BENEFIT 30: “Whoever does not declare an innovator to be an innovator is also an innovator.”

Q: Is this principle correct? A: The principle is incorrect when generalised in this way. If left unrestricted, it could lead to chain tabdee‘ on a mass scale, which contradicts the Salafi Manhaj. Q: Where is the generalisation? A: The term “whoever” is too broad, as it includes everyone, even those who are unqualified, such as ignorant laypeople who lack understanding of these complex issues. This would lead to absurd conclusions, such as branding a layman as an innovator simply because they do not declare someone else as such. It would also encompass respected scholars who may not be aware of certain innovators for legitimate reasons. Q: Can you provide examples? A: There are many valid reasons why someone may not recognise an innovator, making it unjust to declare them an innovator based on this. For example: Sheikh Ibn Bāz, may Allāh have mercy on him, praised Az-Zindāni, a figurehead of Ikhwān Al-Muslimūn in Yemen, whom Sheikh Muqbil, may Allāh have mercy on him, had declared an innovator. According to this principle, Sheikh Ibn Bāz would also be considered an innovator, since he praised someone deemed an innovator. This, in turn, would lead to others being labeled innovators if they did not declare Sheikh Ibn Bāz as such. Clearly, this creates an endless cycle of tabdee’, which is absurd. Sheikh Ibn Bāz, may Allāh have mercy on him, is excused because he was unaware of Az-Zindāni's true condition. Even scholars may not always be fully informed, especially if the person in question resides in another country or if there was misinformation involved. Given Sheikh Ibn Bāz’s known defense of the Sunnah and his opposition to innovation, it's reasonable to believe that, had he known the truth, he would have taken a firm stance. Another example: Sheikh ’Abdul Muḥsin Al-’Abbād, may Allah preserve him, holds a favourable view of Abul Ḥasan Al-Ma’ribi because of his prior reputation for adhering to the Sunnah. However, the Sheikh may not be aware of his deviation, which others have identified. https://t.me/madrasatuna/3007 Therefore, there are valid reasons not to declare an innovator as such, and people are excused in these cases. However, if someone continues to defend and absolve an innovator after the proof has been made clear, then that is when the problem arises. Q: Would this principle be correct with restrictions applied? A: Yes, with the necessary restrictions. Q: What restrictions need to be applied? A: There are three main restrictions: 1. The innovator must be someone whom the scholars have declared as such based on clear evidence. 2. The proof establishing their innovation must be presented to the individual, yet they persist in defending the innovator even after being made aware of the facts. 3. All conditions of tabdee‘ must be fulfilled, and no impediments should exist. Once these conditions are met, the principle applies, and the individual endorsing the innovation knowingly becomes an innovator. Practical example: Abul Ḥasan Al-Ma'ribi defended Sayyid Quṭb even after scholars clarified his serious errors. He also defended individuals like ’Adnān ’Ar’ūr and others who deviated from Salafiyyah, despite clear proof of their deviations. His continued defense without valid reason makes this a practical example of the principle being correctly applied. https://t.me/AlHajoori/269