An Insight Into Prophecy: Infallibility.

Another conspicuous difference is that of ethnicity.  Israel was Yahweh’s chosen nation, and as such, prophets, divine favours, were sent to guide them.  In contrast, the Islamic prophetology is a universal one; it recognises both that “to every nation is a guide” and that Muhammad (s.a.w), the seal of prophethood, was sent as a “mercy to all the world.”

In Christianity can be seen an even greater departure from Islam’s prophetology.  Here, prophetology becomes theology in the act of deifying Christ.  As a footing, aiding our understanding of the alternate prophetologies of these two faiths, we may compare what have been taken to be the respective symbols of Christianity and Islam; the cross and the crescent.  Placing aside the inherent defects of redemption, original sin and the act of deifying Christ, it would seem that the cross, in Christianity, represents the one, single and unique redemptive transection between the transcendent and immanent God; the Father’s horizontal loftiness is brought to earth by Jesus’ vertical sacrifice.  On the other hand, the crescent, suggestive of cyclicity and renewal, is an apt symbol of Islam’s prophetology; seeing successive prophets as one of a chain of 124,000 guides sent by the Almighty.  As one is extinguished, another is born.

The Islamic prophetology is conceptually simple.  Islam views all prophets as having a common aim; preaching the message of monotheism.  In the Qur’an, great stress is laid upon the figure of Abraham (a.s.)  He is given due respect as the great patriarch; father to the line of Isaac (a.s) and Ishmael (a.s), and as such represents an ideal, that of Islam, from which Rabbinical Judaism and Pauline Christianity departed:

Abraham was not a Jew nor a Christian but he was an upright man (hanif), a Muslim, and not one of the polytheists

Along the model set by Abraham, famously known to be the slayer of idols, a line of great prophets descended.  The story of Yusuf (a.s), Abraham’s great-grandson, referred to in the Qur’an as ‘the best of narratives’, provides us with a glowing example of how tawhid manifests itself in a believer; Yusuf (a.s), even in times of great tribulation had firm tawakkul, absolute trust in Allah.  Even in jail he did not lose sight of his mission.  Indeed, when asked by his two jail-mates to interpret their dreams, he ceases the opportunity to begin preaching to them, in wonderfully eloquent prose, of God’s oneness, and their ultimate accountability before Him.

In spite of such archetypes, the children of Israel on many occasion defied their prophets.  The Qur’an gives many an example of such defiance and the resulting divine retribution.  The end product was that Rabbinical Judaism became fraught with legalism, and the spirit of faith began to fade.  This was to contrast with the esoteric teachings of Moses (a.s), to whom the burning bush spake.  The Qur’an also presents Jesus (a.s) as a worthy apostle who vehemently denies claims that he is God.  The very first words of the Qur’anic Jesus (a.s), uttered in the cradle to defend his mother from charges of unchastity, form both a rebuttal to Pauline Christianity and concisely capture the Islamic prophetology:

Surely I am a servant of Allah; He has given me the book and made me a prophet.

Hence, in Islam, a prophet is simply a messenger of God sent to guide his people to the right path.  The practical side of prophecy is that of responsibility; a responsibility by the people to follow the prophet.  Regarding the final and most honoured of the prophets, Muhammad (s.a.w) the Qur’an says:

Take what the Messenger gives to you, and refrain from what he prohibits you.

        

It is from this platform that we may make the relatively straightforward leap to infallibility.  Many arguments, both rational and scriptural, abound regarding the infallibility of the prophets.  One of the most convincing is the argument that builds upon our responsibility towards prophets, as noted, and the subsequent paradox of following an errant prophet.  M.R Muzaffar elaborates upon this argument:

The reason for the infallibility of a prophet is that if he commits a sin or mistake, or is forgetful or something similar, we have to chose between two alternatives: either we obey his sins and mistakes, in which case, in the view of Islam, we do wrong, or we must not obey the his sins and mistakes, which too is wrong, because this is contrary to the idea of prophethood where obedience is necessary; besides, if everything he says or does has the possibility of being either right or wrong, then it is impossible for us to follow him.  The result is that the benefit of his mission is lost; it becomes unnecessary, and the prophet becomes like ordinary people whose acts and speech do not have the excellent worth that we seek, with the result that there will be no obedience and his actions will be unreliable.

‘Allamah Hilli (d.1325), the twelver Shi‘ite theologian of the Il-Khanid period, cites another key rational, aqli, proof for infallibility.  He points to the argument ad infinitum; if the guardian is not infallible, then we are left with the indefinite question of who guards the guardian? 

Having provided but a taster to the arguments in favour of infallibility, one needs clarify what exactly we take it to mean.  Muslim theologians have united doctrinally in favour of prophetic infallibility, and yet differences are noticeable in both its extend and its duration.  Fakhr al-Din al-Razi (d.1209), a Shafi‘i jurist and theologian of the Ash‘ari School, claims that infallibility occurs only in the domains of belief, transmission of the divine message and religious judgement.  This however, appears to severely limit the extent of authority accorded to the prophet, who is the example par excellence in all domains.  Though al-Razi claims that the Sunni Ash‘arites had agreed upon this, it appears that al-Baqillani (d10.13), another Ash‘arite theologian, believed that the ‘infallible’ may commit unintentional errors in the transmission of the message to mankind.  The flaws of such a view are clear.

‘Allama Hilli, whose views remain those of orthodox twelver Shi‘ism to this day, provides a watertight definition of ‘isma, infallibility.  He begins by explaining that infallibility does not itself negate the prophet’s ability to commit sin; avoiding sin is an active choice.  This is in contrast to the determininstic understanding prevalent amongst the Ash‘arites.  Further, he stipulates that the infallible must neither commit grave or minor sins, in any domain, either before or after his mission commences.  He reasons that a person who becomes inerrant upon being made a prophet will not have acquired the necessary respect from his people.  Only a person that has been of exemplary character throughout his life can take on such a great responsibility as that of prophethood.

In sum, one may say, rather schematically, that prophetic infallibility is denied within the confines of Judaism, extended to that of a deity in Christianity, and defined downwards by orthodox Sunnism.  And yet, upon reflection, it would appear that prophecy is a great burden.  Indeed, the  Qur’anic revelation is described as a ‘heavy word’ that is sent down upon the Prophet Muhammad (s.a.w).  It is only with impeccable character, fortitude and resilience that the prophets were able to welcome such a burden, and live up to the responsibility of guiding mankind.  Such character can only be adequately captured in an understanding of infallibility that does not seek to atomise, either temporally or spatially, the lives of the prophets; inerrancy most truly encompasses all domains and periods of the life of a prophet.

---