9 – The Actions of the Prophet as a Form of Revelation
Arabic | English | Commentary |
9 — The Actions of the Prophet
as a Form of Revelation
An action of the bearer of the revealed law1 either is performed as a matter of piety and obedience or is not. If it is, then if some evidence indicates that it is peculiar to him, it is understood as peculiar to him; but if no evidence so indicates, then the action is not peculiar to him, because God (He is exalted) has said “In the Prophet of God you have had a good example.” Such an act is understood as obligatory by some of our colleagues, while some of them say it is understood as recommended, and others say one should suspend judgment about it. If, however, the action is not performed as a matter of piety and obedience, it is understood as permissible.
The acquiescence of the bearer of the revealed law in a saying constitutes a saying of the bearer of the revealed law, and his acquiescence in an act is as his own act. Whatever was done during his lifetime outside his presence, that he came to know of and did not disown, has the same legal value as an act done in his presence.
[is not peculiar to him] The text that I chose, لم يُخَصّ به , is grammatically incorrect but arguably original. I take it to be passive of the first form, meaning “he (the Prophet) is not singled out / exclusively endowed with it (the act) (by jurists).”
But why is it grammatically incorrect? It would seem to me that it is the جواب الشرط so لم يُخَصَّ به is acceptable.
Thank you, Anssi. In the note on the Arabic page I proposed that “the jussive that should follow lam should have a different consonantal form, لم يُخْصَصْ به“, but as I spend more time reading manuscripts I am finding that fakk al-idgham is often considered optional. I was being too uptight.