لانحراف في باب البدعة والتّبديع في مسائل الخلاف الفقهيّ المعتبر في الواقع المعاصر: دراسة تحليليّة نقديّة

The doctrinal dispute occurred in the issues of branches since the time of the Companions - may Allah be pleased with them - and the followers and their followers - may Allah have mercy on them. They are the best of generations. Doctrinal dispute also occurred between the imams of the reputable Sunni sects, and this disagreement did not lead them to hatred, intersection and controversy, rather they were loving and fraternal. One who looks at the contemporary reality finds a clear deviation in the field of heresy and innovation in issues of plausible doctrinal dispute, and in cases of jurisprudence, where the contrary statement is called heresy, and the one who says it is described as an innovator in the religion. Therefore, this research came to clarify the limits of heresy and innovation, and to clarify the controls of justifiable disagreement in jurisprudential issues, while highlighting examples of justifiable jurisprudential dispute issues, and responding to the arguments of those who accuse the opposing statement of heresy, and describe the person as an innovator. To achieve these goals, the researcher used the inductive, analytical and deductive method. The most important results reached by the researcher is that one of the most important limits of heresy and innovation is that it be a religious issue, not a worldly issue; that it is similar to Shariah matter; that the innovator intends to use it to become closer to Allah; that worship be specified in a specific time or place; or that it be adapted to an issue that lacks text in the Shari’a; that the innovator be pious, proven to be knowledgeable of the legal rulings and the principles of innovation; and that innovation should not be in matters of legitimate jurisprudential dispute. Among the rules of justifiable disagreement in doctrinal issues is that the disagreement should not be in the issues that are considered to be from the origins of the religion or from what is known of necessity or unanimously agreed upon; that the disagreement should not be in the issues in which there is a valid and clear legal text; that the disagreement in the matter is not based on an unrecognized principle; that the disagreement in it is emanating from well-established and diligent scholars. Issues of valid disagreement or issues of Ijtihad in which the well-established scholars differed are many, so it is not appropriate to attribute the opposing statement to heresy, because it is one of the sub-issues in which there is no denial.