secondriseofislam@blogspot.com

Tuesday, 4 March 2014

Concept of Infallibility of Prophet and 'Qadyaniat' (3)



     
Another argument put forth against the concept of infallibility of prophet is the incident of killing of a person at the hands of hazrat Musa (a.s). let us look into the relevant text stating the incident. The relevant Quranic verses are quoted below:
And he entered the city at a time of inattention by its people and found therein two men fighting: one from his faction and one from among his enemy. And the one from his faction called for help to him against the one from his enemy, so Moses struck him and [unintentionally] killed him. [Moses] said, "This is from the work of Satan. Indeed, he is a manifest, misleading enemy” (al-qasas-15).
“ He said: My Lord! surely I have done harm to myself, so forgive me," and He forgave him. Indeed, He is the Forgiving, the Merciful” (al-qasas-16).
 He said, "My Lord, for the favor You bestowed upon me, I will never be an assistant to the criminals” (al-qasas-17).
“And he became inside the city fearful and anticipating [exposure], when suddenly the one who sought his help the previous day cried out to him [once again]. Moses said to him, "Indeed, you are an evident deviator” (al-qasas-18).

These above quoted verses are continuous verses of sura al-qasas. These verses reflect that fighting was going on between two persons- one belonged to Musa’s (a.s) faction (Israeli) and the other one to his enemy (Egyptian). Obviously the Egyptian belonged to the ruling nation and the Israeli belonged to a slave nation. When the Israeli appealed to hazrat Musa (a.s) to help him in that fighting, it implied that he (Israeli) was in a weak position viz a viz Egyptian; if he (Israeli) had been in a strong position, he (Israeli) would not have appealed Musa (a.s) to help him (Israeli). It means when hazrat Musa (a.s) entered into the fight, he (a.s) was, in fact, supporting a weak slave against a strong person of ruling nation. It may not be seen as a wrong act or a mistake with intent. Now  it is appropriate to refer again to what is the mistake with intent, which a prophet cannot be fallen a prey of. As mentioned already in part (2) of this article, there are two constituents of mistake with intent:
i.        The act is false/wrong at the time of commission whether or not the fallacy/wrongness of the act is known to the actor;
            ii.          The act is performed in the way the actor intends to perform it.
  
           As hazrat Musa’s (a.s) act was not a wrong act or a false act at the time of commission of this act, hazrat Musa’s (a.s) act cannot be called a mistake with intent. Though the hazrat Musa’s (a.s) act turned out to be false later on, when the Egyptian got killed, but this act was not false or wrong at the time when it was commissioned. The act constituted a punch; when the punch was being delivered, this act was not a wrong or false act. It means the act was not wrong or false at the time it was commissioned. However, when the Egyptian got killed, the act turned out to be false/ wrong. But the condition of a mistake with intent, as mentioned above, is that the act should be wrong or false at the time of commission.  The proof of the fact that hazrat Musa’s(a.s) act was not wrong or false at the time of commission is provided in verse 16-al-qasas which states:
        “ He said: My Lord! surely I have done harm to myself, so forgive me," and He forgave him. Indeed, He is the Forgiving, the Merciful” (al-qasas-16).
        This verse quoted above states when (after killing the Egyptian) hazrat Musa (a.s) prayed to Allah for forgiveness, Allah forgave him. It may be appreciated when any wrong is done to a person, Allah does not forgive the doer unless the victim is compensated for. Even if the doer does not do wrong intentionally; even if it is a mistake with intent (done without knowing the wrongness of the act), if the act turns out to be harmful to another person, the doer has to pay some compensation for the harm done to the victim. But in the instant case, Allah forgave Musa (a.s) without making him paying for the killing; this fact shows that Musa’s(a.s) act was not a wrong/false at the time of commission. Therefore Musa's (a.s) act was neither a wrong likely to be compensated for nor was it a mistake with intent.  The wrong done by Mirza Ghulam Qadyani, stated in part (1) of this article was a wrong/false act at the time of commission; it was not an act which later on became wrong/false. Therefore Mirza's act was either wrong liable to be compensated or mistake with intent which prophets do not fall in. But hazrat Musa’s (a.s) act was not mistake with intent or wrong liable to be punished for (continued).


     
        
      
      




1 comment:

  1. Hi Arif,
    Very Good as always Keep on.

    ReplyDelete