Are Prophets of Allah not Sinless?
By Ali A. Khalfan
May 07, 2005

In the name of Allah:

Preface:

This article and study is our response to an article written by Mr. Azzam on March 27, 2000 titled, “Sinlessness of Prophets in the Light of the Qur’an”

Click here to view the full text of Mr. Azzam’s article.

In the preface of his article, Mr. Azzam states that the doctrine of sinlessness of the Prophets (pbut) originated with the Shi’as and some of the Sunnis more or less incorporated it into their beliefs. He also says that among the Shi’a, this doctrine is an indisputable matter while among the Sunnis there exists the understanding that the Prophets (pbut) did commit minor sins.

Mr. Azzam then proceeds to examine various commentary works with respect to Prophets Adam, Yunus and Muhammad (pbut) to determine if the actual Qur’anic text supports the understanding found in the exegesis.

At the end, Mr. Azzam concluded as follows:

“As can be seen from the three examples shown, the doctrine that the Prophets (peace be upon them) were immaculate and infallible does not correspond to what the Qur'an tells about them. Essentially one example would have sufficed to illustrate this point - if one prophet is found committing a mistake in the Qur'an, then the doctrine is instantly flawed. But if this doctrine does not have its basis in the Qur'an, then from where did it come and why? Although these questions should be the subject of another paper, it is worth discussing very briefly at least when the doctrine emerged.”

“According to one source, "Historically considered, it is more probable that the teaching of the sinlessness of the prophets in Islam owes both its origin and its acquired importance to the development of the theology of the Shi'ites" (Donaldson 334). It is said that the doctrine developed during the time of the Imamate - the period after the death of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) up until the disappearance of the Twelfth Imam (Donaldson 335). There are reasons given as to why this belief came about; however they are out of the scope of the present discussion.”

“In conclusion, the doctrine of the sinlessness of the Prophets seems to find its origin with the Shi'a, specifically in connection with the Imamate, and was probably transmitted to the Sunnis via the Sufis and Mu'tazila. It is the work of al-Razi that is said to be what caused the doctrine to finally make its way into Sunni belief, although it is not at all a critical component of Sunni doctrine as it is for Shi'i doctrine. Despite the great authority these scholars may have, however, the greatest authority on matters pertaining to Islamic belief is the Qur'an in which the doctrine of sinlessness finds no true support.”

Comments:

Mr. Azzam’s approach and conclusions is debatable because the verses in the Qur’an that prove the sinlessness of the Prophets from a decisive and rational point of view were not examined. These verses form the “principle of the Qur’an”. Keeping this in mind, some of the verses that describe the stories of Adam, Yunus and Muhammad (pbut) came down as similes and therefore they have to be explained in such a way so as to avoid any contradiction with the principle of the Qur’an.

Our Approach:

In the first part of the study, we will present and comment on some of the Qur’anic verses that prove the sinlessness of the Prophets (pbut) without referring to the stories of the Prophets and in the second part of our study, we will comment on Mr. Azzam’s article which depicts his study of the Prophets (pbut) and the commentary work of some of the exegetes he referred to.

Study Part 1:

What is the meaning of ‘Ismah?

‘Ismah which is usually translated as “sinlessness” literally means “protection” and the protection is of three types:

a) Protection from mistake in receiving the revelation from Allah.

b) Protection from mistake in conveying the revelation of Allah.

c) Protection from sins.

The protection we are concerned with in this article is the third type – protection from sins.

Let us now quote the verses that prove this third type of protection:

And it behooves not a believing man and a believing woman that they should have any choice in their matter when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter; and whoever disobeys Allah and His Apostle, he surely strays off a manifest straying. (33:36)

Comment: The clause "when Allah and His Apostle have decided a matter" proves that the decision of the Apostle is in reality, the decision of Allah in the matter of the believers. So how is it possible that the Apostle was not sinless? If he committed even a minor sin or mistake, then his decision cannot be regarded as Allah’s decision.

Whoever obeys the Messenger, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them. (4:80)

Comment: This verse proves that obedience to the Messenger is in reality obedience to Allah. This reality is possible only if the Prophet was sinless because his actions have to be in obedience to Allah in order to make obedience to him one and the same as obedience to Allah.

These are they whom Allah has guided; therefore, follow their guidance. (6:90)

Comment: This verse proves that all the prophets were decidedly guided by Allah and other verses (like 18:12) prove that whom Allah guides, is a rightly guided one meaning, there is none that can lead him astray. Allah counts every straying as a sin and every sin as a misguidance, according to verses 36:60-62. Looking at all these verses we find that Allah guided all the prophets by His guidance. Anyone guided by Allah's guidance can never be misled, and can never go astray.

And whoever obeys Allah and the Apostle these are with those upon whom Allah has bestowed the favors of the prophets and the truthful and the martyrs and the righteous ones; and excellent are these as companions! (4:69) Also,

Keep us on the right path, the path of those upon whom Thou hast bestowed favors, not (the path) of those inflicted with Thy wrath, nor (of those) gone astray. (1:5-7)

These are they on whom Allah bestowed favors, of the prophets of the posterity of Adam, and of those whom We carried with Nuh, and of the posterity of Ibrahim and Israel, and of those whom We guided and chose. (19:58)

Comment: These verses show that Allah has bestowed His favors upon the Prophets and the favors are bestowed upon neither those who have been inflicted with Allah’s wrath nor those who have gone astray. If the Prophets had committed a sin, they would have gone astray and Allah would not bestow His favors upon them.

When the signs of the Beneficent (God) were recited to them, they fell down prostrating (in obeisance) and weeping. But there followed after them an evil generation, who neglected prayer and followed sensual desires, so they shall soon meet (the result of their) sin. (19:59)

Comment: This verse first praises the Prophets for the highest degree of obedience, devoutness and humility before Allah and then condemns the unworthy following generation for their evil traits. This second group has been described as those who followed sensual desires and who will soon see the result of their sins. It clearly means that the first group, i.e. the prophets, did not follow their desires and will not be overtaken by sin. Such sincere servants of Allah could not commit any sin, even before their appointment as prophets. Had they committed any sin even before being commissioned by Allah, they would have surely come under the condemnation, neglected prayer and followed sensual desires, so they shall soon meet (the result of their) sin. In short, theirs is a group diametrically opposite to the condemned ones.

…so that there may not remain any argument for people against Allah, after the apostles ... (4:165)

Comment: It is clear that Allah wills to intercept the excuse which people might think of for their sins and disobedience; and that the only way of dismissing such excuse is by sending the apostles to them. The coming of the apostles could cut their excuse short only if the apostles themselves desisted from all those things which Allah does not like ‑ be it in word or action. Otherwise, people could easily give their apostles' sins and mistakes as their excuse, and that argu­ment would be valid against Allah. Therefore, if Allah had sent a fallible apostle, He would have defeated His own purpose.

Allamah Tabataba’I in his tafseer al-Mizan, writes the following as the rational proof for the 'ismah of the prophets:

“The sending of the prophets and the showing of miracles in their hands is the confirmation of their words. It means that they cannot tell a lie. Also, it is an endorsement that they have the ability to communicate the message of Allah to their people. But a man who indulges in sins and such actions as would harm a pro­ject, cannot be said to be qualified to preach the usefulness of that project or to invite the people to participate in it. Therefore, when Allah showed miracles in the hands of the prophets it not only authenticated their claim of prophethood, but also confirmed that they could not commit error in receiving and delivering the divine revelation, and that they faithfully obeyed all the com­mands of Allah and desisted from all such things which were disliked by Allah. In other words, they were sinless in all its aspects.”

Study Part 2:

In his article, Mr. Azzam presented the stories of Prophets Adam, Yunus and Muhammad (pbut) as told in the Qur’an with the relevant verses.

In this part of our study, we will examine the stories of Adam and Yunus (pbut) respectively.

The Story of Adam (pbuh) and his Garden in the Qur’an:

Mr. Azzam, after quoting passages from chapters 2, 7 and 20, writes:

“Although these selections (of verses) relate the same story, it is important to mention all of them as each time the mistake of Adam (peace be upon him) is retold. One of the verses that appears to be stating his disobedience in unmistakable terms is the one that states, "Adam disobeyed his Lord and went astray" (al-Qur'an 20:121).”

He also writes:

That he did an action going against it seems to be clearly stated in chapter Ta-Ha (20:115) where Allah says, "We had commanded Adam (certain matters). He forgot Our commandment and We did not find in him the determination to fulfil Our commandments."

Here is the gist of what each of the commentators Mr. Azzam cited have said about the story of Adam (pbuh):

Allamah Tabataba’I (Shi’ite exegete):

With respect to 20:121 which says that Adam disobeyed his Lord and went astray, Tabataba'i discusses the words ghawa and `asa. He says that ghayy is the opposite of rushd (good conduct), but it is not dalaal (Tabataba'i 14: 222). However, according to Hans Wehr, dalaal is defined as "a straying from the right path or from truth; error" (Hans Wehr 543). Ghayy is defined as "trespassing, transgression, offense, error, sin" (Hans Wehr 688). Taken at face value, both words can denote the same thing, and it is hard to see the basis for the distinctions made by Tabataba'i. In the end, it is difficult to successfully escape the bluntly negative meaning of the word ghawa that is used with respect to Adam (peace be upon him).

Tabataba'i also discusses the word `asa. In his discussion, he splits the meaning of disobedience into two different concepts. He says, "The disobedience of Adam towards his Lord...is rather a disobedience of an amr irshadi and not [an amr] mawlawi. This is because the Prophets (peace be upon them) are infallible and protected from disobedience in matters which return to religion which was revealed to them...." (Tabataba'i 14: 222). In other words, disobedience to an amr mawlawi entails disobedience in a religious matter, which Adam could not do as a prophet. He further explains the Prophets' infallibility to include a number of things. Specifically, they do not forget or change what is revealed to them, they teach the people nothing but the truth that was revealed to them, their actions do not contradict their words, nor do they do not commit any type of sin. Adam's disobedience, however, was of an amr irshadi, meaning that he disobeyed Allah for his own personal benefit or gain in a matter in which he had a choice. Whether he obeyed or disobeyed Allah in this non-religious matter has nothing to do with his being infallible (Tabataba'i 14: 222).

Note: Tabataba’i also presents a detail discourse on the story of Adam and the Garden in volume one of his exegesis. As far as verse 20:121 is concerned, Tabataba’i says that ‘disobedience’ (asa) and ‘going astray’ (ghawa) can also take place in the case of an amr-irshadi so the words do not mean that Adam committed a mistake.

Al-Qurtubi (Sunni exegete):

Qurtubi, a classical thirteenth century Sunni scholar, offers an explanation for the ayah which says, "Adam disobeyed his Lord and went astray" (al-Quran 20:121). With respect to the word ghawa, Qurtubi explains that it means that he spoiled or ruined his life by his descent to the earth. He interprets ghayy to mean fasaad, and he prefers this definition to the one saying that ghawa equals dalla, which is the opposite of rushd. (Note that Tabataba'i said that ghayy is the opposite of rushd, but maintained that it is not dalaal.) He also offers the interpretation that ghayy means jahl; thus taking the ayah to refer to Adam's ignorance that the tree he ate from was the forbidden one (Qurtubi 11: 170). Although these are all interesting explanations of the word ghawa, no basis was provided for these meanings or definitions. In particular, regarding the explanation that ghayy means jahl and that Adam did not know he was eating from the forbidden tree, this interpretation seems to contradict the account given in the Qur'an, as on one occasion Satan is even reminding them of the fact (al-Qur'an 7:20).

Another view Qurtubi presents is that Adam's sin was committed before prophethood, and that whatever sins a prophet commits before being chosen are of no harm. As evidence for this opinion, 20:122 is presented, which says, "Then his Lord forgave [chose] him, accepted his repentance, and gave him guidance." In other words, after his disobedience, Adam (peace be upon him) was chosen by Allah and guided (Qurtubi 11: 170-71). On the surface, this view seems more acceptable since it appears to have some support from the Qur'an. However, it is interesting to contrast this view with the one presented by the Shi'i scholar Majlisi who states, "They [Prophets] are to be considered free from all sins, great or small. No sort of sin can be attributed to them, no oversight or forgetfulness, and no mistakes in interpretation. Neither are they to be thought of as having sinned before the time of their being appointed prophets, not even in their childhood" (Donaldson 320-21).

Qurtubi also gives the view that the mistakes committed by the Prophets (peace be upon them) would be considered good deeds with respect to others, but because of their high position those actions were considered bad deeds. He gives a quote by Junaid saying, "The good deeds of the abrar are the bad deeds of the muqarrabeen" (Qurtubi 11: 169). It is hard to see the basis for this understanding and it appears to be evading the issue. In general, it is unjust to consider a deed worthy of reward for one person yet worthy of punishment for someone else. It is understandable that an ordinary servant's acts of piety would be considered too little for someone chosen to be a prophet, but this is not to be confused with the issue of committing sin. Any disobedience to the Creator, in however small a matter, is still regarded as disobedience and punishable regardless of who does it. According to the Qur'an, every human being is accountable for every atom's worth of evil (or good) he does, whether a prophet or otherwise (al-Qur'an 99:7-8). If the orders given to Adam (peace be upon him) were given to someone else and that person disobeyed, then it is difficult to see how that would not be considered a sin, let alone a good deed. However, one can see how the same sin is considered more significant for a prophet (like Adam- peace be upon him) given that a prophet possesses much more knowledge and awareness of God than others, in addition to bearing the burden of being the example to follow.

Qurtubi, in commenting on the passages dealing with Adam (peace be upon him), uses the occasion to briefly offer some of the various opinions concerning the mistakes of the Prophets (peace be upon them). Qurtubi explains that the scholars have differed as to whether or not the Prophets (peace be upon them) committed small sins for which they were punished or censured. Nevertheless, they all agreed that they were protected from big sins, such as disbelief, murder, and adultery. But, it was the opinion of al-Tabari, as well as others, that the Prophets (peace be upon them) did commit small sins. Those scholars that did believe they were protected from all sins considered that as one of their miracles. However, Qurtubi explains, the Mu'tazila considered that not to be a miracle, but a result of their aql (they attributed it to the Prophets themselves, as something of their own choice and due to their strength). Qurtubi also presents the view of the Shi'a that the Prophets (peace be upon them) did not commit any sins whatsoever (Qurtubi 1: 211).

In the end, it appears that Qurtubi himself holds the view that in the Qur'an, Allah informed people of the sins or mistakes of some of the Prophets (peace be upon them). He explains that Allah attributed it to them and censured them for it, and they in turn sought Allah's forgiveness and turned to Him in repentance. However, he explains, all of this does not detract in their position. It was rare when they sinned, and when they did, it was out of forgetfulness or mistake. He concludes that even if the Qur'an shows them falling into error or sin, then this does not detract from their status, as Allah chose them from among all the people and guided them (Qurtubi 11:169).

Our Comments:

Let us first list the verses that seem to suggest that Adam (a.s.) committed a mistake while in the Garden:

Then Adam received (some) words from his Lord, so He turned to him mercifully; surely He is Oft-returning (to mercy), the Merciful. (2:37)

They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers. (7:23)

And certainly We gave a commandment to Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find in him any determination. (20:115)

Then they both ate of it, so their evil inclinations became manifest to them, and they both began to cover themselves with leaves of the garden, and Adam disobeyed his Lord, so his life became evil (to him). (20:121)

Then his Lord chose him, so He turned to him and guided (him). (20:122)

Question: How do we reconcile these verses with those mentioned at the beginning of this article, which prove the sinlessness of the Prophets from a decisive and rational point of view?

Reply: Based on verse 2:30, Adam was created to dwell in the earth and therefore we deduce that his placement in the Garden was temporary. The condition of the Garden explained in the Qur’an proves that it was not a place of difficulty and therefore the trials for which Adam was created had not begun. While in the Garden, Adam and his spouse were told not to approach a particular tree and this prohibition (advise or authoritative) points to a certain reality. The reality will be understood by paying attention to the consequences of eating from the tree explained in the Qur’an:

And We said: O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden and eat from it a plenteous (food) wherever you wish and do not approach this tree, for then you will be of the unjust. (2:35)

And (We said): O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden; so eat from where you desire, but do not go near this tree, for then you will be of the unjust. (7:19)

So We said: O Adam! This is an enemy to you and to your wife; therefore let him not drive you both forth from the garden so that you should be unhappy; (20:117)

Notice that the clause “you will be of the unjust” in verses 2:35 and 7:19 has been replaced with “so that you should be unhappy” in verse 7:1. This means that the prohibition was aimed Adam’s comfort in the Garden and further, the injustice mentioned in verses 2:35 and 7:19 is synonymous to the unhappiness mentioned in verse 20:117. In short, eating from the tree would make Adam dependent on nutrition and growth and hence ready for the trials on the earth. What we also gather from verse 2:30 and the verses describing the events in the Garden is that eating from the tree was a “predetermined Divine Plan”. In other words, if Adam did not approach the trial (eating from the tree), then the trial would eventually approach him! As a matter of fact, by approaching and eating from the tree, Adam fulfilled the Divine Plan.

The clause “then Adam received (some) words from his Lord” in verse 2:37 no doubt paved the way for his repentance. However, Adam was not repenting for committing a mistake but rather he was repenting for being of the unjust i.e. losing the comfort and choosing to begin the trial, as explained above and as evident from the following verse:

They said: Our Lord! We have been unjust to ourselves, and if Thou forgive us not, and have (not) mercy on us, we shall certainly be of the losers. (7:23)

The argument that Adam (a.s.) was repenting for a sin or a mistake is not conclusive because it does not conform to the realities of placing him in the Garden and that of the said prohibition.

The verse that has led most of the Sunni exegetes to conclude that Adam (a.s.) made a mistake in the garden is verse 20:115. Allah says:

And certainly We made a covenant with Adam before, but he forgot; and We did not find in him any determination. (20:115)

Which covenant does this verse allude to? Does it refer to the admonition, "and do not approach (you two) this tree, for then you (two) will be of the unjust"? Or to the warning, "surely this (i.e., the Satan) is an enemy to you and to your wife"? Or does it refer to the general covenant made with all human beings in general and with the prophets in particular?

The first possibility is out of question because when Adam and his wife tasted of the tree they were aware of the prohibition ‑ even the evil suggestion of the Satan had begun with a reference to it. It, therefore, could not refer to that prohibition, because Adam had not forgotten it at all.

The second suggestion ‑ that the covenant might refer to the warning against the Satan is not supported by apparent meaning of the verses. The said warning was given to both Adam and his wife, while this verse refers to a covenant made especially with Adam.

The last alternative that the covenant means the general covenant which was made with the whole mankind and more particularly with the prophets finds support in the same chapter at the conclusion of the story of Adam: Allah says:

"So if there comes to you guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, he shall not go astray nor be unhappy. And whoever turns away from My remembrance, his shall surely be a straitened life, and We will raise him, on the Day of Resurrection, blind. He shall say: 'My Lord! why hast Thou raised me blind, and I was a seeing one indeed?' He will say: 'Even so: Our signs came to you, but you forgot them; even thus shall you be forsaken (literally: forgotten) today.' "

These concluding verses perfectly fit with the verse 20:115 which opens the story of Adam. To turn away from the remembrance of Allah is not different from forgetting the covenant of Allah. The clause “you forgot them” in the verse 20:124 fits perfectly with the clause “but he forgot” in verse 20:115. In short, the covenant obliged the man that he should never forget that Allah is his Lord, the Ruler and Master of his affairs.

Mr. Azzam makes the following comments on Tabataba’I’s tafseer:

“Firstly, one wonders about the basis for the distinction made between disobedience to an amr irshadi and disobedience to an amr mawlawi, as well as how the former type of disobedience is not reprehensible. Since both amount to disobedience to a command or amr coming from Allah, how are both not reprehensible? According to the Qur'an, Adam was not only reprimanded for his action, but he was actually expelled from the Garden. However, even if one were to accept these distinctions, then it is also hard to see how Adam did not in fact disobey an amr mawlawi. Did not Allah give him a message to follow, and did he not disobey one of Allah's instructions? Although this message was very simple in contrast to the other messages Allah gave to other prophets and messengers, it was a message nonetheless. That he did an action going against it seems to be clearly stated in surat Ta-Ha (20:115) where Allah says,

“We had commanded Adam (certain matters). He forgot Our commandment and We did not find in him the determination to fulfil Our commandments.””

Reply:

We mentioned above that Adam was created to dwell in the earth but the couple was placed temporarily in the Garden to prepare them for the toiling in the earth. Therefore, the Garden was not a place of unhappiness or toiling and the Qur’an confirms this in the following verses:

And We said: O Adam! Dwell you and your wife in the garden and eat from it a plenteous (food) wherever you wish and do not approach this tree, for then you will be of the unjust. (2:35)

Surely it is (ordained) for you that you shall not be hungry therein nor bare of clothing; (20:118)

And that you shall not be thirsty therein nor shall you feel the heat of the sun. (20:119)

The verses prove that Adam’s trial had not begun and the shari’ah was not ordained. Thus we see that Tabataba’I’s explanation that the command given to Adam in the Garden was of the advisory nature rather than authoritative is conclusive and the condition of the Garden described in the Qur’an provides the basis for making the distinction between an advisory command and an authoritative one. Based on the foregoing, disobedience to an amr-irshadi is not reprehensible.

Mr. Azzam’s argument that Adam’s mistake is evident because he was reprimanded for his actions and actually expelled from the Garden is rejected because:

1. Adam was not punished for his actions but rather removed from the Garden because the latter is not a place for toiling. Eating from the tree signaled that he was ready to begin his toiling in the earth.

2. Removal or expulsion from the Garden is not a punishment because Adam was created to dwell in the earth as per 2:30. Eating from the tree was a predetermined Divine plan.

3. If Adam was punished for his actions by being expelled from the Garden then one can argue that he should have been returned to the Garden, his original state before the so-called mistake because he did repent and Allah turned to him mercifully.

Mr. Azzam quotes verse 20:115 (discussed above) to support that Adam (a.s.) did an action going against Allah’s instructions. As explained before, the covenant mentioned in 20:115 has nothing to do with the prohibition or the command given to Adam (pbuh) in the Garden.

Needless to mention, Mr. Azzam is also guilty of distorting the translation of the verse 20:115 because the clause “to fulfill our Commandments” at the end of the verse (in his article) is not to be found in the Arabic text!

Finally, Tabataba’I’s explanation of the words “asa” and “ghawa” cannot be simply rejected because it is perfectly in line with the understanding of the reality of the prohibition in the Garden and the nature of the command issued by Allah to Adam (a.s.).

The Story of Yunus (pbuh) in the Qur’an:

Mr. Azzam quotes passages from chapters 21, 37 and 68, and he examines the exegesis of Allamah Tabataba’I and Syed Maududi (Sunni exegete).

Here is the gist of what each of the commentators Mr. Azzam cited have said about the story of Yunus (pbuh):

Allamah Tabataba’I:

Tabataba'i tells the story of how Yunus (peace be upon him) left his people in an angry state and the trial that subsequently befell him. Tabataba'i explains that al-ebaq means a slave running away from his master, and in this case, it was Yunus running away from the responsibility that Allah had placed on him (al-Qur'an 37:140). He had lost patience with his people as they would not accept Allah's message, and so he headed off to a ship with the intent of leaving them. However, according to Tabataba'i, "The intent of running away to the ship was to leave his people, giving them his back. In his leaving he (peace be upon him) did not disobey his Lord as there was no prohibition from his Lord against leaving. However his leaving was representative of a slave running away from the service of his master, and so Allah punished him for that" (Tabataba'i 17:163).

With respect to Yunus's admission of guilt where he says "Indeed I was among the wrongdoers," Tabataba'i gives a similar explanation. He says that this is "Admission of his wrong (thulm) due to the fact that he came with an action which represented a wrong act although it was not a wrong act in itself, nor did he (peace be upon him) intend by it wrong or sin. However, that [the whale swallowing him] was a disciplining and instruction from Allah (may He be exalted) of His Prophet in order for him to come near to Allah in a manner innocent of representing a wrong act, let alone actually doing a wrong act" (Tabataba'i 14:315).

Here is a passage (not quoted by Mr. Azzam) from Tabataba’I in his exegesis of surah 21, volume 14:

“Also, the verse ‘And (mention) Dhu'n-Nun, when he went off in anger and he was sure that We will not limit him’ may have come as a simile to mean that his (Yunus’) leaving and abandoning his people was like (the similitude of) the one who is angry at his master thinking that his master has no power over him and that he will lose him (the master) by going further away from him, so that he (the master) will have no power over him. However, to say that prophet Yunus (a.s.) got truly angry with his Lord, and his thinking that Allah has no power over him is something that is far away from the honorable prophets when they are infallible.”

Note: There are several misquotations of Tabataba’I’s exegesis in Mr. Azzam’s article. Following is the exact passage appearing in Tabataba’I 17:163.

“(The verse 37:140) Refers to a ship full of people, and "ibaq" is the fleeing of a slave from his master.

Fleeing to the ship (abaqa ela al-fulk) means leaving his people and withdrawing from them. Even though leaving his people was not a disobedience to Allah’s orders, nor did Allah forbid him to leave; yet, his leaving, at that time, represented a slave leaving his master, so Allah took him as that. This has been previously explained in the verse "And (mention) Dhun-Nun, when he went off in anger and he was sure that We will not limit him (limit his sustenance)" (21:87)”

Mr. Azzam writes:

“He had lost patience with his people as they would not accept Allah's message, and so he headed off to a ship with the intent of leaving them.”

“However his leaving was representative of a slave running away from the service of his master, and so Allah punished him for that"

The reader can clearly see that the above is a distortion of the original work of Tabataba’I in 17:163.

Syed Maududi:

Maududi, a twentieth century Sunni scholar, in his tafsir of the passage in surat al-Anbiya', explains that Yunus had done wrong by leaving his place of mission without Allah's consent. He further explains that the story has been "cited to show that even a great Prophet like him did not go unnoticed when he committed an error in regard to Allah's message. But when he repented, Allah, by His grace, delivered him alive from the belly of the fish" (Maududi 7: 169).

In commenting on the passage in surat al-Saffat, Maududi explains the meaning of the word abaqa and says that it is "used for the flight and escape of a slave from his master's house" (Maududi 11:114). He explains that Yunus (peace be upon him) was swallowed by a fish because "he had fled and abandoned the place of his mission without the permission of his Master (Allah Almighty)" (Maududi 11: 114). He supports his understanding by pointing out the words abaqa and muleem. He states that, "Muleem is a blameworthy person, who becomes worthy of blame by himself because of his sin and error, whether somebody else blames him for it or not" (Maududi 11: 114). This explanation is attributed to Ibn Jarir. However, since Yunus (peace be upon him) was of those who glorified Allah and he turned to Him in his time of difficulty, Allah saved him from his ordeal.

Maududi also provides the explanation of Imam Razi from Tafsir Kabir, stating that "The Prophet Jonah's fault was that when Allah threatened to destroy the people who had belied him, he thought that the scourge would inevitably befall them. Therefore, he did not show patience and abandoned his mission and left the place, whereas he ought to have continued the work of his mission, for there was a possibility that Allah might not destroy those people" (Maududi 11:116-17). According to Ibn Kathir, when Yunus' people searched for him and did not find him, they felt that the punishment had approached, and so they repented and Allah showed them mercy (Maududi 11:116).

Maududi, through the explanations of various commentators, shows that there were three offenses on the part of Yunus (peace be upon him). The first offense was that he himself foretold or fixed the day of the punishment when "Allah had not made any declaration in this regard." The second offense was that he left his people even before the day of punishment arrived, while a prophet is not allowed to leave his place of mission until given the order by Allah. The third offense was that he did not return to his people after the punishment had been warded off of them (Maududi 11:117).

Mr. Azzam’s comments on Tabataba’I’s exegesis:

There are several matters to consider with respect to Tabataba'i's tafsir. First, the distinction he makes between a wrong action and an action that represents wrong or appears to be wrong is not clear. He does not offer anywhere in his special section on Yunus (peace be upon him) an explanation for the distinction nor does he explain its basis. As for his explanation that Yunus (peace be upon him) did not intend to do wrong, this contradicts what Allah has said in the Qur'an. According to the Qur'an in 21:87, Yunus (peace be upon him) left his people in an angry state thinking that Allah would not hold him responsible for his action. If he had thought he was doing something good and lawful, then why the mention that he thought that Allah would not take him to account?

Additionally, that he did not commit a sin contradicts Allah's description of him as muleem in 37:142. Muleem means having done an action worthy of blame. How does that support the argument that Yunus (peace be upon him) is immaculate? Additionally, in surat al-Qalam, Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) is instructed not to be like Yunus (peace be upon him) in his impatience. Furthermore, why the disciplining from Allah if Yunus (peace be upon him) committed no wrong act? According to the Qur'an, he would have been left in the whale until the Day of Judgment had it not been for his glorification of Allah. It is hard to see how such a grave and weighty punishment would be for an action that was perfectly good and not a sin. One must also take into consideration that Yunus (peace be upon him) referred to himself as a wrongdoer or thaalem. The Qur'an is clear in showing that he acknowledged his wrong and that he was thus saved by Allah.

Our Comments:

After referring to the full text of Tabataba’I’s tafseer of chapters 21 and 37, and based on his explanation that Yunus (a.s.) represented in his action, a slave leaving his master, Tabataba’I explains that Yunus’ confession (while in the belly of the whale) is related to that ‘representation’. This means that Yunus was not confessing an actual wrongdoing but he was in a state of distress (in darkness) because he felt that he represented an action, which could be deemed as undesirable. Allah tried him for that and Yunus glorified Allah while inside the belly of the whale, at the same time renouncing that representation and thus Allah delivered him. Tabatabai’I’s commentary that this was a disciplining from Allah of His prophet in order for him to come near (to Allah by glorifying Him) in a manner innocent of representing a wrong act let alone actually doing wrong is truly remarkable and explains the purpose of the similitude in verse 21:87 which we previously mentioned.

One can see that Mr. Azzam’s comments sprung from the common mistake of literally explaining some allegorical verses of the Qur’an. How can a Prophet (appointed by Allah) think that Allah has no power over him or would not take him into account? Such are thoughts attributed to disbelievers and not to a Messenger!

Tabataba’I’s explanation that Yunus (pbuh) at the time of leaving his people was sure that Allah would not limit him makes more sense than attributing the thoughts of a disbeliever to an honorable Messenger of God.

Maududi, through the explanations of various Sunni commentators, including Imam Razi, author of tafseer al-Kabeer, says that there were three offenses on account of which Prophet Yunus was made to suffer Allah’s displeasure:

First, Yunus (a.s.) himself foretold or fixed the day of the punishment when "Allah had not made any declaration in this regard."

Reply: This is without any proof from the Qur’an. As a matter of fact, verse 10:98 proves that the punishment had already arrived before Allah lifted it

Second, Yunus’ offense was that he left his people even before the day of punishment came, while a prophet is not allowed to leave his place of mission until given the order by Allah.

Reply: There is no evidence from the Qur’an that Yunus left his people before the punishment arrived. Also, where in the Qur’an does it say, with the exception of a specific command that a Prophet is not allowed to leave his place of mission until Allah orders him to do so?

Third: Yunus’ offense was that he did not return to his people after the punishment had been averted from them.

Reply: We don’t know the exact meaning of the third offence. Does he mean to say that Yunus never returned to his people? If so, it is negated by the following verse: And We sent him (Yunus) to a hundred thousand, rather they exceeded. (37:147) However, if he means to say that Yunus should have stayed with his people, then it is a repetition of the second offence. According to Tabataba’I’s tafseer and verse 10:98, it appears that Yunus left his people after the punishment had arrived and the lifting of it by Allah and therefore the claim that he did not return to his people after the punishment was averted does not make sense at all.

In short, Maududi’s commentary that Prophet Yunus committed three offences is baseless, not even apparent from the verses under study and also without any proof from the Qur’an. To claim that Prophet Yunus was guilty of these offences or even to utter that Prophets and Messengers were capable of sinning is blasphemy and a blatant contradiction of the Qur’anic verses honoring the Prophets such as:

These are they on whom Allah bestowed favors, of the prophets of the posterity of Adam, and of those whom We carried with Nuh, and of the posterity of Ibrahim and Israel, and of those whom We guided and chose. When the signs of the Beneficent (God) were recited to them, they fell down prostrating (in obeisance) and weeping. (19:58)

And peace be on the messengers. (37:181)

Our Conclusions:

It is now very clear that the Qur’anic text supports the belief of the Shi’as that Prophets of Allah are sinless. Hence the claim that the doctrine originated with the Shi’as or developed during the time of the Imamate - the period after the death of Muhammad, is baseless. We have also seen that it is a futile attempt to disprove the sinlessness of Prophets by only using the stories of some Prophets told in the Qur’an and disregarding the other verses that talk about the status and excellence of these Prophets appointed by Allah. The stories of the Prophets in the Qur'an are subject to correct interpretation based on its principles. The other reason why Mr. Azzam’s approach is ineffective is because he followed and accepted the literal explanation of the ambiguous verses describing the events of these Prophets. These verses probably came down as similes enabling us to create pictures in our mind in order to grasp the actual event.

In the example of the story of Adam (pbuh) one classic argument in support of the doctrine is that the word “sin” was non-existent in the Garden because the Shar’iah was ordained after Adam descended on the earth. In other words, Adam was neither sinless nor sinful during his temporary abode in the Garden. The following verses prove our claim:

We said: Go forth from this (state) all; so surely there will come to you a guidance from Me, then whoever follows My guidance, no fear shall come upon them, nor shall they grieve. (2:38)

And (as to) those who disbelieve in and reject My communications, they are the inmates of the fire, in it they shall abide. (2:39)

Nevertheless, the story of Adam and his Garden has been revealed to explain the reality of human beings – their creation and their goals in this life and the establishment of firm Divine Decrees.

With regards to the story of Yunus (pbuh), the question whether he committed any sin or mistake does not arise because Allah had not issued any command instructing him to stay or not to leave his people. A “sin” according to the shari’ah is a violation of an authoritative command of Allah. If there is no such command, the question of sin does not arise.  In addition, according to the shari'ah and the legislative principles of the Qur’an, a wrong doer is never punished before confession or repentance. Allah punishes a wrong doer if there is no confession and repentance or if the said repentance was not accepted. The Qur’an says that Yunus (a.s.) confessed his state of distress while in the belly of the whale, an event that took place after the swallowing by the whale. Thus the notion that the swallowing of Yunus (pbuh) by the whale was a punishment from Allah because he left his people in anger is easily refuted.

Finally, the belief that Prophets of Allah are not sinless poses a major problem for the majority of the Muslims. The Qur’an we have today came to us through the very mouth of the last Prophet of Allah, Muhammad (pbuh). If the Prophet is not sinless, the authenticity of the Qur’an is questionable. From a logical point of view and from the support of the Qur’anic texts, Prophets of Allah have to be sinless – free from sins, errors and mistakes,  otherwise the Divine Plan would be defeated in its purpose!

Note:

E-Mail your questions, comments or responses to:

alikhalfan@optonline.net