Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
guest050817

Why I Will No Longer Recite The 3Rd Shahadah

Rate this topic

106 posts in this topic

Salam

(wasalam)

 

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.

The problem is we aren't talking about mourning here. We are talking about the creation of a religious ritual that has been attributed merits in it's own right (and even some kind of test of faith). Nobody mourns by going to sharpen a knife to slit their head open to the beat of a drum. Let's be real here, and call a spade a spade. It's an innovated ritual. Worse than that, it's one that was imitated from the kuffar (don't we have some issue with doing that?).

 

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?

Nothing, of course, because the requirements of wudhu and ghusl have been laid out, so we known what we need to do in order for it to be valid. We also have the mustahab acts. However, do you think it would be good if we invented some other acts during ghusl and wudhu that the Imams didn't do, and said that they were mustahab and that anyone who doesn't do them is suspicious? I'm sure we would think that was nuts, but that's what has happened with the adhan. Why would anyone need alleged mustahabat that weren't performed by the Prophet (pbuh) or Imams (as)? It's just bizarre to me.

 

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?

Yes. The same thing that was said at the time of the Prophet (pbuh), and the later Imams (as). Why would it be any different? By the way, I would dispute that there was no taqiyyah. If there was none, then the Imam would have been able to announce openly who he was.

In any case, I think the argument (if this is indeed what you are hinting at) that the Imams were performing taqiyyah when telling their followers about the adhan is extremely far-fetched. The fact is that the adhan and iqamah would have been used by Shias in their personal prayer. I don't think there were many Shia masjids at that time somehow. Therefore it's not clear why such strict secrecy would be needed on the adhan, when far more dangerous things were been said in many other narrations that we do have. Not to mention that 'hayya `ala khayr al-`amal' would have given the game away anyway if anyone did overhear a Shia reciting the adhan.

 

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?

Well, this question seems to be implying something different to your first question. I think this is also an issue. We need to agree on what is been claimed. Is it that the third shahada in the adhan was some lost sunnah (due to taqiyyah) that was revived, or that it's in fact not part of the adhan at all, and just some speech we make in the middle of it?

Anyway, to say that something is 'included' in the adhan, and then that it is not part of the adhan at all is a contradiction. Once you have included something, then it has become a part of it. To me, these are just word games. The fact is that the third shahada has become de facto compulsory in the adhan amongst Shias world-wide, and most would have no idea whatsoever that it is not a part of it. Therefore all these technicalities that people try to employ are irrelevant to 99% of the worldwide Shia population, who very much believe (or at least assume) that the third shahada is part of the adhan. If this is indeed an incorrect belief (as your question implies), then isn't including it doing more harm than good?

 

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?

Yes, I think it is in our books, but I'm not sure what you mean when you say our `ulama don't do it. Perhaps they don't shave their moustache as some Sunnis do, or have it extremely short, but it seems to me to generally be short, especially in comparison with the beard. It is certainly nothing like the kind of moustaches you often see people with no beards wearing (like the guy in baradar's avatar). Just a few examples:

 

khomeini01.jpgkamalhaydari.jpg

Iraq-Ayatollah-Sistani.jpg

Edited by Haydar Husayn
Chair Pundit likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, to say that something is 'included' in the adhan, and then that it is not part of the adhan at all is a contradiction. Once you have included something, then it has become a part of it. To me, these are just word games. The fact is that the third shahada has become de facto compulsory in the adhan amongst Shias world-wide, and most would have no idea whatsoever that it is not a part of it. Therefore all these technicalities that people try to employ are irrelevant to 99% of the worldwide Shia population, who very much believe (or at least assume) that the third shahada is part of the adhan. If this is indeed an incorrect belief (as your question implies), then isn't including it doing more harm than good?

 

Good observation.  There's no doubt that the Shi'i will be up in arms if the adhaan is recited without the third shahada included.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reciting Ali yun wali ullah in salat is wajib without which your salat becomes BATIL.

 

^

Prime example of the damage done by this practice.

 

You both are wrong.

 

Reciting third shahada during the athan is neither wajib nor haram, but issuing a fatwa to call it wajib or haram, when we are not in position of, is haram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

Tawheed313,

 

While it wouldn't be problematic for me to engage in this discussion, I don't really want to get involved. One thing I wanted to point out; respectively, I don't always agree with your approach or reasoning in some of your thread's. One thing I can say for certain; the majority of your thread's bring a lot of people to challenge your logic and expertise in certain matters, I don't want you to get discouraged. I commend you on the fact that you are at least open about your views; whether or not you are correct, well that's your Truth, and with time it could change. The fact you don't feel the need to learn Arabic, I don't understand. The narrations you quote all the time came from Arabic sources, and the scholar's who studied those very chains, also learned Arabic, if they already didn't know it, because they didn't derive from the English language.

 

When I first came to Islam; I could of course, only read English, but with time and hard work, I learned Farsi and Arabic. It really helped me. You can study and research the chains of narrations and formulate a better understanding. On the flipside to this comment, I do commend you on researching and studying various topics, because no one goes from Z to A, we go from A to Z, if you will.

 

Insha'Allah, one day you will see how important learning Arabic is and just how useful it can be. You are building a foundation of knowledge, so don't get discouraged. When I first started learning, I realized many mistakes from my own research and I did change many of my view's. It took time. It also took people challenging me to delve into certain aspects of religion a little more serious, so I actually employed people to challenge my research; whether it seemed to be right or wrong, I was at least trying to learn, and that was more important. I hope you are the type of person who doesn't simply rely on your own opinion, and doesn't value the opinion's of other's, because it's always recommended to listen to the opinion of other's, whilst judging your own at the same time.

فَمَاذَا بَعْدَ الْحَقِّ إِلَّا الضَّلَالُ

Edited by AhlulBayt_313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear sister, Walaikum-salam,

 

Firstly let me reply by thanking you for the kind manner in which you have posted.

 

I want to clarify one thing however, i have always ardently in a number of threads not only expressed my plans and intentions to learn fusah arabic, i have also disseminated free , comprehensive resources, as well as taken partial classes in real life. Learning the arabic language is of utmost importance, and whoever has sadly misinformed you i do not regard it to be important has sadly not spoken the truth.

 

As for the discussion, i feel like our debate on nade-ali and begging our imams a.s for risq, protection and so on, my views are not only my own, but are expressed by ulema and scholars, past and present. They may not be the view of all the scholars or even most, but it would not be proper to say my views are an indication of my poor logic - rather, one should question both myself and all the scholars whom i feel have the correct views and argue as to why their preimises for believing in what they have were wrong.

 

Additionally, while learning arabic is important, especially when you get to very high level discussions, if you are quoting the view of scholars and marja on such issues who have translated and elucidated on points, and you view those points and arguments as convincing, it is very disingenious to dismiss the reports of an individual based on their lack of understanding the arabic language, when infact, those that have a great grasp of the arabic language themselves hold such a view.

 

 

I would be more open to a challenge as to what premises you feel i am not correctly validating, rather than a statement on my actual grasp of logic per-say? I value people challenging my opinions and my ideas, and am inclined to evidenced truth. While some people may disagree with me, i have to add, some of our most proficient arabic speakers, those knowledgable in rijal, from admins to moderators hold pretty similar views to what i have, so i think the idea a lot of people feel my logic is subpar and i am misinformed isn't accurate.

Edited by Tawheed313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

 

You stated per example:

 

"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."

 

How are you deeming something generic or not? How are you authenticating Ahadith if you can't read Arabic? That statement by you was just one example. How are you stating something as being "proof" when your proof is in English. I think you understand where I am coming from now? I am merely trying to simplify this, because I don't know if you understand.

Edited by AhlulBayt_313
mina and Noor al Batul like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For hundreds of years they tried to remove the name of Ali (as) off the face of the earth and all his virtues. If it's permissible to testify his waliyat then by Allah I don't know why one would not hasten to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. the 3rd Shahada causes division in terms of Shia/Sunni way of practising Islam.

2. The Shia receive much accusations for Bidah and separating from Islam by innovating

3. It is not a part of the Adhan or a practise of our Imams, are our Imams only advisers or are they Imams who need following? If they are Imams (leaders) then shouldn't we follow them? By following them would it not be correct to do exactly what they did? nothing more, nothing less? Or can we step ahead of them or lag behind them by adding some things and taking away some other things?

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?

Using a shower can't be innovation, saying the Shahadah causes a change in practice although in theory it may not be a part of the adhaan.

 

Its like for example; lets say if I banned Muta and made it illegal but said it is Halal at the same time. So I have effectively caused a change even though in theory I haven't made it Haram, just made it illegal in the law of the land.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not know what will you say about deletion of "Ḥayya ʿala khayr al ʿamal" and addition of "As-salatu Khayrun Minan-nawm" during the reign of Hz. Umar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ASAK

Moreover, it must be noted that if that if you consider Jafri fiqh legitimate, and its rulings by learned scholars just, then if the ruling says something is mustahabb, you can't accuse someone practising the mustahabb as bidaah. Its not ghulat, if according to the fiqh its legitimate, although ghulat must be guarded against. The reason being that although many zakireen may engage in ghulat, the same can't be said about the ulamah. Jafri fiqh has been established by the efforts of Imam Sadiq(A.S.). It governs the aspects of salaat, roza, hajj, adhan etc. This fiqh differs from others primarily because it recognises the wilayat of Imam Ali(A.S.) as ordained by Allah through His Prophet(SAWAWS) & through him,the authority vested in the following Imams. So, the the third shahadah comes from the founding principles of this fiqh. The three viz. acceptance of oneness of Allah(SWT),acceptance of prophethood of Muhammad(SAWAWS) & acceptance of Imam Ali's(A.S.) wilayah, are merely the oral recitation of the principles of the Jafri fiqh, viz. Tawhid,Nubuwat & Imamate. If you don't accept the principles as legitimate, you are effectively disowning the Jafri legitimacy.Its better that you accept any other fiqh. Even then you will find many of them differ on the matters of furoo like adhan, salaat & roza. They will also show marked similarity in many aspects with the Jafri fiqh, primarily because scholars of those fiqh trained as students under the tutelage of Imam Sadiq(A.S.) as well.

 

The propaganda & accusations is shaming you into disowning your principles you so dearly held close to you. But the reality is that in any other fiqh you will run against some problem or the other, however then also you will be accused of bidaah. Its true one must recognise the problem of ghulat, but its origins doesn't lie in the fiqh. The fiqh is clear about the difference in these three principles & one can't juxtapose one over another. If people have engaged in beliefs without consulting the fiqh & therefore, contradict the principles and /or change realms of their applications, its the people who must correct themselves for they are at fault. The fiqh is not.

 

Jazakallah Khair

Chaotic Muslem likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam, 

If we claim to follow the sunna then we should recite the Shahada just as Muhammad s.a.w. taught us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎20‎/‎05‎/‎2015 at 3:56 PM, guest050817 said:

 (they add) أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ 

No, they don't add anything in adhan, you're wrong and propagating the views of others here. You yourself know that this is not the "Juzz" of Adhan as per Shias.
 

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  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.