Religion is the Opium of the People; Karl Marx said

1/

Nationalism is a concept alien to Islam

Nationalism is a concept alien to Islam

because it calls for unity based on family and tribalistic ties, whereas Islam binds people together on the `Aqeedah, that is belief in Allah (swt) and His Messenger (saaw). Islam calls for the ideological bond.

Grouping the Muslims on tribalistic lines is clearly forbidden. It is narrated by Abu Da'wud that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said, "He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for `Asabiyyah."

And in another Hadith, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) referring to nationalism, racism, and patriotism said:

"Leave it, it is rotten." [Muslim and Bukhari] and in the Hadith recorded in Mishkat al-Masabith, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said, "He who calls for `Asabiyyah is as if he bit his father's genitals"



Also, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said, narrated by At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud,

"There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the sight of Allah they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, Allah has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust."

Also, the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,

"Undoubtedly Allah has removed from you the pride of arrogance of the age of Jahilliyah (ignorance) and the glorification of ancestors. Now people are of two kinds. Either believers who are aware or transgressors who do wrong. You are all the children of Adam and Adam was made of clay. People should give up their pride in nations because that is a coal from the coals of Hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through Khara (dung)." [Abu Dawud and Tirmidhi]

There are many examples in the Seerah where the Messenger of Allah (saaw) had rebuked those who upheld nationalism. One one occasion a party of Jews conspired to bring about disunity in the ranks of the Muslims after seeing the Aus and Khazraj within Islam. A youth from amongst them was sent to incite remembrance of the battle of Bu'ath where the Aus had been victorious over the Khazraj, and he recited poetry to bring about division between them. As a result there was a call to arms.

When the news reached the Messenger of Allah (saaw), he (saaw) said,

"O Muslims, remember Allah, remember Allah. Will you act as pagans while I am present with you after Allah has guided you to Islam, and honored you thereby and made a clean break with paganism; delivered you thereby from disbelief; and made you friends thereby?"


When they heard this they wept, and embraced each other. This incident clearly highlights how the messenger of Allah (saaw) rebuked any forms of tribalism. Allah (swt) then revealed,

"O you who believe! Fear Allah as He should be feared and die not except in a state of Islam with complete submission to Allah. And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah (i.e. Qur'an), and be not divided among yourselves; and remember with gratitude Allah's favors on you; for you were enemies and He joined your hearts in love, so that by His Grace you became brothers; and you were on the brink of the pit of fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah make His signs clear to you that you may be guided." [Surah Al'Imran (3); ayah 102-103]

It is narrated by Qatada that Ibnu Abi Hathim said that in the verses quoted above Allah (swt) has ordered the Muslims to hold fast to the book of Allah, His Deen, and to his covenant, and He has forbidden the Muslims to divide amongst themselves and to dispute with each other.



In another incident, Jabir ibn `Abd Allah al Ansari, narrated what happened at the watering place of al Muraysi which led to the Munafiqun stirring up the traces of `Asabiyyah and seeking to destroy the unity of the Muslims. He said: "We were on a raid when one of the Muhajirun kicked one of the Ansar. The Ansar said, `O Ansar! Help me! (calling his tribe) and the Muhajir said, `O Muhajirun! Help me! (calling his tribe). The Messenger of Allah (saaw) heard them and said,

"Why are you stirring up something which belongs to Jahilliyah?"

The Messenger of Allah (saaw) did not deal with the situation only by speaking to his men, but he walked with the men all that day until nightfall, and through the night until morning and during the following day until the sun distressed them. Then he halted them, and as soon as they touched the ground, they fell asleep. He did this to distract their minds from what had transpired.



It is transmitted by at-Tabarani and al-Hakim that in one incident some people spoke very lowly about Salman al-Farsi. They spoke of the inferiority of the Persian in relation to the Arabs, and upon hearing this the Messenger of Allah (saaw) declared,"Salman is from us, the ahl al-bayt (the Prophet's family)."

This statement of the Messenger of Allah (saaw) disassociates all links based on lineage and tribal considerations.

It was also transmitted, in two different versions, by Ibn al-Mubarak in his two books, Al-Birr and As-Salah, that some disagreement occurred between Abu Dharr and Bilal and Abu Dharr said to Bilal, "You son of a black woman." The Messenger of Allah (saaw) was extremely upset by Abu Dharr's comment, so he (saaw) rebuked him by saying,

"That is too much, Abu Dharr. He who has a white mother has no advantage which makes him better than the son of a black mother." This rebuke had a profound effect on Abu Dharr, who then put his head on the ground swearing that he would not raise it until Bilal had put his foot over it.

These incidents demonstrate that tribal ties have no place in Islam. Muslims are commanded to stick together and not to disassociate themselves from each other just because they come from different tribes.

The Messenger of Allah (saaw) also said,"The believers, in their love, mutual kindness, and close ties, are like one body; when any part complains, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever." [Muslim],

"The faithful are like one man: if his eyes suffers, his whole body suffers." [Muslim],

"An Arab is no better than a non-Arab. In return, a non-Arab is no better than an Arab. A red raced man was not better than a black one except in piety. Mankind are all Adam's children and Adam was created out of clay." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Abu Musa]

Meaning that the Muslims, whether they are of Chinese, African, European or Asian origin, are one Ummah and they cannot be separated from each other. No tribalistic ties should ever break their unity.

Furthermore, Allah (swt), says,

The Faithful are but brothers..." [Surah Al-Hujurat (49): ayah 10]

And the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,

"The Faithful are to one another like [parts of] a building - each part strengthening the others"

and

"Every Muslim is a brother to a Muslim, neither wronging him nor allowing him to be wronged. And if anyone helps his brother in need, Allah will help him in his own need; and if anyone removes a calamity from [another] Muslim, Allah will remove from him some of the calamities of the Day of Resurrection; and if anyone shields [another] Muslim from disgrace, Allah will shield him from the disgrace on the Day of Resurrection." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of `Abd Allah ibn `Umar]

Some people claim that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) approved of nationalism because during the migration to Madinah, he (saaw) said about Makkah with tears in his (saaw) eyes,"You are the most beloved land of Allah to me."

However, this saying has nothing to do with nationalism, and this can be seen from the full saying which people often do not quote,"You are the most beloved land of Allah to me because you are the most beloved land of Allah to Allah."

The Messenger of Allah's (saaw) lover for Makkah was based on the noble status that Allah (swt) has given to Makkah, and not because he (saaw) was born there. All Muslims should have this love and affection for Makkah because it is the most beloved land in the sight of Allah (swt). After all, the Muslims pray towards Makkah and go there to perform Hajj there as it houses the Ka'ba. The above saying of the Messenger of Allah (saaw) therefore has nothing to do with nationalism. If Rasoolillah (saaw) and the Muhajireen amongst the Sahabah (raa) were tied to the homeland (of Makkah), they would have settled in Makkah after it became part of the Islamic State.

Not only does Islam forbid people from grouping on nationalistic ties, but it also prohibits the establishment of more than one state, whether these states are based on nationalism or otherwise. The only state that is allowed for the Muslims is the Islamic State, which is a state that is governed exclusively by Islam. Allah (swt) addressed the Messenger (saaw),

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you, and do not follow their vain desires away from the truth which came to you" [Surah Al-Madinah (5): ayah 48]

and,

"And rule between them by that which Allah revealed to you and do not follow their whims, and beware (be on the alert) that they may deviate you away from even some part of what Allah revealed to you." [Surah Al-Maidah (5): ayah 49]

The speech of Allah (swt) to the Messenger (saaw) is a speech to his (saaw) Ummah unless specific evidence comes to restrict this. In this case, there is no such restriction, and so it becomes obligatory for the Muslims to rule according to Islam. And ruling according to Islam leaves no room for nationalistic constitutions whatsoever because what is applied, and what forms the criteria for judgement, is the Book of Allah (swt) and the Sunnah of the Messenger (saaw).

Ruling according to Islam can only be achieved in one state, with one Khalifah.

It is reported in Muslim that `Abdullah ibn `Amr ibn al-'As narrated that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saaw) say,

"He who gave the bay'ah to an Imam, giving him the clasp of his hand and the fruit of his heart has to obey him as long as he can. If another comes to dispute with him (his authority) strike the neck of that person."

Abu Said al-Khudri narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,"If a bay'ah is taken for two Khalifahs, kill the latter one."

And `Arfaja said that he heard the Messenger of Allah (saaw) say,"If someone comes to you when you are united over one man and wants to break your strength and divide your unity, kill him."



This unity of the Muslims was clearly highlighted in the document that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) wrote when he established the Islamic State in Madinah. In this document, which was to regulate the relationships of Muslims and non-Muslims in the Islamic State

the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said regarding the Muslims,"Allah's covenant amongst them is one" and "The Believers are brothers to the exclusion of others" and "The peace of the believers is indivisible. No separate peace shall be made with believers are fighting in the way of Allah."

These statements serve to indicate that Muslims are one body and they are not to be treated separately. Furthermore, the obligation of having one state, and not many nationalistic states, also comes from the Ijma' of the Sahabah. When the Messenger of Allah (saaw) died, the Sahabah (raa) convened to discuss the appointment of the Khalifah in the courtyard of Bani Sa'ida. One person had proposed that the Ansar should elect their own Amir and the Muhajireen their own, but Abu Bakr (ra) narrated the Hadith that forbids the Ummah from having more than one leader. Thus, the Sahabah (raa) never allowed more than one ruler and their consensus is a legitimate evidence for us.

Islam therefore leaves no room for the Saudi state, and Egyptian state, a Malaysian state, an Iraninan state, or a Pakistani state. Islam calls for one state with one ruler where all Muslims are bound by the `Aqeedah of Islam. And this is a matter decided by Islam to which we must submit to, for Allah (swt) says,

"O mankind, verily We have created you from a male and a female, and made you peoples and tribes, so that you may recognize each other. Verily, the most honored of you to Allah is (he who) safeguards himself against evil with full awareness of Divine Laws. Verily, Allah is All-Knowing, All-Aware." [Surah Al Hujurat (49): ayah 13]

This verse was revealed immediately after the triumphant entry of the Prophet (saaw) into Makkah. After the declaration of immunity to the Quraysh, the Prophet (saaw) requested Bilal (ra) to give the Adhan. A group of three new Muslims were observing the proceedings when Bilal (ra) was asked to make the Adhan. One of them remarked how happy he was that his parents were not present to see such a disgusting sight. Another one, Harith bin Hisham commented that the Prophet (saaw) couldn't find anybody other than a black crow to make the Adhan. The third one, Abu Sufyan, abstained from making any adverse comment, stating that if he said anything, Allah (swt) would send a revelation to Muhammad (saaw) addressing his statement.Allah (swt) sent Jibreel (as) to inform the Prophet (saaw) of the discussion that had just taken place. The prophet (saaw) asked the three men about their conversation, who confirmed to the Prophet (saaw) what Jibreel (as) told him. The verse of the Qur'an was subsequently revealed.

Because these individuals from the Quraysh were differentiating between themselves and Bilal (ra), Allah (swt) revealed this verse, concluding that the only criteria that Allah (swt) uses to judge between Muslims is that of Taqwa, which Bilal (ra) had and of which they were devoid of. This verse destroys the basis of nationalism in Islam.

In the first part of the Ayah, Allah (swt) revealed to humanity that all human beings were created from a single pair - Adam and Eve. This statement clearly refutes any claim of certain people that humans came from animals through the process of evolution or any other such claim.

The part of the Ayah, "..and made you peoples and tribes, so that you may know each other..." is usually misinterpreted as `nations and tribes' to justify the differences created by the existing borders, specifically in the Muslim World. In addition, such misinterpretations are also used to encourage Muslims to foster pride in these affiliations.

Unfortunately, these Muslims quickly jump to conclusions without looking at what Allah (swt) says. The errant understanding of this Ayah attempts to legitimize the current situation of the Muslim Ummah as many nations - divided and powerless - resulting from the destruction of the Khilafah state on March 3rd, 1924 by the puppet of the Kuffar, Mustafa Kamal.

Furthermore, such a misunderstanding lends legitimacy to the continued division of the already divided Muslim lands that occurred throughout the twentieth century, with the division of the Indian Subcontinent into Indian, Pakistani and Kashmiri regions; the further division of Pakistan into two countries with the creation of Bangladesh; and the renting asunder of the last Islamic Khilafah by the British agent Sykes and the French agent Picot during World War I in which they used the pencil and ruler to divide the Muslim Ummah.



"It is not for a believer (male or female) that when Allah and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any choice in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in plain error." [Surah Al-Ahzab (33): ayah 36]

And those who still uphold nationalism, remember what Allah (swt) says,"And let those who oppose the Messenger's commandment beware, lest some Fitnah (disbelief, trials,afflictions,...) befall them or a painful torment be inflicted on them." [Surah An-Nur (24): ayah 63] (Via FB)

Home

The Politics of Evolution

In the UK there has been an agenda by the British government to secularise the Muslim community and make them accept the values of Secularism and Democracy.

Recently there have been many articles, debates and discussion on the subject of the evolution theory and its place within religion. A lot of this discussion has taken place in the context of whether Muslims accept evolution or not, and if not, why not as evolution is now a well established ‘fact’, which cannot be rejected. This article is not intended to be a refutation of why evolution is not a part of Islam, for this is a well established within the Islamic tradition, that Adam (as) was created by Allah (swt) and Allah (swt) blew Adam’s (as) soul into a clay human body, which Allah (swt) shaped and fashioned.

The question I would like my reader’s to focus on is why has this subject of the evolution theory suddenly become an issue within Islamic circles as if this is a new topic. This theory has been around for many decades and most Muslim scholars and intellectuals, accepted that it had no place within Islam as it contradicts clearly stated texts within the Qur’an, yet this theory has raised its ugly head again and this time it is being used to tell Muslims that at the least this must be an acceptable theory within Islam and at the most that it must be accepted as the narrative of Adam’s (as) creation. Many have tackled this issue from the perspective of theology and fiqh, but very a few have looked at the political ramifications and context to this whole discussion.

In the UK there has been an agenda by the British government to secularise the Muslim community and make them accept the values of Secularism and Democracy. This has been stated within the government’s own PREVENT agenda among other reports and documents. The way the government has done this is to deliberately raise, what the government views as, topical issues within Islam which do not agree with the values of Secularism and Democracy in order to show how Islam has a ‘backward view’ in these topical issue; then to force the Muslim community into line by trying to highlight the so called ‘backwardness’ of Islam and the fact that society has moved on from these primitive values and Muslims now need to accept the values of the West as they are the only standard that all should live by.

Therefore it is no coincidence that we have seen how Muslims were told that they should accept that their Prophet (saw) will be insulted and that this is a part of freedom of speech; we were also lectured about how Muslims should allow Muslim woman to lead men in the Friday and the 5 obligatory prayers and this is about the equality of the sexes; that Muslims must accept homosexuals into Islam as this is about treating people of all sexual orientation equally; that Muslims should allow Muslim woman to marry non-Muslim men, as all people and religions are the same. Within this context fits the current discussion about evolution that it is about further trying to secularise the Muslim community so they become a part of Britain, adopt its values and forget their Ummah and Islam.

In all these areas, Islam’s rulings, in origin, have been very clear and it has never been a discussion among the vast majority of scholars of Islam, regardless of their school of thought, barring a handful of scholars who are either very obscure or their view was in the minority view of their school and hence forgotten until revived recently. Yet these obscure views are now being given a new lease of life and being made prominent in order to undermine Islam and subject it to the standards and values of Secularism and Democracy and this was never the intention of the scholars who even gave these minority views in the first place.

Yet today we have so called Muslims scholars, Imams and theologians who are advocating these obscure views and digging them up to show to the Muslim community in Britain and ultimately globally that Islam agrees with Secularism and Democracy and that Muslims should not feel uncomfortable able this. The government funds these Muslim organisations and individuals to do their bidding as it is easier to secularise the Muslim community using their own people rather than trying to use government ministers and hence the current discussion is now evolution and in due time some other new issue will take its place.

Some have tried to argue that what is wrong with this dialogue and debate, that this is healthy and it will get Muslims thinking about these issues. Firstly in certain issues there is no dialogue or debate for example, there is not dialogue or debate about insulting the Prophet (saw) and his family, that is a red line and it must always stay a red line otherwise we would have accepted implicitly that insulting the Prophet (saw) is acceptable and hence accepted freedom of speech. The second issue is that the moment we open the doors of debate and dialogue to these matters which are clear and fundamental in our deen, then it is open season on everything else in Islam as well, this is evident from the last couple years. The more the Muslim community has been accommodating of these disingenuous types of debates and dialogues the more the Muslim community has come under pressure to compromise on further issues.

Lastly under this dialogue and debate banner we must be careful to make sure that these types of discussion do not find their way to in the area of legitimate difference of opinion because there seems to be an apparent difference of opinion among scholars. If this happens, then what type of Islam will we have left our future generations, an Islam fraught with differences of opinion on every subject from the most fundamental of questions like where did humans come from, to the simple questions and this will lead us down the same path as Christianity where they cannot even agree on whether Jesus existed or not. If this happens to Islam then we can expect it to go down the same route as Christianity in this country and that is clear for all to see. This also would mean that the British government has achieved its goals and aims, as it wants to do to Islam what is has done to Christianity, to subject it to the standards and values of Secularism.

The original duty of the Muslim community in this country is one of calling the non-Muslims to Islam and to show them that Islam is the only alternative to the current misery they are facing due to the economic meltdown within western countries and this is an opportunity for the Muslim community here to show them how Islam will deal with this and other problems which this society faces, so we should not allow this discussion on the evolution theory to distract us and take us away from the real discussions and debates that are happening within this society.

And who is better in speech than one who invites to Allah and does righteousness and says, “Indeed, I am of the Muslims.” [Quran 41:33] (HTB)

Home    ||  Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link) ||  Empowered by; MRM School 1      MRM School 2 || FB Wall   ||

The Universal Shirk with Nationalism & Democracy

1/


2/


3/




Home           Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

The bloody history of communism

1/


2/


3/



Home            Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

The Theory of Evolution - A Critique

1/


2/

The Theory of Evolution has become the de facto standard used in the West, and indeed beyond, to explain the existence of creation and life, it is described as rational and scientific. In stark contrast, other arguments that explain the existence of life are considered to be irrational, backward and steeped in ignorance borne out of belief in religion. In other words, there are essentially two clear camps: the ‘scientific’ and progressive camp which espouses the virtues of the Theory, and the apparently ‘unscientific’ contingent which clings to outmoded explanations such as the existence of a Creator.

Richard Dawkins, an emeritus fellow of Oxford University has been an advocate of teaching the Darwinist theory of evolution as scientific fact in schools to explain the origin of life. The implications of evolution being taught as fact by teachers, while denying theories that include the existence of a Creator, have serious consequences for Muslims in Britain. It is an attempt to confuse the minds of young people about their aqeedah for which Allah سبحانه وتعالى commands decisiveness, especially when it is often described using complex and convoluted language.

It is therefore imperative that Muslims understand the basis of this theory and are clear on its flaws in explaining the origin of life- should they confront it in their day to day activities.

What is the Theory of Evolution?

Darwinist theory of evolution is described as the process of change that organisms undergo in response to their environment over a period of time, resulting in the formation of new and completely different species altogether. It suggests that life on earth began from a single celled organism that evolved into a multicellular organism, then into more complex organisms through a process of spontaneous regeneration to produce the vast variety of species found on earth today. Therefore all life on Earth shares a common ancestor and the apes and humans also have a common ancestor from which they both originated. According to this theory, evolution is still happening today.

The ideas that underpin the theory of evolution include ‘Natural Selection’, ‘Variation’ and ‘Gene mutation’ according to Darwin’s explanations.

Inherited & Environmental Variations:

Variations are the slight differences in features we see between individuals within a species. These variations can be a result of the environment (e.g. scars, tanned skin) or be inherited (e.g. different eye colour, hair colour in humans). Inherited variations are as a result of different combinations of genes from the parents being passed onto offspring and future generations.

Scientists have been known to incorrectly use the idea of variation within species to support the notion of evolution of one species to another species altogether. For example, on Darwin’s trip around the world on the HMS Beagle, he visited the Galapagos Islands and studied the variety of finches. In Darwin’s book, ‘The Voyage of the Beagle’ (1839), he writes:

“One might really fancy that from an original paucity of birds in this archipelago, one species had been taken and modified for different ends”.

A discussion took place between Darwin and other Naturalists in his time as to whether the finches were of the same species with variations they inherited or whether they evolved into completely different species. Scientists in support of Darwinist theory regard the finches as evolving into different species through Natural Selection.

Natural Selection:

Natural Selection is described by Darwinist scientists as a process by which evolution happens. It is built on the idea of survival of the fittest. Due to genetic variations, some animals have features that make them better suited for their environments (eg. camouflage). Nature ‘prefers’ animals that are better suited for their environment, as they will be able to survive and reproduce in order to pass on the same characteristics to their offspring, while those less ‘fit’ for their environment will die earlier and so become less common. One example is the peppered moth:

1. When newly industrialised parts of Britain became polluted in the nineteenth century, smoke killed lichens growing on trees and blackened their bark.

2. Pale coloured moths, which had been well camouflaged before when they rested on tree trunks, became very conspicuous and were eaten by birds. Rare dark moths, which had been conspicuous before, were now well camouflaged in the black background.

3. As birds switched from eating mainly dark moths to mainly pale moths, the most common moth colour changed from pale to dark.

The above gives a plausible explanation of how the environment can influence the genetic make-up of a species and illustrates how natural selection caused a change in the British moth population. This example is often cited as a case of evolution in action, but in reality this is only a very superficial change in wing colour – both types of moth are part of the same species and both existed before the industrial revolution.

Natural selection can alter the features of a species only very little, because it simply picks and chooses between the normal genetic variations that are found within the population anyway. These natural variations are not enough to produce evolution on a large scale. In order to account for the major changes needed for the current theory of evolution to stand, it requires that several mutations occur and accumulate in the DNA over generations, and only then will it produce new characteristics in the organism, so as to change it into a different species. However relying on gene mutations as a basis for evolution is problematic.

Gene Mutations:

Mutation is the process of random genetic change. All cells within an organism carry hereditary material in the form of genes. As the body grows, new cells are created with identical genetic material. Sometimes the DNA makes mistakes in replicating the genetic code. This mistake when replicating genes is called a genetic mutation. Approximately 5% of the DNA contains the hereditary material called genes (coding region) and 95% are known as the non-coding regions. This means, in order to impact the organisms’ physical characteristics, mutations during mitosis would need to happen on the genes (5% of DNA) for which the odds are pretty slim. Factors that can affect the rate of genetic mutations are mainly exposure to radiation and dangerous chemicals.

Modern Darwinist theory lays the basis of evolutionary change by genetic mutations. The problem here is that, an overwhelming majority of gene mutations are fatal to the organism resulting in deformed, sick and weakened organisms. Recent studies confirm that 99.99% of genetic mutations kill living cells. In this day and age there are increased sources of mutation in our environment, such as radiation. So, why do we not see major evolutionary changes happening all around us? We can witness the effects of mutations in humans following radiation poisoning at Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl – that is, a litany of death, disability and illness.

Even if hypothetically, such gene mutations resulted in enhancement of physical characteristics in organisms, the mutations must take place in the sex cells in order to be passed onto offspring, further reducing the chances of them being a sustained source of evolution. And an even more fundamental question to ask is where did the first single celled organism that replicated, mutated and evolved into many multicellular organisms come from in the first place?

Flawed Evidence to back Evolution

1) Comparison of DNA

Speciation is the process by which a single ancestral species splits into two or more different species. For example, Darwinist theory states that humans and apes have a common ancestor, just as we and our cousins share a common grandmother. Some of our ancestors evolved to become apes and the rest evolved into hominids (ape-human hybrid), Neanderthals and then to Homo sapiens (humans). Scientists claim if we go back far enough we can trace all life on Earth back to one common ancestor, whose offspring split off and evolved into all the diversity of life we see today.

The proof they use that humans and apes, and indeed that all life on Earth, is related is the similarities between DNA of different species. By comparing DNA, and linking speciation events in time, Darwinists attempt to work out where different species fit in the evolutionary ‘family tree’. For example, 98% of human DNA is the same as that of a chimpanzee, but only 85% is the same as that of a mouse. Therefore it’s assumed that, in the family tree, humans split off from chimpanzees later than they did other mammals (like mice), and so we are more closely related to chimpanzees.

DNA matching also confirms that humans share 60% of our DNA with fruit flies and 50% with bananas. Ultimately all life on Earth does share similar characteristics and our DNA all have the same structure and utilises the same four letters in the genetic code. Scientists have taken this to mean that all life has to be related and that we all come from a single common ancestor. However this is just a hypothesis. We could equally claim that this is evidence that all life originated from the same source, i.e. it had the same Designer or Creator.

2) Fossil Records

Darwinists often advocate the fossil record as being a major evidence for evolution, however the truth is they do not support the notion that species evolved into other species. In fact, scientists know there are huge gaps in fossil records and new species have been found to appear without an in-between link to a different species. Case & Stiers comment:

“Though the fossil record makes an enormously important contribution to evolutionary theory, this source of data poses some questions that proved to be a source of embarrassment to evolutionary theorists”.

If evolution is a continual process, we should be able to see several intermediate forms all around us and within the fossil record. On the contrary, the features within species are sharply defined and easy to classify. Darwin failed to provide a plausible explanation:

“Why, if species have descended from other species by fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all of nature in confusion, instead of the species as we see them, well defined?”(Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species, 1859).

In an attempt to solve this dilemma, in recent times scientists have proposed a slightly different model of evolution called “punctuated equilibrium”. It rejects the Darwinist idea of a cumulative, step-by-step evolution and holds that evolution took place instead in big, discontinuous “jumps”. Sadly for the proponents, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould (American palaeontologists), their own theory is bankrupt – since for one thing, it conflicts with the understanding that genes cannot undergo radical mutations.

Utilising the evidence of fossils as a proof for evolution is even more problematic. Closer examination of the fossil record actually suggests evidence for the opposite argument – creation. For example, one of the oldest strata of the earth in which fossils of living creatures have been found is that of the Cambrian, which has an estimated age of 500-550 million years. The living creatures found in this period seemed to emerge all of a sudden in the fossil record and were already complex invertebrates such as snails, earthworms and jellyfish– and there appeared to be no ancestors. This wide mosaic of living organisms, made up of such a great number of complex creatures, emerged so suddenly that this miraculous event is referred to as the “Cambrian Explosion” in geological literature. As Richard Dawkins himself comments:

“The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists.”

The Question of the Origin of Life:

The theory of evolution suggests that life started as an accident through a process known as spontaneous generation. In other words, it was never the objective to create life – it just happened. So a collection of organic compounds somehow gained the attribute of life that cannot be explained by scientists. In fact Fred Hoyle, a well-known English mathematician and astronomer, and someone who believes in evolution, made the analogy that the chances of the first cell forming spontaneously were comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials present.

On the question of the origin of life scientists like Louis Pasteur and Francesco Ready advocated that life could only come from a previous life. If that were the case, then how did the first cell receive its life?

According to Professor of Applied Mathematics and astronomy from University College (Cardiff, Wales), Chandra Wickramasinghe:

“The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it… It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”

This confirms that the probability of life emerging by itself is virtually non-existent. Therefore, all inanimate objects including DNA depend on something to give them their life giving properties. That is the one who created life in all its complexities in the first place – Allah سبحانه وتعالى.

Evolution with all its flaws has been sold to people as a fact, entering the science curriculum from an early age. This approach has resulted in the indoctrination of millions with false ideas. Muslims must have a firm grasp of what this theory is and understanding of which aspects are well-established, such as natural selection and variation, which are not in contradiction with Islam and the existence of a Creator. But we must also be armed with the ideas to refute the heavily-flawed aspects of evolution that attempt to explain the origins of life, and to expose the agenda to strip us of the fundamental pillars that form our belief and convictions.

إِنَّ فِي خَلْقِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَاخْتِلَافِ اللَّيْلِ وَالنَّهَارِ لَآيَاتٍ لِأُولِي الْأَلْبَابِ

“Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of night and day, these are indeed signs for men of understanding” [Al-Imran, 3:190] (Iculture.org)

Home        Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)

Protest to a better life From Tunisia to Egypt Tariq RAMADAN (Plus*) 2011

1/1


By: Dr. Tariq Ramdan (Plus*), Br Taric promotes (fake) Democracy in the Muslim World.


(Plus*; The holy quran says;....man was created weak...TMQ 4:28)

The Sunni vs. Shi’a Shame of the Contemporary Muslim World

“One of the primary objectives of the study is to identify the cleavages and fault lines among sectarian, ethnic, regional, and national lines, and to assess how these cleavages generate challenges and opportunities for the United States.” – The Rand Corporation


Another excerpt from the Rand study (US Strategy in the Muslim World After 9/11) reads as follows: “Arabs constitute only about 20% of the world’s Muslims, yet interpretations of Islam, political and otherwise, are often filtered through an Arab lens. A great deal of the discourse on Muslim issues and grievances is actually discourse on Arab issues and grievances. For reasons that have more to do with historical and cultural development than religion, the Arab world exhibits a higher incidence of economic, social, and political disorders than other regions of the so-called developing world.”


One of the “disorders” that the Arab world (and other parts of the Muslim world, unfortunately) has been afflicted with is the Sunni vs. Shi’a pathology; and needless to say, those advocates of U.S. global supremacy are exploiting this shameful and divisive disorder for all that it’s worth, at the expense of the Muslim Ummah.


As this arrogant and spiritually blind government of ours sets its destructive sights on yet another Muslim nation (Iran) – and as corrupt regimes in the “Arab world,” in concert with the Zionist-Apartheid State of Israel, convey a message of full steam ahead – it behooves committed Muslims the world over (and especially in the West) to read and reflect deeply over what some of the leading scholars and activists have had to say on this issue over the past century. (For one of the most effective tools of the enemy has always been ignorance.)


It is said that the esteemed shaheed (martyr) Imam Hasan al-Banna, one of the pioneers of the modern Islamic movement, was instrumental in helping to revive the thought of bringing Sunnis and Shi’ites together, and was one of the leading participants in the work of Jama’at at-taqrib bain al-mathahib al-Islamiyah (The League to Bring Together Islamic Schools of Thought). Al-Azhar’s foremost religious scholar and the highest jurist for religious edicts (at the time) Imam Abdul Majid Salim, and the distinguished scholars, Imam Mustafa Abd al-Razzaq and Imam Mahmud Shaltut were also said to be participants in the group.


Abdul Karim al-Shirazi authored a book titled al-wahdat al-Islamiyah (Islamic Unity), which is a collection of reports and articles of religious leaders from the Shi’ites and Sunnis – first published in the magazine Risalat al-Islam (The Message of Islam), edited at al-Azhar University, on the subject of Jama’at at-taqrib. Here is what he had to say:


They agreed that the Muslim is one who believes in the One God; Muhamad as the Prophet, the Qur’an as the book, the Ka’ba as the direction for ritual prayer and the house for the pilgrimage, the five known pillars, the belief in resurrection, and the practice of what is known to be obligatory according to the Divine Law.


These were the points of agreement among all of the representatives from the four known Sunni schools of thought and the two known Shi’ite schools of thought, al-Imamiyah and al-Zaidiyah, who attended the meeting. Further, they agreed to respect each other’s differences in opinion on matters which neither constituted a condition for the faith, nor a pillar of the religion.


One of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun’s thinkers, Salim al-Bahnasawi, noted in al-Sunna al-Muftara aliaha (The Tradition Being Falsified): “Since the formation of the group of bringing together Islamic schools of thought in which Imam al-Banna and Imam al-Qummi clearly participated, cooperation existed between the Ikhwan al-Muslimun and the Shi’ites that led to the visit of Nawab Safawi to Cairo in 1954.” He further states, “This kind of cooperation is not surprising or strange because the beliefs of both groups (Sunnis and Shi’ites) lead to it.”


A distinguished student of Imam al-Banna, Abd al-Muta’al al-Jabri, in his book entitled, Limatha yuqitla Hasan (Why Hasan al-Banna was Assassinated), quoting a writer by the name of Robert Jackson argued:


If the life of this man (al-Banna) had been longer, it would have been possible to gain many benefits for this land, especially in the agreement between al-Banna and Ayatullah Kashani, one of the Iranian Muslim leaders, to uproot the discord between Sunnis and Shi’ites. They met each other in the hijaz in 1948. It appears that they conferred with each other and reached a basic understanding but Hasan al-Banna was quickly assassinated.
_________________________


“Muslims should be awake! Muslims should be alert [to the reality] that if a dispute takes place among Sunni and Shi’ite brothers it is harmful to all of us, it is harmful to all Muslims. Those who want to sow discord are neither Sunni nor Shi’ite, they are agents of the superpowers and work for them.” – Imam Khomeini


The assassination of Imam Hasan al-Banna constituted a serious blow to the Islamic movement, and to the efforts that were being made among different groups of committed Muslims toward the unification of the Ummah (though efforts did continue).


Dr. Ishaq Musa al-Husaini notes in his book, al-Ikhwan al-Muslimun, that there were Shi’a students in Egypt who joined the Ikhwan, and it has also been recorded that the ranks of the Ikhwan in Iraq contained many Shi’ites.


Dr. Ezzoddin Ibrahim, in his essay titled Sunni vs. Shi’ah: A Pitiful Outcry, wrote “When Nawab Safawi visited Syria, he met Dr. Mustafa al-Siba’ai, the general observer of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun. When the latter complained to Safawi that some Shi’ite youth were joining the secular and national movements, he addressed a large number of Shi’ites and Sunnis saying, ‘Whoever wants to be a true Ja’fari should join the ranks of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun.’” (The Ja’fari madhab is one of the main schools among the Shi’a.)


Nawab Safawi was the leader of the Fidaiyin Islam Organization; an organization whose significance can be found in the following words of Safawi himself: “Let us work jointly together for Islam, and let us forget everything save our struggle for the sake of the dignity of Islam. Has not the time come for Muslims to understand and resolve the division of Sunni and Shi’ite?”


In his book titled al-Mawsua al-harakah (Encyclopedia of Movements), Fathi Yakin wrote about the warm, enthusiastic reception that Nawab Safawi received in Cairo by the Ikhwan. He also recounts the reaction to the death sentence given Safawi by the Shah of Iran:


There was a strong reaction to this unjust sentence, and the Muslim masses were shocked on hearing it, for they appreciated the heroic deeds of Nawab Safawi and his struggle. They condemned this sentence, demonstrated against it, and sent thousands of telegrams from various parts of the Muslim world denouncing such an unfair sentence given to this faithful hero and struggler. His death was considered as a great loss in the modern age.”


The first issue of the magazine al-Muslimum (published by the Ikhwan), featured a moving tribute titled “With Nawab Safawi,” in which the observation was made, “The beloved martyr had a strong relationship with the Muslimun. He had stayed as a guest in their house in Cairo during his visit to Egypt in January 1954.”


That a Shi’ite was considered to be one of the great martyrs of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun (a predominantly Sunni movement), clearly demonstrates the fraternal brotherhood and unity of purpose that existed between Sunnis and Shi’ites during that golden period of Islamic struggle.


In the same article of al-Muslimun, the editor shared the statement of Safawi following the arrest of several members of the Ikhwan:


When the tyrants oppress the men of Islam anywhere, the Muslims must arise above differences of their schools of thought, console their oppressed brothers and share in their sufferings, pains and sorrows. There is no doubt that by our positive Islamic struggle we can destroy the plans of the enemies that are aimed at creating social disturbances among Muslims. There is no harm in the existence of many schools of thought, and we cannot abolish them. But what we have to do is prevent the manipulation of such a situation for the benefit of the enemies of Islam.


Muhammad Ali al-Dhanawi, in his book titled Kubrah al-harakat al-Islamiyah fi al-asr al-hadith (The Greatest Islamic Movements in the Modern Age) quotes historian Bernard Lewis as follows: “In spite of their Shi’ite school of thought, they believe in Islamic unity to a great extent similar to the belief of the Egyptian Muslim brothers, and there was a great deal of communication between them.”


At the end of the al-Muslimum article, Nawab Safawi is quoted as saying: “We are confident that we will be killed sooner or later, but our blood and sacrifice will revive Islam and lead to its resurrection. Today Islam is in need of this blood and sacrifice, and will never arise without it.”


Nawab Safawi was talking about “blood and sacrifice” according to the pure, pristine, resuscitating principles of Qur’an and Sunnah – not the wasteful madness that we see in parts of the Muslim world today!
_____________________
“O Ali! Two types of Muslims will receive hellfire because of you. One type is on the lunatic fringe for exaggerating their affection for you; the other type are those


who’s fanaticism drive them to a phobia of hatred towards you.” - Prophet Mohammed


On the death of the third Caliph, Uthman ibn Affan (may Allah be pleased with him and his pious predecessors in that office), the record will show that a major crisis erupted within the ummah when Ali ibn Abu Talib (ra) was selected as the fourth and final Rashidun Caliph. Mu’awiyyah ibn Abu Sufyan, governor of Syria, and Amr ibn al’As, governor of Egypt (both of whom came from the same Umayyah clan as Uthman), joined forces and declared their independence from Ali’s caliphate (who was from the Hashim tribe). As the late Drs. Ismail and Lamya al-Faruqi would note, in their illustrious work titled The Cultural Atlas of Islam, “Their contest for power became open defiance.”


What their contest for power also did was to open the door much wider for what our beloved Prophet (Allah’s peace and blessings be upon him) feared most. In his address to the Muslims in the middle of Safar, 11 AH (toward the end of his blessed life), the Prophet (saaw) reportedly said: “By Allah, I do not fear that you will turn polytheist after me. But I do fear that you may strike one another’s necks for the acquisition of worldly riches.”


When the two opposing forces met at Siffin in 36 AH, south of al Raqqah on the Euphrates, the Prophet’s fear became prophecy in a major way! It is significant to note that those who were aligned with Ali were known as the Shi’a (partisans) of Ali, and those who were aligned with Mu’awiyyah were then known as the Shi’a (partisans) of Mu’awiyyah. Following the assassination/martyrdom of Ali a few years later, in the year 40 AH, this label became permanently affixed to his supporters up to this very day.


Unfortunately, this label (Shi’a) has also become both a lightning rod for a blind, unreasoned animosity in the hearts of some Muslims (passed from one generation to the next), and an instrument for mischief and exploitation by the enemies of Islam. The hatred directed at Ali more than 13 centuries ago, has today become focused on those who would still call themselves the “partisans” of Ali. (May Allah guide us as we shed more light on this self-imposed fitnah.)


Turning again to the work of Jama’at al-Taqrib, we have the words of the very distinguished Imam Mahmud Shaltut (the former head of al-Azhar University), who stated: “I believed in the idea of bringing together Islamic schools of thought as a correct principle and participated from the beginning in this group.” He further noted, “Al-Azhar has agreed on the basic rule of this group of leaders of various Islamic schools of thought, and has decided to teach the jurisprudence of various Islamic schools of thought; a study based on the convincing evidence, proof and without prejudice, [not] favoring this group or that.” He continues:


I would like to talk about the meetings in Dar al-Taqib, where the Egyptian sits beside the Iranian, Lebanese, Iraqi, Pakistani or others from one of the various Muslim nations. Also there are the Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’I and Hanbali who sit beside the Imami and Zaidi at one round table with voices full of knowledge, devotion and jurisprudence as well as the spirit of brotherhood, friendship, love and devotion to science and Gnosticism.


In referencing the opposition (which came from certain quarters) to the work of Jama’at at-taqrib bain al-mathahib al-Islamiyah (The League to Bring Together Islamic Schools of Thought), Imam Shaltut stated: “This idea has been opposed by some people of little intelligence, and others who have certain unworthy purposes. There is no nation which is free from such kinds of people. It was also opposed by some who found their security, the security of their interests and their livelihood in the present division…”


It is also worth noting the legal opinion (fatwa) that Imam Shaltut reportedly made concerning another Shi’a school of thought: “The Ja’fari school of thought, which is also known as al-Shi’ah al-ithna asharia, is a school of thought that is religiously correct to follow in worship as other Sunni schools of thought. Muslims must know this and ought to refrain from unjust prejudice to any particular school of thought, since the religion of God and His Divine Law was never to follow a certain school of thought. All are jurisprudents and accepted by Almighty God.”


Dr. Abd al-Karim Zaydan, one of the important members of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Iraq, in his book, al-Madkhal le derasat al Shariah al-Islamiyah (The Entrance to Study Islam’s Divine Code) states: “The Ja’fari school of thought exists in Iran, Iraq, India, Pakistan and in Lebanon, and has followers in Syria and other countries. The difference between the Ja’fari school of law and other schools is no more than what exists between any two of the other schools.”


Sheikh Muhammad al-Ghazzali wrote in his book entitled Kaifa nafham al-Islam (How Do We Understand Islam):


Although I seek many of my judgments about cases through other than what the Shi’ite use, still I do not consider my opinion a religion, so that anyone who views differently would be sinning; and the same is true of my stand regarding the common differences of opinions on matters of jurisprudence between the Sunnis…. At the end of the path, the divisions between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis were connected to the principles of belief in order to rip the one religion in half, and divide the one nation into two. Anyone who aids this division by even one word is referred to in the Qur’anic verse,“Those who divided their religion and became sects, you are not from them in anything, their matter returns to God, then he tells them about what they were doing.”


Be warned that rushing into pronouncing others as being non-believers is easy in [the heat of] argument; and to accuse one’s opponent of disbelief, because of an opinion he expresses, is an easy matter in the heat of discussion.


Sheikh al-Ghazzali also noted, “And if opinions differ on jurisprudence and in areas of legislation, still the schools of thought of Muslims are equal in the fact that a (real) Muslim jurist (mujtahid) is rewarded whether he is right or wrong… When we enter the field of comparative jurisprudence and experience the difficulties of opinions or the differences as to whether or not a Prophet’s saying is correct or doubtful, we find that the distance between the Shi’ites and Sunnis is similar to the distance between Abu Hanifa’s school of thought and that of Malik or Shafi’e. We see everybody equal in seeking the truth even though the ways are different.”


Dr. Subhi al-Salih wrote in his book titled, Ma’lim al-shariah al-islamiyah (Features of Islam’s Divine Code), “In the sayings of the Shi’ite Imams, they never said anything except what agrees with the Prophet’s traditions… they hold a great status for it and believe them to be among the sources of legislation after the Book of God.”


Sheikh Imam Muhammad Abu Zuhara states in his book Tarikh al-mathahib al-islamiyah (The History of Islamic Schools of Thought), ‘There is no doubt that Shi’ism is an Islamic school. If we exclude examples like the Saba’ah who considered Ali as being God, and others like them (knowing that the Saba’ah are considered infidels in the opinion of the Shi’ites) there is no doubt that everything this schools says is related to the Qur’anic verses or sayings related to the Prophet.”


Ustad Salim al-Bahnasawi, another important thinker of the Ikhwan, wrote in his book, al-sunnah al-muftara alayha (The Tradition Being Falsified):


In answer to those who claim that the Shi’ites have a holy book other than ours, the holy book which the Sunnis have is the same as that which exists in the masajid and homes of the Shi’ites. The Jafari Shi’ite (followers of the Twelve Imams) think of those who question the authenticity of the Qur’an, that has been certified perfectly authentic as such by the whole ummah since the earliest Islamic age, as infidels.


Al-Bahnasawi quotes Imam Khu’i: “It is known among Muslims that distortion in the Qur’an never occurred and the one existing in our [Shi’ite] hands is the Qur’an sent to the great Prophet. He also quotesSheikh Muhammad Ridha al-Mudhaffar: “That which is in our hands is the whole Qur’an sent to the Prophet, and whoever claims anything different is falsifying or doubting; and none are on right guidance, since the Word of God is such that wrong never comes to it from before it or behind it.” He then quotes Imam Kashif al-Ghita, “In it, there is no deficiency, no distortion, no addition, and on this they [Shi’ites on the correct path] are all agreed.”


Anwar al-Jandi writes in al-Islam wa harakat al-tarikh (Islam and the Movement of History): “The history of Islam has been filled with disagreement, ideological conflicts and political differences between Sunnis and Shi’ites. The foreign invasion began with the Crusades and continues until today by feeding these differences to deepen their effects so that the world of Islam will not fuse into one…. The truth is that the difference between the Sunnis and Shi’ites is not more than what exists between the four sects of the Sunnis. For the sake of the truth, the researcher must be alert in differentiating between Shi’ites and extremists, those who have been attacked by the Shi’ite Imams themselves.”


I couldn’t agree more; and it is this truth (coupled with our very unfortunate present-day global reality) that motivated me to write this paper. May Allah guide me.
____________________
“Sectarianism has led this Ummah to be split into hundreds of factions, their hearts sundered from each other. They are incapable of uniting even at times of the gravest crisis… You should not therefore be surprised to see Muslims living in servitude to others. This is what they have earned by their actions. Upon them has descended that punishment which ALLAH has warned them of [in Suratul An’am, 6: 65].


- Sayyid Abul Ala Mawdudi


As I come to this part of our analytical commentary, I am reminded (by a news report released earlier today) of the savage butchery emanating from parts of the Muslim world – as Muslims target other Muslims (more often than not, civilian non-combatants) in the name of Islamic resistance. In this regard, we are reminded of the prophecy revealed by the last Messenger of ALLAH, at a time when Muslims were just beginning to come into their ascendancy. It is written that the Prophet (saaw) said to his companions:


It is expected that nations will call other nations to share against you, as the feasters call each other to eat from the food in front of them in a large wooden plate. One of the companions asked: ‘O Messenger of Allah, will this be because of our small number on that day?’ The Prophet responded, ‘No, your number will be great. But you will be without substance, like the foam on the face of a river, or like the rubbish of flood water. ALLAH will remove from the breast of your enemies the fear of you; and ALLAH will throw wahn into your hearts.’ The questioner asked, ‘What is wahn, O Allah’s Apostle?’ The Prophet responded, ‘Wahn is to love this life and to hate the death.’


Let us now resume our examination of some of the lies and half-truths surrounding the centuries-old Sunni vs. Shi’a fitnah, and how it has been used by internal and external enemies of Islam to divide, exploit, and degrade the Muslim Ummah.


Samih Atif al-Zain, wrote in the preface of his book titled al-Muslimun man hum (The Muslims – Who are they?), “That which induced me to write this book is the blind division between Shi’ite Muslims and Sunni Muslims, a division that should have vaporized with the eradication of illiteracy, but unfortunately still has some roots in ill-minded people because its roots were firmly planted by groups of people who ruled the Islamic world on the basis of dividing brothers, while stimulating love for the enemies of this religion and those who refuse to live except as parasites on the blood of others. I will tell you my brother Shi’ite Muslim and brother Sunni Muslim, the most important basis of differences lies in understanding the Holy Book; and the Sunnis and Shi’ites have never disagreed on the Holy Book and the Traditions, differences are in understanding them.”


At the end of his book al-Zain writes: “After having realized the most important elements that stormed this nation, we finish this book by saying it is our duty as Muslims, especially in the present age, to stop and push back the ill-intentioned ones who use the Islamic schools of thought as a route for misleading the people and playing with the minds of the masses, as well as increasing suspicions. We must eradicate the sectarian spirit, full of hatred, and bar the road of those who spread rumors and quarrels in religion, until Muslims return to how they were before: one society, cooperative and friendly, rather than divided, separated and hating each other. Moreover, they must resemble the cooperative attitude of the Orthodox Caliphs.”


Abd al-Wahaab Khilaf writes, in his book titled Ilm usul al-fiqh (Knowledge of the Principles of Jurisprudence): “There are four pillars for a consensus, without which the consensus is not legitimate. The second of these is that Muslim jurists must agree on a religious verdict in a case or a happening, during the time of its occurrence, regardless of their city, race or sect. So if only the jurists of Mecca agree on a religious verdict, or only the jurists of Iraq, or only the jurists of hijaz or the ahl al-bait (Shi’ites), or jurists of the Sunnis without the jurists of the Shi’ites, that verdict will not be legitimate, since such an agreement cannot be considered as a consensus…”


On this point Dr. Ezzoddin Ibrahim (Sunni vs. Shi’ah: A Pitful Outcry) argues, “If the agreement of the Shi’ites is necessary to fulfill the conditions of a consensus of Muslims, is it possible then to consider them as deviated and in hell?”


Ahmad Ibrahim Baigh – the teacher of Sheikh Shallut, Abu Zuhra and Khilaf – in his book, Ilm usul al-fiqh wa yalih tarikh al-tashria al-Islamiyah (The Knowledge of the Principles of Jurisprudence followed by the History of Islam’s Divine Law), writes: “The Shi’ite Imamiyah are Muslims who believe in God and His Messenger, and in the Qur’an and in everything the Prophet brought, and their belief is widespread over the land of the Persians. And among the Shi’ite Imamiyah, in the past and the present, are great jurists and scholars in every field of knowledge who are deep thinkers and widely educated. Their writings are counted by the hundreds of thousands and I have looked over many of them.”


In a footnote on the same page as the aforementioned quote, the Sheikh adds, “There are among the Shi’ites those who are extremists, who went out of the bounds of Islam, but those are ignored by the mass of Shi’ites.”


During the course of this commentary I received an e-mail from a misguided “Salafi” brother who wanted to alert me to what some of the scholars (that he recognizes as legit) have had to say about our Shi’a brethren. One of the references in the material was to Sheikh ibn Taymeeyah (may ALLAH be pleased with him), and what he had to say about the Rafidhah – a name given to Shi’ite extremists. Absent in our brother’s reasoning, however (as well as others who over generalize ibn Taymeeyah’s legitimate criticism of this deviant group) are a couple of very important points.


Point 1: Ibn Taymeeyah lived in the seventh Islamic century (more than six centuries after the appearance of Shi’ism) – why were similar verdicts against the Shi’a not widespread before his time?


Point 2: Abu Zuhrah notes in his book: “Ibn Taymeeyah mentions some Shi’ite sects like the Zaidiyah and the Twelve Imam Shi’ites without mentioning any negative views of his toward these two.” When reviewing the Ismaili sect, however, Abu-Zuhrah writes, “This sect is the one of which some of whose followers Ibn Taymeeyah was opposing, and he fought against them by his knowledge, tongue and sword.”


Indeed. And it will no doubt come as a surprise to many of our readers to learn that the teacher of Abu-Hanifah, the noted scholar for whom one of the four major Sunni schools is named, was none other than Imam Jafar, the one for whom the Shi’a Jaffari school is named (may ALLAH be pleased with them both).
______________________
“A time is soon coming to mankind when their learned people will be the worst people under heaven’s skies. Corruption will come from them, and return back to them, as smoke returns to the hole; and this will be a time when knowledge departs.”


- Prophet Mohammed (saaw)


When God’s final Messenger to all humanity revealed the above prophecy to his companions, it illicited an immediate response of bewilderment. One of the companions asked: “O Messenger of Allah, how could this be, when we recite the Qur’an and teach it to our children? And they will teach it to their children up to the Day of Resurrection.” The Prophet reportedly looked at this companion and responded:“O Zaid, I am astonished at you. I thought you were one of the most learned men in all Madina. Do not the Jews and Christians teach their children the Torah and the Injil (Gospel); and yet they know nothing of what it contains?”
Knowledge is more than knowing. True knowledge is application. (I know, therefore I am.) When one looks at the terrible things that the United States of America is doing domestically and around the world in the name of “national interests” (while calling itself a “Christian nation”); and when a thinking person evaluates the oppressive state policy of Israel against the natives of that tortured and brutally occupied land (while calling itself a “Jewish nation”); and when clear-thinking, committed Muslims take note of some of the beliefs, practices, and the general state of the “Muslim world” today – the powerful truth of the aforementioned prophecy comes crashing down upon our collective consciousness.


It was the February 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran that opened the floodgates of history and unleashed the latest Sunni vs. Shi’a assault on the Muslim world – especially in the West, which up until then had been relatively free of this unfortunate cultural baggage. A number of poisonous books were published to fan the flames of the fitnah, many (if not most) financed by the Saudi regime that today occupies the Hijaz. But what did some of the leading scholars and activists of the Muslim world have to say about Iran’s Shi’a generated revolution? You would be surprised.


The record will show Isam al-Attar, described as “one of the historic leaders of the Ikhwan movement” enthusiastically supported the Revolution.


The Ikhwan of the Sudan – and one of its most prominent and respected sons (at that time), Hassan al-Turabi supported the Revolution.


Rashid al-Ghannushi of Tunisia not only supported the revolution, but reportedly wrote in Tunisia’s Islamic movement’s magazine (al-marifah) that Imam Khomeini should be nominated for the leadership of the Muslim world. In his book al-Harakat al-Islamiyah wa’l Tahdith (The Islamic Movement and its Renewal), Ghannushi is quoted as saying – in response to the question, “What do we mean by the expression ‘The Islamic Movement?’


What we mean is that approach that stems from the meaning of the comprehensive Islamic state, on the basis of the comprehensiveness of Islam, and this definition coincides with three major approaches – the Ikhwan al-Muslimun, the Jama’at al-Islamiyah in Pakistan and Imam Khomeini’s movement in Iran.


An operation has begin in Iran which may be one of the most important happenings in the history of freedom movements in the whole region, freeing Islam from the control of governments which are using Islam (as a cover) to prevent the revolutionary tide in the region.


Muhammad Abd al-Rahman Khalifa, the general observer for the Ikhwan al-Muslimun in Jordan announced his support for the Revolution.


In Egypt, al-Da’wa, al-Itisam and al-Mukhtar al-Islam magazines stood beside the Revolution. In its October 1980 cover story, al-Itisam described Saddam as follows: “Comrade Saddam Takriti…student of Michel Aflaq, who wants to make a new Qadisiyah (a historic battle) against Islamic Iran…” On page 10 of the same issue the cause for the imposed war was given as follows: “The fear of the spread of the Islamic Revolution into Iraq. Saddam Takriti saw the transition period that Iran’s army is going through as being a concerted effort to form an Islamic army out of an imperial one, and as a golden and unrepeatable opportunity to destroy that army before it became an indestructible power, because Islamic belief will take over the hearts of its officers and soldiers.”


Ikhwan journalist Jabir Rizq, in the December 1980 edition of al-Itisam wrote: “The time when this war started is the very time that all U.S. conspiracies and plots against the Muslim people of Iran had failed.” And further, “These tyrants (rulers in Muslim lands) are shaking due to their belief that their nations might revolt against them and depose them as the Iranian Muslim nation did against the agent Shah… God gives aid to those who aid His cause, and God is the Mighty, the Powerful.”


The International Organization of the Ikhwan al-Muslimun issued a statement that read in part (during the hostage crisis): “If the subject concerned Iran alone, it would have agreed on a moderate solution after it had become clear what it is all about; but it is Islam and its nations everywhere being a trust on the shoulder of the only Islamic government in the world that forced itself on the blood of its nation, in the 20th century, to establish the rule of God above the rule of the rulers, colonialists and international Zionism.”


Those attempting to undermine the Revolution (from within) were described as follows: “He is either a Muslim unable to comprehend the era of Islamic blood and is still living in a period of surrender. He, then, has to ask forgiveness from God and should try to complete his lack of understanding of the struggle and dignity of Islam; or he is an agent working for the interests of the enemies of Islam under the cover of brotherhood and concern about Islam, or a naïve Muslim motivated by others who neither have an opinion of their own, nor a will - or a hypocrite wavering between the two.”


When Saddam’s (U.S. supported) war against Iran began, the International Ikhwan issued a statement to the Iraqi people, which read in part:


This war is not a liberation war for the oppressed men, women and children who neither have a way out nor guidance. The Iranian Muslim nation has freed itself from the oppressor and from American-Zionist colonialism through a heroic, marvelous struggle and a stormy Islamic Revolution, which is unique in the history of mankind, under the leadership of a Muslim Imam [Khomeini] who is without doubt an honor for Islam and Muslims.


At the end of the statement it called upon the Iraqi people to “Kill your butchers. The opportunity has come that will never be repeated. Put down your weapons and join the camp of the revolution. The Islamic Revolution is yours!” (If only the Iraqis had heeded this sage advice.)


Mawlana Abu Ala Maududi issued a fatwa (religious edict) that reflected both his and Jama’at al-Islami’s position on the Islamic Revolution. It was published in the August 29, 1979, edition of Cairo’s al-Da’wa magazine: “The revolution of Khomeini is an Islamic Revolution, the participants of which are Islamic groups and youths tutored by the Islamic movements. All Muslims in general and the Islamic movements in particular must support this revolution and cooperate with it in all respects.”


It should be noted that a few months after the death of Maududi (may Allah be pleased with him) a malicious rumor spread that he had abrogated this fatwa before he died. The rumor, however, proved to be unfounded, and al-Da’wa magazine never published a retraction.)


Imam Khomeini himself stated (in response to a question raised about the foundations of the Revolution): “The reason for making Muslims into Sunnis and Shi’ites does not exist today. Today we are all Muslims. This is an Islamic Revolution and we are all brothers in Islam.”


Rashid al-Ghannushi quoted Imam Khomeini in his book (al-Harakat al-Islamiyah wal-Tahdith) as follows: “We want to be judged and governed by Islam as it was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad, peace and mercy of God be upon him and his descendants, in which there is no such distinction between a Sunni and a Shi’ite since the various schools of thought did not exist at the time of the Prophet.”


At the 14th Conference on Islamic Thought that was held in Algiers in the early 80s, one of its participants, a representative of Imam Khomeini stated to the assembly: “O brothers! The enemies do not differentiate between the Shi’ites and the Sunnis. They want to destroy Islam as a faith, a school of thought and an ideology. Those, who, through their word and deed, seek to divide Muslims into Shi’ites and Sunnis, stand within the ranks of infidels and are opposed to Islam and all Muslims. Hence, as declared by Imam Khomeini in his fatwa, it is religiously forbidden. It is the duty of all Muslims to prevent it.”


Ghali Shukri, an Egyptian Christian and Marxist (at the time of this quote, early 80s), attacked the Revolution in an article published in Dirasat al-Arabiyah (Arab Studies) in the following words:


Some of these contradictions which exists are still noticeable: Thinkers, who are known for their Marxist background have turned into staunch Muslims in the blink of an eye; others, who according to their birth certificates are Christians, turn in a moment into Muslim extremists; thinkers, who by education belong to the West and were bred and bought up in its fashions and styles, without the least amount of reserve, turn into fanatic easterners. Under the banner of Khomeini, educated Arabs return to the fold of tradition like lost sheep returning to their fold after prolonged banishment and separation; and all of this with the excuse of returning to the facts and reality, and with the excuse of the bitter failure of Marxism, secularism, liberalism or nationalism.


Mr. Shukri (and other committed secularists who think like him) should have learned a valuable lesson from this…such is the power of a true Islamic Revolution! It is only fitting to end part five of this commentary with words spoken by Imam Ruhulla Musavi al-Khomeini, from a speech delivered at Qum in 1966:


The filthy hands which aggravate the differences between the Shi’ites and Sunni Muslims belong neither to the Shi’ites nor the Sunnis. They are the hands of the colonialists who plan to take the Islamic countries out of our hands. The colonial powers who want to plunder our wealth through various schemes and conspiracies are the ones who hatch plots for creating division under the pretext of Shi’ism and Sunnism.


I couldn’t agree more. May ALLAH (swt) bestow upon Imam Khomeini, Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi, Imam Hasan al-Banna, and all of the other committed and learned Mujahideen, His choicest blessings. And may ALLAH (swt) bless the Prophet’s Ummah (saaw) to give birth to many others like them - both male and female - irrespective of what label they may fall under. Ameen.


El-Hajj Mauri’ Saalakhan
THE PEACE AND JUSTICE FOUNDATION
11006 Veirs Mill Rd, STE L-15, PMB 298
Silver Spring, MD. 20902


Home           Sri Lanka Think Tank-UK (Main Link)