Discover Islam, - Scientific pride and prejudice

Evolution scientists pass off personal prejudices as scientific truth
Most people accept everything they hear from scientists as strictly
true. It does not even occur to them that scientists may also have
various philosophical or ideological prejudices. The fact of the
matter is that evolutionist scientists impose their own prejudices and
philosophical views on the public under the guise of Science. For
instance, although they are aware that random events do not cause
anything other than irregularity and confusion, they still claim that
the marvelous order, plan and design manifested in the Universe and in
living organisms arose by chance.
For instance, such a biologist easily grasps that there is an
incomprehensible harmony in a protein molecule -- the building block
of life -- and that there is no probability that this might have come
about by chance. Nevertheless, he alleges that this protein came into
existence under primitive earth conditions simply by chance, billions
of years ago. He does not stop there; he also unhesitatingly claims
that not only one, but millions of proteins were formed by chance and
then incredibly came together to create the first living cell.
Moreover, he defends his view with a blind stubbornness. This person
is an "evolutionist" scientist.
If the same scientist were to find three bricks resting on top of one
another while walking along a flat road, he would never suppose that
these bricks had come together by chance and then climbed up on top of
each other, again by chance. Indeed, anyone who did make such an
assertion would be considered insane.
How is it possible that people who are perfectly capable of assessing
ordinary events rationally, adopt such an irrational attitude when it
comes to thinking about their own existence?
It is impossible to claim that this attitude is adopted in the name of
science: Science requires taking both alternatives into consideration
wherever there are two alternatives equally possible concerning a
certain case. If the likelihood of one of the two alternatives is much
lower, for example if it is only one percent, then the rational and
scientific thing to do is to consider the other alternative, whose
likelihood is 99 percent, to be the valid one.
Let us continue, keeping this scientific basis in mind. There are two
views that can be set forth regarding how living beings came into
existence on earth. The first is that all living beings were created
by Allaah in their present complex structure. The second is that life
was formed by unconscious, random coincidences. The latter is the
claim of the theory of evolution.
When we look at scientific data, that of molecular biology for
instance, we can see that there is no chance whatsoever that a single
living cell -- or even one of the millions of proteins present in
this cell, could have come into existence by chance, as evolutionists
claim. As we will illustrate in the following chapters, probabilistic
calculations also confirm this many times over. Hence, the
evolutionist view on the emergence of living beings has zero
probability of being true.
This means that the first view has a "one hundred percent" probability
of being true. That is, life has been consciously brought into being.
To put it in another way, it was "created". All living beings have
come into existence by the design of a Creator exalted in superior
Power, Wisdom, and Knowledge. This reality is not simply a matter of
conviction; it is the normal conclusion that wisdom, logic and science
take one to.
Under these circumstances, our "evolutionist" scientist ought to
withdraw his claim and adhere to a fact that is both obvious and
proven. To do otherwise is to demonstrate that he is actually someone
who is sacrificing the spirit of scientific inquiry to further his own
particular philosophy, ideology and dogma rather than being a true
scientist.
The anger, stubbornness and prejudices of our "scientist" increase
more and more every time he confronts reality. His attitude can be
explained with a single word: faith.Yet it is a blind superstitious
faith, since there can be no other explanation for such blatant
disregard of all facts that leads to a lifelong, fanatic allegiance to
the preposterous scenario constructed wholly in his imagination.
The Quran appeals to "men of knowledge" to exercise their faculties
and appreciate the wonder of Allaah's creation in the world around
them and within themselves. It is a sad reflection on the manifest
unbelief of modern times, that evolution scientists are using the
intellect and senses that Allaah has granted them to do just the
opposite : negate the wonder of His creation. By disguising their
delusions of grandeur as scientific theories, evolution scientists are
doing a great disservice to the true spirit of scientific inquiry.

Discover Islam, - Justice: Islam's ultimate value

Allaah The Almighty Says )what means(:"And the heaven He raised and
imposed the balance. That you not transgress within the balance. And
establish weight in justice and do not make deficient the
balance."]Quran 55:7-9[
These verses of the Quran, which are mentioned in the
chapterAr-Rahmaan, or")God( the All-Merciful" stand out in their
emphasis of the importance of justice because they unite justice with
the important theological principle of Allaah'sKhalqandAmror His
"Creation and Command." These verses make justice both the basis of
the creation and its source of continuity )by commanding justice(.
This is true because, in essence, the balance is the symbol of justice
and its means of realization at the same time.
Heavens and earth were originally created with justice in a balanced
way and they can only )or were meant to( continue with it. Muslims
accepted this magnificent guidance and ultimate value of life, more
than 1400 years ago. The great Commentator of the Quran, Imaam Abu
Ja'far At-Tabari )d. 310 AH( expounded the aforementioned verses,
saying,"Allaah created Heavens and Earth by )and in( justice so that
all things in them exist )and interact( by )and in( justice."
And there is not a single nation, past or present, but that it has
asserted its claims of honoring justice and being just. Yet, the
justice they claimed, at times, meant nothing more than what the
"powers that be" wanted. Or sometimes justice represented what is
recognized and utilized by a majority or a certain religion or
ethnicity. What humans mean by justice, in other words, may differ in
its meaning and means from one nation to another. It is interesting to
note that Socrates )killed in 339 BC( defined justice as the, "Will of
the powerful," and it is also interesting that this applies the vast
majority of the time in situations when religious values are absent or
weak. It is even more interesting that some of the theories man has,
overtime, developed using 'rationality' and empiricism, and which
exceedingly tilt the balance of justice in favor of the powerful or
the rich, still flourish in modern times and continue to find
advocates or even unabashed supporters who will kill or die for them.
In one of the 100 or so verses which deal with theessentials of
justice and fairness, the Quran tells us of this perversion of justice
that sometimes occurs in the course of human events. Verse 25 of the
chapter )57(Al-Hadeed,"the Iron," pregnant with meanings and profusely
poignant, lay bear the reality about the roots of injustice among
people. Many people mention being motivated by hearing this verse
recited just once. Allaah Says )what means(:"We have already sent Our
messengers with clear evidences and sent down with them the Scripture
and the balance that the people may maintain ]their affairs[ in
justice. And We sent down iron, wherein is great military might and
benefits for the people, and so that Allaah may make evident those who
support Him and His messengers unseen. Indeed, Allaah is Powerful and
Exalted in Might."]Quran 57:25[ So many points of benefit, so much to
learn and live by. For one, the balance of justice is mentioned along
with the Books, guidance from Allaah, to indicate that true justice
needs a compass to save itself from relativism and free judgment from
personal drive. This also means that the interpretation of Allaah's
Guidance must be free from whims and ignorance, and this effort to
free one's self from whims and ignorance is what Muslim scholars--who
are the interpreters of Allaah's Final Message-- termIjtihaad. Thepoint
is that Allaah's Guidance entails that only people of knowledge who
are able and honest may interpret Divine texts. Ignoring this
prerequisite has led--in many times and places--to gross justifications
and evil consequences. Without this guidance, man has done enough to
give Socrates' definition of justice precedence over any other.
Another point worthy of our attention here is the fact that Allaah is
reminding us that He has provided the messengers with iron to go along
with the guidance and the command to establish justice. Man has known,
for untold centuries, that he cannot institute justice in almost any
walk of life, or protect justice whenever needed, without the power of
iron.
But the intent of the message of this verse is unambiguous.
Allmessengers from Allaah, who were sent to various nations throughout
history, came with the very same message.
The implication of this is so profound, especially for today's Muslims.
We must acknowledge and respect that loving and establishing justice
is a human trait, not an attribute of the Muslim Ummahalone. In fact,
our scholars have long asserted, based on the aforementioned verses
among many others, that Allaah grants supremacy to a just government
or nation even though it may be disbelieving, and He takes away
supremacy from an unjust government or nation even though it may be
believing. This is how just the Islamic worldview is.
And a Muslim would not be completely truthful to his belief without
accepting this view. Muslims should support justice and those who seek
it and they should feel happy every time justice triumphs.
But judging by the current situation of most Muslim countries and
communities around the world, itis not difficult to see that we have
strayed from justice.
To lure itback home, we need to mend our ways and make them coincide
with the guidance of ourKitaab)the Quran( first.

Discover Islam, - Scientific finds versus speculations of evolutionists

The teeth and claws of Archaeopteryx are no indication that they are
descendants of dinosaurs.
The two important points evolutionists rely on when alleging
Archaeopteryx to be a transitional form, are the claws on the bird's
wings and its teeth.
It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its
mouth, but these traits do not imply that this living creature bears
any kind of relationship with reptiles. Besides, two bird species
living today, Taouraco and Hoatzin both have claws to hold on to
branches. These creatures are fully birds with no reptilian
characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert
that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on
its wings.
Neither do the teeth in Archaeopteryx's beak imply that it is a
transitional form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying
that these teeth are characteristic of reptiles. However, teeth are
not a typical characteristic of reptiles only. Today, some reptiles
have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archaeopteryx is not the
only bird species that has teeth. It is true that birds with teeth do
not exist today, but when we look at fossil records, we see that both
in the same age as Archaeopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly
recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorized as
"birds with teeth".
The most important point is that the teeth structure of Archaeopteryx
and other birds with teeth are totally different from that of their
alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The famous ornithologists Martin,
Steward and Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other birds with
teeth have teeth with flat top surfaces and large roots. Yet, the
teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are
protuberant like a saw and have narrow roots.
The researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archaeopteryx and
their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs and observed no similarity
between them.
The studies of anatomists like Tarsitano, Hecht and A.D. Walker
revealed that some "similarities" asserted to have existed between
this creature and dinosaurs as put forward by John Ostrom, a prominent
authority who claims that Archaeopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were
in reality misinterpretations.
All these findings indicate that Archaeopteryx was not a transitional
link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called
"birds with teeth."
Archaeopteryx and other ancient bird fossils
While evolutionists have for decades been proclaiming Archaeopteryx to
be the greatest evidence for their scenario concerning the evolution
of birds, some recently-found fossils invalidate this claim in other
respects.
Lianhai Hou and Zhonghe Zhou, two paleontologists at the Chinese
Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology, discovered a new bird fossil in
1995 that they named Confuciusornis. This bird was almost the same age
as Archaeopteryx )around 140 million years old(, but it did not have
any teeth in its mouth. In addition, its beak and feathers shared the
same features as today's birds. Having the same skeletal structure of
modern birds, this bird also had claws on its wings just like
Archaeopteryx. The special structure called the "pygostyle" was
present in this bird species that supported the tail feathers. In
short, this bird which was the same age as Archaeopteryx )considered
to be the oldest ancestor of all birds and accepted as a semi-reptile(
looked very much like a modern bird. This fact invalidated all the
evolutionist theses holding Archaeopteryx to be the primitive ancestor
of all birds.
Another fossil unearthed in China in November 1996, caused even
greater confusion. The existence of this 130 million year old bird
named Liaoningornis was announced in Science by Hou, Martin and Alan
Feduccia. Liaoningornis had a chest bone on which the muscles for
flight were attached, just like modern birds. This bird was
indistinguishable from modern birds in other respects also. The only
difference was the teeth in its mouth. This showed that birds with
teeth did not have a primitive structure at all, as alleged by
evolutionists. This was stated in an article in Discover: "Whence came
birds? This fossil says that not from dinosaurs."
Another fossil to refute the evolutionist claims regarding
Archaeopteryx was Eoalulavis. The wing structure of Eoalulavis, which
was said to be 30 million years younger than Archaeopteryx, was also
observed in modern birds that flew slowly. This proved that 120
million years ago there were birds indistinguishable from modern birds
in many respects flying in the skies.
These facts once more indicate for certain that neither Archaeopteryx
nor other ancient birds similar to it were transitional forms. The
fossils do not indicate that different bird species evolved from each
other. On the contrary, fossil records prove that today's modern birds
and some archaic birds like Archaeopteryx actually lived together at
the same time. Yet some of these bird species like Archaeopteryx and
Confuciusornis have become extinct and only a part of the pre-existing
species have been able to make it to the present day.
In brief, some peculiar features of Archaeopteryx do not indicate that
this living thing is a transitional form! Stephan Jay Gould and Nailes
Eldredge, two Harvard paleontologists and world famous evolutionists,
accept that Archaeopteryx is a "mosaic" living thing housing various
features in its form, yet that it can never be regarded as a
transitional form!
The imaginary bird-dinosaur link
The claim of evolutionists trying to present Archaeopteryx as a
transitional form is that birds have evolved from dinosaurs. However,
one of the most famous ornithologists in the world, Alan Feduccia from
the University of North Carolina, opposes the theory that birds have a
kinship with dinosaurs, despite the fact that he is an evolutionist
himself. Feduccia says on the subject:
"Well, I've studied bird skulls for 25 years and I don't see any
similarities whatsoever. I just don't see it... The theropod origins of
birds, in my opinion, will be the greatest embarrassment of
paleontology of the 20thcentury."
Larry Martin, a specialist on ancient birds from the University of
Kansas, opposes the theory that birds come from the same lineage as
dinosaurs. While discussing the contradiction evolution falls into on
the subject, Martin states:
"To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of
birds with those characters, I'd be embarrassed every time I had to
get up and talk about it."
To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds from dinosaurs"
erected solely on the basis of Archaeopteryx, is nothing more than a
product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists.

Dought & clear, - Is there any proven hadeeth to suggest that the Sahaabah danced, that is quoted as evidence for dancing in dhikr circles?

Many of the Sufis take this hadeeth as evidence for their dancing and
whirling, and say that Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah and others stated
that it is saheeh. This hadeeth appears in Musnad Ahmad, no. 860, when
it says that 'Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) said: I visited the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), along with Ja'far
and Zayd ibn Haarithah. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him) said to Zayd, "You are my friend (mawla)," and Zayd began to
jump and hop on one foot around the Prophet (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him). Then he said to Ja'far, "As for you, you resemble
me physically and in character." And Ja'far began to do likewise. Then
he said to me, "You are of me and I am of you." And he started to jump
behind Ja'far.
What is your view about this hadeeth? Is it saheeh? Can a person dance
and hop in this manner to please Allah?
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:
The hadeeth mentioned in the question was narrated by Ahmad (2/213).
It was not classed as saheeh by Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may
Allah have mercy on him), as far as we know from the books that we
have to hand or the books of his companions. Moreover, when did these
Sufis give any weight to Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, such that they
would accept his opinion and verdict on hadeeths?
Secondly:
There are two problems with the hadeeth mentioned in the question:
1.
One of its narrators is unknown, namely Haani' ibn Haani'.
Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
He was mentioned by Ibn Sa'd in the first generation of the people of
Kufah. He said: He was a Shi'i. Ibn al-Madeeni said: He is unknown.
Harmalah said, narrating from ash-Shaafa'i: Haani' ibn Haani' is not
known, and the hadeeth scholars do not regard his hadeeth as sound
because his status is unknown.
Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, 11/22
2.
Abu Ishaaq as-Subay'i deliberately used ambiguous words in order to
mislead (tadlees).
Abu Sa'eed al-'Alaa'i (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
'Amr ibn 'Abdullah as-Subay'i, Abu Ishaaq, is well known by his
kunyah; we have stated previously that he often deliberately used
ambiguous words in order to mislead (tadlees).
Jaami' at-Tahseel fi Ahkaam al-Maraseel, p. 245
The hadeeth was classed as da'eef (weak) by the commentators onMusnad
al-Imam Ahmad, 2/213, 214. They said:
Its isnaad is da'eef; we have stated previously that Haani' ibn Haani'
and others like him cannot be accepted when they narrate hadeeths tha
are not narrated by others. The word "hop" in the hadeeth is
objectionable and odd. End quote.
Secondly:
Even if we assume that the hadeeth is saheeh, it does not indicate
that they danced in a circle of remembrance (dhikr) of their Lord -
Allah forbid. Rather it indicates that they expressed their joy at
praise from the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) by
hopping on one foot, which is an action that is permissible in and of
itself. Rather the ruling concerning it is connected to the reason for
their joy. Allah forbid that any of the wise would quote this as
evidence for dancing when remembering his Lord, may He be exalted.
Al-Bayhaqi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
This - if it is saheeh - indicates that it is permissible to hop,
which means lifting up one foot and jumping on the other, out of joy.
Dancing that is similar in nature is similarly permissible. And Allah
knows best.
As-Sunan al-Kubra, by al-Bayhaqi, 10/226
The Shaafa'i faqeeh Ibn Hajar al-Haythami (may Allah have mercy on
him) said, discussing the Sufis' and others quoting this hadeeth as
evidence for it to be permissible to dance:
They also quote (to prove their point) that he said to 'Ali, "You are
of me and I am of you," and he began to hop; and he said to Zayd, "You
are our brother and our friend (mawla)," and he began to hop...
Ibn Hajar said:
The response is that all of these are objectionable hadeeths and the
wording is fabricated and made up. Even if we assume that they are
saheeh, they cannot be regarded as evidence, because what is forbidden
is dancing in which there is swaying and twisting, and this is not
like that. End quote.
Kaff ar-Ra'aa' 'an Muharramaat al-Lahw wa's-Samaa', 75.
Fourthly:
More than one of the fuqaha' of the (four) madhhabs (may Allah have
mercy on them) regard that as misguidance and innovation if it is done
as an act of religious devotion. The one who does that as a leisure
activity or for fun is to be criticized and regarded as foolish.
Imam Muwaffaq ad-Deen ibn Qudaamah al-Maqdisi (may Allah have mercy on
him) was asked:
What do the fuqaha' (may Allah bless them) say about one who listens
to the duff (hand-drum), flute and singing, and get carried away until
he starts to dance? Is that permissible or not? He believes that he
loves Allah and that his listening to it, getting carried away and
dancing are for the sake of Allah! Please advise us, may Allah reward
you and have mercy on you.
He said:
The one who does that is mistaken and is lacking in decency. The one
who persists in doing those things is one whose testimony is to be
rejected according to sharee'ah, and his opinion is not to be
accepted. The implication of that is that his narration of hadeeth
from the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him)
is not to be accepted, and neither is his testimony with regard to
sighting the new moon of Ramadan or anything pertaining to religious
matters.
With regard to him believing that it is based on love of Allah, we say
that he could show his love for Allah and obedience towards Him in
other ways, and he could show devotion to Allah, may He be glorified,
and do righteous deeds in other ways. But as for this, it is a sin and
playing about. It was condemned by Allah, may He be exalted, and His
Messenger, and was disliked (regarded as makrooh) by the scholars, who
called it an innovation (bid'ah) and forbade people to do it. We
cannot draw close to Allah, may He be glorified, by doing acts of
disobedience to Him, and He cannot be obeyed by doing things that He
has forbidden. The one who commits sin as a means of drawing closer to
Him will be met with rejection; the one who takes idle pursuits and
playing about as acts of religious devotion is like one who spreads
mischief in the land. The one who seeks to reach Allah, may He be
glorified, via a way other than the way and Sunnah of the Messenger of
Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), is far from reaching
his goal
Dhamm ash-Shabbaabah wa'r-Raqs wa's-Samaa'by Ibn Qudaamah, MS (p. 2)
Imam al-'Izz ibn 'Abd as-Salaam, the great Shaafa'i faqeeh and scholar
of usool (may Allah have mercy on him) said:
With regard to dancing and clapping, it is frivolity and silliness
like that of females; no one does such things except one who is a
show-off or a liar. How could anyone regard it as justifiable to dance
to the rhythm of the music and become oblivious when the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said, "The best generations
are my generation, then those who come after them, then those who come
after them," and no one among those exemplary generations did such
things? It cannot be imagined that one who fears Allah and understands
anything of what it means to venerate Him would dance or clap.
Clapping and dancing only come from one who is foolish and ignorant;
they do not come from anyone who is wise and virtuous.
Qawaa'id al-Ahkaam fi Masaalih al-Anaam, 2/2349-350, Mu'sasat ar-Rayyaan edn.
The scholars of the Standing Committee were asked about the Islamic
ruling on those who remember Allah whilst swaying right and left in a
trance, reciting in unison and out loud.
They replied:
That is not permissible, because it is done in an innovated fashion.
The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said "Whoever
introduces into this matter of ours anything that is not part of it
will have it rejected."
Shaykh 'Abd al-'Azeez ibn Baaz, Shaykh 'Abd ar-Razzaaq 'Afeefi, Shaykh
'Abdullah ibn Ghadyaan, Shaykh 'Abdullah ibn Qa'ood
Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah, 2/529
And Allah knows best.