Second Shahadah vs Actual Shahadah in the Quran
-
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 -
Salaam,
Red hypno &
May Allah bless you pr
mmKhanSalaam,
Is there a joke there I'm missing? Sorry, it's quite late here and I'm not sure I quite get what you mean.
May Allah shower you with blessings too mmkhan.
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!"
Sorry I am not sure if I understood your question, can you please rephrase it.
Salaam,
BenderSalaam brother,
I think that's the whole issue with verse 318 - I would need to investigate this further before I come to a final conclusion. With 619, its possible to interpret that as solely referring to not bearing witness to other gods alongside Allah. In this statement, what's interesting is that the response is to someone who actually was bearing witness to a type of god alongside Allah. What were the saying? This makes it seem like the second shahadah is more in the spirit of that rather than "He is the one God! and, behold, far be it from me to ascribe divinity, as, you do, to aught beside Him!" Again, like I said I would need to look into this matter further before I come to my personal conclusion.
In terms of my question, the original post here mentions how I was in a discussion/more like a heated debate with an atheist. I mentioned the point about 631 and the use of the word "know" rather than bear witness or testify in that verse. The point here is referring to more minute details that would be preserved. If the second shahadah is wrong because when we take a look at 631 we find something curious. The word know was never substituted with the word testify or bear witness. Even by accident, given the predominance of the second testimony of faith. With an oral recitation, given what people say about it and how they say there are many different Quran version, the fact this kind of detail doesn't change is something noteworthy in my opinion. The "know" part of 631 is surrounded by "bear witness" in terms of what the hypocrites/dissimulators (as the atheists I was talking to said) and that Allah actually bears witness that the hypocrities are liars. At other times, when the oneness of God is declared in the Quran, the Messengership is not included 318 is an example. You can also read my original post and a few of the posts that followed it for more information.
So my question is if 631 is not used as evidence of a type of preservation of the message in a minute detail, - the word know vs bear witness - as well as other terminology used in the Quran such as Hadith etc, I'm wondering what would you consider as straightforward evidence that anyone can read and find for the preservation of the message in the Quran? Because that's how I see 631 in some sense. I hope that's a bit clearer!
I guess my question is getting at do you refer to the way in which terminology is used in the Quran as a way to highlight the preservation of the message?
So for example, the Quran used the word Hadith and uses this word in a particular way and has some stern things to say 316 could be an example of this. then take a look at the Hadith themselves as well as the beliefs and practices. etc.
-
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.
Waw conjunction links back to the Subject of Verb= Allah the Exalted. The Role of words in Arabic text is determined by the case endings. The following two words --Angels and the men of knowledge are both definite and in nominative case. Waw links them both to the preceding verb. Subject is always in nominative case. Without determining the role of words in the sentence, the perception obtained from the text will always be defective.
Another example is already provided by you.
is the Verb plural third person masculine with waw as subject pronoun. with conjunction are both the subject of Inna and the subject of following verb which is the predicate of Inna. The act signfied by the verb is done by them all.
-
Quote
"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"An Arab will perceive from this translation exactly the same idea conveyed in the Arabic text. That is, the Angels and Men of Knowledge do the same thing correspondingly. One testifies a statement or fact only after having known it from a source of authority.
-
I just wanted to get some feedback from you guys. Do you think I should keep pushing this point?
Do you think this is the type of argument we should be presenting to atheists or is it too easily dismissed? because I think if he acknowledged the point he?d have to consider the question why this verse is like it is at all.
Or is it there something I have missed about the testimony that I should refer to?
Try to think from another angle
- What's the need to do Shahada?
- Where does this idea to do Shahada came from?
Regardless of the content..
-
Salaam,
Is there a joke there I'm missing? Sorry, it's quite late here and I'm not sure I quite get what you mean.
May Allah shower you with blessings too mmkhan.
Salaam brother,
I think that's the whole issue with verse 318 - I would need to investigate this further before I come to a final conclusion. With 619, its possible to interpret that as solely referring to not bearing witness to other gods alongside Allah.
Salaamun alayki,
You can indeed understand it in 2 ways (or maybe even more).
Imo both understandings are correct.btw notice that in the last part of the verse no sahada is mentioned.
619 "...Say "Ashadu (=I bear witness that) He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you have set up!" "
The red bold word is missing in arabic, it would have been an ultimate chance to convince others that we have to do the first part of shadada, but it's missing.In this statement, what's interesting is that the response is to someone who actually was bearing witness to a type of god alongside Allah. What were the saying? This makes it seem like the second shahadah is more in the spirit of that rather than "He is the one God! and, behold, far be it from me to ascribe divinity, as, you do, to aught beside Him!" Again, like I said I would need to look into this matter further before I come to my personal conclusion.
Red Yes please do. InshaAllah the more you study the more layers you will notice.
please keep this in mind
16101 And if We exchange a sign in place of another sign; and God is more aware of what He is revealing; they say "You are making this up!" Alas, most of them do not know.And yes this verse has also its levels of understanding
In terms of my question, the original post here mentions how I was in a discussion/more like a heated debate with an atheist. I mentioned the point about 631 and the use of the word "know" rather than bear witness or testify in that verse. The point here is referring to more minute details that would be preserved. If the second shahadah is wrong because when we take a look at 631 we find something curious. The word know was never substituted with the word testify or bear witness. Even by accident, given the predominance of the second testimony of faith. With an oral recitation, given what people say about it and how they say there are many different Quran version, the fact this kind of detail doesn't change is something noteworthy in my opinion. The "know" part of 631 is surrounded by "bear witness" in terms of what the hypocrites/dissimulators (as the atheists I was talking to said) and that Allah actually bears witness that the hypocrities are liars. At other times, when the oneness of God is declared in the Quran, the Messengership is not included 318 is an example. You can also read my original post and a few of the posts that followed it for more information.
So my question is if 631 is not used as evidence of a type of preservation of the message in a minute detail, - the word know vs bear witness - as well as other terminology used in the Quran such as Hadith etc, I'm wondering what would you consider as straightforward evidence that anyone can read and find for the preservation of the message in the Quran? Because that's how I see 631 in some sense. I hope that's a bit clearer!
I guess my question is getting at do you refer to the way in which terminology is used in the Quran as a way to highlight the preservation of the message?
So for example, the Quran used the word Hadith and uses this word in a particular way and has some stern things to say 316 could be an example of this. then take a look at the Hadith themselves as well as the beliefs and practices. etc.
About the preservation of The Quran.
Some take Al-Thirk as synonym for AlQuran in the next verse, but that is not correct.
159 Indeed it is We who have sent down Al-Thikra, and indeed it is We who will preserve it.
The next verse explains what the relationship is between Al-Quran and Al-Thikr
381 Saad, and Al-Qur'an owner of Al-Thikri.If you want to understand better then please take a look at the next passage
4141 Those who have rejected bi-Al-Thikri when it came to them; and it is an lakitabun 3azeezun.
4142 No falsehood could enter it, presently or afterwards; a revelation from One Most Wise, Praiseworthy.
4143 What is being said to you is the same that was said to the messengers before you. Your Lord has forgiveness, and He has a painful retribution.
4144 And had We made it a Quranan a3jamiyyan , they would have said If only its revelations were made a3jamiyyun and 3arabiyyun, say For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away.In order to understand the above better, it is important to study very carefully the core meaning of the words as they are used in The Quran.
The meaning of the word hadith in The Quran is not the same as what we know nowadays as hadiths.
If we take "hadith" = "books of Bukharie & Co" as defintion for the word "hadith", then we will learn very fast that we will get some contradictions in The Quran.
But that is not the case if we take Allah as our only source to explain to us the meanings of the words, this is imo part of the preservation.I am not sure if this was what you were looking for.
Salaam,
Benderbtw in 631 Allah is not saying the hypocrites are lairs because of their testitify BUT simply because for the fact that they are defined as hypocrites. Actually their testify is correct as Allah Himself confirms it.
-
Waw conjunction links back to the Subject of Verb= Allah the Exalted. The Role of words in Arabic text is determined by the case endings. The following two words --Angels and the men of knowledge are both definite and in nominative case. Waw links them both to the preceding verb. Subject is always in nominative case. Without determining the role of words in the sentence, the perception obtained from the text will always be defective.
Another example is already provided by you.
is the Verb plural third person masculine with waw as subject pronoun. with conjunction are both the subject of Inna and the subject of following verb which is the predicate of Inna. The act signfied by the verb is done by them all.Salaamun alayka,
RED to what subject is the red waw linked in 459 "... "
GREEN As you can see in 3359 "... ..." are directly one after the other and in 318 that is not the case.
Imo if angels did sahada then it would have been in this form verb -- Allah and angels -- statement
The question was if you can give me 1 or more verses with similar structure like 318 thus verb -- subject A -- statement -- subject B where subject B did the verb but also the statement.
I hope you understand what I am asking.Salaam,
Bender -
Salaamun alayka,
RED to what subject is the red waw linked in 459 "... "
GREEN As you can see in 3359 "... ..." are directly one after the other and in 318 that is not the case.
Imo if angels did sahada then it would have been in this form verb -- Allah and angels -- statement
The question was if you can give me 1 or more verses with similar structure like 318 thus verb -- subject A -- statement -- subject B where subject B did the verb but also the statement.
I hope you understand what I am asking.Salaam,
BenderWaw conjuncts back to for which reason as object of verb is in accusative state like and is its possessive noun.
Both are the Subjects as is evident by their nominative case ending. The object of verb is placed in between the two, as is the case in 318.
-
Salaamun alayki,
16101 And if We exchange a sign in place of another sign; and God is more aware of what He is revealing; they say "You are making this up!" Alas, most of them do not know.Salaamun a3laika,
I have a problem with this translation. Where did this "if" came from? It has to be translated as "When".
btw in 631 Allah is not saying the hypocrites are lairs because of their testitify BUT simply because for the fact that they are defined as hypocrites. Actually their testify is correct as Allah Himself confirms it.
Sorry, I disagree. You actually missed the important part. Allah never confirms that their shahada is correct. nope
In fact, they are called liars because they give shahada, even after seeing rasool Allah and even in front of him. Because they cannot witness the risaalat part, if Allah is making someone rasool, how another person can witness it, even if he is in front of that rasool? Hence, no shahada is allowed about Allah and/or Rasool. Hope you understand what I am saying, inshaAllah.
May Allah bless you pr
mmKhan -
Salaamun alayki,
You can indeed understand it in 2 ways (or maybe even more).
Imo both understandings are correct.btw notice that in the last part of the verse no sahada is mentioned.
619 "...Say "Ashadu (=I bear witness that) He is only One god, and I am innocent of what you have set up!" "
The red bold word is missing in arabic, it would have been an ultimate chance to convince others that we have to do the first part of shadada, but it's missing.Red Yes please do. InshaAllah the more you study the more layers you will notice.
please keep this in mind
16101 And if We exchange a sign in place of another sign; and God is more aware of what He is revealing; they say "You are making this up!" Alas, most of them do not know.And yes this verse has also its levels of understanding
Salaam,
Well, if another interpretation is possible - then the points others were raising about 318 would contradict it. Although, I think you disagree with that interpretation of testifying oneness of Allah, i.e. testifying your knowledge of the oneness of God. So I'm not sure discussing this point would get us any further in that regard.
If you think that this is a phrase missing and that is why it is important, then it don't understand why anyone would entirely dismiss the way 631 is phrased with a bear witness element - at the start and end of the verse and then in the middle Allah states He knows that Muhammad is the Messenger, not bear witness.
About the preservation of The Quran.
Some take Al-Thirk as synonym for AlQuran in the next verse, but that is not correct.
159 Indeed it is We who have sent down Al-Thikra, and indeed it is We who will preserve it.
The next verse explains what the relationship is between Al-Quran and Al-Thikr
381 Saad, and Al-Qur'an owner of Al-Thikri.If you want to understand better then please take a look at the next passage
4141 Those who have rejected bi-Al-Thikri when it came to them; and it is an lakitabun 3azeezun.
4142 No falsehood could enter it, presently or afterwards; a revelation from One Most Wise, Praiseworthy.
4143 What is being said to you is the same that was said to the messengers before you. Your Lord has forgiveness, and He has a painful retribution.
4144 And had We made it a Quranan a3jamiyyan , they would have said If only its revelations were made a3jamiyyun and 3arabiyyun, say For those who believe, it is a guide and healing. As for those who disbelieve, there is deafness in their ears, and they are blind to it. These will be called from a place far away.In order to understand the above better, it is important to study very carefully the core meaning of the words as they are used in The Quran.
The meaning of the word hadith in The Quran is not the same as what we know nowadays as hadiths.
If we take "hadith" = "books of Bukharie & Co" as defintion for the word "hadith", then we will learn very fast that we will get some contradictions in The Quran.
But that is not the case if we take Allah as our only source to explain to us the meanings of the words, this is imo part of the preservation.I am not sure if this was what you were looking for.
Salaam,
Benderbtw in 631 Allah is not saying the hypocrites are lairs because of their testitify BUT simply because for the fact that they are defined as hypocrites. Actually their testify is correct as Allah Himself confirms it.
Yes, about that... so I'm not sure I fully understand your position. Are you saying the Quran is not preserved? Are you saying the Quran is not part of the Reminder? What do you think is the Reminder? Of course, I understand this is simply your interpretation, so don't worry about me taking anyone's word for it. It's late here and I don't have time to check, but I recall verses about reminding people with the Quran. I mean, what is the Quran if not reminding us of knowledge that we already know? I do appreciate that the Reminder can be interpreted as more than just the Quran though.
So, if you do think the Quran is preserved, then if an atheist or any non-Muslim tells you, well if you take a look at all the way the Quran was canonized, the Quran was not preserved, what would you say? What evidence would you use? I mean the Quran is an oral recitation - the implications are huge if you say it isn't preserved. If you think the 19 miracle is evidence, do you think this mathematical concept is easy to understand for all people?
I would say that if you think that terminology itself and the Message of the Quran is not preserved and conspicious in that regard - such as the use of the word Hadith - then can't any non-Muslim simply say so why didn't the Quran refer to the Hadith today? I mean it uses the word, albeit in a different way in that interpretation, and it states other things to happen in the future, so why not this? After all, they can tell us, the Hadith are what the Quran should be against according to Quran only Muslims?
I understand that the word hadith can be used in different ways, but to say that somehow the term hadith in the Quran cannot refer to the hadith we have today at all - I disagree. I didn't say that the term hadith is defined as the hadiths of bukhari et al.
I don't know what you mean by this sentence But that is not the case if we take Allah as our only source to explain to us the meanings of the words, this is imo part of the preservation.
Could you clarify? You already stated that the Quran should not be assumed to be The Reminder, so why do you think the Quran is preserved?
You know, your last sentence is what my atheist contact said to me. I already mentioned this in my opening post as well as my response.
I agree partly with mmkhan, I'm still pondering the issue about saying a shahadah at all. I think it isn't a formal statement, it is an internal testifying that based upon our knowledge and understanding. We focus on one God in this type of testifying, because that is the foundation of faith and the opposite of shirk. The oneness of God is the pivotal point of faith.
-
Try to think from another angle
- What's the need to do Shahada?
- Where does this idea to do Shahada came from?
Regardless of the content..
Well, this is what I'm already discussing here so I don't think I need to reiterate it, but in that case, if you don't mind, what type of evidence of the preservation of the Reminder would you give to an enquirer? How would you define Reminder?
-
I agree partly with mmkhan, I'm still pondering the issue about saying a shahadah at all. I think it isn't a formal statement, it is an internal testifying that based upon our knowledge and understanding. We focus on one God in this type of testifying, because that is the foundation of faith and the opposite of shirk. The oneness of God is the pivotal point of faith.
Salaam,
There are many direct commandments in alQuraan for us from Allah, but I don't find any such command or order in any aayat asking us to give shahada. If anyone knows about any aayat, please share with us.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhan -
Well, this is what I'm already discussing here so I don't think I need to reiterate it, but in that case, if you don't mind, what type of evidence of the preservation of the Reminder would you give to an enquirer? How would you define Reminder?
The 'shahada' is the Islam (the religion) priest adaptation of the Judaism's Shema.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_YisraelWith strong influence from Christian's Apostle's creed.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_CreedFrom my Point of View (which is non-sectarian), it's not needed / irrelevant.
There are no 'correct shahada' thus there are no 'incorrect shahada' either.As for the 'reminder' I tend to choose
"Treat others as you would like to be treated".Salam / Peace
-
Salaam,
There are many direct commandments in alQuraan for us from Allah, but I don't find any such command or order in any aayat asking us to give shahada. If anyone knows about any aayat, please share with us.
May Allah increase our knowledge and guide us on His path pr
mmKhanSalaam,
That's the thing mmkhan I am not saying it is a command as such, it is more a realisation. It could even be an option to say it this way - what matters is what you you believe.
The verse would be 318, although I am looking into this further. We appear to have discussed this another member on here and people seem to disagree with the terminology. All we can do is look into this honestly, with open minds and hearts to the knowledge and wisdom Allah provides His servants. I don't know a lot of Arabic, but I don't think I need in to order to understand the Quran. I don't see the reason to discuss that verse further as it would be more helpful for me to use my time to look into this matter further.
The 'shahada' is the Islam (the religion) priest adaptation of the Judaism's Shema.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shema_YisraelWith strong influence from Christian's Apostle's creed.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostles%27_CreedFrom my Point of View (which is non-sectarian), it's not needed / irrelevant.
There are no 'correct shahada' thus there are no 'incorrect shahada' either.As for the 'reminder' I tend to choose
"Treat others as you would like to be treated".Salam / Peace
Salaam,
My point of view is also non-sectarian. I was never even raised in any sect, just the general basics of Islam. I think the fundamental thing that is needed is that the individual believes in one God. However, I won't say anymore as I'd like just to get your perspective on this.
Sorry to ask more questions, but seeing as you are disagreeing that one point in the Quran that could be used as part of an argument for minute details being preserved in the Message - I find that I have more questions.
Do you believe the Quran is preserved then? Where would you say this Reminder is explicitly located in the Quran?
Why isn't the Reminder There is no God but Allah? If there's one thing that comes through clearly on reading the Quran is that belief in one God is the most important thing.If the preserved Reminder is treat others well, then people who prayed to many Gods and never came across the Quran, could simply say this was the reminder I got, couldn't they? People can then start asking questions about the oral recitation, and the way that these easily get corrupted. In my opinion, that would be reason God make the Quran an oral recitation, if you believe the Quran is preserved as it only serves to highlight that God would be preserving it.
You put reminder in inverted commas, is there a word that you think is better to use? Please feel free to point it out, I'm genuinely interested in your perspective and the 'evidence' you use.
After this thread, I actually view the disagreement I had with the atheist I spoke to quite differently now. In addition, the more I see our disagreements, the more natural it seems for Quran only Muslims to be spaced out across the globe and not to form a community - I think that's interesting in and of itself.
-
Salaam,
God knows what is in your hearts and he thus knows if you sincerely believe in Him or not. No reason to witness about something God already knows you believe in.
Apart from the above, it can be colorful for yourself to witness to others that ther is only one God.
God bless you
-
Salaam,
God knows what is in your hearts and he thus knows if you sincerely believe in Him or not. No reason to witness about something God already knows you believe in.
Apart from the above, it can be colorful for yourself to witness to others that ther is only one God.
God bless you
Salam,
Justice will not be dispensed on the basis of what Allah the Exalted knows but on the evidence of others. You have to tell and pronounce for people as to what you believe in and thereafter it will be judged how sincere are you with that belief by actions and conduct.