The Correct Understanding Of Severing Ties With The People Of Innovation

[Monthly Magazine ‘Al-Muhaddith’, October 2024, Dr. Muhammad Zubair, “Interaction between Madhahib and the Methodology of Salafi Scholars”]

Disassociating From Innovators: Not A Clear Textual Ruling, But An Ijtihadi Issue

Disassociating from innovators is not based on a clear, explicit textual ruling; rather, it’s an issue that requires scholarly interpretation (Ijtihad). Its foundation lies in the principle of considering the greater good (Maslahah). Therefore, the ruling on maintaining or severing ties with innovators changes according to circumstances, events, time, and place.

Determining when to associate or dissociate from a particular innovator will be decided by a scholar, using their Ijtihad, guided by the principle of Maslahah (i.e what is the greater good and more beneficial).

***

The Ruling on Disassociating from Innovators Varies Based on Circumstances

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) stated in Majmua’ Al-Fatawa (28/206-207):

“And the ruling on this disassociation (Hajr, boycotting an individual) changes according to the strength and weakness, and the fewness and multitude, of those who are disassociating, because the purpose of disassociation is to rebuke and discipline the one from whom disassociation is being made, or to teach them good manners, or to prevent the common people from him.

Then, if the consideration (Maslahah) is that – as a result of this disassociation, neither the person being disassociated from is affected, nor others, but rather harm may increase, and those disassociating are weak, and more harm than benefit is apparent in the disassociation, then such a disassociation is not permissible.

Rather, softening hearts (Taleef Al-Qulub) towards some people is more beneficial than disassociating from them. This is why the Prophet (peace be upon him) would sometimes soften hearts towards a group and disassociate from others. For instance, during the Battle of Tabuk, he disassociated from the three Companions who stayed behind, whereas he softened hearts towards others who were leaders of their people, as they held positions of authority.

Therefore, the requirement of religious expediency (Maslahah) was to soften hearts towards the leaders. On the other hand, these three Companions were merely believers, and there were many other believers besides them, so disassociating from them would have strengthened the religion and purified them from sin. This is similar to how, at times, fighting the enemy is enjoined in the Shariah, while at other times, making peace or accepting Jizyah (tribute) is enjoined.

And all this is in consideration of circumstances and events. The responses that Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (rahimahullah) and others gave regarding disassociation from innovators are based on this principle. This is why Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal (Rahimahullah) would take into account, in his responses, the difference between places where innovations had spread, such as the denial of Qadr in Basra, star worship in Khurasan, and Shi’ism in Kufa, and places where these innovations had not spread, (considering) the difference between the two (in circumstances).

Similarly, there is also a difference between religious leaders (Aimmah) who are obeyed and the common people (Aammah). Once they understood the Shariah’s objective regarding disassociation, they adopted the approach they deemed most effective to achieve that goal.”

Imam Adh-Dhahabi (Rahimahullah) writes in Siyar A’lam An-Nubala (15/88):

“I came across a statement of Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’ari (Rahimahullah) that I found very beneficial, and it is authentically attributed to him, as Imam Al-Bayhaqi (Rahimahullah) reported: I heard Abul-Hazim Al-‘Abdawi say, ‘I heard Zahhir bin Ahmad al-Sarakhsi say, “When Abu al-Hasan al-Ash’ari’s (rahimahullah) final moment drew near, and he was in my house in Baghdad, he summoned me, and I presented myself before him.”

He (Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’ari) said, “Bear witness that I do not declare any person from among the people of Qiblah (those who face the Ka’bah in prayer) to be a disbeliever, for all the people of Qiblah refer to the same deity (i.e., the One they direct their worship to is One, Allah). Their differences are only in expressions (or wording).”

Imam Adh-Dhahabi (Rahimahullah) said, “This is also my own methodology, and our Shaykh and teacher, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah), stated similarly in his final days: ‘I do not declare any individual from this Ummah to be a disbeliever.’ This is based on the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) statement that – only a believer will safeguard his Wudu (ritual purity). Therefore, whoever adheres to Wudu and performs prayers is a Muslim.” End quote.

***

The Noble Conduct Of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah)’s noble conduct towards the people of innovation is well-known. Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim (Rahimahullah) relates an incident, saying: [Ibn Al-Qayyim Al-Jawziyyah, Muhammad bin Abi Bakr, Madarij As-Salikin (2/329)]  

“One day, I came to Shaykh al-Islam Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (Rahimahullah) and informed him about the death of one of his major enemies, who harboured intense hatred towards him and caused him great distress, saying: ‘Congratulations, the person who antagonized (used to harm you) you has passed away.’ So, the Shaykh (Imam Ibn Taymiyyah) rebuked me and disapproved of my statement, saying ‘Inna lillahi wa inna ilayhi raji’un’ (To Allah we belong and to Him we will return). He immediately got up and went to the deceased’s house to offer condolences to his family.

He said to them, ‘Consider me in the same position in your household as the deceased held, and if you need anything from now on, I will fulfil it.’ He spoke words of comfort, which delighted them, and they supplicated for him. They were deeply moved by his noble conduct.” End quote.

Imam Ibn Taymiyyah’s (rahimahullah) interaction makes it clear that:

– If the people of truth are few and overpowered (by the people of Bid’ah), then severing ties brings no benefit, only harm.

– If the people of truth are numerous and dominant, then severing ties can be beneficial.

– If that person is a leader or influential figure with millions of followers, then severing ties is not beneficial, as it would weaken Islam.

Our stance is that in this era, the Ahlul-Hadith are weak and few in number. This country (since the author is from Pakistan) is predominantly Hanafi, with the majority adhering to that school. Under these circumstances, severing ties brings no benefit, but rather harm to our own group.

Moreover, besides the religious factions, liberal and secular segments are also actively opposing us. To counter their agenda, such as atheism, usury, obscenity, narcotics, and denial of Prophethood, the Ahlul-Hadith alone cannot achieve anything.

Thus, collective struggle in national and societal issues is acknowledged by all as necessary. Since you have opened the path for collective struggle and cooperation in national and societal issues, it implies that in your view, this is not a definitive textual ruling (Nass) but rather a juristic judgment based on expedience (Masalih).

The same argument you use to justify opening the path in one situation is equally applicable for others to open it in another situation, namely, considering the greater good (Maslahah ‘Ammah). This was the stance of Shaykh Ibn Baz, Shaykh Muhammad bin Salih al-‘Uthaymin, and ‘Allamah Al-Albani (Rahimahumullah) and others.

According to these scholars, the issue of interaction between different schools of thought is not a matter of textual obligation (Nass) or fundamental principles of the religion, but rather falls under the category of expedience (Maslahah Mursalah). This is also the ruling issued by prominent contemporary Salafi scholars.

***

Shaikh Ibn Baaz On Boycotting Innovators

Shaikh Ibn Baaz (Rahimahullah) was asked about this issue, and he replied:

[Shaykh ‘Abdul-‘Aziz bin ‘Abdullah, Fatawa Nur ‘ala Ad-Darb: 3/39]

Question: What advice do you give regarding interaction with innovators whom we encounter and interact with in our daily lives?        

The answer: “Boycotting (Hajr) from the innovators is necessary due to their innovation, but this boycotting should occur after openly clarifying the truth to them and advising them. A Muslim is concerned for his brother’s well-being, and Allah (Exalted be He) has forbidden certain innovations and sins that He has declared Haraam for Muslims. When a Muslim sees his brother committing these sins, he warns him about Allah.

If he (the innovator) repents, then that is the best. Otherwise, boycotting from him is necessary, and one should not maintain relations with him. Perhaps this boycotting will lead him to repent and become remorseful, returning to the truth. However, if boycotting him results in harmful consequences, then it is better to maintain relations, as this may facilitate his guidance, reform, and salvation.

In such cases, where boycotting does not bring benefit, one should make advising and warning against falsehood their approach towards their brother, without boycotting from him, hoping that it may be beneficial for him. A believer is like a physician. When he sees that treatment is beneficial, he administers it. And when he sees that treatment is of no benefit, he withholds it. Similarly, boycotting (Hajr) is also a form of treatment.

If boycotting from someone leads to greater good and religious benefit in them, then boycott them, because boycotting is a form of treatment. Perhaps this boycotting will prompt the believing brother to repent and abandon his mistake. However, if you observe that other believers keeping away from him results in increased evil, and wicked people gather around him, supporting and cooperating with him, then do not keep away from your brother.

Instead, continue advising and guiding him, expressing disapproval and discontent with his false actions, while maintaining guidance and counsel. Do not sever ties, but rather persist in warning and directing him, making clear your disapproval of his wrongdoings, while continuing to advise and guide him.” End quote.

This (understanding of Ibn Baaz Rahimahullah) is (real) knowledge – its breadth and depth. Manhaj is not merely limited to some sayings and actions of the pious predecessors. Rather, Manhaj refers to following and adhering to the methodologies of Da’wah of the group of the Prophets (peace be upon them all), whose stories fill the Noble Qur’an. As Allah commanded our Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) in the Noble Qur’an:

“Those are the ones whom Allah has guided, so follow their guidance.” [Al-An’am: 90]

Therefore, instead of deriving Da’wah and Manhaj from the lives of the noble Prophets, taking just a few sayings and actions of the pious predecessors as the complete Manhaj of Islam – while these sayings and actions are not even based on clear textual evidence but rather on considerations of public interest (Maslahah) and blocking the means (Sadd Adh-Dhara’i) – is also a disrespect to these noble Prophets. All Prophets had the same Deen and Manhaj, while their specific laws (Shari’ah) and methodologies (Minhaj) differed.

Allah’s Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) was commanded:

“Then We revealed to you [O Muhammad], ‘Follow the religion of Ibrahim, inclining toward truth; and he was not of those who associate with Allah.'” [An-Nahl: 123-124]

***

The Da’wah Movement of Ahlul-Hadith

We have not come across any scholarly work that elaborates on the principles and guidelines of the Islamic Manhaj in light of the example of the Prophets and the Seerah of the Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) as mentioned in the Noble Qur’an. If even the best researchers of any school of thought or group only pursue PhDs in ten or twelve issues specific to their school, such approaches will never allow these groups and schools to flourish academically. Rather, they become mere sects confined to their own corners. Ahlul-Hadith was a movement (Tahreek), not a sect (Firqah). A movement’s temperament is that of Da’wah, while a sect’s temperament is argumentative – meaning they create disputes in everything. Jama’ah (group) comes from joining, thus a Jama’ah’s temperament is unifying, while Firqah (sect) comes from division, so a sect’s temperament is divisive. Therefore, if your Manhaj is creating unity among Muslims, you are a jama’ah, but if your manhaj is creating division and separation among Muslims, you are a sect. A school of thought and group expands when it remains a movement, but when it becomes a sect, it divides into smaller sects until it disappears. According to the senior Ahlul-Hadith scholars, Ahlul-Hadith was a movement, which is why it flourished greatly.

Sectarianism is fundamentally a temperament (an attitude that some people carry). Maulana Hanif Nadwi and Maulana Ismail Salafi (may Allah have mercy on them) realized in their later years that this temperament had begun to enter the Ahlul-Hadith movement. They spoke about reorienting the entire Jamaat Ahlul-Hadith’s training along new lines and approaches, which can be found in their writings, but many aspirations remain merely wishes. Their position was that the group lacked a reasonable and desired system of Tarbiyah (spiritual and educational training and nurturing).

***

Shaikh Ibn Uthaymeen Rahimahullah On Boycotting The People Of Innovation

Shaikh Muhammad bin Salih Al-Uthaymeen (may Allah have mercy on him) writes [Al-I’tidal fid-Da’wah, Maktabah Shamila edition: 24]:

“Boycotting the people of innovation depends on the nature of their innovation. If it is a Bid’ah Mukaffirah (innovation that renders one a disbeliever), then boycotting them becomes necessary. If it is not a Bid’ah Mukaffirah but of a lesser degree, then we will consider the matter. If there is benefit in boycotting, we will do so. If there is no benefit in boycotting, we will avoid it. This is because boycotting a believer is fundamentally forbidden, as the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said that it is not permissible for a Muslim to abandon his brother for more than three days. Boycotting any believer, even if he is sinful or immoral, is forbidden unless there is some benefit in it. So, if benefit necessitates it, we will boycott because boycotting is a remedy. And if there is no benefit in boycotting, or if there is fear that it will increase the disobedience of the one being boycotted, then avoiding boycott is the beneficial course.” End quote.

If we were to issue a fatwa that all innovators in Pakistan are disbelievers or that their innovation is Bid’ah Mukaffirah (removing them from Islam), then only a handful of Muslims would remain, though they would constitute the vast majority (As-Sawad Al-A’zam). There is no doubt about this. Either declare Takfeer openly and declare everyone disbelievers and then boycott them, as this would provide some justification for boycotting. But in this case, the question arises: what is our responsibility as Muslims after declaring them disbelievers? One with a Da’ee’s temperament would think about converting the disbelievers to Islam. If after declaring them disbelievers, it still remains our religious responsibility to work to make them Muslims, we should do that work first. But this thinking will only come to one who has come to make the world Muslim. One whose temperament is fixated on declaring Muslims as disbelievers cannot develop this thinking. Similarly, after declaring someone an innovator, what is our duty? To bring them to the straight path of the Sunnah. Thus, working to bring them to the Sunnah is more beneficial than declaring them innovators. And even among the Salaf, those who declared others as innovators held the position that they would only declare someone an innovator after establishing the proof against them – meaning after conveying the truth to them through Da’wah and Tabligh, and fulfilling the right of sincere advice, because a Muslim is a brother and well-wisher to another Muslim.

A Da’ee’s work is to bring people to Allah’s religion, not to remove them from it. Those who have experienced the hardships of doing individual Da’wah in the streets and neighbourhoods of Jahili societies, who have listened to people’s concerns – they can understand what obstacles and difficulties exist in the work of Da’wah. But how would those who have never left their Masajid and Madrasas to do Tabligh at the neighbourhood-level know what challenges exist in knocking on the door of a Muslim home or visiting their shop to invite them to prayer and bring them to the mosque? Only when our people descend from the Minbar and Mihrab to struggle in the field of Da’wah as the Prophets and Messengers did, will their temperament become that of Da’wah, and they will understand these issues that we are discussing.         

***

Shaikh Al-Albani Rahimahullah On Boycotting Innovators

Allamah Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) has extensive discussion on this topic, the summary of which is that this is a ruling based on public benefit (Maslahi), not a textual ruling (Nassi), as was mentioned in the position of the two Shaikhs above. In one place he states:

[Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Silsilah Al-Huda wa’n-Nur, tape number: 80]

“In the present era, it is not at all wise to boycott people due to their deviance in belief and practice. Our duty is to exercise patience in their company and not issue verdicts of Kufr and misguidance against any of them, because there is no benefit in such Takfeer and Tadheel (declaring misguidance). Our work is to remind, as the Noble Qur’an commands the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him): ‘So remind, for indeed, the reminder benefits the believers.'”

In another place, Allamah Al-Albani (may Allah have mercy on him) states: [Muhammad Nasir al-Din al-Albani, Silsilat al-Huda wa’l-Nur, tape number: 511]

“My opinion, and Allah knows best, is that the Salaf’s statements about the people of innovation were in a Salafi environment – an environment flourishing with strong faith and true following of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions (may Allah be pleased with them). Therefore, boycotting was beneficial then, as one Muslim would boycott another Muslim for their training and discipline, and this was a known Sunnah in that era. However, I believe, as I am often asked about this, that boycotting is not correct in our time. In our time, there is no benefit in boycotting the people of innovation. Rather, it would mean that you isolate yourself from people and go live on a mountaintop, because when you boycott people due to their sin, immorality, or innovation, it will have no effect as it did in the time of the Salaf, which is why (the actual reason) they spoke those words about the people of innovation so that people would stay away from them.” End quote.

Shaykh Dr. Al-Sharif Hatim Al-Awni, professor at Umm Al-Qura University in Makkah Al-Mukarramah, writes:

“O followers of the Salaf As-Salih! It is not from the Manhaj of the Salaf that you give preference to those who spread obscenity, Zina, and Riba over a knowledgeable, virtuous, worshipping, and striving scholar who has some innovation, merely on the basis that the former (i.e. the sinners) have no innovation. For the evil of the former is in no way lesser than the latter – indeed, there is no comparison between the two. Would any of you dare to give preference to the sinners and immoral people who build cinema houses and banking institutions over the likes of ‘Izz ibn Abdus-Salam, Taqi-ud-Din As-Subki, Allamah Al-Baqillani, and Abul-Hasan Al-Ash’ari (may Allah have mercy on them) due to their innovative views?

If we insist on using the terms ‘Sunni’ and ‘innovator’ with such unjust meanings, it would be better to abandon this classification altogether, as it is not established from the Salaf in this sense. I have just clarified that the classification of Sunni and innovator is permissible based on public benefit for two reasons: firstly, that while we should exert full effort in staying away from innovation itself, we should only show such strictness towards the innovator as would remove his corruption while not violating his rights as a Muslim. Secondly, this classification of Sunni and innovator should not lead us to prefer those who carry greater evil (the sinners and immoral) over those who carry lesser evil (the righteous but scholarly individual who fell into some mistakes that may be an innovation).

Just as a sinner’s sins do not suspend his Islamic rights, similarly a Muslim’s innovation does not suspend his rights as a Muslim. I hope that scholars, callers to the religion, and general Muslims will deeply contemplate this call of ours and read it as a call from one who is loving and compassionate, who has spent forty years in the company of the Sunnah and Hadith.”

[Al-Ta’amul Ma’a Ahlul-Bid’ah, Official Website Edition of the Shaykh: 49]

***

-Translated by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna.

B.E [Aeronautical Engineering], B.A [Islamic Studies]. Islamic Studies Teacher, Author of ‘The Biography of Prophet Muhammad (From Reliable and Credibly Established Narrations)’ [Three Volumes, 1400+ pages] which is the first book of Seerah in the English language that uses only authentic narrations for the storyline of the Biography of The Prophet [SalAllahu Alaihi Wa Sallam]. Download some chapters of the book from HERE for free.

To buy email: getauthenticseerah@gmail.com

Other books by Mohammed bin Thajammul Hussain Manna: Famous but Unauthentic stories from The Seerah of The Prophet Muhammad (Translated and summarized from Arabic into English), The Authentic Biography of Bilal bin Rabah [Radi Allahu ‘Anhu], Mukhtasar Sahih Seeratun-Nabi [A very summarized, authentic biography, filled with references from Ahadith for every story mentioned. Sal Allahu ‘Alaihi Wa Sallam].