Appearance
Infallibility: The Condition for Attaining All Divine Covenants
Since in the phrase “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers” both “covenant” of God and “wrongdoers” are mentioned in absolute terms, the general principle derived from this verse is that none of the divine covenants can reach any wrongdoer. To elaborate, although the primary focus of the verse under discussion is the issue of imāma, it appears that imāma is mentioned as one instance of the divine covenant, not the entirety of its concept. This means that not only does imāma not reach the wrongdoer, but no aspect of the divine covenant—whether it be prophethood, messengership, imāma, wilāya (guardianship), or wiṣāya (succession)—extends to the wrongdoers.
The generality of the response and the derivation of this broader principle does not conflict with the specificity of the question. Thus, one can derive the general principle using two premises and drawing their conclusion. For example, just as it is correct to state: Imāma is God’s covenant, and God’s covenant does not reach the wrongdoers, therefore imāma does not reach the wrongdoers, one can similarly argue: Prophethood is God’s covenant, and the divine covenant does not reach the wrongdoer, therefore prophethood does not reach the wrongdoer. The same applies to messengership, wilāya, caliphate, and wiṣāya.
On this basis, and considering that the divine covenant is founded on infallibility—just as divine vicegerency is based on the knowledge of the names—any claim by a non-infallible individual to one of the divine covenants, such as prophethood,imāma and the like, is invalidated by the noble verse under discussion.
Reminder:
Most Sunni exegetes have interpreted imāma as prophethood and oppression as disbelief and, at times, as transgression.
Some Sunni scholars consider justice as a condition for imāma at the time of its occurrence, but not for its continuance. They view oppression and transgression in the state of continuance as forgivable.
Abū Ḥanīfa’s opinion was that imāma is specific to the Alawites.
The masses often move according to the desires and whims of the sultans, and many respected scholars have been influenced by these rulers. The scholars who were not drawn to the court of the oppressive sultans were often persecuted with imprisonment and beatings.(65)
Abū Ḥanīfa issued a fatwā in support of the uprising of Zayd ibn ʿAlī and encouraged financial assistance to his movement. A woman once said to him: “At your suggestion, my son rebelled with Ibrāhīm and Muḥammad, the sons of ʿAbdullāh ibn Raḥmān, and was killed.” Abū Ḥanīfa replied: “I wish I were in your son’s place.”
Some scholars considered rebellion against an oppressive ruler permissible, but most preferred patience, as conflict disrupts security and frees the hands of the reckless.(66)
Many nations regard their leaders as infallible. For instance, the Ahl al-Sunna consider the entire umma (as an umma) to be infallible, based on the belief that “My umma will not unite upon misguidance”, and thus, they view its collective opinion as correct.(67) This is in contrast to the Imāmi school, which does not see ijmāʿ as authoritative on its own, but rather as indicative of the opinion of the infallible. Therefore, for the Imāmi school, ijmāʿ is authoritative under the title of the sunna of the infallibles.
Similarly, Christians hold such views about the Pope, Marxists regard Marx and Lenin as infallible, and the Muslim Brotherhood holds Ḥasan al-Bannāʾ in the same light. The point is that any group that considers someone’s actions, approvals, and statements as a reliable source is implicitly treating them as infallible, even if the terms “infallibility” and “infallible” are not used in their culture. This can be likened to the immense respect millions of Chinese have for their political leader Mao Zedong.(68) If disagreements arise among later generations, they usually pertain to differences in understanding or multiple interpretations within the school, rather than outright opposition to Mao’s opinion.(69)