Category Archives: Sects and Groups

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.

Decent with Modification

Darwin’s term for evolution was: ‘Decent with modification (i.e. Decent 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

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

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 – 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

Addressing Anjem Choudhury Part 2

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa Ba’d:

As mentioned in part 1, Anjem and his group have produced a document entitled ‘Islamic Prevent’ He mentions the main title, then follows it with an explanatory subtitle that states ‘Preventing Secular Fundamentalism and the Occupation of Muslim Land’ it is clear then that the document represents the blueprint for his organisations approach, ideology and methodology.

It is presented with an introductory passage which is followed by an 18 point ‘Action Plan’ for every Muslim living in the U.K. It is then sealed with a conclusion and a reference to his (now inactive) website. In the introductory passage he states: “The pamphlet you are reading is intended to open the eyes of Muslims and non-Muslims to the responsibility of Muslims living in the UK..” Thus the intent is to ‘open the eyes’ of Muslims living in the U.K to their responsibility and (he states) to highlight the dangers of this UK government led campaign against them (I.e the ‘Prevent’ agenda). In this discussion I will not quote the whole document but address some if its issues hoping this will shed light upon Anjem and his group.

    Point 1: THE ONLY IDENTITY FOR MUSLIMS IS ISLAM

Under this point he states: “A Muslim cannot have any other identity than that of Al-Islam. He is a Muslim first and last. The Messenger Muhammad (saw) taught us that (he then mentions the following in bold to give the impression that it is a hadeeth of the Messenger -Sallallahu Alahi Was Salam) the Muslims are one community among the whole of mankind, their land is one, their war is one, their peace is one, their honour is one and any one of them can represent them all.” So the question then to Anjem is where are these ‘Teachings’ of the messenger – Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Was Salam recorded? Is this statement recorded in one of the well known collections of hadeeth? If so which one? Where are they in the Sunan, or the Masaaneed or the musanafaat or the Jawaami’ Or are these a collection of ‘teachings’ taken from individual Ahaadeeth? If that is the intent, then in which narration did the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi was salam teach that their land is one? In which hadeeth did he teach that anyone of them may represent them all!? or is this just your way of trying to make your own statements pass as the statement of the Messenger – Sallallahu Alaihi Was Salam?

He further states: “..A Muslim cannot have any bond with other Muslims other than that of Al-Islam.

No doubt Allah has mentioned in the Qur‟an:

Cling to the rope of Allah together and do not be divided…” (Surah Aali Imraan Vs 103)

This verse no doubt commands us with unity to the best of our ability in accordance with that which is upright, correct and most apt depending upon our situation.

There is no proponent of any belief, except that he would love that the followers of his faith are united in every affair from their affairs, their reality though is very different.
While the ideal is that they strive for unity as much as possible, it has been decreed that this is something that will never occur.

Allah the most high says:

And they will never cease to disagree except him on whom your lord has bestowed his mercy…”
(Suratul Hud Vs118-119)

This then, is a decreed reality we must try and comprehend

And the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) also said:

The Jews split into seventy one sects, seventy in the hell fire, one in paradise, the Christians split into seventy two sects, seventy one in the fire one in paradise and this nation will split into seventy three sects seventy two in the hell fire one in paradise. So the companions asked who is that one oh Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him) ? So he responded “The one who is upon what I and my companions are upon today

(Just as correct guidance at the period after Moses was in following him and correctness after Jesus was in following him. Muslim belief is that the those groups that have veered away from the path of the prophet, if they are not forgiven prior to punishment, then they will be purified for their transgressions and deviations and then will ultimately enter paradise)

Thus the reality is that this absolute unity will not occur, but the Muslims have been commanded to make the best of all situations and strive to unify their ranks as best as possible.

In more than one narration the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) has commanded with this:

He said in the hadeeth narrated by Abu Huraira:

Strive to do that which is right, come as close as possible to correctness and give glad tidings if you do so..” (Saheeh bukhaari)

As far as Choudhurys statement: “their land is one…”

Then this has never been the case even at the time of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him). Though the Islamic empire had one ruler, the Messenger of Allah (May Peace Be Upon Him), it has always been comprised of well-known countries, having known borders and having established boundaries. The Caliphs of Muhammad after his death established governors over those regions who governed in accordance with Islamic law, much like the well-known British empire of our time. Why did the caliphs of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) not abolish these known countries with their boundaries and make one united colony without borders and names?. Shaam (a region comprising of present day Syria, Jordan and Palestine) remained sham, the Yemen remained the Yemen, Hijaaz remained Hijaaz and the Najd remained the Najd.

In addition to retaining these names the caliphs of Muhammad also appointed governors for those regions

In order to attempt to establish this concept of a borderless Muslim empire, Choudhury fabricates a prophetic narration, the correct version of which is actually a refutation of him.

He mentions: “The division of Muslim land or placing of borders is also condemned, the Prophet said: “Whoever puts a border to land has been cursed

Nowhere in the well-known collections of prophetic traditions do we find this statement attributed to the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) with an authentic chain of transmission.

What we do find though, is the authentic narration:

Cursed indeed is he who changes the borders of the land
The narration was collected in the mustadrak of Haakim 4/366, and likewise Sunanul Kubraa of Baihaqi 8/231 with an authentic chain of transmission

The classical commenters of hadeeth have mentioned that the hadeeth refers to an individual who owns land bordering the land of another, who then secretly changes the boundaries of his land in order to usurp land from his neighbour.

Thus the narration is in actuality a refutation of his claim, that division of Muslim land is condemned.

Here we see the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) condemning someone who tries to claim land that isn’t theirs, so what of Choudhurys claim that Muslims lands are one or that whoever puts a border to land is cursed??

As far as the hadeeth that he quotes from the well-known hadeeth compilation Sunan Abi Daawood concerning Asabiyah (Nationalism, tribalism):

He is not one of us he who calls for`Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for`Asabiyyah.”
Then it is a weak narration. It is weak due to there being a break in its chain between the companion of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) who narrated it, namely Jubair ibn Mut‟im (Radhiyallahu „anhu) and the narrator in the chain of transmission who took it from the companion, a narrator known as Abdullah ibn Abi Sulaimaan.

The compiler of this collection Imaam Abu Dawood himself said about the hadeeth:

قال أبو داود : هذا مُرْسَلٌ ، عَبْد اللهِ بن أَبي سُلَيْمَان لم يَسْمع من جُبَيْر

This is Mursal (meaning that the chain of transmission is broken) Abdullah ibn Abi Sulaimaan didn’t hear from JubairYes, there is a version of the Hadeeth that is authentic but it is a version that carries a slightly different meaning, the wording of which is:

Whosoever fights under a banner of bigotry, he becomes angry due to tribalism, he supports and aids it and calls to it and then he is killed (i.e. in that path) then his death is like the death of the pre-Islamic era (Jahilliyah)”

Clearly the authentic version of the narration differs in meaning and is less general than the version used by Choudhury, since it refers to one who engages in battle for that cause and dies. No doubt tribalism, racism etc is still considered a sin and unrighteous but the point here is that this text doesn‟t support the claim that the Muslim can have no bond with another Muslim other than Islaam. Neither does it support that which Anjem alludes to.

The prophet named the Muslims who migrated with him from Makka to Madina as Muhaajiroon and those who welcomed him to Madina from its Muslim inhabitants Ansaar (as Allah does in the Qur’aan). Similarly attributing oneself to ones tribe was not abolished.

The companions continued to attribute themselves to their tribes which were for the most part pagan tribes, until the conquest of Makka which was close to the death of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him).

For example we had the well-known four caliphs of the Messenger (May Peace Be Upon Him) all well known by their attributions to their tribes:

Abu Bakr As Sideeq (whose full name was Abdullah ibn abi Quhaafah At Taymee) attributed to the taymee tribe

Umar ibn Al Khataab Al Adawi (attributed to the Adawi tribe)

Uthmaan ibn „Affaan Al Amawi (attributed to the Amawi tribe)

Ali Ibn Abi Taalib Al Haashimi (attributed to the Haashimi tribe)

Abu Dharr Al Ghifaari (An attribution to the Ghifaari tribe)

Abu Huraira, also known as Abdur Rahmaan ibn sakhr Ad-Dausi (an attribution to the Dausi tribe)

And the list is endless,

From them were those who were attributed to their countries of origin for example,

Suhaib Ar Roomi (i.e. Suhaib the Roman)

Salmaan Al Faarisi (Salmaan the Persian)

Abu Raafi Al Qibti (Abu Raafi the Coptic)

Thus the attribution of a people to a tribe or place is not dispraised In Islaam, unless it leads to, or causes some form of discrimination.

Allah the most high states:
Oh Mankind! We have created you from a male and a female, an made you into nations and tribes, that you may know each other. Verily the most honourable of you with Allah is he who has most Taqwa (piety) Verily Allah is All-knowing All Aware” (Suratul Hujaraat Vs 13)

He then states towards the end of point one:

“..This will mean that nationalistic flags, clothes, emblems, anthems etc… or to support regional or national football teams are completely prohibited, let alone to join the non-Muslim armies and to protect or defend land for the sake of nationalism.

Anyone aquainted with the rhetoric of these people will know that what Anjem is attempting to do here is make you join their ‘Rally against the Rulers” Since (according to them) they put borders to your lands, they dont support and defend you when you are attacked, they prevent you from representing the Ummaah (regardless of whether you are an illiterate bedouin or an uneducated immature adolecent with a violent background) since any one of us can do so. They (the rulers) also call Non-Muslim Troops to a nationalistic war and will have you saluting the National anthem. Thus we have this Rabble-Rousing begining from this very first point…Allahul Musta’aan

Addressing Anjem Choudhury: Part 1

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was Salaamu ‘Alaa Rasoolillahi

Ammaa B’ad:

Undoubtedly from the trials faced by the Muslims in the west, are those trials that the individual muslim undergoes, then there are the trials that occur at the hands of oppressors within the Ummah that are more general and affect more than the perpetrators themselves.

Allah the most high says:

And fear the affliction which affects not in particular those of you who do wrong (but it afflicts good and bad people)

(Suratul Anfaal Vs 25)

From the greatest examples of this type of trial is that which is witnessed by Muslims and non-Muslims in the west alike, being promoted by deviant khaariji individuals and groups.

Maybe one of the most bothersome for citizens of Great Britain is that which has come from Anjem Choudhury and his organisation.

In a relatively recent document produced by him and his group, we see various examples of his misrepresentation of Islaam, the Muslims in general and the Muslim creed, the like of which is harms Muslims before it harms anyone else.

Analysis of the document brings to light the Ignorance, destructive misunderstanding and at times the outright treachery, lies and deception of this individual and his group.

The reality then of this individual and his group is that they are nothing but another modern day manifestation of the prophesized khawaarij the messenger of Allah – Sallallahu Alaihi was Salam spoke of.

The Messenger of Allah mentioned as occurs in a hadeeth in Saheeh Al Bukhaari, the hadeeth of Abu Sa’eed Al Khudree – Radhiyallahu ‘Anhu wherein the Messenger – Sallallahu alaihi Was Salam described a people who were to come who would ‘..recite the Qur’aan but it will not go past their throats, they will pass through the religion the way an arrow passes through its game, they will kill the people of Islaam but leave the people of Idol worship..”

We see then that the Messenger mentioned that from their characteristics is that they will ‘kill the people of Islaam and leave alone the people of Idol worship’. Our scholars mention though, that the Khawaarij that succeeded this early band of khawaarij went on to kill muslims and non muslims alike. From the sects of khawaarij that have manifested there is a sect known as the ‘An-Najdaat’ which was from the earliest groups of the khawaarij, they began to view as lawful the blood of Ahludh Dhimma (non Muslims living under the Islamic state) as Shahrastaani states in Al Millali Wan Nihal (P124). Likewise another group known as the Sufriya deemed it permissible to indiscriminately kill Muslims and Non Muslims. Imaam Ibn Hazm states: “A group from among the Sufriya held it compulsory to kill whoever they were able whether Muslim or Non Muslim..” (Al Fisal 4/190). Thus their killing became indiscriminate not long after their initial appearance, and this trait has continued with them until the present day.

There is no doubt then, that what we all recently witnessed, from the brutal murder of lee Rigby in Woolwich London carried out by Khaariji Mujaahid (Michael) Adebolajo, was nothing but another manifestation of this very evil ideology. Regardless of how we feel about events in our countries the act was ‘Haraam’ and no one should feel that ‘it serves them right’ or they are now receiving ‘a taste of their own medicine’ for when has an act of haram ever been praiseworthy? Hajaaj bin Yusuf not only took life but he killed Sahabah yet it would have been Haraam for an individual to take it upon himself to kill him due to that.

From the well known groups of early khawaarij we have those who were known as the Qa’diyah. They were those who sat back (Qa’adoo) and encouraged others to revolt and kill and were from the most evil of them.

There is no doubt that in our time and country Anjem Choudhury is at the head of them (i.e The Qa’diyah) Thus when he was questioned about the Woolwich murder carried out by someone he had nurtured, he expressed that he was ‘Shocked’ by the murder but refused to condemn it. Any Muslim would have hastened to condemn the murder, if only on the basis that it was haram, but Amjem refuses to do so which of course implies tacit approval. And perhaps the only reason he was ‘shocked’ was due to the fact that he and his group have historically in the U.K been a group of ‘Qa’diyah’ it then perhaps shocked him that someone actually did something for once, though he clearly did not disapprove.

This then is the first part of a brief discussion of some of the points Anjem Choudhry makes in a relatively recent article him and his group produced called ‘Islamic Prevent’ wherein he states that which he holds every muslim, particularly those in the U.K should be maintain.

This Individual and his group have been responsible for bringing nothing but Fitnah, corruption, turmoil and hardship to our midst! Due to their actions brothers have been attacked, sisters abused and unveiled (or even made to strip in one case!) legislation affecting Muslims tightened, travel made difficult and sometimes humiliating, Articles, books and blogs written in ridicule of Islaam, the da’wah affected, Masaajid, The houses of Allah firebombed and burnt to the ground, and our elderly killed.  Will they then not reflect upon the blessing of peace and security mentioned in the book and the sunnah.

The Blessing of peace and security

There is no doubt that peace and security and public safety is indeed a great blessing. It is a blessing that is enjoyed by the rich, the poor, the young, and the old, both male and female. Even the creatures and animals benefit from it. By way of Allah blessing us with security we are able to establish the Salaah (Prayer), populate the Masaajid (Mosques),the Ulamaa and students of knowledge are free to bring benefit, Tawheed is established, good is enjoined, evil is prohibited, the bonds of kinship are easily maintained, the pathways are safe, students of knowledge are able to travel to obtain knowledge, oppression is repelled and the wealth, property, honour and blood of the people is protected.

And indeed Allah has warned us against Fitan (the plural of fitna lit: trials/afflictions) particularly the like of which encompass the people in general.

Allah the most high says: “And fear the fitna (trial/affliction)that does not affect the oppressor alone” (Suratul An’aam Vs 25)

that is it affects the oppressor and perpetrator of crime and other than him.

And indeed Allah the most high mentioned the affair of public security being from the reasons why they should establish worship to him alone as he is the one who as blessed them with it among other things.

Allah the most high says: “..We cause the (Quraish) caravans to set forth safe in winter and in Summer, so let them worship the lord of this house (the Ka’bah in Makka. (He) who has fed them in hunger and granted them safety from fear” (Suratul Quraish Vs 2-4)

Indeed the prophet of Allah has said: “Whoever wakes up in security with his herd (of cattle), healthy in his body, possessing sustenance for his day, then it is as though he has the whole world in its entirety as his possession” (Authentic: Collected by At Tirmidhi 2346)

When security has the station that it does, Abraham – Alaihis Salaam gave it precedence in the supplication that he made for the future inhabitants of Makka.

Allah the most high says: “And when Ibraaheem said “Oh my lord make this land (Makka) secure and provide sustenance for its people…”(Suratul Baqarah:126)

Similarly Islam with its various rulings and legislations has come to protect that which is known as the ‘Durooriyaatul khams’ (the five major major necessities that Islam has been sent to protect) namely: the religion, ones person, the intellect, the lineage and ones wealth) For indeed the affair of mankind in this world is as the messenger (saw) has informed us, resemblant to a ship that the people are in. Those on the lower deck of the ship intend to make a hole in the boat which will result in all of them sinking in the boat and so it is the duty of rest of those on board to stop them from their intent so as to save all of those aboard.

Therefore whosoever opens a door from the doors of fitan it is the duty of every Muslim to close it and to prevent that even if they intend good or feel these actions are justified. Thus what is ultimately looked at is the outcome of those actions and the path being followed and not the fact that the one who carries them out have good intent. For intent alone doth not a good action make.

Thus we will address some of the ideas of Anjem Choudhury and his group hoping this will highlight the evil of this man and his call.

I initially called it Addressing soundly, the corruption of Anjem Choudhury, his transgressions of the boundaries and his foolishness and floundery’ or alternatively ‘Addressing Anjem Choudhury’ and I ask Allah to make it sincerely for his face.

Wa Billahit Tawfeeq

Abu Hakeem

,

Is it from the manhaj of the Salaf to gather the mistakes of a person? – Shaikh Rabee’ – Hafidhahullah

Bismillahi Wal Hamdullillah Was Salaatu Was salaamu ‘alaa rasoolillahi

Ammaa ba’d:

Question:

Is it from the manhaj of the salaf to gather the mistakes of an individual and then make them apparent in an authorship for people to read?

Answer:

Subhaanallah! This is a statement made by the people of innovation for the purpose of protecting their bid’ah, protecting their books, protecting their methodology and protecting the people they venerate.

Yes! Allah and his messenger have mentioned much of their (affairs) of misguidance, and have gathered the statements of the Jews and the Christians and have critisised them in many Qur’anic verses.

Similarly Ahlus Sunnah, from the dawn of their history to this day have spoken about Jahm ibn Safwaan and Bishr Al Mirreesi and have enumerated their innovations and misguidance. They have (likewise) gathered the statements of the people of the (deviant) sects and have critisised them, so who has made this haram?

This is from the compulsory affairs if the people may be misguided by his many innovations and you were to gather them in one place and warned against them and named him, then may Allah reward you with good!

You, in doing so, would have carried out a great good for Islaam and the Muslims

Taken from: Ajwibatu Fadheelatish Shaikh rabee’ Ibni Haadi Al Madkhali As Salafiyah ‘alaa as’ilati Abi Rawaaha Al Manhajiyah (The salafi responses of The noble shaikh Rabee’ Ibn Haadi Al Madkhali to the manhaji questions of Abi Rawaaha As Salafi)

%d bloggers like this: