All innovation is misguidance, and the refutation of those who divided it into good and bad

The Shaykh : , all of these are words of comprehensiveness and generality according to the scholars of usul al-fiqh (the principles of jurisprudence), . This is on the same pattern as , . It addresses the Muslims and confirms that the original meaning of this word is generality and comprehensiveness. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said in this last hadith, and his Companions were astonished, saying, "Who would refuse?" He said: . So every Muslim enters Paradise, without exception. Every intoxicant is khamr (intoxicants), without exception. Every bid'ah (religious innovation) is misguidance, without exception. Every bid'ah is misguidance, absolutely without exception. So it is misguidance for a Muslim, especially if he has been given some knowledge and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence), to strike at the hadith in the chest. The hadith says: . He says, "No, not every bid'ah is misguidance. Bid'ah is divided into five categories," and then they detail them, as some of you may have read that detail in some books. How is this? This is a deviation from what the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was upon. But I do not want to be unjust or transgressing, for I know that some of the people of knowledge and virtue, both past and present, have fallen into this error when they divided bid'ah into five categories, including Imam al-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him). This division, in their view, is actually a linguistic division, not a Shari'ah division. The division of bid'ah into five categories, like its division into good and bad bid'ah, is not a Shari'ah division by their terminology; rather, it is a linguistic division. What they mean by it is that there are matters that occurred after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), yet they are not considered misguidance, but rather a good bid'ah. And this good bid'ah may be obligatory, or it may be a sunnah (recommended practice), or it may be... and so on. I want this warning and reminder to make it clear that when they divide bid'ah into five categories, they do not mean the Shari'ah bid'ah, but rather the linguistic bid'ah, i.e., the matter that occurred. It is this that accepts this division in terms of the evidence of the Shari'ah. So whatever the Shari'ah evidence establishes as good is good, and whatever the Shari'ah evidence does not establish as good is misguidance. Perhaps giving examples will clarify such an 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 was after the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) by a long time, for it was during the caliphate of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. So this expulsion, in terms of linguistic expression, is a bid'ah, meaning something that occurred that was not before. But is it a bid'ah of misguidance? The answer is no, because 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) only carried out this expulsion by executing a Prophetic command and condition. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had established it for the Jews when he shared Khaybar with them: one share of what is cultivated from it for the Messenger, and the other share for the Jews. So he left them in Khaybar as long as We wish. He (peace and blessings be upon him) said to them: . And it was not forever. So 'Umar ibn al-Khattab saw that he should expel them, executing this will, the will of the community. This is a bid'ah linguistically, but since the Shari'ah evidence has established its permissibility, it is not a bid'ah. Another example, and 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 known in Sahih (authentic) collections and others. This was a matter that was not in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), so it is a newly occurred matter. We can say this is a bid'ah in the Arabic language, but it is an obligatory matter. The Shari'ah evidence has established this action, first, by a fiqh rule: what is not accomplished except by it is obligatory. Can the religion and Islam be preserved except by preserving the words of the Lord of the Worlds? This is necessary. Second, we have a text in the Noble Qur'an: . "That Book," where is the Book? It is this that the Lord of the Worlds referred to. 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 the obligatory bid'ah for this or that, by this or that, by giving the example of gathering the Qur'an, they say, "This is a good bid'ah." We must interpret their words, for the original rule regarding the words of scholars is that they are to be understood in the best sense. So we must interpret their words to mean that it is a bid'ah in the sense of a matter that occurred, but this that occurred did not happen arbitrarily, or on the say of the layman, "What's in it, brother?" No, rather, this was by a compelling evidence for such a gathering.