Or one might draw an analogy with the Friday adhān, for the proof cited to show the merit of giving the adhān on the two ‘Īds (1) is actually stronger than the arguments used to commend most innovations.

Rather, it must be said: the Prophet’s leaving a matter un-done—while its supposed cause was present and no hindrance remained—is itself Sunnah, just as his doing something is Sunnah. Accordingly, when he ordered the adhān for Jumuʿah yet performed the two ‘Īd prayers without adhān or iqāmah, his very omission of the adhān on those occasions became a Sunnah. No one, therefore, has the right to add to that; adding would be like increasing the number of the prescribed prayers, the number of rakʿahs, or the days of fasting in the month, or the rites of ḥajj.

Were a man to wish to perform five rakʿahs for Ẓuhr and say, “This is an extra righteous deed,” he would have no right to do so. Likewise, if he sought to designate another site to which people would come solely for supplicating Allah and remembering Him, he would have no right to do that either. Nor may he claim, “This is a good innovation”; rather, it is said to him: every innovation is misguidance.

We know this to be misguidance even before we learn of any specific prohibition against it or perceive the harm it entails. This, then, is an example of something introduced even though the motive for it already existed and no impediment would have prevented it had it truly been good. For every benefit the innovator claims for it, or every proof he adduces, was already present in the time of the Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, yet he did not do it. That deliberate omission is a specific Sunnah that takes precedence over every general text and every analogy (2)(3).

An example of an innovation that arose out of people’s negligence—so that they later thought they needed it—is bringing the sermon before the prayer on the two ‘Īds; when certain governors introduced it (4), the Muslims rejected it because