It seems to be commonly accepted in Islam that the prophet Jesus was "without sin," in contrast to the rest of humanity — even the other prophets — arguably(?) even Muhammad himself. (Although see https://islam.stackexchange.com/questions/215/was-the-prophet-sinless and, again, note that most of my reading so far has been from Christian-evangelical sources who are motivated to elevate Jesus above Muhammad.) I can find plenty of references to this doctrine of "sinlessness of Jesus" via Google, but all the top hits are blatantly from a Christian-evangelical point of view (e.g. [Edward Sell's _Faith of Islam_](https://books.google.com/books?id=K7jjoomZVgEC&pg=PA248) ; e.g. resources from "The Spirit of Islam" and "CIRA International"). ([English Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam) does not go very deep on this subject.) I'd like to find out — from relatively authoritative, English-language, yet non-Christian, sources — what historical Islam has to say on the sinlessness of Jesus; e.g. commentaries on [the hadith excerpted below](https://sunnah.com/urn/43910) , whether different sects/denominations disagree on this question, etc. In particular I wonder whether any division of Islam has ever claimed that Jesus was _not_ sinless. > Then the people will say, 'Don't you see to what state you have reached? Won't you look for someone who can intercede for you with your Lord?' > > Some people will say to some others, 'Go to Adam.' So they will go to Adam and say to him. 'You are the father of mankind; Allah created you with His Own Hand, and breathed into you of His Spirit (meaning the spirit which he created for you); and ordered the angels to prostrate before you; so (please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are? Don't you see what condition we have reached?' Adam will say, 'Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. **He forbade me (to eat of the fruit of) the tree, but I disobeyed Him.** Myself! Myself! Myself! (I am preoccupied with my own problems.) Go to someone else; go to Noah.' > > So they will go to Noah and say (to him), 'O Noah! You are the first (of Allah's Messengers) to the people of the earth, and Allah has named you a thankful slave; please intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?' He will say, 'Today my Lord has become angry as He has never become nor will ever become thereafter. **I had (in the world) the right to make one definitely accepted invocation, and I made it against my nation.** Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Abraham.' > > They will go to Abraham and say, 'O Abraham! You are Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and His Khalil from among the people of the earth; so please intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?' He will say to them, 'My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will ever become thereafter. **I had told three lies** (Abu Haiyan (the sub-narrator) mentioned them in the Hadith) Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Moses.' > > The people will then go to Moses and say, 'O Moses! You art Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and Allah gave you superiority above the others with this message and with His direct Talk to you; (please) intercede for us with your Lord Don't you see in what state we are?' Moses will say, 'My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before, nor will become thereafter. **I killed a person whom I had not been ordered to kill.** Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Jesus.' > > So they will go to Jesus and say, 'O Jesus! You are Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and His Word which He sent to Mary, and a superior soul created by Him, and you talked to the people while still young in the cradle. Please intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?' Jesus will say. 'My Lord has today become angry as He has never become before nor will ever become thereafter. **Jesus will not mention any sin,** but will say, 'Myself! Myself! Myself! Go to someone else; go to Muhammad.' > > So they will come to me and say, 'O Muhammad ! You are Allah's Messenger (ﷺ) and the last of the prophets, and **Allah forgave your early and late sins.** (Please) intercede for us with your Lord. Don't you see in what state we are?"

From [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nizari) : > The Nizari Ismailis have always maintained that the Imamah (also known as 'Imamat') can only be inherited from the current Imam to a direct descendant in a father-to-son (or grandson) hereditary lineage starting with Imam Ali and then to Imam Hussain and so on until their present and living 49th Imam, Prince Karim al-Husayni Aga Khan IV. From [Wikipedia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility) : > In Shi'a theology, the belief is that the Ahl al-Bayt, including Muhammad, his daughter Fatima Zahra and **Shi'a Imams** are all infallible and do not make mistakes. According to Nizaris, they believe the Imamah continues. **Question:** Do Nizari Ismaili Shias believe in the infallibility of all the Imams? As stated above, Shias believe that their Imams are infallible. **Do Nizaris believe in infallibility and if they do so they believe in the infallibility of all the Imams, including the present** [**Aga Khan**](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aga_Khan) ?

As this question has been asked previously, or rather, it has been asked in a different, more simple way; There is no clear or sufficient answer that I can find. Let me premise this by saying, I have no hostility towards Muslims. Or Christians. I was a student of 'Philosphy and Religion' (not 'of' Religion) and focused on Islam and Christianity primarily. I'm self-taught Arabic with English as my first language, being born in America. Debate is just a pastime for me. I enjoy it. Some people like video games, debate is my video game. No more, no less. With that being said, I also need to add that my question is not simply that the representation of the Trinity is incorrect, that's only a portion. This is a three part problem that I'm curious how Muslims will, or would, answer. **Surah 5:116** >"وَإِذْ قَالَ ٱللَّهُ يَـٰعِيسَى ٱبْنَ مَرْيَمَ ءَأَنتَ قُلْتَ لِلنَّاسِ ٱتَّخِذُونِى وَأُمِّىَ إِلَـٰهَيْنِ مِن دُونِ ٱللَّهِ ۖ قَالَ سُبْحَـٰنَكَ مَا يَكُونُ لِىٓ أَنْ أَقُولَ مَا لَيْسَ لِى بِحَقٍّ ۚ إِن كُنتُ قُلْتُهُۥ فَقَدْ عَلِمْتَهُۥ ۚ تَعْلَمُ مَا فِى نَفْسِى وَلَآ أَعْلَمُ مَا فِى نَفْسِكَ ۚ إِنَّكَ أَنتَ عَلَّـٰمُ ٱلْغُيُوبِ" **English Translation** - *I use a combination of Pickthall and Saheeh International as they seem to be the most accurate to the Arabic we can get when combined, as well as some direct translations where it makes sense in English)* >And when Allah said: O Jesus, son of Maryam! Did you ever say to the people: Take me and my mother (as) **two gods** (إِلَـٰهَيْنِ 'ilāhayni') beside Allah? He said: Glory be to you! It was not for me to say what I had no right (to say). If I had said it, then surely You would have known it. You know what is (hidden) in myself (nafsī), and I know not what is (hidden) in Yourself (nafsika). Indeed, you are the All-Knower ('allāmu) of the unseen I'm going to address the two main issues I can see clearly through the time I've speant studying and hopefully a sufficient response could be given to interact with, which would be excellent, as that is the goal. - The first issue would be the one addressed most often. Here we can see that part of the 'Trinitarian belief' is, as in other ayah, being questioned and 'falsified.' However, we also know that the Trinitarian belief is not, 'Allah, The Son, and Mary.' I don't think I need to explain the makeup of the Christian's Trinity for anyone here, but of course this is incorrect. I have seen some Muslims argue that it is possible that there was a time where some Christians actually were taking Jesus and Mary as gods along with Allah. This is incorrect for a couple reasons. First, if people were worshiping Mary and Jesus as gods with Allah, then they wouldn't be Christians. Christianity, the term Christian, was defined a long time before Muhammad. Regardless, Allah *should* know the Christian belief at that time. Secondly, any people who take Jesus and Mary as gods would also not be considered Christian because in Christianity, whether or not any Muslim or other religions understands it or agree with it, is a monotheistic Religion by definition. Therefore, no one saying something akin to even Jesus and The Father being two gods would be Christian whatsoever. Or the Holy Spirit (Ruh Al Qudus) - The next main issue I see, besides Allah not knowing the Trinity there, is Allah asking Jesus if he took himself and Mary as gods alongside him. There's a couple problems here. First, even **if** the Trinitarian belief replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary, and Allah said Ruh Al Qudus instead, Jesus would not be lying by saying he did not. Again going back to the 'two gods' issue. The Trinitarian belief, Christianity, again, is one God. Then, as the ayah says, Allah is the 'allāmu,' the All-Knower, and of course he is also named so in the Qur'an. The other two ayah about the Trinity simply have Allah telling them to desist from saying 'three' or no 'two-thirds, as statements rather than questions or questioning anyone. So, the All-Knower, asking Jesus if he did 'some thing' seems odd when surely his statement alone would be enough. Such as, rather than making a point to question Jesus, he would say, he told Jesus of what his followers claim, then having Jesus state that is not what he taught. That would be simple enough and end the debate. Yet it would still lack any meaning unless Mary and 'two gods' was changed. Immediately afterwards, in ayah 117, he tells Allah that he only said what Allah ordered him to say. This is something the 'allāmu would surely know. Now it becomes that we have no answer from the Qur'an whether or not Jesus confessed to not teaching that he, the father, and Holy Spirit **are God.** The common argument against this is that it is for narrative purposes to specifically show Jesus denying it. I ask that we don't get bogged down on this one specific aspect of 117, but to take it in its entirety. This is why I prefaced with Jesus saying 'no,' would not oppose the Trinitarian belief. Of course Jesus did not tell people to take him **and** his mother as two gods with Allah. He did not teach that himself and The Father were two gods, or himself and the Holy Spirit were two gods. Therefore, what is the purpose of this ayah? I want to add some more evidence to my points before fully concluding so that any response can get directly to the point and hopefully a straight answer. For Christians, they would argue and show documentation that the belief of the Trinity was being preached as early as 1CE. This could be refuted, so we can simply go with what cannot be refuted in context to the ayah. We can at least say, as a matter of fact, that the doctrine of the Trinity was finalized at the First Council of Nicaea in 325CE. Therefore showing that the doctrine was well-established long before the time of Muhammad. This is irrelevant to an all-knowing God, however, this is just evidence to show that the doctrine was with the Christians long before, and totally established by, the time of Muhammad. Now to conclude with points, my opinion, and another common refutation, as well as sources. Another refutation that I have, surprisingly, heard, is that this ayah, 116, isn't even talking about the the Trinity, and is talking about some group that believed this. That is an obvious problem. The people who followed Christ, Jesus, are Christians. If people believed that Jesus and Mary were gods, and Jesus is just saying, no I didn't say this, and whatever niche group Allah could be talking about, would mean that this ayah actually serves no purpose as nobody believes this is what Jesus taught. Besides the fact that scholars agree, tafsirs explain, that it is talking about this belief, I'd rather want to believe that **all** ayah in the Holy Qur'an actually have meaning behind them, some purpose for being told. In the Tafsir of Ibn Kathir, he in fact does state that this is not about Allah not having the knowledge, but about admonishing his people who call themselves **Christians** and the one who they call 'God' (Jesus) is himself admitting to the contrary. Now he has established this is speaking about Christians, followers of Christ and his teachings, not some niche group of people who worship Jesus and Mary as two gods. Ibn Kathir, however, seems to leave out Mary altogether while also changing the implication from them being 'two gods' to simply the correct Christian belief that they say Jesus is God. This is not at all what the ayah is saying and I see Ibn Kathir as either being completely dishonest or refusing to address the ayah properly, although I have not read his tafsir in Arabic, and while I could be missing something (I'll double check) I highly doubt it would lend strength to a refutation. Again, even if Jesus denies this here and says that is not what he taught people, it remains true and says nothing, as no Christian, now or at the time of Muhammad or prior, believes/d Christianity teaches that Jesus, and any other person's in the Trinity, are more than one God. Once more, the doctrine of the Trinity, One God, three hypostatic unions, was already well-established. As for my opinion, for this ayah to be a clear, and detailed explanation of all things, it should directly refute the actual doctrine of the Trinity. To say, Jesus, did you say/teach that you, the Holy Spirit, and I *are God?* Or even replacing Maryam with ruh Al Qudus would suffice but the word 'ilāhayni' has to be removed from the text either way. **Sources For Context** *'The Qur'an is a detailed explanation of all things (in the revelation) - Quran, Surah 12:111* *Allah addressing to falsify the Trinity, the other ayah about the Trinity - Quran, Surah 5:73, 4:171, and 5:116 (this ayah) is directly referenced in multiple sources as one of the three ayah referencing the Trinity* **Finalization of the doctrine of the Trinity at the First Council of Nicaea** - *Kauffman, Timothy F. (May–June 2016). "Nicæa and the Roman Precedent" (PDF). The Trinity Review (334, 335). Archived (PDF) from the original on 12 August 2016. Retrieved 22 June 2016* *"Trinity: The role of Constantine in the Nicene creed". www.bible.ca. Retrieved 29 September 2021* *Fairbairn, Donald (2009), "Life in the Trinity, Downers Grove:" InterVarsity Press, ISBN 978-0-8308-3873-8, retrieved 24 February 2014* **Earliest existing reference of the Trinity** - *Theophilus of Antioch (AD 115–181) ref. "Philip Schaff: Fathers of the Second Century: 0107=101 – Christian Classics Ethereal Library". ccel.org. Retrieved 27 April 2023.*

There seems to be a commonly held belief that the prophet Muhammad (and the prophets in general) are somehow protected from ever committing any sin. I have seen nothing in the Qur'an to suggest this, nor am I aware of any authentic hadith to support this claim. It has always been my understanding that the prophets are men like any other, specially chosen by the Almighty to relay His message but not necessarily granted any rights and privileges other than what He has explicitly stated; the Christians for example make a big deal about Jesus being sinless, but they have evidence from their own Scriptures to support this. Even if the other prophets were among the best men of their generation, they would still be susceptible to the same trials and temptations of any other man, and thus to sinning. **Question:** Note that I am not asking whether the prophets were *forgiven* for their sins; God is *Al-Raheem* so I have no difficulty accepting that. The question is about whether the prophets in general, or Muhammad (PBUH) in particular, ever sinned in the first place. Where does this Islamic belief of sinlessness come from? Does it have an authentic source?

Were all of the Sahaba capable of committing sins and lying? If they were capable of sinning, could they have committed major sins?

I know infallible means a person who doesn’t commit any sin. But I wonder if it is related to the mistake as well? Actually I mean is it possible for an infallible to make any mistake? (Since I assume there is a difference between sin and mistake)

We all know for sure that Prophet Muhammad Sallahu alayhi wassalam was the last Prophet and the seal of the Messengers and he received the final revelation or the "Divine Message". I and most Sunnis believe that the Guidance is only from Allah and following the message of His Messenger (Sallahu alayhi wassalam) and infallibility in religion belongs only to the Prophet. However, I heard that the Shi'ah believe that the Imams also can guide people and are infallible. Is there any Qur'anic ayah or Hadiths that prove the same? Correct me if my understanding of the concept is wrong.

It is said that only an infallible can bury another infallible, like Ali (as) did Prophet Mohammad (saww)(Death and Burial ) and Fatima (as)(Death ). What's the source of this law? And why is it so?

I want to know if Jesus of Nazareth (PBUH) was infallible form Islam's point of view? Do we consider him free of error and sin just as our own prophet Muhammad (S.A.) was. What about other Abrahamic prophets such as Moses?

Papal Inerrancy, or Papal Infallibility , > is a dogma of the Catholic Church that states that, in virtue of the > promise of Jesus to Peter, the Pope is preserved from the possibility > of error "when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher > of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he > defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole > Church." Is there similar teaching in Islam like that, maybe something like fatwa inerrancy?

I have read this question and I have also studied in school that Prophets are sinless. Today I read in the Quran that Moosa killed a man. Here are the verses that describe the scene. I read at another place that he 'accidentally' killed him. I don't find it accidental myself (Musa struck him with his fist and he died.) Are Prophets sinless? Even if he hit the guy with his fist, its considered a sin.

I was learning about Sa'adyah Gaon 's approach to various Biblical stories and came across this statement (footnote 37 here , bolded by me for emphasis): >S. Stuber, in his article, "מפגשי בראשית – בין אברהם למושלי הארצות", in ספר היובל לרב מרדכי ברויאר (Jeruslaem, 1992): 129-146, **identifies these heretics as the surrounding Muslims. They claimed that this story was a forgery inserted into the Torah, for it is inconceivable that a prophet could lie.** A similar statement is repeated here (bolded by me for emphasis): >Polemical motivations – R. Saadia's full-throated defense of Aharon's actions may be partially motivated by an attempt to counter **Muslim claims that passages in the Torah which portray sins of prophets are forged insertions**. Is it true that Muslims believe that a prophet cannot sin, and that any bible passage that says so must be incorrect/a later insertion? Please provide sources if possible, and thanks in advance!

As Muslims we believe in destiny and that our fate has already been determined and our destiny has been written by God as he is all knowing. So in essence, God knew what was going to happen with his creation before he created, he knew the good and the evil that was going to occur. **With that being said, why did God decide to create us?** We cannot say it's a test because he already knew what will happen. > “No calamity befalls on the earth or in yourselves but it is inscribed in the Book of Decrees (Al‑Lawh Al‑Mahfooz) before We bring it into existence. Verily, that is easy for Allaah - [al-Hadeed 57:22]

Can Prophet Muhammad be considered a role model in every aspect for a modern Muslim? If prophet practised X, is it safe to assume every Muslim should imitate him in that regard? If a certain action or habit was permitted to Muhammad, can we say that it should be allowed or encouraged to every Muslim? In short, is Prophet Muhammad an absolute role model? Can a Muslim do everything Prophet Muhammad did?

> Infallible - Incapable of making mistakes or being wrong My question is, How Is Muhammad PBUH infallible according to Shia Islam because * His best friends were Abu Bakr (RA) and Umar (RA), many Shia believe they will go to Hell. * His favorite wife was Aisha. He even choose to die with her. Many Shia believe Aisha (RA) was not a perfect woman and created a lot of rift esp at the time of Muhammad PBUH death. Again the prophet trusted her to die with her and she deceived him? * When the prophet saw men pollinating date treats. He asked them what are you doing. They said pollinating date tees. The prophet forbade thee from doing so, so they stopped. The next season there were no dates. The prophet realized he was wrong so he allowed them pollinate trees again. * The prophet ate morsel of food that had poison in it from Jews women. His two companion died (this would be a clear embarrassment for a prophet). The jews woman was open to accept him as prophet if he did not die. But the prophet ate it and realized there was poison so he stopped. So was he infallible? If not, what does infallible means?

I was referred to this verse as evidence of infallible Imams: > "And stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display, like that of the former Times of Ignorance; and establish regular Prayer, and give regular Charity; and obey Allah and His Messenger. **And Allah only wishes to remove all abomination from you, ye members of the Family, and to make you pure and spotless**." 33:33 Shias conclude the above is evidence directly from the Quran supporting the idea of infallible Imams. Now for my question, where can we find the word infallible in the above verse? Infallible in Arabic is ma'soom, how is this verse related to infallibility? Clearly, even if one was to read the verse on its own, without even having to look at prior verses, one could easily conclude that it is talking about the Prophet's (pbuh) wives, hence "stay quietly in your houses", surely it is not talking about Imam Ali? And make not a dazzling display? I find it hard to believe this is in reference to Imam Ali? Or Hassan and Hussain? To top it off, there are other verses in the Quran that talks about purification, for example: > when He overwhelmed you with drowsiness [giving] security from Him and sent down upon you from the sky, **rain by which to purify you and remove from you the evil [suggestions] of Satan** and to make steadfast your hearts and plant firmly thereby your feet. (8:11) Accordingly, since the above verse is in reference to the Sahaba, does that mean the Sahaba are infallible also?

As I understand, the subject of infallibility of the Prophets (peace be upon all of them) is dealt differently in Sunni and Shi'ite theology. I believe it is necessary to present my understanding of both views before I can ask the question. > **Sunni View** > > We believe that the Prophets are infallible with respect to all they > conveyed from Allah, in word, deed and what they approved of. The > majority of Sunni scholars also viewed that the prophets were > protected from major sins but not from minor sins. With regard to > minor sins, these might have been committed by them. However, if they > committed such actions, they were not left to persist, rather, Allah > (Exalted be He) pointed that out to them and they hastened to repent. > We can witness that in several ayah in Qur'an: > > The Story of Prophet Adam (عليه السلام): > > > ... And Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred. Then his Lord chose him and > > turned to him in forgiveness and guided [him]. **[\[Surah Taha 20:121-122\]][2] ** > > Or Prophet Musa (عليه السلام) also committed a mistake of killing an > Egyptian man. In Verse **28:16 ** of the Quran, Allah Almighty > says: > > > He said, "My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, so forgive me," and > > He forgave him. Indeed, He is the Forgiving, the Merciful. > > And there are similar mention about Prophet Dawud (عليه السلام) > and in many Ayahs, Allah corrects Prophet Muhammad (صلّى الله عليه > وآله وسلّم) like in Surah At-Tahrim 66:1 or Surat 'Abasa or > Surah Al-Anfal . It is also worth mentioning the hadith of the > pollination of palm tree where the Prophet (صلّى الله عليه وآله > وسلّم) made a mistake in worldly affair. In my perspective (correct me if I am wrong), the following is the Shi'ite view regarding the Prophets (peace be upon all of them) and *also*, the Imams (including the twelve Imams). > **Shi'ite View:** > > - The Prophets and Imams are free and protected from *both* major and minor sins. > - The Imams are free from errors. > - The Imams do not make mistake with respect to worldly affairs. > - The Imams do not forget anything. How does the above presented ayah reconcile with the Shi'ite view?

Muslims regard the Quran as infallible and containing in itself evidence of its own veracity (correct me if wrong). I have read many claims that attribute that status to a lack of contradictions of accounts that are conveyed within the book. However, I do not understand why an absence of contradictions within a book should designate it as divine. I find that it would be rather easy for a human to write a book of such closely crafted content whereby no two ideas or positions presented would be conflicting one another. In that case, what is it exactly that constitutes the revered infallibility of the Quran?