The position embraced by the overwhelming majority—fully consistent with the narrations handed down from the early generations—is to affirm that the prophets are divinely protected from being left to persist in any sin whatsoever, and to refute those who claim that it is permissible for them to be so left. When the arguments of those who insist on prophetic infallibility are carefully examined, they point to this very conclusion; and the proofs offered by the negators do not establish that a single sin was ever approved or left uncorrected by a prophet.

Those who uphold infallibility argue that emulation of the prophets is only legislated in regard to what they endorsed, not in regard to what they forbade or retracted—just as obedience to their commands and prohibitions is required only with respect to what has not been abrogated. Whatever command or prohibition has been abrogated can no longer be treated as obligatory or forbidden, let alone be deemed binding. Likewise, the rational proofs they cite—that sins conflict with perfection, are uglier when committed by one upon whom great favor has been bestowed, entail moral blemish, and the like—hold weight only if the individual remains upon the sin and does not relinquish it. Otherwise, a sincere repentance that Allah accepts elevates its possessor to a status greater than before, as some of the early scholars said: "David, peace be upon him, after his repentance was better than he had been before the lapse." Another remarked, "Had repentance not been among the dearest acts to Allah, He would never have tried the most honored of His creation with sin." The sound collections record the ḥadīth of repentance: “Allah is more delighted with the repentance of His servant than a man who, while traveling in a wilderness…,” and so forth.

He went on to say: “In the Book of Allah, in the authentic Sunnah, and in the scriptures revealed before the Quran there is such an abundance of evidence supporting this view that it defies enumeration. Those who reject it have interpreted these texts with distortions akin to the interpretations of the Jahmites, the Qadariyya, and the Dahris with respect to the divine names and attributes, to predestination, and to the resurrection—interpretations of the same stamp as the esoteric twists of the Qarmati Bāṭinis, known by necessity to be false and to constitute a tampering with the words from their proper places. A man who seeks thereby to exalt the prophets ends up denying them, and one who wishes to believe in them ends up disbelieving in them.

Now, the infallibility that is established by the evidence of revelation, reason, and consensus—the very infallibility