Is the Innovator Rewarded for His Intention? The Limits of Interpretation (Ta'wil)هل يُؤجر المبتدع على نيته؟ وحدود التأويل

Questioner: Is the innovator rewarded for his intention?

The brother asks about the statement of Shaykh al-Islam [Ibn Taymiyyah] that the innovator (mubtadi') may be rewarded for his intention. What Shaykh al-Islam means by this is that the innovator may be one who exercised ijtihad and interpreted (muta'awwil) in what he was afflicted with: he interpreted a text, while the text does not indicate what he intended by it. An example is how some of those who hold celebrations of the Prophet's birthday (mawlid) interpreted his statement ﷺ regarding Monday, "That is a day on which I was born, and on which [revelation] was sent down to me." They interpreted it thus: since the Prophet ﷺ fasted it because he was born on it, we will celebrate it. Shaykh al-Islam holds that such a person is rewarded for his intention, not for his action, if he was exercising ijtihad.

It is well known that Shaykh al-Islam, may Allah have mercy on him, means the hidden innovations, not the manifest ones — such as if a person, by way of interpretation, circumambulated graves; or, by way of interpretation, sought rescue from other than Allah; or, by way of interpretation, replaced the Shari'ah of Allah; or, by way of interpretation, stood in the ranks of those fighting the Muslims; or, by way of interpretation, began teaching sorcery and practicing it. Such people are not excused in any way, and this interpretation is not valid for them. Interpretation is valid only in hidden matters that fall short of the nullifiers of Islam. And even then, it is not valid in every issue that falls short of the nullifiers of Islam; it is valid only in issues where the one holding the view has evidence and knowledge. As for the foolish ignoramus, he is not rewarded, for this is not interpretation such that we could say he interpreted; if he is merely following others (muqallid), it is enough for him to be safe from sin.

The scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, do not differ that the action of the innovator is void, because of the hadith of 'A'ishah in the two Sahihs, that the Prophet ﷺ said, "Whoever introduces into this affair of ours something that is not from it, it is rejected" — that is, rejected back upon its doer. And in a narration in Muslim, "Whoever does a deed that is not in accordance with our affair, it is rejected" — that is, rejected back upon its doer, not accepted from him.

Among the evidence that not every interpretation is accepted — and some interpretations are void, to be trampled underfoot, with no sanctity and no value — is what came in the two Sahihs from the hadith of 'Ali, may Allah be pleased with him: the Prophet ﷺ sent out an expedition, appointed a commander over them, and instructed the expedition to obey him. Partway along the road they angered him, and he said, "Gather firewood for me," and they gathered it. He said, "Light a fire," and they lit it. He said, "Enter it." They said, "May Allah have mercy on you! We only set out with you fleeing from the wrath of Allah — how can we enter the Fire?" They kept disputing with him until his anger subsided and the fire was extinguished. When they returned to the Prophet ﷺ, what did he say? He said, "By the One in whose hand is my soul, had they entered it, they would never have come out of it." And yet, in reality, had one of them interpreted and entered the fire, there would have been a kind of argument for it. What argument? That the Prophet ﷺ had said, "Obey him" — at the time they set out, he said, "Obey him." So there was a kind of interpretation available; and yet the Prophet ﷺ paid no regard to this interpretation, because it contradicted the evidences. This is proof that not every interpretation is to be given attention and accepted. This is why he said, "By the One in whose hand is my soul, had they entered it, they would never have come out of it" — meaning they would have been among the people of Hellfire. Accordingly, some of the void interpretations one encounters have no value at all.

Moreover, people nowadays have grown used to saying of everyone who comes with falsehood, "He is a mujtahid!" Ijtihad belongs to the scholar qualified for it — not to the common folk and the preachers who bring the Muslims calamities, misguidance, and deviations, after which people say of them, "This one is a mujtahid." Not every person exercises ijtihad. The one who exercises ijtihad is the scholar who has rigorous verification, who is among the people qualified to issue fatwa, who has knowledge, God-consciousness, and scrupulousness, whose principles are known, whose knowledge is known, and whose God-consciousness is known. As for one known for little God-consciousness, known for seeking concessions without legal evidence, and known for laxity in his creed — it is not said of such a person that he is a mujtahid who interpreted. The one who interprets is the man of religion and scrupulousness, who has knowledge, who has examined the issue carefully and whom knowledge has reached — such a person, yes, is excused for his ijtihad:

"Who is he whose every trait is pleasing? It is honor enough for a man that his faults can be counted."

"Deficiency lies hidden in the very root of nature; the deficiency of nature's children cannot be denied."

But as for a person before whom the texts stand, and the texts are clear, and then he does not accept them under the pressure of circumstances, or under the banner of "tolerance"; or he sits with the disbelievers and says that the religion of Islam is an easygoing religion; or he seeks coexistence with the disbelievers; or he strives to dissolve the differences between the Muslims and the polytheists — "there is no difference between us and the Jews and Christians" — these are issues into which interpretation does not enter. They are manifest issues, and there is no interpretation in them.

And the starting point from which these people set out is not that of [His statement, exalted is He,] to the People of the Book: "Come to a word that is equitable between us and you — that we worship none but Allah and associate nothing with Him." [Instead,] the one representing the Muslims sits listening to the disbelievers, and the last to speak is the Muslim: first the Jew spoke, then the Christian, then the Buddhist, and last of all the Muslim. Even at some of the gatherings held a while ago, they would consider the Jewish religion agreed upon (audio unclear) agreed upon, and the Islamic religion disputed! He goes on sitting, listening; then what does he do? The first thing he speaks about is terrorism — he wants to show that he is not a terrorist — rather than speaking about creed and tawhid. And yet Allah says, "…by which you strike terror into the enemy of Allah and your enemy" — this is prescribed; they did not say it is unprescribed. (audio unclear) And Allah says, "Nor do they tread any ground that enrages the disbelievers, nor do they inflict any blow upon an enemy, except that a righteous deed is recorded for them thereby."

Such people make concessions even in their creeds, in the foundations of the religion — and whoever makes concessions in the little will make concessions in the much. Abu Muhammad ibn Hazm said of the situation in al-Andalus in his time, of the rulers and the scholars subservient to the rulers: "By Allah, if worshipping the crosses would further their affairs, they would hasten to it." (audio unclear) Where are they? These people do not care: if it were said to them, "Worship the crosses," they would find an interpretation; "Worship the calf," they would find an interpretation. This is why we see in reality that nullifiers [of Islam] which twenty years ago were settled matters among the common people and the elite have now become disputed, and whoever affirms them is [called] one of the Khawarij! Has the religion changed, or have the hearts changed? For the religion of Allah is one.

النص العربي الأصلي