The Reliability and the Purpos- Refutation Arguments in Proving Prophets' Infallibility: A Critical Survey

The Reliability Argument and the Purpose-Refutation Argument are the two most important logical arguments that have been alleged by Islamic theologians, and Shia in particular, for proving divine prophets’ infallibility. According to the Purpose-Refutation Argument, if prophets were not infallible, God’s purpose in sending them for guiding people would be unattainable, because in this case, people by following the examples of prophets, would be led astray and consequently commit sins. Based on the Reliability Argument, if prophets commit sins, have mistakes, and fade into oblivion, people would lose their confidence in them. For that reason, prophets must be completely infallible and incapable of sinning (minor or major). This paper argues that there are some serious objections to these two arguments: People can rely on prophets without any need of their absolute infallibility; God can attain His goal by sending fallible prophets; The arguments involve is/ought fallacy, and the conclusion is more restricted than the claim of prophets’ complete infallibility.