Hijabis Guide to Taking Care of "Hijab-Hair" | About Islam

Hijabis Guide to Taking Care of "Hijab-Hair" | About Islam: Hijab hair means the limp, flat, sometimes-painful hair that results after a long day of wearing hijab. Needless to say, hijab hair can be a total bummer

I do not have a Wali (Guardian), Who can be my Wali? - Sheikh Assim Al H...

Ten ways to be patient in times of trials by Uways Taweel 15112019 by Salafi Publications | Free Listening on SoundCloud

Ten ways to be patient in times of trials by Uways Taweel 15112019 by Salafi Publications | Free Listening on SoundCloud: Stream Ten ways to be patient in times of trials by Uways Taweel 15112019 by Salafi Publications from desktop or your mobile device

Explicación del hadiz # 37 del libro “Los cuarenta Hadices” - Español - Muhammad Isa Garcia

Explicación del hadiz # 37 del libro “Los cuarenta Hadices” - Español - Muhammad Isa Garcia: El Sheij Isa García explica el Hadiz # 37 del libro “Los cuarenta Hadices” cuyo texto es:
“Ciertamente Allah ha escrito (diferenciando) las buenas y las malas obras, luego aclaró esto diciendo: Quien haya intentado hacer una buena obra, y luego no la haya completado, Allah le escribirá en su favor una buena obra completa, y si la intentó hacer y la completó, Allah la escribirá para él como diez buenas obras y hasta setecientas veces o muchas más, y si ha intentado cometer una mala obra pero no la ha completado, Allah habrá de escribírsela como una buena obra completa, y si intentó cometerla y llegó a completarla, Allah la escribirá como una sola mala obra”

La búsqueda del sustento lícito - Español - Muhammad Isa Garcia

La búsqueda del sustento lícito - Español - Muhammad Isa Garcia: La importancia de un sustento lícito. La necesidad de buscar maneras lícitas de conseguir el sustento, ya que eso tiene directa influencia sobre la aceptación de nuestras obras.

The wilaayah of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him)

Shia-ism is NOT Islam

١٦ ساعة · 

The wilaayah of ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him)
Shia ask: didn't prophet say about Ali: "I am of you and you are of me"? Aren't #Panjtan (Ali, Fatima, Hassan,Hussain) same status as prophets?

A. What do orthodox Muslims believe about ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (praise be to Allah)?
– according to the belief of Ahl as-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa‘ah
Ali – is one of the honoured close friends (awliya’ – sing. waliy) of Allah and one of the guided leaders (imams).
He is the #fourth of the Rightly Guided Caliphs, and the fourth of the ten who were given the glad tidings of Paradise, who are the best of the Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them).
His virtues and good qualities are too many to be counted, to such an extent that some of our scholars compiled books focusing only on them, such as Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal in Manaaqib ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, and Imam an-Nasaa’i in Khasaa’is ‘Ali.

Among his virtues are the following:

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “You are of me and I am of you.” Narrated by al-Bukhaari, no. 2699

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

That is, in lineage, relationship by marriage, in seniority (in Islam), in love and in other ways. End quote.

Fath al-Baari, 7/507

Another of these qualities was mentioned in the report narrated by ‘Imraan ibn Husayn (may Allah be pleased with him who said:

The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) sent out an army and appointed ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib as their leader. He went out on the campaign, and he acquired a slave woman as booty. They objected to that, and four of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) made an agreement and said: When we meet the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), we will tell them about what ‘Ali did.

When the Muslims returned from a journey, they would start by visiting the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), then they would go to their homes. When the army came back, they greeted the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), and one of the four stood up and said: O Messenger of Allah, have you not seen that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib did such and such? The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) turned away from him. Then the second one stood up and said something like what he had said, and he turned away from him. Then the third one stood up and said something like what he had said, and he turned away from him. Then the fourth one stood up and said something similar to what they had said. The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) turned to him, with anger visible on his face, and said:

“What do you want from ‘Ali, what do you want from ‘Ali, what do you want from ‘Ali? ‘Ali is of me and I am of him. He is the waliy of every believer after I am gone.”

Narrated by Ahmad, 33/154, Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edition; at-Tirmidhi, no 3712; and many others, all of them via Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan, who said: Yazeed ar-Rashk told me, from Mutarriq ibn ‘Abdullah, from ‘Imraan ibn Husayn. Adh-Dhahabi (may Allah have mercy on him) said it is one of the reports narrated only by Ja‘far. End quote from Siyar A‘laam an-Nubala’, 8/199

Our scholars differed concerning this hadeeth; there are two views:

1.

The first view is that the hadeeth is acceptable.

At-Tirmidhi said:

This hadeeth is hasan ghareeb; we know of it only through this isnaad from the hadeeth of Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan. End quote.

Al-Haakim said:

It is saheeh according to the conditions of Muslim. End quote. Adh-Dhahabi did not say anything about it.

Al-Mustadrak, 3/119

It was classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan as he narrated in his Saheeh, 15/374

Ibn ‘Adiyy (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Abu ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan an-Nasaa’i included it in his Sihaah, but al-Bukhaari did not include it (in his Saheeh). End quote.

Al-Kaamil, 2/146

Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Its isnaad is qawiy. End quote.

Al-Isaabah, 4/569

It was classed as saheeh by al-Albaani in as-Silsilah as-Saheehah, no. 2223

Their evidence for the soundness of this hadeeth is that many of the scholars regarded Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan ad-Dab‘i as thiqah (trustworthy) and that they found other two corroborating reports of the hadeeth, the first of which is from Ibn ‘Abbaas in Musnad Ahmad (1/330) and in Musnad at-Tayaalisi (4/470 – Hajar edn under the supervision of Shaykh ‘Abd al-Muhsin at-Turki). Its isnaad includes Abu Balj, concerning whom there is a difference of opinion. The second corroborating report is from the hadeeth of Buraydah ibn al-Husayb in Musnad Ahmad (38/118). Its isnaad includes Ajlah ibn ‘Abdullah al-Kindi, who is a Shi‘i and da‘eef. It was also narrated by more than one narrator from Buraydah with different wording; one such report appears in Saheeh al-Bukhaari, no. 4350.

2.

The second view is that the hadeeth is da‘eef (weak).

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

It is false and fabricated according to the consensus of hadeeth scholars. End quote.

Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 7/385

It was classed as da‘eef by the commentators on Musnad Ahmad (Mu’sasat ar-Risaalah edn.)

The reason for their describing it as da‘eef is Ja‘far ibn Sulaymaan ad-Dab‘i who was the only one to narrate it. Yahya ibn Sa‘eed al-Qattaan regarded him as da‘eef. ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Mahdi did not feel at ease with his hadeeth. Al-Bukhaari (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Some of his hadeeth go against other scholars. ‘Ali ibn al-Madeeni said: He narrated a great deal from Thaabit, and the rest of his hadeeth are munkar (rejected).

Ibn Sa‘d said: He was thiqah (trustworthy) but there was some weakness in him. See Tahdheeb at-Tahdheeb, 2/97.

As the hadeeth scholars were also unanimously agreed that he was an extreme Shi‘i who reviled Mu‘aawiyah, a number of scholars favoured the view that the hadeeths which were narrated only by him were to be regarded as da‘eef, because the hadeeth narrated only by someone like him is not to be accepted, especially since what he narrated in this case is something that supports his bid‘ah (innovation). This is the view we are inclined to favour with regard to the hadeeths which speak of virtues (of ‘Ali).

Thirdly:

Even if we assume that the hadeeth is saheeh and acceptable, there is no evidence in it whatsoever to support what the Shi‘ah want to prove about the caliphate belonging to ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). This is for a number of reasons:

1.

The word waliy has many meanings in Arabic; what evidence do the Shi‘ah have that what it means here is caliphate? Al-Fayroozabadi (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Waly may mean closeness, nearness, or rain after rain. Waliy may mean: loved one, friend, or supporter. Wilaayah may mean rulership or authority. Wala’ may mean ownership. Mawla may mean owner, slave, the one who manumits a slave, the manumitted slave, companion, relative such as a cousin and so on, neighbour, ally, son, paternal uncle, guest, partner, or sister’s son. Al-Waliy may mean the Lord, the Helper, or the Bestower of blessings; or it may mean the recipient of blessings, lover, follower or son-in-law. End quote.

Al-Qaamoos al-Muheet, p. 1732

2.

If what is meant is rulership and caliphate, then how could the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) have said “the waliy of every believer after I am gone”, when ‘Ali was the caliph only of those who lived at his time, and he was not the leader of every believer until the Day of Resurrection?

3.

In some versions of the hadeeth it says, “The waliy of every believer in this world and in the Hereafter.” Musnad Ahmad, 5/179. This version indicates that what is meant by waliy here is not rulership; how could he be a ruler of the believers in the Hereafter?!

4.

We have not heard of this hadeeth being quoted by ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) or by any of his supporters or even by any of the noble Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them), as evidence for the caliphate of ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) after the death of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him).

The correct meaning of this word is love, help and support. Love for ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib (may Allah be pleased with him) is obligatory upon every believer, as is helping and supporting him in adhering to the truth.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The words “He is the waliy of every believer after I am gone” are falsely attributed to the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him). Rather during his life and after his death he is the waliy of every believer, and every believer is his waliy in life and in death. Wilaayah (love, support, friendship) that is the opposite of enmity is not limited to any particular time. As for wilaayah in the sense of rulership, the word should be waali (ruler) and not waliy; thus the wording would be, “the waali (ruler) of every believer after I am gone”, as it is said that in the funeral prayer, when both the waliy (the next of kin) and the waaliy (ruler or governor) are present, the waaliy (ruler) is given precedence with regard to leading the prayer, according to the view of most scholars; others said that the waliy (next of kin) should be given precedence.

The words “ ‘Ali is the waliy of every believer after I am gone” cannot be attributed to the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him), because if he had meant muwaalaah (in the sense of loving ‘Ali) , he would not have needed to say “after I am gone”; if he had meant rulership, he would have said “waalin ‘ala (ruler over) every believer”. End quote.

Minhaaj as-Sunnah, 7/278

He (may Allah have mercy on him) also said:

There is nothing in these words to clearly suggest that what is meant is caliphate. That is because the mawla is like the waliy. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Verily, your Waliy (Protector or Helper) is Allah, His Messenger, and the believers...”

[al-Maa’idah 5:55]

“but if you help one another against him (Muhammad SAW), then verily, Allah is his Mawla (Lord, or Master, or Protector, etc.), and Jibrael (Gabriel), and the righteous among the believers, and furthermore, the angels are his helpers”

[at-Tahreem 66:4].

It is clear that the Messenger is the waliy of the believers and that they are also his mawlas. It is also clear that Allah is the Waliy of the believers and that they are His awliya’ (pl. of waliy, i.e., close friends), and that the believers are awliya’ of one another. So muwaalaah (love) is the opposite of enmity and it is affirmed in the case of both parties. Because one of the two parties (namely Allah) is greater in status, His wilaayah towards them is in the sense of kindness and grace, and the wilaayah of the other party (the believers) is obedience and worship. Just as Allah loves the believers and the believers love Him, muwaalah is the opposite of enmity, war and betrayal. The disbelievers do not love Allah and His Messenger, and they fight and oppose Allah and His Messenger. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Take not My enemies and your enemies (i.e. disbelievers and polytheists, etc.) as friends”

[al-Mumtahanah 60:1].

And He will requite them for that, as He says (interpretation of the meaning):

“And if you do not do it, then take a notice of war from Allah and His Messenger”

[al-Baqarah 2:279].

He is the Waliy of the believers, and He is their Mawla. He brings them forth from the depths of darkness to the light. As that is the case, then what is meant by saying that Allah is the Waliy and Mawla of the believers, and that the Messenger is their waliy and mawla, and that ‘Ali is their mawla, is that muwaalaah which is the opposite of enmity.

The believers take Allah and His Messenger as friends in the sense of muwaalaah that is the opposite of enmity. This ruling is firmly established for every believer. And ‘Ali (may Allah be pleased with him) is one of the believers whom the believers take as friends and allies (awliya’).

This hadeeth affirms that ‘Ali is a believer in the true sense and testifies that he is deserving of muwaalaah (love) both inwardly and outwardly. This is a refutation of what his enemies among the Khaarijis and Naasibis say about him, but it does not suggest that the believers do not have any mawla other than him. How can that be the case when the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) has mawaali (pl. of mawla), who are the righteous believers. Similarly, ‘Ali also has mawaali, namely the believers who take him as a friend. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: “Aslam, Ghifaar, Muzaynah, Juhaynah, Quraysh and the Ansaar have no mawla except Allah and His Messenger.” They are described as mawaali of the Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) just as the righteous believers are described as his mawaali, and Allah and His Messenger are their mawla.

To sum up, there is a difference between the waliy, mawla etc. and the waali. Wilaayah in the sense of that which is the opposite of enmity is one thing, and wilaayah in the sense of rulership is something else. The hadeeth refers only to the former, not the latter. The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not say, “If I am someone’s waali (ruler), ‘Ali is also his waali”; rather the wording is: “If I am someone’s mawla (close friend), then ‘Ali is also his mawla.”

This is one of the things which indicate that he was not referring to caliphate. The fact that he is the waliy of every believer is true during the lifetime of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and is not deferred until the time after the Prophet’s death. With regard to caliphate, he could not become caliph until after the Prophet’s death. Thus it is known that this is not what is meant here.

The Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) is closer to the believers than their own selves, during his lifetime and after his death, until the Day of Resurrection; if he appointed someone to a position of authority during his lifetime – or if we assume that he appointed someone to a position of authority matters during his lifetime, or we assume that he appointed to take charge after his death, and that person became caliph either on the basis of a text or consensus – then that person would be more entitled to the position of caliphate and he would be closer to the believers than their own selves. But no one other than the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) could ever be closer to any believer than his own self, especially during his lifetime. With regard to ‘Ali or anyone else being the mawla of every believer, this is true and applied to ‘Ali during the lifetime of the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and after his death, and after the death of ‘Ali. So today ‘Ali is still the mawla of every believer, but today he is not waali (ruler, in charge) over people. The same applies to the rest of the believers; they are awliya’ of one another, in life and in death. End quote.

Minhaaj as-Sunnah an-Nabawiyyah, 7/322-325

Fourthly:

With regard to the claim that ‘Ali ibn Abi Taalib, Faatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn (may Allah be pleased with them all) are of the same status as the Prophets, this is a false and invalid claim. In fact it is kufr (disbelief) that nullifies a Muslim’s ‘aqeedah (belief), because it is contrary to the consensus of the scholars that no one other than the Prophets can attain the status of the Prophets. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Allah chooses Messengers from angels and from men. Verily, Allah is All-Hearer, All-Seer”

[al-Hajj 22:75].

The Messengers and Prophets are the chosen from among Allah’s creation. Anyone who claims otherwise is required to produce evidence, and no one can ever prove that ‘Ali, Faatimah, al-Hasan and al-Husayn are of the same status as the Prophets except by lying, distorting and fabricating hadeeths and reports.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Whoever exaggerates about the awliya’ (close friends of Allah, “saints”), or those whom they call the awliya’ of Allah, or the “people of Allah”, or the wise, or the philosophers, and other names that they regard as akin to the title of prophet, and they regard them as being like the Prophets or better than the Prophets, should be asked to repent. If he repents, all well and good, otherwise he is to be executed.

End quote from as-Safadiyyah, 1/262

Shaykh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhaab (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

Whoever believes that someone other than the Prophets is better than them, or equal to them, has disbelieved. Consensus on that point was narrated by more than one of the scholars. What good can there be in a people whose beliefs imply that they are disbelievers?

End quote from Risaalah fi’r-Radd ‘ala ar-Raafidah, p. 29. See also: al-Fasl fi’l-Milal wa’l-Ahwa’ an-Nihal, 4/21

And Allah knows best.

クルアーン

IslamHouse.com 日本語 - Japanese - ياباني

١٧ ساعة · 

クルアーン

…あなたがたの行う善いことを，アッラーは知っておられる。旅の準備をしなさい。だが最も優れた準備は篤信の念である。あなたがた思慮ある者よ，われを畏れなさい。（第2章197節）

❣️AGUARDAMOS SUA MENSAGEM FICAREMOS FELIZES EM FALAR COM VOCÊ❣️

Chat Islam Online Português

١٨ يوليو · 

O Profeta Muhammad (Que a paz e bênçãos estejam com ele) disse:
"Na verdade, Allah não olha para os seus corpos nem para os seus rostos, mas Ele olha para os seus corações", e ele apontou para o coração com os dedos.' [Sahih Muslim]

Isto implica que Allah não julga pela cor da pele ou pelo estado de saúde física do seu corpo. Se seu coração está em boas condições e sinceramente busca agradar a Allah, então Allah verá a luz e guiará seus corações para o que é certo e o desviará do que está errado.

O Profeta ﷺ disse:
“Todo filho de Adão peca e o melhor dos pecadores se arrependem.” [At-Tirmidhi]

Ele também disse:
“Quem quer que tenha o peso de uma semente de mostarda, de orgulho (arrogância) em seu coração, não será admitido no Paraíso. E quem quer que tenha um peso de fé de semente de mostarda em seu coração, não será admitido no fogo. ”

Muitas pessoas se consideram as melhores e não sentem que é Allah quem deve estar julgando-as. Muitas pessoas são arrogantes sobre sua qualidade de adoração e prontamente insultam os outros.

Queridos irmãos, ninguém pode usar o manto do julgamento, somente Allah possui esse direito e a habilidade. Somos todos pecadores de um jeito ou de outro. É possível que alguns de nós que nos consideramos exteriores “religiosos” não estejam intimamente ligados a Deus e estejam enganando a nós mesmos e aos outros.

Queridos irmãos/irmãs, todos nós não temos certeza do nosso nível de conexão com Allah e é por isso que podemos dizer que a melhor das pessoas demonstra humildade, bondade e não arrogância. Não há garantia.

Estamos buscando o amor de Allah. Estamos buscando perdão por tudo o que fizemos no passado. Estamos buscando uma direção melhor na vida para um melhor fim de vida e morte.

Lembre-se de que a vida é temporária e nossa mudança nos trará a glória eterna neste mundo e na vida após a morte.

Eu oro para que Allah facilite para você e para nós fazer o que é certo e sempre estar do lado do Seu Prazer.

Ameen.

🤩VENHA CONHECER O ISLAM
❣️AGUARDAMOS SUA MENSAGEM FICAREMOS FELIZES EM FALAR COM VOCÊ❣️

Science Agrees With The Bible PORK IS NOT FOOD!

Discussion About Evolution-Part 1 (by Abu ʿIyaad (Hafidhahullah) AboutAtheism.Net )

Discussion About Evolution-Part 1 (by Abu ʿIyaad (Hafidhahullah) AboutAtheism.Net )

MUSLIMS AGAINST ATHEISM·الأحد، ٢ ديسمبر ٢٠١٨·١٤ دقيقة

For a more detailed treatment of evolution and the way materialists and naturalists play games with catchall definitions and cryptic language to hide or camouflage the reality of what they are saying, refer to http://aboutatheism.net/?jqpdadp.
==========

Bismillāh wal-Ḥamdulillāh. Close to two years ago—in Rabīʿ al-Thānī 1438, January 2017—I received an email from someone regarding evolution. He was introduced to me by his brother and was seeking to discuss the subject. This is the text of his first email:

I have always been awed by nature and our existence and am bewildered why more people aren’t the same. I never could conceive the idea of a universe coming out of nothing. Which ultimately made me look for my creator.

Having been inspired by Ahmed Deedat and Maurice Bucaille I was convinced of Islam being the truth.2 I understood knowledge was a gift and came with a responsibility of spreading this knowledge. I eventually crossed paths with evolution and sought to disprove it. However I found myself convinced by it. The only way I could reconcile evolution and islam was if evolution occurred in nature but excluded humans, after all Allaah explicitly created Adam and then Eve from Adam. Unfortunately there is no evidence for this. Scientists are in agreement we have descended from a common ancestor. No Christian, Jew, Muslim or other has been able to provide any real evidence to the contrary. I started seeing nature in a different light. I feel extremely humbled that I now understand the origins of our existence and how most of it can be explained without the need of a creator. I am now angry that most of this decades old knowledge is suppressed by older generations who want to keep the status quo. Surely we owe it to ourselves as intellectual

beings and our children to seek the truth, however uncomfortable. We need to progress as a humanity. Rejoice in the knowledge we have gained. We are all truly brothers and sisters regardless of our background. All inanimate and animate material has a single cosmic origin. This has more chance of us all achieving peace.

I responded to him on the same day:

I would like to learn and hear more about your position and how you arrived at it. It would be nice to speak to you over the phone inshaa’Allaah, or otherwise in person if convenient. I do believe you are mistaken in your assessment, however, and hope that through discussion you are able to shake off these conjectures, by Allaah’s permission.

From here a discussion began. After he displayed a willingness to discuss, I started with the following, and this was two weeks after initial contact:

I think the best medium for discussion would be via email as it allows us to refer back to prior discussion.

There are multiple entry points for the discussion that follows from the remarks you made in your first email and I would liken this to a large house with multiple entrances all leading to a central hallway, the hub of the house. We

might open up different entrances, but eventually our direction should be to get to the centre, where the crux of the matter lies. As this is a complex subject, then we have to be aware of the nature and direction of our discussion, and that it can proceed with multiple strands, some might be dead ends, some might be productive, some will get to the crux of the matter etc...

So keeping that in mind and to remain in focus: Could you express for me, in a formal scientific way, the primary, central tenet (axiom) that underlies, justifies, proves, validates your new belief in “evolution” as a blind, undirected, purposeless yet creative force which in turn does away with a knowing, willing, creative force. That is to say, what has led you to change your belief that knowledge, will, wisdom and power are required for creating to the belief that blind, random, undirected, purposeless processes are sufficient for creating.

I would like to preempt you also in that the evidence for the existence of a creator is varied and diverse and does not rely upon any “gaps” arguments. That is to say, when you cannot explain something or have a gap in your explanation, does not mean that that gap has now become a primary argument for the existence of a creator, since the existence of a creator is not restricted to any one thing and is varied and diverse. So any retorts such as “that’s a god of the gaps argument” will be rejected.

The asl (foundation) in fitrah (innate disposition), reason (aql), the sum of all human experience in enterprise, industry and technology, is that knowledge, will and power and wisdom are attributes of an entity that creates. Since you have rejected that asl and have essentially claimed that knowledge, will, power and wisdom are not required for an entity that creates the burden is upon you to provide empirical evidence for this claim that clashes with fitrah, reason and the sum of human enterprise.

We can start on this if you provide us with the primary, central axiom that underlies this belief.

This is where the discussion must start with atheists in order to uncover the reality of their belief. Which is that acts of creation—known to have taken place by analysis of what is created, which is the artefact, product or item in question—must require an entity that possess the attributes that give rise to those acts. Those attributes are knowledge, choice, intent, wisdom and power, or they can be reduced and summarised as choice with intent or even further as intentionality. And essentially this is what the entire dispute is about. Is there evidence of “choice with intent” in creation and thereafter, what can this be

ascribed to on the basis of common sense, sound reason and the scientific method. That there is intentionality in creation is undeniable, it can be denied only on grounds of pure arrogance, and nothing else.

So this is always the first point to start. In attempting to flee from this necessity (of choice with intent, or intentionality in creation), conjectures are used by atheists, materialists and naturalists to ascribe intentionality to “nature”, but in a stealth, cryptic manner and then to dismiss intentionality as just one big illusion that nature plays upon our senses and intellects.

So here this becomes a circular argument in that they have already assumed the non-existence of a creator and their religion of philosophical naturalism to be the absolute truth which cannot be challenged. This then forces them to confer divine attributes to nature. They are nothing but sophisticated nature worshippers and hence, mushriks in the rubūbiyyah of Allāh the Exalted. Their belief enters into the various categories of shirk spoken of by Ibn al-Qayyim in al-Jawāb al-

Kāfī, from which is ta’ṭīl (عناصلا نع عونصلما ليطعت), to strip the creation of having a creator.

So in his reply to the above, the person did not respond in substance to my question. In his email reply, he said he was grateful for my time and wanted a little more time to prepare his response. He then said he was researching materials that I may have written that are already published to get a broader picture of where I am coming from. He asked me to verify my authorship of articles and audios he had come across and asked me for my views on micro-evolution and macro-evolution. He then mentioned two points which he considered a direct reply to the points I raised—and I do not believe that they were really a direct reply, as I had asked him a very specific question which he had failed to address completely. These are his two points:

Direct reply to some of the points raised by your kind self: —Whoever claims something as a fact then the burden of proof is on the claimer (me for evolution and you for God) so neither of us can take a back seat.

—Please understand, anyone who has taken it upon themselves to refute evolution shoulders a huge responsibility for their community. I would imagine they must have studied evolution themselves to a certain degree. Then put that into context against all possible meanings of The Quran and Hadith in order to totally eliminate any possibility of evolution. For example, some Muslims to this day derive from their holy texts that the earth is flat while others hold the view that it is shaped like an ostrich egg. As a result, one of the two could be turning people away from Islam as only one view can be true. Would you equate the seriousness of this to the hadith of when someone sick was made to do wudu, unfortunately they died as a result, they were then declared to be murderers for ruling in that in which they had not done full research? I cannot imagine you would be of the view this equates simply to the idea of getting it right earns you double the award of not getting it right which earns a single reward. Views on evolution can turn people to God or away.

So note that this was not in fact a direct reply to my question. I asked him to first define and then provide empirical evidence for the primary, central axiom that underlies his new belief that knowledge, will, intent, power and wisdom are not needed for acts of creation. He did not answer this question.

In the above response, nevertheless, he made two points which are acceptable. The first is that whoever claims something as a fact in this issue of evolution— which is really a question about whether intentionality is involved and if there is evidence for it—must provide the proof. I answered this point in the email which followed (see below). His second point was that a lot hinges on this question and if not answered satisfactorily, it could be turning a lot of people away from Islām, which is a fair point.

I managed to respond to him a week later, when I found the time, with what follows below. I made sure to answer the questions he had raised so far directly and in substance and also to restate what I had presented to him in my earlier email but this time with a bit more elaboration:

I am short in time and offer you the following to get a clearer picture...:

1. First, we will continuously encounter problems with definitions and setting and moving of goal posts, this will affect the discussion. I am just making note of it here as this point may become relevant at some future point.

2. All biological organisms are have an in-built capacity to adapt and undergo change within limits. This is by design. The code base allows for such adaptation. Environment and the dna-gene-cell system can interact to provide such adaptability. This is what you refer to as “microevolution”. This is an observed fact.

3. I don’t really like to use the word “species” as it can be subjective3, but physiologically similar organisms (if you want to say “species”) can interbreed and produce viable, fertile hybrids. This can introduce novelty. You may refer to this also as “evolution”. This is an observed fact.

4. The above indicates that biological life operates upon the same “operating system” so to speak, and code

sections of software are portable and can be moved from one entity to another whilst retaining function.

5. Thus, there can be, within limits, degrees of interaction (between environment with organism and organism with organism) that lead to change, adaptation or novelty

(within limits). At this point, you will note that our “raw data” or “evidence” for our views are actually the same.

Belief in al-qadaa wal-qadar means that there is divine determination in all things and thus it obligates acceptance of the ways and means, causes and effects. So here, this would mean, for me, that all of these things are by design and determination.

6. “Macroevolution” (outside of what I have affirmed above) is an extrapolation from microevolution and is asserted upon prior metaphysical belief in materialism that necessitates—as the only other possible explanation— that chance (random events) and necessity (physical law), in blind, undirected processes can produce a net increase in prescriptive information within biological systems (after their existence has already been taken for granted) through mutation/selection. “Evolution” only occurs after we have a self-replicating cell. The graduated micro to macro claim is contested, subject to dispute and not agreed upon amongst evolutionary biologists. The reason for this is that the modern synthesis (neo-Darwinian view) as an all-explanatory mechanism4 which provided a basis for the micro to macro claim has been undermined by other evolutionary biologists.5

7. As for the burden and standard of proof, you have to realise that the demand for evidence has to be commensurate with the claim. The claim I have made is an axiomatic truth, empirically proven by the sum of all human enterprise in industry and technology. That knowledge, will, power, wisdom are attributes through which contrivance, design etc. comes about. Software code (a sign-symbol-token system, with decision nodes, logic gates, loops, instantiation, encryption-decryption, syntax, abstraction and so on) indicates knowledge, will, power and wisdom. That’s as much proof as I need to bring in order to validate my claim. I know there is a creator through this reasoning which is proven by the sum of human experience and enterprise.6 The dna-gene-cell system is a self-replicating software-OS-hardware system with all the features I just listed and much more. Physico-chemistry and randomness cannot account for that. These are known, empirically proven facts.

1 As I never heard from this person again, I do not know what his current state is in terms of Islām or absence of it. However, from what he stated about his beliefs at the time, there is no doubt that he exited from Islām.

2 Many of those who rode the “scientific miracle” bandwagon that was set into motion during the 80s onwards due to books like those of Maurice Bucaille were really building the foundations of their īmān upon shaky foundations. This is because this approach relies upon a) ubsubstantiated claims, b) lying about Allāh by imputing meanings to His speech that it does not contain and c) trying to impress non-Muslims by blindly accepting their conjectures about life, the universe and nature as uncontested truths, and then twisting verses of the Qurʾān to agree with them. Refer to our paper: Big Bang Cosmology and the Qurʾān at http://www.aqidah.com/creed/?nkqjq which addresses this subject matter.

3 The word “species” is also problematic. Species classification is a convention used to aid our ability to organize and classify nature. It is subjective and not objective. There are vague boundaries and the criteria of inclusion and separation are disputed. This problem is acknowledged and has not been satisfactorily resolved to date even amongst evolutionary biologists. Refer to, by way of example: Dobzhansky T. 1935. A critique of the species concept in biology. Philos Sci 2: 344–355; Hey J. 2006. On the failure of modern species concepts. Trends Ecol Evol, 21: 447–450; Hausdorf B. 2011. Progress toward a general species concept. Evolution 65: 923– 931; Ereshefsky M. 2010a. Microbiology and the species problem. Biol Philos 25: 553– 568. One should be aware of ways in which the ambiguity in species classification serves as a weapon for evolutionists in the construction of their arguments. Defining species works both for and against Darwinian evolution.

4 The claim of evolution occurring through “natural selection” acting upon “random mutations” as an all-explanatory mechanism for all variation and speciation in biological life is now known to be false. Fanatical believers in this doctrine such as Richard Dawkins still exist and they are at odds with the growing number of evolutionary biologists who reject this view because its falseness has become apparent in the past couple of decades with advances in genetics. However, this split among evolutionary biologists is not being communicated through popular science media and educational institutions in an open, frank manner. There is now a search for the “extended synthesis” and the “third way” of evolution because the “modern synthesis”—natural selection acting on random mutations—has been proven to be false as an all-explanatory mechanism for all biological variation. However, that explanation was the most ingenious one and gave atheists, materialists and naturalists a good ride for the latter half of the 20th century. The challenge for evolutionary biologists has actually gotten much harder, and their conjectures will become more and more laughable, when they are stripped of their cryptic language and put in plain terms so that the common person can understand what they are really saying.

5 There is no evidence for the micro to macro evolution claim and it is nothing but a glorified, exaggerated extrapolation. Though there are many citations to demonstrate this, we will suffice with just one. Roger Lewin writes in the Science journal: “A wide spectrum of researchers—ranging from geologists and paleontologists, through ecologists and population geneticists, to embryologists and molecular biologists—gathered at Chicago’s Field Museum of Natural History under the simple conference title: Macroevolution. Their task was to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species and the evolutionary relationship between species... The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions

of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.” Roger Lewin. Evolutionary theory under fire. Science 210:883.

6 As for detailed knowledge of this Creator, then that only comes through revelation and this answers the doubt of the Atheists, when it is proven that some sort of agency must be behind creation, that how do you know it is the “God” you are asserting and describing, since you have no way of knowing who or what this force or power is. The answer to that is revelation and prophethood. The knowledge relating to God, the resurrection and the unseen cannot be reached by science.

Source: https://t.co/yLxRTnxLjf

What DO Shia define as Shirk with Allah? What does shirk mean in the Shia view?

Shia-ism is NOT Islam

ساعتان · 

What DO Shia define as Shirk with Allah? What does shirk mean in the Shia view?
Shirk with Imamah = Shirk with Allah.
This is the definition of Shirk which is used to make takfir of every Sunni (Non-Shia).

Imam of shias in Ahadeeth, Muhammad al-Kulayni narrated in “Usool al-Kafi” (p 279):
من أشرك مع إمام إمامته من عند من الله من ليست إمامته من الله كان مشركا بالله
Translation:
From Imam Abu Abdullah: “One who makes shirk with Imam whose Imamah is from Allah by the one whose Imamah is NOT from Allah is MUSHRIK with ALLAH”