ummtaalib

CHAPTER ON FIKR (CONTEMPLATION) From IKMALUSH SHIYAM The wandering of the heart in the spacious field of aliens is called fikr (contemplation). All makhluqaat (created objects) – everything besides Khaaliq (The Creator) are termed aliens (aghyaar). All creation from the heaven to the earth has been portrayed or compared to spacious fields. The reality of fikr is the wandering of the heart in these spacious fields. Wandering in these fields, in this context, means to contemplate the wonderful manifestations of Allah's power (Qudrat) which reveals itself perpetually, at every moment, in His creation. Some are born while others die; some are poor while others are wealthy. There are innumerable marvels in His creation inhabiting the heavens and the earth. Man is required to derive lesson from these marvellous objects of creation and contemplate on Allah's attributes of Beauty, Excellence and Splendour. This contemplation will lead him to Khaaliq Ta'ala. He will firmly believe that his Creator is Most Wise, Most Gracious, Most Majestic and Most Splendid. This is the type of fikr which we are commanded to observe. We have been forbidden to contemplate on the Thaat (Being) of Khaaliq because our minds being finite cannot comprehend the Infinite, Eternal Thaat. In such contemplation lurks the danger of renouncing the Deen. We seek Allah's protection. Belief in the Creator should be confined to the limits indicated to us. Further, one should contemplate on obedience and sin – that for a certain act of obedience there is a particular thawaab and for a sin there is a certain degree of punishment. Also, contemplate on the bounties of Allah. His bounties are innumerable and He is the true Benefactor. Contemplate on the perishable nature of the world and its objects. These various types of fikr are praiseworthy and we have been instructed to observe them. Fikr is the lamp of the heart. In its absence, the heart will be without light. Fikr which has been explained, is for the heart like a lamp. Minus fikr, the heart resembles a dark room in which there is no lamp. One does not know what lurks in that dark room in which nothing is visible. Similarly, without contemplation the reality and true nature of an object will not be fathomed. When man contemplates, the inner nature and reality of things will be revealed to him. He will see with open eyes (i.e. his spiritual eyes) the realities of Truth, Falsehood, the perishable nature of the world and the everlasting nature of the Hereafter. The Glory, Splendour, Power and Wrath of Allah, as well as Him being the True Benefactor will become vivid realities. Man will also become aware of his own hidden defects, the schemes and deceptions of his nafs and that the world is the abode of futility and deception. If the bandah refrains from fikr, his heart will become like a dark room. He will then be unable to differentiate the various things. There are two kinds of fikr. The fikr of Tasdeeq and Imaan, and the fikr of Mushaahadah and A'yaan. The first kind is for the Saalikeen and the second kind is for the people of Mushaahadah and Mu-aayanah, i.e. for the Majzubs. The select servants of Allah are of two kinds – the Saalik and the Majzub. The one who logically deducts the cause from the effects is a Saalik. He contemplates on the effects and arrives at the knowledge of the cause. His heart initially wanders in the objects of Divine Creation. From this contemplation he reaches the way to the Divine Attributes. For example, he sees people transgressing without Allah Ta'ala punishing them. From this he concludes that Allah's attribute is Hilm (to refrain from punishing despite having the power). From the beauty, excellence and perfection of objects, he infers that Allah is All-Wise. By means of prolonged contemplation on the Names and Attributes of Allah, the heart finally discovers the way leading to the Divine Thaat. Thus, by contemplating on the effects, he ultimately reaches the Cause – Allah Ta'ala. On the other hand, the one who concludes the effects by contemplating on the Cause, is a Majzub. Initially, his heart becomes imbued with the Mushaahadah of the Thaat. He then dwells in the Names and Attributes of Allah. Finally, he enters into the contemplation of Makhluqaat. Thus, while the Saalik is taken from the bottom to the top, the Majz م b is brought down from the top to the bottom. This is the state of those whose perfection Allah Ta'ala desires. Some Majzubs remain in the state of Jazb while some Saaliks remain suspended without attaining accomplishment. (In the state of Jazb the intellect is overwhelmed by Divine Love, hence the Majzub is not liable for the execution of the Shariah's obligations which are waived for him. – Translator) The Shaikh (rahmatullah alayh) says that there are two kinds of fikr. The first is known as the fikr of Tasdeeq and Imaan. This is the contemplation which is not the result of physical observation. Its basis is only Imaan. The second kind of fikr is known as Muaa-yanah and Mushaahadah. In the first kind contemplation the Saalikeen reach Allah by their contemplative study of His created objects. They utilise their physical senses in the observation and contemplation of creation to conclude the greatness of the Creator. The aim of this fikr is the Mushaahadah (Perception) of the Pure Thaat of Allah Ta'ala. Its motivating force is not only Imaan. Its progression is not from the Creator to the creation, but from the creation to the Creator. Thus, the focus of his heart's gaze is initially on creation and ultimately on the Creator. On the other hand, the knowledge possessed by the Majzub dictates to him the necessity of the existence of creation on account of the existence the Creator. The focus of his heart is initially on the Creator, later reaching creation. For this reason the Saalik is one whose senses and intellect are intact whereas the Majzu b generally acts in conflict with intelligence. It should be understood that the knowledge derived from contemplation is inspirational. It is a bestowal of Allah Ta'ala. It is not acquired by one's efforts. The Majlis

This clip was taken from one of the episodes of the Deen show. In this clip Nouman Ali Khan gives advice for Atheists. Advice for Atheists.mp3

Consider this: An archaeologist digs deep into the desert sand and finds a piece of an old clay pot. After his investigations, this archaeologist can tell us - from this little old piece of dusty clay - so much about the civilization that existed thousands of years ago that produced it. He can tell us about the types of ovens, temperatures, and dyes that they worked with, the raw materials that they used, and thus assess the level of their artistic skill and technological ability, etc. All this from a small piece of clay lying in the desert. 1 Did this archaeologist ever see the civilization that produced this pot? 2 How does he know that it ever existed? He knows because he saw that the piece of clay was produced by someone who designed it, and shaped it, and had the intelligence to be able to heat it and produce the pot, and not only that, they also had the ability to color it and make it look beautiful. A Design needs A Designer To the archaeologist the existence and intricacy of the piece of pottery is conclusive proof of the existence, intelligence and ability of the people who made it. Look around you, at the beautiful sunset on a summer evening, at the moon and the stars on a cloudless night, at the water that you drink, at the trees and how they grow from tiny seeds. Think about yourself, your eyes with which you see, your ears with which you hear, your tongues with which you taste and talk, your hands and your feet, your heart and your brain. Consider how these things are so complex in themselves yet work together in such perfect harmony. From the movement of the galaxies to the complexities of the interaction of molecules, from the dynamics of eco-systems to the intricacies of DNA, all lead to the obvious fact of the existence of the great wisdom, knowledge and power that allows our Universe to exist and function. To any perceptive human being the existence and intricacy of creation is conclusive proof of the existence, knowledge and wisdom of the One who creates, organizes and sustains it. Most people naturally recognize the existence of the Creator, and we find reference to the Creator in all cultures and religions. Even the atheists, communists and (disbelieving) scientists cannot avoid this reality, but avoid the term 'creator', for phrases like 'Mother Nature' and 'the amazing way nature has designed...' How strange in the face of this, that many today reject the belief in the existence of the Creator. Perhaps this is due more to fashion and the desire to justify a materialistic attitude to life rather than real observation and comprehension of reality. Can Creation be the Creator? Something stranger still (and perhaps another reason for the trend to deny the Creator), are those who claim that a man, or men, who walked on the earth, breathed air, who had bodies and souls subject to the Laws of the Universe, are the Creator, or manifestations of the Self-Subsistent One. This is of course a complete contradiction in terms. Something cannot be the Creator and created (the creation) at the same time (simultaneously), sustaining on air, food and drink and being self-sufficient, being temporary and eternal. We were created from a drop of despised fluid, in which was a microscopic sperm, which fertilized a microscopic egg and we grew in our mother's womb in stages predetermined, over which we had no control. We came from our mother's womb, urinating and defecating, needing constant attention and care. Without food we will die, without air we will die ... and then such a one is God? Natural instinct tells us there is a God. Indeed any intelligent person would recognize exactly how dependent life, the universe and everything is on its Creator. Our dire need for His help makes itself plain in times of great distress. Imagine yourself in an aeroplane and you know it is going to crash... Or on a ship in the sea, thrown helplessly up and down by towering waves... Who do you turn to for help then? There has been a situation at one time or other in your life when you called upon your Creator alone, forgetting everyone and everything else, hoping, trusting, wishing that the Being you know in your heart and soul that has power and control over all things would help you. The only One you know can save you. O creation of God, contemplate upon these verses: [2:164] Surely, in the creation of heavens and earth, and the alternation of night and day, and the ships that sail in the sea, carrying that which benefits men, and in the water Allah sent down from the sky, then revived with it the earth after it was dead, and in every creature He has scattered on it, and in turning of winds, and in the clouds employed to serve between heaven and earth, there are signs for those who have sense. [10:5] He is the One who has made the sun a glow, and the moon a light, and determined for it stages, so that you may learn the number of the years, and the calculation (of time). Allah has not created all this but for a rightful purpose. He elaborates the signs for a people who understand. [16:3] He created the heavens and the earth in the proper way. He is much higher than their ascribing partners to Him. [16:4] He created man from a drop, and soon he turned into a debating person, expressing himself openly. [16:5] He has created cattle in which there is warmth and other benefits for you; and from them you have food; [25:1] Glorious is the One who has revealed the Criterion to His servant, so that he may be a warner to all the worlds, [25:2] the One to whom belongs the kingdom of the heavens and the earth, and who did neither have a son, nor is there any partner to him in the Kingdom, and who has created everything and designed it in a perfect measure. [25:3] Yet they have adopted other gods, beside Him, who do not create any thing, as they themselves are created, and they possess no power to cause harm or benefit even to themselves, nor do they have any control over death or life or resurrection. [52:35] Is it that they are created by none, or are they themselves the creators?[52:36] Or have they created the heavens and the earth? No, but they are sure of nothing. [10:22] He is the One who enables you to travel on land and at sea, until when you are aboard the boats, and they sail with those on board, under a favorable wind, and they are pleased with it, there comes upon them a violent wind, and the wave comes upon them from every direction, and they think that they are surrounded from all sides, they pray to Allah, having faith in Him alone, (and say,) .If You deliver us from this, we shall be grateful indeed. [10:23] But when He delivers them, they at once start rebelling on the earth wrongfully. O people, your rebellion is, in fact, against your own selves. It is only worldly life that you are enjoying. Thereafter, it is to Us that you have to return; then We will tell you what you have been doing. central-mosque

Dialogue with an Atheist Professor "Let me explain the problem science has with God.", The atheist professor of philosophy pauses before his class and then asks one of his new students to stand. Professor: "You're a Muslim, aren't you, son?" Student: "Yes, sir" Professor: "So you believe in God?" Student: "Absolutely" Professor: "Is God good?" Student: "Sure! God's good" Professor: "Is God all-powerful? Can God do anything?" Student: "Yes" The professor grins knowingly and considers for a moment. "Here's one for you. Let's say there's a sick person over here and you can cure him. You can do it. Would you help them? Would you try?" Student: "Yes sir, I would" Professor: "So you're good...!" Student: "I wouldn't say that" Professor: "Why not say that? You would help a sick and maimed person if you could in fact most of us would if we could... God doesn't" [No answer] "He doesn't, does he? My brother was a Muslim who died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. How is this God good? Hmmm? Can you answer that one?" [No answer] The elderly man is sympathetic. "No, you can't, can you?" He takes a sip of water from a glass on his desk to give the student time to relax. "In philosophy, you have to go easy with the new ones" "Let's start again, young fella" Professor: "Is God good?" Student: "Er... Yes" Professor: "Is Satan good?" Student: "No" Professor: "Where does Satan come from?" Student: "The student falters. From... God..." Professor: "That's right. God made Satan, didn't He?" The elderly man runs his bony fingers through his thinning hair and turns to the smirking, student audience. "I think we're going to have a lot of fun this semester, ladies and gentlemen". He turns back to the Muslim. "Tell me, son. Is there evil in this world?" Student: "Yes, sir" Professor: "Evil's everywhere, isn't it? Did God make everything?" Student: "Yes" Professor: "Who created evil?" [No answer] Professor: "Is there sickness in this world? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All the terrible things - do they exist in this world?" The student squirms on his feet. Student: "Yes" Professor: "Who created them?" [No answer] The professor suddenly shouts at his student. "WHO CREATED THEM? TELL ME, PLEASE!" The professor closes in for the kill and climbs into the Muslim's face. In a still small voice: "God created all evil, didn't He, son?" [No answer] The student tries to hold the steady, experienced gaze and fails. Suddenly the lecturer breaks away to pace the front of the classroom like an aging panther. The class is mesmerized. "Tell me, he continues, How is it that this God is good if He created all evil throughout all time? The professor swishes his arms around to encompass the wickedness of the world. All the hatred, the brutality, all the pain, all the torture, all the death and ugliness and all the suffering created by this good God is all over the world, isn't it, young man?" [No answer] "Don't you see it all over the place? Huh?" Pause. "Don't you?" The professor leans into the student's face again and whispers, "Is God good?" [No answer] "Do you believe in God, son?" The student's voice betrays him and cracks. "Yes, professor. I do" The old man shakes his head sadly. "Science says you have five senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. You have never seen God, Have you?" Student: "No, sir. I've never seen Him" Professor: "Then tell us if you've ever heard your God? Student: "No, sir. I have not" Professor: "Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God or smelt your God...in fact, do you have any sensory perception of your God whatsoever?" [No answer] Professor: "Answer me, please" Student: "No, sir, I'm afraid I haven't" Professor: "You're AFRAID... you haven't?" Student: "No, sir" Professor: "Yet you still believe in him?" Student: "yes..." Professor: "That takes FAITH!" The professor smiles sagely at the underling. "According to the rules of empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your God doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son? Where is your God now?" The student doesn't answer "Sit down, please" The Muslim sits...Defeated. Another Muslim raises his hand. "Professor, may I address the class?" The professor turns and smiles. "Ah, another Muslim in the vanguard! Come, come, young man. Speak some proper wisdom to the gathering" The Muslim looks around the room. "Some interesting points you are making, sir. Now I've got a question for you. Is there such thing as heat?" Professor: Yes, the professor replies. There's heat. Student: "Is there such a thing as cold?" Professor: "Yes, son, there's cold too." Student: "No, sir, there isn't" Professor: The professor's grin freezes. The room suddenly goes very cold. The student continues. You can have lots of heat, even more heat, super-heat, mega-heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat but we don't have anything called 'cold'. We can hit 458 degrees below zero, which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold, otherwise we would be able to go colder than 458, You see, sir, cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat we can measure in thermal units because heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it" Silence. A pin drops somewhere in the classroom. Student: "Is there such a thing as darkness, professor?" Professor: "That's a dumb question, son. What is night if it isn't darkness? What are you getting at...?" Student: "So you say there is such a thing as darkness?" Professor: "Yes..." Student: "You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is not something, it is the absence of something. You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light but if you have no light constantly you have nothing and it's called darkness, isn't it? That's the meaning we use to define the word. In reality, Darkness isn't. If it were, you would be able to make darkness darker and give me a jar of it. Can you... give me a jar of darker darkness, professor? Despite himself, the professor smiles at the young effrontery before him. "This will indeed be a good semester. Would you mind telling us what your point is, young man?" Student: "Yes, professor. My point is, your philosophical premise is flawed to start with and so your conclusion must be in error...." The professor goes toxic. "Flawed...? How dare you...! Student: "Sir, may I explain what I mean?" The class is all ears. Professor: "Explain... oh, explain..." The professor makes an admirable effort to regain control. Suddenly he is affability itself. He waves his hand to silence the class, for the student to continue. "You are working on the premise of duality", the Muslim explains. "That for example there is life and then there's death; a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science cannot even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism but has never seen, much less fully understood them. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life, merely the absence of it" The young man holds up a newspaper he takes from the desk of a neighbor who has been reading it. "Here is one of the most disgusting tabloids this country hosts, professor, Is there such a thing as immorality?" Professor: "Of course there is, now look..." Student: "Wrong again, sir. You see, immorality is merely the absence of morality. Is there such thing as injustice? No. Injustice is the absence of justice. Is there such a thing as evil?" The Muslim pauses. "Isn't evil the absence of good?" The professor's face has turned an alarming color. He is so angry he is temporarily speechless. The Muslim continues. "If there is evil in the world, professor, and we all agree there is, then God, if he exists, must be accomplishing a work through the agency of evil. What is that work, God is accomplishing? Islam tells us it is to see if each one of us will, choose good over evil" The professor bridles. "As a philosophical scientist, I don't vie this matter as having anything to do with any choice; as a realist, I absolutely do not recognize the concept of God or any other theological factor as being part of the world equation because God is not observable" "I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going", the Muslim replies. "Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor, do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?" Professor: "If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do." Student: "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. Student: "Professor, Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest? Professor: "I will overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses. Student: "So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?" Professor: "I believe in what is - that's science!" Student: "Ahh! SCIENCE!", the student's face splits into a grin, "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..." SCIENCE IS FLAWED..? the professor splutters. The class is in uproar. The Muslim remains standing until the commotion has subsided. Student: "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent. The Muslim looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen air, oxygen, molecules, atoms, the professor's brain?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Muslim points towards his elderly crumbling tutor, "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's brain... felt the professor's brain, touched or smelt the professor's brain?" "No one appears to have done so", The Muslim shakes his head sadly. "It appears no one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's brain whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I declare that the professor has no brain!" The Muslim sits...Because that's what a chair is for!!!

Long ago in the city of Baghdad, there was a Muslim empire. On one side of the River Tigris were the royal palaces and on the other side was the city. The Muslims were gathered in the Royal Palace when an athiest approached them. He said to them, ‘I don’t believe in God, there cannot be a God, you cannot hear Him or see Him, you’re wasting your time! Bring me your best debator and I will debate this issue with him.’ The best debator at the time was Imam Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. A messenger from amongst the Muslims was sent over the River Tigris to the city, where Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was, in order to tell him about the athiest who was awaiting him. On crossing the River Tigris, the messenger conveyed the message to Abu Hanifah Rahimullah saying, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, an athiest is waiting for you, to debate you, please come!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah told the messeneger that he would be on his way. The messenger went over the River Tigris once again and to the Royal Palaces, where everyone including the athiest awaited the arrival of Abu Hanifah Rahimullah. It was sunset at the time and one hour had passed, but Abu Hanifah Rahimullah still hadn’t arrived. Another hour had passed, but still there was no sign of him. The Muslims started to become tense and worried about his late arrival. They did not want the athiest to think that they were too scared to debate him, yet they did not want to take up the challenge themselves as Abu Hanifah Rahimullah was the best of Debators from amongst the Muslims. Another hour passed, and suddenly the athiest started laughing and said, ‘ Your best debator is too scared! He knows he’s wrong, he is too frightened to come and debate with me. I gurantee he will not turn up today.’ The Muslims increased in apprehension and eventually it had passed midnight, and the athiest had a smile on his face. The clock ticked on, and finally Abu Hanifah Rahimullah had arrived. The Muslims inquired about his lateness and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, a messenger sent for you hours ago, and you arrive now, explain your lateness to us.’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah apologises for his lateness and begins to explain, while the atheist listens to his story. ‘Once the messenger delivered the message to me, I began to make my way to the River Tigris, and on reaching the river bank I realised there was no boat, in order to cross the river. It was getting dark, and I looked around, there was no boat anywhere nor was there a navigator or a sailor in order for me to cross the river to get to the Royal Palaces. I continued to look around for a boat, as I did not want the athiest to think I was running away and did not want to debate with him. I was standing on the river bank looking for a navigator or a boat when something caught my attention in the middle of the river. I looked forward, and to my amazement I saw planks of wood rising to the surface from the sea bed. I was shocked, amazed, I couldn’t believe what I saw seeing. Ready made planks of wood were rising up to the surface and joining together. They were all the same width and length, I was astounded at what I saw. I continued to look into the middle of the river, and then I saw nails coming up from the sea floor. They positioned themselves onto the boat and held the planks together, without them being banged. I stood in amazement and thought to myself, ‘Oh Allah, how can this happen, planks of wood rising to the surface by itself, and then nails positioning themselves onto the boat without being banged?’ I could not undertsand what was happening before my eyes.’ The athiest meanwhile was listening with a smile on his face. Abu Hanifah Rahimullah continued, ‘I was still standing on the river bank watching these planks of wood join together with nails. I could see water seeping through the gaps in the wood, and suddenly I saw a sealant appear from the river and it began sealing the gaps without someone having poured it, again I thought, ‘Ya Allah, how is this possible, how can sealant appear and seal the gaps without someone having poured it, and nails appear without someone having banged them.’ I looked closer and I could see a boat forming before my eyes, I stood in amazement and was filled with shock. All of a sudden a sail appeared and I thought to myself, ‘How is this happening, a boat has appeared before my eyes by itself, planks of wood, nails, sealant and now a sail, but how can I use this boat in order to cross the river to the Royal Palaces?’ I stood staring in wonderment and suddenly the boat began to move. It came towards me against the current. It stood floating beside me while I was on the river bank, as if telling me to embark onto it. I went on the boat and yet again it began to move. There was no navigator or sailor on the boat, and the boat began to travel towards the direction of the royal palaces, without anyone having programmed it as to where to go. I could not understand what was happening, and how this boat had formed and was taking me to my destination against the flow of water. The boat eventually reached the other side of the River Tigris and I disembarked. I turned around and the boat had disappeared, and that is why I am late.’ At this moment, the athiest brust out laughing and remarked, ‘Oh Abu Hanifah, I heard that you were the best debator from amongst the Muslims, I heard that you were the wisest, the most knowledgable from amongst your people. From seeing you today, I can say that you show none of these qualities. You speak of a boat appearing from nowhere, without someone having built it. Nails positioning themselves without someone having banged them, sealant being poured without someone having poured it, and the boat taking you to your destination without a navigator against the tide, your taking childish, your talking rediculous, I swear I do not belive a word of it!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah turned to the athiest and replied, ‘You don’t believe a word of it? You dont believe that nails can appear by themselves? You dont believe sealant can be poured by itself? You dont believe that a boat can move without a navigator, hence you don’t believe that a boat can appear without a boat maker?’ The athiest remarked defiantly, ‘Yes I dont believe a word of it!’ Abu Hanifah Rahimullah replied, ‘If you cannot believe that a boat came into being without a boat maker, than this is only a boat, how can you believe that the whole world, the universe, the stars, the oceans, and the planets came into being without a creator? The athiest astonished at his reply got up and fled. Transcribed from a lecture delivered by Shaykh Ahmad Ali. haqislam

The Bible, the Qur’an and Science By Dr Maurice Bucaille BibleQuranScience.pdf Regarding the book, a reply from Mufti Ebrahim Desai Question I read all your fatwas and advices. Regarding your below information for a Athiest, i think Bucaille reading are not appropriate. As per the information which i cant confirm he is drafted the complete presentation after lot of research with many examples but he himlself has not accepted Islam. Second in his presentation “The Bible, the Qur’an and Science’ he says that Darwin evolution theory is supported by quran. Darwin is the biggest athiest and he is first person in the modern science to refute the existence of god. His famous fabricated theory “Origian of Species”, “Natural Selection”, ”survival for fittest”, all this theories denies existence of god. His all theories claim that man came in this world by chance. I think Bucaille presentation should not be forwarded as message of Islam. We have lot of other book which should be taken as example. Any how i request our Ulamas to investigate more on Bucaille books. Answer In the name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful Assalaamu `alaykum waRahmatullahi Wabarakatuh We appreciate you writing to us. Hereunder are responses to your concerns. 1) Your first concern is about the faith of Dr Maurice Bucaille. Firstly, you yourself admitted that you can’t confirm that he is not Muslim. Secondly, only Allah knows the true beliefs and creed of a person that he conceals in his heart; however, by studying the books of Dr Bucaille one can conclude that he believes the Quran to be a revelation from God, and Muhammed (Sallallaahu Alahi Wa Sallam) to be a Prophet of God. Consider the following passages from his book: “Thanks to its undisputed authenticity, the text of the Quran holds a unique place among the books of Revelation, shared neither by the Old nor the New Testament… Also to be underlined is the distinction to be made between the Quran, a book of written Revelation, and the hadiths, collections of statements concerning the actions and sayings of Muhammad. Some of the Prophet’s companions started to write them down from the moment of his death… The Quranic Revelation was made by Archangel Gabriel to Muhammad…” (The Bible, the Quran and Science pg. 135-6 ) Moreover, Islam teaches us that words of wisdom are to be taken heed of even if they are uttered by a non-Muslim. Consider the following: Abu Hurairah (Radiyallaahu Anhu) narrates that Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) said, ‘Wisdom is the lost property of a Mu’min. Where ever he finds it, he is most deserving of it (i.e. to act upon it and to benefit form it).’ (Ibn Majah, hadith no. 4159). Ali (Radiyallaahu Anhu) said, “Look at what is being said. Do not look at who said it.” (Mirqaatul Mafaatih vol. 9 pg. 403 Rasheediya) Dr Bucaille’s book ‘The Bible, the Quran and Science’ was suggested for the atheist in reference for the following reasons: 1) The atheist in reference seemed to admire Science and this book specifically proves that all the Quranic verses dealing with Science are in total agreement with the principles of Science. 2) The author, just like the atheist in reference, is a westerner. There is a saying amongst the Arabs: الجنس يميل الى الجنس meaning that one is inclined to ones own kind. 3) The author of the book does not come from an Islamic background — he embraced Islam after studying the Quran and confirming its accuracy in regards to the scientific phenomena described therein. For a Muslim to confirm the accuracy of the Quran is not something amazing. However, for an expert in the field of Science, who comes from a non-Islamic background, to confirm that each and every Quranic verse dealing with scientific phenomena is absolutely accurate, is a great marvel in itself and would certainly create zeal, especially in non-Muslims, to explore this infallible and divine book: the Holy Quran. This confirmation should even increase the faith of the Muslims. Tameen Daari (Radiyallaahu Anhu), when he was still a Christian, met Dajjal in an Island and spoke to him. Later on, when he embraced Islam, he informed Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) about his experience with Dajjal. Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) gathered his companions and, expressing his joy, told them that he has received confirmation from Tameen Daari (Radiyallaahu Anhu) about the narrations he had related to them regarding Dajjal. (Saheeh Muslim, hadith no. 5235). From this narration we learn that even Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) was delighted when Tameem Daari (Radiyallaahu Anhu) confirmed what Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alaihi Wa Sallam) already knew through revelation. 4) Since the atheist in reference comes from a place where the Christians are the majority, it is highly possible that he became an atheist due to the absurdities of Christianity. It is a fact that a lot of people from Christian backgrounds are becoming atheists. Apart from highlighting the accuracy of the Quran, this book outlines the absurdities of the Bible in light of the established scientific principles. A sensible person would, therefore, conclude that since Bible contains many absurdities, it must altogether be man-made, or at least, contaminated by man, and since the Quran is free from such defects, it must be from God in the pure, uncontaminated form. 2) We could not find where Dr Bucaille supports Darwinism in his book. If you can find it please give us the reference. In fact, Dr Bucaille wrote a book ‘What is the Origin of Man’ in which he refuted the theories of Charles Darwin and the likes. Please see chapter one of the book. And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best Wassalamu Alaykum Ml. Faizal Riza Correspondence Iftaa Student, Australia Checked and Approved by: Mufti Ebrahim Desai Darul Iftaa, Madrassah In’aamiyyah

Question: Whether there is a God or not is a search personal to every individual. Nobody can know all things in Universe& how it all came to be. All religions like Islam can offer is a story. Many accept this story as fact, when it is merely blind faith. The scientific view is based on knowledge that has been acquired by research, experimentation, analysis & conclusion. It is not based in any kind of blind belief in scriptures, dogma or traditions. Herein lies the difference. When science in confronted with new evidence that contradicts the established view, scientists adjust their theories accordantly.This is the difference between religion & science. As Islam purports to be the word of God (Allah), it cannot change the story when faced with contradictory evidence. Islamist would rather try to bully the opposing viewpoints rather than debate them. Answer: I forwarded your question to my friend sheikh Ismail lala, who is a graduate of Oxford university and still in pursuit of further knowledge. He wrote the following answer. “I thank you for your question. The point you raise is a singularly pertinent one. However, it seems to me to be fundamentally misguided. The reason is your premise seems to be a mutual exclusivity between science and religion. If we were to accept this, we would also have to accept that religious scholars have made no appreciable contributions to the field of science. It would then be difficult to explain the towering contributions of Islamic scholars such as Ibn Rushd (Averroes), Ibn Sina (Avicenna), Ibn Khaldun etc. to name but a few. These scholars made huge strides in the fields of philosophy, theology, logic, psychology, politics, medicine, astronomy, geography, mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, modern historiography, sociology and economics. And here I make no reference to the numerous contributions made by scholars of other religions who, if your argument is to be followed to its logical conclusion, could not have made significant scientific advances due to the overwhelming strictures of religious indoctrination. Indeed, introduction of the aforementioned scholars to these fields under the unitary and unrelenting gaze of religion, if it was opposed to such spheres of inquiry, would itself be somewhat difficult to explain. Thus, the position that religion has an adversarial relationship with science is untenable. We must therefore conclude that Islam not only tolerates, but encourages the study of science. Indeed, we find many verses of the Qur’an that inspire us to pursue scientific study and to utilise the faculty of reason. Allah (s.w.t.) says in the Qur’an, أَوَلَمۡ يَتَفَكَّرُواْ فِىٓ أَنفُسِہِم‌ۗ مَّا خَلَقَ ٱللَّهُ ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَٱلۡأَرۡضَ وَمَا بَيۡنَہُمَآ إِلَّا بِٱلۡحَقِّ وَأَجَلٍ۬ مُّسَمًّ۬ى‌ۗ Have they not pondered upon themselves? Allah created not the heavens and the earth, and that which is between them, save with truth and for a destined end (Surah al-Rum, verse 8 ) Elsewhere, it is stated, كِتَـٰبٌ أَنزَلۡنَـٰهُ إِلَيۡكَ مُبَـٰرَكٌ۬ لِّيَدَّبَّرُوٓاْ ءَايَـٰتِهِۦ وَلِيَتَذَكَّرَ أُوْلُواْ ٱلۡأَلۡبَـٰبِ (This is) a Book (the Qur’ân) which We have sent down to you, full of blessings that they may ponder over its Verses, and that men of understanding may take heed (Surah al-Sad, verse 29) Allah (s.w.t.) also remarks, وَسَخَّرَ لَكُم مَّا فِى ٱلسَّمَـٰوَٲتِ وَمَا فِى ٱلۡأَرۡضِ جَمِيعً۬ا مِّنۡهُ‌ۚ إِنَّ فِى ذَٲلِكَ لَأَيَـٰتٍ۬ لِّقَوۡمٍ۬ يَتَفَكَّرُونَ And (He) has subjected to you all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth; it is all as a favour and kindness from Him. Verily, in it are signs for a people who think deeply (Surah al-Jathiya, verse 13) It is also stated in the Qur’an: قُل سيروا فِى الأَرضِ فَانظُروا كَيفَ بَدَأَ الخَلقَ ۚ ثُمَّ اللَّهُ يُنشِئُ النَّشأَةَ الءاخِرَةَ ۚ إِنَّ اللَّهَ عَلىٰ كُلِّ شَيءٍ قَديرٌ Say (O Muhammad): Travel in the land and see how He originated creation, then Allah bringeth forth the later growth (ie life after death). Lo! Allah is Able to do all things. These verses clearly support the pursuance of scientific inquiry as a means of galvanising one’s faith, which serves to veritably refute your claim that Islam promulgates “blind faith”. The Qur’an engenders no such attitude. We are commanded to investigate, interrogate, and examine. The reason we are ordered to do this is scientific discovery will almost invariably buttress Islamic tenets. Indeed, there exists an intellectual symbiosis between science and religious knowledge: both through their respective channels foster doctrinal certitude. I would now like to address the following statement, “As Islam purports to be the word of God (Allah), it cannot change the story when faced with contradictory evidence.” If I understand correctly, you mean by this that if scientific inquiry yields evidence which contradicts the Qur’an, due to the immutability of the Word of God, Islam has no answer. If this be the crux of your argument, then few Muslims would dispute it. What is a point of much contention, however, is the nature of this “contradictory evidence”. It would aid me immeasurably if you could delineate what you mean by this by citing specific theories, scientific facts etc. so that I may allay any reservations you have regarding their congeniality with the Quranic text. It seems to me there has been a misapprehension as to what the Qur’an represents, for your statement assumes that our knowledge of the Qur’an is absolute. Only then can any theories, scientific facts, etc. be deemed to be categorically contrary to them. But this is not the case. The Qur’an itself states, هُوَ ٱلَّذِىٓ أَنزَلَ عَلَيۡكَ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبَ مِنۡهُ ءَايَـٰتٌ۬ مُّحۡكَمَـٰتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ ٱلۡكِتَـٰبِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَـٰبِهَـٰتٌ۬‌ۖ He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: in it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are not of well-established meaning (Surah Al-’Imran, verse 6) Hence, it follows that as our understanding of the Qur’an is at best embryonic, we cannot therefore deem scientific discoveries as being decisively opposed to it, though this does happen on occasion (and on these occasions there are perfectly valid counter theories to the proposed ones). I would like to illustrate this point with one of the many examples that could be given from the Qur’an. Allah (s.w.t.) states, وَلَقَدۡ خَلَقۡنَا ٱلۡإِنسَـٰنَ مِن سُلَـٰلَةٍ۬ مِّن طِين ٍ۬ثُمَّ جَعَلۡنَـٰهُ نُطۡفَةً۬ فِى قَرَارٍ۬ مَّكِينٍ۬ ثُمَّ خَلَقۡنَا ٱلنُّطۡفَةَ عَلَقَةً۬ فَخَلَقۡنَا ٱلۡعَلَقَةَ مُضۡغَةً۬ فَخَلَقۡنَا ٱلۡمُضۡغَةَ عِظَـٰمً۬ا فَكَسَوۡنَا ٱلۡعِظَـٰمَ لَحۡمً۬ا Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay). Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest firmly fixed. Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then We made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh (Surah al-Mu’minun, verses 11-14) A person in seventh century Arabia could hardly have understood the embryological intricacies of these verses, and yet we know today through scientific research that the growth of the embryo in the womb of the mother is exactly as here described. This, I believe, is what ‘Umar (r.a.) meant when he remarked, “The best commentary of the Qur’an is the passage of time.” In his statement is an acknowledgement of the deficiency of human thought, of its continual development, and eventual concordance with the meaning of the Qur’an. This brings me rather neatly to my final response. You mention in your question that “The scientific view is based on knowledge that has been acquired by research, experimentation, analysis, and conclusion … Here in lies the difference. When science is confronted with new evidence that contradicts their established view scientists adjust their theories accordantly.” Comments such as these, which exude a kind of unjustifiable complacency in what scientific research has uncovered, and the belief that all antithetical opinions are erroneous, are all too common among scientists. For did not the brightest minds in the world at one point believe the Earth was flat, or that it was the centre of the universe? If we see this not to be the case today, what is to say a more powerful telescope will not reveal a new reality tomorrow? It is what Nuh Ha Mim Keller has dubbed the, “fallacy of misplaced concrescence.” This, Mr. Keller continues, is a new religion: Scientism. He cites the following definition of Scientism, “Scientism is science’s belief in itself: that is, the conviction that we can no longer understand science as one form of possible knowledge, but rather must identify knowledge with science” (Habermas, Knowledge and Human Interests. Tr. Jeremy J. Shapiro. Boston: Beacon Press, 1971, 4). Shaykh Nuh, in his excellent treatise on the subject, concludes with hopes that science, “might have the epistemological modesty to ‘get back,’ from its current scientistic pretentions to its true nature, as one area of human interpretation among others.” I too, share this hope. I have been compelled to deal with many matters here with consummate brevity owing to want of space. If you feel that I have glossed over any issues I ask your pardon. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have specific theories/discoveries etc. you would like me to address. I would once again like to thank you for posing the question. ————————————— Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem I (Abdul Raheem) would like to add a few points to the above answer. 1, You say that religion is based on stories. This maybe the case with some religions where gods are said to be fighting with one another. However, monotheist religions are based on evidence. Islam is at the forefront of them. Islam is the most open religion of them all. Islam invites people to explore, research, study facts and to hold debates. This is the reason Islam has been the choice of great thinkers. If one studies the golden age of Muslim scientists, he will conclude that many of the modern researches were conducted by Muslims. 2, To say that religions are made up stories would be to say that those who follow religion are stupid people with little or no understanding. And if that was the case, no scientist would have ever followed a religion. Whereas we see that all the great scientists of the past have been religious. Sir Issac Newton was a devout chiristian, Albert einstien was a Jew, and what about Muslim scientists and philosophers? They are countless. To name a few; Ibn Sina, Al Farabi, Al Biruni, ibn An Nafis, Abussalt Al Andalusi, Ibn Rushd Al Hafidh who was renowned for his fiqh, medicine and philosophy. Fakhruddin Ar Raazi, and Imam Ghazali. Of the recent era, 1, Eliyas James Corey- Noble prize winner 1990 USA, 2,Ahmed Zawail- Nobel prize winner 1999, USA and Egyptian citizen, 3, Brian Medawar- Nobel prize winner 1960- British citizen, 4, Ferid murad-winner 1998 USA citizen 5, Abdussalam- winner 1979 Pakistan citizen, For more details see; The Glorious Quran and modern science by Professor Md. Anisur Rahman p.151 What have the atheists contributed to the humanity? Nothing. How many Athiests achieved the noble peace prize? None at all. in fact atheism has done nothing but create anarchy among the society by giving green light to all vices. Some have even declared rape as a legitimate way of reproduction, see p.106 of the above mentioned book. Therefore, to assume that only atheists have some degree of understanding and the rest of the world are idiots is in itself idiocy. 3, There is a huge difference between fact and theory. Theory is a concept which is based on educated guesses, where people get two or more premises and then come up with a conclusion or derivation. A theory is only correct if the presumptions are correct, however, we know that presumptions are often subject to doubts. People’s presumptions change depending on their age, intelligence, previous knowledge and experience. For example a child thinks that mummy pointed towards a four legged animal and said “cat” next time it sees a dog and thinks it’s a cat. Likewise, evolutionists are basing their theory, not on facts but rather on information and research which are incomplete, inconclusive and always changing. Their method of research and function of conclusion are far from being scientific. Then when they are proven to be wrong scientifically, they attempt to give false logical explanations. Evolution is a theory, Hence, it is open to scrutiny and is not to be accepted until proven. It is not yet proven and never will be till the day of qiyamah. To put it in the words of Revrand Williams ” We do not ban research, but we will not allow the wild vagaries of imagination to pass as truth” 4, if scientific research of the big bang is correct, then why did it only happen once? There are millions of atoms in the universe at this present time. Why is it not repeating itself? Let’s say the big bang did take place, then is it not possible that God was behind it? In fact a verse in the holy qur’an indicates towards this. Allah says “Have those who disbelieve not seen that the heavens and the earth were joined then we parted them, and from water we created every living thing, Will they not then beIieve? (Suratul Ambiyaa 21:30) Professor Anisur Rahman is of the view that this verse is pointing towards the big bang. 5. What is philosophy? It is a way of thinking. When philosophers think about creation they start off with the big bang and evolution at the back of their minds. So everything that follows is based on that. Religious people have God in their hearts and so they think of the universe as a creation which was brought into existence by the Supreme Creator. Both try to prove their point. One prominent professor says that both groups study the universe, the scientists as well as the religious. However, their intentions are different. A parable can be made with a group entering a beautiful palace. Some are looking around to see if there is anything useful for them, any ideas they can take and copy in their own places or maybe any mistakes which they can point out. The others look around in wonder and are amazed by the way it’s been constructed. They admire the architect and praise the engineers and builders. Similarly, the philosophers study the universe for their own agenda. However, the religious study and marvel at the wisdom of the creator. That is why when a scientist is a believer, his belief is much stronger than a layman. 6, I think science keeps changing because it is still immature, maybe one day when it will mature, it will merge with Islam. Source

Kashif Zuberi What is the evidence of existence of God? One may ask, what is the evidence of the existence of God? What is the evidence that the earth and the universe that we see around us have a Creator? Can't this come into existence on its own? The Reply: The design in creation proves the existence of a designer. As one of names by which God calls Himself in the Quran is 'Al-Mosawer', meaning 'The Fashioner'. We find that certain basic forces and ratios which govern critical features of our universe, such as the stability of subatomic particles and the lifetime of stars, are uncannily specific and sensitive - in some cases to the 3rd decimal place - and that any slight change would short circuit the development of a universe like ours. No scientist denies this. The Big Bang is now an established science which formed the galaxies, and the universe we live in. However, was this a result of chance or is there an intelligent Designer behind it? Let us analyse. If one considers that it was a result of chance, that it happened accidentally, the question that arise is that do accidents result in chaos or design? Observation tells us that accidents result in chaos. If a glass is dropped from a table and breaks into pieces, the result is chaos. If a salvage yard on the south side of town blows up, the metal pieces do not form a car, infact the result is a chaos. And so on. However if we observe the universe, it is not a chaos. There surely is a specific design. How can this design come into existence by chance? So i say, that there has to a Intelligent Designer behind this. Who created God? A counter argument that any atheist may present is that if all these have a creator, then the creator of all these must also have a Creator. So who created God? And also what proof is there that this creator is Only One? The Reply: The reply to this is that this Designer has to be One, who is not designed Himself. Because if one says that we are designed by someone, who was himself designed, then that designer would need a designer itself, and so on. This would go to infinity. Lets see if this is possible. Suppose if A asks B to help him to lift a table, and B puts a condition that he will help only if he is helped by C, and C puts the condition that he will help, only if he is helped by D, and the chain goes to infinity. Will the table be ever lifted up? The answer is no. Similarly if the Creator needs a creator, then that creator would also need a creator. And this would go till infinity. If this were the case, the creation would never take place. But since we are in existence, creation has taken place. This proofs that there has to be one Ultimate Creator who was not created. So, for us to exist, the action has already taken place. This proves the existence of a Designer, who was Himself not designed, but exists on His own, without a beginning. Unique Creator: This creator has to be unlike creation, otherwise He would have needed a creator to create Him.

A Brief Illustrated Guide to Understanding Islam islam-guide.pdf Islam Friend or Foe of Humanity Read Online Clear Proofs Of Allah Amjad Muhammad Contained within the Holy Quran are 'miracles' and 'signs' which add proof to Allah Almighty's existence and the authenticity of Prophet Muhammad sallallahu 'alayhi wasallam as a guide and as an upholder of the truth. The Manifestations of Allah's Qudrat (power) Zubair Dudha

By Mufti Yusuf Mullan Deoband.org The following six step argument has been formulated with the modern agnostic and atheist in mind. Each premise is accompanied with an explanation of the exact ‘manner of deduction’, so the reader may appreciate exactly what is being done. The argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with necessary existence (ithbat al-wajib) and attributes of perfection such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also free of all flaws, including resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one to pose the question, “Who created him?” This will all be done based only on universally accepted absurdities (musta’hilat). Certain areas where attempts have been made to undermine the proof have been given extra attention. Most major objections have been dealt with in the main body of the article. Assumptions and Summary Due to the lengthy nature of the article, we will first list the hinges upon which the argument depends, and then a brief outline of the premises. This will be followed by detailed commentary on all of the stages of the proof, including preempting all major rebuttals. The issue is a serious one, and we ask our reader to please bear with us. The argument presupposes two matters that we believe are beyond debate. We will thus not engage in attempting to ‘prove’ these two issues. Instead, we would rather not discuss with anyone doubtful in these two issues. They are very obvious: 1. Firstly, the real existence of beings, attributes and events we observe in the world. Our direct observation of them is sufficient in acquiring knowledge of their real existence. 2. Secondly, the principle of non-contradiction. It is not possible for two directly opposing propositions to both be true, and likewise for both to be false. Necessarily, one will be true and the other will be false. Similarly if a proposition leads to contradiction – and we are able to demonstrate this – its opposite will need to be accepted as true on this basis alone. It is not warranted for someone to claim we have not proven our point, if we were successful in demonstrating contradiction within its opposite. Yes. If an opponent wants to contest our disjunction, claiming a third option is possible, they are free to do so. Throughout the article, we will preempt all such occasions. Naturally, the article will get lengthy at such places. For this reason we offer a brief summary before beginning. Below are the six stages of the argument listed in a summarised fashion: Premise 1: [i lift my hand in real life, point to it and say,] This particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist. Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. Premise 3: Therefore, this particular movement of my hand must have a cause. Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no third possibility. Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause. Conclusion: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must have been a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails]. Just by viewing the summary above, one can gather the following: * This is not your conventional cosmological argument that sets out to establish a finite beginning in time for the universe and argues for a “primary mover” or “first cause”. We ask our reader to please put aside preconceived notions of what they might think the argument is attempting and instead pay particular attention to the commentary which is to follow. * From the premises above, one can clearly see that this argument is attempting to prove both the existence of a Creator and also occasionalism, all in one go. * In establishing premise 5, the argument will invoke the absurdity of “infinite regress”, as we believe no sound argument for the existence of a Creator can be formulated without tackling this important angle. Again, we ask that the reader not jump to conclusions prior to reading our explanation. After this brief introduction, let’s now begin with the commentary: Premise 1: [i lift my hand in real life, point to it and say,] This particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist. The purpose of the first premise is to prepare a subject and place it in a class based on a consideration relevant to our argument. Here the subject is a particular movement of my hand.[1] Is this act something or is it nothing? Obviously, it is something. What do we call it? Let’s agree on a term. Given that prior to my initiating this movement, my hand was in my lap. When I lifted it, the particular movement which was not there earlier, only now began to exist. Based on this obvious reality, we suggest that the predicate for the first premise should be ‘something which began to exist’. We will ask our opponent, whether this is an accurate categorization or not. In the first premise we are not ‘proving’ anything. We rely on one-time direct observation in validating this first premise. It does not involve any experiment, induction or deduction. ‘Beginning to exist’ is a simple meaning which is clear. What it contains is the simple notion of a previously non-existent act entering into the realm of extra-mental existence, something for which it was always possible to exist in the mind’s eye. When something of this nature actually does exist, this is what we mean by ‘beginning to exist’. What else do we intend by this phrase? Do we have any elaborate notions regarding this phrase? We say, this is an irrelevant question. Please put aside what we believe, and focus on the reality of the hand being stationary, followed by the particular movement I later drew attention to. What problem can there then be, if we choose to call it exactly what it is? If one needs to contrast the phrase with something which “did not begin to exist”, then this is very easy. Any imaginary movement can be used to illustrate the opposite of ‘beginning to exist’. We obviously believe in more than this which will be the ultimate conclusion of the entire argument. The point is that our first premise does not in any way depend on this conclusion. In order to accept the idea of ‘beginning to exist’ one is not required to acknowledge at the very outset an extra-mentally existing Entity which never began to exist, i.e. an Entity which is eternally existent. This is not the only opposite to our phrase ’something which began to exist’. The more obvious and universally agreed-upon opposite are those possible acts which have yet to begin. Any yet to exist possible act will suffice. We can now move to the second premise.[2] Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause. In this second premise we have taken the predicate of the previous premise (something which began to exist) and have made a universal judgment upon it. If we are successful in demonstrating the truth of this universal judgment, then by rational necessity whatever we say here regarding ‘things which begin to exist’ as a class will need to extend to the subject of our first proposition, i.e. the movement of my hand. This is a self-evidently valid form of deduction. We call it the Great Rule of Equivalence.[3] It involves two premises; a minor one which simply prepares a subject and makes it belong to a class, and a major premise which takes the class and makes a universal judgment on it. The purpose is to extend the judgment on the class to the particular contained within the minor premise.[4] How then do we demonstrate the truth of the proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’? Is it by accepting this to be a self-evident axiom not in need of being proven, or is it done by surveying the particulars of the principle, i.e. by way of induction, or by way of some other method? We say, it is indeed a self-evident truth. It is one of those things which are ingrained in our very nature. This knowledge is not ‘acquired’ through experience. Instead it is used in arguments to prove other less self-evidently true claims. Had it been inductive, an old person 70 years of age would be more convinced of its veracity [because of having many more opportunities to have tested the principle] than say a child of 8 or 9 years. This however is definitely not the case. Children and old people share exactly the same degree of conviction regarding this principle. Furthermore, we draw attention to the fact that knowledge of real extra-mental things in the world is something we do not doubt. This knowledge however is based entirely on the causality principle. If you were to enter a room with your eyes closed, you would not know what is in the room. When you open your eyes, only then, knowledge of what is in the room will be gained for you. We say, if you do not have doubt regarding knowledge of the real existence of the things in the room, you should also not doubt the principle which was the basis for this knowledge. This is what we mean when we say that this principle is self-evidently true. Another example of something which is self-evidently true is the impossibility of contradiction. As far as the truth of our second premise is concerned, many will be satisfied with what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. Some will naturally need more. Not a problem. We have a second method for demonstrating the truth of the proposition. This second method is nothing more than taking one first principle (the causality principle) and explaining it in light of another more clear first principle, namely the impossibility of contradiction. The questions to our opponent at this time would be: Do you accept that contradictions are impossible? Do you accept that every thesis has an antithesis? Do you accept that if one of two direct opposites is false on account of involving contradiction, then by rational necessity the other must be true? If these three obvious points are conceded, we may proceed: The direct opposite of ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is ‘Not everything which begins to exist must have a cause’, which is in the power of ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’. Anything which begins to exist by definition can not be necessarily existent [whether such a category actually exists or not is not the point currently. Our opponent is free to believe that it is purely hypothetical]. Otherwise it would have been existent since eternity past, since necessarily existent means its very nature requires for it to exist in which case it cannot have a beginning for its existence. Similarly, it can not be impossible because impossible things do not happen in which case it would not have begun to exist. Since such a thing can neither be necessary, nor impossible, it must be merely possible (another word for which is contingent). Therefore, with respect to the very nature of such a thing, both existence and non-existence are equal. That it is to say, there is nothing in its very nature which requires existence (since it is not necessary), nor is there anything in its very nature which requires non-existence (since it is also not impossible). Thus the two are indeed equal. Whenever any contingent being [or attribute, act, event] leaves the realm of non-existence and becomes existent [such as the movement of my hand, subsequent to it being stationary in my lap] , it will necessarily need to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over its non-existence. Otherwise, this is impossible on account of involving preponderance without a preferrer.[5] This is a contradiction because it leads to non-equality in existence and non-existence of that wherein equality of the two was assumed [in the previous paragraph]. The thing we’re talking about like the hand-movement was not necessary, nor was it impossible. Its existence and non-existence were both equal, i.e. not required by its very nature.. so now, if it comes to be without a cause, then this means that existence [in relation to its very nature] is preponderant over non-existence, and just a minute ago we agreed that the two were equal. So how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence? Since contradictions are impossible, our antithesis ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’ is definitely false. Since both a thesis and its antithesis can not be false, our original proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is necessarily true.[6] The conclusion of the argument until this point is: Premise 3: Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause. The above concludes the first leg of our argument. We will now take the conclusion arrived at from the above, namely ‘a cause’ and make it the subject of a new argument using another mode of argument called the Rule of Opposition. But before this, let us remind that in all of the above steps what we did not do is mention the word God. Not even once. Even the term ‘necessarily existent’ only occurred once, and that too in a hypothetical context. The phrase ‘eternally existent’ similarly occurred once in order to illustrate that the first premise did not rely on our adversary’s acceptance of eternal existence. This is an important point, namely that the above steps were clearly traversed without any reliance on our ultimate conclusion or anything entailed thereby. Therefore, it is accurate when we say, we did not expect our adversary to entertain any notion which he does not already believe to be true. Having arrived at the conclusion in step 3, we are now ready to introduce the Rule of Opposition. This is another intuitively deductive mode of argument the veracity of which no reasonable human being can doubt.[7] In the previous argument we established with zero probability of the opposite alternative that the movement of my hand definitely has a cause. Now, we will restrict this conclusion of the previous argument within two exhaustive possibilities. One of them will be based on what our adversary understands from causality and existence. We will tailor for him a very specific analogy in order to demonstrate that the cause for the hand-movement cannot have been what he understands from both causality and existence. This will be because his side of the disjunction involves glaring absurdities which are universally accepted: “…when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. This is universally agreed upon. This is the Rule of Opposition. Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility. This has been thoroughly explained in the previous section. The B side of the disjunction is our true claim. It is yet to be proven. Do not worry. We will do that towards the end of the argument. Placing it right there in the premise for the world to see is totally valid, since we are now dealing with a disjunction. It will be our task to illustrate how side A involves glaring absurdities, and how these absurdities can not be removed in any way except by accepting what we will place on the B side of the disjunction. This is what the Rule of Opposition is supposed to do after all. Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause. To claim that the cause which resulted in the movement of my hand was of the very same nature as the movement itself, namely something which itself began to exist, is not possible, because positing this necessitates that the movement of my hand remain in the realm of non-existence, whereas in premise 1 we confirmed that the hand did move. If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of beginnings and endings. This is like a car, if it needs to move from A to B, and the condition for its reaching its destination happens to be the concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible, since you would need an infinite amount of time to conclude an infinite amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur. At this point, our opponent will say something along the lines of the following: “Fair enough. We do not entertain an infinite regress. We have our reasons for this. According to us, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime. Existence and causality can not occur independent of spacetime. Therefore, the journey stops at this event. If you want to continue the journey beyond this point, you must bring proof”. We will reply thus: Your stopping of the journey itself at any finite time in the past [based on whatever consideration] does nothing to remove the absurdity we are highlighting.[8] If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled, including the need attached to the very first unit in the series. In utter desperation, he or she will now ask, “OK, you tell us, what happened? You will inadvertently say, ‘there was an Entity in the background all along (God) who pulled the trigger for the first soldier’. Where did this Entity come from? He was never part of the equation. This is absurd. If you can entertain this absurdity, I can claim that the very first unit in the series occurred causelessly. What’s the difference?” We will respectfully remind them at this point that we are still discussing their side of the disjunction. There are no soldiers for us, as will become clear very shortly. Be patient. This whole analogy was carefully tailored to reflect only our adversary’s notions of existence and causality, namely that both causality and existence cannot occur independent of spacetime. This is why there is no such Entity as part of the equation. We are not being gratuitous. Not at all. At this point, we particularly ask our reader to please focus on what is about to be said. In the upcoming paragraphs we will address some major rebuttals which have been presented throughout the ages. This will get intense, and it is possible that some might need to reread what we will mention a couple of times in order to get a clear picture. What just happened in these last two paragraphs is very significant: The atheist thought we were getting ready to establish a “first cause” (after all, this is what the majority of arguments out there do), thinking we too must reply to the soldiers’ analogy. He found positing an entity outside spacetime to be absurd because according to him there is no existence, nor causality outside spacetime. He misunderstood and believed the soldiers were there to represent entities and attributes which exist in the world. Since we also believe in the existence of such entities and attributes, we also must offer a solution. He then assumed our solution was to invoke a first cause. Based on this, he attempted to put words in our mouth: “there was an Entity in the background..” We, instead, took this very objection of the atheist and made it a component of our proof, which we will later make use of in order to establish “occasionalism” which is our true belief. The soldiers are not there to represent entities and attributes which began to exist. Therefore, not everyone who accepts the existence of these entities and attributes will be confronted with this ‘riddle’. Rather they are there to represent existing entities and attributes only in their capacity as causes leading to the movement of my hand. This is the understanding of our adversary. The analogy was tailored specifically for him. We do not adopt this position. Therefore the soldiers do not apply to us. We claim there is absolutely no solution to this problem according to the principles held to be true according to the adversary, namely that causality and existence cannot occur independent of spacetime.[9] As for the question of whether positing a first cause is a viable position, in and of itself, and if an agnostic chooses to forgo their principles (of spacetime dependency) and entertains “transcendence” solely in order to terminate the infinite regress, while of course claiming that the Entity is simply transcendent and beyond spacetime (in order to differentiate him from the rest of the soldiers), though life-less and unconscious… will such a positing undermine our fifth premise which states that the cause for the hand-movement is not a contingent cause? In other words, what problem is there in having an Entity set the series of contingent causes into motion at a particular point in time (for ease of reference, let’s choose the Big Bang singularity), and then have the contingent causes bring about their effects, one after the other, eventually leading to the movement of my hand? Moreover, why does this Entity need to be alive, or posses any consciousness? Perhaps he triggered the chain reaction inadvertently? This is an important question. We will address this below: We contest the notion that mere transcendence (being outside spacetime) is sufficient in terminating the infinite regress. Rather what is required is “necessary existence”. This was intended to be explained at stage 6, but we see no option but to exhaust the issue right here at premise 5. We thus begin: The very first event in the series of contingent causes occurred, configured with a specific configuration of certain attributes, such as location, precise moment of existence, intensity, duration, etc. Take the time aspect for instance: The event occurred at a particular point in time which has been traced back to approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We argue that in the mind’s eye it was conceivable for this to have occurred before or after its actual time by an almost infinite amount of moments in either direction. All such moments were equal. There was nothing in the very nature of the event which required for it to come to be at its specific moment (otherwise, we would not have been able to even conceive other possible moments), nor was there anything within its very nature requiring for it to not exist at this moment (because impossible things do not happen). All moments were thus equal in relation to its very nature. Now, when it did occur at its specific moment, this must have been on account of an attribute within the Being that caused it which specified one of an almost infinite amount of moments above all others. We will call this attribute “will”, constitutive of which is “life”. Claiming that the Entity caused the chain reaction of contingent causes without being alive, or without possessing will, is absurd, because it entails a contradiction of non-equality within the total possible moments, all of which were deemed equal.[10] Thus there must have been will, constitutive of which is life. So the attribute by which the actual coming into existence of the first event occurred is “power”, and the attribute by which the attributes of that event (location, moment of existence, intensity, duration, etc.) were specified is “will”. Moreover, an Entity capable of creating based on specification can not create what He does not “know”. We thus have the four attributes of life, power, will and knowledge. These are all necessary. Without them, the infinite regress cannot be terminated. By the admission of the agnostic, transcendence was a requirement for terminating the regress. In addition to that, we have shown in the previous paragraph that the Entity must also have been alive, willing and knowing. Otherwise, He could not have caused the first event in order to trigger the chain reaction. We further argue, that the power, will, and knowledge of this Entity cannot have been restricted only to the first event, but rather, by rational necessity, these attributes must also be “perfect”. By perfection, we mean they must extend to all the subsequent contingent events in the chain leading up to the movement of my hand. Otherwise, positing that the four attributes are restricted to only the first event would disqualify this Entity from its role in terminating the regress, because He would then need another Entity in order to specify the application of His attributes to the first event and prevent them from applying to all others, in which case He would not be the Entity we were seeking. He would just be another contingent being posited outside spacetime. The regress would thus continue without being terminated. He wouldn’t be able to end the regress, rather he would just contribute to extending it. Since for the very termination of the regress it is absolutely necessary for the Entity to have not only brought the first event into existence, but also all other subsequent events, it now becomes clear that it is absurd to posit a first cause outside spacetime which brought about the first event but remained disassociated from all others. Our premise that the cause for this hand-movement was not a contingent cause thus holds true. From the above, it is quite clear that the movement of my hand can absolutely not have been caused by something which is of the same nature as the movement itself, namely contingent.[11] This is because, for the cause to be contingent results in an infinite series of causes going back in the past which can never be traversed and concluded. Since the series can never be concluded, the movement of my hand can never have had a chance to exist, whereas we confirmed that the hand did move. Both the movement of my hand (Premise 1) and the non-existence of this movement (entailed by the contradictory of Premise 5) at the same time is a contradiction. Therefore, side A of the disjunction is clearly impossible. Conclusion: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must have been a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails]. This brings us to the conclusion of our argument. There is not much left for us to do at this point. Everything has already been explained in sufficient detail. Having disproved the false side of the disjunction, naturally, the only way my hand could have moved, since that could not have happened causelessly (Premise 2), and it also could not have happened based on a contingent cause (Premise 5) — the true reason my hand moved must have been by the creation of a necessarily existent Being, free of all of the properties which led to the glaring absurdities discussed above. This must be so. This Entity can not have a beginning for its existence. Otherwise He too would need a cause [or Creator], thus bringing us back to the soldiers. Moreover, He does not need a Creator, because He is not attributed with events or any of the spacetime dependent attributes that things in the universe are attributed with. All of his Divine attributes are perfect and do not require specification. His knowledge, will and power apply to all possible things. In short, He is exalted and pure from all of the possible reasons why someone can ask the question, “Who created him?” This not having a beginning coupled with positing the non-existence of the Entity leading to absurdity is exactly what we mean by necessary existence. Nothing else. At this stage of the argument it is not a claim. It is not something we are respectfully asking our agnostic to entertain. No. It is the very conclusion proven through a compelling argument, with zero probability of the opposite alternative. The whole point behind this is my hand did move. There is no doubt about that. Making the movement dependent on any of the things discussed until now leads to its non-occurrence, which contradicts its beginning to exist. Therefore, we will have to entertain whatever it takes to remove the absurdities. There is no other way. Part of this ‘whatever it takes to remove the absurdities’ is will, power and knowledge, constitutive of which is life. Will, power and knowledge can not occur without life. Along with the essence of this necessarily existent being [which we cannot comprehend due to our limited intellects], we argue that there is something there on the B side of the disjunction which is specifying the time, place, quality, quantity, etc. of all the bodies, attributes and events occurring in the universe. We will call this ‘something’ will. So that by which the specification of the contingent beings occurs is will, and that by which they are brought into existence is power. Furthermore, a necessarily existent Being who creates based on specification, can not create what he does not know. Finally, He must be one. Because if there were multiple such necessarily existent beings then the removal of the absurdities discussed above could have alternatively been attributed to either of the two, thus resulting in the other being dismissible. This contradicts the necessary existence of that other, whereas we assumed them both to be necessarily existent. This is a contradiction, and what led to it must be impossible, namely the positing of multiple necessarily existent beings. Therefore, He must by rational necessity be one. _____________________________ For the subject of the first premise we have chosen a particular event, as opposed to an entity, like the hand itself. This event happens to be a movement. It could have easily been a sound or a sensation, like the pain one feels when kicked in the shin, or anything else. Naturally, then, every place we use the word “thing” it should not be restricted to entities, but rather understood in a general sense inclusive of attributes and events also. So please do not get caught up in the specifics of the hand-movement, [or worse, movement in a generic sense,] and miss the point of the argument. Also, the lengthy commentary under premise one is not because we want to make sure our opponent accepts the real existence of things in the world, since that was already mentioned above as an assumption without the acceptance of which we would rather not discuss. Instead, the point emphasized here is that our categorization of the hand-movement within “things which began to exist” is an accurate categorization. This is an important first step which should not be treated lightly. [↩] What this means is that the true division according to us is a three-way division: 1. Things which began to exist, 2. Possible things which are yet to actually begin. Instead they remain in the realm of imagination, e.g. a hypothetical movement of my hand which could have occurred, but did not, 3. The necessarily existent Entity which exists in a real sense and has no beginning. The opponent agrees with us on the first two types but denies this third one. According to him everything which exists [period] has a beginning. According to him, there is no such thing as an Entity which exists and yet has no beginning. In other words, our opponent maintains only a two-way division, instead of a three-way division like we do. The point behind this paragraph in the article is to illustrate that in order for the phrase ‘something which begins to exist’ to be meaningful, all we are requiring from our opponent is to accept the agreed upon two-way division. He is free to believe that everything which exists [without exception] has a beginning. We will force him to the third type (which is our ultimate conclusion) through the remaining steps of the argument. [↩] The Great Rule is very powerful and, as mentioned, self-evidently deductive. The brilliant example of this given by al-Ghazali in the Qistas is that of an animal with an inflated stomach. We see it in front of us and someone claims that it is pregnant. The animal happens to be a mule. In order to explain the error in this claim, you will have to do two things in a particular order. Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the animal is indeed a mule. Otherwise, whatever claim you make about mules, even if you can prove it, will be totally irrelevant. Hence the first step would be to observe the animal and determine that it is definitely a mule. Once done, you can now draw attention to the fact that all mules (as a class) are sterile. You will ask, Do you not know that this animal is a mule? The person will say, Yes… Do you not know that all mules as a class are sterile? He will reply, Yes… Now you know that the animal standing in front of us is not pregnant. [↩] Before moving on to demonstrate the truth of our second premise we need to clear up quickly one objection certain doubt casters like to use to undermine our proof. They claim that the statement ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is a mere tautology, void of any real meaning. There is no room for this objection, but they like to keep repeating it. They are suggesting that our premise is a mere wordplay. According to them, ‘Everything which begins to exist’ [based on our elaborate understanding of it] already contains the idea of causality. Thus it is a redundant and repetitive statement similar to ‘All bachelors are unmarried’. Since that is the case, the premise does not even convey any new information. We say, our adversary forgets that he already agreed with us, when we asked about the movement of my hand and whether it was accurate to call that movement something which began to exist. He forgets that it is this very term agreed upon between us in the earlier premise which is being carried forward to the second premise. Forget our own elaborate understanding. Concentrate on what the words actually mean. So, if the term already contains causality, then this is what we want from them in the first place. By agreeing to the term earlier, they have simply relieved us from one step in the argument. The truth is that this criticism was not even worth mentioning. They know very well that causality is not constitutive of ‘beginning to exist’ just like the angles of a triangle totaling 180 degrees is not constitutive of the reality of a triangle. Meaning it is possible to conceive a triangle which is nothing more than a figure encompassed by three sides without being aware of the reality of the angles needing to total 180 degrees. In exactly the same way, beginning to exist is something, and having a cause is something else. Yes. The two are definitely concomitant and it is not possible for something to begin to exist and not have a cause [as we will demonstrate in the main proof], just like a triangle can not exist without its angles totaling 180 degrees. But does that mean causality is contained within the very meaning of beginning to exist? This is nonsense. This is an objection brought solely to undermine our proof with no other justification besides not wanting us to use the premise. [↩] P w/o P is simply a name we are giving to the specific absurdity about to be highlighted in the article. Keep reading and from the main article alone it should become clear that P w/o P is not some assumed argument with premises of its own. The very contradiction detailed in the article IS the P w/o P. This particular phrase is our own English rendering of the Arabic phrase rujhan min ghair murajjih, and for this reason, you will not find it used in other versions of the Cosmological Argument. [↩] The necessary truth of the proposition has been proven rationally. Now, recall what we said in the introduction, namely that this can no longer be contested by any emperical evidence, or scientific observation. Rather, if one presents anything along these lines to contest the universal application of the proposition, the reply will be simple: obviously, the most such an observation can show us is the lack of an observable cause. It does not solve the contradiction we highlighted just now. Indeed, at this point, the opponent must refute our argument mentioned in the main article, and then present the scientific finding. He must do both in order to contest our premise. [↩] The example of it is that of a man whom we observe walking into a house through the door. The house has only two rooms and no windows. We then follow him through the door and look for him in one of the two rooms. We do not find him to be there. What is the conclusion? He must by rational necessity be in the other. He can not be in neither. So, sometimes our knowledge of him being in a particular room is by observing him there directly, and at other times it is by finding the other room empty of him. [↩] This is very similar to how presenting scientific findings in the field of Quantum Mechanics does nothing to undermine our earlier proposition regarding the causality principle, as explained in the previous footnote. Just as in the previous premise, here too, the adversary needs to remove the absurdity, not draw attention to Big Bang cosmology. [↩] Indeed there is no solution to the “riddle” once one has restricted causality and existence to the realm of four-dimensional spacetime, and it is this very absence of a solution which forces us to look at the B side of the disjunction, as we will do further down in the article. So, our soldiers’ analogy is in no way similar to Zeno’s paradoxes, as some like to mention. Those have solutions which one can figure out with minimum difficulty, and what we’ve presented here is absolute impossibility. [↩] The reasoning adopted here is identical to what was presented earlier while establishing the second premise. It is the same “preponderance without a preferrer” absurdity discussed earlier. Here, it is even more clear, since while discussing causality, the equal options were just two. One of two equal options attaining preponderance without a preferrer was shown to be absurd. How then can this occurring in an almost infinite amount of possibilities not be absurd? [↩] As for the observable causality which we see between fire burning and water quenching thirst and other events of this nature, we maintain that these are not the true reasons why things begin to exist. So, if one attributes the movement of my hand to immediately preceding organs, tissues and skeletal muscles, while attributing these earlier movements to the flow of blood and neurological phenomena– if one claims that these are the only reasons why things begin to exist, we will place the soldiers in front of them and ask for a reply. Does that mean we Muslims deny empirical observation and deny that there this is any correlation between these events? No. Not at all. We say, there is a correlation, and that is all it is, a correlation. It is not causality in the sense that was established in the second premise. The Creator who created the movement of my hand through his will, power and knowledge and maintains my existence at each and every moment has chosen for the world to function in this way. He creates the earlier events and also creates the subsequent events. His habit is for these things to generally co-exist. To those who are unaware of the true reality, this gives the impression of causality between these events. The rational mind, however, understands that incomplete induction is no proof which could lead to absolute certainty. Our repeated observations of fire burning does not necessarily entail that it is the fire that does the actual burning. This is because no matter how many times we make the observation, we will never be able to make complete induction. We can thus never claim that it will always be the case. More importantly though, causality is a “meaning” which at most can only be inferred from observed events. You can not see it directly. The intellect will judge and point out the error in this inference of causality from the events we observe in the world. So, what is observed is correlation, and we accept this without any doubt; what is inferred is causality between the events, and we reject this based on the proof presented in this article. Our position thus is the only viable belief which is in full conformity to empirical evidence and the judgement of the intellect. Every now and then, the Creator, Exalted be He, will do something which contradicts the normal pattern based on His infinite wisdom and in order to guide His creation to the truth. This is the basis for miracles. A miracle is an act of God done contrary to the normal pattern of observed cause and effect (what was earlier referred to as correlation). In the case of a miracle, He will do this in order to strengthen a Prophet in his claim to prophethood. The act thus stands in the place of the Almighty Himself saying, “My servant has spoken the truth”. [↩]

Question: Can a Muslim male/female celebrate Christmas with extended family if they are a revert? Answer: In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh. As Muslims we are sensitive to our belief of pure Tawḥīd (Oneness of Allah Taʿālā). This requires us to also completely disassociate ourselves from all practices related to Christianity and other religions. Allah Ta’ala says, إِنَّ الدِّينَ عِنْدَ اللَّهِ الإِسْلامُ Definitely, the only religion with Allah(acceptable to Allah) is Islam (to hand over oneself totally to Allah). )Al-Imran19). In another verse Allah Ta’ala states, يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُوا لَا تَتَّخِذُوا الْيَهُودَ وَالنَّصَارَى أَوْلِيَاءَ بَعْضُهُمْ أَوْلِيَاءُ بَعْضٍ وَمَنْ يَتَوَلَّهُمْ مِنْكُمْ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْهُمْ O you who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are but friends to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them.” (Surah al-Ma’idah, V: 51) It is clear from the above quotations that it is not permissible for us to maintain such contact with non-Muslims that we begin compromising in our religious beliefs. In order to preserve our Imaan and value, we are even prohibited to imitate them. The prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wa Sallam has said: مَنْ تَشَبَّهَ بِقَوْمٍ فَهُوَ مِنْهُمْ “Whosoever emulates a nation is amongst them” Sunan Abi Dawud 4/44 In view of the above, it is not permissible for a Muslim to attend the religious festivals and ceremonies of non-Muslims.1 Moreover, Christmas in its very origin and its traditions is against the pure teachings and principles of Islam, such as; · Celebrating the birth of Jesus. · The traditional colour of Christmas, red, symbolizes the blood of Jesus which was shed in his crucifixion. · The heart-shaped leaves of ivy were said to symbolize the coming to earth of Jesus, while holly was seen as protection against pagans and witches, its thorns and red berries held to represent the Crown of Thorns worn by Jesus at the crucifixion and the blood he shed. · The Christmas tree is considered by some as Christianisation of pagan tradition and ritual surrounding the Winter Solstice, and an adaptation of pagan tree worship.2 We acknowledge a revert will face various challenges in his Imaan especially from non-Muslim family members. On one side, Shari’ah emphasizes on guarding our Imaan and on the other side Shari’ah also emphasizes on maintaining family ties. Obviously, this would be without compromising ones Islamic values and beliefs. A revert should make it clear that he loves his family but loves his Imaan more. He should draw a line between belief and family. He should maintain ties with family and be kind and compassionate to them without joining them in Christmas and other celebrations that are non-Islamic. And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best Checked and Approved by, Mufti Ebrahim Desai. قال رحمه الله ( والاعطاء باسم النيروز والمهرجان لا يجوز ) أي الهدايا باسم هذين اليومين حرام بل كفر 1 وقال أبو حفص الكبير رحمه الله لو أن رجلا عبد الله تعالى خمسين سنة ثم جاء النيروز وأهدى إلى بعض المشركين بيضة يريد تعظيم ذلك اليوم فقد كفر وحبط عمله البحر الرائق(8/ 555 وقال صاحب الجامع الأصغر إذا أهدي يوم النيروز إلى مسلم آخر ولم يرد به تعظيم اليوم ولكن على ما اعتاده بعض الناس لا يكفر ولكن ينبغي له أن لا يفعل ذلك في ذلك اليوم خاصة ويفعله قبله أو بعده لكيلا ( ( ( لكي ) ) ) يكون تشبيها باؤلئك القوم وقد قال من تشبه بقوم فهو منهم البحر الرائق(8/ 555 ( والإعطاء باسم النيروز والمهرجان لا يجوز ) أي الهدايا باسم هذين اليومين حرام ( وإن قصد تعظيمه ) كما يعظمه المشركون ( يكفر ) الدر المختار(6/ 754 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas http://idealwoman.org/2013/ruling-on-joining-in-the-kuffar-festivals/

Sister, at islamicteachings.org we are very particular about sourcing articles. Please provide the name of the author or the site. The article has been removed and inshaAllah will be restored once the source is confirmed as authentic. Jazaakillah

Healthy eating tips in the light of Ahadith Scientific research on un-refined flour Did Rasulullah Salallahu Alaihi Wasallam ever eat roti made of white flour? White flour had never come before Rasulullah Salallahu Alaihi Wasallam. In the time of Rasulullah Salallahu Alaihi Wasallam the sieves were such that they would keep the twigs and other such items back. The flour was always coarse. Roti made with such flour is healthy for a person. Generally bread made with refined flour becomes lumps in the stomach. Similarly margarine becomes plastic in the stomach. However roti is digestible. If the stomach of a person is not in order due to eating un-healthy foods, medication that is used to treat various sicknesses will also be ineffective. Nowadays, the roughage (such as the husk and bran) is removed from the flour whereas these are things that are required in the body. Thereafter these items are sold separately on the market. The husk keeps the cholesterol levels in control and lecithin keep the blood thin. Cardiologist also recommend rough flour with husk as it is healthy for the heart. They claim that the husk doesn’t allow the arteries to narrow but keeps it wide and allows blood to flow freely as required. In the USA it was discovered lately that one of the pharmaceutical companies were responsible for adding asinine in poultry feed which causes cancer. The very same company will then manufacture the relevant drug to fight cancer. This is how these companies make millions. The USA is now removing all these feeds of their shelves, but the damage caused is un-imaginable as this was only discovered after 60 years. There are still many other countries that market this poultry feed as well. WE SHOULD THEREFORE EMULATE THE SUNNAH IN EATING AS WELL AS IT WILL ALLOW ONE TO LIVE A HEALTHY LIFE. لَقَدْ كَانَ لَكُمْ فِي رَسُولِ اللَّهِ أُسْوَةٌ حَسَنَةٌ Most certainly there is a beautiful example for you in Rasulullah Salallahu Alaihi Wasallam Source

Hadrat Thanwi R.A says that one should totally refrain from keeping contact with Na-mahram women or even young lads. One should refrain from glancing at them, speaking to them in person or even over the phone and deriving enjoyment. Unfortunately our nature has become such that we desire to see them and interact with them all the time whereas merely being in the environment of women has an adverse effect on a person. Many people change their tone when in conversation when women or neaten themselves in order to impress the opposite party, many men joke with women out of courtesy and feel that they are displaying good character by doing so. As long as a person does not abstain from such interaction in totality, one will not be able to attain extreme love of Allah Ta'ala. Sheikh Feroze Memon who is a Khalifa of Hadrat Hakim Saheb R.A told a person that was sitting with his family and watching a wrestling match, if you watch the news that is being presented by a woman then won’t you desire that woman? He replied in the positive. Sheikh then said to him, “Won’t your wife then desire the wrestlers that are being watched?” He immediately understood and said that I am opening the doors of Fitna. Hadrat Thanwi R.A says, “I am speaking the truth, don’t even create a slight contact with women as the harms are unimaginable. Due to such errors many wives leave their husbands and want to marry elsewhere. Hadrat Shah Hakim Muhammad Akhtar Saheb R.A explains that if the electricity department informs a locality that on a certain day electricity will be disconnected between 08:00 – 17:00, but the electrical cables should always be treated as live as the electricity department could re-connect the electrical supply to conduct. In a similar manner a person may think that he has no desire for women but no one can take things for granted as desire could spur up in a person. No person is protected from sin except that person who is protected by Allah Ta'ala. In order to protect one’s glances from glancing at women one will have to remain in the companionship of the Ahlullah (friends of Allah Ta'ala) and request them continuously to make Dua for us. Also, one should be punctual with the Zikr of Allah Ta'ala. A person that eats well and sleeps well is always fresh and lively whereas a person that lacks sleep or does not eat well is lethargic and tired. Similarly those that do not make their Zikr nor do they recite Quraan Sharif regularly, and miss their Salaah, get tempted and attracted to women in person or over the net, etc. The Zikr of Allah is extremely beneficial in protecting a person. One person wrote to Maulana Saleem Dhorat Saheb that he has no time for Tilaawat of Quraan. Maulana responded by saying that it is not a matter of not having any time but the importance of recitation of Quraan is not in your life. Generally people ensure that they find time for those things that are important in their life. Many people leave out Zikrullah as they don’t find any enjoyment in it. Hadrat Thanwi R.A. says that a person doesn’t get the enjoyment of Zikrullah but continues making Zikr will eventually gain the companionship of Allah Ta'ala and the condition of his heart will improve as well. This can be understood by an example, if you visit a certain person daily who is close to you, then such a person will enquire about you the day you are unable to visit him. The person that makes Zikrullah and recites the Quraan Sharif is so to say sitting by Allah Ta'ala. When he establishes a relationship with Allah Ta'ala then all the luxuries and enjoyments of the world mean absolutely nothing to him. This can be further understood by another example, a person wants to travel from point A to point B. He travels on a beautiful road that has beautiful flowers, water fountains, green grass etc. He enjoys the drive but his concern is to reach the destination. If he drives on a road that has potholes and may be un-enjoyable, then also it will not really bother him as his intention is to reach his destination. Similarly a person that wants to reach Allah Ta'ala is not concerned of the glitter and glamour of the world as he has an objective in mind. In conclusion, the Zikr of Allah Ta'ala assists a person in reaching this objective and goal. May Allah Ta'ala grant us the Taufeeq of making Amal. Ameen! khanqahashrafiaislamia

Jazakallah...beautiful du'a, covers all our needs of both worlds

wa'alaykumus salaam ww Sister Acacia got in before me! Shes right about the image icon on the tool bar however you need a url for that. Click on "more reply options" in the lower corner. At the bottom you'll see "Attach Files"...click on that, choose a picture from your PC and attach. Then "add to post" wherever you want it in the post.I find this easier. Youtube videos: following is the code (I've left a space deliberately after ) - add the link between the codes. [media] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7ZySx-TMeY

by UmHasan, sunniforum.com For most people living in the UK, the month of December signifies the end of the calendar year, long cold and wintery nights and above and beyond everything else, Christmas- the annual commemoration of the Christian belief of the birth of Jesus and the holiday festival that is an integral part of it. Regardless of one’s religious denomination, it is impossible to live in the West and not be affected by the huge commercial and celebratory practice that Christmas has become. In fact, Christmas has become such a widespread phenomenon that it is not uncommon to see many Muslims also participating to some extent in the celebrations of Christmas, in particular Muslim children who cannot avoid the Christmas parties, the Christmas plays and assemblies, Santa’s visit and the exchanging of cards and gifts that takes place in every school around the country. Yet, only a handful of us have stopped to consider how this affects our deen and our submission to Allah subhana wa ta’ala as the one and only God, whom we worship exclusively without compromise. It has become easier to be a ‘modern, adaptable Muslim’ than to ponder over whether the celebration of Christmas has any impact on our declaration to submit to the will of Allah and to worship Him alone, denouncing the practices and traditions of other faiths. Let us acknowledge first of all what the basic tenet of our faith entails; to believe that there is no god except Allah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah. To believe in Allah alone means to cease to involve oneself in any other act of worship, tradition, celebration or other activity that is the practise of other religions. This means that to celebrate Christmas or to participate in the Christmas festivities is to compromise on that submission to Islam. The Messenger of Allah (May the peace and blessing of Allah be upon him) has said ‘Whosoever imitates a people is from amongst them.’ (Abu Dawood). The implication of this hadith is that even if Muslims do not participate in Christmas festivities to celebrate the occasion themselves, imitating the actions of the disbelievers is also prohibited in Islam. Imitation ultimately leads to submersion and is not possible without inclination of the heart. After the initial stages of imitation and inclination comes submersion in the deed itself. So the question that now arises is how do we, as Muslims living in the UK, with our children attending schools where Christmas festivities are taken for granted as part of the curriculum, avoid compromising our faith without excluding our children from the fun and entertainment that is all around them? And how do we avoid celebrating Christmas without being accused of intolerance and hostility towards other faiths? Here are a few suggestions: 1. Tell the true story of Isa (peace be upon him), his life, his prophethood, his miraculous birth, his ascension to the heavens and his expected return before the Last Day. Isa (peace be upon him) was one of the greatest prophets of Islam and to talk about him and his miracles will allow the children to have a greater and more accurate understanding of the Islamic beliefs regarding him as well as fulfilling the child’s curiosity. It will allow children to distinguish Islamic beliefs from Christmas narrative when listening to accounts of Isa (peace be upon him) in school or others. 2. Open up dialogue with the school about your child’s participation in Christmas assemblies and other festivities. Many of our local schools are sympathetic to Muslim beliefs and by discussing with them the extent of your child’s involvement in the festivities, they may be willing to accommodate and we can avoid putting the children in situations that compromises their faith. 3. Teach our children the distinction between learning about other religions and believing in the teachings of other religions. For younger children, this may be more of a challenge but from the age of six onwards, we can explain to our children that although they may be told about other religions and there is nothing wrong in listening to the stories, our own beliefs are different. They can be taught by example from a young age to be respectful about other religions without adopting them themselves and without displaying contempt, because that would also be inappropriate. Allow yourself to step back from the urge to become caught up in the merriment without displaying behaviour that is conceited and disparaging. 4. Organise alternative celebrations for your children. Empower them with confidence in their own Muslim identity so they realise that don’t always need to a part of every party. They will have gifts, parties, fun and games on their own festivals and Allah has gifted us with two Eids in the year to have fun with. 5. Enjoy the holiday itself without celebrating Christmas. Avoid Christmas celebrations doesn’t necessarily mean that they cannot acknowledge the national holiday in itself. Organise activities and fun at this time of the year that is not related to Christmas. A family get- together when everyone has a holiday or a day out doing something they take pleasure in that is not Christmas related will mean the children do not feel left out. Above all, it is important to explain to children the reasons behind our non-participation in Christmas. Children need to know why. As parents, it is important that we explain to our children the reasons behind the decisions we make so they can take an active part in understanding the requirements of their faith and so they do not feel that a decision of their parents is being imposed on them. In particular, by explaining the radical differences between the Islamic belief of the Oneness of Allah compared to the Christian belief of trinity and the difference between the Islamic teachings of simplicity and contentment compared to the mass consumerism epidemic that overcomes people at Christmas time. sunniforum.com

by Dr. N. H. Naqvi Until the 16th century C.E. the operation of Caesarean section was a mystery and highly controversial in Europe but in the Middle Ages, Muslims wrote about the operation and even illustrated it with pictures. Towards the end of the 12th Century C.E. the European nations were beginning to surpass their rivals in the Islamic East. The increasing strength of the West took full advantage of scientific and literary discoveries of the Muslims. Far from giving any credit to the Muslims or acknowledging their contributions to science, the Western scholars painted a very distorted picture and left highly biased opinions of their predecessors from the Islamic world. This fact can be very easily illustrated by many examples from the history of medicine. It is unfortunate that the Western medical historians have not appreciated the value of the writings of early Muslim scholars. On the contrary, for many centuries they have made positive efforts to discredit the Muslims. As an example, it is a generally held view in the West that surgical advancement was discouraged by great Muslim physicians like Ibn Sina because, in his Al-Qanon he did not emphasise surgical procedures. In these futile efforts it is forgotten that Al-Qanon was primarily a treatise on internal medicine and not on surgery. Many European authors of later ages produced medical texts on similar patterns. Moreover these shortsighted historians completely ignored surgical geniuses and the contributions of people like Abu Qasim (known in the West as Al Bucasis). In this context, the history of Caesarean section presents a good example. In 1863 a French medical historian by the name of C. Rique recorded that the operation of Caesarean section was strictly prohibited in Islam. He went on to say that according to Islamic jurists any child born by such an operation should be killed immediately as a child of the Devil. This author also quoted the name of an unknown Arab to justify his conclusion. But even after exhaustive searches this reference can not be found in the authentic Arabic literature. From the middle of the last century until modem times, Rique's statement has been quoted and referred to by many historians without establishing the truth or its validity. The literature on this subject is littered with references to the above quotation without even referring to the original source. On the contrary, no medical historian has ever mentioned that during the middle ages it was a well known belief in Europe that the devil or the Antichrist would be born by Caesarean section before the end of the world. This legend is mentioned and supported by a picture in a book published in 1898 by R. Procter and can be seen in the British Museum. Unfortunately worthwhile literature of the early Islamic period is scanty and scattered or else is in the wrong hands. Many valuable manuscripts are either in private hands used only as profitable investments or in museums all over Europe and America. The Islamic states and the statesmen who can easily afford to collect and compile copies of these manuscripts for free circulation have never shown any interest in this wealth of inheritance. Lack of interest and research in these early manuscripts has created an atmosphere of doubt and misinformation. If someone cared to devote time and effort searching through the available literature, a great a deal of truth could easily be found buried under the sands of time. As regards Caesarean section we know that in the pre-Islamic days the Romans used to perform this operation after the death of a pregnant woman. This practice was strictly governed by law. Jewish religious books have also mentioned various rules in relation to a child born by an operation. If we go further back into history, in India we find that the Buddha was possibly born by an operation. A famous Indian medical man by the name of Susruta wrote about such an operation in 6th or 7th century B.C. All these rich sources relating to Caesarean section were available to Muslim scholars of the Middle Ages, when a vast amount of scientific literature was translated into Arabic. In fact many of the Syriac, Creek and Sanskrit texts were only saved and are available to us because of their Arabic translations whilst the originals are lost forever. Many of the famous translators in the Islamic period were Christians or Jews. We known that an Indian by the name of Manka was appointed to translate Susruta's works into Arabic. A unique and extremely rare manuscript exists in Edinburgh University Library. It is manuscript number 161 called "Al-Asrar-al-Baqiyah-an-al-Qurun-al-Khaliydh" or the Chronological History of Nations. It was written by the famous Muslim, Al-Beruni, who died at the age of 78 in 1048 C.E. Al-Beruni has also left us a large volume on the history of India and many other texts. He travelled extensively in pre-Muslim India and his writings were greatly influenced by these experiences. In particular he was impressed by medicinal plants form India. In the above manuscript Al-Baruni has mentioned that Caesar Augustus (63 B.C. - 14 C.E.) was born by post-mortem Caesarean section. He also wrote that a folk hero Ahmed-Ibn-Sahl was born by Caesarean section after the death of his mother. Apart from these two very relevant references he actually included a picture of the Caesarean section in his book. Without any question this picture is the first ever illustration of such an operation in a textbook and places its author at least 500 years ahead of others. Another famous name and contemporary of Al-Baruni was Firdousi (935-1025 C.E.), author of the well known "Shahnama". In this 60 000 verses long poems he described the birth of Rustum by Caesarean section. This lively and fascinating description and use of anaesthesia during the operation is there for everyone to read and provides convincing proof that the concept of Caesarean section was mature and its use was an accepted fact. When we seek help from the religious authorities we discover no less than the towering figure of Imam Abu Hanifah (699 -767 C.E.) who decreed that an operation on a living or dead woman to save the life of an unborn child is allowed in Islam. This is mentioned in a book called Radd al-Mukhtar published in 1844 in Egypt. Further strong evidence is available in the Fatawa Alamgeeria-a collection of Islamic decrees compiled by Sheikh Nitzam-ud-Din of Burhanpur under the auspices of the Mughal emperor, Aurangzeb, who himself was well versed in Islamic Sharia. In this document there is a decree that if a pregnant woman dies and a child is expected to be alive, then the child must be removed by operation. It goes on to say that the operation should also be performed in order to save the life of a mother when the child is known to be dead. In conclusion it can be proved that Caesarean section has never been prohibited by any Muslim authority. On the contrary, the Muslims in the Middle ages were the first to write about it in text and poetry and to illustrate the operation in pictures. They also formulated rules governing religious matters to allow such a procedure when the need arose. by Dr. N. H. Naqvi Courtesy: www.everymuslim.net

RELIEF OF PAIN: A MEDICAL DISCOVERY It is a long-established custom among Muslim parents to put a piece of well-chewed date (or other available sweet fruit) in the mouth of a newborn baby. Muslims do this following the practice of the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace, believing him to bee, as the Qur'an says, sent as a healing and a mercy to mankind. We may infer from the way this custom originated that there is a virtue in it. There is - complimentary to the virtue and pleasure of following the Sunnah (the practice of the Prophet) - placing a 'sugary substance' inside the mouth of a new-born baby dramatically reduces pain sensation and heart rate. An interesting scientific medical study, published in the British Medical Journal (No. 6993, 10 June 1995), proved beyond any doubt the benefit of giving a new-born child sugar, in order to reduce the feeling of any painful procedure like heel pricking for a blood sample or before circumcision. The study, entitled ?The analgesic (pain killing) effect of sucrose in full term infants: a randomised controlled trial', was done by Nora Haouari, Christopher Wood, Gillian Griffiths and Malcolm Levene in the post-natal ward in the Leeds General Infirmary in England. 60 healthy infants of gestational age 37-42 weeks and postnatal age of 1-6 days, were randomised to receive 2ml of one of the four solutions: 12.5% sucrose, 25% sucrose, 50% sucrose, and sterile water (control). The first group of 30 babies received sugar syrup before a routine blood test (heel pricking, which is usually painful) done to detect jaundice. The other 30 babies were given only sterile water as a control group. Placing 2ml of a 25% or 50% sucrose solution on the tongue before pricking the heel significantly reduced the crying time, compared to babies who got water. Also, their heart rate returned to normal more quickly. The stronger sugar solution had the greater effect, crying being reduced further with increasing concentration of sucrose. From which we may conclude that sucrose (sugar) placed on the tongue may bee a useful and safe form of analgesia for use with newborn infants. Blass and Hoffmeyer also showed that 12% solution of inter-oral sucrose significantly reduced the duration of crying in new-born babies subjected to heel pricking or circumcision. This study was reported in The Independent newspaper (Friday 9 June 1995) as well as in the British Medical Journal article. The practice of the Prophet, upon him b piece, is recorded in the collections of his sayings and reports about him, of which the most revered are the two Sahih collections of Bukhari and Muslim: Abu Buradah reported from Abu Musa, who said: ?I had a new-born baby; I took him to the Prophet Muhammad, upon him be peace and blessings, who called him Ibrahim. The Prophet(saw) chewed a date then he took it and rubbed the inside of the baby's mouth with it.' There are many other reported incidents like this one. The date contains a very high percentage of sugar (70-80%); it has both fructose and glucose which have high calorific values, it is easily and quickly digestible, and very helpful to the brain. The date contains 2.2% protein, vitamin A, vitamins B1, B2 ad nicotruic acid (against Pellagra); it has traces of minerals needed for the body such as potassium, sodium, calcium, iron, manganese, copper. Potassium, of which percentage is very high, has been found to be very effective for cases of haemorrhage, such as the occasions of birth or circumcision. We may note that the Sunnah also commends dates for the breaking of the fast in Ramadhan. Dates should be eaten, if available, before the sunset prayer - this is medically and nutritionally the best way and the Sunnah. The great worth of dates is also indicated in a famous and beautiful passage of the Qur'an, surah Maryam, verses 25-6: And shake towards you the trunk of the palm-tree and it will drop on you fresh ripe dates. So eat and drink and be comforted. This was the prescription of Allah, the Creator, for the blessed Maryam(a.s.) at the time of the birth of Eesa(a.s.) Jesus, the blessed Prophet(saw) of Allah. It was a prescription to make the delivery easy and comfortable. As in the example we have briefly recorded in this example, we believe further research will confirm for those who still doubt the full worth and truth, the wisdom, of the teachings of the Qur'an and Sunnah. We shall show them our signs on he furthest horizons and within themselves until it becomes clear to them that it is the truth. Is it not sufficient that your Lord is witness over all things? (Qur'an Fusilat, 41.53) As the authors of the medical study referred to intend trying new sugary or sweet substances, we shall recommend that they try dates for the newborn for the relief of pain. Finally, we hope Muslim medical scientists and researchers take this new discovery on board, and that many more ideas and practices in the teaching of Islam needing investigative research and objective, scientific study will get the attention they deserve. Courtesy: www.everymuslim.net

Reckless Driving With the holiday season in full flow and traffic increasing, motorists are being cautioned by authorities about the potential dangers that await those on the road. Over the years one of the major contributing factors to road accidents and collisions has been reckless and inconsiderate driving. As Muslims it is our duty to ensure that we do not become the cause of loss of life and injury to others. Being courteous and considerate forms an important part of a Muslim’s character. A Muslim is obliged to shun any activity that is futile, non beneficial and potentially harmful. Inconsiderate behaviour in any circumstance is unacceptable, moreso when it involves the lives of other individuals. Being reckless on the road poses a threat to our family members and other passengers in the vehicle. Furthermore, other road users are also at risk due to our negligence. The Quran and Hadith stress the importance of good character. Driving safely and courteously has great merit. It will reflect the true beauty and character that a Muslim is expected to portray. We have seen too many lives lost in traffic collisions. Every year statistics tell us of thousands of lives lost. Don’t make yourself, your family and someone else’s family another statistic. Masjid Poster for this article can be downloaded here. Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Council of Muslim Theologians 223 Alpine Road, Overport, Durban

Hanafi Fiqh Channel Video of the Salaah of a Woman http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7ZySx-TMeY

Ghusl (Compulsory Bath) Wudhu (Ablution) Men's Salaah Women's Salaah From Islamicposters (click on pictures to enlarge)

Question: Assalamualaikum w,w, Please could you answer the following questions, there are very important as we have a group that reject these; could you please provide quotes with references from the four imams that the following are from the Aqeedah and that they have Mutawaatir evidences either from the Sunnah or the Kitaab: Athaab al Qabr Shafa'ah Siraat Mi'raj Meezan The decent of Isa (as) Dajjal Hawd Mahdi Munkar wa Nakeer may Allah reward you Answer : Fatwaa no. 097/05 1) The Qur’an speaks of the punishment of the grave in a most distinct fashion. “A fire to which they are exposed morning and evening. And the Day the Final Hour will occur, (it will be proclaimed): "Admit the Pharaohnites in the severest of torments.” (Surah Mu’min, verse 46) In this Ayah, Allah specifies the manner in which Fir’oun and his people will be dealt with in their graves. They will be tormented in this way even before the day of Qiyaamah, as understood from the Ayah. Allamah Ibne Katheer, while commenting on this very same verse explains that it is entirely in support of the view held by the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa'ah that ‘Athaab-ul-Qabr is an undeniable fact. This punishment will be unleashed upon the disbelievers and sinful believers in the second stage of life known as ‘Aalam-ul-Barzagh. Hazrat Aisha (R.A.) reports that once a Jewish lady informed her that “We (the Jews) seek protection from the punishment of the grave.” On learning this Hazrat Aisha (R.A.) questioned the Nabi of Allah (S.A.W.) with regards to ‘Athaab-ul-Qabr. Nabi (S.A.W.) firmly responded: “Yes, ‘Athaab-ul-Qabr is true.” Hazrat Aisha (R.A.) says that thereafter Nabi (S.A.W.) always sought protection from the punishment of the grave on completing his prayers. (Mishkaat, Page 25 with reference to Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim) On one occasion the prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) passed by two graves. He thereafter remarked: “The inmates of these graves are subjected to punishment and they are being punished for acts which are not regarded as major. As for the first, he never used to purify himself after urinating. The second is being punished for engaging in gossip.” (Sharhul Aqaaidin Nasafiyyah, Page 99-100, Sharhu ‘Aqeedatit Tahawiyah, Vol. 2, Page 132) 2) In Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 255 Allah (S.W.T.) directly addresses the topic of Shafa’ah: “Allah! There is none worthy of worship but He, the Ever-Existing, All-Sustaining. Neither slumber nor sleep overtakes Him. To Him alone belong all that is in the heavens and all that is in the earth. Who is it that can intercede with Him without His consent? He knows whatever is present before the creation and whatever is absent from them. And the creation cannot embrace anything of His knowledge except of what He wills. His Kursi extends over the heavens and the earth. And preservation of the two does not burden Him. And He is Supreme, Most Glorious.” In Surah Ambiyah, verse 28 Allah states: “He knows whatever is before them (angels) and whatever is behind them. And they cannot intercede but for him with whom Allah is pleased; and they stand in awe for fear of Him.” In the commentary of these Aayaat, Hazrat Moulana Shafee’ Uthmani (R.H.) outlines, that Allah will allow certain chosen devotees of his to intercede on behalf of the sinners. The most significant intercession, however, will be that of our beloved Nabi (S.A.W.) which will be a means of the emancipation of a large amount of souls from the fire of Jahannam. Nabi (S.A.W.) describes the occasion as follows: “On the day of Qiyaamah the sun will draw close. The people will be panic-stricken and in dismay. They will then encourage each another to approach a distinguished personality who will intercede on their behalf. They will approach Hazrat Adam (A.S.) who will in turn send them to Hazrat Ebrahim (A.S.). In like manner each Nabi will send them to another until they approach me. I will enter the court of the Almighty, after acquiring permission, and immediately fall into Sajdah. I will remain in this position for as long as Allah wishes. Thereafter, Allah will address me saying: “O Muhammad, rise. Speak for you shall be heard. Ask and you shall be granted. Intercede, your intercession will be accepted.” I will then raise my head followed by praises which will be taught to me by Allah on that day. Thereafter, I will be allowed to remove a stipulated amount of souls from the fire of Jahannam. I will return to the court of Allah and in a similar manner be given the permission to release a fix amount. I will intercede in this manner on four different occasions.” (Mishkaat, Page 488-489) Please note that the above is only part of the Hadith. The actual Hadith is quite lengthy. This Hadith is also found in Saheeh Bukhari and Muslim and is clear evidence proving the intercession which will be rendered by Nabi (S.A.W.). The angels and believers who will be destined to enter Jannah will also be granted the opportunity to intercede, as understood from many Ahadeeth. Nabi (S.A.W.) has mentioned: “The believers will come forward and address Allah saying “O Allah they (The Jahannamis) used to fast with us. They used to offer prayers and perform Hajj. It will be said unto them “Remove those believers whom you recognise.” They will intercede in this manner on three different occasions. Ultimately, Allah will say: “The angels, prophets and believers have all interceded and there is no one remaining who has yet to intercede, but the Most Compassionate.” (Mishkaat, Page 490) Imam Nawawi (R.H.), while proving the validity of Shafa’ah mentions, that there is consensus amongst the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa'ah in this regard. (Saheeh Muslim, Vol. 1, Page 104, Sharhu Aqeedatit Tahawiyah, Vol. 1, Page 305, Ma’aariful Qur’an, Vol. 1, Page 614, Sharhul Aqaaidin Nasafiyyah, Page 115) 3) In Surah Mariam, verse 71 Allah states: “And there is none among you who will not pass over hell. According to thy Sustainer that is essential; must be fulfilled.” “Pass over hell” is referring to the Siraat which will have to be crossed by everyone, as explained by the Mufassireen. (Tafseer-e-Uthmani, Page 414). In Saheeh Bukhari there is a lengthy Hadith in which the Nabi of Allah (S.A.W.) beautifully describes the plight of the people on the day of Qiyaamah. We will however only quote his (S.A.W.) explanation of the Siraat. “…….thereafter a bridge will be positioned across Jahannam. I will be the first to pass over this bridge. At that time every messenger’s plea will be “Oh Allah bestow peace, bestow peace.” (Saheeh Bukhari, Vol. 2, Page 973) It would be imperative upon every soul to cross the Siraat in order to enter Jannah. The Siraat, as described in the Ahadeeth, is finer than a strand of hair, sharper than a sword and darker than a night. The only light which will aid one in successfully passing over this dark bridge is that of Imaan. May Allah allow the soul of every believer to cross over the Siraat with ease. (Sharhul Aqaaidin Nasafiyyah, Page 105, ‘Umdatul Fiqh, Vol. 1, Page 45) 4) Allah (S.W.T.) commences the 17 chapter of the glorious Qur’an by announcing His grandeur followed by an unambiguous description of the first stage of Mi'raj. “Glory be to Him Who caused His devotee to travel by night from Masjid-ul-Haraam to Masjid-ul-Aqsa - the precincts of which We have blessed - so that We may show him some of the wonders of Our power. Truly Allah alone is All Hearing, All Seeing.” (Surah Bani Israa’eel, verse 1) The Ahadeeth are many in this regard and somewhat lengthy with comprehensive information. There is a difference of opinion amongst the Ulamaa as to whether Nabi (S.A.W.) travelled physically or only spiritually. The correct opinion is that Nabi (S.A.W.) miraculously travelled in a state of consciousness physically as well as spiritually. He (S.A.W.) was accompanied by Hazrat Jibreel (A.S.) throughout the journey which commenced from Masjid-ul-Haraam in Makkah to Masjid-ul-Aqsa in Palestine. It is at this point that Nabi (S.A.W.) led all the Ambiyah in prayers and thereafter continued the journey until he (S.A.W.) ultimately reached Sidratul Muntahaa where he was endowed with the gift of Salaah. This journey was successfully accomplished through the Qudrat of Allah, “Certainly Allah commands power over everything.” (Al-Baqarah, verse 20) Kindly study the Ahadeeth found in Bukhari for Further reference. (Saheeh Bukhari, Vol. 1, Page 548-549, Saheeh Muslim, Vol. 1, Page 93, Sharhu Aqeedatit Tahawiyah, Vol. 1, Page 295, Sharhul Aqaaidin Nasafiyyah, Page 144, ‘Umdatul Fiqh, Vol. 1, Page 30-31) 5) Once again, the Qur’an testifies to the existence of the Meezaan on the day of Qiyaamah: “And the weighing that Day will be a reality. So whosoever's Balance will be heavy, they are the ones who will be prosperous, And whoever's Balance will be light; these will be the ones who will have caused loss to themselves owing to their unjust approach to Our verses.” (Surah Al-A‘araaf, verse 8-9) Hazrat Aisha (R.A.) reports “Once while pondering over the fire, I began weeping. On seeing this, the prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) inquired, “O Aisha why do you cry?” I replied, “I was thinking of the fire, thus I started crying. O Rasoolullah will you remember your people on the day of Qiyaamah?” Nabi (S.A.W.) remarked: “There are three such occasions where no one will recognize any one else. The first is at the Meezaan, until one is apprised of its outcome, whether it will be light or heavy…….” (Mishkaat, Page 486) The actions of every person will be weighed in the Meezaan. If the good outweighs the evil, then one will be admitted into Jannah and if vice versa then one will be flung into Jahannam. As far as the description of the Meezaan is concerned and the manner in which it will take place, is beyond our ken. (Sharhul Aqaaidin Nasafiyyah, Page 103, ‘Umdatul Fiqh, Vol. 1, Page 44) 6) The Qur’an verifies the descent of Eesa (A.S.) in Surah Nisaa’ verse 159: “And there will remain no person among the people of the Book but will indeed affirm of Eesa u prior to his own death; and on the Day of Judgment, Eesa u will be a witness against the people.” In this Ayah, Allah explains that the Jews and Christians will all bring Imaan on the prophet Eesa (A.S.) before his death, which will only occur after he (A.S.) has killed Dajjal. The fact that Eesa (A.S.) will descend is indisputably proven from this verse. (Mukhtasar Tafseer Ibne Katheer, Vol. 1, Page 456) Abdullah ibn Umar (R.A.) reports that Nabi (S.A.W.) said: “Eesa (A.S.) will descend to the earth. He will marry, have children and live for a period of 45 years. Thereafter he will pass away and be laid to rest with me, in my grave. I and Eesa will rise from one grave between Abu Bakr and Umar.” (Mishkaat, Page 480, ‘Umdatul Fiqh Vol. 1, Page 38) 7) The Nabi of Allah (S.A.W.) had frequently cautioned the Sahabah regarding Dajjal and thoroughly described him to them. The issue of Dajjal is a major one as understood from a Hadith reported by ‘Imraan bin Husain: “I heard the prophet of Allah (S.A.W.) saying: “From the time Adam (A.S.) was created until the day of Qiyaamah, there is no event to occur which will be more serious than that of Dajjal.” (Mishkaat, Page 472) Hazrat Anas (R.A.) reports that the Nabi of Allah (S.A.W.) mentioned: “Every Nabi warned his Ummah of the one-eyed liar. Behold! Indeed he is one-eyed and surely your Sustainer is not one-eyed. The letters, Kaaf, Faa’, Raa will be inscribed on his forehead.” (Mishkaat, Page 476) Dajjal will make his appearance in a place between Shaam and Iraq. It is at this point where he will claim prophet hood. Thereafter he will travel to a place called Isfahaan accompanied by a large group of Jews, 70 000 in number. He will now claim that he is God. He will travel at a very swift pace and spread corruption in his way. However, he will not be allowed to enter the Holy cities of Makkah and Madinah as Allah would appoint angels to guard the entrances which lead to them. He will afflict those who reject him with poverty and various other hardships, and as for those who accept him, they will live a life of comfort. He will ultimately be killed by Hazrat Eesa (A.S.). (‘Umdatul Fiqh, Vol. 1, Page 38, Sharhul Aqaaidin Nasafiyyah, Page 174) 8) Hazrat Anas (R.A.) reports that once the Nabi (S.A.W.) was seated in our midst. Suddenly, he (S.A.W.) was overtaken by slumber. He (S.A.W.) then raised his head while smiling. On observing this we inquired: “O Nabi of Allah what causes you to smile?” Nabi (S.A.W.) replied: “A chapter of the Qur’an has just been revealed to me” and he began reciting: “Indeed We endowed thee the Kauthar. So perform Salaat for thy Sustainer and offer sacrifice. Undoubtedly it is thy opponent who is without any trace.” (Surah Kauthar) On completing the Surah, Nabi (S.A.W.) asked, “Do you people know what Al-Kauthar is?” We replied by attributing its knowledge to Allah and His messenger (S.AW.). Nabi (S.A.W.) explained, “It’s a well in Jannah which my Sustainer has promised me…….” (Mukhtasar Tafseer Ibne Katheer, Vol. 3, Page 680) The renowned scholar of Hadith, Imam Bukhari (R.H.) has composed a separate chapter dealing with the Ahadeeth on the Hawdh-e-Kauthar. Abdullah bin Umar (R.A.) reports that the holy Prophet (S.A.W.) has said: “My Hawdh is equal to a month’s journey in length. The water of which is whiter in colour than milk. Its fragrance is sweeter than that of musk. Its goblets are like the stars. Whosoever will drink from it will never experience thirst, ever.” (Saheeh Bukhari, Vol. 2, Page 974) On the day of Qiyaamah each Nabi will have a Hawdh of his own from which he will quench the thirst of his followers. Our beloved Nabi (S.A.W.) will have the largest Hawdh which is known as Kauthar. The Ummah of Nabi (S.A.W.) will rise on that day in a state of extreme thirst and immediately proceed towards the Hawdh in seek of water. The apostate, Kaafir and Mushrik will be deprived of this water. According to some Ulamaa the deviated groups within Islam such as the Mu’tazilah, Khawarij etc will also be deprived of its water. (‘Umdatul Fiqh, Vol. 1, Page 47, Sharhul Aqaaidin Nasafiyyah, Page 105) 9) The appearance of Imam Mahdi is one of the major signs of Qiyaamah. There are a number of Ahadeeth which speak of his leadership and justness. He will lead the Muslims in combat against the enemies of Islam. He will appear at the age of 40. He will live for a period of 7 to 8 years after his emergence. He will be from amongst the people of Madinah and travel towards Makkah where he will be recognized as the long awaited Mahdi. People will pledge allegiance to him and declare him their king. His name will be Muhammad. His father’s Abdullah and mother’s Aaminah. He will propagate the teachings of Islam and spread justice in his path. It will be incumbent upon every believer to assist him in his course and fight besides him. Umme Salmah (R.A.) reports: “I heard the prophet (S.A.W.) saying, “Mahdi will be from my progeny, from the children of Fatima.” (Mishkaat, Page 470) Abu Saeed Al-Khudri (R.A.) reports that Nabi (S.A.W.) has mentioned: “Mahdi is from me (my progeny). He will have a broad forehead and curved nose. He will spread justice on the earth as much as it would be filled with injustice and oppression. He will lead for a period of seven years.” (Mishkaat, Page 470, ‘Umdatul Fiqh, Vol. 1, Page 36) 10) Munkar and Nakeer are the two angels assigned with the task of questioning every person in the grave with regards to his/her religion, Allah and the prophet (S.A.W.) Nabi (S.A.W.) has mentioned: “When a person is laid down in the grave, he is approached by two dark angels. The one is called Munkar and the other Nakeer.” If the inmate of the grave happens to be a Muslim, then Munkar questions him/her and if the inmate is a disbeliever, then the questions are asked by Nakeer. (Sharhul Aqaaidin Nasafiyyah, Page 100) All the above facts are proven from the Qur’an, Ahadeeth of Nabi (S.A.W.) and Ijma’ (consensus). There is no difference of opinion amongst the Imams, who belong to the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jamaa'ah with regards to the occurrence of all the aforementioned aspects. It is incumbent upon every individual to believe in the reality of there being. And Allah Ta’ala knows best Ebrahim bin Zainul Abedeen Backus Attested to as correct by: Mufti Muhammad Ashraf Darul Iftaa Jameah Mahmoodiyah Springs www.mahmoodiyah.org.za