Explanation of the Book of Purification-12

The Shaykh :"And from 'Umar (may Allah be pleased with him), who said: The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said:

If one after performing ablution completely recites the following supplication: (Ash-hadu an la ilaha ill-Allahu

ما منكم من أحد يتوضأ فيسبغ الوضوء ، ثم يقول : أشهد أن لا إله إلا الله

Bulugh al-Maram 57

to the end of it":
: It has a parallel in the Noble Qur'an in this structure, which is the saying of the Exalted: :
Its grammatical analysis is: "ma" is a negation particle, "minkum" is a fronted predicate, and "min ahad" is a delayed subject. However, the subject here is accompanied by the extra "min" to emphasize generality.
We said "to emphasize generality" because "ahad" is an indefinite noun that appears in a context of negation, and it conveys generality. That is to say, there is no person among you—and the address is to the Companions, but the address of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to the Companions is an address to the entire Ummah—: a description of "ahad."
Meaning he completes it in both quantity and quality.
.
Then he says, when he finishes the wudu': : "Ashhad" means I speak with my tongue, acknowledging it in my heart, as if I were seeing it with my own eyes.
And regarding his saying: I hear some people pronounce it and say: "Ashhad anna la ilaha illa Allah." This is a serious grammatical error, because the "ann" with a shaddah (doubled nun) is not permissible to have its subject be the omitted pronoun of the matter (dhamir al-shan). Rather, it is the "ann" with a single nun (mukhaffafah) that has the omitted pronoun of the matter as its subject. Accordingly, we say: "an la ilaha" is correct, not "anna la ilaha," , and the pronoun of the matter here is omitted; it is its subject.
And "la ilaha illa Allah": the sentence is its predicate.
And regarding his saying: "Ilah" means: one who is worshipped, and the one who is worshipped is the one worshipped with devotion, love, and exaltation.
And regarding his saying: It is not correct to parse "Allah" as the predicate of "la," because the name "Allah" is a definite noun. In fact, grammarians say that it is the most definite of definite nouns. And "la" which negates the genus does not operate except on indefinite nouns. Accordingly, it is not correct to parse "Allah" as its predicate, because one of its conditions is that it operates on indefinite nouns. So, where is the predicate?
The predicate is omitted. Some estimated it as: "There is no existing god." This estimation is not correct. Why? Because there are existing gods other than Allah. Allah (Blessed and Exalted is He) said: , and the Exalted said: : So the gods exist. And the Exalted said, mentioning the falsity of the gods of the polytheists: They call them gods, but are they true gods?
No. Accordingly, we say: Whoever estimates "There is no existing god," he has made a serious error in two respects:
The first respect: Reality refutes it, meaning there are gods other than Allah.
The second respect: If he says "There is no existing god except Allah," it necessitates that these gods are Allah, and this is a serious error. So, what do we estimate?
We estimate what the Qur'an indicates: , so we estimate "Haqq" (truth). Yes, we estimate "Haqq," and this is better than estimating "Bi-haqq" (with truth), because if you estimate it as "Bi-haqq," it necessitates that it is a preposition and its object, connected to an omitted word, and the estimation would be: "There is no god existing with truth except Allah." And when it is possible to avoid omission, that is preferable, especially since avoiding omission aligns with the Qur'an: . Accordingly, we estimate: "There is no true god except Allah."
So if someone says: Does that mean the meaning is not clear?
We say: It is clear. You say: "There is no standing man except Zayd." Is that possible or not?
It is possible. "There is no standing man except Zayd." So we say: "Rajul" (man) is its subject, and "Qa'im" (standing) is its predicate.