The Shaykh’s remarks on the hadith: “Whoever introduces a good practice in Islam…”

The Shaykh : First, the occasion of the hadith, as it appears in the source to which the hadith is always and forever attributed, which is Sahih Muslim. It is narrated by its authentic chain from Jarir ibn 'Abd Allah al-Bajali (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: expressing sorrow and grief over their poverty. Then he addressed the Companions and said: , then he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: and mentioned other things to encourage the Companions to give charity. So a man from those present stood up and returned carrying in the corner of his garment whatever charity he could manage, and he placed it in front of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). When the Companions of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) who were around him saw what their companion had done, each of them stood up to return with whatever charity he could manage. So there gathered in front of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) piles of charity like mountains. When he (may Allah's prayers and peace be upon him) saw that, his face lit up as if it were a polished silver plate gilded with gold, with joy and delight at the response of his Companions (peace and blessings be upon him) to his command to them to give charity. Then, on this occasion, he said: . Now, after you have heard the occasion, you must agree with me that there is no innovation that occurred for which the hadith needs to be interpreted . The whole matter is that the Messenger commanded them to give charity, and charity had already been commanded before this incident, because the verse had been revealed. So this first man did not innovate a good innovation in Islam, but he opened a path that was practically closed. The Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) were responsive to his (peace and blessings be upon him) sermon, but they did not realize that this response should be accompanied by action. So that first man opened the door to action. When those who followed him followed him, he (peace and blessings be upon him) said: . What is the good sunnah here? It is charity, for these poor Bedouins. So if we look only at this occasion, the interpretation of the hadith as "whoever innovates a good innovation in Islam" is invalid, because there is no innovation that occurred in the incident. And I used to say, and I still say, that I, a non-Arab like me, Al-Albani, am shy to say, on the occasion of such an incident where there is no innovation, to say that it is not the wording of the Messenger, but the wording to which they are deviating in their interpretation of the hadith. I am shy, I, the non-Arab Al-Albani, to say "whoever innovates a good innovation in Islam," because the majority will say, "O Shaykh, what are you saying? Where is the innovation here? There is no innovation here, so you are wrong when you say 'whoever innovates a good innovation in Islam.'" But if I speak with the wording of the Messenger, no one dares to refute me, because the good sunnah applies to the action of this man. Why? Because charity is undoubtedly good, its goodness being known by the Shari'ah. So he did not bring anything new; the whole matter is that he started before any other person, and the other people followed his guidance. So he had his reward and the reward of whoever acted according to it until the Day of Resurrection. And in that case, this hadith corresponds to this meaning, or to this correct interpretation of the other hadith, which is also to the end of the hadith. So it is not that he called to an innovation, but rather he called to a good sunnah, or to a guidance to which the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) guided us. This is if we stop at the reason for the hadith's occurrence. And I mention on this occasion a scientific benefit. The scholars of tafsir say: if the reason for the revelation of a verse is known, half of the meaning of the verse is understood, and the other half is understood from the Arabic style. Quoting from this exegetical statement, I say: if we know the reason for the hadith's occurrence, half of its meaning is revealed to us, and then we must use the language to complete the understanding of the other meaning. This is the other meaning of understanding. Now, I am proceeding in this path, so I say: the hadith has two parts . What is the way to know the good sunnah and the bad sunnah? Is it the intellect or the Shari'ah? Undoubtedly, the answer will be that it is the Shari'ah. So the intellect does not have the independence to say about a new matter that it is a good sunnah except with evidence from the Shari'ah. Just as the intellect does not have the independence, and cannot judge about a new matter that it is a bad sunnah except with the evidence of the Shari'ah. So our reference, first and last, is to the Shari'ah. So whoever says about this hadith , let us assume that this thing actually occurred, though it was not in the time of the Messenger, but our description of this new matter as good or bad must have what? It must have evidence in the Shari'ah that helps us to review: is this good or bad? So the Shari'ah is the judge. And here, a brief pause is necessary. The mere occurrence of a thing, after it was not in the first time, does not necessarily mean that it is good in itself by necessity, or that it is bad. It may be permissible, like many of the means that have emerged in the present age and were not in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). We do not say about them generally that they are good or that they are bad, but we weigh them with the scale of the Shari'ah. Let us give some examples of what occurred in the past after the Messenger and what is happening today, after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And this is one of the doubts of the innovators: that the Companions collected the Qur'an in the time of Abu Bakr, then 'Umar, then 'Uthman. This collection was not in the time of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), undoubtedly. So this collection is a new matter. Is there any doubt about that? The collection of the Qur'an in sheets is a matter that occurred after the death of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Do we say: ? We say, initially, what we say, but we look at the previous hadith, . So we must now weigh this new matter with the scale of the Shari'ah. If the Shari'ah gives us the answer that it is good, we say it is good, and we say to whoever started this goodness, he has its reward and the reward of whoever acted according to it until the Day of Resurrection, and so on. So now, is there any Muslim who believes that leaving the Qur'an as it was in its beginning, distributed in sheets and on bones and in every means that was available at that time to write on a leaf, or for example the skin of a gazelle or a sheep or anything, the important thing is to write by any means to preserve the Noble Qur'an? The Companions, after the necessity for collecting the Qur'an was found, as mentioned in Sahih al-Bukhari, and I think you remember that well, when the killing of the reciters became severe in the Battle of Yamama between the Companions and the army of Musaylimah the Liar, some of the Companions came to speak with 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. I think the first one came to say: "The killing has become severe, meaning it has intensified, among the reciters, and a large number of them have been killed. So we fear that the Qur'an will be lost with the loss of its carriers, who are the reciters. And therefore, I propose that the Qur'an be collected before we lose the Qur'an by the death of the carriers of the Qur'an." So 'Umar ibn al-Khattab was convinced by this proposal. And 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, and this is the first step that alerts a person that this action is not just an innovation, but it is an obligatory matter, even if it occurred after the Messenger. So Allah opened the chest of 'Umar to this opinion, and he in turn conveyed it to Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him). So Allah also opened the chest of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, as He had opened the chest of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab. So the two great Companion Caliphs agreed that, due to the occasion of the intensification of the killing among the Companion reciters, the Qur'an must be collected so that it is not lost. There was Zayd ibn Thabit (may Allah be pleased with him), one of the reciters who used to write the Qur'an for the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So they sent for him and presented to him this idea that Abu Bakr and 'Umar had agreed upon. And he said to them, and here is the lesson for the misguided innovators, "How can you do something that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do?" Allah is the Greatest. The collection of the Qur'an; this man feared that it would be an innovation in the religion, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do it. He said: "They kept pressing me," meaning they negotiated with him, and this is necessary, for if we did not do it, the Qur'an would be lost, the religion would be lost, Islam would be lost, and so on. So they kept pressing me until Allah opened my chest, as He had opened the chests of Abu Bakr and 'Umar. And he began to collect the Qur'an, meeting with the Companions and asking what so-and-so and so-and-so of the Companions had, and so on. So they collected the Qur'an. This collection is undoubtedly a new matter, it was not in the time of the Messenger. Is it an innovation? And an innovation of misguidance? The answer is: linguistically, it is an innovation; legally, it is obligatory, and it is not an innovation of misguidance. Why? Because of what is known among the scholars from their saying: "What is not possible to fulfill an obligation except by it is itself obligatory." Preserving the religion of Islam is not possible except by preserving the Qur'an. And you know now, in this time, the chatter of the missionaries and all the disbelievers around detaching the Muslims from the Qur'an of their Lord. Even one of the great British people—and may Allah have mercy on you—said, advising the British state: "As long as this Qur'an is among the Muslims, you will not be able to turn them away from their religion." This is a fact. So the action of the first Companions, by their consensus, to collect the Qur'an, even though it is linguistically a new matter after it was not, it is not a new matter, and it is not a legal innovation. And this leads us also to mention the word of 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, on the occasion of reviving the congregational prayer of the night prayer in tarawih, when he said: "What a good innovation this is." He does not mean a legal innovation, because he knew that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) legislated or established for the people the revival of the congregational night prayer by his action and by his saying (peace and blessings be upon him). So he meant that this is an innovation due to the interruption of the Companions after the Messenger, and in the time of Abu Bakr, for two and a half years of his caliphate, and we do not know how much time passed while 'Umar was also busy with establishing the caliphate. This period was when this prayer had been abandoned after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). So he revived it. So this innovation is a linguistic innovation, not a legal innovation. So this collection of the Qur'an is a correct new matter, but it is not an innovation of misguidance. How did we know this? From the legal evidence. Here we pause briefly and say to these innovators when they say, "This innovation, my brother, is a good innovation," it is possible that it is a good innovation, meaning a good sunnah, like the collection of the Qur'an. What is the evidence? He tells you, "My brother, what is wrong with it?" This means he has thrown down his weapon; he has no evidence, because he resorted to what? The crutch of the incapable. He tells you, "What is wrong with it?" Are you speaking with the intellect or with the transmitted text? What is wrong with it? If we prayed Maghrib with four rak'ahs and Fajr with four or three? Is this permissible? Why is it not permissible? For the same reason. It prevents you from saying "there is nothing wrong with it," because it is a correction of the Wise Lawgiver. So does every person who wants to say about a matter that occurred after it was not, and it is a nearness to Allah the Exalted, must he not bring evidence from the Shari'ah? He must prove with this evidence that this new matter is a nearness and a worship. And in that case, we tolerate him and say, this is a good innovation. Why? Because the legal evidence has been established for it, as we brought the legal evidence for the collection of the Qur'an. Another example, and this is important for some of our brothers who may take the principle as a general one and think that everything that occurred after the Messenger is an innovation, such as the schools where people are taught the sciences of the Shari'ah, and even the other sciences that the ummah needs as a community, and so on. All of this falls under this category: "What is not possible to fulfill an obligation except by it is itself obligatory." Another example of what occurred in the past: we also know from the biography of the Salaf that 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) expelled the Jews from Khaybar. This expulsion appears to contradict the Messenger's approval of them in Khaybar on the condition of sharing in two parts: a part for them from what is harvested of the fruits, and a part for the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). And the Messenger died and they were like that, and Abu Bakr came and they were like that. And 'Umar, as they say in our Syria, said to the Jews, "Come, take what you can carry and go." He expelled them from Khaybar. This expulsion, exactly like the collection of the Qur'an, occurred after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). Is this new matter a good sunnah or a bad sunnah? We look and find that the matter here is exactly like the matter there in the collection of the Qur'an. Just as we found there evidence, indeed evidences, which I omitted mentioning for brevity, we find here also that the matter is so. That is because the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), when he approved the Jews in Khaybar after he conquered it by force, with the sword, on conditions, one of his conditions (peace and blessings be upon him) upon them in that was his saying: , "We approve you in it as long as we wish." And the Caliphs of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) are those who execute his rulings. So 'Umar saw, and good was what he saw, that the Jews should be expelled from Khaybar, and he executed this Shari'ah, so he expelled them, and it was not contradictory to the condition, but rather it was an execution of one of those conditions. Especially since the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), in his last moments of life (peace and blessings be upon him), as it came in the authentic hadiths, had among his wills . So he executed a general Prophetic command and a noble condition that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) had imposed on the Jews. So this new matter is not a denounced innovation, but it is a good sunnah that he established, because he revived a Prophetic matter. And on that, compare, and on the contrary, stop. On that, compare, meaning whenever you see a new matter, and the legal evidence is established for its legality, whether it is within the limits of the obligatory or below that, it is Shari'ah, and it is a good sunnah, because the legal evidence is established for its goodness. And on the contrary, as I said just now, stop, meaning every innovation that occurred after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and it is intended to increase nearness to Allah, and there is no evidence in the Shari'ah that makes it good, then in that case, cast it aside, for it falls under the general principle, . And on that, we say to these innovators who apply the generality of the hadith with what they think is the specificity of the hadith , we say: absolutely, the first hadith remains on its generality, and the second hadith does not contradict it. Rather, it is the legislation. The Shari'ah says this is good, so it is good, and the Shari'ah says this is ugly, so it is ugly. And the statement to which the innovators lean, when they say, "My brother, what is wrong with it?" This is a Mu'tazili school of thought, if they knew what they are saying and what comes out of their mouths. That is because it is known that there is a fundamental difference between the people of the Sunnah and the Mu'tazilah. The people of the Sunnah say: the good is what the Shari'ah has made good, and the ugly is what the Shari'ah has made ugly. The Mu'tazilah say, as it is transmitted from them in the books of theology and differences, by the rational making good and making ugly: what the intellect has made good is good, and what the intellect has made ugly is ugly. So these are Mu'tazilah, and they claim that they are fighting the Mu'tazilah, while they are walking exactly in the manner of the Mu'tazilah when they say, "My brother, what is wrong with it?" So it is good by his intellect. The Muslims are not on this. The Muslims say: the good is what the Lawgiver has made good. So we say: . We say to him: . If he brings the proof, as we brought the evidence just now for the two previous examples, that Abu Bakr and 'Umar, on the one hand, when they collected the Qur'an, and 'Umar when he expelled the Jews from the Arabian Peninsula, did not bring an innovation of misguidance, but rather they executed a legal ruling. If these people do so and bring, as they claim is an innovation, a legal evidence, we say to them: May Allah bless this innovation of yours. But we deny to you your use of the word, the word "innovation" for it, because the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) says . So you are contradicting yourselves when you call it an innovation, as long as the Shari'ah has established by evidence that it is legislated. Do we say that what Abu Bakr and 'Umar did of collecting the Qur'an, and what 'Umar himself did of expelling the Jews from the Arabian Peninsula, is an innovation? Far be it from Allah. So this hadith is an argument against them from many sides. First: the reason for its occurrence, as we mentioned, and they are ignorant of it. Second: we say to them, the hadith carries in its depths the argument against you, because it says: . How do we know the good innovation? By the legal evidence. Bring the evidence and the matter is ended. And whoever establishes in Islam a bad sunnah, by evidence, or otherwise, also by the intellect, as they did with the good sunnah? By evidence, and the matter is ended. And . I have answered you, if Allah wills, about your question?

The questioner : May Allah reward you with good.
Al-Halabi : ... .

The Shaykh : Please go ahead.

The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah reward you with good. I mean, the discussion is longer than usual.

The Shaykh : Yes, exactly.

The questioner : But to fully cover the research on two points...

The Shaykh : This is for the sake of naming this, yes.