Legitimacy of the ijtihad of the Righthly Guided Caliphs against the Sunnah

[Noor-us-Sunnah]

Firstly, your claiming Prophet gave wrong command then was made aware then changed command goes against the highly praised quranic characteristic of Prophet.

Not at all, rather it is inline with the Quran, and its againt the false and deviant Shia ideology.

I mean, Prophet being unaware of correct command (of God) and then giving commands (God forbid)in ignorance of correct commands is unacceptable trait. As being ignorant and acting in ignorance is one of characteristics of disbelievers and hypocrites. Any prophet can't do this let alone leaders of all Prophets.

Quran says Adam disobeyed Allah, and we know that the trait of iblees was to disobey Allah, now equating both is nothing but stupidity which is due to ignorance. The same is your case above.

Anything which is made lawful, but not obligatory, you can do it or don't do it is upto you.

A Prophet can't make a thing unlawful for himself, which was made lawful by Allah. Prophet Muhammad(saws) didn't know this. Its quite clear and apparent in 66:1.

If I take an oath not to eat something which is lawful, but not obligatory, is upto me.
But God taking care of his most beloved Prophet asking him why do you prohibit something on yourself for your wives - infact after taking oath one has to fulfill it and to break it is not of noble traits,so humblest prophet was putting himself under one more obligation, but God eased him in very next verse.

There are many foods, which are lawful but Prophet(saws) didn't eat it. However what was unacceptable to Allah was Prophet(saws) making a thing which is lawful as unlawful for himself. Hence Allah rebuked his decision, and concluded the verse saying he is forgiving and merciful.

It's not that prophet was wrong and then then told correct command, further you can go thru your tafsirs about this incident of hafsa and Hazrat Aisha.

He was wrong in his decision, that is why Allah made him change it. If it was right then Allah wouldn't have made him change it.

16:126- And if you take your turn, then retaliate with the like of that with which you were afflicted; but if you are patient, it will certainly be best for those who are patient.

Suppose. A believer has been punished by disbeliever with fire then believer retaliates. So now this believer could afflict that disbeliever with fire or not? Because the logic used in above narrations goes against quran.

I don't think that unlawful forms of punishments can be used as retaliation. I have read in some interviews of Muslim prisoners that they were being punished in the form of sodomy. Now if you ask me can these Muslims retaliate in the same way, then I say no. Unlawful form of punishments can't be used in retaliation.

[Solomon]

Quran says Adam disobeyed Allah, and we know that the trait of iblees was to disobey Allah, now equating both is nothing but stupidity which is due to ignorance. The same is your case above.

yes brother this is out of ignorance to compare that realm with this worldly realm and that disobedience which adam(as) did was a sin or not itself an off-topic discussion if u want we could discuss but first lets concentrate on our Prophet(s).

A Prophet can't make a thing unlawful for himself, which was made lawful by Allah. Prophet Muhammad(saws) didn't know this. Its quite clear and apparent in 66:1.
There are many foods, which are lawful but Prophet(saws) didn't eat it. However what was unacceptable to Allah was Prophet(saws) making a thing which is lawful as unlawful for himself. Hence Allah rebuked his decision, and concluded the verse saying he is forgiving and merciful.
He was wrong in his decision, that is why Allah made him change it. If it was right then Allah wouldn't have made him change it.

If any muslim takes any oath to do or not to do something then he can't make any changes in area of obligatory acts or in area of forbidden acts but the only area where he can make changes for himself to refrain or to do any act is the area lawful acts.
So if a muslim takes an oath to eat fruit X and not to eat fruit Y for whatever reasons upto a particular duration, then he must eat fruit X and eating fruit Y is unlawful for him upto that duration.A muslim must not be deceitful in his oath.
That's why prophet's making any lawful (not obligatory) thing  unlawful for him according to his oath is not a sin or misled action.   OR   Is there any other way of taking oath? If yes, Please explain.

Or do you consider prophet was misled?
"By Your might, I will surely mislead all of them, except Your chosen servants among them" 38:82-83

I don't think that unlawful forms of punishments can be used as retaliation. I have read in some interviews of Muslim prisoners that they were being punished in the form of sodomy. Now if you ask me can these Muslims retaliate in the same way, then I say no. Unlawful form of punishments can't be used in retaliation.

All-wise God has properly structured the islamic rulings on wisdom.If a disbeliever slapped a believer then believer can islamically retaliate and punish him with slap(or blood for blood),If a disbeliever sodomized believer then believer can islamically retaliate and punish him back with the punishment of sodomy which is to kill by stoning or to behead disbeliever,which is at par of sodomy as per islamic wisdom. Afterall islam is not devoid of any ruling what will be the punishment of the one who burns with fire.?