{"id":1547,"date":"2026-09-02T11:54:56","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T15:54:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/?p=1547"},"modified":"2026-09-06T14:56:22","modified_gmt":"2026-09-06T18:56:22","slug":"are-the-prophets-infallible-in-the-quran","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/2026\/09\/02\/are-the-prophets-infallible-in-the-quran\/","title":{"rendered":"Are the Prophets Infallible in the Qur\u2019an?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Introduction<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

It is common to hear the charge, raised by many Muslims, that the Bible portrays the prophets as fallible human beings, whereas Islamic doctrine, on this view, establishes the prophets\u2019 infallibility. It should be noted at the outset that Christian faith does not dispute this point at all, the Bible teaches openly that no one is perfect but God alone, and that all human beings, prophets included, are sinners; this is not in dispute. The subject of this study is different: did the Qur\u2019an itself in fact portray the prophets as infallible, or do its own texts record for them sin, seeking of forgiveness, and repentance? This is what the present brief study attempts to answer, relying exclusively on the text of the Qur’an itself rather than on outside sources.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Concept of Isma (Infallibility) in Islamic Doctrine<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Before presenting the examples, it should be noted that the term \u201cisma\u201d (roughly: the safeguarding of a prophet from falling into error or sin) is a theological term that developed over the early centuries of Islam, and its details were never the subject of absolute consensus among all doctrinal schools, though the major Islamic schools agree that the prophets are protected from disbelief and from lying in conveying revelation from God. The question of whether prophets could fall into minor sins, or into what is termed \u201ctark al-awla\u201d (choosing the less preferable of two permissible options), has been the subject of considerable disagreement among theologians and exegetes. The examples that follow are accordingly presented as explicit qur\u2019anic texts, after which the question is considered of whether they pose a genuine difficulty for infallibility in its absolute sense, or whether they fall under what the exegetes themselves classify as something short of major sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Qur\u2019anic Texts<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The Sin of Adam<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first sin in human history, according to the qur\u2019anic text, is Adam\u2019s and his wife\u2019s eating from the forbidden tree in the Garden. The Qur\u2019an describes this act as disobedience to the Lord’s command and a straying from the truth, stating in Surat Ta-Ha: \u201cAnd Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred [ghawa]\u201d (Ta-Ha 20:121). Evidence that this act constitutes sin in the technical sense is Adam’s repentance from it, stated in the very next verse: \u201cThen his Lord chose him and turned to him in forgiveness and guided [him]\u201d (Ta-Ha 20:122); likewise Adam and his wife\u2019s plea for forgiveness and mercy for fear of being among the losers, as in Surat Al-Aaraf: \u201cThey said, \u2018Our Lord, we have wronged ourselves, and if You do not forgive us and have mercy upon us, we will surely be among the losers\u2019\u201d (Al-Aaraf 7:23). The text, in its explicit wording (disobedience, erring, wronging the self, repentance, forgiveness), records of Adam, a prophet according to Islamic doctrine, an act described in terms as unambiguous as any used for transgression elsewhere in the text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The Sin of Noah<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Noah called upon his Lord that his son be counted among his saved family, though the son was a disbeliever, as stated in Surat Hud: \u201cAnd Noah called to his Lord and said, \u2018My Lord, indeed my son is of my family, and indeed, Your promise is true, and You are the most just of judges\u2019\u201d (Hud 11:45). God informed him that the son was not of his believing family, \u201cfor he had committed other than righteous deeds,\u201d then warned him: \u201cSo ask Me not for that about which you have no knowledge. Indeed, I advise you, lest you be among the ignorant\u201d (Hud 11:46). Noah responded by seeking refuge and forgiveness: \u201cMy Lord, I seek refuge in You from asking that of which I have no knowledge. And unless You forgive me and have mercy on me, I will be among the losers\u201d (Hud 11:47). The seeking of forgiveness (istighfar), linguistically and technically, is not sought except for something that warrants it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. The Sin of Jonah<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Jonah held a mistaken assumption about God, believing that God would not straiten him, as stated in Surat Al-Anbiya: \u201cAnd [mention] the Man of the Fish [Dhul-Nun], when he went off in anger and thought that We would not decree [anything] upon him\u201d (Al-Anbiya 21:87). Jonah himself confessed to wrongdoing: \u201cAnd he called out within the darknesses, \u2018There is no deity except You; exalted are You. Indeed, I have been of the wrongdoers\u2019\u201d (Al-Anbiya 21:87). Elsewhere the Qur\u2019an describes him: \u201cThen the fish swallowed him while he was blameworthy [mulim]\u201d (Al-Saffat 37:142), the word \u201cmulim\u201d denotes one deserving of blame, a strong term the Qur’an most often uses in contexts of censure.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. The Sins of Moses<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Qur\u2019an records several episodes concerning Moses: his killing of the Egyptian man, as stated in Surat Al-Qasas: \u201cSo Moses struck him and [unintentionally] killed him\u201d (Al-Qasas 28:15), after which Moses confessed: \u201cHe said, \u2018This is from the work of Satan,\u2019\u201d then: \u201cHe said, \u2018My Lord, indeed I have wronged myself, so forgive me,\u2019 and He forgave him\u201d (Al-Qasas 28:16), and in Surat Al-Shuaara: \u201cHe said, \u2018I did it then, while I was of those astray [dallin]\u2019\u201d (Al-Shuaara 26:20). The Qur\u2019an also records Moses\u2019s fear on seeing the staff writhe: \u201cHe turned in flight and did not return\u201d (Al-Naml 27:10), whereupon he was told: \u201cO Moses, fear not. Indeed, in My presence the messengers do not fear \u2014 except one who wrongs, [but] then substitutes good after evil\u201d (Al-Naml 27:10-11). The Qur\u2019an likewise records his seizing his brother Aaron by the beard and head in anger, after which he asked forgiveness for himself and his brother in Surat Al-Aaraf: \u201cHe said, \u2018My Lord, forgive me and my brother, and admit us into Your mercy\u2019\u201d (Al-Aaraf 7:151); his request to see God, followed by his repentance: \u201cHe said, \u2018Exalted are You! I have repented to You\u2019\u201d (Al-Aaraf 7:143); and his fear of the sorcerers\u2019 ropes, until he was told: \u201cWe said, \u2018Fear not. Indeed, it is you who are superior\u2019\u201d (Ta-Ha 20:68).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. The Sin of David<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

David assumed that God had tested him with a severe trial, as stated in Surat Sad: \u201cAnd David became certain that We had tried him, and he sought forgiveness of his Lord and fell down bowing [in prostration] and turned in repentance\u201d (Sad 38:24), and God forgave him: \u201cSo We forgave him that\u201d (Sad 38:25).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

6. The Sin of Solomon<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

God states in Surat Sad: \u201cAnd We certainly tried Solomon and placed on his throne a body; then he returned. He said, \u2018My Lord, forgive me and grant me a kingdom such as will not belong to anyone after me. Indeed, You are the Bestower\u2019\u201d (Sad 38:34-35). Here Solomon seeks forgiveness immediately following the trial and asks God for something to compensate for it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

7. The Sins of Muhammad<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Qur\u2019an addresses Muhammad in several passages with explicit language concerning sin and the seeking of forgiveness, among them Surat Al-Fath: \u201cIndeed, We have given you a clear conquest, that Allah may forgive for you what preceded of your sin and what will follow\u201d (Al-Fath 48:1-2); Surat Muhammad: \u201cSo know, [O Muhammad], that there is no deity except Allah, and ask forgiveness for your sin\u201d (Muhammad 47:19); and Surat Al-Nasr: \u201cSo exalt [Allah] with praise of your Lord and ask forgiveness of Him. Indeed, He is ever Accepting of repentance\u201d (Al-Nasr 110:3).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other specific episodes are recorded of him as well: his granting certain hypocrites permission to stay behind from battle, concerning which God states: \u201cMay Allah pardon you, [O Muhammad]; why did you give them permission [to remain behind]?\u201d (Al-Tawbah 9:43); his concealing a matter God was to make known, out of fear of people, as stated: \u201cAnd you concealed within yourself that which Allah is to disclose, and you feared the people, while Allah has more right that you fear Him\u201d (al-Ahzab 33:37); his frowning and turning away from the blind man who came seeking guidance, as stated: \u201cHe frowned and turned away, because there came to him the blind man\u201d (Abasa 80:1-2); his prohibiting to himself what God had made lawful for him, to please his wives, as stated: \u201cO Prophet, why do you prohibit [yourself from] what Allah has made lawful for you, seeking the approval of your wives?\u201d (Al-Tahrim 66:1); and God\u2019s instruction to him not to be an advocate for, or dispute on behalf of, the treacherous, as stated: \u201cAnd do not be for the deceitful an advocate… and do not argue on behalf of those who deceive themselves\u201d (Al-Nisa 4:105, 107), coupled with the command: \u201cAnd ask forgiveness of Allah; indeed, Allah is ever Forgiving and Merciful\u201d (Al-Nisa 4:106).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Summary of the Argument<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the basis of these texts taken together, this line of argument concludes that the Qur\u2019an itself, not an outside source, records of its own prophets, Muhammad included, acts described in language of disobedience, wrongdoing, erring, and sin, coupled with the seeking of forgiveness, repentance, and divine pardon. Proponents of this argument accordingly hold that the claim of absolute infallibility from every error finds no support in the qur\u2019anic text itself, and that any Muslim who invokes the prophets\u2019 infallibility to dismiss what the Bible records of the prophets\u2019 sins is thereby obliged to first account for these qur\u2019anic texts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Counter-Position: Isma in the View of Muslim Theologians and Exegetes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scholarly integrity requires presenting how Muslim theologians and exegetes have responded to these very texts across the centuries, this difficulty was not absent from their consideration; entire independent treatises were devoted to it (such as Al-Razi\u2019s Ismat Al-Anbiya, and dedicated sections in the great tafsir works of Al-Tabari, Al-Qurtubi, and Ibn Kathir). Their principal responses can be summarized as follows.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The distinction between major sin and \u201czallah\u201d or \u201ctark al-awla.\u201d<\/strong> The majority of Ashari and Maturidi theologians held that prophetic infallibility is restricted to major sins (kabaeir) and to lying in conveying revelation from God; what is recorded in these episodes, in their view, constitutes either a \u201czallah\u201d (a passing lapse involving no persistence in wrongdoing) or \u201ctark al-awla\u201d (choosing the less preferable of two permissible options), not sin in the sense that warrants punishment in the hereafter. On this basis they interpreted Adam\u2019s episode as having occurred before prophethood, or as an instance of mistaken personal judgment (ijtihad) rather than deliberate transgression in the full sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. The linguistic and rhetorical context of \u201csin\u201d and \u201cseeking forgiveness.\u201d<\/strong> Some exegetes hold that the seeking of forgiveness recorded of Muhammad in particular (Surat Al-Fath, Surat Al-Nasr) does not necessarily indicate that a sin occurred, but rather expresses the perfection of servanthood and humility before God, that the Prophet sought forgiveness and repented out of \u201cgratitude,\u201d not \u201cremorse for a sin,\u201d drawing on the hadith related by Al-Bukhari and Muslim, \u201cShall I not be a grateful servant?\u201d, reported in connection with his extensive night prayer despite the forgiveness of what preceded and followed of his sin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Reading \u201csin\u201d in Muhammad\u2019s case in a specific, restricted sense.<\/strong> The majority of exegetes have interpreted \u201cwhat preceded of your sin and what will follow\u201d in Surat Al-Fath as referring to instances of \u201ctark al-awla\u201d in certain prophetic judgment calls (such as permitting the hypocrites to stay behind), or as an honor bestowed on the Prophet through both prior and subsequent forgiveness together, even absent any specific transgression, an interpretation a number of exegetes adopted specifically to avoid attributing an actual sin to him.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. What occurred with Noah, Moses, David, Solomon, and Jonah falls, for many exegetes, under the category of ijtihad in which a prophet may sometimes err in worldly matters or in matters not conveyed by revelation, rather than in the conveying of God\u2019s message, something that, on their view, does not touch the core of infallibility, and parallels the hadith related by Muslim, \u201cYou know better the affairs of your worldly life,\u201d in which the Prophet himself acknowledges the possibility of error in purely worldly matters.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Some theologians, chief among them certain Mu\u2019tazilites and Imami (Twelver Shia) scholars, rejected this line of interpretation altogether and held infallibility to be absolute, extending even to minor sins and to \u201ctark al-awla\u201d, offering instead alternative linguistic readings of these same verses (interpreting Adam\u2019s \u201cdisobedience,\u201d for instance, as a violation of a recommendation rather than a binding command, or reading \u201cyour sin\u201d in Muhammad\u2019s case as referring to his community rather than to himself), which shows that the matter itself was, and remains, a point of internal disagreement among the Islamic theological schools, not a question settled by a single agreed interpretation.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A Christian Apologetic Response to Islamic Answers<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Below is a presentation of what can be answered to each point, point by point.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1. The distinction between \u201cmajor sin\u201d and “slip\u201d\/\u201cabandoning what is better\u201d:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This very distinction is absent from the qur\u2019anic text itself; the verses that came down (such as what is said about Adam: \u201cSo Satan caused them to slip therefrom… and Adam disobeyed his Lord and erred\u201d) use the words \u201cdisobeyed\u201d (asa) and \u201cerred\u201d (ghawa), two words that, in the Qur\u2019an\u2019s own usage, cannot bear the innocent meaning of \u201cabandoning what is better,\u201d but are instead used elsewhere to denote explicit rebellion and misguidance (as in the description of Pharaoh and his people as disobedient). Thus the distinction between \u201csin\u201d and \u201cslip\u201d is not derived from the text but imposed upon it retroactively to resolve a doctrinal problem that precedes the reading: it is the doctrine (the necessity of infallibility) that dictates to the interpreter the meaning of the word, not the other way around. This is exactly the pattern of \u201cretroactive defensive interpretation\u201d that is often attributed to the People of the Book in traditional Islamic polemics; if it is acceptable here, its counterpart must be accepted in Christian readings of the texts that Muslims object to.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Moreover, the criterion used to distinguish between a \u201cslip\u201d and a \u201cmajor sin\u201d is not a textual criterion but a purely theological one (i.e., \u201cthis cannot be a sin because infallibility requires it not to be\u201d), and this is circular reasoning: \u201cThe prophet must be infallible, therefore what appears to be a sin is not a sin, therefore the prophet is infallible.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2. Seeking forgiveness as an expression of gratitude, not remorse:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Citing the hadith \u201cShould I not be a grateful servant?\u201d (Bukhari and Muslim) does not resolve the problem but merely relocates it: the text there explicitly links the Prophet\u2019s night prayer to \u201cwhat has gone before of his sin and what will come after\u201d (as in Bukhari\u2019s narration: \u201cShould I not be a grateful servant?\u201d in answer to being asked why he exerted himself so, \u201cwhen God has already forgiven you your past and future sins\u201d); that is, the hadith itself presupposes the existence of a \u201csin\u201d that was forgiven, and then explains the gratitude as gratitude for this forgiveness, not as a denial that there was anything to forgive. So, the hadith is used to establish one thing (the existence of forgiveness for a sin) and then used itself to negate it (no sin, only gratitude), this is selective use.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More important theologically: this answer assumes that \u201cseeking forgiveness\u201d can be an act emptied of its usual content (requesting forgiveness for a sin) and turned, when needed, into a mere formal act of worship. In biblical thought, however, the prophets (Moses, David, Isaiah, Paul) confess their sins explicitly and without reinterpretation (Exodus 32, Psalm 51, Isaiah 6:5, Romans 7), and Scripture finds no difficulty in this because it does not build the doctrine of revelation or the credibility of the message on the moral infallibility of the messenger\u2019s person, but on God\u2019s faithfulness in revelation despite the weakness of His human instrument (2 Corinthians 4:7: \u201cBut we have this treasure in earthen vessels\u201d). Christianity therefore has no need to reinterpret \u201csin\u201d as \u201cgratitude,\u201d because it does not require the infallibility of the person for the validity of the message in the first place, this is a structural difference, not merely an interpretive one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3. Interpreting \u201cwhat has gone before of your sin and what will come after\u201d:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here specifically appears the clearest example of what Western scholars call \u201cspecial pleading\u201d: the general interpretive rule is that speech should be taken at face value unless there is evidence diverting it from that; and the only diverting evidence here is a prior doctrine (the necessity of infallibility), not a linguistic or contextual indicator within the text itself. If the same principle (reinterpreting the apparent meaning for the sake of a prior doctrine) were applied to biblical texts that Muslims traditionally object to (such as the crucifixion of Christ or His divinity), it would be rejected by these same objectors as “corruption through interpretation” rather than genuine exegesis. So, the double standard here is clear: interpretation is acceptable when it serves the doctrine of infallibility and rejected when proposed to serve another doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, the claim that the verse is \u201can honor through forgiveness both prior and subsequent, even though no specific sin occurred from him\u201d in fact empties the text of any definite meaning; what forgiveness is this that corresponds to no sin? Forgiveness, in linguistic usage and in the Qur\u2019an\u2019s own usage (see the use of the root gh-f-r in many other contexts, such as Surat Nuh and Surat an-Nisa), is always tied to an actual sin. Turning it into “mere honor” empties the language of its stable lexical meaning in service of the doctrine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

4. Error in worldly matters, not in the transmission [of revelation]:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This distinction between \u201cthe revelation of transmission\u201d and \u201cworldly personal judgment\u201d is a reasonable solution in itself, but it does not actually apply to the texts under discussion. The story of Adam is not a matter of worldly personal judgment but a direct divine command (\u201cand do not approach this tree\u201d); the story of Jonah (Al-Anbiya 87, Al-Saffat 139-142) does not concern a worldly matter but his fleeing from the very mission of delivering the message (\u201cAnd [mention] the man of the fish, when he went off in anger\u201d); and the story of David (Sad 24-25) concerns a judicial ruling in which he is said to have erred (\u201cand David became certain that We had tried him, and he sought forgiveness of his Lord\u201d). All of these fall within the sphere of the message and prophetic judgment, not within \u201cyour worldly affairs\u201d (such as the pollination of palm trees, for example). Applying the rule \u201cyou know best your worldly affairs\u201d to these texts is therefore a projection of a rule that is valid in its original context (a technical agricultural matter) onto an entirely different context (fleeing from a mission, a judicial ruling, a direct divine command) that cannot bear the same classification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

5. Acknowledgment of disagreement among the theological schools:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This point, although presented as evidence of \u201crichness of discussion,\u201d is in fact the strongest evidence for the validity of the original problem. When a theological school (such as the Mu\u02bftazila and the Imamiyya) arrives at the position that Adam\u2019s \u201cdisobedience\u201d means violating a \u201crecommendation\u201d rather than an \u201cobligation,\u201d even though the qur\u2019anic context itself describes the resulting punishment (expulsion from the Garden, the curse, hardship on earth) in terms befitting the violation of an obligation rather than a mere recommendation, we are faced with two schools disputing not the understanding of the text but how to rescue a prior doctrine (absolute or restricted infallibility) from a text that resists it. This is exactly what methodologists call an \u201cunfalsifiable doctrine\u201d: whatever the apparent meaning of the text, it will be reinterpreted to conform to infallibility, whether by narrowing the meaning of \u201csin\u201d or broadening the meaning of \u201crecommendation.\u201d And when interpretation is governed in advance by its conclusion, it loses its function as an independent tool of understanding and becomes instead a tool of justification.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The useful methodological comparison here: Christianity openly acknowledges that its prophets and apostles (including Peter, whom Paul publicly confronted over his error in Galatians 2:11-14) erred morally and committed actual sins described without reinterpretation or softening, and builds upon this an explicit doctrine of universal sinfulness (\u201cfor all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,\u201d Romans 3:23) and of the need for a single Savior who is infallible by nature, not by office (Hebrews 4:15, concerning Christ: \u201ctempted in every way, just as we are\u2014yet was without sin\u201d). Christianity therefore does not need an arsenal of interpretations, because its doctrinal system is not built on an assumption of prophetic infallibility in the first place, but rather on a clear distinction between sinful prophets and the one perfect Christ. Whereas when another doctrinal system is forced to create graduated terminology (slip, abandoning what is better, linguistic reinterpretation, worldly error of judgment) for each case individually, without a fixed textual criterion determining when each term applies, this very multiplicity, not merely \u201ca legitimate scholarly disagreement,\u201d is what deserves to be raised as a structural weakness in the doctrine, not as evidence of its richness.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Conclusion<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What precedes shows that the qur\u2019anic text does indeed contain explicit language of disobedience, wrongdoing, sin, and the seeking of forgiveness in connection with a number of prophets, and that this is not itself in dispute between the two sides. What is in dispute is the interpretation: while proponents of the argument hold that this language refutes the claim of absolute infallibility, the majority of Muslim theologians and exegetes hold that it falls within the scope of \u201czallah\u201d or \u201ctark al-awla,\u201d which they regard as compatible with the prophets\u2019 infallibility from major sin and from falsehood in conveying revelation, though they themselves differ over the details of this distinction and its application to each individual case. The reader is invited to consult the primary sources of Islamic theology (such as the works of Al-Razi, Al-Baqillani, and Qadi Iyad\u2019s Al-Shifa) to weigh the strength of this distinction before favoring either position.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Introduction It is common to hear the charge, raised by many Muslims, that the Bible portrays the prophets as fallible human beings, whereas Islamic doctrine, on this view, establishes the prophets\u2019 infallibility. It should be noted at the outset that Christian faith does not dispute this point at all, the Bible teaches openly that no“Are the Prophets Infallible in the Qur\u2019an?”<\/span> \u067e\u0691\u06be\u0646\u0627 \u062c\u0627\u0631\u06cc \u0631\u06a9\u06be\u06cc\u06ba<\/a><\/p>","protected":false},"author":236231845,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"jetpack_seo_schema_type":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_wpcom_ai_launchpad_first_post":false,"_jetpack_hide_featured_image":false,"_jetpack_featured_image_duplicate_dismissed":0,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"{title}\n\n{excerpt}\n\n{url}","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"_wpas_customize_per_network":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1547","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized","entry"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/peSSf1-oX","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1547","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/236231845"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1547"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1547\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1567,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1547\/revisions\/1567"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1547"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1547"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/al-haqiqa.com\/ur\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1547"}],"curies":[{"name":"\u0688\u0628\u0644\u06cc\u0648 \u067e\u06cc","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}