Infallibility of Imams: Difference between revisions

*'''Impossibility of regress:''' If the Imam were not infallible, then another Imam would be required to guide him and correct his mistakes. This second Imam would also need to be infallible. If he were not, a third Imam would be necessary, and so on, leading to an infinite regress, which is impossible. Therefore, the chain must end with an Imam who is infallible and makes no mistakes.

*'''Obligation of obedience:''' If the Imam were to make a mistake, it would become obligatory to dissociate from him and forbidden to obey him. However, this contradicts the [[Verse of Ulu l-Amr]], which commands the obedience of the Imams. Therefore, the Imam must be infallible.

*'''Defeat of purpose:''' The purpose of appointing an Imam is for people to follow him in their affairs. If the Imam were not infallible and committed sins or mistakes, this purpose would be defeated, as people could no longer trust him.

*'''Degradation of status:''' If an Imam were to commit sins, his status would become lower than that of other sinners, since his knowledge of God and religion is greater, and his intellect is more perfect. This would result in a more severe divine punishment, a scenario that is incompatible with the exalted status of an Imam.

The philosophical arguments establish the infallibility of the Imams without identifying specific individuals. [[Jafar Subhani]] argues that all the reasons given for the [[infallibility of prophets (a)]], such as the fulfillment of the prophetic mission's objectives and gaining the trust of the people, also apply to the infallibility of the Imams. In his view, the infallibility of the Imams is essential for a denomination like [[Shiism]], where the role of the Imamate is considered a continuation of the prophetic mission. It would be impossible to continue this mission without the infallibility of the Imams.

Quranic verses such as the Trial of Ibrahim Verse, Ulu l-Amr Verse, al-Tathir Verse, al-Sadiqin Verse, al-Mawadda Verse, and al-Salawat Verse have been cited as evidence for the infallibility of Imams.

In the argument based on the al-Ibtila Verse, it is asserted that the general statement "My pledge does not extend to the unjust" implies that anyone who was ever unjust is disqualified from being an Imam. Therefore, the verse suggests the infallibility of Imams both during and before their Imamate. [[Al-Fadil al-Miqdad]] presents the argument from this verse as follows: a non-infallible person is unjust (first premise); an unjust individual is not qualified for the Imamate (second premise); therefore, a non-infallible person is not qualified for the Imamate, meaning the Imam must be infallible. Shiite scholars interpret the phrase "My pledge" in verse 124 of [[Qur'an 2]] as referring to the covenant of Imamate.

In their appeal to the Ulu l-Amr Verse, Shiite scholars argue that the verse commands unconditional obedience to the "Uli al-Amr" (those vested with authority). This command implies the infallibility of the "Ulu l-Amr." This is because if they were not infallible and could commit sins or errors, God's wisdom and justice would not allow for the command of absolute obedience to them. Based on certain hadiths, Shias believe that "Uli al-Amr" refers to the Shiite Imams.