The center of the human being

The actual physical heart in our breast beats at about 100,000 times a day, pumping two gallons of blood per minute, 100 gallons per hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year for an entire life time! The vascular system that sends this life-giving blood is over 60,000 miles long: it is more than two times the circumference of the earth. Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the heart starts beating before the brain is formed; the heart begins to beat without any central nervous system. The dominant theory was that the central nervous system is what is controlling the entire human being from the brain, yet we know now that in fact the nervous system does not initiate the heartbeat. It is actually self-initiated; we would say, it is initiated by Allah subhanahu wa t'ala.

The heart is the center of the human being. Many people think the brain is the center of consciousness, yet the Quran clearly states, "They have hearts that they are not able to understand with." According to the Muslims, the center of human consciousness is the heart and not the brain itself, and it is only recently that human beings have learned there are over 40,000 neurons in the heart; in other words, there are cells in the heart that are communicating. Now, it is understood that there is two-way communication between the brain and the heart: the brain sends messages to the heart, but the heart also sends messages to the brain. The brain receives these messages from the heart, which reach the amygdala and the thalamus. The cortex receives input from the amygdala and thalamus that it processes to produce emotion; the new cortex relates to learning and reasoning. These processes are recent discoveries, and although we do not fully understand them, we do know that the heart is an extremely sophisticated organ.

According to the hadith, the heart is a source of knowledge. The Prophet, sallallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, said that wrong action is what irritates the heart. Thus, the heart actually knows wrong actions, and this is one of the reasons why people can do terrible things, but, ultimately, they are affected negatively. In Crime and Punishment, the brilliant Russian author Dostoevsky's indicates that crime itself is the perpetrator's punishment because human beings have to live with the result of their actions: their souls are affected. When people do something against the heart, they act against the soul, and that actually affects human beings to the degree that they will go into a state of spiritual agitation, and people will use many ways to cover this up. This is what kufur is: "kufur" means "covering up." To hide their agitation, people use alcohol, drugs, and sexual experimentation; they also seek power, wealth, and fame, taking themselves into a state of heedlessness, submerging themselves into the ephemeral world which causes them to forget their essential nature and to forget their hearts. Thus, people become cut off from their hearts.

How tolerant the so called atheists are ?

How tolerant the so called Atheists are! Watch the video, if a Muslim have done this, ofcourse he or she will be an extremist. But because a atheist has done this she was taken to hospital instead of prison, double standards! haha you can see on your own eyes how tolerant atheists are. The are enemies of not only Muslims but also Christians as well, From the Maldives so called few atheist will be out soon. Hey Atheist golhaan There is no God so no Maldives for you guys. Maldives is God's country. heheh so no God no Maldives for u , pakaas dhen lalaaalaaaa

Maldivian Atheists are vanishing soon with the enforcement of the new islamic legislation. Then lalaaalaa Pakaaas

A heart touchin story‏

A man woke up early in order to pray the Fajr prayer in the masjid. He got dressed, made his ablution and was on his way to the masjid. On his way to the masjid, the man fell and his clothes got dirty. He got up, brushed himself off, and headed home. At home, he changed his clothes, made his ablution, and was, again, on his way to the masjid On his way to the masjid, he fell again and at the same spot! He, again, got up, brushed him self off and headed home.
At home he, once again, changed hisclothes, made his ablution and was on his way to the masjid. On his way to the masjid, he met a man holding a lamp. He asked the man of his identity and the man replied 'I saw you fall twice on your way to the masjid, so I brought a lamp so I can light your way.' The first man thanked him and the two were on their way to the masjid. Once at the masjid, the first man asked the man with the lamp to come in and pray Fajr with him. The second man refused. The first man asked him a couple more times and, again, the answer was the same. The first man asked him why he did not wish to come in and pray. The man replied 'I am Satan.' The man was shocked at this reply. Shaitan went on to explain,'I saw you on your way to the masjid and it was I who made you fall. When you went home, cleaned yourself and went back on your way to the masjid, Allah forgave all of your sins. I made you fall a second time, and even that did not encourage you to stay home, but rather, you went back on your way to the masjid. Because of that, Allah forgave all the sins of the people of your household. I was afraid if i made you fall one more time, then Allah will forgive the sins of the people of your village, so I made sure that you reached the masjid safely.' So do not let Satan benefit from his actions. Do not put off a good that you intended to do as you never know how much reward you might receive from the hardships you encounter while trying to achieve that good.

An Islamic Response to Atheism

Defining Atheism

The "atheist" movement keeps shooting itself in the foot by failing to reach a consensus regarding the meaning of "atheism."
-Jeff Jay Lowder
A comic strip on this controversy.

The real definition of atheism: the belief that there is no God.
The fake definition of atheism: the lack of belief in God.

Proof:

A = Without
Theos = God
Atheos = Without God
Thus
Atheism is the belief that there is no God.


The references state what the real definition of atheism is:



•"Atheism, from the Greek a-theos ("no-god"), is the philosophical position that God doesn't exist. It is distinguished from agnosticism, the argument that it is impossible to know whether God exists or not" (Academic American Encyclopedia).
•"Atheism, system of thought developed around the denial of God's existence. Atheism, so defined, first appeared during the Enlightenment, the age of reason" (Random House Encyclopedia-1977).
•"Atheism (from the Greek a-, not, and theos, god) is the view that there are no gods. A widely used sense denotes merely not believing in God and is consistent with agnosticism. A stricter sense denotes a belief that there is no God, the use has become the standard one" (Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy-1995).
•"Atheism is the doctrine that there is no God. Some atheists support this claim by arguments, but these arguments are usually directed against the Christian concept of God, and are largely irrelevant to other possible gods" (Oxford Companion to Philosophy-1995).
•"Atheism (Greek, a- [private prefix] + theos, god) is the view that there is no divine being, no God" (Dictionary of Philosophy, Thomas Mautner, Editor-1996).
•"Atheism is the belief that God doesn't exist" (The World Book Encyclopedia-1991).
•"According to the most usual definition, an atheist is a person who maintains that there is no god…"(rejects eccentric definitions of the word) (The Encyclopedia of Philosophy-1967).
•"Atheism is the doctrine that God does not exist, that belief in the existence of God is a false belief. The word God here refers to a divine being regarded as the independent creator of the world, a being superlatively powerful, wise and good" (Encyclopedia of Religion-1987).
•"Atheism (Greek and Roman): Atheism is a dogmatic creed, consisting in the denial of every kind of supernatural power. Atheism has not often been seriously maintained at any period of civilized thought" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics-Vol II).
•"Atheism denies the existence of deity" (Funk and Wagnall's New Encyclopedia-Vol I).

Furthermore, I went to my local library and randomly picked out a dictionary to see what atheism meant. This is what I found from this dictionary.

----------------


Real atheists who are... well, real atheists


Also, there have been real atheists who define the real definition of atheism as a belief that there is no God. That would be people like:

Julian Baggini - "Atheism is in fact extremely simple to define: it is the belief that there is no God or gods." (from Atheism: A Very Short Introduction)

Paul Edwards - "[An atheist is] a person who maintains that there is no god." (from Encylopedia of Philosophy)

Doug Krueger - "Atheism - the belief that there are no gods." (from What is ATHEISM?)

Jeff Jay Lowder - After saying that atheists would be under the heading of "naturalism", he defines it as someone who belives that "[t]here are no supernatural beings. If naturalism is true, there is no God, no devil, no angels, no heaven and no hell." (from Jeff Jay Lowder's debate with Phil Fernandes)

David Mills - "Essentially, an atheist is a person who rejects the concept of god." (from Atheist Universe)

Theodore Drange, Quentin Smith, J.L. Schellenbergjust are also real atheists... this is just to name a few. As far as I can tell there have been no fake atheists who had the courage to say that these real atheists were wrong about the definition of atheism.

----------------


Even Charles Darwin (an agnostic) knew the real definition of atheism:





"I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God."
- Letter to Rev. J. Fordyc, July 7, 1879.

----------------


However fake atheist, Michael Martin, uses the fake definition of atheism:



"In Greek 'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God."

Shandon Guthrie rebuts the definition:

***BEGIN QUOTE***

In this case another "bait and switch" method is being employed but in a more obvious contradictory setting. On the one hand we are to concur that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" On the other hand we are supposed to conclude from this that "without a belief in God" is what the term means. This is perhaps to the hope that the reader will not see the imported word "believe" from one sentence to the next. I do agree with Martin that the term is certainly a negative view in that it negates something. But, as Martin unwittingly admits or intentionally distorts, it is the negation of God himself not a negation of a belief in God given Martin's comment that "'a' means 'without' or 'not' and 'theos' means 'god.'" Wouldn't this suggest that atheism is to be etymologically understood as without/no - god?

Due to the disparity between conventional and contemporary understandings (revisionist views?) of atheism, philosophers have attempted to branch atheism into two separate categories: positive atheism and negative atheism. Positive atheism is the classical understanding contra Martin. It is the definitive view, the strong view, that God (or any god) does not exist. Negative atheism, the weak view, is the mere absence of belief in God (or any divine being - sometimes it serves as a synonym for naturalism). In this relatively new understanding atheism enjoys a category split so that both definitions can maintain their place amongst their parent heading atheism. However, this amounts to reducing atheism to nothing more than agnosticism. Agnosticism was originally coined by the 19th century lecturer at the School of Mines in London, Thomas Henry Huxley. He is best noted as being "Darwin's bulldog" since he adamantly defended Charles Darwin's infant theory of evolution. Huxley himself, concerning his adoption of the term agnostic, writes:


Huxley wrote:
"Some twenty years ago, or thereabouts, I invented the word 'Agnostic' to denote people who, like myself, confess themselves to be hopelessly ignorant concerning a variety of matters, about which metaphysicians and theologians, both orthodox and heterodox, dogmatise with utmost confidence...It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe."

"Soft" agnosticism, shall we say, is the mere absence of belief in God (or any deity) since it suspends judgment about matters of metaphysics and theology. The more appropriate epistemological position that Huxley may of had in mind is what is known as "hard" agnosticism - it is impossible to determine whether or not God exists. In either case, agnosticism neither confirms nor denies any epistemological claims about God and thus it properly satisfies the status of being a default position. In a sense, the agnostic places phenomenological brackets around the propositions "God exists" and "God does not exist" to explore unchartered areas of research that may offer insight toward reaching a conclusion.

Despite the historical and philological difficulty with deviating from the roots of atheism and its mainstream approaches to it, perhaps we shall have to consider the matter open to the atheist who wears the label negative or positive atheist. In the spirit of charity, we may be forced to acknowledge against the most reliable and broadest understanding of atheism to include mere deniers of belief in any god in our casual encounters and dialogues. But it should not cause us to go astray from the conventional and usual meaning of the term from which many modern atheists have deviated.

***END QUOTE***

----------------


Why then do fake atheists chump out and use the fake definition of atheism?


Ken Samples explains:

***BEGIN QUOTE***

By definition, atheism is the world view that denies the existence of God. To be more specific, traditional atheism (or offensive atheism) positively affirms that there never was, is not now, and never will be a God in or beyond the world. But can this dogmatic claim be verified?

The atheist cannot logically prove God's nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a transcendent God does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the atheist's claim one would have to possess godlike characteristics. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The offensive atheist's dogmatic claim is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the atheist's attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. The Christian should therefore emphasize that the offensive atheist is unable to provide a logical disproof of God's existence.

*Defensive Atheism.* Many sophisticated atheists today are fully aware of the philosophical pitfalls connected to offensive or dogmatic atheism. Prominent atheists such as Gordon Stein and Carl Sagan have admitted that God's existence cannot be disproven. This has led such atheists to advocate what I call defensive atheism. Defensive atheism asserts that while God's existence cannot be logically or empirically disproven, it is nevertheless unproven.

Atheists of this variety have actually redefined atheism to mean "an absence of belief in God" rather than "a denial of God's existence." For this more moderate type of atheism, the concept of "God" is like that of a unicorn, leprechaun, or elf. While they cannot be disproven, they remain unproven. Defensive atheism's unbelief is grounded in the rejection of the proofs for God's existence, and/or the belief that the Christian concept of God (or any other God) lacks logical consistency.

An appropriate Christian rejoinder at this point is that defensive atheism is using a stipulative or nonstandard definition for the word atheism. Paul Edwards, a prominent atheist and editor of The Encyclopedia of Philosophy, defines an atheist as "a person who maintains that there is no God." Atheism therefore implies a denial of God's existence, not just an absence of belief. It should also be stated that defensive atheism's absence of belief sounds very similar to agnosticism (which professes inability to determine whether God exists). The Christian should force the defensive atheist to show just how his (or her) atheism differs from agnosticism. Does he know or not know that there is no God?

***END QUOTE***

----------------

There you have it. The smoking gun on the real definition of atheism. With all the evidence right in front of their faces the fake atheist will never concede the real definition of atheism.

Atheism is a greater sin than shirk

Which is a greater sin: Atheism or polytheism?.
Praise be to Allaah.

Atheism, in modern terminology, means denying the Creator altogether, denying that He exists and not acknowledging Him, may He be glorified and exalted. The universe and everything in it, according to their claims, came about purely by chance. This is a strange view which is contrary to sound human nature, reason and logic, and is contrary to simple logic and indisputable facts.

As for shirk (polytheism or associating others with Allah), it implies belief in Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, and affirmation of Him, but it also includes belief in a partner to Allah in His creation, who creates or grants provision or brings benefit or wards off harm. This is shirk al-ruboobiyyah (ascribing partners to Allah in His Lordship). Or it means belief in a partner to whom some kind of worship is devoted as an act of love and veneration, as it is devoted to that person or thing as it should to devoted to Allah, may He be glorified and exalted. This is shirk al-‘ibaadah (associating others with Allah in worship). By studying these two deviations, we may see that each of them involves sin and evil which tells us that they are bad and we see how Allah described them as being like dumb animals.

Allah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Have you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) seen him who has taken as his ilaah (god) his own vain desire? Would you then be a Wakeel (a disposer of his affairs or a watcher) over him?

44. Or do you think that most of them hear or understand? They are only like cattle nay, they are even farther astray from the Path (i.e. even worse than cattle)”

[al-Furqaan 25:43-44]

“And surely, We have created many of the jinn and mankind for Hell. They have hearts wherewith they understand not, and they have eyes wherewith they see not, and they have ears wherewith they hear not (the truth). They are like cattle, nay even more astray; those! They are the heedless ones”

[al-A’raaf 7:179].

Nevertheless, the atheist who denies the existence of Allah and rejects His Messengers and disbelieves in the Last Day, is in a greater state of kufr and his beliefs are more reprehensible than the one who believes in Allah and the Hereafter, but he associates something of His creation with Him. The former is stubborn and arrogant to an extent that can not be imagined or accepted by sound human nature. Such a person would transgress every sacred limit and fall into every sin; his worldview would be distorted to an inconceivable level. Yet many scholars who discussed the issue of atheism doubted that this has deep roots in the hearts of the atheists, and they affirmed that the atheist is only professing atheism outwardly; deep down he believes in one God.

Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah said a great deal which indicates that this group of atheists who deny and reject the existence of God are in a worse state of kufr than the mushrikeen who associate partners with Him. We will quote a little of what we have come across:

He (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Kufr (disbelief) means not believing in Allah and His Messengers, whether it involves rejecting or it consists of doubt and uncertainty about the issue or ignoring the issue altogether, out of envy or arrogance or following whims and desires that divert a person from following the Message. However, the kaafir who rejects and disbelieves is in a state of greater kufr, although the one who rejects and denies out of envy, even though he believes that the Messengers brought the message of truth, is also in a state of kufr. End quote.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 17/291

He also said:

The one who denies the Hereafter but believes that this universe is created is described by Allah as a kaafir. The one who denies it and says that this universe existed from eternity is a worse kaafir in the sight of Allah, may He be exalted. End quote.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 17/291

He said (may Allah have mercy on him) refuting those who deny the Divine attributes:

(Denying the Divine attributes) implies complete denial which reaches the point that says: There is nothing that must exist and cannot have not existed. If he believes that and says: I do not affirm either existence or non-existence, then the answer to that is: Suppose you state that verbally and in your heart you do not believe either of the two; rather you turn away from knowing Allah and worshipping and remembering Him, so you never remember Him, worship Him, call upon Him, put your hope in Him or fear Him; (in that case) your denial of Him is worse than that of Iblees who (at least) acknowledged Him. End quote.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 5/356.

And he (may Allah have mercy on him) said:

The arrogant one is the one who does not acknowledge Allah outwardly, like Pharaoh. He is in a worse state of kufr than them (meaning the mushrik Arabs). Iblees, who enjoins all of that and loves it and is too arrogant to worship his Lord and obey him, is in a worse state of kufr than them (the mushrikeen), even though he was aware of the existence and might of Allah, just as Pharaoh was also aware of the existence of Allah. End quote.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 7/633

He also said:

The view of the philosophers -- those who say that the universe is eternal and that it is dependent on that which inevitably must exist -- came from the minds and hearts of those who worshipped heavenly bodies and made images of them on Earth, such as Aristotle and his followers. This view is worse kufr and is more misguided than that of the Arab mushrikeen who believed that Allah created the heavens and the earth and everything between them in six days by His will and power, but they attribute falsely without knowledge sons and daughters to Him (cf. al-An’am 6:100) and joined others in worship with Allaah, for which He had sent no authority (cf. Aal ‘Imraan 3:151). Similarly, the permissive people, who do not believe in any command or prohibition at all and refer to the Divine will and decree as an excuse for their evil deeds, are worse off than the Jews, Christians and Arab mushrikeen, because even though the latter are kaafirs, they still believe in some kind of command and prohibition, and the promise and warning (i.e., the Hereafter), but they had partners with Allaah (false gods) who instituted for them a religion which Allaah had not ordained (cf. al-Shoora 42:21), unlike the permissive people who ignore all laws altogether. They are only pleased with whatever suits their whims and desires, and they get angry on the basis of their whims and desires; they do not get pleased for the sake of Allah, or angry for the sake of Allah, or love for the sake of Allah, or hate for the sake of Allah; they do not enjoin that which Allah has enjoined and they do not forbid that which Allah has forbidden, unless that suits their whims and desires, in which case they do it for that purpose and not as an act of obedience to their Lord. Hence they do not denounce what takes place of kufr, evil doing and sin unless it goes against their whims and desires, in which case they will denounce it, prompted by their devilish nature and not prompted by sharee’ah and love of Allah. Hence the devils plunge them deeper into error, and they never stop short (cf. al-A’raaf 7:202), and the devils may show themselves to them and address them and help them with some of their whims and desires, as the devils used to do with the mushrikeen who worshipped idols. End quote.

Majmoo’ al-Fataawa, 8/457-458.

Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah be pleased with him) said: It is shirk to worship something other than Allah completely; that may be called shirk or kufr. Whoever turns away from Allah altogether and directs his worship to something other than Allah, such as trees, rocks, idols, the jinn or some of the dead, those whom they call awliya’ (“saints”), worshipping them or praying to them or fasting for them, and forgetting Allah altogether -- and this is the worst kind of kufr and shirk. We ask Allah to keep us safe and sound.

The same applies to denying the existence of Allah and saying that there is no God and life is material, like the Communists and atheists who deny the existence of Allah. These are the worst disbelievers among mankind, the most astray, the most involved in shirk and the most misguided. We ask Allah to keep us safe and sound. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 4/32-33

He also said (may Allah have mercy on him):

Meat slaughtered by Communists is haraam and is like the meat of the Magians and idol worshippers; in fact their meat is even more haraam, because their degree of kufr is greater due to their atheism and denial of the Creator (may He be glorified and exalted) and His Messenger, and other kinds of kufr. End quote.

Majmoo’ Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 23/30

And Allah knows best.



Islam Q&A

Why death is the punishment for Apostasy

This question has bees asked several time from non-Muslims and I want to find an answer: Why When the Muslim convert to another religion(Murtad) he/she should be killed?

Praise be to Allaah.

Your question may be answered by the following points:

(1) This is the ruling of Allaah and His Messenger, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." (reported by al-Bukhaari, al-Fath, no. 3017).

(2) The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah.

(3) By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

(4) The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed.

(5) If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?

(6) None of those who bleat about personal freedom and freedom of belief would put up with a neighbour’s child hitting their child or justify this as "personal freedom," so how can they justify leaving the true religion and rejecting the sharee’ah which Allaah revealed to teach mankind about His unity and bring justice and fairness to all?

We ask Allaah for safety and health. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad .




Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid