Etiology of the chronological development of Imamiyah jurists' arguments about the third testimony

Addition of the Shahadat-e-Thalethah (third testimony) to Azan (the call to prayers) and Iqama was discussed more or less among Imamiyah jurisprudents from the early centuries. But the important question is how the third testimony influenced by the society has changed from prohibition to obligation despite strict discipline in the jurisprudential method? The answer to this question contains methodological points in jurisprudence and also shows how society affects inference. In this article, the opinions of Imamiyah jurists have been collected in a descriptive way and by referring to jurisprudential sources from the period of Companions of the Imams to the contemporary era about the third testimony in the Azan and Iqama. While examining the jurisprudential views in four time periods (Shia narrators, Sheikh Sadouq until the 10th century, the 11th and 12th centuries, and the 13th century until the present age), their jurisprudential evidences and methods have been analyzed. In addition to the fatwa documentation, the social conditions of each period have also been examined and its effect on the fatwa has been shown. As a result of this research, it becomes clear how jurisprudence has evolved over time and how it is affected by social realities; Also, if the influence of the society on jurisprudence is in the form of more accuracy in ijtihad and discovering more precise reasons to answer the issues needed by the society, these developments do not conflict with the discipline of the method of inference. The mastery of the jurisprudential method, the final product of this development, has preferred saying the third testimony with this additional clause that it should not be considered among the parts of Azan in the eyes of custom. This is an additional clause derived from the general rules of jurisprudence and is not influenced by the society.