Bismillah wa salatu wa salamu ala rasullah. Salam alaikum wa Rahmatullah. Those readers who spent some of their times by browsing our blog, seen some articles about famous and known shia shaykh as-Saduq, ibn Babaweyh al-Qummi. However, we’d like to present couple of additional quotes from shias scholars and books, and some old one from other editions. Continue reading
Salam alaikum, let me first introduce this shia scholar to dear reader. Nothing but a quote from shia site (quoted from ahlulbaytportal): Continue reading
Here the hideous Bid’ah of the hideous Rafidah (that some of the classical Rafidah even rejected, read HERE>>>),
As you can see the likes of Yasser Al-Habib have even included FATIMAH AND ABA AL-FADHL (half-brother of Al-Hussein) to the Adhan. And if anyone’s going to complain and looking for a excuse by saying that the Al-Habib dude is some sort of extremist, then know that ALL their scholars are extremists by definition, merely for adding ‘Aliyun Waliyullah’ to the Adhan, there are a scholars amongst them, other than Yasser Al-Habib who also not just add Ali but also FATIMAH and ALL the 12 Imams into the Adhan:
Ayatullah Modarresi’s hukm says regarding the inclusion of Fatimah (!!!) in the third testimony of Adhan & Iqaamah
هل يجوز في الأذان قول “أشهد أنّ علياً أمير المؤمنين والصديقة الطاهرة فاطمة الزهراء وأبنائهما المعصومين أولياء الله”؟
لا بأس بذلك بقصد الرجاء.
Q: Is it permissible to say in the Adhan: ‘I bear witness that Ali is the chief of the believers and that the truthful and pure Fatimah Az-Zahra’ and their
infallible sons are the Awliya (close friends) of Allah?’
A: There is nothing wrong with it, with the intention of Rajaa’ (doing something with the hope of the acceptance or pleasure of Allah)
Not good enough? What about a major Marja’ like Sistani:
Is it permissible to add the name of our mistress Fatimah Al-Zahra’ (SWA) into the THREE testimonies of the Adhan (making it FOUR) and Iqamah (like: I bear witness that Ali, Fatimah and her infallible sons are the proofs of Allah).
Answer/Fatwa by Ayatullah Al-‘Udhma Sayyid Ali Al-Hussayni Al-Sistani:
It is permissible to add the phrase into the Adhan and Iqamah!
Now check what Al-Sadooq (Ibn Babawayh Al-Qummi), one of the biggest classical Shia scholars said about those who ‘merely’ included Ali into the Adhan:
Book: Man Laa YaHduruh Al-Faqeeh, vol. 1, pg. 290 – 291
Author: In Babawayh al-Qummi (‘Al-Sadooq’)
COMMENT: After all those centuries of lying the Rafidah are still not ashamed to throw around with terms like BID’AH! I mean, what the heck? They are DROWN into Bid’ah how can they even use the word Bid’ah? They should avoid it just as they’ve nearly avoided the term TAWHID and SUNNAH (hence you see everything aroung them is Ail/Wilayah/Ali/Wilayah/Hussein/Mahdi/Fatimah/Wilayah/Wilayah etc.). They accuse the Sahabah of Bid’ah (like Omar adding to the Fajr Adhan, which is nothing but a LIE: REFUTATION 1>>>and 2>>>), yet they have not a SINGLE Sahih narration where the Prophet صل الله عليه و على آله و سلم ordered or agreed with their Bid’ah of “Aliyun Waliullah” in the Adhan. They (like Yasser Al-Habib above) even added the name FATIMAH (RA) into the Adhan!
This sect is constantly changing, at first they never said it, then there appeared some Ghulat as Sadooq says who started saying it and he accused them of being cursed heretics, a couple of years later the practice becomes wide spread among them so their scholars start allowing it, a couple of years later many opinions arise all of them claiming that it is “Mustahabb” or recommended to say it during Adhan, and finally in our days we’re starting to see new opinions saying that this is WAJIB and that Fatimah should be included etc…. And the journey of the deviants continue. In fact this Bid’ah (just like the black and white turban clergy caste system amongt the Shias) is an Safavid innovation. The modern Rafidah scholars aren’t the first major scholars to allow it, before them Al-Majlisi the first and al-Majlisi the second (ie. Mohammad Taqi AlMajlisi and Mohammad Baqir Majlisi ) allowed it, when it was basically becoming the ‘norm’ under the Safavids. So it was the palace scholar of the Safavids, the heretic Al-Majlisi (who introduced so many Majoosi elements into the already full of superstition and heresies rotten Shia sect) who backed up his father and said that doing this 3rd testimony in the Adhan / Iqaamah is a great act. The Shias who in their propaganda always claim that the Sunni schools are actually results of the Umayyad dynasties have actually introduced a heretical innovation into the Adhan that was started by the blood thirsty Safavids with the HELP of Shia scholars! It was Shah Isma`il, leader of Safawid dynasty who said to first add the 3rd testimony in Adhaan. And as stated before, the first major scholar to add it was al-Majlisi I (Muhammad Taqi al-Majlisi) in his RawDah al-Muttaqeen, vol. 2, pg. 245-246 also in his Persian commentary of Man Laa Yahduruh al-Faqeeh called Lawaam` Saahibaqaraani, vol. 3, pg. 565-567. According to his statements in these books, the wilayah in the Adhaan was already prominent (because of Shah Isma`il’s decree). al-Majlisi’s I teacher stopped reciting the 3rd testimony in adhan, because of that he was being accused of being Sunni, so al-Majlisi I convinced him to do so. Then, his son al-Majlisi II (Muhammad Baaqir al-Majlisi) followed his dad’s footsteps and tried to provide “proofs” for it in his magnum opus called Bihaar al-Anwaar.
The first one to say it is mustahab was al-Majlisi II, in his Bihaar al-Anwaar, vol. 81, pg. 111:
و أقول لا يبعد كون الشهادة بالولاية من الأجزاء المستحبة للأذان لشهادة الشيخ و العلامة و الشهيد و غيرهم
And I say: ‘it is not improbable that the shahaadah of wilaayah is from the mustahab parts of the adhaan based off the testimony of al-Shaykh (al-Toosi), al-`Allaamah (al-Hilli), al-Shaheed (al-Thaani), and others’
But in fact there are 0 (zero) SaHeeH hadeeth from Shee’ah books that says that it is permissible to add the 3rd testimony in Adhaan or Iqaamah. Or ANY hadeeth that says that it is mustahab (recommended), or anything that says “do it with the intention of it NOT being part of the adhaan/iqaamah”. None. Zero. Nada.
Related posts from Gift2Shias:
1. New phenomena: Outright rejection of the very existence of Ibn Saba’ by a contemporary Shia scholars and propagandists
2. Ibn Saba’ the Jew in Shia books – an unknown reality to many Shias
3. Shia Objection: Ibn Saba’ did existed, but Tashayyu’ (Shiism) and the Imamite sect are innocent of him
All Sunni and Shia authorities were agreed upon (the existence and reality of Abdullah bin Saba’ (although the Shia sect of course tries to deny that the foundation of Rafhd/rejectionis was taken by a Jew) until the Orientalists such as Bernard Lewis, Julius Wellhausen, Friedlander, and Caetani Leone started to cast doubt about the existence of Abdullah bin Saba’, and they were followed in that by ignorants such as Taha Hussain, Muhammad Kaamil Hussain, Adnan Ibrahim and other pro-Shia Sunnis. Needless to say that the Rafidha scholars jumped on the wagon and (in contrary to their forefathers) suddenly claimed that Ibn Saba’ is actually a myth created by the evil Umayyads to tarnish the reputation of the Shias (a claim by the likes of Murtadha Al-‘Askari, Muhammad Aal Kashif Al-Ghita etc.). Prior to 1300H (1900CE) there was no dispute about this matter at all. The contemporary Shia found in the writings of those Orientalists what was the delight of the eye and thus they began authoring in order to cast doubt about the existence of Abdullah bin Saba’, as this would allow them to dismiss a large part of the criticism against them and their sect.
As stated before, contemporary Rawafidh (in opposition to their classical scholars) …
Hereafter mention is made of the discovery of the grave of Sayyiduna ‘Ali ibn Abi Talib radiyallahu ‘anhu at Najaf 150 years after his death. Shirazi explains the initial secrecy surrounding the location of the graves in light of fear that the Umayyads would desecrate the grave. However, what he doesnot explain is why the location of the grave was revealed by Imam Musa al-Kazim to the Khalifah Harun ar-Rashid when the Abbasids, according to the Shi‘ah, were no less cruel to the ‘Alawis than were the Umayyads.
Hasan al-Amin writes in his Shorter Shi’ite Encyclopaedia: “Then came Abbasid rule. They were more severe upon the Alawides in their persecution and cruelty as well as upon the Shi’ites as compared to the Omayyides. Their rule was more troublesome and bitter for them, as a poet has said: ‘By God, the Omayyids did not do one-tenth in their case, as Banu Abbas did.’ Amir Abul Faras al-Hamadani says: ‘Banu Harab (Omayyids) did not succeed in these crimes even though though they intended to, as compared to your success.’ (p. 36)”
Shia scholar Hujjatul Islam Mirza Muhammad Taqi in his book “Saheefatul Abrar” (1/328) narrated: Continue reading
The infallible having a dispute with the other infallible and al-Majlisi like all Shia scholars finds that the only escape is Taqqiyah.