Discussion on the occurrence of error among the Companions (may Allah be pleased with them).
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The questioner : Our Shaykh, I mean, we follow our Companions. We understand from their words that they are followers, not innovators. Is that correct or not? May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : But to clarify this—listen, O our brothers—it is not the meaning of our statement regarding the Companions that one of them does not innovate. This is the truth; we do not believe that a Companion innovates, just as we do not believe that any of the followed Imams, famous for knowledge, righteousness, and piety, innovate. However, this belief does not mean that we exempt any of them from falling into a deviation from the Shari'ah, because they are not infallible. Then, it is no burden on us to classify or detail this deviation, from which we exempt no one except the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). There is no harm if we say that this deviation is the commission of a prohibited act, such as backbiting, talebearing, insulting a Muslim, or fighting him, or the like. Because we know that all these things occurred from some of them or from groups. The point of this logical sequence in the permissibility of one of the Salaf falling into a deviation is that this sequence leads us to the conclusion that it is not far-fetched for one of the Salaf to fall into religious innovation. But this is one thing, and to be an innovator is another. So he does not innovate, but he falls into religious innovation, just as he falls into what is forbidden. For example, if someone said that a man who has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate does not have to perform the full ritual bath, if one of us did that, we would say to him that he is an open sinner, because he has no prayer, because he does not perform the full ritual bath after intercourse. But that person said it based on independent legal reasoning, so he fell into error, but he does not sin for it. Similarly, he may fall into religious innovation, but he does not sin for it, and consequently, he is not an innovator. Is that clear?
The questioner : My intention is something that happened, meaning, like our master 'Ali (may Allah honor his face) established grammar and morphology, and our master 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) established ten [things] regarding the Islamic state for its workers and Islamic history. This is my intention, meaning, their documentation.
The Shaykh : No, this does not fall under religious innovation. This is from the unrestricted public benefits. It is a good thing, I mean.
The questioner : It is a good thing, I mean, but this was after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : And may He reward you.
The Shaykh : But to clarify this—listen, O our brothers—it is not the meaning of our statement regarding the Companions that one of them does not innovate. This is the truth; we do not believe that a Companion innovates, just as we do not believe that any of the followed Imams, famous for knowledge, righteousness, and piety, innovate. However, this belief does not mean that we exempt any of them from falling into a deviation from the Shari'ah, because they are not infallible. Then, it is no burden on us to classify or detail this deviation, from which we exempt no one except the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). There is no harm if we say that this deviation is the commission of a prohibited act, such as backbiting, talebearing, insulting a Muslim, or fighting him, or the like. Because we know that all these things occurred from some of them or from groups. The point of this logical sequence in the permissibility of one of the Salaf falling into a deviation is that this sequence leads us to the conclusion that it is not far-fetched for one of the Salaf to fall into religious innovation. But this is one thing, and to be an innovator is another. So he does not innovate, but he falls into religious innovation, just as he falls into what is forbidden. For example, if someone said that a man who has intercourse with his wife and does not ejaculate does not have to perform the full ritual bath, if one of us did that, we would say to him that he is an open sinner, because he has no prayer, because he does not perform the full ritual bath after intercourse. But that person said it based on independent legal reasoning, so he fell into error, but he does not sin for it. Similarly, he may fall into religious innovation, but he does not sin for it, and consequently, he is not an innovator. Is that clear?
The questioner : My intention is something that happened, meaning, like our master 'Ali (may Allah honor his face) established grammar and morphology, and our master 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) established ten [things] regarding the Islamic state for its workers and Islamic history. This is my intention, meaning, their documentation.
The Shaykh : No, this does not fall under religious innovation. This is from the unrestricted public benefits. It is a good thing, I mean.
The questioner : It is a good thing, I mean, but this was after the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him).
The Shaykh: Yes.
The questioner : May Allah reward you.
The Shaykh : And may He reward you.
Source
www.al-albany.com
The Arabic text is copied verbatim from the original source, without any edits.