Speaking about the definition of religious innovation and warning against it.

The Shaykh: , From this disagreement, we are currently in a situation where some people say: every religious innovation is misguidance, and others say: No, religious innovation is divided into good and bad, and this side of good and bad is detailed into five categories; so what should the general Muslim public, who cannot enter into these research battles and the many arguments among scholars, do? What is the way out for the general Muslim public?
He gave us the answer with complete clarity: , So if you see much disagreement , the problem ends. Are these innovations about which you hear disagreement, between those who approve and those who disapprove, from the Sunnah of the Messenger - peace be upon him - ? The answer is: No, we are not the only ones who say: No, even those who say it is a good innovation say: No; because they describe it as an innovation; meaning something that occurred after the Messenger - peace be upon him - .
Now, this innovation is not from his Sunnah - peace be upon him -, is it from the Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs? They also say: No, for example - by way of example - : celebrating the Prophet's birthday, celebrating the birth of the Messenger - peace be upon him -, they include this in the category of honoring and magnifying him, and magnifying the Messenger - peace be upon him - is an individual obligation for every Muslim, indeed, it is not conceivable that a Muslim does not magnify the Messenger; this is impossible, but here is the problem; how should the magnification of the Messenger - peace be upon him - be? Should the magnification of the Messenger be according to my own desire, my way, my ignorance, or my knowledge, or according to what Allah - Mighty and Majestic - legislated for His Prophet? There is no doubt that magnification must be within the limits of the Shari'ah.
For example, if I visit the Prophet's Mosque and pray in it and come to the grave and greet him; do I prostrate to him? Do I prostrate to him under the claim of what? Magnification? All Muslims say: No, do not prostrate; because this prostration is not befitting except for Allah; so the magnification of the Messenger should be within the limits of the Shari'ah.
Now, I do not prostrate to him, do I bow to him like this, a bowing that is half a prostration? No; why? Because bowing is the brother of prostration, and it is not befitting except for Allah. Now, do I stand before him like this, humble, as I stand before my Lord of the Worlds? The answer should also be No, even though we see many of the visitors there standing from a distance, perhaps standing more humbly than they stand before Allah - Mighty and Majestic - .
This is all magnification, but is it magnification within the limits of what the Lord of the Worlds legislated through the tongue of His noble Prophet? The answer is: No; so how should the magnification be? The answer is in the Qur'an: , so following the Messenger - peace be upon him - in what he brought for Islam is magnification without excess or deficiency, without addition or subtraction.
They claim that magnifying the Messenger - peace be upon him - includes celebrating his birth; let us give the example; we say: Did the Messenger - peace be upon him - celebrate his birth as the Europeans do, each one of them has a birthday? When he reaches eighty years old he makes a celebration, every year he makes a celebration, and so on, for his son, for his wife, did the Messenger - peace be upon him - do any of that for himself? The answer is: No, all Muslims say this.
Did the Companions of the Messenger celebrate his birth? The answer is: No. The followers of the Companions, meaning the Tabi'un? The answer is: No. The followers of the Tabi'un? The answer is: No. The Imams who exercised independent legal reasoning? No, no, when did this happen? It happened about four hundred years after the Messenger - peace be upon him -, now, these many generations of the Companions and the Tabi'un and their followers, so did they not magnify the Messenger - peace be upon him - when they did not celebrate his birth? This is absolutely not reasonable, now; so where did they bring this magnification from? If it were a legislated magnification, Abu Bakr al-Siddiq would have done it with the Messenger, and 'Umar, and 'Uthman, and 'Ali, and the rest of the ten promised Paradise, and the companions of the pledge under the tree, and so on, then the Tabi'un, then the Imams who exercised independent legal reasoning, no one did this.
And among the strange and wonderful things is that each one of us claims that he is a Hanafi, and this one is a Shafi'i, and this one is a Maliki, and this one is a Hanbali, so if you ask him: You are a Hanafi, in the books of Abu Hanifah is it said that magnifying the Messenger includes celebrating his birth? He stays silent, he says to you: What's in it? Now, are you not a Hanafi? You do not bring the text from the Hanafi school that this is a Shari'ah, a religion, a worship, an obedience, and a magnification of the Messenger - peace be upon him - ?! There is no answer, there is only the judgment of desires and customs. Likewise, it is said about the Maliki, the Shafi'i, and the Hanbali, none of them says: This is the text from my school; because he cannot, because it happened after all the Imams.
So the summary is: whatever religious innovation occurs, the scholars differ on whether it is good or bad; so they agree that it occurred after it did not exist; so you, O Muslim, even if you do not know anything of knowledge, hear this hadith: , the one who tells you, from any Shaykh, mufti, big or small: celebrating the birth of the Messenger is a recommended practice and a good religious innovation and there is nothing wrong with it, and so on; stay with him ... tell him: O Shaykh, did the Companions of the Messenger celebrate the birth of the Messenger? If he fears Allah and does not lie about Allah and His Messenger, he will tell you: No, they did not celebrate. Now, the Tabi'un, the rest of the Companions, the Tabi'un, the Imams who exercised independent legal reasoning, he will tell you: No, no, no. Now, what is your opinion now, if I follow what these Salaf did, will I be deviant and on misguidance, or will I be on clarity and guidance and light? He will also stay silent; because the weapon is with you: , you may not be able to argue, but when you have a weapon, you at least stop your opponent at his limit.
Since the Companions did not celebrate, we do not celebrate; why? Because the religion is complete, so this hadith supports the previous verse: ; is celebrating the birth of the Messenger - peace be upon him - from the newly invented matters or not? All the scholars say: Yes, this is from the newly invented matters; because it was not in the time of the Messenger, nor the time of the Companions, nor the time of the Tabi'un; so return to the Sunnah and hold fast to what the Messenger - peace be upon him - and the Companions were upon, this is evidence.
A second evidence from the hadith and a third from the proofs: The Messenger - may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him - used to preach on every Friday, and this is from the recommended practices that the preachers have left, the preachers left the following recommended practice, and they replaced it with phrases they composed from their minds, and they left what the Messenger - peace be upon him - brought, and what is it? He - may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him - on every Friday, after he praised Allah - Mighty and Majestic - and extolled Him with what He is worthy of, said: , every Friday, before the sermon, the Messenger - peace be upon him - must say: .
I tell you with complete clarity: There must be people here now present, perhaps for the first time, and there are people who have attended once, twice, three times, and there are people who have attended dozens of times, and there are people who have been living with me for twenty years; without comparison, if the Messenger - peace be upon him - in every Friday sermon says: , Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, who lived with the Messenger - peace be upon him - until the Messenger - peace be upon him - passed away, what is understood from this speech? And in every sermon the Messenger repeats: ? Is it understood that not every religious innovation is misguidance, or is it understood that every religious innovation is misguidance? Is there a person who says he understands: No, my master; not every religious innovation is misguidance, there is a good religious innovation and a bad religious innovation; can anyone understand this speech? I say to our brothers: How many times have I mentioned to you: ; what did you understand from me? That not every religious innovation is misguidance? That is not reasonable.
Yes?

The questioner: There is no religious innovation in Islam.

The Shaykh: There is not, that is how they understood it, and so the Companions of the Messenger ... .
Yes?

The questioner: They saw the matters.

The Shaykh : They clarified the matters. The Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) were the most qualified to do so; because, first of all, the Messenger spoke in their language. I speak correct Arabic, but I am Al-Albani. Where do I stand compared to the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? If the most eloquent person is speaking in the presence of the most eloquent people, the Arabs, and the most knowledgeable among them, Abu Bakr and 'Umar, what do you imagine these Companions understood from the Messenger's (peace and blessings be upon him) repetition of this to them on Friday specifically, and on other occasions, such as his will in the hadith of al-'Arba' ibn al-Ra's on another occasion? What can any of us today imagine that these Companions understood from the Messenger's repetition to them: ? Could they have understood that not every innovation is misguidance, and that there is a good innovation and a bad one? Absolutely not, that is impossible.
Therefore, this confirms for you that the statement of the scholars who advise the Ummah today: "Return to what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon. Take your religion as the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) died upon it, without addition or subtraction," means that you will be upon guidance from your Lord and upon light. This hadith is also among the pieces of evidence that support the fact that there is no religious innovation in Islam: .
And as I said recently in "Raqah": This hadith, in terms of its Arabic composition and the universality it contains: , like his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): , can a Muslim say anything to contradict the Messenger's hadith? The Messenger says: The Messenger says: And from the hadith: , he says: No, not every khamr is forbidden?! It is impossible for a person to know that this is a hadith of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Yes, it is possible that this hadith did not reach his ears, and he speaks this from his own opinion and makes a mistake; that is possible. But if he reads the hadith in "Sahih Muslim" from the narration of Ibn 'Umar, who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah pray upon him and his family) said:
This person is one of two: either he is ignorant and must be taught, or he is a disbeliever in Allah and His Messenger and must be dealt with by the ruling of Islam that he deserves!
Likewise, this person who hears the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saying: , what does he say to you? With all his dullness and coldness: No, there is a good innovation and a bad innovation. Now, this universality with which the Messenger used to preach on the heads of the people every Friday, how do you nullify it? , he says to you this, so why do you not respond to him? Instead of submitting to him, you want to cut his words to fit your customs and opinions. This is a third piece of evidence; and it is his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): , he preaches with this phrase every Friday.
It is not only this; al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated in their "Sahih" from the hadith of 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her), who said: The Messenger of Allah (may Allah pray upon him and his family) said: , , meaning it is rejected, and his face is struck by what he has innovated. This is a sound hadith in al-Bukhari and Muslim: ; that is, it is rejected. So how can it be said: No, this is a good innovation and a newly invented matter, but I accept it and do not reject it, while the Messenger rules that you must reject it?!
Allah is the Greatest! If we did not believe that some people have not been reached by these hadiths, or that they were reached but did not understand them truly, I would say: The one who contradicts these hadiths is a disbeliever, not submitting to the words of the Messenger, not believing in them. But there is a possibility that this hadith did not reach him, in which case he is excused. There is a possibility that this hadith reached him but he did not understand it truly. Therefore, we have nothing to do but call upon Allah to guide these people who do not pay attention to these hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and do not act upon them.
Some people, who are dominated by intellectual rigidity and sectarian taqlid, might say: Yes, fine, do these Shaykhs not understand? They do understand. Fine, but what if your understanding is wrong? You are asserting and saying: This is general, and there is no specification for it. What if this understanding is wrong? We say: Yes, it is possible that my understanding is wrong, and Zayd and Bakr and so on. So I will give you texts from the statements of the Companions and the Imams whom you cannot criticize or disparage regarding their knowledge and understanding. Someone might say: This man Al-Albani, as we hear, does not know how to speak Arabic, and we hear things and things. Leave this Al-Albani. This is 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, one of the greatest of the Companions and their scholars, whom we all know. His son, who is one of the most righteous, most ascetic, most worshipful, and most knowledgeable of the Companions, 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, what did he say? He said, confirming this generality that I am confirming for you in his saying (peace and blessings be upon him): ; he said: "Every innovation is misguidance, even if people see it as good." ? What does Al-Albani have to do with the matter? Ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab says: "Every innovation is misguidance, even if people see it as good." He thus closed the door to beautifying it, and confirmed that the saying of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him): is a general text encompassing every innovation, even if people see it as good. This is one thing.
And another thing from another Companion, namely Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman. Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, the keeper of the secret of the Prophet (may Allah's prayer and peace be upon him), was...
Yes?

Eid Abbasi : Is it correct to say the Messenger...?

The Shaykh : Yes.
He used to say: "Every act of worship that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (may Allah pray upon him and his family) did not perform, do not perform it." Every act of worship that the Companions did not perform, you do not worship Allah with it. So what are we doing today? We approach Allah with thousands of innovations, claiming they are good innovations. Thus, we have contradicted Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman, who is also one of the great Companions, and who was distinguished by keeping the secret of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) regarding the knowledge of the hypocrites in this time. This is Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman. Thus, his words align with the words of Ibn 'Umar that every innovation is misguidance. As long as the Companions did not do it, you do not do it.
This is Ibn Mas'ud saying: "Follow and do not innovate; for you have been sufficed. Hold fast to the old matter." This is despite those who accuse Muslims of being reactionary. We say: This is the sound athar from Ibn Mas'ud. It tells us: Be truly reactionary. "Hold fast to the old matter"; meaning, stick to what the Messenger was upon, without addition. "Follow and do not innovate; for you have been sufficed." What does "you have been sufficed" mean? Allah said: ; meaning, He has made you rich against innovating in the religion; because He gave you a complete religion. "Follow and do not innovate; for you have been sufficed. Hold fast to the old matter."
This is Ibn Mas'ud who said this saying and spoke this word. Listen to this story that happened to him in his time. Due to his excellence and knowledge, people would come to his house. Every morning, people would come to his house waiting for him to come out so they could accompany him to the mosque, hoping to gain benefit from him. One morning, Abu Musa al-Ash'ari came and found the people waiting for him; that is, waiting for Ibn Mas'ud. He said: Has Abu 'Abd al-Rahman come out? - Abu 'Abd al-Rahman is the kunyah of 'Abdullah ibn Mas'ud. They said: No. So he sat until he came out. Abu Musa said: O Abu 'Abd al-Rahman, I saw something in the mosque just now that I disliked, and praise be to Allah, and I did not see anything but good. Notice the point here: the thing he disliked: and praise be to Allah, I did not see anything but good.
How did he not see anything but good, and yet he disliked it? A strange thing!
He asked him, "What did you see?" He said, "If you live, you will see it. I saw people in the mosque in circles, and in the middle of each circle was a man saying to those around him: 'Recite tasbih thus, recite tahmid thus, recite takbir thus.' And in front of each of them was a pile of pebbles with which they counted the tasbih, takbir, and tahmid." Ibn Mas'ud said, "Did you not disapprove of them? Did you not order them to count their sins and guarantee for them that nothing of their good deeds would be lost?" He said, "No, I was waiting for your command or your opinion." So Ibn Mas'ud returned to his house and went out wearing a veil, so that nothing of him was visible except his eyes. Then he went to the mosque, stood by the circles, and saw what Abu Musa had described to him. He removed the veil from his face and said, "Woe to you! What is this that you are doing? I am Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, a Companion of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)." They said, "By Allah, O Abu 'Abd al-Rahman, these are pebbles with which we count the tasbih, takbir, and tahmid." He said, "Count your sins, and I am the guarantor for you that nothing of your good deeds will be lost. Woe to you, how quickly you are perishing! These are his garments (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), and they have not worn out, and these are his vessels, and they have not been broken. By Him in whose hand is my soul, are you truly more guided than the Ummah of Muhammad, or are you clinging to the tail of misguidance?"
What does this statement mean? Ibn Mas'ud said, "How quickly you are perishing!" The covenant with the Messenger is recent; not one hundred or two hundred years have passed. These are his garments, just as they are, not worn out, and these are his vessels, just as they are, not broken. It is not yet time for you to go astray to the right and the left, and to invent these religious innovations. By Him in whose hand is my soul, are you truly more guided than the Ummah of Muhammad, meaning the Companions of Muhammad from whom he was one, or is it one of two things: either you are more guided than the Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him), from whom I am one, or the other is that you are clinging to the tail of misguidance.
He did not say to them, "You are clinging to misguidance," but rather "to the tail of misguidance," to shame them for what they had introduced into the religion of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and what they had inserted into the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). They said, and this is the language, in my opinion, of all those who were afflicted by following some of the paths and some of the innovating shaykhs. Most of these followers have pure souls and good intentions; they think that these people are guiding them to good and guiding them to the Sunnah, but they are misleading them. So when Ibn Mas'ud shamed them with that statement, they came to their senses and said, "By Allah, O Abu 'Abd al-Rahman, we did not intend anything but good." It is true that they did not intend anything but good, so he answered them with the utmost wisdom, saying: "How many are there who seek good but do not attain it!" "How many are there who seek good but do not attain it!" Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) told us that there are people who recite the Qur'an, but it does not go beyond their throats—meaning that faith does not reach their hearts—and they exit the religion as an arrow exits its target. Ibn Mas'ud (may Allah be pleased with him and grant him satisfaction) clarified to these people who had innovated in the religion of Allah that the matter is not just about having a good intention. From here, many people err when they say to you, "Leave him, his intention is good." They come to the deceased and call to him other than Allah, and when the misguided shaykh hears that the shaykh is guiding him, he says to him, "Leave him, my master, his intention is good." Ask him: does he believe that this deceased person can benefit and harm? "O our master, this one is associating partners with Allah, he is saying: 'O Baz, save me,' 'O my Lady Zaynab, heal me,' or the like. This is misguidance."
Here, Ibn Mas'ud draws attention to this reality: it is not enough for a person's intention to be good; the good deed must accompany the good intention. The Messenger (peace be upon him) says, "Do not sit on graves and do not pray toward them." If you see a man sitting on a grave, any grave, a Muslim's grave, an ordinary Muslim's grave, you tell him, "Do not sit on the grave, my brother, the Messenger prohibited this." He says to you, "By Allah, my brother, I am a tired man, I do not intend to insult the deceased Muslim buried in this grave, I am tired." Is this statement accepted? No, because the Messenger says, "Do not sit on graves." So you arrange your affairs, not at the expense of the deceased, to rest yourself; leave, do not sit. The deed must also be good and prescribed, just like the good intention.
The completion of the hadith is: . So if you see a person praying toward a grave, forbid him. If he says to you, "My master, my intention is good, I do not intend the deceased, I intend the Lord of the Worlds, but I do not intend to seek blessing from him," he has fallen into the very thing he fled from, and the poor man does not feel or realize it. But now, convince him that his intention is bad! Your intention is good and your heart is pure, but your deed is bad because you contradicted the Messenger. The Messenger (peace be upon him) is saying to you, "Do not pray toward the grave," yet you are praying toward the grave. So improve your deed just as you claim to have improved your intention.
This is how Ibn Mas'ud spoke to those who said, "We did not intend anything but good"; so the answer was: "How many are there who seek good but do not attain it!" One person wants to perform Hajj, but instead of taking the plane to travel to Jeddah, and from there taking the car to go to Makkah, he takes the plane that takes him to Paris or London. What is the benefit? He will not perform Hajj; because Hajj is from here, and he is going in that direction. So he took the path that does not lead him to the pleasure of Allah (Mighty and Majestic). How many are there who seek good but do not attain it! Why do they not attain it? Because they did not take the path that leads them to this good. So what is the path that leads to good in this world? Are there paths or one path?

Another questioner : One path.

The Shaykh : One path, Allah the Exalted said in the Noble Qur'an: .
"Asbāl" is the plural of "sabil," and "sabil" means path. The meaning of the verse, frankly, is: do not follow paths. And the Muslims today follow paths, and the unique, singular path that we were commanded in the explicit text of the Qur'an to follow, you leave it aside, the exact opposite of the verse: . This is what the group that Ibn Mas'ud disapproved of did not attain. He said to them, "How many are there who seek good but do not attain it!" Meaning, you took the path that does not lead you to good, and you left the path that leads you to good, which is the path of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). And there is never, in this world, a path that leads to good and is pleasing to Allah (Mighty and Majestic) except the path of the Messenger (peace be upon him), only and only, only and only. And this Qur'an is full of such noble texts.
Then Ibn Mas'ud cited evidence for that, saying that the Messenger (peace be upon him) told us that there are people among the Muslims who recite the Qur'an; meaning with their tongues, but this Qur'an does not enter their hearts. . At that time, we did not have rifles and bullets and the like; rather, they had spears and arrows and the like. So one of them would hunt the wild ass, for example, with an arrow. If he was strong in muscle and skilled in shooting, he would hit the animal, and it would enter from here and exit from there, from the force of the strike. This is a very eloquent simile that there are people among the Muslims who recite the Qur'an with their tongues, but their hearts are not affected by it, just as is our case now in this simple example: one, . And where are these Muslims whom we are reciting the Qur'an to? They are reciting with their tongues, and what they are reciting has not entered their hearts. The proof is that the paths cannot be counted, and indeed many of the path-followers state this without any hesitation. One of them says: "How many are the paths that lead to Allah, O Shaykh? The paths that lead to Allah are by the number of what? The breaths of the creatures, is that not so?" Allah says: the path that leads is one path, and they say: by the number of the breaths of the creatures!!
The lesson is in the end of this story.

The questioner : Its meaning is: do you disapprove of those who do not follow your path?

The Shaykh: Yes.
The lesson in the end of this story, after Ibn Mas'ud narrated this hadith: , the man who followed the incident said: "We saw those groups fighting us on the day of al-Nahrawan." Allahu Akbar! The people of the circles who were clicking and rattling pebbles became Khawarij against 'Ali! And they fought 'Ali, so 'Ali fought them and uprooted their roots, do you see? And from here the scholars say: "A small religious innovation leads to a major religious innovation." These people started gathering in meetings that were not known in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and one of them started leading the simple, good-hearted people, telling them: "Recite the tasbih fifty times." Who told them to recite it fifty times? Are you a prophet to whom revelation is sent from the sky? That is what came out of him, and after a while seventy-five will come out of him, and these poor people will follow him because he is their shaykh. This is a false leadership over these good, poor Muslims. These groups, with their leader, became Khawarij against 'Ali, so 'Ali killed them because they rebelled against Islam. Thus, the small religious innovation led them to the major religious innovation.
This is a story that happened to the one who said that previous phrase: "Follow and do not innovate; you have been sufficed. Stick to the old way."
Let us leave the paths, let us leave the clicking with the prayer beads, with pebbles, and whatever is similar to that, because all of this was not from the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). I do not think any of you will understand from me that you should not remember Allah or glorify Allah; no, rather we mean remember Allah as it came in the Book of Allah, and glorify Allah as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) explained. Is it not enough that Allah said: ? Is it not enough that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ? There are many hadiths of this type, and praise be to Allah. We must apply them, and without any shaykhs, placing ourselves as if we are an infallible prophet! We tell them: "Recite, read, send blessings upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) with the forty-four, four thousand, four hundred, and forty-four times." Where did this revelation come from? You do not know that the prayer is four thousand, four hundred, and forty-four.

Another questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : Praise be to Allah.
This is a number that if it had come down as revelation from the sky, many people might not have done it; it would not enter their minds. But when it came to them from some of the paths, they submitted and surrendered completely.
Allahu Akbar! This is one of the effects of religious innovation in the religion. The prayer, when the word of the Exalted came down: , they said: "O Messenger of Allah, how do we send blessings upon you?" He said: . The prayers that small children know are recited in the final tashahhud.
This is the best prayer, an explanation of his saying: . The Muslims were not surprised, so every path has a formula of prayer that differs from the other formula. What does this mean? It means that O Messenger of Allah, you came to us with a prayer that is specific to some poor dervishes, while the groups that say: "My heart told me about my Lord," these people need another formula different from these formulas. No, by Allah, it is not like that. What would it be? It is not like that, not with that interpretation. What would the interpretation be? This formula is in "Sahih al-Bukhari" and "Sahih Muslim." Why, when you remember and send blessings upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), do you not say: as the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) taught us? Instead, you say: "O Allah, send blessings upon Muhammad, the opener of what was closed, the closer of what preceded," and so on. The words may be beautiful in meaning sometimes, but is not what the Messenger brought more beautiful, more complete, and more eloquent, and so on? Yet often much of the prayer contains disbelief itself, and people do not notice; "who is your eye, not other than you" in some of the dhikr.

The questioner: "The Shadhiliyyah."

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner: "The Shadhiliyyah."

The Shaykh: No, "The Tijaniyyah," I think.
"Who is your eye, not other than you, send blessings upon Muhammad who is your eye, O Allah, and not other than you." This is disbelief itself, but people do not know; the common people do not notice. What... for these people? Go back to the Sunnah and get rid of the problems. Not every person can we give this lecture to every hour, every minute. So infallibility, as he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , remember Allah, send blessings upon the Messenger, but ask the shaykh, tell him: "Guide me to the Sunnah. I want to send blessings upon the Messenger, but only as the Messenger himself and the Companions sent blessings upon him, and so on."
So this story, as you heard, has a lesson. They turned into Khawarij because of what? Their turning away from the Sunnah.
We also have other statements from the Companions about how they understood the hadith: in its generality. It is not that I understood it; Ibn 'Umar, mentioned previously, was in a gathering like this, so a man in the gathering sneezed and said: "Praise be to Allah and blessings upon the Messenger of Allah." Ibn 'Umar said, very gently and softly, to him: "And I say with you: Praise be to Allah and blessings upon the Messenger of Allah, but this is not how the Messenger of Allah taught us." I pray with you upon the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but this is not how the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) taught us. What did he teach us? Say: "Praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds, praise be to Allah in every state."
What did Ibn 'Umar do here? Ibn 'Umar did here what some of our brothers from the people of the Sunnah do when they hear the mu'adhdhin after he finishes the adhan: "Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, there is no god but Allah." They continue with a "kuwana" longer than the adhan, starting to send blessings upon the Messenger in their opinion. So this Sunni knows that this addition is not from the adhan, but he does not have the style of Ibn 'Umar. Have you not seen how he entered with him? He said to him: "I am like your story. What did you say? Praise be to Allah and blessings upon the Messenger of Allah. I say like your story: Praise be to Allah and blessings upon the Messenger of Allah." But many of our brothers do not have this style. So this is first a gift, and it requires knowledge. So one of our brothers hears this mu'adhdhin adding to the adhan "kuanas, cliches" that are very old, and he says to him: "Zayd, do not send blessings upon the Messenger." That one will come down and talk about him that he denied the sending of blessings upon the Messenger, and they will fall into a fitnah with no end. And the truth is that this Sunni, if he denied the sending of blessings upon the Messenger, would be a disbeliever; because the sending of blessings upon the Messenger is mentioned in the Qur'an as you heard.
But he does not know how to speak to him, he does not know how to explain to him. He says to him: "My brother, the sending of blessings upon the Messenger, its mention came in the Qur'an, the urging to it came in the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), but Bilal did not call the adhan like this. The Messenger taught Bilal to call the adhan, he did not teach him like this, there is no such style." These problems and these fitnahs occur. So he taught us.

The questioner: The ones who call him Wahhabi, he does not send blessings upon the Prophet, this one.

The Shaykh: This is the problem.
So the point is that Ibn 'Umar taught us this style; that I say like you: "Praise be to Allah and blessings upon the Messenger of Allah," but this is not how the Messenger of Allah taught us. So what did this man who sneezed and sent blessings do wrong? The majority of those who say: "There is a good religious innovation," they do not feel that he made a mistake. What mistake? He sent blessings upon the Messenger. Is sending blessings upon the Messenger a mistake? I seek refuge in Allah! But those who say: like Ibn 'Umar, and we follow him; they say: "He made a mistake." What is the nature of the mistake? The nature of the mistake is that he placed the worship in a place other than its proper place.
Suppose a man sits in the tashahhud and his mind leads him to the following philosophy: which is better, al-Fatihah or the tashahhud, "The blessings are Allah's, the prayers are pure"? Is there anyone who would say that the tashahhud is better than al-Fatihah? No. This correct call to truth brought out the following philosophy: since al-Fatihah is better than the tashahhud, why should I recite the tashahhud in the tashahhud? Let me recite al-Fatihah. Is there any Muslim, even one who says there is a good innovation in Islam, who would say this is correct? No one says it. Why? Because the Lawgiver placed al-Fatihah in the standing position and the tashahhud in the sitting position. So when a person philosophizes and reverses the legal realities, he introduces something new. Then the hadith comes to tell him:
A person comes to the tashahhud as it was reported to us from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and he inserts phrases of his own. For example, the tashahhud of Ibn Mas'ud: and so on. What does he say? "The blessings are for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He)." Did this man disbelieve? He did not disbelieve. Did he disparage the Lord of the Worlds and attack Him, or did he glorify Him? He glorified Him. But did he do well or wrong? He did wrong. Why? Because he added something that the Messenger of Allah did not bring, when he said: "When one of you sits in the tashahhud, let him say: The blessings are for Allah, and so on." "The blessings are for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He), and the pure prayers. Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and His blessings." What else did he equalize? He added. Did he do well or wrong? He did wrong, even though he only came with the exaltation of the Lord of the Worlds (Mighty and Majestic). If we were to discuss this with those who say there is a good innovation in Islam, they would tell you: "No, it is not correct. Why? Because it is an addition." Now, let us proceed to see the end of the matter: "Peace be upon you, O Prophet, and the mercy of Allah and His blessings. Peace be upon us and upon the righteous servants of Allah. I bear witness that there is no deity but Allah (Mighty and Majestic), and I bear witness that Muhammad is His servant and His Messenger (Glorified and Exalted is He)." All of this does not permit additions.
Now, "O Allah, send blessings upon our master Muhammad," is that permissible? It is permissible. Why? "Our master Muhammad, our master." Now, is our Lord (Mighty and Majestic) not (Mighty and Majestic)? Why did you not accept this but accept that? There is absolutely no difference. "O Allah, send blessings upon our master" we have accustomed ourselves to, and it has become part of our religion and our lives. But this exaltation of the Lord of the Worlds in the tahiyyat, we have not accustomed ourselves to. A person rejects it the first time he hears it, even the Sunnah; the first time he hears it, he rejects it. So when he hears "The blessings are for Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He)" and the rest of the image or picture we presented, he rejects it because he is not accustomed to it. So if you come with a Sunnah he is not accustomed to, he will also reject it. So what is the difference now between the addition in the tashahhud and the addition in the Ibrahimiyyah prayers? It is all from the same category. It is all from the category of what 'Umar said: "And I say with you: and blessings upon the Messenger of Allah." And I say with you: what you say in the tashahhud—may Allah preserve you—"O Allah, send blessings upon our master Muhammad." I say with you: "O Allah, send blessings upon our master Muhammad." But this is not how our master Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) taught us. And he is as he said: , .
So Ibn 'Umar came to us with this model of rejection, which indicates the detail of his previous statement: "Every innovation is misguidance, even if people see it as good." This man said: "There is nothing wrong with it; sending blessings upon the Messenger is good, and it is in the Qur'an." So Ibn 'Umar rejected it upon him.
We come to another example from Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, one of the ten promised Paradise. Imam Ahmad narrated in his Musnad that Sa'd heard a man performing the talbiyah in Hajj saying: . Again, the second group, all of them, came out of the school of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), the believers.
... So I will suffice with a narration from Imam Malik. Imam Malik is the Imam of the City of Migration: "Whoever innovates in Islam an innovation that he sees as good, has claimed that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) betrayed the message. Read the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He): . So whatever was not a religion at that time will not be a religion today, and the end of this Ummah will not be reformed except by what reformed its beginning." Look at the word of Malik; how great is its significance! He says: Whoever innovates one innovation in Islam has claimed that Muhammad betrayed the message. Why? Because in his message he said about the Lord of the Worlds: . So if this good innovation existed, why did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) conceal it? So this means that the Messenger was a traitor, and whoever says this is a disbeliever.
So the Messenger fulfilled the message and conveyed the trust. So the one who says: "This is a good innovation," is the one who betrayed the message and did not convey the trust and disbelieved in Islam. It is one of two things: either the Messenger was a traitor, and that is disbelief, and no Muslim says that; or you are the one saying: "This is a good innovation." Here is the betrayal, because this is against Islam.
Then he says: "So whatever was not a religion at that time will not be a religion today." This means every act of worship—...—returns to the word of Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman mentioned earlier: "Every act of worship that the Companions of the Messenger of Allah did not perform, do not perform it." Malik says: "So whatever was not a religion at that time will not be a religion today." The saying of Malik meets the saying of Hudhayfah. Why? Because all of them take from one lamp. The Salaf, the Companions, and the Tabi'un take from those before them, and the followers of the Tabi'un take from those before them, and so on. But the Khalaf remained, they left the Salaf, and deviation fell into misguidance. "So whatever was not a religion at that time will not be a religion today."
Is there anything clearer than this that there is no good innovation in Islam? "Whoever innovates in Islam a good innovation that he sees as good, has claimed that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) betrayed the message. Read the saying of Allah (Mighty and Majestic): . So whatever was not a religion at that time will not be a religion today, and the end of this Ummah will not be reformed except by what reformed its beginning." If we want the reform of the Ummah today, the way is to return to what our righteous Salaf were upon. This is from the completion of the words of Imam Malik.
So some of these texts, as you see, confirm that innovation in Islam, in the religion, is misguidance, whatever its status. But those who go to the view that there is a good innovation in Islam have some doubts. This research will not be complete and its conclusion will not be fixed in the minds of the listeners unless they hear an answer to those doubts upon which the opponents of these explicit texts rely, that every innovation is misguidance. From those doubts is a famous authentic hadith, which is: . These people understand this hadith and interpret it by saying: , meaning: whoever innovates in Islam a good innovation. And the second part ; whoever innovates in Islam a bad innovation.
We see this interpretation to be a grave error, and we have evidence for that from two sides:
The first point is that we should recall for you the occasion on which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said this hadith, and then see if the meaning by which they interpreted the hadith agrees with that occasion. You will see the complete divergence between this alleged meaning and the following occasion. Imam Muslim narrated in his *Sahih* from the report of Jarir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Bajali (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: "We were sitting with the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) when a group of Bedouins came, wearing their *numar* (cloaks) and carrying swords on their shoulders, most of them from the tribe of Mudar, or rather all of them from Mudar. When the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) saw them, his face changed color—meaning his features changed out of sadness and grief for their destitution and poverty. He stood up to address the Companions and said: . Then he (peace be upon him) said: . The Messenger (peace be upon him) admonished them and encouraged them to be kind to these poor people. A man from among the Companions stood up and went to his house, then returned carrying in the corner of his garment whatever food he could manage—dates, wheat, barley, or dirhams—and placed it before the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). The other Companions took notice and each of them stood up to go and bring, likewise, whatever food or dirhams he could manage, and placed it before the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). They placed it before the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), and there gathered before him small piles of food and dirhams like small mountains. When he (peace and blessings be upon him) saw that, his face brightened as if it were made of gold."
That is, the Messenger of Allah (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) showed signs of joy and happiness on his face until his face became like gold; that is, like white silver plated with gold. He was rejoiced by the response of his Companions to him, without forgetting that the merit after him returns to the first man who brought the first charity, and his Companions followed him. So he (peace be upon him) said on this occasion: . Where is the innovation here? And they interpret the hadith as you heard: whoever innovates in Islam a good innovation, there is no innovation. This confirms for you that this interpretation is one of the most serious errors that come from some people.
There is nothing in this incident, as you heard, that can be called an innovation; because charity is established by the Book, and at that moment he said to them: . Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) said.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Yes.
So charity is not an innovation. Then how can the Messenger say on this occasion: when there is no innovation? This is something strange.
The second point in the refutation and answer to this doubt: Let us now look away from this occasion, which clearly explains that this interpretation is wrong, and let us discuss them on the very interpretation they claimed. You say that the meaning of the hadith is: whoever innovates in Islam a good innovation, and whoever innovates in Islam a bad innovation. We ask these people: What is the way, or by what means, can one know whether an innovation is good or bad? Is it by my intellect and your intellect, by my knowledge and your knowledge, by my understanding and your understanding, or by the Qur'an and the Sunnah?
What is the good thing? Is it not that which Allah has made good? What is the ugly thing? Is it not that which Allah has made ugly? So when you say: the meaning of the hadith is: whoever innovates in Islam a good innovation; then for this innovation to be good, there must be evidence in the Book or in the Sunnah indicating that it is good, or that it is bad. They cannot say anything other than this. That this innovation is good is only established by evidence from the Book and the Sunnah, and that that innovation is bad is only established by the Book and the Sunnah.
So for every innovation they claim is good, we say to them: . Bring the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah that this innovation is a good innovation, and we are with you that it is a good innovation; not because you have deemed it good, but because you have brought the legal evidence from the Book and the Sunnah for its goodness.
And for that other one, you have brought evidence from the Book and the Sunnah that it is bad. And at that time, the disagreement disappears; because every good innovation in their claim must have evidence of its goodness in the Book and the Sunnah. So where is the evidence of the goodness, for example, of celebrating the birth of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)? There is no evidence, no verse, no hadith, the Companions did not do it, the Successors did not do it, the followers of the Successors did not do it. So the legal evidence for its goodness has not been established, even according to your interpretation. So the hadith is not an argument for you, as long as every good Sunnah must have evidence from the Book and the Sunnah.
I am now bringing you an example that clarifies this for you. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, among the things recorded in his virtues and excellences (may Allah be pleased with him), is that he expelled the Jews from Khaybar. I think you all know this. So, 'Umar's expulsion of the Jews from Khaybar was a new matter that had not happened before, because the Messenger died and the Jews were in Khaybar. Do you not know this? The Messenger died and the Jews were in Khaybar. Who expelled them? 'Umar. So this is a new matter. Come, let us apply the hadith that they interpreted by saying: whoever innovates in Islam a good innovation. We ask them: Is 'Umar's action a good innovation or a bad one? Considering it is something new that happened. If they say: it is a good innovation; we demand the evidence. If they say: it is a bad innovation; we demand the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah.
In reality, we will present them with the evidence that this action 'Umar took—I do not say, of course, that it is a good innovation, but I am following their line of argument—I believe that this is a prescribed matter, and they might call it a good innovation. Where did the legitimacy of this incident come from, and it is an incident after the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him)? The evidence for that is two hadiths:
The first hadith: When the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) conquered Khaybar, he made a treaty with the Jews that they would remain there to farm it, and that they would have half the share, and the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) would have the other half. It was a sharecropping agreement. And he said to them in the agreement he made between him and them: So the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) died and they were in Khaybar. Abu Bakr came after him and died while they were in Khaybar. Then it occurred to 'Umar to expel them. Why did the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) allow the Jews to remain in Khaybar, which is contrary to almost all the Islamic conquests? He used to place Muslims there to rule the town, and there would be like prisoners and slaves. Why did he treat the Jews with this treatment? Because they were experienced in agriculture, and there was no one among the Companions after him who had learned agriculture, so he left them. When the Companions, the Muhajireen and the Ansar, learned agriculture over time, they came out of Khaybar and the Muslims who had come to know agriculture took their place.

The questioner : ... a good Sunnah.

The Shaykh : This is the first evidence that the Messenger said: ; so 'Umar expelled them. So his expulsion is not an innovation with us; because an innovation is misguidance, and this is merely executing a Prophetic text. .
The second text: He (peace and blessings be upon him) said: ; so he executed a Prophetic text. This is not called an innovation. So what?
Yes?

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : ... Yes.
So our master 'Umar ibn al-Khattab executed a Prophetic text; so this is not called an innovation. If you call it a good innovation, it is because the legal evidence for its goodness has been established. So the disagreement remains between us and them in the wording. They call it a good innovation, and what do we call it? A good Sunnah. But the important thing is: do you deem the innovation good by your intellect? The important thing is that you bring the evidence from the Book and the Sunnah that what you call a good innovation has legal evidence that it is truly good. The disagreement remains in the naming, and there is no dispute in terminology, as they say.
Thus, anyone who claims that there is a good innovation in Islam must provide evidence from the Shari'ah that this innovation is good. This is especially so given the long-standing dispute between the people of the Sunnah and the Mu'tazilah. The Mu'tazilah say: "The good is what the intellect deems good, and the ugly is what the intellect deems ugly; meaning, what the intellect sees as good is good, and what it sees as ugly is ugly." The people of the Sunnah said: "No, the intellect does not independently know that a thing is good or that another is ugly. However, the intellect can understand the goodness of a thing after the Shari'ah has declared it good, and it can understand the ugliness of a thing after the Shari'ah has declared it ugly. But for the human intellect to independently declare something good or ugly? No. This is an old point of disagreement between the people of the Sunnah and the Mu'tazilah, and there is no doubt that the truth is with the people of the Sunnah, not the Mu'tazilah. But the people of the end times today have become Mu'tazilah. Why? Every time an innovation comes, they say to you: 'What's wrong with it? My brother, it is a good innovation.' So they made their intellects the judge, and they fell into opposition to the Imams of the Sunnah who were against the Mu'tazilah. They fell into the rational declaration of good and evil: 'This is good. Why? By Allah, my intellect sees it as good, there is nothing wrong with it.' And this is a phrase they use at the slightest opportunity."
This is one of the doubts they rely on, . So you have understood the answer from two angles: The first answer is that the occasion indicates that the meaning of the hadith is not "whoever innovated," but rather "whoever opened a path to good," and the good there is charity, which was prescribed before. The second answer is that if you interpret the hadith as mentioned, we demand from you evidence for every good innovation. If you bring evidence, just as we brought evidence for the Sunnah of 'Umar that he revived, then we are with you, because we all followed the evidence. But if you do not bring evidence, it means you have joined the Mu'tazilah who declare things good by their intellects.
And among their doubts is the hadith: "What the Muslims see as good is good in the sight of Allah."
The answer: This hadith has no basis in any of the books of the Sunnah at all as a hadith from the Messenger (peace be upon him). But it is from the saying of Ibn Mas'ud; meaning, it is a mawquf hadith in the terminology of hadith scholars. And it does not mean what these later people mean by expanding the circle of Muslims here, "what the Muslims see." Ibn Mas'ud did not mean all Muslims in every time and place, but rather the elite of the best Muslims after the Messenger (peace be upon him). The evidence for this is that this phrase from the words of Ibn Mas'ud has an occasion, just like the occasion of the hadith: . When we knew the occasion of the hadith, the error of the previous interpretation became clear. Likewise, if you now know the occasion of the saying of Ibn Mas'ud: "What the Muslims see as good," the error of using it as evidence for approving innovation in religion will become clear to you.
When the Messenger (peace be upon him) passed away and his noble Companions gathered to choose a successor for him after him, they chose Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him), as is well known. On this occasion, on the occasion of choosing Abu Bakr, Ibn Mas'ud said: "Indeed, Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) sent Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) as a Messenger and Prophet, and He made for him ministers and supporters; so what the Muslims see as good is good in the sight of Allah." And who are the Muslims? The ministers and supporters. "Indeed, Allah sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) as a Prophet and Messenger, and He made for him ministers and supporters; so what the Muslims see as good is good in the sight of Allah." Does it mean us? Does it mean us and those before us? Does it mean the Tabi'un? No. Does it mean all the Companions? Also no. But it means the elite of the Companions whom he referred to by his saying: "ministers and supporters." So what these ministers and supporters see as good is good in the sight of Allah.
And thus, those who chose Abu Bakr al-Siddiq as successor to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) were from the ministers of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and his supporters, from the Muhajireen and the Ansar. And this ultimately aligns with his saying (peace be upon him) in the authentic hadith: . So the senior Companions of the Messenger (peace be upon him) agreed on choosing Abu Bakr al-Siddiq as successor. So what is the relationship between this word and the saying that is not from the hadith of the Messenger, but is from the words of Ibn Mas'ud, which he said on the occasion of the senior Companions choosing Abu Bakr al-Siddiq? What is its relationship? Every time someone innovates an innovation and approves it with his intellect; my brother, the Messenger of Allah said: "What the Muslims see as good is good in the sight of Allah"? The Messenger did not say this hadith in the first place, but Ibn Mas'ud said it, and he did not say it in the meaning that these people want, but rather the meaning is very narrow: he meant the ministers of the Messenger and his supporters, .
And finally: they argue with the saying of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab: "What a good innovation this is" regarding the prayer of tarawih.

Eid Abbasi : I want to ask you about it.

The Shaykh : Do you remember... revealed, it is we who revealed you now [Everyone laughs!].
Allahu Akbar! This is indeed what 'Umar said, but in what sense did he say it? That is the issue here. The majority of those who claim a good innovation interpret the word of 'Umar: "What a good innovation this is"; meaning: that 'Umar innovated the prayer of tarawih in congregation from his own idea, just as he expelled the Jews from his presence! Meaning, the Jews certainly did not expel the Jews, no, excuse me, the Messenger did not expel them. Who expelled them? 'Umar. The prayer of tarawih, in the claim of these people who argue with the saying of 'Umar: "What a good innovation this is," was not done by the Messenger. Who did it? 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). This is what they say, and this is an error, and it contains an accusation of ignorance against 'Umar.
To know this truth, we narrate to you the hadith of al-Bukhari in his Sahih, from the narration of 'Abd al-Rahman ibn 'Abd al-Qari, that he went out with 'Umar ibn al-Khattab one night to the mosque of the Messenger (peace be upon him), and he saw them praying the night prayer of Ramadan in groups and individually. He said: "If we gather them behind one imam." Then he decided on that and intended it. The next day, he ordered Ubayy ibn Ka'b to lead them as imam. So he went out for the first time to see the Muslims praying in congregation in the prayer of tarawih behind one imam, who was Ubayy ibn Ka'b. He said: "What a good innovation this is, and the one in which they sleep is better."
Those who claim a good innovation clung to this word, they held onto it literally without looking deeply into what was intended by it. They said: 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said, first of all: "What a good innovation this is," and second, he said it regarding the prayer of tarawih, and it was not done by the Messenger (peace be upon him). And I say frankly here, out of respect for the Sunnah and honoring 'Umar: They lied when they said that 'Umar innovated this. They lied. Rather, the Messenger established that, and 'Umar revived it. For you know the hadith in Sahih al-Bukhari from the hadith of the Lady 'A'ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) went out in the last ten nights of Ramadan, so he prayed in the mosque. Some of the Companions saw him and followed him. The next day, the news of the prayer of the Messenger the previous night spread. So when the Messenger went out on the second following night, the number of worshippers behind him increased. On the third night, the mosque was full. On the fourth night, they gathered as they had previously on the third night, and they waited and waited and waited until some of them got tired, so they took pebbles from the mosque and pelted the door of the house of the Messenger (peace be upon him), thinking that the Messenger was sleeping, that sleep had overcome him. But the Messenger was awake, and he was deliberately delaying going out. He opened the door and came out to them angry, saying: .

The questioner : It is made obligatory.

The Shaykh : The meaning of "it is written" is that it is made obligatory. Then the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) passed away in Rabi' al-Awwal and did not reach the second Ramadan. So, the first thing the Prophet established was the tarawih prayer in congregation, but he did not continue with it, as you have seen, for fear that it would become obligatory upon them. And with the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), this fear was removed, because with his death the Shari'ah was completed. Is tarawih obligatory? No, it is not obligatory, because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) did not persist in it until it became obligatory. So 'Umar came and revived this sunnah after the fear that caused the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to leave off its regular performance had been removed.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh : The second point: delay your question. The second point is that Abu Dawud narrated in his Sunan from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that he said: If a man prays 'Isha' in congregation and prays the standing of Ramadan in congregation, it is as if he had stood the entire night. So in this hadith there is an encouragement to pray tarawih in congregation. So where is the innovation that our master 'Umar introduced? He did not introduce anything; rather, the truth is that he revived a sunnah that the Prophet performed and encouraged through his words.
Here comes a natural question, just as our brother here was in a hurry: Why did Abu Bakr not revive it? We say: here there are two answers. The first answer, which we believe, is that the period of the caliphate of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq was short, two and a half years, as history knows, two and a half years. And secondly, his caliphate, despite its short duration, was occupied with his turning to fighting the people of apostasy, and he feared that Islam would go back into decline because of the apostasy that some Muslims in the Arabian Peninsula suffered from. So he was occupied with what was more important than reviving one of the sunnahs, even if the Muslims agreed to leave it off, the Hour would not come upon them because of it, because it is not obligatory upon them. How could it be, when before him were massive armies of apostates from their religion, spreading and spreading across the lands of the country? So he directed all his effort to repelling the aggression of these people or the spread of these people of apostasy. So he was not free to do something like reviving this sunnah. This is the first thing.
The second thing: My lord, it did not occur to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, what happened? We are concerned to know whether 'Umar erred or hit the mark, but why? For example, the Shaykh stands up at night and the people are sleeping, I do not stand up; why do I not stand up? And why does he stand up? May Allah guide him and grant him success for what He did not grant the other, but I am not sinful, because I did not leave an obligatory duty. And here it is not possible... because he is praying the standing of the night, which was legislated in the Book of Allah and the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So the important thing in our discussion here is not to know why Abu Bakr did not do it; no, we know whether what 'Umar did is an innovation or a sunnah. This is the crux of the matter.
So if we know why Abu Bakr did not do it, by Allah, it is an increase in knowledge and light upon light. And if we do not know, nothing is lacking from the seriousness, strength, and importance of this research at all. Because we want to prove that we refute those who accuse 'Umar ibn al-Khattab of innovating the tarawih prayer in congregation. May he be far from innovating anything in the religion of Allah. Rather, he revived a sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) which he prayed for three nights himself, then encouraged the people to pray it in congregation when the fear was removed. So when the fear was removed by the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), 'Umar ibn al-Khattab revived it.
The last question comes: Why did he say: "What a good innovation this is"? Because it had been left off before. Between the Prophet leaving it off and his reviving it, a time passed in which the people did not know it like this, in congregation behind one imam. So this is called a linguistic innovation, not a religious innovation. Because if we say: this is a religious innovation, we would be refuting these authentic hadiths, because the Prophet prayed it and the Prophet encouraged it. So this is not a religious innovation, but they called it an innovation because it occurred as a new thing after its interruption, after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) left it off after he had prayed it for three days.
This is what comes to my mind regarding the doubts of those who say in the good innovation. And you see clearly that there is nothing in these evidences that permits holding on to them to strike those decisive texts... which say that every innovation in Islam is misguidance. Rather, these are doubts, and the answer—and praise be to Allah—is clear. And perhaps this amount is sufficient.