The infallibility of the prophets is a fundamental and influential topic in the field of Islamic theology, the nature and scope of which have long been a source of disagreement among scholars and followers of Islamic schools. For this reason, numerous works have been written by theologians and commentators in this field, and various views have been put forward. However, the fundamental question is whether these works are organized based on a systematic, coherent, and uniform approach or not? This study uses a descriptive-analytical method and refers to numerous library sources to evaluate the convergence and divergence of these works. The findings of the study show that the Quranic works on the infallibility of the prophets, despite their fundamental commonalities, have deep "methodological and content differences." On the one hand, Quran scholars are consistent in such matters as citing key verses, emphasizing the infallibility of the divine prophets, and examining common doubts, and even in terms of structure, a kind of repetition of patterns is evident in these works. On the other hand, there are serious gaps in the readings, including different interpretations of the context of the verses, differences in the authenticity of the narrational documents, and the use of heterogeneous interpretive methods. In addition, fundamental differences between Shia and Sunni Quranic scholars in defining the scope and dimensions of infallibility, as well as the limited comparative studies with other religions, have led to the emergence of conflicting readings of the issue of infallibility. Thus, while the core of the discussion is common in all works, methodological and content differences have caused the final conclusions and interpretations to diverge.