Regarding the concept of bida'h

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

how come some ulema (of deobadni training) say that if a good innovgation action is deemed to be necessary by many of the participants, then that action becomes a reprehensible innovation? Because from the hanafis it only seems to be the deobandis who say this and not anyone else?

By good innovation i mean things like khatms, different ways of doing zikr etc.

[salman]

Sallamu Alaiukum

Bidatul Hasana is literally "Good Innovation" which was not originally part of the Sunah of our Prophet. When a person starts believing that such and such action has become Mustahab or Wajib, when their is no proof of such a position regarding it, then it becomes reprehensible.

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

say there's 100 people engaging in a good innovation. 60 of them believe that it is a necessary action and 40 of them have the correct beleif about it. In this case, are all 100 sinful, or just the 60?

Also, i think you must have meant "sunnah" instead of "mustahab" as the very nature of a good innovation is that it is mustahab.

You said the good innovation was not orignally part of the sunnah, but does not the sunnah allow for good innovation, in which case it would be allowed? Because Rasoolallah (saw) said that whosoever introduces a good practice in the deen will have the reward for it and the reward of everyone acting upon it(without decreasing their reward), and whosoever introudces a bad innovation shall have his own punishment and also the punishment of everyone who acts upon it, without decreasing their punishment.

But anyway, my question was that why is it only the deobandis that say this (about people not beleiving it is necessary)? Because, for example, all the sunnis except the deobandis say that we should celebrate the mawlid.

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum


say there's 100 people engaging in a good innovation. 60 of them believe that it is a necessary action and 40 of them have the correct beleif about it. In this case, are all 100 sinful, or just the 60?

What do you think Akhi?


You said the good innovation was not orignally part of the sunnah, but does not the sunnah allow for good innovation, in which case it would be allowed?

Allowed/Permissible = Mubah, Mustahab = Recommended

So yes it would be, but at the same time it is still not "Sunnah" and nor is it "Wajib". If a person was to say Dhikr was Wajib and a Sunnah, then yes it is. However, if he says that Dhikr in a particular form (which is not supported by the sunnah) is Wajib, then its become reprehensible although that action maybe Mubah (if he did not believe it was Wajib or a Sunnah).

As for the Deobandis only saying it, then i doubt it. As for MAwlid, no Sunni says it is a Wajibat, although it is allowed. Deobands allow it, but it is fair to say there is Ikhtilaf. My Great Shaikh, Hajji Imdadullah Makki used to celebrate Milad while in Saudi. The main reaosn it was disallowed was because of the external actions associated with it that the ignorant among the sub continent implemented into the celebration.

Wallahu A'lam

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

akhi, all actions which bring you reward and increase you in taqwa are mustahab, therefore that would include the good innovations.

also, what about taqleed then? Its a good innovation which the ulema say is wajib to do.

And as for the mawlid, the deobandis have stated that it is a reprehensible innovation (inc Muftu Taqi/Desai) and have said that one of the reasons for this is that generally those participating hold the practise to be necessary.

But going back to what i was trying to say, if the general people beleive these to be necessary, then isnt it only them who are in the wrong and not those who practise the act with the correct beliefs?

[salman]

sallamu Alaikum


akhi, all actions which bring you reward and increase you in taqwa are mustahab, therefore that would include the good innovations.

Actions, Yes. How those actions are done, not necessarily. BTW I would rather use the term Fardh for Dhikr and so forth.


also, what about taqleed then? Its a good innovation which the ulema say is wajib to do.

Wajib is something that has some basic proofs in the text with some degree of doubt. If the transmission of the texts dealing with the concept of taqlid are Definite in its transmission and meaning then it will be Fardh. If it is Definite in its transmission and ambiguous in its meaning / or Probabalistic in its transmission and definite in its meaning, then it is Wajib. Taqlid is not an innovation. It is Wajib because it falls under the above category and has some implications in the Texts i.e the Quran and Sunnah.


And as for the mawlid, the deobandis have stated that it is a reprehensible innovation (inc Muftu Taqi/Desai) and have said that one of the reasons for this is that generally those participating hold the practise to be necessary.

That is one valid reason, but the other reason is because of the external actions that have been implemented, and this is what my teachers have told me. In Al Muhannad by Shaikh Khalil, Khalifa of Shaikh Gangohi it states:

-- It is clear from the above that we do not reject the mentioning of the Messenger of Allahs birth; rather, we reject and refute those evils that are attached to such gatherings as you may have seen them in the Indian subcontinent, such as mentioning fabricated and false narrations, intermingling of the sexes, excessive wasteful spending in lights and decoration, holding it to be something necessary to do such that those who choose not to participate are slandered and called non believers, and other evils from which very few gatherings (in the subcontinent) are free.



But going back to what i was trying to say, if the general people beleive these to be necessary, then isnt it only them who are in the wrong and not those who practise the act with the correct beliefs?

In the end it comes down to every individual and their Niyyat. However, many of the Fatwas passed forbidding certain actions as a whole are done based on Ihtiyat. The Ulema do state under what conditions an action can be done and under what conditions it cannot.

[pinkworld]

assalamu `alaykum wa rahmatullah
Brother Salmany, thank you for your explanations. It is sometimes difficult for me to understand the reasons behind the rulings from Dar al `Ulum Deobandi. I am still wondering, however, where the boundary lies between a Sunnah action that is of itself mutsahhab but which could become makruh or haram ihtiyat because of wrong attitudes toward it. Does this usually happen on the individual level, or does it also apply to groups? Brother Abu Usama bought up a rhetorical situation in which some participants in a good innovation wrongfully considered that innovation to be required. Would that wrong consideration of some of the participants render the participation by the rest of them to be haram? What conditions might apply? Or would only those who consider the good innovation to be wajib be required to cease teir participation in it?

Brakallahu fiukm ya ikhwani.

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

I dont know, but it seems that it is just the deobandi scholars who seem to say that if the people think its necessary, then it becomes a bid'ah.Sidi Feraz Rabbani has described this principle as "divergent" as can be seen from the following post to the hanafi fiqh forum.

-----------------------

From: "Hanafi Fiqh \(www.sunnipath.com\)" <hanafi@sunnipath.com> [+] [ ]
To: <hanafi@yahoogroups.com> [+]
Subject: The arguments of those methodologically challenged or attitudinally divergent regarding innovation [ ]
Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 21:02:28 +0300



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------











The arguments of those methodologically challenged or attitudinally divergent regarding innovation



Question:



I have heard from a lot of people that "everything in ibadat is haram unless there is proof that it is halal" and "everything in maamolat is permissable, unless there is proof otherwise". - Is this also the belief of the Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah? Or do we believe that everything, regardless of it being in our relationship to the creation or the creator, is allowed unless there''s any proof contradicting it?
And also, the some others say that if a good innovation is taken to be necessary by the participants in it, then it becomes a reprehensible innovation. Is this beleif just consigned to them or are we all meant to follow that?





In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

May His blessings and peace be on His Beloved Prophet, the best of creation, and his family, companions, and followers



Walaikum assalam wa rahmatullah,



The principles related to innovation (bid`a) are clearly explained in the Sheikh Nuh Keller answer at www.masud.co.uk, and in various other answers on www.sunnipath.com.



If we accepted this ‘principle’ mentioned by those people, then we would have to accuse the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of innovation—folly indeed.



It is a grave error for the non-scholar to listen to the words and arguments of those methodologically challenged or attitudinally divergent from the way of Sunni Islam.



And Allah alone gives success.



Wassalam,



Faraz Rabbani (faraz@sunnipath.com)

Sunni Path - www.sunnipath.com

My Blog: http://blog.masud.co.uk/faraz.htm

Quality Islamic products: www.Caravansaray.com

[pinkworld]

wa `alaykum assalam, brother
Thank you for the minder. The wording of the question and the tone of the reply lead me to wonder if this as intended as a refutation of certain wahhabistic tendencies such as holding something as a wrongful innovation until there is screamingly clear proof that some action is acceptable in Islam. In the past, Sidi Faraz has replied mildly to questions of the differences between the Deobandi and Barawali schools, emphasising unity and respect. His answer here seems to be directed at a different set of scholarship. Please keep me advised of this; if I am wrong, I hope to know inshallah.

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

I didnt realise what was written in regards to the "attitudinaly divergent" until i just re-read the post following your comments. I have emailed sidi faraz asking him to clear this up, because it really doesnt make much sense.

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum


I am still wondering, however, where the boundary lies between a Sunnah action that is of itself mutsahhab but which could become makruh or haram ihtiyat because of wrong attitudes toward it. Does this usually happen on the individual level, or does it also apply to groups?

Usually the Ulema of Deoband do not base such Fatwas on Individual level actions but rather actions of a great Majority of people. I shall now, Insha'Allah, cite an example:

1. Tawassul:

Although the concept of Wasila, and even Istighata (Ya RasulAllah MAdad), is accepted by *some* of the Deobandi Ulema (As cited in Mufti Desais Replies), many of the scholars have felt the need to make such an action Haram and Prohibied mainly due to the fact that the majority of the population in the Subcontinent are ignorant of the Principles of Wasila and engage in Munkar actions which could clearly and very easily lead to Shirk. It is not because 10 people on the side of the road are engaging in some Innovated acts, but the general population. The Ulema of Deoband state that to stop an action which leads to Haram, we must cut off the source of that action based on Ihtiyat and for the general well being of the community, lest it falls into a pit of Fitna. Anyone who has lived in Pakistan and India will certainly see this as the best approach.

We should also note that in the perspective of Fiqh, cultural and Location also come into play. Whereas an action can be forbidden in one part of the world, it can be permissible in another due to the differences in conditions. This however is a very detailed and indepth topic.

It is pretty evident that when people start saying "doing Dhikr in such and such form" is Wajib or Fardh (when it has no proof in the Shariah) then that action becomes a Bidat, since in reality it is not Wajib and nor is it Fardh but a label people have put upon it which may very well misguide people. If they say Dhikr itself is Wajib and the way it is being done is Mubah, then it makes sense. The only reason i can think of as to why only Deobands have passed rulings to this effect is because the situation and conditions they were in called for it. It is well known that the Subcontinent is a hot bed for Innovation.

Lastly, we should remember that the Subcontinent is the centre for Hanafi teaching aswell as learning, from where scholars of high calibre come out from.

Wallahu A'lam

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

I do understand what you're saying, but my question is this. In these issues, there is no consensus amongst the hanafi scholars (as the deobandis are only one school within the madhab), therefore, is the one who takes part in these activities (like tawassul) sinful, even if he has the correct beliefs about it and practise about it?

In regards to istigaatha, could you explain, a) what the correct beliefs should be when doing it, and b) what the genereal populas of the indian subcontinent believe when doing it?

And also, why then do the ulema of deoband not prohibit taweez? Because surely there's as much ignorance involved in that, both in the indian sub-continent and the West.

Wasalam

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum

One will not be sinful if he does it correctly. I mentioned before that while passing these Fatwas the Ulema do point out conditions when it can be done and when it cannot.

As for the correct beliefs for Istighata, it is:

1. Not believing that the one being called on is the one who is giving or providing etc.

-- As for someone who believes that those called upon can cause effects, benefit, or harm, which they create or cause to exist as Allah does, such a person is an idolater who has left Islam (Umdat As Salik).


2. If being done at the graves, not to do Munkar acts such as touching, kissing, bowing or any similar actions. Imam Ahmad Rida Khan Brelwi also has a similar Fatwa.

Both the above is done extensively in the Subcontinent, especially number two.


And also, why then do the ulema of deoband not prohibit taweez? Because surely there's as much ignorance involved in that, both in the indian sub-continent and the West.

I have never seen the above as a great issue, and even if it is, it is not at the level of what we discussed above nor have i seen it to be in my 7 years of living in Pakistan.

Wallahu A'lam

[Abu Usama]

wa `alaykum assalam, brother
In the past, Sidi Faraz has replied mildly to questions of the differences between the Deobandi and Barawali schools, emphasising unity and respect. His answer here seems to be directed at a different set of scholarship. Please keep me advised of this; if I am wrong, I hope to know inshallah.


Salam,

sidi faraz replied and said that his answer was in reference to wahhabis, not deobandis, because the wahhabis had been mentioned in the question, not deobandis. And he further said that the texts do say that if a good innovation is genuinely taken to be religiously necessary.

[Saleel]

:salam:

This is turned into a discussion rather than a Q&A, so :insh: moving to Debates and In-depth Islam.

:salam:

[GenN]

Wajib is something that has some basic proofs in the text with some degree of doubt. If the transmission of the texts dealing with the concept of taqlid are Definite in its transmission and meaning then it will be Fardh. If it is Definite in its transmission and ambiguous in its meaning / or Probabalistic in its transmission and definite in its meaning, then it is Wajib. Taqlid is not an innovation. It is Wajib because it falls under the above category and has some implications in the Texts i.e the Quran and Sunnah.




May Allah reward you abundantly for that Salman. i was confused on this issue, but that clears it for me.

was salaam

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

...and to clarify for the others:

wajib and fard is one and the same in the maliki school (and i believe so on the other two schools).

e.g. salat is wajib in the maliki school

[GenN]

Assalm alykum,

brother salman, or anyone else here is another question rellted to this topic.

If someone starts to consider an action as neccassary, when it is not then that action becomes bidah. Now lets look at that the other way around.

What if, due to a certain condition or action or object, a person starts to consider an action as reprehensible, when in actual fact it is a sunnah.

So does that mean then that the condition or action or object becomes a bidah, for making people think a sunnah action is actually reprehensible?


For example (sorry if people think i am hardcore nitpickiking now with this example) reading salaah with shoes/slippers on is a sunnah, however due to the over decorating of mosques and especially becasuse of the nice carpets which the mosque comittees don't want to get dirtied, over time people have forgotten that reading with shoes/slippers on is a sunnah (with its conditions of course which many times are till met even today, although not in every case of course) and so today if anyone reads with they shoes on they are a salafee or ignorant or bidati or deviant or whatever. So becasue of this ignorance of the sunnah due to the over abundance of people praying without their shoes, does this then mean carpets in the masjid are a bidah, and we should have rough floors so that people have to start praying with their shoes on and realise that it is a sunnah to pray with slippers and shoes on?

wa salaam.

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

yes i have another similar type question. Most people in my locality think that its fardh to pray taraweeh (even more so than isha!) and say that anyone who doesnt pray 20 rakaat taraweeh is a wahhabi and deviant, bidati etc. So does this mean that taraweeh (which is sunna muakkadah) in jamaat in the masjid (which is good innovation) becomes a reprehensible innovation?

[GenN]

Hmmm, i think taraweeh in jamaat is a sunnah and NOT a bidah as the prophet (SAW) led it during his life time, however the good bidah bit would be reading it day in day out in jamaat, as more often the prophet (SAW) read alone as far as i am aware.

Good question abu usama, these days people think its fard to read in jamaat and that you HAVE to read 20, so is reading 20 rakaah in taraweeh bida?

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

reading 20 rakaats taraweeh is sunnah muakkadah (which can be fulfilled either at home or in the masjid) according to the hanafis. And therefore you do do HAVE to do it (but not necessarily in the masjid). The issue i ask about is to actually pray it in jamaat every day, because people do think its farz to do that, whereas it was a good innovation iniated into Islam during the khilafat of Umar (ra).

And another question Inshallah. Most men and women in my community beleive that it is fardh for women to cover thier head during the adhan, even if its on the tv. Does this then become a bid'ah? (as it is not fardh or necessary or even emphasised).

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum


What if, due to a certain condition or action or object, a person starts to consider an action as reprehensible, when in actual fact it is a sunnah.

So does that mean then that the condition or action or object becomes a bidah, for making people think a sunnah action is actually reprehensible?


When we indulge in a certain act that is a proven Sunnah, we must do it 100 percent in accordance with the way the Prophet did it. If any external actions, which are forbidden or disliked or not supported by the Ulema, are introduced into the Sunnah then in reality that act does not remain a Sunnah.


For example

Praying on the ground is generally superior to praying on a carpet. However, the Ulema have stated that praying on a carpet is permissible without it being disliked (if the carpet is known to be free from impurities).

As for the question of the Masjid. It is a Sunna to pray in Sandals (and this is better then praying in shoes). However, Ibn Abidin also said:

-- However, if one fears dirtying the masjids carpets, then one should not do so (pray in shoes), even if they are free of filth

(Rad Al Muhtar)


The issue i ask about is to actually pray it in jamaat every day, because people do think its farz to do that, whereas it was a good innovation iniated into Islam during the khilafat of Umar (ra).

Depends on the severity of the situation i.e how many people actually believe praying Tarawih in the Masjid is Fardh? Has it reached an extent where action has to be taken? etc etc


And another question Inshallah. Most men and women in my community beleive that it is fardh for women to cover thier head during the adhan, even if its on the tv. Does this then become a bid'ah? (as it is not fardh or necessary or even emphasised).

It is fardh for them to cover their heads at all times, except in front of Mahrams.

[Abu Usama]

It is fardh for them to cover their heads at all times, except in front of Mahrams.

According to whom?

And also: http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00002889.aspx
and: http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00003733.aspx

Wasalam

[salman]

According to whom?

And also: http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00002889.aspx
and: http://www.sunnipath.com/resources/Questions/qa00003733.aspx

Wasalam

Sallamu Alaikum

Yes thats why i stated, "Except infront of Mahrams." The questioner never specified who the Female was with when the Adhan was being called. If she was with a group of Mahrams then no it is not Fardh. If she was with a group consisting of Non Mahrams aswell, then the concept of Hijab is already present.

As for the Sunnipath link, then i agree with them. It is based on respect, but i do not know many people who actually say its Fardh ( ? ). We must note, that when the deobandi Ulema passed a ruling saying such and such action is Bidah due to such and such reason, it was because the majority of people started indulging in acts which called for immediate action i.e things just simply got out of hand a great deal. It was not because of a handful people and their views.

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

your words stated that it was fardh at all times except when in the company of mehram. This would therefore mean that it was fardh when they were on thier own (and therefore neither in the comapny of mehram or non-mehram).

I do understand what you are saying about the deobandi positioning on bidah though.

[salman]

Sallamu Alaikum

I guess i worded it wrong then : ) but i didnt mean that.

[GenN]

Sallamu Alaikum

Praying on the ground is generally superior to praying on a carpet. However, the Ulema have stated that praying on a carpet is permissible without it being disliked (if the carpet is known to be free from impurities).

As for the question of the Masjid. It is a Sunna to pray in Sandals (and this is better then praying in shoes). However, Ibn Abidin also said:

-- However, if one fears dirtying the masjids carpets, then one should not do so (pray in shoes), even if they are free of filth

(Rad Al Muhtar)





bro, that doesnt answer my question. let me rephrase. It is sunnah to pray in sandals. However if someone today prayed in sandals people would think he is doingis HARAAM or or his slaah is NOT accepted becaseu they think you should not pray in sandals, when in reality it is sunnah. Now ONE of the reason people forget it is sunnah and started thinking it is haraam is becaseu the MAJORITY of the people STOPPED praying in sandals becaseu when masjids became carpeted they did not want the carpets to get dirtied. so OVER TIME as eveyone STOPPED praying in sandals so as not to get the carpets dirtied they forgot the sunnah of praying in sandals.

So the CAUSE that made people FORGET the sunnah of praying in sandals was the carpets in masjids. so becaseu the carpets are draggin peopl away from the sunnah of praying in sandles and MAKING THEM THINK IT IS HARAAM TO PRAY IN SANDALS, does then that mean no the carpets have become biddah, and it should be rough floors so that peoplp statrt praying in sandals again?

[Saleel]

:salam:


Salam,

I dont know, but it seems that it is just the deobandi scholars who seem to say that if the people think its necessary, then it becomes a bid'ah.Sidi Feraz Rabbani has described this principle as "divergent" as can be seen from the following post to the hanafi fiqh forum.



The arguments of those methodologically challenged or attitudinally divergent regarding innovation

Question:

I have heard from a lot of people that "everything in ibadat is haram unless there is proof that it is halal" and "everything in maamolat is permissable, unless there is proof otherwise". - Is this also the belief of the Ahle Sunnah wal Jamaah? Or do we believe that everything, regardless of it being in our relationship to the creation or the creator, is allowed unless there''s any proof contradicting it?
And also, the some others say that if a good innovation is taken to be necessary by the participants in it, then it becomes a reprehensible innovation. Is this beleif just consigned to them or are we all meant to follow that?


In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful and Compassionate

May His blessings and peace be on His Beloved Prophet, the best of creation, and his family, companions, and followers

Walaikum assalam wa rahmatullah,

The principles related to innovation (bid`a) are clearly explained in the Sheikh Nuh Keller answer at www.masud.co.uk, and in various other answers on www.sunnipath.com.

If we accepted this ‘principle’ mentioned by those people, then we would have to accuse the Companions of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) of innovation—folly indeed.

It is a grave error for the non-scholar to listen to the words and arguments of those methodologically challenged or attitudinally divergent from the way of Sunni Islam.

And Allah alone gives success.

Wassalam,

Faraz Rabbani (faraz@sunnipath.com)
Sunni Path - www.sunnipath.com
My Blog: http://blog.masud.co.uk/faraz.htm
Quality Islamic products: www.Caravansaray.com

With regards to the above opinion of Sidi Faraz Rabbani: I have spoken to Sidi Faraz and he wanted me to clear up the confusion. The above refers to the Salafis, not the Akabir of Deoband. He gave absolutely no hint in his answer of the latter.

:jazak:

:salam:

[Abu Usama]

Salam,

i did mention that in an earlier post (that he was referring to the salafis). The reason for the confusion was that the orignal question read "and also, the deobandis say", but it was changed to "and also, the some others say" by sunnipath.

Wasalam