American import Douglas Futuyma
American import AndrewBerry Being defeated in Turkey, Darwinists now
bring in American imported Darwinist pagan priests. They preach the
Darwinist superstitions unilaterallyin closed halls giving no room to
the opposing accounts. Making these pagan priests tell ancient
Egyptian legends, they try to give the impression that "they are not
idle, but doing something."
However, they cannot hinder Darwinism's dreadful defeat because:
- More than 100 million fossils of 250 thousand different species have
been excavated. NOT EVEN ONE of them IS A TRANSITIONAL FORM.
- All of the 100 million excavated fossils belong to intact, perfect,
flawless living forms. Most of them are LIVING FOSSILS of living
things that are living today. All of these 100 million fossils PROVE
THE FACT OF CREATION.
- It is scientifically proven that it is impossible for a single
protein to come into existence by chance.
- It is scientifically proven that mutations have no evolutionary
power and they DEFINITELY DAMAGE the living organism –except for the
exceptions in which they remain ineffective.
- THE EXTRAORDINARY INFORMATION IN THE DNA puts forth with definite
and irrefutable proofs inthe living body, that there is no place to
chance.
- THE CAMBRIAN EXPLOSION, in which the living beings' diversity
appeared all of a suddenwith perfect forms 540 millions years ago
demolished Darwinism.
- The organs and forms in living organisms with IRREDUCIBLE COMPLEXITY
leave Darwinists speechless.
- In the absence of even one transitional form, DARWINISTS RESORTED TO
FRAUDS and exhibited false fossils in the museums for years.
- It appeared that ALL THESKULLS that Darwinists put forth to prove
the imaginary human evolution ARE INVALID and thus all of them were
removed from the scientific literature.
- The fossils proving the fact of creation HAVE BEEN CONCEALED BY
DARWINISTS FOR YEARS.
- The fact that we are only exposed to THE IMAGE of the matter has
refuted the Darwinist philosophy.
While these facts are known to everyone, you vainly payto bring these
shaman priests. Slumbering in closed salons while listening to their
Sumerian and ancient Egyptian legends is nothing but vain expense and
loss of time.Bringing pagan priests isno solution. Ask these pagan
priests if "there is a single intermediate fossil?" If so, ask them to
bring and show it. Tell them that they will be rewarded with 10
trillion TL if they can. If they fail to bring, then this means they
are telling a lie, do not believe in them. Ask these people if the
"all of the 100 million fossils unearthed so far are intact, perfect
fossils". Ask them again if almost all of them are "living fossils" or
not. Ask them if the "evolution of horse" is true or not. Ask them if
they have "hidden the fossils for years or not." Ask them ifthe
"formation of a protein by chance is impossible" and "if they are
aware of it."
If they can answer none of these, then this means that they have come
here for "sleeping" sessions.
As will be remembered, in the faceof the question, "Is therea single
intermediate fossil?" Douglas Futuymaescaped from the speaker's
platform in Vatican. Here in closed salons they continue to give
trouble to people by telling their superstitions similar to pagan
ceremonies. The lectures given by Futuyma drowse people like fairy
tales. Indeed, Andrew Berry confessed in an interview he gave to a
newspaper that the environment they form is extremely boring.
How long will this POOR, PATHETIC RESISTANCE continue? In the face of
clear scientific truths, plain facts this bigoted resistance is the
shame of the century. Feigning ignorance to such plain, explicit and
substantive facts, deceiving people with fake claims they make from
the platforms, trying to make people believe in claims like, "Our
ancestors were earthworms", "Our forefather is a microbe", "The
missing link finally uncovered" is the most desperate hoax of the
century.
This is self-deception; they trulyresist rationalism. This is an
INGLORIOUS ACTION AGAINST rational human thinking. It is high time to
see the facts. This poor, primitive rationaleis a 150 years-old
disgrace. Trying to uphold ancient Mesopotamian superstitions too
distant to be scientific only for the sake of obstinacy is pure shame.
This action has to be ended in no time.
Ida, is one the extinct species of lemur. It is a perfect developed
lemur and it shows no sign of intermediary form. It is an evidence
ofcreation
"GENERAL ARTICLES"
- Tamil -- Urdu -- Kannada -- Telugu --*-
Share
"BISMILLA HIRRAHMAAN NIRRAHEEM"
WELCOME! - AS'SALAMU ALAIKUM!!
******** *****
*****
[All] praise is [due] to Allah, Lord of the worlds; -
Guide us to the straight path
*- -*
* * In this Blog; More Than Ten Thousand(10,000) {Masha Allah} - Most Usefull Articles!, In Various Topics!! :- Read And All Articles & Get Benifite!
* Visit :-
"INDIA "- Time in New Delhi -
*- WHAT ISLAM SAYS -*
-
Islam is a religion of Mercy, Peace and Blessing. Its teachings emphasize kind hear tedness, help, sympathy, forgiveness, sacrifice, love and care.Qur’an, the Shari’ah and the life of our beloved Prophet (SAW) mirrors this attribute, and it should be reflected in the conduct of a Momin.Islam appreciates those who are kind to their fellow being,and dislikes them who are hard hearted, curt, and hypocrite.Recall that historical moment, when Prophet (SAW) entered Makkah as a conqueror. There was before him a multitude of surrendered enemies, former oppressors and persecutors, who had evicted the Muslims from their homes, deprived them of their belongings, humiliated and intimidated Prophet (SAW) hatched schemes for his murder and tortured and killed his companions. But Prophet (SAW) displayed his usual magnanimity, generosity, and kind heartedness by forgiving all of them and declaring general amnesty...Subhanallah. May Allah help us tailor our life according to the teachings of Islam. (Aameen)./-
''HASBUNALLAHU WA NI'MAL WAKEEL''
-
''Allah is Sufficient for us'' + '' All praise is due to Allah. May peace and blessings beupon the Messenger, his household and companions '' (Aameen) | | |
| | |
|
Share
Follow Me | |
**
Share
-
-*- *: ::->
*
Sunday, May 19, 2013
Darwinists now raisetheir hopes by importingpagan priests from America
Scientists are embarrassed by the Ida circus
Even Darwinist scientists had no qualms about admitting: "THE IDA SHOW
IS AN EMBARRASSMENT!"
The IDA FUROR, first acclaimed by the Darwinist Jorn Hurum, a
paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History in Oslo, and then
lauded to the skies by the Darwinist David Attenborough as the missing
link that had been sought for so manyyears and described in the press
under such headlines as "the ancestor of man" and "the eighth wonder
of the world" has even attracted intense criticism from Darwinist
scientists. In their eyes, this peculiar show IS LITERALLY A CLOWNING!
Many fossils have been made the subject of speculation during the
history of the Darwinist deception. Theses have been written about
many false fossils (there are 40 separate doctoral theses about
PILTDOWN Man, which was subsequently establishedas a hoax). Pictures
of these as the forerunner of human beings that never actually existed
have appeared in Darwinist publications (pictures of Nebraska Man,
based on the discovery of a single boar tooth, and his entire family
appeared in newspapers for months on end). And some of these fakes
havebeen taken from countryto country and placed ondisplay. All these
fossils were the subject of intense Darwinist propaganda, to be
replaced by a profound silence in Darwinist circles once they were
shown to be false or hoaxes.
On occasion the speculation continued, quite shamelessly, even once
fossils had been shown to be false. Haeckel's false illustrations, for
instance, continued to appear in text books even after Haeckel had
admitted they were fraudulent. Another well-known example is the
evolution of the horse series. Scientists have admitted that this
series is a fantasy devoidof the slightest foundation. Yet the series
is still exhibited and discussed in text books. That is the extent to
which Darwinist speculation can be carried.
The furor over Ida resembles these previous instances, but also
differs from them inone regard. This time, Darwinists have totally
lost control. Because Darwinism is in a historicstate of collapse.
Darwinist stratagems arebeing exposed one by one. That is why
Darwinists have made such a sudden fuss over a fossil lemur that had
been kept on the shelf for 26 years. Some Darwinist scientists
initially reacted with caution, issuing moderate statements along the
lines of, "it is still too early to refer to it as a missing link."
But the propaganda reachedsuch alarming dimensions and became so
blatant that even Darwinist scientists wereeventually forced in strong
reaction against it.
What have Darwinist scientists said about Ida?
The scandal of the Ida furor has even been criticized by Darwinist scientists.
In an article carried under the title "The Missing Link?" on the ABC
News Television website, the Johns Hopkins University Carnegie Museum
of Natural History paleontologist Chris Beard says:
"This fossil is not as closeto monkeys, apes, and humans as we are
being led to believe." 1
In another article in NewScientist magazine titled "Why Ida Fossil Is
Not The Missing Link?", Beard openly states that Ida bears no
similarity tohuman beings, for whichreason it cannot be described as a
missing link. No matter how much research may be put into it, Ida is
not, according to the Darwinist Beard, in that sense the eighth
wonderof the world. 2 Beard makes it clear that the fossil in question
is a fully formed and perfect one that can tell us muchabout biology.
The Duke University Richard Kay openly admits that there is no
scientific analysis to prove that Ida is a missing link, in other
words that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. 3 Elwyn Simons, a Duke
University paleoanthropologist, states that Ida tells us nothing we
did not already know. 4
Perhaps the most honestcriticism came from the Timesonline web site:
"Attenborough...was justone element of the media circus turning Ida
into humanity's newest and best link with its ancient past."
Timesonline made the following comments about the fossil:
"Such finds are usually unveiled to the world through the sober
pagesof an academic journal, but for Ida nothing less than a
glittering press conference at the American Museum of Natural History
in New York would do. Later thescientists who studied Ida outlined the
details of their research. Their pronouncements were just as
extravagant." 5
It will be useful to point out here in the context of Darwinists that
the information contained in the sober pages of academic journals is
not always of any scientific value. Historic scientific frauds such as
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Archaeoraptor were all announced over
many pages and for many daysin the serious academic journals in
question. In order a find is to be of any scientific value, there
needs to be scientific evidence of that. But since finds always
conflict with their claims (fossils represent perfect life forms, but
Darwinists arealways on the look out for imaginary, semi-developed
transitional forms), Darwinists are never able to produce any
scientific evidence. Consequently, no matter how sober the academic
journal is, the information given to defend Darwinism, is always only
a deception.
Cambridge University Professor of Human Evolution Robert Foley says it
is "meaningless" to describe this creature as a missing link.
Two well-known Darwinist paleontologists who share different views
about the supposed evolution of man and who are therefore neverable to
agree, Elwyn Simons from Duke University and Christopher Beard from
the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, have made these comments about Ida:
6
"Dr. Simons phoned me for the first time in 10 years to share his
outrage about this MALARKEY and, for the first time in a decade, I
agree with him," said Beard last week. "...The roll-out was
extraordinary and it is now clear that the scientists were under
pressure to meet the showbusiness deadlines."
Simons said, "It's absurd and dangerous." "This is all bad science...
Darwinius is a wonderfulfossil, but IT IS NOT A MISSING LINK OF ANY
KIND. IT REPRESENTS A DEAD END IN EVOLUTION."
In addition to the words of all these scientists setting out the scale
of the Ida fraud, Jorn Hurum himself, introduced at the beginning of
this article,also admits he performed a circus around Ida and
attemptsto justify this by saying: "Any pop band is doing the same
thing. Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking
the same way in science."
It will be appropriate at this point to recall that Hurum is someone
who has made sensational use of fossils in the past. The fact that he
has signed a contract with the Atlantic film company about the
fossilIda that he has made such a sensation out of issignificant
evidence of how far he has taken this circus and how the matter has
nothing to dowith science at all.
Conclusion:
The fossil Ida, which has even been criticized by Darwinist
scientists, is a crystal clear example of the dimension the Darwinist
propaganda techniques we have been describing for so long can actually
assume. Darwinist propaganda has been carried out by way of these
techniques for the last 150 years. The reason why the Ida circus is
now coming in for criticism from Darwinist scientists stems from an
attempt to carry on with the circus even though the techniques of
Darwinist propaganda have been exposed and that fossil in question has
been proved to belong to a perfect life form and is in no way any kind
of missing link. By being persisted in so shamelessly when the true
facts are so obvious the circus has damaged Darwinists' esteem and
forced Darwinist scientists to react.
All Darwinists are of course well aware that Ida is not a transitional
form but the fossil of a perfect life form. Contrary to all the
speculation, Ida is a flawless life form that lived a perfect life
some 47 million years ago. This fossil, which is 95% preserved and
whose every detail can therefore be examined, CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE
STRUCTURE SUGGESTIVE OFA TRANSITIONAL FORM CHARACTERISTIC. This
extraordinary find IS PROOF OF THE FACT OF CREATION.
____________________________
1 The Missing Link? Nightline, ABC News television, May 20, 2009. The
Missing Link? Nightline, ABC News television, May 20, 2009
2 Chris Beard, "Why Ida fossil is not the missing link", New
Scientist, May 21, 2009,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html
3 Gibbons, A. "Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists.
ScienceNOW Daily News. Posted on sciencenow.sciencemag.orgMay 19,
2009, accessed May 20, 2009
4 Dayton, L. Scientists divided on Ida as the missing link. The
Australian. Posted on theaustralian.news.com.au May 21, 2009, accessed
May 21, 2009
5 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece
6 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece
IS AN EMBARRASSMENT!"
The IDA FUROR, first acclaimed by the Darwinist Jorn Hurum, a
paleontologist at the Museum of Natural History in Oslo, and then
lauded to the skies by the Darwinist David Attenborough as the missing
link that had been sought for so manyyears and described in the press
under such headlines as "the ancestor of man" and "the eighth wonder
of the world" has even attracted intense criticism from Darwinist
scientists. In their eyes, this peculiar show IS LITERALLY A CLOWNING!
Many fossils have been made the subject of speculation during the
history of the Darwinist deception. Theses have been written about
many false fossils (there are 40 separate doctoral theses about
PILTDOWN Man, which was subsequently establishedas a hoax). Pictures
of these as the forerunner of human beings that never actually existed
have appeared in Darwinist publications (pictures of Nebraska Man,
based on the discovery of a single boar tooth, and his entire family
appeared in newspapers for months on end). And some of these fakes
havebeen taken from countryto country and placed ondisplay. All these
fossils were the subject of intense Darwinist propaganda, to be
replaced by a profound silence in Darwinist circles once they were
shown to be false or hoaxes.
On occasion the speculation continued, quite shamelessly, even once
fossils had been shown to be false. Haeckel's false illustrations, for
instance, continued to appear in text books even after Haeckel had
admitted they were fraudulent. Another well-known example is the
evolution of the horse series. Scientists have admitted that this
series is a fantasy devoidof the slightest foundation. Yet the series
is still exhibited and discussed in text books. That is the extent to
which Darwinist speculation can be carried.
The furor over Ida resembles these previous instances, but also
differs from them inone regard. This time, Darwinists have totally
lost control. Because Darwinism is in a historicstate of collapse.
Darwinist stratagems arebeing exposed one by one. That is why
Darwinists have made such a sudden fuss over a fossil lemur that had
been kept on the shelf for 26 years. Some Darwinist scientists
initially reacted with caution, issuing moderate statements along the
lines of, "it is still too early to refer to it as a missing link."
But the propaganda reachedsuch alarming dimensions and became so
blatant that even Darwinist scientists wereeventually forced in strong
reaction against it.
What have Darwinist scientists said about Ida?
The scandal of the Ida furor has even been criticized by Darwinist scientists.
In an article carried under the title "The Missing Link?" on the ABC
News Television website, the Johns Hopkins University Carnegie Museum
of Natural History paleontologist Chris Beard says:
"This fossil is not as closeto monkeys, apes, and humans as we are
being led to believe." 1
In another article in NewScientist magazine titled "Why Ida Fossil Is
Not The Missing Link?", Beard openly states that Ida bears no
similarity tohuman beings, for whichreason it cannot be described as a
missing link. No matter how much research may be put into it, Ida is
not, according to the Darwinist Beard, in that sense the eighth
wonderof the world. 2 Beard makes it clear that the fossil in question
is a fully formed and perfect one that can tell us muchabout biology.
The Duke University Richard Kay openly admits that there is no
scientific analysis to prove that Ida is a missing link, in other
words that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AT ALL. 3 Elwyn Simons, a Duke
University paleoanthropologist, states that Ida tells us nothing we
did not already know. 4
Perhaps the most honestcriticism came from the Timesonline web site:
"Attenborough...was justone element of the media circus turning Ida
into humanity's newest and best link with its ancient past."
Timesonline made the following comments about the fossil:
"Such finds are usually unveiled to the world through the sober
pagesof an academic journal, but for Ida nothing less than a
glittering press conference at the American Museum of Natural History
in New York would do. Later thescientists who studied Ida outlined the
details of their research. Their pronouncements were just as
extravagant." 5
It will be useful to point out here in the context of Darwinists that
the information contained in the sober pages of academic journals is
not always of any scientific value. Historic scientific frauds such as
Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Archaeoraptor were all announced over
many pages and for many daysin the serious academic journals in
question. In order a find is to be of any scientific value, there
needs to be scientific evidence of that. But since finds always
conflict with their claims (fossils represent perfect life forms, but
Darwinists arealways on the look out for imaginary, semi-developed
transitional forms), Darwinists are never able to produce any
scientific evidence. Consequently, no matter how sober the academic
journal is, the information given to defend Darwinism, is always only
a deception.
Cambridge University Professor of Human Evolution Robert Foley says it
is "meaningless" to describe this creature as a missing link.
Two well-known Darwinist paleontologists who share different views
about the supposed evolution of man and who are therefore neverable to
agree, Elwyn Simons from Duke University and Christopher Beard from
the Carnegie Museum in Pittsburgh, have made these comments about Ida:
6
"Dr. Simons phoned me for the first time in 10 years to share his
outrage about this MALARKEY and, for the first time in a decade, I
agree with him," said Beard last week. "...The roll-out was
extraordinary and it is now clear that the scientists were under
pressure to meet the showbusiness deadlines."
Simons said, "It's absurd and dangerous." "This is all bad science...
Darwinius is a wonderfulfossil, but IT IS NOT A MISSING LINK OF ANY
KIND. IT REPRESENTS A DEAD END IN EVOLUTION."
In addition to the words of all these scientists setting out the scale
of the Ida fraud, Jorn Hurum himself, introduced at the beginning of
this article,also admits he performed a circus around Ida and
attemptsto justify this by saying: "Any pop band is doing the same
thing. Any athlete is doing the same thing. We have to start thinking
the same way in science."
It will be appropriate at this point to recall that Hurum is someone
who has made sensational use of fossils in the past. The fact that he
has signed a contract with the Atlantic film company about the
fossilIda that he has made such a sensation out of issignificant
evidence of how far he has taken this circus and how the matter has
nothing to dowith science at all.
Conclusion:
The fossil Ida, which has even been criticized by Darwinist
scientists, is a crystal clear example of the dimension the Darwinist
propaganda techniques we have been describing for so long can actually
assume. Darwinist propaganda has been carried out by way of these
techniques for the last 150 years. The reason why the Ida circus is
now coming in for criticism from Darwinist scientists stems from an
attempt to carry on with the circus even though the techniques of
Darwinist propaganda have been exposed and that fossil in question has
been proved to belong to a perfect life form and is in no way any kind
of missing link. By being persisted in so shamelessly when the true
facts are so obvious the circus has damaged Darwinists' esteem and
forced Darwinist scientists to react.
All Darwinists are of course well aware that Ida is not a transitional
form but the fossil of a perfect life form. Contrary to all the
speculation, Ida is a flawless life form that lived a perfect life
some 47 million years ago. This fossil, which is 95% preserved and
whose every detail can therefore be examined, CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE
STRUCTURE SUGGESTIVE OFA TRANSITIONAL FORM CHARACTERISTIC. This
extraordinary find IS PROOF OF THE FACT OF CREATION.
____________________________
1 The Missing Link? Nightline, ABC News television, May 20, 2009. The
Missing Link? Nightline, ABC News television, May 20, 2009
2 Chris Beard, "Why Ida fossil is not the missing link", New
Scientist, May 21, 2009,
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17173-why-ida-fossil-is-not-the-missing-link.html
3 Gibbons, A. "Revolutionary" Fossil Fails to Dazzle Paleontologists.
ScienceNOW Daily News. Posted on sciencenow.sciencemag.orgMay 19,
2009, accessed May 20, 2009
4 Dayton, L. Scientists divided on Ida as the missing link. The
Australian. Posted on theaustralian.news.com.au May 21, 2009, accessed
May 21, 2009
5 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece
6 http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6350095.ece
Darwinists' claims that Darwinism's saying 'we come from apes' is an oversimplification
Darwinists maintain that the peoplearound them are simplifying
Darwinism and Darwin, by provocatively saying, "A fool called Darwin"
or "Look, we resemble monkeys, so we must be descended from them."
But this is a deception. There is no provocation going on. People have
merely been told about the information of which they are unaware in
recent years. It has been proved that they were misled and deceived
for years. They have been told how Darwinism is a lie, that it is only
kept alive by propaganda, that Darwinists have produced false evidence
to rescue their position, and that they try to mislead people with the
lies that "we have found a transitional fossil" or "this is the
missing link," even though not a singletransitional form fossil
exists. People have seen the 100 million fossils that were concealed
from them for years. They have touched thesefossils with their own
hands at exhibitions andhave seen that living things HAVE REMAINED
UNCHANGED for millions of years. There is no longer any chance of
deceiving them.
What Darwinistsare in fact complaining about is this: Darwinists have
seen that people's awareness has risen. They realize that people have
discovered that Darwinism is nonsense. In complaining about the
over-simplification of Darwinism they are actually expressing their
unhappiness with this state of affairs. The fact is that Darwinism has
not been oversimplified at all, though its facile and false face has
finally been exposed.
Darwinism is a theory that claims that "the first cell formed by
chance in muddy water."It maintains that the whole variety of life
came into being throughchance, unconscious andrandom events. It
ascribes the existence of such extraordinary structures as wings,
fins, feathers and tails to blind coincidence alone. And no matter how
much Darwinists may deny it, Darwinism claims that "humans are
descended from monkeys because they resemble monkeys." Darwinism is no
more complex than that.
Darwinists are shocked and alarmed by the exposure of this facile
logic and have therefore recently been sheltering behind the claim
that "monkeys are not really our ancestors, but our cousins." But
thisis part of the same deception. When Darwinism asserts, "Man comes
from a primate", does this incur a different meaning? A monkey or a
primate, what difference does it make? Is it not the same old outdated
lie and perverted claim? Does this false theory suddenly become
scientific if one says "man's ancestor is a primate" or "humans and
primates have the same ancestor"? Of course, not. This is nothing else
than maintaining the deception by way of sophistry. It merely treats
people with contempt.
Darwinists' worries very probably stem from Darwinism's sudden and
recent collapse. Their attempts to portray Darwinism as a scientific
theory, to claim that it has been proved "apart from a few minor
points" and the way they complain about people ridiculing this
outdated theory are all indications of this. Because Darwinists are
facing a situation they never expected. Paleontology, the only science
that might have produced any evidence for Darwinism, HAS PRODUCED NOT
A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL. 100 million fossilshave been
unearthed, BUT THESE ALL PROVE CREATION. All fossils belong to perfect
life forms. Nothing is deficient, missing, semi-developed or peculiar
in them. Moreover, a significant part of these fossils are identical
to life forms around today. LIVING THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED OVER
MILLIONS OF YEARS. In other words,THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION.
Darwinists sought the answer to all this powerful evidence by HIDING
fossils away. (Darwinists have done this before. They kept Cambrian
Period fossils dating back 540 million years that dealt a seriousblow
to Darwinism HIDDEN AWAY FOR 70 YEARS.) But the unearthing of these
fossils from where they had been concealed has come as a huge shock. A
great awakening against the Darwinist deception has begun in all
countries of the world. Instead of believing in Darwinism, people now
laugh at it as a false and outdated theory. That is why Darwinists
complain about university instructors, teachers andeven their own
families laughing at Darwinism. Darwinists are no longerable to
prevent people coming to full awarenessin the face of the true
scientific facts.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Darwinism and Darwin, by provocatively saying, "A fool called Darwin"
or "Look, we resemble monkeys, so we must be descended from them."
But this is a deception. There is no provocation going on. People have
merely been told about the information of which they are unaware in
recent years. It has been proved that they were misled and deceived
for years. They have been told how Darwinism is a lie, that it is only
kept alive by propaganda, that Darwinists have produced false evidence
to rescue their position, and that they try to mislead people with the
lies that "we have found a transitional fossil" or "this is the
missing link," even though not a singletransitional form fossil
exists. People have seen the 100 million fossils that were concealed
from them for years. They have touched thesefossils with their own
hands at exhibitions andhave seen that living things HAVE REMAINED
UNCHANGED for millions of years. There is no longer any chance of
deceiving them.
What Darwinistsare in fact complaining about is this: Darwinists have
seen that people's awareness has risen. They realize that people have
discovered that Darwinism is nonsense. In complaining about the
over-simplification of Darwinism they are actually expressing their
unhappiness with this state of affairs. The fact is that Darwinism has
not been oversimplified at all, though its facile and false face has
finally been exposed.
Darwinism is a theory that claims that "the first cell formed by
chance in muddy water."It maintains that the whole variety of life
came into being throughchance, unconscious andrandom events. It
ascribes the existence of such extraordinary structures as wings,
fins, feathers and tails to blind coincidence alone. And no matter how
much Darwinists may deny it, Darwinism claims that "humans are
descended from monkeys because they resemble monkeys." Darwinism is no
more complex than that.
Darwinists are shocked and alarmed by the exposure of this facile
logic and have therefore recently been sheltering behind the claim
that "monkeys are not really our ancestors, but our cousins." But
thisis part of the same deception. When Darwinism asserts, "Man comes
from a primate", does this incur a different meaning? A monkey or a
primate, what difference does it make? Is it not the same old outdated
lie and perverted claim? Does this false theory suddenly become
scientific if one says "man's ancestor is a primate" or "humans and
primates have the same ancestor"? Of course, not. This is nothing else
than maintaining the deception by way of sophistry. It merely treats
people with contempt.
Darwinists' worries very probably stem from Darwinism's sudden and
recent collapse. Their attempts to portray Darwinism as a scientific
theory, to claim that it has been proved "apart from a few minor
points" and the way they complain about people ridiculing this
outdated theory are all indications of this. Because Darwinists are
facing a situation they never expected. Paleontology, the only science
that might have produced any evidence for Darwinism, HAS PRODUCED NOT
A SINGLE TRANSITIONAL FORM FOSSIL. 100 million fossilshave been
unearthed, BUT THESE ALL PROVE CREATION. All fossils belong to perfect
life forms. Nothing is deficient, missing, semi-developed or peculiar
in them. Moreover, a significant part of these fossils are identical
to life forms around today. LIVING THINGS HAVE NOT CHANGED OVER
MILLIONS OF YEARS. In other words,THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS EVOLUTION.
Darwinists sought the answer to all this powerful evidence by HIDING
fossils away. (Darwinists have done this before. They kept Cambrian
Period fossils dating back 540 million years that dealt a seriousblow
to Darwinism HIDDEN AWAY FOR 70 YEARS.) But the unearthing of these
fossils from where they had been concealed has come as a huge shock. A
great awakening against the Darwinist deception has begun in all
countries of the world. Instead of believing in Darwinism, people now
laugh at it as a false and outdated theory. That is why Darwinists
complain about university instructors, teachers andeven their own
families laughing at Darwinism. Darwinists are no longerable to
prevent people coming to full awarenessin the face of the true
scientific facts.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Fathwa, - Performing the ‘Asr prayer while thinking that one is performing the Thuhr prayer
Question
Sometimes when I perform the 'Asr prayer, it occurs to me that I am
performing the Thuhr prayer, if I get distracted or absent minded.
However, I rectify my intention and remind myself that I am performing
the 'Asr prayer. Is my prayer in such a case invalid, given that my
intention has changed?
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify
that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad
isHis slave and Messenger.
Being distracted and forgetting one's intention during the prayer does
not invalidate it. What invalidates the prayer is deliberately
changing the intention or intending to change it. It is difficult to
maintain one's intention vivid in the mind throughout the entire
prayer.
Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet , said: " When the call for
prayer is pronounced, Satan takes to his heels, passing windwith
noise. When the call is finished, he comes back. When the Iqaamah is
pronounced, he again takes to his heels and, after its completion, he
returns again to interferebetween the (praying) person and his heart,
saying to him: 'Remember this or that thing' (things that the person
could not remember before (the prayer) till he forgets whether he has
offered three or four Rak'ahs. So if one forgets whether hehas prayed
three or four Rak'ahs, he should perform two prostrationsof Sahw (i.e.
forgetfulness). " [Al-Bukhaari and Muslim]
Hence, if the change in the worshipper's intention – the way it was
mentioned by the questioner – was becausehe was distracted or (he
temporarily) forgot his intention, this does not invalidate the
prayer, as stated earlier.
However, if you mean that the worshipper revoked his intention and
intended to perform another prayer, then it surely invalidates the
prayer as in such a case the intention totally changed.
If the questioner means that, during the prayer, he questioned his
intention (and doubted whether he had intendedto perform 'Asr or
Thuhr) and then counted on his doubt (without verifying it), this also
invalidates the prayer as such a prayer lacks the condition of having
an affirmed and assertive intention. However, if he did not act on his
doubt until he realized the truth(about his specific intention), there
is no harm in that.
Allaah Knows best. - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Sometimes when I perform the 'Asr prayer, it occurs to me that I am
performing the Thuhr prayer, if I get distracted or absent minded.
However, I rectify my intention and remind myself that I am performing
the 'Asr prayer. Is my prayer in such a case invalid, given that my
intention has changed?
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify
that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad
isHis slave and Messenger.
Being distracted and forgetting one's intention during the prayer does
not invalidate it. What invalidates the prayer is deliberately
changing the intention or intending to change it. It is difficult to
maintain one's intention vivid in the mind throughout the entire
prayer.
Abu Hurayrah reported that the Prophet , said: " When the call for
prayer is pronounced, Satan takes to his heels, passing windwith
noise. When the call is finished, he comes back. When the Iqaamah is
pronounced, he again takes to his heels and, after its completion, he
returns again to interferebetween the (praying) person and his heart,
saying to him: 'Remember this or that thing' (things that the person
could not remember before (the prayer) till he forgets whether he has
offered three or four Rak'ahs. So if one forgets whether hehas prayed
three or four Rak'ahs, he should perform two prostrationsof Sahw (i.e.
forgetfulness). " [Al-Bukhaari and Muslim]
Hence, if the change in the worshipper's intention – the way it was
mentioned by the questioner – was becausehe was distracted or (he
temporarily) forgot his intention, this does not invalidate the
prayer, as stated earlier.
However, if you mean that the worshipper revoked his intention and
intended to perform another prayer, then it surely invalidates the
prayer as in such a case the intention totally changed.
If the questioner means that, during the prayer, he questioned his
intention (and doubted whether he had intendedto perform 'Asr or
Thuhr) and then counted on his doubt (without verifying it), this also
invalidates the prayer as such a prayer lacks the condition of having
an affirmed and assertive intention. However, if he did not act on his
doubt until he realized the truth(about his specific intention), there
is no harm in that.
Allaah Knows best. - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Fathwa, - Not all mosque rulings apply to a Musalla
Question
We have a Musalla (area allocated for prayer) at our workplace where
weperform the 'Asr and Thuhr prayers but we do not proclaim the Athaan
for these prayers in the Musalla; is this correct or should we
proclaim the Athaan?
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify
that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad
isHis slave and Messenger.
The preponderant opinion among Muslim scholars is that proclaiming the
Athaan in mosques is a collective obligation on the Muslim community.
A collective and not an individual one which, when it can be properly
carried out by a limited number of individuals, is canceled for the
remaining Muslims. Otherwise they all share the sin for not performing
it.
Since the rulings of the mosque (in cities and villages) in Islam does
notall apply to the Musalla, the Athaan is not obligatory for those
who perform the congregational prayer in the Musalla, yet it is
permissible and recommended. The Athaan is prescribed for Muslims when
prayers are due anywhere, whether in a city or outside it, due to the
general words of the Prophet , directed to Maalik ibn Al-Huwayrith and
his companions: " Whenever prayer time is due, you should pronounce
the Athaan and the Iqaamah and theolder of you should lead the prayer.
" [Al-Bukhaari]
Thus, the Sunnah of the Prophet , is that, whenever an obligatory
prayer is due, someone should proclaim the Athaan. However, the Athaan
does not affect the validity of the prayer,whether it is considered
obligatory or recommended.
Allaah Knows best.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
We have a Musalla (area allocated for prayer) at our workplace where
weperform the 'Asr and Thuhr prayers but we do not proclaim the Athaan
for these prayers in the Musalla; is this correct or should we
proclaim the Athaan?
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify
that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad
isHis slave and Messenger.
The preponderant opinion among Muslim scholars is that proclaiming the
Athaan in mosques is a collective obligation on the Muslim community.
A collective and not an individual one which, when it can be properly
carried out by a limited number of individuals, is canceled for the
remaining Muslims. Otherwise they all share the sin for not performing
it.
Since the rulings of the mosque (in cities and villages) in Islam does
notall apply to the Musalla, the Athaan is not obligatory for those
who perform the congregational prayer in the Musalla, yet it is
permissible and recommended. The Athaan is prescribed for Muslims when
prayers are due anywhere, whether in a city or outside it, due to the
general words of the Prophet , directed to Maalik ibn Al-Huwayrith and
his companions: " Whenever prayer time is due, you should pronounce
the Athaan and the Iqaamah and theolder of you should lead the prayer.
" [Al-Bukhaari]
Thus, the Sunnah of the Prophet , is that, whenever an obligatory
prayer is due, someone should proclaim the Athaan. However, the Athaan
does not affect the validity of the prayer,whether it is considered
obligatory or recommended.
Allaah Knows best.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Fathwa, - Deliberately leaving recitation of a Surah after Al-Faatihah in prayer
Question
The Imaam in the second Rak'ah of Maghrib prayerdid not recite a Surah
after Al-Faatihah and then he bowed and prostrated normally. After
the third Rak'ah, the Imaam ended his prayer with Tasleem without
performing Sujood as-Sahw. We asked the Imaam to perform Sujood
as-Sahw but he told us that there was no need for it. He informed us
that he deliberately abstained from reciting a Surah after Al-Faatihah
and thatwhat he did was permissible. What is the religious ruling on
not reciting a Surah after Al-Faatihah intentionally in the second
Rak'ah of Maghrib prayer? May Allaah The Exalted Reward you
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify
that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad
isHis slave and Messenger.
It is disliked for a worshipper to deliberately not recite a Surah
after Al-Faatihah inthe first and second Rak'ah of a prayer. Whoever
does so will be abandoning a Sunnah according to the majorityof Muslim
scholars. The Imaam in such a case should not perform Sujood as-Sahw
since it isprescribed to compensate for a worshipper's forgetfulness
in the prayer.
However, if the worshipper deliberately neglected an obligation or a
pillar of the prayer, his prayer is considered invalid and performing
Sujood as-Sahw does not compensate for such a mistake.
If a worshipper neglects a Sunnah, his prayer is valid despite his
mistake. However, even then, Sujood as-Sahw is not prescribed in such
a case to compensate for such error.
Allaah Knows best.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
The Imaam in the second Rak'ah of Maghrib prayerdid not recite a Surah
after Al-Faatihah and then he bowed and prostrated normally. After
the third Rak'ah, the Imaam ended his prayer with Tasleem without
performing Sujood as-Sahw. We asked the Imaam to perform Sujood
as-Sahw but he told us that there was no need for it. He informed us
that he deliberately abstained from reciting a Surah after Al-Faatihah
and thatwhat he did was permissible. What is the religious ruling on
not reciting a Surah after Al-Faatihah intentionally in the second
Rak'ah of Maghrib prayer? May Allaah The Exalted Reward you
Answer
All perfect praise be to Allaah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify
that there is none worthy of worship except Allaah, and that Muhammad
isHis slave and Messenger.
It is disliked for a worshipper to deliberately not recite a Surah
after Al-Faatihah inthe first and second Rak'ah of a prayer. Whoever
does so will be abandoning a Sunnah according to the majorityof Muslim
scholars. The Imaam in such a case should not perform Sujood as-Sahw
since it isprescribed to compensate for a worshipper's forgetfulness
in the prayer.
However, if the worshipper deliberately neglected an obligation or a
pillar of the prayer, his prayer is considered invalid and performing
Sujood as-Sahw does not compensate for such a mistake.
If a worshipper neglects a Sunnah, his prayer is valid despite his
mistake. However, even then, Sujood as-Sahw is not prescribed in such
a case to compensate for such error.
Allaah Knows best.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Being Bashful of Allaah The Almighty
A person who is bashful of people seeing him commit an evil act,
should be more bashful of Allaah The Almighty. Consequently, he should
neither neglect an obligation nor commit a sin as he knows that Allaah
The Almighty sees him and that He will inevitably call him to
reckoning on the Day of Resurrection. Therefore, he feels bashfulness
of his Lord.
It was narrated on the authority of Ibn Mas'ood that the Messenger of
Allaah, , once said to his Companions : "Show due reverence to
Allaah." They (the Companions ) said, "We show (Allaah The Almighty)
due reverence, O Messenger of Allaah." He said: "It is not that (which
you think). Rather, a person who shows Allaah due reverence should
preserve his head (i.e., bynot using it to commit any act of
disobedience) as well as what it includes (i.e., the eyes, ears and
mouth) and preserve his belly (i.e., from eating unlawful food) and
what it includes and should constantly remember death and perishing.
Whoever pursues (the reward of) the Hereafter should abandon the
pleasures of this worldly life. Whoever does so hasshown due reverence
to Allaah." [Ahmad]
"His head as well as what it includes" means that the head and its
external and internal senses should be used only in permissible
things.
It was narrated on the authority of Mu'aawiyah ibn Haydah that he
said, I said, "O Messenger of Allaah from whom should we conceal our
'Awrah (private parts) and to whom can we expose it?" He replied:
"Conceal your 'Awrah except from your wife and from whom your right
hands possess (slave-girls)." I then asked, "O Messenger of Allaah,
(what should we do) if the people are assembled together?" He replied:
"If you can do so in a way that no one looks at it ('Awrah), then no
one should look at it ."I then asked, "O Messenger of Allaah, if one
of us is alone, (what should he do)?" He replied : "Allaah is more
entitled than people that bashfulness should be shown to Him." [Ahmad]
Bilaal ibn Sa'd said, "Do not look at the smallness of the sin, but
look at the greatness of the one you are sinning against."
Once, when a man was alone with a woman and he wanted to have unlawful
sexual intercourse with her, she said to him, "Look if thereis anyone
who can see us?" He replied, "Only the stars see us." She asked, "
Then where is The One who created them?
In Madaarij As-Saalikeen , Ibn Al-Qayyim divided bashfulness into ten
parts: bashfulness out of committing wrongdoings, bashfulness out of
being negligent, bashfulness out of exaltation, bashfulness out of
generosity, bashfulness out of chastity, bashfulness out of belittling
and disdaining oneself, bashfulness out of love, bashfulness out of
worship, bashfulness out of honor and glory, and bashfulness of the
person who is bashful of his own self.
Ibn Al-Qayyim elaborated on this and here I will mention them briefly:
1- Bashfulness out of committing wrongdoings:
An example for this, Aadam (Adam) tried to flee in Paradise.
Thereupon, Allaah The Almighty said to him: "Areyou fleeing from Me, O
Aadam?" He replied: "No, my Lord. I am fleeing out of bashfulness of
You."
Another example is bashfulness of the prophets, may Allaah exalt their
mention, on the Day of Resurrection although they have no faults to
discredit their high and sublime ranks.
2- Bashfulness out of being inelegant:
An example of this is bashfulness of the angels,may Allaah exalt their
mention, who exalt Allaah The Almighty nightand day and do not
slacken. On the Day of Resurrection, however, they will say (to
Allaah), "Glory be to You. We did not worship You as You are due." ---
3- Bashfulness out of exaltation:
This aspect of bashfulnessoccurs due to knowledge. The degree of one's
bashfulness is according to the degree of his knowledgeable of his
Lord. For example, it was narrated that 'Amr ibn Al-'Aas used to say,
"By Allaah, I was the most bashful of people with the Messenger of
Allaah . I never gazed at the Messenger of Allaah nor argued with him
on a matter I desired until he died, as I was bashful of him." [Ahmad]
4- Bashfulness out of generosity:
The Prophet, , was bashful of the guests whom he invited to the
wedding banquet of Zaynab . They ate and then sat for a long time. The
Prophet, , was bashful to tell them to leave. Thereupon, Allaah The
Exalted revealed the verse in which He Says (what means): }
…withoutseeking to remain for conversation. { [Quran 33:53]
5- Bashfulness out of chastity:
For example, ' Ali ibn Abi Taalib was too bashfulto ask the Messenger
of Allaah, , about pre-ejaculatory fluid as he was his son-in-law. It
was narrated on his authority that he said, "I used to discharge
pre-ejaculatory fluid frequently. I told Al-Miqdaad ibn ' Amr to ask
the Prophet and he did. The Prophet replied: "You should perform
ablution."
The wording of another narration reads: "I used to discharge
pre-ejaculatory fluid frequently. Being the son-in-law of the Prophet
I told a man to ask himabout it. So the man asked the Prophet about it
and the Prophet replied, "Perform ablution after washing your organ
(penis)." [Al-Bukhaari]
6- Bashfulness out of belittling and disdaining oneself:
An example of this is the bashfulness of the slave of Allaah The
Almighty in front of his Lord when heasks Him for his needs out of
belittling and disdaining himself. It is mentioned in an Israelite
reported citation that Moosa (Moses) said: "OLord, I find myself in
need of something in thisworld but I feel bashful to ask you." Allaah
The Almighty Says: "Ask Me…..even (if it were for) salt for your dough
and the fodder for your sheep."
7- Bashfulness out of love:
It is bashfulness of the lover in front of his beloved. Even when he
remembers the absence of his beloved, bashfulness arises in his heart
and he finds its impact on his face while he does not know the reason
behind this. Also, when the lover suddenly meets his beloved, he feels
intense fear. Undoubtedly, love has a powerful sovereignty over the
heart, which is greater than that overcoming the body. Sovereignty
over the heart and soul is incomparable to sovereignty over the body.
Therefore, kings and tyrants wonder [at this], because they overcome
creatures but are overcome and humiliated by their beloved. When the
beloved surprises his lover and the latter suddenly sees him, the
lover's heart experiences his sovereignty and feels [a kind of ] fear
andawe.
8- Bashfulness out of servitude:
This aspect of bashfulnesscombines both love and fear and feeling that
one does not properly fulfill the concept of servitude towards his
Lord The Almighty for He is greaterand more sublime than that
servitude. Therefore,this servitude inevitably necessitates
bashfulness of Him.
9- Bashfulness out of honor and glory:
It is the great and noble soul's bashfulness when it accords something
less than its true value, such as offering, giving or kindness. In
such a case, one is bashful of his offering due to his honorand glory.
10- Bashfulness of the person who is bashful of his own self:
It is bashfulness of the noble, dignified and honorable souls to be
imperfect and inferior. Consequently, one finds himself bashful of
himselfas if he has two selves, each of them is bashful ofthe other.
This is the mostperfect degree of bashfulness. When a slave is bashful
of himself, then bashfulness of others is worthier. - - ▓███▓
Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
should be more bashful of Allaah The Almighty. Consequently, he should
neither neglect an obligation nor commit a sin as he knows that Allaah
The Almighty sees him and that He will inevitably call him to
reckoning on the Day of Resurrection. Therefore, he feels bashfulness
of his Lord.
It was narrated on the authority of Ibn Mas'ood that the Messenger of
Allaah, , once said to his Companions : "Show due reverence to
Allaah." They (the Companions ) said, "We show (Allaah The Almighty)
due reverence, O Messenger of Allaah." He said: "It is not that (which
you think). Rather, a person who shows Allaah due reverence should
preserve his head (i.e., bynot using it to commit any act of
disobedience) as well as what it includes (i.e., the eyes, ears and
mouth) and preserve his belly (i.e., from eating unlawful food) and
what it includes and should constantly remember death and perishing.
Whoever pursues (the reward of) the Hereafter should abandon the
pleasures of this worldly life. Whoever does so hasshown due reverence
to Allaah." [Ahmad]
"His head as well as what it includes" means that the head and its
external and internal senses should be used only in permissible
things.
It was narrated on the authority of Mu'aawiyah ibn Haydah that he
said, I said, "O Messenger of Allaah from whom should we conceal our
'Awrah (private parts) and to whom can we expose it?" He replied:
"Conceal your 'Awrah except from your wife and from whom your right
hands possess (slave-girls)." I then asked, "O Messenger of Allaah,
(what should we do) if the people are assembled together?" He replied:
"If you can do so in a way that no one looks at it ('Awrah), then no
one should look at it ."I then asked, "O Messenger of Allaah, if one
of us is alone, (what should he do)?" He replied : "Allaah is more
entitled than people that bashfulness should be shown to Him." [Ahmad]
Bilaal ibn Sa'd said, "Do not look at the smallness of the sin, but
look at the greatness of the one you are sinning against."
Once, when a man was alone with a woman and he wanted to have unlawful
sexual intercourse with her, she said to him, "Look if thereis anyone
who can see us?" He replied, "Only the stars see us." She asked, "
Then where is The One who created them?
In Madaarij As-Saalikeen , Ibn Al-Qayyim divided bashfulness into ten
parts: bashfulness out of committing wrongdoings, bashfulness out of
being negligent, bashfulness out of exaltation, bashfulness out of
generosity, bashfulness out of chastity, bashfulness out of belittling
and disdaining oneself, bashfulness out of love, bashfulness out of
worship, bashfulness out of honor and glory, and bashfulness of the
person who is bashful of his own self.
Ibn Al-Qayyim elaborated on this and here I will mention them briefly:
1- Bashfulness out of committing wrongdoings:
An example for this, Aadam (Adam) tried to flee in Paradise.
Thereupon, Allaah The Almighty said to him: "Areyou fleeing from Me, O
Aadam?" He replied: "No, my Lord. I am fleeing out of bashfulness of
You."
Another example is bashfulness of the prophets, may Allaah exalt their
mention, on the Day of Resurrection although they have no faults to
discredit their high and sublime ranks.
2- Bashfulness out of being inelegant:
An example of this is bashfulness of the angels,may Allaah exalt their
mention, who exalt Allaah The Almighty nightand day and do not
slacken. On the Day of Resurrection, however, they will say (to
Allaah), "Glory be to You. We did not worship You as You are due." ---
3- Bashfulness out of exaltation:
This aspect of bashfulnessoccurs due to knowledge. The degree of one's
bashfulness is according to the degree of his knowledgeable of his
Lord. For example, it was narrated that 'Amr ibn Al-'Aas used to say,
"By Allaah, I was the most bashful of people with the Messenger of
Allaah . I never gazed at the Messenger of Allaah nor argued with him
on a matter I desired until he died, as I was bashful of him." [Ahmad]
4- Bashfulness out of generosity:
The Prophet, , was bashful of the guests whom he invited to the
wedding banquet of Zaynab . They ate and then sat for a long time. The
Prophet, , was bashful to tell them to leave. Thereupon, Allaah The
Exalted revealed the verse in which He Says (what means): }
…withoutseeking to remain for conversation. { [Quran 33:53]
5- Bashfulness out of chastity:
For example, ' Ali ibn Abi Taalib was too bashfulto ask the Messenger
of Allaah, , about pre-ejaculatory fluid as he was his son-in-law. It
was narrated on his authority that he said, "I used to discharge
pre-ejaculatory fluid frequently. I told Al-Miqdaad ibn ' Amr to ask
the Prophet and he did. The Prophet replied: "You should perform
ablution."
The wording of another narration reads: "I used to discharge
pre-ejaculatory fluid frequently. Being the son-in-law of the Prophet
I told a man to ask himabout it. So the man asked the Prophet about it
and the Prophet replied, "Perform ablution after washing your organ
(penis)." [Al-Bukhaari]
6- Bashfulness out of belittling and disdaining oneself:
An example of this is the bashfulness of the slave of Allaah The
Almighty in front of his Lord when heasks Him for his needs out of
belittling and disdaining himself. It is mentioned in an Israelite
reported citation that Moosa (Moses) said: "OLord, I find myself in
need of something in thisworld but I feel bashful to ask you." Allaah
The Almighty Says: "Ask Me…..even (if it were for) salt for your dough
and the fodder for your sheep."
7- Bashfulness out of love:
It is bashfulness of the lover in front of his beloved. Even when he
remembers the absence of his beloved, bashfulness arises in his heart
and he finds its impact on his face while he does not know the reason
behind this. Also, when the lover suddenly meets his beloved, he feels
intense fear. Undoubtedly, love has a powerful sovereignty over the
heart, which is greater than that overcoming the body. Sovereignty
over the heart and soul is incomparable to sovereignty over the body.
Therefore, kings and tyrants wonder [at this], because they overcome
creatures but are overcome and humiliated by their beloved. When the
beloved surprises his lover and the latter suddenly sees him, the
lover's heart experiences his sovereignty and feels [a kind of ] fear
andawe.
8- Bashfulness out of servitude:
This aspect of bashfulnesscombines both love and fear and feeling that
one does not properly fulfill the concept of servitude towards his
Lord The Almighty for He is greaterand more sublime than that
servitude. Therefore,this servitude inevitably necessitates
bashfulness of Him.
9- Bashfulness out of honor and glory:
It is the great and noble soul's bashfulness when it accords something
less than its true value, such as offering, giving or kindness. In
such a case, one is bashful of his offering due to his honorand glory.
10- Bashfulness of the person who is bashful of his own self:
It is bashfulness of the noble, dignified and honorable souls to be
imperfect and inferior. Consequently, one finds himself bashful of
himselfas if he has two selves, each of them is bashful ofthe other.
This is the mostperfect degree of bashfulness. When a slave is bashful
of himself, then bashfulness of others is worthier. - - ▓███▓
Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Deterring people from backbiting (Gheebah)
Definition of Gheebah:
When the Prophet wasasked about backbiting, he answered: "To mention
your brother in a manner which he dislikes". Then he was asked, "What
if my brother actually has (this failing) that I made mention of?" The
Prophet said: "If (that failing) is actually found in your brother,
you in fact backbit him, and if that is not in him it is a slander."
[Muslim]
Backbiting refers to a Muslim mentioning his Muslim brother in a
manner that the latter dislikes, whether by referring to a defect in
his body, or in his lineage, or in his morality. The meaning of
insulting is included in backbiting, whether it is in the form of
words, gestures, or writing.
Ruling of Gheebah:
Backbiting is forbidden in the Noble Quran and the Sunnah. The person
who commits it is given the similitude of a personwho eats the flesh
of his dead brother. Allaah Says(what means): "… And do notspy or
backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his
brother when dead? You would detest it…" [Quran 49: 12]
To highlight the sanctity of the Muslim, the Messenger of Allaah said
in his sermon duringthe Farewell Pilgrimage: "…Your blood, your wealth
and your honor are sacred, as this dayof yours, in this month of
yours, in this land of yours, are sacred…?" [Ahmad and Muslim] This
firmly proves haw far beyond limits one transgresses when he backbites
his fellow Muslim
Let us think deeply aboutthis, and regard the orders of Allaah and His
Prophet with the awe that they deserve. In the sight of Allaah,
violating the rights of your brotherby backbiting is equivalent to
violating the sanctity of the Day of Sacrifice, in the month of
Thul-Hijjah, in Minaa. Do we really realize the enormity of this
violationof a Muslim's honor?
Islamic perception of Gheebah:
Al-Baraa' Ibn 'Aazib narrated that the Messenger of Allaah said: "
There are seventy-two degrees of Ribaa (usury), the least of which is
equivalent to committing adultery with one's own mother. The worst of
them (the seventy two degrees) is a man's insulting his brother's
honor (i.e. by backbiting)." [Ibn Jaaroot]
`Aa'ishah said: "I said to the Prophet : 'It's bad enough that
Safiyyah is such and such.(Some of narrators said: she is short).' He
said: "You have said a word which, if itcould be mixed with the water
ofthe sea, it would have been… (i.e., the enormity of it is such that,
if it were mixed with the vast water of the sea, it wouldspoil it.)"
[Abu Daawood]
A word which, if it could be mixed with the water of the sea, it would
have been…! One word alone could do this, and have such a far-reaching
impact! So what do you think of the backbiting people of today, whose
tongues never cease to wag? What vast oceans could be tainted and
corrupted by their words? How many quiet lives are disrupted by them?
'Amr Ibn Shu`ayb narrated from his father from his grandfather : (the
people) mentioned aman to the Messenger of Allaah saying: "He doesn't
eat until he is fedand he doesn't visit anybody until they have
visited him first." The Prophet said: "You have backbit him." They
said: "O Messenger of Allaah! We have mentioned about him something
which is true." He said: " It is bad enough that you have
mentionedsomething about your brother which is true." [Al-Asbahaani]
We should all ask ourselves: who among usis infallible? Who among us
is free from errors, faults and sins? Who among us would be content to
have everything about him, good and bad, spoken of by others? Any one
of us becomes furious if he hears someone hinting something about him;
so what would you do if it was said clearly and in detail, let alone
behind your back?
'Abdullaah Ibn Mas'ood said: "We were with the Prophet when a man got
up and left, whereupon another manimmediately started backbiting him.
The Prophet said: "Clean the bits of meat from between your teeth!"
The man asked:"What should I clean from between my teeth? I haven't
eaten any meat!" He said: "You haveeaten the flesh of your brother!"
[At-Tabaraani]
This is the state of our community nowadays: any one of us may commit
the sin of backbiting, but then will say: I didn't backbite, I didn't
eat flesh, I haven't done anything! Why?
Because we have allowedour tongues to become accustomed to speaking
this way, without knowing what backbiting is. Let us learnabout our
religion. Let uslearn about what is lawful and unlawful - as much as
we can - and distinguish between the speech which is lawful and the
speech which is not.
The evil consequence of Gheebah:
Due to its negative impact on individuals and communities alike, the
Prophet frequentlymade mention of backbiting, and greatly warned
against it.
The Prophet said: "O youwho have believed (only) with their tongues
while (true) belief has not visited their hearts! Do not backbite
Muslims nor pursue their defects (and faults), otherwise Allaah will
pursue yourfaults, and whomever Allaah pursues his defects (and
faults) He disgraces him even though inside his house." [Ibn Abu
Ad-Dunyaa]
The Prophet showed us the safe way of freeing ourselves from the evil
consequence of backbiting others when he said: "Whoever has wronged
his brother with regard to wealth or honor, should ask for his pardon
(before his death), before he will pay for it (in the Hereafter) when
he will have neither a Dinaar nor a Dirham (gold and silver
currencies). (He should secure pardon in this life) before some of his
good deeds are taken and paid to this (his brother), or (if he has no
good deeds) some of the bad deeds of this (his brother) will be taken
(from the person he wronged) and will be loaded on him." ] Al-Bukhaari
and Muslim] - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
When the Prophet wasasked about backbiting, he answered: "To mention
your brother in a manner which he dislikes". Then he was asked, "What
if my brother actually has (this failing) that I made mention of?" The
Prophet said: "If (that failing) is actually found in your brother,
you in fact backbit him, and if that is not in him it is a slander."
[Muslim]
Backbiting refers to a Muslim mentioning his Muslim brother in a
manner that the latter dislikes, whether by referring to a defect in
his body, or in his lineage, or in his morality. The meaning of
insulting is included in backbiting, whether it is in the form of
words, gestures, or writing.
Ruling of Gheebah:
Backbiting is forbidden in the Noble Quran and the Sunnah. The person
who commits it is given the similitude of a personwho eats the flesh
of his dead brother. Allaah Says(what means): "… And do notspy or
backbite each other. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his
brother when dead? You would detest it…" [Quran 49: 12]
To highlight the sanctity of the Muslim, the Messenger of Allaah said
in his sermon duringthe Farewell Pilgrimage: "…Your blood, your wealth
and your honor are sacred, as this dayof yours, in this month of
yours, in this land of yours, are sacred…?" [Ahmad and Muslim] This
firmly proves haw far beyond limits one transgresses when he backbites
his fellow Muslim
Let us think deeply aboutthis, and regard the orders of Allaah and His
Prophet with the awe that they deserve. In the sight of Allaah,
violating the rights of your brotherby backbiting is equivalent to
violating the sanctity of the Day of Sacrifice, in the month of
Thul-Hijjah, in Minaa. Do we really realize the enormity of this
violationof a Muslim's honor?
Islamic perception of Gheebah:
Al-Baraa' Ibn 'Aazib narrated that the Messenger of Allaah said: "
There are seventy-two degrees of Ribaa (usury), the least of which is
equivalent to committing adultery with one's own mother. The worst of
them (the seventy two degrees) is a man's insulting his brother's
honor (i.e. by backbiting)." [Ibn Jaaroot]
`Aa'ishah said: "I said to the Prophet : 'It's bad enough that
Safiyyah is such and such.(Some of narrators said: she is short).' He
said: "You have said a word which, if itcould be mixed with the water
ofthe sea, it would have been… (i.e., the enormity of it is such that,
if it were mixed with the vast water of the sea, it wouldspoil it.)"
[Abu Daawood]
A word which, if it could be mixed with the water of the sea, it would
have been…! One word alone could do this, and have such a far-reaching
impact! So what do you think of the backbiting people of today, whose
tongues never cease to wag? What vast oceans could be tainted and
corrupted by their words? How many quiet lives are disrupted by them?
'Amr Ibn Shu`ayb narrated from his father from his grandfather : (the
people) mentioned aman to the Messenger of Allaah saying: "He doesn't
eat until he is fedand he doesn't visit anybody until they have
visited him first." The Prophet said: "You have backbit him." They
said: "O Messenger of Allaah! We have mentioned about him something
which is true." He said: " It is bad enough that you have
mentionedsomething about your brother which is true." [Al-Asbahaani]
We should all ask ourselves: who among usis infallible? Who among us
is free from errors, faults and sins? Who among us would be content to
have everything about him, good and bad, spoken of by others? Any one
of us becomes furious if he hears someone hinting something about him;
so what would you do if it was said clearly and in detail, let alone
behind your back?
'Abdullaah Ibn Mas'ood said: "We were with the Prophet when a man got
up and left, whereupon another manimmediately started backbiting him.
The Prophet said: "Clean the bits of meat from between your teeth!"
The man asked:"What should I clean from between my teeth? I haven't
eaten any meat!" He said: "You haveeaten the flesh of your brother!"
[At-Tabaraani]
This is the state of our community nowadays: any one of us may commit
the sin of backbiting, but then will say: I didn't backbite, I didn't
eat flesh, I haven't done anything! Why?
Because we have allowedour tongues to become accustomed to speaking
this way, without knowing what backbiting is. Let us learnabout our
religion. Let uslearn about what is lawful and unlawful - as much as
we can - and distinguish between the speech which is lawful and the
speech which is not.
The evil consequence of Gheebah:
Due to its negative impact on individuals and communities alike, the
Prophet frequentlymade mention of backbiting, and greatly warned
against it.
The Prophet said: "O youwho have believed (only) with their tongues
while (true) belief has not visited their hearts! Do not backbite
Muslims nor pursue their defects (and faults), otherwise Allaah will
pursue yourfaults, and whomever Allaah pursues his defects (and
faults) He disgraces him even though inside his house." [Ibn Abu
Ad-Dunyaa]
The Prophet showed us the safe way of freeing ourselves from the evil
consequence of backbiting others when he said: "Whoever has wronged
his brother with regard to wealth or honor, should ask for his pardon
(before his death), before he will pay for it (in the Hereafter) when
he will have neither a Dinaar nor a Dirham (gold and silver
currencies). (He should secure pardon in this life) before some of his
good deeds are taken and paid to this (his brother), or (if he has no
good deeds) some of the bad deeds of this (his brother) will be taken
(from the person he wronged) and will be loaded on him." ] Al-Bukhaari
and Muslim] - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
The crucial role of the heart
Prophet Muhammad informed us in a very famous narration, commonly
quoted with reference to lawful and unlawful, about the important role
of the heart. He said: "Both lawful and unlawful matters are evident
but in between them there are doubtful(suspicious) things and many
people have no knowledge aboutthem. So whoever saves himself from
these suspicious matters (by staying away from them) saves his
religion and his honor. And whoever indulges in these suspicious
matters (will eventually) indulge in what is forbidden. This is like
(the example of) a shepherd who grazes (his animals) near the Hima
(private pasture) of someone else and at any moment he is liable to
get in it. (O people!) Beware! Every king has a Hima and the Hima of
Allaah on the earth is His illegal (forbidden) matters. Beware! There
is a piece of flesh in the body, if it is reformed, the whole body
becomes good, but if it getsspoilt the whole body gets spoilt;indeed
it is the heart." [Al-Bukhaari]
He said that after explaining that the lawful matters are clear and
that the forbidden ones are clear and that between them are obscure
areas, not known to many people. However, what protects a person from
the forbidden matters and ensures that he remains in the lawful ones
is knowledge; but beyond knowledge, it is the state of the heart. If
the heart is good, then itmakes use of the knowledge and it avoids
what is prohibited. If the heart is corrupted, then the knowledge is
of no benefit to it and it will indulge in what is prohibited.
The Prophet during the last (and only) pilgrimage, informed his
Companions and it was aninstruction to the entire Muslim nation to
come, that people are not favored based on their race or color, but
rather based on piety and on how much they are Allaah fearful. After
that, he clarified that the place of piety is in one's heart."
In these statements and other similar statements, we find stress being
placed on the heart -that the heart is the part of the body, which
Allaah has favored over all other parts. It is the placeof faith, and
had there been in the body another part that was nearer to Allaah,
piety would have been placed there, because faith is the most valuable
thing that a human possesses. It (faith)is the determination
ultimately ofthose who have belief in Allaah - those who have accepted
the message and who have chosen Paradise over Hell. It is the
distinction of those who have belief and those who have disbelief.
The value of faith is greater than the value of all the things of this
world. This is why Prophet Muhammad said that for Allaah to guide by
your hands a single person to Islam is worth more than anything in
this world.For you to help someone to find faith is worth more than
any of the things in this world. [Al-Bukhaari]
The heart is the place in which the correctness of deeds is judged.
The Prophet said: "Deeds are judged according to the intention." The
place of the intention is not on the lips. It is in the heart.
'Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab narrated that the Messenger of Allaah said: "The
reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get
the reward according to what he has intended…" [Al-Bukhaari]
Our deeds - what we do externally - are judged ultimately by the
states of our hearts. Good deeds are in reference to those that we
perceive to be a part and parcel of righteousness. Allaah will inspect
the hearts to determine whether they are trulyacts of righteousness.
The Prophet informed us thatthe first three people who would be cast
into the Hell Fire are those who were involved in whateverybody
considers great acts ofrighteousness. They are the scholar who taught
knowledge; the wealthy person who gave from his wealth in charity and
the martyr who gave his life fighting in the path of Allaah.
The Prophet in an authentic narration, said that some people from
among these types of people would be among the first groups of people
thrown into Hell because the scholar, when hetaught the knowledge that
Allaahgave him, did not do so for the sake of Allaah. He taught so
that people would praise him, saying what a great scholar he was and
how knowledgeable he was. Allaah will Say to him: "You received your
praise, what you sought in that world. But there will be nothing for
you in the Next." So he will be drawn off on his face and thrown into
Hell.
Similarly, the benefactor, who was generous with his wealth. Hegave
and people praised his generosity, but Allaah will Say: "You did it
for the praise and you were praised. You did it for people to
appreciate you." So that individual will be drawn off on his face and
thrown into Hell. [Muslim]
The martyr - the one whom we all assumed had died in the Path of
Allaah. We would think that his place in Paradise is guaranteed. But
Allaah will Say: "You fought so people would say,'How brave this one
is! How strong and courageous he was!'" People said it; they praised
you, so he will be drawn off on his face and thrown into Hell.'
All is telling us that ultimately, even the highest of deeds can be of
no avail if the hearts are sick; ifthe hearts are corrupt. So the
place of the heart should, in our minds, occupy great attention. We
have to spend much of our time observing, being aware of the state of
our heart.
So there is no other faculty in the human body and existence that
abeliever should be more concerned about. We have to make sure that
this faculty is functioning as Allaah wishes it to function. We should
be greatly concerned about it. The Prophet often used to supplicate,
beginning with: "I seek refuge in You, O Allaah, from knowledge that
does not benefit, and from aheart which does not fear." [At-Tirmithi,
Abu Daawood, An-Nasaa'i and Ibn Maajah]
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
quoted with reference to lawful and unlawful, about the important role
of the heart. He said: "Both lawful and unlawful matters are evident
but in between them there are doubtful(suspicious) things and many
people have no knowledge aboutthem. So whoever saves himself from
these suspicious matters (by staying away from them) saves his
religion and his honor. And whoever indulges in these suspicious
matters (will eventually) indulge in what is forbidden. This is like
(the example of) a shepherd who grazes (his animals) near the Hima
(private pasture) of someone else and at any moment he is liable to
get in it. (O people!) Beware! Every king has a Hima and the Hima of
Allaah on the earth is His illegal (forbidden) matters. Beware! There
is a piece of flesh in the body, if it is reformed, the whole body
becomes good, but if it getsspoilt the whole body gets spoilt;indeed
it is the heart." [Al-Bukhaari]
He said that after explaining that the lawful matters are clear and
that the forbidden ones are clear and that between them are obscure
areas, not known to many people. However, what protects a person from
the forbidden matters and ensures that he remains in the lawful ones
is knowledge; but beyond knowledge, it is the state of the heart. If
the heart is good, then itmakes use of the knowledge and it avoids
what is prohibited. If the heart is corrupted, then the knowledge is
of no benefit to it and it will indulge in what is prohibited.
The Prophet during the last (and only) pilgrimage, informed his
Companions and it was aninstruction to the entire Muslim nation to
come, that people are not favored based on their race or color, but
rather based on piety and on how much they are Allaah fearful. After
that, he clarified that the place of piety is in one's heart."
In these statements and other similar statements, we find stress being
placed on the heart -that the heart is the part of the body, which
Allaah has favored over all other parts. It is the placeof faith, and
had there been in the body another part that was nearer to Allaah,
piety would have been placed there, because faith is the most valuable
thing that a human possesses. It (faith)is the determination
ultimately ofthose who have belief in Allaah - those who have accepted
the message and who have chosen Paradise over Hell. It is the
distinction of those who have belief and those who have disbelief.
The value of faith is greater than the value of all the things of this
world. This is why Prophet Muhammad said that for Allaah to guide by
your hands a single person to Islam is worth more than anything in
this world.For you to help someone to find faith is worth more than
any of the things in this world. [Al-Bukhaari]
The heart is the place in which the correctness of deeds is judged.
The Prophet said: "Deeds are judged according to the intention." The
place of the intention is not on the lips. It is in the heart.
'Umar Ibn Al-Khattaab narrated that the Messenger of Allaah said: "The
reward of deeds depends upon the intention and every person will get
the reward according to what he has intended…" [Al-Bukhaari]
Our deeds - what we do externally - are judged ultimately by the
states of our hearts. Good deeds are in reference to those that we
perceive to be a part and parcel of righteousness. Allaah will inspect
the hearts to determine whether they are trulyacts of righteousness.
The Prophet informed us thatthe first three people who would be cast
into the Hell Fire are those who were involved in whateverybody
considers great acts ofrighteousness. They are the scholar who taught
knowledge; the wealthy person who gave from his wealth in charity and
the martyr who gave his life fighting in the path of Allaah.
The Prophet in an authentic narration, said that some people from
among these types of people would be among the first groups of people
thrown into Hell because the scholar, when hetaught the knowledge that
Allaahgave him, did not do so for the sake of Allaah. He taught so
that people would praise him, saying what a great scholar he was and
how knowledgeable he was. Allaah will Say to him: "You received your
praise, what you sought in that world. But there will be nothing for
you in the Next." So he will be drawn off on his face and thrown into
Hell.
Similarly, the benefactor, who was generous with his wealth. Hegave
and people praised his generosity, but Allaah will Say: "You did it
for the praise and you were praised. You did it for people to
appreciate you." So that individual will be drawn off on his face and
thrown into Hell. [Muslim]
The martyr - the one whom we all assumed had died in the Path of
Allaah. We would think that his place in Paradise is guaranteed. But
Allaah will Say: "You fought so people would say,'How brave this one
is! How strong and courageous he was!'" People said it; they praised
you, so he will be drawn off on his face and thrown into Hell.'
All is telling us that ultimately, even the highest of deeds can be of
no avail if the hearts are sick; ifthe hearts are corrupt. So the
place of the heart should, in our minds, occupy great attention. We
have to spend much of our time observing, being aware of the state of
our heart.
So there is no other faculty in the human body and existence that
abeliever should be more concerned about. We have to make sure that
this faculty is functioning as Allaah wishes it to function. We should
be greatly concerned about it. The Prophet often used to supplicate,
beginning with: "I seek refuge in You, O Allaah, from knowledge that
does not benefit, and from aheart which does not fear." [At-Tirmithi,
Abu Daawood, An-Nasaa'i and Ibn Maajah]
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Dought & Clear, - If someone loses his wudoo’ whilst praying and goes and does wudoo’, can he resume his prayer from where he left off or should he start all over again?.
If I lose my wudoo' during the prayer, should I complete the prayer?
Should I complete it from where Ileft off or start the prayer from the
beginning all over again? When should onesay the tasleem - is it after
the imam's first tasleem or his second?
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:
The one who loses his wudoo' during the prayer, by passing wind or
otherwise, should go and do wudoo', then come back and start the
prayer from the beginning all over again, according to the more
correct of the two scholarly opinions. This is the view of the
Maalikis, Shaafa'is and Hanbalis, unlike the Hanafis and the older
view of the Shaafa'is.
This applies to the one who cannot help breaking his wudoo'. As for
the one who breaks his wudoo' deliberately, his prayer becomes invalid
according to scholarly consensus.
The evidence quoted by the majority concerning this issue is analogy
(qiyaas). They say, Because breaking wind and the like makes wudoo'
invalid, so it alsomakes the prayer invalid, as is also the case when
one breaks wudoo' deliberately.
The Hanafis quoted as evidence the hadeeth of 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be
pleased with her) who said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever regurgitates, has a
nosebleed, vomits, or emits madhiy (prostatic fluid) should stop
praying, do wudoo', then resume his prayer, and whilst he is in that
situation he should not speak", but this is a da 'eef hadeeth. It was
narrated by Ibn Maajah, 1221. al-Busayri said in az-Zawaa'id: Its
isnaad includes Ismaa'eel ibn 'Ayyaash, who narrated from the Hijazis,
but his narration from them is da'eef (weak).
Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said in at-Talkhees al-Habeer,1/495: More than one
of the scholars criticized the report of Ismaa'eel ibn 'Ayyaash from
Ibn Jurayj and the report of Ismaa'eel from the Hijazis as da'eef. The
scholars of hadeeth among the companions of Ibn Jurayj differed with
Ibn Hajar and they narrated it from Ibn Jurayj, from his father, from
the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in a mursal
report.
End quote. See: at-Tahqeeq fi Ahaadeethal-Khilaaf by Ibn al-Jawzi,
1/83; Tanqeeh at-Tahqeeq by Ibn 'Abd al-Haadi, 1/284
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:We have stated that our
view is the correct, new one, that it is not permissible to resume
(from where one left off); rather one has to start all over again.
This is the view of the Sahaabi al-Miswar ibn Makhramah (may Allah be
pleased with him). It was also the view of Maalik and others. This
isthe correct view from the madhhab of Ahmad.
Abu Haneefah, Ibn Abi Layla and al-Awzaa'i said: He may continue his
prayer from where he left off. This was narrated by Ibn az-Zabbaagh
and others from 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab, 'Ali and Ibn 'Umar (may Allah
be pleased with them). It was also narrated by al-Bayhaqi from 'Ali,
Salmaan al-Faarisi, Ibn 'Abbaas, Ibn 'Umar, Ibn al-Musayyab, Abu
Salamah ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan, 'Ata', Tawoos, Abu Idrees al-Khawlaani,
Sulaymaanibn Yazaar and others (may Allah be pleased with them). The
author mentioned in brief the evidence for both views,but the hadeeth
is da'eef. The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) differed
concerning this issue, so the matter may be resolved on the basis of
analogy. And Allah knows best.
End quote from al-Majmoo', 4/6
See also al-Mughni, 1/421
Ash-Shaafa'i (may Allah have mercy on him) interpreted the reports
about some of the Sahaabah exiting the prayer because of nosebleed,
then going to do wudoo', then resuming the prayer from where they left
off as referring to washing away the blood, not wudoo' in the sense of
ablution for prayer.
And he (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Rather what is meant by
wudoo' here, in our opinion, is washing off blood and whatever elsehad
gotten onto the body, not wudoo' for prayer. It was narrated from Ibn
Mas'ood that he washed his hands after eating, then he wiped his face
with his wet hands and said: This is the wudoo' of one who has not
broken his wudoo'. This (usage of the word wudoo') is wellknown among
the Arabs,who use the word to refer to washing some part of the body,
not all the parts that should be washed in the case of wudoo' for
prayer.
End quote from as-Sunan al-Kubra, 1/143
Further evidence in support of the majority view is the report
narrated by Abu Dawood(205) from 'Ali ibn Talq (may Allah be pleased
with him) who said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him) said: "If one of you breaks wind whilst praying,
let him leave and do wudoo', then repeat the prayer."
There is a difference of opinion as to the soundness of this hadeeth.
It was classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan and as hasan byothers.
In Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah there is a question about the
hadeeth, "Whoever breaks wind during the prayer, let him exit the
prayer. If that is during acongregational prayer, let him hold his
nose andleave, and do wudoo', then let him resume his prayer from
where he left off, so long as he does not speak."
They replied: This hadeeth was classed as da'eef by some of the
leading scholars of hadeeth. Hence what it indicates about the one who
breaks his wudoo' during the prayer exiting the prayer, then doing
wudoo' and coming back to complete what is left of his prayer, is not
correct.Rather breaking wudoo' during the prayer renders it invalid,
and after doing wudoo' the individual has to start the prayer all over
againfrom the beginning, as isindicated by the hadeeth of 'Ali ibn
Talq (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: The Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "If one of you breaks
wind whilst praying, let him leave and do wudoo', then repeat the
prayer." Narrated by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasaa'i and
Ibn Maajah; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan.
End quote from Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah, 5/438, vol. 2
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If a person loses
his wudoo' whilst praying, by breaking wind or having a severe
nosebleed and so on, then his prayer is rendered invalid, according to
the more correct of the two scholarly opinions, because the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "If one of you breaks
wind whilst praying, let him leave and do wudoo', then repeat the
prayer." Narrated by Imam Ahmad and the authors of as-Sunan. Thiswas
also mentioned by al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Buloogh.
With regard to the hadeeth which mentionsresuming the prayer from
where one left off, this is a da'eef hadeeth, as was also explained by
al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Buloogh.
End quote from Fataawa ash-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 10/159
Secondly:
It is preferable for the one who is praying behind an imam not to say
the tasleem after the prayer until the imam has finished the second
tasleem. See the answer to question no. 75977 .
And Allah knows best. - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Should I complete it from where Ileft off or start the prayer from the
beginning all over again? When should onesay the tasleem - is it after
the imam's first tasleem or his second?
Praise be to Allah.
Firstly:
The one who loses his wudoo' during the prayer, by passing wind or
otherwise, should go and do wudoo', then come back and start the
prayer from the beginning all over again, according to the more
correct of the two scholarly opinions. This is the view of the
Maalikis, Shaafa'is and Hanbalis, unlike the Hanafis and the older
view of the Shaafa'is.
This applies to the one who cannot help breaking his wudoo'. As for
the one who breaks his wudoo' deliberately, his prayer becomes invalid
according to scholarly consensus.
The evidence quoted by the majority concerning this issue is analogy
(qiyaas). They say, Because breaking wind and the like makes wudoo'
invalid, so it alsomakes the prayer invalid, as is also the case when
one breaks wudoo' deliberately.
The Hanafis quoted as evidence the hadeeth of 'Aa'ishah (may Allah be
pleased with her) who said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and
peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Whoever regurgitates, has a
nosebleed, vomits, or emits madhiy (prostatic fluid) should stop
praying, do wudoo', then resume his prayer, and whilst he is in that
situation he should not speak", but this is a da 'eef hadeeth. It was
narrated by Ibn Maajah, 1221. al-Busayri said in az-Zawaa'id: Its
isnaad includes Ismaa'eel ibn 'Ayyaash, who narrated from the Hijazis,
but his narration from them is da'eef (weak).
Al-Haafiz ibn Hajar said in at-Talkhees al-Habeer,1/495: More than one
of the scholars criticized the report of Ismaa'eel ibn 'Ayyaash from
Ibn Jurayj and the report of Ismaa'eel from the Hijazis as da'eef. The
scholars of hadeeth among the companions of Ibn Jurayj differed with
Ibn Hajar and they narrated it from Ibn Jurayj, from his father, from
the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) in a mursal
report.
End quote. See: at-Tahqeeq fi Ahaadeethal-Khilaaf by Ibn al-Jawzi,
1/83; Tanqeeh at-Tahqeeq by Ibn 'Abd al-Haadi, 1/284
An-Nawawi (may Allah have mercy on him) said:We have stated that our
view is the correct, new one, that it is not permissible to resume
(from where one left off); rather one has to start all over again.
This is the view of the Sahaabi al-Miswar ibn Makhramah (may Allah be
pleased with him). It was also the view of Maalik and others. This
isthe correct view from the madhhab of Ahmad.
Abu Haneefah, Ibn Abi Layla and al-Awzaa'i said: He may continue his
prayer from where he left off. This was narrated by Ibn az-Zabbaagh
and others from 'Umar ibn al-Khattaab, 'Ali and Ibn 'Umar (may Allah
be pleased with them). It was also narrated by al-Bayhaqi from 'Ali,
Salmaan al-Faarisi, Ibn 'Abbaas, Ibn 'Umar, Ibn al-Musayyab, Abu
Salamah ibn 'Abd ar-Rahmaan, 'Ata', Tawoos, Abu Idrees al-Khawlaani,
Sulaymaanibn Yazaar and others (may Allah be pleased with them). The
author mentioned in brief the evidence for both views,but the hadeeth
is da'eef. The Sahaabah (may Allah be pleased with them) differed
concerning this issue, so the matter may be resolved on the basis of
analogy. And Allah knows best.
End quote from al-Majmoo', 4/6
See also al-Mughni, 1/421
Ash-Shaafa'i (may Allah have mercy on him) interpreted the reports
about some of the Sahaabah exiting the prayer because of nosebleed,
then going to do wudoo', then resuming the prayer from where they left
off as referring to washing away the blood, not wudoo' in the sense of
ablution for prayer.
And he (may Allah have mercy on him) said: Rather what is meant by
wudoo' here, in our opinion, is washing off blood and whatever elsehad
gotten onto the body, not wudoo' for prayer. It was narrated from Ibn
Mas'ood that he washed his hands after eating, then he wiped his face
with his wet hands and said: This is the wudoo' of one who has not
broken his wudoo'. This (usage of the word wudoo') is wellknown among
the Arabs,who use the word to refer to washing some part of the body,
not all the parts that should be washed in the case of wudoo' for
prayer.
End quote from as-Sunan al-Kubra, 1/143
Further evidence in support of the majority view is the report
narrated by Abu Dawood(205) from 'Ali ibn Talq (may Allah be pleased
with him) who said: The Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him) said: "If one of you breaks wind whilst praying,
let him leave and do wudoo', then repeat the prayer."
There is a difference of opinion as to the soundness of this hadeeth.
It was classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan and as hasan byothers.
In Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah there is a question about the
hadeeth, "Whoever breaks wind during the prayer, let him exit the
prayer. If that is during acongregational prayer, let him hold his
nose andleave, and do wudoo', then let him resume his prayer from
where he left off, so long as he does not speak."
They replied: This hadeeth was classed as da'eef by some of the
leading scholars of hadeeth. Hence what it indicates about the one who
breaks his wudoo' during the prayer exiting the prayer, then doing
wudoo' and coming back to complete what is left of his prayer, is not
correct.Rather breaking wudoo' during the prayer renders it invalid,
and after doing wudoo' the individual has to start the prayer all over
againfrom the beginning, as isindicated by the hadeeth of 'Ali ibn
Talq (may Allah be pleased with him) who said: The Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "If one of you breaks
wind whilst praying, let him leave and do wudoo', then repeat the
prayer." Narrated by Ahmad, Abu Dawood, at-Tirmidhi, an-Nasaa'i and
Ibn Maajah; classed as saheeh by Ibn Hibbaan.
End quote from Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah, 5/438, vol. 2
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) said: If a person loses
his wudoo' whilst praying, by breaking wind or having a severe
nosebleed and so on, then his prayer is rendered invalid, according to
the more correct of the two scholarly opinions, because the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "If one of you breaks
wind whilst praying, let him leave and do wudoo', then repeat the
prayer." Narrated by Imam Ahmad and the authors of as-Sunan. Thiswas
also mentioned by al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Buloogh.
With regard to the hadeeth which mentionsresuming the prayer from
where one left off, this is a da'eef hadeeth, as was also explained by
al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar in al-Buloogh.
End quote from Fataawa ash-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 10/159
Secondly:
It is preferable for the one who is praying behind an imam not to say
the tasleem after the prayer until the imam has finished the second
tasleem. See the answer to question no. 75977 .
And Allah knows best. - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Dought & Clear, - Is there a specific age at which animals may beslaughtered?.
Is there a specific age at which animals may be slaughtered? Because
there is a debate here in India about the age at which it is
permissible toslaughter animals. What I mean here is slaughter for
food and daily consumption, not udhiyah (sacrifice). They say that the
appropriate age for that is two years,and it is not permissible below
that age. Is this correct?
Praise be to Allah.
There is no stipulated age for slaughter of any of the an'aam animals
(camels, cattle, sheep and goats), if the purpose is only for food. If
someone were to slaughter a lamb that was only one day old or less, it
would be permissible for him to eat that meat, because there is no
evidence in Islam to indicate that this is not allowed, and because
the basic principle concerning what Allah has created for us is that
it is permissible. Anyone whosays that something is haraam has to
provide evidence. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of
the meaning): "He it is Who created for you all that ison earth"
[al-Baqarah 2:29].
There are saheeh hadeeths which indicatethat the Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) ate lamb.
Al-Bukhaari (4101) and Muslim (2039) narrated that Jaabir (may Allah
bepleased with him) said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, come with me
to my house. Then I said to my wife: I have seen something (i.e.
hunger) in face of the Prophet (sa) that caused me concern; do you
have anything? She said: I have some barley and a kid (young goat). So
she slaughtered the kid and made dough with the barley, and we put the
meat in the pot. Then I went to the Prophet (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him) … And he narrated the hadeeth, in which the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his Companions ate from
that kid (young goat).
According to the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah, when the Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) visited Abu'l-Haytham, along with Abu
Bakr, and 'Umar, Abu'l-Haytham went to make some food for them. The
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Do not
slaughter any animal that is producing milk. He said: So he
slaughtered a kid (young goat) or lamb forthem and brought it to them,
and they ate.
Narrated by Muslim (2038); at-Tirmidhi (2369).
The word translated as kid here refers to a female baby goat that has
not reached the age of one year.
End quote from an-Nihaayah, Baab al-'Ayn ma'a an-Noon.
The scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, have stated that if the
foetus of an an'aam animal comes out of its mother's womb alive and is
slaughtered in theprescribed manner, it is permissible to eat it.
Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (9/321): If it comes out alive and in a
stable condition, and it is possible to slaughter it, but it is not
slaughtered before it dies, then it has not been slaughtered properly.
Ahmad said: If it comes out alive, then it must be slaughtered
properly, because it is another soul.
Ibn Nujaym said in al-Bahr ar-Raa'iq (8/198): If it is known that the
sheep was alive at the time of slaughter, it becomes permissible
(halaal) by slaughtering, whether it moved or not.
End quote. See also al-Bahr ar-Raa'iq (8/195).
If it is proven that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has made
it permissible to His slaves to eat that without restricting it to a
specificage, then any condition or restriction that is added to that
is an innovation in religion and is a transgression against what Allah
has prescribed for His slaves.
Allah, may He be exalted,says (interpretation of the meaning): "And
say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: 'This is
lawful and this is forbidden,' so as to invent lies against Allah.
Verily, those who invent lies against Allah will never prosper"
[an-Nahl 16:116].
And the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "What
is the matter withmen who stipulate conditions that are not in the
Book of Allah? Anycondition that is not in the Book of Allah is
invalid, even if there are a hundred conditions. What is ordained by
Allah and the conditions stipulated by Him are more deserving of
beingadhered to."
This hadeeth was narrated by al-Bukhaari (2168) and Muslim (1504).
But if the animal is intended for udhiyah (sacrifice) and the like,
then it is essential that it reach a certain age. This has been
discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 41899 .
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
there is a debate here in India about the age at which it is
permissible toslaughter animals. What I mean here is slaughter for
food and daily consumption, not udhiyah (sacrifice). They say that the
appropriate age for that is two years,and it is not permissible below
that age. Is this correct?
Praise be to Allah.
There is no stipulated age for slaughter of any of the an'aam animals
(camels, cattle, sheep and goats), if the purpose is only for food. If
someone were to slaughter a lamb that was only one day old or less, it
would be permissible for him to eat that meat, because there is no
evidence in Islam to indicate that this is not allowed, and because
the basic principle concerning what Allah has created for us is that
it is permissible. Anyone whosays that something is haraam has to
provide evidence. Allah, may He be exalted, says (interpretation of
the meaning): "He it is Who created for you all that ison earth"
[al-Baqarah 2:29].
There are saheeh hadeeths which indicatethat the Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) ate lamb.
Al-Bukhaari (4101) and Muslim (2039) narrated that Jaabir (may Allah
bepleased with him) said: I said: O Messenger of Allah, come with me
to my house. Then I said to my wife: I have seen something (i.e.
hunger) in face of the Prophet (sa) that caused me concern; do you
have anything? She said: I have some barley and a kid (young goat). So
she slaughtered the kid and made dough with the barley, and we put the
meat in the pot. Then I went to the Prophet (blessings and peace of
Allah be upon him) … And he narrated the hadeeth, in which the Prophet
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his Companions ate from
that kid (young goat).
According to the hadeeth of Abu Hurayrah, when the Prophet (blessings
and peace of Allah be upon him) visited Abu'l-Haytham, along with Abu
Bakr, and 'Umar, Abu'l-Haytham went to make some food for them. The
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "Do not
slaughter any animal that is producing milk. He said: So he
slaughtered a kid (young goat) or lamb forthem and brought it to them,
and they ate.
Narrated by Muslim (2038); at-Tirmidhi (2369).
The word translated as kid here refers to a female baby goat that has
not reached the age of one year.
End quote from an-Nihaayah, Baab al-'Ayn ma'a an-Noon.
The scholars, may Allah have mercy on them, have stated that if the
foetus of an an'aam animal comes out of its mother's womb alive and is
slaughtered in theprescribed manner, it is permissible to eat it.
Ibn Qudaamah said in al-Mughni (9/321): If it comes out alive and in a
stable condition, and it is possible to slaughter it, but it is not
slaughtered before it dies, then it has not been slaughtered properly.
Ahmad said: If it comes out alive, then it must be slaughtered
properly, because it is another soul.
Ibn Nujaym said in al-Bahr ar-Raa'iq (8/198): If it is known that the
sheep was alive at the time of slaughter, it becomes permissible
(halaal) by slaughtering, whether it moved or not.
End quote. See also al-Bahr ar-Raa'iq (8/195).
If it is proven that Allah, may He be glorified and exalted, has made
it permissible to His slaves to eat that without restricting it to a
specificage, then any condition or restriction that is added to that
is an innovation in religion and is a transgression against what Allah
has prescribed for His slaves.
Allah, may He be exalted,says (interpretation of the meaning): "And
say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: 'This is
lawful and this is forbidden,' so as to invent lies against Allah.
Verily, those who invent lies against Allah will never prosper"
[an-Nahl 16:116].
And the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) said: "What
is the matter withmen who stipulate conditions that are not in the
Book of Allah? Anycondition that is not in the Book of Allah is
invalid, even if there are a hundred conditions. What is ordained by
Allah and the conditions stipulated by Him are more deserving of
beingadhered to."
This hadeeth was narrated by al-Bukhaari (2168) and Muslim (1504).
But if the animal is intended for udhiyah (sacrifice) and the like,
then it is essential that it reach a certain age. This has been
discussed in detail in the answer to question no. 41899 .
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
The Most Virtuous Day
Rasulullah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: "Of all the days,
Friday is the most virtuous. It is on this day that the trumpet will
be blown. Send abundant durood upon me on Fridays because they are
presented to me on that day. " The Sahabah radiallahu anhum asked: "O
Rasulullah! How will they be presented to you when even your bones
will not be present after your death?" Rasulullah (Allah bless him &
give him peace) replied: "Allah Ta'ala has made the earth haraam upon
the prophets forever . " (Abu Dawud) - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Friday is the most virtuous. It is on this day that the trumpet will
be blown. Send abundant durood upon me on Fridays because they are
presented to me on that day. " The Sahabah radiallahu anhum asked: "O
Rasulullah! How will they be presented to you when even your bones
will not be present after your death?" Rasulullah (Allah bless him &
give him peace) replied: "Allah Ta'ala has made the earth haraam upon
the prophets forever . " (Abu Dawud) - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Petty Rivalry
Petty rivalry & name calling amongst religiouspersonnel makes the
masses very despondent. At times their own children turn away in
theprocess.
Whilst people change their lives positively we remain unchanged
because we believed some hearsay & were kept away by Satan.
Take the good from others & discount the rest. You'll be surprised how
much you benefit even from those you least expected to benefit from.
It is only the clean heart, that is in constant search for the truth,
that benefits the most.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
masses very despondent. At times their own children turn away in
theprocess.
Whilst people change their lives positively we remain unchanged
because we believed some hearsay & were kept away by Satan.
Take the good from others & discount the rest. You'll be surprised how
much you benefit even from those you least expected to benefit from.
It is only the clean heart, that is in constant search for the truth,
that benefits the most.
--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)