If a man asks a scholar for a ruling on divorce, and the scholar issues a ruling based on his independent legal reasoning, and the man acts upon that ruling and adopts it, and then a text appears to the scholar that contradicts what he said, does he retract his ruling?

The questioner : Here is a question asked by a brother.The questioner : He says: If a man asks a scholar for a ruling on divorce, and the scholar issues a ruling based on his independent legal reasoning, and the man acts upon that ruling and adopts it, and then a text appears to the scholar that contradicts what he said, does he retract his ruling?

The Shaykh : He retracts the ruling that is being asked about, not the ruling in which his fatwa has already been issued. As came in some reports from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, "That was based on what we used to issue as rulings," regarding inheritance, "and this is based on what we issue as rulings now," because that would ruin the world.

The questioner : He says, to complete the question, is there a difference between a change in independent legal reasoning due to a change in reasoning, or due to the existence of a text?

The Shaykh : There is no difference. The important thing is that the one whose independent legal reasoning changed is actually a qualified scholar. So whether his change in independent legal reasoning was a change in his understanding of the same text, or whether another text came to him that compelled him to abandon his independent legal reasoning because it was a derivation from the text that had just reached him.

The questioner : Allah (Mighty and Majestic) made it clear that a ruling is not complete unless it is from Allah And in the interpretation of this, the ruling is only for Allah. The intention is so that we do not proceed with a ruling that is not the ruling of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) by any text from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah. Do we proceed with a ruling that is not what Allah said?

The Shaykh : Your words, may Allah reward you, are not applicable here, because your words apply to the second part of the answer. We do not proceed with it if it has become clear to him that he was in error. But you are bringing your words to the first part, which he proceeded with, and he is excused by the Shari'ah. So here, your words are not applicable. Your words apply to the second scenario. I will give you an example now. A man sought a ruling that there is a woman I want to marry, and she is of age, but her guardian does not give her permission. Is it permissible for me to marry her? He said, if she is of age and of sound mind, it is permissible. This is a known position in the Islamic schools of jurisprudence. So this man married her and had as much offspring as Allah willed. Then later, a ruling came to him based on the noble Prophetic text I married without what? So what does the guardian do?

The questioner : He retracts.

The Shaykh : He retracts?

The questioner : Yes, because his marriage was not valid in the first place.

The Shaykh : When the contract was made, it was valid.

The questioner : Yes, but the ruling of Allah (Mighty and Majestic) is that there is no marriage except with a guardian and two just witnesses.

The Shaykh : My dear, the ruling of Allah is that if a judge rules and exercises independent legal reasoning and hits the mark, he has two rewards, and the ruling is executed.

The questioner : The reward for his error or his independent legal reasoning?

The Shaykh : No, I am not asking about the independent legal reasoning. I am not asking about the reward. The ruling was executed based on independent legal reasoning. I am not asking about the reward. The reward is known: if he hits the mark, he has two rewards, and if he errs, he has one reward. But I say, as long as the ruling was executed based on a Shari'ah ruling, or more specifically, based on Shari'ah independent legal reasoning, the matter is ended. But this qualified scholar, if it becomes clear to him that he was in error, he retracts from his fatwa and does not issue a fatwa as we quoted earlier from 'Umar ibn al-Khattab (may Allah be pleased with him). Then you do not stop at this example. I thought I had done well in giving an example, but it seems I did not bring the heavy standard. I will tell you now about buying and selling, and so on, and it branched out in a way that it is impossible to reverse the matter. There is nothing in Islam of this restriction at all.

The questioner : Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi distinguished between one who exercised independent legal reasoning and erred, and here it is not retracted, and one who exercised independent legal reasoning and found a text, and here it is retracted, because the ruling was not completed. Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi distinguished between him exercising independent legal reasoning and erring, so it is not retracted, and him exercising independent legal reasoning and finding a decisive text, so he retracts.

The Shaykh : No problem. We are now in agreement that if he issued a fatwa based on independent legal reasoning, and then a text came to him contrary to his independent legal reasoning, then here we are with Al-Khatib. Good. A man to whom a text did not come, but his understanding of the text he had previously understood changed. Does he remain with his previous understanding, which he now sees was in error, or does he return to his later understanding, which he now sees is correct?

The questioner : This is independent legal reasoning.

The Shaykh : I do not think so. You are not following, may Allah reward you. This is independent legal reasoning. I know. I will clarify the independent legal reasoning after we finished the point that he retracted from his independent legal reasoning to the text. We are done with that. Now, a man understood a text with one understanding, and then a long or short time passed, which does not concern us. He came to have another understanding of this text. Does he remain with his understanding that was his, and which he now sees was an error, or does he return to the correctness that he finally saw? I do not think anyone says he remains with his old error and holds to his new opinion. I will give you an example, and this is from the issues disputed among the schools of jurisprudence. Some schools understand the hadith that "la" here negates validity. And on that basis, they said that whoever does not recite the opening of the Book, his prayer is invalid. If he recited the whole Book except the opening, his prayer is invalid. They understood this understanding. Other people said, no, it is a negation of perfection, not a negation of validity, as is known. I assume now a person previously understood this last understanding meaning complete. Then after a time, without having a text, but he understood and returned, for example, to a rule, which is that the original meaning of "la" is negation of the genus, or negation of validity if negation of the genus is not possible. For example, he returned to the rule and retracted from his previous opinion which said "no complete prayer." And now it became clear to him that the correct one is "no valid prayer." Do we tell him to remain with his old error and hold to his new opinion?

The questioner : Allow me, Shaykh. This example is outside the subject of the dispute. A text that is decisive in meaning, decisive in establishment, and free from contradiction. This is the point of Al-Khatib's discussion. But a text like this is subject to the pulling of the views of the scholars of knowledge, whether it is knowledge of perfection or this. This falls within the circle of what is still perhaps in independent legal reasoning. But we say a text that is decisive in meaning and decisive in establishment.

The Shaykh : I am now afraid of our host that we have prolonged the speech to him. But I will say, if this is outside the dispute, bring what is inside the dispute.

The questioner : Meaning the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him).

The Shaykh : No, bring us something by which his independent legal reasoning changed, not for a text. You are saying this is a disagreement outside the research. The subject you quoted, may Allah reward you, is that a man retracted from his independent legal reasoning for a text. But if he has independent legal reasoning in a text and it becomes clear to him another independent legal reasoning in this text, he does not retract. I said this is outside the subject. So what is inside the subject?

The questioner : Inside the subject is that he exercised independent legal reasoning, and then it became clear to him that it is a decisive text in which they do not differ.

The Shaykh : This is the first issue.

The questioner : Yes.

The Shaykh : And what is the other issue?

The questioner : The distinction between him exercising independent legal reasoning and then it becoming clear to him later another independent legal reasoning different from the one he first exercised, or it becoming clear to him later. The first part, the second part, it became clear to him a decisive text, decisive in meaning, decisive in establishment, that overrides his first independent legal reasoning.

The Shaykh : It is not clear. In any case, please proceed.