What is the criterion for applying the description of religious innovation or the description of contradicting the Sunnah when a specific person contradicts the Sunnah?

The questioner : May Allah reward you. It may be that a command from the Sunnah is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whether it is a statement or an action. A person’s action toward this Sunnah is either following it or not following it. Sometimes he follows it, meaning he follows this command and thereby hits the mark of the Sunnah. And sometimes he does not follow it. So when he does not follow it, sometimes, for example, we do not apply the term "he committed a religious innovation" or "he did an act of innovation" when he contradicts the Sunnah in this case. And sometimes we apply to him that he—also—what?—did an act of innovation. In the first case, we describe him as an innovator, and in the second case, we may not describe him as an innovator. So what is the criterion for distinguishing between these two?

The Shaykh : The criterion is that we know that the one who fell into religious innovation did not intend it, and that he intended the Sunnah. The one who wants to know the Islamic ruling as it came in the Book and the Sunnah, and who exerts effort and spends his energy, then makes a mistake—and you know that there are issues in which disagreement has become intense, with total divergence. One says about something that it is permissible, and this one says about it that it is disliked, and that one says about it that it is forbidden. So which of these three opinions is the correct one? Indeed, there may be another opinion: this one says it is obligatory and required, while the one who forbade it says it is obligatory. So whichever of these opinions is the mistake, there is no doubt that intentionally committing it is open sinfulness. But if it was due to independent legal reasoning, then it is not open sinfulness, nor is it a sin. Rather, he is rewarded. He is rewarded, as you know from the authentic hadith: There is no difference between a scholar who exerts effort and says about something that it is lawful while it is forbidden, or the exact opposite, and another scholar who falls into religious innovation through his independent legal reasoning. He said it was a religious innovation, but he did not intend it. He said it was forbidden, but he did not intend it. And so on. So the issue is very clear. There is no difference between one who falls into religious innovation without intending it and one who falls into what is forbidden without intending it, as long as it was due to his own independent legal reasoning. This is the answer. Please.

The questioner : ... .

The Shaykh: Go ahead.