因此，区别在于他（愿安拉赐福他）接受了启示，即先知身份。除此之外，他（愿安拉赐福他）与其他任何人一样，也是一个普通人。因此，在治理方面，他（愿安拉赐福他）是人，毫无疑问，他的继承者（Khulafaa’）也同样是人，与其他任何人一样，因为他们只是他在治理方面的继承者，而不是先知身份和使命的继承者。因此，无过性不适用于哈里发，因为这不是治理所必需的，而是先知身份的要求。哈里发仅仅是一个统治者，因此无过性的条件与担任此职位的人无关。甚至禁止将无过性规定为担任哈里发职位者必须具备的前提条件。这是因为无过性仅限于众先知，禁止为先知以外的任何人宣称具有无过性。沙里亚（Shari’ah）的传达（Tableegh）只要求先知和使者具有无过性，因此无过性指的是传达神圣讯息方面的无过性。不犯任何罪过的表现形式，是在传达方面无过性的延伸。因为他若不免于犯禁，其传达方面的无过性便不完整。由此可见，无过性对于传达讯息是必需的，而并非为了使人们信或不信他，也并非为了行为中是否出现错误。真正需要无过性的，只是讯息的传达，仅此而已。如果安拉没有使先知或使者无过，那么他就可能隐瞒讯息，或增添其内容，或删减其内容，或捏造安拉未曾说过的话，或在宣告时犯错，宣布了未奉命传达的内容。所有这些情形都与安拉的讯息传达相矛盾，而使者是必须被信从的。 因此,使者在传达使命时必须具备无过(‘Isma)的特质,由此也就推出他不会犯罪的无过。因此,学者们对先知在触犯禁令(Al-muharramaat)这一问题上的无过存在分歧。有些人说,他只在大罪(Al-kabaa'ir)上无过,而小罪(As-saghaa'ir)则可能会犯。另有一些人说,他在大罪和小罪上都无过。他们的理由是,传达的完美取决于行为。如果传达的完美取决于行为,那么传达中的无过就包括行为,因此先知必定不会犯罪,因为除非他在行为上无过,否则传达就不会完美。但如果传达的完美不取决于行为,那么无过就不包括行为,他也就不会在这些行为上无过,因为传达在没有这些行为的情况下同样可以完美。因此,穆斯林中没有人分歧认为,先知(愿主赐福并平安)在那些真主认为更为适宜之外的行为上并非无过,因为传达的完美绝不取决于这些行为。由此可见,无过只针对传达而言,因此它只存在于使者和先知身上,绝不允许将其绝对地用于他们之外的人。
The distinction, therefore, lies in the fact that he (pbuh) received revelation, namely the Prophethood. Other than that he (pbuh) was a man like any other man. Therefore, in ruling he (pbuh) was human, and undoubtedly his successors (Khulafaa’) would also be humans just like any other human, because they would only be successors to Him in ruling, not Prophethood and Messengership. Infallibility does not therefore apply to the Khaleefah, as this is not required in ruling but it is a requirement of Prophethood. The Khaleefah is only a ruler no more, so the condition of infallibility is irrelevant to those who take up this post. It is even forbidden to stipulate infallibility as a precondition incumbent upon whoever takes up the post of Khilafah. This is because infallibility is restricted to the Prophets and it is forbidden to claim it on behalf of anyone other than a Prophet. The conveyance (Tableegh) of a Shari’ah requires the existence of infallibility in the Prophet and Messenger alone, so it is infallibility in the conveyance of the divine Message. Its realisation in the shape of not committing any sins follows the infallibility in conveyance (Tableegh). This is because the infallibility in Him would not be complete without the infallibility from committing the forbidden things. Thus infallibility is necessary for conveying of the Message and not for the people to believe or not in Him or for the occurrence or not of error in the actions. Rather what requires the infallibility is the conveyance of the Message and no more. If Allah had not made the Prophet or Messenger infallible it would then have been possible for Him to hide the Message or to add to it, or take away from it, or fabricate things which Allah did not say, or make a mistake by proclaiming other than what he has been ordered to convey. All these matters contradict with the conveyance of a Message from Allah (pbuh), and for being a Messenger, who must be believed in. Therefore, it was necessary that the Messenger be characterised by infallibility (‘Isma) in proclaiming the Message, and accordingly his infallibility from committing sins follows. Therefore the scholars differed over the infallibility (‘Isma) of the Prophets in the issue of committing the forbidden things (Al-muharramaat). Some of them said he is infallible from committing the major sins (Al-kabaa’ir) only and it is possible that he commits minor sins (As-saghaa’ir). Some of them said that he is infallible with regards to both major and minor sins. They said that because the perfection of proclamation depends on the actions. If the perfection of the proclamation depends on the actions, then the infallibility in the proclamation will include the actions. Accordingly, the Prophet will be infallible from committing sins, since the proclamation will not be perfected unless he is infallible in the actions. But if the perfection of the proclamation does not depend on the actions, then the infallibility does not include them. Thus, he will not be infallible from them, because the proclamation would then be perfected without them. This is why there is no difference amongst the Muslims that the Prophet (pbuh) was not infallible from doing actions other than those that Allah considered more appropriate, because the perfection of proclamation definitely does not depend upon these actions. Thereupon, the infallibility (‘Isma) is only specific to the proclamation, and thus it does not exist except for the Messengers and the Prophets and it is not allowed to be for other than them absolutely.