The word 'isma' literally means protection. In Islamic terminology, it means "a spiritual grace (lutf) of Allah to a person which enables him to abstain from sins by his own free will". A person who has been given this grace of God is called a ma'soom.
However this power of isma does not make a ma'sum person incapable of committing sins. A ma'sum refrains from sins and mistakes by his/her own power and will. If it were otherwise, then there would be no merit in being a ma'soom. For example, it is within the power of any person to go naked within the streets. But have you, as someone who was brought up as a good Muslim, ever thought of doing so? No. Why? Because it is far below your dignity to behave in this way. Remember that it is not impossible for you to do so, but you will never even imagine of doing so. Why? Because you have been taught and brought up with the idea that such behaviour will tarnish your honour and is beneath the dignity of a civilised human being. Similarly, though a ma'sum has the ability to commit sins, he never even imagines of committing a sin because it is far below his dignity to do so.
Now, although the majority of Muslims believe in isma of the Prophets, there is a great difference about the extent of their isma. As far as Sunnis are concerned, they have a great difference of opinion among themselves. There views are as followings:
* All Sunnis believe that Prophets could not tell a lie, neither intentionally nor by mistake, nor could they be kuffar before or after the declaration of Prophethood.
* All Sunnis believe that Prophets could not commit any other sins intentionally.
* The majority of Sunnis believe that the Prophets could commit major sins unintentionally; however a minority believe this is not possible.
* The majority believes that the prophets could commit minor sins, though not such minor sins which would disgrace them in public eyes.
Ref: See al Qazi Abdul Jabbar, Sharhu al-Usul al-Khamsah, p. 573-575.
This faction of Sunnis base their opinion on the traditions narrated in their books about how the Prophet (s) falls asleep and forgets the prayer time, and even forgets to perform the necessary ablution (Wudu) for prayer (Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic version, v1, p37, 44,171). Furthermore, they claim that he (s) used to sit with Aisha and watch a dance with music (Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic version, v3, p228). They also claim that he (s) was affected by a magical spell that caused severe episodes of hallucination on his part (Sahih al-Bukhari, Arabic version, v7, p29; and v4, p68). These are but a FEW of the most heinous of acts that these "scholars" attribute to the Mercy to Mankind, the Messenger of Allah, Muhammad (s).
Note that according to the Shia, these traditions are NOT authentic, nor do they constitute ANY truth whatsoever. Again, these traditions were inserted into their books by the Umayads, among others, to justify their own corruption and insolence. For when the Prophet (s) sins so heinously as they depict him (s) in the above traditions, we can no longer blame Muawiyah, or Yazid, or Amr Ibn al-Aas, among others, when they sin. It is to their advantage to portray the Prophet (s) as a man who listens to music and watches a dance with his wife, to justify the dancing and the music that was (and still is) rampant in their palaces. (Shia Encyclopedia, Infallibility of the Prophets (Part I)
Quite a few Muslim intellectuals, swayed by the idea of humanism, relativity, and puralism, 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 be observed in the early history of Islam when the scholars attaches to the political establishment tried to waterdown the infallibilty of the Prophet of Islam 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 charges of adultery brought against his leader, the self proclaimed prophet, Elijah Muhammad. For the sake of brevity I have not provided the passage to prove this point, but for those who are curious, please see Alex Haley's "The Autobiography of Malcolm X", pg. 297-299.
The Shia Ithna Ashariyya believe that all Prophets were ma'sumeen, sinless and infallible; they could commit no sins -- 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. Below are three quotations from the most esteemed Shia scholars of the past and present, which shows the consistency of this belief among the Shia:
Our belief concerning the Prophets, Apostles, Imams and Angels is that they are infallible, purified from all defilement (damas), and that they do not commit any sin, whether it be minor or major. He who denies the 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.
Shaykh Abu Ja'far as-Saduq
Shaykh Abu Ja'far as-Saduq, a scholar born during the minor occultation of the Present Imam and died in 381 AH, says: "Our belief concerning the Prophets, Apostles, Imams and Angels is that they are infallible, purified from all defilement (damas), and that they do not commit any sin, whether it be minor or major. He who denies the 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." (As-Saduq, A Shi'ite Creed, p. 87)
Allamah Ibn Mutahhar al-Hilli (d. 728 AH) writes the following of Prophecy: "He is immune to sin from the first of his life to the last of it." (Allamah al-Hilli, Al Babul Hadi Ashar, p. 58)
Shaykh Muhamad Riza Muzaffar, also another famous and eminent scholar of the first half of this century writes, "We believe that all Prophets are infallible... Infallibility means purity from all sins, both major and minor ones, and from mistakes and forgetfulness." (Al-Muzzafar, The Faith of Shia Islam, p. 21)
Why Ismah?
If they (Prophets) were not infallible, 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.
Some people would very fervently argue is to the question of "why is it necessary for Prophets to be ma'sumeen". Well the answer to this is a very logical one indeed. The prophets must be infallible for the same reason for which they were sent; to guide and lead the people towards God. Allah, who decided to guide mankind, also intended to send immaculate and perfect human beings as models and examples. If they were not infallible, 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. This reasoning is also supported by the Quran - "We sent not an apostle, but to be obeyed, in accordance with the will of God..."(4:64) The verse very clearly presents the divine social order: the main purpose of the Prophets on earth is to be obeyed by their followers, not that the followers are to check every action and statement of their Prophet and then decide whether they should obey or not.
Such absolute obedience cannot be possible unless the Prophets were ma'sumeen, free from sins and mistakes. Another verse that supports this concept is, "O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle, and those charged with authority among you..."(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 the imperative forms to order the believers to obey the Prophets and Messengers. Besides these verses, there are also many verses where Allah describes the virtues of obeying the Prophets, and the dire consequences of disobeying them.
Also, in most such verses, Allah has mentioned obedience to Himself alongside with the obedience of His Messengers. Actually, in one verse, obedience to the Messenger is made synonymous with the obedience of Allah: " He who obeys the Apostle, obeys God: But if any turn away, We have not sent thee to watch over their (evil deeds)." (4:80)
Such assertion on the part of Allah would have been impossible if the Prophets and the Messengers were not ma'sumeen 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 said 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 ordered us to obey the prophets and messengers in an absolute way. Allah does not approve of sin or evil deeds, and this is the basic foundation of the Message He has sent to mankind.
Would it make any sense that God sends sinning people with a message that people should not sin?
Would it make any sense that God sends sinning people with a message that people should not sin? What kind of twisted logic is this?
To the above verses, add those verses in which Allah forbids you to obey certain types of people who commit sins;
"Heed not the type of despicable men,- ready with oaths, A slanderer, going about with calumnies, (Habitually) hindering (all) good, transgressing beyond bounds, a sinner". (68:10-12)
"Therefore be patient with constancy to the Command of thy Lord, and hearken not to the sinner or the ingrate among them." (76:24)
"And follow not the bidding of those who are extravagant". (26:151)
"...the (human) soul certainly incites evil, UNLESS my lord do bestow His Mercy... (12:53)"
The verse immediately above was quoted on the lips of Prophet Usif, and it clearly shows that some specific group of people are exempted from following the inciting self, the self that incites to evil, by a mercy from God. Also look at this verse wherein Allah Himself assures us that there is a certain group of people over whom the devil has no power, "Lo! as for My slaves, you have NO way into them except the wrong-doers who follow you."(15:42)
When you put these verses alongside the previous verses you will get the complete picture: the Prophets are to be obeyed unconditionally; the sinners and wrongdoers are not to be obeyed. The only logical conclusion is that the Prophets are not in the category of wrongdoers.
Before going any further in this topic, it would indeed be useful and even necessary to explain the seemingly conflicting verses that are found in the Quran regarding the subject of "ismah". After explaining the meaning and importance of ismah for the Prophets and Messengers of God, which is also supported by the Quranic verses mentioned above, some people become confused when they come across verses which give an impression that Adam and other Prophets (such as David or Yunus) committed some sins. This confusion will only be clear if we realize that the Quranic verses, according to the Quran itself, are of two types: "He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God..."(3:7)
Those who do not differentiate between the clear and allegorical verses will surely get confused when they apparently find two conflicting messages from verses in the Quran. The issue of ismah is one of those issues in which people have become victims of confusion. (Other issues are Qadtha and Qadr, whether or not God has a physical body, etc.)
The situation, at this stage of the discussion, is as follows:
1. Our reason and mind tells us that the divine guides must be immaculate and above reproach.
2. Many verses of the Quran support this view, as mentioned above.
3. But there are also some verses, which APPARENTLY attribute sins and faults and wrongdoings to some of the Prophets.
What should be done in this case? We must accept those verses, which are supported by our reason, as the clear (muhkamat) verses. And the other verses should be considered allegorical (mutashabihat) and their true meaning must be seeked in light of the muhkamat, the teachings of the Prophet and the Imams who are the twin and equals of the Quran by virtue of the famous tradition, "I am leaving two things among you (for guidance): the Book of God and my Ahul Bayt". (For the English version of Sahih Muslim, see Chapter CMXCVI, v4, p1286, Tradition #5920)
Let us now study these verses and see how we can interpret them and, at the same time, hold on to our belief in the infallibility of the Prophets and Imams after them.
THE CASE OF PROPHET ADAM (AS)
It will help us greatly if we, first of all, study the verses of the Quran about the creation of Adam, his stay in Paradise, and his coming to earth.
The story of Adam is mentioned in 3 places in the Quran. The first of these is in Chapter 2 (al-Baqarah) verses 30-39:
"And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee ? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not.
And He taught Adam all the names, then showed them to the angels, saying: Inform Me of the names of these, if ye are truthful.
They said: Be glorified! We have no knowledge saving that which Thou hast taught us. Though, only Though, art the Knower, the Wise.
He said: O Adam! Inform them of their names, and when he had informed them of their names,
He said: Did I not tell you that I know the secret of the heavens and the earth ? And I know that which ye disclose and which ye hide.
And when We said unto the angels: Prostrate yourselves before Adam, they fell prostrate, all save Iblis. He demurred through pride, and so became a disbeliever.
And We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.
But Satan caused them to deflect therefrom and expelled them from the (happy) state in which they were; and We said: Fall down, one of you a foe unto the other! There shall be for you on earth a habitation and provision for a time.
Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful.
We said: Go down, all of you, from hence; but verily there cometh unto you from Me a guidance; and whoso followeth My guidance, there shall no fear come upon them neither shall they grieve.
But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein.
In Chapter 7 (al-A'raf) verses 19-25 another version of the story of Adam (AS) is mentioned in the following words:
"And (unto man): O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden and eat from whence ye will, but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.
Then Satan whispered to them that he might manifest unto them that which was hidden from them of their shame, and he said: Your Lord forbade you from this tree only lest ye should become angels or become of the immortals.
And he swore unto them (saying): Lo! I am a sincere adviser unto you.
Thus did he lead them on with guile. And when they tasted of the tree their shame was manifest to them and they began to hide (by heaping) on themselves some of the leaves of the Garden. And their Lord called them, (saying): Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you: Lo! Satan is an open enemy to you?
They said: Our Lord! We have wronged ourselves. If thou forgive us not and have not mercy on us, surely we are of the lost!
He said: Go down (from hence), one of you a foe unto the other. There will be for you on earth a habitation and provision for a while.
He said: There shall ye live, and there shall ye die, and thence shall ye be brought forth.
And the last version of the story is in Chapter 20 (Ta Ha) verses 116-124:
"When We said to the angels, "Prostrate yourselves to Adam", they prostrated themselves, but not Iblis: he refused.
Then We said: "O Adam! verily, this is an enemy to thee and thy wife: so let him not get you both out of the Garden, so that thou art landed in misery.
"There is therein (enough provision) for thee not to go hungry nor to go naked,
Nor to suffer from thirst, nor from the sun's heat."
But Satan whispered evil to him: he said, "O Adam! shall I lead thee to the Tree of Eternity and to a kingdom that never decays?"
In the result, they both ate of the tree, and so their nakedness appeared to them: they began to sew together, for their covering, leaves from the Garden: thus did Adam disobey his Lord, and allow himself to be seduced.
But his Lord chose him (for His Grace): He turned to him, and gave him Guidance.
He said: "Get ye down, both of you, - all together, from the Garden, with enmity one to another: but if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from Me, whosoever follows My Guidance, will not lose his way, nor fall into misery.
"But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment."
REVIEW OF ADAM'S (AS) STORY
There are a couple of points that can be mentioned to create harmony between these verses of the Quran and at the same time hold on to our belief in the infallibility of Prophets. I will mention 5 points and go through each one briefly.
Point #1
Not all commands of the Quran are of equal force: there are the oblilgatory (wajib) acts: the prohibitive (haram) acts: the recommended (mustahab) acts: the unadvisable (makruh) acts: and finally the permissible (ja'iz or mubah) acts. All Muslims agree on the point that even if Allah uses the imperative form for a deed, it does not always mean wajib, nor abstinence from it amount to haram. It could also mean recommended, or if in the case of abstaining from the command, it could mean disliked. It does not necessarily have to fall into the categories of wajib and haram.
For example, look at this verse; "And they ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean; then when they have cleansed themselves, go in to them as Allah has commanded you; surely Allah loves those who turn much (to Him), and He loves those who purify themselves." (2:222) No Muslim jurist of any sect has said that it is obligatory for the married couple to have sex after the wife comes out of her monthly period. This is so inspite of the fact that the words "go to them" are in the imperative form with emphasis added by the words "as Allah has commanded you".
Also another example, "Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among yourselves, male or female." (24:32). This verse is also a command in the imperative form. There is nothing in this verse to indicate that Allah is advising us to marry, it SEEMS to mean that we MUST marry. And yet all scholars know that this is not the case, and none of them have placed marriage in the category of obligatory acts. There are several other verses of this type, wherein a command seems to be obligatory, but yet it only truly conveys a sense of permissibility.
The order given to Adam and Hawwa was not necessarily of the nature of hurmat (meaning haram). It could have just been makruh. And going against such an order is not a sin.
Conclusion:
Not all commands of Allah are of the obligatory or prohibitive nature. The order given to Adam and Hawwa was not necessarily of the nature of hurmat (meaning haram). It could have just been makruh. And going against such an order is not a sin.
Point #2
Paradise is not a place of trial and test. It is this earth on which human beings have been destines to go through test and trial by obeying the commands of Allah. The concept of sinning in the case of human beings is connected to this worldly life.
In the story of Adam itself, Allah makes this point clear when He orders Adam and Hawwa to go to earth-- saying, "Get ye down, both of you,- all together, from the Garden, with enmity one to another: but if, as is sure, there comes to you Guidance from Me, whosoever follows My Guidance, will not lose his way, nor fall into misery. But whosoever turns away from My Message, verily for him is a life narrowed down, and We shall raise him up blind on the Day of Judgment." (20:123-124)
The order given to Adam in Heaven is not the same as orders given to human beings in this world -- it is disobedience of the orders given on earth which constitute sin.
Point #3
Those who believe that Adam committed a sin, describe the eating of the forbidden fruit as the "sin" and Adam's expulsion from Heaven as the "punishment". However, this relationship between the sin and its punishment is not valid because of at least two reasons:
Firstly, Adam was destined to come to earth from the very beginning. Allah had declared even before creating Adam that "Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth.." So the coming of Adam to earth is not a punishment; whether or not he ate from the forbidden tree, Adam would have come down to earth anyway. So what type of punishment is this?
Secondly, if the coming of Adam to earth was a "punishment" of eating the forbidden fruit, then he should have been returned to Paradise after Allah "forgave" him. Forgiveness means "cancelling the punishment"-- Adam should have been taken back to Paradise. This did not happen, which proves that Adam's coming to earth was not a "punishment", and his eating the fruit not a "sin".
Point #4
Now we will discuss briefly those words in the story of Adam, which imply that he committed a sin. After studying the issue of ismah from the Quranic point of view, than we must interpret those verses that do seem to IMPLY sin in a way that is in harmony with the other verses of the Quran. Let us look at a few such examples.
The first most obvious word that implies sin is the word "dthalimeen" (wrongdoers). This word is derived from the word "dthulm" which means wronged. This word has four meanings in the Arabic language:
1. to oppress and wrong
2. to put something in a wrong place
3. to make haste
4. to come to harm
OR
"...otherwise you will be one of those who make haste." Here, "making haste" would mean that they were eventually going to go to earth but by eating from the forbidden tree they hastened their departure to a place where they will lose the comforts of the Garden.
This meaning of the word "dthalimeen" is supported by the next verse which says that Satan "got them out of the state of comfort in which they had been". Also the verse 20:117 supports this interpretation: "Then We said: "O Adam! Verily, this is an enemy to thee and thy wife: so let him not get you both out of the Garden, so that thou art landed in misery. There is therein (enough provision) for thee not to go hungry nor to go naked." In other words, you will lose these comforts on earth. Here everything is provided for you but there you will have to work for it yourselves.
It must be noted that this does not contradict our point #3 wherein we stated that Adam was destined to come to earth anyways. This is because the verses meant that it should hasten or quicken his departure out of heaven, meaning that he would have stayed longer had he not eaten from the tree.
Another word that implies "sin" is the word "asa" which means disobeyed in English. This does not necessarily imply sin because disobedience can be attributed to two types of commands: haram and makruh. If a person goes against the makruh command, he has "disobeyed" but not "sinned". We have already explained that commands of Allah do not always have the force of wujub and hurmat. And, by keeping in mind those verses, which prove imsah, we have no choice but to interpret this word as "disobeyed tha makruh command".
Similarly the word "ghawa" means, "he erred". But this does not necessarily imply sin either. It can easily be applied to tarkul awla, which a Prophet is allowed to do. Tarkul awla means, "leaving the more appropriate behaviour". Adam erring would mean that even if the command did not carry the force of hurmat, still Adam should have obeyed it. In disregarding this order of Allah, Adam is guilty not of a sin (haram) but of not living up to the appropriate behaviour (makruh) which is expected from a Prophet or Messenger of God.
Point #5
If Adam did not commit a sin, then why does Allah talk about the repentance from Adam and forgiveness from Himself, and uses so strong words such as "erred" and "wrongdoers"?
Firstly, when a Prophet like Adam commits tarkul awla, it is quite appropriate for him to ask Allah for pardon -- not necessarily for a sin but because of inappropriate behaviour. So "repenting" does not mean that Adam must have committed a sin; it is quite appropriate rather advisable even after committing tarkul awla.
Secondly, the use of harsh words by Allah in describing the story of Adam is acceptable by keeping in mind the status of Adam. In fact when Allah ordered the angels to bow to Adam, this clearly shows the station and high level of Adam in the eyes of God. And also look at the verse: "Surely Allah chose Adam and Nuh and the descendants of Ibrahim and the descendants of Imran above the nations." (3:33) So although Adam did not commit a sin, it was not proper for him to adopt this inappropriate behaviour. People with high ranks are expected to live by the standard, which is higher than that of normal human beings. And as the saying goes: the virtuous deeds of the pious are considered "sins" by those who are nearest to God - (hasanatul abrar sayyi3tul muqarabeen).