additional remarks. I warned him of the consequences of persisting in innovation and that doing so makes its perpetrator liable to punishment, along with other remarks, most of which I have forgotten because so much time has passed.

The reason is that, by Muslim consensus, practices which are not commended by Islamic law may not be adopted as acts of worship, as means of drawing near to Allah, or as a path to Him and a means of becoming one of His allies and beloved servants. Nor may one believe that Allah loves such practices, or loves those who engage in them on that account, or that adopting them increases a person’s standing with Allah and nearness to Him. Nor may they be made a distinguishing emblem of repentant people who seek Allah’s countenance and are better than those unlike them.

This is a fundamental principle that must be understood and given due attention: permissible things remain permissible only when treated as such. If, however, they are adopted as obligatory or recommended practices, that constitutes a religion which Allah has not prescribed. Classifying as obligatory or recommended something that does not belong to either category is equivalent to classifying as forbidden something that is not forbidden. Nothing is forbidden except what Allah has forbidden, and nothing is religion except what Allah has prescribed. This is why Allah so severely condemns in the Quran those who institute a religion He has not authorized and those who forbid things He has not authorized them to forbid. If this applies to permissible things, what then of reprehensible or forbidden things?

For this reason, such things do not become binding through vows. If a man vows to do something permissible, reprehensible, or forbidden, he is not obliged to do it, unlike someone who vows to obey Allah and is therefore obliged to obey Him. Rather, according to Ahmad and others, he must offer the expiation for breaking an oath if he does not fulfil the vow; according to others, nothing is required of him. Thus, it is not