Archive

Archive for the ‘Refutations’ Category

Why only One God and not two or more than two gods? — Imam al-Tabari

September 11, 2017 Leave a comment

 

Our description has made it clear that the Creator and Originator of all things was before everything, that night and day and time and hours are originated, and that their Originator Who administers and manages them exists before them, since it is impossible for something to originate something unless its originator exists before it. (It is also clear that) God’s word:

“Don’t (the unbelievers) look at the camels (and reflect) how they were created, and at the heaven how it was raised, and at the mountains how they were set up, and at the earth how it was spread out flat? (Quran 88:17-20)

contains the most eloquent evidence and the most effective proofs for those who use reason to reflect and the mind to be instructed, that the Creator of all those things is eternal and that everything of their kind is originated and has a Creator that is not similar to them. That is because everything mentioned by our Lord in this verse, the mountains, the earth, the camels, is dealt with and administered by man, who may move it around and manage it, who may dig, cut, and tear down, none of which he is prevented from doing. Yet, beyond that, man is not able to bring anything of that into existence without a basis (to work from).

 

The conclusion is that the one who is incapable of originating those things could not have originated himself and that the one who is not prevented from managing and organizing whatever he wishes could not have been brought into existence by someone like himself and he did not bring himself into existence. Further, the One Who brought (man) up and gave him substantial (‘ayn) existence is the One Who is not incapable of (doing) anything He wishes, and He is not prevented from originating anything He wants. He is “God Unique and Forceful.” (Quran 12:39)

 

Someone might ask:

Why should it be disapprovable to assume that the things you have mentioned result from the action of two eternal (beings)?

The reply would be:

We disapprove of that because we find that the administration is continuous and the creation perfect. We say:

If the administrators were two, they would necessarily either agree or disagree. If they agree, the two would conceptually be one, and the one would be made two merely by positing two.

If they differ, it would be impossible to find the existence of the creation perfect and (its) administration continuous. For each one of two who differ does what is different from what his fellow does . If one gives life, the other causes death . If one of them produces existence, the other produces annihilation . It would thus be impossible for anything in creation to exist in the perfection and continuity it does.

God’s words: “If there were other gods except God in (heaven and earth), both would be ruined. Praised be God, Lord of the Throne, (who is above) what they describe“; (Quran 21:22) and: “God has not taken to Himself a child , and there has been no god together with Him. Otherwise, each god would have gone off with what he created and risen over the others. Praised be God (who is above) what they describe. He knows what is unseen and what is observable, and He is exalted above their associating (other gods with Him)” (Quran 23:91) -these words of God are the most eloquent evidence and the most concise explanation as well as the most effective proof for the falsehood of those falsehood-mongers who associate (other gods) with God.

 

That is because, if there were another god except God in the heavens and the earth, the condition of the two as to agreement and disagreement would necessarily be the one I have described. Saying that there may be agreement implies that saying they are two is wrong. It confirms the oneness of God and is an absurd statement in as much as the one who makes it calls the one two. Saying that there may be disagreement indicates ruin for the heavens and the earth, as our Lord says : “If there were other gods except God in them, both would be ruined.” (Quran 21:22) For if one originates and creates something, it would be the other’s business to put it out of existence and invalidate it. That is because the actions of two who differ are different, just as fire that warms and snow that cools what fire has warmed.

 

Another argument (would be this):

If it were (true) as those who associate other gods with God say, each one of the two whom they consider as eternal would necessarily be either strong or incapable.

 

If both were incapable , each one, being incapable, would be defeatable and not be a god.

 

If both were strong, each one of them, by virtue of being incapable of subduing the other, would be incapable and being incapable would not be a god.

 

If each one of them were strong enough to subdue the other, he, by virtue of the strength of the other to subdue him in turn, would be incapable. God is above the association of other gods with Him!

 

It has thus become clear that the Eternal One, the Creator and Maker of all things is the One Who existed before everything and Who will be after everything, the First before everything and the Last after everything. He existed when there was no momentary and extended time, no night and no day, no darkness and no light except the light of His noble face, no heaven and no earth, no sun and no moon and no stars. Everything but He is originated, administered and made. He alone by Himself created everything without an associate, helper, and assistant . Praised be He as powerful and forceful!

 

[The history of al-Tabari, vol. 1, pg. 218-220]

 

Advertisements

Hijab (Niqab)- Why? — Dr. Bilal Philips


 

The covering of Muslim women has become one of the international symbols of female oppression in feminist circles.

 

1.

There are two major trends which have developed in the West over the past century. On one hand, the fashion industry has systematically unclothed women. From being fully clothed from head to toe at the turn of the century, she now wears virtually nothing when the weather permits.

 

On the other hand there has been a dramatic rise in the reported incidents of rape. In the USA in the early 90s the reported incidents of rape had crossed the 100,000 mark. And researchers estimated that the actual number was between 7 to 10 times that number since most women are shy to report rapes. The two trends are closely interrelated.

 

The woman in the West has become a sex-object with which to sell products thereby pumping up the sexual tension of the society. The Corvette is not sold based on its powerful engine or its special features, instead the car is displayed with a model in a bikini lying on it. Similarly, a new Gillette razor blade is not sold by giving details about its new titanium blades. Instead, a man is shown in ads shaving with a woman’s hand with long red fingernails coiled around hold his. The subliminal message being taught is: You buy the car, you get the girl. You buy the razor, you get the girl. 

 

2.

Islam prescribes the covering of females for two primary reasons stated in the Quran. God says in Soorah al-Ahzaab (33: 59):

Let them cast their outer garments over their bodies. That is best in order that they be known and not harmed.

 

3.

The hijab is to make the Muslim woman known in the society as a virtuous and honorable woman. Her hijab makes the statement that she is not available and not interested in any immorality. Many Muslim women who have emigrated to the West take of their scarves and outer garments because they claim it draws attention to themselves. If they expose their hair and dress in modest western dresses no one will look at them.

 

It is true that the hijab does provide a level of anonymity, as many of the woman’s physical details will be hidden. However, the intent is not to prevent men from looking. When men see a nun in her habit, fully covered like a Muslim woman in full hijab, they will turn their heads and stare at her. Similarly, when they see a woman walking in a bikini, they will also turn their heads and stare. However, the first stare is different from the second. The first is out of curiosity, having seen something unusual, while the second is out of lust and aroused sensuality. The consequence of the second is the molestation of women on a national scale while the first causes respect.

4.

The penalty in the Islamic state is very severe for rape in order to further guarantee protection for females. Where weapons of any type are used in the rape, the punishment is death. The death penalty has also been introduced in Philippines and it is being called for in India currently. However, to allow women to expose themselves and then kill those who react unduly is not practical. The law should be balanced. The circumstances, which might encourage rape, should first be removed from the society, then a severe penalty may be enacted.

 

5.

It may be said that even in societies where women are fully covered, they may still be approached and molested. However, if the vast majority of those who are molested are not properly covered, the principle of protection still applies. Even in the society of the Prophet, one thousand four hundred years ago, some women were molested and raped.

 

6.

Some people question the imposition of hijab by the Islamic state. Is it a personal choice of women or a legal obligation? It is the responsibility of the head of every family to insure that the women of his household leave the home in a legally acceptable state of dress. The state is further responsible to prevent any women who appear in public in a state of undress in order to protect public dignity and morality.

 

The West has set its own limits for dress which change according to the mood of society. At one point in time, strip joints were illegal. Now many bars have topless waitresses and dancers. In most states, a woman may not appear in public topless. However, a woman recently contested the law in Florida and won her case. Complete nudity remains public crime throughout the West, though nudist camps and nudist beaches have sprung up in different locations in Europe and America.

 

7.

There are conditions which must be fulfilled for the hijab to be acceptable. a) It should be wide and loose so as to not show the shape of the woman’s body; b) it should be made of thick material which will not reveal what is underneath; c) It should not be colorful and ornamented so as to attract sexual admiration.

 

8.

Where the hijab has become a cultural norm and women comply out of fear of embarrassment, it will not be worn properly. It may become transparent, or worn tight exposing the curves of the body, or it may become so ornamented as to be attractive by itself. It may be short so as to expose the dress underneath, or the face may be covered and the front of the hair exposed. Such practices are the result of women wearing hijab for the wrong reasons. They should be educated to realize that it is for their benefit and for the benefit of the society.

 

[From the book: Contemporary issues, pg. 12-14]

 

Answering claims that Prophet Muhammad (ﷺ) composed the Quran helped by Jewish & Christian sources


 

We come now to an oft-repeated charge, namely that the Prophet (ﷺ) composed the Quran either with direct help from others, after reading books (despite the constantly reiterated fact of his illiteracy), or after being taught by someone of Jewish or Christian background. Like those other charges, these particular ones were again reiterated in the Middle Ages as well as more recently. Once more, it has to be pointed out that far from being original to this period these assertions were actually levelled by infidels in the lifetime of Mubammad (ﷺ) as reponed in the Quran itself in which they are challenged, (10:38; 11:13; 16:103).

 

Ibn Taymiyah makes the point that Muhammad (ﷺ), before reaching the age of forty never preached, nor could he utter a passage of the Quran which is clearly distinct even from his own speeches and sayings.

 

Had Muhammad (ﷺ) in fact learnt from a Christian monk, a bishop, a Jewish person, or even from Christian slaves, the following might have happened:

 

    1. Muhammad (ﷺ) would never have denied it because he was famous all his life for both preaching and telling the truth.

 

2. He could never have preached a faith so radically different from Christianity and Judaism, particularly with respect to their basic creeds.

 

3. Under the circumstances, and considering the climate of antagonism existing between him and those who did not believe in his message, particularly the Jews and polytheists, his teacher’s name could scarcely have remained unknown throughout all the years of the Prophet’s mission.

 

4. Whoever taught him would surely have written a book or at least a chapter similar to the Quranic revelations.

 

5. The Jews, referred to in the Quran as “The people of the Book” had been persistently cross-examining him, defying him and hiding their books from others. How then could they have taught him at the same time? If they had taught him anything would they not have been the first to declare it in order to disprove his prophethood? It is difficult to believe that they would not also have been careful to suppress the uncomplimentary references to them contained in the Quran.

 

6. Had Muhammad (ﷺ) not been sincere in his prophethood and honest in delivering his revelations his friends and followers would never have been so devoted to him, nor would they have clung to his teachings despite devastating hardship and persecution. It is a remarkable tribute to the character of Muhammad (ﷺ) and to those of his friends and followers that not one of them ever betrayed him.

 

7. The Quran confirms certain biblical records of previous prophets. Since the historical events in the Bible were originally revealed by God to Moses and other prophets why could not this confirmation be a sign that the source is one, and divine?

 

8. If divine authorship has never been claimed for the Bible by a Christian why should Muhammad (ﷺ) have risked additional persecution from his enemies by claiming the Quran to have been revealed by God if this were not so?

 

Allah refuted all such claims in a simple sentence by saying :

And We certainly know that they say, “It is only a human being who teaches the Prophet.” The tongue of the one they refer to is foreign, and this Qur’an is [in] a clear Arabic language.

[Quran 16:103]

 

[Source: Book “The Sublime Quran and the Orientalist”, pg 33-34]

 

 

 

Is hadd punishment for apostasy or similar crimes to be implemented only by the sultan (ruler) or his deputy? Sh. Ibn Taymiyyah

January 11, 2015 4 comments

 

Regarding the query that hudood punishment can only be carried out by the ruler or his deputy. Then Shaikh al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah [rahimahullah] said:

 

1 – The master may carry out the hadd punishment on his slave, based on the evidence that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“Carry out the hadd punishments on those whom your right hands possess.”

[Narrated by Ahmad (736) and others; classed as hasan by al-Arna’oot because of corroborating evidence. Al-Albaani was inclined to the view that these are the words of ‘Ali, as stated in al-Irwa’ (2325).]

 

And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said:

“If the slave woman of one of you commits zina, let him carry out the hadd punishment on her.”

[Narrated by Abu Dawood (4470); there is a similar report in al-Saheehayn.]

 

I do not know of anyone among the fuqaha’ of hadeeth who disagreed with the view that he should carry out hadd punishments on her, such as the hadd punishments for zina, slander and drinking; there is no difference of opinion among the Muslims concerning the fact that he may carry out disciplinary punishments (ta’zeer) on him. But they differed as to whether he may carry out punishments of execution or amputation on him, such as executing him for apostasy or for reviling the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), or cutting off his hand for stealing.

 

Two reports were narrated from Imam Ahmad concerning this. The first says that it is permissible, which is the view narrated from al-Shaafa’i, and the second says that it is not permissible, like one of the two views of the companions of al-Shaafa’i. This is also the view of Maalik. And it was narrated in a saheeh report from Ibn ‘Umar that he cut off the hand of a slave of his who stole, and it is narrated in a saheeh report from Hafsah that she executed a slave woman of hers who admitted to practising witchcraft, and that was based on the opinion of Ibn ‘Umar. So the hadeeth is evidence for those who say that it is permissible for the master to carry out the hadd punishment on his slave on the basis of his knowledge, in all cases.

 

 

2 – The most that can be said about that is that he [one acting without the permission of ruler] is transgressing the position of the ruler, and the ruler may pardon the one who carried out a hadd punishment that must be carried out without referring the matter to him.

 

3 – Although this was a hadd punishment, it also comes under the heading of killing a harbi (a non-Muslim in a state of war against Islam), and it is permissible for anyone to kill a harbi.

 

4 – Similar things happened at the time of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), such as:

#the hypocrite who was killed by ‘Umar without the permission of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), when the hypocrite did not agree with the ruling of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). Then Qur’aan was revealed approving ‘Umar’s action.

 

# And there was the daughter of Marwaan who was killed by that man, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called him the supporter of Allaah and His Messenger.

That is because the one whose execution becomes necessary because of his plot to corrupt the religion is not like one who is executed because of his sin of zina and the like.

End quote from al-Saarim al-Maslool (285-286).

Taken from: Islamqa

 

Was the Quran contrived from previous scriptures?


 

1- Had the Qur’an been contrived from previously revealed scriptures, Muhammad’s [sallallahu alaihi wasallam] adversaries would not have ignored the matter and remained silent. They would undoubtedly have seized the opportunity to accuse him to that effect. All their allegations were unfounded and lacked proof. The Qur’an itself has already mentioned these allegations and their refutations.

 

2- The Qur’an includes many laws, rulings, instructions, and commands which did not exist in the previous scriptures. Furthermore, the Qur’an contains narratives with detailed accounts of previous generations in addition to prophecies which were fulfilled. An example of this was the final outcome of the conflict between the Romans and the Persians, the events of which were unknown to Muhammad, his people, or the followers of Judaism and Christianity.

 

3- The Qur’an urged people to acquire knowledge and to respect the human mind and intellect. Accordingly, based on Islam’s new teachings and rulings, the Muslims were able, in a very short time, to establish a civilization which replaced the preceding civilizations and flourished for many centuries. Had the Qur’an been compiled from the previous divine religions, why then did these religions not include the aforementioned precepts and teachings and did not play the same role as Islam?

 

 

4- The Qur’an is a Book whose style is consistent and eloquent. Had it been compiled from other scriptures it would have been incoherent, contradictory, and inconsistent due to the alleged various sources.

“…Had it been from other than God, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.” [4/82]

 

Moreover, the Qur’an always addresses one’s sense and reasoning and does not include fables or myths. It relies upon evidence and facts and demands the same of its adversaries:

“Produce your proof, if you are truthful”. [2/11 and 27/64]

This approach is considered a completely new approach and does not exist in any previous scripture.

 

 

5- It is evident that Islam completely rejected the evil beliefs of paganism, its way of life, and its brutal traditions and replaced them with true faith and a life of virtue. Where then is the Pagan culture that Islam has been falsely accused of adopting from Pre-Islamic Paganism?

 

Devil’s Deception of the Secularists (al-dhariyyah): Ibn al-Jawzi

October 19, 2014 7 comments

 

Iblis has deceived many people to believe that there is no god or creator, and that all things came to existence without a maker. These people denied Allah’s existence because they failed to sense Him with their senses, and failed to use their intellect to recognise Him. Could any person with a sound mind doubt the existence of a maker? If a person passes by a piece of land with no buildings, then returned to find a wall built there, he would realise that there must have been a builder who built the wall.

 

This wide expanse (earth), this raised ceiling (the sky) , these amazing buildings and these running laws that imply wisdom, do not they prove the existence of a creator?! A desert-Arab once said:

“Truly the camel extract points to (the existence of) a camel, so an upper structure that is this pleasant, and a lower center that is this dense; do not they point to al-La!if (the One Who is above All Comprehension), al-Khabir (the One Most Acquainted will Things) . In fact, if a person only contemplates over himself, that would be enough of a proof. The human body contains wisdoms that may not be compiled in a book.”

 

 

He who ponders on the sharpness of teeth to enable it to chop (food), the flatness of molars to grind (food), the tongue that rotates what .is being chewed, the liver that ripens food, how nutrition flows to each part of the body as needed, these fingers that have knuckles so they can bend and open to perform work; they never become hollow from work, otherwise they would break, how some fingers are longer than others so they all become the same length when bent, and how the most hidden of the body is that which holds it together, the soul, once it goes the body become corrupt, and intellect that leads to welfare community, whoever ponders on all of these things must surely call: Can there be any doubt about Allah?

 

 

He who denies Allah is confused because he sought Him through the senses. Others denied Allah because they were unable to sense Him after he had proven His existence in principle. So he went back and denied the principle itself Had these persons used their intellects they would have realised that there are things that can only be determined in principle, such as: the soul and intellect, the existence of which was denied by nobody. What else is the objective other than proving Allah’s existence in principle? And how can anyone ask: How is He? or what is He? When He has no “howness” or “whatness”.

Were-they-created-by

Among the clear proofs of His existence is that the world is accidental (became after it was not) because it is never free from accidents. Anything that is never free from accidents is, itself, accidental. There must be a causer for these accidents, and the causer is the Creator (the Mighty and the Majestic) .

 

Atheists object to us saying: “(The concept that) anything created must have a creator is based on observation. And we would like to use the ability to observe as the judge between us.”

 

So we respond by saying: “Just as the created must have a creator, the created image must possess substance. For example, wood is the substance of a door, and iron is the substance of an axe.”

 

They respond: “What you use to prove the creator necessitates that this world is pre-eternal (had no beginning) .”

Our answer is:

there is no need for substance. The Creator invents this from nothing. We know that images, like that of a wheel, were created with no substance. So they must have had an image-maker. We have given you the example of something that came from nothing, the image. But you cannot show us a creature that came from no creator.

 

[The Devil’s Deception by Ibn al-Jawzi, page 90-92]

 

Saying ‘rahimahullah’ for an innovator – Shaykh al-Albanee


 

Questioner:

What do you say, O Shaykh, about those who claim that mercy should not be asked for those who contradict the belief of the salaf like Ibn Hajar and an-Nawawee, ibn Hazm and ibn al-Jawzee and those like them from the scholars of the past, as well as those modern leaders like Hasan al-Bannah and Sayyid Qutb, considering that you are familiar with what Hasan al-Bannah wrote in his book Muthakkiraat ad-Dawah wad-Daaýiyah, and Sayyid Qutb in Fee Thilaal al-Quraan.

To-say-or-not-to-say-Ibn

Shaykh al-Albaani:

We believe that rahmah (mercy); that is, a statement supplicating to Allaah to have mercy upon someone; is permissible for any Muslim and forbidden for any disbeliever. This answer refers to the belief which is held in the soul of the individual.

 

So whoever believes that those who were mentioned in the question and those similar to them are Muslims, then the answer is known from what was said previously; that is, it is permissible to make duaa (supplication) for them that Allaah has mercy on them and forgives them.

 

And whoever considers those mentioned in the question to be non-Muslims – may Allaah not let it be so – then asking for Allaah’s mercy for them would not be permissible, because mercy has been made forbidden for the disbelievers. That is the response relative to what came in the question.

[Recorded by Abu Laylaa al-Athharee on the 7th of Shabaan in the year 1413, corresponding to the 31st of January 1993]

 

%d bloggers like this: