A Critical Study of Muslim Theologians’ Justifications of Adam’s Sin

Author

Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Humanities, University oF Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

Abstract

Most of the Islamic theologians, particularly Shiites, who believe in prophets’ infallibility assert that Adam’s act in eating the forbidden fruit was not a sin. They have provided some justifications for Adam’s act. The most significant justification is that God's prohibition of eating the fruit was not obligatory but advisory. In another justification, Muslim theologians attribute Adam's sin to his children and generation. Other justifications belong to those theologians who accept that Adam's act was a sin done in disobedience to God's necessary prohibition. They justify his act in these ways: 1) Adam was misled by Satan's oath; 2) He committed the sin out of oblivion or mistake; 3) His sin took place in the heaven; 4) That was a minor sin; and 5) Adam was not a prophet when he committed the sin. The current study aimed at analyzing these justifications. In conclusion, according to some evidence, it seems that God's command to Adam was not advisory. Accordingly, Adam's sin was neither minor nor unintentional. The kind of command, advisory or necessary, or the place where sin was committed is not important. What matters is that Adam disobeyed Gods’ strict and direct command. Since a prophet should obey all God's commands, Adam’s act was a sin.

Keywords

References

The noble Qur’ān. Translated by M. A. S. Abdel Haleem, (2005), Oxford University press.
The noble Qur’ān. Translated by Mohammad Habib Shakir.
The Holy Bible, Translated From The Latin Vulgate, Diligently Compared With The Hebrew, Greek, And Other Editions In Divers Languages, Douay-Rheims Version, 1609, 1582.
Abd-u Al-Jabbār. (1965), Al-Mughnī fī Abwāb-i al-Tuhīd wa Al-᾽Adl. Qāhirah, Dār al-Misriyya.
Fāḍil, M. (2002), Al-Lawāmiʿ-u al-Ilāhīyya fi al-Mabāhith-i al-Kalāmīyya. Qom, Daftar Tabliqāt Islami.
Fakhr Rāzī, M. (2000), Tafsīr-u Mafātīh-i al-Ghayb. Beirut, Dār Ihyāʼ al-Turāth al-ʿArabi.
Hillī, A. (1984), Anwār-u al-Malakūt fī Sharh-i al-Yāqūt. Qom, Al-Sharīf Rāzī.
Ḥumṣī Rāzī, S. (1992), Al-Munqidh mina al-Taqlīd. Qum, Al-Nashr al-Islami.
Ibn Abi al-Hadīd, ʿA. (2004), Sharh Nahjul Balāgha. Qom, Maktabt Āyat-u Allah Mar῾shī.
Ibn Manẓūr, M. (1994), Lisān-u al-Arab. Beirut, Dār-u Şād,.
Ījī, ʿA. & ͑A. Jurjānī, (1946), Sharh-u al-Mawāqif. Ed. B. Nāsānī, Qom, Al-Sahrīf Al-Rāzī.
Makārim Shīrāzī, N. (2000), Al-Amthal fi Tafsīr-i Kītāb-i Al-Munzal. Qum, Madrasah Imam ῾Alī Ibn Abītālib.
Mufīd, M. (1993), Awāil-u al-Maqālāt fi al-Madhāhib wa al-Mukhtārāt. Qum, al-Mu῾tamar al-Ālamī for Shaykh Mufīd.
Mūsawī, ʿA. (2006), Al-Iṣmat-u fi al-Nabuwwat wa al-Imamat. In: Fī Rihāb-i Ahl-u al-Bayt, al-Majmaʿ al-Ālāmi li Ahl al-Bayt, vol. 40.
Muẓaffar, M. (2002), Dalāil-u al-Ṣidq. Qom, Āl-u al-Bayt Institute.
Qāḍī ͑Ayyāḍ, A. (1983), Al-Shifā bi Ta͑rīf-i Huqūq-u al-Mustafā. ʿAmmān, Dār-u al-Fihā. 
Rāzī Ḥanafī, A. (2002), Sharh-u Bidaʼ-u al-ʼmālī. Beirut, Dār al-Kutub al-Ilmīyya.
Sadūq, M. (1999), ‘Uyūn-i Akhbār-i al-Reżā. Tehran, Nashr-e Jahān.
Sayyid Murtaḍā, (1991), Al-Dhakhīrah fī Ilm-i al-Kalām. Qom, Muʿassasat-u al-Nashr-u al-Islamī.
Sayyid Murtaḍā, (1871), Tanzīh-u al-Anbīyā. Qom, al-Sharīf al- Rāzī.
Subhānī, J. (n.d), Ismat-u al-Anbīyā. Qom, Imām Sādiq Institute.
Taftāzānī, S. (1989), Sharh-u al-Maqāṣid. Qom, al-Sharīf al-Rāzī. 
Ṭurayḥī, F. (n.d), Majma‘ al-Bahrayn. Available at: Jami᾽ al-Ahādīth Software (Noor 2). Qom, The Computer Institute for Islamic Sciences.
Ṭūsī, M. (2003), Talkhīṣ al-Shāfī. Qom, Muhibbīn Press.
Ṭūsī, N. (1985), Talkhīṣ al-Muhaṣṣal. Beirūt, Dār al-Aḍwā‘.
Classical and Contemporary Islamic Studies (formerly known as Journal of Contemporary Islamic Studies)
Volume 4, Issue 1
Winter & Spring
January 2022
Pages 31-43

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics