advancement. The Holy Prophet’s message of purification, therefore, signifies not only purification from sin but also man’s setting forth on the road to physical and moral advancement.20 All these references to the Holy Book show that the object of sending prophets was no other than the uplift of man, to enable him to subjugate his animal passions, to inspire him with nobler and higher sentiments, and to imbue him with Divine morals.
The men who are commissioned for the high office of prophethood must themselves be free from the bondage of sin, and more than that be the possessors of high morals if they are to fulfil the mission entrusted to them. The doctrine of the sinlessness of prophets has therefore always been an admitted principle among Muslims. Christian writers on Islām, however, have laboured to show that this doctrine is opposed to the Holy Qur’ān,21 but nothing could be further from the truth. The Holy Qur’ān not only speaks of individual prophets in terms of the highest praise, but also lays down clearly in general terms that the prophets cannot go, either in word or in deed, against any commandment of God: “And We sent no messenger before thee but We revealed to him that there is no God but Me, so serve Me, And they say, The Beneficent God has taken to Himself a son. Glory be to Him! Nay, they are honoured servants; they speak not before He speaks and according to His command they act” (21:25-27).22 And elsewhere it is said: “It is not for a prophet to act dishonestly” (3:161). These two verses set out in general words the principle of the sinlessness of prophets, while it has already been shown how each individual prophet has been spoken of in terms of the highest praise; one is called a Ṣiddīq (i.e., one who has never told a lie); another is said to have been purified by God’s hand and to have been brought up in the Divine presence; a third is described as being one in whom God was well pleased; a fourth is mentioned as having been granted purity and as one who guarded against evil and never disobeyed; a fifth is said to be worthy of regard and one of those who are near to God; and many of them, including the Holy Prophet Muḥammad, are described as being amīn, which means one who is completely faithful to God. The Qurān, therefore leaves not the least doubt as to the
20 Christian theologians have greatly misunderstood the object with which prophets are raised. They think that to be delivered from the bondage of sin is the be-all and end-all of man’s earthly life, the highest spiritual stage to which man can rise; and therefore they believe that prophets were sent solely for this purpose. The Holy Qur’ān, on the other hand, looks upon sinlessness as the starting point of man’s spiritual advancement. It teaches, of course, that man must resist the temptation of the devil, but that is only the first step for the proper development of the great faculties which God has granted to man and man’s advancement is so limitless that it continues even after death, in a new life.
21 Sell in The Faith of Islam admits that “the orthodox belief is that prophets are free from sin” (p. 299), and then goes on to say that this “does not agree with actual facts.” Klein in The Religion of Islam, while conceding the point that according to the teachings of Islām, a prophet must possess faithfulness, truthfulness and the like, and that it is impossible to ascribe to prophets attributes opposed to these, such as unfaithfulness, falseness, mendaciousness, want of intelligence, dullness, or concealing the message (pp. 73, 74), says that there is a “contradiction between the teaching of the Holy Qur’ān and that of the theologians.” The fact is that the Christian doctrine of Atonement is responsible for all these quibblings of the Christian controversialists. Because the “Son of God” was needed to make atonement for the sins of men, therefore all the prophets sent for the regeneration of man must be sinful. If others, besides Jesus Christ, were sinless, the world would have no need for a “Son of God”. The Bible itself, notwithstanding the many alterations in it, contains clear evidence of the sinlessness of the prophets. Of Noah it is said that he “was a just man and perfect in his generations” (Gen 6:9). To Abraham, the Lord said: “Walk before Me and be thou perfect” (Gen. 17:1). To Moses, He said: “Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God” (Deut. 18:13). Now perfect is more than sinless. The Bible itself says: “Blessed are the perfect in the way, who walk in the law of the Lord … They also do no iniquity: they walk in His ways” (Ps. 119:1, 3). And again: “The law of his God is in his heart; none of his steps shall slide” (Ps. 37:31). Zacharias, according to the writers of the Gospels, was not a prophet, and yet both he and his wife are declared to be sinless: “And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord, blameless” (Lk. 1:6). And of John, their son, it is said that he was “filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb”. (Lk. 1:15). In the face of such clear words upholding the sinlessness of prophets, and of even the righteous persons who were not prophets, it is sheer defiance of sacred authority to call the prophets sinful, for the sake of one who rebuked others for calling him “good” (Mk. 10:17, 18). The doctrine of the sinlessness of the prophets is therefore based on both the Holy Qur’ān and the Bible.
22 Commentators who have taken the last words as applying to angels, have done so only because they have paid no attention to the context. There is no doubt that, elsewhere, similar words are used about angels: “Who do not disobey Allāh in what He commands them, but do as they are commanded” (66:6). But the context here is too clear to need any comment. It speaks of the prophets, and then it speaks of the Christian doctrine that God has taken a son to Himself, which is based on the theory of the sinfulness of all prophets, as already shown, and hence it goes on to state in clear words that all prophets are sinless.
It may be added that while referring to the doctrine that Jesus Christ is the son of God, it is added that they are honoured servants. These words draw attention to the fact that others beside Jesus were spoken of as the Sons of God, but the title signified nothing more than that they were honoured servants.