Whither scholars like Imam Malik who would not impose his Fatwa on unknown lands?

 

 

وكان عبد الرحمن بن مهدي يقول: [كنا عند مالك بن أنس فجاءه رجل فقال: يا أبا عبد الله جئتك من مسيرة ستة أشهر حملني أهل بلدي مسألة أسألك عنها قال: فسل فسأله الرجل عن مسألة قال: لا أحسنها قال فبهت الرجل كأنه قد جاء إلى من يعلم كل شيء قال فقال: فأي شيء أقول لأهل بلدتي إذا رجعت لهم؟ قال: تقول لهم قال مالك: لا أحسن].

الحافظ ابن عبد البر في كتابه جامع بيان العلم وفضله

‘Abduraḥmān bin Mahdī narrated:

We were in the gathering of [al-Imām] Mālik bin Anas [Allāh’s mercy be upon him] when a man arrived and said to him, “O Father of ‘Abdullāh! I have come to you after a journey of six months. The people of my land have deputed me to ask you a question.”

[Mālik] said, “Ask.”

The man asked the question and [Mālik] replied, “I am not well versed in that.”

The man was stunned. [His expression being] as if he was in the presence of one who was supposed to know everything. He exclaimed, “Then what shall I say to the people of my land when I return to them?”

[Mālik] replied, “Say to them that Mālik says, ‘I am not well versed in that.’”

[Ibn ‘Abdil Barr – Jāmi‘ Bayānil ‘Ilm wa Faḍlihi]

 

Whilst the above incident is usually quoted as a straight forward issue of a pious and humble scholar not venturing a reply in a matter he does not know, it has been commented that the Imām did not explicitly say, “I do not know.” It is highly probable that the Imām would now the general ruling, but refrained from commenting on the specific circumstances of a foreign land he had little understanding of. That the community sent a delegate that far, indicates that there was some special situation they needed resolution on. The Imām first allowed the question on the possibility of it being something general he could assist with. On hearing the specifics, he felt it wise not to comment.

 

In the light of the above, it was with great disappointment that I read a “decree,” in the guise of advice, from a scholar 7200 km away, that South African Muslims must vote for the ruling party in the May 2014 elections.

 

I hope I do not have the same patronising attitude

 

Pride is a great disease that may accompany learning. It may be that I too have unintentionally adopted the attitude that I know what is best for every person whom Allāh has created. I believe I address general issues on known facts in the light of Islāmic teaching. Thus for example I may not have visited Crimea, but I have commented on matters which do not require me to have an intimate knowledge or physical presence in Crimea. If I have failed in this, it would be good of readers to point out my failing in a kind, well-wishing manner.

 

For the record, I shall quote from correspondence in which I hope I am following the example of al-Imām Mālik – Allāh’s mercy be upon him:

 Correspondent:

 I was hoping that someone of your capabilities would be able to write an article on the importance of having a Shaikh. In Leicester UK we have a lot of mashaaikh, but unfortunately the mureeds seem to become extremist followers, and at times they become like our barelvi brothers. The way they do peer mooridi.

My reply:

May Allah make your good thoughts about me a reality. I however feel that I cannot write on a specific situation on a country that I have never visited.

 

Afrikaans – speaking without knowing the people

 

I had attended a talk by the same scholar who had decreed an ANC vote. What follows is not to harp on the faults of a particular individual, but to demonstrate the fallacy of feeling qualified to decree under any circumstance.

 

The speaker advised that South Africans should learn the 9 native languages of the land. I agree. Who can dispute the wisdom thereof? He then made a statement which I cannot believe to be wise or considered. He said, “And forget about Afrikaans. It is a dead language.”

 

Muslims and Afrikaans

 

Islām in South Africa originated in the Western Cape. To this day the overwhelming majority of South African Muslims reside in that province. Most of them speak Afrikaans as a first language, which they have in common with neighbours to the north and east. You may even research the debate that the first Afrikaans books were written by Muslims in Arabic script, not Calvinists in Latin script. If the majority of Muslims are not Afrikaans speaking, then at the very least, they form a massive percentage of the total. Hundreds of thousands have first been taught about Allāh via Afrikaans. Their mothers taught them of His Beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلمin Afrikaans. The talks they heard in the Masjid are in Afrikaans.

 

The demographic reality is that in general, the Afrikaans-speaking Muslim forms a less affluent sector and many live in dire poverty. Whilst certainly not a complete picture, this certainly adds to the net result that foreign Muslim dignitaries will be meeting an English / Urdu speaking host. Yet how can the dignitary arrogate the right to decree what language Muslims should speak simply based on the limited circle he is acquainted with?

 

White Afrikaners

 

Yes, it is our duty to let our neighbours know of the blessings of Islām. Practically, four-fifths are African and the pragmatic focus would be there. Yet what excuse is there in utterly ignoring the Afrikaners who compose 5% of the population? That they are the former oppressors? Well, wasn’t Mūsā عليه السلام [Moses] deputed to Pharaoh? Are they not entitled to hear the message of Islām?

 

Experience shows that an Afrikaner becomes more accepting of a Muslim when addressed in Afrikaans. For some years to come, English Muslims will still have some command of Afrikaans. Even if there were no Afrikaans Muslims, why should a foreigner dictate that this potential tool of transmitting Islām to millions more must be buried? It all boils down several diseases gripping us at large…

 

Spiritual diseases

 

The Muslim body is sick. May Allāh save us from:

 

• ·         Lack of respect for different opinions.
• ·         Arrogant desire to impose my opinion on others.
• ·         Lack of respect for other cultures.
• ·         Speaking without investigating all the facts.
• ·         Passing decrees without knowledge.

 

 
 

 

 

 

سليمان الكندي

Whither scholars like Imam Malik who would not impose his Fatwa on unknown lands?

وكان عبد الرحمن بن مهدي يقول: [كنا عند مالك بن أنس فجاءه رجل فقال: يا أبا عبد الله جئتك من مسيرة ستة أشهر حملني أهل بلدي مسألة أسألك عنها قال: فسل فسأله الرجل عن مسألة قال: لا أحسنها قال فبهت الرجل كأنه قد جاء إلى من يعلم كل شيء قال فقال: فأي شيء أقول لأهل بلدتي إذا رجعت لهم؟ قال: تقول لهم قال مالك: لا أحسن].

الحافظ ابن عبد البر في كتابه جامع بيان العلم وفضله

‘Abduraḥmān bin Mahdī narrated:

We were in the gathering of [al-Imām] Mālik bin Anas [Allāh’s mercy be upon him] when a man arrived and said to him, “O  Father of  ‘Abdullāh! I have come to you after a journey of six months. The people of my land have deputed me to ask you a question.”

[Mālik] said, “Ask.”

The man asked the question and [Mālik] replied, “I am not well versed in that.”

The man was stunned. [His expression being] as if he was in the presence of one who was supposed to know everything. He exclaimed, “Then what shall I say to the people of my land when I return to them?”

[Mālik] replied, “Say to them that Mālik says, ‘I am not well versed in that.’”

[Ibn ‘Abdil Barr – Jāmi‘ Bayānil ‘Ilm wa Faḍlihi]

Whilst the above incident is usually quoted as a straight forward issue of a pious and humble scholar not venturing a reply in a matter he does not know, it has been commented that the Imām did not explicitly say, “I do not know.” It is highly probable that the Imām would now the general ruling, but refrained from commenting on the specific circumstances of a foreign land he had little understanding of. That the community sent a delegate that far, indicates that there was some special situation they needed resolution on. The Imām first allowed the question on the possibility of it being something general he could assist with. On hearing the specifics, he felt it wise not to comment.

In the light of the above, it was with great disappointment that I read a “decree,” in the guise of advice, from a scholar 7200 km away, that South African Muslims must vote for the ruling party in the May 2014 elections.

 

I hope I do not have the same patronising attitude

Pride is a great disease that may accompany learning. It may be that I too have unintentionally adopted the attitude that I know what is best for every person whom Allāh has created. I believe I address general issues on known facts in the light of Islāmic teaching. Thus for example I may not have visited Crimea, but I have commented on matters which do not require me to have an intimate knowledge or physical presence in Crimea. If I have failed in this, it would be good of  readers to point out my failing in a kind, well-wishing manner.

For the record, I shall quote from correspondence in which I hope I am following the example of al-Imām Mālik – Allāh’s mercy be upon him:

 Correspondent: “I was hoping that someone of your capabilities would be able to write an article on the importance of having a Shaikh. In Leicester UK we have a lot of mashaaikh, but unfortunately the mureeds seem to become extremist followers, and at times they become like our barelvi brothers. The way they do peer mooridi.”

My reply: “May Allah make your good thoughts about me a reality. I however feel that I cannot write on a specific situation on a country that I have never visited.”

 

Afrikaans – speaking without knowing the people

I had attended a talk by the same scholar who had decreed an ANC vote. What follows is not to harp on the faults of a particular individual, but to demonstrate the fallacy of feeling qualified to decree under any circumstance.

The speaker advised that South Africans should learn the 9 native languages of the land. I agree. Who can dispute the wisdom thereof? He then made a statement which I cannot believe to be wise or considered. He said, “And forget about Afrikaans. It is a dead language.”

Muslims and Afrikaans

Islām in South Africa originated in the Western Cape. To this day the overwhelming majority of South African Muslims reside in that province. Most of them speak Afrikaans as a first language, which they have in common with neighbours to the north and east. You may even research the debate that the first Afrikaans books were written by Muslims in Arabic script, not Calvinists in Latin script. If the majority of Muslims are not Afrikaans speaking, then at the very least, they form a massive percentage of the total. Hundreds of thousands have first been taught about Allāh via Afrikaans. Their mothers taught them of His Beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه و سلم  in Afrikaans. The talks they heard in the Masjid are in Afrikaans.

The demographic reality is that in general, the Afrikaans-speaking Muslim forms a less affluent sector and many live in dire poverty. Whilst certainly not a complete picture, this certainly adds to the net result that foreign Muslim dignitaries will be meeting an English / Urdu speaking host. Yet how can the dignitary arrogate the right to decree what language Muslims should speak simply based on the limited circle he is acquainted with?

White Afrikaners

Yes, it is our duty to let our neighbours know of the blessings of Islām. Practically, four-fifths are African and the pragmatic focus would be there. Yet what excuse is there in utterly ignoring the Afrikaners who compose 5% of the population? That they are the former oppressors? Well, wasn’t Mūsā عليه السلام  [Moses] deputed to Pharaoh? Are they not entitled to hear the message of Islām?

Experience shows that an Afrikaner becomes more accepting of a Muslim when addressed in Afrikaans. For some years to come, English Muslims will still have some command of Afrikaans. Even if there were no Afrikaans Muslims, why should a foreigner dictate that this potential tool of transmitting Islām to millions more must be buried? It all boils down several diseases gripping us at large…

Spiritual diseases

The Muslim body is sick. May Allāh save us from:

• ·         Lack of respect for different opinions.
• ·         Arrogant desire to impose my opinion on others.
• ·         Lack of respect for other cultures.
• ·         Speaking without investigating all the facts.
• ·         Passing decrees without knowledge.

 

سليمان الكندي

Khilafah vs Papacy

 

Al-Imām at-Tirmiẓī narrates in his Kitāb Tafsiril Qurān in Sunan at-Tirmiẓī that ‘Adī bin Ḥātimرضى الله عنه  narrates:

I came to the Nabī صلى الله عليه و سلم  wearing a golden cross around my neck. He called out, “O ‘Adī! Throw this idol off your neck!”

I then heard him reciting from Sūrah Barā’ah, “They made their priests and monks lords besides Allāh.”

He then commented, “They did not worship them, but if they made something Ḥalāl for them, they took it as Ḥalāl and when they made something Ḥarām for them they took it as Ḥarām.”

 One cannot blame a Muslim for being affected by the media fanfare surrounding the Pope and innocently comparing the situation of a divided Islām with a united Catholic Church under a single leader. “Why do we not have a Khalīfah?” he might lament.

The comparison and the lament, whilst born out of sincerity, are however incorrect and naïve.

No comparison between Pope and Amīrul Muminīn

Muslims must desist from seeking points of reference in the West. Our points of reference are Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. If we fail to do this, we unintentionally undermine our own faith. Specifically in this instance, we have not fulfilled the command of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم of pledging allegiance to a Khalīfah for close onto a century. The least we can do however, is maintain the intention of a restoration and not contaminate the concept of the institution with alien ideas.  If we keep drawing parallels to the Papacy, the danger exists that the day the Khilāfah is restored, the imagery of a Papacy will be permanently imprinted on the minds on the Ummah.

I do not intend my blog to be an academic thesis on any subject, but hope that the following should suffice for the thoughtful:

1. Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “Now, it is beyond doubt that I have been elected your Amīr, although I am not better than you. Help me, if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. Truth is a trust; falsehood is a treason.”   
2. The Papacy is an office that is bought, sold and bribed for. Whoever wishes to study the sordid details may peruse the biographies of the Medici and Borgia families. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “O people, I swear by Allāh that I never desired the Khilāfah either by day or by night, nor had I any inclination towards it. I never prayed to Allāh openly or secrectly to confer the office on me. I merely accepted this office lest some mischief arise at this critical juncture in the history of the Muslims…”
3. The Catholic Church is largely a compromise and distortion between Christianity and paganism. Thus even the symbols of the Pope, such as the insistence on wearing red shoes, have their origins with idol worshippers and has nothing to do with any heavenly scripture. The Khalīfah is strictly bound by Shari‘ah in his office. Any personal failings have always been recognised as such – his personal failing. It has never been institutionalised in Islām, unlike the Papacy. Popes and priests married for at least three centuries, and then were forbidden to do so.  Catholics deny that the prohibition was in order to increase the Church’s land holdings. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in Islām the Khalīfah has no authority to concoct divine law at human whim centuries after the practice of a different law. Again, the first Khalīfah said, “Obey me as long as I obey Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. When I disobey Him and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم, then obey me not.”

   Allāḥ knows best why we needed the medicine of loss of Khilāfah

 One of my teachers, Mawlānā Sulaymān Chocksī,  warned us against entertaining people’s demands for explanations of Ḥikmah (the divine wisdom behind a certain law or event). Such ventures merely lead to confusing replies and demands for substantiating every injunction, even if the reason might not have been clarified in the Qurān. I would add that in declaring that that is   why Allāh decreed something, am I not elevating myself to some kind of consultant to Allāh? Since when did I reach such a status that Allāh explains unto me why He decreed an event?

However, I see no harm in looking at events on the ground and stating what I see.

I first clarify:

1. The Jew Ataturk and the Saudis terminated the Khilāfah and have much to answer for in thus rebelling against Allāh.
2.  Khilāfah is a command of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم.
3. Had I lived a century ago, I would have been obliged to obey the ‘Ulamā’ who sought to defend the Khilāfah.

Unity of hearts, not authorities

 I however say to those who lament that the Catholics have a Pope and we have no Khalīfah:

A problem today is lack of understanding of what Islāmic unity is. Unity is not conformity and uniformity which are the hallmarks of perhaps every single Muslim institute and organisation throughout the world. Islāmic unity means unity of hearts together with respect for difference of opinions. That is why when the King wished to impose the Fatāwā of al-Imām Mālik raḥimahullāh upon all Muslims to ensure “unity,” the very first to oppose him was none other than the venerable Imām himself. The Imām understood what unity really meant and what the consequences of a monolithic, unthinking, robotic Ummah would entail. We however have still not grasped the lesson.

Even the sternest Khalīfah, ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb رضى الله عنه , was a humble man who accepted differences of opinion. I may be wrong, but I firmly believe that should the Khilāfah be re-established within the next decade, this immature Ummah will produce such an overbearing dictator who will be closer to the “infalliable” Pope than ‘Umar رضى الله عنه . My sympathies then to the wise Imām of al-Madīnah raḥimahullāh. However, there are also signs of progress.

In this global atmosphere of religious dictatorship, the advantage Muslims enjoy of not having a central authority, is that we have the capacity to exercise our minds and submit our conscience only towards Allāh instead of a dictator who uses “religious” blackmail against those who do not tow the party line.

We must accept that the Khilāfah in its last Ottoman days was really not an institute to be proud of, and there was no hope of reform. It is highly likely that the very idealists and activists who now declare that all our problems would be solved had Germany and Turkey won and the Khilāfah preserved, would be the very ones lambasting the Ottomans for not coming anywhere the standard. By terminating the Ottoman state, Allāh has granted us a clean slate, a fresh start and an opportunity to work towards the real Allāh-pleasing goal.

Now, not as a ritual, but truly…. Allāh knows best.

 

Khilafah vs Papacy

Al-Imām at-Tirmiẓī narrates in his Kitāb Tafsiril Qurān in Sunan at-Tirmiẓī that ‘Adī bin Ḥātim رضى الله عنه  narrates:

I came to the Nabī صلى الله عليه و سلم  wearing a golden cross around my neck. He called out, “O ‘Adī! Throw this idol off your neck!”

I then heard him reciting from Sūrah Barā’ah, “They made their priests and monks lords besides Allāh.”

He then commented, “They did not worship them, but if they made something Ḥalāl for them,

they took it as Ḥalāl and when they made something Ḥarām for them they took it as Ḥarām.”

One cannot blame a Muslim for being affected by the media fanfare surrounding the Pope and innocently comparing the situation of a divided Islām with a united Catholic Church under a single leader. “Why do we not have a Khalīfah?” he might lament.

The comparison and the lament, whilst born out of sincerity, are however incorrect and naïve.

No comparison between Pope and Amīrul Muminīn

Muslims must desist from seeking points of reference in the West. Our points of reference are Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. If we fail to do this, we unintentionally undermine our own faith. Specifically in this instance, we have not fulfilled the command of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم of pledging allegiance to a Khalīfah for close onto a century. The least we can do however, is maintain the intention of a restoration and not contaminate the concept of the institution with alien ideas.  If we keep drawing parallels to the Papacy, the danger exists that the day the Khilāfah is restored, the imagery of a Papacy will be permanently imprinted on the minds on the Ummah.

I do not intend my blog to be an academic thesis on any subject, but hope that the following should suffice for the thoughtful:

1.       Catholics believe the Pope to be infallible. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “Now, it is beyond doubt that I have been elected your Amīr, although I am not better than you. Help me, if I am in the right; set me right if I am in the wrong. Truth is a trust; falsehood is a treason.”   

2.       The Papacy is an office that is bought, sold and bribed for. Whoever wishes to study the sordid details may peruse the biographies of the Medici and Borgia families. On the other hand, the first Khalīfah, Abū Bakr رضى الله عنه, clarified in his inaugural address, “O people, I swear by Allāh that I never desired the Khilāfah either by day or by night, nor had I any inclination towards it. I never prayed to Allāh openly or secrectly to confer the office on me. I merely accepted this office lest some mischief arise at this critical juncture in the history of the Muslims…”

3.       The Catholic Church is largely a compromise and distortion between Christianity and paganism. Thus even the symbols of the Pope, such as the insistence on wearing red shoes, have their origins with idol worshippers and has nothing to do with any heavenly scripture. The Khalīfah is strictly bound by Shari‘ah in his office. Any personal failings have always been recognised as such – his personal failing. It has never been institutionalised in Islām, unlike the Papacy. Popes and priests married for at least three centuries, and then were forbidden to do so.  Catholics deny that the prohibition was in order to increase the Church’s land holdings. Be that as it may, the fact remains that in Islām the Khalīfah has no authority to concoct divine law at human whim centuries after the practice of a different law. Again, the first Khalīfah said, “Obey me as long as I obey Allāh and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم. When I disobey Him and His Rasūl صلى الله عليه و سلم, then obey me not.”

   Allāḥ knows best why we needed the medicine of loss of Khilāfah

One of my teachers, Mawlānā Sulaymān Chocksī,  warned us against entertaining people’s demands for explanations of Ḥikmah (the divine wisdom behind a certain law or event). Such ventures merely lead to confusing replies and demands for substantiating every injunction, even if the reason might not have been clarified in the Qurān. I would add that in declaring that that is   why Allāh decreed something, am I not elevating myself to some kind of consultant to Allāh? Since when did I reach such a status that Allāh explains unto me why He decreed an event?

However, I see no harm in looking at events on the ground and stating what I see.

I first clarify:

1.       The Jew Ataturk and the Saudis terminated the Khilāfah and have much to answer for in thus rebelling against Allāh.

2.        Khilāfah is a command of Rasūlullāh صلى الله عليه و سلم.

3.       Had I lived a century ago, I would have been obliged to obey the ‘Ulamā’ who sought to defend the Khilāfah.

Unity of hearts, not authorities

I however say to those who lament that the Catholics have a Pope and we have no Khalīfah:

A problem today is lack of understanding of what Islāmic unity is. Unity is not conformity and uniformity which are the hallmarks of perhaps every single Muslim institute and organisation throughout the world. Islāmic unity means unity of hearts together with respect for difference of opinions. That is why when the King wished to impose the Fatāwā of al-Imām Mālik raḥimahullāh upon all Muslims to ensure “unity,” the very first to oppose him was none other than the venerable Imām himself. The Imām understood what unity really meant and what the consequences of a monolithic, unthinking, robotic Ummah would entail. We however have still not grasped the lesson.

Even the sternest Khalīfah, ‘Umar bin al-Khaṭṭāb رضى الله عنه , was a humble man who accepted differences of opinion. I may be wrong, but I firmly believe that should the Khilāfah be re-established within the next decade, this immature Ummah will produce such an overbearing dictator who will be closer to the “infalliable” Pope than ‘Umar رضى الله عنه . My sympathies then to the wise Imām of al-Madīnah raḥimahullāh. However, there are also signs of progress.

In this global atmosphere of religious dictatorship, the advantage Muslims enjoy of not having a central authority, is that we have the capacity to exercise our minds and submit our conscience only towards Allāh instead of a dictator who uses “religious” blackmail against those who do not tow the party line.

We must accept that the Khilāfah in its last Ottoman days was really not an institute to be proud of, and there was no hope of reform. It is highly likely that the very idealists and activists who now declare that all our problems would be solved had Germany and Turkey won and the Khilāfah preserved, would be the very ones lambasting the Ottomans for not coming anywhere the standard. By terminating the Ottoman state, Allāh has granted us a clean slate, a fresh start and an opportunity to work towards the real Allāh-pleasing goal.

Now, not as a ritual, but truly…. Allāh knows best.

سليمان الكندي

Evolution & the 10 year old

Its's quite daunting teaching Islam to a 10 year old who has not had the benefit of a formal Islamic education system and in addition to the challenges of just living in the west, learns in a school not very conducive to inculcating the Islamic spirit. Oh for the days when al-Imaam Maalik rahimahullah could snub the Abbasid Emperor's request that he leave al-Madinah and teach his children in Baghdad. The Imaam was adamant that one goes to seek knowledge, it does not run after you. Today we have to maintain the Dien as we can, or am I a contributor to lowering the value of knowledge? But I digress...

On Thursday my rather bright student asked, "You say that Allah created Adam, but science says that we are evolved from apes." Before getting to the summary of my reply, note the following indications of how the poor boy has already been affected:

1. "You say..." - as if this is my own queer view, not absolute fact.
2. "Adam"  not "Aadam عليه السلام"

Me: Science does not say that. Some people say that, but its not science. I just saw a documentary a few weeks back about how scientists who do not believe in evolution lose their jobs, get fired and are oppressed because they do not believe in evolution, or even just because they want to discuss the possibility that evolution is not true. They are not even allowed to bring their evidence. There are many scientists in the world who are not Muslim, but they do not believe in evolution. As scientists they believe that there is a Creator. Now tell me, what does the word "theory" mean?

Student: Something which might be?

Me: Exactly! It's not an absolute fact. You will say, "My theory is.... I theorise..." In other words, "I think so." Its not something that is definitely proven. Even those who believe in it will call it the "theory of evolution."Evolutionists have never given any absolute evidence for any stage of evolution. Whereas the opposite is true.  Evolution can be disproved at any stage. They claim that at every stage the animal changes to something better. They say from a single celled animal fish came which became amphibians which started walking because they wanted to come onto the land. They became apes and then humans.

Student: Isn't it that there are bush babies somewhere in there?

Me: Maybe, whatever that is. Let's just look at the fish story. You go a lot to Durban isn't it?

Student: Yes.

Me: Does your daddy fish?

Student: No.

Me: Okay, ask him to take you fishing. Now if you take a fish and throw it on the beach, have you ever see it grow legs because it needs to walk on land?

Student (laughing): No.

Me: Okay. Shame. Let's give the evolutionists another chance. What will happen if you take 20 fish and throw them on the beach?

Student: You'll have 20 dead fish.

Me: Let's be patient with the evolutionists. Take a thousand fish.

Student: A thousand dead fish.

Me: A million?

Student: The sea will be empty. 

Me: Yes, a million dead fish without legs..... Now even the evolutionists must admit that there is an Allah who designs everything. They will say "nature saw a need", "nature made a change". Who or what is nature to have its own mind and  decide these things? Let's start at the the single cell when there were no creatures who could see. Now how does the first creature decide, you know what, seeing will be a great idea. Let me me grow a pair of eyes! Let's say you were born blind. Can I explain the difference to you between blue and red? 

Student: No.

At that moment his cousin walked into the room wearing a T-shirt with a print of cars of various colours. 

Me: How does that creature decide it needs to see the difference between the red car and the green car on Riyaad's T-shirt? Who can have made sight, the first eye, besides Allah?

Having already gone 4 minutes over schedule I had to cut short and dismiss him, but what was clear that my 10 year old student could grasp facts which academics will not. Another day, another battle...this one won. 

سليمان الكندي

Evolution & the 10 year old

Its's quite daunting teaching Islam to a 10 year old who has not had the benefit of a formal Islamic education system and in addition to the challenges of just living in the west, learns in a school not very conducive to inculcating the Islamic spirit. Oh for the days when al-Imaam Maalik rahimahullah could snub the Abbasid Emperor's request that he leave al-Madinah and teach his children in Baghdad. The Imaam was adamant that one goes to seek knowledge, it does not run after you. Today we have to maintain the Dien as we can, or am I a contributor to lowering the value of knowledge? But I digress...

On Thursday my rather bright student asked, "You say that Allah created Adam, but science says that we are evolved from apes." Before getting to the summary of my reply, note the following indications of how the poor boy has already been affected:

1. "You say..." - as if this is my own queer view, not absolute fact.
2. "Adam"  not "Aadam عليه السلام"

Me: Science does not say that. Some people say that, but its not science. I just saw a documentary a few weeks back about how scientists who do not believe in evolution lose their jobs, get fired and are oppressed because they do not believe in evolution, or even just because they want to discuss the possibility that evolution is not true. They are not even allowed to bring their evidence. There are many scientists in the world who are not Muslim, but they do not believe in evolution. As scientists they believe that there is a Creator. Now tell me, what does the word "theory" mean?

Student: Something which might be?

Me: Exactly! It's not an absolute fact. You will say, "My theory is.... I theorise..." In other words, "I think so." Its not something that is definitely proven. Even those who believe in it will call it the "theory of evolution."Evolutionists have never given any absolute evidence for any stage of evolution. Whereas the opposite is true.  Evolution can be disproved at any stage. They claim that at every stage the animal changes to something better. They say from a single celled animal fish came which became amphibians which started walking because they wanted to come onto the land. They became apes and then humans.

Student: Isn't it that there are bush babies somewhere in there?

Me: Maybe, whatever that is. Let's just look at the fish story. You go a lot to Durban isn't it?

Student: Yes.

Me: Does your daddy fish?

Student: No.

Me: Okay, ask him to take you fishing. Now if you take a fish and throw it on the beach, have you ever see it grow legs because it needs to walk on land?

Student (laughing): No.

Me: Okay. Shame. Let's give the evolutionists another chance. What will happen if you take 20 fish and throw them on the beach?

Student: You'll have 20 dead fish.

Me: Let's be patient with the evolutionists. Take a thousand fish.

Student: A thousand dead fish.

Me: A million?

Student: The sea will be empty. 

Me: Yes, a million dead fish without legs..... Now even the evolutionists must admit that there is an Allah who designs everything. They will say "nature saw a need", "nature made a change". Who or what is nature to have its own mind and  decide these things? Let's start at the the single cell when there were no creatures who could see. Now how does the first creature decide, you know what, seeing will be a great idea. Let me me grow a pair of eyes! Let's say you were born blind. Can I explain the difference to you between blue and red? 

Student: No.

At that moment his cousin walked into the room wearing a T-shirt with a print of cars of various colours. 

Me: How does that creature decide it needs to see the difference between the red car and the green car on Riyaad's T-shirt? Who can have made sight, the first eye, besides Allah?

Having already gone 4 minutes over schedule I had to cut short and dismiss him, but what was clear that my 10 year old student could grasp facts which academics will not. Another day, another battle...this one won. 

سليمان الكندي