Innovation Definition

The linguistic meaning of bidˆah (innovation) is:

مَا أُحْدِثَ عَلَى غَيْرِ مِثَالٍ سَابِقٍ

‘that which was made without a previous example’.
Religiously, it is that which was not documented in the Qur’aan, and did not come in the Sunnah. Ibnu-l-ˆArabiyy said “The innovation (bidˆah; muhdath) is not dispraised merely because of the expression ‘innovation’, or because of its meaning. The innovation is only dispraised if it opposes the Sunnah. Also, any innovation that calls to misguidance is dispraised.” The Wahhaabiyyah have adhered to the mere designation of something as an innovation to dispraise it.


There are two types of innovations. The first is the innovation of miguidance. This is the innovation that opposes the Qur’aan and the Sunnah. The second is the Innovation of Guidance, which is the innovation that complies with the Qur’aan and the Sunnah according to the assessment (nadhar) of the people of knowledge. [Due to the blindness of their hearts, some did not realize that] this classification is understood from the hadiyth of the Two Shaykhs from the route of ˆAa’ishah:
مَنْ أَحْدَثَ فِى أَمْرِنَا هذا مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ فَهُوَ رَدٌّ
It is understood from the word of theProphet ﷺ:
مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ

that the innovation would only be rejected if it is against the Religious Law. If the innovation was in compliance with the Religious Law, it would not be rejected.
The innovation of misgidance is what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ meant when he said:
وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَمُحْدَثَاتِ الْأُمُورِ، فَإِنَّ كُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ، وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ
“Beware of the newly invented matters, for surely every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misgidance.”
The innovation of guidance is what is meant by his saying:
مَنْ سَنَّ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً، فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَأَجْرُ مَنْ عَمِلَ بِهَا بَعْدَهُ، مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يَنْقُصَ مِنْ أُجُورِهِمْ شَيْءٌ
“Whoever starts in Islaam a good practice (sunnah) has its reward and the reward of whoever practices it after him until Judgement Day, without lessening any of their rewards …”
Both hadiyths are authentic, so it is obligatory to reconcile between them, by saying like Ash-Shaafi^iyy said: In Manaaqib Ash-Shaafiˆiyy, Al-Bayhaqiyy narrates with his chain of narration back to Ash-Shaafiˆiyy that he said:
المحدثات من الأمور ضربان أحدهما ما أحدث يخالف كتابا أو سنة أو إجماعا أو أثرا فهذه البدعة الضلالة والثاني ما أحدث من الخير لا خلاف فيه لواحد من هذا فهي محدثة غير مذمومة
“The innovated matters are of two types. The first of them is what was innovated and opposes (anything from the) Book, the Sunnah, Consensus or athar[1]. This is the innovation of misguidance. The second is what is innovated among the good (things), and does not oppose any of that. This is the innovation that is not blameworthy.”
By this [categorization], both hadiyths are applied, and neither of them is voided. The principle in usuwl and hadiyth is that if there appears to be conflict between two pieces of religious evidence, they are merged as mch as possible.
If there is no way to merge them- [which is not the case here], then if the history of the references is known; i.e., that one of them preceded the other, then the latter abrogates the former. If that is not available, then one is given priority over the other through one of the established ways mentioned by the scholars of usuwl and of hadiyth terminology[2].
Ash-Shaafi^iyy also said:
البدعة بدعتان : محمودة ، ومذمومة ، فما وافق السنة فهو محمود وما خالف السنة فهو مذموم
“There are two types of innovation: praiseworthy and blameworthy. Whatever agrees with the Sunnah is praised, and whatever opposes the Sunnah is dispraised.”
An-Nawawiyy said in Tahthiybu-l-Asmaa’ wa-l-Lughaat:
الْبِدْعَةُ بِكَسْرِ الْبَاءِ فِي الشَّرْعِ هِيَ إحْدَاثُ مَا لَمْ يَكُنْ فِي عَهْدِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم, وَهِيَ مُنْقَسِمَةٌ إلَى حَسَنَةٍ وَقَبِيحَةٍ , و قال الإمام الشيخ المجمع على إمامته وجلالته وتمكنه في أنواع العلوم وبراعته – أبو محمد عبد العزيز بن عبد السلام رحمه الله و رضي الله عنه في آخِرِ الْقَوَاعِدِ الْبِدْعَةُ مُنْقَسِمَةٌ إلَى وَاجِبَةٍ وَمُحَرَّمَةٍ وَمَنْدُوبَةٍ وَمَكْرُوهَةٍ وَمُبَاحَةٍ قَالَ : وَالطَّرِيقُ فِي ذَلِكَ أَنْ
تُعْرَضَ الْبِدْعَةُ عَلَى قَوَاعِدِ الشَّرِيعَةِ , فَإِنْ دَخَلَتْ فِي قَوَاعِدِ الْإِيجَابِ فَهِيَ وَاجِبَةٌ , أَوْ فِي قَوَاعِدِ التَّحْرِيمِ فَهِيَ مُحَرَّمَةٌ , أَوْ النَّدْبِ فَمَنْدُوبَةٌ , أَوْ الْمَكْرُوهِ فَمَكْرُوهَةٌ , أَوْ الْمُبَاحِ فَمُبَاحَةٌ
“In the Religious Law (sharˆ), al-bidˆah (innovation), with a kasrah on the baa’, is the inventionof what did not exist during the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and it is categorized as good or ugly. The imaam and shaykh whose greatness, proficiency, mastery in the different types of knowledge, and status of being an imaam are agreed upon, Abuw Muhammad ˆAbdu-l-ˆAziyz Ibn ˆAbdu-s-Salaam[3], may Allah have mercy upon him and accept his deeds, said towards the end of the book Al-Qawaaˆid, ‘The innovation is divided into: obligatory, prohibited, recommended, disliked, and permissible. The way to reach that is by applying the innovation to the rules of the Religious Law. So if it applied to the rules of what necessitates an obligation, then it is obligatory, or to the rules of prohibition, then it is prohibited, or to the recommendation then it would be recommended, or the disliked then it would be disliked, or the permissible, then it would permissible.’ ”
The [statement of] faqiyh Ibn ˆAabidiyn said in Radd Al-Mukhtaar [clarifies this quote of Ibn ˆAbdi-s-Salaam]:
“The innovation could be obligatory, like the preparation of the evidence for refuting the misguided sects, and learning grammar (an-nahw) which enables the understanding of the Book and the Sunnah[4]; or recommended, like the innovation of inns (for students of knowledge and the poor), schools, and every charitable matter that did not exist in the first days (of Islaam); or disliked, such as decorating the Mosque; or permissible, such as exaggerating in delicious foods, drinks, and (fancy) clothing.”
However, our Shaykh said that this last example is disliked, because luxury (tana^^um) is disliked. Among the most devastating references against these people who claim that there is no such thing as a good innovation is what Ibn Taymiyah said in his book Qawaˆid Jalilah fi-t-Tawassul wa-l-Wasilah:
وكل بدعة ليست واجبة ولا مستحبة فهي بدعة سيئة وهي ضلالة باتفاق المسلمين ومن قال في بعض البدع إنها بدعة حسنة فإنما ذلك إذا قام دليل شرعي أنها مستحبة
“Every innovation that is not obligatory or recommended is an evil innovation and a misguidance by the agreement of the Muslims, and whoever said about some innovations that they are good innovations, would be correct only if a religious evidence stands as proof that it is recommended.”
The Shaykh also said that the examples of both types are numerous. In the explanation of At-Tahaawiyy, he mentioned the bad innovation first. In Sariyh Al-Bayaan he mentioned the good one first. Here we will mention the good one first so that ending with the bad one will be harmonious with the next chapter pertaining to blasphemy.


The Qur’aanic evidence for good innovations is His saying:
<( وَجَعَلْنَا فِي قُلُوبِ الَّذِينَ اتَّبَعُوهُ رَأْفَةً وَرَحْمَةً وَرَهْبَانِيَّةً ابْتَدَعُوهَا مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ)>

This verse praises the believers from the nation of Jesus because they were people of compassion and mercy, and because they innovated a monasticism, which was for them to cut themselves off from permissible pleasures above and beyond their refraining from prohibitions, to the extent that they refrained from marriage and left out delicious food and fancy clothing, making the Afterlife their soul aim. Allah’s saying:
<( مَا كَتَبْنَاهَا عَلَيْهِمْ إِلَّا ابْتِغَاءَ رِضْوَانِ اللَّهِ)>

praises them for what they innovated; that which was neither documented for them in the Injiyl, nor was it specified for them by Jesus. Instead, they wanted to amplify their worship of Allah and abandon whatever would distract them from that, such as marriage, spousal support and family. They were Muslims following Islaam according to the law of Jesus. They built huts secluded from the towns to dedicate themselves to worshiping Allah. Then, there came after them people who imitated them while believing in shirk; worshipping Jesus and his mother, but refraining from pleasures and adhering to huts. Allah said about them:
<(فَمَا رَعَوْهَا حَقَّ رِعَايَتِهَا)>

They did not adhere to the monasticism that complied with the law of Jesus as those who preceded them did. It is taken from this verse that if someone does a deed that does not oppose the Law, and in fact agrees with it, then he has not commited a blameworthy innovation. Actually, whoever does that would be rewarded, and what he did is called a ‘good sunnah (sunnah hasanah; sunnah khayr)’ or a ‘good innovation (bid^ah hasanah/mustahabbah)’.


An example is what happened during the Prophet’s life: Khubayb Ibn ^Adiyy Al-Ansaariyy prayed two rak^ahs upon the pagans bringing him to execute him. Abuw Hurayrah said:
فَكَانَ أَوَّلَ مَنْ سَنَّ الرَّكْعَتَيْنِ عِنْدَ القَتْلِ هُوَ
“He was the first to make a sunnah of praying upon being killed.”
This was narrated by Al-Bukhaariyy.
Among the innovations of guidance is what happened during the era of the Companions: the people gathered to pray the night prayers in Ramadaan in congregation after the Messeger of Allah abandoned that for fear of it being made obligatory on them had he consistently gone out for them to pray behind him. ^Umar gathered them on 20 rak^ahs after they had been praying 11 for some time. [He came back another night to find that they were still adhering to what he instructed], so he said:
نِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ هَذِهِ وَالَّتِي تَنَامُونَ عَنْهَا أَفْضَلُ
“What a good innovation this (standing for prayer in the beginning of the night) is, and the one you perform after sleeping is better.”
This is narrated by Al-Bukhaariyy also. ^Umar named it an innovation because he initiated it after the Messenger of Allah cut it off, for he saw that it was in compliance with the Law.
It was narrated from Ibn ^Umar that he was certain that the Duhaa prayer was an innovation. He said:
إِنَّهَا مُحْدَثَةٌ وَإِنَّهَا لَمِنْ أَحْسِنِ مَا أَحْدَثُوا
“Surely it is an innovation, and surely it is among the best of what they have innovated.”
And when asked about it he said:
بِدْعَةٌ وَنِعْمَتِ الْبِدْعَةُ
“It is an innovation, and what a good innovation.”
[It is true that this prayer was in reality narrated from the Prophet ﷺ, but the point is showing the conviction in good innovations of this Companion that the Prophet called a pious man; he did not know that this came from the Prophet, so he considered it a good innovation. To the Wahhaabiyyah, he has a deviant creed, which would make him a sinner, not a pious man].


[The Talbiyah is the special dhikr for Hajj]. ^Umar innovated something into the Talbiyah of the Messenger of Allah. The Messenger’s Talbiyah is:
لَبَّيْكَ اللهُمَّ، لَبَّيْكَ، لَبَّيْكَ لَا شَرِيكَ لَكَ لَبَّيْكَ، إِنَّ الْحَمْدَ وَالنِّعْمَةَ لَكَ وَالْمُلْكَ، لَا شَرِيكَ لَكَ
^Umar added:
لَبَّيْكَ اللهُمَّ وَسَعْدَيْكَ، الْخَيْرُ فِي يَدَيْكَ وَالْعَمَلُ وَالرَّغْبَاءُ إِلَيْكَ
None of the Companions blamed him, because he added something to the Talbiyah of the Messenger that agrees with it. [Also, other things were added to some of the worships taught by the Messenger]. Al-Bukhaariyy narrated from the route of Rifaa^ah Ibn Raafi^ that he said, “One day we were praying with the Messenger of Allah. When he raised his head from the rak^ah he said:
سَمِعَ اللَّهُ لِمَنْ حَمِدَهُ
“sami^a-llaahu liman hamidah”
A man behind him said:
رَبَّنَا وَلَكَ الحَمْدُ حَمْدًا كَثِيرًا طَيِّبًا مُبَارَكًا فِيهِ
“rabbanaa wa laka-l-hamd, (and added:) hamdan kathiyran tayybiban mubaarakan fiyh.”
[The Prophet ﷺ said in praising that addition that he did not do or teach anyone to do]:
رَأَيْتُ بِضْعَةً وَثَلاَثِينَ مَلَكًا يَبْتَدِرُونَهَا أَيُّهُمْ يَكْتُبُهَا أَوَّلُ
“I saw thirthy-something Angels rushing to be the first to document it.”
Ibn Hajar said about this:
وَاسْتُدِلَّ بِهِ عَلَى جَوَازِ إِحْدَاثِ ذِكْرٍ فِي الصَّلَاةِ غَيْرِ مَأْثُورٍ إِذا كَانَ غير مُخَالف للمأثور
This is evidence for the permissibility of innovating a thikr in the Prayer that was not narrated (from the Prophet) if it does not contradict what was narrated.
[The Athaan is a special thikr for indicating the entrance of the Prayer time]. Al-Bukhaariyy narrated from the route of As-Saa’ib Ibn Yaziyd:
كَانَ النِّدَاءُ يَوْمَ الجُمُعَةِ أَوَّلُهُ إِذَا جَلَسَ الإِمَامُ عَلَى المِنْبَرِ عَلَى عَهْدِ النَّبِيِّ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، وَأَبِي بَكْرٍ، وَعُمَرَ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُمَا، فَلَمَّا كَانَ عُثْمَانُ رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ، وَكَثُرَ النَّاسُ زَادَ النِّدَاءَ الثَّالِثَ عَلَى الزَّوْرَاءِ
“During the time of the Prophet, Abuw Bakr and ^Umar, the Call would be made on Friday when the imaam sits on the pulpit. Then, when ^Uthmaan ruled and the the numbers of people increased, a third call (i.e. besides the Iqaamah) was added and called at the market of Zawraa’”
This is an innovation initiated by ^Uthmaan, may Allah accept his deeds. Do those who say that there is no innovation but bad innovations limit themselves to one Athaan on Friday as in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, or do they do two as done by ^ Uthmaan? What a great contradiction there is between what they do and what they say.
[If they say that what ^Umar and ^Uthmaan did is not called innovation, rather it is called a sunnah, because they were rightly guided Caliphs, and the Prophet commanded us to follow his Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided Caliphs after him, we say:
That hadiyth means follow them in what they do that complies with what the Prophet came with, it does not mean that they are impeccable like the Prophet so that their Sunnah is like his. Other Companions who were mujtahids disagreed with some of what those guided caliphs did, like Ibn ^Abbaas disagreeing with ^Aliyy burning alive those who worshipped ^Aliyy, and that does not mean that they are against the guided caliphs.
We ask them if it is permissible to add to the Religion what the Prophet did not do, yes or no? If they say yes, then they have contradicted themselves. If they say no then they have abandoned the sunnah of those caliphs.
Among their sunnah was to innovate good innovations, so we follow them in that].
Among them is making the Salaah on the Prophet after the Athaan aloud. This happened after year 700. Before that, they did not used to say it aloud. It is enough to prove that making the Salaah on the Prophet ﷺ after the Athaan aloud is a good innovation that the Prophet ﷺ said:
إِذَا سَمِعْتُمُ الْمُؤَذِّنَ، فَقُولُوا مِثْلَ مَا يَقُولُ ثُمَّ صَلُّوا عَلَيَّ
“If you hear the mu’aththin then say as he says and then make the Salaah on me.”
[Whether it were done silently or aloud, this hadiyth would be applied and practiced]. If it were said that it was not transmitted that the mu’aththins of the Prophet made the Salaah on him aloud,” we say that the Prophet did not say, “Do not make the Salaah on me aloud.” Al-Hattaab Al-Maalikyy, in Mawaahib al-Jaliyl copies from As-Sakhaawiyy:
وَقَدْ اُخْتُلِفَ فِي ذَلِكَ، هَلْ هُوَ مُسْتَحَبٌّ أَوْ مَكْرُوهٌ أَوْ بِدْعَةٌ أَوْ مَشْرُوعٌ؟ وَاسْتَدَلَّ لِلْأَوَّلِ بِقَوْلِهِ: ” وَافْعَلُوا الْخَيْرَ ” وَمَعْلُومٌ أَنَّ الصَّلَاةَ وَالسَّلَامَ مِنْ أَجَلِّ الْقُرَبِ لَا سِيَّمَا وَقَدْ تَوَاتَرَتْ الْأَخْبَارُ عَلَى الْحَثِّ عَلَى ذَلِكَ مَعَ مَا جَاءَ فِي فَضْلِ الدُّعَاءِ عَقِبَهُ، وَالثُّلُثِ الْأَخِيرِ وَقُرْبِ الْفَجْرِ، وَالصَّوَابُ أَنَّهُ بِدْعَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ وَفَاعِلُهُ بِحَسَبِ نِيَّتِهِ
“There has been difference about (making the Salaah on the Prophet aloud after the Athaan), is it recommended or disliked or (bad) innovation or legitimate? The first saying is supported by the saying of Allah (which means): ‘Do what is good [Al-Hajj, 88]’, and it is known that the Salaah and the Salaam (upon the Prophet) are among the greatest of worships, especially that the hadiyths narrated encouraging it are authentic by tawaatur, as well as the merit of supplication after the Athaan, in the last third of the night and close to dawn. What is correct is that it is a good innovation and it depends on the doer’s intention.”
Also, those who came after the Companions innovated things that comply with the Law, like writing ‘ ﷺsallallaahu ^alayhi wa sallam’ after the name of the Messenger ﷺ. The Messenger ﷺ did not order for that to be written after his name in the letters that he wrote to Heraclius, the king of Persia or others, such as his letter narrated by Al-Bukhaariyy:
مِنْ مُحَمَّدٍ عَبْدِ اللَّهِ وَرَسُولِهِ، إِلَى هِرَقْلَ عَظِيمِ الرُّومِ
“From Muhammad, the slave of Allah and His Messenger, to Hiraclius the viceroy or Rome.”
Then, it became a practice of the Muslims to write it after the name of the Prophet ﷺ. Even those who object to the Mawlid and making Salaah on the Prophet ﷺ aloud after the Athaan do this innovation of writing ‘sallallaahu ^alayhi wa sallam’ after his name in their works. What is wrong with them? They contradict themselves, saying that whatever the Prophet did not do or order to be done is a forbidden innovation. They commit what they accuse others of doing. It is clear that they judge by their opinions; whatever their selves deem good they approve and whatever their selves dislike they deem bad; they have no religious scale for weighing the issues.
Among them are the tariyqahs innovated by some of the pious suwfiyys and waliyys, like the Rifaa^iyyah and the Qaadiryyah. There are about 40 of them. The origin of these is good, but some who are attributed to these tariyqahs have deviated and this does not discredit the basis.
Ibn ^Umar did not know that it was narrated from the Prophet ﷺ that he used to say “wahdahu laa shariyka lah” in his Tashahhud, so he used to say it thinking that he innovated it. Abuw Daawuwd narrated from Ibn ^Umar that he said:
زِدْتُ فِيهَا: وَحْدَهُ لَا شَرِيكَ لَهُ
“I added in it ‘wahdahu laa shariyka lah’ in it.”


Among the innovations of guidance is dotting the books of Qur’aan. They were not dotted at the time of the Messenger of Allah; the Prophet’s scribes did not dot them, nor were they dotted at the time of ^Uthmaan. Also [innovated is] writing the names of the chapters at the beginning of every chapter, putting a circle at the end of every verse, indicating every one of the thirty parts of the Qur’aan, and their halfs, and their fourths and their eighths. All of these are things that the Messenger of Allah did not do. Despite that, we and they use these mushafs, and we do not say that they are forbidden innovations because the Messenger and the Companions did not do it.
The first to dot the mushafs is a Follower of the Companions named Yahyaa Ibn Ya^mar. He was a trustworthy scholar to the scholars of hadiyth. Ibn Abiy Shaybah narrated from the route of Firaas Ibn Yahyaa that he said:
أَصَبْتُ فِي سِجْنِ الْحَجَّاجِ وَرَقًا مَنْقُوطًا بِالنَّحْوِ , وَكَانَ أَوَّلَ نَقْطٍ رَأَيْتُهُ , فَأَتَيْتُ بِهِ الشَّعْبِيَّ فَأَرَيْتُهُ إِيَّاهُ: فَقَالَ: اقْرَأْ عَلَيْهِ وَلَا تَنْقُطْهُ بِيَدِكَ
“I acquired a page that was dotted while I was in Al-Hajjaaj’s prison, and it was the first dotting that I had seen. I took it to Ash-Sha^biyy and showed it to him. He said, ‘Read from it and do not dot it yourself’.”
[It should be known that this is not an explicit objection by Ash-Sha^biyy; telling him not to do it is not saying that it is bad. The point is that this was something new to them; an innovation].
Ibn Abiy Daawuwd narrated in Al-Masaahif from Haaruwn Ibn Muwsaa that he said:
أَوَّلُ مَنْ نَقَّطَ الْمَصَاحِفَ يَحْيَى بْنُ يَعْمرَ
“The first to dot the mushaf was Yahyaa Ibn Ya^mar.”
He also narrated from the route of Al-Ash^ath about Al-Hasan that he did not see any problem with dotting the Qur’aan, and from Khaalid that he said, “I entered in on Ibn Siyriyn and there he was, reading from a dotted mushaf.” Even Ibn Taymiyah acknowledges that the dots are an innovation, and he accepts them. He said in his book Majmuwˆ Al-Fataawaa:
قِيلَ : يُكْرَهُ ذَلِكَ لِأَنَّهُ بِدْعَةٌ : وَقِيلَ : لَا يُكْرَهُ لِلْحَاجَةِ إلَيْهِ . وَقِيلَ يُكْرَهُ النُّقَطُ دُونَ الشَّكْلِ لِبَيَانِ الْإِعْرَابِ . وَالصَّحِيحُ أَنَّهُ لَا بَأْسَ بِهِ
“It was said that it is disliked because it is an innovation, it was said that it was not disliked because of the need, it was said that the dots are disliked and not the harakat because they clarify the syntactical case, and what is correct is that there is nothing wrong with it.”
Among those good innovations are the minerrets for calling the Athaan. [Also], the Masjid of the Prophet ﷺ, as well as other masjids, did not have those hollowed indicators for the Prayer direction (mihraabs) that were first done by the guided Caliph ^Umar Ibn ^Abdi-l-^Aziyz.


The celebration of the Prophet’s birth (mawlid) is a deed that does not contradict anything from the Book, the Sunnah, nor the Consensus, and in fact complies with those sources. It was innovated by King Al-Mudhaffar, Abuw Sa^iyd, Kawkabriy Ibn Zaynu-d-Diyn Ibn Baktakiyn, king of Irbil, at the beginning of the sixth century. He was a brave, pious scholar and a warrior. The scholars of his time agreed with him about this deed; the muhaddiths, the fuqahaa’ and otherwise, like the true Suwfiyyah. He slaughtered thousands of sheep to feed the people. Those of the east and west accepted that, such as Al-^Asqalaaniyy, his student As-Sakhaawiyy and As-Siyuwtiyy, who has a book called Husnu-l-Maqsid Fiy ^Amali-l-Mawlid.
Al-^Asqalaaniyy proved the validity of the Mawlid by referring to the authentic hadiyth about the Prophet coming to Al-Madiynah and finding the Jews fasting ^Aashuwraa’. He asked them about that, so they said, “It is the day in which God drowned the Pharaoh and saved Moses, and we are fasting out of thankfulness.” The Prophet ﷺ said:
فَأَنَا أَحَقُّ بِمُوسَى مِنْكُمْ
“It is more appropriate that I honor Moses than you.”
So he fasted that day and commanded the believers to fast, and he said:
لَئِنْ بَقِيتُ إِلَى قَابِلٍ لَأَصُومَنَّ التَّاسِعَ
“If I live until next year, I will certainly fast the ninth (also).”
He said that this hadiyth contains thanking Allah for an endowment that He gave or a calamity that He relieved on a particular day, and then that day returns in the coming year, and thanking Allah takes place by the different types of worships (not only fasting), like prostrating and reciting, and what endowment is greater than bringing Muhammad into the world on that day? It should be that the Mawlid is practiced by limiting it to what shows appreciation and thanks to Allah. As for what follows that, such as singing or playing, there is nothing wrong with whatever is permissible and aids in spreading happiness among the Muslims, and whatever is forbidden or disliked is prevented.
As-Siyuwtiyy said in the aforementioned book:
The answer according to me is that the basis of practicing the Mawlid, which is gathering the people, reciting what is easy of the Qur’aan, narrating what came about the Prophet’s beginnings and the signs of his birth, then a spread would be laid out so that they can eat, then they leave without doing more than that (i.e. without doing anything that is forbidden), is a good innovation whose practicer is rewarded because of what it contains of glorifying the Prophet’s status and showing one’s happiness about his honourable birth.
So those who transgressed and were displeased with what the Muslims innovated and were pleased with said, “It is a forbidden innovation because the Messenger did not do it.” Where is the religious evidence for what they said, that such and such is a forbidden innovation because the Messenger did not do it? Is there in the Law of Allah a rule stated as, “Whatever the Messenger of Allah did not do is a forbidden innovation”? The scholars of hadiyth loved to do something that the Messenger and the Conmpanions did not do: they mentioned in the books of hadiyth terminology that it is recommended in the session of dictation to start with the Basmalah, the Hamdalah, praising Allah, the Salaah on the Prophet, some recitation of the Qur’aan, and then for the copier to say to the dictator, “May Allah have mercy upon you. Whom (or what) have you mentioned?” This nullifies their saying that whatever the Prophet ﷺ did not do is an innovation of misguidance. The innovated matters that agree with the Religion were initiated by Companions, Followers, and those who came after them, and accepted by the scholars of the east and the west. Even eating with spoons and at tables sitting on chairs was not done at the time of the Companions. These are permissible innovations.


[This type of innovation] is of two categories: the innovation in the Creed and the innovation in practices[5].


Among the examples of the innovation of misgidance is the heritical creeds that were innovated and oppose the Book, the Sunnah, the Consensus and the Athar, and did not exist among the Companions; they came from other than them, and such an innovation could be blasphemy. Among them is the creed of the Likeners old and new; the Karraamiyyah among the ancient ones- those who said that Allah is a body unlike the bodies- and the Wahhaabiyyah among the recent ones; the destiny-denying Mu^tazilah and the Khawaarij, old and new.
They all adhered to verses that they misunderstood, thinking that they were upon truth and what agrees with the Qur’aan. They did not know that the Qur’aan has verses that can be taken in different ways as ^Umar said; one word might have two or more meanings, some of which can be valid for the interpretation of the verse, and some of which are not. These groups took meanings that are not valid to be the explanations for those verses.


Another example is what happened during the mediation of the two mediators, Abuw Muwsaa Al-Ash^ariyy and ^Amr Ibnu-l-Aas. The Khawaarij considered this mediation misguidance because they misunderstood the saying of Allah:
<(إِنِ الْحُكْمُ إِلَّا لِلَّهِ)>
<Surely, the ruling is only for Allah.>
Ibn ^Umar said about the Khawaarij, “They went to verses that were revealed about blasphemers and applied them to Muslims.” This is the first innovation in the Nation in reference to the Creed. They applied this verse, and some other verses that tell of the threat of torture and came in reference to the blasphemers on the sinful believer. They said that such a sinner would be in Hell forever with the rest of the blasphemers. [Some of them said that this is the case for the grave sinner]. They considered the mediation that ^Aliyy agreed to as blasphemy and charged him with it and rebelled against him, claiming that he contradicted the aforementioned verse, and they did not know that the verse means that what Allah willed and eternally commanded to come into existence must inevitably come into existence.
The later ones are like the followers of Sayyid Qutub who are known as Al-Jamaa^ah Al-Islaamiyyah. [They are like] the old ones called Al-Bayhasiyyah; they said that if the ruler rules by other than the Law of Allah he blasphemes, and so do the citizens, whether or not they follow him in that ruling. The group of Sayyid Qutub revived this creed in this day of ours. They believe that whoever rules by other than the rules of Allah, even if it were a single rule, blasphemes, as well as the citizens under him, and they do not exclude anyone except those who rebel. Based on that, they legitimate killing others, as their deeds testify to in Egypt, Algeria, Chechnya, and other places.


Among them is the heresy of I^tizaal, which is that they considered that the one who commits a major sin will be in Hell forever, but that he is neither a believer nor a blasphemer, and instead in a status between the two.
Among them is the innovation of denying destiny. The first to display this heresy was Ma^bad Al-Juhaniyy in Al-Basrah, as mentioned in Sahiyh Muslim from the route of Yahyaa Ibn Ya^mar. They are called the Qadariyyah. They claim that Allah did not predestine the voluntary deeds of the slaves, nor did He create them, and that instead they are created by the slaves. Among them are those who claim that Allah destined good but not evil. They also claim the aforementioned status between the two statuses, deny the intersession for the sinful believers and they deny seeing Allah in the Afterlife[6].


There is also the heresy of the Jahmiyyah, and they are called the Jabriyyah. They are the followers of Jahm Ibn Safwaan. They say that the slave is compelled to do his deeds and he has no choice; he is like a feather stuck in the wind being taken right and left.
Then other hersies in the Creed followed that, until the foretold 72 factions were completed. Among them is the claim of beginningless events. This claim is against the sound mind and the religious texts. Also, among them is the claim that tawassul by the Prophets and the pious after their deaths or during their lives but not in their presence is forbidden. The first to innovate this is Ahmad Ibn ^Abdi-l-Haliym Ibn Taymiyah Al-Harraaniyy, who died the year 728.


Among those innovated practices is making tayammum from a carpet or a pillow that does not have dusty soil, and this is invalid.


Shaykh Samiyr Al-Qaadiy said in refutation of the expansion of the Mas^aa:
In reference to their worship, the Muslims have accordingly taken their paths for long centuries. They adhere to the speech of the Messenger of Allah, and his guidance, and they hold fast to the two of them. So, they pray as he prayed, they fast as he fasted, they slaughter Sacrifices as he slaughtered, they circle the Ka^bah as he circled it, and they make Sa^y between as-Safa and al-Marwah as he made Sa^y. The scholars teach that[R1] to the lay people. The fathers convey it to their children, and the old teach it to their young. The reality of prayer was never ambiguous, nor the reality of fasting, Pilgrimage, the boundaries of Sa^y, how it should be performed, nor its place.
Then this time came, this time in which the Religion became strange, and ordering the good has been abandoned, and forbidding the evil has been prevented, and is only undertaken by some individuals here and there. The buttons of the Religion are being undone button by button. And no one defends the truth of the Religion but a few, and that proves the truthfulness of what our Master Muhammad ﷺ, informed would come.
In this time, when tribulations come like waves, a person came forward with a suggestion, namely Abdul Malik Ibn Abdillah Ibn Duhaysh. His suggestion comprises the call to increase the width of the Mas^a from the eastern direction, between the place of Sa^y and the general street, in a way that the additional area would be (dujaah[R2] ) one way for going from as-Safa, and the original Sa^y area would be the other way for returning from al-Marwah. So then the one who makes Sa^y would, by that, be outside of the limits of the Mas^a when going from as-Safa to al-Marwah. He claimed that this is for the Sake of the welfare, and because of the tight place due to the people’s crowding.
Taking by this suggestion and fulfilling it, which actually occurred, is a calamity, and an enormous sin[R3] , because it takes the worship out of the reality that our Glorious Lord has ordered, and that the Messenger of Allah ordered it to be done by. This change of the Mas^a spoils and invalidates the Sa^y, and refuge is sought with Allah, the Exalted, from that. Changing the Mas^a is exactly like changing the area of Tawaf. If it were done around other than the Ka^bah, it would go out of the reality upon which it has been ordered.
Crowding is not an excuse for changing the rituals nor for replacing them. The people might crowd for prayer in such a way that they would be unable to prostrate with the Imam. Would that permit them to abandon prostration in the prayer, change its format[R4] or diverge from the Qiblah, thus prostrating towards something else? Did any one of the imams permit that, or did they talk about the case, observing both the religious judgment, as well as the welfare of those who pray? This is how the issue of the Sa^y should be. Keeping in mind that in reality there is no welfare in opposing the orders of Allah, the Mighty and the Exalted, meaning that, in reality, there is no welfare for the slaves except in following what our Lord, the Mighty and Glorified, ordered, as conveyed to us by His Messenger. Had the door of replacing the Sacred Law been opened for the people according to what they see to be the welfare, and what they claim to be beneficial by following their own opinions, then the Religion of Allah would become a mere trace after it had been a reality.
How many people among us have made Pilgrimage in these last years, before the erroneous expansion, without finding in the Mas^a anything that prevents us from completing the Sa^y? Had we supposed that it is difficult to fulfill the ritual because of the Mas^a’s tight space, and I repeat ‘supposed’, because there is no burden in reality, then what prevents building a level atop a level for Sa^y, and hence the Sa^y would be completed in its place, as is the case for Tawaf[R5] , based on the known rule, which is that the air above a place holds the judgment of that place. As such, the pilgrim would fulfill his ritual in a valid manner without introducing anything that corrupts it. Another alternative would be for the people to make Sa^y in batches, similar to what they do upon crowding when prostrating in prayer, especially considering the extended time of Sa^y. As such, the pilgrim would complete the ritual in a valid manner without introducing any corruption into it. The pilgrim would do the Sa^y just as the Messenger of Allah ordered to do, like he did, and where he did it. As for innovating a new place for Sa^y under the pretext (excuse) of crowding or the like, it is an innovation and a departure from the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. It is as if the Law-bringer himself is being corrected, the one whose law would not be invalid, and it is a replacement to what he, ﷺ came with.
The issue is like what our Lord, the Glorified and Exalted, said:
<( فَمَنْ بَدَّلَهُ بَعْدَمَا سَمِعَهُ فَإِنَّمَا إِثْمُهُ عَلَى الَّذِينَ يُبَدِّلُونَهُ إِنَّ اللَّهَ سَمِيعٌ عَلِيمٌ)>
ah Hears and Knows all.>


[Among the bad innovations is abandoining the Sunnah of the Prophet for determining the Qiblah. In our times, the majority of Muslims in North America believe that using the Sunnah to determine the Qiblah is invalid, and instead, they must use the shape of the earth and base their direction on the shortest path over the earth’s curved surface. This would mean that it is obligatory on the Muslim to know the shape of the earth and to know the distances between towns to be able to face the shortest distance over the curved surface. Some of them say that both ways are valid, although both methods lead to two different results- the Sunnah leading to Southeast, and the innovated method leading to northeast- while they know that Makkah is only in a single place. To determine that, they use spherical trigonometry instead of the stars. If they use the stars, they only use them to face the direction that they determined by trigonometry. They confess that this method of theirs was not used by the Prophet, nor mentioned by the Mujtahids, so to validate what they have done, some have claimed that the geographers and scientists are as good as the fuqahaa’- and we mean the Mujtahids- although no geographer says that Makkah is northeast of North America. In fact, they said that the fuqahaa’ must follower ther geopraghers. Some of them said we must use the shape of the earth to determine the Qiblah because the Ka^bah is on the earth- as if the Prophet did not know that the Ka^bah was on the earth. He knew that, as did the mujtahids, but they did not use this method. The Prophet did not die until he conveyed all of what he was obligated to convey, and he said:
مَا كَانَ مِنْ شَرْطٍ لَيْسَ فِي كِتَابِ اللَّهِ، فَهُوَ بَاطِلٌ وَإِنْ كَانَ مِائَةَ شَرْطٍ
“Any condition that is not in the Book of Allah is invalid, even if it were 100 condtions.”
Their conditions of using the earth’s shape and knowing the distance for the Prayer are not from the Religion, and their prayers are invalid because their determination for the direction is invalid.]


Among this type is writing (ص) After the name of the Prophet ﷺ. What is uglier than that is writing (صلعم). Dispite that this is disliked, some scholars have done it, as it appears in some manuscripts. Al-^Iraaqiyy said:
ويُكْرَهُ أنْ يَرْمِزَ للصَّلاةِ على النبيِّ – صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – في الخطِّ بأَنْ يقتصِرَ من ذلكَ على حرفينِ، ونحوِ ذلكَ، كمن يكتُبُ (صلعم) يشيرُ بذلكَ إلى الصلاةِ والتَّسْلِيمِ. ويُكْرَهُ حذفُ واحدٍ منَ الصلاةِ والتَّسْلِيمِ. والاقتصارُ على أحدهِما كما يفعلُ الخطيبُ، فإنَّ في خطِّهِ الاقتصارُ على الصلاةِ فقطْ. شاهدتُهُ بخطِّهِ كذلكَ في كتابِ ” الموضحِ “، وليسَ بِمَرْضيٍّ، فقدْ قالَ حَمْزَةُ الكنانيُّ: ((كنتُ أكتبُ عندَ ذكرِ النبيِّ: ((صلى اللهُ عليهِ)) ، ولا أكتبُ ((وَسَلَّمَ)) ، فرأيتُ النبيَّ – صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – في المنامِ، فقالَ لي: ما لكَ لا تُتِمُّ الصلاةَ عليَّ؟! قالَ فما كتبتُ بعدَ ذلكَ: ((صَلَّى اللهُ عليهِ)) ، إلاَّ كتبتُ: ((وَسَلَّمَ)) .
It is disliked to make a symbol for the Salaah on the Prophet,ﷺ, when writing, such as to abbreviate it by two letters, or the like. This is similar to he who writes (صلعم) to signal to the Salaah and the Salaam.It is also disliked to omit one of the two, and to settle with mentioning only one of them, as done by Al-Khatiyb; in his writing, there is settling with only the Salaah. I saw it in his book Al-Muwdih, and it is not good. Hamzah Al-Kinaaniyy said, “Upon mentioning the Prophet, ﷺ, I used to write ‘sallallaahu ^alayhi,’ and I would not write, ‘wa sallam’. So I saw the Prophet, ﷺ, in my dream, and he said to me, ‘What is wrong with you that you do not complete the Salaah upon me?’ After that, I never wrote ‘sallallaahu ^alayhi’ without writing ‘wa sallam’.”


Among them also is perverting the name of Allah, like what happens to many of those who are attributed to the tariyqahs; they take the appearance of Suwfiyyah while they are not in reality. Some of them start by saying ‘Allah’. Then they might omit the alif and say ‘Allah’ without an extention, or they might omit the haa’ and say Allaa. Among them are those who say, “Aah”, which, according to the consensus of the linguists, is an expression of pain and complaint. Some of them have exaggerated and claimed that this expression makes the realization and manifestation of matters more likely than the name ‘Allah’. Al-Khaliyl Ibn Ahmad said[7]:
لَا تُطْرَحُ الأَلف مِنْ الِاسْمِ إِنَّمَا هُوَ اللَّهُ عَزَّ ذِكْرُهُ عَلَى التَّمَامِ
“The alif is not thrown away. Rather, he is Allah, whose name is glorified …”
Some from this group of Shaathiliyyah said that this perversion did not come from the shaykh of the tariyqah, Abu-l-Hasan Ash-Shaathiliyy, may Allah accept his deeds, rather, this came from the Shaathiliyyah of Fez.


Among the innovated practices is punishing the person who copies a book authored by someone else without his permission or the permission of the publisher, by fining him or imprisoning him. They write in the publishing, “All rights reserved for the author or publisher.” This innovation opposes the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger, and no one from the Salaf or the Khalaf did it, rather it was innovated approximately 200 years ago following the Europeans. Had this been permissible, then the Salaf would have been in more need of it, because their authoring books came with greater exhaustion. One of those authors would make his own pen, and have to sharpen it, and if it would break he would have to sharpen it again, to the extent that he would have accumulated abundant shavings. They used to also make their ink with their hands. Dispite all of this effort, none of them did this prevention. They did not object to those who used to copy their books and sell them on the market. After seeing the effort that they put, some of those who practice this innovation in this day of ours erroneously say to prove their point that they have tired their minds by their authoring.


[It has become clear that] the people of knowledge innovated what does not contradict the Qur’aan or the hadiyths, such as the invention of the hollow mihraab, the Athaan tower, the dots and vowels of the Qur’aan, the tariyqahs of the Suwfiyyah and the Mawlid.
These are good innovations that fall under the hadiyth:
مَنْ سَنَّ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً، فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَأَجْرُ مَنْ عَمِلَ بِهَا بَعْدَهُ، مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يَنْقُصَ مِنْ أُجُورِهِمْ شَيْءٌ
“Whoever starts in Islaam a good practice (sunnah) has its reward and the reward of whoever practices it after him until Judgement Day, without lessening any of their rewards…”
So whoever says that these are bad innovations is an ignoramous whose speech is not given any consideration. Whoever opposes this is an arrogant deviant, because the implication of his talk is that those Companions who were given the good news of Paradise like ^Umar and ^ Uthmaan were upon misguidance. ^Umar gathered the people in congregation for the Taraawiyh after the people prayed it as individuals during the days of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ. ^Umar said, “What a good innovation this is,” as previously mentioned. ^ Uthmaan innovated the second Athaan on Friday. This second Athaan did not exist during the days of the Messenger of Allah, and the people never ceased to call this second Athaan on Fridays throughout the east and the west.
If it were said that this [aforementioned] hadiyth means, ‘Whoever innovates something during the life of the Messenger of Allah’, but what is innovated after his life is not permissible, the response is: ‘specification is not confirmed unless there is evidence.’ In this case, the evidence gives what opposes their claim, because the Messenger of Allah said:
مَنْ سَنَّ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ
“Whoever starts in Islaam…”
And he did not say, “Whoever starts something during my life,” nor did he say, “whoever revives something that I did previously.” [The hadiyths says “whoever starts something good in Islaam”], and Islaam is not restricterd to the life of the Prophet, so their claim is invalid.
If it is said that the reason for this hadiyth is that some extremely poor people who covered themselves with the likes of rags and sheets came to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, and when he saw their intense poverty he was saddened, so some people started giving charity until a considerable amount was piled for them, so the Prophet’s face changed and he said:
مَنْ سَنَّ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً، فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا، وَأَجْرُ مَنْ عَمِلَ بِهَا بَعْدَهُ، مِنْ غَيْرِ أَنْ يَنْقُصَ مِنْ أُجُورِهِمْ شَيْءٌ
“Whoever starts in Islaam a good practice (sunnah) has its reward and the reward of whoever practices it after him until Judgement Day, without lessening any of their rewards…”,
the answer is that the consideration is given to the generality of the expression, not the specific reason of the incident, as mentioned by the scholars of Usuwl.
Some of them might use as a evidence the hadiyth:
مَنْ أَحْدَثَ فِى أَمْرِنَا هذا مَا لَيْسَ مِنْهُ فَهُوَ رَدٌّ
and they would be unaware that the [true] meaning of the hadiyth refers to what does not comply with the Religion. It would be said to them that the masjids- the Prophet’s masjid and other masjids- did not have these hollowed indicators for the Prayer direction during the life of the Messenger of Allah, nor did they have the Athaan tower. They were invented at the end of the first century by the guided Caliph ^Umar Ibn ^Abdi-l-^Aziyz. The Muslims accepted that from him, and you do not object to it, in fact you agree with it, so how do you object to the tariyqah, the Mawlid, and the likes of that, by saying that they were not mentioned in the Qur’aan or the hadiyth. You agree with what you like and object to what you do not like without evidence.
As for the hadiyth:
وَإِيَّاكُمْ وَمُحْدَثَاتِ الْأُمُورِ، فَإِنَّ كُلَّ مُحْدَثَةٍ بِدْعَةٌ، وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ
“Beware of the newly invented matters, for surely every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misgidance,”
the good innovation is not included in it because this hadiyth is among the texts that have general wording but specific meaning; it is specific to the innovation that contradicts the Religion, as proven by the hadiyth:
مَنْ سَنَّ فِي الْإِسْلَامِ سُنَّةً حَسَنَةً، فَلَهُ أَجْرُهَا
“Whoever starts a good practice (sunnah) in Islaam has its reward…”
The hadiyths of the Messenger support eachother and do not contradict eachother. Specifying what is general for for a meaning taken from a text or mental evidence is acceptable to all of the scholars, and had that been abandoned, then many religious judgments would be lost, and there would be contradiction in the texts. The people of knowledge know if a generality is specified by some other textual or mental evidence. That general hadiyth is like the saying of Allah:
<(تُدَمِّرُ كُلَّ شَيْءٍ)>

It means that the wind destroyed everything that it blew upon, such as the people of ^Aad and their assets. It does not mean that it destroyed everything; the heavens and earth entirely. An-Nawawiyy said this in his explanation of Sahiyh Muslim, as well as:
وَكُلَّ بِدْعَةٍ ضَلَالَةٌ هَذَا عَامٌّ مَخْصُوصٌ وَالْمُرَادُ غَالِبُ الْبِدَعِ
“Every innovation is misguidance: this is general wording of specified meaning. What is meant by it is most innovations.”
So what is wrong with those who disturb the peace and object to the Muslims for practicing the Mawlid out of thanks to Allah for bringing our master Muhammad in this world in Rabiy^ al-Awwal? They practice it by reciting some Qur’aan, reciting his biography, and whatever goes along with that. Some of them said that whatever was slaughtered for feeding the people on the Mawlid is worse than swine. They also object to making the Salaah on the Prophet after the Athaan aloud. Muhammad Ibn ^Abdi-l-Wahhaab murdered a blind man who did so. In Damascus in the masjid called Jaami^ Daqqaaq, one of the followers of Al-Albaaniyy said that doing so is like committing insest with one’s mother. We say: How could this be objectionable when the Messenger of Allah said:
مَنْ ذُكِرْتُ عِنْدَهُ فَلْيُصَلِّ عَلَيَّ
“Let whomever I was mentioned in his presence make the Salaah upon me.”
The Mu’aththin mentions him within the Athaan, so it is expected of him to make the Salaah on the Prophet ﷺ, whether with a low voice or aloud, even if it was not narrated from the Companions that they used to do that aloud, for the lack of finding something is not evidence for its non-existence. The Messenger of Allah did not say, ‘Whoever mentions me, let him make the Salaah on me with a low voice.’ Haafidh As-Sakhaawiyy narrated this hadiyth in his book Al-Qawl Al-Badiy^ and he deemed its chain of narration strong.
Let them retract their corrupt statement. If they want to practice their fraudulent principle let them erase the dots, vowel slashes and the like from the mushaf. [Their claim that this is exempted because there is a need for it is invalid, for we only need to ask them what they will refuse to answer: is it permissible to do what the Prophet ﷺ did not do, yes or no? If they say yes, then they cannot object to the Mawlid or the Salaah on the Prophet aloud after the Athaan. If they say no, then they should erase the dots from the Book of Allah]. Whoever wants to know the meaning of ‘bid^ah’, let him rely on this definition presented by Ash-Shaafi^iyy, for it is absolutely correct. Whoever deviates from that for something else, then he has niether been honest with himself nor with the Muslims, rather he is indulging in trickery and deception.
***وسبحان الله و بحمده***

[1] Frequently used to refer to the narrations of the Companions and those who come after them.

[2] Idhhaar Al-^Aqiydah As-Sunniyyah, pg 365, fourth edition

[3] He is also famous as: 3Izzu-d-Diyn Ibn 3Abdu-s-Salaam

[4] This is in reference to the one who wants to convey the hadiyth and interpret the Qur’aan.

[5]Sariyh Al-Bayaan, pg. 281, first edition; Ash-Sharh Al-Qawiym, pg. 415, sixth edition

[6]Sariyh Al-Bayaan, pg. 282, first edition

[7]لسان العرب (13 / 467):

Multicultural Mawlid Concert 2016