This is chapter 32 from the book “Islamic Thought”
The ‘ismah (infallibility) of the prophets and messengers is an issue stipulated by the mind. For the fact that he is a Prophet or a Messenger necessitates he is infallible in conveying from Allah (swt). If there is a defect of the possibility of the absence of ‘ismah in one issue, then this defect would reach every issue; and then the whole prophethood and message would collapse. The proof that a person is a Prophet of Allah (saw) or a Messenger from Allah (saw) means he is infallible in regards to what he conveys from Allah (swt). So his infallibility in conveyance is inevitable, and the rejection of this infallibility is rejection of the message that he brought and the prophethood that he was sent with. As regards to his infallibility from doing the actions that disagree from the commands and prohibitions of Allah (swt), it is definite that he does not commit kaba’ir (major sins) definitely, so he does not commit any of the kaba’ir absolutely. This is because performing a major sin means committing disobedience. Obedience is not partitioned and the disobedience is not partitioned. So if disobedience reaches to the action, then it would reach the propagation (tablaegh), as matter that contradicts the message and prophethood. That is why the prophets and messengers were infallible from committing kaba’ir, the same way they are infallible in propagation from Allah (swt). As regards the infallibility regarding the saga’ir (minor sins), the scholar had different views about it. Some of them said they are not infallible from them, for they are not disobedience; while others said they are infallible for they are disobedience. The true view about that is whatever its performance is considered haram and whatever its performance is considered obligatory, i.e. all the duties (furoodh) and the prohibition (muharraamat), they are infallible regarding them. Thus they are infallible from neglect on the obligations and from committing the prohibitions, whether they were kaba’ir or saga’ir. In other words, they are infallible from anything called disobedience (ma’siyah). Other than that, like khilaf-ul-awla (opposite to what is most appropriate), they are not infallible from them. So, they might do what is opposite to the most appropriate, absolutely, for in all its aspects, it does not enter under the meaning of the word ma’siyah (disobedience). This is what is necessitated by the mind and required by the fact they are prophets and messengers.
Our master Mohammad (saw) is a Prophet and a Messenger. So, like the other messengers and prophets, he is infallible from making an error in what he conveys from Allah (swt). This is a definite infallibility proved by the rational and shar’i evidence. The Rasool (saw) did not convey the ahkam except from the wahy (revelation). Allah (swt) says in the Surah of Al-Anbiaa’:
“Say: I only warn you with the wahy (inspiration).” [TMQ Al-Anbiaa’: 45]
Allah (swt) says in the Surah of An-Najm:
“Nor does he speak of (his own) desire. It is only inspiration that is inspired.” [TMQ An-Najm: 3-4]
The word ‘speak’ (yantiq) is of the generality (umoom) words, so it includes the Qur’an and others. There is nothing in the Qur’an or the Sunnah that specifies it in the Qur’an, so it remains general, meaning that everything he speaks of legislation is an inspired wahy. It is invalid to specify what he speaks to the Qur’an only; it must rather remain general, including the Qur’an and the hadeeth. As regards specifying it in to what he conveys from Allah (swt), in terms of legislation and others, of ahkam, creeds, thoughts and stories, without including the style, and means from drawing plans to battles, or dusting the palm trees or the like, this is because he is a Messenger. Discussion is about a Messenger and study of what he was sent with and not in other than that. So the subject of the speech (of the Messenger) is what specifies. Thus the form of generality remains general in the subject it came with, and it is then considered a form of specification. This is due to His (swt) saying:
“Say: I only warn you with the wahy (inspiration).” [TMQ Al-Anbiaa’: 45]
It is also due to His (swt) saying in Surah of Sad:
“It is revealed to me only that I may be a plain warner.” [TMQ Sad: 70]
It shows that the aim is what he brought of creeds, ahkam and everything he was ordered to convey and to warn with. Therefore, it does not include the use of styles or his natural actions which are of man’s innate nature (fitrah), ie from his natural creations, such as walking, speaking, eating etc. It is specified in the men’s actions and their thoughts, and not in the styles, the means and the like. So, whatever the Messenger (swt) was ordered to convey of what is related to the actions and thoughts of men, is revelation from Allah (swt). The wahy includes the speech and actions of the Rasool (swt) as well as his agreement (sukoot), because we are commanded to follow him. Allah (swt) says:
“Whatever the Rasool brought it to you, take it; and whatever he forbade you from, abstain from (it).” [TMQ Al-Hashr: 7]
And He (saw) said:
“Verily, in the messenger of Allah you have a good example.” [TMQ Al-Ahzab: 21]
Thus the speech, the action and the agreement of the Rasool (swt) are shar’i evidence, and they are all revelation from Allah (swt). Rasool Allah (swt) used to receive the revelation, conveys what the wahy brings to him from Allah (swt), and settles the matters in accordance with the wahy, without deviating from the wahy absolutely. Allah (swt) said in Surat al-Ahqaaf:
“I only follow what is revealed to me.” [TMQ Al-Ahqaaf: 9]
And He (saw) said in Surat al-A’raaf:
“I only follow what is revealed to me from my Lord.” [TMQ Al-A’raaf : 203]
This means, I don’t follow except that is revealed to me from my Lord. So he limited his adherence (ittibaa’) to that which is revealed to him from his Lord. All of this is explicit, clear and apparent to be general (a’amm); and what is related to the Rasool (saw) in regards to what he is ordered to convey is wahy (revelation) only. The Legislative life of the Rasool (saw) in explaining the ahkam to the people followed that approach.
So, he (saw) used to wait for revelation in many of the ahkam, such as the dhihar (pre-Islamic form of divorce) and the li’aan (sworn allegation of adultery committed by the wife) and others. He never said of a hukm on an issue, or made any legislative action or made a legislative agreement, except based on a wahy from Allah (swt). The Sahabah would be confused sometimes between the hukm of one of human actions and the opinion regarding a matter, a means or a style, so they asked the Rasool (saw): “ Is that wahy, O Rasool Allah, or it is the opinion and advice”: If he said to them, it is wahy, they kept silent, for they knew it is not from him. If he said to them; it is rather the opinion and the advice, then they would discuss with him, and he might of followed their opinion; as what happened in (the battle of) Badr, the trench and Uhud. He used to tell them in regards of other than what he conveys from his Lord: “You know better in regards of the matters of your dunya,”, as it was reported in the hadeeth of dusting the palm trees. Had he spoken in the matter of legislation without revelation, he would have not waited the revelation so as to say the hukm, and the Sahabah would have not asked him of whether that was a revelation or an opinion; he would have rather answered from himself, and they would have discussed with him without asking him.
Therefore, the Rasool (saw) used not to start a speech, action or acceptance except based on wahy from Allah (swt), and not based on an opinion from him. He (saw) is also infallible from making error in everything he conveys from Allah (swt).
