As the esteemed teacher was reading Imam Shafi’i’s book “Al-Risala”… Conversation with the esteemed Javed Ahmed Ghamidi
(7)
Question: In the previous session, you stated that the reports from individual narrators or the hadith of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) are not expressions of the prophetic office but rather expressions of the office of knowledge. However, at the same time, you also described the knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) as infallible. Are these two statements not contradictory to each other?
Answer: The reason for considering the knowledge of the Prophet as infallible is that this knowledge has the endorsement and approval of divine revelation. The Prophet is under the protection of Allah Almighty. If there is any mistake, Allah immediately corrects it. However, this does not mean that the Prophet asks Allah about everything he does. He gives opinions as a scholar, explains, elaborates, but because he is under the direct protection of Allah, there is no possibility of error in his words.
Question: But as soon as we acknowledge the knowledge of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) as infallible, does his knowledge not elevate from an intellectual level to the level of revelation?
Answer: Suppose today I have written a commentary on a verse. If tomorrow it is accepted by Allah, how will it affect my status as a scholar?
In reality, when the scholarly status of the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is combined with his prophetic status, it becomes necessary for his words to be founded on truth. Whether one understands it or not, it is incumbent upon us to bow our heads in submission to it in all circumstances. This is not due to his scholarly status, but because of his prophetic status. This is what Imam Shafi’i has expressed, and I have written regarding this that what can be truer than Imam Shafi’i’s statement!
Therefore, understand well that if I dare to discuss the reports of individual narrations, I am only able to do so because their attribution to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is not definitive, or because there is a chain of narrators between me and you. Otherwise, if their attribution to you were definitive, or if you were physically present in front of me, shame on me if I were to engage in debate. My mind would be confounded if I were to stand before you and say, God forbid, that your statement does not conform to the Qur’an. Is my argument that if the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) were to say something regarding the Qur’an and its explanation is not apparent to me, I would refuse to accept it? Never, God forbid, I can’t even conceive of such an idea, let alone express it.
Imam Shafi’i’s dilemma is precisely that he psychologically perceives that the attribution of the solitary reports (Akhbar al-Ahad) to the Messenger of Allah (PBUH) is certain. It is as if he gives them the same status as if he is hearing directly from you. From this perspective, if one looks at it, he is not wrong in any way. If I were to stand with the same psychological stance regarding Akhbar al-Ahad, then I also could not conceive any objection to them, because doing so would then be contrary to faith.