Thursday, 1 August 2019

Bid‘ah - Talaq - e- Biddat

Bid‘ah
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Islam, bid‘ah (Arabic: بدعة‎; English: innovation) refers to innovation in religious matters.[1] Linguistically the term means "innovation, novelty, heretical doctrine, heresy".[2]

In classical Arabic literature (adab), it has been used as a form of praise for outstanding compositions of prose and poetry.[3]
In Sunni Islam
In early Islamic history, bid'ah referred primarily to heterodox doctrines. In Islamic law, when used without qualification, bid'ah denotes any newly invented matter that is without precedent and is in opposition to the Quran and Sunnah.[4]

Scholars generally have divided bid'ah into two types: innovations in worldly matters and innovations in religious matters.[5][page needed][need quotation to verify] Some have additionally divided bid'ah into lawful and unlawful innovations, the details of which are discussed below.[6]

Introducing and acting upon a bid‘ah in religious matters is a sin and considered one of the enormities in Islam that is obligatory to immediately desist and repent from.[7][page needed]

In worldly matters
Sunni Muslim scholars have divided bid‘ah in worldly matters into two types:[5]

Good innovations such as using technology to propagate the faith of Islam.[8]
Innovations that are purely evil - these are forbidden under Islamic law. Examples of this type of bid'ah include alcohol,[9] or, in modern times, the discovery and synthesis of new intoxicants.[citation needed]
In religious matters
Traditional view
There are a number of different definitions of Bid‘ah.

Good and bad innovation:
Bid'ah Say'iah, "a new thing" which "opposes the Quran and Sunnah" or is "against Islam"[10] (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani[11] and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya)[12] or "Sharia (Islamic law)" (Muhammad Ramzaan),[13] or removes sunnah or wajib and is forbidden.
Bid'ah Hasana, a new thing that is not against the Sharia (according to scholars such as Muhammad ash-Shawkani[14] Al-Nawawi[15] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani,[16] Ibn Manzur, Al-Raghib al-Isfahani and Badr al-Din al-Ayni).[10] An example of Bid'ah Hasana is the development of the study of Hadith, Fiqh, Tafsir, which did not exist at the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad (Al-Nawawi).[17]
"carrying out actions which displease Allah ta'ala and his messenger" Muhammad. (Muhammad ibn Isa at-Tirmidhi).[10][18]
"new things that have no basis in the Qur'an or Sunnah" (Ibn Rajab).[10][19]
bid'ah is always bad but if a new thing has origins in the Qur'an and Sunnah it is to be called Bid'ah Logaviyya (verbal innovation), (Ibn Taymiyyah).[10][20]
Views against bid’ah
The Qur'anic verse: "This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion."(Quran 5:4), is considered by at least some Muslim to be against bid'ah in religion. The Sunnah has many more prohibitions against innovation in religion.[citation needed]

Ali ibn Abu Talib, of the Rashidun (rightly guided Caliphs), said; "He who innovates or gives protection to an innovator, there is a curse of Allah and that of His angels and that of the whole humanity upon him."[21][22] Abdullah ibn Umar said: "Every innovation is misguidance, even if the people see it as something good."[23]

Abd Allah ibn Abbas, a companion of the Prophet and early Islamic scholar also said: "Indeed the most detestable of things to Allah are the innovations."[24] Sufyan al-Thawri, a tabi'i Islamic scholar, Hafiz and jurist, mentions: "Innovation is more beloved to Iblees than sin, since a sin may be repented for but innovation is not repented for."[25] He also said, "Whoever listens to an innovator has left the protection of Allāh and is entrusted with the innovation."[26]

A person once sent salaam to Abdullah ibn Umar who replied: "I do not accept his salaam, as this person has innovated by becoming Qadariyah (A sect which does not believe in destiny.")[27]

Al-Fuḍayl ibn ‘Iyāḍ is reputed to have said: "I met the best of people, all of them Salafi and they used to forbid from accompanying the people of innovation."[28][29] Hasan al-Basri mentions: "Do not sit with the people of innovation and desires, nor argue with them, nor listen to them".[30] Ibraaheem ibn Maysarah mentions: "Whoever honours an innovator has aided in the destruction of Islam."[31]

Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali al-Barbahari mentions: "The innovators are like scorpions. They bury their heads and bodies in the sand and leave their tails out. When they get the chance they sting; the same with the innovators who conceal themselves amongst the people, when they are able, they do what they desire."[32] Abu Haatim said: "A sign of the people of innovation is their battling against the people of Narrations."[33] Abu 'Uthmaan as-Saaboonee said: "The signs of the people of innovation are clear and obvious. The most apparent of their signs is their severe enmity for those who carry the reports of the Prophet."[34]

Various views differentiating good and bad bid’ah
Jabir ibn Abd Allah narrated "...The Prophet said: He who introduced some good (precedent) practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil practice in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect.[35][36][37]

Anas ibn Malik said "I heard the Prophet say: 'My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.'"[38]

Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet said, "Whoever prayed at night the whole month of Ramadan out of sincere Faith and hoping for a reward from Allah, then all his previous sins will be forgiven." After the Prophet's death the people continued observing that (i.e. Nawafil offered individually, not in congregation), and it remained as it was during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and in the early days of Umar ibn Al-Khattab's Caliphate. During Ramadan upon seeing people praying in different groups, Umar ordered Ubay ibn Ka'b to lead the people in congregational prayer. On this Umar said: 'What an excellent Bida (i.e. innovation in religion at that time from an earlier time) this is; but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.'[39][40][41][42]

Salman al-Farsi narrated that the Prophet was asked, by some of the companions, about the permissibility and prohibition of certain items, he states "Halal is that which Allah has made Halal in His book, Haram is that which Allah has made Haram in His book and about which he has remained silent is all forgiven."[43]

Abu Hurairah narrated at the time of the Fajr prayer the Prophet asked Bilal ibn al-Harith, "Tell me of the best deed you did after embracing Islam, for I heard your footsteps in front of me in Paradise." Bilal replied, "I did not do anything worth mentioning except that whenever I performed ablution during the day or night, I prayed after that ablution as much as was written for me."[44] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says in Fath al-Bari that "the hadith shows it is permissible to use personal reasoning (ijtihad) in choosing times for acts of worship, for Bilal reached the conclusion he mentioned by his own inference and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) confirmed him therein."[45] Similar to this, Khubyab bin Adi asked to pray two rak‘as before being executed by idolators in Mecca, and was hence the first to establish the sunna of two rak'as for those who are steadfast in going to their death.[45][46]

Rifaa ibn Rafi narrated: When we were praying behind the Prophet and he raised his head from bowing and said, "Allah hears whoever praises Him," a man behind him said, "Our Lord, Yours is the praise, abundandly, wholesomely, and blessedly."When he rose to leave, the Prophet asked who said it, and when the man replied that it was he, the Prophet said, "I saw thirty-odd angel each striving to be the one to write it."[47] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani comments in Fath al-Bari that the hadith "indicates the permissibility of initiation new expression of dhikr in the prayer other than the ones related through hadith texts (even though this is still reported in the hadiths), as long as they do not contradict those conveyed by the hadith. It is clear that this is since the above were a mere enhancement and addendum to the know, sunna dhikr."[45]

Imam Shafi'i gave the following advice, "An innovation which contradicts the Qur'an, Sunnah, an Athar or Ijma is a heretical bid'a: if however something new is introduced which is not evil in itself and does not contradict the above mentioned authorities of religious life, then it is a praiseworthy, unobjectional bid'a." This can infer worldly bid'a or technology.[39][48][49][50][51]

Modern discourse
The criterion that qualifies a particular action as a bid'ah in the religion is a debate amongst Sunni scholars. Scholars affiliated to the Salafi and Wahhabi sects argue for an exclusive, literal definition that entails anything not specifically performed or confirmed by the Prophet.[52]

Practitioners of Sufism, in contrast, argue for an inclusive, holistic definition. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah writes:

[B]id‘a could take on various shades of meaning. When used without qualifying adjectives, it tended to be condemnatory, as, for example, in the statement, "bid‘a must be avoided"” Nevertheless, bid‘a was not always something bad. In certain contexts, especially when qualified by adjectives, bid‘a could cover a wide range of meanings from what was praiseworthy to what was completely wrong, as, for example, in the caliph ‘Umar’s statement below, "what an excellent bid‘a is this!"

— Umar Faruq Abd-Allah, Innovation and Creativity in Islam[53]
In Shia Islam
According to Shia Islam the definition of bid'ah is anything that is introduced to Islam as either being fard (mandatory), mustahabb (recommended), halal (neutral), makruh (reprehensible) or haram (forbidden) that contradicts the Qur'an or hadith. Any new good practice introduced that does not contradict the Qur'an or hadith is permissible. However, it is not permissible to say that a new good practice (that does not contradict the Qur'an or hadith) is obligatory, highly recommended or "sunnah" proper. Hence, the Shi'a stance mirrors the body of Sunni scholars who proffer the idea of "bid'ah hasana". As a general rule in Shi'a jurisprudence, anything is permissible except whatever is prohibited through divine revelation (i.e. the Qur'an or hadith).[54]

Disputes
Despite the general understanding of standing scholarly disagreements (ikhtilaf), the notion of lawful innovation is a polarizing issue in the Islamic world. A practical example of this is the debate over the permissibility of the mawlid or commemoration of Muhammad's birthday. All scholars agree that such celebrations did not exist in the early period of Islamic history, and yet mawalid commemorations are a common element in Muslim societies around the world. Even so, Sunnis' scholars are divided between emphatic unconditional condemnation[55] and conditional acceptance[56] of the celebration with the former insisting it is a bid'ah and thus automatically unlawful, while the latter argues it nonetheless is contextually permissible.

British historian Sadakat Kadri has noted the change over time in what is considered bid'ah.

Hadith were not written down until the 9th century, at least in part because "traditionialists such as Ibn Hanbal considered human literature to be an unholy innovation."[57] This interpretation changed even for very conservative jurists such as Ibn Taymiyyah who wrote dozens of books. Ibn Taymiyyah however considered mathematics, a bidah, a false form of knowledge that "does not bring perfection to the human soul, nor save man from castigation of God, nor lead him to a happy life", and forbade its use in determining the beginning of lunar months.[58] Very conservative Wahhabis allow the broadcast of television but Indian Deobandi forbid their followers from watching it,[59] but make use of the more recent invention the internet to issue fatwas.[59]

Traditionally who died of plague and who did not was explained as simply the will of God based on al-Bukhari's al-Sahih hadith,[60][61] but studying the progress of the Black Death (bubonic plague) in the 14th century, scholar Ibn al-Khatib noted those who died had the plague transmitted to them from "garments, vessels, ear-rings; ... persons ... by infection of a healthy sea-port by an arrival from an infected land" where as isolated individuals were immune.[60] In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun defends the science of medicine from suggestions that it is an innovation going against the Sunna. "The medicine mentioned in religious tradition ... is in no way part of the divine revelation." It was simply part of "Arab custom and happened to be mentioned in connection with the circumstances of the Prophet, like other things that were customary in his generation." But was "not mentioned in order to imply that [it] is stipulated by the religious law."[62]

In his Book of Knowledge Al-Ghazali observed that many phenomena once thought bid'ah had come to be though legally unobjectionable.

[A]mong the accepted practices of our time are decorating and furnishing the mosques, and expending great sums of money on their ornate construction and fine rugs which were then considered innovations. These were introduced by the pilgrims, since the early Muslims seldom placed anything on the ground during prayer. Similarly disputation and debate are among the most honoured disciples of the day and are numbered among the best meritorious works (qarubat): nevertheless they were among the taboos at the time of the Companions. The same is true of the chanting (talhiri) of the Qur'an and the call for prayer, going to excess in matters of cleanliness and being over fastidious in matters of ceremonial purity, ruling clothes unclean on petty and far-fetched grounds, and, at the same time, being lax in ruling foods lawful and unlawful as well as many other like things.[63]

He quoted Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman approvingly: "Strange as it may seem, accepted practices of today are the taboos of a day gone by. ... And the taboos of today are the accepted practices of a day yet to come."[63]

What exactly is instant divorce practice banned by court?

Triple Talaq verdict: What exactly is instant divorce practice banned by court?
Divorce in Islam is of three types. The Supreme Court has banned talaq-e-biddat or instant divorce.
INDIA Updated: Aug 22, 2017 17:50 IST
HT Correspondent

The Supreme Court verdict on Tuesday barred instant triple talaq, under which women have been divorced over email, WhatsApp and phone calls. Instant triple talaq is banned in 22 Muslim-majority countries, since it is considered theologically improper and undesirable.

‘Instant’ triple talaq is a form of divorce under Islam. “Talaq-e-biddat (instant divorce) is manifestly arbitrary which allows a Muslim man to break down marriage whimsically,” the majority view of the bench said.

“It cannot be considered as integral part of personal law and cannot have constitutional protection. It is against Quran and violates the Shariat,” it said.

Under Islamic law, there are three types of divorce: Talaq-e-Ahsan, Talaq-e-Hasan and Talaq-e-Biddat.

Talaq-e-Ahsan is the most ideal way of dissolving a marriage. ‘Ahsan’ means best or most proper. Under Talaq-e-Ahsan, the husband must pronounce divorce in a single sentence when the wife is in a state of ‘purity’, that is, not menstruating.

The wife has to observe a period of iddat , a period of waiting and abstinence, after talaq is pronounced. The iddat period is three monthly courses for menstruating women and in case of pregnant women, till the time of delivery.

If the couple resumes cohabitation or intimacy, within the period of iddat, the pronouncement of divorce is treated as having been revoked. Therefore, ‘talaq-e-ahsan’ is revocable. Conversely, if there is no resumption of cohabitation or intimacy, during the period of ‘iddat’, then the divorce becomes final and irrevocable, after the expiry of the iddat period.


Under Talaq-e-Hasan, which is a ‘proper’ way to divorce but not as good as Ahsan, the husband pronounces talaq three times spread over three monthly courses.

After the first pronouncement of divorce, if there is resumption of cohabitation within a period of one month, the pronouncement of divorce is treated as having been revoked.

The distinction between ‘talaq-eashan’ and ‘talaq-e-hasan’ is, that in the former there is a single pronouncement of ‘talaq’ followed by abstinence during the period of ‘iddat’, whereas, in the latter there are three pronouncements of ‘talaq’, interspersed with abstinence.

Talaq-e-biddat, which has been banned by the Supreme Court today, is considered undesirable and a ‘sinful’ in Islam, yet considered valid under Sharia law. This kind of instant divorce is not the norm within Islam, but a rarity.

Biddat means sinful innovation – this form was introduced by Ommeyad kings in order to circumvent the law. Under this form of divorce, the husband pronounces talaq thrice in one sitting. Divorce is instant and becomes irrevocable immediately when it is pronounced, irrespective of iddat. Thus, once pronounced, it cannot be revoked.

‘Religion a matter of faith, not logic’: CJI Khehar’

‘Religion a matter of faith, not logic’: CJI Khehar’s dissenting opinion on triple talaq
The dissenting opinion, supported only by two of the five judges on the bench, called on the Union of India to intervene.
‘Religion a matter of faith, not logic’: CJI  Khehar’s dissenting opinion on triple talaq
Muslim women hold placards in support of the All India Muslim Personal Law Board (AIMPLB) during a signature campaign in Ahmedabad | Amit Dave
Aug 22, 2017 · 02:39 pm
Rohan Venkataramakrishnan
 Share
 Tweet
 Email
 Reddit
 Print
 Share
 Tweet
 Email
 Reddit
 Print
The media was confused by Chief Justice of India JS Khehar in the Supreme Court on Tuesday, as he began to read out his order in the triple talaq case. Being the Chief Justice, Khehar was entitled to read his order first – even though, as it turned out, his was the minority opinion upholding the constitutionality of the Muslim practice of instant divorce. In the end, the Supreme Court struck down instant triple talaq, with the bench split 3-2.

While the majority found that the practice was unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before law, Khehar’s decision, along with Justice S Abdul Nazeer, concludes that despite many finding the practice abhorrent, the Supreme Court does not have the power to strike it down. The dissenting opinion instead calls for an injunction on the practice of instant triple talaq for six months, while also prodding the legislature to take up the matter.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Till such time as legislation in the matter is considered, we are satisfied in injuncting Muslim husbands, from pronouncing ‘talaq-e-biddat’ as a means for severing their matrimonial relationship. The instant injunction, shall in the first instance, be operative for a period of six months,” the dissenting opinion said. “If it is decided that the practice of ‘talaq-e-biddat’ be done away with altogether, the injunction would continue, till legislation is finally enacted. Failing which, the injunction shall cease to operate.”

Personal or statutory?
The Islamic practice of instant triple talaq permits Sunni Muslim men to enact divorce with their wives, simply by pronouncing talaq, meaning divorce, three times. Despite many Islamic countries banning it, and the Supreme Court itself having found it unconstitutional in the past, Khehar concluded that instant triple talaq constitutes a matter of faith for Sunni Muslims of the Hanafi school and has been practiced by them for at least 1,400 years.

India has two primary ways of dealing with religious matters. The Constitution protects the personal law of religious communities, allowing them to carry on practices as per their traditions without the interference of the courts. But where religious law has been codified by legislatures, such as through the Shariat Act of 1937, it becomes open to constitutional questions and the test of fundamental rights.

Khehar’s dissenting opinion concluded that instant triple talaq did not come under codified, statutory law – as argued by the petitioners calling for it to be struck down – and instead accepted the All India Muslim Personal Law Board’s contention that it was personal religious law, and could not be changed by the court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Faith not logic
“Religion is a matter of faith, and not of logic. It is not open to a court to accept an egalitarian approach, over a practice which constitutes an integral part of religion,” the dissenting opinion says. “We cannot accept the petitioners’ claim, because the challenge raised is in respect of an issue of ‘personal law’ which has constitutional protection.”

The dissenting order insists that the Supreme Court’s job is to protect and enforce the constitution, which permitted the use of personal law even if rationalists took issue with a religious tradition. It also cautioned against the “cascading effect” that might follow if the court intervenes in personal law because of a call of conscience.

“We have to be guarded, lest we find our conscience traversing into every nook and corner of religious practices, and ‘personal law’. Can a court, based on a righteous endeavour, declare that a matter of faith, be replaced – or be completely done away with,” the dissenting opinion says.

Having decided that the legal challenge from the petitioners fails on the judicial front, the dissenting justices insist that there is another approach that can be taken. Article 142 of the Constitution allows for courts to take action based on the imperative to do “complete justice.” The dissenting opinion points out that all concerned, including those disagreeing with the petition, considered the practice of instant triple talaq discriminatory.

ADVERTISEMENT

Legislative job
Therefore, accepting that the courts could not intervene in personal law, the dissenting opinion says instead that it is permissible for the legislature to take action in a matter where everyone believes women’s rights are being trampled on.

“There can be no doubt, and it is our definitive conclusion, that the position can only be salvaged by way of legislation,” the dissenting opinion said. “The stance adopted by the Union of India is sufficient for us to assume, that the Union of India supports the petitioners’ cause. Unfortunately, the Union seeks at our hands, what truly falls in its own.”

As a result, if the dissenting opinion had held, it would have directed the Union of India to consider “appropriate legislation” with reference to instant triple talaq.

“We hope and expect, that the contemplated legislation will also take into consideration advances in Muslim ‘personal law’ – ‘Shariat’, as have been corrected by legislation the world over, even by theocratic Islamic States. When the British rulers in India provided succor to Muslims by legislation, and when remedial measures have been adopted by the Muslim world, we find no reason, for an independent India, to lag behind,” the dissenting opinion said. “We would also beseech different political parties to keep their individual political gains apart, while considering the necessary measures requiring legislation.”

Ultimately, however, this opinion was only supported by two of the five judges on the bench and so, rather than leaving triple talaq to the legislature, the Supreme Court has decided to strike it down as unconstitutional regardless of this opinion’s finding that it comes under personal law.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Scroll+ here. We welcome your comments at letters@scroll.in.

Chief Justice Opinion In Triple Talaq Case Flawed

Chief Justice Opinion In Triple Talaq Case Flawed: Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi

Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi is equally candid in his assessment of Chief Justice JS Khehar's minority opinion along with Justice Abdul Nazeer, saying he thinks "it is completely flawed."

All India | Written by Himanshu Pati Tripathi | Updated: August 23, 2017 23:44 IST
by TaboolaSponsored LinksSponsored

Former Attorney General Mukul Rohatgi gave his assessment of Supreme Court's verdict on triple talaq.

NEW DELHI:  Mukul Rohatgi may no longer be in the hot seat as the top government lawyer in the country, but is satisfied with his efforts after the verdict in the triple talaq case on Tuesday. Mincing no words, the former Attorney General tells NDTV that "this kind of triple talaq is not sanctioned by the Quran. It is like saying that I don't like a cold drink so I just chuck it."

Mr Rohatgi is equally candid in his assessment of Chief Justice JS Khehar's minority opinion along with Justice Abdul Nazeer, saying he thinks "it is completely flawed."

Chief Justice Khehar and Justice Nazeer had differed from the three other judges in the five-judge bench yesterday, and said while triple talaq "may be sinful", the court can't interfere in personal laws which have the status of fundamental right under the constitution. They were of the view that parliament should bring a law to end the practice.

Taking on the Muslim Law Board, Mr Rohatgi says, "Muslim personal law board bitterly opposed all our submissions, but now after losing they are saying everything is alright and this is what we wanted."

Looking back at the long hours he spent arguing the case before the five-judge bench, Mr Rohatgi says in his view the Supreme Court should have gone further, banning nikah halala "and talaq because they are also arbitrary and give the woman no say."

The triple talaq case had taken deep political colour with senior Congress leader Kapil Sibal representing the Muslim law board and Salman Khurshid acting as a friend of court but Mr Rohatgi believes that neither he nor Mr Sibal "were really thinking of political affiliations in court and what happens outside court doesn't really concern it."

From one historic verdict yesterday to another one on the anvil tomorrow - Right to Privacy, the former attorney general is clear that "privacy is a fundamental right", something which even the government has stated in court, but is hopeful that "court takes a pragmatic view of privacy in context of the Aadhaar case." He argues his point by asking "Can a person refuse to share his Aadhaar details at airport, citing his right to privacy, can right to privacy outweigh security of the nation?"

5 COMMENTS
Having recently resigned as the Attorney General, Mukul Rohatgi has now returned to his private practice and says that "he is happy to now view things from a distance."

Bid‘ah - Biddat

Bid‘ah - Biddat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Islam, bid‘ah (Arabic: بدعة‎; English: innovation) refers to innovation in religious matters.[1] Linguistically the term means "innovation, novelty, heretical doctrine, heresy".[2]

In classical Arabic literature (adab), it has been used as a form of praise for outstanding compositions of prose and poetry.[3]


In Sunni Islam
In early Islamic history, bid'ah referred primarily to heterodox doctrines. In Islamic law, when used without qualification, bid'ah denotes any newly invented matter that is without precedent and is in opposition to the Quran and Sunnah.[4]

Scholars generally have divided bid'ah into two types: innovations in worldly matters and innovations in religious matters.[5][page needed][need quotation to verify] Some have additionally divided bid'ah into lawful and unlawful innovations, the details of which are discussed below.[6]

Introducing and acting upon a bid‘ah in religious matters is a sin and considered one of the enormities in Islam that is obligatory to immediately desist and repent from.[7][page needed]

In worldly matters
Sunni Muslim scholars have divided bid‘ah in worldly matters into two types:[5]

Good innovations such as using technology to propagate the faith of Islam.[8]
Innovations that are purely evil - these are forbidden under Islamic law. Examples of this type of bid'ah include alcohol,[9] or, in modern times, the discovery and synthesis of new intoxicants.[citation needed]
In religious matters
Traditional view
There are a number of different definitions of Bid‘ah.

Good and bad innovation:
Bid'ah Say'iah, "a new thing" which "opposes the Quran and Sunnah" or is "against Islam"[10] (Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani[11] and Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya)[12] or "Sharia (Islamic law)" (Muhammad Ramzaan),[13] or removes sunnah or wajib and is forbidden.
Bid'ah Hasana, a new thing that is not against the Sharia (according to scholars such as Muhammad ash-Shawkani[14] Al-Nawawi[15] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani,[16] Ibn Manzur, Al-Raghib al-Isfahani and Badr al-Din al-Ayni).[10] An example of Bid'ah Hasana is the development of the study of Hadith, Fiqh, Tafsir, which did not exist at the time of the Islamic prophet Muhammad (Al-Nawawi).[17]
"carrying out actions which displease Allah ta'ala and his messenger" Muhammad. (Muhammad ibn Isa at-Tirmidhi).[10][18]
"new things that have no basis in the Qur'an or Sunnah" (Ibn Rajab).[10][19]
bid'ah is always bad but if a new thing has origins in the Qur'an and Sunnah it is to be called Bid'ah Logaviyya (verbal innovation), (Ibn Taymiyyah).[10][20]
Views against bid’ah
The Qur'anic verse: "This day I have perfected your religion for you, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your religion."(Quran 5:4), is considered by at least some Muslim to be against bid'ah in religion. The Sunnah has many more prohibitions against innovation in religion.[citation needed]

Ali ibn Abu Talib, of the Rashidun (rightly guided Caliphs), said; "He who innovates or gives protection to an innovator, there is a curse of Allah and that of His angels and that of the whole humanity upon him."[21][22] Abdullah ibn Umar said: "Every innovation is misguidance, even if the people see it as something good."[23]

Abd Allah ibn Abbas, a companion of the Prophet and early Islamic scholar also said: "Indeed the most detestable of things to Allah are the innovations."[24] Sufyan al-Thawri, a tabi'i Islamic scholar, Hafiz and jurist, mentions: "Innovation is more beloved to Iblees than sin, since a sin may be repented for but innovation is not repented for."[25] He also said, "Whoever listens to an innovator has left the protection of Allāh and is entrusted with the innovation."[26]

A person once sent salaam to Abdullah ibn Umar who replied: "I do not accept his salaam, as this person has innovated by becoming Qadariyah (A sect which does not believe in destiny.")[27]

Al-Fuḍayl ibn ‘Iyāḍ is reputed to have said: "I met the best of people, all of them Salafi and they used to forbid from accompanying the people of innovation."[28][29] Hasan al-Basri mentions: "Do not sit with the people of innovation and desires, nor argue with them, nor listen to them".[30] Ibraaheem ibn Maysarah mentions: "Whoever honours an innovator has aided in the destruction of Islam."[31]

Al-Hasan ibn 'Ali al-Barbahari mentions: "The innovators are like scorpions. They bury their heads and bodies in the sand and leave their tails out. When they get the chance they sting; the same with the innovators who conceal themselves amongst the people, when they are able, they do what they desire."[32] Abu Haatim said: "A sign of the people of innovation is their battling against the people of Narrations."[33] Abu 'Uthmaan as-Saaboonee said: "The signs of the people of innovation are clear and obvious. The most apparent of their signs is their severe enmity for those who carry the reports of the Prophet."[34]

Various views differentiating good and bad bid’ah
Jabir ibn Abd Allah narrated "...The Prophet said: He who introduced some good (precedent) practice in Islam which was followed after him (by people) he would be assured of reward like one who followed it, without their rewards being diminished in any respect. And he who introduced some evil practice in Islam which had been followed subsequently (by others), he would be required to bear the burden like that of one who followed this (evil practice) without their's being diminished in any respect.[35][36][37]

Anas ibn Malik said "I heard the Prophet say: 'My nation will not unite on misguidance, so if you see them differing, follow the great majority.'"[38]

Abu Hurairah narrated that the Prophet said, "Whoever prayed at night the whole month of Ramadan out of sincere Faith and hoping for a reward from Allah, then all his previous sins will be forgiven." After the Prophet's death the people continued observing that (i.e. Nawafil offered individually, not in congregation), and it remained as it was during the Caliphate of Abu Bakr and in the early days of Umar ibn Al-Khattab's Caliphate. During Ramadan upon seeing people praying in different groups, Umar ordered Ubay ibn Ka'b to lead the people in congregational prayer. On this Umar said: 'What an excellent Bida (i.e. innovation in religion at that time from an earlier time) this is; but the prayer which they do not perform, but sleep at its time is better than the one they are offering.'[39][40][41][42]

Salman al-Farsi narrated that the Prophet was asked, by some of the companions, about the permissibility and prohibition of certain items, he states "Halal is that which Allah has made Halal in His book, Haram is that which Allah has made Haram in His book and about which he has remained silent is all forgiven."[43]

Abu Hurairah narrated at the time of the Fajr prayer the Prophet asked Bilal ibn al-Harith, "Tell me of the best deed you did after embracing Islam, for I heard your footsteps in front of me in Paradise." Bilal replied, "I did not do anything worth mentioning except that whenever I performed ablution during the day or night, I prayed after that ablution as much as was written for me."[44] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani says in Fath al-Bari that "the hadith shows it is permissible to use personal reasoning (ijtihad) in choosing times for acts of worship, for Bilal reached the conclusion he mentioned by his own inference and the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) confirmed him therein."[45] Similar to this, Khubyab bin Adi asked to pray two rak‘as before being executed by idolators in Mecca, and was hence the first to establish the sunna of two rak'as for those who are steadfast in going to their death.[45][46]

Rifaa ibn Rafi narrated: When we were praying behind the Prophet and he raised his head from bowing and said, "Allah hears whoever praises Him," a man behind him said, "Our Lord, Yours is the praise, abundandly, wholesomely, and blessedly."When he rose to leave, the Prophet asked who said it, and when the man replied that it was he, the Prophet said, "I saw thirty-odd angel each striving to be the one to write it."[47] Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani comments in Fath al-Bari that the hadith "indicates the permissibility of initiation new expression of dhikr in the prayer other than the ones related through hadith texts (even though this is still reported in the hadiths), as long as they do not contradict those conveyed by the hadith. It is clear that this is since the above were a mere enhancement and addendum to the know, sunna dhikr."[45]

Imam Shafi'i gave the following advice, "An innovation which contradicts the Qur'an, Sunnah, an Athar or Ijma is a heretical bid'a: if however something new is introduced which is not evil in itself and does not contradict the above mentioned authorities of religious life, then it is a praiseworthy, unobjectional bid'a." This can infer worldly bid'a or technology.[39][48][49][50][51]

Modern discourse
The criterion that qualifies a particular action as a bid'ah in the religion is a debate amongst Sunni scholars. Scholars affiliated to the Salafi and Wahhabi sects argue for an exclusive, literal definition that entails anything not specifically performed or confirmed by the Prophet.[52]

Practitioners of Sufism, in contrast, argue for an inclusive, holistic definition. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah writes:

[B]id‘a could take on various shades of meaning. When used without qualifying adjectives, it tended to be condemnatory, as, for example, in the statement, "bid‘a must be avoided"” Nevertheless, bid‘a was not always something bad. In certain contexts, especially when qualified by adjectives, bid‘a could cover a wide range of meanings from what was praiseworthy to what was completely wrong, as, for example, in the caliph ‘Umar’s statement below, "what an excellent bid‘a is this!"

— Umar Faruq Abd-Allah, Innovation and Creativity in Islam[53]
In Shia Islam
According to Shia Islam the definition of bid'ah is anything that is introduced to Islam as either being fard (mandatory), mustahabb (recommended), halal (neutral), makruh (reprehensible) or haram (forbidden) that contradicts the Qur'an or hadith. Any new good practice introduced that does not contradict the Qur'an or hadith is permissible. However, it is not permissible to say that a new good practice (that does not contradict the Qur'an or hadith) is obligatory, highly recommended or "sunnah" proper. Hence, the Shi'a stance mirrors the body of Sunni scholars who proffer the idea of "bid'ah hasana". As a general rule in Shi'a jurisprudence, anything is permissible except whatever is prohibited through divine revelation (i.e. the Qur'an or hadith).[54]

Disputes
Despite the general understanding of standing scholarly disagreements (ikhtilaf), the notion of lawful innovation is a polarizing issue in the Islamic world. A practical example of this is the debate over the permissibility of the mawlid or commemoration of Muhammad's birthday. All scholars agree that such celebrations did not exist in the early period of Islamic history, and yet mawalid commemorations are a common element in Muslim societies around the world. Even so, Sunnis' scholars are divided between emphatic unconditional condemnation[55] and conditional acceptance[56] of the celebration with the former insisting it is a bid'ah and thus automatically unlawful, while the latter argues it nonetheless is contextually permissible.

British historian Sadakat Kadri has noted the change over time in what is considered bid'ah.

Hadith were not written down until the 9th century, at least in part because "traditionialists such as Ibn Hanbal considered human literature to be an unholy innovation."[57] This interpretation changed even for very conservative jurists such as Ibn Taymiyyah who wrote dozens of books. Ibn Taymiyyah however considered mathematics, a bidah, a false form of knowledge that "does not bring perfection to the human soul, nor save man from castigation of God, nor lead him to a happy life", and forbade its use in determining the beginning of lunar months.[58] Very conservative Wahhabis allow the broadcast of television but Indian Deobandi forbid their followers from watching it,[59] but make use of the more recent invention the internet to issue fatwas.[59]

Traditionally who died of plague and who did not was explained as simply the will of God based on al-Bukhari's al-Sahih hadith,[60][61] but studying the progress of the Black Death (bubonic plague) in the 14th century, scholar Ibn al-Khatib noted those who died had the plague transmitted to them from "garments, vessels, ear-rings; ... persons ... by infection of a healthy sea-port by an arrival from an infected land" where as isolated individuals were immune.[60] In the Muqaddimah, Ibn Khaldun defends the science of medicine from suggestions that it is an innovation going against the Sunna. "The medicine mentioned in religious tradition ... is in no way part of the divine revelation." It was simply part of "Arab custom and happened to be mentioned in connection with the circumstances of the Prophet, like other things that were customary in his generation." But was "not mentioned in order to imply that [it] is stipulated by the religious law."[62]

In his Book of Knowledge Al-Ghazali observed that many phenomena once thought bid'ah had come to be though legally unobjectionable.

[A]mong the accepted practices of our time are decorating and furnishing the mosques, and expending great sums of money on their ornate construction and fine rugs which were then considered innovations. These were introduced by the pilgrims, since the early Muslims seldom placed anything on the ground during prayer. Similarly disputation and debate are among the most honoured disciples of the day and are numbered among the best meritorious works (qarubat): nevertheless they were among the taboos at the time of the Companions. The same is true of the chanting (talhiri) of the Qur'an and the call for prayer, going to excess in matters of cleanliness and being over fastidious in matters of ceremonial purity, ruling clothes unclean on petty and far-fetched grounds, and, at the same time, being lax in ruling foods lawful and unlawful as well as many other like things.[63]

He quoted Hudhayfah ibn al-Yaman approvingly: "Strange as it may seem, accepted practices of today are the taboos of a day gone by. ... And the taboos of today are the accepted practices of a day yet to come."[63]

Divorce in Islam is of three types.

Triple Talaq verdict: What exactly is instant divorce practice banned by court?
Divorce in Islam is of three types. The Supreme Court has banned talaq-e-biddat or instant divorce.

The Supreme Court verdict on Tuesday barred instant triple talaq, under which women have been divorced over email, WhatsApp and phone calls. Instant triple talaq is banned in 22 Muslim-majority countries, since it is considered theologically improper and undesirable.

‘Instant’ triple talaq is a form of divorce under Islam. “Talaq-e-biddat (instant divorce) is manifestly arbitrary which allows a Muslim man to break down marriage whimsically,” the majority view of the bench said.

“It cannot be considered as integral part of personal law and cannot have constitutional protection. It is against Quran and violates the Shariat,” it said.

Under Islamic law, there are three types of divorce: Talaq-e-Ahsan, Talaq-e-Hasan and Talaq-e-Biddat.

Talaq-e-Ahsan is the most ideal way of dissolving a marriage. ‘Ahsan’ means best or most proper. Under Talaq-e-Ahsan, the husband must pronounce divorce in a single sentence when the wife is in a state of ‘purity’, that is, not menstruating.


The wife has to observe a period of iddat , a period of waiting and abstinence, after talaq is pronounced. The iddat period is three monthly courses for menstruating women and in case of pregnant women, till the time of delivery.

If the couple resumes cohabitation or intimacy, within the period of iddat, the pronouncement of divorce is treated as having been revoked. Therefore, ‘talaq-e-ahsan’ is revocable. Conversely, if there is no resumption of cohabitation or intimacy, during the period of ‘iddat’, then the divorce becomes final and irrevocable, after the expiry of the iddat period.

Under Talaq-e-Hasan, which is a ‘proper’ way to divorce but not as good as Ahsan, the husband pronounces talaq three times spread over three monthly courses.

After the first pronouncement of divorce, if there is resumption of cohabitation within a period of one month, the pronouncement of divorce is treated as having been revoked.

The distinction between ‘talaq-eashan’ and ‘talaq-e-hasan’ is, that in the former there is a single pronouncement of ‘talaq’ followed by abstinence during the period of ‘iddat’, whereas, in the latter there are three pronouncements of ‘talaq’, interspersed with abstinence.

Talaq-e-biddat, which has been banned by the Supreme Court today, is considered undesirable and a ‘sinful’ in Islam, yet considered valid under Sharia law. This kind of instant divorce is not the norm within Islam, but a rarity.

Biddat means sinful innovation – this form was introduced by Ommeyad kings in order to circumvent the law. Under this form of divorce, the husband pronounces talaq thrice in one sitting. Divorce is instant and becomes irrevocable immediately when it is pronounced, irrespective of iddat. Thus, once pronounced, it cannot be revoked.

Supreme Court agrees to hear case where triple talaq invoked for divorce

Supreme Court agrees to hear case where triple talaq invoked for divorce
1 min read . Updated: 16 May 2019, 03:17 PM IST
Japnam Bindra
Instant triple talaq was declared unconstitutional by the apex court in its judgment dated 17 August, 2017
The woman in her petition has alleged and provided copies of the three notices sent to her by husband, snapping marital ties and divorcing her

Topics
Triple TalaqSupreme CourtIndia
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to hear a plea filed by a Muslim woman against the talaq (divorce) given by her husband by sending triple talaq notices. Instant triple talaq was declared unconstitutional by the apex court in its judgment dated 17 August, 2017 in the case of Shayara Bano Vs Union of India & Ors.

The woman, a resident of Delhi, in her petition has alleged and provided copies of the three notices sent to her by her husband, snapping marital ties and divorcing her.

The Supreme Court bench comprising Justices Indira Banerjee and Sanjeev Khanna agreed to hear the case Friday.

The petition filed by Advocate M.M Kashyap, on behalf of the woman, states that she was tortured and harassed by her husband and in-laws throughout the 10 years of marriage but she stayed put due to the two minor children from the marriage. The woman has alleged that she was brutally beaten up by her husband demanding dowry and was later ousted from the house along with her children on 16 March.


In her petition, she has sought for the talaq notices sent by her husband to be held void in accordance with the Shayara Bano judgement and Triple Talaq ordinances. She has also sought an FIR against her husband and in-laws as per the provisions of Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) ordinance –II 2019.

In August 2017, the Supreme Court had declared Triple Talaq unconstitutional. In a 3-2 majority verdict, the top court struck down the age-old practice under which a Muslim man could divorce his wife by uttering the word “talaq" thrice.