“A Comparative Study of Infallibility of Prophets in the Qur’an With emphasis on the Views of Seyyed Morteza and Fakhr Razi”

Although the ideological discussions and theological infallibility of the prophets have old history, but always are one of the most important Islamic theological discussions among Muslim theologians and commentators. Seyyed Morteza as a representative of Shi’a school of thought and Fakhr Razi as a representative of Ash’arite school of thought are among the thinkers who had different theological views especially about the infallibility of prophets. Therefore because of their importance, this thesis studies the infallibility of prophets on Seyyed Morteza and Fakhr Razi’s viewpoints comparatively, in order to analyze similarities, differences and how of these two approaches’ reasoning. Seyyed Morteza and Fakhr Razi are two Islamic scholars accepting the infallibility of prophets and believed that they must be free from any sins such as idolatry, blasphemy, corruption in religious and preaching issues and issuing verdict. Seyyed Morteza and Fakhr Razi also in interpreting the verses that appears incompatible with the infallibility of the prophets explained and justified well and provided roughly the same answers, so the commonality between these two views can be used to approximate religions. However, some issues can be regarded as their differences on the infallibility of prophets. In writer’s opinion, the first difference is the reality of infallibility as Seyyed Morteza believed that infallibility is divine grace and innocent person leaves it with discretion and power, while Fakhr Razi accepted infallibility as power over obedience and lack of power over sin that is rather based on Determinism. Also time, scope and extent of the infallibility of prophets are parts of these two thinker’s differences. Seyyed Morteza believed that prophets were infallible at birth that is before and after their prophecy and the end of life. While Fakhr Razi believed that infallibility appears with prophecy simultaneously. He limits infallibility so that committing major and minor sins are not permitted in time of prophecy deliberately but doing the sins before prophecy is allowed in his opinion.