Reading from the author's text with commentary and collation of manuscripts: "Chapter [On Festivals]: If this principle regarding their imitation is established, we say:
Machine translationRead the Arabic original
The reader: "And as for the third category, which is what they innovated of acts of worship or customs or both, it is the ugliest"
The Shaykh : I have it as "or both"
The reader: He said in my copy it came in all manuscripts as "or both" with the nominative case, and the correct is "both" as I have established, because it is conjoined to a genitive.
The Shaykh : ... "both" is more correct, yes.
The reader: "And as for the third category, which is what they innovated of acts of worship or customs or both, it is the ugliest and the ugliest, for if the Muslims had innovated it, it would have been ugly, how much more so if it is something that no prophet ever prescribed, but rather the disbelievers innovated it? Then the agreement in it is manifestly ugly. This is a principle, and another principle is that everything in which they are imitated, whether in worship, custom, or both, is among the innovations in this Ummah and among the religious innovations, since the discussion is about what is specific to them. As for what is prescribed for us and was done by our predecessors, there is no discussion about it.
All the proofs from the Book, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus indicating the ugliness of religious innovations and their dislike, whether prohibited absolutely or relatively, these imitations fall under them. Thus, they combine being innovated religious innovations and being imitation of the disbelievers. Each of these two descriptions is a cause for prohibition, for imitation is prohibited in general, even if it was in the predecessors, and religious innovations are prohibited in general, even if the disbelievers did not do them. If the two descriptions combine, they become two independent causes for ugliness and prohibition."
The Shaykh : This is clear. What they innovated combines being imitation; agreeing with them in it is imitation, and it is also a religious innovation, yes.
The Shaykh : Yes
The Shaykh : I have it as "or both"
The reader: He said in my copy it came in all manuscripts as "or both" with the nominative case, and the correct is "both" as I have established, because it is conjoined to a genitive.
The Shaykh : ... "both" is more correct, yes.
The reader: "And as for the third category, which is what they innovated of acts of worship or customs or both, it is the ugliest and the ugliest, for if the Muslims had innovated it, it would have been ugly, how much more so if it is something that no prophet ever prescribed, but rather the disbelievers innovated it? Then the agreement in it is manifestly ugly. This is a principle, and another principle is that everything in which they are imitated, whether in worship, custom, or both, is among the innovations in this Ummah and among the religious innovations, since the discussion is about what is specific to them. As for what is prescribed for us and was done by our predecessors, there is no discussion about it.
All the proofs from the Book, the Sunnah, and scholarly consensus indicating the ugliness of religious innovations and their dislike, whether prohibited absolutely or relatively, these imitations fall under them. Thus, they combine being innovated religious innovations and being imitation of the disbelievers. Each of these two descriptions is a cause for prohibition, for imitation is prohibited in general, even if it was in the predecessors, and religious innovations are prohibited in general, even if the disbelievers did not do them. If the two descriptions combine, they become two independent causes for ugliness and prohibition."
The Shaykh : This is clear. What they innovated combines being imitation; agreeing with them in it is imitation, and it is also a religious innovation, yes.
The Shaykh : Yes