Second Shahadah vs Actual Shahadah in the Quran
-
Greetings and peace, all
@supportpeacenotwar There used to be an excellent article on the main page about Shahada. Some of the points brought up in the article included the following one can't be a witness to something that has not been personally experienced, none other than ALLAH should be mentioned, that we are commanded to not make distinctions between the messengers (peace upon them all), and that ALLAH suffices as a witness.
2844 And you were not on the western slope when We decreed the command to Moses. You were not a witness.3945 And when GOD alone is mentioned, the hearts of those who do not believe in the Hereafter are filled with aversion; and when others are mentioned besides Him, they rejoice!
Assalamo alaikum,
Does this have even remote relationship with a Messenger or the Messengers? Who are others which people like to be mentioned besides Him the Exalted?
Salaam Mazhar,
Many thanks to you, as well as to the other contributors to this thread, even if some of us may disagree with each other.
It makes sense to me from my reading of the Quran that we do testify to the oneness of God from the verses you have mentioned in this, and other posts. This also includes the fact that the whole Quran centers on the oneness of God and that La ilaha illAllah in its many forms or variations is used throughout the Quran. As believers, we both believe and testify to the knowledge we have received that there is one God.
-
It makes sense to me from my reading of the Quran that we do testify to the oneness of God from the verses you have mentioned in this, and other posts.
We do testify the oneness of Allah the Exalted. But when we say this
we say something totally different. Here does not mean a singular god but a set of gods because it is the subject noun of La Particle of negation of genus. Its identification is that it remders the following noun in accusative case. And a genus comprises of many entities. The ground reality is that there are quite many things, abstract as well tangibles like sculpted idols which are considered by many people as miscellaneous .
The predicate of La is embedded or elided, we may say. What is the most important characteristic trait and peculiarity of Allah the Exalted? What is the most important and primary difference between Allah the Exalted and and all others who were or are considered and worshipped as by billions of people? That is the elided predicate of La
Determine this and then the importance of the second part which people testify after this statement might become obvious.
-
We do testify the oneness of Allah the Exalted. But when we say this
we say something totally different. Here does not mean a singular god but a set of gods because it is the subject noun of La Particle of negation of genus. Its identification is that it remders the following noun in accusative case. And a genus comprises of many entities. The ground reality is that there are quite many things, abstract as well tangibles like sculpted idols which are considered by many people as miscellaneous .
The predicate of La is embedded or elided, we may say. What is the most important characteristic trait and peculiarity of Allah the Exalted? What is the most important and primary difference between Allah the Exalted and and all others who were or are considered and worshipped as by billions of people? That is the elided predicate of La
Determine this and then the importance of the second part which people testify after this statement might become obvious.
Wow, brilliant post - but it's a lot to take in and I'm so used to transliteration - no criticism intended. I've always thought of There is no god but Allah in quite a "simple" way - that these other gods are created and finite. They will not be the Last for example, whereas Allah is the First and the Last. But you've given me quite a bit to ponder!
-
Wow, brilliant post - but it's a lot to take in and I'm so used to transliteration - no criticism intended. I've always thought of There is no god but Allah in quite a "simple" way - that these other gods are created and finite. They will not be the Last for example, whereas Allah is the First and the Last. But you've given me quite a bit to ponder!
Thanks, a little reflection on this most important and truthful statement-first part of "shahadah" may also help discard the myth about Easa alahissalam. This Shahadah emphatically tells he is dead long before revelation of Qur'aan. He is one of that set who are considered as by many.
Whoever, other than Allah the Exalted is called by anyone the world over is dead, the opposite of living. So Easa alahissalam is also dead.
They all are dead-matter whose characteristic feature is the opposite of living and life.
-
Salamun alaika
None of the translators has translated like this.witnesses 3rd person present singular--- to see something happen.
"witnessed" is the appropriate translation of verb appearing in the above quoted second Ayah where it is made from verbal Noun - which requires an object to complete the meanings.
Same verb in is from verbal noun which requires a statment because it is for bearing witness--to give evidence---testify about something.
Salaamun a3laika,
Its not me who translated as "witnesses" but I have just copied Sahih International's translation. Please take a look at 318 here.
How will you translate the same word in 4386 and 4610?
4386
4610
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Greetings and peace, all group
This seems to be (more or less) a copy of the article formerly posted on FM.
http//www.underkastelse.org/Gud/shahada.html
May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
-
Keep up the good work.
Unfortunately, too complicated grammer stuff for me here. Can anyone maybe tell me, how do you guys (and girls) learn all these grammer rules, etc.? I can read and understand basic arabic, but some things here are looking like Chineese for me. o
Edit like this
we say something totally different. Here does not mean a singular god but a set of gods because it is the subject noun of La Particle of negation of genus. Its identification is that it remders the following noun in accusative case. And a genus comprises of many entities. The ground reality is that there are quite many things, abstract as well tangibles like sculpted idols which are considered by many people as miscellaneous .
The predicate of La is embedded or elided, we may say. What is the most important characteristic trait and peculiarity of Allah the Exalted? What is the most important and primary difference between Allah the Exalted and and all others who were or are considered and worshipped as by billions of people? That is the elided predicate of La
-
I can read and understand basic arabic, but some things here are looking like Chineese for me.
Salamun alaika,
You say you "can read and understand basic arabic" but its grammar looks like chineese to you. Either of the two seems incorrectly held opinion. It is because reading and simultaneously understanding Arabic text is not possible if one does not know basic grammar of languagre.
Since you can read, you need a little effort and time to learn the grammar of Arabic of Qur'aan. It is the simplest of all grammars of other languages, I assure you.
Qur'aan is rendered facilitative to learn and comprehend
-
Greetings and peace, all group
This seems to be (more or less) a copy of the article formerly posted on FM.
http//www.underkastelse.org/Gud/shahada.html
May ALLAH see fit to Guide all seekers.
peace
~Abdul-Hadi
Salaam,
Oh, that's the exact article I showed him since I have a link to it on my youtube channel. ) Thanks for searching for it.
-
Salaam,
Oh, that's the exact article I showed him since I have a link to it on my youtube channel. ) Thanks for searching for it.
The author is a psychological manipulator but very poorly equipped with tactics of such manipulators.
He is trying to convince that by testifying the fact that Muhammad sas is the Messenger of Allah the Exalted is equivalent to "shirk". He opines "This is tantamount to idolatry as associating another person with God is committing 'shirk' the unforgivable offence."
He naively forgets that here he is using the word "associating" in the meanings of "a partner". He does not tell the audience that the Shahadah does not contain a single word which signifies "association" in the meanings of a "partner". On the contrary, the true Shahdah indicates a relationship of a Sovereign and a subject but not partner-associate. When we say Muhammad sas is the Messenger of Allah we let the public know that we do not treat and consider him as divine, or partner or associate of Allah the Exalted, rather he is merely the Messenger to convey the message. This further emphasises that Allah is the only ielaha Who is The Living since only alive can appoint a messenger.
He seems to be member of this group
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.86p.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.86q.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.258d.gifHow come that Allah the Exalted shall guide a people who denied after their acceptance and state of belief?
And they had publicly testified that the Messenger is infallibly truthful. And distinguishingly explanatory verbal communications had come to them.And be mindful that Allah the Exalted does not guide people who are mischievous-distorters and substitute facts with conjectures-myths-concocted stories.
Word by Word grammatical analysis 386
003.086
YUSUFALI How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the messenger is true and after clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty) had come unto them. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their believing and (after) they had borne witness that the Messenger was true and clear arguments had come to them; and Allah does not guide the unjust people. -
Salaam,
I doubt anyone will be punished for not saying the phrase that one witnesses that Muhammad is a Messenger of God.
This prophet is dead, but perhaps the testimony was valid while he was alive. It feels irrelevant today and a bit silly to express it these days.
But you are right, it is probably not shirk to testify that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, at least not unless you do it because of glorification of him. The intention can make anything shirk.
Prophet Muhammad can be a role model, this does not make it shirk. His good example can be found in the Quran, as well as many other messengers through history.
Excessive commemoration of a Messenger is tantamount to shirk, because it means one seems to praise this person for what God has sent. That the prophet never leaves your head and one gets obsessed with thinking about him is shirk and that he is more than an ordinary man blessed by God.
Of course, it is difficult to distinguish between shirk and the healthy state of being impressed.
Personally, I feel it is better to drop all focus on prophet Muhammad, I try to even out all lessons on all messengers ever sent instead and follow their example. I do not mention any of them while I pray.
Muhammad is dead and no specific testimony needs to be done, that there is no other god than God is sufficient for me.
However, for someone who accept Islam/Quran as a scripture from God, the testimony may be acceptable in my opinion. To witness (accept) that Muhammad was a Messenger of God. Nothing that is necessary to repeat over and over again though once confessed once.
Jews sort of would require to witness about two messengers then, both Jesus and Muhammad, since they refute the messengership of both of them.
The whole concept of constantly witnessing of messengers seem irrational in my opinion, once you have accepted the Truth.
This testimony (the traditional shahada), is logical to have been used during the life of Muhammad, to distinguish between those who did not accept the Truth. And constant repetition of it could probably also have had a usefulness during this period. It was not shirk, and it was probably also sanctioned by God.
Now, 1400 years later, the traditional shahada is probably still valid, but I doubt it has to be constantly repeated. Like someone has mentioned at some other occasion, it makes more sense to witness that the Quran is the word of God. It carries more weight in my opinion.
Listen to/obey the Messenger is a timeless argument, if there would arise another Messenger this argument would become valid again. The Quran itself is most likely a Messenger too, in a regard.
Anyway, thank you for my words. Conclusion is that it is not wrong to witness that Muhammad was a Messenger of God, but irrelevant to constantly repeat it.
God bless you
-
Salamun alaika,
Please see the case endings of the words and the conjunctions. Both have meanings. Syntactic analysis is also given in the side box of the link for conveneince. Graphic representation of dependcies is also available at Leeds site http//corpus.quran.com/treebank.jsp?chapter=3&verse=18&token=8.
Waw Appositive/Conjunction particle. It links the following words to the preceding verbal sentence.Replacing "similarly" with "and" will convey the same meanings.
Salaamun alaika,
My english is not that good but I think those 2 words have different meanings if we translate them back to arabic.
I think "similarly" has it's own word in The Quran
213Words "Angels" and "Men of Knowledge" both are in nominative case, as is Allah the Subject of Verb. They all are the subjects of the same verb.
Verb is singular, "Angels" and "Men of Knowledge" are both plural hmm
Please don't try to explain it with al those term, because I don't understand that, and I am not planning to learn them.
Please give verse numbers where similar usage is used. Thus verses were a verb in singular is used with plural nouns.If there was need for a second "testify" then it would have been there
4166Actual mistake in my translation you did not point out. Instead of "do testify", it should be "did testify" since the verb is Perfect from - Verbal noun.
Interesting that you think that this is a mistake while all the words you inserted which are not there in arabic are not mistakes hmm
Salaam,
Bender -
Salaam,
I do not understand that people bring 2844 as evidence for their claim about the "second part" of the sunni sahada while they forget the first part of the sahada.
2844 And you were not on the western slope when We decreed the command to Moses. You were not a witness.
So people who do only the first part of the sahada are claiming that they were not witnesses about Musa because they were not there.
But on the other hand are claiming to be witnesses that there is no other god besides Allah &
Anyone who did the first part of sahada, can maybe explain to me how he/she witnessed this.To bad that in the link Abdul-Hadi posted the author cut a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery important verse in the middle.
How do people understand the red part of the next verse
619Salaam,
Bender -
Salam all
Salaam,
I doubt anyone will be punished for not saying the phrase that one witnesses that Muhammad is a Messenger of God.
This prophet is dead, but perhaps the testimony was valid while he was alive. It feels irrelevant today and a bit silly to express it these days.
But you are right, it is probably not shirk to testify that Muhammad is a Messenger of God, at least not unless you do it because of glorification of him. The intention can make anything shirk.
Prophet Muhammad can be a role model, this does not make it shirk. His good example can be found in the Quran, as well as many other messengers through history.
Excessive commemoration of a Messenger is tantamount to shirk, because it means one seems to praise this person for what God has sent. That the prophet never leaves your head and one gets obsessed with thinking about him is shirk and that he is more than an ordinary man blessed by God.
Of course, it is difficult to distinguish between shirk and the healthy state of being impressed.
Personally, I feel it is better to drop all focus on prophet Muhammad, I try to even out all lessons on all messengers ever sent instead and follow their example. I do not mention any of them while I pray.
Muhammad is dead and no specific testimony needs to be done, that there is no other god than God is sufficient for me.
However, for someone who accept Islam/Quran as a scripture from God, the testimony may be acceptable in my opinion. To witness (accept) that Muhammad was a Messenger of God. Nothing that is necessary to repeat over and over again though once confessed once.
Jews sort of would require to witness about two messengers then, both Jesus and Muhammad, since they refute the messengership of both of them.
The whole concept of constantly witnessing of messengers seem irrational in my opinion, once you have accepted the Truth.
This testimony (the traditional shahada), is logical to have been used during the life of Muhammad, to distinguish between those who did not accept the Truth. And constant repetition of it could probably also have had a usefulness during this period. It was not shirk, and it was probably also sanctioned by God.
Now, 1400 years later, the traditional shahada is probably still valid, but I doubt it has to be constantly repeated. Like someone has mentioned at some other occasion, it makes more sense to witness that the Quran is the word of God. It carries more weight in my opinion.
Listen to/obey the Messenger is a timeless argument, if there would arise another Messenger this argument would become valid again. The Quran itself is most likely a Messenger too, in a regard.
Anyway, thank you for my words. Conclusion is that it is not wrong to witness that Muhammad was a Messenger of God, but irrelevant to constantly repeat it.
God bless you
i think this is a good conclusion- or we will now start a new discussion about the question what 'witness' mean...?
Salam -
The author is a psychological manipulator but very poorly equipped with tactics of such manipulators.
He is trying to convince that by testifying the fact that Muhammad sas is the Messenger of Allah the Exalted is equivalent to "shirk". He opines "This is tantamount to idolatry as associating another person with God is committing 'shirk' the unforgivable offence."
He naively forgets that here he is using the word "associating" in the meanings of "a partner". He does not tell the audience that the Shahadah does not contain a single word which signifies "association" in the meanings of a "partner". On the contrary, the true Shahdah indicates a relationship of a Sovereign and a subject but not partner-associate. When we say Muhammad sas is the Messenger of Allah we let the public know that we do not treat and consider him as divine, or partner or associate of Allah the Exalted, rather he is merely the Messenger to convey the message. This further emphasises that Allah is the only ielaha Who is The Living since only alive can appoint a messenger.
He seems to be member of this group
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.86p.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/003.%20Aale%20Imran/3.86q.gif
http//haqeeqat.org.pk/English%20Tafsir%20e%20Haqeeqat/00.Arabic%20Text/temp%2002%20%202.258d.gifHow come that Allah the Exalted shall guide a people who denied after their acceptance and state of belief?
And they had publicly testified that the Messenger is infallibly truthful. And distinguishingly explanatory verbal communications had come to them.And be mindful that Allah the Exalted does not guide people who are mischievous-distorters and substitute facts with conjectures-myths-concocted stories.
Word by Word grammatical analysis 386
003.086
YUSUFALI How shall Allah Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Messenger was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but Allah guides not a people unjust.
PICKTHAL How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their belief and (after) they bore witness that the messenger is true and after clear proofs (of Allah's Sovereignty) had come unto them. And Allah guideth not wrongdoing folk.
SHAKIR How shall Allah guide a people who disbelieved after their believing and (after) they had borne witness that the Messenger was true and clear arguments had come to them; and Allah does not guide the unjust people.Salaam,
I noticed that and I don't agree with it in the article. I just used it as it conveniently included some of the assertions against the second shahadah. It is only shirk if the individual takes Muhammad as an actual partner. I did consider that the second part of the declaration of faith - feeling that you even need to mention Muhammad's name - is unnecessary at first, but can lead to an indication of a person's overall position. It takes Muhammad's name above all other Messengers and he can become a focus alongside God in a way that isn't appropriate given God's message. I mean Sunni Islam focuses on Muhammad to such an extent that God's words are just an after thought at times.
There's also the verses 258-59 "And when We said, "Enter this city and eat from it wherever you will in abundance, and enter the gate bowing humbly and say, 'Relieve us of our burdens.' We will forgive your sins for you, and We will increase the doers of good ."But those who wronged changed to a statement other than that which had been said to them, so We sent down upon those who wronged a punishment from the sky because they were defiantly disobeying." This is important for me because the whole term "second" shahadah is a type of replacement.
I also didn't really agree with the use of the term Muhammadean as I think this creates an unnecessary division. It's like all the people who follow another way are made into a sect with that term. Is this just as bad as making ourselves into a sect? - I'm not sure if that word is used in that article but it was in other articles about Hadith etc.
-
Salaam,
I do not understand that people bring 2844 as evidence for their claim about the "second part" of the sunni sahada while they forget the first part of the sahada.
2844 And you were not on the western slope when We decreed the command to Moses. You were not a witness.
So people who do only the first part of the sahada are claiming that they were not witnesses about Musa because they were not there.
But on the other hand are claiming to be witnesses that there is no other god besides Allah &
Anyone who did the first part of sahada, can maybe explain to me how he/she witnessed this.To bad that in the link Abdul-Hadi posted the author cut a veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery important verse in the middle.
How do people understand the red part of the next verse
619Salaam,
BenderSalaam,
Well witness can be a witness to the knowledge you have received from Allah. These are described as clear signs. Does witness or testifying mean we see God literally? We can't see the Messenger literally, but some could say we "see" God in terms of seeing His signs. Just like someone would say we "see the light." These are specifically HIS signs.
One the implications of this shahadah topic is that even the most minute of details in the Quran has been preserved in terms of the message itself.
Could you give your briefly summarise your argumentation for the preservation of the Quran? I know that the individual that I was formerly talking to and many others specifically argue against the Quran's - or Reminder's should we say, preservation. I don't have time right now to search the forums. -
Salaam,
Well witness can be a witness to the knowledge you have received from Allah. These are described as clear signs. Does witness or testifying mean we see God literally? We can't see the Messenger literally, but some could say we "see" God in terms of seeing His signs. Just like someone would say we "see the light." These are specifically HIS signs.
One the implications of this shahadah topic is that even the most minute of details in the Quran has been preserved in terms of the message itself.
Could you give your briefly summarise your argumentation for the preservation of the Quran? I know that the individual that I was formerly talking to and many others specifically argue against the Quran's - or Reminder's should we say, preservation. I don't have time right now to search the forums.Salaam,
Red hypno &
May Allah bless you pr
mmKhan -
Verb is singular, "Angels" and "Men of Knowledge" are both plural
Verb is always singular when the subject follows it. When a plural subject is mentioned prior to the verb it will be plural.
Similarly the quoted Ayah with exemplifying noun "Ka" has no relevance to the point about conjunction waw which links the following nominative words to the preceding verb. All translators show by using "and" that the act of the verb is done by all the three. I seperated it by a seperate sentence to render it according to the grammatical structure of the sentence.
"And" links words and phrases of the same grammatical value. "Similarly" signifies correspondingly.
-
Verb is always singular when the subject follows it. When a plural subject is mentioned prior to the verb it will be plural.
Salaamun alayka,
yes agreed, but imo the subject here is only Allah. Well at least I haven't seen an ayaat where the subject is splitted in 2.
I mean like this Verb --- Subject --- statement --- Subject --- ...
If you know a other ayaat with this structure then please share, then I will inshaAllah understand better.
If there isn't an ayaat like this then I think that "the sahada" in 318 is only done by Allah.
And that the "angels" and "men of knowledge" did not do sahada because if they did then I think it would have been written in similar style like this
4166
or like this
3356Similarly the quoted Ayah with exemplifying noun "Ka" has no relevance to the point about conjunction waw which links the following nominative words to the preceding verb. All translators show by using "and" that the act of the verb is done by all the three. I seperated it by a seperate sentence to render it according to the grammatical structure of the sentence.
459
A lot of translators and people understand the green part like this "obey Allah and obey the Messenger and (obey) those in authority among you" while there isn't an "obey" prior to "those in authority among you".
But as per my current understanding from the blue part we can learn that it's not the case, thus we must not understand it as "and obey those in authority among you".I we hold the same reasoning then it looks to me that in 318 "angels" and "men of knowledge" did not do the sahada other wise there would have been an extra "sahada" just like the extra "obey" in "obey the messenger" in 459.
Anyways this is how I understand it at the moment, I could be totally wrong.
btw I find it interesting in your translation that you subjected " " to Allah.
If you don't mind, can you explain the logic behind it in simple english or it will be even better if you can give an other ayaat with similar usage."And" links words and phrases of the same grammatical value. "Similarly" signifies correspondingly.
What i wanted to say is that if you give your translations to an arab who doesn't know the Quran, he would never translate it like how it is in The Quran. There would be a big chance that he translates your "Similarly" with "kama" instead of "wa"
thx for your time
salaam,
Bender -
Salaam,
Well witness can be a witness to the knowledge you have received from Allah. These are described as clear signs. Does witness or testifying mean we see God literally? We can't see the Messenger literally, but some could say we "see" God in terms of seeing His signs. Just like someone would say we "see the light." These are specifically HIS signs.
Salaamun alayki sister,
The nice thing is that it doesn't matter how you understand the word "sahada" 619 clearly says that we are not allowed to do that sahada. Instead of that, we only have to express this "He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you have set up!"
One the implications of this shahadah topic is that even the most minute of details in the Quran has been preserved in terms of the message itself.
Could you give your briefly summarise your argumentation for the preservation of the Quran? I know that the individual that I was formerly talking to and many others specifically argue against the Quran's - or Reminder's should we say, preservation. I don't have time right now to search the forums.Sorry I am not sure if I understood your question, can you please rephrase it.
Salaam,
Bender