The Necessity of the Infallibility of the Imām

Remember: It is essential to understand that Imāma, whether in its worldly or spiritual sense, is an instance of God’s covenant. The general and universal principle concerning God’s covenant is that it never reaches a wrongdoer. This means that the Imām—whether in the worldly sense as a leader or in the spiritual sense as a guide—must be appointed by God, the Glorified.

While the spiritual meaning of Imāma is inferred from the Imāma of Abraham (a.s.), the universality of God’s covenant, and the fact that it never extends to a wrongdoer, serves as valid evidence for the infallibility of the Imāms. From the verse “My covenant does not include the wrongdoers”(54), several points can be deduced:

1. The station of Imāma is a divine covenant.

2. This station is a divine gift, not something that can be acquired.(55)

3. The divine covenant will never reach a wrongdoer.(56)

Based on this verse, a wrongdoer—whether at the time of wrongdoing or while engaging in it—can never attain the station of Imāma. This is an accepted and indisputable fact, as a person who commits wrongdoing is acting in a lower, animalistic sense of humanity, not as a human created in the image of the All-Merciful.

The phrase “My covenant does not include...” has several implications. One of these is the need to strive for the proper upbringing of the next generation, to preserve the legacy of dignity and exaltation. Additionally, it emphasizes the importance of purifying life from the stains of oppression and other wrongdoings.

The key difference between the Imāmi sect, who view this verse as evidence for the necessity of the infallibility of the Imām, and others lies in whether the verse applies to those who were once oppressive but have since repented and become just. Before addressing and critiquing the views of others on this issue, it is important to recognize that every sin constitutes an act of oppression. As the Qur’an states: “And whoever transgresses the limits of God—it is they who are the wrongdoers” [2:229]. Polytheism and disbelief, in particular, are considered great forms of oppression: “Indeed, polytheism is great oppression” [31:13] and “And the disbelievers—they are the wrongdoers” [2:254].

All forms of oppression, whether against God, oneself, or others, are essentially oppression to oneself. This is evident in cases such as polytheism, which appears to be oppression against God’s religion, but is in reality oppression against the self: “Indeed, you have wronged yourselves by taking the calf” [2:54]. Oppression to others, such as unfair treatment in matters like divorce, is also described as oppression to the self: “And when you divorce women...do not keep them, intending harm, to transgress [against them]. And whoever does that has certainly wronged himself” [2:231]. Other sins also fall under this category: “And whoever transgresses the limits of God has certainly wronged himself” [65:1].

It has been rationally proven that it is impossible for someone to commit oppression without its primary effect being on their own self, even if its consequences also impact others. Justice and oppression are inward qualities that affect the doer first, and only later cast their shadow on others: “If you do good, you do good for yourselves; and if you do evil, [you do it] to yourselves” [17:7].(57) The Qur’an emphasizes this rational principle: “Evil plot does not encompass except its own people” [35:43]. In other words, when a person oppresses others through deceit and conspiracy, they ultimately harm themselves, condemning themselves to Hell, while merely depriving others of worldly benefits.

This is the profound meaning behind the statement of the Commander of the Faithful (a.s.): “The day of the oppressed over the oppressor is more severe than the day of the oppressor over the oppressed.”(58) The title of “oppressor” thus applies equally to polytheists, disbelievers, and sinners, as it does to tyrants. For this reason, God’s covenant and Imāma cannot be bestowed upon any of these individuals.

The non-Imāmi view holds that while polytheists, disbelievers, and oppressors are not eligible for Imāma while engaged in polytheism, disbelief, or oppression, if they repent, become virtuous Muslims, and attain justice, their past acts of oppression do not prevent them from currently attaining Imāma. Their reasoning is based on the principle that the application of a derivative (i.e., a word that denotes an action or state) is real only when applied to someone currently engaged in the action or state, whereas its use for someone who has ceased engaging in that state is metaphorical.

An illustrative example is the command “Do not greet the disbeliever.” If a disbeliever repents and embraces Islam, all rulings of a Muslim apply to them, and their past disbelief does not prevent others from greeting them. In this case, the past disbelief is not a valid excuse or justification for continuing to treat them as a disbeliever.

The opposite is also true. For instance, regarding the principle “There is no [blame] upon the doers of good” [9:91], if a trustworthy and virtuous person loses entrusted wealth, they are not held accountable because they are considered trustworthy at the time. However, if this same person later becomes treacherous, they are no longer included under “There is no [blame] upon the doers of good” and are now subject to the ruling “Do not betray God and the Messenger or betray your trusts” [8:27]. In this case, they are considered treacherous, and the ruling for a treacherous person applies to them.

Thus, the attribution of a state—whether it be disbelief, Islam, virtue, trustworthiness, or treachery—carries its specific ruling based on the person’s current engagement in that state. In other words, the derivative applies whenever the essence (person) is engaged with the source (action or state).

In s_umma_ry, those who argue that infallibility is not necessary for the Imām assert that the use of a derivative term (such as “just”) for someone who was previously oppressive but has repented is real and applicable. In contrast, using a derivative term for someone no longer engaged in the relevant state (such as calling a repentant person “oppressive”) is metaphorical and requires contextual evidence.

In the verse “My covenant does not extend to the wrongdoers” [2:124], no contextual evidence suggests that this prohibition applies to those who have repented. Therefore, the validity of negating the title of “oppressor” from someone who has repented and affirming the attribute of “just” to them supports the claim that God’s covenant can indeed reach individuals who had a past of oppression or sin but have now become just.