Home > The 40 Hadith of Nawawi > Hadith 5 of Nawawi
Hadith number 5 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
📖 25 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.
after me: you will see much divergence: hold then to my sunna and the sunna of the well-guided successors after me; biting upon it with the molars; and beware of the novelties of affairs, for every novelty is an innovation, and every innovation is a straying."
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) used to say in his sermon, "The most truthful speech is the Book of Allah; the best guidance is that of Mouhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him); and the worst of things are the novelties."
We refer the discussion of novelties to the mention of the indicated hadith of al-'Irbad. We speak here of deeds without the command of the Lawgiver and their rejection. This hadith therefore indicates, by its statement, that every deed without the command of the Lawgiver is rejected; and by its implication, that every deed with His command is not rejected. What is intended by His command here is His religion and His Law, likewise to His words in the other narration, "Whoever introduces into our affair what is not of it: it is a rejection." The meaning is therefore: whoever's deed is outside the Law, not restricted by it, is rejected.
His words, "without our command," allude that the deeds of all actors must be under the rules of the Law, these judging upon them by command and prohibition: whoever's deed is under the rules of the Law, in conformity, is accepted; and whoever's is outside of that, is rejected.
The deeds are of two sorts: worships and transactions. As for the worships: whatever of them is outside the judgement of Allah and His messenger entirely is rejected upon its doer, and its doer enters under His words:
"Have they associates who legislated for them a religion without the permission of Allah?"
Ach-Choura, 21
[Drawing near to Allah by music or dance: an illicit innovation:] Whoever therefore draws near to Allah by a deed for which Allah and His messenger have not made a cause of drawing near, his deed is invalid, rejected upon him, like the state of those whose prayer at the House was whistling and clapping.
And that is like the one who draws near to Allah, the Most High, by listening to music, or dancing, or uncovering the head outside the state of sacralisation, and the like among the novelties Allah and His messenger never legislated at all as drawing near.
What is a cause of drawing near in one worship may not be in another
What is a cause of drawing near in one worship is not necessarily so in another. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) saw a man standing in the sun; he enquired, and was told: he has vowed to remain standing without sitting, without shading himself, and to fast. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded him to sit, to shade himself and complete his fast, without making his standing and his exposure to the sun a cause of drawing near to which his vow would be executed. It is reported that it was a Friday, at the listening to the sermon of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), he being upon the minbar: the man vowed to remain standing without sitting nor shading himself so long as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) preached, in magnification of the listening to the sermon of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him).
And the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not make it a cause of drawing near to which his vow would be executed, though standing be worship in other places: as the prayer, the call, the supplication at 'Arafat; and exposure to the sun a cause of drawing near for the sacralised one, indicating that what is a cause of drawing near in one place is not so in every place; rather one follows in all of that that by which the Law came in its places. And likewise whoever draws near by a worship specifically forbidden to him: such as fasting the day of the festival, or praying at the time of prohibition.
Mixing lawful and illicit in a deed
As for the one who does a deed of lawful origin and cause of drawing near, then introduces into it what is not lawful, or omits from it what is lawful: he contradicts the Law too, to the measure of his omission or his introduction; is his deed of origin rejected upon him or not? That is not pronounced by rejection or acceptance, but examined. If his omission is of parts of the deed or of its conditions, requiring its invalidity in the Law, like omitting the purification of the prayer with capacity, or omitting the bowing, the prostration or the stillness in them, his deed is rejected upon him, its repetition obligatory if it be an obligation. If his omission does not require the invalidity of the deed, like omitting the congregation of the prescribed prayer among those who oblige it without conditioning it, one says not his deed rejected of origin, but deficient.
And if he added into the lawful deed what is not lawful, his addition is rejected upon him in the sense that it is not a cause of drawing near, without reward; but at times it invalidates the deed of origin, rejected, as adding to his prayer a rak'a voluntarily; at times not, without rejecting it of origin, as doing four times four the ablution, or fasting the night with the day, continuing the fast.
Replacing the commanded with the forbidden
He may replace part of the commanded in the worship by the forbidden, such as covering his private part in the prayer by a forbidden garment, or performing ablution with usurped water, or praying in a usurped place: the scholars diverged over it: is his deed rejected of origin, or not rejected, his responsibility of the duty being discharged? And most of the jurists: it is not rejected of origin.
The prayer with an illicit garment
'Abd ar-Rahman ibn Mahdi reports of a people of the dialecticians named the Chimriyya, companions of Abu Chimr, that they say: whoever prays in a garment whose price contained an illicit dirham, it is obligatory upon him to repeat his prayer; and he said, "I never heard a saying uglier than theirs: we ask Allah for health." 'Abd ar-Rahman ibn Mahdi is among the great jurists of the people of hadith, knowing the sayings of the Ancients: he disapproved this saying and made of it an innovation, indicating that it is known of none of the Ancients, the saying of repeating the prayer in such a case.
The pilgrimage with illicit wealth
And that resembles the pilgrimage with illicit wealth: a hadith has come that it is rejected upon its holder, but a hadith not establishing itself; and the scholars diverged: does it fulfil the obligation or not?
The sacrifice with an illicit instrument
And near that: the sacrifice with a forbidden instrument, or the sacrifice of one who has not the right of sacrificing, such as the thief: most of the scholars said, the sacrificed animal becomes lawful by that; and some said it is forbidden; likewise the divergence over the sacrifice of the sacralised one for hunting; but the view of prohibition therein is the most famous and apparent, for he is specifically forbidden it.
That is why those who distinguish among the scholars distinguished between the prohibition aiming a meaning proper to the worship, which invalidates it, and the prohibition not proper to it, which does not invalidate it.
The prayer with impurity, or upon usurped land
The prayer with impurity, or without purification, or without covering, or towards other than the direction: it invalidates it, by the specificity of the prohibition to the prayer, unlike the prayer upon usurped land.
The fast of the fornicator and the backbiter
It witnesses that the fast is invalidated only by that which it is specifically forbidden, which is the species of eating, drinking and relation, unlike that which the fasting man is forbidden without specificity, such as lying and backbiting, with the majority.
The pilgrimage between the fornicator and the thief
Likewise the pilgrimage is invalidated only by that which he is forbidden in the state of sacralisation, which is relation, without being invalidated by the prohibitions not proper to the state of sacralisation, such as murder, theft and wine.
By what is the pious retreat annulled?
Likewise the pious retreat is annulled only by that which it is specifically forbidden therein, which is relation. And it is annulled by intoxication among us and among most, by the prohibition of the drunkard from approaching the mosque and entering it, according to one of the two senses of His words, "approach not the prayer when you are drunk": the intent being the places of prayer, becoming like the menstruating woman, without being annulled by another committing grave sins, among us and among many scholars. And certain Ancients contradicted therein, among them 'Ata, az-Zouhri, ath-Thawri and Malik, and it is reported from others too.
As for the transactions, such as the contracts, the rescissions and the like: whatever of them is an alteration of the legal situations, such as making the penalty of fornication a pecuniary penalty, and the like, is rejected of origin, no property being transferred by it, for that is not customary of the rules of Islam. It is indicated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said to the one who asked him, my son was a servant with such a one, he fornicated with his wife, I ransomed him from him with a hundred sheep and a servant: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "The hundred sheep and the servant are returned to you, and upon your son a hundred lashes and a year of exile."
And whatever of it is a contract forbidden in the Law, either because the object of the contract is not valid, or omission of a condition, or injustice befalling the contracting party or upon him, or the contract busying from the mention of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, obligatory at the narrow time, or other: is this contract rejected completely without transfer of property, or not?
The divergence of narrations thereupon
This place: the people were much troubled over it, for it came in certain wordings, rejected, giving not property; and in certain others, giving it: the confusion arose therein for that. [The nearest: distinguishing the right of Allah, the Most High, and the right of the human:] The nearest, if Allah wills, is that if the prohibition therein is for the right of Allah, the Most High, it gives no property at all, and the right being Allah's, it does not fall by the consent of the two contracting parties. And if the prohibition therein is for the right of a determined human, falling by his consent, it stands upon his consent: if he consents, the contract is binding and the property continues; if he consents not, the rescission is due him.
If the one the damage reaches is one whose consent is not considered at all, like the wife and the slave in divorce and emancipation, no regard to his consent nor displeasure; and if the prohibition was an easing towards the prohibited one himself, without any discomfort reaching him, and he contradicts it and commits the discomfort, his deed is not annulled by that.
The first has many images: the marriage of one whose marriage is forbidden, either for a permanent cause, the ones forbidden perpetually by cause or kinship, or by combination; or omission of a condition not falling by agreement, like the marriage of the woman in waiting period, of the forbidden woman, and the marriage without guardian and the like. It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) separated a man and a woman whom he married while pregnant: he returned the marriage for the entering into waiting period. And among that: the contracts of usury, giving no property, the order to return them having come: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded whoever sold a sa' of dates for two sa's to return it. And among that: the sale of wine, of carrion, of pork, of idols, of the dog and everything whose sale is forbidden, whose agreement by its sale is not permitted.
The second has many images: among them, the guardian marrying the one whose marriage is permitted only with her permission, without her permission. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) rejected the marriage of a mature woman whom her father married, she reluctant. And it is reported from him (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he gave choice to a woman married without her permission; and in the invalidity of that marriage or its suspension upon approval, two narrations of Ahmad. And part of the scholars adopted: whoever disposes for another of his wealth without his permission, his disposition is not invalid of origin, but stands upon his approval: if he approves, permitted; if he rejects it, invalid. They argue by the hadith of 'Ourwa ibn al-Ja'd, buying from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) two sheep, his instruction being to buy one sheep; then he sold one of them, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) accepted that. And Imam Ahmad restricted it, in the well-known of him, to whoever disposes for another of his wealth with authorisation, when he exceeds the authorisation.
The disposition of the sick man over his wealth
Among that: the disposition of the sick man over his wealth entirely: does it come invalid of origin, or does his disposition of the two thirds stand upon the approval of the heirs? A famous divergence of the jurists, the divergence in the school of Ahmad and others. And it is authenticated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), it was reported to him that a man emancipated six slaves of his at his death, having no other wealth: he called them, divided them into three parts, emancipated two, enslaved four, and said to him a harsh word: perhaps the heirs did not approve the emancipation of all, and Allah knows best. Among that: the sale of the deceiver and the like, like the honey-piercer, the sale of the najach, the waiting of the travellers and the like: in its authentication all of it, a famous divergence in the school of Imam Ahmad. Part of the people of hadith adopted its invalidity and rejection.
The correct: it is valid, standing upon the approval of whoever suffered injustice by it. It is authenticated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he gave the buyer of the honey-piercer the option, and that he gave the travellers the option upon descending to the market. All of that indicates it is not rejected of origin. And it was argued against certain saying the invalidity by the hadith of the honey-piercer, without his mentioning any answer. As for the sale of the present to the delayed: whoever authenticates it makes it of this kind; and whoever invalidates it makes the right to all the people of the country, they not being enumerated, their renunciation inconceivable, becoming like the right of Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Among that: if he sold slaves whose separation is forbidden, and separated between them, like the mother and her child: does it come invalid, rejected, or does it stand upon their consent?
It is reported that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) ordered the return of that sale. And Ahmad stated explicitly that it is not permitted to separate them even were they to consent. And part adopted the permission of separating them with their consent, among them an-Nakha'i and 'Obayd Allah ibn al-Hasan al-'Anbari. Upon that: it is conceivable valid, standing upon the consent.
If he favoured certain of his children by a gift
Among that: if he favoured certain of his children by the gift without others: it is authenticated from the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) that he commanded Bachir ibn Sa'd, when he favoured his son an-Nou'man by the gift, to return it. And that does not indicate that property does not transfer thereby to the son; for that gift is valid with consideration: were he to equalise between the children in the gift, or recover what he gave the son, permitted; and were he to die without doing anything of that, Moujahid says, it is inheritance. And it is reported from Ahmad likewise that the gift is annulled; and the majority, that it is not annulled. And is the return of the heirs due therein or not? Two famous views, being two narrations of Ahmad.
Among that: the forbidden divorce, such as divorce at the time of the menses: it was forbidden therein for the right of the husband, fearing for him the regret following it. Whoever is forbidden a thing as an easing towards him: if he does not abstain from it, but acts it and swallows his discomfort, his act is not judged invalid: as he fasted in sickness or travel, or continued his fast, or spent all his wealth sitting begging from the people, or prayed standing with the hardship of standing for sickness, or washed fearing for himself harm and loss without performing tayammum, or fasted perpetually without breaking, or kept vigil by night without sleeping. Likewise if he gathered the triple divorce upon the view of its prohibition. And it has been said: it was forbidden therein only for the right of the woman, there being no harm by the lengthening of the waiting period, even were she satisfied, in her asking him divorce for compensation during the menses: is the prohibition lifted by that? Two famous views of the scholars, and the well-known of our school and of that of ash-Chafi'i: the prohibition is lifted by that.
If the prohibition therein was for the right of the husband only, in engaging in it he renounced his right and it falls; and if it is explained for the right of the woman, its performance is not prevented either, for the consent of the woman to the divorce is not considered for its performance among all the Muslims, contradicting it only a small band of Rafidites and the like; likewise the consent of the slave to emancipation is not considered even were he harmed by it. But if the woman suffers harm by it, and something of her divorce remains, the husband is commanded to take her back, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded Ibn 'Omar to take back his wife, removing from her the harm and removing from him the forbidden divorce that occurred, so that her separation from him not be born of a forbidden divorce, and that he be able to divorce her in a lawful manner, her separation being obtained by that manner.
The report of Abu az-Zoubayr
It is reported from Abu az-Zoubayr, from Ibn 'Omar, may Allah be pleased with both of them, that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) returned her to him, without revisiting her. And that is part of what Abu az-Zoubayr is alone in, of all the companions of Ibn 'Omar, like his son Salim, his freedman Nafi', Anas, Ibn Sirine, Tawus, Younous ibn Joubayr, 'Abd Allah ibn Dinar, Sa'id ibn Joubayr, Maymoun ibn Mihran and others. And the imams of the scholars, the traditionists and the jurists denied this wording to Abu az-Zoubayr, saying: he singled himself out contradicting the reliable ones; his singling out is not accepted, for the narration of the group of Ibn 'Omar contains that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) counted him the divorce by numerous channels. And Ibn 'Omar said to whoever asked him about the divorcing of the wife during the menses, "If I divorced her once or twice, the Messenger of Allah commanded me to take her back"; "and if I divorced her three times, I disobeyed my Lord, and your wife has separated from you." And in the narration of Abu az-Zoubayr, an addition besides which none followed: his words, then the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) recited:
"O prophet! When you repudiate the women, repudiate them for their waiting period, and count the waiting period."
At-Talaq, 1
None of the reporters of Ibn 'Omar mentioning it. But 'Abd Allah ibn Dinar reports from Ibn 'Omar that he recited this verse in reporting the hadith, and that is the correct. Some people believed the divorce of Ibn 'Omar was triple, and that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) returned her to him only because the divorce during the menses did not occur; and that is reported from Abu az-Zoubayr also, from the narration of Mou'awiya ibn 'Ammar ad-Douhni; perhaps Abu az-Zoubayr believed it truly, reporting that wording in the sense he understood. And Ibn Lahi'a reports this hadith from Abu az-Zoubayr, saying of Jabir, that Ibn 'Omar divorced his wife while menstruating; the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, "let him take her back, for she is his wife": and he erred in mentioning Jabir in this isnad, and singled himself out by his words, "for she is his wife," which indicates not the non-occurrence of the divorce, save in supposing it triple.
This hadith was denied to Abu az-Zoubayr, and to the reliable, knowing traditionist companions of Ibn 'Omar attached to him, without anyone contradicting them therein. 'Ayyoub reported from Ibn Sirine, who said: I waited twenty years, asking one whom I do not suspect, whether Ibn 'Omar divorced his wife three times while menstruating, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) commanded her taken back; I never ceased not suspecting them, without knowing the hadith, until I met Abu Ghalib, Younous ibn Joubayr, being trustworthy, who informed me that he asked Ibn 'Omar, and he informed him he had divorced her once. Mouslim reports it. And in a version, Ibn Sirine said, I never ceased not to know the hadith at face, nor to understand it. That indicates it had spread among the reliable, non-people of fiqh and knowledge, that the divorce of Ibn 'Omar was triple; Abu az-Zoubayr was perhaps of that kind; that is why Nafi' often asked about the divorce of Ibn 'Omar: triple or single.
When Nafi' came to Mecca, it was sent to him from the assembly of 'Ata, asking him thereon, for that doubt; and the denial of Ibn Sirine of the narration of the triple indicates he knew not of a considered saying that the forbidden divorce does not occur, and that this saying has no face. Imam Ahmad said, in the narration of Abu al-Harith, asked of the one who says, the forbidden divorce does not occur, for it contradicts the command, he said, "it is a bad saying, ugly." Then he mentions the story of Ibn 'Omar, and that he was counted by his divorce during the menses. And Abu 'Obayd said, "the occurrence is that upon which the scholars make consensus, in all their countries, their Hidjaz, their Tihama, their Yemen, their Syria, their Iraq and their Egypt." And Ibn al-Moundhir reports it from all those whose word is preserved of the people of knowledge, except people of innovation not considered.
The view of Ibn Hazm
As for what Ibn Hazm reports from Ibn 'Omar, that the divorce during the menses does not occur, supporting it upon what he reports by the way of Mouhammad ibn 'Abd as-Salam al-Khouchani al-'Andalusi: Mouhammad ibn Bachchar informed us, 'Abd al-Wahhab ath-Thaqafi informed us, from 'Ubayd Allah ibn 'Omar, from Nafi', from Ibn 'Omar, of the man divorcing his wife while menstruating, he said, "she is not counted." And by his chain of Khalas likewise: this effect lost at its end a wording; he says, "that menstruation is not counted." Likewise Abu Bakr ibn Abi Chayba reports it in his book, from 'Abd al-Wahhab ath-Thaqafi. And likewise Yahya ibn Ma'in reports it from 'Abd al-Wahhab also, saying, "he is singular: none reports it but 'Abd al-Wahhab." And the intent of Ibn 'Omar: the menstruation in which the woman is divorced is not counted by the woman as purifying waiting period, and that is the intent of Khalas and others. And it is reported likewise from a group of the Ancients, among them Zayd ibn Thabit and Sa'id ibn al-Mousayyib: a group of the exegetes and others erred, as Ibn Hazm erred, reporting from certain whose names we have mentioned, that the divorce during the menses does not occur; there lies the cause of the doubt of the two, and Allah knows best.
This hadith was reported by al-Qasim ibn Mouhammad only when he was asked about a man having houses, bequeathing the third of three houses, do they combine for him into one house? He said, "All of that combines into one house: 'Aicha, may Allah be pleased with her, informed me that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, 'Whoever does a deed without our command, it is a rejection.'" Mouslim reports it.
His intent: changing the bequest of the testator to what is more beloved to Allah and more useful is permitted; it is reported from 'Ata and Ibn Jourayj. Some of those who adopt it perhaps argue by His words,
"Whoever fears from the testator a deviation or sin, and reconciles, no sin upon him."
An-Nisa, 12
He perhaps took it from the gathering of emancipation, for it is authenticated that a man emancipated six slaves of his at his death, having no other wealth: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) called them, divided them into three parts, emancipated two, enslaved four. Mouslim reports it. And the jurists of hadith went to it, for completing the emancipation of the slave as much as possible is worthier than the fractioning. That is why delegation and marching were legislated: when one of the partners emancipates his share of a slave, he (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said of the one who emancipated part of his slave, "he is emancipated entire: Allah has no partner." And most of the scholars are against the saying of al-Qasim, that the bequest of the testator does not combine, and one follows its wording, save emancipation specially; for the sense for which it was combined in emancipation does not exist in the rest of wealth: one acts therein therefore according to the requirement of the bequest of the testator.
And part of the jurists adopted, in emancipation, that he emancipate of each slave its third, and the rest is accorded. And following the judgement of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is more rightful and worthier. And al-Qasim considered that the sharing of the testator with the heirs in all the houses carries harm upon them, that harm being repelled from them, the bequest combining into one house: Allah indeed conditioned in the bequest the absence of harm, by His words,
"without harm, as bequest from Allah."
An-Nisa, 12
Whoever therefore harms in his bequest, his deed is rejected upon him, for his contradicting what Allah, the Most High, conditioned in the bequest.
If he bequeathed the third of his dwellings
Part of the jurists adopted: if he bequeathed the third of all his houses, then two thirds of the houses perished, there remaining the third, it is given him entire: the view of some of the companions of Abu Hanifa. And it is reported from Abu Youssouf and Mouhammad, and the qadi Abu Ya'la, of our companions, in his divergence, agreed therein. They built it upon that the joined houses divide between the co-owners by forced division: the view of Malik. And the apparent of the words of Ibn Abi Moussa, of our companions, and the well-known among our companions: the multiple houses do not divide by forced division: the view of Abu Hanifa and of ash-Chafi'i, may Allah have mercy on them. [Certain Malikites interpreted the views of al-Qasim mentioned in this hadith, that one of the two parties, of the heirs and the legatees, demand the division of the houses, and that they be near to joining one another in the division, that his division be answered, according to their view. And this interpretation is far-fetched, contradicting the apparent, and Allah knows best.]