How did angels know man would be corrupt?

[alwan]

I am not clear if Imran is from zurriyat of Ibrahim. Ibn Kathir's Qasasun Nabiyyin states that Imran was married to Hannah (mentioned in 3:35). Hannah was Prophet Zakariyya's sister-in-law. She gave birth to Maryam, Isa's mother (3:36). From Quran, we can say that Hannah, Maryam and Isa were among the chosen (mustafiyyin) as recipients of Allah's risalat. Therefore Aal-e-Imran refers specifically to Hannah, Maryam and Isa.

Some Muslim scholars trace ancestry of Maryam and her mother Hannah to Prophets Sulaiman and Dawood who are from Aal-e-Ibrahim.

The fact that Quran mentions Aal-e-Imran separately from Aal-e-Ibrahim hints at Imran/Hannah being separate from Aal-e-Ibrahim. However, Allah knows best.

003:033-034 God chose Adam and Noah and the House of Abraham and the House of Imran above all beings, the seed of one another; God hears, and knows.

Porus,

wouldn't it be more rational to say both Imrans (Moses's father and Mary's father) come from Aal-e-Ibrahim, and Ali and his chosen Descendents come from Aal-e-Imran (Abu Talib) and end it up with "God knows best" ?

After all 003:033-034 makes more sense if Imran in it refers to the father of Ali rather than to the father of Mary or Moses whom both come under Aal-e-Ibrahim already mentioned in the verse

[porus]

003:033-034 God chose Adam and Noah and the House of Abraham and the House of Imran above all beings, the seed of one another; God hears, and knows.

Porus,

wouldn't it be more rational to say both Imrans (Moses's father and Mary's father) come from Aal-e-Ibrahim, and Ali and his chosen Descendents come from Aal-e-Imran (Abu Talib) and end it up with "God knows best" ?

After all 003:033-034 makes more sense if Imran in it refers to the father of Ali rather than to the father of Mary or Moses whom both come under Aal-e-Ibrahim already mentioned in the verse

O Dear! You have got it all wrong.

Musa's father Imran was the son of Nabi Yaqub, son of Ishaq, who in turn was the son of Nabi Ibrahim.

Imran, who was Maryam's father came many generations later. He is the one mentioned in 3:35. This Imran was certainly not the father of Musa.

So, Musa can be considered from Aal-e-Imran. And Maryam and Isa can be considered from a different Aal-e-Imran, the one mentioned in the Quran. As I wrote earlier, only God knows if Imran, Maryam's father is from Aal-e-Ibrahim.

Ali and Abu Talib are definitely not from Aal-e-Imran. Abu Talib was Prophet's uncle. Prophet and Ali are first cousins and they are both from Nabi Ibrahim through Ismail.

[humble_servant_us]

Just for information sake - Maula Ali(as)'s father's name was Imran. Abu talib was his kuniyat (son of Talib).

[porus]

Just for information sake - Maula Ali(as)'s father's name was Imran. Abu talib was his kuniyat (son of Talib).

Thank you for pointing that out. So, I need to correct my last response to alwan.

There are 3 Imrans:

Imran 1 is Father of Musa

Imran 2 is Father of Maryam (This is the one mentioned in the 3:35)

Imran 3 is Father of Ali

Imran 1 and Imran 3 are from Aal-e-Ibrahim.

Imran 2 may or may not be from Aal-e-Ibrahim. Allah knows best

alwan,

Why do you think that 3:35 refers to Abu Talib?

[Muslim First]

How is genealogy of god chosen deities relate to "How did angels know man would be corrupt?" ?

[alwan]

alwan,

Why do you think that 3:35 refers to Abu Talib?

003:033-034 God chose Adam and Noah and the House of Abraham and the House of Imran above all beings, the seed of one another; God hears, and knows.

Because God names the chosen families in chronological order (i.e. Adam, Noah, Aal-e-Ibrahim, Aal-e-Imran).

When Adam's's family ends, Noah's starts and when Noah's family ends, Aal-e-Ibrahim starts and when Aal-e-Ibrahim ends, Aal-e-Imran starts.

The two Imrans (fathers of Moses and Mary) you were referring to where during the time of Aal-e-Ibrahim (i.e. they were predecessors of Muhammad with whom Aal-e-Ibrahim ends)

Now we are left with the third Imran (father of Ali) whose Aal reigns above all beings.

[porus]

alwan,

Why do you think that 3:35 refers to Abu Talib?

003:033-034 God chose Adam and Noah and the House of Abraham and the House of Imran above all beings, the seed of one another; God hears, and knows.

Because God names the chosen families in chronological order (i.e. Adam, Noah, Aal-e-Ibrahim, Aal-e-Imran).

When Adam's's family ends, Noah's starts and when Noah's family ends, Aal-e-Ibrahim starts and when Aal-e-Ibrahim ends, Aal-e-Imran starts.

The two Imrans (fathers of Moses and Mary) you were referring to where during the time of Aal-e-Ibrahim (i.e. they were predecessors of Muhammad with whom Aal-e-Ibrahim ends)

Now we are left with the third Imran (father of Ali) whose Aal reigns above all beings.

That is a very interesting interpretation. I can see why that would be attractive to the Shia. They can claim that the ayat 3:34 states that Ali's family is among the chosen one too. This gives Quranic legitimacy to Imams from Ali.

I find this dubious for three reasons:

1. I have used the word 'mustafiyyin' (derived from 'astafa' in 3:33) to refer to those who were in receipt of risalat. Quran's context includes among these Hannah, Maryam and Isa, but not Ali.

2. Ali's family is 'chosen' in the sense that it is obliquely referred to in the ayat of tatheer (33:33). However, this interpretation requires reference to the hadith of Ahlul Kisaa.

3. Aal-e-Ibrahim did not end with Muhammad. Ali is part of it and it continues through Imams from Ali and Fatima.

With regard to the name of the sura 3 (Aal-e-Imran), some(I think the Shia) have speculated that instead of it referring to 3:34 meaning Maryam's father, it actually refers to 3:61. 3:61 describes the episode of Mubahila in which Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain were involved according to hadith. I find this to be a bit of stretch, but deserving of consideration. However Imran, Maryam's father has been explicitly named in 3:35 and reflects the name of the sura perfectly.

[porus]

3. Aal-e-Ibrahim did not end with Muhammad. Ali is part of it and it continues through Imams from Ali and Fatima.

While the above is correct, after Muhammad we refer to Aal-e-Ibrahim as Aal-e-Muhammad, which includes all subsequent Imams.

[Curious001]

No offence, but exactly which source would you classify as "authentic sunnah of Prophet?" With Bukhari, Tabari, Yaqubi, etc, etc, Shia believing their "authentic sources" and not believing Sunnis "authentic sources" and vice versa, it kind of gets confusing, no? Whose story is believable is to whom sympathizes with the interpretation of the story....therefore two things can be concluded:
1. Every source is wrong
2. Every source has half-truths and half-cooks, due to the sources and their believers interpretation and leaning for the information.

So from the above we can safely conclude that really, there is no point of pointing out the fallacies of the other groups sources, as they could care less about your position, and would expect you to care less about theirs...as long as you don't stop each others' interpretations and beliefs, however unpalatable they are to you:)

How is that for a woman's perspective?:) I bet you God must be a female...if the Lord was a male, we'd all be dead by now arguing trivialities, when we have hunger, poverty, disease, suffering, etc to focus on.....

The fact that Quran mentions Aal-e-Imran separately from Aal-e-Ibrahim hints at Imran/Hannah being separate from Aal-e-Ibrahim. However, Allah knows best.

All this speculation to prove Shia deity are somehow hail from Islamic royal stock!

Religion should be simple. Only Allah, Prophet, Allah's book and authentic Sunnah of Prophet matters.

[anajmi]

curious,

There is a lot of explanation behind how a source is classified as authentic. Both shia and sunni. For an open minded person, it is pretty easy to figure out which one is more authentic. One talks about being authentic because it is from "infallibles".

And no, once you find out which source is more authentic, you still won't find a cure for cancer.

[alwan]

I find this dubious for three reasons:

Thank you for your response.
You can add the fourth reason for doubting my interpretation.
"In 003:033, For Adam and Noah, they are named individually while for Abraham and Imran, they are named by their families"

With regard to the name of the sura 3 (Aal-e-Imran), some (I think the Shia) have speculated that instead of it referring to 3:34 meaning Maryam's father, it actually refers to 3:61. 3:61 describes the episode of Mubahila in which Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain were involved according to hadith. I find this to be a bit of stretch, but deserving of consideration. However Imran, Maryam's father has been explicitly named in 3:35 and reflects the name of the sura perfectly.

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge, surely the names of chapters and verse numbers must have been given latter by the compilers while compiling quran for easy reference after the demise of the Prophet.

I mean, its hard to imagine Prophet was revealing the messages along with chapter and verse numbers.

correct me if i am wrong.

[anajmi]

I mean, its hard to imagine Prophet was revealing the messages along with chapter and verse numbers.

Why is that hard to imagine? If it is easy to imagine the actual revelation through an angel, why is it so difficult to imagine the organization of that revelation? The reasons have been discussed before on this forum. The placements of certain ayahs or in some cases, the placement of some portion of some ayahs (the last third of 33:33 for example) does not agree with the beliefs of some sects. Hence it becomes difficult for them to imagine that these were placed as per the instructions from Allah.

Actually, there are many hadith which quote the prophet (saw) saying the names of the surahs. Some surahs were called by different names by the prophet (saw). So it is not at all hard to imagine that all surahs were given names by the prophet (saw) himself. The order in which the ayahs were put in each surah was also dictated by the prophet (saw) as per instructions from Allah through Jibraeel.

For example, the prophet (saw) has said that surah yaseen is the heart of the Quran. He has spoken about reciting surah kahf on Fridays. He has spoken about the benefits of reciting surah Al Baqara, and so on and so forth about many other surahs of the Quran. It would actually be hard to imagine the prophet (saw) not naming the surahs rather than the other way around.

[porus]

With regard to the name of the sura 3 (Aal-e-Imran), some (I think the Shia) have speculated that instead of it referring to 3:34 meaning Maryam's father, it actually refers to 3:61. 3:61 describes the episode of Mubahila in which Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain were involved according to hadith. I find this to be a bit of stretch, but deserving of consideration. However Imran, Maryam's father has been explicitly named in 3:35 and reflects the name of the sura perfectly.

Excuse me for my lack of knowledge, surely the names of chapters and verse numbers must have been given latter by the compilers while compiling quran for easy reference after the demise of the Prophet.

I mean, its hard to imagine Prophet was revealing the messages along with chapter and verse numbers.

correct me if i am wrong.

Surah names were indeed given by the Prophet. He also referred to them with multiple names and occasionally with the first line of the surah like Bohras do for the surahs of the last juz. We have heard of Prophet talking about special merits of reciting surah Yaseen, surah al-ikhlas, surah al-baqara etc. I vaguely recall there being a detailed discussion about this issue in the Brill Encyclopedia of the Quran.

While surah names are authentic from Prophet, the issue I was dealing with was the 'reason' for specific names. I do not believe that Prophet explicitly stated the reason for the names although they appear fairly obvious. There may be different interpretations for the 'why' of these names. The names may or may not relate to a word or an episode in the surah itself.

When it comes to ayat numbers and printed signs of wuqoof, they are certainly of later origin. There are differences of opinion on whether a numbered ayat as we know it today is always one ayat. This is illustrated by Surat al-Fatiha. Some say basmalah is not part (ayat) of that surah. Others disagree. Those who do not include Basmala split ayat 7 into two to keep the count to 7. This is because 15:87 refers to Surah al-Fatiha as "sab'a mathani"

Even later are the inclusions of harakaat, they are of even later date as they were included to facilitate correct recitation by non-Arabs.

[alwan]

When it comes to ayat numbers and printed signs of wuqoof, they are certainly of later origin. There are differences of opinion on whether a numbered ayat as we know it today is always one ayat.

Thanx again........

though i am born muslim, but i did not have much interest in the religion until past few years ago hence the reason for my lack of knowledge.

i was under wrong impression that since the compilers of the Quran after the demise of the Prophet couldn't arrange the chapters in correct chronological order, some of the verses might not be in their correct chapters too.

[Curious001]

Sorry, but I'm still confused.

It kind of reminds me of a piece on NPR...yeah, we get NPR in Alaska:)
It was talking about a study where the participants were asked about their political inclinations--repubs or dems. Then they were shown fake and real pics and asked to tell truth from fiction....so e.g. repubs were shown a pic of Ahemdinajad shaking hands with Obama, and guess what? Over 80% of repubs claimed to have seen the pic on so-and-so day on so-and-so paper/website, etc. Similar stuff with dems.....of course, the pics were all fake.

So, what you believe and what is real are two different things. I can swear that my pastor never sins and so his words are the gospel truth.......and you might not buy that as the truth because you are a protestant.....my point is whose definition of "infallables" is this?

curious,

There is a lot of explanation behind how a source is classified as authentic. Both shia and sunni. For an open minded person, it is pretty easy to figure out which one is more authentic. One talks about being authentic because it is from "infallibles".

And no, once you find out which source is more authentic, you still won't find a cure for cancer.

[Muslim First]

Here are few links to

Classification of Ahadith
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith ... ences.html
http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Hadith/Ulum/asb7.html
http://www.islamicawakening.com/viewart ... pageID=342

[porus]

my point is whose definition of "infallables" is this?

There has bee a lot of discussion about 'infallibles' on this site. Let me summarize.

Wahhabis, here represented by anajmi and Muslim First, do not believe that anyone is infallible.

Sunnis believe that all Prophets are infallible.

Shias believe that all the Prophets and Imams after Prophet Muhammad are infallible.

My view is that the Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Imam Hasan and Imam Husain are infallibles. It is a view I have concluded from my reading of the Quran. Quran is considered infallible by all Muslims.

Therefore, the most authentic hadith of the Prophet are from Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain. Shia believe that their hadith has been transmitted faithfully by Imams after Husain. I personally accept all hadith transmitted by Imams up to and including Imam Jafar al-Sadiq to be the most authentic. All Sunni hadith which are verified by these personalities, I consider authentic.

While the Shia consider their lines of Imam as infallibles (and there are multiple lines after Imam Jafar al-Sadiq), there is an issue of whether these hadiths transmitted to us have been verified by an Imam.

Despite some doubts, hadith literature is an extremely useful resource. There is little value in rejecting outright Sunni or Shia hadith. They provide various views and they are useful for a tolerant Muslim to increase his knowledge of Islam. Tolerant Muslims do not include extremist Wahhabis.

Finally, Quran states that it is the best hadith. A point worth pondering about.

[Muslim First]

Wahhabis, here represented by anajmi and Muslim First, do not believe that anyone is infallible.

I have also been labelled "whabi light" by Mufti porus.
Personally I believe Prophet was infallible only in matters of religion which was revealed to him by Allah via Gibraeal. There is a Hadith prophet saying he could err in worldly matter.
Somewhere I have described prophet instructing how to plant sapling and that did not take root (something like that)

My view is that the Prophet, Ali, Fatima, Imam Hasan and Imam Husain are infallibles. It is a view I have concluded from my reading of the Quran. Quran is considered infallible by all Muslims.

People like Mufti porus can deduce such things by circular arguments, half Quran Ayas and half hadithing. There is no such clear evidence from Quran.
History indicates these 4 infallibles and any Shia chosen line have made errors.
Ask yourself if Imamat was God required, why we do not have one line of authentic imams, all we have is fairy tales and Aga Khan.

Therefore, the most authentic hadith of the Prophet are from Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain

Is there any compilation like this?

Shia believe that their hadith has been transmitted faithfully by Imams after Husain. I personally accept all hadith transmitted by Imams up to and including Imam Jafar al-Sadiq to be the most authentic. All Sunni hadith which are verified by these personalities, I consider authentic.

Mufti porus should flag out such Ahadith acceptable to him.

While the Shia consider their lines of Imam as infallibles (and there are multiple lines after Imam Jafar al-Sadiq), there is an issue of whether these hadiths transmitted to us have been verified by an Imam.

What? Now there is issue. Here Mufti is going circular.

Despite some doubts, hadith literature is an extremely useful resource.

Recently Muft porus called all hadith "bunk"

There is little value in rejecting outright Sunni or Shia hadith. They provide various views and they are useful for a tolerant Muslim to increase his knowledge of Islam.

Here Mufti turns into Mufti 'Wether van'

Tolerant Muslims do not include extremist Wahhabis.

And who decides who is extreme Wahabi

Finally, Quran states that it is the best hadith. A point worth pondering about.

Unfortunately section of Ummah still looking for Imamat by circular arguments

[Muslim First]

Curious001

Sorry for interruption. Please continue asking Mufti porus.

[Muslim First]

Watch this
It is informative
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7v1moESgRb0&autoplay=1

[Muslim First]

Listen to this Hamza Yusuf talk

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/COrxzfd5d2k

[porus]

People like Mufti porus can deduce such things by circular arguments, half Quran Ayas and half hadithing.

Wahhabi Lite,

Do you even know what a 'circular argument' is?

For your knowledge, all Muslims indulge in 'circular arguments', e.g.

There is a God.
Why do you say that?
Because Quran says so.
Why do you believe in Quran?
Because it is from God.

My argument:

Quran states ahlul bayt are free from rijs, therefore infallible.
Who are ahlul bayt?
They are Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.
Why do you say that?
Because of an authentic hadith from both the Sunni and the Shia sources.

Can you identify circularity in that argument, Wahhabi Lite? Remember, I am not interested in whether you agree with the composition of ahlul bayt or not. Just identify the 'circularity' in the argument.

[alwan]

Quran states ahlul bayt are free from rijs, therefore infallible.
Who are ahlul bayt?
They are Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.

can you elaborate more on infallibility ?

infallible in worldly matters or spiritual matters or both ?

there is a hadith, i read somewhere (i don't have references) which is intriguing:

Ali was sitting and trying with great effort to break a piece of stale bread to no avail. A passerby remarked aloud upon this scene by saying "Look upon the mighty Hero of Khayber! He can not even break a piece of bread." Ali responded by saying, "On the fields of Khayber I was acting in my capacity as the Hujjat of Allah. At the moment I am but Ali and this is my capacity."

[anajmi]

There is a God.
Why do you say that?
Because Quran says so.
Why do you believe in Quran?
Because it is from God.

Apparently, porus has only met muslims who are only as smart as he is. I haven't met a single muslim who has made this idiotic argument in front of me.

Quran states ahlul bayt are free from rijs, therefore infallible.

Quran makes no such statement. Quran says that Allah wants to purify the Ahlul Bayt. He doesn't say that they have been purified. If wanting to purify were the same as already purified then we are all infallible. Because Allah wants us all to be purified as per 5:6 and other ayahs of the Quran. And Allah wants us all to be free from rijs. Rijs has been defined in the Quran in multiple places as different things. Intoxication and gambling is considered as rijs. Eating that which is forbidden (pork) is considered rijs. Closing your breast to the word of Allah is considered rijs. So, if one resists these temptations, he or she is free from rijs and is now an infallible!! There is no special rijs for the ahlul bayt. If there is, it should be easy for porus to point it out.

Hence being free from rijs doesn't equate to infallibility.

Now coming to the key point of the above discussion.

Can you identify circularity in that argument, Wahhabi Lite?

I will do that for you. Infact, I have done that before on this board. And you have wisened up a bit and changed your argument now that you know you got hammered the last time around. Tell me, what is the Arabic word for "infallible"? Does that word appear in the Quran? Why does Allah need the ahlul bayt and only the ahlul bayt to be infallible? Your answer to these questions, will lead you to answering your own question about identifying the circularity in your argument!!

Ofcourse, I do not expect you to come back with a response. You obviously know now when to keep your mouth shut. (By the way, this isn't reverse psychology, cause if you think that and respond, you'd be getting fooled by anajmi into responding ).

[porus]

Can you identify circularity in that argument, Wahhabi Lite?

I will do that for you.

Identify circularity here. By that I mean from the point of view of logic

Quran states ahlul bayt are free from rijs, therefore infallible.
Who are ahlul bayt?
They are Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.
Why do you say that?
Because of an authentic hadith from both the Sunni and the Shia sources.

[anajmi]

And porus will tell you his definition of rijs and claim that that is the true definition. But I wouldn't rely on porus' interpretation of the Quran

Here is what Allah says in the Quran
وَمَا خَلَقْتُ الْجِنَّ وَالْإِنسَ إِلَّا لِيَعْبُدُونِ
And I have not created the jinn and men to any end other than that they may worship Me.

And here is what porus says
God quickly got bored with that. He wanted something more challenging. So He assembled all the angels and jinns and told them that he would create man,
If Allah wanted to create humans to worship Him, He would have done so.

Allah says in the Quran
قُلْ أُوحِيَ إِلَيَّ أَنَّهُ اسْتَمَعَ نَفَرٌ مِّنَ الْجِنِّ فَقَالُوا إِنَّا سَمِعْنَا قُرْآنًا عَجَبًا
يَهْدِي إِلَى الرُّشْدِ فَآمَنَّا بِهِ وَلَن نُّشْرِكَ بِرَبِّنَا أَحَدًا
وَأَنَّهُ تَعَالَى جَدُّ رَبِّنَا مَا اتَّخَذَ صَاحِبَةً وَلَا وَلَدًا
وَأَنَّهُ كَانَ يَقُولُ سَفِيهُنَا عَلَى اللَّهِ شَطَطًا

And this is what porus says
Jinns have no intellect, no remorse and no sense of 'right and wrong'.

[anajmi]

Identify circularity here. By that I mean from the point of view of logic

As soon as you answer the questions that I have posed. I am giving you a chance over here. If you do not want to answer those questions, I am fine with that too. Tomorrow morning, I will answer those questions for you and prove the circularity in your statement.

[porus]

Quran states ahlul bayt are free from rijs, therefore infallible.
Who are ahlul bayt?
They are Muhammad, Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain.

can you elaborate more on infallibility ?

infallible in worldly matters or spiritual matters or both ?

My conclusion is based on the ayat of Tatheer (33:33) and the hadith of Ahlul Kisaa taken together. The ayat identifies ahlul bayt as being 'purified' and the hadith identifies Panjatan as ahlul bayt.

How does purity imply infallibility? I would like to post an extract which I had posted on the Shiachat forum during a debate with anajmi there:

*****
Now, to the last two sentences of the ayat 33:33.

إِنَّمَا يُرِيدُ اللَّهُ لِيُذْهِبَ عَنْكُمُ الرِّجْسَ أَهْلَ الْبَيْتِ وَيُطَهِّرَكُمْ تَطْهِيرًا

1. Indeed, Allah wants banishment of ‘rijs’ from you, O ahl-al-bayt.
2. And, (Allah wants) you purified to perfection.

Allah indeed says “He wants”. Now, if Allah desires anything, it automatically comes to pass unless it refers to the behavior of human beings still alive. That is because, humans can thwart Allah’s will. However, in this ayat, he addresses those people, including the Prophet, whom He knows will always act in accordance with His will.

First sentence: Indeed, Allah wants banishment of ‘rijs’ from you, O ahl-al-bayt.

What did Allah remove from them? It was ‘rijs’. Translators use dictionary meanings like filth and abomination. In fact this cannot be the meaning here. “Rijs” refers to “unbelief in Allah and His message”. Hence, Allah is saying that ahl-ul-bayt can be relied upon to be the perfect guide from now on. In the hadith of ahl-ul-kisaa, Nabi says that Ali, Fatima, Hasan and Husain are his ahl-al-bayt. He actually does not include himself although that is clearly implied.

Support for rijs=unbelief comes from ayat 6:125

يَجْعَلُ اللَّهُ الرِّجْسَ عَلَى الَّذِينَ لا يُؤْمِنُونَ

Allah places “rijs” on unbelievers. Hence unbelief and “rijs” go together.

Second sentence: And, (Allah wants) you purified to perfection.

So, not only has any trace of “unbelief’ been removed from ahl-ul-bayt, but also they have been purified to utmost perfection. Allah thus blesses his perfect believers with the quality of never committing an error that might tempt even His strongest believers.

In conclusion, Allah’s wish is His command and it always comes to pass. And he has rendered Panjatan perfect among believers and perfect in adhering to the behavior that Allah demands from His devotees.

*********

Infallibility is in both spiritual and worldly matters as far as Panjatan are concerned. No matter what the issue, spiritual or worldly, they always acted in accordance with Allah's will.

Infallible = free from rijs = free from any trace of unbelief = acting always in the manner worthy of Allah's confidence in them.

An Arabic word related to 'infallible' is 'ma'soom'. This means 'protection from sin'. It has the same connotation as 'infallible' and is used as a synonym for 'free from rijs'.

[porus]

And this is what porus says
Jinns have no intellect, no remorse and no sense of 'right and wrong'.

Allah taught Adam 'names'. I interpret that to mean He gave him intellect. Did Allah also teach Jinns the 'names'?

Adam repented (showed remorse). Name a Jinn who has done that.

Adam repented because Allah had imbued him with a sense of morality ( a sense of 'right and wrong') which made him repent after guidance. Name a Jinn who repented because God had placed in him a sense of 'right and wrong'.

In fact, I venture to say that Jinns do not have an appreciation of man's morality. Hence they continue to lead him astray.

[anajmi]

Allah indeed says “He wants”. Now, if Allah desires anything, it automatically comes to pass unless it refers to the behavior of human beings still alive. That is because, humans can thwart Allah’s will. However, in this ayat, he addresses those people, including the Prophet, whom He knows will always act in accordance with His will.

Unfortunately for porus, his explanation has no basis in the Quran. It is his own interpretation. Thankfully, he has clarified his before on this forum itself. The prophet (saw) acts according to Allah's commandments and that has been clarified by Allah in the Quran when he says that the prophet (saw) doesn't do anything other than what Allah has commanded him to do. This does not extend to anyone other than the prophet (saw). The twisted meaning of "wants" to "is" for certain people is for no reason other than idol worship.

By the way, humans can only thwart Allah's command and not his will. His will was to create a human who is capable of disobeying his commands.

Allah places “rijs” on unbelievers. Hence unbelief and “rijs” go together.

Duh!! Yeah they do. That would mean all believers are infallible.

Now consider, porus' description of men, jinn and angels. Why create a family from men who are incapable of unbelief?
Did Allah make them infallible? If he did, then they are not humans. It goes against everything that porus has been explaining on this thread about humans being created from denser material and all that. Did they become infallible by themselves because of their strength and conviction in Allah and his messenger? If they did, then "wants" remains "wants" and doesn't become "is". Hence anyone of us can become infallible!!

Now, here is the circularity in porus' argument. He has claimed before on this forum that if the prophet (saw) is not infallible, then the Quran cannot be considered pure.

How do we know the prophet (saw) is infallible? From the Quran which is pure.
How do we know the Quran is pure? From the prophet (saw) who is infallible.

He has recanted this argument later on by agreeing that the prophet (saw) was not known to be infallible before the revelation of 33:33. Till then, the people believed in him solely because of the greatness of the message and not the infallibility of the messenger. But after 33:33 was revealed the message could be sidelined as we now had an infallible family!!