Lives of the Prophets: Some of the Prophet’s (saas) finer traits

Imam Ghazzali, known as "Hujjatul Islam," collected and set out some
of Prophet Muhammad's (saas) traits as related by such great Islamic
scholars as Tirmidhi, Tabarani, Muslim, Imam Ahmad, Abu Dawood and Ibn
Maja:
"The Holy Prophet (saas) was the most patient among men, the bravest,
the best judge, and he who pardoned most. ... he was the most
charitable man. He did not pass a single night hoarding a single
dirham or dinar. Whenever any excess money came to him and if he did
not then get anyone to accept it as charity, he did not return home
till he gave it to the poor and the needy. He did not store up for
more than a year the provision of his family members which Allah was
pleased to give him. He used to take one fifth of what easily came to
him out of dates and wheat. What remained in excess, he used to give
in charity. He used to give away in charity to him who begged of him
of anything, even out of his stored up provision.
He did not take any revenge for personal wrongs but he used take it
for preservation of the honor of Allah.
He used to speak the truth even though it was sometimes a cause of
trouble to himself and his companions.
He was the most modest, without pride, and his tongue was most
eloquent without prolongation of speech. His constitution was the most
beautiful. No worldly duties could keep him busy.
He used to go even to a distant place to see the sick, loved scents
and hated a stench or bad smell, sat with the poor and the destitute,
ate with them, honored those possessing honor, advised them to do good
and show kindness to relatives. He did not treat harshly to anybody
and accepted excuses offered to him.
He accepted sports and pastimes as lawful, played with his wives and
held races with them.... He did not hate the poor for their poverty
nor fear the kings for their mighty power. He used to call the people,
high or low towards Allah. Allah adorned him with all the qualities
and good administration
At the time when the Quran was being revealed to him, he used to smile
most. When something happened, he entrusted it to Allah, kept himself
free from his own strength and ability and said in invocation: 'O
Allah, show me truth in a true manner or give me grace to give it up.
You guide to the straight path whomsoever You will.'
Allah revealed the Quran to him and through it He taught him good
manners." (Imam Ghazzali'sIhya ulum-id-din, Volume 2, pp. 237-241)
Evolution Deceit:
The Recapitulation Misconception
What used to be called the "recapitulation theory" has long been
eliminated from scientific literature, but it is still being presented
as a scientific reality by some evolutionist publications. The term
"recapitulation" is a condensation of the dictum "ontogeny
recapitulates phylogeny," put forward by the evolutionary biologist
Ernst Haeckel at the end of the nineteenth century.
This theory of Haeckel's postulates that living embryos re-experience
the evolutionary process that their pseudo-ancestors underwent. He
theorized that during its development in its mother's womb, the human
embryo first displayed the characteristics of a fish, and then those
of a reptile, and finally those of a human.
It has since been proven that this theory is completely bogus. It is
now known that the "gills" that supposedly appear in the early stages
of the human embryo are in fact the initial phases of the middle-ear
canal, parathyroid, and thymus. That part of the embryo that was
likened to the "egg yolk pouch" turns out to be a pouch that produces
blood for the infant. The part that was identified as a "tail" by
Haeckel and his followers is in fact the backbone, which resembles a
tail only because it takes shape before the legs do.
These are universally acknowledged facts in the scientific world, and
are accepted even by evolutionists themselves. Two leading
neo-Darwinists, George Gaylord Simpson and W. Beck have admitted:
Haeckel misstated the evolutionary principle involved. It is now
firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.1
The following was written in an article inNew Scientistdated October 16, 1999:
[Haeckel] called this thebiogenetic law,and the idea became popularly
known as recapitulation. In fact Haeckel's strict law was soon shown
to be incorrect. For instance,the early human embryo never has
functioning gills like a fish, and never passes through stages that
look like an adult reptile or monkey.2
In an article published inAmerican Scientist, we read:
Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail. It was finally
exorcised from biology textbooks in the fifties. As a topic of serious
theoretical inquiry it was extinct in the twenties…3
Another interesting aspect of "recapitulation" was Ernst Haeckel
himself, a faker who falsified his drawings in order to support the
theory he advanced. Haeckel's forgeries purported to show that fish
and human embryos resembled one another. When he was caught out, the
only defense he offered was that other evolutionists had committed
similar offences:
After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to
consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation
of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of
fellow-culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and
most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in
the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in
the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact,
and are more or less doctored, schematized and constructed.4
In the September 5, 1997, edition of the well-known scientific
journalScience, an article was published revealing that Haeckel's
embryo drawings were the product of a deception. The article, called
"Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," had this to say:
The impression they [Haeckel's drawings] give, that the embryos are
exactly alike, is wrong, says Michael Richardson, an embryologist at
St. George's Hospital Medical School in London… So he and his
colleagues did their own comparative study, reexamining and
photographing embryos roughly matched by species and age with those
Haeckel drew. Lo and behold,the embryos "often looked surprisingly
different," Richardson reports in the August issue ofAnatomy and
Embryology.5
Scienceexplained that, in order to be able to show the embryos as
similar, Haeckel deliberately removed some organs from his drawings or
else added imaginary ones. Later in this same article, the following
information was revealed:
Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his
colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate
similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences
in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the
species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an
entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues
note,even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a
bit in their appearance and developmental pathway."It looks like it's
[Haeckel's drawings are] turning out to beone of the most famous fakes
in biology," Richardson concludes.6
TheSciencearticle goes on to discuss how Haeckel's confessions on this
subject were covered up from the beginning of the last century, and
how the fake drawings began to be presented in textbooks as scientific
fact:
Haeckel'sconfession got lostafter his drawings were subsequently used
in a 1901 book calledDarwin and After Darwinand reproduced widely in
English language biology texts.7
In short, the fact that Haeckel's drawings were falsified had already
emerged in 1901, but the whole world of science continued to be
deceived by them for a century.