What is your opinion of this phrase: "Ta'wil (figurative interpretation) averts takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) but does not avert declaring someone an innovator"?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : , O Shaykh, regarding ta'wil (figurative interpretation). What is your opinion, may Allah preserve you and bless you, of this phrase: "Ta'wil (figurative interpretation) averts takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever)"?
The Shaykh : Excuse me, ta'wil (figurative interpretation)?
The questioner : "Ta'wil (figurative interpretation) averts... averts takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) but does not avert declaring someone an innovator." This means, O Shaykh, that every one who engages in ta'wil (figurative interpretation) is an innovator, but not that he is a disbeliever. Is this generalization correct? Or must it be detailed? May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : No, it is not correct.
The questioner : It is not correct, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : It is not correct, and be patient with me.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : This statement reduces the matter to declaring someone an innovator, not declaring someone a disbeliever, regarding ta'wil (figurative interpretation). Our position on declaring someone an innovator is the same as our position on declaring someone a disbeliever, as mentioned earlier at the beginning of the session: we do not declare anyone a disbeliever unless the argument is established against him, and we do not declare anyone an innovator unless the argument is established against him. Even if he has innovated, his innovation may be due to a mistaken ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) on his part, or perhaps the more accurate phrasing is that it is due to an erroneous ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) on his part. Just as a mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings) may fall into deeming permissible what Allah has forbidden, do you understand this phrase or not? I say that just as a mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings) may fall into deeming permissible what Allah has forbidden, and in reality he does, but he does not intend to deem it permissible; rather, he exerts effort and derives rulings, and thus falls into contradicting the prohibition, or he says something is lawful when the text either has not clarified its indication or has not reached him, so he says what he says and deems the forbidden permissible without intending to deem the forbidden permissible. There is no difference between one who deems the forbidden permissible through ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), one who commits an innovation through ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and one who falls into disbelief through ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). There is absolutely no difference. And whoever distinguishes between any one of these three matters is inconsistent and contradictory.
The Shaykh : Excuse me, ta'wil (figurative interpretation)?
The questioner : "Ta'wil (figurative interpretation) averts... averts takfir (declaring someone a disbeliever) but does not avert declaring someone an innovator." This means, O Shaykh, that every one who engages in ta'wil (figurative interpretation) is an innovator, but not that he is a disbeliever. Is this generalization correct? Or must it be detailed? May Allah bless you.
The Shaykh : No, it is not correct.
The questioner : It is not correct, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : It is not correct, and be patient with me.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : This statement reduces the matter to declaring someone an innovator, not declaring someone a disbeliever, regarding ta'wil (figurative interpretation). Our position on declaring someone an innovator is the same as our position on declaring someone a disbeliever, as mentioned earlier at the beginning of the session: we do not declare anyone a disbeliever unless the argument is established against him, and we do not declare anyone an innovator unless the argument is established against him. Even if he has innovated, his innovation may be due to a mistaken ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) on his part, or perhaps the more accurate phrasing is that it is due to an erroneous ijtihad (independent legal reasoning) on his part. Just as a mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings) may fall into deeming permissible what Allah has forbidden, do you understand this phrase or not? I say that just as a mujtahid (a scholar qualified to derive rulings) may fall into deeming permissible what Allah has forbidden, and in reality he does, but he does not intend to deem it permissible; rather, he exerts effort and derives rulings, and thus falls into contradicting the prohibition, or he says something is lawful when the text either has not clarified its indication or has not reached him, so he says what he says and deems the forbidden permissible without intending to deem the forbidden permissible. There is no difference between one who deems the forbidden permissible through ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), one who commits an innovation through ijtihad (independent legal reasoning), and one who falls into disbelief through ijtihad (independent legal reasoning). There is absolutely no difference. And whoever distinguishes between any one of these three matters is inconsistent and contradictory.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.