Their argument that the compilation of the Qur'an is a good innovation, and the refutation of their position.

The Shaykh : The first of these categories is an obligatory innovation; a mandatory obligation, I mean. The first example is the compilation of the Noble Qur'an. The compilation of the Noble Qur'an is an innovation in the religion, Allahu Akbar! If the Messenger (peace be upon him) refined our speech to the point where he said: , , and so on, of the verbal etiquettes that the Messenger (peace be upon him) taught us, how can we say? The foundation of Islam, which is the Qur'an, its compilation is an innovation in the religion. Even if we describe it as a good innovation, how can we describe it as an innovation? It means a newly introduced matter, even though the Qur'an was compiled during the lifetime of the Messenger (peace be upon him). However, it was a primitive compilation according to the means available in that era, on the one hand, and because the Qur'an was revealed according to what? The circumstances and occasions. So Abu Bakr and 'Umar ibn al-Khattab compiled the first compilation of this Noble Qur'an between two covers. They call this an obligatory innovation? We say: This is not an innovation; it is a matter of the religion. But here is a lesson that it is not fitting for us to pass over without mentioning; this obligatory matter, which is preserving the Noble Qur'an from being lost among people. Do you know what the position of the first Caliph was regarding the proposal presented to him to compile the Qur'an? May the position of these people be like the position of Abu Bakr regarding the compilation of the Qur'an. I say this example is, in fact, also among the warnings about the danger of innovation in the concept of the righteous Salaf. When the proposal was presented to Abu Bakr to compile the Qur'an in a form that was certainly not the way it was in the time of the Messenger (peace be upon him); that is: between two covers; what was the position of Abu Bakr, and likewise Zayd ibn Thabit, when he was tasked with performing this duty? How can you do something that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do? The first Caliph expressed fear of introducing something into the religion regarding the compilation of the Qur'an: How can you do something that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do? So one of them kept convincing the other and explaining that this is a necessary matter, and that what is not completed without is obligatory. 'Umar said: Until Allah expanded my chest for what He had expanded the chest of Abu Bakr for. Likewise Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him). So they compiled the Qur'an.
This compilation has decisive evidence for its obligation, so this is not a matter of juristic preference in the religion, as is the case with many innovations.
Likewise, for example, the expulsion of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab of the Jews from Khaybar. This is a matter that occurred after the Messenger (peace be upon him), but it is not an innovation in the religion; because an innovation in the religion is introducing a form of worship that the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not legislate, neither by his saying, nor his doing, nor his approval. As for the expulsion of the Jews, the Messenger (peace be upon him) ordered that, saying: . So 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, indeed, in the covenant that the Messenger (peace be upon him) made with the Jews, he said to them: ; meaning the Messenger (peace be upon him) agreed with the Jews that they remain in Khaybar. He had conquered it by the sword, forcibly and against the will of the Jews, but they were people of agriculture, so he left them to exploit this land on a fifty-fifty basis: half the produce for the Messenger (peace be upon him) and the Muslims, and the other half for the Jews. But this was not forever; he said to them (peace be upon him) in the contract: . The Jews agreed to that. Then it occurred to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab that the time had come to expel the Jews from Khaybar; because the Ansar themselves had become capable of cultivating the land... so he expelled them. This expulsion, without doubt, was after the Messenger (peace be upon him), but it is not called an innovation in the religion; because 'Umar did not do anything that the Messenger (peace be upon him) did not order him to do; rather, he executed the order of the Messenger (peace be upon him).
So we do not agree with calling this an innovation in the religion. But as we said earlier, if they insist on calling this type of matter that occurred after the Messenger (peace be upon him) an innovation in the religion; we say: This is your terminology. You call this thing an innovation in the religion. We do not call it an innovation in the religion, but rather it is an innovation linguistically; meaning it occurred after the Messenger. This is a newly introduced matter without doubt, but this newly introduced matter is sometimes a legislative matter and sometimes an innovation.
When do we distinguish between what is a legislative matter and what is an innovation, considering ? If the legal evidence establishes that this newly introduced matter is permissible by the Shari'ah, like the action of 'Umar and the compilation of the Qur'an; then we do not call it an innovation, but rather it is a prescribed matter. If you call it a good innovation; then at that time we say: There is no dispute in terminology, despite our desire to avoid this naming. But you have brought evidence that what 'Umar did was by the permission of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him and his family). So the difference remains verbal.
And in the next lesson - if Allah wills - we will address some other examples of what they argue for juristic preference in the religion, which are not of that sort at all. And I will begin - if Allah wills - with this saying of 'Umar regarding the Tarawih prayer: "What a good innovation this is," and we will explain to you that 'Umar's action in the Tarawih prayer is exactly like his action where he expelled the Jews from Khaybar, and that it is not an innovation in the religion in any way.
This is sufficient for now...