Category Archives: Manhaj

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 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

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

Trust your Mashaaykh!

Bismillahi wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘ala rasoolillahi

Ammaa ba’d:

Ibn Abi Haatim mentions under the biography of Yusuf Ibn Khaalid As Samti:

I refused to accept the statement of Yahya Ibn Ma’een concerning him, wherein he referred to him as a ‘Zindeeq’ (Heretic) until a book that he wrote supporting ‘Tajahum’ (The aqeedah of the Jahmiyah) chapter after chapter, was brought to me. He rejected within it belief in the scales on the day of Judgement. It was then that I knew that Yahya Ibn Ma’een did not speak except upon foresight and understanding!” Continue reading

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say…(Part 2)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

The Scholars of Hadeeth used to say (and still hold) that: Continue reading

Imaamul Aajurry on the Characteristics of the People of the Qur’aan

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

From the many people who claim to call to the Qur’aan and implementing it in these times, few are those whos call is in accordance with that which we saw the Salaf of this Ummah upon, in regards to following it and ‘truly’ adorning oneself with its Continue reading

100 Observations on Al Hajoori – 3 (31 – 106)

Bismillahi Wal Hamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaatu ‘alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa Ba’d:

A word on these observations

It should be known that this small series was not intended to be a detailed ‘rebuttal’ of Al Hajoori, rather the intent of the series was merely to enumerate some of the many issues the people of knowledge and students of knowledge have against him, hence the title ‘Observations’. Continue reading

100 Observations against Al Hajoori – 2 (21-30)

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Sallaamu ‘alaa Rasoolillahi

Continue reading

100 Observations against Al Hajoori – Point 13

Bismillahi Wal hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘alaa Rasooliillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

As mentioned in the beginning of this post the intent behind this post is only to mention the issues and not to discuss the issues with any detail

It has reached me that one of the Hajoori fanatics has criticized part one of this post (which, of course was what I was expecting!) saying that in point 13 you mentioned:

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

The individual states:

Abu Hakeem has falsely accused Shaikh Yahya (may Allaah preserve him) of having the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees. Abu Hakeem said,
“13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees…”

Here B. Davis makes a terrible mistake. Why is this such a huge mistake? Because the meaning of the speech of Shaikh Yahya comes in a hadeeth which Shaikh Muqbil brings in his Al-Jaamee As-Saheeh.

وقال الإمام أحمد رحمه الله أيضا(5/185)
حَدَّثَنَا إِسْحَاقُ بْنُ سُلَيْمَانَ قَالَ سَمِعْتُ أَبَا سِنَانٍ يُحَدِّثُعَنْ وَهْبِ بْنِ خَالِدٍ الْحِمْصِيِّ عَنِ ابْنِ الدَّيْلَمِيِّ قَالَ وَقَعَ فِي نَفْسِي شَيْءٌمِنْ الْقَدَرِ فَأَتَيْتُ زَيْدَ بْنَ ثَابِتٍ فَسَأَلْتُهُ فَقَالَ سَمِعْتُ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِوَسَلَّمَ يَقُولُ لَوْ أَنَّ اللَّهَ عَذَّبَ أَهْلَ سَمَاوَاتِهِ وَأَهْلَأَرْضِهِ لَعَذَّبَهُمْ غَيْرَ ظَالِمٍ لَهُمْ وَلَوْرَحِمَهُمْ كَانَتْ رَحْمَتُهُ لَهُمْ خَيْرًا مِنْ أَعْمَالِهِمْ وَلَوْ كَانَلَكَ جَبَلُ أُحُدٍ أَوْ مِثْلُ جَبَلِ أُحُدٍ ذَهَبًا أَنْفَقْتَهُ فِي سَبِيلِاللَّهِ مَا قَبِلَهُ اللَّهُ مِنْكَ حَتَّى تُؤْمِنَ بِالْقَدَرِ وَتَعْلَمَأَنَّ مَا أَصَابَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْ لِيُخْطِئَكَ وَأَنَّ مَا أَخْطَأَكَ لَمْ يَكُنْلِيُصِيبَكَ وَأَنَّكَ إِنْ مِتَّ عَلَى غَيْرِ هَذَا دَخَلْتَ النَّارَ.

“So he (Zaid ibn Thaabit) said, I heard the Messenger of the Allaah (praise and peace be upon him) say, “If verily Allaah punished the companions of His heavens and the companions of His earth, He would punish them and would not be an Oppressor to them…” (Al-Hadeeth)

So we see that Shaikh Yahya did not add anything to the hadeeth. So we ask B. Davis, “Do you accuse the Prophet (praise and peace be upon him) of being Jahmee or Ash’aree?” Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..”

Here we see a typical example of the problem at hand, the tarbiyah Ilmiyah they recieve, and the smug attitude of one pleased with himself and his skanty understanding. Not forgetting the close to humourous ‘confidence’ many of their ignorant chests are filled with!

His statement: “..Now, we wait for your reply or your tawba!..” is actually an invitation to play ‘Ping-Pong’ with them which is something i refuse to do! But i will say this..

He accuses me of ignorance in the affairs of the adeedah as is their normal practice (though i have been aquainted with this hadeeth for more than 15 years since studying the explanation of Al Aqeedatut Tahaawiyah of Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi with our Shaikh Ali Naasir Al faqeehi in Madina in the mid ninties!)

But this ‘Defense’ of theirs is nothing but more evidence of their Jahl!

For your information, this hadeeth has been discussed and used by three sets of people. It has been discussed by the Qadariyah, it has been used by the Jabariyah and it has been used ‘correctly’ by Ahlus Sunnah. Each of them UNDERSTAND the hadeeth in accordance with their belief.

Al Haafidh Ibn Hajr mentions in ‘Fathul Baari (18/284)

“قَالَ وَهَذَا فَصْل الْخِطَاب مَعَ الْجَبْرِيَّة الَّذِينَ أَنْكَرُوا أَنْ تَكُون الْأَعْمَال سَبَبًا فِي دُخُول الْجَنَّة مِنْ كُلّ وَجْه ، وَالْقَدَرِيَّة الَّذِينَ زَعَمُوا أَنَّ الْجَنَّة عِوَضُ الْعَمَل وَأَنَّهَا ثَمَنه وَأَنَّ دُخُولهَا بِمَحْضِ الْأَعْمَال ، وَالْحَدِيث يُبْطِل دَعْوَى الطَّائِفَتَيْنِ وَاَللَّه أَعْلَم

This is the determining factor between the belief of the Jabariyah those who reject the fact that ones actions may be a cause for an individual entering Jannah, and between the Qadariyah who claim that Jannah is granted to a person in exchange for his actions, but this hadeeth (actually) nullifies the claim of both parties..”

The Jabariyah then, hold that ones actions are not a cause for one entering jannah (since they believe that we are taken by predecree like feathers are taken by wind and our actions have no effect upon our final destination).

Since this is their belief they use the hadeeth in question to establish that Allah does with us that which he wills (i.e. without our actions coming into play and having any effect upon our outcome) therefore this hadeeth is from the strongest of that which they use to substantiate their belief.

Particularly the statement of the Messenger Saw “If Allah were to punish the inhabitants of the heaven and the inhabitants of earth he would punish them without oppressing them..”

They hold that this hadeeth establishes their belief that we are like feathers in the wind

After mentioning the Hadeeth Ibn Abil ‘Izz Al Hanafi mentions in his explanation of Al Aqeedah At Tahaawiyah

This Hadeeth is from that which the Jabariyyah use as evidence (i.e. for their belief)..”

As for the Qadariyah then it is not relevant to their false principles so they either receive it with rejection or interpretation. The best of the people in its regard are Ahlus Sunnah..”

(Sharhul Aqeedatit Tahaawiyah)

So do we now say as Al Hajooris defenders say “Oh the Jabariyah were only quoting the hadeeth!!”

Ibnil Qayyim Mentions concerning the Hadeeth in ‘Miftaahu Daaris Sa’aadah:

“Thus his mercy is not an exchange for their actions, neither is it a fruit of their actions, rather it is greater than their actions as occurs in the same hadeeth “If he were to be merciful to them then his mercy would be better for them than their actions..”

So he gathered between both affairs in the hadeeth that is (the clarification of the fact that) if he punished them he would punish them DUE TO THEM BEING DESERVED OF THAT and he would not have oppressed them. And if he had mercy upon them then that would be purely due to virtue from him and benevolence not because of their actions..”

Thus Ahlus Sunnah understand that the hadeeth is held to mean that if Allah were to punish all of the inhabitants of the heavens and the earth he would do so because THEY WERE DESERVED OF PUNISHMENT hence he would not have wronged them.

The problem with the speech of Al Hajoori is that his speech is connected to an earlier statement (as we mentioned in the beginning of the article these were merely bullet points and was not meant to be a breakdown of the issues)

Al Hajoori mentions in ‘Al Minnatul Ilaahiyah bi Sharhil Aqeedatus Safaareeniyah P153) quoting one of the mistakes of Imaam Safaareeni who said in some lines of poetry:

And it is possible for our patron (Allah) to punish his creation * WITHOUT THEM HAVING SINNED OR COMMITED ANY CRIME!”

This statement of Safaareeni is the exact statement of the Jabariyah those who say that Allah does with us as he wills and our actions play no part in our outcome! Instead of doing that which all of the scholars who explain it do which is to hasten to highlight the error of this statement. And that it is in accordance to the belief of the Jabariyyah and that Ahlus Sunnah hold such and such.

Instead he says:

“What is EVEN BETTER(!) (Ahsan Min Haadhaa) than this, is the statement of Imaam At Tahaawi:

He guides who he wills and he protects and pardons from his virtue. He misguides who he wills and he forsakes them and tests them from his justice, all of them revolve around his will, between his virtue and his justice

then he says:

Allah says: “ He will not be asked about what he does but they will be asked”(Suratul Anbiyaa 23)

Allah pardons and is benevolent.

He says: “If it were not for the virtue of Allah upon you then none of you would be purified ever but indeed Allah purifies whosoever he wills” (Suratun Noor Vs 21)

Then he quotes: “So Virtue is for Allah before and after if Allah were to punish All of his worshippers he would not have oppressed them, and if he is merciful to them then it would be due to his virtue, his favour and his generosity..”

So as you can see the statement is devoid of the necessary explanation of the correct position of Ahlus Sunnah. And even though the statement of Imaam Tahaawi that he quotes is correct it does not sufficiently clarify the error or clarify the position of Ahlus Sunnah in regards to the Justice of Allah.

So I ask you, what will the reader walk away with?

Would he walk away correctly understanding the aqeedah of Ahlis Sunnah in relation to the justice of Allah and being clear about the error of As Safaarini or will he walk away with the aqeedah of the Jahmiyah (who are Jabariyah in regards to Qadr)?

Where is the clarification that we would expect from a small student of knowledge much less ‘An Naasihul Ameen!!

So the issue is not an issue of quotation of Hadeeth alone! If that were the case then the people of bid’ah would be correct in that which they say or hold since many of them just ‘quote the hadeeth!’

Wallahu A’lam

100 observations against Al Hajoori

Bismillahi Wal Hamdulillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu Was Salaaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillah

Ammaa ba’d:

As promised in the end of our dawra in Birmingham yesterday (30/6/2013), here are the 100 (or more) points and observations the people of knowledge have against Yahya Al Hajoori, collectively gathered from the writings and audio of the people of knowledge against him, I will mention them twenty at a time so as to make them easier to digest and they are of course simply listed since the intent here is not to mention them with their quotations and references, (that can be done at a later date) but simply to mention the issues in a bullet point for those who wish to be acquainted with the affair

Wa billahit Tawfeeq

1. His claim that the Messenger erred in regards to the means of giving da’wah (Wasaa’ilud Da’wah)

2. His belief that not all of the sunnah is revelation

3. His establishing that the statements of the Messenger – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi was Salam are not accepted except with evidence

4. His belittling some of the affairs of the religion that we have been commanded with (like his statement about Shaikh Muhammad Al Imaam, who gave a lecture during the period of the attack of the Hoothi shi’ites upon Ahlus Sunnah and he mentioned “Ahlus Sunnah will die from hunger and Killing and this one doesn’t even mention it! instead he speaks of the Hijaab and whether a woman should cover or not!”)

5. His holding that some of the people of hypocrisy (Munaafiqoon) were students of the Messenger – Sallallahu ‘alaihi was Salam

6. His claim that the deviation known as ‘Irjaa’ (the belief that imaan is in the heart alone (or the heart and tongue as some used to hold) and it doesn’t rise and fall, and that actions are not from Imaan) started with the Sahaabah and that the first the speak with it was Qudaama Ibn Madh’oon – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu

7. His attack upon the rightly guided Khalifah Uthmaan – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu

8. His claim that The Companions at the battle of Badr disobeyed Allah twice and so Allah made a calamity overcome them (this he claims, is the meaning of the verse 165 in Suratu Aali Imraam (“you smote your enemies with one (i.e a disaster) twice as great”..(Refering to their victory in the Battle of Badr) he claims the verse means they commited two sins in the battle of Badr!

9. His method of enumerating the errors of the companions similar to the raafidhah

10. His view that the Sahaabah participated in the killing Uthmaan

11. His view that whosoever curses all of the companions, then he doesn’t disbelieve until he intends by way of that to reject the whole religion or to disparage it

12. His claim that the companions forsook uthmaan – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhum

13. His claim that if Allah punished all of his slaves without them having sinned or committed a crime, then he wouldn’t have oppressed them, which is the belief of the Jahmiyah and the Ash’arees (The belief of Ahlus Sunnah is that Allah would never do such a thing rather he only punishes due to actions committed and Ahlus Sunnah do not even make the suggestion since it opposses the attribute of Justice)

14. His claim that whosoever doesn’t know the truth (I.e From the people of knowledge) after researching, then that is due to his negligence, for if he had researched correctly then he would have found it. This is the belief of the Qadariyah and the Mu’tazilah. Ahlus Sunnah Hold that the Mujtahid who strives to come to the truth and exerts all his efforts doing so then he is rewarded for his efforts and is not punished or considered negligent

15. His claim that Pharoah and the Kuffaar called to Tawheed Ar Ruboobiyah

16. His view that Ahlus Sunnah is the ‘closest’ of the groups to the truth

17. His claim that there is no difference between innovators who call to their innovation and those who do not call and thus he claims that the speech of the Salaf in that regard is false empty speech

18. His declaring someone an innovator due to sin (like him declaring on the tape ‘Tubayin Al Kadhib’ when asked about a man that leads people in Salaah but he is homosexual he responded ‘A homosexual is not from Ahlus Sunnah!’ what is a Sunni?! Is he merely the one who affirm the names and attributes?!)

19. Him not making a difference between At-Tawwali (To show love and alliegence to the Kuffaar, and to love to see them and their religion aided and victorious over the Muslims) and Al Muwaalaat (as for Muwaalaat, then it resembles At Tawali in the affair of aiding and supporting but on occasions it is done for reasons related to deen and on occasions it is done for worldly purposes which is a sin but not considered Kufr)

20. He declares the son of Adam Qaabil (Kane) a Kaafir! And he passes the verdict of apostasy upon him! (Shaikh Ibn Baaz Mentions in Majmoo’ Al Fataawaa (3/117): “Indeed Qaabil (Kane) was sinful and killed his brother Haabil (Abel) without right but they were both upon Islaam!”)

Wallahu A’lam

%d bloggers like this: