认为我们的主人穆罕默德ﷺ在某些律例上进行了伊贾提哈德，并在其伊贾提哈德中犯了错误，之后安拉予以纠正，这意味着我们的主人穆罕默德ﷺ向people传达的沙里亚是出于他的伊贾提哈德，而非出于启示。并且，他在向人们传达的伊斯兰沙里亚的某些内容上并非无误（ma'sum）。从理性和沙里亚的角度来看，这种观点是无效的（batil）。的确，我们的主人穆罕默德ﷺ是一位先知（nabiy）和使者（rasul），与其他先知和使者一样，在他所传达的关于安拉的内容上受到保护，免于犯错，这是一种经理性证明的确定保护（dalīl 'aqli）。此外，有确定含义的沙里亚证据表明，先知ﷺ传达的讯息（risala），无论总体还是细节，都只来自启示。使者ﷺ所传达的律令（ahkām）只来自启示。他ﷺ在《众先知章》中说道：

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:

也就是说，你要告诉他们：“穆罕默德啊，我只是以所降示于我的启示来警告你们。”换句话说，我对你们的劝诫仅限于启示。真主在《星星章》中说：

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:

"وَمَا يَنْطِقُ" 这一表达属于一般性的语式（صيغة العموم）。因此它既包括《古兰经》，也包括圣训。《古兰经》和圣训中都没有任何依据使其专指《古兰经》。所以它应当保持一般性，即：他从伊斯兰教法所传达的一切，都是所启示的启示。说他所传达的只是《古兰经》，这种限定是不正确的。相反，它应当保持一般性，既包括《古兰经》，也包括圣训。

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.

而这正是第二节经文所强调的内容，他说道：

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

关于先知ﷺ所传达的来自真主的内容的界定——包括立法方面及其他规定、信仰、思想和故事，以及将世间的事务如农业活动、工业和科学等与之区分开来的问题——这种界定有两个原因：第一，有些关于这些事务的经文（nusoos）已将其限定于立法范畴。先知ﷺ曾就为椰枣树授粉之事说道：

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:

在Badr之战中，穆斯林曾问他：这是来自安拉的启示，还是个人的意见、战争与谋略？他ﷺ回答说：

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:

这些经文将启示限定于那些与世间事务、战争、见解和策略无关的事情。

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.

关于第二点，即启示限定于立法、信仰和律例等，这从讨论的主题即可看出。原因在于他是一位使者，而讨论的内容是他所奉派来传达的东西，而非其他。因此，讨论的主题已经被限定，而一般性的措辞（sighat al-'umum）仍然保持普遍，但仅限于那些以一般性措辞提及的主题，而非所有主题。是的，考虑的是措辞的普遍性，而非起因（sabab）的特定性（al-'ibra bi 'umum al-lafz la bi khusus al-sabab）。然而，所谓起因（sabab），是指《古兰经》降示时所发生的那件事。主题并不因此而特定于那件事，而是普遍适用于所有事件；因此，主题所涉及的并非某个特定事件，而是所有事件，并且它关涉的是讨论的主题，而非所有主题。启示的主题即是警告（indhar），也就是立法和律例。他说：

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:

这些经文表明，所指的是他所带来的信仰与律法，以及他奉命传达和警告世人的一切内容。因此，这并不包括手段与方式，也不包括属于其天性的本能性行为，例如走路的姿态、发音、饮食等。

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..

它们涉及的是信仰和伊斯兰教法（Sharī‘ah）的规定，而不是方式、风格以及其他类似性质、不属于信仰与规定范畴的事务。因此，使者ﷺ所带来的，即他奉命传达的、关于仆人的行为与思想的一切事务，都是来自安拉的启示。

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 .

启示包括使者的言语、行为和默许，因为我们被命令要遵从他。主说：

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

他说：

And He  said:

因此,先知穆罕默德ﷺ的言语、行为和默许都是伊斯兰教法的依据。它们都是安拉的启示。

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

安拉的使者、我们的主穆罕默德ﷺ曾接受启示，并传达他从安拉那里所带来的内容，依照启示来裁决事务，从未偏离启示。他在《沙丘章》中说：

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:

他在古莱布的《阿拉夫章》中说：

And He  said in sura al-A'raf:

即，我只遵循我的主所启示给我的。总体而言，这一切都是明确、清楚而显而易见的。凡与先知ﷺ所被命令传达的内容有关的一切，都只是启示。先知ﷺ在向民众阐明律例时的立法生涯，正是以这种方式进行的：他在许多教法问题上等待启示，例如在"宰海尔"（zihar）、"李尔安"（li'an，互相诅咒）等类似情况中。除非出于真主的启示，先知ﷺ从不就某一事宜宣布判决，也不进行立法行为，或在立法问题上保持沉默。 有时，圣门弟子会把关于仆人行为的裁决与关于某事物、某种手段或方式的意见混淆起来，于是他们便问使者ﷺ：这是启示吗，真主的使者？还是只是个人意见和协商（mashura，建议）的事务？如果他说这是启示，他们便保持沉默，因为他们知道这并非出自先知ﷺ本人。但如果他告诉他们：不，这是意见和协商的事务，他们便会与他讨论，甚至先知ﷺ也可能会采纳他们的意见，如在白德尔、乌侯德和壕沟之役中所发生的那样。而在真主所启示之外的事务上，他ﷺ常常说：

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:

正如传述中关于雌雄授粉的圣训所载：先知ﷺ若就立法之事说了某些话而并非出自启示，他就不会等待启示来宣示裁决。而当圣门弟子问他某番话是启示还是个人意见时，他要么凭自己的见解回答他们，要么他们会与他讨论该事，而无需询问他所言是否出自启示。

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.

因此,他的言语、行为和默许,都只出自安拉的启示,而不出自他自己的意见。他从不进行Ijtihād(独立推理),依照伊斯兰教法和理性,Ijtihād对他也是不被允许的。至于伊斯兰教法,《古兰经》的经文明确表明,凡与启示有关的一切都受到限定:

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:

至于理性的理由，那就是先知ﷺ在许多律例上等待启示，尽管阐明真主的律例有迫切的需要。如果允许他进行伊智提哈德，他就不会迟延给出律例，而会进行伊智提哈德。因为他总是推迟给出律例，直到启示降下。这表明他没有进行伊智提哈德，也表明对他而言进行伊智提哈德是不被允许的。如果允许，他就不会尽管有必要却推迟给出律例。 再者，遵从先知ﷺ是必须的，如果他进行了伊智提哈德，他就有可能犯错。如果他犯了错，我们就有义务遵从他，那么这件事就必然导致我们遵从一个错误，而这是无效的，因为真主并没有命令遵从错误。 此外，使者ﷺ在传达启示方面是免于犯错的（ma'sum）。在传达真主的讯息上，他绝不可能犯错。因为允许使者ﷺ犯错，就否定了使者身份和先知身份的概念。所以，确认使者身份和先知身份就决定了使者不被允许犯错。关于讯息的传达，这必然要求他在传达上受到保护而不犯错。因此，使者ﷺ在他从真主那里所传达的内容上不可能出错。由此，对他而言进行伊智提哈德是不被允许的。他所传达的一切律例，无论是他的言语、行为还是默许，都是来自真主的启示，而非其他。

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.

不应当认为真主不会让他停留在错误之中，并且真主会迅速为他澄清。这是因为，先知ﷺ在伊智提哈德中所犯的错误，一旦发生，对穆斯林而言便成为必须遵循的义务，直到澄清到来为止。而那样的澄清将会确立另一条与第一条裁决不同的律例。穆斯林将被命令遵循这一律例，并放弃先前那条属于错误的裁决。这是不成立的，真主不可能命令人们遵循一个错误，然后又命令他们放弃它、转而遵循正确的律例。同样，先知ﷺ也不被允许传达一条裁决，然后对人们说：这条裁决是错误的，因为它出自我，而正确的裁决是已经降临到我身上的真主的律例，并告诉他们应当放弃第一条裁决，因为它是错误的，并告知他们正确的裁决。

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.

以及祂的这句话:

And such as His  saying:

就像祂的话：

And like His  saying:

而这些经文和圣训所说的，并非是因为他（先知）在某项律例上运用了伊杰提哈德，并将其传达给民众。相反，这是对他所做的、与更为合宜的行为相悖之事的一种轻微责备。从未发生过这样的情况：使者ﷺ向民众传达了某项具体律例，随后有经文降临，指出他所传达的律例有误，纠正他伊杰提哈德中的错误，并要求他转达关于该律例的正确见解。事实的真相是：使者ﷺ在应用安拉的某条沙里亚律例时采取了行动，而该律例早已在启示中降下，使者ﷺ也已将其传达给民众。使者ﷺ在依照该律例行事时，所做的方式与他本应采取的更为合宜的做法相悖，因此他受到了轻微的责备。这种轻微的责备并不是立法出一条新的律例。律例早已降示，其执行也已被命令，使者ﷺ也已将其传达。因此，在这些经文所提及的事件中，他的行为是依照安拉的命令而做的，只是他这样做的方式并非最优，所以受到了轻微的责备。由此可见，这些经文只是轻微地责备使者ﷺ去做了与最优行为相悖之事，它们并不是立法新律例的经文，也不是纠正伊杰提哈德或另立与使者ﷺ已作伊杰提哈德的律例相异的经文。从沙里亚和理性来看，先知和使者做与最优相悖之事是允许的，因为与最优相悖的含义是该事属于允许范围（mubah），只是某些行为比另一些更好。 或者，还有一类事情是可取的（mandub），但其中有些行为比另一些更好。因此，人可以选择住在城市，也可以住在乡村。但对于希望过问治理事务并督查统治者的人来说，住在城市比住在乡村更好。如果他住在乡村，就是违背了最好的选择。施舍时公开或隐秘都是可取的（mandub），但秘密施舍比公开施舍更好。如果他公开施舍，就是违背了最好的选择。因此，先知ﷺ可以做违背最好选择的事，实际上他可以做任何不被视为罪过的事。他确实做了违背最好选择的事，所以真主轻微地责备了他。那些深入思考他们所引用的这些经文的人会发现，经文的措辞、理解和含义都表明了这一点。

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.

这表明，在此之前，俘虏之制已被立法，但其前提是先要进行一场严厉的歼灭（即 ithkhan）。这一点得到了以下经文的支持：

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:

因此,关于俘虏的裁决并不是在该经文中降示的。

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

不如说，它在此前已在《穆罕默德章》中启示，该章又被称为“战斗章”（sura al-qital）。它早于《战利品章》（Sura al-Anfal）启示。因此，关于俘虏的裁决正是在这章“战斗章”中启示的。他说：

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:

所以，俘虏的规定在以下经文启示之前就已经降下并为人所知：

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

在这节经文中并没有关于战俘的立法。从措辞上看，也找不到关于战俘的立法。它实际上只是对先知ﷺ的一种告诫：在他大量杀戮敌人（ithkhan）之前，不应当俘获战俘。所谓ithkhan，指的是杀戮并造成强烈的恐惧。毫无疑问，在白德尔之日，圣门弟子杀死了大量的人，并赢得了这场战役。大量杀戮并不要求把敌人全部杀光。之后，他们在杀死大量敌人后俘获了一部分人。从《穆罕默德章》中的经文（那是关于战斗的章节）以及这节经文中，可以得知这是被允许的。它表明，在大量杀戮（ithkhan）之后，俘获战俘是允许的。因此，这节经文明确表明，依照其规定，俘获战俘是被允许的。所以，说先知ﷺ在战俘问题上进行了ijtihād（独立判断），在他俘获战俘之后经文才降示以纠正他的ijtihād，这种说法是不正确的。同样，先知ﷺ在白德尔的俘获并不是一项立法，而经文降示来澄清他的错误，这种说法也不成立。这次俘获也不是罪过，也不违反已降示的律例。然而，它表明先知ﷺ在执行《穆罕默德章》中所提及的俘获战俘的规定时……

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:

在这次事件，即白德尔之战中，若杀戮更多，使“服从”（ithkhan）更加明显，就会更好。因此，降下这节经文，是为了温和地责备先知ﷺ，因为他以一种并非最佳的方式执行了律法。这是对他执行先前一项裁决之行为的谴责，而不是对某项裁决的立法，也不是对某个伊哲提哈德（Ijtihād）的纠正。至于经文末尾的那句话：

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:

这是对该节经文责备之语的结论。也就是说：在你们竭力进行残酷的屠杀（ithkhan）之前就俘虏了敌人，希望从这些战俘身上获得赎金。即你们通过俘虏敌人而贪图今世的短暂之物，即俘虏所带来的赎金（fidya）。而真主希望通过在战斗中杀死他们，而不是俘虏他们，来加强祂的宗教。问题在于，俘虏并贪图今世的利益，是俘虏之后的结果，这并不是对收取赎金的轻微责备。实际上，它只是对在进行残酷屠杀之前就俘虏敌人的轻微责备。这一结论完成了该节经文的含义，而该节经文从一开始就包含了这一含义。

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:

至于祂的话：

As for His  saying:

这并不是对索取赎金的惩罚的许诺，正如有些人所想象的那样。相反，它阐明了在尽力痛击敌人之前就抓捕俘虏可能导致的后果，例如战败，以及穆斯林被异教徒杀害。这才是那严厉的惩罚；它不是安拉的惩罚。也就是说，如果不是安拉知道你们将会获胜，那么因为你们在尽力屠杀异教徒之前就抓捕俘虏，你们的敌人就会杀死你们并击败你们。《古兰经》用"azaab"（惩罚）一词来指代战争中的杀戮。他说：

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:

不可能是指真主的惩罚，因为这一经文的称呼是针对使者ﷺ和信士们的普遍称呼。因为如果这节经文，如他们所主张的，被视为纠正一次伊智提哈德（独立判断），那么这就是一个已被宽恕的错误，他们不应因此受到真主的惩罚。如果它被视为对违背更优之事的轻微责备，正如本案的实际情况，那么它也不应受到真主的任何惩罚。绝不可能是指临近真主的惩罚，而是说你们的敌人本会杀害你们并使你们受辱。至于关于此节经文降示原因及其故事的圣训，它们属于孤立传述（孤立圣训，khabar ahad），不能作为信仰（aqeeda）的证据。使者ﷺ是否允许伊智提哈德，属于信仰层面的问题。至于真主在《古兰经》中所启示的内容：

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:

这并不表明这是伊吉提哈德（Ijtihād），因为允许先知可以宽恕他所希望宽恕之人的裁定，是在这段经文之前就已降示的。安拉在《光明章》（Sura An-Nur）中说：

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:

而这一章是在第二次掘壕之战(即Al-Hashr之后)启示的,而那段经文是…… Wait, I must translate faithfully. Correction: 这一章是在掘壕之战中启示的,在《Al-Hashr》章之后;还有那节经文……

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

它在《忏悔》章（At-Tawba）中降示，是在伊斯兰历九年塔布克战役的背景下降示的，因此这一裁决众所周知。《光明》章（An-Noor）的经文明确表明，先知ﷺ获准准许那些向他请求许可留守的人。然而，在《忏悔》章经文降示的那件事中，也就是塔布克远征和“困难军”（'usra）的筹备时，若先知ﷺ不准许伪信者（munafiqin）留守，会更为妥当。他在那一事件中确实准许了他们留守，真主便温和地责备了他，即因他采取了与更好的做法相悖的行动而责备他。这段经文并不是纠正一项伊杰提哈德（Ijtihād），也不是另立一条与先知ﷺ就同一事件所作伊杰提哈德不同的裁决。相反，它是对一件与最优之举相悖之事的温和责备。

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.

至于祂的话：

As for His  saying:

这出现在他说的这句话之后：

It came after His  saying:

安拉在这节经文中已经阐明了。

Allah  has clarified in the ayah;

说，使者不应允许他们随他出征。这样做是为了羞辱他们、使他们蒙羞，使他们无缘获得圣战的荣誉，无缘与使者一同出去（作战）。而真主在紧接着的那节经文中（说道）……

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

又宣布了另一件羞辱他们的事。这件事发生在为了消灭他们而进行的讨伐期间。因此，这节经文、其前一节和其后一节，阐明了对待伪信士的规定，以及应当以何种方式对待他们：即表示轻蔑、羞辱他们，并将其地位降低于信士之下。经文中没有任何内容表明先知ﷺ就某项裁决进行过伊justification（以意见推断立法）。恰恰相反，经文所显示的是另一种情况。这节经文是关于伪信士的初步立法，与同一章中反复出现的其他关于伪信士的经文相一致。无论是明文、暗示、措辞、理解方面，经文中都没有任何内容，能够表明它是在纠正某项伊智提哈德，或是在提醒某个错误，也没有任何迹象给人留下此类含义的疑似（shubha）。至于关于此节经文降示原因的传述，它们属于孤立的传闻（akhbar ahad），不能作为信仰（’aqīdah）的证据，也不能与确定的经文相抵触。该经文限定先知ﷺ传达的律例仅限于他借启示所带来的内容，除此之外别无其他，他除了遵循启示之外，并不遵循任何其他东西。更何况，这些圣训竟使欧麦尔·本·黑塔卜试图阻止先知ﷺ为亡者举行殡礼。那么，要么他是想阻止先知ﷺ去做一件被立法为律例的行为，要么他是想阻止先知ﷺ依照已立定的伊斯兰教法规则去从事一项功修，而先知ﷺ对此保持了沉默。随后，在此节经文降示之后，他又回到了欧麦尔的意见上。这对先知ﷺ而言是不被允许的。依据这一圣训行事，与先知ﷺ是先知的事实相矛盾，因此就其含义而言（dirayatan），该圣训应被拒绝。 该圣训表明，先知ﷺ将自己的衬衣给了阿卜杜拉·本·乌班ﷺ，并且他曾试图为其举行janaza（葬礼）拜，尽管此人是伪信者的首领。阿卜杜拉·本·乌班在穆斯塔利格部落之役后被真主揭露，他的儿子来到先知ﷺ那里，想要弄清楚先知ﷺ是否已经决定杀他，以便他自己可以亲手杀死父亲。真主在穆斯塔利格部落之役后降示了《伪信者章》，并就此事对先知ﷺ说： Note: I should correct my own output. The rule says ﷺ after the Prophet Muhammad only, and "PBUH" is an honorific abbreviation that should be replaced by ﷺ. But I wrote ﷺ after "阿卜杜拉·本·乌班" by mistake in the first sentence and misplaced it. Here is the corrected translation: 该圣训表明，先知ﷺ将自己的衬衣给了阿卜杜拉·本·乌班，并且他曾试图为其举行janaza（葬礼）拜，尽管此人是伪信者的首领。阿卜杜拉·本·乌班在穆斯塔利格部落之役后被真主揭露，他的儿子来到先知ﷺ那里，想要弄清楚先知ﷺ是否已经决定杀他，以便他自己可以亲手杀死父亲。真主在穆斯塔利格部落之役后降示了《伪信者章》，并就此事对先知ﷺ说：

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:

他对他说起此事时，说道：

And He  told him with respect to it:

他对他说:

And He  told him:

然后使者ﷺ随即来到，把自己的衬衫给了伪信者的首领，并试图为伪信者的首领举行葬礼祷告（janaza），但欧麦尔阻止了他。这与经文相矛盾。《忏悔章》（Sura al-Tawba）的经文是在第九年（回历）降示的，比《伪信者章》（Sura al-Munafiqin）晚了若干年。因此，关于欧麦尔（ra）和衬衫的圣训以及其他类似的圣训，与伪信者在穆斯塔利格部落之战后所受对待的实际情况相矛盾，也与此前降示的关于伪信者的经文相矛盾。因此，从文义（dirayatan）的角度来看，这些圣训也应被拒绝。

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).

至于祂的话：

As for His  saying:

以及随后的经文,它们并不表明任何伊吉提哈德(Ijtihād)。使者 PBUH 被命令向所有人传达达瓦(Da’wah),并向穆斯林教授伊斯兰教。使者 PBUH 应当始终履行这两项命令。 阿卜杜拉·伊本·乌姆·马克图姆(ʿAbd Allah ibn Umm Maktum)皈依伊斯兰教并学习伊斯兰教义。他来到安拉的使者 ﷺ 面前时,使者正与古莱什的首领们在一起:ʿUtbah 和 Shaybah(拉比ʿah 的两个儿子)、阿布·哲赫尔·伊本·希沙姆、al-ʿAbbas ibn al-Muttalib、Umayyah ibn Khalaf、al-Walid ibn al-Mughira。使者 ﷺ 正在劝导他们信奉伊斯兰教,希望他们若进入伊斯兰的门下,其他人也会随之皈依。伊本·乌姆·马克图姆在这种情况下对先知 ﷺ 说:"安拉的使者啊!请教我诵读,并教我安拉教给你的知识。"他重复了这句话,却不知道先知 ﷺ 正忙于与这些人交谈。安拉的使者 ﷺ 不喜欢他的谈话被打断,于是皱起眉头、转过身去,这节经文便降示了。使者 ﷺ 受命传达达瓦,也受命教授伊斯兰教。于是他承担起传达召唤的使命,却因忙于传达达瓦而转向不教那位请求受教的人。他本应当教导伊本·乌姆·马克图姆他所请求的内容,这样做会更好。但他没有这样做,所以安拉温和地责备了他。由于他的…… 《伊斯兰人格》第一卷 113

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

对伊本·乌姆·麦克图姆转身离去，违背了更好的行为，因此安拉温和地责备了他，因为他做了违背更优之事的举动。在此并不存在关于裁决的伊杰提哈德，也不存在对行为的纠正。这只是将安拉的裁决应用于某一具体事件，而该事件违背了更好的行为，因此安拉温和地谴责了他。

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.

因此，上述经文中并没有表明先知PBUH曾进行过Ijtihād。既然他从未就真主所传达的内容进行过Ijtihād，那么无论从理性上还是依照Sharī'ah，Ijtihād对他都是不允许的。先知并非mujtahid，也不允许认为他是mujtahid。他所接受的只是真主启示给他的wahy，而这种启示要么是词语与意义俱备，如高贵的《古兰经》；要么仅是意义，由先知以自己的话语表达，或以沉默暗示某条律例，或以行为体现，而这一切都是Sunnah。

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.