Al-Ghazz?l?’s Identical Definition
H.ujjat al-Isl?m al-Ghazz?l? said in his discussion of the adding of dots to the Qur’anic script:
The fact that this is innovated (muh.dath) forms no impediment to this. How many innovated matters are excellent! As it was said concerning the establishing of congregations in Tar?w?h. that it was among the innovations of ‘Umar t and that it was an excellent innovation (bid‘a h.asana). The blameworthy bid‘a in only what opposes the ancient Sunna or might lead to changing it.
Ibn al-‘Arab? al-M?lik?’s Identical Definition
The Q?d.? Ab? Bakr Ibn al-‘Arab? said in his discussion of bid‘a:
Know – May All?h grant you knowledge! – that innovated matters are two kinds (al-muh.dath?tu d.arb?n). [1] An innovated matter that has no basis other than lust and arbitrary practice. Such is categorically invalid. And [2] An innovated matter understood to correspond to something [established]. Such is the Sunna of the Caliphs and that of the eminent Im?ms. Innovated matters and innovations are not blameworthy merely for being called muh.dath and bid‘a nor because of their meaning! All?h Most High has said, (Never comes there unto them a new (muh.dath) reminder from their Lord) (21:2) and ‘Umar t said: “What a fine bid‘a this is!” Rather, only the bid‘a that contradicts the Sunna is blameworthy and only the innovated matters that invite to misguidance are blameworthy.”
Ibn H.azm and Ibn al-Jawz?’s Identical Definition
Ibn H.azm al-Z.?hir? said:
Bid‘a in the Religion is everything that did not come to us in the Qur’?n nor from the Messenger of All?h r, except that one is rewarded for some of it and those who do this are excused if they have good intentions. Of it is the rewardable and excellent (h.asan), namely, what is originally permitted (m? k?na as.luhu al-ib?h.a) as was narrated from ‘Umar t: “What a fine bid‘a this is!” Such refers to all good deeds which the texts stipulated in general terms of desirability even if its practice was not fixed in the text. And of it is the blameworthy for which there is no excuse such as what has proofs against its invalidity.
Ibn al-Jawz? speaks in similar terms in the beginning of his Talb?s Ibl?s: “Certain innovated matters (muh.dath?t) have taken place which do not oppose the Sacred Law nor contradict it, so they [the Salaf] saw no harm in practicing them, such as the convening of the people by ‘Umar t for the night prayer in Ramad.?n, after which he saw them and said: ‘What a fine bid‘a this is!’”
Ibn al-Ath?r al-Jazar?’s Identical Definition
The lexicographer Ibn al-Ath?r said in his masterpiece, al-Nih?ya f? Ghar?b al-H.?d?th wal-Athar:
Bid‘a is two kinds: the bid‘a of guidance and the bid‘a of misguidance (bid‘atu hud? wa-bid‘atu d.al?la). Whatever contravenes the command of All?h and His Messenger r: that is within the sphere of blame and condemnation. And whatever enters into the generality of what All?h or His Prophet r commended or stressed: that is within the sphere of praise. Whatever has no precedent such as extreme generosity or goodness – such are among the praiseworthy acts. It is impermissible that such be deemed to contravene the Law because the Prophet r has stipulated that such would carry reward when he said: “Whoever institutes a good practice in Isl?m (man sanna f?l-isl?mi sunnatan h.asana) has its reward and the reward of all those who practice it.” And he said, conversely, “whoever institutes a bad practice in Isl?m (waman sanna f?l-isl?mi sunnatan sayyi’atan) bears its onus and the onus of all those who practice it.” Such is when the act goes against what All?h and His Messenger r commanded.... It is in this sense that the h.ad?th “every innovation is misguidance” is understood: he means, whatever contravenes the bases of the Law and does not concur with the Sunna.
Ibn ‘Abd al-Sal?m’s Final Fivefold Classification
Shaykh al-Isl?m, Sult.?n al-‘Ul?m?’, Im?m al-‘Izz Ibn ‘Abd al-Sal?m similarly said:
There are different types of innovations (bida‘). The first type is whatever the Law indicated as praiseworthy or obligatory and the like of which was not done in the first period of Isl?m. The second type is whatever the Law indicated as forbidden or disliked, and which was not done in the first period of Isl?m. The third type is whatever the Law indicated as indifferently permitted and which was not done in the first period of Isl?m.
Elsewhere he states that the categories of bid‘a are five, identical to the jurists’ classification of deeds: “obligatory” (w?jib), “forbidden” (h.ar?m), “recommended” (mand?b), “disliked” (makr?h), and “permitted” (mub?h.).
Al-Nawaw?’s Endorsement of the Fivefold Classification
Shaykh al-Isl?m, Im?m al-Nawaw? said:
Al-Bid‘a in the Law is the innovating of what did not exist in the time of the Messenger of All?h r and is divided into “excellent” and “bad” (wahya munqasimatun il? h.asana wa qab?h.a). The Shaykh, the Im?m on whose foremost leadership, greatness, standing, and brilliance in all kinds of Islamic sciences there is consensus, Ab? Muh.ammad ‘Abd al-‘Az?z ibn ‘Abd al-Sal?m – All?h have mercy on him and be well-pleased with him! – said toward the end of his book, al-Qaw?‘id [al-Kubr?]: “Innovation is divided into ‘obligatory’ (w?jiba), ‘forbidden’ (muh.arrama), ‘recommended’ (mand?ba), ‘offensive’ (makr?ha), and ‘indifferent’ (mub?h.a). The way [to discriminate] in this is that the innovation be examined in the light of the regulations of the Law (qaw?‘id al-shar?‘a). If it falls under the regulations of obligatoriness (?j?b) then it is obligatory; under the regulations of prohibitiveness (tah.r?m) then it is prohibited; recommendability, then recommended; offensiveness, then offensive; indifference, then indifferent.”