Concept of Infallibility of Prophet and ‘Qadyaniat’ (6)

     

There is another argument presented against the concept of infallibility of prophets is relating to events leading to Hudaibia Pact. Qadyanis argue that our Nabi (s.a.w) left Madina for performing ‘umra’ (obviously under ‘wahi’/revelation) but ‘umra’ could not be performed and Muslims returned back to Madina after entering into Hudaibia Pact without performing ‘umra’. Qadyanis argue that our Nabi (s.a.w) could not understand the ‘wahi’ and committed mistake in understanding the ‘wahi’ (‘maazaAllah’). Let us thrash out this argument presented by Qadyanis.

The basic event leading to Hudaibia Pact was a dream in which our Nabi (s.a.w) saw that he (s.a.w) entered the premises of ‘Masjad e Haram’ alongwith his companions; that the key of ‘Ka,aba’ was given to our Nabi (s.a.w); that  our Nabi (s.a.w) along with his companions performed ‘tawaf e Ka,aba’ and performed ‘umra’; after that some people got their heads shaved and some got their hairs cut. After seeing this dream, our Nabi (s.a.w) informed their companions that he (s.a.w) along-with his companions would perform ‘umra’. Obviously this suggestion made by our Nabi (s.a.w) about performance of ‘umra’ was under the ‘wahi’. But Mecca’s non-Muslims were adamant to prevent our Nabi (s.a.w) from entering Mecca and were ready to fight for the purpose. When our Nabi (s.a.w) reached Hudaibia, the non-Muslims from Mecca sent their representative to negotiate with our Nabi (s.a.w) about the issue of performance of ‘umra’, and finally Hudaibia Pact was reached at whereby it was agreed that Muslims would get back that year and come next year to perform ‘umra’. Another important provision of this Pact was a truce between Muslims and Mecca’s non-Muslims for ten years. Our Nabi (s.a.w) along with his companions went Mecca next year and performed ‘umra’ accordingly.

This  Hudaibia Pact does not reflect that our Nabi (s.a.w) committed mistake with intent in understanding the ‘wahi’. It may be noted our Nabi (s.a.w), before leaving Madina, did not say that he (s.a.w) would perform ‘umra’ the same year. If our Nabi (s.a.w) performed ‘umra’ the next year, it was not contradictory to what our Nabi (s.a.w) said. A prophet’s wahi is always to be followed by the people. It is not necessary that every time an individual tries to act upon wahi, he would be succeeded in acting upon the ‘wahi’. For instance, sura Tauba-29 states:

  “Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah willingly while they are humbled".

Now if Muslims, in pursuance of this above mentioned ‘wahi’ /verse, enter into war against non-Muslims, it is not necessary that every time Muslims will fight, they will be victorious and able to receive ‘jizyah’ from the non-Muslims. It may happen that sometimes Muslims are defeated, or fight an even war, on their way to pursuance of the above mentioned verse. In the same way, our Nabi (s.a.w) received a ‘wahi’ and accordingly proceeded to perform ‘umra’. It was not necessary that our Nabi (s.a.w) would succeed in performing ‘umra’ in his first attempt to act upon his ‘wahi’. When our Nabi (s.a.w) declared he (s.a.w) would perform ‘umra’, he (s.a.w) did not specify that he (s.a.w) would be succeeded in performing  ‘umra’ in his first attempt to act upon his ‘wahi’; he (s.a.w) only stated that he (s.a.w) would perform ‘umra’, and it was what happened in the next year; the next year our Nabi’s (s.a.w) statement was fulfilled. If our Nabi’s (s.a.w) saying did not come true in his life (worldly apparent life), it might be believed that our Nabi (s.a.w) committed a mistake with intent or a wrong (maazaAllah). But it did not happen so; therefore we cannot say that our Nabi (s.a.w) or any other prophet may not be infallible.

Similarly another hadith is much quoted as an argument against the concept of infallibility of prophets. According to this hadith, our Nabi (s.a.w) saw Madina’s farmers cultivating dates crop in a specific manner; our Nabi (s.a.w) asked them why they were cultivating the crop in that specific manner; the farmers replied that method was more rewarding in cultivation of that crop. On this our Nabi (s.a.w) stated that another method may be more rewarding in cultivation of that crop. The farmers adopted the method suggested by our Nabi (s.a.w) but that method did not procure a good crop. This hadith is much quoted, proving that our Nabi (s.a.w) committed a mistake with intent (maazaAllah). Let us peep into this hadith to assess the authenticity of conclusion exacted out of it.

Actually dates crop is cultivated with different methods in different parts of the world. In one region, one method proves to be more rewarding; in another region, another method proves more rewarding. It may be noted that our Nabi (s.a.w) did not ask the farmers to adopt the method suggested by our Nabi (s.a.w); the farmers adopted that method on their own initiative. Actually our Nabi (s.a.w) was only providing the farmers an additional information that another method of cultivation exists which may also be more rewarding. Now it has been proved that in some regions the method of cultivation suggested by our Nabi (s.a.w) is more rewarding. Therefore we may say NO mistake with intent was committed by our Nabi (s.a.w) in this case.

In order to justify that prophets are not infallible, it is also argued that when prophets like hazrat Adam, hazrat Musa, hazrat Younus committed so called 'sin', such commission on their part has been called as 'zulm' which means these prophets have committed sin/mistake. This interpretation of word 'zulm' is wrong. In fact  'zulm' is not essentially a sin; 'zulm' may also be a deviation from the ideal standard. In religion some standards are fixed as the least standards which are required to be met with at any cost; whoever does not meet these least standards is said to have committed sin. Over and above the least standards are the higher standards which are not obligatory to meet with but are recommended to meet with for attaining higher spiritual levels [as explained in part (4)]. The violation of these higher standards is not called sin; however such violations may be called 'zulm' as 'zulm' is something deviated from its ideal/recommended position. Therefore the word 'zulm' used for prophets' mistake without intent (which may be more rightly called an accident instead of mistake) does not mean that the prophets had committed any sin (maazaAllah); the prophets' actions were 'zulm' because such actions caused things deviated from their recommended/ideal positions.

In order to justify Mirza Qadyani’s wrongs, Qadyanis argue that prophets may get partial understanding of wahi at a particular stage; prophet’s understanding of wahi may be completed in some latter stage. This argument presented by Qadyanis is not based on any 'sanad'/ valid text. This argument implies that 'wahi' and prophet's understanding of 'wahi' are two different things; it is a wrong concept. Actually, as has been stated in part (5), wahi and prophet's understanding of wahi is one and the same process. Wahi is revealed on the prophet's qalb/ mind; it means when wahi is revealed, the prophet becomes able to understand the wahi completely. The process of 'wahi' does not complete until the meanings of 'wahi' are completely understood by the prophet. That is why our Nabi (s.a.w), many a times has been directed in Quran, to act according to 'wahi' (not according to his (s.a.w) understanding of 'wahi'); this fact implies that 'wahi' and prophet's understanding of 'wahi' is one and the same process/thing. In other words, it is not possible that a prophet may get only a partial understanding of 'wahi'; a prophet always gets complete understanding/meanings of 'wahi', when 'wahi' is revealed to him. Even if Qadyani argument is accepted for a moment, Qadyanis need to differentiate between partial understanding and wrong understanding of 'wahi'. The wrong committed by Mirza, and mentioned in part(1), cannot be termed as partial understanding of ‘wahi’; it was actually wrong understanding of ‘wahi’. (first he says Masih would descend from the heavens; but later on he himself declares as Masih though he was not descended from the heavens). Mirza clearly lied and tried to deceive people. Prophets cannot commit wrongs nor  they can have wrong interpretation of 'wahi'.

We may conclude that prophets are always infallible. They are infallible in the sense that they cannot commit a mistake with intent or a wrong. A mistake with intent is an act which is false/wrong at the time when the act is committed, whether or not fallacy of the act is known to the actor. If the fallacy is not known to the actor at the time of commission of the act, such act is called mistake with intent, if the act is committed in the way the actor intends to commit it; if fallacy of the act is known to the actor at the time of commission, such an act is not only mistake with intent but also wrong liable to be punished for.

A mistake without intent is an act which is NOT wrong/false at the time of commission but later on turns out to be wrong/false. Such an act may not be called a mistake. Such an act may be more rightly called an accident. Prophets may not commit a mistake with intent or wrong liable to be punished; but they may fall a prey of accident which is no mistake. Qadyanis do not believe in infallibility of prophets because they cannot justify the wrongs done by their so called prophet (Mirza Qadyani), if they believe in infallibility of prophets.