Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
guest050817

Why I Will No Longer Recite The 3Rd Shahadah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I asked him a question but he  haven't answered it yet .

 

Once again ,Brother Tawheed " Whom should we follow ? Our marjas or your posts ?

 

In other word , You think the marjas (Ayt Khamenei , Ayt Sistani , Ayt Makarem Shirazi , Ayt Vahid Khorasani , Ayt Javadi Amoli and ... ) are making mistake ? You think they are committing bedas ? You think you are more knowledgeable than they are ?

 

If yes ,Why you use their Fatawa to prove some of your points ,If Not , Please Stop it here and be more cautious .

 

As Imam Mahdi wanted us , we should follow our trustful scholars during his gheybah .

Edited by kamyar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Peace be with you,

 

Dear brother, i have established key things:

 

1. Our classical scholars - all of them- up to the time of the father of Alama Majlisi condemned the addition of the 3rd Shahdah in the Adhan. That is essentially a period of around 1000 years roughly where shia scholars condemned this practise.

2. Our classical scholars attest that the addition of the 3rd Shahadah in the Adhan was done by the ghulaat - the fabricators, exaggerators. 

3. Our Imams a.s never once told us to add it into the adhan with the intention of thawab and that it was not part of it, nor did any of their sahaba report that it is to be added with the intention of not being part of the adhan, and for a millenia our own sdcholars shunned it. So are we now to see we knew better than our Imams a.s?

4. It was invented and innovated by the ghulaat, why are we copying them?

5. Some of our modern scholars themselves speak out against this practice - i have listed a fatawah on my OP.

 

Until these absolutely pertinent points are addresed, i feel i am absolutely justified in raising an objection. 

 

Infact brother, you would have been arguing against the addition of Ya Ali Madad and even cursing those who put it in as the ghulaat had you been born say, a thousand years ago(if you followed the consensus of our scholars then). 

 

I feel i have raised an incredibly strong argument here, built on clear evidence and not at all on my own whims.

 

Just because these scholars had an OPINION does not make it correct. Being a scholar doesn't make you right in every facet. Sheikh Sadooq also denied infallibility of the Imams` [as]; are you going to follow him on that notion as well?!

 

As brother Ethics mentioned, you seem it ok for you to pick & choose scholars based on your preference and shove the rest of them to the side. You pick scholars like Fadlullah who has also been condemned by other scholars! Including that khabees Muhammad Hussain Dakhoo. 

 

BIHAR UL ANWAAR – VOL 37 CH 54 H 10

 

إن أول من ذكر الإمام علیاً (علیھ السلام) بعد الشھادتین ھو االله سبحانھ، فقد روي عن الإمام الصادق (علیھ السلام) أنھ قال: (لمّا خلق االله السماوات والأرض، أمر منادیاً فنادى: أشھد أن لا إلھ إلاّ االله - ثلاث مرات - أشھد أن محمّداً رسول االله - ثلاث مرات - أشھد أن علیاً أمیر المؤمنین حقّاً - ثلاث مرات -). The first One to bear the third testimony after the two was Allah (s.w.t.). It has been related from the Holy Imam Jafar Al Sadiq (a.s.) who said: ‘When Allah (s.w.t.) Created the heavens and the earth, He (s.w.t.) Commanded a caller who announced – I bear witness that there is no God except Allah, three times; I bear witness that Muhammad (s.aw.) is the Messenger of Allah (s.w.t.), three times; I bear witness that Ali (a.s.) is the Commander of the faithful truly, three times

 

AL IHTIJAJ AL TABARSI – VOL 1 P230 فقد جاء الأمر من الإمام جعفر الصادق (علیھ السلام) أن من قال: لا إلھ إلاّ االله محمد رسول االله، فلیقل: علي أمیر المؤمنین So came the order from the Imam Ja’far Al Sadiq (a.s.): ‘Whoever says – There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah must immediately say Ali is the Commander of the Faithful’.

 

BIHAR UL ANWAAR – VOL 27 CH1 H1 فقد روي عن القاسم بن معاویة قال: قلت لأبي عبد االله - الصادق - (علیھ السلام): ھؤلاء یروون حدیثاً في معراجھم أنھ لما اسري برسول االله، رأى على العرش (مكتوباً): لا إلھ إلا االله، محمّد رسول االله، أبو بكر الصدیق! فقال الإمام (علیھ السلام): سبحان االله! غیّروا كل شيء حتى ھذا؟!!. قلت: نعم. قال (علیھ السلام): إن االله عز ّوجلّ لمّا خلق العرش كتب على قوائمھ: لا إلھ االله، محمّد رسول االله، علي أمیر المؤمنین. إلى أن قال (علیھ السلام): ولمّا خلق االله 11 عزّ وجلّ الكرسي كتب على قوائمھ: لا إلھ إلا االله، محمّد رسول االله، علي أمیر المؤمنین. ولمّا خلق االله عزّ وجلّ اللّوح كتب فیھ: لا إلھ إلاّ االله، محمّد رسول االله، علي أمیر المؤمنین. ولمّا خلق االله عزّ وجلّ إسرافیل كتب على جبھتھ: لا إلھ إلاّ االله، محمّد رسول االله، علي أمیر المؤمنین. ولمّا خلق االله عزّ وجلّ السماوات كتب في أكنافھا: لا إلھ إلاّ االله، محمّد رسول االله، علي أمیر المؤمنین. ولمّا خلق االله الأرضیین كتب في أطباقھا: لا إلھ إلاّ االله، محمّد رسول االله، علي أمیر المؤمنین. (إلى أن قال علیھ السّلام): ولمّا خلق االله الشمس كتب علیھا: لا إلھ إلاّ االله، محمّد رسول االله، علي أمیر المؤمنین. ولمّا خلق االله القمر كتب علیھ: لا إلھ إلا االله، محمّد رسول االله، علي أمیر المؤمنین. ثم قال (صلوات االله علیھ): فإذا قال أحدكم: لا إلھ إلا االله، محمّد رسول االله، فلیقل: علي أمیر المؤمنین ولي االله. فأنظر - أیھا القارئ - إلى مدى تركیز االله تعالى على اسم الإمام علي أمیر المؤمنین (علیھ السلام) كلّما جاء ذكره سبحانھ وذكر رسول االله (صلى االله علیھ وآلھ). فلماذا ھذا التركیز؟ ولماذا ھذا الإصرار على كتابة اسم الإمام علي (علیھ السلام) على العرش والكرسي واللوح وجبھة إسرافیل وجناح جبرائیل وأكناف السماوات وإطباق الأرضیین والشمس والقمر وغیرھا؟! إن ھذا یدل على ضرورة ذكر الإمام علي أمیر المؤمنین (علیھ السلام) أینما كان ذكر االله ورسولھ وكلّما جاء ذكر االله ورسولھ. ومن الواضح أن الأذان والإقامة ھما من تلك الموارد، فلاشك في ضرورة مقرونیّة الشھادة الثالثة بالشھادتین، والشھادتین بالشھادة الثالثة.

 

It has been related that Qasim Bin Muwaiya said to the Holy Imam Ja’far Al Sadiq (a.s):

 

‘The people of the Sunnah relate a Hadeeth about Me’raaj that when the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) was taken on Me’raaj he (s.a.w.) saw written upon the Throne – There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Abu Bakr As Siddiq’. He (a.s.) said: ‘Glory be to Allah (s.w.t.)! They have changed everything, even this?’ He said: ‘Yes!’ The Holy Imam (a.s.) continued: ‘When Allah (s.w.t.) the High created the Throne, He (s.w.t.) wrote upon it – There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Ali is the Commander of the believers. And when He (s.w.t.) the High Created the Chair, He (s.w.t.) wrote upon it – There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Ali is the Commander of the believers. And when He (s.w.t.) Created the Tablet, He (s.w.t.) wrote on it - He (s.w.t.) wrote upon it – There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Ali is the Commander of the believers. And when He (s.w.t.) the High Created Israfeel (the angel) he (s.w.t.) wrote upon his forehead - There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Ali is the Commander of the believers. And when He (s.w.t.) Created the heavens he (s.w.t.) wrote on its fringes – There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Ali is the Commander of the believers. And when he (s.w.t.) the Exalted Created the earth He (s.w.t.) wrote on its layers - There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Ali is the Commander of the believers. And when he (s.w.t.) the High Created the sun he wrote on it - There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Ali is the Commander of the believers. And when He (s.w.t.0 Created the moon He (s.w.t.) wrote upon it - There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah and Ali is the Commander of the believers. Then the Holy Imam (a.s.) added: ‘Whenever any one of you says – There is no God but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah – he must say – Ali is the Commander of the believers’

 

So Tawheed, I suggest you really look at the focus on the name of Maula Ali (as) wherever there is mentioned of Allah SWT and the mention of the Prophet  (pbuh).

 

Why this much emphasis? Why is there an insistence upon writing the name of Imam Ali (as) on the Throne, the chair, the tablet and other places? 

 

This is in no doubt shows the necessity of mentioning the name of Imam Ali (as) when mentioning the oneness of Allah SWT and the prophethood of Muhammad (pbuh) whenever and wherever they are mentioned. 

 

 

TAFSEER AL IMAM HASSAN AL ASKARI (A.S.)

 

قال رسول االله ص أخبر االله تعالى أن من لا یؤمن بالقرآن، فما آمن بالتوراة، لأن االله تعالى أخذ علیھم الإیمان بھما، لا یقبل الإیمان بأحدھما إلا مع الإیمان بالآخر. فكذلك فرض االله الإیمان بولایة علي بن 13 أبي طالب ع كما فرض الإیمان بمحمد فمن قال آمنت بنبوة محمد و كفرت بولایة علي ع فما آمن بنبوة محمد. إن االله تعالى إذا بعث الخلائق یوم القیامة نادى منادي ربنا نداء تعریف الخلائق في إیمانھم و كفرھم، فقال «االله أكبر، االله أكبر» و مناد آخر ینادي «معاشر الخلائق ساعدوه على ھذه المقالة» فأما الدھریة و المعطلة فیخرسون عن ذلك و لا تنطلق ألسنتھم، و یقولھا سائر الناس من الخلائق، فیمتاز الدھریة [و المعطلة] من سائر الناس بالخرس. ثم یقول المنادي «أشھد أن لا إلھ إلا االله» فیقول الخلائق كلھم ذلك إلا من كان یشرك باالله تعالى من المجوس و النصارى و عبدة الأوثان فإنھم یخرسون فیبینون بذلك من سائر الخلائق. ثم یقول المنادي «أشھد أن محمدا رسول االله» فیقولھا المسلمون أجمعون و یخرس عنھا الیھود و النصارى و سائر المشركین ثم ینادي من آخر عرصات القیامة ألا فسوقوھم إلى [الجنة لشھادتھم لمحمد ص بالنبوة] فإذا النداء من قبل االله تعالى [لا، بل] وَ قِفُوھُمْ إِنَّھُمْ مَسْؤُلُونَ یقول الملائكة الذین قالوا «سوقوھم إلى الجنة لشھادتھم لمحمد ص بالنبوة» لما ذا یوقفون یا ربنا فإذا النداء من قبل االله تعالى [قفوھم] إنھم مسئولون عن ولایة علي بن أبي طالب و آل محمد، یا عبادي و إمائي إني أمرتھم مع الشھادة بمحمد بشھادة أخرى، فإن جاءوا بھا فعظموا ثوابھم، و أكرموا مآبھم و إن لم یأتوا بھا لم تنفعھم الشھادة لمحمد ص بالنبوة و لا لي بالربوبیة، فمن جاء بھا فھو من الفائزین، و من لم یأت بھا فھو من الھالكین.قال فمنھم من یقول قد كنت لعلي بن أبي طالب بالولایة شاھدا، و لآل محمد محبا. و ھو في ذلك كاذب یظن أن كذبھ ینجیھ، فیقال لھ سوف نستشھد على ذلك علیا. فتشھد أنت یا أبا الحسن، فتقول الجنة لأولیائي شاھدة، و النار على أعدائي شاھدة. فمن كان منھم صادقا خرجت إلیھ ریاح الجنة و نسیمھا فاحتملتھ، فأوردتھ علالي الجنة و غرفھا و أحلتھ دار المقامة من فضل ربھ لا یمسھ فیھا نصب و لا یمسھ فیھا لغوب و من كان منھم كاذبا جاءتھ سموم النار و حمیمھا و ظلھا الذي ھو ثلاث شعب لا ظلیل و لا یغني من اللھب فتحملھ، فترفعھ في الھواء، و تورده في نار جھنم. قال رسول االله ص فلذلك أنت قسیم [الجنة و] النار، تقول لھا ھذا لي و ھذا لك

 

The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) said:

 

‘Allah (s.w.t.) Said that one who does not believe in the Quran has also not believed in the Torah, because He (s.w.t.) has Said that He (s.w.t.) will not accept their faith on one of them without the other. In the same way, Allah (s.w.t.) has made it an obligation to believe in Wilayah of Ali Ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) just as he has made it an obligation to have faith in Muhammad (s.a.w.). If someone was to claim to believe in the Prophethood of Muhammad (s.a.w.) and disbelieves in the Wilayah of Ali (a.s.) has not believed in the Prophethood of Muhammad (s.a.w.). Surely Allah (s.w.t.) will gather the creation on the Day of Judgment a caller will call out to them to define their belief and disbelief and cry out ‘God is Great! God is Great! Then another caller will cry out ‘O group of creatures repeat this call!’ One of the Sects will become dumb and will not repeat this whilst the others will do so. Then the caller will call out, ‘I bear witness that there is no God but Allah!’ All the creatures will say this except for the polytheists from among the Magians and the Christians and the idol worshippers. They will then be separated from the others. Then the caller will call out ‘I bear witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah!’ All the Muslims will altogether say this but there will be silence from the Jews and the Christians and other Polytheists. Then there will be a call directing the Muslims towards Paradise. Then Allah (s.w.t.) will Say (Make them wait here until I ask them) The Angels will then ask O Lord! Why are they being detained here? Allah (s.w.t.) will Say 'Wait while I Ask them about the Wilayah of Ali Ibn Abi Talib and the Aal E Muhammad (a.s.). O My servants and maids! I had Ordered you to bear another witness after bearing witness of Muhammmad (s.a.w.); If you bear this witness then I shall increase your rewards and good deeds, or if you do not bear this witness then you will have no benefit from bearing the witness of My Unity and the Prophethood of Muhammad (s.a.w.). Whoever has brought this witness is today successful and whoever has not brought this is destroyed. Then one person will say: 'I have brought this witness and am a lover of Aal e Muhammad (a.s.)' although he will be a liar and he will think that he will be saved by his false claim. Allah (s.w.t.) will Say' O claimant, We will take the witness of Ali (a.s.) on this'. Allah (s.w.t.) will then Say: 'O Abul Hassan (a.s.) give witness about this'. Ali (a.s.) will then say: 'O Lord! Paradise is itself a witness to my friends and Hell is itself a witness of my enemies. Whoever is true in this, then the breeze of Paradise will come towards him and will take him to its highest places and by the Grace of God will place him in his eternal abode. He will not have any grief or pain over there. Whoever is a liar in this the hot air and boiling water of Hell and the smoke of three pronged shadow will take him away and dump him in Hell'. The Holy Prophet (s.a.w.) will say: 'O Ali! It is due to this that you are the distributor of Hell and Paradise. You will say to Hell that this person is for you and you are under my command'.

 

 

AL MANAQIB – VOL 3 – KHUTBA AL IFTIKHARIYA OF IMAM ALI (A.S.)أنا أذان االله في الدنیا و مؤذنھ في الآخرة I am the Adhaan of Allah (s.w.t.) in this world and the caller (Muezzin) in the hereafter.

 

 

So Mr Tawheed When our Holy Imam Ali (as) is in actual fact the essence of the Adhaan itself, then how can you even justify that this testimony doesn't form part of it?

 

So why should anyone let go of the firmest handle of Allah SWT in any part of their life or deeds?

Edited by Hussainiyat Zindabad

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked him a question but he  haven't answered it yet .

 

Once again ,Brother Tawheed " Whom should we follow ? Our marjas or your posts ?

 

In other word , You think the marjas (Ayt Khamenei , Ayt Sistani , Ayt Makarem Shirazi , Ayt Vahid Khorasani , Ayt Javadi Amoli and ... ) are making mistake ? You think they are committing bedas ? You think you are more knowledgeable than they are ?

 

If yes ,Why you use their Fatawa to prove some of your points ,If Not , Please Stop it here and be more cautious .

 

As Imam Mahdi wanted us , we should follow our trustful scholars during his gheybah .

 

Had you been born a thousand years ago, you would have joined the ijma of our scholars who shunned it being added into the Adhan, and i say this with the utmost respect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I'm not fussed about this at all to be honest. Some people are in the obsessive-compulsive habits. Shahadat Salasa is a reality and "Aliyyun Wali Allah" and even greater words of praises for Ali (as) are said by his big brother Muhammad (pbuh). Then how do we imprison this "bidah" in the same cell with e.g., the baseless unislamic bidahs of Umar?

 

Well it could very well be a proper bidah to say it in adhan. But what about all the other bidahs and haram. For instance, minarets and domes are bidah but do any of these learned gentlemen avoid going to mosques then? To them its halal to migrate to, work for and build the dreams of pure evil kuffar. They will never check if the zabeehah they bought is actually halal rather they are not taught that a mouthful of haram invalidates worship of the next 40 day and that earning and consuming halal is 9 out of 10 parts of worship. Meanwhile, they will find a billion and some bidahs in everything else!

 

Then, they'll treat the many centuries old books of hadith and rijal and what is in them alleged to be the comprehensive opinions of the dead more-ancient-and-thusly-truthful scholars, and these scraapes of material they will take as their mujtahid. And to them, whatever is enclosed in the handful of our hadith books is ALL that the holy Prophet and the Imams EVER said, period. That is the limit of their height of thoughtfulness regarding their deen.

 

No, rather they admit that like their sheikh before them they do this for the purpose of unifying with Wahabis. And this is where the stink ruins your efforts again guys. Because that is the purpose of your e-mujtahid and everyone knows for years. This thing is precisely why all these years you have not increased in numbers. While shaking hands with the nawasib, takfiris and arhabiin and eyeing "the Majlisi sort" of Shia, you also speak of reviving Al-Islam and rooting out "innovation" from Shia faith (only)? How sad. Why couldn't you lot instead do it purely for the sake of Allah.

 

Therefore I am not fussed at all even about this. Your party is just as much part of the problem of bidah. Only the Sahib -az- Zaman (as) will fix it and reverse the fates of the misguided masses now.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had you been born a thousand years ago, you would have joined the ijma of our scholars who shunned it being added into the Adhan, and i say this with the utmost respect.

I don't know about the scholars of a thousand years ago , But I know Imam Mahdi want me to follow the trustful scholars (روات حدیثنا ) of my time 

 

Brother as I said before, I like you .But if you don't want to respond my question and also if you don't want to respond to the posts which clearly proved that third shahada is not only allowed but also it is a hassanah ( like the post #32  )  ,so please give us the right to accept the post #29 .

 

So again I ask my question :

 

I asked him a question but he  haven't answered it yet .

 

Once again ,Brother Tawheed " Whom should we follow ? Our marjas or your posts ?

 

In other word , You think the marjas (Ayt Khamenei , Ayt Sistani , Ayt Makarem Shirazi , Ayt Vahid Khorasani , Ayt Javadi Amoli and ... ) are making mistake ? You think they are committing bedas ? You think you are more knowledgeable than they are ?

 

If yes ,Why you use their Fatawa to prove some of your points ,If Not , Please Stop it here and be more cautious .

 

As Imam Mahdi wanted us , we should follow our trustful scholars during his gheybah .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Had you been born a thousand years ago, you would have joined the ijma of our scholars who shunned it being added into the Adhan, and i say this with the utmost respect.

 

Had you been born before the time of Imam Baqir (as) you would have been doing many things the Sunni way or simply would not have known how to do certain things...

 

...The Shi’a before abu Ja’far did not know the rules of Hajj, the lawful matters and the unlawful matters until there was Abu Ja’far (as). He opened it (system of religion) for them and explained to them the rules of their Hajj, the lawful and unlawful matters. People began to realize that they needed him very much while before they would ask other people for what they needed. This is how the facts are...

 

Al-Kafi, Volume 2, Chapter 10, #6 

 

This argument in it of itself does not mean much.

 

Wassalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Suduq denied infallibility outright, but Mufid did consider him to be guilty of taqsir.

Maybe due to Sadiq's position on small issues not so much critical to one's Iman where believing in them would bring them out of the bounds of the Imammiya such as Sahw Al-Nabi or that not all of the Imamsع died as martyrs but natural deaths; as Saduq himself believed in. However, it's certainly not due to him rejecting fundamental and more critical doctrines of the Madhab, be it 'Isma or any other fundamental doctrine of the Madhab.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam alaikum,

The interpretation of the word isma meaning total infallibility .. Is not part of Shia Islamic pillars of Islam as far as I know.

So technically believing in Allah not partnering in his perfection is not out of folds of Shia islam limits of today , or?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam alaikum,

The interpretation of the word isma meaning total infallibility .. Is not part of Shia Islamic pillars of Islam as far as I know.

So technically believing in Allah not partnering in his perfection is not out of folds of Shia islam limits of today , or?

 

 

(bismillah)

 

I never wanted to bother participating in this thread due to the number of unprofessional and useless replies (not referring to everyone). Above, you've made a question that is not only unnecessary, but has no relation to the OP's topic. Concerning the concept of infallibility (Iṣmah), according to the Ṣaḥīḥ (Authentic) ḥadīths from the Ahlul Bayt (عليهم السلام) present in our literature, their Iṣmah could be in the form of two joint entities:

  1. Yaqeen (certainty), where Allāh (عز و جل) has purified them from every Shak (doubt/uncertainty).
  2.  Iṣmah (as a one entity, Infallibility from sin).

In the presence of ​absolute certainty, non of their actions will lead to any form (minor) sin, since any deviated action (sin) derives from uncertainty, unawareness, and lack of knowledge. Thus, no result of sin. Basically, Iṣmah depends on Yaqeen, and vise-versa (possibly), Wa Allahu`al-`lam. This is the deduced definition of Iṣmah from these ḥadīths. I can quote these narrations if you like, or PM me. Any responses using Qiyās, exaggeration, and misinterpretation of versesI won't bother replying to.

 

Wa`aslām

Edited by Jaafar Al-Shibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about you bring verses and Hadiths then we talk .. Aka real evidence

Wasalaam

Wasalaam

 

The brother who posted the recitation of Aliyun-Wailuyullah after the second Shahda is not giving a contexual answer. That is a generic hadith. There is absolutely no proof our Imams a.s recited that in the actual adhan, and our classical scholars as well as a few modern ones shunned it and testified that the ghulaat added it to the adhan.

 

But politics, clerics in power, the concentration of influence of the time has big,big bearing on religion. Look at all the major religions, the distortions, judaism, christianity, sunni-shia, fallible men have had the balance of power.

 

I predict a massive, massive change. We are now living in the age of the internet, an age more can be informed, books are available to many. While i condemn people being their own scholars, i encourage research on aqeedah itself.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
السلام عليكم
 
It's unfortunate when people who are unfit to discuss topics like these because of a lack of knowledge in Arabic (forget Ilm Al-Usul) make such threads and discuss such issues (and note it's with someone else's research not even their own). The issue of the Ibahat and Istihab of the third Shahda has been discussed by Ayatullah Sheikh Muhammad Al-Sanad (ha) in his excellent fiqh studies book "Al-Shahadat Al-Thalitha" (penned by Sheikh Ali Al-Shukri Al-Baghdadi), I will quote some of the fatawa he quotes of pre-Majlisi era scholars that allowed it.
 
The following Fatawa indicate that testifying Wilayat during Adhan is Mustahab:
 

ويستحب لمن أذن أو أقام أن يقول في نفسه عند حي على خير العمل: آل محمد خير البرية مرتين

 

"And it is recommended for whoever recites Adhan or Iqama that he say to himself with 'Hayya Ala Khayr Al-Amal', 'Aal Muhammad are the most excellent creation' twice."

 

Al-Qadhi Ibn Al-Barraj, Al-Muhadhdhab vol. 1 pg.132

 

Al-Qadhi Ibn Al-Barraj was a major faqih of the fifth century and a student of Sheikh Al-Tusi and Sharif Murtadha.

 

إن قال محمد وعلي خير البشر على أن ذالك من قوله خارج من لفظ الأذان جاز، فان الشهادة بذالك صحيحة، وإن لم وكن فلا شيء عليه

 

"Verily he who says, 'Muhammad and Ali are the most excellent of creation" with that statement of his being outside of the statements of the Adhan is permitted. So verily the testimony upon that is correct (sahihah), and there is nothing upon him (i.e. he has not erred)."

 

Sharif Syed Al-Murtadha, Al-Masa'il Al-Mubafariqiyaat issue 15 (quoted by his student Ibn Al-Barraj in Jawahir Al-Fiqh page 257)

 

Sharif Al-Murtadha (brother of the author of Nahj Al-Balagha and himself a major Faqih and Muhaddith) needs no introduction to anyone who is fit to discuss this fiqhi issue.

 

المسألة الرابعة عشر : قال ابن البرّاج : يستحبّ لمَن أذّن أو أقامَ أن يقول في نفسه عند ( حيّ على خير العمل ) : ( آلُ محمّد خير البريّة ) مرّتين

 

Issue 14: Ibn Al-Barraj said: "And it is recommended for whoever recites Adhan or Iqama that he say to himself with 'Hayya Ala Khayr Al-Amal', 'Aal Muhammad are the most excellent creation' twice."

 

Shahid Al-Awwal, Dhikra Al-Shia vol. 3 pg. 241

 

The following fatawa further illustrate that there are things which are Mustahab to recite with the Adhan and that it isn't far that Shahadat Al-Thalitha is one of them:

 

ويستحبّ للإنسان أن يقول مع نفسه مثلَ ما يسمع من فصول الأذان . إلى أن قال : ورويَ أنّه إذا سمعَ المؤذِّن يقول : أشهدُ أن لا إله إلاّ الله ـ أن يقول : وأنا أشهدُ أن لا إله إلاّ الله وحده لا شريك له ، وأنّ محمّداً عبد الله ورسوله ، رضيتُ بالله ربّاً ، وبالإسلام ديناً ، وبمحمّد (صلّى الله عليه وآله وسلّم ) رسولاً ، وبالأئمّة الطاهرين أئمّة

 

And it is recommended for the man that he says to himself like he hears from the part of Adhan - until he said - and it is narrated that when you hear the Mu'adhin say: "I testify there is no God except for God." That you say: "And I testify that there is no God except for God, the one, with no partners to him, and that Muhammad is the slave of God and his messenger. I am pleased by Allah as my Lord, and Islam as my religion, and Muhammad (saw) as my Messenger, and the purified A'immah as my Imams."

 

Sheikh Al-Tusi, Al-Mabsut vol. 1 pg. 144-145

 

رويَ أنّه يستحبّ إذا سمعَ المؤذِّن يقول : أشهدُ أن لا إله إلاّ الله ، أن يقول : وأنا أشهدُ أن لا إله إلاّ الله وحده لا شريك له ، وأنّ محمّداً عبده ورسوله ، رضيتُ بالله ربّاً ، وبالإسلام ديناً ، وبمحمّد رسولاً ، وبالأئمّة الطاهرين أئمّة

 

And it is recommended that when you hear the Mu'adhdhin say "I testify there is no God except for Allah." That you say: "And I testify that there is no God except for Allah, the one with no partners to him, and that Muhammad is his slave and messenger. I am pleased with Allah as my Lord, and Islam as my religion, and Muhammad as my Rasul, and the purified A'imma as my Imams."

 

Allama Hilli, Al-Tadhkira vol. 3 pg. 84 (and Al-Muntahi vol. 4 pg. 343)

 

And Al-Muhaqqiq Al-Hilli has a similar fatwa (where he quotes Sheikh Al-Tusi) in Al-Mu'tabar vol. 2 pg. 146

 

والسلام

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially, dear brother, you have posted other Fatwa's presenting another view. Again, not knowing Arabic has little to do with this, in my humble opinion. It disregards our classical scholars, a couple of our modern ones, and also logic as to why our imams a.s did not encourage this act to be added into the adhan - with the intention it is not part of it. Many arabic speakers, from Nader Zaveri , and Admins of SC who know arabic are of the same view that it should not be recited as part of every adhan.

 

However, such a view is flawed on the following premises:

 

1. Why did our Imams a.s, nor their companions, nor our classical scholars ever adhere to this view, or ever were informed of the added benefit of reciting it ?

2. Why did our Imams a.s not add it with the intention it is not part of the adhan, and its to seek nearness to Allah swt?

3. The fact is the 3rd shahdah being added into the Adhan came from the ghulaat who were upon ghuluw - without a doubt we can give great historical weight to this statement, and it is even testified by our classical scholars.

4. So that begs the question, why are we still doing it?

 

Chances are, if you lived among the great shia scholars in the past, you would have never added this in the Adhan and they would have forbidden it. 

 

You may be shocked at reading the following:

 

Allaamah Hillee(The man who wrote works on Shiism, and Ibn Taymiyyah wrote his famous refutation Minhaaj as sunnah) One of our great classical scholars (d. 726 AH) has said about the 3rd testimony in the Adhaan and Iqaamah:
 

و لا يجوز قول «إن عليا ولي اللَّه» و «آل محمد خير البرية» في فصول الآذان، لعدم مشروعيته
 "And it is NOT permissible to say إن عليا ولي اللَّه and آل محمد خير البرية since there is no ruling for it in the sharee'ah"
Source:
1. 'Allaamah Hilli, Nihaayah Al-aHkaam fee ma'rifah al-aHkaam, vol. 1, pg. 412
 

 

 

 

ere is what Al-Toosi (one of our great reported scholars) (d. 460 AH) had to say about the 3rd testimony in the adhaan.
 

و أمّا ما روي في شواذّ الأخبار من قول: «أشهد انّ عليا وليّ اللّه و آل محمّد خير البريّة» فممّا لا يعمل عليه في الأذان و الإقامة. فمن عمل بها كان مخطئا
Translation: "The are some odd (shaadh) reports of saying أشهد انّ عليا وليّ اللّه and آل محمّد خير البريّةYou must NOT do it in the Adhaan and Iqaamah. And whoever does this action is in mukhTi (error)"
Source:
1. Al-Toosi, Al-Nihaayah fee Mujarrad Al-Fiqh wa Al-Fataawaa, pg. 69

 

 

 

 

 

Sheikh Al Sadooq is one of our great scholars! He lived not too long after the major occultation, and infact, living so close to the time of the Imams a.s relative to the others means he had the ability to see historically events, when they originated and so on. He testifies that the addition of the third Shahadah in Adhan has come from a form of Ghullah, and that may Allah swt curse them!

 

Here is what Al-Sadooq (d. 381 AH) has said concerning the 3rd testimony. Here are his actual words.

هَذَا هُوَ الْأَذَانُ الصَّحِيحُ لَا يُزَادُ فِيهِ وَ لَا يُنْقَصُ مِنْهُ وَ الْمُفَوِّضَةُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ قَدْ وَضَعُوا أَخْبَاراً وَ زَادُوا فِي الْأَذَانِ مُحَمَّدٌ وَ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ فِي بَعْضِ رِوَايَاتِهِمْ بَعْدَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَسُولُ اللَّهِ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ رَوَى بَدَلَ ذَلِكَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقّاً مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ لَا شَكَّ فِي أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ وَ أَنَّهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقّاً وَ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً وَ آلَهُ صَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ وَ لَكِنْ لَيْسَ ذَلِكَ فِي أَصْلِ الْأَذَانِ وَ إِنَّمَا ذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِيُعْرَفَ بِهَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةِ الْمُتَّهَمُونَ بِالتَّفْوِيضِ الْمُدَلِّسُونَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ فِي جُمْلَتِنَا
Translation: "This is the Authentic / Correct (SaHeeH) adhaan; nothing is to be added or subtracted from it. The mufawwidah's (form of ghullah), may Allaah curse them, have fabricated traditions and have added to the adhaan مُحَمَّدٌ وَ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ (Muhammad and the family of Muhammad are the best of mankind) twice. In some of their traditions, after saying أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَسُولُ اللَّهِ (I bear witness that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allaah) (they add) أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ (I bear witness that 'Alee is the Walee of Allaah) twice. Among them there are others who narrate this أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ (I bear witness that 'Alee is the commander of the faithfull) twice. There is NO doubt that 'Alee is the walee of God and that he is the true commander of the faithful and that Muhammad and his family, peace be upon them, are the best of creatures. However, that is not [part] of the original adhaan. I have mentioned this so that those who have been accused of concocting tafweed and have insulated themselves in our ranks should be known."
Source:
1. Al-Sadooq, Man Laa YaHduruh Al-Faqeeh, vol. 1, pg. 290 - 291

 

 

Credit to Nader Zaveri, a man accused of attacking shi'ism but himself is perhaps the biggest advocate for pure shi'ism:http://www.revivinga...nd-iqaamah.html

 

 

 

 

An Ayatullah who is among the ranks of a marajah himself giving the following Fatawah(Modern day Fatwa's)

 

Grand Ayatullah Sheikh Muhammed Hussain Najafi

 

Grand Ayatollah Allama Shaikh Muhammad Hussain Najafi (Arabic/Persian/Urdu/Punjabi: آية الله العظمی علامہ الشیخ محمد حسین النجفي) (born April 1932) is a Twelver Shi'i alim from Pakistan and has been elevated to the status ofmarjiyyat. At present, there are two maraji of Pakistani descent, the other one Basheer Hussain Najafi. As Basheer Hussain Najafi has chosen to reside in NajafIraq, Muhammad Hussain Najafi is the only marja' on Pakistani soil, running a Hawza in Sargodha.[1] He was included in the lists "The 500 Most Influential Muslims" for the years 2010 and 2011

 

Question # 1: Why is it not permitted by you to say "Ali-un-Waliullah" in azan

 

If we don’t say this, what is the difference between us and the others? Answer: It is established through all Shia books of HadithFiqh, etc. that the azaan which was made a creed by Allah, which Allah then revealed through Jibrail   (as) to the Holy Prophet (SAWAW), which the Prophet (SAWAW) first taught to Hazrat Ali   (as), which Hazrat Ali   (as) then taught to Hazrat Bilal   (ra) and he continued to pronounce it until the demise of the Holy Prophet (SAWAW), that azaan consisted of 18 sentences i.e. this sentence was not included in it. 
It was the azaan which the Imams of Ahl-e-Bait   (as), starting from Hazrat Imam Ali   (as) until the Ghaibat-e-Kubra of Hazrat Imam Mahdi   (as), used to pronounce and let others pronounce. Therefore, we also pronounce the same azaan.
As far as difference with others is concerned, the difference of "Hayya ala khair-il-amal" is enough. For us it is an integral part of azaan, while the Sunni brothers have excluded it from azaan.

http://www.sibtain.c...swers_Azan.aspx

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Essentially, dear brother, you have posted other Fatwa's presenting another view.

 

 

You are doing the same thing.

 

Again, not knowing Arabic has little to do with this, in my humble opinion.

 

 

Actually it has a lot to do with it, since you are otherwise essentially handicapped from doing any of your own independent personal research and are extremely, extremely limited to just English sources which no academic or scholar of Islam will take seriously. Even many Western non-Muslim academics who present opinions on Islamic matters (for their PhDs or related works) have the humility to go and learn the language in order to be able to read and understand texts in their original form.

 

why our imams a.s did not encourage this act to be added into the adhan - with the intention it is not part of it. 

 

 

So far your only evidence against this is:

 

1) The Mufawwidah started it

2) Early scholars prohibited it it

3) Later scholars allowed it

4) Thus, since its root is corrupt, and the earlier scholars prohibited it, there is no valid reason for the later scholars to permit it.

 

The issue here is that just because the Mufawwidah started something, does not make something impermissible. Not everything they would have done would have been wrong. Thus, if the early scholars prohibited it, their reasoning would need to be seen. Was it solely because the Mufawwidah started it or was it because the jurists actually believed that you can't add anything extra to the adhan - whether you have the intention of it being the adhan or not. If it was the former, then I would say that in it of itself is not a very strong reason to use today - perhaps it was at that time since reciting it would have others assume one is a Ghaali and from the Mufawwidah. If it was the latter, then there is absolutely no reason why the later jurists can't have another understanding of the nature of the adhan.

 

We all know that the Imams didn't ask us to add this to the adhan. But since we don't have anything from the Imams that also prevents it, you are left with the task of answering whether it is permissible in it of itself to add anything in the middle of the Adhan - with the intention of it being the adhan or having the intention that it is not the adhan. That is: Can you talk or utter speech in the middle of the adhan? How do you know that the early jurists were not preventing others from reciting this in the adhan because it was a sign of a Ghaali at the time, and not because they believed it to be impermissible in it of itself. You need to answer these questions and look into these things further. 

 

You are free to not add it to your own adhan since most jurists have not made it obligatory anyways to begin with. I think we understand your reasoning well enough now (with the numerous threads you have made). But I - who is not even a scholar, yet alone a mujtahid or a marja' - wouldn't go on some rampage to try and remove it from Shi'aism or to try and show that it is impermissible today or prohibited for everyone else to not read it either (just because you deem it wrong for yourself).

 

I have heard from multiple sources that Sayyid Shubeyri Zanjani - while he allows it in his rulings - he does not add it to his Iqamah himself (he leads the evening prayers in the harram of Ma'suma Qum) and he starts reciting the Iqamah out loud from Hayya 'Ala al-Salat [probably so the simpletons don't realize that he doesn't say it and don't make a huge deal out of it or start a smear campaign].

 

Even the Sunnis were reciting different forms of Adhan - the people of Makkah, Medina, Kufa had slightly different styles or versions (source: Al-Muhalla of ibn Hazm, vol. 3, pg. 149, ruling number 331). The author says that the adhan of the people of Makkah is better, simply because they would say Allahu Akbar and the testimony regarding Allah [swt] and the Prophet [pbuh] more times than the people of Medina and Kufa in their adhan. He says that these additions of the people of Makkah do not cause any harm to the adhan. So we had Sunni jurists as well who understood that certain types of additions to the adhan do not cause harm to the adhan, thus that brings into light the question, what is the nature of the adhan? Ibn Hazm doesn't even suggest that you need to say it without the intention of it being the adhan - at least most of our jurists put that condition in it for the addition the Shi'as make.

 

Have you actually looked for or read any istidlal works where you have actually seen the reasoning of the jurists as to why they permit this? It can convince you or not, that's a different story (you would need to understand them first), but at least stop making it sound like they are just following mere whims and that their ijtihad has no value.

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument is as follows.

 

If a person starts, with takbeer does Salah just as it's usually done, but says his intention is not Salah, and says Aliyan waliyallah in that as well as rest of testifying to rest of Imams, would it be an innovation?

 

To me it obviously is. I would not try to get to technicalities, "but the intention is...". The same to me seems obvious about reciting Aliyan Waliyullah. I think this whole intention is not part of Adan, is nothing but short of a joke.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My argument is as follows.

 

If a person starts, with takbeer does Salah just as it's usually done, but says his intention is not Salah, and says Aliyan waliyallah in that as well as rest of testifying to rest of Imams, would it be an innovation?

 

To me it obviously is. I would not try to get to technicalities, "but the intention is...". The same to me seems obvious about reciting Aliyan Waliyullah. I think this whole intention is not part of Adan, is nothing but short of a joke.

 

Exactly. You are essentially changing the Adhan, reciting it all the time, but stating it is not supposed to be in the original adhan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

I think this whole intention is not part of Adan, is nothing but short of a joke.

 

What sounds more of a joke is what you actually think about the verdict of majority of the jurists today. You gotta' admit, that is pretty funny.

 

But in all seriousness - you need to explain why you think bringing an innovation in adhan is problematic (if we consider it to be one). You need to define innovation according to an Islamic legal definition and its implications, its application (is it absolute, or subjective, or case-based etc.).

 

Wassalam

Edited by Ibn al-Hussain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Infact, can anyone help me date when the third Shahdah went from being shunned by our scholars in Adhan, to being recited regularly? Was it Alama Majlisi who introduced it into our Adhan and made it a norm with the intention it was not part of the adhan?

Well, it has a long history. Sheikh Tusi and Sadugh belong to fifth century and Majlisi belongs to tenth century. So we should pay attention that Majlisi did not innovate the third Shahadah ! Majlisi just concluded that it is Mustahab. Even Sheikh Tusi which was contemporary to Sadugh did not ban it. Majlisi conluded this according to what former scholars said.

 

Moreover this issue is not comparable with tatbir. We have no reason for tatbir. Tatbir is neither based on wisdom nor on hadithes.

Edited by maes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Salam)

Reading from this, I am really scared that my fellow shias might even reject Imam Mahdi (atfs) if he only raised up that issue.

There are things I simply can't understand in our shia world : why systematically 3 prayers & 3 adhan in mosques; why mosques are being neglected and shrines are, in comparison, so much emphasized on; why people turn their rings during qunut; why condoning tatbir based on no formal interdiction...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1. Our classical scholars - all of them- up to the time of the father of Alama Majlisi condemned the addition of the 3rd Shahdah in the Adhan. That is essentially a period of around 1000 years roughly where shia scholars condemned this practise.

 

Firstly, yes its 1,000 years roughly if you round it up to the nearest one thousand, but that tells us about the exaggeration in your research and presentation. The period is 700-800 years.

Secondly, Sheikh Tusi did not condemn it, Sayyid Murtadha did not condemn it, I don’t see their teacher Sheikh Mufeed condemning it anywhere. Sheikh Tusi’s student Ibn Barraj did not condemn it.

Then moving on to the likes of Muhaqqiq Hilli, Allama Hilli and Shaheed Awwal, they did not condemn it.

 

 

2. Our classical scholars attest that the addition of the 3rd Shahadah in the Adhan was done by the ghulaat - the fabricators, exaggerators.

 

Only Sheikh Sudduq attests to it. In fact Sheikh Tusi’s statement and that of others contradicts this.

 

 

3. Our Imams a.s never once told us to add it into the adhan with the intention of thawab and that it was not part of it, nor did any of their sahaba report that it is to be added with the intention of not being part of the adhan, and for a millenia our own sdcholars shunned it. So are we now to see we knew better than our Imams a.s?

 

The whole discussion is about whether the Imams a.s. taught it – those who believe in it try to prove there was something from them, others prove try to prove there wasn’t. Of course if it was established that the ghulat invented it, then it wouldnt be followed.

 

4. It was invented and innovated by the ghulaat, why are we copying them?

 

 

No, only Sheikh Sudduq claimed that. And this is repetition of what you said before, so this is techinically not a real point. Maybe youre trying to reach the golden number 5.

 

5. Some of our modern scholars themselves speak out against this practice - i have listed a fatawah on my OP.

 

Their role as mujtahids is contravertial to say the least.

 

 

Until these absolutely pertinent points are addresed, i feel i am absolutely justified in raising an objection.

 

 

Firstly these points are far from pertinent.

Secondly, the impertinency of these points shows you are unjustified to raise any objection in any matter on fiqh.

 

There are various issues to be dealt with in any fiqhi matter, and good knowledge is needed, and it seems you are very confused about the whole issue, having to rely on shoddy work of others, and not knowing Arabic yourself.

Edited by abduljabbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did Allama Hilli say?

 

The following was quoted in the OP:

 
و لا يجوز قول «إن عليا ولي اللَّه» و «آل محمد خير البرية» في فصول الآذان، لعدم مشروعيته

 "And it is NOT permissible to say إن عليا ولي اللَّه and آل محمد خير البرية since there is no ruling for it in the sharee'ah"

Source:

1. 'Allaamah Hilli, Nihaayah Al-aHkaam fee ma'rifah al-aHkaam, vol. 1, pg. 412

 

 

An important point was missed in the translation. Allamah said: "FEE FUSOOL IL-ADHAAN", i.e. it is not permissible to say them as parts of the Adhan. This does not contradict the view of the majority of the fuqaha today.

 

What does he say in other books?

 

In al-Muntaha he wrote:

وأما ما روي في الشاذ من قول أن عليا ولي الله وآل محمد خير البرية فمما لا يعول عليه. قال الشيخ في المبسوط: فإن فعله لم يكن آثما. وقال في النهاية: كان مخطئا

(As as for what has been narrated amongst the shaadh reports in saying that "Anna Aliyyan Waliyullah" and "Aal Muhammadin Khairul-Bariyyah", these are not reliable. Sheikh said in his book al-Mabsoot: If one does say it then he is not sinning. and he said in al-Nihayah: he is in error.)

 

It is clear that he never outright said that it was an innovation and condemned it. He called the reports as Shaadh (odd), just as Sheikh Tusi also called them Shaadh. What does Shaadh mean? Shaadh means a report which has been related by reliable persons but which goes against other reliable reports which have been acted upon by the fuqaha, so this shaadh report is not acted upon. This word then gives weight to such reports, in that they were narrated by people who were reliable. Then Allamah cites Sheikh Tusi where he says that anybody who adds these statements within the Adhan itself then he is in error, but has not committed a sin, and hence his Adhan is correct.

This does not seem to be a condemnation of adding such statements in the Adhan, rather its pretty lenient. Why so? Because there are narrations, albeit Shaadh.


What did Sheikh Tusi say?

 

The OP cited the following:

 

ere is what Al-Toosi (one of our great reported scholars) (d. 460 AH) had to say about the 3rd testimony in the adhaan.
 

و أمّا ما روي في شواذّ الأخبار من قول: «أشهد انّ عليا وليّ اللّه و آل محمّد خير البريّة» فممّا لا يعمل عليه في الأذان و الإقامة. فمن عمل بها كان مخطئا
Translation: "The are some odd (shaadh) reports of saying أشهد انّ عليا وليّ اللّه and آل محمّد خير البريّةYou must NOT do it in the Adhaan and Iqaamah. And whoever does this action is in mukhTi (error)"
Source:
1. Al-Toosi, Al-Nihaayah fee Mujarrad Al-Fiqh wa Al-Fataawaa, pg. 69

 

Again there is a mistranslation. Sheikh Tusi did not say "You must not do it." He said "these narrations are amongst those that are not acted upon in Adhan and Iqamah."

This is basically defining the meaning of Shaaddh. Its a narration that is transmitted by reliable narrators, but it is not acted upon.

And the final statement that anybody who does act upon them is in error, means that he is not sinning but its not the right way to recite the Adhan and Iqamah, so it is not as bad as it sounds translated.

He says something similar in his book al-Mabsoot as cited by Allamah Hilli and quoted above, where he says that as the riwayaat on which saying these statements are based are shaadh, the person is not sinning, although it is not does not add anything to the Adhan, i.e. its not mustahabb.

 

Again, where is the condemnation?

Edited by abduljabbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What did Sayyid Shareef Murtadha say?

 

He said, as in "Rasail al-Shareef al-Murtadha" p.279:

السوال: هل يجب في الأذان بعد قول حي على خير العمل "محمد وعلي خير البشر"؟

الجواب: إن قال "محمد وعلي خير البشر" على أن ذلك من قوله خارج من لفظ الأذان جــاز، فإن الشهادة بذلك صحيحة، وإن لم يكن فلا شيء عليه

The question was whether it is necessary to say in Adhan "Muhammadun wa Aliyyun Khairul-Bashar" after "Hayya Ala Khairil-Amal"?

The Sayyid answered: If he says that on the basis that him saying it is outside the form of the Adhan, then it is permissible, as the testimony of that is correct. If it is not so [i.e. not as outside the Adhan] then there is nothing on him [i.e. he has not sinned]."

 

This is a tark contrast to how he responds to the next question about the permissibility of saying "Al-Salatu Khairun Min al-Nawm" as per Sunni custom, which he calls Bid'ah and against the Sunnah, and the consensus of the Ahlul Bayt a.s. against it.

 

So, where is the condemnation against such additions?


What did ibn Barraj say?

 

Ibn Barraj is not commonly known amongs the common Shias, but he was one of the greatest students of Sheikh Tusi. Read up on him here: http://en.wikishia.net/view/Ibn_al-Barraj_al-Tarabulsi

 

He took a step further than his teachers, and actual said that it is mustahabb to recite what Sheikh Sudduq considered to be the inventions of the Ghulat. He wrote in his book al-Muhaddhab:

و يستحب لمن اذن أو أقام أن يقول في نفسه عند حي على خير العمل: آل محمد خير البرية مرتي

(It is mustahabb for one who recite the Adhan and Iqamah that he says to himself when he says Hayya Ala Khair il Amal: "Aal Muhammad Khair ul-Bariyyah" twice.)

He has clearly taken that narration as something which can be relied upon.

 

 

 

 

 

My point is in presenting these opinions, unadulterated with mistranslations, is to show that the situation was not so black and white. The only one who seems to have deemed it to be an invention of the Ghulat is Sheikh Sudduq, but we see a more softer approach from Sheikh Tusi and Sayyid Murtadha, and evern softer from Ibn Barraj, all of whom are the classical scholars of the early era of Ghaybah. So lets take things into context, and give the mujtahideen the credit they deserve, rather than relying on a guy like Nader and deeming the research of mujtahideen lower than that of a shiachatter who doesn't know arabic.

Edited by abduljabbar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with brother Tawheed on this. I have always been rather skeptical of the 3rd shahada and don't see it as necessary. If it wasn't around during the imams time's then we definitely need to abandon it, as well as thing's like tatbir.  

 

Keep up the good work Tawheed , you've posted a lot of eye opener's.

Edited by Musa Sadr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with brother Tawheed on this. I have always been rather skeptical of the 3rd shahada and don't see it as necessary. If it wasn't around during the imams time's then we definitely need to abandon it, as well as thing's like tatbir.  

 

and internet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother those quoted statements are from the user Nader Zaveri website, you should probably raise an objection to his translations. People like tawheed tend to take his website like the Quran.

 

With all due respect are you really in a position to be raising objections about Nader's translations? How proficient are you in Arabic, and on what basis do you seek to project doubt onto his blog and criticise the quality of his translations? 

 

The brother isnt perfect. No one, not even himself claimed to be. We all have short comings. But this weird opposition to him that some people here have is, frankly, a little pathetic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is wrong with raising an objection? I see the mistakes that a brother pointed out and I asked the brother to raise the objection with nader. I think you are missing the point here. Whether someone is proficient or not, does not make a difference to anyone ability and right to raise an objection on any matter. IF x person is wrong in that objection then so be it. You move on. This is an open forum and his blog is on the internet, of which he has publicly wrote. He is no infallible being, and criticizing him is no sin. I am not insulting the brother, come on. I think you are making a bigger deal of this scenario then it should be. I have said it time and time again. I am not found of his and many other e-rijalists motives and how they approach this religion, propaganda like. Am I out to get Nader or hate his guts, hell no. What purpose would that be? Anyway, no need to turn this thread into a Nader thread. Oh, and no need to pull out the "not perfect" card anytime someone raises an objection or criticizes anyone. That is no excuse for anything, especially for dealing with the religion of God, and influencing peoples ideals and beliefs. The very fact that we are not perfect, and especially not authorized (ie ijtihad), we should be very careful on how we represent the religion publicly.

Edited by Ethics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • @Fakeha Not sure what your problem is. Can you please explain more?
    • Quran says: "it is no wrong for a Momin to keep the wish to marry a woman but do not keep secret friendship". 1st point allows to wish for marriage and wish comes when you want some person to be with you and that's love. 2nd point forbids from girl friend / boy friend relationship.  @Waseem162 and @Islandsandmirrors Make peace 
    • Allow me to go through the thought process with you,   So there is a universe with a huge complexity in it, it seems you want to know where and how it came into existence. We know it came, and there was nothing before it so if God created the Universe then how did he come/exist prior to something that wasn't there? Scientifically, space and time are bound, if you live in space you are bound by time, but time isn't absolute so it would be very much possible that if you were of no matter at all and 'existed' outside the realm of space then time isn't something that applies for you. The best way I imagine it is as imagine a train travelling across the earth, the universe is that train, it is moving and the movement is time, everything outside the train, the earth itself is 'God' he can see the train move but doesn't matter where it moves it is still within his grasp, it makes no difference it's position to his existence, he is just there. So due to space-time link, it is very much possible for God to exist given his nature which is thoroughly explained in the Quran. Now how can I be so sure God created the Universe? Think about the laws of the Universe. They are absolute and doesn't matter where you are, you cannot change them, e.g. you cannot destroy or create matter for example. And before your atheist friends attack you with this, you can change some things like the boiling point of water for example, but that isn't one of the natural laws that's just a property. So for the Universe to exist something had to happen, a reaction, matter + anti-matter, blast of energy whatever you want you can choose. However, whatever it was it would have to still follow a set of rules, like for matter and anti-matter to react, there are laws of nature that dictate they will react. So where did the foundation rules of the Universe come from? If there was nothing prior how could they have existed? All you need to do it look into the complexity of nature and you will know something is up. Now here's an 'offence' question for you, if God doesn't exist wouldn't it be all about survival then? Why don't we look up to thieves, rapists, murderers etc. who live only for themselves? they are going to disappear into a void at the end of life, so no matter what you do it has no impact and you will never feel anybody else's pain because you can't switch bodies, no accountability so why don't we go mad? even better, why don't we all just commit suicide? If your life is a struggle and you're not rich enjoying all the pleasures of the world, it would make perfect sense to just kill all ourselves. But what about life and experiencing it? Well, it makes no difference whether you lived 1 year or 100 years if it is all going to perish. Imagine I told you to build a castle as glorious as you can, once you're done I will destroy it all, would you bother? If you knew it will perish immediately is there a point? Would you buy a house if you knew it would be knocked down? Nope, so why invest time and pain into a life that will soon terminate and you don't even know when! Plus nobody can argue with you about morality because it would have no foundation, seize to exist if there is no 'purpose' for anything. This is the reality of the atheist position it, to me seems a lot worse than one with hope in something greater.  So as a challenge, can you prove to me it is bad to kill someone I don't like if I knew I would never be caught, punished or held accountable? Although there are many more points, I will leave it there. for the time being.
    • When the ground is slippery,the chances of slipping increase exponentially. Although Ahle kitab i.e Christians,Jews etc are pak according to Ayatollah Sistani.(But you cannot eat meat cooked by them unless you are sure that it is halal) http://www.sistani.org/english/qa/01120/ If you can find another place to live then it is better for you else you can check the above link and act accordingly.If you feel that you will fall in to sinning that you MUST look for other accomodations.  
    • That's the point. That there wasn't anything for his enemies to say that you were weak before how could you now say that you are a Prophet while it can be your obsession right now. But those people took those things seriously. They took it serious and you yourself admitted that none can be like him in this present age and now you believe that he wasn't ordinary but extraordinary. You seem to reject your views bro and that's a good sign. You think that God is not wise to let loopholes in prophethood that anyone may come and claim in such way?  You should learn the story of Hazrat Ibrahim a.s who said that weak is not God while implying towards setting sun, moon and heavenly bodies. No one could pass the seive of Prophet and Imamate except those who are Prophets and Imams. Anyone who does so will be humiliated and die a miserable life.  The weaknesses which sunni aqeedah has let Ghulam Ahmed to claim Prophethood and Imamate. While he failed in the infallibility test of shia faith. If anyone who turns back from shia belief to claim imamate, he would seek help from sunni aqeedah because shia aqeedah cannot be tempered or violated.   
×