some of them; or whether protection consists only in not being allowed to persist in them, rather than in not committing them? Or is it obligatory to affirm such protection only in conveying the message? Must protection from disbelief and sins also be affirmed before the prophetic mission, or not? This question is discussed at length elsewhere.

The view held by the majority, which accords with the reports transmitted from the early generations, affirms that the prophets are protected from being allowed to persist in any sin whatsoever, and rejects the view that they may be allowed to persist in sins. When carefully examined, the arguments of those who affirm protection from sin establish only this position. Nor do the arguments of those who deny it establish any instance of a sin in which the prophets were allowed to persist.

Those who affirm protection from sin argue that following the prophets’ example is prescribed, and that this is permissible only if one allows that their actions may be sins. Yet it is well known that following their example is prescribed only in matters in which they were allowed to continue, not in matters which they were forbidden to do and from which they turned back. Likewise, obedience to their commands and prohibitions is obligatory only where these have not been abrogated. An abrogated command or prohibition may no longer be treated as prescribing or forbidding something, let alone as requiring compliance and obedience.

The same applies to their arguments that sins are incompatible with perfection, that they are more reprehensible when committed by someone who has received great blessings, that they cause people to turn away, and other such rational arguments. These apply only when someone persists in sin and does not turn back. Otherwise, through sincere repentance that He accepts, Allah raises the repentant person to a higher station than before, as stated by