|
The Infallibility of the Prophets
By: Sayyid Muhammad Rizvi
The Definition of ‘Ismah
The word 'ismah literally means "protection". In Islamic terminology, it means "infallibility". Infallibility is defined as "a spiritual grace (lutf) of Allah to a person which enables him to abstain from sins by his own free will."[1]
A person who has been given that grace of God is called a ma'sum , infallible, sinless.
This power of 'ismah does not make the ma'sum person incapable of committing sins. A ma'sum refrains from sins and mistakes by his power and will. If it were otherwise, then there would be no merit in being ma'sum! A ma'sum is able to abstain from sins because of (a) highest level of righteousness, and (b) ever-present consciousness and love for God, and (c) certain knowledge about the consequences of committing sins.
We come across some ordinary people who are very upright in their character and would not even dream of committing certain sins or crimes. The strength of their character makes them relatively an infallible person. For example, it is within the power of any person to go naked on the streets. But would a person who was brought up as a good Muslim, ever think of doing so? No, because it is far below his dignity to behave in this way. It is not impossible for him to do so, but he will never even imagine of doing so. Why? Because he has been taught and brought up with the idea that such behaviour will tarnish his honour and is beneath the dignity of a civilized human being.
Similarly, though a ma'sum has the ability to commit sin, he never even imagines of committing a sin because (a) the love for God in his heart leaves no room for displeasing Him by committing sins, and (b) he is full aware of the consequences of committing sins.
Muslims & the Belief in ‘Ismah
Although the majority of Muslims believe in the 'ismah of the prophets, there is a great difference about the extent of their 'ismah.
A. Sunni Muslims
As far as the Sunnis are concerned, they have a great difference of opinion among themselves. Their views are as the followings:
· On lying & infidelity (kufr): all Sunnis believe that prophets could not tell a lie, neither intentionally nor by mistake, nor could they be infidel before or after the declaration of their prophethood.
· Other sins intentionally: all Sunnis believe that the prophets could not commit other sins intentionally.
· Major sins unintentionally: majority believes that the prophets could commit such sins; however, a minority says that this is not possible.
· Minor sins: majority believes that the prophets could commit minor sins, though not such minor sins which would disgrace them in public's eyes.[2]
B. Shí‘a Ithna-‘Ashariyyah Muslims
The Shí'as Muslims believe that all the Prophets were ma'sum, sinless and infallible; they could commit no sin— neither a major sin nor a minor sin; neither intentionally nor inadvertently; and this applies to them from the beginning to the end of their lives.
This is the belief of the Shí'a Ithna-'Ashariyyah. Below are three quotations from the Shí'a scholars of early days to the present century that shows the consistency of this belief among the Shí'as.
Shaykh Abu Ja'far as-Saduq, a scholar born during the Minor Occultation (ghaybat sughra) of the Present Imam and died in 381 AH, says: "Our belief concerning the prophets, apostles, Imams and angels is that they are infallible (ma'sum), purified from all defilement (danas), and that they do not commit any sin, whether it be minor or major…He who denies infallibility to them in any matter appertaining to their status is ignorant of them. Our belief concerning them is that they are infallible and possess the attributes of perfection, completeness and knowledge, from the beginning to the end of their careers…"[3]
'Allamah Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli (d. 728 AH) writes the following on prophecy: "He is immune to sin from the first of his life to the last of it."[4]
Shaykh Muhammad Rida al-Mudhaffar, a famous Shí'a scholar of the first half of this century, writes: "We believe that all the prophets are infallible…Infallibility means purity from all sins, both major and minor ones, and from mistakes and forgetfulness."[5]
Why ‘Ismah?
The prophets have to be ma'sum for the same reason for which they were sent: to guide and lead the people towards God. God, who decided to guide mankind, also intended to send immaculate and perfect human beings as models and examples. If they were not ma'sum, then it would have been extremely difficult even to believe in the message let alone the example they present to us. There would be no trust or confidence in whatever they say: it could be true; it could be false.
Sending fallible prophets would have defeated the very purpose for which they were sent: for the prophets to lead and guide, for the people to follow and obey.
* * *
The Qur'an also supports this reasoning.
The 1st Verse
 æóãóÇ ÃóÑúÓóáúäóÇ ãöäú ÑóÓõæáò ÅöáøóÇ áöíõØóÇÚó ÈöÅöÐúäö Çááøóåö 
"We did not send any prophet, except so that he may be obeyed by the will of Allah." (4:64)
The verse very clearly presents the divine social order: the sole purpose of the prophets on this earth is to be obeyed by their followers, not that the followers are to check every action and statement of their prophet and then decided whether they should obey or not.
Such absolute obedience cannot be possible unless the prophets were ma'sum, free from sins and mistakes.
The 2nd Verse
íóÇ ÃóíøõåóÇ ÇáøóÐöíäó ÂãóäõæÇ ÃóØöíÚõæÇ Çááøóåó æóÃóØöíÚõæÇ ÇáÑøóÓõæáó
"O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger…" (4:59)
In this verse, Allah is ordering us to obey Him and the Messenger. There are at least ten other verses where Allah has used imperative forms to order the believers to obey the prophets and messengers. Besides these verses, there are also many verses where Allah describes the virtue of obeying the prophets, and the dire consequences of disobeying them.[6]
Secondly, in most such verses, Allah has mentioned obedience to Himself alongside with the obedience to His messengers. Actually, in one verse, obedience to the messenger is made synonymous with the obedience to Allah:
ãóäú íõØöÚö ÇáÑøóÓõæáó ÝóÞóÏú ÃóØóÇÚó Çááøóåó
"And whoever obeys the Messenger has actually obeyed Allah." (4:80)
Such assertion on part of Allah would have been impossible if the prophets and the messengers were not ma'sum and infallible. Otherwise, we would have found ourselves in an impossible situation: a non-ma'sum prophet or messenger exhorts us to do something which is wrong—should we follow or not. In both cases, we would be doomed. If we obeyed the prophet and committed the sin, then we would be guilty of disobeying Allah who has told us not to commit sins. If we disobeyed the prophet and refused to commit the sin, then we would be guilty of disobeying Allah who has told us to obey the prophets and messengers in an absolute way!
The 3rd Verse
To the above verses, add those verses in which Allah forbids you to obey certain types of people who commit sins:
ÝóáóÇ ÊõØöÚö ÇáúãõßóÐøöÈöíäó æóÏøõæÇ áóæú ÊõÏúåöäõ ÝóíõÏúåöäõæäó æóáóÇ ÊõØöÚú ßõáøó ÍóáøóÇÝò ãóåöíäò
"So do not obey those who accuse you of lying…& do not obey any mean swearer…forbidder of good, one who steps beyond the limits, a sinner." (68:8-10)
æóáóÇ ÊõØöÚú ãöäúåõãú ÂËöãðÇ Ãóæú ßóÝõæÑðÇ
"And do not obey among them a sinner or an ungrateful person." (76:24)
æóáóÇ ÊõØöíÚõæÇ ÃóãúÑó ÇáúãõÓúÑöÝöíäó
"And do not obey the command of the prodigals…" (26:151)
When you put these verses alongside the previous verses, you will get the complete picture:
a) The prophets are to be obeyed unconditionally.
b) The sinners and wrongdoers are not to be obeyed.
c) The only logical conclusion is that the prophets are not in the categories of the sinners or the wrongdoers.
Humanism & Infallibility
A few Muslims intellectuals, swayed by the idea of humanism, relativity and pluralism, wish to present the prophets and messengers of God as fallible in order to justify the moral weaknesses found among ordinary people.
This motive can also be observed in the early history of Islam when the scholars attached to the political establishments tried to water down the infallibility of the Prophet (S) in order to explain away the moral weakness and ethical wrongdoings of the rulers of their time. We have such examples in the modern era also.
Malcolm X, when he was a Minister in the Nation of Islam movement, describes how he attempted to justify the adultery of the self-proclaimed prophet, Elija Muhammad. He says: "I thought of one bridge that could be used if and when the shattering disclosure should become public. Loyal Muslims could be taught that a man's accomplishments in his life outweigh his personal, human weaknesses. Wallace Muhammad [Elija's son] helped me to review the Qur'an and the Bible for documentation. David's adultery with Bathsheba weighed less on history's scales, for instance, than the positive fact of David's killing Goliath. Thinking of Lot, we think not of incest, but of his saving the people from the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Or, our image of Noah isn't of his getting drunk—but of his building the ark and teaching people to save themselves from the flood. We think of Moses leading the Hebrews from bondage, not of Moses' adultery with the Ethiopian women. In all of the cases I reviewed, the positive outweighed the negative."
When he described his damage control strategy to Elija Muhammad, the leader said, "Son, I am not surprised…You always have had such a good understanding of prophecy, and of spiritual things. You recognize that's what all of this is—prophecy. You have the kind of understanding that only an old man has. I a'm David…When you read about how David took another man's wife. I'm that David. You read about Noah, who got drunk—that's me. You read about Lot, who went and laid up with his own daughters. I have to fulfill all of those things."[7]
Tom Harpur, a theologian, an ex-Minister of the Church, and a columnist of the religious column of the Toronto Star, wrote the article "Not even Jesus claimed infallibility" on 2nd May 1993. Once Jesus was stripped of infallibility, I was not at all surprised to see Harpur taking the second step of publishing another article a year latter entitled as "Gospels could support speculation that Jesus might have been gay."[8]
This is what happens when you take away the infallibility from the prophets and the messengers of God! Instead of looking up to them as models and guides, people —especially those in position of power— justify their own immoral behaviour and lifestyle by presenting the prophets as fallible and sinners.
Notes:
[1] Al-Mufid, Tashihu 'l-I'tiqad, p. 128 (in vol. 5 of Musannafatu 'sh-Shaykhi 'l-Mufid, Qum, 1413 AH); al-Hilli, al-Babu 'l-Hadi 'Ashar, p. 179 (Qum: Nashr Navid Islam, 1367 {solar}with Persian translation by A.R.A. Bakhshaishi); also see its English by W.M. Miller (London: Luzac & Co, 1958) p. 58-59.
[2] See al-Qadhi 'Abdu 'l-Jabbar, Sharhu 'l -Usûli 'l-Khamsah, p. 573-575; al-Qawshaji, Sharhu 't-Tajríd, p. 464.
[3] As-Saduq, al-I'tiqadat,p. 96 (in vol. 5 of Musannafatu 'sh-Shaykhi 'l-Mufid); the above quotation is based on its English translation, A Shi'ite Creed, A.A.A. Fyzee, tr. (Tehran: WOFIS, 1982) p. 87.
[4] Al-Hilli, al -Babu '-Hadi 'Ashar, p. 179; in its English translation, see p. 58.
[5] Al -Mudhaffar, 'Aqa'idu 'l-Imamiyyah, (Qum: Ansariyan, n.d.) p. 53-54; also see its translation, The Faith of Shí'a Islam (London: Muhammadi Trust, 1982) p. 21.
[6] See the following verses of the Qur'an: 4:14; 48:7; 33:66.
[7] A. Haley, The Autobiography of Malcolm X (NY: Ballantine Books, 1964) p. 297-299.
[8] See The Toronto Star, May 2, 1993, p. B5; May 15, 1994, p. A13
|
