68 replies to this topic

[Against oneself]

he says at 36 mins shaikh saduq  condemned the mufawidah because they thought the 3rd shahadah was wajib.

is this so? or did he condem them for adding it thinking ... its mustahab?

he quotes shahhed awal and shaikh tusi on the importance of the 3rd shahadah. did they disagree with sh saduq or not?

[pakistanyar]

Just go to this link, it has Tusis opinion, Allama Hilli and others. They all agreed with Suduq and mustahab or wajib was never mentioned.

http://www.tashayyu....hahada-in-adhan


Shahid ath-Thani (d. 966) in Rawdat al-Jinan:

And as to the addition that `Ali is the wali of Allah and that the family of Muhammad are the best creation, and the like of that, then that is a bid`a and its reports are fabricated.  And even though they Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã are the best creation, there being no discussion in that, rather it is about its insertion into the parts of the adhan that has been received through divine revelation.  And not every true word is allowed to be inserted into the appointed `ibada legally (shar`an)

Edited by pakistanyar, 19 August 2012 - 08:46 PM.

[kadhim]

Total hardcore bidah time. Haven't added this stuff to adhaan or iqamah in years, since learning so. As for the, "we don't think it's wajib / part of the adhaan, we just say it as a mustahab aside" rationalization, just do an experiment and leave it out in a public jamaat prayer in our community. People get enraged at you; it's crazy.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Quran asks for Three Shahadaat,that is sufficient Hujjah for us.We know the kind of times of early ulema,their one fatwa of adding it into Azaan could lead to Shia massacre elsewhere. Imam Musa Kazim(as) instructed sunni wuzu to Ali bin Yaqtain,to save his life so you would start doing it too?

Ayaotollah Naser Makarem says there are reports of it being added in times of Masoomeen(as), and even Salman(as) and Abu zarr(as)added it too, and was being approved by Prophet(saww). Even though i am not Ay.Makarem's muqqalid ,but at least he knows more than you, and if it was added in Aimma"(as)s time, then early ulema surely had some other reservations.

And stop creating fitnah threads on days of Eid.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 19 August 2012 - 10:05 PM.

[Haydar Husayn]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 19 August 2012 - 10:01 PM, said:

Quran asks for Three Shahadaat,that is sufficient Hujjah for us.

No it doesn't. Even the verse you are thinking of, which you want to make mean something it doesn't say, doesn't have anything about 'three' in it.

Quote

We know the kind of times of early ulema,their one fatwa of adding it into Azaan could lead to Shia massacre elsewhere. Imam Musa Kazim(as) instructed sunni wuzu to Ali bin Yaqtain,to save his life so you would start doing it too?

Err. The Buyid times were actually pretty good for Shias. And if taqiyyah was an issue, you would think there would be more obvious things to be concerned about, such as saying that those who denied Imam Ali his right were kuffar.

Quote

Ayaotollah Naser Makarem says there are reports of it being added in times of Masoomeen(as),

What reports?

Quote

and even Salman(as) and Abu zarr(as)added it too, and was being approved by Prophet(saww).

One of the things I liked about Nakshawani's lecture was he didn't resort to this bogus argument. It's pretty sad when you are relying on obviously fabricated narrations from Sunnis books

Quote

Even though i am not Ay.Makarem's muqqalid ,but at least he knows more than you, and if it was added in Aimma"(as)s time, then early ulema surely had some other reservations.

Except there are no surviving reports of it being added during their time.

[kadhim]

Quote

Quran asks for Three Shahadaat,that is sufficient Hujjah for us.

Yeah, it doesn't count if you write it in yourself in pencil. Just an FYI there.

[Qa'im]

A bit strange for Nakshawani to use the word wajib or obligatory. Saduq didn't believe it was mustahab, mubah, or makrooh either. He believed it was bid`a and therefore absolutely forbidden. You can clearly read the words of Saduq, but don't dare quoting them in our community.

Edited by Qa'im, 19 August 2012 - 10:44 PM.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Haydar Husayn, on 19 August 2012 - 10:14 PM, said:

No it doesn't. Even the verse you are thinking of, which you want to make mean something it doesn't say, doesn't have anything about 'three' in it.



Err. The Buyid times were actually pretty good for Shias. And if taqiyyah was an issue, you would think there would be more obvious things to be concerned about, such as saying that those who denied Imam Ali his right were kuffar.



What reports?



One of the things I liked about Nakshawani's lecture was he didn't resort to this bogus argument. It's pretty sad when you are relying on obviously fabricated narrations from Sunnis books



Except there are no surviving reports of it being added during their time.

Buyid times were good,were they good for Shias in every country? Calling those who deny Imamat as kuffar is much different thing,its a belief which could stay inside hearts as well,Azaan is open declaration,can't you even differentiate that.

What reports? Ask him on his site,he had seen so he said,none of you is on his level.And why would sunnis fabricate? Is n't it funny that they would fabricate something for enemy's favor?

And yes Quran is asking for three,how can you say it does n't mean what i am thinking? Word for two testimonies is Shahadatain,for more than two Shahdaatehum,and it was used with reference to ibadaat.You have no answer to logically deny it except to say it does n't mean what you think.We don't need any opinion for it,whether favorable or unfavorable,when we have Quraanic evidence.

kadhim, on 19 August 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

Yeah, it doesn't count if you write it in yourself in pencil. Just an FYI there.

You think everyone is like you?

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 19 August 2012 - 11:08 PM.

[Dar'ul_Islam]

The opinion of all the `ulema before al-Majalisi  is was that it was absolutely forbidden and a bid`ah, as far as I know. Saduq [ra] had undoubtedly access to more traditions than any one now or even at al-Majalisi's time. And he said with certainty that all reports about it were lies and fabrications. If you're going to dispute him and others, you're almost questioning the entire madhhab and its sources - which is founded upon three Muhammads [ra].

Kaniz, until you bring a reliable tafsir from the Imams [as] about that verse, that argument is useless and worth nothing (the one about "shahadaat").

æÇááå ÃÚáã
Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Edited by Dar'ul_Islam, 20 August 2012 - 12:22 AM.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Dar, on 19 August 2012 - 11:06 PM, said:

The opinion of all the `ulema before al-Majalisi  is was that it was absolutely forbidden and a bid`ah. Saduq [ra] had undoubtedly access to more traditions than any one now or even at al-Majalisi's time. And he said with certainty that all reports about it were lies and fabrications. If you're going to dispute him and others, you're almost questioning the entire madhhab and its sources - which is founded upon three Muhammads [ra].

Kaniz, until you bring a reliable tafsir from the Imams [as] about that verse, that argument is useless and worth nothing (the one about "shahadaat").

æÇááå ÃÚáã
Ýí ÇãÇä Çááå

Why did Allah use seghaa e jama for more than two? In this way where Allah says He is one,you 'll ask for tafseer which would confirm He is discussing His Tauheed there? No matter if one is mentioned.
Similarly the Ayat is much clear in itself. We can't dispute with Quran, and don't know the reasons of early scholars they are not alive to clarify.

BTW why don't you or someone ask those for Tafaseer ,who pick and choose Ayaat explicitly revealed for kuffar of those times and paste them on present day Shias? Is n't it double standard.I never saw you asking for Tafseer from them.

Book Imali Suddook : Imam Ali Raza says " God Almighty has said
that He
will NOT ACCEPT anyone's acts of worship unless he stands witness to
Moula
Ali 's Wilayat with Prophet's ( pbuh & hp ) Risalat."
Ehtejaj-e-Tibrisi - Volume 1 : Imam Jaffar As Sadiq ( as ) says "
Thus when
ever one says La ilaha illalla and Mohammedan Rasool Allah, he must
immediately say Ali is Ameer ul Momineen Wali Ullah "

I guess Azaan is act of Worship too,if Sadooq is mentioning it there,then he must had some reasons for forbiddance.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 19 August 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[Renaissance_Man]

For a complete analysis on this topic, please read Dr. Liyakatali Takim's essay on the 3rd shahadah, appropriately titled "From Bidah to Sunnah."  ( http://irshadonline....wnload-here.pdf )

In a nutshell, "Ali un-Waliullah" was never considered a part of the adhan and early Shia scholars like Shaykh Saduq and Tusi prohibited its recitation.  However in the 16th century, when the Safavid empire began imposing Shia Islam in Iran, often by violent means, they forcibly inserted this into the adhan.  If people refused to recite it, they were accused of being Sunnis and could be persecuted.  So to accomodate this new practice without falling into bidah, the Shia ulema relied on a technicality.  They pointed out that all Muslims before, after, and during adhan and iqamah, are permitted to recite a few words.  Therefore, if one utters the 3rd shahada as part of this extra speech and not as a part of the adhan, it would not be a bidah and would in fact be mustahib, based upon certain hadith of the Prophet (saw).  In this way there were able to harmonize the practice with Shia law.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Renaissance_Man, on 19 August 2012 - 11:25 PM, said:

For a complete analysis on this topic, please read Dr. Liyakatali Takim's essay on the 3rd shahadah, appropriately titled "From Bidah to Sunnah."  ( http://irshadonline....wnload-here.pdf )

In a nutshell, "Ali un-Waliullah" was never considered a part of the adhan and early Shia scholars like Shaykh Saduq and Tusi prohibited its recitation.  However in the 16th century, when the Safavid empire began imposing Shia Islam in Iran, often by violent means, they forcibly inserted this into the adhan.  If people refused to recite it, they were accused of being Sunnis and could be persecuted.  So to accomodate this new practice without falling into bidah, the Shia ulema relied on a technicality.  They pointed out that all Muslims before, after, and during adhan and iqamah, are permitted to recite a few words.  Therefore, if one utters the 3rd shahada as part of this extra speech and not as a part of the adhan, it would not be a bidah and would in fact be mustahib, based upon certain hadith of the Prophet (saw).  In this way there were able to harmonize the practice with Shia law.

Lolz,then what happened to Najaf,Karbala,and other parts of Shia world? Were they under safavid control too?

[Haydar Husayn]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 19 August 2012 - 11:33 PM, said:

Lolz,then what happened to Najaf,Karbala,and other parts of Shia world? Were they under safavid control too?

Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire Najaf experienced severe difficulties as the result of repeated raids by Arab desert tribes and Persian army and acute water shortages caused by the lack of a reliable water supply. The number of inhabited houses in the city had plummeted from 3000 to just 30 by the start of the 16th century.

When the Portuguese traveller Pedro Texeira passed through Najaf in 1604, he found the city in ruins, inhabited by little more than 500 people.^[15]

During the 18th century the scholarly life of Najaf came to be dominated by Persian-speaking ulema from Iran.^[16]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Najaf#History


Doesn't sound like Najaf was very relevant during that time, and then later it became dominated by Iranian scholars.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Haydar Husayn, on 20 August 2012 - 04:55 AM, said:

Under the rule of the Ottoman Empire Najaf experienced severe difficulties as the result of repeated raids by Arab desert tribes and Persian army and acute water shortages caused by the lack of a reliable water supply. The number of inhabited houses in the city had plummeted from 3000 to just 30 by the start of the 16th century.

When the Portuguese traveller Pedro Texeira passed through Najaf in 1604, he found the city in ruins, inhabited by little more than 500 people.^[15]

During the 18th century the scholarly life of Najaf came to be dominated by Persian-speaking ulema from Iran.^[16]

http://en.wikipedia....i/Najaf#History


Doesn't sound like Najaf was very relevant during that time, and then later it became dominated by Iranian scholars.

Did n't Najaf have ulema even before 18th century? moreover what so wrong with Persian scholars? Does n't Ahadees commend the inhabitants of Qum in the end of the days? They don't describe them as biddatis.
Imam(as) will receive huge following from Qum, and East.  Arabs of those times are severely condemned.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 20 August 2012 - 05:14 AM.

[Haydar Husayn]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 20 August 2012 - 05:02 AM, said:

Did n't Najaf had ulema even before 18th century? moreover what so wrong with Persian scholars? Does n't Ahadees commend the inhabitants of Qum in the end of the days? They don't describe them as biddatis.

I didn't say there was anything wrong with them, but it would explain how any practices that were common in Iran, such as perhaps reciting the third Shahada in the adhan, got introduced in Najaf.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Haydar Husayn, on 20 August 2012 - 05:05 AM, said:

I didn't say there was anything wrong with them, but it would explain how any practices that were common in Iran, such as perhaps reciting the third Shahada in the adhan, got introduced in Najaf.

But there were ulema in Najaf even before Persians reach there.

[Haydar Husayn]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 20 August 2012 - 05:14 AM, said:

But there were ulema in Najaf even before Persians reach there.

So? How do you know they were reciting the third Shahada in the adhan back then? Or that if they were, they weren't being already influenced by Persian scholars? The fact is, you aren't going to get much serious scholarship in a city that is in ruins anyway, so whatever they were doing, it's pretty much irrelevant.

[DPRK_Guy]

History source for Haydar Husayn brother: Wikipedia

Religion source: Tashayyu.org

Energy source: Shiachat discussion forum

[Kaniz e Zahra]

Hawza 'Ilmiyya in Najaf, Iraq was in 430 AH (the 11th century AD) by Shaykhal-Tusi (385 AH/995 CE – 460 AH/1067 CE),^[5] the Hawza 'Ilmiyya Najaf remained the main centre of learning for the Shi'ahs for over 1000 years until its decline in the 20th century starting with the establishment of modern Iraq in 1921.^[1][6] The revival of the Najaf Hawza in Iraq since the fall of the Saddam regime has indeed begun but still Iraq’s seminaries today have only a few thousand clerics.^[7] At present Ayatollah Sistaniheads Hawza 'Ilmiyya Najaf, which includes four other Ayatollahs - Mohammad Yaqoobi, Mohammad Ishaq Al-Fayyad, Mohammad Saeed Al-Hakim andBashir al-Najafi.<sup>[8]

That is what wikipedia says regarding Hawza of Najaf, it remained the academic center for Shia Islam for 1000 years without interruption. And if Third Testimony was not part of Azaan back then, why did n't we find any Shia iraqi Alim protesting on Addition or at least telling that it was not recited in Najaf but safavids included it.?</sup>

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 20 August 2012 - 05:23 AM.

[doobybrother]

pakistanyar, on 19 August 2012 - 08:44 PM, said:

Just go to this link, it has Tusis opinion, Allama Hilli and others. They all agreed with Suduq and mustahab or wajib was never mentioned.

http://www.tashayyu....hahada-in-adhan


Shahid ath-Thani (d. 966) in Rawdat al-Jinan:

And as to the addition that `Ali is the wali of Allah and that the family of Muhammad are the best creation, and the like of that, then that is a bid`a and its reports are fabricated.  And even though they Úáíåã ÇáÓáÇã are the best creation, there being no discussion in that, rather it is about its insertion into the parts of the adhan that has been received through divine revelation.  And not every true word is allowed to be inserted into the appointed `ibada legally (shar`an)

Sh. Saduq couldn't have been more clear about the unlawfulness of this addition. I wonder what modern day Mujtahids have to say about this.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

^^Sheikh Sadooq himself quoted tradition where he narrated from Imam(as) that no act of worship is completed without 3rd Shahada, then why his views contradicted with what his write, there must had been some Hikmat in forbidding it for the security of Shias around the world.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 20 August 2012 - 07:27 AM.

[doobybrother]

Kaniz e Zahra, on 20 August 2012 - 07:26 AM, said:

^^Sheikh Sadooq himself quoted tradition where he narrated from Imam(as) that no act of worship is completed without 3rd Shahada, then why his views contradicted with what his write, there must had been some Hikmat in forbidding it for the security of Shias around the world.

Doesn't a specific ruling of an Imam take precedence over a general statement? Don't we have hadith from the Imam teaching us the adhan (narrated by Saduq as well), and do these adhans have the 3rd shahada?

In case I believe that this hadith is applicable on Adhan, why is the 3rd shahada still not a part of Azaan according to most Mujtahids. Going by your interpretation it should have been mandatory not mustahab or qasd e qurbat ?

Anyway, this case of 3rd Shahada in Azaan is a pretty straight forward one to be honest.
All the evidence point towards the fact it was "legalized" during the time of Majlisi. Ahadith and opinions of the scholars (Saduq, Tusi, Hili, Saheedain) point towards its unlawfulness. There remain only two arguments (i call them the hubeali.com arguments) in its favour, and both have been used in this thread. And it is for everyone to see how flimsy they are.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

doobybrother, on 20 August 2012 - 07:59 AM, said:

Doesn't a specific ruling of an Imam take precedence over a general statement? Don't we have hadith from the Imam teaching us the adhan (narrated by Saduq as well), and do these adhans have the 3rd shahada?

In case I believe that this hadith is applicable on Adhan, why is the 3rd shahada still not a part of Azaan according to most Mujtahids. Going by your interpretation it should have been mandatory not mustahab or qasd e qurbat ?

Anyway, this case of 3rd Shahada in Azaan is a pretty straight forward one to be honest.
All the evidence point towards the fact it was "legalized" during the time of Majlisi. Ahadith and opinions of the scholars (Saduq, Tusi, Hili, Saheedain) point towards its unlawfulness. There remain only two arguments (i call them the hubeali.com arguments) in its favour, and both have been used in this thread. And it is for everyone to see how flimsy they are.

Is Quranic Ayat,and Ahadees a flimsy argument for you? As for why Most of the marjas consider it mustahab is due to the reason that they don't find it in Azaan in old books.The reasons are quite clear as i said before when Imam(as) taught Ali bin Yaqtain a sunni wuzu to save his life ,there is a strong reason that they avoided teaching it in Azaan to save lives of countless Shias.

I don't know what Hub e Ali.com has to say for the issue but when Quran is explicit on numbers of Testimonies in Surah ul Muarij then its quite clear Aimma(as) and early scholars skipped it due to Taqqiyah as the same scholars quoted from same Aimma(as) that there would be no act of worship accepted without Three Testimonies.

These narrations are obvious source why marjas consider it mustahab,without discarding those Azaan tradition and accepting these too. They are human so have to be cautious, but they understand its importance there,and BTW my marja considers it wajib so i believe him while maintaining respect to all other respected maraaji in Qum, and Najaf.

We are asked to match everything with Quran, and our Azaan is definitely in accordance, if it is a flimsy argument then kindly clarify why Allah used segha e jama for more than two? Was He unconcerned for Arabic grammar(nauzbillah) when we have supporting narrations too.

Edited by Kaniz e Zahra, 20 August 2012 - 08:16 AM.

[kadhim]

No, you're not meaningfully engaging the argument. The arguments you claim - that it is somehow supported by Quran and a command from the aimmah would argue toward it being wajib. There's no way around that.
However, there is no record of the prophet or any of the aimmah ever performing this "wajibat."

THINK.

[Kaniz e Zahra]

kadhim, on 20 August 2012 - 08:19 AM, said:

No, you're not meaningfully engaging the argument. The arguments you claim - that it is somehow supported by Quran and a command from the aimmah would argue toward it being wajib. There's no way around that.
However, there is no record of the prophet or any of the aimmah ever performing this "wajibat."

THINK.

When they order something that means they don't practice it themselves? That is not meaningful, what if it argue toward it being Waajib? You can't discard Ayaat and Ahadees just because you can't accept something.