Maoni kwamba bwana wetu Muhammad ﷺ alifanya Ijtihadi katika baadhi ya hukumu na akakosea katika Ijtihadi yake ambayo Allah (SWT) kisha akaisahihisha, yana maana kwamba bwana wetu Muhammad ﷺ aliwafikishia watu Sharia kutokana na Ijtihadi yake na si kwa wahyi. Na kwamba yeye si maasum (asiyeweza kukosea) katika baadhi ya yale aliyowafikishia watu katika Sharia ya Uislamu. Kwa mtazamo wa kiakili na kisharia, hili ni batili. Hakika bwana wetu Muhammad ﷺ ni Nabii (nabiy) na Mtume (rasul) kama Manabii na Mitume wengine, amehifadhiwa asifanye makosa katika yale aliyoyafikisha kuhusu Allah (SWT), ambayo ni ulinzi wa uhakika uliothibitishwa kwa dalili ya kiakili (dalili 'aqli). Zaidi ya hayo, zipo dalili za kisharia zilizo wazi kabisa katika maana yake kwamba kufikisha kwake ujumbe (risala) ﷺ, kwa ujumla na kwa undani, kulitokana na wahyi tu. Na Mtume ﷺ hakufikisha hukumu isipokuwa kutokana na wahyi. Alisema katika Surat al-Anbiya:

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:

Yaani, waambie, Ewe Muhammad ﷺ, kwamba nakuonya kwa wahyi uliofunuliwa kwangu. Kwa maneno mengine, maonyo yangu kwako yamefungwa kwenye wahyi. Na Yeye (SWT) amesema katika Sura an-Najm:

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:

Usemi 'wama yantiqu' uko katika sighat al-'umum (umbo la jumla). Kwa hiyo unajumuisha Qur'ani na Sunnah. Hakuna kilichomo katika Kitabu na Sunnah kinachoufanya ukomee Qur'ani pekee. Kwa hiyo unabaki kuwa wa jumla, yaani, kila kitu alichokifikisha katika Sharia ni wahyi ulioteremshwa. Si sahihi kuufanya ukomee kwa kusema kwamba alichokifikisha ni kutoka katika Qur'ani pekee. Bali unapaswa kubaki kuwa wa jumla, ukijumuisha Qur'ani na hadithi.

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.

Na hiki ndicho aya ya pili inachosisitiza pale anaposema,

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

Kuhusu ubainishaji wa yale aliyoyafikisha kutoka kwa Allah kwa upande wa sheria, na kanuni nyingine, itikadi, mawazo na masimulizi, pamoja na kuyatenganisha na mitindo, njia na mambo ya dunia kama vile shughuli za kilimo, viwanda na sayansi n.k., ubainishaji huu umetokea kwa sababu mbili: Kwanza, baadhi ya matini [nusoos] zilizoteremshwa kuhusu mambo hayo zimeyabainisha kuwa ya kisheria. Alisema ﷺ kuhusu suala la kupachika mti wa tende:

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:

Na alipowaambia Waislamu katika vita vya Badr walipomuuliza: Je, hili ni wahyi kutoka kwa Allah au ni jambo la maoni, vita na mkakati? Yeye ﷺ alijibu:

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:

Maandiko haya yamebainisha wahyi kuwa ni kwa mambo yasiyo ya mambo ya dunia, na yale yanayohusiana na vita, maoni na mikakati.

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.

Kuhusu jambo la pili, ambalo linabainisha ufunuo kuwa ni wa sheria, imani na kanuni n.k., hilo linafahamika kutokana na mada ya mjadala. Hii ni kwa sababu yeye ﷺ ni Mtume, na mjadala unahusu kile alichotumwa nacho na si kingine chochote. Kwa hiyo mada ya mjadala imebainishwa, na usemi wa jumla (sighat al-'umum) unabaki kuwa wa jumla, lakini ni kwa kuhusiana na mada iliyoelezwa kwa ujumla tu, na si kwa mada zote. Ndiyo, kinachozingatiwa ni ujumla wa maneno na si ukomo wa sababu (sabab) (al-'ibra bi 'umum al-lafz la bi khusus al-sabab). Hata hivyo, kinachokusudiwa kwa sababu (sabab) ni tukio ambalo Qur’ani iliteremshwa kwa ajili yake. Mada haijakomea kwenye tukio hilo mahususi, bali ni ya jumla kwa matukio yote, kwa hiyo mada haihusu tukio fulani tu, bali matukio yote, na inahusiana na mada ya mjadala na si mada zote. Maudhui ya ufunuo ni onyo (indhar), yaani sheria na kanuni. Alisema:

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:

Aya hizi zinaonyesha kwamba kilichokusudiwa ni kile alicholeta kutoka kwenye imani na hukumu, na chochote alichoamriwa kufikisha na kuwaonya watu nacho. Ndiyo maana hakijumuishi njia na mitindo, wala tabia za kiasili zilizo sehemu ya tabia yake ya asili, kama vile namna ya kutembea, matamshi, kula n.k.

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..

Hizo ni mambo yanayohusu itikadi na hukumu za Sharīʿah, si njia, mitindo na mambo mengine ya aina hiyo ambayo hayaingii katika itikadi na hukumu. Kwa hiyo, kila alichokuja nacho Mtume ﷺ, kuhusu kile alichoamrishwa kukifikisha katika mambo yote yanayohusu matendo ya waja na mawazo yao, ni wahyi kutoka kwa Allah (SWT).

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 .

Wahyu unajumuisha maneno, vitendo na ukimya wa Mtume ﷺ, kwa kuwa tumeamriwa kumfuata. Na Yeye (SWT) amesema:

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

Akasema:

And He  said:

Hivyo basi, kauli, vitendo na kimya cha Mtume ﷺ ni dalili ya Shariah. Vyote ni wahyi kutoka kwa Allah (SWT).

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

Mtume wa Allah, bwana wetu Muhammad ﷺ, alikuwa akipokea wahyi na kufikisha alicholetewa kutoka kwa Allah, na kuamua mambo kwa mujibu wa wahyi, wala hakupotoka kutoka katika wahyi. Alisema katika sura al-Ahqaf:

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:

Na Yeye alisema katika sura Al-A'raf:

And He  said in sura al-A'raf:

I.e. sifuati kitu chochote isipokuwa kile ambacho Mola wangu Mlezi amenifunulia. Kwa ujumla, yote haya ni wazi, dhahiri na bayana. Kila kinachomhusu Mtume ﷺ kwa upande wa yale aliyoamrishwa kuyafikisha ni wahyi tu. Mwenendo wa Mtume ﷺ wa kutunga sheria katika kuwabainishia watu hukumu ulikuwa juu ya mtindo huu: alikuwa akisubiri wahyi katika masuala mengi ya hukumu, kama vile dhihari, li'ani (kuapizana) na mengineyo. Hakutoa hukumu juu ya jambo wala hakufanya kitendo cha kutunga sheria, wala hakunyamaza kwa namna ya kisheria isipokuwa kwa wahyi kutoka kwa Allah. Wakati mwingine Maswahaba walikuwa wakichanganya hukumu ya kitendo cha waja na maoni kuhusu jambo fulani, au njia au mtindo. Hivyo walikuwa wakimuuliza Mtume ﷺ: je, hilo ni wahyi, ee Mjumbe wa Allah? Au ni suala la maoni na shauri? Akisema ni wahyi, walikuwa wakinyamaza kwa sababu walijua kwamba haukutoka kwa Mtume ﷺ mwenyewe. Lakini akiwaambia: hapana, ni suala la maoni na shauri, walikuwa wakijadiliana naye, na huenda hata akafuata maoni yao kama ilivyokuwa katika vita vya Badr, Uhud na Khandaq. Na katika mambo yasiyokuwa yale aliyoyafikisha kutoka kwa Allah, alikuwa akisema:

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:

Kama ilivyoripotiwa katika hadithi kuhusu upandishaji wa mitende ya tende. Lau Mtume ﷺ angelisema kitu kinachohusu sheria bila wahyi, asingelisubiri wahyi ili kutamka hukumu. Na pale Maswahaba walipomuuliza kama kauli fulani ni wahyi au ni maoni yake, angewajibu kutokana na akili yake, au wangejadiliana naye juu ya jambo hilo bila kumuuliza kama ni wahyi au la.

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.

Kwa hiyo, hakuna kilichotoka katika maneno yake, vitendo vyake, na kimya chake isipokuwa kilikuja kupitia wahyi kutoka kwa Allah, na si kutokana na maoni yake mwenyewe. Yeye hakuwahi kufanya Ijtihadi, na Ijtihadi haikuruhusiwa kwake kulingana na Sharia na pia kwa mujibu wa akili. Kwa upande wa Sharia, aya za Qur'ani zinaonyesha waziwazi kwamba kila kinachohusiana na wahyi kimezuiliwa:

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:

Kwa upande wa sababu ya kiakili, ni kwamba Nabii ﷺ alikuwa akisubiri wahyi katika hukumu nyingi licha ya haja ya dharura ya kubainisha hukumu ya Allah (SWT). Kama ijtihadi ingeruhusiwa kwake, asingechelewesha kutoa hukumu bali angefanya ijtihadi. Kwa kuwa alikuwa akiahirisha kutoa hukumu hadi wahyi ushuke, hii inaonyesha kwamba hakufanya ijtihadi, na pia inaonyesha kwamba haikuruhusiwa kwake kufanya ijtihadi. Lau ingeruhusiwa, asingeahirisha kutoa hukumu licha ya haja ya kufanya hivyo. Pia, ni wajibu kumfuata Nabii ﷺ. Kama angefanya ijtihadi, ingewezekana kwake kukosea. Akikosea, tungelazimika kumfuata katika kosa hilo, na jambo hilo lingeleta kwamba tufuate kosa, jambo ambalo si sahihi kwa kuwa Allah (SWT) hakuamuru kufuata kosa. Zaidi ya hayo, Mtume ﷺ ni masumu (asiyeweza kukosea) katika kufikisha Ujumbe. Haiwezekani kabisa kwake kukosea katika kufikisha Ujumbe wa Allah (SWT). Kuruhusu Mtume ﷺ akosee kunabatilisha dhana ya Utume na Unabii. Kwa hiyo, kuthibitisha Utume na Unabii kunaamua kwamba Mtume hairuhusiwi kukosea. Kuhusu kufikisha Ujumbe, inalazimu kwamba alindwe dhidi ya kukosea katika kufikisha. Kwa hiyo haiwezekani kwa Mtume ﷺ kukosea katika alichokifikisha kutoka kwa Allah (SWT). Kwa sababu hiyo, hairuhusiwi kwake kufanya ijtihadi. Kila kitu alichokifikisha kutoka katika hukumu, katika kauli yake, tendo lake na kimya chake, ni wahyi kutoka kwa Allah (SWT) na si kingine.

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.

Na kama kauli yake:

And such as His  saying:

Na kama kauli Yake:

And like His  saying:

Na aya nyingine kama hizo na hadithi kama hizo, hii haitokani na yeye kufanya Ijtihadi kuhusu hukumu fulani na kuiwasilisha kwa watu. Badala yake, ni kwa njia ya lawama ndogo kwa kuchukua vitendo ambavyo ni kinyume na kile kinachostahili zaidi kwa Mtume ﷺ kufanya. Haijawahi kutokea kwamba Mtume ﷺ aliwasilisha hukumu maalum kwa watu kisha aya ikaja kufafanua kosa la hukumu aliyoiwasilisha na kubainisha makosa katika Ijtihadi yake na kudai kwamba aiwasilishe maoni sahihi kuhusu hukumu hii. Badala yake, ukweli ni kwamba Mtume ﷺ alichukua hatua katika kutumia hukumu ya Shari'ah miongoni mwa hukumu za Allah ambazo zilishateremshwa hapo awali katika Wahyi, na Mtume ﷺ alikuwa tayari ameshaziwasilisha kwa watu. Mtume ﷺ alitenda kinyume na kile kilichostahili zaidi kwake kufanya kulingana na hukumu hii. Hivyo, alilaumiwa kidogo kwa mgongano huu. Lawama hii ndogo si kuweka sheria mpya ya hukumu. Hivyo hukumu ilishateremshwa, na amri ya kuitekeleza ilishatolewa, na Mtume ﷺ alishaiwasilisha. Kwa hiyo, katika matukio yaliyotajwa katika aya hizi, alichukua hatua kulingana na kile ambacho Allah alichoamuru, isipokuwa utekelezaji wake wa kitendo hicho ulikuwa kinyume na kilicho bora, hivyo alilaumiwa kidogo kwa hilo. Kwa hiyo, aya hizi zinamlaumu kidogo Mtume ﷺ kwa kuchukua kitendo kinyume na kilicho bora. Si aya zinazoweka sheria mpya ambazo hazikuwekwa hapo awali. Wala hazisahihishi Ijtihadi au kuweka hukumu nyingine inayopingana na hukumu ambayo Mtume ﷺ alishafanya Ijtihadi kwayo. Kwa mujibu wa Shari'ah na kwa mantiki, inaruhusiwa kwa Manabii na Mitume kufanya kile kinachoenda kinyume na kilicho bora, kwa sababu maana ya kufanya kinyume na kilicho bora ni kwamba ni jambo linaloruhusiwa (mubah), lakini baadhi ya vitendo ni bora kuliko vingine. Au, kuna jambo ambalo ni la kupendeza (mandub), lakini kuna vitendo ambavyo ni bora kuliko vingine. Hivyo, ni ruhusa kwa mtu kuishi mjini au kijijini. Lakini kuishi mjini ni bora kuliko kuishi kijijini kwa yule anayetaka kushughulikia mambo ya utawala na kuwahesabu watawala. Akiishi kijijini, amefanya kinyume na lililo bora. Kutoa sadaka waziwazi au kwa siri ni jambo la kupendeza (mandub), lakini kutoa sadaka kwa siri ni bora kuliko kuitoa hadharani. Akiitoa hadharani, amefanya kinyume na lililo bora. Basi, ni ruhusa kwa Mtume ﷺ kufanya lililo kinyume na lililo bora, bali ni ruhusa kwake kufanya kila jambo ambalo halihesabiwi kuwa dhambi. Kwa kweli alifanya kile kilicho kinyume na lililo bora, hivyo Allah {SWT} akamkemea kwa upole kwa hilo. Yule atakayetafakari kwa kina aya hizi wanazozitaja ataona kwamba muundo wa aya, ufahamu wake na maana yake vinaonyesha hilo.

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.

inaonyesha kwamba kuchukuliwa kwa mateka kulikuwa tayari kumewekwa kisheria kwa sharti kwamba mauaji makubwa (ithkhan) yawe yametokea kabla ya hapo. Hili linathibitishwa na aya hii:

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:

Kwa hiyo, hukumu ya kuwachukua wafungwa haikuteremshwa katika aya hiyo.

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

Badala yake, ilishushiwa kabla katika Sura Muhammad, ambayo huitwa Sura ya kupigana (sura al-qital). Ilishushwa kabla ya Sura al-Anfal. Hivyo, ni katika Sura hii ya kupigana ambapo hukumu ya kuwachukua mateka ilishushwa. Alisema:

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:

Kwa hiyo sheria ya kuwachukua wafungwa ilikuwa imeshateremshwa na ilikuwa inajulikana kabla ya kuteremshwa kwa:

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

Katika aya hii hakuna sheria kuhusu mateka. Wala katika maneno yake hakuna sheria ya mateka kupatikana. Badala yake, ni anwani tu kwa Mtume ﷺ kwamba asingewachukua mateka mpaka amewaua kwa mauaji makubwa (ithkhan). Maana ya ithkhan ni kuua na kuleta hofu kubwa. Hakuna shaka kwamba siku ya Badr Masahaba waliua idadi kubwa ya watu na kwamba walishinda vita. Sharti la kufanya mauaji makubwa katika ardhi si kwamba kila mtu auawe. Kisha baada ya kuua idadi kubwa walichukua kundi moja kama mateka. Hili linaruhusiwa kutokana na aya katika Suratu Muhammad, ambayo ni Sura ya mapigano, na kutokana na aya hii pia. Inaonyesha kwamba baada ya kufanya mauaji makubwa (ithkhan) inaruhusiwa kuchukua mateka. Kwa hiyo aya hii imekuja kuonyesha dalili wazi kwamba kuwakamata mateka kulikuwa ruhusa kwa mujibu wa hukumu ya aya hii. Basi si sahihi kusema kwamba Mtume ﷺ alifanya Ijtihadi kuhusu hukumu ya mateka wa vita alipowachukua mateka, na kwamba aya ikashushwa kusahihisha Ijtihadi yake. Wala si kweli kwamba kukamatwa kwa Mtume ﷺ huko Badr kulikuwa sheria, na aya ikaja kufafanua kosa lake. Vilevile kukamatwa huku hakukuwa dhambi wala kukiuka kanuni iliyoshushwa. Hata hivyo, inaonyesha kwamba Mtume ﷺ katika kutumia kanuni ya kuchukua mateka kama ilivyotajwa katika Suratu Muhammad,

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:

Katika tukio hili, yaani vita vya Badr, ilikuwa bora mauaji yawe makubwa zaidi ili ukandamizaji (ithkhan) uonekane wazi zaidi. Hivyo, aya ilishushwa kumkemea kwa upole Mtume ﷺ kwa kutumia hukumu kwa namna iliyo kinyume na lililo bora zaidi. Ni kukemea kitendo alichokifanya cha kutumia hukumu iliyotangulia; si kuweka hukumu mpya, wala kusahihisha Ijtihad. Kuhusu kauli yake mwishoni mwa aya:

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:

Hitimisho la kukemewa katika aya hii ni: mmewachukua mateka kabla ya kufanya bidii yenu yote kuwaua kwa mauaji makali (ithkhan), mkitarajia kupata fidia kwa ajili ya mateka hao. Yaani, kwa kuwachukua mateka mnataka vitu vya muda vya dunia hii, kutoka kwenye fidia (fidya) ambayo ni matokeo ya kuwachukua mateka. Na Allah anataka kuiimarisha dini Yake kwa kuwaua katika vita, si kwa kuwachukua kuwa mateka. Jambo hapa ni kwamba kuchukua mateka na kutaka mema ya dunia ni matokeo ya kukamatwa kwao; si kukemewa kidogo kwa kuchukua fidia. Bali ni kukemewa kidogo tu kwa kuwachukua mateka kabla ya kuwaua kwa mauaji makali. Hii inakamilisha maana ya aya, ambayo ilianza na maana hii tangu mwanzo wake.

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:

Kuhusu kauli yake:

As for His  saying:

Haimaanishi kuwa ni ahadi ya adhabu kutoka kwa Allah kwa kuchukua fidia kama baadhi ya watu wanavyodhani. Badala yake, inaeleza matokeo yanayoweza kutokea kutokana na kuwachukua mateka kabla ya kufanya juhudi zote za kuwaua kwa umwagaji mkubwa wa damu, kama vile kushindwa vitani na Waislamu kuuawa na makafiri. Hii ndiyo adhabu kubwa; si adhabu ya Allah. Yaani, kama isingekuwa kwamba Allah alijua kwamba mtashinda, basi kwa kuwachukua mateka kabla ya kufanya juhudi zenu zote za kuwaua makafiri, adui zenu wangewaua na kuwashinda. Qur'ani imetumia neno 'adhaab (adhabu) kwa kuuawa vitani. Yeye amesema:

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:

Haiwezekani kwamba inamaanisha adhabu ya Allah, kwa sababu kauli hiyo ni ya jumla kwa Mtume ﷺ na waumini. Kwani ikiwa aya, kama wanavyodai, inachukuliwa kuwa ni marekebisho ya Ijtihadi, basi ni kosa lililosamehewa ambalo kwa hilo hastahili kuadhibiwa na Allah. Na ikiwa inachukuliwa kuwa ni lawama ndogo kwa kutenda kinyume na lililo bora, kama ilivyo hali halisi katika jambo hili, basi haistahili adhabu yoyote kutoka kwa Allah. Haiwezekani hata kidogo kwamba inamaanisha kukaribia kwa adhabu kutoka kwa Allah. Bali maana yake ni kwamba maadui zako wangekuua na kukudhalilisha. Kuhusu hadithi iliyopokewa kuhusu sababu ya kuteremshwa kwa aya hii, na kuhusu visa vyake, hizo ni khabari ahad (riwaya pekee) ambazo haziwezi kukubaliwa kama ushahidi katika aqida. Kuruhusu au kutoruhusu Ijtihadi kwa upande wa Mtume ﷺ ni miongoni mwa mambo ya kiitikadi. Kuhusu yale aliyoteremsha Allah katika Qur'an:

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:

Haidhihirishi kuwa hii si ijtihadi, kwa sababu hukumu kwamba Mtume ﷺ aliruhusiwa kuwasamehe wale aliowataka ilishateremshwa kabla ya aya hii. Allah (SWT) anasema katika Surat An-Nur:

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:

Sura hii iliteremshwa baada ya Sura Al-Hashr katika vita vya Khandaq, na aya

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

ilifunuliwa katika Surat At-Tawba, na ilifunuliwa kwa muktadha wa vita vya Tabuk katika mwaka wa tisa Hijria, hivyo hukumu hiyo ilijulikana vizuri, na aya ya Surat An-Nur inaonyesha wazi kwamba Mtume ﷺ anaruhusiwa kuwasamehe wale wanaomwomba ruhusa (ya kubaki nyuma). Hata hivyo, katika tukio ambalo aya ya Surat At-Tawba ilifunuliwa, yaani msafara wa Tabuk na maandalizi ya jeshi la 'usra (dhiki), ingekuwa bora kama Mtume ﷺ asingewapa wanafiki (munafiqin) ruhusa ya kubaki nyuma. Alipowapa ruhusa katika tukio hilo hilo, Allah alimkemea kwa upole kwa kitendo hicho, yaani alimkemea kwa kuchukua hatua iliyokuwa kinyume na lililo bora zaidi. Aya hiyo haisahihishi Ijtihadi, wala haiweki hukumu tofauti na ile ambayo Mtume ﷺ alikuwa ametoa kwa Ijtihadi yake kuhusu tukio hilo hilo. Badala yake, ni kemeo la upole kwa jambo lililokuwa kinyume na lililo bora zaidi.

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.

Kuhusu kauli yake:

As for His  saying:

Ilikuja baada ya kauli Yake:

It came after His  saying:

Allah ameeleza wazi katika aya;

Allah  has clarified in the ayah;

kwamba Mtume ﷺ hakupaswa kuwaruhusu kumsindikiza katika safari zake za kijeshi. Na hili lilikuwa ili kuwadhalilisha na kuwaaibisha, ili wasipate heshima ya kufanya jihadi na kutoka (kupigana) pamoja na Mtume ﷺ. Na Yeye katika aya inayofuata mara moja

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

ametangaza jambo jingine la kuwadhalilisha. Hili lilitokea wakati wa kampeni dhidi yao ili kuwaangamiza. Hivyo aya hii, aya iliyotangulia na aya inayofuata zinafafanua kanuni kuhusu wanafiki na jinsi wanavyopaswa kutendewa, kwa kuwaonyesha dharau, kuwadhalilisha na kuwashusha kutoka hadhi ya Waumini. Hakuna kitu katika aya hiyo kinachoonyesha kwamba Mtume ﷺ alifanya Ijtihadi kuhusu hukumu fulani. Aya ilishuka ikionyesha kinyume chake. Bali ni sheria ya awali kuhusu wanafiki. Inaendana na aya nyingine kuhusu wanafiki zilizorudiwa katika Sura hiyo hiyo. Hakuna chochote ndani yake, iwe waziwazi, kwa kudokezwa, kwa maneno au kwa kuelewa, wala chochote kinachotoa sababu ya kuwepo kwa shubha (dhana potofu) kwamba inasahihisha Ijtihadi au kuelekeza kwenye kosa. Kuhusu yale yaliyosimuliwa juu ya sababu ya kushuka kwa aya hii, kwa upande wa riwaya, hizo ni hadithi za Ahad (riwaya za mtu mmoja) na haziwezi kukubalika kuwa ushahidi wa Itikadi (aqidah), wala haziwezi kupingana na nassi iliyo wazi inayoweka mipaka ya ufikishaji wa hukumu na Mtume ﷺ kwa yale aliyoletewa kupitia Wahyi pekee na si kingine. Yeye hakufuata chochote isipokuwa Wahyi. Achilia mbali kwamba hadithi hizi zingemfanya Umar bin al-Khattab ajaribu kumzuia Mtume ﷺ kuswali janaza. Kwa hiyo, ima alitaka kumzuia kutenda kitendo kilichowekwa kama hukumu, au alitaka kumzuia Mtume ﷺ kufanya ibada kwa mujibu wa kanuni ya Sharia iliyowekwa, na Mtume ﷺ akanyamaza kuhusu hilo. Kisha akarejea kwenye maoni ya Umar baada ya kushuka kwa aya hii, jambo ambalo haliruhusiwi kwa Mtume ﷺ. Kutenda kwa hadithi hii kunapingana na ukweli kwamba Mtume ﷺ ni Nabii, hivyo hadithi hiyo inakataliwa kwa upande wa maana (dirayatan). Hadithi inaonyesha kwamba Mtume ﷺ alimpa 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy shati yake, na kwamba alijaribu kumswalia (janaza) ingawa yeye alikuwa kiongozi wa wanafiki. 'Abd Allah ibn Ubayy alifichuliwa na Allah baada ya vita vya Bani al-Mustaliq. Mwanawe alimwendea Mtume ﷺ ili kujua kama Mtume ﷺ amekwisha kuamua kumuua, ili yeye mwenyewe amuue baba yake. Allah alifunua Sura al-Munafiqin baada ya vita vya Bani al-Mustaliq, na akamwambia Mtume ﷺ kuhusu hilo:

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:

Na Yeye akamwambia kuhusiana nayo:

And He  told him with respect to it:

Naye Yeye akamwambia:

And He  told him:

Kisha Mtume ﷺ akaja baada ya hili na kumpa shati lake mkuu wa wanafiki, na akajaribu kumswalia janaza mkuu wa wanafiki, lakini 'Umar akamzuia. Hili linapingana na aya. Aya ya Suratu at-Tawba ilishushwa katika mwaka wa tisa (Hijria) baada ya Suratu al-Munafiqun kwa miaka kadhaa. Kwa hiyo hadithi kuhusu 'Umar (ra) na shati, pamoja na hadithi nyingine za aina hiyo, zinapingana na ukweli wa jinsi wanafiki walivyoshughulikiwa baada ya vita vya Bani al-Mustaliq, na zinapingana pia na aya zilizoshushwa kabla yake kuhusu wanafiki. Kwa hiyo, kwa mtazamo huu pia, zimekataliwa kwa upande wa maana (dirayatan).

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).

Kuhusu kauli yake:

As for His  saying:

Na aya zinazofuata, hazionyeshi Ijtihad yoyote. Mtume SAW ameamrishwa kufikisha Da'wah kwa watu wote na kuwafundisha Uislamu Waislamu. Ni wajibu wa Mtume SAW kutekeleza amri hizi zote mbili wakati wote. 'Abd Allah ibn Umm Maktum alisilimu na kujifunza Uislamu. Alikuja kwa Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ alipokuwa pamoja na viongozi wa Quraysh: 'Utbah na Shaybah (wana wawili wa Rabi'ah), Abu Jahl ibn Hisham, al-'Abbas ibn al-Muttalib, Umayyah ibn Khalaf, al-Walid ibn al-Mughira. Alikuwa akiwalingania watu hawa kwenye Uislamu kwa matumaini kwamba wengine wangeukubali Uislamu iwapo wangeingia katika fungu lake. Ibn Umm Maktum alimwambia Mtume ﷺ akiwa katika hali hiyo: "Ee Mjumbe wa Allah! Nifundishe kusoma na nifundishe yale ambayo Allah amekufundisha." Alirudia hilo bila kujua kwamba Mtume ﷺ alikuwa amezama katika mazungumzo na watu hao. Mjumbe wa Allah ﷺ hakupenda kukatizwa kwa mazungumzo yake, hivyo akakunja uso na kugeuka, na ndipo aya hii ikateremshwa. Mtume ﷺ ameamrishwa kufikisha (Da'wah) na ameamrishwa kufundisha Uislamu. Basi alichukua jukumu la kufikisha wito na akageuka kutoka kumfundisha yule aliyeomba kufundishwa kwa sababu ya kushughulishwa na kufikisha Da'wah. Ingekuwa bora kwake kumfundisha Ibn Umm Maktum kile alichokuwa ameomba. Lakini hakufanya hivyo, kwa hiyo Allah alimkemea kwa upole kwa hilo. Kwa kuwa yeye ﷺ ...

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

Kumgeuka Ibn Umm Maktum kulikuwa kinyume na kitendo bora zaidi, kwa hiyo Allah (SWT) alimkemea kwa upole kwa kufanya kile kilichokuwa kinyume na bora zaidi. Katika hili hakuna Ijtihadi kuhusu hukumu wala marekebisho ya kitendo. Ilikuwa ni kutumia tu hukumu ya Allah (SWT) juu ya tukio fulani, ambalo lilikuwa kinyume na kitendo bora zaidi, na kwa sababu hiyo Allah (SWT) alimkemea kwa upole.