In the Shade of the Green Dome

that new practices or acts, for which there is a basis within the religion, are permissible. But this is an oft-quoted hadith to prove that a number of everyday practices of Muslims are haram (forbidden). What is dismissed though, is the essence of the part of the hadith, ‘what is not from within religion, that is rejected’. Essentially, this means that any innovation that has no basis in the religion is rejected. Being ‘from within religion’ or having basis in religion means that the act in question is at least permissible due to the absence of any ruling against it. Clearly, it is not a permission to change the status of an act; for example downgrading an act, which is fardh (obligatory) to being sunnah, which doubtlessly, would be an innovation. By the same token, pronouncing an act haram even though it is permissible by virtue of absence of any ruling prohibiting it, would – in itself be an innovation. Drawing lines and putting barriers of one’s own accord, without any basis in sharia is distortion of religion. There is an explicit hadith condemning people who try to change the boundaries laid out by Allah.

The Holy Prophet ‫ ﷺ‬said, "What has happened to people who impose conditions (in religion) which are not present in Allah's Book? Whoever imposes conditions which are not in Allah's Book, his conditions will have no validity, even if he imposed them a hundred times" (Bukhari, hadith 456).

The default position in our religion is that the basis of everything is such that it is permissible, halal and pure unless there is a ruling to the contrary. We therefore are not required to prove that an act is permissible or halal. On the other hand, a proof will be required for proclaiming an act impermissible or haram. If there is difference of opinion on the permissibility of something the only thing needed – to prove that it is permissible and halal will be to invalidate the arguments that