Saturday, March 29, 2014

Q&A: Drawing Pictures, Benefitting from Impurities & Work of the Employee based on Commission




Questions: 
Assalamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu...
There are three questions which I hope that you kindly respond to them:
1. The ruling of hand drawing and drawing living objects; such as human beings and animals, and then placing them and hanging them in houses. 
2. Is it permissible to take a gene from a pig, such as a growth gene, and then putting it in a halal food, such as cucumber, for the sake of growth?
3. These days, using the word percentage has increased, that is if you sold this month for 120,000 dinars, you would get a quarter percentage for example; and if you did not sell, you would not get anything. Is this state permissible?
May Allah bless you, be with you, and bring victory between your hands.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalam Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuhu,

1. As to hand drawing and drawing living objects...

Drawing pictures of humans and animals that are similar to reality...

Prohibition mentioned in the evidences applies to this, whether drawing is with a pencil or by using the mouse on the computer, so as long as the drawing by human effort is an imitation of a living thing, prohibition applies to it. 

It was narrated by al-Bukhari from the Hadith of Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (saw) said:

«مَنْ صَوَّرَ صُورَةً فَإِنَّ اللَّهَ مُعَذِّبُهُ حَتَّى يَنْفُخَ فِيهَا الرُّوحَ وَلَيْسَ بِنَافِخٍ فِيهَا أَبَدًا» 

“Whoever makes a picture will be punished by Allah till he puts life in it, and he will never be able to put life in it.”

Ibn 'Umar (May Allah be pleased with them) said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said,

«إِنَّ الَّذِينَ يَصْنَعُونَ هَذِهِ الصُّوَرَ يُعَذَّبُونَ يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يُقَالُ لَهُمْ أَحْيُوا مَا خَلَقْتُمْ» 

“Those who draw pictures will be punished on the Day of Resurrection; and it will be said to them: 'Breathe soul into what you have created'.”

As to the ruling of owning, putting them in the houses, and hanging them, it is as follows:

A) If they are put in places of worship such as praying carpets, mosque curtains, or advertisement for mosques, and things of the like... This is forbidden and is not permissible, and from the evidences for that:

The Hadith of Ibn Abbas that the Prophet (saw) refused to enter the Ka'ba until the drawings inside it were erased. The refusal of the Prophet (saw) to enter the Ka'ba until the pictures were erased is an indicative proof (qareenah) for the prohibition of placing drawings in places of worship, so it is an evidence for forbidding pictures in mosques:

Muslim extracted that Ibn Abbas narrated that 

«أَنَّ النَّبِيَّ صبى الله عليه وسلم لَمَّا رَأَى الصُّوَرَ فِي الْبَيْتِ يَعْنِي الْكَعْبَةَ لَمْ يَدْخُلْ وَأَمَرَ بِهَا فَمُحِيَتْ» 

“when the messenger (saw) saw pictures in the house, which means the Ka`ba, he did not enter it and ordered them to be erased.”

B) If they are placed in places other than places of worship, then the evidences mentioned have clarified that this is permissible:

- With undesirable (karaheh), i.e. it is undesired (makruh), if placing them in places for the sake of respect or glory such as curtains for houses, or clarification means for educational institutions, or worn on shirts, or clothes... Or at schools, in offices, or advertisements which has no relation with worship, or if they are hanged in the middle of the room, or worn to improve the appearance or things of the like... All of these are undesired.

- Permissible, if they are put in places other than places of worship and respected places, such as if they are on a carpet you step on, or on mattresses where you sleep and lay down, or pillows you lay on them, or drawings on the ground stepped on or things of the like... All of these are permissible. 

Some of the evidences for that:

- It was narrated that Abu Talha as extracted by Muslim who heard that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 

«لا تدخل الملائكة بيتاً فيه كلب ولا صورة» 

“The angels do not enter a house in which there is a dog or a picture.” And in another narration by Muslim that he said: 

«إلا رقماً في ثوب» 

“Except the prints on the cloth”, and this proves the exception of pictured prints on the cloth. It means that angels enter the house that has prints on a cloth, that is a picture which is drawn by hand.

This means that the flat picture "prints on a cloth" is permissible because angels enter the house that has flat pictures. However, other Ahadeeth have been mentioned that clarify the type of this permissibility:

- Al- Bukhari narrated from 'A'isha (ra) who said;

«دَخَلَ عَلَيَّ النَّبِيُّ وَفِي الْبَيْتِ قِرَامٌ فِيهِ صُوَرٌ فَتَلَوَّنَ وَجْهُهُ ثُمَّ تَنَاوَلَ السِّتْرَ فَهَتَكَهُ» 

“The Prophet (saw) entered upon me while there was a curtain having pictures (of animals) in the house. His face got red with anger, and then he got hold of the curtain and tore it into pieces.”

"القرام" al-kiram is a type of clothes, and it was used as a curtain on the door of the house. The Prophet's (saw) face becoming red and getting hold of the curtain are considered a command of refraining from putting a curtain on the door if it has pictures, so if this is added to the permissibility of entering the angels the house that has pictures "prints on cloths", it proves that the command of refraining is not assertive, that is disliked. Because this place of the pictures was on a curtain held on a door, thus, this is a respected place, so putting pictures in a respected place is undesired.

- Abu Hurayrah narrated from Ahmad that Jibreel (as) said to the Messenger (saw): 

«وَمُرْ بِالسِّتْرِ يُقْطَعْ فَيُجْعَلَ مِنْهُ وِسَادَتَانِ تُوطَآَنِ» 

“Order the curtain to be cut up and made into two cushions on which people may tread.”

So Jibreel (as) has commanded the Messenger (saw) to remove the curtain from the respected place, and make from them two cushions on which people may tread.

This means that using drawn pictures from others in places that are not respected is permissible.

2. Taking a gene from a pig and nourishing plants by it to increase their growth, such as using it to increase the growth of cucumber or anything else is not permissible, and this is for the following evidences:

- The pig is forbidden, and it is filthy for the following reasons:

(إِنَّمَا حَرَّمَ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةَ وَالدَّمَ وَلَحْمَ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ بِهِ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ فَمَنِ اضْطُرَّ غَيْرَ بَاغٍ وَلَا عَادٍ فَلَا إِثْمَ عَلَيْهِ إِنَّ اللَّهَ غَفُورٌ رَحِيمٌ)

“He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah. But whoever is forced [by necessity], neither desiring [it] nor transgressing [its limit], there is no sin upon him. Indeed, Allah is Forgiving and Merciful.” [TMQ 2:17]

(حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْكُمُ الْمَيْتَةُ وَالدَّمُ وَلَحْمُ الْخِنْزِيرِ وَمَا أُهِلَّ لِغَيْرِ اللَّهِ بِهِ... )

“Prohibited to you are dead animals, blood, the flesh of swine, and that which has been dedicated to other than Allah.” [TMQ 5:3]

- at-Tabarani in his al-Kabeer extracted that Abu Tha’labah al-Khushani said that he asked the Messenger of Allah (saw), “We live in the area of the People of the Book and they cook in their pots (the flesh of swine) and drink wine in their vessels.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

«...وَإِنْ وَجَدْتَ عَنْ آنِيَةِ الْكُفَّارِ غِنًى فَلَا تَأْكُلْ فِيهَا، وَإِنْ لَم تَجِدْ غِنًى فَارْحَضْهَا بِالْمَاءِ رَحْضًا شَدِيدًا ثُمَّ كُلْ فِيهَا» 

“If you find any other pots, then eat in them and drink. But if you do not find any others, then wash them with water and eat and drink (In them).”

i.e. if one needed them and could not find it otherwise, then wash them in a thorough washing. This indicates the impurity of alcohol and pigs, as long as you need it (objects) must be washed to be cleansed. In the narration of Dariqtunai mentions, that the Prophet (saw) washed it with water is a purification for it, which is an explicit indication of the impurity of pigs and alcohol, and this is Dariqtunai’s narration:

- al-Hussain bin Ismail narrated that Saeed bin Yahya al-Amawee that Abdelraheem bin Suleiman on the authority of al-Hajjaj bin Artaa on the authority of Makhuul on the authority of Abi Idrees on the authority of Al-Khushani who said, "O Messenger of Allah! We live in a land of polytheists, and we do not have containers and vessels except theirs." The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 

«اسْتَغْنُوا عَنْهَا مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا فَارْحَضُوهَا بِالْمَاءِ فَإِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورُهَا ثُمَّ اطْبُخُوا فِيهَا» 

“Stay away from them as much as you can, and if you do not find other than them, then rinse them with water, as water is their cleanser and then cook in them.”

This is a clear evidence that wine and swine are from impurities, as the Messenger (saw) says: «فَإِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورُهَا» “water is its cleanser”. 

- Benefitting from impurities is also forbidden, and from the evidences:

- Bukhari extracted the narration of Jabir bin `Abdullah I heard Allah's Messenger (saw), in the year of the Conquest of Mecca, saying: 

«إِنَّ اللَّهَ وَرَسُولَهُ حَرَّمَ بَيْعَ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْتَةِ وَالْخِنْزِيرِ وَالْأَصْنَامِ»

“Allah and His Apostle made illegal the trade of alcohol, dead animals, pigs and idols.” The people asked, "O Allah's Messenger (saw)! What about the fat of dead animals, for it was used for greasing the boats and the hides; and people use it for lights?" He said,«لَا هُوَ حَرَامٌ» “No, it is illegal.” Allah's Messenger (saw) further said, 

«قَاتَلَ اللَّهُ الْيَهُودَ إِنَّ اللَّهَ لَمَّا حَرَّمَ شُحُومَهَا جَمَلُوهُ ثُمَّ بَاعُوهُ فَأَكَلُوا ثَمَنَهُ» 

“May Allah curse the Jews, for Allah made the fat (of animals) illegal for them, yet they melted the fat and sold it and ate its price.”

- Narrated Ibn `Abbas as extracted by Muslim that Umar (ra) was informed that Samurah has sold wine, so he said: "May Allah Curse Samurah, Doesn't he know that the Prophet (saw) said:

«لَعَنَ اللهُ الْيَهُودَ، حُرِّمَتْ عَلَيْهِمُ الشُّحُومُ، فَجَمَلُوهَا، فَبَاعُوهَا» 

“May Allah curse the Jews for, though they were forbidden (to eat) fat, they liquefied it and sold it.”

- Narrated Abu Hurairah as extracted by Abu Dawood on the authority of Abi Azzinad: The Messenger of Allah (saw) as saying:

«إِنَّ اللَّهَ حَرَّمَ الْخَمْرَ وَثَمَنَهَا، وَحَرَّمَ الْمَيْتَةَ وَثَمَنَهَا، وَحَرَّمَ الْخِنْزِيرَ وَثَمَنَهُ»

“Allah forbade wine and the price paid for it, and forbade dead meat and the price paid for it, and forbade swine and the price paid for it.”
These evidences show the reason of the prohibition of benefitting from impurities; for that, it is not permissible to take a gene from swine and nourish plants by it to increase their growth, such as using it in growing cucumbers and other things, so it is not permissible because of the prohibition of benefitting from impurities. 

It cannot be said that this is similar to medicine which is permissible by impurity although disliked for: 

Narrated Anas that some people from `Uraina tribe came to Medina and its climate did not suit them, 

«أَنَّ نَاسًا مِنْ عُرَيْنَةَ اجْتَوَوْا الْمَدِينَةَ فَرَخَّصَ لَهُمْ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم أَنْ يَأْتُوا إِبِلَ الصَّدَقَةِ فَيَشْرَبُوا مِنْ أَلْبَانِهَا وَأَبْوَالِهَا...»،
“so Allah's Messenger (saw) allowed them to go to the herd of camels (given as Zakat) and they drank their milk and urine (as medicine)...”

It cannot be said that this is similar to medicine because growing plants does not fall under the meaning of the word medicine. So it is not permissible to use a gene for swine for growing plants.

3. The laborer who works for a merchant in a selling store, his wages should be known, and a percentage of the sold items can be added to it. For example, if his wages are 100 a month, 10% of the sold items can be added to it.

Whereas if he is paid only a percentage of the sold items, that is if he sold, he gets 10%, otherwise, he does not get anything, this issue has different opinions... What I preponderantly lean towards in this issue is that working as a laborer for somebody else, that is selling for him in his commercial place, and his wages are a percentage of what he sells; that is if he sold, he would get a percentage of what he sold, otherwise, he wouldn't get anything. This is not permissible as to what I overbalance because the laborer should have a known wage... A percentage of the sold items can be added to the wages, but it is not permissible that the wages of a laborer is the percentage of what he sells, so that if he sold he would get percentage, and if he did not sell, he would not get a salary...

This is for the following evidences:

Ibn Abi Sheebah extracted in his Munsafahi on the authority of Abu Hurayrah and Abu Sa'eed said that:

«مَنِ اسْتَأْجَرَ أَجِيرًا، فَلْيُعْلِمْهُ أَجْرَهُ» 

“Whoever employs a laborer, let him tell the laborer his wages.”
Bayhaaqi extracted in his Sunnan Assagheer on the authority of Abu Hurayrah narrated that the Messenger of Allah (saw) said:

«أَعْطِ الْأَجِيرَ أَجْرَهُ قَبْلَ أَنْ يَجِفَّ عَرَقُهُ»

“Give the worker his wages before his sweat dries.”

Based on this, the worker should have wages for his work, and it is not permissible that he works for somebody without wages. This is most likely preponderant in this issue, and Allah is the All Knowing and the Best of all Judges.

Your Brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah

18 Jumada I 1435 AH
19/03/2014 CE

النسخة العربية

Q&A : The Reality of Ethanol from the Viewpoint of Islam



Question:
Assalamu Alaikum wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,
To the honorable scholar, Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah, may Allah safeguard him and look after him. Can you please provide an explanation of what exactly is the Islamic view on Ethanol? Is the substance itself considered Khamr, and therefore it is prohibited, regardless whether it stands alone or in a solution, and regardless of its amount (in a solution, e.g.: drinks, perfume, etc.?) I apologize, there is one more thing, please discuss about ethanol in fruits. Barak Allahu Feek.

Answer:

Wa Alaikum Assalam wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh,

As I learned from the specialists in the science of alcohol, that there are two types: Ethyl alcohol and Methyl alcohol. So if the name contained in the question, “Ethanol", is Ethyl alcohol then here's the answer:

1. Alcohol has a class called methyl alcohol, and I was told that it is not an intoxicant but is a deadly
poison. Spirit fuel is from this class, and is taken from sawdust of wood and others. Drinking it causes blindness and can lead to death within days. Accordingly, the methyl is not Khamr, and does not take the ruling (Hukm) of Khamr in terms of impurity (Najasa) and prohibition (Tahreem), except in terms of the use of methyl as a poison based on the principle of causing damage, for Ibn Majah reported from Ubadah Bin As-Samit: 

«أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم، قَضَى أَنْ لَا ضَرَرَ وَلَا ضِرَارَ»

“That the Messenger of Allah (saw) ruled that there is no damage and no causation of harm”.

2. Another class of alcohol is called ethyl alcohol, which is used in fermented or distilled intoxicating
drinks, and Medical spirit is of this kind. Ethyl alcohol is also used in the industry as a preservative of some materials, as a drying (dehydrating) agent, as a solvent for some alkali and fats (lubricants), as an anti-freeze, as a solvent for some drugs, as a solvent for aromatic substances such as cologne and perfumes, and is involved in the manufacture of some carpentry materials. These uses are of three types:

a. In one type, alcohol is used as a solvent only, or as an additive to some materials. In such use, alcohol
does not lose its essence or its chemical properties; rather it remains unchanged in its chemical composition and its intoxicating effect. Hence the usage of alcohol under this type is absolutely prohibited (Haram), such as the example of cologne. Thus the usage of cologne is not permissible and it remains impure (Najis), because it contains impurity (Najasa) which is mixed with it, and alcohol remained unchanged. So it constitutes of materials that are blended with Khamr, and Khamr is impure. The evidence for this is the Hadeeth of Al-Khushani: Ad-Daraqtani reported from Al-Khushani who said:

قَالَ: قُلْتُ: يَا رَسُولَ اللَّهِ إِنَّا نُخَالِطُ الْمُشْرِكِينَ وَلَيْسَ لَنَا قُدُورٌ وَلَا آنِيَةٌ غَيْرُ آنِيَتِهِمْ، قَالَ: فَقَالَ:
«اسْتَغْنُوا عَنْهَا مَا اسْتَطَعْتُمْ فَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا فَارْحَضُوهَا بِالْمَاءِ فَإِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورُهَا ثُمَّ اطْبُخُوا فِيهَا»

“I said: O Messenger of Allah, we interact with the Mushrikeen and we have no utensils other than their utensils”. He said: “Then he (saw) said: “Avoid them as much as you can, but if you do not find anything else, then rinse them with water, because water restores their purity, then cook in them.” 

Hence the Messenger (saw) said: 

«فَإِنَّ الْمَاءَ طَهُورُهَا»

“because water restores their purity (Tahara)”.

It means that these utensils were Najis, since they were filled with Khamr, and they were purified after being rinsed. This proves that Khamr is Najis and the question concerned utensils that were filled with Khamr, as stated in the narration of Al-Khushani, reported by Abu Dawood from Abi Tha’laba Al- Khushani, that he asked the Messenger of Allah (saw) and said:

عَنْ أَبِي ثَعْلَبَةَ الْخُشَنِيِّ، أَنَّهُ سَأَلَ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم قَالَ:
إِنَّا نُجَاوِرُ أَهْلَ الْكِتَابِ وَهُمْ يَطْبُخُونَ فِي قُدُورِهِمُ الْخِنْزِيرَ وَيَشْرَبُونَ فِي آنِيَتِهِمُ الْخَمْرَ، فَقَالَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم:
«إِنْ وَجَدْتُمْ غَيْرَهَا فَكُلُوا فِيهَا وَاشْرَبُوا، وَإِنْ لَمْ تَجِدُوا غَيْرَهَا فَارْحَضُوهَا بِالْمَاءِ وَكُلُوا وَاشْرَبُوا»

“We adjoin the people of the book while they cook pork in their pots and drink Khamr from their vessels.” The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: “If you find others than drink and eat from them. If you do not find others, then rinse them with water and eat and drink”.

Both pork and Khamr are Najis. Hence the utensils in which they are placed become Najis. They must be washed to restore their purity (Tahara) before their usage.

b. In another type, the essence of alcohol changes and it loses its intoxication property. It is transformed,
together with the other substances, into a new substance that has properties different from those of alcohol. The new substance is non-toxic hence it does not take the Hukm of Khamr and it is pure (Tahir) like any other substance that falls under the Shar’i principle "things are permitted in origin unless there is an evidence of prohibition".

c. In another type, alcohol is changed in its essence and loses its intoxication property. It forms with the 
other substances a new substance with chemical properties different from those of alcohol, but the new substance is poisonous, thus it falls under the Hukm of poison: It is Tahir, but its usage for drinking or causing harm with them to oneself or to others is Haram.

3. Therefore, if ethyl alcohol is mixed with other substances then the Hukm regarding it depends on knowing whether the ethyl mixture loses its intoxication property or not, and whether the mixture is poisonous or not... This needs investigating the underlying reality by experts and specialists. If it is scientifically proven or demonstrated that this mixture is intoxicating then it takes the Hukm of Khamr, indicating that ethyl in the mixture has not lost its intoxicating property and its essence in this mixture. Nevertheless, if it is scientifically or practically proven that this mixture is no longer intoxicating nor that it is poisonous, then it does not take the Hukm of Khamr or the Hukm of poison. However, if it is scientifically or practically proven that the mixture is no longer intoxicating but it remains poisonous, then it does not take the Hukm of alcohol, but it falls under the Hukm of poison. 

Accordingly, if the resulting mixture is intoxicating like cologne then it takes the Hukm of Khamr, for the Hadeeth of the Meesenger of Allah (saw) as narrated by Al-Bukhari and Muslim from Aisha, the Mother of the believers (ra), she said:

«كُلُّ شَرَابٍ أَسْكَرَ فَهُوَ حَرَامٌ» 

“Every drink intoxicate it is Haram”

And with Muslim narrated from Ibni Umar, who said: The Messenger of Allah (saw) said: 

«كُلُّ مُسْكِرٍ خَمْرٌ، وَكُلُّ مُسْكِرٍ حَرَامٌ...»، 

“Every intoxicant is Khamr and every intoxicant is Haram”.

And in another narration of Ibni Umar:

«كُلُّ مُسْكِرٍ خَمْرٌ، وَكُلُّ خَمْرٍ حَرَامٌ» 

“Every intoxicant is Khamr and every Khamr is Haram”.

Additionally, Khamr is forbidden under ten circumstances and not only if it is drunk. At-Tirmidhi reported from Anas Ibn Malik who said:

«لَعَنَ رَسُولُ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم فِي الخَمْرِ عَشَرَةً: عَاصِرَهَا، وَمُعْتَصِرَهَا، وَشَارِبَهَا، وَحَامِلَهَا، وَالمَحْمُولَةُ إِلَيْهِ، وَسَاقِيَهَا، وَبَائِعَهَا، وَآكِلَ ثَمَنِهَا، وَالمُشْتَرِي لَهَا، وَالمُشْتَرَاةُ لَهُ»،

“The Messenger of Allah (saw) has cursed ten in relation to Khamar (alcohol): its producer, the one for whom it is produced, the one who drinks it, the one who transport it, and the one to whom it is transported, the one who serves it, the one who sells it, the one who eats from its profit, the one who purchase it, and the whom to whom it is purchased.”

Any one of these ten roles is Haram.

4. With regard to your question about ethanol in fruit, this question is not clear... If you meant in the question the innate properties of fruit, when it ripens and is on the tree, and there was some of ethyl alcohol inherently present there, i.e. if an analysis of the components of an orange, for example, was carried out and found some ethanol ... If so, this has no effect, because alcohol here is not in a liquid intoxicant solution, it is in the solid fruit that is innately existing in it. Nevertheless, if the fruit that contains ethanol causes damage, it is not permissible to eat it according to the principle of damage. Ibn Majah reported from Ubadah Bin As-Samit: 

«أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صلى الله عليه وسلم، قَضَى أَنْ لَا ضَرَرَ وَلَا ضِرَارَ»

“That the Messenger of Allah (saw) ruled that there is no damage and no causation of harm”.
Otherwise, if you intended in the question other than this, then clarify it so that we are able to give you the answer, Allah willing.

Your brother,
Ata Bin Khalil Abu Al-Rashtah 

23rd Jumada I 1435 AH 
24/03/2014 CE 

النسخة العربية

Explanation of At-Takattul al-Hizbi (Party Structuring) - Part 13

Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizbi (Explanation of Party Structuring) by Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hawarey (rh). 





This is a translation from Sheikh Hawarey's explanation of the unique book by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. 



To access part 12 click here



As a result of this the society in the Islamic world including the Arab countries became upon a condition that did not enable a sound Takattul to be established from it. It was natural that all of the movements and party structures in name would fail because they were not established upon the basis of a deep thought which would lead to a precise organisation and a preparedness that could be trusted in and counted upon. And it is unfortunate that even to this day they have not attempted to establish a basis for themselves despite the confirmation of failure. It was also natural that these movements and structured parties would be disjointed or disconnected because they were no established upon an ideology (Mabda’a). Whoever follows them will see that they were established in occasions of emergency in which circumstances dictated the establishment of structured parties. These circumstances then disappeared and so these political parties disappeared as well or they weakened and faded away. 



The examples for this are many and I will present as an example what happened in Jordan in 1956 as circumstances dictated at that time the opening up of room for political parties to work as a result of the prevailing circumstance from the spread of Nasserism and the raising of the degree of freedom and liberation in the land. So the State permitted the work of the political party and as a result seven political parties were permitted legally. Then when the circumstance that was the reason for their establishment came to an end due to the fabricated conspiracy by the officers who were agents of the palace (Ali Al-Hayaariy and Ali Abu Nawaar) which resulted in the imposition of the martial law and the freezing of political activity which was then followed by the end of the political parties or their weakening or fading away. And what happened in Jordan also happened continuously in all parts of the Islamic world. So not long ago Zia Al-Haqq the President of Pakistan announced the cancellation of the martial law and permitted the work of political parties. As a result a large number of political parties were formed including 10 that were officially permitted, most of which had not previously existed. So how were they formed so quickly had they not been established for temporary and selfish interests? Or they were established between groups of people who were connected through friendship or benefits that they wanted to achieve by way of a political structure. For this reason a correct structural bond did not exist amongst these people and their structuring was not upon an ideological basis.

The effect of the previous Takattulaat (Party structures):

These party structures despite their large number, the progress of their presence and what they expended in terms of effort and activity, their presence was not only completely free of a benefit but were in fact a harm that afflicted the Ummah. 
This was because:

1) Their presence in the society prevented the existence of the correct party structure or delayed its coming in the very least. This is because the Muslim with his nature and Aqueedah would incline towards the Takattul, collective work and activity. So when these Takattulaat sprung up in front of them they engaged with them, got affected by their atmospheres and their energy that drove them to engage in work was drained from them. As a result they ended up at a point that was worse than that they had begun with and started to disbelieve in political parties and structures until it prevailed over the minds of the general masses that the existence of political parties was a terrible harm upon the Ummah and the hearts of the people was filled with doubt.

2) The people began to beware of every party movement and even if it was correct. It became easy to cast an accusation upon any party structure that appeared in the society and this was a result of what the people had experienced from the previous political parties and structures. 

3) The result of the establishment of these political parties upon the bonds that we have mentioned and the nature of their work in regards to competing over interests and securing demands or their establishment upon tribal, regional or nationalistic thoughts meant that they would inevitably clash leading to feuds and grudges. This was because none of them had a specific culture of specific thoughts by which they would engage with others and struggle for. The natural result of this was the existence of feuds and grudges.

4) As long as these political parties were established for the sake of realising benefits and attaining gains, then it was only natural for these thoughts to be transferred to their members and as a result to the society in which they were established. And when you see the individual in the society moving from one party to another based on a goal that he wants to achieve or a position that he desires to have, then the presence of the ideas of hypocrisy, revolving around interests and fluctuations in respect to the work, are a natural result of the existence of this type of political party.

Due to all of the above they corrupted the natural purity of the masses and embedded in them negative thoughts that became a new burden upon any correct Takattul that appeared in the like of this society. As we have said, as long as the Aqeedah of the Muslim pushes him towards the party structure, collective work and forbids him from complacency, then it the inevitable presence of a correct structure is just a matter of time and it is inevitable for this correct party structure to appear.

To access part 14 click here

Explanation of At-Takattul al-Hizbi (Party Structuring) - Part 12




Sharh At-Takattul Al-Hizbi (Explanation of Party Structuring) by Sheikh Mohammad Al-Hawarey (rh). 





This is a translation from Sheikh Hawarey's explanation of the unique book by Sheikh Taqiuddin an-Nabhani. 



To access part 11 click here


Before Islam the individual used to go forth to satisfy his instinctual hungers as much as he could without any limits or paying attention to a law. Therefore he used to undertake and utilise his complete freedom in a way which is exactly what those people are calling for today and as such it represented a Raj’iy (reactionary) manner via instinctive reaction (or returning to the instincts to regulate the behaviour).


Islaam then came and took hold of the human and distinguished him through his worship to Allah and made all of his actions restricted to the commands of Allah (swt) and His prohibitions. His life was organised and regulated by systems, Ahkaam (rulings) and Qawaaneen (Laws) that had been legislated for him. He was therefore took a huge step forward by this and was saved from worshipping and being led by his instincts (or mere instinctive impulse). Islaam provided him with the right to practise his will and explained and made clear to him the sound and upright path that would lead to the achievement of happiness and contentment in addition to attaining the pleasure of His master, Laa Ilaaha Illaa Huwa Al-‘Azeez Al-Hakeem.

Example: The young woman who displays her adornments used to brazenly exercise her intimate relations as she liked. This remained the case and situation of the tribes and peoples that had yet to embrace Islaam or other revealed Deens that gave the human dignity. Then Islaam came and provided honour and dignity to this woman and high status. It raised her to the level of a mother, the head of the house and she was an honour that had to be maintained and safeguarded. It was enough for her pride and honour that Islaam permitted for the Muslims to kill or be killed in defence of her honour and dignity and it provided a punishment resembling killing for the one who accuses her with a mere accusation of infidelity or being unchaste.

Today those who claim to be advanced describe Islaam with Raj’iyah (reactionary or returning to the past) whilst they themselves are returning back to a time that was from an era that preceded Islaam and they are dedicated to proceed upon the path of instinctive reaction or mere instinctive impulse. As such the woman became a product of enjoyment for the men and no restriction was placed upon her that would prevent her from practising her will in anything that satisfied her instinct as long as she had reached a certain age and was not forced into it against her will. So which of these two paths is more worthy of bringing stability? Which of them is reactionary or going back into the past? This therefore is what the word Raj’iyah (reactionary/going back) means and what reactionary ideas are.

As for the word ‘Waaqi’iyah’ (realism) which is used in the statement: ‘We must be realistic’ or ‘We take our system from our reality’, then this only means that the reality becomes the source of thinking instead of being the subject area of the thought. Yes indeed Islaam is realistic as it is not imaginary of mere fiction just as it is not restricted to one era or time in exclusion to others. It is practical rulings that solve and teat the present or existing reality. It is only for the ‘Aalim (Knowledgeable person/Scholar) to understand the reality, to understand and have precise knowledge about it which is followed by a study of the texts that are related to this reality and then from this a treatment is extracted to address and solve the reality. This is what we mean when we say that Islaam is realistic as it has made the reality the subject of the thinking and thought. As for the source of thinking then this a collection of texts that have come from the Aqueedah and the Usooli (Jurisprudence) principles that emanate from it, in addition to a collection of thoughts that have been built and based upon that Aqueedah. As for the realism that has been mentioned here then it is the type that makes the reality the source of the thinking and thought. So according to this realism Ahkaam (rulings) are taken from the reality and it and its conduct are shaped according to the reality. This realism does not strive to change the reality but rather conduct changes in accordance to the reality. Unfortunately the statement ‘Accepting the reality’ has become a fundamental principle in the minds of the people and they regard it as being progressive and they argue that the American policy is based upon accepting the reality i.e. pragmatism. Based on this they define politics as being the art of possibilities which means dealing and interacting with the reality to find the best angles from within it. This is whilst we see that the reality is not in fact the art of possibilities but rather it is the choosing of the best possibilities. It is effective efficiency within the possibilities to achieve the aimed or what we want irrespective of it being the lightest, easiest or most difficult course of action or decision making. This is where dealing with the reality proceeds along the lines of changing it to that which we want. We would therefore then not accept or be content with the reality in the best of cases if it went against that which we wanted it to be.

This is what they mean when they say that we should be realistic or be content and accepting to the reality or state of affairs or that we should take our systems from the reality. All of this means one thing and that is that the reality has become the source of their thinking.

As for what it is necessary to be then it must be to make the reality the subject area of the thought and thinking. Islaam only engages with the reality in order to change it into a form that Islaam has come with. From this angle we say that Islaam is realistic meaning that it contains practical rulings that have been revealed upon the reality to change it to the form that Allah (swt) has commanded. So its rulings are not taken from the reality and they are also not idealistic treatments and solutions that do not have a reality for them to be applied upon. Rather its rulings are practical treatments and solutions and it is necessary for the reality to change in accordance to them.

This is the meaning of the statement: ‘Realistic thoughts’. As for what the like of these thoughts lead to and cause as a result of their existence then this is despair, surrender and acceptance of the status quo and current reality. This is like the destruction of the Khilafah and viewing the return of the Islamic State as a far off matter or accepting the division of the Muslim lands amongst other thoughts.

To access part 13 click here

A Response to the Huffington Post article, “Why Gay Marriage May Not Be Contrary To Islam”



There is an attempt to push Muslims into accepting homosexual marriages. Various articles have been written including one in the Huffington Post which attempts to muddy the waters between Islam, recognising it as a sin, and whether this means we should oppose state laws that legalise gay marriages.
The full article can be found here
It can be summarised as follows:
1. We live in the west and not in a Muslim society.
2. We should afford human rights and equality to all whether gay or not.
3. There’s a difference between sin and criminalisation by law
4. Ibn al qayyim permitted Zoroastrian incestuous marriages.
The response:
1. We live in the West but we do not leave our Islam in the Muslim world. Although we do not seek to exact punishment against practising homosexuals in the West as we do not have the political authority to do so, we should not become normalised to such a grave sin. Rather, we know homosexuality is being aggressively pushed in the West and particularly onto the Muslim community because it is linked to a specific viewpoint on life i.e. liberal secularism. It is in this context that a debate is created about Muslims and homosexuality – it is about changing and secularising Islam. Any aspect of Islam that doesn’t conform to liberal secular values is to be negated or changed. In this manner, secularism becomes the basis, the fundamental paradigm of determining what is right and wrong to assimilate and integrate Muslims to secular liberalism. The current discussion on homosexuality needs to be viewed in this ideological manner.
2. Human rights refers to a specific ideological view of justice and rights. It generally conforms to liberal secular rights, for example ‘Personal Freedom’ i.e. the right to act how one feels without restrictions from the State. So if a person performs an action that does not physically harm others the state should not criminalise that act. It then follows that homosexuality is an act between two consenting adults that does not “harm” others hence according to this view homosexuality is a “human right.”
Although Islam does not take this ideologically biased perspective of human rights from a liberal secular philosophy, it does believe that humans have certain key rights. Therefore a Muslim’s ontological basis in determining rights for humans is anchored on the Islamic texts and not changing tastes within secular philosophies. Two consenting adults who do not physically harm others do not necessarily have the right to perform an action unless accepted by the Islamic texts. Whereas the inevitable consequence of a liberal view (two consenting adults who do not harm others) would be the permissibility of incest, the next great taboo to be legalised. Or as we find in Denmark the permissibility to engage in bestiality so long as the animal remains unharmed!
The point is if we take their argument to the logical conclusion we’d find some very strange consequences which currently doesn’t accord to liberal secular tastes in the UK but perhaps one day campaigners may argue for their liberal secular right to perform such acts.
Whereas Allah SWT clearly states that our laws do not emanate from our desires or current tastes which is relative to the current fashions within society:
“And that you should judge between them by what Allah has revealed, and do not follow their vain desires, and be cautious of them, lest they seduce you from part of what Allah has revealed to you;” [Quran TMQ 5:49]
Interestingly secular societies attempt to identify people by their sexuality. This has become an identity above and beyond being human. So, for example, they may consider themselves British, white, lesbian, transgender androgynous female. Applying such distinctions turns the treatment of the individual to viewing and interacting with them based on their sexuality. Ironically then they are asking for separate treatment by viewing themselves as a specific and distinct identity based on their sexuality above and beyond being human. As Muslims our interaction with other people isn’t defined by a self imposed identity. Rather we treat humans as humans defined by the Islamic text.
In this context there’s no difference, in origin, in interacting with a person who has committed sex outside of marriage, committed adultery or a person who engaged in homosexual acts. They are sinful humans who require discussion and correction in absence to a State that enforces law and order. Interaction based on trade or education doesn’t mean we discriminate by virtue of the particular sin they’ve committed as we are still obliged by Islam to interact with them based on the values and morality Islam has dictated.
Furthermore, if the person who engages in that sin tries to keep it private then Muslims do not seek to expose them nor to try and out them for their sin. In fact it is sinful to expose another persons privately committed sins. This doesn’t mean we ignore the sin or evil of homosexuality nor accept it as a legitimate lifestyle choice – if the sinful act is committed by a non Muslim we should engage them in the dawah, when appropriate, to convince him or her of the Islamic belief and therefore the laws of Islam as a system to regulate his or her life. If the sinful act is perpetrated by a Muslim again, we need to remind them of their purpose in life and clarify the Islamic ruling and help them to overcome such wrongful transgression that are liable to punishment in the hereafter. This again doesn’t mean we ignore sinful actions, rather we seek to forbid it with our tongue, criticise it and explain the correct Islamic position in order to help change their behaviour. However while discussing or interacting with them on other issues we should not distinguish how we treat them compared to other human beings. E.g. A doctor should not say he won’t treat a person who committed fornication because he believes the action is sinful.
In addition to compare sexuality as an identity like ethnicity is a false analogy and an attempt to claim that criticism of homosexual acts is akin to being racist. Would we say criticism of a person who commits adultery is akin to being racist also? It’s an action people choose to perform and are not compelled to engage in. Hence the criticism is against the choice of performing an action which contradicts the legalisation that Allah SWT has laid down whether that violation was to freely choose to perform an act of homosexuality, fornication or missing an obliged prayer.
3. There’s a distinction between sin and criminalisation in law.
This point is the essence of secularism; the idea that we can separate between our personal views on morality with that of State law. So although I see it as sinful I should not seek to enforce my moral code onto others. However Islam does not operate according to this secular paradigm. A munkar (evil) is forbidden in law by the State. Either there is a hadd (prescribed punishment) or there is a taazeer (discretional punishment) adopted by the Islamic State. The evidence for this is numerous and just to quote one verse from the Quran on this:
“Those who, should We establish them in the land (I.e. the rulers), will establish the prayer and pay the zakat and enjoin good and forbid evil; and Allah’s is the end of affairs.” 22:41
This verse obliges the rulers to forbid evil using the mechanism of the State, this point has been mentioned by numerous tafsirs (exegesis) e.g. Ibn Kathir quotes from a speech by Umar Bin Abdal Aziz (rh) who said:

 الَّذِينَ إِنْ مَّكَّنَّـهُمْ فِى الاٌّرْضِ

“(Those who, if We give them power in the land….) Then he said, “This is not obligatory only for those who are in authority, it also applies to those who are governed by them. Shall I not tell you what you can expect from your governor, and what duties those who are ruled owe to him Your rights over your governor are that he should check on you with regard to your duties towards Allah and restore the rights that you have over one another, and that he should guide you to the straight path as much as possible. Your duties towards him are that you should obey him without cheating and without resentment, and you should obey him both in secret and openly.”
One cannot claim that a munkar (evil) cannot be forbidden by the State rather this is an obligation. Therefore the State forbids openly committed evil acts to help protect the society’s Islamic values.
The famous narration of the prophet (saw) exemplifies this point:
The Prophet (SAW) said, “The example of the person abiding by Allah’s order and restrictions in comparison to those who violate them is like the example of those persons who drew lots for their seats in a boat. Some of them got seats in the upper part, and the others in the lower. When the latter needed water, they had to go up to bring water (and that troubled the others), so they said, ‘Let us make a hole in our share of the ship (and get water) saving those who are above us from troubling them. So, if the people in the upper part left the others do what they had suggested, all the people of the ship would be destroyed, but if they prevented them, both parties would be safe.” (Bukhari)
The narration explains that those who violate the limits and laws set by Allah SWT should be forbidden and prevented by Muslims lest the whole society falls into destruction. So we don’t see individuals acting in isolation from the wider society. Individual acts do affect others even if there’s no direct physical harm done by the action e.g. verbal bullying and stalking may not result in direct physical harm but clearly these actions affect others. Similarly even Western societies recognise the dangers and problems of mass pornography available to children and adults alike. Here one person’s free choice does have knock on effects on the rest of society. Islam recognises this and within the paradigm of Islamic values (maqasid as shariah/aims of the shariah) seeks to regulate outward open expression within society to help protect and promote these values.
This perspective of protecting societal values through the application of Islamic law naturally exists within an Islamic society under the Khilafah. Muslims in the West do not have the political power to enact Islamic law and the vast majority of Muslims see the priorities of the application of Islamic law within the Muslim world. However, the debate being forced onto the Muslim community isn’t about any political concerns that Muslims may seek to implement their laws in the UK. It is about changing the beliefs of Muslims living in the UK under the guise of integration and assimilation. Hence we should be aware of the ideological challenge we face to our beliefs living in the West which seek to change the framework and basis upon which we act.
4. Ibn al qayyim permitted Zoroastrian incestuous marriages.
The argument is as follows: Muslims didn’t prohibit a sinful act of incestuous marriage between non Muslims, therefore Muslims do not seek to enforce their religious views on society. Thus gay marriages should not be opposed by Muslims and accept its establishment in society.
There’s a number of strange twists going on, not least the opinion of Ibn al Qayyim on the matter.
Firstly the verse of Quran 22:41 clearly shows a relationship between what Islam commands and prohibits and the necessary implementation by State law.
Secondly, Ibn al Qayyim discussed a minority view in his book ‘Ahkam Ahlel Dhimmah’ (Laws related to the non Muslims who live under the Islamic State) specifically related to the Zoroastrians based on an assumed evidence from the Sunnah.
There were two views related to Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, the majority opinion being that such self marriages (incestuous marriages of the Zoroastrians) should be prohibited by the Islamic State even if conducted by non Muslim dhimmah. The second opinion attributed to him was that such marriages conducted by the Zoroastrians that accords to their belief is allowed for them unless they seek arbitration in an Islamic court which would then rule their marriage as invalid. This minority opinion was based on an evidence from the time of the Prophet (saw) who did not explicitly nullify by the State such marriages amongst the Zoroastrian. However during the Khilafah of Umar (ra) he explicitly nullified all ‘self marriages’ by the Zoroastrians. Ibn al Qayyim discussed why Umar (ra) did this and why it seems the Prophet (saw) didn’t explicitly forbid and nullify such marriages by the non Muslims. His conclusion is that dominance of the Islamic authority over Persia hadn’t fully materialised during the time of the Prophet (saw) and therefore he (saw) couldn’t exercise such authority to nullify these invalid marriages. If the Prophet (saw) had such political authority to nullify such self marriages he (saw) would have done so. However, it was only during the Khilafah of Umar’s (ra) that this authority had become manifest and thus the Islamic State had now the capability to enforce the law upon the Zoroastrians.
Ibn Al Qayyim then goes on to say about Umar (ra) forbiddance of these incestuous marriages, “This is amongst his (Umar) best and strongest ijtihads (islamically derived opinions), one that is most beloved by Allah and His Messenger, for it is one of the most vilest acts, hated by Allah and His Messenger, that a man should marry his daughter, his mother or his aunt. There cannot be any doubt to remove this practise from existence is more dearer to Allah and His Messenger than to confirm it… (Umar’s view) is dearer to us than what is reported on this matter on the authority of Ahmad (ibn hanbal)” Ahkam Ahlel Dhimmah
Clearly Ibn al Qayyim does not seem to be justifying the recognition and permission for non Muslim incestuous self marriages (in fact he believes it’s Umar’s (ra) best and strongest ijtihads to forbid it). However there is a minority difference of opinion on the subject of Zoroastrian self marriages. But such ikhtelaf (difference of opinion) cannot be a reason to then justify a completely separate issue of gay marriages. Interestingly in ‘Close Relationships: Incest and Inbreeding in Classical Arabic Literature’ By G. J. H. Van, it discusses in detail the issue of Zoroastrian self marriages and the Islamic view on this, but also explicitly makes the point that all the Islamic jurists agreed that homosexuality should be banned whether done by Muslims or non Muslims and that the minority ikhtelaf based on a specific ruksaa (exemption to the general rule) for Zoroastrians can never be used to justify homosexuality.
Clearly then Ibn al Qayyim didn’t approve of self marriages and supported the abolishment of such practises by the Islamic State and that such a discussion was never used to justify homosexual acts upon which all the scholars agreed it needed to be forbidden by State authority.

Does the ‘Big Bang breakthrough’ Challenge Belief in God?



On March 17th, researchers announced the potential discovery of a long-predicted twist in light from the big bang that represents the first image of ripples in the universe called primordial gravitational waves. The finding is considered to be direct proof of the theory of inflation – the idea that the universe expanded extremely quickly in the first fraction of a nanosecond after it was born.
Some will consider this as a progressive step in the role science has played to explain the origins of the universe without the need of a Creator.
The Finding
“This is huge,” says Marc Kamionkowski, professor of physics and astronomy at John Hopkins University, who was not involved in the discovery but who predicted back in 1997 how it could be found. “It’s not every day that you wake up and find out something completely new about the early universe. To me this is as Nobel Prize–worthy as it gets.”
What is Inflation?
The big bang was originally hypothesised by Belgian priest and physicist Georges Lemaître. He called it “the day without yesterday” because it was the moment when time and space began.
But the big bang did not fit all astronomers’ observations. The distribution of matter across space is too uniform to have come from the big bang as originally conceived. So in the 1970s, cosmologists postulated a sudden enlargement of the universe, called inflation that occurred in the first minuscule fraction of a second after the big bang. But confirming the idea proved to be difficult – that is until the discovery of primordial gravitational waves. Only inflation can amplify the primordial gravitational wave signal enough to make it detectable.
What Does This Mean?
Einstein’s theory of general relativity talks about gravity and the universe as a whole. Quantum mechanics talks about the small scale of particles and the other forces of nature, the strong and weak nuclear forces, and electromagnetism.
Despite almost a century of effort, the world’s physicists have not been able to show how these theories work together. The discovered primordial gravitational waves were generated when gravity and the universe were working on the same scale as particles and the other forces of nature i.e. where both theories meet. It is hoped that this detection and subsequent analysis will lead to what physicists wistfully call a “theory of everything”.
“Evidence of Absence”
Naturally this has led to a heightened state of excitement within research and academic circles. As with every major scientific revelation, eager physicists hope it can unlock further mysteries of the universe and its origins.
Renowned neo-atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Laurence Krauss will attempt to claim that science explains away the need for a Creator. They often suggest that science is the only way knowledge is ascertained. The predominant discourse on how the universe came into existence does not include a Creator, implying therefore He SWT does not exist. This technique intends to imbed a subtle message, “absence of evidence is an evidence of absence”.  But do empirical methods challenge the question of belief in a Creator?
‘Why does anything exist?’
Humans have always sought to find direction and meaning in life. In the quest for enlightenment, the central question people focus on is the question ‘why do things happen’. This is innate in human beings for the mind is capable of distinguishing between correct and false information.
As Western civilisation developed it placed humans as their own legislators and as their own guides. It began to chart a new course – from determining ‘why’ things exist towards ‘how’. This was a result of its secular creed which sought to relegate the Creator out of the political and empirical spheres. Atheists were now shackled to seeking naturalistic explanations exclusively. Consequently, they evaded more fundamental questions.
For instance if it is asked, ‘why does gravity exist?’ one can respond that it is a distortion of space itself caused by the presence of any mass — star, planet, person, tree – resulting in a ‘bending’ of space thereby attracting objects to it. While explaining the existence of gravity, the question can be further reduced to ‘why does mass distort space?’ Again, the questions can be reduced further still to laws of the universe, properties of sub-atomic particles until scientists grudgingly admit ‘it just does’.
Problems
Clearly the function of science is limited to explaining how properties exist in a universe preordained by a particular set of laws. It is impossible for science to determine why there are laws and consistent patterns (at least on a macro level) as opposed to not with specific properties. For example, why does water boil at a 100 degrees Celsius as opposed to 110 degrees Celsius?
Science also fails to distinguish between contingency and the necessary. It cannot account for contingency i.e. possible beings. For example, a circle is necessarily 2.pi.r but it’s not necessary for a circle to be red, blue or black. It could have a number of possible colours, science then wouldn’t explain why it has that possible colour it would only describe the circle and its particular colour.
Similarly, the universe could have a completely different set of parameters and variables instead of the ones we already have. Scientists try to account for the particular laws we see in this universe with baseless multi-verse theories; the idea an infinite number of alternate universes exist, all subject to completely different laws and properties thus accounting for the particular laws we see in this universe. However such a conclusion of a infinite number of universes, is both a leap of faith in science and a logical contradiction (the sum of limited will always be limited).
Therefore the universe is a possible existence, having a beginning, with a particular set of laws preordained for it which can only be accounted for by recourse to a power outside of nature and beyond the scope of scientific testing.
How Do Muslims View This?
Islam is built upon an intellectual proof, the belief that a limited dependent universe requires an eternal Creator, Allah (swt) and that the Qu’ran is the Word of Allah (swt). This satisfies the heart and the mind and the Qu’ran states:
“It is He Who shows you the lightning, by way both of fear and of hope; It is He Who raises up the clouds, heavy with rain.” [TMQ Ar-Ra’d: 12]
Rather than simply observing processes, Muslims are required to reflect on the causes and motives behind them.
Therefore, every phenomena indicates preordained systems created by Allah (swt). If we observe the world rationally it should surely increase our conviction in Islam. Discoveries alone will never explain the causes behind them but will actually perpetuate the problem if the correct attitude is not adopted. Indeed the correct attitude is taken directly from the Qur’an:
“So, also did We show Ibrahim the power and the laws of the heavens and the earth, that he might (with understanding) have certitude. When the night grew dark upon him he beheld a star. He said, ‘This is my Lord’. But when it set, he said, ‘I love not things that set.’ And when he saw the moon rising, he exclaimed, ‘This my Lord.’ But when it set, he said, ‘Unless my Lord guides me, I surely shall become one of the folk who are astray.’ And when he saw the sun rising, he cried, ‘This is my Lord! This is greater!’ And when it set, he exclaimed, ‘O my people! Lo! I am free from all that you associate (with Him) Lo! I have set my face, firmly and truly, towards Him Who created the heavens and the earth, and never shall I give partners to Allah.’” [TMQ Al-An’am: 75-79]
A Muslim would see no contradiction between studying the processes and descriptions of the universe, it’s possible expansion, what laws exist in nature and how to utilise such a preordained system which is the application of the scientific method. The science, therefore, has a role and doesn’t negate the rational question of why this process occured in the first place. A question that naturally leads one to the rational conclusion of an unlimited and eternal Creator, Allah SWT, that created the universe preordaining it with a particular system.
“Most surely in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day there are signs for men who understand.” [TMQ Aali Imran: 190]