Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Mohammad313Ali

The Authenticity of The Third Shahada

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, 786:) said:

Also you didn’t answer my question

I did, you need to consider the era. The same way the Imams did; it was not suitable to implement that Mustahab act.

29 minutes ago, 786:) said:

Why not just add Aliyun Waliullah in the Qur'an every time Muhammadur Rasool Allah is mentioned?

It's not black and white, what is meant by adding the name of Ali is a recommended preference in acts that do not concern ibadat 

you have not entered salat yet, that's why in tashahud it is not permissible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not understanding your point. But I will leave it. You won’t change my mind about it being an innovation. I won’t be able to change yours about it being justified bidah.

The title of this thread states the “authenticity of the third shahadah”. You have ample proof to conclude it is not authentic.

This reminds me of the following verse from the Qur'an:

And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided? 2:170

Edited by 786:)
Qur'an verse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam,

I think this discussion can only be salvaged by the thought and question of whether it is a justifiable innovation. I have read hadiths that when the Mahdi comes, some of the innovations will be accepted as something good. It makes sense that not everything the Shia come up with over 1,200 years is wrong. Especially when you consider the changes in the times and circumstances. So, if we can agree on this point, then we can move on.

Now, let us analyze the innovation of adding Ali Wali Allah in the adhan. What would make this authentic, or agreeable in terms of being an agreeable innovation?

That is the question that we should be looking at. Is this something nice that we can explain to God when we go back to Him, or is it something ugly and shameful?

To understand what is nice, we must first understand what is not nice. That is why God's grand design was that our grandfather eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only then did he see what is the difference. It was a mistake and against God's command, but nothing that happens is against God's will. Imam Hussain having his head chopped off  :( was not against God's will. 

Anyway, so as Shia, who can come up with examples and criteria of an inauthentic or bad innovation?

I can come up with two that I think are bad. Those are my personal opinions:

1) praying to others than God

2) self mutilation in ashura

Those two innovations are really bad, and it can be proved by the reaction of non-Shia and non-Muslims who talk about it. Many people actually avoid becoming Shia because that is the first thing they see when they google images online of the search term "Shia".

Would the third addition of the adhan cause a similar effect.

Personally, I feel that it doesn't sound ugly or off. I remember the first time I heard it and said it.  It didn't give me a controversial gut feeling.

Secondly, if I ask myself whether the Prophet or the Imam would mind it, I doubt that they would be all furious about it.


So it bogs down to intentions. I think that if it is done in good intentions, for the pure sake of spreading the truth and raising awareness of Imam Ali in a good way, then it might be a promotion of the basic adhan. But if it is done to spread fitna and to irritate people - like rubbing it in their face - then it can be haram. That is my opinion on the matter.

I think it is a good exercise to talk about all innovations, and calmly analyzing their merit to ourselves and society. in this way we may come up with other soft improvements that suit the time. I know that people get afraid of the word bidaa, but maybe we should get rid of that fear, and only channel all our fears to Allah. When it comes to innovation and evolution of religion, I don't think we should be too hard or prejudiced. Of course we have to be careful not to label whoever wants to stick to the conservative line as bad or backward. Those are my thoughts and I could be wrong.

Thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, 313 Seeker said:

Salam,

I think this discussion can only be salvaged by the thought and question of whether it is a justifiable innovation. I have read hadiths that when the Mahdi comes, some of the innovations will be accepted as something good. It makes sense that not everything the Shia come up with over 1,200 years is wrong. Especially when you consider the changes in the times and circumstances. So, if we can agree on this point, then we can move on.

Now, let us analyze the innovation of adding Ali Wali Allah in the adhan. What would make this authentic, or agreeable in terms of being an agreeable innovation?

That is the question that we should be looking at. Is this something nice that we can explain to God when we go back to Him, or is it something ugly and shameful?

To understand what is nice, we must first understand what is not nice. That is why God's grand design was that our grandfather eats from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only then did he see what is the difference. It was a mistake and against God's command, but nothing that happens is against God's will. Imam Hussain having his head chopped off  :( was not against God's will. 

Anyway, so as Shia, who can come up with examples and criteria of an inauthentic or bad innovation?

I can come up with two that I think are bad. Those are my personal opinions:

1) praying to others than God

2) self mutilation in ashura

Those two innovations are really bad, and it can be proved by the reaction of non-Shia and non-Muslims who talk about it. Many people actually avoid becoming Shia because that is the first thing they see when they google images online of the search term "Shia".

Would the third addition of the adhan cause a similar effect.

Personally, I feel that it doesn't sound ugly or off. I remember the first time I heard it and said it.  It didn't give me a controversial gut feeling.

Secondly, if I ask myself whether the Prophet or the Imam would mind it, I doubt that they would be all furious about it.


So it bogs down to intentions. I think that if it is done in good intentions, for the pure sake of spreading the truth and raising awareness of Imam Ali in a good way, then it might be a promotion of the basic adhan. But if it is done to spread fitna and to irritate people - like rubbing it in their face - then it can be haram. That is my opinion on the matter.

I think it is a good exercise to talk about all innovations, and calmly analyzing their merit to ourselves and society. in this way we may come up with other soft improvements that suit the time. I know that people get afraid of the word bidaa, but maybe we should get rid of that fear, and only channel all our fears to Allah. When it comes to innovation and evolution of religion, I don't think we should be too hard or prejudiced. Of course we have to be careful not to label whoever wants to stick to the conservative line as bad or backward. Those are my thoughts and I could be wrong.

Thanks

So with those same parameters we can soft approve "Assalatu Kayrum Minal Naum" or Tarawareeh as well since it is not condescending for the non-Muslim. If you can agree to that than I have no problem with your conjecture.

The Prophet does mind factions and sects in his ummah. This is an innovation the Shias hold for identity reasons--aka purely sectarian reasons because clearly there is not an ounce of proof of its authenticity so why the loopholes and gymnastics to allow it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To partially address the last two posts:

Quote

Bid'a is not just simply anything "new" that comes after the Prophet. Bid'a is a new practice that the mubtadi` considers wajib, mustahab, makruh, or haram. Speaking English for example is not bid'a, but if someone ruled that English was wajib or haram without proper ijtihad, then that ruling would be a bid'a.

In the case of tarawih, it is bid'a to create a new, mustahab salat and encourage people to come to it. The Prophet recommended praying nawafil at home, and nawafil are generally not prayed in congregation. Tarawih, in our madhhab, is simply salat al-layl (8 rak'a plus 2 shafi` and 1 witr), which can be prayed at any time of the year. However, when the people lined up behind him in the month of Ramadan (without him asking them to), he stayed home after the third day, and then went on the minbar to clarify why he had done so. The practice of tarawih came about shortly after the Prophet because it was seen as "good", in a utilitarian fashion.

Our position is that one should take the Prophet's advice and practice. The Prophetic practice is to do your 5 prayers in the mosque and your salat al-layl at home and not in congregation. Growing up Sunni, I saw everyone do the opposite. I'd be in the mosque for maghrib and `isha, where there would barely be one or two lines filled; then tarawih came, and the mosque would be overflowing with people. Even the utility of it is questionable to me - yes it is nice that we get to listen to the Qur'an at night, but practically, we'd spend most of the tarawih focusing on keeping hydrated, zipping through the Qur'an without much contemplation, standing in long rak`at of 1-2 pages each, etc.

As for mourning practices: the sunna is to mourn for Imam al-Husayn, this itself is mustahab, as it is the recommendation and the practice of the Prophet and his Household. So the general expression of mourning is good. Mourning will differ from culture to culture (`urf). As long as that practice is not explicitly condemned in the Qur'an and Sunna, then it is good. The most extreme practices (which, historically, are relatively recent and new) you mention are a matter of ikhtilaf among our scholars. Some have ruled that self-flagellation with knives/chains is permissible so long that they do not inflict serious or permanent harm to your body. Others have ruled that such spectacles harm the image of Islam and Shiism. It goes without saying that the vast majority of Shia do not partake in the most injurious of practices - the typical Muharram involves weeping, crying out, reciting poetry, and hitting the chests.

Most practicing Shia that I know are quite strict about their prayers, but that is a matter of anecdote.

Sociologically, our scholarship is more institutionalized than in Sunnism, so [we] are expected to fit under certain norms.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 786:) said:

So with those same parameters we can soft approve "Assalatu Kayrum Minal Naum" or Tarawareeh as well since it is not condescending for the non-Muslim. If you can agree to that than I have no problem with your conjecture.

The Prophet does mind factions and sects in his ummah. This is an innovation the Shias hold for identity reasons--aka purely sectarian reasons because clearly there is not an ounce of proof of its authenticity so why the loopholes and gymnastics to allow it?

OK those are two points:

1)

a. Asalatu khayrun min al nawm

this can be discussed with pros and cons, but likewise I grew up with this adhan and I never minded it. I can't think of a logical reason why someone would be scolded by Imam Mahdi or Allah for this. But if you can find a valid reason, I would love to hear it.

b. tarawih

I have experience with this first hand, and I have performed it many times a Ramadan or two. There are objections that can be raised. The biggest objection in my opinion is that it is a waste of time and that it takes you away from spending precious time with your family. It stops you from helping your wife in the household, and it also prevents you from spending precious hours fixing your diet before sleeping. you come home late and it kind of messes with the possibility of replenishing water and food into the system. That is my opinion. We want to know what exactly the Prophet did during the hours when people pray taraweeh. Again, there are infinite other points that people can come up with, but personally I think the negatives are more. So I don't think this is a good innovation.

2)

Prophet and sects

The word used for "sect" is fareeq. Like fareeq kora, or football team. This term is used to describe the 73 fareeq that will have one Shia one going to paradise. So technically this one group could be seen as a sect. And in the Qur'an Allah speaks about not wanting us to divide ourselves into fareeq or sects/groupings. So the only conclusion that can be raised in my view, is that the only 'sect' that will be saved, is the one that refuses to separate itself. That is a side note on the sect issue. 

So one can say in theory that the intention behind the innovation makes all the difference. Does the person say this third part because they want to create division and hatred? Does the person say it because they want to create unity and save the rest of the people? Get what I mean?

 

I don't see it personally as a loophole or gymnastic. Gymnastic is something heavy and hard to do. But I feel that it is light and easy. And as for loophole. I feel that the word loophole is more for things that go against the rules, but can be treated as an exception. I don't feel that proclaiming the wilaya is against a rule somehow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, 786:) said:

The practice doesn’t even get merit until the Safavid Era when the empire was in a rivalry with the Ottomans so they wanted to put a political stamp on the Adhan

Salam again you stated your anti Safavid propaganda :hahaha:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam again you stated your anti Safavid propaganda :hahaha:.

Oh forgot you have to consider them holy since you represent Iran. The government must lie to its people of its horrid past. Kinda like how they did with their great revenge on America :liar: :hahaha:. Too soon? Anyway go read a book. If you want I can refer you to some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, 786:) said:

Oh forgot you have to consider them holy since you represent Iran

I never considered them as holy :hahaha: but everytime that you reach to end of your reasoning then you are starting bashing Safavids for anything that you don’t like anyway I have many books so I don’t need your hateful books because everytime I just see lack of reasoning in your posts after bashing Safavids after ending your rational reasoning.

Edited by Ashvazdanghe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, 786:) said:

If you want I can refer you to some.

I am actually interested in books which you can refer in the context you’re addressing :grin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

I am actually interested in books which you can refer in the context you’re addressing :grin:

https://ebookshia.com/upload/bookFiles/2752/Crisis_and_Consolidation_in_the_Formative_Period_of_Shi'ite_Islam_Abu_Ja'far_ibn_Qiba_al-Razi_and_His_Contribution_to_Imamite_Shi'ite_Thought_-_Hossein_Modarres.pdf

The other is “Islam without Allah” by Colin Turner. I have a copy of a pdf if you cannot find it online.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 313 Seeker said:

 

1) praying to others than God

2) self mutilation in ashura

Those two innovations are really bad, and it can be proved by the reaction of non-Shia and non-Muslims who talk about it. Many people actually avoid becoming Shia because that is the first thing they see when they google images online of the search term "Shia".

Would the third addition of the adhan cause a similar effect.

 

1.

now the video I uploaded from mufti menk he clearly states the Prophet who is (not alive) is this Dunya can still hear certain things such as sending blessings upon him. Now this backs up my argument when it comes to Shia they don’t pray to Prophets or Imams rather they ask for example Prophet Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) (who can hear certain things) they ask to make dua for them. Asking anyone else or thing to cure you sickness would be wrong but asking an Imam to make dua to Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) including your dua can have effect that doesn’t mean your praying to the Imam or Prophet 

2. Majority of Shia don’t agree with cutting and if anything we can’t stand those fools. Idc disagree with me but praying and making dua for the Imam is better then cutting yourself and making Shia Off other countries look like Emos and cop hatred. Can I cut myself for Justin Bieber out of love? 
 

3. I have nothing against 3rd Shahada but I dislike when people think your some kafir for not mentioning it and I personally do not mentioned it rather I know in my heart Ali is wali.

also why not mention all the Imams in Shahada like I said before make the intention it’s not part of azan ;) 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for posting the Mufti Menk video. He is beloved by Sunnis, so this is a plus for our polemics.

2 minutes ago, Ali2196 said:

3. I have nothing against 3rd Shahada but I dislike when people think your some kafir for not mentioning it and I personally do not mentioned it rather I know in my heart Ali is wali.

I would do this too if it wasn't for the maraji ruling it mustahab. 

3 minutes ago, Ali2196 said:

also why not mention all the Imams in Shahada like I said before make the intention it’s not part of azan ;) 

I think technically you can do this even in Salah, if your intention is dhikr or salawat or testimony or whatever else that is established and legitimate. 

I'm unsure though. I know for sure that dhikr and salawat are allowed in Salah, obviously salawat is mustahab in salat. I'm not sure about longer utterances outside of qunut. Regardless, I have never heard of 3rd testimony being mustahab in Salat. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ali2196 said:

3. I have nothing against 3rd Shahada but I dislike when people think your some kafir for not mentioning it and I personally do not mentioned it rather I know in my heart Ali is wali.

 

This indeed is highly problematic and stems from an issue of cultural and emotional attachment. 

Although unjustified it is wrongfully assumed that rejecting Ali as the vicegerent of Allah in Adhan is rejection of his legitimate wilaya.

 Inconsiderate and staunch believers who cling to dogmatism are bound to be found anywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ali2196 said:

now the video I uploaded from mufti menk he clearly states

The whole video is based on one suni hadith. I have read other suni hadiths for instance of Prophet Mohammed talking to the corpses of those who have fallen at battle of Badr from among his enemies. And he clearly states that they hear him. So it is definitely very possible and likely that talking to people in their graves can be heard by them, although there is probably no guarantee of it working every time, like it is a guarantee that 100% Allah hears everything. Still, for us to be heard needs Allah's permission, which does not necessarily have to be granted each time. We can look at this issue from the two usual ways:

Qur'an:

Is there any indication or clear proof or commandments that we should ask any dead or martyred person to make duas for us?

No.

We have indications of asking others while they are alive, such as the famous verse saying "if you had asked the Prophet to pray for your forgiveness", or when bani Israel ask their dad to ask for forgiveness for them. In both cases the context is actually asking somebody who is physically among us.

Is there are clear and straight-forward proof that we should not make duas to other than Allah on a spiritual level?

Yes,

Talking to unseen entities such as the dead or martyred, would be a spiritual dua. The Qur'an has many, many clear verses talking about the danger of "making duas to other than Allah". 

 

Hadiths:

Do we have any indication of the Prophet or ahl bayt making clear duas to dead/martyred people?

No.

Do we have hadiths talking about about them making duas only to God, and telling us not not make duas to others?

Yes.

 

So, from the thaqalayn I think this is quite clear. There is no clear verse in the Qur'an saying we should not make a shehada that so-and-so is a waly of Allah, while he actually is the waly of Allah. So that innovation doesn't compare.

On the other hand making duas to other than Allah sounds very dangerous in the face that Allah tells us so many times not to make duas to others than God. I wonder how people explain what that means. What do mainstream Shia believe is the meaning of "duas to others than Allah"? I think that it is probably safer to stick to duas to Allah alone, and when talking to people in their graves, not to be taking that risk of asking them for help. I think we should keep the realm of spiritual seeking of help just for Allah. It is the only realm where we can truly fulfil the verse in the opening suratul hamd .. "iyaka naabudu wa iyaka nesta3een". It is the only realm in which we can truly not partner anyone with God, and where we can prove our devotion to Him, and die as people who lived by the principle of Allah being enough for us, and our only protector (Hafiz) and only friend (Wali).

22 minutes ago, Ali2196 said:

also why not mention all the Imams in Shahada like I said before make the intention it’s not part of azan ;) 

well, as brother Mohammed already mentioned, the relationship of Ali and Mohammed can not be compared to the rest. They grew up together as brothers, and they lived together, and only Ali is described as complimentary way. He is described as the door to the city of knowledge, which is the Prophet. He was the right hand of the Prophet, and they both are the fathers of all Imams, while the Prophet is not the father of Imam Ali. They were always a team, and the Prophet referred that 'whoever to whom I am his wali, will also have Ali as his wali", etc etc etc. I think you know about the unique proximity of the Prophet and Imam Ali, that does not compare to other Imams who are an extension of both. Imam Ali even slept in the Prophets bed and was going to sacrifice his own life for the Prophet when he escaped to Yathrib. Imam Hassan, Hussein, and all the way to Imam Mahdi, did not have this tandem parallel and timely relationship with the Prophet. The Prophet and Imam Ali were almost like one body at the same time, and fought and lived together, while the other Imams are a product of this success that is reflected in the marriage of sayida Fatima and Imam Ali. That is my opinion and I could be wrong.

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

I think technically you can do this even in Salah

@Ali2196 actually this is a good point. If you want to do it, then maybe it can be done. If it is done with the good intentions. Maybe after the zuhoor some people might want to include the name of the Mahdi instead of the name of Ali, until the whole world gets conquered by hezballah. Maybe after that people can just do as they please and make their own versions of adhans as long as they are in line with the truth. Creativity I guess. I'm just guessing here and thinking out of the box

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, 786:) said:

I cannot wait to read this to sleep tonight. Thanks. I found this book very influential in my present ideology. Looking forward to its criticism.

Good idea. Try to read the whole thread. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Respected brothers, considering that the matter of the third testimony is indeed one which (in my limited understanding) does not stem from the primordial teachings of the Prophet and his immaculate progeny, what then is the concise reasoning of our grand scholars such as Sayed Sistani in deeming it a recommended act?

Is it safe to say that it is due to the nature of the society we are in and if the Sayed would highlight it as an act which is devoid of Saheeh traditions there would be great uproar and disillusion within the social sphere, resulting as brother @313 Seeker eloquently put a Bid'ah which is of greater benefit to remain.

It it also important to note that certain scholars such as the Shirazi's who claim it to be a wajib, I am very interested in seeing how they reached that conclusion.

Bid'ah-->Mustahab-->Wajib?

For the devout lover of the Imam ((عليه السلام)) is it best and safe to conclude that one (as painful as it is) excludes the third testimony from their adhan/iqama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Is it safe to say that it is due to the nature of the society we are in and if the Sayed would highlight it as an act which is devoid of Saheeh traditions there would be great uproar and disillusion within the social sphere, resulting as brother @313 Seeker eloquently put a Bid'ah which is of greater benefit to remain.

This is precisely it. They can’t attack a sentiment of the awwam. This would lead to potential resentment towards the ulema. Similarly, this is also why some grand scholars stay mum on the questionable Muharram rituals.

I’ve been attacked on ShiaChat by others for this possible reasoning. They are of the naive opinion that the scholars do not care for the repercussions of the awwam.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, 786:) said:

This is precisely it. They can’t attack a sentiment of the awwam. This would lead to potential resentment towards the ulema. Similarly, this is also why some grand scholars stay mum on the questionable Muharram rituals.

Indeed. Much of jurisprudence is built off of precedent. There's nothing necessarily wrong with this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Rather, these must be backed by Qur'an and hadith. 

from al-Qasim b. Muawiya, who is quoted as saying: I said to Abu AbdAllah [ Jafar al-Sadiq] that they [the Sunnis] transmit a tradition in their[ books on the] mi’raj [indicating] that when the Prophet was taken on the night ascension he saw writing on the throne which read:” There is no God but God, Muhammad is the Prophet of God and Abu Bakr is the truthful one.”Al-Sadiqis reported to have responded: “Glory be to God, they have altered everything, including this?”Al-Qasimr eplied: “Yes.”Al-Sadiq then reportedly said: “When God, the Almighty, most Glorious, created the throne, he wrote on it: “There is no God but God and Muhammad is the Prophet of God and Ali is the Commander of the faithful.”

al-Ehtijaj

This was used by Majlisi II to justify the addition of Aliyyun Waliullah to the Adhan and Iqamah

and was the consensus of later jurists who held to this view as well, however, the grading of this Hadith is not stellar.

What are your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AmirioTheMuzzy said:

Indeed. Much of jurisprudence is built off of precedent.

Brother can you kindly elaborate on this critical statement JazakAllah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@313 Seeker @AmirioTheMuzzy @Mahdavist

I hope that one of you brother(s) can understand Arabic, and if you do, do you accept this explanation? It appears to go into the linguistics of the Hadith and the way it is addressed by the classical scholars.

He states that there was not a definite renunciation of the use of the third testimony, but instead there was a need to respond to such individuals I.e Ghulāt in claiming that the third testimony was a part of the Adhan/Iqama 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother, like I have mentioned previously

-it is not part of the adhan or iqamah (this doesn't need to be revisited because nearly everyone is in agreement here)

-in Shi'ism we do not have 'good' and 'bad' innovations, rather bid'ah is collectively condemned and refused

-therefore the only position to allow this recitation is the one that the contemporary scholars have mentioned, being that it is a 'supplement' and independent from the adhan itself

-the position of ihtiyaat would be to avoid it since there isn't a consensus on it's permissibility

-I personally would not go as far as to label it an outright innovation because of the secondary arguments that are used to justify it (I call them secondary because they are based on interpretation, extrapolation and indicators rather than clear cut commands from the ma'soomeen)

Beyond this I don't think there's much to be said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

in Shi'ism we do not have 'good' and 'bad' innovations

thank you brother, I don't think anybody denies most of what you've said.

Are you sure about this part? Because I specifically remember reading a hadith predicting that when Imam Mahdi arrives, he would accept some of the evolutions that took place over the 1200 years. Do you deny that these narrations exist, or do you think they are weak? Have you heard of them? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Mohammad313Ali said:

Brother can you kindly elaborate on this critical statement JazakAllah

By precedent I meant something like this:

Quote

"[...] many later scholars, when they began to discuss the issue of women covering up in front of strangers, cited the ruling on covering in prayers. They would say that whatever has been required for a woman to cover in prayers is also required for her to cover from a stranger."

Though this wasn't particularly relevant to your post. Apologies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, 313 Seeker said:

thank you brother, I don't think anybody denies most of what you've said.

Are you sure about this part? Because I specifically remember reading a hadith predicting that when Imam Mahdi arrives, he would accept some of the evolutions that took place over the 1200 years. Do you deny that these narrations exist, or do you think they are weak? Have you heard of them? 

Most welcome dear brother. 

Regarding innovation, here is a short summary of some of the narrations on this topic:

https://www.al-Islam.org/mizan-al-hikmah-scale-wisdom/innovation-al-bida

Regarding the return of our Imam (عليه السلام) what is famously narrated is that the people will claim the he has brought a 'new' religion. There are different interpretations of this but I don't think it equates to accepting innovations (if anything it's possible that the removal of innovations would be seen as a novelty).

I haven't heard of the Imam (عليه السلام) accepting innovations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

I haven't heard of the Imam (عليه السلام) accepting innovations.

OK thank you esteemed brother, maybe some other brother or sister can bring this hadith. I am sure that it exists, but of course I'm not sure that it is right.

 

Edited by 313 Seeker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Mahdavist Respected brother is it safe to conclude that the reason Sayed Sistani does not deem it as a Bid'ah, but rather a Mustahab act is due to the reaction that may be received from the people in regards to this (now) irreversible practice?

Edit: Another question I have pertaining to when we enter Salat, for example when prostrating or bowing we send Salwat on the Prophet and his Immaculate progeny, why then is this not considered a Bid'ah as opposed to the third testimony?

Edited by Mohammad313Ali

Share this post


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...