Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


ummitaalib last won the day on December 14

ummitaalib had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2279 Forum Master

About ummitaalib

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Religion
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

488 profile views
  1. Obedience To One’s Deceased Parents Sayyiduna Abu Usaid Malik bin Rabi'ah As-Sa'idi Radhiyallahu Anhu reports: We were sitting with Messenger of Allah Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam when a man of Banu Salamah came to him and asked, "O Messenger of Allah! Does there remain any form of obedience which I may show to my parents after their death?" He Sallallahu Alayhi wa Sallam replied, "Yes, to pray for them, to supplicate for their forgiveness, to fulfill their promises after their death, to maintain the ties of kinship which cannot be maintained except through them, and honour their friends." [Abu Dawud] __________________________________ When a parent passes away remember that you have begun a new phase of birr (dutifulness) to that parent. Birr after death is the truest and most sincere forms of birr because birr during their lifetime could be tainted with doing for show, or being polite (as opposed to sincere) and expecting praise from the parents or others. As for after their death, then only Allah hears and sees you. A deceased parent is in greater need of his/her children - even more than when the parent was alive. What children do for the parents during the parent's lifetime is for the worldly needs. But after death only Allah knows what good and bad is in store for the deceased in the grave. Dua for rahmah (mercy) and asking Allah to shower the deceased with His mercy is invaluable for the deceased. Through the child's Dua, Allah - through His grace and mercy - enlightens the grave removing the darkness and expands the grave thus removing the suffering. And Allah makes the grave a garden from the gardens of Paradise. Therefore, always remember your deceased parent/s, and always ask Allah to shower them with His mercy, enlighten their grave and expand it. For example as you are about have a meal, think about the many wonderful meals your mother had prepared for you and how she took care of you all your life. Your heart will surely soften and at that point, let it drive you to offer a similar meal to an orphan, widow, divorced or needy person on behalf of your deceased parentand asking of Allah to reward them for it. Give charity on their behalf, recalling the many favours they did for you. Never forget parents. Irrespective of how harsh they may have been with you, only Allah knows the love they had in their hearts for you. Give charity on their behalf privately, wipe away the tears of orphans, widows and divorced (through charity) on behalf of your parents, quench the thirst of the thirsty on their behalf. (for example by having a well dug.) Go out of your way to be the best child to your parents for they have sacrificed much to raise you. This is the Dua mentioned in the Quran for one’s parents: رَّبِّ ارْحَمْهُمَا كَمَا رَبَّيَانِي صَغِيرًا Rabb-ir-ham-huma kama rabbayaani sagheera Translation : My Lord, Bestow thy mercy on my parent/s as they cherished and raised me in my childhood. Lastly, let us teach our children this Dua for one day we all shall also need it. Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Council of Muslim Theologians
  2. Productive Holidays

    Holiday @ Home A person’s home is their ultimate sanctuary and place of comfort. Hence, when a child feels threatened, his first instinct is to run home, as home is the place of safety. As our homes are our private places, meant for our comfort and happiness, we tend to spend both time and money on ‘doing up’ our homes until they meet our desired level of safety, comfortand beauty. This is easily witnessed in the large amounts of money that we spend on painting, tiling, installing alarm systems & electric fences, buying state-of-the-art appliances, furniture, linen, Italian flooring, granite counters, German bathroom fittings, air-conditioning, and the list goes on. In fact, some people are so particular in this regard that every room of the home has its own theme to which the curtains, carpet, BIC (built in cupboards), linen and even light switches and plug points have to match! After all the effort is undertaken and money is spent, the result is a home that is ‘tailor made’ to the exact ‘spec’ of the family living in it. Their home is exactly as they designed, providing peace, comfort and security. Some families will even ensure the home comes with a swimming pool for relaxation, fun and entertaining! In the light of the above, why is it deemed ‘sad’, ‘unfortunate’ and ‘depressing’ if a person enjoys his holiday from home? If we honestly ponder over the reality, not many hotels in the world boast the combined comforts that some enjoy at home, and even those hotels that do have the comforts charge a small fortune! Even after paying the price we find the pillows are notwhat we are used to, so we wake up with a stiff neck. The wall between the rooms are too thin, or the corridor is too busy, so the noise disturbs us and we cannot sleep comfortably. The shower curtain is too small so every time we shower, the entire floor is flooded. All the lifts are full, as its peak season, so it takes 20 minutes just to get to the lobby from our floor. If we feel for something as small as a cup of tea and are not prepared to pay the exorbitant room service rate, we are left with the option of making it ourselves in a plastic kettle that threatens to rattle its way of the counter as it boils, after which we have to resort to creamer in our tea instead of milk. Sometimes, due to flight schedules, we arrive at our hotel before the check-in timeand are forced to spend precious hours of our time waiting in the lobby, unable to even rest or freshen up after our long journey. And if we holiday at home, do we face even one of these inconveniences? The purpose of a holiday is to recharge and relax. With a change of mind-set, we will realize that for most of us, our home with its comforts is actually the place most conducive to achieving that purpose. Hence, it is not necessary for us to spend a small fortune and fly off to foreign destinations whenever its holiday time. May Allah Ta‘ala give us a true understanding of Deen and make our homes a place of peace, comfort and solace, Ameen. Jamiatul Ulama (KZN) Council of Muslim Theologians
  3. Waiting Period (idda) for Non-Menstruating Women Prior to Menopause Can you explain to me what the judgement is for the woman whose husband has divorced her, but she has no menstrual period nor is she in menopause? I would like to know specifically the length of time of her iddah. Is it three consecutive months? If you have any information please list your source. I have been told that her iddah is not over till she reaches the age of 64. Is this true? I would like to know the judgement from each of the four major madhabs. ANSWER In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, The waiting period (idda) for a female who does not experience menstruation due to childhood (saghira), who is on menopause (a’yisa) and who has reached the age of puberty (baliga) without experiencing menstruation, will be three consecutive Islamic months. Allah Most High Says: “Such of your women as have passed the age of monthly courses, for them the prescribed period, if ye have any doubts, is three months, and for those who have no courses (it is the same).” (Surah al-Talaq, V.4) If the women experienced menstruation for three days or more, and then her menstruation stopped, the original ruling for her is that she will have to wait until she starts menstruating again or she reaches the age of menopause (iyaas). This is according to the Hanafi and Shafi’i schools (Radd al-Muhtar, 3/508) According to the Maliki and Hanbali schools, the preferred opinion is that she will wait until one year is complete. (See: al-Fiqh al-Islami wa Adillatuh, 7185) The age of menopause according to the Hanafi Fuqaha is thirty years for a woman who never experienced menstruation, and fifty five years for the one who did experience menstruation, but stopped for some reason. However, due to immense difficulty and hardship incurred by acting upon this ruling, the fuqaha have given a dispensation, in that the Maliki opinion of one year can be followed. Imam Ibn Abidin, the great Hanafi jurist quotes al-Zahidi as saying: “Some of our scholars used to issue a Fatwa in this issue according to the opinion of Imam Malik, because of need.” (Radd al-Muhtar, 3/509) Many contemporary scholars have also given the same ruling. However, the following points need to be taken into consideration before acting upon this ruling: 1) The woman should first resort to medication. If all attempts fail, then she can act upon this ruling of one year. 2) This ruling should be passed by a Maliki judge. However, if this is difficult, then it will permissible even without the judgment. 3) If menstruation appears during this period of one year, then the Idda of three menstruations should be observed. (Imdad al-Fatawa, 2/431 & Ahsan al-Fatawa, 5/435) In conclusion, a woman who does not menstruate due to illness should first resort to medication. If all attempts fail, then she can re-marry after the period of one year is over. And Allah knows best [Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam Darul Iftaa Leicester , UK Source
  4. Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu)

    Part Seventeen Allegations of Some People of Kufah: In the year 21 A.H., some people of Kufah came to Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) and laid complaints against Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) who was their governor. Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) thus dismissed him (from his position as governor, in order to quell the fitnah that the people were attempting to create), and appointed Hazrat ‘Ammaar bin Yaasir (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) in his place. When these people of Kufah complained about Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), they even complained that he was not performing salaah correctly! Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) thus called for Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). When he arrived, Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) addressed him with the utmost respect saying, “O Abu Ishaaq (this was the kunyah (filial title) of Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu))! Indeed these people are claiming that you do not perform salaah correctly. Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) replied, “By Allah! As for myself, then I would perform for them the salaah which Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) had taught us, without any deficiency.” Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) then gave an example of how he emulated the salaah of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) mentioning, “When I lead them in the ‘Esha Salaah, I lengthen the first two rakaats and shorten the second two rakaats.” Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) replied, “O Abu Ishaaq! That is the exact opinion that I held regarding yourself!” Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) thereafter sent Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) back to Kufah with a few people (in order to investigate the allegations against Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), so that his innocence may be proven and his name cleared). They thus went to every musjid of Kufah and asked the people regarding Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). When questioned, the people had nothing but praise for Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). Finally, they reached a musjid in the district of the Banu ‘Abs tribe. Here a man named Usaamah bin Qataadah, whose kunyah was Abu Sa’dah, stood and said, “Since you have asked me, then Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) does not go out in Jihaad with the army, he does not distribute wealth with equality, and he is not just in his verdicts and decisions.” Hearing these false allegations, Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) replied, “By Allah! I will make three du‘aas – O Allah! If this servant of yours is lying, and he has merely stood for fame and recognition, then lengthen his life, extend his poverty, and involve him in fitnah.” Thereafter, if Usaamah bin Qataadah was asked how he was, he would reply, “I am very old and I am entangled in fitnah. The curse of Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) afflicted me.” One of the narrators of this incident, ‘Abdul Malik, mentions, “I saw him (Usaamah bin Qataadah) afterwards. His eyebrows were drooping over his eyes due to old age, and he was interfering with the young slave girls by prodding and poking them in the street.” (Saheeh Bukhaari #755) Note: We see from the above narration that Usaamah bin Qataadah had laid false allegations against Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) and disgraced him before the people. However, Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) did not curse him unconditionally. Rather, he exercised caution and justice when cursing him. When cursing him, he suspended the curse on the person being worthy of it, asking Allah to only afflict him if he was deliberately lying. Usaamah bin Qataadah laid three allegations against Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). The first pertained to his personal self by accusing him of cowardice, and so Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) cursed him with a long life. The second accusation was regarding wealth, and so Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) cursed him with poverty. The third accusation was an accusation pertaining to Deen, as he said that Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) did not perform Salaah correctly, and so Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) cursed him in Deen by making du‘aa that he become entangled in fitnah. The above explanations have been taken from Fat-hul Baari 2/276-281. Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) knew that Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) was innocent. However, to close the doors of fitnah, he replaced Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) with Hazrat ‘Ammaar bin Yaasir (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). Imaam Maalik (rahimahullah) has mentioned, “Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) dismissed Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) whereas he was the most just of all the governors who would come after him until Qiyaamah.” Fat-hul Baari 2/281 Hence, shortly before passing away, Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) formed a Shura (council) of six Sahaabah (radhiyallahu ‘anhum) who were worthy of the khilaafah after him. These six Sahaabah (radhiyallahu ‘anhum) were Hazrat ‘Uthmaan (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), Hazrat ‘Ali (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), Hazrat Talhah (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), Hazrat Zubair (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) and Hazrat ‘Abdur Rahmaan bin ‘Auf (radhiyallahu ‘anhu). Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) had explained that he selected these six Sahaabah (radhiyallahu ‘anhum) as Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) was most pleased with them at the time of his demise. Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) mentioned that these six Sahaabah (radhiyallahu ‘anhum) should decide among themselves as to who would be the Khalifah. He had also included his respected son, Hazrat ‘Abdullah bin ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhuma), in the Shura, and gave instructions that he would not be appointed as Khalifah, but would assist them in nominating the Khalifah. At the time of including Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) in the Shura, Hazrat ‘Umar (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) declared the innocence of Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) saying, “The person who they appoint will be the Khalifah after me, even if Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) is appointed. If Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) is not appointed as Khalifah, then the Khalifah after me should ensure that he seeks assistance from Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu), as I did not dismiss him from the governorship of Kufah due to any shortcoming or betrayal on his part.” Siyar A’laam min Nubalaa 3/74 Source: Whatisislam.co.za
  5. Jerusalem and the solution from an Islamic perspective The Muslims in Palestine are going through great trials. It is a duty upon us as an Ummah to find some solutions. There are many ways to assist and be of help but the most important is for us to turn to Allah sincerely and as a result, His help will come at the forefront. It is only who Allah can reverse difficult conditions in Palestine and all other war-torn countries. Unfortunately, we lack this greater realisation. We become very emotional in these times turning to social media to vent our anger and to partake in online protests. But the only way out from such difficulties lies in Qur’anic solutions and Prophetic guidance, not apps on our phones. Nabi صلي الله عليه وسلم has instructed us that when a problem befalls the Ummah, engage in Qunoote Nazilah. This is a prayer performed after Fajr. Now my question is, where is the Ummah at Fajr? Many of us are sleeping it away, how then can we even pray Qunoote Nazilah together? Our assumptions are that a protest in the day is more effective and then we wonder why the mercy of Allah is not descending! We can stand on the streets holding placards and banners, we can write letters after letters but if we continue to violate the laws of Allah, we will never be able to attract His mercy. Those who are involved in Tableegh are often criticised for wasting time speaking about the six points, rather than joining politics. Or those in Darul Ulooms are criticised for just teaching/studying, rather than taking a so called active role in assisting the Ummah. We need to understand that these works of Deen are a means of strengthening our Imaan. They are teaching us deen and how we must take our gaze away from the creation and turn it towards Allah. Had we all collectively followed this golden advice, surely Allah’s help would have descended. Nabi صلي الله عليه وسلم mentioned to the effect that a person with disheveled hair, dust covered body and with raised hands cries out to Allah Taala, but where will his pleas be heard when his body is nourished with haraam. In other words, how can one who is engaged in major sins expect the help of Allah to descend? Today as an Ummah we are exactly like this on a collective level. Sins have entered so stealthily in our lives, it can be difficult to even notice them. For example, many people do not take interest from the bank however, they accept their ebucks and loyalty points. This is from the bank’s pocket which is riddled with haram interest money. Therefore, it is not permissible for us to use, but do you see how easy it is to not notice and become involved in this haram? People pay for Umrah tickets with these rewards from the banks. Fine there may also be fatawa of permissibility regarding the rewards but in these matters, it is best to thread on the path of caution. Then there are those who take interest knowingly. Their cars, homes, even their businesses are running on it. Then we go on to wonder why Palestine is in the state that it is in and why our duas are not accepted? Read the tasfseer of the Qur’an. Allah has made it clear that the first two holiest sites in Islam, Makkah Mukarramah and Madina Munawwarah, will always be protected by Him. Even the Dajjal will not be able to enter. However, the protection of third holiest site in Islam, Masjid Al-Aqsa, is dependent on the amaal (i.e. actions) of the Ummah. Thus if we ever need an insight into the condition of the Ummah at large, all we need to do is look at Aqsa. If it is peace and under the Muslim rule, know that the Imaan of this Ummah is at a good stand. If it is drowned in problems, know that we have a lot of work to do. It is due to our sins that Aqsa is struggling today thus the solution lies with me, you and every individual in this Ummah. If we still think it lies in the United Nations office, then we still have not understood the basic lesson of the Kalima we read. That Allah does – with means, without means or against means. Everything happens by His will. All we need to do is to turn to Him. Once we all do that, He will shower his mercy by accepting our duas and this Ummah will return to the favourable condition it was once in. May Allah save Aqsa and Juresalem from the unworthy hands, Aameen. — Hazrat Ml. Dawood Seedat حفظه الله The above is an article taken from www.islaahiadvices.com
  6. The Theory of Evolution DarulUloomTT.org Q. Can you kindly explain in detail what our view is as Muslims, concerning the theory of Evolution please. We are interested in showing our non-Muslims accomplices evidences from the Quran and from science itself that refutes evolution. A. The following is a beautiful article on this topic which has been written by a great scholar Shaikh Abdul Hamid. In it he has discussed the topic at length in a beautiful manner, which will be very easy for readers to understand. We hope that it will be helpful, Insha Allah. FALLACY OF EVOLUTION The theory of Evolution, or more precisely, Organic Evolution, is taught in our schools and colleges as an established fact and saturates our science; psychology, philosophy, history and, to some extent, even religion today. The sum and substance of the theory is that: (i) The animate species of nature are the result of a millennial evolutionary transformation from inanimate phenomenon of nature, which means that Man was not created by Almighty God but life on earth originated from lifeless matter in some mysterious way without any divine assistance and by means of ascending series of vegetable and animal organism – during incalculably long periods it prog-ressed and developed from one-celled organism to its highest state, the human being; (ii) Man is descended from brutes and to all intents and purposes he is a brute. Form ation of the human body and brain is the same as that of an animal. All human energy comes from animal instincts inhe rited by man from his animal ancestors; iii) There is no guiding light, no conscience, no moral principles, no sense of truth, justice, beauty, virtue and God-conscious-ness inborn and implanted in man. Human will-power is also not inborn but is derived from baser animal instincts. There is no God, no Soul, no after-life no revelation. Every prophet was only a social reformer. Nothing was revealed to him and conseq-uently every religion is a fake thing. In the words of Sir Julian Huxley, a prom-inent evolutionist “Evolution has no room for the Supernatural. The earth and its inhabitants were not created, they evolved.” (The New York Times, November 26, 1959) (iv) Man being a product of this long-process ed evolution, having no pre-destination and no life after death, is free to act on his own will; no social restrictions, no moral code, no religious guidance whatso ever is there to check this licencious freedom. This theory which strikes at the very root of religion and, tries to demolish the ideological basis of our faith permeates our educational institu tions, and our raw youth are made to go on repating that evolution, and not creation, is the true fact of our existence. The continuous indoctrination of this Godless mechanistic theory in the minds of our young scholar never acquainted with the opposite arguments, has led them away from Islam and has made them sceptics, delinquents, irreligious, immoral, sex-saturated and violent. Of course, there are honorable exceptions but they are due to healthy religious home influences. The alarming situation demands that this theory which does admit organisation, design, arrangement, plan and beauty in the universe, but unrea-sonably denies the existence of All-powerful Designer Planner, Beautifier God, Which agrees that man is made in the most wonderful fashion with a digestive system that converts masticated food into body nutrition, with a blood stream to distribute it, with a heart to pump the blood and lungs to purify it, with a nervous system to carry messages to and from the brain, with a brain to direct bodily functions and receive information from five senses, with eyes that see, ears that hear; but which illogic-ally refuses to admit that this body with absolute technologcal perfection was made by Supreme Almighty Maker; this theory which says that the unintelligent cells operating on blind-chance are automatically arranged into organs with definite shapes and patterns and that in the 266 days from conception to birth, the single fertillized egg-cell becomes a staggeringly complex organisation of some 200 million cells having increased the original weight a billion-fold with the purposive guidance of any Intelligent Power, the theory which, in short, tries to deprive existence of all purpose must be scrutin-ised in detail, cross-questioned and crossexamined. To begin with, it seems to be worthwhile to excavate the origins of this theory. The origin of cosmos had been an intellectual riddle to the thinkers and phillosophers for times immemorial, but the first landing on theoretical grounds could not be achieved until the eighteenth century. The first comprehensive idea of cosmological evolution was put forth by a philosopher, Immanuel Kant, in 1755, in his book Attempt to Conceive and to Explain the Origin of the Universe Mechanically, according to the Newtonian Laws. Kant was a thinker, whose inquisitive nature dissatisfied with Christian mythical orthodoxy, rebelled against the biblical exposition of origin of universe, which had quite illogically determined the time of all creation sometime in October 4004 B. C. On the one hand it was beyond his reason to accept this too short a span of time for this immense increase in human population and advancement of civilization, and on the other, the Church dogma that Jesus Christ (Peace be upon him) was from everlasting to everlasting had become for him too hard a nut to crack by his intellect. He, therefore, expounded that man (as also Jesus Christ) was the consequence of evolution from lifeless chemical elements comprising the strata of the earth He asserted that there was a time when there was no life, hence, no question of eternity of Jesus. He maintained that when a plant or an animal acquired a new characteristic from its environment, it could pass this on to its off-spring, resulting in changes that accounted for evolution. But this theory proved to be a cry in the wilderness and soon flowed away in the stream of time just like ashes thrown into a river. Forty years later the thread was picked up by Pierre Laplace. He revived Kant’s philosophic theory and tried to give it a scientific colour. His Exposition du Systems du Monde (1796) attempted to explain it in scientific terms and bitterly opposed the story of creation and refused any room for Godhead. He was so much allergic to the idea of Godhead that in the course of a discussion with Nepolean he went to the length of saying : “Sire, I have no need for that confounded hypothesis (the presence of God)”. Later on, a French Scientist Jean de Lamark, published his treatise Philosophic Zoologique in which he held that: ‘The primitive forms were developed out of lifeless matter by spontaneous generation. The resemblances of related groups of species are explained by inheritance from common stern-forms: their dissimil-arities are due to adaptation to different environments, and to variety in the action of modifiable organs. The human race has arisen in the same way, by transform-ation of a series of mammal ancestors, the nearest of which are apelike primates.”(Last words on Evolution Haeckle). He held that as an infant looks upon his elders and steadily learns how to walk or work, a similar desire was found in the baser forms of life at the early early stages of evolution, which consequently gave an impetus to them to develop further. He said that primitive giraffes did not have longer necks and soon, when ran short of vegetation on the surface of soil, the only foder available was the leaves of tree quite beyond their approach. Quite on the analogy of the infants, the desire to pluck leaves from higher trees resulted in the elongation of their necks, and their offsprings acquired the characteristic of longer necks. This he called the theory of “acquired characteristics.” Then came Charles Darwin, the atheist evolutionist. He propounded his own theory which was based partly on the findings of Lamarck and partly on those of his own He also played with the example of giraffes, but reached a different conclusion. According to him, the members of different species, when ran out of vegetation, comp eted with one another for life as a result of which only the fittest could survive. The survivors would pass on those advantageous variations which were instrumental in getting them upper hand over their rivals, to their offspring, which process eventually led to evolution of new forms of life. This process was given the name of natural selection. He was the first scientist to assert the descent of man from the ape. This theory caused no less havoc in the scientific as well as religious circle,s and arrested the attention of high and low alike. In order to ascertain the validity or otherwise of the Lamarckian theory of acquired characteristics, a German scientist August Wemsmann carried out an experiment to produce a breed of tailless mice by simply cutting off their tails before allowing them to mate. “He repeated this procedure for 20 successive generations The last generation proved to have tails as long as those of their ancestors. This was the first experimental proof that acquired charact-eristics, such as artificial taillessness, are not inherited.” (Review Text in Biology—Mark A Hall and Milton S. Lesser 1966 (p 304) This experiment rung the knell of Lamarckan theory. So far as the Darwinian theory of evolution is concerned, it also could not stand the test of advanced scientific experimentation. The theory of Natural selection was put to test by a Dutch Botanist, W. Johannsen. He carried out his experiment on the Princess garden-bean Phaseolus Vulgaris. After establishing 19 pure lines and propagating each of them in each generation by selecting the lightest and the heaviest seeds, he recovered seeds with about the same average weight from the two types of lines. He continued his experiment through several generations, but every time the same average weight was obtained. He thus reached the conclusion that be could not alter the average seed weight by selection and so he claimed in 1903 that Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection was utterly false. This declaration shook the foundations of Darwanian evolution. The Biology for Today records that scientists have raised a number of objections against complete acceptance of Darwin’s theory on the grounds that :- (a) The theory does not account for all the known facts of heredity. For example, the theory does not clearly explain why some variations are inherited and others not. Many variations are so trivial that they could not possibly aid an organism in its struggle for existence: and b) The theory does not explain how the gradual accumulation of trivial variations could result in the appearance of some of the more complex structures found in higher organisms (Biology for Today – Sayles B. Clark and 1. Albert Mould, 1964. P. 31) As Darwin’s theory also proved defective, efforts were made by some scientists to improve upon it. A Dutch botanist Dc Vries started his experimentation on the plants of primroses, He asserted that occasionally some plants appeared with some unusual structure which are inherited by their off-springs. This process he named as ‘mutation” But none of these principal theories could command acceptance and proved to be faulty. The Review Text in Biology (1966) has summarised these the ories in the following words:- “Since Lamarck’s theory (acquired characteristics) has proved false, it is only of historical interest Darwin’s theory (natural selection) does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations. Dc Vries theory (large mutations) has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or Set of mutations has ever been so large and numerous that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of off-springs.(Review Text in Biology, p. 363.) Neo-Darwinism The modern evolutionists combined some traits of Darwin’s theory with the findings of De Vries and hammered out a new theory which is called Neo-Darwinism. Natural selection coupled with large mutations were the main cause for evolu tion. But this Neo-Darwinism has not been able to quench the thirst of modern scientific mind and the controversy is still going on. The Neo-Darwinism can be illustrated in such way. In primitive times the ancestors of modern giraffes were short-necked. As they increased in number, they ran short of vegetation. The lush-green leaves of high trees were then the only substitute for the vegetational fodder. Occasionally, for unknown reasons, a sort of mutation occurred in the neck of a certain giraffe who had a comparatively longer neck, which enabled him to pluck higher leaves. This mutant giraffe passed on the slightly longer neck to its off-spring; the number of short-necked giraffes thinned out giving place to mutants. This process continued until the giraff’s neck reached its present length. If-rationally discussed, it transpires that in the same area where we find giraffes, we also come across flocks of pigmy sheep. How is it that sheep could survive without longer necks and could feed on the vegetation on the surface of the soil, while on the same soil short-necked giraffes could not survive and starved out. In an article “Should We Burn Darwin” published in Science Digest of January, 1961, the writer observes: “Perhaps the most significant single fact in last year’s development of French scientific thought is that the above orthodox explanation of evolution has been badly shaken. Often criticised in the past, it has now come under such heavy fire that the way seems to be open, in France at least, to a new theory of the origin of species…… “These are a few of the embarrassing questions asked by the French rebels : If the giraffe with its eight-foot neck is the product of natural selection and an example of the fittest, what about the sheep with its neck no longer than a few inches? Aren’t giraffes and sheep very close cousins almost brethren in the animal kingdom. But then can there live side by side two cousins, each of them fitter than the other, one because its neck is longer, the other because its neck is shorter.’ Another prominent evolutionist, Jean Rostand, challenged the verocity of Neo-Darwinism in the following words “The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of preexisting organs. In any case, they never produe anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for new organ or the priming for a new function……I cannot make myself think that these ‘slips” of heredity have been able, even with the co-operation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which the evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding ‘adaptations’ I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way;….. I discern nothing that gives me the right to conceive the profound structural alterations, the fantastic metamorphoses that we have to imagine in evolutionary history when we think of the transition from invertebraters to verte brates, from fish to batrachians, from batrac hians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals” Examination of the Principal Theories: Lamarck’s theory: As already stated, Lamarck held that evolution was the result of some in-born desire, or instincts, to get more perfect which actually resulted in the baser species’ evolution to higher and more perfect ones He says that when an infant looks at his parents walk and work, he also desires to do the same or get the same quality, by and by he acquires it. It means that such an evolution is subject to an example or a living pattern. Lamarck admits that man did not exist from the very beginning, then how the first plant life evolved into animate species when there was no example before them, because a desire occurs only when we have certain example before us. We can think of becoming a Governor because we have before us several precedents, and in case there had been no governorship before us, how can we aspire to. Secondly, our desires can be materialized only if we have the necessary means. An infant has a certain example of his parents who work or walk before his eyes. He also acquires those qualities because he has the example as well as means. He has hands to work with and legs to walk on. Why doesn’t a hen acquire the qualities of a man when it looks upon the man? The answer is that although she has an example before her, she lacks the means to do the same; mere desire cannot help her to acquire the necessary limbs by way of evolution. Thirdly, the example and mere means are not enough to enable a species to acquire the characteristic of another species An ape, although it looks upon man speaking and has also got a tongue, cannot speak like man. Some racial relation is also necessary. Fourthly, if we admit that evolution does not need any precedent, and it goes on automatically, it means that no creature, what soever, is perfect at any time including the homo sapiens. If so, why the evolution has suddenly stopped since times immemorial. The archaeological excavations and prehistoric arts show that man in the ancient times was the same as at present. The anthroplogists, are unanimous that there has been no change in human shape for 1,50,000 years. Why not a perfecter form of this so-called imperfect homo sapien creature. Darwin’s theory: As mentioned above, Darwin had modified the theory of Lamarck and had emphasised on the survival of the fittest, by way of natural selection. According to Darwin members of different species compete with one another for life, and in such struggle for existence any advantageous variation enables its possessor to gain the upper hand; the fittest survive and the others perish. The survivors pass on the beneficial variation to their off-spring which process eventually accounts for evolution of life. He calls this process. ‘Natural Selection.’ Ideologically spea-king, Darwin’s theory, was an off-shoot of a philoso-phical bickering rather than that of a scientific research. It had a cultural and philosophical back-ground. In the eighteenth century, Europe had full political sway over all the then known world. All the smaller nations of the world paid poll- tax to Europe because Europe was then in a profitably fitter position to dominate the other weaker nations, might is right being its only motto. This ideological background moulded the thought of her thinkers-and scientists alike at that time. Charles Darwin’s theory of survival of the fittest was fully in keeping with this imperialistic trend of the West, and this is the only reason why this theory got an unswerving acceptance in the intellectual quarters of Europe and its echo is still reverberating in her colleges, and universities. Apart from this, if we analyze this theory scientifically, it equally proves to be faulty. The theory has not been able to answer the following questions – (i) Of course, there are variations among members of the same species with regard to colour, size etc. If they are inherited then all of them must be inherited; why are some inherited and others not? How and why do they originate? (ii) How do the gradual accumulation of trivial variations result in the appearance of complex structures? (iii) Any variation has to be of immediate value to its possessor if it is to give him a better chance of survival than his fellows. What is the survival value of the beginning of an eye, an ear, etc. (iv) If the giraffe with its eight-foot neck is the product of natural selection and an example of the survival of the fittest, what about the sheep with its neck not longer than a few inches? How has it survived without a long neck? (v) If sheep evolved horns because they aided survival, how can one account for the survival of varieties of sheep which sur vive just as well without them? Why were not the hornless ones eliminated by the process of natural selection? (vi) Of the 1,20,000 fertilized eggs of the green frog only two individuals survive. Are we to conclude that these two frogs survived because they were the fittest? (vii) Inanimate matter devoid of motion, energy and life stays, according to the principle of intertia, forever unless acted upon by a superior outside force that could give it direction and organisation. How did the first living cell evolve out of inanimate group of chemical substance without the direction of an Intelligent Mind? (viii) How was the gigantic gap between the inanimate elements of earth and a living cell filled-up? (ix) Can the most advanced laboraties of our time create a living cell which, according to scientists, is as complicated as New York city, out of some inanimate matter? (x) Is it not a fact that nearly all biologists are in virtually unanimous agreement that all life derives from preceding life? If so, how to solve the riddle of first life aided except through faith in the existence of the Creator? (xi) Why has evolution not continued to improve it? Was it just an accident that this infinitely complex mechanism was perfect to begin with? If it evolved upward, then how is that some of them evolved upward while others did not? (xii) How can a single celled organism such as amoeba initiate a new organ such as an eye? How could it know that eye would be an improvement if it had never seen before? How could it know that sight was even possible? Did all the complicated parts of an eye such as the cornea, pupil, iris, retina, optic nerves, muscles, veins etc., evolved simultaneously? If the answer be in the affirmative, then it would be admittedly an act of creation rather than evolution and if the answer be in the negative then a partial eye would be a serious disadvantage to the organism and would be eliminated in due course of time. Moreover, why do we not come across a single creature in the world with eyes in a transitional stage of development particularly when we find several types of apes which according to the evolutionists are in their transit to manhood ? Wherever there is an eye, it is a complete eye; why is it so? Where are the transitional stages? Has evolu-tion stopped to work? (xiii) One-celled orgnisms such as the amoeba reproduce asexually by dividing them selves into two. This system of repro duction is satisfactory because such organisms are still with us multiplying in the same way. What was the need of converting this asexual system into sexual one ? How could male and female sex organs that perfectly com plement each other evolve gradually by chane, by the method of trial and error, perallelling each other, yet useless and decidedly disadvantageous until comple ted ? It may be noted that half-completed useless organs cannot survive even accor ding to Darwin; (xiv) If the mammary glands in females came about by slow evolution, how did these females feed their young in the meantime? If they already had another satisfactory way to feed their young, then why deve lop breasts? If breasts developed because they were a superior way of feeding, then why do we still have animals that feed otherwise in a satisfactory way and survive just as well? (xv) Spiders have special organs for spinning web without which they could catch no food. How did they survive the millions of years when these organs were evolving? If they gained food in other ways, what was the need of spinning organs? (xvi) All the cosmologists agree that all the planets were once a compact whole and that they suddenly split up with a big explosion into several galaxies. Only recently, man has landed on the moon, the satellite and at one time a part of the earth. The American astronauts brought back large quantities of moon-rock, as also the Russian Luna-16. The researches carried out so far have not been able to prove that there is life on the moon, although they have discovered that a very slight quantity of water (water that originates all living cells) exists in the moon crust. Why is there no life on the moon; if the scientists of tomorrow are able to discover bacteria in the moon soil, why did then bacteria not evolve into more perfect forms?; why did they not evolve into homosapiens or any other perfect form on the surface of the moon? If the lifeless elements of the earth could originate living cells and produce homosapiens, why could the moon-soil not decorate itself with living phenomena? Act of a Creator: By examining all the questions posed above, we come to the conclusion that all living phenomena of the world are the result of spontaneous creation and in no way can it be attributed to organic evolu tion. E. C. Kornfeld, a research chemist of repute, has very ably demonstrated that— “So highly intricate are the organic bio-chemi cal processes functioning in the animal organism, that it is not surprising that malfunc tion and disease occasionally intervene. One is rather amazed that a mechanism of such intricacy could ever function properly at all. All this demands a planner and sustainer of infinite intelligence. The simplest man-made mechanism requires a planner and a maker. How a mechanism ten thousand times more involved and intricate can be conceived of as self-constructed and self-developed is comp letely beyond me. ( E C Kornfeld (The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe). Even in this computer age, the most skilled computerists are inclined to assert that this orderly functioning of the universe and the living phenomena in it cannot go on automatically, the precise exactitude in its working points to its designer and planner which they have termed as super-master computer, who can be none else than the Creator and Controller of the universe, the Almighty God. A famous mathematician and chemist, John Cleveland Cothran, has very finely put forth his views in these words: “Chemistry discloses that matter is ceasing to exist, some varieties exceedingly slowly, others exceedingly swiftly. Therefore the existence of matter is not eternal. Consequently, matter must have had a beginning. Evidence from chemistry and other sciences indicates that this beginning was not slow and gradual; on the contrary, it was sudden, and the evidence even indicates the approximate time when it occurred. Thus, at some rather definite time the material realm was created and ever since has been obeying LAW, not the dictates of chance. “Now, the material realm not being able to create itself and its governing laws, the act of creation must have been performed by some non-material agent. The stupendous marvels accomplished in that act show that this agent must possess superlative intelligence, an attribute of mind. But to bring mind into action in the material realm, as, for example, in the practice of medicine and in the field of parapsychology, the exercise of WILL is required, and this can be exerted only by a PERSON. Hence our logical and inescapable conclusion is not only that crea tion occurred, but that it was brought about according to the plan and will of a Person possessing supreme intelligence and know ledge (omniscience), and the power to bring it about and keep it running according to plan (omnipotence) always and everywhere throughout the universe (omnipresence). That is to say, we accept unheistatingly the fact of the existence of “the supreme spiritual Being, God, the Creator and Director of the universe. Sir Isaac Newton once got a Skillful mechanic make him a miniature replica of our solar system with balls representing the planets geared together by cogs and belts so as to move in harmony when cranked. Later, Newton was visited by one of his atheist friend scientist who did not believe in God. The following was the conversation which took place between them: “The scientist slowly turned the crank, and with undisguised admiration watched the heavenly bodies all move in their relative speed in their orbits. Standing off a few feet, he exclaimed, ‘My! What an exquisite thing this is! Who made it? Without looking up from his book, Newton answered, ‘Nobody “Quickly turning to Newton, the atheist said, ‘Evidently you did not understand my ques tion. I asked who made this? Looking up now, Newton solemnly assured him that no body made it, but that the aggregation of matter so much admired had just happened to assume the form it was in. But the astonish ed atheist replied with some heat, ‘You must think I am a fool! Of course, somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I’d like to know who he is,’ “Laying his book aside, Newton arose and laid a hand on his friend’s shoulder. ‘This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and 1 am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original form which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker? Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion? Thus, Newton convinced his atheist friend that whatever is made does not evolve of itself without any maker and designer. Can any evolutionist ever say that a space satellite in orbit around the earth got there when a chance co-ordination of metal molecules formed a capsule on earth, which just happened to be connected to an evolved rocket and fuel tank and that all of this just chanced to go into perfect orbit with out any directing intelligence ? If not, then by what logic and by what reasoning can he claim that the most complex things of all living phenomena on our planet did not require the agency of a maker? Says Boyce Humann, famous biologist:- ‘Lifting our eyes to the heavens, we surely must exclaim with wonder at the orderly sweep of the stars. Night after night, season after season, year after year, century after century, the worlds of the outer space have followed their courses through the sky. They return so regularly in their orbits that eclipses may be predicted centuries in advance. Is anyone still asking whether they might be just accidental condensations of galactic materials, haphazardly wandering about?’ The missing links and the fossil records: The evolutionists claim that all living things gradually evolved from one-celled organisms into higher forms of life. This evolutionary process means that there is a chain-link between all the species. When the evolutionists say that man has descended from apes; then there must be several species interlinking both the apes and the homo sapiens. This interlinking species has been named as primates, which were a developed form of apes, but had not yet become man. In spite of their dogged search in the nooks and corners of the earth, the evolutionists have not been able to bring forth any such species which can be termed as ‘a creature below man but above apes. Helplessly, the poor supporters of evolution point out to the fos sillic finds. While on the one hand, it is interesting to observe that when the so-called fore-fathers (apes) and descendants (man) of this primate crea ture which was swallowed by the whale of time, are still alive the inter-linking creature withered away and became fossillised in the crusts of the earth; on the other it is still more interesting that these fossils provide no clue whatsoever to this missing link, and the fossils so far excavated have not proved to be of the so-called primates. This has baffled the evolutionists all along. Even Darwin had to humbly apologise in this matter. He said, “To the question, why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer.” A modern evolutionist, writing in the ‘New- York Times’ of October 25, 1964, admitted that: “The chief puzzle of the record of life’s history on earth, is the sudden appearance some 600 million years ago, of most basic divisions of the plant and animal kingdoms. There is virtually no record of how these divisions came about.” In the face of all this, the devout evolutionists have tried to deceive the world by playing and improving upon the scanty fossil record. In 1891 a Dutch surgeon, Professor Dubois, found some fossils in Java and declared it to be remains of the so called horno-erectus primate. Later research on the fossils proved it to be a vile effort on the part of the said Professor to deceive the world. Encyclo-paedia Britannica remarks: “The five fossil fragments found were: a skull cap which outwardly had the form which might be expected in a giant form of gibbon, a left, thigh bone and three teeth. The most distant parts of the fragments were 20 paces apart. Later he added a sixth fragment – part of a lower jaw found in another part of the island but in a stratum of same geological age.” Thus this enthusiastic evolutionist, in order to support the theory bade farewell to the scientific method and deceived the world by placing together the scanty scraps of fossil bones excavated at diffe rent places (in the case of the sixth fragment, even miles away from the other finds) Similarly, in 1922 a fossil tooth was found in Nebraska and the evolu tionists hailed it to be belonging to an anthropoid ape, but the later research proved it to be that of a fossil peccary (a piglike animal). The Science News Letter of February 25, 1961, has exposed another fake “One of the most famous fakes exposed by scientific proof was Piltdown man found in Sussex, England—and thought by some to be 500,000 years old. After much ‘controversy, it turned out to be not a primitive man at all, but a composite of a skill of modern man and the jaw-bone of an ape. The jaw-bone had been ‘doctored with bichromate of potash and iron to make it look mineralized.” The present fossil record is, thus, nothing but a hoax, faked by the atheist evolutionists; the future also does not hold good promise. The true and best way for the evolutionists should have been to rely on scientific method of finding truth by supporting their conclusions with facts, otherwise reject the same. On the contrary, the evolutionists draw conclusions from the facts which do not exist from the fossil record which is missing. Is this science and logic? The above extracts prove beyond any shadow of doubt that the 3/4 fossil record of the earth is missing, and the remaining 1/4, in itself a hoax engineered by evolutionists, supports a sudden creation and in no case a slow evolution. It shows well-defined species and no transitio nal forms representing intermediate evolutionary form. Charles Drawin himself admits it in quite a humble apologetic tone: “Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not see everywhere innumerable transitional forms. Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being as we see them well defined? “But as by this (evolution) theory innumera ble transitional forms must have existed, why we do not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth. Geological research does not yield the infinitely many fine gradations between past and present species required”. To these he finds no answer, and in order to stave off humiliation, says “I believe the answer lies in the record being in comparably less perfect than is generally sup posed”. Then why to build a theory on a record that does not exist or is incomparably imperfect? It is admitted on all hands that the record of fossils in the rocks shows no slow evolving from family to family. Families remain constant. New families appear suddenly and there is no proof of their having undergone through long periods gradual deve lopment. No fossil has been found that clearly shows even one of the millions of transitional forms. Why so many fossils of existing families but no series of fossils showing evolution of new organs? Why does the fossil record suffer from extreme imperfection only at those critical points where families are being bridged, eyes, ears and other organs being gradually evolved and why it is so perfect within each family? It was perhaps this reason that compelled Dr. Clark, a Smithsomian Institute biologist to say in the ‘Quar terly Review of Biology’ that instead of evolution by process of gradual development, it has come about by a series of jumps from one major form of life to another?’ As for the group animals,” he says, “the creationsists seem to have the better of the arguments. There is not the slightest evidence that any one of the major groups arose from any other. Professor D’ Arey Thompson says in his book “On Growth and Forms’. ‘Eighty years study of Darwinian evolution has not taught us how birds descend from reptiles, mammals from earlier quadruped, quadrupeds from fishes, nor vertebrates from the invertebrate stock. A principle of discon tinuity then is inherent in all our classification. To seek for stepping stones between the gaps is to seek in vain forever” In spite of their best efforts, even the devout evolutionists have not so far been able to give any satisfactory answer to the following questions, nor there is any likelihood that the future will enable them to; (a) Where are all the’ in-between’ stages or links of the evolutionary chain in either the fossil record or in the record of living things today? (b) Why is it always the same story that the intermediate transitional links between major groups of plants animals are missing? Why do the major groups of complex organism always appear suddenly, separa-ted by structural gaps from members of other groups? (c) Why are such things as arms, legs, eyes and wings always found to be completely developed? Where are the various stages of development in different limb and organs? Is Man descended from Animals: The evolutionists are still harping on the same string and claim that man is descended from ani­mals, that he is essentially an animal and there is no basic difference between man and brute. But the following basic and fundamental differences do exist. How do the evolutionists account for them? 1) They say that all animals form the lowest worm to the highest form are the slaves of their innate instincts. These instincts compel them to perform certain specific actions in certain specific actions in certain specific situations: a hungry wolf will but pounce upon a weak lamb to satify his appetite. But what about man? A saint of Madina, Hazrat Ali, in spite of having remained without food for three days cheerfully afforded to give his loaf of bread to a needy person and himself remained con tent with only a cup of water for breaking fast. How can one account for this strange behaviour where the instinct of food-see king and self-preservation are ignored in favour of charity and self control? (2) The object and aim of all the activities of an animal life is self-preservation and race-preservation. By his very nature an animal can not do any thing which is likely to harm his being. If a man is nothing but an animal, then how can one explain cases of suicide and self-immola tion? (3) Man has got self-consciousness and free will which are absent in the whole terres tial creation. How do the evolutionists explain this phenomenon? (4) Animals respond instinctively in one way only. The beehive built by been ten thousand years ago, is exactly of the same pattern as today but man has steadily improved upon his knowledge and simple houses have progressed into sky- scrapers. Whence this basic difference? Is there a single instance of an animal building on accumulated knowledge? How do the evolutionists bridge the mental gulf that separates man from all animals. Why have all efforts to educate appreciably the chimpanzee or any other animal failed and why have all primitive people been able to receive the highest education? (5) Every person has got an inborn God-con sciousness and moral sense. Sense of justice and truth are found innate in every man without any exception. They are not the result of persuation of education. Animals have none of these noble attri butes, why this difference? (6) Animals have sensations, notions, impu lses etc. but thought in its true sense belongs to man and man alone. Human thought ranges from the lowest grades to the very highest. Could anyone explain this difference? (7) The innermost recesses of the human unconscious mind (Ba’tin) reveal future events in dreams and visions, Can this phenomenon be explained in any way except in the context of religion and spiri tualism? (8) Man is endowed with conscience, perfect intelligence and reason, but these things are absent in animal world: Why? The above points prove, beyond any shadow of doubt, that there is an unbridgeable gap between man and beast. The rational western mind, fed up with and frustrated by the Christian mythologies, enigmatic exposition of God and incarnation of Jesus Christ instead of rejecting christian dogma in par ticular, chose to defy the very basis of religion in general, and sailed in difficult muddy waters which obviously anchored them on atheistic shores. The philosophers like Kant and Hume first took the initiative and the thread was later on picked up by indignant scientists, who had been hitherto the oppressed victims of the Church. The wise path would have been for the scientists at least to adopt a scientific method and be rational in their approach to the problem, but, unfortunately prejudiced western scientists jumped at a conclusion, an imaginary and biased conclusion, before resorting to any scienti fic process and finding sufficient material to prove it. They asserted that man has descended from beasts, but have not so far been able to substantiate it with any solid proof. Thus, unproved and unprovable, evolution is a faith in fossils that do not exist, and faith in links that are still missing. It is a blind faith induced by a fear, fear of what a smart world saturated with evolution might think. It is a pity that some of our so-called modern minded Muslims are making an unholy alliance between the Holy Qur’an and this Darwinian Mechanistic Evolution and claim that this theory is in perfect consonance with the Quranic conception of creation. Evolution is negation of God; on the contrary the Quran puts emphasis on the unity and existence of God, the Almighty, the Creator, the Sustainer, the Director and Controller of the unive rse. There can be no convergence and confluence of these two different streams: The Quranic Version of Man’s Creation: The Holy Qur’an, the Mother of All-Knowledge, has very clearly explained the process of man’s creation and has left no uncertainty what-soever in this regard. Before Adam, the first man, was created, God disclosed to the angels that He was going to create His Viceroy on the earth (11: 30). ‘And remember when thy Lord said unto angels: Lo I am creating a mortal out of potter’s clay of black altered. So when I have made him and have breathed into him of My spirit, do ye fall down prostrating your selves unto him’ (VI: 28-29). Then came the stage when man’s creation was actually taken up “And He began the Creation of man from clay.” (XXXEI) Then He fashioned him and breathed into him of His spirit and appointed for him hearing and sight and heart’ (XXXII-9) All this took place in the heaven and not on earth, as will be evident from the following verses:- “And We said: 0 Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Heaven and eat ye freely thereof where ye will, but come not nigh that tree, lest ye become wrong doers. But Satan caused them to deflect their cause and expelled them from the state in which they were and We said: Fall down one of you a foe unto other; THERE SHALL BE FOR YOU ON EARTH A HABITATION AND PROVISION FOR A TIME (II: 35-36).”. Thus Adam and his wife, Eve, were sent down on the earth complete in all respects, lacking no limb or sinew which would have been added later on through the process of evolution. Apart from the Holy Quran, the Tradi-tions of the Holy Prophet are so abundantly clear about the shape of Adam, that they have defined each and every limb of the first Man, Adam, to be in complete resemblance with those of the Last Prophet (Peace be upon him). It was only consequent upon the deviation of Adam from God’s command (not to touch the forbidden tree) that he was expelled from Heaven and descended on earth. It is wrong at this stage to think that on his expulsion from the Eden, the com-plete body of Adam might have been put into the embryo of some already existing creature (say, anthropoid apes, as held by some Muslims modernists) in order to carry it through the process of evolution. But on a careful study of the verses of the Holy Quran relating to the creation of Adam and Eve, this nation also shatters into pieces. If for a moment for the sake of argument, it is admitted that this is a true notion, then we are bound to admit that ‘THAT LUCKY CREATURE’ would have been parent of Adam. This is the law of anthropology and cannot bear any deviation or exception. But the holy Quran has emphatically rejected this idea. While referring to the case of Jesus Christ, the Holy Quran says that the FOLLOWERS OF CHRIST HOLD HIM EQUAL TO GOD for the simple reason that he was created without the agency of a father. Jesus case was quite identical to that of Adam. Let it not be forgotten that Adam was created without father and mother. Adam’s miraculous birth was more marvelous than that of Jesus Christ; if Adam cannot be God, how can Jesus be? Contextually, though this verse is not so relevant to the creation of man as to the non- Godhead of Jesus, yet this verse elucidates the fact that Adam had no parents. It is crystal clear from the above verses of the Holy Quran that man was created, complete in all respects, in the Heaven, was bestowed with the gift of speaking (Surah LV-4) and on account of his deviation was descended on the earth to live there for a period. In order to enable Adam to further reproduce his off-spring, God then equipped him with the necessary means. “Then he made his seed from an extract of despised fluid (XXXII : 8)” O mankind Be careful of your duty to your Lord who created you from a single soul and from it created its mate and from them twain hath spread abroad a multitude of men and women (4: 1) On the earth the process of reproduction, through sexual mating, went on and until the present moment no evolutionary development occurred in his form or manner. He has been complete in all respects ever since the day he was created “Surely we have created man in the best make (XCV : 4). Apart from the creation of Adam, the Holy Quran has also thrown a flood of light on the origin of fauna on the earth. “And Allah has created every animal from water: among them are some that go upon their bellies and among them are some that go upon two feet and among them are some that go upon four feet. Allah creates what He pleases. It means that every living phenomena of the universe was created by God in a separate and complete form, and there is no point in assuming that the fungi-like phenomena grew into reptiles, reptiles involved into mammals or quadruples. The whole universe was created with a set purpose and was not a result of purposeless evolution as erroneously held by the evolutionists, or their unfortunate followers. Says the Holy Quran “We created not the heaven and earth and all that is bet-ween the two in play: if We had ‘wished a pastime, we would have surely found it in what is with Us, if at all We were to do such a thing (XXI : 16)’. And a purposeful creation is not in need of any crutch of, evolution. The above scientific discussion coupled with theological exposition will be more than an eye opener for the misguided people whose eyes have been dazzled with the momentary light of baseless claims of evolutionists, and would be able to glance at the rightful, permanent Guidance of God, contained in the Holy Quran.’ “And our last call shall be; “Praise be to the Lord of all the worlds.” “And may Allah’s choicest blessings and peace be upon the most virtuous of all Rasuls upon his family, his Companions and his followers till the day of Qiyaamah. We beg this O Allah, through Your Mercy; O You Merciful One.” And Allah knows best. Darul Iftaa Source
  7. What Does Islam Say About Evolution and the Big Bang? Answered by Ustadh Salman Younas Question: The theory of evolution is really pushed in schools and society as a whole. In our tradition, is evolution true, false or a difference of opinion? Can you please clarify the Islamic position on evolution and the Big Bang? Answer: assalamu alaykum 1. According to most scholars, there is no problem accepting the Big Bang as it does not directly contradict any of the primary texts on the origins of creation. Some scholars have even cited Quran 21:30 and 41:11 as supporting the Big Bang theory. 2. As for evolution, the dominant – if not consensus – viewpoint among scholars is that it is in direct contradiction of the primary texts affirming an original and direct creation for Adam who was the first human being. These texts, such as Qur’an 38:71-76, indicate that Adam did not arise from a prior species. This was not because God could not have created humans through an evolutionary process but because He willed not to do so and informed us of this through revelation. The Qur’an, however, does not state the same regarding non-human species. Consequently, some scholars have differentiated between human evolution and non-human evolution stating that the primary texts only affirm an original creation for humans, namely Adam, not non-humans. Therefore, the theory of evolution in relation to the latter poses no intrinsic problem whether at the level of macro-evolution or micro-evolution. An important point that needs to be kept in mind is that even when evolution is accepted (i.e. for non-humans), it is still understood as an act of God stemming from His will and power. Evolution as random mutation and natural selection causally independent of God is decisively rejected whether the theory is applied to humans or non-humans. Science and Religion In any discussion on the relationship between science and religion, the first point that must be clarified is that the Qur’an was not revealed as a book of science. Nor was the sunna primarily interested in elucidating points of scientific fact. Rather, the purpose of both of these sources is to instruct humans regarding the manner in which they should live in order to recognize God and attain to felicity. In other words, the Qur’an and sunna are sources of guidance: “Indeed, this Qur’an guides to the straightest way and gives glad tidings to the believers,” (17:9) and “A book we have sent down to you so you may bring forth mankind from darkness to light.” (14:1). With this said, there is no denying that the Quran and sunna make reference to the cosmos and natural phenomena. Debates over the interpretation of certain verses and prophetic statements that describe the cosmos is nothing new. For example, scholars have discussed issues such as the flatness of the Earth, the heliocentric nature of our galaxy, and so forth with a view towards what the primary texts indicate about these matters and what empirical evidence affirms. A very basic framework that scholars forwarded when discussing contradictions between the primary texts and empirical evidence returned to notions of the decisive and probabilistic: (a) a decisive text takes precedence over the probabilistic. (b) a decisive text can only be conditioned by something that is decisive. Consequently, the principle is that whenever a literal or outward reading of a verse of the Qur’an or a prophetic statement seems to contradict a decisively established point of fact, that verse or saying is interpreted in a manner that accords to this established point of fact. Of course, it should be noted here that scholarly conceptions of decisiveness may vary and even change over time as it relates to certain issues. Even within the scientific community, the notion of scientific consensus, certainty vs. uncertainty, and so forth, can prove to be quite contentious. Therefore, while our tradition does not shut the door on utilizing the empirical to accurately understand the meanings of the primary texts, it does require grounding in and knowledge of the tradition, its principles, and an awareness of the complexities underlying empirical and scientific research. Evolution Being ‘Kufr’ Following from the above, it is also important to address the fact that a number of scholars have stated that evolution as the theory claiming man evolved from a prior non-human species is disbelief (kufr), such as our teacher Shaykh Nuh Keller. It is important to keep in mind here that: (a) this does not necessarily entail that the proponent of such a view is in fact a disbeliever (kafir), and (b) it is not even necessarily the case that the belief itself is literal disbelief (kufr) especially as it relates to Muslim evolutionists who continue to affirm God’s creative power and will, that Adam was a real human, and that he was in some manner created by God. This latter point is important in light of the fact that disbelief is commonly defined as denial and disavowal (takdhib), which is not necessarily applicable to those who reach unsound conclusions based on erroneous-interpretations (al-ta’wil al-fasid) or ignorance (al-jahl). For example, one cannot think of a clearer Qur’anic text than, “God is the creator of all things,” (39:62) and yet leading scholars have classically not affirmed the disbelief of groups such as the Mutazila and the Shia who opined that God does not create evil. This is because they do not actually deny the Qur’anic verse in question. Rather, they continue to affirm it but interpret it in an erroneous manner. Indeed, a number of Muslims who affirm evolution do not seek to deny the Qur’an at all but interpret it in an erroneous manner. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the word disbelief (kufr) to the views of these individuals except as an expression of severe censure or in the meaning of their views having the potential to entail disbelief. The details of the principles surrounding kufr and takfir have been detailed by al-Sharif Hatim al-Awni in his work Takfir Ahl al-Shahadatayn. Of course it goes without saying that not labeling a particular view as disbelief does not indicate that said belief is acceptable or sound. Salman Checked & Approved by Shaykh Faraz Rabbani Sourc
  8. Replying to the Azaan in the state of haidh Q: Can a lady in haidh reply to the azaan? A: Replying to the azaan is a form of zikr. It is not permissible for a woman in haiz to recite the Quraan. However, it is permissible for her to engage in zikr, istighfaar and dua. Hence, it is permissible for her to reply to the azaan. And Allah Ta'ala (الله تعالى) knows best. ويكره للحائض والجنب قراءة التوراة والإنجيل والزبور هكذا في التبيين وإذا حاضت المعلمة فينبغي لها أن تعلم الصبيان كلمة كلمة وتقطع بين الكلمتين ولا يكره لها التهجي بالقرآن كذا في المحيط ولا يكره قراءة القنوت في ظاهر الرواية كذا في التبيين وعليه الفتوى كذا في التجنيس والظهيرية ويجوز للجنب والحائض الدعوات وجواب الأذان ونحو ذلك في السراجية. (الفتاوى الهندية 1/38) Answered by: Mufti Zakaria Makada Checked & Approved: Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Isipingo Beach)
  9. On Tawbah (Repentance)

    Difficulty in giving up Sin Q. As salaamu alaikum Mufti. Please help me. I have been committing a major sin for the past seven years and I don't know how to stop. Every time I make taubah and promise never to do it again but I do. I hate myself for committing this sin. I read my 5 times Salaah, I read Quran every day, I make zikr every day, I go for 40 days every year but this one thing I cannot stop. I really want to. How can I stop? Will Allah forgive me? What can I do to make Allah happy with me and not angry with me? Please help me Jazakallah (Question published as received) A. It is in the nature of humankind to constantly slip and fall, to constantly err and sin. But it is the quality of the true Muslim that whenever he sins he makes Tawbah and tries to reform himself. Consider a person whose occupation is working within a coal mine digging out coal through sweat and hard labour. At the end of every day, his body is blackened with soot from head to toe. Does he tell himself at the end of the day that I will be blackened again tomorrow so I don’t have to wash off today’s dirt and grime? No, he does not. Every evening, he bathes and cleans himself. It is the same for us when we sin. The Believer cannot tolerate allowing the soot of sin to remain on his heart. So he washes it off with Tawbah. Do not lose heart that you are unable to give up the sin. Rather, thank Allah that there are many who sin without remorse but Allah has blessed you with a remorseful heart that turns to Tawbah. The addiction to a sin is like addiction to intoxicants. The main ingredient in kicking any addiction is WILLPOWER. It is difficult and it is a struggle, but it is a struggle that can be overcome. The key is to gradually wean yourself off the sin. If it is done every few hours then strive to extend the hours between committing the sin. If it is done every few days then strive to extend the days between committing the sin. The hours will become days and days will become weeks and the weeks will become months until you are able to kick the sin out completely. Each step of progress is a milestone and a victory that you should celebrate and rejoice in. This will give you extra motivation to quit the sin. Even if it takes time to do, it’s fine. Even if you falter and succumb to the sin again and again, do not give up. Do not give in to depression and weakness. That is what Shaytaan wants us to do. Pick yourself up, dust off the dirt with Tawbah and with renewed vigour continue your struggle. The main thing is that we must move forward and not backward. Allah’s door of forgiveness is always upon to us and Allah loves His servants who turn to Him in repentance. Sayyiduna Anas Radhiyallahu Anhu said, “I heard the Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) saying, “Allah, the Exalted, has said:‘O son of Adam! I shall go on forgiving you so long as you pray to Me and aspire for My forgiveness whatever may be your sins. O son of Adam! I do not care even if your sins should pile up to the sky and should you beg pardon of Me, I would forgive you. O son of Adam! If you come to Me with sins as great as the earth and meet Me, not associating anything with Me in worship, I will certainly meet you with forgiveness as great as it.’” (At-Tirmidhi) And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best Mufti Moosa Salie Confirmation: Mufti Ismaeel Bassa (The answer hereby given is specifically based on the question asked and should be read together with the question asked. Islamic rulings on this Q&A newsletter are answered in accordance to the Hanafi Fiqh unless otherwise stated.) Fatwa Department Jamiatul Ulama (KZN)
  10. Constantly Remaining Vigilant of the Nafs Hazrat Moulana Ashraf Ali Thanwi (rahmatullahi ‘alaih) once mentioned: It is absolutely vital for one to constantly remain vigilant and cautious regarding his nafs. The nafs is such that if it finds the opportunity and the means to fulfil its desires, it will never rest until it gets what it wants. In fact, even those who have progressed sufficiently in the path of self reformation, it is nevertheless, dangerous for them as well to become complacent and relax their guard regarding the nafs. However, the difference with them is that due to their knowledge and experience in traversing the path of self reformation, it is not as difficult for them to bring their nafs under control at the time of danger. The condition of our nafs is like that of a stubborn horse. When it is let loose, it neither looks forward nor backward (as it is out of control and runs in any direction without thinking). In this state, the damage that the nafs can cause is so serious that we cannot truly comprehend it. (Malfoozaat Hakeemul Ummat 8/50) Ihyaauddeen.co.za
  11. What is Bida’h or Bida’t (بدعة)?

    QUESTION Could you kindly explain what is the correct opinion on the meaning and categories of bid’ah and whether according to the classical scholars a distinction was made between a good bida’h and an evil bida’h? ANSWER In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful, The word Bid’a (innovation) has two aspects to it, one being the linguistic definition, and the other, it’s meaning from a Shariah perspective. Linguistically Bid’a means introducing something new, regardless of whether it is connected to religious affairs or other worldly matters, and regardless of whether one practices it considering it to be part of Deen or otherwise. In the Shariah terminology, Bid’a means to introduce something in religion that was not done in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), the rightly guided Khulafa (Allah be pleased with them all) and the early generations with the intention of gaining more reward, and despite being a need for it in the time of the Messenger of Allah and his Companions, it was not implemented verbally, practically, explicitly or implicitly. (Taken from Imam al-Barkawi’s al-Tariqa al-Muhammadiyya, Imam Shatibi’s al-I’tisam and Imam al-Lakhnawi’s Iqamat al-Hujjah). From the above definition of Bid’a, it becomes clear that new practices that are not considered to be part of Deen, rather they concern our worldly affairs, such as modern technology, cars, planes, etc… can not be considered as Bid’a, for the fact that they are not introduced with the intention of worship and gaining more reward. Innovations with regards to worldly matters do not fall into the category of reprehensible and sinful innovation, thus they are totally permissible as long as they don’t contradict any other ruling of Shariah. Similarly, acts and practices that were carried out (verbally, practically, explicitly or implicitly) in the time of the blessed Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give peace), his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) and the early generation can also not be called an innovation. Also, an act for which there was no apparent need in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), his companions and the early generations, but later in order to attain a religious objective there rose a need to implement it, then this will also not fall within the definition of Bid’a. Examples of which are: building religious institutions, recording the research of Islamic schools of legal thought, writing books on beneficial subjects, establishing sciences in order to understand the Qur’an and Sunnah, using of modern weapons for Jihad, etc… With the above definition of Bid’a, it also becomes clear that to innovate something in religion that had the same need in the early times, but was not carried out will be considered a Bid’a, thus unlawful. Another aspect to remember with regards to Bid’a is that there are certain acts of worship which the Shariah has declared to be recommended (mandub) or highly encouraged (sunnah), but without specifying a particular procedure or method for it. Rewards have been promised for various types of worship, but the actual method of implementation has not been prescribed. This method of worship has been left to the convenience of the individual. In such acts of worship, it is necessary to leave the general permission given by the Shariah. If a particular method is fixed or considered to be superior to other methods, then this will be impermissible and classed as Bid’a. (This has been explained in a previous answer with examples. See the archives on this website. Classification of Bid’a The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Beware of matters newly begun, for every matter newly begun is innovation and every innovation is misguidance.” (recorded by Imam Ahmad in his Musnad 4/126-127, Imam Abu Dawud, Imam Tirmidhi & Imam Ibn Majah in their respective Sunan collections with an authentic chain of narrators). Due to the above Hadith, scholars say that from a perspective of the Shariah definition of Bid’a, every type of Bid’a is reprehensible and sinful. When an act is determined to fall into the abovementioned Shariah definition of Bid’a, then it can never be termed as good or lawful. All innovations are reprehensible and misguidance, thus unlawful. Imam Malik (Allah be pleased with him) said: “Whosoever innovates an innovation believing it to be good (hasana) has indeed claimed that the Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) breached the trust of Prophethood, because Allah Almighty says: “This day I have perfected your religion for you”. Anything that was not part of religion on that day, can not be a part of religion today.” (al-I’tisam, 1/48). However, Bid’a can be divided into various categories when considering the linguistic definition. As mentioned earlier, linguistically, Bid’a means to introduce something, thus any thing that is introduced will (from a linguistic point of view) be termed as Bid’a. These innovations may be obligatory, recommended and unlawful. When scholars categorize innovations, this is the aspect they are referring to. Therefore, innovations such as the study of the disciplines of Arabic that are necessary to understand the Qur’an and sunnah (grammar, syntax, etc), Hadith classification to distinguish between genuine and spurious prophetic traditions, modern technology like electricity, car, plain, light, building of Islamic schools, etc… despite being considered a Bid’a linguistically, will not be considered a Bid’a with regards to the Shariah definition, thus they are lawful. Imam al-Lakhnawi explains this by quoting from al-Tariqa al-Muhammadiyya of Imam al-Barkawi: “If it is said that how can we reconcile between the Messenger of Allah’s statement “Every innovation is misguidance” and the Fuqaha’s classification of Bid’a into the lawful, recommended and the obligatory? We will say: Bid’a has a linguistic meaning that is general, which is to introduce, regardless of whether it is considered worship or is related to personal habits. It (Bid’a) also has a Shariah definition that is more specific, which is to add or remove in religion in a way that it was not done in the time of the Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions, verbally, practically, explicitly or implicitly. Therefore, (the Shar’i Bid’a) does not include habits (worldly matters), rather it is restricted to certain beliefs and practices” (Iqamat al-Hujjah, P. 21-22). Therefore, the classification of Bid’a in various categories is from a linguistic point of view that does not include the Shar’i definition of Bid’a. It is from this, Sayyiduna Umar al-Khattab (Allah be pleased with him) said regarding the performance of Tarawih prayer in congregation “This is a good innovation.” Also, practices that do not fall into the Shariah definition of Bid’a such as building of religious schools will still be considered a Bid’a linguistically, but not all linguistic innovations are reprehensible. Finally, it should also be remembered that practices carried out in the time of the rightly guided Khalifas, other Companions and their followers (Allah be plesed with all) can not be considered a Bid’a. The great Hanafi jurist and Hadith scholar, Imam Abd al-Hay al-Lakhnawi dedicated a whole chapter in support of this in his famous treatise titled ‘Iqamat al-hujjah ala an al-ikthar fi al-ta’abbud laysa bid’a’. He states: “Practices that were carried out with the approval of the Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) but were not done in the time of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), such as the introducing of the first Adhan for Jumu’ah prayer, twenty Rak’ats of Tarawih prayer, etc…can not be considered a Shar’i Bid’a. There are many evidences for this, just to mention a few: 1) The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Hold fast on to my ways and the ways of the rightly guided Caliphs.” (Abu Dawud, Ahmad, Tirmidhi and others with an authentic chain of narrators). 2) The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “follow in the footsteps of the two after me, Abu Bakr and Umar.” (Ahmad, Tirmidhi and Ibn Majah with a sound chain of narrators). (See for more details: Iqamat al-Hujjah by Imam al-Lakhnawi with notes by Shaykh Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda, P.25-58). And Allah Knows Best [Mufti] Muhammad ibn Adam Darul Iftaa Leicester , UK Source
  12. What is Bida’h or Bida’t (بدعة)? Questions: Q1. What is Bida’h or Bida’t (بدعة)? How many types are of Bida’h ? Is all types of Bida’h prohibited in Islam ? Q2. What is “Bid’ah Hasana”? Is it Permissible? Q3. A new thing introduced by Khulfa-e-Rashideen like 20 Rakah of Taraweeh, 2nd Azan of Jumah etc is also Bida’h? If not Why? Answers: Wa Alaikum As Salaam, The scholars of the Ummah have given the definition of Bid’ah in many different ways, however the gist and summary is the same. Some of these definitions are: 1) Imam Nawawi writes: ‘Bid’ah is any invented thing that was not present at the time of the Messenger of Allah (S.A).’ (Mirqaat) 2) Hafiz Ibn Hajar Asqalani writes: ‘Bid’ah is that which is newly invented and there is no origin for it in the Shariah.’ (Fathul Baari) 3) Imam Shafi (A.R) has stated: ‘Bid’ah is any newly invented thing which opposes the Book of Allah or the Sunnah or the traditions or Ijma, then this is Bid’ah Dhalaal (innovation of misguidance)’. (Fathul Baari) 4) Hafiz Ibn Rajab Hanbali writes: ‘The meaning of Bid’ah is any new thing which has no origin indicating towards it in the Shariah. As for that which there is an origin indicating towards it from the Shariah, then it is not a Bid’ah even though it is a Bid’ah literally. (Jamiul Uloom Wal Hikam). 5) Hafiz Badrudeen Aini has written: ‘Bid’ah in reality means the act of bringing about something which was not present at the time of the Prophet (S.A)’. (Umadatul Qaari). 6) Allama Abu Ishaq Shatbi writes: ‘Bid’ah is a path in religion which has been invented, and seeks a resemblance to the Sacred Shariah. The purpose for practicing upon it is the same purpose one will have in practicing the Shariah itself’. (Al Hisaam) From all these definitions it is established that Bid’ah is such a newly created, invented and innovated religious act which has no Shar’i evidence or source. The Quran, Hadith, Ijma and Shar’i Qiyas give no indication to it. That which has not been evident expressively or indicatively from the Prophet (S.A) through his words, actions approvals or disapprovals is not Deen and it cannot be evident in the Shariah. Those things, the allowance of which has been granted through the words of the Prophet (S.A), his actions, approvals and disapprovals, and its presence was found during the time of the Prophet (S.A) or the period of the first three generations is not Bid’ah. The meaning of Bid’ah which has been explained so far is the Shar’i technical meaning and in the Ahadith the word Bid’ah carries the above Shar’i meanings. However, during the first generation (i.e. the Sahabahs) and Tabieen times, sometimes, every new act (thing) was called Bid’ah (using its literal meaning) whether the act was evident in Shariah or not, eg. Umar (R.A) said about Taraweeh, ‘What a good Bid’ah this is’. The usage of the word ‘bid’ah’ in these cases was only based on its literal meaning which is more general than the Shar’i meaning (for Bid’ah). Due to its literal meaning, and giving consideration to the word Bid’ah from a literal meaning point of view, Imam Shafi has explained that Bid’ah is of two types: 1) Mahmooda – (Good) 2) Mazmooma – (Bad) Imam Shafi says: Bid’ah is of two types, good and bad. Whatever is in conformity to the Sunnah then it is good and whatever opposes it (the Sunnah) then it is bad. (Fathul Baari) Similarly, Allama Izzudeen bin Abdis Salaam, giving consideration to its general meaning has divided Bid’ah into five types. 1) Waajib 2) Haram 3) Mandoob 4) Makrooh 5) Mubah The gist of it is that Bid’ah with respect to its literal definition and implication, is sometimes good and sometimes bad. But with respect to the Shar’i technical meaning of Bid’ah it is never good, it is always bad. Shar’i Bid’ah is of two types: 1) Bid’ah Itiqaadi (Bid’ah in beliefs) 2) Bid’ah Amali (Bid’ah in actions) 1) Bid’ah Itiqaadi is that a person or group chooses/adopts certain beliefs and ideologies which are opposing to the beliefs and ideologies of the Prophet (S.A) and the pious predecessors e.g. To believe that the Prophet (S.A) is Alimul Ghaib (knower of the unseen), or Hazir and Nazir (present everywhere and looking everywhere) or Mukhtar Kul (having full power and control). In the same way the beliefs of the deviated sects (i.e. Shia, Khawarij, Mutazila, Qadriya, Jabriya etc) are all Bid’ah Itiqaadi. According to the Shar’i meaning of Bid’ah, they are all Ahlul Bid’ah (people of Bid’ah). 2) Bid’ah Amali (Bid’ah in actions) is that a person’s belief is correct but adopts certain practices which are not evident from the Prophet (S.A) or the pious predecessors e.g. building shrines over the grave, putting lights over the graves etc. The 20 rakaah of Taraweeh is not known to be bid’ah in the Shariah, seeing that the idea of performing Taraweeh Salaat in Jamaat as well as performing 20 rakaats were already established during the life of the Prophet (SAS), and these were known to Umar (RA). What Umar (RA) referred to as Bid’ah was the fact that he gathered all the Muslims under one Imam for Taraweeh Salaah, instead of having them in small groups as they did before. This, he did in the presence of the Sahabahs and they all agreed to it. The other Khalifahs after him like Uthman (RA) and Ali (RA), as well as the other Sahabahs and Tabieen Scholars implemented this without hesitation and disapproval. Based on the explaination of ‘Bidah’ which I gave before, this act does not fall within the category of Bid’ah in Deen (religion). The usage of the word bid’ah by Umar (RA) was in its literal sense, which means that the manner in which he gathered all the Muslims under one Imam for Salaah at Taraweeh was not done in this way by the Prophet (SAS). With respect to the 2nd Azan of Juma which was introduced by Uthman (RA), this also is not considered to be bidah in deen (religion). Uthman did this on account of a need at that time, and it was done in the presence of the great Sahabahs who approved it. After the time of Uthman (RA), Ali (RA) and all the other Muslim leaders and great scholars implemented and practiced it without hesitation and disapproval. Here again, the definition which has been given for ‘bidah’ by the great scholars, show that this act of Uthman (RA) does not fall into the category of bid’ah in deen. And Allah knows best, Mufti Waseem Khan Source
  13. Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu)

    Part Sixteen The Du‘aa of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam): Hazrat Qais bin Abi Haazim (rahimahullah) narrates that Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) mentioned, “Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam) made du‘aa saying, ‘O Allah! Accept the du‘aa of Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) when he supplicates to you!’”(Sunan Tirmizi #3751) Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) was a person of Allah Ta‘ala and a man of justice. If he saw anything wrong then he would correct the situation for the sake of Allah Ta‘ala. He could not bear to witness oppression and tyranny take place. Hence, after stopping a person from wrong, if the person persisted, then he would turn to Allah Ta‘ala and make du‘aa against the person. Qais bin Abi Haazim (rahimahullah) mentions, “On account of the du‘aa of Rasulullah (sallallahu ‘alaihi wasallam), whenever Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu) would make du‘aa, it would be accepted. The people were well aware of this and thus feared earning the curse of Hazrat Sa’d (radhiyallahu ‘anhu).”(Usdul Ghaabah 2/308)
  14. ختم نبوت

    Oh mashaa-allaah! Allah ta'ala accept from you dear sister bint-Aisha! Such a noble idea!
  15. Talk Talk

    Misuse of the Tongue Hazrat Mufti Ebrahim Salejee (Daamat Barakaatuhu) mentioned: Misuse of the tongue can be extremely dangerous and disastrous. We don’t realise what trauma and disaster it can cause. The Hadeeth says: “Promise me the protection of the tongue, I promise you Jannat.” It is an extremely important matter. Even if you are right you need to think how to speak correctly.