پژوهشنامه مذاهب کلامی
سال سوم شماره 1 (پیاپی 3، پاییز 1401)

This article discusses the scope of the prophets’ infallibility from the perspective of Islamic religions. Regarding the scope of the infallibility of the prophets, Islamic religions are divided into three groups: some believe in maximum infallibility, some consider minimum infallibility, and some others find the middle of the two. The avoidance of the prophets of committing sins is one of the essentials of their missions; it guarantees the guidance of man. Islamic thinkers have made many efforts to understand the levels and reasons for infallibility. Therefore, examining their opinions leads us to some commonalities that show the proximity of religions on this issue. In this descriptive-analytical article, the scope and dimensions of the prophets’ infallibility are discussed from the Islamic religions’ point of view, and the question is answered as to what Islamic religions have in common regarding the scope of the prophets’ infallibility in terms of their opinions and practices, and in terms of the eras before and after their missions. The article concludes that, despite different opinions due to the foundations of each religion, it is possible to emphasize commonalities (such as infallibility in receiving revelation, infallibility in avoidance of committing sins after the mission, and infallibility in beliefs).

The most significant claim of the Salafiyyah School for self-legitimization is the attribution to ḥadīth scholars before Ibn Taymiyyah’s life and al-salaf al-ṣāliḥ in general. The main problem of this article is to explore the validity of this claim and verify it through the comparison of the five instances of the most important intellectual characteristics of Ibn Taymiyyah and ḥadīth scholars, as well as their commonalities and differences. Previous research mostly approached the belief or historical foundations of the Salafiyyah; while comparing the most important characteristics of Ibn Taymiyyah’s views and ḥadīth scholars’ thinking, and expressing their commonalities and differences, this article reveals the crisis of the legitimacy of the Salafiyyah. Except for a few commonalities, the differences are often so broad that Salafism cannot be attributed to the era before Ibn Taymiyyah. Ibn Taymiyyah believed in man’s pluralism of reason and preserved the basis of his narrativeism in words and interpretations by giving priority to the Sharia-supporting reason over the opposing reason. But ḥadīth scholars, due to the lack of texts, turned to analogy and other rational methods. Ibn Taymiyyah considered the understanding of the predecessors (aslaf) in terms of discovery and reference a source of legislation, while ḥadīth scholars did not find the predecessors’ consensus a source of legislation. Unlike his predecessors, Ibn Taymiyyah accepted the soul’s life after death but ignored its requirements. In his view, intercession, recourse, and pilgrimage were examples of polytheism. He denied the infallibility of the prophets and the virtues of Amīr al-Muʾminīn (as) and Ahl al-Bayt (as), and he was the revivalist of the extreme spectrum of ḥadīth scholars (ʿUthmānism).

Theology is one of the ancient sciences in the Islamic world and has had many supporters and opponents since its inception. Ḥadīth scholars, as a text-relying group, strongly opposed theology and criticized this science by quoting narrations. According to this group, in addition to the wrong content about monotheism, prophecy, and resurrection, the science of theology follows a non-resulting method, and this method invalidates the obtained results and misleads different Islamic groups. Some believed that ḥadīth scholars were not opposed to theology, but rather their opposition was due to the deviant groups’ use of this science. This article intends to specify the exact view of ḥadīth scholars regarding theology. The article concludes that ḥadīth scholars believe that using the incorrect methods leads to incorrect conclusions and the emergence of diverse sects. The disagreement of ḥadīth scholars with the science of theology is not due to the use of this discipline, but rather because of the rational and argumentative methods used in it.

One of the most significant verses revealed in respecting the dignity of Amīr al-Muʾminīn (as) is the verse of al-Wilāya. Some of the great Sunni thinkers claim the reasons for the revelation of this verse consensually, and the majority of them assert it. However, Ibn Taymiyyah was the first one —among all Sunni scholars— who claimed consensus on the falsehood of the reasons for the revelation of this verse and provided arguments to prove his words. In this analytical article, Ibn Taymiyyah’s views on the falsity of the reasons for the revelation of the verse of al-Wilāya are analyzed. The article also analyzes two of the many documents on the reasons for the revelation of this verse and discusses the uncertainty of Tha'lab as an hātib al-lail one. Analyzing the words of Sunni theologians, commentators, and ḥadīth scholars, the article concludes that the verse of al-Wilāya revealed in respecting the dignity of Amīr al-Muʾminīn (as), and Ibn Taymiyyah’s words contradicts the words of Sunni scholars.

Islamic theologians’ thoughts about the relationship between God’s attributes and essence are restricted to two theological approaches: the affirmative (cataphatic) theology and the privative (apophatic) theology. The majority of theologians believe in the affirmative approach of the perfect attributes for God’s essence, but they disagree in the quality of the relationship between His attributes and essence. The famous Shia scholars, Zaydīyya, some Mu'tazila and theology philosophers believe in the theory of objectivity. They believe that God’s essence and attributes have one truth outside, and they accuse any affirmative approach that is against the theory of objectivity for its mistake in believing in the combination and the multiplicity of the eternal attributes. Ḥadīth scholars and the Salafis believe in the theory of otherness, they believe that attributes are extraneous to the essence and have a truth separate from God’s essence. The scholars of Ashʿarī and Māturīdiyyah adhere to the theory of Qaimiyyah, they believe that God’s inherent attributes are neither the same as Him nor different from Him, and they accuse any affirmative approach that believes in either the combination or the manifestation of attributes in God’s essence. Emphasizing the theory of the negation of attributes, those who believe in the privative approach with the belief that the negation of any similitude and combination from God’s essence requires denying all attributes of His essence, are divided into two groups within the scope of purification (tanzih); among them, the ʾIsmāʿīlīyah believe in the absolute purification and some Twelver Shia and Mu'tazila theologians believe in the theory of deputyship (niyabah).

Various views have been proposed by Islamic religions in the interpretation of the nature of faith and its relationship with practice. The famous scholars of Imamiyyah define faith as the “heart confirmation”. They call practice the reason for the perfection of faith and cite evidence from the Qur’an and hadiths. The Wahhabis define faith as the verbal utterance, heart confirmation, and physical practice. They consider practice a part of faith and cite some evidence. The Wahhabis mix up perfect and saving faith in the hereafter with the nature and origin of faith and match the proofs of perfect faith with the nature of faith.