ummtaalib

Map of the Old City...it is helpful to know the names of the gates so that one knows where one is when entering the Old City Many people book hotels outside the Old City area however they miss out on being close to and interacting with the local Palestinian people. Hotels within the Muslim quarter of the Old City are quite run down but comfortable with easy access to Masjidul Aqsa

List for the Al-Aqsa Site Plan Islamic Museum Baabal Maghaaribah/Morrocan Gate - Not accessible to Muslims Baabas Silsilah/Chain Gate Baabas Salaam/Tranquility Gate Silsilah/Chain Minaret Baabal Mataharah/Ablution Gate Baabal Qataaneen/Cotton Merchant Gate Baabal Hadeed/Iron Gate Baaban Naazir/Majlis /Council Gate Minaret of Ghawanimah Baabal Atim/Gate of Darkness Baabal Hittah/Gate of Remission Minaret al-Asbat Babal Asbaat/Gate of Tribes Babaz Zahabi/Golden Gate - 2 vaulted halls lead to Baabar Rahamah(15a), and Baabat Tawbah (15b). Imam Ghazali is said to have sat above these gates when writing Ihya Cradle of Jesus Al-Musallah al-Marwani/Solomon’s Stables-sub-structure Al Masjid al Aqsa Fakhriya Minaret Dome of Yusuf Agha Station of Buraaq Al-Kas/The Cup (place of ablution) Mimbar of Buran ad Deen Dome of Yusuf Dome of an Nahawiyyah Dome of Moses Fountain of Qasim Pasha Pool of Raranj Fountain of Qayt Bay Muezzin’s Dome Dome of The Chain/Silsilah Dome of the Rock/Qubatus Sakhra Dome of the Prophet Dome of the Me’raj Dome of al Khalili Mihrab of al Pasha Dome of al Khidr Dome of Ruh/Spirits Fountain of Sha’laan Solomon’s Dome Dome of the Lovers of the Prophets Fountain of Sultan Solomon Solomon’s Throne W. Wailing Wall

Al-Aqsa Site Plan ...inshaAllah will come in useful for future visitors to Al-Quds

Women’s Mosque? Women’s Empowerment? By Khalid Baig Posted: 11 Rabi al-Thani 1436, 1 February 2015 The Women’s Mosque of America has started operations in Los Angeles. It is not a mosque per se, but the name of a non-profit organization. It began with holding female only Jumuah prayers, in an old synagogue with Stars of David etched on the stained glass windows. The decision to use this venue was made to "promote peace." Creating a separate space for Muslim women is a noble idea. Unfortunately the organizers chose the one event for this project for which it has no basis in the Shariah. Muslim women are not required to offer Jumuah. They are allowed but not required. (They can offer the Dhuhr prayer instead.) Further by consensus of scholars of all schools, Muslim women are not allowed to lead Jumuah prayers or deliver Jumuah Khutbahs. Not surprisingly the project met with disapproval from the great majority of local Muslim scholars who objected exactly on this ground. The women who prayed there were advised to still offer their Dhuhr prayer as the prayer obligation remained undischarged.[1] But there is a larger issue that has not been discussed. One wonders what the officers of this corporation would think of establishing a women only school or women only college. Obviously if women need access to Islamic education in an exclusive space, then would not a daily regular school be far superior to a twenty minute sermon delivered once a month? Alas their future programs make no mention of such a plan. On the contrary other programs will be coed. It is also interesting to see the media reaction. This was a media event and all the big names were there. And they were excited. From the Los Angeles Times to the Wall Street Journal, from ABC news to Fox News, everyone praised this as a historic event. It was considered a key development in empowerment of Muslim women. “Maybe we could get a female Luther out of this,” Los Angeles Times reported an excited congregant as saying. The question that we must ask is what the media reaction would be if the organizers had opened a women’s only college instead. Would that be considered a historic event that would open the doors to scholarship for Muslim women? Would that be praised by the same media as a space “where Muslim women can 'bring their whole self,' learn more about their faith and foster bonds of sisterhood?” It is more likely that this would be ridiculed as a step backwards, as another sign of oppression of Muslim women. Why? Why the same act is praiseworthy in one case and blameworthy in the other? The answer may be that it is flouting the traditions and well established Islamic teachings in one case and complying with them in the other. The first act is therefore considered empowering and the other enslaving. The hypocrisy has a rationale! It may be therefore empowering to deconstruct the notion of "women's empowerment" itself. The sad fact is that we are caught up in the discourse of empowerment. Everyone these days is for "women's empowerment." And it is taboo to question this dogma. But let us ask, where does this word come from? Does it come from the Islamic discourse or its textual sources? The Qur'an does not talk about "women's empowerment." Neither does Hadith. Neither does the Islamic literature produced by authorities and scholars of varied persuasions over the centuries. If in doubt please tell me what is the Arabic term for "empowerment" and where do you find it in the Islamic textual sources? Women's empowerment is a term foreign to Islamic discourse. And like other foreign terms it has to be examined carefully before we start using it and submit to its dictates. Let us face it: It is a foreign term. And like other foreign terms it has to be examined carefully before we start using it and submit to its dictates. The term as used today comes from the feminist discourse. And it brings with it the entire feminist agenda. Simply stated, the ideology of women's empowerment means establishing an absolute-no-holds-barred-equality between men and women. Dozens of international organizations are devoted to promoting “women's empowerment” and use the term interchangeably with “gender equality” and “gender mainstreaming.” At a more basic level it means fighting for your rights. As American feminist Gloria Steinem said, “Power can be taken, but not given. The process of the taking is empowerment in itself.” Let us contrast this with Islamic history. The pre-Islamic Meccan society, like all Jahiliyya societies then and now, had its share of the weak and the downtrodden. Women were oppressed. So were slaves. Anyone belonging to another tribe was discriminated against. Did the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, go to them and say I have come to empower you? Did he invite them to start an empowerment movement? If he did, the seerah and Hadith books do not record it. Rather his message to everyone was, "Become a believer and you will be successful." The promise was falah, the eternal and ultimate success, to be achieved through iman (faith) and taqwa (righteous action performed with the fear of displeasing Allah). To men and women, to slaves and masters, the rich and poor, Arabs and non-Arabs, the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam, said one thing: يَأَيُّهَا النَّاسُ ، قُولُوا : لا إِلَهَ إِلا اللَّهُ تُفْلِحُوا "O people, say there is no god but Allah and you will be successful." Belief in Allah and submission to His commands were the road to falah. The society that was so built did eliminate the injustices to the slaves and women and the poor and all the downtrodden people. But the path to that uplifting was not through the talk of empowerment. Rather it was through an exactly opposite strategy. Islam did not urge women to fight for their rights; it urged the men to discharge their responsibilities toward the women, fearing Allah. It did not urge the poor to fight for their rights; it urged the wealthy to discharge their responsibilities toward the poor, fearing Allah. It also urged the women to discharge their responsibilities toward their husbands. In fact it changed the focus of everyone from their rights to their responsibilities. For in the Hereafter we'll be held accountable for our responsibilities, not our rights. If we were shortchanged on our rights here, we will be fully compensated there. But if we were negligent in discharging other’s rights on us, we will have to pay heavily for it there. Needless to say, with everyone concerned with their responsibilities, the rights of the others are automatically secured. Further, with justice being a supreme goal of Islam, redressing injustices becomes everyone’s job not just those of the victims. With this approach Islam obtained justice in the society but without the incessant friction and disharmony that is an essential result of an ongoing fight. It uplifted women without instituting a perpetual gender war. As Imam Zaid Shakir notes: “Islam has never advocated a liberationist philosophy.” Islam uplifted women without instituting a perpetual gender war. It never advocated a liberationist philosophy. The language of empowerment is diametrically opposed to it. It makes everyone focus on their rights, not their responsibilities. The battle cry is, watch out for yourself for no one else will. This then becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. With no one being primarily concerned with discharging their responsibilities, securing your rights becomes a lifelong struggle. You will only get those rights for which you fight. Hence the perpetual campaign for women's empowerment. What has that led to? The exact opposite of what it aimed at. The empowerment rhetoric did not end exploitation of women; it actually has opened exciting new avenues for it. As Dr. Brooke Magnanti wrote in the Telegraph, “Too often the word is used as a smokescreen for increasing consumerism, a cousin of L'Oreal's 'because you're worth it' whereby you can presumably empower yourself by buying shoes and pretty little journals, which is somehow worthier than simply buying things because you need or like these things. Or worse still, by landing some 9-to-5 corporate grinding job.”[2] But it has done much more. It has destroyed the home and family beyond recognition. Even more, it has drastically changed men and women. Here are the words of Father John McCloskey, a Catholic priest lamenting the disaster that this world has faced. There is something radically wrong with the family and the relationship between the sexes in the West as we rapidly approach the third millennium of the Christian era... Indeed it would be hard to find similar situations in history, unless it be the pre-Christian paganism of the Roman Empire (cf. St. Paul's Letter to the Romans l: ll-20) or the behavior of the barbarian hordes of central Asia as they poured into a weak and decadent empire... Today, in societies that are nominally Christian, we witness the phenomenon of women who do not act like women, nor men like men, nor families like families. Codes of moral behavior that have made the family the central unit of society and have been the "guardrails" of civilization for centuries have been discarded as antiquated."[3] If we blindly follow the talk of women's empowerment, we will also be headed to this lizard's hole. Or we can follow the path of falah shown by the Prophet, Sall-Allahu alayhi wa sallam and say goodbye to the borrowed language and borrowed ideologies. The Women’s Mosque organization was started by two ladies, a comedy writer and a lawyer, as a reaction to their “mistreatment” at some other mosque. The “mistreatment” consisted in somebody in that mosque gently pointing them upstairs to a separate area for women. They apparently thought that the separate upstairs space that had been provided was beneath them. One wonders if that is the attitude of a humble servant of God. In reaction they organized an event that violated the commands of the same God whom they so desperately wanted to serve. And they started a first ever “protest mosque.” Among other firsts, it also encouraged women to “enter the mosque in the type and style of clothing in which they feel comfortable.” In other words it decreed that Islam does not prescribe any dress code for prayers. Anyone who thought otherwise was asked to keep their opinions to themselves. It asked that no woman should remind another woman to, say, cover her head while praying. If the mosque was a consecrated space which imposed its own rules of decorum and proper conduct, including dignified and modest attire, the “Women’s Mosque” had nothing to do with that. Such is the tragedy when we become consumed by our desires. These ladies and their sympathizers would do well to listen to the words of Imam Zaid Shakir: “Our fulfillment does not lie in our liberation, rather it lies in the conquest of our soul and its base desires. That conquest only occurs through our enslavement to God.” The empowerment rhetoric did not end exploitation of women; it actually has opened exciting new avenues for it. Does Islam ask the women to get sacred knowledge? Absolutely. And today, unlike the bleak picture painted by the marketing department of Women’s Mosque, women are very active in seeking religious knowledge. They are doing it from their homes over the phone and Internet; in gatherings arranged at private homes; in schools established for this purpose. And they are doing it in mosques as well. There are some institutions who have thousands of women studying with them from their homes. They are studying Arabic, Hadith, Fiqh, Qur’an, and so on. May Allah bless these efforts and multiply them. This is the right answer to the problem of women education. Not a Jumuah khutbah delivered by a woman once a month. The organizers of the Women’s Mosque are right that for proper education women need a safe space where they are by themselves. Where they can discuss their problems freely, get inspired by other sisters, and seek both emotional and intellectual fulfillment from them. Where they do not have to act like men or compete with them. Where women can be women. If one is guided by Islamic teachings and not the talk of empowerment then one could easily see that it should lead to the development of female only schools, colleges, and youth groups. [1] For a detailed discussion of the fiqhi ruling on women leading prayers, see Imam Zaid Shakir’s article at http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/female_prayer_leadership_revisited. But the matter is simple to understand even without a detailed technical discussion. Dr. Salman Nadvi, who headed the Islamic Studies department at the University of Durban until his retirement and who is the son of the illustrious scholar Allama Sulaiman Nadvi, said: “If Allah wanted women to lead their own Jumuah prayers He would have asked the Prophet to order this and would have asked the Ummahat al-Mu’mineen to lead the prayers.” [2] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/dr-brooke-magnanti/ [3] http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/singlesexedu.html al-balagh

Hazrat Shaikh Moulana Muhammad Zakariyya (rahmatullahi ‘alaih) once mentioned after reciting the following couplet of Hazrat Moulana Rumi (rahmatullahi ‘alaih): ہم خدا خواہی وہم دنیاے دوں ایں خیال است و محال است و جنوں We desire the love of Allah Ta’ala, and yet we continue hankering after this insignificant world (expecting to be successful in our goal). Certainly this is a mere imagination, really impossible and illogical. O my beloved brothers, in order for one to become successful in anything, one is required to apply the formula of success. Through applying this formula, one will be successful in all fields of life. In the field of medicine, one will have to adhere to the various laws and principles laid down in order to acquire the necessary understanding of the field, and thereafter one will have to practice upon it. Similarly, in treading the path of love towards Allah Ta’ala, in order for one to be successful, one will be required to practice self-restrain in all aspects of life. One will have to regulate one’s speech, interaction with people, one’s eating and sleeping habits as explained by the Mashaayikh. (Suhbate Baa Awliyaa pg. 56) Ihyaauddeen.co.za

Q. Can you kindly explain in detail what our view is as Muslims, concerning the theory of Evolution please. We are interested in showing our non-Muslims accomplices evidences from the Quran and from science itself that refutes evolution A. The following is a beautiful article on this topic which has been written by a great scholar Shaikh Abdul Hamid. In it he has discussed the topic at length in a beautiful manner, which will be very easy for readers to understand. We hope that it will be helpful, Insha Allah. FALLACY OF EVOLUTION The theory of Evolution, or more precisely, Organic Evolution, is taught in our schools and colleges as an established fact and saturates our science; psychology, philosophy, history and, to some extent, even religion today. The sum and substance of the theory is that: (i) The animate species of nature are the result of a millennial evolutionary transformation from inanimate phenomenon of nature, which means that Man was not created by Almighty God but life on earth originated from lifeless matter in some mysterious way without any divine assistance and by means of ascending series of vegetable and animal organism – during incalculably long periods it prog-ressed and developed from one-celled organism to its highest state, the human being; (ii) Man is descended from brutes and to all intents and purposes he is a brute. Form ation of the human body and brain is the same as that of an animal. All human energy comes from animal instincts inhe rited by man from his animal ancestors; iii) There is no guiding light, no conscience, no moral principles, no sense of truth, justice, beauty, virtue and God-conscious-ness inborn and implanted in man. Human will-power is also not inborn but is derived from baser animal instincts. There is no God, no Soul, no after-life no revelation. Every prophet was only a social reformer. Nothing was revealed to him and conseq-uently every religion is a fake thing. In the words of Sir Julian Huxley, a prom-inent evolutionist “Evolution has no room for the Supernatural. The earth and its inhabitants were not created, they evolved.” (The New York Times, November 26, 1959) (iv) Man being a product of this long-process ed evolution, having no pre-destination and no life after death, is free to act on his own will; no social restrictions, no moral code, no religious guidance whatso ever is there to check this licencious freedom. This theory which strikes at the very root of religion and, tries to demolish the ideological basis of our faith permeates our educational institu tions, and our raw youth are made to go on repating that evolution, and not creation, is the true fact of our existence. The continuous indoctrination of this Godless mechanistic theory in the minds of our young scholar never acquainted with the opposite arguments, has led them away from Islam and has made them sceptics, delinquents, irreligious, immoral, sex-saturated and violent. Of course, there are honorable exceptions but they are due to healthy religious home influences. The alarming situation demands that this theory which does admit organisation, design, arrangement, plan and beauty in the universe, but unrea-sonably denies the existence of All-powerful Designer Planner, Beautifier God, Which agrees that man is made in the most wonderful fashion with a digestive system that converts masticated food into body nutrition, with a blood stream to distribute it, with a heart to pump the blood and lungs to purify it, with a nervous system to carry messages to and from the brain, with a brain to direct bodily functions and receive information from five senses, with eyes that see, ears that hear; but which illogic-ally refuses to admit that this body with absolute technologcal perfection was made by Supreme Almighty Maker; this theory which says that the unintelligent cells operating on blind-chance are automatically arranged into organs with definite shapes and patterns and that in the 266 days from conception to birth, the single fertillized egg-cell becomes a staggeringly complex organisation of some 200 million cells having increased the original weight a billion-fold with the purposive guidance of any Intelligent Power, the theory which, in short, tries to deprive existence of all purpose must be scrutin-ised in detail, cross-questioned and crossexamined. To begin with, it seems to be worthwhile to excavate the origins of this theory. The origin of cosmos had been an intellectual riddle to the thinkers and phillosophers for times immemorial, but the first landing on theoretical grounds could not be achieved until the eighteenth century. The first comprehensive idea of cosmological evolution was put forth by a philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in 1755, in his book Attempt to Conceive and to Explain the Origin of the Universe Mechanically, according to the Newtonian Laws. Kant was a thinker, whose inquisitive nature dissatisfied with Christian mythical orthodoxy, rebelled against the biblical exposition of origin of universe, which had quite illogically determined the time of all creation sometime in October 4004 B. C. On the one hand it was beyond his reason to accept this too short a span of time for this immense increase in human population and advancement of civilization, and on the other, the Church dogma that Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) was from everlasting to everlasting had become for him too hard a nut to crack by his intellect. He, therefore, expounded that man (as also Jesus Christ) was the consequence of evolution from lifeless chemical elements comprising the strata of the earth He asserted that there was a time when there was no life, hence, no question of eternity of Jesus. He maintained that when a plant or an animal acquired a new characteristic from its environment, it could pass this on to its off-spring, resulting in changes that accounted for evolution. But this theory proved to be a cry in the wilderness and soon flowed away in the stream of time just like ashes thrown into a river. Forty years later the thread was picked up by Pierre Laplace. He revived Kant’s philosophic theory and tried to give it a scientific colour. His Exposition du Systems du Monde (1796) attempted to explain it in scientific terms and bitterly opposed the story of creation and refused any room for Godhead. He was so much allergic to the idea of Godhead that in the course of a discussion with Nepolean he went to the length of saying : “Sire, I have no need for that confounded hypothesis (the presence of God)”. Later on, a French Scientist Jean de Lamark, published his treatise Philosophic Zoologique in which he held that: ‘The primitive forms were developed out of lifeless matter by spontaneous generation. The resemblances of related groups of species are explained by inheritance from common stern-forms: their dissimil-arities are due to adaptation to different environments, and to variety in the action of modifiable organs. The human race has arisen in the same way, by transform-ation of a series of mammal ancestors, the nearest of which are apelike primates.”(Last words on Evolution Haeckle). He held that as an infant looks upon his elders and steadily learns how to walk or work, a similar desire was found in the baser forms of life at the early early stages of evolution, which consequently gave an impetus to them to develop further. He said that primitive giraffes did not have longer necks and soon, when ran short of vegetation on the surface of soil, the only foder available was the leaves of tree quite beyond their approach. Quite on the analogy of the infants, the desire to pluck leaves from higher trees resulted in the elongation of their necks, and their offsprings acquired the characteristic of longer necks. This he called the theory of “acquired characteristics.” Then came Charles Darwin, the atheist evolutionist. He propounded his own theory which was based partly on the findings of Lamarck and partly on those of his own He also played with the example of giraffes, but reached a different conclusion. According to him, the members of different species, when ran out of vegetation, comp eted with one another for life as a result of which only the fittest could survive. The survivors would pass on those advantageous variations which were instrumental in getting them upper hand over their rivals, to their offspring, which process eventually led to evolution of new forms of life. This process was given the name of natural selection. He was the first scientist to assert the descent of man from the ape. This theory caused no less havoc in the scientific as well as religious circle,s and arrested the attention of high and low alike. In order to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics, a German scientist August Wemsmann carried out an experiment to produce a breed of tailless mice by simply cutting off their tails before allowing them to mate. “He repeated this procedure for 20 successive generations The last generation proved to have tails as long as those of their ancestors. This was the first experimental proof that acquired charact-eristics, such as artificial taillessness, are not inherited.” (Review Text in Biology—Mark A Hall and Milton S. Lesser 1966 (p 304) This experiment rung the knell of Lamarckan theory. So far as the Darwinian theory of evolution is concerned, it also could not stand the test of advanced scientific experimentation. The theory of Natural selection was put to test by a Dutch Botanist, W. Johannsen. He carried out his experiment on the Princess garden-bean Phaseolus Vulgaris. After establishing 19 pure lines and propagating each of them in each generation by selecting the lightest and the heaviest seeds, he recovered seeds with about the same average weight from the two types of lines. He continued his experiment through several generations, but every time the same average weight was obtained. He thus reached the conclusion that be could not alter the average seed weight by selection and so he claimed in 1903 that Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection was utterly false. This declaration shook the foundations of Darwanian evolution. The Biology for Today records that scientists have raised a number of objections against complete acceptance of Darwin’s theory on the grounds that :- (a) The theory does not account for all the known facts of heredity. For example, the theory does not clearly explain why some variations are inherited and others not. Many variations are so trivial that they could not possibly aid an organism in its struggle for existence: and b) The theory does not explain how the gradual accumulation of trivial variations could result in the appearance of some of the more complex structures found in higher organisms (Biology for Today – Sayles B. Clark and 1. Albert Mould, 1964. P. 31) As Darwin’s theory also proved defective, efforts were made by some scientists to improve upon it. A Dutch botanist Dc Vries started his experimentation on the plants of primroses, He asserted that occasionally some plants appeared with some unusual structure which are inherited by their off-springs. This process he named as ‘mutation” But none of these principal theories could command acceptance and proved to be faulty. The Review Text in Biology (1966) has summarised these the ories in the following words:- “Since Lamarck’s theory (acquired characteristics) has proved false, it is only of historical interest Darwin’s theory (natural selection) does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations. Dc Vries theory (large mutations) has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or Set of mutations has ever been so large and numerous that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of off-springs.(Review Text in Biology, p. 363.) Neo-Darwinism The modern evolutionists combined some traits of Darwin’s theory with the findings of De Vries and hammered out a new theory which is called Neo-Darwinism. Natural selection coupled with large mutations were the main cause for evolu tion. But this Neo-Darwinism has not been able to quench the thirst of modern scientific mind and the controversy is still going on. The Neo-Darwinism can be illustrated in such way. In primitive times the ancestors of modern giraffes were short-necked. As they increased in number, they ran short of vegetation. The lush-green leaves of high trees were then the only substitute for the vegetational fodder. Occasionally, for unknown reasons, a sort of mutation occurred in the neck of a certain giraffe who had a comparatively longer neck, which enabled him to pluck higher leaves. This mutant giraffe passed on the slightly longer neck to its off-spring; the number of short-necked giraffes thinned out giving place to mutants. This process continued until the giraff’s neck reached its present length. If-rationally discussed, it transpires that in the same area where we find giraffes, we also come across flocks of pigmy sheep. How is it that sheep could survive without longer necks and could feed on the vegetation on the surface of the soil, while on the same soil short-necked giraffes could not survive and starved out. In an article “Should We Burn Darwin” published in Science Digest of January, 1961, the writer observes: “Perhaps the most significant single fact in last year’s development of French scientific thought is that the above orthodox explanation of evolution has been badly shaken. Often criticised in the past, it has now come under such heavy fire that the way seems to be open, in France at least, to a new theory of the origin of species…… “These are a few of the embarrassing questions asked by the French rebels : If the giraffe with its eight-foot neck is the product of natural selection and an example of the fittest, what about the sheep with its neck no longer than a few inches? Aren’t giraffes and sheep very close cousins almost brethren in the animal kingdom. But then can there live side by side two cousins, each of them fitter than the other, one because its neck is longer, the other because its neck is shorter.’ Another prominent evolutionist, Jean Rostand, challenged the verocity of Neo-Darwinism in the following words “The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of preexisting organs. In any case, they never produe anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for new organ or the priming for a new function……I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips” of heredity have been able, even with the co-operation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which the evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations’ I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way;….. I discern nothing that gives me the right to conceive the profound structural alterations, the fantastic metamorphoses that we have to imagine in evolutionary history when we think of the transition from invertebraters to verte brates, from fish to batrachians, from batrac hians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals” Examination of the Principal Theories: Lamarck’s theory: As already stated, Lamarck held that evolution was the result of some in-born desire, or instincts, to get more perfect which actually resulted in the baser species’ evolution to higher and more perfect ones He says that when an infant looks at his parents walk and work, he also desires to do the same or get the same quality, by and by he acquires it. It means that such an evolution is subject to an example or a living pattern. Lamarck admits that man did not exist from the very beginning, then how the first plant life evolved into animate species when there was no example before them, because a desire occurs only when we have certain example before us. We can think of becoming a Governor because we have before us several precedents, and in case there had been no governorship before us, how can we aspire to. Secondly, our desires can be materialized only if we have the necessary means. An infant has a certain example of his parents who work or walk before his eyes. He also acquires those qualities because he has the example as well as means. He has hands to work with and legs to walk on. Why doesn’t a hen acquire the qualities of a man when it looks upon the man? The answer is that although she has an example before her, she lacks the means to do the same; mere desire cannot help her to acquire the necessary limbs by way of evolution. Thirdly, the example and mere means are not enough to enable a species to acquire the characteristic of another species An ape, although it looks upon man speaking and has also got a tongue, cannot speak like man. Some racial relation is also necessary. Fourthly, if we admit that evolution does not need any precedent, and it goes on automatically, it means that no creature, what soever, is perfect at any time including the homo sapiens. If so, why the evolution has suddenly stopped since times immemorial. The archaeological excavations and prehistoric arts show that man in the ancient times was the same as at present. The anthroplogists, are unanimous that there has been no change in human shape for 1,50,000 years. Why not a perfecter form of this so-called imperfect homo sapien creature. Darwin’s theory: As mentioned above, Darwin had modified the theory of Lamarck and had emphasised on the survival of the fittest, by way of natural selection. According to Darwin members of different species compete with one another for life, and in such struggle for existence any advantageous variation enables its possessor to gain the upper hand; the fittest survive and the others perish. The survivors pass on the beneficial variation to their off-spring which process eventually accounts for evolution of life. He calls this process. ‘Natural Selection.’ Ideologically spea-king, Darwin’s theory, was an off-shoot of a philoso-phical bickering rather than that of a scientific research. It had a cultural and philosophical back-ground. In the eighteenth century, Europe had full political sway over all the then known world. All the smaller nations of the world paid poll- tax to Europe because Europe was then in a profitably fitter position to dominate the other weaker nations, might is right being its only motto. This ideological background moulded the thought of her thinkers-and scientists alike at that time. Charles Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest was fully in keeping with this imperialistic trend of the West, and this is the only reason why this theory got an unswerving acceptance in the intellectual quarters of Europe and its echo is still reverberating in her colleges, and universities. Apart from this, if we analyze this theory scientifically, it equally proves to be faulty. The theory has not been able to answer the following questions - (i) Of course, there are variations among members of the same species with regard to colour, size etc. If they are inherited then all of them must be inherited; why are some inherited and others not? How and why do they originate? (ii) How do the gradual accumulation of trivial variations result in the appearance of complex structures? (iii) Any variation has to be of immediate value to its possessor if it is to give him a better chance of survival than his fellows. What is the survival value of the beginning of an eye, an ear, etc. (iv) If the giraffe with its eight-foot neck is the product of natural selection and an example of the survival of the fittest, what about the sheep with its neck not longer than a few inches? How has it survived without a long neck? (v) If sheep evolved horns because they aided survival, how can one account for the survival of varieties of sheep which sur vive just as well without them? Why were not the hornless ones eliminated by the process of natural selection? (vi) Of the 1,20,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs survived because they were the fittest? (vii) Inanimate matter devoid of motion, energy and life stays, according to the principle of intertia, forever unless acted upon by a superior outside force that could give it direction and organisation. How did the first living cell evolve out of inanimate group of chemical substance without the direction of an Intelligent Mind? (viii) How was the gigantic gap between the inanimate elements of earth and a living cell filled-up? (ix) Can the most advanced laboraties of our time create a living cell which, according to scientists, is as complicated as New York city, out of some inanimate matter? (x) Is it not a fact that nearly all biologists are in virtually unanimous agreement that all life derives from preceding life? If so, how to solve the riddle of first life aided except through faith in the existence of the Creator? (xi) Why has evolution not continued to improve it? Was it just an accident that this infinitely complex mechanism was perfect to begin with? If it evolved upward, then how is that some of them evolved upward while others did not? (xii) How can a single celled organism such as amoeba initiate a new organ such as an eye? How could it know that eye would be an improvement if it had never seen before? How could it know that sight was even possible? Did all the complicated parts of an eye such as the cornea, pupil, iris, retina, optic nerves, muscles, veins etc., evolved simultaneously? If the answer be in the affirmative, then it would be admittedly an act of creation rather than evolution and if the answer be in the negative then a partial eye would be a serious disadvantage to the organism and would be eliminated in due course of time. Moreover, why do we not come across a single creature in the world with eyes in a transitional stage of development particularly when we find several types of apes which according to the evolutionists are in their transit to manhood ? Wherever there is an eye, it is a complete eye; why is it so? Where are the transitional stages? Has evolu-tion stopped to work? (xiii) One-celled orgnisms such as the amoeba reproduce asexually by dividing them selves into two. This system of repro duction is satisfactory because such organisms are still with us multiplying in the same way. What was the need of converting this asexual system into sexual one ? How could male and female sex organs that perfectly com plement each other evolve gradually by chane, by the method of trial and error, perallelling each other, yet useless and decidedly disadvantageous until comple ted ? It may be noted that half-completed useless organs cannot survive even accor ding to Darwin; (xiv) If the mammary glands in females came about by slow evolution, how did these females feed their young in the meantime? If they already had another satisfactory way to feed their young, then why deve lop breasts? If breasts developed because they were a superior way of feeding, then why do we still have animals that feed otherwise in a satisfactory way and survive just as well? (xv) Spiders have special organs for spinning web without which they could catch no food. How did they survive the millions of years when these organs were evolving? If they gained food in other ways, what was the need of spinning organs? (xvi) All the cosmologists agree that all the planets were once a compact whole and that they suddenly split up with a big explosion into several galaxies. Only recently, man has landed on the moon, the satellite and at one time a part of the earth. The American astronauts brought back large quantities of moon-rock, as also the Russian Luna-16. The researches carried out so far have not been able to prove that there is life on the moon, although they have discovered that a very slight quantity of water (water that originates all living cells) exists in the moon crust. Why is there no life on the moon; if the scientists of tomorrow are able to discover bacteria in the moon soil, why did then bacteria not evolve into more perfect forms?; why did they not evolve into homosapiens or any other perfect form on the surface of the moon? If the lifeless elements of the earth could originate living cells and produce homosapiens, why could the moon-soil not decorate itself with living phenomena? Act of a Creator: By examining all the questions posed above, we come to the conclusion that all living phenomena of the world are the result of spontaneous creation and in no way can it be attributed to organic evolu tion. E. C. Kornfeld, a research chemist of repute, has very ably demonstrated that— “So highly intricate are the organic bio-chemi cal processes functioning in the animal organism, that it is not surprising that malfunc tion and disease occasionally intervene. One is rather amazed that a mechanism of such intricacy could ever function properly at all. All this demands a planner and sustainer of infinite intelligence. The simplest man-made mechanism requires a planner and a maker. How a mechanism ten thousand times more involved and intricate can be conceived of as self-constructed and self-developed is comp letely beyond me. ( E C Kornfeld (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe). Even in this computer age, the most skilled computerists are inclined to assert that this orderly functioning of the universe and the living phenomena in it cannot go on automatically, the precise exactitude in its working points to its designer and planner which they have termed as super-master computer, who can be none else than the Creator and Controller of the universe, the Almighty God. A famous mathematician and chemist, John Cleveland Cothran, has very finely put forth his views in these words: “Chemistry discloses that matter is ceasing to exist, some varieties exceedingly slowly, others exceedingly swiftly. Therefore the existence of matter is not eternal. Consequently, matter must have had a beginning. Evidence from chemistry and other sciences indicates that this beginning was not slow and gradual; on the contrary, it was sudden, and the evidence even indicates the approximate time when it occurred. Thus, at some rather definite time the material realm was created and ever since has been obeying LAW, not the dictates of chance. “Now, the material realm not being able to create itself and its governing laws, the act of creation must have been performed by some non-material agent. The stupendous marvels accomplished in that act show that this agent must possess superlative intelligence, an attribute of mind. But to bring mind into action in the material realm, as, for example, in the practice of medicine and in the field of parapsychology, the exercise of WILL is required, and this can be exerted only by a PERSON. Hence our logical and inescapable conclusion is not only that crea tion occurred, but that it was brought about according to the plan and will of a Person possessing supreme intelligence and know ledge (omniscience), and the power to bring it about and keep it running according to plan (omnipotence) always and everywhere throughout the universe (omnipresence). That is to say, we accept unheistatingly the fact of the existence of “the supreme spiritual Being, God, the Creator and Director of the universe. Sir Isaac Newton once got a Skillful mechanic make him a miniature replica of our solar system with balls representing the planets geared together by cogs and belts so as to move in harmony when cranked. Later, Newton was visited by one of his atheist friend scientist who did not believe in God. The following was the conversation which took place between them: “The scientist slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it? Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody “Quickly turning to Newton, the atheist said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my ques tion. I asked who made this? Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that no body made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonish ed atheist replied with some heat, ‘You must think I am a fool! Of course, somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is,’ “Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend’s shoulder. ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and 1 am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original form which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker? Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion? Thus, Newton convinced his atheist friend that whatever is made does not evolve of itself without any maker and designer. Can any evolutionist ever say that a space satellite in orbit around the earth got there when a chance co-ordination of metal molecules formed a capsule on earth, which just happened to be connected to an evolved rocket and fuel tank and that all of this just chanced to go into perfect orbit with out any directing intelligence ? If not, then by what logic and by what reasoning can he claim that the most complex things of all living phenomena on our planet did not require the agency of a maker? Says Boyce Humann, famous biologist:- ‘Lifting our eyes to the heavens, we surely must exclaim with wonder at the orderly sweep of the stars. Night after night, season after season, year after year, century after century, the worlds of the outer space have followed their courses through the sky. They return so regularly in their orbits that eclipses may be predicted centuries in advance. Is anyone still asking whether they might be just accidental condensations of galactic materials, haphazardly wandering about?’ The missing links and the fossil records: The evolutionists claim that all living things gradually evolved from one-celled organisms into higher forms of life. This evolutionary process means that there is a chain-link between all the species. When the evolutionists say that man has descended from apes; then there must be several species interlinking both the apes and the homo sapiens. This interlinking species has been named as primates, which were a developed form of apes, but had not yet become man. In spite of their dogged search in the nooks and corners of the earth, the evolutionists have not been able to bring forth any such species which can be termed as ‘a creature below man but above apes. Helplessly, the poor supporters of evolution point out to the fos sillic finds. While on the one hand, it is interesting to observe that when the so-called fore-fathers (apes) and descendants (man) of this primate crea ture which was swallowed by the whale of time, are still alive the inter-linking creature withered away and became fossillised in the crusts of the earth; on the other it is still more interesting that these fossils provide no clue whatsoever to this missing link, and the fossils so far excavated have not proved to be of the so-called primates. This has baffled the evolutionists all along. Even Darwin had to humbly apologise in this matter. He said, “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.” A modern evolutionist, writing in the ‘New- York Times’ of October 25, 1964, admitted that: “The chief puzzle of the record of life’s history on earth, is the sudden appearance some 600 million years ago, of most basic divisions of the plant and animal kingdoms. There is virtually no record of how these divisions came about.” In the face of all this, the devout evolutionists have tried to deceive the world by playing and improving upon the scanty fossil record. In 1891 a Dutch surgeon, Professor Dubois, found some fossils in Java and declared it to be remains of the so called horno-erectus primate. Later research on the fossils proved it to be a vile effort on the part of the said Professor to deceive the world. Encyclo-paedia Britannica remarks: “The five fossil fragments found were: a skull cap which outwardly had the form which might be expected in a giant form of gibbon, a left, thigh bone and three teeth. The most distant parts of the fragments were 20 paces apart. Later he added a sixth fragment – part of a lower jaw found in another part of the island but in a stratum of same geological age.” Thus this enthusiastic evolutionist, in order to support the theory bade farewell to the scientific method and deceived the world by placing together the scanty scraps of fossil bones excavated at diffe rent places (in the case of the sixth fragment, even miles away from the other finds) Similarly, in 1922 a fossil tooth was found in Nebraska and the evolu tionists hailed it to be belonging to an anthropoid ape, but the later research proved it to be that of a fossil peccary (a piglike animal). The Science News Letter of February 25, 1961, has exposed another fake “One of the most famous fakes exposed by scientific proof was Piltdown man found in Sussex, England—and thought by some to be 500,000 years old. After much ‘controversy, it turned out to be not a primitive man at all, but a composite of a skill of modern man and the jaw-bone of an ape. The jaw-bone had been ‘doctored with bichromate of potash and iron to make it look mineralized.” The present fossil record is, thus, nothing but a hoax, faked by the atheist evolutionists; the future also does not hold good promise. The true and best way for the evolutionists should have been to rely on scientific method of finding truth by supporting their conclusions with facts, otherwise reject the same. On the contrary, the evolutionists draw conclusions from the facts which do not exist from the fossil record which is missing. Is this science and logic? The above extracts prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the 3/4 fossil record of the earth is missing, and the remaining 1/4, in itself a hoax engineered by evolutionists, supports a sudden creation and in no case a slow evolution. It shows well-defined species and no transitio nal forms representing intermediate evolutionary form. Charles Drawin himself admits it in quite a humble apologetic tone: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms. Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being as we see them well defined? “But as by this (evolution) theory innumera ble transitional forms must have existed, why we do not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth. Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required”. To these he finds no answer, and in order to stave off humiliation, says “I believe the answer lies in the record being in comparably less perfect than is generally sup posed”. Then why to build a theory on a record that does not exist or is incomparably imperfect? It is admitted on all hands that the record of fossils in the rocks shows no slow evolving from family to family. Families remain constant. New families appear suddenly and there is no proof of their having undergone through long periods gradual deve lopment. No fossil has been found that clearly shows even one of the millions of transitional forms. Why so many fossils of existing families but no series of fossils showing evolution of new organs? Why does the fossil record suffer from extreme imperfection only at those critical points where families are being bridged, eyes, ears and other organs being gradually evolved and why it is so perfect within each family? It was perhaps this reason that compelled Dr. Clark, a Smithsomian Institute biologist to say in the ‘Quar terly Review of Biology’ that instead of evolution by process of gradual development, it has come about by a series of jumps from one major form of life to another?’ As for the group animals,” he says, “the creationsists seem to have the better of the arguments. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Professor D’ Arey Thompson says in his book “On Growth and Forms’. ‘Eighty years study of Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadruped, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. A principle of discon tinuity then is inherent in all our classification. To seek for stepping stones between the gaps is to seek in vain forever” In spite of their best efforts, even the devout evolutionists have not so far been able to give any satisfactory answer to the following questions, nor there is any likelihood that the future will enable them to; (a) Where are all the’ in-between’ stages or links of the evolutionary chain in either the fossil record or in the record of living things today? (b) Why is it always the same story that the intermediate transitional links between major groups of plants animals are missing? Why do the major groups of complex organism always appear suddenly, separa-ted by structural gaps from members of other groups? © Why are such things as arms, legs, eyes and wings always found to be completely developed? Where are the various stages of development in different limb and organs? Is Man descended from Animals: The evolutionists are still harping on the same string and claim that man is descended from ani­mals, that he is essentially an animal and there is no basic difference between man and brute. But the following basic and fundamental differences do exist. How do the evolutionists account for them? 1) They say that all animals form the lowest worm to the highest form are the slaves of their innate instincts. These instincts compel them to perform certain specific actions in certain specific actions in certain specific situations: a hungry wolf will but pounce upon a weak lamb to satify his appetite. But what about man? A saint of Madina, Hazrat Ali, in spite of having remained without food for three days cheerfully afforded to give his loaf of bread to a needy person and himself remained con tent with only a cup of water for breaking fast. How can one account for this strange behaviour where the instinct of food-see king and self-preservation are ignored in favour of charity and self control? (2) The object and aim of all the activities of an animal life is self-preservation and race-preservation. By his very nature an animal can not do any thing which is likely to harm his being. If a man is nothing but an animal, then how can one explain cases of suicide and self-immola tion? (3) Man has got self-consciousness and free will which are absent in the whole terres tial creation. How do the evolutionists explain this phenomenon? (4) Animals respond instinctively in one way only. The beehive built by been ten thousand years ago, is exactly of the same pattern as today but man has steadily improved upon his knowledge and simple houses have progressed into sky- scrapers. Whence this basic difference? Is there a single instance of an animal building on accumulated knowledge? How do the evolutionists bridge the mental gulf that separates man from all animals. Why have all efforts to educate appreciably the chimpanzee or any other animal failed and why have all primitive people been able to receive the highest education? (5) Every person has got an inborn God-con sciousness and moral sense. Sense of justice and truth are found innate in every man without any exception. They are not the result of persuation of education. Animals have none of these noble attri butes, why this difference? (6) Animals have sensations, notions, impu lses etc. but thought in its true sense belongs to man and man alone. Human thought ranges from the lowest grades to the very highest. Could anyone explain this difference? (7) The innermost recesses of the human unconscious mind (Ba’tin) reveal future events in dreams and visions, Can this phenomenon be explained in any way except in the context of religion and spiri tualism? (8) Man is endowed with conscience, perfect intelligence and reason, but these things are absent in animal world: Why? The above points prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that there is an unbridgeable gap between man and beast. The rational western mind, fed up with and frustrated by the Christian mythologies, enigmatic exposition of God and incarnation of Jesus Christ instead of rejecting christian dogma in par ticular, chose to defy the very basis of religion in general, and sailed in difficult muddy waters which obviously anchored them on atheistic shores. The philosophers like Kant and Hume first took the initiative and the thread was later on picked up by indignant scientists, who had been hitherto the oppressed victims of the Church. The wise path would have been for the scientists at least to adopt a scientific method and be rational in their approach to the problem, but, unfortunately prejudiced western scientists jumped at a conclusion, an imaginary and biased conclusion, before resorting to any scienti fic process and finding sufficient material to prove it. They asserted that man has descended from beasts, but have not so far been able to substantiate it with any solid proof. Thus, unproved and unprovable, evolution is a faith in fossils that do not exist, and faith in links that are still missing. It is a blind faith induced by a fear, fear of what a smart world saturated with evolution might think. It is a pity that some of our so-called modern minded Muslims are making an unholy alliance between the Holy Qur’an and this Darwinian Mechanistic Evolution and claim that this theory is in perfect consonance with the Quranic conception of creation. Evolution is negation of God; on the contrary the Quran puts emphasis on the unity and existence of God, the Almighty, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Director and Controller of the unive rse. There can be no convergence and confluence of these two different streams: The Quranic Version of Man’s Creation: The Holy Qur’an, the Mother of All-Knowledge, has very clearly explained the process of man’s creation and has left no uncertainty what-soever in this regard. Before Adam, the first man, was created, God disclosed to the angels that He was going to create His Viceroy on the earth (11: 30). ‘And remember when thy Lord said unto angels: Lo I am creating a mortal out of potter’s clay of black altered. So when I have made him and have breathed into him of My spirit, do ye fall down prostrating your selves unto him’ (VI: 28-29). Then came the stage when man’s creation was actually taken up “And He began the Creation of man from clay.” (XXXEI) Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit and appointed for him hearing and sight and heart’ (XXXII-9) All this took place in the heaven and not on earth, as will be evident from the following verses:- “And We said: 0 Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Heaven and eat ye freely thereof where ye will, but come not nigh that tree, lest ye become wrong doers. But Satan caused them to deflect their cause and expelled them from the state in which they were and We said: Fall down one of you a foe unto other; THERE SHALL BE FOR YOU ON EARTH A HABITATION AND PROVISION FOR A TIME (II: 35-36).”. Thus Adam and his wife, Eve, were sent down on the earth complete in all respects, lacking no limb or sinew which would have been added later on through the process of evolution. Apart from the Holy Quran, the Tradi-tions of the Holy Prophet are so abundantly clear about the shape of Adam, that they have defined each and every limb of the first Man, Adam, to be in complete resemblance with those of the Last Prophet (Peace be upon him). It was only consequent upon the deviation of Adam from God’s command (not to touch the forbidden tree) that he was expelled from Heaven and descended on earth. It is wrong at this stage to think that on his expulsion from the Eden, the com-plete body of Adam might have been put into the embryo of some already existing creature (say, anthropoid apes, as held by some Muslims modernists) in order to carry it through the process of evolution. But on a careful study of the verses of the Holy Quran relating to the creation of Adam and Eve, this nation also shatters into pieces. If for a moment for the sake of argument, it is admitted that this is a true notion, then we are bound to admit that ‘THAT LUCKY CREATURE’ would have been parent of Adam. This is the law of anthropology and cannot bear any deviation or exception. But the holy Quran has emphatically rejected this idea. While referring to the case of Jesus Christ, the Holy Quran says that the FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST HOLD HIM EQUAL TO GOD for the simple reason that he was created without the agency of a father. Jesus case was quite identical to that of Adam. Let it not be forgotten that Adam was created without father and mother. Adam’s miraculous birth was more marvelous than that of Jesus Christ; if Adam cannot be God, how can Jesus be? Contextually, though this verse is not so relevant to the creation of man as to the non- Godhead of Jesus, yet this verse elucidates the fact that Adam had no parents. It is crystal clear from the above verses of the Holy Quran that man was created, complete in all respects, in the Heaven, was bestowed with the gift of speaking (Surah LV-4) and on account of his deviation was descended on the earth to live there for a period. In order to enable Adam to further reproduce his off-spring, God then equipped him with the necessary means. “Then he made his seed from an extract of despised fluid (XXXII : 8)” O mankind Be careful of your duty to your Lord who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women (4: 1) On the earth the process of reproduction, through sexual mating, went on and until the present moment no evolutionary development occurred in his form or manner. He has been complete in all respects ever since the day he was created “Surely we have created man in the best make (XCV : 4). Apart from the creation of Adam, the Holy Quran has also thrown a flood of light on the origin of fauna on the earth. “And Allah has created every animal from water: among them are some that go upon their bellies and among them are some that go upon two feet and among them are some that go upon four feet. Allah creates what He pleases. It means that every living phenomena of the universe was created by God in a separate and complete form, and there is no point in assuming that the fungi-like phenomena grew into reptiles, reptiles involved into mammals or quadruples. The whole universe was created with a set purpose and was not a result of purposeless evolution as erroneously held by the evolutionists, or their unfortunate followers. Says the Holy Quran “We created not the heaven and earth and all that is bet-ween the two in play: if We had ‘wished a pastime, we would have surely found it in what is with Us, if at all We were to do such a thing (XXI : 16)’. And a purposeful creation is not in need of any crutch of, evolution. The above scientific discussion coupled with theological exposition will be more than an eye opener for the misguided people whose eyes have been dazzled with the momentary light of baseless claims of evolutionists, and would be able to glance at the rightful, permanent Guidance of God, contained in the Holy Quran.’ “And our last call shall be; “Praise be to the Lord of all the worlds.” “And may Allah’s choicest blessings and peace be upon the most virtuous of all Rasuls upon his family, his Companions and his followers till the day of Qiyaamah. We beg this O Allah, through Your Mercy; O You Merciful One.” And Allah knows best. Darul Iftaa Source

Deep Love Once a person came to Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) and said: O Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), my love for you is such that when I think of you, I am overwhelmed with your love, to the extent that I do not find any satisfaction until I see you. O Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam), the thought crosses my heart that if Allah Ta’ala has to bless me with Paradise, it will be very difficult for me to see you, for you will be in a lofty position high above where I will not be able to reach.” Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) consoled him by reciting the foregoing verses in his reply. وَمَن يُطِعِ اللَّـهَ وَالرَّسولَ فَأُولـٰئِكَ مَعَ الَّذينَ أَنعَمَ اللَّـهُ عَلَيهِم مِنَ النَّبِيّينَ وَالصِّدّيقينَ وَالشُّهَداءِ وَالصّالِحينَ وَحَسُنَ أُولـٰئِكَ رَفيقًا ﴿٦٩﴾ All those who obey Allah Ta’ala and the messenger are in the company of those on whom is the Grace of Allah Ta’ala; the Ambiyaa, the Siddeeqeen, the martyrs, and the Righteous يَا رَبِّ صَلِّ وَ سَلِّمْ دَائِمًا أَبَدًا عَلَى حَبِيبِكَ خَيرِ الخَلْقِ كُلِّهِمِ

The Perfect Example! The Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam is the best example for us of how to treat our loved ones and those around us. Allah all-Mighty says in the Quran about the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam, “And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character." [al-Qalam: 4] The Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam himself never hit a woman, a child, or an animal The Companion Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) helped serve the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam for 10 years during his youth. He described his personal experiences with the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam and said: “I served the Prophet sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam for ten years. He never said to me ‘uff!’ (a word in the Arabic language used to express one’s annoyance). And he never said about a thing I did, ‘why did you do that?’ And he never said about a thing I left, ‘why did you leave that?’ The Messenger of God sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam was the best of people in character…” [Tirmidhi] Sayyiduna Mu’āwiyah ibn Hakam (radhiallaahu anhu) narrates, ‘I have never seen and will never see a teacher better than Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wasallam). I take an oath in the name of Allah, he did not rebuke, hit nor reprimand me.’

Advices of Scholars I got angry at my kids because they were fighting and making a mess at home, so i hit them hard. How I can become a more gentle mother to my children and not hit The Ideal Case

Wise Advices Imam Ghazali on the ways of Disciplining Children The famous historian Allamah Ibn Khaldoon (R.A.A.) while very wisely discussing the nature of students and the unhealthy result of unnecessary harshness writes:

Hitting and Verbally Abusing Children Muslim parents have the duty to teach their children correct behavior, both by word and example. The issue of whether and when to use corporal punishment is important both because of the need to fulfill that duty and because corporal punishment is outlawed in some places in the West. Parents in those countries must be aware that if they hit their children, the authorities can take their children away. Thus it is imperative for Muslim parents to understand and use the Prophet’s method of teaching children, which condoned hitting only as a last resort. It was reported that he himself (peace and blessings be upon him) never hit a child. Focusing on the question in point, the eminent Muslim scholar Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal Nadvi, Imam of Calgary Mosque, Alberta, Canada, and former professor at King Saud University, Riyad, Saudi Arabia, states: “This is a very important question. Actually, we are living today between two extremes: one group of people has gone to the extreme in the methods of discipline and punishment that they right away use beating as their first priority and the first way to discipline the child. On the other hand, another group of people has gone so loose in this regard that they ignore the issue of disciplining at all and they keep spoiling the child without giving him or her any kind of warning when he or she does a mistake. In Islam, both trends are not acceptable. As far as the stance of Islam on hitting children is concerned, Islam strikes a balance between the above mentioned trends. We have to understand two things in this respect: 1. Islam considers hitting the child as a form of discipline and not a form of punishment and show of resentment. 2. If one happens to use physical discipline, it has to be the last resort when all other means prove to be of no avail. One of the hadiths of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) that talks about this issue reads as follows: "Teach your children to pray when they are seven; discipline them if they don't when they reach ten; and arrange their beds separately." So, it is clear that physical disciplining comes as a last resort in the method of teaching. Further, Islam instructs us about the way of using physical discipline. We have to avoid the face, sensitive areas, private parts; we have to use physical discipline very carefully in a way that does not leave any marks or causes any pain. It is just a symbol of warning and not a form of showing resentment, as we said. As for the second part of the question, verbal abuse is totally rejected in Islam. We are instructed by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) to mind our words and never insult any person or call him or her names. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) is reported to have said: "I am not used to insulting people or calling them names." Source

Status of the Hadith: “My Companions are like the Stars” The following hadith is often quoted when discussing the topic of the rank of the Sahabah (radiyallahu’anhum). أصحابي كالنجوم بأيهم اقتديتم اهتديتم “My Companions are like the stars, whichever of them you follow you will be rightly guided” Although there exists numerous verses of the Quran as well as ahadith (plural of Hadith) on this matter, the following is a research into the authenticity of the narration in question. Original sources Hafiz ibn Hajar (rahimahullah) has written the following while referencing this narration: “It has several chains and is reported by the following Sahabah (rahiyallahu’anhum): Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhu) -Musnad ‘Abd Ibn Humaid (see the Muntakhab, hadith: 781) Sayyiduna Jabir (radiyallahu’anhu) –Jami’u Bayanil ‘ilmi wa fadhlihi, (vol.2 pg.181) Sayyiduna Ibn ‘Abbas (radiyallahu’anhuma) – Al-Madkhal of Baihaqi. Sayyiduna ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhu) – Al-Madkhal of Bahaqi & Al-Kamil of Ibn ‘Adiy Sayyiduna Anas (radiyallahu’anhu) – Musnad Ibn Abi ‘Umar. He writes further: “The wordings for this narration vary, with the closest to the above being that of Sayyiduna ‘Abdullah ibn ‘Umar (radiyallahu’anhuma) and Sayyiduna Jabir (radiyallahu’anhu)” (Muwafaqatil Khubr, pgs.86-88) The classification of this Hadith The authenticity of this Hadith has been debated extensively by the Muhaddithun. Some have classified it as weak, others have said it is Hasan (sound) and a small minority has exaggerated by considering it a fabrication. A common phenomena One of the reasons for such difference of opinion is the fact that at times, one Muhaddith (expert in Hadith), may regard a particular Hadith as weak due to the chain of narrators that was available to him, whilst another Muhaddith may have a totally different chain which may also be weak and so on. When all these chains are gathered, they could collectively gain the strength for credibility and acceptance. Hence, occasionally, one would notice that the earlier Muhaddithun may have classified a certain narration as weak, whilst some latter day Muhaddith who was able to gather the various chains, regards it as authentic or at least acceptable. Another scenario of the above could be that when all the various chains are gathered, some Muhaddithun still maintain that the narration is weak, whilst other experts conclude that it has gained enough strength for acceptance. This seems to be the case in the Hadith in question. Since the field of grading Ahadith is one that is based on analogical deductions, it is therefore prone to difference of opinion. My opinion Several Muhaddithun have ruled that this Hadith is weak, and some have stated that it is acceptable due to the collective strength that is acquired from the various chains. The writer concurs with the latter view based on the following: 10 Muhaddithun who authenticated this narration 1. Imam Bayhaqi (rahimahullah) has mentioned that though all its chains are weak, its subject matter is supported by other authentic Ahadith. (Kitabul I’tiqad; Tuhfatul Akhyar of Ml. Abdul-Hayy Laknawi, pg.57, Al-Badrul Muneer, vol.9 pg.588 and Talkhisul Habir of Hafiz ibn Hajar, vol.4 pg.464) 2. Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Asqalani (rahimahullah) has also mentioned another authentic narration that implies the same meaning. (al-Amalil Mutlaqah pgs.59-62) 3. Furthermore, although Imam Ahmad ibn Hambal (rahimahullah) had refuted the authenticity of this narration at one stage of his life, in another instance, he actually accepted it. Shaykh Ibn Taymiyah (rahimahullah) has mentioned that, “Imam Ahmad had used these words as proof and this indicates that he regarded it as authentic.” (refer footnotes on Tuhfatul Akhyar pg.62) 4. Allamah San’ani (rahimahullah) has stated in his book entitled, ‘Tawdihul Afkar’: “As for ibn Abdil-Barr, he also used it as proof in his book, ‘Al-Tamhid’ and he did not comment on it. So, possibly, he considered the combination of all the chains a strengthening factor, or maybe he knew of other Ahadith that strengthen its meaning.” (Ibid pg.63) Furthermore, Hafiz ibn ‘Abdil Barr (rahimahullah) even clearly disagreed with those who completely deny its authenticity. See Jami’u bayanil ‘ilm, vol.2 pgs.180-181. 5. Imam Saghani (rahimahullah) has also classified it as Hasan. (Tuhfatul Akhyar, pg.54; Sharhut Tibi alal Mishkat) 6. Hafiz Ibn Kathir (rahimahullah) writes: “The opening paragraphs of the book of ‘Uthman Al-Darimi can give the impression of it being a strong narration” (Tuhfatu Talib, pg.141) i.e. It seems like Imam ‘Uthman Al-Darimi was of the view of this narration being strong. 7. My Teacher, Al-Muhaddith Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) writes: “This hadith is debated extensively, but it does have several chains. Therefore Ibn Rajab (rahimahullah) chose to quote it and to support this issue with it.” (Footnotes on: Ma’alim Irshadiyyah, pg.56) 8. Allamah Qasim ibn Qutlubugha (rahimahullah) – a renown Hanafi Muhaddith and Faqih- has stated, “it’s chains have defects, but they strengthen each other.” (refer Tuhfatul Akhyar pg.134) 9. The learned Muhaddith and Shafi’i Faqih (jurist), Hafiz ibn Hajar al-Haytami (rahimahullah) has classified this Hadith as Hasan (soundly authentic). (Tuhfatul Akhyar, pg.63) 10. ‘Allamah Ibn ‘Allan (rahimahullah)- the acclaimed commentator of Riyadhus Saliheen- said: “The defect in this chain in such a situation is harmless” (i.e. since it pertains to virtue) (Daleelul Faliheen, vol.1 pg.410, hadith:192) Conclusion In light of the above ten quotations, it would be proper for one to quote the blessed Hadith in question. If an individual still maintains that it is a weak narration, then as mentioned earlier, this was also the view of some Muhaddithun and should therefore be respected. (Their quotations have been omitted for the purpose of brevity.) In such cases, it should be remembered that there is no need for vicious opposition because both sides have the support of great, eminent scholars and both views should be respected. However, the exaggeration of classifying it a fabrication is unacceptable. (See end of footnote on: Ma’alim Irshadiyyah, pg.56) And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best al-miftah

Beating children to Teach the Qur'an Question Is it allowed in islam to beat childern to teach them quran. I was told by many people that it is allowed infact necessary to beat children to make them hafiz or teach quran. Once my cousin's son mulana punched him in the stomach when he made a mistake causing the child to vomit, when appoarched by his parents the mullana said that he did not do anything wrong infact the only way to make chilren hafiz is to beat the severely if they make a mistake and that this is alowed in islam. Are we allowed to hit chilren on head or face, or hit them in a manner that marks are left on their bodies or great pain is caused. please give me some references from prophet (saw) life & sayings Answer Bismillah Al-jawab billahi at-taufeeq (the answer with Allah's guidance) Jabir (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) reported that Allah's Messenger (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) forbade (the animals to be beaten) on the face or cauterisation on the face. (Muslim) Jabir (RadhiyAllahu Anhu) reported that there happened to pass before Allah's Apostle (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) an ass the face of which had been cauterised, whereupon he said: Allah has cursed one who has cauterised it (on the face). (Muslim) It is understood from the above Hadiths that it is forbidden to beat an animal on the face, let alone a human. Also, Prophet (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said, "It is unlawful to inflict harm upon your self and others.� (Mustadrak of al-Hakim) 'Aysha (Radhiyallahu 'Anha) reports: ''Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alayhi Wasallam) did not hit anything with his hands, besides the time when he made Jihaad in the Path of Allah. He did not hit a servant nor a women (wife, slave girl etc.)''. (Shama'il) One should learn and teach the Quran with love, respect and patience, Du'a. Allah Ta'ala Says: "Whatever the Messenger gives you, accept it; and whatever he forbids you, abstain. And fear Allah; surely, Allah is Stern in retribution." (59:7) And Only Allah Ta'ala Knows Best. Moulana Qamruz Zaman London, UK Source

Would it be correct to hit Madrasah Children in order to Discipline them? Question: Please advise me if it would be permissible to discipline a student for not following madrasah rules or for not working by slapping on the face and giving cuts on the knuckles? Will this method be correct or will it create disdain in the student’s heart? Answer: In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh. The relationship between a teacher and his student should be one of respect which is founded on love and not fear. The teacher is the means to spiritually nurture the child. He equips his student with the core principles of Islam which will help him throughout his life. The student must value and appreciate his teacher who is teaching him the path to eternal success. Likewise, the teacher should appreciate the student for being a means of his salvation on the Day of Judgment. Why was the Prophet (salallahu alaihi wasallam) so successful as a teacher? What pulled the hearts of his Sahābah (students) towards him? Contemplate over the following statements: The Prophet (salallahu alaihi wasallam) said, “Allah did not send me to be harsh, or cause harm, but He sent me to teach and make things easy.” Sayyiduna Mu’āwiyah ibn Hakam (radhiallaahu anhu) narrates, ‘I have never seen and will never see a teacher better than Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wasallam). I take an oath in the name of Allah, he did not rebuke, hit nor reprimand me.’ [ii] Rasulullah (salallahu alayhi wasallam)’s attitude towards his Sahābah (students) was of care and love. He said, ‘I am to you like a father to his son.’ [iii] He (salallaahu alayhi wasallam) also emphasised that a teacher should treat his students with care and respect. Sayyiduna Abu Sa῾īd Al-Khudrī (radhiallaahu anhu) narrates that the Prophet (salallahu alayhi wasallam) said, ‘People from far and wide will come to you in order to study and understand Deen. You should treat them kindly.’ [iv] If a student has improper conduct and it is effecting his education as well as the education of his fellow colleagues, the teacher should solve the situation with wisdom and diplomacy. The teacher should follow the way of the Prophet (salallahu alaihi wasallam) in all his affairs. He must feed love into the hearts of the students. Hitting children in this day and age has no positive outcome; it has the reverse effect. Children become rebellious and can confront the teacher. With all probability, one who resorts to hitting children can find himself in a legal battle. Some practical steps to discipline children: 1) Make dua to Allah Ta῾ālā for the success of the student 2) Speak to the child with love in seclusion. 3) Use the silent treatment. Do not give attention to the child. 4) Deprive misbehaving students of privileges. 5) Hand out detentions. 6) Speak to the parents of the misbehaving child. 7) Give sweets to those children who behave. This will be an incentive for all children to work. Once again, the best medium to discipline children is by winning their hearts. Win their heart over and they will submit to you. However, do keep in mind the nature of children. They all still young and like to play around. Even when we were children we were the same. We could not sit still for five minutes. Hence, give them time wherein they can play, talk and simply refresh themselves. It is vital we make madrasah fun for children. Devise various ways to teach them. Be creative in your presentation. We make dua to Almighty Allah He opens His doors of mercy for you. Āmīn. And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best Mawlana Faraz Ibn Adam, Student Darul Iftaa UK Checked and Approved by, Mufti Ebrahim Desai. www.daruliftaa.net صحيح مسلم رقم الحديث 707 [ii] عَنْ مُعَاوِيَةَ بْنِ الْحَكَمِ السُّلَمِيِّ، قَالَ: بَيْنَا أَنَا أُصَلِّي مَعَ رَسُولِ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، إِذْ عَطَسَ رَجُلٌ مِنَ الْقَوْمِ، فَقُلْتُ: يَرْحَمُكَ اللهُ فَرَمَانِي الْقَوْمُ بِأَبْصَارِهِمْ، فَقُلْتُ: وَاثُكْلَ أُمِّيَاهْ، مَا شَأْنُكُمْ؟ تَنْظُرُونَ إِلَيَّ، فَجَعَلُوا يَضْرِبُونَ بِأَيْدِيهِمْ عَلَى أَفْخَاذِهِمْ، فَلَمَّا رَأَيْتُهُمْ يُصَمِّتُونَنِي لَكِنِّي سَكَتُّ، فَلَمَّا صَلَّى رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، فَبِأَبِي هُوَ وَأُمِّي، مَا رَأَيْتُ مُعَلِّمًا قَبْلَهُ وَلَا بَعْدَهُ أَحْسَنَ تَعْلِيمًا مِنْهُ، فَوَاللهِ، مَا كَهَرَنِي وَلَا ضَرَبَنِي وَلَا شَتَمَنِي، قَالَ: «إِنَّ هَذِهِ الصَّلَاةَ لَا يَصْلُحُ فِيهَا شَيْءٌ مِنْ كَلَامِ النَّاسِ، إِنَّمَا هُوَ التَّسْبِيحُ وَالتَّكْبِيرُ وَقِرَاءَةُ الْقُرْآنِ» صحيح مسلم رقم الحديث 33 [iii] وَعَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ – رَضِيَ اللَّهُ عَنْهُ – قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ – صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ – «إِنَّمَا أَنَا لَكُمْ مِثْلُ الْوَالِدِ لِوَلَدِهِ، سنن إبن ماجه رقم الحديث 313 [iv] حَدَّثَنَا سُفْيَانُ بْنُ وَكِيعٍ قَالَ: حَدَّثَنَا أَبُو دَاوُدَ الحَفَرِيُّ، عَنْ سُفْيَانَ، عَنْ أَبِي هَارُونَ العَبْدِيِّ، قَالَ: كُنَّا نَأْتِي أَبَا سَعِيدٍ، فَيَقُولُ: مَرْحَبًا بِوَصِيَّةِ رَسُولِ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ، إِنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ قَالَ: «إِنَّ النَّاسَ لَكُمْ تَبَعٌ، وَإِنَّ رِجَالًا يَأْتُونَكُمْ مِنْ أَقْطَارِ الأَرَضِينَ يَتَفَقَّهُونَ فِي الدِّينِ، فَإِذَا أَتَوْكُمْ فَاسْتَوْصُوا بِهِمْ خَيْرًا» سنن الترمذي رقم الحديث 2650 Source

Children hit by Islamic Studies Teachers Question: What is Mufti Saheb’s view about hitting as a means of reforming naughty students? Answer: The core of Islam is respect for the Quran (being the word of Allah) and the Hadith ( being the word of Rasulullah (S.A.W). Islam teaches us to be respectful in all aspects of Life. The equivalent of respect in Arabic is Azmat which means to regard as great and with high esteem. A believer holds Allah, His Rasul (S.A.W), and all Islamic values in high esteem. The relationship between the Ustaad and Student should be a one of respect based on love and not on fear. The Ustaad is a means of cultivating the Azmat of Allah, His Rasul and all Islamic values in the heart of his students. The student will grow up with the Azmat in his heart and practice Islam with the respect and high esteem it deserves. The Ustaad will be rewarded for that and whatever good emanates from that, it will be a Sadaqa Jaariya (recurring reward) for the Ustaad. The Ustaad is also making an investment for himself for the Aakhira. The student is a means for that. He should also be thankful to the student for giving him the opportunity to sew his seed of knowledge in his heart. The Ustaad should value that and appreciate his student. He too stands to benefit by way of rewards from Allah. For that he too should sacrifice and bear with the student. He is an adult with more experience in life. He should contain himself against any odds emanating from his student. He must have the Azmat of Allah and the Quran in his heart at all times. To the extent that he has Azmat of Deen in his heart, that will be passed over to the student. It is also part of the Azmat of Deen to respect students of Deen. They are the visitors of Allah and His Rasul (S.A.W). The walk on the wings of angels. All the creations of Allah make dua for them. If an Ustaad is conscious of the lofty position of his students, he too will treat his students with respect. If by chance he witnesses anything unbecoming of his student, he guides his student. The student has placed his confidence in the Ustad to be guided. The student will appreciate that guidance. If that now he does not appreciate due to mental immaturity, he will recall it later in life and appreciate the advice. No advice and good character of the Ustaad goes in vain. It is sad to note the conduct of the Ustad in this email. According to Shariah it is haraam to hit a student of Deen. I have written about this before and attached is the article. It should also be remembered that Islam is also about respect and Azmat of Deen. The students and parents too should bear this in mind. The Ustaad is a human being. He is bound to err and an effort be made to correct him with respect. It is praiseworthy of him that he has apologized for his wrong. He has done that only because he realized his wrong. The parents will be placed in a situation of pain for their child and Azmat of Deen they should find it in their heart to forgive the Ustaad and appreciate the hardwork he has done for their child thus far. The pain for the abuse is another investment for them and the child in the Aakhirat. This by no means should be taken as covering up the wrong of the Ustaad. You should meet the ustaad in confidence and offer your help to him. He is engaged in a lofty service. Win his confidence and let him present to you his difficulties. You could offer him some skills of anger management which will be useful for him and enhance the good work he is engaged in. For that you will be greatly rewarded in all his future endeavors. And Allah knows best Wassalam Mufti Ebrahim Desai Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah Source

Explaining a Hadith on Disciplining Children Answered by Ustadha Naielah Ackbarali Question: The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) advised parents to deter their children from doing wrong and there are many hadiths on how to do so. However, I came across this hadith and am wondering if it’s saheeh: It was narrated from Ibn ‘Abbaas that the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Hang your whip where the members of the household can see it, for that will discipline them.” Answer: Bismi Llahir Rahmanir Rahimi When properly understood, the meaning of this hadith is a shining light that illuminates the spirit of Islamic principles concerning child development. It in no way advocates for the maltreatment of children. Rather, it is a reflection of the dire need for parents to actively engage in their children’s lives and dedicate themselves towards cultivating ‘little people’ who embody superior manners and outstanding conduct. This hadith was originally related by the Companion ibn Abbas (Allah be pleased with him). Imam al-Tabarani included the narration in his al-Kabir and al-Awsat. The scholar al-Haythami classified both isnads as hasan (sound). [al-Haythami, Majma’ al-Zawa’id] Other scholars considered it to be weak. [al-Sakhawi, al-Maqasid al-Husna] Scholars note that hasan hadiths are authentic enough to be acted upon and used as religious proofs, but they are not at the level of strength as a sahih (rigorously authentic) hadith. [al-Ghawri, al-Muyassar fi ‘Ulum al-Hadith] The Prophet’s Treatment Towards Children Many people take this hadith out of its context. The scholar ibn al-Abbari wrote, “The intent of this hadith is not about beating (children) with the whip because the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) never ordered anyone with that.” [al-Munawi; Fayd al-Qadir] The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “He is not of us (the one) who does not have mercy on our young children, nor honor our elderly.” [Tirmidhi] The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) himself never even hit a woman, a child, or an animal. The Companion Anas ibn Malik (Allah be pleased with him) helped serve the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) for 10 years during his youth. He described his personal experiences with the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and said: “I served the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) for ten years. He never said to me ‘uff!’ (a word in the Arabic language used to express one’s annoyance). And he never said about a thing I did, ‘why did you do that?’ And he never said about a thing I left, ‘why did you leave that?’ The Messenger of God (Allah bless him and give him peace) was the best of people in character…” [Tirmidhi] “I served the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) for years. He never insulted me at all. He never hit me at all. And he never scolded me. And he never frowned at me in my face…” [al-Baghawi, al-Anwar fi Shama’il al-Nabi al-Mukhtar] The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) is the best example for us of how to treat our loved ones and those around us. Allah all-Mighty says in the Quran about the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), “And thou (standest) on an exalted standard of character. [al-Qalam: 4] Prohibition of Child Abuse In Islam As such, this hadith in no way encourages child abuse as it is unlawful in Islam. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “There shall be no harm and no reciprocating harm.” [ibn Majah] Similarly, it does not grant parents the permission to unload their anger upon innocent children. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) counseled a man who asked for his advice and he (Allah bless him and give him peace) told him three times “Don’t get angry.” [bukhari] Parents who surpass the limitations of the Sacred Law must repent for their wrongdoing out of fear for their Lord as He says, “But those who disobey God and His Messenger and transgress His limits will be admitted to a Fire, to abide therein: And they shall have a humiliating punishment…” [al-Nisaa: 14] and when He says, “By thy Lord, We shall question every one of them for what they used to do…” [al-Hijr: 92-93] Explanation of the Hadith In truth, this hadith demonstrates the depth of the Prophet’s wisdom, especially in knowing how to deal with children and their various inclinations. The act of hanging one’s belt where children can see it is a measure taken to hopefully prevent children from falling into the vices of their surrounding environment by instilling a sense of awareness in them before they act. [al-Munawi, Fayd al-Qadir] It is a symbol that prompts remembrance in the child’s mind that he/she has a choice between doing what is right and what is wrong. It is an incentive to urge them towards being well-mannered and to shape them with exceptional character and complete excellence. [ibid] This is one way, out of the many ways, to aid a child’s recognition in realizing the big picture of this Life. Allah has informed us of the wondrous, bountiful treasures of Paradise if we follow the straight path and the terrifying, eternal burn of the Hellfire if we deter from its course. We choose the lives we live, and our actions will determine how our fate will end. Teaching a child the principle that there are boundaries in this World is a duty upon all righteous, God-fearing parents. Children depend on their parents and family members to guide them. A child is similar to the blind person outstretching his hand in anticipation that someone will hold it and steer him in the right direction. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said, “Each of you is a shepherd and each of you is responsible for his flock. The ruler over the people is a shepherd and he is responsible for his flock. A man is the shepherd of his family and he is responsible for his flock. A woman is the shepherd of her husband’s household and she is responsible for her flock…” [bukhari, Muslim] Rulings Related to Different Disciplinary Actions There are various opinions of how to discipline one’s children. Some groups advocate physical forms of disciplinary action, while other groups completely oppose of it. The Islamic way is a middle ground between these two ideologies. Parents are only given permission to lightly smack their children in certain circumstances and with restrictive conditions. [Mawsu’a al-Difa’ ‘an al-Rasul] For example, scholars note that it is permissible for parents to give their child a light smack if they’ve previously resorted to other methods of disciplinary action that proved unsuccessful. Or another example is if the child has reached the age of 10 years and refuses to pray, after the parents have attempted since the age of 7 to exhort and instruct the child to worship the Lord of the Worlds. [ibn Zayn, al-‘Uqubat al-Tarbawiyya al-Mufida] If giving a child a light smack, one should know that 1. one cannot hit his face; 2. it cannot be a harsh or severe hitting; 3. it must be done with the intent to discipline the child, not out of anger; and 4. one cannot insult, degrade, or verbally abuse the child. Scholars concur that the best place to lightly smack a child is on the two hands or the two feet. [Mawsu’a al-Difa’ ‘an al-Rasul] Finding the Right Balance In truth, each child’s reaction to a disciplinary action may be different, and therefore, parents should investigate which forms of discipline are successful for their particular child. One female scholar advised parents to find a method that shows the child that one loves them but wants the best for them at the same time. After living in the Middle East for almost six years, I have personally seen numerous examples of families who maintain the correct balance. Many of the religious, outwardly practicing Arabs are very forthright in correcting their child’s behavior, while at the same time accomplishing it in a manner that is still gentle and loving. Some use the alternatives of a stern glare, or a strong word, or a moderate spanking if the child is overly disruptive and has been forewarned on several occasions. Children grow up loving, admiring, and honoring their parents to an extent that I’ve never witnessed before in my life. AlhamduLlilah, it is important to always remember that parents not only receive the reward for rearing their own God-fearing, religious children, but they will also receive the reward for the devout progeny that follow from generation to generation, inshaAllah. May Allah give us success in raising a generation of righteous children with sound character who possess a strong love and desire to emulate the best of creation, the Prophet Muhammad (Allah bless him and give him peace). Naielah Ackbarali Ramadan 4, 1431 August 14, 2010 Checked & Approved by Faraz Rabbani Source

Discipline or Abuse? Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allah sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam said: “Teach your children to pray when they are seven years old, and smack them (lightly) if they do not do so when they are ten, and separate them in their beds.” [Abu Dawood] Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allah be pleased with him) said that the Messenger of Allah sallallaahu 'alayhi wasallam said: “Hang your whip where the members of the household can see it, for that will discipline them.” [Tabaraani] Read the following posts for the answer..... Explaining a Hadith on Disciplining Children Children hit by Islamic Studies Teacher Would it be correct to hit Madrasah Children in order to Discipline them? Beating children to Teach the Qur'an Hitting and Verbally Abusing Children Wise Advices Advices of Scholars The Perfect Example

5 Common Discipline Mistakes Parents Make We can all probably spurt out a list of mistakes our parents made with us when we were young. For some reason, faults are often more memorable and vivid than the numerous sacrifices our parents made for us. Even though as parents we will make mistakes now and then when raising our children, it’s helpful to know which mistakes we should try to avoid when trying to raise them up to be good Muslims. Here are 5 discipline mistakes to avoid when directing your child toward proper behavior. 1. Getting enraged when disciplining. One of the biggest mistakes parents make when disciplining their children is getting enraged when correcting them. Expressing your rage when disciplining your child is problematic for several reasons. First, it directs your child’s attention away from his mistake and causes him to focus on your wrath, instead. The object of discipline is to guide your child toward proper behavior for both the short term as well as long term. If your child is more worried about how you will react in your anger rather than what he did that was wrong, he is unlikely to benefit from you counsel or choice of discipline. Rather, he will become irritated himself and resentful. This doesn’t mean the child won’t comply in the short term. To the contrary, many children respond to an angry parent. What it does mean is that the lesson you are trying to teach may not sink in. It might even get lost completely depending on the extent of the anger shown. When disciplining, you want your child to behave not only immediately, but even when you’re not around, as well. Responding to your child’s misbehavior with shouting and aggression does not help him learn to self-manage his behavior. It merely teaches him how to respond to you when you’re angry. The second problem with expressing anger when correcting your child is that it provides the opportunity to be excessive when punishing. This can lead to abusing your child. Often times when a parent is angry, she vents the anger onto her child. She does this by using hurtful words or by correcting with excessive and harsh smacking. To effectively discipline your child, try your best to avoid correcting them when angry. According to hadith, The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi WaSalaam) has said: Whoso suppresses his rage, while he has the power to show himself, Allah will call on him on the day of resurrection before all creation, and reward him exceedingly. (Tirmidhi) 2. Comparing Children One of the least effective ways of achieving compliance from your child is by comparing him to his brother or sister. “Muhammad always does his homework, why don’t you ever do yours, Jamal?” The problem with comparing your children is that rather than causing the child to want to comply, it makes him resentful of the other child and you. Sibling rivalry is common between children. There are many factors which contribute to such quarrelsome behavior. Comparing children to one another can accelerate disagreements between siblings, which only contributes to additional discipline problems in the household. Instead of comparing children, a better method would be to reward and complement the child when he performs as desired. This is more likely to cause the child to repeat the desirable behavior. 3. Do as I say not as I do. Demanding of your children what you do not do yourself is bound to result in failure. Parents are their children’s first role models. Even older children, who model after their peers, continue to look up to their parents for exemplar behavior. “If Mom isn’t making Fajr regularly, why does she expect me to make salat on time?” your child might ponder. Being a parent is an enormous responsibility. An important part of parenting is being the type of person that you encourage your child to become. Of course no parent is flawless. And this is OK. In fact, periods of failure can be a learning experience for your child. Let your child see you take responsibility for your errors—apologize to others in your family when you know you’ve treated them improperly. This will give your child an example of the proper way to correct his mistakes with family and friends. 4. Not respecting your child As Muslims, we have an engrained understanding that children should obey their parents. Allah tells us in Quran about being kind to our parents. The Prophet Muhammad (Sallallaahu Alaihi WaSalaam) has instructed us to be especially kind to our mother. A child who is not respectful to his parents is certainly behaving in a way that is contrary to our religion. But not only should children be obedient and kind to their parents, . . parents should also be kind to their children. The Prophet (Sallallaahu Alaihi WaSalaam) has said: ”He is not of us who does not have mercy on young children, nor honor the elderly.” (Tirmidhi) When interacting with our children and even when correcting them, we should remember to be gentle and kind with them. People are more inclined to pleasing those they have a positive relationship with. Speaking in a calm, respectful tone to your child does not convey a sign of weakness. To the contrary, it let’s them know that you are indeed in control—not only of the situation but also your emotions. 5. Expecting perfection Often, when we catch our child misbehaving, we wonder why he’s acting in such an unpleasant way. We must remember that none of us is perfect. We aren’t, and neither are our children. It can be helpful to remember that we want Allah Ta'ala to be merciful and patient with us when we make mistakes. We should try to enact these same virtues when managing our children. When we accept the fact that our children will err and disappoint us at times, this helps us accept them as fallible humans and not view them as simply bad children. We are here to guide our children to be God fearing Muslims, but they have their own mind, desires, and temperament–it’s not easy to avoid sneaking into the cookie jar for one more of Mom’s delicious chocolate chip cookies. Patience should be our motto when disciplining our children. This will help us accept those disappointing times when our children don’t live up to our expectations. It will also help us become a more superior parent to help us avoid the 5 common discipline mistakes parents make. Author : Grandma Jeddah Islaaminfo

Academic Theft! In the spirit of sharing knowledge, many people at some time or the other end up forwarding an email, re-sharing a post or re-tweeting what they received from others whilst omitting the initial source of that valuable piece of knowledge. This is ethically incorrect and can be termed as a form of disloyalty and treachery! When we share knowledge, its best to state the source, so that the quotation carries with it its full weight. Acting like “we know it all” is not becoming of any honest muslim. It’s actually tantamount to using divine knowledge to inflate our own personalities. How sad. Furthermore, if this unfortunate trend doesn’t stop, a time will come when the credibility of every statement will be questioned… Statements of the Scholars The ‘Ulama of the past have stressed this repeatedly. They’ve even issued harsh warnings to those who failed in this regard. 1. Sufyan Thawri (rahimahullah) said: نسبة الفائدة إلى مفيدها من الصدق في العلم وشكره، والسكوت عن ذلك من الكذب في العلم وكفره. Attributing a unique point in knowledge to its source is a token of appreciation and a sign of being sincere, whilst failing to do so is a form of ingratitude and a sign of insincerity. (Al-Jawahir wad Durar, vol.1 pg.125) 2. Hafidh ibn ‘Abdil Barr (rahimahullah) writes: يقال: إن من بركة العلم أن تضيف الشيء إلى قائله. It is said: “Ascribing knowledge to its source will bring blessing (barakah) in your knowledge” (Jami’u Bayanil ‘ilmi wa fadlihi, vol.1 pg.89) 3. Imam Nawawi (rahimahullah) – while commenting on the hadith: Religion is good counsel- said: ومن النصيحة: أن تُضاف الفائدة التي تستغرب إلى قائلها، فمن فعل ذلك بورك له في علمه وحاله، ومن أوهم ذلك وأوهم فيما يأخذه من كلام غيره أنه له: فهو جدير أن لا يُنتَفَعُ بعلمه، ولا يبارك له في حاله. ولم يزل أهل العلم والفضل على إضافة الفوائد إلى قائليها. نسأل الله تعالى التوفيق لذلك دائمًا. “…Part of good council (nasihah) is the attribution of a rare point to its source. Whoever does so will be blessed (receive barakah) in his knowledge and other affairs. Those who give the impression of other people’s work being their own will almost certainly not be blessed and their knowledge will not be of benefit to others. It has always been the habit of the people of knowledge and virtue to attribute things to their source. We ask Allah to allow us to always do so.” (Bustanul ‘Arifeen, pg.28) The above three quotes have been extracted from “Dirasatul Kashif” of my most Honourable Teacher, Shaykh Muhammad ‘Awwamah (may Allah protect him) pg.321. 4. ‘Allamah Suyuti (rahimahullah) said: لأن بركة العلم عزو الأقوال إلى قائلها، ولأن ذلك من أداء الأمانة وتجنب الخيانة، ومن أكبر أسباب الانتفاع “…the blessing of knowledge lies in its attribution to its source. This is part of being faithful rather than being the opposite. It is also one of the best ways of attaining benefit.” (See Qimatuz Zaman of Shaykh ‘Abdul Fattah (rahimahullah) pg.15) 5. Shaykh ‘Abdul Fattah (rahimahullah) says: “Indeed I have taken it upon myself in every single book of mine; small or big, to ascribe every line, nay every word to its source by citing the book, volume and page number. I did this so in academic honesty and to create reliance on the quotation.” (Qimatuz Zaman, pg.19) Warning in the Hadith Personally, I’ve always viewed one who “steals” knowledge (by not citing his source) as a culprit of the following Hadith: المتشبع بما لم يعط كلابس ثوبي زور “One who acts like he has what he doesn’t is covered in lies from head to toe” (Sahih Bukhari, Hadith:5219) These are stern words on a delicate issue. Conclusion Imam Shafi’i (rahimahullah) put it beautifully: الحر مَن راعى وِدادَ لحظة وانتمى لمن أفاده لفظة (قيمة الزمن، ص:16) I will not translate this as it can only be appreciated in its original language. All of the above applies whenever we adapt any piece of knowledge; be it in lectures, newsletters, magazines, websites or even on social meadia. Citing the original source of your point is undoubtedly closer to ikhlas (sincerity) and a way of gratitude to the one who introduced you to it. On many occasions, it actually adds credibility to the statement. Lets “give due where it’s due” by quoting our source each time and being free of “academic theft”. At the end of the day, we all have to answer in the court of Allah. al-miftah.com

Showing Regard to the Neighbour عن أبي هريرة قال كان النبي صلى الله عليه وسلم يقول يا نساء المسلمات لا تحقرن جارة لجارتها ولو فرسن شاة (بخاري 6017) Hadhrat Abu Hurayrah (Radhiallahu Anhu) reports that Rasulullah (Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam) said: “O muslim women, a neighbour should never regard insignificant the small favours and kindness she can show to her, even if she sends trotters to her. Concern for the Neighbour Abdullah bin Ukht Muslim bin Sa’d (Rahmatullahi Alaihi) says: “I decided to proceed for Hajj, and my uncle handed me ten thousand dirhams with the instruction that they should be distributed to the poorest household in Madinah Munawwarah. When I arrived, I made enquiries, and was directed to a particular home. I knocked at the door and a woman opened. Upon enquiry of who I was, I replied: “I am from Baghdad and have ten thousand dirhams in my possession. I have been instructed to hand these over to the poorest household in Madinah Munawwarah, and I was directed to your home. Please take them.” She replied: “The person who sent you with this money specified that it should be given to the poorest household. The family next door is more deserving than us.” I thus proceeded to the family next door. I knocked and a woman answered. I explained the reason for my coming and she replied, “Our neighbour and us are equally poor. You should distribute the money equally between us.”

Is it permissible to wear the new “breathable” nail-polish and would the wudhu be valid? Question Recently, there has been a lot of talk about a "breathable" nail polish that is now out. It is nail polish that allows water to seep through. I wanted to know whether wudhu can be done with this nail polish. The following article discusses this type of nail polish and states that wudhu is done, but I don't know how authentic and reliable it is, so I wanted to confirm it with you. It states in the article that water vapour reaches the nail through this nail polish, but not water in its liquid form. Will wudhu be done in this case? Answer In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh. In principle, in order for the wudhu to be valid the entire limb needs to be washed. This includes the nails as well. The enamel in conventional nail-polish is impermeable and hence hinders the water from reaching the nails. This means that the primary condition of making the entire limb wet is not fulfilled. The wudhu' with such a nail-polish is thus incomplete.[1] Recently, a couple of cosmetic companies have introduced “breathable” or “water based” nail-polish. Their claim is that the enamel in these nail-polish allows water-vapors to pass through. If the claim is correct, then the condition mentioned above for the validity of wudhu will be fulfilled and the wudhu will be valid. However, if the reality of permeability from these nail-polish is any different than what has been mentioned above, then the condition will not be fulfilled and the wudhu' will not be valid. One such company is “inglot”, which has introduced a range of these breathable nail-polishes. It is this particular brand which has been mentioned in the article you posted. Over the past few months we have been looking into this issue and have been on the outlook for independent tests for the viability of their claim of permeability. We take note that many people have indeed done independent tests and have come to a negative result. Most internet websites mentioning reviews on the “inglot” have posters who have come up their objections. The weblink provided by your kind self also has visitors who have posted their own findings on the issue. However, it is possible that since an individual is unable to do such tests in a control environment, the results can be skewed and inadmissible for reliability. We have thus far come across only one reliable test conducted by Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) on a similar product which claimed to be “Halal nail polish” due to being permeable. Ulama at Jamiatul Ulama concluded: “The results turned out to be negative and it was concluded that the nail polish is not water permeable and it prevents water from reaching the surface of the nail.”[2] While we understand the need of our sisters for a viable alternative to conventional nail-polish, we also iterate that the issue of wudhu' is a very important and significant one for our religious and spiritual well being. Wudhu' is the basic requirement for one of the mightiest worship in Islam, the salah. If one is not cautious in securing one's wudhu', one would jeopardize this pillar of Islam. The issue of breathable nail-polish directly affects the validity of one's wudhu' and salah. Hence, caution is extremely important, especially at this stage when we do not have significant number of independent tests which would conclusively prove the permeability of such nail-polish. Moreover, there is always an option to use henna as an alternative means of beautification. Henna is recommended by Rasulullah salallahu alayhi wasallam himself, and Wudhu' with the henna is also permissible. Keeping the above points in mind and the gravity of the matter, until conclusive results are established, it will be impermissible to use these products. And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best Faisal bin Abdul Hameed al-Mahmudi Checked and Approved by, Mufti Ebrahim Desai askimam [1] (قوله: به يفتى) صرح به في الخلاصة وقال: لأن الماء شيء لطيف يصل تحته غالبا اهـ ويرد عليه ما قدمناه آنفا ومفاده عدم الجواز إذا علم أنه لم يصل الماء تحته، قال في الحلية وهو أثبت. (قوله: إن صلبا) بضم الصاد المهملة وسكون اللام وهو الشديد حلية: أي إن كان ممضوغا مضغا متأكدا، بحيث تداخلت أجزاؤه وصار له لزوجة وعلاكة كالعجين شرح المنية. (قوله: وهو الأصح) صرح به في شرح المنية وقال لامتناع نفوذ الماء مع عدم الضرورة والحرج ا هـ (الدر المختار وحاشية ابن عابدين (رد المحتار) (1/ 154)) [2] http://jamiat.org.za/blog/halaal-nail-polish/

Q. I would like to know what is the fatwa regarding the ‘halaal’ nail polish that has become the latest buzz among muslim women. (There may be grammatical and spelling errors in the above question. Questions are published as received) A. To date, the Jamiat has not approved any nail polish that is suitable for Wudhu. It is a condition that water reaches the surface of the finger nails and toe nails for Wudhu to be valid. Nail polish prevents water from reaching the surface of the nail and it is therefore necessary to remove before making Wudhu. The Wudhu will not be valid if the nail polish remained on the nail at the time of making Wudhu. There have been concerns raised about a certain nail polish product claiming to be water permeable, thus allowing water to reach the surface of the nails. Due to this claim, some people have been misled into assuming that this nail polish is Halaal (in the sense that it is suitable for Wudhu without the need to remove it). Due to the numerous requests from concerned Muslim sisters, the Jamiat looked into this particular product and conducted multiple tests. The results turned out to be negative and it was concluded that the nail polish is not water permeable and it prevents water from reaching the surface of the nail. Hence, this particular type of nail polish that is being marketed as Halaal nail polish is not acceptable for Wudhu. And Allah Knows Best Mufti Suhail Tarmahomed Fatwa Department Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Council of Muslim Theologians

With thanks to Central-Mosque

Usage of Weak Hadeeth in Injunctions when nothing Authentic is found (First Case): Before discussing the subject at hand, it would be prudent to record the opinion of Ulama over the permissibility of usage of Weak Ahadeeth in matters of Ahkaam (Injunctions). Istadlaal from weak Ahadeeth is permissible (over Qiyas) in injunctions as long as: 1 The weakness is not extreme or severe i.e. liars and fabricators are not present in the chain 2 There is no other strong evidence present Imam Abu Haneefa (RA) [80AH -148AH] and the Hanafiyah: Weak Narration from Rasul-ullah (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) is superior to Qiyas. Source: Almuhalla Li Ibn Hazm (RA) (3/61) The Hadeeth concerning laughing aloud during Salah is weak as per the consensus of Muhadeetheen, yet Imam Abu Haneefa (RA) preferred it to Qiyas Source: A'alamal Mawqieen (1/31-32) The Hadeeth stating "Most menstrual cycles are 10 days" is weak as per the consensus of Muhadeetheen, yet Hanafees have preferred it to Qiyas Source: A'alamal Mawqieen (1/31-32) The Hadeeth stating "There is no Meh'r (dowry) less then 10 Dirhams" is weak as per the consensus of Muhadeetheen, yet Hanafees have preferred it to Qiyas Source: A'alamal Mawqieen (1/31-32) Imam Ibn Humaam (RA) states that Istadlaal from weak Ahadeeth is proven as long as the narration is not a fabrication. Source: Fathul-Qadeer-Babun-Nawafil (2/139) Imam Malik (RA) [93AH -179AH] and Malikiyah: Mursal (which is weak according to Jamhoor of Muhadeetheen) of a trustworthy person is valid as proof and as justification for a practice, just like a musnad hadith. Source: Yusuf b. 'Abdullah Ibn 'Abdul Barr, Tajrid al- Tamhid lima fi l-Muwatta' min al-Asanid (Cairo, 1350), 1:2. Imam Shaf'ae (RA) [150AH -204AH] and Shaffiyyah: He has discussed this issue in detail in his al-Risalah; he requires the following conditions to be met before accepting a mursal hadith: 1 In the narrative, he requires that one of the following conditions be met: that it be reported also as musnad through another isnad; that its contents be reported as mursal through another reliable source with a different isnad; that the meaning be supported by the sayings of some Companions; or that most scholars hold the same opinion as conveyed by the mursal hadith. 2 Regarding the narrator, he requires that one of the following conditions be met: that he be an elder Successor; that if he names the person missing in the isnad elsewhere, he does not usually name an unknown person or someone not suitable for reporting from acceptably; or that he does not contradict a reliable person when he happens to share with him in a narration Source: For the discussion in detail, see al-Shafi'i, al-Risalah (ed. Ahmad Shakir, Cairo, 1358/1940, pp. 461-470; English translation: M. Khadduri, 2nd ed., Islamic Texts Society, Cambridge, 1987, pp. 279-284, where the mursal Hadith has been translated as "interrupted tradition"). On the basis of these arguments, al-Shafi'i accepts the Irsal of Sa'id b. al-Musayyab, one of the elder Successors. For example, al- Shafi'i considers the issue of selling meat in exchange for a living animal: he says that Malik told him, reporting from Zaid b. Aslam, who reported from Ibn al-Musayyab that the Messenger of Allah (may Allah bless him and grant him peace) forbade the selling of meat in exchange for an animal. He then says, "This is our opinion, for the Irsal of Ibn al-Musayyib is fine." Source: al-Suyuti, 1:199; Muhammad b. Mustafa al- Ghadamsi, Al-Mursal min al-Hadith (Darif Ltd., London, N.D.), p.71. Ibnul Qayyim (RA) [691AH 751 AH] has related that Weak Hadeeth is superior to Qiyas according to Imam Shaf'ae (RA) Source: A'alamal Mawqieen (1/32) Imam Ahmed Ibn Hanbal (RA) [150AH -204AH] and Hanabila: He accepts mursal and (other) da'if (weak) ahadith if nothing opposing them is found regarding a particular issue, preferring them to qiyas (analogical deduction). Source: A'alamal Mawqieen (1/31) In the most Authentic text of Hanbali Madhab (Al-Mughni) it states "In the case of Nawafil (optional acts of worship) and Fadhail (Virtues deeds) the condition of Authenticity of Hadeeth is not present. Source: Al-Mughni (2/88) Imam Auzai [89AH -157AH]: Imam Dhahabi (RA) has recorded that Imam Awzai (RA) did Istadlaal from Maqtoo'aat (disconnected) and Maraseel of people of Shaam (Syria) Source: Sair Aalamun-Nubula (7/114) Imam Abu Dawud (RA) [202AH -275AH]: Hafidh Mundhari (RA) writes that Imam Abi Dawud (RA) used to include weak narrations in the chapters where he couldn't find any Authentic Narrations because in his opinion weak Ahadeeth are superior to Qiyas{j/b_bluebox} Source: Tadreebur Rawi Imam Ibnul Hazm [384AH -456AH]: In Almuhalla Ibn Hazm (RA) discussed the matter of Qunoot before Ruku and brings the Hadeeth with the chain of Hasan Ibn Ali (RA) and then writes, Although this Hadeeth is not worthy of Istadlaal, however since we have not found any other Hadeeth from Rasul-ullah (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) in this regard therefore we adopt it Source: Almuhalla Li Ibn Hazm (RA) (3/61) Usage of Weak Hadeeth in Injunctions with caution (Second Case): This is adopted by almost everyone as explained by Imam Nawawi in Al-Adhkaar while expounding on various forms of acting on Weak (Da'ef) Ahadeeth. Imam Nawawi (RA) [631AH -676AH]: {jb_bluebox}It is permissible to act (with caution) on such matters which are borne out of Weak (Da'ef) Ahadeeth e.g. Karaha (Offensiveness) in certain matters pertaining to business transactions etc. In the Commentary of the statement (above) Ibn Ailaan (RA) has given the example of Karaha (Offensiveness) in doing Wudhu with Water which has been warmed using the heat of the sun, and this is based upon the Hadeeth of Aisha (RA) which is weak. Usage of Weak Hadeeth clarifying ambiguous text (Third Case): If a verse of the Qur'aan or Authentic narration can have multiple meanings and a weak Narration gives credence to one of the meanings then the Ulama have permitted the usage of Weak (Da'ef) Ahadeeth in clarifying it. Usage of Weak Hadeeth in Encouragement towards Good and Discouragement from Evil (Al-Targheeb Wa Al-Tarheeb) (Fourth Case): It is the Consensus of the Ulema that weak hadiths can be narrated and put into practice in Islam according to according to al-Bayhaqî, Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Nawawî, Ibn Taymiyya, al-Qârî, and 'Alawî ibn 'Abbâs al-Mâlikî in his manual al-Manhal al-Lat.îf fî Ma'rifat al-H.adîth, provided certain conditions are met. Source: Al-Bayhaqî, Dalâ'il al-Nubuwwa (1:33-34); Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhîd (1:127); al-Nawawî, al-Majmû' (5:63), Irshâd T.ullâb al-H.aqâ'iq (p. 107-108), Sharh. S.ah.îh. Muslim (introduction), and al-Adhkâr (introduction p. 5) cf. Ibn 'Allân, al-Futûh.ât al-Rabbâniyya (1:84); Ibn Taymiyya, Sharh. al-'Umda (1:171), Majmû' al-Fatâwâ (18:26, 18:65-66), and Miswaddat âl Taymiyya (p. 233, 246, 461); al-Qârî, Sharh. al-Shifâ' (2:91) and Mirqât al-Mafâtîh. (2:381); 'Itr, Manhaj al-Naqd (p. 291-296) and Us.ûl al-Jarh. wal-Ta'dîl (p. 140-143) Abdullah Ibn Abi Mubarak (RA) [118AH -181AH]: One may narrate from [a weak narrator] to a certain extent or those hadiths pertaining to good conduct (adab), admonition (maw'iza), and simple living (zuhd)." Narrated by Ibn Abi Hatim in Muqaddimat al-Jarh. wal-Ta'dil (2:30) and cited by Ibn Rajab in Sharh. 'Ilal al-Tirmidhi (1:73). Imam Bukhari (RA) [194AH -256AH]: Imam Bukhari (RA) has compiled Adab Al-Mufrad which contains many weak Narrations to the point where some scholars have declared some narrations as fabricated; some of the chapters in the book contain no Authentic narrations at all. Allamah Shaykh Abdul-Fattah Abu-Ghuddah has discussed the chains of transmissions of Adab Al-Mufrad in detail in his commentary "Fadhlullah As-Samad" Even in Saheeh Bukhari while discussing the Hadeeth, "Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveler." Hafidh Ibnul Hajr Asqalani (RA) comments in Fathal Bari, "Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Rahman Tafawi is Munfarid in the narration of this Hadeeth, perhaps Imam Bukhari (RA) has shown leniency in the matter because this Hadeeth is about Al-Targheeb Wa Al-Tarheeb. Source: Fathul-Bari Kitabur-Raqaiq The full Hadeeth is as follows: Narrated Mujahid (RA) : 'Abdullah bin 'Umar (RA) said, "Allah's Apostle (Sallaho Alaihe Wassallam) took hold of my shoulder and said, 'Be in this world as if you were a stranger or a traveler." Imam Muslim (RA) [206AH -261AH]: The correct position of Imâm Muslim in the introduction to his Sahîh whih is that he forbade the use of forgers and other abandoned narrators, not of truthful weak ones, in conformity with the position of Ahmad and the rest of the Salaf. Source: Cf. al-Nawawî, Sharh. S.ah.îh. Muslim (introduction), Ibn al-Qayyim, I'lâm al-Muwaqqi'în (1:31), al-Sakhâwî, al-Qawl al-Badî' (p. 474), and 'Itr, notes on Ibn Rajab's Sharh. 'Ilal al-Tirmidhî (1:75-76). Muslim also says: "The sound reports from the trustworthy (thiqât) narrators and those whose reliability is convincing are more than that we should be forced to transmit reports from those who are not trustworthy and whose reliability is not convincing." The difference is clear between saying we are not forced to use weak narrators and saying that one absolutely cannot transmit from them. A proof of this is his use of the weak narration from 'Â'isha: "Treat people according to their ranks" and the fact that his strictness in narrators drops a notch or two in the h.adîths of raqâ'iq or fad.â'il al-a'mâl in the S.ah.îh., as in the case of Shaddâd ibn Sa'îd Abû T.alhâ al-Râsibî or al-Walîd ibn Abî Walîd. Source: The claim of a handful of authors such as al-Qâsimî in Qawâ'id al-Tah.dîth (p. 94) or 'Ajâj al-Khat.îb in Us.ûl al-H.adîth (p. 231) that Ibn al-'Arabî and Ibn Ma'în were opposed to the use of weak h.adîths in absolute terms, stems from good faith in Ibn Sayyid al-Nâs, al-'Irâqî, al-Sakhâwî, and al-Suyût.î's claims to that effect. Imam Ibn Arabi (RA): The correct position of Ibn al-'Arabî is as he states himself regarding a certain weak h.adîth: "Its chain is unknown, but it is preferable to put it into practice..." Source: Ibn al-'Arabî, 'Ârid.at al-Ah.wadhî (10:205) cf. Fath. al-Bârî (10:606) as cited by Muh.ammad 'Awwâma in his marginalia on al-Qawl al-Badî' (p. 472). Imam Yahya Ibn Ma'een (RA): Ibn Sayyidun-Naas (RA) has recorded the opinion of Imam Yayha Ibn Maeen (RA) about the usage of Weak Hadeeth Source: Taweyounal-Athar Hafidh Sakhawi (RA) has mentioned those Imam Yahya Ibn Ma'een amongst those who did hold the lenient position of usage of weak Ahadeeth in Fadhail Source: Fathul-Magheeth Imam Abu Shama Maqdisi (RA): Shaykh Tahir Aljazairi (RA) has recorded the comments of Imam Abu Shama Maqdisi (RA) from his book "AlBaes Ala Inkaar Al-Bida Wal Hawadis" in which with reference to a Majlis of Hafidh Ibn Asakar Dimashqi (RA) three Ahadeeth about Rajab are mentioned and then Imam Abu Shama Maqdisi (RA) says, "I wish Hafidh Ibn Asakar Dimashqi (RA) had not mentioned these Ahadeeth as it is tantamount to giving credence to Munkar Ahadeeth but he has adopted the path of a group of Muhadetheen who are lenient when it comes to Ahadeeth pertaining to Fadhail Source: Tawjeeun-Nadhar Imam Ibn Hajar Al-Asqalani (RA) [661AH -728AH]: Al-Haafidth Ibn Hajar Al-'Asqalani, sometimes referred to as the Ameer Al-Muslimeen in Al-Hadeeth, said: "There are three conditions that must be fulfilled in order to use the weak Hadeeth: - 1 It is well accepted that the weakness should only be slight. This will help to exclude hadeeths reported by liars or accused reporters who are known to commit big mistakes. 2 The weak Hadeeth should be used under already well-established principles and should not bring in ideas of its own. 3 When a weak Hadeeth is used (after it fulfills the above two conditions), it should not be believed to be said by the Messenger of Allah (Sallao Alaihe Wassallam), lest we refer to him (Sallao Alaihe Wassallam) with that which he did not say. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah (RA) [661AH -728AH]: Ibn Taymiyya said in his book "al-qaida al-jaleela fit- tawwasuli wal-waseela", with commentary of Dr. Rabi'a bin Hadi 'Umayr al-Mudkhali, professor in the Islamic University of Madinah al-Munawwara, Page 162, para 478: "But Ahmad ibn Hanbal and other scholars permitted the narration [of hadith] regarding the virtues of good what is not established [as authentic] as long as it is not known that it is a lie." (laakinna Ahmad ibn Hanbal wa ghayruh min al-'ulama jawwazu an yurwa fee fada'il al-'aamal maa lam yu'lam annahu thaabit idha lam yu'lam annahu kadhib.) Shaykhul Islam's book "Alkalimut-Tayyib" contains many weak Ahadeeth which Al-Albani (RA) has himself divided into "Saheeh Alkalimut-Tayyib" & "Da'ef Alkalimut-Tayyib" proving that it contains weak Ahadeeth in the first place! Imam Nawawi (RA) [631AH -636AH]: Nawawî and al-'Irâqî's sole conditions (for using Weak Hadeeth) were that: 1 The Hadith be related to good deeds (fad.â'il al-a'mâl) without bearing on legal rulings and doctrine and 2 The Hadith not be forged. Source: Al-Bayhaqî, Dalâ'il al-Nubuwwa (1:33-34); Ibn 'Abd al-Barr, al-Tamhîd (1:127); al-Nawawî, al-Majmû' (5:63), Irshâd T.ullâb al-H.aqâ'iq (p. 107-108), Sharh. S.ah.îh. Muslim (introduction), and al-Adhkâr (introduction p. 5) cf. Ibn 'Allân, al-Futûh.ât al-Rabbâniyya (1:84); Ibn Taymiyya, Sharh. al-'Umda (1:171), Majmû' al-Fatâwâ (18:26, 18:65-66), and Miswaddat âl Taymiyya (p. 233, 246, 461); al-Qârî, Sharh. al-Shifâ' (2:91) and Mirqât al-Mafâtîh. (2:381); 'Itr, Manhaj al-Naqd (p. 291-296) and Us.ûl al-Jarh. wal-Ta'dîl (p. 140-143) Imam Shawkani (RA): Although Imam Shawkani (RA)'s statement Alfawaidul Majmoowa categorically prohibits acting on a weak Hadeeth YET in Nailul-Awtaar we find his statement, "Although Ahadeeth about excessive Nawafil during Maghrib and Esha are weak yet collectively they are strong particularly for Fadhail (of Aamaal) Source: Nailul-Awtaar (3/60) Imam Shawkani (RA)'s book Tuhaftuz-Zakireen is filled with weak Ahadeeth Imam Jawzi (RA): Imam Jawzi (RA)'s books such as "Dhummul Hawwa", "Talbees Iblees", Rousul Qawareer" and many other contain weak Ahadeeth and Imam Ibn Taymiyyah has collectively said this about Ibn Asakar (RA), Ibn Jawzi (RA), Abu Naeem (RA) & Khateeb (RA) Imam Mundhari (RA): In his book At-Targheeb Wa Al-Tarheeb many weak Ahadeeth are mentioned and Hafidh started them with "Rowi" indicating their weakness and his knowledge of their weakness, yet he chooses to include them in the book.