Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
guest050817

Why I Will No Longer Recite The 3Rd Shahadah

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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  

×