Turkish Adhaan

[Haji 2003]

Secularist and nationalists toxicity

 

Quote

In 1930, President Ataturk and Minister of Education Rashid Ghalib appointed nine muezzins to deliver Adhan in Turkish, disregarding the violent popular opposition. Ataturk even enjoined the police to supervise the delivery of Adhan in Turkish and to punish the dissenters.

https://islamonline.net/en/the-adhan-in-turkey/

 

Worth noting:

Quote

and the call to prayer rendered in Turkish - winning, of course, western praise.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/turkey-ottoman-secret-history-political-islam?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Social_Traffic&utm_content=ap_3ifqkj8h6s

 

And reversion to the norm ...

 

Quote

On September 22, 1948, the Turkish Department of Religious Affairs issued the bold fatwa (religious edict) that the Arabic Adhan is not against the law. In the first free civil elections in Turkey, Adnan Mandris ran for public office against Ataturk’s successor, Ismat Inono, focusing his electioneering on one popular demand; abolishing Provision no. 526/Code of Punishments, which bans the Arabic Adhan. Mandris crushed his opponent and formed the first civil government whose first action was legitimizing the Arabic Adhan once more on June 6, 1950, corresponding to the first of the holy month of Ramadan.

https://islamonline.net/en/the-adhan-in-turkey/

[Northwest]

@Haji 2003

The primary article does not seem to indicate that the pre-Atatürk Adhaan was uniformly proclaimed in Arabic. The contextual basis of legislation was the Turkish Republic’s effort to enforce a mandatory linguistic policy, ensuring that the state would control religion—and all else—in line with a uniform nationalist outlook. The point was not that the Adhaan was formerly only proclaimed in Arabic, but that it should now be proclaimed solely in Turkish. If the Ottoman Empire, as opposed to modern Turkey, was a fundamentally anti-nationalist polity, then it would not, according to basic logic, have forced Muslims to only proclaim the Adhaan in Arabic. The article itself hints at this:

Quote

“In 1928, Ataturk asked Ismail Haqqi Baltagi Oghlo, then a professor at the Divinities College, to insert into the Reformation Bill an article (Third Article) asserting the necessity that everything be in Turkish. On April 10, 1928, the Basic Formations Code was issued, holding that ‘Islam is the State’s Religion’ and that ‘the National Congress assumes the responsibility of enforcing the legislative rulings.’”

The article makes good points about Atatürk the moderniser and his secularist, pro-Western heirs, but neglects to mention the fact that the “Arabic-only” Islamists were themselves modernists, who, instead of imitating Atatürk by abolishing religion, sought to mould Islam within the framework of the modern nation-state. After all, the Ottoman Empire was a fairly decentralised and feudal entity that allowed religious communities to govern themselves, that is, operate relatively autonomously. Muslim communities were certainly not excepted, given that their institutions were not directly administered by the state. Given Ottoman-era ethnic diversity, why would the Adhaan only be in Arabic?

Based on the above, I think it is more logical to suspect that in the Ottoman era Muslim communities could choose whether to proclaim the Adhaan in Arabic or in the language of their own ethnic group(s). I could be wrong, of course...

Edited December 4, 2022 by Northwest

[kadhim]

So setting aside the enforced by law aspect of it in this case, is there actually at heart any issue with the adhaan being performed in a local language people? Seeing that the adhaan is, strictly speaking, an optional thing that simply serves a social function to invite people, in a beautiful way, to stop what they are doing to come pray? 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/4/2022 at 10:31 AM, Northwest said:

Based on the above, I think it is more logical to suspect that in the Ottoman era Muslim communities could choose whether to proclaim the Adhaan in Arabic or in the language of their own ethnic group(s). I could be wrong, of course...

Hi during  Ottoman era all  only option for saying Adhan or doing other religious things only has been reciting it in Arabic which later modernists in Turkey  just have tried to make Islam just a ritualistic & personal matter  likewise Christanity in Europe which  only bishops could read supplications & books in Latin so then duty of people just have been saying Amen  7 confirming any saying of bishops without understanding Latin which in similar fashion of christanity religious has no relation to politics & goverment  which“Arabic-only” Islamists   modernist in Turkey have been supporting  such lifeless Islam which just has been based on making Islam as monument which just has made from Arabic words which some Mufties just have been gargling arabic words which rest of people couldn't  understand it  which their job has been confrming what any Mufti says without understanding meaning of it.

[Northwest]

46 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi during  Ottoman era all  only option for saying Adhan or doing other religious things only has been reciting it in Arabic

@Ashvazdanghe

This doesn’t seem to make sense. Under Ottoman rule religious institutions such as Egypt’s al-Azhar operated largely independently of the state, being charitable, feudal grants, equivalent to mortmain (waqf). With British support, Muhammad Ali Pasha (r. 1805–48) largely undermined the authority of the waqf and its feudal benefactors by controlling revenue and clerical appointees. Prior to his rule the waqf had been financially self-sufficient and effectively autonomous. In other words, the central government did not control the institutions, but local feudal lords did. During the same timeframe even taxation was outsourced to local tax-farmers rather than salaried bureaucrats. Only with the rise of Western capitalist influence in the mid-nineteenth century did the Ottoman government begin to alter the feudal order by abolishing tax-farming and directly controlling the clerical endowments. Until then, given the decentralised nature of the Ottoman Empire and its millets, talk of a bureaucratic enforcement-mechanism is anachronistic. If a religious waqf wished to say the adhan in a language other than Arabic, the central government certainly wasn’t going to come over and punish it.

[Northwest]

^ To add to this: if God wished for everyone to say the adhan in classical Arabic, what would be the point of dividing nations into different linguistic groups at Babel? As far as I know the story of Babel* and the confusion of tongues is as accepted in Islam as it is in Judaism and Christianity. According to the narrative God prevented man from establishing a tyrannical, centralised empire at Babel by creating separate languages. From this perspective, forcing everyone to perform religious ritual in a single language sounds like a New World Order-type recipe for dictatorship, which would be the exact opposite of the Divine Plan.

*The Tower of Babel, that is...

Edited December 10, 2022 by Northwest

[Abu_Zahra]

1 hour ago, Northwest said:

From this perspective, forcing everyone to perform religious ritual in a single language sounds like a New World Order-type recipe for dictatorship, which would be the exact opposite of the Divine Plan.

Everyone already says it in Arabic today and I'm not seeing the dictatorship that you describe.  Having a common language for religious rituals enables muslimeen to worship together. A Muslim could be in any country in the world and yet still find themselves at home in any masjid and recite the adhan or lead the prayers in any masjid  

[Ashvazdanghe]

22 hours ago, Northwest said:

@Ashvazdanghe

This doesn’t seem to make sense. Under Ottoman rule religious institutions such as Egypt’s al-Azhar operated largely independently of the state, being charitable, feudal grants, equivalent to mortmain (waqf). With British support, Muhammad Ali Pasha (r. 1805–48) largely undermined the authority of the waqf and its feudal benefactors by controlling revenue and clerical appointees. Prior to his rule the waqf had been financially self-sufficient and effectively autonomous. In other words, the central government did not control the institutions, but local feudal lords did. During the same timeframe even taxation was outsourced to local tax-farmers rather than salaried bureaucrats. Only with the rise of Western capitalist influence in the mid-nineteenth century did the Ottoman government begin to alter the feudal order by abolishing tax-farming and directly controlling the clerical endowments. Until then, given the decentralised nature of the Ottoman Empire and its millets, talk of a bureaucratic enforcement-mechanism is anachronistic. If a religious waqf wished to say the adhan in a language other than Arabic, the central government certainly wasn’t going to come over and punish it.

Hi You have totally mixed & misunderstand difference between concept of waqf between Sunnis & shias  which also you have misunderstood history of Ottomans & dependency of Sunni scholars to Sunni government which maybe "Egypt’s al-Azhar " has been "operated largely independently" during Fatimid era

which after fall of Fatimids it has become a totally dependant university & religious school in similar fashion of all of Sunni religious schools because since cursed Umayyads era all of religious Sunni scholars & schools have been total dependant parts of governments which all of Sunni scholars in similar fashion of all of employees of Sunni government have been totallay dependant to governments which since of establishment of Ottoman dynasty all of it's kings have been great feudals or they have been supporting by great feudals which any Otoman prince who has had support of majority of feudals so then he would became Ottoman king which sometimes Ottoman kings would became greatest feudal & landlord in whole of Ottoman region which all of Ottoman king & feudals & sunni scholars have been dependant to each other which reform has been done by Muhammad Ali Pasha inorder to make him superior feudal which other feudals couldn't control him which on the other hand only he would control all of feudals & Sunni scholars which in opposition to your claim only Shia sholars & Hawzas have been independant from all of governments which Waqf board after reforms of Muhammad Ali Pasha has losen remaining independance so then becomes another governmental office under direct control of Muhammad Ali Pasha so therfore it couldn't decide about changing Adhan because Muhammad Ali Pasha has been controlling both of Waqf board & Sunni scholars which all of Sunni scholars have been against changing Adhan which they have been punishing anyone for any change in it .

[Ashvazdanghe]

22 hours ago, Northwest said:

^ To add to this: if God wished for everyone to say the adhan in classical Arabic, what would be the point of dividing nations into different linguistic groups at Babel? As far as I know the story of Babel* and the confusion of tongues is as accepted in Islam as it is in Judaism and Christianity. According to the narrative God prevented man from establishing a tyrannical, centralised empire at Babel by creating separate languages. From this perspective, forcing everyone to perform religious ritual in a single language sounds like a New World Order-type recipe for dictatorship, which would be the exact opposite of the Divine Plan.

*The Tower of Babel, that is...

Hi we don't believe to story of tower of Babel which is only a fabrication of Jewish rabbies for their racist purposes likewise calling Jewishs as chosen ones  which even their language has superiority to other languages also accoring to holy Quran  differnces in languages has been created in order to people know Allah/God better as researching in his signs & creations  also Islam in opposition to other religions is a universal religion which as true  New World Order in oppsition to false Zionist New World Order will be became religion of whole of world which Arabic is heavenly divine language of Islam which according to narrations all of people in paradise will talk in Arabic with each other but on the other hand people in hell will speak in any language other than Arabic as Ajam languages .

The messages of verse 22 of Surah Rum

The difference between races and languages is a way to know Allah.وَاخْتِلَافُ أَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَلْوَانِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ and the difference of your languages and colours. There are indeed signs in that ..

Quote

The messages of verse 22 of Surah Rum

1- The creation of the heavens and the earth is one of the signs of Allah's infinite power. وَمِنْ آيَاتِهِ خَلْقُ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ  Among His signs is the creation of the heavens and the earth

2- The difference between races and languages is a way to know Allah.وَاخْتِلَافُ أَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَلْوَانِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ and the difference of your languages and colours. There are indeed signs in that ..

3- Every language has its own value and originality, and changing it is neither perfect nor necessary. (No one has the right to humiliate other races and languages.)

4-Having same shape and color of all humans is not compatible with Allah's initiative and innovation. [Allah can make different humans with different colors  and shapes so therefore making clones in same color & shape is not compatible with Allah's initiative and innovation.]«وَ مِنْ آیاتِهِ اِخْتِلافُ أَلْسِنَتِکُمْ» the difference of your languages and colours. There are indeed signs

5-A learned and understanding person reaches divine knowledge from the difference of colors and languages, but the ignorant makes color and language a means of contempt and pride. لِّلْعَالِمِينَ those who know.

 

https://www.yjc.news/fa/news/7666650/منظور-قرآن-کریم-از-اختلاف-در-زبان-و-نژاد-انسان-ها-چیست-صوت

 

 universa

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 12/4/2022 at 9:40 PM, kadhim said:

So setting aside the enforced by law aspect of it in this case, is there actually at heart any issue with the adhaan being performed in a local language people? Seeing that the adhaan is, strictly speaking, an optional thing that simply serves a social function to invite people, in a beautiful way, to stop what they are doing to come pray? 

Salam it's not only purpose of Adhan which also it's reciting has many layers of meaning which after demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) all of hypocrites & enemies of Islam have tried to change it or remove some parts of it which your definiton from it is based on shallow understanding of sunnis from it anyway Adhan is so important which cursed Muawiah has tried to remove name of prophet from it which at the end he couldn't do it also Imam Sajjad based on it has mentioned all of virues of Ahlubayt (عليه السلام) in court of cursed Yazid which when Muazin has started calling Adhan so then he refred to each line of it in order to prove virtues of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) & proving falshood of cursed Yazid  & proving rightfulness of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) .

Quote

Nafi' narrated that 'Abdullah bin 'Umar used to say:

"When the Muslims arrived in Al-Madinah they used to gather and try to figure out the time for prayer, and no one gave the call to prayer. One day they spoke about that; some of them said: 'Let us use a bell like the Christians do;' others said, 'No, a horn like the Jews have.' 'Umar, may ,Allah be pleased with him, said: 'Why don't you send a man to announce the time of prayer?' The Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said: 'O Bilal, get up and give the call to prayer.'"

https://sunnah.com/nasai/7

 

Quote

It is worth narrating the report of the trusted governor of Muawiyah here. Once he was having a conversation with Muawiyah. During the talk, Muawiyah said, “Why should I do good to the people? Even if I do good how can I hope that I would be remembered with a good name? See, a person from Bani Teem (that is the first caliph) ruled over the people, and did many great things for them. But when he died his name also died with him.

Today people refer to him only as “Abu Bakr” and that’s all. After that came a person from Bani Adi (that is the second caliph) and he ruled with absolute authority for ten years. But his name also ended with him. And now people refer to him most of the time as “Umar”, and that’s all. But look at Ibn Abi Kabasha.20 His name is called out five times every day and the Muezzin21 screams from every mosque, “I witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” Now after his success what else remains to be done and what good deed could be remembered?

Except for this open insult of the Messenger and Azan what else could be expected from an offspring of Abu Sufyan? In addition to political intrigue, misappropriation of trusts, dishonesty, barbarity and murder, he also tried to change the method of worship.

http://www.imamuhusein.com/en/posts/browse/article-makala/evil-deeds-of-muawiyah

Innovations of Muawiyah

Quote

1- Innovation of Azan (call to prayer) in prayer of Eid Fitr (festival of fast-breaking) and Eid Qurban (sacrificial festival)
Shafi’i has quoted from Zuhri in book “al- Um”[1] that he said: “Azan was not recited in prayer of Eid at the time of the Prophet ((صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم).), Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, until Muawiyah innovated it in Damascus, and after that Hajjaj inovated it in Medina at the time of rulling over there.
Ibn Hazm writes in the book “al- Mahalli”[2] that: “the Umayyads innovated going late for prayer of Eid ,preferring oration to prayer and saying Azan and Iqama (declaration of standing for prayer) for prayer of Eid.

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?typeinfo=23&lid=1&mid=250424&catid=24393

More On Muawiyah

Quote

al-Sha’abi said that the first who preached seated to the people was Muawiyah and that was when his flesh had increased and his stomach had grown large. (Recorded by Ibn Abi Shaybah). Az Zuhri states that Muawiya was the first who introduced the discourse before prayers on the Eid. (Abdur Razzaq in his Musannaf). And Said-b-ul Musayyab says that he was the first who introduced the call to prayers on the Eid, (Ibn Abi Shaybah), and he who diminished the number of Takbirs. Sunni refernce: History of the Caliphs, by Jalaluddin al-Suyuti, English version, p204

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/more-muawiyah

Call for Prayer According to Five Islamic Schools of Law

By: ‘Allamah Muhammad Jawad Maghniyyah

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/call-prayer-according-five-islamic-schools-law

[Ashvazdanghe]

addendum to above

Quote

We have already discussed the beliefs of Abu Sufyan, and Muawiyah was not better than his father.

It is worth narrating the report of the trusted governor of Muawiyah here. Once he was having a conversation with Muawiyah. During the talk, Muawiyah said, “Why should I do good to the people? Even if I do good how can I hope that I would be remembered with a good name? See, a person from Bani Teem (that is the first caliph) ruled over the people, and did many great things for them. But when he died his name also died with him.

Today people refer to him only as “Abu Bakr” and that’s all. After that came a person from Bani Adi (that is the second caliph) and he ruled with absolute authority for ten years. But his name also ended with him. And now people refer to him most of the time as “Umar”, and that’s all. But look at Ibn Abi Kabasha.20 His name is called out five times every day and the Muezzin21 screams from every mosque, “I witness that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah.” Now after his success what else remains to be done and what good deed could be remembered?

Except for this open insult of the Messenger and Azan what else could be expected from an offspring of Abu Sufyan? In addition to political intrigue, misappropriation of trusts, dishonesty, barbarity and murder, he also tried to change the method of worship.

Examples of innovations are also found in the previous regimes. Caliph number two added: “As-Salaato Khairum min an-Nawm”22 in the Morning Azan.23 He also removed “Hayya Alaa Khairil Amal”24 from the Azan. He started conducting Tarawih prayers in congregation. Caliph number three added one more Azan before the Friday Prayer. And he also started the custom of sermon before the Eid Prayers.

http://alhassanain.org/english/?com=book&id=209&page=2

[kadhim]

11 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam it's not only purpose of Adhan which also it's reciting has many layers of meaning which after demise of prophet Muhammad (pbu) all of hypocrites & enemies of Islam have tried to change it or remove some parts of it which your definiton from it is based on shallow understanding of sunnis from it anyway Adhan is so important which cursed Muawiah has tried to remove name of prophet from it which at the end he couldn't do it also Imam Sajjad based on it has mentioned all of virues of Ahlubayt (عليه السلام) in court of cursed Yazid which when Muazin has started calling Adhan so then he refred to each line of it in order to prove virtues of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) & proving falshood of cursed Yazid  & proving rightfulness of Imam Hussain (عليه السلام) .

 

http://www.imamuhusein.com/en/posts/browse/article-makala/evil-deeds-of-muawiyah

Innovations of Muawiyah

https://makarem.ir/main.aspx?typeinfo=23&lid=1&mid=250424&catid=24393

More On Muawiyah

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/more-muawiyah

Call for Prayer According to Five Islamic Schools of Law

By: ‘Allamah Muhammad Jawad Maghniyyah

https://www.al-islam.org/shiite-encyclopedia/call-prayer-according-five-islamic-schools-law

I’m not sure what you’re even trying to argue about here. 

Is the adhaan an obligatory essential practice like prayer or fasting? No. It’s a recommended addition. You yourself just shared a link saying exactly that. 

Did the words fall from the sky on engraved stone tablets? No. The people wanted to call people toward prayer in a distinctive way, and Bilal (رضي الله عنه) was asked to go up and do that and used the words he used, and we repeat his words by Sunnah tradition. Is that not a beautiful tradition, and is it not a wonderful link to the past generations to call people in the same words as used in that day? For sure. No doubt. These sorts of constancies can be beautiful. But is it core in the same way the details of the prayer itself? No. Unambiguously it is not core in the same way. 

And if you want to go beyond this to say that the precise words of the adhaan are sacred in themselves, and invoke historical examples of people subtracting words, then what of adding words to it? Now of course our scholars are always very careful to say that the testimony about Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is not strictly speaking part of the text of the adhaan or iqamah, but just an interjection in the middle of it. But it’s so widely practiced in our community that people glare at you and actively try to “correct” you if you just read the official adhaan. (Try it sometime; it’s fun). So it becomes a distinction without real practical meaning. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

the adhaan an obligatory essential practice like prayer or fasting? No. It’s a recommended addition. You yourself just shared a link saying exactly that. 

Did the words fall from the sky on engraved stone tablets? No. The people wanted to call people toward prayer in a distinctive way, and Bilal (رضي الله عنه) was asked to go up and do that and used the words he used, and we repeat his words by Sunnah tradition.

Salam I agree that this is optional anyway it's a divine decree in similar fashion of all of revelations to prophet Muhammad (pbu) which Allh has ordered it to prophet to teach it to people which it's not a creation any fallible human likewise Bilal (رضي الله عنه) or Umar & etc

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

Is that not a beautiful tradition, and is it not a wonderful link to the past generations to call people in the same words as used in that day? For sure. No doubt. These sorts of constancies can be beautiful. But is it core in the same way the details of the prayer itself? No. Unambiguously it is not core in the same way. 

It has no relation to previous calling people by poets or merchants in ignorance era also it's beauty is because it's source is divine revelation .

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

And if you want to go beyond this to say that the precise words of the adhaan are sacred in themselves, and invoke historical examples of people subtracting words, then what of adding words to it? Now of course our scholars are always very careful to say that the testimony about Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is not strictly speaking part of the text of the adhaan or iqamah, but just an interjection in the middle of it.

These distortions has done in similar fashion which previous divine scriptures have been distorted by subtracting or adding words by people likewise Umar & cursed Muawiah which according to narrations name of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & testimony to his Imamate has been written on the Throne of Allah which as you have said saying it is not a part of Adhan or Iamah.

6 hours ago, kadhim said:

But it’s so widely practiced in our community that people glare at you and actively try to “correct” you if you just read the official adhaan. (Try it sometime; it’s fun). So it becomes a distinction without real practical meaning. 

The real official Adhaan is Shia adhan which I am hearing everyday which if you mean Sunni Adhan surly due to too much distortion of it it's not official Adhaan although majority of muslims recite it.

[Abu_Zahra]

22 minutes ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam I agree that this is optional anyway it's a divine decree in similar fashion of all of revelations to prophet Muhammad (pbu) which Allh has ordered it to prophet to teach it to people which it's not a creation any fallible human likewise Bilal (رضي الله عنه) or Umar & etc

It has no relation to previous calling people by poets or merchants in ignorance era also it's beauty is because it's source is divine revelation .

These distortions has done in similar fashion which previous divine scriptures have been distorted by subtracting or adding words by people likewise Umar & cursed Muawiah which according to narrations name of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) & testimony to his Imamate has been written on the Throne of Allah which as you have said saying it is not a part of Adhan or Iamah.

The real official Adhaan is Shia adhan which I am hearing everyday which if you mean Sunni Adhan surly due to too much distortion of it it's not official Adhaan although majority of muslims recite it.

So the aimmah (عليه السلام) were not reciting the 'real official' adhan according to you (since your adhan differs from theirs)?

[Ashvazdanghe]

11 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

So the aimmah (عليه السلام) were not reciting the 'real official' adhan according to you (since your adhan differs from theirs)?

Their Adhan has been same as us although we know mentioning Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is not part of it which except this optional part  rest of our Adhaan is adhaan of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) without any distortion.

[Abu_Zahra]

15 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Their Adhan has been same as us although we know mentioning Imam Ali (عليه السلام) is not part of it which except this optional part  rest of our Adhaan is adhaan of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) without any distortion.

So apart from one distortion there are no other distortions....

[Guest Psychological Warfare]

Ash hadu anna Amiral Muminina'Aliyyan Waliyyullah (i.e. I testify that the Commander of the Faithful Imam Ali (Peace be on him) is the vicegerent of Allah).

1) If one is a learned person, they can decide for themselves regarding Islamic Acts. 

2) If not learned, they need to follow on in Islamic Acts. 

3) take precautionary measures (ihtiyat) .

In Islamic acts, which are disputable, as some say it is and some say it is not part. The Learned people are divided on the issue. So, why are the common shia concerned with the technicality here. ? 

No matter if they say part or not , which is a technical issue among the learned people. even the ones who say it is not - they say  it is Mustahib ( recommended ) to recite it. 

end of discussion from the layman point of view. Mustahab- recite it. 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

9 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

So apart from one distortion there are no other distortions....

Salam it's not a distortion because it has not replaced instead of any line of Adhaan which in similar fashion no line of Adhaan has not removed from it which as all of Marjas have said it's just for blessing & slogan of shia out of contxt of Adhaan .

[Abu_Zahra]

16 hours ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

 

No matter if they say part or not , which is a technical issue among the learned people. even the ones who say it is not - they say  it is Mustahib ( recommended ) to recite it. 

Every pre Safavid scholar whose opinion is available and nearly all post Safavid scholars are unanimous that it isn't a part of the adhan. This doesn't even need to be debated.

Sheikh Saduq has said it is ghuluw. Sheikh Tusi said it was an error to recite this. Shaheed al Awwal, Shaheed al Thani and Muqaddas Ardabili also had the opinion that it is an innovation and nothing can be added or subtracted from the adhan.

It was only after the Safavid ruler Shah Ismail ordered it to be recited that it started to be accepted. 

For more information you may refer to the following article:

http://www.ltakim.com/Adhan.pdf

[Guest Psychological Warfare]

It is said /reported that Shaykh Saduq died in 991 AD / 380 A.H. We are in 2022 / 1444 A.H. So, it is an Old issue. (Pre- Safavid era). 

Now Who ruled over these areas Pre Safavid? Did the Shia Jurists had the freedom to express their opinion? Even Shaykh Saduq and Mufid were in the Buyid era- it is said / reported that they ( The Buyid's) were initially of zaidi inclination but later became  12 er's so it is said. It is said that the Buyids are favourable to Shaykh Saduq and Muifid. Now, fast forward, to current times, you see who is in charge makes a difference in approval and marketing of Material written by the Scholars. For example, if the Unity trend is supported, the martial / lectures will reflect it. You get my point. If you were to toe the line the Powers to be like it, your stuff gets recognized. 

Scholars of that era, would have been more concerned with getting the Major points printed and marketed and keeping the material out of censor. Once you get the freedom you can go into things with more freedom. 

The Known Universe, has been the same. They (old or new scholars) are ALL looking at the same Material (known universe). If they come to different conclusions, it may have to do with their theology, their method etc..

This is why I said, It is a Technical Issue, not of layman's concern. 

This issue is usually packaged as Part or Addition to Adhan. And the comments provided for this issue from it been recited as a Part. This is a very fine line, what layman usually miss. Look beyond the package, and see it for what it is. 

It is Mustahib recommended to recite it. If you don't want to you don't have to. No fuss. 

[Guest Psychological Warfare]

Quote

Sheikh Saduq has said it is ghuluw. Sheikh Tusi said it was an error to recite this. Shaheed al Awwal, Shaheed al Thani and Muqaddas Ardabili also had the opinion that it is an innovation and nothing can be added or subtracted from the adhan.

These statements are not something foreign to what Some of the current Scholars say. "As it is not part". or it is an innovation etc.. all in terms of as it been part. Not that you can't recite it as a Mustabih-recommanded. 

However, even if it is not part , they say Mustahib-recommended. 

Quote

والشهادة بولاية أمير المؤمنين (عليه السلام) مكملة للشهادة بالرسالة ومستحبة في نفسها وإن لم تكن جزءاً من الأذان ولا الإقامة.

السيد الخوئي

& 

Quote

 والشهادة لعليٍّ (عليه السلام) بالولاية وإمرة المؤمنين مكمّلة للشهادة بالرسالة ومستحبّة في نفسها وإن لم‏ تكن جزءاً من الأذان ولا الإقامة، وكذا الصلاة على محمَّد وآل محمَّد عند ذكر اسمه الشريف.

السيد السيستاني

 

[Abu_Zahra]

4 hours ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

Now Who ruled over these areas Pre Safavid? Did the Shia Jurists had the freedom to express their opinion?

Yes, Sheikh as Saduq grew up in Qum which was already a center of tashayyu in those days and he spent his last days living in Rayy under the Shiite Buyid dynasty.

Sheikh Tusi and Sheikh Mufid also lived and studied during the Buyid era. 

 

4 hours ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

If you were to toe the line the Powers to be like it, your stuff gets recognized

This is apparently what happened during the Safavid time. The rulers forced innovations and the people silently followed them, and many of the Safavid innovations still exist today.

4 hours ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

Scholars of that era, would have been more concerned with getting the Major points printed and marketed and keeping the material out of censor. Once you get the freedom you can go into things with more freedom. 

The muqadimeen like Saduq, Tusi and Mufeed were free from political pressure, which is why their works are aligned with the Quran and Hadith without political interference.

4 hours ago, Guest Psychological Warfare said:

 

It is Mustahib recommended to recite it. If you don't want to you don't have to. No fuss. 

Depends on who you are referring to. 5 to 6 centuries of early scholars considered it ghuluw, bid'ah or problematic at the least. 

The Safavid ruler Shah Ismail enforced it (along with other things) in the 10th century AH. 

There is not a single hadith, authentic or weak, showing that any Imam (عليه السلام) ever recited this. 

Therefore we have the sunnah of the Imams followed by the consensus of 6 centuries of Shia scholarship on one side, and the innovation of Shah Ismail on the other. 

Indeed the people can decide who they want to follow. The Ahlulbayt or the Safavids.

The main purpose of this post is simply to inform the laymen of the facts so that they can make an informed decision. 

[Ashvazdanghe]

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

Indeed the people can decide who they want to follow. The Ahlulbayt or the Safavids.

Salam clearly you see everything which comes from Iran as Safavid innovation also your whole of concept of innovation of Adhaan is based on "Sheikh as Saduq" opinion about his era so in similar fashion you follow him not The Ahlulbayt  also due that Imam Mahdi (aj) before & after Sheikh Saduq (ra0 has been in charge of Shia Muslim which until now in any of his meetings with some scholars has not mentioned Mustahab part of Adhaan about Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as innovation or distortion or Safavidism in similar fashion which Wahabists are saying that everything about shia islam which comes from Iran is Safavid innovation .

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

12 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

Every pre Safavid scholar whose opinion is available and nearly all post Safavid scholars are unanimous that it isn't a part of the adhan. This doesn't even need to be debated.

Sheikh Saduq has said it is ghuluw. Sheikh Tusi said it was an error to recite this. Shaheed al Awwal, Shaheed al Thani and Muqaddas Ardabili also had the opinion that it is an innovation and nothing can be added or subtracted from the adhan.

It was only after the Safavid ruler Shah Ismail ordered it to be recited that it started to be accepted. 

For more information you may refer to the following article:

http://www.ltakim.com/Adhan.pdf

Salam according to article Sheikh Saduq (رضي الله عنه) has said that it's concotion of Mafwidas which in whole of article I have not found anything about Ghuluw because eveyone from mentioned scholars have considered it as a reality & fact which even Muqadaddas Ardabili has allowed sending blessing to prophet Muhammad (pbu) & his family after mention his name in Adhaan anyway he has not considered as part of Adhaan because you can talk between Adhaan if your talking is not vain talk which objection of rest of great scholars is about wekness of document which it comes from Sunni sources or it's a Mursal Hadith anyway Shia jurists allow accepting such hadiths if these type of hadiths are logical enough & be in line with holy Quran & teachins of Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) anyway conclusion of article is that it's not a Ghuluw neither innovation nor a part of Adhaan which all Shia Jurist in consensus have allowed it if you recite it with intenion of that it's not a part of Adhaan just for blessing .

Your whole argument about Safavid innovation is futile because it's era has been a mixed blessing which based on article mentioning name of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) just officially orderd by Safavids as something which has existed before them as de facto matter which they have used it for seperation of Shias from non shias which about other innovation by them likewise Tatbir & official cursing of Sunni revered figures have been banned through time which specially after Islamic Iran revolution (IRI) which after IRI anti shia groups likewise Wahabists & Salafist has started to call IRI as reviving Safavid which before IRI they have no issue about about so called innovation of calling Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in Adhaan

at the end respectfully professor Liyakat A.Takim has no clear conclusion at end of his article also he is not neither a Mujtahid nor Marja which he is just a professor in religions anyway if you feel uncomfrotable when you hear name of Imam Ali (عليه السلام) in Adhaan so then you can put your fingers tightly in your ears to not hear it or sing with loud voice until it passes .

[Abu_Zahra]

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Salam clearly you see everything which comes from Iran as Safavid innovation

Wa alaikum as salam

Not everything, only those things which were introduced or institutionalized by the Safavids.

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

your whole of concept of innovation of Adhaan is based on "Sheikh as Saduq" opinion about his era so in similar fashion you follow him not The Ahlulbayt

It's not based on Shaikh as Saduq, rather on the consensus of the pre Safavid ulama of which Saduq is one. 

As for following the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام), we have several narrations of the adhan and iqamah that they recited. It is you who is defending the modified adhan, not me. I fully support following what the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) did.

5 hours ago, Ashvazdanghe said:

Imam Mahdi (aj) before & after Sheikh Saduq (ra0 has been in charge of Shia Muslim which until now in any of his meetings with some scholars has not mentioned Mustahab part of Adhaan about Imam Ali (عليه السلام) as innovation or distortion or Safavidism

Indeed, there are no narrations from the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) about this innovation. 

 

[Cool]

21 minutes ago, Mahdavist said:

Indeed, there are no narrations from the Ahlulbayt (عليه السلام) about this innovation. 

Lets have a look of what Sheikh Sadooq (عليه الرحمة) has mentioned in his Amali:

رَوَى الشيخ الصدوق ( رحمه الله ) قائلاً : حضر جماعة من العرب و العجم و القبط و الحبشة عند رسول الله ( صلَّى الله عليه و آله ) فقال لهم : " أ أقررتم بشهادة لا إله إلا الله و حده لا شريك له ، و ان محمداً عبده و رسوله ، و ان علي بن أبي طالب أمير المؤمنين و ولي الأمر بعدي ؟ " .
قالوا : اللهم نعم ، فكرره ثلاثاً و هم يشهدون على ذلك 

أمالي الصدوق : 230 ، مجلس رقم ( 60 )

After that there are sahih narrations recommending this:

رُوِيَ عن الإمام الصادق ( عليه السَّلام ) في حديث طويل أنه قال : " ... فإذا قال أحدكم لا إله إلا الله ، محمد رسول الله ، فليقل : علي أمير المؤمنين ولي الله " 

بحار الأنوار : 27 / 1 ، الحديث 1 من الباب : 1 

Another one:

رُوِيَ عن الإمام الصادق ( عليه السَّلام ) أنه قال : " من قال لا إله إلا الله ، محمدٌ رسول الله ، فليقل عليٌ أمير المؤمنين ولي الله "

بحار الأنوار : 38 / 318

All these ahadith are indicating the importance of third testimony. Sheikh Sadooq a.r is not our Imam, he was a respected scholar. And while you are referring here one of his fiqhi opinion and supporting it, I am quoting his another ruling, according to which the one who deny the wilayah/imamah of Ali (عليه السلام) and Imams after him, is a kafir:

واعتقادنا فيمن جحد إمامه أمير المؤمنين علي بن أبي طالب والأئمة من بعده عليهم السلام أنه كمن جحد نبوة جميع الأنبياء واعتقادنا فيمن أقر بأمير المؤمنين وأنكر واحدا من بعده من الأئمة أنه بمنزلة من أقر بجميع الأنبياء وأنكر نبوة نبينا محمد صلى الله عليه ?آله".

(محمد بن علي بن الحسين بن بابويه القمي الملقب عندكم بالصدوق في رسالة الاعتقادات (?103 ? مركز نشر الكتاب إيران 1370))

ونقل حديثا منسوبا إلى الإمام الصادق أنه قال: "المنكر لآخرنا كالمنكر لأولنا
 

وينسب أيضاً إلى النبي صلى الله عليه وآله أنه قال: "الأئمة من بعدي اثنى عشر أولهم أمير المؤمنين علي بن ابي طالب وآخرهم القائم طاعتهم طاعتي ومعصيتهم معصيتي من أنكر واحدا منهم قد أنكرني"

Now would you agree with him and declare everyone who do not believe in Imamate of 12 Imams as kafir? 

[Cool]

If the above is not enough, here is another hadith quoted by Sheikh Sadooq a.r in his book:

قال الصادق - عليه السلام -: (من شك في كفر أعدائنا الظالمين لنا فهو كافر).

(Whoever doubts the disbelief of our enemies who oppress us is an unbeliever)

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1135_الاعتقادات-في-دين-الإمامية-الشيخ-الصدوق/الصفحة_104

 

[Northwest]

On 12/11/2022 at 10:58 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi You have totally mixed & misunderstand difference between concept of waqf between Sunnis & shias  which also you have misunderstood history of Ottomans & dependency of Sunni scholars to Sunni government which maybe "Egypt’s al-Azhar " has been "operated largely independently" during Fatimid era

@Ashvazdanghe

I was only talking about the Sunni Ottoman waqf. I never mentioned Shia waqf. As far as the rest is concerned:

On 12/11/2022 at 10:58 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

which after fall of Fatimids it has become a totally dependant university & religious school in similar fashion of all of Sunni religious schools because since cursed Umayyads era all of religious Sunni scholars & schools have been total dependant parts of governments which all of Sunni scholars in similar fashion of all of employees of Sunni government have been totallay dependant to governments which since of establishment of Ottoman dynasty all of it's kings have been great feudals or they have been supporting by great feudals which any Otoman prince who has had support of majority of feudals so then he would became Ottoman king

This is precisely my point. The ruler could not rule without consent, so his power was limited. The feudal lords had the power to depose the titular head if he encroached on their sphere(s). So the ruler could not act unilaterally, against the majority of the feudal lords, and thereby become a one-man tyrant. The same principles, which discouraged concentration of power in the hand of one man, applied as much to medieval Iran as Ottoman territory. The Safavid system of tax-farming was similar to that of the Ottomans, outsourcing taxation to local notables and thereby reducing the influence of the central government. Both systems allowed for a considerable degree of local autonomy. From the previous link:

Quote

As Muslims increasingly acquired ḵarāj land and non-Muslims were converted to Islam, attempts were made because of fiscal pressures, to maintain, or restore, the status of ḵarāj land through the legal fiction that the land belonged to the community; and a new type of concession, known as eqṭāʿ (derived from the same root as qaṭīʿa) came to be found alongside the qaṭīʿa. Under this fiscal rights of the state over ḵarāj land were ceded to the grantee, the moqṭaʿ, while the land remained juridically in the hands of its former owners. …

By the beginning of the 10th century tax-farming was widespread and sometimes whole provinces were involved and the tax-farmers were often exceedingly powerful. … At first the right to collect revenue, mainly in the form of tasbībāt and eqṭāʿāt, was surrendered, and then increasingly the land itself was alienated from the control of the central government. ...

A toyūl was initially a temporary grant in return for service, but, like the Saljuq eqṭāʿ, it carried the right to collect (as well as to receive) the taxes of a district; and the grantee (toyūldār) was expected, like the moqṭaʿ of the administrative eqṭaʿ, to concern himself with the development of the district in which, or on which, he held a toyūl. In return for the grant he was usually required to provide a military contingent. ... No drafts were to be made on the taxes of the district or demands upon the inhabitants for military service (čerīk-e tāzīk) or any kind of due; and the tax officials (ḥazzārān wa ʿāšerān wa bītekčīān) were forbidden to enter the districts. ... The Safavid toyūl contained similar features and both it and the Timurid toyūl resembled the Saljuq administrative eqṭāʿ. ...

…the eqṭāʿ and the toyūl were often associated with the existence of a subject peasantry and with the fragmentation of authority, whether or not leading to disorder, … [yet–ed.] the eqṭāʿ was not held by a tenure similar to tenure by knight service by which the Anglo-Norman fief was held. … The relations between them were personal and not reciprocal. … The eqṭāʿ, the soyūrḡāl (in its Timurid form) and the toyūl were…devised to provide for the payment of the army and the government of the provinces, and, to a lesser extent, to reward supporters and favorites of the government.

^ The above shows that the Safavids also could not rule without the support of local feudal lords who performed duties instead of salaried bureaucrats in the capital.

On 12/11/2022 at 10:58 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

reform has been done by Muhammad Ali Pasha inorder to make him superior feudal which other feudals couldn't control him which on the other hand only he would control all of feudals & Sunni scholars

This is precisely my point. Prior to this point power was not centralised in the hands of a single Sunni ruler, but in the hands of many Sunni feudal lords. Muhammad Ali Pasha upset the age-old state of affairs in the Ottoman Empire by seizing all power for himself, upsetting the many local feudal lords and their bases of power in the clerical waqf. As I mentioned previously, Muhammad Ali Pasha started seizing control of the self-sufficient waqf and appointing his handpicked clerics, in addition to subjugating the feudal lords and turning them into handpicked, salaried officials who served at his behest. As you pointed out in the bolded, italicised sections below:

On 12/11/2022 at 10:58 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

which in opposition to your claim only Shia sholars & Hawzas have been independant from all of governments which Waqf board after reforms of Muhammad Ali Pasha has losen remaining independance so then becomes another governmental office under direct control of Muhammad Ali Pasha so therfore it couldn't decide about changing Adhan because Muhammad Ali Pasha has been controlling both of Waqf board & Sunni scholars which all of Sunni scholars have been against changing Adhan which they have been punishing anyone for any change in it .

However, as far as I know there is no evidence that Muhammad Ali Pasha started replacing the Arabic with a non-Arabic Adhan. (Even today Western-run Sunni puppet-regimes like those of the KSA and Egypt have not replaced the Arabic with a non-Arabic Adhan, regardless of whether one believes that the present recitation is less than perfect.) This to me supports the notion that the Adhan was not uniformly in Arabic to begin with, because, as you confirmed, prior to the reforms the Sunni waqf and clergy were largely independent of the central authorities, that is, not under their direct control. After all, prior to the rise of Muhammad Ali Pasha the government wasn’t going around punishing people for saying a non-Arabic Adhan, and if power is decentralised, then local feudal lords tend to reflect the demographics of their respective domains, be they Arabic-speaking or otherwise; the Ottoman Empire was obviously multilingual and multiethnic.

On 12/11/2022 at 11:14 AM, Ashvazdanghe said:

Hi we don't believe to story of tower of Babel which is only a fabrication of Jewish rabbies for their racist purposes likewise calling Jewishs as chosen ones  which even their language has superiority to other languages also accoring to holy Quran  differnces in languages has been created in order to people know Allah/God better as researching in his signs & creations  also Islam in opposition to other religions is a universal religion which as true  New World Order in oppsition to false Zionist New World Order will be became religion of whole of world which Arabic is heavenly divine language of Islam which according to narrations all of people in paradise will talk in Arabic with each other but on the other hand people in hell will speak in any language other than Arabic as Ajam languages .

The messages of verse 22 of Surah Rum

The difference between races and languages is a way to know Allah.وَاخْتِلَافُ أَلْسِنَتِكُمْ وَأَلْوَانِكُمْ ۚ إِنَّ فِي ذَٰلِكَ لَآيَاتٍ and the difference of your languages and colours. There are indeed signs in that ...

You are seemingly contradicting yourself. On the one hand you rightly condemn Jewish authorities for favouring Hebrew over all other languages, but then you go on to state that Arabic is the exclusive language of Paradise, while still asserting that linguistic diversity is somehow a blessing (to prove that Arabic is superior to all other tongues?). You can’t really assert that one language, any language, is superior to another without being ethnocentric and/or racist. Otherwise you are not really being consistent.

The Tower of Babel is mentioned in Shia sources, so it has not been manufactured wholesale by Jews. Also, how would Shiism otherwise explain the many languages?

[Abu_Zahra]

@Cool the debate is not about the wilayah of Imam Ali (عليه السلام). Every Shiite accepts this from the earliest era until today.  

The point is that the adhan recited by the aimmah (عليه السلام) and the Shiite community for over 900 years has now been replaced by an adhan which was originally attributed to the ghulat and mufawwidah and institutionalized by the Safawids. These are the simple facts and it is important for people to be aware of them so that they can decide which adhan they want to recite.

 

[Cool]

6 hours ago, Mahdavist said:

The point is that the adhan recited by the aimmah (عليه السلام) and the Shiite community for over 900 years has now been replaced by an adhan which was originally attributed to the ghulat and mufawwidah and institutionalized by the Safawids.

Salam,

Brother I knew what the point was. And I am actually trying to address the same by stating that the ruling or opinion of Sheikh Sadooq a.r is not a hujjah upon us. 

We should accept what our scholars are allowing us. We should place our trust on them. They have studied and understood the ahadith & our history in details. So saying third testimony in adhan & aqamah is mustahab according to most heavy weights while they also hold the position that it is not "part" of adhan and aqamah.

If you are desperately trying to find what Imams have recited in adhan & aqamah, I am quoting few ahadith which may surprise you where Imam (عليه السلام) is allowing to say alsalato khayrun min al-nawm in adhan:

6997) 4 - وعنه، عن أحمد بن الحسن، عن الحسين، عن فضالة، عن العلاء، عن محمد بن مسلم، عن أبي جعفر (عليه السلام) قال: كان أبي (عليه السلام) ينادي في بيته الصلاة خير من، النوم ولو رددت ذلك لم يكن به بأس

Now you have the hadith, would you like to add al-salato khayrun min al nawm in your adhan? 

Here is another:

6998) 5 - جعفر بن الحسن المحقق في (المعتبر) نقلا من كتاب أحمد بن محمد بن أبي نصر، عن عبد الله بن سنان، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: إذا كنت في أذان الفجر فقل: الصلاة خير من النوم بعد حي على خير العمل (1)، ولا تقل في الإقامة الصلاة خير من النوم هذا في الأذان

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1191_وسائل-الشيعة-آل-البيت-الحر-العاملي-ج-٥/الصفحة_425#:~:text=(6998) 5 - جعفر بن,في الاستبصار ١%3A في الأذان.

The following hadith is giving a new sequence of aqamah:

6991) 3 - وباسناده، عن سعد، عن أحمد بن محمد عن الحسين بن سعيد، عن صفوان ابن يحيى، عن عبد الله بن سنان، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: الإقامة مرة مرة إلا قول الله أكبر الله أكبر فإنه مرتان

So according to this only Allaho Akbar is said twice in aqamah. 

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1191_وسائل-الشيعة-آل-البيت-الحر-العاملي-ج-٥/الصفحة_423#top

6989) 1 - محمد بن الحسن باسناده، عن الحسين بن سعيد، عن فضالة، عن معاوية بن وهب، عن أبي عبد الله (عليه السلام) قال: الأذان مثنى مثنى والإقامة واحدة واحدة

(He (عليه السلام) said: The call to prayer is two by two, and the iqama is one by one)

http://shiaonlinelibrary.com/الكتب/1191_وسائل-الشيعة-آل-البيت-الحر-العاملي-ج-٥/الصفحة_422#top

 

[Abu_Zahra]

8 hours ago, Cool said:

Salam,

Brother I knew what the point was. And I am actually trying to address the same by stating that the ruling or opinion of Sheikh Sadooq a.r is not a hujjah upon us. 

Wa alaikum as salam. 

The discussion is not limited to Sheikh as Saduq.  It is firstly based on hadith, and when it comes to the adhan and iqamah we have narrations defining them and none of them match the post Safavid version that is popularly recited today.

Furthermore, it is not just Saduq but in fact every pre Safavid scholar who has addressed this point who are essentially aligned in saying that we shouldn't recite this in the adhan or iqamah.

8 hours ago, Cool said:

We should accept what our scholars are allowing us. We should place our trust on them

This isn't really a strong argument brother. When we know what the hadith are saying and what historically occurred we shouldn't shy away from doing what is correct. Furthermore, Saduq, Mufid, Shaheed al awwal, Shaheed ath thani, Muqaddas Ardabili, Allamah al Hilli and Muhaqqiq al Hilli are all scholars as well, so why disregard their opinion? Finally, even among contemporary scholars there are some that share the classical position. I would say that the most consistent position is therefore the classical one in this case.

8 hours ago, Cool said:

If you are desperately trying to find what Imams have recited in adhan & aqamah, I am quoting few ahadith which may surprise you where Imam (عليه السلام) is allowing to say alsalato khayrun min al-nawm in adhan:

One doesn't have to search desperately, the information is easily available in major hadith collections. 

The hadith doesn't surprise me, nor do the other ones you shared. If these narrations are authentic then I don't see any problem in a person reciting the adhan or iqamah in any of these ways.

The problem occurs when we abandon the sunnah of the ahlulbayt and adapt the sunnah of the ghulat and the Safawids.

[Cool]

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

when it comes to the adhan and iqamah we have narrations defining them and none of them match the post Safavid version that is popularly recited today.

In pre-safavid era we have narrations mentioning the saying of al-salato khayrun min al-nawm in adhan. Some of those ahadith have trustworthy isnaad but the scholars declared that it was said out of taqaiyyah. As mentioned in the report where Imam (عليه السلام) has said to abandon "haiyya ala khayril amal" in adhan:

حديث تفسير الأذان أنه قال: فيه 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 (صلى الله عليه وآله)، أشهد أن محمدا رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وآله)، حي على الصلاة، حي على الصلاة، حي على الفلاح، حي على الفلاح، الله أكبر، الله أكبر لا إله إلا الله، لا إله إلا الله، وذكر في الإقامة: قد قامت الصلاة.
قال الصدوق: إنما ترك الراوي حي على خير العمل، للتقية.

So what if Sheikh Sadooq was wrong? Or what if you somewhere misunderstanding what was meant by Sheikh Sadooq? Lets see the report first:

وقال الصدوق بعدما ذكر حديث أبي بكر الحضرمي وكليب الأسدي: هذا هو الأذان الصحيح لا يزاد فيه ولا ينقص منه، والمفوضة لعنهم الله قد وضعوا أخبارا وزادوا بها في الأذان محمد وآل محمد خير البرية مرتين، وفي بعض رواياتهم بعد أشهد أن محمدا رسول الله: أشهد أن عليا ولي الله مرتين ومنهم من روى بدل ذلك أشهد أن عليا أمير المؤمنين حقا مرتين ولا شك أن عليا ولي الله وأنه أمير المؤمنين حقا وأن محمدا وآله خير البرية، ولكن ذلك ليس في أصل الأذان،

All depends on your understanding of what he meant by وزادوا بها في الأذان.

Keeping in view the clear ahadith shared earlier, one can recite third testimony with the intention of istehbaab, instead of declaring it part of the adhan. 

Sheikh Sadooq himself accepting the truth that there is no doubt that Ali (عليه السلام) is the amir ul momineen truly. And he has not issued any ruling that saying the third testimony with the intention of istehbaab would invalidate the adhan.

So all you can argue with these sort of reports is that saying Aliyyun wali ullah is not the part of adhan, and we do agree that it is not the part of adhan.

On 12/14/2022 at 5:19 PM, Cool said:

 

رُوِيَ عن الإمام الصادق ( عليه السَّلام ) أنه قال : " من قال لا إله إلا الله ، محمدٌ رسول الله ، فليقل عليٌ أمير المؤمنين ولي الله "

بحار الأنوار : 38 / 318

Just like one says "wahdahu la shareeka lahu" after saying the first testimony. The phrase is not the part of أصل الأذان، and it is the truth too so saying it as mustahab zikr, doesn't invalidate the adhan. 

1 hour ago, Mahdavist said:

The problem occurs when we abandon the sunnah of the ahlulbayt and adapt the sunnah of the ghulat and the Safawids.

The problem actually occurs when you refuse understanding the simple fact and start accusing your brothers in faith that they are following the ghulat & safavids, while you know that they are not really following them.

You are not only accusing them of abandoning the sunnah of ai'mmah e tahireen (عليه السلام) but also rejecting the use of third testimony as istehbaab while there are many sahih ahadith present in our books, mentioning the importance of saying third testimony after the second. And you are also doubting on their sincerity, refusing to accept their clarification and trying to create a fitnah with that. 

For you, it is easy to say in hidden words that a vast majority of present day scholars and scholars of the past have "abandoned" the sunnah of Imams (عليه السلام). This is not more than a fitnah mongering. 

Edited December 15, 2022 by Cool

[Guest Psychological Warfare]

We are circling around the same non issue ( is it an Obligatory part  or not, addition, innovation to consider it a part etc,...) for layman. The learned People ( Ulama/Shaykh/Scholars/Jurists/Mujtahid/Marja- ie. SME's-Subject Matter Experts) are divided. (pre-post  some era or classical or contemporary or old or new , how many on this camp and how many on the other camp - whatever the case maybe). Beyond Layman pay grade. We don't have the clearance for such task. 

Now the question is for the Layman Shia, Is it a problem to recite it as a Mustahib-(Recommended):? No. End of discussion. 

Why complicate things? 

[Muhammad A-H]

Since the Prophet Muhammad and the A'immah never said the third testimony in the athan and the iqamah, there is no reason for us to include it, especially since the Prophet and the Ahl ul-Bayt know better than us. Just because it may be technically permissible does not mean that it is recommended nor that we should do it. If it was recommended, the Prophet Muhammad would have said the third testimony in the athan and iqamah within his lifetime, like following the event where he had announced that Imam Ali would be his successor.

[Abu_Zahra]

The facts have been repeatedly stated. There is no benefit to repeat them again and again. Anyone who reads the thread can determine what is from the sunnah and act accordingly.