Is it permissible to apply the term bid'ah (religious innovation) to one who disagrees on matters of worship?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : The third question: What is the Shaykh's opinion regarding one who, when he disagrees with others on matters related to worship, such as determining the duration of shortening the prayer, the prayer of tasbih, and others, says that the opposing view is a bid'ah (religious innovation)? This is because if it is more likely in his view that the duration is not determined, then determining it is, in his view, a contradiction of the Sunnah, and contradicting the Sunnah in matters of worship is a bid'ah (religious innovation), and so on with other disagreements. Is it permissible to apply the term bid'ah (religious innovation) to the one who disagrees?
The Shaykh : There is a verbal error in the question, perhaps a verbal one. Applying the term bid'ah (religious innovation) to the person who disagrees is one thing, and applying the term bid'ah (religious innovation) to the issue in which the Sunnah was contradicted is another thing.
The difference is: saying "So-and-so is an innovator" is one thing, and saying "This issue that so-and-so speaks about is a bid'ah (religious innovation)" is another thing. This distinction is very necessary, because we believe, along with the accurate scholars, and at their head Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), that no scholar is free from some error. This is a matter on which no two people differ, and no two camels butt heads over it, as they used to say in old times. No scholar is free from falling into an error. Now, we branch out from this agreed-upon matter: the error may be in legalizing what Allah has forbidden, or in forbidding what Allah has made lawful, or in denying a Sunnah, or in accepting a bid'ah (religious innovation). This is a reality that has no defense; it cannot be denied. So, if a scholar, whatever scholar he is, says: "This issue is lawful," but he knows that so-and-so from the people of knowledge said: "It is forbidden," then the one who says it is forbidden is in error without doubt, and he is consequently mistaken, but he is rewarded, because he did not say it except through independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). And so the chain of the topic continues until we reach the core of the issue.
If a claimant like me claims that a certain issue, as we mentioned earlier in some examples, is a bid'ah (religious innovation), I do not mean that the one who said this word, and I see it as a bid'ah (religious innovation), is described as an innovator. Because the word "innovator" means that it is his nature and his habit to innovate and innovate, so he took this name... and its example is well known... *Al-Jami' al-Saghir* (The Small Comprehensive), whether in the authentic or the weak, but the authentic one specifically is attributed only to al-Tirmidhi... that he is just. He does not take this description merely because he did it once, but he takes it when justice prevails in him, so it is said that he is just, even if he did the opposite in some cases and was unjust. The criterion is what prevails in a person of good or evil, of correctness or error, and the like. So there is no strangeness in saying "So-and-so erred in saying this is lawful while it is forbidden," or the opposite, or in saying "This statement is a bid'ah (religious innovation) in the religion," because this is our view. But we do not mean by this that the one from whom this bid'ah (religious innovation) came is an innovator, because of what we mentioned earlier, that the word "innovator" means that it is his affair to innovate. Therefore, we must distinguish when we hear, and I feel that the intended meaning of this question is my statement that I made more than twenty years ago, perhaps, and it is still printed to this day, and I am still insistent on it, that placing the hands on the chest after bowing is a bid'ah (religious innovation). This does not mean that the one who adopted this is an innovator, but I believe that this statement is a bid'ah (religious innovation). Why? Because the righteous Salaf did not do it, and this is the definition of bid'ah (religious innovation) according to all scholars. Yes, those who say that this placement is a Sunnah have their evidence, and therefore their matter is like my matter and the matter of others with us in this issue, revolving between being rewarded or we being rewarded two rewards, or one group being rewarded one reward and the other group two rewards. But this expression that it is a bid'ah (religious innovation) means that the Salaf did not do it, and this is an act of worship. So I do not know why this issue is criticized, while for example, what is attributed to Abu Hanifa of statements in which he contradicted the Sunnah, and perhaps contradicted the statements of the Imams of the Salaf and the Companions, and so on, is not criticized. Yet he remains an Imam among the Imams of the Muslims, because the criterion is what prevails in him of correctness, not what is rare in him of error. And so, as Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "There is no one among us except that he was refuted and refuted others, except the one in this grave". Perhaps the matter has become clear in this speech regarding that question.
The Shaykh : There is a verbal error in the question, perhaps a verbal one. Applying the term bid'ah (religious innovation) to the person who disagrees is one thing, and applying the term bid'ah (religious innovation) to the issue in which the Sunnah was contradicted is another thing.
The difference is: saying "So-and-so is an innovator" is one thing, and saying "This issue that so-and-so speaks about is a bid'ah (religious innovation)" is another thing. This distinction is very necessary, because we believe, along with the accurate scholars, and at their head Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him), that no scholar is free from some error. This is a matter on which no two people differ, and no two camels butt heads over it, as they used to say in old times. No scholar is free from falling into an error. Now, we branch out from this agreed-upon matter: the error may be in legalizing what Allah has forbidden, or in forbidding what Allah has made lawful, or in denying a Sunnah, or in accepting a bid'ah (religious innovation). This is a reality that has no defense; it cannot be denied. So, if a scholar, whatever scholar he is, says: "This issue is lawful," but he knows that so-and-so from the people of knowledge said: "It is forbidden," then the one who says it is forbidden is in error without doubt, and he is consequently mistaken, but he is rewarded, because he did not say it except through independent legal reasoning (ijtihad). And so the chain of the topic continues until we reach the core of the issue.
If a claimant like me claims that a certain issue, as we mentioned earlier in some examples, is a bid'ah (religious innovation), I do not mean that the one who said this word, and I see it as a bid'ah (religious innovation), is described as an innovator. Because the word "innovator" means that it is his nature and his habit to innovate and innovate, so he took this name... and its example is well known... *Al-Jami' al-Saghir* (The Small Comprehensive), whether in the authentic or the weak, but the authentic one specifically is attributed only to al-Tirmidhi... that he is just. He does not take this description merely because he did it once, but he takes it when justice prevails in him, so it is said that he is just, even if he did the opposite in some cases and was unjust. The criterion is what prevails in a person of good or evil, of correctness or error, and the like. So there is no strangeness in saying "So-and-so erred in saying this is lawful while it is forbidden," or the opposite, or in saying "This statement is a bid'ah (religious innovation) in the religion," because this is our view. But we do not mean by this that the one from whom this bid'ah (religious innovation) came is an innovator, because of what we mentioned earlier, that the word "innovator" means that it is his affair to innovate. Therefore, we must distinguish when we hear, and I feel that the intended meaning of this question is my statement that I made more than twenty years ago, perhaps, and it is still printed to this day, and I am still insistent on it, that placing the hands on the chest after bowing is a bid'ah (religious innovation). This does not mean that the one who adopted this is an innovator, but I believe that this statement is a bid'ah (religious innovation). Why? Because the righteous Salaf did not do it, and this is the definition of bid'ah (religious innovation) according to all scholars. Yes, those who say that this placement is a Sunnah have their evidence, and therefore their matter is like my matter and the matter of others with us in this issue, revolving between being rewarded or we being rewarded two rewards, or one group being rewarded one reward and the other group two rewards. But this expression that it is a bid'ah (religious innovation) means that the Salaf did not do it, and this is an act of worship. So I do not know why this issue is criticized, while for example, what is attributed to Abu Hanifa of statements in which he contradicted the Sunnah, and perhaps contradicted the statements of the Imams of the Salaf and the Companions, and so on, is not criticized. Yet he remains an Imam among the Imams of the Muslims, because the criterion is what prevails in him of correctness, not what is rare in him of error. And so, as Imam Malik (may Allah have mercy on him) said: "There is no one among us except that he was refuted and refuted others, except the one in this grave". Perhaps the matter has become clear in this speech regarding that question.