Leadership in Islam: Successorship Uncensored

Coming Soon

Approximate completion date: 07/10/2013

Infallibility in Islam: A Reality & Rational Necessity

Researched and Written by Haydar Sharp
Originally published 2009 @ Blogger

In the name of Allah, the All Merciful, the All Compassionate

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error; whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.
Holy Quran 2:256 

Contents

Chapter 1: Introduction
Chapter 2: Defining infallibility
Chapter 3: Shirk and the rational origins of infallibility
Chapter 4: The sunnah and its dependency on infallibility
Chapter 5: The mustahab and its importance in understanding infallibility
Chapter 6: The Quranic verses used against infallibility
Chapter 7: The Quranic verses supporting infallibility
Chapter 8: Samples of authentic Sunni narrations supporting infallibility
Chapter 9: Psychological and political reasons for the opposition against infallibility
Chapter 10: Conclusion




Chapter 1: Introduction

What is infallibility and how do we define it in an Islamic context? Do these definitions exaggerate the status of the Prophet and Imams? Or do they fall short in recognising the true merit of these holy personalities? And what are the consequences of committing to either one? Will one’s understanding that infallibility entails much more than commonly thought endanger his belief in the Oneness of Allah? Or will the allowance of wayward guides consequently put the Justice of Allah into question?

These questions merely introduce the enquirer to the difficult task of reconciling the many competing questions this discourse shall delve into. Yet in much the same way the surface of the ocean may at times possess chaotic and turbulent waves, if one immerses himself underneath them, he finds an environment much the opposite. It is thereby hoped, that by embracing infallibility in its entirety, one will see infallibility in a new light.

Chapter 2: Defining Infallibility

The closest meaning in Arabic to the concept of infallibility revolve around the words isma and masoom, which essentially means protection. This meaning will be discussed at a greater length later on in the piece.

For now we will delve into the English definitions of the words infallible and fallible as it is these definitions that have been the cause of much misunderstanding between the Shia and Sunni.

Of the varied definitions out there, the most common define our key terms as follows:

Infallible: Incapable of making an error.
Fallible: Capable of making an error.

There are two words in this definition that warrant clarification. The first is the word error. Every error includes every sin and mistake. Now throughout our discourse we will often use the phrase ‘sins and mistakes’. Our discussion of infallibility requires this distinction as some may argue Prophets do not sin but they do make mistakes. Thus although every sin is a mistake not every mistake is a sin, hence the need for the separation of the two terms.

The word incapable perhaps requires greater attention as the consequences of using this term means either one of two things:

1. The person does not possess the ability of making an error.

2. The person has the ability to make an error but Allah compels the person not to make an error.

In both instances, the concept of free will is removed because the person has no choice in not making an error. Now since we by and large believe in free will, such a proposition must be rejected for if it were plausible, it would mean the following two implications would arise:

1. Life would no longer be a test as there is no point to a test if you are incapable of making an error.

Allow us to imagine a student sitting an exam. On this exam he has multiple choice questions with answers being either A, B, C or D. Now imagine while holding his pencil, his teacher holds his hand over the students hand always moving it to the correct answer. We can see how the student is being compelled to give the right answer and so therefore, the student is incapable of getting the answer wrong. Now the obvious question here is what good is a test if it does not test?

The second implication is surmised as follows:

2. Any good deed performed will have no value as the person did not choose to perform the good deed but was rather compelled to.

In other words the good deed was not of there own volition and as such any reward should not be merited. This of course is what makes us humans superior beings.

It is clear therefore that all human beings including the Prophets and Imams must be capable of making errors. One may rightly argue therefore that the Shia must then agree that the Prophets and Imams are fallible since if we recall, the definition merely says ‘capable of making errors’. Now although this line of thinking is to some extent true, the connotations surrounding the word fallible does not allow the Shia to describe the Prophet and Imams as such. To elaborate further on this point, the non-Shia schools assert that because the Prophets and Imams are capable of making errors, they therefore must make errors. So their understanding of fallible has taken on a whole new meaning:

Definition of fallible: Capable of making errors.
Sunni understanding of fallible: Making errors.

Thus we can see the important difference between the original definition of fallible and the manner in which the non-Shia use the term. However the Shia are quick to point out that being capable of making an error does not mean that an error has to be made. The definition of fallible merely highlights that errors are possible. But possibility does not mean certainty. Although a person is capable of making an error, he or she does not have to. If we return to our example of the student and imagine the teacher removed his hand from the students hand so that now the student was free to make a choice, does it mean the student must now get the wrong answer? Rather, all it means is that the student is now capable of getting the wrong answer, but again, this capability does not mean the error must be made, he may very well get every answer correct depending how well he had studied.

However because there is this popular misconception that fallible means ‘making errors’, the Shia cannot use this term when describing the Prophets and Imams as it would imply the Shia believe the Prophets and Imams make errors. So in order to avoid this misunderstanding the Shia use the term infallible as it is the only english term that explicitly rejects this notion that Prophets and Imams make mistakes. Therefore it should be clear that the Shia do not use the term infallible according to its typical meaning:

Definition of infallible: Incapable of making errors.
Shia usage of the term infallible: Capable of making errors but will not.

Yet this alone is not sufficient enough to ensure a thorough definition of infallibility. For instance, if one was to assume the Prophet and Imams were infallible according to either school of understanding, one would need clarification on whether this infallibility entailed every aspect of their lives or only some of it. To elaborate, all Muslims agree Prophet Muhammad (s) was infallible when it came to recording the Divine revelation, yet when discussing infallibility beyond this point, stark contrasts emerge. These competing arguments shall be dissected in the subsequent chapters, yet for now, we shall complete the definition of infallibility according to the school of the Ahlul-Bayt as follows:

Infallibility incorporates infallibility of guidance and infallibility from sin and that both these areas of infallibility were and are present throughout the Prophet’s and Imams entire lives, from birth to death.

Chapter 3: Shirk and the rational origins of infallibility

For the average individual, it may initially seem remarkable that a Prophet can go through his entire life without ever making a single error in guidance or sin, especially if the Prophet is capable of doing so. This alleged impossibility has led to the argument that one needs to make such errors in order to be human.

This argument however has unwittingly contradicted the very fundamentals of Islam for if we entertain the idea that sinning and making mistakes are necessary attributes then the consequence is we are compelled to do them yet how is it that God can be Just whilst He simultaneously compels us to commit sins and mistakes? It is therefore a rational necessity to believe in infallibility. A logical deduction that best expresses this argument can be formulated as follows:

To believe in a Just God is to believe we are not compelled to sin.
To believe we are not compelled to sin is to believe it is possible not to sin.
To believe it is possible not to sin is to believe in infallibility.

Of course the reason why many may find such a proposition difficult to believe is due to the human being’s natural inclination to judge things based on their own strengths and weaknesses. Thus the notion that Prophets and Imams are sinless appears impossible since we as human beings often sin. Unfortunately this bias has led to a form of tunnel vision where the difference between what humans do and what makes a human has been neglected. Since we are not compelled to sin, sinning is not a necessary component that forms our being. It is merely something that we choose to do. So a more accurate description of what makes a human is to refer to those unique superior attributes that were given to us without our choice in the matter, some of which are our intellect, conscience and free will. Therefore, because these attributes were given to us they become attributes which are necessary and only the necessary attributes should be discussed whenever seeking to determine what ultimately makes a human.

An alternative argument against infallibility however surrounds the idea that infallibility is perfection and only Allah (swt) is perfect. While such an argument can be tackled from many fronts, it is sufficient to merely highlight here that everything that is dependant can never be considered absolutely perfect since dependency itself is an imperfection.

Yet perhaps the most influential line of thinking in opposing infallibility resides with the familiarity argument, specifically, if the Prophets and Imams are so perfect and since we are so imperfect, we would no longer be able to identify with them since there is no longer a connection between the two. In other words, the concern against infallibility is centered around making the Prophets and Imams into a type of demigod, which consequently means we will not be able to relate and feel close to them. In response however, the way we identify with the Prophets and Imams is not through their sin, but their suffering. Meaning that when we struggle through our own hard times, we remember the struggles and trials the Prophet and Imams had gone through and this will naturally inspire us to endure as they had. A perfect illustration of this point is to consider how a victim of a certain crime will immediately feel a close affiliation with someone who endured the same type of injustice as had happened to them. This closeness is precisely the identification the opponents of infallibility claim is missing. Equally as important to note, identification through mutual suffering is certainly a more healthier path than the alternative. For what incentive is there for the human to stop sinning if their heroes and guides sin as well? More on this point will be discussed later.

Alternatively, some may argue the Prophets and Imams may not sin, but they do make trivial mistakes. By trivial we mean errors that for instance did not affect Prophet Muhammad’s (s) explanation and implementation of Islam, an extreme example would be mistaking sugar for salt.

In response, the above argument neither proves nor disproves anything since infallibility in the Islamic context is solely concerned with matters relating to guidance and sin. Yet it still nonetheless poses an intriguing question for curious minds and as such we shall delve into it a little further.

Firstly, if the Prophet (s) can get it right every time on matters relating to guidance, then why would he make errors on minor and trivial things? If someone can accomplish a difficult task then it is highly unlikely that they fail on a task that is easy. For instance, consider a mathematical genius mistakenly adding two and two to equal five. Although theoretically possible it is not likely and so perhaps, not worthy of any prolonged deliberation. It poses the question then, what incentive do we have to believe Prophet Muhammad (s) made trivial errors anyway? Are we really going to argue tooth and nail that the Prophet (s) can make mistakes like mistaking sugar for salt? Why do we have to think less of the Prophet (s) if there is no necessity to do so? If the argument is to show that he is human then this is an argument which we have already addressed.

Perhaps the ideal way of approaching this argument is to consider that if the Prophets and Imams actually make such minor mistakes, then there will always be susceptible to making mistakes of greater significance. Picturing a water dam with a tiny crack may illustrate the consequences of this point more clearly. Although only drops of water may surface from the crack in the wall, the wall now becomes vulnerable to breaking entirely.

By clarifying some of these common misconceptions, we can pave the way towards demonstrating how infallibility is not such a miraculous thing as many have originally thought. A persuasive illustration of this begins with looking at our own experiences.

For example, it is safe to suggest we would never walk out in public naked even though we possess the ability. Yet despite this, none of us would ever do such a thing. The question is, why? Why would we never commit such an act even though we are capable of doing so? The explanation may naturally be because we see such an action as being completely detestable and abhorrent. Yet it does not explain why some others do not share the same sentiments. There are for instance elements in western society that deem it perfectly fine to display one’s naked body for all to see. This point of difference perhaps helps better address the question. It is such different levels of awareness that determines our ability to grasp notions of right and wrong, which subsequently affects the manner in which we conduct ourselves. Therefore, since a higher level of awareness can only be achieved through guidance, a higher level of guidance is what ultimately refrains one from engaging in such acts unbecoming.

From this example the following points have been demonstrated:

1. There are different levels of guidance.
2. The higher level of guidance reveals the reality of things we would not otherwise be aware of.
3. Upon being guided to a greater reality, our behavior is affected to reflect that greater reality.
4. Guidance can protect us from ever engaging in certain acts even though we have the choice to engage in those acts. In other words, guidance allows us to experience a percentage of infallibility.

It cannot be denied therefore that in one way or another we all experience these percentages of infallibility. This irrefutable reality is despite the fact that our level of guidance is so inferior to that of the Prophets. Why then some object to the Prophets being infallible should be seen as something quite strange. Indeed it is an act of arrogance to expect the Prophets to act in accordance to our level of guidance, a level that is so easily susceptible to errors. Rather, it would be only reasonable to conclude that if we can experience a percentage of infallibility with minimal guidance, then no doubt the Prophets can experience an infallible life. There is nothing remarkable about this prospect. If our own level of guidance were to increase, then our once small area of infallibility will now cover a wider range. This greater coverage would mean greater avoidance of errors. This fact is pivotal because if this level of guidance was to continue to increase, then naturally it would reach a point where errors are no longer made. In other words this point where errors stop will be where the varying degrees of correct actions begin. More on this point shall be discussed in later chapters.

Yet as far as this guidance as a mechanism of infallibility is concerned, some have sought to use it as a means of opening a plethora of other queries where not committing either way is seemingly the preferred option. For instance, is the kind of infallibility the Prophets and Imams exhibit attainable for others? If not then does this not raise serious implications on the debate surrounding the Justice of Allah (swt)? To elaborate, each of us are born under unique environmental factors which consequently means some of us are at a disadvantage to others who are born under more favourable circumstances. It is argued as a result of these unavoidable factors, infallibility is impossible which may mean that we are to some extent compelled to sin. As a result it is also said that infallibility simply cannot be defined as its definition is unable to address this dilemma. It is also argued that infallibility is neither able to address the necessity of an infallible Prophet before prophethood for such a belief is believed to make a mockery of God's actions by unnecessarily ‘playing’ with His creation.

The combinations of these questions are believed to present an irreconcilable picture of how this guidance as a mechanism for protection can be fairly administered and as a consequence, cannot be proven. While there are certainly explanations to the concerns raised here, a point the position misses is that one does not need to prove how a mechanism works in order to prove it exists. The same way many are completely oblivious to how an engine works does not mean they are unable to prove the engines results. To put simply, without the engine, the car is unable to produce force and motion. Infallibility works much the same way, without it, the fundamentals of Islam will no longer enjoy rational congruence as we shall shortly illustrate.

Returning to the questions posed, are we able to attain the same level of infallibility the Prophets and Imams had enjoyed? The answer this discourse shall present is a resounding no. Yet not because we generally speaking are incapable, but because no one had achieved it and no one will. The reason being is that Allah (swt) had already named Prophet Muhammad (s) as being the best of mankind. Had anyone else attained his level in the past, present or future, Allah (swt) would never have exclusively attributed Prophet Muhammad (s) this honorary title. Yet the capability of attaining such lofty levels should nevertheless not be cynically disregarded either. One only needs to read the following narration from hadith al-Qudsi to fully appreciate the extent of His guidance to those He deems worthy:

Whosoever shows enmity to someone devoted to Me, I shall be at war with him. My servant draws not near to Me with anything more loved by Me than the religious duties I have enjoined upon him, and My servant continues to draw near to Me with supererogatory works so that I shall love him. When I love him I am his hearing with which he hears, his seeing with which he sees, his hand with which he strikes and his foot with which he walks. Were he to ask [something] of Me, I would surely give it to him, and were he to ask Me for refuge, I would surely grant him it. I do not hesitate about anything as much as I hesitate about [seizing] the soul of My faithful servant: he hates death and I hate hurting him.
Hadith Qudsi 25

Yet can either of us lay claim that we deserve such a close affiliation with Allah (swt)? The question therefore of whether this alleged impenetrable exclusivity is fair or not is highly presumptuous. This point aside, such capabilities as illustrated in the narration just mentioned, clearly demonstrate that it is indeed possible to attain some level of infallibility. Yet what of those environmental factors said to prevent us from achieving such levels? The assumption here, whether knowingly or unknowingly, is that these disadvantageous environmental factors do not contain the choice of right and wrong, for how else can one be compelled to do a particular thing? Thus although compulsion is only real once this choice is taken away, we know such a position in itself contravenes the notion of free will and thus His Justice. As a result we are left with only one rational alternative and that is, these varying levels of environmental factors all contain the choice of right and wrong which means regardless of what position one is in, the choice always remains which means the possibility of infallibility remains along with it. Yet how can infallibility be possible for those whose environmental factors has not allowed one to be aware that the religion of Islam even exists? Even such an extreme example is by no means problematic as it is the Justice of Allah (swt) to judge every human being according to what their capacities allow. In other words, if one is not born under greater levels of responsibility, equally they are not born under greater levels of scrutiny and so long as an accessible option of right and wrong remain, infallibility remains possible and the Justice of Allah remains in tact.

However what of the question regarding the necessity for an infallible Prophet prior to prophethood? What constitutes necessity could very well have its own entire discourse. For instance, is it necessary for Allah (swt) to have created approximately 9000 species of birds? Perhaps not but how does one determine this in any case? In fact does it even need to be determined? For if the data proves there are approximately 9000 species of birds than its necessity is negligible for it is still a reality in either case. The point here is that it is once again highly presumptuous that every action of His must in some way be exclusively reserved for we the masses. In other words, it is His creation with which He can do as He please and as such, there does not need to be a necessity on a grand scale for Allah (swt) to devote a unique nearness to someone He loves. Equally as presumptuous is this notion that believing in the Prophets infallibility since birth is a too great a leap since making mistakes is the only way one learns. While certainly true that many lessons are learned through mistakes, it is also true that the wise learn from the mistakes of others and not themselves.

It is in any case a rational necessity to believe the Prophet was infallible since birth and this statement is based on the Quranic evidence which shall be presented in later chapters. The logical deduction however surmising what we discussed on this issue can be presented now as follows:

If an infallible life is an impossibility, we must be compelled to sin.
If we are compelled to sin, God is no longer Just
Therefore the belief in the possibility of an infallible life is a rational necessity.

A final concern centers on the argument that if the Prophet’s could get it right every time in anything they do, this would consequently mean they could not possibly possess any ignorance as they would always know the right approach. After all, our errors are based on ignorance. If there are no errors than there is no ignorance and the consequence of this is absolute knowledge. However, as we well know absolute knowledge can only be attributed to Allah. Therefore it is argued that to suggest the Prophets are infallible is tantamount to associating partners with Allah (swt).

In response, the argument only exists because it is focused solely on the outcome of infallibility rather than the mechanism itself. Recall the arabic words used to refer to infallibility involve the meaning of ‘protection’. This protection as we have earlier explained in detail, explains the way in which infallibility works. It is a protection achieved through a close guidance from Allah, in this case, a guidance which steers the Divine appointee clear from error. Therefore it is simply a rational impossibility for one to be guided while simultaneously possessing absolute knowledge, since the need for guidance is the proof of ignorance.

Yet ultimately, a proper understanding of the Oneness of Allah, tawheed, will ensure such hastily constructed arguments will never surface as it is the sharing of attributes with the Almighty that has been the impetus for much of the confusion. To explain further, since the idea of perfection is implied in infallibility, it is argued only Allah (swt) can be infallible since only He can be perfect. So as to elucidate on this misconception, consider the claim Allah (swt) makes when He says in the Quran the Prophet (s) has privilege to the Knowledge of the Unseen, or Islamically referred to as the Ghayb:

"He possesses the Ghayb and He does not discloses His Ghayb to anyone except to such a Messenger as He is well-pleased with."
(Holy Quran 72:26-27)

Does it mean here that Allah (swt) has made partners with the Prophet (s) by sharing one of His attributes? Rather, Allah (swt) is introducing a pivotal concept, a concept that is vital for our understanding of tawheed. and that is to recognise the difference between possessing an attribute and receiving an attribute.

For instance let us assume the Prophet (s) did not receive knowledge from Allah so that instead the knowledge of the Prophet (s) was inherent in himself. Such a belief would then mean this knowledge of the Prophet (s) is absolute. We can comfortably make this claim as the knowledge of the Prophet (s) in this example was inherent in himself which means the Prophet (s) did not receive knowledge from anyone, including Allah (swt). Therefore if the Prophet (s) is not a recipient of knowledge then he can only be the source of knowledge. To be the source of knowledge would then mean he can no longer be ignorant since all knowledge is derived from its source. Subsequently since the Prophet (s) would be the source, he would be all knowing. Or consider the popular attribute of mercy. Let us assume the Prophet (s) did not receive mercy from Allah (swt) so that the mercy of the Prophet (s) was inherent in himself. Again this would mean the Prophet (s) possesses an all encompassing attribute, in this case, mercy. The same logical flow applies. Since the mercy of the Prophet (s) was inherent in himself, the Prophet (s) could not be the recipient of mercy from anyone, including Allah (swt). So if the Prophet (s) is not a recipient of mercy then he can only be the source of mercy. As a consequence, because all mercy can only be derived from the source and since the Prophet (s) is the source of mercy in our example, it would make the Prophet (s) all merciful.

To clarify a point, the above hypothetical scenarios are of course blatant illustrations of shirk and no Muslim regardless of what school of thought they belong to believes that the attributes of the Prophet (s) are inherent in himself. However the purpose of the examples is to highlight a vital point, that is, we do share attributes with Allah (swt) yet this in no way compromises our belief in tawheed. Any suggestion otherwise will be a conclusion made in haste and little insight. For we have clearly demonstrated the difference between possessing an attribute and receiving an attribute. Thus regardless of what the Prophet (s) accomplished during his life, even the avoidance of mistakes, such attributes are all received from Allah which means the Prophet’s (s) attributes can never be absolute. Subsequently the accusation that only Allah (swt) can be infallible proves nothing except one’s unfortunate ignorance on the subject matter.



Chapter 4: The sunnah and its dependency on infallibility

There is unanimous agreement that the Prophet (s) must be infallible when receiving Quranic revelation. All sides rightly argue that because Allah (swt) has protected the Quran, there should be no errors. After all it does not make any rational sense that a book of guidance can at the same time contain errors. Therefore it is argued that in order for the Quran to remain a reliable source of guidance, the Prophet (s) had to be infallible upon receiving Quranic revelation so as to ensure no errors were made.

However there is a clear contradiction here from those who do not belong to the Shia school. On the one hand, it is argued that the Quran must not contain errors because it is a source of guidance, yet is not the Prophet (s) too, a source of guidance? Do we not say ‘Quran and Sunnah’? Why then can we so flippantly dismiss an erroneous Sunnah?

Remember that the Sunnah is something we need in order to understand the Quran. In fact Allah (swt) has said in the Quran that obedience to the Prophet (s) is obedience to Him. But how does Allah expect us to follow the Sunnah if the Prophet (s) had made errors in his life? Sure there are authentic hadith, but authenticity only confirms what the Prophet (s) said or did. But what if what the Prophet (s) said or did was a mistake? Such an occurrence would mean that not only would the people of his time be misguided, but also, the billions of Muslim generations who later followed his sayings and actions from these narrations would also be misguided.

Now this raises a serious dilemma one cannot ignore. If the Muslims followed something the Prophet (s) had mistakenly performed, can the blame for the subsequent misguidance rest on the Muslims? This would certainly not be fair, for the Muslims would only be following the command of Allah (swt), which is to obey the Prophet (s). Neither would it be right to hold the belief Allah (swt) wants us to follow the path of error as this would be incompatible with the religion of truth. How then is it possible to believe the Prophet (s) can commit errors in light of these dilemmas? For one would then be forced to ask, if Allah can command us to follow a source that misguides, then where would the error ultimately reside? The implications of such questioning is of course contrary to the reality of Islam, yet the hypothetical line of thought must be pursued so as to distinguish right from wrong. As a result, one will be able to discern that we cannot have it both ways. One cannot claim Allah (swt) does not misguide yet at the same time commands us to follow people that misguide. Unfortunately this is precisely the contradiction one must contend with if he or she believes in this concept of fallible Prophets.

To surmise this argument more succinctly, consider the following logical deduction:

To believe God is Just is to believe He will not compel us to make mistakes.
To believe God will not compel us to make mistakes is to believe He will not compel us to follow Prophets who makes mistakes.
To believe God will not compel us to follow Prophets who makes mistakes is to believe Prophets are infallible.



Chapter 5: The mustahab and its importance in understanding infallibility

Those Muslims opposed to the infallible life of the Prophet (s) immediately take the assumption that to believe in such a concept is tantamount to elevating the Prophet (s) to a god like figure. Yet as has already been discussed, such a stance is more born out of haste and emotion than any careful and rational thought. This chapter will introduce a vital point that will clear much of this misunderstanding.

Infallibility is only concerned with what is correct, not with what is ideal. To elaborate, our actions can be broadly divided into two categories, a wrong action and a right action. We can sub-divide these categories further. Under the category of a wrong action there will always be an action that is worse. Conversely under the category of a right action there will always be an action that is better. The equivalent of this sub-category according to Islamic terminology is the mustahab, meaning the recommended. These points are encapsulated in the illustration below:

.. worse .. wrong .. right .. better ..

Now consider a Muslim boy who performs his compulsory prayers but does not perform the recommended night prayers. His sister on the other hand not only performs her compulsory prayers but also performs the recommended night prayers as well. Sure the boy had not gone above and beyond the call of duty like his sister had and so will not receive as many good deeds she will. But more pertinent to our current focus, the boy had done nothing wrong from a jurisprudence standpoint as the law stipulates night prayers are only recommended and thus not performing those night prayers cannot be classified as a mistake.

His sister however has taken a spiritual path and so sees things much differently from her brother. To her there is no recommended action. She is of the belief that anything that will acquire one closer to Allah (swt) should be treated as being compulsory. She also believes that there is no highly discouraged action. In other words anything that distances our self from Allah(swt) should be treated as being forbidden. This outlook means that when she fails to perform the recommended action, she reacts as though she committed a grave crime because to her the recommended action is compulsory and failure to do the compulsory means she has sinned. However, we know that despite this personal outlook, no sin was committed as those actions deemed compulsory and recommended will always remain the same. Thus even though she may feel like she had committed a grave sin, jurisprudent law states otherwise.

And here lies a common misconception surrounding infallibility. The idea that because the Prophets sought forgiveness, it therefore must mean Prophets make mistakes. Yet as we have already illustrated, this suggestion must be dismissed for it is neglectful of the following factors:

1. The difference between a correct action and a better action.
2. How the Prophet’s view a correct action and a better action.

In fact, if we return to the example of the sister, she would always beg for forgiveness even if she were to always perform the recommended action. That is because she would always see herself as trying to pay an infinite debt with finite resources. In other words, she knows she will never be able to do enough. As a result of her inherent inadequacies, she never ceases to seek forgiveness from Allah (swt) regardless if she lived the rest of her life only engaging in the mustahab.

From this example we can extract three critical points that will prove vital to understanding the Quran and Infallibility:

1. Failure to perform the better action does not mean the action committed was wrong.
2. A correct action in Islamic jurisprudence can never be legally classed as a mistake.
3. The pious treat the recommended actions as compulsory. This in turn means the pious act as though they have committed a grave error when not performing the better action.



Chapter 6: Quranic verses used against infallibility


Accusation #1: Prophet Muhammad (s)

In order to defend the doctrine that Prophet Muhammad (s) commits sins and errors, the following verses are often referred to:

[Pickthal 40:55] Then have patience (O Muhammad). Lo! the promise of Allah is true. And ask forgiveness of thy sin, and hymn the praise of thy Lord at fall of night and in the early hours.

[Pickthal 47:19] So know (O Muhammad) that there is no Allah save Allah, and ask forgiveness for thy sin and for believing men and believing women. Allah knoweth (both) your place of turmoil and your place of rest.

[Pickthal 48:2] That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path,

This they argue clearly disproves the notion that Prophet Muhammad (s) is infallible.


Response #1

There are essentially three guiding principles all Muslims must be aware of and implement whenever trying to better comprehend the Quran. These can be surmised as follows:

The best interpreter of the Quran is the Quran itself. In other words the first priority in seeking an explanation on a verse is to look at its related verses since none is better at elucidating than Allah (swt).
Contradictions are merely incorrect understandings. Thus contradictions unresolved means our interpretations and/or translations needs to be re-examined.
One word can have many meanings. Therefore the correct meaning chosen should not contradict and should fit the context.

So as to better illustrate these guiding principles consider the following example:

Verse 1 (V1) needs to agree with Verse 2 (V2)
V1 can be A, B or C
A contradicts V2, so Verse 1 cannot be A
B does not contradict V2 but B does not fit the context of V2, so V1 cannot be B
C does not contradict V2 and fits the context of V2, so V1 should be C

Having established these unanimously agreed upon principles, we shall endeavor to implement them and demonstrate the need to re-examine the translation for the verses in question.


Response #2:

[Pickthal 53:2] Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived;

[Pickthal 21:27] They speak not until He hath spoken, and they act by His command.

[Pickthal 4:80] Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah, and whoso turneth away: We have not sent thee as a warder over them.

[Yusufali 76:24] Therefore be patient with constancy to the Command of thy Lord, and hearken not to the sinner or the ingrate among them.

These verses clearly illustrate, atleast on the surface, that there appears to be a contradiction in the Quran as on the one hand we read verses which appear to imply the Prophet (s) commits sins yet on the other hand Allah (swt) is explicitly informing us the Prophet (s) does not err. Yet recall that contradictions are merely incorrect understandings, which of course begs the question, which side of the argument is able to resolve this contradiction? The opposing schools attempt to resolve it by arguing that Allah (swt) has intended for us to understand the Prophet (s) is only infallible when it comes to receiving Quranic revelation. Yet in response, the following verse indicates that the Prophet (s) receives Divine revelation beyond the Quran:

[Yusufali 66:3] When the Prophet disclosed a matter in confidence to one of his consorts, and she then divulged it (to another), and Allah made it known to him, he confirmed part thereof and repudiated a part. Then when he told her thereof, she said, "Who told thee this? "He said, "He told me Who knows and is well-acquainted (with all things)."
All schools within Islam are of the understanding that the wives the verse is referring too are both Aisha and Hafsa. These names however are not mentioned anywhere in the Quran. Yet as the verse explicitly states, Allah (swt) still revealed the identities to the Prophet (s), thereby proving the Prophet (s) receives revelation beyond the Quran. Since it is argued revelation determines infallibility, are the Sunni now prepared to concede the Prophet (s) is infallible beyond Quranic revelation?

The opposing argument also appears to be incompatible with the following verse:

“Whoso obeyeth the messenger hath obeyed Allah…”

Would Allah instruct the Muslims to obey the Prophet (s) unconditionally if the Prophet (s) commits sins and errors? Imagine a scenario where the Prophet (s) mistakenly instructed us to do something that was wrong. The consequence, much of which we have already discussed, is absurd for we would be obeying Allah while committing a wrongful action.

Consequently, by establishing these contradictions, we have demonstrated the need for an objective re-examination of those verses used against infallibility.


Response #3

It is unfortunate, that despite the common awareness that the words in the Quran embody a rich content, a content that requires great skill when attempting to extract the appropriate meaning to apply, many abandon this duty of care. The result is erroneous interpretations and as we have just demonstrated in the previous section, unresolved contradictions. However it is hoped, by focusing on the varying definitions of the key terms and how these terms relate to the appropriate context, these inconsistencies shall be resolved.

The term istaghfir is one of these key terms which requires further focus. Although commonly interpreted to be the one who has fallen into error and sin and is now seeking forgiveness, it is also understood to mean one who supplicates to God for protection against falling into this error or sin. This is because the word is derived from the root ghafr, which translates to mean the covering of a thing that will protect it. Therefore the primary meaning is to seek protection against error and sin and thus any connotations with forgiveness must be treated as a secondary meaning.

For instance the following verse translated by Yusuf Ali mistakenly interprets ighfir to mean forgiveness:

(Yusufali 66:8) O ye who believe! Turn to Allah with sincere repentance: In the hope that your Lord will remove from you your ills and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow,- the Day that Allah will not permit to be humiliated the Prophet and those who believe with him. Their Light will run forward before them and by their right hands, while they say, "Our Lord! Perfect our Light for us, and grant us Forgiveness
(وَاغْفِرْ ) for Thou hast power over all things."

One will notice that the context of the verse is speaking of those who are in Jannah yet as we are all well aware, one cannot be admitted to paradise before his sins are forgiven. Thus the translation of waghfir to forgiveness is meaningless for why would someone seek forgiveness when his sins are already forgiven. Therefore the correct interpretation should read as follows:

(Shakir 66:8) … Our Lord! make perfect for us our light, and grant us protection, surely Thou hast power over all things.”

This example illustrates clearly that the term under investigation incorporates a wider meaning of seeking protection, not forgiveness. Thus when Allah (swt) explicitly says the Prophet (s) does not err, the Muslim is required to apply the meaning that is consistent with the other verses in the Quran. In this case, whenever terms like istaghfir are used in connection to the Prophets in the Quran, the Muslim is obligated to apply the meaning of protection.Response #4
In the previous responses, we illustrated how imperative it is to become familiar with all the varying meanings one word may carry, particularly when one of its meanings may contradict other verses in the Quran. The same approach must be taken when considering the following verse and its word dhanb, commonly referred to as meaning sin or fault:

[Pickthal 48:2] That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin (ذَنبِكَ) that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path,

The Sunni often use this term dhanb as proof the Prophets commit sins. Yet once again the context of the verse has been neglected along with the wider meaning of the term.

Renowned commentator on the Quran, Allamah Tabatab’i in his Tafsir Al Mizan draws our attention to the context by first correctly reminding the reader that the initial verse of the surah is referring to the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah and the subsequent verses are inseparably linked in context for the following verse begins with, ‘that’ while the third verse begins with ‘and that’:

[Pickthal 48:1] Lo! We have given thee (O Muhammad) a signal victory,
[Pickthal 48:2] That Allah may forgive thee of thy sin that which is past and that which is to come, and may perfect His favour unto thee, and may guide thee on a right path,
[Pickthal 48:3] And that Allah may help thee with strong help

In other words any explanation of the second verse not consistent with the first must be disregarded. In light of this, if the Pickthal translation is believed to be correct, then we are required to assume that the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah was a Divine victory so that Allah (swt) could now forgive the Prophet (s) of his past and future sins. This explanation however is clearly nonsensical for two reasons. Firstly, forgiveness of sins is not granted for one’s achievements but rather it is granted upon one’s sincere repentance. Secondly the implication of this explanation means that if Prophet Muhammad (s) were not successful in negotiating a favourable outcome from the treaty, than it would mean the Prophet’s (s) alleged sins would not be forgiven.

The correct interpretation of the verse rests in the examination of the word dhanb. Allamah Tabatab’i explains that although the term incorporates the meaning of sin, it also carries a wider meaning. He establishes this conclusion since dhanb comes from the verb form dhanaba, meaning ‘to follow’ and the noun form, dhanab meaning ‘tail; something that follows’. In other words, dhanb can be interpreted to mean consequence, which is why it is often referred to as sin, since every sin involves an evil consequence. In this case however, the consequence being referred to is the consequence of Prophet Muhammad’s (s) treaty with the Meccans. This would mean the verse will read as follows:

“Verily We granted thee (in the treaty of Hudaybiyya) a manifest victory; so that God may protect you from the past and future consequences of your (policy with the Meccans).”

This explanation not only squashes any claim the Quran contradicts itself, but it has also made coherent sense of the continuation between the first and second verses.


Accusation #2: Prophet Muhammad (s)

The initial verses in Surah Abasa were revealed after the Prophet (s) allegedly frowned at a blind man who interrupted his lecture. It is argued that this proves the Prophet (s) makes mistakes.

[Yusuf Ali 80:1] (The Prophet) frowned and turned away,
[Yusuf Ali 80:2] Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).
[Yusuf Ali 80:3] But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?-
[Yusuf Ali 80:4] Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?
[Yusuf Ali 80:5] As to one who regards himself as self-sufficient,
[Yusuf Ali 80:6] To him dost thou attend;
[Yusuf Ali 80:7] Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding).
[Yusuf Ali 80:8] But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,
[Yusuf Ali 80:9] And with fear (in his heart),
[Yusuf Ali 80:10] Of him wast thou unmindful.
[Yusuf Ali 80:11] By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:



Response #1

Allah (swt) never addressed the Prophet (s) by name in the beginning of this chapter, which should compel one to at least enquire further as to the accuracy of the accusation.

In addition, when considering that the Prophet (s) was receiving revelation through Gibrael from Allah (swt), one would assume he would not be addressed in the third person if he allegedly committed this serious offence.


Response #2

Clear proof that it was not the Prophet (s) who had frowned is demonstrated in the following verses:

[Yusuf Ali 80:5] As to one who regards himself as self-sufficient,
[Yusuf Ali 80:6] To him dost thou attend;

From these verses we can see that there was a third person involved in this episode. So now the reader is forced to ask, was the one who frowned at the poor blind man the Prophet (s), or this rich man who arrogantly considered himself to be free from need?

Indeed it is both remarkable yet very unfortunate, that amongst some Islamic circles, there is a preference to protect the image of an arrogant rich man rather than our beloved Prophet (s). There is a hidden agenda here which explains why this occurs, yet we shall discuss this in chapter 9.


Response #3

It is contradictory to the Prophet’s (s) character when considering the following verses:

And most certainly you are on sublime morality (exalted standard of character).
(Holy Quran 68:4)Your comrade erreth not, nor is deceived; (Holy Quran 53:2)

In light of these verses and many which are similar, how does the heart and his reason conclude that the kindest and most patient of men, whom Allah (swt) declared as the one who ‘does not err’, treat a blind man so disrespectfully that he deserved a condemnation from Allah (swt)? Such an occurrence does not match neither Allah’s statements regarding the Prophet (s) nor does it match the Prophet’s (s) proven sublime character.


Response #4
In his tafsir, Allamah Tabatabai presents references and expands on this event in detail. To paraphrase, the situation that had transpired was that a blind man had approached the Prophet (s) while giving his speech to the Qurashites. Although the Prophet (s) did not address the blind man’s issues immediately, he did welcome him kindly, so kindly in fact that he paused his speech so that the blind man could sit near him. The wealthy Qurashites found this act offensive. They could not understand how the Prophet (s) could welcome a man of such low status amongst them and that he saw him as being important enough to stop his speech. As a consequence, one of these Qurashites frowned at the blind man and turned away from him.


Accusation #3: Prophet Adam (as):

There are some that wish to argue that Adam’s (as) disobedience to Allah (swt) is a clear sign that Prophets cannot be infallible. The verses often quoted to support this position are the following:

[Shakir 7:23] They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers.

[Shakir 20:121] Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with leaves of the garden, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil (to him).


Response #1:

After reading the verses regarding the story of Adam (as), it should become apparently clear that Adam (as) only became a Prophet/Caliph after being sent to earth:

[Shakir 2:30] And when your Lord said to the angels, I am going to place in the earth a khalif…

Notice Allah (swt) did not state He will make Adam (as) a Caliph,‘in the garden and earth’. Neither did Allah (swt) say, ‘I am going to make Adam (as) a Caliph’ without further elaboration. Perhaps if that was the case then one may be able to claim Adam (as) was a Caliph regardless where he resided. However, this cannot be a possibility since Allah (swt) did in fact elaborate by explicitly stating, “…I am going to place in the Earth a Caliph.”

Thus the story of Adam (as) eating from the tree in no way refutes his infallibility as his Caliphate had begun since his arrival on earth.

Response #2:

Adam (as) could not have deviated during his stay on earth as the following verses attests to:

[Shakir 15:39] He said: My Lord! because Thou hast made life evil to me, I will certainly make (evil) fair-seeming to them on earth, and I will certainly cause them all to deviate

[Shakir 15:40] Except Thy servants from among them, the devoted ones.

[Shakir 15:42] Surely as regards My servants, you have no authority over them except those who follow you of the deviators.

[Shakir 17:65] Surely (as for) My servants, you have no authority over them; and your Lord is sufficient as a Protector.

In light of the above verses, how is it possible for Adam (as) not to be infallible on earth when the Quran explicitly states the Shaytan will deviate all except the servants of Allah (swt). Or are we to suggest Adam (as) was not a servant of Allah (swt)?


Response #2:

It cannot be argued that the prohibition to eat from the tree was because it would result in the demise of Adam (as). The status of Adam (as) excelled to a higher level after being sent to earth. That is for the two reasons already previously mentioned:

1. He was made a Caliph for earth.
2. The Shaytan could no longer deceive him after being sent to earth.

So we can see here that Adam’s (as) expulsion from the garden and thus subsequent loss of physical comforts was certainly not a punishment. An environment that excels your status and strength and thus nearness to Allah (swt) is in fact a blessing. It is a blessing that can also be described as a necessary evolution in spirituality.

To elaborate on this point, consider the example of a child who had been given everything in life. Now compare this child to another child that needed to work for his basic necessities. It is easy to discern which child would be more appreciative of certain luxuries in life. Of course no parent would want to put their child through unnecessary hardship just so he learns concepts like gratitude. However, despite the extraordinary amount of love a parent holds for their child, there comes a time when the parent wants their child to become independent. That is not because the parent does not love their child. The parent understands that although life will be much more difficult with more responsibilities, the child will nonetheless develop into a better human being. That is because the child would have matured whilst at home and would now be ready for an environment that can not only teach him more about life but will also allow him to experience greater joys than he could have otherwise achieved. So we can see that the home is actually a training ground where the child will develop the necessary knowledge and skills needed for the outside world. This voluntary transition from the easy to the difficult is what is needed for the soul to realise its potential. Without this transition the development of the soul will remain stagnant.

Shaytan was oblivious to this reality which was why he encouraged Adam (as) to approach the tree. Yet had he have known what Adam (as) would later have become as a result of approaching the tree, the Shaytan would never have attempted to deceive Adam (as). This is a testament to the Greatness of Allah (swt), for while the whole time the Shaytan thought he was doing the deceiving, it was in fact Allah (swt) who had deceived Shaytan.


Accusation #4: Prophet Musa (as)

[Shakir 18:72] He said: Did I not say that you will not be able to have patience with me?

[Shakir 18:73] He said: Blame me not for what I forgot, and do not constrain me to a difficult thing in my affair.

Since this wonderful story of Musa (as) and Khizr (as) is well known, we shall not delve into the specific events surrounding their encounter. Instead, we will ensure our focus remain on infallibility by extracting the verses above which is believed to prove Prophets cannot be infallible, for if they were, Musa (as) would never have been impatient nor would he have forgotten the warning Khizr (as) had imparted on him.


Response #1

Musa (as) enacted exactly what was required of him according to his knowledge at the time. Therefore, would a pious Muslim let alone a Prophet of God, ever stand idly by in silence while they believed the laws of Allah are being openly transgressed right before their eyes? Perhaps more pertinent, would voicing protest here ever constitute impatience how we typically know it? Musa’s (as) ‘impatience’ was not for any selfish motive as is often the case of such a trait. In fact this particular impatience towards injustice is admirable for the intent is to eagerly return to the laws of Allah. This pivotal factor is unfortunately neglected and thus any suggestion Musa (as) made an error needs to be dismissed for it completely ignores this universal concept that justice delayed is justice denied.


Response #2

There is a direct link between knowledge and patience as is demonstrated in the following question Khizr (as) posed to Musa (as):

[Shakir 18:68] And how can you have patience in that of which you have not got a comprehensive knowledge?

This question illustrates that had Musa (as) known what Khizr (as) had, he would have never questioned Khizr’s (as) actions, for he would have been aware of the higher purpose. If we understand this concept properly, we would then realise that Khizr (as) would act in a similar way had Musa (as) known something of an ever higher purpose and that this role reversal between the two could go on indefinitely. In other words, one of the lessons being taught in this story is to appreciate our own minuteness, in fact our nothingness in relation to the Knowledge of Allah (swt). As a consequence, there will always be a better course of action as a result of our ignorance. That is not to say our prior actions were wrong, it is merely to highlight that Allah (swt) can at any stage inform us of something better. How unfortunate it is that this story which contains such profound lessons is being used to bring down the status of our beloved Prophet.


Response #3

There are certain situations where the act forgetting is not a mistake. For instance, in the following verse, one of the methods Allah uses to abrogate verses in the Quran is to make people forget:

Whatever communications We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring one better than it or like it. Do you not know that Allah has power over all things? (Holy Quran, 2:106)

Now one may argue the above verse is completely irrelevant to the case of Musa (as) as it is an exception to the rule. Yet the problem here is we simply have no evidence for this presumption as Allah (swt) gives no indication He will only make people forget when abrogating a verse. The only thing we can conclude with certainty from the verse is that Allah (swt) will cause people to forget if there is benefit in doing so. This can be proved through a simple example that is an irrefutable piece of evidence.

Assume we were waiting at a traffic light. We forget to check that the light had turned green. Had we driven off sooner we would have driven into the path of an oncoming truck that was running a red light. Perhaps to the non-Muslim this would simply be interpreted as a lucky event. To the Muslim however, the immediate reaction would be to recite alhamdulillah. Now one cannot praise and thank Allah without acknowledging that what had happened was the will of Allah (swt). In other words, we are essentially praising and thanking Allah (swt) for making us forget.


Response #4

The point that the warning came from Khizr (as) and not Allah (swt) should not be neglected. Allah (swt) had given no instruction to do as Khizr (as) says. The only information Allah (swt) had told Musa (as) about Khizr (as) was that he was highly knowledgeable. Had however the warning to be patient come from Allah (swt) Himself, Musa (as) would have obeyed without question. Consider for example the order that Allah had sent to Ibrahim (as) in which he was required to kill his own son. The reaction of Ibrahim (as) was complete compliance and thus, this is sufficient reason to believe Musa (as) would have reacted in the same way had the warning come from Allah (swt).

So allow us to now appreciate the situation Musa (as) was placed in. He was required to remember the warning of someone who was essentially a stranger while this very stranger was violating what Musa (as) believed to be the laws of Allah. Such a situation introduces a vital factor, that is, the greater the magnitude of a specific event, the greater it will compel you to forget a prior event that was of lesser importance.

To elaborate on this point further, consider a learner driver taking driving lessons from an instructor. The instructor warns this driver to do everything he says. The driver agrees to these conditions. During the course of the training, the instructor tells the driver to turn left even though there was insufficient time to do so. Yet the driver remembers the instructors warning to do everything he says. So despite the danger, the driver brakes hard and turns left. However, later on the instructor tells the driver to run over a little boy crossing the street. Will the driver at this point remember the warning the instructor gave, to do everything he says? The answer is no because the magnitude of killing a small boy will simply not allow you to remember the initial warning the instructor gave, for there is a big difference between being told to turn left and being told to murder a child. It is this preoccupation with that thing of greater magnitude which Musa (as) similarly experienced and to be expected to simultaneously remember something trivial in comparison is an impossible task which Musa (as) was quick to point out:

[Shakir 18:73] He said: Blame me not for what I forgot, and do not constrain me to a difficult thing in my affair.

In other words, the situation that Allah (swt) had placed Musa (as) in, compelled him to react the way he did. This understanding is supported by the following verse:

[Shakir 18:69] He said: If Allah pleases, you will find me patient and I shall not disobey you in any matter.

Here Prophet Musa (as) had an expectation, that whatever actions of his were to follow, would be in accordance to what pleased Allah (swt). None should doubt that Musa’s (as) hope here was not fulfilled since the lesson Allah (swt) was imparting to His Prophet could not have received the impact intended had Musa reacted any other way.Accusation #5: Prophet Musa (as)

[Shakir 28:15] And he went into the city at a time of unvigilance on the part of its people, so he found therein two men fighting, one being of his party and the other of his foes, and he who was of his party cried out to him for help against him who was of his enemies, so Musa struck him with his fist and killed him. He said: This is on account of the Shaitan's doing; surely he is an enemy, openly leading astray.

[Shakir 28:16] He said: My Lord! surely I have done harm to myself, so do Thou protect me. So He protected him; surely He is the Forgiving, the Merciful.
It is argued here that Musa (as) sought forgiveness because he unintentionally killed a innocent man and thus he cannot be infallible.

Some suggest here that Musa (as) had committed a sin by mistakenly killing another human being.

Response #1

The immediate question that comes to mind is since when is an enemy of Musa (as) innocent? If Allah (swt) Himself declares someone an enemy, how can any Muslim claim that particular person is innocent?


Response #2

As we earlier discussed in greater detail, phrases like Faghfir-li also incorporates the meaning of ‘protect’. Yet even if we apply the definition ‘forgive’, it still does not compromise Musa’s (as) infallibility. Musa (as) did not seek forgiveness for killing a man mistakenly, he sought forgiveness because he feared he had compromised his mission as Musa (as) was not yet permitted to publicly declare his war on the infidels. Thus he feared his action may have hastened an open aggression that he was not yet ready for.

Now one may argue that this was also a mistake. Yet the question we must ask is what was the alternative for Musa (as)? Would it be right for him to do nothing while his supporter was being killed? Surely not. So are we to believe it’s a case of ‘damned if you do and damned if you don’t’? Yet where is the Justice of Allah in that?Accusation # 6: Prophet Yunus (as)

[Yusufali 21:87] And remember Zun-nun, when he departed in wrath: He imagined that We had no power over him! But he cried through the depths of darkness, "There is no god but thou: glory to thee: I was indeed wrong!"

The verse above refers to the story of Prophet Yunus (as), who had tirelessly tried to guide the people of the city Nineveh. The people however were stubborn in their rejection and refused to concede any of the evidences Prophet Yunus (as) had brought forward. This stubbornness forced Prophet Yunus (as) to finally leave them, the consequences of which we are well aware. It was during his time in the belly of the great fish that he realised Allah (swt) was teaching him a lesson, that he should not have left the people of Nineveh despite their wickedness. The words from Prophet Yunus (as): “Glory be to Thee, I was indeed wrong” is said to be proof Prophets make mistakes.


Response:

No one can cast any aspersions or doubt as to the commitment and persistence Prophet Yunus (as) had gone through. Therefore to think for a moment that what Prophet Yunus (as) sees as a mistake is something we ourselves can identify with, is audacious to say the least. Meaning, although Prophet Yunus (as) had been patient with the people he eventually left, it was a level of patience that certainly no one else would have been able to achieve. Yet Allah (swt) had informed Prophet Yunus (as) of something better, to which he expressed regret of not being able to perform. Thus rather than being admonished in the belly of the whale for a mistake, Prophet Yunus (as) and we also for that matter, are being informed that there always exist superior paths which can bring us closer to the Almighty. As a result, these paths are perpetual and infinite, which although demonstrates that we can never do enough for Allah (swt), it also reveals that those whom Allah (swt) loves, will be rewarded with a path that will bring them to a closer proximity to Him.

Chapter 7: The Quranic verses supporting InfallibilityProof #1

By the star when it sets,
Your companion (i.e., the Prophet) does not err, nor is he deceived
Nor does he speak out of his desire
It is no less than a revelation that is revealed
The Mighty in Power has taught him (Holy Quran 53:1-5)

Those opposed to the Shia understanding of infallibility explain this verse to mean the Prophet’s infallibility is limited to Quranic revelation only. Seeing as though we have already discussed the serious consequences of this understanding, referring to our earlier discussion on this matter will suffice.

Another reason for opposing this verse as proof for infallibility is the fact that the verse is in the present tense and so should read as follows:

Your companion did not err, now was he deceived.

Thus it is argued because the verse is in the present tense, it was referring to a specific situation only. This specific situation was where the non-believers were ridiculing Prophet Muhammad (s) for accepting Islam and here, Allah (swt) was simply rebuking them by saying the Prophet (s) did not make a mistake. So rather than being proof for infallibility, this is Allah (swt) protecting the message only.

As has already been emphasised throughout this piece, before accepting any translation of the Quran, we need to be careful and ensure the implication of the translation fits solid reasoning for this is the only way to understand the proper context in which the verse was intended.

While it is true therefore that Allah (swt) was protecting the message, to suggest He was protecting the message only raises a serious dilemma and that is, how can Allah (swt) protect the message if the Prophet (s) makes mistakes? We have already discussed in detail that such an outcome is simply not compatible with the fundamentals of Islam. It is for this reason that even if we assume the Prophet (s) did make mistakes, the aim of the verse would still subsequently be defeated for what is the point of Allah (swt) proclaiming the Prophet (s) did not make a mistake in choosing Islam if the Prophet (s) makes mistakes in guiding people in Islam? For instance, although it is true that every nation needs an army to defend it self, the purpose of the army becomes pointless if the army is comprised of children with sticks and stones. Thus the verse reveals a rational necessity to support infallibility.

Proof #2

Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah (Holy Quran 4:80)
O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those vested with authority (Ulul-Amr) from among you. (Holy Quran 4:59).

As previously mentioned, since we believe the orders of Allah (swt) distinguish the right path from the wrong one, than there is simply no possibility that we can obey Allah (swt) while simultaneously being on an erroneous path. Thus when Allah (swt) states obedience to the Prophet (s) is obedience to Him, it becomes rationally impossible for the Prophet (s) to make mistakes. Therefore these verses are irrefutable proof that the Prophet (s) is infallible.

In addition, verse 59 of Surah Nisa also proves that infallibility is not reserved solely for Prophets. Proof of this resides in the following sentence:

obey the Messenger and those vested with authority (Ulul-Amr) from among you.

The word ‘obey’ here is unconditional since it is referring to obedience to the Prophet (s) yet Allah (swt) continues by saying ‘and the Ulul-Amr’, meaning the unconditional word of ‘obey’ must also include the Ulul-Amr. The result is a clear proof that the Ulul-Amr must also be infallible. As will be shown in the following evidences, this is completely consistent with other verses in the Quran.


Proof #3

[Yusufali 33:33] And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

This verse could very well have its own entire discourse given the vast amount of debates surrounding its meaning. Yet there are essentially two main points of difference between the Shia and Sunni regarding this verse. The first is obviously whether or not the verse is referring to infallibility and the second is who exactly is included in the Ahlul-Bayt (as)? It is common knowledge amongst Islamic circles that the Shia include the Prophet (s), Ali (as), Fatima (as), Hasan (as), Husayn (as) and the nine pure descendants of Husayn (as), the last being Imam Mahdi (may Allah hasten his appearance), as being the only members Allah (swt) is referring to in this verse. The Sunni, although not agreeing with the infallibility and most of the political authority of the aforementioned names, agree these persons are part of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). However they are strongly opposed to the exclusion of the wives from this last sentence, believing that they too ought to be included.

Both these points of contention are displayed in the manner the verse is translated. For instance there is a stark difference in meaning when one compares the Sunni translation of Yusuf Ali and the Shia translation of Shakir:


[Yusufali 33:33] ... And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

[Shakir 33:33] … Allah only desires to keep away the uncleanness from you, O people of the House! and to purify you a (thorough) purifying.

The implication here is that by ‘removing’ the impurities from the Ahlul-Bayt (as), as opposed to ensuring they ‘keep away’, the Ahlul-Bayt (as) could not be infallible. In other words, the Ahlul-Bayt (as) commit sins yet Allah will ensure He always removes such impurities. Such a form of purification that is being referred to in this verse is argued to be not unlike the many other verses in the Quran where Allah (swt) speaks of pure believers. The following verse is commonly referred to in this case:

“For Allah loves those who turn to Him constantly in repentance and loves also those who keep themselves pure and clean” (Holy Quran 2:222)

The Sunni’s therefore contend, verses like the one above, proves 33:33 cannot mean the infallibility of the Ahlul-Bayt (as) for if it did, then all the believers would be infallible since Allah has referred to those believers as being pure as well.

In addition it is also argued that if attention is paid to the whole verse, it will be realised that 33:33 is merely explaining that if the wives of the Prophet (s) fulfill their obligations set out by Allah (swt), then Allah (swt) will purify them in the same manner as He would any other believer. Therefore it is said any reference to infallibility becomes an intentional misrepresentation to support the fundamentals of the Shia belief.

However an objective analysis of these points raised shall reveal unfortunate occurrences of negligence.

Firstly, the word tathiran has a nunation on the end or in Arabic a tanween, which typically denotes that the word is indefinite, now a good way of understanding what indefinite means is to think of it as having no limits. For example if you say bring me an apple, you’re asking for any apple so the word ‘an’ in English works as an indefinite article. So it’s because of this tanween, Yusuf Ali translated this phrase as ‘pure and spotless’ and it’s why Shakir translated it as ‘a thorough purifying’. So we can see here that this word tathiran fits perfectly with the definition of infallibility with regards to sin because no sin would mean one is ‘spotless’.

Secondly, earlier in the sentence Allah uses the word al rijs, which essentially means something impure. Now the ‘al’ in Arabic is usually considered the equivalent of ‘the’ in English, which is why ‘al’ is seen as a definite article. Now a definite article works opposite to the indefinite article, in other words it is limited. Now a limited rijs may seem inconsistent with a perfect purification, because how can one be perfectly purified if there is still rijs remaining? However, in Arabic grammar the ‘al’ can also encompass all, much the same as the indefinite, a good example is Alhamdu, which is of course all praise. So in order to maintain there is no contradiction with perfect purification, Yusuf Ali rightly translated this phrase as ‘all abomination’, which by the way is again consistent with the definition of infallibility with regards to sin.

This understanding is also supported by various narrations in the Sunni literature. It is reported the Messenger of Allah recited:

"Verily Allah intends to keep off from you every kind of uncleanness O' People of the House (Ahlul-Bayt), and purify you a perfect purification". (Quran, the last sentence of Verse 33:33) and then the Messenger of Allah said: "Thus Me and my Ahlul-Bayt are clear from sins."
Sunni reference:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, as quoted in: al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v5, pp 605-606,198 under the commentary of Verse 33:33 of Quran
Dala'il al-Nabawiyyah, by al-Bayhaqi"It is this and nothing else that Allah willed to ward off every badness and indecency from the people of the family of Muhammad and to keep them clear from every contamination and sin!"
Sunni reference:
Tafsir al-Tabari, v22, p5 under commentary of verse 33:33

These points raised prove the purification in the last sentence of 33:33 is a reference to the infallibility of the Ahlul-Bayt (as). As a result, the wives must be excluded from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) for none disputes that some of them, namely Aisha and Hafsa, had committed sins of a grievous nature numerous times. For instance, it is well known that Aisha and Hafsa backbited against the Prophet (s), which led to Allah (swt) threatening the wives with the Prophet’s (as) divorce as the following verse affirms:

If he divorces you, Allah may give him instead wives better than you who will be submissive (to Allah), believing, pious, penitent, inclined to fasting, widows and maids. (Holy Quran 66:5)

It is worth noting that backbiting is amongst the most soul destroying vices and one can only imagine the consequence if done against the Prophet (s). Yet the main point here is that like all sins, they are impure which means Allah (swt) could never have been referring to the wives when speaking of the perfect purification,

Yet perhaps paradoxically, it is such sins which makes the inclusion of the wives in the Ahlul-Bayt (as) an attractive option, for their inclusion has become a tool for opposing infallibility. To elaborate, while the alleged sins of the Prophet (s) have proven to be highly contested, the sins of the wives have not. In other words, the last sentence in 33:33 cannot possibly be referring to infallibility if the wives are included in the Ahlul Bayt (as).

Yet one particular consequence of this forced inclusion means one must interpret that the last sentence in 33:33 should not be understood to mean Allah (swt) ‘kept away’ all impurities, but rather, Allah (swt) continually ‘removes’ such impurities. This subtle translation of words, which we had introduced earlier, is not met without fundamental problems. Recall that rational deduction concludes the consequence of unconditional obedience is infallibility. Now since the Prophet (s) is obviously the central figure amongst the Ahlul-Bayt (as), how could he have enjoyed unconditional obedience for the time the al rijs was still a part of his being? Imagine the Prophet (s) plagued with vices such as anger, envy and pride, how is it possible that his guidance not be affected? How is it possible he could have preached against committing these ugly deeds without being a hypocrite himself? Such grave implications clearly indicate that any type of rijs Allah (swt) had referred to, must have been kept away from the Ahlul-Bayt (as).

It is unfortunate that despite all these factors, they are ignored, perhaps primarily because many are still unable to resolve the question as to how Allah (swt) could not be referring to the wives at the end of 33:33 when the rest of this verse and the previous verses were all clearly referring to them? In other words, if Allah really wanted to exclude the wives, why was He referring to them in the same verse, why not an entirely separate verse? Surely then it would make things much more clear and avoid such speculation.

In response, dismissing critical facts simply because it allows us to evade those questions that challenge what we sub-consciously think is better, is certainly not remaining true to how one should approach the Quran. In fact, it is no different to those Sahaba who questioned the wisdom of the Prophet’s (s) orders numerous times simply because it did not fit the mould of what they thought was best. Our role with regards to the Quran is to ponder each and every verse taking into account all the facts associated with it and accepting whatever outcome the truth demands.

Secondly, the question posed is unlike the plethora of many questions all Muslims encounter when reading the Quran. In fact one can be just as inquisitive as a child who responds with why and how to every answer given and to every word read. The school of the Salafiyyah are huge proponents of accepting things the way they are without further investigation. Take for instance their belief that Allah (swt) can have a Face and Hands. When asked how this is possible their response is to typically claim we should not ask how as Allah (swt) says He does and this should be sufficient enough reason to accept it without further questioning. Although not condoning such careless rational and textual insight, the point is quite clear. It is of little significance therefore if the fallible camp fails to understand how Allah (swt) could exclude the wives from the Ahlul-Bayt when He was already referring to them in the same verse. Yet interestingly, this same school is now all of a sudden being influenced by the how question when there is simply no need. To put it simply, if the textual and rational evidence points to X, why does it matter where X is?

It should be emphasised that this discourse is in no way endorsing a non inquisitive approach to the Quran. Rather, quite the opposite has been demonstrated for questions such as the one posed are not intended to be evaded but rather embraced, as it is a means to both encourage reflection while also sifting the masses as to who follows the truth as opposed to who wants the truth to follow them. Such outcomes would not be possible if the Quran was given any other way. It has such a rich text and delivered in such a way that if one attempts to sincerely ponder it, they will discover themselves immersed in a bottomless ocean of wisdom. Therefore although not required, we shall delve further into the question posed so as to ensure this discourse continues to feed the inquisitive mind.

We shall begin answering the question by first noting that the last sentence in 33:33 is in the masculine gender, which means that atleast one male is being addressed. The question is why? Why after having referred to only the wives does Allah (swt) suddenly switch from feminine to masculine? One answer could be that whenever the People of the House is mentioned, it naturally must include the Prophet (s), Ali (as), Hasan (as) and Husayn (as) as they typically represent members of a family. Yet why include the men here when the emphasis and specific instructions was intended solely for the wives? To illustrate this further, we read verse 30 specifically warning the wives, not the men, that their disobedience will be met with a punishment that is doubled:

[Yusufali 33:30] O Consorts of the Prophet! If any of you were guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment would be doubled to her, and that is easy for Allah.

In the following verse, Allah (swt) again refers to the wives, this time informing them that their devout obedience will be met with a reward doubled:

[Yusufali 33:31] But any of you that is devout in the service of Allah and His Messenger, and works righteousness,- to her shall We grant her reward twice: and We have prepared for her a generous Sustenance.

The proceeding verses keeps the focus on the wives, this time issuing another warning, to speak justly and to remain inside their homes:

[Yusufali 33:32] O Consorts of the Prophet! Ye are not like any of the (other) women: if ye do fear (Allah), be not too complacent of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire: but speak ye a speech (that is) just.

[Yusufali 33:33] And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless.

If indeed the purification in the last sentence were for those wives that heeded these instructions and warnings, why was the masculine text used? Were Ali (as), Hasan (as) and Husayn (as) also required to stay indoors in order to be purified? One may argue that although many of these instructions and warnings were not applicable for Ali (as) Hasan (as) and Husayn (as), there were some that clearly were, as for instance establishing regular prayer and giving charity. Although this argument is certainly true, why then was not the masculine text used for these previous instances seeing as though Allah (swt) is allegedly addressing them as well?

The only explanation that encompasses a rationale which simultaneously protects the Quran’s grammatical integrity is to argue that a clear distinction is being made between the wives and the Ahlul-Bayt (as). In other words, by mentioning the wives in the same verse, Allah has masterly created a perfect occasion to exclude them from the Ahlul-Bayt (as) by illustrating that despite how great or sinful the wives were, they are not meant to be included amongst those infallible members of the Prophet’s (as) Household.

So as to elaborate in more detail, allow us to consider the word family. Naturally this word on a basic level will incorporate a husband, a wife, brothers and sisters. Yet we may need to revise this understanding when describing the family in more detail. For instance the phrase good family may necessitate a redefining of who is included under this term for a husband, a wife and their daughter may all live a life of virtue, but the son may be governed by a host of vices that has led him to do numerous terrible things. Although he is family, he will certainly not be considered to be amongst those intended as being good. This example therefore illustrates two important points. The first is that a descriptive characteristic used to describe a family may result in the exclusion of some of its members. The second point is simply, that there can be no exclusion without mention of the excluded. Therefore it makes perfect sense then that Allah (swt) exclude the wives from infallibility after they and their obedience, or lack thereof, were the current focus.


Proof #4

And when Abraham was tested by his Lord with certain commands and he fulfilled them. Then He said: Lo! I appoint you an Imam for mankind. (Abraham) said: And of my offspring (will there be Imam)? He said: My covenant does not reach the wrong-doers (among them).
(Holy Quran 2:124)

For the observant reader, this verse epitomises a common theme that has been consistently emerging throughout this investigation and that is the relationship between Imammate and infallibility. Namely, Allah appoints the leaders of mankind and these leaders enjoy unconditional obedience which as a consequence, proves their infallibility. All these aspects are entailed in this one verse.

Prophet Ibrahim (as) was already a Prophet when Allah granted him the status of Imam. Without veering our discourse off into another direction it should suffice to say here that this is clear proof that the status of Imammate is much more than commonly thought of amongst the other schools in Islam. In any case, the point pertinent to our focus is that upon Ibrahim’s (as) request to Allah (swt) to grant his offspring this lofty position as well, Allah (swt) granted it by affirming this position will not reach the wrong doers. Now since Prophet Muhammad (s) is obviously the offspring of Ibrahim (as), it subsequently means that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) are included here as well. This alone however is not what proves their Imammate or their infallibility for lineage alone is not what determines one’s authority. It is when Allah (swt) says that His promise will not reach the dhalim or wrong doers that the proof becomes evidently clear, for the word dhulm is commonly understood to mean an injustice or transgression committed against oneself or others. Since this dhulm cannot reach the Prophet (s), he and his Ahlul-Bayt (as) must subsequently be free from every kind of dhulm, or in other words, every kind of impurity and thus possess the perfect purification as surah and ayah 33:33 explicitly affirms.



Chapter 8: Samples of authentic Sunni narrations proving infallibility

Proof #1

Narrated Abu Sa'id al-Khudri: The Prophet said, "Allah never sends a prophet or gives the Caliphate to a Caliph but that he (the Prophet or the Caliph) has two groups of advisors: A group advising him to do good and exhorts him to do it, and the other group advising him to do evil and exhorts him to do it. But the protected person (Ma'soom) is the one who is protected by Allah.'" Sunni reference:
Sahih al-Bukhari Hadith: 9.306

There are several key points one can extract from the above narration yet pivotal to our investigation is that there is such a thing as a masoom and that this masoom does not necessarily have to be a Prophet.


Proof #2

The messenger of Allah (PBUH&HF) said: "I am leaving for you two precious and weighty Symbols that if you adhere to BOTH of them you shall not go astray after me. They are, the Book of Allah, and my progeny, that is my Ahlul-Bayt. The Merciful has informed me that These two shall not separate from each other till they come to me by the Pool (of Paradise)."
Sunni reference:
Sahih al-Tirmidhi, as quoted in: al-Durr al-Manthoor, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, v5, pp 605-606,198 under the commentary of Verse 33:33 of Quran
Dala'il al-Nabawiyyah, by al-Bayhaqi

This famous and authentic narration has beautifully expressed both the Ahlul-Bayt’s authority and infallibility. To illustrate, since the Quran is a book of guidance and since the Ahlul Bayt do not separate from the Quran, they cannot misguide which can only mean one thing, they are infallible.

It is little wonder therefore that this narration is rarely mentioned amongst other schools of thought within Islam for it not only supports the Shia concept of infallibility, it also demonstrates the Ahlul-Bayt’s superiority since the Prophet (s) had explicitly instructed the Ummah to adhere to his Ahlul-Bayt, thus proving their successorship.



Chapter 9: Psychological and Political reasons for the opposition against Infallibility

Of the points raised thus far, one will be able to discern that the objections to infallibility can be categorized into two key motivators, one being psychological and the other being political.

The psychological reasons touched on discussed the human beings rash tendency to judge matters based on their own experience. More specifically, because we sin, the prevailing assumption will be the Prophets and Imams must sin as well. As a result, this assumption has born the argument that sinful Prophets are necessary so that they not only remain human, they remain humans we are able to identify with. Yet such concerns of losing an affinity with the Prophets, an argument already discussed earlier in our piece, is perhaps not the primary concern for many, if any concern at all. Rather, the argument is pushed as it serves its purposes of concealing and subsequently, feeding the human beings darker inclinations. In Surah Yusuf Ayah 12 Allah (swt) states:

…the (human) soul is certainly prone to evil, unless my Lord do bestow His Mercy… (Holy Quran 12:53)

This natural tendency towards evil subsequently means the idea of sinful prophets becomes appealing for it protects this inclination in a multitude of ways. Perhaps the most prominent is the human beings remarkable ability to find comfort and justification for the wrongs they commit. For instance consider the life of a smoker. The financial, health and spiritual reasons should be enough to compel him to quit. Yet the struggle to quit is seen as being so overwhelming that the human being is able to find justification for each one of these harsh realities. The financial reasons to use one’s money more wisely is offset by the individuals savings and contributions to charity. The health concerns surrounding smoking is dismissed after recounting the stories of people reaching old age having smoked their entire lives. The adverse spiritual effects of smoking is believed to be negated by the good deeds one performs. Now are we really to believe had the Prophets been smokers, smokers themselves will not add this to their arsenal of excuses? Thus one can see, this unyielding ability for the human being to find comfort in sin through flexible justification is certainly an influential force, although most would like to deny it for themselves. In light of this, how can sinful Prophets help repel mans inclination towards evil when the mere existence of their sinful nature provides the perfect justification for committing it? It is precisely the reason there exist narrations assaulting the sublime character of our beloved Prophet (s). The literature in both Bukhari and Muslim depict the Prophet (s) as being of such a weak character, that he forgets to perform ablution, forgets which rakat he had prayed and is even susceptible to being bewitched so what he imagines to do a thing which in reality he had not. Yet this assault on the Prophet’s (s) character is not only on par with our own weak and sinful nature, in many instances it is worse. Consider for instance the following narration:

Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah: While Allah's Apostle was carrying stones (along) with the people of Mecca for (the building of) the Ka'ba wearing an Izar (waist-sheet cover), his uncle Al-'Abbas said to him, "O my nephew! (It would be better) if you take off your Izar and put it over your shoulders underneath the stones." So he took off his Izar and put it over his shoulders, but he fell unconscious and since then he had never been seen naked. Bukhari

Volume 1, Book 8, Number 360

As mentioned earlier, we all experience percentages of infallibility, meaning there are some things we will simply not do despite having the choice to do them. The example given to better illustrate this point was our refusal to reveal our private parts in public for all to see. Yet such an easy task for us was one allegedly too difficult for the Seal of the Prophets. Obviously the narration is false yet it clearly reveals a concerted effort to tear the status of the Prophet down. Unfortunately the collections of hadith are replete with such narrations as the following indicates:

Ibn Abu Mulaika reported that al-Qasim b. Muhammad b. Abu Bakr had narrated to him that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) reported that Sahla bint Suhail b. 'Amr came to Allah's Apostle (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, Salim (the freed slave of Abu Hudhaifa) is living with us in our house, and he has attained (puberty) as men attain it and has acquired knowledge (of the sex problems) as men acquire, whereupon he said: Suckle him so that he may become unlawful (in regard to marriage) for you He (Ibn Abu Mulaika) said: I refrained from (narrating this hadith) for a year or so on account of fear. I then met al-Qasim and said to him: You narrated to me a hadith which I did not narrate (to anyone) afterwards. He said: What is that? I informed him, whereupon he said: Narrate it on my authority that 'A'isha (Allah be pleased with her) had narrated that to me.
Muslim Book 008, Number 3426

So outrageous was it that the Prophet (s) could order a boy of puberty to suckle a woman just so that the two could become unlawful to one another, that Ibn Abu Mulaika feared to narrate the tradition. Understandably so, not only does the order directly oppose the Quran which states the period of fosterage is the first two years of the child’s life, it also so appallingly violates the code of conduct between non-mahrams. Such a lack of knowledge and questionable morals is certainly unbecoming of us fallible souls let alone a Prophet of God. The implication therefore is quite serious for if the Prophet (s) can commit such horrific errors, errors we ourselves would easily avoid, then does it not mean we have found an area of conduct where we are more superior than the Prophet (s)? Now Muslims for instance may well claim they are not worth the dirt the Prophet (s) walks on, yet if they find certain actions repulsive, actions they believe were allegedly committed by the Prophet (s), then it could be rightly argued such a claim they so proudly make would not be worth the dirt they themselves walk on. In any case, this depiction of the Prophet (s) making the same mistakes as we do and in some cases, mistakes much more grave than our own, means the perfect justification for excusing sin has now become discreetly sanctioned.

Political ambitions too have proven to be a key reason behind the support for fallible prophets. For instance it is certainly advantageous for any ruling Caliph to publicize a Prophet of errors and questionable conduct for it gives them a green light to rule in a manner not consistent with the strict rule of law and etiquette in Islam while simultaneously not suffering the threat of any serious upheaval. The philosophy of predetermination was born as a result of similar political goals. By propagating the myth that ultimately we have no choice, the political advantages presented were enormous for it meant those who had attained power over the Muslim masses had done so because Allah (swt) preferred these rulers over anyone else and thus any opposition to their rule is in fact an opposition against the will of Allah (swt).

Yet the main political impetus behind the opposition to infallibility has been alluded to throughout our discourse. That is, any acknowledgment that the Ahlul-Bayt (as) were infallible is an acknowledgment that it is they who ought to lead for any rational person will be able to discern an infallible leader is superior to one who is fallible. Such a prospect naturally threatened the aspiring kingdoms at the time and the others that were to follow. The political assassinations of all but one of the infallible twelve successors the Prophet (s) spoke of, from Imam Ali (as) to Imam Askari (as), is irrefutable proof of the threat these pure souls had posed. This threat was noticed early in the piece which led some like Muawiyah to publically sanction the cursing of Imam Ali (as). Other methods included avoiding Imam Ali (as) altogether. It is well known that in the most revered collections of Sunni hadith, that being Bukhari, only 1% of hadith has been narrated by Imam Ali (as). Yet a more effective means found to neutralize a formidable political foe like the Ahlul-Bayt (as), was to use the narrations as a propaganda tool, in this case, by attacking the character of our beloved Prophet (s), he could no longer be seen as infallible and subsequently neither could his Ahlul-Bayt (as). In other words, if the Ahlul-Bayt (as) were no longer infallible then they no longer had the God given right to lead. The implication of such a conclusion however means those notable positions of leadership in the early years over the Muslim ummah, with the exclusion of Imam Ali (as), were all unlawfully usurped. As a consequence, a vested interest in opposing infallibility has emerged amongst the Muslims so as to protect these leaders they have learnt to adore. Thus the unwarranted paranoia surrounding infallibility, all of which we have discussed in our discourse, has emerged as a necessary consequence of the opposition against the exclusive successorship of the Ahlul-Bayt (as).



Chapter 10: Conclusion

Trust is an expectation, a reliance that is believed to be worthwhile. Yet this reliance is only experienced once earned through some form of mechanism that proves a person, thing or belief should be trusted. For instance a cautious person will trust a friend only after difficult trials have proven the friendship. Alternatively this mechanism may take another form. Millions of passengers place their trust in aviation technology to deliver them safely through the skies from one side of the world to another. In other words trust is only given to someone or something that is capable of delivering the expectation. Our discourse therefore has demonstrated, from a rational and textual standpoint, that this capability which enables the Muslim to trust, is in fact the infallibility of the Prophet (s) and the Imams (as) for this mechanism has proven to be a rational necessity for the integrity of Islams fundamentals. To dispute the nature of this mechanism and conclude otherwise will unavoidably compromise these very fundamentals. Yet confidence is precisely the expectation one should possess when relying on the Almighty and as such, due to His Infinite Wisdom and Justice, has implemented infallibility in His representatives, for far Exalted is He, to ever betray one’s trust in Him.