Is every person who disagrees with the people of the Sunnah on an issue or belief an innovator? And are all innovators treated in the same way, or is there a distinction among them?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The other question, O Shaykh, asks: Is every person who disagrees with the people of the Sunnah on an issue or belief an innovator? And are all innovators treated in the same way, or is there a distinction among them? And what is the criterion for this?
The Shaykh : First: It is obligatory for us to be aware that religious innovation is a forbidden matter in Islam, and that in this regard, the ruling on religious innovation does not differ from the ruling on any other forbidden thing. The one who commits a religious innovation is in the same position as the one who commits a forbidden act. If we remember this fact, is every person who commits a forbidden act punished by Allah (Mighty and Majestic), or is it possible that he is not? In my opinion, if we set aside the topic of religious innovation, even temporarily, and discuss the one who commits a forbidden act, the answer will become clear to all those present, if Allah wills. Not every person who commits a forbidden act is a sinner. Not every person who commits a forbidden act is a sinner. The reason is that he may commit it without knowing its prohibition, and in that case, he is not held accountable. Moreover, which is not strange for people of knowledge, nor for students of knowledge if they remember the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):Mishkat al-Masabih 3732. So, if there is a scholar who exercises independent legal reasoning and commits a violation of the Shari'ah, meaning he commits a forbidden act, but this was due to his independent legal reasoning, then not only is he not considered a sinner, but he is considered to have earned one reward because he exercised independent legal reasoning and made a mistake.
Once we understand this distinction regarding the one who commits a forbidden act, we can use it as a preamble for the one who falls into a religious innovation or commits a religious innovation. But before that, the matter may require us to ask: Is it conceivable that a scholar among the Muslim scholars commits a forbidden act and is rewarded for it? This may be theoretically distant from the minds of some people. I say: There are many, many examples. The schools of jurisprudence, as you know, differ on some issues. One says: It is permissible, and the other says: It is not permissible. This prayer is valid, and that prayer is not valid. Let us give an example: A man prays without ablution. First, his prayer is not valid. But is it permissible for him to pray without ablution? Of course, it is not permissible, because it is a mockery of what Allah has legislated; he prays without ritual purity. But now, let us look at this situation: A man performed ablution and blood came out of him, and he prayed. A well-known school of jurisprudence says: His prayer is invalid because he prayed without ritual purity, as his ablution was invalidated. Another says: No, his prayer is valid and his ablution is valid, and so on. If you imagine some of the issues of Islamic jurisprudence, there are many, many examples. One rules that a marriage is valid, and another says: This marriage is invalid. The one who marries an adult woman without the permission of the guardian says: This marriage is valid. Another school of jurisprudence says: This marriage is invalid. The first school, in relation to the second school, has committed a forbidden act, because it issues a ruling that this marriage, which is asked about, is invalid, while it is actually invalid. But the one who said that this marriage is valid is not held accountable; rather, he is rewarded, because he said it based on independent legal reasoning.
If you keep these examples in mind, it will be easy for you to understand that not every person who falls into what is forbidden is a sinner. This is the first point. Rather, the one who falls into what is forbidden after exercising independent legal reasoning is rewarded.
We now move, after this clarification, to the one who falls into religious innovation. We say: The ruling on religious innovation is the ruling on sin, and it is a sin. The one who innovates following his desires is like the one who commits a forbidden act following his desires. The one who falls into religious innovation out of ignorance is like the one who falls into what is forbidden out of ignorance. The one who falls into religious innovation out of independent legal reasoning is like the one who falls into what is forbidden out of independent legal reasoning; both are rewarded with one reward. And with this, the answer is complete. And the summary of this is:
The questioner : So this is the criterion.
The Shaykh: Yes.
And the summary of this is that it is not correct for us to say about a man who falls into what is forbidden that he is an open sinner until we know that he knows the prohibition and confronts the Lord of the Worlds with sin. Then he is an open sinner. Similarly, it is not correct for us to say about a man, whether in the past or in the present, that he is an innovator, even if he has fallen into religious innovation, unless it becomes clear from it that he approves of it following his desires. Then he may commit sin following his desires. Otherwise, we fall into a very big problem: Many of the imams fell into violations, they fell into some innovations, but that was out of independent legal reasoning. Take, for example, the followers of the four schools of jurisprudence today; most of them pray the pre-Friday recommended practice. And what do we say? Innovation, innovation. Do we say: These are innovators? No; because the one who established this recommended practice for them did so out of a mistaken independent legal reasoning.
For this reason, we advise the young Muslim today not to be carried away by their desires and emotions so that they declare some of them innovators, let alone declare some of them disbelievers. And they should fear Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in this matter.
I think the answer is finished?
The questioner : It is finished, but here a question follows a question, as if it means...
The Shaykh : Related.
The questioner : Related, as you have mentioned, O Shaykh, and I think... The questioner asks: When is a person among the people of desires and innovations? Is it merely by his belief in an innovation, or by his calling to it, or by his partisanship and his loyalty and hostility for its sake? Or is there another distinction?
The Shaykh : The answer has already been given.
The questioner : The answer has already been given.
The Shaykh: Yes.
The Shaykh : First: It is obligatory for us to be aware that religious innovation is a forbidden matter in Islam, and that in this regard, the ruling on religious innovation does not differ from the ruling on any other forbidden thing. The one who commits a religious innovation is in the same position as the one who commits a forbidden act. If we remember this fact, is every person who commits a forbidden act punished by Allah (Mighty and Majestic), or is it possible that he is not? In my opinion, if we set aside the topic of religious innovation, even temporarily, and discuss the one who commits a forbidden act, the answer will become clear to all those present, if Allah wills. Not every person who commits a forbidden act is a sinner. Not every person who commits a forbidden act is a sinner. The reason is that he may commit it without knowing its prohibition, and in that case, he is not held accountable. Moreover, which is not strange for people of knowledge, nor for students of knowledge if they remember the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him):
When a judge gives a decision having tried his best to decide correctly and is right, he will have a double reward; and when he gives a decision having tried his best to decide correctly and is wrong, he will have a single reward.
إذا حَكَمَ الحاكم فاجتهد فأصاب ؛ فله أجران ، وإن أخطأ ؛ فله أجر واحدOnce we understand this distinction regarding the one who commits a forbidden act, we can use it as a preamble for the one who falls into a religious innovation or commits a religious innovation. But before that, the matter may require us to ask: Is it conceivable that a scholar among the Muslim scholars commits a forbidden act and is rewarded for it? This may be theoretically distant from the minds of some people. I say: There are many, many examples. The schools of jurisprudence, as you know, differ on some issues. One says: It is permissible, and the other says: It is not permissible. This prayer is valid, and that prayer is not valid. Let us give an example: A man prays without ablution. First, his prayer is not valid. But is it permissible for him to pray without ablution? Of course, it is not permissible, because it is a mockery of what Allah has legislated; he prays without ritual purity. But now, let us look at this situation: A man performed ablution and blood came out of him, and he prayed. A well-known school of jurisprudence says: His prayer is invalid because he prayed without ritual purity, as his ablution was invalidated. Another says: No, his prayer is valid and his ablution is valid, and so on. If you imagine some of the issues of Islamic jurisprudence, there are many, many examples. One rules that a marriage is valid, and another says: This marriage is invalid. The one who marries an adult woman without the permission of the guardian says: This marriage is valid. Another school of jurisprudence says: This marriage is invalid. The first school, in relation to the second school, has committed a forbidden act, because it issues a ruling that this marriage, which is asked about, is invalid, while it is actually invalid. But the one who said that this marriage is valid is not held accountable; rather, he is rewarded, because he said it based on independent legal reasoning.
If you keep these examples in mind, it will be easy for you to understand that not every person who falls into what is forbidden is a sinner. This is the first point. Rather, the one who falls into what is forbidden after exercising independent legal reasoning is rewarded.
We now move, after this clarification, to the one who falls into religious innovation. We say: The ruling on religious innovation is the ruling on sin, and it is a sin. The one who innovates following his desires is like the one who commits a forbidden act following his desires. The one who falls into religious innovation out of ignorance is like the one who falls into what is forbidden out of ignorance. The one who falls into religious innovation out of independent legal reasoning is like the one who falls into what is forbidden out of independent legal reasoning; both are rewarded with one reward. And with this, the answer is complete. And the summary of this is:
The questioner : So this is the criterion.
The Shaykh: Yes.
And the summary of this is that it is not correct for us to say about a man who falls into what is forbidden that he is an open sinner until we know that he knows the prohibition and confronts the Lord of the Worlds with sin. Then he is an open sinner. Similarly, it is not correct for us to say about a man, whether in the past or in the present, that he is an innovator, even if he has fallen into religious innovation, unless it becomes clear from it that he approves of it following his desires. Then he may commit sin following his desires. Otherwise, we fall into a very big problem: Many of the imams fell into violations, they fell into some innovations, but that was out of independent legal reasoning. Take, for example, the followers of the four schools of jurisprudence today; most of them pray the pre-Friday recommended practice. And what do we say? Innovation, innovation. Do we say: These are innovators? No; because the one who established this recommended practice for them did so out of a mistaken independent legal reasoning.
For this reason, we advise the young Muslim today not to be carried away by their desires and emotions so that they declare some of them innovators, let alone declare some of them disbelievers. And they should fear Allah (Mighty and Majestic) in this matter.
I think the answer is finished?
The questioner : It is finished, but here a question follows a question, as if it means...
The Shaykh : Related.
The questioner : Related, as you have mentioned, O Shaykh, and I think... The questioner asks: When is a person among the people of desires and innovations? Is it merely by his belief in an innovation, or by his calling to it, or by his partisanship and his loyalty and hostility for its sake? Or is there another distinction?
The Shaykh : The answer has already been given.
The questioner : The answer has already been given.
The Shaykh: Yes.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.