#3
Infallibility ('isma)One of the most perplexing beliefs I encountered as a Shii was the issue of 'isma. I swear to God, I have never come across a more contradictory, pointless and outright outlandish theory in my life (except perhaps the Trinity).
Just like the Christians with the Trinity, the Shiis have dozens of definitions and explanations for 'isma.
To this day I still don't know which one is mainstream, or if there is even any consensus regarding it.
Some, such as al-Saduq, say that it is
ghuluw (extremism) to believe they were infallible in all aspects (such as never forgetting) whereas some say they are completely and utterly immune from any deficiency, both minor and major.
The amount of debating on this issue is absolutely endless. Shiis will argue for hours on end on this topic. Shiis will even insult other Shiis for holding a certain belief regarding 'isma - for e.g. look at all the attacks against Fadhallah for his opinion (which is similar to al-Saduq's).
Now, as a young Shii, I was perplexed by this issue. Why? Ofcourse - the Qur'an.
And "O Adam, dwell, you and your wife, in Paradise and eat from wherever you will but do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."
But Satan whispered to them to make apparent to them that which was concealed from them of their private parts. He said, "Your Lord did not forbid you this tree except that you become angels or become of the immortal."
So he made them fall, through deception. And when they tasted of the tree, their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten together over themselves from the leaves of Paradise. And their Lord called to them, "Did I not forbid you from that tree and tell you that Satan is to you a clear enemy?"
They said, "Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if You do not forgive us and have mercy upon us, we will surely be among the losers."
Qur'an 7:19-23
It's basic stuff, right? There is nothing complicated about it. You don't need to be wise and learned to understand this.
Adam (a.s.) disobeyed Allah (swt), he sinned, asked for forgiveness, and was forgiven!
Really simple isn't it?
Not for Shiis.
I asked about this verse to a Sheikh once, and I still do not understand the answer that I got.
I nodded my head and thanked him, and tried really hard to believe it - but I just couldn't. It was a ridiculously stupid answer.
It went something like this:
Allah (swt) knew that Adam would eat from the tree, but Allah (swt)'s plan was for him to eat from the tree so he could go to earth, so Adam didn't really disobey Allah (swt) when he ate from the tree, because it was Allah (swt)'s plan all along.So I asked - didn't Allah (swt) say the following:
وَلَا تَقْرَبَا هَـٰذِهِ الشَّجَرَةَ فَتَكُونَا مِنَ الظَّالِمِينَbut do not approach this tree, lest you be among the wrongdoers."And he (the sheikh) said:
It was just a suggestion from Allah. He didn't forbid him, he just suggested that it was better for Adam not to eat from the tree. Infact, Adam didn't commit any sin, he only harmed himself!So, at this, I just nodded my head and went home a very confused young man.
Tafsir al-Mizan by Tabatabai has the same explanation:
Clearly, the injustice and wrong-doing, mentioned in the verse 2:25, was to bring in its wake the toil of this world - hunger, thirst, nakedness and other discomforts. The injustice or wrong that they had done was against their own selves; it was neither a sin (as this term is used in the shari'ah) nor an injustice against Allah.
It shows that the prohibition was in the nature of an advice pointing out to them what was good for their own comfort; it did not have the force of an ordained law. Adam and his wife did wrong to themselves, because their disregard to that divine advice caused their removal from the Garden.
When a man commits a sin (i.e. an offence, from the shari'ah point of view), he is given a punishment. Then if he repents and his repentance is accepted, the punishment is completely waived off, and he is returned to his previous position as though he had not committed the sin at all. If Adam and his wife were guilty of such a sin, they should have been returned to their place in the Garden soon after their repentance was accepted. But it was not done. It clearly shows that the prohibition did not have the force of an ordained law; it was only an advice. Even so, neglecting it had its natural effect on both of them and they had to come out of the Garden. But this removal, from the Garden was not a punishment for any sin or crime; it was the natural consequence of the wrong they had done against their own selves. (We shall write again on this subject, God willing.)
But didn't they do something that Allah (swt) told them not to do? Isn't this a command? Isn't disobeying it a sin? Ha, what???
Going against an advice does not entail a sin, does not involve rebellion against the adviser. The injustice, mentioned in this story, therefore, means their doing wrong against their own selves, putting themselves in this world's hardship and toil; but it cannot mean the sin committed by a servant against his master.
Again with the "advice" thing. What the heck does this even mean? He said "Don't approach this tree", He didn't say - "You know what, you'd rather not go near the tree, but if you want to, its up to you".
He clearly said - DO NOT GO NEAR THE TREE!!
So many words, just to say, "they didn't sin, Allah didn't forbid them from the tree...". But the questions still remain:
-why did they ask for forgiveness, and;
-why did Allah (swt) forgive them, and;
-what did he forgive them for if it wasn't a sin?
Tabatabai has the following answer:
When a servant repents, that is, returns to Allah, his Lord, and the Lord accepts that repentance, all the effects of the sin are erased, as though he had not committed any sin at all. If the prohibition against eating from the tree had the force of an authoritative command, an ordained law, Adam and his wife should have been returned to their place in the Garden as soon as their repentance was accepted. But they were not. It decisively proves that the prohibition was of advisory nature like telling someone not to put his hand in a fire; if he does not listen to the advice, his hand would certainly burn, and the subsequent apology would not unburn it, even if the apology was accepted. Likewise, Adam and his wife disregarded the advice, and as a result of eating from the tree, had to go out of the Garden and live in the earth a life of trial and hardship. Their repentance could not take them back to the Garden as their coming to the earth was the natural and inevitable result of that action.
The prohibition, in short, was not a law ordained by the Master - like the announcement that the shari'ah would be punished. if it were like such a command, the repentance would have rubbed out the effect of disobedience and they would have been sent back to the Garden straight away.
Oh my God the confusion and twisting of words...
Look - Allah (swt) told Adam don't eat from the tree, he ate it and sinned, he turned to his Lord in forgiveness, his Lord forgave him, and He sent him to the earth for a brief period.
Why can't you just admit this? I think I know why - I'll leave my theory for the end.
--------------
Let's take another Surah. The famous Surah of anti-total-infallibility - Surat 'Abasa.
In this Surah, an event is mentioned in which ibn Umm Maktum (the blind man) came to the Prophet (saw) while he was talking to some people. The Prophet (saw) was talking with some chiefs of Quraish.
Ibn Umm Maktum interrupted the Prophet (saw) - and the Prophet (saw) became annoyed and turned away, and continued talking. Allah (swt) reprimanded the Prophet (saw) for this action and told him that the blind man is better than the ones he was speaking to.
Now, the explanation of Ahlul Sunnah is that the reason the Prophet (saw) got annoyed and ignored him, and continued speaking to the chiefs, was because the Prophet (saw) was desperate to convert these people, because he believed that if these chiefs converted, the rest of the people would follow and be guided.
Allah (swt) infact reversed this, and told the Prophet (saw) that this blind and powerless man was better than them, and he should give him and his like (the poor and downtrodden) more attention that these chiefs.
It was Allah (swt) disciplining the Prophet (saw), and teaching him how to go about spreading Islam.
----------
The Shias say instead - the person who frowned was some other guy, not the Prophet (saw). The verses aren't addressed to the Prophet (saw). It was probablly 'Uthman or Mu'awiyah or someone else from Bani Ummayah. Or, maybe it was even 'Umar.
Now, I could never understand this argument - that it was about someone else.
The verses state:
عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ
He frowned and turned away
أَن جَاءَهُ الْأَعْمَىٰ
Because the blind man came unto him.
وَمَا يُدْرِيكَ لَعَلَّهُ يَزَّكَّىٰ
But what would make you perceive, that perhaps he might be purified
Tabatabai says (in what has to be the weakest and lamest attempt at Tafsir):
The apparent import of the verses does not indicate that they were revealed about the Prophet(s). Rather, they purely mention a narrative which does not specify 'the subject of narration'. Instead, there is an apparent indication in the verses that they refer to other than the Prophet(s), for the act of frowning is not among the characteristics of the Prophet(s) vis-a-vis the enemies who differ with him, not to speak of the guided Muslims.
Right - so basically, the verses aren't aimed at the Prophet (saw) at all.
Why?
Because the Prophet (saw) can never even frown!He also says:
It is reported from Imam al-Sadiq (as) - as has been mentioned in al-Majma' - that these verses were revealed about a man from Banu Umayyah who was in the company of the Prophet(s), when Ibn Umm Maktum arrived. When the man saw him, he regarded him as filthy, gathered himself, frowned at him and turned his face away from him. Consequently, Almighty Allah narrated the incident and reprimanded him for that.
Ofcourse, it just has to be someone from Bani Ummayah.
-----
Now, this is all just ridiculous. The verses are clearly addressing the Prophet (saw). Allah (swt) even re-iterates what he says in the opening verses by saying:
وَأَمَّا مَن جَاءَكَ يَسْعَىٰ
But as for he who came to you striving [for knowledge]
وَهُوَ يَخْشَىٰ
While he fears [ Allah ],
فَأَنتَ عَنْهُ تَلَهَّىٰ
From him you are distracted.
Somehow, according to Tabatabai, these are not addressed at the Prophet (saw).
So I am expected to believe that Ibn Umm Maktum came to someone from Banu Ummayah for knowledge - while the Prophet (saw) was sitting there speaking?
What the hell?
So we degrade the Prophet (saw) just so we can keep him as
some type of robot that can't even frown?
I thought then, and still do, that this is just nonsense, and I have some theories about why Shiis say this kind of stuff.
----
My theory is as follows:
1. Rafidis like Hisham bin Hakam came up with the concept of infallibility with regards to 'Ali and his sons and descendants (the early Imams). They didn't develop this concept fully, and so there were some gaps in it.
I know that Sheikh al-Saduq (early Shii scholar) believed that Surat 'Abasa was about the Prophet (saw), and that he frowned.2. Rafidis slowly became more radical as time went on. Being extremists, their beliefs, naturally, became more extreme as time went on.
3. Eventually, they reached the stage where their belief in 'isma became totally whacked, and influential groups arose that said "The Imams were 100% infallible, all the time, in every aspect, they never forgot or made any mistake what so ever).
4. These groups realised that if they hold that opinion, they are degrading the Prophet (saw) and putting the Imams above him (due to Surat 'Abasa).
5. So, they altered the interpretation of Surat 'Abasa to be about someone else.
6. They realised that they then needed to alter a whole bunch of other verses in the Qur'an to fit in with this theory (such as Musa killing the Egyptian, Adam eating from the forbidden tree, Nuh praying for his disbelieving son and so on).
7. We are left with this total mess regarding 'isma in Shiism.
53 Replies
22493 Views
October 23, 2015, 01:40:33 AM
