Does the Prophet not have the authority to render something that is not clearly stated in the Quran haram?

The Details of the Question

- How can the following claim of a scholar be answered?:
“The prophet does not have the authority to render something that is not clearly stated in the Quran haram; he imposed prohibitions for a certain time; for instance, wearing gold and silver is not haram; if they were haram, they would be haram for women too. The prohibition of the Prophet related to wearing gold and silk for men is not a kind of haram rendered by the Quran. If it had been like that, would Suhayb ar-Rumi have worn a gold ring and would he have mentioned four Companions who had worn gold rings when people objected to him? (Abu Dawud). The prohibition of silk is like that too. For, Abdurrahman b. Awf asked permission from the Prophet to wear silk by using his body being allergic to insects as an excuse and the Prophet allowed him. What is more, Khalid wore silk without any excuse. We know very well that the Messenger of Allah never made any concessions in similar situations about the harams mentioned in the Quran.”

The Answer

Dear Brother / Sister,

When a person says, “The Prophet (pbuh) has no authority to render something that is not clearly stated in the Quran haram”, he means the Quran is superior regarding the issue. In that case, we think it will be enough to answer him by the verses of the Quran:

The following is stated in verse 7 of the chapter of al-Hashr:

“So, take what the Messenger assigns to you, and deny yourselves that which he withholds from you. And fear Allah; for Allah is strict in Punishment.”

It is possible to give examples from many other verses but it should be enough for believers for an issue to be mentioned in one verse because the verse above and all of the other verses belong to Allah. The decree is the same whether a command of Allah is mentioned in one verse or in a thousand verses. That is the general rule regarding the issue.

Verse 7 of the chapter of al-Hashr states clearly that Allah gave his Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) the authority to render things halal and haram. For, Allah states the following in verses 3 and 4 of the chapter of an-Najm:

“Nor does he say (aught) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him.”

The Quran is wahy matluww (recited revelation) and the Sunnah is wahy ghayr matluww (recited revelation).

As for the claims in the question,

the following is stated: “The imposed prohibitions are valid for a certain time.” In that case, who has the authority to determine the duration of the prohibition imposed by the Prophet (pbuh)? That is, according to that claim, the Prophet will impose a prohibition and some people will render that prohibition invalid. Can there be such a religious understanding?

Verse 7 of the chapter of al-Hashr states clearly that it is wrong.

The statement “if they were haram, they would be haram for women too?”, is meaningless. For, in Islam, there are different decrees about men and women regarding some issues. For instance, it is fard for the mother to breastfeed her baby but it is not fard for the father. This issue is expressed as follows in verse 233 of the chapter of al-Baqara: “The mothers shall give suck to their offspring.”

It is insufficient to show some practices of the Companions about gold ring as examples. For, it is impossible to suppose that the Companions, who are described as “the stars in the sky”, opposed the orders and prohibitions of the Messenger of Allah. Their practices should be related to the periods before the imposition of the decrees regarding the issue. That is, before the period when something was ordered or prohibited, people were naturally free about that issue and acted accordingly. It is necessary to evaluate the narrations regarding the issue and similar issues within this context.

A Companion’s asking for permission to wear silk and wearing it can be explained with the authority of the Messenger of Allah to render things halal and haram. However, the important issue in terms of fiqh methodology here is to understand that decrees are based on certain reasons and causes. It is understood that decrees can vary from person to person due to obligation/necessity (darurah). When there is an obligation, something haram becomes halal.

The statement “We know very well that the Messenger of Allah never made any concessions in similar situations about the harams mentioned in the Quran” is disrespectful. For, according to this acceptance, the Messenger of Allah must have made concessions related to some people. It is stated in verses 44 and 45 of the chapter of al-Haaqqa that something like that is impossible:

"And if the messenger were to invent any sayings in Our name, We should certainly seize him by his right hand."

The Messenger of Allah conveys to people what his Lord commands him convey and acts within the scope of the authority Allah gives him; the opposite is not possible. It is necessary to understand Islam with reasoning based on ijtihad, not with a reformist logic.

For more information, please click on the link given below;

Are there any things that were rendered haram by Hadiths?

Questions on Islam

Was this answer helpful?
Author:
Questions on Islam
Subject Categories:
Read 78 times
In order to make a comment, please login or register