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:

Introduction

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

@abuhakeembilal

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

@abuhakeembilal

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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JO0qXh1_hLg

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

http://www.ah-sp.com

@abuhakeembilal

 

 

The Myth Of Darwinian Evolution (Part 4) – Hidden Archeology

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā Rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d:

I mentioned in a previous part of this series, that one of the well known, consistent features of any human fossil evidence that has been claimed to be evidence of the evolution of man, is that they have either been forgeries or animal bones (usually apes or pigs) conjectured to be human (The Piltdown Man and The Nebraska Man being two examples).

There is another issue related to human archeological findings and that is the well-known concealment of findings that oppose the theory of evolution.

In each of these cases, the fossils have been found to date back to a period evolutionist claim mankind was still ‘evolving’ and thus these discoveries have created major problems for evolutionists.

Any scientist that ‘shames the devil’ and decides to argue in favour of what these discoveries indicate, will very quickly find himself (or herself) witch-hunted and find their careers ending and reputations demolished.

Evolutionists claim, mankind as we know them (Homo sapiens) have existed for no more than approximately 200,000 years (some argue 100,000). Prior to this period we were ‘evolving’. This evolution took place, they claim, over a period of approximately 2 million years! It occurred initially in Africa and developing man began to spread in neighbouring regions.

Human_evolution_chart-en.svg

A word on Carbon Dating

An issue to be noted concerning scientific dating is the presence of wild inaccuracies found in samples dated using carbon dating:

The following are a few examples of wild dating inaccuracies:

  • Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. (Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61)
  • Living mollusc shells were dated up to 2,300 years old. (Science vol. 141, 1963, pp. 634-637)
  • A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1,300 years ago. (Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p. 211)
  • “One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000.” (Troy L. Pewe, “Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska,” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. Printing Office, 1975) p. 30)
  • Material from layers where dinosaurs are found carbon dated at 34,000 years old. (Reginald Daly, Earth’s Most Challenging Mysteries, 1972, p. 280)

Thus if inaccuracies are present to the extreme extent, that a living snails shell has been dated at 27,000 years, then imagine the possible inaccuracies present in the estimation of the time man has been present on earth!.

Examples of such findings

In June of 2016 The new York times announced that: ‘Scientists have found the fossilized remains of a petite hominin (a small predecessor to modern man) due to the height of the fossil (just 3 ½  foot tall) that lived 700,000 years ago.’ (even though they were discovered over ten years earlier)

Doubts that the remains constitute a new species were soon voiced by the Indonesian anthropologist Teuku Jacob, who suggested that the skull of the fossil (referred to as LB1) was a microcephalic modern human (Microcephaly is a medical condition in which the brain does not develop properly resulting in a smaller than normal head. Microcephaly may be present at birth or it may develop in the first few years of life ).

Thus Teuku Jacob a reputable anthropologist from the region of the discovery, rejected the claim that it was a Hominin and argued that it was a fully formed Human. He did so after taking the sample from Soejono’s institution, Jakarta’s National Research Centre of Archaeology, for his own research. Of course, doctor Jacob was thereafter chastised and referred to as ‘irresponsible’. Subsequently, access to the cave where the discovery was found was made forbidden and excavations were no longer possible until fairly recently.

The discovery was barely mentioned in the media, possible due to the fact that the period the fossil is dated to, is a time wherein humans were supposed to still be evolving. It would therefore constitute a clear refutation of the theory that man evolved from ape.

Yet it is hardly mentioned!

It is not the only case. There has been a number of discoveries similar to it that are covered up due to the fact that the fossils are dated to a period wherin humans are not yet (according to evolutionists) supposed to be humans.

  • A particularly striking example In this category Is a shell displaying a crude yet recognizably human face carved on its outer surface. Reported by geologist H. Stopes to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1881, this shell, from the Pliocene ( a stage in the Neogene Period in geologic time) Red Crag formation in England, is over 2 million years old. According to standard views, humans capable of this level of artistry did not arrive in Europe until about 30,000 or 40,000 years ago. Furthermore, they supposedly did not arise in their African homeland until about 100,000 years ago.
  • Neogene Period scale
  • In the late nineteenth century. Benjamin Harrison, an amateur archeologist, found eoliths (The most rudimentary stone tools, the eoliths are also known as “Dawn stones”) on the Kent Plateau In southeastern England. Geological evidence suggests that the eoliths were manufactured in the Middle or Late Pliocene, about 2 – 4 million ago. Among the supporters of Harrison’s eoliths were Alfred Russell Wallace. Co-founder with Darwin of the theory of evolution by natural selection; Sir John Prestwich, one of England’s most eminent geologists: and Ray E. Lankester, a director of the British Museum (Natural History).
  • In the 1950s, Louis Leakey found stone tools over 200,000 years old at Calico in southern California. According to standard views, humans did not enter the subarctic regions of the New World until about 12,000 years ago. Mainstream scientists responded to the Calico discoveries with predictable claims that the objects found there were natural products or that they were not really 200,000 years old. But there is sufficient reason to conclude that the Calico finds are genuinely old human artifacts. Although most of the Calico implements are crude, some, including a beaked graver, are more advanced.
  • Fiorentino Ameghino, a respected Argentine paleontologist, found stone tools, signs of fire, broken mammal bones, and a human vertebra in a Pliocene formation at Monte Hermoso, Argentina. Ameghino made numerous similar discoveries in Argentina, attracting the attention of scientists around the world. Despite Ameghino’s unique theories about a South American origin for the hominids, his actual discoveries are still worth considering. In 1912, Ales Hrdlicka, of the Smithsonian Institution, published a lengthy, but not very reasonable, attack on Ameghino’s work. Hrdlicka asserted that all of Ameghino’ s finds were from recent Indian settlements. In response, Carlos Ameghino, brother of Florentino Ameghino, carried out new Investigations at Miramar, on the Argentine coast south of Buenos Aires. There he found a series of stone implements, including bolas, and signs of fire. A commission of geologists confirmed the implements’ position in the Chapadmalalan formation, which modern geologists say is 3-5 million years old. Carlos Ameghino also found at Miramar a stone arrowhead firmly embedded In the femur of a Pliocene species of Toxodon, an extinct South American mammal.
  • In the 1960s, anthropologists uncovered advanced stone tools at Hueyatlaco, Mexico. Geologist Virginia Steen-Mclntyre and other members of a U.S. Geological Survey team obtained an age of about 250,000 years for the site’s implement-bearing layers. This challenged not only standard views of New World anthropology but also the whole standard picture of human origins. Humans capable of making the kind of tools found at Hueyatlaco are not thought to have come into existence until around 100,000 years ago in Africa.
  • In 1880. J D. Whitney, the state geologist of California, published a lengthy review of advanced stone tools found In California gold mines. The Implements including spear points and stone mortars and pestles, were found deep in mine shafts, underneath thick, undisturbed layers of lava, In formations that geologists now say are from 9 million to over 55 million years old. W. H. Holmes of the Smithsonian Institution, one of the most vocal nineteenth-century critics of the California finds, wrote; “Perhaps if Professor Whitney had fully appreciated the story of human evolution as it is understood today, he would have hesitated to announce the conclusions formulated [that humans existed in very ancient times in North Ametica], notwithstanding the imposing array of testimony with which he was confronted. In other words, if the facts do not agree with the favored theory, then such facts, even an imposing array of them, must be discarded.
  • In relation to old skeletal remains of the anatomically modern human type, perhaps the most interesting case is that of Castenedolo, Italy, where in the 1880s, G. Ragazzoni, a geologist, found fossil bones of several Homo sapiens sapiens individuals in layers of Pliocene sediment 3 to 4 million years old. Critics typically respond that the bones must have been placed into these Pliocene layers fairly recently by human burial. But Ragazzoni was alert to this possibility and carefully inspected the overlying layers. He found them undisturbed, with absolutely no sign of burial.
  • With the discovery of Java man, now classified as Homo erectus, the long-awaited missing link turned up in the Middle Pleistocene. As the Java man find won acceptance among evolutionists, the body of evidence for a human presence in more ancient times gradually slid into disrepute. This evidence was not conclusively invalidated. Instead, at a certain point, scientists stopped talking and writing about it. It was incompatible with the idea that ape-like Java man was a genuine human ancestor. As an example of how the Java man discovery was used to suppress evidence for a human presence in the Pliocene and earlier, the following statement made by W. H. Holmes about the California finds reported by J D. Whitney is instructive. After asserting that Whitney’s evidence “stands absolutely alone, ” Holmes complained that it implies a human race older by at least one-half than Pithecanthropus erectus, which may be regarded as an incipient form of human creature only. ” Therefore, despite the good quality of Whitney’ s evidence, it had to be dismissed. Interestingly enough, modern researchers have reinterpreted the original Java Homo erectus fossils. The famous bones reported by Dubois were a skullcap and femur (thigh bone). Although the two bones were found over 45 feet apart, In a deposit filled with bones of many other species. Dubois said they belonged to the same individual. But in 1973, M. H. Day and T. r. Molleson determined that the femur found by Dubois is different from other Homo erectus femurs and is in fact indistinguishable from anatomically modern human femurs (i.e. it was that of a modern human thigh). This caused Day and Molleson to propose that the femur was not connected with the Java man skull. As far as we can see, this means that we now have an anatomically modern human femur and a Homo erectus skull in a Middle Pleistocene stratum that is considered to be 800,000 years old. This provides further evidence that anatomically modern humans coexisted with more ape-like creatures in unexpectedly remote times.

(See ‘Forbidden Archeology – The Hidden History of the Human Race of Michael A. Cremo: P22-29)

The last example indicates, that normal modern man existed alongside the apes whose bones have been used to claim we evolved. But of course, these examples must be dismissed, otherwise, the theory will be harmed.

Concerning this Michael A. Cremo wrote in his book Forbidden Archeology P25:

“This supports the primary point we are trying to make in Forbidden Archeology, namely, that there exists in the scientific community a knowledge filter that screens out unwelcome evidence. This process of knowledge filtration has been going on for well over a century and continues right up to the present day.”

These are a few examples of well-known cover-ups in the archeological community.

The point to be made here is, while we do not agree with the given dates, we see there is an on-going pattern of rejection of anything that would disturb the ‘equilibrium’ of the theory, even when it come from their own scientific community!

We see then an on-going pattern of fraud and knowledge filtration, in an attempt to have the world accept Darwinism as the only viable, acceptable explanation for our existence.

Wa Sallallahu ‘alā Nabiyinā Muhammad

@abuhakeembilal

http://www.ah-sp.com

The Myth of Darwinian Evolution (Part 3) – The Fossil Records refute Darwin!

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d:

Another most important piece of evidence for Darwinian evolution is that of the fossil records. Since the theory revolves around decent with modification, and the earliest life forms changing very gradually in incremental stages, it should follow, that the best way to trace those changes is by studying the fossil records that exist for life on earth. Of course, if the theory is correct, the fossil records should be abundant with evidence of the varying life forms that have mutated and gradually became various species of animal. We should also witness some of the mutated animals that have died out, and their fitter, stronger successors.

It is a fact that Darwin had a hard time trying to get acceptance for his theory, but most people are unaware that Darwin’s most formidable opponents were not clergymen, but fossil experts.

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago and a leading evolutionist.

According to Coyne, “if evolution meant only gradual genetic change within a species, we’d have only one species today—a single highly evolved descendant of the first species. Yet we have many… How does this diversity arise from one ancestral form?” It arises because of “splitting, or, more accurately, speciation,” which “simply means the evolution of different groups that can’t interbreed.”

If Darwinian theory were true, “we should be able to find some cases of speciation in the fossil record, with one line of descent dividing into two or more. And we should be able to find new species forming in the wild.” Furthermore, “we should be able to find examples of species that link together major groups suspected to have common ancestry, like birds with reptiles and fish with amphibians.”

Coyne turns first to the fossil record. “We should be able,” he writes, “to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record. The deepest (and oldest) layers of rock would contain the fossils of more primitive species, and some fossils should become more complex as the layers of rock become younger, with organisms resembling present-day species found in the most recent layers. And we should be able to see some species changing over time, forming lineages showing ‘descent with modification’ (adaptation).” In particular, “later species should have traits that make them look like the descendants of earlier ones.” (Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 17-18, 25)

This issue is one that evolutionist past and present acknowledge. They accept that the fossil records should be the greatest testimony to Darwin’s theory. But it isn’t.

As Coyne writes “We should be able to find some evidence for evolutionary change in the fossil record…” but we don’t! this of course is a catastrophic problem for the theory.

In The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record presented difficulties for his theory.

Darwin knew that the major animal groups—which modern biologists call “phyla”—appeared fully formed in what were at the time the earliest known fossil-bearing rocks, deposited during a geological period known as the Cambrian.

The ‘Cambrian Explosion’

The oldest of all fossil records at the time of Darwin were the Cambrian fossil records.

This discovery, found in Cumbria, south Wales is possibly the greatest and most popular breakthrough fossil discovery.

This phenomenon is so dramatic that is it known as the Cambrian Explosion (referred to as such, because most of the major animal phyla or groups, appear within it, all of a sudden) hence biologists refer to it as biology’s ‘big bang’ (not a reference to an actual explosion).

But the fossil record doesn’t have within it, a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into genera then families then orders then classes then phyla.

In the Cambrian it was discovered that there were over 50 body plans — simple to complex — appearing suddenly in the fossil record without any trace of gradual modification.

Thus most of the major animal phyla and the major classes within it appear together …fully formed!  Darwin could not explain it except with conjecture.

He considered this a “serious” difficulty for his theory, since “if the theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed… and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures.” And “to the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” So “the case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained

(Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, Sixth Edition (London: John Murray, 1872), Chapter X, pp. 266, 285-288.)

Charles Darwin plainly stated, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been produced by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

Darwinian evolution requires geological time periods, making the fossil record a vital ally in the corner of scientific materialism. Unfortunately for Darwin and his advocates, the fossil record has some major problems. First, the fossil record offers little to no evidence of transitional forms — those intermediary life forms bridging the gaps between known species.

One might therefore suppose, that geologists would be continually uncovering fossil evidence of transitional forms. This, however, was clearly not the case. What geologists did discover was species, and groups of species, which appeared suddenly rather than at the end of a chain of evolutionary links. Darwin conceded that the state of the fossil evidence was “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory,”

According to Steven Stanley, the Bighorn Basin in Wyoming contains a continuous local record of fossil deposits for about five million years, during an early period in the age of mammals. Because this record is so complete, paleontologists assumed that certain populations of the basin could be linked together to illustrate continuous evolution. On the contrary, species that were once thought to have turned into others turn out to overlap in time with their alleged descendants, and “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another.” In addition, species remain fundamentally unchanged for an average of more than one million years before disappearing from the record.

The Maths of the theory

There are some issues related to the theory that do not add up. Bare in mind, the theory revolves around gradual change over time. To demonstrate the problem, paleontologist Stephen Stanley uses the example of the bat and the whale, which are supposed to have evolved from a common mammalian ancestor in little more than ten million years, to illustrate the unsolvable problem that fossil stasis poses for Darwinian gradualism: Let us suppose that we wish, hypothetically, to form a bat or a whale by a process of gradual transformation of established species. If an average chronospecies (fossil lifespan of a species lasts nearly a million years, or even longer, and we have at our disposal only ten million years, then we have only ten or fifteen chronospecies to align, end-to-end, to form a continuous lineage connecting our primitive little mammal with a bat or a whale. This is clearly preposterous. Chronospecies, by definition, grade into each other, and each one encompasses very little change. A chain of ten or fifteen of these might move us from one small rodent like form to a slightly different one, perhaps representing a new genus, but not to a bat or a whale!

The other issue at hand is proving decent through modification. If we were to suppose that we had two fossils of animals that resemble one another that according to our dating seemed to precede each other. How exactly do we establish that one has ‘evolved’ from the other except through conjecture as overwhelming as it may well be.

The late evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould acknowledged this as “the trade secret of paleontology.” He went on to admit, “The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” This is a reference to the well-known ‘tree of evolution’ that we find in our biology textbooks. The only thing that we have concrete evidence for it that which exists at the tips of the branches of the tree, everything that exists in those drawing lower down in the tree have been added based upon ‘belief’ and conjecture and not evidence.

Other Darwinists have suggested that the absence of fossils is a problem with the fossil record itself rather than with evolutionary theory. That is to say even though we don’t have evidence for the theory in fossil records, it is because the fossil records are deficient and we will eventually discover fossil that will prove it. Again we see proof of the fact that the theory was thought up first and then evidence was sought for it! Even though evidence does not exist, evolutionists still postulate that the theory is ‘established’ even in the absence of categorical proof. And it is with this ‘blind faith’ we see believers in the theory debate.

The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

  1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their time on earth. They appear in the fossil record, looking pretty much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
  2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.”

In short, if evolution means the gradual change of one kind of organism into another kind (a process considered by later-day darwinists (or neo-darwinists) to have occurred through genetic mutations), the outstanding characteristic of the fossil record is the absence of evidence for evolution. Darwinists explain away the sudden appearance of new species by saying that perhaps the transitional intermediates were for some reason not fossilized, and that perhaps the soft frames of the creatures caused them to dissappear and not be fossilised! But stasis- the consistent absence of fundamental directional change- is positively documented. It is also the norm and not the exception.

Next, there is the problem of interpretation. As Ian Tattersall, Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, confesses, “The patterns we perceive are as likely to result from our unconscious mind-sets as from the evidence itself.” Richard Leakey admitted as much when he disclosed the tendency of his father (palaeontologist Louis Leakey) to arrange fossils and alter their criteria to fit into a line of human descent. That is to say, the fossils that do exist are ‘re-arranged’ to fit with evolutionist theory and not left  in the manner in which they were discovered.

But most damaging to the integrity of the fossil record is the cloud of fraud that hangs over it. As reported in the February 2003 issue of Discover, “Such so-called missing links as Java man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man, and Peking man were eventually shown to be outright fabrications. …Today there are scores of fake fossils out there and they have cast a dark shadow over the whole field … there is a fake fossil factory in north-eastern China…. The Chinese fossil trade has become a big business.”

For 150 years the fossil record has ‘refused’ to affirm gradualism and, with it, Darwin’s theory of evolution

Stephen J. Gould said:

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions…has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution

(Evolution Now P.140)

Darwinists claim they have found the missing link between land mammals and whales but they admit none could have been an ancestor of the other, it is impossible in principle to show that any two fossils are genealogically related.

In 1998 and 1999 the Us national academy of sciences published two booklets defending darwins theory of evolution. According to the 1998 booklet fossils provide the first of several ‘compelling‘ lines of evidence that ‘demonstrate beyond any reasonable doubt‘ that all living things are modified decendants of a common ancestor’

The 1999 booklet claims that the theory has been ‘thoroughly tested and confirmed’ by several categories of evidence. First of all the fossil record which provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time, and decent with modification. Most biology texts books take the same deceptive line.

Darwinism is the theory of gradualism from common descent: the slow process whereby complex life forms emerge from simpler ones that have accumulated modifications through the mechanisms of variation and natural selection. This should be recorded in fossil history.

Fossils certainly prove that the earth was once populated by creatures that are no longer with us. The fossil record also provides evidence that the history of life has passed through several stages, only the most recent of which includes us.

Darwins ‘Tree of Life’

Imagine having a chronoscope that would enable you to peer back in time to the origin of the first animal. Perhaps a primitive sponge. The sponge makes more sponges like itself and if darwins theory is true, after thousands of generations this sponge population splits into two different kinds of sponges which are called separate species. After millions more generations and the origin of a few more species some species become so different from each other that we split them into two genera (plural of genus) after countless more generations the differences are so great within those genera that we divide them into two families. As differences continue to accumulate, we eventually group the splitting of those families into two of more ‘orders’ and various orders into two or more ‘classes’ despite all the generations and the differences however we might still have only sponges. Then another major type of animal emerges perhaps jellyfish. This animal would be so radically different from the others that we wouldn’t just class it as another sponge. Rather it is an entirely new category, a phylum (plural of phyla).

This pattern of gradual divergence from a common ancestor with major differences occurring only after a long accumulation of minor differences, is how Darwin envisioned evolution.

darwins-tree-of-life-2

These transitional links present here would create a branching pattern Darwin called the great tree of life he demonstrated this with a sketch in the origin of species. It the bottom of the tree graph were the primitive sponge from which all other animals decended, then most of the branches above it would be sponges, the major differences, the phyla would appear only at the top after a long history of branching due to the accumulation of minor differences.

Biologists recognise several dozen animal phyla based upon major differences in body plans. There are over a dozen phyla of worms alone. There are even more striking differences between worms and mollusc’s, (clams and octopuses), Echinoderms (starfish and sea urchins), arthropods (lobsters and insects) and vertebrates (fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals)

If Darwin’s theory were true then these major differences should only make their appearance at the top of his great tree of life…but the fossil records shows exactly the opposite, they appear in the lower levels of the Cambrian discovery !

Each of the divisions of the biological world (kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders), it was noted, conformed to a basic structural plan, with very few intermediate types. Where were the links between these discontinuous groups? The absence of transitional intermediates was troubling even to Darwin’s loyal supporter T. H. Huxley, who warned Darwin repeatedly in private that a theory consistent with the evidence would have to allow for some big jumps (since there is no evidence for the incremental gradual changes).

Darwin posed the question himself, asking why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms?

Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

He answered with a theory of extinction which was the logical counterpart of “the survival of the fittest.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: “The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion.”

( “Presentation to the American Museum of Natural History (1969),” in David M. Williams & Malte C. Ebach, “The reform of palaeontology and the rise of biogeography—25 years after ‘ontogeny, phylogeny, palaeontology and the biogenetic law’ (Nelson, 1978),” Journal of Biogeography 31 (2004): 685-712)

Therefore the issue remains the same, the claim of ‘evidence’ is still an unestablished myth. Evolution is still a ‘belief’. The issue is intensified though, by ‘hidden’ fossil discoveries, that have been intentionally concealed and we will look into that in the following part inshaa’allah.

Wa Sallallahu ‘alā Nabiyinā Muhammad

@abuhakeembilal

http://www.ah-sp.com

Part 4 – Hidden Archeology

The Myth of Darwinian Evolution (Part 2) – Natural Selection

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d

The Myth of Darwinian Evolution (Part 2) – Natural Selection

We begin this section by mentioning that the issue of Natural Selection is perhaps the most  fundamental, key issue Darwin’s theory of Evolution is based upon. Darwin first proposed his theory of evolution, then sought evidence to substantiate the theory, this is important to note. It explains why Darwin and scientist believers in his theory, have struggled desperately to establish the evidence to confirm it.

In his book The origin of species Darwin presented three main arguments:

  1. That species are not immutable (lit: Fixed, unchangeable), that is to say, new species of living beings have appeared during earths long history, through a process he named decent through modification (Random, undirected, mutations in the organisms DNA, leading to the development of an advanced version of the same creature, and this process continued until we have a completely new ‘species’ of animal that is unable to breed with its pre-species)
  2. That this process accounts for all diversity of life
  3. That this process was guided by Natural selection (survival of the fittest, the weaker inferior creature was surpassed by the new ‘mutant’ creature and thus it survived and the previous lifeform didn’t)

This third issue of natural selection is the topic at hand here,

As mentioned previously, Darwins theory of natural selection is based upon decent through modification. Darwin claimed that all species of animal after the first lifeform, are descended with modification from some other species. Therefore, everything in Darwin’s theory revolves around his argument that, the origin of all and any new species of animal, stem from existing species, what evolutionary biologist call speciation (spee-see-ay-shun). Proving changes within existing species are beside the point. Darwin called his book ‘on the origin of species’ since he was fully conscious of the fact that the change from one species to another was the most fundamental problem of his evolution theory. Thus the issue at hand is not change ‘within’ a species, but one species becoming another.

So speciation is Darwinism’s most fundamental problem, the starting point for everything else in evolutionary theory. It is not an issue for believers in intelligent design though, those who believe in an ever-living  most-knowledgeable, Most-wise creator, do not have any issues here.

Speciation is not an issue for them, since every organism that exists, points clearly and categorically towards design. The creator of those organisms has also informed, in his revelation, of how he created. Revelation tallies with everything observed, just as we concluded in our previous house parable,  the observed house could only be the work of an architect.

‘Observed’ speciation

As a purely scientific matter however, it is reasonable to ask, has speciation, the most fundamental process in Darwinism, ever been observed.

This on-going process, that has accounted for the development of all species, of fish, reptile, amphibian and mammal should, in order to be a consistent theory, still be observed!

The argument is:  that through speciation, all kinds of animal have developed. Due to decent with modification, gradual changes through mutations, all species have developed. Due to fitness, some have survived and others have just not developed or have died out.

Mutation

Mutations are randomly occurring genetic changes, which are nearly always harmful when they produce effects within the organism large enough to be visible. The theory of evolution depends heavily upon mutations. Of course, mutations are genetic ‘errors’ that may occur within the DNA of a cell on rare occasions. While Darwin evolutionists agree that mutations are errors, they argue that those errors may occasionally improve the organisms ability to survive and reproduce. Organisms generally produce more offspring than can survive to maturity. In addition, offspring that have an advantage of this kind, can be expected to go on to produce more descendants themselves, than less advantaged members of the species.

The theory supposes that given enough time, and sufficient mutations of the right sort, enormously complex organs and patterns of adaptive behaviour, can eventually be produced in tiny cumulative steps, without the need for the existence of some pre-existing intelligence.

This is natural selection in a nutshell

Important note:

Before the selection process can begin, there has to be something to “select.” And that something is genes. If evolution can be thought of as manufacturing process whose product is increasingly complex organisms, then genes are its raw materials.

Genes are regions of DNA that consist of thousands to hundreds of thousands of base molecules arranged in a precise sequence. Needless to say, producing such a highly organized structure from a random, undirected process is a tall order. In fact, the chance of getting the correct sequence of molecules by happenstance is about one in ten to the thousandth power 101000 (that is ten with 1000 zeros!), even for the smallest gene!

Macro mutation Vs Micro mutation

Mutations are of two main types:

  1. Macro mutations (Also known as saltation): A macro mutation is a major mutation that occurs within the gene structure of a cell, having a profound effect upon changing the nature of the cell and thus the organism itself.
  2. Micro mutations: A micro mutation, is a minor, small-scale or highly localized mutation, one involving alteration at a single gene locus (the position of a gene within a chromosome)

Darwin argued, in essence, that evolution was based in macro evolution. That there would be major mutations that bring about major changes in an organism that would lead, in time, to the mutated organism surviving and changing. Over time it would be unable to breed with its like, but would breed with another similarly mutated organism, and they would go on to become a species.

It must also be born in mind, that DNA has amazing ‘proof reading, self repairing abilities. Chemical damage to DNA occurs naturally as well, and cells use DNA repair mechanisms to repair mismatches and breaks in DNA—nevertheless, the repair sometimes fails to return the DNA to its original sequence. So the theory therefore, is dependant upon waiting for mutations within a cell that would ordinarily repair itself, to fail to repair itself, and for resultant mutation to be ‘beneficial’!

Saltations (or systemic macromutations, as they are often called today) are believed to be theoretically impossible by most scientists, and for good reason. Living creatures are extremely intricate assemblies of interrelated parts, and the parts themselves are also complex. It is impossible to imagine how the parts could change in unison as a result of chance mutation. In a word (Darwin’s word), a saltation is equivalent to a miracle. Though he still maintained it ‘could’ happen.

Many organs require an intricate combination of complex parts to perform their functions. The eye and the wing are the most common illustrations, but it would be misleading to give the impression that either is a special case; human and animal bodies are literally packed with similar marvels.

Darwin wrote in The origin of Species:

“Natural selection can act only by the preservation and accumulation of infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being”

How can such things be built up by “infinitesimally small inherited variations, each profitable to the preserved being?” The first step towards a new function- such as vision or ability to fly- would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time. As an analogy, imagine a medieval ironsmith producing by chance a silicon microchip; in the absence of supporting computer technology the prodigious invention would be useless and he would throw it away.

The animal that developed the first mutated wing for example would probably have an awkward time climbing or grasping long before they became useful for gliding, thus placing the hypothetical creature at a serious disadvantage. Which, by the standard set in the theory based in ’survival of the fittest’, should cause this mutant creature to die out.

The number of vertebrae has to be changed in whole units, and to accomplish this you need to do more than just ‘shove in’ an extra bone, because each vertebra has associated with it a set of nerves, blood vessels, muscles, and so on. These complicated parts would all have to appear together for the extra vertebrae to make any biological sense

Stephen Jay Gould asked himself “the excellent question, What good is 5 per cent of an eye?,” and speculated that the first eye parts might have been useful for something other than sight. Richard Dawkins responded that – “An ancient animal with 5 per cent of an eye might indeed have used it for something other than sight, but it seems to me as likely that it used it for 5 per cent vision. And actually I don’t think it is an excellent question. Vision that is 5 per cent as good as yours or mine is very much worth having in comparison with no vision at all. So is 1 per cent vision better than total blindness. And 6 per cent is better than 5, 7 per cent better than 6, and so on up the gradual, continuous series.”

The fallacy in that argument is that “5 per cent of an eye” is not the same thing as “5 per cent of normal vision.” For an animal to have any useful vision at all, many complex parts must be working together. Even a complete eye is useless unless it belongs to a creature with the mental and neural capacity to make use of the information by doing something that furthers survival or reproduction. What we have to imagine is a chance mutation that provides this complex capacity all at once, at a level of utility sufficient to give the creature an advantage in producing offspring.

(It is also worth noting that is it well known among biolologists, that animals with gene related deformities have generally been found to be sterile)

Bird and bat wings appear in the fossil records already developed, and no one has ever confirmed by experiment that the gradual evolution of wings and eyes is possible.

Thus the issue remains a conundrum for evolutionist. They will continue to defend their position by saying “examples of macro mutation and gradual change in organisms, just haven’t yet been discovered in the fossil records”

Since that is the case it is safe to say it is a theory Darwin thought up and then attempted to seek evidence for. A theory that is thus far, baseless.

Darwin could not point to impressive examples of natural selection in action, so he relied heavily upon an argument by analogy.

Douglas J Futuyma stated:

“When Darwin wrote the origin of species he could offer no good cases for natural selection because no one had looked for them. He drew instead an analogy with the artificial selection that animal and plant breeders use to improve domesticated varieties of animals and plants. By breeding only from the woolliest sheep, the most fertile chickens, and so on. Breeders have been spectacularly successful at altering almost every imaginable characteristic of our domesticated animals and plants, to the point where most of them differ from their wild ancestors, far more than related species differ from them.

The analogy to artificial selection is misleading. Plant and animal breeders employ intelligence, and specialised knowledge to select breeding stock and to protect them from natural dangers.

The point of Darwin’s theory was to establish that senseless, purposeless, natural processes can substitute for intelligent design.

The fact that he defended his point using examples and accomplishments of intelligent designers, only proves that his audience was highly uncritical of him!

Artificial selection is not basically the same sort of thing as natural selection, but fundamentally different.

Human breeders produce variations in pigeons or chickens or sheep for purposes absent in nature.  When domesticated animals return to the wild, they revert quickly to their wild state, the most highly specialised breeds quickly perish.

Additionally breeders have created no new ‘species’. For example all dogs are of a single species because they are chemically capable of interbreeding. They are dogs. Differences in size may make mating with some breeds impractical. But they remain dogs!

The late French zoologist and evolutionist Pierre-P. Grassé concluded: “The results of artificial breeding provides powerful testimony against darwins theory, in spite of the intense pressure generated by artificial selection, eliminating any parent not answering the criteria of choice, over a whole millennia, no new species are born”

The fact is that selection gives tangible form to, and gathers together, all the varieties a genome (the genetic material of an organism consisting of DNA) is capable of producing but does not constitute and innovative evolutionary process.

In other words the reason dogs don’t become as big as elephants much less change into elephants, is not that we just haven’t been breeding them long enough, dogs do not have the genetic capacity for that degree of change. They stop getting bigger when their genetic limit is reached.

Darwinists disagree with this and they have points to make. They point with pride to laboratory experiments with fruit flies, which has not produced anything but fruit flies! though it may have changed some of their characteristics.

As far as animals are concerned darwinists return the inability to produce new species to a lack of sufficient time. The time available has to be taken into account in evaluating breeding experiments but it is also possible that the greater time available to nature is more than counterbalanced by the power of intelligent purpose, which is brought to bear in artificial selection. With respect to the fruit fly experiment for example Pierre-P. Grassé noted that the fruit fly, seems not to have changed since the remotest times. Nature has had plenty of time but it just hadn’t been doing what the experimenters have been doing.

Whether selection has ever accomplished speciation, that is, the production of a new species, is not the point. A biological species is simply a group capable of interbreeding. Success in dividing fruit flies into two or more populations that cannot inter breed, does not constitute evidence that a similar process could in time produce a fruit fly from a bacterium.

Thus if breeders where able to produce dogs that could only breed with itself and not other dogs they would have only made the tinest step towards proving darwins claims. Since only a part of his theory and definition of new species revolved around the new species being unable to breed with the pre-species.

Thus more evidence is needed.

Natural selection is a tautology (a way of saying the same thing twice)

The sum total of the concept is that the species that is strong enough to produce the most offspring…will produce the most offspring!

The famous philosopher of science karl popper (28 July 1902 – 17 September 1994) wrote:

“Darwinism is not really a scientific theory, because natural selection is an all-purpose explanation which can account for anything, and which therefore explains nothing!”

A tautology does not explain anything. When I want to know how a fish can become a man I am not enlightened by being told that the organisms that leave the most offspring…leave the most offspring.

The reality of the theory of natural selection is that we are told that the fittest beings remained in a given environment. Characteristics that give offspring an advantage differ from time and place and circumstance. That which may be an advantage in one place may not be so in another. The development of wings on a beetle may be an advantage in one place but if they are close to the sea, for example it could cause them to be light and easy to be blown away to sea, in which case it is a disadvantage. Therefore the characteristic that is considered advantageous to a creature, is that which helps him to survive. When he survives, he leaves the most offspring as a result of his survival. Therefore natural selection in actuality only states the obvious, that the organism that leaves the most offspring…will leave the most offspring!

Natural selection as a deductive argument

Natural selection may be presented in the form of a deductive argument.

For example:

  1. All organisms must reproduce
  2. All organisms exhibit hereditary variations
  3. Hereditary variations differ in their effects on reproduction
  4. Therefore variations with favourable effects on reproduction will succeed, those with unfavourable effects will fail, and organisms will change

From this stand point we see the only thing it establishes, is that some natural selection will occur and not that it is an explanation for evolution. Actually it does not even establish that organisms will change. In any population some animals will leave more offspring than others even if the population is headed for extinction.

Natural selection as a scientific hypothesis

Scientists will insist that Darwinist natural selection is a hypothesis (a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation), that has been so thoroughly and rigorously tested and confirmed by evidence that is should be accepted  by reasonable persons as a presumptively adequate explanation for the evolution of complex life forms.

Therefore natural selection in combination with mutation is an innovative revolutionary process with is capable of producing new kinds of organs and organisms.

So the critical question is: What evidence confirms that the hypothesis is true?

Where are the ‘in-between’ species?

The development of species required very ‘gradual’ steps over many, many years. So surely we must have some evidence of at least some of these many gradual developmental changes…but not one!?

In response we will inevitably hear natural selection (survival of the fittest) necessitated, that they died out!

The general hypothesis is that man (and all other creatures for that matter) began as a single cell amoeba and developed into more complex cells which then went on to become a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptilian lizard, then a tree dwelling mammal, then apes, then several stages of ape-man type creatures and then mankind. Of course this is a very general version of the proposed theory.

This presents a number of questions:

If man evolved from apes, why are the apes still here?

If lizards evolved into birds, why are lizards and birds both still here?

Evolutionists will answer this is because we have had evolution ‘cycles’ due to more than one ice age or because all species have common ancestries.

That still does not explain what we only have the presence of huge jumps from one species to another and no sign of the ‘in-between’ species. Bear in mind evolution is proposed to have taken millions of years (another issue that requires discussion). In utter desperation the evolutionist resorts to saying that the ‘missing link’ just has not yet been discovered in the fossil records. Some claim they have already found proof of the missing link, but upon investigation they have all found to be hoaxes. We will look at that under the issue of the fossil records. The reality is though that the missing link is not just one, but thousands of missing links indicative of our gradual development. That is if were looking at the missing link between monkey and man. What of the thousands of missing links between amoeba and fish? Similarly fish to amphibian, then amphibian to reptile.

All species between fish and reptiles died out? Why then did the original species for instance fish survive?

If there were many gradual steps between monkey and man, then why do we have hundreds of species of monkey, the original type, still living but none of the in-between?

The claim is that modern man has been around for 1 million years (yet another ‘claim’)which would necessitate that it would have taken some 100 million years of more for man to develop from Monkey to man. If we said (for the sake of argument) that it took only 10 million years for modern man to develop. That would mean at the rate of significant change there would be perhaps some 200 stages (probably far far more)  from ape to man. The original monkey survived, in fact various breeds of monkey and ape, but not one of the 200 variations in between?…not one!?

The question is where are all these varying developmental stages we should see on the planet, since both ends of the spectrum still exist, but not one of the many stages in between, not even a legitimate fossil!

Where are the 10% man 90% ape? Or the 20% man 80% ape etc. Likewise among the other species. Why do so many pre-species, with their varying types, exist alongside their advanced species, and none of the species in-between. Could it possibly be because we actually don’t have perpetual evolution taking place?

Another issue is, why did the evolutionary process of ape to man, stop at man? And if the argument is, it hasn’t stopped with man (i.e. man is still mutating) then why is he the only one evolving.

The point is, evolution is not the ‘easy to accept, highly logical explanation for the origin of all things it is proposed to be, except when we leave these questions out and smooth the theory over.

The language of the evolutionist

Another important issue to note is the language of the evolutionist. It is commonplace to hear (or read) an evolutionist describing how evolution ‘selected’ a species, or caused a certain species to adapt. Or perhaps that evolution ‘fixed’ a particular problem or ‘left’ something since it didn’t need fixing etc. This language points to something that has the powers of reason and design, though they will not refer to it in these terms. It is as though they perceive evolution as some sort of ‘impersonal intelligent force’ that exists, making decisions on how the species needs to evolve.

This is clearly acknowledgement of the need for intelligent design while trying to flee from it as it will be tantamount to acknowledging a ‘creator’ but of course that cannot be done since we have an inability to establish a creator through scientific process.

Not only do we have the magnificent creatures that exist on earth but the ideal food chain to support them. An ecology that is perfect to support life with the ideal gasses, such as oxygen and CO2 etc

Perfection in the seasons and temperatures and the universe. There is beauty and fragrance in the flowers, birds, butterflies etc that for practical purposes should not be here.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that to postulate that this has come about by chance is a tad far-fetched?

In light of all of this, even atheists like Sir Fred Hoyle have admitted,

The idea that life originated by the random shuffling of molecules is as ridiculous and improbable as proposing that a tornado blowing through a junkyard would cause the assembly of a 747!”

Hoyle is among many who now concede that the universe is neither old enough nor large enough to produce even the most elemental gene. And without genes, evolution is like a factory assembly line without anything on the conveyor belt.

Conclusion

We are able to say in summary:

  1. That the concept of natural selection is nothing but a statement of the obvious, that is in any given circumstance, the strongest organism that has best ability to leave more offspring…will leave more offspring! and thus survive.
  2. That Darwins intent was that random unguided mutations, were all that were needed to bring about new species of animal.
  3. That through this process, man developed from a single cell organism to where he is today
  4. That natural selection conjectures about survival of the fittest but does not discuss the ‘arrival’ of the fittest
  5. That decent with modification is until now unproven, thus ironically, believers in natural selection (when we really understands the far-fetched nature of what they assert) require far more ‘faith’ and ‘belief’ in it than to have faith in an Intelligent Creator.

If this is the strongest of the evidence presented by the evolutionist and we can see its fragility, the evolutionist retorts ‘but there is clear evidence in fossil records!’ therefore will look at that next.

Wa Sallallahu ‘alā Nabiyinā Muhammad

@abuhakeembilal

http://www.ah-sp.com

Part 3 – The Fossil Records Refute Darwinism!

The Myth of Darwinian Evolution (Part 1)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘alā rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d:

It is an established trait from the traits of those who rejected the call of the prophets and the messengers of the past that they would use various conjecture based claims to stand against the prophet and his followers.

The affair was no different at the time of prophet Muhammad, the pagan tribe of Quraish who stood against him would forge lies upon him while at the same time they themselves were proponents of belief systems based upon conjecture and falsehood.

Allah the most high mentions in the Qur’ān:

أَفَرَأَيْتُمُ اللَّاتَ وَالْعُزَّىٰ

Have you then considered Al-Lat, and Al-‘Uzza (two idols of the pagan Arabs).

وَمَنَاةَ الثَّالِثَةَ الْأُخْرَىٰ

And Manat (another idol of the pagan Arabs), the third? {Suratun Najm: 19-20}

Allah then goes on to say a few verses later:

إِنْ هِيَ إِلَّا أَسْمَاءٌ سَمَّيْتُمُوهَا أَنتُمْ وَآبَاؤُكُم مَّا أَنزَلَ اللَّهُ بِهَا مِن سُلْطَانٍ ۚ إِن يَتَّبِعُونَ إِلَّا الظَّنَّ وَمَا تَهْوَى الْأَنفُسُ ۖ وَلَقَدْ جَاءَهُم مِّن رَّبِّهِمُ الْهُدَىٰ

They are not but [mere] names you have named them – you and your forefathers – for which Allah has sent down no authority. They follow not except assumption and what [their] souls desire, and there has already come to them from their Lord guidance. {Suratun Najm: 23}

Thus rejection of the prophets has historically been based in conjecture. In our era, the affair remains the same. But rather than rejection of the oneness of the creator, and his sole right to be worshipped alone, due to blind bigotry towards an idol, we have in our era blind faith of another kind. A concept masked in the guise of ‘established fact’ and ‘well known undisputed truth’ and ‘compelling evidence’, while the reality is, it is as much a ‘belief’ as any other man-made religion is and that is the belief in the theory of Darwinism.

Who was Charles Darwin?

Charles Robert Darwin (12 February 1809– 19 April 1882) was an English naturalist and geologist. He was born in Shrewsbury, England. He is famous for his theory of evolution.

Charles Darwin’s views about common descent (the belief that all living beings, share a single common ancestor), as expressed in his book ‘On the Origin of Species’, were that he argued that there was only one ancestor for all life forms

His book ‘On the Origin of Species’ (1859) did two things. First, it provided what Darwinist consider evidence that evolution has taken place (even though latter day Darwinists added to the body of ‘evidence’ presented by darwin, without furthering his plight one iota). Second, it proposed a theory to explain how evolution works. That theory is known as Natural Selection. Evolution by natural selection is one of the key concepts within Darwinist belief. They hold that it explains the presence and diversity of life on Earth. Therefore belief in a ‘Creator’ is a fallacy, since science explains why and how we exist.

Natural Selection (Or ‘Survival of the fittest’)

Darwin believed that living beings have been modified primarily by ‘natural selection’ acting on ‘random variations’ or in other words ‘Survival of the fittest’

He wrote:

I am convinced that natural selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive means of modification

He argued that lifeforms, all returned back to one common ancestor. This one common ancestor changed into different species and types through random mutations, that occurred within that one species. Those mutations brought about stronger forms of the same being, that were better able to survive their environment, causing the previous ‘weaker’ life forms, to remain unchanged or ultimately die out. They then went on to breed with other randomly ‘mutated’ beings like themselves, over generations. Eventually, they became a separate species that was unable to mate with it predecessor. Thus we had the creation of a new ‘species’ of animal.This, he believed, was the process that brought fish, reptiles, birds, amphibians and mammals into existence, not to mention the varying types of animal within each animal ‘group’.

Therefore he argues that, all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from one primitive origin, into which life was first breathed

Jerry A. Coyne is a professor in the Department of Ecology and Evolution at The University of Chicago. In Why Evolution is True, he summarizes Darwinism—the modern theory of evolution—as follows: “Life on earth evolved gradually beginning with one primitive species—perhaps a self-replicating molecule—that lived more than 3.5 billion years ago; it then branched out over time, throwing off many new and diverse species; and the mechanism for most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection.”

(Jerry A. Coyne, Why Evolution Is True (New York: Viking, 2009), p. 3.)

Coyne further explains that evolution “simply means that a species undergoes genetic change over time. That is, over many generations, a species can evolve into something quite different, and those differences are based on changes in the DNA, which originate as mutations. The species of animals and plants living today weren’t around in the past, but are descended from those that lived earlier.”

(Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 3-4)

According to Coyne, however, “if evolution meant only gradual genetic change within a species, we’d have only one species today—a single highly evolved descendant of the first species. Yet we have many… How does this diversity arise from one ancestral form?” It arises because of “splitting, or, more accurately, speciation (pronounced ‘spee-see-ay-tion),” which “simply means the evolution of different groups that can’t interbreed.”

(Coyne, Why Evolution Is True, pp. 5-6)

Important definitions

The following are some essential definitions we should be acquainted with early on in our discussion.

Evolution

Evolution has many meanings. In its most general sense, it means change over time. The present is different from the past. No sane person rejects evolution in this sense.

Not all change is considered Darwinian evolution, therefore the type of evolution we are referring to is ‘cumulative (i.e. increasing, growing) change over time’. The fact that things change over time is also not controversial. Biologists refer to evolution specifically as ‘a change in ‘gene frequencies’ (‘mutations’ for short) over generations’. Similarly, evolution in this sense is still uncontroversial. One person’s genes differ from the genes of his parents, and theirs, differ from the genes of their parents, and so on.

Descent with Modification

Darwin’s term for evolution was: ‘Descent with modification (i.e. Descent with change)’ this definition of his, upon first hearing it doesn’t sound particularly problematic either, as it could well include the differing in genes between parent and child we mentioned earlier. Animal breeders have used decent with modification for years, but within a specific species (make a note of this as it is important to our discussion)

The same occurs in the wild, but again only within a specific existing species.

Thus far, these understandings of evolution are not problematic.

Charles Darwin claimed far more than any of these things though. In ‘The Origin Of Species’ he set out to explain the origin of all species of living creatures, that is, all the diversity of life on earth. Thus our discussion is, in truth, around Darwinism and not merely evolution in the general aforementioned sense.

Darwinism

Summary of the theory

Darwin’s theory of evolution, therefore, revolves around the concept that, organisms in nature, typically produce more offspring than can survive and reproduce, given the constraints of food, space, and other resources in the environment. But they may have random mutations that give the life form, an advantage over its weaker counterpart. These differences that occur, due to random genetic mutations within DNA, may be passed on to their offspring. If competing offspring, have traits that give them an advantage in a given environment, they will survive and pass those traits on. As these differences accumulate over generations, populations of organisms diverge and differ, from their ancestors. This process has led the earliest organisms on earth to diversify into all animals and microorganisms that exist today.

Thus the theory applies to living beings.

Darwinism, therefore,  consists of the following claims:

  1. All living things are modified descendants of one common ancestor
  2. The principle mechanism of modification has been natural selection (survival of the fittest) acting on undirected random variations that originate in DNA (gene) mutations, and,
  3. Unguided random processes are sufficient to explain all features of living things, so whatever may appear to be ‘design’ is just an illusion.

This is Darwinism.

Darwin wrote in ‘The Origins Of Species’:

I view all beings not as special creations, but as the lineal descendants of some few beings that lived in the distant past

A note on the term ‘Intelligent Design’

Intelligent design refers to the use of empirical evidence (i.e. verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic)  to indicate that some features of the natural world are best explained by an intelligent cause, it is not always used, however, to refer to belief in god. There exists a body of atheist scientists who believe in Intelligent Design, but do not believe in God (for example the well know atheist philosopher Antony Flew – 1 February 1923 – 8 April 2010. After being a well-known atheist for many years, he converted to ‘deism’ in 2004. Though when arguing that he believes in Intelligent design, he advocated an Aristotelian philosophical god and not the god of Christians and Muslims). The ID movement, as it is sometimes called, is a relatively new one, gaining popularity in the 1980’s. Therefore, while some may use the term in a general way intending by that, belief in god, it is important to know that this is not always intended by all who use it. In short, all belief in God is belief in Intelligent Design, but not all belief in Intelligent Design is belief in God. The issue here is, one must be sure to ascertain the intent of the one who uses this term.

In rejection of intelligent design, Darwin strikes an example of a house built from rock, found at the base of a mountain. He argued that while the rocks are important to the architect, their relationship with the house he has built, is similar to the relation of the variations of each organic being, and the varying forms of their descendants. So even though the rocks were used to build something beautiful, the rocks themselves are just random accidental structures.

In this parable of his, the architect (as far as Darwin was concerned) is natural selection. While this parable may sound convincing, the correct parable, in relation to his theory, would be like the same architect closing his eyes, then throwing those rocks in any direction or even (for arguments sake) in one direction, if he throws enough rocks eventually they accidentally fall in just the right sequence so as to produce, a beautiful, two storey home, with winding staircase, living room, kitchen, a number of bedrooms, fireplace, a beautiful chimney and high wall surrounding it. What then is the likelihood of that occurring? A parable that, I’m sure you’ll agree requires rethinking!

Secondly, if a stranger were to stumble across the house, what is he most likely to conclude, that it was the work of an intelligent architect, building with open eyes or the work of a random individual throwing rocks randomly with both eyes shut tight? And for what reason would that stranger reject the first suggestion, and fight and argue vehemently for the second?

But the reality of what he is suggesting with his theory doesn’t stop there, supposing he goes on to postulate that the same thing occurred with the house next door, then the houses on the whole street, and then all of the real estate within the city!? This, in essence, is what he suggests, and more.

And thirdly, would he dare reject the fact that this was the work of an architect? and go further to deny his existence claiming there is no evidence proving he exists because he had never personally seen him?

Fourthly, the parable is, in essence, a refutation against his theory since the house he suggests is based on the work of an ‘Intelligent designer’ (in this case the architect) something he rejects!

Darwin and Darwinists have struggled to find and compile evidences for the theory. There is not a single established evidence for the ‘belief’ yet they are bold enough to refer to the theory as ‘fact’ and not theory. Upon analysis, we see they are unable able to substantiate their claim with a single firmly established undisputed argument. Thus Darwinism is considered by many in the scientific world, much less among believers in God, to be nothing more than a set of ‘beliefs’ or simply put, another man-made ‘religion’ with ‘Natural Selection’  and ‘Decent with modification’ as it as its deity.

The ‘evidences’ for the theory?

Any theory that purports to be ‘scientific’ must somehow, at some point, be substantiated through observation and/or experiment.

Theories that survive repeated testing may be tentatively regarded as true statements.

But if there is a consistent conflict between theory and evidence, the former must submit to the latter.

If this occurs, it is no longer science, but a myth.

Testing must also be made public, so as to be examined by experts, which is known in the science world as ‘Peer Review

Darwinists have a number of ‘so-called’ evidence they believe substantiates the theory.

These evidences are regularly used in science texts book and quoted by lecturers as undisputed fact.

As a young, biomedical Science University student in the early 90’s, I remember being taught some of this evidence very early on in the degree. They are taught as fundamental building blocks essential to every science student, particularly the science of biology. And I am sure the same applies to other universities teaching similar degrees.

These oft-quoted evidences then, are:

  1. The Theory of Natural Selection
  2. The Miller/Urey experiment: A laboratory simulation of the earth’s primitive atmosphere in which it is claimed electric sparks produced the building blocks of living cells (The Operin/Holdane hypothesis supported by the resultant Miller/Urey experiment)
  3. The fossil records: An analysis of a growing body of fossil and molecular evidence reconstructing the evolutionary ‘Tree of Life’
  4. Pictures of similarities in early embryos showing that amphibians, reptiles, birds, and human beings are all descended from a fish like creature
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Darwin’s Finches: 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’
  8. Fruit flies with an extra pair of wings showing that genetic mutations can provide the raw materials for evolution. And finally ;
  9. Drawings of ape like animals evolving into humans, showing that our existence is merely a by-product of purposeless natural causes

In the following parts of this series we will look at these ‘evidences’ one by one inshallah.

Wa Sallallāhu ‘alā nabiyinā Muhammad

@abuhakeembilal

Part 2: Natural Selection

Removing the doubts – 1

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salātu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa rasoolillahi

Ammā Ba’d:

Indeed it is well established that there was never a Messenger sent by Allah in the past except that he had enemies who opposed his call.

Allah the most High said:

وَكَذَٰلِكَ جَعَلْنَا لِكُلِّ نَبِيٍّ عَدُوًّا مِّنَ الْمُجْرِمِينَ ۗ وَكَفَىٰ بِرَبِّكَ هَادِيًا وَنَصِيرًا

And thus have We made for every prophet an enemy from among the criminals. But sufficient is your Lord as a guide and a helper {Suratul Furqān:31}

These enemies exerted every effort in forging lies against those Messengers and disproving the true call they came with. They plotted and planned against them but to no avail.

Allah the most High says:

اسْتِكْبَارًا فِي الْأَرْضِ وَمَكْرَ السَّيِّئِ ۚ وَلَا يَحِيقُ الْمَكْرُ السَّيِّئُ إِلَّا بِأَهْلِهِ ۚ فَهَلْ يَنظُرُونَ إِلَّا سُنَّتَ الْأَوَّلِينَ ۚ فَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَبْدِيلًا ۖ وَلَن تَجِدَ لِسُنَّتِ اللَّهِ تَحْوِيلًا

(They took to flight because of their) arrogance in the land and their plotting of evil. But the evil plot encompasses only him who makes it. Then, can they expect anything (else), but the Sunnah (way of dealing) of the peoples of old? So no change will you find in Allah’s Sunnah (way of dealing), and no turning off will you find in Allah’s Sunnah (way of dealing). {Suratul Fātir: 43}

The prophethood of the final messenger Muhammad was no different, there have been many attempts to disprove the Messengership Of Muhammad in the past, just as they did during his time.

This series looks at some of the present day claims against the call of Prophet Muhammad and the religion of Islām he came with and responds to some of these claims.

Hopefully this series will be of benefit to the believers generally and those who are active in the arena of da’wah specifically.

Was Sallallahu ‘alā Nabiyinā Muhammad.

Doubt 1: There is no such thing as ‘Allah’, our knowledge of evolution disproves his existance.

In regards to this claim it is essential to look at:

The Myth Of  Darwinian Evolution

@abuhakeembilal

Fasting removes the ills of the chest!

Fasting removes the ills of the chest!

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah was Salātu Was Salāmu ‘Alā Rasūlillah

Ammā Ba’d:

In addition to the many benefits fasting has in relation to the development of taqwa and suppressing the desires of the fasting person, fasting also has another benefit mentioned in the following authentic hadith:

Upon the authority of a man from the companions of the prophet (ﷺ) who said: “I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) say: Continue reading

A word on the ‘Miracles of the Qur’aan’ lecture

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah was salaatu was salaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

I was recently approached by a brother outside the masjid seeking further clarity concerning some issues related to the ‘Miracles of the qur’aan lecture I delivered not long ago.

The lecture focused upon some of the verses in the qur’aan, the issues mentioned within them, and the fact that the Prophet could not have been acquainted with these issues and thus they are a proof of the prophethood of the Messenger Sallallahu alaihi wa Salam and the miraculous nature of the Qur’aan. Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: