# If the Prophet couldn't forbid what Allah allowed, how can scholars issue fatwas?

*Quran 66:1, forbidding what Allah made lawful, and the law of defaults*

- URL: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/eokcnwggiba/s/10/
- Date: 2021-01-26 · Kind: question · Transcript tier: machine · Recording: Monday Nights with Mufti #199 | Q&A Unscripted & Unrestricted! 😉 | Mufti Abu Layth (41:12–45:11)
- Status: general teaching
- Watch from the start of the segment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoKcNwGGIBA&t=2472s
- Recording page: https://muftiabulayth.org/r/eokcnwggiba/

**Topics:** Legal theory and method; Tafsir and verse study

**Question as asked:** Regarding Quran 66:1, 'why do you prohibit what Allah has made lawful for you', setting the hadith about it aside: if the Messenger himself is not allowed to declare things haram, how did the ulama justify jurisprudence and fatwas?

**Summary (not a quotation; machine-made, unchecked):** The verse rebukes the Prophet for forbidding himself something permissible to please others, not for legislating; things are permissible by default, so declaring something haram is a weighty step.

**Checked position (checked by two independent reviews, not by the channel):** Mufti Abu Layth says 66:1 addresses the Prophet for forbidding himself something permissible to console others, not for legislating, and that because everything is permissible by default, declaring something haram is a weighty matter, while a prohibition lapses when its reason disappears.

**Evidence, his words at 43:51:** “you see things are permissible by default making them haram is is a big call okay” (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eoKcNwGGIBA&t=2631s)

## Longer summary

A questioner asks, setting aside the hadith about it, how the ulama justify jurisprudence and fatwas if 66:1 shows that even the Messenger may not declare things impermissible. Mufti Abu Layth says the verse does not say the ruling changed, since the Prophet is a legislator: it addresses him for forbidding himself something permissible in order to console and please others, not for changing a ruling. He adds that halal becoming haram is not the same as haram becoming halal, because things are permissible by a powerful law of defaults, called istishab [?] especially among the Malikis, akin to innocent until proven guilty: everything is halal until proven haram, so making something haram is a big call. By contrast, he says, prohibitions are made for a reason, and if the reason disappears the ruling disappears.

## Sources and names cited

- Quran 66:1 (why do you forbid what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking to please your wives): https://quran.com/66/1
- everything is permissible by default until proven otherwise (al-asl al-ibaha)
- istishab [?] (the presumption of continuity)
- fatwa

## Transcript (machine tier, 41:12–45:11)

[40:39] ah go on then what the hell do it man just do it man just do it not like your salah's gonna be accepted anyway uh i'm messing or am i [Laughter] ah don't worry about it do you see a mom if you need to do them you can do it look it's in the quran tiemoue is there as well okay so if you have an excuse it's your excuse to judge nobody else to judge you it's your call um somebody said

[41:17] can you explain [Music] we'll come back to that regarding quran surah 66 verse 1 why'd you prohibit yourself from allah is made lawful

[41:56] still got it let's take the hadith about this aside if the messenger himself is not allowed to declare things haram or impermissible then how did the ulimus justify jewish prudence and fatwa you see the verse doesn't say because the prophet himself we believe is a legislator the verse doesn't say that you felt the ruling changed it says

[42:36] that what you turn what's permissible into impermissible tabtari mardata that you it's not because of the ruling that you're saying this to make them to kind of console them and it's telling the prophet about that that you know this otherwise if it comes to if it's about the actual ruling changing then the ruling would have changed if the prophet feels but here the whole point is that the prophet isn't changing the ruling and it's not about the actual

[43:15] thing the question at hand it's more about just trying to console someone and that's what it is and you see the other thing as well there's a difference and i'd like to layer that with this statement there's a difference in when haram becomes halal and halal becoming haram because you see things being halal are by the law of defaults

[43:51] and that is an incredibly powerful law so that's saying things like innocent till proven guilty and all of these things are an attachment of that things are always pure until they become impure or things are this law of defaults known as iste in the usual especially going to the malikia and others this is this you see things are permissible by default making them haram is is a big call okay whereas it's not the same the other way are certain things that are haram

[44:31] you see things when they made haram they made haram for a reason that reason if it disappears the ruling disappears whereas things being halal are not halal foreign and everything on earth by default is always halal until proven haram so you see when it says about why do you prohibit something which is so securely based in in the law of defaults as halal that too not that you believe in it but just

[45:08] in an attempt to console so that's the kind of lesson in that verse but i think that's a good a very good question multi you missed my super chat i meant large uh i'm trying to get to it let me see is is prophet shaib jethro now i'm not sure if

## Cite

Mufti Abu Layth Archive, segment eoKcNwGGIBA/s/10. https://muftiabulayth.org/r/eokcnwggiba/s/10/

Not a fatwa: these answers were given to specific people at specific times. Ask a qualified scholar about your own situation.