The Infallibility Myth of the Prophet’s Companions: A Critique of the Wahhabi Conception

By V.A. Mohamad Ashrof, New Age Islam 11 September 2025 The companions of the Prophet Muhammad, the Sahaaba, hold a place of profound reverence within all schools of Sunni Islam as the primary conduits of the Prophetic tradition. However, the theological movement initiated in the 18th century by Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, and perpetuated by modern Salafism, has elevated this reverence to an unyielding dogma of collective infallibility and universal moral probity (Adalat al-Sahaaba). This doctrine posits that the entire generation of companions is beyond reproach, rendering any form of historical or ethical criticism of their actions tantamount to religious deviance. This paper conducts an extensive hermeneutical critique of this conception, arguing that the Wahhabi-Salafi position is a theological construct that is Quranically untenable, historically reductionist, and logically incoherent. Through a multi-pronged analysis, this paper will deconstruct the scriptural and historical edifice upon which this dogma rests. First, it will present the Wahhabi position by synthesizing its own arguments. Second, it will demonstrate that a holistic reading of the Quran presents a deeply nuanced and complex portrait of the companions, replete with instances of human fallibility, divine censure, and internal stratification. Third, it will delve into the annals of early Islamic history, revealing a turbulent landscape of political contestation, intense disagreement, and violent civil war among the companions that shatters the myth of a monolithic and morally pristine generation. Finally, it will expose the logical fallacies and politico-theological motivations undergirding the doctrine, linking its historical development and contemporary utility to the consolidation of religious and political authoritarianism. This paper concludes that a return to a more critical, contextual, and intellectually honest engagement with the legacy of the companions is not only permissible but is a prerequisite for a dynamic and ethically robust understanding of Islam, consistent with the Quran’s own call for reason and justice. The Doctrinal Edifice: Constructing the Inviolable Companion To critique the Wahhabi conception of the companions, it is first essential to understand the structure and rationale of the doctrine itself. This position is not arbitrary but is rooted in a specific hermeneutical approach designed to safeguard what its proponents see as the very foundations of the Islamic religion. The Wahhabi-Salafi argument for the inviolability of the Sahaba rests on a triad of principles: the explicit praise found in the Quran and Hadith, the indispensable role of the companions in the transmission of the Sunnah, and the theological imperative of maintaining unity by avoiding historical discord. The primary scriptural pillar of this doctrine is a literalist and decontextualized reading of verses that laud the early Muslim community. Proponents argue that the Quran highly reveres and praises the Prophet's disciples for their unwavering commitment to the Prophet and the faith. They point to verses such as 7:157, which describes them as "those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel," highlighting their recognition of the Prophet’s authenticity and their eagerness to follow him. Further evidence is drawn from verses that praise their piety, such as 3:113, which states that "among the people of the Book is a nation steadfast, reciting God's verses through the night, and prostrating." While this verse refers to a specific group among the People of the Book who embraced Islam, it is often generalized in Salafi discourse to illustrate the exemplary piety of the early community. The most crucial verse in this line of argumentation is often 9:100: “As for the first pioneers who led the way from the Emigrants and the Helpers, and those who followed them in goodness, God is pleased with them and they are pleased with Him.” For the Salafi interpreter, this declaration of divine pleasure (Ridwan) is absolute, unconditional, and extends to the entire generation, effectively sealing them from any subsequent criticism. The second pillar is the critical role of the companions in the preservation and transmission of Islamic knowledge. The argument posits that the entire edifice of the Sunnah—the collected sayings, actions, and approvals of the Prophet—rests on the integrity and reliability of the companions who narrated them. Therefore, to question the moral character or truthfulness of any companion is to indirectly attack the authenticity of the Hadith corpus and, by extension, to undermine the second primary source of Islamic law. Historical evidence is marshalled to support their meticulousness. For instance, the diligence of figures like Abdullah ibn Abbas is frequently cited, as in the report where he is said to have stated, "I memorized the Hadiths of the Prophet and wrote them down, and I used to ask the Prophet about the interpretation of the Quran" (Ibn Hajar, 2:345). This scrupulousness is seen as a collective trait. Criticizing the Prophet's disciples, who were the primary transmitters of his teachings, thus raises existential questions about the validity and authenticity of the entire Islamic tradition. This view is buttressed by Quranic verses emphasizing the Prophet’s authority, such as 4:80: "whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed God." The logic follows that since the companions were the most obedient followers and transmitters of the Messenger's commands, obedience to the tradition they transmitted is paramount, and criticism of them is a form of disobedience. The third pillar is the argument from communal unity and the prevention of Fitna (sedition, civil strife). The Wahhabi critique of those who analyse the companions’ disputes is often framed as a dangerous act that reopens old wounds and promotes division within the Muslim community. This position draws on verses like 3:103, which commands believers to "hold firmly to the rope of God, all of you, and do not be divided." From this perspective, delving into the conflicts among the companions, such as the First Fitna, serves no purpose other than to create discord and sectarian sentiment. As the scholar Tariq Ramadan, reflecting a common sentiment, notes, "The unity of the Muslim community is not just a desirable goal but a fundamental aspect of Islamic faith" (Ramadan, p.210). The preferred approach is one of respectful silence (Imsak), wherein one refrains from discussing the errors of the companions and assumes the best of intentions for all parties involved in historical conflicts. Any disagreements, such as those over the spoils of war mentioned in hadith collections (Bukhari, 4:323), are to be understood not as evidence of perfidy or worldly ambition but simply as manifestations of "human nature and the challenges of governance," filtered through the lens of their assumed, unassailable piety. This conception, emerging from the 18th-century revivalist-puritanical movement of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, solidifies into a rigid traditionalism that finds its modern voice in Salafi circles. It considers the early three generations—the Salaf —as the only legitimate interpreters of Islam. Criticism of the companions is therefore considered tantamount to deviance, a rejection of the pristine model community. However, as this paper will now demonstrate, this hermetically sealed and idealized portrait is not only historically reductionist and logically untenable, but it stands in direct contradiction to the Quran’s own ethical worldview and its complex portrayal of the human condition. The Quranic Counter-Narrative: A Nuanced Spectrum of Human Complexity A hermeneutical analysis that moves beyond selective proof-texting and engages with the Quran holistically reveals a divine text that refuses to sanctify any generation indiscriminately. The Quran’s portrayal of the Prophet’s community is not a hagiography of saints but a dynamic and realistic depiction of a human society grappling with faith, doubt, virtue, and sin. It distinguishes sharply between sincere believers, wavering followers, outright hypocrites, and repentant sinners, all of whom coexisted in the Prophet’s immediate vicinity. The most direct Quranic refutation of the concept of a universally righteous companionate is the sustained and severe discussion of hypocrisy (Nifaq). The Quran devotes an entire chapter, Surah 63 (Al-Munafiqun), to exposing the hypocrites within the Medinan community. These individuals were, by any standard definition, "companions"—they prayed behind the Prophet, participated in community life, and were outwardly indistinguishable from sincere believers. Yet, the Quran reveals their inner state: "When the hypocrites come to you, [O Muhammad], they say, 'We testify that you are the Messenger of God.' And God knows that you are His Messenger, and God testifies that the hypocrites are surely liars" (63:1). The chapter goes on to describe their attempts to sow discord and their arrogant assertion that they would expel the Prophet from Medina (63:8). Even more damning is the explicit statement in 9:101: "And among those around you of the Bedouins are hypocrites, and [also] from the people of Medina. They have persisted in hypocrisy. You, [O Muhammad], do not know them; We know them." This verse shatters the very premise that proximity to the Prophet was a guarantor of spiritual purity or that the Prophet himself could vouch for the sincerity of all those around him. If the Prophet himself was unaware of some of them, the claim by later generations to possess the certainty that all companions were righteous becomes an audacious and unsupported assertion. The Wahhabi framework, by insisting on the probity of all companions, is forced to either ignore these verses or to define "companion" in a circular manner, excluding anyone the Quran critiques, thereby gutting the term of its historical meaning. The Quran does not reserve its criticism for hypocrites alone; it also records rebukes and warnings directed at sincere believers among the companions for their very human errors. These instances affirm their fallibility and underscore that no one, save the Prophet in his capacity to transmit revelation, was immune to error and correction. Verse 49:2 delivers a sharp lesson in etiquette, warning the believers: "O you who have believed, do not raise your voices above the voice of the Prophet or be loud to him in speech as you are loud to one another, lest your deeds become worthless while you perceive not." The very need for such a revelation indicates a behavioural lapse among some companions, a failure to observe the decorum required in the presence of the Prophet. While seemingly a minor infraction, the verse links it to the grave consequence of nullifying one's deeds, demonstrating that even small acts of disrespect were subject to divine reprimand. The campaign of Tabuk provides another powerful example. While the Quran praises the sincere believers who participated, it also speaks of those who wavered. Verse 9:117 mentions that God turned in mercy to the Prophet, the Emigrants, and the Helpers who followed him "in the hour of difficulty after the hearts of a party of them had almost faltered." The verse concludes by affirming God's forgiveness, but the crucial point is the admission of their near-faltering—their "wavering." This is not a portrait of unshakeable faith but of human struggle, doubt, and eventual return to steadfastness through divine mercy. Their virtue lies not in their inherent immunity to weakness, but in their capacity for repentance. More serious were the actions of some companions during military campaigns, where lapses in discipline had severe consequences. The Quranic account of the Battle of Uhud in Surah Al-Imran is a case in point. Verse 3:152 directly attributes the military setback to a group of companions who disobeyed the Prophet’s explicit command not to leave their post, driven by the desire for spoils: "...until [the moment] you lost courage and fell to disputing about the order, and disobeyed after He had shown you that which you love [i.e., victory]." The Quran acknowledges their sin before mentioning God’s pardon, a sequence that validates the reality of their error. Similarly, at the Battle of Hunayn, the initial defeat is ascribed to the companions' vanity: "On the day of Hunayn, when you were impressed by your great numbers, but they availed you naught" (9:25). These are not minor flaws; they are moral and strategic errors that led to near-disaster, and the Quran does not shy away from identifying them as such. The Quran's Overarching Ethical Framework: Taqwa, Not Chronology Ultimately, the Wahhabi elevation of the companions based on their chronological status collides with the Quran’s most fundamental ethical principle: that the noblest of people in the sight of God are the most righteous. The definitive statement is found in 49:13: "O mankind, indeed We have created you from male and female and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. Indeed, the most noble of you in the sight of God is the most righteous of you [Atqakum]." The criterion for honour is Taqwa (God-consciousness, piety, righteousness), a quality of the heart and of one’s actions, not one's historical position or association. As the scholar Asma Barlas rightly notes, "The Quran... renders no generation above scrutiny, not even the Prophet’s contemporaries" (Barlas, p.113). This principle of individual accountability is relentlessly emphasized. Verse 53:38 declares that "no bearer of burdens will bear the burden of another," making salvation and judgment an entirely individual matter. There is no concept of collective, generational salvation. The Quran even holds the Prophet himself to this standard of accountability. The famous passage in Surah 80 (80:1–10) gently rebukes the Prophet for frowning at a blind man who sought his guidance, demonstrating that even the most exalted human being is subject to divine correction. If the Prophet himself was not above divine admonition, the proposition that his followers were immune to criticism becomes theologically indefensible. The Wahhabi reverence for the companions, in its absolutism, borders on a form of sacralisation that violates the core principle of Tawhid (God’s oneness) by elevating fallible human beings to a station of near-infallibility. As Amina Wadud stresses, “the Quranic worldview is one of moral egalitarianism, where no human being holds an intrinsic superiority except by virtue of righteousness” (Wadud, p.94). Thus, to posit an untouchable status for all companions is to ignore the Quran’s central moral framework. The Witness of History: Contestation, Conflict, and Civil War If the Quranic narrative subverts the myth of a perfect generation, the historical record demolishes it. The romanticized image of a harmonious, unified, and saintly cohort of companions dissolves upon contact with the earliest Islamic historical chronicles, such as those by al-Tabari, Ibn Sa'd, and al-Baladhuri. These sources, composed within the Sunni tradition itself, paint a picture of a complex, dynamic, and often deeply divided community grappling with the unprecedented challenges of state-building, succession, and power in the aftermath of the Prophet’s death. The most undeniable evidence against the notion of a universally righteous and unified companionate is the First Fitna (First Civil War, 656-661 CE). This series of events saw the most eminent companions take up arms against one another, resulting in catastrophic bloodshed and permanent schisms within the Muslim polity. The conflict was not between righteous believers and external enemies, but between factions led by the Prophet’s closest family members and earliest followers. The turmoil began with the assassination of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan, in 656 CE. Uthman, a companion from the earliest days of Islam, was killed not by foreign invaders but by disgruntled rebels from within the Muslim provinces, a group that included or was supported by individuals who were themselves associated with the companions. The grievances against him—allegations of nepotism and unjust governance—expose deep fractures in the early community and demonstrate that companions were capable of both holding and inspiring profound political opposition. The subsequent Caliphate of ʿAli ibn Abi Talib, the Prophet’s cousin and son-in-law, was immediately mired in civil war. The Battle of the Camel (656 CE) pitted Ali’s army against a force led by Aisha bint Abu Bakr, the Prophet’s widow, alongside two of the most celebrated companions, Talha ibn Ubaydullah and Zubayr ibn al-Awwam. Both Talha and Zubayr were among the ten promised Paradise according to a famous Sunni hadith, yet they died fighting the legitimate Caliph. The Wahhabi-Salafi attempt to explain this tragedy as a case of all parties exercising "sincere ijtihad" (independent legal reasoning) is ethically and logically bankrupt. It renders the concepts of justice, rebellion, and obedience meaningless and trivializes the deaths of thousands of Muslims. It is an apologetic designed to preserve a theological ideal at the expense of historical and moral reality. The conflict escalated at the Battle of Siffin (657 CE), where Ali’s forces confronted the army of Muʿawiya ibn Abi Sufyan, the governor of Syria and also a companion. The battle ended in a controversial arbitration that fractured Ali’s support base and ultimately paved the way for Muawiya to seize the Caliphate and establish the Umayyad dynasty, a hereditary monarchy that was a stark departure from the preceding consultative model. The actions of Muawiya, in particular, reflect political ambition, tribal loyalty, and the pursuit of worldly power that infiltrated the earliest Muslim polity. The Wahhabi glorification of this period deliberately overlooks the ethical chaos, the moral ambiguities, and the raw political manoeuvring involved. It demands that a student of history view a rebellious governor who challenged the central authority of the caliphate and a revered early convert like Ali as morally equivalent figures, both operating from a place of sincere piety. This is not historical analysis; it is a theological straightjacket that suffocates any meaningful moral or political inquiry into the foundational crises of the Islamic state. As the historian Patricia Crone critiques, the mythologisation of the companions serves to obscure a history marked by “rival claims to legitimacy” and the construction of competing narratives (Crone, p.45). The First Fitna was, at its heart, a brutal contest over legitimacy, and to deny the possibility of criticizing the actors involved is to refuse to engage with the very substance of that contest. A Culture of Disagreement and Critique The myth of a monolithic and harmonious companionate is further debunked when one examines the non-violent, yet often sharp, disagreements that characterized their interactions even in times of relative peace. The companions were not a uniform bloc who thought and acted in unison. They were individuals with different temperaments, intellectual capacities, and interpretive approaches, and they frequently engaged in robust debate and mutual criticism. The relationship between the first two caliphs, Abu Bakr and Umar, provides a prime example. During the Ridda (Apostasy) Wars, Umar initially argued vehemently against Abu Bakr’s decision to wage war on tribes that withheld the zakat (alms), contending that they still professed the faith. It was only after Abu Bakr’s resolute argument that Umar was convinced. This was a high-stakes disagreement between the two most senior companions over a fundamental matter of state policy and religious law. Furthermore, Umar’s own caliphate was a model of accountability, a practice that inherently involves criticism. He was famous for holding his governors—many of whom were eminent companions—to an exacting standard. He would summon them to Medina, publicly interrogate them about their wealth and governance, and did not hesitate to dismiss them if they failed to meet his standards. This institutionalized practice of holding powerful companion’s accountable stands in stark contrast to the later doctrine that they are beyond reproach. Intellectual and jurisprudential diversity was also the norm. The companions who were known for their legal expertise, such as Abdullah ibn Mas'ud, Zayd ibn Thabit, Abdullah ibn Abbas, and Abdullah ibn Umar, held differing opinions on a vast array of subjects, from rituals and inheritance law to Quranic interpretation. Ibn Mas'ud’s school of law in Kufa often diverged from the Medinan school associated with others. The Prophet’s wife, Aisha, was particularly renowned for her critical eye, frequently correcting the narrations and interpretations of other major companions, including Abu Hurayra and Ibn Umar, when she believed they had misunderstood or misremembered the Prophet's words or context. This vibrant culture of intellectual cross-examination and correction is a historical testament to the fact that the companions did not view one another as infallible. They treated each other as human beings capable of error, and saw critique not as an act of impiety, but as a necessary tool for preserving the accuracy of the religious tradition. From a historical standpoint, therefore, viewing the companions as a homogeneously virtuous and conflict-free cohort is an anachronistic and artificial construct, often politically motivated by later dynasties like the Umayyads and Abbasids who sought to cement their own legitimacy by selectively associating with and sanctifying specific companions. Logical Fallacies and the Politics of Sanctification The Wahhabi-Salafi doctrine of companionate inviolability is not only at odds with the Quran and the historical record, but it is also constructed upon a foundation of logical fallacies and serves distinct politico-theological interests. A critical hermeneutic must deconstruct these underlying rationales to understand why such a historically fragile myth is so fiercely defended. From a logical perspective, the argument for absolute reverence involves several fallacies. The most prominent is the appeal to antiquity, a fallacy that posits that something is better or truer simply because it is older. The Salafi claim that the Salaf (the first three generations) possessed a uniquely pure and correct understanding of Islam that can never be surpassed is a classic example of this. While the proximity of the companions to the source of revelation is historically significant, it is not a logical guarantee of their superior moral or interpretive perfection in every instance. The Quran itself contradicts this by exhorting all people across all time to use reason and reflection (Tadabbur), as seen in verses like 38:29: “This is a blessed Scripture which We have revealed to you, [O Muhammad], that they might reflect upon its verses and that those of understanding would be reminded.” This call to reflection is universal and timeless; it is not restricted to the first generation. A second flaw is the collective infallibility fallacy. This involves assigning a quality of moral perfection or unerring judgment to an entire group based on their association with a revered figure. The Quran affirms human fallibility as an intrinsic part of the human condition, even for prophets, who are shown to be subject to divine correction (e.g., the Prophet's pardon being mentioned before that of his followers in 9:43; his being admonished not to forbid what God had made lawful in 66:1). If prophets, who were protected by divine inspiration, were not immune to error in their personal judgment, it is logically untenable to claim that their thousands of followers were. The argument commits a category error by transferring the unique status of the Prophet to his entire generation. Furthermore, the insistence that the understanding of the Salaf is the only valid one directly contradicts the Quranic condemnation of blind following (Taqlid). Verses such as 2:170 and 7:28 censure those who justify their erroneous ways by claiming, “We found our fathers doing it.” While the context is pre-Islamic paganism, the principle is a powerful critique of unthinking adherence to tradition. By placing the early generations beyond the pale of critical engagement, the Wahhabi-Salafi doctrine paralyzes moral reasoning, discourages intellectual development (Ijtihad), and ironically promotes the very form of Taqlid it claims to oppose. As the scholar Khaled Abou El Fadl argues, “the elevation of the companions into paragons of moral perfection is not a Quranic requirement but a political and theological choice made by later interpreters” (Abou El Fadl, p.78). This choice serves to close the gates of interpretation and establish a fixed, immutable tradition controlled by a specific school of thought. The Politics of Canonization and Authoritarianism The sanctification of the companions cannot be divorced from the political history of the Islamic world. The effort to create a sanitized and unified narrative of the early community served the state-building agendas of later dynasties who needed to establish their own legitimacy. The Umayyad regime, founded by the companion Muawiya, systematically promoted the narratives and status of companions who had supported their rise to power while suppressing or marginalizing the traditions associated with their opponents, particularly the supporters of Ali ibn Abi Talib. The canonization of certain companions and the insistence on their universal righteousness became a political tool to create a narrative of Sunni orthodoxy that legitimized the existing caliphal model and delegitimized all forms of dissent. Wahhabism, in its historical formation, appropriated and intensified this myth for its own purposes. Emerging in the 18th century in a pact of mutual reinforcement with the Al Saud family, the theology of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab provided the religious justification for the Saudis’ military and political expansion. The doctrine of Tawhid was used to declare other Muslims as polytheists (Mushrikun), and the doctrine of adherence to the Salaf was used to brand all other interpretations of Islam—Sufi, Shia, or mainstream Sunni schools of law—as deviant innovations (Bid’a). In this context, the myth of the infallible companions became a powerful ideological weapon. By defining "true Islam" as exclusively that which conforms to their interpretation of the Salaf's practice, they could delegitimize any opposition, religious or political, as an attack on the foundations of the faith. This dynamic continues in the modern era. The suppression of critical thinking about early Islamic figures is a cornerstone of the religious ideology used to justify authoritarianism in states like Saudi Arabia. When the state and its officially sanctioned clerical establishment claim to be the sole true heirs to the "methodology of the Salaf," any challenge to their authority can be framed as a challenge to the Salaf themselves, and therefore a form of heresy. As Fred Donner emphasizes, “early Islamic history is replete with contestation over authority and legitimacy, and efforts to suppress dissenting voices have left behind a deeply sanitized narrative of the Salaf” (Donner, p.132). Wahhabi-Salafi theology not only reproduces this sanitized myth but weaponises it to enforce religious uniformity and political conformity, creating a closed, hierarchical religious order where dissent is impossible. Towards a Quranic Ethic of Critical and Accountable Engagement A hermeneutic rooted in the Quran’s core principles necessitates a move away from the uncritical glorification of historical figures and towards an ethic of accountability, humility, and justice. The Quran’s worldview is not built on loyalty to persons, but on commitment to principles. The Quran consistently affirms that accountability is individual. Status, lineage, or historical proximity grants no one a reprieve from moral scrutiny. The declaration in 53:38 that "no bearer of burdens shall bear the burden of another" is the ultimate equalizer. Therefore, even the companions are not exempt from this universal ethic. Their worth, like the worth of any human being, is determined by their faith, sincerity, and actions—not by their title or their temporal closeness to the Prophet. To engage with their history means to evaluate their actions against the Quranic ethical framework, to praise their virtues and sacrifices, but also to acknowledge and learn from their errors and conflicts. This approach is not an act of disrespect; it is an act of taking the Quran's moral seriousness to its logical conclusion. The Prophet himself is presented in the Quran as a model of humility and receptiveness to divine guidance. The admonition in 80:1–10 is not a stain on his character but a powerful lesson for all believers that no one is above correction. In stark contrast, the Wahhabi reverence for the companions constructs an unbreachable wall around them, transforming them from human exemplars to be emulated into sacred totems to be venerated. This act of sacralisation, by elevating fallible humans to a status of near-infallibility, is a dangerous deviation from the uncompromising monotheism that Wahhabism itself claims to champion. A humanistic and liberative reading of the Quran demands that we engage with all historical actors, including the Prophet’s companions, critically and contextually. This means acknowledging their monumental achievements in establishing the first Muslim community while also studying their political struggles, their ethical dilemmas, and their human failings without fear or dogmatic inhibition. It is in the complexities and even the tragedies of their history that the most profound lessons for contemporary Muslims are often found—lessons about power, justice, community, and the perennial human struggle to live up to divine ideals. The Myth of the Infallible Generation The Wahhabi-Salafi doctrine that criticism of the Prophet’s companions is impermissible and that they represent a universally infallible generation is a myth constructed on a foundation of selective scriptural reading, historical amnesia, and logical fallacies. It fails the test of the Quran, which portrays the prophetic community in all its human complexity, complete with sinners, hypocrites, and sincere but fallible believers. It crumbles under the weight of the historical record, which documents profound disagreements, political contestation, and violent civil wars among the most eminent companions. And it serves as a politico-theological instrument for enforcing authoritarian conformity, stifling intellectual inquiry, and delegitimizing dissent. A hermeneutic that is faithful to the Quranic spirit is one that calls for moral reasoning, intellectual humility, and a commitment to justice, not blind loyalty to historical figures. The uncritical glorification of the companions, far from being a cornerstone of "pure" Islam, is a theological innovation (bidʿa) that ironically contradicts the very principles of anti-traditionalism and scriptural purity that the Wahhabi movement claims to uphold. Reclaiming the right to critically and respectfully engage with the history of all early Muslims, including the companions, is essential for liberating the Islamic intellectual tradition from the paralysis of dogma and for developing an ethical and political consciousness that is equipped to address the challenges of the present. Bibliography Abou El Fadl, Khaled. The Great Theft: Wrestling Islam from the Extremists. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2005. Barlas, Asma. “Believing Women” in Islam: Unreading Patriarchal Interpretations of the Qur’an. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. Bukhari, Muhammad ibn Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah, 1998. Crone, Patricia. God’s Rule: Government and Islam. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004. Donner, Fred M. Narratives of Islamic Origins: The Beginnings of Islamic Historical Writing. Princeton: Darwin Press, 1998. Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, Ahmad ibn Ali. Fath al-Bari fi Sharh Sahih al-Bukhari. Beirut: Dar al-Kutub al-Ilmiyah, 1998. The Quran. Translated by Muhammad Asad, Gibraltar: Dar al-Andalus, 1980. Ramadan, Tariq. In the Footsteps of the Prophet: Lessons from the Life of Muhammad. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Wadud, Amina. Qur'an and Woman: Rereading the Sacred Text from a Woman's Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ------ V.A. Mohamad Ashrof is an independent Indian scholar specializing in Islamic humanism. With a deep commitment to advancing Quranic hermeneutics that prioritize human well-being, peace, and progress, his work aims to foster a just society, encourage critical thinking, and promote inclusive discourse and peaceful coexistence. He is dedicated to creating pathways for meaningful social change and intellectual growth through his scholarship. URL: https://www.newageislam.com/debating-islam/infallibility-myth-prophet-companions-wahhabi/d/136795 New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in Islam, Islamic Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia in America, Muslim Women in West, Islam Women and Feminism