Jump to content
Shogun

What is correct dhikir Muhammad or Muhammadin?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

After we say Subhana rabbi al a'la wa bihamdihi in sujood do we say either Allahumma salli ‘ala Muhammad wa Ali Muhammad or Allahumma salli ‘ala Muhammadin wa Ali Muhammad. Is there a difference between the two? Can you say either one in prayer?

Also in ruku is there a difference between Sami'a Allahu lamin hamda and Sami'a Allah lamin hamda.

Thank You

Edited by Shogun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can say both since they are not wajib to say and are only mustahab dhikrs. But in a wajib part in salah, such as Tashahhud, one must recite the exact Arabic wordings, and saying Muhammadin is invalid and can make your salah problematic if you intentially said it.

For your second question, the correct Arabic sentence is ‘Sami’allahu lamin hamida’. This dhikr is only mustahab.

Edited by Hassan-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Shogun said:

After we say Subhana rabbi al a'la wa bihamdihi in sujood do we say either Allahumma salli ‘ala Muhammad wa Ali Muhammad or Allahumma salli ‘ala Muhammadin wa Ali Muhammad. Is there a difference between the two? Can you say either one in prayer?

Also in ruku is there a difference between Sami'a Allahu lamin hamda and Sami'a Allah lamin hamda.

Thank You

no difference in meaning between muhammad and muhammadin. all about tajweed. if you take a slight pause, read muhammad, wa ali muhammad. if you want to join, then read muhammadin wa ali muhammad.

can't do that in ruku. because there cant possibly be a pause after Allah, according to tajweed. yyou should say samia Allahu liman hamidah 

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, just a muslim said:

no difference in meaning between muhammad and muhammadin. all about tajweed. if you take a slight pause, read muhammad, wa ali muhammad. if you want to join, then read muhammadin wa ali muhammad.

There is a difference, Muhammad is mentioned in the books on practical laws of Islam, Muhammadin is not. Both are the same meaning, but only one is correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Hassan- said:

There is a difference, Muhammad is mentioned in the books on practical laws of Islam, Muhammadin is not. Both are the same meaning, but only one is correct.

can you read arabic? Do you know arabic? If you dont, then you are mistaken. If you do, then please tell me what muhammadin means other than Muhammad in haalat e jarr. محمدٍ

the reason muhammadin may not be in law books is because muhammad isnt usually in the haalat e jarr unless when we send salawaat upon him and use the harf jar ala علي محمدٍ

or as an idafah, علي الِ محمدٍ

Edited by just a muslim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Hassan- said:

and saying Muhammadin is invalid and can make your salah problematic

Sometimes I say "Muhammadin", should I re-do my prayers as I didn't know or it just was something I say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, M.IB said:

Sometimes I say "Muhammadin", should I re-do my prayers as I didn't know or it just was something I say?

Muhammadin is what I found most people say based on the videos I have watched. You should be fine.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgXuhQHvZbc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7T4EnQyT4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvf7Cea33tw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35tYRP-qzEs

This is an answer someone gave me. If you pause at muhammad and before wa ali muhammad, then you can say muhammad, but if you dont pause and join it, then you have to say muhammadin wa ali muhammad.

Hope that clears things up.

Edited by Shogun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaam brother @Shogun

Here is correct Arabic and translation of Namaaz from Ayatullah Sistani's website:

Quote

I. Translation of Surah al-Hamd
Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim (I commence with the Name of Allah - in Whom all excellences are combined and Who is free from all defects. The Compassionate - One Whose blessings are extensive and unlimited. The Merciful - One Whose blessings are inherent and eternal).
Alhamdu lillahi Rabbil 'alamin (Special Praise be to Allah, the Sustainer of the creation).
Arrahmanir Rahim (The Compassionate, the Merciful).
Maliki yaw middin (Lord of the Day of Judgement).
Iyyaka na'budu wa iyyaka nasta'in (You alone we worship, and to You alone we pray for help).
Ihdinas siratal mustaqim (Guide us to the straight path).
Siratal lazina an'amta 'alayhim (The path of those whom You have favoured - the Prophets and their successors).
Ghayril maghzubi 'alayhim walazzallin. (Not of those who have incurred Your wrath, nor of those who have gone astray).


II. Translation of Surah al-Ikhlas
Bismillahir Rahmanir Rahim (I commence with the Name of Allah - in Whom all excellences are combined and Who is free from all defects. The Compassionate - One Whose blessings are extensive and unlimited. The Merciful - One Whose blessings are inherent and eternal).
Qul huwallahu Ahad (O Prophet!) Say: Allah is One - the Eternal Being).
Allahus Samad (Allah is He Who is independent of all beings).
Lam yalid walam yulad (He begot none, nor was He begotten).
Walam yakullahu kufuwan ahad. (And none in the creation is equal to Him).


III. Translation of the Zikr during Ruku and Sajdah, and of those which are Mustahab
Subhana Rabbi yal 'Azimi wa bihamdhi (Glory be to my High Sustainer and I praise Him)
Subhana Rabbi yal A'la wa bihamdih (Glory be to my Great Sustainer, Most High, and I praise Him)
Sami' Allahu liman hamidah (Allah hears and accepts the praise of one who praises)
Astaghfirullaha Rabbi wa atubu ilayh ( I seek forgiveness from Allah Who is my Sustainer, and I turn to Him).
Bi haw lillahi wa quwwatihi aqumu wa aqu'd (I stand and sit with the help and strength of Allah).


IV. Translation of Qunut
La ilaha illallahul Halimul Karim (There is none worth worshipping but Allah Who is Forbearing and Generous).
La ilaha illallahul 'Aliyyul 'Azim (There is none worth worshipping but Allah Who is Eminent and Great).
Subhanallahi Rabbis samawatis sab' wa Rabbil arazinas sab' (Glory be to Allah, Who is the Sustainer of the seven heavens and of the seven earth).
Wama fi hinna wama bayna hunna, wa Rabbil 'arshil 'azim (And Who is the Sustainer of all the things in them, and between them, and Who is the Lord of the great 'Arsh (Divine Power).
Wal hamdu lillahi Rabbil Aalamin (And all praise for Allah, the Sustainer of the worlds).


V. Translation of Tasbihat Arba'ah
Subhanallahi wal hamdu lillahi wa la ilaha lallahu wallahu Akbar. (Glory be to Allah, and all praise is for Him and there is no one worth worshipping other than Allah, and He is Greater than any description).


VI. Translation of Tashahhud and Salam
Al Hamdu lillah, Ash hadu an la ilaha illal lahu wahdahu la sharika lah (All praise is for Allah, and I testify that there is none worth worshipping except the Almighty Allah, Who is One and has no partner).
Wa Ashhadu anna Muhammadan 'abduhu wa Rasuluh (And I testify that Muhammad is His servant and messenger).
Alla humma salli 'ala Muhammadin wa Ali Muhammad. (O Allah! Send Your blessings on Muhammad and his progeny).
Wa taqqabal shafa'atahu warfa' darajatahu (And accept his intercession, and raise his rank).
Assalamu 'alayka ayyuhan Nabiyyu wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh (O Prophet! Allah's peace, blessings and grace be upon you!).
Assalamu 'alayna wa 'ala 'ibadil lahis salihin (Allah's peace be on us, those offering prayers - and upon all pious servants of Allah).
Assalamu 'alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh. (Allah's peace, blessings and grace be on you believers!)

https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2232/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, M.IB said:

Sometimes I say "Muhammadin", should I re-do my prayers as I didn't know or it just was something I say?

 

12 hours ago, just a muslim said:

can you read arabic? Do you know arabic? If you dont, then you are mistaken. If you do, then please tell me what muhammadin means other than Muhammad in haalat e jarr. محمدٍ

the reason muhammadin may not be in law books is because muhammad isnt usually in the haalat e jarr unless when we send salawaat upon him and use the harf jar ala علي محمدٍ

or as an idafah, علي الِ محمدٍ

Although I was taught otherwise, Your right Muhammadin can also be said in salah. I saw a video of Imam Khamenei saying Muhammadin in tashahhud so therefore it’s correct, because whatever he says is the correct way. And yes I do understand Arabic, but it’s not about who knows Arabic, it’s about what’s written in the books of fiqh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Sirius_Bright said:

III. Translation of the Zikr during Ruku and Sajdah, and of those which are Mustahab
Subhana Rabbi yal 'Azimi wa bihamdhi (Glory be to my High Sustainer and I praise Him)

I have always said Subhaana rabbiy al-`azeemi wa bihamdih, but after watching some videos I have just prayed reciting "Subhaana rabbiy al-`atheemi wa bihamdih.

The problem is I have just encountered information that says that the correct pronunciation is Subhaana rabbiy al-`azeemiwa bihamdih, and I just want to make sure that "Subhaana rabbiy al-`atheemi wa bihamdih is accurate.

Below are some sources that point to Subhaana rabbiy al-`azeemi wa bihamdih

http://praytime.info/tutor.html

https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2232/

III. Translation of the Zikr during Ruku and Sajdah, and of those which are Mustahab
Subhana Rabbi yal 'Azimi wa bihamdhi (Glory be to my High Sustainer and I praise Him)

Below are some sources that point to "Subhaana rabbiy al-`atheemi wa bihamdih

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgXuhQHvZbc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7T4EnQyT4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvf7Cea33tw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35tYRP-qzEs

Which is correct Subhaana rabbiy al-`atheemi wa bihamdih or Subhaana rabbiy al-`azeemi wa bihamdih?

Thank You

 
Edited by Shogun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Shogun said:

I have always said Subhaana rabbiy al-`azeemi wa bihamdih, but after watching some videos I have just prayed reciting "Subhaana rabbiy al-`atheemi wa bihamdih.

The problem is I have just encountered information that says that the correct pronunciation is Subhaana rabbiy al-`azeemiwa bihamdih, and I just want to make sure that "Subhaana rabbiy al-`atheemi wa bihamdih is accurate.

Below are some sources that point to Subhaana rabbiy al-`azeemi wa bihamdih

http://praytime.info/tutor.html

https://www.sistani.org/english/book/48/2232/

III. Translation of the Zikr during Ruku and Sajdah, and of those which are Mustahab
Subhana Rabbi yal 'Azimi wa bihamdhi (Glory be to my High Sustainer and I praise Him)

Below are some sources that point to "Subhaana rabbiy al-`atheemi wa bihamdih

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgXuhQHvZbc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B7T4EnQyT4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bvf7Cea33tw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35tYRP-qzEs

Which is correct Subhaana rabbiy al-`atheemi wa bihamdih or Subhaana rabbiy al-`azeemi wa bihamdih?

Thank You

 

The correct way is al-'atheemi wa bi hamdeh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2017 at 7:54 PM, Hassan- said:

 

Although I was taught otherwise, Your right Muhammadin can also be said in salah. I saw a video of Imam Khamenei saying Muhammadin in tashahhud so therefore it’s correct, because whatever he says is the correct way. And yes I do understand Arabic, but it’s not about who knows Arabic, it’s about what’s written in the books of fiqh.

Na bro....it's about the Arabic. Muhammadin Muhammadan Muhammadin. All the same meaning. Just are different depending on where they are used in a sentence. Nothing to do with fiqh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • frankly, i think it's the (takfiri) wahhabis that's causing havoc in muslim lands. let's not quarrel among ourselves. [8:46].....do not quarrel for then you will be weak in hearts and your power will depart,..... let's not misled others [16:25] Let them bear, on the Day of Judgment, their own burdens in full, and also (something) of the burdens of those without knowledge, whom they misled. Alas, how grievous the burdens they will bear! don't have to unite. but let's strive as in a race with one another, towards good deeds [5:48]....therefore strive with one another to hasten to virtuous deeds; to Allah is your return, of all (of you), so He will let you know that in which you differed;  
    • A Christian Nation? Ryan LaMothe Photo by Forsaken Fotos | CC BY 2.0 Over the years I have often heard Christians of various political stripes assert that the United States is a Christian nation. More recently, Christian evangelicals, who supported Trump and his campaign slogan of “Make America Great Again,” seemed nostalgic for a white Christian America. One might be tempted to call the belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation a myth, the seeds of which were sown in 1630 when John Winthrop challenged his community to establish a city on the hill, reflecting the covenant of God and Christian charity. Many myths contain a grain or two of truth. Nevertheless, the belief in a Christian nation is more illusion than truth. This might be a provocative claim to many people that requires justification. Let me begin by acknowledging that most of the people who immigrated to America, taking native peoples’ lands, were primarily of various Christian denominations. Some saw this country as the new Promised Land, overlooking the fact that by occupying the land they removed any possibility of promise to the non-Christian people who lived here for millennia. So, I am willing to concede that white European settlers were mainly Christian. This was also true after the War of Independence and in this sense one might say this was a Christian nation in that most of the settlers called themselves Christian. I will come back to this, but for now let me say that this new “Christian nation” was clearly neither a Christian theocracy not a parliamentary system advocating a particular religion. Indeed, the Constitution enshrined the free exercise of religion, while establishing a wall between church and state. If we were to call this budding nation a Christian nation, it was oddly one that proclaimed the freedom of individuals to practice other religions—at least ideally—or no religion at all. Proclaiming the inalienable right of religious freedom would leave open the possibility that another religion might be dominant, which would mean we would no longer be a “Christian nation.” While some people cite numbers or percentage of Christians as a reason for calling the U.S. a Christian nation, others have argued that the U.S. is a Christian nation because it was founded by Christians and, therefore, some of their beliefs and principles were woven into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.  In reality, the Magna Carta and English Bill of Rights influenced those who penned the Constitution. Also, House Congressional Resolution 331 (1988) acknowledged the influence of the Iroquois Confederacy of Nations in writing the U.S. Constitution.  To be sure there are references to God in the Declaration of Independence, but not in the Constitution, which is not to deny that Christian principles, to some degree, shaped the writing of the Constitution, though it is not entirely clear which principles. More apparent is the secular political influences that shaped founding texts. Indeed, it is more accurate to say the U.S. was founded on English and Enlightenment political values. This will not deter those who will insist that since most colonial and later U.S. citizens nation were Christian, then the U.S. was, by and large, a Christian nation. Fast forward to the present and polls indicate that approximately 84% of people in the U.S. identify as Christians. So, our stalwart believer may proclaim that we are still a Christian nation by percentages alone.  Of course, we might look more closely at those numbers to discover that many of those who self-identify as Christians do not actually belong to a Christian community of faith. In some polling less than 38% of Christians actually go to church. What percentage do we rely on for being a Christian nation—51% or above of those who believe in Christ? Or do we count those who are actually practicing their Christian faith? If it is the latter, then we do not qualify as a Christian nation. Percentages and numbers, though, are hardly adequate measures for determining whether we are a Christian nation or not. It would seem fairer to consider not so much belief, but whether the majority of citizens and their elected representatives embody and live out core principles associated with Christianity. This would be akin to considering whether the claim that we are a democratic nation is valid based on whether citizens and institutions uphold and live out the principles and practices of democracy. Do citizens act in democratic ways? Are there state and non-state institutions that uphold democratic values and principles? Let’s shift to whether we are a “Christian” nation. Do citizens and elected officials adhere to the core principles of Christianity as reflected in the life and ministry of Jesus Christ? Do state and non-state institutions promote Christian principles and practices? The simple answer is no, but it is important to at least identify a few key principles of Christianity. It is apparent in any cursory reading of history that there are various renderings of what it means to live a Christian life. Yet, it is safe to say that the ministry of Jesus Christ incarnates the love and compassion of God, which includes mercy and forgiveness. As Karen Armstrong (1993) notes, the three Abrahamic faiths elevate compassion as a central principle for living a religious life. If we consider love, compassion, mercy, and forgiveness as central principles of being a Christian, then it is evident that these principles are less about mere belief than they are about actions or practices. I think most individual Christians and communities of faith, if they are honest, would say that they fall short of living out these principles. Indeed, Kierkegaard, surveying the landscape of Christian Europe, asked whether a Christian could be found in all of Christendom. No doubt he was aware of how far he and others fail to live out and up to Jesus Christ. More importantly, his query was not just about individuals, but calling Christendom itself into question. Individuals who call themselves Christian should be assessed in terms of the principles of Christianity, not so much to deny their identity, but to indicate to what degree they live out this faith. Those of us who call ourselves Christian know we do not measure up, yet we retain a Christian identity. When individuals use the term Christian to describe their nation, which includes identity, then it is fair game to use the principles as criteria. What does it mean to be called a Christian nation given the violent appropriation of land from Native Americans, which may rightly be called ethnic cleansing? Our ruthless treatment of Native peoples, which continues today, seems a far cry from any Christian principle. Consider how many American Christians legitimated slavery, Jim Crow, and racism. By what Christian principle do these fall under? The exploitation of Cuban, Philippine, and Central American peoples during the decades when the U.S. was a colonial power seems more in line with the principles of the Roman Empire than Christian values. The fire bombings of Dresden and Tokyo and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of civilians. Has the U.S. ever asked for forgiveness for these acts?  This kind of sociopathic brutality is a far cry from Christian compassion, though it is important to acknowledge that Christian communities perpetrated if not supported brutal actions (e.g., lynching). Let’s turn to the killing of around 2 million Vietnamese, which was more in line with the principles of realpolitik than Christian justice. Speaking of justice, read Acts and ask how Christian is it to have huge income and wealth disparities, millions of people without healthcare or inadequate healthcare, food deserts, and 7 million people in the penal system. Does this so-called Christian nation embody or even uphold any of the core values of Christianity? If this is not enough to dissuade people from calling the U.S. a Christian nation, I also raise the fact that I am not sure any nation could be Christian, except in only one sense and that is the view that we are a Christian nation because most citizens self-identify as Christian. That said, it is crucial to recognize that while religious communities can hold forth about their Christian values and principles vis-à-vis organizing the life of the community, nations abide by other principles, principles more in line with Machiavelli and Clausewitz, rather than Christ. To be sure, Constantine launched the West onto the idea of a Christian state, but this idea seemed to be far from anything Jesus had in mind. Moreover, Christ’s motivation, if I can talk about his motivation, seemed to be more about compassion, feeding the poor, healing the sick, etc., than it was about founding a nation. In short, Jesus’ kingdom is not to be found on earth, even though the kingdom of God is among us in acts of love, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. These are virtues that are inimical the advancement of a nation state, let alone, an empire. So, let’s be honest and acknowledge that the U.S. and its government do not and, perhaps, cannot uphold Christian principles in organizing social or international relations. For this reason, we cannot claim the U.S. is a Christian nation. But I am not sanguine about people accepting this, especially those Christian individuals who are more likely to think of themselves as staunch patriots. By adhering to this belief, more accurately an illusion, they avoid facing the fact that the fundamental principles that actually operate in state-craft, namely, ruthless, rational calculation in the advancement of U.S. economic and political interests, are contrary to Christian principles used to organize the first Christian communities, namely sacrificial love, compassion, forgiveness, and distribution of resources according to needs. I also think there are a few other reasons why many Christian Americans are steadfast in their belief that the U.S. is a Christian nation. First, Christianity has long been the dominant religious tradition in this country and has become, for many, intertwined with a national identity. Even if people recognize that one can be American and from other faith traditions, patriotic Christians’ identity is wedded to national identity. To begin to believe we are not a Christian nation can evoke anxiety and rage because it is a threat to that identity. A second reason for retaining this illusion is that it deflects one from the inherent cruelty of the state’s actions (e.g., drone warfare and the killing of civilians, policing the poor). Even when we find ways to justify violence (e.g., they attacked us first—just war), we can continue to hold out that we are Christian nation. “Christian” denotes something good, unsullied by our excesses. It is analogous to someone saying, after being cruel to someone, “All have sinned. I know this as a Christian and that God still loves me.” Pasting the title Christian over the notion of the state or nation is like trying to cover over the indelible stain of our national sins. Third and relatedly, to come face to face with ourselves, as Carl Jung noted, is a terrible shock for we will see how far we really are from our cherished ideals of ourselves. Our shared histories, which undergird our shared identities, are, more often than not, facades that screen the reality of wrong on the throne and right on the scaffold (Niebuhr, 1941, p. 40).  Better to hold onto the soporific illusions of the title “Christian” than to face our collective past and present sins. As James Baldwin noted Americans “have the most remarkable ability to alchemize all bitter truths into an innocuous but piquant confection and to transform their moral contradictions, into a proud decoration” (1955, p.31)—the proud decoration that we are a Christian nation. Baldwin also wrote, “(F)or there is a great deal of will power involved in the white man’s naïveté” (p.166)—a naiveté fostered by the illusion of a Christian America. So, there are three basic rationales for citizens proclaiming the U.S. is a Christian nation. The first is the view that sheer numbers of people who believe in Christ indicates we are a Christian nation, but this fails because of the low percentages of people who actually practice some version of Christian faith. More importantly it also fails because the Constitution not only does not proclaim this, but actually leaves open the possibility of some other religion having greater numbers of believers, let alone practitioners. A second argument is that the founding documents of the nation are heavily influenced by Christian beliefs and principles. This might seem to be true, but the reality is that there were other influences, including those of Native peoples. Third, individuals may claim that we are a Christian nation because Christian principles and values guide how we understand ourselves and organize society. The truth, however, is that the United States has operated out of other principles more suited to Machiavellian principles of statecraft. One might ask why is it so important to rid ourselves of the illusion that we are a Christian nation. What good will come of it? Isn’t holding this belief an inducement to live out a more moral existence as a nation? As for the second question, one need only go down the depressively long list of cruel, destructive, exploitive, and oppressive actions perpetrated in the name of a Christian nation to see that it has not been an inducement to live a more moral life, though people like Martin Luther King Jr. and others used this to [Edited Out] the consciences of white Americans. If we work to get rid of or limit this illusion, people of other religious and secular faiths may feel more at home in the U.S. Perhaps another benefit would be a growing awareness of the misdeeds done under the name of Christian nation. In facing the sins of our past, there might be a sliver of hope for change. As James Baldwin (2010) notes, “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced” (p.34). Notes. Armstrong, K. (1993). A History of God. New York: Ballantine Books. Baldwin, J. (1955). Notes of a Native Son. Boston, MA: Beacon Press. Baldwin, J. (2010). The Cross of Redemption: Uncollected writings. New York: Pantheon. Kierkegaard, S. (1846). Concluding unscientific postscript to the philosophical fragments: A mimic-pathetic-dialectic composition: An existential contribution, by Johannes Climacus. Responsible for publication: S. Kierkegaard. Trans. D. Swenson and W. Lowrie (1941). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Niebuhr, H. R. (1941). Meaning and revelation. New York: Collier Books.
    • If you are thinking that he'll be hurt by your decision then you are right may be he will,but that'll heal.. Moving with him further will make chances to return and heal difficult!! And if you are thinking about people pointing on you or your parents don't worry they will talk till they have that tongue(even if you do nothing they'll say oh!what a poor girl she does nothing :p) select your priorities and then act, it will ease your decisions inshaaAllah... May you find best in Allah's will 
    • Just remembering that incident today on 28th of Safar.  The noha I was listening today mentioning that coffin taken back to home again (may be to remove those arrows) and then taken to jannat-ul-baqee.
    • Well, I just saw your reply. You love what you yourself are? What does it mean? Does it mean that you even love your weak points and you dont love those who are better than you?
×