As some of you may have seen, some of my social media accounts have been hacked. May Allah reward the brothers who brought it to my attention! May Allah give these devils what that deserve and protect us from their evil!

Striving For Ones Family

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

We mentioned in a previous post that Allah has placed reward in certain actions related to ones family, and likewise in the correct utilisation of ones wealth. The following hadeeth is an example of that.
Upon the authority of Ka’b ibn ‘Ujrah – Radhiyallahu Anhu – Who said:

A man passed by the Prophet – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam and the Companions of the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Salam saw his hardiness, striving and his briskness, so they said: Oh Messenger of Allah! If only this was ‘fee sabeelillah’ (In the way of Allah)! So the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam said: “If he has left out striving for his young son, then he is ‘fee sabeelillah’, and if he left out striving for his elderly parents, then he is fee sabeelillah, and if left out striving for the virtue and chastity of his own soul, then he is ‘fee sabeellillah’. But if he set out to be seen of the people, and to contend with others in mutual boasting then he is fee sabeelish Shaytaan! (In the path of Shaytaan!)

(Collected by Imaamut Tabaraani in ‘Mu’jam Al Kabeer (282) and declared ‘Saheeh’ by Shaikh Al Albaani in ‘Saheehul Jaami’ (1428))

This then indicates the virtue of striving for certain family members, but there is great virtue in striving for ones family generally, as made clear by the following hadeeth:

Upon the authority of Al Hasan – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu who said that the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam Said:

The most beloved of the worshippers to Allah, is he who is most beneficial to his family

(Collected by Imaam Ahmad in ‘Az Zuhd’ and declared ‘Hasan’ by Shaikh Naasir in ‘Saheehul Jaami’ (172))

And indeed there are many ways one may benefit his or her family Wa Lillahil Hamd

Wallahu a’lam

Abu Hakeem

Al Jazariyah Revision notes


Al hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

‘Amma Ba’d:

The following are some brief notes on the lesson explaining the text of Al Jazariyah in the science of Tajweed. I hope they serve as a beneficial reminder concerning the Makharijul Huroof (Origins of the articulation of the letters) and the sifaatul Huroof (characteristics of the letters) for those who are following the lesson.

Revision notes on the explanation of Al Jazariyah


The places of the origins of the articulation of the letters (مخارج الحروف)

1.The Jouf (الجوف): (The hollow cavity from the voicebox in the throat to the opening of the mouth)

The letters of elongation Alif, Waw and Yaa أ – و – ي))

  1. The Throat (الحلق): Three sections
  • The lowest part of the throat (area of the larynx)

Two Letters: Hamzah and Hā (هَا – (ء

  • The middle of the throat

Two letters: ‘Ayn and the Ḥā (ع – ح)

  • The closest part of the throat to the opening of the mouth

Two Letters: Ghayn and Khā (غ – خ)

  1. The Tongue (اللسان): Three sections
  • The back of the tongue (أقصى اللسان)

Two letters: Qāf and then Kāf (ق – ك)

  • The middle of the tongue (وسْطُ الإنسان)

Three letters: Jīm, the Shīn and the Yā` ((ج – ش – ي

  • The side of the tongue (حافة اللسان) (Left side, right side or both sides) articulated by bringing the left, right or both sides of the tongue up to meet the upper molars and premolars

One letter: the Ḍād (ض)

  • The tip of the tongue (طرف اللسان): (Beginning from tip of the curvature of one side to the other)

Three letters: Lām, Nūn and Rā (ل – ن – ر)

Nūn: articulated by bringing the tip of the tongue up to meet the gum at the root of the front incisors (Nun being the closest of them to the root of the upper incisors)

Lām: Behind nūn slightly

Rā: Originating from a similar place as the nūn, except the top of the tip of the tongue is included. A small opening is left at the tip of the tongue to allow for the sound of the letter to exit the mouth (avoiding excessive vibration of the tongue while doing so)

  • The tip of the tongue meeting the gum of the upper central incisors

Three letters: The Ṭā, Dāl and Tā (ط – د – ت)

  • The tip of the tongue and the tip of the upper central incisors

Three letters: The Dhā the Dhāl and the Thā (ث – ذ – ظ)

  • The tip of the tongue resting slightly above the lower central incisors

Three letters: The Ṣād, Sīn and Zāy (ص – س – ز)

  1. The Lips (الشَّـفَتَيْنِ)

Four letters: Fā the Wāw, the Bā and the Mīm ف – و – ب – م) )

  1. The Nasal Cavity (الخيشوم): The nasal cavity which is the origin of the nasal sound (Ghunnah: الغُنَة) which is a part of the articulation of Nūn and Mīm (ن – م)

The Characteristics of the Letters (صفات الحروف)

Two Types:

  1. Sifāt Lāzimah (صفات لازمة) (Permanent Characteristics) these are intrinsic to the letters and do not leave them
  2. Sifāt ‘Āridah (صفات عارضة) (Temporary Characteristics) these are found in the letters in certain circumstances (the bulk of the remainder of Al Jazariyah discusses these characteristics)

Sifāt Lāzimah (Permanent Characteristics) are of two types:

  1. Characteristics that have opposites
  2. Characteristics that do not have opposites




The Myth Of Darwinian Evolution (Part 5) – The Miller-Urey Experiment

Another argument used by evolutionists, to justify Darwinism, is that of a theory developed in the 1920’s that was followed in the 1950’s by an experiment that would make history among evolutionists known as the Operin/Holdane Hypothesis

The Operin/Haldane hypothesis

In the 1920s, Russian scientist Aleksandr Oparin and English scientist J. B. S. Haldane both separately proposed what is now called the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis: that life on Earth could have arisen step-by-step from non-living matter through a process of “gradual chemical evolution.”
Oparin and Haldane thought that the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere, (meaning an oxygen-poor atmosphere in which molecules tend to donate electrons.) Under these conditions, they suggested that:
  • Simple inorganic molecules could have reacted (with energy from lightning or the sun) to form building blocks like amino acids and nucleotides, which could have accumulated in the oceans, making a “primordial soup.”
  • The building blocks could have combined in further reactions, they claim, forming larger, more complex molecules (polymers) like proteins and nucleic acids, perhaps in pools at the water’s edge.
  • The polymers ‘could have’ assembled into units or structures that were capable of sustaining and replicating themselves. Oparin thought these might have been “colonies” of proteins clustered together to carry out metabolism, while Haldane suggested that macromolecules became enclosed in membranes to make cell-like structures.

This was the theory.  (It will become clearer as we go along)

Based upon the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis,  in the 1950’s, an American scientist, Stanley Miller, conducted an experiment that would go down in scientific history with evolutionists:

The Miller-Urey Experiment.  In the 1950’s, Stanley Miller, an American graduate student and his Phd advisor Harold Urey, produced what he believed to be some of the chemical building blocks of life, by sending an electric spark through a mixture of gasses they thought simulated earth’s primitive atmosphere. The 1953 Miller/Urey experiment, generated enormous excitement in the scientific community and soon found its way into every science textbook as ‘evidence’ that scientists had demonstrated the first step in the ‘origin of life’. It is still featured in textbooks, magazines, and documentaries as ‘proof of evolution’

Though, for more than a decade, most geochemists have been convinced that the experiment failed to simulate conditions on earth and thus has little to do with the origin of life at all.

The Experiment

Miller’s professor, Harold Urey, had been lecturing about how the earth could have had a different atmosphere, and that perhaps life formed because of that atmosphere. Miller investigated the idea in the laboratory. A diagram of his apparatus is shown below. He generated water flow around a glass loop by heating it until vapors were given off and then, ultimately, cooling it. To the water vapor he added ammonia, methane, and hydrogen, and electrically sparked this gaseous mixture (Oxygen had to be excluded from the experiment, so as to mimic what they thought earth’s early atmosphere was comprised of, otherwise it would have exploded!). One product of the resulting reaction was a yellowish mixture that coated the glass.

When he removed a sample from the water at the bottom of the loop and examined it, Miller found another product: amino acids. Amino acids are found in our bodies, and are the building blocks for other more complex organic materials. Some interpreted this experiment as supporting Oparin’s idea of the chemical emergence of life. It appeared that Miller had shown the first step in Oparin’s ’emergence’ theory, which went from chemicals to simple organics. Now in one sense, that’s not so earthshaking because, beginning in 1828 with Friedrich Wohler, chemists had been synthesizing organic compounds from inorganics. In this sense, all Miller did was to synthesize an organic compound – there was nothing sensational about that. However, what is unique is the claim made for this experiment, that it supports Oparin’s theory.

That was back in 1953. A lot has happened since then in the science world, and it hasn’t been good for the naturalistic origins story.

Scientists as early as 1960 began to doubt that the elements in the test tube were the actual elements on the earth at the time of the origin of life. Even if the elements were correct, all it did was create a small number out of the many amino acids required for life. That is still light years away from creating a protein. Hundreds of various proteins are required in order for even a single cell to exist! Surely, with the developments in science, we should by now have been able to move the experiment past the stage Miller took it to? Also if we bear in mind Miller used a man made laboratory and man made settings, wouldn’t this then be a stronger argument for creation and intelligent design rather than evolution?

Weaknesses of the Miller Experiment

Initially, the Miller experiment gained acceptance because of the strengths mentioned above. As research continued, however, weaknesses arose.

  • Firstly, no one could come up with a good naturalistic explanation for the ‘tap’ where Miller removed the amino acids from the loop, what would it represent in the real world. If someone does not tap off the amino acids they flow back around the loop to the spark, which then destroys them. Miller could not leave the amino acids in the loop; the rate of destruction in the spark is greater than the rate of formation, and the organics would never accumulate. He had to remove them; but what is the analog in nature for this?
  • Secondly, bigger weakness is the assumption that the early atmosphere consisted of hydrogen, methane, ammonia, and water. There’s no proof of that. As a matter of fact, what evidence that does exist (oxidized rocks, for example) indicates that the early earth had an oxygen atmosphere. This fact is bad news for the naturalistic scenario because if there is oxygen in Miller’s loop, the experiment does not work at all. Oxygen stops it cold. Even though we need oxygen to live today, oxygen in the past (according to scientists) would have prevented the formation of amino acids. Also, atmospheric oxygen today forms the protective ozone layer. If there was no oxygen in the early earth’s atmosphere, then there would have been no ozone layer, scientists agree, and ultraviolet rays would have poured in, destroying any life that did exist.
  • Thirdly, Another weakness of the Miller experiment is that hydrogen is the lightest molecule and therefore has a high diffusion capability. According to scientists (who believe in the existence of gravity), the earth’s gravitational field is not strong enough to hold hydrogen and it would have diffused easily out of our atmosphere. So it (Hydrogen) would not have been around (according to them) to help form amino acids.  Additionally, ammonia and methane in the atmosphere would not have lasted. In a few thousand years they would have been destroyed by chemical reaction caused by sunlight. So they would not have been around to form the hypothesized organic ‘soup’ either. Sunlight in the hypothesized Miller-type atmosphere is like a bull in a china shop – there is a lot of energy there, but most of it is destructive.
  • Fourthly, If there were an organic soup, then the next weakness would be the extremely low probability of the formation of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) and other large, complex molecules from the soup.  In more than 60 years, further experiments have not shown that amino acids naturally form anything more complex.
  • Fifthly, Associated with this formation of complex molecules is the information content in our DNA. Another major problem for neo-Darwinists who believe in the concept of evolution through genetic mutation, is, where did the genetic codes come from that generate us? Also, this genetic code operates only in the presence of ribosomes, activating enzymes, transfer RNA (ribonucleic acid), etc. How all this happened naturalistically is a major unsolved problem.
  • Sixthly, One of the greatest weaknesses of the Miller experiment (and other naturalistic explanations) is that it does not explain the fact that only L-amino acid is found in our bodies. Most amino acids can appear in two different forms, “L” and “D.” There is a left-handed form of an amino acid, “L”, and a right-handed one, “D.” One form rotates polarized light left, the other rotates it right. They are mirror images of each other. If you look in the mirror and raise your right hand, the image in the mirror raises its left hand. It is you in the mirror, but there is a difference – there is a “handedness” to our mirror images. It is the same thing with these amino acids. Of the twenty commonly occurring amino acids, nineteen have this mirror image capability: They are called optical isomers. The exception is glycine – it’s symmetrical no matter which way you look at it, mirror image or straight on.

As mentioned, our bodies don’t have the D-amino acids. This is true for all living beings. The only exception is the exoskeleton of insects, which have “D” in them. Otherwise, all living things have “L.” The claim for the Miller experiment and similar naturalistic ideas is that they offer an analogy of how life could have occurred. But the Miller experiment gives D- and L-amino acids in roughly a 50-50 ratio. As a matter of fact, anyway that we synthesize amino acids gives a 50-50 ratio. If we went into a lab and started mixing chemicals together, we would get a 50-50 mixture. The analogy breaks down.

Amino acids have been found in some meteorites. A good question to ask would be about the L- and D-amino acids in these meteorites. What’s the ratio of the L to D in them, as far as amino acids are concerned? The answer is roughly 50-50.(1)

No one has come up with a good explanation of why we have only the “L” form in us when naturally occurring amino acids have roughly equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids. A possible one is that polarized light in the Orion nebula could have created L-amino acids. (See Science, 31 July 1998.) (2) One problem with this scenario is that huge amounts would have to be made for the earth to get enough. Another is exactly how this light makes “L”-amino acids only. Of course this extraterrestrial explanation undercuts the Miller experiment and any other terrestrial hypotheses.(3)

  • Sevently, The last and most formidable weakness of the Miller experiment is Miller himself. He designed the experiment, hoping to produce amino acids, but the first run did not generate any. It was back to the drawing board. He changed certain experimental parameters and the second run did provide the desired results. Now, a supposed strength of the experiment is that it is supposed to be a possible naturalistic explanation of the origin of life. The methane, ammonia, water, and hydrogen in the Miller experiment, even though of an artificially high purity, is said to be the earth’s early atmosphere. The electric spark is said to be analogous to lightning, and the liquid water, the oceans. If so, then what is the analogy for Miller, the designer and modifier of the experiment? The answer is an intelligence – a designer, a creator, is needed for life to occur. If one thought the earlier inferences from the Miller experiment was scientific, then one has to concede that this inference of a powerful intelligent ‘creating’ being is also ‘scientific’.

The basic idea behind the chemical origin of life is that simple molecules became more complex molecules which eventually allowed the first auto-catalytic self-reproducing molecule to exist. Many would define the chemical origin of life as the existence of a single molecule that was not only able to replicate on its own, but could produce any molecules necessary to facilitate that replication. According to Stanley Miller, the chain of events looked something like this:14


The touted sequence of events leading from a “random” explosion of matter and energy to DNA-based life. Please note, emboldened terms will be discussed in the text.

Most origin of life researchers would generally agree with such a diagram, although some add “extraterrestrial input” in varying amounts somewhere along the line. For example, Stanley Miller believes extraterrestrial input (i.e. comets, asteroids, and random dust particles) contributed about 5% of the pre-biotic organic molecules on earth.( Statements made by Stanley Miller at a talk given by him for a UCSD Origins of Life seminar class on January 19, 1999)

Step 1: Pre-Biotic Synthesis and the “primordial soup”
In order to bake a cake, you first need all the ingredients. Pre-biotic synthesis is the means by which sufficient quantities of all the ingredients thought to be necessary for life’s natural origin were formed. Many have called this collection of chemicals the “primordial soup”. We will ask 2 questions regarding this “soup:”

    1. Could the soup have even been produced?
    2. Is there any geological evidence that the soup existed?

1. Could the soup have ever been produced?
As noted, in the 1950’s, Stanley Miller appeared to have found a way to make some of the ingredients of the primordial soup by “zapping” a mixture of H2 (Hydrogen), HCN (Hydrogen cyanide), H2O (Water), CH4  (Methane), CHO (Carbohydrate), and NH3 (Ammonia) gasses with an electric spark. The first time Miller got nothing but brown tar but after more experiments, he obtained (albeit often in very small amounts) at least 19 of the 20 amino acids upon which life is built. Furthermore, it has been found that comets and carbonaceous asteroids, which are thought to have been constantly bombarding the earth early in its history, can contain appreciable amounts of organic molecules. All this looks promising at first when trying to build up an ancient storehouse of pre-biotic organic chemicals.

However, the cake-baking analogy from above analogy now holds quite true! Just as a baker adds the proper ingredients to bake a cake, so the researchers designed their pre-biotic synthesis experiments in such a way as to get the sought-after organic molecules. Methane (CH4) and ammonia (NH3), were chosen not because they were actually thought to be a part of the early atmosphere but rather because they are essential to the production of the proper amino acids and gave the desired results. As noted, Stanley Miller admits that he assumed that the atmosphere had methane and ammonia—he did not test that hypothesis. In other words, they created the atmosphere they knew was necessary to obtain the results they were seeking! they had no concrete evidence for that particular combination of gases. They just wanted to see if they could produce the right molecules using various contrived mixtures of gasses. Given the simple molecules they were trying to synthesize, these experiments are little more than simple exercises in organic chemistry and literally say nothing about the chemical origin of life. Though at the time, Miller’s experiment was promoted as supporting the hypothesis that life arose out of a primordial soup, subsequent research has enumerated problems with the hypothesis:

1. As previously noted, Miller’s experiment requires a ‘reducing’ methane and ammonia atmosphere, however geochemical evidence says the atmosphere was hydrogen, water, and carbon dioxide (non-reducing).15, 16 The only amino acid produced in a such an atmosphere is glycine (and only when the hydrogen content is unreasonably high), which could not form the necessary building blocks of life.11

2. These “pre-biotic chemicals” are formed only in very small amounts and degrade quickly into a tar-like substance.17, 18 Not only would UV radiation destroy any molecules that were made, but their own short lifespans would also greatly limit their numbers. For example, at 100ºC (boiling point of water), the half lives of the nucleic acids Adenine and Guanine are 1 year, uracil is 12 years, and cytozine is 19 days20 (nucleic acids and other important proteins such as chlorophyll and hemoglobin have never been synthesized in origin-of-life type experiments19). Such short-lived molecules could never be stockpiled, even if they could be produced naturally. Even though even at that low-temperature, Ribose, a sugar which helps build DNA, has a short half-life of 44 years,14 and cytozine a relatively short half-life of 17,000 years.20 Either way the rate of degradation is too high to accumulate enough pre-biotic organics to form a soup. But models for earth’s formation indicate the earth was hot, meaning degradation would occur even faster! If it were that the earth had been cold, this would also work against the origin-of-life theory by slowing the chemical reactions that supposedly allowed life to form, increasing the time needed for the origin-of-life.

3. Catch-22 situation: We know ozone in the upper atmosphere protects life from harmful UV radiation. However, ozone is composed of oxygen which is the very gas that Stanley Miller-type experiments avoided, for it prevents the synthesis of organic molecules like the ones obtained from the experiments! Pre-biotic synthesis is in a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” scenario. The chemistry does not work if there is oxygen because the atmosphere would be non-reducing, but if there is no UV-light-blocking oxygen (i.e. ozone – O3) in the atmosphere, the amino acids would be quickly destroyed by extremely high amounts of UV light (which would have been 100 times stronger than today on the early earth).20, 21, 22 This radiation could destroy methane within a few tens of years,23 and atmospheric ammonia within 30,000 years.15

4. At best the processes would likely create a dilute “thin soup,”24 destroyed by meteorite impacts every 10 million years.20, 25 This severely limits the time available to create pre-biotic chemicals and allow for the OOL.

2. Is there any geochemical evidence that the soup ever existed?
There is no geological evidence left in the rocks that a primordial soup ever existed. If there was ever a soup, the earliest Precambrian rocks should contain high levels of non-biological carbon, for biologically produced carbon contains an excess of “isotopically light” carbon. Ancient sedimentary rocks, however, do not reveal this signature,29 and thus there is no positive evidence for this soup. If these processes produced a soup, they should have left a significant (1-10 meter thick) layer of tar encircling the earth, but there is no geochemical evidence of such a layer30 nor any published geochemical evidence of a primordial soup.31 Had there been a soup, then the rocks thought to be from that time period ought to contain an “unusually large proportion of carbon or organic chemicals” which they do not.15

So drastic is the evidence against pre-biotic synthesis, that in 1990 the Space Studies Board of the National Research Council recommended to scientists a “reexamination of biological monomer synthesis under primitive Earthlike environments, as revealed in current models of the early Earth.”23

Many speculate that given a primordial soup, the chemical origin of life does not seem so improbable. However, it would appear that the existence of the primordial soup itself may have been greatly improbable. For a second, let’s reason like the scientists do: The primordial soup ‘seems’ necessary for life’s natural origin, life evolved naturally, therefore the primordial soup must have existed! But, the opposite is also true. If the primordial soup is necessary for life’s ‘natural’ origin, but the soup didn’t exist (and we have no concrete evidence that  it did), then life didn’t arise ‘naturally’ (i.e. through a process of evolution). Assuming, for a second, that the primordial soup did come to exist, we are now ready to analyze the second major step in the chemical origin of life: could the molecules in the soup have come together to make larger, more complex molecules.

Step 2: Polymerization
Polymerization is the process by which “monomers” (simple organic molecules) form covalent bonds with one another to produce “polymers” (complex organic molecules). Monomers are thought to be the constituents of the pre-biotic soup (amino acids, sugars, lipids, simple carbohydrates, nucleic acids), but polymers are chains–often very long chains–of monomers (peptides, phospholipids, RNA, DNA?). This step is basically the method by which you get bigger molecules from the smallest molecules.

To help, here’s a little analogy which might give some understanding of the types of structures we’re dealing with here: If we imagine a living organism as a book, Monomers are like the letters, polymers are the words, biochemical pathways are the sentences, cells are the paragraphs, biological systems are the chapters, and the organism is the whole book! The only difference? Polymers are like words which are thousands of letters long.

During polymerization, two monomers combine, forming a polymer and a water molecule:

Polymerization Reaction

If the origin of life took place in the pre-biotic soup, then it took place in an aqueous (i.e. water-based) solution of pre-biotic monomers. According to Le Chateliers Principle, one of the basic laws of chemistry, the presence of a product (in this case, water) will slow the reaction. If one tries to polymerize monomers into polymers in an aqueous solution (one where water is the solvent), it is not possible to obtain any appreciable amount. The bottom line, the polymerization step in the chemical origin of life could never take place in water—this step is impossible in the primordial soup.

“Polymerization” thus requires “dehydration synthesis.” Many have proposed alternatives to get around this stumbling block. Since polymerization reactions also require an input of energy, heating and drying has been theorized to input energy, and remove the water. However, this heating and drying has to take place in such a way as to not wipeout the created polymers. Some theorized locations for this reaction have been intertidal pools or volcanic ridges where repeated cycles of heating and drying can take place. The problem is that all the water must be removed, but you don’t want to over-cook the polymers you are creating. Organic molecules tend to break down rapidly (i.e. cook) in the presence of heat. This would have to be a very fine balancing act that would also requires rapid input of organic material to overcome the rate at which the heat would destroy the molecules. A successful scenario is very difficult to imagine. Even under ideal laboratory conditions using pure monomers and carefully measured heating and drying cycles, only small amounts of polymers have been created.

Quick Summary of Problems with Various Locations for the Origin of Life
1. Deep sea thermal vents This would be under water and could not allow for polymerization through dehydration synthesis. Furthermore, organic compounds would quickly decompose if exposed to the high heat of deep sea thermal vents.
2. Tide pools (or somewhere in the intertidal zone) Organic material would still exposed to water, inhibiting polymerization (dehydration-synthesis). Experiments which have mimicked optimal heating and drying conditions near tide pools have only created small to modest amounts of polymers.
3. Anywhere in the ocean Water prevents polymerization because polymerization cannot take place in the presence of water. According to Le Chateliers principle, chemical reactions do not take place in the presence of large quantities of the product. Plus, the ocean would dilute the chemicals necessary for life.
4. Volcanic Ridges This scenario encounters the same problems as the tide-pools—it must dry out the ‘soup’ through volcanic heat to allow polymerization. But even if dry monomers could exist in high concentrations under perfect temperature conditions (as occurs only in experiments), experiments suggests the resulting polymers are still too small to allow for the next steps in the origin of life. One reason that the primordial soup was hypothesized is because in such an aqueous environment, there would be a high rate of random chemical interaction. In other words, molecules would always be bumping into new neighbors, increasing the odds that many chemical reactions could take place. Even if the necessary polymers could be produced, here they are outside of water and there will not be a high rate of random chemical interactions to further form complex molecules. However, since the polymerization step can’t take place in water, the number of random chemical interactions would be almost infinitely reduced. Instead of trying to make life in a liquid environment, you’re now trying to make it in a more solid goo, which is much less congenial to random chemical interactions. How could life originate if the proper molecules have such a small chance of even finding each other? Furthermore, volcanic ridges also face the same problems as deep sea thermal vents as they are very hot and would destroy organic molecules.
5. Clay surfaces


This theory was first proposed about 1400 B.C. by Moses in the book of Genesis. Moses proposed that God created man out of dust, or clay. The theory has also enjoyed a new twist in the 20th century as A. Graham Cairns-Smith, hypothesized that clay crystals could have acted as a template which could allow for the continued creation and replication of organic material. Hypothetically this scenario could create a wide variety of organic molecules, however it lacks any experimental evidence. As there are no experiments, there are no results to judge and no practical problems encountered.
6. Extra-terrestrial Origin See our Problems with Panspermia or Extraterrestrial Origin of Life Scenarios page page.


Step 3: Pre-RNA World: Getting A Sufficient Self-Replicating Molecule

Though the OOL appears to be dead in the water, because of the lack of evidence for a “primordial soup” and the problems facing polymerization, let’s assume that those hurdles could be overcome. What would happen next? Many researchers have hypothesized that once polymers somehow formed, some of them came together to form the first self-replicating molecules. Somewhere within this step–the Pre-RNA world–the true origin-of-life occurred. However, nothing even close to a complete scenario by which polymers can naturally form a self-replicating molecule has ever been put forth. Chemists can artificially synthesize some self-replicating molecules in the lab, but they are not synthesized under conditions resembling the early Earth. Essentially, this is an appeal to a miracle.

Stanley Miller once said, “making compounds and making life are two different things.”14 This is quite true, for life, by definition, must have the ability to self-replicate–a process requiring many enzymes and genetic biochemical molecules. According to Joyce (2002), molecules like RNA or DNA are too complex to have arisen out the soup (assuming it existed) so there must have been some other more simple precursor to RNA or DNA.

A few self-replicating molecules have been created in the lab (i.e. in thoughtful and carefully-designed experiments). None have yet yielded candidates which could be stable replicators in an early earthlike environment that have the capacity to evolve into a more complex form. But is this anything more than rife speculation fueled by naturalistic thought? Consider these words by Arthur Shapiro:

“Another evolutionary principle is therefore needed to take us across the gap from mixtures of simple natural chemicals to the first effective replicator. This principle has not yet been described in detail or demonstrated, but it is anticipated, and given names such as chemical evolution and self-organization of matter. The existence of the principle is taken for granted in the philosophy of dialectical materialism, as applied to the origin of life by Alexander Oparin.”37One commentator noted that these self replicating molecules contain vastly less information compared to what is necessary for even the most primitive cell:

“This system carries very little information, in contrast to even the simplest cell. Mycoplasma gentalium has the smallest known genome of any living organism, which contains 482 genes comprising 580,000 bases. This organism is an obligate parasite. A free-living organism would need many more genes.”19Life (at least today through the molecule DNA) contains huge amounts of information. As previously noted, the Darwinian mechanism requires replication, or reproduction. Prior to the origin of replication, life could only rely upon the basic laws of chemistry. But how could the basic laws of chemistry and physics create the information present in life? The origin of this information that is key to understanding the origin of life. As B. O. Küppers wrote, “the problem of the origin of life is clearly basically equivalent to the problem of the origin of biological information.”50 Yet, there are no known chemical laws that determine the order of the nucleotide bases in DNA (or any other self-replicating molecule). Küppers notes, “the properties of nucleic acids indicate that all the combinatorially possible nucleotide patterns are, from a chemical point of view, equivalent.”48 Hubert Yockey writes that the sequence of the DNA is not affected by any physical or chemical law:

Informational macromolecules can code genetic messages and therefore can carry information because the sequence of bases or residues is affected very little, if at all, by [self-organizing] physico-chemical factors.49The first self-replicating molecule is not said to be DNA. But it is said to have been similar to DNA in that it carried the information needed for life. If there are no known chemical or physical laws which can create this complex and specified information needed for a self-replicating molecule, then this stage of the origin of life faces severe hurdles.

Step 4: RNA World
Some time after the first “self-replicating” molecule formed, according to the story, RNA came along. Today, RNA is a genetic molecule in all cells, similar to DNA, but more versatile within the cell. The “RNA World” is essentially a hypothetical stage of life between the first replicating molecule and the highly complicated DNA-protein-based life. The chief problem facing an RNA world is that RNA cannot perform all of the functions of DNA adequately to allow for replication and transcription of proteins. OOL theorist Leslie Orgel notes that an “RNA World” could only form the basis for life, “if prebiotic RNA had two properties not evident today: a capacity to replicate without the help of proteins and an ability to catalyze every step of protein synthesis.”41 The RNA world is thus a hypothetical system behind which there is little positive evidence, and much materialist philosophy:

“The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear … investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best. The full details of how the RNA world, and life, emerged may not be revealed in the near future.”41The best claimed evidence of an “RNA World” includes the fact that there are RNA enzymes and genomes, and that cells use RNA to convert the DNA code into proteins.42 However, RNA plays only a supporting role in the cell, and there is no known biochemical system completely composed of RNA.42

RNA experts have created a variety of RNA molecules which can perform biochemical functions through what is commonly termed “test tube evolution.” However, “test tube evolution” is just a description for what is in reality nothing more than chemical engineering in the laboratory employing Darwinian principles; that does not imply that there is some known pathway through which these molecules could arise naturally.

The most interesting RNA molecule synthesized is perhaps an RNA “polymerase” which can replicate 14 base pairs of RNA.42 Yet, the polymerase itself is 200 pairs long.42 As Gerald Joyce noted, OOL theorists are thus 14 / 200 towards achieving a possible model molecule for the RNA World. $2 However, Joyce also noted that the replication accuracy of this molecule is too poor to allow for it to persist as a functional form of life.42

These purely speculative scenarios aren’t bad on their own merits, but they are just another reminder of the philosophical presupposition driving this research in the first place: naturalism. Only when scientists assume there must be a natural explanation do they turn to completely unfalsifiable unverifiable and incomplete speculatory hypotheses.

The theory then says that some unknown precursor of RNA turned into RNA through an unknown process. This “RNA-world hypothesis” states that life then arose from a population of self-replicating RNA molecules. RNA is a sister molecule to DNA, used when DNA breaks up to create proteins or replicate. Like a copy from the library, RNA has a complementary code to DNA and goes out to do the dirty work. A few types of RNA have been known to have auto-catalytic self-replicating abilities, however this scenario inevitably encounters a chicken and egg problem18.

But these molecules must be encapsulated within a “cell wall structure” or a small protective enclosure from the outside world. But, the protective cell requires replicating genetic machinery to be created. Thus, we now have a “chicken and egg scenario”–which came first? the self-replicating machinery (which needs a cell to operate), or the cell itself, which protects (and is created by) the cellular machinery? The answer is neither came first for both are required for self-replication. How could self-replicating RNA arise naturally when it essentially is an irreducibly complex system that cannot functionally replicate without other distinct components.

Step 5: DNA/Protein World.
Scientists sometimes bluff that they have the OOL understood. For example, the National Academy of Sciences writes:

“[T]he question is no longer whether life could have originated by chemical processes… The question has become which of many pathways might have been followed to produce the first cell.”6A more accurate statement would be to admit that there is currently no known chemical pathway for many steps in the OOL including how an “RNA world” could transform into a “DNA/protein world.” Somewhere along the line, RNA is then said to have turned into DNA, which is main genetic molecule in all life today. How did this happen? The answer is that nobody has a clue. Problems with such a scenario are put well by biologists John Maynard Smith and Eors Szathmary:

The origin of the [DNA] code is perhaps the most perplexing problem in evolutionary biology. The existing translational machinery is at the same time so complex, so universal) and so essential that it is hard to see how it could have come into existences or how life could have existed without it. The discovery of ribozymes has made it easier to imagine an answer to the second of these questions, but the transformation of an ‘RNA world’ into one in which catalysis is performed by proteins, and nucleic acids specialize in the transmission of information [a DNA world], remains a formidable problem.44
Furthermore, this transition presents an example of the infamous “chicken and egg problem”:43

Which came first? DNA needs enzymes to replicate, but the enzymes are encoded by DNA. DNA needs protection of the cell wall, but the cell wall is also encoded by the DNA. The answer is that neither came first for all are required in DNA-based life. These fundamental components form an irreducibly complex system in which all components must have been present from the start. Biologist Frank Salisbury described the problem as one which essentially requires the extreme difficulty of overcoming the hurdle of building an irreducibly complexity:

It’s nice to talk about replicating DNA molecules arising in a soupy sea, but in modern cells this replication requires the presence of suitable enzymes. Furthermore, DNA by itself accomplishes nothing. Its only reason for existence is the information that it carries and that is used in the production of a protein enzyme. At the moment, the link between DNA and the enzyme is a highly complex one, involving RNA and an enzyme for its synthesis on a DNA template; ribosomes; enyzmes to activate the amino acids; and transfer-RNA molecules. … How, in the absence of the final enzyme, could selection act upon DNA and all the mechanisms for replicating it? It’s as though everything must happen at once: the entire system must come into being as one unit, or it is worthless. There may well be ways out of this dilemma, but I don’t see them at the moment.51

The Irreducible Complexity of the Transcription-Translation Process:

The transcription – translation process is the means by which the information in the DNA code creates protein–the molecules which do things in the cell. In part a, DNA in the cell nucleus is “transcribed” into mRNA, which is then transported out of the nucleus to the ribosome. In part b, free-floating pieces of DNA, called tRNA, bind to the mRNA at the ribosome. All tRNA have amino acids attached to them. When the tRNA binds to the mRNA, the amino acids are linked into a protein. Part c is an expansion of the area in the red box of part b. Each tRNA has a “codon” and each type of codon always carries a particular amino acid. A “codon” is a small piece of DNA with 3 nucleotide bases. In DNA, there are 4 types of nucleotide bases. An “A” (Adenine) only bonds with a “T” (Thymine) and a “C” (Cytozine) matches only with a “G” (Guanine). Thus, the codon on the tRNA can only match specific codons on the mRNA. This forms the basis of the language in the DNA, allowing the amino acids to be strung together in the sequence specified by the DNA.Another level of complexity in this process is how the tRNA get assigned to the right amino acids. For the DNA language to be translated properly, each tRNA codon must be attached to the correct amino acid. If this crucial step in DNA replication is not functional, then the language of DNA breaks down. Special enzymes called aminoacyl – tRNA synthetases (aaRSs) ensure that the proper amino acid is attached to a tRNA with the correct codon through a chemical reaction called “aminoacylation.”52 Accurate translation requires not only that each tRNA be assigned the correct amino acid, but also that it not be aminoacylated by any of the aaRS molecules for the other 19 amino acids. Amazingly, these aaRSs themselves are coded for by the DNA: this forms the essence of an irreducibly-complex chicken-egg problem. The enzymes themselves help perform the very task which constructs them! This is an irreducibly “all or nothing system” whose evolution seems impossible!

The origin of this system presents a challenge to the step-by-step evolution required by Darwin’s theory, or any other theory of the origin of life:

Step 6: Making Proto-cells
Leaving the “chicken-egg” problem aside for a moment, how would we get the first cell-walls for these early replicating sets of molecules? According to one major biology textbook:

One of the earliest episodes in the evolution of life may have been the formation of a membrane that could enclose a solution of different composition from the surrounding solution, while still permitting the selective uptake of nutrients and elimination of waste products. This ability of the cell to discriminate in its chemical exchanges with the environment is fundamental to life, and it is the plasma membrane that makes this selectivity possible.46A proto-cell would need the protective cell wall to keep out harmful substances in the environment. But such a cell wall must also be able to let in useful and beneficial substances. Some OOL researchers have created very small “soap-bubble” like structures which they call “protenoid microspheres.” These “protenoid microspheres” however would not make adequate cell walls for early self-replicating molecules: there is no known mechanism by which the molecules would find their way into the “protenoid microspheres” and once inside, there would be no mechanism for metabolic growth. More importantly, these “protenoid microspheres” would not be “alive” or biologically connected to the molecules—and they would lack the ability to “discriminate” between nutrients and waste products:

Cell Membrane showing Glycoproteins

Cells today have complex and specified “glycoproteins” which can recognize and “discriminate” between harmful and beneficial substances. This is part of what gives a modern cell wall the special ability to act as a living filter for the interior of the cell. But a protenoid microsphere would just be like a little “soap-bubble” like entity without any “fundamental” properties needed to discriminate between inviting beneficial molecules into the cell, and excluding harmful substances from the cell. Picture from Reference 53.

What about intelligent design?
In 1988, Klaus Dose said the following about the state of OOL research:

More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance. New lines of thinking and experimentation must be tried.47

If naturalistic theories are not bearing fruit for science, perhaps we feel justified looking outside the reigning paradigm for an answer to the origin of life. Intelligent design theory begins with the observation that intelligent agents tend to produce large amounts of information when they create objects. If life is designed, one might expect that life will contain large amounts of information. This is exactly what is found in the cell. Consider this statement by famous Oxford evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins:

Physics books may be complicated, but…the objects and phenomena that a physics book describes are simpler than a single cell in the body of its author. And the author consists of trillions of those cells, many of them different from each other, organized with intricate architecture and precision-engineering into a working machine capable of writing a book.…Each nucleus…contains a digitally coded database larger, in information content, than all 30 volumes of the Encylopaedia Brittanica put together.45The simplest known single-celled life forms contain over 400 genes,31 and are much more complex than any hypothetical pre-RNA world. To merely exist, life requires an incredible amount of complexity, which is perhaps why Dawkins also wrote:

Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.45After seeing difficulties faced by the origin of life, perhaps this is why over 20 years ago, the noted scientist who discovered the structure of DNA, Francis Crick, said:

The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.:

Haeckel’s Embryos. This is a reference to pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds, and human beings are all descended from a fish like creature. This has been a known fake for 100 years and yet we can’t get rid of it. In the picture above is Haeckel’s fakes on the first line and the actual embryo on the middle line

Homology in Vertebrate Limbs. Similar bone structures in a bat’s wing, a porpoise’s flipper, a horse’s leg and a human hand that indicate their evolutionary origin in a common ancestor. The combinations of bones of various animals seem to be similar and used similarly, this supposedly proves they all descended from a common ancestor. This is obviously a logical fallacy and doesn’t prove anything about ancestry. Cars looks similar but they don’t reproduce, they are created by intelligence. Bats and whales have the same ability of echolocation, but do they come from the same ancestors? No one thinks that.

Archaeopteryx-The Missing Link. Archaeopteryx (pronounced Ar-ke-op-ter-ix, sometimes referred to as Urvogel (meaning original bird). A fossil bird with teeth in its jaws and claws on its wings, the missing link (it is claimed) between ancient reptiles and modern birds fossil was first discovered in 1861 and was touted as the missing link between reptiles and birds, thus proving evolution. There should be millions of missing links but people were satisfied enough to believe in evolution once they could point to this one fossil. Actually a total of 8 of them were found, parts of them anyway, and they were even called “holy relics” and “unimpeachable evidence” by evolutionists. Most paleontologists today, however, do not believe it is the ancestor of any modern birds. There went the missing link

Darwin’s Finches: This is a reference to 13 species of finch, Darwin found on the Galapagos islands that diverge from one, it is said this is what inspired Darwin to formulate his ‘theory of evolution’ his journey to the Galapagos Islands, Charles Darwin observed that the beak size of finches increased after a drought. Darwin theorised that the drought reduced the number of small seeds in comparison to those of the large variety, such that only those finches with larger, stronger beaks were sufficiently equipped to eat larger seeds and survive. In a follow-up on Darwin’s study, a Princeton research team estimated that if a drought occurred once every ten years, a new species of finch would evolve in only 200 years.

What the research team failed to note was that the beak size of Darwin’s finches returned to normal within a few years after the drought, resulting in no directional change of the species. Yet, even had a directional change occurred, it would not have demonstrated how a finch could one day become a falcon, any more than it would show how a primordial recipe of chemicals could become a finch.

That is not to suggest that genetic alterations have not occurred due to environmental stresses. Indeed they have. Radiation experimentation on the much-studied fruit fly is a case in point. Nevertheless, after countless fruit fly generations, nothing other than malformed flies have ever been produced.

The differences Darwin observed in the Galapagos finches is an example of “micro-evolution”: The in-built process of genetic variation and inheritance that enables species to adapt, within pre-defined limitations, to changing environmental pressures. Micro-evolution explains why dogs, for example, come in all sizes, shapes, colors, and abilities, yet are forever distinguishable from other life forms by their unique gene pool.

Even with thousands of years of intelligent intervention (dog breeding), dogs have always remained dogs, with improvements in their stock more than offset by increased susceptibility to disease and shortened longevity which has tended to make them, from a Darwinian viewpoint, less, not more, “fit.” The long history of animal breeding strongly suggests a terminal point of evolutionary progress, bounded by in-built genetic limitations

Darwin’s Finches. The beaks of finches got bigger in dry seasons when food was less plentiful. This supposedly showed evolution, but it doesn’t because when the rains return, the beaks return to a smaller size. Even if there were permanent change, they are still finches. That’s not evolution

Four-Winged Fruit Flies. Fruit flies with an extra pair of wings showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution. Scientists in a laboratory bred fruit flies so two small appendages grew into the size of extra wings. You can’t prove evolution by applying intelligent breeding. Fruit flies in the wild never develop extra wings. Even for the ones in the lab, the wings were useless and would have been selected out by natural selection as a disadvantage

From Ape to Human: The Ultimate Icon. this is a reference to drawings of ape like animals evolving into humans, showing that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes. This drawing/icon is especially caught up in the minds of people for several generations. There is no scientific evidence behind this drawing at all. My Proof #1 Male and Female [4] is all about the impossibility of this drawing because it does not show women evolving simultaneously. My Proof #64 on Missing Links [5] goes into the fact that there is no fossil evidence for anything between the chimpanzee and the man.

If the Theory of Evolution rests on these icons for its evidence, it should have been in the dust bin of history already 50 years ago. They are just pictures and drawings. There is no science here.

The Origins and Development of Modern Christianity (eBook)


Al Hamdullilah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

Here is a brief study of the origins of Modern Christianity and its development over the years. It is intended to be an easily digestible read, and food for further study and research.


10 Popular Doubts used to justify celebrating The Prophets Birthday (Eid Mawlidun Nabi)

10 Popular Doubts used to justify celebrating The birthday of The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – (Eid Mawlidun Nabi)

الحمد لله رب العالمين، والصلاة والسلام على نبينا محمد، وعلى آله وصحبه أجمعين.

أما بعد:

With the advent of the yearly celebration of the birthday of the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – Muhammad, in this brief article we clarify the correct Islamic position concerning this practice, namely the fact it is not a legislated practice in Islam. It was not practiced by the first three noble generations of the Muslim at all. Rather it was innovated in the 4th century by the Fātimids who were known as the Ubaidiyūn and they were Bātiniyah Ismā’iliyah Shia, and not people of Sunnah. They not only innovated the celebration of the mawlid of the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam -, they also innovated alongside it, the celebration of the mawlid of Fātimah, Ali, Hasan, and Hussain – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhum. In its practice, is resemblance of the people of the book in celebrating the birth of Jesus, a practice that was not carried out by the disciples of Jesus. Thus here we present, 10 popular arguments used by those who carry the practice out, and brief responses to their arguments.

Wa Billahit Tawfīq.


  1. “The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam –  used to fast on Mondays, when asked why he said: “That was the day I was born upon, and it was the day revelation (first) came down to me” {Muslim:1162 upon the authority of Abu Qatadah}…thus he celebrated the day he was born!

The Response: We do not reject the desirable nature of fasting on Mondays and its virtue, similarly fasting on Thursdays but we say, firstly, that the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – performed this throughout the year, every Monday and Thursday, and it goes without saying, that his day of birth was not every Monday of the year. Secondly, The Messenger and his companions performed this as an act of worship not celebration. Thirdly, this, in actuality, an evidence against you, since the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – prohibited that one should fast on the day of Eid! A clear proof that this is not an eid for the Muslims! If we were truly following them, we would fast as they did!.

  1. Our celebration of Eid Milādun Nabi shows our love for Allah and his Messenger!

The Response: Allah has responded to this claim in one verse of the Qur’ān:

قُلْ إِن كُنتُمْ تُحِبُّونَ اللَّهَ فَاتَّبِعُونِي يُحْبِبْكُمُ اللَّهُ وَيَغْفِرْ لَكُمْ ذُنُوبَكُمْ ۗ وَاللَّهُ غَفُورٌ رَّحِيمٌ

Say (O Muhammad SAW to mankind): “If you (really) love Allah then follow me, Allah will love you and forgive you of your sins. And Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” {Surah Āli ‘Imrān vs 31}

So we ask you, do you love him more than his own companions? Some of them knowing and loving him even before he became a Messenger? Do you love him more than Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthmān and Ali? If they did it, we would follow them, but if they did not (and they did not) then what is sufficient for them is sufficient for us!

  1. True! The companions and their successors (The Tābi’īn) did not celebrate Milādun Nabi, but that was due to the close proximity (in time and locality) they had with him. We were not afforded that opportunity, so this is how we show love and gratitude.

The Response: Allah has informed us that our success lies in following them and their practice of the religion, and destruction lies in opposing them.

Allah Says:

وَمَن يُشَاقِقِ الرَّسُولَ مِن بَعْدِ مَا تَبَيَّنَ لَهُ الْهُدَىٰ وَيَتَّبِعْ غَيْرَ سَبِيلِ الْمُؤْمِنِينَ نُوَلِّهِ مَا تَوَلَّىٰ وَنُصْلِهِ جَهَنَّمَ ۖ وَسَاءَتْ مَصِيرًا

And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad SAW) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way. We shall keep him in the path he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination” {Nisaa:115}

So once again, if they did it we do it, if they didn’t we don’t!

  1. Millions of Muslims practice it! So are they all wrong and you few are right!

The Response: Truth is not known or recognized due to the numbers of people that practice it. If that were the case Hindus and Christians would be upon the Haq! Allah has never praised majorities in the Qur’ān, rather majorities have been dispraised in the Qur’ān!

Allah said:

وَإِن تُطِعْ أَكْثَرَ مَن فِي الْأَرْضِ يُضِلُّوكَ عَن سَبِيلِ اللَّهِ ۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَإِنْ هُمْ إِلَّا يَخْرُصُونَ

And if you obey most of those on earth, they will mislead you far away from Allah’s Path “{An’aam:116}

and he said:

وَمَا أَكْثَرُ النَّاسِ وَلَوْ حَرَصْتَ بِمُؤْمِنِينَ

And most of mankind will not believe even if you desire it eagerly” {Yusuf:103}

and Allah has said:

وَإِنَّ كَثِيرًا مِّنَ الْخُلَطَاءِ لَيَبْغِي بَعْضُهُمْ عَلَىٰ بَعْضٍ إِلَّا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا وَعَمِلُوا الصَّالِحَاتِ وَقَلِيلٌ مَّا هُمْ ۗ

And, verily, many partners oppress one another, except those who believe and do righteous good deeds, and they are few.”{Saad:24}

  1. Blessings must be thanked! When The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – came to Madinah he found the Jews fasting the day of ‘ Āshūrā, he asked what is this day you are fasting? They responded: “This is the day Allah saved Mūsā and his people and drowned pharaoh and his people, so Mūsā gave thanks by fasting and thus we too fast” so The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – said: “We have more right to Mūsā than you” so he fasted it and commanded that it should be fasted {Bukhāri: 1189 Muslim: 3397}. The birth of The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – is from the greatest of blessings upon us, therefore we give thanks and celebrate this blessing.

The Response: It is True that blessings are to be thanked, and truly the greatest blessing upon this Ummah is the sending of the Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam as a Messenger, not only the fact that he was born. Thus we see the Qur’ān speaks of, and stresses, the sending of the Messenger and mentions nothing of his birth!

Allah says:

لَقَدْ مَنَّ اللَّهُ عَلَى الْمُؤْمِنِينَ إِذْ بَعَثَ فِيهِمْ رَسُولًا مِّنْ أَنفُسِهِمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ

Indeed Allah conferred a great favour on the believers when He sent among them a Messenger (Muhammad) from among themselves, reciting unto them His Verses (the Qur’ān), and purifying them (from sins by their following him), and instructing them (in) the Book (the Qur’ān) and Al-Hikmah [the wisdom and the Sunnah of the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – SAW (i.e. his legal ways, statements, acts of worship, etc.)], while before that they had been in manifest error. {Imran 164}

and he also says:

هُوَ الَّذِي بَعَثَ فِي الْأُمِّيِّينَ رَسُولًا مِّنْهُمْ يَتْلُو عَلَيْهِمْ آيَاتِهِ وَيُزَكِّيهِمْ وَيُعَلِّمُهُمُ الْكِتَابَ وَالْحِكْمَةَ وَإِن كَانُوا مِن قَبْلُ لَفِي ضَلَالٍ مُّبِينٍ

It is He who has sent among the unlettered a Messenger from themselves reciting to them His verses and purifying them and teaching them the Book and wisdom – although they were before in clear error” {Jumu’ah 2}

As was the case with all of the previous Prophets, their being sent to their nations was the blessing upon that nation.

كَانَ النَّاسُ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً فَبَعَثَ اللَّهُ النَّبِيِّينَ مُبَشِّرِينَ وَمُنذِرِين
Mankind were one community and Allah sent Prophets with glad tidings and warnings” {baqarah 213}

Allah – The Most high says:

وَلَقَدْ بَعَثْنَا فِي كُلِّ أُمَّةٍ رَّسُولًا أَنِ اعْبُدُوا اللَّهَ وَاجْتَنِبُوا الطَّاغُوتَ

And We certainly sent into every nation a messenger, [saying], “Worship Allah and avoid Taghūt” {An Nahl 36}

Thus if this celebration were prescribed and permissible it would have been for his being sent as a prophet over and above his birth! Yet it is not prescribed for any of the two.

  1. You people say it is a bid’ah as though all bid’ah is bad! It may be a bid’ah But it is a bid’ah hasanah (A good bid’ah). The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – said: “Whosoever brings about in Islam a good Sunnah then he has the reward for it, and the reward of all who act upon it without their reward being diminished in any way” {Muslim: 1017}

The Response: There are no bid’ah hasanah! The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – said “EVERY bid’ah is misguidance..” The Intent behind the hadeeth is whoever practices an established Sunnah that had been left, or neglected, he revives it, and due to him this Sunnah is practiced. It does not refer to there being innovations that are considered good! The clearest proof of this, is present in the hadeeth itself! The reason The Messenger -Sallallahu Alaihi was Salam- made the statement, was because some poor people had come to the Messenger of Allah -Sallallahu Alaihi was Salam- and he requested from his companions to give charity to them. Some were slow to do so, and so one of the companions seeing this, hastened and gave charity. The rest of them then hastened to give charity, and so The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – said: “Whosoever brings about in Islam a good Sunnah..” Thus the question that has to be asked is, was the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – speaking of innovation or a sunnah that was already established? Of course giving in Charity was and is, an established Sunnah, therefore there is no evidence in this hadeeth for the statement.

  1. People have brought about actions that have been accepted by the Muslims for generations. For example Umar gathered the people in congregation for salātul Tarāwīh and he made three pronouncements of divorce made in one sitting be considered as three, while that was not the case at the time of The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam -. Likewise Uthmān gather the qur’ān together in one book, this was not done before. This is proof that not everything new thing must be rejected, if it is a good thing.

The Response: As far as the Tarāwīh issue, then the response to this is similar to point 6, it was something practiced by The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam –  but he left it on the third night, after practicing it for two nights, fearing it would be made compulsory upon the ummah. Umar only revived the practice. As far as the Talaq issue and the gathering of the Qur’ān then this falls under “The Sunnah of the Rightly Guided Caliphs that The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – commanded us to hold onto with our molar teeth in his statement

“Cling to my Sunnah and the Sunnah of the rightly guided caliphs, cling to it and hold onto it with your molar teeth..” {Abu Dawood: 4607 Declared Sahīh By Shaikh Albāni in Sahīhul Jāmi 2549}

Therefore this does not fall under blameworthy innovation especially since there was an established overall good in that which they legislated.

  1. The word كل (every) does not always mean all. Therefore there are some exceptions to the rule like mawlid

The Response: The origin with the words of Allah and his messenger is that words are held upon their apparent meanings except if there is textual evidence indicating otherwise. Thus كل means ‘every’ wherever it occurs, unless there is clear textual evidence indicating the contrary. This does not exist here. In fact, the statement has a strong precursor of warning, emphasizing the fact that what is intended is every and all newly invented affairs in the religion. The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – said: “Beware of newly invented affairs, for indeed ALL newly invented matters are innovation and all innovations are in the fire“. So where is the evidence that ‘ALL’ is not absolute?

  1. Abu Lahab was seen in a dream. It was said to him what is your state? He said: “I am in the hellfire, but my punishment is lightened every Monday night due to my happiness with the birth of The Messenger, and due to me freeing Thuwaibah (the wet nurse of the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam) “If this is the case with one of the worst of the kufār that ever lived, then what about when the believer rejoices his happiness at the birth of the Prophet – Sallallahu alaihi was Salam!

The Response: The authentic version of the hadeeth occurs in Bukhāri (5201) The hadīth mentions that Abu Lahab was seen in a dream by one of his relatives, so he said to him what is your state? He replied “I am in a wretched state but I am (occasionally) given something to drink through a hole like this (and he pointed to a small crevice between his thumb and index finger) because of my freeing Thuwaibah“. Thus the authentic version of the hadeeth has no mention of his ‘Happiness with the birth of The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam. Secondly it doesn’t occur in any of the sound sources of hadīth. Thirdly even if it were authentic (for argument sake), then the narrator of the dream is unknown, we do not know if he or she was Muslim or an unbeliever. Fourthly, apart from the dreams of The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – or the dreams of individuals that The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam –  affirmed were true dreams (Like the dream of Abdullah Ibn Zaid when he heard the adhān before its legislation and the Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam – affirmed it was a true dream) peoples dreams are not a source of legislation!

  1. Do you prevent the remembrance of Allah and reciting the life of The Prophet – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam?!

The Response: No we do not! But we are against legislating a religious practice that is carried out on a particular day without evidence specifying its legislation.

Wa Sallallahu ‘Alaa Nabiyinaa Muhammad


Mutual Consultation is from the path of Ahlus Sunnah!


Mutual Consultation is from the path of Ahlus Sunnah!

الحمد لله، والصلاة والسلام على من لا نبي بعده. وبعد:

There is no true person of Sunnah in this era, that will have heard of the recent statement made by the Egyptian Khālid Abdur Rahmān concerning Imām Rabī’ Ibn Hādi Al Madkhali, except that he will be amazed and bewildered at his foul claim that our shaikh and father has fallen into a foundation from the principles of the khawārij, due to news reaching him that Shaikh Rabī’ and other scholars come together privately to consult regarding issues that are of concern to the Ummah.

Who in this era, has uncovered the falsehood of the khawārij of this time, and their spiritual Leaders, Sayyid Qutb, Al Maudūdi, Al ‘Azām and their students, and exposed what is in their writings of the foundations of the khawārij and their principles more thoroughly than Imām Rabī’?!

And where are the defences of those who claim love for the people of knowledge and hate the ‘Evil Sa’āfiqah’ who have ‘wronged our scholars’, those individuals who claim ‘Wallahi we love Shaikh Rabī’ he is our father! It is only the ‘Sa’āfiqah’ we hate and must expose!’ While they only expose themselves with their silence.

Or worse still, they spread the speech of the one who defends this insolent ignorance, while claiming to be upon a Nahj (path) that is Wādhih (clear)!

The only thing that is wādhih is their long-festering reality, since these evil statements and stances are not born overnight! Let every Sāhib Sunnah take note.

From the established fundamentals with the people of Sunnah is as Allah has said:

{وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ}

“their affairs are by mutual consultation”

Suratush Shūrā Vs 38

Concerning this verse Imām Ibn Kathīr mentions:

وَقَوْلُهُ: {وَالَّذِينَ اسْتَجَابُوا لِرَبِّهِمْ} أَيِ: اتَّبَعُوا رُسُلَهُ وَأَطَاعُوا أَمْرَهُ، وَاجْتَنَبُوا زَجْرَهُ، {وَأَقَامُوا الصَّلاةَ} وَهِيَ أَعْظَمُ الْعِبَادَاتِ لِلَّهِ عَزَّ وَجَلَّ، {وَأَمْرُهُمْ شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ} أَيْ: لَا يُبْرِمُونَ أَمْرًا حَتَّى يَتَشَاوَرُوا فِيهِ، لِيَتَسَاعَدُوا بِآرَائِهِمْ فِي مِثْلِ الْحُرُوبِ وَمَا جَرَى مَجْرَاهَا 7/211

As for his statement “Those who responded to their lord” meaning: They followed their Messenger, and obeyed his command, and refrained from that which he prohibited.  And His statement: “..And established the Salaah..” as it is the greatest of the acts of worship one performs for Allah the mighty and majestic. And His statement: “and who conduct their affairs by mutual consultation” Meaning they do not become impatient and embark upon any affair until they consult among themselves concerning it, so as to seek aid in their (sound) opinions regarding wars and their likes” (Tafsīr Ibn Kathīr 7/211)

Ash Shaikh Abdur Rahmān Ibn Nāsir As Sa’di mentions concerning the verse:

{وَأَمْرُهُمْ} الديني والدنيوي {شُورَى بَيْنَهُمْ} أي: لا يستبد أحد منهم برأيه في أمر من الأمور المشتركة بينهم، وهذا لا يكون إلا فرعا عن اجتماعهم وتوالفهم وتواددهم وتحاببهم وكمال عقولهم، أنهم إذا أرادوا أمرا من الأمور التي تحتاج إلى إعمال الفكر والرأي فيها، اجتمعوا لها وتشاوروا وبحثوا فيها، حتى إذا تبينت لهم المصلحة، انتهزوها وبادروها، وذلك كالرأي في الغزو والجهاد، وتولية الموظفين لإمارة أو قضاء، أو غيره، وكالبحث في المسائل الدينية عموما، فإنها من الأمور المشتركة، والبحث فيها لبيان الصواب مما يحبه الله، وهو داخل في هذه الآية.

Concerning the statement “And who conduct their affairs –the affairs of their deen and dunya- through mutual consultation between them” that is to say, no single individual among them proceeds upon his own opinion regarding issues that are of general concern to them all. This stems from the unity, conformity, affection and love that is between them, and (is due to) their complete and sound intellects, that whenever they intend a matter from the affairs that require reflection and (sound) opinion, they come together, consult and mutually research concerning it, such that when the greater good becomes clear to them regarding it they proceed and seize the opportunity. That is such as their opinions concerning warfare and Jihād, or putting someone in a position of leadership or judgement or other than that. Similarly the religious affairs generally, as they are from the communal common issues, thus (mutual) exploration and enquiry regarding them, in order to reach that which is sound and correct, is from that which Allah loves and enters into the meanings of this verse…”

There is a clear difference between our scholars mutual consultation and sharing of opinions for the greater good of the Ummah, and the secret plotting and conspiring of the khawārij!

May Allah preserve our Shaikh from those who intend to harm him but do nothing but bark at a mountain!

Wallahu A’lam


Doubts around the Da’wah (Part 2)

Doubts around the Da’wah Part 2

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā Rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d:


Ahlus Sunnah in the west face a resurfacing trial, one that isn’t new to them.

The trial of a people who are displeased with the true methodology of ahlil hadīth.

A people who are upset with the fact Ahlus Sunnah are distinguished from other than them, and wish to turn Salafiyah into a melting pot that accepts everyone and excludes no one, except its true proponents.

A people who accuse the people of Sunnah and hadīth of being harsh and extreme, due to their correct implementation of the methodology of Ahlul hadīth.

A people who attempt to paint Ahlus Sunnah as a people who do not believe in softness, gentleness and clemency and its application, as though they are not very familiar with those texts.

A people who call to Tamyī’ (watering the true methodology down) and attempt to make that fair seeming.

A people who throw out a ‘lifeline’ to those who seeks to destroy true Salafiyah with false misconstrued principles.

A people who have no concern except to attack the people of Sunnah and hadīth, and defend their methodology, while the true people of innovation are safe from their tongues, their writings and their videos.

A people who spread confusion and misguidance in the name of ‘justice’.

A people who are guilty of doing with Ahlus Sunnah, what they accuse Ahlus Sunnah of.

A people who accuse the callers to the Sunnah of being ignorant, while they are the true paupers in knowledge and are a people unknown.

A people who bring joy to the hearts of the people of misguidance for their ignorant defence of them, when they attempt to weaken the solid framework of Ahlul hadĪth.

Who accuse the defenders of the methodology of the companions and their successors of extremism, oppression and injustice, either by way of them using innovated principles or misusing established ones, but despite their (daily) efforts and striving, Ahlus Sunnah are not affected.

The Prophet -صلى الله علي سلم – said (as occurs in the hadeeth of Mugheerah Ibn Shu’bah:

There will never cease to be a group from my Ummah manifest upon the truth, not being harmed by those who oppose them, nor those who forsake them until the affair of Allah comes and they are upon that

(Bukhāri: 7311 Muslim: 156)

Neither are their attempts new to Ahlus Sunnah, they (Ahlus Sunnah) are very familiar with them!

He also said (as occurs in the hadeeth of Ibrāheem Ibn Abdur Rahmān Al ‘Udhri):

This knowledge is carried in every generation by the trustworthy ones, they repel from it the distortions of those who go beyond bounds, the fabrications of those who fabricate, and the false interpretations of the ignorant’”

(Baihaqi: (10/209 hadeeth no#: 20700)

But as some of the Salaf used to say:

The ignoramus is his own enemy, how then will he be anyones friend?

Shaikhul Islām Ibn Taimiyah narrates the statement of  Imām Mālik who said:

When knowledge is meagre, disaffection and aversion becomes manifest, and when narrations (of the Salaf) are meagre, desires become plentiful

(Al Fatāwā 17/308)

Abu bakr Al khawārizmi (d. 383H) said:

Allah has refused to let anyone fall into a ditch except he who has dug it, for indeed the evil plot does not encompass except he who devises it!”

(Yateemiyatud Dahr: 4/226)

Thus he who is unhappy with the methodology of the Salaf, and speaks against it, and against those who defend and implement it, does nothing but harm himself, the methodology is Allah’s methodology, for it is his deen, and the one who seeks to please the people by speaking against it, earns the anger and wrath of Allah, regardless of the good he thinks he is doing.

The Prophet -صلى الله علي سلم – said (as occurs in the hadeeth of Aisha – رضي الله عنها )

Whoever seeks to please Allah, by way of that which displeases the people, Allah will be pleased with him and will make the people pleased with him. And whosoever seeks to please the people through the displeasure of Allah, Allah will be displeased with him, and will make the people displeased with him”

(Collected by Ibn Hibbān 1/510 and declared ‘Sahīh’ by Shaikh Albāni Sahih Targhīb 2/547)

Unfortunately, those who claim islāh (rectification) with their speech, do nothing but cause ifsād (corruption) through their ignorance (if we even accept they are being sincere)

The members of the Fatwā Committee of Saudi Arabia mention in refutation of Muraad Shukri who fell into negligence in Takfeer and followed the path of the murji’ah:

It is upon the one whose feet are not firm upon knowledge; to refrain from entering into these affairs, so there does not come from him harm and corruption in aqĪdah far greater than the rectification they were hoping to achieve…”

(Fatāwā Al lejnatid Dā’imah: Fatwa no# 20212 – 2/135)

This individual (who I know personally and who came to my home in Madinah) thought he was doing well ‘defending the balanced position‘ but fell into negligence and had a group of individuals defending this ‘balanced’ position of his, in various countries! Therefore when individuals speak ‘In defense’ of the deen, we must attempt to perceive the goal and intent. What is the goal? What will the outcome of this speech be? What do they intend by their statements ultimately?

Imām Al Barbahāri mentioned:

look!, May Allah show you mercy, to the speech of anyone you hear speaking in your time specifically and don’t be hasty, and don’t enter into anything from it until you ask, is it some thing the companions of the messenger used to say? Or any of the Ulamā? So if you find a narration then do not go past it for anything, and don’t choose anything over it and thus fall into the fire!”

(Sharhus Sunnah p23 – Point 5)

Pay attention to the statement of the Imām “..the speech of anyone you hear speaking in your time specificallyThis is a clear indication that this manhaj was not restricted  to the period of the Salaf as some would have us believe, rather for every time!

Imām Ahmad mentions in describing the people of innovation:

“..They utter ambiguous statements, and they begile the ignorant people by way of the ambiguity they present to them, so we seek refuge from the fitan of the people of misguidance!”

Concerning this tremendous statement Shaikhul Islām mentions in Minhājus Sunnah:

“The intent here is that they corrupt the textual evidences through that which they attribute to them from Qarmatah (definition will follow below) and distorting words from their places, just as they have corrupted intellectual evidences, and reversed the nature of perceived affairs from their reality, and by changing the Fitra that Allah has created things upon. Therefore they use general ambiguous speech, because that is better for purposes of delusion and misrepresentation”

(Minhājus Sunnah: 1/187)

Shaikh Abdur Rahmān Ibn Nāsir As S’adi said: ” Al Qarmatah (is a term used) in regard to textual evidence and safsatah (is a term used) in regard to intellectual evidence. they both come together in that they(these two terms) refer to rejection of what is not to be rejected, rejection of basic things, things known by necessity…(he goes on to mention)..Because evidence is of two types: Textual and Intellectual, thus textual evidence, if it is authentic and its indications are clear, then whosoever distorts its clear indications then (it is said) he has Qarmatah (fell into rejection of what is crystal clear) an attribution to the (deviant) Qarāmitah Bātiniyah (sect) those who explain text that are known by necessity to everyone with distortion, the like of which is recognized by the Aalim and the ignorant..”

(Al Ajwibatun Nāfi’ah 291-294)

Doubt 1: ‘We do not accept the warnings of the scholars except with proof, because ‘We are people of evidence’

We start with this doubt, because this claim, though it appears fair seeming, the real intent behind it is an evil one. It seeks is to destroy the status of the people of knowledge, their statements and their guidance. This doubt has been used throughout time to cunningly belittle the people of knowledge in the mind of the unsuspecting innocent layperson, and to replace the people of knowledge with these individuals, who present themselves as people skilled in the knowledge of understanding strong or weak evidences. Thus reliance falls upon them.

By way of this statement of theirs, the statements of the people of knowledge have little worth, rather true worth is in the hands of this individual who will dictate who and what is to be taken from and who and what is to be rejected. This is particularly when it come to the affair of their statements against the people of deviation. As though the people of knowledge do not speak from a standpoint of taqwa and fear of Allah, but desire. As if the people of knowledge are fickle individuals who speak against people upon a whim. The Salaf of this Ummah would truly value the statements of the people of knowledge. Not so these unknowns.

Then they will use, in order to slight the statements of the Ulamā, statements of the Imaams that where mentioned in relation to affairs of rulings of the shariah, connected  to actions, dealings and ijtihād.

Such as the statement of Abu Hanīfah:

It is not permissible to take from my statements unless you know where I took

Or the statement of Imām Ash shāfi’i  “If you find my statement going against the book or the Sunnah throw my statements against the wall

These individuals regularly use statements and principles out of place or to oppose specific issues of methodology. it is well known that a principle in fiqh may not necessarily be a principle in aqidah and vice versa.

These aforementioned statements, are true statements that were mentioned to emphasise the importance of holding on to evidence in issues of shariah. But they are used by these individuals, to put doubt upon the statements, verdicts and advises of the Scholars, because when the scholars speak against someone and warns, often times the general person may not be acquainted with the reasons for the warning, and may not even understand the gravity of the issue, even if it were explained to them!

As Al Hasan Al Basri mentioned:

The fitna, when it appears, it is known by the Ulamā, and when its tail end appears (i.e. when it is over) it is known by every general person

That is to say when fitna arises it is spotted, detected and understood by the people of knowledge, how will the ignorant one perceive it, if it is intricate?

Based upon the statements of these ignoramuses, we should leave the general people to get engrossed in these issues, relying upon their own weak deficient understanding, possibly becoming unsatisfied with the evidence presented by those scholars, (since he (the layman) may be ignorant of the foundation that has been opposed) and thus go astray!

Knowledge of the men is in the hands of the people of Knowledge!

The Methodology of Criticism with the Salaf

It is established with the people of Sunnah and Hadīth, that the people of knowledge have a methodology related to criticism well known. This methodology is connected to the strong position they have against innovations in the religion, and is connected to the precise science of Jarh and ta’deel (Criticism or praise of the Narrators). None of that which we hear from the ignorant ones, about the ‘correct’ salafi position’ concerning deviant individuals, takes this science into consideration. Rather we hear the Ummah being referred back to the principles of the Ikhwaan Al Muslimīn repackaged as ‘True Salafiyah’!. Perhaps the reason for this is the fact that our communitites in the west have been strongly influenced by the da’wah of the Ikhwaan Al Muslimīn for decades (we will discuss this later inshallah), so the ignorant one refers back to this as ‘True Balanced Islām’ and ‘Just Salafiyah’ while it is nothing but ‘True Misguidance’.

The one who has knowledge of the method of criticism with the Salaf, their attitude towards it, and the statements of the people of Sunnah will be upon clarity

Sufyān Ath Thowri said:

When a man who dies is mentioned then do not look towards the statements of the general people (i.e. praise or dispraise) rather look to the statements of the people of knowledge and intellect (in determining how he was)

(Al Hilyah: 7/26)

Ibrāhīm ibn Shamās said

We asked Wakī’  (d. 196H or 197H) about Khārijah ibn Mus’ab (d. 168H a weak narrator of hadīth) and why he does not take from him, he replied:” I will not narrate from him, Ahmad Ibn Hanbal prohibited me from narrating from him”

(Tabaqāt Al Hanābilah: 1/392)

He did not mention here anything to do with the reason, just the warning!

Abu Moosā Muhammad Ibnil Muthanā (d. 252H) said “I saw in the lap of Abdur Rahmān Ibn Mahdi (d. 198H) a book wherein he had crossed out (the name of) a man so I said Oh Abu Sa’īd why have you crossed his hadīth out? He responded: Yahya Ibn Sa’īd (Al Qattaan: d. 198H) informed me that he has been accused of being upon the opinion of Jahm (ibn Safwān, the innovator) so I crossed his hadīth out

(Al Hilyah: 9/6)

In this narration this great Imām in knowledge, piety and taqwa, did not take from a man due to an accusation, was this great Imām in Hadeeth pathetic and unjust?!

It was said to Ibn ‘Aun  (d. 150H) ‘Why don’t you narrate from such and such? He responded: “Because Abu Bustām Shu’bah (d. 160H) left him”

(Taarikh Baghdaad: 9/260)

Was this typical ‘Cultish behaviour’ from Ibn Aun? Did he ‘oppress’ the one he refused to take from?

In this narration we see that these great scholars of the Salaf did not take knowledge from the aforementioned individuals and criticised their integrity, citing as their reason that the people of Hadīth and Sunnah did not take from them, people of Sunnah who were familiar with the man as his affair. Not once do we see them saying “..So I went to speak to him myself to verify” or “..but I will continue to take from them until the evidence is shown to me” or “did they advise him?” because they knew The People of Hadīth are most knowledgable concerning advice and nasīhah and that their speech is based upon them fearing Allah and knowing they will have to stand before Allah with what they say!

In fact even when individuals denyed with their own mouths what had been attributed to them, the people of Sunnah would not reject what was established with the people of Sunnah concerning the individual, since it is well known that the people of innovation are cunning, tricky and deceptive.

Imām Khateeb Al Baghdādi (d. 463H) mentions the statement of Sālih the son of Imām Ahmad who inform his father that some one had come to see him who said his name was daawūd (Dawūd ibn Ali Adh Dhāhiri) his father aid : “From where? He replied “Asbahān” he said: “what does he do? and Sālih did not do well to define who he was Abu Abdillah (Imam Ahmad) did not cease asking until he realised who he was. He said: Him! Muhammad Ibn Yahyā An Naisābūri wrote to me informing me that he holds that the qurān is created” so his son said: He negates and rejects that! He replied “Muhammad Ibn Yahyā is more trustworthy that him! do not give him permission to come to me!

(Collected by Khateeb Al Baghdādi in Tarīkh Al Baghdād 8/374)

Was this more ‘Cliche-ish‘ ‘Cultish‘, ‘Cringeworthy‘ behavior from Imām Ahmad? did Imām Ahmad wrong him by not accepting from him his denial? should he have ‘been more of a man’ and talk to him? Perhaps give him an interview..let him have his say! Or was this a methodology Well-Known?

Hamād ibn zaid (d. 179H b. 98) said Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān (d.120H) the Shaikh of Abu Hanīfah came to us in Basrah and Ayoob (As Sikhiyaani: d. 131H b. 66) didn’t go to see him, so neither did we, for if Ayoob didn’t go to see someone we too would not go. Laith Ibn Abi Sulaim came to Us and Ayoob went to see him so we too went”

(Tabaqāt Ibn Sa’d: 7/286)

Bear in mind that Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān was a taabi’i who had taken from Anas Ibn Maalik! and Ibraaheem An Nakhai’ and that Hamād Ibn Zaid was born in the year 98H. That would mean that if we were to say Hamād ibn Abi Sulaimān visited basra just before he died, Hamād Ibn Zaid wouldnt have been more than 18 years old! Shouldn’t Imaam Ayoob be teaching these young students the etiquette of visiting and taking from the people of knowledge? particularly this elderly man who was a student of the companion Anas Ibn Maalik? but though he was praised by some, he was accused of irjaa, thus Ayoob did not go to see him, neither did his many students. From his students were Sufyaan Ibn Uyainah, Sufyaan at Thawri, Hamād Ibn Salamah, Hamād Ibn zaid, Shu’bah, Ma’mar Ibn Raashid, Ismaa’il Ibn Ulaiyah to name but a few! And none of them went?!

No doubt the ignoramuses of our time would deem this ‘Cultish’ behaviour of the highest order!

Al Hasan Ibn Īsā said I asked (Abdullah) Ibn Mubārak (d. 181) about Asbāt (Ibn Muhammad (d. 200H)) and Muhammad Ibn Fudhail Ibn Ghazawān (d. 194H or 195H accused of the bid’ah of Tashayu’ (early Shi’ism)) and he remained silent. After a number of days he saw me and said “Oh Hasan your two companions (i.e. the two you asked me about) our companions (i.e. the people of Sunnah) are not pleased with them

(Dhu’afaa ul “Uqaili: 1/119)

Al Hasan did not follow this statement up with “well what was their evidence??” so did they fall short in relation to giving the muslim his right? Or was it because this an affair well known!

Abdullah Ibn Umar As Sarkhasi said “I ate with a person of innovation once, and that reached Abdullah ibn Mubārak and he said: “I will not speak to him for thirty days!”

(Collected by Al lillakā’i in ‘Sharh I’tiqād Ahlis Sunnah: 1/139)

Did Abdullah Ibn Umar As Sarkhasi respond with: “Well why doesn’t he ask me what happened?” or “Subhanallah I could have had a number of reasons” or other similar arguments we hear from the ignorant ones! Was this ‘childish’ ‘cultish’ behavior from Ibnil Mubārak ?

If the Salaf held onto the principles these people claim, imagine the state the Ahādeeth of the Messenger of Allah would be in today!?

Statement such as “akhi just take benefit” or “dont listen to those brothers” or ” the shaikh is just a man with an opinion akhi!” or “What is the shaikhs evidence akhi” would have destroyed the Sunnah!

Certainly we will hear (from them) that these narrations are not acted upon correctly, or are not to be acted upon in this way (as though they are just some historical record!) or were for a particular time or or or…

Just as we hear these people quoting principles we have been teaching for over a quarter of a century, since the early nineties, as our teachers, the Ulamaa of Madinah, taught us, (from them Shaikhanā Hamād Al Ansāri (and his Son), Shaikhanā Umar Falāta, Shaihanā Abdul Muhsin Al ‘Abād (and his son), Shaikhanā Ali Nāsir Al Faqīhi, Shaikhanā Rabee’ Ibn Hādi, Shaikhanā Ubaid Al Jābiri, Shaikhanā Muhammad Ibn Hādi, Shaikhanā Abdullah al Bukhāri, Shaikhanā Ahmad An Najmi to name but a few. Or those who taught us the book of Allah. Such Shaikhanā Ubaidallah Al Afghāni or Abdullah Al Juhani among others. Or those who were our study companions who we benefited greatly from upon the path, such as Shaikh Usāma Al ‘Amri, Shaikh Fu’ād Al ‘Amri Shaikh Khālid Adh dhafeeri or Shaikh Nizār Hāshim Abbās among others, people we actually spent time and studied with, not odd visits)

 Do these previously mentioned narrations mean we are calling to abandonment of evidence? Of course not but we must first understand what evidence (particularly in issue of jarh (disparagement)) is!

In response to this common doubt and in refutation of Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi Our Shaikh Rabī Ibn Hādi mentions: (and pay close attention to this!):

  • “From the fundamental principles of Ahlis Sunnah is: ‘Know the truth, and you will know the men and the fact that the truth is not known because of the men (i.e. because it is held by certain individuals.
  • And from the fundamental principles of Ahlis Sunnah is: ‘Evidence is sought to substantiate positions held by individuals, they themselves are not the evidence.
  • And from the fundamental principles that Ahlus Sunnah have united upon is: ‘Whosoever the Sunnah of the messenger of Allah has become clear to, it is not permissible for him to leave it for anyone’ as Imām Ash Shāfi’ī has said

These fundamentals or evidences have been neglected, destroyed and wasted by Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi and his supporters, he created a smokescreen of claims, that him and his followers reiterate, claiming to the people that they are Ahlus Sunnah and they are the ‘people of evidence’ and that they do not accept statements except with daleel (evidence) and that they are people of principles and other than them are unstable and fear the mention of fundamentals and principles, and that ‘ they do not make taqleed of anyone‘ and that such and such (people of knowledge and Sunnah) are not infallible, and that we are not bound to accept the statement of such and such nor such and such, and other such statements, the like of which, when incidents transpire, we see the statement of the guided khalifah Ali – Radhiyallahu anhu – concerning the khawaarij, being true of them. When they used to repeat their statement “Indeed rule is but for Allah!” so he said: ” A statement of truth, but what is intended by it is falsehood!” (Muslim:1066)

We recognise and understand, what they repeat and regurgitate from their great claims of:

‘Fundamentals’ and ‘principles’ and the ‘seeking of proofs’ and the ‘clinging to evidence’ and ‘fighting against taqleed’, and that ‘We don’t have popes or religious chiefs or custodians’.

We recognise and understand, that the apparent statement is truth, but they intend by way of it great falsehood, they intend by way of it agitation and wreaking havoc and fitan with the people of Haq and Sunnah.

So Ahlus Sunnah engaged them and confronted them, with the book and the Sunnah and with the Manhaj of the Salaf us Saalih and with their sound, guided principles, and they (Ahlus Sunnah) exposed these principles of theirs and stripped them of the ‘weapons’ they had the cheek and insolence to present, of ‘Fundamentals‘ and ‘Principles‘ and ‘proofs‘ and ‘evidences‘. So then they resorted to blind following, and clinging to ‘such and such said‘ and ‘such and such said‘ (such as that which we observe from them now in the west, “Shaikh such and such said about those brothers” (someone who knows nothing about them)! without a shred of evidence! Just claims (but that is accepted without question or ‘evidence’..How ironic!). Additionally (even) this wasn’t sufficient for them, so they resorted to what was worse than that, they resorted to attacking the text (or the book and the sunnah) through deception, severing (parts of evidence) and concealing (text)”

(Majmoo’ Ash Shaikh Rabī’ 13/175-176)

Bear in mind, Our Shaikh wrote these words in refutation of Abul Hasan 15 years ago!

As the Arab parable goes ما أشبه الليلة بالبارحة ‘How much tonight resembles last night!’ perhaps now it becomes clearer to some of us, why Shaikh Rabī sought from certain individuals to free themselves from Abul Hasan Al Ma’ribi, is it a coincidence then, that today we see them championing the very same rhetoric!

May Allah save us from being self-conceited, arrogant, vain-glorious individuals concerned only with promoting ourselves and our ‘achievements’ and grant us Knowledge of the ‘True‘ Manhaj of the Salaf of this Ummah.

Was Sallallahu ‘alaa Nabiyinaa Muhammad


Doubts around the Da’wah (Part 1)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā Rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d:

Indeed from the blessing of Allah upon the people of Sunnah and Hadīth in every age, is that their methodology is based upon principles extrapolated from the book, and the Sunnah and the consensus of the Sahabah.

They (Ahlus Sunnah) know, that opposing this consensus constitutes opposition of the methodology (known in Arabic as منهج  – Manhaj) of this ummah. Evidence in any issue with them, returns back to that which is indicated by these sources, and opposition of the methodology revolves around opposition of this.

Many seem to consider the book and the sunnah as the only evidence in our Deen and neglect the evidence of the concensus of the Salaf and their principles? Is this not what makes us Salafi?

Our duty then, is to learn what they (the Salaf) were upon and cling to it. And to know that the principles of our methodology stem from this.

This is Salafiyah.

He who opposes these well known foundations and learns of his own error, must correct it, or Ahlus Sunnah will correct it for him (if the mistake was private, correction is done in private, if it was public (i.e. a public lecture or article) then his correction must likewise be public), in accordance with giving sincere advice to the Muslims in general.

One of the problems we have in this time, is the distance many have from these foundations, either they ignore them after knowing them, or they are ignorant of their application, or they are ignorant of them in totality.

Our Shaikh Rabee’ Ibn Hādi Al Madkhali used to say often, that the problem with many people is that they are detached from the books of the Salaf. If they were connected, they would be clear about the positions of the Salaf they claim to ascribe to and follow.

What I intend with this simple series is to highlight some of these principles of the salaf and the manner in which some of those who have weak implimentation of these principles (known as the Mumayyi’ah) oppose these principles, or create principles of their own, and attempt to attribute them to the methodology. But certainly, from the blessings of Allah upon this Ummah, is that Allah establishes for this ummah individuals who defend these principles and detect when they are being opposed, regardless of how cunningly the proponents of this deviation defend and spread their misguidance.

This methodology is inherited from those who possess it (i.e. the people of knowledge), it is not based upon guesswork or conjecture, nor acting upon what we deem to be ‘obvious’. Neither should it be presumed that everyone referred to as an ‘Ālim’ must, by necessity be knowledgeable concerning it. Such that if one ‘took from the scholars’ they too must be knowledgeable and aware of it.

This was an affair well-known.

Ibn Wahb (d.197H) – رحمه الله – mentioned:

I met three hundred and sixty scholars, but had it not been for Mālik Ibn Anas and Al Laith Ibnus Sa’d, I would have gone astray in relation to the affair of knowledge” (Dhamul Kalām P876)

Abu Thowr (d.240H) – رحمه الله – mentioned:

Ishāq Ibn Rāhuy, Hussain Al Karābīsi and I, did not leave our innovation until we met (Imām) Ash Shāfi’i” (Al Hilyah 9/103)

Imām Al Humaidi (Abdullah Ibn Az Zubair (d. 219H)) – رحمه الله – mentions:

We used to wish to refute the people of philosophical rhetoric, but we were not proficient at doing so, until (Imām) Ash-Shafi’i came to us, and thus he opened it up to us.” (Manāqib Ash-Shāfi’i P42)

Even though Imām Ash-Shafi’i said about him: “I havent seen an individual suffering from phlegm, greater in memory than Al Humaidi!”

Amr Ibnil Abbās Al Bāhili (d. 235H) – رحمه الله –  said:

Abdullah ibn Dāwood al Kharībi said to Abdur Rahmān Ibn Mahdi (d. 198H):

“Are you Qadari?”

He replied:

My teachers were Hamād Ibn Zaid and Yazīd Ibn Zurai’, from which of the two of them would I have taken (the bid’ah of) Qadr from!?” (Al Kāmil” 1/203)

Thus seeking knowledge does not necessitate that a person will gain correct detailed knowledge of the methodology of the salaf, just as being from the people of knowledge does not, by default, necessitate that this scholar is skilled in the field of the intricasies of the methodology, since being knowledgable concerning good, does not automatically necessitate detailed knowledge of evil.

Hudhaifah – رضى الله عنه – mentioned “the people used to ask about the good but I used to ask about evil, fearing it will befall me..” therefore Hudhaifa would have had knowledge of evil that may not have been possessed by others.

Imām Ibn Abi Hātim mentions with his chain of narration going back to Abdur rahmān Ibn Mahdi (d. 198H) who said:

The people (scholars) are of types:

From them is he who is an Imām in the Sunnah (i.e. knowledge of the methodology) and an Imām in Hadīth (i.e. knowledge of hadīth, its sciences, its men etc). From them is he who is an Imām in the Sunnah but not an Imam in hadīth. From them is he who is an Imām in Hadīth and not an Imām in Sunnah. As for he who is an Imām in the Sunnah and an Imām in hadīth, then that is the likes of Sufyān At Thawri” (Jarh wat Ta’dīl 1/118)

Imām Mālik has also been referred to elsewhere as an Imām in both fields, while Awzā’i has been refered to as an Imām in Sunnah not an Imām in hadīth.

This narration gives us a number of benefits:

  1. The fact that the Salaf had a usage for the term ‘Sunnah’ other than the general meaning of hadīth
  2. The fact that not all scholars are the same in terms of knowledge of the methodology
  3. The fact that knowledge of hadīth DOES NOT necessitate knowledge of the methodology even if he is an Imām
  4. If this was the case with ‘Imāms’ of the past, it goes without saying it is applicable to scholars of the present
  5. If this is the case with an ‘Imām’ of the past, then it goes without saying this will likewise apply to the student of knowledge, by necessity (i.e. strength or weakness in knowledge of the methodology of the Salaf.)
  6. We should not understand from this that Ar Radd alal Mukhālif (refutation of the one who opposes the principles of the religion) does not fall under the Hadeeth science of jarh wa ta’deel (disparaging and/or praising the narrators of hadīth). The people of innovation are the first of the people who this science is applied upon.

The doubts we will discuss in this series then, are doubts raised by those who have little true knowledge of the methodology of the Salaf. Hence they oppose the manhaj in various ways and then request ‘evidence’ that their opposition is incorrect. Opposition is opposition; the only thing that must be known, is that such and such a person actually said or wrote the statement. It is sufficient, as evidence of his error, for us to know, that he has opposed agreed upon principles of our Salaf. But he who is ignorant of them…is ignorant of them! While he who is aquainted with these principles, only has to hear of the opposition to know the individual has strayed from the path of the Salaf. Either he makes taubah and rectifys himself, or he persists upon error without change.

These doubts are not new, but regurgitated doubts reoccurring from time to time. In our era, there are a number of individuals also attributed to knowledge, who have promoted these doubts in our communities over the years, in the guise of ‘principles’. At the head of them Ali Hasan Al Halabi and Abul Hasan Al Maribi Al Misri among others. To the extent, that the one who is ignorant of the realities of the true manhaj of the Salaf, opposes it, and vehemently despises it, believes the aforementioned principles to be true Salafiyah, and to oppose these principles of theirs, is to oppose true Salafiyah, and is ‘destroying our communities’, while the truth of the matter is, these principles are destroying our communities, splitting our ranks and creating small pockets of individuals who feel ‘disenfranchised’ in fringe groups, displeased with the Salafi ‘state of affairs’, this is where the problem lies, not with the manhaj or the true methodology of the Salaf of this Ummah.

When people gather around this falsehood we have division in our ranks.

Thus we will mention, in as simple a manner as possible, these doubts, and the responses of the people of knowledge to them. At the head of those scholars, the responses of the vanguard of the manhaj in our era, our Shaikh Al ‘Alāmah Rabee’ Ibn Hādi Al Madkhali, may Allah preserve him.

Since in reality, their issue is actually with these scholars, they are the real target, they are the ones our real grievience is with, they are the real problem, attention must be turned away from them, the students in the west are but a intermediary annoyance. May Allah preserve us, our scholars, and the people of Sunnah in every land.

Wa Sallallahu ‘alaa nabiyyinaa Muhammad


On April Fools Day

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā Rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d:

As today is April fools we share this benefit.

The origins of April Fools day

There is some dispute concerning the origins of April Fools Day.

Perhaps the most popular is that which is attributed to Pope Gregory XIII. In France in 1582 he adopted the Gregorian calendar (named after him), in which he moved the beginning of the year from March (the end of March) to January 1.

People who were slow to get the news or failed to recognize that the start of the New Year had moved to January 1 and continued to celebrate it during the last week of March through April 1 became the butt of jokes and hoaxes.

They were ridiculed, and seen as foolish – and hence we have April Fool’s Day.

This theory is disputed though, since it is known historically that the Julian Calendar, established in 46BC, made January the first month of the year. Countries began to switch calendars, and it all ended up being a mess by the 1500s. Some countries started the year on different days.

A different theory is that April Fools’ Day is left over from the idea of renewal festivals, which marked the end of winter and the start of spring.

One of the oldest versions of this occasion was the Roman pagan festival Hilaria. It was a festival held in honor of Cybele, the mother of the gods.  All kinds of games and amusements were allowed on this day; masquerades were the most prominent among them, and everyone might, in his disguise, imitate whomsoever he liked, and even magistrates.

The festival coincided with the spring equinox, and those who took part in the festival would wear disguises, play tricks on people and generally wreak havoc.

Regardless of whichever theory is correct the day is one based in falsehood, lies and striking false fear into the hearts of people.

The Prophet – Sallallahu alaihi was Salam said:

It is not permissible for the believer to frighten another believer” (Abu Daawood (5004))

He also said: “The sign of the hypocrite are three: if he speaks he lies, and if he is given a trust he breaks it, and if he makes a promise he breaks his promise” (Saheeh Bukhaari (33) and Saheeh Muslim (59) upon the authority of Abu Hurairah)

He also said: “Be truthful for indeed truthfulness, leads to righteousness, and indeed righteousness leads to Jannah. Indeed a man remains truthful and is diligent about being truthful until he is written with Allah as a truthful person” (Saheeh Bukhaari (5743) and Saheeh Muslim (2607) upon the authority of Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood)

Therefore there is no such thing as a ‘white lie’ in Islaam, all of it is black.

If this lying is combined with resemblance of the pagans with their festivities, then it becomes worse.

After mentioning the haraam nature of lying, our Shaikh, Muhammad Ibn Haadi, mentions:

“..This affair, the affair of April fools day, which the question was posed concerning, is haraam from two angles;

  1. Firstly because it is lies..
  2. That which makes it worse is the fact that it has in it resemblance of the non-Muslims..if a Muslim lies and startles his brother Muslim, and causes him to be frightened, or intensely alarmed to the extent that he may even be afflicted with an illness (due to it). When it is said to him for example ‘such and such has passed away’ from those who are dear to him. Whether his father or brother or son or daughter, or that it is said to him ‘your house has been burgled’ or that ‘your house has been burnt down’ or the likes, from the great affairs that may (possibly) cause a person to enter a state of insanity or delirium, he may lose his mind or become ill. Who then would be responsible for this? It would fall upon this liar!”

Click here for the full audio of the Shaikh:

Therefore we warn our brothers and sisters against this custom, the like of which has no good in it  and may possibly cause harm.

Wa Sallallahu ‘Alaa Nabiyyinaa Muhammad




%d bloggers like this: