The infallibility of the Prophet

The Corinthian

With reference to Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, which recounts where the Prophet deviated from strict adherence to monotheism so as to convert his kinsfolk and neighbours in Mecca, recanting this deveation later, it does appear to cause a problem with the accepted view of the Prophet's infalibility.

While this account has often been rejected by Islamic scholars, it has also been pointed out that it is difficult to then reconcile that Ibn Ishaq's accounts are accepted in many areas, but - conveniently - not in this.

Thoughts?

Medina

Salam Aleikum Corinthian

Having never read the account you speak of I can't discuss it with you really.

I would say 2 things:

If it is a biography of Muhammad (peace be upon him) then it is possible he made errors (conveniently you say...but still nonetheless valid). He may have made other errors also.

Also his sources would need to be checked and verified...perhaps it is these that scholars disagree with?

Schuhart

The Corinthian wrote:

With reference to Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad, which recounts where the Prophet deviated from strict adherence to monotheism so as to convert his kinsfolk and neighbours in Mecca, recanting this deveation later, it does appear to cause a problem with the accepted view of the Prophet's infalibility.

I don't see this as being a crucial flaw. I'd tend to agree with the perspective that prophetic infallibility could be seen as meaning that any mistakes would be corrected by God. To the extent that the legend says that Mohammed was forced to recant false verses, it seems to me to be saying that even if he was tempted into adding some words of his own, divine will would not have allowed such a deception.

I don't understand why this legend has to be so controversial.

PDN

Are these what are sometimes called 'The Satanic Verses'?

Schuhart

Yes, this is it.

The Corinthian

Schuhart wrote:

I'd tend to agree with the perspective that prophetic infallibility could be seen as meaning that any mistakes would be corrected by God. To the extent that the legend says that Mohammed was forced to recant false verses, it seems to me to be saying that even if he was tempted into adding some words of his own, divine will would not have allowed such a deception.

Then the problem with a lack of prophetic infallibility is the period between the error and its correction, or even that it's correction was recorded. Would it then not potentially put all choices or actions by the Prophet into question?

I don't understand why this legend has to be so controversial.

I don't understand why the term legend is being used here. If you accept the account then it becomes no more legend than any other account, and is no longer legend. If you reject the account then you must reconcile that you are willing to accept some accounts from the same source and not others.

Schuhart

The Corinthian wrote:

Then the problem with a lack of prophetic infallibility is the period between the error and its correction, or even that it's correction was recorded. Would it then not potentially put all choices or actions by the Prophet into question?

As I said, what the story seems to suggest is that if Mohammed had just made something up then Gabriel would have turned up in a flash to ask ‘what was that you just said?’. I don’t see how that undermines all statements made.

The Corinthian wrote:

I don't understand why the term legend is being used here. If you accept the account then it becomes no more legend than any other account, and is no longer legend. If you reject the account then you must reconcile that you are willing to accept some accounts from the same source and not others.

I’m not trying to argue the account is in some way factually better or worse than any other tradition that happens to be more readily accepted. At the end of the day, it is all legend. I’m really just pointing out that this individual tradition, whether accepted or not, doesn’t particularly undermine the whole enterprise.

The reason for doubting the Quran is divine word simply because it looks like an Arabic take on the Bible requiring no particular mystical reason for its existence. The Satanic Verses thing is a red herring.

donaghs

Schuhart wrote:

The reason for doubting the Quran is divine word simply because it looks like an Arabic take on the Bible requiring no particular mystical reason for its existence.

From my own reading I can't help speculating that parts of the Koran appear to blend Biblical elements with the pre-Islamic culture that existed in Arabia at the time. An example of this is the story of Abraham and Ishmael (in Arabic spelling) building the Kaaba in Mecca. Yet the Kaaba wa used for pre-Islamic Polytheistic beliefs. The fragments of pre-Islamic Arabian history are fascinating, unfortunately there's a dearth of material to study. Also, while the Satanic Verses reference may be a "red herring", unfortunately, there can be dangers in involved in questioning firmly held beliefs, or drawing historical conclusions from these pivotal episodes in world history.

mountainyman

Schuhart wrote:

The reason for doubting the Quran is divine word simply because it looks like an Arabic take on the Bible requiring no particular mystical reason for its existence. The Satanic Verses thing is a red herring.

Without in any way wishing to cause offense Islam seems to me to be Judaism adapted for easy proselytisation and mild Arab cultural chauvanism.

MM

The Corinthian

Schuhart wrote:

As I said, what the story seems to suggest is that if Mohammed had just made something up then Gabriel would have turned up in a flash to ask ‘what was that you just said?’. I don’t see how that undermines all statements made.

The question then can be asked how long between the error and the correction? Could one say that in some cases the correction has not yet taken place - or, if it has, that an account of that correction has survived?

mountainyman wrote:

Without in any way wishing to cause offense Islam seems to me to be Judaism adapted for easy proselytisation and mild Arab cultural chauvanism.

Naturally Islam, like Christianity, has its roots in Judaism as they are all Abrahamic faiths. Actually, one historical theory is that Islam is potentially closer to what Christianity would have been had St. James succeeded to promote his version over St. Paul's. But that's totally OT, TBH.

Schuhart

The Corinthian wrote:

The question then can be asked how long between the error and the correction? Could one say that in some cases the correction has not yet taken place - or, if it has, that an account of that correction has survived?

As I understand it, the Quran is believed to have been revealed to Mohammed chapter by chapter over a period of years. Hence, while Mohammed lived, there was always the chance that some extra revelation would arrive to complete the message. Therefore, it would seem to me that this account should only provoke doubt about the integrity of the message if it suggested that Mohammed would have been let add words of his own unchallenged by divine authority.

I’d agree that, for people alive at the time, the idea that a significant distortion might have occurred for however brief a period could be used as an argument for saying they could be misled. But it would strike me, given that you could not be certain that another revelation wasn’t on the way, that people alive during the period that Mohammed was preaching would of necessity be operating with less than the full message anyway. Now I agree there’s a difference between having not heard the message yet and being told the wrong message, but I don’t see this necessarily implies a flaw that stands for all time.

At the end of the day, I don’t doubt this legend is meant to be telling us something. But I’d hesitate over taking it too literally – as in wondering if it undermines the whole project. Taking it literally, what it says is Gabriel turned up to make Mohammed recant. That suggests (IMHO) divine will protecting the integrity of the text. It also, IMHO, might be meant to remind people that Mohammed was an ordinary man who could make mistakes and was only a vehicle for the divine word which was protected from any mistakes as it passed through him. I don’t see how that proposition undermines the Quran.

On the other hand, detailed scholarship that traces the origin of the stories in the Quran would put it in an historical context that (I’m being very humble today) IMHO would support a rational approach to the text by theists and atheists.

the_new_mr

I think the whole idea is completely ridiculous. The Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) disbelieved in idolatry even before he received the first revelation. And, as the islamonline article points out, such a verse is completely out of place when placed in the rest of the sura.

Also, just because Ibn Ishaq's books says so-and-so doesn't necessarily make it true. It is possible to accept someone's saying on one topic and reject another. In Islam, the only saying of any person that we cannot reject (as long as it is proven authentic) are the sayings of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him). Any one else can be accepted or rejected.

The Corinthian

the_new_mr wrote:

Also, just because Ibn Ishaq's books says so-and-so doesn't necessarily make it true. It is possible to accept someone's saying on one topic and reject another. In Islam, the only saying of any person that we cannot reject (as long as it is proven authentic) are the sayings of the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him). Any one else can be accepted or rejected.

Of course it is possible to accept a source as accurate in one instance and not in another, however there needs to be reason for such discretion. I would be interested in hearing these reasons as so far I've only really witnessed dismissal rather than rejection, again with the islamonline article being a case in point. I certainly have read quite a few compelling arguments against the passages' veracity, however there are also numerous arguments in favour by some scholars (e.g. Rahman).

However, if the reason is not compelling enough to make such a discretion, however, then such dismissals really amount to little more than theological 'cherry picking' not unlike the inclusion and omission of the various gospels that have existed in Christianity.

the_new_mr

Well, I'd say that it can be rejected on one very clear point. Of course, it only really applies if you're a Muslim. But then, why else would it matter to someone?

That point being that God said that He protected and will protect the Quran from corruption.

Also, as the islamonline.net article mentioned (and I already repeated), it is completely out of whack when you consider the previous verses as well as the circumstances at the time and the mentality and conviction of the Prophet.

blackthorn

Plus all the authoritative hadith collectors rejected this story. If they had found it met the criteria for 'soundness' (reliable transmitters, unbroken chain of transmission etc) they would have included it in their collections. None did.

The Corinthian

the_new_mr wrote:

Well, I'd say that it can be rejected on one very clear point. Of course, it only really applies if you're a Muslim. But then, why else would it matter to someone?

That point being that God said that He protected and will protect the Quran from corruption.

Hardly a scholarly response though, is it? Essentially you've responded with the Islamic equivalent to the Christian "it's a mystery" cop-out, which - it is my understanding - is not not an acceptable one in learned Islamic circles.

blackthorn wrote:

Plus all the authoritative hadith collectors rejected this story. If they had found it met the criteria for 'soundness' (reliable transmitters, unbroken chain of transmission etc) they would have included it in their collections. None did.

This is potentially a reasonable rejection. There certainly have been numerous informed rejections alright from my reading of the subject.

InFront

With reference to Ibn Ishaq's biography of Muhammad

Presumably you're talking about a translation by a guy called Guilliame (surname/ forename? I don't know). It's certainly disputed that Ibn Ishaq's biography of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, suggested what Guilliame suggested in relation to "missing verses".
In any event, what we are dealing with is a story that has had to wrangle it's way in through and out of at least two human minds, and probably more.

To put it in context, I wonder if I wrote a biography of a figure from the Victorian era with controversial suggestions that are not widely accepted, and someone came along hundreds of years into the future and wrote a book on that biography of the original, unsupported, incident, and further men wrote further books on that modern translation how credible would you feel the original allegation to be, especially when nothing else supports it?

the_new_mr

The Corinthian wrote:

Hardly a scholarly response though, is it? Essentially you've responded with the Islamic equivalent to the Christian "it's a mystery" cop-out, which - it is my understanding - is not not an acceptable one in learned Islamic circles.

Sorry about that. I didn't mean to go for one of those "It's in the book so you have to believe it... even if you're a non-Muslim" kind of statements. That wasn't my intention.

As I stated, I meant that if you're a Muslim then God saying that in the Quran is enough.

For a non-Muslim though (or at least outside of the scope of the Quran), as blackthorn said, all the authoritative hadith collectors rejected this story. Just because some people wrote something doesn't make it true (as InFront pointed towards).

hivizman

InFront wrote:

Presumably you're talking about a translation by a guy called Guilliame (surname/ forename? I don't know). It's certainly disputed that Ibn Ishaq's biography of the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, suggested what Guilliame suggested in relation to "missing verses".
In any event, what we are dealing with is a story that has had to wrangle it's way in through and out of at least two human minds, and probably more.

Alfred Guillaume's book The Life of Muhammad is a translation of Ibn Hisham's abridgement of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah (Life of God's Messenger), with various passages added from other sources that claimed to be quoting frm Ibn Ishaq. The 'Satanic Verses' passage comes from Al-Tabari's 'History of the Prophets and Kings'. Ibn Ishaq apparently knew people from the generation of the children of the Prophet's Companions, but hadith scholars considered that the line of transmission of the 'Satanic Verses' tradition was weak. In modern terms, ibn Ishaq's evidence for the story was questionable. This may be one reason why ibn Hisham omitted the story. Another reason is that the story is inconsistent with general understandings of how the Qur'an was received and of the personality of Muhammad. I feel a little uneasy about this line of argument, as it seems to reject possibly contradictory material because it appears incoherent with core beliefs, but I may be being too much of a rationalist here.

I wonder whether past or contemporary scholars have identified any other passages attributed to Ibn Ishaq but unique to Al-Tabari that are considered to be based on weak or inauthentic traditions. If so, this would reinforce the 'technical' argument that the omission of the 'Satanic Verses' passage from Ibn Hisham's edition was because hadith scholars of the time had considered the tradition unsound.

Finally, I emphasise that I am writing as an interested layperson, and have no claim to be an expert or scholar in these matters. So please correct my errors.

the_new_mr

Very good post here hivizman. You're a good addition to this forum.

hivizman

the_new_mr wrote:

Very good post here hivizman. You're a good addition to this forum.

You flatter me. I'm just someone who believes that we in the west (and that includes Ireland!) need to understand the religion or belief system that motivates around 20% of the world's people in such different ways. I also have a lot of time to read things at present.:)

Talking to Muslim friends, there does seem to be a range of opinions on what the 'infallibility' of the Prophet Muhammad actually implies: does it relate to issues where he was explaining or expanding on the Qur'an, or does it go all the way down to his daily actions and his personal preferences? Should Muslim men really have to grow beards, wear their trousers above the ankle and use a stick instead of a toothbrush, for example, because Muhammad is reported to either do these things or encourage them?

the_new_mr

You're not even a Muslim?!!

Actually, I wasn't sure whether or not you were a Muslim. It was 50-50 in my head. Was kinda hard to tell from your posts. Although, perhaps I didn't do my proper research and read all your posts

Anyway, extra kudos for knowing what you do without even being a Muslim

As for your questions. As far as I know, the Prophet Mohamed (peace be upon him) was infallible in all things he instructed in religion.

Any incorrect action was soon corrected by God via the angel Gabriel. For example, the Sura Abasa describes how the Prophet momentarily ignored a blind man who wanted to ask about Islam because he was too busy talking with some of the leaders of Mecca in a critical meeting. Anyone such as ourselves might have done the same thinking that it's a simple question of priorities. He was corrected by God immediately. The first few verses of that Sura.

Abasa:1-12
"(The Prophet) frowned and turned away,; Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).; But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual understanding)?; Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?; As to one who regards Himself as self-sufficient,; To him dost thou attend; Though it is no blame to thee if he grow not (in spiritual understanding).; But as to him who came to thee striving earnestly,; And with fear (in his heart),; Of him wast thou unmindful.; By no means (should it be so)! For it is indeed a Message of instruction:; Therefore let whoso will, keep it in remembrance.;"

As for beards, trousers and the miswak (toothbrush stick). The beard is, as far as a majority of scholars are concerned, an option but something good if you do it.

The trousers thing is usually a big misunderstanding. The hadith mentioning this was with reference to men who wear their galabaya (cloak? robe?... looks like a nightgown) very long. The Prophet said that these people would be punished. Then, Abu-Bakr (one of the Prophet's closest companions and one of those promised entry into paradise) said that he has his robe over his ankles. The Prophet then said that those he means are those who do it out of pride (it was custom at that time to keep your robe long so that people wouldn't walk near you thereby making you stand out and look more important). Personally, my jeans go over my ankles... but I don't do it out of pride

And as for the miswak. There were no toothbrushes in those days but, as far as I know, if you do it just to emulate the Prophet then it's a positive thing. You should try one by the way. They come in flavours!

hivizman

the_new_mr wrote:

You're not even a Muslim?!!

And as for the miswak. There were no toothbrushes in those days but, as far as I know, if you do it just to emulate the Prophet then it's a positive thing. You should try one by the way. They come in flavours!

Been working a lot this week so haven't been able to look at the boards. Thanks for the comments - I was being a bit flippant with remarks on beards, etc. as you probably realised, but I'll have to track down the miswak some time.

I was thinking a lot about the infallibility issue when reading the posts on the thread about stoning, and I went to the translations of the hadiths available on the usc/msa website. None of the stoning stories could be described as unequivocal, and there was an interesting hadith in Bukhari:

Volume 8, Book 82, Number 824:
Narrated Ash-Shaibani:

I asked 'Abdullah bin Abi 'Aufa about the Rajam (stoning somebody to death for committing illegal sexual intercourse). He replied, "The Prophet carried out the penalty of Rajam," I asked, "Was that before or after the revelation of Surat-an-Nur?" He replied, "I do not know."


The reference to Surat-an-Nur is, I assume, to the verse 24:2 that sets out flogging as the punishment for 'zina', which I understand means both adultery involving married people and sexual relations involving unmarried people. So why did the jurists subsequently endorse stoning when arguably it had been overruled by a subsequent revelation in the Qur'an?

I was interested to read the story of the blind man from Surah Abasa (80), which by coincidence I'd been reading yesterday, along with the story of the time that the angel Gabriel appeared to Muhammad and some of his companions and asked Muhammad what Islam, faith (iman) and proper conduct (ihsan) were (Bukhari Vol. 1, Book 2, No. 47). In their different ways, both these stories show a human dimension, and even though I know that the 'Satanic Verses' episode that this thread touched on earlier is historically questionable, it is psychologically plausible in the same way as the story of the blind man. They both show that, even if Muhammad is not utterly infallible, God would not allow him to persist in error, either in terms of fundamentals of faith or in terms of human courtesy.

No, I'm not a Muslim, but as someone brought up in the Church of Ireland I'm sure that there are those who would think me not a very good Christian.:)

the_new_mr

hivizman wrote:

The reference to Surat-an-Nur is, I assume, to the verse 24:2 that sets out flogging as the punishment for 'zina', which I understand means both adultery involving married people and sexual relations involving unmarried people. So why did the jurists subsequently endorse stoning when arguably it had been overruled by a subsequent revelation in the Qur'an?

I am wondering the same question actually. As far as the Arabic which I speak is concerned, the word 'zina' is used for both extra-marital sex (adultery) and sex whilst single (fornication). I've also heard the word zina being used by scholars when talking against it. So, the question remains.

hivizman wrote:

even though I know that the 'Satanic Verses' episode that this thread touched on earlier is historically questionable, it is psychologically plausible in the same way as the story of the blind man. They both show that, even if Muhammad is not utterly infallible, God would not allow him to persist in error, either in terms of fundamentals of faith or in terms of human courtesy.

Yeah, I know what you mean. But, as I said earlier, the satanic verses idea is really quite ridiculous even if we only consider the fact that the prophet absolutely despised idolatry without considering the countless times the Quran warns against it etc.

Have to say, I'm interested to know what you mean about the human dimension concerning the hadith of Gabriel vising the Prophet and his companions. For anyone who doesn't know the hadith:

"While we were one day sitting with the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, there appeared before us a man dressed in extremely white clothes and with very black hair. No traces of journeying were visible on him, and none of us knew him.

He sat down close by the Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, rested his knee against his thighs, and said, O Muhammad! Inform me about Islam." Said the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam, "Islam is that you should testify that there is no deity save Allah and that Muhammad is His Messenger, that you should perform salah (ritual prayer), pay the zakah, fast during Ramadan, and perform Hajj (pilgrimage) to the House (the Ka'bah at Makkah), if you can find a way to it (or find the means for making the journey to it)." Said he (the man), "You have spoken truly."

We were astonished at his thus questioning him and telling him that he was right, but he went on to say, "Inform me about iman (faith)." He (the Messenger of Allah) answered, "It is that you believe in Allah and His angels and His Books and His Messengers and in the Last Day, and in fate (qadar), both in its good and in its evil aspects." He said, "You have spoken truly."

Then he (the man) said, "Inform me about Ihsan." He (the Messenger of Allah) answered, " It is that you should serve Allah as though you could see Him, for though you cannot see Him yet He sees you." He said, "Inform me about the Hour." He (the Messenger of Allah) said, "About that the one questioned knows no more than the questioner." So he said, "Well, inform me about the signs thereof (i.e. of its coming)." Said he, "They are that the slave-girl will give birth to her mistress, that you will see the barefooted ones, the naked, the destitute, the herdsmen of the sheep (competing with each other) in raising lofty buildings." Thereupon the man went off.

I waited a while, and then he (the Messenger of Allah) said, "O 'Umar, do you know who that questioner was?" I replied, "Allah and His Messenger know better." He said, "That was Jibril. He came to teach you your religion.""