Dought & Clear, - If the spouses were notpraying at the time of the marriage contract, do they have to renew the marriage contract?.

|
If a man did the marriage contract at a time when he was not praying,
and the husband and wife, the wife's father, and the two witnesses
also were not praying, and the onewho did the marriage contract did
not do it in the correct manner, rather he did it in a language other
than Arabic and he did not recite the Shahaadatayn (twin declaration
of faith) or say the words of the marriage contract,what is the ruling
on thismarriage? Is this marriage regarded as legitimate or not? If
theyhave repented from not praying and have begunto pray, should they
do anew marriage contract, or is the old marriage contract regarded as
Islamically acceptable?
Praise be to Allah.
If the one who does not pray does not do so because he is denying that
it is obligatory, thenhe is a kaafir according to scholarly consensus.
But if he does not pray because he is heedless and lazy, then he is a
kaafir according to the more correct of the two scholarly opinions.
Please see the answer to questions no. 5208 and 2182 .
If the husband and wife were not praying at the time of the marriage
contract, then they repented and began to pray, then they remain
married on the basis of the original marriage contract, because the
Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) ruled that people
remained married on the basis of non-Muslim marriage contracts, and he
did not instruct them to repeat the marriage contract after they
became Muslim,. Also, the Sahaabah did not instruct those who came
back to Islam after apostatising to renew their marriage contracts.
Ibn Qudaamah (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The marriage
contracts of the kuffaar are valid and approved if they become Muslim
… there is no need to examine the form of their marriage contracts or
how they were done, and they are not subject to the same conditions as
Muslim marriages, namely the presence of the wali (wife's guardian)
and witnesses, and the proposal and acceptance, and so on. There is no
difference of opinion among the Muslims concerning this matter. Ibn
'Abd al-Barr said: The scholars are unanimously agreed that if the two
spouses become Muslim togetherat the same time, they remain married on
the basis of their original marriage contract, so long as they are not
mahrams through blood ties or breastfeeding. Many people became Muslim
at the time of theMessenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be
upon him), as did their wives; their marriages were approved and the
Messenger of Allah (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not
ask them about the conditions of marriage or the nature of their
marriage contract. This is something that is well-known from
mutawaatir reports, so itis certain.
End quote from al-Mughni, 10/5
It says in Mataalib Ooli an-Nuha (5/13):
Note: if an apostate marries a kaafir apostatewoman or the like, or
anapostate woman marriesa kaafir man, then both spouses become Muslim,
what should be said in this case is that we accept their marriage,
just as in the case of the harbi (non-Muslim whose people are in a
state of war with the Muslims), if his marriage was not done properly,
then they (he and his wife) become Muslim. The matter is the same.
Apostates came back to Islam at the time of the Messenger of Allah
(blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) and his successors (i.e.,
the Rightly Guided Caliphs) and they were not instructed to renew
their marriage contracts.This is a good analogy, and was stated by
Shaykh Taqiy ad-Deen (i.e., Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah). End quote.
The scholars of the Standing Committee for Issuing Fatwas were asked:
I used to pray only rarely, and during that period of my life I got
married. Now, praisebe to Allah, I pray regularly and I have done Hajj
and have repented to Allah, but I do not know what is the ruling on my
marriage, is it valid or not? What should I do if it is not valid?
Please note that I have five children from my wife.
They replied: If your wife was like you at the time of the marriage
contract and did not pray, or she only prayed sometimes, then the
marriage is valid and it does not have to be renewed, because you were
equal in terms of the ruling having to do with not praying, which is
(that the one who does not pray) is a kaafir. However, if the your at
the time of the marriage contract prayed regularly, then what you must
do is renew the marriage contract according to the more correct of the
two scholarly opinions, if both of you still want to be married to the
other. It is also essential to repent from not praying and to pray
regularly in future.
With regard to the children who were born before the renewal of the
marriage contract, they are legitimate and are to be attributed to
their father because the marriage appeared to be valid.
We ask Allah to set your affairs straight and to guide you to all that
is good. And Allah is the source of strength. May Allah send blessings
and peace upon our Prophet Muhammad and his family and companions. End
quote.
Fataawa al-Lajnah ad-Daa'imah, 18/290
Shaykh Ibn Baaz (may Allah have mercy on him) said: But if both of
them did not pray at the time of the marriage contract, then Allah
guided them and they began to pray regularly, then the marriage
contract is valid. This is similar to the case of disbelievers who
become Muslim; their marriage contract does not need to be renewed if
there is no shar'i impediment to the continuation of the marriage,
because the Prophet (blessings and peace of Allah be upon him) did not
instruct the disbelievers who became Muslim at the time of the
conquest of Makkah and so on to renew their marriage contracts.
End quote from Fataawa Ibn Baaz, 10/291
Based on that, if the spouses have repented from not praying and they
have started to pray, they do not need to repeat the marriage
contract; rather their original marriage contract remains valid.
And Allah knows best.

--
- - ▓███▓ Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -

Islamic Stories - Allah is the Most Forgiving

It was narrated that in the days that Musa (Alahisalaam) wandered with
Bani Israel in the desert an intense drought befell them. Together,
they raised their hands towards the heavens praying for the blessed
rain to come. Then, to the astonishment of Musa (Alahi salaam) and all
those watching, the few scattered clouds that were in the sky
vanished, the heat poured down, and the drought intensified.
It was revealed to Musa that there was a sinner amongst the tribe of
Bani Israel whom had disobeyed Allah (Subhanahu wa ta�ala) for more
than forty years of his life. �Let himseparate himself from the
congregation,� Allah (Subhanahu wa ta�ala) told Musa (Alahi
salaam).�Only then shall I showeryou all with rain.�
Musa (Alahi salaam) thencalled out to the throngsof humanity, �There
is a person amongst us who has disobeyed Allah for forty years. Let
him separate himself from the congregation and only then shall we be
rescued from the drought.� That man, waited, looking left and right,
hoping that someone else would step forward, but no onedid. Sweat
poured forth from his brow and he knew that he was the one.
The man knew that if he stayed amongst the congregation all would die
of thirst and that if he stepped forward he would be humiliated for
all eternity.
He raised his hands with a sincerity he had never known before, with a
humility he had never tasted, and as tears poured down on both cheeks
he said: �O Allah, have mercy on me! O Allah, hide my sins! O Allah,
forgive me!�
As Musa (Alahi salaam) and the people of Bani Israel awaited for the
sinner to step forward, the clouds hugged the sky and the rain poured.
Musa (Alahi salaam) asked Allah (Subhanahu wa ta�ala), �O Allah, you
blessed us with rain even though the sinner did not come forward.� And
Allah (Subhanahu wa ta�ala) replied, �O Musa, it is for the repentance
of that very person that I blessed all of Bani Israel with water.�
Musa (Alahi salaam), wanting to know who this blessed man was, asked,
�Show him to me O Allah!� Allah (Subhanahu wa ta�ala) replied, �O
Musa, I hid his sins for forty years, do you think that after his
repentance I shall expose him? - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -

Islamic Stories - The truth has come

It is stated on the authority of Abdullah bin Masood that the
unbelievers of the Quraish had installed 360 idols in Ka'bah so
strongly that their feet were fixed with lead. When Makkah was
conquered and the Prophet (SAW) entered the Holy Ka'bah, he had a
stick in his hand. With it, he started pointing towards the idols and
reciting this verse: Truth has (now) arrived, and falsehood perished
(Surah Al Isra:81). The idol, to which the Prophet (SAW) pointed on
its front, fell down to its rear side and the idol,to which he pointed
from its rear side, fell down flat on its front side. Source: Combined
from Bukhari, Muslim, Bazar, Tabrani and Abu Yaala. - - ▓███▓
Translator:-> http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -

The idea that 'mutations cause evolution' is a falsehood

Mutations are dislocations, breaks and impairments as a result of
radiation of chemical effects in the DNA molecule in the nucleus of
the living cell and thatcarries all the information about a human
being. The information in DNA is setout by 4 separate nucleotides,
symbolized by the letters A, T, C and G, laid out in a special and
significant sequence. But an error in a single letter in that
sequence will damage the entire structure. The leukemia observed in
children appears because one of the letters in the DNA is incorrect.
The reason fordiseases such as cancer appearing or subsequent
generations being deformed as a result of the radiation leakage in
Chernobyl of the atom bomb droppedover Hiroshima is harmful effects of
this kind caused by mutations in people's bodies.
Almost all mutations are harmful, and they are generally lethal to
living things. Examples of mutations that are not harmful generally do
theorganism no good, and are at best neutral. Scientists have
concluded that not a single one out of all those that have been
studied has had a positive effect on a living thing's life. 1
But the theory of evolution is based on fictitious mutations that
produce "new" living things and work miracles. Darwinists maintain
that species emerge from one another through structures and organs
appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial
mutations. This claim, a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is
put forward by Darwinist scientists who know thatmutations always harm
an organism. Moreover, although Darwinists are well aware of these
harmful effects of mutations they still pointto a mutant, four-winged
fruit fly subjected to mutations in the laboratory in support of their
claims. Darwinists portrayed theextra pair of wings produced in a
fruit fly as a result of carefully performed mutations as the greatest
evidence that mutations could lead to evolution. But the two wings in
question actually damaged the creature rather than benefiting
it,leading to its losing the ability to fly. The University of
California molecular biologist summarizes the position as follows:
In the 1970s, Cal Tech geneticist Edward B. Lewis discovered that
bycarefully breeding three mutant strains he was able to produce a
fruit fly in which the balancers were transformed into a second pair
of normal-looking wings.
At first glance, this mightseem to provide evidence for Carroll's
claim that small developmental changes in regulatory DNA can produce
large evolutionary changes in form. But the fruit fly is still a fruit
fly. Furthermore, although the second pair of wingslooks normal, it
has no flight muscles. A four-winged fruit fly is like an airplane
with a second pair of wings dangling uselessly from its tail. It has
great difficulty flying or mat­ing, so it can survive only in the
laboratory. Asevidence for evolution, afour-winged fruit fly is no
better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow. 2
Jonathan Wells continues:
Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us
something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution.
All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to
a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal
fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even
ahorsefly, much less a horse. 3
As we have seen, the four-winged mutant fruit fly that is the only
evidence that Darwinistspoint to in support of their warped claims is
in fact nothing more than adisabled fruit fly. No matter what effect
mutations may have on a life form, they do not possess the miraculous
property of bestowing a characteristic belonging to another life form
ontoit. But Darwinists want to believe the lie that miracles occur in
living things by way of mutations.
The interesting thing is that although Darwinist scientists know that
the fruit fly in question is defective, attempts are still made to
depict it as the greatest evidence for evolution by mutation in school
text books. The molecular biologist Jonathan Wells writes:
According to Peter Raven and George Johnson's 1999 textbook, Biology ,
"all evolution begins with alterations in the genetic message… Genetic
change through mutation and recombination [the re-arrangement of
existing genes] provides the raw materials for evolution." The same
page features a photo ofa four-winged fruit fly, which is described as
"a mutant because of changes in Ultrabithorax , a gene regulating a
critical stage of development; it possesses two thoracic segments and
thus two sets of wings."
…
Adding to the confusion,textbook accounts typically leave the reader
with the impression that the extra wings represent a gain of
structures. But four-winged fruit flies have actually lost structures
which they need for flying. Their balancers are gone, and instead of
being replaced with somethingnew have been replacedwith copies of
structuresalready present in another segment. Although pictures of
four-winged fruit flies give the impression that mutations have added
something new, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. 4
Even if we assume that the "fictitious first cell" that Darwinists
claim represents the beginning of life and that cannot possibly have
come into being bychance did actually emerge spontaneously, even the
smallest stage of the imaginary evolutionary process that would have
to take place to give rise to man with his complex structure would
require an astounding amount of information to be produced and
countless mutations to take place. "All" of these many mutations have
to be beneficial to the life form or else bring about the appearance
of something "new." Because a single error inthis fictitious
developinglife form will cause the entire system to go wrong and
collapse. Ninety-nine percent of mutations are harmful while 1% are
neutral. It flies in the face of both reason and science, therefore,
to suggest that every single one of these mutations that would have to
take place according to the theory of evolution can be beneficial.
It is therefore impossiblefor a brand new organ or characteristic that
didnot exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations.
Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that
does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism. The
idea of mutation represents the greatest manifestation of the
falsehood and illogicality of Darwinism.Because the idea of evolution
is based on these illusory "beneficialmutation" that do not in fact
exist.
The Infinite Amount ofTime Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations
Even if we hypothesize that beneficial mutations could take place, the
idea of mutation is still incompatible with the theory of evolution.
In a paper titled "The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian EvolutionAs a
Scientific Theory," Professor Murray Eden from the MIT (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology) Faculty ofElectrical Engineering showed that
if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change,
this would occurby chance only once in a billion years - while, if two
dozen genes were involved, it would require 10,000,000,000 years,
which is much longer than the age of the Earth. 5 Even if we assume
that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs and
structures requiring more than onemutation to occur at the same time,
mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for
Darwinists. Even Professor of Paleontology George G. Simpson, one of
the most unrepentant Darwinists, clearly states that it would take an
infinite length of time for five mutations to happen at the same time.
6 An infinite amount of time means zero probability. And that is a
probability applying to all the structures and organisms possessed by
living things. There is thus no possibility of theglorious variety of
life we see in our daily lives coming about through mutations.
The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation
regarding the mutation claim in question. He admitted that in a
community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new
generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only
take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times
greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years. 7 These,
of course, are all calculations assuming that mutations have a
positive effect of that new generations gave rise to. But no such
assumption applies in the real world.
Why Is the Body That Is Supposedly EvolvingProtected against Mutations?
All evolutionist scientists know that the probability of a replication
error taking place in a living thing's DNA for no reason is verylow.
Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell
that prevent genetic errors arising. The information in DNA cannot be
copied in the absence of particular enzymes that protect one another
against errors. These include doubt-filter enzymes for ensuring that
the right amino acid binds to the right tRNA. One filter rejects amino
acids that are too large, and the other those that are too small.
This is a very sensitive and rational system. There are also enzymes
that do the final checks against the possibility of any error arising
in this intelligent system. Scientists have concluded that there is
abetter cellular control and protection system aimed at maintaining
the integrity of DNA thanthey had ever imagined. 8
Pierre Paul Grassé, who spent 30 years as professor of evolution atthe
Sorbonne, wrote thison the subject:
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's
"Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy
errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye. 9
Darwinists ignore this miraculous system in DNA and avoid going deeply
into the subject and coming with any explanation of it. But they
construct a scenarioof the history of life builton replication errors
with an almost zero possibility of coming about. This once again
reveals the nonsensical nature of Darwinist logic.
Following the realizationthat Darwin's idea of natural selection very
definitely did not constitute an account of the so-called evolution
and the emergence of the laws of genetics as a lethal blow to
Darwinism, the claim of the "evolutionary effect of mutations," which
had been the main weapon of neo-Darwinism, was seen to be no more than
a deception. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that a mechanism
such as mutation, which damages, destroys and kills the living
organism, as well as sometimes harming all subsequent generations, can
give rise to whole new living things.
But masses of people were taken in by this lie for years. Darwinist
scientists of course knowthat mutations have no such miraculous power.
Even Richard Dawkins, one of the present day's most fervid Darwinists,
admits that "most mutations are deleterious, so some undesirable side
effect ispretty likely." 10 The reason why Darwinists still propose
this discredited claim as a mechanism for evolutionis their devotion
to the superstitious religion of Darwinism.
1 Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution,
Master Books, 2001, pp. 74-75
2 Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism
and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006,
p.34
3 Ibid., p. 36
4 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp.185,186, 187
5 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Sphere Books
Ltd., 1984, p. 4
6 Ibid., p. 230
7 Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense Evidence Against Evolution,
Master Books, 2001, p.81
8 Ibid., pp.74-75
9 Ibid., p. 81
10 Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University Press,
1999, p. 141 - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -