Doctrinal Fortification for Students Before Traveling Abroad

The training program in addressing atheistic philosophies through a scientific methodology and sound certainty grounded in Islamic revelation

Prepared by Dr. Raji Rida-Allah

www.islamic-invitation.com

This book presents a refined compilation of rich dialogues with atheists, arranged in a conversational style to serve as a practical training reference that simplifies ideas and makes them easier to grasp, while maintaining full commitment to scholarly precision and sound Islamic methodology, so that it may stand as a guide combining clarity of expression with strength of argument.

If you are interested to read the rest of the book, then you can download from this link: 

https://www.islamic-invitation.net/downloads/doctr-fort-for-students_eng.pdf

The training program in Addressing Atheistic Philosophies through a Scientific Methodology and Sound Certainty Grounded in Islamic Revelation

Dr. Raji sat in his office before his four students: Ahmad, Husayn, Khalid, and Mustafa. They were master’s degree holders preparing to travel abroad to pursue their doctoral dissertations.

Dr. Raji opened the session, saying: My sons, traveling abroad is a window for conveying Islam, and a sanctuary of learning and work. Yet the real danger does not lie in travel itself, but in heedlessness, loss of identity, and melting into the culture of the other.

Since blind imitation is the product of fragile certainty, fortifying the student before his departure has become the most important guarantee for the firmness of his religion and the success of his journey.

Before discussing the most prominent challenges facing the traveling student, it is necessary to emphasize the notable progress these materialistic societies have achieved in scientific research, and the distinction they have shown in precision with respect to time, adherence to the rule of law, discipline in traffic regulations, and care for the cleanliness of public facilities. While the degree of adherence to these matters varies from one country to another, they nevertheless remain predominant outward features. Accordingly, the student must distinguish between the splendor of outward material appearance and the moral defects of deviation.

The Most Prominent Challenges Facing the Traveling Student

First: Religious and moral challenges: The challenges facing the student are many, beginning with the spread of indecencies and sins such as forbidden relationships, homosexuality, nudity, drinking alcohol, eating pork, and the spread of gambling; passing through social pressures that push one to participate in mixed activities and forbidden parties under the pretext of integration or courtesy; and ending with the weakness of the faith environment resulting from the small number of mosques and the rarity of righteous companionship, which in the end leads to religious estrangement and the weakening of faith-based restraint.

Second: Intellectual and cultural challenges: The spread of materialistic atheistic philosophies and currents that attack the existence of Allah or cast doubt on the validity of Islam, the call to cultural dissolution and erasure of Islamic identity, and exposure to discrimination or what is called Islamophobia. The intent is not to generalize regarding all individuals or institutions, but to point to the influential intellectual currents in some academic and cultural environments.

Third: Family and identity challenges: The original principle in terms of perfection, benefit, and safeguarding one’s religion is that a Muslim man marry a righteous Muslim woman, to ensure family stability and raise children upon sound creed, while the permissibility of marrying a woman from the People of the Book (Christian or Jewish) remains established by the text of the Noble Qur’an.

However, jurists and fiqh councils in contemporary reality hold that such marriage in Western societies is severely disliked, and even prohibited in cases resulting in evident harms, since the contemporary prohibition is a prohibition of blocking the means or because certain recognized conditions are absent, due to three essential reasons:

1. The absence of the condition of chastity: The Noble Qur’an requires that a woman from the People of the Book be completely chaste, meaning fully free from adultery and fornication. This is a quality that may rarely be found in environments where moral laxity prevails and relationships outside marriage are widespread, making careful verification necessary before proceeding. Marriage to a woman who does not meet this condition is regarded as invalid or prohibited according to leading scholars.

2. Being tainted by atheism under the cover of “People of the Book”: Religious affiliation abroad is often merely nominal or civilizational, while atheistic ideas are actually embraced. Thus female atheists and agnostics, and everyone who denies the foundational matters of faith such that the description of “People of the Book” no longer applies, are not from the People of the Book by agreement of the scholars. Rather, marrying them is unanimously prohibited, and their ruling is the same as that of polytheist women, like Hindu and Buddhist women. This makes it necessary to verify the reality of the woman’s belief and not suffice with nominal affiliation, in order to ensure that the description of being from the People of the Book, upon which the Lawgiver suspended permissibility, is truly present.

3. Legal and social risks: Added to the above are grave legal risks related to custody laws, which in many countries grant the non-Muslim party absolute authority in shaping the children’s identity and upbringing, thereby exposing the natural disposition of the young to loss and making the Muslim father deprived of guardianship over his offspring.

In contrast, Shari‘ah [1] has definitively and permanently prohibited the marriage of a Muslim woman to a non-Muslim man, in order to safeguard her faith, prevent her from coming under an authority that conflicts with her religion, and protect her children from being led astray.

[1] Shari‘ah is the Islamic divine law and moral guidance derived from the Qur’an and the teachings of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. It includes beliefs, worship, ethics, and rules for personal and social life.

4. In the context of safeguarding the sanctuary of Islamic Monotheism (Tawhid), the scholars have ruled the prohibition of participating in the religious festivals of non-Muslims, because of the approval this implies of rituals that oppose the foundation of tawhid and contradict the constants of Islam. The Muslim is commanded to distinguish himself in his creed and identity, while maintaining complete commitment to kindness and justice in dealings, good neighborliness, and respect for the laws regulating public life.

Dr. Raji said: My sons, today the training will be divided into three levels:

The first level (fortification): “How do you remain unshaken?” (Building confidence that sound experimental science does not contradict the foundations of faith, and that revelation and reason are complementary, not contradictory).

The second level (deconstructing doubts): “How do you respond scientifically and with certainty?” (By combining sound transmitted texts with clear reason, precise control of terminology, arguing with cosmic and genetic facts, and awareness of the implications of the natural disposition… etc.).

The third level (The Jurisprudence of Da'wah): “How do you become ambassadors of Islam?” (Training in the etiquette of dialogue, the moral representation of Islam, and avoiding fruitless confrontations).

In your journey, you will find those who deludedly claim that the edifices of science have demolished the pillars of faith. Far exalted is Allah above there being any contradiction between His visible creation and His inscribed revelation.

Today I shall place in your hands the keys to engaging atheistic philosophies with wisdom and good exhortation, grounded in firmness in religious knowledge and scientific proofs. Your journey is a journey of seeking more knowledge, yet no traveler is safe without sound intellectual provision. So do not leave any thought that appears in your minds except that you bring it forward, so that together we may build a wall of awareness before traveling abroad.

Husayn: Dr. Raji, we fear for our hearts from the doubts of atheism that resound in those universities and digital platforms there. With what should we fortify ourselves before our feet step onto their land?

Dr. Raji: Husayn, your first provision is the realization of tawhid and attachment to Allah, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting. Certainty in Allah and His names and attributes is the foundation of all foundations.

Know that Allah is with you by His knowledge and encompassing awareness wherever you may be, so preserve your obligations and your remembrances, for they are your firm protection. Doubt is swift in snatching, and hearts are weak, so make your equipment seeking refuge in Allah at every evil thought that comes to you, and ask Allah for firmness upon the truth until you meet Him, for knowledge without taqwa is a burden upon its possessor.

Ahmad: Dr. Raji, some of them claim that matter is eternal and that the universe came into existence by chance. How do we respond to this falsehood with the language of science and revelation? And what role does science play in deepening religious certainty?

Dr. Raji: Ahmad, remember: clear reason does not contradict sound transmission, because both are from Allah. The more deeply you delve into the “precision of creation,” the more you see in it the “signs of the Creator.” Chance is a myth that neither the minds of rational people nor the scales of calculation can accept. Use science to deepen your fear of Allah, and know that the Shari‘ah does not oppose scientific facts (Allah’s established ways in the universe), but rather rejects whims and materialistic philosophies that cloak themselves in the cosmetics of science to market atheism. Science uncovers “the wondrousness of creation,” and revelation establishes “the greatness of the Creator.”

Khalid: And what is the way to preserve our certainty and our pride in the constants of religion before those who stir doubts? And how do we combine in our dialogue between the gentleness of the confident and the firmness of principle?

Dr. Raji: Khalid, be wise. If you perceive in them a search for truth, then answer in the best manner, relying on the proofs of the natural disposition and revelation, without compromising the constants and without harshness in style. But if the dialogue is mockery or ridicule, then turning away is commanded by the Shari‘ah.

Be proud of your identity, for the light of the sun of truth rises above and is not surpassed, and the dust of falsehood vanishes before the constants of certainty. The proof of the natural disposition overpowers every denier, and the mirage of materialism disappears before the testimonies of perfection.

Mustafa: Doctor, the academic environment there is so open that it leads to dissolution. How do we balance between seeking knowledge and being cautious of being swept along by the materialistic lifestyle?

Dr. Raji: Mustafa, you must exercise conscious discernment and doctrinal distinction. Take from them the “beneficial sciences” and leave to them the “corrupt customs.” Distinguish between the sciences by which you build your society and the philosophies that dissolve pride in identity and weaken the pillars of faith.

Do not be heedless or impulsive when using the internet; rather, use your mind and your faith as a compass directing you toward what is beneficial and keeping you away from what is harmful. Keep for yourself righteous companionship that reminds you of Allah, and know that you are on a frontier post: either you return with your faith in Allah increased, or you are lost in the wilderness of materialism. So make your aim the pleasure of Allah alone.

Ahmad: What if the atheistic professor abroad exploits his scientific authority and claims in the middle of the lecture that experimental science has proven that religion is merely a myth? How do we confront this confusion?

Dr. Raji: Your first step is to distinguish between scientific fact and philosophical opinion. Say to him calmly: Is this a conclusion subject to the experimental method based on measurement and observation, or is it a philosophical reading that goes beyond the limits of the specialization? Science describes observable phenomena, but it does not possess the ability to negate the unseen or affirm it. So if a metaphysical judgment is attributed to it, then the professor has departed from the requirements of scientific honesty.

Husayn: And what if the professor openly takes the path of sarcasm and mockery regarding the idea of the existence of Allah?

Dr. Raji: Remember that sarcasm and mockery are not evidence, but rather an inability to persuade; and the believer does not meet mockery with the like of it. If you see a need to respond, then say to him with dignity: I think that respecting the beliefs of others is more fitting for the academic environment than mocking them. Then remain in confident calmness. Do not become agitated in argument, for your confident silence is a more eloquent reply to the noise of falsehood, and your steadiness is the best proof of the strength of what you carry.

Mustafa: How can atheists in the modern age be classified from an educational and doctrinal perspective, and what is the best method of dealing with each category?

Dr. Raji: Contemporary atheistic trends may be classified educationally into two paths, each of which has a key suited to it:

First: The self-satisfied one (the arrogant); he is the one whom the “ego” and self-inflation have veiled from seeing the favor of Allah, the Bestower, upon him, and so he preferred independence from the guidance of the Creator out of a desire to free himself from obligations.

This category needs the strength of argument and the grandeur of explanation, to remind him of his intrinsic neediness and the greatness of his Creator, and to strip away the covering of pride that veils his natural disposition from seeing the truth.

Second: The perplexed seeker (the lost one); he is the one whom intellectual doubts or psychological and environmental circumstances have separated from certainty, such that his atheism became disturbance and confusion, not stubbornness.

This category is treated with gentleness and dialogue in the best manner. His intellect is addressed with calm logic, and his confusion is contained with mercy and breadth of heart, in an effort to repair his natural disposition and reconnect what has been severed of his certainty through gentleness and patience.

The wisdom of da‘wah requires addressing the obstinate one with what awakens his awareness, and addressing the lost one with what reassures his heart and removes the cloud of doubt from his insight.

Khalid: But some of them promote the theory of evolution as if it were conclusive proof of the nonexistence of Allah the Creator!

Dr. Raji: Here lies the methodological error. The theory is scientific in that it investigates how phenomena occur, not who brought existence into being. Even if there were an evolutionary explanation for some biological stages, the deeper question would still remain:

Who brought matter into existence? Who set the cosmic laws? Who granted the universe its capacity for life?

Faith in Allah, Mighty and Majestic, is not based on disproving a theory, but on the natural disposition, reason, and revelation. My sons, the structure of contemporary atheism has fragile roots. Many of the convictions of materialists were built upon old scientific illusions that have been refuted, but their wind still blows through the minds of some.

Khalid: Is there an ancient scientific fallacy relied upon by those who deny the Creator in their claim that life originated from inanimate, subjugated matter? And how were such illusions invalidated by definitive evidence and conclusive proof?

Dr. Raji: Yes, this fallacy is known as spontaneous generation or generation from inanimate matter, and it was a cause of atheism for many school students, but the fallacy fell scientifically from the seventeenth century onward. Before the year 1668 CE, the common belief was that living organisms (such as worms and flies) arose spontaneously from non-living matter (such as rotten meat).

But when Francesco Redi sterilized the meat and tightly sealed the container, the worms did not appear. Thereafter, Francesco Redi formulated this rule: “Life comes only from life” (Omne vivum ex vivo).

If Francesco Redi had settled the fallacy of worms and meat, then Louis Pasteur in 1862 CE shut the door entirely with his famous “swan-neck flask” experiment.

Husayn: And can dead matter grant life to itself? And how did Louis Pasteur scientifically prove the falsity of that?

Dr. Raji: Louis Pasteur proved that microscopic organisms do not arise spontaneously from organic matter. He designed a flask that prevented germs from reaching the broth while allowing air to enter, and the broth remained sound for years. Thus Pasteur proclaimed the victory of "Biogenesis", confirming that life comes only from life (Life only comes from life).

This is the truth that he established through decisive scientific experiment, thereby closing the door on the myth that dead matter possesses an intrinsic ability to generate life. Yet astonishingly, materialistic atheistic thought remains captive to the essence of this fallacy to this very day, even if it has changed its garments and adorned itself with glittering terminology.

Husayn: But Dr. Raji, do atheists today not claim that modern science has gone beyond Pasteur’s experiment, and that life arose through complex and long-term chemical interactions at the dawn of history?

Dr. Raji: Atheists today no longer speak of 'maggots emerging from meat; rather, they speak of what they term "Abiogenesis" (the emergence of life from inanimate matter). The true distinction is that Pasteur presented an empirical, observed reality, whereas Abiogenesis is nothing more than conjectures and illusions devoid of proof. It assumes that over billions of years, subjugated inanimate matter was capable of creating itself or managing its own affairs, and of transforming created reactions into a genetic code overflowing with information.

This is an impossibility—both by Shari’ah and by intellect; for the created being possesses for itself neither benefit nor harm. Every law in existence is a decree (Taqdeer) from Allah, the Mighty and Majestic. Life appears solely as a result of His creation and His command, and inanimate matter—which is itself commanded—possesses no power of origination. Thus, faith in the Creator remains the Truth; for science describes the established ways of Allah (Sunan) in the universe, while Revelation informs us of the Creator who originated these laws and perfected them.

Mustafa: Does this term differ from “spontaneous generation” in its essence?

Dr. Raji (with a deep smile): In essence, not at all! It is the same old atheistic fallacy that imagines that inanimate things create themselves over long ages. They ask us to believe that lifeless matter, in which there is no life, brought forth life, and that powerless created things established and arranged the complex DNA code.

This is impossible both in the Shari‘ah and in reason; for the poor created thing does not create a perfection that it was not given, and commanded inanimate matter possesses no governance. Rather, it is the creation of Allah, the All-Knowing, the All-Aware.

The experiment of the worms has fallen, but the illusions of spontaneous generation still remain the doubt to which the atheist clings in order to turn away from the reality of the existence of the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting Creator.

The issue, my son, is not a lack of evidence, but a turning away from the natural disposition. The sound intellect recognizes self-evidently that the created thing does not independently bring anything into existence. So how can dead inanimate matter, which possesses neither will nor wisdom, bring forth life, order, and consciousness? All of that is by the determination of the Almighty, the All-Knowing.

Attempting to explain creation apart from the Creator is clear misguidance, wandering behind the illusions of conjectures and guesswork, and an explicit contradiction of infallible revelation and the sound natural disposition (Fitrah), both of which are affirmed by clear reason and self-evident truth. Life is a creation brought into existence by Allah, the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting, by His word and power. It is not an effect arising from the nature of matter, nor something generated by it through its own force and constitution.

Ahmad: So modern science, in reality, besieges atheism and does not support it as they promote!

Dr. Raji: Exactly. The more complexity we discover in the cell, the more certain we become of Francesco Redi’s principle: “Life comes only from life,” and that this existence must have a Living, All-Knowing, All-Wise Creator, to whom belong creation and command, and to whom all matters return.

The difference between “clay” and “man” is not in the “type of atoms,” but in the “will of the Creator,” which placed into this matter hearing, sight, and intellect. Life is an effect of the attributes of the Creator, the Giver of Life, and an originary creation from the command of the Ever-Living, the Self-Subsisting.

It is not a chemical residue resulting from the collision of molecules. Although science may explain how molecules interact or how biological growth occurs, it cannot explain the soul or the purpose of life.

The soul and the miraculous order will remain two witnesses that matter is governed, not governing; created, not creating. Science explains “how” things function in the universe, but revelation answers “why” we are here and “where did the universe come from?”

The truth is clear for whoever seeks guidance, where Allah Most High says in His decisive verses: “Or were they created by nothing, or are they the creators?” (At-Tur: 35).

Glory be to the One before the marvels of whose work minds are left bewildered, and to whose Oneness all creatures bear witness, and before the majesty of whose Lordship all beings submit, and to the greatness of whose awe hearts yield.

Husayn: I read that there is another deception, namely the deception of “Piltdown Man”!

Dr. Raji: Well done. Piltdown Man was not merely an innocent scientific error; rather, it was a tightly woven hoax, a deliberate falsification, and a complex forgery aimed at entrenching the materialistic atheistic creed.

Piltdown Man represents the greatest hoax in the history of the theory of evolution since its alleged discovery in 1912, when “Charles Dawson” claimed to have found a fossil in England combining a human skull and an ape jaw, and it was presented to the world as the “missing link” proving human origins.

This deception continued for nearly 40 years. The scientific community and atheistic institutions celebrated it as conclusive proof of evolution, and it was taught in educational curricula to convince people that man’s origin is the ape.

In 1953, chemical examinations proved that the fossil was entirely fabricated: a modern human skull had been combined with the jaw of an orangutan, and the teeth had been filed and coated with chemicals to make them appear extremely old.

This incident, as Professor Philip Tobias mentioned, revealed how “science can be forged” to serve philosophical and atheistic agendas, as scientists “wanted” to believe in the existence of a missing link and so turned a blind eye to careful examination.

Khalid: And what about “Nebraska Man”? Does it also fall under the category of deception?

Dr. Raji: “Nebraska Man” was more of a resounding scientific blunder than a deliberate hoax. It represents the “fallacy of delusion,” where evolutionists built an edifice of imagination—a complete human being—upon a pig’s tooth! It is one of the most ridiculous stories in the history of fossils, and an ideal example of how “nothing” can be turned into “scientific evidence” to serve a certain ideology.

The “tooth,” discovered in 1922, was found by the paleontologist “Harold Cook” in Nebraska (America), and as soon as it was examined, Professor “Henry Osborn,” director of the American Museum of Natural History, declared that this tooth belonged to a being combining the traits of ape and man, and named it (Hesperopithecus).

Although the discovery was no more than a single tooth, some scientific magazines published complete imaginative drawings of Nebraska Man and his wife, living in a cave and using tools, in order to fill the minds of the public with the existence of the alleged missing link between ape and man!

After five years of loud promotion, the rest of the skeletal parts of the owner of the tooth were found, and the shock was that the tooth belonged neither to a man nor to an ape, but to an extinct species of wild pig (Peccary).

Khalid: I read that the colored drawings in some scientific magazines are not “photographs” of the past, but rather “evolutionary icons” of the atheistic doctrine to compensate for the absence of “genetic information”?

Dr. Raji: Of course. The technique of “imaginative drawing” is considered one of the strongest propaganda tools used to entrench the theory of evolution in the minds of the public, whereby a “bone fragment” or a “tooth” is transformed into a being with complete features and emotions.

Here is how this organized deception is used to fill the gaps that fossils have failed to fill. When scientists find the remains of an extinct ape such as Australopithecus, artists are directed to add “human” touches that are not present in the bones at all.

The eye: the “white of the eye” is drawn for the ape, to give the impression of an intelligent and rational gaze.

Facial expressions: the being is drawn looking contemplative or appearing thoughtful, to give the illusion that it is a “transitional link” for the human species.

Skin and hair: hair density is reduced in certain places so that the skin appears similar to human skin, although the bones tell us nothing about the amount of hair or the shape of the skin.

By contrast, when fossils of real humans such as Neanderthals are found, they are drawn with savage features: they are drawn with a bent back (even though their bones prove upright posture), and stupid or primitive facial traits are added. At present, some modern museums have modified the representation of Neanderthals, and they are now displayed with features closer to the modern human.

The aim of these displays is to practice a kind of visual conditioning of the viewer’s awareness, by making him imagine the existence of a smooth sequence linking the primitive ape to the rational human being. This artistic presentation aims at numbing the instinctive questioning regarding the qualitative leaps in the fossil record, and bridging the deep gaps with artificial mental images that fill the void of reality.

The best example of this visual fabrication is what was done with the famous fossil “Lucy,” which belongs to the species Australopithecus afarensis. It should be noted that the “Lucy” skeleton discovered in Ethiopia in 1974 was about 40% complete, and the original remains did not include foot bones. Some museums relied in reconstruction upon footprints discovered in Tanzania in the contemporaneous region of “Laetoli,” assuming that they belonged to the same species.

However, this linkage is based on comparative inference, not on direct anatomical connection. Accordingly, the displayed models represent an interpretive conception of the missing parts, not a complete material correspondence to what was found at the excavation site.

A number of paleoartists have acknowledged that reconstruction depends to a large degree on comparative anatomical assumptions, since the bones provide only a general skeletal framework. Bones do not tell us the shape of the nose, the ear, the color of the skin, or the amount of fat.

This gap is the “laboratory” in which atheists place their preconceived notions. If they wish to prove evolution, they draw the being as an “intermediate link between man and ape,” whereas if a person who believed in the existence of Allah were to draw it, he would draw it as a “complete ape.” Thus, exposing these material gaps does not mean attacking scientific research as a method; rather, it is a clear exposure of attempts to bend science to serve atheistic ends, and an affirmation of the necessity of distinguishing between the perceptible experimental datum and preconceived philosophical interpretations.

If you are interested to read the rest of the book, then you can download from this link: 
https://www.islamic-invitation.net/downloads/doctr-fort-for-students_eng.pdf