Category Archives: Modernists

Response to the Modernist Contention: “But Islam Must Adapt to the Times!!!”

By Bassam Zawadi

If that’s the case, then Islam could and should have simply adapted to the times of the 7th century. It should have embraced tribalism, oppression of slaves, etc. and whatever other “dominant” and “popular” Jahiliyyah norms there were. Islam didn’t “adapt” to its times, rather it stood independently and sought to change the worse to the better. The “better” being the God-given standards and principles infused within it.

Islam as a whole doesn’t have to “adapt” to anything. It shall continue standing in the face of anything which God opposes. The 21st century as a whole is not morally any superior than the 7th, nor are Western values as a whole any better than what we find in 7th century Jahiliyyah. Even if so, it would still fall short of meeting the standards of Islam.

Islam asks that the world adapts to it, not the other way around. Get with the program already!

The Modernists’ Denial of the Occurrence of Miracles

By Mohammad Yasir

The ‘Muslim’ modernists, who are deeply influenced by western philosophy, argue the impossibility of the occurrence of any miracle, all based on reason.

The reality is that they are in deep awe by philosophers such as David Hume, the 18th-century Scottish philosopher, and regurgitate everything he said in a manner based on pseudo-reason.

The synopsis of Hume’s lengthy rambling against miracles in his ‘Enquiry concerning Human Understanding’ can be summed up like this: miracles cannot occur, despite how reliable the reports are, because *our experience* of *laws of nature* tells us otherwise, and a miracle is a violation of those laws.

The simple answer to this can be that no philosopher has examined every person’s experience who has stepped foot on this earth, so this generic claim, in itself, is problematic. And, then, to clearly reject copious reports of reliable people is even more problematic, especially when Hume accepts the notion that reliable people can report miracles albeit they will be rejected.

It’s incorrect for Hume to assert that “laws” of nature can never be violated. This insinuates that its violation is impossible which, in itself, contradicts the understanding of laws, because laws *are* broken and violated. Also, what logical law can explain the notion of everything coming into existence itself from nothing? It would not be a hyperbolical statement to say that “everything coming into existence itself from nothing” is the biggest miracle of the atheist to begin with. If some of them can concede such a reduction and absurdum, then I’m sure accepting the concept of miracle won’t be difficult.

In addition – although agnostics like Hume won’t accept this argument, it will stand against the modern “Muslims” nevertheless – is that who said these natural occurrences are ‘laws’ and not anything else? If you accept that Allāh is the Creator and ultimate Controller of everything, then can’t He, the Almighty, break these “laws”? Is He subjected to these “laws”? The Being, Who Initiated creation, can’t He do what He pleases?

And what is worse than this is that the modernist will misconstrue the several vivid revelatory evidences from Qur’ān & Hadīth, all in the name of reason and laws of nature.
What is more difficult to believe: Allāh created everything from nothing, or that He made certain changes in His creation? If you believe that Allāh created everything from nothing, then accepting miracles – especially if you claim to be a Muslim AND you have clear texts – shouldn’t be difficult at all.

One of the pivotal principles for us to remember, regarding a miracle, is that it *is* the action of Allāh which appears on the hand of a Prophet. It’s He, the Almighty, Who initiates the miracle, and not the creation. Understanding this will avert several objections.

Finally, the objection: how can we know which miracle is true and which is false as every religion claims miracles; hence, they will inevitably cancel each other out.

The short answer to this is that we have an epistemology which determines what is false and what is true. Islamic epistemology, in Hadīth for example, clearly demonstrates how rigorously scholars have filtered incorrect information from spurious information. Conversely, you will not find such a sophisticated system & methodology in any other religion – not even close to it.

Modernists/Reformists/Deformists follow Shaytan’s Footsteps

By Brother Umar Rumi

What do the following “scholars”/“intellectuals” have in common?:

Javed Ghamidi (Pakistan)
Wahiduddin Khan (India)
Adnan Ibrahim (Jordan – Austria)
Hassan Farhan Maliki (Saudi Arabia)
“Mufti” Abu Layth “al-Maliki” (UK)
Atabek Shukurov (UK)
Caner Taslaman (Turkey)
Mustafa Islamoğlu (Turkey)
Rashid Shaz (India)
..and others.. (feel free to suggest other names in the comments)

Other than their modernism, they all share an important think: they all deny the coming back of Isa ﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﻡ and the coming of the Dajjal.
One might wonder, why so much interest in denying Dajjal’s arrival, and from “scholars” and “thinkers” from quite different backgrounds and nations?…

I always used to think, how could someone who read the description of Dajjal’s coming, could still fall for it; now I’m starting to understand it better; the denial of his coming is one of its tools (as well as the “don’t judge” nonsense).

Brother Syed Shaheeruddin Ahmed mentioned the following hadith:

“The Dajjal will not appear until the people become negligent in talking about him, and until the Imams abandon talking about him on the Minbar”.
[Majma al-Zawa’id]

When refuting modernists we often (myself first) tend to focus only on a “rational” level, on their logical inconsistencies, reasoning flaws, lies and fabrications, forgetting what is also an extremely important side: those people are paving the way for the coming of the Dajjal, and are Dajajilah themselves.

And before someone starts with the usual Adab card, you “don’t judge”, the “you don’t know what’s in their hearts”, the “but they have been studying from since before you were even born”, rest assured, I’ll come to these flimsy objections soon in sha’ Allah.

By the way, this also shows the importance for Orthodox Sunni Muslims of various backgrounds to keep in touch and maintain relations with each other across national and linguistic boundaries; first of all because we’re a unique body and Ummah and we need to crush the divisions among us, but there is also a further benefit of being able to analyze such threats coming from various side in a more clear way: when we realize that it’s not just Ghamidi in our Pakistan, that it’s not just Islamoğlu in our Turkey (and so on and so forth) but rather we can see a clear phenomenon taking place across countries where people at the same time start saying the same things in Arabic, Urdu, Turkish, Malay.. Well, this gives a whole new dimensions to those that might otherwise seem just “local phenomenon” or “individual issues”.

And, this will empower us into being able to analyze better what’s going on and what’s the best reaction, ideally to be take together.

The same could be argued about the need to analyzing the new threat of the Bin Bayyah/Hamza Yusuf/al-Awni, UAE-Saudi project in a proper way.

MUSIC AND IMAAM GHAZAALI

[By Jamiatul Ulama Northern Cape]

Displaying this selective brand of Taqleed, the modernists resort to a downright dishonest Taqleed of Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah Alayh) in their attempt to ‘prove’ the permissibility of music and musical instruments. While they reject every aspect of Imaam Ghazaali’s ta’leem on all other issues of the Shariah, which militates against their opinions, they are rapid in expressing their Taqleed of his view on singing and music.

After conceding the Ijma’ of the Fuqaha of the Four Math-habs on the prohibition of music and musical instruments, Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah Alayh) proceeds to argue exceptional cases of permissibility. In his argument he does not negate the general rule of prohibition. Rather, he presents a case of permissibility for certain exceptions such as divine songs to engender spiritual ecstasy. However, it has to be reiterated that even his case for limited permissibility is untenable in view of the conflict with the Ijma’ of the Fuqaha which represents the Shariah’s position from the age of the Sahaabah as the evidence has been explained in books written by the Ulama-e-Haq!

For the modernists, Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) has importance in only the issue of music. As far as the entire Shariah is concerned, other than the exception of singing and music, Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) is lumped into the same category of orthodoxy which the modernist deviates dispose and deprecate with a vehemence pleasing to only shaitaan and heretics. Consider the fact that Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) propagates the prohibition of eating food from tables. He advocates eating on the ground as the Sunnah. Eating on tables is bid’ah according to Imaam Ghazaali (Rahmatullah Alayh). 

The views of Imaam Ghazaali on Purdah are undoubtedly chagrin to the modernists. In short, Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) is an orthodox Muslim, a ‘fanatic’ like the Molvis except for some latitude on the issue of singing and two musical instruments, the duff and the flute, which he opined to be permissible in certain circumstances with certain restrictive conditions. He avers that it is an innovation to use soap content even though he does not brand these as haraam. Nevertheless, this is the position which he adopts. The modernists who have made a selective Taqleed of Imaam Ghazaali, should henceforth refrain from the utilization of all soap, soap powders and detergents. 

“Lick your fingers after eating” commands Imaam Ghazaali. This practice is detestable to the modernist juhhaal who have western kuffaar masters to serve and appease. It is a practice viewed with revulsion by the western intellectual masters of the modernist deviates prowling in the shadows of the community, hence they will not make Taqleed of Imaam Ghazaali in this practice of the Sunnah.

The clinching argument in this debate pertaining to Imaam Ghazaali’s view is that since his view is in conflict with the Ijma’ of the Four Math-habs, it is devoid of substance. It has to be incumbently set aside. A conflicting opinion which developed many centuries after the Sahaabah and the Fuqaha of Khairul Quroon (The First three pious ages of Islam), is not the Fatwa of the Shariah. It is the erroneous opinion of an individual.

It has been said: “Every Aalim slips” just like every good horse slips and falls. Imaam Ghazaali (rahmatullah alayh) has aptly summed up their (the modernists’) intellectual derangement with his comment: “Complete blindness is better than oblique vision.”

“This thing isn’t Islam, this is Arab culture” – The New Fitnah of the Modernists

A new Fitnah which is becoming popular nowadays is:

“This thing isn’t Islam, this is Arab culture”

Mostly the adherents of this statement are Quranists, liberal/
secular muslims, Modernist scholars and their Followers and also Non-Muslims. The things which they do not like which includes beard and most importantly the covering of women instantly guise as only cultural phenomena.

For the Muslims their identity is not defined by an area or place, rather it is identified by their viewpoint of life (aqeedah), their specific thaqafa (culture), loyalty (al wala) and purpose (maqsad): to take mankind out of darkness and into the light (Noor). The difference in the atmospheres, geography, history, etc,.. of an area from another area are simply outcomes of this identity.

The Muslim identity is only should be known by their faith not by their mere geography and culture. If one say that covering of women is Arab Culture. Then how does every place Islam has been spread has always have the existence of covered women. Mostly the ones who use this claim are Hadith Rejectors. It was the Pre-Islamic era when women were naked. It was the light of Islam which gave them the concept of Chastity and Modesty.

To make long story short, The only Culture/Tradition we can adhere to is only Islam. Mixing “law or Customs/Norms of the land” with Islam is like mixing poison with water.

Interpretation of the Qur’aan – Not Permissible for even the Ulama

By Mujlisul Ulama

“VERILY, THE ULAMA ARE THE HEIRS OF THE AMBIYA.” [Hadith]

A MISCREANT MODERNIST who himself is unaware of his Imaani status, whether he is a zindeeq, mulhid or munaafiq, claims that modernists like him with some secular education and lawyers with LLB degrees and others of such ilk who have made a self-study of some books on Islam, or a study under fussaaq university professors have the right to interpret the Qur’aan and to bandy fatwas based on such corrupt and unqualified opinion of non-entities.

He further avers that the Ulama in South Africa have always claimed that it is only their right to interpret the Qur’aan and to deliver lectures in the Musaajid. The miscreant modernist and others of his brand are merely displaying their stark ignorance of issues pertaining to the Shariah. It was never claimed that it was the exclusive right of the Ulama to interpret the Qur’aan. The claim of the Ulama has always been that it is the right of only Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) to interpret the Qur’aan. The Deen of Islam is not the product of human interpretation of the Qur’aan. Islam is the perfected and finalized Code of Law revealed by Allah Azza Wa Jal.

The Ulama do not interpret the Qur’aan. The obligation of the Ulama is to defend the Shariah – to safeguard Islam from the attacks of marauders such as the modernist zindeeqs and mulhids who lack totally in the qualifications of Knowledge. Without possessing any qualifications they aspire to enter into the elevated domain of the Ulama.

REVELATION

Islam is the product of Wahi (Divine Revelation). It is not the product of human interpretation, least of all the interpretation of modernist fussaaq and zindeeqs who lack adequate knowledge of even the basic masaa-il of Tahaarat and Salaat. Yet, their arrogance and ignorance constrain them to set up business as mujtahids’. Their ijtihaad’ and interpretation are akin to the inferior plastic toys manufactured in China.

In rebuttal of the charge made by these modernist donkeys, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Whoever, speaks about the Qur’aan with his opinion, should prepare his abode in the Fire.” Hadhrat Umar Ibn Khattaab (radhiyallahu anhu) describing these modernist asses of bloated self-opinion, said: “Verily, the people of opinion are the enemies of the Sunnah.” To clinch this argument, the Qur’aan-e-Hakeem declares in rejection and condemnation of these modernist miscreants who distort and mutilate the Deen of Allah Azza Wa Jal:

“Why do you (O ignoramuses!) dispute in matters in which you lack knowledge?” [Aal-e-Imraan, aayat 66]

“Verily, many (are the miscreants) who mislead (others) without knowledge.” [An-Nisaa’, 119]

With their compound jahaalat the modernist zindeeqs endeavour to mislead juhhaal of their ilk.

“Who is a greater oppressor than the one who fabricates lies about Allah without knowledge.” [An-Aaam, 144]

These unqualified modernist mulhideen are among the greatest ‘oppressors’. They come within the full glare of this and other Qur’aanic strictures.

“Do not fabricate anything regarding which you have no knowledge. Verily, the ears, eyes and the heart, everyone of them will be subjected to questioning (by Allah Ta’ala).” [Bani Israaeel, 36]

“And among people there is such (a miscreant) who disputes about (the laws) of Allah without knowledge, and he follows every rebellious shaitaan.” [Hajj, 3]

This appropriately describes the modernist zindeeq who seeks to set himself up as an authority of the Shariah despite his lack of qualifications.

“In fact, the transgressors follow their base desires without knowledge. Who then can guide one whom Allah has misled?” [Ar-Rum, 29]

Modernist miscreants who speak without Shar’i qualifications are transgressors who voice nothing but their silly opinions – products of their jahaalat.

“And, among the people are those who dispute about (the laws of) Allah without knowledge, without guidance and without a glittering kitaab.” [Luqmaan, 20]

All modernist zindeeqs suffer from this malady stated in this aayat. Their arrogance and pride do not allow them to submit to those who have the requisite Ilm to speak on matters of the Deen.

“And they do not have knowledge in this regard. They merely  conjecture.” [Al-Jaathiyah, 24]

“Only the unbelievers dispute in the aayaat of Allah. Therefore, do not let their strutting in the cities deceive you.” [Al-Mu’min, 4]

Zindeeq is a class among the kuffaar. Modernist zindeeqs who subject the Qur’aan to their whimsical opinions and forge interpretations of their nafs display their kufr.

“Those who dispute in the verses of Allah without proof (qualified Ilm of the Deen), (indeed their crime) is a great sin by Allah and by those who Believe. In this way does Allah seal the heart of every arrogant oppressor.” [Al-Mu’min, 35]

“Verily, those who dispute in the aayaat of Allah without any proof (Knowledge) having come to them, verily, in their hearts is a (lust for) greatness which they will not attain. [Al-Mu’min, 56]

The unqualified modernists who dispute and deny the Shariah of Allah Ta’ala and who attempt to wrought changes in this Deen qualify themselves for Divine  Wrath. Rejecting their disputation and interpretation of the Qur’aan, Allah Ta’ala says: 

“Those who dispute about Allah after acceptance of Him (of His Deen), their disputation is baseless by their Rabb, and on them is Wrath (of Allah), and for them is a severe punishment.”   [As-Shura, 16]

THE ULAMA ARE SPECIAL

The ‘Ulama’ are not a special class in society in terms of lineage, race, or any other worldly and artificial factor. The speciality of the Ulama has never been posited on any such grounds. But, indeed the Qur’aan and the Ahaadith do allocate a special – an extremely elevated – pedestal to the ‘Ulama. Qur’aanic verses declaring the elevation of the Ulama, is aayat 11 of Surah Mujaadalah:

“Allah elevates the Believers among you, and those who have been granted Ilm by many ranks.”

This aayat is explicit in declaring  the superiority of the Ulama. By virtue of the Knowledge of the Qur’aan and Sunnah, they occupy a lofty pedestal, loftier than the rank of even the pious ordinary Mu’mineen. Hence, Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) said: “Verily, the Ulama are the Heirs of the Ambiya”. Numerous Ahaadith testify to the superiority of the Ulama. While the modernist zindeeq tries to deny this superiority, nothing will be able to dislodge the Ulama-e-Haqq from the pedestal of elevation divinely bestowed to them. They are the Officers of Allah Azza Wa Jal here on earth. They are the Defenders of His Law and they are the Representatives of His Nabi.

This lofty pedestal is not for every molvi, least of all for the LLB asses who are awarded a mantle of ‘qualification by a bunch of donkeys. A man does not become a qualified Aalim by virtue of his MA and LLB secular qualifications. University donkeys (professors) cannot appoint Ulama. Speaking on this subject, Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said: “The affirmation of a few donkeys does not elevate a man to the status of Hadhrat Isaa (alayhis salaam).”

GOLDEN CHAIN

Nowadays, we find cranks with LLB qualifications aspiring to be mujtahids. They labour under the colossal misconception of their LLB scrap degrees and their secular law professions elevating them to the lofty pedestal occupied by the Ulama. We reiterate that the Ulama are not a racial class nor is their hallowed status the effect of lineage nor of wealth nor of any other worldly factor. In the early epoch of Islam, emancipated slaves were among the great Mujtahideen and Spiritual Masters of the Ummah. What promoted them to such a lofty pedestal? It was their qualification. They acquired the Ilm of the Deen which the Sahaabah had imparted. They acquired Ilm of the Deen authoritatively from expert Ulama who were linked to a Golden Chain of Asaatizah linking up with Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). There is no missing link in this Chain which binds the qualified Ulama to Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam).

An Aalim of the Deen is one who acquires his Ilm from Asaatizah who are all, without any exception, links in the Golden Sanad which emanated from the noble and blessed Breast of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). An Aalim is not one who sits at the feet of kuffaar professors wallowing in physical and spiritual janaabat, nor does he acquire damaged knowledge from fussaaq and fujjaar Muslim professors in a spiritually and morally filthy university in an environment of fisq and fujoor. 

There is no barrier for any Muslim to become an Aalim and become an Ambassador of the Rasool (sallallahu alayhi wasallam). Any person from whichever wrung of society he may be, be he a scavenger, may aspire to enter into the domain of the Ulama. The Ilm of the Deen is not the capital of any special class of persons. This is where the stupid modernist seek to mislead ignoramuses. He and others of his ilk are usually at pains in the attempt to create the picture of the Ulama positing themselves as a special racial class. This is furthest from the truth. Even the modernist zindeeq may join the ranks of the Ulama. He only has to abandon his Irtidaad, renew his Imaan and pursue the Knowledge of the Deen from authorities of the Shariah whose Sanad is authoritative. Then the qualifications of Ilm will be conferred on him as well. But, a book study, a self-study, a study under men of kufr, fisq and fujoor will never elevate him to the pedestal which Allah Ta’ala has conferred to the Ulama-e-Haqq.

A DONKEY

As long as a man does not possess qualified Ilm of the Deen, he remains a donkey who cannot become an Aalim by being invested with ‘authority’ by a group of other asses. A donkey appointed by asses remains a donkey. He does not become a qualified Aalim. Commenting on the trend of asses appointing donkeys, Hakimul Ummat Hadhrat Maulana Ashraf Ali Thaanvi (rahmatullah alayh) said:

“Nowadays, every person considers himself to be an Aalim and a Mujtahid. But when he is confronted by a Muhaqqiq then he discovers that his ‘knowledge’ is pure jahl (ignorance). Only if a Muhaqqiq affirms your knowledge, then regard it to be correct otherwise it is nothing but jahl.…. Even among the Ulama, everyone is not a Muhaqqiq. A very few among them are (in the class of) Muhaqqiqeen. The majority possesses only book knowledge. Their knowledge is restricted to translating the Arabic.

Nowadays the situation has deteriorated so much that one who studies Meezaan (i.e. the ABC of Arabic grammar) is regarded as a molvi, and the one who has completed darsiyaat (the academic course) is portrayed as if he is a registered molvi. Ilm (i.e. qualified Ilm of the Deen) is not restricted to this (i.e. to mere textual knowledge). Beyond this there is another Ilm by means of which one becomes a qualified Muhaqqiq. By this Ilm he acquires the aptitude of Ilm.”

The modernist miscreant who excels in heresay and kufr, and those who seek to pass off their scrap LLB degrees as qualification for Ijtihaad should understand that they remain donkeys, and donkeys cannot become Ulama notwithstanding their braying. About their braying, the Qur’aan Majeed says: “Verily among the worse of sounds is the braying of an ass.” So, understand well, Mr. Unqualified Modernist! You remain an ass which cannot aspire for the lofty pedestal which Allah Ta’ala has conferred to the Ulama, and if all the university donkeys unite in the attempt to jack you onto the stage of the Ulama, you will remain where donkeys dwell. Donkeys cannot propel an ass to the pedestal of Isaa (alayhis salaam), and as long as you remain a donkey, you have no right to  speak in any Musjid. If you do, you are a fraud!

Was-salaam

Response to the Modernist Contention: “It is Not in the Qur’aan!”

By Mujlisul Ulama

SOME IGNORAMUSES WHEN arguing to negate a confirmed tenet of the Shariah, surface with the retort: “It is not in the Qur’aan!”. At the juncture when this argument is presented, it should be realized that the best response for such mental density and total ignorance is to adopt the following Qur’aanic advice: “And when the jaahlioon (ignoramuses) address them (the Mu’mineen), they say: ‘Peace”. In other words, the intelligent Mu’min honourably terminates the discussion and does not degenerate to the level of ignorance of his adversary.

In the context of academic and rational debate and discussion, the aforementioned retort perhaps is the lowest ebb of ignorance. A man who is equipped with even a basic understanding of the Shariah – he need not be an Aalim – understands the ludicrousness of this argument which exposes the total jahaalat (ignorance) of the one presenting this stupidity.

Firstly, the invalidity of this argument is conspicuously manifest because the Ahlus Sunnah Wal Jama’ah (the Followers of the Four Math-habs) do not claim that Islam with its Divine Shariah is confined to the Qur’aan Majeed. It never was the contention of any authority of the Shariah, that everything of Islam is to be found in the Qur’aan in detailed form. It is not contended that the Qur’aan is the only Source of the Shariah. This retort would be appropriate only if directed to deviates who claim that every iota of the Islamic Shariah is found in the Qur’aan. But we are not concerned with such deviates. There may be a deviate sect known as Ahlul Qur’aan, who may proffer the preposterous principle that whatever is not in the Qur’aan is not Islam. But there never existed such a legal quibble in the jurisprudence of the Shariah.

The absence of a specific rule, teaching, custom, practice, etc. from the Qur’aan is not grounds for invalidity or spuriousness of such a tenet. Morons for example argue that since the incumbency of the beard is not stated in the Qur’aan, keeping a beard is not Waajib (obligatory). Morons of this calibre who operate within the extremely restrictive confines of their ignorance and lack of knowledge of the Shariah are too dense in the mind to understand that the performance of the five daily Fardh Salaat too is not found in the Qur’aan. The number of Fardh, Sunnat, Witr and Nafl raka’ts, the methodology of Salaat such as the particular method of Qiyaam, Ruku’, Sajdah, Qiraa’t, folding the hands, Qa’dah, Tashahhud, Durood, Dua, Salaam and the myriad of specific masaail related to Salaat are not to be found anywhere in the Qur’aan.

In fact, the term ‘salaat’ literally means to supplicate, to bestow blessings, to praise, tasbeeh (to glorify), mercy, etc. It does not mean the specific and peculiar style of Islamic prayer which we perform five times a day. Similarly, Zakaat and the innumerable rules regulating this fundamental institution of Islam are not to be found anywhere in the Qur’aan. 

The Qur’aan merely commands: “Establish Salaah and give Zakaah”. If the stupid ‘principle’, ‘it is not in the Qur’aan’, has to be applied, 95% of the Shariah will have to be expunged. The Qur’aan is the Divine Scripture of Guidance in which reference is made to some tenets of Islam, and on the basis of which the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen (the highest category of Jurists of Islam) have evolved the immutable Usool (Principles) of the Islamic Shariah.

The greater part of the Shariah comprises of the teachings of Rasulullah (sallallahu alayhi wasallam) which are encapsulated in his verbal pronouncements and practical demonstrations. Further, a great part of Islam is based on Qur’aanic and Hadith principles evolved by the Aimmah-e-Mujtahideen. Thus, the argument: ‘It is not in the Qur’aan’, is the dictum of morons who are academically bankrupt, and who are absolutely bereft of the slightest vestige of congeniality with knowledge. The Sources of Islam are Kitaabullah (The Qur’aan), the Sunnah (the verbal and practical expressions of Rasulullah – sallallahu alayhi wasallam), Ijma’ (the Consensus of the Authorities of Islam), and Qiyaas (the Shariah’s process of Analogical Reasoning).

So, when any crank or moron flings the argument, ‘It is not in the Qur’aan’, your only response should be: “Our Islam is not confined to the Qur’aan. Peace on you. We do not engage the Jaahileen in discussion.”