Mufti Ibn Abidin. Another Hanafi Mufti Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 A.H.) too supported the celebration of the Mawlid and wrote a text on the subject as did the Moroccan Maliki scholar Muḥammad ibn Jaʿfar al-Kattānī (d. 1345 A.H.). Ibn al-Jazari (d. 833 A.H.), a Syrian Shafi'i scholar considers the celebration of the Mawlid to be a means of gaining Paradise. In the Muslim world, the majority of Sunni Islamic scholars are in favor of the Mawlid. Examples include the former Grand Mufi of Al-Azhar University Ali Gomaa, Muhammad Alawi al-Maliki of Saudi Arabia, Yusuf al-Qaradawi the primary scholar of the Muslim Brotherhood movement, Habib Ali al-Jifri, Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, Muhammad bin Yahya al-Ninowy of Syria, president of the Heritage and History Committee of the United Arab Emirates Muhammad ibn Ahmad al-Khazraji and Zaid Shakir, all of whom subscribe to Sunni Islam, have given their approval for the observance of Mawlid. Opposition Ibn Taymiyya's position on the Mawlid has been described as "paradoxical" and "complex" by some academics. He ruled that it was a reprehensible (makrūh) devotional innovation and criticised those who celebrated the Mawlid out of a desire to imitate the Christian celebration of Jesus's birthday. At the same time, he recognised that some observe Muhammad's birthday out of a desire to show their love and reverence of him and thus deserve a great reward for their good intentions. The Salafi writer Hamid al-Fiqi (d. 1959) criticised Ibn Taymiyya for holding this view and stating that "How can they receive a reward for this when they are opposing the guidance of God's Messenger (pbuh)?". Taj al-Din al-Fakihani (d. 1331), an Egyptian Maliki, considered Mawlid to be a blameworthy innovation that was either makruh or haram. Al-Fakihani said that there was no basis of this in the Book of God, nor in the Sunnah of the Prophet, and that there was no observance of it on authority of scholars of the umma. He said that it was a “bida that was introduced by idlers, and a delight to which gluttons abandon themselves.” He mentioned how the five legal categories included whether it is compulsory, meritorious, permitted, reprehensible, or forbidden. He said it was not compulsory, meritorious, or permitted, and therefore it was reprehensible or forbidden. He said that it was reprehensible when a person observed at their own expense without doing more at the gathering than to eat and abstain from doing