Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
guest050817

Why I Will No Longer Recite The 3Rd Shahadah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

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

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

 

what is the most likely argument here is that it's not shahadaateinahum .. like janatain for instance .. or two gardens .. vs. janaat

 

however, i don't think this is a rule each time, as we have تبت يدا أبي لهب or tabit yada' .. talking of abu lahabs hands .. and it doesn't say yadain

 

anyway, Arabic Arabic Arabic .. my Arabic is so weak

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.

You know, i get really annoyed when people comment like this. I'm not talking about this issue in particular, but saying "if it wasn't around in the imams time then we should abandon it" and base your entire conclusion on that is utterly silly. Tell me, did showers exist in imams time? How do you perform ghusl today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, i get really annoyed when people comment like this. I'm not talking about this issue in particular, but saying "if it wasn't around in the imams time then we should abandon it" and base your entire conclusion on that is utterly silly. Tell me, did showers exist in imams time? How do you perform ghusl today?

Nobody is saying that the method in which you pour the water over yourself is an act of worship though, or that using a shower is better than using a bucket. On the other hand, people do say that tatbir or the third shahada in the adhan are in themselves more praiseworthy then other forms of mourning or reciting the adhan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody is saying that the method in which you pour the water over yourself is an act of worship though, or that using a shower is better than using a bucket. On the other hand, people do say that tatbir or the third shahada in the adhan are in themselves more praiseworthy then other forms of mourning or reciting the adhan.

 

Which begs the question as to how we as a shia madhab managed to outsmart even our imams a.s, by adding in a line even they themselves forgot to add or recommend us to add in the adhan.

 

We do have a habit of doing things our Imams a.s never asked us to do within a religious framework, and bending the laws of fiqh. We just can not stand up and say 'you know, maybe we got it wrong'. That way, we won't have outsmarted our imams a.s

 

While cars, planes, electrical showers did not exist back then (or may not have) knowledge of the 3rd shahdah, the adhan, and whether it was best to juxtapose the two was certainly present and in the knowledge of our Imams a.s, who opted not to do so - or atleast, no evidence points to it.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which begs the question as to how we as a shia madhab managed to outsmart even our imams a.s, by adding in a line even they themselves forgot to add or recommend us to add in the adhan.

 

We do have a habit of doing things our Imams a.s never asked us to do within a religious framework, and bending the laws of fiqh. We just can not stand up and say 'you know, maybe we got it wrong'. That way, we won't have outsmarted our imams a.s

 

While cars, planes, electrical showers did not exist back then (or may not have) knowledge of the 3rd shahdah, the adhan, and whether it was best to juxtapose the two was certainly present and in the knowledge of our Imams a.s, who opted not to do so - or atleast, no evidence points to it.

The usual excuse is taqiyyah. If it weren't for that, some people believe the Imams would have been teaching people to recite the third shahada in the adhan or that they would have been engaging in tatbir.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual excuse is taqiyyah. If it weren't for that, some people believe the Imams would have been teaching people to recite the third shahada in the adhan or that they would have been engaging in tatbir.

 

There's an easy counter to that. Imam Hussain a.s on the plains of Kerbala, with his invevitable death as well as the death of the companions and other members of his family - did he ask his family (i'm not sure if it was hazrat Ali Akbar) to add it into the adhan ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an easy counter to that. Imam Hussain a.s on the plains of Kerbala, with his invevitable death as well as the death of the companions and other members of his family - did he ask his family (i'm not sure if it was hazrat Ali Akbar) to add it into the adhan ?

 

I don't think it is hard to recognize the difference between reciting third shahada during the athan and add it into the athan.

 

You know, i get really annoyed when people comment like this. I'm not talking about this issue in particular, but saying "if it wasn't around in the imams time then we should abandon it" and base your entire conclusion on that is utterly silly. Tell me, did showers exist in imams time? How do you perform ghusl today?

 

According to some principles which was mentioned here , many things else such as celebrating Ahlulbayt birth anniversaries or even many sports that people could have played them during the Imams era, etc, etc, would be bed'a .

Edited by kamyar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was basically that merely saying something didn't exist in the time of the imams or the Imams didn't so it and end it there is not enough of an argument. As i said, im not talking about this subject, im saying in general it is a weak approach by itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was basically that merely saying something didn't exist in the time of the imams or the Imams didn't so it and end it there is not enough of an argument. As i said, im not talking about this subject, im saying in general it is a weak approach by itself.

It depends. I think it is an argument when we are talking about matters of deen. If the Prophet (pbuh) or Imams (as) recited the adhan in one way, then I can't think of a single good argument for why one of their followers would want to deviate from that. Similarly, why perform a religious ritual (which is what tatbir is), which they themselves didn't perform (and neither is it even similar to anything they performed or taught)? Especially when it is then claimed to be one of the best of acts, etc.

So obviously if someone say that we shouldn't take showers or drive cars because the Imams didn't, then that is stupid, because these aren't matters that have anything to do with religion, and neither is anyone trying to attach them to religion. On the other hand, the adhan and tatbir clearly are connected or being connected to the religion.

When people bring up the fact that the Imams never did or taught something, it is with this understanding being implicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends. I think it is an argument when we are talking about matters of deen. If the Prophet (pbuh) or Imams (as) recited the adhan in one way, then I can't think of a single good argument for why one of their followers would want to deviate from that. Similarly, why perform a religious ritual (which is what tatbir is), which they themselves didn't perform (and neither is it even similar to anything they performed or taught)? Especially when it is then claimed to be one of the best of acts, etc.

So obviously if someone say that we shouldn't take showers or drive cars because the Imams didn't, then that is stupid, because these aren't matters that have anything to do with religion, and neither is anyone trying to attach them to religion. On the other hand, the adhan and tatbir clearly are connected or being connected to the religion.

When people bring up the fact that the Imams never did or taught something, it is with this understanding being implicit.

The Quran itself says about Mohammad (saw) "I follow only that which is revealed to me", and else where emphasizes on the baseless acts of religion "Or were you witnesses that God enjoined you this then inform me with knowledge or a khabar.." showing that either we know it's enjoined by God through knowledge and inform on that basis or we have a khabar linked back to God that God enjoined us this (and we believe in it due to it's reaching us, for example, we may not understand hijaab but we believe in it being enjoined by God due it being in Quran and Sunnah).

 

This shows acts of religion are to be enjoined by God, and this whole philosophy "love" doesn't require proof, could of been said by mushrikeen devoted to their idols as well.

 

In my view, we are living in a time when in reality there is no apparent Jamaa (Group) upon the Nabi and light brought down, and it's a very tough time we are living in with respect to guidance. So much conjecture, so much innovations, so much ignoring clear verses.

 

It seems the jamaa is hidden much like the Imam is hidden.

Edited by StrugglingForTheLight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends. I think it is an argument when we are talking about matters of deen. If the Prophet (pbuh) or Imams (as) recited the adhan in one way, then I can't think of a single good argument for why one of their followers would want to deviate from that. Similarly, why perform a religious ritual (which is what tatbir is), which they themselves didn't perform (and neither is it even similar to anything they performed or taught)? Especially when it is then claimed to be one of the best of acts, etc.

So obviously if someone say that we shouldn't take showers or drive cars because the Imams didn't, then that is stupid, because these aren't matters that have anything to do with religion, and neither is anyone trying to attach them to religion. On the other hand, the adhan and tatbir clearly are connected or being connected to the religion.

When people bring up the fact that the Imams never did or taught something, it is with this understanding being implicit.

Salam

You make an interesting point, which also raises some questions. Let's take examples where it is attached to religion.

If we look at mourning, we have examples of how Imam Sajad used to mourne for Imam Hussein, or Fatimah Zahra used to mourn for the Prophet. But does that mean that we have to mourn exactly like they did? Isn't the rule of thumb here that you can mourn however you please as long as it doesn't collide with other laws? According to some, tatbir collides with other laws which is why they are forbidding it if i'm not mistaken.

Wudhu and Ghusl are other examples, i'm sure we have examples of Imams or the Prophet performing wudhu, which way they faced, what duas they recited, and other mustahabs. But does that mean that i have to perform it exactly like them? What law prevents me from doing something or saying something else as long as i fulfill the requirements and the stuff i do doesn't invalidate the wudhu?

Let's go back to athan. Logically speaking we know that up until and including Imam Hussein, there was no taqqiya, because Imam Hussein specifically and intentionally named all his sons Ali, and i'm guessing it was to prove a point or make a statement. So the first question arises: Do we know what was said in the adhaan in the time of Imam Hussein?

Second question is: If the minimum requirement for athan is fullfilled, is there a law or hadith that states that it is not allowed to include anything in it, even when your intention is that its not a part of athan requirements or part of athan at all?

Another interesting point that just popped into my head is, and don't quote me on this, that cutting your moustache short is mustahab. Which is why sunnis do it and i think it is in our books as well. If this is infact true, then our Imams must have done it, but question arises again that why non of our Ulamas do it?

Excuse my spelling and unorganized writing, i'm still on a bad connection, big hands and small phone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam

You make an interesting point, which also raises some questions. Let's take examples where it is attached to religion.

If we look at mourning, we have examples of how Imam Sajad used to mourne for Imam Hussein, or Fatimah Zahra used to mourn for the Prophet. But does that mean that we have to mourn exactly like they did? Isn't the rule of thumb here that you can mourn however you please as long as it doesn't collide with other laws? According to some, tatbir collides with other laws which is why they are forbidding it if i'm not mistaken.

Wudhu and Ghusl are other examples, i'm sure we have examples of Imams or the Prophet performing wudhu, which way they faced, what duas they recited, and other mustahabs. But does that mean that i have to perform it exactly like them? What law prevents me from doing something or saying something else as long as i fulfill the requirements and the stuff i do doesn't invalidate the wudhu?

Let's go back to athan. Logically speaking we know that up until and including Imam Hussein, there was no taqqiya, because Imam Hussein specifically and intentionally named all his sons Ali, and i'm guessing it was to prove a point or make a statement. So the first question arises: Do we know what was said in the adhaan in the time of Imam Hussein?

Second question is: If the minimum requirement for athan is fullfilled, is there a law or hadith that states that it is not allowed to include anything in it, even when your intention is that its not a part of athan requirements or part of athan at all?

Another interesting point that just popped into my head is, and don't quote me on this, that cutting your moustache short is mustahab. Which is why sunnis do it and i think it is in our books as well. If this is infact true, then our Imams must have done it, but question arises again that why non of our Ulamas do it?

Excuse my spelling and unorganized writing, i'm still on a bad connection, big hands and small phone.

Role of the thumb is ( al-ebadat are tawqifiyah).

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!

    • easier. If you have the ability to cast a vote then I doubt you have to wake up, use the latrine outside, in the dark, or walk a few miles to get dirty water. Or work in sweat shops. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty/ Look up child prodigies, then you will notice a pattern in their households. Their parents had a method of direction, that allowed proper growth and those who had terrible homes, somewhere along the lines, they directed themselves using YT. it is all about the correct form of inspiration no matter the age.
    • assalaoalikum  which book or website contains questions and answer ,asked and given by Maula ALI (as)? post link for website
    • On the last one, why dont we have marriage help centers up in the west? If people can get married before university, even though a lot of corruotion happens even in high school, imagine how many would get married sooner?
    • Surah An-Nisa, Verse 80: مَّن يُطِعِ الرَّسُولَ فَقَدْ أَطَاعَ اللَّهَ وَمَن تَوَلَّىٰ فَمَا أَرْسَلْنَاكَ عَلَيْهِمْ حَفِيظًا Whoever obeys the Apostle, he indeed obeys Allah, and whoever turns back, so We have not sent you as a keeper over them. (English - Shakir) Obeying & Serving Prophet & the Ahlul Bayt (peace & blessings of Allah be upon them) is an obligation on us. Allah has made them our Vali. So obeying & serving them on the command of Allah means obeying & serving Allah. One should however be careful that he should not become "Abd At-taghut" ( servant of taghut) as mentioned in the following verse: Surah Al-Maeda, Verse 60: قُلْ هَلْ أُنَبِّئُكُم بِشَرٍّ مِّن ذَٰلِكَ مَثُوبَةً عِندَ اللَّهِ مَن لَّعَنَهُ اللَّهُ وَغَضِبَ عَلَيْهِ وَجَعَلَ مِنْهُمُ الْقِرَدَةَ وَالْخَنَازِيرَ وَعَبَدَ الطَّاغُوتَ أُولَٰئِكَ شَرٌّ مَّكَانًا وَأَضَلُّ عَن سَوَاءِ السَّبِيلِ Say: Shall I inform you of (him who is) worse than this in retribution from Allah? (Worse is he) whom Allah has cursed and brought His wrath upon, and of whom He made apes and swine, and he who served the Shaitan; these are worse in place and more erring from the straight path. (English - Shakir)  
    • Well, l am getting into my '2nd childhood'.
×