Search the Community

Completed and posted below ...

Introduction: Majority of Islamic scholarship holds to definition of innovation which recognises, good [Shar’ri] innovations and evil [Shar’ri] innovations. A minority holds to a definition which is simplistic. According to which everything termed as Shar’ri innovation is evil/sinful and misguiding. And all evidence in Ahadith which refutes this simple definition of innovation is glossed with Taweel: This statement was made in linguistic sense. Praise be to Allah (subhanahu wa ta’ala), already an article was written refuting this poorly thought-out excuse, here. And it is a decisive argument against Khawarij. This article will address the linguistic innovation claim from different perspective. And also go on to establish the definition of innovation which Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) held to. Simplistic, which is now championed by Khawarij of Najd, or comprehensive which is held by majority of Islamic scholarship. The Understanding Of Innovation By Majority Of Islamic Scholarship: Majority of Islamic scholarship believes in comprehensive definition of innovation according to which, any non-prophetic practice with Asal from Quran and Sunnah it is good innovation in sense of Shari’ah. And any non-prophetic practice which is without Asal from Quran and Sunnah is an evil innovation in sense of Shari’ah. And according to this majority an innovated practice with explicit or implicit Shar’ri evidence can be termed non-prophetic good Shar’ri Sunnah, or alternatively good Shar’ri innovation. And any innovated practice without explicit or implicit evidence from Quran and Sunnah, and composed of sinful activities can be termed non-prophetic evil Shar’ri Sunnah, or alternatively evil Shar’ri innovation. Note the words Shar’ri are dropped from usage when writing about Shar’ri innovations. Instead of good Shar’ri innovation words good innovation, or good Sunnah are used and same applies to evil Shar’ri innovation and evil Shar’ri Sunnah. Innovation According To Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala): Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali (rahimullah) holds to simple definition of innovation. According to Shaykh Ibn Rajab (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) innovation is; any practice, or activity, or custom, which without Asal (i.e. Foundation) of Shari’ah. In other words; any practice which is without Asal of Quran and Sunnah is [Shar’ri] innovation. In Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s definition of innovation, anything which is termed/judged as ‘innovation’ or ‘Shar’ri innovation’ is unIslamic and sinful action or practice. And a ‘reprehensible innovation’ in definition of majority of Islamic scholarship. Also according to Shaykh Rajab’s definition any practice which is not Prophetic Sunnah but for it there is Asal (i.e. Foundation) in Shari’ah then it is not innovation but a Sunnah. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) On Salat ad-Duha: In the following Hadith it is established; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked if Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was'sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu), Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) performed Salat ad-Duha and he responded in negative: “I further asked, "Did `Umar use to pray it?" He (Ibn `Umar) replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did Abu Bakr use to pray it?" He replied in the negative. I again asked, "Did the Prophet use to pray it?" Ibn `Umar replied, "I don't think he did." In the same Hadith Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was asked if he performs Salat ad-Duha and he responded in negative: “Narrated Muwarriq: I asked Ibn `Umar "Do you offer the Duha prayer?" He replied in the negative.” [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H27] And this was because he deemed it innovation on the account, that he believed neither Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), nor his first to Caliphs performed Salat ad-Duha. Of course this is implied from the Hadith but it is also established from clear text of following Hadith: “… and I entered the Mosque (of the Prophet) and saw Abdullah bin Umar sitting near the dwelling place of Aisha and some people were offering the Duha prayer. We asked him about their prayer and he replied that it was an innovation.” [Ref: Bukhari, B27, H4] About Salat ad-Duha he also said: "At the time Uthman was killed no-one considered it desirable and the people did not innovate anything that is dearer to me than that prayer." [Ref: Musannaf Abd Razzaq, Vol3, Pages 78/79] This establishes Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) considered Salat ad-Duha to be an innovation and a good innovation at that. And in following Hadith he deemed Salat ad-Duha to be a good innovation: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" [Ref: Musannaf Ibn Abi Shaybah, Kitab Of Prayer – Salat ad-Duha, 3] This establishes the Islamic belief that companions accepted good innovations into Islam a belief which is challenged by proponents new brand of Kharijis. And they have attempted to protect their misguidance with innovative arguments and an example of which will follow. Shaykh Aymen And Salat ad-Duha Being Linguistic Innovation: Shaykh Aymen adheres to, and esteems Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) definition of innovation, and judges the following statement of Abdullah Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) regarding Salat ad-Duha in its context: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" Shaykh Aymen interpreted the statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and explained it as: “He did not know that the Prophet prayed it before. He approved it because it is a Nafliah like any other Nafila that is allowed to be prayed at anytime. He said it is Bida'a in its linguistisc meaning. Wallahu A'lam” [Ref: AhlalHdeeth, by Ayman Bin Khaled, post 5] Shaykh Aymen said, statement of Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) was made in linguistic usage of word innovation based on Ibn Rajab’s definition of innovation. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not actually hold to Shaykh Ibn Rajab’ (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) definition of innovation. If Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) had made the statement with the thought that Salat ad-Duha is from Nafliah worship he would not have declared it to be an innovation. Instead he would have said, it is a Prophetic Sunnah, and this verdict would have been in accordance with Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s definition of innovation. But the clear evidence establishes Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Salat ad-Duha was an innovation because he had stated Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam), Abu Bakr (radiallah ta’ala anhu) and his father Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu), and he himself does not perform Salat ad-Duha. It is evident from Ahadith that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed Salat ad-Duha to be fine/good innovation. And if he had held to Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definitions of innovation he would have believed all innovations are evil as Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definition establishes. And therefore would not have remarked that Salat ad-Duha is fine innovation. Refuting Shaykh Aymen’s Claim Of Linguistic Innovation: To defend Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah alayhi ta’ala) definition of innovation Khawarij can argue that he intended the usage of word innovation in linguistic sense and not in Shar’ri sense therefore he could have used Shaykh Ibn Rajab al-Hanbali’s understanding of innovation. In other words they could argue; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) deemed Salat ad-Duha to be a form of Nafliah worship for which permissibility is generally granted except the forbidden times – sunrise and sunset -: "I do only what my companions used to do and I don't forbid anybody to pray at any time during the day or night except that one should not intend to pray at sunrise or sunset." [Ref: Bukhari, B21, H283] Alhasil, Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged it to be linguistic innovation, while believing that Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) did not perform it, but he deemed it permissible based on general permissibility for Nawafil. We the Muslims say, if Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) judged permissibility of Salat ad-Duha based on general permissibility of Nawafil then he made a Shar’ri judgment to deem it permissible -: Nawafil are permissible at all times except sun rising and sun setting times and Salat ad-Duha is performed during time of Duha (i.e. forenoon) therefore it is permissible. From this it is evident Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not judge Salat ad-Duha to be fine innovation in linguistic sense but good/fine innovation in Shar’ri sense because judgment he made is based on general permissibility of Nawafil. And Shar’ri judgement of permissibility about an innovative practice can only be made by him if believes there exits a provision within Islam permitting innovations. If it is proven there is Shar’ri acceptance of good innovations in Islam then it will establish; Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not hold to Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s definition of innovation but to definition of majority of Islamic scholarship. Also this would prove that Shaykh Aymen Bin Khaled would be incorrect in his saying that Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) made the following statement in linguistic sense: "It is an innovation and what a fine innovation it is!" Following section will establish that Islam recognises and permits good innovations and considers them reward worthy. And deems evil innovations to be sinful and hence prohibits them by default. Shari’ah The Islamic Law Derived From Islam: Innovation in linguistic sense is something new, something which already did not exist. And in Shar’ri sense it means something which already did not exist in Islam. In the following Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) tells the Muslim about reward for introducing/innovating goods Sunnahs in Islam which were not already part of Islam: “He who introduced some good Sunnah in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466]“The Messenger of Allah said: 'Whoever sets a good precedent in Islam, he will have the reward for that, and the reward of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their reward in the slightest.” [Ref: Nisa’i, B23, H2555] Note Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) has told; the one who introduces/sets a good Sunnah in Islam for him and those who emulate his innovated good Sunnah there is reward. If a good Sunnah is already is part of Islam and person acts on it then nothing is introduced into Islam. And the quoted Ahadith tell of reward for introducing good Sunnahs into Islam. In the following portion of Ahadith Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam) informs the Muslim who introduces/innovates an evil Sunnah in Islam about the burden of sin and those who follow him: “And he who introduced some evil Sunnah in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without theirs being diminished in any respect.” [Ref: Muslim, B34, H6466] “And whoever sets an evil precedent in Islam, he will have a burden of sin for that, and the burden of those who acted in accordance with it, without that detracting from their burden in the slightest."' [Ref: Nisa’i, B23, H2555] And meaning of this Hadith is same as the following: "And whoever starts an erroneous Biddah (i.e. ابْتَدَعَ بِدْعَةَ ضَلاَلَةٍ) with which Allah is not pleased nor His Messenger then he shall receive sins similar to whoever acts upon it without that diminishing anything from the sins of the people.” [Ref: Tirmadhi, B29, H2677] Alhasil meaning of introducing good Sunnah in Islam and evil Sunnah in Islam is good/evil innovations in Islam. And this establishes that Islam/Shari’ah recognises concept of good/evil innovation and tells of reward and sin for introducing each. Conclusion: Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) did not believe in Shaykh Ibn Rajab’s (rahimullah) definition of innovation. Had he believed in this definition of innovation or one remotely resembling it in detail then he would not have stated Salat ad-Duha is fine innovation. But in fact his statement reveals that it was based on the understanding of Hadith; one who introduces good Sunnah in Islam for him and the one who adheres to the Sunnah will equally be rewarded without reward being reduced. Ibn Umar (radiallah ta’ala anhu) believed Islam grants permission to Muslims to invent and incorporate good Sunnahs in Islam. Hence he could not have made the statement in linguistic sense but rather he judged it to be good/fine innovation in sense of Islamic canonical law (i.e. Shari’ah) whose source is Quran and teaching of Prophet (sallallahu alayhi wa aalihi was’sallam). Thus the Islamic definition of innovation – good/evil innovated Sunnahs - stands established and excuse if linguistic innovation refuted. Wama alayna ilal balaghul mubeen. Muhammed Ali Razavi