|
Does Infallibility Force One Not to Commit Sins?!
1. The same individual says that the infallibility which manifested itself in al-Zahra’ (A.S.) was the result of the environment and the iman surrounding her and wherein she lived and grew up because it was an environment of belief, purity, virtue and righteousness. It is clear that this statement implies something which requires a bold and sensitive question: What if al-Zahra’ (A.S.) had lived in another environment, in one stained with vices and abominations?! What if someone else other than her had lived in the same environment? Will the result be the same? Some women did, indeed, live in such a stained environment, so why was the case not so?
2. Despite all of this, we find the same person talking about the “formulation” of infallibility, implying endorsement of the theory saying that the Almighty “forces” some people (to be infallible), a theory whose error has been proven and which Ahl al-Bayt (A.S.) rejected, saying that there is no forcing nor commissioning but something in-between. I say that this raises more than one bold and sensitive question. Had the environment had the major influence, what is the meaning of infallibility being formulated, granted by a direct divine boon, without any means, be it an environment or anything else?! There is another question: Why were these individuals chosen for “obligatory” divine “formulating” infallibility? Why did anyone else not win from among the people?! Why do we work hard and suffer, earning little, while they have the supreme degrees although they did not work hard nor exert themselves like us?! Here is yet another question: Should not one who voluntarily resist the temptation of committing a sin, or voluntarily does a good deed, in his lifetime, fighting his inclinations and lower instincts, be better than all the prophets and wasis who were “formulated” and “obligated” to be infallible?! Add to the above another question: Does this not mean that the infallible person deserves no praise nor rewards for his acts of adoration, for having obeyed the divine orders?[1] There are other question marks with which we cannot deal in detail in this brief research.
3. Perhaps in order to avoid the consequences of the last question, the same individual went back to say that “formulating” infallibility is regarding avoiding the committing of sins which the infallible person cannot commit. As for acts of obedience to the Almighty, the freedom of choice remains as is, and there is no divine obligation in their regard. This actually is preached by the Ash`aris who interpreted infallibility as “the ability to obey (God’s orders) and the inability to disobey Him.”[2] I say that I do not wish to go into details in making a distinction between obedience and disobedience. Rather, I contend myself with referring to the following:
FIRST: Leaving aside acts of obedience is by itself an act of disobedience. One, therefore, cannot afford to leave them out. How can he, then, have a choice in doing or not doing them, and what do you mean when you say that he has the option regarding particular acts of obedience?!
SECOND: Such a distinction lacks evidence, and nothing leads to it. Rather, it is merely judging things. Why not reverse the case and give him the option to leave aside disobedience while being obligated to do acts of obedience...? What is noteworthy here is that when he had to face these questions, he once resorted to cite al-Balkhi, who says that rewards for obedience are granted out of God’s favors, not because His servant deserves them, and once to what some claim that one who deserves to be rewarded is, indeed, rewarded out of God’s favors. This, like al-Balkhi’s, is a statement unworthy of anyone’s attention due to the evidence that obedience is earned when one deserves it, not because of preference. The evidence referred to above is this: Obedience is a hardship mandated by Allah upon His servant. If there is no purpose behind it, it is then oppression and senseless, something too ugly to be attributed to the all-Wise One. But if there is a purpose behind it, if it comes from Him, the most Exalted One, it is false because He is not in need of anything at all. But if it is relevant to the obligated person, and if the purpose is to harm him, it would be ugly oppression. But if it is for one’s own benefit, it must have been right for the Almighty to initiate it for the benefit of His servant; obligation will then become senseless. But if it is not initiated by the Almighty, and it requires obligating so that one may be worthy of its benefit, it will then be exactly what is required. The outcome is this: Rewards are granted because someone earns them, not because they come by preference. As regarding al-Balkhi’s statement, it is wrong from its foundations because he derives his conclusion from the assumption that an obligation is mandated as means to thank the Almighty for His blessing, so one does not deserve because of it any rewards. Rewards are granted as a favor from the most Exalted One. There is no doubt that this statement is erroneous. What we are discussing is what is pleasant and what is ugly. Wise people consider it ugly that someone is preferred over another by receiving a blessing then is obligated to thank the Giver for it without his receiving any rewards for carrying out the same obligation. They consider it a shortcoming and attribute it to love for power and authority and the like of such ugly meanings which do not come from the all-Wise One; so, we have to say that rewards are earned, deserved. The ultimate goal is that it can be said, though this statement does not agree with what al-Balkhi says who also contradicts it and rejects it, that although Allah, Praise to Him, is the Owner of everything, and His ownership makes Him the Originator in deciding the initiation of the rewards for those whom He owns for their good deeds, but, having determined this under the label of “wages,” granting them for it many times its worth, making it a divine law, it enters the circle of deserved rewards after it had not been there. Because of the above, reason does not permit that Allah should grant those who disobey Him and withhold it from those who obey him. Had rewards been initiated out of His favors, this would have been permissible. This is similar to the case of a man who decided to grant his son a prize if he passed his school examination. If the son passes, he will demand his father to give him the prize, considering himself wronged and insulted if he did not receive it, let alone if his father gives it to his brother who did not pass it. |