Do Prophets make mistakes?
-
So if the messenger is irrelevant why should it bother you whether he is a sinner or he is not? And in what way the fact that I think he is not a sinner makes the messenger more or less relevant and so much for the message. If the message is relevant, it is relevant, the messeger doesn't give or take, and if the messenger is irrelevant, mistake or no mistake, sin or not sin, he is still irrelevant, provided that, whatever he is, he brings the message faithfully. Jonny you speak of the potential for sin, of course, that is true, as true as the potential not to sin. Do I have to accept a dogma that all prophets and every human being has sinned and otherwise they were not prophets nor humans? I am not very fond of dogmas to start with.
Sunni "Was Muhammad infallible?" debate. No more to be said. If you can't look at that and understand its implications then I can't help.
Infallible messenger ==> Follow the infallible messenger ==> Eat, sleep and dump like the messenger.
-
Peace "huruf",
So if the messenger is irrelevant why should it bother you whether he is a sinner or he is not? And in what way the fact that I think he is not a sinner makes the messenger more or less relevant and so much for the message. If the message is relevant, it is relevant, the messeger doesn't give or take, and if the messenger is irrelevant, mistake or no mistake, sin or not sin, he is still irrelevant, provided that, whatever he is, he brings the message faithfully. Jonny you speak of the potential for sin, of course, that is true, as true as the potential not to sin. Do I have to accept a dogma that all prophets and every human being has sinned and otherwise they were not prophets nor humans? I am not very fond of dogmas to start with.
JK- No ofcourse you shouldnt accept dogmas. On the contrary YOU SHOULD BE OPEN to the possibility that they couldve sinned. Thats all. Dont boldly state "Prophets dont sin.period" thts being dogmatic.
On the other hand, I have not seen yet a definition of sin yet according to which I could say, ok I agree with you or I disagree with you concerning any particular instance, and please give aya, or if I agree or disagree with the definition. The need to convince people that the important thing is the message should really rely on proving that all prophets sinned? I do not agree. The proof should be in the message itself. If you have to start to beat around the bush, I don't know...
JK- i never claimed that all prophets necessarily sinned but they could have and i believe they certainly made mistakes and even had the potential to sin.
For the rest the rest, I believe everybody sinless until proved otherwise, prophets included, and if there is a chance that something is a mistake and not a sin, I will believe the former unless there is proof that it was indeed the second. And, please, give me the lie, if I am worng, I think that that is what the truthful Qur'an enjoins.
JK- Oh man wer not talking about guilty or innocence here. More the committing of mistakes and the potential to sin. Sectarians claim Prophets/mesengers are uniquely protected from comitting sins and this is unacceptable. There are many other categories of righteous people who cldve been assigned divine duties and hence were protected by GOD also by being rational and reasonable(eg siddiq/saints) but they still retained the potential to sin and made mistakes which indicates they were also still mortals. Sectarians on the other hand claim Muhammad was perfect.
Now that you have talked about sunnis and others and applied it to me, not that I am offended, but if we apply things, I would say also, without any intention of offending, of course, just to show, that your need for sin smacks me of christian creed with its overriding need for sin, original sin included, to justify a redeemer to die for us. And I might say as well that one of the things that didn't convince me of christianity and brought me to islam was this christian fixation with sin and lack of it in islam. May be you should concentrate on those who really divinize prophets or whatever with appropriate arguments and not extend them indiscriminately, for instance, to christians. I am quite happy with Humanity as I see it from the Qur'an, prophets and not sinners included.
JK- Again i can only repeat i was mainly talking about the potential to sin not that someone necessarily sins. To claim Porphets cannot possibly sin i.e. their ego can never overtake them is dogmatic and unacceptable IMHO. GOD Bless!
-
Peace "huruf",
JK- No ofcourse you shouldnt accept dogmas. On the contrary YOU SHOULD BE OPEN to the possibility that they couldve sinned. Thats all. Dont boldly state "Prophets dont sin.period" thts being dogmatic.
JK- i never claimed that all prophets necessarily sinned but they could have and i believe they certainly made mistakes and even had the potential to sin.
JK- Oh man wer not talking about guilty or innocence here. More the committing of mistakes and the potential to sin. Sectarians claim Prophets/mesengers are uniquely protected from comitting sins and this is unacceptable. There are many other categories of righteous people who cldve been assigned divine duties and hence were protected by GOD also by being rational and reasonable(eg siddiq/saints) but they still retained the potential to sin and made mistakes which indicates they were also still mortals. Sectarians on the other hand claim Muhammad was perfect.
JK- Again i can only repeat i was mainly talking about the potential to sin not that someone necessarily sins. To claim Porphets cannot possibly sin i.e. their ego can never overtake them is dogmatic and unacceptable IMHO. GOD Bless!
At no moment have spoken of infallibility, which is inhuman, but of conviction, which is perfectly human. The potential, yes is there, but conviction is strong, 100% sure? I suppose nothing is 100%, but it is pretty effective. I am fairly sure I would not drink poison, or cross a motor way with heavy traffic at 200 km/h. I also don't think that God chooses as prophets the worst human specimens, but rather of the best... So really I haven't got to stretch my credulity a lot to think that mostly they would not have sinned,if I have to believe anything at all, which really I don't think is the case, because as I have already said, the message is still the same.
Yes, I can see that you worry about the idolization of prophets, and I don't say you are wrong, you are right, from that point of view, if you keep to truth. From mine and from where I come, and I guess we get christian readers, insisting on this point as a capital thing will give them more reason to continue with the crucified for our sins, convinced at the same time of the enormous superiority of their doctrine.
Anyway we all do as we think best, so may God make the results as per our intention and not as per our ability.
Salaam
-
Peace "huruf",
At no moment have spoken of infallibility, which is inhuman, but of conviction, which is perfectly human. The potential, yes is there, but conviction is strong, 100% sure? I suppose nothing is 100%, but it is pretty effective. I am fairly sure I would not drink poison, or cross a motor way with heavy traffic at 200 km/h. I also don't think that God chooses as prophets the worst human specimens, but rather of the best...
JK- Yes you MAY be right there but then theres a chance your missing some other causal factors based on which GOD chooses whom to make a messenger/prophet. Like i said prophet is not the highest attainable status. A human without a specific job could be better in daily life than a certain messenger in his overall life, except at the point of delivering the Message. A messenger could also be chosen based on how much acceptance hes got in a certain tribe or the amount of skill/experince he/she possesses regarding eg speech, posture etc. Yes he should be righteous to a certain degree i accept but i believe thats not the only factor.
So really I haven't got to stretch my credulity a lot to think that mostly they would not have sinned,if I have to believe anything at all, which really I don't think is the case, because as I have already said, the message is still the same.
JK- If you think prophets most likely didnt sin or didnt comit mistakes deliberately fine. Just dont be dogmatic about it.
Yes, I can see that you worry about the idolization of prophets, and I don't say you are wrong, you are right, from that point of view, if you keep to truth. From mine and from where I come, and I guess we get christian readers, insisting on this point as a capital thing will give them more reason to continue with the crucified for our sins, convinced at the same time of the enormous superiority of their doctrine.
JK- Christians however do believe that Jesus was perfect and free from all faults and sins. Some ive heard also claimed that real Prophets didnt sin.
Anyway we all do as we think best, so may God make the results as per our intention and not as per our ability(alone)
Salaam
JK- Yep agreed. sun GOD Bless!