❀ Mufti Ahmad Yar Khan Naeemi Barelvi Sahib writes:
“Nowadays, things have been invented in the world which were not even named or known in the early generations, and without which worldly life is now difficult. Every person is compelled to use them. Railways, motors, airplanes, ships, tongas, horse carriages. Then letters, envelopes, wires, telephones, radios, loudspeakers, etc. All these things and their use are innovations (bid’ah), and people of every group use them without hesitation. Tell me, can Deobandis and Wahhabis live a worldly life without good innovations (bid’ah hasanah)? Certainly not!”
Things that do not fall under the objectives (beliefs and acts of worship), but relate to means, and for which there is no Shariah prohibition, it is permissible to establish them for some benefit, for example: determining the Hijri year, installing speakers in mosques, organizing religious gatherings and assemblies for preaching, publishing books, etc. Drawing justification for every new matter from the permissibility of these matters is a clear manifestation of ignorance.
❀ Allama Shatibi, may Allah have mercy on him
, says:
إن سكوت الشارع عن الحكم فى مسألة ما، أو تركه لأمر ما على ضربين :
أحدهما: أن يسكت عنه أو يتركه لأنه لا داعية تقتضيه، ولا موجب يقرر لأجله، ولا وقع سبب تقريره، كالنوازل الحادثة بعد وفاة النبى صلى الله عليه وسلم، فإنها لم تكن موجودة ثم سكت عنها مع وجودها، وإنما حدثت بعد ذلك، فاحتاج أهل الشريعة إلى النظر فيها وإجرائها على ما تبين فى الكليات التى كمل بها الدين. وإلى هذا الضرب يرجع جميع ما نظر فيه السلف الصالح مما لم يبينه رسول الله صلى الله عليه وسلم على الخصوص، مما هو معقول المعنى، كتضمين الصناع، ومسألة الحرام، والجد مع الإخوة، وعول الفرائض، ومنه جمع المصحف، ثم تدوين الشرائع، وما أشبه ذلك مما لم يحتج فى زمانه عليه السلام إلى تقريره، لتقديم كلياته التى تستنبط منها، إذا لم تقع أسباب الحكم فيها، ولا الفتوى بها منه عليه الصلاة والسلام، فلم يذكر لها حكم مخصوص. فهذا الضرب إذا حدثت أسبابه فلا بد من النظر فيه وإجرائه على أصوله، إن كان من العاديات، أو من العبادات التى لا يمكن الاقتصار فيها على ما سمع، كمسائل السهو والنسيان فى أجزاء العبادات. ولا إشكال فى هذا الضرب، لأن أصول الشرع عتيدة، وأسباب تلك الأحكام لم تكن فى زمان الوحي، فالسكوت عنها على الخصوص ليس بحكم يقتضي جواز الترك أو غير ذلك، بل إذا عرضت النوازل روجعت بها أصولها فوجدت فيها، ولا يجدها من ليس بمجتهد، وإنما يجدها المجتهدون الموصوفون فيي علم أصول الفقه.
والضرب الثاني: أن يسكت الشارع عن الحكم الخاص، أو يترك أمرا من الأمور، وموجبه المقتضي له قائم، وسببه فى زمان الوحي وفيما بعده موجود ثابت، إلا أنه لم يحدد فيه أمر زائد على ما كان فى ذلك الوقت. فالسكوت فى هذا الضرب كالنص على أن القصد الشرعي فيه أن لا يزاد فيه على ما كان من الحكم العام فى أمثاله، ولا ينقص منه، لأنه لما كان المعنى الموجب لشرعية الحكم العملي الخاص موجودا، ثم لم يشرع، ولا نبه على استنباطه، كان صريحا فى أن الزائد على ما ثبت هنالك بدعة زائدة، ومخالفة لقصد الشارع، إذ فهم من قصده الوقوف عند ما حد هنالك، لا الزيادة عليه، ولا التقصان منه.
“The silence or abandonment of the Prophet (peace be upon him) regarding an issue can be due to two reasons:
① There was no cause or indication to abandon it, nor was the need for that action felt, such as the circumstances after the death of the Prophet (peace be upon him). These circumstances did not exist during his lifetime; if they had, the Prophet (peace be upon him) would not have remained silent about them. Later, when these circumstances arose, the scholars, after careful consideration, deduced from the general principles of religion the method of dealing with these circumstances. This category includes all matters which the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not specifically mention, and the pious predecessors deliberated upon them. Examples include holding a craftsman liable if an item is lost, the issue of forbidden things, inheritance of a grandfather in the presence of brothers, the reduction of the fixed share, compiling the Qur’an into a single book form, documenting the teachings of religion.
And all such matters which were not needed during the time of the Prophet (peace be upon him), but the general principles existed from which such matters could be deduced. When the causes for a ruling were not present during the prophetic era, and there is no explicit ruling or fatwa from the Prophet (peace be upon him), but now such causes have arisen that clarify the ruling, it is necessary to contemplate and apply the ruling based on the original principles. However, the condition is that these matters relate to transactions or acts of worship in which mere hearing is not sufficient, such as issues of forgetfulness and mistakes in worship. Issuing such rulings is permissible and there is no objection to it, because the principles of Shariah exist, but the causes for these rulings were not present during the time of revelation.
The legislator did not explain these in detail, but this does not mean they should now be abandoned. Whenever such issues arise, reference will be made to the principles of Shariah, and these issues will be found within those principles, but only by those who are well-versed in jurisprudence and capable of independent reasoning (ijtihad).
② Despite the presence of cause and reason during the time of revelation and afterwards, if the legislator remains silent or abandons a specific ruling or action, this is considered a text (nass), meaning the intention of the Shariah is that the ruling should be understood generally like other matters, without any addition or subtraction. Because if a cause exists but no legal ruling is legislated, nor did the Prophet (peace be upon him) instruct to deduce from it, then this is a clear text indicating that adding or subtracting from an established ruling is an innovation and contradicts the intention of the Shariah. It shows that the limits of the Shariah should be observed, and no addition or subtraction should be made.”
Is it correct to restrict innovation only to religious rulings?
❀ Mufti Naeemi Sahib writes:
“Restricting innovation to only religious matters is merely one’s own imposition. It is against authentic hadiths and the statements of scholars, jurists, and muhaddithin. The hadith states: كل محدثة بدعة
‘Every new thing is an innovation.’ There is no restriction of religious or worldly matters in it.”
Naeemi Sahib has passed away from this world, but the question to his followers or circle of friends is: where are those “authentic hadiths and statements of scholars, jurists,” and muhaddithin?
❀ Sayyida Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
من أحدث فى ديننا ما ليس منه فهو رة .
“Every newly introduced matter in our religion, which has no basis in it, is falsehood.”
❀ The noble Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
إياكم ومحدثات الأمور، فإن كل محدثة بدعة، وكل بدعة ضلالة .
“Do not introduce new matters into the religion, for every new matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misguidance.”
Imam Tirmidhi (may Allah have mercy on him) classified this hadith as “Hasan Sahih,” Imam Ibn Hibban (may Allah have mercy on him)
, Hafiz Zia al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on him)
called it “Sahih,” Hafiz Bazzar (may Allah have mercy on him)
declared it “Thabit Sahih,” and Hafiz Ibn Abd al-Barr (may Allah have mercy on him)
said it is “Thabit.”
From these hadiths, it is established that introducing innovations into the religion is impermissible and forbidden, and every innovation is misguidance and error. Here the restriction is on religion; therefore, an innovation will be called that new matter which is introduced in the religion, not in the worldly affairs.
❀ Sayyiduna Abdullah bin Mas’ud (may Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:
سيلي أموركم بعدي رجال يطفئون السنة، ويعملون بالبدعة، ويؤخرون الصلاة عن مواقيتها فقلت : يا رسول الله إن أدركتهم، كيف أفعل؟ قال : تسألني يا ابن أم عبد كيف تفعل؟ لا طاعة، لمن عصى الله.
“Soon after me, your affairs will fall into the hands of people who will erase the Sunnah and adopt innovations, delay prayers.” It was asked: O Messenger of Allah! If I live to see their time, what should I do? He said: Ibn Umm Abd! You ask me what to do? Do not obey the disobedient to Allah.”
In this hadith, the Prophet (peace be upon him) condemned the people of innovation. It is clear that innovation is a sin and the innovator is disobedient to Allah. Every innovation, whether related to belief or action, is blameworthy. Remember that not every linguistic innovation is blameworthy. Saying that “restricting innovation to religious matters is merely one’s own imposition” is also ignorance.
❀ Hassan bin Atiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) says:
ما ابتدع قوم بدعة فى دينهم إلا نزع الله من سنتهم مثلها ثم لا يعيدها إليهم إلى يوم القيامة .
“When a people introduce an innovation in religion, Allah removes a Sunnah from them, and until the Day of Judgment, that Sunnah does not return to them.”
❀ He further says:
ما ابتدعت بدعة إلا ازدادت مضيا، ولا تركت سنة إلا ازدادت هربا .
“When innovation begins, it increases, and when a Sunnah is abandoned, it becomes more distant.”
A trustworthy imam and muhaddith is warning the Ummah about the harms of religious innovation by restricting it to religion. The mention of innovation in contrast to Sunnah clearly indicates that the innovation will be in religion, not in the world.
