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 faithful English translation.
Contents
Updated on 07 October 2026 at 4:51 AM
📖 37 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.
And al-Bazzar says, its isnad is good. And at-Tabarani and ad-Daraqoutni report it by another channel, from Abu ad-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, accept it then"; but its isnad is weak. And at-Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah report, from the narration of Saif ibn Haroun, from Soulayman at-Taymi, from Abu 'Outhman, from Salman, may Allah be pleased with him, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) was asked of shortening, of cheese and of skins; he said, "The lawful is what Allah made lawful in His book, and the illicit what Allah made illicit in His book, and what He passed over in silence is of what He pardoned." And at-Tirmidhi says, Soufyan, that is Ibn 'Ouyayna, reports it from Soulayman, from Abu 'Outhman, from Salman, may Allah be pleased with him, as the words of a Companion, and it seems more correct.
And he mentions in the book of the causes, according to al-Boukhari, that he says of the raised hadith that he holds it not preserved; and Ahmad said, it is reproved, and Ibn Ma'in reproved it also. And Abu Hatim ar-Razi said, it is an error reported by the reliable ones of at-Taymi, from Abu 'Outhman, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), in mursal form; Salman is not in it. I say, this sense is reported from Salman by other channels. And Ibn 'Adi reports it from the hadith of Ibn 'Omar, may Allah be pleased with both of them, in raised form, and graded its isnad weak. And Salih al-Marri reports it from al-Jourayri, from Abu 'Outhman an-Nahdi, from 'Aicha, may Allah be pleased with her, in raised form, and he erred in its isnad. And it is reported from al-Hasan in mursal form.
And Abu Dawoud reports from the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both of them, who said, "The people of ignorance ate certain things and left others by ritual purity; Allah therefore sent His prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), sent down His book, made lawful His lawful things and forbade His forbidden things: what He made lawful is lawful, what He forbade is illicit, and what He passed over in silence is pardon." Then he recited the words of the Most High,
"Say: I find not, in what was revealed to me, food forbidden to the eater, save carrion, shed blood, the flesh of swine, for it is filth, or a beast slaughtered to other than Allah; but whoever is constrained, without will nor transgression, your Lord is pardoning, merciful."
Al-'An'am, 145
And that is a version stopped at the Companion. And 'Oubayd ibn 'Oumayr said, "Allah, the Mighty and the Majestic, made lawful lawful things and forbade forbidden things: what He made lawful is lawful, what He forbade is illicit, and what He passed over in silence is pardon."
The hadith of Abu Tha'laba divides therefore the rules of Allah into four categories, obligations, prohibitions, limits, and what is passed over in silence: that embraces all the rules of the religion.
Abu Bakr as-Sam'ani said, "This hadith is a great root of the roots of the religion." And he reported that certain said, "There is not, in the hadiths of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), a hadith more complete, alone, for the roots of knowledge and their 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 according to this hadith obtains the reward and escapes the punishment, for whoever performs the obligations, avoids the prohibitions, stops at the limits and renounces investigating what does not belong to them has covered all the classes of grace and fulfilled the rights of the religion, for the Laws come not out of the categories mentioned in this hadith."
As for the obligations: what Allah imposed upon His servants and made obligatory of performing, like the prayer, the zakat, the fast and the pilgrimage.
The scholars, may Allah be pleased with them, diverged, are duty and obligation of one sense? One said, "The two are equal: every duty established by a legal proof, of the book, of the Sunna, of consensus or other proof of the Law, is an obligation." That is the well-known among the companions of ash-Chafi'i and others. And a version of Ahmad is reported, for he said, "Everything in the prayer is an obligation." The other said, "Rather the obligation is what is established by a certain proof, and the duty what is established by a non-certain proof." That is the view of the Hanafites and others. Most of the texts of Ahmad separate the obligation from the duty, a group of his companions reporting from him that he said, "None is called obligation but what is in the book of Allah the Most High." And he said, of the zakat of breaking, "I dare not say it is an obligation," though he affirmed its being obligatory.
Among our companions, certain said, "He means the obligation is what is established by the book, and the duty what is established by the Sunna"; others said, "He intended the obligation to be what is established by wide diffusion and multiple transmission, and the duty what is established by way of interpretive effort, wherein disagreement over its being obligatory is permitted."
That is complicated by Ahmad having said, in the narration of al-Maymouni, of righteousness towards parents, "It is not an obligation, but I say, a duty, so long as there is no disobedience." And righteousness towards parents is consensus upon its being obligatory, and the commands concerning it multiplied in the book and the Sunna; the apparent is therefore that he calls obligation only what the book and the Sunna named the obligation of.
The righteous Ancients diverged over commanding good and forbidding blameworthy, are they called religious obligation or not? Jouwaybir reports from ad-Dahhak, "They are obligations of Allah, the Mighty and the 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 obligation upon the sons of Israel, and Allah had mercy on this community for its weakness, and made it for them a supererogatory deed." 'Abd Allah ibn Choubrouma composed famous verses whose first is, "The command, O 'Amr, of good is supererogatory... and those who perform it for Allah are succourers." The saying of Ahmad thereon diverged, is it called duty or not? A group reports from him what indicates its being obligatory, and Abu Dawoud reports from him, concerning the man looking at the tambourine and the like, "Is it obligatory for him to change it? He says, I know not, and I love that it be changed: that would be a supererogation." And Ishaq ibn Rahouwayh said, "It is a duty upon every Muslim, save were he to fear for himself." Ahmad may suspend the general usage of the word duty for what is not duty upon persons, but upon the whole.
The scholars, may Allah be pleased with them, diverged over jihad, is it duty or not? A group denied it duty, among them 'Ata, 'Amr ibn Dinar and Ibn Choubrouma, perhaps intending that sense. Part said, "It is duty," among them Sa'id ibn al-Mousayyib and Mak'houl, perhaps intending its being obligatory upon the whole.
Ahmad said, in the narration of Hanbal, "The campaign is a duty upon all the people, like the obligation of pilgrimage: should part make campaign, it dispenses them of it; and the people cannot do without the campaign." And al-Marouzi asked him of jihad, is it more obligatory? He said, they diverged over it, and it is not like the pilgrimage, meaning that the pilgrimage falls not from whoever did it not, though having the capacity, by the pilgrimage of another, unlike jihad. And he was asked of the mass departure, when does it become obligatory? He said, "As for obligation, I know not; but were they to fear for themselves, they must go out."
The apparent of that is the suspension in the general usage of the word duty for that of which the word obligation did not come, out of scruple; likewise he suspended the general usage of the word illicit for what is the object of disagreement and whose proofs of the book and Sunna contradict, saying of the temporary marriage of women, "I say not it is illicit, but it is forbidden of it." He suspended not in the sense of prohibition, but in the general usage of the word, because of the divergence of texts and Companions thereupon. That is the correct in the explanation of the words of Ahmad. And he said, of marriage with two sisters by the right of possession, "I say not illicit, but it is forbidden of it." The correct in its explanation is that he suspended in the general usage of the word "illicit", without its sense. All of that is scruple in speech, for fear of entering under the words of the Most High,
"And say not, of what your tongues falsely describe, this is lawful and this is illicit, to forge the lie against Allah."
An-Nahl, 116
And ar-Rabi' ibn Khouthaym said, "Let each of you fear to say, Allah made lawful this and forbade that, and Allah say, you lied, I made not lawful this nor forbade that."
And Ibn Wahb said, "I heard Malik ibn Anas say, I knew our scholars, when one of them was asked, he said, this displeases me and I like it not, without saying licit nor illicit."
As for what is reported from Ahmad in the general usage of obligation, his saying, "everything in the prayer is an obligation," is not thus, it is his son 'Abd Allah reporting from him, "Everything in the prayer of which Allah made mention is an obligation." That returns to the sense of his words, there is no obligation but what is in the Quran, and what Allah corroborated of the affair of the prayer, the standing, the recitation, the bowing, the prostration. Ahmad said that because certain people said, the prayer is an obligation, the bowing and prostration, I say not obligation, but Sunna.
Malik was asked of whoever said that, and declared him disbeliever; it was said to him, he interprets it; he cursed him and said, "He has said an immense word!" And Abu Bakr an-Naysabouri reports it in his book of the merits of Malik by several channels of him. And he reports also by his chain from 'Abd Allah ibn 'Omar ibn Maymoun ibn ar-Rammah, I entered upon Malik ibn Anas and said, O Abu 'Abd Allah! What is in the prayer of religious obligation? And what is of Sunna, or he said, of supererogation? Malik said, "Words of zindiqs, expel him."
And Ishaq ibn Mansour reports from Ishaq ibn Rahouwayh that he denied the sharing of the parts of the prayer into Sunna and duty, and he says, "Everything in the prayer is duty," and he indicates that there is that whose prayer is redone by its abandonment, and that whose is not.
The cause of that, and Allah knows best, is that expression by the word Sunna may lead to neglecting its performance, to detachment and abandonment, contradicting the design of the Lawgiver of encouraging, desiring, by the ways leading to its performance and acquisition; the general usage of the word duty invites therefore more to coming to the deed and desiring it.
The general usage of duty came in the words of the Lawgiver for that whose abandonment is no sin, nor punished with the majority, like the great ablution of Friday, and likewise the night of the guest with many scholars, or most of them, the sense being insistence in encouraging performing 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 words of the Most High,
"Say: come, I shall recite what your Lord forbade you: associate nothing with Him, be good to the two parents, kill not your children by poverty, We provide you and them, approach not turpitudes, apparent or hidden, kill not the soul Allah forbade, save with right: that is what He commends you, perhaps you will understand."
Al-'An'am, 151
up to the end of the three verses; and His words,
"My Lord forbade only turpitudes, apparent or hidden, sin and oppression without right, and that you associate with Allah that for which He sent no proof, and that you say upon Allah what you know not."
Al-'A'raf, 33
Certain verses mention the prohibitions specific to a species, like the food prohibitions, in places of His words,
"Say: I find not, in what was revealed to me, food forbidden to the eater, save carrion, shed blood, the flesh of swine, for it is filth, or a beast slaughtered to other than Allah."
Al-'An'am, 145
and His words,
"He forbade you only carrion, blood, the flesh of swine and what is slaughtered to other than Allah."
Al-Baqara, 173
And in another verse,
"And what is slaughtered to other than Allah."
Al-Baqara, 173
and His words,
"Forbidden to you are carrion, blood, the flesh of swine, what is slaughtered to other than Allah, the strangled animal, killed by a blow, dead of a fall, dead of a horn-stroke, devoured by beasts, save what you slaughter, and what is slaughtered upon the dressed stones, and dividing the lot by arrows."
Al-Ma'ida, 3
And He mentions the prohibitions of marriage in His words,
"Forbidden to you are your mothers, your daughters."
An-Nisa, 23
And He mentions the prohibitions of gains in His words,
"And Allah made lawful the sale, and forbade usury."
Al-Baqara, 275
As for the Sunna, it mentions many prohibitions, like the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Allah forbade the sale of wine, carrion, swine and idols." And His words, "When Allah forbids a thing, He forbids its price." And His words, "Every intoxicant is illicit." And His words, "Your bloods, your wealths and your honours are sacred to you." What is therefore stated of prohibition in the book and the Sunna is illicit.
Prohibition may be drawn from the forbidden accompanied by threat and insistence, as in the words of the Mighty and Majestic,
"Wine, gambling, dressed stones and divining arrows are only filth of the devil's work: avoid them, perhaps you will succeed. The devil wants only to cast between you enmity and hatred by wine and gambling, and to turn you from the remembrance of Allah and the prayer: will you then cease?"
Al-Ma'ida, 90-91
As for the forbidden alone, the people diverged, is prohibition drawn from it or not? It is reported from Ibn 'Omar, may Allah be pleased with both of them, the denial of drawing prohibition from it. Ibn al-Moubarak reports, Salam ibn Abi Mou'iya informed us, from Ibn Abi Dakhila, from his father, I was with Ibn 'Omar, and 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 say, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade raisins and dates. 'Abd Allah ibn 'Omar said, "You lie." I say, did you not say, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade them, would it then be illicit? He said, "Do you attest it?" Salam says, he meant, the forbidden of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is of conduct.
We already mentioned, among the scrupulous scholars like Ahmad and Malik, the precaution of the general usage of the word illicit for that whose prohibition is not certain, when there be doubt or disagreement. And an-Nakha'i said, "They disapproved of things without forbidding them." And Ibn 'Awne says, Mak'houl said to me, "What say you of the fruit cast among the people who dispute over it?" I say, "With us, it is disapproved." He said, illicit? Ibn 'Awne says, we were relieved of that word of Mak'houl. And Ja'far ibn Mouhammad says, I heard a man ask Qasim ibn Mouhammad, is singing illicit? Qasim kept silent, then he returned and he kept silent, then he returned and said to him, "The illicit is what Allah forbade in the Quran. There are brought before Allah the truth and the false, where does singing stand?" The man said, in the false. He said, "Judge then for yourself."
'Abd Allah, son of Imam Ahmad, says, I heard my father say, among what the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) forbade are things illicit, like his forbidding of marrying the wife over the paternal or maternal aunt, that being illicit; and his forbidding of the skins of fierce beasts, that being illicit, and he mentions things of that kind. And among them are things he forbade that are conduct.
As for the limits of Allah whose threshold He forbade crossing: the whole of what He permitted doing, whether by way of obligation, recommendation or lawfulness. Crossing its threshold is passing from that to committing what is forbidden, as the Most High says,
"And these are the limits of Allah: whoever crosses the limits of Allah wrongs his soul."
At-Talaq, 1
It is of whoever repudiates outside what Allah commanded and permitted. And the Most High says,
"These are the limits of Allah, cross them not; whoever crosses the limits of Allah, those are the wrongdoers."
Al-Baqara, 229
It is of whoever retains the wife after repudiation without beneficence, or releases her without generosity, or takes back of what he gave the woman otherwise than by way of compensation permitted by Allah. And the Most High says,
"These are the limits of Allah: whoever obeys Allah and His messenger, He brings him into gardens under which rivers flow, eternally, that is the immense success. And whoever disobeys Allah and His messenger and crosses His limits, He brings him into a fire wherein he abides eternally, and he shall have a humiliating punishment."
An-Nisa, 13-14
It is of whoever exceeds what Allah prescribed the heirs, favouring an heir, increasing him beyond his right or diminishing him. That is why the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said in his sermon at the farewell pilgrimage, "Allah gave each entitled one his right, there is therefore no bequest for an heir."
And an-Nouwas ibn Sim'an, may Allah be pleased with him, reports from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Allah gave as example an upright path, and upon its two sides two walls, with open gates and lowered curtains; at the gate of the path, a caller says, O people! Enter all into the path, and deviate not from it; and a caller calls from the top of the path: when he wants to open one of these gates, he says, woe to you, open it not, for were you to open it you would enter it. The path is Islam; the two walls are the limits of Allah; the open gates are the prohibitions of Allah; that caller at the top of the path is the book of Allah; and the caller from above is the preacher of Allah in the heart of every Muslim." Imam Ahmad reports it, and it is his wording, and an-Nasa'i in his tafsir, and at-Tirmidhi, who graded it good.
The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) gave as example of Islam an upright path, an easy way, broad, leading its walker to what he seeks, yet upright, without deviation, that requiring its nearness and ease; upon the two sides of the path, to the right and the left, two walls, which are the limits of Allah; as the wall prevents whoever is within it from crossing and exceeding it, Islam prevents whoever entered it from leaving its limits and exceeding them. Nothing behind what Allah delimited of the permitted is other than what He forbade. That is why He praised those who keep His limits and blamed whoever knows not the limit of licit and illicit, as the Most High says,
"The Bedouins are the hardest in disbelief and hypocrisy, and the most likely not to know the limits of what Allah sent down upon His messenger."
At-Tawba, 97
The hadith of the Quran preceded, saying to whoever acts by it, he kept my limits, and to whoever acts not, he exceeded my limits. Whoever exceeds not what is permitted him towards what is forbidden has kept the limits of Allah; and whoever exceeds that has exceeded the limits of Allah.
The word limits is also used for the prohibitions themselves, one then says, approach not the limits of Allah, as the Most High says,
"These are the limits of Allah, approach them not."
Al-Baqara, 187
It is of the prohibition of committing what the verse forbids of the forbidden things of the fast and the pious retreat in the mosques. Of this sense, the naming of prohibitions as limits, is the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Whoever holds to the limits of Allah and flatters them is like a people who shared a ship," the famous hadith, meaning by whoever holds to the limits of Allah, whoever denies the prohibitions and forbids them. And in the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both of them, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "I take you by your bags, fear the Fire, fear the limits," saying it three times. At-Tabarani and al-Bazzar report it, meaning by the limits, the prohibitions and disobediences of Allah. Of that the saying of the man who said to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), say, I incurred a limit, execute it upon me.
And the dissuasive punishments of the great prohibitions are also called limits, one says the limit of fornication, the limit of theft, the limit of drinking wine. Of that the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) to 'Oussama, "Do you intercede in a limit among the limits of Allah?", meaning the sentence in theft. That is the known sense of the name limit in the vocabulary of the jurists.
As for the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "None is whipped beyond ten lashes, save in a limit among the limits of Allah," the people diverged over its sense. One interprets it by these determined limits, and says, "the disciplinary punishment exceeds not ten lashes, and exceeds them only in these determined limits." The other interprets it here by the species of Allah's prohibitions, and says, "exceeding the ten lashes is lawful only for committing a prohibition among the prohibitions of Allah; as for the disciplinary blow outside prohibition, it exceeds not ten lashes."
Some carried his words, "and delimited limits, cross them not," upon these dissuasive punishments of the prohibitions, and said, it is of the prohibition of exceeding these limits and crossing them at their execution upon the people of crimes. That was preferred because, were the limits meant stopping at commands and prohibitions, it would be a repetition of his words, "He prescribed obligations, neglect them not, and forbade things, violate them not." And the affair is not as he said, stopping at limits requires not passing from permitted to forbidden, which is more general than being permitted obligatory, recommended or lawful, as preceded. There is therefore no repetition in this hadith, and Allah knows best.
As for what is passed over in silence, that of which the rule is mentioned neither by lawfulness, obligation nor prohibition, of it there is pardon, no discomfort upon its doer; the mentioned hadiths herein indicate it, like the hadith of Abu Tha'laba and others.
The wordings of the hadith of Abu Tha'laba diverged, it being reported with the preceding wording, and with another wording, "Allah prescribed obligations, neglect them not; He forbade you things, violate them not; and He pardoned things without forgetting, enquire not into them." Ishaq ibn Rahouwayh reports it. And with another wording, "Allah prescribed obligations, neglect them not; He established for you Sunnas, violate them not; He forbade you things, cross them not; and He left between that things without forgetting, by mercy from Him, accept them and enquire not into them." At-Tabarani reports it.
This version shows that the pardoned is what whose mention was left, without prohibition nor lawfulness; but one must know that the mention of a thing as lawful or illicit can escape the understanding of the texts of the book and the Sunna, the demonstration of these texts being by way of explicit statement, or by way of generality and encompassing, or by way of implication and allusion, as in the words of the Most High,
"Say not to them therefore, fie, and reproach them not."
Al-Isra, 23
the entering of what is greater than fie among the species of evil being by way of the worthier, and that is called implication of conformity. The demonstration can be by way of implication of contradiction, like the words of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Upon the freely grazing flock, the zakat," its implication indicating there is no zakat outside the freely grazing flock; the majority took it and considered the implication of contradiction, making it a proof. It can be of the kind of reasoning by analogy: when the Lawgiver (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) states a rule for a thing by a sense, and that sense exists in another, the rule extends to everything containing that sense, with the majority of the scholars; that is of the kind of justice and the balance Allah sent down, commanding basing upon it. All of that is that by which the demonstration of the texts to lawfulness and prohibition is known. As for that of which all of that is excluded, herein it is deduced from the absence of mention of obligation or prohibition that of it there is pardon.
Here are two ways: the first, one says, no obligation nor prohibition without the Law, and the Law prescribed not this nor forbade it, it is therefore neither duty nor illicit; it is argued so to deny the obligation of the prescribed night prayer and the offering, or deny the illicitness of the lizard, and the like, or deny the illicitness of certain disputed contracts, mutual irrigation and shared cultivation.
That returns to maintaining the presumption of innocence where nothing indicates its occupation; that argument is valid only for whoever knows the species of the proofs of the Law and examined them; were he to certify besides the absence of what indicates obligation or prohibition, he certifies the negation of duty and illicit, as he certifies the absence of a sixth obligatory prayer, or the fast of a month other than Ramadan, or the obligation of zakat outside the subject wealths, or a pilgrimage other than that of Islam, though all of that be established by explicit texts; were he to suppose the absence of what indicates obligation or prohibition, he supposes the negation of duty and prohibition without certainty.
The second way: one mentions, of the general proofs of the Law, what indicates that what the Law prescribes not and forbids not is of it pardoned, like this hadith of Abu Tha'laba and the hadiths of its sense mentioned with it. And likewise his words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), when asked of the pilgrimage every year, "Leave me with what I left you, for those who preceded you were lost by the multiplicity of their questions and their divergence with their prophets; when I forbid you a thing, avoid it, and when I command you a thing, do of it what you can." And likewise his words in the hadith of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him, "The greatest crime of the Muslim against the Muslims is asking of a thing not forbidden that became forbidden because of his question." And the Quran indicated that also in places, as His words,
"Say: I find not, in what was revealed to me, food forbidden to the eater, save carrion, shed blood."
Al-'An'am, 145
that indicates that what whose prohibition is not established is not illicit; and likewise His words,
"Why should you not eat of that upon which the name of Allah was mentioned, when He detailed to you what He forbade you, save that to which you are constrained."
Al-'An'am, 119
He reproaches them therefore for having abandoned the food of that upon which the name of Allah was not mentioned, explaining it by His showing them the prohibition, and that is not thereof, proof that things are founded upon lawfulness; else He would not have attached blame to whoever abstains from eating what was not stated lawful, from the mere fact of its prohibition not having been stated.
Know that this question differs from the question of the judgement of persons before the coming of the Law, was it prohibition, lawfulness, or no rule? For this question arises before the coming of the Law, but after its coming these texts and their like indicated that the rule of this origin ceased, and it was established that the origin in things is lawfulness, by the proofs of the Law. Consensus upon that was reported, and those equalising the two questions into one single rule were led into error. The saying of Imam Ahmad indicates that what enters not the texts of prohibition is of it pardoned. Abu al-Harith said, I asked 'Abd Allah, that is Ahmad, the people of birds slaughter birds we know not, what see you of eating them? He said, "Everything that has no talons and eats not carrion involves no evil." He therefore restricted the prohibition of birds to that which has talons, with the texts upon it, and that which eats carrion, for it is of the sense of the crow stated, and judged lawful what exceeds them.
The hadith of Ibn 'Abbas already mentioned indicates likewise. And the hadith of Salman the Persian contains the prohibition of asking of cheese, shortening and skins, for cheese was made in the land of the mages and their like among the disbelievers, likewise the shortening, and likewise the skins imported from them, their slaughterings being carrion. That is argued for the lawfulness of the milk of carrion, of its liquid, and for the lawfulness of the foods of the mages. In all of that, a famous disagreement. Or it is carried upon that, when the affair is confused, asking and investigating is not obligatory, as Ibn 'Omar, may Allah be pleased with both of them, said, asked of the cheese made by the mages, "I found it in the market of the Muslims, I buy it and ask not of it." And cheese was mentioned before 'Omar, and it was said, the liquid of carrion is put therein? He said, "Name Allah and eat."
Imam Ahmad said, "The most correct hadith thereon is this hadith," meaning the cheese of the mages. He reports from the hadith of Ibn 'Abbas, may Allah be pleased with both of them, that cheese was brought to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) at the campaign of Ta'if, and he said, "Where is this made?" They said, in Persia. He said, "Bring the knife near, name Allah and eat." Imam Ahmad reports it, and was asked and said, it is a reproved hadith; and Abu Hatim ar-Razi says likewise. And Abu Dawoud reports it in the sense of the hadith of Ibn 'Omar, but says at the campaign of Tabouk; and Abu Hatim says, it is reproved also. And 'Abd ar-Razzaq reports it in his book in mursal form, and it is the nearest, and it has the addition, it was said to him, O Messenger of Allah! We fear it be carrion; he said, "Name it and eat." And at-Tabarani reports its sense from the hadith of Maymouna, and its isnad is good, but it is very strange.
And in the Sahih of al-Boukhari, from 'Aicha, 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 the name of Allah was mentioned upon it; he said, "Name it yourselves and eat." She says, they were recent in disbelief. And in the Mousnad of Imam Ahmad, may Allah have mercy on him, from al-Hasan, 'Omar, may Allah be pleased with him, wanted to forbid the shirts of the Egyptians, for they were dyed with urine; 'Ubayy said to him, "That belongs not to you, the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) wore them, and we wore them in his time." And al-Khallal reports it by another channel, '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; were Allah to know them illicit, He would have forbidden them."
He said, "You spoke true." And Imam Ahmad was asked of wearing what the people of the Book dye without washing, and he said, "Why question what you know not? The people never disapproved it since we knew them." And he was asked of Jews who dye with urine, and he said, "The Muslim and the disbeliever are equal therein, ask not of that and enquire not into it." And he said, "Were you to know he necessarily dyes with urine, and you are sure, pray not therein until washing it." And at-Tirmidhi reports from the hadith of Moughira ibn Chou'ba that two boots were offered to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) and he wore them, without knowing whether they were tanned or not.
There has come also that by which research and question are argued, Imam Ahmad reporting from the hadith of a woman of 'Oumm Mouslim al-'Achja'iyya that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came to her, in a tent, and said, "How beautiful it is! There is no carrion therein!" She says, I began following it; and the man is unknown. And al-'Athram reports by his chain from Zayd ibn Wahb, the letter of 'Omar, may Allah be pleased with him, reached us in Azerbaijan, you are in a land wherein are carrions, wear not skins without knowing their licit from their illicit. And al-Khallal reports by his chain from Moujahid that Ibn 'Omar saw upon a man a skin, touched it and said, "Were I to know it tanned, I would like to have of it a garment." And Mouhammad ibn Ka'b said to 'Aicha, may Allah be pleased with her, what prevents you taking a cover of skins? She says, I detest wearing carrion. And 'Abd ar-Razzaq reports by his chain from Ibn Mas'oud, may Allah be pleased with him, that he said to those of the Muslims come down in Persia, when you buy meat, ask, were it the slaughtering of a Jew or a Christian, eat, and that because the mages dominate the people of Persia, their slaughterings being forbidden.
The disagreement thereon resembles the disagreement over the lawfulness of the food of those disbelievers whose slaughtering is not lawful, and over the use of the utensils and garments of the polytheists. The disagreement returns to the rule of conflict between principle and apparent, already mentioned in the discussion of the hadith, "The lawful is clear, the illicit is clear, and between them ambiguous things."
His words, of things passed over in silence, "a mercy without forgetting," mean He passed their mention over in silence only by mercy towards His servants and gentleness, not forbidding them to punish them for doing them, nor prescribing them to punish them for leaving them, but He made of them a pardon, were they to do them, no discomfort upon them, and were they to leave them, likewise. And in the hadith of Abu ad-Darda, then he recited,
"And your Lord has not forgotten."
Maryam, 64
and likewise His words, the Mighty and Majestic,
"In a book wherein my Lord errs not nor forgets."
Ta-Ha, 52
His words, "enquire not then into them," may restrict this prohibition to the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), for the multiplicity of research and question of what was not mentioned may cause the descent of insistence by obligation or prohibition. The hadith of Sa'd ibn Abi Waqqas, may Allah be pleased with him, indicates it; and the prohibition may be general. And what is reported from Salman, of his words, indicates it: the multiplicity of research and question of the rule of what is mentioned neither in obligations nor prohibitions may entail believing its prohibition or obligation, by its resemblance to certain obligations; accepting facility therein and leaving research and question is better.
That may enter into his words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Lost are those who engage in excessive researches," saying it three times; Mouslim and Abu Dawoud report it from the hadith of Ibn Mas'oud, may Allah be pleased with him, in raised form. The one engaging in excessive researches is whoever sinks into and investigates what does not concern him, certain attaching themselves clinging to the apparent of the wording, denying the senses and analogical reasoning, like the literalists.
Research in this speech, and Allah knows best, is of two sorts: the first, seeking its entry into the demonstrations of the correct texts, implication, implicit sense, and correct apparent analogical reasoning, that is upright and obligatory upon seekers of interpretation in the knowledge of legal rules. The second: the observer refining his gaze and thought upon the existence of differences to remove, distinguishing two equivalent things by a simple difference wherein appears no effect in the Law, with attributes requiring gathering; or gathering two things separated by simple accessory attributes, neither relevant nor indicated by a proof as having an effect in the Law.
That gaze and research are therefore displeasing and not praised, though they came to groups of jurists. The praised is the gaze according with the gaze of the Companions, may Allah be pleased with them, and those who came after them of the privileged generations, like Ibn 'Abbas and his like. Perhaps that is the intent of Ibn Mas'oud, may Allah be pleased with him, in saying, "Beware of excessive researches, beware of deepening, and hold to the ancient," meaning that upon which the Companions were, may Allah be pleased with them. And of the words of certain great Shafi'ite imams, "It befits us not to suffice with chimeras in differences, as the people of opinion do; the secret herein is that the object of the rules, in state, is the suspicions and their dominations; when the gathering of two questions is more apparent in suspicion than their separation, judging by their gathering becomes obligatory, even were a difference pierced at distance, understand then that, for it is of the rules of the religion."
Among what enters the prohibition of deepening and research are the affairs of the invisible requiring faith, whose manner is not explained, certain having no witness in this sensible world; seeking their manner is of what does not concern, of what is forbidden, and it may entail perplexity and doubt, rising to rebuttal. In the Sahih of Mouslim, from Abu Hourayra, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "The people shall never cease asking until it be said, Allah created the creation, who created Allah? Whoever finds something of that, let him say, I believed in Allah." And in a version of him, "The people shall never cease asking you of knowledge until they say, Allah created us, who created Allah?" And in a version of him also, "The people shall ask you of everything until they say, Allah created everything, who created Him?"
And al-Boukhari reports it, its wording being, "The devil 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 cease." And in the Sahih of Mouslim, from Anas, may Allah be pleased with him, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), "Allah, the Mighty and the Majestic, says, My community shall never cease saying, why this? Why that? Until they say, Allah created the creation, who created Allah?" And al-Boukhari reports it, its wording being, "The people never cease asking, Allah is the creator of everything, who created Allah?"
Ishaq ibn Rahouwayh said, "Reflection upon the Creator is not permitted, and it is permitted the servants to reflect upon the creatures by what they heard concerning them, without exceeding that, for were they to do so they would stray. And Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, said, there is nothing that glorifies Him not with His praise, it is therefore not permitted to say, how do the vessels, the vinegars, the baked bread and the woven garments glorify? All of that, the established knowledge that they glorify: to Allah to render their glorification as He wills and as He wills; and it belongs not to the people to sink into it save by what they know, nor to speak of that and its like save by what Allah informed, without exceeding it, fear Allah therefore and sink not into these ambiguous things, their burying overturns you from the laws of the truth." Harb reports all of that from Ishaq, may Allah the Most High have mercy on him.