The material for this article has been taken from the lecture of Dr. Jamal Badawi. I have also taken some material from Dr. Zakir Naik’s book as well.
Polygamy means a system of marriage whereby one person has more than one spouse. Polygamy can be of two types. One is polygyny, where a man marries more than one woman, and the other is polyandry, where a woman marries more than one man. In Islam, limited polygyny is permitted; whereas polyandry is completely prohibited.
A lot of objections over the years have been made on Islamic teachings, practices and also on the personality of the prophet (peace be upon him). One of these criticism is that how could the prophet (peace be upon him) be accepted as a prophet if he married several women; this act alone excludes someone from being a prophet, because this is not a characteristic of a prophet, but rather a trait of someone who is obsessed with women.
This objection is hypocritical in nature. The reason being that those who protest against polygamy believe in scriptures which allows a man to have more than one wife. The Quran is the only religious book, on the face of this earth, that contains the phrase ‘marry only one’. There is no other religious book that instructs men to have only one wife. In none of the other religious scriptures, whether it is the Vedas, the Ramayan, the Mahabharat, the Geeta, the Talmud or the Bible does one find a restriction on the number of wives. According to these scriptures, one can marry as many as one wishes. It was only later, that the Hindu priests and the Christian Church restricted the number of wives to one. Many Hindu religious personalities, according to their scriptures, had multiple wives. King Dashrat, the father of Rama, had more than one wife. Krishna had several wives. In earlier times, Christian men were permitted as many wives as they wished, since the Bible puts no restriction on the number of wives. It was only a few centuries ago that the Church restricted the number of wives to one. Polygyny is permitted in Judaism. According to Talmudic law, Abraham had three wives, and Solomon had hundreds of wives. The practice of polygyny continued till Rabbi Gershom ben Yehudah (960 C.E to 1030 C.E) issued an edict against it. The Jewish Sephardic communities living in Muslim countries continued the practice till as late as 1950, until an Act of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel extended the ban on marrying more than one wife.
So if you disqualify someone from prophethood on this basis, then you should disqualify others as well.
Generally speaking, Quran assumes monogamy, but under certain conditions it becomes imperative that polygyny is practiced. For example, ten thousand people were killed in Bosnia; 1 million died in Afghanistan. In these situations, where there are a lot of widows and young girls looking for partners, polygyny is the only moral and humane solution. It is much more moral than the practice in west, where people have multiple partners at one time with no protection or legal recognition, and a person can walk away from a relationship anytime he wants.
We now focus on the life of prophet (peace be upon him). It is interesting to note that not even the worst critics of Islam can even point out a single sexual indiscretion in the entire life of prophet (peace be upon him) whereas these critics overlook the fact (which Islam totally rejects) that some prophets in the bible committed incest and others were guilty of adultery.
Furthermore, it defies logic to describe him as a polyandrous prophet as out of thirty seven years of his marital life, for twenty five years at least (some add two more) he was monogamous (i.e. more than two-thirds of his marital life). So all the monogamous period is forgotten and only the last few years of his life are remembered.
If someone is obsessed with women, the time for that is not in the mid fifties or early sixties, it is much earlier.
Also, it must not be forgotten that his first wife with whom he was married for twenty five years was fifteen years older than him. Hence, anyone fixated on women tries to find younger girls in his youth and not an older lady.
The prophet (peace be upon him) was known for his chastity even before he got married, and no one (he had a lot of enemies in his lifetime) could raise a single point about his chastity.
Anyway, if you look at the nature of the marriages of prophet (peace be upon him) you will be amazed at the humane aspect of it. The marriages could be classified into four aspects. First, he married and gave his daughters in marriage to those who were his closest supporters. For example he married Ayesha (daughter of Abu Bakr) and Hafsa the daughter of Umar and he gave his daughters in marriage to Usman and Ali (may Allah be pleased with them all).
Second, the marriages were to give example to other Muslims to care for those women who lost their husbands and had orphan children. For example, Umme-Salama’s (may Allah be pleased with her) husband died due to injuries sustained in one the defensive battles Muslims fought. The woman was left with four orphan children to look after. At first, Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) goes to her and ask her hand in marriage and she declines (she was a dignified woman and she realized that who would want to marry a woman in her menopause, and the proposal was more out of sympathy than anything else). Then Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) sent her a marriage proposal and she refused again. When prophet (peace be upon him) heard this he asked her hand in marriage and she declined his offer as well. When asked why? She replied that there are three reasons for this: firstly, I am an old woman, secondly, I have four orphan children, and lastly I am a jealous woman (she cannot be blamed as no woman would like to share her husband). So the prophet (peace be upon him) with his decency and kindness tells her that as far as age is concerned, I am older than you; and the orphan children will be like my own and I will be responsible for them, and as for you jealousy I pray to Allah to remove it from you. And Allah indeed removed the jealousy from her and she accepted the proposal.
The third category was commonplace in the tribal society, where the prophet (peace be upon him), in order to remove hatred and conflict in other tribes, married from a particular tribe. It is like a political marriage to save people from further conflict and bloodshed. There are a number of examples of this facet of his marriages. For instance, he married Umme-Habiba (may Allah be pleased with her), daughter of Abu Sufyan (who at that time had not accepted Islam and was an arch enemy of Islam). When he heard that his daughter was married, he became happy because in his heart he knew that prophet (peace be upon him) was a good man (and this might eventually have led to his conversion to Islam). He also married a Christian woman and more than one Jewish woman (after he freed them and they accepted to marry him). What is the problem with this? Some historians say that because of these marriages, some tribes accepted Islam and others’ enmity was neutralised. What is wrong with removing the possibility of bloodshed? Finally, there was a case of legal precedence and removal of a taboo which will be discussed later.
Another objection by the critics of Islam is that it is mentioned in the Muslim sources that prophet (peace be upon him) had a marital contract with Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) at the age of six and she moved into his household at the age of nine. The obvious objection is that an older person marrying such a young girl; some of the nasty words said cannot be repeated in this article.
First of all, the issue of difference in age is not a problem, there are examples, even in this day and age (where divorce rates in the west have sky-rocketed), of very happy and productive marriages with a big age difference; but, of course, lesser age difference is more desirable. In many cultures it is acceptable to have considerable age difference, unless it is an extreme case where a ninety nine years old marries a sixteen years old. The issue raised by the critics is that how abominable it is that such an old man marries a young girl, and she moves into his house at the age of nine.
If it was such an abominable act, a lot of criticisms and questions would have been raised by the enemies of prophet (peace be upon him) in Makkah. To the surprise of many of you, are you aware that Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) was engaged to be married to another man before the prophet (peace be upon him). What this means is that marriage in the Arabian society at an earlier age does not mean consummation. It was accepted in that society that a three year old son of someone can be married to a two year old daughter of someone else. The reason was that it was a gesture which said that we are close as tribes, clans or friends and we want to reserve your son for our daughter at a later age. What Islam did was that it made enhancements to this contract and said that one can marry at a young age, but when the couple reaches (or one of them) puberty, they can reject or accept the marriage contract. In case the adolescent person does not agree, the marriage contract was terminated. Therefore, it is a conditional agreement; that is why no one raised any issue on this matter.
Further, Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) was not kidnapped or molested (or whatever term they use), she was married with the approval and blessings of her parents. Would anyone give his daughter to anyone to molest her; and Abu Bakr (may Allah be pleased with him) was a rich, powerful and wise person (he was not a person whom you could walk all over).
In addition, people object that it is illegal because the age was less than sixteen or eighteen. The question is according to whose law? In the western countries, e.g. in America even until the end of nineteenth century, it was acceptable to marry at a younger age (girls sometimes got married at the age of twelve). It was later that states began to introduce some limits to the marital age to fourteen and then it increased to sixteen. In some places it went up to eighteen, or sixteen with the approval of the guardian. These are secular laws and Islamic law requires that both parties reach adolescence and if both parties are content with the arrangement then the marriage contract remains intact, otherwise it is ended. Also, to say that a girl cannot reach puberty in that age (in the days gone by) is incorrect.
In the era of Prophet (peace be upon him), it was perfectly normal for girls to get married at the age of puberty. This was a norm in all Semitic cultures from the Israelites to the Arabs, and all nations in between. According to some books of the Jews, it is preferable for a woman to be married when she has her first menstrual cycle. In another Jewish book, there are rules regarding sexual intercourse with girls who have not yet menstruated. Throughout history, puberty has always been a symbol of adulthood. It is extremely unfair for us to judge Prophet (peace be upon him) by the standards set by the people of today. In certain countries like China and Japan, the age of sexual consent is 12 and 13 respectively. In the United States, men who have sexual intercourse with young women will be termed as pedophiles. Would it be correct for the United States to label the Chinese and Japanese as paedophiles according to the United States’ standards? These are all standards set by the western world. Shall we judge our beloved Prophet (peace be upon him) by the standards of today or by the standards set in his era? It is also proven that in those countries which have hot climates, people mature faster. This further indicates the maturity of Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) since the Arabian Peninsula has a very hot climate.
For a detailed discussion on the marriage of Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) please read the article on http://www.islamic-awareness.org/Polemics/aishah.html
Finally, some people object that prophet (peace be upon him) married the divorcee of her son. His name was Zayd (may Allah be pleased with him) and her name was Zainab (may Allah be pleased with her). To reply to this objection we first have know who were Zayd and Zainab? What really happened? Furthermore, why was prophet (peace be upon him) finally commanded to marry her?
Zayd was adopted (he was a slave and was freed) and not prophet’s real son. Moreover, Zainab was the cousin of the prophet (peace be upon him). She was not discovered suddenly; as some people imply, that the prophet (peace be upon him) discovered her beauty and then wanted to marry her. The point to remember is that they grew up together as children, and he had seen her before hijab was prescribed later in Medina. It was actually prophet (peace be upon him) who wanted Zainab to marry Zayd (as he wanted to change the aristocratic thinking, since she was from an elite class of Quraish while Zayd was a slave) to make the point that one should look at the character of a person and not only the lineage. So she accepted to marry Zayd. Later, problems emerged in the marriage and they did not get along well. Zayd complained to prophet (peace be upon him), but as any good marriage counsellor would do, he advised him to be patient.
Afterwards, through revelation the prophet (peace be upon him) was told that this marriage will end up in divorce and you will be commanded to marry her (after the mandatory waiting period of a divorced woman) to break the taboo in the Arab society, where the adopted son was considered even closer than the biological son. Even at that time he told Zayd (when he again came and complained about the marriage) that keep your wife and fear Allah; because he was commanded by Allah that he should not reveal this to anyone.
Zayd finally divorced Zainab, and then the verse was revealed where the prophet (peace be upon him) was married to her. Ayesha (may Allah be pleased with her) used to say that if prophet (peace be upon him) wanted to hide any verse of the Quran, it would have been this verse. The reason being that it was a taboo, and it was considered incest to marry the wife of your adopted son. But Allah finished this taboo through his Messenger, as adopted son in Islam is not the same as the biological son (the biological son keeps the family name and gets a part from the inheritance).
To conclude, my appeal to the Non-Muslims is that please try to be objective and try not to get influenced from people who do not know what they are talking about. Those who object have enmity in their hearts against Islam or they are unaware of the facts.
Please also watch the video "Women in Islam Liberated or Subjugated?" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1suNCpa6Dc
In addition, please listen to the lectures on Prophet's Marriages (from L42 to L50) delivered by Dr. Jamal Badawi at http://www.islamicity.com/multimedia/radio/ch200/default.asp?inc=7.htm#Series-L:_Muhammad_(P):_The_Last__Messenger_of_Allah
Monday, January 01, 2007
Responsibilities of Scholars Regarding Contemporary Issues
The material for this article has been taken from the lecture delivered by Mufti Taqi Usmani.
It is now common knowledge, especially among the scholars, that since the values of western civilisation have taken hold of the entire world, religion is reduced to only places of worship, educational institutes and private homes. Religion has lost its grip in politics as well as economic issues of almost every nation. This is due to the fact that the concept of religion is different in the west.
In the west, religion is considered to be a person’s private matter and whether a person adopts a religion or not, it is not of any particular importance. In addition, west views religion as means to achieve spiritual satisfaction, and that is why there is no notion of right and wrong religion among the majority in the west. Consequently, a person can adopt any faith he likes: if he thinks that his pleasure lies in idol worshipping then that faith is suitable for him, and if he feels that worshipping one God brings him contentment then that faith is appropriate for him. Since it is a private matter, religion should not interfere in other facets of life. All this is the basis for secularism; the philosophy is that human beings have got intelligence, and combined with their observation and experience, humankind can make decisions to run all aspects of life: issues such as economic, political, social etc and religion should be restricted to private life.
Now it is even being said that all the systems in the world have failed, and after the collapse of USSR, only secular democracy will last forever.
Islam, on the other hand, totally disagrees with this ideology. Islam is not restricted to beliefs and worship; it also provides a comprehensive system pertaining to politics, economy, social matters etc. Islam is not only limited to the betterment of private life, but it provides a complete set of rules and regulations for all facets of life on a global scale.
Among the Muslim countries, this secular philosophy has taken hold, and religion, nowadays, is restricted to beliefs and worship only. Anyone, who prays five times a day, has a beard or a woman who wears the hijab is considered religious, even though that person’s other aspects of life are totally devoid of Islamic teachings.
Forget about the masses, our religious institutions (the madaaris) have fallen in this trap to some extent. A lot of stress is laid on the issues of beliefs and worship (prayers, fasting, hajj etc) and not much is taught with respect to business and political matters.
The end result of all this is that even some of our learned scholars are not aware of what is happening in matters of economy and politics. Some of our esteemed scholars are totally unaware of the modern problems regarding trade, business and economy. Most of their research is restricted in this regard, and they lack the understanding of modern finance.
Due to this, the gap between the modern educated businessmen and the religious scholars has widened. Even those who consider themselves very religious (i.e. pray and fast regularly) do not employ Islamic practices in their trade. Some of them have big beards, but if you look at their business transactions, they are totally against Islamic teachings.
Some of the scholars cannot satisfy the modern man in regards to issues concerning commerce. It is difficult even for a normal person to make them understand of what is happening in the market place. That is why majority of the questions the scholars are asked concern the matters about prayers, fasting, divorce, marriage etc. Not many go to them and inquire about the share market or modern interest based economy. I am not saying that everyone falls into this category; there are some very knowledgeable scholars in the matters concerning the world economy and finance (but they are a minority). That's why many in the business community are of the opinion that it is a waste of time to go to the religious scholars and ask them about our day to day business transactions (and this mentality has given rise to the idea that Islam does not possess answers to the intricate issues of the modern economics).
The need of the hour is that our scholars should understand what is really happening in this world. The requirement is to be aware of the contemporary issues. The old jurists used to say that those who are not aware of the matters of their time are not scholars but are ignorant. That is why our scholars need to understand that until they do not comprehend the day to day issues, they can never come up with the correct solutions. One of our great scholars of the past, Imam Muhammad (may Allah blessing be on him) used to spend almost everyday in the marketplace. When someone enquired of his presence in the bazaar, he said that I cannot give the correct fatwa (ruling) if I am not aware of what is happening in the markets.
If someone hands over the government to our religious leaders and tells them to run the country, it would not be an exaggeration to say that our scholars will not be able to change the situation a great deal in years. Unless one is not aware of the modern day problems, how can one expect to implement solutions for these issues.
So, it is my humble request to the Islamic scholars to spend a lot of time researching the contemporary issues. Not only should they learn about them by reading books, but they should spend time in the markets as well. They must learn how the share market works, how our banks function and how the modern economy as a whole operates.
Islam is the religion which has provided solutions for the whole mankind until the Day of Judgement. Unfortunately, there are not enough of us who have thoroughly researched and learned about the modern world. We need people who are well versed with not only beliefs and worship, but all aspects of life. If Islam is to provide a global system in this day and age, we would require scholars of immense knowledge in the current matters. Otherwise, this unjust capitalist system will continue to ruin the lives of the majority of the world for some time to come.
It is now common knowledge, especially among the scholars, that since the values of western civilisation have taken hold of the entire world, religion is reduced to only places of worship, educational institutes and private homes. Religion has lost its grip in politics as well as economic issues of almost every nation. This is due to the fact that the concept of religion is different in the west.
In the west, religion is considered to be a person’s private matter and whether a person adopts a religion or not, it is not of any particular importance. In addition, west views religion as means to achieve spiritual satisfaction, and that is why there is no notion of right and wrong religion among the majority in the west. Consequently, a person can adopt any faith he likes: if he thinks that his pleasure lies in idol worshipping then that faith is suitable for him, and if he feels that worshipping one God brings him contentment then that faith is appropriate for him. Since it is a private matter, religion should not interfere in other facets of life. All this is the basis for secularism; the philosophy is that human beings have got intelligence, and combined with their observation and experience, humankind can make decisions to run all aspects of life: issues such as economic, political, social etc and religion should be restricted to private life.
Now it is even being said that all the systems in the world have failed, and after the collapse of USSR, only secular democracy will last forever.
Islam, on the other hand, totally disagrees with this ideology. Islam is not restricted to beliefs and worship; it also provides a comprehensive system pertaining to politics, economy, social matters etc. Islam is not only limited to the betterment of private life, but it provides a complete set of rules and regulations for all facets of life on a global scale.
Among the Muslim countries, this secular philosophy has taken hold, and religion, nowadays, is restricted to beliefs and worship only. Anyone, who prays five times a day, has a beard or a woman who wears the hijab is considered religious, even though that person’s other aspects of life are totally devoid of Islamic teachings.
Forget about the masses, our religious institutions (the madaaris) have fallen in this trap to some extent. A lot of stress is laid on the issues of beliefs and worship (prayers, fasting, hajj etc) and not much is taught with respect to business and political matters.
The end result of all this is that even some of our learned scholars are not aware of what is happening in matters of economy and politics. Some of our esteemed scholars are totally unaware of the modern problems regarding trade, business and economy. Most of their research is restricted in this regard, and they lack the understanding of modern finance.
Due to this, the gap between the modern educated businessmen and the religious scholars has widened. Even those who consider themselves very religious (i.e. pray and fast regularly) do not employ Islamic practices in their trade. Some of them have big beards, but if you look at their business transactions, they are totally against Islamic teachings.
Some of the scholars cannot satisfy the modern man in regards to issues concerning commerce. It is difficult even for a normal person to make them understand of what is happening in the market place. That is why majority of the questions the scholars are asked concern the matters about prayers, fasting, divorce, marriage etc. Not many go to them and inquire about the share market or modern interest based economy. I am not saying that everyone falls into this category; there are some very knowledgeable scholars in the matters concerning the world economy and finance (but they are a minority). That's why many in the business community are of the opinion that it is a waste of time to go to the religious scholars and ask them about our day to day business transactions (and this mentality has given rise to the idea that Islam does not possess answers to the intricate issues of the modern economics).
The need of the hour is that our scholars should understand what is really happening in this world. The requirement is to be aware of the contemporary issues. The old jurists used to say that those who are not aware of the matters of their time are not scholars but are ignorant. That is why our scholars need to understand that until they do not comprehend the day to day issues, they can never come up with the correct solutions. One of our great scholars of the past, Imam Muhammad (may Allah blessing be on him) used to spend almost everyday in the marketplace. When someone enquired of his presence in the bazaar, he said that I cannot give the correct fatwa (ruling) if I am not aware of what is happening in the markets.
If someone hands over the government to our religious leaders and tells them to run the country, it would not be an exaggeration to say that our scholars will not be able to change the situation a great deal in years. Unless one is not aware of the modern day problems, how can one expect to implement solutions for these issues.
So, it is my humble request to the Islamic scholars to spend a lot of time researching the contemporary issues. Not only should they learn about them by reading books, but they should spend time in the markets as well. They must learn how the share market works, how our banks function and how the modern economy as a whole operates.
Islam is the religion which has provided solutions for the whole mankind until the Day of Judgement. Unfortunately, there are not enough of us who have thoroughly researched and learned about the modern world. We need people who are well versed with not only beliefs and worship, but all aspects of life. If Islam is to provide a global system in this day and age, we would require scholars of immense knowledge in the current matters. Otherwise, this unjust capitalist system will continue to ruin the lives of the majority of the world for some time to come.
Signs of a Depraved Government
The material for this article has been from taken from the lecture of Mufti Taqi Usmani.
Saeed bin Sumaan, who was from the Tabieen (the believers who saw one or more Sahabah), used to say that I heard Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) seeking refuge from the regime of inexperienced and the foolish (the implication of Abu Hurairah [may Allah be pleased with him] was that there will be a time when young, inexperienced and imprudent people will take the reigns of administration, and thus he asked for refuge from Allah from that period).
So Saeed bin Sumaan asked Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) about the signs of those times when this will happen. He told of the three signs of that era: first sign being that people will not fulfill the rights of their relatives (also they will break ties with them), secondly, people will obey those who will lead others astray and finally people will refuse to comply with those who will show them the right path (the entire hadith is recorded in Imam Bukhari’s Al-Adab Al-Mufrad). So, when these three signs are present at a certain time then certain individuals will be the heads of state who are not eligible to rule.
In another narration Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) told of one of the signs of the day of judgement: naked, destitute, barefoot shepherds will compete in building tall buildings. Meaning that people whose past will not be bright nor their habits and manners will be decent; and those below average people whose upbringing won’t be good nor they would have been properly trained by anyone will become rulers, and they will compete in the construction of tall buildings.
Anyway, from the narration Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) we know that one should seek refuge from Allah from these dark ages. What should a believer do if he finds himself in these times (as majority of us are living under corrupt governments in this day and age)? We know from the narrations of Prophet (peace be upon him) that basically Allah will force ineligible administrators over us when our deeds will be evil. Therefore, if Muslims as a whole follow Quran and Sunnah, Allah will place over them good and decent administrators, but if they follow the footsteps of the satan as a whole (like the majority of us are doing) then Allah will put on top us those who will be unfit to govern.
In another hadith, the meaning of which more or less is that, prophet (peace be upon him) told us that when the believers find themselves in these times where they have incompetent rulers, they should not curse the government. So, the Muslims should not indulge in verbal abuse, but rather ask Allah to remove these tyrannical rulers who have been enforced upon them due to their bad actions. That is why rather than verbally cursing the government, Muslims should repent from their sins, correct their deeds and ask Allah (morning and evening) to save them from awful leaders.
But if we look at ourselves in the mirror, we find that, day and night, we are engaged in discussing the faults of our leaders. Whenever a few people get together, they start cursing the leaders and the government as a whole. Rather than engaging ourselves in this, if we are so fed up with our rulers, we should follow the advice of Prophet (peace be upon him) and start supplicating from Allah and correct our own evil deeds.
In another narration, the meaning of the hadith, more or less is that, Prophet (peace be upon him) told us that Allah controls the hearts of the rulers. If we please Allah, then Allah will change the hearts of the heads of state, or Allah will replace them with just rulers.
Now let us turn back to the signs which were mentioned at the beginning of the article. The first indication was that population of that era (majority of them) will not fulfill the rights of the relatives and will also break ties with them. Therefore, we should try our level best to fulfill the rights of others, and try to make up with those who try to break ties with us.
The second sign was that people will follow those who will lead others astray. This is so evident in this day and age: the more off track a person is the more people follow that person. For example, we see that in Muslim countries people flock behind the ignorant Sufis who themselves have no idea of the Quran and Sunnah. The reason for this is that they show people easy ways to attain paradise, and they have certain tricks up their sleeves which generally impress the public.
The third sign of that era would be that people will refuse to comply with those who will show them the right path. The reason for this is simple: a God fearing person will state the plain truth and that does not go down the throat of the masses. This is because it goes against their desires. So anyone who shows them a path which is easy and does not affect their wishes, the masses have no hesitation in accepting that message. On the other hand, if a person invites them to Islam, they will accuse that person of being a fundamentalist. I have heard many times from our fellow Muslims that Scholars have made the religion very difficult. They argue that Islam is not that rigid (basically people want a green light to keep on doing what they want, and if anyone clashes with this philosophy then he becomes a fundamentalist).
Hence, we should try to mend our ways and not become one of those who fall into the three categories of the hadith. Only those people should be our role models and teachers who follow the Quran, and their lives are led according the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Saeed bin Sumaan, who was from the Tabieen (the believers who saw one or more Sahabah), used to say that I heard Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) seeking refuge from the regime of inexperienced and the foolish (the implication of Abu Hurairah [may Allah be pleased with him] was that there will be a time when young, inexperienced and imprudent people will take the reigns of administration, and thus he asked for refuge from Allah from that period).
So Saeed bin Sumaan asked Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) about the signs of those times when this will happen. He told of the three signs of that era: first sign being that people will not fulfill the rights of their relatives (also they will break ties with them), secondly, people will obey those who will lead others astray and finally people will refuse to comply with those who will show them the right path (the entire hadith is recorded in Imam Bukhari’s Al-Adab Al-Mufrad). So, when these three signs are present at a certain time then certain individuals will be the heads of state who are not eligible to rule.
In another narration Rasulullah (Sallallaahu Alayhi Wasallam) told of one of the signs of the day of judgement: naked, destitute, barefoot shepherds will compete in building tall buildings. Meaning that people whose past will not be bright nor their habits and manners will be decent; and those below average people whose upbringing won’t be good nor they would have been properly trained by anyone will become rulers, and they will compete in the construction of tall buildings.
Anyway, from the narration Abu Hurairah (may Allah be pleased with him) we know that one should seek refuge from Allah from these dark ages. What should a believer do if he finds himself in these times (as majority of us are living under corrupt governments in this day and age)? We know from the narrations of Prophet (peace be upon him) that basically Allah will force ineligible administrators over us when our deeds will be evil. Therefore, if Muslims as a whole follow Quran and Sunnah, Allah will place over them good and decent administrators, but if they follow the footsteps of the satan as a whole (like the majority of us are doing) then Allah will put on top us those who will be unfit to govern.
In another hadith, the meaning of which more or less is that, prophet (peace be upon him) told us that when the believers find themselves in these times where they have incompetent rulers, they should not curse the government. So, the Muslims should not indulge in verbal abuse, but rather ask Allah to remove these tyrannical rulers who have been enforced upon them due to their bad actions. That is why rather than verbally cursing the government, Muslims should repent from their sins, correct their deeds and ask Allah (morning and evening) to save them from awful leaders.
But if we look at ourselves in the mirror, we find that, day and night, we are engaged in discussing the faults of our leaders. Whenever a few people get together, they start cursing the leaders and the government as a whole. Rather than engaging ourselves in this, if we are so fed up with our rulers, we should follow the advice of Prophet (peace be upon him) and start supplicating from Allah and correct our own evil deeds.
In another narration, the meaning of the hadith, more or less is that, Prophet (peace be upon him) told us that Allah controls the hearts of the rulers. If we please Allah, then Allah will change the hearts of the heads of state, or Allah will replace them with just rulers.
Now let us turn back to the signs which were mentioned at the beginning of the article. The first indication was that population of that era (majority of them) will not fulfill the rights of the relatives and will also break ties with them. Therefore, we should try our level best to fulfill the rights of others, and try to make up with those who try to break ties with us.
The second sign was that people will follow those who will lead others astray. This is so evident in this day and age: the more off track a person is the more people follow that person. For example, we see that in Muslim countries people flock behind the ignorant Sufis who themselves have no idea of the Quran and Sunnah. The reason for this is that they show people easy ways to attain paradise, and they have certain tricks up their sleeves which generally impress the public.
The third sign of that era would be that people will refuse to comply with those who will show them the right path. The reason for this is simple: a God fearing person will state the plain truth and that does not go down the throat of the masses. This is because it goes against their desires. So anyone who shows them a path which is easy and does not affect their wishes, the masses have no hesitation in accepting that message. On the other hand, if a person invites them to Islam, they will accuse that person of being a fundamentalist. I have heard many times from our fellow Muslims that Scholars have made the religion very difficult. They argue that Islam is not that rigid (basically people want a green light to keep on doing what they want, and if anyone clashes with this philosophy then he becomes a fundamentalist).
Hence, we should try to mend our ways and not become one of those who fall into the three categories of the hadith. Only those people should be our role models and teachers who follow the Quran, and their lives are led according the way of the Prophet (peace be upon him).
Friday, December 01, 2006
Evolution or Creation
In the west, especially in the USA, there is a debate going on about Evolution or Intelligent Design. To summarise the nature of the arguments, scientists in favour of the theory of evolution claim that life came into existence by chance, while the scientists who disagree, say that there is a creator behind all the life on earth.
In this article, I do not want to go into the scientific arguments (the readers can study the books written for and against evolution and make up their own minds); I just want to discuss some basic common sense points concerning the validity of Darwinism.
I want to start with an incident which occurred approximately thirteen hundred years ago. An atheist came to Imam Abu Hanifa (a great scholar of Islam) and challenged him to a debate (to be held in front of the caliph of that time). The atheist said that he will prove that there is no God; Imam Abu Hanifa accepted his challenge.
A time was set, and they were to come and debate in the presence of the caliph. When the day came, the atheist reached at the rendezvous on time, while Imam Abu Hanifa was no where to be seen. After waiting for a long time, Abu Hanifa finally showed up. When enquired about his late appearance, he replied that a mysterious thing happened to him on the way. He elaborated that he was waiting for a boat to take him across the river and there was none in sight. Suddenly the branches of a tree (at the bank of the river) started to fall, and the wood from the branches formed into a boat; he sat into the boat and it automatically took him across the river without any outside help whatsoever.
The atheist had an incredulous expression on his face, and he said that are you out of your mind, how can such a thing happen? Abu Hanifa replied that well my friend the debate is over. The atheist enquired how? He answered that if you cannot believe that a boat can be formed and driven without any external help, how can you believe that the entire universe came into existence, and is functioning, on its own. By this argument, Abu Hanifa won the debate.
If we look around, all the millions of living species on this planet possess miraculous features, unique behavioural patterns and flawless physical structures. If one just looks at the human body alone, one can only admire the complex mechanisms, structures and processes which take place inside ones body. Some of the scientists are astonished as they discover the miraculous aspects of these structures they study and the intelligence behind that coming into existence, and they witness infinite knowledge and wisdom involved. Others, however, surprisingly claim that all these miraculous features are the product of chance.
According to these scientists, a number of simple chemical processes came together and formed a protein, which is no more possible than a randomly scattered collection of letters coming together to form a poem. In addition, the other coincidences led to the emergence of other proteins. These then also combined by chance in an organised manner, not just proteins, but DNA, RNA, enzymes etc (all of which are very intricate structures within the cell). As a result of billions of coincidences the first cell was formed. The ability of blind chance did not stop there, as these cells just happened to multiply. Afterwards, because of these coincidences these cells organised in such a way as to produce the first living thing.
So basically it required billions of coincidences for one life form to come into existence. Then afterwards trillions of other coincidences took place and other life forms were formed in the water. Later they evolved into other creatures. Then from water, according to the evolutionists, they evolved onto the land and further evolved into other creatures such as reptiles, birds, mammals and some of them later evolved into human beings.
Let us say that we place a computer in a room. We let the program Microsoft Word run on it. Then we let twenty monkeys into the room. The monkeys run wildly and jump on the keyboard, and bang on the keypads for days. Afterwards, when we study the computer, we find that a book has been written without any grammatical errors in flawless English. Moreover, the book is organised into chapters, there are page numbers, headings and an index at the end as well. If you can believe this story then you will not have any problem in believing the theory of evolution. Of course, any reasonable person will never believe this fantastic tale. So how can one believe that trillions upon trillions of coincidences took place and produced life on this earth.
In short, evolutionists, regard chance as an intelligent, conscious and powerful enough force to create living things and all the sensitive balances on this earth. The fact that educated, intelligent and knowledgeable people can, as a group, believe in the most irrational and illogical claim in the recorded history is really a great miracle. If you put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of these people and tell them “look this idol created this room and everything in it,” they would reply that it is utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet they declare that “the unconscious process known as chance gradually brought the world and the billion of living things into being with enormous planning” to be the greatest scientific explanation.
The more I study the theory of evolution, the harder it gets for me to swallow this philosophy. Darwinism certainly does not go down my throat, does it go down yours?
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
I would also recommend that you watch the following videos:
BIOMIMETICS: TECHNOLOGY IMITATES NATURE http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6869583920990256801
THE MIRACLE OF THE HONEYBEE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/miracle_of_the_honeybee/index.html
THE MIRACLE OF LEAFCUTTER ANT http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/leafcutters/
THE CREATION OF CAMEL http://www.harunyahya.com/camel/index.html
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/creation_of_universe/index.html
Also please read the article "The Disasters Darwanism brought to Humanity" on this website to understand what is the problem with Atheism.
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
In this article, I do not want to go into the scientific arguments (the readers can study the books written for and against evolution and make up their own minds); I just want to discuss some basic common sense points concerning the validity of Darwinism.
I want to start with an incident which occurred approximately thirteen hundred years ago. An atheist came to Imam Abu Hanifa (a great scholar of Islam) and challenged him to a debate (to be held in front of the caliph of that time). The atheist said that he will prove that there is no God; Imam Abu Hanifa accepted his challenge.
A time was set, and they were to come and debate in the presence of the caliph. When the day came, the atheist reached at the rendezvous on time, while Imam Abu Hanifa was no where to be seen. After waiting for a long time, Abu Hanifa finally showed up. When enquired about his late appearance, he replied that a mysterious thing happened to him on the way. He elaborated that he was waiting for a boat to take him across the river and there was none in sight. Suddenly the branches of a tree (at the bank of the river) started to fall, and the wood from the branches formed into a boat; he sat into the boat and it automatically took him across the river without any outside help whatsoever.
The atheist had an incredulous expression on his face, and he said that are you out of your mind, how can such a thing happen? Abu Hanifa replied that well my friend the debate is over. The atheist enquired how? He answered that if you cannot believe that a boat can be formed and driven without any external help, how can you believe that the entire universe came into existence, and is functioning, on its own. By this argument, Abu Hanifa won the debate.
If we look around, all the millions of living species on this planet possess miraculous features, unique behavioural patterns and flawless physical structures. If one just looks at the human body alone, one can only admire the complex mechanisms, structures and processes which take place inside ones body. Some of the scientists are astonished as they discover the miraculous aspects of these structures they study and the intelligence behind that coming into existence, and they witness infinite knowledge and wisdom involved. Others, however, surprisingly claim that all these miraculous features are the product of chance.
According to these scientists, a number of simple chemical processes came together and formed a protein, which is no more possible than a randomly scattered collection of letters coming together to form a poem. In addition, the other coincidences led to the emergence of other proteins. These then also combined by chance in an organised manner, not just proteins, but DNA, RNA, enzymes etc (all of which are very intricate structures within the cell). As a result of billions of coincidences the first cell was formed. The ability of blind chance did not stop there, as these cells just happened to multiply. Afterwards, because of these coincidences these cells organised in such a way as to produce the first living thing.
So basically it required billions of coincidences for one life form to come into existence. Then afterwards trillions of other coincidences took place and other life forms were formed in the water. Later they evolved into other creatures. Then from water, according to the evolutionists, they evolved onto the land and further evolved into other creatures such as reptiles, birds, mammals and some of them later evolved into human beings.
Let us say that we place a computer in a room. We let the program Microsoft Word run on it. Then we let twenty monkeys into the room. The monkeys run wildly and jump on the keyboard, and bang on the keypads for days. Afterwards, when we study the computer, we find that a book has been written without any grammatical errors in flawless English. Moreover, the book is organised into chapters, there are page numbers, headings and an index at the end as well. If you can believe this story then you will not have any problem in believing the theory of evolution. Of course, any reasonable person will never believe this fantastic tale. So how can one believe that trillions upon trillions of coincidences took place and produced life on this earth.
In short, evolutionists, regard chance as an intelligent, conscious and powerful enough force to create living things and all the sensitive balances on this earth. The fact that educated, intelligent and knowledgeable people can, as a group, believe in the most irrational and illogical claim in the recorded history is really a great miracle. If you put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of these people and tell them “look this idol created this room and everything in it,” they would reply that it is utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet they declare that “the unconscious process known as chance gradually brought the world and the billion of living things into being with enormous planning” to be the greatest scientific explanation.
The more I study the theory of evolution, the harder it gets for me to swallow this philosophy. Darwinism certainly does not go down my throat, does it go down yours?
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
I would also recommend that you watch the following videos:
BIOMIMETICS: TECHNOLOGY IMITATES NATURE http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6869583920990256801
THE MIRACLE OF THE HONEYBEE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/miracle_of_the_honeybee/index.html
THE MIRACLE OF LEAFCUTTER ANT http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/leafcutters/
THE CREATION OF CAMEL http://www.harunyahya.com/camel/index.html
CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE http://harunyahya.com/presentation/creation_of_universe/index.html
Also please read the article "The Disasters Darwanism brought to Humanity" on this website to understand what is the problem with Atheism.
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
The Problems with the Theory of Evolution
The material for this article has been taken from Harun Yahya’s book Evolution Deceit.
According to Darwin, different living species were not created by God, but they rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions. Darwin called this process “Evolution by Natural Selection”.
Darwin was himself conscious of the fact that his theory faced a lot of problems. He confessed this in his book (The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection) in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”.
The theory of evolution fails at its very first step: i.e. how life first appeared on earth? According to the claims of the theory, life started with a cell that formed by coincidence.
The scenario put forth is that four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.
First of all, lifeless materials can come together to form life is an unscientific assertion, and it has never been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. No scientist in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
The claim of the evolutionists that living cells – which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought together – nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on earth does not carry any weight. The million dollar point to be taken into consideration is that if any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. Keeping this in mind, the theory of evolution collapses at its very beginning, so it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skull and engage in speculation about them.
Furthermore, evolutionists claim that species living in water somehow stepped onto land and were transformed into land-dwelling species. There are a number of facts which make such transition impossible:
For example, fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.
In addition, sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.
There are numerous other points, but for the sake of brevity I will have stop here. Thus, it is impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organisms at some time, and all by chance.
The scenario that amphibians evolved into reptiles is implausible as well. For example, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.”
Evolutionists’ tales are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. The gradual evolution cannot explain this scenario. Firstly, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.
The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.
As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles, according to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.
One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:
Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.
All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.
Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness. The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it.
For many years, thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system but it is not possible to watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot? For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been researching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial complexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been able to do no more than this. If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a much more detailed and wise planning and design than the one in the TV. The plan and design of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to God, who has power over all things.
Briefly, the technology in our body is far superior to the technology mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience, and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?
Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent design of living things.
There are a lot more arguments one can put forth, and if anyone is interested I would recommend him to read Harun Yahya’s books (especially “The Evolution Deceit” and “Darwinism Refuted”) or visit http://www.harunyahya.com/.
All in all the theory of evolution is a dogmatic belief and not a scientific one. The evolutionists somehow want to deny the existence of God, because belief in a Creator would open the door to religion and that does not go down the throats of the atheists.
The fact that church committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion in the past and even murdered anyone who contradicted the church, caused many educated people of that time in the west to believe that religion is bad (it is illogical and unscientific). This type of thinking has spread to the majority who live in the west and that is why they do not believe in religion at all.
I would like to invite all these atheists to study Islam. We never murdered any scientists, but rather encouraged development of science and technology (history is a witness to this fact). The reason being that the last and the final testament, The Holy Quran, has remained uncorrupted from any changes, and there are no scientific errors in the Quran as opposed to other religious scriptures of our time (even the scholars of other religions confess that the scriptures are not the same now as at the time of revelation). I would recommend the atheists to go to http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php and watch the videos where scientists have themselves confessed that Quran could not have been the work of a human. In addition, please listen to the lecture "Amazing Quran" by Dr. Gary Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTMPBDcDov0 Further, I humbly request that you read the short book "QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE - Compatible Or Incompatible" which can be downloaded from http://www.esnips.com/doc/218f1013-8fac-4fd3-9a89-27f42fe6e493/QURAN-AND-MODERN-SCIENCE---Compatible-Or-Incompatible---Dr-Zakir-Naik May Allah show us the right path and save our minds from being corrupted by false ideologies. Ameen.
Please also read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity" on this website to understand why Atheism is such a dangerous philosphy. I would also recommend the article "New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories" on http://www.albalagh.net/general/evolution_theory_sinks.shtml
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
Furthermore, please go to http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php and watch the video "From a Frog to a Prince." This video is the best reply to the evolutionist propaganda I have ever seen (contains exclusive interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins).
In addition, please watch the following videos:
Major Problems with Theory of Evolution (This video is a must watch) http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4510168987472200892&hl=en
Hidden History of the Human Race Authors Tour 1994 http://krishnatube.com/video/295/Hidden-History-of-the-Human-Race-Authors-Tour-1994
Mysterious Origins of Man http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man
Living Fossils http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/living_fossils/index.html
The Collapse of Evolution http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836937496535487075
Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&mode=related&search=
Questioning Darwinian Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5lfTPwct4
Questioning Evolutionary Origins: Abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
Yusuf Estes talks about Evolution http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=yusuf+estes+and+evolution
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
According to Darwin, different living species were not created by God, but they rather came from a common ancestor and became differentiated from each other as a result of natural conditions. Darwin called this process “Evolution by Natural Selection”.
Darwin was himself conscious of the fact that his theory faced a lot of problems. He confessed this in his book (The Origin of Species, By Means of Natural Selection) in the chapter “Difficulties of the Theory”.
The theory of evolution fails at its very first step: i.e. how life first appeared on earth? According to the claims of the theory, life started with a cell that formed by coincidence.
The scenario put forth is that four billion years ago various lifeless chemical compounds underwent a reaction in the primordial atmosphere on the earth in which the effects of thunderbolts and atmospheric pressure led to the formation of the first living cell.
First of all, lifeless materials can come together to form life is an unscientific assertion, and it has never been verified by any experiment or observation. Life is only generated from life. No scientist in the world has ever succeeded in forming a living cell by bringing inanimate materials together, not even in the most advanced laboratories.
The claim of the evolutionists that living cells – which cannot be produced even when all the power of the human intellect, knowledge and technology are brought together – nevertheless managed to form by chance under primordial conditions on earth does not carry any weight. The million dollar point to be taken into consideration is that if any one step in the evolutionary process is proven to be impossible, this is sufficient to prove that the whole theory is totally false and invalid. Keeping this in mind, the theory of evolution collapses at its very beginning, so it becomes meaningless to take some human and ape skull and engage in speculation about them.
Furthermore, evolutionists claim that species living in water somehow stepped onto land and were transformed into land-dwelling species. There are a number of facts which make such transition impossible:
For example, fish "breathe" by taking in oxygen dissolved in water that they pass through their gills. They cannot live more than a few minutes out of water. In order to survive on land, they would have to acquire a perfect lung system all of a sudden.
In addition, sea-dwelling organisms discharge waste materials, especially ammonia, by means of their aquatic environment. On land, water has to be used economically. This is why these living beings have a kidney system. Thanks to the kidneys, ammonia is stored by being converted into urea and the minimum amount of water is used during its excretion. In addition, new systems are needed to provide the kidney's functioning. In short, in order for the passage from water to land to have occurred, living things without a kidney would have had to develop a kidney system all at once.
There are numerous other points, but for the sake of brevity I will have stop here. Thus, it is impossible that all these dramatic physiological changes could have happened in the same organisms at some time, and all by chance.
The scenario that amphibians evolved into reptiles is implausible as well. For example, the amphibian egg is designed for developing in water whereas the amniotic egg is designed for developing on land. A "step by step" evolution of an amphibian is out of the question, because without a perfect and fully-designed egg, it is not possible for a species to survive. Evolutionist paleontologist and an authority on vertebrate paleontology, Robert L. Carroll has to accept that "the early reptiles were very different from amphibians and that their ancestors could not be found yet.”
Evolutionists’ tales are not over yet. There still remains the problem of making these creatures fly! Since evolutionists believe that birds must somehow have been evolved, they assert that they were transformed from reptiles. The gradual evolution cannot explain this scenario. Firstly, the wings, which are the exceptional traits of birds, are a great impasse for the evolutionists. One of the Turkish evolutionists, Engin Korur, confesses the impossibility of the evolution of wings:
The common trait of the eyes and the wings is that they can only function if they are fully developed. In other words, a halfway-developed eye cannot see; a bird with half-formed wings cannot fly. How these organs came into being has remained one of the mysteries of nature that needs to be enlightened.
The question of how the perfect structure of wings came into being as a result of consecutive haphazard mutations remains completely unanswered. There is no way to explain how the front arms of a reptile could have changed into perfectly functioning wings as a result of a distortion in its genes (mutation).
Moreover, just having wings is not sufficient for a land organism to fly. Land-dwelling organisms are devoid of many other structural mechanisms that birds use for flying. For example, the bones of birds are much lighter than those of land-dwelling organisms. Their lungs function in a very different way. They have a different muscular and skeletal system and a very specialised heart-circulatory system. All these mechanisms had to exist at the same time and altogether; they could not have formed gradually by being "accumulated". This is why the theory asserting that land organisms evolved into aerial organisms is completely fallacious.
As we have stated before, the theory of evolution proposes that some imaginary creatures that came out of the sea turned into reptiles, and that birds evolved from reptiles, according to the same scenario, reptiles are the ancestors not only of birds but also of mammals. However, there are great differences between these two classes. Mammals are warm-blooded animals (this means they can generate their own heat and maintain it at a steady level), they give live birth, they suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in fur or hair. Reptiles, on the other hand, are cold-blooded (i.e., they cannot generate heat, and their body temperature changes according to the external temperature), they lay eggs, they do not suckle their young, and their bodies are covered in scales.
One example of the structural barriers between reptiles and mammals is their jaw structure. Mammal jaws consist of only one mandibular bone containing the teeth. In reptiles, there are three little bones on both sides of the mandible. Another basic difference is that all mammals have three bones in their middle ear (hammer, anvil, and stirrup). Reptiles have but a single bone in the middle ear. Evolutionists claim that the reptile jaw and middle ear gradually evolved into the mammal jaw and ear. The question of how an ear with a single bone evolved into one with three bones, and how the sense of hearing kept on functioning in the meantime can never be explained. Not surprisingly, not one single fossil linking reptiles and mammals has been found. This is why evolutionist science writer Roger Lewin was forced to say, "The transition to the first mammal, which probably happened in just one or, at most, two lineages, is still an enigma.”
George Gaylord Simpson, one of the most popular evolutionary authorities and a founder of the neo-Darwinist theory, makes the following comment regarding this perplexing difficulty for evolutionists:
The most puzzling event in the history of life on earth is the change from the Mesozoic, the Age of Reptiles, to the Age of Mammals. It is as if the curtain were rung down suddenly on the stage where all the leading roles were taken by reptiles, especially dinosaurs, in great numbers and bewildering variety, and rose again immediately to reveal the same setting but an entirely new cast, a cast in which the dinosaurs do not appear at all, other reptiles are supernumeraries, and all the leading parts are played by mammals of sorts barely hinted at in the preceding acts.
Furthermore, when mammals suddenly made their appearance, they were already very different from each other. Such dissimilar animals as bats, horses, mice, and whales are all mammals, and they all emerged during the same geological period. Establishing an evolutionary relationship among them is impossible even by the broadest stretch of the imagination. The evolutionist zoologist R. Eric Lombard makes this point in an article that appeared in the leading journal Evolution:
Those searching for specific information useful in constructing phylogenies of mammalian taxa will be disappointed.
All of these demonstrate that all living beings appeared on earth suddenly and fully formed, without any evolutionary process. This is concrete evidence of the fact that they were created. Evolutionists, however, try to interpret the fact that living species came into existence in a particular order as an indication of evolution. Yet the sequence by which living things emerged is the "order of creation", since it is not possible to speak of an evolutionary process. With a superior and flawless creation, oceans and then lands were filled with living things and finally man was created.
Contrary to the "ape man" story that is imposed on the masses with intense media propaganda, man also emerged on earth suddenly and fully formed.
Another subject that remains unanswered by evolutionary theory is the excellent quality of perception in the eye.
Before passing on to the subject of the eye, let us briefly answer the question of "how we see". Light rays coming from an object fall oppositely on the retina of the eye. Here, these light rays are transmitted into electric signals by cells and they reach a tiny spot at the back of the brain called the centre of vision. These electric signals are perceived in this centre of the brain as an image after a series of processes. With this technical background, let us do some thinking.
The brain is insulated from light. That means that the inside of the brain is solid dark, and light does not reach the location where the brain is situated. The place called the centre of vision is a solid dark place where no light ever reaches; it may even be the darkest place you have ever known. However, you observe a luminous, bright world in this pitch darkness. The image formed in the eye is so sharp and distinct that even the technology of the 20th century has not been able to attain it.
For many years, thousands of engineers have tried to make a three-dimensional TV, and reach the vision quality of the eye. Yes, they have made a three-dimensional television system but it is not possible to watch it without putting on glasses; moreover, it is only an artificial three dimension. The background is more blurred, the foreground appears like a paper setting. Never has it been possible to produce a sharp and distinct vision like that of the eye. In both the camera and the television, there is a loss of image quality.
Evolutionists claim that the mechanism producing this sharp and distinct image has been formed by chance. Now, if somebody told you that the television in your room was formed as a result of chance, that all its atoms just happened to come together and make up this device that produces an image, what would you think? How can atoms do what thousands of people cannot? For nearly a century, tens of thousands of engineers have been researching and striving in high-tech laboratories and great industrial complexes using the most advanced technological devices, and they have been able to do no more than this. If a device producing a more primitive image than the eye could not have been formed by chance, then it is very evident that the eye and the image seen by the eye could not have been formed by chance. It requires a much more detailed and wise planning and design than the one in the TV. The plan and design of the image as distinct and sharp as this one belongs to God, who has power over all things.
Briefly, the technology in our body is far superior to the technology mankind has produced using its accumulated information, experience, and opportunities. No one would say that a HI-FI or a camera came into being as a result of chance. So how can it be claimed that the technologies that exist in the human body, which are superior even to these, could have come into being as a result of a chain of coincidences called evolution?
Even Darwin, in his letter to Asa Gray on April 3rd 1860, wrote that "the thought of the eye made him cold all over" and he confessed the desperation of the evolutionists in the face of the excellent design of living things.
There are a lot more arguments one can put forth, and if anyone is interested I would recommend him to read Harun Yahya’s books (especially “The Evolution Deceit” and “Darwinism Refuted”) or visit http://www.harunyahya.com/.
All in all the theory of evolution is a dogmatic belief and not a scientific one. The evolutionists somehow want to deny the existence of God, because belief in a Creator would open the door to religion and that does not go down the throats of the atheists.
The fact that church committed a lot of atrocities in the name of religion in the past and even murdered anyone who contradicted the church, caused many educated people of that time in the west to believe that religion is bad (it is illogical and unscientific). This type of thinking has spread to the majority who live in the west and that is why they do not believe in religion at all.
I would like to invite all these atheists to study Islam. We never murdered any scientists, but rather encouraged development of science and technology (history is a witness to this fact). The reason being that the last and the final testament, The Holy Quran, has remained uncorrupted from any changes, and there are no scientific errors in the Quran as opposed to other religious scriptures of our time (even the scholars of other religions confess that the scriptures are not the same now as at the time of revelation). I would recommend the atheists to go to http://www.scienceislam.com/scientists_quran.php and watch the videos where scientists have themselves confessed that Quran could not have been the work of a human. In addition, please listen to the lecture "Amazing Quran" by Dr. Gary Miller http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTMPBDcDov0 Further, I humbly request that you read the short book "QUR'AN AND MODERN SCIENCE - Compatible Or Incompatible" which can be downloaded from http://www.esnips.com/doc/218f1013-8fac-4fd3-9a89-27f42fe6e493/QURAN-AND-MODERN-SCIENCE---Compatible-Or-Incompatible---Dr-Zakir-Naik May Allah show us the right path and save our minds from being corrupted by false ideologies. Ameen.
Please also read the article "The Disasters Darwinism Brought to Humanity" on this website to understand why Atheism is such a dangerous philosphy. I would also recommend the article "New Fossil Discovery Sinks Evolutionary Theories" on http://www.albalagh.net/general/evolution_theory_sinks.shtml
Please also go to http://www.harunyahya.com/html/m_book_index.htm and read ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 1 and ATLAS OF CREATION - Volume 2; and see for yourselves the evidence of creation.
Furthermore, please go to http://www.evolutionisdead.com/downloads.php and watch the video "From a Frog to a Prince." This video is the best reply to the evolutionist propaganda I have ever seen (contains exclusive interview with Dr. Richard Dawkins).
In addition, please watch the following videos:
Major Problems with Theory of Evolution (This video is a must watch) http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-4510168987472200892&hl=en
Hidden History of the Human Race Authors Tour 1994 http://krishnatube.com/video/295/Hidden-History-of-the-Human-Race-Authors-Tour-1994
Mysterious Origins of Man http://krishnatube.com/video/269/The-Mysterious-Origins-of-Man
Living Fossils http://www.harunyahya.com/presentation/living_fossils/index.html
The Collapse of Evolution http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6836937496535487075
Questioning evolution theory THIS IS INCREDIBLE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1iCjKWzeEE&mode=related&search=
Questioning Darwinian Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5lfTPwct4
Questioning Evolutionary Origins: Abiogenesis http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t45wxUddOaM
Yusuf Estes talks about Evolution http://video.google.com.au/videosearch?q=yusuf+estes+and+evolution
Further, I would also urge you to read "What is the Origin of Man? by Dr. Maurice Bucaille.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)