Home > The 40 Hadith of Nawawi > Hadith 39 of Nawawi
Hadith number 39 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
📖 19 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.
It was said to Ahmad: al-Walid ibn Mouslim reported from Malik, from Nafi', from Ibn 'Omar its like, and he denied it as well. And mentioned to Abu Hatim ar-Razi: the hadith of al-'Awza'i and that of Malik; and it was said to him: al-Walid also reported from Ibn Lahi'a, from Moussa ibn Wardan, from 'Oqba ibn 'Amir, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) its like? Abu Hatim said, "These hadiths are decried, as if fabricated," and said, "al-'Awza'i did not hear this hadith from 'Atta; he heard it from a man he did not name, perhaps 'Abdallah ibn 'Amir or Isma'il ibn Mouslim," and said: "this hadith is not validated and its chain is not established." I say: it is also reported from al-'Awza'i, from 'Atta, from 'Obayd ibn 'Oumayr, in mursal form, without mention of Ibn 'Abbas. Yahya ibn Salim reports from Ibn Jourayj: 'Atta said: it has reached me that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: Allah (the Mighty and Majestic) has pardoned my community the error, the forgetting and that in which they are constrained.
Al-Jawzajani reports it. And this mursal is the most similar. It is also reported by another channel from Ibn 'Abbas, in raised form: Mouslim ibn Khalid az-Zanji reports, from Sa'id al-'Allaf, from Ibn 'Abbas: the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Pardon is made to my community of three: of the error, of the forgetting, and of that in which they are constrained." Al-Jawzajani reports it. And Sa'id al-'Allaf is Sa'id ibn Abi Salih; Ahmad said of him: he is Meccan. It was said to him: what is his state? He said: I do not know, and I know no one who reported from him except Mouslim ibn Khalid. Ahmad said: and it is not raised, but of the words of Ibn 'Abbas. Mahna transmitted it from him. And Mouslim ibn Khalid was weakened. Reported by a third channel, from the narration of Bouqayya ibn al-Walid, from 'Ali al-Hamdani, from Abu Hamza, from Ibn 'Abbas, in raised form. Harb reports it.
The narrations of Bouqayya, from his unknown shaykhs, are worth nothing. Reported by a fourth channel, which Ibn 'Adi reports, by the way of 'Abd ar-Rahim ibn Zayd al-'Amma', from his father, from Sa'id ibn Joubayr, from Ibn 'Abbas, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). And this 'Abd ar-Rahim is weak. And it is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) by other channels. It has already come that al-Walid ibn Mouslim reported it from Malik, from Nafi', from Ibn 'Omar, in raised form, and al-Hakim authenticated it and judged it gharib. It is, in the view of the consummate knowers of memory, false ascribed to Malik, as Imam Ahmad and Abu Hatim denied, saying of al-Walid: he is greatly errant. Abu 'Obayd al-'Ajouri transmits from Abu Dawoud: al-Walid ibn Mouslim reported from Malik ten hadiths without basis, four of them from Nafi'. I say: the apparent is that this hadith is among them, and Allah knows best.
Al-Jawzajani reports from the narration of Yazid ibn Rabi'a, having heard Abu al-'Chat, reporting from Thawban, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, has pardoned my community of three: the error, the forgetting, and that in which they are constrained." And Yazid ibn Rabi'a is very weak. Ibn Abi Hatim reports from the narration of Abu Bakr al-Hudhali, from Char ibn Chawchab, from 'Oumm ad-Darda, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Allah has pardoned my community of three: of the error, of the forgetting, and of constraint." Abu Bakr said: I mentioned that to al-Hasan, who said, "Certainly! Do you not read by it a Quran: O our Lord, punish us not if we forget or err?" And Abu Bakr al-Hudhali is set aside in hadith.
Ibn Majah reports it, but with him, from Char, from Abu Dharr al-Ghifari, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Allah the Blessed and Most High has pardoned my community the error, the forgetting and that in which they are constrained." And he does not mention the words of al-Hasan. As for the mursal hadith of al-Hasan, Hicham ibn Hassan reported it from him. And Mansour and 'Awf reported it from al-Hasan, as his own words, not raising it. And Ja'far ibn Jisr ibn Farqad reported it, from his father, from al-Hasan, from Abu Bakra, in raised form: Ja'far and his father are weak. Muhammad ibn Nasr al-Marwazi said: this hadith has no arguing chain, as cited by al-Bayhaqi. In the Sahih of Mouslim, from Sa'id ibn Joubayr, from Ibn 'Abbas: "When the words of the Most High came down, O our Lord, punish us not if we forget or err, Allah the Most High said: I have done it." And from al-'Ala', from his father, from Abu Hourayra, that upon its descent he said: yes.
And neither of the two makes explicit the raising. Ad-Daraqoutni reports from the narration of Ibn Jourayj, from 'Atta, from Abu Hourayra, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Allah has pardoned my community what their souls have whispered and that in which they are constrained, unless they speak of it or act upon it." And it is a gharib wording. An-Nasa'i reported it without mentioning constraint. Likewise Ibn 'Ouyayna reported it from Mis'ar, from Qatada, from Zurara ibn 'Awfa, from Abu Hourayra, from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), adding to it: "and that in which they are constrained." Ibn Majah reports it, and I have denied this addition upon Ibn 'Ouyayna, none having followed him on it, the hadith being reported from the narration of Qatada in the Sahihs, the Sunan and the Mousnads without it.
Let us return to the explanation of the hadith raised from Ibn 'Abbas. His words, "Allah has pardoned my community the error... to the end": its restitution is: Allah has lifted from my community the error, or has set it aside for them; for "pardoned" is not constructed by itself.
His words, "the error, the forgetting, and that in which they are constrained": as for the error and the forgetting, the Quran made explicit the pardon concerning them: "O our Lord, punish us not if we forget or err"; and He says: "No grievance upon you for your mistakes, but for what your hearts have deliberated." In the two Sahihs, from 'Amr ibn al-'As: he heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) say, "When the judge judges, strives and errs: one reward for him; and when he judges, strives and hits justly: two rewards for him." Al-Hasan said: were it not for what Allah mentioned of the affair of those two men, Dawoud and Souleyman, I would see the judges as already lost: He praised this one by his knowledge and excused that one by his striving, in, "And Dawoud and Souleyman, judging the harvest, when the sheep of the people entered into it by night," and the verse.
As for constraint, the Quran also made explicit the pardon: "Whoever disbelieves in Allah after his faith, except the one constrained, his heart reassured in the faith." And He says: "Let the believers not take the disbelievers as allies apart from the believers; whoever does that has nothing of Allah, unless you guard yourselves against them with prudence." We shall speak, Allah willing, of this hadith in two chapters: the first on the judgement of the error and the forgetting; the second on the judgement of constraint.
The error: aiming by one's act at one thing, the act meeting other than what was intended: intending to kill a disbeliever, meeting the death of a Muslim. The forgetting: having a thing in memory and forgetting it in the act. Both are excused in the sense that there is no sin; but lifting the sin does not prevent a judgement from following upon the forgetting, like the one who forgot his ablutions and prayed believing himself pure: no sin; then if it becomes manifest that he prayed in a state of impurity, the repetition falls to him. And if he omits the naming at the ablutions by forgetting, and we hold its obligation: does the repeating of the ablutions fall to him? Two narrations of Imam Ahmad. Likewise if he omits the bismillah over the animal by forgetting: two narrations of him. And most of the jurists: it may be eaten even without the naming.
And if he omits the prayer by forgetting then remembers: the judgement falls to him, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "Whoever sleeps through a prayer or forgets it: let him pray it upon its remembrance; no expiation but that," then he recited, "And establish the prayer for My remembrance." And if he prays carrying in his prayer an impurity not excused, then learns of it after his prayer or during it and removes it: does he repeat his prayer or not? Two opinions, two narrations of Ahmad. It is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he removed his sandals in his prayer, completed it and said, "Jibril informed me that there was in them some harm," and did not repeat the prayer. And if he speaks in his prayer, forgetting that he is in prayer: two well-known opinions on its invalidation, two narrations of Ahmad, and the madhab of ash-Chafi'i: it is not invalidated.
And if he eats in his fast by forgetting: the more numerous hold that it does not invalidate his fast, acting upon his words (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him): "Whoever eats or drinks by forgetting: let him complete his fast; it is Allah who fed him and gave him drink." And Malik: the repetition falls to him, for he is like the one leaving the fast by forgetting. The majority say: he had the intention of the fast, committing by forgetting some of its prohibitions: he is excused. And if he has intercourse by forgetting: is its judgement that of the one eating by forgetting, or not? Two opinions. The first, well-known from Ahmad: it invalidates his fast, and the judgement falls to him. Of its expiation, two narrations. The second: it does not invalidate his fast, like the eating, the madhab of ash-Chafi'i, reported also as a narration of Ahmad. And likewise the divergence over intercourse by forgetting in ihram: does it invalidate the pilgrimage or not?
And if he swears not to do a thing then does it, forgetting his oath, or erring, believing it not to be of the sworn thing: does he incur the expiation or not? Three opinions, three narrations of Ahmad. The first: he incurs it in no case, even were the oath by repudiation or emancipation. Al-Khallal denied this narration of Ahmad, saying: it is a slip of the transcriber; the opinion of ash-Chafi'i in one of his two views, of Ishaq, Abu Thawr and Ibn Abi Chayba, and reported from 'Atta; Ishaq said: he is made to swear that he forgot his oath. The second: he incurs it in every case, the opinion of a group of the Ancients and of Malik. The third: a distinction between the oath of repudiation, emancipation or other, the well-known position of Ahmad (may Allah have mercy on him), the opinion of Abu 'Obayd. Likewise al-'Awza'i for repudiation, saying: the hadith has come of the pardoning of the error and the forgetting so long as he forgets; and he is installed upon his wife: no sin; if he remembers, the isolating of his wife falls to him, his forgetting having ceased. And Ibrahim al-Harbi cites the consensus of the Successors on the realization of repudiation by forgetting.
And if he kills a believer by mistake: the expiation and the diya fall to him, by the text of the Book. Likewise if he damages the wealth of another by mistake, believing it his own. Likewise the majority of the jurists concerning the muhrim killing game by mistake or forgetting its prohibition: the compensatory falls to him. Some said: no compensatory, unless it was deliberate to kill it, holding to the apparent of the words of the Most High, "Whoever among you kills it deliberately: compensatory the like of the slaughtered cattle," and the verse, a narration of Ahmad. The majority answered the verse: the compensatory was ordained upon deliberate killing, and the vengeance of Allah; and both are specific to the deliberate: if the deliberate is annulled, the vengeance is annulled, and the compensatory remains, established by other proof. The apparent, and Allah knows best, is that the forgetful and the erring were pardoned in the sense of lifting the sin; for sin is ordained upon aims and intentions, and the forgetful and the erring have no aim: no sin. As for lifting the judgements, not intended by these texts: its establishment or its negation require another proof.
The first: without any choice nor capacity of prevention: as carried by force into a place where he has sworn against entering, or carried by force striking another until his death, without capacity of prevention; or a woman asleep then fornicated with, without capacity of prevention: no sin by agreement, and no oath is broken in her oath according to the majority of the scholars. Certain Ancients such as an-Nakha'i diverged, and likewise in the words of certain companions of ash-Chafi'i and of Ahmad. The just view among them: no oath in any case. Reported from al-'Awza'i, of a woman swearing a thing and her husband making it breached by force: her expiation upon him. And from Ahmad a similar narration, if his wife is forced in his fast or his ihram: her expiation upon him. The well-known of him: it thereby invalidates his fast and his pilgrimage.
The second type: constrained by blows or other until the act. The act is then subject of the duty: he can refrain from doing it, there being choice in the act, but his aim is not the act itself, repelling the wrong: chosen from one side, not chosen from another. The people diverged: is he subject of the duty or not? The scholars agreed: if he is constrained to kill one whose blood is protected, it is not permitted to him to kill him; he kills him by his choice, ransoming his own person from the murder: the consensus of the considered scholars. In the time of Imam Ahmad one not considered contradicted it. If he kills him in that state: the majority, over both sharing the obligation of the qoud, the constrained and the constrainer sharing the murder: the opinion of Malik, of ash-Chafi'i in his well-known view, and of Ahmad. It is said: only the constrainer, for the constrained became as the instrument: the opinion of Abu Hanifa, one of the two views of ash-Chafi'i. Reported from Zoufar as the first. Reported from him: it falls to the constrained for his premise, he not being the instrument, being blameworthy by agreement. Abu Youssouf said: no qoud upon either of the two.
Certain of our companions reported it, a way for us, from the narration not imposing the murder of the community for the individual, and better: even constrained by blows or the like to damage the protected wealth of another, is it permitted to him? Two ways of our companions. If we say permitted: the owner guarantees it, what he guarantees reverting upon the constrained. If we say not permitted: the guarantee upon the two together, like the qoud; it is said: upon the constraining premise alone, and that is weak. If he is constrained to drink khamr or another forbidden act: upon its permission by constraint, two opinions. The first: permitted, arguing the words of the Most High, "And constrain not your young women to prostitution, if they desire chastity, to seek the goods of this world; and if you constrain them, Allah, after their constraint, is Pardoning, Merciful," sent down for 'Abdallah ibn 'Oubayy ibn Saloul, who had two servant girls whom he constrained to fornication, they refusing.
The opinion of the majority: ash-Chafi'i, Abu Hanifa, the well-known of Ahmad. Reported the like from al-Hasan, Mak'houl, Misrouq; and from 'Omar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him) that which indicates it. The holders diverged over constraining a man to fornication: some say constraint is valid upon him, without sin, ash-Chafi'i and Ibn 'Aqil of our companions; some say constraint is not valid upon him, the sin and the penalty upon him: Abu Hanifa (may Allah the Most High have mercy on him), the text of Ahmad, reported from al-Hasan.
The second view: prudence (taqiya) is only in words, not in deeds, nor constraint upon them. Reported from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with both of them), from Abu al-'Aliya, from Abu ach-Cha'tha, ar-Rabi' ibn Anas, ad-Dahhak, a narration of Ahmad, reported likewise from Souhnoun. On this: if he drinks khamr or steals constrained, he is punished. On the first: if he drinks khamr constrained then repudiates or emancipates: is its judgement that of the one choosing his drink, or are his repudiation and emancipation void? Two ways of our companions. And reported from al-Hasan of the one told: prostrate to the idol, or we kill you: "if the idol faces the qibla, let him prostrate, aiming at Allah; and if other than the qibla: let him not do it, though he be killed." Ibn Habib the Malikite said: it is a beautiful saying. Ibn 'Atiyya said: what prevents him from aiming at Allah, even other than the qibla? In the Book of Allah: "Wherever you turn, there is the face of Allah." And in the Law, permission to the traveller of the supererogatory other than the qibla.
As for constraint upon words: the scholars agreed upon its validity, and that whoever is constrained to a forbidden word by a considered constraint may ransom his person by it, without sin, as indicated by the words of Allah the Most High, "except the one constrained, his heart reassured in the faith." And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to 'Ammar, "If they return, return." The polytheists had tortured him until he granted what they wanted of disbelief: he did it. As for what is reported from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commending a group of the Companions, "Associate nothing with Allah though you be cut and burned": intended is the association of hearts, as the Most High says, "If they strive to make you associate with Me that of which you have no knowledge, obey them not"; and He says, "But whoever opens to disbelief his breast: upon them is the anger of Allah."
And as for the other sayings, constraint is imagined in them: unjustly constrained to a word of the words, no judgement follows from it, it is void; the word of the constrained issuing from him unwilling, it is pardoned him, without reproach in the judgements of this world and the Hereafter. By this the forgetful and the ignorant differ. Likewise the contracts: sale, marriage, or dissolutions: khoul, repudiation, emancipation, and the oaths and vows: the opinion of the majority of the scholars, of Malik, ash-Chafi'i and Ahmad. Abu Hanifa distinguished what accepts dissolution with him and where choice remains, such as sale and the like: not binding under constraint; and what is not so, such as marriage, repudiation, emancipation and oaths: binding under constraint.
If he swears not to do a thing then does it constrained: with Abu Hanifa he incurs the expiation; with the majority, two opinions. The first: he does not incur it, as he does not incur it if constrained without being able to prevent, as preceded, the opinion of most of them. The second: he incurs it here, having done it by choice, unlike if carried without being able to prevent: a narration of Ahmad and the opinion of ash-Chafi'i. And of his companions, al-Qaffal and those distinguishing the oath from repudiation, emancipation and others, as we have said of the forgetful one. Certain of our companions reported it, a way for us. And if he is constrained to give his wealth unjustly, selling his property to pay: is the purchase from him valid? Two narrations of Ahmad. And from him a third: selling at the equivalent price, bought of him; without him, not bought.
When the constrained approved of that constraint upon desire arising after the constraint, the constraint remains: what issued from him of contracts and other becomes valid by that aim, the well-known among our companions. Another way: not valid either, and it is far-fetched. As for constraint by right: not preventing the persistence of that which is constrained: the belligerent constrained to Islam embraces Islam: his Islam is valid. Likewise if the judge constrains to selling his wealth to pay his debt; or the swearing husband, after the term of isolation and his refusal to return, constrained to the repudiation. And if he swears never to pay his debt, and the judge constrains him to payment: he incurs the expiation, having done the sworn thing in reality, without excuse. Mentioned by our companions, unlike if he refuses payment and the judge pays for him: no expiation, the sworn act not having taken place.