Some of our noble brothers deal with the people of innovation and praise them; what is the ruling on that? And he committed an error and then retracted it, which was his saying “opinion” regarding the Shari'ah.

The questioner : The Shaykh :

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : May Allah reward you and bless you. Praise be to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). In the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the people of innovation are few.

The Shaykh : Raise your voice.

The questioner : I say that, with the praise of Allah, the people of innovation in Saudi Arabia are few, and those who exist among them are not prominent, and praise be to Allah (Mighty and Majestic). But the issue is that some of our noble brothers, whom we testify to as being good, though we do not declare them pure before Allah, deal with the people of innovation from outside this country, such as the Sufis and others with deviant ideas. They deal with them and praise them. This is the issue that occupies us. It is not a matter of specific individuals present in Saudi Arabia. So what is the ruling on those who are outside this society? The society, I mean, has very few of them, and even those few are not prominent. But some of our brothers praise the people of innovation from abroad, thereby displaying their ideas in one way or another, either by praising them or by adopting some of their methodologies. This is the subject of the question, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : The question is not clear. The question is ambiguous. First, you say that in Saudi Arabia there are no innovators except those from outside.

The questioner : I say they are few.

The Shaykh : Few, okay. And what is behind the fact that they are few?

The questioner : I mean, the question is not intended to be about the Kingdom.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : I say the question is not intended to target a specific individual in the Kingdom.

The Shaykh : I did not intend a specific individual, and the questioner did not intend a specific individual. So what is behind that?

The questioner : I mean, some of the brotherhood of da'wah (callers) deal with some of the innovators whose ideas do not appear in Saudi Arabia. They deal with them with reverence and respect.

The Shaykh : Perhaps their dealing with them is from the perspective I mentioned earlier, that boycotting them is not beneficial. Is such a response appropriate, or is it not?

The questioner : When one of the innovators is described as a reformer, is this considered from the perspective that boycotting him is not beneficial?

The Shaykh : No. If he is not a reformer, it is not considered.

The questioner : Can an innovator, O Shaykh, be a reformer?

The Shaykh : No, he is not an innovator; he is mistaken and deluded. Here a question arises: Does everyone who commits an innovation become an innovator?

The questioner : No, Shaykh.

The Shaykh : You must know this fact: Does everyone who commits a sin become an open sinner? The answer to both questions is no. Then, as I indicated earlier in answering the first question, I pointed out that there are matters of scholarly disagreement. If a scholar holds a certain view, and that view is contrary to the correct Sunnah, but he is an imam among the imams of the Muslims, do we say that he is an open sinner? I think any student of knowledge would agree with me that he is not, because he is a mujtahid (scholar qualified to derive rulings). We move to the one who follows that imam. If he follows that imam, thinking that the imam is correct in his statement, and he is unable to distinguish between the authentic and the weak among what the scholars have disagreed upon, does that follower also become an innovator? The answer is no. So, may Allah bless you, do not cling to such matters that have been raised in your arena, because the matter involves extreme precision. If we opened this door, no imam among the imams of the Muslims would be safe from being labeled an innovator or an open sinner, if not ending up in declaring them disbelievers, because they fell into something of the innovation or open sinfulness mentioned earlier, but they did not intend any of it at all. Rather, it occurred from them through independent legal reasoning. You may know that among the righteous Salaf (earliest generations) there were those who held that if a man touches a woman, his ablution is broken, and consequently his prayer is invalid. And there were others who held that there is no issue with touching a woman. And a third group took a middle position, distinguishing and saying that if the touch is for sexual desire, the ablution is broken, otherwise it is not. Did these people label each other as innovators or open sinners? And by that, judge what is more serious than that. There were some of the great Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) who held the view of the first Shari'ah. I seek forgiveness from Allah for saying “the first opinion.” Rather, they held the first Shari'ah, which was that if a man has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate, he does not have to perform the full ritual bath; the ablution is sufficient for him. Although the hadith...
The student : If this word, O our Shaykh, is now retracted by the brothers, then it returns to it.

The Shaykh : How?
The student : When I said “I seek forgiveness from Allah.”

The Shaykh : Yes.
The student : ... it is sometimes exploited, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : No, no, let it be. This word is very beneficial.
The student : It may not be placed, O our Shaykh...

The Shaykh : It is not our concern, my brother. The one who wants to corrupt will corrupt with the Qur'an. He says: and stops.
The student : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : ... but we say there is a double benefit in this. The first benefit is that the Shaykh makes a mistake and follows his mistake with seeking forgiveness. The second benefit is that it is not permissible for anyone to say “opinion” regarding the Shari'ah. This is a sin that is prevalent today among people on the radio. They say, “A question came to us: What is the opinion of the Shari'ah regarding such-and-such?” Do you not hear this question... This is an error. The Shari'ah does not have an opinion; it has a ruling. We have an opinion because we err and hit the mark. But the Shari'ah has a ruling. A ruling and a decree, and so on. But we have an opinion, so we hit the mark and err, and so on. So I almost, for your sake, O Abu Ahmad, almost said “opinion of the Shari'ah,” but I retracted and sought forgiveness from my Lord. But in this is a warning: O listeners, do not ask “What is the opinion of the Shari'ah regarding such-and-such?” Say “What is the ruling of the Shari'ah regarding such-and-such?”
The student : May Allah preserve you.

The Shaykh : So in the first Shari'ah, if one had intercourse with his wife and did not ejaculate, he did not have to perform the full ritual bath; he only had to perform the ablution. Yes, peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Welcome. Please, Fath?
The student : Fath, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : This electrical current sometimes weakens, it doesn't help. And among those who held this view, after the death of the Messenger (peace be upon him) by about twenty years, were some of the great Companions.
The student: Peace be upon you.

The Shaykh : Peace be upon you. So what do we say to this noble Companion? We say he erred; the other text that abrogated the first text did not reach him. Therefore, among the scholars of the Muslims, some of the four imams issue a fatwa permitting something, and then the text comes prohibiting it. Do we say he committed open sinfulness? Far from it. Rather, he exercised independent legal reasoning and erred, so he has a reward in any case. Therefore, today, Muslims should live together with good intentions toward one another, and not hate one another, nor hold grudges, nor envy one another, and be as Allah (Mighty and Majestic) commanded, brothers. Good, otherwise.