Explanation of the Book of Tawhid-06

The Shaykh : And from Ibn 'Abbas (may Allah be pleased with him and his father) that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) sent Mu'adh to Yemen "When he sent him, when he sent Mu'adh to Yemen, he said to him" When he sent, meaning he dispatched, how did he dispatch him (may Allah be pleased with him)? As a teacher, a caller, and a judge, in three capacities: as a teacher, a caller, and a judge. And when did he send him? In the month of Rabi' al-Awwal in the tenth year of the Hijrah, in the month of Rabi' al-Awwal. This is the well-known view, though there is disagreement regarding the tenth year of the Hijrah. He sent him along with Abu Musa al-Ash'ari (may Allah be pleased with him and his father). He sent Mu'adh to Sana'a and its surroundings, and Abu Musa to Aden and its surroundings. And he said: He advised them, may the prayers and peace of Allah be upon him, that they should volunteer, guiding one another, consulting in matters, and not separating. Yes. So he sent him in what capacity? As a teacher, a caller, and a judge. And in Rabi' al-Awwal of the tenth year of the Hijrah. When he sent him, he said to him: When... this is conditional. "Lamma" is a conditional particle. They say it is a particle of existence for existence. A particle of existence for existence. Do you like to research grammar? No...? Here, we research it.
The student: Yes

The Shaykh : Okay, when I said it is a particle of existence for existence, we have three words: "lamma," "law," and "lawla." ... "Lamma" is a particle of existence for existence. "Law" is the opposite, a particle of non-existence for non-existence. Yes. And "lawla" is a particle of non-existence for existence. Yes.
Well, when he sent him to Yemen, he said to him these words, guiding him. He said: This is evidence of the Prophet's (peace and blessings be upon him) knowledge of the conditions of the people and what he knew of their circumstances. He had two means: the means of revelation and the means of knowledge and experience. This knowledge is earthly, and the experience is upon him (peace and blessings be upon him): from its meaning
The student: ...

The Shaykh : No, it appears that it is explanatory. A people from whom? From what people? He specified them by his statement: And the Book, what is meant by it here is the Torah and the Gospel, so they would be the Jews and the Christians. And among them are polytheists, but the majority are the Jews and the Christians. For this reason, the majority relied on this, and he informed him, (peace and blessings be upon him), of this for two reasons:
So that he would be aware of their conditions, because one of the most important things for a caller in his da'wah is that he be aware of the conditions of those he calls.
And secondly, in order to prepare for the doubts they will encounter, because they are People of the Book... they have knowledge... a person prepares for it. For this reason, we also know an important benefit regarding those sent abroad now: if they do not have knowledge with which to defend against the doubts raised by their enemies and the enemies of Islam, they will remain confused when the slightest doubt confronts them. They will remain confused. In fact, if they do not have evidence and arguments that refute these doubters, they are lost. So, what is the benefit of clarifying their condition? Two things: knowing the condition of those they call, and secondly: preparation.
So let the first thing you call them to be the testimony. In "first" in "testimony," the raising or lowering is permissible. We have "falyakun." The "alif" appears to be for resumption or consequence... from a command. "Yakun": a known present tense verb. Does "yakun" need a subject and a predicate or not? Its subject is in the accusative case and its predicate is in the nominative case. Here.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : ... It is the predicate, placed first, and "testimony" is the subject, placed last. Or... "first" is a pillar, and it is a second subject, and "testimony" is its predicate.
The student: ...

The Shaykh : They said it is suitable. They said it is suitable, but let us see now which is more appropriate. Which one now will clarify to me that the first must be like this, or that the testimony is the first? It appears that he wants to clarify that the first thing said was the testimony. The first thing said was the testimony. If that is the case, then "first" would be in the nominative case as a subject, meaning: the first thing you call to is the testimony that there is no god but Allah. And his saying "testimony," the testimony... is it from knowledge?
The student: From knowledge.

The Shaykh : From knowledge. Allah the Exalted said: The testimony here is knowledge and utterance with the tongue, because the witness informs based on knowledge or not? The witness now who testifies before the judge, does he inform or not? Based on knowledge. So you say, "I testify, O Ghanim, are you with us or did you go?"
The student: No, we are with you.

The Shaykh : He says, "I testify that there is no god but Allah," informing based on knowledge that there is no god but Allah. Also, does the context here require mere presence, or does it require presence along with acknowledgment and confession?
The student: Acknowledgment and confession.

The Shaykh : Acknowledgment and confession. This is acknowledgment and confession, and add to that also acceptance and submission. Acceptance and submission. The testimony that there is no god but Allah. So knowledge and informing are necessary, and acceptance and acknowledgment are also necessary, and submission and obedience are necessary, because... it does not stand. Okay, if he said it with his heart, if he believed in his heart that he testifies that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah, would he be a Muslim? Here. He believes in his heart that there is no god but Allah, here. But he does not say, "I testify that there is no god but Allah." Shaykh al-Islam says: "That he is not a Muslim by consensus" Yes. He says: He is not a Muslim until he says yes, because the word "testify" is part of informing, and informing includes that he testifies. Yes. For example, when I am present before the judge, for example, and I have testimony regarding so-and-so, as long as I have not expressed it, am I considered a witness? If I now believe with a firm belief that so-and-so owes so-and-so such and such, this statement does not make it so. So utterance is necessary. You must utter and say, "I testify that there is no god but Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah," otherwise you are not a Muslim. Yes. And this is evidence that this word may not suffice as a sign for others, in that the intention is between you and Allah and suffices for you with Allah. As for us, it does not suffice without a doubt, and there is no disagreement among us on this. But does it benefit him with Allah? This is the point of disagreement. Here. It does not benefit him until he says, "I testify that there is no god but Allah." The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to his uncle Abu Talib, "O uncle, say..." He did not say, "Believe that there is no god but Allah." He said: So the statement is necessary, and belief alone is not sufficient. Yes. And his saying "La ilaha illa Allah," what does "ilah" mean? The scholars and people of language say that "ilah" means "ma'luh," and it is a "fi'al" meaning "ma'ful."