a pretext for denying that something’s being an innovation is grounds for prohibiting it has erred. This is what some of those engaged in jurisprudence, speculative theology, Sufism, and devotional worship do: when forbidden from engaging in “innovated acts of worship” and “discourse concerning innovated forms of religious observance,” they claim that no innovation is blameworthy unless it has been prohibited. The hadith would then amount to saying: “Everything that has been prohibited,” or “Everything that has been forbidden,” or “Everything that contradicts a prophetic text is misguidance.” This is too obvious to need explanation. Rather, everything in religion that has not been prescribed is misguidance.

As for anything called an “innovation” whose goodness is established by the evidence of revelation, one of “two things” must follow. Either it is said that it is not an innovation in religion, even though it may be called an innovation in the linguistic sense—as ‘Umar said, “What an excellent innovation this is!”—or it is said that this is a general statement from which this particular case has been excepted on the strength of outweighing counterevidence. It then retains its general application to everything else, like other general statements in the Book and Sunnah. I have explained this in Iqtidā’ al-Sirāt al-Mustaqīm (Following the Straight Path), Qā‘idat al-Sunnah wa-l-Bid‘ah (A Treatise on Sunnah and Innovation), and elsewhere.

“The point here” is simply that when a person commits something whose blameworthiness is established—whether an innovation or another act prohibited in the Book and Sunnah or contrary to them—he may do so under circumstances in which he is excused, either