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
Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Additions makes Tashahud void, then what is fatwa on Imam Jaffer e Sadiq (عليه السلام)?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Cool said:

What is interesting in this narration is that it contains even the testimony of Qiyamah & Ba'that but not the testimony of wilayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام).

So what do you think brother, Imam forgot to mention the testimony of wilayah here? 

1. According to your ulima, adding is innovation and makes prayer invalid so issue a fatwa of Imam's namaz as well. 

2. Imam (عليه السلام) didn't recite it due to taqqiyah. He wanted to save shias but also conveyed teachings in hadiths i mentioned above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest علی حسنین مرشد

I have read all the answer by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi.

Brother ,can you tell me in which Namaz Imam Jaffar Al Sadiq (عليه السلام) recited the se Tashuds?

The context of the hadith shows that it is Namaz e Janazah. And Imam (عليه السلام) is reciting all these wordings.

But you better kniw kindly tell me the Namaz in which Imam (عليه السلام) did that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cool said:

More than that is worship, 2 are only sufficient but not worship?

Allah hu akbar.

I do recite 2 testimonies in my tashahud. Whats the point of that question? You consider more than 2 testimonies as innovation and so do your ulimas and innovation is worship is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

1. According to your ulima, adding is innovation and makes prayer invalid so issue a fatwa of Imam's namaz as well. 

2. Imam (عليه السلام) didn't recite it due to taqqiyah. He wanted to save shias but also conveyed teachings in hadiths i mentioned above.

1. According to my Qur'an and unanimous declaration of "my ulima", Qur'an is complete and is safe from any tehreef. You present 100's of ahadith from kutub e arb'a to convince me that tehreef was done in Qur'an, I will reject your claim. 

What "my ulima" have advised is the best & simplest way keeping in view the importance & value of salah as well as hundreds of narrations mentioning variety of tashahud and the concept of obligatory precaution. 

We do not hesitate to recite these testimonies anytime even at the time of burial of dead bodies. We believe in wilayah, believe in mowt o hayat o nushoor as well. 

You insist on your ignorance by quoting these ahadith & by stating that you don't need any teacher & that these hadith books are sufficient for you. That's really shameful for you.

2. lol,  so you can understand this matter as we are acting upon his sunnah of taqaiyyah. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

I do recite 2 testimonies in my tashahud. Whats the point of that question? You consider more than 2 testimonies as innovation and so do your ulimas and innovation is worship is it?

I have raised this question on the statement you shared of Sheikh Sudooq a.r  

What is the status of 2 testimonies if more than 2 are worship? That statement says 2 testimonies are sufficient. Sufficient but not worship? What is meant by sufficient & worship in that statement?

Since you don't need a teacher, so you must elaborate what actually this statement means. And why do you recite only that which is sufficient? Why not go for more than 2 which is worship?

What I have understood from this statement is that Sheikh perhaps wanted to say that 2 are sufficient (for concluding the tashahud) and more than 2 are worship (of self desires or hawa e nafs). Otherwise you are requested to explain that statement to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

 

Tell me one thing honestly, tashahud is fine with Testimony of Qayamah? its fine with testimony of Jannah but void and innovation with Testimony of Wilayah? Does that make sense?

What the aimmah recited is fine. What they didnt isnt. Simple as that. It doesn't matter what I think is appropriate and not, the only thing that matters is what we have received from the aimmah. 

Share this post


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

Be very careful. You are attributing a claim to the Imam without any proof.

He has already accused an Imam of "innovation" simply because he believes hadiths must accommodate innovation. Without knowing that it is merely a long version of tashahud found in other books as well and does not even include the words he insists upon.

3453334343434.png.a553e571d56d8751100d9b521ba0d429.png

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cool said:

1. According to my Qur'an and unanimous declaration of "my ulima", Qur'an is complete and is safe from any tehreef. You present 100's of ahadith from kutub e arb'a to convince me that tehreef was done in Qur'an, I will reject your claim. 

This proves that you'll follow your ulima even if they contradict authentic hadiths from Kutab e Arba. And that they have fed people with beliefs contrary to what has been taught by AIma (عليه السلام) in reliable Kutab e Arba.

1 hour ago, Cool said:

What "my ulima" have advised is the best & simplest way keeping in view the importance & value of salah as well as hundreds of narrations mentioning variety of tashahud and the concept of obligatory precaution. 

We do not hesitate to recite these testimonies anytime even at the time of burial of dead bodies. We believe in wilayah, believe in mowt o hayat o nushoor as well. 

You insist on your ignorance by quoting these ahadith & by stating that you don't need any teacher & that these hadith books are sufficient for you. That's really shameful for you.

Precaution should be practiced from something that can be negated while Imams (عليه السلام) taught people to recite what seems best and added many testimonies in Tashahud.
If you believe in wilayah, then as a shia, isn't it shameful that you hesitate to testify to wilayah which has been established by Quran and authentic hadiths?
Who told you we have no teachers? We have taken these hadiths from Ulima Like Sheikh Sanad, Sadiq SHirazi, Muhammad Ali Tabatabai, Ahmed Mustanbit etc

1 hour ago, Cool said:

2. lol,  so you can understand this matter as we are acting upon his sunnah of taqaiyyah. 

While you actually are not!

 

1 hour ago, Cool said:

You insist on your ignorance by quoting these ahadith & by stating that you don't need any teacher & that these hadith books are sufficient for you. That's really shameful for you.

 

Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left Quran and Ahlebait (عليه السلام) for guidance.

Ulima are supposed to guide us based on two weighty things.

If your ulima, can bring a single authentic narration, which says tashahud is fixed, and adding to it is innovation, then paste it here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cool said:

I have raised this question on the statement you shared of Sheikh Sudooq a.r  

What is the status of 2 testimonies if more than 2 are worship? That statement says 2 testimonies are sufficient. Sufficient but not worship? What is meant by sufficient & worship in that statement?

Since you don't need a teacher, so you must elaborate what actually this statement means. And why do you recite only that which is sufficient? Why not go for more than 2 which is worship?

What I have understood from this statement is that Sheikh perhaps wanted to say that 2 are sufficient (for concluding the tashahud) and more than 2 are worship (of self desires or hawa e nafs). Otherwise you are requested to explain that statement to me.

Fatwa of Sadooq is simple:

Tashahud is complete with two testimonies and any more than that, is ibadah, not biddah, just like ulima of yours claim today. Thus fatawas of your ulima contradict fatwas of classical shias and Imams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, The Green Knight said:

He has already accused an Imam of "innovation" simply because he believes hadiths must accommodate innovation. Without knowing that it is merely a long version of tashahud found in other books as well and does not even include the words he insists upon.

 

According to standards of your ulima, Imams innovated tashahud. Not according to me. Sahih us Sanad hadith proves tashahud isn't fixed and can have additional testimonies, this giving additional testimonies is Sunnah while your ulima call it biddah, or some say stay away from it.

Some hadiths have mentioned that one should immediately say ali un ameer al momineen wali ullah whenever he says muhamamd ur rasool ullah . so as a shia, you should recite it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 6:43 AM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

1.thumb.PNG.2eb9ff4f4a8adc9150e88e2e1542ea07.PNG

The first part of hadith as given in para 1, mentions  it as Sahih min Amr salah. This has only two shahada.

Hadith Sahih (Authentic)

The late Al-Allamah Al-Hilli suggested that a Hadith is Sahih only if all the transmitters to the Ma'soom are named and they are all the Twelver just Shia. 

This Sahih  part is also included mentioned as included in the other part and the category is given  as Mothaq. This means these two parts are certain and sufficient  for the salah. There is not third testimony  as some one may claim like "ALiun Wali ullah" in it.

Hadith Mowathaq (consolidated Hadith)

A Hadith is regarded Mowathaq if its chain is connected to a Ma'soom and although some of its transmitters are not the twelver Shia the Shia scholars have consolidated them. 

Thus Sahih hadith possibly has more acceptance in comparison to the Mowtahq hadith. 

Thus the part of hadith with two shadah has acceptance by scholars in the light of the basic  category of hadith.

The  part that is considered added after the two shahada  may be accepted as mustehab as mentioned but without any third testimony as taken by some persons at SC.. wasalam

Edited by Muslim2010

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Quran and Itrah

Did i understand you my brother? Do you believe the Quran has missing parts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

The first part of hadith as given in para 1, mentions  it as Sahih min Amr salah. This has only two shahada.

Hadith Sahih (Authentic)

The late Al-Allamah Al-Hilli suggested that a Hadith is Sahih only if all the transmitters to the Ma'soom are named and they are all the Twelver just Shia. 

This Sahih  part is also included mentioned as included in the other part and the category is given  as Mothaq. This means these two parts are certain and sufficient  for the salah. There is not third testimony  as some one may claim like "ALiun Wali ullah" in it.

Hadith Mowathaq (consolidated Hadith)

A Hadith is regarded Mowathaq if its chain is connected to a Ma'soom and although some of its transmitters are not the twelver Shia the Shia scholars have consolidated them. 

Thus Sahih hadith possibly has more acceptance in comparison to the Mowtahq hadith. 

Thus the part of hadith with two shadah has acceptance by scholars in the light of the basic  category of hadith.

The  part that is considered added after the two shahada  may be accepted as mustehab as mentioned but without any third testimony as taken by some persons at SC.. wasalam

Definitely Mosaq chain has non twelver but Thiqa narrator. And such a hadith is authentic.

Plus its the same hadith, and definitely i said that its Mustahab to say anything more than 2 testimonies. And this is fatwa of Sadooq, Hamza bin Abdul Aziz etc.

The 2nd part is as authentic, just as the 1st part. In which Imams gave 4 different testimonies and Hadith of Imam Baqir (عليه السلام) from Al Faqih has 6 different testimonies in it.

Thus its sunnah to add to Tashahud since its better and Tashahud isn't fixed. In Al Kafi imam said if it was fixed, people would have been killed. And this hadith indicates taqqiyah. The reason we insist on 3rd testimony of wilayah since many narrations address it .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, it has been proven that adding to tashahud is recomended and sunnah but Mustahab since Imams added to it and it was never fixed.

And fatawa against addition, or calling it an innovation are false and baseless and against teachings of Aima (عليه السلام). thus such ulima should never be trusted again and their taqleed is also invalid as per conditions mentioned in hadith of Taqleed by Imam Al Askari (عليه السلام).

WS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2020 at 3:43 AM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Why should i go to Marja when something is clear to me from hadith.

God save us from having this mentality.

Unfortunately with religion, we even have 10 year old kids thinking that they are mujtahids.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

 

As for permission, here have it from kutab e Arba: (A reliable tradition)

image.thumb.png.400091a7d283a6cb47241e3cc00dcbce.pngimage.thumb.png.58c63288b6846718a4069462db59dbc3.png 

Your answer is in the footnote for this one, as it is in most of the footnotes of the ahadith (not hadiS, sorry mispronunciations are annoying) you posted. 
 

Are you familiar with Usul al Fiqh? Your answer would be found there which is online with the fatwas of the ulema 

If you reject it (usul) or are not familiar with it that’s fine, I did too for a while (I thought being akhbari was cool), you must recite the Hadith as the imam (عليه السلام) recited it with no omission or addition. 

you must pick one methodology you can’t pick between 2, either we are akhbari literalists or we are Usuli. Both unfortunately don’t justify the the name of Ali as being wajib in salah. 
 

you don’t understand how much this one killed me, I so so wanted it to be true wait till u find out a syed can marry a non Syed (OMG)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UndercoverBrother said:

Your answer is in the footnote for this one, as it is in most of the footnotes of the ahadith (not hadiS, sorry mispronunciations are annoying) you posted. 

I know very well ulima here suggest its regarding salawat

 

. But how did you derive that meaning? Any prove? 

Hadith indicates that taking names are allowed but Mustahab and darood on Aal e Muhammad (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is wajib after tashahud not Mustahab.

1 hour ago, UndercoverBrother said:

you must recite the Hadith as the imam (عليه السلام) recited it with no omission or addition. 

Contrary to this, imam said recite what seems best.

 

1 hour ago, UndercoverBrother said:

Both unfortunately don’t justify the the name of Ali as being wajib in salah

Thread discusses Mustahab izkaar of tashahud so clearly anything more than 2 testimonies is Mustahab.

 

1 hour ago, UndercoverBrother said:

you don’t understand how much this one killed me, I so so wanted it to be true wait till u find out a syed can marry a non Syed (OMG)

Marry daughters of mothers? Lolz no thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Guest علی حسنین مرشد said:

I have read all the answer by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi.

Brother ,can you tell me in which Namaz Imam Jaffar Al Sadiq (عليه السلام) recited the se Tashuds?

The context of the hadith shows that it is Namaz e Janazah. And Imam (عليه السلام) is reciting all these wordings.

But you better kniw kindly tell me the Namaz in which Imam (عليه السلام) did that.

Its proven via authentic chains (According to ulima like Taqi Majlisi) that Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) recited different Tashahuds. He (عليه السلام) also recited one with two testimonies and also the one with four testimonies.

And same imam said: Whenever you say shahadatein, say ali un wali ullah.

Plus hadith of Al Kafi states: recite in tashahud what seems best, if it was fixed, people would've been killed! And what would have killed people? This is a clear indication that there was something in tashahud, if recited,  could've put shias in danger.

I doubt if that hadith of Tehzeeb is for Namaz e Janazah since Halabi asked about "Salat" and this doesn't exlcude "Salat" we recite 5 times a day or Mustahab Salat.

Keeping in view all these hadiths, Many Ulima has narrated Tashahud from Fiqh e Raza that Imam Raza (عليه السلام) recited Tashahud and testified to wilayat e Ali (عليه السلام).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Its proven via authentic chains (According to ulima like Taqi Majlisi) that Imam Sadiq (عليه السلام) recited different Tashahuds. He (عليه السلام) also recited one with two testimonies and also the one with four testimonies.

And same imam said: Whenever you say shahadatein, say ali un wali ullah.

Plus hadith of Al Kafi states: recite in tashahud what seems best, if it was fixed, people would've been killed! And what would have killed people? This is a clear indication that there was something in tashahud, if recited,  could've put shias in danger.

I doubt if that hadith of Tehzeeb is for Namaz e Janazah since Halabi asked about "Salat" and this doesn't exlcude "Salat" we recite 5 times a day or Mustahab Salat.

Keeping in view all these hadiths, Many Ulima has narrated Tashahud from Fiqh e Raza that Imam Raza (عليه السلام) recited Tashahud and testified to wilayat e Ali (عليه السلام).

Keyword here is “Majlisi”. This is where the addition in the Adhan happened too. Doesn’t take a genius to put 2 and 2 together. 

Edited by 786:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/28/2020 at 6:43 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Capture1.thumb.PNG.d98350177fc6c6d2c4a8f13488785bfb.PNG1.thumb.PNG.2eb9ff4f4a8adc9150e88e2e1542ea07.PNG

 

 

Salam, 

Can you please explain why the two testimonies repeated twice in the last tashahud?

The tashahud after fourth rakat starts with bismillahe wa billahe wa khayrul asmaa'a lillah, ashhado an la ilaha ilallaho wahdahu la shareeka lah, wa ashhado anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluh, arsalahu bil haqqe basheeran wa nazeeran bayna yada'ya as-sa'ah. Ashhado annaka ne'mar-Rab wa anna Muhammadan ne'mar-Rasool, then althiyyat then again "wa ashhado an la ilaha ilallaho wahdahu la shareeka lah, wa ashhado anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluh, arsalahu bil haqqe basheeran wa nazeeran bayna yade'ya as-sa'ah. Ashhado anna Rabbi ne'mar-Rab wa anna Muhammadan ne'mar-Rasool, then the testimony of ma'ad  and raising from graves. 

Share this post


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

Keyword here is “Majlisi”. This is where the addition in the Adhan happened too. Doesn’t take a genius to put 2 and 2 together. 

Lol.

Majlisi was Thiqa and trustworthy.

If he added third testimony in adhan, how come sheikh Sadooq spoke against it 100s of years before his birth? Sheikh Sadooq had ilm-ul-ghaib? :blabla:

Edited by Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Logic1234 said:

Salam, 

Can you please explain why the two testimonies repeated twice in the last tashahud?

The tashahud after fourth rakat starts with bismillahe wa billahe wa khayrul asmaa'a lillah, ashhado an la ilaha ilallaho wahdahu la shareeka lah, wa ashhado anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluh, arsalahu bil haqqe basheeran wa nazeeran bayna yada'ya as-sa'ah. Ashhado annaka ne'mar-Rab wa anna Muhammadan ne'mar-Rasool, then althiyyat then again "wa ashhado an la ilaha ilallaho wahdahu la shareeka lah, wa ashhado anna Muhammadan abduhu wa rasuluh, arsalahu bil haqqe basheeran wa nazeeran bayna yade'ya as-sa'ah. Ashhado anna Rabbi ne'mar-Rab wa anna Muhammadan ne'mar-Rasool, then the testimony of ma'ad  and raising from graves. 

Nope i cannot explain.

But same can be found in almost every tashahud

Ashadu an lailaha illalah hu wah da hu la shareeka la hu wa ashadu anna Muhammad an abdu hu wa rasoolu and then wa ashadu anna rabbi ne'mar'rab wa anna Muhammad an ne'mar'rasool

This is short version of tashahud from Al Faqih by Sadooq and even in this Imam repeated Testimonies.

Share this post


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

Keyword here is “Majlisi”. This is where the addition in the Adhan happened too. Doesn’t take a genius to put 2 and 2 together. 

Plus mai sadke jawaan teriyan chalaan tay

Majlisi added to it in tashahud? Ok.

What about Tehzeeb al Ahkam? Did Tusi add to it as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Lol.

Majlisi was Thiqa and trustworthy.

If he added third testimony in adhan, how come sheikh Sadooq spoke against it 100s of years before his birth? Sheikh Sadooq had ilm-ul-ghaib? :blabla:

Do you believe that the third testimony is part of adhan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2020 at 12:43 AM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Why should i go to Marja when something is clear to me from hadith.

I have heard many ulima of yours saying: "Tashahud utna he hai" i:e is limited to 2 testimonies.

So that means they oppose Quran and Sunnah don't they? And following such a person is haram isn't it?

Even their taqleed becomes invalid doesn't it?

1. What is meaning of above arabic highlighted text?

2. Did Imam say you can add whatever your heart says is right?

3. Did Imam says Aliyun waliullah? 

4. Can you provide the views of same author that there are not other hadith contradicting this hadith, where imams limited Tashud to what is being said by majority 

5. Have you exhausted all hadiths to declare the taqlid to be void by proving they are wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

1. What is meaning of above arabic highlighted text?

 

It's nothing more than testimonies.

 

41 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

2. Did Imam say you can add whatever your heart says is right?

 

from Safwan Bin Yahya - from Mansoor - from Bakar Bin Habeeb who said: I asked Imam (عليه السلام) about qunut and Tashahud he replied: Recite what seems best. Al kafi chapter of Tashahud hadith#2.

Majlisi Awal in Rawdat ul Mutaqeen declared its Sanad upto Bakar Bin Habeeb sahih and said Bakar Bin Habeeb is Majhool.

See the highlighted narrator. He is from Ashaab Al Ijma and there is Ijma of shias on reliability of hadiths transmitted by them and objection of few scholors like Khoie against ijma has no weight.

Thus its a Sahih hadith.

tell me if you need scans of comment of Majlisi.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

3. Did Imam says Aliyun waliullah? 

 

Fiqh E Raza is the book in which imam did so, and that riwayah doesn't contradict any hadith regarding Tashahud in any authentic book. Thus even if you call it weak, it proves that its Mustahab to say so.

 

49 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

4. Can you provide the views of same author that there are not other hadith contradicting this hadith, where imams limited Tashud to what is being said by majority 

 

Honestly, there is one hadith, and its found in Fiqh e Raza.

before Imam (عليه السلام) quoted lengthy tashahud, he (عليه السلام) quoted tashahud with two testimonies and said:

"Do not add to it".

Besides that, there is no hadith that says so.

55 minutes ago, Flying_Eagle said:

5. Have you exhausted all hadiths to declare the taqlid to be void by proving they are wrong?

i have read Chapter of Tashaud from Al-Kafi, and Al Faqih. And also Sadooqs fatwa on Tashahud from his Amali.

Tehzeeb Al Ahkam wasail us shia etc are in arabic and i can't properly read it, but i have asked and consulted many ulima who know and they have denied presence of any hadith that says don't add to tashahud. Rather, some hadiths like above, are from Tehzeeb Al Ahkam, and most important, IS AUTHENTIC 

I have had discussion with many people, and i have demanded single hadith from authentic source, that says tashhud is fixed. All the people here way more knowledge than me, but no one has quoted SINGLE hadith to prove it.

All they've got is, since Imam read two testimonies, then donot add to it or innovate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/29/2020 at 4:29 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Thus its sunnah to add to Tashahud since its better and Tashahud isn't fixed. In Al Kafi imam said if it was fixed, people would have been killed. And this hadith indicates taqqiyah. The reason we insist on 3rd testimony of wilayah since many narrations address it .

It is not accepted in the light of hadith about tahsud  presented and mentioned. No conjecture is acceptable when there is no clear  evidence  for saying third testimony in tahsud as per some SC members whatsoever flattery of language is used to make the black as white. black remains black. wasalam 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

This proves that you'll follow your ulima even if they contradict authentic hadiths from Kutab e Arba

And while you're believing that tehreef is done in Qur'an on the basis of ahadith of any grade, you're actually not following the Quran & are accepting those narrations which contradicts wirh the Qur'an.

And just look at yourself, whom you're following when you deny the need of any teacher for understanding the ilm-ul-ahadith! 

On 5/29/2020 at 10:52 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Precaution should be practiced from something that can be negated while Imams (عليه السلام) taught people to recite what seems best and added many testimonies in Tashahud.

We are focused on what they have recited in tashahud during their prayers. And there shouldn't be any confusion nor any contradiction present. 

That's that very clarity due to which third testimony is not considered as part of adhan & aqamah by majority of mujtahedeen. 

On 5/29/2020 at 10:52 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

If you believe in wilayah, then as a shia, isn't it shameful that you hesitate to testify to wilayah which has been established by Quran and authentic hadiths?

We do not hesitate. The difference is in the niyah in adhan & aqamah as we recite it with the knowledge of istahbaab and don't recite it in tashahud because of the teachings & sunnah of Aimma e Tahireen (عليه السلام)

On 5/29/2020 at 10:52 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

While you actually are not!

 

ذَلِكَ مَبْلَغُهُم مِّنَ الْعِلْمِ

On 5/29/2020 at 10:52 PM, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Rasool (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) left Quran and Ahlebait (عليه السلام) for guidance.

Ulima are supposed to guide us based on two weighty things.

If your ulima, can bring a single authentic narration, which says tashahud is fixed, and adding to it is innovation, then paste it here.

We have clarity where should we recite third testimony & where shouldn't. You just keep accepting what looks best to suit to your "hawa-e-nafs" and reject all those which doesn't suits it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi said:

Yes.

Bhaisaab, you kept referring to Shaykh Sadooq and classical scholars as evidence for your stances. My friend, the reality is, they don't even believe saying "ali in wali ullah" is part of the adhan! Even today, we don't believe that it is part of the adhan, it's just said in between the adhan with the intention of Qurbatan Ilallah.

Aakhaa khol aur paar kar dekhlo!!

(Open and rip your eyes out and see)

Since you don't trust and believe in our contemporary scholars, below I will post what our great CLASSICAL scholars have to say about the third testimony in adhan...

Read carefully, every word, and understand it for god sake! The same logic and understanding goes for the tashahud.

Below you will find the views of Shaykh Sadooq, Shaykh Mufeed, Sharif al Murtada, Shaykh Tusi, Muhaqiq Hilli, Allamah Hilli, Shahid al Awwal, Shawid al Thani, Muqaddis al Ardibili, al Taqi al Majlisi, Al Baqir al Majlisi, al Muhaqqiq al Sabzwari, Fayd al Kashani, and Shaykh Hurr al Amili!!

 

Read and understand every word:

(From: https://thaqalayn.blog/aliyyun-waliullah-in-adhan-innovation-or-sunnah/)

Aliyyun Waliullah in Adhan – Innovation or Sunnah?

BY ADMIN ON MARCH 4, 2019

This is an edited article, original source: ShiaReformist

FACT:

There is not even a single narration in the classical Shia books of hadith in which any Imam (عليه السلام) is quoted to have mentioned the third testimony “Ash hadu anna Aliyyan wali Ullah” in Adhan. Rather there are tens of authentic narrations about Adhan without even remotely mentioning the third testimony.

VIEW OF CLASSICAL SCHOLARS ABOUT ADHAN:

Summary: For about 1000 years the Ulema of Shia either did not mention anything about the third testimony being there in Adhan, or harshly condemned it and called it an innovation (Biddah) fabricated by the extremists (Ghulat). It was Muhammad Taqi al Majlisi, who under pressure from the Safavid rulers, for the first time had to allow the third testimony in Adhan, and he was followed by his son Baqir Majlisi, who called this act “Mustahab”. After him this became popular among all Shias, even though some scholars tried to speak against it, but these scholars were harshly condemned by the public and other so called scholars.

Let us now mention what some classical scholars have said about the Adhan:

Sheikh al Saduq

First Sheikh Saduq quotes the following narration:

وروى أبو بكر الحضرمي، وكليب الأسدي عن أبي عبد الله عليه السلامأنه ” حكى لهما الاذان فقال: الله أكبر، الله أكبر، الله أكبر الله أكبر، أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله، أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله، أشهد أن محمدا رسول الله، أشهد أن محمدا رسول الله، حي على الصلاة، حي على الصلاة، حي على الفلاح، حي على الفلاح، حي على خير العمل، حي على خير العمل، الله أكبر، الله أكبر، لا إله إلا الله، لا إله إلا الله، والإقامة كذلك

Ma la Yahduruhu al Faqih, Hadith 987


Translation:

Allahu Akbar (4 times), Ash hadu an La Ilaha Illallah (2 times), Ash hadu anna Muhammadan Rasulallah (2 times), Hayya Ala al Salaat (2 times), Hayya Ala al Falah (2 times), Hayya Ala Khairil amal (2 times), Allahu Akbar (2 times), La Ilaha Illallah (2 times).

After narrating this hadith Sheikh Sadooq says:

هَذَا هُوَ الْأَذَانُ الصَّحِيحُ لَا يُزَادُ فِيهِ وَ لَا يُنْقَصُ مِنْهُ وَ الْمُفَوِّضَةُ لَعَنَهُمُ اللَّهُ قَدْ وَضَعُوا أَخْبَاراً وَ زَادُوا فِي الْأَذَانِ مُحَمَّدٌ وَ آلُ مُحَمَّدٍ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ فِي بَعْضِ رِوَايَاتِهِمْ بَعْدَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً رَسُولُ اللَّهِ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ مِنْهُمْ مَنْ رَوَى بَدَلَ ذَلِكَ أَشْهَدُ أَنَّ عَلِيّاً أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقّاً مَرَّتَيْنِ وَ لَا شَكَّ فِي أَنَّ عَلِيّاً وَلِيُّ اللَّهِ وَ أَنَّهُ أَمِيرُ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ حَقّاً وَ أَنَّ مُحَمَّداً وَ آلَهُ صَلَوَاتُ اللَّهِ عَلَيْهِمْ خَيْرُ الْبَرِيَّةِ وَ لَكِنْ لَيْسَ ذَلِكَ فِي أَصْلِ الْأَذَانِ وَ إِنَّمَا ذَكَرْتُ ذَلِكَ لِيُعْرَفَ بِهَذِهِ الزِّيَادَةِ الْمُتَّهَمُونَ بِالتَّفْوِيضِ الْمُدَلِّسُونَ أَنْفُسَهُمْ فِي جُمْلَتِنَا


Translation:

This is the correct Adhan, nothing is to be added or subtracted from it.

The mufawwidah (who claimed that Allah has given the affair of creation and sustenance to Ahlulbayt), may Allah curse them, have fabricated traditions and have added to the adhan “Muhammad wa Ali Khairul Bariyya” (Muhammad and the family of Muhammad are the best of creatures) twice. In some of their traditions, after saying “Ash hadu anna Muhammadan Rasulallah” (I bear witness that Muhammad is the Prophet of Allah) they add “Ash hadu Anna Aliyyan Wali Ullah” (I bear witness that Ali is the Wali of Allaah) twice.

Among them there are others who narrate this “Ash hadu anna Aliyyan Amir al Momineen”  (I bear witness that Ali is the commander of the faithful) twice.

There is NO doubt that Ali is the wali of God and that he is the true commander of the faithful and that Muhammad and his family, peace be upon them, are the best of creatures. However, that is not (part) of the original Adhan. I have mentioned this so that those who have been accused of concocting tafweed and have insulated themselves in our ranks should be known.

Sheikh Mufeed

Many tenth and eleventh century jurists did not consider it important even 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, for example, Sheikh Mufidsays:

و الاذان و الاقامة خمسة و ثلاثون فصلا الاذان ثمانية عشر فصلا و الاقامة سبعة عشر فصلا

Al-Muqni’a, pg. 59


Translation:

And the Adhan & Iqamah has 35 parts, the Adhan has 18 parts and the Iqamah has 17 parts.

(Note: If Aliyyun Waliullah was added, the Adhan would be 20 parts and Iqama would be 19 parts)

Sharif al Murtada & Sheikh Tusi

In the Intisar, Sharif al-Murtada also does not mention anything about the third testimony.

Sheikh Tusi in his Tahdhib al Akham, refers to various ahadith reporting different juridical rulings, but in spite of this, he cites not a single hadith indicating the wilaya of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in the adhan.

Rather Sheikh Tusi says regarding the third testimony:

انه ليس من فضيلة الاذان و لاكمال فصوله

Al-Mabsoot fi Fiqh Al Imaamiyyah, vol. 1, pg. 99


Translation:

It is not from amongst the Fadheelah (recommended parts) of Adhan and it doesn’t make it more complete (Kamil).

Sheikh Tusi says regarding the third testimony:

و أمّا ما روي في شواذّ الأخبار من قول أشهد ان علیا وليّ الّله و آل محمّد خیر البریّة فممّا لا یعمل علیه في الأذان و الإقامة فمن عمل بها كان مخطئا

Al Nihaayah fi Mujarrad Al Fiqh wa Al Fataawaa, pg. 69


Translation:

As for what has been reported in some odd (shwadh) reports of saying “Ash hadu anna Aliyyan Wali Ullah” and “Aal Muhammad Khairul Bariyya”, you must NOT act on it in the Adhan and Iqamah, and whoever does this action is in mukhti (in error).

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 Shia. Thus, although they were neither politically oppressed nor constrained in their writings, Shia 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).

Muhaqqiq Hilli

After the destruction of Baghdad by the Mongols in 656/1258, the center of Shia studies moved from Baghdad to Hilla.

Although the juridical works of scholars in this period, such as Abu Mansur Muhammad b. Idris (d. 598/1201), contain detailed discussions of the adhan and iqama, 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 (fadail) of the adhan, contrary to the practice of later scholars, he does not mention the wilaya in this section either.

Other scholars of Hilla were more explicit in their rejection of the wilaya in the adhan. After enumerating segments of the adhan he says:

و ما یقال من الزیادة عن ذلك بدعة

Al Mu’tabar fi sharh Al Mukhtaaar, Muhaqqiq al-Hilli (d. 67611277)


Translation:

And anything that is added to this (adhan & iqamah) is a bid’ah (innovation).

Even in his popular book on Fiqh, Sharaa al Islam Fi Masael Halal wal Haram, Muhaqqiq Hilli mentioned adhan without the third testimony.

Allama Hilli

Although they were living under favorable political conditions, thirteenth and fourteenth century jurists concurred with their predecessors on the issue. Thus Allamaa Hilli explicitly forbids the recitation of the third testimony, declaring:

و لا یجوز قول إن علیا ولي الَّله و آل محمد خیر البریة في فصول الآذان، لعدم مشروعیته

Nihaayah Al Ahkaam fi ma’rif ah al-Ahkaam


Translation:

And it is NOT permissible to say “Anna Aliyyan Wali Ullah” and “Aal Muhammad Khairul Bariyya” since there is no ruling for it in the sharee’ah.

Shaheed al Awwal

Fourteenth century Shia scholars based in Jabal Amil followed the example of their predecessors in prohibiting the utterance of the third testimony in the adhan.

Muhammad bin Jamal al-Din, also known as Shahid al awwal, says:

و لَا یَجُوزُ اعْتِقَادُ شَرْعِیِّة غَیْرِ هَذِهِ فِي الاذان و الاقامة كَالتَّشهُّد بِالْوِلَایَةِ و أ نَ مُحمدا و آلَهِ خَیْرُ الْبَرِیِّة و ا نِ كَانَ الْوَاقِعُ كَذَلِكَ

Al-Lum’ah Al-Dimashqiyyah, pg. 37


Translation:

It is NOT permissible to believe in the legitimacy of Witnessing the Wilaayah of Ali and that “Muhammad wa Aalih Khayrul Bariyyah” in the adhan and iqamah, even though these events are factual.

Shahid al Awwal is consistent in prohibiting the recitation of the wilaya in the adhan in all four of his major juridical works al-Luma, al-Dhikra, al-Bayan, and al-Durus.

Shahid al Thani

The trend amongst the early jurists of either prohibiting or discouraging the pronunciation of the wilaya is confirmed by another scholar of Jabal Amil, Zayn al-Din bin Ali b. Ahmad al-Shami (Shahid al Thani) (d. 966/1558).

He says:

و لا یجوز اعتقاد شرعیة غیر هذه الفصول- في الأذان و الإقامة كالتشهد بالولایة لعلي ع و أن محمدا و آله خیر البریة أو خیر البشر- و إن كان الواقع كذلك فما كل واقع حقا یجوز إدخاله في العبادات الموظفة شرعا المحدودة من الله تعالى فیكون إدخال ذلك فیها بدعة و تشریعا كما لو زاد في الصلاة ركعة أو تشهدا أو نحو ذلك من العبادات و بالجملة فذلك من أحكام الإیمان لا من فصول الأذان

Sharh Al-Lum’ah Al-Dimashqiyyah, vol. 1, pg. 70 and vol. 1, pg. 573


Translation:

It is NOT permissible to believe in legitimacy of other parts in adhan and iqamah, like witnessing to wilayah of Ali and “muhammad wa aalihi khayrul bariyyah”. As not EVERY factual reality can be inserted into the legally prescribed rituals (‘ibaadaat), specified by the Allaah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), since inserting these things will be regarded as bid’ah and legislation, similar to addition of a rak’ah or tashahhud or alike things to the acts of worship (‘ibaadaat)

In another book, Shaheed Thani says:

و أمّا إضافة أن علیا وليّ الّله و ل محمّد خیر البریّة و نحو ذلك فبدعة، و أخبارها موضوعة

Sharh Irshaad Al-Adhhaan, vol. 2, pg. 646


Translation:

And addition (to the adhan & iqamah) of “Aliyyan Waliullah” and “Aal Muhammad Khairul Bariyya” is a bid’ah and the narrations regarding it (3rd testimony) are mawdoo’ (fabricated).

Muqaddas al Ardabili

Ahmad al-Ardabili (d. 993/1585) initially quotes Sheikh Sadooq’s proscription against reciting the third testimony and agrees with him. Al-Ardabili further states that pronouncing the wilaya is tantamount to following the precedence set by Umar, who had altered the adhan that is recited in the morning by inserting the tathwib (“prayer is better than sleep”).

He says:

فینبغي اتباعه لأنه الحق، و لهذا یشنع على الثاني بالتغییر في الأذان الذي كان في زمانه صلى الله علیه و آله فلا ینبغي ارتكاب مثله مع التشنیع علیه

Majma’ Al-Faidah wa Al-Burhaan fi Sharh Irshaad Al-Adhhaan, vol. 2, pg. 181


Translation:

Since the shias condemn the 2nd (‘Umar) for adding to the Adhan that wasn’t during the time of the Prophet, it is improper for them to emulate such an act (by adding the third testimony).

The preceding discussion indicates that there was a clear consensus reached by the early Shia 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, Allama al-Hilli and al-Ardabili as extremists. No jurist in the pre Safavid era, whether living in Baghdad, Hilla, or Jabal Amil, encouraged the practice. Indeed, no Shia jurist even stated that, provided it was not intended to be a part of the adhan, the third testimony may be recited, a distinction that was to be drawn by subsequent jurists.

Safavid era

The sixteenth and seventeenth centuries saw the gradual establishment and eventual triumph of Shi’ism under the Safavid rulers of Iran. The replacement of Sunnism by Shi’ism required a rigorous policy of religious conversion that would help transform Shi’ism from a sectarian into a national religion. Propagation of the Shi’i faith also necessitated the imposition of measures that would enhance doctrinal and liturgical uniformity. Thus Shah Isma’il sought different ways to encourage public expression of Islam in a Shi’i form. He had the names of the twelve imams mentioned in the sermons and issued a commandment stating that the first three caliphs were to be publicly cursed. Whoever refused to do so was to be killed. He also issued a decree stating that the third testimony was to be mentioned in the adhan. It was there-fore only in this era that the third testimony in the adhan was first promulgated and practiced at the popular level with official sanction. The insertion of the third testimony in the adhan was thus deeply intertwined with the Safavid rulers’ attempts at implanting a deeper commitment to Shi’ism amongst the Iranian masses.

In all probability, since the third testimony in the adhan did not contradict the sense of Shi’i doctrine and it enhanced the propagation of Shi’ism at the popular level, the jurists did not feel the need to voice an objection to it. Moreover, as they had recently migrated to Iran and were largely patronized by the kings, the Shi’i ulama were hardly in a position to challenge the policies of the Safavid rulers.

A statement made by Muhammad Taqi Majlisi (d. 1070/1659), in his Persian commentary on al-Saduq’s Man dl yahduruhu al-faqih, further indicates why the Shi’i jurists were now willing to allow the recitation of the third testimony in the adhan and thus reverse the rulings of earlier jurists. He states that in most parts of the country, the third tertimony was recited in the adhan. When people omitted it, they were accused of being Sunnis. Ironically, in this tract, Majlisi invokes the doctrine of dissimulation (taqiyya) to recite the third testimony. Stated differently, taqiyya was used to assert rather than to hide Shi’i identity, that is, the third testimony was to be recited so as to avert accusations of being affiliated to the Sunnis.

Majlisi I goes on to cite the example of his own teacher, Mawlana AbdAllah, who, after much discussion, had decided to stop uttering the third testimony in the adhan. He adds that his teacher was accused of being a Sunni. Majlisi then advised his teacher to recite the third testimony, to defend himself against accusations of having a Sunni penchant. This was his practice for as long as he lived.

Despite Taqi Majlisi’s efforts at accommodating the wilaya in the adhan, his contemporaries did not concur with him. Thus al-Muhaqqiq al-Sabzawari (d. 1090/1679) says:

و أمّا إضافة أن علیّا وليّ الَّله و آل محمّد خیر البریّة و أمثال ذلك فقد صرّح الأصحاب بكونها بدعة و إن كان حقّا صحیحا إذ الكلام في دخولها في الأذان و هو موقوف على التوقیف الشرعي و لم یثب

Dhakheerah Al-Ma’aad fi sharh Al-Irshaad, vol. 2, pg. 244


Translation:

And about adding the “Aliyyan Waliullah” and “Aal Muhammad Khairul Bariyya”, the jurists have clearly stated that this is a bid’ah, and the statement is true, but adding it to the adhan is dependent upon its divine ordainment (al-tawqeef al-shar’ee) a fact which has not been established.

Fayd al-Kashani (d. 1091/1680) maintains in his Mafatih al-sharai that reciting the third testimony is an abominable (makruh) act that is contrary to the sunna.

Sheikh Hurr al Amili also specially quoted the words of Sheikh Saduq about the third testimony being a Bid’a in his Wasail ush Shia.

Nevertheless, the argument for the recitation of the third testimony in the adhan was further enhanced by Muhammad al-Baqir Majlisi (d. 1110/1698). Majlisi II twists the discussion about the wilaya on its head. To further vindicate the inclusion of the wilaya in the adhan, Majlisi ingeniously divides segments of the adhan into obligatory and recommended parts. The wilaya, he declares, may be uttered as a recommended part of the adhan.

Majlisi II quotes a tradition cited in Tabrisi’s al-Ehtijaj. There Tabrisi narrates a tradition:

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 long tradition then ends with Imam Jafar al-Sadiq (عليه السلام) telling al-Qasim that “whenever one of you recites the shahada, he should also say ‘Ali is the Commander of the faithful’.

Since this tradition does not delineate the circumstances under which the wilaya is to be pronounced, it is interpreted by Majlisi II to be general, not restrictive in its applicability. Hence the wilaya in the adhan is construed by him to be subsumed under and even justified by this tradition. Thus what was considered to be bid’a by the preceding jurists becomes, for Majlisi II and most subsequent Shi’i jurists, a sunna. But Majlisi II needed scriptural support for his ruling on the adhan. This was provided by Imam Ja’far al-Sadiq’s (عليه السلام) hadith as found in al-Ehtijaj.

Though it should be noted that this narrated is Dhaeef (Weak) because:

  1. This hadeeth is not found in any other book before Al-Tabrisi narrates it in his book (Al-Ehtijaaj).
  2. There is no sanad (chain of narrators) that is accompanied with this hadeeth.
  3. The primary narrator is majhool (unknown)

There are no ahadeeth from this specific narrator in our Kutub Al-Arba’ (Al-Kaafi, Al-Faqeeh, Tahdheeb & Al-Istibsaar) or Wasaa-il Al-Shee’ah.

The ONLY hadeeth that is narrated from this narrator is this specific hadeeth.

In the modern day, reformist scholars like Ayatullah Muhammad Hussain Fadhlullah (Lebanon), Ayatullah Muhammad Hussain Najafi (Pakistan), Ayatullah Sadeqi Tehrani (Iran) etc are known to have spoken against mentioning the third testimony in the Adhan.

May Allah guide us all

Edited by AStruggler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Syed Ali Mehdi Shah Naqvi 

Brother we shouldn't give our ears to random unqualified people who hop onto the pulpits and sew discord, disunity, and turn people against the real, learned, qualified, just, and righteous scholars of the ahle bayth (a). May Allah give us all tawfiq to recognize, obey, and love the true scholars of the ahle bayth (a).

If you ignore this weighty evidence and still remain staunch on your false beliefs, even after reading and understanding the above, I don't know what to say man, you will have made Islam a joke for yourself.

Deriving the messages of the Quran and Ahle Bayth (a) from our texts is not a game. You are nowhere near qualified to do this and nor are those false and ignorant speakers who are causing misguidance amongst the Shias today. I don't know why you fail to understand this! My love and respect for the Zakireen/speakers who do dhikr and promote the love of the ahle bayth, however, we all have a place, and we must know it! How dare one step into the place of others!

May Allah seriously help you, good luck to you iA.

Edited by AStruggler

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Muslim2010 said:

It is not accepted in the light of hadith about tahsud  presented and mentioned. No conjecture is acceptable when there is no clear  evidence  for saying third testimony in tahsud as per some SC members whatsoever flattery of language is used to make the black as white. black remains black. wasalam 

This means you clearly reject hadiths i mentioned above.

I don't need to say anything since everyhting has been answered and to any person seeking truth, evidences are clear.

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...