Some faces that day will be radiant. Looking at their Lord. Will we see Allah?

“(Some) faces, that day, will be radiant. Looking towards their lord.” (Qur’an 75:22-23)

At first blush one cannot be faulted for seeing this as a proof for the theological position that Muslims will see Allah (swt) in the next life.

May Allah (swt) reward brother Assad, the servant of Allah (swt) who did the translation from our noble Shaykh and teacher.

*Translated from Shaykh Rashid bin Salim Al Busafi -هللا حفظه -book “المراقي خالصة شرح في الراقي بغية“ 

There are four quick points to consider.

Point 1.

As for the ayah {On that Day ˹some˺ faces will be bright, () Awaiting the mercy of their lord { َيْو َمِئٍذ }. Quran: ن )22ٰ )ى َّ لَ ِإ ها َبِّر َإ ِ232275[ })23( ٌرة َظ ِنا ,[ there’s no daleel in it perceiving Allah by vision because (Al Nathar) (النظر (does not necessary mean to see, as (Al Nathar) (النظر (to something does not necessarily mean seeing it, as when one says, I looked at the hilal but I didn’t see it.  

Point 2.

(النظر) (Al Nathar) comes with multiple meanings in the language, and the correct meaning is confirmed through the context it has been mentioned in, so the (Al Nathar) (النظر (comes with the meaning of waiting even if it was preceded by (Ila) (إلى, (so it doesn’t come with only the meaning of seeing, as that is refuted by the Quran itself As Allah says { نَّ ِإ ِذي َن ِإ َي َعْهِد ْش ال َت ُرو َن َّ ِ ْي َماِنهِ ْم هَّللا ب ِ َأ َوَأ ا َمنً ِئ َك َقلِياًل ثَ ٰ ولَ ُهْم َخاَل َق اَل ُأ َو ُم ُهُم اَل اآْل ل ِفي ِخ َرِة َ ُي َكلِّ َين ْم ُظ َو ُر هَّللا اَل ُ ْيهِ لَ ِإ َيْو َم ِقَيا َمِة َو ْم اَل الْ ُهْم ُي َز ِّكيهِ َول ا ٌب َ َعذ لِيٌم{ َ أ َQur’an 3:77[ أ

“Indeed, those who exchange the covenant of Allah and their [own] oaths for a small price will have no share in the Hereafter, and Allah will not speak to them or look at them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them; and they will have a painful punishment.” (Qur’an 3:77)

So is it said that, those who sell out God’s covenant and their own oaths for a small price, is it said that Allah doesn’t see them in the Akhira?!  

Point 3.

This Ayah came in the context of describing the day of judgment, and the day of gathering to be exact. And that’s by the proof of its context {{On that Day ˹some˺ faces will be bright,() Awaiting the mercy of their lord ()And ˹other˺ faces will be gloomy,() ا ِض َرةٌ ُو ُجوهٌ َيْو َمِئٍذ } {.in anticipation of something devastating ن )22ٰ )ى َّ لَ ِإ َنا ِظ َرةٌ )23ِ )إ َرِّب َها َت ن ُظ َبا ِس َرةٌ )24ُّ )ن َوُو ُجوهٌ َيْو َمِئٍذ َأ َع َل َأ ُيف َها ْ ِ ٌرة َقِفا َب { so if (Nathira) (ناظرة (was of the meaning of seeing then it won’t be except on that day; because he described that by saying (on that day) (ذٍيومئ (and those who differ with us they have not agreed on it happening on the gathering, add to that, the ayah came with the style of comparison between two types of faces, so these are radiant, happy, waiting for the mercy of its lord, while the others are contorted and gloomy expecting what will break their backs from punishment. So, it’s in pity waiting for it to come. Add to that that the description by faces in this ayah means the known organ which the feelings appear on. What is in the soul. What the soul is feeling will be expressed on the face. As the contentment and happiness can be identified through his face, and fearful and frightened can also be identified by his face, and the face organ is not the organ responsible for seeing.  

Point 4.

Add to that, that what could be perceived by one sense from the human senses can be perceived by other senses, especially the senses which are foremost compared to others. So, what is perceived by one sense is certainly perceived by others, so is that said about Allah swt?

Point 5.

The foremost of (Al Jar wa Al Majroor) (والمجرور الجار (in the ayat { ىَ ٰل ِإ ِإ َرِّب َها implies } نا ِظ َرةٌ limitation and confinement. So, if (ناطرة (was explained to mean seeing then it implies that it won’t see on that day except its lord, and nobody said this ever, so the foremost of (Al Jar wa Al Majroor) (والمجرور الجار (implies the preclusion of explaining the (Al Nathar) (النظر (in the ayah to mean seeing. 

The Sunni Muslims who hold these beliefs attribute to Imam Shafi’i the belief of the Atheist!

And they hold that seeing Allah is the thing that made Allah the Exalted worthy to be worshiped, and that if he Allah Tabaraka wa Ta’ala was not seen in the Akhira then he was not worthy to be worshiped in this dunya, and to you some of what they said: we find ibn Al Qayyim links to Imam Shafi’e that he said “if Mohammed bin Idrees did not known that he won’t see his lord in the akhira then he wouldn’t have worshiped him” and he said “I oppose ibn Aliyyah in everything even in saying La Illaha Illa Allah, as I say: la Illaha Illa Allah that can be seen in the akhira, and he says: La Illaha Illa Allah that cannot be seen in the Akhira…” and in another narration he said “ If Mohammed ibn Idrees was not certain that he’ll see Allah Azza Wa Jal he wouldn’t have worshiped him”. And this is talk that makes bodies grasp, and minds flabbergasted, as this is the Quran within our hands, we do not find that that the worship of Allah the Exalted was conditioned in any position of it with seeing him swt!! This is the belief of the Atheist!  

See for yourself!

May Allah (swt) guide you dear reader! May Allah (swt) guide the Muslim ummah!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Does Allah have two eyes?

“He only orders you to evil and shameful and to say about Allah what you do not know.”
(Qur’an 2:169)

Saying about Allah (swt) that which we do not know is likened to those who commit evil and have no shame.

No where is this more on display than with those who say, “I am Salafi” and “I am on the way of the Salaaf”.

Unlike them, who are afraid of the light being seen by the people I will not censor their perverse beliefs.

This is one of their web sites https://abukhadeejah.com/chapter-19-two-eyes-for-allah-al-harawee/

What will you find here?

Two quotations from the Qur’an, two hadith quotations and quotations from scholars. Typical gangster behaving in attacking other theological schools.

Point 1) The statements of scholars or any person can be thrown against the wall if it conflicts with the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

Point 2) We do not take our Aqidah, our Iman, from Al-Aqidah al-Wasitiyyah. We take it from the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

Let’s look at what they brought:

20:39

Chapter: “…In order that you may be brought up under My Eye.”

And His saying concerning the Ark of Nooh (عليه السلام):

تَجْرِي بِأَعْيُنِنَا جَزَاءً لِّمَن كَانَ كُفِرَ – 54:14

“[It was] sailing under Our Eyes, a reward for him who had been rejected.”

At least abukhadeejah website was a little more honest in the translation than the following:

Meanwhile check out the following video to see how these snakes in the grass translate it into English for the unsuspecting.


“Cast him into the chest, and toss it into the river. The current will throw him up on the shore where an enemy of Mine as well as an enemy of him will pick him up. I have lavished love of My own on you so that you are brought up under my two eyes.” [Qur’an 20:39]

At the 0:40 second mark you will see them translate the Arabic as what you see above.

Meanwhile the Abukhaadejah website translates it as: Chapter: “…In order that you may be brought up under My Eye.”’

The Qur’an mentions nothing about two eyes of Allah (swt). Those who say so need to produce their proof. Because the two ayats quoted do nothing to prove that. It is pure kalaam! (If we want to take their tone). It is pure taw’il (if we are being generous).

Now let us take a look at the hadith:

Anas narrated that Allah’s Messenger (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said:

“There was not a Prophet sent by Allah except that he warned his people from the Al-A’war Ad-Dajjāl, the One-eyed Liar. Indeed, he is one-eyed and your Lord is not one-eyed. There will be written between his eyes, the word kāfir.”  Source: (Bukhāri 7131, Muslim 2933)

“Allah is not hidden from you, He is not one-eyed.” And he pointed with his hand towards his eye, adding, “Indeed Al-Maseeh Ad-Dajjāl is blind in the right eye and his eye looks like a protruding grape.” Source: (Reported by Bukhāri, no. 7407)

Comments: So what the so called “Salafi” do is again engaged in kalaam. They speculate about the text. The interesting thing is that the very text quoted says about the dajjal “between his eyes”. Indicating that the dajjal does indeed have two eyes. It is surprising that they do not use their speculation to say that Allah (swt) has three eyes.

Dajjal: defective right eye or defective left eye?

Both of the above ‘Sahih’ hadith say two different things.

How the Sunni’s have tried to reconcile this is by saying about the Dajjal, well guess what both of his eyes are defective!

They have no proof from the Qur’an and Sunnah that Allah (swt) has TWO eyes. Allah (swt) never specified or gave a number. They would have been consistent in their misguided school if they would have simply said: “We affirm Allah has eyes.” Without giving any specific number.

But noooo! They are stubborn and remain upon their misguidance? Who is misguided?

Every scholar, shaykh, imam, cleric, street teacher, YouTuber or social media personality who claims that Allah (swt) has two eyes.

With this ONE example their creedal position has been demolished!

“Oh but that is just one example of how they erred.” – clueless supporter.

My response: “How many holes does it take to pop a balloon?”

May Allah (swt) save the ummah from the misguidance of these people.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Refutation: Those who claim Heaven is not only for Muslims.

“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam. And those who were given the Scripture did not differ except after knowledge had come to them – out of jealous animosity between themselves. And whoever disbelieves in the verses of Allah , then indeed, Allah is swift in account.” (Qur’an 3:19)

May Allah (swt) reward our brother who has done an excellent service in provided a translation to those seeking the truth in the English language. May Allah (swt) continue to bless and reward our noble Shaykh, and illustrious scholar, Abdullah bin Saeed Al Ma’mari (May Allah benefit us from him.)

“And whoever desires other than Islam as religion – never will it be accepted from him, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 3:85)

 “And whoever denies the faith – his work has become worthless, and he, in the Hereafter, will be among the losers.” (Qur’an 5:5)

 “But for those who deny the Truth, their deeds are like a mirage in the desert, which the thirsty supposes to be water until he comes to it only to find that it was nothing; he found instead that Allah was with Him and He paid his account in full. Allah is swift in settling the account. Or its similitude is that of depths of darkness upon an abysmal sea, covered by a billow, above which is a billow, above which is cloud, creating darkness piled one upon another; when he puts forth his hand, he would scarcely see it. He to whom Allah assigns no light, he will have no light. (Qur’an 29:39-40)

“And We will regard what they have done of deeds and make them as dust dispersed. (Qur’an 25:23)

“And it was already revealed to you and to those before you that if you should associate anything with Allah , your work would surely become worthless, and you would surely be among the losers.” (Qur’an 39:65)

As for the evidences that those rely upon, the followers of Perennialism, the religion of Humanism and the like:

“Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabeans [before Prophet Muhammed] – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (Qur’an 2:62)

“Indeed, those who have believed [in Prophet Muhammed] and those [before Him] who were Jews or Sabeans or Christians – those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness – no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they grieve.” (Qur’an 5:69)

It is important to understand that Islam has manifested through the previous Prophets/Messengers.

So this is why it is important to understand the word ‘Muslim’ as-a state of being.

So the verses above are in reference to those Christians, Sabeans and Jews who believed and died as Muslims will have no fear nor shall they grieve.

“And the same did Ibrahim enjoin on his sons and (so did) Yaqoub. O, my sons! surely Allah has chosen for you (this) faith, therefore die not unless you are Muslims (muslimuna). (Qur’an 2:132)

O you who believe! be careful of (your duty to) Allah with the care which is due to Him, and do not die unless you are Muslims.” (Qur’an 3:102)

“And if only the People of the Scripture had believed and feared Allah, We would have removed from them their misdeeds and admitted them to Gardens of Pleasure. “ (Qur’an 5:65)

“Indeed, they who disbelieved among the People of the Scripture and the polytheists will be in the fire of Hell, abiding eternally therein. Those are the worst of creatures.” (Qur’an 98:6)

It is narrated on the authority of Abu Huraira that the Blessed Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

By Him in Whose hand is the life of Muhammed, he who amongst the community of Jews or Christians hears about me, but does not affirm his belief in that with which I have been sent and dies in this state (of disbelief), he shall be but one of the denizens of Hell-Fire.

Repent! Accept the Truth! May Allah (swt) guide you!

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Hanafi Principles of Testing Hadith-Atabek Shukrov “Comprehensive Version”

 “Do not confound Truth by overlaying it with falsehood, nor knowingly conceal the Truth.”(Qur’an 2:42)

I was made aware that Shaykh Atabek Shukrov was going to be making a second edition to his book: Hanafi Principles for Testing the Hadith.

Al hamdulillah I have two copies of the book: One from the translator and former student of Shaykh Atabek, Sulaiman Ahmed and Yasser Kassana. May Allah bless them both for the gift.

For me I cannot complain as I did not pay for the book. Though, I do have to wonder about those who paid for the book, first time around. Do they get a complimentary copy of the “”Comprehensive Version” ?

Some may feel shorted paying for an incomplete book. As was relayed to a Muslim brother from Spain. I simply said in response that either their was poor management of the project the first time or no over site of the student that was doing the translation.

Initially I had glowing review of the book until I put my head in a bucket of ice water, and sobered up.

In fact I wrote some critique of this book especially when it came to the attacks upon Ikrima, and Sulaiman’s statements concerning the Ibadi’s .

In a way I do not fault either of the gentleman as they are continuing on a legacy of what I dub “The Shification of Sunnism.” Something I have been planning to blog on for some time insh’Allah.

This was the article that I wrote concerning the attack upon Ikrima:

I sent this both to Shaykh Atabek Shukurov and Shaykh Sulaiman Ahmed via directly….err back in July 2020.

I certainly am looking forward to this “Comprehensive Version” of the book.

Unfortunately, some of Atabek’s admirers were huge fans of this blog once upon a time (when it looked as if I was spending my time weakening the position of Salafis). However, once they learned that I didn’t think Ali Ibn Abu Talib was the greatest thing since sliced toast they were quickly dismayed.

May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

3,000 Shi’a Mahdi’s in Iran!

“Today those who disbelieve have lost all hope of (damaging) your faith. So, do not fear them, and fear Me. Today, I have perfected your religion for you, and have completed My blessing upon you, and chosen Islam as Dīn (religion and a way of life) for you. But whoever is compelled by extreme hunger, having no inclination towards sin, then Allah is Most-Forgiving, Very-Merciful.” (Qur’an 5:3)

“O.K Settle down, settle down. We are going to go about this in a very orderly manner. Which ever one of you is the Mahdi simply raise your hand!”

Source: https://www.businessinsider.com/3000-iranians-claim-to-be-the-madhi-2013-4

EARLIER this year Iran’s authorities arrested a score of men who, in separate incidents, claimed to be the Mahdi, a sacred figure of Shia Islam, who was “hidden” by God just over a millennium ago and will return some time to conquer evil on earth.

A website based in Qom, Iran’s holiest city, deemed the men “deviants”, “fortune-tellers” and “petty criminals”, who were exploiting credulous Iranians for alms during the Persian new-year holiday, which fell in mid-March.

Many of the fake messiahs were picked up by security men in the courtyard to the mosque in Jamkaran, a village near Qom, whose reputation as the place of the awaited Mahdi’s advent has been popularised nationwide by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. When he took office in 2005 he gave the mosque $10m.

Iran’s economic doldrums may have helped to cause this surge in people claiming to be mankind’s saviour—and in women saying they were the Mahdi’s wife. “In an open atmosphere where people could criticise the government they would not believe these people,” says an ex-seminarian in Tehran, the capital, noting that most Iranians still get all of their news from state television and state-owned or -sanctioned newspapers.

Last year a seminary expert, Mehdi Ghafari, said that more than 3,000 fake Mahdis were in prison. Mahdi-complexes are common, says a Tehran psychiatrist. “Every month we get someone coming in, convinced he is the Mahdi,” she says. “Once a man was saying such outrageous things and talking about himself in the third person that I couldn’t help laughing. He got angry and told me I had ‘bad hijab’ and was disrespecting the ‘Imam of Time’,” as the Mahdi is known.

The most famous case was that of Ayatollah Boroujerdi, who was sentenced to 11 years in prison in 2007 for—among other things—claiming he was the Mahdi. Like many influential “false” messiahs, he was forced to recant on state television, confessing that he had been against the Islamic Republic’s core tenets.

Mr Ahmadinejad has called his administration “the government of the hidden imam”. Last month he told a batch of new Iranian ambassadors to consider themselves “envoys of the Mahdi”. After his first speech at the UN in 2005, a video circulated showing Mr Ahmadinejad telling a leading Iranian cleric that world leaders had been enchanted, during his oration, by a halo around his head that had been put there by the Mahdi himself.

Comments:

I have no idea where they keep all these 3000 Mahdi’s but could you imagine if they were all in the same prison or same facility? Surely that would be volatile.

Reminds me of that Meme:

Not ready to leave Mom’s house. Not ready to show up and assist the Ummah.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

I don’t have a religion I have a relationship with Christ! I am a son of God

“But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” Rather, you are human beings from among those He has created. He forgives whom He wills, and He punishes whom He wills. And to Allah belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth and whatever is between them, and to Him is the final destination.” (Qur’an 5:18)

CHRIST THE DESPOT.

“But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Despot who bought them–bringing swift destruction on themselves.” (2 Peter 2:1)

 “Those who cleanse themselves from the latter will be instruments for special purposes, made holy, useful to the Despot and prepared to do any good work.” (2 Timothy 2:21)

I always get a chuckle out of Christians, usually Evangelical, who like to boldly proclaim: ‘I don’t have a religion I have a relationship.’.

The implication here is that Muslims do not have any type of close relationship with Allah (swt). Our faith is just one of replete rituals, do’s this and don’t do that, a system.

Yet, they ignore this juicy inspired text of the New Testament.

“Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” (James 1:26-27)

Here this inspired text of God is telling us clearly not that religion is worthless, but what type of religion is worthless and the type of religion that is acceptable before God.

So my over zealous evangelical friend reading this. Nice tactic but you yourself have a religion.

So many many Christians (no doubt having minds shaped by secular liberal values) and the so-called separation of Church and State think that they don’t need to follow any laws, statues or ordinances.

However, once one digs beneath this very thin veneer we find that Christians themselves must acknowledge that they themselves until today are bound by various laws. Only an utterly ignorant and completely unstudied Christian would suggest they need not follow any laws.

“But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, brings adultery upon her. And he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:32)

 “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that is not tolerated even among pagans, for a man has his father’s wife.” (1 Corinthians 5:1)

The text above not withstanding indirect support of poligyny (which the Jews did indeed practice) the above text is talking about incest (something rife among Christians until today).

In fact if you are an American you know the long standing joke about Southern/Mid Western states and people sleeping with sisters in corn fields.

That Christian who was sleeping with his father’s wife hand him over to Satan instructs Paul!

“It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and of a kind that even pagans do not tolerate: A man is sleeping with his father’s wife.  And you are proud! Shouldn’t you rather have gone into mourning and have put out of your fellowship the man who has been doing this For my part, even though I am not physically present, I am with you in spirit. As one who is present with you in this way, I have already passed judgment in the name of our Lord Jesus on the one who has been doing this.  So when you are assembled and I am with you in spirit, and the power of our Lord Jesus is present,  hand this man over to Satan for the destruction of his body, so that his spirit may be saved on the day of the Lord.” (1 Corinthians 5:1-5)

So what about a scenario when a man’s father has died. Can he than marry his father’s widowed wife? What kind of Christ centered guidance are the Christians given or they just left scratching their heads and shrugging their shoulders?

Paul chastises spirit filled Christians who have not repented of debauchery and sexual immorality.

“I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.” (2 Corinthians 12:21)

Christians and Muslims are bound by many similar dietary restrictions.

“You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. Farewell.” (Acts 15:29)

“Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allāh, and [those animals] killed by strangling or by a violent blow or by a head-long fall or by the goring of horns, and those from which a wild animal has eaten, except what you [are able to] slaughter [before its death], and those which are sacrificed on stone altars,2 and [prohibited is] that you seek decision through divining arrows. That is grave disobedience. This day those who disbelieve have despaired of [defeating] your religion; so fear them not, but fear Me. This day I have perfected for you your religion and completed My favor upon you and have approved for you Islām as religion. But whoever is forced by severe hunger with no inclination to sin – then indeed, Allāh is Forgiving and Merciful. (Qur’an 5:3)

“He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allāh. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allāh is Forgiving and Merciful.” (Qur’an 2:173)

#1) Muslims and Christians are not to eat blood.

However, for many Christians, guidance be damned! They will enjoy their blood pudding, very famous in the United Kingdom and Eastern Europe. Nor will Christians practice ritual slaughter of animals.

#2) Muslims and Christians are not to eat any meat sacrificed to idols. Or really that which a name other than God has been pronounced over it.

#3) Muslims and Christians are not to eat meat of strangled animals. When thoughtful Christians who actually give a damn about what the New Testament teaches, ponder why they should not eat blood or strangled animals like rabbits caught in snares it will dawn on them that they are to ritually slaughter the animal just like Muslims and Jews do, but they conveniently ignore this!

A beautiful more hard core translation rather than the soft core translations of today. (King James Version KJV 1900)

Any Christian who is a fornicator, idolater, adulterer, effeminate, or acts upon gay desire will not enter heaven!

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornificators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind.” (1 Corinthians 6:9 King James Version KJV 1900)

NOTICE ALMOST ALL MODERN TRANSLATIONS DO NOT TRANSLATE THE GREEK TEXT AS FORNIFICATORS

Please note that all most all modern translations today do not translate the Greek as fornificators.

Why is that?

Because anyone who grows up in the United States, who went to Bible camp, who went to those Fire Up Jesus camps, know exactly what was (IS) going on. The passing of notes back and forth, the hook up culture of youth as young as 12,13 and 14. Now with the internet and mobile devices the paths to fornification are much much easier for them.

Which results in teenage pregnancies’, unwanted pregnancies’, abortions, secret or open, shot gun marriages which end up regret and physical abuse. It often does not end well for the woman.

JESUS LOVE IS CONDITIONAL NOT UNCONDITIONAL.

CONDITIONAL UPON KEEPING COMMANDMENTS.

Now Christians can argue that grace is a free gift. However, it is absolutely non-biblical to state that the love of God or Christ for that matter is non conditional.

“But showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:6)

If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15)

If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father’s commandments and abide in his love.” (John 15:10)

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.” ( 1 John 5:3)

Do you people not understand this? Loving God and carrying out what he has commanded is not a chore! It grows from the love, honour, respect, that one has for an awesome God who has given us everything!

BUT YOU SEE MY MUSLIM FRIEND GOD CALLS HIMSELF ‘FATHER’ AND I NEVER SAW ALLAH DO THAT!

“In that day,” declares the Lord, “you will call me ‘my husband’: you will no longer call me ‘my master.’ (Hosea 2:16)

  1. When did /does anyone in the Bible stop referencing God as master?
  2. When/Where do Christians frequently refer to God the Father as Husband?

Husband is totally unrelatable to me. I do not think of God as my husband and frankly speaking the whole idea to me as a man is absolutely unrelatable. I am not the bridegroom of God. I do not relate to God as ‘my husband’. It is bizarre.

If you want to call God, ‘Father’, ‘Husband’ , ‘Dad’, ‘Daddy or ‘Abba’ that is on you!

You can be a Muslim (Shi’a, Sunni, Ibadi), a Christian (Roman Catholic, Armenian Orthodox, Syriac Orthodox, Oneness Pentecostal, Reformed Baptist, Quaker, Evangelical Lutheran) and anything you want under the sun, and if your son/daughter runs around the neighborhood and is sexually promiscuous, the likelihood of your child getting clap, gonorrhea, chlamydia is the same.

Allah (swt) doesn’t say, ‘Oh this girl is an Evangelical, or this boy is Greek Orthodox let’s spare him gonorrhea!’

And if that is not a blessing from Allah (swt) it is a punishment for your sin! So call yourself ‘Son of God’ or what ever title you fancy. If you DO NOT follow the commands and ordinances of God, as an individual, family, husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother, society there WILL BE consequences.

“But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” (Qur’an 5:18)

The ONLY thing that WILL save you is a contrite heart, and sincere repentance. Which means in Islam to turn away from the evil thing with your limbs, outward, your thoughts, your mind, and your heart.

“I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” (Luke 13:3)

The Qur’an establishes that Allah (swt) is closer to us than our life vein. That Allah (swt) answers us, that Allah (swt) is there. Yet, at the same time it clearly establishes Allah (swt) as sovereign master.

“But the Jews and the Christians say, “We are the children of Allah and His beloved.” Say, “Then why does He punish you for your sins?” (Qur’an 5:18)

THE LOVE OF GOD AND OF CHRIST FOR CHRISTIANS IS CONDITIONAL UPON THEM KEEPING THE COMMANDMENTS.

LET US START WITH WHAT THEY CALL THE ’10’ COMMANDMENTS.

Commandment 1.

“You shall have no other gods before me.”

Comments: We as Muslims would say no other gods beside him or after him. Not just before.

Commandment 2.

“Do not make for yourself a graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in the heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God. visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generations of those who hate me. But showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.”

Comments: ‘Graven image’ is an internal debate between Jews and Christians, and even between Christians themselves.

For context you may wish to read about iconclast controversy during the Byzantine era. Interestingly enough are the comments about the rise of Islam in this regards. Muslims we do not make images, graven or non graven. Look what happened with the Golden Calf (Baal Yaweh) and the people of Israel. They were not punished simply for making the calf, but for worshipping it. In Islam they wouldn’t have even been able to make the damn thing!

The problem for Catholics/Orthodox at the very least is that maybe the statues and icons of Jesus and Mary that are littered all through out their churches add artistic expression and beauty, they have become a distraction and to portray Christ and Mary in the racial ethnic type of those who construct it is certainly problematic.

As far as God visiting iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations. Authubillah min dhalik (may Allah protect us from it). It is rank blasphemy. Unsound doctrine and an attribution of injustice to Allah.

Lastly, those who hate God do not obey, him however, God gives his steadfast love to the multitudes that who love him by keeping his commandments.

Commandment 3.

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain.”

Commandment 4.

“Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work. But the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave, or our female slave, or your livestock, or the traveler under your care. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.”

Comments:

Again, this is a matter of internal debate between Jews and Christians as to which day is the Sabbath and as well as an internal debate among Christians. I will say this in my humble opinion and observation other than Orthodox Jews who diligently observe this the ONLY Christians I have known to take this commandment seriously are the Amish, Mennonites, and the Seventh Day Adventist.

Other than that the command of God to rest takes a back seat in the liberal world order. Interestingly The NYSE and NASDAQ are open Monday-Friday and closed on Saturday and Sunday. Closed on Saturday to honour Judaism and Sunday or else the Christians would have a fit. Alas, the millions of working class Christians are not allowed to observe the ordinances of God. Forcing Christians to work on Sunday is an attack upon their faith. It is a day in which they should rest, find comfort with their spouse, children, praise God and reflect upon the beauty of creation.

“People whom neither buying/selling or trading distract them from remembering Allah, from establishing Prayer, and from paying Zakah; people who fear a Day when hearts and eyes will tremble.” (Qur’an 24:37)

Commandment 5

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord God is giving you.”

Comments:

“And your Lord has commanded that you shall not serve (any) but Him, and goodness to your parents. If either or both of them reach old age with you, say not to them (so much as) “Ugh” nor chide them, and speak to them a generous word. (Qur’an 17:23)

It is interesting that the Bible clause is ‘that your days may be long in the land’ after admonishing to respect one’s parents. People who have bad family upbringing, experienced violence, manipulation, hate in the household, they often grow up with psychological disorders, high blood pressure and a myriad of other physical ailments. There simply is no love in their households. It is proven time and again, be it Christian, Muslim, Jewish or what ever household that one grows up in, where there is no love there are not hearts with empathy and pity. Hearts become constricted.

Commandment 6.

“You shall not murder.”

Comments:

This is a better translation than ‘You shall not kill’. Because killing is a part of life. I once joked with my vegetarian friend, ‘I only eat plants that eat meat’. Christianity would not be alive today where it not for the ‘Just War Theory’. Christians fought many wars conquering and being conquered by the Danes, Kievian Rus, Saxon tribes etc. Truth be told the smallest sects/denominations of Christians are the most adverse to war, defensive or not. They are the Jehovah’s Witness, Quakers and the like. Rather than being open and honest with Christians about war and killing, the Christian tradition lost many intellectuals in the 60s and 70s to Hare Krishna, various stands of Buddhism, the Seth speaks series written by Jane Roberts, and a potpourri of new age beliefs that have only mushroomed all over Western Culture.

Commandment 7.

“You shall not commit adultery.”

Comments:

I hate to be cliché but GOOGLE IT. Just google “Christian pastor adultery.” Many a Christian have had such a difficulty with this. Of course this is due to some of their marriage laws that go against the fitra of the human being. You can’t expect people who got married in their early 20s, who tried to fulfill the law of God, and than God divorced to be monks for the rest of their natural lives. Little wonder!

Commandment 8.

“You shall not steal.”

Comments:

I wonder if there is a caveat to this in both Judaism and Christianity. Like for example is it stealing Palestine if one believes that God gave them jurisdiction over that land? Is war booty, blessed or ordained by God? Is partaking in something after one has knowledge that it is wrong still sinful? Example: Let us say we conquer Native American tribal people’s lands. Which technically is stealing. Is this justified? If it is under what pretext? If it is not and we are aware that it is stealing, usurping is there barakah (blessing) in remaining in a place that usurped from others?

So in fairness there are some theological questions that need to be addressed by Judaism, Islam and Christianity on this.

Commandment 9.

“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”

Commandment 10.

“You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male slave or his female slave, or his ox or his donkey, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” (Exodus 20:3-17)

Comments:

I do wonder if this has some to commandment 8 and 9. It is possible one makes a false claim against one’s neighbor in order to usurp something of theirs. If the Christian Kingdom of Mercia sees that the Christian Kingdom of Northumbria has great land for pasturing and sowing crops and invades it on a false pretext are they breaking the 10th commandment?

OVER ALL COMMENTS.

The very fact that as we can see that Christians cannot commit adultery, or sleep with their’ father’s wife, or eat blood, or steal show that they must be and are indeed bound by laws. Yet, some how the bulk of Christians today believe that they are some how not subject to the laws of God. Or they think it is the 10 commandments only? On what basis do they think they can pick and choose God’s laws and ordinances?

So technically a Christian could have sex with an animal?

Whoever has sexual intercourse with an animal must be put to death. “Whoever sacrifices to any god except the LORD must be condemned and destroyed.” (Exodus 22:19-20)

“These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” (Matthew 15:8)

This text describes aptly the bulk of Christians I have ever met. Pastors, Evangelist, Street Preachers, the Jesus Loves You, the Unconditional Love, all the clichés, all the meme’s, all the catchy one liners they use the blood of Christ as some kind of ‘get out of jail’ free card. That is wrong. The blood of Christ is supposed to be a ‘get out of hell’ free card, not a blatantly disobey God on Earth and do what ever the hell you want.

“For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Despot and Master.” (Jude 1:4)

“I am covered by the G Sauce so I can live what ever life I want.” You Muslim woman pity you. You can’t feel the wind blowing in your hair. You don’t know what its like to have a dating life. You poor Muslims so burdened by these laws.”

MAJROITY OF TODAY’S CHRISTIANS ARE ANTI-CHRIST AND ANTINOMIAN.

Know when you are dealing with a Christian who objects to Islam because they believe that our Beloved Messenger (saw) was a false prophet, or that the Qur’an is not divine revelation, or that Muslims do not have a cohesive plan of salvation than you are most likely dealing with a Christian.

Know this fellow Muslims, when you are dealing with a “Christian” who objects to Islam because of Shari’ah law, and the various laws of Islam you are not dealing with a Christian. You are dealing with an antinomian.

What is an antinomian?

“The Lord Jesus said: “None of them that said to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that does the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name? and in Your name have cast out devils? and in Your name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess to them, I never knew you: depart from Me, you that act as if the law does not exist (Mathew: 7:21–23)

TRUE CHRISTIANS DO NOT PRACTICE SIN!

“By this we can be sure that we have come to know Him: if we keep His commandments. If anyone says, “I know Him,” but does not keep His commandments, he is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” (1 John 2:3-4)

Anyone born of God refuses to practice sin, because God’s seed abides in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God.” (1 John 3:9)

“Anyone abiding in Him does not sin; anyone sinning has not seen Him, nor has he known Him.” (1 John 3:6)

Comments:

By the way not the subject of this entry but this brings us to the doctrine of Evanescent Grace. That is where a Christian may think he/she is saved but in reality they are being misled to think that they are.

The above text are very clear. In fact Christian theology is making a hyper spiritual claim that you will not find among Muslims. We remain flesh and blood and do not ever claim to be indwelt by the divine. So how is one filled with the Holy Spirit (God the Third person) out there having premarital sex, or extra marital sex, or getting piss drunk while God’s spirit is literally with in you?

It is not possible!

 “Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?” (2 Corinthians 6:14)

Christianity and Alcohol.

A huge problem with Christians. What do you do though? When your God incarnate turned water into wine.

When you have vague guidelines like the the following:

“Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit.” (Ephesians 5:18)

Drink but do not get drunk. Have a girlfriend, boyfriend and chill out together just don’t have sex!

Because Christians are not upon true guidance they have no such concept of Sadd adh-dhara’i’ (blocking the means)  By the way the boyfriend/girlfriend comment in fairness does not apply to Christians of the past, but do you really think parents have any control over their children today?

This is not blocking the means.

Amongst Protestants, the Baptist and Church of Christ will always remind you to watch out for those wayward Lutherans and Calvinist that like to have good time!

The Protestant Christian who wrote the forward to this book is son of the famous Protestant R.C Sproul. R.C Sproul JR. narrowly escaped prison for his DUI (Driving under the influence) of alcohol.

https://rc-sproul-jr.blogspot.com/2017/06/rc-sproul-jr-pleads-guilty.html

Imagine if he crashed into another car and killed someone. That would have been a manslaughter charge.

“They will ask you about intoxicants (khamri) and games of chance. Say: “In both, there is great evil as well as some benefit for man; but the evil which they cause is greater than the benefit which they bring.” And they will ask you as to what they should spend Say: “Whatever you can spare.” In this way, Allah makes clear unto you His messages, so that you might reflect.” (Qur’an 2:219)

“Oh, you who have attained to faith! Intoxicants (khamru), and games of chance, and idolatrous practices, and the divining of the future are but a loathsome evil of Satan’s doing:’ shun it, (fa-ij’tanibuhu) then so that you might attain to a happy state!” (Qur’an 5:90)

To be fair we have the minions of Satan wanting to weave their whispering and destructive ways into the nation of the Blessed Messenger (saw) as well.

People like Shaykh Uthaymeen and those who think like him will be refuted with sound evidence and shut down every time!

PAUL IS IN AGREEMENT WITH AHL SUNNAL WAL JAMMAH ON OBEYIING AUTHORITIES.

“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.  Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval. ” (Romans 13:1-3)

Thankfully there are sensible God fearing Christians who are starting to realize that, ‘No! Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Zelensky in Ukraine are indeed not appointed or instituted by God! That is a flat lie!

There is a HUGE difference between saying: Everything transpires by the will/power of Allah and saying that everything that transpires IS the will of Allah (swt). God is certainly not behind putting secularist and Satanist in power.

As for those who say we have to obey human beings in power no matter what hear what God/Allah says about it!

“And DO NOT OBEY the order of the transgressors, Who cause corruption in the land and do not amend their ways” (Qur’an 26:151-152

They amend their ways than yes insh’Allah we remain faithful and loyal subjects of the land.

Narrated ‘Abdullah:

The Prophet said, “A Muslim has to listen to and obey (the order of his ruler) whether he likes it or not, as long as his orders involve not one in disobedience (to Allah), but if an act of disobedience (to Allah) is imposed one should not listen to it or obey it.

Source: (Al Bukhari Volume 9, Book 89, Number 258 & Hadith No. 203, Vol. 4)

4 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Abortion: When Does a Human Fetus Become Human? By Shaykh Hamza Yusuf

When Does a Human Fetus Become Human?

“Do not sever the bonds of the womb.” (Qur’an 4:1)

Studies of a Fetus in the Womb

Studies of a Fetus in the Womb, a drawing by Leonardo da Vinci, c. 1510 to 1512

Do not sever the bonds of the womb.
– Qur’an 4:1

Do not kill your children from fear of poverty.
– Qur’an 17:31

On the Day when the one buried alive will be asked for what sin was she killed.
– Qur’an 81:8–9

Marry and be fruitful, for I will be proud of the multitudes of my community of believers on the Day of Judgment.
– Prophet Muĥammad ﷺ

To die by other hands more merciless than mine.
No; I who gave them life will give them death.
Oh, now no cowardice, no thought how young they are,
How dear they are, how when they first were born;
Not that; I will forget they are my sons
One moment, one short moment—then forever sorrow.
– Euripides’ Medea

In English, the term we define ourselves with, human being, emphasizes “being” over doing. It is not our actions that mark us as humans but our mere being. When, then, do we come to be? When does that being we identify as human first become human? The answer is consequential for many reasons, not the least of which is that our nation’s foundational document states that all human beings are “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights” that include the rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The question of when human life begins stubbornly remains a central point of contention in the debate, now raging for half a century, regarding the ethics of abortion. The Supreme Court made its decision, but for many, it is far from a settled matter.

Beyond our borders, meanwhile, induced abortion rates are increasing in developing nations, despite declining slightly in developed nations; an estimated one-quarter of all pregnancies worldwide end in abortion.1 The debate over abortion still rages across parts of Europe and remains contentious in North Africa, the Middle East, Asia, as well as Central and South America. While the Catholic Church continues to prioritize abortion as an egregious social ill, for many, abortion has become an acceptable option for dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Increasingly, some Muslims are adding their voices to the conversationsome even supporting legalization in areas where abortion remains illegal.

Given this global trend, it becomes all the more urgent to re-examine the normative view of infanticide and abortion in the Islamic legal tradition, which relies on the Qur’an, prophetic tradition, and scholastic authority for its proofs.

Abortion derives from the Latin word aboriri,2 meaning “to perish, disappear, miscarry.”3 The verb to abort is both intransitive (meaning to “miscarry” or “suffer an abortion”) and transitive (“to effect the abortion of a fetus”).4 In standard English, we also use the word to connote the failure of something, as “an aborted mission”—something that ends fruitlessly. As a noun, abortion means “the expulsion of a fetus (naturally or esp. by medical induction) from the womb before it is able to survive independently, esp. in the first 28 weeks of a human pregnancy.”5

Historically, civilizations and religious traditions often grouped abortion with infanticide—defined as “the killing of an infant soon after birth” by the Oxford Modern English Dictionary. Indeed, even some modern philosophers link abortion and infanticide by arguing for what they euphemistically term “after-birth abortions.”6 Reviewing the sordid history of infanticide since the Axial Age7 and how the different faith traditions inspired a change in attitudes about both practices helps set the stage for understanding the Islamic ethical vision toward abortion, which depends ultimately, as we’ll see, on the central question of when human life begins. The Mālikī legal school—or the Way of Medina,8 as it was known—offers modern Muslims a definitive response rooted in the soundest Islamic methodology to a seemingly intractable problem vexing our world today.

“Abrahamic religious sentiment—and religious sentiment alone—shifted the attitudes of large numbers of peoples and inspired laws to prohibit infanticide and abortion.”

Infanticide and Abortion in Premodern Civilizations

Arguably, the justifications proffered for infanticide approximate those proposed for abortions, although significant differences remain. A striking aspect of both infanticide and abortion, however, is their apparent historical universality. Historian Anne-Marie Kilday9 quotes Michelle Oberman, author of When Mothers Kill: “Infanticide was common among early people, particularly insofar as it enabled them to control population growth and to minimize the strain placed on society by sickly newborns.”10 Kilday continues,

In the main, therefore, there have been two contexts for child murder throughout history: first, the killing of what were considered to be “defective” offspring, and, second, the killing of “normal” but unwanted children. The exposure and/or infanticide of sickly or disabled infants was an accepted feature of ancient Greco-Roman cultures, as is evident from various contemporary literary sources such as Plato, Aristotle, Seneca and Pliny. In the city-state of Sparta, for instance, only children expected to make good soldiers or healthy citizens were allowed to survive past infancy. In Ancient Egypt, in China, India and throughout the Orient, a similar approach was adopted toward “defective” infants.11

The ancient Greeks apparently had few qualms about infanticide and would leave deformed or unwanted children exposed to the elements to perish. Such a cold act of exposure was perhaps less heinous, in their minds, than the hot act of forcefully murdering the child; it was a sin of omission that mitigated the savagery of a sin of commission. In Plato’s Republic, Socrates, in describing how the guardians will be raised, tells Glaucon:

Then the children as they are born will be taken in charge by the officers appointed for the purpose, whether these are men or women, or both.… The children of good parents, I suppose, they will put into the rearing pen, handing them over to nurses who will live apart in a particular portion of the city; but the children of inferior parents and all defective children that are born to the others they will put out of sight in secrecy and mystery, as is befitting.12

In The Politics, Aristotle echoed a similar sentiment:

As to the exposure and rearing of children, let there be a law that no deformed child shall live, but where there are too many (for in our state population has a limit), when couples have children in excess, and the state of feeling is averse to the exposure of offspring, let abortion be procured before sense and life have begun; what may or may not be lawfully done in these cases depends on the question of life and sensation.13

Classics scholar Jerry Toner, using a fictitious Roman nobleman speaking of the “occupational hazard” of getting slave girls pregnant, writes:

I like to treat these offspring with greater indulgence than I would normal slaves, and give them slightly better rations and easier work…. Obviously I cannot be expected to treat all my illegitimate offspring in such a way. So if when born they look sickly, or if I already have enough in my household, I order the mothers to expose the infants by leaving them at the dump.14

Merciless as those views may seem, the “right” to kill one’s children can be found in Rome’s earliest recorded law code, the Law of the Twelve Tables (Leges Duodecim Tabularum). Table VI legislated “that terribly deformed children shall be killed quickly.” Roman law also permitted a father to kill any newborn female.15 Among Stoic philosophers of Rome were those who did not consider a fetus human, thereby legitimizing abortion as an acceptable personal choice. It was only Christianity’s powerful influence within Roman society that would eventually radically alter these views.16

As the religious traditions of the Axial Age penetrated large regions of the earth, they condemned infanticide as an affront to the sanctity of life. Abrahamic religious sentiment—and religious sentiment alone—shifted the attitudes of large numbers of peoples and inspired laws to prohibit infanticide and abortion. Child sacrifice, for instance, was thought to appease Molech, the god of the Ammonites, making infanticide a common practice in Phoenicia and other surrounding countries. But Leviticus 18:21 commands the Israelites, “Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech.”17 Due to the enormity of child sacrifice, the Mosaic law prescribed stoning as a suitable punishment.18

Genesis 9:6 further states, “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man.”19 An alternate reading of this text renders “whoever sheds the blood of man in man,” which some rabbis argued referred to a fetus. For example, Tractate Sanhedrin of the Babylonian Talmud offers a rabbinical opinion concerning abortion:

In the name of Rabbi Yishmael20 they said: “[A Noahide receives capital punishment] even for [destroying] a fetus.” What is the reason of Rabbi Yishmael? It is the verse “he who sheds the blood of man in man (adam bādam) shall his blood be shed” (Genesis 9:6). What is the meaning of “man in man?” This can be said to refer to a fetus in its mother’s womb.21

Josephus,22 a first-century Jewish historian, wrote, “The law orders all the offspring to be brought up, and forbids women either to cause abortion or to make away with the fetus.”23 Jewish rabbinical tradition prohibits abortion unless the pregnancy threatens the mother’s life. Undeniably, Judaism’s strong stance against both infanticide and abortion informed early Christianity and the doctrine of the Church that emerged. An early Christian handbook for Church doctrine, the Didache (c. 85–110), states, “Thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.”24 Some biblical scholars have even argued that the absence of abortion from the New Testament can be explained by its inconceivability to early Christians. In fact, according to C. Ben Mitchell,

Early Christians did not just condemn abortion and infanticide; Christian communities were at the forefront of providing alternatives, including adopting children who were destined to be abandoned by their parents. Callistus (died c. 223) provided refuge to abandoned children by placing them in Christian homes. Benignus of Dijon (third century) offered nourishment and protection to abandoned children, including some with disabilities caused by failed abortions.25

Strong prohibitions against infanticide and abortion also exist in Hindu and Buddhist literature. India, despite Hinduism’s condemnation of abortion, currently suffers from an epidemic of female feticide and even infanticide.26 Buddhism, much to the chagrin of Western pro-choice advocates who view the faith as meshing with a progressive ethos, clearly condemns abortion in its earliest scriptures. The Dhammapada, an early collection of sayings of the Buddha, states, “Considering others as yourself, do not kill or promote killing. Whoever hurts living beings … will not attain felicity after death.”27 Professor of religion and Zen teacher David R. Loy writes,

Abortion [in Buddhist tradition] is killing. According to the Pali Canon, the Buddha said that it breaks the first precept to avoid killing or harming any sentient being. Any monastic who encourages a woman to have an abortion has committed a serious offense that requires expiation…. This absolute rule in early Buddhism is a source of discomfort and embarrassment to many Western Buddhists, and is often ignored by those who are aware of it.28

Concerning the sanctity of life, including the sanctity of life within the womb, tomes from the world’s religious traditions could be written, but it remains safe to say that the normative premodern traditions of the world’s religions have universally condemned abortion and infanticide. Islam, the last of the Abrahamic faiths, is no exception, for its primary source, the Qur’an, presents its teachings as an extension of previous dispensations.

Arnolfini Portrait

Arnolfini Portrait, Jan van Eyck, 1434

The Qur’anic Ban on Infanticide

The great prophets of Judaism and Christianity find constant mention as early messengers in the Qur’an, and God reminds the Prophet Muĥammad ﷺ, “Say, ‘I am not an innovator among the messengers’” (Qur’an 46:9). Pre-Islamic Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula practiced infanticide but employed a different, if no less brutal, method than the Greco-Roman culture’s practice of death-by-exposure: the Arabs buried their children alive. They did it usually as a form of birth control, for reasons of poverty, or else out of shame at the birth of a girl. (The killing of male infants, driven by the scarcity of sustenance in the arid desert climate, was less common, though still practiced.) Commenting on the Qur’anic verse “Do not kill your children from poverty” (6:151), Imam al-Qurţubī29 (d. 671/1273) states, “Among [the Arabs] were those who also killed both their female and male children for fear of poverty.”30

Several verses in the Qur’an prohibit infanticide. The sixth chapter states, “And thus their [belief in] false gods made the killing of their children appear good and led them to destruction while confusing them about true faith. If God willed, they would not have done that; so leave them and their lies” (6:137). Shortly after those verses, the Qur’an lays out what are considered by Muslim scholars to be the first principles of Abrahamic morality:

Say: Come, I will recite to you what your Lord has forbidden you. You should not associate anything with Him; and be good to your parents, and do not kill your children on account of poverty—We provide for you and for them—and do not approach sexual indecencies, open or secret, and do not kill the soul—which God has made sacred. (6:151)

Another verse addresses this topic with the subtle nuance of fear of poverty as opposed to the previous verse, which prohibits killing the child on account of poverty—in other words, an actual impoverished state. The pronouns in the above verse (for you and for them) emphasize that God provides for the parents first and then the children in the case of actual poverty to alleviate their fears. In the following verse, the pronouns are reversed (them and you), for the parents are afraid the addition of new children will reduce them to poverty despite their current well-being: “And do not kill your children out of fear of poverty—We provide for them and you. Indeed, killing them is an enormous sin. And do not approach fornication: surely it is an obscenity and leads to an evil end. And kill not the soul which God has forbidden, except for just cause” (17:31–33). Commenting on this verse, Qāđī Abū Bakr31 (d. 543/1148) relates a hadith where the Prophet ﷺ said killing a child from fear of poverty was the second gravest sin next to setting up “partners with God.” Then Abū Bakr mentions that infanticide “is the greatest of sins because it is an assault on the entire species,” and also because it “involves men taking on the qualities of predatory beasts.”32

“Scripture and science, taken together, can lead believers to rethink our understanding of when life begins, of the miracle of revelation, and most certainly of abortion.”

Similarly, another verse also prohibits infanticide and pairs it with censure of sexual deviance: “O Prophet, when believing women come to you to pledge allegiance to you that they will not associate anything with God, and will not steal, nor commit adultery, nor kill their children, nor bring a calumny which they have forged of themselves, nor disobey what is good, then accept their pledge and ask God to pardon them, for surely God is most forgiving, most merciful” (60:12).

Regarding the practice of killing female infants, the Qur’an states, “And when news of the birth of a daughter is given to one of them, his face darkens, and he grieves within. He hides himself from the people out of distress at the news he’s given. Shall he keep it, in spite of ignominy, or shall he bury it (alive) in the dust? Oh, what an evil decision they make!” (16:58–59).

The Qur’an thus unequivocally prohibits infanticide; scholars, by consensus, hold this position based upon the Qur’an, the prophetic tradition, and the consensus of the companions. In the history of Islam, there has never been debate about this issue.

So what of abortion in Islam? In order to address that question, it will help to examine the surprisingly numerous verses in the Qur’anic discourse on embryology and the accompanying traditions attributed to the Prophet ﷺ.

The Birth of Humans in the Qur’an and Hadith

Ibn ¢Abbās33 (d. 67/687), the Prophet’s companion and cousin, stated that the passage of time will continue to explain the Qur’an. We can appreciate the wisdom of that statement when we consider the Qur’anic verses and hadith that relate to how and when human life begins, especially in light of what today’s science has discovered about the process of birth. Scripture and science, taken together, can lead believers to rethink our understanding of when life begins, of the miracle of revelation, and most certainly of abortion.

Unfortunately, commentaries on such Qur’anic verses and hadith contain many mistakes due to the difficulty in understanding the premodern, nontechnical terms used and the reality that the commentators of yore simply lacked the sound knowledge of embryology that we now possess through scientific discovery.

More than a Clot

Arabic words are notoriously difficult to translate due to the nuances involved in the root system of Arabic that cannot be replicated in other languages. In the first verses revealed to the Prophet Muĥammad ﷺ, the Qur’an declares, “Read, in the name of your Lord, who created: created man from an ¢alaq” (96:1–2). The word ¢alaq was traditionally understood as simply a “blood clot.” The root ¢aliqa, however, means “to become pregnant”; according to Ibn Manżūr’s34 (d. 711/1311) Lisān al-¢Arab, an authoritative Arabic dictionary, ¢alaq also means “the desire of spouses for one another,” due to its root meaning “to cling to.”35 Other meanings are “anything attached to something, something that imbeds itself into another, such as a mountain or earth, blood of any type, or a portion of it, the cord of a bucket, any cord that holds something, a leech, a clot.”36 The most appropriate connotation is “something that imbeds itself into something else,” as in the imbedding of an embryo, or blastocyst, into the woman’s uterine wall. Another possible meaning is a clot, as in “a small compact group of individuals,” given the blastocyst is a collection of rapidly dividing individual cells. The classical understanding and subsequent translation of ¢alaq as “blood clot” is simply wrong, though understandable given that a miscarriage often reveals congealed lumps that appear to be blood clots from the prematurely formed fetus.

Also, regarding the creation of human beings, the Qur’an clearly states, in many verses, that we originate from the earth: “God has caused you to grow as a growth from the earth, and afterwards, He will make you return there. He will bring you forth again anew” (20:55). “God created you from the earth” (53:32). “God created you from clay” (32:7). “We began the creation of the human being (insān) from clay” (37:11). Another verse states that man was created from water: “He is the One who created from water man and established bonds of kinship and marriage” (25:54). These verses, according to exegetes, refer to the creation of Adam, peace be upon him, from earth and water, but they equally apply to all men, as earth and water are the sole components of our physical being.

Interestingly, the Qur’an also states that man was created from a nuţfah: “God fashioned man from a nuţfah” (16:4). Again, we are confronted with the problem of translation. The meanings of nuţfah are “a minute quantity of fluid,” “a drop,” “a tiny drop left in a container,” “a flowing drop,” “drop of sperm,” “female drop [ovum].”37 What is striking about these Qur’anic verses is the accuracy with which they describe what we now know to be the male spermatozoon and the female ovum, both of which are shaped like a drop of water. The male reproductive cell, the spermatozoon, represents one of billions in the overall sperm ejected into a woman’s womb. These tiny spermatozoa, each containing a unique genetic code, race to reach the released ovum, which also contains a unique code, but only a few complete the journey, and only one or two actually penetrate the female’s ovum. The hadiths regarding this reproductive process reveal strikingly accurate details that premodern commentators misinterpreted due to their lack of the scientific knowledge necessary to understand them properly.

“The hadiths regarding the reproductive process reveal strikingly accurate details that premodern commentators misinterpreted due to their lack of the scientific knowledge necessary to understand them properly.”

For instance, according to one hadith, a Jewish man came to the Prophet ﷺ and asked a question that, according to him, only a prophet could answer: “From what is a man created?” The Prophet ﷺ replied, “It’s determined by both [the male and the female], from the nuţfah of the man and from the nuţfah of a woman.”38

In a different narration of the same hadith, the man asked what determines the sex. He was told, “A man’s fluid is coarse white, and a woman’s is translucent yellow (aśfar raqīq). When they meet, if a male sperm (maniyy) (y chromosome) is dominant (¢alā), then it is a boy. But if the female sperm (maniyy) (x chromosome) is dominant, then it is a girl.” The Prophet ﷺ clearly distinguishes between the ovum (female nuţfah) and the spermatozoon (male nuţfah) and the sperm (maniyy), which he described as being both male and female (x and y chromosomes that a man receives from his mother and father).

Egg

Translucent yellow human ovum emerging from ovary; image: Jacques Donnez

An astonishing part of this hadith is the description of the woman’s contribution to conception: aśfar raqīq, a precise translation of which is “translucent yellow.” Only recently has technology enabled us to actually photograph, in color, the release of an ovum from the ovaries; as it emerges, it is clearly a tiny egg in the shape of a drop, and its color, due to the cumulus oocyte complex that surrounds the ovum, is described in the literature as “translucent yellow.” In short, the nuţfah in the Qur’anic verses and the above hadith refers to both the male “drop” of sperm and the female “drop” of the ovum, described elsewhere in the Qur’an and the hadith39 as the woman’s “water” and the man’s “water,” both relatively accurate terms, given that more than seventy-five percent of the material is water.

What Begins Life?

Another meaning of nuţfah in modern technical terminology is “zygote” and the subsequent embryological stages during the first nine days. A zygote is formed by a fertilization of two gametes, male and female, before cleavage occurs. On the tenth day, embryogenesis results, and the ¢alaq phase begins in which the newly formed life imbeds (ta¢allaq) in the uterine wall. The proof that nuţfah also means zygote and embryo is in chapter seventy-six of the Qur’an, appropriately entitled “The Human Being” (al-Insān). The first two verses state, “Hasn’t there been a time when man was nothing worth mention, for We made man from a mixed drop” (76:1–2).

DNA Double Helix

DNA Double Helix, National Human Genome Research Institute

The words “mixed drop” are a translation of nuţfah amshāj, an Arabic phrase that caused much confusion among commentators because the noun nuţfah is in singular form while amshāj, its adjective, is plural; in Arabic grammar, the adjective, in a case like this, should agree with the noun in number. Al-Zamakhsharī 40(d. 538/1144), in his attempt to solve this vexing grammatical dilemma, goes as far as saying amshāj is singular despite its clear plural form. It could also be an appositive of nuţfah. The point, however, is the two nuţfahs of the male and the female (i.e., the spermatozoon and ovum) become one nuţfah mixed (amshāj) with the genetic material of the two parents. Setting aside whether it is an adjective or an appositive, the word amshāj, according to Lisān al-¢Arab, can mean “the mixing of two colors” and “the mixing of a man’s water (spermatozoon) and a woman’s water (ovum), then it goes from stage to stage.”41 In modern Arabic, mashīj, the singular of amshāj, is “gamete.”42 This appears to be an excellent description, given that each human cell contains twenty-three pairs of chromosomes, and each chromosome is formed by the joining of two nucleotides, which make up the strand of DNA. Scientists have color-coded the strands of nucleotides to better visualize the DNA. The model of “joining of two colors” in each strand is now universally used in teaching about the genetic code of life.

In a well-known hadith narrated by Ibn Mas¢ūd43 (d. 32/653), the Prophet ﷺ begins describing the process of human creation by saying, “Verily, the creation of one of you is brought together in the mother’s womb for forty days.”44 Commenting on this hadith, Mullah ¢Alī al-Qārī45 (d. 1014/1605) states, “The material of his creation (māddat khalqihi) is gathered and then protected.”46 He then explains the meaning of the “gathering” (jam¢) using a tradition from Imam al-Ţabarī47(d. 310/923) and Ibn Mandah48 (d. 395/1005), in which the Prophet ﷺ was reported to have said,

If God desires to create a servant, He does so through the man having intercourse with the woman in which his “water” penetrates every root and part of her [“water”](¢irq wa ¢uđw), and on the seventh day, He gathers it, and then produces [a new life] from every “genetic disposition” (¢irq) back to Adam. [And then the Prophet ﷺ recited the verse,] “In whatever form He wishes to assemble you from various components (rakkabak).” (82:8)49

The word the Qur’an uses for assemble (rakkaba) means “to assemble from various parts” or “put together,” “to make, prepare out of several components or ingredients.”50 Mullah ¢Alī then says, “This meaning is confirmed by the Prophet’s words when a light-skinned Arab woman gave birth to a black boy and her husband accused her of infidelity. The Prophet ﷺ said, ‘Perhaps it is from a distant root (naz¢ahu ¢irq).’”51 Today we would call this a recessive gene. The hadith implies the vast genetic variations that happen with each individual spermatozoon and ovum. Each contains a unique combination (tarkībah) that will provide an entirely new individual never before existent.

“Far too often today, the positions favoring the permissibility of abortions are presented in articles and fatwas without the nuance that one finds in the original texts.”

Rethinking the Stage of Ensoulment

At what stage during the creation of the human being does ensoulment occur? Clearly, the Qur’an describes each stage of growth within the womb as one we passed through as a human being: “Surely We created the human being from a quintessence of clay, and then We made him [man] a fertilized egg (nuţfah) in a safe place, and then We made him [man] a clot, and then We made the clot an embryo, and then We made the embryo bones and clothed the bones in flesh, and then We originated another creation” (23:12–14). Commenting on this verse, the eminent Malaysian scholar and metaphysician Syed Naquib al-Attas writes,

From the fusion of the two gametes God created (khalaqa) a new individual organism; and from this organism He created (khalaqa) an embryo; and from the embryo He created (khalaqa) a foetus. Thus we see from this that the whole process in the various stages of the emergence of the animal being into definite shape and construction complete with organs is not something natural; i.e. it is not something due to the workings of nature, but that at every stage it is God’s act of creation setting the created thing in conformity with its constitution in the womb (i.e. its fiţrah). Then from this final foetal stage, God originated (ansha’a) another creature. This refers to the introduction of the spirit (al-rūĥ) that God breathed into the animal being after He had fashioned it in due proportion.52

One of the derivations of the word originate (ansha’a) in Arabic means “to elevate.” It is the introduction of the immaterial aeviternal soul that elevates the new creation to a spiritual human being that exists as body and soul. The partially quoted aforementioned hadith of Ibn Mas¢ūd says, “Verily, the creation of one of you is brought together in the mother’s womb for forty days in the form of a drop (nuţfah), then he becomes a clot (¢alaqah) for a like period, then a lump for a like period, then there is sent an angel who blows the soul into him.”53 Based on this hadith, the majority of scholars in the past claimed ensoulment was on the 120th day after conception.

A second interpretation argued that the words “a like period” (mithla dhālik) refer back to the first forty, and thus all the stages occur during a forty-day period. Another hadith in Imam Muslim’s54 (d. 261/875) collection (Śaĥīĥ Muslim) clarifies the ambiguity of the number of days in the above hadith by saying the angel comes at six weeks.* Scholars have been in agreement that the ensoulment occurs immediately after the “lump” phase, when the fetus takes on a form: modern science has confirmed this occurs around six weeks; the hadith related by both Muslim and Abū Dāwūd55 (d. 275/889) concurs with modern science.

The argument that ensoulment occurs soon after 40 days ultimately proves far stronger than the traditional majority view that it occurs after 120 days, given what we know of embryogenesis today. The basis for 120 days, if taken from the hadith in its standard interpretation, would mean that the hadith contradicts today’s medical views that are based upon unshakeable biological evidence. The well-known criterion among hadith scholars is that a hadith cannot contradict something known by reason with proofs beyond reasonable doubt. Thus, should a hadith contradict agreed-upon factual knowledge, scholars either reject it or, if possible, reinterpret it if the language allows for other possibilities, as can be done in this case. As mentioned earlier, one alternate view among early scholars was that the three 40-day periods are not consequential but concurrent; the three stages occur in the same forty days based upon the ambiguity of the phrase “a like period.” This interpretation, which the Arabic allows for, and given the soundness of its chain, remains the only acceptable one.

Does Human Life Begin Before Ensoulment?

In the view of Imam Mālik b. Anas56 (d. 179/795) and the Mālikī scholars of the Way of Medina, a child (walad) is created at inception, when the exchange of genetic material occurs and the requisites for the formation of a unique human being exist. Were it not so, argue the jurists of this school, the Prophet ﷺ would not have made blood compensation necessary if a person caused a woman to miscarry.

The hadith related by Ibn Mājah57 (d. 273/887) quotes the Prophet ﷺ as saying, “A miscarried fetus will fumble about the door of paradise saying, ‘I won’t enter until my two parents enter.’”58 Khaţīb al-Tabrīzī59 (d. 741/1340) relates a similar version: “Surely the miscarried fetus will dispute with its Lord if its parents end up in Hell, and it will be said, ‘O miscarried one, bring your parents to paradise.’”60 When a woman from the Hudhayl tribe struck another pregnant woman from her clan, causing her to miscarry, the Prophet ﷺ told the woman’s agnates that blood money was owed. When one of her clan members asked, “Do we compensate for what never ate, nor drank, nor sighed, nor cried; can such a one be said to have been killed and died,” the Prophet ﷺ replied, “Are these the rhymes of the days of ignorance? Pay the blood money of the child.”61

The Mālikī scholars point out that the Prophet’s ruling was not based on the stage of the pregnancy. They argue that the embryo is considered a child even at the earliest stages of pregnancy, and blood money would be owed. Moreover, the Prophet ﷺ called the miscarried fetus “a child” (śabiyy), and so the matter falls under the prohibition of the Qur’anic verses that prohibit killing children. Ibn Abī Zayd al-Qayrawānī62 (d. 386/996), an authoritative voice in the Mālikī school and in the Islamic tradition, writes:

Mālik says, “If a pregnant woman is struck, causing her to lose her child, whether still in lump phase (muđghah) or even an imbedded embryo (¢alaqah), and nothing is discernible from its creation—neither eye nor finger nor anything else—if the women who know about such things determine that it was a child [i.e., that she was actually pregnant], then financial compensation is owed….” Ibn Shihāb [d. 124/742] said, “Whether the fetus was formed or not [money is owed]. If there were twins or triplets, each demands compensation.”63

Imam al-Rajrājī64 (d. 633/1236), in his commentary on Imam Mālik’s position on abortion, also concurs, and adds that a fetus at any stage is considered a child.65

The term the Qur’an uses for a life within the womb is janīn, which means what is hidden from the eye or concealed; the greater the concealment, the more applicable the name. Thus, a zygote, embryo, blastocyst, and fetus are all called janīn in Arabic. Rāghib al-Iśfahānī66 (d. 502/1108) defines the janīn as “a child (walad) as long as it is in the womb of its mother.”67 Other Qur’anic verses affirm that God considers all stages of fetal development to be a human life: “Does the human being think he’ll be left for naught? Was he not an embryo from male and female fluid released?” (75:36–37).68 The verse could have said, “Was he not created from an embryo,” but instead it states unambiguously, “Was he not an embryo.” Another verse states, “Surely We created the human being from a quintessence of clay, and then We made him into an embryo in a safe place” (23:12–13). Again, it says clearly that “We made him into an embryo.” The Qur’anic narrative ineluctably defines our creation at each stage of our individual journeys within our respective wombs as a unique human being.

The ensoulment most likely relates to and initiates human brain activity that will eventually develop into the capacity for human thought, which, according to traditional Islamic metaphysics, is immaterial by nature and only occurs through the vehicle of, but is not synonymous with, the brain—hence, our distinction in English between mind and brain, and in Arabic between ¢aql and dimāgh. Michael Gazzaniga,69 a leading researcher in cognitive neuroscience, writes that from the time of fertilization of the human sperm and egg, “the embryo begins its mission: divide and differentiate.” Within hours, it develops layers of cells that then become the endoderm, mesoderm, and ectoderm, the layers that will give rise to every organ in the human body. Within weeks, the neural tube of the embryo spawns the central nervous system, the ventricles of the brain, and the central canal of the spinal cord. By the fourth week, he explains, the neural tube develops bulges that become the major divisions of the brain. He continues, “Even though the fetus is now developing areas that will become specific sections of the brain, not until the end of week 5 and into week 6 (usually around 40–43 days) does the first electrical brain activity begin to occur.”70

This description of the development of the brain, and the timing of the start of brain activity, correspond quite precisely to the prophetic tradition of ensoulment within six weeks.

Still, the infusion of the soul (nafkh al-rūĥ), its nature, and its exact time remain a mystery. In Imam Muslim’s collection, in a chapter entitled “The Jew’s Question to the Prophet About the Soul (rūĥ),” the Prophet ﷺ was asked by a Jew about the nature of the soul. The Prophet ﷺ was silent, and the narrator said, “I knew something was being revealed to him.” When the revelation came, the Prophet ﷺ replied from the Qur’an, “They ask you about the soul. Say, ‘The soul is from the command of my Lord; and you are given but a little knowledge’” (17:85).71

The Islamic Consensus on Abortion

The position of the scholars of the Way of Medina, that the fetus in all its stages is a living child, continues down to the present day without any dissenting voices. Qāđī Abū Bakr b. al-¢Arabī, a formidable Mālikī mujtahid (one who is capable of independent juridical reasoning, or ijtihād), says in his commentary of Mālik’s Muwaţţa’,

Three states exist concerning child-bearing: the state before conception when coitus interruptus is used to prevent pregnancy, and that is permissible; the second state occurs once semen has been received by the womb, at which point it is impermissible for anyone to attempt to sever the process of procreation as is done by some of the contemptible merchants who sell abortifacients to servant girls when their periods stop; the third situation is after the formation of the fetus and the ensoulment, and this third state is even more severe than the first two in its proscription and prohibition.72

This view is affirmed by other Mālikī scholars, with some minor dissensions. For instance, Qāđī ¢Iyāđ73 (d. 544/1149) says, “Some opined that the embryo has no sanctity for the first forty days nor the legal stature of a child (walad); others argued that it is not permissible to disrupt conception or cause an abortion once conception has occurred in any way whatsoever! However, coitus interruptus differs in that it has not reached the womb.”74 Most Mālikī scholars clearly believed in the sanctity of life from inception onward. Imam al-Khirshī75 (d. 1101/1690) says, “It is not permissible for a woman to do anything that would lead to an abortion causing the fetus to miscarry, nor is it permissible for the husband to do so, even if it is before forty days.”76 Imam Ibn Juzayy al-Kalbī77 (d. 741/1340) says, “If the womb receives the sperm, it is not permissible to attempt to thwart [conception] or harm it. Even worse involves an attempt once conception occurs, or worse yet after ensoulment, which, by consensus, is murder.”78 Finally, in the authoritative collection of legal responsa of the Mālikī school, Imam al-Wansharīsī79 (d. 914/1508) writes, “Our imams have prohibited using any drugs that cause infertility or that remove semen from the womb; this is the opinion of the masters and experts.”80 Then, after quoting the statement above from al-Qabas of Qāđī Abū Bakr, he continues,

If you have contemplated the conclusion of what was presented from the master jurist Qāđī Abū Bakr, you should realize without any doubt that an agreement between the husband and the wife to abort their child or any attempt to do that is absolutely prohibited—forbidden! It is not permitted from any perspective. And if the mother should do so, she owes blood money and should be punished according to the discretion of the judge…. Along the same lines, ¢Izz b. ¢Abd al-Salām81[d. 660/1262] was asked, “Is it permissible to give a woman drugs that would prevent pregnancy?” He replied, “It is not permitted for a woman to use medicine that would eliminate her capacity to become pregnant.”82

“God created the womb as the sacred space where the greatest creative act of the divine occurs: the creation of a sentient and sapiential being with the potential to know the divine.”

The references to induced abortion in early Islam are scarce and generally occur in books of jurisprudence, in sections on blood compensation (diyah), which examine situations where someone caused a woman to lose her child. The permissibility of abortion was inconceivable to early Muslims even though abortifacients were readily available.

The Persian polymath Avicenna83 (d. 428/1037) records more than forty abortifacients in his magisterial medical compendium al-Shifā’. In the only section dealing with abortion entitled “On Situations Requiring an Abortion,” he writes: “There may be a situation in which you need to abort a fetus from the uterus in order to save the mother’s life.”84 He lists three conditions where a pregnancy threatens a woman’s life and then lists several ways to induce an abortion in cases where those conditions exist. He gives no other reasons for aborting a fetus.85

The sole exception among Mālikī scholars regarding abortions was Imam al-Lakhmī86 (d. 478/1085), who permitted abortion of an “embryo” (nuţfah) before forty days. Arguably, he would recant his position if he knew what we know today about fetal development. Nevertheless, his position was never taken up for serious discussion by any Mālikī scholar and remains a mere mention as a sole dissenting voice in books of legal responsa.

Far too often today, the positions favoring the permissibility of abortions in other schools of jurisprudence are presented in articles and fatwas without the nuance that one finds in the original texts. This results from either disingenuousness or shoddy scholarship. For instance, Imam al-Ramlī87 (d. 1004/1596), held in high esteem in the Shāfi¢ī school, is invariably quoted as permitting abortion, but he clearly qualifies his position. He states, for instance, “If the embryo results from fornication, [abortion’s] permissibility could be conceivable (yutakhayyal) before ensoulment.”88 He also believed that the stages of nuţfah, ¢alaqah, and muđghah, occurred during the first 120 days, but we now know they occur in the first 40 days; the question remains whether he would alter his position had he known this. Mistakenly, he also claims that Imam al-Ghazālī, perhaps the most important legal philosopher in the history of Islam, did not categorically prohibit abortion. In The Revival of Religious Sciences, Imam al-Ghazālī89 discusses various positions of scholars on birth control and then states,

It should not be viewed like abortion or infanticide, because that involves a crime against something that already exists, although the creative process has degrees: the first degree of existence is the male sperm reaching the female egg in preparation for the beginning of life. To disrupt that is criminal (jināyah). If it becomes a clot or a lump, the crime is even more heinous. And should ensoulment occur and the form completed, the crime is even more enormous; the most extreme crime, however, is to kill it once it has come out alive.90

Clearly in this passage, Imam al-Ghazālī prohibits abortion, in no uncertain terms, during each stage of fetal development but opined that as the fetus developed within the womb, the severity of the crime increased by degrees.

Even regarding coitus interruptus, according to a sound tradition from Śaĥīĥ Muslim, the Prophet ﷺ stated, “That is a hidden type of infanticide (al-wa’d al-khafiyy).”91 Scholars interpret that to mean it is disliked, but the Prophet’s strong language concerning birth control by likening it to a hidden form of infanticide indicates that aborting a fetus would surely be considered infanticide. And this is the position of the jurist Imam Ibn Taymiyyah92 (d. 728 AH/1328 CE), who asserts that abortion is prohibited by consensus: “To abort a pregnancy is prohibited (ĥarām) by consensus (ijmā¢) of all the Muslims. It is a type of infanticide about which God said, ‘And when the buried alive is asked for what sin was she killed,’ and God says, ‘Do not kill your children out of fear of poverty.’”93

Mother and child

The overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars have prohibited abortion unless the mother’s life is at stake, in which case they all permitted it if the danger was imminent with some difference of opinion if the threat to the mother’s life was only probable. A handful of later scholars permitted abortion without that condition; however, each voiced severe reservations. Moreover, none of them achieved the level of independent jurist (mujtahid). To present their opinions on this subject as representative of the normative Islamic ruling on abortion is a clear misrepresentation of the tradition. Those scholars permitted abortion only prior to ensoulment, which they thought occurred either within 40 days or 120 days. Further, these opinions were based on misinformation about embryology and a failure to understand the nuances of the Qur’anic verses and hadiths relating to embryogenesis. Modern genetics shows that the blueprint for the entire human being is fully present at inception, and thus we must conclude once the spermatozoon penetrates the ovum, the miracle of life clearly begins. Ensoulment occurs after the physical or animal life has begun. Given that twenty percent of fertilized eggs spontaneously abort in the first six weeks after inception, the immaterial aspect of the human being, referred to as “ensoulment” (nafkh al-rūĥ), would logically occur after that precarious period for the fertilized egg at around forty-two days; but God knows best.

Abortions, especially those performed after forty days of fetal development, also violate a different teaching of the Islamic tradition: the prohibition of mutilation. A six-week-old fetus clearly has the form of a child, with budding arms and legs, a head, the beginning of eyes and ears. Imagery of actual abortions performed is pervasive in its depictions of ripped arms and legs from the bodies of fetuses. Ibn ¢Abd al-Barr94 (d. 463/1071) said, “There is no disagreement on the prohibition of mutilation.”95

The Qur’an states that God created us in stages (71:14). Each of these stages—the zygote, the embryo, the clot of cells, the lump formed and unformed, and finally the growing fetus—is a stage every human being experiences. The Prophet ﷺ said, “God says, ‘I derived the womb (raĥim) from My own Name, the Merciful (al-Raĥmān), so whoever severs the womb bond, I will sever him from My mercy.’”96 What constitutes a greater severance of the womb bond than aborting a fetus bonded to the womb? The act of abortion surely “severs the womb bond,” and the womb is a place the Qur’an calls “a protected space” (23:13), meaning God is its protector. Any act of aggression on that sacred space aggresses on a place made sacred by the Creator of life itself.

The Arabic word for “womb” (raĥim) has an etymological relation to the word for “sanctity” (ĥurmah) in what Arabic linguists call “the greater derivation.” The womb has a divine sanctity. God created it as the sacred space where the greatest creative act of the divine occurs: the creation of a sentient and sapiential being with the potential to know the divine. The miraculous inevitability of a fertilized egg occurs only by the providential care of its Creator. Each forebear—from the two parents to their four grandparents to their eight, exponentially back to a point where they eventually invert back to only two people—had to survive wars, famines, childhood sicknesses, natural disasters, accidents, and every other obstacle to the miracle that stands as the myriad number of people alive today. We are each a part of an unbroken chain back to the first parents.

Extreme poverty and the desire for independence from children in a world that has devalued motherhood through intense individualistic social pressures related to meritocracy, psychology, and even the misuse of praiseworthy gender egalitarianism are the primary reasons people in the West today choose abortions. No doubt, many women are genuinely challenged and feel inadequate and unprepared as mothers. The largest demographic among the poor in America remains single mothers. Abortions motivated by knowing, through the miracle of ultrasound technology, that the offspring will be female, as is the case in China and India, can be seen as an “advanced” form of the infanticide that was practiced in ancient times after birth. Arguably, if the pre-Islamic Arabs had possessed ultrasound and modern methods of abortion, they would not have waited for the female child to come to term; rather, they would have aborted the infant in the early stages of pregnancy. Genetic testing can also now predict (not always reliably) any number of serious disabilities a child may be born with. Absent any religious injunctions on the sanctity of life, abortion is arguably a “valid” way of dealing with unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation, not to mention the promotion of eugenics.

When the angels inquired as to why God would place in the earth “those who shed blood and sow corruption,” God replied, “I know what you do not” (Qur’an 2:30). God knew there would be righteous people who would refuse to shed blood. Abortions are noted for the blood that flows during and after them. For anyone who believes in a merciful Creator who created the human being with purpose and providence, abortion, with rare exception, must be seen for what it is: an assault on a sanctified life, in a sacred space, by a profane hand.

*Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this sentence stated that this hadith specifically mentions that the angel blows the soul into the fetus. While the hadith does not explicitly state this, it clearly indicates that the period before the ensoulment is 40 days.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Ibadhi’s follow the blessed Sunnah of opening the hands in the prayer.

The Messenger of Allah is certainly a good example for those of you who have hope in Allah and in the Day of Judgment and who remember Allah very often.  (Qur’an 33:21)

And perform the prayer, and pay the alms, and bow with those that bow.”  (Qur’an 2:43)

Most of the worlds Muslims have it right when it comes to making du’a (supplication).

We open our hands and we do not tie or fold our hands when making du’a (supplication).

The picture on your left is the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) to make du’a or supplication with the hands open. We do not tie the hands or fold our hands in the prayer. That is the method of other traditions.

We do not fold or tie the hands in the prayer.

Like what you see in the picture below this is not the Sunnah.

This is the correct way. This is the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw). No tying or folding of the hands. You should be tranquil in your prayer.

FROM SUNNAH TO INNOVATION: A HISTORY OF CHANGE OF THE PRAYER IN THE SUNNI SCHOOLS.

As you can see in the begging in the fitra period and early period the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw) was to not tie the hands or fold the hands in the prayer…AT ALL!

Listen to this interesting clip in an exchange I had with a brother from our school on this subject.

NONE OF THE FOUR SURVIVING SUNNI SCHOOLS OF JURISPRUDENCE SAY ITS OBLIGATRY TO PRAY WITH THE HANDS FOLDED.

Now, they may say it is preferred to tie or fold the hands. However, none of them say it’s prohibited or bid’ah or anything even close to that to keep the hands open in the prayer.

School of Ahmed Ibn Hanbal

Imam Ala’ al-Din al-Mardawi, the Munaqqih & Musahhih of the Madhhab who authored an explanation on the Muqni’ in 12-volume work he named “al-Insaf”. It is reported that Imam Ahmad would open his hands and leave them to his sides always.

In the Ṭabaqāt al-Ḥanābilah

Abdullah Asked his father Ahmad bin Hanbal about the hadeeth of Abi Ma’sher “it’s not allowed to do takfeer in salat” So Ahmad said, “It means putting his right on his chest.”

Ibn ul-Qayyim, in his Badaaī’ al-Fawaaid cites al-Muzani, the student of Imam Ahmad, as follows:

ونقل المزني عنه…ويكره أن يجعلهما على الصدر، وذلك لما روي عن النبي -صلى اللَّه عليه وسلم- أنه نهى عن التكفير، وهو وضع اليد على الصدر

بدائع الفوائد

Imam Ahmad said:

“It is reprehensible for him to place both of them (hands) upon the chest. And that is because of what is related from the Prophet ﷺ that he prohibited al-Takfeer – and that is placing the hand upon the chest.”

School of Imam Shafi’i

In the book of “Al Um” by Shafi’i you’ll not find mention of tying or folding the hands in the prayer, he didn’t ever mention it.

Also the book of Nawawi “Al Minhaj” didn’t mention Qabd (tying or folding the hands in the prayer)

And all who have explained it from Shafi’ees didn’t mention it as obligatory in the prayer.

We also know that Imam Shafi’i was a student of Imam Malik and we will come to that insh’Allah.

School of Imam Abu Hanifa.

Imam Abu Hanifa we have nothing written from him on this subject. We just do not.

School of Imam Malik

Narrated by Ibn al-Qasim in al-Mudawanna (1:74) and in al-Tamheed (20:75) al-Layth as-Sa’d is reported to have said:

Not tying or folding the hands in prayer is preferred, unless he is standing for an extended period and becomes tired, then there is no problem (la ba’as) in putting the right hand over the left.

LOOKING AT THE NARRATIONS USED BY THOSE WHO ADVANCE TYING/FOLDING THE HANDS

And the only narration that they really have is: 
 

Yahya related to me from Malik from Abu Hazim ibn Dinar that Sahl ibn Sad said, “People used to be ordered to place their right hands on their left forearms in the prayer.” 

Abu Hazim added, “I know for sure that Sahl traces that back to the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace.” 

This exact hadith came by way of Imam Malik and Imam Malik himself doesn’t do it!

And when a narrator narrates something about the Blessed Messenger (saw) and doesn’t follow it he’s either: 

  1. A fasiq 
  2. He knows that isn’t Authentic about the Blessed Messenger (saw) 
  3. He may Have forgotten 

And Since Malik is a respectable Scholar then the first option is removed. The last option is also removed because Imam Malik mentioned the hadith in his Muwatta. Which means only option 2 is left, because he saw another thing than what was reported.

Just two other points about the hadith that s used.  

Also, he didn’t say “We were Ordered” but said “People were ordered” 

And only Abu Hazm the Tabi’e have claimed that it’s from the Prophet (saw).  

THE PEOPLE WERE ORDERED? INNOVATION BY BANI UMMAYAD

وحدثني عبد الرحمن بن إبراهيم عن عبدالله بن يحيى المعافري عن حيوة عن بكر بن عمرو أنه لم ير أبا أمامة -يعني ابن سهل- واضعا إحدى يديه على الأخرى قط ولا أحدا من أهل المدينة حتى قدم الشام فرأى الأوزاعي وناسا يضعونه

Look what Imam Abu Zur’ah the Shaykh of Imam Al Bukhari had to say:

Abd al-Rahman ibn Ibrahim told me on the authority of Abdullah ibn Yahya al-Ma`fari on the authority of Haywa on the authority of Bakr ibn Amr that he had never seen Abu Umamah - meaning Ibn Sahl - ever put one of his hands on the other, and no one from the people of Medina did that either,  until he came to Syria, so he saw al-Awza`i and people putting him on.

Better archive/save the following before it suddenly disappears from the internet.

So the pedigree, the start of this practice of tying and folding the hands in prayer started in Sham where the Ummayads country was.

All Scholars from the great Scholars of Tabi’een that opposed Umayyads, it’s authentic about them that they didn’t do tying or folding the hands in Salat!

May Allah (swt) open your eyes WIDE dear Muslim ummah! May Allah (swt) put in your hearts a love for the Sunnah of the Blessed Messenger (saw).

If you would like to read more:





HOW TO DO THE PRAYER?

2 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

Questions on the eternality of the hellfire.

“And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for a few days.” Say, “Have you taken a covenant with Allah? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?” Yes, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” (Qur’an 2:80-81)

Allah effaces whatever He wills and retains whatever He wills. With Him is the Mother of the Book.” (Qur’an 13:39)

Some questions/objections were raised by some Muslims on this particular subject.

For me the matter is clear, crystal clear.

  1. The hellfire is eternal for who ever enters it.
  2. Our creed is taken from clear verses and not verses subject to multiple interpretations.
  3. There is not a single verse any where in the Qur’an that believers enter the hellfire.
  4. The Qur’an has to be in harmony with all its verses.

Much of what is addressed here are old discussions that were discussed back and forth at a forum here:

https://www.gawaher.com/topic/168655-is-hell-in-islam-eternal/

“And they say, “Never will the Fire touch us, except for a few days.” Say, “Have you taken a covenant with Allah? For Allah will never break His covenant. Or do you say about Allah that which you do not know?” Yes, whoever earns evil and his sin has encompassed him – those are the companions of the Fire; they will abide therein eternally.” (Qur’an 2:80-81)

And this alone should be sufficient.

Why would this be true only for Jews and not for every believer? On what consistent basis is this claim made?

“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)

This verse above is also clear. It says that they will never be absent from it. Not that they will be there forever and one day maybe not. Never is as clear as it may get.

However we will entertain the comments from the forum: https://www.gawaher.com/topic/168655-is-hell-in-islam-eternal/

“And when the appointed Day comes, no one shall even dare to speak except by the leave of Allah. Then some will be declared wretched, others blessed. As for the wretched, they shall be in the Fire, and in it they shall sigh and groan. They shall abide in it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise. Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills. And as for those who are blessed, they shall abide in the Garden as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise. They shall enjoy an unceasing gift.” (Qur’an 11:105-109)

So the main point of one of the commenters is as follows:

Notice God says “…your Lord carries out whatever He wills…” after the description of potential release from Hell, as if to support this possibility. Yet, after the same statement made in reference to Heaven, God says “…an unceasing gift”. He doesn’t say “…whatever He wills”, which would support the statement that Heaven will end, but rather “unceasing gift” supports the continuation of Heaven.

Point 1. Nothing happens except by the will of Allah who has full and total control over all things.

“As for the Righteous, they will be in bliss; And the Wicked – they will be in the Fire, Which they will enter on the Day of Judgment, And they will not be able to keep away therefrom. And what will explain to you what the Day of Judgment is? Again, what will explain to you what the Day of Judgment is? (It will be) the Day when no soul shall have power (to do) aught for another: For the command, that Day, will be (wholly) with Allah.” (Qur’an 82:13-19)

When does the command stop being with Allah?

Point 2.

They shall abide in (hellfire) it as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise.

they shall abide in the Garden as long as the heavens and the earth endure, unless your Lord may will otherwise.

These people are clearly over looking the condition of eternality of the garden and hell based upon the eternality of the new heaven and earth itself.

“On the day when the earth is changed into another earth, as well as the heavens, and they emerged before Allah, the One, the Subduer.” (Qur’an 14:48)

Now let us do a thought experiment. What would be the reason or purpose for someone to leave paradise? Are there any text suggesting that a person would be expelled from or leave paradise after entering it?

“Then We said, “O Adam, you and your wife, both dwell in the Garden and eat to your hearts’ content where from you will, but do not go near this tree otherwise you shall become transgressors” After a time Satan tempted them with that tree to disobey Our Command and brought them out of the state they were in, and We decreed, “Now, go down all of you from here; you are enemies of one another. Henceforth you shall dwell and provide for yourselves on the Earth for a specified period.” At that time Adam learnt appropriate words from his Lord and repented, and his Lord accepted his repentance, for He is very Relenting and very Merciful.” (Quran 2:35-37)

Point 3. The proponents of the idea that people will leave hell seem fixated on the the following endings:

After mentioning hellfire : Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills.

After mentioning the paradise: They shall enjoy an unceasing gift.

Yet, they seem to forget that both statements are preceding by: unless your Lord may will otherwise.

They seem so desperate to hang on to their position. They want to only focus on ‘They shall enjoy an unceasing gift’ and ignore that the text is preceded by ‘unless your Lord may will otherwise’ as well as ‘as long as heavens and earth pass’.

For example in the English language one may say:

Except as I will, you children may have all the chocolates on the table.

Or

You children may have all the chocolates on the table, except as I will.

Both sentence structures indicate that the children may enjoy as long as I will.

Point 4. Inconsistent methodology.

So using their logic, and if one was to be consistent we would need to understand under what circumstances would those believers who go to heaven not enjoy heaven any longer? In the same vein those who are sent to hellfire under what circumstances would they leave?

Allah (swt) could have removed the “unless your Lord may will otherwise” statement. That would have given the proponents same weight with that verse. Yet, they would still need to contend with the numerous verses in the Qur’an which Allah (swt) clearly indicated his will regarding those in hellfire.

“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)

So that really looks like someone clutching at straws.

Point 5. Lastly, on that text above. It would not indicate who would leave the hell fire. Remember, there is a belief among Sunni Muslims that believers can enter the hellfire and than taken out. They cannot bring a single verse of the Qur’an to substantiate this. So if we are to use the logic of those who believe that hellfire is not eternal for its inhabitants (contrary to what Allah clearly says), it would mean that the polytheist, mushrik, anyone will eventually leave hell.

For me the matter is clear, crystal clear.

  1. The hellfire is eternal for who ever enters it.
  2. Our creed is taken from clear verses and not verses subject to multiple interpretations.
  3. There is not a single verse any where in the Qur’an that believers enter the hellfire.
  4. The Qur’an has to be in harmony with all its verses.

Next text that was discussed in that forum actually backfires on them as well.

https://www.gawaher.com/topic/168655-is-hell-in-islam-eternal/

“To those who reject Our Signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of Heaven, nor will they enter the Garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: such is Our reward for those in sin.” (Qur’an 7:40)

In the Tafsir attributed to Ibn Abbas (r.a) Tanwîr al-Miqbâs min Tafsîr Ibn ‘Abbâs it says:

(Lo! they who deny Our revelations) Muhammed (pbuh) and the Qur’an (and scorn them) scorn believing in them, (for them the gates of Heaven will not be opened) to receive their works or souls (nor will they enter the Garden until the camel goes through the needle’s eye) they will not enter Paradise just as a camel cannot pass through the eye of a needle; it is also said that this means: they will not enter Paradise until a rope goes through a needle’s eye. (Thus do We requite the guilty) the idolaters.”

Even our teacher Shaykh Hilal Al Wardi (hafidulah) favours the understanding of rope instead of camel.

Even than as the Shaykh says, it means a big rope and not the thin thread that easily passes through the eye of the needle. The big rope is impossible.

Let us follow through logically.

ALL OF SUNNI Muslims believe that at the very least the unbelievers will go to hellfire. So if the above verse is to be understood as something possible, a rope that can go through the eye of a needle than no one will go to hellfire at all!

Now since we know that this verse is clear. Allah (swt) has made it clear when he states: “Surely your Lord does whatsoever He wills.” That Allah (swt) has not willed for these people anything other than for them to remain in hellfire.

We know that Allah (swt) promise and statements are true.

“But the ones who believe and do righteous deeds – We will admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow, wherein they will abide forever. It is the promise of Allah , which is truth, and who is more truthful than Allah in statement.” (Qur’an 4:122)

The only other possible straw for these people to clutch is the evil and heinous position that Allah (swt) can lie. So than when Allah (swt) says:

“While the wicked will be in Hell. They will roast on the Day of Judgment. And they will never be absent from it.” (Qur’an 82: 14-16)

or

“To those who reject Our Signs and treat them with arrogance, no opening will there be of the gates of Heaven, nor will they enter the Garden, until the camel can pass through the eye of the needle: such is Our reward for those in sin.” (Qur’an 7:40)

We have refuted that vile and godless position here:

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Muslim preacher: We will see Allah’s face in paradise?

“The Originator of the heavens and the earth; He made mates for you from among yourselves, and mates of the cattle too, multiplying you thereby; there is nothing like unto Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)

The faculties of seeing (tudriku) cannot grasp Him, and He grasp allseeing (yudriku), He is the All-Subtle and All-Aware.” (Qur’an 6:103)

“Allah has promised the believing men and believing women Gardens beneath which rivers flow. They shall abide in it. There are delightful dwelling places for them in the Gardens of Eternity. They shall, above all, enjoy the good pleasure of Allah. That is the great achievement.” (Qur’an 9:72)

My friend had his brother in law send him these clips by a Muslim preacher claiming people will ‘see the face of Allah’ in the paradise.

The preacher in the above video says:

“O Rabb, show Your Face.” “We want to look at You.” “So Allah (swt) Orders for the Hijab to be removed. And the Hijab of Allah Is Light (Noor).” “And you will see your Lord Like you see the sun at its noon Or the moon at its full. ” “There will be faces looking at their Lord. Looking so much so that Allah” (swt)

“May Allah makes us of those who will lay eyes On the Blessed Face of Allah” (swt)

You ever notice how these people talk about seeing the ‘Face of Allah’ ? Why don’t they ask to see the foot of Allah? Why don’t they ask to see the two right hands of Allah? Why don’t they ask to see the shin of Allah? Why would it be shameful to ask that? Does Allah (swt) have attributes that are shameful? Astaghfiurllah! Of course not!

When I asked this of a brother his response was:

“I guess because the face is considered to be the seat of beauty in human beings.”

Right! However,

 
There is nothing like unto Him; and He is the Hearing, the Seeing.” (Qur’an 42:11)

AS FAR AS ALLAH (SWT) REMOVING SOME HIJAB….WELL THINK AGAIN!

Curious to see more?

Like where Imam Shafi’i is reported to have said that if he knew he would not see Allah (swt) he would not worship him, even though Allah (swt) NEVER made that a condition of worshipping him.

Curious to see where our brothers play fast and loose with various text to get you to believe that you will see Allah (swt) on the day of judgement?

Allah (swt) has already told us what the great attainment is! It is not seeing his face!

“Allah has promised the believing men and believing women Gardens beneath which rivers flow. They shall abide in it. There are delightful dwelling places for them in the Gardens of Eternity. They shall, above all, enjoy the good pleasure of Allah. That is the great achievement.” (Qur’an 9:72)

May Allah (swt) guide us to what is beloved to Allah (swt).

3 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized