What is the criterion for classifying a person who falls into religious innovation as an innovator?

The Shaykh : With this criterion, we can determine whether a certain person belongs to the group of innovators or the group of independent legal reasoners. If it becomes clear to us that he was in error, and if it becomes clear to him what the righteous Salaf were upon, and he submits and does not contradict it, then he is with us and on the right path. If he stumbles on a particular issue or many particular issues, we seek an excuse for him. But as you see today—and this may be part of the completion of the answer to your question—those who follow al-Nawawi or others, they are either scholars or non-scholars. We said earlier that if they are non-scholars, they must ask the people of knowledge. If they ask about the Imam al-Nawawi in his books and find that they are convinced by it, and no proof or evidence has come to them from the others who adhere to the practice of the Book, the Sunnah, and the righteous Salaf, then these people are also excused, because they are not required to be independent legal reasoners, as stated earlier by the Lord of the Worlds: . However, these people have no excuse when they cling to the statements of some of the later scholars, as in the example you mentioned, the Imam al-Nawawi. Rather, they are not excused because they do not listen to the evidence of the opposing Muslims. If it is said to them, for example, "He, the Exalted, said: My brother, this is the path of the believers, the first being the Companions, then the Tabi'un, then the Imams. What do you have with al-Nawawi? He comes with your arguments with falsehood, as you know. You say to him: 'Al-Nawawi does not understand?' This is talk! Al-Nawawi understands, and the Companions understand. So which understanding are you obligated to adhere to?!" At that point, the person of the Sunnah is distinguished from the person of innovation when the truth and correctness become clear to him. For this reason, our Lord, Mighty and Majestic, disciplined and directed the general Muslims with His saying, Blessed and Exalted is He, in the noble Qur'an: , . The summary of the answer is this: Just as the independent legal reasoners must devote their effort to knowing the truth in which people differ, so the general Muslims must devote their effort to knowing the truth in which the Imams differ, each according to his ability and capacity. At the least, for example, I say: You have a scholar named Zayd and a scholar named 'Amr. You find your inclination with Zayd, and you find 'Amr saying, "Allah said, the Messenger of Allah said." You find Zayd saying, "That is how it is, my brother, that is how the scholars say, that is how the Shaykhs say," and so on. Then he has not followed the truth, because he knew that 'Amr is more knowledgeable, and Zayd is not a scholar. This is the minimum that the general people should strive for. I do not know if there is anything left of your question?

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good, but there is a problem, something confused me at the beginning of your speech!

The Shaykh : Yes!

The questioner : It fell into the speech of an independent legal reasoner and an innovator.

The Shaykh : No, I do not say that. It may fall into religious innovation. I do not say the independent legal reasoner is an innovator. I said: I hope you will listen to the recording. Listen to me. If I said it this way, then I withdraw it. I say: the independent legal reasoner.

The questioner : He may be an independent legal reasoner who is an innovator.

The Shaykh : I say: The independent legal reasoner may fall into religious innovation, so it is not said that he is an innovator. I hope you will listen to me, otherwise I will erase it. Rewind the tape!

The questioner : A moment ago!

Another questioner : An independent legal reasoner who is an innovator!

The Shaykh : So-and-so is an independent legal reasoner who is an innovator!!

The questioner : Correct?! There is a mistake. He may be an independent legal reasoner who is an innovator.

Another questioner : An innovator through independent legal reasoning, not an independent legal reasoner through innovation!

The Shaykh : Yes, that is right.

The questioner : That is fine, our Shaykh.