|| Topic: Ahmad Deedat
Joined: Oct 2008
Al-Albaani on Ahmed Deedat |
Translated by Ahmed Abu Turaab
With regard to Shaikh Ahmed Deedat, some people say, and we asked about his methodology, and, inshaa Allaah naturally it will be from the good methodologies, so some people say, the methodology is not important, the important thing is that he is a Muslim ı so if you could clarify this for us O Shaikh, and may Allaah reward you with good.
Shaikh al-Albaani: We truly hope that Shaikh Ahmed is on the Salafi methodology of old, who believe in Allaah and worship Him as He truly ought to be worshipped.
But we need to always remember [generally] that just because a person believes in the presence of a creator of this universe this does not mean that he has become a believer. Two fundamental conditions must be met:
The first: that he bear witness that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah.
The second: that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah.
The first condition, that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah does not only mean that the Creator of the universe is One, because it is possible that faith and disbelief come together in one person, faith and disbelief may come together in one person. The one who says, ıNone has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah,ı [then] naturally this saying has prerequisites, these prerequisites being connected to these two testimonies.
So if we were to picture a person who bears witness that, ıNone has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah,ı but [at the same time] he says that the Quraan is deficient ı if we were to picture a person who bears witness that, ıNone has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah,ı but [at the same time] he says that the Quraan is deficient, then the testimony of Laa ilaaha illallaah has not benefitted this person, because it is like honey poured on to something bitter, ruining it.
And in the same way belief and disbelief gathers in a person, for this reason He, the Most High, said about the early polytheists, ıAnd most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him.ı [Yusuf 12:106]. This aayah shows us that these people are believers but that at the same time they are polytheists, and most of them believe not in Allaah except that their condition is this, that they are polytheists.
So, faith and disbelief can be present in a person, I gave you an example of a person who testifies that none has the right to be worshipped except Allaah and that Muhammad is the Messenger of Allaah but [he says], ıThe Quraan is deficient,ı this is shirk, but [the person who said this] believes in Allaah and believes in the Messenger of Allaah, so His Saying, the Most High, applies to him, ıAnd most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him.ı
To be precise in this topic, i.e., that it is possible that faith and disbelief be present in a person, faith and tawheed and shirk, the Saying of our Lord, ıAnd most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him,ı applies to most of the people even in this time [of ours].
Let us take a look at the reality, those Muslims who pray, fast, perform Hajj and give charity, they go to a certain place, or to a grave of the Allies of Allaah [Awliyaa], to seek intercession from them, to seek well-being from them, these people [are from those to whom the Saying of Allaah applies], ıAnd most of them believe not in Allah except that they attribute partners unto Him.ı
They know that Allaah exists, but they worshipped others along with Him, whereas Allaah had said [in the Quraan], ıYou (Alone) we worship, and You (Alone) we ask for help (for each and everything),ı [Al-Faatihah 1:5], so they sought the aid of other than Him, the Most High.
For this reason, the verifying scholars categorised tawhid into three types:
1 Tawhid ar-Ruboobiyyah (Maintaining the Unity of Lordship)
2 Tawhid al-Uluhiyyah (Singling out Allaah with worship)
3 Tawhid al-Asmaa was-Sifaat (Maintaining the Unity of Allaahıs Names and Attributes)
Namely that Allaah is One in His Essence, One in the fact that He is the only One who deserves to be worshipped, none other than Him is to be worshipped, and that He is One in His Attributes, ıThere is nothing like unto Him,ı [Ash-Shuraa 42:11]. This does not mean that Allaah exists and thatıs it! No, [but rather that] Allaah exists and nothing from His Creation resembles Him.
So for example, in their celebrations the Christians spread these pictures, you will see pictures of their lord, an old Shaikh, with a long white beard, is that the Lord of all Creation whom nothing resembles?
The Jews and the Christians believe that this universe has a creator, so they believe in the first type of tawhid, what is it called? Tawhid ar-Ruboobiyyah (Maintaining the Unity of Lordship), i.e., that this universe has a creator.
Questioner: Is the one who says this an atheist?
Shaikh al-Albaani: They differ from the atheists or naturalists, those who say there is no creator and no creation, the Jews and the Christians say that Allaah is the One who created the universe so they are monotheists in Tawhid ar-Ruboobiyyah, but when it comes to tawhid al-uluhiyyah, the tawhid of worship, then the Jews worshipped Uzair and the Christians worshipped Jesus.
These people disbelieved in the tawhid of worship, so they do not say, ıNone has the right to be worshipped except Allaah,ı and if they have said it, then it is either out of hypocrisy or ignorance as to its true meaning, for if not, if they said it believing in it, they would not have worshipped Jesus, nor would they have submitted to him, or prostrated to him and so on, nor would they have placed his image and that of his mother Maryam in the churches.
These people are believers from one angle, and disbelievers from another since they are not like the atheists who say there is no god, no, they do say that Allaah exists, but look what is the benefit of that saying when they liken Allaah to His Creation?
Questioner: Or when they worship others alongside Him?
Shaikh al-Albaani: Or when they worship others alongside Him, ah, here is the [main] point from [all of] this talkımany of the Muslims, and I do not only mean their general masses, but many of their scholars or students of knowledge too, say, ıNone has the right to be worshipped except Allaah,ı but they worship other than Allaah, and they disbelieve in Him as regards His Attributes.
Now for example, we know that many of them other than those we just pointed to, [we know that] they call on the dead and the righteous, submitting to them, praying by them and so on, they say that Allaah exists in all places, [but indeed] Allaah is greater than all things, and He was in existence when there was nothing other than Him, so what/how is it that you went and put Him and the universe together [as one]? To such an extent that some of them said, ıAnd Allaah in relation to these Shaikhs ı is but as a snowflake in water.ı
Can you differentiate between snow and water? This is Allaah in the eyes of these people, this is disbelief. In the Noble Quraan it says that Allaah is Self-sufficent and in no need whatsoever of His Creation, [but] these [people] have gathered Him [in the same category as] the creation like a silkworm which harms itself, it digs itself in and becomes strangulated and diesı[but the reality is that] Allaah is in no need of the worlds whatsoever, so these people have believed from one angle and disbelieved from the other.
For this reason, and in reality it matters to us that Shaikh Ahmed [Deedat], may Allaah reward him with good, has fulfilled a great obligatory action, but this undertaking and this exertion [jihaad] will only benefit him if he believes in Allaah as one Lord, as [the only] One who is worshipped, [i.e., fulfilling all requirements of tawhid like all Muslims should] and what is not meant by [this saying], ıthat He is the only One worshipped,ı [is to restrict it to only mean] that he prays just to Him, no, for if he called upon Khidr in a time of need then he would not have worshipped Allaah alone, since supplication is part of worship, he (صلى الله عليه وسلم) said, ıDuıaa is worship.ı
So we hope that he [i.e., Deedat] has studied the correct tawhid in his land so that he is a muwahhid [monotheist, who] singles Allaah out solely in His Essence, in His worship, a muwahhid of Allaah, the Mighty and Majestic, in relation to His Attributes, [i.e., the] three [categories of tawhid], and then his jihaad would be something about which we could say that he has performed an obligatory duty that all of the [other] Shaikhs did not carry out.
Questioner: Allaahu Akbar.
Shaikh al-Albaani: Yes, by Allaah. May Allaah reward him with good.
Questioner: May Allaah bless you, our Shaikh, may Allaah bless us by [allowing us to benefit from] your life, inshaa Allaah.
Shaikh al-Albaani: May Allaah protect you.
Questioner: Please carry on, our Shaikh.
Shaikh al-Albaani: What is meant by Tawheed ar-Rububiyyah is that the Muslim decisively believes that the Creator of this universe and all that it contains is one in His Essence, having no equal/opponent, no partner.
The Magians believe that there are two gods, a god of evil and a god of good, they committed shirk in [the first category] Tawhid ar-Rububiyyah, do you understand?
So if the Muslim, Allaah forbid, were to believe that there are Allies of Allaah [Awliyaa] and righteous people who can harm and benefit along with Allaah, and who can give life and death, and who can feed and give provisions, [then] he would have disbelieved in tawhid, tawhid ar-Rububiyyah, and would have associated partners with Him, because [through this belief of his] he would have held there to be two creators: [he would have held that] Allaah creates the good and evil and that likewise the Allies of Allaah [Awliyaa] and the righteous people give provisions, give life and death, and for this reason he [such a Muslim] goes to them, seeking blessings from them.
Question: There are many women who cannot get pregnant who take themselves and go to a tree under which there is the grave of a wali and so she will tie things above [the grave on the tree] and so on, yes.
Shaikh al-Albaani: Allaahu Akbar, this is shirk in rububiyyah. Shirk in Lordship [uluhiyyah] is shirk in worship, and it is that someone worships other than Allaah while believing that Allaah is One in His Essence but [at the same time] he slaughters for such and such wali, this is shirk in worship, he calls upon so and so the wali, [even though] that wali has become dust in his grave, a man from mankind, [but this Muslim] believes that he can hear and save him, and harm and benefit, this would then have become shirk in worship.ı
Mawsooıatul-Allaamah, al-Imaam, Mujaddidil-Asr, Muhammad Naasirid-Deen al-Albaani, of Shaikh Shady Noaman, vol.2, pp. 59-64.
Joined: Jun 2007
May Allah reward you, yaa Akhee. I realize this is old; but, do you have the Arabic copy/recording of Shaikh Mohammad's exact words? |
..Unity with those who seek to poison, distort, or dilute the Sunnah with their innovations? NEVER!!!
Joined: Oct 2008
There is a video on youtube "Ahmad Deedat in Favour of Celebrating Mawlid & Christmas !" also his student Zakir Naik in another video says that Birthday and Anniversary celebration is ok. |
Joined: Jun 2008
Metaphorically we are all the children of God, the good and the bad, and Jesus would be closer to being the son of God than any one of us, because he would be more faithful to God then any one of us can ever be. From that point of view he is preeminently the son of God.
(Ahmed Deedat, Christ in Islam , Chapter 5, under the heading "Reason for Objection")
What Muslim would ever open up this line of thinking? Could one ever imagine the most ignorant Muslim, who just recited the shahaadah, saying such things?
If Jesus was more faithful than any one of us, why didn't Ahmed Deedat just say, "He would be more faithful to God then any one of us can ever be," and leave it at that? Did he have to degrade Allah (subhaanahu 'ammaa yasifoon)?
Joined: Apr 2003
Barakallahu Feek, |
This is what I needed.
Rajaey Ibn AbdilHameed al Phalastinee
Joined: Dec 2002
As sallam ualaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatahu |
Sheikh Muhammed?s advice on not giving the material of Ahmed Deedat if it has mistakes in it is very pertinent as the mans dawah material is absolutely ridden with hideous calamities. I never really realized that the man was this off (even though I had heard things) until just recently when I pulled out a few of his old dawah booklets. Really, yaa Ikhwaan wa Akhawaat, I hope that after reading the following observations which I have made on this man, we can all thank Allah that He has guided us to Dawah-tu-Saalafiyya and made us Salafis who go back to the scholars of this deen and not to every individual who speaks charismatically or is well known. I say this here, because I know that many people when they started to practice Islam, it was the dawah of Ahmed Deedat which influenced them, including myself. It is truly amazing, that having read his booklets probably hundreds of times and given many of them out for dawah, one never saw these glaringly obvious calamities all those years ago. This can only be from the guidance of Allah, Ar-Rahman, Ar-Raheem, that I (and others) were guided to this blessed dawah whilst these (and other deviant) booklets were made to be pushed back to the dark corners of the lowest bookshelves in our houses. Wa lillahil hamd.
It must be remembered that these observations are mainly from his booklets. I don?t have the time (and nor do I want to) to make a through content analysis of Deedat?s material, and I certainly don?t want to get a TV and video just so that I can analyse the mistakes in his videoed lectures!!!!. But without doubt, I am sure that more calamities would emerge from this mans dawah.
In the Name of Allah, the Most Merciful, the Bestower of Mercy
THE CALAMITIES OF AHMED DEEDAT.
- Ahmed Deedat gives no importance to the call to Tawheed. In fact Deedat, is a clear Jaahil (as will be shown inshallah) of this deen. Numerous times he has stated in his books and videos that he is not a scholar on Islam. On the other hand, he has often expressed or acknowledged that he is a ?Muslim scholar of the Bible?.
- This reluctance to give Islamic learning priority over learning about Christianity is reflected in him exhorting the Muslim readers to memorize passages of the Bible to refute the Christians. In fact, Deedat even equates the usage of the Bible in gaining knowledge! (emphasis mine):
?Allah can transform nations and peoples by his Own Will, but He has given us the privilege of serving His Deen by personal self-sacrifice. To be an effective soldier in this battle, arm yourself with John 16:7 in one or more languages (see page 15) AND WATCH HOW ALLAH FILLS YOU WITH MORE KNOWLEDGE?. (Muhummed, the Natural Successor to Christ p.60).
It is therefore not surprising when Deedat then even encourages the reading of the whole book and even offers to give it out free to the Muslims!:
?You owe it to yourself to read it just once in your lifetime. After that, you will really appreciate the Holy Qur?an! If you do not own a Bible, and if you are a Muslim, you will get a free copy from the address at the bottom of this page?. (Is The Bible God?s Word? P.41)
So high is this on his agenda for dawah, that he even exhorts Muslims who can read Arabic to learn passages of the Bible in Arabic to give dawah! (Muhummed, the Natural Successor to Christ p.15). In this same booklet, Ahmed Deedat mentions how he spoke to an Egyptian Christian woman at the airport in Cairo in his ?broken Arabic?. But when he quoted the Bible to her it was in ?meticulous Arabic?!!! (ibid page 14). This shows us how little importance he gives to learning the language of the religion he is propagating. This is even more visible when he recites the Quran in his videos; it is clearly obvious that he can?t recite properly. This emphasis on memorizing passages from the scriptures of the people of the book is clearly not from the manhaj of the dawah. Such is the man?s ignorance and stubbornness, that when he is asked by people as to why he doesn?t speak Arabic, he turns the attention away from his own shortcomings and instead starts attacking the Arabs instead. An example of this is in an interview which he had with the Nid?a ul Islam magazine (may-June 1996) when he was on a tour of Australia. Upon mentioning that he was confronted by an Arabic professor from the Emirates about his inability to speak Arabic, Deedat proceeded to launch a vicious attack on the Arabs accusing them of doing no dawah at all to the Arab Christians:
?What have you been doing for one thousand four hundred years, you have been living in Lebanon?.You were the masters of Egypt for 1400 years, what did you do?, what did you do? When they were swearing at Allah, what did you do? Did you talk to them, now you want to know how Deedat does the job, Deedat stirs friction and creates reaction, you are not doing your job. Your Shaykhs and Imams, they are not doing their jobs? you have no right to point the finger at me, the Muslim, you have no right, you bloody hypocrite, you have no right, you read the Qur'an in Arabic, you understand. Allah is telling you: "O people of the book do not go to extremes in your religion." Is that what you are telling the Christians, are you? Where in Egypt, where in Saudi Arabia, are you telling them. Are you telling the Christians, Allah says: "And do not say three." Are you telling them that, you have customers there, you Arab Muslims, you have customers there, you do not have to learn another language, are you telling them not to say that. What kind of Muslims are you,? In a thousand years you could not convert 1000 Jewish families to Islam, 800 years you have ruled Spain, after 800 years you were kicked out, after 800 years, there was not one guy left to say the Azan, that is how good you were. Come, come, answer me now, you Arabs??.
Deedat?s amazement with himself with respects to the dawah, leads to such arrogance and the absence of any form of humility. It is as if no one has called the Christians to Islam effectively since the time of the Prophet (), except him !!!!!
It is interesting to note, that this was Deedat?s last world tour before he was taken out of the public light (alhamdollilah) with his stroke.
- Deedat?s ignorance of Islam and the Sunnah leads him to propagate the deviant Quranic translation of Abdullah Yusuf Ali throughout his booklets and videos. In fact, it would not be wrong to say that it was Ahmed Deedat and his IPCI organization who spread this filthy translation to all corners of the world. Almost every single booklet produced by Deedat and his organization has some kind of advertising of this translation. According to Deedat, this is a ??learned commentary?? (Al-Qur?an ?The Miracle of Miracles page 55) and:
??If you own this one, you do not need another.? (Christ in Islam page.6).
In his translation, Abdullah Yusuf Ali denies the reality of the virgins of paradise, paradise itself, the reality of the Jinn, and legalizes bank interest (among other deviant views) I also remember seeing Deedat in person in East London about eleven years ago propagating this translation and giving a brief biography of this deviant. It is interesting to note, as per Deedat?s own account, Abdullah Yusuf Ali was found dead in a gutter, being totally penniless, by a policeman doing his nightly rounds in London, in the early 20th century. No one knew who he was and no one could identify him for a long time. Thus, his body was sent back to the Indian subcontinent and both he and his translation were unknown; that is until Ahmed Deedat got hold of it and broadcast it across the globe.
- Deedat?s ignorance of Islam led him to propagate the ?19? numerical theory about the Quran. Again, he spared no ends in propagating something which he never really researched into or investigated. It seems as if Ahmed Deedat is more bent on reading and researching every single version and verse of Biblical literature than on issues concerning Islam. This theory is based upon the abjad system, a system which comes from the Jewish Black Magic, Cabala. The founder of this theory, Rashad Khalifa, claimed that the number 19 and its multiples were the key to interpreting the Quran. When discrepancies were found in his theory he started to add and delete words from the Quran in order to keep the theory sound. He also claimed that some verses were actually not from the Quran because they didn?t agree with his theory. He went on to claim that he knew the exact date of the day of judgement through this theory and also claimed that he was a Prophet. After a decade or more of propagating this theory, Deedat was forced to retract and openly renounce the theory and its originator. Because of his ignorance and impetuous zeal, Deedat was made to look ridiculous in front of all those he had refuted and debated with respect to this subject. Even worse, those whom he had debated now used this as a proof against Islam. It has to be noted however, that despite this open retraction, Deedat?s own book on this theory ?Al-Quran: The Ultimate Miracle? is still advertised in his dawah booklets which are still printed, sold and distributed to this day.
- Deedat?s ignorance about Islam and how to give the dawah of Islam led him and his organization to publish a booklet entitled: ?From; The 100: - A ranking of the Most Influential persons in History? by Micheal H. Hart, a Christian academic. The booklet is a reproduction of an entire chapter of Hart?s book in which he rates the Prophet () as the most influential person in history. To Deedat, this is a way of telling the world that even the non-Muslims acknowledge our beloved Prophet. However, the man?s ignorance of his own religion led the world to seeing the following calamities in Hart?s chapter on the Prophet (emphasis mine):
?There were, however, in Mecca a small number of Jews and Christians; IT WAS FROM THEM NO DOUBT THAT MUHAMMAD FIRST LEARNED OF A SINGLE, OMNIPOTENT GOD WHO RULED THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE? (Pp. 2-3)
?In Mecca, he had a few followers. In Medina, he had many more, and he soon acquired an influence THAT MADE HIM A VIRTUAL DICTATOR? (p. 3)
?Muhammad, however, WAS RESPONSIBLE for both the theology of Islam and its main ethical and moral principles.? (p.5)
?MOREOVER, HE IS THE AUTHOR OF THE MOSLEM HOLY SCRIPTURES, THE KORAN, A COLLECTION OF CERTAIN OF MUHAMMAD?S INSIGHTS THAT HE BELIEVED HAD BEEN DIRECTLY REVEALED TO HIM BY ALLAH?.
THE KORAN, THEREFORE, CLOSELY REPRESENTS MUHAMMAD?S IDEAS AND TEACHINGS AND TO A CONSIDERABLE EXTENT HIS EXACT WORDS? (p. 6)
Subhanallah! Yes, Micheal Hart does say that the Prophet is the most influential person in history, but clearly the man is a dirty kaafir who doubts the source of the Prophet?s revelation and abuses him by calling him a dictator. He is simply following the trend of his salaf from the orientalists who would praise the Prophet whilst simultaneously casting aspersions upon the source of revelation that was given to him. This however, is to be expected from such people. The real issue at hand is again, Mr. Ahmed Deedat. On the inside cover of the booklet we see Deedat holding a copy of Hart?s book and on page 1 he makes a brief mention of what the book is about. On the inside cover and the first page, he mentions that this chapter has been reproduced ?by special arrangement? with the publishers of the book. In his booklet, ?Muhammed the greatest?, Deedat calls Hart?s work ?this novel book? and says about Hart: ??we cannot help admire the man?s research and honesty.? (page 4). This clearly indicates that he has read this chapter of this book, yet he still printed hundreds of thousands of copies of this calamity!!! Was he blind when he didn?t see these blatant rebuttals against the best of creation?!!! Knowingly or unknowingly, Ahmed Deedat and his IPCI have assisted in the attack against Islam and its beloved Prophet. To date, I don?t know of the IPCI or Ahmed Deedat making an open apology or retraction against the printing and production of Hart?s words against the Prophet. In fact, I saw a picture of Deedat recently on an Ikhwaani organization?s website dating backing to 1998. In the picture Deedat is bedridden in South Africa looking very ill. Next to him are two men, one of whom is holding the booklet with Hart?s chapter. Deedat, although bedridden still has the capacity to communicate whatever he feels, as I clearly remember an introduction which was dictated by him to the Ikhwaani based Muslim Directory in the UK about 2 years ago (with his thumb print as a signature). In this instant, Deedat clearly didn?t object to having Hart?s evil words placed next to him for a photo shoot.
- Deedat?s desire to give dawah to the non-Muslims leads to him often quote from non-Muslim academics, orientalists and critics of Islam. In fact, he often praises them simply because they praise the Prophet (), as he says in ?Muhammed the Greatest? (page 14):
?We must all admire them!?
From amongst the most praised in his booklets, is the famous writer and historian Thomas Carlyle. About him Deedat says:
?Carlyle was a man of genius and God gifted him with the art of articulation.? (Ibid p.19) and:
?one of the greatest thinkers of the past century?? (Al-Qur?an- The Miracle of Miracles p.46).
Deedat?s aim in quoting Carlyle is to show how such a famous and ?great? individual praised the Prophet () which in turn shows everyone the truth of Islam and the Prophet. However, if Carlyle had really been that ?great? or sincere, then he would have simply become Muslim. Obviously, he didn?t. In fact, he had no intention of becoming Muslim as Deedat well knows. On page 20 of ?Muhammmed the Greatest? Deedat quotes Carlyle as saying (his emphasis):
?AS THERE IS NO DANGER OF OUR BECOMING, ANY OF US, MAHOMETANS, I MEAN TO SAY ALL THE GOOD OF HIM I JUSTLY CAN.?
Then Deedat says:
?In other words he, as well as his elite audience, were free from the fear of converting to Islam, and could take a chance in paying some compliments to Muhammed (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam). If he had any fears regarding the strength of their faith, he would not have taken that chance.?
Carlyle?s enmity towards Islam is clearly known by Deedat (despite his praise of the Prophet), and he outlines this in one of his booklets. In ?Al-Qur?an- The Miracle of Miracles? (page 6) Deedat quotes Carlyle?s view about the first English translation of the Quran by George Sale (his emphasis):
?WE ALSO CAN READ THE KORAN; OUR TRANSLATION OF IT , BY SALE, IS KNOWN TO BE A VERY FAIR ONE?.
George Sale, as Deedat also outlines after this quote, was another vicious enemy of Allah and His Messenger. Carlyle clearly couldn?t have respected the Quran and the Prophet himself that much if he praised George Sale! In fact, he did not respect the Quran at all, as Deedat himself admits when he quotes Carlyle as saying about it (Ibid ,page 46, his emphasis):
?A WEARISOME CONFUSED JUMBLE CRUDE, INCONDITE ;- INSUPPORTABLE STUPIDITY??. Then Deedat says:
?Incondite, meaning, a badly constructed literary or artistic composition:??.
All of this clearly speaks for itself. As mentioned, Deedat knows about the reality of Carlyle, yet he still persisted in praising him and using his words. In fact, Deedat even makes an excuse for him for these views of his (my emphasis):
?There are times when Carlyle uses words and expressions which might not be too pleasing to the believing Muslim, BUT ONE HAS TO FORGIVE HIM, AS HE WAS WALKING A CULTURAL TIGHTROPE, AND HE SUCCEEDED EMINENTLY.?
(?Muhammed the Greatest? page 20)
After reading Carlyle?s admission about his desire not to become Muslim and his real views on the Quran, one wonders, what on earth propelled Ahmed Deedat to praise and quote from this stubborn disbeliever??? All that one could offer as an answer is that the man is clearly jaahil and has had no cultivation upon the correct understanding of Islam. These are the fruits of living in the lands of the kuffar, whether it be in the West or the East (Deedat has lived in South Africa for well over half a century and is still there).
- The calamities continue. As a result of his ignorance of Tawheed, the Sunnah of the Prophet () and the Quran, Ahmed Deedat makes some amazingly naïve statements about the Jews; statements which resound with the echo of the multi-faith dialogue apologetics. He says on page 53 of his booklet ?Arabs and Israel, Conflict or Conciliation?? (emphasis mine):
?Muslims Closest to Jews?..
IN HIS THEOLOGY, HIS ANCESTRY AND IN CULTURAL VALUES, THE MUSLIM IS THE CLOSEST TO THE JEW. THE JEW BELIEVES THAT GOD ALMIGHTY IS ABSOLUTELY UNIQUE! GOD IS NOT SEEN AT ANYTIME! NO MAN CAN SEE GOD AND LIVE! AND THE MUSLIM AGREES WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THE JEW; SAYING ?WE BELIEVE AS YOU BELIEVE.? THE JEW SAYS: ?DO NOT EAT THE FLESH OF THE SWINE!? THE MUSLIM SAY ?WE WILL NOT EAT IT.? THE JEW SAYS: ?DON?T EAT BLOOD!? THE MUSLIM AGREES WITH THAT AND WILL NOT TOUCH IT EITHER. THE JEWS SAYS ? CIRCUMCISION!? THE MUSLIM SAYS, ?WE ARE ALL CIRCUMCISED.? WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??
Allahu Musta?aan! What more do we want? We want that the Jews to relinquish their Shirk based aqeedah,, that?s what we want, and not just for them to agree with a few rites with us. However it gets worse. On pages 60-62 of the above book Deedat says:
?Difference of labels
What is the great divide between the Muslims and the Jews? ?
I asked the Jewish University students. It is not race, it is not culture, IT IS NOT RELIGION (AS FAR AS THE FUNDAMENTALS OF FAITH ARE CONCERENED). IT IS SIMPLY A QUESTION OF LABEL! The Israeli says he is a ?Jew? (religiously, a believer in Judaism) and the Arab says, he is a ?Muslim? (a believer in the religion of Islam).
By God! The solution to the Zionist-Arab conflict is simply a change of label!?
Deedat then continues by justifying this with a quote from ?an erudite Jewish historian? (His emphasis) on pages 61 and 62:
??Astute statesmanship can relax the present Israeli-Arab tensions, because THEY ARE NOT CAUSED BY DEEP-ROOTED RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS ANATAGONISMS BUT BY TEMPORARY POLITICAL EXPEDIENCIES?
(Max. I Dimont in ?Jews, God and History,? page 205)?.
Deedat continues (with his emphasis):
With such deep racial and religious affinity, it is a shame that the Semitic brothers -Arabs and Jews - are so terribly estranged. Islam alone can bridge the gulf?.Between Islam and Judaism there are no insurmountable barriers. ISLAM IS JUDAISM MADE UNIVERSAL?
Then he quotes another Jew to back this up (his emphasis again):
?IN A RECENT FRENCH-ALGERIAN PUBLICATION ISLAM HAS BEEN CHARACTERISED AS JUDAISM WITH UNIVERSALISTIC TENDENCIES. THERE IS SOME TRUTH IN THIS DEFINITION.
(Prof. S.D. Goitein in his book ? ?Jews and Arabs,? page 35)
The Arab world needs the Jews as much as the Jews need the Arabs?.
In his booklet ?Crucifixion or CRUCI-FICTION?? (p.25) he also says:
?The Jewish expectation of a Messiah, did not identify the Messiah with God. Indeed, the nature of the Jewish monotheism wholely excludes such pagan connotations.?
From these quotes, one can see the orientation of this man. He clearly believes that the Jews have the same fundamental beliefs of Islam i.e. in Tawheed, in the worship of the one Creator. It is as if he has never seen the statement of the Most High:
?And the Jews say Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah and the Christians say the Messiah is the son of Allah. That is the saying with their mouths resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allah?s curse be on them how they are deluded away from the truth? (Surah At-Tawbah 9:30).
We know that Deedat is ignorant of Islam, but what is even more strange, is that whilst professing to be a scholar of the Christian religion he himself seems to have overlooked all of the shirk of the Jews which he himself has shown to the entire world. Was it not Deedat who informed everyone about the distortion of the Old Testament, that which is made up of the books of the Jews? From Deedat?s booklets did people not learn that the Rabbis are the ones who distorted their scriptures and believed that ?God repented and felt sorry for the evil that he saw to do to his people?? From Deedat?s booklets did people not learn that the Jews believe that the Creator has human qualities? In all of the decades he has been giving his ?dawah?, it is as if Deedat has never ever read the Talmud, the other source of Jewish law. The Talmud is the writing of these cursed people in which they ridicule and mock the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth, saying that He, the Mighty, the Majestic, should make repentance to them and not them to Him!!!!. One could also go even more basic and say does not Deedat realize what he says in his prayers at least 17 times a day? Does he not realize that when he recites ?And not (the path) of those whom you have cursed?, that he is asking Allah to guide him away from the accursed Jews?! It seems clearly not from the above quotes.
There is no religious affinity between the Muslim and the Jew, and to say that the present day conflict in the middle east has nothing to do with religion is extremely naive to say the least. The Jews (whether they call themselves Zionists or not) oppress the Muslims because of their hatred for Islam. This is not an issue of land, for if it were so, then the Jews simply would have taken bigger pieces of land allotted to them by the colonial powers after the second world war such as in Argentina, Uganda etc. Rather, this is the land which they call ?the holy land? and this is the land in which they are expecting the return of their messiah (dajjal!). The Jews recognize the Prophet () more than they recognize their own sons but their arrogance makes them fight the ummah of Muhammad () and oppress it. Ever since Islam came, the Jews have been conspiring and fighting it. They have hatched plots and plans over the centuries and it is not something which the Zionists have done all of a sudden. They conspired during the time of the Prophet (), they created Shiism with Abdullah Ibn Saba, they helped the crusaders, they helped the Mongols, they helped the colonialists?the list is endless. Islam is not a universal version of Judaism as Deedat erroneously claims. Rather it is a universal abrogation of the laws of all the Prophets and Messengers who were sent before Muhammad (). Judaism was corrupted well before the sending of the last Prophet and it has no relation in its fundamentals whatsoever with Islam.
One finds that Deedat?s rhetoric is very similar to that of Yusuf Al-Qardawi?s with respect to the belief of the Jews.
It should also be noted that when Deedat said: ? GOD IS NOT SEEN AT ANYTIME?, then this is something which fundamentally opposes the aqeedah Of Ahlu-Sunnah-wal-Jammat. Ahlu-Sunnah believe firmly, that the believers will see Allah azza wa jall in the hereafter and the proofs for this are too numerous to mention here. Just another example of Deedat?s ignorance about Islam, Tawheed and the aqeedah of the Muslim.
-Deedat?s ignorance of the aqeedah of Islam and the world around him, leads him to make comments about the religious situation today which clearly have no basis. On page 36 of ?Muhummed the Greatest? he says (my emphasis):
??Islam would be the most dominant of all religions. The triumphs of its doctrines have already started and is gaining hold over the religious ideology and doctrines of the various schools of thought in the world?the doctrines of Islam are being fastly grafted into the various religious orders. Many things which are exclusively Islamic and which were formerly unknown, or which were being opposed before with tooth and nail by the other creeds, are now part of their beliefs.
The brotherhood of man
The right of women to inherit
THE TRUE CONCEPT OF THE UNITY OF GOD ETC ETC.
??..Ask any theist, polytheist, pantheist, or Trinitarian: how many Gods he believes in? HE WILL SHUDDER TO SAY ANYTHING OTHER THAN ONE! THIS IS THE EFFECT OF THE STRICT MONOTHEISM OF ISLAM.?
Allahu Akbar!!! Had the effect of Tawheed on all these different types of mushriks been as Deedat claimed, then there would be no need for us to call them to Islam as they would all be Muslims and monotheists!! However, in reality, we know that the majority of the people commit shirk with Allah and they have not been affected with the Tawheed of Islam. A time will definitely come when every household will be affected by Islam (As-Saheehah No.3), however, this is clearly not it. The words of Deedat show his clear ignorance of the Tawheed of Islam as well as the shirk of all the theists, polytheists, pantheists and Trinitarians out there.
- Deedat has a fascination in labeling the Jews as ?our cousins?. On page 55 of ?Arabs and Israel..? he quotes one of his Jewish cousins (!), professor Goitein of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in justifying this point (his emphasis):
?THERE IS MUCH MORE TO THE POPULAR BELIEF THAT JEWS AND ARABS ARE CLOSE RELATIVES, COUSINS, BECAUSE THEY WERE DESCENDED FROM THE BROTHERS ISSAC AND ISHMAEL, THE SONS OF ABRAHAM.?
Then Deedat says:
?I was pleading with the Jewish students of the university of Cape Town?why has such close blood relationship between Arab and Jew, unfortunately, now turned to gruesome, bitter, and bloody enmity!?
Why??? Because the Jews being the descendants of monkeys and pigs are arrogantly rejecting Islam and are showing their clear animosity to the believers, that?s why. Doesn?t Allah say in the Quran:
?Indeed, you will find the strongest amongst men in enmity towards the believers(are) the Jews and those who commit shirk?? (Surah Al-Maaidah 5:82).
The Jews are not deserving of the title of cousins, brothers or nephews. If Allah has designated them with His Anger, then who are the likes of Ahmed Deedat to come along and be so friendly with them? Said Ahmed Deedat on page 64 of the above booklet:
?At question time at the end of my lecture ??The Quran and the Jew?, one of my nephews (the Jewish student from the university of Cape Town) retorted??.
Ya miskeen, ya miskeen?.does not Allah say in the Quran:
? O you who believe, take not the Jews and the Christians as friends. They are but friends of each other and if any among you takes them as friends, then surely he is one of them? (Surah Al-Maaidah 5 : 51).
One will also find Deedat doing the same for the Christians throughout his booklets by calling them ?brethren?. Ahmed Deedat clearly doesn?t understand the concept of Wala and Bara.
- Ahmed Deedat?s ignorance of the Islamic aqeedah and the methodology of dawah leads him to coming up with the wrong aims in giving dawah. On page 65 of his booklet he says:
?Why Jews should change
But for the sake of argument, let me say that I change my label from Muslim to Jew. ?What have you achieved?? I asked my Jewish young audience. ?How many of you (Jews) are there in the world today?? Somebody shouted: ?Twelve million!? This was in 1967. (Today the Jews are boasting a figure of 15 million.) So I said, with me changing my ?label? we become 12 million and one. But by you changing your label we become 700 million and one. (It is estimated that the Muslims number a thousand million today). I asked, ?can?t you see the difference??
?Only a fool would refuse to change his label,? I proceeded, ?you are a business people. You should understand this better than any other people??
But, lastly, there is also a real problem. Religiously, Islam is a wider circle that could embrace the whole of humanity than Judaism. A larger circle can incorporate a smaller one, not vice a versa.?
It is known that Deedat had met and acquainted the Sheikh of Islam of this century, Abdul-Azeez Ibn Abdullah Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him). However, like so many other deviants, he clearly did not benefit from this great man. Had he sat down with the Sheikh, he may have realized and learned about the correct objectives of calling to Islam. Sheikh-ul-Islam Ibn Baaz says on page 47 of his precious book, ?The Obligation of calling to Allah and the Mannerisms of the callers:
? * As for the aim of the Dawah and the objective from it:
So the aim and the objective is to take the people out of the darkness into the light, and to guide them to the truth until they adopt it, and (that) they are saved from the fire and (that) they are saved from the Anger of Allah, and taking the disbeliever from the darkness of disbelief to the light of guidance, and to take the ignorant one from the darkness of ignorance to the light of knowledge, and to take the disobedient one from the darkness of disobedience to the light of obedience. This is the aim of the dawah, as He, the Majestic, the High has said:
?Allah is the protector of those who believe. He takes them out of the darkness into the light? (Surah Al-Baqarah 2: 257)
So, the Messengers were sent to take the people out from the darkness into the light, and the callers to the truth likewise, they carry out the dawah being energetic about it to take the people out from the darkness into the light and rescuing them from the fire and from the obedience to shaytaan, and rescuing them from the obedience to desire to the obedience of Allah and His Messenger?.
The objective of calling to Allah is not to enlarge the membership of some kind of a club. Rather, it is to bring the people out of their misguidance and away from the punishment of their lord. Ahmed Deedat is clearly ignorant of this
- Deedat?s overwhelming desire and zeal to call to Islam often leads him to use despicable mannerisms; and what could be more despicable than in addressing the Creator of the Heavens and Earth in an unbefitting manner. On page 63 of ?Arabs and Israel?? he says (emphasis mine) :
?Quranic courtesies for Jews
Listen to God Almighty: how He PLEADS with Jews in His Last and Final Revelation to mankind:
?O Children of Israel! Call to mind the (special) favour which I bestowed upon you, and fulfill your covenant with me as I fulfill my covenant with you. And fear none but me?.
Subhanallah!!! Is this the way to address the Creator of all things? Does Allah PLEAD??!!! If I grab the nearest available English dictionary to me, here?s what we see this word to mean:
?Plead: If you plead with someone to do something, you ask them in an intense emotional way to do it?. (Collins Cobuild Learners dictionary p.835).
By Allah, this is a crime, to address our Lord in such a lowly manner. In fact, this is exactly the charge which Deedat has been leveling at the Christians for over half a century. These are the results of being ignorant of your Lord, the Most High. Had Deedat an inkling of knowledge he would have referred to the tafseer of this ayah. And had he done that, he would have found that the meaning here is far from Allah pleading with these descendants of monkeys and swine. Rather, it is as Ibn Katheer says about this ayah (my emphasis):
?He the Most High says, ORDERING, the children of Israel with entering into Islam and following Muhammad??
Lest one should conceive that this was just for the Jews at the time of the Prophet (), then this is what the great muffasir Abdur-Rahman As-Sa?dee (may Allah have mercy upon him ) says about this ayah:
?The intended meaning with Israel: Yaqub upon him be peace, and the address is to the sects of the children of Israel, those who were in Madina and that which was around it. And those who came after them, enter into them (their classification), for He (Allah) ORDERED them with a
Joined: Sep 2002
Assalamu 'alaikum, i think it is best that the question is asked with full knowledge of what Deedats pamphlets contain so if a brother can compile the Aqeedah and Manhaj errors in Deedat's material so as to ask the question in full to the scholars as we do not want to open a door for using the material of innovators and people of grave errors in aqeedah and manhaj even if they contain truth as this is not the manhaj of the sallaf. See Ijmaa' al 'Ulamaa 'ala Hajr wa Tahdeer min Ahlil Ahwaa by Khalid ad-Dthufayree with the introduction of Sheikh Rabee' ibn Haadi al Madkhali, Sheikh Zayd al-Madkhali and Sheikh 'Obayd al Jaabri. See p. 65-88. |
On p.65,66 - Sheikh al Islaam ibn Taymiyyah rahimahullaah quotes that Ibn Khuzaima rahimahullaah as warning the people from entering and looking into the books of the innovators... the footnote says see Istiqaama 1/108 of sheikh al Islaam.
This message was edited by abdulilah on 5-30-03 @ 9:42 PM
Joined: Apr 2003
Bismillahir Rahmanir Raheem |
Is there anyone that is aware of the sayings
of the Ulumaa' on Ahmad Deedat and his like?
In arabic or english inshallah, arabic is prefered.
Rajaey ibn Abdilhameed Al-Phalasteeni