بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيْمِ 🖊️
The principle that “anything done regularly is automatically bidah because the Prophet ﷺ did not fix it in that exact form” is not the methodology of the Salaf, nor the understanding of the people of knowledge.
Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] says:
وَذَكِّرْ فَإِنَّ الذِّكْرَىٰ تَنْفَعُ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ
[Wa dhakkir fa-inna al-dhikrā tanfaʿu al-muʾminīn — And remind, for indeed the reminder benefits the believers.]
Surah al-Dhāriyāt 51:55
This command is unrestricted in its أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis]. Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] did not limit reminders to random or sporadic occurrences. If a scholar, teacher, or طَالِبُ عِلْمٍ [ṭālib ʿilm — student of knowledge] arranges weekly or monthly reminders for tawhid, fiqh, or admonition, this enters under the generality of this verse.
Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] also says:
ادْعُ إِلَىٰ سَبِيْلِ رَبِّكَ بِالْحِكْمَةِ وَالْمَوْعِظَةِ الْحَسَنَةِ
[Udʿu ilā sabīli rabbika bi-l-ḥikmati wa-l-mawʿiẓati al-ḥasanah — Call to the way of your Lord with wisdom and good instruction.]
Surah al-Naḥl 16:125
And He says:
وَلْتَكُنْ مِنْكُمْ أُمَّةٌ يَدْعُوْنَ إِلَى الْخَيْرِ وَيَأْمُرُوْنَ بِالْمَعْرُوْفِ وَيَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنْكَرِ
[Wa-l-takun minkum ummatun yadʿūna ilā al-khayri wa yaʾmurūna bi-l-maʿrūfi wa yanhawna ʿani al-munkar — Let there arise from you a group inviting to all that is good, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong.]
Surah آل عِمْرَان [Āl ʿImrān] 3:104
None of these texts restricted organisation, scheduling, or consistency. Rather, the objective is legislated, and the means remain open so long as they do not oppose revelation.
Imam Mālik ibn Anas رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] said:
لَنْ يَصْلُحَ آخِرُ هَذِهِ الْأُمَّةِ إِلَّا بِمَا صَلُحَ بِهِ أَوَّلُهَا
[Lan yaṣluḥa ākhiru hādhihi al-ummati illā bimā ṣaluḥa bihi awwaluhā — The latter part of this Ummah will not be rectified except by what rectified its first part.]
His intent was not to prohibit all structured means, but to prohibit innovated acts of worship with no أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis] in revelation.
Imam al-Shāfiʿī رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] said:
الْمُحْدَثَاتُ مِنَ الْأُمُوْرِ ضَرْبَانِ مَا أُحْدِثَ مِمَّا يُخَالِفُ كِتَابًا أَوْ سُنَّةً أَوْ أَثَرًا أَوْ إِجْمَاعًا فَهَذِهِ الْبِدْعَةُ الضَّلَالَةُ وَمَا أُحْدِثَ مِنَ الْخَيْرِ لَا خِلَافَ فِيْهِ لِوَاحِدٍ مِنْ هَذَا فَهَذِهِ مُحْدَثَةٌ غَيْرُ مَذْمُوْمَةٍ
[Al-muḥdathātu mina al-umūri ḍarbān: mā uḥditha mimmā yukhālifu kitāban aw sunnatan aw atharan aw ijmāʿan fa-hādhihi al-bidʿatu al-ḍalālah, wa mā uḥditha mina al-khayri lā khilāfa fīhi li-wāḥidin min hādhā fa-hādhihi muḥdathatun ghayru madhmūmah — Innovations are of two types: that which opposes the Book, Sunnah, narrations, or consensus, this is blameworthy misguidance. As for what is introduced of good and does not oppose any of these, then it is not blameworthy.]
Imam Abū Ḥanīfa رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] had regular circles of fiqh.
Imam Mālik ibn Anas رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] had his established gatherings in Madinah.
Imam al-Shāfiʿī رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] taught in organised sittings.
Imam Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] had consistent lessons of hadith.
Were the four Imams practising bidah? Of course not. They understood the difference between the act itself and the means of preserving it.
The clearest proof comes from ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him].
He used to remind the people every Thursday. They said to him: O Abū ʿAbd al-Raḥmān, we wish you would remind us every day. He replied:
أَمَا إِنَّهُ يَمْنَعُنِيْ مِنْ ذَلِكَ أَنِّيْ أَكْرَهُ أَنْ أُمِلَّكُمْ وَإِنِّيْ أَتَخَوَّلُكُمْ بِالْمَوْعِظَةِ كَمَا كَانَ النَّبِيُّ ﷺ يَتَخَوَّلُنَا بِهَا مَخَافَةَ السَّآمَةِ عَلَيْنَا
[Amā innahu yamnaʿunī min dhālika annī akrahu an umillakum wa innī atakhawwalukum bi-l-mawʿiẓati kamā kāna al-nabiyyu ﷺ yatakhawwalunā bihā makhāfata al-saʾāmati ʿalaynā — Nothing prevents me except that I dislike boring you. Indeed I choose suitable times for admonishing you just as the Prophet ﷺ used to choose suitable times for us, fearing we may become weary.]
Reported in Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī.
This is explicit: a fixed weekly reminder by a Sahabi رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him], based on the prophetic methodology itself.
So the issue is simple.
If someone believes a specific day or format is worship in itself and divinely legislated, this is bidah.
But if he organises reminders for benefit, discipline, and consistency, while knowing the أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis] is already legislated, this is from الْوَسَائِل [al-wasāʾil — the means] and الْمَصَالِح الْمُرْسَلَة [al-maṣāliḥ al-mursalah — unrestricted considerations of benefit].
To make every form of organisation into bidah is not fiqh. It is confusion.
And this understanding that all regularisation is innovation is not from Ahl al-ʿIlm. It is a dangerous oversimplification that, if applied consistently, would force one to condemn the teaching circles of the Salaf, the four Imams رَحِمَهُمُ اللهُ [Raḥimahumu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on them], and the structured preservation of sacred knowledge itself.
اللهُ سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ أَعْلَمُ
[Allāhu subḥānahu wa taʿālā aʿlam — And Allah, Glorified and Exalted is He, knows best.]
***
A Twitter user responded, “Shaykh Abdur Rahman al-Barrak and Shaykh Sulaymān ar-Ruḥaylī disagree with you. Your understanding of bidʿah is wrong. Every act of worship is restricted until proven to be permissible. ʿIbādah is tawqīfī. You have to follow the Prophet ﷺ in the way he gave reminders, and he never did this.”
***
Dr. Hamza Ash-Shafii replied:
بِسْمِ اللهِ الرَّحْمَنِ الرَّحِيْمِ 🖊️🧵📚
With sincere respect to this muslim confusion here is in failing to distinguish between الْمَقَاصِد [al-maqāṣid — the objectives] and الْوَسَائِل [al-wasāʾil — the means], between the act of worship itself and the means by which that worship is taught, preserved, and conveyed. This distinction is fundamental in أُصُوْلُ الْفِقْه [uṣūl al-fiqh — the principles of jurisprudence] and without it many matters become confused.
Yes, ibadah is tawqifi. No one from Ahl al-Sunnah disputes that. Meaning the أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis] of worship, its cause, type, number, manner, and time cannot be established except with evidence. But this principle applies to the عِبَادَات [ʿibādāt — acts of worship] themselves, not necessarily every means connected to them.
Teaching, reminding, organising lessons, setting schedules, and structuring educational benefit are not acts of worship in themselves. They are وَسَائِل [wasāʾil — means] to worship. And الْوَسَائِل [al-wasāʾil — the means] take the ruling of permissibility unless they contain a prohibited matter or become ritualised as an independent act of devotion.
This is why the Salaf differentiated between التَّعَبُّدُ بِالْفِعْلِ [al-taʿabbud bi-l-fiʿl — worshipping through the act itself] and اتِّخَاذُ الْوَسِيْلَةِ إِلَيْهِ [ittikhādh al-wasīlati ilayh — adopting a means towards it].
Your argument collapses because you have treated the means as though it is the objective itself.
The Prophet ﷺ did not establish a weekly hadith circle after Maghrib every Thursday. He did not fix monthly fiqh seminars. He did not gather the Quran into one mushaf in his lifetime. He did not establish schools with structured curricula. He did not compile the sciences of jarḥ wa taʿdīl, muṣṭalaḥ, or أُصُوْلُ الْفِقْه [uṣūl al-fiqh — the principles of jurisprudence]. Yet all of this was done by the Salaf and those after them because these are means serving the preservation of the religion, not independent ritual acts.
To say “he never did it” is not enough by itself. تَرْكُ النَّبِيِّ ﷺ [tark al-nabiyy ﷺ — the Prophet’s ﷺ abandonment of an act] is not automatically evidence of prohibition unless there is an accompanying reason showing that the omission was intended as legislation. This is a major principle.
Shaykh al-Islām Ibn Taymiyyah رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] clarified that mere abandonment by the Prophet ﷺ does not establish prohibition unless the cause existed, the need was present, and there was no preventative barrier, yet he still intentionally left it as a form of legislation.
Otherwise, much of what the Ummah agreed upon later would be condemned.
Your claim that restricting reminders to Fridays every single week makes it worship is inaccurate. Restriction in itself does not make something عِبَادِي [ʿibādī — devotional/pertaining to worship]. Restriction may be administrative, pedagogical, or circumstantial.
If a person says: “Every Friday I will remind the people because it is the day of Jumuah, people gather, hearts are softer, and the subject is relevant,” this is no different in principle to a khatib preparing a recurring khutbah every week.
Would you now say khutbah itself is bidah because it recurs weekly and is restricted?
Of course not, because the restriction there is tied to a legislated occasion. Likewise, reminders tied to that occasion for benefit are تَابِعٌ لَا مُسْتَقِلٌّ [tābiʿ lā mustaqill — subordinate, not independent], connected and secondary, not independent legislation.
The issue of bidah enters only when one believes the format itself is legislated, or that its exact recurrence carries special reward from Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] without evidence. That is the actual مَحَلُّ النِّزَاع [maḥall al-nizāʿ — the actual point of dispute].
If someone says “sending this reminder every Friday is Sunnah in itself and whoever leaves it has abandoned a specific Sunnah,” then yes, this would be false attribution to the religion.
But if he says “I use Friday because it is relevant and beneficial,” this remains under maslahah and الْوَسَائِل [al-wasāʾil — the means].
Your comparison with “otherwise all bidah would be halal” is also weak because bidah is not defined merely by repetition or timing. It is defined by introducing into the religion a devotional act, form, or belief without evidence.
By your logic, every mosque timetable, every weekly دَرْس [dars — lesson], every annual conference in Ramadan, every Hajj seminar before Dhul Hijjah, and every scheduled class after Fajr would be bidah because the Prophet ﷺ did not formalise them in that exact way. No scholar says this.
Even ʿAbd al-ʿAzīz ibn Bāz رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] and Muḥammad ibn Ṣāliḥ al-ʿUthaymīn رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] permitted structured lessons and organised recurring reminders because they understood this distinction.
The Prophet ﷺ himself used timing strategically. ʿAbdullāh ibn Masʿūd رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him] said that the Prophet ﷺ would choose suitable times to admonish them, fearing boredom. This proves selecting times for reminders is legislated by principle, even if the exact recurring structure differs.
So the principle is simple and precise. If the act itself is being worshipped, then it must be proven.
If it is merely a means to facilitate worship, teach worship, or remind of worship, then its basis is permissibility unless it contains corruption.
Failing to distinguish between these two categories is precisely what leads to over-expanding bidah beyond what the Salaf intended. And this is why many students confuse administrative regularity with religious innovation. They are not the same.
And this is why the scholars speak about الْبِدْعَةُ الْإِضَافِيَّة [al-bidʿah al-iḍāfiyyah — relative/additive innovation], where an originally legislated matter becomes blameworthy only when an unlegislated restriction, description, or belief is attached to it as though it were part of the religion itself. This is the crucial distinction your argument overlooks.
Not every specification is bidah. Specification only becomes bidah when it is intended as taqarrub in that specific specification without evidence.
For example, fasting is legislated. But if a person singles out the fifteenth of Shaʿbān believing that exact day carries a specific virtue without proof, this enters innovation because the specification itself is devotional.
But if a teacher singles out Friday to remind people about Jumuah rulings, Sūrah al-Kahf, salawat upon the Prophet ﷺ, and the etiquettes of the day because that is when people need it most, this is rational specification tied to benefit, not devotional specification.
The usuli principle here is clear.
تَخْصِيْصُ الْعِبَادَةِ بِلَا دَلِيْلٍ بِدْعَةٌ
[Takhṣīṣ al-ʿibādati bilā dalīlin bidʿah — Specifying worship without evidence is innovation.]
But also:
تَخْصِيْصُ الْوَسَائِلِ بِالْمَصْلَحَةِ لَيْسَ بِبِدْعَةٍ
[Takhṣīṣ al-wasāʾili bi-l-maṣlaḥati laysa bi-bidʿah — Specifying means due to benefit is not innovation.]
Confusing these two principles is where many students slip.
Also, your statement “the Prophet ﷺ never gave reminders this way” assumes complete knowledge of all possible formats of his reminders, which is impossible. What is established is that he reminded, taught, repeated, selected timings, addressed circumstances, and used occasions to teach. That is the أَصْل [aṣl — foundational basis].
The exact organisational form remains open so long as it does not contradict revelation.
This is why ʿUmar ibn al-Khaṭṭāb رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him] gathered the people behind one imam in Tarāwīḥ and said “what an excellent thing this is,” not meaning legislative innovation in worship, but reviving and organising an established principle.
This alone demolishes the simplistic claim that every newly structured religious format is misguidance.
Likewise, the compilation of the Quran under Abū Bakr al-Ṣiddīq رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him] and later standardisation under ʿUthmān ibn ʿAffān رَضِيَ اللهُ عَنْهُ [Raḍiya Allāhu ʿanhu — may Allah be pleased with him] was a structured religious means never done in that form by the Prophet ﷺ, yet accepted unanimously because the objective was preservation, not innovation. The same applies here.
A weekly Friday reminder is not a sixth prayer, not a new dhikr, not a newly invented Eid, not a fixed ritual formula. It is simply organised admonition.
And organised admonition remains under the generality of Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] saying:
وَذَكِّرْ فَإِنَّ الذِّكْرَىٰ تَنْفَعُ الْمُؤْمِنِيْنَ
[Wa dhakkir fa-inna al-dhikrā tanfaʿu al-muʾminīn — And remind, for indeed the reminder benefits the believers.]
Allah جَلَّ جَلَالُهُ [Jalla Jalāluhu — Exalted is His Majesty] did not restrict reminders to random occurrence only. Nor did the Messenger ﷺ prohibit organising them.
So whoever claims prohibition must prove that the organisation itself has crossed from وَسِيْلَة [wasīlah — means] into عِبَادَة [ʿibādah — worship]. That burden is on him.
Otherwise, the default remains that structured teaching, recurring reminders, and organised benefit fall under permissibility and maslahah, not under bidah.
Because the reality is that this religion was preserved not only through the transmitted texts themselves, but through organised means of preservation developed by the Salaf and those after them, all operating under the broader objectives of the Shariah. The one who absolutises the principle of tawqif without distinguishing between the maqasid and the wasail ends up undermining the very mechanisms through which the religion was preserved.
Take the isnad system as an example. The Prophet ﷺ did not command the Ummah to formalise chains of narration in the technical manner later scholars did. Yet ʿAbdullāh ibn al-Mubārak رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him] said, “The isnad is from the religion.” That formalisation was a means of preservation, not a newly invented act of worship. Likewise, the categorisation of hadith into ṣaḥīḥ, ḥasan and ḍaʿīf, the codification of uṣūl al-fiqh by Muḥammad ibn Idrīs al-Shāfiʿī رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him], the structured books of aqidah by Aḥmad ibn Ḥanbal رَحِمَهُ اللهُ [Raḥimahu Allāh — may Allah have mercy on him], and the fixed teaching circles in the masajid of the Salaf all demonstrate one clear principle: organisation in service of revelation is not itself revelation.
This distinction is foundational. Otherwise, one would have to claim that every structured syllabus in aqidah, every weekly explanation of Al-ʿAqīdah al-Ṭaḥāwiyyah, every yearly Ramadan series, every scheduled khutbah preparation, and every formal ijazah system are all bidah simply because the Prophet ﷺ did not do them in that exact form. No serious student of knowledge can hold this consistently.
The usuliyyun discuss this under the principles of means and objectives. Means are judged according to their objectives and outcomes. If the means preserve the Sunnah, facilitate knowledge, and strengthen adherence without becoming independent devotional rites, then their ruling remains under permissibility or recommendation according to the maslahah.
What is being confused here is the difference between عِبَادَةٌ مَقْصُوْدَةٌ لِذَاتِهَا [ʿibādatun maqṣūdatun li-dhātihā — an act of worship sought for its own sake], an act sought for itself as worship, and وَسِيْلَةٌ مُعَيَّنَةٌ تُوْصِلُ إِلَيْهَا [wasīlatun muʿayyanatun tūṣilu ilayhā — a defined means leading to it], a defined means leading to it. Failing to distinguish these categories is a flaw in conceptualisation before it becomes a flaw in deduction. This is why the scholars said:
الْحُكْمُ عَلَى الشَّيْءِ فَرْعٌ عَنْ تَصَوُّرِهِ
[Al-ḥukmu ʿalā al-shayʾi farʿun ʿan taṣawwurih — Ruling upon something depends on first conceptualising it correctly.]
So before hastily declaring bidah, the first question must always be: is this an act of worship in itself, or merely a means serving an already legislated act? If it is the former, then proof is required. If it is the latter, then the default remains permissibility unless evidence proves otherwise.
This is the balance of Ahl al-Sunnah. They preserve the sanctity of tawqif in worship while recognising the flexibility of means in teaching, preserving, and conveying that worship. Without this precision, one does not protect the Sunnah. Rather, he risks weaponising the concept of bidah against the very tools by which the Sunnah reached him in the first place.
اللَّهُمَّ ارْزُقْنَا عِلْمًا نَافِعًا وَفَهْمًا صَحِيْحًا وَثَبَاتًا عَلَى السُّنَّةِ وَجَنِّبْنَا الْبِدَعَ وَالْأَهْوَاءَ وَاجْعَلْنَا مِنْ أَهْلِ الْحَقِّ حَتَّىٰ نَلْقَاكَ
[Allāhumma-rzuqnā ʿilman nāfiʿan wa fahman ṣaḥīḥan wa thabātan ʿalā al-sunnah wa jannibnā al-bidaʿa wa-l-ahwāʾa wa-jʿalnā min ahli al-ḥaqqi ḥattā nalqāk — O Allah, grant us beneficial knowledge, correct understanding, steadfastness upon the Sunnah, keep us away from innovations and desires, and make us from the people of truth until we meet You.]
(A response written on Twitter by Dr. Hamza Al-Shafii @DrHamze_M to the video of Shaykh Abdur Rahman Al-Omaisan, may Allah preserve them both, stating that regular reminders to perform acts of Sunnah are a Bidʿah.)
