Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
guest050817

Why I Will No Longer Recite The 3Rd Shahadah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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

 

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."

 

 

Incorrect translation, perhaps before condemning other, you can revise.  The following is a Correct Translation:

 

 
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
 
"The are some odd (shaadh) reports of saying أشهد انّ عليا وليّ اللّه and آل محمّد خير البريّة. For this is what should not be acted upon in adhān or Iqāmah. And whoever acts upon it, he has erred."
 
 
 

 

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.

 

 

 

Both these opinions on the subject matter are referring to specifically the mentioning of the Ālle (Family) of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as the best of creations, and cannot be compared to the mentioned of the Third Testimony that Alī is the Walī of Allah after the Testimony of the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). No need to use useless analogical reasoning to justify your alluded rulings. 

 

 

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.

 

I find it very ironic, how you are condemning Brother Nader, due to your assumption that the mistranslated phrase above (Which really is not) is significant, which evidently it is not. Second, if you hold such mistakes to be a "Major" issue in the religion, then what about you? Copying and pasting from al-Islam.org, and Islam-quest, and bringing narrations and verses to derive your own opinions, and not just that. You find it reasonable to object to authentic narrations if weak narrations exist. The countless times you have done this. Do you know what the Imāms [a.s] have said to those who bring out their own opinions on matters of religion? If you have been through Nader's blog, he has always used Authentic narrations and Classical opinions on such matters, while you copy and past to derive your own interpretations and meanings. I can tell you now, That the Imāms [a.s] have cursed those who derive their own opinion without their narrations, and even when bringing verses you are to consult the aḥadīths of Ahlul Bayt (عليهم السلام) according to authentic aḥadīths. I find your degrading statements very rude, and lack morality.

 

 

Wa`aslam

Edited by Jaafar Al-Shibli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who want to do rijal on their own should at least learn arabic otherwise there will always be problems with the translations they have to rely on.

Researching is not just searching the net as much as possible but rather to start with the basics of a discipline,in this case it would be learning arabic to get a proper understanding of the text.And this is just the first step as rijal is much more complex.

We ordinary readers should rely on the fatawa of our maraji'.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^^^ brother ethics .. the only person on this forum who blocked me has even changed meanings of the Quran in the past according to his whims. 

 

Here is his own interpretation, neither based on Arabic (nor the translations), nor on any hadith or 'expert' opinion, on verse 6:76

 

"So when the night covered him, he saw a star. He said, "This is my lord." But when it set, he said, "I like not those that disappear." 6:76

 

tafsir e-ethics:

 

 

.. He said "this", how can you prove this meant the moon, stars, or sun? He meant Allah in which that specific thing was a proof of his lord. Seeing the sun rise, he proclaims This is my lord ... the One whom makes the sun rise. Then when the sun sets, ..

 

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/234977907-all-prophets-pbut-made-mistakes/?p=2733526

 

btw, in and around that post there are many other examples. (especially this thread i just posted)

 

such as the definition of the word hanifa .. turned into an absolute statement:

 

 

 

حَنِيفًاMeans Upright, righteous, True monotheist, wholly.

 

 

anyway, thought i'd post this as a reaction after ethics posted this statement 

 

 

we should be very careful on how we represent the religion publicly.

 

i agree

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very ironic, how you are condemning Brother Nader, due to your assumption that the mistranslated phrase above (Which really is not) is significant, which evidently it is not. Second, if you hold such mistakes to be a "Major" issue in the religion, then what about you? Copying and pasting from al-Islam.org, and Islam-quest, and bringing narrations and verses to derive your own opinions, and not just that. You find it reasonable to object to authentic narrations if weak narrations exist. The countless times you have done this. Do you know what the Imāms [a.s] have said to those who bring out their own opinions on matters of religion? If you have been through Nader's blog, he has always used Authentic narrations and Classical opinions on such matters, while you copy and past to derive your own interpretations and meanings. I can tell you now, That the Imāms [a.s] have cursed those who derive their own opinion without their narrations, and even when bringing verses you are to consult the aḥadīths of Ahlul Bayt (عليهم السلام) according to authentic aḥadīths. I find your degrading statements very rude, and lack morality.

Wa`aslam

 

What I copy and paste is the opinion of our ulema. IslamQuest is a website also backed by a scholar in the howzah. Classical scholars have no Hujja on me. I follow my marja for deriving rulings, it's simple as that. Like you all always say, I do not do Taqlid to beliefs. I find that ironic. Especially not Taqlid of Nader. I do not accept the hadiths that you e-rijalists bring is because you have no authority in my eyes to be bringing any Hadith. So as far as I can tell, the grading that you all label hadiths mean absolutely nothing to me. Given that also the opinion of past scholars don't have Hujja. Considering that there are DIFFERENCES OF OPINION on the gradings of hadiths, not to mention by different methodologies that go by it, I am doing nothing wrong from my own perspective since, it is only you who takes the Hadith as sahih and shoves it on others. So don't you dare try and label me the accursed by our imams. Again when you e-rijalists are given authority by our ulema in the howzah, then come back and try and spread your ideologies on others. You see there is a HUGE difference of presenting and discussing your opinion and views, everyone knowing that you have no authority, where as you people go around with hadiths, that our Imams or Prophets supposedly said. Now that is where you all cross the line. I don't care if x classical also believed the Hadith is sahih. YOU have no right to analyze and bring out that opinion, because you are establishing it's authenticity by backing it up with a classical scholars opinion. You only being one opinion of a scholar that agrees with your own opinion. You never ever present, present day scholars opinions nor do you ever truly examine each and every narrator given the reason by the scholar for example. It is one sided, thus it is obvious that you are making your own fatwas. Not only that but I guarantee you e-rijalists have not looked at all of our books, you just pick and choose, not even trying to see whether there are contradictions or not. You just stop at Majlisi's-sahih. But I shouldn't expect anything since after all y'all are e-rijalists in the first place. Think just because you can "read" Arabic and post a Majlisi's Hadith, EVERYONE must take your word and opinion otherwise cursed is he by the imams!! Listen from one brother to another, please stop your games, and if you truly want to help our religion our imams, go to the howzah become a scholar, get ijtihad, and then feel free to grade hadiths.

Edited by Ethics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Incorrect translation, perhaps before condemning other, you can revise.  The following is a Correct Translation:

 

 
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
 
"The are some odd (shaadh) reports of saying أشهد انّ عليا وليّ اللّه and آل محمّد خير البريّة. For this is what should not be acted upon in adhān or Iqāmah. And whoever acts upon it, he has erred."

 

how is your tranlsation correct and mine incorrect, please explain. where did you get the "should not be acted upon" from? sheikh tusi is saying a statement that these narrations are from (min) than which (ma) is not (la) acted upon (yu'malu alaih). in other plainer words, they are narrations that have been sidelined by the scholars and have not taken them into consideration in their ijtihad. this is referring to what is known in usul al fiqh as seeratul-ulama.

 

 

Both these opinions on the subject matter are referring to specifically the mentioning of the Ālle (Family) of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) as the best of creations, and cannot be compared to the mentioned of the Third Testimony that Alī is the Walī of Allah after the Testimony of the prophethood of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم). No need to use useless analogical reasoning to justify your alluded rulings.

 

what did sheikh sudduq say again? he mentioned that there are three statements that are the creations of the mufawwidha and they fabricated the narrations in respect to them, and the very first statement that he mentioned was (محمد وآل محمد خير البرية). So those two opinions clearly refute sheikh sudduq's opinion. And if sheikh sudduq was wrong about this statement, then he can easily be wrong about the other statements. So there is no analogy, this is clear logic.

and also, the rulings are not for me to make, the rulings are those of the mujtahids, and your accusation that they are alluded is an insult to the great maraji and the mujtahids

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the name of Allah, the most beneficent, the most merciful.

 

 

*IN THE ADHAN

 

The third Shahadah is something you  will find never missed out in almost every single Adhan, so much so it is pretty much part of the Adhan. However, to examine the origins of the third Shahadah - and this may come as a shock to many- we need to look at our most eminent scholars who lived very close to the time of the Imams a.s, who would have been exposed to bidahs and deviance's.

 

Now, some individuals are going to say: "It is not part of the adhan , we recite it for the intention of seeking nearness to Allah swt".

 

Before i go on, let me add, i believe in wilayah, i believe in the twelve chosen imams of the ahlulbayt a.s, the preservers of the sunnah of Muhammed pbuh, and Ali a.s is the rightful successor of Muhammed pbuh as ordained by Allah swt. And therefore i want to copy what the Imams a.s did without adding innovations.

 

Holy Quran:

 

"And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided?"

 

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.revivingalislam.com/2010/06/3rd-testimony-in-adhaan-and-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.com/en/Questions_Answers_Azan.aspx

 

 

I will look at what Grand Ayatullah Fadllulah r.a said too and post it inshAllah

You mention the Quran however in the Quran it says "Shahdatahum" which means three or more testimonies. What's the third one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

 

Salaam brother ,

 

Yes we are not perfect and that's why some members here are criticizing his ahadith translations. I don't think it is pathetic.

 

We should be more tolerant brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's pathetic when criticizing without knowledge. At least one should give some background or reasons for the doubting.

 

there is no point in saying one doubts something, without explaining why, or analyzing it.

 

why criticize a translation if one doesn't know the language translated from? shouldn't one at least use some knowledge, info and arguments? Otherwise, aren't we just creating fitna and confusion here?


You mention the Quran however in the Quran it says "Shahdatahum" which means three or more testimonies. What's the third one?

 

i know this person is banned so can't answer, but two people liked this statement, so i assume that they know what this means. (Hussainiyat Zindabad & kamyar )

 

please explain how the word shahadatahum means three or more testimonies.

 

i know Arabic enough to tell you this is nonsense. shahadatahum means "their testimony" ..

Edited by peace seeker II

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Imam Khamenei:

Question:  

Salaam. i need help regarding ali yun wali Allah in namaz. is it farz or wajib? plz also give me some references and fatwas of marjahs.

Answer:  

Bismihi Ta`ala To bear witness that Imam Ali (A.S.) is wali of Allah is not a part of Adaan, Iqaamah, or tashahhud. It is not permissible to say it intending as part of them, but to say it as expressing one's belief is no problem. However, it is preferred to say your prayer including its tashahhud in accordance with what great marji's of shi'ah have written in their books of Practical Laws of Islam and not to add any phrase – even a correct and true phrase by itself- to it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's pathetic when criticizing without knowledge. At least one should give some background or reasons for the doubting.

 

there is no point in saying one doubts something, without explaining why, or analyzing it.

 

why criticize a translation if one doesn't know the language translated from? shouldn't one at least use some knowledge, info and arguments? Otherwise, aren't we just creating fitna and confusion here?

 

i know this person is banned so can't answer, but two people liked this statement, so i assume that they know what this means. (Hussainiyat Zindabad & kamyar )

 

please explain how the word shahadatahum means three or more testimonies.

 

i know Arabic enough to tell you this is nonsense. shahadatahum means "their testimony" ..

I think there is difference between "shahaadaatahum" "shahaadatahum". The latter is singular, but the former implies plural.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hadith: "Awwaluna Muhammad, Awsatuna Muhammad, Akhiruna Muhammad, wa Kulluna Muhammad".

 

And the belief in that is why I am not fussed about this issue.


A local pesh-namaz I know asked me once my view on the issue and if I say silasa in tashahhud or not. I asked them why don't you say slasa like this: "Ashhadu anna Mahdiyyun Wali Allah" if they are so worried about the issue because it is now rather Imam Mahdi (as) who is our Imam al-asr. They had no answer.

Edited by Darth Vader

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The hadith: "Awwaluna Muhammad, Muhammad, Akhriuna Muhammad, wa Kulluna Muhammad".

 

And the belief in that is why I am not fussed about this issue.

+1

 

When I recite Salawat in Salah, to me this how God makes believers testify to them, and reminds us of the chosen exalted families in Quran. Mohammad and his family are one, that when we bless the Prophet, we automatically, bless his family.

 

But I would rather testify to them in the implicit way Allah tried the nation with, and this would serve as a reminder to a proof of them, as opposed to making an innovation in our words so that we can testify to Ali while thesAdan and Aqama that Allah revealed through his Nabi had in absent while it did have been implicitly mention in Salawat.

,

Naturally, Shias testify to Fatima and the 12 Imams station when they say  "and the family of Mohammad" because that is who they mean by it. 

 

Sunnis are always tried with the Salawat "...and the family of Mohammad just as you blessed Ibrahim and the family of Ibrahim.."

 

Some are so allergic to it that they translated it as "followers" instead of family.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

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  

×