In Conclusion, Gudidda as done in Somalia should be banned, no girl should go through that life threatening ritual, if on the other hand a consensus is reached by a competent Medical Professionals and Religious Scholars of the safety of a Sunnah compliant Gudid surgery, that will help a minor cope with sexual pressure without compromising her marital sentiments, then I am emboldened more than ever to say that I am all for it, and I stand by my statement until proven wrong. 1. Does Sunnah gudniin reduce sexual pleasure? 2. Will these Medical Professionals and Religious Scholars include women? 3. If Sunnah gudniin does reduce sexual pleasure, have you considered the long-term ramifications? What if this causes educated girls to opt out of marriage, since access to halal sex is no longer a drive? If our girls do go on to marry, but they lack the desire to get intimate with their husbands, how will this effect the men? Will they force their wives to have sex, or marry four of them as a matter of course? Will the men look outside holy matrimony for gratification?

What was that saying about clay feet? Lock them up: Not allowed. Beat them: Not allowed So, you stumble on a weird idea, Gudid , Is FGM allowed then?

Hello Khayr, Callypso, GOD is not SENTIMENTAL contrary to what most people today would like GOD to be...a PERSONAL, SENTIMENTALIZED GOD. I think that is exactly the future of God. GOD's Rahhmaaa (COMPASSION) does not need the APPROVAL of you and I, to condsir it RAHHMAAA(COMPASSION). Khayr, you are wrong there. Open the Qur'an to any random page and you will find God demonstrating his RAHMA and seeking our gratitude AS A CONSEQUENCE. When Allah says, "Which of my favors will you deny?" the underlying subtext is that, presented with RAHMA from Allah, we have a moral obligation to worship Allah and feel gratitude towards him. This implies that God is referencing a higher standard of good than even himself. Or maybe he is lowering himself to our moral level, which he has created in us. In either case, Allah himself has invited us to judge him by his actions and inactions, and that's what we must do. Any alternative is unthinkable. For if the was the case, then there would be no EVIL and ALL GOOD...then we would never really be able to define WHAT IS GOOD then because some of that GOOD would be negated into (GOOD, GOODER,ABSOLUTE GOOD etc.) I have no idea what that means. GOD'S JUSITCE, ADL, is not limited in the same way. GOD's WILL is always GREATER and you and I can not fathom it. For GOD, to be GOD, HE has to exercise his ATTRIBUTES which are INFINITE and that is not subject to the approval of his 'CREATION'...i.e. OK, GOD, you can do that (IS NOT WHAT ISLAM TEACHES) Once again, your own faith suggests otherwise. When God says he is JUST, and demands our worship thereby, he does invite us to judge him by a standard independent of him. If I say to you "I am kind to you so you should say thank you", the subtext is that a moral law exists which you ought to obey. I can't then turn around and say that my kindness is for me to define, and that it was kind of me to kill your offspring, for example. But wait, this is an explanation for people who believe in a RELIGION, what if you are an AGNOSTIC or an ATHIEST... then ask yourself this DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH AUTHORITY? LIMITS BEING SET ON YOUR PERSONAL LIFE? Fi Amanillah I have no problems with legitimate authority, or rational limits. No doubt my definition of legitimate authority differs markedly from yours though.

Hello Proud_Muslimah, Thank you for your civil and thoughful response. I'll try to answer in like manner, and hope everyone else realises that the other way of debating is not very productive. I have come across many Ahadith which have been translated in English and have naturally lost its true context. Of course, and that's inevitable. Personally, I don't think this particular Hadith is mistranslated, or that there could be a context in which it would not be unfair to women, but I suppose it's not impossible. Once I remember reading a Hadith in which Abu Huraira reported that the Prophet said that, "horses, houses and women are unlucky". But then another hadith from Aisha reported that the prophet was actually saying "Jews believe that horses, houses, and women are unlucky." Apparently Abu Huraira only heard the last part. So if the companions of the Prophet could take Hadith out of context, we certainly are not going to be immune. If I am given narrations on the hadith's exact volume, narrator etc maybe I can look into it for you and then give you a more honourable answer Insh'Allah (God Willing). Sure. There are several versions of this hadith. Al-Bukhari has one narrated by Imran bin Husain in Volume 4, Book 54, Number 464: The Prophet said, "I looked at Paradise and found poor people forming the majority of its inhabitants; and I looked at Hell and saw that the majority of its inhabitants were women." There's a longer one in Al-Bukhari, Volume 7, Book 62, Number 125, narrated by 'Abdullah bin Abbas. A similar version is in Volume 1, Book 2, Number 28. The version I quoted earlier is in Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301. Isn't the internet grand? Logically speaking it is like me saying more men die of heart disease than women, or majority of the troops occupying Iraq are Male Soldiers and not female. To an ordinary sane person this is not discriminative to either gender’s rather it is me giving you the facts. Proud_Muslimah, this is the only part of your post that I was truly disappointed in. Are you really telling me that going to Hell is not about being evil, but rather a meaningless fact with no value attached? Bad people go to Hell. If the majority of people going to Hell are women, then women are bad, compared to men. In contrast, saying that men have heart attacks more than women is not a value-ladden statement. People who have heart attacks are not evil compared to those who don't. People who go to hell are evil compared to those who don't. Let me put it this way: Imagine you have 20 infants in front of you, 10 are boys and 10 are girls. The Hadith in question will predict that, when they get older, more of the girls will go to hell. It's that simple. From birth, a girl is more likely to go to hell than her brother. Whether this is because she's going to be ungrateful to her husband, or because she's defective religiously and intellectually, depends on which Hadith you believe. And I challenge anybody to prove to me women had rights in the west at the time of the prophet Muhammad(pbuh), Islam gave women rights almost 1500 years before the West. I agree. In his time, the Prophet was truly revolutionary when it came to women's rights--in his time. Compared to the West in the 6th century, or even the 19th, Islam gives more rights to women. But why are we comparing in such an anachronistic fashion? That's like boasting that I am stronger than you were as a child. Islam today does NOT give women more rights than living under secular Western laws today. But this isn't about rights, because rights can be superseded by eternal rewards, obviously. Women can sacrifice some rights in this world if they have an edge in the next, so to speak. But the Hadith under question also implies that women have it worse in the hereafter too! Today many women, Muslim and Non-Muslim, have become slaves to the Dajjalic system in which they think they have freedom but in fact they are far from it. An example in which Islam gives "real" freedom whereas women in the West have "Dajjalic" freedom, please? My initial impression is that the Hadith is either a fabrication or it has been taken out of context. I thought your initial impression was that the Hadith was just stating a neutral fact? The way the hadith has been put is as though the prophet spoke of women in an ill and derogatory manner (Staughfirullah) If this was the case then indeed the women he actually spoke to (in this hadith), would have understandably left Islam as there is little chance of them entering Jannah (Paradise). What is the penalty for leaving Islam? But from the birth of Islam to present times the largest group accepting Islam are ofcourse women. Really? I wasn't aware of that. Could I be flippant and point out that since women are apparently deficient in intelligence it might not be a good idea to follow their example?

Muhammad, You, for example, Don't believe in Allah, which means you don't believe in Aakhirah, then how can one explain to you about Jannah, try and put water in a cup that is up side down. This is a fair question, I think. My answer would be that analysing what is said about a god (his attributes, his rewards and punishments and accomplishments) is the only way any mortal has in determining whether such a god exists. If I am told that a Compassionate and perfectly Just God rewards men and women differently, than I have to wonder whether this God is either NOT compassionate and just, or whether people are making him up. As an example, I wanted to find out whether male hooris exist, never having thought about the matter before. But this hadith leaped out at me, and I think it's actually more relevant to the discussion: “The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) went out to the Musalla on the day of Eid al-Adha or Eid al-Fitr. He passed by the women and said, ‘O women! Give charity, for I have seen that you form the majority of the people of Hell.’ They asked, ‘Why is that, O Messenger of Allaah?’ He replied, ‘You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religious commitment than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you.’ The women asked, ‘O Messenger of Allaah, what is deficient in our intelligence and religious commitment?’ He said, ‘Is not the testimony of two women equal to the testimony of one man?’ They said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Is it not true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?’ The women said, ‘Yes.’ He said, ‘This is the deficiency in her religious commitment.’†Variations on this hadith exist (another one actually lists three "deficiencies", while yet another merely states that women are ungrateful to their husbands) but it's in Sahih al-Bukhari so it's authentic. Why would I believe that a just and compassionate god would be more likely to throw me in hell just because I was born a woman rather than a man?

The five letters that are censored out spell the name of a tribe. Go figure.

Hello Baashi, I like the idealized picture you drew of religion in the life of man. The reality is quite different, however. You write that religion, leads man, by means of an inner, mostly intuitive, experience, to the acceptance of a unitary explanation of life, generally on the assumption that there exists a supreme Creative Power which governs the Universe according to some pre-conceived plan above and beyond human understanding. My main problem with this passage is that it is inaccurate on two counts. First, religious experience is more external that internal for most people. A revelation descends from on high, a prophet tells people what the "supreme Creative Power" is and what It wants, a set of rules are enforced by the society, rules that do not seem intuitively right to most. In other words, Religion is not arrived at by looking within oneself. Rather, religion is introduced by either ones parents, or if one is present at the inception of a religion, a shaman/priest/prophet who has exclusive access to knowledge not available to others tells them what to think. In religion, life is a circus; there's a captive audience, and a "ringleader", who tells them to ignore their common sense and personal experiences, so as to swallow whatever the ringleader assures them is the truth. My second objection to your statement is that you imply that religious folk arrive at a cohesive Truth by looking within (or without, as the case may be). This is in contradiction of all of human history, isn't it? Each mystic finds a truth which more often than not is in violent conflict with the "truths" discovered by other mystics. How many religions are there? Is it even possible to count? How many people believe sincerely that they (and only they) have discovered "The Truth" and that everyone else is not only mistaken but evil to boot? To take that circus metaphor again: outside the tent in which you sit in awe, there's another tent, within which are more people watching another circus, and the ringleader there is assuring them that only what they see there is the real deal. Outside the tents are a few of us, uncertain what the truth is, but not particularly interested in watching human contortionists and acrobatics. But surely religion at least provides a moral framework within which man can find value in himself and in other humans right? Wrong. Consider this: What crime do all religions require their adherents to desist from? What evil will mankind get up to without religions to keep him in check? Think hard on that one.

Well, I see a great deal of undercurrents from the SOL veterans is threatening to derail this topic so that it crashes into the rocks of insider jokes (how is that for a vapid mixed metaphor, eNuri readers?). So far, a couple of skeptics and Castro have shared their concept of God, while everyone else is either nitpicking or going off topic. Ironic, considering. Johnny B: I kind of agree with whoever suggested that it might be better to move this topic elsewhere. Can the original poster do this, or must a moderator? Castro: Careful, you don't want to profess liking just anyone . Not without looking in the party rule book first. You want to get your membership revoked? Fortunately, I have no metaphysical guard dictating with whom I may or may not associate, so I think you're pretty neat too. Though I can't help feeling a little wary...

This is a great article, and I'm surprised it's not getting more hits/replies. I was a little nonplussed by this part though: Has the vaccination “matrix†been so well entrenched in the blue pillers' minds that they will actually let mercury, monkey puss and aborted fetal tissue be injected under their skin based on an unproven theory that such things promote health and prevent disease? Is the author expressing doubts on the smallpox vaccine specifically, or all vaccinations in general? Vaccination an "unproven theory"? Sometimes I think the best way to keep "blue pill" people compliant is to give them red herrings to chase after. Let them feel they are really in the loop, that they see through the subterfuge others are blinded to. Like the Somalis who will swear up and down that Americans, the West, Ethiopia, or Russia was behind the downfall of our nation while at the same time sending money to support their noble leaders triumph against those mendacious other tribes.

Haseena: Thank you for your concern, my dear. I understand it comes from a sincere belief that I'm harming myself or missing out on something worthwhile. Just understand it makes about as much sense, from my point of view, as me worrying about you not believing in Dhag Dheer. I don't say that to be dismissive, just to give you a sense of my perspective, okay? Castro: I appreciate your heads-up. I'm not too worried about getting banned, for one simple reason. I am here because SOL forrumers seemed like an intelligent, articulate lot who disagree with one another civilly. If I get banned for expressing my views civilly, then I'll find some other outlet for them. There would be no point in my being a member but censoring myself. Of what possible use is that on an online forum? It's not as if I'm here to buy cajeelo or something! Johnny B: Aw, a fellow freethinker! m u h a m m a d: Life has no externally-imposed purpose. I decide what the purpose of my life is, whether it's to help the poor, fight for my country, or live in hedonistic bliss. But I am answering that question as an individual, not as a member of the Atheist Coalition. JB might have a different view on the matter.

I think it's more or less right. I haven't been to Somalia since the Exodus, but what people tell me and the pictures I've seen show a far more conservative culture than the one I remember. Then again, Somalis in the U.S. are also far more conservative than you'd expect. I think the only thing standing between Somalia and a Taliban-like theocracy is the tribal nature of our society. But that's not going to be a barrier for long.

The One... Nothing happened to me to make me an apostate, dear. I wasn't molested by a religious figure or anything. No unforgettable childhood trauma. All things considered, my life's been pretty good and I don't harbor hostility for Allah. I am saying this now because it's often the first thing people assume. I believe that a certain fraction of people (at least 1 in 10) are natural-born skeptics, and will become so provided there's religious freedom. Even as a kid, people used to accuse me of being a little too rational, and my belief in Islam stemmed in part from my perception that it was the most rational of religions. When I found out that this wasn't saying much, then that was pretty much it. Animal Farm, No, I didn't read Nietzsche, but I probably should. Most of my reading was actually limited to Islamic sources, like apologist tracts. I read a few popular humanist works, like Thomas Payne, Carl Sagan, etc but this was after I began to doubt, so I was looking for an alternate philosophy. Brother, you need to abandon your humanist rationale, clearly there are scientific evidences that a higher being controls all in the universe. That may be, but I haven't come across this scientific evidence. But then I didn't say I have exhausted all evidence that a Higher Being exists, it's simply my belief that it doesn't. The only thing I am pretty sure about is that no one who claims to have communicated with this higher power actually did. Johnny B, So what's stopping you from sharing your views bro?

Forget all of mankind agreeing on what God means; even I can't decide within myself. When I was a child, God was a gigantic eye, watching and condemning every misdemeanor. The first theological statement I remember hearing is "Ilaahey ka baq". I did. Around 15 years old, I decided God was an all-merciful father figure, looking on approvingly as I strove to please Him. I was very close to Him, while most other people were clearly not. This lasted until I was about 20 and a junior in college. Then, in an attempt to perfect my faith, I tried to learn more about it. A singularly bad idea. By the end of the school year, my self-directed education led me to conclude that God was more a creation of Man than his Creator. Religion was a crutch for the weak, and religious movements arose as attempt to control and exploit people. Now it's been a few years, and I've mellowed out somewhat. Maybe there's a Creator, and clearly some (few) religious movements do good for their followers and for society at large. But religion is not for me, and if there's a God, I suspect no one on this good Earth has divined His intent. _____________________________________ As for the little slide show, I thought it was very nice scenery, except some fool kept obstructing it with trite scribbles.

^ Thank you, Castro. [blinks] Never thought I'd have reason to say that in my life...

Socod_badne, you made some really good points, but this one stands out:- Evolution theory is silent on the subject of the 'beginning'. Its beginning is the first living organism (or organisms). THANK YOU. The theory of evolution is (mostly) silent on how life came to be simply because the theory of evolution is a biological theory. As such, it concerns itself with biological (living) entities. Any thing before that is the purview of chemists.

Originally posted by Salafi da'wa: I'm not taking about a hidden meaning but suggesting that the numbers used are not to be taken literally. 1. The people who the Nabi(salalahu alayhi wa salam) was addressing understood it literally when they replied" who are the saved sect" Not necessarily. If they understood the Prophet's words to mean that there will be MANY sects but only one would be saved, then it follows that they would ask "Which one?". No literal understanding necessary. 2. The Nabi understood it literally when he said" the save sect are those who are upon what I and my companions are on today" clearily distinguishin between the saved sect from the ruined sects. Once again, you are forcing a literal meaning here which is not necessary. Distinguishing between the misguided many and the right few does not require knowing an exact number of the misguided. 3. Those who followed the companions understood it literally when they said," if Ahlul Xahith is not the saved sect, then i dont know who they are"(refer to imam Ahmed) Wow, you are really determined, aren't you? Boqol jeer baad ku cel-celisay wax aadan ka fakarin!

I think Viking raises an interesting point. I didn't know that Arabs use 70 to mean "many". (in the same one Somalis use 100? Who has never heard their mother say "Boqol jeer baan ku iri..."?) If 70 is code for "many", then maybe the Prophet was using it in that sense. It seems odd that people are questioning Viking's motives for raising a pretty harmless question.

Your inference that in the near future we will be able to "Control and Harness" Mother nature (hurricanes) is absurd (No pun intended). I would hate for my first ever post on SOL to demonstrate my cluelessness, but what is the pun that was NOT intended? Please? It's driving me crazy!