A Survey of Rational Arguments for Imam's Infallibility from the Viewpoints of Sayyed Murtazā and Qāzi Abduljabbār

Among lots of rational arguments for Imam's infallibility one can pick up impossibility of progression of Imams; incumbency of preservation of Sharī'a; and incumbency of conformity with Imam –for which Imami scholars have always argued enthusiastically. On the other hand, other Islamic denominations including Mutazila do appropriately not valorize the infallibility, and have strived to object to the arguments for Imam's infallibility such as the abovementioned ones. Having put forward a sketch of and an introduction to the two books, namely al-Mughnī and al-Shāfī, along with a definition of infallibility, this article will explain and illustrate the aforementioned rational arguments from the viewpoints of the two scholars. Alongside this argumentative route, it will be clarified that Qāzī's objections cannot undermine the arguments because, while dealing with the argument for impossibility of progression, the main emphasis of Imami scholars has been placed upon people's fallibility not upon the problem of punishments accomplishment (Iqāmat al-hudūd). Furthermore, in the argument for preservation of Sharī'a, Qāzī's proposed alternatives cannot be sufficient in order to preserve Sharī'a, and in the argument for incumbency of Imam's conformity, one's failure to follow Imam can be justifiably interpreted as undervaluing Imamate. Nonetheless, some of Sayyed Murtazā's responses stay in need of further illustrations.