What is the truth of al-Shaykh al-Saduq's view on the third testimony and the Prophet's inadvertence?
In the Name of Allah, the All-beneficent, the All-merciful
I will speak in descriptive language, as a scholarly analysis, to explain the reality of the view of al-Shaykh al-Saduq (rh) on the two issues of the third testimony in the adhan and the inadvertence (sahw) of the Prophet (s). I will refrain from citing the texts so as not to prolong the discussion; moreover, the texts are well known, so obtaining them is easy.
Before beginning, we must emphasize an important matter in the process of scholarly exchange, and particularly dialogue that revolves around scholars of the [Shiʿi] community who are renowned for their merit and have a long record in serving the religion.
The matter is that we must verify the views under discussion, then try to read them carefully; and we must take note of the temporal circumstances in which this or that idea was stated, because it may have been influenced by them, or have taken their conditions into account.
Even if disagreement with the prevailing view of the scholars, or with another scholar, is established, we must place that within the sphere of ijtihad and scholarly disagreement, which in turn requires discussing the views with a scholarly method. This keeps us away from the language of discrediting [others] and from laxity in violating the dignity of scholars. So everyone who adopts harsh language in criticism must be extremely wary and exercise the utmost caution in choosing his words, because that may lead to a kind of claim of infallibility — Allah forbid! — and in its outcome it serves neither scholarly output nor the community of faith; rather, it contributes to unsettling and weakening it. Scholarly dialogue, on the other hand, preserves the right to differ, develops knowledge, and contributes to deepening it.
On the subject of the view of al-Shaykh al-Saduq (rh) on the third testimony in the adhan, and his view on the issue of the inadvertence of the Prophet (s), there has been discussion among the scholars, and disagreement has arisen over their contents, upon which the understanding of his view depends, and which in turn determines the scholarly position on that view.
The Issue of the Third Testimony
The view of al-Shaykh al-Saduq (rh) on the third testimony in the adhan is a juristic view, but the dialogue about it has been tinged with a doctrinal tendency.
In brief: al-Shaykh al-Saduq (rh) speaks in his book (Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih)[1] about the narrations of the third testimony in the adhan. He mentioned that there are narrations on testifying to ʿAli's wilāyah, and that Muhammad is the best of creation, among the sections of the adhan, and that these narrations were fabricated by the Mufawwida among the extremists (ghulat) — may Allah curse them. Then he mentioned the sections of the adhan and said that this is the adhan: nothing is to be added to it and nothing taken away.
Some scholars have regarded al-Shaykh al-Saduq's statement as an error in respect of his assessment of the narrations — meaning that we cannot adopt his statement in assessing those narrations, because it may have been established for him through ijtihad that these narrations can properly be described as fabricated (and there is no doubt that the jurist must be truthful in his ijtihad: if it becomes clear to him that they are fabricated, he cannot act upon them). This is so, bearing in mind that al-Shaykh al-Saduq did not specify those narrations that he described in this way; so here, even if we adopted his assessment of the narrations, we could not adopt it in its generality, since we do not know which narrations specifically he meant.
Therefore some scholars said: it has not been established for us that those narrations are fabricated, so we may, in terms of the Shariʿa, act upon them and derive juristic consequences from them. There is no doubt that it may be possible to establish weakness in narrations, but establishing fabrication is indeed difficult and hard to attain.
Some of them said that al-Shaykh al-Saduq did not intend to negate the recommended status of the third testimony in the adhan absolutely; rather, he was speaking about its being a part [of the adhan] (whether an obligatory or a recommended part). The well-known view of the jurists was that the third testimony in the adhan is not a part of the adhan — meaning that it is neither an obligatory part nor a recommended part (by direct recommendation).
We can understand the negation of its being a part in the sense that its proof was not the same proof that specified the sections of the adhan, but rather came from other narrations. For example, if there came a narration containing the sections of the adhan together with the third testimony, and another narration without the third testimony, the addition would be understood as a recommended part; so the jurist could say that the third testimony is a part of the adhan because of the narration that specified it, but that the ruling of that part is that it is recommended, because of the other narration that did not specify it.
Since this type of narration does not exist, the jurist can negate its being a part in this sense, but he does not negate its recommended status absolutely; for establishing the recommended status of the third testimony through other general narrations is possible — indeed, it is established. So the jurist's holding that it is a part or not a part, in this sense, is a verbal difference, and the result is the same: a person is rewarded and recompensed for mentioning the third testimony in the adhan, though its scholarly characterization may differ according to the differing views of the proof.
As for the proofs that it is recommended to mention the Commander of the Faithful after mentioning the Prophet (s) — which includes the mention of the Prophet in the adhan — we have not found that al-Shaykh al-Saduq negated them, or [else] he did not speak about them. So the claim that he does not consider the third testimony in the adhan recommended in an absolute sense is attributing to the Shaykh what he did not say, without proof. Moreover, al-Shaykh al-Saduq mentioned, in the context of that statement of his, something from which we can understand this meaning, namely: (There is no doubt that ʿAli is the wali of Allah, that he is truly the Commander of the Faithful, and that Muhammad and his family are the best of creation. But that is not in the original adhan)[2].
Although some have disagreed with him even at this level of argument.
What we mention about not finding al-Shaykh al-Saduq's view in complete form is analogous to what is reported of al-Shaykh Kashif al-Ghitaʾ, about whom it became well known that his view was like al-Shaykh al-Saduq's in negating the third testimony from the adhan. But if we look at his view, he says: if you bring it as an essential part of the adhan and claim that this is what the Prophet (s) said, then it is a forbidden act of legislation (tashriʿ), because you have considered it [so] without proof, according to his words — that is, not by a specific proof.
But he says afterward, by way of qualification: “Whoever intends mentioning the Commander of the Faithful (a) (for its preferability in itself, or together with the mention of the Master of the Messengers) is rewarded for that”[3].
As we said, it became well known of al-Shaykh Kashif al-Ghitaʾ that his view was like al-Shaykh al-Saduq's, and he did in fact present al-Shaykh al-Saduq's view in Kashf al-Ghitaʾ; but we came upon an additional clarification of his view, as we have mentioned, whereas we have not come upon that in al-Shaykh al-Saduq's books. Not finding does not indicate non-existence; indeed, al-Shaykh al-Saduq mentioned in his book (Iʿtiqadat al-Imamiyya) that he would explain the book at a later time, but he was not able to, or we have not seen that commentary. Among his words: (I shall dictate its explanation and commentary if Allah, mighty is His Name, makes easy for me the return from my destination to Nishapur). Tashih al-Iʿtiqad, p. 20
So we cannot be certain that al-Saduq rejected those forms of argument that Kashif al-Ghitaʾ presented — for he mentioned two kinds of argument, namely the intrinsic desirability of mentioning the Commander of the Faithful (a), and the desirability of mentioning him after mentioning the Prophet (s). Rather, we can affirm that al-Shaykh al-Saduq accepts those indications, as is the well-known view of the scholars of the [Shiʿi] community.
Perhaps al-Shaykh al-Saduq did not go into detail because of the political considerations at the time.
Thus, for whoever accepts the direct narrations on the third testimony, they would be a third kind of argument for it, and not the only proof; so reflect on that.
The Issue of the Inadvertence of the Prophet (s)
As for the issue of the inadvertence of the Prophet (s), which it has been said al-Shaykh al-Saduq (rh) held, it is a doctrinal issue. We know the Shaykh's renown for his righteousness, his merit and his efforts in serving the religion; so any view he adopted did not stem from his own whims, but was ijtihad as he saw it in assessing the reliability of the proof and understanding its import. We may also open the door of possibility regarding the influence of the circumstances of taqiyya of that time.
Al-Shaykh al-Saduq has been debated over his statement on the inadvertence of the Prophet (s) — which he did not negate absolutely, as we shall explain — among them al-Shaykh al-Mufid, who said that inadvertence is inadmissible for the Prophet (s), rationally and textually. The scholars who came after them focused research on detailed beliefs, which are usually the result of studying many Qurʾanic and narrational texts and then arriving at a mature and firmly grounded vision, supported by the Noble Qurʾan and confirmed by the noble narrations; and they affirmed the doctrine of the inadmissibility of inadvertence for the Prophet (s).
This does not mean that the beliefs al-Shaykh al-Saduq mentioned in his books lagged behind scholarly maturity, nor does it mean that the response of al-Shaykh al-Mufid and others to him is of the kind of responses to deviants — Allah forbid! Rather, it is a kind of scholarly dialogue.
Whoever reads the book Tashih al-Iʿtiqadat by al-Shaykh al-Mufid — which is well known as having been a response to his teacher al-Saduq — will find that the book is in fact a commentary on al-Saduq's book: at times he explains his intent, saying (It is as he says, but he did not mention the reason); at times he adds a meaning, saying (And it is not only that meaning); and at times he disagrees with him on the meaning, but that disagreement is a matter of multiple instances and interpretations, not of error. There are disagreements in which al-Shaykh al-Mufid deemed his teacher mistaken, but he was not correct in all of them, according to contemporary research.
Part of the disagreement goes back to the method of treatment of al-Shaykh al-Saduq and of al-Shaykh al-Mufid: al-Shaykh al-Saduq's method is transmission-based reasoning, while al-Shaykh al-Mufid's method in some of his books is theological (kalami) inquiry. Through this and that, we find that some of what al-Shaykh al-Mufid mentioned, in some of his views, did not agree with the early and contemporary views of some Shiʿi scholars. For example, he does not hold that all of the Ahl al-Bayt (a) died by killing and poison, and he finds no way to believe that Imam al-Rida (a) died poisoned; he said this in his response to al-Shaykh al-Saduq, who held that. New research has contributed to consolidating the proof on this issue and others, through the breadth of acceptance of general and specific narrations, the development of reconciling narrations, presenting them to the Noble Qurʾan, and other means.
Here we must emphasize that the doctrine of the inadmissibility of inadvertence for the Prophet (s) was not new, as some have claimed in alleging that it is among the beliefs that came after the fourth century AH. Rather, the development was in the focus and the increase of argumentation for beliefs in certain periods — among them the inadmissibility of inadvertence for the Prophet (s) — so the argumentation crystallized and became clearer and deeper in its import.
Al-Shaykh al-Saduq's approach relies on narrations, and he finds that there are some of them from which the inadvertence of the Prophet (s) appears; and narrations are, in the end, sacred. Some may come now and say that these narrations were issued in taqiyya, or that they are not sound in their chain, and that we must turn away from whatever contradicts the Book and the decisive religious principles (muhkamat). But al-Saduq accepts narrations in general, so his scholarly role is to direct them to a meaning that does not clash with the doctrinal principles — among them, denying that the Prophet could be inadvertent in a way that would cause a disruption in conveying the religion, or that would cause a lack of trust in the words of the Prophet (s). That led him to say that the Prophet (s) is not inadvertent as a deficiency in him; rather, it is an act from Allah, the Exalted, for a wisdom that Allah, the Exalted, sees. Therefore he expressed it as not being inadvertence (sahw), but rather being caused to be inadvertent (ishaʾ) by Allah, Almighty.
So al-Shaykh al-Saduq (rh) does not hold the inadvertence of the Prophet (s); rather, he holds that it is possible for Allah to cause him to be inadvertent in some instances that are not matters of conveying [the message], for some wisdom, such as negating lordship from him; and no doctrinally objectionable consequence, such as the invalidation of the conveying [of the message], follows from that, because prayer is a specific act of worship — as he mentioned in his book (Man La Yahduruhu al-Faqih)[4]. But an objection was raised against him: that all the acts of the Prophet (s) are a conveying [of the message], so inadvertence is inadmissible for the Prophet (s) in all of them.
Nevertheless, even at this level, the scholars debated al-Shaykh al-Saduq on it, and this is what led them to say that those narrations are either weak in their chain or [issued in] taqiyya, so they yield neither knowledge nor action.
What is worth pointing out is that the beliefs that scholars set out in their books do not necessarily express the author's beliefs in their details, because the motives for writing are many — especially in climates that may be charged with theological polemics, or under pressing political conditions. The book's message may then be a message either to refute a doubt, or to repel an accusation, or to clarify generalities, and so on. That is why we find that al-Shaykh al-Saduq, for example, indicated that he intended to explain his book Iʿtiqadat al-Imamiyya when he went to Nishapur — perhaps because the situation was more suitable there. We do not deny that a scholar may err — for every steed stumbles and every sword fails to cut — so scholarly dialogue remains master of the situation, and the language of good morals is the adornment of discourse.
Nevertheless, the door of narrational and rational treatments for arriving at a more precise vision is open. We have a study on such a treatment — a vision that integrates doctrine and jurisprudence — which requires a lengthy discussion; this is not the place for it.
All praise belongs to Allah, Lord of all the worlds.
* Sayed Mahmoud Al-Mosawi
_______________________________________
[1] - Vol. 1, p. 188.
[2] - The same source.
[3] - Kashf al-Ghitaʾ, vol. 3, p. 143.
[4] - Vol. 1, p. 359.