The Islamic Personality by Sheikh Taqīuddīn An-Nabahānī

The opinion that our master Muhammad  performed Ijtihād in certain rules and he made an error in his Ijtihād which Allah  then corrected means that our master Muhammad  conveyed the Sharī’ah to people from his Ijtihād and not a revelation. And that he is not ma'sum (infallible) in some of what he conveyed to the people from the Sharī’ah of Islam. Rationally & from the Sharī’ah point of view this is invalid (batil). Indeed our master Muhammad  is a Prophet (nabiy) and a Messenger (rasul) like the rest of the Prophets and Messengers, protected from committing mistakes in that which he conveyed about Allah  which is a definite protection proved rationally (dalīl 'aqli). Furthermore, there are Sharī’ah evidences that are definite in their meaning that the Prophet's  conveyance of the Message (risala), in general and specific aspects, was only from revelation. And the Messenger  did not convey the ahkām except from revelation. He  said in Sura al-Ambiya:

That is, tell them O Muhammad  that I warn you with the revelation that has been revealed to me. In other words my admonition to you is restricted to the revelation. And He  said in Sura an-Najm:

The expression 'wama yantiqu' is from the general form (sighat al-'umum). So it includes the Qur’ān and Sunnah. There is nothing in the Book and Sunnah that makes it specific to the Qur’ān. So it remains general that is, everything he has conveyed from the Sharī’ah is a revelation that has been revealed. It is not correct that it be specified to say that what he conveyed is only from the Qur’ān. Rather, it should remain general and inclusive of the Qur’ān and the hadīth.

And this is what the second ayah emphasises on when he  says,

As for the specification of what he  conveyed from Allah  in terms of legislation, and other rules, beliefs, thoughts and stories and the seperation of the styles and means and affairs of the world such as the agricultural activities, industry and sciences etc from it, This specification occurred due to two reasons: Firstly, Some of the texts [nusoos] revealed regarding them have specified them to legislation. He  said regarding the subject of pollinating the date palm:

And he  told the Muslims in the battle of Badr when they asked him: Is this revelation from Allah  or is it a matter of opinion, war and strategy? He  replied:

These texts have specified the revelation to things that are other than the affairs of the world and whatever is related to war, opinion and strategy.

As for the second matter which specifies the revelation to legislation, beliefs and rules etc, it is clear from the topic of discussion. That is because he  is a messenger and the discussion is in what he  has been sent with and not anything else. So the subject of discussion has been specified, and the general address (sighat al-'umum) remains general, however only in respect to the subject which was addressed in generality and not all the subjects. Yes, the consideration is for the generality of the wording and not for the specificity of the cause (sabab) (al-'ibra bi 'umum al-lafz la bi khusus al-sabab). However what is meant by the cause (sabab) is the incident for which the Qur’ān was revealed. The topic is not specific to it rather it is general to all the incidents, so the subject is not regarding the particular incident rather all the incidents and it is pertaining to the subject of discussion and not in all subjects. The subject matter of revelation is the warning (indhar) that is, legislation and rules. He  said:

These verses show that what was intended is what he  brought from the beliefs and rules and anything he  had been ordered to convey and warn people of. That is why it does not include the means and styles or the instinctual behaviour which are part of his natural disposition such as the manner of walking, pronunciation, eating etc..

They are regarding the matters related to the beliefs and Sharī’ah rules and not the means and styles and other things of a similar nature which do not come under beliefs and rules. Therefore, whatever the Messenger  brought, regarding what he  has been ordered to convey in all matters that relate to the actions of the servants and the thoughts, is a revelation from Allah .

The revelation includes the sayings, actions and silence of the Messenger , because we have been ordered to follow him. And He  said:

And He  said:

Thus, the speech, action and silence of the Messenger PBUH is a Sharī’ah evidence. They are all revelations from Allah .

The Messenger of Allah, our master Muhammad  used to receive revelation and convey what he brought from Allah , and resolve matters according to the revelation and did not deviate from the revelation. He  said in sura al-Ahqaf:

And He  said in sura al-A'raf:

I.e I do not follow anything except what my Lord has revealed to me. Generally, all of this is explicit, clear and evident. Everything that relates to the Prophet  in terms of what he has been ordered to convey is only revelation. The legislative life of the Prophet  in clarifying the rules to the people proceeded on this manner, he  used to wait for the revelation in many of the ahkām such as in the case of zihar, li'an (imprecation) and the like. He did not state a hukm (rule) on an issue or perform an act of legislation or remain silent legislatively except on the revelation from Allah . Sometimes the Sahabah  used to confuse the ruling on an action of the servants with an opinion concerning a thing, or a means or style. So they would ask the Messenger : is that a revelation O Messenger of Allah? Or is it a matter of opinion and mashura (advice)? If he said it was revelation they would remain silent because they knew that it was not from the Prophet  himself. But if he  told them: no, it is an issue of opinion and mashura (advice) they would discuss with him and perhaps he  would even follow their opinion as in Badr, Uhud and Khandaq. And in matters other that what he conveyed from Allah  he  used to say:

As reported in the hadīth concerning the pollination of the date palm. Had the Prophet PBUH said something pertaining the legislation without revelation he would not have waited for the revelation to state the hukm (ruling). And when the Sahabah  asked him whether a statement was a revelation or opinion, he  would have either replied to them from his mind or they would have discussed with him the matter without asking him whether it was a revelation or not.

Therefore, nothing emanated from his  sayings, actions, and silence except if it came via revelation from Allah  and not from his own opinion. He  never made Ijtihād and Ijtihād is not allowed for him  according to the Sharī’ah and rationally also. As for the Sharī’ah, the verses of the Quran explicitly indicate the restriction of everything that relates to the revelation:

As for the rational reason, it is because the Prophet PBUH used to wait for the revelation in many rules despite the urgent need to clarify the ruling of Allah . If ijthad was allowed for him he would not have delayed in giving the ruling but he would have performed Ijtihād. Because he  used to postpone giving the ruling until the revelation was sent down. This indicates he did not make Ijtihād. It also indicates that it was not allowed for him  to make Ijtihād. Had it been allowed he  would not have put off giving the ruling despite the need to do so. Also, it is obligatory to follow the Prophet , if he exercised Ijtihād it would be possible for him to make a mistake. If he made a mistake we would be obliged to follow him so the matter would necessitate that we follow a mistake which is not valid because Allah  did not order to follow a mistake. Furthermore, the Messenger PBUH is infallible (ma'sum) from making mistakes in the conveyance of the Message. It is absolutely impossible on his  part to make a mistake in the conveyance of (Allah's Message). Since allowing the Messenger PBUH to make a mistake negates the (concept of) Messengership and prophethood. So the affirmation of Messengership and Prophethood determines that the Messenger is not allowed to make mistakes. Regarding the conveyance of the Message it necessitates that he is protected from making mistakes in the conveyance. So it is impossible on the part of the Messenger PBUH to err in what he conveys from Allah . Consequently, it is not allowed on his part to exercise Ijtihād. Everything conveyed by him from the rulings, in his  saying, action and silence is revelation from Allah  and nothing else.

It should not be claimed that Allah  will not allow him  to remain on the mistake. And that he  will swiftly clarify it to him . This is because the mistake in Ijtihād when it occurs from the Messenger PBUH becomes fard on the Muslims to follow until the clarification comes. Then this clarification would have reestablished another ruling different to that of the first ruling. The Muslims would be ordered to follow this ruling and leave the former ruling which is a mistake. This is invalid, it is not possible on Allah's  part the He  order the people to follow a mistake and then order them to leave it and follow the correct one. Similarly, it is not allowed on the part of the Messenger PBUH that he conveys a ruling and then say to the people that this ruling is a mistake because it is from me, and the correct ruling is what has come to me from Allah  and inform them that they should leave the first ruling because it is a mistake and inform them of the correct ruling.

It should not be said that this is a rational evidence for a Sharī’ah matter as that is not allowed, the reason is that the Sharī’ah matter requires a Sharī’ah evidence, since the Sharī’ah matter whose dalīl has to be only a Sharī’ah evidence is the Sharī’ah rule. As for beliefs, their evidence can be rational or a Sharī’ah evidence. The subject whether the Prophet  is a mujtahid or not is from the beliefs and not from the Sharī’ah rules. So its evidence can be a rational or Sharī’ah evidence.The fact that it is not allowed for the Messenger PBUH to be a mujtahid is proven by the rational evidence and the Sharī’ah evidence. It is one of the beliefs.

It should not be claimed that the Messenger PBUH actually performed Ijtihād in various rules and that Allah  did not recognise his Ijtihād, and that He  corrected the messenger’s  Ijtihād and revealed verses which clarified the correct opinion. That should not be claimed because the Messenger PBUH did not exercise any Ijtihād in conveying any rule of Allah . Rather what is proven by the Qur’ānic text and the sound Sunnah is that he used to convey to the people from revelation. He  did not convey anything in terms of legislation, beliefs, rules and the like, except if it had come via the revelation and that he would wait until the revelation for a particular incident was not revealed.

The Islamic Personality Vol.1 107

As for the verses that are cited by those who say that the Messenger PBUH actually performed Ijtihād, and in which they assume Ijtihād took place. There is no ayah in which Ijtihād took place. For example, His  saying:

And such as His  saying:

And like His  saying:

And other such ayats and hadīth, this is not due to his  exercising Ijtihād regarding a ruling and conveying it to the people. Rather, it is by way of a mild rebuke for undertaking actions which are contrary to what is more befitting for the Messenger PBUH to do. It never happened that the Messenger PBUH conveyed a specific ruling to the people and then an ayah came to clarify the error of the ruling which he had conveyed and clarify the mistake in his Ijtihād and demand that he  convey the correct opinion regarding this ruling. Rather the matter of truth is that the Messenger  undertook an action in applying a Sharī’ah rule from the rules of Allah  which had previously been sent down in the revelation and the Messenger PBUH had already conveyed it to the people. The Messenger PBUH acted in a manner contrary to what was more befitting for him to have done in accordance with this ruling. Thus, he was mildly reproached for this contradiction. This mild reproach is not a legislation of a new ruling. So the ruling has already been revealed, and its application had been ordered and the Messenger PBUH had already conveyed it. Thus, in these incidents mentioned in these verses he  undertook an action in accordance with what Allah  had ordered, except that his  performance of this action was contrary to what was best, thus he was mildly rebuked for this. Therefore, these ayat mildly rebuke the Messenger PBUH for undertaking what was contrary to the best action. They are not ayat which legislate new rules which had not been legislated earlier. Nor do they correct an Ijtihād or legislate another ruling which is at variance with the ruling the Messenger PBUH had already made Ijtihād for. From the Sharī’ah and rationally it is allowed for the Prophets and Messengers to do what is contrary to the best because the meaning of doing what is contrary to the best is that it is a permissible (mubah) issue, however, some actions are better than others. Or, there is a matter which is preferable (mandub) but there are actions which are better than others. Thus, it is permissible for a person to live in the city or in the village. But living in the city is better than living in the village for the one who wishes to see to the matters of ruling and accounting the rulers. If he lives in the village he has done contrary to what is the best. Giving sadaqa openly or discreetly is a preferable matter (mandub) but giving sadaqa secretly is better than giving it publicly. If he gives it in public, he has acted contrary to what is best. So, it is allowed for the Messenger PBUH to undertake what is contrary to the best, rather it is allowed for him to do everything that is not considered sinful. He  infact undertook what was contrary to the best so Allah  mildly censured him for it. The one who thinks deeply about these verses that they cite will find that the wording of the verse, its understanding and meaning indicates this.

Thus, His  saying:

indicates that the taking of prisoners had already been legislated on the condition that a severe slaughter (ithkhan) took place before it. This is supported by the ayah:

Thus, the ruling of taking prisoners was not revealed in the ayah:

Rather, it was revealed before that in Sura Muhammad which is called the Sura of fighting (sura al-qital). It was revealed before Sura al-Anfal. Thus, it is in this Sura of fighting that the ruling of taking prisoners was revealed. He  said:

So the rule of taking prisoners had been revealed and was known before the revelation of:

In this verse there is no legislation for prisoners. And in the wording there is no legislation for prisoners to be found. Rather, it is only an address to the Messenger  that he should not have taken prisoners until he had inflicted a severe slaughter (ithkhan). What is meant by ithkhan is killing and creating intense fear. There is no doubt that on the day of Badr the Sahabah killed a great number of people and that they won the battle. It is not a condition of inflicting a severe slaughter in the land that everyone should be killed. Then after killing a great number they took a group as prisoners. This is permitted from the ayah in Sura Muhammad which is the Sura of fighting and from this ayah as well. It indicates that after inflicting a severe slaughter (ithkhan) it is allowed to take prisoners. So this ayah has come to indicate a clear indication that the capture of prisoners was allowed according to the ruling of this ayah. So it is not correct to say that the Messenger PBUH made Ijtihād regarding the ruling of prisoners of war when he took prisoners and the ayah was revealed to correct his Ijtihād. And nor is it the case that the capture done by the Messenger PBUH in Badr was a legislation and the ayah came to clarify his mistake. Likewise this capture was not a sin or a breach of the rule that had been revealed. However, it indicates that the Messenger PBUH in applying the rule of taking captives as mentioned in Sura Muhammad:

in this incident i.e the battle of Badr, it was better if the killing was greater so that the ithkhan was more evident. Thus, the verse was revealed to mildly reproach the Prophet PBUH for applying the ruling in a manner which is contrary to the best. It is the censure of an action undertaken by him to apply a previous ruling, it is not the legislation of a ruling and nor is it the correction of an Ijtihād. As for His  saying at the end of the ayah:

This is the conclusion of the rebuke in the ayah. that is, you have taken prisoners before doing your outmost to inflict a severe slaughter (ithkhan) hoping to get ransom for those prisoners i.e by taking captives you desire the transient things of the world, from the ransom (fidya) which is the consequence of taking them captive. And Allah  wishes to strengthen His  deen by killing them in the battle & not by taking them as prisoners. The issue is the taking of prisoners and desiring the good of this world is a result of the capture, it is not a mild rebuke for taking ransom. Rather, it is only a mild rebuke for taking captives before inflicting a severe slaughter. It completes the meaning of the ayah which began with this meaning from its very beginning:

As for His  saying:

It is not a promise of a punishment from Allah  for taking ransom as some would imagine. Rather, it clarifies the consequences that could possibly result from taking prisoners before doing ones outmost to inflict asevere slaughter, such as losing the battle and Muslims being killed by the Kuffar. This is the great punishment; it is not the punishment of Allah . i.e, if it were not that Allah  knew that you would be victorious, then for taking prisoners before doing your outmost to slaughter the Kuffar, your enemies would haves killed you and defeated you. The Qur’ān has used the word 'azaab (punishment) for killing in war. He  said:

It cannot be that it means the punishment of Allah , because the address is general to the Messenger PBUH and the believers. Because if the ayah, as they contend, is considered to be correcting an Ijtihād then it is a mistake that has been forgiven for which they do not deserve to be punished by Allah . If it is considered a mild reproach for acting contrary to what is best, as is the reality in this case, then it does not merit any punishment from Allah . It is not at all possible that it means the approaching of a punishment from Allah , Rather the meaning is that your enemies would have killed and humiliated you. As for the hadīth reported regarding the cause of this ayah being revealed, and regarding its stories, they are isolated reports (khabar ahad) which are not admissable as evidence for the aqeeda. Permitting or not permitting Ijtihād on the part of the Messenger PBUH is from the creedal issues. As for what was revealed by Allah  in the Quran:

It does not indicate Ijtihād because the ruling that the prophet  was permitted to excuse whomever he wished was revealed before this ayah. Allah  says in Sura An-Nur:

And this Sura was revealead after Sura Al-Hashr in the battle of the trench, and the ayah

was revealead in Sura At-Tawba, and it was revealed in the context of the battle of Tabuk in the ninth year Hijri, so the ruling was well known and the ayah of Sura an-Noor clearly indicates that the prophet PBUH is permitted to excuse those who ask him for permission (to stay behind). However in the incident for which the ayah of Sura at-Tawba was revealed, i.e the expedition of Tabuk and the preparation of the army of 'usra (hardship), It would have been better if the Messenger PBUH did not grant the hypocrites (munafiqin) permission to stay behind. When he  gave them the permission in that very incident, Allah  mildy rebuked him for this action, i.e He  rebuked him  for undertaking an action that was contrary to what was better. The ayah does not correct an Ijtihād and it does not legislate a ruling which is different to the ruling the Messeneger PBUH had made Ijtihād for concerning the same incident. Rather, it is a mild rebuke for something that was contrary to what was best.

As for His  saying:

It came after His  saying:

Allah  has clarified in the ayah;

that the Messenger PBUH should not allow them to accomany him in his expedetions. And this was in order to humiliate and disgrace them so that they do not get the hounour of making jihad and going out (to fight) with the Messenger PBUH. And He  in the ayah that comes immediatly after

announced (just) another thing to humiliate them. This took place during the campaign against them in order to destroy them. So this ayah, the ayah before it and the ayah after it clarify the rules regarding the hypocrites and the manner in which they should be treated by showing them contemp, humiliating them and lowering them them from the status of the believers. There is nothing in the ayah which indicates that the Messenger PBUH made Ijtihād regarding a ruling. The ayah came showing the contrary. Rather it is the preliminary legislation with respect to the hypocrites. It is in line with the other verses regarding the hypocrites repeated in the same Sura. Nothing appears in it, whether explicitly, by way of indication, by wording or understanding, or giving cause for any semblence (shubha) (of such a meaning) that it corrects an Ijtihād or draws attention to a mistake. As for what has been narrated regarding the reason for revealing this ayah in terms of reports, they are solitary reports (akhbar ahad) and are not admissable as evidence for ‘aqīdah (creed) and nor can they contradict the definite text which restricts the Meseneger's PBUH conveyance of rulings to that what he  brought through revelation and nothing else. He  did not follow anything but the revelation. Let alone that these ahadīth should make 'Umar bin al Khattab  try to prevent the Messenger PBUH from praying the janazah. So either he wanted to prevent him from doing an action legislated as a ruling or he wanted to prevent the Messenger PBUH from undertaking a worship according to a legislated Sharī’ah rule and the Messenger PBUH was silent about it. Then he  reverted to 'Umar's opinion after the revelation of this ayah, This is not allowed in respect to the Messenger PBUH. Acting upon this hadīth contradicts the fact the Mesenger  is a Prophet, so the hadīth is rejected in terms of meaning (dirayatan). The hadīth indicates that the Messenger PBUH gave his shirt to 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy and that he tried to pray (janaza) for him though he was the head of the munafiqin. 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy was exposed by Allah  after the battle of Bani al-Mustaliq, his son came to the Messenger PBUH to find out if the Messenger  had taken the desicion to kill him so that he may himself kill his father. Allah  revealed Sura al Munafiqin after the battle of Bani al-Mustaliq and He  said to the Messenger PBUH regrading it:

And He  told him with respect to it:

And He  told him:

And then the Messenger PBUH came after this and gave his shirt to the head of the hypocrites and tries to pray (janaza) for the head of the hypocrites and then 'Umar  prevents him. This contradicts the ayāt. The ayah of Sura al-Tawba was revealed in the ninth year (AH) after Sura al Munafiqin by a number of years. So the ahadīth about 'Umar (ra) and the shirt and other such ahadīth contradict the reality of how the hypocrites were treated after the battle of Bani al Mustaliq and they contradict the verses which were revealed before it regarding the hypocrites. Therefore, they are rejected also from this angle in terms of their meaning (dirayatan).

As for His  saying:

and the ayāt that follow, they do not indicate any Ijtihād..The Messenger PBUH is ordered to convey the Da’wah to all the people and to teach Islam to the Muslims. It is for the Messenger PBUH to undertake both the orders all the time. 'Abd Allah ibn Umm Maktum became a Muslim and learnt Islam. He came to the Messenger of Allah  while he was with the leaders of Quraysh; 'Utbah and Shaybah (the two sons of Rabi'ah), Abu Jahl ibn Hisham, al-'Abbas ibn al-Muttalib, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, al-Walid ibn al-Mughira. He  was inviting them to Islam in the hope that others would embrace Islam if they entered its fold. Ibn Umm Maktum said to the Prophet  while he was in this situation: Oh Messenger of Allah! Teach me to read and teach me what Allah  has taught you'. He repeated this not knowing that the Prophet  was busy (speaking) with these people. The Messenger of Allah  did not like the interruption in his conversation and so he frowned and turned away, and so this verse was reveled. The Messenger  is ordered to convey (the Da’wah) and ordered to teach Islam. So he undertook the convayance of the Call and turned away from teaching the one who asked to be tought due to being preoccupied with the convayance of the Da’wah. It was better for him to teach Ibn Umm Maktum  what he had asked for. But he  did not do this so Allah  mildly rebuked him  for that. Since his  The Islamic Personality Vol.1 113

turning away from Ibn Umm Maktum  was contrary to the best action, so Allah  mildy rebuked him  for undertaking what was contrary to the best. In this there is no Ijtihād concerning a ruling or a correction of an action. It was only the application of Allah's  ruling upon a certain incident which was contrary to the best action for which Allah  mildy censured him.

Thus, there is no indication in the aforementioned ayat of the occurance of Ijtihād from the Messenger PBUH . Since no Ijtihād came from him  regarding what he conveyed from Allah , Ijtihād is not allowed for him  whether rationally or according to the Sharī’ah. The Messenger  was not a mujtahid and it is not allowed in respect to him  that he be a mujtahid. It was only a revelation revaled to him by Allah  and this revelation (wahy) is either by wording and meaning as in the Noble Qur’ān or it is meaning only which is given expression by the Messenger  either with his own words or by his silence which alludes to a ruling or by doing an action and that, all of it, is the Sunnah.