(*) Shaykh Nāsir ibn Hamad al-Fahd said (pp. 29–32): “ this treatise was extracted—with abridgment and rearrangement—from al-Iqtidā’, 2:582–588. It appears that it was not prepared by the shaykh himself, may Allah have mercy on him. Rather, one of his students or admirers extracted, abridged, and rearranged it. Here is a comparison of the two texts: [Inferring that something is reprehensible because it is a religious innovation (bid‘a): (a great general principle, whose full treatment requires answering the objections raised against it. Some people say that innovations fall into two categories: good and bad. They cite ‘Umar’s statement, may Allah be pleased with him, concerning the tarāwīh prayers: ‘What an excellent innovation this is!’ They also cite statements and actions introduced after the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, which are not reprehensible, or are good, as established by evidence from consensus or analogy. Those who have not mastered the foundations of knowledge may also invoke the many customary practices followed by many people] [They are like those who, when told, ‘Come to what Allah has revealed and to the Messenger,’ reply, ‘Sufficient for us is what we found our forefathers following.’ How many people associated with scholarship or worship are cited as authorities on grounds that have no basis in the foundations of knowledge!] [People of learning may offer a justification for this drawn from scriptural evidence, yet Allah knows that their advocacy and practice of it are not founded on that evidence. They cite it only to fend off those who debate them. Praiseworthy debate consists in presenting the grounds and explaining the evidence on which statements and actions are actually based. Presenting anything else is a form of hypocrisy in knowledge and practice.] [This is a ‘principle’ established by the sunnah and consensus, together with the Quran. Allah Most High said: ‘Or do they have partners who have prescribed for them a religion that Allah has not authorized?’ Whoever, through words or actions, recommends or makes obligatory something by which one seeks nearness to Allah, without Allah having prescribed it, has prescribed as religion something Allah has not authorized. Whoever follows him in this has taken him as a partner alongside Allah, prescribing for him a religion that Allah has not authorized. He may be forgiven on account of an interpretation if he is exercising independent scholarly reasoning (ijtihād) of the kind in which an error is excused. Nevertheless, it is not permissible to follow him in this, as Allah Most High said: ‘They have taken their rabbis and monks as lords besides Allah.’ Whoever obeys someone in a religious matter that Allah has not authorized—whether declaring something lawful, forbidden, recommended, or obligatory—incurs a share of this blame, just as the person issuing the commands and prohibitions does. Both may, however, be excused, so that the blame does not apply because a necessary condition is absent or an impediment is present, even though its underlying cause exists. Blame attaches to someone who recognizes the truth but abandons it; who falls short in seeking it, so that it does not become clear to him; or who turns away from seeking it out of desire, laziness, or the like. Furthermore, Allah reproached the polytheists for two things: First, associating with Him that for which He had sent down no authority. Second, forbidding what Allah had not forbidden them, as the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, explained in the hadith of ‘Iyād [recorded by] Muslim. Allah Most High said: ‘Those who associate partners with Allah will say: “Had Allah willed, neither we nor our forefathers would have associated partners with Him, nor would we have forbidden anything.”’ Thus, they combined associating partners with Allah (shirk) with declaring things forbidden. Shirk encompasses every act of worship that Allah has not authorized, for the polytheists claim that their worship is either obligatory or recommended. Some worshipped others besides Allah to draw nearer to Him through them; others invented a religion through which they worshipped Allah, as with the forms of worship introduced by the Christians. The root of misguidance among the people of the earth arose from these two things: either adopting a religion that Allah did not prescribe or forbidding what Allah did not forbid. Accordingly, the foundational principle upon which Ahmad and others built their legal doctrines is that actions comprise acts of worship and customary practices. The default rule for acts of worship is that only what Allah has prescribed may be instituted; the default rule for customary practices is that only what Allah has forbidden may be prohibited. These newly introduced seasonal observances were prohibited only because of the religious practices introduced into them as means of drawing nearer to Allah].