The Origins of Shirk

Posted on by 2 comments

The Origins of Shirk

Shaykh Muhammad Naasir ud-Deen al-Albaanee rahimahullaah

Al-Ibaanah Magazine , Issue No.3 – Dhul-Qa’dah 1416H / April 1996

From that which has been established in the Sharee’ah (prescribed law) is that mankind was – in the beginning – a single nation upn true Tawheed, then Shirk (directing any part or form of worship, or anything else that is solely the right of Allaah, to other than Allaah) gradually overcame them. The basis for this is the saying of Allaah – the Most Blessed, the Most High:

“Mankind was one Ummah, then Allaah sent prophets bringing good news and warnings.” (Soorah Baqarah 2:213)

Ibn ‘Abbaas – radiallaahu ‘anhu – said: “Between Nooh (Noah) and Adam were ten generations, all of them were upon Sharee’ah (law) of the truth, then they differed. So Allaah sent prophets as bringers of good news and as warners.” [2]

Ibn ‘Urwah al-Hanbalee (d.837 H) said: “This saying refutes those historians from the People of the Book who claim that Qaabil (Cain) and his sons were fire-worshippers.” [3]

I say: In it is also a refutation of some of the philosophers and athists who claim that the (natural) basis of man is Shirk, and that Tawheed evolved in man! The preceeding aayah (verse) falsifies this claim, as do the two following authentic hadith:

Firstly: His (the prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) saying that he related from his Lord (Allaah) : “I created all my servants upon the true Religion (upon Tawheed, fre from Shirk). Then the devils came to them and led them astray from their true Religion. They made unlawful to people that which I had made lawful for them, and they commanded them to associate in worship with Me, that which I had sent down no authority.” [4]

Secondly: His (the prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) saying: “Every child is born upon the Fitrah [5] but his parents make him a jew or a christian or a magian. It is like the way an animal gives birth to a natural offspring. have you noticed any born mutilated, before you mutilate them.”

Abu Hurayrah said: Recite if you wish: “Allaah’s fitrah with which He created mankind. There is to be no change to the creation (Religion) of Allaah.” (Soorah ar-Rum 30:30) [6]

After this clear explanation, it is of the upmost importance for the Muslim to know how Shirk spread amongst the believers, after they were muwahhideen (people upon Tawheed). Concerning the saying of Allaah – the most perfect – about the people of Nooh:

“And they have said : You shall not forsake your gods, nor shall you forsake Wadd, nor Suwaa’, nor Yaghooth, nor Ya’ooq, nor Nasr.” (Soorah Nooh 71:23)

It has been related by a group from the Salaf (Pious Predecessors), in many narrations, that these five deities were righteous worshippers. However, when they died, Shaytaan (Satan) whispered into their people to retreat and sit at their graves. Then Shaytaan whispered to those who came after them that they should take them as idols, beautifying to them the idea that you will be reminded of them and thereby follow them in righteous conduct. Then Shaytaan suggested to the third generation that they should worship these idols besides Allaah – the most high – and he whispered to them that this is what their forefathers used to do!!!

So Allaah sent to them Nooh alayhis-salaam, commanding them to worship Allaah alone. However none responded to hiscall except a few. Allaah – the mighty and majestic – related this whole incident in Soorah Nooh Ibn ‘Abbas relates: “Indeed these five names of righteous men from the people of Nooh. When they died Shataan whispered to their people to make statues of them and to place these statues in their places of gathering as a reminder of them, so they did this. However, none from amongst them worshipped these statues, until when they died and the purpose of the statues was forgotten. Then (the next generation) began to worship them.”[7]

The likes of this has also been related by Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree and others, from a number of the salaf (Pious Predecessors) – radiallaahu ‘anhum. In ad-Durral-Manthoor (6/269): ‘Abdullaah ibn Humaid relates from Abu Muttahar, who said: Yazeed ibn al-Muhallab was mentioned to Abu Ja’far al-Baaqir (d.11H), so he said: He was killed at the place where another besides Allaah was first worshipped. Then he mentioned Wadd and said: “Wadd was a Muslim man who was loved by his people. When he died, the people began to gather around his grave in the land of Baabil ( Babel ), lamenting and mourning. So when Iblees (Satan) saw them mourning and lamenting over him, he took the form of a man and came to them, saying : I see that you are mourning and lamenting over him. So why don’t you make a picture of him (i.e. a statue) and place it in your places of gatherings so that you maybe reminded of him. So they said: Yes, and they made a picture of him and put in their place of gathering; which reminded them of him. When Iblees saw how they were (excessively) remembering him, he said : “Why doesn’t every man amongst you make a similar picture to keep in your own houses, so that you can be (constantly) reminded of him.” So they all said “yes”. So each household made a picture of him, which they adored and venerated and which constantly reminded them of him. Abu Ja’far said: “Those from the later generation saw what the (pevious generation) had done and considered that……..to the extent that they took him as an ilah (diety) to be worshipped besides Allaah. He then said :” This was the first idol worshipped other than Allaah, and they called this idol Wadd”[8]

Thus the wisdom of Allaah – the Blessed, the Most High – was fufilled, when he sent Muhammed sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam as the final prophet and made his Sharee’ah the completion of all divinely Prescribed Laws, in that He prohibited all means and avenues by which people may fall into Shirk – which is the greatest of sins. For this reason, building shrines over graves and intending to specifically travel to them, taking them as places of festivity and gathering and swearing an oath by the inmate of a grave; have all been prohibited. All of these lead to excessiveness and lead to the worship of other than Allaah – the Most High.

This being the case even more so in an age in which knowledge is diminishing, ignorance is increasing, thre are few sincere advisors ( to the truth) and shaytaan is co-operating with men and jinn to misguide mankind and to take them away from the worship of Allaah alone – the Blessed, the Most High.

FOOTNOTES:

1. Tahdheerus-Saajid min Ittikhaadhil-Quboori Masaajid (pp.101-106)

2. Related by Ibn Jareer at-Tabaree in his tafseer (4/275) and al-Haakim (2/546) who said: “It is authentic according to the criterion of al-Bukhari.” Adh-Dhahabee also agreed.

3. Al-Khawaakibud-Duraaree fee Tarteeb Musnadul-Imaam Ahmad’alaa Abwaabil-Bukhaaree (6/212/1), still in manuscript form.

4. Related by Muslim (8/159) and Ahmad (4/162) from ‘Iyaadh ibn Himaar al-Mujaashi’ee radiallaahu ‘anhu

5. [From the Editors] Ibn-al-Atheer said in an-Nihaayah (3/457): “Al-Fitr: means to begin and create, and al-Fitrah is the condition resulting from it. The meaning is that mankind were born upona disposition and a nature which is ready to accept the true Religion. So if he were to be left upon this, then he would continue upon it. However, those who deviate from this do so due to following human weaknesses and blind following of others…..” Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajar said in Al-Fath (3/248): “The people differ concerning what is meant by al-Fitrah and the most famous saying is that it means Islaam. Ibn ‘abdul-Barr said: That is what was well known with most of the salaf (pious predecessors), and the scholars of tafseer are agreed that what is meant by the saying of Allaah – the Most High – “Allaah’s fitrah wiht which He created mankind.” is Islaam

6. Related by Al-Bukhaaree (11/418) and Muslim (18/52)

7. Related by al-Bukhaaree (8/534)

8. Related by Ibn Abee Haatim also, as is in al-Kawaakibud-Duraaree (6/112/2) of Ibn ‘Urwah al-Hanbalee, along with an isnaad which is Hasan, up to Abu Muttahar. However, no biography could be found for him, neither in ad-Dawlaabee’s al-Kunaa wal-Asmaa, nor Muslim’s al-Kunaa, nor any one elses. And the hidden defect here is that he is from the Shee’ah, but his biography is not included in at-Toosee’s al-Kunaa — from the index of Shee’ah narrators

Changing faiths: Hispanic Americans leaving Catholicism for Islam

Posted on by Leave a comment

An interesting article by the BBC (UK), the video is also worth the watch:

With more than 50 million Hispanics living in the US, the Latino community is now the country’s biggest minority. While most are brought up within the Catholic Church, a number of them are turning to Islam.

Precise figures are difficult to pin down as the US Census does not collect religious data, but estimates for the number of Latino Muslims vary between 100,000 and 200,000.

The BBC’s Katy Watson went to Union City in New Jersey – where the population is more than 80% Hispanic – to meet some converts.

You can view the video here, where they show an interview with a Hispanic Muslim family.

Muslims Should Read/ Study the Bible: OKAY!

Posted on by 8 comments

Muslims should read the Bible? Is this truly the best way to convert someone to Christianity? I’d like to thank the missionaries who spend thousands of dollars on printing Bibles and giving them to starving children to save them from hunger. Reading a Bible converts no one, I bought my own first copy because no one would give me one, if reading the Bible actually convinces anyone of anything, it would be to recognize its flaws and to search for the true faith at which it hosts many indications of. Let’s take a basic example in which an idiot savant (read as: Sam “tha thug” Shamoun) would be able to notice these basic flaws. We begin with the birth narrative in Matthew 2, versus that of Luke 2.

Matthew 2:

  • Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem (2:1).
  • Joseph, Mary and baby God/ Jesus migrate to Egypt  for fear of their safety (2:12).
  • Joseph, Mary and baby God/ Jesus do not go to Jerusalem to fulfill the birth rite law of of the Old Testament (Luke 2:23).

Luke 2:

  • Joseph and Mary live in Galilee but travel to Bethlehem to pay taxes because the entire Roman world was being taxed. Problem, why would they move to a town that Joseph is originally from to be taxed, wouldn’t the tax collector want to collect the taxes from people in their respective cities/ towns (2:1)?
  • No account of Joseph, Mary and baby God/ Jesus migrating to Egypt for fear of safety – rather they stay in Bethlehem for 8 days and wait for Mary to become pure again after giving birth (2:20-21).
  • Joseph, Mary and baby God/ Jesus do go to Jerusalem to fulfill the birth rite law of of the Old Testament (Luke 2:22-23).

At first, it might not seem like a big deal, but as Rabbi Michael Skobac of Jews for Judaism pointed out in his video on Micah 5:1-3, the stories claim opposite narratives which cannot be reconciled. In one episode of pure fiction, Mary and Joseph and baby God/ Jesus is scared of being persecuted by the Roman authorities and they flee, and even upon returning to the land of Israel they remain in hiding due to danger. In Luke, the story is quite different, they stay in Bethlehem, wait for Mary to become pure – absolutely no hiding or fear of danger, they stay a little more than a month, then journey to Jerusalem and present Christ at the temple – again no fear of danger, no hiding – nothing.

cc-2013-bibleMakesNoSense

Now that I’ve read the Bible, I’m more convinced not to be a Christian. Muslims should therefore read the Bible. Saudi Arabia should allow the Bible to be taught and it should be mandatory for every child to be able to explain these differences. Perhaps in that way, the rest of the remaining Christians in the Middle East can finally abandon the chains of the cross and come to true monotheism – God willing.

Response: Challenge to Sami Zaatari and Bassam Zawadi from Sam Shamoun

Posted on by One comment

I’m officially responding on behalf of Sami Zataari. Here’s the alleged challenge:

Sam Shamoun should atleast have the testicular fortitude to issue challenges himself and not through 3rd parties who are largely unknown. I call upon Shamoun to show his counterparts some respect by being responsible enough to do his dirty work himself. If he believes that he can earn a debate from Islam’s two foremost debaters by disrespecting them, then surely he’s lost the plot. Sami’s conditions are hereby listed as follows:

  • An official doctor’s note from a well qualified psychologist attesting to Sam’s mental stability.
  • An apology to Muslims for his abusive, threatening and abhorrent behaviour.
  • A sworn oath to not use abusive, threatening, insulting, mocking or R rated language on any platform (shared or otherwise).
  • To illustrate Sam’s support of David Wood’s cross dressing video, by him wearing the same pink lingerie and posted to YouTube singing along to “Dude Looks Like a Lady” by Aerosmith, while dancing like Shakira in her video to, “Hips Don’t Lie“.

These conditions are non-negotiable.

Telling Someone to Bite Their Father’s Genitals: Explicit Phrase or Misunderstood Expression?

Posted on by Leave a comment

If you’ve ever read anything from Sam Shamoun, then you’d have probably read this narration, in one of the 7000 times he’s probably copy pasted it:

Ubayy b. Ka‘b told that he heard God’s messenger say, “If anyone proudly asserts his descent in the manner of the pre-Islamic people, tell him to bite his father’s penis, and do not use a euphemism.”

For the first time, an Islamic author, my friend and brother in deen, Br. Waqar Akbar Cheema has responded to the claims surrounding this narration. You can access the amazing, well studied, well referenced article here, or you can view the PDF (also for downloading) here.

It’s worth the read, and most importantly, it debunks Sam’s malicious and unscholarly manipulation of traditional Islamic literature. It demonstrates the dishonesty of Orientalists and missionaries, while employing a level of academia that is undoubtedly of high integrity and accountability.

I’d like to thank Br. Waqar for his previous works and presently, for this masterpiece, may Allaah reward him immensely for doing what so many of us were unable to do. Ameen.

Debate Review: Is Islam a Religion of Peace [Br. Shadid Lewis vs Robert Spencer]

Posted on by 2 comments

Note: This review is based on the video posted by Br. Shadid on his YouTube page. He has stated that his rebuttal and portions of the cross fire questioning are missing. Regardless of what is missing, this is a review on the debate ‘as it is’. 

Opening Statements:

Br. Shadid:

He begins by defining the delimits of the topic. What exactly is peace and how does Islam relate to it? What is the definition of peace which Mr. Spencer is operating with? From the very start, Br. Shadid is laying his logic clearly on the table. Merely asking, “Is Islam a Religion of Peace?“, does not allow for the topic to be discussed. Is peace here supposed to mean pacifism? Outlined and strategical aggression? Interpersonal or between state and citizens of the state?

He doesn’t exactly convey his point very eloquently, nor does he stick to his line of reasoning perfectly. At the beginning he jumps around a bit after providing a dictionary definition of peace, and comments on the previous speakers before him (mind you who were not part of the debate), and then he comments on Arab Nation spending on weapons, versus that of America’s Military Industrial Complex. Unfortunately,  all of these topics in less than two minutes, muddled his opening statement.

He recovers though and makes quite the point. The so called Axis of Evil of nations, some of which are Muslim majority – have a total weapons and defense expenditure of $15 billion dollars combined, whereas the United States alone has a budget of $800+ billion dollars for the very same purpose. Even if Muslims did have goals of war – their expenditure simply does not allow for, or demonstrate this. He then moved on to proving that Islam does promote peace, on the basis of one the dictionary definitions of peace which he provided earlier. Somehow a few comments about taqiyyah got jumbled in there by him – which again, muddied the waters, taking away from what could have been a clear and consistent message.

Despite disrupting his outlined flow on the topic of Islam and Peace, Br. Shadid did present a solid rebuttal to the place of, and the use of taqiyyah in Islam. He then stops working with the four definitions of peace, and now discusses the place of abrogation of the peaceful verses of the Qur’aan. The flow of his argument (both overarching and sequentially) is very disruptive and a bit all over the place.

Br. Shadid discusses the validity of the translation of some verses, provides his reasoning on the exegetical sciences and then rests on the verses which clearly outline the conditions for warfare in the Qur’aan, specifically those of Qur’aan 2:190-194.  He then returned to one of the four definitions of peace, indicating that Islam does allow for peace treaties and this therefore fulfills another one of the definitions given. Cleverly, knowing that Mr. Spencer would eventually comment on the jizya and subjugation, Br. Shadid does sneak it in that even the polytheists of Makkah in the treaty of Hudaibiyah were not subject to the tax or monetary tribute. Br. Shadid in the closing moments then states that Islam is not a faith of pacifism.

Robert Spencer:

He began by saying that his statements would be solely based on Islamic source texts, written by Islamic scholarship, therefore his statements would be credible and seemingly unbiased. Spencer though, begins with his foot in his mouth by quoting one of the members of the Taliban who indicates that Jihad is recommended. Mr. Spencer says this, despite the fact that the Taliban’s fight is against Christian American soldiers invading a Muslim country. For those with a bit more awareness, his first point of contention aided Br. Shadid’s opening statement concerning Christian Americans and their war machine.

Spencer then quotes 2 or 3 other Jihadists, to bolster his position, despite these cases being few – he then mentions one of the Jihadists who claims his acts are in response to American war tactics and incidents. Once again, taking away from his position and aiding Br. Shadid’s. Spencer asks, where did these Jihadists get this understanding of Islam from, in this occasion, he paints them as students of knowledge – despite a significant majority of the exemplars used having no Islamic certification in any area of Islamic study. He quotes a Qur’aanic ayah and then mentions that he will abide by what Mr. Lewis suggests and that he’d appeal to a scholar on understanding the verse. In this regard, he chose Maulana Moududi (d. 1979) whom he says teaches that Muslims must usurp political power from any and all non-Muslim led nations.

Spencer then claims to agree with Br. Shadid that we cannot judge a faith based on what its members do, but based on what the faith itself teaches. He then goes to Maulana Moududi’s commentary on Qur’aan 3:28 – on the topic of taqiyyah, he agrees that one of its uses is during a state of persecution or imminent danger. His logic is therefore, that since Muslims claim America is at war with them, they are therefore in danger and currently must use taqiyyah at all times. Br. Shadid already specified what the circumstances were using a graphic retelling of a Grey’s Anatomy episode, thereby cancelling Robert’s misuse of reasoning. On abrogation he agrees that Muslims do not have a set agreement on how many verses have been abrogated. At this point the camera cuts off and begins towards the end of his rebuttal to Br. Shadid.

Rebuttals:

Br. Shadid’s was cut by the camera and as such I am unable to comment on it.

Mr. Spencer says that non-Muslims are not compelled to believe in Islam, but they must live in humiliation and subjugation. He then cuts across to rebutting Br. Shadid on peace treaties by quoting from the fiqh manual, Reliance of the Traveller – his quotes entail that warfare is prescribed and that scholars accept and promote this book thereby promoting warfare. He goes on to say that Muslims only accept peace treaties so that they can regroup and gather themselves for when the truce ends (traditionally, all nations at war do this, claiming that Muslims alone do this is very silly).

My Conclusions:

Seeing as I’m unable to see Br. Shadid’s rebuttal, I’m unable to declare either him or Mr. Spencer the true ‘winner’. However, given what I have seen and heard, Br. Shadid did stand his ground and he did successfully pre-empt the arguments of Mr. Spencer. To his benefit, Br. Shadid disarmed Spencer from using his usual arguments and seemed to make Spencer quite subdued in his argumentation.

Br. Shadid however, did jump around a bit, but despite doing so – when he made a point, he was consistent, clear and delivered very strong points which rendered a majority of Spencer’s points moot. It is with great earnest that I look forward to seeing the final 5 minutes of Spencer’s opening statement and the entirety of his and Br. Shadid’s rebuttals.

However, given what I’ve seen, and without bias, Br. Shadid did put a muzzle on Spencer’s arguments leaving Spencer to argue a bit aimlessly and with his tail between his legs. I do admit, that I am disappointed that Br. Shadid was all over the place, but in the very short time of his opening statement, he covered every single topic Spencer could have brought forward (something which Spencer did commend him for during his opening statement), thus pre-empting a majority of his arguments and placing the upper hand in his favour.

As far as I can tell, if Spencer’s opening statement and partial rebuttal are anything to judge by, despite his oratory skills, he has not defeated Br. Shadid.

and Allaah knows best.

Crying Wolf: Christian Martyr Stories False, Largely Fictional says Christian Academic

Posted on by 2 comments

Commonly referred to as the ‘martyrologies‘ by scholarship, these are the stories, and oral traditions descended from the earliest Christians concerning their persecution by Roman authorities during the first 30 – 50 years of the post-Christ, Messianic Judaic Graeco Roman movement. These stories served as heart wrenching, emotional tales to spur on ‘faith revivals’ and to win conversions at that time. We see many missionaries currently using this means of emotional propaganda to gain sympathy for their faith in trying to persuade ignorant and soft hearted individuals into buying into their misinformation for either proselytizing or for donations.

Similar to the Gospel traditions (Synoptic and Johannine), most have come to realise that a vast majority of proto-orthodox Christian literature descended from the earliest Messianic Judaic Graeco Roman traditions are mere myths, inventions, stories, fables, propaganda. One brave and fairly well known Christian academic has tried to enlighten the blind Christian world (not academics, whom mostly  and widely support her) about these myths. Here is the interview with her:

Share this with your Christian friends. Let them be enlightened that even the most beautiful stories from their earliest traditions are falsified. It’s time they attain some awareness.

 

The Trinity: A Graphical Representation

Posted on by Leave a comment

This is quite disturbing. It’s also quite interesting. What is it? It’s a graphical representation of what the Holey Trinity is supposed to look like. From three Jesus look a likes holding hands to a creature with 6 eyes, 3 noses and 3 mouths – it’s as raw as you can get. I worship the God who is unseen, perfect and of which no mind can behold, I don’t worship what I can only describe as a monstrosity.

and God knows best.

« Older Entries Recent Entries »