What is Sunnah?

[Ron]

Zees,

The message of God (Quran) represents the infallible speech of God.

Yes, it is the word of God.

It is not the fallible speech of the prophet of God.

Your phrasing is peculiar. I have not suggested that the Qur'an is the word of the Prophet (pbuh). In fact, I think you have some zeal in trying to show that the Prophet was a "fallible" man without any real reason for it. It's not as if we don't know he was a man. That's not even the issue.

The prophet of God on the other hand was apprehensive of the task at first fearing that he might forget or err in the delivery of this divine message.

Your addition of "err" is an exercise of your interpretive gymnastics. It mentions that he will not forget what he is given but as to him worrying about delivering the message in error that's just something you're projecting on the words of God.

In other words the purity of the revealed text could not be compromised as the charge for it lay upon God himself. The prophet of God was in no position to deliver the message free of error of his own accord which in effect means that the prophet was indeed fallible in delivery and it was God himself who made sure that the infallibility of the message remains intact.

These sentences really do themselves and your point a disfavor. First, you assume that the Prophet was "in no position to the deliver the message free of error." Nothing in the Qur'an mentions such a thing. After all, he had to have some qualities to fulfill this task even with the aide of God. You're keenly focused on his fallibility and seemingly changing your position, which was that a perfect message was delivered through an imperfect instrument and therefore the very message itself could be less than perfect. Now you are saying that God made sure it was perfectly delivered. Thus, it is clear that the Prophet was divinely assisted in getting the message and delivering it without error.

There should be little dispute concerning the infallibility of the Quran and nearly all sects agree to the infallibility of the book of God.

Then there is no reason to harp on the issue that he was a fallible man, which you attach to his Messengership.

The second charge that was placed upon the prophet of God was to interpret the book of God so as to make the book of God a practical reality in the lives of the believers. To this end the prophet of God explained and elaborated the words of God through his words and actions so as to make the book of God a living reality in the lives of believers as opposed to the believers following abstract commandments in the book of God and coming up with whatever meaning. This represented the fulfillment of the second phase of the religion of God the first phase being the successful delivery of the divine message.

The phases you speak of are not a matter of fact. You have established them without providing any supporting evidence. The message along with its import was clearly understood and delivered as such. To say anything less would be tantamount to claiming the Prophet did not know what he was delivering. A perfect message that is not understood or is explained correctly is not quite a perfect message, is it? Also, the Qur'an consists of clear commands and guidance. There are some verses that discuss matters that are beyond the human experience and therefore when it refers to such things they are spoken of in an analogous way. This cannot be the basis of your claim as it is explicitly stated in the Qur'an that it is clear.

Now the apt question here is could the prophet make a mistake or err in the explanation and elaboration of the divine message. The answer to which is yes that he did error in this on quite a many occasions which are a glaring proof of his fallibility.

You will shortly see how wrong you are. No such thing ever happened and the Qur'an never rebukes the Prophet for a misinterpretation of the message itself.

The prophet did make mistakes in his interpretation as when he decided to free the prisoners (Badr War) by the way of ransom whereas God desired their punishment.

Which verse did he interpret incorrectly which directed him to do one thing and he did the other? Which verse said punish the prisoners of Badr and he reacted incorrectly? In fact, if this was an action where's the interpretation?

He forbade something to please his wives which God did not forbid.

Again, which verse is this that he misread? Where does it say that the Qur'an said to do this but he do something else? Or where does it say that he didn't understand a command? Are you equating his personal reaction and the ensuing revelation to a misinterpretation of the Qur'an?

He assured the Jews of the answer to their question while forgetting to invoke God’s name.

It seems that your definition of interpretation is quite different than what is generally accepted. Which verse did he misinterpret when he did this?

God chastises the prophet for frowning at the blind man.

Again, this is not an issue of interpretation. All you are doing is taking aspects that occurred in his personal life and projecting them on his capacity as a Messenger. There is not one thing that is related to interpretation here. What did he misinterpret from the Qur'an regarding frowning at the blind man?

From the Hadith records we see that he forgets prayer time, forgets to perform ablution was affected by a magical spell that caused forgetfulness.

Whether this is true or not is beyond the scope of this conversation; however, you have again fallen into the fallacy of applying events and his reactions to somehow him not interpreting the Qur'an correctly. Your reasoning is flawed. Your logic is incorrect. Your evidence is impermissible (not in the law sense). I think you have failed in every instance to prove your point. Not one of these is related to him delivering and explaining the message correctly or incorrectly.

There are countless examples of the other prophets committing mistakes and then turning to God in repentance. All these are the examples of the prophet’s fallibility in his religious obligations to interpret and elaborate the text through his words and actions.

The "other Prophets' (pbut) mistakes" are not examples of the Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) fallibility in delivering the message or its meaning. Even if we were to accept such an argument, the "mistakes" were corrected and thus there are no mistakes in message or meaning. What you've mentioned above in no way supports your claim and the Prophet never failed to live up to his religious duties as the Messenger of God.

God corrected the prophet in some of the instances and in others (that were not of severe nature) he probably did not.

Which parts of the Qur'an or Sunnah are not that important so as to not be corrected if they were erroneously expressed?

These are sufficient proofs for a believer to believe in the total fallibility of the prophet.

Not are they only insufficient but they cannot even be considered "proofs." They say nothing to the ability of the Prophet to deliver the message and its meaning properly.

Another thing that requires mention here is that God vehemently claims in the Quran that the prophet is but a man like you so if God himself is vouching for his fallibility than how can we claim that his interpretations are infallible in nature.

One of the most important things in studying Islam is that there is so much out there and that one should be well read before they theorize at will. There is a context as to why the Qur'an mentions that he was a mere human and that he will die as others have before him. That in no way speaks to the fact that he would deliver the message and its import incorrectly.

So once again fallibility is not synonymous with corruption or inferiority in any way.

I thought we were over the choice of words but I guess not. However, do check the dictionary. One of the definition of "corrupt" is "to make inferior by errors."

The fact that the prophet made these mistakes in his religious obligations does not mean that his teachings are of inferior nature or that they are not to be followed. If anything these mistakes stand as a glaring proof of the fallibility of the prophet and of the fact that his understanding of the religion was simply the product of his own mind which was indeed susceptible to error. It certainly does not mean that mistakes were all what the prophet did. Sure the prophet made some mistakes but the bulk of his fallible teachings represent his sincerity and dedication in following the religion of God and are therefore binding upon men who wish to follow the path of one God. Those mistakes that could affect the direction of the religion of God were corrected by God himself.

So we should follow what is wrong? And if, as you said, God did not correct some of them how did you surmise they were wrong and are you claiming your knowledge to be better than the Prophet's on any specific matter related to the divine message? I think Hussein's questions are quite relevant here.

So what exactly is religion? Religion is basically the fallible intellect (Hikma) of man pondering over the wisdom of the infallible words of the God to create the law of God. This activity basically forms a chain starting from the prophet of God and going ever forward into the future.

So religion is Hikmah? Haven't you misused the contextual sense of the word? Isn't Hikmah that very element leads us to the truth when we are presented with it? Also, if this religion is merely the result of the minds of men then what is left for the "infallible words of God?" In addition, what consequence is there God sent His religion through a man that himself did not grasp it all...what does that say for the followers?

Thus the religion of God is about following two things the infallible Quran and the fallible (yet binding) Sunnah.

The heart of where your error lies is in these words. The Qur'an is indeed infallible. However, so too is the Sunnah. Islam is the message and its actions revealed to the Prophet to deliver to the world. Both were revealed and both are preserved...in memory, in practice and in written form. Both are an undeniable axiom that history is a witness to.

[Zees]

Salaam all,

I hope that Ron will forgive me for entering this conversation. In addition to everything that Ron had written, i have another one or two points:



The problem with your reasoning is this:

Yes Shafii, Abu Hanifa and Malek and Ahmad and even Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman and Ali are fallible. When I say this, then I am putting myself under the responsibility of studying their opinions closely and accepting their correct opinions while rejecting their error. This to me, is the consequence of saying a certain person is fallible in delivering the message and so on. Now, you can make an argument that collectively, they are not fallible. This means that the correct opinion is contained in their collective work and it is your responsibility to find it. From this also comes the understanding that Ijmaa is binding because it is their collective agreement at one point with no alternatives.

So, when you say that the prophet (pbuh) is fallible including in his teaching the message and understanding it, as far as I recall from our previous discussion, then you also say that it is binding to follow him. This leads me to confusion in the following:

1- Are you saying that you will follow him even if he is in error?
2- Are you saying that Allah made it binding upon you to follow the wrong understanding of the prophet (pbuh)?
3- Are you reserving to yourself the right to declare him wrong yet follow him? or Are you trying to get away from being bound by him, but cannot actually say it?

So, which of those are you trying to say? and if there is more then share them.

Hussein

Fallible teachings of the prophet of God are indeed an integral part of the religion of God without which the religion is incomplete. To give up all these teachings would be tantamount to making up a new religion in all its entirety. The fallible teachings of the prophet of God thus define the religion and give them worldly shape. Any man claiming to follow the religion of God is indeed bound to follow them. The fallible teachings of the prophet that is his explanation and elaboration of the words of God are indeed correct and his mistakes only serve as a reminder of the fact that he was afterall a fallible man in his understanding. God corrected most of the mistakes of the prophet that could have affected the direction of religion thereby rendering his interpretations and teachings to be correct. Thus the entirety of the prophetic teachings is indeed correct and is therefore binding but fallible in nature. The teachings of the prophet of God are binding upon men of God not because of any infallibility of mortal men but because of the fact that these teachings represent the correct interpretation of God’s message.

As to the question should we follow him when he is in error? The errors of the prophets of God are also a source of guidance to us as they inform us of what to do if we transgress the limits of God and that the mercy of God is always open to those that turn to him in good works and repentance. So yes we are to follow what he did when he realized his error. One has to understand that an error manifests itself in ignorance and once it comes to your knowledge it is incumbent upon you to correct it.

[lumumba_s]

As salamu `alaykum,

Zees: There is no practical difference between infalliability in the transmission and infalliability in the explanation of a revelation as it relates to the one entrusted to deliver it. The very point of prophethood is not merely delivery, but in explaining to humanity what God wants of them. To say that a prophet can misunderstand the very revelation to which they are entrusted is to make a distinction between form and content that simply cannot be made, as it undermines the very function of prophethood. If a prophet cannot be trusted to properly explain the content of the revelation, then prophethood itself is untrustworthy and no one can be blamed for refusing to follow their call. For if they, given their exalted status, can misrepresent God, then it is not reasonable for God to necessitate that His representatives be followed. What is the Qur'an exactly? The sounds which forms when one recites it or the meaning of these sounds translated into the intellects of men? If it is the former, you have a point and prophethood is little more than a delivery service. But if it is the latter, then prophethood is entirely about the delivery of the message and the actual envelope and packaging is besides the point - relatively speaking of course.

Wa-Llahu `alim wa musta'am

[Zees]

Zees,

Yes, it is the word of God.

Your phrasing is peculiar. I have not suggested that the Qur'an is the word of the Prophet (pbuh). In fact, I think you have some zeal in trying to show that the Prophet was a "fallible" man without any real reason for it. It's not as if we don't know he was a man. That's not even the issue.

First things first. Concentrate on the argument and not on me. What I think or not is none of your concern. God proclaims the prophet of God to be a fallible man in the Quran. Is that not good enough reason for you? What you proclaim on the other hand (infallibility of the prophet) has no basis in the Quran or elsewhere whatsoever.

Your addition of "err" is an exercise of your interpretive gymnastics. It mentions that he will not forget what he is given but as to him worrying about delivering the message in error that's just something you're projecting on the words of God.

These sentences really do themselves and your point a disfavor. First, you assume that the Prophet was "in no position to the deliver the message free of error." Nothing in the Qur'an mentions such a thing. After all, he had to have some qualities to fulfill this task even with the aide of God. You're keenly focused on his fallibility and seemingly changing your position, which was that a perfect message was delivered through an imperfect instrument and therefore the very message itself could be less than perfect. Now you are saying that God made sure it was perfectly delivered. Thus, it is clear that the Prophet was divinely assisted in getting the message and delivering it without error.

Then there is no reason to harp on the issue that he was a fallible man, which you attach to his Messengership.

It was the prophet himself who was apprehensive that he might forget in the delivery of the message to which end God assured him that God himself was ultimately responsible for it. Forgetting is also an act of error. If you don’t approve of the word ‘error’ we will stick with forgetting. So tell me is forgetting the divine message a fallible attribute or an infallible one. Could the prophet of God deliver the message without the help of God? No he could not meaning that he was indeed fallible in delivery that is to say that he might have forgotten a part. The endeavor was only made possible through the agency of God that is to say God made sure that the prophet did not forget in the delivery of the message. The fact that the prophet was afraid that he might forget is a clear proof of his fallibility in the said endeavor. So yes the perfect message was indeed delivered through a fallible medium. Not a corrupt or an inferior medium but a fallible one. The prophet did not insure the purity of the text God did and as such the infallibility of the enterprise was upon God and not the prophet.

The phases you speak of are not a matter of fact. You have established them without providing any supporting evidence. The message along with its import was clearly understood and delivered as such. To say anything less would be tantamount to claiming the Prophet did not know what he was delivering. A perfect message that is not understood or is explained correctly is not quite a perfect message, is it? Also, the Qur'an consists of clear commands and guidance. There are some verses that discuss matters that are beyond the human experience and therefore when it refers to such things they are spoken of in an analogous way. This cannot be the basis of your claim as it is explicitly stated in the Qur'an that it is clear.

We as human beings divide things in order to better understand them. That is to say if you were to go out in nature you will not find chemistry, physics and biology operating independently of one another. We divide nature into these disciplines merely to understand them better. Therefore the two phases is merely an attempt the divide the task of the prophet into two so as to understand him better. This is the only import of these words. Yes the message was delivered free of error through the fallible medium of the prophet by the infallible will of God. As to the explanation and elaboration of the religion my point was that the prophet made the words of God a practical reality in the lives of believers through his fallible words. There were two ways to go about it the prophet could have left the Quran to the believers to interpret as they deem fit or interpreted it for them himself. He interpreted it for the believers in the first instance. How hard is that to understand?

You will shortly see how wrong you are. No such thing ever happened and the Qur'an never rebukes the Prophet for a misinterpretation of the message itself.

Which verse did he interpret incorrectly which directed him to do one thing and he did the other? Which verse said punish the prisoners of Badr and he reacted incorrectly? In fact, if this was an action where's the interpretation?

Again, which verse is this that he misread? Where does it say that the Qur'an said to do this but he do something else? Or where does it say that he didn't understand a command? Are you equating his personal reaction and the ensuing revelation to a misinterpretation of the Qur'an?

It seems that your definition of interpretation is quite different than what is generally accepted. Which verse did he misinterpret when he did this?

Again, this is not an issue of interpretation. All you are doing is taking aspects that occurred in his personal life and projecting them on his capacity as a Messenger. There is not one thing that is related to interpretation here. What did he misinterpret from the Qur'an regarding frowning at the blind man?

Whether this is true or not is beyond the scope of this conversation; however, you have again fallen into the fallacy of applying events and his reactions to somehow him not interpreting the Qur'an correctly. Your reasoning is flawed. Your logic is incorrect. Your evidence is impermissible (not in the law sense). I think you have failed in every instance to prove your point. Not one of these is related to him delivering and explaining the message correctly or incorrectly.

The "other Prophets' (pbut) mistakes" are not examples of the Prophet Muhammad's (pbuh) fallibility in delivering the message or its meaning. Even if we were to accept such an argument, the "mistakes" were corrected and thus there are no mistakes in message or meaning. What you've mentioned above in no way supports your claim and the Prophet never failed to live up to his religious duties as the Messenger of God.

So these were not mistakes in the interpretation of the book of God. I see. Tell me could prophet forbid something in his life that God did not forbid in his book. Forbidding something that God had not forbidden in his book does not amount to committing a mistake in the interpretation of the said book? Or does it. So the infallible prophet made all these religious mistakes inspite of the fact that his understanding was infallible? The last time I checked infallibility was not synonymous with making religious mistakes. So if he was infallible how could he make such mistakes? These mistakes existed in the religious realm and not in the secular realm. Mistakes committed in the religious realm are indeed representative of following the book of God if the book of God was indeed what he was following. He did not make such mistakes in the religious realm while following another book did he? He was after all following the Quran.

Which parts of the Qur'an or Sunnah are not that important so as to not be corrected if they were erroneously expressed?

Not are they only insufficient but they cannot even be considered "proofs." They say nothing to the ability of the Prophet to deliver the message and its meaning properly.

One of the most important things in studying Islam is that there is so much out there and that one should be well read before they theorize at will. There is a context as to why the Qur'an mentions that he was a mere human and that he will die as others have before him. That in no way speaks to the fact that he would deliver the message and its import incorrectly.

I thought we were over the choice of words but I guess not. However, do check the dictionary. One of the definition of "corrupt" is "to make inferior by errors."

So we should follow what is wrong? And if, as you said, God did not correct some of them how did you surmise they were wrong and are you claiming your knowledge to be better than the Prophet's on any specific matter related to the divine message? I think Hussein's questions are quite relevant here.

So religion is Hikmah? Haven't you misused the contextual sense of the word? Isn't Hikmah that very element leads us to the truth when we are presented with it? Also, if this religion is merely the result of the minds of men then what is left for the "infallible words of God?" In addition, what consequence is there God sent His religion through a man that himself did not grasp it all...what does that say for the followers?

The heart of where your error lies is in these words. The Qur'an is indeed infallible. However, so too is the Sunnah. Islam is the message and its actions revealed to the Prophet to deliver to the world. Both were revealed and both are preserved...in memory, in practice and in written form. Both are an undeniable axiom that history is a witness to.

The fault lies not with the one who proclaims what God proclaims but with the one who claims the prophet to be infallible yet fails to prove it.

[lumumba_s]

Please forgive me if this has already been stated, but I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding and the difference between the two may not be that substantial. Zees, no one claims that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was intrinsically infallible of his own accord, i.e. superhuman. Rather, he was Divinely protected from error and this Divine protection encompassed not only the transmission of the Revelation, but the understanding as well. The things for which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was corrected for were issues related to ijtihad, having nothing to do with understanding the revelation itself. Similarly, the mistakes of the past prophets mentioned in the Qur'an were not moral flaws, but mistakes in ijtihad; whether we are speaking of Musa who killed an OPPRESSOR out of anger which resulted in him having to abandon his people or Yunus who was apprehensive to deliver the message to the very same people who had ridiculed and disregarded him, whom he naturally believed would not listen to his call. Neither of these were errors in understanding, but mistakes of judgment.

[sksamsherali]

Certainly not. Rasool was never used to mean "message". If you insist, then bring any dictionary that says that Rasool means message.

Secondly, the Qur'an never divided Muhammad into sometimes human, sometimes nabi and sometimes Rasool. He was always the three at the same time.

thirdly, the Aya says "follow me". It did not specify that ME is only for Rasool. In fact ME is closer to the person himself than his job discription.

Hussein

Quote:- Certainly not. Rasool was never used to mean "message". If you insist, then bring any dictionary that says that Rasool means message.


Reply:- I think you prefer dictionary rather than the Quranic idea, but I am not. In some cases the function of the message & the messenger was/is same. The sole mission of the messenger was to deliver the message, which(message) guides the people and also messenger guided the people, of course, through the message i.e. Quran. Messenger warned the people and also Qur’an warned the people. Messenger leaded the people and also the Qur’an. Prophet Muhammad is now dead. So Quran is the only messenger, which is being with us that guides/leads/warns the people and in this sense I told this. If you don’t want to accept this definition of mine then I have no objection. You can.


[42:52] Thus, we inspired to you a revelation proclaiming our commandments. You had no idea about the scripture, or faith. Yet, we made this a beacon to guide whomever we choose from among our servants. Surely, you guide in a straight path.


[34:6] It is evident to those who are blessed with knowledge that this revelation from your Lord to you is the truth, and that it guides to the path of the Almighty, the Most Praiseworthy.


[32:3] They said, "He fabricated it." Indeed, this is the truth from your Lord, to warn people who never received a warner before you, that they may be guided.


[14:1] A.L.R. A scripture that we revealed to you, in order to lead the people out of darkness into the light - in accordance with the will of their Lord - to the path of the Almighty, the Praiseworthy.


Quote:- Secondly, the Qur'an never divided Muhammad into sometimes human, sometimes nabi and sometimes Rasool. He was always the three at the same time.


Reply:- I have already replied to that through my earlier post. But it seems to me that you did not ponder it. However, Please consider the followings once again;-


Then (i)why Almighty God did not say in the Quran a single time “Obey Muhammad”? Is it coincidence?


Then (ii) why Almighty god says in 60:12 that “….nor disobey your RIGHTEOUS orders…”? Almighty God could simply say “nor disobey you”, but he did not. Why? Because, as a human/commoner(not as a messenger) Muhammad, he could do mistakes, he could give unrighteous orders. But people did not have to obey him in this case.


Then(iii) we have to frown and turn away from the blind poor man as Muhammad did this(See 80:1-11). (b)We have to fear the people instead of Almighty God as Muhammad did (See33:37). (c) We should prohibit what GOD has made lawful for us, as Muhammad did (See 66:1).

In the above points what will be your answer brother?


We are told in the Quran that the messenger of God is infallible in the message he delivers but that he is fallible in his own personal words;


[34:50] Say, "If I go astray, I go astray because of my own shortcomings. And if I am guided, it is because of my Lord's inspiration. He is Hearer, Near."


The message in this Quranic verse is clear; The messenger is infallible only in the inspiration he receives from God, and he is fallible in his own personal views/sayings…etc.


We have to follow the inspiration/message i.e. Quran that Muhammed received from his Lord. Not to obey/follow him as human.


Quote:- thirdly, the Aya says "follow me". It did not specify that ME is only for Rasool. In fact ME is closer to the person himself than his job description.


Reply:- (smile)What did He(Muhammad) follow? He is now dead as a person. Then how do you follow him. As a senior member of this forum we can at least expect some sensible opinion from you.

[Zees]

Please forgive me if this has already been stated, but I believe that there is a fundamental misunderstanding and the difference between the two may not be that substantial. Zees, no one claims that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was intrinsically infallible of his own accord, i.e. superhuman. Rather, he was Divinely protected from error and this Divine protection encompassed not only the transmission of the Revelation, but the understanding as well. The things for which the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) was corrected for were issues related to ijtihad, having nothing to do with understanding the revelation itself. Similarly, the mistakes of the past prophets mentioned in the Qur'an were not moral flaws, but mistakes in ijtihad; whether we are speaking of Musa who killed an OPPRESSOR out of anger which resulted in him having to abandon his people or Yunus who was apprehensive to deliver the message to the very same people who had ridiculed and disregarded him, whom he naturally believed would not listen to his call. Neither of these were errors in understanding, but mistakes of judgment.

So the prophet was not infallible of his own accord. Meaning that if God is taken out of the picture what is left is a fallible man. God insured the infallibility of the transmission of the text so the prophet could do no wrong in this instance. The onus in this particular instance was indeed upon God and not upon the prophet.

The understanding of a person usually manifests itself in the judgment of the said person. So if the prophet understood something as a commandment of God he could not make a mistake. The mistake would only arise when nothing is said of the matter. Here we would divide religious obligations into two the one is which God has explicitly stated something and the other that is left to the prophet’s judgment and then it is or is not corrected. In that case that would simply be a mistake of judgment since nothing yet is said of the matter. This is the same question that Ron raised saying which particular verse did the prophet misinterpret. But the thing is that the prophet Adam defied God by approaching the tree even when being explicitly told not to do the same. The prophet Adam understood the commandment of God in all its entirety and yet he disobeyed it meaning that your argument does not hold its ground. The religious mistakes of the prophet when explicitly commanded to do something and when not commanded yet both point to the fallibility of the prophet in the interpretation of the words of God. The words of the prophet are indeed binding upon men of God for their correctness and not for any infallibility of mortal men.

[ihsan]

The prophet Adam understood the commandment of God in all its entirety and yet he disobeyed it meaning that your argument does not hold its ground.

1.

The Quran is explicitly clear that Adam forgot the command of his Lord and was hasty. This has nothing to do with incorrect understanding or outright disobedience. And further, this was before the trial of mankind had actually begun, meaning it did not pertain to the deliverance of the message, i.e. the function of his Risalat, which is essentially what the whole argument is about.

2.

The whole argument revolves around the idea that the only revelation given to the Prophet (S) was the Quran, which is not supported at all by the Quran itself. Where is the revelation in the Quran that the Muslims were ordered to face Jerusalem in prayers? This was not part of the deliverance of the message?

3.

The mistake would only arise when nothing is said of the matter. Here we would divide religious obligations into two the one is which God has explicitly stated something and the other that is left to the prophet’s judgment and then it is or is not corrected.

There is no documented cases where the Prophet (S) made and incorrect proclamation on religion and was not corrected. Even in the hadith literature, when the Prophet (S) was asked about nothing preventing a martyr from entering Paradise, he (S) replied "No". When the man walked away, the Prophet (S) ordered he be called back, saying to the effect that Gabriel (AS) came and informed him that a debt would prevent even a martyr from entering Paradise, until it is paid off. In fact, the verse of the Quran which establishes that the Prophet (S) forbade for himself what God had allowed demonstrates that God ALmighty does not allow the mistakes of the Prophet (S) that would influence the religion to go uncorrected:

O Prophet! why do you forbid (yourself) that which Allah has made lawful for you; you seek to please your wives; and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.
Allah indeed has sanctioned for you the expiation of your oaths and Allah is your Protector, and He is the Knowing the Wise.
And when the prophet secretly communicated a piece of information to one of his wives-- but when she informed (others) of it, and Allah made him to know it, he made known part of it and avoided part; so when he informed her of it, she said: Who informed you of this? He said: The Knowing, the one Aware, informed me.

The matter was entirely a personal matter between the Prophet and His Wives, yet Allah ALmighty made it a point to convey this reality to the ummah. Further, this verse also establishes the reality that the Prophet (S) was given revelational phenomenon outside of the Quran as well, thus the response of the Prophet (S) to his wives, upon being asked how he knew about the secret, that Allah the All-Knowing informed him.

[Zees]

The Quran is explicitly clear that Adam forgot the command of his Lord and was hasty. This has nothing to do with incorrect understanding or outright disobedience. And further, this was before the trial of mankind had actually begun, meaning it did not pertain to the deliverance of the message, i.e. the function of his Risalat, which is essentially what the whole argument is about.

Take the word of your choosing. It does not matter what word you choose. The point is that his fallibility was clear for all to see. The example of Prophet Adam is there for a reason. The reason being that his example serves as a source of guidance to mankind much like the example of other prophets. So your plea of inadmissible evidence is a lame excuse at best.

The whole argument revolves around the idea that the only revelation given to the Prophet (S) was the Quran, which is not supported at all by the Quran itself. Where is the revelation in the Quran that the Muslims were ordered to face Jerusalem in prayers? This was not part of the deliverance of the message?

The main argument is whether the prophets are fallible or infallible. This is the main argument. Prophetic words being a revelation or not is a logical conclusion of it. Meaning that if the prophet was fallible than his words were also fallible and if he was infallible than his words were also infallible. What revelations constituted the final shape of the Quran was decided by God himself. He was the final arbiter of what and what not to include in his book. The Quran was meticulously recorded and preserved as per God’s wish to the point of saying that if the prophet had dared changed it he would have seized him and cut of his life. God vehemently condemns the Jews and Christians for corrupting the word of God that was revealed to them. The same God who was so concerned about the text of the Quran would leave a part of it to hearsay with no attempt being made to record it? If it was indeed a revelation why was it prohibited to be recorded in the first instance? Why was the prophet worried that his words do not get mixed with the Quran. Even the later companions were averse to their recording. Why was this attitude employed with a revelation? The task was only carried out centuries later with the self initiative of some pious men? What would have happened if they hadn’t taken this initiative? In that case these revelations had been lost forever. Or is it more likely that the prophet’s fallible teachings were recorded at a later date by these distinguished men. There was no need to meticulously preserve the Quran if a part of it lay outside of it the same attitude could have employed with the Quran as well. So on the one hand Muslims were driven mad in preserving the Quran and on the other hand they were lax enough so as to prohibit the recording of the other.

There is no documented cases where the Prophet (S) made and incorrect proclamation on religion and was not corrected. Even in the hadith literature, when the Prophet (S) was asked about nothing preventing a martyr from entering Paradise, he (S) replied "No". When the man walked away, the Prophet (S) ordered he be called back, saying to the effect that Gabriel (AS) came and informed him that a debt would prevent even a martyr from entering Paradise, until it is paid off. In fact, the verse of the Quran which establishes that the Prophet (S) forbade for himself what God had allowed demonstrates that God ALmighty does not allow the mistakes of the Prophet (S) that would influence the religion to go uncorrected:

Agreed! My original point was he was not corrected when he was correct himself in his judgment.

The matter was entirely a personal matter between the Prophet and His Wives, yet Allah ALmighty made it a point to convey this reality to the ummah. Further, this verse also establishes the reality that the Prophet (S) was given revelational phenomenon outside of the Quran as well, thus the response of the Prophet (S) to his wives, upon being asked how he knew about the secret, that Allah the All-Knowing informed him.

Revelation is only the Quran. What was or was not included in it is per the wish of the one Lord. Therefore nothing outside of it is revelation if God did not wish to include it in the Quran and no attempt was made to record the other in the formative years of Islam.

[ihsan]

Wa salam

Take the word of your choosing. It does not matter what word you choose. The point is that his fallibility was clear for all to see. The example of Prophet Adam is there for a reason. The reason being that his example serves as a source of guidance to mankind much like the example of other prophets. So your plea of inadmissible evidence is a lame excuse at best.

The word of choosing does matter. The Quran is explicitly clear that Adam, in a moment of haste, forgot the command of his Lord. Further, it was before revelation even started. That has nothing to do with fallibility in the communication of the message of God.

The main argument is whether the prophets are fallible or infallible. This is the main argument. Prophetic words being a revelation or not is a logical conclusion of it. Meaning that if the prophet was fallible than his words were also fallible and if he was infallible than his words were also infallible.

That is flawed logic. A Prophet can be fallible in certain aspects, but be infallible in other aspects. That infallibility is attributable not to his own personal self, but through God's protection.

What revelations constituted the final shape of the Quran was decided by God himself. He was the final arbiter of what and what not to include in his book. The Quran was meticulously recorded and preserved as per God’s wish to the point of saying that if the prophet had dared changed it he would have seized him and cut of his life.

Your have just affirmed that there were revelations of the Prophet (S) that do not exist in the Quran. The Quran affirms their existence and the Quran affirms that they were not part of the Quran. And revelation is INFALLIBLE, meaning that your argument that something is not part of QUran, because it was supposedly fallible is absurd to the highest degree.

God vehemently condemns the Jews and Christians for corrupting the word of God that was revealed to them. The same God who was so concerned about the text of the Quran would leave a part of it to hearsay with no attempt being made to record it? If it was indeed a revelation why was it prohibited to be recorded in the first instance?

Prayer and hajj are traditions and actions, not words. Illiterate people have been learning how to pray for generations upon generations. The Quran refers to actions that already existed without any written form, the implication being that the transmission of these phenomenon are not contingent upon any written word, but through actual practice.

Why was the prophet worried that his words do not get mixed with the Quran. Even the later companions were averse to their recording. Why was this attitude employed with a revelation? The task was only carried out centuries later with the self initiative of some pious men? What would have happened if they hadn’t taken this initiative? In that case these revelations had been lost forever. Or is it more likely that the prophet’s fallible teachings were recorded at a later date by these distinguished men.

Your whole arguments rests upon the notion that they were 'fallible' and that is why they were not recorded. Again, the Quran affirms revelation outside of the Quran that was true and infallible. Just because something is not recorded, does not mean it was not recorded because it was fallible. The reason for not recording a saying could be for many reasons, among them, injunctions of the Prophet (S) which were infallible in their given context, had not applicability to future generations. They may not have been recorded, because the Muslims had no need to record them. Are you going to argue that people were NOT praying salaat until Bukhari came along and compiled his hdaith?

Agreed! My original point was he was not corrected when he was correct himself in his judgment.

No, we do not agree. You missed the point, which is HE WAS corrected when he was NOT correct in his judgment. There is absolutely no evidence at all, from either the Quran or authentic religous tradition, that the Prophet (S) made some fallible judgment in regards to religious matters, AFTER a revelation was given to him. All those instances where he was corrected, dealt with issues in which there was no SPECIFIC REVELATION. His role as Prophet would not allow him to teach things incorrectly in regards to the revealed context of religion.

Revelation is only the Quran. What was or was not included in it is per the wish of the one Lord. Therefore nothing outside of it is revelation if God did not wish to include it in the Quran and no attempt was made to record the other in the formative years of Islam.

I just gave you an emphatic verse from the Quran that revelation occured outside of the Quran, and your saying otherwise? When God refers to the miraj, the Most High speciifically states that it was to show the Prophet (S) some of the signs, meaning it was applicable to his prophetic mission. Last time I checked, such a phenomenon is beyond the normally human intellect. Further, tawaaf, itikaaf, ruku and sujood, and every other ritual, including salaat is not defined at all in the Quran, but mentioned by name. They had a practical existence outside the QUran. These were all taught by revelation per the Quran, through Ibrahim (AS) and revived in their purest form through the revelational phenomenon of the Prophet (S). Ibrahim (AS) did not build an imaginary House in some imaginary land, and perform these imaginary rituals . He built a real House and performed real rituals that were passed down through his generations.

Further, your argument is that things that are not included, were not included because they were FALLIBLE, which is totally different than saying what is now religion is only in the Quran. It is a leap of logic, without any substantiation.

[lovethetruth]

Originally posted by Ihsan

The Quran is explicitly clear that Adam forgot the command of his Lord and was hasty. This has nothing to do with incorrect understanding or outright disobedience.

So what we are dealing with here is an unjust God who punishes mankind for forgetting rather than sinning, transgressing or "outright disobedience" or was it not punishing at all that God ejected Adam and Eve out of Heaven to be foes one to the other.

Did Moses forget too when he murdered the Egyptian?

Did Jonah forget too when he disobeyed God and suffered grievous punishment for it?

Perhaps what my more learned brothers are trying to do is, is manipulating words to inevitably prove that all prophets were infallible more or less?

In the same manner we might also surmise that Pharaoh had somehow forgotten the true God's commandments and hence had laid corruption to the land for which he was punished but that punishment was in fact the love of God manifested differently.

I think a sin is a sin and God punishes man who maybe a prophet or a pious or a corrupt for it. Yet there maybe some who try to legitimize sins or errors into mere amnesia or whatsoever other phenomena to protect their reputation as ones with divine attributes which makes them incorruptible.

[lovethetruth]

Originally posted by sks

We have to follow the inspiration/message i.e. Quran that Muhammed received from his Lord. Not to obey/follow him as human.

When God clearly says that we must follow Muhammads righteous orders that entails that we follow all his righteous orders irrespective of the infallible message and his fallible speech. So what is next you want to twist and turn the words righteous orders to implicate that they refer to the "Quran alone". That comrade would entirely be your wishful thinking. It says what it says Follow the righteous orders by Muhammad nothing more nothing less.

[ihsan]

So what we are dealing with here is an unjust God who punishes mankind for forgetting rather than sinning, transgressing or "outright disobedience" or was it not punishing at all that God ejected Adam and Eve out of Heaven to be foes one to the other.

The Quran is explicitly clear that man was going to be placed on the earth before the incident of the garden even happened. This essentially means that there is no concept of an original sin. The incident of the garden was meant as a lesson to Adam and Eve regarding certain aspects of this test, especially as regards to the enmity of Adam and Satan and how to correct one's self when one has actually made a mistake. This is precisely why, in surah Baqarah, the statement of God's telling Adam, Eve and Satan to leave the garden is made twice, and in-between the two commands, a verse specifying that Adam and Eve repented, with God accepting their repentance. n their removal from the garden, God promised that revelation or guidance would be sent to assist men in the test.

The story also instructs man as to what the placement in this world was meant to achieve, and that was to overcome the 'hastiness' of man. While Satan openly defied God, Adam made a mistake because of his hastiness in trying to achieve what he was meant to achieve in the first place, i.e. eternal life, but through a different method. The trials of this world mould character.

Did Moses forget too when he murdered the Egyptian?

The Israelites were an oppressed nation, meaning Moses witnessed an Israelite being 'oppressed' by the subjugating nation. As a study of the Quran shows, Moses was incredibly strong, as is evidenced by the observations of the beduoin ladies upon his helping them at the watering well, despite wandering on such a long journey. Her comments expressed that he was not only trustworthy, but strong. In helping whom he thought was purely an oppressed Israelite, he punched the Egyptian with force that actually killed him. Shocked by this, Moses hid himself knowing full well the consequences of killing an Egyptian for an Israelite. When he was wandering through the city the next day, he witnessed the same Israelite bickering with another Egyptian, and the Israelite in his partisanship thought Moses would help him. The Prophet then understood that the Israelite was also one at fault, and he refused to help him and left Egypt.

It is also noteworthy that when Moses returned and Pharoah pointed out this crime, Moses simply said that he did this when he was DHALAN, meaning lacking in guidance, i.e. before he was made a Prophet.

Further, Moses was also rash and hasty as well, per the Quran. When he was ordered to the mount, he had reached the appointed place well before the time God appointed for him and God increased it for 40 days. This also manifested the Israelite love of the calf, for when Moses did not come back in the time they thought he would, their hidden tendencies started to manifest themselves. When he came back from the mount, instead of asking Harun for an explanation, he immediately grabbed his beard and started dragging his elder brother. In this lesson, God was moulding Moses in such a way as was suitable to the Israelite nation's own hardness. He was strong and rash, which was necessary, but at the same time, it needed to be expressed properly.

Did Jonah forget too when he disobeyed God and suffered grievous punishment for it?

Jonah left before the revelation of God came to leave the town, and it too was part of haste. As is indicated from the Quran, the punishment of God was actually approaching the nation and Jonah had thought this was the time of their destruction. Like all prophets, he left the city, but he left without any explicit command. God Almighty did not accept this, because only God knows the state of the hearts of a people. After his departure, the town of Yunus realized that what he was saying about the punishment was true and accepted the faith.

None of these can be considered sins in the proper sense of the word, and further, none of these issues can be used as proof that Messengers of God are fallible in relation to the transmission of the religion of God.

[sksamsherali]

Originally posted by sks


When God clearly says that we must follow Muhammads righteous orders that entails that we follow all his righteous orders irrespective of the infallible message and his fallible speech. So what is next you want to twist and turn the words righteous orders to implicate that they refer to the "Quran alone". That comrade would entirely be your wishful thinking. It says what it says Follow the righteous orders by Muhammad nothing more nothing less.

Very childish conclusion! Brother where did you find in Quran that we must follow Muhammad’s fallible speech? I am not twisting anything rather you. I only told that we should follow him as far as message(Quran) inspired to him is concerned, but not as commoner Muhammad because as human/commoner Muhammad, he could pass unrighteous orders etc.(60:12). As a commoner Muhammad he could do mistakes, i.e. frowned and turned away from the blind poor man(80:1-11), when he should not do that and we do not have to follow him in such case. As a commoner Muhammad He feared the people instead of God(33:37), when he should not do that and we do not have to follow him in such case. As a commoner Muhammad He prohibited what God has made lawful(66:1), when he should not do that and we do not have to follow him in such case. But as a messenger he was infallible/guided and we have to follow him. (34:50). Moreover, There are more than 25 times in the Quran, where God ordered us to obey the messenger. Not a single time did God say "Obey Muhammed". It is not coincidence.

Hope it is clear now.