57 replies to this topic

[shia4life669]

I believe saying ashadun Ali wali Allah is required but why does some of our sheiks say it is recommend because Allah has completed the religion when Ali became the successor also  the Quran always says  obey Allah and the messenger and those who believe and have athurity surah5 verse 55 . What is your opinions?

[Waiting for HIM]

Our personal opinions don't count here at all.

Do what your Marja recommends because he has already researched this based on Quran and Hadith.

[shia4life669]

I know this is wrong but not all of the stuf sistania says I agree with like the fatwa on the nasheeds that make you dance. like seriously make fatwa on litmiyat to on your way because it makes you cry the whole reason music is harem is because it has power over your emotions.

[md. ammar ali]

i read that our 6th imam jafar as sadiq said "when ever anybody says la ilaha il Allah,mohammad ur rasool Allah;immediately he has to say ali an wali Allah"

http://www.theinfall...id=62&Itemid=94

[Mustafa110]

If anyone knows Punjabi, he can watch how a converted Sunni to Shia faith proves from Quran and many number of hadiths that Ali is Waliyullah.

Edited by Mustafa110, 04 March 2012 - 07:04 AM.

[Haydar Husayn]

The issue isn't with the statement that Ali is the Wali of Allah, it's the the Imams told us how to recite the adhan, and they didn't mention anything about saying this. Also, the scholars only started allowing it at all in the Safavid period, which was in the 16th century.

Here is how the Imams said to recite the adhan:

1 – Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from Muhammad b. `Isa b. `Ubayd from Yunus from Aban b. `Uthman from Isma`il al-Ju`fi.  He said: I heard Abu Ja`far عليه السلام saying: The adhan and the iqama are thirty five expressions (lit. letters).  So he numbered them one by one with his hand.  The adhan is eighteen expressions, and the iqama is seventeen expressions.

6 – And from him from Faddala from Hammad b. `Uthman from Ishaq b. `Ammar from al-Mu`alla b. Khunays.  He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام calling the adhan, so he said: Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, ashhadu al-laa ilaaha illAllaah, ashhadu al-laa ilaaha illAlllaah, ashhadu anna MuHammadan rasoolullaah, ashhadu anna MuHammadan rasoolullaah, Hayya `ala ‘S-Salaah, Hayya `ala ‘S-Salaah, Hayya `ala ‘l-falaaH, Hayya `ala ‘l-falaaH, Hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal, Hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal, Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, laa ilaaha illAllaah, laa ilaaha illAllaah.
http://www.tashayyu....qama/chapter-19

Edited by Haydar Husayn, 05 March 2012 - 09:10 AM.

[Ace Abbas]

Early adhan sounds like this:

Allahu akbar 4 times
Ashhadu an la ilaha illallah 2 times
Ashhadu anna Muhammadar rasulullah 2 times
Hayya 'alas salah 2 times
Hayya 'alal falah 2 times
Hayya 'ala khayril 'amal 2 times
Allahu akbar 2 times
La ilaha illallah 1 time

No ashhadu an 'aliyyuw waliyyullah or ashhadu an 'aliyyan hujjatullah.

[Danyal Zia]

Haydar Husayn, on 05 March 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

The issue isn't with the statement that Ali is the Wali of Allah, it's the the Imams told us how to recite the adhan, and they didn't mention anything about saying this. Also, the scholars only started allowing it at all in the Safavid period, which was in the 16th century.

Here is how the Imams said to recite the adhan:

1 – Muhammad b. Ya`qub from `Ali b. Ibrahim from Muhammad b. `Isa b. `Ubayd from Yunus from Aban b. `Uthman from Isma`il al-Ju`fi.  He said: I heard Abu Ja`far عليه السلام saying: The adhan and the iqama are thirty five expressions (lit. letters).  So he numbered them one by one with his hand.  The adhan is eighteen expressions, and the iqama is seventeen expressions.

6 – And from him from Faddala from Hammad b. `Uthman from Ishaq b. `Ammar from al-Mu`alla b. Khunays.  He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah عليه السلام calling the adhan, so he said: Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, ashhadu al-laa ilaaha illAllaah, ashhadu al-laa ilaaha illAlllaah, ashhadu anna MuHammadan rasoolullaah, ashhadu anna MuHammadan rasoolullaah, Hayya `ala ‘S-Salaah, Hayya `ala ‘S-Salaah, Hayya `ala ‘l-falaaH, Hayya `ala ‘l-falaaH, Hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal, Hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal, Allaahu akbar, Allaahu akbar, laa ilaaha illAllaah, laa ilaaha illAllaah.
http://www.tashayyu....qama/chapter-19

Jazakallah Brother I also beleived that Aliyan waliyullah is not right in Azan as our Imams didn't say it.

[Ace Abbas]

Danyal Zia, on 10 March 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

Jazakallah Brother I also beleived that Aliyan waliyullah is not right in Azan as our Imams didn't say it.

But why is it common to hear the adhan with "ashhadu an 'aliyyuw waliyyullah" and "ashhadu an 'aliyyan hujjatullah"?

[Ameen]

According to the Ayath [Ateeullaha-Wa-Ateeur-Rasool-Wa-Ululamre-Minkum] Meaning obey Allah and obey his Messenger also obey the Ululamre amongst you. Here you have three terms of acceptance and obedience. During the Prophet's [pbuh] time Ululamre didn't apply because you had the Prophet [pbuh] who was incharge. Ululamre comes into to power and force after the Prophet [pbuh] him. So during the Prophet's [pbuh] time you had Ashahado-An-Lailaha-illallah and Ashahado-Anna-Muhammadar-Rasoolullah. After the Prophet [pbuh] some people took Hazrath Ali [as] as the Prophet's [pbuh] successor and the Ululamre. They started the third term straight away, Ashahado-Anna-Aliyan-Waliyullah. But it was not common and kept quiet because of the opposition who were in power and severly opposed it. Well, who wants to be honest if it involves giving up the Khilaafath??? You've got the chair so you are going to hold on to it and everything that threatens your position and status you will restrict it. That's what people chosen leaders do don't they??? With Allah chosen and the Prophet [pbuh] appointed it's a different story. To be continued!

[Ameen]

Continued! The third Shahadah [Testimony] is an absolute must and is an important requirement, according to the Quran and Sunnah. Now the whole discussion evolves around the Fatwas regarding Shia Mugtahids. Let me explain my point of view about this. According to the Shia faith the last Imaam, Hazrath Mahdi [as], is in ocultation by the will, wish and desire of Allah. The substitute is Ijtihad in the absence of the Imaam. Basically Ahle Tashee turn to individuals who have reached the status [Darja] of Ijtihad regarding their matters and affairs, be it deeni or dunyavi. This is known as Taqleed. Now Mujtahids are high ranking people with alot of experience, basically professionals in this business. But one must keep in mind that they are not infallible. Their Fatwas have reasons, sometimes religious and sometimes political. Before I continue let me say this, that this is my point of view. So one doesn't have to agree with what I say and if anything is left out or one doesn't fully understand, then don't jump to conclusions, just ask for an explanation. To be continued!

[Ameen]

Continued! In our daily matters and affairs we turn to various people who are very important in our lives for example, Doctor, Lawyer, Dentist, Plumber, Electrician etc. When it comes to religious matters and affairs, in the absence of the Imaam, the Shia turn to a Mujtahid in the name of Taqleed. Now this doesn't mean that one has to 100% agree with what ever or everything that Mujtahid is saying. Let me give you an example, for instance if a Mujtahid says that [Ashahado-Anna-Aliyan-Waliyulla] isn't part of the Ezaan and Iqamah but there is no harm in saying it or it's not compulsory to say it. Then one has a right to agree or disagree with what has been said, with all due respect towards the Mujtahid. Like I said before that there are reasons to why Fatwas are issued and one might not agree with that reason. Sometimes the reasons are political and sometimes they are based on collective interest and on some occasions compromise is being made for the sake of unity amongst Muslims [Itihad-Bainal-Muslimeen], especially the common threat and enemy that we are dealing with and how the situation of the Muslim Ummah is globaly at the present moment. It is the Shia belief and faith that the Prophet [pbuh] had only one [Haqeeqy] daughter. Every Shia believes in this. Correct??? NO! Not correct. Do you know why??? It was the Fatwa of the late Ayatulla Khomeini that the Prophet [pbuh] had four [Haqeeqy] daughters. Now what does one have to say here??? Did everybody, who was a follower [Muqalid] of Ayatulla Khomeini, believe in and follow this Fatwa??? No they didn't. But this didn't stop people from being his followers [Muqalid]. Only the Mujtahid can give the reason for their Fatwas and yes! I do think changes need to be made on the basis of reform and things need to be looked through from time to time. I personally do not believe that one should compromise on principals of faith but that's my belief. To be continued.

Edited by Ameen, 15 March 2012 - 03:55 PM.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

The belief that Imam `Ali [as] is the Wali of Allah and the pronouncement of it during Adhan are completely separate issues & cannot be conflated. The Maraj`i have ruled that it is not part of the Adhan or the Iqamah. So to say it with the intention that it is part of it makes that `amal batil. It is not even "mustahabb" in the shar`ii sense - it is only something "preferred."

This practice began, at least among Imamis, during the Safavid Era in order centralize and officially push the empire to Shi'ism and make Sunnism something unpopular. Also kind of in back lash to the Ottoman Empire. But I digress... The Imams did not teach this pronouncement in the Adhan or Iqamah. It's only really kept today because it has become central to Shi'i identity. The statement is usually never the same thing twice as to make it obvious it is not part of the Adhan. Instead of hearing "اشهد ان عليا ولي الله" twice, you hear that once followed by "اشهد ان عليا حجة الله" once. Or something more fancy like "اشهد ان عليا وابنائه المعصومين حجاج الله" after the first pronouncement.

Say it or don't say it, whatever you want. If you don't like saying it, I would suggest you do say it in public gatherings where people who are emotionally attached to it would throw a fit because you didn't say it. Ironically, you are doing something "more" rafidhi or "more" shi`a taqiyyatan [by way of taqiyya].

في امان الله

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam, 15 March 2012 - 06:05 PM.

[MadeehaBatool23]

I also used to believe that it was required, for many reasons, but when I did Taqlid, I found out that the Marja I followed, Ayatullah Seestani says it's just recommended, not a requirement.
I don't really understand why he'd say it's not a requirement, but he's an Ayatullah and he's obviously done a lot of research about it, so he knows best.
Most of us aren't really knowledgeable enough to make a judgement on the matter, so it's best to just follow what your Marja says.

[Fuan]

I understand the Maraji' point of view - but, for personal interest, does anyone know of the hadith about how the adhaan was recited on the day of Ghadir Khumm with the third testament?

[Dar'ul_Islam]

Fuan, on 15 March 2012 - 07:55 PM, said:

I understand the Maraji' point of view - but, for personal interest, does anyone know of the hadith about how the adhaan was recited on the day of Ghadir Khumm with the third testament?

There is no such hadith in our Islamic literature. That is an obscure hadith from a Sunni book which has no weight to our fiqh. Assured be you that that hadith they have is weak - and probably labeled forged.

في أمان الله

[Fuan]

Dar, on 15 March 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

There is no such hadith in our Islamic literature. That is an obscure hadith from a Sunni book which has no weight to our fiqh. Assured be you that that hadith they have is weak - and probably labeled forged.

في أمان الله

wait, what?.. why would sunni's have a hadith about "ash-hadu anna 'aliyyan waliyyullah" at ghadir khumm?.... could you please post the hadith?

[Dar'ul_Islam]

I don't know why they would.I assume they would answer that they record whatever hadith came to them from whoever - that includes forgeries and exaggerations by deviant Shias.

I do not have the hadith on hand.

[macisaac]

I'm not positive but I think it might be found in a late medieval Egyptian Sufi book.  So, holds about all of no weight for us, especially considering the many explicit and detailed hadiths on the adhan we have in our books, none of which include such an addition.  

For those hadiths, see here:

http://www.tashayyu....qama/chapter-19

[Ameen]

Continued! Water is necessary to do Wuzu for Salah [Nimaz]. If there is no water than Wuzu is cancelled and Tayamum because a substitute for Wuzu. But if water becomes available then Wuzu is back in place and the substitute is cancelled [invalid]. Imaamath isn't available because Hazrath Mahdi [as] is not present. so instead of Imaamath Ijtihad is the substitute and one follows the Mujtahid. Once Imaamath becomes available by the coming [Zahoor] of the Imaam then the substitute, Ijtihad and Mujtahid, will be cancelled [Invalid]. Like I said this is my opinion and one can discuss and debate on it. One can agree or disagree. Discussion and debate, it doesn't matter what the subject or topic is, should be with a pleasant attitude and a positive manner, to gain and share knowledge and information, also to get to know the others point of view etc.

[Ameen]

Dar, on 15 March 2012 - 06:03 PM, said:

The belief that Imam `Ali [as] is the Wali of Allah and the pronouncement of it during Adhan are completely separate issues & cannot be conflated. The Maraj`i have ruled that it is not part of the Adhan or the Iqamah. So to say it with the intention that it is part of it makes that `amal batil. It is not even "mustahabb" in the shar`ii sense - it is only something "preferred."

This practice began, at least among Imamis, during the Safavid Era in order centralize and officially push the empire to Shi'ism and make Sunnism something unpopular. Also kind of in back lash to the Ottoman Empire. But I digress... The Imams did not teach this pronouncement in the Adhan or Iqamah. It's only really kept today because it has become central to Shi'i identity. The statement is usually never the same thing twice as to make it obvious it is not part of the Adhan. Instead of hearing "اشهد ان عليا ولي الله" twice, you hear that once followed by "اشهد ان عليا حجة الله" once. Or something more fancy like "اشهد ان عليا وابنائه المعصومين حجاج الله" after the first pronouncement.

Say it or don't say it, whatever you want. If you don't like saying it, I would suggest you do say it in public gatherings where people who are emotionally attached to it would throw a fit because you didn't say it. Ironically, you are doing something "more" rafidhi or "more" shi`a taqiyyatan [by way of taqiyya].

في امان الله

Assalaamo-Alaikum dear brother. Thank you very much for your point of view. Much appreciated! I would like to ask you a few questions regarding your post if I may. Firstly, you said " The belief that Hazrath Ali [as] is Wali of Allah and the pronouncement of it during the Ezaan and Iqamath are completely separate issues and can't be conflated ". How come they are completely separate issues??? Brother, would you care to elaborate on this. Secondly, you said " The Maraje have ruled that it isn't part of the Ezaan and the Iqamah, so to say it with the intention that it is part of it makes that Amal Batil ". Ok! Fair enough! Now brother tell me, that saying something in the Ezaan and Iqamah, knowing that it is not part of it, doesn't this make an addition [izafa] to the Ezaan and Iqamah??? Wouldn't this also make the Amal Batil??? Can one make an addition to the Ezaan and the Iqamah and say it without considering it to be part of it??? Is this allowed??? Can further additions be made as such??? Would this not be against the Sunnah, the original thing??? It isn't part of the Ezaan and Iqamah but there is no harm in saying it with in the Ezaan and Iqamah! Is this not a deliberate addition??? What are your thoughts on Assalaatho-Kherum-Minannaum???? To becontinued. Wassalaam brother!

Edited by Ameen, 16 March 2012 - 06:47 AM.

[Ameen]

MadeehaBatool23, on 15 March 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

I also used to believe that it was required, for many reasons, but when I did Taqlid, I found out that the Marja I followed, Ayatullah Seestani says it's just recommended, not a requirement.
I don't really understand why he'd say it's not a requirement, but he's an Ayatullah and he's obviously done a lot of research about it, so he knows best.
Most of us aren't really knowledgeable enough to make a judgement on the matter, so it's best to just follow what your Marja says.

Salaam! Thank you for your point of view. Much appreciated. You said " So it's best to just follow what your Marja says ". I would personally disagree with this and here are the reasons why. Firstly blind obedience is only for the infallible, such as Allah, his Messenger and the Ululamre, which are the 12 Imaams according to the Shia. Ijtihad isn't associated with infallability and Mujtahids are not infallible, so blind obedience wouldn't work here. Secondly one must keep in mind that Ijtihad and Mujtahid are substitutes for Imaamath and Imaam and is the next important thing, which one would refer to when it comes to daily matters and affairs, religious or not. Like I said that these are my opinions an one can agree or disagree. Thirdly Imaamath is not questionable or explainable but Ijtihad is. Imaam can't be questioned or doesn't have to explain himself but a Mujtahid can be and does have to if required. Wassalaam.

Edited by Ameen, 16 March 2012 - 07:42 AM.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

Ameen, on 16 March 2012 - 06:42 AM, said:

Assalaamo-Alaikum dear brother. Thank you very much for your point of view. Much appreciated! I would like to ask you a few questions regarding your post if I may. Firstly, you said " The belief that Hazrath Ali [as] is Wali of Allah and the pronouncement of it during the Ezaan and Iqamath are completely separate issues and can't be conflated ". How come they are completely separate issues??? Brother, would you care to elaborate on this.

What I mean is the absolute fact of him being the Wail of Allah does not mean we must pronounce that article of belief in the Adhan or the Iqamah, especially if the Imams [as] did not do so or say to do so.

Quote

Secondly, you said " The Maraje have ruled that it isn't part of the Ezaan and the Iqamah, so to say it with the intention that it is part of it makes that Amal Batil ". Ok! Fair enough! Now brother tell me, that saying something in the Ezaan and Iqamah, knowing that it is not part of it, doesn't this make an addition [izafa] to the Ezaan and Iqamah??? Wouldn't this also make the Amal Batil??? Can one make an addition to the Ezaan and the Iqamah and say it without considering it to be part of it??? Is this allowed??? Can further additions be made as such??? Would this not be against the Sunnah, the original thing??? It isn't part of the Ezaan and Iqamah but there is no harm in saying it with in the Ezaan and Iqamah! Is this not a deliberate addition??? What are your thoughts on Assalaatho-Kherum-Minannaum???? To becontinued. Wassalaam brother!

Yes it is a bit strange, to be honest. But yes, you can say it and not consider it part of the Adhan & Iqamah. The argument used for this is something similar to the way you can say Salawat on the Prophet [sawa] during the Adhan, but still not consider it part of the Adhan (also talking during the Adhan does not make it batil, it is fine). There's a hadith, a weak one (which doesn't matter for non-wajib/haram issues), where the Imams [as] is quoted to say that you should say "علي أمير المومنين" after you say the Shahada - something like this. So they make the same case here - you're saying Shahada, so you should say this, too, but it isn't part of the Adhan/iqamah. This is the argument forwarded by `Allamah Majilisi and scholars today alike, from what I think.

as-Salaatu khayrum-min al-nawm is a bid`ah started by the 2nd Caliph. The Sunnis say it with the intention and belief that it is part of the Adhan (for Fajr).

Now you may say you can make the same argument for the Tathweeb (that sunni fajr addition) that the Maraaji` make for the Third Shahada. Well, I don't think so cause it can be based off a hadith while the Sunni practice cannot be (for us from our literature).

All in all, I don't say the Third Shahada in Adhan or Iqamah. And I only do it taqiyyatan when at Mosque/Center.

في أمان الله

[Kismet110]

Even though I've seen the narrations about components of adhaan and they indicate "AliyunwaliAllah" isn't a required part that doesn't seem to sit well wih other narrations about necessity to follow shahadah of Allah and the Prophet with proclamation of Wilayah.

I've also read it became prevalent during Safavid period but is it possible during the time of Imams it wasn't recommended due to adhaan due to the political climate? Adhaan is a very public deed, not something you can do quietly or away from eyes and ears.

Personally I can't imagine ever not saying all 3 components of shahadah in any context as a Shi'ah except for preservation of life.

Just putting it out there, I don't know the answer but will share an anecdote; when Sayyid Khomeini passed away I went to the procession in London with my older brother for commemoration and at the beginning the Shi'ah muezzin DIDN'T say that part because, I assume, there was a significant sunni element to the gathering. This felt very strange, incomplete and it's been nagging at me for 23 years - maybe time to let it go ....

ALI

[Dar'ul_Islam]

Kismet110, on 16 March 2012 - 10:15 AM, said:

Even though I've seen the narrations about components of adhaan and they indicate "AliyunwaliAllah" isn't a required part that doesn't seem to sit well wih other narrations about necessity to follow shahadah of Allah and the Prophet with proclamation of Wilayah.

Necessity of following, loving and obeying to do not oblige or indicate the necessity of proclamation in structured acts of worship.

Quote

I've also read it became prevalent during Safavid period but is it possible during the time of Imams it wasn't recommended due to adhaan due to the political climate? Adhaan is a very public deed, not something you can do quietly or away from eyes and ears.

We get plenty of narrations that are private gathers between the Imams [as] and their closest Shi'i companions. There is no necessity to recite out-loud the Adhan if a companion is just asking about whether X or Z is in it. Yet, we have zero hadith like this about the Third shahada.

Quote

Personally I can't imagine ever not saying all 3 components of shahadah in any context as a Shi'ah except for preservation of life.

Just putting it out there, I don't know the answer but will share an anecdote; when Sayyid Khomeini passed away I went to the procession in London with my older brother for commemoration and at the beginning the Shi'ah muezzin DIDN'T say that part because, I assume, there was a significant sunni element to the gathering. This felt very strange, incomplete and it's been nagging at me for 23 years - maybe time to let it go ....

That is because you have been Shi'ah all your life and have been socialized to have this since birth. I don't doubt your sincerity in belief or attachment to the Ahlulbayt [as] that is symbolized through this testimony. I like the testimony, but I don't feel it to be integral to me being Imami. I'll say it every other time and place and just randomly, but I don't say it in the Adhan or Iqamah.

في أمان الله