Home > The 40 Hadith of Nawawi > Hadith 30 of Nawawi
Hadith number 30 of the collection of the 40 hadiths of Imam an-Nawawi, in a faithful English translation.
Updated on 10 September 2026 at 2:45 AM
📖 35 min readThis hadith belongs to the collection of the 40 hadiths of Imam an-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him), the most studied hadith compilation in the world: foundations of faith, worship and character, all authentic narrations.
Al-Bazzar says: its isnad is sound. At-Tabarani and ad-Daraqutni report it by another route, from Abu al-Darda, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), like the hadith of Abu Tha'laba, and he says at its end: "A mercy from Allah, so accept it"; but its isnad is weak. At-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah report, from the narration of Saif ibn Haroun, from Sulayman at-Taymi, from Abu Uthman, from Salman, may Allah be pleased with him: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked about clarified butter, cheese and skins; he said: "The lawful is what Allah made lawful in His book, and the unlawful what Allah made unlawful in His book; and what He passed over in silence is of what He has pardoned." At-Tirmidhi says: Sufyan, meaning Ibn Uyayna, reports it from Sulayman, from Abu Uthman, from Salman, may Allah be pleased with him, as a Companion's statement, and it seems more correct. He mentions in the book of flaws, from al-Bukhari, that he said of the raised hadith he did not deem it preserved; and Ahmad said: it is repudiated; and Ibn Ma'in repudiated it too. Abu Hatim ar-Razi said: it is an error reported by the trustworthy from at-Taymi, from Abu Uthman, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), as mursal: Salman is not in it. I say: this meaning is reported from Salman by other routes. Ibn Adi reports it from the hadith of Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with both, in raised form, and deemed its isnad weak. Salih al-Marri reports it from al-Jurayri, from Abu Uthman an-Nahdi, from Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her, in raised form; and he erred in his isnad. It is reported from al-Hasan as mursal. Abu Dawud reports from the hadith of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both, who said: "The people of ignorance ate certain things and left others as purism; so Allah sent His prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), sent down His book, made lawful His lawful and unlawful His unlawful: what He made lawful is lawful, what He prohibited is unlawful, and what He passed over in silence is pardon." Then he recited the word of the Most High:
"Say: I find not in what was revealed to me anything forbidden to an eater, unless it be carrion, or blood poured out, or the flesh of swine, for it is impurity, or an animal slaughtered for other than Allah; but whoever is compelled, without desire nor transgression, your Lord is forgiving, merciful."
Al-An'am, 145
And this is a Companion's statement. Ubayd ibn Umayr said: "Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, made lawful lawful things and prohibited unlawful things: what He made lawful is lawful, what He prohibited is unlawful, and what He passed over in silence is pardon."
The hadith of Abu Tha'laba divided Allah's rulings into four categories: obligations, prohibitions, limits, and what is passed over in silence: this embraces all the religion's rulings.
Abu Bakr as-Sam'ani said: "This hadith is a great root of the roots of the religion." And he reported that some said: "There is no hadith, among the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), more comprehensive alone for the roots of knowledge and its branches than the hadith of Abu Tha'laba." And he reported that Abu Wathila al-Muzani said: "The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gathered the religion in four words," then he mentions the hadith of Abu Tha'laba. Ibn as-Sam'ani said: "Whoever acts upon this hadith gains the reward and is safe from the punishment; for whoever fulfills the obligations, avoids the prohibitions, stops at the limits and abandons inquiry into what is outside them has covered all classes of grace and fulfilled the religion's rights; for the Laws do not go beyond the kinds mentioned in this hadith."
As for the obligations: what Allah imposed upon His servants and made binding to perform, like prayer, zakat, fasting and pilgrimage.
The scholars, may Allah be pleased with them, differed: are the duty and the obligation one meaning? Some said: "They are equal: every duty established by a legal proof, from the book, the Sunna, consensus or other proofs of the Law is an obligation." This is famous among the companions of al-Shafi'i and others. A narration from Ahmad is reported, for he said: "Everything in prayer is an obligation." Others said: "Rather, the obligation is what is established by certain proof, and the duty what is established by proof that is not certain." This is the view of the Hanafis and others. Most of Ahmad's texts separate the obligation from the duty: a group of his companions report that he said: "None is called an obligation except what is in the book of Allah, the Most High." And he said of the zakat of breaking the fast: "I dare not say it is an obligation," though he holds it obligatory. Of our companions, some said: "He means the obligation is what is established by the book, and the duty what is established by the Sunna"; others said: "He meant the obligation is what is established by wide diffusion and multiple transmission, and the duty what is established by ijtihad, where disagreement over its being binding is permitted."
This is complicated by Ahmad saying, in the narration of al-Maymouni, on kindness to parents: "It is not an obligation," but I say: a duty, unless there is disobedience. Kindness to parents has consensus on its binding nature, and commands about it multiplied in the book and the Sunna: the apparent is that he calls obligation only what the book and the Sunna named as obligation.
The predecessors differed on enjoining good and forbidding wrong: is it called a religious obligation or not? Jouwaybir reports from ad-Dahhak: "They are obligations of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic." Likewise from Malik. And Abd al-Wahid ibn Zayd reports from al-Hasan that he said: "It is not a religious obligation; it was an obligation upon the children of Israel; Allah had mercy on this community for its weakness, and made it for them a supererogatory act." Abd Allah ibn Shubruma composed famous verses whose first is: "The command, O Amr, to good is supererogatory... and those who do it for Allah are helpers." Ahmad's word on it diverged: is it called a duty or not? A group reports from him what indicates its duty, and Abu Dawud reports from him, regarding the man who watches the tambourine and the like: "Is changing it a duty upon him? He said: I do not know; and I love that it be changed: that would be supererogation." Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh said: "It is a duty upon every Muslim, unless he fears for himself." Ahmad perhaps suspends the general use of the word duty for what is not a duty upon individuals, but upon sufficiency.
The scholars, may Allah be pleased with them, differed over jihad: is it a duty or not? A group denied its being a duty, among them Ata, Amr ibn Dinar and Ibn Shubruma: perhaps they meant this meaning. A group said: "It is a duty," among them Sa'id ibn al-Musayyib and Makhul: perhaps they meant its duty upon sufficiency.
Ahmad said, in the narration of Hanbal: "Raiding is a duty upon all the people, like the obligation of pilgrimage: if some of them raid, they are excused on their behalf; and the people cannot do without raiding." Al-Marwazi asked him about jihad: is it more obligatory? He said: they differed over it, and it is not like pilgrimage. He means that pilgrimage does not lapse for whoever did not perform it, though able, by another's pilgrimage, unlike jihad. And he was asked about the mass departure: when does it become obligatory? He said: "As for its being a duty, I do not know; but if they fear for themselves, they must go out."
The apparent of this: his suspending the general use of the word duty for what the word of obligation did not come for, out of scrupulousness; likewise he suspended the general use of the word unlawful for what is disputed, whose proofs from the book and the Sunna conflict: he said of mut'a marriage of women: "I do not say it is unlawful, but it is prohibited." He did not suspend in the meaning of forbiddance, but in the general use of the word, for the divergence of the texts and the Companions on it. This is the correct view in interpreting Ahmad's word. And he said, of marrying two sisters by right of possession: "I do not say unlawful, but it is prohibited." The correct interpretation is that he suspended the general use of the word "unlawful," not its meaning. All this is scrupulousness in speech, fearing to fall under the word of the Most High:
"And do not say of what your tongues falsely describe: this is lawful and this is unlawful, to forge the lie against Allah."
An-Nahl, 116
Ar-Rabi' ibn Khuthaym said: "Let one of you fear to say: Allah made lawful this, and prohibited that, and Allah says: you lied: I did not make lawful this, nor prohibit that."
Ibn Wahb said: "I heard Malik ibn Anas say: I met our scholars: when one was asked, he said: this I dislike and do not love, without saying lawful or unlawful."
As for what is reported from Ahmad in generalizing obligation: his saying "everything in prayer is an obligation" is not so; rather his son Abd Allah narrated from him: "Everything in prayer that Allah mentioned is an obligation." This returns to the meaning of his word: no obligation except what is in the Qur'an and what Allah corroborated of prayer: standing, recitation, bowing and prostration. Ahmad said this because some people said: prayer is an obligation; bowing and prostration: I do not say obligation, but Sunna.
Malik ibn Anas was asked about one who said that, and declared him a disbeliever; it was said: he interprets it; he cursed him and said: "He said an immense thing!" Abu Bakr an-Naysaburi reports it in his book on Malik's merits by several routes. He also reports by his chain from Abd Allah ibn Umar ibn Maymoun ibn ar-Rammah: I entered upon Malik ibn Anas and said: O Abu Abd Allah! What of prayer is a religious obligation? And what is Sunna, or he said: supererogation? Malik said: "Words of the heretics: expel him."
Ishaq ibn Mansur reports from Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh that he denied dividing prayer's parts into Sunna and duty: he said: "Everything in prayer is a duty," and indicated that of it is what prayer is repeated for if abandoned, and of it what is not.
The cause of this, and Allah knows best: expressing with the word Sunna may lead to heedlessness in doing it, to detachment and abandoning it, contrary to the Lawgiver's intent of urging and encouraging, by ways leading to doing and attaining it: generalizing the word duty invites more to coming to the deed and desiring it.
The general use of duty came in the Lawgiver's speech for what its leaving is no sin, nor punished among the majority: like the major ablution of Friday, likewise the guest's night among many scholars, or most of them: the intent is intensifying the urge to do it and its confirmation.
As for the prohibitions: what Allah, the Most High, protected, forbidding approaching, committing and violating. The certain prohibitions are mentioned in the book and the Sunna, like the word of the Most High:
"Say: come, I will recite what your Lord has forbidden you: associate nothing with Him, be good to parents, kill not your children in poverty, We provide for you and them, approach not indecencies, apparent or hidden, kill not the soul Allah has forbidden except with right: this He enjoins upon you, that you may understand."
Al-An'am, 151
to the end of the three verses; and His word:
"My Lord has forbidden only indecencies, apparent and hidden, sin and unjust aggression, to associate with Allah that for which He sent no authority, and to say of Allah what you know not."
Al-A'raf, 33
Some verses mention the prohibitions specific to a kind, like the food prohibitions, in places of His word:
"Say: I find not in what was revealed to me any food forbidden to an eater, unless it be carrion, or blood poured out, or the flesh of swine, for it is impurity, or an animal slaughtered for other than Allah."
Al-An'am, 145
and His word:
"He has only forbidden you carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, and what is slaughtered for other than Allah."
Al-Baqara, 173
And in another verse:
"And what is slaughtered for other than Allah."
Al-Baqara, 173
and His word:
"Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, what is slaughtered for other than Allah, the strangled, the beaten to death, the fallen, the gored, what wild beasts devoured, except what you slaughter, and what is slaughtered on altars, and dividing by arrows."
Al-Ma'ida, 3
He mentions the marriage prohibitions in His word:
"Forbidden to you are your mothers, your daughters."
An-Nisa, 23
And He mentions the earning prohibitions in His word:
"And Allah made trade lawful, and usury unlawful."
Al-Baqara, 275
As for the Sunna, it mentions many prohibitions, like the Prophet's saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Allah prohibited selling wine, carrion, swine and idols." And His saying: "When Allah prohibits a thing, He prohibits its price." And His saying: "Every intoxicant is unlawful." And His saying: "Your bloods, your wealths and your honors are sacred to you." Whatever is declared forbidden in the book and the Sunna is unlawful.
Forbiddance may be derived from prohibition with threat and intensification, as in the word of the Mighty and Majestic:
"Wine, gambling, altars and divining arrows are only impurity of Satan's work: avoid them, that you may succeed. Satan only wants to cast enmity and hatred between you through wine and gambling, and to turn you from the remembrance of Allah and from prayer: will you not then desist?"
Al-Ma'ida, 90-91
As for bare prohibition, people differed: is forbiddance derived from it or not? It is reported from Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with both, his denying deriving forbiddance from it. Ibn al-Mubarak reports: Salam ibn Abi Muti' informed us, from Ibn Abi Dakhila, from his father: I was with Ibn Umar; he said: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade raisins and dates, meaning mixing them. A man behind me said: what did he say? I said: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade raisins and dates. Abd Allah ibn Umar said: "You lied." I said: did you not say: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade them: would it then be unlawful? He said: "Do you testify to that?" Salam said: he meant: the Prophet's prohibition (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is etiquette. We already mentioned, among the scrupulous scholars like Ahmad and Malik, guarding the general use of the word unlawful for what its forbiddance is not certain, where doubt or disagreement is. An-Nakha'i said: "They disliked things without forbidding them." Ibn Awne said: Makhul said to me: "What do you say of fruit cast among people who scramble for it?" I said: "With us it is disliked." He said: unlawful? Ibn Awne said: we were relieved by that word of Makhul. Ja'far ibn Muhammad said: I heard a man ask Qasim ibn Muhammad: is singing unlawful? Qasim fell silent; he returned and he fell silent; he returned, and he said to him: "The unlawful is what Allah forbade in the Qur'an. Truth and falsehood are brought before Allah: where is singing?" The man said: in falsehood. He said: "Judge for yourself." Abd Allah, son of Imam Ahmad, said: I heard my father say: of what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) prohibited, some are unlawful things, like his prohibiting marrying a woman over her paternal aunt or maternal aunt: this is unlawful; and prohibiting the skins of beasts: this is unlawful; and he mentioned things of this kind. And among them are things he prohibited that are etiquette.
As for Allah's limits whose threshold He forbade crossing: the whole of what He permitted to be done, whether by way of obligation, recommendation or permissibility. Crossing them is passing from that to committing what is prohibited, as the Most High said:
"And these are Allah's limits: whoever crosses Allah's limits wrongs himself."
At-Talaq, 1
Meaning one who divorces outside what Allah commanded and permitted. And the Most High said:
"Those are Allah's limits: do not transgress them; whoever transgresses Allah's limits, they are the wrongdoers."
Al-Baqara, 229
Meaning one who retains the wife after divorce without kindness, or releases her without generosity, or takes back some of what he gave the woman other than by the way of compensation Allah permitted. And the Most High said:
"Those are Allah's limits: whoever obeys Allah and His messenger, He admits him to gardens beneath which rivers flow, abiding therein: that is the great success. And whoever disobeys Allah and His messenger and crosses His limits, He admits him to a fire abiding therein, and he will have a humiliating punishment."
An-Nisa, 13-14
Meaning one who exceeds what Allah prescribed for heirs: favoring one heir, increasing him beyond his right, or diminishing him from it. That is why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in his sermon at the farewell pilgrimage: "Allah has given every rightful one his right: there is no bequest for an heir." And an-Nuwas ibn Sim'an, may Allah be pleased with him, reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Allah set forth the example of a straight path, and on its two sides two walls, with open gates and lowered curtains; at the gate of the path a caller calls: O people! Enter the path, all of you, and do not swerve; and a caller calls from above the path: when he intends to open one of those gates, he says: woe to you! Open it not: if you open it, you will enter it. The path is Islam; the two walls are Allah's limits; the open gates are Allah's prohibitions; that caller at the head of the path is the Book of Allah; and the caller from above is Allah's preacher in the heart of every Muslim." Imam Ahmad reports it, and this is his wording; an-Nasa'i in his tafsir, and at-Tirmidhi, who deemed it good. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave Islam as an example in this hadith by a straight path: the easy, wide way leading its taker to what he seeks, yet straight, without crookedness: this entails its nearness and easiness; on the two sides of the path, right and left: two walls, which are Allah's limits; as the wall prevents whoever is inside from transgressing and passing beyond it, Islam prevents whoever entered it from leaving its bounds and transgressing them. Nothing beyond what Allah delimited of the permitted is but what He prohibited. That is why He praised the keepers of His limits and blamed whoever knows not the limit of the lawful from the unlawful, as the Most High said:
"The Bedouins are stronger in disbelief and hypocrisy, and more likely not to know the limits of what Allah sent down upon His messenger."
At-Tawba, 97
The hadith of the Qur'an preceded, saying to whoever acts upon it: he kept my limits; and to whoever did not: he transgressed my limits. Whoever does not pass beyond what he is permitted into what is prohibited has kept Allah's limits; and whoever transgresses that has transgressed Allah's limits.
The word limits is also used for the prohibitions themselves: it is then said: approach not Allah's limits, as the Most High said:
"These are Allah's limits: do not approach them."
Al-Baqara, 187
Meaning the prohibition of committing what the verse prohibited of the fast's prohibited things and of retreat in the mosques. Of this meaning, naming the prohibitions limits, is the Prophet's saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The example of the one who stands at Allah's limits and flatters in them is like a people who divided a ship": the famous hadith. He meant by the one standing at Allah's limits: the denier of the prohibitions, the forbiddal of them. And in the hadith of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "I take you by your waistbands: fear the Fire, fear the limits." He said it three times. At-Tabarani and al-Bazzar report it. He meant by the limits: Allah's prohibitions and disobediences. Of this is the saying of the man who said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): say: I have incurred a limit, carry it out on me. The deterrent punishments for gross prohibitions are also called limits: the limit of fornication, the limit of theft, the limit of drinking wine. Of this is the Prophet's saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to Usama: "Do you intercede in a limit of Allah's limits?" Meaning the judgment in theft. This is the known meaning of the name limit in the jurists' terminology.
As for the Prophet's saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "No lashing beyond ten lashes except in a limit of Allah's limits": people differed over its meaning. Some interpreted the limits here as these determined limits, saying: "the disciplinary punishment does not exceed ten lashes, nor is it exceeded except in these determined limits." Some interpreted the limits here as the kind of Allah's prohibitions, saying: "exceeding ten lashes is not lawful except for committing a prohibition of Allah's prohibitions; as for disciplinary striking for other than a prohibition, it does not exceed ten lashes."
Some carried his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "and delimited limits, transgress them not," upon these deterrent punishments for prohibitions, saying: the intent is the prohibition of exceeding these limits and transgressing them when executing them upon the people of crimes. That was preferred because, had the limits meant stopping at the commands and prohibitions, it would be repetition of his saying: "He prescribed obligations, do not neglect them, and prohibited things, do not violate them." And the matter is not as he said: for stopping at the limits entails not passing from the permitted into the prohibited, which is broader than the permitted being obligation, recommendation or permissibility, as preceded. There is thus no repetition in this hadith, and Allah knows best.
As for what is passed over in silence: what no ruling was mentioned for, neither by making lawful, nor imposing, nor prohibiting: it is pardoned. No hardship upon its doer; the hadiths mentioned here indicate this, like the hadith of Abu Tha'laba and others.
The wordings of Abu Tha'laba's hadith differed: it is reported with the preceding wording. And with another wording: "Allah prescribed obligations, so do not neglect them; He prohibited you things, so do not violate them; and He pardoned things without forgetting: so do not inquire about them." Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh reports it. And with another wording: "Allah prescribed obligations, do not neglect them; He established for you Sunnas, do not violate them; He prohibited you things, do not transgress them; and He left between that things without forgetting, mercy from Him: accept them, and inquire not about them." At-Tabarani reports it. This version shows that the pardoned is what its mention was left, neither prohibited nor made lawful; but it should be known that mentioning a thing as lawful or unlawful may escape understanding from the texts of the book and the Sunna: the indication of these texts may be by way of explicit statement, or by way of generality and comprehensiveness, or its indication by way of implication and allusion, as in the word of the Most High:
"Say not to them: fie! And repel them not."
Al-Isra, 23
the entry of what is greater than "fie" among the kinds of harm is by way of the more worthy, and that is called the implication of accordance. Its indication may be by way of the implication of contradiction, like the Prophet's saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "On the freely grazing flock, the zakat": its implication indicates there is no zakat in other than the freely grazing flock; the majority took that, considered the implication of contradiction, and made it a proof. Its indication may be of analogy: when the Lawgiver (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) states a ruling on a thing for a meaning, and that meaning exists in another, the ruling extends to all in which that meaning exists, among the majority of scholars: this is of the justice and balance Allah sent down, and He commanded being guided by it. All this is what the texts' indication of making lawful and prohibiting is known by. As for what all that is excluded from, here it is inferred from the absence of mentioning obligation or prohibition that it is pardoned.
Here are two paths: the first: it is said: no obligation nor prohibition except by the Law; and the Law did not prescribe this, nor prohibit it: it is then neither duty nor unlawful; such is argued to deny the obligation of the prescribed night prayer and the sacrifice, or the unlawfulness of the lizard, and the like, or the unlawfulness of some disputed contracts: mutual irrigation and sharecropping. This returns to maintaining the presumption of innocence, where nothing indicates its engagement; and this argument is valid only for one who knows the kinds of the Law's proofs and examined them: if he certifies, in addition, the absence of what indicates obligation or prohibition, he certifies the negation of duty and prohibition, as he certifies the absence of a sixth obligatory prayer, or fasting a month other than Ramadan, or zakat's obligation on non-zakatable wealth, or a pilgrimage other than the pilgrimage of Islam. Though all this is established by explicit texts: if he supposes the absence of what indicates obligation or prohibition, he supposes the negation of duty and prohibition without certainty.
The second path: one mentions, of the Law's general proofs, what indicates that what the Law does not prescribe and does not prohibit is pardoned; like this hadith of Abu Tha'laba, and the hadiths of its meaning mentioned with it. And like his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), when asked about pilgrimage every year: "Leave me with what I left you: those before you perished only by their many questions and their differing with their prophets; when I prohibit you something, avoid it; and when I command you a matter, do of it what you can." And like his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), in the hadith of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him: "The greatest of the Muslims in sin against the Muslims is one who asked about a thing not forbidden that became forbidden because of his asking." The Qur'an indicated the like of this also in places, like His word:
"Say: I find not in what was revealed to me any food forbidden to an eater, unless it be carrion, or blood poured out."
Al-An'am, 145
this indicates that what its prohibition is not established for is not unlawful; likewise His word:
"Why should you not eat of that over which Allah's name has been mentioned, when He has detailed to you what He prohibited you, except what you are compelled to?"
Al-An'am, 119
He rebuked them for leaving food over which Allah's name was not mentioned, explaining that He has shown them the unlawful, and this is not of it: indicating things are founded on permissibility; otherwise He would not attach blame to one who abstains from eating what no text made lawful merely because no text stated its prohibition.
Know that this question is not the question of the ruling of persons before the Law's coming: was it prohibition, permissibility, or no ruling? For that question is posed before the Law's coming; but after its coming, these texts and their like indicated that the ruling of that origin ceased, and it became established that the origin in things is permissibility, by the Law's proofs. Some reported consensus on that, and misled those who equated the two questions, making their ruling one. Imam Ahmad's word indicates that what does not enter the texts of prohibition is pardoned. Abu al-Harith said: I said to Abd Allah, meaning Ahmad: the bird folk slaughter some birds we do not know; what do you see of eating them? He said: "Whatever has no talon and does not eat carrion, there is no harm in." He thus restricted the prohibition of birds to the taloned one, with the texts upon it, and the carrion-eater, for it is in the meaning of the raven stated; and he ruled permissibility of what exceeds them both.
The hadith of Ibn Abbas mentioned before indicates the like of this. And Salman the Persian's hadith contains the prohibition of asking about cheese, clarified butter and skins: for cheese was made in the land of the Magians and their like of the disbelievers; likewise the clarified butter; likewise the skins are brought from them, and their slaughters are carrion. This is argued for the permissibility of the carrion's milk and its whey, and the permissibility of the Magians' foods. In all that is a famous disagreement. Or it is carried on that, when the matter is confused, asking and inquiring is not obligatory; as Ibn Umar, may Allah be pleased with both, said when asked about the cheese the Magians make: "I found it in the Muslims' market: I buy it and do not ask about it." Cheese was mentioned before Umar, and it was said: they put the carrion's whey in it? He said: "Name Allah and eat." Imam Ahmad said: "The soundest hadith on this is this hadith, meaning the Magians' cheese." He reports from the hadith of Ibn Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both, that cheese was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) in the raid of Ta'if; he said: "Where is this made?" They said: in Persia. He said: "Bring the knife near, pronounce Allah's name and eat." Imam Ahmad reports it, was asked, and said: it is a repudiated hadith; and Abu Hatim ar-Razi says likewise. Abu Dawud reports it in meaning from the hadith of Ibn Umar, but said in the raid of Tabuk; and Abu Hatim said: it is repudiated too. Abd ar-Razzaq reports it in his book as mursal, and it is closer; he has the addition: it was said to him: O Messenger of Allah! We fear it is carrion; he said: "Name it and eat." At-Tabarani reports its meaning from the hadith of Maymuna, its isnad good, but very strange. In the Sahih of al-Bukhari, from Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her: people said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): people bring us meat and we know not whether Allah's name was mentioned on it; he said: "Name it yourselves and eat." She said: they were recent in disbelief. In the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, from al-Hasan: Umar, may Allah be pleased with him, intended to prohibit the Egyptians' shirts because they were dyed with urine; Ubayy said to him: "That is not yours: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wore them, and we wore them in his time." Al-Khallal reports it by another route: Ubayy said to him: "O Commander of the believers! The prophet of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wore them, and Allah knows their place; had Allah known them unlawful, He would have prohibited them." He said: "You spoke truth." Imam Ahmad was asked about wearing what the People of the Book dye without washing; he said: "Why do you ask what you know not? People have never disapproved that since we knew them." He was asked about Jews dyeing with urine; he said: "The Muslim and the disbeliever are equal in this: ask not about this, nor inquire about it." And he said: "If you know it is inevitably dyed with some urine, and you are sure, pray not in it until you wash it." At-Tirmidhi reports from the hadith of Mughira ibn Shu'ba that two boots were gifted to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and he wore them, not knowing whether they were tanned.
What is argued for inquiry and asking came too: Imam Ahmad reports from the hadith of a woman of Umm Muslim al-Ashja'iyya that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came upon her in a tent and said: "How beautiful! There is no carrion in it!" She said: I began to trace it. The man is unknown. Al-Athram reports by his chain from Zayd ibn Wahb: Umar's letter, may Allah be pleased with him, reached us in Azerbaijan: you are in a land where there is carrion: wear no skins until you know their lawful from their unlawful. Al-Khallal reports by his chain from Mujahid that Ibn Umar saw a skin on a man, touched it and said: "Were I to know it tanned, I would love a garment of it." Muhammad ibn Ka'b said to Aisha, may Allah be pleased with her: what prevents you from taking a quilt of skins? She said: I dislike wearing carrion. Abd ar-Razzaq reports by his chain from Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said to the Muslims descended in Persia: when you buy meat, ask: if it is a Jew's or Christian's slaughter, eat. This is because the Magians dominate Persia's people, and their slaughters are prohibited.
The disagreement on this resembles the disagreement on the permissibility of the food of those disbelievers whose slaughter is not permitted, and on using the utensils and clothes of the polytheists. The disagreement returns to the rule of the conflict of origin and apparent, mentioned before in the discourse on the hadith: "The lawful is clear, the unlawful is clear, and between them are ambiguous matters."
His word, of things passed over in silence, "a mercy without forgetting" means He passed over their mention only as mercy upon His servants, gently, not prohibiting them to punish them for doing them, nor prescribing them to punish them for leaving them, but making them a pardon: if they do them, no hardship upon them; if they leave them, likewise. In the hadith of Abu al-Darda, then he recited:
"And your Lord has not forgotten."
Maryam, 64
and like the word of the Mighty and Majestic:
"In a book wherein my Lord errs not, nor forgets."
Ta-Ha, 52
His saying: "so inquire not about them" may restrict this prohibition to the Prophet's time; for much inquiry and asking about what was not mentioned may cause the descent of intensification by obligation or prohibition. The hadith of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him, indicates this, and the prohibition may be general. What is reported from Salman of his saying indicates it: much inquiry and asking about the ruling of what is mentioned neither in obligations nor prohibitions may cause believing its prohibition or obligation by its resembling some obligations: accepting the pardon in it, leaving inquiry and asking, is better.
This may enter his saying (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Perished the inquirers beyond need," which he said three times. Muslim and Abu Dawud report it from the hadith of Ibn Mas'ud, may Allah be pleased with him, in raised form. The inquirer beyond need is the one who delves and inquires into what does not concern him; some cling to it by holding to the apparent of the wording, denying meanings and analogy: like the literalists.
The verification in this context, and Allah knows best: inquiry into what no specific or general text exists for is of two kinds: the first: seeking its entry into the indications of the correct texts: implication, implicit meaning, and the sound apparent analogy: this is right, and it is of what is obligatory upon the mujtahids in knowing the legal rulings. The second: the examiner refining his gaze and thought on the existence of improbable differences: distinguishing two equivalents by a mere difference showing no effect in the Law, with attributes requiring joining; or joining two separated ones by mere accessory attributes that are neither relevant nor indicated by a proof as having effect in the Law.
This gaze and inquiry are then unpleasing and not praised, though they occurred among groups of jurists. The praised gaze is that conforming to the gaze of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and those after them of the favored generations, like Ibn Abbas and his like. Perhaps this is Ibn Mas'ud's intent, may Allah be pleased with him, in saying: "Beware of inquiring beyond need, beware of delving, and hold to the old." Meaning what the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, were upon. Of the words of some prominent Shafi'i imams: "It does not befit us to suffice with imaginations in differences, as the opinionists do; the secret in that is that the rulings' object, presently, is surmises and their dominations: when two questions' joining is more apparent in surmise than their separation, judging by their joining becomes required, even if a difference is struck at distance: understand that, for it is of the religion's rules."
Of what enters the prohibition of delving and inquiry: the matters of the unseen that faith is commanded with, whose manner is not explained; some may have no witness in this sensible world: inquiring into its manner is of what does not concern, of what is prohibited; it may cause perplexity and doubt, and rise to denial. In the Sahih of Muslim, from Abu Hurayra, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "The people will not cease asking until it is said: Allah created the creation; who created Allah? Whoever finds anything of that, let him say: I believe in Allah." In a narration of his: "The people will not cease asking you about knowledge until they say: Allah created us; who created Allah?" In another version of his: "People will surely ask you about everything until they say: Allah created all things; who created Him?" Al-Bukhari reports it too, its wording: "Satan comes to one of you and says: who created this? Who created that? Until he says: who created your Lord? When he reaches that, let him seek refuge with Allah and desist." In the Sahih of Muslim, from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, said: My community will not cease saying: what of this? What of that? Until they say: Allah created the creation; who created Allah?" Al-Bukhari reports it, its wording: "The people never cease asking: Allah is the creator of all things; who created Allah?"
Ishaq ibn Rahuwayh said: "Reflecting on the Creator is not permitted, and it is permitted for the servants to reflect on the creatures by what they heard of them, not exceeding that; for if they do, they go astray. And Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, said: there is nothing but it glorifies His praise: it is not permitted to say: how do the vessels, the vinegars, the baked bread and the woven clothes glorify? All this, knowledge established that they glorify: it is for Allah to make their glorification as He wills and as He wills; and the people may not delve into that except by what they know, nor speak of this and its like except by what Allah informed, not exceeding that: so fear Allah, and delve not into these ambiguous things: delving into them casts you down from the laws of truth." Harb reports all of it from Ishaq, may Allah the Most High have mercy on him.