ummtaalib

Question my husband keeps getting waswas about divorce all time when hes eating,drinking or when doing something else.he gets alot of waswas about different things he once got wrong waswas about his mom when he was sitting by her but he refused to listen to the waswas and ignored thm.is this a sin?hes on tablets now for these waswas.can you give me some advice to give him? i also get alot of waswas about islam and my lord allah.im ill because i keep talking to myself and i keep repeating words over and over again all day long.im tired of this illness.i cant cope with the illness nomore. i keep saying wrong things about islam and i dont want 2 say wrong things ever in my life but im ill.my life is hell cuz of this illness.i dont know what to do.when i say somthing wrong then i ask allah to forgive me and i say taubah.sometimes when i explain myself about my illness to myself i sometime say something i was never like this before.sometime when im talking to myself shaitans puts waswas strongly 2 me that it nearly comes out my mouth but i stop it.i worried now about last nite because i keep thinking that i said thats its funny but i dont know if i said that.what shal i do. please write bak Answer Assalāmu `alaikum Warahmatullāhi Wabrakatuh, Waswasa could either be genuine whispers of the Shaitaan or due to some sickness. If it is due to a sickness which is generally diagnosed by a phsychiatrist or clinical phycologist, then such waswasa or thoughts are treatable. Your husband is now on tablets. We hope and make dua Allah grant him shifaa. Aameen. You state you also get waswasa about Allah and Islam. You also indicate that you get these waswasa frequently when you get ill. It is important to diagnose whether your waswasa is similar to your husband’s waswasa and you require medical assistance like him. You may consider exploring that avenue. If your waswasa are whispers of Shaitaan, then if they are involuntary and just come in the mind of their own, you should not worry. Simply ignore such thoughts. Do not pay attention whatsoever to such thoughts. Shaitaan puts these thoughts to divert your attention from useful thoughts to useless and insignificant thoughts. You will find yourself consumed in something useless and tangled thereby frustrating yourself. That is the root to many evils, anger, frustration, tiredness, despair, suicidal thoughts etc. This is what is Shaitaan’s objective. The simple remedy to such thoughts is to ignore them and don’t bother. This will be a smack on Shaitaan’s face. Shaitaan will feel humiliated and not attempt his evil plot on you again. Simply read “لَا حَوْلَ وَلَا قُوَّةَ إِلَّا بِاللَّهِ الْعَلِيِّ الْعَظِيمِ” and “أَعُوذُ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ”. Also, remember having such thoughts are a clear sign of Ieman. If you did not have Ieman in you, Shaitaan would not bother. Once sahabi complained to Rasulullah Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam about such thoughts. Rasulullah Salla Allahu Alayhi wa Sallam advised him “That is clear sign of Ieman”. Such thoughts are like the different scenes on a journey. One does not stop to watch every scene on the journey, he glances at it and continues. Similarly, continue with your normal life and don’t let these thoughts stop you in any way. If you do so, you are inviting trouble to yourself. Such thoughts are similar to a live wire. You stay away, you are safe; you touch it you shock yourself. And Allah Ta'āla Knows Best, Muftī Ebrahim Desai Daruliftaa 35 Candella Rd, Durban, South Africa www.daruliftaa.net

Question. I desperately need help. I am based in the UK. I have OCD. This manifests itself in 3 ways. First, I take long in the toilet, making ghusl and wudhu, i.e. washing my hands incessantly. Second, every verbal utterance by me or my wife is dissected and analysed for kufr. I ask approximately 10 muftis for a fatwa because I want to be 100% sure. Inevitably, asking so many muftis results in 1 out of 10 concluding kufr. My negative mindset precludes me from focusing on the 9 in favour. This has happened on 3 occasions. For example just yesterday my wife was reading a message on facebook part of which said: “thank you Allah for making my samosas turn out the right shape.” When she finished reading the message she said: “trust her to come out with crap.” 4 muftis said no kufr but the one inconclusive fatwa is what my mind is entrenched with. Another example is of a conversation I had with my father wherein I stated: “I told Sajid that I am willing to help the Masjid out in confidence provided my employer doesn’t come to know. If, however, you mention my name to them I will screw you over and I don’t give a damn then that the masjid is involved.” The intention here was not to disrespect the masjid but to threaten the brother. Mufti Siraj Desai (South Africa) and Mufti of (Zimbabwe) and Mufti of (Darul Ifta Birmingham UK) concluded that this did not constitute kufr but my anxiety levels are such that I cannot rest until the remaining muftis all come back and conclude the same. Third whenever I am given naseehat by my wife in particular such anger and anti Islamic sentiments grip my heart that it feels like I have left the fold of Islam. Muftis have suggested seeing a psychiatrist. I am reluctant to see a non-muslim psychiatrist yet I cannot find a reliable Muslim psychiatrist in the UK. I am gradually falling in to a state of depression bordering on the suicidal. My marriage is up and down and I am completely lost. I am irregular with Salah and my akhlaaq rapidly oscillates from the sublime to the disgraceful. I have been sitting in bed all day doing absolutely nothing. The month of Ramadhan is passing by and I an pre-occupied with obtaining fatwas regarding whether such and such statement constitutes kufr. Please provide a solution. Even whilst writing this, I initially wrote please help me as opposed to please provide a solution. Now I am wondering whether asking help from another besides Allah constitutes disbelief. Please suggest a cure and confirm that there is no need to renew Iman and re-perform nikah. Answer. There is no doubt that you are suffering from a dangerous type of waswasa which probably may actually lead to the destruction of your Iman. Shaitaan is playing with your mind, and you are giving him the chance to do so. Your first problem is that you are bringing many unnecessary questions in your mind, and the other problem is that when you receive answers for your questions (from authoritative scholars), you begin to have doubts in their answers. If you continue in this manner, you will ruin yourself. You need to take control of your self, do whatever you are commanded to do as a Muslim, and refrain from prying into every small and insignificant matter that comes to your mind. If you cannot control them, then recite a lot of Ta’awuz (that is, say A’uzu billahi Minash Shaitanir Rajeem) frequently, until these thoughts go away. Secondly, ignore whatever comes to your mind (from among these evil whispers). Pay no heed to it, and give it no importance. Thirdly, if you think that some of these thoughts are such that you need to seek a fatawa, then communicate with such a Mufti (Islamic scholar) upon whom you have reliance and confidence, and accept what he says. Do not go about ‘scouting’ for opinions, for this will only put you in a state of confusion. With respect to asking questions while seeking help, this is something which Allah Has (himself) asked us to do when he said, ‘And ask those who know if you do not know’. Allah Has also ordered us by saying ‘And help each other in goodness and in piety’. In order to cure the problem of waswasa, you should also frequently recite the dua which Allah has given in the Holy Quran when one is touched and affected by Shaitan. This Dua is :- ‘Rabbi A’uzu bika min Hamazaatish Shayateen wa A’uzu bika Rabbi An Yahdhuroon’. ‘O my lord I seek refuge in you from the whispers of the devils. And I seek refuge in you, O my lord, from their presence. Strictly adhere to the performance of your Salaah, stay away from all the haram, and supplicate to Allah and follow the guidelines that I have given. Insha Allah, Allah will remove your problem. And Allah knows best. Mufti Waseem Khan Source

Answered by Sidi Wasim Shiliwala Question: I am suffering from extreme waswasa. Sometimes I bathe five times a day and I find concentrating in salah difficult. I have read everything about waswasa and I try to ignore it, but I can’t. Also, after istinja, I am always doubtful about my hands. I try to open my fingers during washing but sometimes I forget whether I opened my fingers or not and I worry about whether I washed the spaces between them. Please advise me. Answer: Walaikum As-salaam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuhu, May Allah ease your burden upon you. Wasawis are a difficult issue to deal with, but alhamdulillah you have already begun dealing with the issue in two important ways: 1) by recognizing that there is a problem and 2) by seeking help and guidance. Seek Professional Help From what you have described, it appears to me that your condition might move beyond waswasa and into the realm of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder, which is in reality a serious disorder that requires professional attention. Therefore, I highly encourage that you seek counseling from a qualified mental health professional who can help you understand and deal with this condition. Have no doubt that seeking medical help is part of our religion. Consulting others in serious matters is an emphasized sunnah of the Prophet (peace be upon him), and seeking necessary medical help is required upon those who are able to seek it. When we are in doubt about something, Allah commands us to ask those who know [16:43]. Remember that when the Prophet (peace be upon him) learned that two Muslims had given an injured man ill-informed advice that resulted in his death, he (peace be upon him) blamed them for the man’s death and asked why they did not simply seek a more knowledgeable source for guidance. [sunan Abu Dawud] By not taking the time to seek proper advice from a knowledgeable source, the two men carelessly and needlessly caused their companion’s death. I mention all of the above merely to emphasize the point that you should seek professional advice to help you deal with these problems. It may very well be that there are underlying issues that need to be treated before you can address the wasawis. Seek Allah’s Help Through Dua and Prayer In addition to seeking help, make sure you consistently ask Allah’s aid during these trials. Make much dua (supplication), and also establish and increase your prayers – pray the five daily prayers on time, establish the sunnah prayers, read the Qur’an daily, send salawat on the Prophet (peace be upon him), and make sure you increase in your remembrance (dhikr) of Allah as well. Limit Your Indulgence, Say the Ta`awwudh, and Move On In addition to implementing the professional advice and guidance of a counselor, you can also try to reduce the wasawis in the following manners: 1. Establish clear limits and stick to them: 1 shower a day for 5 minutes max, 1 wudhu per prayer for 1 minute max (5 seconds on each limb), 10 seconds for washing your hands max, and so on and so forth. Once the timer is up, you stop the action, assume cleanliness, and move on. 2. Say the ta`awwudh (a`udhu billahi min ash-shaytan ir-rajim) when you hear the whispers calling you to redo an action. You can also recite surat al-Nas, which is also a dua for protection against wasawis. 3. Leave the washing area immediately and do NOT look back. Go straight into your prayer (after wudhu) or continue with your day. In other words, busy yourself and your mind before Shaytan tries to take over. 4. Trust in Allah that your prayer and purity are accepted. Remember that the sahaba and the Prophet (peace be upon him) all had less water than we do now, and without a doubt their prayers were accepted. So there is no doubt that we, who use (and waste) so much more water than they ever did, are performing our wudhu in a matter acceptable to Allah. The Blessing of Good Company Above all, do not try to handle these problems alone. Seek the help not only of a counselor, but also of those close to you as well. Your family and friends can uplift your spirits and shift your attention away from the wasawis to other good things: remembrance of Allah, enjoyment of beneficial company, and the general goodwill and love that exists among all of us. Spend your free time in gatherings of dhikr, sacred knowledge, and other lectures at your local masjid, Islamic center, or Muslim neighbor’s house. Shaytan is strongest when we are alone, and weakest when we are in good company (suhba), so make it a habit of immersing yourself in blessed gatherings. With Allah’s help, you will see that Shaytan’s influence will slowly but steadily dissipate as you fill your head with remembrance of the All-Merciful, and how majestic and glorious and exalted He is! Other Readings on Waswasa As you tread this path to well-being, it might be of benefit to read and re-read the various points of advice found in the following answers for guidance and inspiration: Does the Qur’an Mention OCD or Waswasa Being Caused by Jinn? A Reader on Waswasa Waswasa as a Trial from Allah: Punishment or Blessing? Medical Conditions and Waswasa Satanic Whisperings are Making Me Withdraw from Muslims Final Word Again, I must reiterate that it sounds like you have a serious condition, in which case you must seek counseling and treatment. This is of the highest priority, as sound health – mentally, physically, and emotionally – is an essential part of our religion. Without it, we cannot excel in our path to Allah – rather, establishing it is, in many ways, how we achieve closeness to our Lord. May Allah aid you in your time of difficulty, cure you of your afflictions, and give you – and all of us – good health. And only with Allah comes success. Jazakum Allahu Khairan, Wasim Checked & Approved by Faraz Rabbani Source

Question I have been suffering from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) for nearly 11 years. My symptoms are characterised by incessant, obtrusive, obscenely blasphemous thoughts, which I have no control over, and cannot seem to purge from my mind. Moreover, I suffer from another manifestation of OCD, vis, excessive hand washing and avoidance behaviour. This condition is having a debilitating impact upon my life. I would like to know the Islamic take on my situation, and does it lay the blame for my affliction firmly on my doorstep. Answer OCD (Obsessive Compulsive Disorder) may be viewed as a sickness like any other sickness. As Muslims, it is out belief that sickness is from Allah Ta’ala and it is compulsory upon us to be happy with the order of Allah Ta’ala. When one is ill, he will consult an appropriate physician with the hope of getting treatment to cure or control the sickness. You should view your condition in the light of the above and consult with a psychologist for treatment. And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best Mufti Ebrahim Desai askimam

Question: Until a few days ago I was performing my istinja in the shower after having briefly wiped myself with a tissue. Today, I fell in the same trap, as at the last minute I needed to go the toilet(to pass stool and urine) and I was getting late for jumu’ah. First I wiped with a tissue, when I was washing myself in the shower, I saw the colour of the water change to brown from the remaining faeces) as I washed my private parts. Similarly, the odd urine drops were still coming out. Directly under the shower head is a plastic shampoo bottle. Whilst washing my private parts water inevitably went on to the bottle. I say inevitable because I do not go around monitoring these issues. It is also likely that during the rest of the Ghusl process water lands on the bottle again. Again I can’t be sure. Furthermore, when I turn the shower off, the head is positioned such that some of the remaining water in the head must drip onto the bottle. My wife usually uses the shower after me and handles the bottle in order to use the shampoo, as she did today. She must obviously wash the shampoo off. How effectively or to what extent she does that I don’t know. Answer: As you have yourself acknowledged that this is a trap from shaytaan, and you are suffering from Waswasah (neurosis) If someone carries on this path of thinking then his neurosis will take over and shaytaan will use this to stop him from praying his namaz. Until you can see impurity on your body then assure that you are paak. With regards to these Masa’il Galabah Zan is enough. There is a maxim in jurisprudence اليقين لا يزول بالشك Certainty is not dispelled by doubt So as it is certain for your body to be paak then just by mere doubts you will not become impure. Similarly this will be the ruling for those items in and around the bathtub, that until any najaasat (impurity) is visible then the item will be pure. May Allah swt cure from this beemari of waswasa, and give you relief. Ameen Source

Question: I have a question regarding camel hump hijab… I have read this hadith quite a few times that Mohammad (s.a.w) have said that paradise is forbidden for those women who wear their hair like camel humps… Now, i never wear hijab like camel humps,, but recently me and my friend were discussing this and she told me it’s better to make pleats of hair than making a bun and then she quoted this hadith.. I was confused so I told her that our hair should not give camel hump looks on the top of our head, but making a bun slightly above the neck area (where our hair ends) is not wrong. This conversation has made me think whether we can make buns too or not? I mean they are not high on head like girls usually wear these days. I only make bun because my hair is long and if i make pleats or any other hairstyle they would come out of hijab. So please clarify whether we can make hair bun under hijab or normally too(when we are at home, without hijab). And if we are not allowed to do it then is it even not allowed to wear these kind of hairstyles in front of one’s husband? Please also mention all those hairstyles which are not permissible under hijab as well as without hijab. Answer: In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. As-salamu ‘alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa-barakatuh. Hereunder is the Hadeeth in reference: حَدَّثَنِي زُهَيْرُ بْنُ حَرْبٍ، حَدَّثَنَا جَرِيرٌ، عَنْ سُهَيْلٍ، عَنْ أَبِيهِ، عَنْ أَبِي هُرَيْرَةَ، قَالَ: قَالَ رَسُولُ اللهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ: «صِنْفَانِ مِنْ أَهْلِ النَّارِ لَمْ أَرَهُمَا، قَوْمٌ مَعَهُمْ سِيَاطٌ كَأَذْنَابِ الْبَقَرِ يَضْرِبُونَ بِهَا النَّاسَ، وَنِسَاءٌ كَاسِيَاتٌ عَارِيَاتٌ مُمِيلَاتٌ مَائِلَاتٌ، رُءُوسُهُنَّ كَأَسْنِمَةِ الْبُخْتِ الْمَائِلَةِ، لَا يَدْخُلْنَ الْجَنَّةَ، وَلَا يَجِدْنَ رِيحَهَا، وَإِنَّ رِيحَهَا لَيُوجَدُ مِنْ مَسِيرَةِ كَذَا وَكَذَا» Abu Hurairah Radiallahu Anhu reports that Nabi Sallallahu Alaihi Wasallam has said: “There are two categories of people of the fire (jahannam) which I haven’t seen (non-existent at that time). Amongst them is a group who has whips like the tails of cattle with which they torture people and women who are clothed yet they are naked, attracting (to males) and are attracted to (by males). Their heads are like that of a camel’s hump which are tilted. Such women will not enter Jannah nor will they smell its fragrance although its fragrance can be smelt from a long distance.”(Sahih Muslim, Book on clothing and beautifying one’s self, Chapter on Women being clothed yet are naked. Vol 2, Pg. 205, Qadeeme Khutub Khana) The underlined and bold parts of the translation of the above mentioned Hadeeth refers to your query. Imaam Nawawi explains that camel’s hump which are tilted refers to women hairstyling their heads by tying head cloths or scarfs on them which look like the tilted hump of a camel. [1] In different parts of the world this type of hairstyle is called “camel hump hijab”, “beehive hijab”, “volumanised hijab” or “khaleeji hijab” which are used with “Flower clips and flower shaped pom poms. There are two reasons for the prohibition of creating such a hairstyle; مميلات- Attraction. مائلات - Displaying of pride.[2] Irrespective of whether the hair is tied like a ‘bun’ or not, it should not follow the description of the tilted hump of a camel. This prohibition is general and will apply when a woman is in the presence and absence of her husband. However, if a woman naturally makes a bun on her neck or above her head due to need and does not follow the camel humps hijab, it would be permissible.[3] Also, placing the hair on the neck is better than placing it on the head due to مشابهت (close similarity to a camel humps hijab). And Allah Ta’ala Knows Best Checked and Approved by, Mufti Ebrahim Desai. www.idealwoman.org [1]1}[شرح محمد فؤاد عبد الباقي] ومعنى رؤسهن كأسنمة البخت أي يكبرنها ويعظمنها بلف عمامة أو عصابة أو نحوها 2} (البخت) قال في اللسان البخت والبخيتة دخيل في العربية أعجمي معرب وهي الإبل الخراسانية تنتج من بين عربية وفالج (والفالج البعير ذو السنامين وهو الذي بين البختي والعربي سمي بذلك لأن سنامه نصفان) الواحد بختي جمل بختي وناقة بختية ومعنى رؤسهن كأسنمة البخت أي يكبرنها ويعظمنها بلف عمامة أو عصابة أو نحوها] { اللإيمان بالجن بين الحقيقة والتهويل ، ج 1 ، ص236 } 3}(رؤسهن كأسنمة البخت) يعنى يعظمن رؤسهن بالخمر والقلنسوة حتى تشبه اسمة البخت (المائلة) من الميل لان أعلى السنام يميل لكثرة شحمه (لا يدخلن الجنة ولا يجدن ريحها وان ريحها ليوجد من مسيرة كذا وكذا) اى يوجد من مسيرة أربعين عاما { روح البيان ، ج 2 ، ص 34 } @4} رؤوسهن بالخمر والعمائم حتى تشبه أسنمة البخت- وهي الإبل الخراسانية, وقيل: يطمحن إلى الرجال, لا يغضضن من أبصارهن, { صحيح ابن حبان، ج16، ص 502 } 5}وَقَوْلُهُ: «رُءُوسُهُنَّ كَأَسْنِمَةِ الْبُخْتِ» قِيلَ: مَعْنَاهُ: أَنَّهُنَّ يُعَظِّمْنَ رُءُوسَهُنَّ بِالْخُمُرِ وَالْعَمَائِمِ حَتَّى تُشْبِهَ أَسْنِمَةَ الْبُخْتِ، وَقِيلَ: يَطْمَحْنَ إِلَى الرِّجَالِ، لَا يَغْضُضْنَ مِنْ أَبْصَارِهِنَّ، وَلا يُنَكِّسْنَ رُءُوسَهُنَّ { شرح السنة، ج 10 ، ص 272 }. 6}(رؤوسهن كأسنمة البخت) معناه يعظمن رأسهن بالخمر والعمائم وغيرها مما يلف على الرؤوس حتى تشبه أسنمة الإبل والمراد بالتشبيه بأسنمة البخت إنما هو لارتفاع الغدائر فوق رؤوسهن وجمع عقائصها هناك وتكثرها بما يضفرنه حتى تميل إلى ناحية من جوانب الرأس كما يميل السنام[شرح محمد فؤاد عبد الباقي 7}وقوله: "رؤوسهن كأسنمة البخت" قيل: معناه: أنهن يٌعظمن { صحيح إبن حبان } 8}قلت : وقد ظهرت في عصرنا نساء يعقدن شعورهن المسترسلة علي أقفيتهن أو في أوساط رؤوسهن بما يشابه سنام البعير سواء بسواء, كان النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم شبه رؤوسهن بأسنمة البخت. وهذا من معجزات النبي صلي الله عليه وسلم إذ وقع من النساء ما أخبر به قبل أربعة قرنا { تكملة فتح الملهم , ج 5 , ص 118/119 } [2] 9}(مميلات) قيل يعلمن غيرهن الميل وقيل مميلات لأكتافهن (مائلات) أي يمشين متبخترات وقيل مائلات يمشين المشية المائلة وهي مشية البغايا ومميلات يمشين غيرهن تلك المشية (البخت) قال في اللسان البخت والبخيتة دخيل في العربية أعجمي معرب وهي الإبل الخراسانية تنتج من بين عربية وفالج (والفالج البعير ذو السنامين وهو الذي بين البختي والعربي سمي بذلك لأن سنامه نصفان) الواحد بختي جمل بختي وناقة بختية ومعنى رؤسهن كأسنمة البخت أي يكبرنها ويعظمنها بلف عمامة أو عصابة أو نحوها] { الإيمان بالجن بين الحقيقة والتهويل، ج 1، ص 236} [3] Imdaadul Ahkaam,Book on clothing and beautifying one’s self, Vol 4, Pg. 337. idealwoman.org

Question: I lived on my own for 2 years and now live with my mum in law as my dad in law passed away. She is very very controlling and believes that all decisions must be made by her regarding me. Where we going, She has to give go ahead if I can go home. If I can start a new job etc. I feel so trapped and my husband tells me he can’t not listen to his mother. When at times we make a decision about our lives she screams at him and says he doesn’t take her advice and he gets very sad! I know we can’t talk about what children do for parents and never compare but my husband has sacrifice a lot, including a job and a home to stay with her. How do we get her to understanding that we a married couple and need our life and is it right that my husband has to listen to all decisions regarding me from his mother? Do we have to discuss everything with her, from financial to spending every weekend together to asking permission if I can go see my own parents? I’m very confused! Lease share some light in this matter I have a very good husband and he is also stuck in the middle of who to please! Do I just have to sacrifice all the time? Answer: In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. As-salāmu ‘alaykum wa-rahmatullāhi wa-barakātuh. Sister in Islam, Alhamdulillah you are aware of the rights of parents. It is also pleasing to note that you respect your husband for the effort he puts in trying to be a good son. In principle, it is not necessary for the son to obey everything his mother has to say about his wife. It is also not necessary to discuss all issues with her. However, it is imperative to keep in mind that as a mother she has many expectations from her son. Moreover, she is a widow because of which she feels the need for more attention. Insha Allah, one day you will also be a mother and would have high expectations from your children. Keeping this in mind, perhaps you can understand where she is coming from. We understand the difficulty you are facing in having to sacrifice for her in many aspects of life. Therefore, we advise that you and your husband present the case to her in the most humble manner and explain to her the difficulty you are facing. Alternatively, you can identify a relative or close friend in whom you can confide. That person could discuss your feelings with your mother in law, also note her response, and advise both accordingly. And Allah Ta’āla Knows Best Checked and Approved by, Mufti Ebrahim Desai. idealwoman.org

The following has been taken from the main topic of OCD & Wasaawis for easy access to vital information on combatting the Wasaawis Combatting Wasaawis & Preventative Measures Islam is a complete way of life with solutions for every problem. The following advices have been compiled from various authentic sources where scholars have advised sufferers of wasaawis, be they in regard to purity, prayers, or blasphemy. 1. Identify wasaawis as being from Shaytaan & seek refuge with Allah Almighty “And if an evil whisper comes to you from Shaytaan (Satan), then seek refuge with Allaah. Verily, He is All-Hearer, All-Knower" [al-A’raaf 7:200] We seek refuge with Allah Ta'aala by saying: a`oodhu billaahi mina ash-shaytaani ar-rajeem (I seek refuge and protection in Allah from Satan, the accursed). In Surah An-Naas, Allah Ta'aala says:1. Say: "I seek refuge with (Allah) the Lord of mankind,2. "The King of mankind,3. "The Ilah (God) of mankind,4. "From the evil of the whisperer (devil who whispers evil in the hearts of men) who withdraws (from his whispering in one's heart after one remembers Allah) ,5. "Who whispers in the breats of mankind,6. "Of jinns and men." One of the other ways to seek refuge from Satan is to recite the last two chapters of the Holy Quran, namely Surat Al-Falaq (The Daybreak) and Surat An-Naas (Mankind) Doubts during Prayers: One of the Sahaabah complained to the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) about waswaas during prayer, and he said: “The Shaytaan comes between me and my prayers and my recitation, confusing me therein.” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “That is a devil called Khanzab. If he affects you seek refuge in Allah from him and spit drily to your left three times.” He [the Sahaabi] said, I did that and Allaah took him away from me. (Narrated by Muslim, 2203) Imām An-Nawawī states in his explanation, “And this hadīth proves that it is recommended to seek refuge from Shaytān then to dryly spit to the left when one is inner whisperings.” (Although in a talk by Shaykh Riyadhul Haq, it is mentioned that the spitting should be done before and after the Salah in the Hanafi fiqh) Wudhu: As for the doubts that cross your mind regarding Wudhu, Nabi (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) has taught us a Du'aa that we should constantly make, 'O Allah! I seek protection from Walahaan.' (Mishkaat pg.47; Qadeemi). Walahaan is the name of the devil that causes these doubts to cross our minds during wudu. The Shaytaan who whispers in Wudhu is called Walahaan. He creates doubts regarding Tahaarat (Purity) and these doubts should be ignored. (From the lecture of Shaykh Riyaadhul Haqq) Short but comprehensive advice from Hazrat Maulana Abdul Hamid Is`haq Saheb (Daamat Barakaatuhum) 2. Oppose the Shaytaan Opposing the Shaytaan for he may come in the form of someone offering sincere advice, so we must go against him. For if he were really good he would be good to himself first, but he has caused himself to be doomed to Hell. So if he comes to you whilst you are praying, and says, “You are showing off (so cut your prayer short),” then make your prayer lengthy. If he says, “You have broken your wudoo’,” say, “You are lying”. When you eat, be different from him and eat and drink with your right hand, and take food with your right hand. This even applies to taking a siesta, as it says in the hadeeth: “Take a siesta for the devils do not take a siesta.” Narrated by Abu Na’eem with a saheeh isnaad. Saheeh al-Jaami’, 4/147. 3. Seek Allah's Help through Du'a & Prayer 4. Ignore wasaawis Evil whispers during prayer and regarding purity come from the Shaytaan who is keen to misguide the Muslim and lead him astray. The most common advise to combat these Wasaawis is to ignore them which if implemented when they first begin to occur, can serve as a deterrent. (Source: taken from the teachings of Shaykh Muhammad Saleem Dhorat) 5. Seek advice from scholars and thereafter follow the advice Once a certain situation is clarified with a scholar, then it should be left to rest. Every time the same scenario appears, one should follow the guidance given on the previous occasion. 6. Be aware of fiqh (jurisprudence) issues related to impurity, doubts etc., so that one does not go to extremes in ignorance. Abu Abdullah said: The Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam had made clear that it is obligatory (while performing) ablution to was the body-parts once. And the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam also did perform the ablution by washing (these) parts twice and thrice, but he never washed them more than three times. (Bukhari, vol.1, pg. 135) The learned scholars disliked exceeding the limits set by the Prophet sallallahu alayhi wasallam while performing ablution. 7. Seek medical help when necessary 8. Establish clear limits and stick to them 9. Refrain from sin Keep away from sins and wrong actions which are the means by which Iblees gains control over the sons of Adam. Allah says: “Verily, he [the Shaytaan] has no power over those who believe and put their trust only in their Lord (Allah)” [al-Nahl 16:99] 10. Recommended du'aas In the book of Ibn al-Sunni it is narrated via ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her), “Whoever suffers from this waswaas, let him say ‘Aamantu Billaahi wa bi rusulihi (I believe in Allaah and in His Messengers)’, three times, and it will go away from him.” Al-Nawawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said that one of the scholars thought it was mustahabb for the one who was affected by Waswasah with regard to his Wudhu or prayer to say Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah, for when the Shaytaan hears dhikr (remembrance of Allah) he slinks away, and Laa ilaaha ill-Allaah is the best of dhikr, and the most effective remedy for warding off Waswasah is to remember Allah a great deal. The simple remedy to such thoughts is to ignore them and don’t bother. This will be a smack on Shaitaan’s face. Shaitaan will feel humiliated and not attempt his evil plot on you again. Simply read: لاحول ولا قوة إلا بالله العلي العظيم and أعوذ بالله من الشيطان الرجيم (source: Mufti Ebrahim Desai) 11. Hope & trust in Allah Trust in Allah that your prayer and purity are accepted. Remember that the sahaba and the Prophet (peace be upon him) all had less water than we do now, and without a doubt their prayers were accepted. So there is no doubt that we, who use (and waste) so much more water than they ever did, are performing our wudhu in a matter acceptable to Allah. 12. Preventative measures Urinating in the Bath It is mentioned in a hadith that the Holy Prophet Sallallahu Alaihi Wasalam has prohibited us to urinate in the bath as the illness of waswasah arises from this. (Tirmizi p.12 v.1) Something to keep in the mind and the heart Undoubtedly, whoever thinks of the paths of the Messengers of Allah, especially our Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) will find that his path and his law is easy and clear, with no hardship in it. “… and has not laid upon you in religion any hardship” [al-Hajj 22:78] Thoughts/ Wasaawis are like Guests They are like guests. If one made a guest feel welcome, the guest is inclined to visit again and the more welcome he is made to feel the more he will be inclined to visit. However when a guest is made to feel unwelcome he may visit once or twice and then at the continuous cool reception no self respecting person will visit again. Similarly unwanted thoughts/Wasaawis will continue to come if attention is paid to them. If ignored they may persist for a while but eventually they will cease Insha Allah. (From the teachings of Shaykh Muhammad Saleem Dhorat).

after a lot of research, we have compiled as much information as we could on this serious and often debilitating condition of OCD and Wasaawis. We have tried our utmost to present facts from reliable medical sources as well as proofs and remedies from the Qur'an and Sunnah. We pray it will be a means of help and cure to sufferers everywhere inshaAllah who often feel alone, suffering in silence, unable to help themselves and not knowing who to turn to. May Allah subhaanahu wata'ala grant relief as it is He alone Who cures, Aameen. We would appreciate feedback and /or advise/information we may have overlooked. We request readers to make du'a for acceptance of this effort and it becoming a means of relief for sufferers. Jazaakumullah

See also: Christmas Lessons

Origin Of Christmas Mufti Taqi Usmani commemorating the birth of a distinguished person has never been prescribed by any religion attributing itself to divine revelation. It was originally a custom prevalent in pagan communities only. Even Christmas, the famous Christian feast commemorating the birth of Jesus Christ finds no mention in the Bible or in the early Christian writings. It was only in the 4th century after the ascension of Jesus Christ that Christmas was recognized as a regular Christian feast. To quote the Collier's Encyclopedia: "It is impossible to determine the exact date of the birth of Christ, either from the evidence of the gospels, or from any sound tradition. During the first three centuries of the Christian era there was considerable opposition in the Church to the pagan custom of celebrating birthdays, although there is some indication that a purely religious commemoration of the birth of Christ was included in the feast of Epiphany. Clement of Alexandria mentions the existence of the feast in Egypt about the year A.D. 200 and we have some evidence that it was observed on various dates in scattered areas. After the triumph of Constantine, the Church at Rome assigned December 25 as the date for the celebration of the feast, possibly about A.D. 320 or 353. By the end of the fourth century the whole Christian world was celebrating Christmas on that day, with the exception of the Eastern Churches, where it was celebrated on January 6. The choice of December 25 was probably influenced by the fact that on this day the Romans celebrated the Mithraic feast of the Sun-god, and that the Saturnalia also came at this time." (Collier's Encyclopedia 1984 ed, v. 6, p. 403). A similar description of the origin of Christmas is found in-the Encyclopedia Britannica with some more details. Its following passage will throw more light on the point: "Christmas was not among the earliest festivals of the Church, and before the 5th century there was no general consensus of opinion as to when it should come in the calendar, whether on Jan. 6, March 25 or Dec. 25. The earliest identification of Dec. 25 with the birthday of Christ is in a passage, otherwise unknown and probably spurious, of the philos of Antioch (c.180), preserved in Latin by the Magdeburyg centuriators (i, 3, 118), to the effect that the Gauls contended that since they celebrated the birth of Lord on Dec. 25, so they ought to celebrate the resurrection on March 25. A passage, almost certainly interpolated, in 'Hippelates' (c. 202) commentary on Daniel iv, 23, says that Jesus was born at Bethlehem on Wednesday, Dec. 25, in the 42nd year of Augustus, but he mentions no feast, and such a feast, indeed, would conflict with the then orthodox ideas. As late as 245, Origin (hem. viii on Leviticus) repudiated the idea of keeping the birthday of Christ "as if he were a king Pharaoh". (Britannica, 1953 ed. v. 5, p.642) These two quotes are more than sufficient to prove the following points: 1. The commemoration of birthdays was originally a pagan custom, never recognized by a divine scripture or prophetic teaching. 2. The exact date of the Birth of Sayyidna 'Isa is unknown and impossible to be ascertained. 3. The commemoration of the birth of Jesus Christ was not a recognized practice in the early centuries of the Christian history. 4. It was in the 4th or 5th century that it was recognized as a religious feast, and that, too, under the influence of the pagans who worshipped Sun-god. 5. There was a strong opposition against the commemorating of the birthday by the early Christian scholars like Origin, on the ground that it is originally a custom of pagans and idolaters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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