[Fuerfsanv]

I dont see the issue has anything to do with the not so relevent classification of linguistic bidah and technical bidah or so forth. The issue is about what exactly is "new".

Those who accept a good bidah say that a good bidah would be having a basis in the shariah, and hence we know it is "good". If it contridicts shariah, it is "bad". Then there would those which would be neutral/doubtful. They are new and hence called bidah. But they are good because the goodness of it is based on the shariah itself or in other words the shariah itself permits this good bidah.

Those who reject good bidah falls into two categories. One category would accept a innovation which has a basis; meaning the shariah itself permits that particular innovation and does not put a restriction to innovate. But does not call it "bidah" because that permission to innovate is part of shariah itself and therefore not new to the shariah. Hence not really a bidah. There is another category of those who reject bidah whereby they tend towards rejection of qiyas and do not consider permissible to do anything which the prophet sallallahu alaihi wassallam did not specifically do in the exact manner such that no dot or exclaimation mark should be changed or added. The latter category would then sometimes try to further narrow down by categorizing between religion from wordly matters or matters of worship from matters that which are not considered as worship, etc and appply bidah to only one aspect of the classification I.e religion or worship.

If you notice from these three, the first case and the second case are same and their difference is merely linguistic. But the third case has fundamental difference with the first two case. And the real controversy on bidah is between the third case with the other two. And hence not a mere issue of linguistic difference.

Wasalam