Here is the English translation of Surah Al-Qiyamah, Footnote No. 13 (from Tafheem ul-Quran by Mawdudi):

Surah Al-Qiyamah — Footnote 13
This gives rise to the impression — and some of the greatest commentators have also expressed this impression — that perhaps in the early period, the Messenger of Allah ﷺ would, even during the descent of revelation, inquire from Jibreel (peace be upon him) about the meaning of a particular verse, word, or injunction of the Quran. For this reason, the Prophet ﷺ was not only instructed to listen silently when revelation was being sent down, and not only reassured that every single word would be preserved precisely in his memory and that he would be able to recite the Quran exactly as it was revealed — but alongside this, a promise was also made that the intent and purpose of every command and every statement of Allah would be made fully clear to him.
This is a very important verse from which several foundational principles are established — principles which, if properly understood, can save a person from those deviations that certain people have been spreading in the past and continue to spread even today.
First, this verse clearly establishes that the revelation sent down upon the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was not limited to what is recorded in the Quran. Beyond that, knowledge was also given to him through revelation which is not contained in the Quran. This is because the meaning and intent of the Quran’s injunctions, its allusions, its words, and its specific terminologies — which were explained to the Prophet ﷺ — if all of that were recorded in the Quran itself, there would have been no need to say that explaining its meaning and clarifying its interpretation is also Our responsibility, for it would then simply be found within the Quran itself. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that the explanation and elucidation of the Quran’s meanings, as provided by Allah, was necessarily something beyond the literal text of the Quran. This is yet another proof of Wahy Khafi (hidden revelation) that we find from the Quran itself. (Further proofs of this from the Quran have been presented in our book “Sunnat ki A’ini Haisiyyat” on pages 94–95 and pages 118–125.full notes at the end )
Second, the explanation of the Quran’s meaning and intent, and the clarification of its injunctions which Allah conveyed to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ, was conveyed for the very purpose that he would, through his words and actions, teach people the Quran and show them how to act upon its commands. If this was not its purpose — if this explanation was given to him only so that he might confine this knowledge to himself personally — then it would have been a futile exercise, since it could have provided no assistance in fulfilling the duties of Prophethood. Therefore, only a foolish person could claim that this explanatory knowledge held no legislative authority whatsoever. Allah Himself declares in Surah An-Nahl, verse 44: “wa anzalnā ilayka adh-dhikra li-tubayyina lin-nāsi mā nuzzila ilayhim” — “And O Prophet, We have sent down this Reminder to you so that you may explain to people the teaching that has been sent down for them.” (For commentary, see Tafheem ul-Quran, Vol. 2, An-Nahl, Footnote 40.) And in four places in the Quran, Allah has explicitly stated that the work of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ was not merely to recite the verses of the Book of Allah, but also to teach them. (Al-Baqarah, verses 129 & 151; Aal-Imran, 164; Al-Jumu’ah, 2 — the commentary on all these verses has been given in detail in “Sunnat ki A’ini Haisiyyat” pages 74–77.)
After all this, how can any person who believes in the Quran refuse to accept that the correct and authoritative — indeed the truly official — interpretation of the Quran is only that which the Messenger of Allah ﷺ provided through his words and actions? For it is not his personal interpretation; it is the interpretation taught by the very God Who revealed the Quran. Whoever departs from this and presents some arbitrary meaning of a Quranic verse or word on his own, commits an audacity that no person of true faith can ever commit.
Third, even a person who has read the Quran only superficially cannot fail to notice that it contains numerous matters about which an Arabic-speaking person, merely by reading the Quranic text, cannot determine what the actual intent is and how the injunction contained therein is to be acted upon. Take, for example, the word Salah itself. After faith, if there is any act upon which the Quran places the greatest emphasis, it is Salah. Yet no one can determine even its meaning from Arabic lexicology alone. From seeing it mentioned repeatedly in the Quran, the most one could conclude is that this Arabic word has been used in a specific technical sense and most likely refers to a particular act which the believers are being called upon to perform. But no Arabic-speaker can determine from the Quran alone what that specific act is and how it is to be performed.
The question is: had the One Who sent the Quran not appointed a teacher on His own behalf to convey to him precisely the meaning of His terminology, and had He not clearly taught him the method of implementing the command of Salah — could any two Muslims in the entire world, by reading the Quran alone, have agreed upon a single form of fulfilling the obligation of Salah? The fact that for fifteen hundred years, Muslims generation after generation have been performing the same prayer in the same manner, and that hundreds of millions of Muslims in every corner of the world uniformly act upon the command of Salah in the same way — this is precisely because Allah did not only reveal to the Messenger of Allah ﷺ the words of the Quran, but fully explained to him their meaning as well; and it was this very meaning that he continued to teach to all those who accepted the Quran as the Book of Allah and him as the Messenger of Allah.
Fourth, the only means we have to know the interpretation of the Quran’s words which Allah communicated to His Messenger ﷺ, and the teaching which the Messenger ﷺ imparted to the Ummah through his words and actions, is Hadith and Sunnah — and nothing else.
By Hadith is meant those narrations which were transmitted with a chain of authority (sanad) from one generation to the next, concerning the sayings and actions of the Prophet ﷺ. By Sunnah is meant the practice which became established in the individual and collective life of Muslim society through the Prophet’s ﷺ verbal and practical teaching — details of which later generations received both through authenticated narrations and by witnessing earlier generations acting upon them.
Whoever refuses to accept this source of knowledge is in effect claiming that when Allah said “thumma inna ’alaynā bayānah” — thereby taking upon Himself the responsibility of explaining the Quran’s meaning to His Messenger — He was, God forbid, unable to fulfill that responsibility. For that responsibility was not undertaken merely to personally explain the meaning to the Messenger, but for the purpose that through the Messenger, the entire Ummah would be made to understand the meaning of the Divine Book. And the very moment one rejects Hadith and Sunnah as a source of law, it inevitably follows that Allah was unable to fulfill this responsibility — a’ādhana Allāhu min dhālik (may Allah protect us from such a thought).
In response to this, whoever says that many people fabricated Hadith — to them we say: the very fact that Hadith were fabricated is itself the greatest proof that from the very beginning of Islam, the entire Ummah regarded the sayings and actions of the Messenger of Allah ﷺ as having the status of law. Otherwise, why would those who wished to spread misguidance have needed to fabricate false Hadith at all? Forgers only counterfeit the currency that is in circulation. Who would be foolish enough to print counterfeit notes that have no value in the market?
Furthermore, those who make such arguments perhaps do not know that this Ummah took care from the very first day to ensure that no false statement would be attributed to the blessed person ﷺ whose sayings and actions carry the weight of law. And as the danger of false attributions to that blessed person ﷺ grew, so did the efforts of the well-wishers of this Ummah to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic. This science of distinguishing authentic from inauthentic narrations is a magnificent and extraordinary science that no other nation in the world has ever developed. Truly unfortunate are those who, without acquiring this science, are misled by Western Orientalists into declaring Hadith and Sunnah unreliable — unaware of how great a harm they are doing to Islam through this ignorant audacity.

Addendum

These pages (94–96 of 259) are from a scholarly Urdu theological debate, appearing to be from Mawdudi’s writings — likely from “Tafhimaat” or a related work — where he is responding to objections about the levels/ranks (مراتب) within the teachings of Sunnah.
Here is a summary of the key content across the three pages:

Page 94 — تعلیمات سنت میں فرق مراتب (Differences in Ranks within Sunnah’s Teachings)
اعتراض (Objection): The objector says: “The things you accept as transmitted from the Prophet ﷺ — your followers also accepted those same things before you. So what distinction have you made?” He refers to Tafhimaat, Part 1, page 49, footnote 2.
Mawdudi’s position is then outlined: The Sunnah covers matters directly connected to Deen and Shariat — such as Salah, Zakat, Hajj, fasting, purity, and other religious-legal issues — which must be followed practically. Then there are matters of civilization, economy, politics, and social affairs. Then there are specific commands given to particular individuals. Then there are matters of wisdom, morality, and character. Then there are various methods of action from which one can determine which best conforms to the spirit of Islam.
جواب (Answer): What is stated in that passage is simply that the teachings we get from Sunnah are not all of one rank — there are differences of rank (مراتب) between them. The Hadith sciences also recognize these differences. The distinction being made is not a new one…

Page 95 — علمی تحقیق یا جھگڑالو پن؟ (Scholarly Research or Quarrelsomeness?)
اعتراض: “In Tafhimaat you mention that matters like Salah, fasting, etc. are directly connected to Deen and Shariat — but on the other side you claim that ‘Iqamat-e-Deen’ (establishing the Deen) means establishing Islam’s civilizational, economic, and political system…”
جواب: “In my book Tafhimaat, some matters are described as directly connected to Deen — some as directly connected, some not. The objector has pulled out the passage separately from the full context, attempting to give it a wrong meaning…”

Page 96 — Continuation of the Answer
Mawdudi clarifies that what he called “براہ راست” (directly connected to Deen) referred specifically to acts of worship — Salah, fasting, Hajj, Zakat — as the pillars of Islam. The other matters — civilizational, economic, political — are not “unrelated to Deen” but rather not directly in the same category. If they were truly unrelated to Deen, then Quranic and Sunnah rulings would not apply to them.
He points out the objector has taken only two paragraphs out of context, while the full passage in Tafhimaat, Part 1, 5th edition (September 1949) clearly states: “The matters that remain are those of fara’id, wajibat, and shari’ah traditions — these concern the religious-legal and civilizational-economic affairs of daily life…”
He concludes: “The objector is doing nothing but picking two words and calling it research — this is mere quarrelsomeness (جھگڑالو پن), not scholarship.”
The section ends with a new heading: رسول کی دونوں حیثیتوں میں امتیاز کا اصول اور طریقہ — The Principle and Method of Distinguishing Between the Two Roles of the Messenger ﷺ

Here is a translation/summary of the key content from these pages (pp. 94–125) from what appears to be Mawdudi’s “Rasail wa Masail” (Questions and Answers):

Pages 94–96 — Levels/Categories in Sunnah Teachings
Objection: The person argues that Mawdudi distinguishes between matters the Prophet ﷺ taught as Messenger versus as a person — but this distinction was already made by earlier scholars. Reference is made to Tafhimaat, Part 1, p. 292.
Reply: The distinction being made is more nuanced — between levels (maratib) within Sunnah itself. The reply accuses the critic of cherry-picking two paragraphs and ignoring the full context, calling his approach “intellectual mischief rather than research.”

Pages 118–120 — Are the Prophet’s ﷺ Judicial Decisions Binding Evidence?
Objection (Point 23): Since the Prophet’s judicial rulings were not based on wahy (revelation), they cannot be binding. A hadith is cited where the Prophet ﷺ says a skilled advocate may win a case unjustly, and the winner would be taking a piece of hellfire.
Reply: This is a misunderstanding of legal procedure. A judge decides based on presented facts (facts of the case). If false testimony is used to obtain a wrong verdict, the sin falls on the deceiver, not the judge. The Prophet ﷺ was not claiming his judgments could be wrong in principle — he was warning about the responsibility of litigants.

Pages 119–121 — Point 24: A Strange Example of Distortion
Objection: The Prophet ﷺ only had a few slips (lghazshein), so following his Sunnah fully is questionable.
Reply: Mawdudi clarifies his actual statement was that Allah preserved the Prophet’s Sunnah precisely because of such rare moments — so believers can follow his Sunnah with full confidence, since Allah would not allow any lasting error in the din.

Pages 120–121 — Point 25: Distinguishing Personal Opinion from Wahy-Based Guidance
Objection: Some hadiths show the Prophet ﷺ expressed uncertainty (e.g., about Dajjal), suggesting his statements were not always wahy-based.
Reply: The hadiths about Dajjal were not being narrated as definitive revelation — the Prophet ﷺ was conveying information through various modes of knowledge (wahy, inference, observation). The Companions understood this contextual variation well.

Pages 121–122 — Point 26: Could the Companions Change the Prophet’s ﷺ Decisions?
Objection: It has been written that the Rightly-Guided Caliphs changed some of the Prophet’s ﷺ decisions when circumstances changed.
Reply: This is not accurate as stated. The example of Usamah’s army (Abu Bakr’s insistence on dispatching it despite Companions’ reluctance) shows the opposite — Abu Bakr firmly upheld the Prophet’s ﷺ decision. The discussion that followed was consultative, not a reversal. The Muslim principle (qaida) is that conclusions reached after full deliberation stand unless new counter-arguments emerge.

Page 123 — Point 27: The Nature of Umar’s Decision on Triple Talaq
Objection: Can you give an example of the Prophet ﷺ making a decision the Rightly-Guided Caliphs didn’t reverse? The case of triple talaq (talaq thalatha) is raised — in the Prophet’s time, three divorces in one sitting counted as one; Umar made them count as three.
Reply: In the Prophet’s ﷺ time, triple talaq in one sitting was indeed counted as one, as recorded in multiple narrations. Umar’s decision was not a reversal but a ta’zir (disciplinary measure) because people were misusing the verbal formula. It was accepted by Companions and subsequent jurists as a valid ijtihadi response to changed circumstances.

Pages 123–124 — Point 28: Mu’allafat al-Qulub
Objection: The Prophet ﷺ used to give stipends to mu’allafat al-qulub (those whose hearts were being won to Islam); Umar discontinued this.
Reply: This was not a Prophetic ruling Umar overturned. The Quran itself (Tawbah 9:60) mentions this as a category of zakat — but its application depends on need and circumstance. Umar judged that the Islamic state no longer needed to “purchase” loyalties. The underlying Quranic principle remains; its application varies by context.

Pages 124–125 — Point 29: Conquered Lands (Maftuha Arazi)
Objection: The Prophet ﷺ distributed conquered lands among fighters; Umar ended this practice.
Reply: The Prophet ﷺ never made a fixed policy of distributing all conquered lands. Different lands (Banu Nadhir, Fadak, Khaybar, etc.) were treated differently based on circumstances. No uniform rule was established during his ﷺ lifetime, so Umar’s approach was not a reversal of a Prophetic ruling.

Page 125 — Points 30 & 31
Point 30 (Stipends/Wazaif): The Prophet ﷺ set equal stipends; Umar introduced gradations. Reply: No authentic hadith confirms the Prophet set fixed equal stipends — Abu Bakr did this as first Caliph; Umar then revised it. A later Caliph revising a previous Caliph’s decision is entirely permissible.
Point 31 (Are Quranic Economic Rulings Temporary?): The objection is that some Quranic rulings (like mu’allafat al-qulub) were “temporary” and no longer apply — implying a communist-style “Quranic rububiyyat” system. Reply: This is a misrepresentation — these rulings are not temporary by nature; their application varies. Calling them “transitional era rulings” is a distortion.

This is a rich scholastic debate text — Mawdudi defending the permanent authority of Sunnah while clarifying the nuanced ijtihad of the Companions. Would you like a more detailed breakdown of any specific point?​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​