In this article, I'll be taking a look at Shaykh Uthman ibn Farooq's explanation as to why the Mawlid is prohibited, may God preserve him. My main goal is not to refute him, but to cast doubt as to whether his explanation is actually logical. As a layman, I have no ability to make rulings myself, but I can question what's meant to presented to us, and that's the goal of this post.
Shaykh Uthman's first point is that proof for the mawlid cannot be found within the Quran. I agree there.
Shaykh Uthman's second point is that the ahadith don't have a single reference to celebrating the Prophet's mawlid, صلى الله عليه وسلم. This is crucial as he had a great number of opportunities to expound upon his birth and give orders for the Ummah to celebrate it, as he did with the 'Eids, Ramadan, and the Jumm'ah prayer. Yet, we have no record of that, and we also have no record of the Sahabah celebrating his mawlid. In addition, none of the early scholars mention it or endorse it.
However, for something to be mubah (permissible), it does not have to be mentioned in the ahadith or the Quran or by the early scholars. In fact, all actions are assumed to be permissible unless there's proof indicating otherwise. So this point does not actually contribute to the claim that mawlids are impermissible.
He then mentions that the idea originated by a Shi'i group nearly 600 years after the Prophet peace be upon him, according to the majority of scholars. It should be mentioned that the origin of the idea is irrelevant if we're speaking from a purely logical perspective. Yes, it's fair to use this information to cast doubt on the idea, and the doubt should lead to an investigation, but no investigation should conclude that an idea is misguided based on merely its origin (unless the origin must be affirmed with the idea). So I'll put this point aside to focus on more relevant points.
He also refutes a point often brought up by Sufis, which is that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم at least seemed to indicate that celebrating his birth in some way is permissible. They back their point with the following hadith, which occured after the Prophet was asked about fasting on Monday:
It is (the day) when I was born and revelation was sent down to me.
Shaykh Uthman refutes this point by saying that the Prophet peace be upon him merely remarked this fact regarding the day Monday, but he did not give it the status of being ratio legis, that is that the Prophet fasted because he was born on Monday. He also mentions that the Prophet has made various different remarks when asked about Monday, such as the following:
the Messenger of Allah said: "Deeds are presented on Monday and Thursday, and I love that my deeds be presented while I am fasting."
Since he does not consistently mention his birth, it cannot be assumed that his birth is an actual reason for fasting. He states that the above hadith presents the actual reason, and while I cannot see how this is the case from the English syntax (it seems no different from the former hadith), I'll put this point aside as it makes no difference to the refutation. I agree that this line of argument is weak, and Shaykh Uthman's refutation is sufficient. However, this does not refute mawlids in general since permissibility needs no argument, and it's the presumed state of any action unless there's evidence indicating otherwise.
Shaykh Uthman then makes an analogy that throwing a celebration on Monday is like throwing a celebration on Shawwal because there's reward for fasting 6 days in Shawwal, and that would be changing the religion. A few things should be noted. First, this is not analgous, because the mawlid is not celebrated because of the fasting. It merely happened that fasting takes place during that day (as Sh. Uthamn himself said). Second, while some claim that there's more reward for learning about the Prophet during mawlid, it would be uncharitable to target this position. The etiquette of refutation demands that we steelman arguments, that is give them the best possible case, and then refute, rather than picking the weaker position to refute. So if that's the position being targeted, then the video has already lost some educational value (especially since this fact was assumed and not explicitly mentioned). Third, it would only be changing the religion because fasting is meant to be concealed and not bragged about, whereas no such condition applies to teaching the seerah. But assuming a festival doesn't hinder that point, and it's not made out to be obligatory, then is there anything wrong with having a festival after the fasting is over to gather and eat? This is a practice already well established in Ramadan, yet it would be changing the religion if we're to do it in the month of Shawwal? That seems odd to me.
He then goes on to mention that the Prophet showed us everything that'll get us closer to heaven. I agree, that's exactly why we've allocated a time during the year to teach about the Prophet peace be upon him! It could be argued that we should not do this, and we should instead encourage programs that are yearly long. I agree, but this is a point of pragmatism, not permissibility. And in any case, a day is better than no day, and a month is better than a day, and so on. So if there's a mawlid nearby (which has nothing haram), and one has not done much within the year to educate themselves about the Prophet, then why not attend?
Regarding the point on the mawlid being a bid'ah, as stated earlier, we acknowledge that learning about the Prophet and applying his sunnah gets one closer to heaven. I agree that doing those things, whether during the mawlid or during any other time, makes absolutely no difference. I also agree that certain cultures have become mawlid fanatics, where they essentially treat this matter as obligatory, and shame anyone who doesn't wish to attend as, calling them either wahhabis or extremist salafis. However, these facts should not deter us from the essence of what the mawlid is: learning about the Prophet peace be upon him during his birthday or birth month. If a mawlid has something haram, then I agree, it should be avoided. If people are saying it's obligatory or that you'll get more rewards from learning during mawlid, then I agree, those positions should be refuted. Regardless if the host of the mawlid holds these positions, however, the mawlid itself can still prove to be beneficial and useful if all activities contained within it are halal.
There's one last point I should address: if there's nothing inherently special about the mawlid, why have the mawlid? In my opinion, it's purely thematic. If you're running a masjid and you want to choose a month to teach about the Prophet's life, then what better month than the month that he was born in? Or what better day than the day that he was born in? And I say better here only in regards to themes, not in regards to reward in the afterlife. All the reward from attending a mawlid, inshallah, would purely come from the fact that they'd be spending time with scholars and learning about the deen, and hopefully applying it.
In conclusion, I don't believe the video gave any evidence as to suggest the impermissibility of mawlids. Rather, it only disproved, that mawlids are not a special time for rewards. I hope my thoughts have been logical, and if I said anything correct, then it's only because of God's guidance, and if I said anything wrong, then it's from myself. Jazkallahu khair for reading.