‹Whoever Introduces into This Affair of Ours What Is Not of It Is Rejected› and Contemporary Developments

Occasion: Transcription of a Fajr khatira delivered on 27 April 2026 Source: A transcription of a video khatira by Dr. Ahmed Abouseif — Watch the original video on YouTube

O Allah, keep us firm with the firm word in this worldly life and in the Hereafter and on the day the witnesses arise. O Allah, we ask You on this noble day for lawful, good provision in which there is blessing, by Your mercy, good pleasure and generosity, O Lord of the worlds.

We strive to go through the pillars of the fifth ḥadīth of the book Jāmiʿ al-ʿUlūm wa-l-Ḥikam with some speed suited to the time allowed, God willing, blessed and exalted. The beginning of our talk today is on the authority of the Mother of the Believers, Umm ʿAbd Allāh ʿĀʾisha (may Allah be pleased with her), who said: the Messenger of Allah ﷺ said: «من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه فهو ردّ» ("Whoever introduces into this affair of ours what is not part of it, it is rejected"). And in a narration of Muslim: «من عمل عملًا ليس عليه أمرنا فهو ردّ» ("Whoever does a deed that is not in accordance with our affair, it is rejected")^[1].

The Narrator and the Context of the Ḥadīth

We mentioned earlier that the narrator carries very great weight in the context of the ḥadīth. And I see, and Allah the Exalted knows best, that every narrator among the transmitters of the Prophet's ﷺ ḥadīth, perhaps what I say is right and perhaps I am mistaken, but I think that transmission was not random; it was not that anyone would find anything and narrate it, but rather there were selections suited to the personality of each narrator. So what is the narrating personality of ʿĀʾisha (may Allah be pleased with her)?

And a saying is passed around on tongues: «خذوا نصف دينكم عن هذه الحميراء» ("Take half of your religion from this little fair-skinned one")^[2], and in it is a description of her with kindness, may Allah be pleased with her and with all the Mothers of the Believers. So why was it said: take half of your religion from her? Because she was the closest of people to the Prophet Muḥammad ﷺ, so much so that some analysts of the events of prophethood and the Sīra say: it is among the wisdom of Allah, blessed and exalted, that the Prophet ﷺ married ʿĀʾisha while she was young in age, because she would remain with him for the longest possible time. And that is not the only thing relied upon; for the length of time that ʿĀʾisha (may Allah be pleased with her) spent with the Prophet ﷺ is not hard for another woman to spend with a man. But young age together with an empty mind is more helpful to the servant for memorizing and receiving; to be in the Prophet's ﷺ company in the age of youth and the beginning of life and its launch, while her mind is still empty of the preoccupations that could surround her, that is more helpful for receiving more.

A Ḥadīth That Is the Fortress of the Religion

But the ḥadīth we have with us today is truly a decisive ḥadīth, so much so that some of the people of knowledge mention that it represents a third of the religion, or a quarter in some sayings. Why? Because it represents for us a fortress to protect the religion; by this ḥadīth no one may add to the religion or take away from it. Does anyone disagree with this sentence? No one should add to the religion or take away from it, is that not so?

But some questions remain. The Prophet ﷺ says: «من أحدث في أمرنا هذا ما ليس منه» ("Whoever introduces into this affair of ours what is not part of it"), so what is the significance of the word "introduces"? Likewise this ḥadīth has been used as a sword held over the necks of some people, and because of it some have been accused of immorality, takfīr, declaring innovation, introducing this and that, and so on. So what is the dividing line? What is the criterion? What is the significance of the word "introducing" in the religion? Where is the role of intention? Where is the judgment on the mind that added something, if he has knowledge, or if knowledge is absent? There are very many questions revolving around this ḥadīth among the scholars of ḥadīth and its commentators, the good pleasure of Allah, blessed and exalted, be upon them all, for they are the frontier guard of the community and the support for protecting the Sunna of the Prophet ﷺ.

Acts of Worship and Transactions: and New Developments

And the other question: what is the difference in the matter of introducing between acts of worship and transactions? The question now is about Bitcoin, for example: when we deal with it, from what starting point do we deal? That was not in the time of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, nor was it among financial transactions; the dollar, for example, was still in the unseen knowledge. Likewise banking transactions in their banking form that now govern all the wealth of creation.

Our early scholars, may Allah the Exalted have mercy on them all, used to deal with new developments in light of the constants. So what are the constants? For example, that worship is tawqīfī; they say that acts of worship are based on tawqīf (fixed by revelation). And transactions? The principle in them is that they are based on mutual consent. So we have two things: the principle in acts of worship is to stop at what is given, so the matter of ʿAṣr being four rakʿas, it is impossible for anyone to add or subtract, a completely closed matter; and the principle in transactions is mutual consent, as long as there is no clear text prohibiting the form of the transaction that took place between two parties. On that basis: when do we stop and when do we go forward?

In banking transactions, you, sir, will buy a house and will proceed through our brother so-and-so, so how do you act? I tell you: by Allah, you walk from this point to this point. Then you say to him: fine, where is the religion in this matter? We have a text, for example.

The Story of the ʿAsīf

In the name of Allah; we have a ḥadīth. It relates, for example, that a man asked the Prophet ﷺ and said: O Messenger of Allah, my son was an ʿasīf for so-and-so, that is, he was a hired worker with him, we ask Allah for safety and well-being, and he committed adultery with his wife, we seek refuge in Allah. So I ransomed him from him with a hundred sheep and a servant. That is, he ransomed him from the man, the husband of this woman; the boy was working as a servant for this woman and committed adultery with her, we ask Allah for safety. So what happened? Our man, the boy's father, was afraid for him, so he went to the man and said to him: for how much will you release us? He said to him: I will take from you a hundred sheep and a servant. So what was the position of the Prophet ﷺ? This action issued by that man annuls and conflicts with an established legislative principle, which is the punishment of the adulterer, married or unmarried, and we will distinguish in the matter. So the Prophet ﷺ said: «المئة شاة والخادم ردٌّ عليك» ("The hundred sheep and the servant are to be returned to you"); meaning this deal is not accepted, «وعلى ابنك جلد مئة وتغريب عام» ("and upon your son is a hundred lashes and banishment for a year")^[3].

So the ruling issued by the Prophet ﷺ was a hundred lashes and banishment for a year. And what is the meaning of banishment? It means they leave the town for a period of one year. What is the reason behind that? Physical and psychological distance from the woman with whom the relationship occurred, so that this body and this mind become accustomed to forgetting this woman; then if he returns, perhaps he finds her and perhaps he does not, but the physiological change takes place inside the self. He kept away from the woman for a year, and there was no chat, no communication, no Facebook, no Messenger, none of the talk that used to be, we ask Allah for safety and well-being; there were no means of communication at all. That is the wisdom of the legislation in this matter.

Fine, how do you apply this now when such an event happens? And how does psychological decline occur for both parties? And who carries out the application of this governing text? Is it possible that we clash with the constants of the legislation? Impossible.

The Problem: To What Have We Confined Introducing?

But the problem that has arisen, and I know that today's talk is somewhat difficult, is that we have confined the matter of introducing into the religion to one person who added two words to the adhān while calling it and another who did not add, and we forgot how to treat the contemporary developments of established, original juristic issues. We ask Allah, glory be to Him, the Exalted, for steadfastness upon the foundation of what the Messenger of Allah ﷺ left us, and that we remain with it like the white clear path, its night like its day, from which none strays except one who is doomed, and we ask Allah, blessed and exalted, for steadfastness upon guidance.

But I raised several questions that are not answered in a situation like this, but by way of opening minds to what the one who introduces something into the religion should be: is he a man who deliberately set up a matter in order to corrupt the law of Allah, blessed and exalted, and people's religiosity? Or did he see that this act is perhaps consistent, even to some degree, or has a basis, or agrees with the objectives of the legislation, so he introduced a matter that helps people toward greater religiosity? Perhaps he has some justification with Allah.

The Conclusion: Excuse in Proportion to the Good

I conclude now very simply, and I know that among those sitting are some trying to catch the idea from here and there, and among them are those who understood, praise be to Allah, and are going along with the steps waiting for you to say: what is the conclusion? The conclusion of the matter, with what is firmly established between us: that we must find for people an excuse in what they do in proportion to the good we hope for in them, if there is good in them; and that we will not find among the sincere people of faith one who wants to break the law by introducing something into it.

And imagine, for example, the stage when the Jews used to enter the Muslim society with hypocrisy, and introduce into the matter of the religion what corrupts the religion; that is one situation. But a very simple commoner who acts in a haphazard way, is he to be guided or condemned? Called or driven out of the gathering altogether? Convinced of right and wrong, or declared immoral by passing judgment on him and on whoever follows him?

I ask Allah for good speech and rectitude in words, and for not departing from the foundation, and that our Lord accept us with a good acceptance, O Allah, amen, O Lord of the worlds. And the talk has more to come. Peace be upon you and the mercy of Allah and His blessings.

--- ^[1]: Editor's documentation: The ḥadīth is well known in the two Ṣaḥīḥs; the narration the speaker mentioned is Muslim's. ^[2]: Editor's documentation: The speaker cited this wording as from the Prophet's ﷺ words, and it is not authentic in this wording; more than one of the ḥadīth memorizers, such as Ibn Ḥajar and al-Mizzī, mentioned that no chain of transmission is known for it, so it is not attributed to the Prophet ﷺ; it is only circulated on tongues. ^[3]: Editor's documentation: The story is in the two Ṣaḥīḥs from the ḥadīth of Abū Hurayra and Zayd ibn Khālid, may Allah be pleased with them both, as far as we know; and we recorded the wording of the return, the lashing and the banishment as the speaker conveyed it.