Spotlight On Islam

The Infallibility Dilemma

Prophets, Mistakes, and the Satanic Verses

🔍 Introduction

The doctrine of ‘Ismah — prophetic infallibility — is a cornerstone of Islamic theology. It asserts that prophets, particularly Muhammad, were immune from error, deception, sin, and forgetfulness in all matters related to revelation. While it may seem like a necessary safeguard for divine authority, the doctrine collapses under scrutiny from the Qur’an itself, early Islamic history, and logic.

This post will dismantle the theological construction of ‘Ismah by examining contradictory Quranic verses, prophetic mistakes, the infamous Satanic Verses incident, and how the doctrine compares to that of the prophets in Judaism and Christianity.

1. What Is ‘Ismah?

📖 Definition

In Arabic, ‘Ismah means “protection” or “preservation from error.” In Islamic theology, it refers to the belief that prophets — especially Muhammad — were divinely protected from sin, major mistakes, and forgetfulness in delivering God's message.

☀️ Sunni Perspective

Prophets are protected from major sins and error in conveying revelation.
They may make minor mistakes in judgment, but never in matters that would mislead the ummah (Muslim community).

🌙 Shia Perspective

A much stricter interpretation.
Prophets and Imams are entirely infallible in all actions — moral, doctrinal, political.
They possess perfect knowledge and are protected from error from birth to death.

🧩 But where does this claim come from?

2. Sources of the Doctrine

📜 Quranic Verses Cited

Proponents of ‘Ismah cite a handful of verses:

Surah 53:3–4: “He does not speak from desire; it is but a revelation revealed.”
Surah 4:80: “Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed Allah.”

Yet these verses don’t say Muhammad could never err — only that his genuine revelations were from God. They do not protect him from human mistakes or sin outside the act of recitation.

📚 Hadith Support

Some hadith stress Muhammad’s moral and behavioral perfection, especially in later collections. But these contradict other hadith showing him making errors or being corrected — suggesting that later theological needs shaped hadith content.

🏛 Theological Evolution

The concept of infallibility solidified centuries after Muhammad’s death.
Early Muslims did not universally agree on this.
‘Ismah was later used to protect Islamic legal and political authority from criticism by anchoring it to a sinless messenger.

3. Cracks in the Doctrine

💣 The Satanic Verses Incident

Ibn Ishaq, al-Tabari, and al-Waqidi all report an episode where Muhammad temporarily acknowledged the pagan deities al-Lat, al-Uzza, and Manat as intercessors — a grave act of shirk (polytheism).

He later retracted these verses, blaming Satan for inserting them into his recitation — hence the label “Satanic Verses.”

📌 If this event occurred:

It shows that Muhammad could be deceived.
It contradicts claims of divine protection.
It challenges the entire doctrine of Qur’anic preservation.

📚 Sources: al-Tabari, Tafsir, vol. 6; Ibn Ishaq, Sirat Rasul Allah; Ibn Sa’d, Tabaqat al-Kubra

🚫 Quranic Rebukes of Muhammad

The Qur’an contains multiple verses where Muhammad is directly rebuked:

Surah 80:1–10 (Abasa): He frowns at a blind man seeking guidance — Allah scolds him.
Surah 9:43: “May Allah pardon you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them leave [to stay behind]?”
Surah 33:37: God criticizes Muhammad’s hesitation in marrying Zaynab, his adopted son’s ex-wife.

These verses show that Muhammad made poor judgments — often in moral or political matters.

⏳ Mistaken Predictions

Battle of Badr: Muhammad reportedly misread enemy positions.
Qibla Change: Initially prayed toward Jerusalem; later changed to Mecca.
Dates of the Hour (End Times): He made ambiguous or mistaken guesses.

These are not signs of infallibility — but of a human leader making adaptive decisions, not divine proclamations.

4. Internal Contradiction

❓ If He Can’t Err, Why Correct Him?

A logical problem emerges:

If Muhammad was divinely protected from error, why do we find verses correcting him?

This is a direct contradiction between the claim of infallibility and the documented behavior of Muhammad in Islam’s own sources.

Either:

Muhammad was fallible and corrected by God (which negates ‘Ismah), or
The Quranic corrections are staged theater (which raises disturbing theological implications).

🧱 Faith-Based Defense vs. Rational Inquiry

Muslim scholars often say: “He wasn’t wrong, he was just being taught.”

But this:

Undermines the plain reading of the text.
Smuggles in assumptions not found in the scripture.
Subordinates evidence to doctrine — the very opposite of rational inquiry.

5. Comparative Theology

📖 Biblical Prophets

In Judaism and Christianity, prophets are morally fallible humans:

Moses disobeys God.
David commits adultery and murder.
Jonah runs away.

Yet their human flaws reinforce their credibility — they’re not divine, they’re chosen.

🕌 Islam’s Exceptionalism

Islam makes a unique claim: Muhammad is the perfect man (al-insan al-kamil), free from error. This view is necessary for Islam to function as a complete life system (deen).

But this creates a theological trap:

If the system rests on a perfect man, but the man makes errors — the system collapses.

It is circular and fragile.

🧨 Conclusion: The Collapse of ‘Ismah

The doctrine of prophetic infallibility:

Is not clearly supported by the Qur’an or earliest hadith.
Is contradicted by Islam’s own texts and historical events.
Emerged later as a political and religious necessity to prevent dissent.

The Satanic Verses, the divine rebukes, and mistaken judgments are not exceptions — they are proof that Muhammad was fallible.

This post doesn’t aim to attack Muslims but to expose the contradiction between theological dogma and historical truth.

And that truth is this:

🧠 ‘Ismah is not revelation.
It is insulation — a human invention to shield the Prophet from legitimate scrutiny.