We often read and hear you say that this act is a bid'ah (religious innovation), even though it is a matter of fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) disagreement among scholars. Is this permissible?

The questioner : We find, may Allah reward you, Shaykh, that in some of your writings you apply the term bid'ah (religious innovation) to some fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) disagreements. This is now common among students of knowledge in fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) matters where disagreement has existed previously. We find people labeling them as bid'ah (religious innovation), so we do not know what the criterion for bid'ah (religious innovation) is, such that we are hesitant lest we err regarding the imams, the imams of the Salaf (the earliest generations), may Allah have mercy on them.

The Shaykh : Do you have an example of those examples you are referring to, or of the fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) matters in which there is disagreement?

The questioner : Yes, for example, placing the hands after standing up, and another example is the athan (the call to prayer) with the tathwib in the last athan (the call to prayer)?

The Shaykh : Which athan (the call to prayer)?

The questioner : The tathwib in the Fajr (the dawn prayer) athan (the call to prayer): "Prayer is better than sleep"?

The Shaykh : Yes, I understood you. Now listen to the answer if you wish. There is no doubt that bid'ah (religious innovation) is any matter that occurred after the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) with the intention of increasing closeness to Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He). As for the claim that bid'ah (religious innovation) is the contradiction of the Sunnah (the Prophet's way), there is no disagreement on this. However, there is something that may be hidden from many students of knowledge, and even from some of the specialists. This is what I should focus my words on, and consequently it will become clear to you whether it is permissible for a researcher to apply the term bid'ah (religious innovation) to a fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) issue in which some scholars have held one of the views of disagreement. I will present this with a very simple example. There is no doubt that it does not occur to the mind of any of the general Muslims, let alone the specialists, that any of the Muslim scholars would permit what Allah has forbidden, or conversely, forbid what Allah has permitted. This statement is correct, but it must be qualified. When it is qualified, we find that the matter differs completely, such that a student of knowledge can say that an imam or a mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings) may forbid something Allah has permitted, and vice versa. This is because the matter returns to ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), which scholars have agreed is permissible, and even obligatory when they do not find a definitive text in the issue they wish to investigate and answer, as in his (peace be upon him) saying: So, if we pause briefly at his (peace be upon him) saying: This error, when it becomes clear to a scholar, a student of knowledge, or a layperson that it is an error by that imam, through one of the means of clarification, it is self-evident to say: It is not permissible to follow this imam in this error whose error has become clear to people. This is a premise on which no two people differ, or at least, they should not differ. If the matter is so, this error in which that imam erred, and for which he receives a reward, this reward is not for the error itself, but for the occurrence of his ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). He exerted effort to know the truth that Allah intended, but he erred. So our Lord wrote for him one reward, unlike the one who hit the truth, for whom two rewards were written. So, this error, we say, is very self-evident: it is not permissible to act upon it, nor is it permissible to follow the imam who held it. Now we approach the core of the research. Is it not possible that this error could be something haram (forbidden) that Allah forbade, and the imam went to permitting it, or conversely, something halal (lawful) that Allah permitted, and the imam went to forbidding it? Both are by ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). So, let no one present or otherwise think: How can an imam forbid what Allah permitted, and permit what Allah forbade? The answer is by ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). Otherwise, what is the cause of the much disagreement we see today and before today, even in the era of the Companions (the Companions of the Prophet)? It is ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). As for the causes of disagreement and the causes of falling into error, they are many and very many. The Shaykh of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, may Allah have mercy on him, covered much of this in his famous treatise "Raf' al-Malam 'an al-A'immah al-A'lam" (Lifting Blame from the Distinguished Imams). I am now giving an example of what was known in the purest and most radiant era, the era of the noble Companions (the Companions of the Prophet) after the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). We now firmly believe that it is haram (forbidden) for a husband, if he has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate, to stand up for wudu' (the ablution for prayer) without ghusl (the full ritual bath) and pray. Rather, ghusl (the full ritual bath) is required of him. But what do we say about those Companions (the Companions of the Prophet), led by the Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him), who were among those who said that if one has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate, wudu' (the ablution for prayer) is sufficient for him, so he performs wudu' (the ablution for prayer) and stands to pray? If we were to elaborate on this matter, what is it? Is it not the case that it is not permissible for a Muslim, if his intercourse is of this nature, except to perform ghusl (the full ritual bath)? If he does not perform ghusl (the full ritual bath), does he have a prayer? There is no doubt he has no prayer, and the wudu' (the ablution for prayer) he performed before the prayer does not benefit him. Is this prayer valid? The answer is no. Is this act permissible? The answer is no. What is the ruling on this act? It is haram (forbidden). But our predecessors, or some of our predecessors, said it. This is an example, and it is Uthman ibn Affan, and the examples multiply and increase greatly, especially when we enter the known disagreements between the four imams. From the common and known examples today: one says if a man touches a woman without desire, he does not repeat his wudu' (the ablution for prayer). The other says if he touches her, caresses her, bites her, and so on, as long as nothing moves from him, his wudu' (the ablution for prayer) is valid. There is no doubt that one of them permitted what Allah forbade, or forbade what Allah permitted. There is no way around that. As for who permitted what Allah forbade and who forbade what Allah permitted, this returns to the opinion of the researcher and the mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings), and so on. We are not in that position now. But these examples, which are many and very many, and suffice us because time is pressing, do not we have the right to say: So-and-so erred when he said it is permissible to stand for prayer with just wudu' (the ablution for prayer), while the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: We say he erred without doubt and committed a contradiction, but he is rewarded. As I said earlier, the examples of this type are many and very many. A student of knowledge is sufficient with one or two examples from these many to return to bid'ah (religious innovation). If it is permissible for a scholar to commit a haram (forbidden) act by ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) and still be rewarded for his ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) as we mentioned, is it not permissible for him to commit a bid'ah (religious innovation) and be rewarded for it? There is no doubt that if the first is permissible, the second is permissible a fortiori. So, does this justify a student of knowledge to conceal knowledge and not say that such-and-such is haram (forbidden) because such-and-such an imam said it is mubah (permissible)? This is not permissible. But if he clarifies to people the error of this imam, he should not forget to accompany this clarification with the statement that this imam is rewarded. Especially since most, what shall I say, most Muslims, both specialists and laypeople, today are accustomed to objecting to the statement "So-and-so erred." It is not permissible for me to say "So-and-so erred." And the Messenger (peace be upon him) said: This is because they inverted the concept of "So-and-so erred" to mean he is punished, and this is an error. Because the fact that so-and-so erred may mean he is rewarded if he was a mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings), and he may be punished if he was ignorant. If the research is about scholars, or some scholars who erred in a certain issue, it is self-evident to say that this imam erred, but he is rewarded. And in that case, there is no difference at all for us in whether he permitted what Allah forbade by his ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) or committed a bid'ah (religious innovation) in his ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). If the matter is so, and there is no difference between the two cases, between committing the haram (forbidden) and falling into bid'ah (religious innovation), as long as that commission and that falling are derived from ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), he is rewarded in any case. Once you know this premise, we return quickly to the two previous examples. Placing the hands on the chest in the first standing, we believe this is contrary to the Sunnah (the Prophet's way). If so, then the fact that this placement is a bid'ah (religious innovation) is certain, because it is contrary to the Sunnah (the Prophet's way). But all that is the matter...

The questioner : The second standing.

The Shaykh : The second standing. What did I say?

The questioner : I said in the first standing.

The Shaykh : No, no, you were right and I was wrong, meaning the sitting in the second standing. The issue differs in the method of ruling on whether this sitting is an innovation or a recommended practice. Here, the matter is delicate, and in my opinion, not only students of knowledge but many scholars themselves do not pay attention to it. This point is that it is not permissible to use the general texts as evidence for practical acts of worship that the righteous Salaf practiced; rather, the evidence must be accompanied by a practical Sunnah. If we do not say this, we have agreed with all the innovators on their innovations, which we, the people of the Sunnah, unanimously agree to deny, on the basis of . They do not come to us with anything but general evidence. Take, for example, the *tathwib* (the call to prayer), which is related to the *adhan*. We take the additions that exist in the *adhan* at the beginning and the end in some Islamic countries, such as Syria and perhaps others. If we argue with them using the logic of the Sunnah and the previous hadith , they say, "My brother, what is the problem? What is the problem with sending blessings upon the Prophet after the *adhan*? What is the problem with the remembrance of Allah before the *adhan*?" And all of this has texts from the Book and the Sunnah. We cannot say there are no texts there, because they confront us with . Why do you deny sending blessings upon the Prophet after the *adhan*? Our answer is that what you are doing was not in the time of the righteous Salaf . We do not deny sending blessings upon him; rather, we send blessings upon him, perhaps more than you do; but we place things in their proper place. Likewise, the remembrance : we do it, if Allah wills, but this remembrance before the *adhan* was not in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). Here is a subtle point we must pay attention to: Do we have a text in which the Prophet forbade adding to the *adhan* at the beginning and the end? Or do we simply not know that the righteous Salaf did what the later generations did, adding to the *adhan* at its beginning or end? The answer is that we do not have a text in which the Prophet forbade it, or even less than that, that the Salaf in the time of the Prophet did not add to the *adhan* at its beginning or end. So where do we get the argument against these innovators that you have contradicted the Salaf? Here is the crux of this speech: we say, "If this had been the case, they would have done it." If what you are doing today had been in the time of the righteous Salaf, they would have done it, and if they had done it, it would have been transmitted to us. Thus, through this scientific deduction, we know most of the innovations in which the innovators have fallen, and the people of the Sunnah unanimously agree to deny them. If this is established, and it is established one hundred percent, we return to the sitting mentioned in the second standing. . If they had done it, the reports would have come in succession and become mass-transmitted, just as the reports regarding the sitting in the first standing became mass-transmitted. Therefore, we used the word "innovation" for this act based on this logical scientific sequence in the mind of the one who used the term "innovation." However, there was no room to explain all these premises in a brief treatise written to clarify the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). But what allowed us to advise the Muslims was to point out that this sitting is not in the Sunnah. We also say, and this is even more so, regarding the *tathwib* you mentioned, which is saying "Prayer is better than sleep" in the second *adhan*. We say this is less severe than that; because we do not say it was not transmitted, but rather we say the opposite was transmitted. This is, of course, stronger for denial; because it came in the hadith of Abu Maythura in the *Sunan* of al-Nasa'i and the *Sahih* of Ibn Khuzaymah and others that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family), when he taught him the *adhan* and heard his voice and was pleased with it, said: . Also, and this is very important because it has a strong connection to our previous discussion, Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab said that in the first *adhan* in the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him and his family) . So if this *tathwib* is moved from the first *adhan* to the second *adhan*, this is a blow to the Sunnah. This is a matter in which there should be no disagreement, just as disagreement may occur in the issue of placing the hands, because the truth is that we do not have "they did not place their hands in the second standing," nor do we have the opposite; rather, we arrived at it through those precise scientific premises. As for the second example, it is clear, and clearer than the sun in the fourth hour of the day, and it does not accept any argument; because the two established hadiths confirm that this *tathwib* is in the first *adhan*. So if we see that the Muslims today have agreed, or nearly agreed, and perhaps the latter is more accurate than the former, nearly agreed to contradict the Sunnah by saying "Prayer is better than sleep" in the second *adhan* and not saying it in the first *adhan*, or perhaps they do not perform the first *adhan* at all; then what Sunnah, or what innovation, is not an innovation when it contradicts the verbal and practical, actual teaching of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) in his time? The verbal teaching is in the hadith of Abu Maythura, and the practical, actual teaching is in the hadith of Abdullah ibn 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. There is no doubt that this *tathwib* in the second *adhan* is an innovation, not a deduction, but a text; because it contradicted two hadiths, contradicted the previous practice of the Salaf, and contradicted the teaching of the noble Prophet. Supporting what is established in the Sunnah is the correct view, for the Prophetic guidance has the ruling of his teaching, and it has the ruling of what he knew, and those who knew it knew it, and those who did not know it did not know it. Why was the first *adhan*? It came in the *Sahih* that that was . Therefore, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . And he was a blind man, and he did not call the *adhan* until it was said to him, "It is morning, it is morning," meaning the time of Fajr has entered, so he would call the *adhan*. So this first *adhan* had the phrase placed in it, because it is an address to the sleepers, so that the sleeper would wake up and the one who is eating the pre-dawn meal would eat it. So it is contrary to wisdom, let alone contrary to the Sunnah as we explained, to say to people, "But what people are these?" They are the believing, righteous people. It is supposed that they are awake when they hear the first Fajr *adhan*, awake. But the truth is that most people today, when they hear "Prayer is better than sleep," are actually what? Asleep; because they did not hear the first *adhan*, and especially if they did not hear "Prayer is better than sleep" in it, they only hear this phrase in the second *adhan*. So this reverses the Sunnah and reverses the wisdom deduced from the authentic hadith. So if we say that the *tathwib* in the second *adhan* is an innovation, students of knowledge, let alone scholars, should not ask how this is, when the Muslims today do it. We say in conclusion: And all good is in following those who came before *** And all evil is in the innovation of those who came after
And in this scientific manner, we affirm to people that we are with the Salaf, and that we are truly Salafis, and not Khulafis. And perhaps this is sufficient, and praise be to Allah, Lord of the worlds.

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.

The Shaykh : And beware of it. In the name of Allah, in the name of Allah, O Allah.
....

The Shaykh : For example, people in Maghrib might recite with the recitation of Warsh; because they do not know any other form like this. For example, he recites "he knows" instead of "they know," and it has a basis. Do you think he was right or wrong? People start talking and saying all sorts of things, as they say, while they are in prayer.

The questioner : The "bariyyah" or the "bari'ah"?

The Shaykh : Yes, the "bariyyah."

The questioner : Did we learn that he recites with shortening?

The Shaykh : With shortening.

The questioner : Shortening of ?

The Shaykh : Yes, "Malik." But this is not to be compared to that; because this is a recitation known to everyone, and in reality, it is mass-transmitted.

The questioner : In any case, our Shaykh, on this occasion, the disagreement in the forms of recitation is not in the word, meaning they are "hum"?

The Shaykh : But I gave you an example earlier, "they know" and "you know." Well, if the mushaf has "they know" and there is a recitation "you know," and the imam recites "you know," what will be the position of the one behind him?

The questioner : They will correct him.

The Shaykh : They will correct him; but when he sees that they want to correct him, he sees that for every verse he recites in a different form, they want to learn, so doubt will enter them about many things. O Allah, I glorify You and praise You, I bear witness that there is no god but You, I seek Your forgiveness and I repent to You.