Saturday 9 January 2010

Refutation to the claim that Abu Ayyub al-Ansari (the Prophets companion) prostrated at his grave.




The sects who are trying to follow the ways of the Christians (sufis, shi'a etc) try to use the following hadith as proof that prostrating to graves was 'done by the companions of Prophet Muhammad';


عن داود بن أبي صالح ، قال: أقبل مروان يوماً فوجد رجلاً واضعاً وجهه على القبر فأخذ برقبته، وقال: أتدري ما تصنع؟ قال: نعم، فأقبل عليه فإذا هو أبو أيوب الأنصاري رضي الله عنه فقال: جئت رسول الله ولم آتِ الحجر، سمعت رسول الله يقول: «لا تَبْكوا علَى الدّينِ إِذا وَلِيَهُ أَهْلُهُ وَلكِنِ ابْكوا عَلَيْهِ إِذا وَلِيَهُ غَيْرُ أَهْلِهِ».

هذا حديث صحيح الإسناد


Translation: Dawud ibn Salih said: "[The governor of Madina] Marwan one day saw a man placing his face on top of the grave of the Prophet. He said: "Do you know what you are doing?" When he came near him, he realized it was Abu Ayyub al-Ansari. The latter said: "Yes; I came to the Prophet, not to a stone."

[Musnad Ahmed Bin Hanbal 5:466, Imam Hakim in his Al-Mustadrak 4:520, Hadith # 8571, Where he declared it “SAHIH” and Imam Dahahbi also agreed with him (i.e. It is Sahih)]



Response given by Ayman bin khaled:

a. al-Hakim (رحمه الله) did not say this Hadeeth is Saheeh!. Rather he said its chain is Sahih and there is a big difference between each statement as known in science of hadeeth. The former means the narration is authentic whereas the latter does not necessirely mean the narrtion is authentic.

b. al-Dhahabi never agreed with al-Hakim on such statement. How would he agree on such classification when he himself stated that Dawd bin Saleh, who exists in the chain, is unknown narrator [refer to al-Mizaan of al-Dhahabi: 3/14 and Tahdheeb al-Tahdheen of al-Hafith: 3/188].

c. The chain also includes Katheer bin Zaid who is disputed over i.e. Abu Zar'a said he is Sadooq with some leen while al-Nasaie said he is weak.

d. Dawd bin Saleh narrates this story from a man called Marwaan and he is also unknown

Based on this, the chain is obviously weak and no scholar would ever say its chain is Sahih unless he relies on the work of al-hakim, which is incorrect in this one, without anticipating it.

With regards the Matn of the narrtion, then it is obvious that it has some obvious oddness that prove its incorrectness, as can be noted. The narration indicate that the grave is in public and seen by whoever pass by while, as a matter of fact, we all know that the grave of the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وسلم) is actually located in the room of Aisha (رضي الله عنها). In addition, it is known that the Salaf including Imam Malik who was an observer to acts of people of Madina and Imam Ahmad who was in the region of Hijaaz or the Shafie who was in Mecca disliked and disapproved touching the grave and said that people of knowledge never done it, which proves that such narrtion is too weak and no one ever acted upon.

In summery,
The chain is very weak and so is its text also. So, no one should quote such narrations or dig through narrations that never been acted upon by scholars. Thus whatever you concluded based on such narration is rejected and cannot be accepted or even considered.

I would have commented on the odd point of what makes a Sojood as you have mentioned, if I had time. However, please note that such topics should not be presented by laypeople and it would have better for you to abstain from being involved in such topics as you do not have enough knowledge and obviously you just copy and paste articles or others views, which makes you a Muqallid, therefore it does not make sense to defend what you have did Taqleed with unless you want to verify what you are upon.

In the end, I would like to remind you that whatever I said here is not addressing you as aperson, as I do not even know you, but all my words are addressing and assesting your assertion based on the principles of this religion. That said, I do agree with what you said that Sojood has two types and ruling differ on each one (one is haram if done with the intent of respect, and the other is shirk if done with the intent of worship.)

http://ahlalhdeeth.com/vbe/showpost.php?p=47312&postcount=8

Sunday 3 January 2010

REFERENCE: An Index of Commonly used Anti-Islamic Words (or Subjects), & Links to 'Best' Responses*.

REFERENCE: An Index of Commonly used Anti-Islamic Words (or Subjects), & Links to 'Best' Responses*.
*These responses usually consist of Quranic verses and Ahadith [Prophetic sayings] which refute the doubt directly.



(In Alphabetical Order):

If you're unable to find the word mentioned [in the linked post] -
press CTRL and F, and type the word (click Find Next), and it should show on the page inshaAllah.


#
4:15 Al Nisa. 1 2 (Abrogated: ..confine them to their houses until death...)


A
'Abdullah Ibn Sad Ibn Abi Sarh
Abiogenesis 1 2 3
Adam & Eve
Agnosticism 1 2 3
Aisha 1 2 3
Allah 1 2

Amino Acids 1 2
Ammonia 1 2
Animals 1 2
Anthropic Principle 1 2 3
Anti-Semitism 1
Alcohol 1 2 [Research]
Appendix
Apostasy 1 2 3
ATHEISM
Atmosphere 1 2


B
Banu Quraydah 1
Beating 1 2
Big Bang 1 2
Bible 1 2 3
Big Chill / Big Crunch / Big Rip [hypotheses for ending of this universe]
Branes theory
Brain 1 2


C
Cell 1 2.
Colour of skin 1
- Closed Cell 1
Common Ancestor / Common Descent 1 2
Cut hand of thief 1 2 3


D
Daraba (strike) [Al Nisa 4:34] 1
Deeds
Destiny 1 2
DNA 1 2 3


E
Energy 1 2
Entropy 1
Evolution
Expanding Universe / La Moowsi'oon [in arabic terminology]
Evil 1 2
Evolutionary Model of Religion 1 2
Ezra/Uzair 1 2

F
Faith 1 2
Falsifiable 1 2 3
Fine tuning 1 2 3
Fitrah (natural disposition to believe in God) 1
Flaws 1 2
Flogging (whipping) 1 2
Forced Marriages 1 2



G
Gender Relations
- Intermixing 1 2 [Research - Girls do Better in Education without Boys] 3

God create Stone/Rock so Heavy, which He cannot Lift? 1
who created God? 1
God of the Gaps
God create Stone/Rock so Heavy, which He cannot Lift? 1
-who created God? 1
God of the Gaps
Gravity 1 2


H
Hadeeth 1 2 3
Hijab 1 2 [Research - Sexualised women Viewed as Less humans by Males than Covered women..]
3
Homosexuality 1 2
Hudood Punishments 1 2

I
Intoxicants 1
Inbreeding
Incest 1
Intelligent Design 1 2
Isomers 1


J


Jihad 1
Jizyah 1 2
Jews
- Banu Quraydah 1


K
Khidhr 1 2


L
Lightning
Lipid Bilayers 1 2


M
Mind
Miracles 1 2
Millers Study 1 2
Murky water (sunset) 1 2
Moon god 1 2
Moon split 1 2

Monkeys
Mountains 1 2 3
mRNA 1 2 3
Multiverse 1 2
Mutations



N
Nervous System 1 2
Nucleotides 1 2 3


O
Ockhams Razor 1
Organelles 1
Oxidization 1 2
O-Zone layer 1 2

P
Pairs 1
Pegs 1 2
Pigs
Poison (did the Prophet die from it?) 1
prebiotic Soup
Problem of Evil 1 2
Proteins 1
Psychology 1 2


Q
Qisas [Retaliation] 1 2
Quantum


R
Randomness
Rape 1 2 3
Raping Slave Girls? 1
Religion 1 2
RNA 1 2 3
- RNA World Theory 1 2 3
- mRNA 1 2 3
Robbery 1 2 3



S
Selfish 1 2
Skin Colour 1
Slavery 1 2
Smack child 1 2 (..if he doesn't pray at 10.)
Soup (prebiotic)
Sunnah 1 2 3
String theory



T
Tail Bone
Terrorism 1 2
Thief 1 2 3

Transcription / Translation [of DNA] 1 2 3


U
Uzayr/Ezra 1
UV / Ultra Violet Rays 1


V
Vitamin C

W
Wife beating 1
Wisdom Teeth


X


Y


Z




Key:
1 - Best Refutation
2 - Usually a Refutation & Information, (either or both)
3 - Information.
4, 5, 6... etc. - Further Information.

- Titles in CAPITAL LETTERS link to another category of Refutations i.e. ATHEISM.




Keep checking here for updates;
http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/reference-index-commonly-atheist-words-links-responses-2535

An Eternal Universe? Nah,not According to Modern Science.

Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh

An Eternal Universe? Nah,not According to Modern Science.



Atheist Question #1;

This universe does astound our small minds, petty by-products of chance life; but is there any part of that we can actually say "that is so amazing only a creator could have caused it?"



Muslim Answer #1:

Yes most definitly, some examples:
1) rate of expansion after big bang
“If the rate of expansion one second after the 'Big Bang' had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million (0,000000000000001%), the universe would have recollapsed. The odds against a universe like ours emerging out of something like the Big Bang are enormous”. (Stephen Hawking, 'A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes', Page 128).

2) gravity :
“If gravity (released by the Big Bang) had been stronger or weaker by even one part in ten thousand million million million million million million (0,00000000000000000000000000000000000001%) then life sustaining stars like the sun could not exist. This would most likely make life impossible.” (Brandon Carter, ‘New Physics’ Page 187).


Atheist Question #2 - Multiverse Theory:

Theatheist may claimthat; A MultiVerse was existant 'forever' and had no beginning. So imagine a bunch of lots of universes together = a Multiverse.

And within that Multiverse, many 'other universes' were expanding (like the Big Bang), so they collided into each other - causing a side Big Bang of energy - which would cause this universe to come into existence, and start expanding.


So atheists are saying that the universe wasn't really created, instead, it began from a group of other Universes colliding together, providing energy for a new Big Bang = this universe.

*This is in relation to the modern Branes or String theory.



Muslim Answer #2:
the multiverse argument just shifts the question as to how it [the multiverse] all originated in the first place;

Whether or not it is scientificly plausible, is rather irrelevant. The multiverse explenation only shifts the question from how was our universe created to how was our multiverse created. Again note that there's a diffrence between believing in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite God. Because an infinite (in time) multiverse would face the same technical problems with entropy as an infinite universe (i.e. the amount of useful energy of eternal big bangs, - expansion after contraction - continuously, would be reduced to 0, so needing a starting point once again at some time). That is because the multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces.
What is being said is;
1) The Multiverse idea just shifts the question to;How did the Multiverse begin, instead of the question; how did the universe begin?


2) If the atheist says the multiverse was 'forever without a beginning', then a rule called Entropy* argues against an 'eternal/forever' multiverse.

What is Entropy: *Even if "open and close" [expansion/contraction] universes can exist, they cannot endure for eternity. At some point it becomes necessary for "something" to be get energy from "nothing".

Eternal Big Bangs couldn't occur eternally because they would soon run out of useful energy
(because after 'each' big bang there is less useful energy remaining) - finally having no useful energy to cause big bangs - meaning that there has to be a 'first cause' for it all over again.

So atheists cant say the universe has had eternal big bangs and contractions without a first cause. We say the causer of all things is Allah who depends on no-one and is the Powerful. [al Qawiy]


In Detail:

Slide 13: Refuting the Oscillating Model Even if we allow that there is some mechanism by which this cycle of contraction-explosion-expansion does take place, the crucial point is that this cycle cannot go on for ever, as is claimed.

Calculations for this model show that each universe will transfer an amount of entropy* to its successor. In other words, the amount of useful energy available becomes less each time and every \"opening\" universe will open more slowly and have a larger diameter. This will cause a much smaller universe to form the next time around and so on, eventually petering out into nothing.

*entropy: For a closed thermodynamic system, a quantitative measure of the amount of thermal energy not available to do work. (i.e. which isn't useful.) Thus, every process occurring in the world results in an overall increase in entropy (thermodynamic heat which isn't useful) and a corresponding degradation in energy. entropy: Definition from Answers.com
source: 1) William Lane Craig, Cosmos and Creator, Origins & Design, Spring 1996, vol. 17, p. 19
Powerpoint by Bassam Zawadi; 3 Atheism And Materialism - refutations - SlideShare




Atheist Argument #3 against Entropy;

But Energy never gets destroyed, energy just changes state like Einstein said.


Muslim Answer #3;
Yes, that might be the case. However, we are talking about 'Useful Energy' which allows future Big Bangs to occur. After a certain amount of Big Bangs, the amount of Useful Energy will be decreased everytime, and the only energy that will remain is Heat (the energy used for the Big Bangs had changed into heat, and heat is not useful in creating future Big Bangs for other newer universes [since Kinetic and Potential Energy is needed for that].) This heat cannot do anything since it is irreversible energy (so it can't be useful energy for future Big Bangs.)


So in effect, the universe cannot be eternal/forever. If it was forever, maximum Entropy would have already been reached an eternity ago, so there wouldn't be any useful energy to allow this present universe to come into existence!

The only other solution would be for a new Provider of Useful Energy to start the whole process once again. And once these Big Bang's ran out of useful energy [Maximum Entropy reached], a Provider of New useful Energy would be needed once again repeatedly each time.


The atheist might say that some energy which may seem 'irreversible' can be changed into useful energy through manipulation. But to change its state into useful energy through manipulation would require further energy for its transformation, and there is a lack of this energy already. So this wouldn't be possible.


So a multiverse cannot survive on its own forever, rather it needs a Provider of Useful Energy each time it runs out, based on the scientific rule of Entropy.


Atheist Question #4:

Atheist; How can you apply the rules of our universe, to the laws of other universes and the Multiverse? The physics of our universe might be different to the multiverse?


Muslim Answer #4:
The multiverse theory sees the multiverse as the same closed system with the same universal forces as ours. [So the rules are the same for the universe and multiverse according to the Multiverse theory.]

If the atheist disagrees, he needs to explain what the alternative physical laws are of the other universe/multiverse, and he can't do this because science has not proven or explained what their physical laws are [infact it hasn't even discovered those other universes, since the whole multiverse theory is a hypothesis (educated guess)].

So the argument still stands, our current state of the universe denies the possibility of time dating back infinitly. So similarly, the idea of an infinite multiverse going an eternity back in time is also denied, according to modern day scientific standards.


Atheist Question #5:

Atheist; "the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it."

So what you're saying is? The reason that we observe that the world exists in the way that it does, is because if it wouldn't exist in that way, we wouldn't observe it? That is what you could call the "contra-antropic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying, "It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah, obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculously that it is like that, and not any other of the million less favourable ways.




Atheist; "He's an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, omnipresent being which can manipulate anything in the world according to his will from anywhere. A being like that is pretty much the most complex being you can think of." (hence he's more complicated than the idea of an eternal universe).


answer:
I grant that God is quite possibly the most complex among the beings. That however does not mean that the idea of God as creator is the most complex of all ideas. In fact I consider the multiverse, or at least, the way you suggest it accounts for existence a theory that is far more (needlessly) complex.

I realize that if I claim "God is the solution to the question of existence", then you could reply: but who created God? My reply in term would be, God is not created, he is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering entropy. A god which is time-less on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic. Therefore to some extent I find it persuasive.


[Meaning: since Intelligent Design 'idea' is the most plausible explanation (to me) based on my understanding of science and probabilities of nature doing all these acts in a synchronised way), then the multiverse hypothesis 'idea' is even more complex in comparison since it defies logic and relies on ALOT of coincidences.]




http://www.islamic-life.com/forums/atheism-agnosticism/eternal-universe-nah-modern-science-2587