag from the talk page. --Skoosh 03:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved commentary from an anonymous user

An anonymous contributor (24.88.247.201) added the following section to the document. It is POV and therefore not appropriate for the article itself, so I am moving it here. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

According to authentic Islam and Muslin scholars, no such thing called Mawlid in Islam. Nether Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) nor Sahaba (Companions of the Profit, pbuh) or Al elBait (Family of the Profit, pbut) celebrated this day. If some Muslims today are doing it, it is because of ignorance. Muslims should live the example of the Profit, pbuh and his Family, pbut and the Sahaba, may Allah be pleased with them all, in a daily bases.

All Muslims in The world Celebrate The Prophet Mouhammad Birth , It's A Good inovation to do it . What is bad to make islamic chants , give food to poor people and gather on the good deeds ? The Only People who deny the Prophet Birth are the Deviated Wahhabies follower of Ibn Taymiya and Mouhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab also They are Responsable of the 9/11 Attack on the World Trade Center in other word just Terrorists . --Muslim sunni 04:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
First of all, no trolling, second of all- I am anti-wahhabist and I don't believe in mawlid. Sweeping generalizations are bad on any subject. Careful. Angrynight 04:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Million of Muslims around the world celebrate the Mawlid, as i Said it's a Good Inovation and people who celebrate get Rewards . Muslim sunni


Unfortunately the word ‘Mawlid’ has a very negative stigma attached to it and no less supported by our Wahabi brothers. The real aim here would be dissect what this really consists of and whether this is considered as shirk? Throughout the world, people celebrate the birth of the holy and last messenger of god. This consists of holding sermons, giving out food & sweets or wearing new cloths. Upon looking at this breakdown, each individual aspect would not be frowned upon by any Muslim. But when combining them and calling it ‘mawlid’, this causes great resentment and anger. This it seem has come down to miscommunication which if understood and acknowledged would help strength communities and not divide them.

Mawlid in itself is not wrong. Those who insist Mawlid must be celebrated on the 12th Rabi-ul-Uwal and only then may be incorrect although Allah knows best. We should celebrate the birth of the prophet every day of our lives giving thanks, and many people throughout the world do this. He was after all the mercy to mankind. Those who celebrate it upon the 12th Rabi-ul-Uwal are not deviant but they must continue to celebrate this by taking about his message throughout the year. Only then would we be able to break away from the accusation and counter accusation. 22/05/06 194.35.186.254

Irrelevent text

I removed some text after Muhammad's name, it is not necessary to the article and doesn't keep to the impartiality required of Wikipedia, religious praises aren't necessary: 58.104.82.82

in Islam it is required to say after the prophet name : Peace Be Upon Him. Muslim sunni
What's your point? Wikipedia is not a religion, it is meant to be purely factual. Wikipedia does not respect any particular religious belief. For example see Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. I hardly call the cartoons depicting The Prophet Mohammad to be "respectful" towards Islam. -AlexJohnc3 01:29, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Brother Muslim sunni Salaam. No doubt we have to say PBUH after his name. However this is not wikipedia (a secular encyclopedia), not islamiwiki or something. I you put honorific titles before the Prophet (S.A.W.), and non-Muslim editors removes it, it wont be good. Please avoid honorific titles before our prophets and saints. I will remind you of the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah. Ali (RA) had written Muhammed Prophet of God in the deed. Meccan delegation objected that if they had recognized Muhammed as a Prophet, then there would have been no dispute in the first place. On Ali not finding the power to strike of "Rasulullah" (Prophet of God), Muhammed himself went ahead and struck it off. The point is, when dealing with non-Muslims, the reference to his prophet is not a show stopper. You may say so in the discussion page though. Wassalam Hassanfarooqi 16:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

One-Sidedness

Descriptions of this article are only one-sided and biased. The writer only expresses that he/she hasn't got any impartial study on the topic. Unprejudiced approach is required to touch such sensitive topics. Muhammad (Peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) is the center of faith and love to all the Muslims. I don't know what's wrong with celebrating the day of that person whom you love the most especially when every month we are now celebrating this or that day. If we can celebrate a father's day, a mother's day etc., why shouldn't we tell our new generation that this personality is even more important than your parents?

This year, I fasted on this day, I gave to charity, I gathered my children and told them how the prophet (Peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) led his life, I told them what we should do and then we all tried our best to follow maximum of his sunnahs all day. I don't know where I or my children were wrong or still we need any reference for the authentication that we were only doning something good on this day?

202.147.173.115

Missing date

In the list of dates, there is an error or omission:

  • 2015: January 2

and

  • 2016: December 22

are separated by nearly two whole years. This error arises because the list only shows one date in each Gregorian year. There should be two dates listed in the year 2015, one in January and one in December.

I suspect that the list should show the months and dates as currently displayed, but the years should follow the pattern ...2013,2014,2015,2015,2016,2017... ie this would be an error in all the dates after January 2, 2015.

The alternative is that all the dates listed are correct, and that there is an omission in the month of December 2015.

However I don't have access to the resources to check/confirm this, so I haven't made any changes.

Sunni Bias

I noticed that it had been edited to only reflect the Sunni celebration dates of each year and had omitted all references to there even being a Shia date or this date being 5 days different. I have reverted it to an older version which contained these as they are extremely important to preserving a balance and not favouring the Sunni over the Shia. Any edits since then have been cancelled, so please edit and do not omit this information. 71.71.18.56

Please do no refer to the bias as a Sunni bias. It may be a bias by a Sunni and that too you do not know. It is vandalism, plain and simple. Hassanfarooqi 16:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sunni/Shi'a Dates & re: 'PBUH'

When an observance is on different dates for Sunnis and Shi'as, both dates should be listed and labelled appropriately. Wikipedia is for the dissemination of factual information, not opinion. Such factual information should be as complete as possible.

In that vein, I think it's quite appropriate to state that it is customary for Muslims to say 'Peace and Blessings Upon Him' following a mention of the Prophet's name, in the article about Muhammad, but inappropriate to use honorifics in other contexts in wiki entries. Entries should be instructive, but from a (religiously, politically, etc.) neutral viewpoint. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.248.241.28 (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

  • I changed the table to include both days. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge

I believe the merge from Milad-e-sherif would be appropriate, since it is a short description of the ceremony. The article Milad is much longer and while it developed from this holiday, it means much more and would probably only confuse if it were added here. Rigadoun (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Some Sunni Muslims celebrate Vs Most

Disagreement has been raised about the words "most Sunni Muslims" celebrate Mawlid. This is factually correct, even if you diagree with Mawlid you cannot hide the fact that the vast majority of Sunni Muslims do celebrate it in some way or another. The only countries that do not celebrate are Saudi Arabia, and possibly another 1 or 2 gulf nations that don't, or strictly secular ex-communist nations like kazakhstan.

Sunni Countries that definately don't celebrate Mawlid:

  • Saudi Arabia
  • and Qatar

Sunni Countries that DO celebrate Mawlid:

The links posted here needed to be removed based on Wikipedia's spam filter. But you can view the whole list of Sunni countried that celebrate Mawlid here: [4] with refs provided as proof

I think the above exhaustive list proves the point that MOST not some Sunnis celebrate Mawlid, even if you dispute the odd one being sunni like Iraq. Aaliyah Stevens 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I really have to disagree with your line of thinking here. The government in a certain country recognizing the day does not equal every Muslim person in that country celebrating it. In fact, I will say with confidence that is impossible to know the extent of the number of Muslims who celebrate Mawlid, as it is impossible to take a survey of all billion-plus Muslim people in the world.

Furthermore, I think that "the vast majority of" is a very biased term, even when compared to "most". Most is simply a designation that more than half do; the vast majority is an unnecesary adjective as most is neutral yet conveys the same percentage/portion.

I am changing it back to some at this time. When you can provide proof that most of the world's Muslim people to celebrate it - and as I stated above, the government recognizing a day as special does not equal every person in that country (or even any at all) celebrating it - then you will have proven your point. But as it stands now, what you have provided here does not constitue proof and isn't scientific/encyclopedic (I think that's a word). MezzoMezzo 00:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, change it to "The vast majority of Sunni nations", or simply most Sunnis. The fact that is is a national holiday in almost every single Sunni country, is a reflection of the people those governments have to appease to a certain extent. You will never find a national survey of every Muslim nation with stats on how many do mawlid, that is currently impossible, and not the kind of question national surveys ask anyway. "some" does not imply a majority, when it is palpably obvious that the majority of Sunnis do, if you have traveled throughout the ummah like I have. And hear is further evidence: The classical Sunni Ulema accepted Mawlid as ijma, only ibn Taymiyyah rejected it, but even he said that it is better than alternatives, and that people celebrating it would be rewarded for their good intentions if not for the actions ("Majma' Fatawi Ibn Taymiyya,") Vol. 23, p. 163:). The only Sunnis who reject Mawlid are Wahabi/salafi influenced Sunnis, who are a minority, most Sunni Muslims are Hanafi, then Shafi'i, then Maliki, who all celebrate it. PS this does not mean I believe in it, I'm just stating a fact that the vast majority of Sunnis do Aaliyah Stevens 13:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I am glad that you are willing to work with me on this, so let's try to resolve this as soon as possible. Six points from what you wrote:
1. I still feel that the vast majority of Sunni nations is a biased term, as "vast majority" is an unnecesary adjective; adjectives are something to generally be avoided in an encyclopedia. If we were to agree that the majority do celebrate it, "most" or "most Sunni governments" would suffice, though most is better because it is short, concise, and gets to the point.
2. Government holidays do not necesarily reflect on the people. We recognize Jewish holidays in the United States; that doesn't mean that most of America celebrates it. Chinese New Year is recognized in Malaysia but the Chinese still aren't the majority. To use what the government recognizes isn't accurate, as not all official holidays in a country are celebrated by the entire populace.
3. You made my point for me with your comment on no national survey being taken. Surveys don't ask those kind of questions, therefore it is impossible to know if the majority of Muslims do celebrate Mawlid (or even Eid for that matter).
4. You traveling in Muslim countries does not count as proof. There are more than a billion Muslims; I can guarantee you that you haven't even me a fraction of them and neither have I or anyone else on here.
5. I don't care about the Ulema's position on Mawlid; I have only been Muslim for five years and am more concerned with trying to learn the basics. Rulings on it are beyond my knowledge. I am not here to debate the validity of Mawlid as I am not qualified to do so, I am just trying to insure that articles on Islamic topics are neutral and educational for the many people who read this site.
6. Your last assertion is clearly incorrect and a wide, sweeping generalization. I know many people at mosques in my town who don't celebrate it, and they aren't Wahhabis or Salafis. You are stereotyping, and that is something I also know that you cannot substantiate with proof.
With that said, I propose the following compromise so we can resolve this issue ASAP and let the article be:
You have not convinced me that most Muslim people in the entire world celebrate this day, and I have not convinced you that they don't. One thing I do think we can agree on, though, is that stereotyping Wahhabis/Salafis as being the only Sunnis that oppose Mawlid is incorrect and also that "the vast majority" is a biased an unnecesary term for what you are trying to convey. You don't want "some" and I don't want "most"; so, I propose that we change is back to "many". This is originally what it was and I eventually changed it so "some". Many is a neutral term that doesn't emphasize exact number but doesn't insinuate just a tiny minority either.
I believe this is acceptable. Please think about this carefully because I feel that is is reasonable and a compromise, because personally I still feel that "some" would be more accurate considering you yourself admitted that it is impossible to take a survey of the Muslims in the world. I am meeting you halfway and I think you'll find that this is a fair compromise. MezzoMezzo 14:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC) (crap, forgot to sign)
Mezzo, I'd agree with Aaliyah on this one. If the majority of Muslim governments recognize the holiday, then it is incumbent upon you to provide proof that it is not part of common culture within those countries. I think "many" with a later explanation of regions that do not celebrate it would properly express the facts presented here. I can't offer any further evidence one way or the other, though, and applaud both of you in your civility. Elijahmeeks 19:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


To adaquately prove most vs. some, it would be required to collect the views of a represenative sample of Muslims from all over the world and do stastical analysis on that data. It is insufficient to post links stating that the governments of Muslim countries recognize the holiday as this does not entirely characterize their populus. We can agree that if most were the case, then some would entail the same meaning; the opposite would not necessarily be true. The most vs. some argument I think boils down to which view you take on the issue. However, we have no facts to prove "most" other than what different Muslim governments do. Given that, there seems to be no factual basis for the use of the term "most." ZaydHammoudeh 21:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments guys. I try my best to be civil, I have read this site longer than I have edited it and have seen revert wars before. I have no desire to take part in one and just want this issue resolved as soon as possible. Elijah - Since I am not the one making the claim - the exact number of Muslims who celebrate Mawlid - I do not feel that the burden of proof lies on me. I thank you for your thoughtful input though; I guess your comment counts in favor of "many" with a later explanation? ZaydHammoudeh - You have stated more or less what I was trying to, but more eloquently than I did. Thank you for the help explaining it better. MezzoMezzo 23:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, well I would argue that the fact the every Sunni country celebrates this officially except Saudi (where public displays of Mawlid are banned officially), and the staunchly secular Turkey or Kazakhstan et al, indicates that it is a part of the culture of these societies that could not be removed/ banned or ignored by the governments, unlike many other aspects of Islam e.g Islamic banking. It sounds strange to me to argue that because there are no official surveys to prove Mawlid is celebrated by the majority, even though it is a public holiday in the majority of Sunni nations. This is like saying that there is no evidence to suggest that the majority of people in the west celebrate easter, even though the vast majority of western nations hold easter to be a public holiday. Would it be so controversial to argue that "the vast majority of western nations celebrate easter", even though there are Christian sects that don't?
Anyway, I think that "MANY" is fine if it adds that it is a public holiday in almost every Muslim country, and every Arab country except Saudi and Qatar, and that the "leading institution for Sunni learning in the Islamic world"[5] Al-Azhar has approved Mawlid.
Regarding the refs about Mawlid from books, the page numbers and book names are given, so it is referenced, unless you think I'm not telling the truth. We can change it to "Early Medieval Accounts of Mawlid" if you like?

Aaliyah Stevens 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


I think the fact that some famous Islamic institutes have approved the Mawlid says little about its permissibility. If we want to go by Azhar, then we should also say in the Riba article that is now halal as Azhar said so. [6] In addition, the list of countries celebrating the mawlid also fails to characterize the status of Muslims living in non-Muslim countries. The quantifying approach used by listing Muslim countries is severely flawed.
Also, your argument about easter has some fundamental issues that although on the surface seems correct, upon greater scrutiny it does not hold up. The significant difference between Easter argument and the mawlid is that there are specific churches that represent the views of their constituents (e.g. the Catholic Church, Orthodox Church of their respective nations, Anglican Church, etc.); this is not the case in Islam. As such, it is easy to characterize the views of a church's members based on the religious denomination the people belong to. This is not possible with the Mawlid so your argument compares apples to oranges. ZaydHammoudeh 17:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Good to hear back from you Sr. Aaliyah, and I am glad that you have taken out the time to respond. I hope you are feeling well. Anyway, like I said before (and as Zayd summed up as well), governments are not necesarily reflective of their constituents. Honestly I would take issue with an article stating that most Christians celebrate Easter if no survey or case study has been done. I would reference my analogy to Jewish holidays in th U.S. again, as I feel that response was sufficient. As far as the "many", I don't think it is necesary to state in the opening paragraph that all Muslim governments recognize it; as I stated above, from a scientific standpoint that is not proof of anything other than government holidays. It's not relevant to the issue of private religious practice among all Sunni Muslims in the world. And for Al Azhar, whether or not it is the leading institution for Sunni Muslims is also an issue of opinion and not fact. Who defines leading and what constitutes it? It's not an objective term. Many people might also claim that Umm al-Qura is the leading institution for Sunnis (also just an opinion) and teachers at that school oppos Mawlid. If we include something from one point of view, we must include the other point, and it's up to the reader to decide which university or opinion or whatever to believe; the encyclopedia and those who write it (us) isn't here to make those judgment calls.

Abou your references...Aaliyah, I have seen your work on this site, and as I said I have much respect for you. You seem to know the ropes of this site, and thus you also know that as a respected encyclopedia site, I can't simply assume you or anyone else is telling the truth without evidence. We need some links of some sort, maybe scholarly opinions to back up the claims made on here. I am not saying this to be mean, wallah i'm not, but look at this from the standpoint of a neutral reader. They need proof of what this article says, and saying to them "Aaliyah is a bright and honest woman" does not constitute proof. I would highly suggest removing the section until we all can research it further. MezzoMezzo 21:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Early Accounts of the Mawlid

I think the use of the work "early" in this section is very much a misnomer. For instance, ibn Jubayr was born 500 years after the death of the Prophet. Also for ibn Battuta, it says he was an 8th century historian. I assume this was transcribed from an Islamic article as I assume "8th century" here means hijri and not Gregorian. ibn Battuta was born in 1368 CE, 700 years after the death of the Prophet.

Ibn Jubayr was the first person known to write about the Mawlid in his book Rihal. He was born in 540 AH. This is by no means early. This section should be removed as it does not characterize the true nature of the evidence. ZaydHammoudeh 22:07, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff, a bit beyond me though. The main thing I noticed with this section is that it doesn't cite any sources, which is important. I suppose if it isn't an example of early history and/or it doesn't cite sources it isn't particularly helpful. As an aside, I do think that sister Aaliyah Stevens (I believe she added this section) has the best of intentions with her edits. I've seen the help she's given to other articles on Islamic topics and have much respect for her. Perhaps we could remove the section for now and work to improve it, maybe going earlier like to Muhammad's lifetime or the generations following right after him and research accounts from back then. MezzoMezzo 23:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The page numbers and book names are given, so it is referenced, unless you think I'm not telling the truth. We can change it to "Early Medieval Accounts of Mawlid" if you like? Also I think we should present the primary (quran and Sunnah) arguments for an against Mawlid by both sides Aaliyah Stevens 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the use of the word "Early Medieval Accounts" is also a misnomer. The earliest account of the mawlid you listed is after 1200 CE so that is well past the early parts of the Medieval age. Most list the medieval age of as beginning in the fifth century CE so definitely that is a misnomer. Also, if that section is going to stay, it needs to have time relevance included. Unless you read it indepth, it would not be clear it is the Hijri calender. Also, if early accounts of the mawlid will be included, then the fact that it was started by the Shia Fatimiyyah in Egypt 300 years after hijrah must be mentioned. ZaydHammoudeh 17:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Recent POV edits

I just had to undo a very major edit by a user with a history of vandalism and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view violations (I know, because i've had to revert vandalism by this user before). The edits were very POV, inserting the numerical bias that we deleted from the first introductory paragraphs (see the above discussions) and then deleting all but one of the external elinks underneath the Against mawlid sub-section claiming to be deleting "excess links" (none of the links supporting mawlid were deemed "excessive" by this user). Let's please be mature about this and not alter articles to reflect our own personal biases. MezzoMezzo 13:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Yes Mezzo these are excessive if we start adding so much links in the against of any article than pages like Wahabi and Salafi will have to be Cleane up. There must be reason /Limit in adding links Speially in the gainst ofArticle.

  • Milad is Celebrated in most of the countries of the World by huge majority of Sunni Muslims referenes are given already by Aaliyah .U said You have not convinced me that most Muslim people in the entire world celebrate this day, ,,,.

Dear mezzo this is not ur Blog that One has to Convince You .As you could not give reference to the Point that some Muslim Celebrate Mawlid .Wikipedia is not working to Convince anyone but to Provide facts /Knowledge which is Unbiased. You have history of Vandalism in articles which does not suits to Your Ideology which i came to Know is Wahabi .Please don't post here Your Personal Opinions. Shabiha 23:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, if you feel the links are excessive then in the sake of balance you should have removed links from the supporting side as well. It is not our job as editors of Wikipedia to decide for the readers ahead of time on any controversial issue. Either remove links from both or leave them at both, but to give undue weight to one side of the argument is a breach of the official Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy.
Second of all, the discussion with Aaliyah was already resolved; the proof was not sufficient and since you have provided nothing new, your edit will not stand.
Third of all, you should really bring proof when you level such heavy accusations as vandalism, otherwise it's just a thinly veiled insult. MezzoMezzo 07:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You have asked from Aaliyah proof of Milad Celebration .She Provided links of it in Various Countries which are Muslims.But You Could not prove that It is not Celebrated by Most Muslims?.So Plz tell What Constitute Most?i have not edited that word for this Debate but u have to Support ur View and Prove ur Argument that most Muslims dont Celebrates Milad/Mawlid.I have removed both links equally and shia Celebration should Come after Sunnis. Shabiha 20:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have to support my view because I am not the one making the claim; the Burden of proof lies on you. You are making a factual, quantitative claim; unless you can provide proof in support of it, you cannot conclude that it is correct. You have provided nothing that wasn't already provided in the earlier discussion on this topic. MezzoMezzo 01:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Read it if u have not [7].These are Muslim Countries where Muslims Celebrates ,also India[en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holidays_in_India] where it is also Public holiday and is Celebrated all over the Country.Now iam adding some line regarding it in various Countries.Shabiha 22:02, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Shabiha (talk • contribs) {{{2

This was already addressed, and I know you're aware of that because you went to the trouble of deleting previous discussions and moving some of them further down the pages, so you obviously saw them.
That list is of governments that recognize Mawlid as a holiday. By that reasoning, since Eid is recognized as a holiday in America most Americans must celebrate Eid. As was explained earlier by myself and others, government recognition does not equal people in that country celebrating it.
Also, lastly, do not delete talk page contents like you did here again. It's vandalism and you have been warned. MezzoMezzo 01:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

i have added that in Most of the Muslim Countries it is Celebrated and there are Referenes . so what is Problem? don't do Vandalism. adding some Information which is True and with the line of Article is asolutely not POV .

  • i have not touched word Sizeble i am ready to debate it .
  • but now facts and Proof must be Provided in support of those Many Muslims who dont Celebrate and Support it.
  • excessive links on both sides should be reduced.i deleted tha talk page mistakenly .Shabiha 19:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
You didn't provide proof that most Muslim countries celebrate Mawlid though, as I explained in the earlier discussion and in my last comment to you. You've brought the same argument again though, so i'll give the same explanation again.
What has been brought is proof that it is recognized as a government holiday. That is not proof that most of the people living under that government celebrate the holiday. There are many Jewish holidays recognized as official in the United States, for example; by your reasoning, we could conclude that most people in the US must celebrate Jewish holidays. However, we know that isn't the case. So noting what governments recognize what holidays doesn't relate to how many people actually celebrate those holidays.
As for the links, I am all for trimming them down but not arbitrarily. You want to reduce the number, I want to reduce the number, let's work together. I'll let you go first; what would you suggest the criteria be for which links we should keep for both viewpoints? MezzoMezzo 03:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

vandalism NPOV

Now it seems You are doing Vandalism . I claimed and i added proof . what i claim is that In Most of the Muslim Countries it is celebrated so people go on Holiday . It is Obvious and Very Musch clear that Holiday is named as Birth day of Prophet Muhammed S.A.W . Now You Just dont want to add that because it does not suit to You that Mawlid which is Very Important Occasion for Muslims ,may get written in actual form on Wikipedia.Any Neutral reader can easily watch Your Illogical and Biased edits.Holiday is for nothing Else but for Celebration.

  • As You could not Provide Proof in support of MANY so i removed it Also .
  • External links i removed and made them equal.and one more thing that if u count there are more links in aginst of it then in support. this shows ur non Neutral Character.Shabiha 08:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Now you're violating the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy.
  • If you would actually read the official Wikipedia:Vandalism policy, you would know that vandalism is the intentional compromising of Wikipedia's integrity. POV disputes are not instances of vandalism, and for you to say that displays a gross misunderstanding of official site policy.
  • You don't know the reasons why I am editing and for you to accuse me of editing based on bias is not only a personal attack but also a violation of Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
  • You never proved that Mawlid is celebrated in most Muslim countries; rather, that it is a government holiday. As I said before, would you say that since Yom Kippur is a recognized holiday here in the US that most Americans celebrate Yom Kippur? Of course not. And yet that's the same reasoning you're using here, and instead of defending it or using a different reasoning you're just edit warring, which will not be tolerated.
  • I told you I have no problem with limiting the number of external links, after a discussion. You seem to think that you have a green light to go ahead and arbitrarily remove content even when other editors ask you to gain consensus first; you don't own this article so please stop acting like you do. I will ask you one more time: let's go down the list of external links, and discuss like mature adults which ones should be moved. No one is going to let you barge into any article, attack people personally, edit based off of your own POV, and disregard everyone else. MezzoMezzo 12:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Now even other eitor also recognize my Point an Your Bias i like this an supports this edition of starting Paragraph.

i have not attacked You personally butsaid what don't want on this page .without any further argument i add that Now please provide Proof about those who don't Celebrate ...How are they many? Only You think so .Proof?

  • so plz start from ur side to remove external links.

Shabiha 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

You accused me of vandalism over a POV dispute; if you don't understand how that's a violation of the official Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy, then you obviously haven't read it.
As for other editors, noone else has entered this discussion here so please don't speak for others or assume you know what they think.
As for proof, as I have explained numerous times the Burden of proof lies on you, not me. You have not provided any proof at all as to how many people celebrate Mawlid; just where it is recognized by governments. You seem to be totally ignoring the lapse in your reasoning. Please address what I have brought to you: by the reasoning you're using, we could conclude that most Americans celebrate Eid or Yom Kippur since those are both recognized here in the United States. Yet, we know that isn't the case. It's a good demonstration of the failure of the reasoning you're using, and that showing that Mawlid is simply recognized as a holiday says absolutely nothing about how many people themselves actually celebrate it. So, Shabiha, YOU still need to provide proof for your claim, otherwise we cannot deem it to have any validity.
In regard to the links, I propose off the top of my head cutting the external links down to five for each side of the argument. It's just a random number. How do you feel with that suggestion? MezzoMezzo 23:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Shabiha, you cannot accuse others of vandalism when it is not vandalism. It's concidered a personal attack. It's better to talk things out, and gain consenses for edits, for which you do not agree than calling it vandalism. Thanks. ~Jeeny (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

i agree with jeeny's Edits that in[8] MOST Countries in Muslim Worldit is celebrated.

  • Mezzo ur Insisting and not adressing on Many word for those who don't celebrate ,seems You just want to go with

Inserting Your Personal Views.

  • that's why u always says that Milad/Mawlid is not Celebrated by Most of the Muslims.You also inserted Most word for Shias, how?
  • and earlier it u also supported illogial 'commiting of shirk by Mawlid Supporters in article.
  • It is Obvious when Holiday is given by Muslim Country ,is for Celebration Only as is written in this article that large Processions are bring out .And here atleast for now i supports the word Most for Muslims Countries ,Celebration.Please don't try to hide the Obvious an Truth also Jeeny's analogy is worthof.
  • I agree to You to remove 5 links , i suggest they should be from downside. Shabiha 20:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, when I spoke to Jeeny on her talk page - and you know this because you commented after I did - she seemed to think that my reasoning made sense. And you still have not yet addressed it - proving that it is a recognized holiday doesn't prove most people celebrate it, just as proving that Yom Kippur is a recognized holiday in the US doesn't prove that most Americans celebrate it. You reasoning is fault and is based on both pure assumption and original research.
Also, in regard to links, what exactly do you mean by "downside"? MezzoMezzo 20:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Eid is a recognized holiday in America and certainly American Muslims celebrate it. A government recognized holiday may not conclusively prove that the whole country celebrates it, but it is certainly an indication that it holds some importance within that particular community. --Shahab 10:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know that, I wouldn't dispute that. My issue is that it is impossible to know the exact number of celebrants. "A sizeable number" is a neutral term that is not exact. "Most" is definite and insinuates that the majority, i.e. more than 50%, celebrate it and we have no proof for that. MezzoMezzo 13:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair Enough.--Shahab 05:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Why many for people not Celebrating it?

  • many times i try to bring it in ur notie above heading butYou are not intentionally paying heed so it is time to remove that line.
  • There is Differene between

Mawlid is celebrated in most of the countries in Muslim world as i supported and it is Celebrated by Most of the Muslims of the world as debated.

  • start removing link from downward.

thanks ~ Shabiha 06:19, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Shabiha, the problem is the word "celebrate" because not everyone does celebrate the holiday. It needs to be written that it is a holiday. Just like Christmas is a MAJOR holiday in a lot of countries, but not all people "celebrate" the holiday. Even some Christians do not celebrate it, and many non-Christians do. Try to understand the difference between the words "celebration" and "holiday". I think you will understand better why there is resistance to the way it is worded in the article. ~Jeeny (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Firstly it is named as Eid e Milad in Various Muslim Countries in which Eid it self means thatit is celebrated with JoY .And if You want to say that word Celebration is not supported by Proofs then Plz google or Yahoo ! Searh will be better for Mawlid /Milad and You will find in Each and Every item its inalienable attachment with Celebration.
  • Definition- Says ,Mawlid is noun
  • 1. a Muslim holiday celebrating the birth of Muhammad, occurring on the twelfth day of the month of Rabiʿ al-awwal, and characterized esp. by the recitation of panegyrical poems honoring Muhammad.
  • 2. the poems recited on this occasion[9].
  • You will find most of the Links are Saying that by Most Muslims or in Most of Muslim Countries it is Celebrated.
  • i am now making Point with due Stress that You will not find a neutral link saying ,It is celebrated by some or few which means that a huge Majority of Muslims in their Country Celebrates it.
  • Most important as according to You, like Christmas is a MAJOR holiday in a lot of countries, but not all people "celebrate" the holiday. Even some Christians do not celebrate it.It means Simply that
  • 1.Most of the christian Celerbate it.
  • 2. It is Celebrated in most of the Christian World .
  • 3.Those Christians who don't Celebrate it are not more than those Who Celebrte even they are Very Minimal in Comprison to those who Celerate.
  • 4. Finally im saying that it is Observed/Celebrated in Most of the Muslim Countriesbut for Instance if we assume that it is Celebrated by some or many then too it is Celebrated atleast means its Celebration is confirmed see links and Yes in Most of the Muslims Countries thats why Govt has to recognize it as Holiday .

Now What remain is that word Celebrationis not Linked to Holiays so for it and for other Points also Im giving some Links here.

These links of different sites Provides that Milad is Celebrated throughout the world and I think there are too much Sources in other languages which are Open Proof of Mawlid Celebration by Muslims all over the world where ever they reside.

  • Now it high time to Improve this article on the basis of facts and realities which exist and may easily be found.
  • Neutral links also Clearly says that Only Saudi Arabia is a Country which officially don't celebrate it and their official Movement Salafism see it against Islam.
  • i ask now that will this article show truth of sunnis who Celebrate it world over or Propganda of some Salfis who oppose it . for now i am just restoring page to its neutral language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs) 19:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Shabiha, Jeeny did not appear to be addressing whether or not certain Muslim groups refer to it as a celebration. She seemed to be - and this was what I picked up from her comment - discussing the correct usage of the word in regard to the English language.
As far as what links on Google pages say about what proportion of the Muslim world celebrates Mawlid, that's irrelevant and not a valid form of proof. We don't go by Google hits, we go by actual quantitative proof, which you have not provided up until now. Showing us that governments recognize it doesn't say anything about how many people living under those governments actively participate - this has been explained to you in so many different ways that it's impossible for you not to understand by now, and I believe that WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is quite relevant here.
The consensus before, and what we have now, is that noone has brought statistical proof that most Muslims celebrate Mawlid. Not you nor anyone else. If you can not, then your edits - which are rather obviously based on POV, as you almost seem offended that some Muslims may not celebrate it - will not be allowed. MezzoMezzo 00:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I believe that we can refer to it as a celebration where the activities include "celebratory" acts such as street processions etc. However, where the activity is restricted to private (e.g. family) events or within a small community (e.g. sermons in the local mosque), they should be referred to as observance since celebration implies "merrymaking". → AA (talk) — 09:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Mawlud, Milad or Mawlid can be the birth of other holy figures, though especially the Prophet Muhammad (Mawlid an-Nabi). Hope that helps a bit more. Or, perhaps it complicates it more? In any case, I think there should be a note of this, since there are many fractions of Islam, and there are other holy caliphs that this celebration can refer. --Humain-comme 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Time to Mutual solution

Perhaps it is very difficult and near to Impossible to Convince You. Now i am only emphasising on celebration in Most of the Muslim Countries accoring to Definition and Holidays as well my Current Proofs. if you are also not Providing proof for NON CELEBRTING people the u also don't have right to add as i said earlier Many.change it to salfis or other thing.

  • i have added few headings regarding its Celerbration in Different countries with referenes to Improve it . There should not be any problem to any one.

Shabiha 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The Burden of proof lies on you in this matter, not anyone else, as you are the one making the quantifiable claim. You are saying that Mawlid is not only a holiday, but is also actively celebrated by most Sunni Muslims; yet your proof is only for the fact that it is recognized as a holiday. No material has been provided on actual celebrations. This has been explained multiple times to you by several users, and your refusal to address this is boiling into disruption and edit warring.
As for the so called "references" you provided for celebrations of the Mawlid, they are absolutely not acceptable.
  1. The first five references are news reports, not valid academic sources. This wholly qualifies as original thought per the official Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy.
  2. The sixth reference is in French and this is unavailable for readers of English language Wikipedia, flying in the face of the official Wikipedia:Verifiability policy.
  3. To top all of this off, you have not justified these copious insertions in light of the official Wikipedia:Notability policy in addition to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. This is not your own personal page to collect blog and news reports, nor is it your own information repository. This is not an indiscriminate collection of information and, first and foremost, it is not a soapbox for you to push your own personal religious beliefs, as it has become very apparent that you are doing just that.
You've demonstrated not only a lack of knowledge of all these policies that go into making such sweeping edits to any article, but almost a disregard for them as you insert your own personal point of view into this article. You need to stop, give it a rest, educate yourself of all the above policies i'm trying to show you, and understand that this is not your personal space to propagate your own ideas with; the official Wikipedia:Ownership of articles policy is relevant here as well.
This has gone on quite enough. Please justify any further edits you make here on the talk page first, via actual understanding and correct usage of site policies and guidelines. MezzoMezzo 01:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope a fresh set of eyes on this article can help you all to come to an amicable compromise. I would like to, however, make it clear where my bias lies with the topic - I have none. There are arguments on both sides and we therefore need to ensure all relevant issues are mentioned in keeping with WP:NPOV while keeping in mind WP:UNDUE. I will paste below the sections removed by MezzoMezzo and we can discuss the issues on each section one at a time. Please bear in mind that there is no rush - let's take it calmly and slowly. It helps us to focus and consider our arguments. → AA (talk) — 09:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have started a new sandbox for a rewrite. Please comment on the structure and whether there is a need to add/remove any headings. → AA (talk) — 17:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Any objections to moving the sandbox version over the main article as a new starting point? → AA (talk) — 10:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I really gotta hand it to you brother, what you've written in the sandbox is neutral, explanatory, and well written for people who have no background in the issue. I have some issues with the sections for support and opposition - to my knowledge, Asqalani didn't support the idea of Mawlid. Also, the article says that Qaradawi both supports and opposes the day, I thought he just supported it though. Lastly, and this is more of a suggestion, the references for both sections contain citations from I think just two scholars each. Should we get more?
I may have misinterpreted the source (it is a bit confusing) but it says:

[35]

What's your take on this paragraph? → AA (talk) — 15:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
sorry! but who is that scholar?should not there be more notable scholars view on the well known Opinion of very respected Scholars likeAs-Suyuti, Ibn Hajar Al-`Asqalani and Ibn Hajar Al-Haythmi? also when their are no Other Proofs suggesting any differences.thanks. Shabiha. 17:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
It's Yusuf al-Qaradawi quoting a fatwa by Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee. However, as I've mentioned in reply to MezzoMezzo below, you both have a better grasp of the sources. If you feel there are more reliable source available by all means add the relevant refs. → AA (talk) — 00:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of that, you have my full support to move the sandbox version to the main page. The history could be expanded as well but you've given it more of a start than it ever had before, and it's now fleshed out beyond what it was before - a stub with a preponderance of external links. You did a really, really good job here. I have a good feeling about where this article is headed. MezzoMezzo 14:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I have viewed the article from the perspective of someone who does not know anything about Mawlid and wants the facts/views from both sides so they can make up their own mind on whether it is correct or not which is nicely supported by the NPOV policy. If we all work with this in mind, we can work amicably towards a fine article.
I've fixed the issue with Qaradawi that was a copy and paste error somewhere :)
Regarding references, we could do with a few more from each camp although it would be better to introduce them where the text requires it and as the article expands. However, we should ensure that the views remain balanced (per the aims stated above). → AA (talk) — 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
That explanation makes sense; we don't want to get the overflow of links like we had last time.
As for IslamOnline, I wouldn't use that as a historical or factual source. It's a rather contentious site, the official site of Qaradawi, and thus has a certain POV to it. Without going into details, I personally wouldn't believe anything historical I read from it as i've seen a lot of factually inaccurate stuff come from there before. I would suggest, for the sake of neutrality, just to remove references to Asqalani entirely.
I tried to find a neutral source but could not find anything suitable in Google Scholar and this was the first one that provided a history that I could find. If there are contradictions with other sources, then we need to provide clarifications etc. but I think both you and Shabiha have a better grasp of the earlier sources, so I'd look to you both to work towards fleshing out the details (as you've suggested below). → AA (talk) — 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Aside from that, I the sandbox version is fine. Like I said, i'd like to maybe expand the history section a little bit, maybe a bit more about the Fatamid dynasty and how the holiday initially came about, but that's something i'm sure we can all work on here and it's not really that pressing. I think the sandbox version is ready to go into the main article. MezzoMezzo 18:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the sandbox version into mainspace. → AA (talk) — 00:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In Egypt

About 3,000 Moulids are held in Egypt every year. They are 'a mass phenomenon that is increasingly attracting the attention of the Egyptian authorities.

Tanta, in the Nile Delta, is home to Egypt’s biggest moulid attracting up to three million people, some travelling from as far away as Sudan

[36].

The BBC citation here is not referring to the birthday of Muhammad, but of Ahmed el-Bedawi (a 13th century Sufi saint). Since the lead suggests this article is about the observance of the birth of Muhammad, we can have another section to suggest other common celebrations using the term Mawlid. → AA (talk) — 10:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose if it's in its own section, making the distinction of other celebrations, then there's no harm done. MezzoMezzo 14:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree ,it may be in different and common Section. Shabiha 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made the change in the sandbox and we can include any other similarly notable celebrations that are referred to as Mawlid. → AA (talk) — 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In India

Special prayers, processions and meetings are Organized on Eid-e-Milad-un-Nabi, Prophet Mohammad's (S.A.W) birthday, which is celebrated with traditional fervour throughout the country. In Lucknow, Ahmedabad, Patna ,Hyderabad, Delhi ,Dehradun,Kolkata and in Calicut large processions are taken out.In Srinagar, Capital of Jammu and Kashmir Milad Processions were Contitnued in 2003 after a gap of 13 years. Milad procession was banned in the Jammu and Kashmir capital since eruption of militancy fearing its misuse by militant outfits.

At Hazratbal shrine, on the outskirts of Srinagar, the holy relic of the Prophet are displayed after the morning prayers. 'Shab-khawani' night-long prayers are held at the Hazrat bal shrine Which is attended by thousands of people. Women are dressed in their traditional lavish feast are cooked and several families distributes food, fruits and clothing to the poor on the occasion.

In Central Mumbai, a huge procession is organised from the Khilafat house to Crawford Market [37][38].

The citation does support the celebration in India, although I think there might by copyvio issues in the paragraph so does need to be reworded. → AA (talk) — 10:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't a news clip from four years ago go against WP:NOT#NEWS ? MezzoMezzo 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That policy section applies to standalone articles based on short-lived news events. It is valid to use it as a source in this context. But I do agree, if this is an annual event, there will surely be other news reports which can be cited as additional sources (I've added one from 1998 which shows it's been a long term tradition) although we could do with more recent ones. By reporting where and how it's observed (I think "observed" is more neutral than "celebrated"?), does not infer on whether it's right or wrong in Islam. Currently, we are lacking reporting of scholarly opinions on the event and we could do expansion of the article with section on History (where and how it started), Scholarly opinions (subsections with arguments in support and against the event). → AA (talk) — 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That's interesting...do you think we should actually change the direction of the article more toward what you suggested above? MezzoMezzo 18:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Nice work in the sandbox, by the way. Shabiha, i'd be interested in hearing what you think of this. MezzoMezzo 18:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
The current article does not portray the core information necessary to give the reader an understanding of what Mawlid is and why there is controversy between different Islamic groups. Shabiha, please comment on whether you agree to this proposal and if so, dive in to the relevant sections (I've already added some refs to get you started but feel free to include others bearing in mind the criteria for RS). → AA (talk) — 18:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • here is another new report about India[39].
Is there anything available published in 2007 or 2006? → AA (talk) — 20:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • These will be more helpful[40] and [41]
  • . His birthday is celebrated by followers of Islam, worldwide, across continents and cultures[42].Editorial by a most reputed indian news paper, The Times of India.

Shabiha 20:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above reports, I think the event is ongoing and sufficiently large and notable to warrant a section in the article. However, we have to be weary in cases of other countries where it is observed by only a handful of people. → AA (talk) — 21:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Technically, we don't know the exact proportion of Muslims in India that celebrate it based on the above reports, either. MezzoMezzo 22:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, we don't know the numbers. But the non-trivial news reports covering multiple years is sufficient to acknowledge that it is a notable event. If any of the reports provide info on the number of people attending these functions then we can include it. Compare this to the source for the Germany section below, for example, which, unless additional sources can be found, would not warrant a section of its own as it would be giving undue weight. → AA (talk) — 23:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
That does make sense. MezzoMezzo 14:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In Pakistan

[[:Image:MuhammadinSKY.jpg|right|thumb|During the night of Mawlid the clouds formed the word Muhammad around the moon in the night sky[1]]]

All the government and semi-government buildings are illuminated and the day is dawn with 31 gun salutes and 21 gun salutes in provincial capital on the auspicious occasion of Eid Miladun Nabi (SAW) [43].

A number of big and small rallies and processions are also taken out in Various Cities all Over the Country like Karachi ,Islamabad,Multan , Lahore, Sindh , Balochistan , NWFP and Azad Kashmir to mark the birth anniversary of the beloved Prophet (S.A.W) [44].

Issue same as above. MezzoMezzo 14:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • news reports are valid secondry sources according to wiki policies. plz respect.Shabiha 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Minhaj-ul-Quran International Holds World's Largest Mawlid Conference

In Bangladesh

Socio-cultural and religious organisations Organizes mass rallies and colourful street marches as part of the day’s observance amid solemnity and festivity while the President, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition gives messages on the occasion.

Thousands of people on the Streets of Dhaka carries colourful banners and green flags and singing Hamd o Na`at in praise of Allah and Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W).Newspapers publishes special articles on the significance of the day while Bangladesh Betar, Bangladesh Television and other private TV channels air's special programmes on the life and ideals of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

Major city points and street islands are decorated with national flags and banners [45].

Issue same as above. MezzoMezzo 14:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In United Kingdom

Large Processions of Men, women and Children are brang out Specially in Cities of Birmingham and Manchester. each group carries a green or black banner inscribed with golden Islamic calligraphy, usually with the kalimah Allah is one and Muhammad (S.A.w) is His Prophet or other verses from the Qur’an.

Milad proessions are part of a joyous and yet unambiguous assertion of cultural diversity, of an entitlement to tolerance and mutual respect in Britain [46],[47],[48]. On March 28th'2007 , Milad sharif celebration held under the Sufi Muslim Council in the House of Commons with numerous Non-Muslim and Muslim Lords and MP's Partcipateing along with Muhaddith e Makkah's son Sheikh Assayid Ahmad Alawi Al Maliki along with the esteemed personality of Sheikh Abdullah Al Hasani from Madinah Sharif and Sheikh Assayid Hisham Kabbani [49].

Please also see here for Milad events in U.K[50].

I think they are annual Phenomenon in Britain according to these sources. Shabiha 16:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, links to forums cannot be used as references so we'd need more reliable refs but I think you'll find it difficult to locate any reliable refs of such ilk as one of the comments in the forum suggested that the media do not report on such events purely because they are carried out by small groups and are not representative of the UK muslim community and therefore it would be giving undue weight. However, I can say that the event is observed in many mosques throughout the UK where sermons and recitations are held. But it is unlikely there'll be any sources to back this up - so even though it'd be worthy of a sentence or two, without any references we can't mention it. → AA (talk) — 16:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not supporting the Forums links asa Source but at least they proved its Celebration plz see BBC Version of Mawlid ,It says A large number of Muslims[51]. see here [52]

  • see for Britain -several hundred muslims, their were also honored guests including the mayor of wandsworth, various representatives of the police, of the fire service, a chaplain, someone from the local council of churches, the local conservative candidate and others[53] ,[54],[55]

Canada

plz see [56]

  • In Malaysia- the book : The Music of Malaysia: The Classical, Folk, and Syncretic Traditions By Patricia Ann Matusky, Sooi Beng Tan ,Published by Ashgate Publishing, Ltd on page 191 that

Mawlidunabi...is also celebrated by large and small groups[57].

User:shabiha 18:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)Shabiha 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In France

Grand Mosque of Paris every Year Organises large Meeting on this auspicious Occasion. It is Known as Mawlid al Nabwi here. In other Parts of France People Offers Special Prayers and distributes sweets to mark the Occassion [59].

While a web page from the Paris Mosque - which is a very nice mosque by the way, I prayed there I believe two years ago - proves that specific organization recognized the holiday, that doesn't say anything about the rest of the French Muslim Community. There's also the aformentioned WP:NOT#NEWS issue. MezzoMezzo 14:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

plz also see[60]. Shabiha 18:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

In Germany

On (9 April 2006 ) a Protestant church in Bochum/Germany celebrated Muhammad’s birthday. The church invited the local Turkish community and the Turkish Consul, Munis Dirik, to attend the service. A Turkish music band played sufi music during the service, in which Protestants and Muslims joined together in honour of Muhammad S.A.W. [61].

We should expect a celebration on a national level (or in major cities at least) to create a section on it. The source mentions it being celebrated in one church within a local community. Additionally, the source is not reliable and should be avoided. → AA (talk) — 23:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

In Indonesia

It is a very popular day of celebration in Indonesia.It is also called Maulid Nabi, government offices and numerous shops are closed, and, no newspapers are printed for this day. There are no special prayers or religious services associated with this day, but many Muslims use this day to talk about the Prophet, his life and examples. They use it as a time to express their love and devotion for Prophet Muhammad S.A.W [62].

  • It is now celebrated with varying degrees of enthusiasm throughout the Muslim world and wherever Muslims live . Shabiha 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Importance of Celebration

plz have a look at google book[63]

  • [64]
  • On Origin and Development a very neutral book by google book [65].

Shabiha 14:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Origin

The section for Origin of Article will be quite helpful but i dont think beside links in against and support of article there is need to add a separate section to pave a way for another mess and vandalism.though external link area also needed editing. Shabiha 18:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

We do need to explain what the different views are since without it the article will be incomplete. Since controversy (as is evident by the discussions here and the multitude of links) is notable, we have to give both views and I would say they would deserve equal weight. → AA (talk) — 20:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no Primary and Secondry Proofs to support How many Muslims and which group Oppose Mawlid and in any case if it is mentioned it must not have Undue weightage on the Article's character and Purpose as in the Case of external link area supported Unreasonably uptill now by You Shabiha 19:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding Shabiha (talk Shabiha 19:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

History of the Mawlid The Mawlid in Makkah According to Muslim Historians-Celebration of the Birthplace of the Prophet

  • Makkah, the Mother of cities, may Allah bless and honour her, is the leader of other Islamic cities in the celebration of Mawlid as in other things. In his book Akhbar Makka, Vol. 2, p. 160, the 3rd-century historian of Makkah, al-Azraqi, mentions as one of the many places in Makkah in which the performance of salah is desirable (mustahabb), the house where the Prophet was born (Mawlid al-Nabi). According to him, the house had previously been turned into a mosque by the mother of the caliphs Musa al-Hadi and Harun ar-Rashid.
  • The Qur'anic scholar al-Naqqash (266-351) mentions the birthplace of the Prophet as a place where du'a by noon on Mondays is answered. He is quoted in al-Fasi's Shifa' al-gharam Vol. 1, p. 199, and others.
  • Earliest Mentions of the Public Mawlid

The oldest source that mentions a public commemoration of the Mawlid is in Ibn Jubayr's (540-614) Rihal ("Travels"), p. 114-115:

"This blessed place [the house of the Prophet] is opened, and all men enter it to derive blessing from it (mutabarrikin bihi), on every Monday of the month of Rabi' al-Awwal; for on that day and in that month was born the Prophet."

  • The 7th-century historians Abul 'Abbas al-'Azafi and his son Abul Qasim al-'Azafi wrote in their unpublished Kitab ad-durr al-munazzam:
  • "Pious pilgrims and prominent travellers testified that, on the day of the mawlid in Makkah, no activities are undertaken, and nothing is sold or bought, except by the people who are busy visiting his noble birthplace, and rush to it. On this day the Ka'ba is opened and visited."
  • Ibn Battuta's Account of the Mawlid

The famous 8th-century historian Ibn Battuta relates in his Rihla, Vol. 1, p. 309 and 347, that on every Friday, after the salah, and on the birthday of the Prophet, the door of Ka`ba is opened by the head of the Banu Shayba, the doorkeepers of the Ka'ba, and that on the Mawlid, the Shafi'i qadi (head judge) of Makkah, Najmuddin Muhammad Ibn al-Imam Muhyiddin al-Tabari, distributes food to the shurafa' (descendants of the Prophet and to all the other people of Makkah.

  • Very Neutral source of Mawlid Origin and Spread into Europe from Makkah [66].Shabiha 21:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't work for me. Do you need to subscribe to the site in order to access it? → AA (talk) — 22:00, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it is not working..i have some Original sources on the Origin of Mawlid .

The beginning of the celebration of the Meelad Shareef in its present form lies with the ruler of Irbil, Sultan Muzaffar whose full name is Abu Said Kukabri Ibn Zain al-Din Ali Ibn Baktagin, who is counted among the great Sultans and generous leaders. Ibn Kathir (alaihir rahmah) writes about Sultan Muzaffar as follows: "Sultan Muzaffar used to arrange the celebration of the Meelad Shareef with due honour, glory, dignity and grandeur. In this connection, he used to organise a magnificent festival. He was a pure-hearted, brave and wise Alim and a just ruler. May Allah shower His Mercy on him and grant him an exalted status.

  • Sheikh Abu al-Khattab Ibn Dhiyah also wrote a book for him on the Meelad Shareef entitled 'al-Tanwir fi Mawlid al-Bashir al-Nadhir (Enlightenment on the Birthday of the Bearer of Good News, the Warner). For this book Sultan Muzaffar awarded him a gift of one thousand dinars. Sultan Muzaffar remained the ruler until his death, which occurred in 630 A.H. in the city of 'Akka when he had the Europeans under seige.
  • Sibt Ibn al-Jauzi (alaihir rahmah) wrote in Mir'at al-Zaman that eminent pious Ulama and illustrious Sufis used to attend the Meelad Shareef ceremony held by the Sultan, who used to honour them with robes of distinction and royal favour. Every year his expenditure on the Meelad Shareef amounted to three hundred thousand dinars. For those coming from outside (the city) he had a special guest house commissioned, where people from all walks of life used to come from different places and without any discrimination of status.
  • Three 10th-Century Accounts of Mawlid-

The following description consolidates eyewitness accounts by three 10th-century authorities: the historian Ibn Huhayra from his al-Jami' al-latif fi fasl makka wa ahliha; al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami from his Kitab al-mawlid ash-sharif al-mu' azzam, the historian al-Nahrawali from al-i'lam bi-a'lam bayt Allah al-haram. A fourth account by al-Diyarbakri (d. 960) in his Tarikh al-khamis correlates exactly with the following:

  • Each year on the 12th of Rabi al-Awwal, after the evening prayer, the four qadis of Makkah (representing the four Sunni Schools) and large groups of people including the scholars (fuqaha') and notables (fudala') of Makkah, Shaykhs, zawiya teachers and their students, magistrates (ru'asa'), and scholars (muta' ammameen) leave the mosque and set out collectively for a visit to the birthplace of the Prophet Salla Allahu Ta'ala alayhi wa Sallam, shouting out dhikr and tahlil (la ilaha illa Allah).
  • The houses on the route are illuminated with numerous lanterns and large candles, and a great many people are out and about. They all wear special clothes and they take their children with them. Having reached the birthplace, inside a special sermon for the occasion of the birthday of the Prophet Salla Allahu Ta'ala alayhi wa Sallam is delivered, mentioning the miracles (karamat) that took place on that occasion. Hereafter, the invocation for the Sultan (i.e. the Caliph), the Amir of Makkah, and the Shafi`i qadi is performed and all pray humbly.
  • Shortly before the night prayer, the whole party returns from the birthplace of the Prophet Salla Allahu Ta'ala alayhi wa Sallam to the Great Mosque, which is almost overcrowded, and all sit down in rows at the foot of the Maqam Ibrahim. In the Mosque, a preacher first mentions the tahmid (praise) and the tahlil, and once again the invocation for the Sultan, the Amir, and the Shafi'i qadi is performed. After this the call for the night prayer is made, and after the prayer the crowd disperses.

These sources have Validity to be in the Article .Shabiha 17:05, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This seems more like early accounts rather than actual explanation of the origin of Mawlid. Historically, we know it originated with the Shi'a Fatamid dynasty in Egypt. There are some different sources for that, however for the sake of space I don't want to copy paste it here. I know of an internet forum used as a repository for this type of info, and also some sites with articles explaining it. Should I post the links here for you guys to look at? MezzoMezzo 22:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
They early accounts rather than actual explanation, These Early accounts Constitute not only Notablity of Celebration but also Popularity and its recognition by Scholars of History.Shabiha 16:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
No harm in us reviewing the links (and contents) on the talk page here. Go ahead and list a few here. → AA (talk) — 23:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Alright. The first two, here and here, are translations my friend did of articles by Saalih Fawzaan. I don't think they're usable for a citation in the article but they're a good point of reference. My friend also compiled some quotes with references here from Ibn Kathir and Ibn Hajar Asqalani - whom I noticed the sandbox version says supported the idea of Mawlid; can you show me the reference for that? Everything i've read from him was against it.
There's also some good stuff from Troid, a well known da'wah website based in Canada. Here they have a critique of the view of scholars such as Suyuti who felt there are hadeeth that justify Mawlid, and here is an article where Bin Baaz explains his viewpoint. This is another general article from the brothers at Troid discussing the issues pertaining to Muhammad's birth.
As for the site spubs, it's a well know Salafi site in Britain. They have a section of articles on Mawlid here. There are some more articles on other sites but that's probably enough for now, plus those are the ones I pulled up first and i'm too lazy to keep searching right now. MezzoMezzo 14:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. We can all review them and use them appropriately in the article where possible. → AA (talk) — 15:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

few Clarifications

  • As i have added early history section it has not Only Original Sources but they were part of haddad's Article in favour of Mawlid ,the link of site is already there.Though they may need some Copy edit but totally removing them will question mark the Other references which are on this article in any section.
  • 2. i have tried to Provide Quranic and Hadith's references on the Validity of Mawlid which are Often Quoted by supporters of mawlid.
  • i have also added GF Haddad in favour of it .
  • Please Provide some Original soure by Neutral Scholar here

Early scholars also had mixed views on the acceptability of the observance of Mawlid and even among the scholars that approved of the observance such as Suyuti, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, they condemned the manner in which the festivities took place.[4] These views are also citied by contemporary scholars who rule against the celebration of Mawlid.

as i have given here in suuport of early Celebrations[67] because mere writing of Fatwa and link of Islamonline.com to confuse People is not enough to Cleary Establish that they had Mixed Views because there is long gap of years.

  • Also i am of the View that if for isntance they had Mixed Views then please write here Clearly that they were not Considering it Bidah and against Islam rather they were supporting the Celebration in Pure form according to Shariah.
  • Do we need to write such a long and Unwarranted description before Mufti Taqi to glorify him because he is Opposing it.rather than we find very few lines glorifying Milad? and this is when It is Celebrated in all those Countries where ever Muslims resides?
We need to explain to the reader briefly why the person is notable and why their views matter. As I mentioned in response to MezzoMezzo, I did not know the information for the support section as it's not mentioned clearly in their Wikipedia article. I've added the info which MezzoMezzo provided but still believe it lacks information on their notability. If you have any further details, let me know. → AA (talk) — 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, this was in response to your suggestion that we label the movement each scholar subscribes to. Not only do we need to label the movement but the notability of the scholar. → AA (talk) — 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • word Observanceis not showing true Picture of this Festival because i have given numerous neutral references like BBC which are Clearly showing it is Celebration and it is actually Celebrated and of course with Joy and happiness .for example Processions inlcudes posters , use of Loudspeakers to recite Hamd o Na`at and colour ful banners and Posters ,vehicles with flowers ,illumination of houses at night,cooking of dishes,even at some places use of Music etc .
  • is this not celebration ten What it is ?

Do the Wiki policy says, to not show Clear Picture of Particular festival when it Exist ? Do the wiki allow to Snatch the Basic structure and essence of Article in the name of Neutrality.rather wiki produces a True and ImPartial pics of articles in the light of Various references.Shabiha 21:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as how Haddad is a strong supporter of Mawlid, I don't think his article should be in the history section, as he obviously will have a bias. The history should just be a neutral, what-where-when-how-why. You won't get that if you get an article from the perspective of someone supporting or opposing it.
As for Quraan and Hadeeth references, those are primary sources; the same sources used to support it can also be used by those who oppose it as well. It's not our job as editors to decide for the readers which Islaamic texts support what practice.
In regard to Taqi Usmani, exactly what language do you feel is glorifying him? Even if this is the case, please don't accuse other editors of doing so because he opposes it; Wikipedia:Assume good faith is relevant here.
About "celebration", we've gone over this. Some Muslims celebrate Mawlid; others do not. It's not fair to generalize all of this ummah as conforming to your own personal view on the holiday.
You do, however, make a good point about about needing references for the section on mixed views; i'll do my best to see what I can dig up on that this weekend. I hope you and AA will find the time to do the same. MezzoMezzo 23:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I've given what I believe is a fair criteria for deciding to call it celebration or observance and I think we will need to use both terms since, as Shabiha says, where it looks like a celebration with street processions etc. it can be classed as a celebration, whereas if it's just saying durood etc. in private or in the local mosque, it's more appropriate to describe it as an observance. Please confirm if both of you agree to this criteria or if you have any other suggestions. → AA (talk) — 09:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
That seems fine, as long as that distinction between those who celebrate it and those who don't is made. MezzoMezzo 14:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Links

I've just reduced following links overload. Most of them are not complied with the external link policy.

{{{1}}}

So we can expand the article by using these links as inline citation.--NAHID 18:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks NAHID. I was going to suggest the same, although I propose we discuss and work on the sandbox until we can arrive at a consensus and take a break from the article for a while. → AA (talk) — 20:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Are there any objections on using any of these links as sources (per WP:RS)? Muhammad Taqi Usmani and Yusuf al-Qaradawi are clearly notable but I'm not familiar with most so over to you all. Let's first discuss the acceptability of sources and then we can use these to expand the article. → AA (talk) — 20:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Bin Baaz was the Grand Mufti of Saudi and arguably one of the more influential scholars in the late 20th century. Saalih Fawzaan is a well known scholar among Salafis, and Troid, Subs, and Calgary Islam are well known English language sites based in the West. Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Hajr, and Ibn Kathir are big time scholars from the past.
Now though, are fatwas what we're looking for here? Like general, "I am for/against this"? Or do we want more detailed articles on the subject? Or both depending on the link? MezzoMezzo 22:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
We need to include explanations on why Mawlids are considered bidah and link to relevant fatwas - more flesh and detail rather than a simple for/against. Conversely, explanations/refutations from the "other" side will similarly need to be detailed. → AA (talk) — 23:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I've made a start with two of the scholars for each section to give an idea of how I believe it should pan out. This is a chance to constructively build the article and once it's done there is a potential for a DYK as well as taking it to GA status. → AA (talk) — 09:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I actually put some of the links relevant to this section under the Origin section above, as I forgot this was separate on the talk page. But some of what I posted there may be relevant here, in addition to the fatwa above in this section from Saalih Fawzaan, Ibn Taymiyyah, et al. MezzoMezzo 14:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Labelling movements

The Modern Scholars who supports and oppose it needs to written with their respective sects or Movement because most of the Modern have their distinguish Ideology.and You need to Mention Specifically that Which Movements Oppose its Celebration as on the talk page i ahve given some google books References which besides Other sources Says taht it is saudi wahabi Ideology in Modern time which is Totally against its Celebrtion.as here No Holiday is Given to Muslims to Observe it. Shabiha 14:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, I agree it does need to be clarified - just like in the supporting views section, we need to clarify which movement the scholars adhere to. → AA (talk) — 14:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

As it is a fiqh issue, it is important to distinguish which movement an opinion relates to. Do the Shia's have any difference of opinion or do all Shia groups support this? → AA (talk) — 15:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

regarding them I think they are agree on celebrating it ...and please do some Copy Edit and Respect my Edits as they are on talk page with references .Shabiha 18:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you both feel it is relevant, then i'll defer on this. This needs to be on both sides though - G.F. Haddad and Zaid Shakir, for example, follow Sufism, while Qaradawi is the primary scholar of the Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen movement. MezzoMezzo 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It does need to be on both sides but I wasn't sure of the other scholars. Thanks for the info. I'll add it in to the article. → AA (talk) — 20:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, I should have mentioned this earlier, al-Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen is the Arabic name for the Muslim Brotherhood. That will probably be more recognizable to readers of English-language Wikipedia. MezzoMezzo 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I updated the article with the wikilink. → AA (talk) — 09:23, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

History section

Why was information on when Mawlid first started removed from the article here? There's also a lot of insertion of primary source material into the supporting views section without justification beforehand. I thought we were supposed to be discussing all this here on the talk page. MezzoMezzo 19:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems Shabiha's just moved it to the end of the section but we do need to discuss the changes. The history section should be restricted to facts on when/who/how it has been observed throughout history without going into opinions of scholars - this should go into the opinions section. → AA (talk) — 20:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Shabiha, I will copyedit and add comments in the edit summaries. We need to adhere to the manual of style here which says honourifics are not allowed so I will remove any reference to them. Also, the text is unclear or not relevant, I will move here for further discussion. I feel we can overcome the issues and get a good article out of it. → AA (talk) — 20:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The text was a bit "wordy" for an encyclopedic entry and I've removed it temporarily so that we can discuss it here. It would be useful if you could summarise each point you believe needs to be made with an appropriate reference. We can then copyedit it appropriately into the article. → AA (talk) — 23:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The Makkah has been referred as a Place in which the performance of salah is desirable (mustahabb), the house where the Prophet was born(Mawlid al-Nabi).[Akhbar Makka, Vol. 2, p. 160, the 3rd-century historian of Makkah, Al-Azraqi].

  • The Qur'anic scholar al-Naqqash (266-351) mentions the birthplace of the Prophet as a place where du'a by noon on Mondays is answered.[1].
These are opinions on the validity of Mawlid and not a description of the history. → AA (talk) — 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • This Article is all about Mawlid and here day and place are mentioned showing the relevancy and importance in history so add them in this History section or in any new like Importance of Mawlid.Shabiha 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


The Significance of his Birth Place has been mentioned as ,This blessed place [the house of the Prophet] is opened, and all men enter it to derive blessing from it (mutabarrikin bihi), on every Monday of the month of Rabi' al-Awwal; for on that day and in that month was born the Prophet.[2].

This needs clarification and a timeline of what period it's referring to. → AA (talk) — 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • he was traveller what he saw he wrote in his account ,has importance as well relevancy in this article.Shabiha 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

*Ibn Battuta's Account of the Mawlid that on every Friday, after the salah, and on the birthday of the Prophet, the door of Ka`ba is opened by the head of the Banu Shayba, the doorkeepers of the Ka'ba, and that on the Mawlid, the Shafi'i qadi (head judge) of Makkah, Najmuddin Muhammad Ibn al-Imam Muhyiddin al-Tabari, distributes food to the shurafa' (descendants of the Prophet and to all the other people of Makkah[68].[3] [4].

  • Ibn Kathir writes about Sultan Muzaffar that he used to arrange the celebration of the Meelad Shareef with due honour, glory, dignity and grandeur[69].[5]
  • Sibt Ibn al-Jauzi wrote that eminent pious Ulama and illustrious Sufis used to attend the Milad Shareef ceremony held by the Sultan, who used to honour them with robes of distinction and royal favour.[6]

The following description consolidates eyewitness accounts by three 10th-century authorities,[7] [8] [9]. Each year on the 12th of Rabi al-Awwal, after the evening prayer, the four qadis of Makkah (representing the four Sunni Schools) and large groups of people including the scholars (fuqaha') and notables (fudala') of Makkah, Shaykhs, zawiya teachers and their students, magistrates (ru'asa'), and scholars (muta' ammameen) leave the mosque and set out collectively for a visit to the birthplace of the Prophet Salla Allahu Ta'ala alayhi wa Sallam, shouting out dhikr and tahlil (la ilaha illa Allah).

Having reached the birthplace, inside a special sermon for the occasion of the birthday of the Prophet Salla Allahu Ta'ala alayhi wa Sallam is delivered, mentioning the miracles (karamat) that took place on that occasion.

This needs to be reworded to succinctly explain the points being made and can be slotted into the appropriate timeline. → AA (talk) — 23:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • plz comment on this first Composition of History-
  • The knowledgeable, and righteous ruler: Al-Mudhaffar, the King of Irbil (city in the country of present day Iraq), initiated this practice about 900 years ago who used to arrange the celebration of the Meelad Shareef with due honour, glory, dignity and grandeur[70].[10]

and he was praised by Muslim scholars of Islam--among them the Egyptian hafidhs: Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani and Jalal ud-Din as-Suyutiyy[71]. There are no great Muslim scholars who dispraised this innovated celebration.

  • i request AA to plz Construe the Sentences of History section in to good Paragrphs on the basis of all above referenced accounts.

Shabiha 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we can use these two sources (which I added to the article in the Further reading section earlier today) to write up on the history. These are scholarly sources (1st one is available on JSTOR and the 2nd is a book published by Brill who publish the Encyclopedia of Islam):

  1. Schussman, Aviva (1998). "The Legitimacy and Nature of Mawid al-Nabi: (Analysis of a Fatwa)". Islamic Law and Society Vol. 5 (No. 2): pp. 214-234.
  2. Kaptein, Nico J.G. (1993). Muhammad's Birthday Festival: Early history in the Central Muslim Lands and Development in the Muslim West until the 10th/16th Century. Leiden: Brill, pp. 48-70.

Let me know your views. We don't want to use sources that aren't neutral in commenting on the history. → AA (talk) — 23:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • i agree,plz remove Islmonline.com as a source from History section , as i know ,is a salafi site. Though the particular movement 'site may be referred for their Idelogy on this Article but not for commenting on history .thanks Shabiha 19:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Shabiha, it's very difficult to differentiate your comments from AA's when you intersperse them in the middle of his like above. Could you please move all your most recent comments on the history section down below his? MezzoMezzo 00:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The journal article I cited above from Brill is an academic source which provides a non-biased analysis of Mawlid. I suggest we use that as much as possible. I can send you both copies of it if you send me an e-mail through the link on my userpage. Let's focus on History and facts before we get into discussing opinions. → AA (talk) — 10:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ al-Fasi's Shifa' al-gharam Vol. 1, p. 199
  2. ^ Ibn Jubayr's (540-614) Rihal ("Travels"), p. 114-115
  3. ^ The 8th-century historian Ibn Battuta in his Rihla, Vol. 1, p. 309 and 347
  4. ^ [1]
  5. ^ [2]
  6. ^ Mir'at al-Zaman
  7. ^ Al-Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Haytami in book Al-mawlid ash-sharif al-mu' azzam
  8. ^ The historian Al-Nahrawali in Al-i'lam bi-a'lam bayt Allah al-haram
  9. ^ Al-Diyarbakri (d. 960) in his Tarikh Al-khamis
  10. ^ [3]

Difference of Opinion Section

Islamic scholars have been divided on whether observing Mawlid is permissable in Islam.

Some see it as a praiseworthy event,[5]

  • i think it needs two more Important words one is Good Bidah[72],[73] and other is Ijma (Consensus of Opinion).

it may be write as

  • Some see it as a praiseworthy event and Consider it as Good Innovations Bidah on which their is Consensus of Opinion of Scholars Exist [74],[75],[76].
  • [77]Here the Scholars given should be added into this history section .Shabiha 21:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Celebration of birthdays was not an act practiced by Muhammad or his companions in the early days of Islam and therefore many contemporary scholars regard this event as bidah, an innovation of a religious practice which is forbidden in Islam.[6]

as before this Para both views are written so no need to give weightage to opposing Side linked to salafi site. plz remove it in Order to maintain a balance.Shabiha 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Early scholars also had mixed views on the acceptability of the observance of Mawlid and even among the scholars that approved of the observance such as Suyuti, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, they condemned the manner in which the festivities took place.[4] These views are also citied by contemporary scholars who rule against the celebration of Mawlid.[7]
  • A salafi Site Can't be used as source to comment on Early Scholars. i request you to either remove this para or
  • Construe the Sentence into Simpler One like .

All these such as Suyuti....... allow and support the Celeration but in more Islamic Manner. actually there is difference between totally rejection of mawlid by salafis , considering it as Unislamic and Agreeing to its Celeration but with more Pure Islamic form.Shabiha 20:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  1. The notion that there is such a thing as "good bid'ah" is a highly disputed minority opinion that only arose among certain Muslims in later times; I really wouldn't add in such a contested term.
read the link which i added ,given by AA in which Imam Jalluddin Suyuti Consider it as Bidat e Hasana or good Innovation.Shabiha 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. There are never been ijma' at any point in Islaamic history in favor of Mawlid, so I don't see how it's relevant here.
Ijma exist ,Firstly see [78],[79],[80] and Not Even a Single Early Notable Sunni scholar Prohibited and gave Fatawa against its Celebration in Lawful and Islamic Manner.Shabiha 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. There is always need to give an equal amount of weight to both sides here on Wikipedia; deleting a paragraph from the opposing views would be detrimental to the state of the article and very inappropriate.
  2. The fact that the site might be Salafi, Deobandi, or any other type of -i doesn't mean it shouldn't be represented; rather, we should try to catch all viewpoints we can if they are notable and verifiable. To say that "A salafi Site Can't be used as a source" is very prejudiced.
  3. Salafis and Deobandis aren't the only Muslims who don't celebrate Mawlid, either. There are many Muslims all over the world who don't ascribe to any movement that don't celebrate it, either. MezzoMezzo 00:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
There are no Known group in History except Modern Days Salafis and Deobandis who Consider it against Islam.Shabiha 16:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That is absolutely, positively, unequivocably, 100% wrong. You know it's wrong as well, given all the historical information we've pored over. One partisan Sufi site, one French language site with a few clips of only scholars that support Mawlid, and a site that is down don't actually prove a consensus. You're also aware of the fact - and I know you're aware of it because you've been viewing the same discussion as AA and myself - that there are many, many scholars of the past who opposed the practice of Mawlid strongly. The holiday wasn't even celebrated until it was began by the Shi'a Fatamid several hundred years after Muhammad's death. Please don't let your own personal views on the subject cloud your objectivity.
Also, the following text was moved from the opposing views section with out discussion:
[1] Celebration of birthdays was not an act practiced by Muhammad or his companions in the early days of Islam and therefore many contemporary scholars regard this event as bidah, an innovation of a religious practice which is forbidden in Islam.[1]
Early scholars also had mixed views on the acceptability of the observance of Mawlid and even among the scholars that approved of the observance such as Suyuti, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, they condemned the manner in which the festivities took place.[2] These views are also citied by contemporary scholars who rule against the celebration of Mawlid.[3]
Why was this taken out? It explains rather well the differences in opinion that have always existed on the subject. MezzoMezzo 19:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That is absolutely, positively, unequivocably, 100% wrong .
  • Cool Down ! Take it easy and bring Proofs now to justify Your arguments.

There are no Known group in the History except Modern Days Salafis and Deobandis who Consider it against Islam.You Consdier it against Islam so plz show any muslim group earlier then You to support Your Claims and Notable sunni Scholars who had similar Views like You.Shabiha 20:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Their differences are not similr to Moern day Salafis Objections .They Allowed Celebrations but with some Conditions and Modern Day salafis/Wahabis Considers it against islam according to their Some Scholars.
  • I request to AA plz add a Separate Section about different Groups/Movements who considers it as Good and Praisworthy and about those who consider it against Islam.
  • As this article is about Mawlid and not about its Criticism so please AA .know about those sites which Opposes it and take more Neutral links.
  • AA, I have read some pages of that bookand 2nd page is referring this Book for History of Mawli so plz get it here [81]. E. J. Brill's First Encyclopaedia of Islam, 1913-1936see page 421.
  • Here Not Only my Claim of Ijma is Proved but also Bidah e Hasna which is Good Innovation ,is proved . Shabiha 21:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  1. The proofs have already been brought for scholars against Mawlid; as I said, you're editing the same article and have seen the same issues the rest of us have. For you to say that "there is no known group in history" except modern day groups isn't just wrong; it's dishonest, as you've already seen the proof against that.
  2. Not all scholars traditionally just opposed the manner of celebration; there are many who oppose Mawlid outright. Again, this isn't just me talking; you know this already.
  3. I know this article is about Mawlid; that doesn't change the fact that criticism is known and abundant. So your point in regard to this is moot.
  4. Your claim of consensus in Mawlid is already disproven by the fact that we have seen disputes over it in the information brought here.
  5. Your claims about good bid'ah aren't confirmed by that book, as it even notes that the concept of bid'ah lies in sharp contrast to tradition. All that book is doing is providing information on the historical development of the holiday, not making any sort of fiqh rulings - which isn't surprising considering it's a Western encyclopedia of Islamic history, not an Islamic scholarly work.
You have your own point of view on this, and that's fine. You want to help improve this article, and that's good. But please, don't patronize me or anyone else reading this. Making claims such as there being a consensus in favor of Mawlid, or no traditional scholars opposing it - which anyone following this discussion can see is obviously false - is very inappropriate and isn't going to get this discussion going anywhere. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is quite relevant here.
Also, aside from the issue of there obviously being traditionalist criticism of Mawlid in and of itself, there is still the deletion of the above paragraph. Why did you remove it? It's really better to discuss these things here first. MezzoMezzo 03:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Shabiha, I noticed that you edited the article this morning after I made the above comments (you added honorifics, which is against WP:MOSISLAM - you should revert your recent edits). Why did you take the time to do that but not address my concerns here? MezzoMezzo 14:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this section is not going to work with different sections for different views as it doesn't allow for rebuttals of arguments and breaks the information flow. I think it's better to call it "Legality of Mawlid" and then write about notable views with equally notable criticisms according to a timeline from the earliest to present day scholars. → AA (talk) — 16:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm down with that. I suppose the breakdown of several sections does put it into a point-counterpoint argumentative style; a comprehensive section delving into the various opinions would probably be less divisive and more informative. You have my support. MezzoMezzo 17:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Proofs for Celebrations in Various Countries

In support of Early Celebration in 1207 [82].

  • Notability of long and Old Celeration in world Over Established See Here [83]all pages of Result
  • Mawlid in Euganda is Celebrated from a Long time.by google book [84]
  • In Africa from a long time[85]
  • North Africa 15th Century-[86] see also for reading of Qasida al Burda sharif ,A Special na`at in the Honour of Holy Prophet.
  • In Russia-[87]
  • In Asia an Africa[88]
  • In Middle East[89]see also for fierce Opposition by Salfis.
  • In Egypt[90]
  • In Andalus in 13 th Century-[91]
  • Return of Mawlid in Arab-[92]
  • Praises sung for Holy prophet-[94]

so all these countries needs to be mentioned with these references which are not only Original works but are Neutral also.Shabiha 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • We do not list every country that follows a particular religion or practices a particular act as Wikipedia is not a directory. We can summarise the common elements and add it into an appropriate section (Observance/Celebration) as prose. So, please think about how we can do that in a concise manner. → AA (talk) — 09:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Simply posting these books in and of themselves aren't proofs of notability - you can find small snippets all over different history books on nearly any subject if you look long enough. How exactly will an explanation of every instance of Mawlid's recognition historically enhance the article?
Also, while a number of those are e-books in PDF format, some of them are also commercial links that we can't verify. And for the ones that can be verified, going through every one of them to check for neutrality is going to take a long, long while (once the actual notability is established beforehand, which i'm not exactly convinced it can be). MezzoMezzo 00:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I also think there is a language problem with Shabiha. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but this is the English Wikipedia. I'll be back tomorrow to elaborate. If I don't, then anyone is welcome to leave me a message on my talk page to remind me. Thanks. ~Jeeny (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It does appear that English may not be Shabiha's primary language (Shabiha please correct me if we're wrong) but we can all help overcome that. However, we have to take things slowly and one section at a time as otherwise it becomes a bit burdensome. Can we concentrate on the "history" section only until we are all happy with that? We can then move onto the question about "Observances/Celebrations". → AA (talk) — 09:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree to You to move History Section for now and to get refernces from that book which you Preferred as trustworthy and Neutral.Shabiha 11:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have began a rewrite using Schussman as the source. If anyone would like a copy of it, please email me and I can send you the paper. → AA (talk) — 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference UsmaniRabiUlAwwal was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ Cite error: The named reference AlAzharFatwa was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Fatwa Regarding Milad. Mufti Taqi Usmani.

History

  • Objections

Early scholars also had mixed views on the acceptability of the observance of Mawlid and even among the scholars that approved of the observance such as Suyuti, Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Ibn Hajar al-Haytami, they condemned the manner in which the festivities took place.

  • i again ask to give a Clear meaning to these Scholars View because they Allowed Celebration with in Islamic Limits they did not Consider it against Islam as Salafis do.

here the words Early scholars also had mixed views on the acceptability of the shows a Confusing situation and approval of them here should be Clearly Represented in simpler words . Like ,The Scholars such as Suyuti.....approved the Celebration but with in islamic Limits.

  • These views are also citied by contemporary scholars who rule against the celebration of Mawlid.

This line needs not to be written here as it is Neutral Section as AA said.So No against and Pro Citation and references of Contemporary Scholars here for the sake of Neutrality.Shabiha 16:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)User:Shabiha

I think, therefore, that we are all in agreement as MezzoMezzo also suggested we stick to who/when/how in the history section and only take facts. We can have our discussion on opinions and give all the necessary views once we're done with history. → AA (talk) — 18:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I did a bit of reading at the library today and extracted a high-level overview of the history of Mawlid from the earliest times to the present day. I have to say, Kaptein (1993) is well worth reading for a thorough understanding of the topic - although it goes over my head at times :) → AA (talk) — 16:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, i'm really impressed by the amount of time you've put into researching and educating yourself on this. Is this book available online? If not, could you get me the info to look it up at the library here? MezzoMezzo 17:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's available online (although you can see a preview in Google Books here). The details are in the reference section if you want to search for it in the library or bookshop. It is the result of a doctorate thesis by Kaptein who did extensive research on this topic. JSTOR has various reviews of this book which you can also read (if you have access to it). → AA (talk) — 17:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Salam I found aVery Beautiful Image and is legal for wiki so i am adding it here. Saq mso (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

New Look

  • You are requested to Divide again it in support /Opposition section That was Very Clear Version to New reader about Who Supports and Who Oppose .it has also risk to be reduced in to few lines in future by any one who wish to do so then it will be difficult to get a fair and balanced view easily.
I have given reasons why we should not divide it into support/opposition above. It is better to present the arguments in prose with rebuttals of specific arguments alongside the original views. I ask you to see how it pans out and then review whether we need to break it up. There is a lot to write about in this section and it could easily be the longest section of the article. Please see how it pans out. → AA (talk) — 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • plz also consider the earlier heading about Celebration in Various Countries as Earlier suugested by You .i had given a Pause to myself to edit that as we were more busy in Other sections.
I've reduced this section to a stub and moved it below the History as it is again going to be based on facts, just like the History. We do need to add a few examples of prominent celebrations. However, Wikipedia is not a directory and it will not be appropriate to list every country that celebrates/observes Mawlid. → AA (talk) — 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm emphasing on Uniqueness and Style which will show its Presence around the world.plz reconsider it as it is very important .i am not saying to add each and every country but some Prominent countries Celebrates it with Mixture of their local Culture as in Indonesia, Malaysia, have different Celerations Speially with Arabic world and Asian countries have also notable Differenes with Other Muslim Countries.Shabiha 21:58, 5 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shabiha (talk • contribs)
I think for this section we need to start with the early celebrations (as I touched upon in the history section) and where countries observe it differently, we can include a description of the uniqueness etc. I have some information to add in this regard too, so will be doing that tomorrow. → AA (talk) — 22:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • plz also gave Clear Picture of Celebration/Prohibition in makkah asit is Most Important Islamic City .i found some very neutral sources about it so added .plz Comment .
Agree, this is a key element for the article. I have information from Kaptein which I will be adding and on the lookout for more info on the exact timing and reasons for the decline in Saudi Arabia. → AA (talk) — 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I also added Celebration in India and some NON muslims Country/ies due to Uniqueness on the Occasion /and its Scale in Celebration and intended to add more Countries with Your help to Give a Wholesome Piture of Mawlid around the World.
  • i found some very Beautiful picturtes of Mawlid in some countries i think they will be more suitable to be here in this section of Various Countries.
If you are able to provide appropriately licensed images, then it would be useful to add to the article. → AA (talk) — 21:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks Shabiha 20:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I added Pakistan's observation with some Very Special activities .AA if You can tell me what is the Proper way of getting images from Uncopyrighted sites of net.how can i add them if there is no Objetion to Owner.

Thanks Shabiha (t • c) 21:13, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The copyright owner would need to upload the image and license it appropriately or send an e-mail to Wikipedia with the information. → AA (talk) — 00:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks !plz find some thing about Stopping of Mawlid in the Wahabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. thanks.Shabiha (t • c) 18:59, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe one of the references already mentions that Mawlid is banned in Saudi and Qatar. Also, please stop calling other people and/or entire countries Wahhabi; it's been explained to you multiple times that it's a derogatory term. MezzoMezzo 19:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The credibility of "Scholars" against Mawlid

While it was ensured that pro-Mawlid scholars were refered to as belonging to Sufi movements (as if this peaceful method is a movement), attempts were made to hide the fact that all anti-Mawlid names belonged to the militant Wahhabi Movement. Mr. Usmani was a Judge of the so-called Sharia Court which was created by the Military Dictator General Zia to find some legality of rule, and Mr. Binbaz was an employee of the tyrant Saudi Monarch King Fahad. The only credibility these scholars have, comes from dictators, monarchs and terrorists. Hassanfarooqi 17:38, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sufism is a movement within Islam, as evidenced by its article. The "Wahhabi" movement, on the otherhand, is highly dubious and regarded by many to be a bogeyman that doesn't actually exist outside of an insult aimed at Muslim figure the person speaking disagrees with, as evidenced in its article as well.
As for Usmani, his scholarship among the 'ulama of Deoband and its sister schools is well known, and Bin Baaz as arguably one of the most knowledgeable and influential Muslim clerics of the 20th century. Furthermore, your opinion about King Fahd is just that: an opinion. Yet, you're stating it as though its some sort of fact that should be included in this article. To top it off, we could find a slew of more people opposed to Mawlid, however for the sake of keeping the article balanced we only have two of the more well known figures among Westerners (who ostensibly make up the majority of readers of English-language Wikipedia).
You also threw around the word terrorist, even though none of the above mentioned people are involved with it. Please avoid neologisms for shock-value and try to have some semblance of neutrality when commenting on articles. MezzoMezzo 04:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Scholars for and against Mawlid

Have restored the scholars opposing Mawlid which was deleted. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyya (1263–1328) opposed the celebration of the Mawlid, from Conrad:


"Abraha and Muḥammad: Some Observations Apropos of Chronology and Literary "topoi" in the Early Arabic Historical Tradition" by Lawrence I. Conrad, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 50, No. 2 (1987), pp. 225-240

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/617116

<<

Even later, when the Hijra calendar made continuous uniform dating possible, birth dates for even eminent persons remained for the most part unknown.25 This situation did change with the passage of time,26 but it is worth noting that the umma for centuries even resisted the tendency to regard the date of the Prophet's birth as an occasion for special commemoration. The mawlid al-nabi festival evolved only in later medieval times, and among conservative 'ulama' it was still then staunchly opposed. The Hanbalite Ibn Taymiya (d. 728/1328), for example, condemned the mawlid on the grounds that authorities disagreed on the date of the Prophet's birth, that the festival was an imitation of the Christians' Christmas, and that the early Muslims (al-salaj) neither commended nor observed it.27

27 Ibn Taymiya, Majmu'a fatawa...Ibn Taymiya (Cairo, A.H. 1326-29), I, 312: 1-10, no. 230; idem, Kitab iqtida' al-sirat al-mustaqim mukhalafat ashab al-jahim (Cairo, 1325/1907), 141: 1-142: 4. Cf. also the study of Eugen Mittwoch,' Muhammeds Geburts- und Todestag', Islamica, 2, 1926, 397-401. This was of course not the prevailing attitude at this time. Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-Jazari (d. 833/1429), for example, came to Mecca on pilgrimage in 792/1390 and found the mawlid to be the town's most lavishly celebrated festival. See his 'Urf al-ta'rif bi-'l-mawlid al-sharf, Al-Maktaba al-Khailidiya (Jerusalem), unnumbered MS, fol. 6v: 3-6. 

>>

so the statement in the article that previous to the modernera there were no objections to the celebrations o fthe Mawlid is untrue

Ybgursey (talk) 18:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

History


Public celebrations of the birth of Muhammad did not occur until four centuries after his death. It was originally a festival of the Shia ruling class, not attended by the common people, with the first official Mawlid celebrations occurring in Egypt towards the end of the eleventh century.[1][2]

The following was removed by 173.79.93.209 Faro0485 (talk) 15:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Expand this article please. Eid is an important islamic festival and hence it needs to be covered comprehensively. Somebody from Islam please contribute here.

References

  1. ^ Kaptein (1993), p.29
  2. ^ "Mawlid (a.), or Mawlud", Encyclopedia of Islam

Clever POV push attempt

The legality section caught my eye when it says that Sunnis and Shias celebrate Mawlid but Wahhabis do not, because Wahhabism is a subcategory of Sunnism. Frequently, Sunnis who are non-Wahhabi try to slip in language insinuating that Wahhabism is some sort of "third form" as a means of stigmatizing or distancing themselves from a movement seen as extreme, and this is usually on more neglected Wiki articles. I'm going to alter the language to reflect the fact that Wahhabism is from Sunnism, so the implied consensus is then inaccurate. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I pinpointed the most recent POV push to 01:14, 31 October 2013 by an account banned as a sockpuppet within two edits. That should be an indicator though apparently the version they edited from was also pushing POV in the opposite direction, seeming to imply that Sufism and Deobandism are some kind of third and fourth forms. It never ends. MezzoMezzo (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Pushing the term wahhabi

There are salfists movement all around the world operating in different names. Salafism and Salafists are more appropriate to denote all of them. Wahhabi is a term which is used as a synonymous term but some of the editors are pushing the term as they think it as a derogatory term as salafists doesn't approve Mawlid. Rameshnta909 (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mawlid/Archive_1&oldid=1191327431"