Stephen Hawking contradicts himself

It can be embarrassing and disastrous when someone competent in a field of knowledge starts to utter claims in a field that is not his. Embarrassing because he might say something stupid. Disastrous, because people have a tendency to assume that someone that is really famous and good at something in particular, automatically achieves expertise in something else, so they heed his words, and won’t even question what he says. That is why we see people listening to actors and singers about how they live their lives, even though they are often complete imbeciles.

Recently there has been much fuss over Hawking’s new book, where he allegedly says, “the universe can and will create itself from nothing.” This is a very stupid thing to say, because if there is nothing, then the universe does not exist, so how could it create itself??? He thinks the creation of the universe can be explained by physics, but physics does not explain anything, it only describes – if we do that, or this or that happens, then this happens. Why this happens – if the relationship is truly and really causal – is not something provable by observation. That is, the assumption that there are actual causal powers in matter is only a guess – such as the force of gravity. No one has ever seen “gravity” or known it to actually exist, it was assumed to exist because of the predictability of the behavior of large objects in light of their mass. It is pathetic that he does not seem to know – or hides – this fact.

Stephen, please stay in your lab, you have ventured into a field you don’t understand, apparently you know what you are doing when you are there. Your field is physics, not metaphysics.

One has to wonder though, if he really does not realize the silliness of what he is saying. Maybe he does, it is just that he wants to make people talk about his book, so he can make money. Subhaan Allaah, his life does not seem like a lot of fun, as crippled as he is, yet he hungers for it so much that he is willing to deny his Creator for a penny. If he refuses to admit to himself that this world needs a Creator, why isn’t he at least afraid of being wrong and of its consequences for him after his inevitable death? This by itself shows that he is not being rational about this. It is frightening how this life deceives even intelligent people with its small and absolutely temporary pleasures. We ask Allaah to give us wisdom and protect us from such madness.





























35 Responses to Stephen Hawking contradicts himself

  1. Souphienne says:

    Bismillah wassalam’aleykum,

    Jazakum Allahu Khairan Shaykh!


    Shaykh Al Bouti explain the same thing:the rational absurdity of the view holded by these “scientists”.(episode 4 of this series).
    It is interesting to see this serie from the beginning as Sahykh Al Bouti begins by explaining to us the limits of physics in the field of metaphysics(i.e. in the search of sound knowledge complying with sound rationnality).Just as it is beautifully explained by yourself here:

    Darwinism in the eye of the mind

    I have to say that it is disgusting to see how so called “educated” muslims don’t hesitate to take the stances of the atheist regarding the proofs of the Ash’aris scholars.
    In France we have for example Nidhal Guessoum,a muslim physicist, who doesn’t hesisate to take the works of Shaykh Al Buti calling them ignorance and in doing so pretending to talk in the name of sunni muslims as he is allowed to present his view in Ikhwani organisms.
    If we look at the enemies of the Ash’aris we see that amongst them there is the reformists(Ikhwans etc),the wahabis,some people like Ataturk and all these people have one thing in common:to have been helped or even created by the west in its endeavor to dismantle the khalifa and if along with that we see that a lot of authorities in the Ash’ari school are true Waly or even directly related by blood to Sahabah like Imam Al Ash’ari (radhi Allahu’anhu) or even to Rasul Allaah (sal Allaah ‘aleyhi wassalam) like Imam As-Sannussi (radhi Allahu’anhu),one of the foremost authority of the school which whose work is commented in this site:

    After knowing that how is it possible even for a common muslim to simply make taqlid of the Ash’ari school??
    Especially when you read the work of early orientalists from the beginning of colonialism who testify without hesitation that it is the Ash’ari school which was studied in the whole muslim world.These people knew that it was the real traditionnal sunni Islam and they choosed willingly to help the antropomorphist wahabis to weaken the Khalifa!How can a Muslim choose to trust Kufar in choosing the view he accept to be representing sunni Islam?One answer:Ignorance.

    Jazakum Allahu khairan Shaykh for your work!


  2. Abdullah says:

    Salaam Alaikum Shaykh ,
    I remember being present at a discussion with Atheists and they posed a very interesting question wich i am sure you will be able to elaborate on he asked: Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?

    • Waˆalaykumussalaam,

      The healing of amputees is a a possible event. Something that could be, just as not healing is possible, and Allaah chooses whatsoever He wills. He has no obligations, because He has no owner, creator or judge.

    • Ayman says:


      The website which is founded upon that question’s premise was established by Marshall Brain. The argument’s premises have been dealt with ad nausea. Essentially, the question is associated with the Problem of Evil and Suffering.

      Furthermore, the question is founded upon a rather mainstream Christian approach towards understanding God (although, many Christian philosophers have responded to this argument in varying ways).

      The argument can be formulated like this:

      1. If God exist(s) He would heal amputees miraculously
      2. There are no good reasons for not healing amputees
      3. Amputees are not being healed (in the way the question asks for – a “miracle”)
      4. Therefore God probably does not exist

      Notice the serious problems with the argument? It commits a major logical fallacy, and is essentially an argument from ignorance. Its very first premise places an obligation on God, and dictates what God SHOULD and WOULD do. This is based upon the superficial and limited understanding of Allah’s Will. It assumes that there is no Wisdom behind apparently “evil” aspects of life.

      The second premise also makes this mistake (i.e. it is an argument from ignorance). The third premise is an observation of the current condition of amputees, and is correct (generally, unless there are specific cases where they have been healed fully that I am unaware of). This does not imply that Allah cannot do this. It means that this is not what Allah has Willed.

      The conclusion is necessarily false because the premises from which it is derived are false or untenable.

      I hope that helps?

      Salaam and take care!

      • I took out the part about “plan”. The proper expression is something like “what Allah has predestined” or the like. Otherwise it was a good answer. You may choose to emphasize the point that Allaah has no creator or owner, and no judge, so no one has the right to judge Him. To label an event as “bad” or “evil” is a judgment, and a judgment cannot be without a judge. Since Allaah has no judge, no one has the right to question what He does.

      • Ayman says:


        Thanks for your feedback. I understand, I’ll use that phrase instead of “plan” from now on, Inshallah. Yes, that’s true, it is interesting that Atheist’s often use these kinds of arguments, when by their very worldview, the idea of “objective morality” becomes extremely difficult to defend.

  3. Abdullah says:

    Salaam Alaikum perhaps slightly off topic but Shaykh Abu Adam what are your views regarding Perennialist thought from the likes of Schuon and i read both Gai Eaton and Martin lings also belonged to the Perennialist school. Can you explain the Ahlul Sunnah view on such an ideology.

    • To believe that people of other religions are accepted by Allaah is kufr. As stated in the Qu’aan in so many places; Allaah only accepts Islam. There is also scholarly consensus upon this, as stated by Qaađii ˆIiaađ in his asħ-Sħifaa.

  4. Ahmed says:


    Do laws exist outside a mind ?

    If it is observed that the laws of universe began to exist along with beginning of the universe; does it imply that the cause/creator of the universe has to be attributed with a mind/knowledge (rather than mechanistic) ?

    Quran teaches that God created celestial bodies each moving in its fixed course

    21:33 {It is He Who created the night and the day, and the sun and the moon: All the celestial bodies swim along, each in its own rounded course.}

    while the naturalist will say laws of physics makes the planet move in a fixed course. how do we direct those who believe in naturalist laws back to God ?

    • Waˆalaykumussalaam,

      I suppose you mean the so called natural laws? These are no more than correlations created by Allaah between different events and their attributes. i.e. they are consistent relationships between existing things, not more.

  5. Ibn Ismail says:

    salamu alaulykum,

    How do you think should muslim respond to new atheism & their stench taking root in the muslim world ?

    These people have advantage over us as they are in control of the “scientific” studys constantly emitted. While our scholars are not even able to put up with large amount of info.

    Should we respond by the kalam way ? or by diving into spirituality and turning into a sign of God ?

    • I can’t understand what you mean by “turning into a sign of God,” but of course one needs to use kalaam. This is the reason why kalaam was developed in the first place.

    • Ayman says:

      Personally, I think its very important for Muslim intellectuals to be well acquainted with science (and other major and relevant fields of knowledge) in this age. We live in a time where the presence of so many conflicting beliefs, systems and ideologies causes much confusion, corruption (of our natural inclination towards Truth), and thus, an abandonment from the Straight Path.

      This does not mean that the arguments developed by brilliant Muslim Scholars are not relevant. In fact, many of the arguments are incredibly plausible. The real issue is that we are living in an age of ignorance. Most Atheists do not even understand Islam very well. I have been debating them for years now. I myself have had experiences with Agnostic Atheism, and so Allah (swt) has allowed for me to understand the position at least moderately well, Alhamdulillah.

      They often misrepresent Islam by categorizing it with other religions, and applying generalized arguments which may have relevance to other religions and their systems of thought, but certainly not with Islam. Examples include the idea that reason has no place in religion, religion’s suppress knowledge, are oppressive, backwards, based on superstition, have no detailed and impressive methodology which is objective in its search for Truth, are the products of limited human thought etc.

      All of this has been dealt with to the point of exhaustion. When I first started studying the ideas and arguments of Medieval Muslim theologians and philosophers (on the right path) and their insights into the fields of natural science, I could not help but be astonished at how intelligent they were.

      The same is true of the Companions of the Prophet Muhammad (p), and the early generations of Muslim leaders and thinkers on tread the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (p).

      For these reasons, Inshallah I am going to pursue studies in Neuroscience and Physics after completing my last year of high school, AND seek as much Islamic knowledge that I can. In actuality, I personally believe that, this should serve as one’s motivation to study science to begin with: becoming closer to Truth – to God by studying the signs He has embedded in the creation. I truly hope that I can find the means to become an Muslim scholar, Inshallah.

      • I ask Allaah you will succeed in your endeavor, you are obviously very intelligent for your age. I want to give you some advice also based on my experience, which is to not focus too much on kalaam at this stage. Make sure to study a basic text properly with a knowledgeable, humble and trustworthy scholar. Then, in terms of religion, make sure also to study a basic text in fiqh, and follow what it says with dedication. Later on you can engage in kalaam again if you are so inclined. Kalaam is the most important science, but it requires extreme care and steadfastness in terms of the basics, so as not to fall into the traps of the people you want to debate. It also often leads to pride. Being intelligent and defeating people in debates can easily make a person proud of himself, and gradually become proud of some wrong opinions as well. These are the dangers that made Al-Ghazaaliyy write books warning most people against engaging in kalaam and said it is only for the most pious that also have the necessary talent and inclination.

        One more thing, the kalaam scholars’ arguments are not just “incredible plausible,” their main arguments for core beliefs are actually necessarily true. I am sure you agree with this, it was probably a slip of the pen.

        And another point, kalaam can benefit from physics, and the other way around, but kalaam does not depend on physics. The basic arguments of kalaam are based on premises that do not depend on the findings of physics. They are based on the existence of change, and this is not something that one needs physics to establish. However, physics can be helpful in gathering more examples of how the various changes that take place need a creator due to their complexity, etc. It is kalaam that is the prince of sciences, not physics.

      • Ayman says:


        Thank you very much for your insightful feedback, and your Duaa. Yes, I understand, that’s a very important point. I’ll have to ensure I follow the stages of study.

        That’s also very true about the development of arrogance and pride if one attains a certain level of intelligence, and fails to constantly remember that it was only by Allah’s Will, and that their knowledge is still truly lacking (i.e. there are many things they do not know, and perhaps will never know). I find that the more I learn, the more I realize how finite my knowledge truly is, and Inshallah Allah (swt) will keep me away from pride.

        My apologies, I meant to express my awe at the intelligence and brilliance of the traditional scholars (something many non-Muslim’s are completely unaware of) in general. Including the quality and quantity of works produced by them. Yes, I certainly agree, their main arguments for central beliefs are necessarily true. I am not sure if all of their arguments dealing other issues were true or not, however, I think it can still safely be said that those arguments still exhibited their intelligence. It makes it clear to me that I have much to learn, and a certain way to acquire this knowledge, Inshallah.

        Definitely. That’s one reason I wish to study physics, although I recognize that its not absolutely necessary for the arguments, as the premises are sound. I just think that in this age, it would be highly beneficial and build deeper understanding for Muslims (i.e. of how the Creation works by the Will of Allah), Inshallah.

        Thank you and Salaam,


      • Waˆalaykumussalaam,

        No, not all arguments presented are of the same rank. Many arguments are just used as additional tools for convincing, for the purpose of quantity. A very important guideline here is scripture and also ijmaa^. For example, many aayaat tell us that the proof Allaah’s existence is unequivocal, and give the general arguments to build upon, such as Prophet Ibraahiim’s argument to show his people that whatever can vanish cannot be god.


  6. Ayman says:

    Assalamulaikum dear Shaykh,

    I was wondering if the following insights were in line with the concept of “created cause” you mention when speaking of all of the individually created aspects of reality which correlate with one another, or operate as a process:

    I cite the Muslim Physicist and thinker Mehdi Golshani:

    “The existence of certain patterns in nature means the existence of natural laws, and this in turn means that the principle of causality is valid. This, however, does not imply that events are totally independent of God. Rather, it implies that everything is realized by God’s will, but through definite secondary causes. Here we cite one example:

    As for the good land, its vegetation springs forth by the permission of its Lord, and [as for] that which is inferior [its herbage] comes forth but scantly … (7 : 58)
    This means that although God’s will is necessary for the growth of plants, the fertility of the land is also a condition. Some well-known Muslim theologians, particularly, of the Asharites School, used some verses of the Quran of the type
    The commandment is wholly God’s … (7 : 54)
    and some verses that indicate the occurrence of miracles, to refute the rule of causality in the physical world, and they attributed the occurrence of every event to God’s will. In their view the connection between what is usually believed to be a cause and what is believed to be an effect is not a necessary connection. Thus, e.g., it is not fire which causes the cotton to burn, rather, it is God who makes the cotton to burn and if God does not want, the fire will not burn the cotton (Al-Ghazali 1997). These theologians thought that the admittance of secondary causes would result in denying God’s power.
    In refuting the Asharites view, Muslim philosophers argued in the following way :
    (i) The coincidence of two causes operating on a single object is impossible if the relation of the two causes is horizontal. But, in a vertical system of causes one can attribute every event to God, because He gives it existence. But the emanation takes place through definite means.
    (ii) In the case material beings, what is commonly called “cause” is not the efficient cause. Rather, it is an intermediary or secondary cause which prepares the ground for God’s bounty. Mulla-Sadra explains Muslim philosopher’s view (Sadr al-Din Shirazi 1981) :
    Another group of philosophers and some elite among our Imamiah scholars say that objects vary in their acceptance of existence from the Origin. Some do not yield to existence unless another being precedes them, in the same way that accident should follow substance. Thus, the Creator, whose power is unlimited, grants the existence according to the possibilities through a particular order and in consideration of its various capabilities. Some come directly from Him, some through an intermediary or intermediaries. In the last form, nothing can come into existence unless its means and pre-requisites come into reality. God Himself is the Cause without a cause. Requirements for existence are not the result of deficiency in the Almighty’s power, but due to weakness in the receiver of emanation. How can one imagine any need or deficiency in the Creator, while means and ways are all originated from Him ? Therefore, the Glorious God does not need any help in the creation of anything.”

    Thank you for your time,


    • This author is an Aristotelean philosopher, seeing the Creator as a cause, and does not represent the Islamic view. He holds that the physical laws of the universe are unbreakable even to the creator, and for miracles to occur this claimed deity would have to passify it through another law. These ideas are based on the belief that the universe is eternal, thus he says, “objects vary in their acceptance of existence from the Origin.” This rule of theirs is pure imagination, and its persuasiveness to their minds comes from seeing consistent correlations such as fire-> burn which fools them to think that fire actually necessitates burning if the conditions are present (e.g burnable material) and there are no hindrances (e.g. water). Look how he claims, “This means that although God’s will is necessary for the growth of plants, the fertility of the land is also a condition.” In other words, he is saying that Allaah needs fertile land to create plants, and cannot create them elsewhere. This is claim is against Islam, and involves attributing weakness to the creator, which is kufr. The correct belief is that fertile land is a normal condition, that is, Allaah has willed for plants to only normally grow in fertile soil. This is a correlation only, that Allaah has willed to hold in this world. He specified and created every instant of growth and every instant of fertile soil. He could have willed for this correlation of plant growth to be linked with pure iron and draught instead. The author’s claim to have support in the aayah is pathetic, because all it does is describe what is normal. If you want an aayah that shows that what is normal is simply correlation in reality, see for example al-Forqaan, 45, where it states that a shadow would not become longer unless Allaah has willed it.

      The purely reason based answer to his claims is the same proof that is used to show that the world must have a beginning, and therefore a Creator, as shown in “Foundations of the Religion.” Accordingly, the world is possible in existence, and all its parts (events) are therefore intrinsically possible, and there is no difference between them in this. Or, to put it another way, since Allaah brought the first events into existence, it means that He has the power to create any event, or not to create it. Claiming that events started creating each other by causal necessity, not by the absolute and intermediary-less creating of Allaah, is to claim that He became limited after having been unlimited in Will and Power, and in need of a creation to create another event. This is a kufr belief. (see also Hints to the meanings Of Tawhiid In Throwing The Pebbles In Hajj by Ibn ˆArabiyy, in which the latter addresses some of the ideas of the philosophers)

      Allaah created correlations between certain events, and these are what we normally refer to as causes. For example fire->heat water-> plants, sun+object blocking->shadow, and so on, but none of this is necessary in the mind’s eye. These causes are a grace from Allaah that has at least 3 major benefits. First, it gives our daily life some level of predictability. Imagine walking down the road, and then suddenly there is no gravity any more, or asphalt became water…. We would not survive without causes to give us expectations for how events relate. Second, it enables us to recognize prophets through their miracles. If there were no rules that normally did not have exceptions, we would not be able to say, “this man has the Creator’s support in his claim of prophethood.” Third, it lets us recognize His Wisdom in how the world is arranged, and his gifts. For example, rain for plants is a mercy from Him.

      • Ayman says:

        Assalamulaikum dear Shaykh,

        JazakAllah Khayr, that was an informative response. Thank you for taking the time to analyze those ideas, and for identifying him as an Aristotelian philosopher.

        Your response has reminded me of a compilation by a Muslim thinker named Adam Deen. It is entitled “The Philosophy of Miracles” and attempts to explain the concept of a miracle, and to reconcile it against misconceptions. I am definitely interested in your opinion of the concepts he elaborates upon.

        I understand that you must be busy, so please feel free to get back to me whenever is most convenient for you.

        Thank you once again and Salaam,


      • Very long winded and confused. In reality the so-called natural laws are just correlations. For example, fire is hot, because Allaah has willed for every single normal instance of fire to have the attribute of heat. This is what makes ignorant people have the illusion that heat is a necessary attribute of a body of fire. Actually, for every instance Allaah has specified and created for it both the fire and the heat. Extraordinary fire would be a body of fire that would normally be hot giving no heat, which would mean that Allaah created the fire in this case, but no heat. So this explains fire that did not burn Prophet Ibraahiim. It would normally burn, but did not. Likewise, the moon splitting is an instance where the correlations (which make people conclude there is necessary gravity in objects etc.) did not hold for that instance. In short, Allaah creates and specifies every single event in the universe, and the correlations between them are normal, and not necessary.

      • Ayman says:

        Assalamulaikum dear Shaykh,

        Thanks for taking the time to visit that link. I agree that the wording is unnecessarily verbose. However, it doesn’t seem that the author is arguing that the natural laws are anything other than correlations (that we normally experience, willed by Allah. Rather, it appears he is arguing that, from the perspective of a naturalist, the concept of a violation would not make sense, as the naturalist would think “hmmmm, this means that this inconsistency is also part of the law.”

        Natural laws are essentially patterns people observe, and so one who does not believe in Allah, would think that any apparent violation was just a part of the pattern that he does not understand. Even though, it was the will of Allah.

        So, brother Adam Deen rephrased a “miracle” to a more coherent definition (i.e. so that naturalists would not be able to use that objection):

        “’events which lie outside the productive capacity of nature’ What this means is that miracles are acts of impossibilities concerning causal or logical connections.”

        Hamza Andreas Tzortzis, then goes on to argue:

        “What makes the Qur’an a miracle, is that it lies outside the productive capacity of the nature of the Arabic language. The productive capacity of nature, concerning the Arabic language, is that any grammatically sound expression of the Arabic language will always fall within the known Arabic literary forms of Prose and Poetry.

        The Qur’an is a miracle as its literary form cannot be explained via the productive capacity of the Arabic language, because all the possible combinations of Arabic words, letters and grammatical rules have been exhausted and yet the Qur’an’s literary form has not been imitated.”

        So, it appears that they were arguing that based on the naturalists’ understanding of the laws of “nature” (i.e. in reality normal correlations), phenomena such as the Qur’an cannot be explained, along with other miracles (even though they are also just by the will of Allah), unless you acknowledge that there is a Creator who CAN make this happen. This way, the naturalist cannot simply argue that the phenomena is also part of the observed patterns (i.e. “natural laws”).

        Thanks again for your feedback, as many have assumed that these correlations are necessary, when, as you have pointed out they are merely generalizations of how the universes normally seems.

        With Peace,


      • Waˆalaykumussalaam, the problem with this is that nature does not in reality have productive capacity. The extraordinary events of miracles are called “normally impossible” in Islamic terms. However, as I have repeatedly emphasized on this site: any discussion with a kafir has to start with tawhiid, not with miracles. It is in tawhiid the naturalist assumptions are destroyed, not when discussing miracles. Why? Because in tawhiid we establish that this world is not created by nature. You cannot do that by changing definitions.

    • Abu Abdillah says:

      Assalâmu ‘Aleykum wa RahamtulLâh brother Ayman,

      Mulla Sadri was a Twelver Shi`i. Twelver Shi`a believes are very close to the Mu’tazilah. For example they believe the following in which there is consensus among their scholars:

      2- ويعتقد أن الله تعالى هو محدث جميعه، من أجسامه، وأعراضه، إلا أفعال العباد الواقعة منهم، فإنهم محدثوها دونه سبحانه

      2 – And that he believes that Allah ta`ala, He is the originator of all of it, of its bodies and its accidents, except for the acts of the servants occurring from them, for they are their originators, not He, glory be to Him.
      (“Mukhtasar ‘Aqa’id al-Shi’a al-Imamiyyah”)

      There is no comment needed for the above for it’s purely blasphemy. So brother, avoid their beliefs and books.

      Wassalâmu ‘aleykum

  7. —–
    “How do you think should muslim respond to new atheism & their stench taking root in the muslim world ?”

    This is a very dangerous and tricky battle, not because it is complex by any means, but because the scholars of duniya have been spoiling it for Muslims. Imam Rabbani speaks in his Maktubat about how nasty and severe the damage caused by the scholars of duniya is. We have plenty of scholars of duniya in our times.

    Basically, the forces of kufr control both sides of this argument and the scholars of duniya who only abuse Islam and the trust of the Muslim people to advance their aims of seeking fame and riches, simply can’t see this farce.

    On the one side you have atheists. On the other hand, there is some sort of a movement going on that is supposedly aligning all religions as being “moral” and on equal footing against atheism.

    People fall in the trap when they think they are doing the right thing to oppose atheism and in the process think they can align with “religions” because they are “moral” and “humane”.

    We should note that as far as Islam is concerned, ALL kufr is the same because eventually it is all disbelief, our elders have made it clear that there is no such thing as better kufr – AND that there is ABSOLUTELY NO equality of Islam with other religions.

    It’s like asking someone if he would like to have his head banged on a rock or a hard place!

    The situation itself is not tricky at all but it has been exploited by the scholars of duniya because they seek fame and riches out of such ventures joining hands with kuffaar. Obviously, they will be caught out very easily if they join hands with “atheism”, so they seek to join hands with “religions” because of “morality” and “humanity” and in the process help in hurting Islam and propagating disbelief by both explicitly and implicitly giving the message that “all religions are the same. they all give the same message.”

    Both atheism and “other religions” are one and the same kufr to us.

    Islam is on a separate side and all of kufr is on a separate side. This is what our elders have taught us always and very explicitly.

    “Should we respond by the kalam way ?”

    Whether it is Kalam, or Quran, or Hadith, or Fiqh, or Tasawwuf – it has GOT TO BE an ISLAM ONLY way – exclusive to Muslims, that puts all kufr on equal footing and establishes that Islam is against all kufr.

    The shaykh can respond which would be the best way to respond, and alhamdulillaah, our esteemed elders of the ummah, regardless if they are scholars of Kalam or Fiqh or Tasawwuf, in all cases they have established sound arguments against kufr and have always uplifted Islam, be it from any angle.

    They have NEVER chosen to equate any form of kufr as equal to Islam against another form of kufr!

    This is what Imam Rabbani also sought to revive because in his times too people claiming to be following “tasawwuf” had resorted to such a culture of equating Islam and kufr.

    In our times too, people claiming to be “Sunnis” and “Ash’aris” and “Maturidis” and people of “tasawwuf” are also seeking to equate Islam and kufr, all in the name of “promoting peace” and “opposing wahabi-ism”, which is a lie. They only seek to earn duniya and spread mischief and don’t care for Islam or “world peace”.

    They forget that the true elders of the Ahlus Sunnah and the people of tasawwuf have always been the lions of Islam who have always sought to uplift and promote Islam and prevent the spread of kufr.

    In sha Allah soon this wave of perennialism and fake tasawwuf shall also subside.

    “or by diving into spirituality and turning into a sign of God ?”

    I don’t know what you mean by that sentence, but if this refers to “uniting” with other “religious” people against atheism, like how the fake “sufis” have been doing lately displaying moral vanity uniting and joining hands with other religions, all in the name of promoting “peace” and finding “common grounds” – then as I said, we are squarely falling into the trap of the kuffaar. We are simply choosing one kufr (religions) over another kufr (atheism).

    The message of Islam is simple.

    It is THE ONLY religion acceptable to Allah. (Quran 3:19).

    Islam is the opposite of kufr. Islam is good, kufr is evil. Islam is pure, kufr is filthy. Islam is light, kufr is darkness. Islam is beautiful, kufr is ugly.

    Islam is SIMPLY NOT equal to kufr,

    be it other religions (hinduism, buddhism, christianity, judaism, sikhism, jainism, scientology, shintoism, or any religion),


    be it atheism.

  8. Ibn Ismail says:

    salam alaykum,

    I would say there are three issues when dealing with atheism:

    Libertinism: This disease is mostly to be found among the financially sound or west worshipping modernists. Their atheism is more of a curse resulting from base desires or hearts being blackened by sins.

    Disgruntalism: This is due to the pathetic state of our ummah like radical sectarianism. Atheism in Iraq & Pakistan, for example, seems to be a result of this. Other forms of personal disgruntalism being bad parenthood, broken love affairs, domestic violence, hypocritical leadership, etc.

    Delusion of Intellectual Superiority: And this i believe is most dangerous from intellectual perspective. They read a couple of new atheist books which give the appeal to scientism and than they boast and spread around those ideas which seem intellectually appealing to the “half- learnts”. They have a bunch of short attractive captions, questions, mock-lines that they spit every time they see a layman muslim. They than fall into the delusion of supposing themselves as intellectually superior while muslims being a bunch of superstitious sheep being brainwashed from childhood by Imams. While reality is that they have never asked these questions to scholars who know or read books from scholars who know. They do not have any intellectual foundations nor tasted true knowledge.
    I would say we need more books that would respond to their fallacious claims and equip general muslims with ability to defend islamic foundations in modern simplistic intellectual manner. Asking questions is something ingrained in nature. When muslims come across atheist questions it will take root in their hearts and grow until they find a satisfactory answer/cure. There should be books/media that provides intellectually satisfying answers to muslim especially on the foundations and provides muslims with foundations for clear thinking. It seems that a large % of muslims today cannot even coherently respond to basic challenges like “prove there is God”.

    And finally two important lessons from Hujjatul Islam Imam Gazzali(r) :

    “Remedies vary according to the nature of the
    disease; those which benefit some may injure others.”

    “It was plain to me that, in order to discover where the professors of any branch of knowledge have erred, one must make a profound study of that science; must equal, nay surpass, those who know most of it, so as to penetrate into secrets of it unknown to them. Only by this method can they be completely answered…..”

  9. Ibn Ismail says:

    ” However, atheism is the same today as it was 1000 years ago. Nothing new that has not been answered, at least not in principle.”

    Indeed, the atheists from around the 18th century onwards are simply reviving the ancient materialist Epicurean doctrines. Back then, the Deists and Christians had done much in refuting the epicureans, after which the mutakallim’s refuted and buried all of the falsehood that the deists had carried along.

    History repeats itself, maybe, if needed, there would be another round of Imam Gazzali’s to arrive to bury the revived falsehood.

  10. saba says:

    my question is- if u say that there is no way dat the universe got created on its own n that it has to hav a creater, how cum god doesnt hav a creater? How dd he originate then?

  11. Rashid says:

    Assalam U Alaikum,

    Dear Shaykh,

    Is Hamza Andreas Tzortzis a Sunni scholar? Are his views pertaining to causality correct?

    • Waˆalaykumussalaam,

      I do not know him. Note that there is no cause in the philosophical sense that objects of the universe actually have intrinsic power to affect things. Objects and beings in the universe cannot necessitate another event, in other words. Every event is willed and created by Allaah. What we normally call causation is actually just a correlation that Allaah has created between certain types of events. The question that Hamza Tzortis can be responded to by asking the questioner to define time and cause. Take a look in the table of contents on this site. There are a couple of articles about time there that are important.

  12. ehlusunnet says:

    As-salamu alaykum

    I think that this is exactly that what can be seen in the causal proof of God’s existence. The axiomes which are defined in physics to describe the nature are actually dogmas. Without axiomes (dogma) there is no science because you have to start from a point.
    I once heard that Hawking says that the law of gravity can explain how the universe was born. The problem is that without universe there is no law of gravity.

    • For there to be knowledge at all there must be certain facts or principle that are taken for granted. One of the is the law of non-contradiction, namely that two perfectly opposite statements cannot be true at the same time. E.g. 1 cannot be equal to -1. Surely gravity is NOT such a principle, and you are right, gravity is only conceivable when there is something that gravitates.

  13. Supernova Kasprzak says:

    What a narrow view of Stephen Hawking. The man is a scientist, so that’s all he is? Can he not be an expert on more than one thing at a time? And is it necessary to be “an expert” before one comments publicly on what one believes?

    Any why the personal attack? By pointing out that his “crippled” condition “must not be fun”, are you suggesting that there are no crippled Muslims? Would their lack of fun demonstrate that they are not Muslim? I know that you’re not necessarily saying that one caused the other, but if that’s not what you’re saying, then pointing out his condition was irrelevant — as I suggested, it’s just a “personal attack”, much like the selective use of “stupid” and “pathetic” to describe his views.

    Your statement that “the assumption that there are actual causal powers in matter is only a guess” is very telling — I’ve seen the same assumption of causation in your own arguments about the beginning of the universe. I’m guessing that you can’t give him the same benefit of the doubt that you give yourself because of your bias for Islam and against Stephen Hawking.

    • a – The personal attack and description of his views are meant to remove the sense of awe such a famous name tends to bring. I don’t expect you to agree and have no interest in discussing it further because our premises are far apart. b – Finally, no, I didn’t make the “the same assumption of causation”. I don’t believe that matter has intrinsic causal powers, neither created nor eternal. I have never said that and I do not assume it.

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: