Hajj & Umrah, - Mistakes inTalbiyah

Share

AbandoningTalbiyah ]1[or repeating it in a low voice.
This is against theSunnah)tradition(. TheSunnah, however, is that men should repeatTalbiyahin a high voice while women should do that in a low voice. In aHadeeth)narration(, the Prophet,, said:"Jibreel )Gabriel( came to me and commanded me to order my Companions to raise their voices in Talbiyah."]Abu Daawood[
·Some say,"O Allaah I want ‘Umrah or Hajj"and this is incorrect. What is correct, however, is to say, "Labbayka Hajjan wa ‘Umrah)O Allaah, I answer Your call to performHajjand‘Umrah(" if he performs theQiraan Hajj ]2[; or"Labbayka ‘Umrah)O Allaah, I answer Your call to perform‘Umrah(" if he performs theTamattu‘ Hajj ]3[or the‘Umrahonly; or "Labbayka Hajj)O Allaah, I answer Your call to performHajj(" if he performs theIfraad Hajj ]4[.
·Some pilgrims do not reflect on the meaning ofTalbiyah, which implies response and surrender to the command of Allaah The Almighty as well as obedience to Him with love and fear. Consequently, it is obligatory to reflect on the meanings of these words so that they come from the heart.
]1[- Saying:"Labbayka Allaahumma labbayk. Labbayka laa shareeka laka labbayk. Innalhamda wan-n‘imata laka walmulk, laa shareek lak."
]2[- This is where a pilgrim assumesIhraamfor both‘UmrahandHajj, or he assumesIhraamfirst for‘Umrah, then makes his intention forHajjbefore hisTawaafforHajj. The obligations on one performingIfraadare the same as those on one performingQiraan, except that the latter must slaughter whereas the former is not obligated to do so.
]3[- This is where a pilgrim assumesIhraamfor both‘UmrahandHajj, or he assumesIhraamfirst for‘Umrah, then makes his intention forHajjbefore hisTawaafforHajj.The obligations on one performingIfraadare the same as those on one performingQiraan, except that the latter must slaughter whereas the former is not obligated to do so.
]4[- This is where a pilgrim assumesIhraamforHajjonly. When he reaches Makkah, he performsTawaaffor his arrival andSa'yfor Hajj. He does not shave or clip his hair as he does not disengage fromIhraam. Instead, he remains inIhraamuntil after he stones theJamratul–'Aqabahon 'Eed day. It is permissible for him to postpone hisSa'yforHajjuntil after hisTawaafforHajj)i.e. Tawaaf (.

Share

Hajj & Umrah, - Mistakes on the Dayof ‘Arafah

Share

Observing fast of the day of‘Arafah)the 9th day ofThul-Hijjah( by some pilgrims.
This is a mistake. TheSunnah)tradition(, however, is that the pilgrim should not be fasting on that day to be more active and stronger to make supplications andAthkaar)remembering and mentioning Allaah The Almighty(.
·Leaving‘Arafahbefore sunset.
This is prohibited and contradicts theSunnahof the Prophet,. Moreover, leaving‘Arafahbefore sunset is the deed of the people of the pre-Islamic era.
·Some pilgrims stay out of the boundaries of‘Arafahand remain in their places until sunset. This is a grave mistake because such people do not fulfill the ‘Arafah.

Share

Hajj & Umrah, - Mistakes inSlaughtering the Sacrificial Animal

Share

Giving the value of the sacrificial animal as charity instead of slaughtering it. This does not free one from liability.
Slaughtering the sacrificial animal before the day of‘Eed. It is obligatory to slaughter at the prescribed fixed time which is the day of‘Eed.
Throwing the sacrificial animal after slaughtering it and this implies wasting the blessing of Allaah The Almighty. Rather, the pilgrim is required to present that animal to the poor and the needy. The pilgrim is permitted to eat from his sacrificial animal if he wills.
Slaughtering a defective, lame or one-eyed animal. TheHajjsacrificial animal is similar to theUdh-hiyah)the‘Eedsacrifice for those who are not pilgrims( and the same conditions must be fulfilled. Freedom of defects is one of these conditions.
Slaughtering the sacrificial animal outside the sacred precincts of Makkah. Rather, one is required to slaughter within the boundaries of these precincts.

Share

Darwinism, - The invalidity of the famous Darwinist claim that ''useful mutations do exist.''

Share

The false idea that useful mutations exist is a classic Darwinist claim. Although the whole scientific world knows, with absolute scientific evidence, that mutations have a destructive or fatal effect, this claim is still persistently made, out of a fear of humiliation. Because Darwinism is a theory that depends totally on mutations. All Darwinists know that if the destructive effect were to be mentioned just once, that would spell the end of Darwinism. It is for that reason they try to give the impression, citing invalid and utterly pitiful examples, that mutations can be beneficial. But this is a complete deception.
As we have set out many times before, mutations have a net harmful effect, with only 1% being neutral, though the latest scientific research has shown that even these can produce long-term damage in the organism. [1] The net harmful effect of mutations is not a psychological defense mechanism, but an explicit truth revealed by science.
If Darwinists object to this, then they are directly flying in the face of science. Because this is not a matter of opinion, but an absolute scientific fact.
It is impossible for mutations to bestow any useful characteristic. Under normal conditions, everything in a living body exhibits complete regularity, order and symmetry. In addition, these systems co-exist with the most delicate balances and exhibit a glorious complexity right down to the finest detail. Mutations are random interventions, such as with radiation, and mean breakages, impairments and dislocations. They INEVITABLY DAMAGE these extraordinarily complex systems, with their regularity, symmetry and order. It is illogical and a violation of science to maintain anything else.
The results at Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were all the results of mutations. Under the effect of mutations, organisms with regular structures either died or suffered severe damage, and this harmful effect even manifested itself in subsequent generations.
Darwinists generally cite various examples of immunity in order to try to corroborate their claims that “beneficial mutations do exist.” But these examples all consist of a variation or impairment in bacteria or immune cells.
Sometimes, a dislocation in a single DNA nucleotide, or base, can bestow immunity to an antibiotic on a micro- organism. But although this may be useful to the micro-organism, IT IS NOT A BENEFICIAL MUTATION. Because the mutation in question has actually harmed the micro-organism. The ribosome sequence belonging to the micro-organism has been impaired, and it prevents the antibiotic binding to the organism by damaging the lock and key harmony. In other words, rather than there being any novelty in the micro- organism, we are looking at a loss of information.
Mutations are literally like firing at a regular structure with a machine gun. Opening fire on a healthy structure will entirely do away with that structure. The fact that one bullet has no effect or destroys an existing infection in the body changes nothing. The organism will already have been killed by the other 99 bullets hitting it.
The example that Darwinists cite with such examples is like a bullet healing the body by destroying a single infection. The organism is devastated by mutations, but Darwinists concentrate on the one that heals this infection.
Since the subject of mutations constitutes one of the most damaging points for Darwinists they engage in demagoguery by depicting minor instances of variation or the effects examined above as major evidence. The fact is, however, that the adherents of evolution, who maintain that all living things acquired their present symmetrical and complex structures by way of evolution, have to be able to cite examples of mutations that take place one after the other and are all beneficial, and that also bestow new information on the organism.
What is more, Darwinists also have to provide evidence for the scenario of one living thing’s physiology turning into that of another life form through mutation at the macro level. BUT THEY CANNOT EVEN CONTEMPLATE PRODUCING SUCH EVIDENCE. Because as they know full well, mutations destroy and ruin and occasionally entirely destroy the organism concerned.
It addition, we need to make the following point very clear: mutations can never bestow any new data on an organism that is not already in its genome. That is impossible. The examples alleged to have “added new information” are all misleading. No new genetic information is ever added. All that happens is that information already existing in a living thing’s genes starts to be used by becoming more visible as a result of variations.
Breaks and dislocations in the bases that make up DNA CAN NEVER PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION. They do not equate to information that did not already exist being bestowed on a living thing. Darwinists are without doubt well aware of this. But they insist on depicting dislocations in genetic bases as new data. This is an example of Darwinist demagoguery.

Share