The Shaykh’s remarks on the necessity that the understanding of general texts must be in accordance with the methodology of the righteous Salaf.

The Shaykh : Every general text contains parts, and if a part of it has not been acted upon by the Muslims, then acting upon it is a religious innovation. This must be engraved in the depths of your heart.

The questioner : I know it well.

Another questioner : You must review it so that...

The questioner : I know it well. For example, you mentioned it once, my teacher, and you said: “The argument is based on the saying of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) .” So, the one who takes the generality means that if there is a woman who recites to the audience, she is brought forward based on the generality of this hadith.

The Shaykh : Well, why did you forget this statement?

The questioner : Sometimes a person forgets.

The Shaykh : I know he doesn’t know why knowledge that is not reviewed is forgotten. Therefore, you are not gathering people around you to remind them of the knowledge and to make them understand the religion. So, what you memorize from here goes out from here; it will go out with you.
Al-Halabi : Reviving knowledge is reviewing it.

The Shaykh : Reviewing it, yes, exactly. Knowledge is like a well; if you do not draw water from it, it dries up. Yes, exactly.

The questioner : Every general text.

The Shaykh : Every general text contains parts. If a part of these parts has not been acted upon by the Muslims, then acting upon this part, which is one of the parts of the general text, is a religious innovation. This is based on the principle I mentioned: “If it had been good, they would have preceded us to it.” This relieves the Muslim who wants to understand the religion from having to seek specific evidence for the thousands of innovations, because the truth is, I wanted to say something but I postponed it because something else important came to my mind. You all hear about something called the principles of jurisprudence. This is very necessary for the student of knowledge who wants to be on clear guidance, as Allah the Exalted said: . He must know the science of the principles of jurisprudence so that he can derive rulings from general texts and not fall into the kind of derivation your companion fell into just now, because he forgot the correct knowledge when he said, “They say three is a lot, but one day is enough.” This one day is also not permissible and is an innovation, especially on Friday. In any case, everyone knows something called the principles of what? Jurisprudence. But the majority of scholars, let alone others, do not know anything called the principles of innovations, even though knowing the principles of innovations is very important. It helps the jurist with the principles of jurisprudence; otherwise, he deviates from correct jurisprudence because of his ignorance of the principles of jurisprudence and his ignorance of the principles of innovations. We know distinguished scholars in many Islamic lands who approve of things. If they were reminded of them and asked, “Did the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) do that?” they would say, “No.” So why do you consider that a prescribed, recommended matter? They would say, “Yes, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said such and such.” They would answer with the general text. They do not know that this general text, which has not been acted upon, was not intended for this part included in the general text. The righteous Salaf acted upon it. I gave the example just now that this is a recurring and very clear issue. Because an innovation being different from another innovation is like the difference between one jurisprudential issue and another, especially if it is of the type of analogical reasoning. As you hear, at least, analogical reasoning includes clear analogy and hidden analogy, and only one well-versed in correct jurisprudence distinguishes between this analogy and that. Similarly, one innovation differs from another; an innovation may be apparent to many people, and an innovation may be hidden. This type is what we are dealing with now, where I pointed out that many distinguished people argue with general evidence. So I came just now with general evidence . And so we entered the mosque. Do we pray the recommended prayer in congregation? Anyone you ask will tell you, “No.” But if you asked him why, “Is this not included in the generality?” he would tell you, “Yes, but they did not do it.” So the phrase “they did not do it” is like a text that specifies the general text. Do you notice this issue?

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : That is to say, when we say “the Salaf did not do this thing,” it is as if it is a text from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) saying, “Do not do this thing.” So this statement, if it had come from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him), would specify the general text. But the text did not come from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him); however, we know implicitly that if this had been prescribed, he would have done it. So, if we know beforehand that the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) did not do this specific part, we say: even if it is included in the general text, it is not permissible to act upon it, because “if it had been good, they would have preceded us to it.” This is a statement regarding the example I presented to you: entering the mosque and not praying the recommended prayer in congregation. No one will disagree with this. But there are issues that are not as clear as this issue. For example, supplication after the prayer and raising the hands, let alone if wiping the face is added to that. He will tell you, “My brother, there is a text from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him). There is a text from the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) .” So supplication is prescribed, my brother. But that hadith was not applied in this place. So you are applying it, acting upon the absolute general text, and placing it in a place where the Wise Lawgiver did not place it. Just as if you prayed the recommended prayer in congregation, you are placing the general text with the man whose prayer is purer than his prayer alone, placing it in a place where the Lawgiver, if I may say so, or the one upon whom the law was revealed, did not place it. So your placing of this in this place is an error on your part, contradicting his way (peace and blessings be upon him). With this principle, the Muslim can take evidence from it and from it for the invalidity of dozens, indeed hundreds, thousands of innovations prevalent among Muslims today. Why? Because they argue with general texts in specific places where those general texts have not been acted upon in those specific places. And here I would like to mention that the best book we know regarding the principles of innovations is two books: one is the original of the other, and the other is a branch derived from the first. The first book is “Al-I’tisam” by Imam Abu Ishaq al-Shatibi. The other book is a very small treatise named, as it is named, “Principles in Innovations” by one of the scholars of al-Azhar. I forgot his name...
Al-Halabi : Muhammad Ahmad al-Adawi.

The Shaykh : Muhammad Ahmad al-Adawi was correct in a book broader than this one, titled *Al-Ibtida' fi Mudarrat al-Ibtida'* (Innovation in the Harms of Innovation), by Ali Mahfuz, also of the scholars of al-Azhar. In reality, this is more beneficial than this small booklet because it combines the principles with some of the branches. That is, after he established the rules that make an innovation an innovation or a Sunnah, he then gave examples from the reality of Muslims today of innovations that are represented by what he had established in the first part of his book. Imam al-Shatibi (may Allah have mercy on him) divides innovation into two categories, and this is a terminology from him, and there is no dispute over terminology, as they say: a real innovation and an additional innovation. He says that a real innovation is one that has no basis in the Book and the Sunnah, and is merely an invention in the religion. He gives as examples the misguided sects that deviated from the Sunnah in many of their beliefs, such as the Mu'tazilah, the Khawarij, the Murji'ah, the Jabriyyah, and the like, because their beliefs contradict the Book and the Sunnah. However, the general discussion is about the additional innovation, because he explains the reason for naming it "additional" by saying that if you look at it from one angle, you find it prescribed, and if you look at it from another angle, you find it not prescribed. So, in addition to the first view, it is a Sunnah, and in addition to the other view, it is an innovation. His example is very clear in what we mentioned earlier: that congregational prayer is better, but this specific form of congregation was not practiced in the time of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). For this reason, the scholars of old disapproved of it, and they agreed on this disapproval. A disagreement occurred between two famous, eminent scholars, one of whom was al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam and the other was Ibn al-Salah. They differed regarding the prayer of the night of Ashura, or rather, the prayer of al-Ragha'ib. The prayer of al-Ragha'ib was, by consensus, an innovation, I think around the sixth century, and it was introduced in Bayt al-Maqdis (Jerusalem). It is a prayer with congregation; I no longer remember the details because it is not a Sunnah, and praise be to Allah. The important thing is that it is one of the prayers that a man, the imam of a mosque there, innovated. So, you know, the common people made it a prayer and it spread, glory be to Allah, because it is something that captures the minds of, what? The common people. And its matter reached a time when there were two eminent scholars, one of whom was al-Izz ibn Abd al-Salam, who ruled decisively that it is an innovation. As for Ibn al-Salah, he said there is nothing wrong with it. Why? Because it is obedience and worship and gathering for good. He missed this principle to which Imam al-Shatibi drew attention in a precise scientific manner in *Al-I'tisam*. You look at it, and Allah's hand is over the congregation, but my brothers, if it were good, the predecessors would have preceded us to it. The Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) would have done it, even if only once in his lifetime. If he did not do it, his Companions did it. If his Companions did not do it, how can this be good when the remaining generations, which are known for their excellence, did not do it? It is necessary that the innovation of any innovation in the world, while acknowledging that the Salaf did not do it, leads to one of two things, and as it is said, the sweeter of the two is bitter. Either it is said that the Salaf knew it was good but did not do it, which means we are worshipping more than them and we attribute to them asceticism in worship, and this is undoubtedly an error. Or it is said that we know what they did not know, and this is bitter.

The questioner : For example, praying in the upper floors was not done.

The Shaykh : May Allah forgive you if someone else had said it! Praying in the upper floors is not intended for worship, so it cannot be said that there is a prohibition in attributing asceticism in worship to the Salaf. As for praying in the upper floors, like praying on an airplane, it is a necessity and has no relation to this.

The questioner : He says that the mosque may have several floors where they pray, which did not exist like this story, so for that reason.

The Shaykh : It is not worship, my brother. This reminds me that they asked me there in Jeddah and in Makkah, "What is your opinion about circumambulating (tawaf) on the upper level?" I said, "I do not recommend tawaf on the upper level except for one who has an excuse, because the original place is below, and that was built to relieve the crowding, especially for the elderly among men and women. But if you are young, and especially if there is not that severe crowding, why would you go up there?" So here, going up is not intended for its own sake. But this worship and that, and so on, which falls under the category of innovation in the religion, is intended to increase closeness to Allah. From here, it is said: if someone says that this is worship, what is the position of the Salaf regarding it? It is one of two things: either they did not know it and you know it! No, they knew it but were ascetic regarding it and preferred to avoid it, so the sweeter of the two is bitter. And therefore, we must distinguish between newly invented matters whose invention was intended for worship and those whose invention was not for this purpose but for a need. For this reason, I say in the definition of innovation, there are many definitions, but I am reassured by the definition of innovation: "Every newly invented matter intended to increase closeness to Allah." So when we place the condition "newly invented," this excludes what was known in the era of the Salaf. And the second condition, "intended to increase closeness to Allah," excludes what the motive for inventing it was not the intention to increase closeness to Allah, such as the means we were discussing earlier about some of them.