Continuation of the discourse on refuting those who divide religious innovation into good and bad.

The Shaykh : 'Umar ibn al-Khattab saw that he should send them out, executing this will, the will of the Muslim community. This is an innovation in the linguistic sense, but as long as the legal evidence establishes its permissibility, it is not an innovation. Another example, which is perhaps clearer and more important: 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 the authentic collections and others. This was a matter that did not exist in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), so it is a newly occurring matter. We can say this is an innovation in the Arabic language, but it is an obligatory matter. The legal evidence for this action is established, first, by a jurisprudential rule: that without which an obligation cannot be fulfilled is itself obligatory. Can the religion and Islam be preserved except by preserving the words of the Lord of the Worlds? This is a necessity. Second, we have a text in the Noble Qur'an: . Where is that book? It is this one to which the Lord of the Worlds referred. It was previously in the Preserved Tablet, and it was established in legislation that it must be a book that is recited. So when we hear an example given of an obligatory innovation for this or that, such as the gathering of the Qur'an, 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 newly occurring matter, but this matter that occurred did not happen arbitrarily, or on the say-so of a layman, "What's the big deal, brother?" No, rather, this is based on evidence necessitating such a gathering, and the sending out that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) did. And by that, measure all innovations that have occurred and will occur. If the legal evidence establishes their permissibility or obligation, then these are not religious innovations, because the characteristic of religious innovations is misguidance . As for linguistic innovations, they accept this division based on the legal evidence. What indicates obligation is obligatory, what indicates permissibility is permissible, and between them are those known ranks. For example, some ignorant people, when we tell them this is an innovation, and the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says: , , to the end of the hadith, they tell you, "Brother, this car that you are riding in is an innovation." Glory be to Allah! This car is among the permissible matters that fall under the generality of the saying of the Exalted: . And this is something we did not know. You see, things have occurred that we did not know of . 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? Do you say it is an innovation? Yes, if we want to be precise, was this in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him)? It was not in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so this is an innovation. Yes, an innovation in the linguistic sense. The Exalted said regarding it: , meaning He who 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 a linguistic innovation, but why do you include it in the term of the word "innovation" for which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) used the saying: ? Like this. So if the legal evidence establishes the obligation of an innovation, we say it is obligatory, not because it occurred, but because it became obligatory. And likewise, if the evidence establishes the permissibility of something, we do not say this is permissible because it occurred; rather, it is permissible even if it had not occurred, because it falls under legal texts. And in this, we say in conclusion to this topic: if the word "innovation" comes in the language of the Shari'ah, we must interpret it according to the custom of the Shari'ah. So wherever "innovation" comes in the hadiths of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), it is first, blameworthy, and second, it refers to innovating in the religion. And if it comes in the words of scholars, it is interpreted according to the context, as we mentioned to you regarding the interpretation of the division of some scholars of innovation into five categories. We say this is a division of linguistic innovation. As for religious innovation, it is blameworthy absolutely. And for this, '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." This is self-evident that he is interpreting the innovation in this hadith as religious innovation, so he is speaking of our view in the briefest phrase: every innovation, meaning religious, is misguidance, even if people see it as good, unlike others.