Some persons of the Ahle Bid’ah, specifically Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan, write after quoting the Aayaat, “O You who believe! Ask not about things which …” and “Say (O Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), ‘I find not in that which has been revealed to me anything forbidden…”, “Allaah Ta’ala also states, ‘Say (O Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi wasallam! ‘Who has forbidden the adornment with clothes given by Allaah, which He has produced for His slaves, and Tayyibaat (Halaal) of food..’. From these Aayaat we ascertain that if there is no proof for a thing being Haraam, then it is Halaal and not Haraam. These people establish Haraam by it…” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 219]
These Aayaat can certainly not be used to prove bid’ah as is being done by the Ahle Bid’ah. It is clearly incorrect to extract permissibility for the evil acts from such Aayaat.
Is there initial permissibility in a thing?
Most of the perpetrators of bid’ah incorrectly clutch at these Aayaat as proof for their innovations and aver that since there is initial permissibility of all things, hence they “prove” their innovative stunts and actions are also permissible. Based on this erroneous assumption of theirs they base many/all of their bid’ahs. Molvi Abdus Samee Saheb, cites a few Ahaadith and writes that from these Ahaadith the Ulama have extracted a great principle, that there is initial permissibility in all things. [Anwaarus Saat’ia, page 36]
Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan Saheb writes, “What do those who label every bid’ah as Haraam have to say about the general rule which states, ‘The original (ruling) of every thing, is permissibility.’” He states further, citing from Shaami, “The preferred view is that the original (ruling) is permissibility according to the majority amongst the Hanafis and Shaafis.” [Jaa-al Haqq, page 318]
According to some Muhaqqiqeen there is no general ruling for this. It should also be taken into consideration that every bid’ah is not Haraam, some are Makrooh. We have to firstly see what the meaning of initial permissibility entails, and what light is shed thereupon by the Ahadith. We should also see if this ruling is unanimous amongst the Fuqaha or if any differences exist amongst them. Also, which group leans to the preferred view. Or whether this difference existed in former times or only in recent.
We will firstly list the narration of Hadhrat Abdullaah ibn Abbas (radhiyallahu anhu), “Rasulullaah (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘Issues are divided into three parts; one is that which is clearly on the truth, you should follow it; second is that whose deviation is clear, save yourself from it; and lastly is that wherein there is doubt, that you should entrust to Allah.” [Ahmad/Mishkaat, vol. 1, page 31]
From the last portion of this Hadith we glean that if there is doubt or uncertainty in an unclear matter, then such issues should be entrusted unto Allaah Ta`ala and we should maintain silence on it. It should not be that we legitimise the issue. Allaamah Tayyibi Al-Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 743 A.H.] stated, “As for that thing whose ruling is not known in the Shariah, no comment should be made on it and it should be entrusted to Allaah.”
Hadhrat Shaykh Abdul Haqq Saheb (rahmatullah alayh) states in commentary of “And entrust it unto Allaah Ta’ala”, “Then you must pass the matter to Allaah Ta’ala, and not comment on it.” [Ash’atul Lam’aat, vol. 1, page 97]
From this Hadith and commentaries thereof, we realise that no comment be made on such issues regarding which there is no Shar’i ruling. Such matters must be entrusted unto Allaah Ta’ala and we should not understand it to be permissible and give a ruling as such.
The narration of Hadhrat Abu Tha’laba Al-Khushni (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 75 A.H.] also indicate towards this maintaining of silence (reservation). He states that Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, “Allah Ta’ala had specified certain Faraaidh, so do not destroy them. He has made certain things Haraam, so do not betray them. He has specified certain limits, so do not transgress them. Certain things, without having forgotten, Allah Ta’ala has maintained silence regarding them, so do not discuss them.” [Daar Qutni / Mishkaat, vol. 1, page 32]
This narration also indicates towards maintaining of silence (tawaqquf – reservation), as is apparent. The famous, Imam Allamah Alauddeen Muhammad bin Ali Al-Khaskafi Al-Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 1088 A.H.] writes, “The correct and triumphant view is that the original ruling in all things is tawaqquf.” [Durrul Mukhtaar, vol. 1, page 20]
In the commentary of Durrul Mukhtaar, Tawaali’ul Anwaar, it is stated at this juncture, “In support of that view which has the strongest proofs, it is that there is tawaqquf in the initial (ruling) of all things. Therefore the permissibility of permissible things is not known, except through the statement or action of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam.”
Also at this juncture, a similar comment is stated in Tahtaawi, in the footnote of Durrul Mukhtaar.
It is stated in Ta’liqaat-e-Sharah Manaar, “Our companions have stated that the initial (ruling) in this matter is tawaqquf…This is the most correct view in my opinion in this chapter, because in those matters which the Shariah has maintained silence, the most cautious and safest avenue is to practice tawaqquf. This is also the math-hab (way) of Hadhrat Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmaan and other senior Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum ajmaeen). The correct view is that the initial ruling of Hurmat (impermissibility) is applicable to all actions. This is the view of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), the Ahle Bait and the Ahle Kufa. This is also the view of Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh).” [Extracted from Al-Junna, page 165]
Now consider this text. The view of many senior Sahabah (radhiyallahu anhum) is that tawaqquf be exercised as an original ruling in matters wherein the Shariah has maintained silence and then according to other great Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum), like Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu) and also Imaam Abu Hanifah (rahmatullah alayh), the initial ruling is to be regarded to be one of Hurmat.
Sheikh Ahmad Mullah Jeeyoon Al-Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 1130 A.H.] writes, “The initial ruling in things is permissibility, as is the view of one group. However, the jamhoor (majority) are opposed to this view. They are of the opinion that the initial ruling in anything is Hurmat. Imaam Shaafi (rahmatullah alayh) states that there is nevertheless, Hurmat, initially in any thing.” [Tafseer Ahmadi, page 6]
The famous Muhaqqiq Aalim Muhibbullaah Bahaari Al-Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 1109 A.H.] writes, “Ibaahat (permissibility) is a Shar’i ruling and it is a proclamation for the Shariah where the choice to do or not to do has been granted (by the Shariah).” [Musallimuth Thuboot, page 45]
‘Allamah Ibn Rushd (rahmatullah alayh) states, “Mubaah is the choice to do or not to do.” [Bidaayatul Mujtahid, vol. 1, page 4]
Mullah Mubeen states in the commentary of Musallim, “Mubaah is in reality the Shariah’s way of granting the choice between executing and not executing an action.”
Imaam Muhammad bin Muhammad Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 505 A.H.] writes, “The definition of Mubaah is that there is permission from Allaah Ta’ala to carry out an action or to abandon it. This excludes any censure or praise for the one who executes it and censure or praise for the one who does not execute it.” [Al-Mustasfa, vol. 1, page 66]
From all the above text we see that Mubaah is also a Shar’i hukm which gives one the choice to carry out or abandon an act. No act is granted the status of being Mubaah without the express statement or action of Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Although some have stated that the initial ruling in a thing is Ibaahat, the majority oppose this view. The express view of Hadhrat Ali (radhiyallahu anhu), the Ahle Bait, the Fuqaha and Muhadditheen of Kufa (rahmatullah alayhim), especially Imaams Abu Hanifah and Shaafi (rahmatullah alayhima) is that there is initially Hurmat in a thing. The rest of the majority opine that (at least) there is Tawaqquf. In fact, the author of Durrul Mukhtaar has explicitly stated, “The most authentic view of the Ahle Sunnah is that there is tawaqquf (as the initial ruling) in all things, and the ruling of Ibaahat is the view of the Mu’tazilahs.” [Durrul Mukhtaar, vol. 1, page 345]
Mufti Saheb should have asked the meaning of this text from someone else, at least. He should contemplate over the fact that whose view is it that there is initially Ibaahat in things. Since there is no consensus on the asl, how then will be permissible to open the doors of Qiyaas and base the perpetrations of bid’ah thereupon? As for those Ulama who opine for Ibaahat, they also differentiate between factors of material and spiritual. Mullah Muhibbullah Saheb (rahmatullah alayh) states in his great and in-depth work, “However, as for the difference of opinion that exists amongst the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat that there is Ibaahat in the initial of everything and action, as is the view of the majority of Hanafis and Shaafi’is, or whether there is prohibition (in the initial of every action), as other Ulama opine, the conciliatory path between these views is as Imaam Sadrul Islaam has stated that there is initial Ibaahat in material and monetary issues, but in spiritual matters, precaution and prohibition is the Initial (ruling).” [Musallimuth Thuboot, page 22]
From this text we realise that the difference of opinion between the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat is not restricted to only Ibaahat and Tawaqquf, it extends to the difference between Ibaahat and precaution/ prohibition. If the one group opine that the initial ruling in things is Ibaahat, then the other say there is prohibition. Imaam Sadrul Islaam, clears this mist for us and explains that the Ibaahat is in matters pertaining to wealth and material things, whereas the prohibition and precaution apply to matters pertaining to the spiritual self.
Secondly, as for those who opine that the asl in everything is Ibaahat, we gather that their import in this view is that this applies to matters of habit and external issues and not to matters of Ibaadat. They accept this view insofar as social etiquette is concerned and not to Ibaadaat. If this was not the case, then every person could them initiate new acts of Ibaadat and rule that it would be permissible. For example, let us assume that some bid’ah-loving person decides to introduce a sixth Salaat for the day, and also that in every Rakaat of this Salaat he says there should be two rukus and four sajdahs each. So now, do we grant acceptability to this new idea based on the view that there is Ibaahat in every asl? In short, to extend and apply this rule of Ibaahat in asl to acts of Ibaadat is sheer ignorance.
Allamah Abu Is’haq Shaatbi Gharnaati (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 790 A.H.] writes, “It is incorrect to aver that in acts of Ibaadat there is a difference of opinion. (It cannot be argued whether) There is in (an act of Ibaadat) asl Ibaahat or asl prohibition. The reason being that in acts of Ibaadat, The Shaari’ had stipulated and decreed them. If we assume that a person introduces a sixth Salaat (for the day), then we cannot say that based on the asl of acts being permissible, this is also acceptable, and that a sane person has the right to introduce such (things in the Shariah). This will be absolutely baatil.” [Al-I’tisaam, vol. 1, page 301]
Allamah Abdur Rahmaan bin Ahmad bin Rajab Al-Hambali (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 795 A.H.] writes, “If any person adds to a Mashroo’ (Shar`i prescribed) act that which is not Mashroo’, will be rejected. There will be no reward for this addition and sometimes it so happens that because of this addition the actual act is nullified. For example, if a person adds a rakaat to a Salaat. Sometimes it so happens that the act in itself is not rendered baatil, like if a person makes wudhu four times (in succession), however, there will be no reward for this.” [Jaamiul Uloom wal Hikam, page 43]
From this we understand that if the commission or omission of any act is prescribed in the Shariah, then to add or subtract to it according to one’s own whims and fancies is rejected. Sometimes, due to this addition the actual act is rendered completely null and void. Besides being rejected, there is no reward for such additions or subtractions. This is not regarded as a means of gaining proximity or as an ibaadat.
Thirdly, this difference between the Fuqaha regarding asl Ibaahat, tawaqquf or prohibition in things refers to matters which existed before the advent and coming of the Shariah. That is, before Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) was sent with the Message.
One group opine Ibaahat in all things and the other precaution or Tawaqquf (excluding of course kufr, which has remained Haraam through all ages). In other words this difference of opinion is regarding matters which prevailed prior to the advent of the Shariah and not after. After the Shariah had been established this question does not even arise as to whether there is Ibaahat, prohibition, precaution or Tawaqquf, because every act should remain and is within the confines of the Shariah. There is absolutely no scope to increase or decrease in any Shar’i ruling. Hence, the issue of Ibaahat-e-asli does not benefit the pernicious intentions of Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan Saheb and others. Allamah Abdul Ali Bahrul Uloom Al-Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 1225 A.H.] writes, “By studying the statements of the Ulama-e-Kiraam we realise that this difference pertains to the time prior to the advent of the Shariah.”
After discussing this mas’alah in detail, he states further, “After researching this matter we realise that this difference pertains to the era of fitrah (initial stages), where due to the shortcomings of the former peoples the Shariah was declining. The result was that those people who came after the Shariah was totally destroyed, where they had no realisation of the laws and rules of the Shariah, this ignorance created a reason that every action was regarded as being (initially) permissible. That is, they would not be punished because of executing the act or for abandoning it, as is the ruling with all Mubaah acts. This is the maslak of the majority Hanafis and Shaafis…And this issue (i.e. the view of Ibaahat-e-asliya refers to the era prior to our Shariah, which was the era of fitrah. There was no real harm in this, and it excluded kufr, which remained Haraam in all eras and times.” [Fawaatihur Rahmoot, vol. 1, page 49, 50]
It is apparent from this text that the preferred view of the majority Hanafis and Shaafis is that Ibaahat-e-Asli regards the era prior to the advent of the Shariah. They most certainly do not opine this view to be applicable, after the Shariah had been revealed. This is clear and apparent as is gleaned from many Kitaabs, like Badaaius Sanaa’i, that this difference existed regarding the era prior to the Shariah. The specific words, “prior to the Shariah” and “prior to Nabuwwat” are to be taken into account.
Summary: Ibaahat-e-Asli being applicable to all things is not the unanimous view of the Fuqaha-e-kiraam, in fact according to the author of Durrul Mukhtaar this is the view of the Mu’tazilahs, and not the Ahle Sunnah. Many Ulama amongst the Ahle Sunnah have opted for Tawaqquf, precaution and Hurmat. And this also is not applicable to Ibaadaat, only to Ma’mulaat. Also the view of Ibaahat-e-Asli only refers to the era prior to the Shariah and not after. Therefore to use this as a proof to substantiate the vile perpetrations of bid’ah, as is being done by the likes of Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan Saheb etc. is treason to the Deen of Islaam. May Allah Ta`ala save every Muslim from this.
Grave Worshippers Proving a bid’ah with the Hadith “He who initiates a virtuous act…”, and its reply
Many bid’ah lovers quote this Hadith in substantiation of their vile perpetrations, therefore it is appropriate that we proffer a suitable reply. The words of the Hadith are as follows: “Whoever initiates in Islaam a virtuous act, and it is carried out after him (his demise), then it is recorded for him the reward of the executers, without their rewards being diminished in the least.” [Muslim Shareef, vol. 2, page 341]
It is absolutely baatil and spurious to use this Hadith to substantiate bid’ah. Firstly, it is apparent from the narrations of Hadhrat Abu Hurairah (radhiyallahu anhu) –see Mishkaat vol. 1 page 30—Hadhrat Abdullaah ibn Abbaas (radhiyallahu anhu) –see Mishkaat vol.1 page 30—and Hadhrat Ghadeef bin Haarith Ath Thamaali (radhiyallahu anhu) —see Mishkaat vol.1 page 31—that Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said “He who holds on fast to my Sunnat…” and he said “he who holds on fast to a good act”, these narrations indicate that it is the duty of the Ummat to tread the Sunnah and hold on fast to it.
Secondly, it is also narrated in the same narration, “Whosoever makes a call to guidance”, [Muslim Shareef, vol. 2 page 341 / Ibn Majah page19 / Majmaus Zawaaid vol. 1 page 168]. Through another chain, this same narration goes as follows, “Whoever livens a Sunnat from amongst my Sunnats, which has died after me…” [Ibn Majah page 19 / Tirmidhi vol. 2 page 92 / Mishkaat vol. 1 page 30].
In another narration it is stated, “Whosoever livens a Sunnat from amongst my Sunnats, and the people practice upon it…” [Ibn Majah page 19]
In another narration, “That person who treads a good path…” [Ibn Majah page 19]
In another narration it is stated, “Whoever teaches someone knowledge, then for him is the reward of the one who practices it, without any decrease in the reward of the executer.” [Ibn Majah, page 21]
All these narrations are explanations and clarifications of the one brief narration, that the import is not to initiate an act, rather to call towards it, educate regarding it, enliven it, practice upon it and to call others towards practicing it. To take the meaning of this narration as initiating a new act, is incorrect, and is in contrary to these narrations.
And thirdly, the import of this Hadith is that the thing which has proof in the Shariah, be it dalaalatun (direct) or ishaaratan (indirect), then there would be reward in its implementation. And also, this should be such an act whose causative factor and proposer was not present during the Khairul Quroon and only came into existence thereafter. It should also be such that it falls within the ambit of the four proofs of the Shariah (Adillah-e-Arba’a). The condition of the act being hasana (good) is also coupled with the narration and according to the Ahle Sunnat Wal Jamaat, no act can be classified as either good or bad, unless it is established so by the Shariah. The Shariah has cut bid’ah in its roots, so wherefrom can its goodness and benefit be established? In essence to prove bid’ah with this narration is crass ignorance and an open rebellious act against the Shariah.
Another error of Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan and his ilk
Most of the Ahle Bid’ah quote one Hadith in substantiation of their accretions, just as Mufti Ahmad Yaar Khaan had done. He writes, “Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘Whatever the Muslims regard as good, Allah Ta`ala also regards as good.’” [Jaa al Haqq, page 301]
Keeping this narration in front of him, he says with reference to all bid’ahs that since the general Muslim public regard them as good, therefore Allah Ta’ala also regards them likewise, therefore there will be no punishment or sin in executing them.
There are a number of necessary pointers to consider in the discussion of this Hadith. The first point is that although some Fuqaha have classified this Hadith as Marfu’, it is not so. In fact, it is Mauquf on Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu). In this regard, Allamah Jamaaluddeen Az-Zaila’ee Al-Hanafi (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 761 A.H.] writes, “I have not found it except to be Mauquf on Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu).” [Nasbur Ra’ya, vol. 4, page 133]
The famous Muhaddith Allamah Imaam Silaahuddeen Abu Saeed Alaa’i (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away741 A.H.] states, “I have not found it (this Hadith) Marfu’ in any of the Hadith kitaabs nor with a weak sanad, even after a detailed and exhaustive search and questioning. However it is Mauquf on the statement of Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu).” [Fathul Mulhim, vol. 2, page 409]
There is no doubt that the statement of a Sahaabi, especially one of the calibre of Hadhrat Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu), is very reliable and weighty. However, insofar as the categorisation of the Ahadith is concerned and in Usool-e-Hadith, the difference between marfu’ and Mauquf, is something which we cannot simply ignore. The status of a marfu’ Hadith from Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) is certainly not the statement of any Sahaabi, albeit (the latter) correct. Haafidh Ibn Kathir (rahmatullah alayh), mentions after citing this Mauquf statement of Hadhrat Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ud, “(Its) sanad is Saheeh.” [Al Bidaya wan Nihaya, vol. 10, page 328]
The second point is what exactly is meant by ‘Muslims’? If the alif and laam in the word ‘Muslimoon’ were for jinns (to denote the entire Ummat), then every one of the 73 sects of this Ummat will be successful, because each one of them believes their actions and deeds to be good, and it would also conflict with the Hadith of “that upon which I and my Companions are.” If the alif and laam were to denote istighraak, that whatever the entire Ummat regard as good then Allaah Ta’ala also regards that as good, this would imply Ijma of the Ummat. What doubt is there in Ijma of the Ummat being good? This view would not suit the Ahle Bid’ah, because their bid’ahs were not present during the Khairul Quroon, hence there is no complete consensus of the Muslim Ummah. And if alif and laam were to denote one special group amongst the Ummat, who if they deem an act to be good then Allaah Ta’ala also regards it good, then this group has to be of a high calibre. In that case, according to the Hadith of “that upon which I and my Companions are”, this would refer to the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhu). In this case, it would be correct, because whatever the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) regarded as good, was indeed good. If we view this narration of Hadhrat Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu) in conjunction with other narrations of his, we will note that by the use of the ‘Muslimoon’ he refers to the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum).
Imaam Abu Dawood Tayaalisi (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 204 A.H.] has reported this narration in the following words, “Indeed Allaah Ta`ala looked into the hearts of His servants and in accordance to His knowledge He chose Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and sent him with His Message, then He looked into the hearts the people after him and He chose for him his Companions, and made them helpers in His Deen and the ambassadors of His Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). Whatever the Muslims deem good, it is good in the Sight of Allaah Ta’ala, and whatever they deem evil is likewise according to Allaah Ta’ala.” [Tayaalisi, page 33] (More or less the same words appear in Musnad Ahmad / Zaila’i, vol. 4, page 13 / Diraayat, page 306]
Imaam Abu Abdullah Al-Haakim (rahmatullah alayh) [passed away 405 A.H.], reports this narration with an authentic sanad (authenticated by both Imaam Haakim and Allamah Dhahabi), in the following way, “Whatever the Muslims see as good, it is in the Sight of Allaah good and whatever the Muslims see as evil, it is in the Sight of Allaah evil, and the entire group of Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) appointed Abu Bakr (radhiyallahu anhum) as Khalifah (since they deemed it as good, hence Allaah Ta`ala regarded it likewise).” [Al Mustadrak, vol. 3, page 78]
From these narrations we see that according to Hadhrat Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu) the word ‘Muslimoon’ refers to the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). In fact, it clearly specifies that it refers to the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum).
“It is reported that Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu) said, ‘Whosoever wishes to follow the Sunnat, then he should follow in the footsteps of those who had passed away, because those who are still alive are not immune from fitnahs. They (those whom you should follow) are the Companions of Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), who were the most virtuous of this Ummat. Their hearts were the most pure, their knowledge most deep and they were most informal (free from excesses and pomp). Allah Ta’ala had chosen them to be the companions of His Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) and to establish His Deen. Recognise their virtue, follow in their footsteps and hold on, to the best of your ability, to their character and way of life. They were Straight Guided Path.” [Mishkaat, vol. 1, page 32]
This narration is explicit in the fact that Hadhrat Abdullaah Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu) regards the word ‘Muslimoon’ to mean the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). On the one hand, Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (radhiyallahu anhu) emphasised and encouraged following in the footsteps of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum) and warned against innovating acts contrary to their way.
“Follow in our footsteps, and do not innovate because you have been sufficed (with the perfect Deen).” [Al-I’tisaam, vol. 1, page 54]
On the other hand, he ejected from the Masjid some persons who had innovated a loud Thikr program there. On that occasion, he did not categorise the action of these people under the narration of “that which the Muslims see as good…”, because it conflicted with the way of the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum).
The third point is that since it has now been established that the word ‘Muslimoon’ in this narration refers to the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum), and that whatever they deem as good, Allah Ta’ala also regards as good and whatever they deem evil, Allaah Ta’ala also regards likewise. There can be no difference from the Ahle Bid’ah that most if not all, the innovations which they so rigidly adhere to, are not established from the Sahaabah (radhiyallahu anhum). If these actions were any good in their opinion, then they would most certainly not have passed them by, and if they were not evil in their opinion, then they would certainly not have omitted their execution. Their knowledge was also very deep and expansive, and they also had profound love for Nabi (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam).
They had great fear for Allah Ta’ala and immense concern for the Aakhirah. Hence, if they deemed an act to be evil and they did not carry it out, then certainly that thing is evil and detested in the Sight of Allah Ta”ala. This narration is in fact a strong proof against the perpetration of bid’ah, and not one in their favour! This will be discerned by those whom Allah Ta’ala had bestowed the good fortune to understand and follow the Sunnah. Alhamdulillah!