If a scholar has some religious innovation and the evidence is established against him, is he ruled to be an innovator?

The questioner : Regarding the establishment of evidence against the scholar...?

The Shaykh : Establishment or presentation?

The questioner : Is there a difference in the expression?

The Shaykh : I suspect, and I am Al-Albani, the non-Arab, meaning...

The questioner : Presentation, presentation.

The Shaykh : In my opinion, you mean presentation.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner : I mean, is there a specific degree until we rule on this scholar...?

The Shaykh : Knowledge is with my Lord, and what is the result of this precision in this issue other than spreading division?

The questioner : Of course, I want to point out something, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : No, before pointing it out, perhaps you will answer.

The questioner : Does my question about this matter or the research into this issue necessarily imply that there is division?

The Shaykh : I say, what is the result of being precise about such an issue? I mean, let us narrow it down a bit, because as they say, when a matter is narrowed, it expands. If a scholar committed a religious innovation and a scholar established the evidence against him, and we do not assume he is like him, but rather that he is more knowledgeable than him, what is the fruit? Do you become an innovator simply because the evidence was established against him? I suspect you will say, "No, this is a matter of good opinion."

The questioner : And if I say yes.

The Shaykh : We will hear from you, we will answer you, yes.

The questioner : Perhaps you can answer now, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh : Hehehe, how do you answer? I answer yes.

The questioner : Your answer, may Allah reward you for the answer, is without or with a yes.

The Shaykh : I think you understood me clearly that it is not necessary that if a scholar falls into a religious innovation, he is called an innovator, even after the evidence is established against him by someone more knowledgeable than him. This is what I see, and now we hear from you.

The questioner : Okay, what is the limit, meaning a specific limit until...

The Shaykh : What concerns you? I say, what is the fruit? I return to my previous word, what is the fruit of being precise about such a case, especially in this time.

The questioner : As I understand, O our Shaykh.

The Shaykh : No, not as you understand.

The questioner : According to the issue of loyalty and disavowal.

The Shaykh : Loyalty and disavowal: wherever the wrong prevails over the scholar and the righteous person, and he calls to his innovations, then at that time you disavow his call. Otherwise, you will not have anyone left, returning to the previous word, you will not have anyone to greet you, so you will say, "This one is an innovator, and this one is an innovator, and this one has made lawful such and such forbidden thing, and such and such forbidden thing," and so on. And now, do you distinguish between the one who fell into a religious innovation and the one who fell into a forbidden act, excuse me, fell into a forbidden act? Do you distinguish? Is my question clear?

The questioner : Yes, O Shaykh.

The Shaykh: Yes.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : What is yes? The time for the answer has passed, so perhaps the one being answered has been lost.

The questioner : I mean, he fell into a forbidden act.

The Shaykh : Is there a difference between the one who fell into a forbidden act and the one who fell into a religious innovation?

The questioner : Ignorant or not ignorant.

The Shaykh : What was our topic? When we spoke about innovations, did I say ignorant or knowledgeable?

The questioner : Yes, there is a difference.

The Shaykh : No, this is a withdrawal, this is a deviation, we do not want to record it against you, because you asked a question and then stopped at it. When I told you, when you spoke about innovations and you prolonged and I prolonged the conversation with you, your last question, "ignorant or knowledgeable," was not relevant. So what do you say now, you brought up this question regarding the one who fell into a forbidden act? And yet I tell you, because the Muslim must be lenient with his Muslim brother, and this is expressed in our language as "the one who does not come with you, come with him." Assume you are a scholar or ignorant, and we proceed with you like this and like this, as we did regarding...

The questioner : Yes, there is a difference.

The Shaykh : Between the one who fell into a forbidden act.

The questioner : Yes, and the one who fell into a religious innovation.

The Shaykh : Good, this is it. A scholar, do you want to specify, a scholar or ignorant?

The questioner : A scholar.

The Shaykh : A scholar.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : I mean, he knows that this innovation is an innovation.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : He has it.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Okay, and he knows that this forbidden act is forbidden to him.

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : What is the difference?

The questioner : The innovation is more severe and more dangerous.

The Shaykh : The innovation.

The questioner : More severe and more dangerous for the person's belief.

The Shaykh : How do you mean?

The questioner : The one who commits the innovation is greater, meaning he accuses the religion of deficiency.

The Shaykh : He accuses the religion of deficiency?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : Is this a constantly and eternally linked matter? I mean, in every innovation we imagine a scholar falling into, is it necessary that we link with his innovation that it is in his mind that the religion is deficient?

The questioner : Allah is the Helper.

The Shaykh : So do not enter this labor that if you enter it, you cannot get out of it. If it were said to you, "The one who falls into a forbidden act, I have two possibilities: that he is evil, but I do not bring you from this, that he is like the one who falls into an innovation, this possibility is that he commits the forbidden act because he does not believe that its prohibition is legislated," is this possibility valid or not?

The questioner : Yes, it is valid.

The Shaykh : If so, it is possible that this one is worse than the innovator. May Allah bless you. This is me, and I do not take it as a burden, I call it excessive strictness, because it obliges people to intervene in the depths of the hearts of innovators or those who commit forbidden acts. We are sufficient in believing that this is an innovation and this is a forbidden act, and that we advise each of the one who falls into an innovation or a forbidden act to clarify to him and establish the evidence against him so that he returns from his innovation or from his committing of what Allah - Mighty and Majestic - has forbidden. Then we do not go deep and do not detail. Why?

The questioner: Yes.

The Shaykh : How can this be? If every innovator attributes deficiency to the religion, and we do not doubt at all that the one who attributes deficiency to the religion is a disbeliever, then there is no necessary connection between the two matters, this is what I want to reach. Then I mention, and the conversation has been long, and I apologize, because the meeting in reality, as far as I have heard, Abu 'Aasim was not for holding a scholarly session, it may be for a person, especially if he is like me, an old elderly Shaykh, who cannot prolong sitting for one reason or another, for a reason or another.
The student : What Allah willed, Blessed is Allah.

The Shaykh : So the intended point that I want to say is that this deepening does not have good behind it. It is sufficient for us to know that this is an innovation and this is a forbidden act, and that we advise each of the one who falls into an innovation or a forbidden act to clarify to him and establish the evidence against him so that he returns from his innovation or from his committing of what Allah - Mighty and Majestic - has forbidden. Then we do not go deep and do not detail. Why?