Trying to Spread the Message

Stepwise Explanation of Celebrating the Prophet's Birthday

noreply@blogger.com (IslamicB) — Sat, 4 Feb 2012 10:48:00 +0500

Shaikh Al-AlbaniCelebrating the noble birthday of the Prophet, is it good or evil?

Questioner[It is] good.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniOkay. This good – were the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, and his Companions ignorant of it?

QuestionerNo.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniI am not satisfied now with you saying no. Rather it is obligatory upon you to proceed and say: It is impossible for this good – if it is good – or other than it to be hidden from the Prophet, sallalaahu alaihi wa sallam, and his Companions specifically since we do not know Islaam except by way of Muhammad, sallalaahu alaihi wa sallam – so how do we know some good which he did not?! This is impossible.

QuestionerEstablishing the celebration of the Prophetic birthday is a revival of his remembrance, sallalaahu alaihi wa sallam, and in that is honour for him.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniThis philosophising is something we are acquainted with. We hear it from many people and have read it in their books. But when the Prophet, sallalaahu alaihi wa sallam, called people did he call them to all of Islaam or to Tawhid?

QuestionerTawhid.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniThe first thing he called them to was Tawhid. After that the prayers were made compulsory. After that fasting was made compulsory. After that Hajj was made compulsory and so on. Therefore, you [too] should proceed, step by step, according to this prescribed Sunnah. We have now agreed that it is impossible that there can be some good with us which the Prophet, sallalaahu alaihi wa sallam, did not know. [Since] we have come to know all good by way of the Prophet, sallalaahu alaihi wa sallam. No two people will differ about this and no two ram’s will strike horns over this. And I believe that whoever doubts this then he is not a Muslim. From the sayings of the Prophet, sallalaahu alaihi wa sallam, that support this are his, sallalaahu alaihi wa sallam, saying, “I have not left anything which will bring you closer to Allaah except that I have ordered you with it.” [Reported by at-Tabaraani, authentic, refer to Asl Sifatis-Salaatin-Nabee, vol. 3, p. 942]

So if celebrating his birthday was good and was something which would bring us closer to Allaah then it is befitting that the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, should have directed us to it.

Correct or not? I do not want you to agree with me without being totally convinced about every letter I say. And you have total freedom to say, ‘Please, I am not convinced with this point.’ So is there anything that you are not convinced with so far or are you with me?

QuestionerWith you totally.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniMay Allaah reward you with good. So [the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, said], “I have not left anything which will bring you closer to Allaah except that I have ordered you with it.”

We say to all those who claim that it is permissible to hold this celebration – this celebration is good – according to you, therefore either the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, has directed us to it or he has not directed us to it. So if they say: he has directed us to it. We say: Bring your proof if you are truthful. And they will never ever find a way to be able to do that. And we have read the writings of Alawi and other than Alawi regarding this and they do not use as proof anything except the saying that this is a good innovation!! [bid'ah hasanah] This is a good innovation!!

All people, whether it is those who celebrate the birthday or those who denounce this celebration – all of them agree that this celebration was not present in the time of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, nor the time of the Noble Companions and nor the time of the eminent scholars. But those who allow this celebration say: And what is there that occurs in this celebration? It is remembrance of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, and the sending of salutations upon him and so on! So we say: If it was good they would have preceded us in it. You know the saying of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, “The best of people is my generation then the ones who follow them then the ones who follow them.” [Reported by Bukhaari, Muslim, Tirmidhee and Ibn Maajah].

And this hadith is reported in the two Sahih’s [Bukhari and Muslim]. And his generation, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, is the one he and his Companions lived in. Then the ones who followed them are the Taabi’een. Then the ones who followed them are the Atbaa’ut-Taabi’een (the followers of the Taabi’een). There is also no dispute in this. So can you imagine that there is any good which we could have preceded them in, in both knowledge and action? Is that possible?

QuestionerAs for knowledge, if the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, had said to anyone in his time that the Earth spins …

Shaikh Al-AlbaniI’m sorry. I would prefer you do not sidetrack. Since I asked you about two things: knowledge and action. And in reality, what you just said has benefited me – since naturally when referring to knowledge I am referring to religious [shar'ee] knowledge not medicine, for example. I can say that a doctor here is more knowledgeable than Ibn Sina in his time, because he came generations later, and he has had much much more experience and practice - but this does not prove his virtue before Allaah and nor does it put him before the generations that were given witness to [in the above mentionedhadith]. But it does prove his virtue in the knowledge [field] which he knows. And we are speaking about ordained [shar'ee] knowledge, may Allaah bless you. So it is obligatory that we pay attention to this. When I say to you: do you believe that it is possible that we can be more knowledgeable, I am referring to religious [shar'ee] knowledge not knowledge gained through experience like geography, astronomy, chemistry or physics. Suppose, for example, in this time there is a disbeliever in Allaah and His Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam,but he is the most knowledgeable of all people in these sciences, will that bring him closer to Allaah?

QuestionerNo

Shaikh Al-AlbaniThus we are not talking now about knowledge in those fields, rather we are talking about that knowledge by which we want to get closer to Allaah, the Blessed and Most High. And a short while ago we were talking about the celebration of the birthday of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam. So the question now returns, and I hope that I will obtain a clear answer without any sidetracking again. So I say: do you believe, with what you have been given of intellect and understanding, that it is possible for us – and we are at the end of time – that we can be more knowledgeable than the Companions and the students of the Companions [Taabi'een] and the Mujtahid Imaams in religious [shar'ee] knowledge, and that we can be faster in doing good actions and getting closer to Allaah than these righteous predecessors?

QuestionerBy religious knowledge do you mean exegis [tafsir] of the Quraan?

Shaikh Al-AlbaniThey are more knowledgeable than us regarding tafsir of the Quran; they are more knowledgeable than us regarding explanations of the sayings of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam – at the end of the day they are more knowledgeable than us regarding the entire Shari’ah of Islaam.

QuestionerRegarding tafsir of the Quran, maybe in this time it is more than in the time of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam. For example, the Quranic aayah:

And you will see the mountains and think them solid, but they shall pass away as the passing away of the clouds. The Work of Allaah, Who perfected all things. Verily! He is Well-Acquainted with what you do.

If the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, had said to anyone in his time that the Earth spins on its axis would anyone have believed him? No one would have believed him.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniSo you want us – and I say this without blaming you – to record another sidetrack against you? O my brother, I am asking about knowledge on the whole, not a part of that knowledge, we are asking a general question.

Islaam as a whole, who is more knowledgeable about it?

QuestionerOf course, the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, and his Companions.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniThis is what we want from you, may Allaah bless you. As for the tafsir you are referring to, it has no connection to action. It has a connection with pondering and understanding. And we have already spoken with you about the previousaayah and we have established that for you that those who quote this aayah as a proof that the Earth spins are mistaken. Because the aayah is referring to the Day of Judgement:

On the Day when the earth will be changed to another earth and so will be the heavens, and they (all creatures) will appear before Allaah, the One, the Irresistible.

In any case, we are not talking about this subject. By way of argument, I will agree with you that there could be a man from those who came after who has more sceintific knowledge or more knowledge of the natural sciences than a Companion or a student of the Companion and so on. But this has no connection to righteous actions. Since today, for example, the disbelievers are more knowledgeable in astronomy and its like than us but what do they benefit from that? Nothing. So we do not want to delve into this thing now. We want to talk about that which will bring us closer to Allaah. We now want to talk about the noble birthday of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam.

And we had agreed that if it was good then our Pious Predecessors [As-Salaf As-Saalih] and at the head of them the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, would have been more knowledgeable about it than us and faster in acting upon it than us. Is there any doubt in this?

QuestionerNo, there is no doubt in it.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniThen do not exceed this boundary now [delving into] matters from experential knowledge that have no connection with getting closer to Allaah, the Most High, with righteous actions. This celebration was not present in the time of the Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam – by the agreement of all – so this ‘good’ was not present in the time of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam,or the Companions or their students or the Imaams! So how was this good hidden from them?!

We are forced to say either one of two things.

1) They knew this good like we know it – and they are more knowledgeable than us – or they did not know it: then how do we know it?

So if we were to say, they knew it – and this saying is closer and better as regards the ones who uphold the legitimacy of celebrating the birthday – then why didn’t they act upon it? Are we closer to Allaah [than them]?

Why didn’t a single one from them make a mistake even once – a Companion, or a taabi’ee or a scholar from them or a worshipper – [why didn't a single one make a mistake] and act upon this ‘good.’!?

Does it enter your mind that not a single one had acted upon this good – and they were millions in number?! And they were more knowledgeable than us and better than us and closer to Allaah?! You know the saying of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, “Do not abuse my Companions. For by the One who has Muhammd’s souls in His Hands, if one of you were to spend the like of Mount Uhud in gold, it would not equal a mudd of one of them or even half of it.” [Reported by Bukhaari and Muslim]

Do you see the level of difference between us and them?

Because they strove in the Way of Allaah, the Most High, with the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam. And they recieved knowledge from him fresh and new without all of these numerous intermediaries that are between us and him, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam. As he indicated, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, in the authentic hadith, “Whoever loves to read the Quran ‘ghadan tariyaa’ then let him read according to the reading of Ibn Umm Abd.” [Reported by Ibn Maajah, no. 138, authentic]

Namely, Ibn Mas’ood. ‘Ghadan tariyaa’ means fresh and new.

These Pious Predecessors and at the head of them the Companions, may Allaah be pleased with them, it is not possible for us to imagine that they were ignorant of some good which would bring them closer to Allaah and it is we [not them] who have come to know it! And if we say they knew like we know then it is impossible for us to imagine that they neglected this good.

Maybe this has clarified the point that I am talking about, inshaa Allaah?

QuestionerAlhamdulillaah

Shaikh Al-AlbaniMay Allaah reward you with good. There is something else. There are many verses and sayings of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, which clarify that Islaam has been completed. And I think this is a reality you are aware of and believe in. There is no difference between a scholar, a student of knowledge or even a commoner on this point – which is, that Islaam has been completed and that it is not like the religion of the Jews and the Christians which changes and is replaced daily.

And I remind you of the saying of Allaah, the Most High:

This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion.

Now comes the question – and this is from another angle, different to what preceded, to show that celebrating the birthday is not good – and that is that if it was good they would have preceded us in it and they – namely the Pious Predecessors – are more knowledgeable than us and worshipped more than us. This celebration of the Prophet’s birthday, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, if it is good then it is from Islaam. So we say: Do all of us, both from those who deny this celebration and from those who uphold it, are we all in agreement as we were on the previous point that this celebration was not present in the time of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam – are we all [still] in agreement [on this second point] that this celebration, if it is good, then it is from Islaam and that if it is not good it is not from Islaam?

And the day this aayah was revealed:

This day, I have perfected your religion for you …

[The day it was revealed] there was no celebration of the Prophetic birthday. So is it part of the religion according to you?!

I want you to be totally frank with me. And do not think that I am from the Shaikhs who silence the students or even the common folk, saying: Be quiet! You do not know, you do not know! No, you are totally free, as though you are talking to a person like yourself or even less than you in age and knowledge. If you are not convinced then say: I am not convinced.

So now, if the celebration is from good then it is from Islaam and if it is not good then it is not from Islaam. When we agree that the celebration of the birthday was not present when the aforementioned aayah was revealed, then it is very logical [to say] that it is not from Islaam.

And I will confirm what I am saying with more from the Imaam of the place ofHijra [Madinah] Imaam Maalik ibn Anas, who said, “Whoever introduces an innovation into Islaam – note how he said a single innovation not innovations – seeing it as something good then he has assumed that Muhammad, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, betrayed Prophethood.”

And this is a very dangerous affair – what is you proof O Imaam [Maalik]!

Imaam Maalik said, “Read, if you wish, the saying of Allaah, the Most High:

This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My Favour upon you, and have chosen for you Islaam as your religion.

So what was not religion that day is not religion today.” End of his words.

When did Imaam Maalik say this? In the second century after the hijrah – one of the generations that had been testified for as having good! So what about now in the fourteenth century?

This is speech that should be written in gold. But we are heedless of the Book of Allaah, the Most High, and the sayings of the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, and the sayings of the Imaams that we presume we are following, how very far, how very far. And the difference between us and them in following is like the difference between the East and the West.

This is the Imaam of the place to which the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, migrated [Madinah] he is saying in a clear Arabic tongue: “So what was not religion that day is not religion today.”

Today celebrating the birthday of the Prophetic birthday is religion, and if it were not then this dispute would not be taking place between scholars clinging to the Sunnah and defending [the religion] against innovations. How can this be religion when it was not present in the time of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, nor in the time of the Companions nor in the time of the Taabi’een nor in the time of the followers of the Taabi’een?!

Imaam Maalik is from the Atbaa’ut-Taabi’een and he is from amongst the ones mentioned in the hadith, “The best of generations is my generation then those who follow them then those who follow them.”

Imaam Maalik says: So what was not religion that day is not religion today. And the last of this nation will not be rectified except with that which the first of it was rectified.

What was the first of this Nation rectified with? By innovating matters into the religion and trying to get closer to Allaah, the Most High, with things that the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, did not do?!

The Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, said, “I have not left anything that will bring you closer to Allaah except that I have ordered you with it.”

Why didn’t Allaah’s Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, order us to celebrate his birthday? This is a question and it has an answer. There is a [different] celebration of the prophetic birthday contrary to this celebration which is not legislated. This legislated celebration was present in the time of Allaah’s Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, as opposed to the unlegislated one, along with the huge difference which also exists between the two.

The first of those differences is that the legislated celebration [which will soon be mentioned] is worship which is agreed upon by all of the Muslims. Secondly, the legislated celebration reoccurs once every single week whereas their unlegislated celebration only occurs once a year.

These are the two distinguishing matters between the two birthday celebrations – namely, that the first is worship and reoccurs every week as opposed to the unlegislated one which is neither worship and nor does it reoccur every week.

And I am not just saying anything on a whim for which Allaah has revealed no authority. Rather I will relay a saying of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, to you which is reported in Sahih Muslim, may Allaah have mercy upon him [Imaam Muslim]. From Abu Qatada Al-Ansari who said

A man came to the Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, and said, “O Messenger of Allaah! What do you say about the fast of Monday?” So he said,“That is the day on which I was born. And the Quran was revealed upon me in it.” [Reported by Abu Dawud (no., 2097), authentic, and others]

What is the meaning of this? It is as though he, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, is saying:

How can you ask me about it and Allaah brought me out to life on that day and sent down revelation to me on that day also? Namely, it is befitting that you fast on Mondays as thanks to Allaah, the Most High, for creating me on that day and for sending down revelation to me on it.

And this is similar to the fast of the Jews on the day of Aashoora. And perchance you know that before the obligation to fast the month of Ramadaan fasting on the day of Aashoora was the obligation on the Muslims. And there occurs in some sayings of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, that when he migrated to Madinah he found the Jews fasting the Day of Aashoora. So he asked them about that and they replied saying that this is the day that Allaah saved Moses and his people from Pharaoh, so we fast on it as thanks to Allaah. So he, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, said, “We have more right to Moses than you.” [Reported byBukhaari and Muslim]

So he fasted that day and ordered fasting on that day so it became obligatory until Allaah sent down His Saying:

The month of Ramadaan in which was revealed the Qur’aan, a guidance for mankind and clear proofs for the guidance and the criterion (between right and wrong). So whoever of you sights (the crescent on the first night of) the month (of Ramadaan i.e. is present at his home), he must observe fasts.

Thereafter fasting on the Day of Aashoora became a Sunnah and the obligation was abrogated. The proof from this is that the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, participated with the Jews in fasting the Day of Aashoora as thanks to Allaah, the Most High, that He saved Moses from Pharaoh. So the door of thanks has also been opened for us by fasting on Mondays because it was the day on which Allaah’s Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, was born and it was the day when revelation came down upon him.

Now I ask you: these people who celebrate the [unlegislated] birthday which we know has no good in it – I know that a lot of these people fast on Mondays just as they fast on Thursdays. But do you see most of the Muslims fasting on Mondays?

No, they do not fast on Mondays, however most of the Muslims celebrate the Prophetic birthday once every year! Isn’t this a reversal of the reality? The saying of Allaah, the Most High, to the Jews is true regarding these people:

Would you exchange that which is better for that which is lower?

This is good – i.e., fasting which is agreed upon by all of the Muslims – fasting on Mondays. Yet, in spite of that, most of the Muslims do not fast it. So now we turn our attention to the ones who do fast it [and ask]:

Do they know the secret behind fasting on that day? No, they do not know.

So where are the scholars who defend the [unlegislated] celebration – why don’t they tell the people that fasting on Mondays is the legislated celebration of the birthday and encourage them upon it instead of defending the celebration that has not been prescribed?!

And Allaah, the Most High, spoke the truth:

Would you exchange that which is better for that which is lower?

And His Messenger, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, spoke the truth when he said,“Indeed you will follow the ways of those nations who came before you, span by span and cubit by cubit (i.e., inch by inch) so much so that even if they entered a hole of a lizard, you would follow them.” [Reported by Bukhaari and Muslim]

And in another narration:

“… so much so that if there was someone from them who would have intercourse with his mother in the middle of the road there would be someone from you who would do that also.” [Reported by ad-Dawlaabi and Haakim, declared hasan by al-Bazzaar and al-Albaani agreed with him, see Silsilah, no. 1348]

So we have followed the way of the Jews. We exchanged that which was good for that which was base – we exchanged the celebration of the birthday which occurs once a year and has no basis [in the religion] with that which was good, which is the celebration every Monday. And that is a legislated celebration which you perform by fasting while bearing in mind the secret behind it which is that you fast it as thanks to Allaah, the Most High, that He created the Messenger of Allaah, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, on that day and sent down revelation on it.

And I will finish my speech by mentioning his saying, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, “Allaah refuses to accept the repentance of an innovator.” [Reported by Ibn Maajah and Shaikh al-Albaani declared it to be weak but there is anotherhadith which he declared to be authentic with a similar meaning reported by Abush-Shaikh in Taarikh Asbahaan (p. 259), at-Tabaraani in al-Awsat (no. 4360) and others, that the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, said, “Indeed Allaah has prevented the repentance of the companion of every innovation.”See As-Silisilah, vol. 4, p. 154, no. 1620]

And Allaah, the Most High, says:

O Messenger! Proclaim (the Message) which has been sent down to you from your Lord. And if you do not, then you have not conveyed His Message. Allaah will protect you from mankind.

And it has been reported in Sahih Muslim that one of the Taabi’een came to Aaishah, radiyallaahu anhaa …

QuestionerReading the biography of the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, is that [not] honouring him?

Shaikh Al-AlbaniYes.

QuestionerIn it is reward, this is goodness from Allaah!

Shaikh Al-AlbaniAll goodness! But you will not benefit anything from this question. Therefore I will cut you off with a question: Does anyone prevent you from reading his biography? I will now ask you a question: if there is a legislated form of worship, but the Prophet, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, did not sanction a specific time for it and neither did he make a specific form for it then is it allowed for us to designate – from ourselves – a specific time or a specific form/method? Do you have an answer?

QuestionerNo, I have no answer.

Shaikh Al-AlbaniAllaah, the Most High, said:

Or have they partners with Allaah (false gods), who have instituted for them a religion which Allaah has not allowed.

And He, the Most High, also said:

They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allaah and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they to worship none but One God – Allaah). None has the right to be worshipped but He. Praise and glory be to Him, (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him).

When Adiyy ibn Haatim, may Allaah be pleased with him, heard this – and before he became a Muslim he was a Christian – it was difficult for him so he said, “We never used to worship them.” So he, sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, said, “Would they not forbid what Allaah made permissible and so you would make it forbidden; and [would they not] make lawful what Allaah had made forbidden, so you would make it lawful?” So he said, “Of course.” He,sallallaahu alaihi wa sallam, replied, “So that was your worship of them.”[Reported by Tirmidhee (3095) and the Shaikh declared it to be hasan]

And this clarifies the danger of innovating in Allaah’s Religion.

Transcribed with abridgement from one of the tapes of Shaikh Al-Albani, may Allaah have mercy on him. Silsilatul-Hudaa wal-Noor, tape no. 1/94.
Words between square brackets [] are those of the translator (Ahmed Abu Turab).

Long Time

noreply@blogger.com (IslamicB) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:43:00 +0500

Assalam-o-Alaikum again after a long long time.
As you may have noticed, the blog wasn't working for almost the last three months due to some technical problems.
I can't promise you that I'll be posting articles soon but, inshallah, the blog will be working in case you need to refer back to some previous one.
Jazakallah khair for the waiting (even though you and I had had no choice of making any such decision or any news of such a thing happening).

The Scholars Of Evil

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 11:51:00 +0500

By Abu Hassan al-Hadrami
There are only two types of scholars and no other: Scholars of the Hereafter and scholars of Evil. He who is not one of the scholars of the Hereafter is among the scholars of wickedness, enamored of the vanities of this world and heedless of the Hereafter and its felicities.
The scholar of evil: He is the scholar who conceals the truth and cloaks it in falsehood. He dissuades (people) from the Deen of Allâh. If he is included in the name of scholar at all, then it is not permissible to call him by the appellation of ‘Alim unless it is said that he is a scholar of wickedness or misguided.
They are scholars in appearance, but Allâh does not render their knowledge of any benefit to them, because they sought knowledge in order to obtain worldly possessions, dine with the wealthy, and associate with kings and the sons of kings. They ascribe themselves to the party of the scholars, but their morality is the morality of the people of ignorance and harshness. They tempt the infatuated. Their tongue is the tongue of a scholar and their deeds are the deeds of the foolhardy.
Abu ‘Umar al-Saif, may Allâh accept him, said: “There is no significance in memorizing texts or studying knowledge, rather the important thing for knowledge to be beneficial is purity and piety of the one receiving the knowledge. If the heart is pure, then knowledge is beneficial and, Allâh permitting, Muslims will benefit from this knowledge.
“But if the heart receiving this knowledge is hypocritical or sick then its owner will perforce suppress the truth, slander Allâh with lies and dissuade (people) from the cause of Allâh. His words and fatwas become a cover for lackey governments to cover their crimes against Islam and the Muslims.”
Ibn Qayyim, may Allâh have mercy on him, said: All among the people of knowledge who prefer and desire the world must undoubtedly speak untruths about Allâh in their fatwas and judgments , in their decisions and edicts. Because the judgments of the Lord Almighty often are at odds with the desires of the people, especially those in power. Those who follow their longings cannot attain their desires except by often violating and repudiating the truth. The scholar or the ruler who loves power and follows his desires will not achieve either except by resisting the truth that opposes him, especially if a shubhah (doubtful area) was established for him. The shubhah and the desire will be in agreement and passion will be stirred up. What is proper will be hidden and the face of truth will be obliterated. If the truth is obvious and there is no hiding it and no ambiguity about it, he purposely violates it, saying: “I have a way out through repentance.” About them and those like them, the Almighty said, {Then, there has succeeded them a posterity who have given up As-Salât (the prayers) [ie. made their Salât (prayers) to be lost, either by not offering them or by not offering them perfectly or by not offering them in their proper fixed times] and have followed lusts...} [Sûrah19. Maryam (Mary) Ayât. 59]
Of them the Almighty also said, {Then after them succeeded an (evil) generation which inherited the Book, but they chose (for themselves) the goods of this low life (evil pleasures of this world) saying (as an excuse): “(Everything) will be forgiven us.” And if (again) the offer of the like (evil pleasures of this world) came their way, they would (again) seize them (would commit those sins). Was not the covenant of the Book taken from them that they would not say about Allâh anything but the truth? And they have studied what is in it (the Book). And the home of the hereafter is better for those who are Al-Muttaqûn (the pious, righteous etc.) Will not you then understand?} [Sûrah 7. Al-'A`rāf (The Heights or The Wall with Elevations) Ayât. 169].
The Almighty explains that they took the lowliest goal although they knew this was forbidden to them, while saying “this will be forgiven us”. When they were given another chance (to pursue this desire) they took it, because they were insistent upon that and this prompted them to speak falsehoods of Allâh. So they said “this is His judgment, His law and His religion”, although they knew that His judgment, His law and His religion were contrary to that. Or did they not know this was His judgment, His law and His religion? Sometimes they spoke against Allâh without knowing and sometimes they spoke against him words they knew were false.
Those undoubtedly innovate in religion while conducting immoral acts and these two things combine within them. Following desires makes the eyes of the heart blind, so that they do not distinguish between tradition and innovation, or they turn matters upside down so that they see tradition as innovation and innovation as tradition.
This is the plague of the scholars, when they prefer this world and pursue power and desires. The verses apply to them, {And recite (O Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam) to them the story of him to whom We gave Our Ayât (proof, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.), but he threw them away; so Shaitân (Satan) followed him up, and he became of those who went astray. And had We willed, We would surely have elevated him therewith, but he clung to the earth and followed his own vain desire. So his parable is the parable of a dog: if you drive him away, he lolls his tongue out, or if you leave him alone, he (still) lolls his tongue out.} [Sûrah 7. Al-'A`rāf (The Heights or The Wall with Elevations) Ayât.175-176]
Contemplate the censure (of the scholar) contained in these verses, for the following reasons:

First: He strayed after (acquiring) knowledge, and chose infidelity purposely and not out of ignorance.
Second: He has irreversibly separated himself from belief, for he has abandoned Allâh’s Signs, like a snake shedding its skin. If anything of it had remained with him, he would not have abandoned it.
Third: Satan pursued him, caught him, possessed and ravished him. On this He said, {Shaitân (Satan) followed him up}. He did not just say “followed him”. The meaning is followed him up, pursued and caught him. And this is more serious is word and meaning than “followed him”.
Fourth: He went astray after receiving guidance. And the verb “go astray” means erring in knowledge and intention, specifically pertaining to corruption in intention and deed. Likewise, “erring” means corruption of knowledge and belief. If one is mentioned alone it implies the other but if they are mentioned together then the difference is as mentioned above.
Fifth: The Almighty did not wish to elevate (such a scholar) with his knowledge, so it was the cause of his destruction. Because he was not elevated by it, it became a curse to him. If he had not become a scholar, it would have been better and less a punishment for him.
Sixth: The Almighty exposed the vileness of (the scholar’s) intentions and that he has chosen lowliness over honor.
Seventh: His choice of lowliness was not intentional or cheerfully expected, but he was disposed towards the earth and wholly inclined to what is there. And “disposed” (means) a persistent clinging. As if it is said: he persisted in clinging to the earth. From here it is said: So-and-so was inclined to such a place, if he clung to abiding there. He expressed his inclination to the world through his disposition towards the earth. Because the world is the earth and what pleasure and adornment may be derived from it.
Eighth: He spurned (Divine) guidance and followed his desires. Thus he placed his whims before him as a leader, was guided by them and followed them.
Ninth: He is likened to dogs which are the basest of animals in desire, of the meanest spirit, the stingiest; most rabid. He is thus named a dog.
Tenth: His panting after the world, his impatience for it, anxiety about losing it and eagerness to obtain it is like the panting of a dog who pants whether left along or is driven away. If he is left alone, he pants after the earth. If he is lectured or admonished, he is still like that. His panting is no different from the panting of a dog.
Ibn Qutaybah said: “Everything pants sometimes, whether from fatigue or thirst, except for the dog which always pants, whether fatigued or resting, hydrated or thirsty. Allâh has afflicted him like the infidel and said: If you advised him, he strayed. If you leave him, he strayed. If you leave him, he strayed like a dog. If you kick him out, he pants like a dog, if you leave him be, he pants like a dog. This example does not apply to all dogs, just the panting dog, which is the basest and vilest of creatures. This is like the scholar who prefers this world over the Hereafter”. End abridged quote.
Imam al-Dhahabi [Seer ‘Alam al-Nubula’ (16/150)], explaining the state of one of the scholars of wickedness who supported the ‘Ubaydi state, whose situation is similar to that of contemporary rulers, said: “The heretic scholar, Qadi of the ‘Ubaydi state Abu Hunaifa, al-Nu’man bin Muhammad bin Mansour al-Maghrebi, was a Maliki who reverted to the school of al-Batiniyah. He compiled his book 'Uss al-Dawah' and cast Religion behind him. He wrote about (human) virtues and flaws. He refuted the Imams of Religion and abandoned Islam. To hell with him! He dissembled for the state and then even agreed with them. He was a partisan of al-Mu’iz Abu Tamim, the founder of Cairo. He was influential in the sciences, jurisprudence and disputation and devoted to research. But his knowledge was a curse to him in the end. He wrote books, refuting Abu Hunaifa in jurisprudence, as well as Malik and Shafa’i. He stood up for the juristic creed of the Ahl al-Bayt, and wrote a book about the differences of the scholars. He was revered and respected. Among his sons were judges and eminent men.”
His knowledge and research did not benefit him when he stood in the rank of the enemies of Shari’ah. Rather his knowledge was a curse to him.
The disposition of a scholar as a scholar of evil is due to the following characteristics:
First: He does not act in accordance with his knowledge. If you add to that his work that is contrary to his knowledge, he becomes a source of great dissension and imminent evil because the masses will imitate the evil.
Second: Concealment of what Allâh made a covenant to reveal. The Almighty said, {(And remember) when Allâh took a covenant from those who were given the Scripture (Jews and Christians) to make it (the news of the coming of Prophet Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam and the religious knowledge) known and clear to mankind, and not hide it, but they threw it away behind their backs, and purchased with it some miserable gain! And indeed worst is that which they bought.} [Sûrah 3. Al-'Imran (The Family of Imran) Ayât.187]. There are other verses in this vein. Concealment takes the form of weakening an authentic Hadith and to eliminate advancing (an argument) by it. Concealment may also take the form of issuing fatwas based on deviant opinions or minority opinions on an issue without reference to the majority opinion among scholars. Concealment may also take the form of misquoting the words from one scholar, and this is a wide category, which includes advancing an argument in general while concealing its particulars. Or vindicating the absolutes while concealing what motivates it and advancing an argument wholesale while concealing what it reveals.
Third: Twisting the Shari’ah texts. The Almighty said, {...There are some who displace words from (their) right places...} [Sûrah 4. An-Nisa' (The Woman) Ayât. 46]. This is what happens most: The misleading (scholar) must cite legal evidence to spread his words among the people. Therefore his false words are called “shubhah” because they resemble truth by the evidence they cite. The perversion may be a perversion of evidence from its meaning through an unjustified and deviant interpretation or a corrupted extraction from it or the like. This is cloaking falsehood with truth, as mentioned in the words of the Almighty, {And mix not truth with falsehood, nor conceal the truth [i.e. Muhammad sallallahu alaihi wa sallam is Allâh's Messenger and his qualities are written in your Scriptures, the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] while you know (the truth).} [Al-Baqarah: 24].
Fourth: Playing the hypocrite with the sultans and entering into association with them by playing with words for the sake of satisfying them. This is done by being proficient in listing specious arguments (shubahat), slips of the tongue and errors. They even slander against Allâh and His Messenger sallallahu alaihi wa sallam – We beseech Allâh for well being and safety (from them)!
Hudhayfah, may Allâh be pleased with him, said: “Keep away from positions of temptation”. It was asked, “What are they?” He said, “The gates of princes. One of you may associate with a prince, tell lies in the guise of truth or flatter him (with dispositions) that are not found in him.”
Said bin Yaqub said, “Ahmad bin Hanbal wrote to me: In the name of Allâh, the Compassionate, the Merciful. From Ahmed bin Hanbal to Said bin Yaqub, thereafter: Worldly pleasures are a disease, power is a disease and the scholar is a doctor. If you see a physician bringing upon himself a disease, beware of him.”
As for the scholars of wickedness today, look for them in the doorways of the sultans and the panel discussions for fighting terrorism and jihad on the satellite networks and the halls of the tyrants!
These are the scholars of wickedness, one of whom issued a ruling after the occupation of Iraq in 2003 that the fighting between Mujahideen and the Americans was fitnah and that the killer and the slain will both be in hell-fire!!
Among them is one – whom Allâh led astray despite his learning – who said that the Allawi government is a legal government and must be obeyed. When he was asked by a questioner, “But America is the one that appointed it and imposed it”, he answered, “Even if the infidels appoint a leader for a country of Muslims, he is the legal leader and must be obeyed.”
Additionally, there are fatwas which legalize usurious interests by banks, interfaith dialogue and so forth. To Allâh we appeal!

Like Ibn Ba’ura whose ~ example is given in the Quran

He sought the dunya and collected his destruction ~ he abandoned the Signs and faith

His is a like a dog always panting ~ if attacked or left alone

These are the qualities of a scholar of wickedness ~ grasping and eager for ephemeral vanities

How many scholars of our age ~ are like the lowly and disgraceful Bal’am

Translated From Sada al-Malahim Magazine Issue #14

Homosexuality: A Chosen Harm

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 14 Jun 2011 09:45:00 +0500

First, homosexuality is a practice that those engaging in it undertake of their own free will, and not an orientation that is somehow inherently pre-determined. The very nature of the human mind will imply such a conclusion. In his 1690 Essay Concerning Human Understanding, the British filosofer John Locke, whose theories were fundamental in the creation of the American Republic, wrote “No man's knowledge here can go beyond his experience." This implies that, until an individual has experience with the reality in which he lives, he cannot have any knowledge. Until he has any knowledge, he cannot have any principles or inclinations, for those are themselves formed only through the use of the knowledge that the individual has already gained, as well as the principles of reasoning that he has discovered through his exposure to the external world.

In other words, man’s mind must be born tabula rasa, a blank slate, incapable of any innate “orientations” whatsoever. Therefore, one cannot be a homosexual, a heterosexual, a basketball enthusiast, or exhibit any other personality, behavior, or inclination without having at some point acquired this trait. Nobody is born desiring to have intercourse with members of the same gender; as a matter of fact, just about every child anyone has ever known was not born with any desires for intercourse whatsoever!

If homosexuality is not innate, how do people become homosexuals? Again, this is a question of the defining qualities of human beings. According to the novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, man is fundamentally a “being of volitional consciousness.” While he is born tabula rasa, he does have an inherent capacity that distinguishes him from all other creatures, the freedom of the will and the ability to always choose the manner in which he interacts with his surroundings. In her 1956 masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged, Rand described man as a “being of self-made soul.” In the realm of acquiring knowledge, man always has a choice of whether or not to focus on the data which reality presents before him. In the realm of acting on that knowledge, man always has a choice of whether to take it into account or to evade it. No amount of bad parenting, poverty, or political oppression can ever deprive him of this prerogative. Just as we cannot apologize for the behavior of an alcoholic because of alleged powers greater than himself, neither can we apologize for the behavior of a homosexual on the grounds that “he could not help it.”

Opponents of the volitionally chosen view of human behaviors will contend that homosexuality is an inextricable and, moreover, desirable part of the practitioner’s nature. This notion, however, is absolutely false. The philosopher Reginald Firehammer writes in his 2004 book, The Hijacking of a Philosophy: Homosexuals vs. Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, “This idea goes further than the idea that homosexuality is an involuntary attribute of one's nature. It supposes that sexuality is predetermined, and that it, at least in part, defines individuals’ ‘nature,’ that is, ‘who and what they are.’ The idea also implies that [intercourse] is a necessity, and furthermore, that some particular sexual practices are necessitated by one's ‘sexual orientation…’ Many people, for both physiological and other reasons, some rationally chosen, live completely successful; happy lives without any [intercourse] at all. Food is essential to man's life and happiness; [intercourse] is not.” Empirical examples ubiquitous in our world show that, not only is it possible to avoid homosexual intercourse if one so chooses; it is possible to avoid intercourse altogether. Whether or not it ought to be avoided should depend not on the false presumption of some primal “drives,” but rather on reason and the deliberate evaluation of whether or not such conduct will benefit the individual. Mr. Firehammer contends that deliberate “repression” of desires to have intercourse is not at all improper, but rather a necessity for moral conduct. He writes, “Anything anyone has ever done that is self-destructive or wrong, he first had the desire to do. Anyone who has ever overcome a desire to do what is self-destructive or wrong had to refuse to submit to that desire. That is what the psychologists call a harmful thing, as though anyone suffers because he repressed a desire to do something self-destructive or that goes against his own values, his own self-interest.” Thus, if reason proves that homosexuality is indeed self-destructive, it is morally incumbent upon the practitioners to repress the desire to engage in such conduct.

It is such a rational examination that I intend to undertake in order to show that homosexuality is physically harmful to those who practice it. The scientific evidence supporting this assertion is overwhelming. Mr. Firehammer writes that “Michigan's statewide 'gay' newspaper, Between the Lines, reports the risk of anal cancer 'soars' by nearly 4,000% for men who have [intercourse] with men. 'The rate doubles again for those who are HIV positive.' Between the Lines admits there's no such thing as 'safe [intercourse]' to prevent this 'soaring' cancer risk ...” Even a publication devoted entirely to a homosexual readership is willing to admit that the disparities in disease contraction between homosexuals and heterosexuals are enormous. The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported in 1999 that

- "Homosexual men are at significantly increased risk of HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, anal cancer, gonorrhea and gastrointestinal infections as a result of their sexual practices."

- "Women who have intercourse with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women."
- "Significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals." It seems that there is a correlation between the choice to pursue homosexuality and the choice to pursue other self-destructive behaviors as well, since the initial barriers of rational and moral restraint to the deleterious undertakings of those individuals have fallen.

The harm posed by homosexual practices to quality and length of life is indeed broad and all-encompassing: Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology reports: "Life expectancy at age 20 years for gay and bisexual men is 8 to 20 years less than for all men. If the same pattern of mortality continues, we estimate that nearly half of gay and bisexual men currently aged 20 will not reach their 65th birthday." Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan comments on this data that, “judging by the number of years at risk, homosexual activity is up to three times deadlier than smoking.” Furthermore, homosexuals serve to transmit venereal diseases at alarming rates. According to Glenn, “The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention report that men who engage in homosexual behavior are 860% more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease (STD), increasing up to 500% their risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Men who have [intercourse] with men ‘have large numbers of anonymous partners, which can result in rapid, extensive transmission of STDs,’ the CDC warns… Another CDC study ‘confirms that young bisexual men are a 'bridge' for HIV transmission to women.’" If we might look back to the 1980s, and wonder how AIDS, which had first been known predominantly as a “gay cancer,” was spread to the general population, we will find the culprit: the misguided behaviors exhibited by bisexuals. A modicum of self-restraint and repression of such attitudes would certainly have mitigated the proliferation of this disease.

Source: The Rational Argumentator

The debate over homosexuality is one of the most contentious and divisive in which our society has ever engaged.

As you all know, most keenly, the question before us is not merely one of academic dispute; rather, upon the outcome of our deliberations will depend the foundational social structure, hence direction of the Commonwealth in future, and in significant measure, that of our Nation as well.

It is therefore most urgent that these deliberations be based not only on compassion, and justice, but on the factual truth as well. Indeed, unless resting upon truth, neither justice nor compassion can long endure against shifts in sentiment.

That as a society we strive no longer to condone - rather to condemn --cruelty toward people attracted to members of their own sex is an absolute requirement of both justice and humanity. But we would be short-sighted indeed were we to advance this, as any other, just cause based on fictions: Not only will the inevitable uncovering of those fictions, however delayed, provide an excuse for bigotry to reclaim its unearned place, it will engender beliefs, attitudes and policies that, by flying in the face of reality, will lead to an increase, rather than a decrease in the happiness all are entitled to pursue. Nature (and if you prefer, "Nature's God") cannot be fooled.

A number of claims have become central to the argument that the definition and privileged status of marriage ought be expanded to include couples of the same sex. These claims are:

That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be, and is in fact, an innate, genetically-determined condition.
That homosexuality is an immutable state of an individual.
That the only disadvantages of homosexuality are those caused by social disapproval and discrimination.
That a society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units will differ from a society composed of traditional family units in no undesirable ways.

None of these claims are even remotely true, however widely believed they may have become; the evidence of the kind that "everyone knows" simply does not exist; even a cursory examination of the actual sources behind these claims will reveal a very strong preponderance of evidence to precisely the contrary; the claims are simply fiction. I have below assembled a selection of statements from prominent researchers. A far wider and more comprehensive bibliography of scientific references is provided as an attachment. Most of the statements below have been selected according to three basic principles:

(1) They are the general conclusions of prominent scientists whose research is well-respected.

(2) The scientists cited have specifically identified themselves as "gay" or "lesbian" and/or as more generally sympathetic to "gay activist" political positions.

(3) Their research is precisely that widely cited and believed as providing evidence directly contrary to what they themselves found and acknowledge. (It is to the credit of a number of them that they have publicly acknowledged that their own evidence contradicts what they had believed and had hoped to confirm.)

CLAIMS vs. THE EVIDENCE

Claim 1. That homosexuality has been repeatedly demonstrated to be, and is in fact, an innate, genetically-determined condition.

Dean Hamer of the National Institutes of Health performed and published the research most widely cited as pointing to a "gay gene." Dr. Hamer testified in the Colorado Proposition 2 court case that he was "99.5% certain that homosexuality is genetic." He later came to the following conclusions:

"The pedigree failed to produce what we originally hoped to find: simple Mendelian inheritance. In fact, we never found a single family in which homosexuality was distributed in the obvious pattern that Mendel observed..."

Hamer's study was duplicated by Rice et al with research that was more robust. In this replication the genetic markers found by Hamer turned out to be of no statistical significance:

"It is unclear why our results are so discrepant from Hamer's original study. Because our study was larger than that of Hamer's et al, we certainly had adequate power to detect a genetic effect as large as reported in that study. Nonetheless, our data do not support the presence of a gene of large effect influencing sexual orientation..."

Simon LeVay, a neuroanatomist at The Salk Institute in San Diego, founded the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Education in San Francisco after researching and publishing the study of hypothalamic structures in men most widely-cited as confirming innate brain differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals, as he himself initially argued. He later acknowledged:

"It's important to stress what I didn't find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain."

Furthermore:

"Since I looked at adult brains, we don't know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later."

Also pertinent to the present debate is his observation that:

"...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights."

Dr. Mark Breedlove at the University of California at Berkeley, referring to his own research: "[My] findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case - that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain."
Prominent research teams Byne & Parsons, and Friedman & Downey, both concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where "temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual's sexuality emerges."
Richard Pillard, is the coauthor of the two major twin studies on homosexuality most often cited as providing family evidence for homosexuality being inherited. He noted to an interviewer that he, his brother, and his sister are all homosexual and that one of his daughters from a now-failed marriage is bisexual. He speculated that his father was also homosexual. The interviewer, Chandler Burr, comments re Pillard: "Many of the scientists who have been studying homosexuality are gay, as am I." The interview is part of a book Burr wrote that purports to demonstrate that virtually all reputable scientists consider homosexuality genetic.

This is certainly what Pillard both wanted and expected to confirm by his research: "These studies were designed to detect heritable variation, and if it was present, to counter the prevalent belief that sexual orientation is largely the product of family interactions and the social environment"

But that is not what he found. Rather, he concluded:

"Although male and female homosexuality appear to be at least somewhat heritable, environment must also be of considerable importance in their origins."

Claim 2. That homosexuality is an immutable state of an individual.

The 1973 decision to delete homosexuality from the diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association has had a chilling effect on scientific objectivity with respect to homosexuality and on both public and professional attitudes concerning its permanence as an individual characteristic. The decision tended to confirm the sentiment that, since homosexuality has been voted out as a formal "disorder," it need not, cannot and should not be "treated", regardless of the principle that in a free society individuals should be free to pursue happiness each according to his own lights, consonant with the well-being of others.

But the American Psychiatric Association, like most other professional-practitioner associations, is not a scientific organization. It is a professional guild and as such, amenable to political influence in ways that science per se must not allow itself to be. Thus, the decision to de-list homosexuality was not made based on scientific evidence as is widely claimed. As Simon LeVay (cited above) acknowledges, "Gay activism was clearly the force that propelled the American Psychiatric Association to declassify homosexuality."

But of far greater import is the fact that whether it is deemed a "disorder" or not, it is undesirable to many, and susceptible to change. The evidence for this fact should not be obscured by the false assumption that homosexuality is either innate and unchangeable, or a "lifestyle choice" and changeable at will. It is neither: It is most often a deeply- embedded condition that develops over many years, beginning long before the development of moral and self-awareness, and is genuinely experienced by the individual as though it was never absent in one form or another. It is, in other words, similar to most human characteristics, and shares with them the typical possibilities for, and difficulties in, achieving sustained change.

A review of the research over many years demonstrates a consistent 30- 52% success rate in the treatment of unwanted homosexual attraction. Masters and Johnson reported a 65% success rate after a five-year follow-up. Other professionals report success rates ranging from 30% to 70%.
Dr. Lisa Diamond, a professor at the University of Utah, concludes that, "Sexual identity is far from fixed in women who aren't exclusively heterosexual."
Dr. Robert Spitzer, the prominent psychiatrist and researcher at Columbia University has been the chief architect of the American Psychiatric Association's diagnostic manual and he was the chief decision-maker in the 1973 removal of homosexuality from the diagnostic manual. He considers himself a gay-affirmative psychiatrist, and a long time supporter of gay rights. He has long been convinced that homosexuality is neither a disorder nor changeable. Because of the increasingly heated debate over the latter point within the professional community, Spitzer decided to conduct his own study of the matter. He concluded:

"I'm convinced from the people I have interviewed, that for many of them, they have made substantial changes toward becoming heterosexual...I think that's news...I came to this study skeptical. I now claim that these changes can be sustained."

When he presented his results to the Gay and Lesbian committees of the APA, anticipating a scientific debate, he was shocked to be met with intense pressure to withhold his findings for political reasons. Dr. Spitzer has subsequently received considerable "hate mail" and complaints from his colleagues because of his research. Douglas C. Haldeman, Ph.D., an independent practitioner in Seattle, WA, is a prominent gay-affirmative theorist. He comments, "From the perspective of gay theorists and activists. . . the question of conversion therapy's efficacy, or lack thereof, is irrelevant. It has been seen as a social phenomenon, one that is driven by anti-gay prejudice in society..."

Regarding change and the right to treatment, lesbian activist Camille Paglia states the following, in terms considerably sharper than most of us feel comfortable with:

"Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once the sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition - a phenomenon obvious in the struggle with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction...helping gays to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish, is a perfectly worthy aim."

Furthermore, just as locking onto a "choice versus genetic" dichotomy obscures reality, so, too, does locking onto "unchangeable versus therapeutic change." For it is also the case, well-documented but unobserved and unremarked upon, that the majority of "homosexuals" become "heterosexual" spontaneously, without therapy.

By way of introduction to the scientific evidence for this, it's worth citing Paglia again:

"We should be honest enough to consider whether homosexuality may not indeed be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children anxiously band together by gender..."

The scientific evidence is as follows:

The most comprehensive, most recent and most accurate study of sexuality, the National Health and Social Life Survey (NHSLS), was completed in 1994 by a large research team from the University of Chicago and funded by almost every large government agency and NGO with an interest in the AIDS epidemic. They studied every aspect of sexuality, but among their findings is the following, which I'm going to quote for you directly:

"7.1 [to as much as 9.1] percent of the men [we studied, more than 1,500] had at least one same-gender partner since puberty. ... [But] almost 4 percent of the men [we studied] had sex with another male before turning eighteen but not after. These men. . . constitute 42 percent of the total number of men who report ever having a same gender experience."

Let me put this in context: Roughly ten out of every 100 men have had sex with another man at some time - the origin of the 10% gay myth. Most of these will have identified themselves as gay before turning eighteen and will have acted on it. But by age 18, a full half of them no longer identify themselves as gay and will never again have a male sexual partner. And this is not a population of people selected because they went into therapy; it's just the general population. Furthermore, by age twenty-five, the percentage of gay identified men drops to 2.8%. This means that without any intervention whatsoever, three out of four boys who think they're gay at age l6 aren't by 25.

Claim 3. The only disadvantages of homosexuality are those caused by social disapproval and discrimination.

To mistakenly support three out of four gay identified men in their identification with homosexuality is not a benign mistake. Bailey (of the twin study) recently examined the question as to whether homosexuality is associated with a higher level of psychopathology. He concluded:

"Homosexuality represents a deviation from normal development and is associated with other such deviations that may lead to mental illness.. [ or, another possibility]... that increased psychopathology among homosexual people is a consequence of lifestyle differences associated with sexual orientation."

He specifically cited "behavioral risk factors associated with male homosexuality such as receptive anal sex and promiscuity." He noted that it would be a shame if "sociopolitical concerns prevented researchers from conscientious consideration of any reasonable hypothesis."

The specific concern in supporting young men in a gay identification is that innumerable studies from major centers around the US and elsewhere note that a twenty-year-old man who identified himself as gay carries 30% (or greater) risk of being HIV positive or dead of AIDS by age 30. A recent Canadian study published concluded that in urban centers gay male identification is associated with a life expectancy comparable to that in Canada in the 1870's.

Claim 4. A society composed of same-sex couples raising children in family-like units will differ from a society composed of traditional family units in no undesirable ways.

There has recently been an attempt to demonstrate that raising children in a same-sex household has no ill effect. These studies are few in number, none have ever looked at those areas where difficulties would be expected and one of the most repeatedly cited researchers was excoriated by the court for her testimony when she refused to turn over her research notes to the court even at the urging of the ACLU attorneys for whom she was testifying.

What is known, from decades of research on family structure, studying literally thousands of children, is that every departure from the traditional, stable, mother-father family has severe detrimental effects upon children; and these effects persist not only into adulthood but into the next generation as well.

In short, the central problem with mother-mother or father-father families is that they deliberately institute, and intend to keep in place indefinitely, a family structure known to be deficient in being obligatorily and permanently either fatherless or motherless.

Source: Dr. Jeffrey Satinover Testifies Before Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage

Al-Qadaa' wal-Qadar - Predestination

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:15:00 +0500

The belief in al-Qadar (general and particular decrees) is one of the main pillars of the Islamic Faith. Most Muslims believe in this. However, a few understand what it really is.

Let us first review or explain the meaning of al-Qadar. Al-Qadar is sometimes mentioned with al-Qadaa’ in the same statement. If so then each has a distinct meaning. However, when they are mentioned separately, then either one comprises the other. So when they are stated together, then al-Qadar means that which Allaah has eternally pre-ordained (in due measure) pertaining to His creation. On the other hand, al-Qadaa' means that which Allah has decreed for His creation from existence, annihilation, or change. In this sense, al-Qadar preceeds al-Qadaa' when combined in the same sentence.

The belief in al-Qadar is obligatory as Allah stated in several verses of the Glorious Qur'an:

“Verily, we have created everything with Qadar.” (54:49)

An example of a Prophetic saying about al-Qadar:

”No slave of Allaah will (truly) believe until he believes in Qadar, its good and bad, from Allaah…”

(Sahih at-Tirmidhi)

Al-Qadar encompasses four themes:

1) Allaah’s Knowledge (al-'ilm)

2) Allaah’s Writing (al-kitabah)

3) Allaah’s Will (al-mashee’ah)

4) Allaah’s Creation (al-khalq).

Each of these themes is discussed to some extent below.

1) Allaah’s Knowledge (al-'ilm)

We believe that Allaah’s knowledge encompasses everything. He knows what has occurred, what will occur, and all that which has or will not occur. This includes everything such as: life-spans, sayings, moves, deeds, secrets, all obedient and disobedient acts etc.

“Verily, Allaah is the All-Knower of everything.” (The Qur’an; 8:75)

2) Allaah’s Writing (al-kitabah)

This means that Allaah wrote everything about the creation, their livelihood, provisions, ages, and deeds, etc. He wrote what He says and what He does, and all that comes to existence due to His actions and sayings. He also wrote what is entailed by His names and attributes. All these are written in al-Lawh ul Mahfoudh (The preserved Tablet).

“And there is nothing hidden in the heaven and the earth but (is) in a clear book.” (The Qur’an; 27:75)

3) Allaah’s Will (al-mashee’ah)

It is the belief that Allaah willed everything that goes on in this universe. His will and His preordaining power effectively cover everything. Whatever He wills, will occur, and whatever He does not will, will not take place.

“If Allaah willed, he would have made you one nation, but (He did this) that (He) may test you in what He has given you.” (The Qur’an; 5:48)

The will of Allaah (Al-mashee’ah) can be Kawniyyah (universal) or Shar’iyyah (legal or judicial). Al-mashee’ah al-kawniyyah means that whatever Allaah permitted to exist [such as kufr (disbelief), belief, obedience, and disobedience, etc.] is pertinent to his mashee’ah, whether He likes it or not. This is also called al-iradah al-kawniyyah. Therefore, Allaah may decree, as necessitated by His wisdom, to pass things which He does not like and is not pleased with.

“And he likes not disobedience from His slaves.” (The Qur’an; 39:7)

It is obvious from this verse that Allaah does not like kufr. Yet it exists, by His will, in harmony with His wisdom.

On the other hand, the judicial will is pertinent to Allaah’s legislation (Sharee’ah). Hence it is related to what Allah loves and likes, whether it takes place or not. It is also known as al-iradah ash-shar’iyyah. The acts of obedience from the angels, prophets, and the believers, when they take place, are loved by Allaah and are passed by His universal will. However, it is not necessarily that His commands are always executed.

4) Allaah’s Creation (al-khalq).

Allaah is the sole Creator of everything, including man’s deeds. No single atom or higher, static or in motion, exists except that Allaah created it. Nothing takes place in this world except for the fact that Allaah has created it (including evil):

“Verily, Allaah is the Creator of everything and He is the Disposer of affairs over all things.” (The Qur’an; 39:62)

Source: AbdurRahman.org

Coming to some of those parts which seem to confuse a lot of people; first and foremost, if everything’s already recorded and decided, where is the test for us and why aren’t we simply put in Heaven or Hell according to what has been recorded?

Well, as far as the Heaven or Hell part is concerned, people might have considered it unfair. The ones in Heaven would be satisfied with what they get but the ones in Hell would complain and say that if we had been given a chance, we might have passed the test and got into Heaven so the person has to have that experience first so that he won’t have any basis for complaint.

As for the issue regarding the test, there are two types of incidents. One is which we have no control or choice of such as when we’re born or when we die etc. The other type is the one in which we have a choice such as choosing whether to practice Islam or not and so on.

The confusion being tackled is usually with this second type. The fact of the matter is that since Allaah is the All Knower, He has the knowledge of what we are going to do and so our Qadar was already written before we were even born even though we were to decide it.

Another confusion is if Allaah created everything and knew what was going to happen and He is not evil, why did He create evil in the first place? Even if he didn’t create evil, then why did he create creatures which result in evil?

Basically, we have to realize that nothing in this life is totally evil. Rather, everything in this world has an evil part as well as a good part. I’ll mention a few reasons of why such things were created and I hope they’ll be enough to be able to clear this confusion away, inshallah.

Firstly, evil is present to help us know good. Just as we cannot know sweet unless we know sour or we cannot know lightness unless we know darkness, and so on, similarly we cannot know good unless we know evil.

Secondly, everything evil has a greater good in it. We take the example of the incident in which Shaytaan finally made Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) eat the fruit from the forbidden tree. Not going into the depth of the incident, we might ask why did such an incident happen and why was Shaytaan allowed to do that and so can do the same to us now.

Well, this incident lead to a greater good which was repentance. Prophet Adam (peace be upon him) realized the blessing of repentance and so now we also know it and this blessing is, no doubt, a much greater achievement. Similarly, if Shaytaan wasn’t allowed to do what he was able to do, there wouldn’t be a test for us. All of us would just pass and so the good and hardworking ones wouldn’t be distinguished from the bad ones.

Just as we were able to realize this greater good, everything has a greater good in itself. However, it is not always that we’re able to realize it and that is from the wisdom of Allaah because if every such thing was crystal clear, no one would want to disobey the commands of Allaah as everyone would know that they always are the key to success. That would again lead to a kind of no-test world.

One more really confusing issue is that if everything we do is already written, why do we need to try? If it’s in our Qadar, we will surely get it and if we don’t get it, it must be because that is what it was in our Qadar. Therefore, some students don’t study for their exams, relying, as they say, ‘on their Qadar’.

The answer to this is similar to that of the first confusion so I won’t be repeating it. However, I’ll just mention a couple of examples to show our own double standard in this issue.

Suppose you’ve got a low salary job and you know that if you work hard and get a promotion along with an easier job, what will you do? Will you sit at home thinking that if it is in my Qadar, I’ll get the higher salary automatically at my home? Hardly anyone ever does that. The reason as mentioned earlier is that everyone knows that it, eventually, is their own choice.

Similarly, if you are single and you want a child, what will you do? Will you sit at home waiting for some child to miraculously land in your home? Of course not! You’ll look for a spouse and take care of all the necessary arrangements before coming near to thinking that it might not be in my Qadar.

That is exactly what has been narrated from the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him):

From Umar ibn Al-Khattab from the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) who said:
"If only you relied on Allah a true reliance, He would provide sustenance for you just as He does the birds: They fly out in the morning empty and return in the afternoon with full stomachs."

(Ahmad, An-Nisaa’i, Ibn Majah, Al-Hakim and At-Tirmidhi who said: "Hasan Sahih")

The example that was narrated here is pretty marveling. The birds go out in the morning and exert themselves all day long and so they get their sustenance due to that. Similarly, we need to exert ourselves before we start blaming anything on the Qadar.

One last issue which needs to be mentioned is should Al-Qadar be discussed in the first place?

Many Muslims raise the issue that “It is better not to talk about al-Qadar, the Prophet prohibited us from doing so!” Generally this attitude is wrong for the following reasons:

1. The matter of belief in al-Qadar is an article of Faith and we must know our faith well in order to worship Allah in the right way. In fact al-Qadar was mentioned in the hadith of the Angel Jibra’il (peace be upon him) in which the Prophet mentioned al-Qadar as an article of faith. At the end of this hadith, the Prophet said, “Verily! Jibra’il came to teach you your Deen” as narrated in Sahih Muslim, the book of faith.

2. The Noble Qur'an is full of verses about al-Qadar and its details, and Allah says, “Do they not think deeply in the Qur'an, or are their hearts locked up (from understanding it)?” (The Qur’an; 47:24]

3. The Sahabah (may Allaah be pleased with them all) used to ask the Prophet about minute details in al-Qadar, as in the hadith of Suraqah bin Maalik - who asked the Prophet: “O Messenger of Allaah! Explain our Deen to us as if we have been created just now. Whatever we do today, is it because of the fact that the pens have turned dry (having written the records) and the destinies have begun to operate? Or is it something that just happens (without pre-destination)?”

4. The scholars among the Salaf as-Saalih (pious predecessors) wrote extensively on the subject, had it been prohibited to do so, they would have committed a serious disobedience to Allaah. Had they also not explained this matter, many people would remain ignorant, and it would have opened the door to innovation in understanding al-Qadar.

This is what has happened today, when we see many Muslims who blame al-Qadar for their sinful lives, and at the same time some religious Muslims who, due to their ignorance on the issue, declare that there is no Qadar and that everything is decided by ones actions.

5. What did the Prophet mean when he said, “… and if al-Qadar is mentioned then hold”? (At-Tabarani and Abu Na’eem and al-Albaani said it is authentic in Sahih al-Jami hadith 545 and As-Silsilah as-Sahihah 1/42 hadith 34)

Also when he saw some of the companions disputing about al-Qadar, he became angry and said: “Were you commanded to do this? Or was I sent to you in order to do this (dispute among yourselves)? Verily it was such disputes in this matter (of al-Qadar) which caused the destruction of those who were before you! I am determined (to call you) to not have dispute amongst you in this matter (of al-Qadar).” (Sunan at-Tirmidhi and and authenticated by Sheikh al-Albaani in Sahih Sunan at-Tirmidhi no.1732-2231)

The answer is that the Prophet prohibited disputing about al-Qadar but not understanding the matter of al-Qadar. He did not want Muslims to indulge in discussions about al-Qadar without knowledge and proofs. Also discussions that will lead to disputes in this matter are forbidden.

Al-Qadar is from the world of the unseen. What is known about it from the Qur'an and the Sunnah is to be followed and the Muslims must submit to it. No one is allowed to give his opinion on this issue. Sufficient is what is revealed to the Prophet. We are permitted to seek knowledge about al-Qadar, and this is different from asking questions like - Why did Allah guide so and so and not so and so? Or why rain falls on the southern part of the land and not on the eastern part? Certainly, the Wisdom of Allah in al-Qadar cannot be questioned.

May Allah, the Most Merciful, the All Knower, the All Able, the All Wise and the All Just, guide us to the correct understanding of Islam and make us among the adherents of the Sunnah of the Prophet and keep us safe from misguidance.

To read up more on this topic, you might want to consider the following book: Qadar or listen to the following lecture series by Dr. Bilal Philips: CD 1 | CD 2 | CD 3 | CD 4 | CD 5 | CD 6 | CD 7 | CD 8 | CD 9

Technology, business and our way of life: What's Next

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 26 May 2011 20:48:00 +0500

This is an excerpt taken from the speech of Carly Florina (CEO of HP) who is a Ex-CEO of HP.
Read on to know what she has to say about Islam in her own words. (The complete article can be found here: http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/execteam/speeches/fiorina/minnesota01.html)
Request you to share it with your Non-Muslim friends and also pray that this lady embraces Islam.

"I’ll end by telling a story.

There was once a civilization that was the greatest in the world.

It was able to create a continental super-state that stretched from ocean to ocean, and from northern climes to tropics and deserts. Within its dominion lived hundreds of millions of people, of different creeds and ethnic origins.

One of its languages became the universal language of much of the world, the bridge between the peoples of a hundred lands. Its armies were made up of people of many nationalities, and its military protection allowed a degree of peace and prosperity that had never been known. The reach of this civilization’s commerce extended from Latin America to China, and everywhere in between.

And this civilization was driven more than anything, by invention. Its architects designed buildings that defied gravity. Its mathematicians created the algebra and algorithms that would enable the building of computers, and the creation of encryption. Its doctors examined the human body, and found new cures for disease. Its astronomers looked into the heavens, named the stars, and paved the way for space travel and exploration.

Its writers created thousands of stories. Stories of courage, romance and magic. Its poets wrote of love, when others before them were too steeped in fear to think of such things.

When other nations were afraid of ideas, this civilization thrived on them, and kept them alive. When censors threatened to wipe out knowledge from past civilizations, this civilization kept the knowledge alive, and passed it on to others.

While modern Western civilization shares many of these traits, the civilization I’m talking about was the Islamic world from the year 800 to 1600, which included the Ottoman Empire and the courts of Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo, and enlightened rulers like Suleiman the Magnificent.

Although we are often unaware of our indebtedness to this other civilization, its gifts are very much a part of our heritage. The technology industry would not exist without the contributions of Arab mathematicians. Sufi poet-philosophers like Rumi challenged our notions of self and truth. Leaders like Suleiman contributed to our notions of tolerance and civic leadership.

And perhaps we can learn a lesson from his example: It was leadership based on meritocracy, not inheritance. It was leadership that harnessed the full capabilities of a very diverse population–that included Christianity, Islamic, and Jewish traditions.

This kind of enlightened leadership — leadership that nurtured culture, sustainability, diversity and courage — led to 800 years of invention and prosperity.

In dark and serious times like this, we must affirm our commitment to building societies and institutions that aspire to this kind of greatness. More than ever, we must focus on the importance of leadership– bold acts of leadership and decidedly personal acts of leadership.

With that, I’d like to open up the conversation and see what we, collectively, believe about the role of leadership."

When the Reward Equals Fifty

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 25 May 2011 20:12:00 +0500

In 'ad-Durar as-Saniyyah' (8/91-95), Shaykh Hasan bin Husayn (a grandson of Muhammad bin 'Abd al-Wahhab) was asked about the hadith:"...the one who does this will have the reward of fifty." So, he replied:
"First of all, you should know that the hadith in question was reported by Abu Dawud, at-Tirmidhi, and Ibn Majah from 'Utbah bin Hakim, from 'Amr bin Harithah, from Abi Umayyah ash-Sha'bani, from Abi Tha'labah al-Khushani who commented on the verse: {"O you who believe! Take care of your ownselves. If you follow the right guidance, no hurt can come to you from those who are in error..."} [al-Ma'idah; 105] He said:

"By Allah, I asked the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه و سلم) about this, and he said: "Rather, what this means is enjoin the good and prevent the bad until you see people succumb to covetousness, follow their desires, become corrupted by the worldly life, every one impressed with his own opinion, and you see that there is nothing else you can do. At that point, take care of yourself and don't worry about the affair of the general populace, because there are indeed ahead of you days that require patience. Whoever is patient during those days will be like someone holding to a burning coal. And the one who does this from them will have the reward of fifty men who do what he is doing." The Companions asked: "Messenger of Allah, the reward of fifty of those with him?" He said: "The reward of fifty of you.""

...If you know this, you will see that the reason such a person deserves this great reward and his virtue is made equal to fifty of the Companions is that he has no helpers or aides, according to al-Hafidh Sulayman al-Khattabi and Abu al-Faraj 'Abd ar-Rahman bin Rajab and others.

And the one who clings to the stable and Prophetic path during corrupt times and confusion in beliefs is a stranger, even if he is in the presence of loved ones. Obstacles are everywhere, wrongdoing is rampant, ugliness and corruption have emerged, the Religion has been transformed and changed, desires and misguidance are followed, there is nobody to accompany and assist you, it is rare to find a Muwahhid whose company to enjoy, people have become like withering straw, the winds of war and conflict have blown everywhere, the evil of the hypocrites has spread, the patience of the righteous has worn thin, the paths to good have been cut off, the paths to misguidance and destruction have been made easy, there seems to be no way out, and it all seems inescapable.

So, the Muwahhid is in the midst of all this more noble than a red gem. Despite this, none respond to him and what he says. The banners of opposition have been rolled out against him, he is attacked with the arrows of enmity, the most spiteful eyes observe him, harm comes at him from every hypocrite, he has been made into a stranger, his heart is torn apart because of what has happened to the religion of Islam, falsehood has lit its fire, and its evil fills the sky.

With all of this, he follows the pure, straight religion, supported by the proofs and signs from Allah. So, tell me, by Allah: can this be except from one who has certainty and sincerity as high as a mountain in his heart, and has Tawhid, patience, faith, acceptance and submission to Allah's Decree? And Allah has promised the patient an overwhelming reward: {"The patient will receive their reward without any limit..."} [az-Zumar; 10]

And some of the scholars - may Allah have Mercy on them - said: "Whoever follows the Qur'an and the Sunnah, migrates with his heart to Allah, and follows the footsteps of the Companions, the Companions will have nothing over him other than that they saw the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه و سلم)."

And in that era, they all had helpers, brothers, and people who stood by them. This is why 'Ali bin al-Madini said, as mentioned by Ibn al-Jawzi in his book 'Sifat as-Safwah': "Nobody stood up for Islam after the Messenger of Allah the way Ahmad bin Hambal did." He was asked: "O Aba al-Hasan, not even Abu Bakr?" He replied: "Abu Bakr had companions and helpers. Ahmad bin Hambal was accompanied by nobody."

And al-Imam Ahmad reported from 'Abdullah bin Mas'ud that the Messenger of Allah (صلى الله عليه و سلم) said: "Islam began as something strange, and it will return to being strange as it began. So, glad tidings for the strangers." He was asked: "Messenger of Allah, who are the strangers?" He replied: "Those who are outcasts from their tribes." And this was narrated by Abu Bakr al-Ajuri with the wording: "Those who are righteous when the people are corrupt." And others narrated this, and he also has the wording:"Those who flee for the sake of their religion from trials and tribulations."

And at-Tirmidhi reported it from Kathir, from 'Abdullah al-Muzani, from his father, from his grandfather from the Prophet with the wording: "Those who correct what the people have corrupted of my Sunnah." And al-Imam Ahmad reported it as well from Sa'd bin Abi Waqqas, and at-Tabarani reported it from 'Abdullah bin 'Umar that the Prophet said: "Glad tidings to the strangers." It was asked: "Who are the strangers?" He replied: "A tiny group of righteous people in the midst of a large number of corrupted people. Those who go against them are more than those who go along with them." al-Awza'i explained this, saying: "Indeed, Islam does not fade away. Rather, Ahl as-Sunnah fade away, to the point that there will not remain in a particular land except one or two of them."

And al-Bukhari reported from Mirdas as-Salami who said that the Messenger of Allah said: "The righteous will fade away one after the other, and only the useless remnants like straw or date fibers will remain. Allah will not care for them in the least." And al-Hasan al-Basri would say to his companions: "O Ahl as-Sunnah! Be soft with each other, may Allah have Mercy on you, because you will be the first to fade away." And Yusuf bin 'Ubayd said: "There is nothing stranger than the Sunnah, and what is stranger than it is the one who knows it..."

And Muslim reported in his 'Sahih' from Mu'aqqal bin Yasar that the Messenger of Allah said: "Worship during the time of tribulation and confusion is like migration to me." And al-Hasan al-Basri said: "If a man from the first generation was to be resurrected today, he wouldn't recognize anything from your Islam except the prayer." He then said: "By Allah, as for the one who lives in the midst of these vices, sees the innovator calling to his innovation and the one infatuated with the worldly life calling to it, yet he remains protected by Allah with his heart yearning for this earlier generation, and he follows in their footsteps and traditions and way of life - such a person will have a great reward."

And al-Mubarak bin Fudalah - one of the scholars of Hadith in al-Basrah - related that al-Hasan al-Basri was asked about a wealthy man living in luxury who had authority and would take people's wealth claiming that there was nothing wrong with this, and a misguided innovator Khariji who applied the verses about the kuffar on the Muslims. So, he said: "Your Sunnah, by Allah besides Whom none is worthy of worship. It is neither with the extreme or the negligent, the indulgent or the ignorant. So, be patient in sticking to it, as Ahl as-Sunnah are the fewest of people. They don't indulge with the people of indulgence, and they don't follow their desires along with the innovators. They were patient in sticking to their path until they met their Lord. So, be the same way, if Allah Wills." He then said: "If a man saw these vices - this one calling him to itself, and that one calling him to itself - and he says 'I don't want anything but the Sunnah of Muhammad (صلى الله عليه و سلم),' and he goes around seeking it out, such a person will have a great reward. So, be this way, if Allah Wills."

And Muwarraq said: "The one who clings firmly to the obedience of Allah when others put it to the side is like the one who sticks around when everyone else has retreated." Abu as-Sa'adat Ibn al-Athir said in 'an-Nihayah': "This means that if people abandon obedience to Allah and turn away from it, the person who holds tightly to it will have the same reward as one who stays firm in a battle after everyone has run away."

When the Reward Equals Fifty