Category Archives: Family Related

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 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

Inheritance Revision Table 1

Bismillahi wal hamdu lillah was salaatu was salaamu ‘alaa rasolilahi

Ammaa ba’d:

The following are a set of revision tables that corrolate with part 4 of the explanation of ‘Ar-Rahbiyah’ in the law of Islamic inheritance class as promised

(http://www.salafisounds.com/ar-rahbiyyah-in-the-laws-of-inheritance-by-abu-hakeem-bilaal-davis/

This is table one.

Inheritance revision table 1a

The virtues of giving Sadaqah – 2

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

Upon the authority of Abu Hurairah – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu who said: That the Messenger of Allah said:

The servant says: “My Wealth! My Wealth! While he only possesses from his wealth three things, that which he has eaten and so it is consumed, or that which he has worn (from garment) and it is worn out, and that which he has given (in sadaqah) and so he has stored it away (i.e. for his hereafter)” Continue reading

A Tremendous Dua!

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Indeed the meaningful duas of the Messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam are many (and all of his supplications are meaningful) but the following is one many im sure will find relavant to our trying times Allahul Musta’aan

اللهمَّ إني أعوذ بكَ من جارِ السُّوءِ ، ومن زوج تشيِّبني قبلَ المشيبِ ، ومن ولد يكونُ عليّ رَبّاً، ومن مالٍ يكونُ عَليّ عذاباً ، ومن خليلٍ ماكرٍ عينُه تراني ، وقلبُه يرعاني ؛ إنْ رأى حسنةً دفنَها ، وإذا رأى سيئّئةً أذاعَها

Abu Hurairah – Radhiyallahu anhu said:

From his (The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu alaihi wa Salam) supplications was:

Oh Allah! I seek refuge in you from an evil neighbour;

and from a wife that causes me to grow old before old age;

and from a son who will become a master over me;

and from wealth that becomes a punishment for me

and from a cunning friend whose gaze is upon me and whose heart is plotting and planning against me, such that if he sees something good, he buries it, and if he sees something bad he spreads it

(The transliteration of which is: “Allahumma innee a’udhu bika min Jaaris Suu, wa min zawjin tushayyibunee qablal masheeb, wa min waladin yakoonu alaiyya rabban, wa min maalin yakoonu alaiyya ‘adhaaban, wa min khaleelin maakirin, ‘ainuhu taraanee, wa qalbuhu yar’aanee, in yaraa hasanatan dafanahaa, wa in yaraa sayyi’a’tan adhaa’ahaa

(Collected by At Tabaraani in ‘Ad Dua’ (3/1425/1339) and its chain is declared ‘Jayyid’ (Good) by Shaikh Al Albaani in silsilatul Ahaadeethus Saheehah (No#3137)

Wallahu A’lam

www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

Does the menstruating woman make wudhu before sleep?

Bismillahi wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

I was asked about this issue earlier today thus i share this benefit. Concerning this issue the scholars have a number of statements. Their statements revolve firstly around the fact that the Messenger Sallallahu alaihi was salam used to make Wudhu while in a state of Janaaba.

Upon the authority of Abu Salamah who said: “I asked Aaisha -Radhiyallahu anhaa Did the Prophet Sallallahu alaihi was Salam sleep while Junub? She said: “Yes! and he would make Wudhu

(Collected by Bukhaari (282))

Upon the authority of Aaisha – Radhiyallahu anhaa “The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam when he was in a state of ritual impurity, and he intended to eat or sleep then he would make wudhu like his wudhu for salaah

(Collected by Muslim (305))

As far as this wudhu is concerned, the scholars hold that it is done for the purpose of ‘Lightening’ the Janaaba (state of ritual impurity) of the person who is Junub

After mentioning some of the ahaadeeth that indicate the issue, Al Haafidh Ibn Rajab mentions in his ‘Fathul Baari’ (not that of Al Haafidh Ibn Hajr) (1/358):

The ahaadeeth mentioned in the chapter, indicate that the wudhu of the person who is junub (in a state of ritual impurity) ‘lightens’ his state of janabah

That is there is nothing that prevents him from being completely pure, except him making ghusl, and what is correct is that the woman is the same as the man in that regard.

With that being the case, the question that arises is, is the menstruating woman the same as the man or woman in a state of Janaabah?

What is correct is that she isn’t, due to the fact that she has a continual flow of blood that she would not become pure from even if she made ghusl.

Thus her having a ghusl would not put her in a state of tahaarah, while the man or woman in a state of janaabah IS purified with Ghusl and similarly, if they make wudhu their state is lightened.

With the exception of one woman, and that is the woman whos’ menses has ended but she has not yet made ghusl to purify herself, this woman is benefitted by wudhu if she intends to sleep in that state.

Al Haafidh ibn Hajr mentions the statement of Ibn Daqeeq al eid -Rahimahullah who said

Ash Shaafi’ee has stated that this is not for the menstruating woman (i.e. to make wudhu before sleep), because if she were to make ghusl it would not remove her state of impurity, while that is not the case with one who is junub, but if her flow of blood ceases, then that is permissable for her

(Fathul Baari 1/395)

Imaamun Nawwawi has a similar statement in his explanation of Muslim he states (3/218):

Our companions (i.e. the scholars of the Shaafi’ee madhab) are united upon the fact that it is not desirable for the the woman in a state of menses or post-natal bleeding to make wudhu (i.e. before sleep) because wudhu will have no effect upon her state of impurity, but if her menses ends then she becomes like the one who is Junub, Wallahu a’lam

www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal

Advice to Abu Dharr – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi
Ammaa Ba’d

After delivering the Friday sermon this last week (1/6/2012) and the previous week (25/5/2012) in the discussion of the beautiful and lengthy hadeeth of Abi Dharr Al Ghifaari Radhiyallahu Anhu who was advised by the messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi wa salam after asking him numerous questions, some of my beloved brothers (May Allah reward them) requested that I send the hadeeth out for benefit.

As I mentioned in the sermon, some parts of the hadeeth are saheeh, some parts hasan and some Da’eef (weak). For benefit I will mention firstly the authentic (whether saheeh or hasan) parts of the hadeeth as one text so that the reader benefits from the flow of the text, then I will follow that up by mentioning which parts are Saheeh and hasan and I will also add the da’eef sections of the hadeeth (in red) as they occur in the original text, that the reader may be aquainted with it, quoting in that regard, the rulings of Shaikh Al Albaani upon it.

Thus here is the text of the Hadeeth and I ask Allah that he benefits my brothers and sisters with it.

Upon the authority of Abi Dharr – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu – who said: “I entered the masjid (on an occassion) and found The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam sitting alone. He said (to me): “Oh Abaa Dharr! Indeed the masjid has a greeting and its greeting is to pray two rak’ah so stand and pray them.”

He (Abu Dharr) said: “So I stood and I performed them”

Then I returned and sat with him and said: “Oh Messenger of Allah!, Indeed you have commanded me with Salaah, so what is Salaah?

He said: “The best (act of worship) sent down! So perform much of it or little! (meaning the choice is yours but the more of its ‘legislated’ forms you perform the better)

He said (Abu Dharr): “I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Which action is best?

He said: “To have belief in Allah and to make Jihaad in his way

He said: ” I said “Oh Messenger of Allah! Which of the believers is most complete in Faith?

He said: “The one that has the best character

So I said: ” Which of the believers has the best Islam

he said:”The one who the people are safe from his tongue and his hand

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah which Salaah is best?

He said “The one that has the longest standing (I.e for recitation)

So I said Oh Messenger of Allah! Then which migration is best?

He said:”The one that migrates from evil deeds

He said:” I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah then what is fasting?

He said: “A compulsory action that one is rewarded for, and with Allah the reward is many times multiplied

He said: “I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Then which Jihad is best?

He said: “The one in which ones riding beast is injured and his (i.e. the warriors) blood is spilt

He said: “I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Then which charity is best?

He said: “The (Charitable) effort of the one who has little, given secretly to the poor

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! then what is the greatest of that which Allah has sent down to you?

He said: “Aayatul Kursi

I said: ” Oh Messenger of Allah! How many were the messengers?

He said: “Three hundred and thirteen, a large amount

He said: I said: ” Oh Messenger of Allah! who was the first of them?

He said: ” Aadam – Alahis salaam

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! was he a prophet that was sent?

He said: “Yes! Allah created him with his hand, then blew his spirit into him, and spoke to him directly!

The intelligent person, as long as his mind has not been overcome (i.e. by mental illness) should have (a number of) periods. A period wherein he calls upon his lord, a period wherein he takes account of himself, a period wherein he reflects upon the creation of Allah and a period that he spends seeking his needs from food and drink.

Likewise the intelligent person should avoid travel except for three reasons, (to gain) provisions for the hereafter, seeking his livelihood or taking enjoyment in that which is not prohibited.

it is like wise upon the intelligent person to have insight into his era, to proceed towards his affair (i.e. to head diligently towards the affairs that benefit him) and to guard his tongue. And whosoever evaluates his speech in comparison to his actions, will speak little except in that which concerns him.

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! What were the scrolls of Musaa?

He said: “They were all lessons (and admonitions).

I am amazed at the one who is certain of death then he is happy. And I am amazed at the who is certain of the (presence) of the fire then he laughs, and I am amazed at the one who is certain of pre-decree (concerning that which has been allotted to him) then he wears himself out. And I am amazed at the one who sees this world, and how affairs change for its people then he is tranquil within it. And I am amazed at the one who has certainty that the reckoning is tomorrow yet he doesnt act

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! advise me!

He said: “I advise you with the fear of Allah, for indeed it is the pinnacle of all affairs.

I said: “Oh messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Cling to reciting the Qur’aan and the remembrance of Allah, for indeed it is light for you in the life of this world and it is preserved for you in the heavens

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Be aware of laughing excessively, for indeed it kills the heart and removes light from the face

I said: “Oh messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Make jihad, since it is the monasticism of my Ummah” (meaning that when monasticism revolves around abstention from the world and selflessness there is no greater form of this than that a person participates in battle)

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase Me!

He said: “Love the poor and sit with them

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Look to those who are lesser than you (i.e. are less well to do) and dont look to those who are above you (i.e. have more than you) as it is better in preventing one from looking down with disdain at Allahs blessings upon you

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Speak the truth even if it is bitter!”

This then is the end of that which is authentic from the hadeeth.

Truly as Imaam Manaawi mentions concerning the hadeeth:

What an amazing bequest! How beneficial, comprehensive and wonderful! Glad tidings to the one who is granted success in accepting it and acting upon it!”

(At Tayseer 1/786)

That which follows is some detail from ‘Dha’eef mawaarid Adham’aan’ – (p11-17) of Shaikh Al Albaani concerning which parts of the hadeeth are Saheeh, Hasan and Dha’eef and I have highlighted the weak portions in red

Upon the authority of Abi Dharr – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu – who said: “I entered the masjid (on an occassion) and found The Messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam sitting alone. He said (to me): “Oh Abaa Dharr! Indeed the masjid has a greeting and its greeting is to pray two rak’ah so stand and pray them.”

(Hasan Li Ghairihi except the command (ie to stand and pray) for it is saheeh)

He (Abu Dharr) said: “So I stood and I performed them”

(Hasan Li Ghairihi)

Then I returned and sat with him and said: “Oh Messenger of Allah!, Indeed you have commanded me with Salaah, so what is Salaah?

He said: “The best (act of worship) sent down! So perform much of it or little! (meaning the choice is yours but the more of its ‘legislated’ forms you perform the better)

(Hasanun Li Ghairihi – At Ta’leeq ur Ragheeb 1/145)

He said (Abu Dharr): “I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Which action is best?

He said: “To have belief in Allah and to make Jihaad in his way

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi – As Saheehah (1390))

He said: ” I said “Oh Messenger of Allah! Which of the believers is most complete in Faith?

He said: “The one that has the best character

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi – As Saheehah (284))

So I said: ” Which of the believers has the best Islam

He said:”The one who the people are safe from his tongue and his hand

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah which Salaah is best?

He said “The one that has the longest standing (I.e for recitation)”

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi – Al Irwaa (458))

So I said Oh Messenger of Allah! Then which migration is best?

He said:”The one that migrates from evil deeds

(Saheeh Li ghairihi – As Saheehah (549 and 553))

He said:” I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah then what is fasting?

He said: “A compulsory action that one is rewarded for, and with Allah the reward is many times multiplied

He said: “I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Then which Jihad is best?

He said: “The one in which ones riding beast is injured and his (the warriors) blood is spilt

(Saheeh li ghairihi – As Saheehah (552) and Saheeh Abi Daawood (1303))

He said: “I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Then which charity is best?

He said: “The (Charitable) effort of the one who has little, given secretly to the poor

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi except the sentence about giving in secret Al Irwaa – 3/317 and 415)

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! then what is the greatest of that which Allah has sent down to you?

He said: “Aayatul Kursi

(Saheeh Li ghairihi – Saheeh Abi Dawood (1311)

then he said: “Oh Abaa Dharr! the seven heavens in comparison to the Kursi is not except like a ring thrown in vast open land (i.e a desert). And the virtue of the throne over the Kursi is like the superiority of that land over that ring!”

I said:” Oh Messenger of Allah! How many were the prophets?

He said: “One hundred and twenty thousand

(Da’eef Jiddan (Very weak))

I said: ” Oh Messenger of Allah! How many were the messengers from that?

He said: “three hundred and thirteen, a large amount

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi)

He said: I said: ” Oh Messenger of Allah! who was the first of them?

He said: “Aadam – Alahis salaam

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! was he a prophet that was sent?

He said: “Yes! Allah created him with his hand, then blew his spirit into him, and spoke to him directly!

Saheeh Li Ghairihi – As Saheehah (2668))

then He said (to me): “Oh Abaa Dharr! four of them were Syriacs, Aadam, Seth (Aadam’s Son), Enoch, and he is Idrees and was the first to scribe with a pen – and Noah. And four were Arabs, Hood, Shu’ayb, Saalih and your prophet Muhammad – Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Salam

So I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! How many books did Allah send down?

He said: “One hundred and four books: Fifty scrolls were revealed to Seth, thirty scrolls were revealed to Enoch, ten scrolls were revealed to Ibraaheem and ten scrolls were revealed to Moosaa before the revelation of the Tawraah, and the Tawraah, the Injeel, The Zaboor (the Psalms) and the Furqaan (The Qur’aan) were revealed”

I said : “Oh Messenger of Allah! “What were the scrolls of Ibraaheem? He said: “They were all Parables. Oh you insolent, wretched, self-conceited King! Indeed I did not send you to collect the dunya together, rather I sent you to respond to the supplication of the oppressed on my behalf, for indeed I do not reject it, even if it comes from a Kaafir

(Dha’eef Jiddan – Very weak, though the last sentance does have an origin see ‘As Saheehah (870))

It is upon the intelligent person, as long as his mind has not been overcome (ie by mental illness) to have periods. A period wherein he calls upon his lord, a period wherein he takes account of himself, a period wherein he reflects upon the creation of Allah and a period that he spends seeking his needs from food and drink.

It is likewise upon the intelligent person to avoid travel except for three reasons, (to gain) provisions for the hereafter, seeking his livelihood or taking enjoyment in that which is not prohibited.

It is likewise upon the intelligent person to have insight into his era, to proceed towards his affair (ie to head diligently towards the affairs that benefit him) and to guard his tongue. And whosoever evaluates his speech in comparison to his actions, will speak little except in that which concerns him.

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! What were the scrolls of Musaa?

He said: “They were all lessons (and admonitions). I am amazed at the one who is certain of death then he is happy. And I am amazed at the who is certain of the (presence) of the fire then he laughs and I am amazed at the one who is certain of pre-decree (i.e. in relation to that which is alloted to him) then he wears himself out. And I am amazed at the one who sees this world and how affairs change for its people then he is tranquil within it. And I am amazed at the one who has certainty that the reckoning is tomorrow yet he doesnt act”

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi)

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! advise me!

He said: “I advise you with the fear of Allah, for indeed it is the pinnacle of all affairs.

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me! He said: “Cling to reciting the Qur’aan and the rememberance of Allah, for indeed it is light for you in the life of this world and it is preserved for you in the heavens

(Saheeh – ‘As Saheehah’ – (555))

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Be aware of laughing excessively, for indeed it kills the heart and removes light from the face

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi except the sentence about light – Saheehah (930))

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Remain silent except with that which is good,for indeed it repels the shaytaan from you and it is an aid for you upon the affairs of your deen

(Dha’eef Jiddan – Very weak see previous reference)

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Make jihad since it is the monasticism of my Ummah” (meaning that when monasticism revolves around abstention and selflessness there is no greater form of this than that a person participates in battle)

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi ‘As Saheehah – (555))

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase Me!

He said: “Love the poor and sit with them

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Look to those who are lesser than you (i.e. are less well to do) and dont look to those who are above you (ie have more than you) as it is better in preventing one from looking down with disdain at Allahs blessings upon you

(Saheeh Li Ghairihi – ‘Ar Rawdh’ – (604))

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “Speak the truth even if it is bitter!”

I said: “Oh Messenger of Allah! Increase me!

He said: “let that which you know about yourself divert you from speaking about the people, and do not be angered by that which comes from them. It is sufficient deficiency for you, that you see and observe from them what you do not acknowledge about yourself (meaning that usually those who critisise usually possess the same traits as the ones he speaks about), and that you become angered by that which comes from them (ie towards you)

Then he struck my chest with his hand and said:

“Oh Abaa Dharr! There is no intellect like planning and considering the outcome of affairs, there is no piety like abstaining (i.e. from that which doesnt concern you, from harming people, from haraam etc) and there is no nobility like good character”

(I (Shaikh Al Albaani) say: In its chain is Ibraaheem ibn Hishaam ibn Yahyah Al Ghasaani. Abu Haatim and others said about him: “Kathaab (liar)”

(Dha’eef Jiddan – Very weak see ‘Ad Dha’eefah – 1910, 5638 and 6090 though some of its parts are authentic and established in other ahaadeeth..”
Wallahu ta’aalaa a’lam
Wa Sallallahu ‘alaa Nabiyinaa Muhammad
http://www.twitter.com/abuhakeembilal
%d bloggers like this: