Explaining the Danger of Religious Innovation

The Shaykh : No, that is not the case. Rather, the adhan is like the iqamah; each of them is an obligatory matter that is not permissible to leave, especially in the mosques. The adhan was a distinguishing mark of the Muslims to the extent that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he went out on a military expedition calling people to Allah and passed by a village in the morning, would order his companions to wait and listen. If they heard the adhan, he would proceed on his way. If they did not hear the adhan, he would attack the village; that is, he would consider it a non-Muslim village. This is a great practical proof, the greatest proof that the adhan is one of the symbols of Islam, and it is not permissible to be negligent with it. If we assume that this adhan is a recommended practice (sunnah), then we agree with this opponent that there is no difference between something being a recommended practice (sunnah) and it being an obligation (fard) or obligatory (wajib) in that it is not permissible to add to it or subtract from it. So how did you justify adding to the adhan before it and after it, and perhaps other things mentioned in the question, such as reciting three times, and what is called in the language of jurists the "tarqiyah" (elevation) before the preacher when he ascends the pulpit on Friday?
All of this and that has no basis in the Sunnah. I wonder! Who believes in his saying (peace be upon him) mentioned earlier: Is it conceivable that he would add to his guidance (peace be upon him)? I fear for these people that certainty, which is death, will come to them while they are not Muslims. Why? Because I cannot imagine a believer who truly believes in his Messenger, and that he conveyed the message and fulfilled the trust without any deviation, deficiency, or addition; yet he dares to encroach upon the status of the Messenger (peace be upon him) and his guidance, adding whatever he wishes to his guidance (peace be upon him). And his answer, with great regret, is: "What is the big deal, brother?!" This person is heedless, and the heedless one must be warned. But I fear, and I fear greatly, that his heedlessness will continue until the day of his death. It is necessary to fear that he will die upon other than faith. Why? Because I understand that this person has not let his saying (peace be upon him): penetrate the core of his heart, as it is said. Otherwise, this alone would have been a deterrent for him from daring to encroach upon the status of prophethood by adding to what the Messenger (peace be upon him) brought, claiming that this is better. There is another hadith in which the Messenger (peace be upon him) confirms his first hadith: Do you think our Prophet (peace be upon him) appointed something better than that, or something less than that? Without doubt, it is better than that. And he confirms for you this with his other hadith, which is his saying (peace be upon him): This hadith, and the one before it, and the one before that, and all the hadiths of the Messenger (peace be upon him) are, in reality, an explanation and detailing of the noble verse: .
Some of the early predecessors understood the greatness of this noble verse. One of them was a Jew, then Allah granted him Islam; that is Ka'b al-Ahbar. When he came to 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him), he said: "O Commander of the Faithful, there is a verse in the Book of Allah that, if it had been revealed to us, the Jews, we would have made the day of its revelation a festival." He repeated: "We would have made the day of its revelation a festival." 'Umar said: "What is it?" He said: to the end of the verse. 'Umar said: "I am one of the most knowledgeable people about it. It was revealed on a Friday—this is a festival—and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) was at 'Arafah. This is a festival. So it was revealed during a festival, in a festival. Do not hope for more than that." It seems he was saying to that man: "I know the greatness of this verse. Some of the early predecessors understood it. One of them was this one who was a Jew and then became a Muslim. I say from my own knowledge: he was a Jew and then became a Muslim, because in some narrations it is Ka'b al-Ahbar. The hadith in "Sahih" (the authentic collection) is that a man from the Jews said: "If it had been upon us, the Jews..." to the end of it.
And among the predecessors was one of the famous, followed Imams of the Muslims; that is Imam Malik ibn Anas, the Imam of the City of Migration (Madinah). He (may Allah be pleased with him) used to say a word, as it is said, that should be written in gold ink: "Whoever innovates a religious innovation (bid'ah) that he considers good, has claimed that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) betrayed the message. Read the saying of Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He): . Then he followed it with some words that are explanations of the contents of this noble Qur'anic text, saying: "So whatever was not a religion at that time will not be a religion today." There is nothing new left. "So whatever was not a religion at that time will not be a religion today, and the end of this Ummah will not be rectified except by what rectified its beginning." Who is the end of this Ummah? We are among them without doubt. We want rectification and we want reform. Many, and many, of those who claim reform and want to establish the Muslim state on earth do not revolve around this Maliki, Madinan word: "The end of this Ummah will not be rectified except by what rectified its beginning." By what was its beginning rectified? By innovation or by following? Without doubt, the answer for everyone, even those who say there is a good innovation, is that they cannot say anything other than our saying: The matter of this Ummah in its beginning was not rectified except by their following of their Prophet (may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him). So let them be with us in calling and in conduct.
, all of the words of comprehensiveness and generality in the view of the scholars of usul al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence), ; this is on the scale of: , addresses the Muslims. And to confirm that the original meaning of this word is generality and comprehensiveness, he (peace be upon him) says in this last hadith: . His companions were amazed and said: "And who would refuse?" He said: . So every Muslim enters Paradise without exception, without exception, never without exception. So it is misguidance for a Muslim, especially if he has been given some knowledge and jurisprudence, to say: No, striking the hadith in the chest, the hadith says: Every innovation is misguidance. He says: No, not every innovation is misguidance; innovation is divided into five categories!! Then they detail it, as perhaps some of you have read its detailing in some books. How is this? This is deviation from what the Messenger (peace be upon him) was upon. But I do not want to be unjust and transgressing, because I know that some people of knowledge and virtue, both ancient and modern, have fallen into this error when they divided innovation into five categories, among them is Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him).
This division, in their reality, students of knowledge must be clear that this division is a linguistic division and not a Shari'ah division. Dividing innovation into five categories is like dividing it into good and bad innovation. But this division is not a Shari'ah division by their terminology; rather, it is a linguistic division. They mean by this that there are matters that occurred after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and yet are not considered misguidance, but rather a good innovation. And this good innovation may be obligatory, or it may be a recommended practice (sunnah), or it may... to the end of it. I want from this warning and reminder that when they divide innovation into five categories, they do not mean the Shari'ah innovation but the linguistic innovation; that is, the matter that occurred is what accepts this division in terms of the evidence of the Shari'ah. So whatever the Shari'ah evidence has established its goodness, it is good. And whatever the Shari'ah evidence has not established its goodness, it is misguidance.
Perhaps giving examples is what clarifies this issue. We all know that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) expelled the Jews from Khaybar. There is no doubt that this expulsion took place some time after the death of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), because it occurred during the caliphate of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. Linguistically, this expulsion is an innovation (bid'ah), meaning something that happened that had not happened before. But is it an innovation of misguidance? The answer is: No. Why? Because 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) carried out this expulsion in fulfillment of a Prophetic command and condition that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) had established for the Jews when he shared Khaybar with them: the share of what was cultivated from it belonged to the Messenger of Allah, and the other share belonged to the Jews. So he allowed them to remain in Khaybar and said to them (peace and blessings be upon him): until forever. 'Umar ibn al-Khattab saw that he should expel them to fulfill this will, the will of the community. This is an innovation linguistically, but as long as the Shari'ah evidence establishes its permissibility, it is not an innovation.
Another example—and perhaps a clearer and more important one: Abu Bakr began, 'Umar continued, and 'Uthman completed the gathering of the Qur'an in the sheets after it had been scattered. The story is well known in "Sahih" and other books. This was a matter that did not exist in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him); it was a new occurrence. We can say that this is an innovation in the Arabic language, but it is an obligatory matter for which Shari'ah evidence has been established. First, based on the jurisprudential rule: "What is necessary for the fulfillment of an obligation is itself obligatory." Can the religion and Islam be preserved except by preserving the words of the Lord of the Worlds? This is essential. Second, we have a text in the Noble Qur'an: , Where is the Book? It is this that the Lord of the Worlds referred to, which previously existed in the Preserved Tablet and was established in the legislation that it must be a Book to be recited. So when we hear an example given of an obligatory innovation, whether for this or that, or with this or that, and they say: "This is a good innovation," we must interpret their words, because the default in the words of scholars is that they are to be understood in the best sense. We must interpret their words to mean an innovation in the sense of a new occurrence, but this occurrence did not happen arbitrarily or based on the layman's saying: "What's the big deal, brother?" No, rather, this was based on evidence necessitating such a gathering and that expulsion which 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) carried out. Accordingly, measure all innovations that have occurred and will occur: if Shari'ah evidence establishes their permissibility or obligation, they are not a Shari'ah innovation, because the characteristic of a Shari'ah innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Fire. As for the linguistic innovation, it accepts this classification based on Shari'ah evidence: what indicates obligation is obligatory, what indicates permissibility is permissible, and this includes those known levels.
For example, some ignorant people, when we tell them: "Brother, this is an innovation," and the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: , to the end of the hadith. They say to you: "Brother, this car you are riding in is an innovation." Glory be to Allah! This car is among the permissible matters that fall under the generality of His saying (Glorified and Exalted is He): . This is something we did not know, just as things happened that we did not know, . Without a doubt, this tea and this cup with its waist and neck, and so on, did not exist in that time. So what is the ruling on this drinking? Is it an innovation? We do not say it is an innovation. It is true that if we were to be precise, did this exist in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him)? It did not exist in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So this is an innovation, yes, an innovation linguistically. He (Glorified and Exalted is He) said regarding it: ; meaning He created them after they did not exist, so He is the innovator, He is the creator, He is the one who brought it into being, and so on. So this is an innovation linguistically, but why do you include it in the term "innovation" to which the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) applied his saying: ? Like this. So if Shari'ah evidence establishes the obligation of an innovation, we say it is obligatory not because it is a new occurrence, but because it is obligatory. Likewise, if evidence establishes the permissibility of something, we say: this is permissible not because it is a new occurrence; no, it is permissible even if it had not occurred, because it falls under Shari'ah texts, and so on.
And in this, we conclude this topic as well: If the term "innovation" (bid'ah) comes in the language of the Shari'ah, we must interpret it according to the custom of the Shari'ah. So wherever "innovation" appears in the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), it is first of all blameworthy, and secondly, it refers to innovating in the religion. And if it appears in the words of scholars, it is interpreted according to the context, as we mentioned to you regarding the interpretation of the classification of some scholars of innovation into five categories. We say: This classification is for the linguistic innovation. As for the Shari'ah innovation, it is blameworthy absolutely. For this reason, 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said—and with this authentic report I conclude the answer to that question—he said (may Allah be pleased with him): "Every innovation is misguidance, even if people see it as good." It is self-evident that he is interpreting "innovation" in this hadith as the Shari'ah innovation, so he is speaking about our view in the most concise phrase: "Every innovation"—meaning Shari'ah innovation—"is misguidance, even if people see it as good."
Other than that?