If a man adopts the opinion of a Companion, and another Companion contradicted him, is it permissible to attribute religious innovation to this man if the opinion he adopted is contrary to the Sunnah?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : All right, Shaykh, regarding the issue of religious innovation and the words of Imam al-Shatibi concerning its conditions and the precautions to distinguish it from other matters, there is a statement mentioned by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah in the *Majmu' al-Fatawa*, volume thirty, page eighty. I understood from it a meaning, and I will first read it to you, meaning I will mention what appeared to me, and you clarify the correct understanding for us. May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "For this reason, some scholars said that their consensus is a decisive proof, and their disagreement is a vast mercy. And 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz said, 'I would not be pleased if the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had not differed, because if they agreed on an opinion and a man contradicted them, he would be misguided. But if they differed, and a man took the opinion of this one and a man took the opinion of that one, there would be breadth in the matter.' And similarly, other than Malik, the Imams said, 'It is not permissible for a jurist to compel people to follow his school of jurisprudence.'" The statement of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, assuming it is attributed to him or its attribution to him is authentic, it appeared to me that one does not judge any action as a religious innovation, or its doer as an innovator, if the issue is one of scholarly disagreement among the Companions. If they differed in it, even if the opinion is the weaker position and he adopted this weaker opinion, it is not called a religious innovation for this opinion, or for the one who says it. If I were to declare this a religious innovation, would I have to declare a religious innovation against the one who said this before? Is this statement correct, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : First, is the disagreement mentioned in these narrations, or in some of them, the same disagreement mentioned in the noble verse[An-Nisa 4:59] to the end of the verse? I believe the answer is clear to all those present that it is not. The explanation of this disagreement mentioned in these narrations is a disagreement where there is no explicit text supporting one of the parties. This disagreement mentioned here means a disagreement in opinion and independent legal reasoning that does not contradict an opinion with an explicit text in the Book of Allah or a hadith of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). This is the first point. Second, if the Imam who held an opinion contradicted an explicit text, it is not permissible to adopt it in this state and consider it a mercy, because he contradicted an explicit text. But if there is no explicit text, there is no doubt that the Muslim, in this state, has this breadth and he may adopt any opinion he wishes from these opinions. But we have conditions that we have mentioned on some occasions to block the door to following desires: that he does not adopt from these opinions what is most pleasing to his soul, but rather he adopts from these opinions what his soul is at peace with and his chest opens to. So, if this disagreement contradicts an explicit text, first, it is not permissible to follow it. Second, we do not declare the one who contradicts the explicit text an innovator, even though we say that his statement is a religious innovation. And I distinguish between saying "So-and-so has fallen into disbelief" and "So-and-so is a disbeliever."
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And similarly, "So-and-so has fallen into religious innovation" and "So-and-so is an innovator." No, because I understand, and I repeat to your ears so that you do not forget my foreignness and my foreignness, I say "So-and-so is an innovator," it does not mean he has fallen into a religious innovation. It is his characteristic that he innovates. "Innovator" is an active participle. This is like if we said "So-and-so is just," it does not mean he was just once in his life and then took this active participle name and was called "just," and so on. The point is, I say that the independent legal reasoner may fall into religious innovation, without doubt, but I do not blame him for it, nor do I apply the name "innovator" to him. This is in the case where he contradicts an explicit text. But if there is no explicit text at all, and independent legal reasoning was exerted by all those who disagreed, we believe that the statement with this condition is in its proper place.
The questioner : The statement of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is in its proper place.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes. As for generalizing it, as the people of innovation actually do, and those who contradict the Sunnahs with such disagreements, and they cite the hadith that you know is weak and has no basis, the place of this hadith, if it were authentic, is here. The place of this hadith, if it were authentic, is here.
The questioner : In an issue of independent legal reasoning where there is no explicit text, and one of the independent legal reasoners contradicted this explicit text.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you.
The questioner : From the perspective of this narration, O Shaykh, do you remember anything regarding its authenticity?
The Shaykh : No, by Allah, I do not remember, but I remember that this is narrated in the book *Jami' al-'Ilm* by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr.
The questioner : *Bayan al-'Ilm wa Fadhlihi*.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : May Allah reward you. We do not burden you.
The Shaykh : You are welcome.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you from all evil.
The Shaykh : Please.
The questioner : Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said, "For this reason, some scholars said that their consensus is a decisive proof, and their disagreement is a vast mercy. And 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz said, 'I would not be pleased if the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had not differed, because if they agreed on an opinion and a man contradicted them, he would be misguided. But if they differed, and a man took the opinion of this one and a man took the opinion of that one, there would be breadth in the matter.' And similarly, other than Malik, the Imams said, 'It is not permissible for a jurist to compel people to follow his school of jurisprudence.'" The statement of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, assuming it is attributed to him or its attribution to him is authentic, it appeared to me that one does not judge any action as a religious innovation, or its doer as an innovator, if the issue is one of scholarly disagreement among the Companions. If they differed in it, even if the opinion is the weaker position and he adopted this weaker opinion, it is not called a religious innovation for this opinion, or for the one who says it. If I were to declare this a religious innovation, would I have to declare a religious innovation against the one who said this before? Is this statement correct, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : First, is the disagreement mentioned in these narrations, or in some of them, the same disagreement mentioned in the noble verse
And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger
فإن تنازعتم في شيء فردوه إلى الله ورسولهThe questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : And similarly, "So-and-so has fallen into religious innovation" and "So-and-so is an innovator." No, because I understand, and I repeat to your ears so that you do not forget my foreignness and my foreignness, I say "So-and-so is an innovator," it does not mean he has fallen into a religious innovation. It is his characteristic that he innovates. "Innovator" is an active participle. This is like if we said "So-and-so is just," it does not mean he was just once in his life and then took this active participle name and was called "just," and so on. The point is, I say that the independent legal reasoner may fall into religious innovation, without doubt, but I do not blame him for it, nor do I apply the name "innovator" to him. This is in the case where he contradicts an explicit text. But if there is no explicit text at all, and independent legal reasoning was exerted by all those who disagreed, we believe that the statement with this condition is in its proper place.
The questioner : The statement of 'Umar ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Is in its proper place.
The questioner : Yes.
The Shaykh : Yes. As for generalizing it, as the people of innovation actually do, and those who contradict the Sunnahs with such disagreements, and they cite the hadith that you know is weak and has no basis,
The disagreement of my ummah is mercy
اختلاف أمتي رحمةThe questioner : In an issue of independent legal reasoning where there is no explicit text, and one of the independent legal reasoners contradicted this explicit text.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : May Allah bless you.
The questioner : From the perspective of this narration, O Shaykh, do you remember anything regarding its authenticity?
The Shaykh : No, by Allah, I do not remember, but I remember that this is narrated in the book *Jami' al-'Ilm* by Ibn 'Abd al-Barr.
The questioner : *Bayan al-'Ilm wa Fadhlihi*.
The Shaykh : Yes, indeed.
The questioner : May Allah reward you. We do not burden you.
The Shaykh : You are welcome.
The questioner : May Allah preserve you from all evil.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.