What is the criterion for designating a person and calling him an innovator?
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The Shaykh : Okay, what do you have?
The questioner : May Allah reward you, O Shaykh. When, or what is the criterion, for designating a person and calling him an innovator? I mean, pointing to a specific person and saying he is an innovator. What is the criterion in this matter?
The Shaykh : When his methodology is contrary to the Sunnah in its broad sense, in speech, action, and affirmation. When his methodology is like this. But if he falls into one innovation or more through independent reasoning, even if he was mistaken in that, he is not an innovator. Otherwise, no one would be safe from innovation.
The questioner : When he contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No, I did not mention the Book because that is self-evident. When one contradicts the Sunnah, it is established among us that the Book cannot be understood except through the Sunnah. The Sunnah is verbal, practical, and affirmative. When a person comes and contradicts the Sunnah in these three categories, relying on an opinion or desire, and does not care about this Sunnah, and adopts that as his methodology in his life, then he is the innovator. But if he contradicts the Sunnah for one reason or another, he falls into innovation, and indeed he falls into what is explicitly forbidden, but he is not an innovator, and consequently he is not an open sinner, because he committed a forbidden act.
The questioner : Well, O Shaykh, regarding the old innovators, how did the Salaf designate them as innovators, and how did they know that they were innovators?
The Shaykh : Because they contradicted the methodology of the righteous Salaf.
The questioner : And how do we know that this person is one who follows desire, or for example, that he made a mistake?
The Shaykh : No, we do not know. So if you say what you say, I agree with you in what you say: how do we know? We return and say that Allah will hold them to account. But if they are innovators, they are innovators without doubt, because they contradicted the methodology of the righteous Salaf. And I will tell you something you may not have heard before: many scholars divided the religion into branches and fundamentals, and based on this division, they built another division, which is that error in the branches is forgiven, while it is not forgiven in the fundamentals. This division has no basis. Accountability is realized in the branches just as it is in the fundamentals, and in the fundamentals just as it is in the branches. There is absolutely no difference in that, as long as the one who contradicts has contradicted the text that came in the Book or the Sunnah or the consensus of the righteous Salaf, whether it is in the branches or the fundamentals, and he contradicted the text while knowing it.
The questioner : He knows that he is contradicting it.
The Shaykh : He knows the text, and yet he contradicts it. There is no difference in this accountability; it is accountability, whether it is in the branches or in the fundamentals. And conversely, whoever contradicts in the branches or in the fundamentals, and he is a scholar exercising independent reasoning seeking to know the truth, and he did not come across the text that contradicts him where he contradicted the text, but he did not look at it, whether his contradiction of this text is in the branches or the fundamentals, then there is no accountability on him.
The questioner : Well, if the text, O Shaykh, allows for two interpretations.
The Shaykh : Understood up to here?
The questioner : It is clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I want to finish answering your previous question before you ask about details. So now, regarding the person, or persons, or group, or groups, who contradict the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the righteous Salaf, and we say about them that they are innovators, after you have known who the innovator is, namely the one who adopted a methodology contrary to that of the Salaf, such people, from our perspective, since we have not looked into their intentions and their hearts, into what is in their hearts, and we do not know if they were scholars exercising independent reasoning or if they were truly people of desire, like any person who is accused of murder while he is innocent before Allah the Exalted and Majestic, but the ruling of the Shari'ah is carried out against him, because the matter, as you know, is that we judge by the apparent, and Allah takes care of the hidden. So what concerns us, whether his heart or intention is good with Allah or bad, is his practical methodology. If it is contrary to the Salaf, he is an innovator. Otherwise, he may be an innovator who is exercising independent reasoning, as I hinted at in the beginning of the answer, or he may be one who committed a forbidden act while exercising independent reasoning, but he is not held accountable, neither this one nor that one, but he is rewarded, because the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applies to him:Mishkat al-Masabih 3732 Now, if you have a question about this answer or another, you may ask, because I have finished clarifying what is in my mind. And we do not allow Abu Ubaydah to intervene in the topic after he has emptied his bag. Yes.
The questioner : Shaykh, may Allah reward you. If the text in which, for example, the people of the Sunnah and the innovators differ allows for two interpretations, and the other interpretation was used by this innovator as evidence for his innovation, and he said, "This is my understanding, so why do you blame me?" I did not blame you for your understanding. So you take your understanding, and I take my understanding. And if we find no statement from the Salaf in this matter, what is the criterion, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : You have no objection if you mean what you are saying. You have no objection against him.
The questioner : I mean, he is an innovator, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : He is not an innovator. He is an innovator when he contradicts the methodology of the Salaf and he knows it. But you are saying in your speech, so I said, if you mean what you are saying, the matter has precision. I mean, you do not have, let alone he does not have, a statement from the Salaf to confront him with. Rather, you have an understanding and he has an understanding, and you and he are equal. He is not an innovator, and you are not an innovator. But what enters here? A very important matter enters, which is: is he, or is he not, and I do not say you, is he from the people of knowledge, so that he can say, "I understand from the text thus and thus"? If he is from the people of knowledge, then the answer is what you heard. And if he is not from the people of knowledge, we say to him with the words of our Lord:[An-Nahl 16:43] Clear?
The questioner : It is clear.
The Shaykh : Are you finished?
The questioner : I have finished.
The Shaykh : Go ahead, Abu Ubaydah.
The questioner : May Allah reward you, O Shaykh. When, or what is the criterion, for designating a person and calling him an innovator? I mean, pointing to a specific person and saying he is an innovator. What is the criterion in this matter?
The Shaykh : When his methodology is contrary to the Sunnah in its broad sense, in speech, action, and affirmation. When his methodology is like this. But if he falls into one innovation or more through independent reasoning, even if he was mistaken in that, he is not an innovator. Otherwise, no one would be safe from innovation.
The questioner : When he contradicts the Book and the Sunnah, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : No, I did not mention the Book because that is self-evident. When one contradicts the Sunnah, it is established among us that the Book cannot be understood except through the Sunnah. The Sunnah is verbal, practical, and affirmative. When a person comes and contradicts the Sunnah in these three categories, relying on an opinion or desire, and does not care about this Sunnah, and adopts that as his methodology in his life, then he is the innovator. But if he contradicts the Sunnah for one reason or another, he falls into innovation, and indeed he falls into what is explicitly forbidden, but he is not an innovator, and consequently he is not an open sinner, because he committed a forbidden act.
The questioner : Well, O Shaykh, regarding the old innovators, how did the Salaf designate them as innovators, and how did they know that they were innovators?
The Shaykh : Because they contradicted the methodology of the righteous Salaf.
The questioner : And how do we know that this person is one who follows desire, or for example, that he made a mistake?
The Shaykh : No, we do not know. So if you say what you say, I agree with you in what you say: how do we know? We return and say that Allah will hold them to account. But if they are innovators, they are innovators without doubt, because they contradicted the methodology of the righteous Salaf. And I will tell you something you may not have heard before: many scholars divided the religion into branches and fundamentals, and based on this division, they built another division, which is that error in the branches is forgiven, while it is not forgiven in the fundamentals. This division has no basis. Accountability is realized in the branches just as it is in the fundamentals, and in the fundamentals just as it is in the branches. There is absolutely no difference in that, as long as the one who contradicts has contradicted the text that came in the Book or the Sunnah or the consensus of the righteous Salaf, whether it is in the branches or the fundamentals, and he contradicted the text while knowing it.
The questioner : He knows that he is contradicting it.
The Shaykh : He knows the text, and yet he contradicts it. There is no difference in this accountability; it is accountability, whether it is in the branches or in the fundamentals. And conversely, whoever contradicts in the branches or in the fundamentals, and he is a scholar exercising independent reasoning seeking to know the truth, and he did not come across the text that contradicts him where he contradicted the text, but he did not look at it, whether his contradiction of this text is in the branches or the fundamentals, then there is no accountability on him.
The questioner : Well, if the text, O Shaykh, allows for two interpretations.
The Shaykh : Understood up to here?
The questioner : It is clear, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : I want to finish answering your previous question before you ask about details. So now, regarding the person, or persons, or group, or groups, who contradict the Book and the Sunnah and the methodology of the righteous Salaf, and we say about them that they are innovators, after you have known who the innovator is, namely the one who adopted a methodology contrary to that of the Salaf, such people, from our perspective, since we have not looked into their intentions and their hearts, into what is in their hearts, and we do not know if they were scholars exercising independent reasoning or if they were truly people of desire, like any person who is accused of murder while he is innocent before Allah the Exalted and Majestic, but the ruling of the Shari'ah is carried out against him, because the matter, as you know, is that we judge by the apparent, and Allah takes care of the hidden. So what concerns us, whether his heart or intention is good with Allah or bad, is his practical methodology. If it is contrary to the Salaf, he is an innovator. Otherwise, he may be an innovator who is exercising independent reasoning, as I hinted at in the beginning of the answer, or he may be one who committed a forbidden act while exercising independent reasoning, but he is not held accountable, neither this one nor that one, but he is rewarded, because the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) applies to him:
When a judge gives a decision having tried his best to decide correctly and is right, he will have a double reward; and when he gives a decision having tried his best to decide correctly and is wrong, he will have a single reward.
إذا حكم الحاكم فاجتهد فأصاب فله أجران فإن أخطأ فله أجر واحدThe questioner : Shaykh, may Allah reward you. If the text in which, for example, the people of the Sunnah and the innovators differ allows for two interpretations, and the other interpretation was used by this innovator as evidence for his innovation, and he said, "This is my understanding, so why do you blame me?" I did not blame you for your understanding. So you take your understanding, and I take my understanding. And if we find no statement from the Salaf in this matter, what is the criterion, O Shaykh?
The Shaykh : You have no objection if you mean what you are saying. You have no objection against him.
The questioner : I mean, he is an innovator, O Shaykh.
The Shaykh : He is not an innovator. He is an innovator when he contradicts the methodology of the Salaf and he knows it. But you are saying in your speech, so I said, if you mean what you are saying, the matter has precision. I mean, you do not have, let alone he does not have, a statement from the Salaf to confront him with. Rather, you have an understanding and he has an understanding, and you and he are equal. He is not an innovator, and you are not an innovator. But what enters here? A very important matter enters, which is: is he, or is he not, and I do not say you, is he from the people of knowledge, so that he can say, "I understand from the text thus and thus"? If he is from the people of knowledge, then the answer is what you heard. And if he is not from the people of knowledge, we say to him with the words of our Lord:
So ask the people of the message if you do not know.
فاسألوا أهل الذكر إن كنتم لا تعلمونThe questioner : It is clear.
The Shaykh : Are you finished?
The questioner : I have finished.
The Shaykh : Go ahead, Abu Ubaydah.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.