Islamic Stories - , Sand and stone

Sand and stone
Two friends Ismail and Ibrahim were walking through the desert, as the
sun was beating down on their heads, and they were thirsty forwater
they began to argue. The argument gotmore and more heated and
eventually Ismail struck Ibrahim across theface. Ibrahim felt hurt
inside, but without anything to say, he wrote in the sand:"Today, my
best friend slapped me in the face."
They kept on walking, until eventually they came across an oasis,
where they decided to stop and bathe. Ibrahim jumped in and began to
wash, while Ismail sat back and relaxed. Suddenly Ibrahim beganto
scream and shout, he had developed a cramp and was having difficulty
keeping his head above water, he was drowning.
Ismail dived in after him,and brought him gently to shore. When
Ibrahim recovered from the shock, he scratched a message on a nearby
stone:
"Today, my best friend saved my life"
Ismail who had saved and slapped his best friend Ibrahim, asked him,
"Why, after I hurt you, you wrote in the sand, and now you writeon a
stone?"
Ibrahim, smiled and replied:
"When a friend hurts us, we should write his deeds in the sand, where
the winds of forgiveness can blow it away, and when a frienddoes
something good, we should engrave it in stone, where it shall remain
for eternity."

Islamic Stories - , The best dirt cleaner

The best dirt cleaner
Abu Umamah (RA) narrates: Rasulullah (SAW) said: Whoever stands up to
perform his Wudhu, intending to offer Salah, then cleans his hands;
the sins of his two hands fallout with the first drop of water. Then,
when he rinses hismouth, and draws waterinto his nose and expels it;
the sins of his tongue and two lips fallout with the first drop of
water. Then, as he cleans his face, the sins of his hearing and seeing
fallout with the first drop (of water). Then, when he cleans his two
arms past the elbows, and his two feet past theankles; he becomes free
of all his offences and sins, just as was his state,the day his mother
gave him birth. He (then) said:Then, when he stands for Salah; Allah
elevates his position, and if he (merely) sits (without standing for
Salah) even then his sitting is free of sins! Source: Musnad Ahmad.
We take bath regularly to clean our body of dirts, but how many of us
offer regular prayers daily to clean the real dirts (sins)?

An 84-million-year-old seal skull thatdemolishes the 'ancestor of the seal' deception

A brand new subject reported on 22 April, 2009, in Nature magazine,
and reprintedthereafter in publishing organs such as Associated Press,
Reuters, BBC news and National Geographic News, as well as on Turkish
web sites such asRadikal and Haber Türk, was the claim that "the
supposed terrestrial ancestor of the seal has been discovered." A
fossil belonging to an extinct land-dwelling animal was once again
made the tool of Darwinist speculation and a scenario regarding the
fossil based on extensive use of the imagination resulted. This
land-dweller, given the name of "Puijila Darwin"and possessed of four
legs and a tail, was described as a transitional form "swimming with
four feet" and "with a tail serving no purpose" in order to fit in
with the Darwinist scenario.
The scientific evidence that refutes this huge deception may be set
out as follows:
With this fossil, Darwinists maintain thatthe fictitious
"terrestrial"ancestor of the seal was a semi-developed transitional
form that lived on land some 24 million years ago. Just two of the
millions of proofs that this claim IS A HUGE FRAUD are enough to
definitively refute this false claim. These are:
1. AN 84-MILLION-EAR-OLDSPOTTED SEAL FOSSIL skull and
A 68-MILLION-YEAR-OLD SEAL skull .
These living things ARE ALL COMPLETE, PERFECT AND FLAWLESS "SEALS."
Yet as Darwinists dream up their scenarios of "land-dwelling
forebears" dating back 20 million years, seals were in existence,
identical to their present-day form, 84 million years ago, and were
living in the seas just like their counterparts today.
If people had not been told that present-day seals were also in
existence 84 million years ago, and that they appeared suddenly with
no forebears behind them and have survived unchanged right down to the
present day, then Darwinists could easily have deceived those people
with no knowledge of the subject that the fictitiousland-dwelling
ancestor of the seal had lived 20 million years ago, without putting
forth any scientific evidence. Darwinist deception is based on this
method; scientific facts are concealed, and an imaginary scenario is
dreamed up and shamelessly depicted as the truth.
However, it has once again been revealed that Darwinists are now no
longer able to mislead anyone. Becauseevery one of their fictitious
transitional fossil claims is confronted by perfect living fossils
that totally refute their claims, in other words, by GENUINE
SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.
2. One fossil has been presented as a Potamotherium . However,
previously discovered Potamotherium fossils are all an extinct kind of
otter with perfect flippers and physical features ideally suited
tolife in water. These animals are almost identical to modern-day
otters. Enaliarctos fossils (an extinct form of sea-lion), included in
thesame class date back to the Oligocene Period 33.7 million years
ago and are all also perfect swimmers. The newly discovered Pujilla is
a fossil dating back to the Miocene Period, 24 million years ago.
Therefore, while declaring that 33-million-year-old otterand sea-lion
species, perfect swimmers, represent transitional forms, Darwinists
are also trying to include a 20-million-year-old terrestrial life form
with no physical features suited to life in water in the same
category.
3. Darwinists maintain that since Puijila has been found in
Greenlandand areas close to the North Pole seals must have supposedly
evolvedin those regions. The fact is, however, that theplaces where
other life forms portrayed as supposed transitional forms have emerged
are totally different to one another. One has been found in Greenland,
another in Europe, and athird along the northwest coast of
NorthAmerica. Since every fossil discovered has been found in a
different location, Darwinists have had to invent a different scenario
for each one. Since the place where this new fossil was discovered
does not match any of the others, they are trying to deceive readers
by inventing a new scenario about a new life form.
Darwinists have clearly declared any land-dwelling animal they have
found to be the ancestor of the seal solely because "that is what they
want it to be" and "just in order to be able to produce another false
piece of evidence for the theory of evolution." In order to be able
to maintain that the animal lived in the sea, in place of on land,
they have gone so far as to suggest that it used itsfour legs for
swimming rather than for walking on dry land and that its tail was
useless. Darwinists no longer recognize any bounds when it comes to
dreaming up scenarios. Yet all the creatures theyclaim are
transitional forms are all complete and perfect life forms with
complete limbs andorgans. Had the transitional life forms that
Darwinists claim once lived really existed, then one should encounter
a great many strange-looking fossils inthe layers of the earth. Yet
all the fossils discovered belong to perfectly formed living things.
As the fact that Darwinism has collapsed spreads across the
wholeworld, they have sought a way out in depicting these false
transitional forms as reality.
As we have previously made clear many times over, the 100 million
fossils hidden away by Darwinists for so many years but that have
recently been brought out into the light of day have unequivocally
announced the collapse of Darwinism. Every timethat Darwinists have
come up with a "transitional form" they have inevitably been
confronted by perfect fossil specimens dating back millions of years.
Perfect 68- and 84-million-year seal fossils are themselves sufficient
to clearly demonstrate the invalidity of Darwinists' claims. It is no
longer possible for Darwinists to deceive anyone. We advise the
publications in question to put an end to their misleading scenarios
and behave in the light of the scientific facts.

The invalidity of he claim that ''the probability calculations regardingprotein formation are wrong''

Since the greatest and most fundamental dilemma facing Darwinism is
that of the initial beginning of life, that is the subject that is
most troubling to Darwinists. Darwinists are unable to account for the
formation of a single protein even in the laboratory, let alone by
chance, and as alwaysthey resort to demagoguery as the easiest way
out.
Darwinists hide behind the idea that the probability calculations for
the formation of a single protein are "wrong." Even this just goes to
show how terrified Darwinists are at their inability to account for a
single protein .
It is true that the probability of an average, functional protein in
the human body forming spontaneously has been calculated as 1 in 10
950 .But even if there is an error in that calculations, as Darwinists
hypothesize, if the true probability were 1 in 10600or 10400or even
just 10100or 1060instead of 10950it would still pose an insoluble
dilemma forDarwinists. Because the probability in all cases would
still be ZERO.
But the point that reallyneeds to be emphasized is this: in terms of
protein, it is impossible to speak of any mathematical probability at
all. Because IN ORDER FOR PROTEIN TO FORM, OTHER PROTEINS MUST ALREADY
BE PRESENT. In other words, it is incorrect to employ the logic of "it
can only form with such and such a probability." Because protein
itself has to exist beforehand in order for protein to come into
existence. Andthis is a huge vicious circle for Darwinists.
Even if all the materials needed for protein, and all the amino acids
that represent the building blocks of protein, were all brought
together, no protein would still form in any way. THE PRESENCEOF DNA
AND PROTEINS TO PERFORM THE MANUFACTURE OF PROTEINAND FULLY EQUIPPED
CELLSto organize the process IS STILL ESSENTIAL.
In addition, 60 proteins are needed for a single protein to form, not
just one or two. Since these all have different functions, they are
all highly specialized.
It is unclear why Darwinists keep insistingon bringing up the fact
that protein and DNA areessential for protein to exist "has been known
to scientists for a very long time." It is of course something that
every scientist investigating the cell in the 21st century must know.
The important thing is not who discovered it, but that it represents
an insoluble dilemma for evolution.
It is therefore deceptivefor Darwinists to try to gain time by saying
"that calculation is wrong, but this one is right." No matter what
Darwinists claim, it is impossible for them to account for the
emergence of a protein, in other words, for the origin of life.
The fact that Darwinists are unable to account for a single protein
totally eliminates the theory of evolution. All false accounts
regardingevolution will all be invalid right from the outset.