The Honour of Prophets — Page 11
11 commandments of God, thus rendering a person liable to divine punishment. 6 Hence, it is clearly evident that there is no natural cor relation between sinlessness and intercession because 6 This is so because the definition of sin, which commends itself to every just and reasonable person, is that an act is a sin when a person becomes worthy of punishment by breaking the command of God. Therefore, when this is the case it is necessary for a divine injunction to exist in the first place to precede the commission of sin. Moreover, this commandment must have been brought to the knowledge of the offender as well. Further still, reason must dictate that the individual guilty of offence has reasonably become liable to punishment as a consequence of his action. For example, if some person lives in a far off land where the divine law has not reached him, and if this person violates one or several commandments of the religious law, he is not a culprit on account of disobeying divine injunctions, for he is oblivious to religious law. However, if this person starts worshiping idols despite possessing reason and understanding, and turns away from the Oneness of God, he shall be guilty even though the religious law may not have reached him. The Oneness of God which the Quran presents is not like the Christian Trinity, which is not etched in the nature of man. In fact, since the very beginning of creation, the Oneness of God has been ingrained in the nature of man. Thus, to be deemed guilty of defying the Oneness of God it is not necessary for religious law to have first reached a person; the presence of human reason is all that is required. On the other hand, if a religious law exists and has also reached a person, but the individual is immature or mad, and commits an act, which according to divine law is known as sin, the person in question will not be worthy of punishment, for they are bereft of human reason and so are innocent despite the presence of religious law. (Author)