Does one who innovates a major innovation or a non-major innovation leave the people of the Sunnah?

The questioner : Some people say that one who innovates a major innovation leaves the people of the Sunnah, while one who innovates a sinful innovation does not leave the people of the Sunnah. Even if the proof is established against him and he persists in it, is he still considered from the people of the Sunnah in that case?

The Shaykh : Repeat.

The questioner : Some people say that one who innovates a major innovation leaves the people of the Sunnah.

The Shaykh : First, what is a major innovation and what is a non-major innovation?

The questioner : A sinful innovation and a major innovation, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: What are they?

The questioner : A major innovation means, for example, innovating an innovation of disbelief, such as the statement that Allah (Glorified and Exalted is He) does not rise above the Throne, and denying that. A sinful innovation is, for example, falling into innovations in acts of worship, such as the Mawlid, for instance.

The Shaykh : This statement is incorrect. The origin of this statement is from the science of Kalam (theology). The distinction between innovation in the fundamentals and innovation in the branches, or innovation in rulings and innovation in acts of worship—this distinction is itself an innovation. Have you seen if a man came to a Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), such as the Fajr prayer, for example, and made it four rak'ahs and persisted in that? From which type of innovation is this? The major one or the sinful one?

The questioner : According to the classification, it would be from the sinful ones.

The Shaykh : This is a false statement. It is one of the things that the Khalaf (later generations) inherited from the Salaf (earliest generations). And I mean by the word "Salaf" here the non-technical meaning. The distinction between error in the branches and error in the fundamentals: error in the branches is forgiven, and error in the fundamentals is not forgiven. The well-known authentic hadith is: This is regarding the branches. As for the fundamentals, error is not forgiven. This has no basis in the Book, nor in the Sunnah, nor in the statements of the righteous Salaf. What is found in the statements of the righteous Salaf is severe warning against innovation in general, whether it is in creed or in worship. I mentioned earlier, in fact, that whoever declares a Muslim a disbeliever has committed disbelief, and I added to that the statement "whoever innovates in Islam..." and so on. Because the truth is, there is no difference in my view between disbelief and innovation. If a Muslim innovates an innovation and his innovation becomes clear to him and he persists in it, like the example I gave you earlier, it is as if he denied that Allah rises above His creation, or denied that the Qur'an is His speech, or... there is no difference between this and that at all, neither in negation nor in affirmation. In affirmation, we say this is disbelief with the condition mentioned earlier: the proof was established against him. And that is disbelief with the condition mentioned earlier: after the proof was established. This is in affirmation. In negation, there is no declaration of disbelief in this or that except with the condition mentioned. I return to the point: the Mu'tazilah and the Khawarij meet in some misguidances and differ in others. For example, the Khawarij meet with the Mu'tazilah in the statement that the Qur'an is created. Do you know this? Good. And I mentioned to you earlier that the hadith scholars do not declare the Khawarij disbelievers. So how do we reconcile in our minds that one who denies a creed is a disbeliever, while one who innovates in worship is an open sinner? And here we see the Imams of Hadith narrating from the Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah, even though they contradict the correct creed in matters of understanding. For example, those who said that the speech of Allah is created also deny seeing Allah in the Hereafter. Do you know this? Good. This denial and the one before it fall under our previous definition: it is disbelief. But not everyone who falls into disbelief is declared a disbeliever. How do we reconcile when we find the Imams of Hadith and the Imams of the Salaf, like Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn al-Qayyim, ruling on the misguidance of the Khawarij and the Mu'tazilah, and there is no doubt about that, but they do not say that they are disbelievers who have apostatized from their religion? Because they consider the possibility that the matter was ambiguous to them first, and that the proof was not established against them second. We return to the original subject: these are innovators, but we do not know if they intended the innovation, if the proof was established against them, and so on. This is the methodology of the scholars: they rule on the misguidance of the Mu'tazilah, the misguidance of the Khawarij, and the misguidance of the Asha'irah in many matters, but they do not declare them disbelievers. They do not exclude them from the circle of Islam, due to the possibility we mentioned earlier, which comes back to two things I remind you of. The first is that they did not intend innovation, opposition, and contradiction. The second is that we do not know if the proof was established against them or not. So their case is left to Allah, and we look at their outward appearance. Their outward appearance is Islam, and they died upon this Islam and were buried in the graves of Muslims. So they are Muslims. Therefore, the distinction between a major innovation and a sinful innovation: first, it is a technical distinction originating from the scholars of Kalam. Second, there is no evidence for it at all. And I conclude my speech on this issue by reminding you of a hadith that points to what I mentioned earlier: that not everyone who falls into disbelief is declared a disbeliever and that disbelief is attributed to him. I mean the hadith of al-Bukhari, narrated by two eminent Companions, Abu Sa'id al-Khudri and Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman. They said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said: So now we ask: Did this man commit disbelief or not? He committed disbelief, but Allah forgave him his disbelief. Did he say? He did not commit disbelief. I did not hear it with my words, and if Allah had not prevented me, I would not have committed disbelief.

The questioner : Yes, indeed, with this statement, yes.

The Shaykh : So if I had not specified and said "disbelief" or not? Good. And we know from the Noble Qur'an: Like the gathering. Does the gathering understand from the previous speech: He does not forgive that anyone associates partners with Him intentionally and deliberately. What do you think of this restriction? Is it present in the verse, or is it not present, did we take it from our own minds? No. The Shari'ah is not taken from a single text, a single verse, or a single hadith, but from the totality of what has come regarding the issue. Therefore, not only must the jurisprudential issues gather all their texts so that we know the abrogating from the abrogated, the specific from the general, the absolute from the restricted, and so on, but creed is even more in need of that. When the scholars explain this verse: they usually do not address such details because the matter seems clear to them and does not require such details. But when problems and doubts arise, the scholar is forced to clarify what he knows. This man who made a bequest—I do not imagine it was in injustice, oppression, and misguidance. It is possible that it has a similar case: they burn him in the fire so that he goes astray from his Lord. And Allah says: Yet our Lord forgave him. Why? Because disbelief did not settle in the heart of this person, but rather it was his contemplation of his sins with Allah (Mighty and Majestic) and his fear of Him, and that Allah (Mighty and Majestic), if He reached him, would punish him with severe punishment. This awe and this fear blinded him to the correct creed, so he ordered this unjust bequest. And this hadith is clear: So it is not befitting for us to imagine that Sayyid Qutb fell into Wahdat al-Wujud (the Oneness of Existence), for example, as we believe that he intended it and settled his heart upon it, like Ibn Arabi, who misled millions of Muslim Sufis, and so on. Perhaps it was a Sufi intellectual opportunity that occurred to him while he was a prisoner, and he did not have knowledge of the issue, so he wrote that phrase which I was the first to criticize. We do not declare him a disbeliever because we do not know if disbelief settled in his heart, and whether the proof was established against him, especially while he was in prison, how could that be? For this reason, we do not link a Muslim falling into disbelief with him being a disbeliever. We do not link two things. This is first, and this warning has been repeated. Second, we do not distinguish between innovation in creed and innovation in worship. Both are either misguidance or disbelief. And perhaps this extent is sufficient, O Abu 'Abd al-Rahman.

The questioner : Our Shaykh, regarding these details related to this, if you wish, I can read to you some questions, just reading them without an answer, and then you say, for example, "it is amazing."