This article is in two parts: I. Al-Sh?fi‘?’s definition of bid‘a as either good or bad; II. The division of bid‘a into good and bad among Ahl al-Sunna.
I. Al-Sh?fi‘?’s Definition of Bid‘a as Either “Good” or “Bad”
A major contribution of Im?m al-Sh?fi‘? t in the Foundations of Jurisprudence (us.?l al-fiqh) was his division of innovation (al-bid‘a) and innovated matters (al-muh.dath?t) into “good” and “bad” depending whether they conformed or not to the guidelines of the Religion. This is authentically narrated from al-Sh?fi‘? from two of his most prestigious students in the latter period of his life, the Egyptian h.ad?th Masters H.armala ibn Yah.y? al-Tujayb? and al-Rab?‘ ibn Sulaym?n al-Mur?d?:
57. H.armala said, “I heard al-Sh?fi‘? say: ‘Innovation is two types (al-bid‘atu bid‘at?n): approved innovation (bid‘a mah.m?da) and disapproved innovation (bid‘a madhm?ma). Whatever conforms to the Sunna is approved (mah.m?d) and whatever opposes it is abominable (madhm?m).’ He used as his proof the statement of ‘Umar ibn al-Khat.t.?b about the [congregational] supererogatory night prayers in the month of Ramad.?n: “What a fine innovation this is!”
58. Al-Rab?‘ said, “Al-Sh?fi‘? said to us: ‘Innovated matters are of two kinds (al-muh.dath?tu min al-um?ri d.arb?n): one is an innovation that contravenes (m? uh.ditha yukh?lifu) something in the Qur’?n or the Sunna or a Companion-report (athar) or the Consensus (ijm?‘): that innovation is misguidance (fah?dhihi al-bid‘atu d.al?la). The other kind is the innovation of any and all good things (m? uh.ditha min al-khayr) contravening none of the above, and this is a blameless innovation (wah?dhihi muh.dathatun ghayru madhm?ma). ‘Umar said, concerning the prayers of Ramad.?n: What a fine bid‘a this is! meaning that it was innovated without having existed before and, even so, there was nothing in it that contradicted the above.’”
Thus al-Sh?fi‘? set forth the essential, indispensable criterion for the determination of true bid‘a, as defined, among others, by Im?m al-Haytam?, Q?d.? Ab? Bakr Ibn al-‘Arab?, and Im?m al-Lacknaw? respectively:
“Bid‘a in terms of the Law is everything innovated in contravention of the Lawgiver’s command and the latter’s specific and general proof.”
“Only the bid‘a that contradicts the Sunna is blameworthy.”
“Bid‘a is all that did not exist in the first three centuries and for which there is no basis among the four sources of Isl?m” i.e. Qur’?n, Sunna, Ijm?‘, and Qiy?s.
Consequently, it is not enough for something merely to be novel to be a bid‘a; it must also contradict the Religion.
Al-Bayhaq? commented on al-Rab?‘s report thus:
Similarly, debating with the people of innovations – when they make public their innovations or bring up their insinuations – to refute them and expose their fallacies: even if this is an innovation, nevertheless, it is a praiseworthy one because it consists in refuting what we just mentioned. The Prophet e was asked about Divine foreordainment (al-qadar) and so were some of the Companions, and they replied with the answers that were narrated to us from them. At that time, they contented themselves with the words of the Prophet e and, thereafter, with the reports to that effect. However, in our time, the innovators do not content themselves with such reports nor do they accept them. Therefore, it is necessary to refute their insinuations – when they make them public – with what they themselves consider proofs. And success is through All?h.
This is a clear-cut defense of the necessity and Sunna character of kal?m in the defense against innovators on the part of Im?m al-Bayhaq?. Something similar is reported from Ibn ‘As?kir, Ibn al-S.al?h., al-Nawaw?, Ibn al-Subk?, Ibn ‘?bid?n, and others of the great Im?ms.