Rethinking the Concept of Infallibility: An Epistemological, Ethical, and Historical Analysis

Rethinking the Concept of Infallibility: An Epistemological, Ethical, and Historical Analysis

Part 1: Introduction

The Responsibility of Belief

Before entering into the issue of the infallibility of prophets, we must address a fundamental question: Does a human being have free will in their beliefs? And if so, what is their responsibility regarding these beliefs?

The reality is that many of our beliefs, especially during childhood and adolescence, are formed unconsciously under the influence of our environment, family, and general culture. However, a person's moral and rational development brings them to a point where they can reflect upon, revise, and even transform these beliefs. At this stage,

در این افق، ایمان، عقل و اخلاق که از یکدیگر تفکیک‌ناپذیرند و در تعامل مستمر با یکدیگر به رشد و کمال می‌رسند می‌توانند به فهمی انسانی‌تر، اخلاقی‌تر و ژرف‌تر از دینداری یاری رسانند.

این مسیر در آینده در تحلیل مسئله «عصمت» و ارتباط آن با اخلاق و عقلانیت، به‌طور خاص‌تر پی‌گیری خواهد شد.

  ۲.۱. از مسئولیت باور تا معیارهای موجه‌بودن

اگر انسان در برابر باورهای خود مسئول باشد، آنگاه باید معیارهایی برای تشخیص باورهای موجه از ناموجه داشته باشد. در اینجا، معرفت‌شناسی، به‌ویژه در موضوع «باور موجه»، نقش کلیدی ایفا می‌کند. این مسئله نه‌فقط از منظر نظری، بلکه در زمینه‌هایی چون دین‌باوری، اخلاق و جامعه نیز پیامدهای گسترده‌ای دارد.

دو رویکرد مهم در این حوزه عبارت‌اند از: نظریه «فرایند قابل‌اعتماد» از آلوین گلدمن و نظریه «باورهای پایه» از آلوین پلنتینگا.

۲.۱.۱. فرایند قابل‌اعتماد (گلدمن):

در دیدگاه گلدمن، یک باور زمانی موجه است که از طریق فرایندهایی شکل گرفته باشد که معمولاً به حقیقت می‌انجامند، مانند ادراک حسی، حافظه یا تجربه دینی. فرد لازم نیست لزوماً بتواند دلایل باور خود را توضیح دهد، بلکه کافی است فرایند تولید باور به‌طور کلی درست‌کارکرد و قابل‌اعتماد باشد.

مثال کودک و باور به محبت والدین، نمونه‌ای از چنین فرایندی است. همچنین، در مورد باورهای دینی و فرهنگی، فرایندهای شکل‌دهنده‌ی آن‌ها باید در پرتو شرایط تاریخی و تحولات جدید، مجدداً ارزیابی شوند تا موجه‌بودن آن‌ها در زمان حاضر سنجیده شود.

۲.۱.۲. باورهای پایه (پلنتینگا):

در نظریه پلنتینگا، برخی باورها مانند باور به گذشته، وجود دیگر اذهان یا باور دینی صادقانه، «بنیادی» شمرده می‌شوند و در صورتی‌که در «شرایط شناختی سالم» شکل گرفته باشند، برای موجه‌بودن نیازی به استدلال بیرونی ندارند.

بنابراین، صرف ناتوانی در ارائه دلیل روشن، باور دینی را ناموجه نمی‌سازد؛ بلکه باید نحوه و زمینه‌ی پیدایش آن بررسی شود. با این حال، حتی باورهای پایه نیز در برابر شواهد تازه یا نقدهای جدی، می‌توانند نیازمند بازبینی باشند. بی‌تفاوتی نسبت به دلایل مخالف و پافشاری بر باوری که زیر سؤال رفته، ممکن است مسئولیت اخلاقی و معرفتی فرد را مخدوش کند.

۲.۲. از موجه‌بودن معرفتی تا مسئولیت اخلاقی: پیوند با معنویت

در ادامه باید پرسید: آیا موجه‌بودن معرفتی، برای اخلاقی‌بودن یک باور کافی است؟ فرض کنیم فردی باوری را بر پایه حافظه یا تجربه شخصی پذیرفته، اما هرگز به بررسی شواهد مخالف نپرداخته و نسبت به قرائن جدی، بی‌اعتنا بوده است. در این صورت—even اگر نظریه‌هایی چون گلدمن یا پلنتینگا آن باور را معرفتاً موجه بدانند—باز هم ممکن است آن فرد از نظر اخلاقی، مسئول باشد.

در این‌جا، «اخلاق باور» نه‌تنها به‌مثابه بُعدی اخلاقی، بلکه به‌مثابه وجهی معنوی از زیست انسانی، وارد میدان می‌شود. انسانی که حقیقت‌طلب است، اگر تنها به روان‌شناختی‌بودن باور خود بسنده کند و از تأمل، گفت‌وگو، و پاسخ‌گویی به چالش‌های عقلانی شانه خالی کند، در واقع پیوند خود را با اضلاع سه‌گانه‌ی معنویت—یعنی «خود»، «دیگری»، و «امر متعالی»—تضعیف کرده است.[3]

اخلاق باور یادآور می‌شود که جست‌وجوی حقیقت، تنها وظیفه‌ای معرفتی نیست؛ بلکه مسئولیتی اخلاقی و تجربه‌ای معنوی است که با ژرف‌ترین لایه‌های روح انسانی پیوند می‌خورد. کسی که باوری را صرفاً به دلیل زمینه فرهنگی یا تربیت دینی پذیرفته، بی‌آنکه با دیدگاه‌های متنوع مواجه شود یا تأمل شخصی عمیق کند، نه‌تنها از مسئولیت عقلانی خویش دور مانده، بلکه مسیر پرورش روح و پیوند اصیل با خود، دیگران، و آن مبدأ متعالی که ما خدایش می‌نامیم را نیز به تأخیر انداخته است.

Thus, spirituality is manifested not in “having a belief,” but in “the manner of living with a belief”—in honesty in the pursuit of truth, and in commitment to oneself, the other, and God. And when the sides of the triangle of relation to self, others, and the Transcendent enter into constructive dialogue with one another and synergize, it is then that this triangle of knowledge and ethics transforms into the dynamic circle of spirituality.

2.3. Religious Belief and the Burden of Responsibility toward the Other

Accepting a belief, particularly a religious belief, is not merely a personal and inner choice. Beliefs, because they influence our behavior and speech, carry a social burden and intersubjective responsibility. Every religious belief, especially when it enters the public sphere and human relations, can play a role in the destiny and freedom of others. Hence, it cannot be justified solely within the private domain.

On this basis, the responsibility of religious belief is redoubled, particularly when it leads to judging others or issuing moral and divine decrees about human beings. A person who, in the name of religion, calls another sinful or impure, polytheist or apostate, or who, by virtue of their faith, claims a right for themselves and a lesser right for the non-believer, must ask: How, with what sources, and to what extent was this belief accepted justly and ethically? Have they also looked from the perspective of the one being judged? Have they listened to alternative viewpoints? On the seat of judgment, have they put themselves in the place of the other?

In such a climate, the ethics of belief does not confine itself to responsibility toward truth, but also raises responsibility toward human beings. In other words, if a person holds a religious belief that violates the rights of others or leads to discrimination and exclusion, they are responsible for asking: Was this belief formed justly? And are its consequences compatible with ethical principles and human dignity?

Thus, responsible faith is a faith that is measured not only from the perspective of textual or doctrinal rightness, but also from the perspective of human, social, and ethical consequences. Such faith is formed on the basis of fairness, dialogue, and compassion; and it steps out of the narrow circle of self-righteousness into the open space of ethical coexistence and meaning-seeking.

2.4. From Contextual Understanding to the Rational Evaluation of Religious Belief

In this section, we encounter one of the key distinctions in epistemology: the difference between “reality” as experienced and “truth” as a trans-experiential and transpersonal judgment. Realities are experienced depending on perceptual conditions, social position, and historical contexts, whereas “truth” as a justified judgment requires transcending these settings and reaching a more critical level. Many epistemological theories, such as “contextual understanding” and “conditional justified belief,” emphasize the manner in which cognition is formed within specific situations, without necessarily denying truth.

From this perspective, “contextual understanding” and especially “background beliefs” gain particular importance; for our beliefs, particularly religious beliefs, are often formed and find meaning in specific contexts—including cultural, historical, and psychological ones. These beliefs usually grow not in a rational vacuum, but within institutions, rituals, linguistic patterns, and social expectations. In other words, what an individual considers “religious truth” is often a reflection of the contextual systems that have surrounded them.

Within this framework, the epistemological critique of religious belief cannot merely rely on direct evidence and formal arguments. Rather, a deeper analysis of the origin, texture, and functions of background beliefs must be provided. This critique enables us to recognize the distinction between a “justified true belief” and an “accepted background belief” and to avoid conflating social tradition with religious truth.

Thus, a rational and ethical re-examination of religious beliefs, especially those unconsciously entrenched in cultural contexts, is an unavoidable necessity for a faithful, responsible, and rational life. This re-examination not only aids in a more accurate understanding of religious truth but also places the individual in a position of moral and rational responsibility for their beliefs. For faith, not only as an internal and personal category but also as a moral and rational choice for which one must be accountable, depends on human will.

2.5. Dimensions of the Epistemological Analysis of Religious Belief

This section examines the effects and various dimensions of the epistemological analysis of religious belief, paying particular attention to key points that influence the understanding and application of religious beliefs at the individual and social levels.

2.5.1. Impact on Elites and Decision-Makers
Religious, cultural, and political elites have a profound impact on society, and therefore their theoretical frameworks regarding religious beliefs can lead to cultural and social changes. The epistemological analysis of beliefs such as infallibility, especially among elites, can prevent the obstruction of rationality and reformability, and instead pave the way for strengthening rationality, social reform, and reducing authoritarianism. Hence, this analysis is not merely a theoretical choice for elites but a moral responsibility.

2.5.2. Avoiding Baseless Dogmatism
Some religious beliefs appear sacred and self-evident but in reality lack rational and argumentative support. The epistemological analysis of these beliefs acts as a purification process, preventing ideas incompatible with rationality from entering the realm of religion. This not only protects against imposed and irrational religiosity but also safeguards society from religious deviations and the emergence of superstitions and baseless prejudices.

2.5.3. A Prerequisite for Intellectual Transformation in Religious Societies
Intellectual transformation and religious reforms are impossible without re-examining the nature of religious beliefs. History shows that reasoning and reflection on religious beliefs have been among the fundamental principles of the prophets' missions. It is only through the rational assessment of beliefs that religious reform, justice-centeredness, and ethical orientation can be realized. Therefore, rethinking the nature of religious beliefs is considered a necessary precondition for any intellectual transformation in religious societies.

2.5.4. For Those Given to Reflection and Responsibility
These discussions are not necessary for everyone, but for those who seek to link rationality with faith, such as students, researchers, and religious thinkers, these analyses are considered an epistemological and moral obligation. These individuals bear responsibilities such as engaging in critical dialogue, epistemic reform, and moral reconstruction. In a world where religion faces rational and social challenges, their mission in reconstructing and correctly explaining religious beliefs becomes doubly important.

2.6. Epistemological and Ethical Examination of the Belief in the Prophet's Infallibility

The belief in infallibility, in the Shi'a tradition, has predominantly been understood in a broad and comprehensive manner; meaning that not only the conveyance of revelation, but all of the Prophet's behaviors, decisions, and actions in all individual, social, and political spheres are also subject to infallibility.

However, from the perspective of epistemology and the ethics of belief, questions arise: Is this level of infallibility epistemically justified? Was this belief obtained under sound cognitive conditions and through reliable methods? Or did social, psychological, and cultural contexts play a decisive role in its formation?

Here, one must pay attention to dangers such as epistemic dogmatism, cognitive closure, and a priori immunization from criticism. If all of the Prophet's actions are considered absolutely sacred, the possibility of their rational and historical analysis disappears. Consequently, emulating the Prophet turns into mere, mechanical imitation, without the possibility of creative and dynamic adaptation to new circumstances.

2.6.1. Confronting Historical Evidence and Rational Critique

For religious exemplarity to play a constructive and living role in the faith-life of a person, the possibility of historical and cultural analysis of the Prophet's actions must be preserved. In this case, they can be examined with a critical eye and their relationship with contemporary rationality can be assessed. If a person merely trusts their religious teachings, which are based on a particular understanding of religion, and without any critical inquiry, extends the belief in the Prophet's revelatory infallibility to other areas of his life, they may in fact have fallen short of their rational responsibility to examine the evidence and engage in critical thinking in this regard. Neglecting historical evidence and failing to engage in rational critique can call an individual's moral responsibility into question, because in such a state, instead of following reason and logical evidence, the individual has fallen into the trap of prejudice and bias.

This analysis does not imply disrespect or a weakening of the Prophet's sacred status; rather, it is an attempt to integrate faith-loyalty with critical rationality. Rational critique and the examination of historical evidence, especially on issues such as infallibility, not only improve religious understanding but will also play an effective role in the personal and social development of individuals and religious communities. Therefore, epistemological and ethical analyses of religious beliefs, particularly on complex issues like infallibility, must be conducted with care and responsibility, and the possibility of critique and questioning must always be preserved within them.

2.7. From Epistemic Justification to Responsibility in Religious Beliefs

2.7.1. Posing the Question

We saw earlier that in some contemporary epistemological theories, such as Alvin Goldman's "Reliabilist Theory" and Alvin Plantinga's "Theory of Properly Basic Beliefs," a belief can be justified even if the individual cannot provide conscious, articulable reasons for it. But is such justification sufficient for a belief to be ethical?

Let us suppose a person accepts a belief without examining the evidence or by ignoring serious counter-evidence. This belief may have been transmitted to them through reliable processes (such as memory or sincere religious experience) and may be epistemically defensible, according to some theories. However, two important points must be considered here:

Firstly, epistemic justification means that the processes leading to the belief are generally truth-conducive and can be defensible under specific conditions. In other words, an individual may have accepted a belief that is epistemically justified, even if they cannot fully articulate the reasons for it.

At the same time, however, an individual's moral responsibility for their beliefs differs from epistemic justification. Even if a belief is epistemically justified, the individual is still responsible for actively examining it, paying attention to opposing viewpoints, and not treating it with prejudice or negligence. In other words, an individual's moral responsibility for their beliefs depends on their commitment to seeking truth and critical thinking, not merely on whether that belief is epistemically justified.

Therefore, if a person accepts a belief without considering counter-evidence or without careful examination, even if this belief is epistemically justified, they still have a moral responsibility to think more about it and make a more conscious decision.

This issue becomes even more significant when we turn to religious beliefs. For example, suppose a person believes in the Prophet's infallibility in a specific area solely because they grew up in a religious family or live in a society with a strong religious culture. If this person conducts no research into the historical sources or logical arguments on this matter, can it be said that this belief is correct and acceptable simply because of its cultural origin? And more importantly, is the mere justification of this belief in terms of its source sufficient for the individual to have no need to think, investigate, and take responsibility for it? This is where epistemology enters the field and connects with the issue of our moral responsibility for our beliefs (the ethics of belief).

2.7.2. The Difference Between Epistemic Negligence and Cognitive Humility

We said that theorists like Goldman emphasize that a belief is justified when it is obtained through a reliable mental process; a process that, in similar situations, generally leads us to true beliefs. This process can include sensory perception, memory, correct reasoning, or even certain forms of religious experience.

On the other hand, Plantinga believes that some beliefs, such as belief in the existence of other minds, or even religious belief under certain conditions, are formed in a "basic" way, without the need for external arguments, and can be considered justified if the cognitive faculties are functioning properly.

For example, if an individual is exposed to historical or rational evidence that challenges the common conception of infallibility in the political sphere, but avoids confronting this evidence or dismisses it without reflection, it can no longer be said that they have simply come to believe based on a "reliable" process; rather, they have failed in their rational and ethical duty.

Here we must point to a fundamental epistemological distinction that directly affects the ethics of belief and the individual's moral responsibility: epistemic negligence and cognitive humility. Epistemic negligence means accepting beliefs without reflection, examination, and critique of evidence; while cognitive humility means being ready to examine and accept revisions to one's beliefs.

This distinction becomes particularly important in religious and moral issues, where the individual must, in addition to preserving faith, base their actions on logical and responsible beliefs according to evidence and rational reflection.

Conclusion

In this section, we emphasized the necessity of precise and responsible analyses regarding religious beliefs. These beliefs should not be accepted merely based on emotions or superficial evidence, but require revision and critical study. Furthermore, the individual's moral responsibility for their religious beliefs necessitates careful and informed examination, even if the initial beliefs appear epistemologically justified.

.

3. An Epistemological, Ethical, and Historical Analysis of Infallibility

(A Conceptual Examination and Fundamental Distinctions in the Concept of Infallibility)

In this section, we attempt to analyze the issue of infallibility by relying on the foundations of epistemology and the ethics of belief. Our presupposition is that in the rational analysis of beliefs, especially religious beliefs, one cannot merely suffice with traditional teachings from sacred texts, but must also examine the rational and ethical conditions for the justification of those beliefs.

First, we must distinguish between different types of infallibility:

Infallibility in receiving and conveying revelation

Infallibility in the realm of individual and ethical conduct

Infallibility in the position of social management and governance

The most important epistemological question: Is the belief in infallibility in each of these domains justified? And if so, on what basis?

3.1 Infallibility in Receiving and Conveying Revelation

Most Muslim theologians, both Shia and Sunni, believe that the Prophet is immune from error in receiving and conveying revelation. This view, even if its reason is trust in religious texts, can also be defensible to some extent from an epistemological perspective; because:

A messenger who is the intermediary for communication with God, if they err in delivering the message, the divine purpose is violated;

Believers can no longer be assured of the religion's authenticity.

It is stated in the Quran:

«وَ ما يَنْطِقُ عَنِ الْهَوى * إِنْ هُوَ إِلَّا وَحْيٌ يُوحى»

(He does not speak from [his own] desire. It is not but a revelation revealed.)

(Surah An-Najm, verses 3 and 4)

And also:

«إِنّا نَحْنُ نَزَّلْنَا الذِّكْرَ وَ إِنّا لَهُ لَحَافِظُونَ»

(Indeed, it is We who sent down the Qur'an and indeed, We will be its guardian.)

(Surah Al-Hijr, 15:9)

From a theological perspective, these verses indicate that revelation, in its essence, is not fallible; however, one cannot definitively conclude from this that the Prophet is infallible in other domains.

3.2 Infallibility in Social Affairs and Governance

In this domain, the issue of infallibility becomes more complex. Numerous Quranic and historical pieces of evidence indicate that the Prophet of Islam was susceptible to error, or at least the possibility of it, in executive matters such as war, judgment, and consultation. Among the most important verses is the verse of consultation:

"So by mercy from Allah, [O Muhammad], you were lenient with them... and consult them in the matter..."

(Aal-e-Imran, 3:159)

This verse:

• Calls the Prophet to consult with others, which indicates the possibility of error in social decision-making;

• Contains a recommendation for pardon and seeking forgiveness for his companions, which speaks to the human aspect of the Prophet's relationships and interactions with others;

• According to interpretations such as those of Tabari and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, was revealed after the Battle of Uhud, where the Prophet's consultation with the youth regarding the military strategy for that battle played a significant role in its unfortunate outcome.

Despite this, the Quran not only does not reproach the Prophet but calls him to continue consulting. This indicates that being experiential and seeking counsel, contrary to common perception, is not a sign of weakness but rather a manifestation of the Prophet's humanity.

3.3 Infallibility and the Prophet as a Role Model

From the perspective of some theologians, absolute infallibility is a necessary condition for the Prophet to be a role model. However, a counter-argument can be presented: if the Prophet is immune from error in all areas, how can he be a role model for fallible human beings?

The Quran emphasizes the humanity of the Prophet:

"Say, 'I am only a man like you...'"

(Al-Kahf, 18:110)

And also:

"There has certainly been for you in the Messenger of Allah an excellent pattern..."

(Al-Ahzab, 33:21)

On this basis, the Prophet's status as a role model stems from his humanity, his acceptance of responsibility, and the possibility of experience, error, and correction; not from being superhuman and possessing absolute immunity.

3.4 Epistemological Summary: A Rational Assessment of the Belief in Infallibility

From the perspective of the epistemology of religious belief, the belief in the absolute infallibility of the Prophet in all domains (including revelation, judgment, politics, and community administration) carries a heavy rational and epistemic burden. This belief is only justified if it has support independent of theological presuppositions.

• In the domain of revelation and its conveyance, numerous verses support the Prophet's infallibility:

• Such as "Nor does he speak from [his own] inclination" and verses concerning trustworthiness in conveying the revelation.

• However, in social and political domains, not only is such support absent, but evidence such as the command to consult, the revision of certain decisions, and the Prophet's experiential nature confirms the possibility of error in these areas.

Therefore, the belief in infallibility in all fields, especially in worldly affairs, lacks sufficient rational justification for epistemological generalization.

3.5 Ethical, Social, and Political Consequences of Believing in Infallibility in Worldly Affairs

The belief in absolute infallibility in social domains, beyond its epistemic challenges, has significant ethical and political consequences[4]:

• Restricting the possibility of critique, revision, and rational participation in the religious sphere;

• The formation of religious authoritarianism in the name of immunity from error;

• The suppression of reform efforts with labels such as "irreligiosity" or "insolence toward the Infallible";

• The weakening of individual responsibility and accountability in decisions.

Furthermore, accepting absolute infallibility can lead to the abdication of moral responsibility on the part of leaders, for if the possibility of error does not exist, the meaning and necessity of correction, repentance, and accountability also vanish.

Ultimately, this belief can challenge the relationship between religion and reason and reduce the moral responsibility of following a model to blind obedience.

3.6 The Relation Between Infallibility and Free Will: Conflict or Balance?

If infallibility is conceived as complete immunity from error in all actions, then what becomes of the status of moral free will, human trial, and spiritual growth?

The Quran introduces the Prophet as a human being engaged with experience, consultation, and transformation. Accepting such an image is not only compatible with free will and accountability but also transforms the Prophet into a genuine model for humanity—a model from whom one can learn, rather than merely praise.

3.7 Rethinking Infallibility and New Opportunities in Religious Ethics and Knowledge

Distinguishing between infallibility in the realm of revelation and fallibility in the domain of worldly management paves the way for dynamism and rethinking in religious understanding:

• Instead of being a tool for the cessation of thought, infallibility can become a criterion for separating areas open to critique from areas of definitive guidance;

• The ethical and historical analysis of the conduct of the Prophet and the Imams gains legitimacy;

• Religiosity is elevated from imitation to responsibility.

3.8 Infallibility in Social, Political, and Governmental Spheres: The Boundary Between Perfection and Immunity

The time has come to examine, with a detailed reflection, the historical, Quranic, and ethical instances of infallibility in various contexts to understand:

• Which actions of the Prophet are of the nature of revelatory guidance and which are subject to human expediency;

• How infallibility manifested in the Prophet's practice and what consequences it entailed.

3.8.1 Should Infallibility Be Extended to All Dimensions of the Prophet's Conduct?

From the perspective of epistemology and the ethics of belief, extending infallibility from the realm of revelation to all behavioral dimensions of the Prophet—from judgment to politics—faces serious challenges.

In these arenas, the Prophet acted as an ethical, diligent, and learned human being, but this does not mean that every decision of his was immune from error. A case-by-case examination of the Prophet's conduct in these spheres enables a more precise understanding of the boundaries of infallibility.

3.8.2. Human Error: Not a Threat, but a Sign of Being a Model

Error in political and social decision-making is not necessarily the result of moral weakness or deficiency in faith, but often arises from limited information, time pressure, or the complexity of circumstances. Such a possibility of error not only does not diminish the Prophet's status but highlights his human dimension and enhances his capacity to serve as a model. A Prophet who, within human conditions, confronts obstacles and ambiguities while still walking the path of justice and goodness is a real and comprehensible model for his followers; for he demonstrates that a human being, despite fallibility, can be successful and inspiring in adhering to values.

3.8.3. The Conflict Between Comprehensive Infallibility and Being a Human Model If the Prophet possesses comprehensive and absolute infallibility in all arenas, including social and political affairs, he will no longer be a representative of human experience. In such a case:

• His status as a model is emptied of meaning; because the actions of a Prophet in whom error is impossible are neither comprehensible nor followable for ordinary human beings who lack such immunity.

• Feelings of alienation and failure among believers increase; for the Prophet's performance, instead of reflecting a human experience, will appear as a superhuman manifestation, and thus, following him will be perceived not as an attainable model but as an unreachable ideal.

3.8.4. Undermining Collective Reason and Participation in Governance

Belief in absolute infallibility in governmental affairs can marginalize the role of collective reason and consultative participation. This is despite the clear command in the Holy Quran: "وَشَاوِرْهُمْ فِي الْأَمْرِ" (and consult them in the affairs), which indicates the fundamental place of consultation in the governance process.

If the Infallible is deemed to know the best possible decision beforehand, without the possibility of error, the role of others' participation is reduced from a genuine action to a symbolic form. Consequently:

• The decision-making process is emptied of transparency;

• Public accountability is weakened;

• and in the eyes of posterity, extending infallibility to the domain of governance paves the way for the formation of structures that, by relying on the inherited legitimacy of the Infallible, distance themselves from critique, accountability, and collective rational participation.

3.8.5. Exegetical and Historical Evidence for the Possibility of Error in Non-Revelatory Domains

The history of early Islam and exegetical sources narrate instances where the behavior or decision-making of the Prophet of Islam was subject to divine admonition or critique. From the perspective of some exegetes, this evidence indicates the possibility of error or imprecise decisions in areas outside the domain of receiving and conveying revelation:

• The Incident of the Captives of Badr: After the Battle of Badr, the Prophet decided to free some of the polytheist captives in exchange for ransom. In response to this decision, verse 67 of Surah Al-Anfal was revealed:
  «ما کانَ لِنَبِیٍّ أَن یَکُونَ لَهُ أَسْرَى حَتّى یُثْخِنَ فِی الأَرْضِ...»
  This verse has been considered by many exegetes as a divine reprimand for that political decision. From the perspective of religious epistemology, this admonition shows that even the Prophet's decisions in the political arena were subject to ethical and divine judgment.

• The Incident of "He Frowned and Turned Away": During the Prophet's conversation with the leaders of Quraysh, a blind man named Abdullah ibn Umm Maktum, who was seeking the truth, was neglected. The opening verses of Surah Abasa (1 to 10) explicitly address and reprimand this behavior. Some exegetes consider these verses a sign of the Prophet's lapse in communicative prioritization; a lapse that, although accompanied by a religious intention, was deemed to require reconsideration from an ethical standpoint.

3.8.6. Reflection of Theological and Historical Views on the Limits of Infallibility

In the history of Islamic thought, various theological schools have offered diverse interpretations of the scope and nature of infallibility. This diversity of approaches indicates that the issue of infallibility is not a definitive matter but a thought-provoking subject requiring fresh epistemological analysis within the context of the times:

• Mu'tazila: This rationalist theological school, emphasizing divine justice and the role of reason in ethical judgments, largely limited the Prophet's infallibility to the domain of conveying revelation. In their view, error in political or social domains, as long as it did not contradict God's justice, was not only possible but a natural and acceptable matter.

• Ash'arites: Relying on absolute divine will and power, the Ash'arites considered the scope of infallibility to be broader than the Mu'tazilite interpretation. In their view, since the source of all actions is the divine will, error occurs from the Prophet only if divine wisdom necessitates it. However, in some readings, the Ash'arites also considered minor errors or those not contrary to Sharia as possible, but deemed these cases devoid of significant moral or epistemological weight.

• Imami Shi'ism: This school, to preserve the religious authority and exemplary status of the Prophet, offers the most extensive interpretation of infallibility. In this view, infallibility is considered not only in receiving and conveying revelation but in all ethical, social, political domains, and even inner intentions, such that the Prophet never commits a sin or an intentional or inadvertent error.

3.8.7. Ontological Analysis of Infallibility: The Place of the Holy Spirit in the Existential Structure of the Divine Human

One of the complementary approaches in analyzing the infallibility of prophets is attention to the division of the human spirit in Islamic theosophy and mysticism. According to the works of sages such as Mulla Sadra and mystics like Ibn Arabi, the human spirit possesses levels which, in order of existential proximity to the Origin of Being, are:

1) The Spirit of Life (rūḥ al-ḥayāt) (related to the vegetative and animal faculties),
2) The Spirit of Power (rūḥ al-quwwa) (pertaining to the active faculties),
3) The Spirit of Desire (rūḥ al-shahwa) (the center of wants and inclinations),
4) The Spirit of Faith (rūḥ al-īmān) (the locus of faith-based and ethical perceptions),
5) The Holy Spirit (rūḥ al-qudus) (the level connected to the World of Command and Divine effusion).[5]

These levels are not discrete parts, but rather graded manifestations of a single reality at various planes of existence.

In this intellectual framework, the Holy Spirit has an active presence in the prophets and saints and is the source of their connection to the Realm of Dominion (malakūt) and divinely inspired knowledge (ʿilm ladunī); as Mulla Sadra, in the Asfār Arbaʿa, considers the Holy Spirit to be the locus of the descent of Divine effusion and the basis of infallibility.[6] Consequently, infallibility too must be analyzed not at the level of practical intellect or even faith-based intellect, but at a higher level, namely at the level of the Holy Spirit.

If error occurs at the level of the Spirit of Faith—a level at which the believer, through spiritual struggle, attains degrees of certainty and guidance, but is still exposed to outward slips or imprecise understandings—then it can be analyzed that:

Prophets, in that realm of their being which is connected to the Holy Spirit, are immune from error and sin, but in the lower realms of their being, which are employed for communication with people and the management of society, actions may issue from them that become the subject of Divine reminder or admonition. These actions are not a sign of the negation of infallibility, but rather an expression of the complexity of the human realms and the necessity of a multi-layered analysis of infallibility.

From this perspective, critiques such as the incident of the captives of Badr or the incident of "He frowned and turned away" (ʿAbasa wa Tawallā), not only do not contradict infallibility, but demonstrate the movement of the prophets through the various levels of the human spirit and the necessity of humanity's gradual growth from the realm of the Spirit of Life to the Holy Spirit.[7] This understanding prevents us from reducing infallibility to a formal or merely epistemological proposition and gives it meaning within the heart of mystical ontology. In such a view, infallibility is not a static state, but a spiritual and dynamic quality that crystallizes in the existential wayfaring of the divine human being.

Analytical Conclusion

The various perspectives on infallibility demonstrate the diversity and dynamism within Islamic thought. This diversity calls us to reconsider the concept of infallibility and its consequences, especially in governance and religious accountability. Belief in infallibility is not only a theoretical issue, but a practical one that influences how social and governmental errors are addressed. A more precise examination of the functions and practical consequences of belief in infallibility in social and political realms can contribute to the improvement of governance and human accountability. The Quranic and exegetical evidence in the fourth part of the article will clarify these issues in detail.

.

4. Quranic Evidence in Support of Tark-i Awlā or Non-Revelatory Error of the Prophets

In continuation of the preceding analyses and with regard to the emphasis on the human limitations of the prophets, some verses of the Quran clearly show that at times, the prophets also, indirectly and as perfect human beings on a human scale, faced issues where more was expected of them. These instances, which are often known as "Tark-i Awlā" (abandoning the better course), are particularly worthy of reflection in areas such as society, politics, and judgment. In these verses, we see that the prophets, despite enjoying the station of revelation and close connection with God, still faced challenges in their decision-making that sometimes required correction or reminder from God. This reality itself remarkably demonstrates the human limitations of the prophets and teaches us the lesson that even in the most divine of human beings, human imperfections and errors exist, especially in social and political conditions.

The important point is that the traditional interpretation has usually explained these instances within the framework of “tark-i awlā” (abandoning the preferable); but if we look at these verses with an epistemological approach, especially from the perspective of “virtue epistemology” and theories concerning “justified belief and action,” the possibility of a new perspective emerges. This viewpoint, relying on ethical and epistemic criteria, guides us toward a deeper understanding of the meaning of the prophets’ infallibility—an understanding that defines infallibility not as the complete negation of error in all domains, but as ethical accountability, honesty in confronting the truth, and readiness to correct decisions within the context of human situations. This approach sees the prophet not as an infallible superhuman, but as an exemplary human being and a role model on the path of growth and interaction with revelation.

Below are Quranic evidences that emphasize this point, demonstrating the fact that prophets were not immune to non-revelatory errors, although they were always progressing toward correction and spiritual growth:

1. Surah ‘Abasa, Verses 1–2

Verse: “عَبَسَ وَتَوَلَّىٰ أَن جَاءَهُ الْأَعْمَىٰ”

Translation: He frowned and turned away, because the blind man came to him.

Exegetical Analysis:

Allameh Tabatabai, in his commentary on this verse, interprets it as “tark-i awlā”; that is, abandoning an action that was more fitting. From his perspective, this behavior of the Prophet was not out of disregard or pride, but due to giving preference to an apparent expediency; namely, conversing with the Quraysh elders to guide them. However, from a monotheistic viewpoint and the more precise perspective offered by the Quran, this preference is not considered complete or ideal. In fact, with this statement, the Quran offers a form of instruction in etiquette to its Prophet, without deeming his behavior a mistake.

Zamakhshari also interpreted it as a form of divine instruction in etiquette for the Prophet, indicating that even the Prophet must adhere to ethics and attention to the oppressed more than what apparent expediency demands.

2. Surah At-Tahrim, Verse 1

Verse: “يَا أَيُّهَا النَّبِيُّ لِمَ تُحَرِّمُ مَا أَحَلَّ اللَّهُ لَكَ تَبْتَغِي مَرْضَاتَ أَزْوَاجِكَ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ”

Translation: O Prophet, why do you prohibit what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives? And Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.

Exegetical Analysis:

Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, in his commentary on this verse, considered the Prophet’s action as a form of intense personal caution and a sign of his extreme asceticism and piety. From his perspective, the Prophet, due to his great attention to satisfying those around him and avoiding the slightest suspicion in his family life, was strict with himself and prohibited for himself something that God had made lawful for him.

3. Surah At-Tawbah, Verse 43

Verse: “عَفَا اللَّهُ عَنكَ لِمَ أَذِنتَ لَهُمْ حَتَّىٰ يَتَبَيَّنَ لَكَ الَّذِينَ صَدَقُوا وَتَعْلَمَ الْكَاذِبِينَ”
Translation: May Allah pardon you! Why did you give them permission, until it became clear to you who were truthful and you knew the liars?

Exegetical Analysis:

Allameh Tabatabai, in his commentary Al-Mizan, emphasizes that the verse’s opening with the phrase “عَفَا اللَّهُ عَنكَ” clearly shows that this address is not a reproach for a sin, but a gentle admonition from God; an admonition whose purpose is education and training within the framework of prophetic dignity, not censure or reprimand.

From his perspective, the incident dates back to a time when a group of hypocrites, under various pretexts, sought to avoid participating in the Battle of Tabuk. The Prophet (PBUH), based on the outward appearance of their words and without discerning their hidden intentions, granted them permission. This decision, within conventional, rational, and even religious frameworks, was acceptable. Nevertheless, the verse reminds us that it would have been better if the Prophet had waited until the true intentions of the individuals became apparent through their behavior, and a practical distinction emerged between the truthful and the liars.

Allameh considers this action to be in the category of tark-e-awla (abandoning the better course): that is, abandoning what held greater priority in terms of divine expediency and the wisdom of prophethood.

4. Surah Al-Anfal, Verse 67

Verse: "It is not for a prophet to have captives until he has thoroughly subdued the land..."

Translation: It is not fitting for a prophet to have captives until he has thoroughly prevailed in the land...

Exegetical Analysis:

Zamakhshari considers this verse to be concerned with the preference for perceived expediency and a natural inclination toward spoils. From this perspective, the verse is a warning to prophets that, when facing political and military conflicts, they must prioritize higher expediencies and interests over material and apparent gains.

5. Surah Taha, Verse 121 (Prophet Adam)

Verse: "Then they both ate from it, and their private parts became apparent to them, and they began to fasten over themselves from the leaves of Paradise..."

Translation: Then they both ate from it, and their shame became apparent to them, and they began to stick leaves from the Garden onto themselves...

Exegetical Analysis:

In Tafsir al-Mizan, this act is considered a tark-e-awla and is related to the context of the earthly paradise. From a mystical viewpoint, this action is presented as a weakness in humanity and an excessive focus on physical pleasures. God had warned Adam not to eat from a specific tree, but Adam, driven by desire, erred and thereby distanced himself from the divine sanctuary.

6. Surah Al-Anbiya, Verse 87 (Prophet Yunus)

Verse: "And remember Dhul-Nun, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not constrain him..."

Translation: And remember the Man of the Fish, when he went off in anger and thought that We would not take him to task...

Exegetical Analysis:

Zamakhshari has interpreted this episode as indicative of Prophet Yunus's hastiness in abandoning his prophetic mission. According to his view, God had commanded Yunus to remain among his people and continue calling them. However, following his disillusionment with his people's rejection of the divine message, he left them before permission to depart was issued by God.

This action arose from anger or despair, not from disobedience, but this very haste in decision-making was reproached by God. In effect, the prophet assumed that leaving the people would be without particular consequence. This event not only emphasizes the human dimension of the prophets but also demonstrates a form of divine training and education for them: that prophethood is not a purely rational or emotional matter, but requires patience, submission, and complete commitment to God's plan.

7. Surah Al-Qasas, Verse 15 (Prophet Musa)

Verse: "So Musa struck him with his fist and killed him. He said, 'This is of Satan's doing...'"

Translation: So Moses punched him and killed him. He said, "This is from the work of Satan..."

Exegetical Analysis:

Allameh Tabatabai evaluates this act as arising from religious zeal and a human reaction. At this moment, Moses acted out of anger and religious courage, but due to a lack of attention to the spiritual and moral dimensions, the result was a human error.

8.Surah Sad, Verse 24 – Prophet Dawud and Hasty Judgment

Verse:
"He said, 'He has certainly wronged you by demanding your ewe to add to his ewes...'"
And then: "And Dawud became certain that We had tried him, so he asked forgiveness of his Lord..."

Translation:
(David said in judging between two men:) Indeed, he has wronged you by demanding your ewe to add to his ewes... (He had judged based on appearances without hearing the other party's words.) Then David realized that We had tested him, so he asked forgiveness of his Lord... (He realized that this was a divine test and repented of his mistake.)

Exegetical Analysis:
In some commentaries, including Al-Mizan, it is stated that Prophet David (peace be upon him) judged based on the statement of only one of the two parties before hearing the other's words. Although this judgment might appear just from an outward perspective, for a prophet who is a model of justice, it would have been more fitting to first hear the words of both sides. Therefore, this behavior is considered an instance of "Tark-e Awla" (abandoning the more worthy and superior course of action).

9.Surah Al-Qasas, Verses 18–19 – Prophet Moses and Fear of Retribution

Verse: ﴿فَأَصْبَحَ فِى ٱلْمَدِينَةِ خَآئِفًۭا يَتَرَقَّبُ...﴾ and further: ﴿إِن يُرِيدُ أَن يَقْتُلَكَ كَمَا قَتَلْتَ نَفْسًۭا بِٱلْأَمْسِ...﴾

Translation:
In the morning he was in the city, fearful and vigilant (anticipating an incident)...

Exegetical Analysis:
The fear referred to in this verse is naturally a human reaction, but some commentators, including Tabarsi in "Majma' al-Bayan," believe that from the perspective of a prophet of such lofty stature, this behavior is considered a kind of "Tark-e Awla." This means that a prophet should have complete trust in divine assistance and help, rather than succumbing to fear and anxiety. In such a situation, fear of an enemy or human vengeance should not hinder complete trust in God and prophethood.

10. Surah Al-Qasas, Verses 15–16 – Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) Verse: ﴿فَوَكَزَهُ مُوسَىٰ فَقَضَىٰ عَلَيْهِ﴾ (Al-Qasas, 15)

Translation: So Moses struck him with his fist and caused his death.

Exegetical Analysis:
This act was done in defense of an oppressed person, but because it resulted in the death of a man, Moses saw it as a mistake and sought forgiveness: ﴿رَبِّ إِنِّي ظَلَمْتُ نَفْسِي فَاغْفِرْ لِي﴾ (Al-Qasas, 16)
Some commentators, such as Allameh Tabatabai and Fakhr al-Din al-Razi, have considered it "Tark-e Awla," for a prophet who is to be a medium of guidance must appear with the utmost self-restraint and vigilance.

.

5. From Seeking Forgiveness to Epistemic Humility: Re-reading the Supplications and Admissions of the Infallibles in Critique of a Model of Absolute Infallibility

One of the important pieces of evidence in the epistemological analysis of the infallibility of the Infallibles is the seeking of forgiveness and confessions attributed to them in Quranic and narrative texts. These pieces of evidence clearly show that the Infallible is not a superhuman being immune to any growth or challenge, but an exemplary human who, on the path of divine guidance, sometimes faces lapses, imperfect judgment, or moral exigencies. Even if the errors attributed to them are considered not jurisprudential "sins" but Tark-e Awla or weakness in judgment, from an ethical and epistemological perspective, they can still be seen as signs of the possibility of revision and correction. Such an understanding not only does not tarnish the status of the Infallible but also makes emulating them more realistic and accessible.

The Prophet's seeking of forgiveness in the Quran continues even after victories such as the Conquest of Mecca:

﴿فَسَبِّحْ بِحَمْدِ رَبِّكَ وَاسْتَغْفِرْهُ ۚ إِنَّهُ كَانَ تَوَّابًا﴾ (An-Nasr: 3)

This command at the peak of success is not merely an expression of devotion, but a response to the possibility of Tark-e Awla or human errors in the decision-making process.

The supplication of Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) after disobeying the divine prohibition also indicates acceptance of responsibility and the need for mercy:

﴿رَبَّنَا ظَلَمْنَا أَنفُسَنَا...﴾ (Al-A'raf: 23)

The same approach is seen in the supplication of Prophet Noah (peace be upon him) when his request conflicted with God's wisdom:

﴿وَإِلَّا تَغْفِرْ لِي وَتَرْحَمْنِي...﴾ (Hud: 47)

Here too, awareness of human limitation and acceptance of responsibility are prominent.

A hadith from the Prophet relates:

"I seek forgiveness from God and repent to Him more than seventy times a day."

Justifying these acts of seeking forgiveness merely by deeming them didactic or symbolic is incompatible with the sincerity of the character of the Infallibles, who are exemplars of truthfulness. From an epistemological perspective, such seeking of forgiveness is a manifestation of humility before the truth and a readiness to revise past understandings.

This tone is also evident in the supplications of Imam Sajjad, peace be upon him. The prayers of the Sahifa Sajjadiyya possess a human melody, not the speech of a being immune from error. The language of these prayers is replete with confession of existential poverty, moral urgency, and a constant need for guidance:

"My God, sins have clothed me in the garment of my abasement..."

If we consider these expressions to be merely instructive and performative, we have emptied them of moral authenticity.

In the first prayer of the Sahifa, it is also stated:

"And sins have driven me to the severance of hope..."

This expression depicts the ultimate human desperation before the closed doors of repentance; a point where the Infallible, like any other human being, sees himself in need of grace and forgiveness.

On the other hand, in the verse "and consult them in the matter" (Al Imran: 159), the recommendation to consult with others is an emphasis on the role of collective reason in completing the Prophet's understanding, not merely a symbolic act.

Based on this evidence, an alternative model of infallibility can be proposed: infallibility not as an inherent and static immunity, but as continuous divine guidance within a human, dynamic, and fallible process. In this framework, seeking forgiveness is not a sign of deficiency, but a sign of moral maturity and readiness for revision.

.

6. Conclusion

Analytical investigations have shown that the absolutist interpretation of the infallibility of the prophets, especially in social spheres and the management of human affairs, faces serious epistemological and exegetical challenges. By citing verses that in some way affirm "abandoning the better course" (tark-i awla) and divine admonitions, and the analyses of scholars such as Allameh Tabatabai and Zamakhshari, infallibility can clearly be limited to the domain of receiving, preserving, and conveying revelation, and not beyond it. This perspective, which excludes infallibility from encompassing all aspects of the prophets' lives, not only reduces the burden of theoretical challenges but also provides a deeper and more human understanding of the prophets and their model for humanity.

The errors attributed to the prophets in human realms arise from the exigencies of their being human, but they are not of the kind of ordinary lapses; rather, they were limited and guidable errors that were often accompanied by divine admonitions. This point is particularly significant because it highlights the role of the prophets not as individuals immune from mistake, but as humans committed to reform and guidance in various spheres of human life. In this regard, infallibility, as a characteristic that protects the prophets from major errors in the domain of receiving revelation, not only distances them from error but also facilitates the ability to emulate them.

This ethics-oriented and realistic approach to infallibility, in addition to preserving the sanctity of the prophets, paves the way for a rational discourse and rethinking within exegetical traditions. Any claim of absolute infallibility must be carefully explained with valid philosophical, exegetical, and historical evidence, and only then can it be defended.

The prayers and acts of seeking forgiveness of the Infallibles, especially in the Sahifa Sajjadiyya, present a humanistic and humble image of the Infallibles. This image, contrary to what is observed in some traditional interpretations, shows that the Infallibles, by accepting the moral responsibility of life and a readiness to revise their actions, are evolving human beings who have never distanced themselves from the process of humanity. In this sense, infallibility is proposed not only as a divine attribute but also as a moral model for human beings.

In conclusion, the author emphasizes the importance of ethicality and rationality in religious analyses and welcomes scholarly critique and open dialogue in this field. The aim of this research is not to destroy existing beliefs, but to enhance religious understanding within the framework of rationality and ethics. This process will only be possible with an open, questioning approach and a deeper understanding of religious concepts, the outcome of which is the attainment of a transcendent and responsible understanding of religious issues.

.

Footnotes:

[1] Conditionally justified belief: Refers to beliefs that appear correct and acceptable under specific conditions and based on the information and reasons available to us. These beliefs are valid as long as conditions have not changed and new information has not been obtained.

[2] Situated understanding: This means that our understanding of truth or reality always takes place within a framework of individual, cultural, historical, and social backgrounds. We never approach truth with a neutral mind or one empty of presuppositions; rather, our view of truth is influenced by the contexts of our intellectual, experiential, and linguistic life.

[3] For a beautiful and supplementary discussion on spirituality and its connection with the three dimensions of relationship with oneself, others, and the Transcendent, see section 3-3-2 of the article "An Exposition of Dr. Farhad Shafti's View" presented in the series of sessions The Quran and Three Fundamental Questions.

[4] For an example of a dialogue between two different perspectives on the scope of infallibility, see: The debate between Dr. Abdolrahim Soleimani Ardestani and Dr. Javad Ala' al-Muhaddithin on the Didarnews program, available to watch on Aparat.

[5] Ibn Arabi, Al-Futuhat al-Makkiyya, Vol. 1, Chapter 27 (On the ranks of the spirit and the Perfect Human).

[6] Sadr al-Din Shirazi, Al-Hikma al-Muta'aliya fi al-Asfar al-'Aqliyya al-Arba'a (The Transcendent Theosophy in the Four Intellectual Journeys), Vol. 8, Chapter 7 (On the descent of revelation and the infallibility of prophets).

[7] Allameh Tabatabai, Al-Mizan fi Tafsir al-Quran, commentary on the verse "And He sent down upon them the Spirit of Holiness to make you steadfast and to reassure your hearts," Surah An-Nahl, verse 87