[0:05]The questioner says: "How do we reconcile the fact that the Prophet {s}, every breath he took, every movement, every word, was only ordained divine guidance or revelation, while some verses appear to suggest otherwise? Like the verse: {Why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful for you?} [Q66:1] and others similar in meaning?" Firstly, the premise of the question is incorrect. "How do we reconcile the fact that the Prophet {s}, every breath he took was only by divine guidance?" This is fundamentally incorrect. The Prophet {s}, {does not speak from whim, * it is only revelation revealed} [Q53:3-4]. This pertains to his {s} conveyance. It pertains to his conveyance because the polytheists' focus—
[1:05]{By the star when it sets! Your companion has not strayed; he is not deluded; he does not speak from his own desire. It is only a revelation sent down. It was taught to him by [an angel] with mighty powers and great strength, who stood on the highest horizon, then he approached [he Prophet], coming so close [...]} [Q53:1-8]. Thus, their issue was with regards to what he was transmitting, concerning this verse. So {it is only a revelation sent down}, yes. Alright, what about the rest? For the rest we have something called tasdid (divine assistance). Alright? {And likewise We have revealed to you a Spirit from Our command. You did not know what the Book was, nor faith, but We made it a light by which We guide whom We will of Our servants. You give guidance to the straight path} [Q42:52]. So, the Prophet {s} is guided by the Spirit, supported by the Spirit, as the narrations state. Then, the Prophet {s}—as found in authentic narrations—when Allah perfected his etiquette, and stated: {And indeed, you are of great moral character} [Q68:4], He delegated to him the affairs of His religion. So, the Prophet {s} permits and forbids—meaning, there are legislative rulings issued by him. Such rulings cannot be strictly attributed to revelation. He has been delegated to, so how could it be by revelation? Thus, the Prophet {s}: In his conveyance, he is inspired by revelation. In his conduct, he is divinely guided. And he has been delegated some legislative authority—aside from what he has been entrusted with regarding the governance of the people, the establishment of authority, state affairs, and related matters. And in the narrations we have, is: he was granted the authority to admit people into Paradise. He {s} has such a prerogative.
[3:22]Therefore, he used to guarantee Paradise for some—yes, he may stipulate conditions, as in the narration: "So help me by increasing your prostration!" Beautiful narration. Clear? These are some of the stations of the Prophet {s} that have reached us. So, the premise of the question is incorrect. But then he says: "How do we reconcile this with verses like {Why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful for you}?" Here, the discussion begins: Firstly, we could recite the verse as such, {Why do you prohibit what Allah has made lawful to you in your desire to please your wives? And Allah is forgiving and merciful}. In another instance, one can read it as {Why do you [...]} as in, it is not worth it. You're keeping them in mind more than necessary. As in, your mercy [towards them] is excessive. They are not deserving of all that from you. You see? This is akin to: {May Allah forgive you [Prophet]! Why did you give them permission [...]} [Q9:43]. As in, they are not worthy of that! {before it had become clear to you which of them spoke the truth and which were liars} [Q9:43]. Although Allah then stated: {They would only have given you trouble if they had gone out [to battle] with you: they would have scurried around, trying to sow discord among you, and some of you would willingly have listened to them} [Q9:47]. On top of that, what did Allah say? {but you will know them anyway by the tone of their speech} [Q47:30]. As in, you will know them all! Clear or not? The thing that the Prophet {s} missed out on due to his well-action, is [actually] a criticism against them! The verse is criticising them [indirectly]. {May Allah forgive you}, some say this means a mistake or sin occurred. [No], {May Allah forgive you} is a supplication, akin to "May Allah have mercy upon you", "May Allah improve your affair", likewise: {May Allah forgive you}. In fact, it expresses perfection in care. {Why did you give them permission before it had become clear to you}—they are not deserving. Clear? "Later on, we will expose them [anyway]." Clear? So [Allah is saying] "We will expose and reveal them to you afterwards." So the contexts are in this atmosphere, you see? This is regarding the issue. Then, the Prophet {s} if he left the more appropriate option, it is in this sense—as some scholars have said— there is what is superior (afdal) and what is good (fadl). If the Prophet {s} did something good in a situation, then he is reproached, assuming this is the case. This is in the worst-case assumption, I am saying, if we accept it. So the Prophet {s} left the more appropriate choice in this sense. Not that he was inclined by nature to leave the better option, no. Rather, according to circumstances, he acted in a way that was virtuous, good, and beautiful. But in that case, there may have been an option that was even better. For example, al-Sayyid al-Ṭabaṭabāʾī said this in some places—something of this sort. Anyway, I do not want discuss this point in depth. What matters to me one must take this into account when understanding the verses: How the verses have come, how they were revealed. {You seek to please your wives, but Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful} {Allah has ordained for you the dissolution of your oaths, Allah is your protector, and He is the Knowing, the Wise} [Q66:2]. If both of you [wives] repent to Allah—for your hearts have deviated—all will be well] [Q66:4]. Clear? {The Prophet told something in confidence to one of his wives}—this is a separate topic. What is correct is that this is a separate event, although the exegetes linked them both. Those are two matters. 1] The Prophet's {s} oath and [2] A secret of the Prophet {s}. This is one matter, and that is another. In the exegetical works, these two matters are often mixed together. Apparently, the verses contain two separate topics. That is not our topic for now. Anyhow, that's how it is. So I say that the verses must be understood in their contexts. You must observe the contexts. And also observe the stations of the Prophet {s}. Then, if we say that the Prophet {s} could leave the superior option—as some scholars suggested— then it is in this sense: Meaning he committed the good and abandoned the superior. Alright? Not in the sense that he did something one should not do. No. Like a person who had the opportunity to attain something great but ended up with something slightly lesser. Slightly lesser. All of this does not affect his infallibility {s}. Nor does it diminish his rank {s}. So, in general, this is the issue. Yes, the issue of leaving the superior act needs elaboration. I mentioned it because it is a view held by some scholars on how to approach the issue of the Prophet {s} leaving the superior act.
