Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
ShiaChat.com
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Historicity Of Aliyyun Waliyullah

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

As Shias nearly all of us recite "Ash haduanna Aliyyun Waliyullah" in Adhan and Iqamah with the understanding that its not a prescribed part of either. This is puzzling because I haven't seen any hadith sanctioning this idea or adding anything else in adhan/iqamah as sunnat.

On the contrary the hadith makes it clear what the original adhan is:

"Abu Bakr al-Hadhrami and Kaleeb al-Asadi narrated on the authority of Imam Ja'far as-Sadiq as.gif that when he was informing them of the Adhan, he said, "Allahu Akbar (4 Times) Ashhadu An La Ellaha Ella Allah (2 Times) Ashhadu Anna Muhammad Rasulullah (2 Times) Hayya 'Ala As-Salat (2 Times) Hayya 'Ala al-Falah (2 Times) Hayya 'Ala Khayr al-'Amal (2 Times) Allahu Akbar (2 Times) La Ellaha Ell-Allah (2 Times)."

The strongest argument against this are Shaykh Saduq's statement condemning this practice and identifying the ghulat as the originators of it:

The writer of this book (i.e. Shaykh Saduq) may Allah have mercy upon him commented: This is the correct Adhan, nothing can be added to it nor can anything be deleted from it. The Mufawwidhah (may Allah curse them) have fabricated traditions and have added to the Adhan "Muhammad and the progeny of Muhammad are the best of creation" twice and from other reports, after saying "I declare that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah" they say "I declare that 'Ali is the close friend of Allah" twice and instead of that some of them insert "I declare that 'Ali is truly the Commander of the Faithful" twice. But let there be no doubt that 'Ali is the close friend of Allah, and that he is truly the commander of the faithful and that Muhammad and his progeny (may the peace and blessings of Allah be upon them) are the best of creation, but that is not part of the original Adhan, and I have only added this so that those who are suspected of Tafweedh who consider themselves part of us know that!" (Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqeeh vol. 1 pg. 289 Tradition #897)

Nowhere does Shaykh Saduq make the provision for reciting this as mustahib. He unequiovocally declares this as an innovation of the extremists. In light of this statement, what is the rationale of our mujtahids for permitting this as a recommended practice. It doesn't make sense to me that a bidah can be incorporated into religion as a sunnat...ironic as that may sound. If that were the case then people could add anything they wanted to the adhan under the guise of mustahib. We could justify reciting Umar's "Assalatu Khayrun Min An-nawm" (salat is better than sleep) on this very basis. Saduq never said it was allowed as long as you didn't consider it wajib.

I've read that this was not a common practice amongst Shias until the Safavid king Ismail 1 ordered that it be added to the adhan in the 16th century. The ulema of the time are said to have regarded this as unauthorized practice but could not denounce it publicly so they considered this a case where they had to practice precautionary secrecy. In the following two centuries, many ulema such as Kashif ul-Ghita protested this practice even sending a petition to the Qajar king Fath Ali Shah to ban it. The Shia ulema in India too were unsuccessful in persuading their community to abandon it. Today this has become an almost universal practice not only endorsed but done by ulema themselves.

So my question is what justification do the ulema provide for condoning as mustahib something which was originally bidah?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

^

I actually stumbled upon this very article shortly after posting this thread. IMO, the arguments of post-Safavid scholars for the wilayat of Ali in adhan are not all that convincing and I'd like to discuss some of them here. Basically Dr. Takim says they came about a result of scholars seeking to justify the practice instituted by the Safavids. I have attached Dr. Takim's article should you wish to read it in full. Since its a lengthy article, I've summarized the main points from it below along with my remarks:

There is no mention at all of the wilayah of Imam Ali in the original adhan in the early Shia works of jurisprudence such as al-Kafi. Specifically, there are no traditions from the Prophet (pbuh) and the Imams (as) advocating this practice The first scholar to take up this issue was Saduq who condemned it as an innovation of the Mufawwida. He considers traditions encouraging it as fabricated. Many 10th and 11th century scholars such as Shaykh Mufid, Tusi, Sharif al-Murtada and did not consider it important to discuss this issue. Shaykh Tusi was the first person to admit that odd and isolated hadith do exist. However, he says these are not to be acted upon. Dr. Takim's says that since these were rare, Tusi did not deem them veracious and worthy of consideration. One of Allama Hilli's contemporaries al-Hadhali acknowledged that the wilaya has been narrated in rare traditions but it is not to be practiced as a part of the adhan. Later scholars concurred with their predecessors on this issue.

When this practice was instituted by the Safavids, the ulema refrained from publicly denouncing it. Their silence in effect led to its approval and acceptance. From then on out, Shia scholars beginning with Majlisi I attempted to justify this practice. The arguments advanced for it are as follows:

(1) TAQIYAH

Majlisi I (Taqi Majlisi), commentating on Saduq's statement, speculates that it might have been forbidden by the earlier jurists due to taqiyyah just as some hadith advocate omitting hayya ala khayril amal for the same reason.

* Dr. Takim considers this a weak argument. Firstly, Saduq has mentioned what parts of the adhan can be left out due to taqiyyah and the wilayah of Ali is not one of them. Secondly, there is no evidence that this was done under taqiyyah. In fact, history shows it was quite the opposite. Scholars from the 10th century onwards were living in conditions favorable to Shias. Some like Tusi even had good relations with the rulers of their times. So this argument does not have any merit.

(2) PERSONAL IJTEHAD

After Majlisi, Bahr al-Ulum argued that the prohibition of earlier jurists was their personal ijtehad and not binding on later ulema. This line of reasoning was then adopted by subsequent scholars.

* This is more plausible than Majlisi's assertion however it is interesting that no one else challenged this until the Safavid era. What's more is the pre-Safavid scholars following Saduq in fact maintained this view. I think its a little rash to throw Saduq's ijtehad by the wayside when we haven't examined the traditions that he and other jurists have used.

(3) TABARSI'S HADITH

Majlisi II (Muhammad Baqar Majlisi) cites a hadith from Tabarsi's al-Ihtijaj to justify his position. This is a long tradition but the salient part is the end where Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (as) tells a follower: "whenever one of you recites the shahada, he should also say 'Ali is the Commander of the faithful'." Majlisi generalizes this tradition to include all professions of faith including the adhan. This is still the most oft-cited tradition for this practice.

* There are a couple of problems with this argument. First, the hadith in question has nothing to do with the adhan. The Imam simply mentioned that one should testify to the wilayat of Imam Ali (as) whenever the shahada is recited. No Shia scholar before Majlisi ever cited it in reference to the adhan. Majlisi has extrapolated this to include adhan without any justification. Moreover it cannot be ascertained from this tradition that this is a mustahib practice.

The most serious problem is with the tradition itself. It is a mursal tradition lacking any isnad. These kinds of traditions are not considered authoritative by scholars. It has not been cited by any scholar before Tabarsi. A provision, however, exists which allows these traditions to be used in a specific manner which I will mention later.

(4) WILAYAT AS A PART OF EXTRANEOUS SPEECH IN ADHAN

Majlisi II was the first to distinguish the wilayat as a mustahib practice which paved the way to its eventual acceptance. In conjunction with the previous argument from Tabarsi, he states that the community is allowed any form of speech during adhan and iqamah thus uttering the wilayah without intending it as part of adhan is not a sin. For example, after saying "Ash haduan la ilaha illah" and "Ash haduan na Muhammad dar Rasoolillah" people state blessings afterwards such as salawat which are not considered a part of adhan. Later scholars further elaborated on this point citing the Tabarsi tradition as well as other general ones.

(5) THE PRINCIPLE OF LENIENCY IN DEDUCING PROOFS FOR RECOMMENDED ACTS.

This is a principle of Usul al-Fiqh which relaxes the burden of proof for mustahib acts. It permits mustahib acts, but not wajib ones, to be prescribed by less than authentic hadith. It is based on the following hadith of Imam Sadiq (as): "Whoever has received (man balaghahu) a [report] from the Prophet, peace be upon him, about the merits of [performing] an act and he acts according to that report, he will be rewarded for it even if the Prophet, peace be upon him, did not state it."

* Dr. Takim states that this principle has been invoked along with Tabarsi's tradition by scholars since Majlisi to rule the wilayah in adhan as a recommended act. However this does not include those traditions known to be fabrications such as ones Saduq mentioned. Also since we only have allusions to the rare reports about the adhan from the works of Tusi and others not the hadith themselves, how can we say they are justified by this hadith?

(6) SUNNI EVIDENCE

In recent times, scholars have cited hadith from Sunni books which state that Salman and Abu Dharr recited it in adhan and the Prophet (pbuh) approved of it. Answering-Ansar.org ( http://www.answering-ansar.org/fiqh/kalima...an/en/chap3.php ) has mentioned these as well.

* This is actually the most convincing proof thus far however it comes from a Sunni book and only recently advanced as a proof. If it were a practice during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) and Imams (as) then why is there no mention of it in Shia hadith?

FROM_BIDA_TO_SUNNA.txt

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh,

This is a very good question my dear brother, may Allah (swt) reward you for asking it.

As for the answer, it is going to need a lot of talk and insha'Allah all your questions regarding the istehbab (recommendation) of the shahada of Wilayat Ali (as) in the athan will be answered.

I will begin with the issue of Sheikh Al Saduq (ra) as there has been a misunderstanding regarding his (ra)'s words. I will not write from my own words, rather I am going to translate what Ayatollah Sayyed Ja'afar Mourtada Al Amili (hA) has commented on this, in his (ha)'s book: Al-shahada al thalitha fil athan wal iqama, page 37-40.

ÎÇãÓÇð: ÈÇáäÓÈÉ Åáì Íßã ÇáÕÏæÞ Úáì ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ÇáÊí ÃÔÇÑ ÅáíåÇ ÈÃäåÇ ãä æÖÚ ÇáãÝæÖÉ äÞæá: Åä åÐÇ ãÇ åæ ÅáÇ ÑÃí ÇÌÊåÇÏí áå.. ÝáÇ ÈÏ Ãä íäÙÑ Ýíå¡ ÅÐ Ãä ØÚä ÇáÕÏæÞ ÈÇáÃÎÈÇÑ áÇ íÓÞØåÇ Úä ÇáÍÌíÉ¡ Úáì ÃÓÇÓ ÇáãÚÇííÑ ÇáÇÌÊåÇÏíÉ¡ ÝÞÏ íÞÈá ãäå¡ æÞÏ íÑÏ Úáíå.. æáÊæÖíÍ Ðáß¡ äÞæá:

ÃáÝ Ü Åä ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÕÏæÞ (ÑÍãå Çááå) ãØÇáÈ ÈÅËÈÇÊ ãÏÚÇå ÈÃä Êáß ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ãæÖæÚÉ¡ ÝßíÝ ÚÑÝ Ðáß¿!

ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ

/ÕÝÍÉ 38/

åá ÍÖÑ ãÚåã¡ æÑÂåã íÝÚáæä Ðáß¿!

Ãã Ãäå íÕÏÑ Íßãå åÐÇ ÇÓÊäÇÏÇð Åáì ÞÑÇÆä¿! ÝáÇ ÈÏ Ãä äÓÃáå Úä Êáß ÇáÞÑÇÆä ÇáÊí ÇÓÊäÏ ÅáíåÇ¡ ÝáíÈíäåÇ áääÙÑ ÝíåÇ.. ÝáÚáåÇ áÇ ÊÕáÍ ááÞÑíäíÉ¡ æÇáÙÇåÑ Ãä ÇáÃãÑ ßÐáß¡ Ãí ÃäåÇ ÛíÑ ÕÇáÍÉ¡ æáÐáß áã íÞÈá ãäå Ðáß ÇáÝÞåÇÁ ÇáÚÙÇã¡ æÓíÃÊí ÇáÓÈÈ Åä ÔÇÁ Çááå..

È Ü ãä Ãíä ÚÑÝ ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÕÏæÞ (ÑÍãå Çááå): Ãä ÎÕæÕ ÇáãÝæÖÉ åã ÇáÐíä æÖÚæÇ Êáß ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ Ü áæ ßÇäÊ ãæÖæÚÉ ÈÇáÝÚá¿!

Ì Ü ãÇ ÇáÐí íÓÊÝíÏå ÇáãÝæÖÉ ãä æÖÚ åÐå ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ Ýí ÇáÃÐÇä æÇáÅÞÇãÉ¿! Ýåá åí ÊÓÇÚÏåã Úáì ÇáÞæá ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ¿! Ãæ åá íËÈÊ ÈåÇ Ãä Çááå ÞÏ ÝæÖ ÃãÑ ÎáÞ ÇáÎáÞ Åáì Úáí (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã)¿!..

æåá íáÒã ãä Ðáß Ü æÝÞ åÐÇ ÇáãäØÞ Ü ÅÚÊÞÇÏ Ãä ÇáÔåÇÏÉ ááäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÈÇáÑÓÇáÉ Ü æåæ ÇáÃãÑ ÇáãÊÝÞ Úáíå Èíä ÚáãÇÁ ÇáÃãÉ ÈÃÓÑåÇ Ü åæ ÇáÂÎÑ ãä ÚáÇÆã

ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ

/ÕÝÍÉ 39/

ÊÝæíÖ ÃãÑ ÎáÞ ÇáÎáÞ Åáì ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå)¡ ßãÇ íÚÊÞÏå ÇáãÝæÖÉ¿

æáã ÇÎÊÇÑæÇ ÇáÃÐÇä áíÖÚæåÇ Ýíå¡ æáã íÖÚæåÇ Ýí ÇáÕáÇÉ ãËáÇð¿!

æåá æÖÚåÇ íÝíÏåã¡ æáÇ íÝíÏ ÛíÑåã¡ ÝÇáÊÒã ÈåÇ åÄáÇÁ¡ æÇäÕÑÝ ÚäåÇ ÃæáÆß¿!

Ï Ü Åä ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÕÏæÞ ÅäãÇ ÇÚÊÑÖ Úáì Êáß ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ áÃäå ÞÏ Ýåã ãäåÇ: Ãä ÇáÔåÇÏÉ ÇáËÇáËÉ ÌÒÁ ãä ÇáÃÐÇä¡ æãä ÝÕæáå ÇáÊí íÈØá ÈÊÑßåÇ¡ æáÐáß ÞÇá: «æáßä Ðáß áíÓ Ýí ÃÕá ÇáÃÐÇä» ÝÇÊÎÐ ãäåÇ åÐÇ ÇáãæÞÝ¡ áÃäå ãÞÊäÚ ÈÃäåÇ áíÓÊ ãä ÝÕæáå ÇáÃÕáíÉ..

æáæ Ãäå Ýåã ãäåÇ ÃäåÇ ÊÞæá: ÈÃä ÇáÔåÇÏÉ ÇáËÇáËÉ åí ãä ÞÈíá ÇáãÓÊÍÈ Ýí Öãä ÝÚá ÂÎÑ.. ßÇáÞäæÊ Ýí ÇáÕáÇÉ¡ æßÇáÕáÇÉ Úáì ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå) ÈÚÏ ÇáÔåÇÏÉ ÇáËÇäíÉ Ýí ÇáÃÐÇä æÇáÅÞÇãÉ¡ ÝáÑÈãÇ áÇ íÚÊÑÖ ÚáíåÇ ÈåÐå ÇáÔÏÉ æÇáÍÏÉ¡ Èá áÚáå íÞÈáåÇ æíÝÊí ÈãÖãæäåÇ..

ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ

/ÕÝÍÉ 40/

æÝÞåÇÄäÇ ÑÖæÇä Çááå ÊÚÇáì Úáíåã ÅäãÇ íÝÊæä¡ ÅãÇ ÈÇÓÊÍÈÇÈåÇ Ýí Öãä ÝÚá ÂÎÑ¡ ßÇáÕáÇÉ Úáì ÇáäÈí (Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÂáå)¡ ÚäÏ ÐßÑå Ýí ÇáÔåÇÏÉ ÇáËÇäíÉ¡ Ãæ íÌæøÒæä ÐßÑåÇ ÈÑÌÇÁ ÇáãØáæÈíÉ¡ æÇáÍÕæá Úáì ÇáËæÇÈ ÇáæÇÑÏ Ýí Êáß ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ¡ Ãæ Ýí ÎÈÑ ÇáÇÍÊÌÇÌ..

æáÇ íÞæáæä ÈÃäåÇ ÌÒÁ ãä ÃÕá ÇáÃÐÇä¡ æáÇ ÃäåÇ ãä ÝÕæáå¡ ßãÇ íÚáã ãä ãÑÇÌÚÉ ßáãÇÊåã..

æÇáÍÇÕá: Ãäå áíÓ ËãÉ ãÇ íÏá Úáì Ãä ÇáÕÏæÞ ÞÏ ÃÕÇÈ Ýí Íßãå Úáì Êáß ÇáÃÎÈÇÑ ÈÇáæÖÚ¡ ÝáÚáåÇ ÞÏ ÕÏÑÊ Úä ÇáãÚÕæã ÈÇáÝÚá¡ æÞÏ ÇÔÊÈå ÇáÃãÑ Úáíå (ÑÍãå Çááå)¡ ÎÕæÕÇð ãÚ ÊÝÑÏå ÈÇáØÚä ÚáíåÇ ÈÇáæÖÚ.

æåäÇß ÃãæÑ ßËíÑÉ ÊÝÑÏ ÈåÇ ÇáÔíÎ ÇáÕÏæÞ áã íÞÈáåÇ ãäå ÚáãÇÄäÇ æÝÞåÇÄäÇ ÑÖæÇä Çááå ÊÚÇáì Úáíåã. æáÇ äÑíÏ Ãä äËíÑ åÐå ÇáÞÖÇíÇ áÞáÉ ÌÏæÇåÇ ÝíãÇ äÍä ÈÕÏÏ ÇáÍÏíË Úäå. æáÇ ãÇäÚ ãä Ãä íÔÊÈå ÇáÃãÑ Úáì

ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ

/ÕÝÍÉ 41/

ÇáÕÏæÞ¡ ÝáÇ íáÊÝÊ Åáì Ãä ÇáÞÕÏ ãäåÇ åæ ÇáÅÚáÇã ÈÌæÇÒ ÇáÔåÇÏÉ ÇáËÇáËÉ Ýí ÇáÃÐÇä¡ æÅä áã Êßä ãä ÝÕæáå..

-----------

Translation:

As for the hukm of Sheikh Saduq (ra) regarding the narrations he pointed to that it (the 3rd shahada) was added by the mufawwidhah, we say: This is not only but his own ijtihadi view, and it has to be looked in to, for just by having the Saduq (ra) weakening the narrations does not denounce it from being proof according to the rules of ijtihad and therefore it could be accepted from him or rejected. To make this more clarified, we say:

1) Sheikh Al Saduq (ra) is asked to prove his claim that those narrations are wrong, for how did he know that ?! Did he ever be with them or see them do that ?! Therefore we have to ask him about the proofs that he used to back up his saying so that we can look into it.. Maybe it is not good enough to support his view, which is most likely the case (that the proofs are not good enough) and that is why our great scholars did not accept his view, and the reason will be mentioned later on if Allah (swt) wills.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

2) Where did Sheikh Saduq (May Allah (swt)'s mercy be upon him) know that it was the mufawwidhah that actually placed that addition? if it was really placed ..

3) What would the mufawwidhah have gained from adding these akhbar in the athan and iqama?! Would it have helped them to prove the point of tafweed?! Or does it from those news prove that Allah (swt) has done tafweed for creating the creations to Ahlulbeit (as)?

And does this mean -according to this logic- that the shahada (testemony) for the Prophecy of Muhammad (saww) -which is agreed upon between all the muslims- is also an addition to prove the tafweed of creation that Allah (swt) has given to the Prophet (saww), as the mufawwidhah believe?

And why did they choose the athan to add this part to? Why didn't they add it to the prayers for example?!

And does the addition benefit them and does not benefit others? So that they chose it and the others didn't accept it?!

4) Sheikh Saduq (ra) disagreed with those akhbar because he understood from them that: The 3rd shahada was part of the athan, and a necessary part that will make the prayer void if it was left out, and that is why he said: ((but that is not part of the original Adhan)), and that is why he took that stance against it, as he was not convinced that it was a necassary (obligatory) part of the Athan.

But if he had understood from these akhbar that they say: The 3rd Shahada is only recommended in the athan, such as the qunut (raising hands for supplication) in prayers, and such as saying salawat after the second shahada in the athan and iqama, then he would have probably not rejected it to this extent, rather he would have probably accepted it and gave a fatwa in supporting it.

And our scholars (ra) only give a fatwa in its recommendation combined with another act, such as reciting salawat after the name of the Prophet (saww) is mentioned in the second shahada, or they permit its usage with the intention of "raja' al matlubiya", meaning the will of it being ordered and gaining the rewards from it which are mentioned in those narrations or proofs and they do not mention that it is part of the Athan or iqama which is obligatory (as is know from their words).

What is gathered is: There is nothing to prove that Al Saduq (ra) has been correct in his saying that the akhbar were mawdu'a, for it may have really been narrated from an infallible (as) and al Saduq (ra) had a misconception about it, especially that he is the only one who says that it has been by wade'.

And there are alot of other issue's that Al Shekh Al Saduq (ra) was single in his view about which our great scholars did not accept from him. We don't want to mention these points as there is no point in that and we don't want to raise all these arguements and topics for its irrelevence to our current topic. There is no problem if Al Saduq (ra) had seen the issue in the wrong way and did not realize that the reason behind it was to say its permissibilty in the athan, without being an obligatory part of it.

5) Even if those narrations mentioned by Al Saduq (ra) were saying its obligation in athan, then what is the problem with that? That does not mean that the Prophet (saww) or Imam Ali (as) have practiced it for even if it was not narrated from the Prophet (saww) or Imam Ali (as), we know that the clarifying and showing of certain rules was not easy for them at certain time's for various reasons. And because of that it was kept away until later on when the later Imam (as) clarified it in a way that would not cause the enemis of the shi'ites to attack or hurt them. And when the time was good, and it was possible to show and calrify this law, even to a limited extent, they (as) showed the people what had to be shown and in the proper way in accordance to their (as)'s situations. This might be a reason for these narrations not being mentioned in the famous books, and maybe the reason for it not showing up in other books was because of the hardships and difficulties that people had to face and as we can see from Al Saduq (ra). When Al Saduq (ra) did not meniton the narrations because of a misconception he had made us lose the chance of looking at such narrations.

6) What supports what we had previously said is: Allah (swt) has given the right to the Prophet (saww) and the Imams (as) to make laws in religion, and that is when the correct time and place are available, and in accordance to the regulations that Allah (swt) has given them (as). The Prophet (saww) had added two rak'ats to salat al thuhur, al asr and al isha', and that is why these are reffered to as the two rek'ats of al sunnah, and the first two as the obligatory rak'ats.

Wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

I don't know if this is relevant to your topic my dear brother, but I will Islamic laws given by our great marja's in regards to this issue, and insha'Allah the discussion can continue on from there for the proofs that they depended on. As for Sheikh Al Saduq (ra), I have read many refutations to his views, especially from Al hur Al 'amili (ra) the author of wasa'el al Shi'a, and many other great scholars, past and present.

Those who did not deny the law or comment on it:

1) Sheikh Al Mufid.

2) Sayyed Al Mourtada.

3) Shi'ite faqih known as bisillar

4) Sheikh Tusi.

5) Sayyed Iben Zuhra Al Husaini

6) Sheikh Mohammad Bin Idris Al Hilli.

7) Sheikh Ja'far bin Hassan Al Hilli (the Muhaqiq).

8) Sheikh Yahya Bin Sa'eed al Hilli.

9) Sayyed Mohammad Al Tabetabaei.

10) Sheikh Muhammad Al Bahaei

11) Sayyed Muhammad Al Jawad Al 'amili.

12) Sayyed Muhammad Al Mujahed al Tabetabai.

13) Al Muhadeth Al Mirza Al Nuri.

Those who said that the third Shahada complete's the athan but without it being an obligatory part of it and they differ in their words:

Those who mention it being permissible and there is no objection to it:

1) Sheikh Hussain Al Bahrani.

2) Mulla Aqa Al Darbandi.

3) Mirza Muhammad Hassan al Qummi.

4) Sheikh Muhammad Al Ayrawani (Known as Al Fadhel).

5) Sheikh Al Barfarushi Al Kabeer.

6) Sheikh Tusi.

7) Shaheed Al Awwal.

8) Shaheed Al thani.

Those who have mention to perform it in the intention of qurba mutlaqa:

1) Sayyed Al Shafti (Known as hujjat Al Islam).

2) Sayyed Ismae'el Al Sadr

3) Sheikh Muhammad Katham Al Khorasani (known as Akhawand).

4) Sayyed Muhammad Katham Al Yazdi (author of al 'urwa).

5) Sheikh Al Namazi (known as Al Shaykh Al Shari'a al Asfahani).

6) Sayyed Muhammad Al Fayruz Abadi.

7) Sheikh Sha'ban Al Rashti.

8) Sheikh Abdallah Al Maqani.

9) Sheikh Mirza Muhammad Hussain Al Na'eini.

10) Sayyed Abu Al Hassan Al Asfahani.

11) Sayyed Sadr Al Deen Al Sadr.

12) Sayyed Muhammad Taqi Al Khonsari.

13) Sayyed Hussain Al Baroujardi.

14) Sayyed Ahmad Al Khonsari.

15) Sayyed Imam Al Khomeini.

16) Sayyed Muhammad Redha Al Mousawi Al Gulpaygani.

17) Sheikh Muhammad Ali Al Araki.

Those who have said in its performance for its recommendation and goodness:

1) Sheikh Mirza Abu Al Qasem Al Qummi.

2) Sheikh Al Mirza Ibrahim Al Karbasi (author of al minhaj).

3) Sheikh Muhammad Redha Al najafi.

4) Sayyed Hajj Mirza Mahmoud bin Al Aqa Mirza Ali Naqi

5) Sayyed Mirza Hassan Al Shirazi.

6) Sheikh Muhammad Ali Bin Al Sheikh Muhammad Baqir bin Shaykh Muhammad Taqi (author of al hashiya 'ala al ma'alem).

7) Sayyed Isma'el Al Sadr.

8) Mulla Muhammad Ali Al Khonsari Al Imami.

9) Al Agha Muhammad Ali Al Modderresi jehar Dahi.

10) Sayyed Muhammad Katham Al Yazdi.

11) Sayyed Ali Madad Al Qa'eni.

Those who have said to perform it as a regulation for the acceptance of the first two shahada's and it represents the true spirit of the athan:

1) Al 'alama Al Sanmani Al Sheikh Muhammad Saleh.

2) Sheikh Mirza Muhammad Ali Al Shah Abadi.

Those who have said to perform it for tabaruk and that it is good in itself, or to raise the name of tashayu' because it is the greatest of signs, or to show the greatness of the holder of the Great Wilaya Imam Ali (as):

1) Sheikh Ja'afar Kashef Al Ghita'

2) Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Bin Abd Al Baqi Al Hasani Al Husaini Al Khatoun Abadi.

3) Sheikh Muhammad bin Mahdi Al Ashrafi.

4) Sayyed Muhammad Mahdi Al Sadr Al Kathemi.

5) Sheikh Muhammad Redha Al Darfuli.

6) Sayyed Abu Al Hasan Al Qazwini.

7) Sayyed Shehab Al deen al Mar'ashi al najafi.

Those who have mentioned that you have to complete the two shahada's with it:

1) Sayyed Muhammad Mahdi al Tabetabai Bahr al 'uloom.

2) Sayyed Mirza Mahdi Al Husaini Al Shirazi.

3) Sayyed Muhammad Hadi Al Milani.

Those who have said in its recommendation in the part of performance, and they are the most:

1) Sayyed Ni'mat Allah Al Musawi Al Jaza'eri.

2) Al Mawla Muhammad Baqer al Waheed Al Bahbahani.

3) Sayyed Muhammad Mahdi Al Tabetabai Bahr Al Uloom.

4) Sayyed Ali Al Tabetabai.

5) Al mawla Al Sheikh Ahmad Al Naraqi.

6) Sheikh Muhammad Hasan Al najafi (author of al jawaher).

7) Sheikh Mourtada Al Ansari.

8) Sheikh Mashkour Al Hawlawi Al najafi.

9) Sayyed Ali Tabetabai Aal Bahr al Uloom.

10) Sayyed Hussain Al Turk.

11) Sheikh Ja'afar Al Tasturi.

12) Sheikh Zain Al Abideen Al Ha'eri Al Mazindarani.

13) Mirza Muhammad Hussain Al Shuhrustani.

14) Sayyed Isma'el Al Nuri.

15) Sheikh Muhammad Al Sherbayani.

16) Sheikh Agha Redha Al Hamadani.

17) Sheikh Muhammad Taha Najaf.

18) Sheikh Hasan Al Maqani.

19) Sayyed Muhammad Aal Bahr Al Uloom Al Tabetabai (author of al balgha).

20) Sheikh Mirza Hussain Al Khalili.

21) Sheikh Abdalla Al Mazindarani.

22) Sheikh Muhammad Taqi bin Muhammad Baqir.

23) Mirza Abu Al Qasem Al Urdubadi.

24) Sheikh Muhammad Jawad bin Al Sheikh Mashkour Al Houlawi.

25) Sayyed Mahdi bin Sayyed Ahmad bin Al Sayyed Haydar Al Kathemi.

26) Sayyed Muhammad Katham Al Yazdi.

27) Sheikh Mirza Muhammad Taqi Al Shirazi.

28) Sheikh Ahmad Kashef Al Ghita'.

29) Sheikh Abd Al Nabi Al Nuri.

30) Sayyed Hasan Al Sadr Al Kathemi.

31) Sheikh Mousa Al Ardabali.

32) Sheikh Mirza Jawad Malaki al Tabrizi.

33) Sheikh Agha Dhiya' Al deen al 'araqi.

34) Sheikh Muhammad Redha Al Darfouli.

35) Sheikh Mirza Muhammad Husain Al Na'eini.

36) Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Al Gharawi Al Asfahani.

37) Sayyed Hussain Al Qummi.

38) Sheikh Muhammad Redha Aal Yaseen

39) Sheikh Abdul Husain Al Rushti.

40) Sayyed Muhsin Al Tabetabai Al Hakeem.

41) Sayyed Abdul Hussain Sharafeddein Al Mousawi Al 'amili.

42) Sayyed Abed Al Hadi Al Shirazi.

43) Sheikh Mirza Baqir Al Zanjani.

44) Sheikh Mourtada Aal Yaseen.

45) Sayyed Jamal-e-deen Al Gulpaygani al Najafi.

46) Sayyed Mahmoud Al Shahrudi.

47) Sheikh Al Mulla Ali Al Zanjani.

48) Sayyed Abu Al Qasem Al Khoei.

49) Sayyed Muhammad Al Hujja al Koh Kamri.

50) Sayyed Muhammad Kathem Al Shirazi.

51) Sayyed Muhammad Mahdi Al Qazwini.

52) Sheikh Muhammad Faydh Al Qummi.

53) Sayyed Muhammad Baqir Al Sadr.

54) Sayyed Abed Al a'la Al Sabzawari.

55) Sayyed Muhammad Al Hussaini Al Rohani.

56) Sayyed Muhammad Sadeq Al Sadr.

and many more ..

Those who don't see it far from being obligatory although they don't believe in it's obligation:

1) Sayyed Muhammad Al Tabetabai Al Hakeem (See Mustamsak Al 'urwa al wuthqa).

Those who say in its obligation or not far from being obligated:

1) Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Al Majlisi (ra)

.

.

.

5) The teacher and establisher Al Waheed Al Bahbahani Al Ha'eri ( Al Hashiya 'ala Madarek Al Ahkam).

6) Al Mawla Al Sheikh Ahmad Al Naraqi (Mustanad Al Shi'a).

7) Sheikh Muhammad Hasan Al Najafi (author of Jawaher al Kalam).

8) Sheikh Muhammad Hussain Kashef Al Ghita' (Al Hashiya 'ala al 'urwa al wuthqa).

9) Sayyed Ali Madad Al Qa'eni.

10) The great Sayyed Ahmad Al Mustanbat ( Al Qatra fi bihar manaqeb al Nabi wal 'etra).

11) Imam Khomeini (qas) - Adab al ma'nawiya lil salat.

Those who say that it is a obligatory part but could not say it clearly because of Taqiya:

1) Sheikh Muhammad Taqi Al Majlisi

2) Sheikh Muhammad Redha Al Najafi

3) Sayyed Mirza Ibrahim Al Asbahani.

Those who clearly state its obligation in athan and iqama:

Sayyed Muhammad Al Shirazi (qas).

-----------

Note: These are not all the names for the sections as there is too much to gather, but it is what Al Sheikh Al Ghezzi gathered in his book: Al Shahada Al Thalitha fil athan wal iqama, so refer to it for more information regarding this issue.

Wasalam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Salam Alaikum

A lot of information above for people to read, no need for repitition.

However, I'd like to briefly address the accusation that Sheikh Sudduq accused the mufawwidha and extremists of adding this sentence to the adhan.

The question arises that who did Sheikh Sudduq regard as mufawwidha? How did he define them?

In his book Al-I'tiqad ul-Imamiyyah, he writes:

"The sign of the Delegators (Mufawwidhah) and Ghulat (Extremists) and their like is that they associate the sheikhs and ulama of Qum with Taqseer (giving the Ahlul-Bait less than their due)."

He then quotes from his teacher Mohammad ibn Al-Hasan ibn Ahmad ibn Al-Waleed as saying: "The first stage of extremism is denying the forgetfulness of the Prophet ."

(See Man La Yahdharahul-Faqeeh)

Sheikh Mufeed, his disciple, rebuked this opinion, and he himself called these scholars of Qum as Muqassir, clarifying that the opinion of Shia Imamis is that the Prophet does not err or forget at all. The standard of these Qummi scholars of extremism was very low.

We also know, with Sheikh Sudduq's [r] own admittance, that there were riwayaat of the third shahadat, but he did not narrate them as he denounced them as the fabrications of extremists. If these so-called "extremists" are actually not extremists and hold correct views, while it is the Sheikhs of Qum who were muqassirs, then it questions the whole reasoning of Sheikh Sudduq against reciting the third shahadat in Adhan.

Wassalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

My problem is not with the the 3rd shahadah itself but the fact that the ulema only began justifying it when it was instituted by the Safavid king. Prior to that, no Shia scholar for centuries had ever contemplated this subject worthy of discussion at all. If Shah Ismail had never introduced this practice no Shia today would be reciting it in their adhan and iqamah. It bothers me that ulema had to make ijtehad to sanction something for the sake of appeasing a ruler. Sounds a lot like what Sunni ulema have done throughout history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Al-salamu alaikum wa rahmatullah,

My dear Brother Talib-e-Ilm, please present us your proof or sources which you based your facts on regarding the implacement of the 3rd Shahada in the athan and iqama by the safawy King.

Our scholars are discussing whether the Imams (as) have recited it in their (as)'s athan or not, and that is before the safawid era.

I will be completing my last final on Thursday insha'Allah and after that I will do my best to present the narrations and proofs that could most likely show that 3rd Shahada is indeed part of the athan and which arguements our scholars use. Looking into the words of our great scholars, from the time of Sheikh Mufid (ra) we can see that most of them mention that it is not far away from being part of the athan or the iqama, but because they have to base Islamic Jurisprudical Laws on proofs and Usuli Qawa'ed, they cannot prove its obligation. As for looking at it from the Beliefs (Aqida) view, there is no doubt that it is obligatory to mention it, or rather believe in it in your heart or else all your worships -and not just athan and iqama- are void.

Wasalam.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member

Brother Imami_ali, its a fact of history that the 3rd shahada was instituted by Shah Ismail. Read Dr. Takim's article that I attached or feel free to consult any source.

Shaykh Mufid never condoned the 3rd shahada. In fact he is on record stating the opposite as are Tusi, Allama Hilli, Murtada Razi, and ALL scholars before the 16th century shared the same opinion.

Read what Dr. Takim has written:

Many tenth- and eleventh-century jurists did not consider it important to discuss the issue of the wilaya in the adhan. Thus, where and when the adhan is discussed in some detail, there is no mention of the wilaya, as, for example, in al-Mufid's (d. 413/1022) [Muqni.sup.[subset]] a, [5] or in the Intisar of Sharif al-Murtada (d. 436/1044). [6] In his Tahdhib, Tusi (d. 460/1067) refers to various hadiths reporting different juridical rulings, but in spite of this, he cites not a single hadith indicating the wilaya of [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali in the adhan. This is surprising in view of the fact that, in his other works (to be discussed presently), Tusi admits that odd and isolated (shadhdh) reports concerning the wilaya of [[blank].sup.[subset]Ali in the adhan have been related. [7] But, in all probability, the traditions about the wilaya were not available to him. [8] Alternatively, because these reports were rare, Tusi did not deem them veracious and worthy of consideration. [9] In his Nihaya, Tusi even sta tes that one who utters the wilaya is in error ([mukhti.sup.[contains]]). [10] However, in his Mabsut, he says simply:

As for uttering " [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali is the Commander of the Faithful and the family of Muhammad is the best of mankind" in accord with what has been narrated in isolated reports, this is not to be acted upon [fa-laysa bi [ma.sup.[subset]] mul [blank].sup.[subset]]alayhi] in the adhan. But, if a person recites it, he does not commit a sin for that reason (lam [ya.sup.[contains]] tham bihi). However, it is not amongst the fadila (recommended parts) of the adhan nor does it [the wilaya] make it [the adhan] more complete. [11]

The foregoing evidence reveals fairly clearly that scholars such as al-Saduq and Tusi prohibited including the Wilaya in the adhdn. It is to be remembered also that these scholars were living under the aegis of Buyid rulers (334-447/945-1055) who were favorably disposed towards the Shi is. Thus, although they were neither politically oppressed nor constrained in their writings, [shi.sup.[subset]]i jurists of the tenth and eleventh centuries either prohibited outright or strongly discouraged the utterance of the wilaya in the adhan. There is no evidence to suggest, moreover, that their ruling on this issue was based on taqiyya (dissimulation).

THE ILKHANID EPOCH IN [sHI.sup.[subset]]I JURISPRUDENCE

After the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols in 656/1258, the center of [shi.sup.[subset]]i studies moved from Baghdad to Hilla. Due mainly to the presence of the [shi.sup.[subset]i philosopher and theologian Nasir al-Din Tusi (d. 672/1274), an influential counselor to the Mongol king Hulegu, Hilla was spared Mongol destruction. Therefore, during the Ilkahid era (656-754/1258-1353), the [shi.sub.[subset]]i [[blank].sup.[subset]][ulama.sup.[contains]] continued to enjoy good relations with the ruler. As an example, Hilli (d. 726/1325) and his son were often invited to the court of Oljeitu (d. 712/1316). [12] Reportedly, he was a witness to the Sultan's conversion to Twelver Shi ism. [13] But, again, despite the period of relative peace between [shi.sup.[subset]]i and Sunni communities, there was no change in the stance of [shi.sup.[subset]]i scholars on the question of the wilaya in the adhan.

Although the juridical works of scholars in that period, such as Abu Mansur Muhammad b. Idris (d. 598/1201), contain detailed discussions of the adhan and iqdma, [14] the question of the wilaya in the adhan is never even alluded to. It is to be further noted that although Ibn Idris appends a separate section on the recommended parts ([fada.sup.[contains]il) of the adhan, contrary to the practice of later scholars, he does not mention the wilaya in this section either. [15]

Other scholars of Hilla were more explicit in their rejection of the wilaya in the adhan. After enumerating segments of the adhan in his [Mu.sup.[subset]]tabar, Muhaqqiq al-Hilli (d. 676/1277) declares: "Anything added to this is [bid.sup.[subset]]a." [16] His contemporary al-Hadhali (d. 690/1291) states in his al-[Jamic.sup.[subset]] li'l-[shara.sup.[contains]] [i.sup.[subset]] that, although the wilaya has been narrated in rare traditions, it is not to be practiced as a part of the adhan. [17]

Although they were living under favorable political conditions, thirteenth- and fourteenth-century jurists concurred with their predecessors on the issue. Thus the aforementioned [[blank].sup.[subset]]Allama] al-Hilli explicitly forbids the recitation of the wilaya in his Nihayat al-ahkam, stating that it is not permissible to recite it since there was no ruling for it in the [shari.sup.[subset]]a ([li-.sub.[subset]]adamj [mashru.sup.[subset]]iyyatihi). [18]

Fourteenth-century [shi.sub.[subset]]i scholars based in Jabal [[blank].sub.[subset]]Amil followed the example of their predecessors in prohibiting the utterance of the wildya in the adhan. In his al-[Lum.sup.[subset]]a al-dimashqiyya, Muhammad b. Jamal al-Din (d. 786/1384), also called Shahid al-Awwal (Shahid I), definitively forbids the utterance of the wilaya, even though, he admits, it is in fact a reality (wa in kana al-[wagi.sub.[subset]] kadhalik). [19] In his al-Durus, Shahid I further adds that the wilaya is a credal issue, and is not a part of the adhan. [20] He repeats al-Saduq's proscription, saying that the wilaya in the adhan is a concoction of the Mufawwida. As a matter of fact, Shahid I is consistent in prohibiting the recitation of the wilaya in the adhan in all four of his major juridical works (al-[Lum.sup.[subset]]a, al-Dhikra, al-Bayan, and al-Durus).

The trend amongst the early jurists of either prohibiting or discouraging the pronunciation of the wilaya is confirmed by another scholar of Jabal [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amil, Zayn al-Din b. [[blank].sup.[subset]]Ali b. Ahmad al-Shami (Shahid II) (d. 966/1558). In his Rawda al-jinan he unequivocally affirms that the insertion of the wilaya or anything of that nature in the adhan is [bid.sup.[subset]]a (innovation) and that the reports about it have been fabricated. The issue at stake, Shahid II reminds us, is not whether they (the family of the Prophet) are the best of creatures or not. Rather, the question is whether the wilaya can be inserted in an act of worship which has been itself divinely ordained. Not every correct article of belief is worthy of insertion in the acts of worship ([[blank].sup.[subset]]ibadat) that have been legislated by the Lawgiver. [21] In his al-Masdlik, Shahid II maintains further that it is forbidden (haram) to add anything to the adhan. [22]

In his commentary (sharh) on the [Lum.sup.[subset]]a, the same Shahid II maintains that the wilaya pertains to a matter of belief. It is not to be counted a part of the adhan. He restates his previous assertion that inserting the wilaya in the adhan is tantamount to [bid.sup.[subset]]a. It is as if one were to add a [rak.sup.[subset]]a (unit of prayer) or the tashahhud (the shahada) in the prayer. [23]

Mulla Ahmad al-Ardabili (d. 993/1585) (also called Muqaddas) initially quotes al-Saduq's proscription against reciting the wilaya and agrees with him. Al-Ardabili further states that pronouncing the wilaya is tantamount to following the precedence set by [[blank].sup.[subset]]Umar, who had altered the adhan that is recited in the morning by inserting the tathwib ("prayer is better than sleep"). Since the Shi-[[blank].sup.[subset]]is condemn [[blank].sup.[subset]]Umar for adding an extraneous element to the adhan, it is improper for them to emulate such an act. [24] It is to be noted, however, that al-Ardabili permits the sending of blessings (salawat) on the Prophet and his family when his name is mentioned in the adhan. This, explains al-Ardabili, is because of the narration of general traditions ([[blank].sup.[subset]]umum al-akhbar) recommending this act. Significantly, he does not cite here the tradition from Tabarsi's (d. 588/1192) al-Ihtijaj which, as we shall see, was used by later jurists to argue in favor of pronouncing the wilaya in the adhan.

The preceding discussion indicates that there was a clear consensus reached by the early [shi.sup.[subset]i jurists on either prohibiting or discouraging the utterance of the wilaya in the adhan. Those reciting the wilaya were marginalized and seen by jurists such as al-Saduq, [[blank].sup.[subset]]AllEma al-Hilli and al-Ardabili as extremists. No jurist in the preSafavid era, whether living in Baghdad, Hilla, or Jabal [[blank].sup.[subset]]Amil encouraged the practice. Indeed, no [shi.sup.[subset]]ci jurist even stated that, provided it was not intended to be a part of the adhan, the wilaya may be recited--a distinction that was to be drawn by subsequent jurists. In all probability, the reason why the pre-Safavid jurists prohibited the recitation of the wilaya was that, living with the vicissitudes of the Sunni milieu, they wanted to distance themselves from all practices linked to the extremists. This observation can be corroborated from the fact that, in prohibiting the wilaya, they often quoted al-Saduq' s statement attributing this practice to the Mufawwida. Furthermore, the jurists did not sanction the practice and they did not consider hadith reports about it to be trustworthy. But, given the overall prohibition against reciting the wilaya in the adhan, when then did the practice begin among the general [shi.sup.[subset]]i populace? How was it to be vindicated? It is to these questions that I now turn.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

salam

well guys u have gone so far.

on the day of gadeer khum when th prophet finished his popular speech "hujatul wada'a" he ordered Bilal Al Habashi (ra) who was the ont with beautiful voice and mouathen al rasool (pbuh) the prophet (pbuh) ordered him to do athan saying ash hadu ina aliun waliyoallah and was told that people asked the prophet (pbuh) shall we also say that and he said yes- by other narrators they sais rasool (pbuh) did'nt said anything- which means he does'nt dis agree with it.

wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The Adhan in the Ahadith

The busy hadith collector Kulaini (d. 329 H), who wrote in his “Kitab as-Salah” a whole Bab (“Chapter”, literally: “door”) about the adhan, did not mention „Asch-hadu an-na ’Ali-yau Wali-yu llah“ as part of the adhan.* Below I want to quote two ancient traditions, in which the Imams spoke about this part of the adhan. They are by far the oldest traditions, that could be found by database (Maktabat Ahl al-Bait). In addition, they were the only two traditions before the 8th/14th century. However, the number of traditions does not significantly rise afterwards.

1- Sadûq (d. 381 H) wrote about Imam Abu Abdillah (a.s.)**:

... ¡ æÝí ÈÚÖ ÑæÇíÇÊåã ÈÚÏ ÃÔåÏ Ãä ãÍãÏÇ ÑÓæá Çááå " ÃÔåÏ Ãä ÚáíÇ æáí Çááå " ãÑÊíä ¡ ...

„And in some traditions ,Asch-hadu an-na Muhammada-r Rasulullah' is followed by: ,Asch-hadu an-na ’Ali-yau Wali-yu llah'.“

2- Tûsî (385-460 H) explains without giving references***:

" ÃÔåÏ Ãä ÚáíÇ æáí Çááå æÂá ãÍãÏ ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ " ÝããÇ áÇ íÚãá Úáíå Ýí ÇáÃÐÇä æÇáÅÞÇãÉ . Ýãä Úãá ÈåÇ ßÇä ãÎØÆÇ.

…Asch-hadu an-na ’Ali-yau Wali-yu llahi wa Aali Muhammadin chairi-l-bariyah“: Do not effort this, neither in the Adhan nor in the Iqama. And whoeber efforts this, did a mistake.“

Résumé

These both are the oldest traditions, in which the „Ali-Shahadah“ appeared. The next traditions could be found in the year 768/1366, more than 400(!) years after the disappearance of the twelfth Imam (as). As for that, it seems to be arguable, whether the „Ali-Shahadah“ in the Adhan can be considered as obligatory. If it is exposed in future, that those both traditions are the only ones, it seems fully understandable that some Maraja‘ struggle against accepting the „Ali-Shahadah“ as part of the adhan.

________________________

* Al-Kâfî, Kitâb as-Salâh, Bâb bada’ al-adhân wa al-iqâmah. Band. 3, Seiten 302-308, Teherân 1367 (3. Auflage).

** Sadûq: Man lâ yahduruhû al-faqîh, Bab al-adân wa-l-iqâmah, Nr. 897, Bd. 1, S. 290, o.O.

*** Tûsî: Al-nihâyah, Kitâb as-Salâh, Bab al-adhân wa al-iqâmah wa-l-ahkâmiha, S. 69, Qom.

Link to post
Share on other sites

(salam)

Khomeini (qas) says:

In some untrustworthy narratives it is stated that after testifying to the Messengership in the adhan one is to say: "I testify that 'Ali is waliyullah (Allah's friend)" twice. In other narratives, one is to say: "I testify that 'Ali is truly Amirul Mu'minin" twice. In some others, one is to say: "Muhammad and his progeny are the best of people". Ash-Shaykh as-Saduq(may Allah have mercy upon him) took these narratives to be invented and he denied them. [209] It is well known among the 'ulama' (may Allah be pleased with them) that these narratives are not reliable. Some narrators regard them among the commendables, due to "the negligence of the proofs of the laws." This opinion, however, is not far from being true, although if "absolute proximity" [qurbat-i mutlaqah] is intended, reciting it is better and more admired, because after testifying to the Messengership, it is desirable to testify to the guardianship and the leadership of the believers. In the hadith of ihtijaj (argumentation) it is said that Qasim ibn Mu'awiyah said: "I said to lmam as Sadiq that the people of the Sunnah relate a hadith about the mi'raj, that when the Messenger of Allah was taken on the mi'raj, he saw upon the :Arsh: 'There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and Abu Bakr as-Siddiq.' He said: 'Glorified be Allah! They changed everything even this'!' He said" 'Yes', Then he continued: 'When Allah, the Exalted, created the 'Arsh, He wrote upon it: 'There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, and 'Ali is the Commander (Leader) of the believers. He ordered these to be written on the water, on the Chair (Throne), on the Tablet, on Israfil's forehead, on the two wings of Gabriel, on the shoulders of the heavens and the earth, on the tops of the mountains, on the sun and on the moon.' Then the Imam added: 'When anyone of you says: 'There is no god but Allah, Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah', let him say: ' Ali is the Commander (Leader) of the believers.' [210]

In short, this noble remembrance, after testifying to the Messengership is generally recommendable. In the chapters of the adhan, especially, it is probably commendable. Nevertheless, as the notable 'ulama' have denied those narratives, one may pronounce it by way of precaution and with the general intention of proximity (to Allah), not as a feature of the adhan.

source: http://www.al-islam.org/adab/37.htm

ws

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
  • Advanced Member

let's have a little controversial view here :)

imho, there are 2 alternatives for this:

1. 'aliyyan waliyullah is never a part of azan -> if this is the case, then it's strange that some scholars say that it's ok to pronounce this in azan (whatever your intention is)

2. 'aliyyan waliyullah is a part of azan -> then why 'aliyyan waliyullah? not "[the present imam] waliyullah", e.g. on the time of imam ja'far: jafar waliyullah & in our time: al-mahdi waliyullah? imho, it's better that way, it clearly gives testimony of our present imam. moreover, with 'aliyyan waliyullah, there are no difference between shia ithna athari & other sects that confess that imam ali is in fact is waliyullah (e.g. zaidi, ismaili, etc)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
7) Shaheed Al Awwal.

8) Shaheed Al thani.

Interesting. Someone on this forum not long ago had said that the above personalities were opposed to the inclusion of the 3rd Shahada in Adhan and Iqama and considered it Bidah and Haram. I have quoted the post below, can you please provide references or rather what they had said that such is not the case as claimed.

.

.

2) The overwhelming majoirty of the olden Shia scholars used to say it was not just makruh but it was HARAM. So what if Sayed Fadhlalah says it is makruh. It is not part of the adhan nor was it recited by the Prophets or Imams or even the early scholars.

Sheikh Saduq, Sheikh Tusi, Shaheed al-Awwal, Shaheed al-Thani, al-Muhaqiq al-Hilli, Allamah al-Hilli, Muqadas al-Ardabili, Sheikh Mohammed Khalisi all said it is a bid3a in the adhan and iqama and is haram and did not recite it

stop clutching at straws please

Edited by A follower
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

The Chief of the Sect Sheikh Tusi (d.460) said, �The anomalous reports that narrate �Ashahdu Inna Aliyun Wali Allah� in the adhan, should not be acted upon, and those who do act upon it are mistaken.� (Nihaya)

In his al-[Lum.sup.[subset]]a al-dimashqiyya, Muhammad b. Jamal al-Din (d. 786/1384), also called Shahid al-Awwal (Shahid I), definitively forbids the utterance of the wilaya, even though, he admits, it is in fact a reality (wa in kana al-[wagi.sub.[subset]] kadhalik). [19] In his al-Durus, Shahid I further adds that the wilaya is a credal issue, and is not a part of the adhan. [20]

Allamah Hilli (d.736) said, �The adhan was revealed from Allah by the tongue of Gabriel at the Ahlul Bayt�and saying �I bear witness Ali is the friend of Allah� or �I bear witness the family of Mohammed are the best of mankind� in the lines of the Adhan is not permissible.� (Nihayat al-Ahkam)

Shaheed al-Thani (d.965) said, �It is not permissible to consider any other lines in the adhan or iqamah apart from the ones mentioned, such as the testimony to the wilayah of Ali (as) or that the family of Mohammed (pbuh) are the best of mankind�adding it to the adhan is a bidah and legislating it is like adding another ruk3a to the salat�

(Sharh al-Lom3a)

Muhaqiq al-Hilli, Muqadas al-Ardabili, Shaheed al-Awwal, Sheikh Saduq and many others all made similar comments

It was unanimously considered haram and the only ones who would read it after the ghayba were the ghullat as Sheikh Saduq said. However, the Safavids revived their fabricated narrations and introduced it to the adhan and now it has become widespread. In fact, Iraq did not recite it in the adhan until 1870 when the visiting Shah forced the muadhin in Karbala to add it.

We all believe Ali is the wali of Allah and believing that is an essential part of the faith. However, it is not part of the adhan and iqama of the Prophet and the Imams.

Edited by redman 123
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
^There is consensus among all shi'a scholars that Aliyyun Waliyullah is NOT the integral part of Kalimah.

w/s

Ziyarat Jamiah Kabeer says the opposite of what ur saying " Wa bimuwaalaatikum tammatil Kalimatu" By declaring you MAWLA the "Kalimah"(basis of religion) has been completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
Interesting. Someone on this forum not long ago had said that the above personalities were opposed to the inclusion of the 3rd Shahada in Adhan and Iqama and considered it Bidah and Haram. I have quoted the post below, can you please provide references or rather what they had said that such is not the case as claimed.

I will answer the question tomorrow insha'Allah as I have an exam in the next few hours.

I apologize for that.

Wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
As for Sheikh Al Saduq (ra), I have read many refutations to his views, especially from Al hur Al 'amili (ra) the author of wasa'el al Shi'a, and many other great scholars, past and present.

I'd very curious what you think you read, since all I've seen from Shaykh Hurr al-`Amili (ra) with regards to what Shaykh Saduq (ra) said is that he quotes it in his Wasa'il, he writes (after quoting it):

ÇäÊåì ßáÇã ÇáÕÏæÞ ÑÆíÓ ÇáãÍÏËíä ÑÖí Çááå Úäå.

æíÃÊí ãÇ íÏá Úáì ÈÚÖ ÇáãÞÕæÏ åäÇ æÝí ÍÏíË ãä Õáì ÎáÝ ãä áÇ íÞÊÏì Èå ¡ æÝí ßíÝíÉ ÇáÕáÇÉ æÛíÑ Ðáß ¡ æíÃÊí ãÇ ÙÇåÑå ÇáãäÇÝÇÉ æäÈíä æÌåå .

which doesn't sound to me like he's disagreeing with him here... Have you read something else?

As to the passage we're discussing (which was quoted utterly out of context by someone above), Shaykh Saduq (ar) in his Man La Yahdhuruhu al-Faqih records the following hadith and then comments:

æÑæì ÃÈæ ÈßÑ ÇáÍÖÑãí¡ æßáíÈ ÇáÇÓÏí Úä ÃÈí ÚÈÏ Çááå Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã

Ãäå " Íßì áåãÇ ÇáÇÐÇä ÝÞÇá: Çááå ÃßÈÑ¡ Çááå ÃßÈÑ¡ Çááå ÃßÈÑ ÃßÈÑ¡ ÃÔåÏ Ãä áÇ Åáå ÅáÇ Çááå¡ ÃÔåÏ Ãä áÇ Åáå ÅáÇ Çááå¡ ÃÔåÏ Ãä ãÍãÏÇ ÑÓæá Çááå¡ ÃÔåÏ Ãä ãÍãÏÇ ÑÓæá Çááå¡ Íí Úáì ÇáÕáÇÉ¡ Íí Úáì ÇáÕáÇÉ¡ Íí Úáì ÇáÝáÇÍ¡ Íí Úáì ÇáÝáÇÍ¡ Íí Úáì ÎíÑ ÇáÚãá¡ Íí Úáì ÎíÑ ÇáÚãá¡ Çááå ÃßÈÑ¡ Çááå ÃßÈÑ¡ áÇ Åáå ÅáÇ Çááå¡ áÇ Åáå ÅáÇ Çááå¡ æÇáÇÞÇãÉ ßÐáß " (1). æáÇ ÈÃÓ Ãä íÞÇá Ýí ÕáÇÉ ÇáÛÏÇÉ Úáì ÃËÑ Íí Úáì ÎíÑ ÇáÚãá " ÇáÕáÇÉ ÎíÑ ãä Çáäæã " ãÑÊíä ááÊÞíÉ. æÞÇá ãÕäÝ åÐÇ ÇáßÊÇÈ ÑÍãå Çááå: åÐÇ åæ ÇáÇÐÇä ÇáÕÍíÍ áÇ íÒÇÏ Ýíå æáÇ íäÞÕ ãäå¡ æÇáãÝæÖÉ áÚäåã Çááå ÞÏ æÖÚæÇ ÃÎÈÇÑÇ æÒÇÏæÇ Ýí ÇáÇÐÇä " ãÍãÏ æÂá ãÍãÏ ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ " ãÑÊíä¡ æÝí ÈÚÖ ÑæÇíÇÊåã ÈÚÏ ÃÔåÏ Ãä ãÍãÏÇ ÑÓæá Çááå " ÃÔåÏ Ãä ÚáíÇ æáí Çááå " ãÑÊíä¡ æãäåã ãä Ñæì ÈÏá Ðáß " ÃÔåÏ Ãä ÚáíÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä ÍÞÇ " ãÑÊíä æáÇ Ôß Ýí Ãä ÚáíÇ æáí Çááå æÃäå ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä ÍÞÇ æÃä ãÍãÏÇ æÂáå ÕáæÇÊ Çááå Úáíåã ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ¡ æáßä áíÓ Ðáß Ýí ÃÕá ÇáÇÐÇä¡ æÅäãÇ ÐßÑÊ Ðáß áíÚÑÝ ÈåÐå

ÇáÒíÇÏÉ ÇáãÊåãæä ÈÇáÊÝæíÖ¡ ÇáãÏáÓæä ÃäÝÓåã Ýí ÌãáÊäÇ

And what is narrated from Abu Bakr al-Hadhrami and Kulayb al-Asadi from Abi `Abdillah as.gif that he related to them the adhan. So he said: Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, ashhadu al-la ilaha illallah, ashhadu al-la ilaha illalllah, ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah, ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasulullah, hayya `ala ‘s-salat, hayya `ala ‘s-salat, hayya `ala ‘l-falah, hayya `ala ‘l-falah, hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal, hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal, Allahu akbar, Allahu akbar, la ilaha illallah, la ilaha illallah. And the iqama is like this. And there is no problem that it be said in the salat al-ghada (fajr) immediately after “hayya `ala khayri ‘l-`amal” “as-salatu khayram-mina ‘n-nawm” two times for taqiyya.

The author of this book, may Allah have mercy on him, said: This is the correct adhan, nothing is added to it, nothing is subtracted from it. The Mufawwadha, Allah curse them, have forged narrations and added in the adhan “Muhammad wa Ale Muhammad khayri ‘l-bariyya” two times, and in some of their reports after “ashhadu anna Muhammadan rasulallah” “ashhadu anna `Aliyyan waliyullah” two times, and some of them that narrate in place of that “ashhadu annna `Aliyyan amir al-mu’mineen haqqa” two times. There is no doubt that `Ali is the Wali of Allah, and that he is the Commander of the Believers truly, and that Muhammad and the Family of Muhammad are the best of people, however that is not from the original adhan. And I have only mentioned this that thereby may be known that those who have been accused of concocting (the doctrine of) tafwid and have insinuated themselves in our ranks may be known.

As to that long list presented below, one, it's wrong or misleading in some parts, and two, it's largely irrelevant as most of the names on there (that I could recognize) are post-Safawid `ulama. All it reveals is that much later scholars tended to say similar things on this issue.

Now, where it's wrong or misleading is where you refer to the pre-Safawid scholars. I notice for instance Shaykh Tusi (ra) is listed under both those who did not comment or deny it (which is a ridiculous category. did they comment on not saying (for example) "I testify that the Earth is round" in the adhan? should we take that as evidence that doing such a bid`a would be alright by them?) and those who say it is permissible and there is no objection. Neither of these are true regarding Shaykh at-Ta'ifa (ra), what he did say however in al-Mabsut was:

æÃãÇ Þæá: (ÃÔåÏ Ãä ÚáíÇ ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä æÂá ãÍãÏ ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ) - Úáì ãÇ æÑÏ Ýí ÔæÇÐ ÇáÇÎÈÇÑ ÝáíÓ ÈãÚãæá Úáíå Ýí ÇáÇÐÇä¡ æáæ ÝÚáå ÇáÇäÓÇä áã íÃËã Èå¡ ÛíÑ Ãäå áíÓ ãä ÝÖíáÉ ÇáÇÐÇä æáÇ ßãÇá ÝÕæáå

As for uttering "`Ali is the Commander of the Faithful and the family of Muhammad is the best of mankind" in accord with what has been narrated in isolated reports, this is not to be acted upon [fa-laysa bi macmul `alayhi ] in the adhan. But, if a person recites it, he does not commit a sin for that reason (lam ya'tham bihi). However, it is not amongst the fadila (recommended parts) of the adhan nor does it [the wildya] make it [the adhan] more complete.

As to some other names on the list, brother redman123 has helpfully included what is reported of them. You (I say "you" but I'm guessing the list is copied from somewhere else, correct?) also did not include such a name as Muqaddis Ardabili (ar) who compared adding it in to following the precedent of `Umar adding in "as-salatu khayrun min an-nawm".

Edited by macisaac
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Ziyarat Jamiah Kabeer says the opposite of what ur saying " Wa bimuwaalaatikum tammatil Kalimatu" By declaring you MAWLA the "Kalimah"(basis of religion) has been completed.

What do you mean by basis of religion though? The Qu'ran shows us that Allah (swt) tells us that "Today have we completed you religion for you".

Pledging loyalty to Imam Ali (as) has nothing to do with the Faith being completed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members

(salam) I do not have much knowledge in regards to hadith or what the jurists say, but one thing is for sure this ? was in my mind, when i did ask our local Imam he did say that saying the name of Ali is not wajib but it if i do say Aliyyun Walliyullah i have bear in mind that it is not part of the Iqamah or Adhan.

If not Wajib why have it become part of our Adhan.

I now think that if I told my parents this they would think im changing or have doubts about my faith.

Im 15 and proud to be Shia I hope to see that someone will have all the answers to the questions asked on this topic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Basic Members
What do you mean by basis of religion though? The Qu'ran shows us that Allah (swt) tells us that "Today have we completed you religion for you".

Pledging loyalty to Imam Ali (as) has nothing to do with the Faith being completed.

So if i stop saying Imam Ali (as) name in my Iqamah my faith is not completed?

What do you mean by basis of religion though? The Qu'ran shows us that Allah (swt) tells us that "Today have we completed you religion for you".

Pledging loyalty to Imam Ali (as) has nothing to do with the Faith being completed.

So if i stop saying Imam Ali (as) name in my Iqamah my faith is not completed?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

I quoted from ziyarat jamiah al kabeer. from the ziyarat it says the kalimah is incomplete without declaring the aimma a.s. mawla. You can interpret the way you want but I did not say anything about ur Iqamah, the Imam is telling you the we complete the kalimah and without our declaration you have no kalimah.

Link to post
Share on other sites

057.007

Believe in Allah and His Messenger, and spend out of what He has made you to be successors of; for those of you who believe and spend shall have a great reward.

057.019

And (as for) those who believe in Allah and His messengers, these it is that are the truthful and the witnesses in the sight of their Lord: they shall have their reward and their light, and (as for) those who disbelieve and reject Our communications, these are the inmates of the hell.

057.028

O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah and believe in His Messenger: He will give you two portions of His mercy, and make for you a light with which you will walk, and forgive you, and Allah is Forgiving, Merciful;

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
  • Veteran Member
Interesting. Someone on this forum not long ago had said that the above personalities were opposed to the inclusion of the 3rd Shahada in Adhan and Iqama and considered it Bidah and Haram. I have quoted the post below, can you please provide references or rather what they had said that such is not the case as claimed.

Alsalamu alaikum wa rahmatullah

I apologize for the late reply.

I have reviewed the sources very quickly,

and this is what I found:

Shaheed Al Awwal mentions in al lum'a al dimashqiya the following:

æáÇ íÌæÒ ÇÚÊÞÇÏ ÔÑÚíÉ ÛíÑ åÐå Ýí ÇáÃÐäÇä æÇáÅÞÇãÉ ßÇáÊÔåÏ ÈÇáæáÇíÉ æÃä ãÍãÏ æÂáå ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ, æÅä ßÇä ÇáæÞÇÚ ßÐáß

and the commentary on that was the following:

This sentence only means that it is not permissible to consider it as an "obligatory part" of the athan, as he mentions: æáÇ íÌæÒ ÅÚÊÞÇÏ ÔÑÚíÉ ÛíÑ åÐå and "shar'iyat" in fiqh means to be part of, such as being one of its usool.

And nothing in his words show that he denies its recommendation or performing it with the intention of qurba mutlaqa.

As for Al Shaheed al thani, he ra.gif mentioned in Al Rawdha Al Bahiya the following (after speaking about the 3rd shahada):

æáæ ÝÚá åÐå ÇáÒíÇÏÉ Ãæ ÃÍÏåÇ ÈäíÉ ÃäåÇ ãäå ÃËã Ýí ÅÚÊÞÇÏå, æáÇ íÈØá ÇáÃÐÇä ÈÝÚáå, æÈÏæä ÅÚÊÞÇÏ Ðáß áÇ ÍÑÌ. æÝí ÇáãÈÓæØ ÃØáÞ ÚÏã ÇáÅËã Èå, æãËáå ÇáãÕäÝ Ýí ÇáÈíÇä

And whatever is mentioned in his other books such as rawdh al jinan or masalek al ifham in denying it, is actually regarding considering it an actual part of the athan. As for his words here, it is very clear that he sees no problem in mentioning it without intending it to be an actual part of the athan or iqama.

Wasalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
As for his words here, it is very clear that he sees no problem in mentioning it without intending it to be an actual part of the athan or iqama.

[No need to be insultive] He did not say that nor did he imply that and I am completely baffled how you reached that conclusion you sly so-and-so

He said

æáÇ íÌæÒ ÇÚÊÞÇÏ ÔÑÚíÉ ÛíÑ åÐå Ýí ÇáÃÐäÇä æÇáÅÞÇãÉ ßÇáÊÔåÏ ÈÇáæáÇíÉ æÃä ãÍãÏ æÂáå ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ, æÅä ßÇä ÇáæÞÇÚ ßÐáß

It is not permissible to believe in the legitimacy of other than this in the adhan

do the maths

Edited by A follower
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
[Edited]He did not say that nor did he imply that and I am completely baffled how you reached that conclusion you sly so-and-so

He said

æáÇ íÌæÒ ÇÚÊÞÇÏ ÔÑÚíÉ ÛíÑ åÐå Ýí ÇáÃÐäÇä æÇáÅÞÇãÉ ßÇáÊÔåÏ ÈÇáæáÇíÉ æÃä ãÍãÏ æÂáå ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ, æÅä ßÇä ÇáæÞÇÚ ßÐáß

It is not permissible to believe in the legitimacy of other than this in the adhan

do the maths

Yes dear brother,

Legitimacy (in your translation) is the translation of the word "shar'iat" in the arabic language,

which is used in fiqh to imply as being part of, i.e. you are not allowed to consider other than these a part of the athan,

so he (ra) does not deny it's recommendation (istehbab) nor does he deny it's permissibility (ibaha).

Wasalam

Edited by A follower
Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes dear brother,

Legitimacy (in your translation) is the translation of the word "shar'iat" in the arabic language,

which is used in fiqh to imply as being part of, i.e. you are not allowed to consider other than these a part of the athan,

so he (ra) does not deny it's recommendation (istehbab) nor does he deny it's permissibility (ibaha).

Wasalam

You're arguing from a negative. He doesn't specifically say you can't do it with a separate intention, therefore you're reading into that he'd be fine with doing so. All he says though is:

æáÇ íÌæÒ ÇÚÊÞÇÏ ÔÑÚíÉ ÛíÑ åÐå Ýí ÇáÃÐäÇä æÇáÅÞÇãÉ ßÇáÊÔåÏ ÈÇáæáÇíÉ æÃä ãÍãÏ æÂáå ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ, æÅä ßÇä ÇáæÞÇÚ

And it is not permissible to believe in the shar`iyyat of other than this in the adhan and the iqama, such as the testification of wilayat and that Muhammad and his family are the best of mankid, even though it is the reality.

But by saying it's actually mustahabb, wouldn't that be believing in it's shar`iyya, which the Shahid (ar) here is rejecting? If not, why would he not have mentioned this, only mentioning the impermissibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
You're arguing from a negative. He doesn't specifically say you can't do it with a separate intention, therefore you're reading into that he'd be fine with doing so. All he says though is:

æáÇ íÌæÒ ÇÚÊÞÇÏ ÔÑÚíÉ ÛíÑ åÐå Ýí ÇáÃÐäÇä æÇáÅÞÇãÉ ßÇáÊÔåÏ ÈÇáæáÇíÉ æÃä ãÍãÏ æÂáå ÎíÑ ÇáÈÑíÉ, æÅä ßÇä ÇáæÞÇÚ

And it is not permissible to believe in the shar`iyyat of other than this in the adhan and the iqama, such as the testification of wilayat and that Muhammad and his family are the best of mankid, even though it is the reality.

But by saying it's actually mustahabb, wouldn't that be believing in it's shar`iyya, which the Shahid (ar) here is rejecting? If not, why would he not have mentioned this, only mentioning the impermissibility?

No brother,

Shar'iyat in the sentence that the Shaheed has mentioned is referring to actually believing it's an actual part,

but as for it's istehbab, or ibaha, it is like mentioning the salawat after the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) 's name,

which there is no problem in at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Veteran Member
LOOOOOL How deceitful you are! He did not say that nor did he imply that and I am completely baffled how you reached that conclusion you sly so-and-so

What do you make of what Shaheed Thani has said?

As for Al Shaheed al thani, he ra.gif mentioned in Al Rawdha Al Bahiya the following (after speaking about the 3rd shahada):

æáæ ÝÚá åÐå ÇáÒíÇÏÉ Ãæ ÃÍÏåÇ ÈäíÉ ÃäåÇ ãäå ÃËã Ýí ÅÚÊÞÇÏå, æáÇ íÈØá ÇáÃÐÇä ÈÝÚáå, æÈÏæä ÅÚÊÞÇÏ Ðáß áÇ ÍÑÌ. æÝí ÇáãÈÓæØ ÃØáÞ ÚÏã ÇáÅËã Èå, æãËáå ÇáãÕäÝ Ýí ÇáÈíÇä

---

Br Imami Ali thanks for the quotes. Who is the author of almabsut and albayan?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member

Read the previous sentence.

( ����� ����� ��� ���� ���� ������ǡ ��� �� ��� �� ������ ���� �� ����ǡ �� ��� ��� �� �������ʡ �������� ���� �� ����� ������� �� �� ���� ������.

Edited by redman 123
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...