Reconciling the Diverse Practices of the Salaf
So what do we do with all these varied reports of personal practices and specific designations from the Salaf that are not directly traceable to the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him)?
This question demands thoughtful consideration and reconciliation, especially in light of the reports of scholars and their awrad (spiritual routines), such as: Abdullah ibn Imam Ahmad reports that his father, Imam Ahmad, used to pray 300 rak’ahs of nafl prayer daily until his body weakened due to illness and the effects of torture. Even after reducing his practice to 150 rak’ahs, he remained consistent with this throughout his life until his death, nearly 80 years old.
Can we say that these people—great luminaries of Islamic scholarship—were wrong? To answer this, we need to spend more time understanding the approaches taken by these scholars and their predecessors, the Sahabah and Tabi’un.
The Framework of Differences: Insights from Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id
Imam Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id provides an essential framework for understanding the differences in the approach to worship between scholars and the Salaf. He explains that there are two main perspectives on how to treat general recommendations for acts of worship:
Generality of the Recommendation:
Some scholars accept the generality of recommendations for worship, such as Salah, without requiring specific evidence for each designation (e.g., specific times, forms, or numbers).
For these scholars, if Salah is recommended in general, then performing extra prayers at a specific time is valid unless it contradicts explicit teachings.
Specific Dalil for Designation:
Others, particularly the Malikis, require specific proof (Dalil) for every additional designation in acts of worship.
This approach is rooted in caution to avoid Bid’ah, as they do not assume that generality extends to specific cases without evidence.
Examples of the Salaf’s Cautious Approach
Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id supports the latter approach by pointing to examples from the Salaf:
Ibn Umar’s Views on Salat al-Duha and Qunut:
Ibn Umar famously called Salat al-Duha a Bid’ah because he was unaware of a specific Dalil for it, even though it is a form of Salah. Similarly, he referred to Qunut as a Bid’ah for the same reason.
This demonstrates the Sahabah’s caution: without explicit evidence, they would not allow even seemingly harmless additions, preferring to err on the side of caution.
Abdullah Ibn Mughaffal on Reciting “Bismillah” Aloud:
Abdullah Ibn Mughaffal warned his son against reciting “Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim” aloud in Salah. This warning reflects the view held by three of the four madhahib (Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali), whereas the Shafi’i madhhab permits reciting it aloud.
Again, the concern was not about the specific act itself but the cautious approach to avoid innovation.
Abdullah ibn Mas’ud on Group Dhikr:
Ibn Mas’ud is famously reported to have confronted a group engaging in organized dhikr. One person would instruct the group with phrases to repeat collectively. Ibn Mas’ud rebuked them, saying: "You are either more guided than Muhammad and his companions, or you are holding onto the tail of misguidance."
This highlights how some Sahabah were vigilant about even collective dhikr if it introduced practices not directly taught by the Prophet.
Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id explains that the Malikis, guided by examples like the ones above, demand a specific Dalil for every addition to worship. Their approach is rooted in a principle of “sticking to the Sunnah” by ensuring that time, place, quantity, cause, and form have clear prophetic precedent.
Imam Malik’s Caution Against Bid‘ah
The story of Imam Malik provides a profound lesson about the dangers of introducing practices into the deen that lack prophetic precedent. A man once approached Imam Malik and asked where he should begin his ihram. Imam Malik instructed him to start from where the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) started his ihram. The man, however, expressed a preference to begin from the Masjid of the Prophet (peace be upon him), next to his grave, believing it to be more virtuous. Imam Malik responded: “Do not do it. I fear tribulations for you.” The man, puzzled, asked, “What tribulation? I am only adding a few miles!” Imam Malik replied:
“What fitnah is greater than thinking you have attained a virtue that the Prophet (peace be upon him) fell short of? If it were better to start ihram from there, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) would have done it.”
This response demonstrates Imam Malik’s strict adherence to the prophetic tradition and his understanding that assuming additional acts of devotion to be virtuous—without prophetic endorsement—undermines the completeness and perfection of the Sunnah.
The Concept of Abstention in Understanding Bid‘ah
One of the core discussions in the context of Bid‘ah is the prophetic abstention from specific acts of worship. The question arises: Does the Prophet’s abstention from a particular act make that act haram? The answer is nuanced:
Prophetic Abstention from Customs:
The Prophet’s abstention from customary matters does not render those customs haram. For example, abstaining from certain foods or cultural practices does not make them prohibited for others.Prophetic Abstention from Acts of Worship:
When it comes to acts of worship, consistent abstention by the Prophet, despite the absence of obstacles and the presence of conducive conditions, carries significant weight. This concept is known as the “complete indication of consistent abstention.”
Four Conditions for Meaningful Abstention
To determine when prophetic abstention is meaningful, scholars have outlined four conditions:
Consistent Abstention: The Prophet (peace be upon him) refrained from the act throughout his life.
Complete Indication: There is no difference in the relevance of the act between the Prophet’s time and subsequent times.
Presence of Conditions: The necessary conditions for the act’s performance existed during the Prophet’s time.
Lack of Obstacles: There were no obstacles preventing the Prophet from performing the act.
Examples of Prophetic Abstention
Rebuilding the Ka‘bah by Abdullah ibn Zubair:
The Prophet refrained from rebuilding the Ka‘bah to include the Hijr Isma‘il, even though he expressed the wish to do so. The obstacle during his time was the fear of causing fitnah among Quraysh, who were new to Islam. Decades later, when this fear no longer applied, Abdullah ibn Zubair rebuilt the Ka‘bah as the Prophet had wished.Compiling the Qur’an Under Abu Bakr:
When Abu Bakr was advised to compile the Qur’an after the Battle of Yamamah, he initially resisted, saying: “How can we do something the Prophet (peace be upon him) did not do?”
This reflects the Sahabah’s understanding that prophetic abstention is significant. However, after recognizing the change in circumstances—the loss of many Qur’an reciters—the indication to act became stronger. Thus, compiling the Qur’an was no longer considered an innovation but a necessity.
Reconciling Prophetic Abstention with Flexibility in Dhikr
While prophetic abstention from certain forms of worship is significant, dhikr and du‘a are areas where the religion allows for flexibility. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) encouraged Muslims to call upon Allah in any way that is sincere and meaningful, provided there is no transgression: The Prophet (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever can benefit his brother, let him do so.” This implies that personal invocations or practices aimed at self-refinement and spiritual growth are permissible as long as:
They are not conflated with the Sunnah.
They are not made into public, consistent rituals or symbols of the deen.
Guidelines for Permissible Practices
Personal Spiritual Routines (Awrad):
Scholars and individuals may adopt personal practices for self-discipline and spiritual benefit, such as reciting a specific dhikr daily or repeating protective invocations. These are tajribatus salikeen (experiences of spiritual seekers) and are permissible as long as they are not attributed to the Sunnah.Avoiding Public Innovation:
Personal practices should not become public, habitual rituals, particularly when performed by scholars or people of status. For instance:Regularly holding group dhikr after a specific Salah in the public domain can lead to confusion between Sunnah and non-Sunnah.
Consistent, large-scale practices can evolve into emblematic rituals, competing with the established acts of worship in Islam.
Avoiding Repetition in the Public Domain:
Repetition of non-Sunnah acts in the public domain—especially by scholars or influential figures—can inadvertently introduce innovations that spread across communities.
Two Key Principles to Avoid Bid‘ah
To ensure we stay within the bounds of the Shari‘ah, it is crucial to remember two principles:
Do Not Conflate Sunnah with Non-Sunnah:
Any act not explicitly proven to be from the Sunnah should never be attributed to it. Personal spiritual experiences should remain personal and distinct from the Sunnah.Do Not Institutionalize Non-Sunnah Acts:
Practices that are not part of the prophetic tradition should not be turned into public, habitual rituals or symbols of the religion.
Etiquettes Dealing with the Concept of Bid’ah
First Point: The Unique Status of the Companions
Yes, the era of the Companions (Sahaba) is distinct from any period that followed. The Sahaba did not have the authority to legislate in religion—that role belonged solely to the Prophet ﷺ. However, the Companions hold a special status in Islam, which is crucial to remember. According to the majority of scholars, “Qawl al-Sahabi Hujjah” (the opinion of a Companion is a valid proof in Islamic jurisprudence).
Imam Ibn Hajar highlighted a distinction between certain practices initiated after the Prophet ﷺ, such as the second Adhan for Jumu’ah introduced by Uthman (RA), and other later innovations. For instance, Malikis, known for their strictness regarding Bid’ah (innovation), historically did not adopt the second Adhan of Jumu’ah in Maghrib. Their reasoning was rooted in their concern that a sinner might eventually repent, while an innovator (Mubtadi’) may never abandon their act due to believing it to be virtuous. Ibn Daqiq al-‘Id reported this sentiment from some Malikis of his era.
Ibn Umar (RA) viewed Uthman’s second Adhan as a Bid’ah. However, scholars suggest he likely referred to it linguistically rather than legally condemning it. Ibn Hajar further clarified that innovations like the second Adhan, introduced by the Sahaba themselves, differ from later, unfounded practices such as invented forms of Dhikr or Qira’a before Jumu’ah. The closer a practice is to the time of the Prophet ﷺ and the Sahaba, the more legitimate it is. Following the righteous predecessors is always better.
Second Point: Not All Reprehensible Innovations Are Prohibited
It is essential for a student of knowledge to differentiate between varying levels of reprehensibility in Bid’ah. Not all innovations that scholars critique are outright Haram. Many are simply Makruh (disliked). Precision is critical when discussing Bid’ah. Before condemning a Bid’ah as prohibited, one must ascertain whether the scholars actually deemed it Haram or merely Makruh. The distinction significantly affects the tone and intensity of denunciation. Therefore, it is crucial to investigate which scholar first labeled it Haram and ensure the verdict aligns with the broader scholarly consensus.
Third Point: Differentiating Between Bid’ah (Innovation) and Mubtadi’ (Innovator)
The distinction between Bid’ah and Mubtadi’ is of paramount importance. Scholars may label a practice as Bid’ah when it is not established as Sunnah to them, but that does not mean everyone engaging in the act is a Mubtadi’. For instance, Imam Nawawi mentions that Imam Abu Hanifa considered Salatul Istisqa and Aqeeqah as Bid’ah, while Ibn Umar viewed Salatul Duha and Qunut similarly.
For someone to be considered a Mubtadi’, they must knowingly and intentionally deviate from the way of Sunnah. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah explained that matters established by Mutawatir Sunnah (mass-transmitted traditions) hold definitive authority. Core principles—such as the Hawd al-Kawthar (Prophet’s ﷺ basin), Allah’s Uluw (aboveness), divine Qadr, and rulings like theft penalties—are universally agreed upon by scholars due to their repeated mention in authentic sources.
Books like Musnad Ahmad and the Kutub al-Sittah repeatedly narrate these matters from numerous Companions, leading to a consensus among scholars. When someone opposes these definitive and mass-transmitted principles, they fall into the category of a Mubtadi’. However, disagreements over issues not reaching this level of certainty do not automatically make one an innovator.
Fourth Point: Caution Against Innovation
Imam al-Kasani, a renowned Hanafi scholar, advised caution when it comes to innovation. He said, “If an action oscillates between being a Sunnah and an innovation, incline towards considering it an innovation until proven otherwise.” His reasoning is that refraining from innovation is obligatory, while attaining a Sunnah is recommended but not obligatory. Therefore, it is preferable to avoid the risk of committing an innovation rather than striving for a doubtful Sunnah.
For example, a Hanbali scholar may not inherently object to group Dhikr, but if they choose to avoid it out of respect for the stricter Maliki stance, this would be commendable. However, they cannot denounce others who hold a different opinion.
A powerful statement by Imam Malik reinforces this cautious approach: Whoever innovates in Islam a practice they perceive as good has claimed that Muhammad ﷺ betrayed the message, as Allah says, “Today, I have perfected your religion for you.” What was not part of the religion during the Prophet’s ﷺ time cannot become part of it now.
Fifth Point: Leniency in Ijtihadi Bid’ah (Disputable Innovations)
It is important not to be overly harsh when dealing with ijtihadi bid’ah—disputable matters of innovation arising from scholarly reasoning. A beautiful story illustrates this point:
Sufyan ibn Uyayna once visited Imam Malik, and Malik shook his hand but refrained from embracing him. Malik remarked, “Had it not been a Bid’ah, I would have embraced you.” Sufyan responded, “Someone better than me embraced someone better than you.” He referred to the Prophet ﷺ embracing Ja’far (RA). Malik replied, “That was specific to them and is not a general ruling.”
This story highlights the nuanced discussions among scholars regarding specific rulings (khas) versus general ones (‘aam). Malik, being a greater jurist than most, refrained from harsh denunciation even in matters where he disagreed. The takeaway is to respect others’ positions on disputable issues. If someone refrains from a practice out of concern for Bid’ah, and you do not see it as such, there is no need for offense or confrontation.
Sixth Point: Considering Public Interest in Condemnation
Even when something warrants condemnation, the approach must consider the greater public interest. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah provided a profound principle: “If boycotting someone neither deters them nor leads to their reform but instead results in the loss of many good deeds, such boycotting is not prescribed. If it doesn’t serve a constructive purpose, it is not allowed.”
This principle emphasizes that condemnation should only be employed when it brings about positive change. Condemnation or boycotting that causes harm or alienates people without benefit is counterproductive and discouraged.
Conclusion
The issue of innovation (Bid’ah) in religion is one of the most intricate topics in Islamic jurisprudence due to its multifaceted nature and the overlap of various considerations. While there is unanimous agreement on the prohibition of true innovations (Bid’ah Haqiqiyyah)—those introduced into the religion without sufficient basis in Sharia—scholars differ regarding additive innovations (Bid’ah Idafiyyah), which may have some foundation in Sharia but include elements unsupported by evidence.
The matter often hinges on nuanced factors, especially when practices are attributed to the Sunnah without evidence or when emblematic rituals (Sha’air) unfamiliar to the earliest generations are performed publicly. Distinguishing between reprehensible innovations and legitimate acts of devotion can be subtle. For this reason, caution is essential, particularly when there is doubt or dispute among the scholars. Adhering to the general guidance of the Prophet ﷺ, “Every innovation is misguidance,” is a safe path for those who seek protection in their faith.
However, this caution primarily applies to personal practice. Regarding others, not every introduced act constitutes a reprehensible innovation, and not everyone who engages in an innovation should be labeled an innovator. Harsh condemnation has no place in matters of legitimate scholarly disagreement. Even when condemnation is justified, it must be weighed against the considerations of public interest and benefit.
By navigating this sensitive issue with wisdom, care, and respect for scholarly diversity, one can uphold the principles of the Sunnah while maintaining unity and avoiding unnecessary division within the Muslim community.