10.Without testimony, the message and information of a sinner (Faasiq, Faajir) is not credible. If the Prophets were sinners, they would have to present testimony for their every saying. However, their every saying supercedes hundreds of testimonies! Hadrat Khuzaima Ansaari رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ said this when he gave testimony about the camel Rasoolullahصلی اللہ علیہ وسلم bought, “O Prophet of Allahعزوجل! The business of this camel is not greater than Jannat, Jahannam, Hashr and the resurrection. When we have brought Imaan on these things from listening to you, why can’t we accept your mere saying that you have purchased this camel?” As a reward, Sayyiduna Rasoolullahصلی اللہ علیہ وسلم made this one Companion’s testimony equal to two men.

OBJECTIONS AND ANSWERS

TO THE PROPHETS BEING SINLESS (MA’SUM)

Before detailed explanations to the objections on this topic, we present an abridged answer as an introduction to this section. Through this, many objections will be removed in advance.

The sinlessness (ismat) of the Prophets is a Qat’ee (explicitly proven from the Quran and Hadith) and Ijma’I (agreed upon by the Ummah) belief. If those Ahadith which prove the sins of the Prophets are not successive (Mutawatir) and explicit (Qat’ee}, but are famously reported by a single narrator (Mash’hoor Aahaad), they are all rejected and are not credible, even if the narration is sound (Sahih). Commentating of Surah Yusuf, Tafseere-Kabeer states that those Ahadith which go against the Prophets are not acceptable. To accept a narrator to be false is easier then believing a Prophet to have committed sin. Those Quranic verses and Mutawatir Ahadith which seemingly associated lies or any other sin to the Prophets are necessary to be interpreted. Their visible meaning will either not be what is meant, or it will be said that these misunderstandings were prior, to their receiving of Prophethood. Under the ayat, “لا ینال عھدی الظلمین ” Mulla Jeewan رضی اللہ تعالٰی عنہ states, “و اذا تقرر ھذا فما نقل عن الانبیاء مما یشعر بکذب او معصیۃ فما منقولہ بطریق الاحاد فمر دود و ما کان منقو لا بطریق التواتر فمصروف عن ظاھرہ ان امکن و الا فمحمول علی ترک الاولی او کونہ قبل البعثۃ”-Tafseeraat-e-Ahmadia

Madaarijun-Nubuwwah states that these types of ayats are similar to Mutashabihaat ayats, in which silence is necessary. – Vol. J. Chapter 4

Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام, on the other hand, was not a sinner by eating the wheat nor was he punished.

Allahعزوجل possessing all the perfect qualities (i.e. Authority. Knowledge, Independence, etc.) is an explicit and unanimous belief. According to their visible meanings however, some ayats seem contrary to this, “They deceive Allahعزوجل and He deceives them,” 26.2’ “They cheated and Allahعزوجل; cheated,” 2616 “Wherever you turn, YOU will find the face of Allahعزوجل “ 26.21 “Allah’sعزوجل !O hand is upon their hands ... ,” 26,28 and Allahعزوجل became leveled on the Arsh,,,26.29

Allahعزوجل is free from having a face. Hands, being level, cheating and deception.

However, the above ayats are visibly proving these things for Him. Thus, it is llCCessary for these verses to be interpreted, rather than applying their literal meaning to Allahعزوجل. Whoever accepts Allahعزوجل to be defective based on these verses is a person without Imaan. Similarly, anyone who takes the visible meaning of some ayats and uses it to establish and believe that the Prophets were sinners or polytheists is someone without deen. Insha-Allah, this is one answer to destroy the foundations of all objections. Still, we present detailed replies to the objections:

OBJECTION 1: Shaitaan disobeyed Allahعزوجل by Dot making the Sajda and Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام also disobeyed Him by eating the forbidden Wheat. Both have been equally punished. The former was removed from the group of Angels and the latter was removed from Jan nat. Iblees and Adam were both equal in sin and punishment, but after some time, Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام attained forgiveness by repenting while Ibless didn’t. This proves that Hadrat Adam was not sinless.

Answer – Firstly, by not making the Sajda, Shaitaan became a criminal who disobeyed Allahعزوجل and attained punishment. Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام, on the other hand, was not a sinner by eating the wheat nor was he punished. This is because Shaitaan didn’t intentionally reject performing the Sajda alone. In thinking that the command of Allahعزوجل was wrong, he also debated with Him, saying, “خلقتنی من نار و خلقتہ من طین” The punishment for this was, “فاخرج منھا فانک رجیم، وان علیک لعنتی الی یوم الدین” It’s as if his punishment was being exiled to the earth, where he would remain vile and disgraced until Qiyaamat.

Regarding Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام, the Holy Quran announced several times that he had forgotten the order and did not intend committing sin, “فنسی و لم نجدلہ عزما”-­Surah Taahaa, Verse 115

The Holy Quran also states, “فازلمھما الشیطان”, and “فوسوس لھما الشیطان”.

In short, Shaitaan has been made responsible for this incident, not Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام, because it was said that he was deceived and consequently made a mistake. The deception occurred in the following way: Allahعزوجل told Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام not to go near the tree, so Shaitaan said, “You haven’t been stopped from eating from it, only from going near it. So don’t. I’ll bring it to you to eat.” He continued, “This tree’s product is beneficial for you. I am your well-wisher.” Shaitaan said this swearing an oath on Allahعزوجل. Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام thought that no one would swear a false oath on Allahعزوجل’s name and that the prohibition of “Don’t go near it” was a Tanzeehi prohibition. Refer to a more detailed study on this in my commentary (Tafseer) of the Holy Quran under this ayat. So, there was a difference in action and practice.

Now remains the question of his descent to the earth. It must be remembered that Allahعزوجل originally created Hadrat Adam علیہ السلام for this very purpose (to be His successor (Khalifa) on earth), “انی جاعل فی الارض خلیفۃ”- Surah Baqarah, Verse 30