Question:
In Saudi, when Qunoot is recited, people say “Ameen.” Someone asked whether that is Bid‘ah (innovation).
Answer:
We explained that it should not be called bid‘ah. Bid‘ah refers to something done without any basis. In this case, they derived their conclusion based on their understanding of a hadith — even if that hadith is weak. If they relied on a weak hadith and reached a conclusion, then we should say it is an error in research or analysis, not label it as bid‘ah.
When we explain something, the question should be whether the basis on which we explain it is correct. Some people may have already assumed in their minds that certain matters are bid‘ah. So when we say, “This is not bid‘ah,” they start asking: “Then is this bid‘ah? Is that bid‘ah? Is this also not bid‘ah?” and list examples.
First, we must understand the standard Islam gives to call something deviation (misguidance). On what basis do we call something misguidance? If someone misunderstands a text and derives a wrong conclusion, can we automatically call him misguided? Suppose a person misunderstands a hadith or a Qur’anic verse, derives a ruling, and practices it believing it to be part of the religion — on what evidence will you call him misguided?
If someone insists that it must be called misguidance, then he should not ask confusing counter-questions. He must establish evidence that it is misguidance.
What is my evidence for misguidance? The hadith says: “Beware of newly introduced matters. Every newly introduced matter is bid‘ah. Every bid‘ah is misguidance. Every misguidance is in the Fire.” The Prophet ﷺ warned against newly invented matters. “bid‘ah” means something newly created — something that did not previously exist and is invented by a person himself. Such invented matters are what the Messenger called misguidance.
Similarly, the Prophetﷺ said: “Whoever introduces into our religion something that is not from it, it will be rejected.” So what should be called misguidance? When someone does an act in the name of Islam, but there is no Qur’anic evidence and no hadith evidence for it, and when asked why he does it, he replies, “We do it out of love and respect for the Messenger,” then such acts are bid‘ah. Only bid‘ah should be called misguidance.
For example, Mawlid recitations — did they exist during the time of the Prophetﷺ? No, they were introduced later. There is not even a weak hadith to support the specific Mawlid practices done today. Praising the Prophetﷺ in general has evidence, but the specific ritualized Mawlid recitation as an act of worship has no basis. If someone says, “We will recite it anyway,” that is bid‘ah.
Likewise, Salawat Nariyah — is there hadith evidence for this specific form taught by the Prophetﷺ? There is evidence for sending blessings upon him, yes. But this particular composed formula — was it taught by him? Is there even a weak hadith for it? No. Then it is bid‘ah.
Similarly, the Burdah poem — a later poet composed it. Did the Prophetﷺ instruct its recitation as worship? No. Giving such importance to it becomes bid‘ah.
Or collective du‘a after prayer — du‘a itself has abundant evidence. We encourage making du‘a after prayer. But did the Prophetﷺ, throughout 23 years, regularly lead du‘a after every prayer while others sat and said “Ameen” collectively as a fixed method? Is there even a weak hadith for this specific practice? No. Therefore, this structured collective du‘a is bid‘ah.
So what is bid‘ah? Someone introduces a practice in the name of religion without any basis. If he shows unrelated evidences, that does not count as proper research.
Now consider Tasbeeh prayer. Some people habitually call it bid‘ah. We say it should not be labeled bid‘ah. Is the person inventing it from his imagination? No — he presents hadith as evidence. In fact, many hadith are cited regarding it. We have already published articles and videos explaining that those narrations are weak and the conclusion is wrong. It is a mistaken ruling. It is an act of worship that should be avoided because the evidence is not authentic.
But did he invent it without any textual basis? No. He misunderstood narrations. Therefore, we call it a research error, not bid‘ah. Calling something “not bid‘ah” does not mean permitting it. If something is wrong, we say it is wrong. It should not be practiced. It should be corrected and avoided. But we must use terms properly.
Bid‘ah is what is newly invented without any basis. If someone says, “We don’t need Allahﷻ or the Messenger to tell us — we ourselves will establish this practice,” that is misguidance. That is bid‘ah. For example, celebrating the Prophetﷺ’s birthday — did he celebrate it? Did he instruct others to celebrate his birthday annually? No. If someone invents such a celebration in the name of religion, that is bid‘ah.
But consider Tahajjud prayer. It has authentic hadith evidence. A person may pray it any night he finds convenient — Friday, Thursday, or every day. It is an individual voluntary act supported by evidence. There is no bid‘ah in that.
So both bid‘ah and research errors are wrong. Both must be avoided. But only what Allahﷻ and His Messenger defined as newly invented religious practice should be labeled bid‘ah and misguidance. If you want to call something misguidance, bring clear evidence from Allahﷻ and His Messenger.
No matter how long a list of examples is presented, the answer remains the same: what is invented without basis in religion is bid‘ah; what is based on misunderstanding evidence is a mistake — to be corrected, but not labeled as bid‘ah.
If an act of worship that already exists in the religion is performed individually according to one’s personal choice, then the concept of bid‘ah does not arise there. For example, Tahajjud prayer has evidence in the hadith. A person may pray it whenever he wishes — any night that is convenient for him. There is no bid‘ah in that.
But suppose a group, an organization, or a movement gathers, consults among themselves, and decides: “From now on, every Monday, all of us must pray Tahajjud together.” That becomes bid‘ah. Why? Not because Tahajjud itself lacks evidence — it has evidence. But fixing a specific day and making it binding upon everyone as a structured practice has no evidence.
Who has the authority to legislate something for the entire community? Only, the Messenger ﷺ has it. If it were meant to be fixed for everyone, he would have said so. Since he did not, on what basis do you determine that every Monday must be observed collectively? There is no hadith for that specification. So even though the prayer itself is Sunnah, the method of institutionalizing it on a fixed day without proof becomes bid‘ah.
That is the standard we explained: to call something bid‘ah or misguidance, there must be a clear measure.
Now take another issue — reciting Surah Yaseen. In the past, we ourselves have sometimes casually labeled certain practices as bid‘ah. Later, when someone raises a precise question — “Can this really be called bid‘ah?” — We re-examine it carefully.
There is a hadith that says: “Recite Yaseen over your dead.” Some interpret it as referring to those near death; others interpret it differently. If someone says, “I recite Yaseen because of this hadith,” then even if his conclusion is incorrect, we should say: “Your understanding is mistaken,” not “You are committing bid‘ah.”
If earlier we labeled it bid‘ah without proper precision, and later realize that was inaccurate, we correct ourselves. What matters is evidence. If something is not truly bid‘ah by definition, then even if we previously called it that, we must revise.
The same principle applies broadly. Among the Companions, there were differences in many issues themselves. In hundreds of juristic matters, scholars differed. If one opinion is correct, does that automatically make the other misguidance? No. It may be a mistaken conclusion based on evidence.
For example, whether certain animals are halal or haram — scholars differed based on reasoning. One side may be correct; the other mistaken. But you cannot call the other side misguided simply because their ‘ijtihad’ interpretation is differed.
Similarly, over the years, many scholars — including us — have given rulings based on hadith that we later concluded were weak. After further research, we revised our position. Does that mean we were in misguidance for ten years? No. It means we acted based on what we believed to be correct evidence at the time. When clearer evidence came, we corrected ourselves. That is research. That is intellectual honesty.
A research error is not the same as misguidance. Misguidance means stepping outside the fundamental principle — acting without regard for Qur’an or Sunnah, or claiming, “We don’t need textual evidence; we will legislate on our own.” That is bid‘ah.
But someone who says, “I am doing this because I believe there is evidence in Qur’an or hadith,” even if mistaken — he remains within the framework of evidence. His conclusion may be wrong, but he is not outside Islam’s foundations.
Take the issue of women covering the face. One group says it is obligatory; another says it is not. Both present textual arguments. You may critique the strength of their evidence. But how can you label one side misguided if they are reasoning from scripture?
Or consider 20 rak‘ahs of Taraweeh. Those who pray 20 rely on certain reports or the practice attributed to ‘Umar (RA). You may argue the evidence is weak. Then call it a research mistake. But how can you call it bid‘ah when they claim textual basis?
Likewise, weak hadith — in hadith science, scholars explain that labeling a narration “weak” does not necessarily mean it is false in reality. It means, according to human evaluation, its chain has weakness. Human assessment is limited. A narration judged weak may in reality be true, and one judged authentic may contain error. These are scholarly judgments within human capacity.
So if someone considers a narration acceptable and builds a ruling upon it, how can you immediately call him misguided? Misguidance implies leaving the foundational testimony — acting without regard for Allahﷻ and His Messenger.
There is a big difference between:
- Someone who says, “We don’t need Qur’an or hadith; we will invent our own practices.”
- Someone who says, “This is based on Qur’an and hadith,” but misinterprets them.
The first is bid‘ah and misguidance.
The second is a mistaken ijtihad.
Not calling something misguidance does not mean permitting it. If it is wrong, we say it is wrong. A mistake must not be followed. A sin must not be committed. But terminology matters.
If you declare every mistaken opinion to be misguidance, then the entire Ummah (Islamic community) becomes misguided — because differences of opinion exist in almost every matter. Even great imams like Abu Hanifa, Al-Shafi‘i, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal differed in many rulings. Were they misguided? No. They differed based on their understanding of evidence.
So understand this clearly:
- If someone invents an act of worship with no textual basis and says, “We legislate this ourselves,” that is bid‘ah.
- If someone derives a ruling from what he believes to be evidence, but his conclusion is incorrect, that is a research error — not misguidance.
Do not twist statements and claim we permitted what we actually called wrong. Saying “This is not bid‘ah” does not mean “Go and practice it.” Wrong is still wrong. But precision in terminology is part of justice.