The Application of Data from the Discussion of the Absolute and ‎the Limited of Usul al-Fiqh in the Article "An Evaluation of the Implication of the 'Ati'u' Verse on Infallibility " within the Gauge of Validity

Statement of the Problem: The present research evaluates the methodological performance and the specific application of the concepts of the "absolute" and the "limited"derived from principles of jurisprudence in the article titled "An Evaluation of the Implication of the 'Ati'u' Verse on Infallibility." In fact, this study attempts to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the aforementioned article by emphasizing a methodological approach and utilizing the technical discussions of ilm al-usul, such as absolute and limited as well as the general and the specific. The innovation of this paper lies precisely in applying the principles of jurisprudence to analyze the verse of Ati'u (Quran 4:59); otherwise, the standard evaluation of whether this verse implies infallibility or not has been profoundly investigated in previous literature. Even the author of the article under review considers the novel aspect of their work to be its reliance on the methodology and data of usul al-fiqh. The structure of this paper is organized into two primary sections: the first section presents a brief overview of the article "An Evaluation of the Implication of the 'Ati'u' Verse on Infallibility" and delineates its central claims, while the second section provides a critical evaluation and critique of the usul-based approaches utilized therein.
Research Objective: The core objective of this study is to measure the degree of success achieved by the author of the article "An Evaluation of the Implication of the 'Ati'u' Verse on Infallibility" in applying the aforementioned principles and rules of usul al-fiqh to deduce and explain the contextual implications of the verse. The approach of this research purposefully avoids purely theological debates, focusing instead on the methodological dimensions and the application of criteria from usul al-fiqh in interpreting the verse.
Research Methodology: The methodology of this research is based on critical analysis, aimed at investigating the precision, validity, and structural robustness with which the concepts of itlaq (absoluteness) and taqyid (limitation) are used to make theological inferences from the Ati'u verse within the framework of the evaluated article. One of the fundamental questions driving this research is evaluating the structural strength and exactness of the execution of the "absolute and limited" discussion in the target paper.
Research Results: The author of the article under review posits that invoking the absolute nature of the verse is contingent upon the speaker being in the position of clarifying their entire intent . In such a state, the absence of limiting the ruling to specific characteristics or individuals indicates that the ruling applies universally. However, that author argues that this prerequisite condition does not hold true for the verse in question. They further contend that even if one overlooks this flaw, there are rational  and textual  context clues  that restrict the ruling, meaning that relying on itlaq in this verse is unacceptable. This study puts forward several key criticisms against these claims:


a) The debate over the completion of the premises of wisdom applies to authoritative/injunctive rulings , not to advisory rulings . The obligation of obedience used in the Ati'u verse is advisory, because obedience or disobedience attaches to the ruling itself, and rendering this ruling authoritative would result in circular reasoning .
b) Even if the obligation in the verse were authoritative, given the distinction between situational absoluteness and textual/verbal absoluteness, the absoluteness here is verbal. When in doubt as to whether a speaker is in the position of full clarification, the rational principle dictates that the speaker is indeed in that position, unless it is proven that the speaker intended ambiguity or negligence in that specific instance.
c) The mere fact that three distinct subjects are placed under the obligation of obedience cannot serve as a context clue for ambiguity, nor can it be inferred that the speaker is merely stating the principle of the ruling rather than its details. There is no barrier preventing a speaker from simultaneously expressing a ruling alongside its details.
d) The author of the reviewed article fails to remain consistent with their own rule—namely, that if a speaker states the principle of a ruling, they are not stating its details. For elsewhere, they interpret the repetition of the word "Ati'u" as indicating the differences in the types of obedience.
e) The reviewed article overlooks the fact that the absoluteness in this verse pertains to the absoluteness of the matter, which can be referred back to the rule where the omission of the object signifies universality. Consequently, there is no need to prove that the speaker was in maqam al-bayan.
f) The reviewed article suffers from internal inconsistency. On one hand, the verse is presented as merely stating the principle of obedience while denying its absoluteness regarding details; on the other hand, it claims that rational and textual limiting factors exist. A limiting factor is applied only when an absolute state exists to be limited. Therefore, it is contradictory to argue that the premises of wisdom are fundamentally flawed from the outset.
g) The separate rational context clue intended by that author cannot prove that the verse does not imply infallibility, because their argument is built upon essential possibility, whereas what contradicts infallibility is actualized possibility or the occurrence of the act itself. Furthermore, separate textual clues act as limiters only when their preliminary status and plane of reality (maqam al-thubut) are acceptable; otherwise, they must be interpreted differently. Given the prior judgment of reason regarding the infallibility of prophets, their actualized possibility is muddled here. Thus, these textual proofs must be interpreted to mean that prophets will not invite people to worship them. Therefore, if someone invites people to worship them while claiming to be a prophet, their claim is rejected. This does not mean that if a prophet invites people to worship them, it should not be accepted; rather, it means that in such a hypothetical case, that individual is simply not a prophet.