https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKKwRg-ujcY

Kamal al-Hydari is a liar. No use listening to him!
Even when he appears to be quoting from a book, he LIES


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bqCtekfCibU

^
there is no lie in the video by Ayatollah Haidary,the slayer of wahhabism.the hatred of Ibn Taymiyyah for Ahlul-Bayt (as) and his pro-ummayyd views are well known and documented.Ayatollah Haidary is simply reading out what Ibn Taymiyyah cited,and Ibn Taymiyyah didnt cite the narrations he was referring to.and what are described in the video as slander by the Shia for Sayyida Fatima (as) is beyond ridiculous.her husband was forcefully arrested to pay allegiance to abu bakr,and you expect her emotions to be calm and for her apply no pressure as the daughter of the Prophet (s)? the Prophet (s) used to pay immense respect to her,and you regard that too as slander?

anyways,if he "lied" in one video according to you,is that enough for you to discredit the video in the OP? examine the message not the messenger.

Trying to explain away the lie in the 2nd video does YOU no credit
The man apologised for his lies. So what is the point in defending it?
If you continue like this, you will only end up achieving the opposite of every intention you have

Zhul-fiqar:
^
you are very malicious and spiteful and in that way you will remain in your bunker of ignorance.if the man as you say apologized for his "mistake",then its human error.there is no "lie" in the video but either misunderstanding or error because he was merely quoting text.he was obviously quoting ibn taymiyyah thinking what he was quoting are the very words of ibn taymiyya

As I say? Why don't you watch the video as you advice others to listen to the other side
And you are emphatic that there is no lie!

Zhul-fiqar:
at least if Ayatollah Haidary apologized as you say he realized his mistake.so why do you still call him "liar"? this is very desperate by your likes.nonetheless the malice of ibn taymiyyah for the Ahlul-Bayt (as) and his ummayyad agenda are well documented and known,regardless of this episode by Ayatollah Haidary.

Realised? or
He got carried away by his prejudice against Ibn Taymiyyah and can use that to sway his audience who would not check the facts

Alhamdu li Llah, PEOPLE can watch the video and make up THEIR minds
Anyway nobody in Nigeria believes MTN & Airtel introduced pay-by-second because they love Nigerians and want to reduce prices
No did they introduced PBS because Glo forced their hands

Haidary owned up to the lie and apologised only because viewers pointed out his lies
So he had no choice.
But we note that he brought the book to the TV programme, pointed out the supposed statements of ibn Taymiyyah
If an Ayahtollah is not sure why raise the issue and bring a book
If he was sure why try to pool the wool over people's eyes?

Zhul-fiqar:
^
you are very malicious and spiteful and in that way you will remain in your bunker of ignorance.

Have a very very pleasant day

Thoroughly Debunked

Ayatollah Kamal al-Haidary obviously mistook the wrong selection.there is enough documented proof for Ibn Taymiyya's hatred for the Ahlul-Bayt (as),which includes Sayyida Fatima (as),and Ibn Taymiyya's Ummayyad legacy in showing animosity for Imam Ali (as) and his descendants.have fun:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ml5R_alxLG8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEunjfIfVU


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeLo8GbKJZw

may Allahs blessing be upon the prophet and his noble companions
@ zhul fiqar;
All these are unfounded and the work of those trying to divide Islam through lies and manipulation of the people.

Its unfortunate u have followed the path of misguidance and arguing or attempting to debunk what u r propagating is a waste of time for they lack basis.

May Allah guide u to what is pure,Islam as understood by our salaf(companions and pious predecessors) remove the disease in ur heart and replace with love for those the Prophet Muhammed SAW loved and those he praised... at least say amiin and dont reply with hate...

abdul4hire: may Allahs blessing be upon the prophet and his noble companions
@ zhul fiqar;
All these are unfounded and the work of those trying to divide Islam through lies and manipulation of the people.

Its unfortunate u have followed the path of misguidance and arguing or attempting to debunk what u r propagating is a waste of time for they lack basis.

May Allah guide u to what is pure,Islam as understood by our salaf(companions and pious predecessors) remove the disease in ur heart and replace with love for those the Prophet Muhammed SAW loved and those he praised... at least say amiin and dont reply with hate...

^^^^^^^^^


the legacy of Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Abdul-Wahhab and their wahhabism/salafism :

"A Timeline Of Sectarian Terrorism Against Shia Muslims"
https://www.nairaland.com/961495/timeline-sectarian-terrorism-against-shia

"Genocide Of Shia Muslims In Pakistan"
https://www.nairaland.com/1120418/genocide-shia-muslims-pakistan

"Terrorist Plot To Bomb Imam Ali Mosque,Assasinate Ayat. Sistani Foiled"
https://www.nairaland.com/1126860/terrorist-plot-bomb-imam-ali

From the stable of Hydari
He likes to bring books to "prove" the authenticity of his claims

The summary of Hydari's position

Hydari faults this assertion that Shaytan is afraid of Umar (RA)
But Hydari believes that Allah (SWT) is afraid that companions like Umar (RA) will distort the Quran

So we ask: Allah who has said he is the best of planners cannot thwart the efforts/plots of human beings?
Liars can do and say anything
May Allah save us from them


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97JxI7xxLE

BetaThings: From the stable of Hydari
He likes to bring books to "prove" the authenticity of his claims

The summary of Hydari's position

Hydari faults this assertion that Shaytan is afraid of Umar (RA)
But Hydari believes that Allah (SWT) is afraid that companions like Umar (RA) will distort the Quran

So we ask: Allah who has said he is the best of planners cannot thwart the efforts/plots of human beings?
Liars can do and say anything
May Allah save us from them


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f97JxI7xxLE

Remove the plank from your eye before you can claim to spot the sawdust in your brother's eye.I can see that this thread is still causing unease.learn to learn first and you can argue later,before you close your heart.

The assertion that shaitan is afraid of umar is utterly ridiculous.this assertion was designed in this way to counter the evidence cited by Shia against umar,that would portray him as "satan incarnate". Shaitan in Sunni texts is not afraid of the Prophet (s) as Sunnis claim instances the Prophet (s) made mistakes,committed "minor sins" and was forgetful.but they claim it was umar shaitan was afraid of.so who deserve to be "prophet of God" for Sunnis,Muhammad (s) or Umar ?

Before you talk nonsense that Ayatollah Haidary is "afraid" that Umar would distort the Quran,something Allah (jj) promised to preserve,I should tell you that centuries before Ayatollah Haidary was born,it was Usthman (the third Sunni caliph and successor to Umar) that was afraid the Quran would fall into distortion;he destroyed copies of the Quran and made other copies he sent to different parts of muslim lands.didn't Usthman know Allah (jj) promised to preserve His book? You talk nonsense out of no point at all.worse,when you lock your brain,the points you raise come back to punch you hard in the face.please go and learn.I'm really sorry for talking this harsh to you.but it is very annoying when you don't talk in a collective way,and you only cherry-pick as you like,and you even use points that well grounded in Sunni texts to turn them around and confront the Shia with them.

I'm happy you are coming to see the videos on youtube of Ayatollah Kamal al-Haidary.you need to watch them.give him a chance and see how a Muslim can think freely yet in accordance with Islam.those clips you run,whose authors imagine they can "refute" al-Haidary,will only lead you into further mental blockage.

I'm looking forward to your reply,where you will leave aside the main points you raised on Umar and the Quran,and you will divert to show how it is me who "cherry-pick" and who has a mental blockage.then you will bring more redherrings not related to this thread to go into an endless circle of irrelevant arguments and counter-arguments.that is the trademark of honorable,BateThings!

Zhul-fiqar:

The assertion that shaitan is afraid of umar is utterly ridiculous.this assertion was designed in this way to counter the evidence cited by Shia against umar,that would portray him as "satan incarnate". Shaitan in Sunni texts is not afraid of the Prophet (s) as Sunnis claim instances the Prophet (s) made mistakes,committed "minor sins" and was forgetful.but they claim it was umar shaitan was afraid of.so who deserve to be "prophet of God" for Sunnis,Muhammad (s) or Umar ?

It does not matter to me if Umar (RA) was so terrifying to shaytan or not. That is not the issue.
What matters is what an Ayatollah believes about the powers of Allah

Zhul-fiqar:

I'm looking forward to your reply,where you will leave aside the main points you raised on Umar and the Quran,and you will divert to show how it is me who "cherry-pick" and who has a mental blockage.then you will bring more redherrings not related to this thread to go into an endless circle of irrelevant arguments and counter-arguments.that is the trademark of honorable,BateThings!

when you lock your brain,the points you raise come back to punch you hard in the face.please go and learn.I'm really sorry for talking this harsh to you.but it is very annoying when you don't talk in a collective way,and you only cherry-pick as you like,and you even use points that well grounded in Sunni texts to turn them around and confront the Shia with them.

hahahaha
You have forgotten, you have forgotten! I don't have a brain!!!

Zhul-fiqar:

I'm happy you are coming to see the videos on youtube of Ayatollah Kamal al-Haidary.you need to watch them.give him a chance and see how a Muslim can think freely yet in accordance with Islam.those clips you run,whose authors imagine they can "refute" al-Haidary,will only lead you into further mental blockage.

BetaThings: So we ask: Allah who has said he is the best of planners cannot thwart the efforts/plots of human beings?
Liars can do and say anything

Need to watch Ayatollah Hydari? Give him a chance? Really. I might as well send my brain to a church!
Oh I have forgotten, you have said I don't have a brain. Sorry then, nothing for Ayatollah Hydari to work on!

Zhul-fiqar:

Before you talk nonsense that Ayatollah Haidary is "afraid" that Umar would distort the Quran,something Allah (jj) promised to preserve,I should tell you that centuries before Ayatollah Haidary was born,it was Usthman (the third Sunni caliph and successor to Umar) that was afraid the Quran would fall into distortion

BetaThings:
Hydari faults this assertion that Shaytan is afraid of Umar (RA)
But Hydari believes that Allah (SWT) is afraid that companions like Umar (RA) will distort the Quran

It is always wonderful talking to you guy - rare privilege to be so enriched by your clarifications and distortions
Hydari afraid? No. How? I have never seen a fearful Shia before
According to Hydari, it Was ALLAH who was afraid. (Aoothu bi Llah)
And that is the problem. A human being (Haidary or Umar) being afraid is really nothing
But Allah being afraid is a very biiiiiiig deal!
Massive difference. Only the Shias can contemplate that

Seriously, some of the things you guys say on tape cannot be posted because the enemies of Islam will pounce

BetaThings:

It does not matter to me if Umar (RA) was so terrifying to shaytan or not. That is not the issue.
What matters is what an Ayatollah believes about the powers of Allah

this has nothing to do with the powers of Allah (jj).

watching such videos is very ridiculous and blasphemous because the creator of the video is the one interpreting and putting his satanic imaginations into someone's mouth.and you wholeheartedly dwell in their ignorance and rejoice.its an insult to human intelligence.

the designer of the video clip brought two separate lectures and then concluded that satan must be "braver" than Allah (astaghfirullah) because satan is not afraid of Umar according to Ayatollah al-Haidary but Allah was "afraid" of Umar.these are the words of the creator of the video.he is the one falsely accusing (by his conclusion)someone else of the saying that satan is "braver" than Allah (jj)-astaghfirullah!!! this clearly shows that Sunni mockery and blindness stems from ignorance,and in this particular case ignorance of the arabic language.

the correct English word for "khawf" (as obviously spelled out by Ayatollah Haidary) is "weary" (in the verb form).we see this example where Allah (jj) is described as being in a state of "Khushoo" or "Yakh-sha" in the Holy Quran (al-Fatir 28).this goes to show that whoever designed that video that BetaThing is rejoicing over and Vedaxcool is thanking him for and describing as "truth",are playing on the ignorance of audience like BetaThing and Vedaxcool.clearly blindness and misguidance is built on ignorance.worse,these are false claims and outright lies.for instance,in the video,for the fact that Imam Ali's (as) name is not mentioned,the designer of the video jumps to state that the doctrine of imamate is not found in the Quran!!! imamate is there in the Quran and also Imam Ali's (as) imamate is there and many verses about Imam Ali (as) are there in the Quran.the only thing is that the name is not mentioned but reference is made to him.

here is the Quran verse where the word "Yakh-Sha" in reference to Allah (jj) is made:

"YAKH-SHA ALLAHU MIN IBADIHI AL-ULAMA" (AL- Fatir 28)

can we say that based on the above verse in Surat al-Fatir Verse 28,Allah (jj) is "scared" or "afraid"? ofcourse not! and non-muslims have tried to misinterpret that verse to lie,just as Ayatollah Haidary's statement is been taken out of context.

and furthermore the word "fear" in arabic have many meanings,"khawf" in this case not morbid, or literal all and does not negate Allah's superiority.definitely Ayatollah Haidary never meant that Allah (jj) was scared of Umar or could not deal with him.he simply conveyed the idea that the wisdom behind Allah (jj) not stating Imam Ali's (as) name in the Quran is because of His fore-knowledge that people like Umar would either eject or distort the Quran.ofcourse for those who say that Allah (jj) would preserve His book,yes He will.but that could still result in the presence of two Qurans-one for the Shia (the preserved one) and one for the Sunnis (the distorted one).to ensure the uniformity of the Quran,it was Allah's wisdom in how the Quran was revealed that played.

yet still,we see the wisdom of Allah (jj) and the uniqueness of the language of the Quran as the word "Aliyyan" which is (a tense) used in reference of Imam Ali (as) does appear in the Quran without much notice and very much translated in disregard to the idea that ALIYA does stand as a noun (nevertheless the word "ALIYA" is also a noun) :

"WA WAHABNA LAHOM MIR-RAHMATINA WA JA'ALNA LAHOM LISANA SEDQEN ALIYA". (19:50)

hahahaha
You have forgotten, you have forgotten! I don't have a brain!!!

thanks for the reminder.

Need to watch Ayatollah Hydari? Give him a chance? Really. I might as well send my brain to a church!
Oh I have forgotten, you have said I don't have a brain. Sorry then, nothing for Ayatollah Hydari to work on!

you are now exposed and found to really not have a brain.you are easily misled.why couldn't rationalizing such a simple trick? oh,yeah you dont understand arabic.too bad you depend on others to think for you!

It is always wonderful talking to you guy - rare privilege to be so enriched by your clarifications and distortions
Hydari afraid? No. How? I have never seen a fearful Shia before
According to Hydari, it Was ALLAH who was afraid. (Aoothu bi Llah)
And that is the problem. A human being (Haidary or Umar) being afraid is really nothing
But Allah being afraid is a very biiiiiiig deal!
Massive difference. Only the Shias can contemplate that

Seriously, some of the things you guys say on tape cannot be posted because the enemies of Islam will pounce

this your post should go down as the all time **** up on nairaland! really ridiculous how someone from your sect who designed a video to defame by putting words into Ayatollah Haidary's mouth (and you believe that Ayatollah Haidary said Allah is "afraid" ) turned out to be a liar who is misrepresenting facts and misunderstanding arabic.

i know the expose on Ibn Taymiyyah drove you wild.so you wanted to fire back against Ayatollah Haidary.my advice to you: try harder because the Shia and their scholars are definitely not what you think of.you remind me of non-muslims who misunderstand the Quran by distorting it themselves,and then want to argue based on their own misunderstanding.you are proven to be someone who can easily be misled.now you have a choice between acquiring knowledge like a good student does or learning comedy and continuing in misguidance.its your choice.

^^^^
Running wild? You like to think you have somebody figured out perfectly
Rejoice? You don't know me

You don't need to fill up a whole page to defend Hydari

Hydari said that Allah did not put the name of Ali in the Qur'an

For this reason, Allah (SWT) feared that if Ali's name is mentioned in the Qur'an they (the companions of the Prophet, PBUH) would have rejected the Qur'an

Ayatollah Hydari added that
the name (of Ali) was not mentioned so that the basis of Islam and Qur'an does not get rejected

The reason for not mention the name (of Ali), there was wisdom in it
It was to preserve the Qur'an from distortion
and so the Qur'an remains safe and secure in our hands

Ayatollah Hydari used the words
Allah, Subhannahu wa Taala, Khauf

Forget the comments by the person who uploaded the video. All the statements in red colour are from Ayatollah Hydari

Zhul-fiqar:


the correct English word for "khawf" (as obviously spelled out by Ayatollah Haidary) is "weary" (in the verb form).we see this example where Allah (jj) is described as being in a state of "Khushoo" or "Yakh-sha" in the Holy Quran (al-Fatir 28).

here is the Quran verse where the word "Yakh-Sha" in reference to Allah (jj) is made:

"YAKH-SHA ALLAHU MIN IBADIHI AL-ULAMA" (AL- Fatir 28)
can we say that based on the above verse in Surat al-Fatir Verse 28,Allah (jj) is "scared" or "afraid"? ofcourse not! and non-muslims have tried to misinterpret that verse to lie,just as Ayatollah Haidary's statement is been taken out of context.

Fear Allah
Fear Allah
Fear Allah

That verse is well known. I have even sued it before
"Only those fear Allah , from among His servants, who have knowledge. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Forgiving." 35:28
Look at this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/1100177/ho.mo.se.xua.lity-weird-rationalisation#12942945

Min ibadihi, Ulama are clear words

Tafsir ibn Kathir
It is only those who have knowledge among His servants that fear Allah.) those who know that Allah is able to do all things. Ibn `Abbas said, "The one among His servants who knows about Ar-Rahman, is the one who does not associate anything in worship with Him; the one who accepts as lawful that which He has permitted and accepts as unlawful that which He has prohibited. He obeys His commands and is certain that he will meet Him and be brought to account for his deeds. Sa`id bin Jubayr said, "Fear is what stands between you and disobeying Allah, may He be glorified.'' Al-Hasan Al-Basri said, "The knowledgeable person is the one who fears Ar-Rahman with regard to the Unseen, who likes that which Allah wants him to like, and who shuns that which angers Allah.'' Then Al-Hasan recited the verse:


Sufyan Ath-Thawri narrated from Abu Hayyan At-Taymi from a man who said, "It used to be said that the knowledgeable are of three types: (first) one who knows Allah and the command of Allah, (second) one who knows Allah but does not know the command of Allah, and (third) one who knows the command of Allah but does not know Allah. The one who knows Allah and the command of Allah is the one who fears Allah and knows the limits (Hudud) and the obligatory duties (Fara'id). The one who knows Allah but does not know the command of Allah is the one who fears Allah but does not know the limits (Hudud) and the obligatory duties (Fara'id). The one who knows the command of Allah but does not know Allah is the one who knows the limits (Hudud) and the obligatory duties (Fara'id) but does not fear Allah.''

Zhul-fiqar:

and furthermore the word "fear" in arabic have many meanings,"khawf" in this case not morbid, or literal all and does not negate Allah's superiority.definitely Ayatollah Haidary never meant that Allah (jj) was scared of Umar or could not deal with him.he simply conveyed the idea that the wisdom behind Allah (jj) not stating Imam Ali's (as) name in the Quran is because of His fore-knowledge that people like Umar would either eject or distort the Quran.ofcourse for those who say that Allah (jj) would preserve His book,yes He will.but that could still result in the presence of two Qurans-one for the Shia (the preserved one) and one for the Sunnis (the distorted one).to ensure the uniformity of the Quran,it was Allah's wisdom in how the Quran was revealed that played.

Please don't go the way of Christians
Allah (SWT) does whatever He intends. Quran 85: 16

Allah cannot be wearied. He is the best of planners. He cannot be out thought or outsmarted
Allah is not fearful. Khauf is used for fear (see Surataul Quraish, Salatul Khauf etc)
If he wanted to put the name of Ali, there was no need for subterfuge. He would have put it there
and whoever wanted to be a Muslim would be and those who rejected Islam (even people close to the Prophet, PBUH) would still have rejected it

Zhul-fiqar:

yet still,we see the wisdom of Allah (jj) and the uniqueness of the language of the Quran as the word "Aliyyan" which is (a tense) used in reference of Imam Ali (as) does appear in the Quran without much notice and very much translated in disregard to the idea that ALIYA does stand as a noun (nevertheless the word "ALIYA" is also a noun) :

"WA WAHABNA LAHOM MIR-RAHMATINA WA JA'ALNA LAHOM LISANA SEDQEN ALIYA". (19:50)

Notice? So the tafsir was not done? The Prophet did not explain the verses? strange. very peculiar!
The claim that the name of Ali ibn Talib (RA) is in the Qur'an, it is one of the strange innovations of the Shia
Just like the Shia innovation of mentioning his name in the Adhan

Zhul-fiqar:

you are now exposed and found to really not have a brain.you are easily misled.why couldn't rationalizing such a simple trick? oh,yeah you dont understand arabic.too bad you depend on others to think for you!

Clearly this is the language of Lagos Shia. I have been missing you. Nice to see that you have not abandoned NL!
Good thing. You will come round!!!

Duplicate

@BetaThing
One thing your debate will always lack is maturity and the same with the video you came to post.in fact it is ridiculous and comic how they designed the video in the process to mislead.let us for argument sake say that we should understand Ayatollah Haidary's statement in a literal manner.at most you can say he used the wrong word to convey a valid idea that it was "the fear" that some companions would distort the Quran that made the name of Imam Ali (as) not to appear.in order to ensure uniformity,use those companions as a test for the ummah and have their punishment postponed (just like Iblis),the name didn't appear.if you decide to interpret that expression of "fear" literally,you are on your own.as for every Shia including the great Ayatollah Haidary (the slayer of wahhabism),we believe Allah is afraid literally of no one and to Him belong all powers.

The fact remain that Imam Ali (as) is made reference to in the Quran.according to a Sunni source no sahaba had as many verses revealed in relation to/honor of him than Imam Ali (as).and if you want to take verse 19:50 literal,the name ALIYA is there in the Quran.don't talk about Adhan because it is a completely different topic on its own.the Sunni adhan is incomplete and also contains a Bid'ah,as words are removed and replaced with what wasn't there by Umar.it is of honor to testify to the wilayah (divinely appointed leadership/imamate of Imam Ali),as it is an essential block in the completion and perfection of Islam and the revelation of the verse of perfection (5:3).

"Tradition and Heresy in Adhan (Call to Prayer) "
http://www.al-islam.org/shiism_in_sunnism/6.htm

^^^^
Even from the video of Amar Nakhswani that Devotedone posted, it is clear that he does not agree with you on the issue of adhan
It is a latter-day innovation. Watch the video
best of luck with your "explain everything away" methodology

BetaThings: ^^^^
Even from the video of Amar Nakhswani that Devotedone posted, it is clear that he does not agree with you on the issue of adhan
It is a latter-day innovation. Watch the video
best of luck with your "explain everything away" methodology

it depends on what you mean by "innovation".if you mean the islamic terminology known as "bid'ah" then you're wrong and that is not what Sayyid Ammar Nakhshawani meant.

the adding of "Aliyyan Amirul-Mu'mineen Waliullah"(Ali is the commander of the faithful and wali/friend of/leader by Allah) in the adhan was introduced later on due to circumstances,like in the days of Muawiya when the cursing of Imam Ali (as) was forced into the pulpits of mosques across muslim lands.the clause in the adhan is something new,but definitely not everything new is bid'ah.also,the clause is a testimony in Islam like many others are.for something to be termed bid'ah (innovation) in Islam,it must first be haram (forbidden).that is the Shia understanding.now you can say the clause in the adhan is new,but definitely not bid'ah.it is mustahab (preferred) if it is added,just as you can also testify to belief in Qiyama (resurrection) among others.

when it comes to the Sunni adhan,first it was shortened.that is a change of the adhan.Umar replaced/removed "hayya ala khayril amal" (come to the best of deeds);and in the fajr adhan "assalatu khayrun minnan-nawm" was introduced.on what grounds in Islam can these changes (addition and subtraction) in the Sunni adhan be justified? therefore,there goes the bid'ah.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5X47dAl06tQ

Zhul-fiqar:


it depends on what you mean by "innovation".if you mean the islamic terminology known as "bid'ah" then you're wrong and that is not what Sayyid Ammar Nakhshawani meant.

the adding of "Aliyyan Amirul-Mu'mineen Waliullah"(Ali is the commander of the faithful and wali/friend of/leader by Allah) in the adhan was introduced later on due to circumstances,like in the days of Muawiya when the cursing of Imam Ali (as) was forced into the pulpits of mosques across muslim lands.the clause in the adhan is something new,but definitely not everything new is bid'ah.also,the clause is a testimony in Islam like many others are.for something to be termed bid'ah (innovation) in Islam,it must first be haram (forbidden).that is the Shia understanding.now you can say the clause in the adhan is new,but definitely not bid'ah.it is mustahab (preferred) if it is added,just as you can also testify to belief in Qiyama (resurrection) among others.

That statement in bold shows that you are far away from being satisfied with what the Prophet (PBUH) left for us. You need innovation. Sunnis don't
Belief in Ali (RA) is not one of the Pillars of Islam. Shias might have that belief. We don't
As regards testimony, Why Ali (RA)? Why was it not put there during the time of the Prophet (PBUH)
Perhaps you are saying that if people start persecuting Muslims and spreading false tales about Muslims, Muslims should amend the adhan to include "islam is the religion of peace"?
Or you suggest all the beliefs should be in the adhan then - Belief in the books, last day, qadar, Messengers etc. No?
The way you guys amend your own doctrine is baffling!

Zhul-fiqar:

when it comes to the Sunni adhan,first it was shortened.that is a change of the adhan.Umar replaced/removed "hayya ala khayril amal" (come to the best of deeds);and in the fajr adhan "assalatu khayrun minnan-nawm" was introduced.on what grounds in Islam can these changes (addition and subtraction) in the Sunni adhan be justified? therefore,there goes the bid'ah.

Utter falsehood. Whenever you want to twist whatever anything Muslims do, you go to your normal culprit - Umar (RA)
Although it is to be noted that we will never agree on these things. Just tell us what Shias do and your sources to save space
Anyway your hero is an expert in that business. As we can see


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6LtZTxxPg

BetaThings:

That statement in bold shows that you are far away from being satisfied with what the Prophet (PBUH) left for us. You need innovation. Sunnis don't
Belief in Ali (RA) is not one of the Pillars of Islam. Shias might have that belief. We don't
As regards testimony, Why Ali (RA)? Why was it not put there during the time of the Prophet (PBUH)
Perhaps you are saying that if people start persecuting Muslims and spreading false tales about Muslims, Muslims should amend the adhan to include "islam is the religion of peace"?
Or you suggest all the beliefs should be in the adhan then - Belief in the books, last day, qadar, Messengers etc. No?
The way you guys amend your own doctrine is baffling!

if what we include in the adhan as mustahab (something that is done out of preference),the clause that "Aliyun Waliullah",how can you say that is not a pillar in Islam? go back to Quran verse 5:55. the clause in the adhan is stated based on verse 5:55.i hope you have read the Quran previously,and you know what that clause is.and the clause is there,regardless if you believe "wali" means "friend" or "master". in the Quran you can derive many pillars of Islam,and testimonies a Muslim believe in,like Qiyama,the prophets,the angels,paradise,hell fire,etc.this is no bid'ah if it is found in the Quran.

Utter falsehood. Whenever you want to twist whatever anything Muslims do, you go to your normal culprit - Umar (RA)
Although it is to be noted that we will never agree on these things. Just tell us what Shias do and your sources to save space
Anyway your hero is an expert in that business. As we can see

I believe you do not read what others present as evidence.you should deal with facts in Sunni books to see clearly Umar tampered with the adhan as the Sunnis pronounce it.i will copy in my next post the relevant info and post.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H6LtZTxxPg

it is only just to call a liar a liar.if Ayatollah al-Haidary said he would prove how she was deceitful and a liar,then show us the video in which he did that.there are historical records we can examine.however,it still doesn't mean we would use offensive words on Aisha,more than what is proven.if the Prophet (s) said he would cut off the hand of his own daughter if she is caught stealing,then there is nothing offensive in proving wrong what another person has said or reported.in fact one of the greatest insult the Prophet (s) get from non-muslims,is based on the hadiths from Aisha that she was an infant when the Prophet (s) married her.and historical records aside from the hadiths in Bukhari,present the fact that Aisha was far above the age she claims when she was married by the Prophet (s).

Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal


Besides what is enormously narrated from the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s) about the inclusion of Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal in both Adhan and iqamah, various traditions have been narrated by the Sunnis. Bayhaqi, in Al-Sunan Al-Kubra, has a chapter entitled, باب: ما رُويَ في حَيَّ عَلى خَيْرِ العَمَلِ“Chapter: Narrations About Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal” Here, we mention some of these traditions as quoted from Al-Sunan Al-Kubra and other sources and then bring some Sunni scholars’ confirmation of them.

Ibn Umar used to say, in Adhan, Allahu Akbar and Ashhadu An La Ilaha Illa Allah three times each. Then, he probably said Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal (Hurry to the best of deed) after Hayya Ala al-Falah (Hurry to salvation).

The document of this tradition, as narrated in Al-Muwatta’ by Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani, is, “Malik narrated from Nafi’ and he narrated from Ibn Umar that… etc.”[264] Regarding the regularities common among our Sunni brothers, who can question the validity of this tradition’s document? Bukhari, too, writes about this document, “The most valid documentation of a tradition is that narrated by Malik from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar. Hakim has quoted this statement of Bukhari from Muhammad Ibn Isma’il Al-Bukhari.[265] Ibn Hajar has also mentioned it in the biography of Nafi’ in Tahdhib Al-Tahdhib.

Ibn Umar used not to say Adhan when he was in travel; he rather used to say Hayya Ala al-Falah and, sometimes, Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal.

Muhammad Ibn Sirin, about Ibn Umar, said, “Ibn Umar used to say Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal in Adhan.”

Nasir Ibn Dha’luq has narrated the same thing about Ibn Umar while he was in a travel, as he has quoted from Abu Umamah.

Ibn Hazm, in his Al-Muhalla, writes, “It is indeed proven that Ibn Umar and Ibn Umamah, son of Sahl Ibn Hunayf, used to say in the Adhan Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal; and this has been proven by the most valid documents.”[266]

Ali Ibn Al-Husayn (a.s) used to follow Hayya Ala al-Falah by Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal in the Adhan saying, “The primary Adhan[267] was like this.”[268]

Halabi, in Sirah, says, “Ibn Umar and Imam Zayn Al-Abidin Ali Ibn Al-Husayn, after Hayya Ala al-Falah used to say Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal.”[269]

Whenever Ibn Umar said Hayya Ala al-Falah in Adhan, he followed it by Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal. Then he said Allahu Akbar…[270]

The editor of the book writes down as footnote, “This tradition is narrated by Ibn Abi Shaybah from Ibn Ajlan and Ubaydullah from Nafi’ from Ibn Umar.[271] The narrators reported by Ibn Abi Shaybah are generally accepted by all Sunni jurisprudents.[272]

Bilal used to say Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal during calling for the Fajr (Dawn) Prayer, but the Messenger of Allah ordered him to say Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-nawm (Prayer is preferred to sleep) instead.[273]

The only problem posed by the author of Majma’ al-Zawa’id about this tradition is the existence of Abdul Rahman Ibn Ammar Ibn Sa’d among the narrators. However, by reference to Rijal books, it becomes clear that no one has totally rejected him. Ibn Habban, in contrast, has considered him among the trustworthy narrators. It is interesting that despite these valid traditions recorded in the most authentic books of the Sunnis, Ibn Taymiyah says, “Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal is added by the heretic.”[274] Nawawi has rejected it in Al-Majmu’. The major problem that some people have mentioned about Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal is that the practice of Ibn Umar and Abu Umamah, the Companions, is not proof and the traditions about their practice are not successive.

It should be said, in reply, that, first, some people regard the tradition and speech of the Companions as proof, as is quoted from Abu Hanifah, “We follow whatever we inherit from the Companions and investigate those of their followers and may oppose them.”[275] Sarakhsi, too, says in Usul, “Our scholars, both the past and the late, have no difference in the fact that the speech of a Companion is proof in an issue which cannot be obtained by Qiyas.”[276] In saying Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal, there is undoubtedly no analogy. Second, in some of the traditions, previously cited and others, Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal is attributed to the time of the Prophet (a.s) and his own assertion.[277]

According to these traditions, the Prophet ordered to replace Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal with Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm in the Adhan of the Fajr (Morning) Prayer; yet, this does not harm our intention, since as is explicit in the tradition, this substitution is only for the Adhan of the Fajr Prayer. Therefore, the Adhan of the other Prayers should include Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal as stipulated in the same tradition. Moreover, this tradition is in contrast with the traditions that deny tathwib in Adhan and shows clearly that Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm is something added after the Prophet (a.s).[278]

The probability of the abrogation of Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal is also impossible, since if it were so, Ibn Umar, Abu Umamah and others would be informed and it would be meaningless to mention it in their Adhan. Furthermore, traditions narrated from the Ahl al-Bayt (a.s) stipulate that Hayya Ala Khayr al-Amal is a major part of Adhan in all occasions, which is revealed to the honorable Prophet.[279]

http://www.al-islam.org/shiism_in_sunnism/6.htm

Discussion on Tathwib

The second issue of controversy among the Sunni and Shia jurisprudents is tathwib. There is also controversy over it among the Sunni jurisprudents themselves. It has been said, “Tathwib means return and is therefore returning to calling out to prayers. When it is called out Hayya Ala al-Salat, people are invited to prayers; when Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm is called out, there is a returning to the same phrase which means inviting to the prayers. It is quoted from Al-Mughrib that the traditional tathwib is the same calling out of Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm in the Fajr Prayers twice and the recent one is calling out Al-Salat Al-Salat (prayer, prayer) or Qaamat Qaamat (Prayer is established). Another meaning of tathwib is saying Hayya Ala al-Salat and Hayya Ala al-Falah each twice between Adhan and iqamah.”[280]

Anyway, whatever meaning tathwib may have, it is not included in Adhan and iqamah, but is something added later. Since the common meaning of tathwib is to say Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm we focus on it in this discussion. Ibn Rushd in Bidayah Al-Mujtahid, about the controversy over this issue, says:

The jurisprudents are not in agreement whether Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm should be said in the Morning Adhan or not. Most of them believe that it should be said, but some do not agree with it, since it was not so in the Adhan of the Prophet. Shafi’i believes so. The difference in this issue is that whether this phrase was said in the Prophet’s reign or added in Umar’s.[281]

The following is quoted from Al-Muhadhab:

In case of the Morning Adhan, after Hayya Ala al-Salat and Hayya Ala al-Falah, tathwib—saying Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm should be added twice. But in the recent verdicts, to say this phrase is undesirable.[282]

In Al-Majmu’, it is written that Abu Hanifah did not accept tathwib in this way and in Sharh Kabir, some people such as Ibn Umar, Hasan, Malik, Sufyan Thawri, Ishaq and Shafi’i believe in tathwib (in its common sense). Abu Hanifah said, “Tathwib between Adhan and iqamah for the Morning Prayer is to say Hayya Ala al-Salat and Hayya Ala al-Falah each twice.[283] Nearly the same is narrated in Al-Mughni.[284] Anyhow, in both books, the tradition of Abu Mahdhurah is adduced for tathwib. This tradition says, “In case of the Morning Prayer, you should say, ‘Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm…”

It should be born in mind that some people have considered tathwib as external to Adhan. In Al-Mabsut, after quoting a tradition, Sarakhsi says, “This tradition is an argument for tathwib being after Adhan (not a part of it).”[285] After some more lines, he says, “People created this tathwib.[286] People of Kufah added Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm to the Adhan and set the tathwib between Adhan and iqamah as two times of Hayya Ala al-Falah.

Now that the controversy of the Sunni jurisprudents themselves about tathwib became clear, we conclude that tathwib and even Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm is not included in Adhan and to say it between Adhan and iqamah is not recommended at all because nothing has been revealed about it, nor is there any recommendation about it by the Prophet (a.s). Rather it is a phrase included in Adhan after the Prophet (a.s) by some of the Companions’ personal desire. Authentic evidences, to be discussed later on, are present in the Sunni traditions proving our claim

http://www.al-islam.org/shiism_in_sunnism/6.htm

Scholars’ Views on the Origin of Tathwib

Imam Malik says, in Al-Muwatta’:

“It has been narrated to us that the caller to the Prayer came to Umar for the Morning Prayer and found him asleep; he said, “Prayer is preferred to sleep. (Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm)” Umar therefore ordered to include this phrase in the Adhan for the Morning Prayer.”[287]

As is seen, it is explicitly mentioned in this tradition that Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm is an addition to the Adhan made by Umar and has nothing to do with the original Adhan of Islam. Thus Muhammad Ibn Al-Hasan Al-Shaybani, in Al-Muwatta’, stipulates that Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm is not related to the Adhan. His exact viewpoint is that “Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm is said after the Adhan and since it is not a part of it, it is not obligatory to add.”[288]

Suyuti, in Tanwir Al-Hawalik, explaining the document of this tradition, says:

What Malik has narrated from Umar is also narrated by Al-Darqutni in his Sunan with two documents; one is narrated by Waki’, in his Musannaf, from Muhammad Ibn Ajlan from Nafi’ from Umar’s son from Umar who instructed his Muezzin (caller to Adhan), “When you reach Hayya Ala al-Falah in the Morning Adhan, you should say Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm twice.” [289]

Zurqani narrates the same issue in Ta’liqah.[290] Master Sunni biographists have validated the narrators in both document chains and in general, there is no fallacy in the documents cited by the Sunni jurisprudents.[291] Shawkani, about Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm, quotes the following from Al-Bahr Al-Zukhar:

When Umar invented this phrase, his son told him, “This is heresy.” When hearing this phrase, Ali is narrated as saying, “Do not add anything to the Adhan.” The author of Al-Bahr Al-Zukhar, after citing the tradition of Abu Mahdhurah and Bilal says, “If tathwib were religiously allowed, Ali, Ibn Umar and Tawus would not deny it.” As a conclusion from the traditions, we accept this issue (tathwib), not religiously, but if said as an additional part of Adhan.[292]

It is narrated from Abu Hanifah from Hammad from Ibrahim in Jami’ Al-Masanid…

I asked him about tathwib and he replied, “People have made tathwib and it is a good thing they have made. Tathwib includes saying Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm twice, after Adhan.” Imam Muhammad Ibn Hasan Shaybani has cited this tradition in Athar from Abu Hanifah saying, “This is Abu Hanifah’s statement and we follow it.”[293]

It is narrated from Ibn Uyaynah from Al-Layth that Mujahid said:

“I was with Ibn Umar when we heard someone saying tathwib in the mosque. Ibn Umar said, ‘Let us get away from this heretic.’”[294]

Abu Dawud narrates this occurrence from Mujahid about the Noon or Evening Prayer.[295]

Ibn Jurayj says:

Amr Ibn Hafs informed me that Sa’d, a muezzin, was the first to say Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm. That was during Umar’s reign. At first, Umar told him that it was a heresy, but left it to himself later. Balabil did not say Adhan for Umar.[296]

Ibn Jurayj says:

Hasan Ibn Muslim informed me that someone asked Tawus, “When was Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm first called out?” He replied, “That was not called during the Prophet’s reign. After his demise, in the reign of Abu Bakr, Balabil heard this phrase from a man who was not a caller to Adhan. So, he learnt it and called out Adhan with it from then on. Abu Bakr was a little while alive after this happening. Then in his reign, Umar said, “It would be better if we prohibit Balabil from what he has invented.” But he apparently forgot this issue and people called out Adhan with this phrase up to the present time.[297]

Though a little difference is noticed between the first and second traditions, they share the same concept; that is tathwib and Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm was established after the Messenger of Allah (a.s). Anyway, the tradition of Malik with the document of Al-Darqutni and the testimony of famous and master Sunni jurisprudents suffice for proving it.

http://www.al-islam.org/shiism_in_sunnism/6.htm

Examining the Traditions of Tathwib

The traditions resorted to for proving Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm are all fallacious regarding their documents. These traditions are mostly those narrated by Abu Dawud and Al-Nisa’i from Abu Mahdhurah as is mentioned in Al-Mughni,[298] Al-Sharh Al-Kabir[299] and Al-Majmu’.[300]

The tradition of Nisa’i

In Sunan Al-Nisa’i, the tradition is as follows:

Suwayd Ibn Nasr said: Abdullah narrates from Sufyan from Ibn Ja’far from Abi Salman that Abu Mahdhurah said: “I called out Adhan for the Holy Prophet (a.s) and I called out in the Morning Adhan Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm.[301]

The document of this tradition in Sunan Bayhaqi is in this form: “It was narrated for us from Sufyan Thawri from Abu Ja’far from Abu Sulayman…” Abu Salman is therefore replaced with Abu Sulayman. Bayhaqi continues: “The name of Abu Sulayman is Hammam Mu’adhin (muezzin).”[302]


In this document, Abu Salman or Abu Sulayman is named Hammam Mu’adhin and is an unknown person. All that Ibn Hajar has brought about this man is that, “It is said that the name of Abu Salman Mu’adhin is Hammam and he narrates traditions from Ali and Abu Mahdhurah. Abu Ja’far Farra’ and Ala’ Ibn Salih Kufi narrate traditions on his authority.[303]

Beside the problem posed by Abu Sulayman about the document of this tradition, some believe that Abu Ja’far whose name is in this tradition is not known and not the same person as Abu Ja’far Al-Farra’. Nisa’i himself has mentioned this issue in Sunan.

The traditions of Abu Dawud

(1) Musaddad narrated to us from al-Harith Ibn Ubayd from Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Malik Ibn Abu Mahdhurah from his father that his grandfather said: I said, “O the Messenger of Allah! Teach me your way of saying the Adhan!” The Prophet touched my head and said, “Say like this…” He mentioned the phrases in Adhan one by one until he reached Hayya Ala al-Falah;and then he said: “In case of the Morning Prayer, say: Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm.[304]

In this tradition’s document, there is Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Malik about whom Ibn Hajar narrates Ibn Qattan’s saying, “He is unidentified and nobody has ever narrated a tradition from him except Harith.” After quoting the traditions of Thawri and Harith Ibn Ubayd narrated by Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Malik, Ibn Hajar quotes Abdul Haq as saying, “We cannot adduce these documents.”[305] Harith Ibn Ubayd is also subject of controversy.[306]

(2) Al-Hasan Ibn Ali, nicknamed Abu Ali, narrated to us from Abu Asim and Abd al-Razzaq from Abu Jurayj that Uthman Ibn Sa’ib narrated from his father and the mother of Abd al-Malik Ibn Abu Mahdhurah that Abu Mahdhurah narrates from the honorable Prophet (a.s) that Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm is said twice in the Morning…[307]

In this tradition too, Uthman Ibn Sa’ib and his father are not known except by this very tradition.[308] The mother of Abd al-Malik is also unknown.

(3) Al-Nufayli narrated to us from Ibrahim Ibn Isma’il Ibn Abd al-Malik that he heard his grandfather, Abu Mahdhurah, saying in the Fajr Prayer Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm.[309]

This document is also invalid, since Ibrahim Ibn Isma’il Ibn Abd al-Malik has explicitly been criticized.[310]

In concluding from the traditions narrated about tathwib, it should be said that, first, as we know, the documents of these traditions are doubtful and unacceptable. Second, even if these traditions are not considered as doubtful, they undoubtedly cannot be followed. The reason is that they are in contrast with those true ones stating that Al-Salat Khayrun Min al-Nawm is a phrase added by people’s own approbation, after the time of the Prophet (a.s). As a result, both groups of traditions are invalid and thus unacceptable. Therefore, there is no proof for the inclusion of tathwib in the Adhan, or its recommendation after the Adhan.

http://www.al-islam.org/shiism_in_sunnism/6.htm

Zhul-fiqar:


if what we include in the adhan as mustahab (something that is done out of preference),the clause that "Aliyun Waliullah",how can you say that is not a pillar in Islam? go back to Quran verse 5:55. the clause in the adhan is stated based on verse 5:55.i hope you have read the Quran previously,and you know what that clause is.and the clause is there,regardless if you believe "wali" means "friend" or "master". in the Quran you can derive many pillars of Islam,and testimonies a Muslim believe in,like Qiyama,the prophets,the angels,paradise,hell fire,etc.this is no bid'ah if it is found in the Quran.


I believe you do not read what others present as evidence.you should deal with facts in Sunni books to see clearly Umar tampered with the adhan as the Sunnis pronounce it.i will copy in my next post the relevant info and post.



it is only just to call a liar a liar.if Ayatollah al-Haidary said he would prove how she was deceitful and a liar,then show us the video in which he did that.there are historical records we can examine.however,it still doesn't mean we would use offensive words on Aisha,more than what is proven.if the Prophet (s) said he would cut off the hand of his own daughter if she is caught stealing,then there is nothing offensive in proving wrong what another person has said or reported.in fact one of the greatest insult the Prophet (s) get from non-muslims,is based on the hadiths from Aisha that she was an infant when the Prophet (s) married her.and historical records aside from the hadiths in Bukhari,present the fact that Aisha was far above the age she claims when she was married by the Prophet (s).

As you must know it is not everything in sunni books that are regarded as authentic. For instance salatul tasbih is accepted by some while some don't accept it
I don't accept that Quran 5 : 55 refers to Ali. I am sorry
I have no problem with calling out someone for making untrue statements. But when will you learn to admit that Hydari cannot declare that "it is not acceptable to ascribe any indecency to ALL the wives of the Prophet (SAW)" and then later turn around and say that "I will soon prove that Aisha (RA) is a liar". He does not need to prove that statement to contradict the first statement. He has already embarked on what he said was forbidden
This matter is clear to all, but I am sure that you will never admit that Hydari lacks credibility on this matter