that, being an innovation, its sin is greater than its benefit; and that is precisely what calls for its prohibition.

I add: the sin may be lifted from certain individuals because of a mitigating factor—such as their own ijtihād or some other excuse—just as the early scholars who differed over certain fermented drinks (nabidh) and disputed forms of interest were exempt from blame on account of their ijtihād. Even so, the practice’s status must still be clarified; one must not follow anyone who deems it lawful, and one must not slacken in seeking the knowledge that reveals its true nature. This proof alone is enough to show that these innovations contain doctrinal or practical harms that contradict what the Messenger ﷺ brought, and that whatever benefit they hold is outweighed and cannot stand in opposition.

To spell this out in detail: if some people of virtue and religious devotion have performed it, others living in their time refrained from it, considering it disliked, and some even denounced it. Even if those who denounced it were not better than those who practiced it, they were certainly not beneath them. And should they be of lesser rank, the matter has nevertheless become disputed among those in authority; therefore it must be referred to Allah and His Messenger—to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger—alongside those who regard it as reprehensible, not with those who grant a dispensation. Moreover, the great majority of the early generations, who are superior to the later ones, side with those who reject it.

As for the benefit it is said to contain, that is counterbalanced by the predominant harms of innovation that accompany it.