^^thats what i though until i re-read the article. Half his life in a cell

^^I wouldnt put it passed them though. They are getting more dodgy by the day!

La isugu tegay Hadaan kufahmey!

Lagu Goobtey :confused: I have a nice Lebanese around the corner

I have been coming into work at 6am most of the time only to leave at 1.30pm. Harlsden? Watch your back!

Misyar marriage can be defined as a marriage contract between a man and a woman, in which the woman waives some of the rights she would have in a normal Islamic marriage. This sometimes takes place when, for example, there are many women who, as they get older, find it increasingly difficult to marry. In this case a woman opts for a husband who is not able to fulfil the normal marital duties like financial maintenance, or spending adequate time with her, for example. She considers that marrying such a husband is better than remaining unmarried. It’s noteworthy that once a marriage contract meets its Shari`ah requirements, it will be acceptable from the Islamic point of view irrespective of what people call such contract. Conditions of valid marriage are: The consent of both spouses, the consent of the wali (guardian), the payment of the dower, the presence of the witnesses, and the announcement of the contract. It goes without saying that valid marriage should not be limited to a certain period of time; otherwise it will be reckoned as a mut`ah (temporal) marriage which is prohibited in Islam. Dealing with this subject, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states: Misyar marriage should be viewed as a form of legal relationship between man and woman regardless of any description attached to it. This is pursuant to the juristic rule: "What matters most in contracts are motives and meaning, not the wording or structure." Therefore, in determining the legal nature of this marriage, we should not judge things according to names, for as we know, people feel free in naming or describing something. Stipulating certain details in the marriage contract on both sides is acceptable. For example, some scholars maintain that a woman has a right to determine the timing of marriage; i.e., it can take place at day or night, however, she can also waive this right. Therefore, based on what has been mentioned, we can state that misyar marriage, or something in similar form, has been in practice from time immemorial. It also serves the purpose of some women, who, for instance, may be rich but happen to be unable to marry at the proper time. So, such women can opt for this kind of marriage. But I do have to make it clear that the aforementioned statement does not make me a protagonist of misyar marriage. In all my fatwas and sermons, it is not mentioned anywhere that I give any support for such marriage. The point is that when I was asked by a journalist to state my opinion regarding this marriage, I found it a pressing religious duty to give a clear-cut opinion on something that does not make unlawful what Almighty Allah has made lawful for His servants. Therefore, if anyone seeks my opinion on this marriage, I must reply him saying: What do you mean by misyar marriage. Then, if I get an explanation that shows that in misyar marriage, all the Islamic legal requirements are met, then the marriage is valid. Those requirements are: an offer and acceptance from both parties; a specified dowry, according to the Qur'anic verse: [And give unto the women, (whom ye marry) free gift of their marriage portions] (An-Nisaa' 4: 4), and that the contract wins the consent of the guardian. Thereby, no one has the right to brandish it as unlawful. There is no doubt that such marriage may be somehow socially unacceptable, but there is a big difference between what is Islamically valid and what is socially acceptable. As we know, people can be cynical about the idea of an employee marrying his employer. But who can deny the validity of such a marriage if it meets all the legal requirements? This issue, therefore, needs a cautious approach. One should not feel free to condemn an act as absolutely forbidden, merely on social repugnance. Rather, one needs to have convincing evidence to determine the legal nature of each particular act. I'm still sceptical on this one!

Thanks saxib!

Thanks saxib!

Amin Very sad. He was only 28 when it happened. It has been proven he acted in self defense. Eight years wasted in a Pakistani cell followed by death for simply defending himself.

The Trolls are back :rolleyes: , but where is NGONGE? probably reading an Arab journal on his desk :rolleyes:

Story i've been following for quite some time Briton's execution date confirmed Officials in Pakistan have confirmed a Leeds man on death row in the country will be executed on 1 November. Mirza Tahir Hussain, 36, was convicted of murdering a taxi driver in 1998 and has been in custody ever since. On Monday, his brother Amjad made an urgent appeal for his life to be spared after hearing he was to be hanged in two weeks. But a prison official said on Wednesday: "His execution has been fixed for November 1." Mr Hussain has always claimed he was acting in self-defence, saying the taxi driver tried to sexually assault him. His conviction was overturned in Pakistan's High Court, but he was later retried by an Islamic court, which sentenced him to death. bbc

Have they not met before? But still :confused: :confused:

Internet user admits 'web-rage' An internet user has been found guilty of what police said was Britain's first "web-rage" attack. Paul Gibbons, 47, tracked down John Jones using details obtained online after the pair exchanged insults in an internet chatroom, a court heard. He travelled 70 miles to Mr Jones' home in Clacton, Essex, and beat him up with a pickaxe handle in December 2005. Gibbons, of Southwark, south London, admitted unlawful wounding and will be sentenced on 7 November. Threatening exchanges The pair met in an internet chatroom called Yahoo, Islam 10 as both had an interest in the Muslim faith, the Old Bailey was told. Their exchanges soured after Gibbons accused Mr Jones of spreading rumours about him. "There was an exchange of views between the victim and the defendant which were threatening on both sides," said prosecutor Ibitayo Adebayo. Gibbons, a man with a violent past, traced Mr Jones to his home using personal details about himself that he had put online. Cut with a knife Gibbons arrived at Mr Jones' home armed and accompanied by another man carrying a machete, the court heard. Mr Jones, whose partner and three children were in the house, opened the door holding a knife for protection, said Mr Adebayo. A fight broke out during which Mr Jones was disarmed and beaten with the pickaxe handle and cut with the knife. Gibbons fled after the victim's partner called for help. Mr Jones suffered cuts to his head, neck and hands. Identity safety Det Cons Christopher Creagh, of the Metropolitan Police, said: "This is the first instance of a web-rage attack." Det Sgt Jean-Marc Bazzoni, of Essex Police, added the case demonstrates the importance of protecting one's identity on the internet. "Mr Jones had posted pictures of his family on the web and had chatted to Gibbons on an audio link," he said. "It demonstrates how easily other users can put two and two together and also shows how children could also find themselves in danger." Here be careful people, there are some nutters out there!

lol, what happened here then? I was having a little tongue in cheek banter with ME then all this. ME, your intention of hi-jacking the topic was clear from the start mate. those infustructures were built by combination of chines russian and English, and the money was from Aid given to somalia by international community in which over 70% of that money was used by aabo siyad to buy weapons No need to pay the money back, we are onto a winner You guys are the ones crying about Somaliland this Somaliland that…. if you think we have nothing to offer than shouldn’t you just shut up and let us be? BUMP ME says: Never let themderail any of your topics Now thats a classic line! Somalia Debt Repayment Programme, . I wonder who will pay this? :confused: here Somalia Debt $3b Est.!!!!!!!! The question is, are you willing to take on that debt? The Kuwait Fund

^^Yes, please PM me the info. Thanks That will be one charity IA. Looking out for one more. I think i know it but will confirm at a later date.

^^Its all about the name saxib. Anything 'Islamic' will attract you $$$$ in sales. Calling it modest clothing for Muslims just doesnt have the same 'umph'!

NG, a 7am start in January should be a doddle. I'm an African afterall

loool@NG, ninyo mawaxad rabta in bud la-igu dufto? No thanks, i know my limits Waiving one's rights ordained is acceptable? Now i'm not as knowledgable as i wish and dont usually disagree with our scholars (as they are very clear in the decisions they make) but this one smells more like treating a marraige contract as a business contract.

Will do as soon as Ramadan is over IA

If you are emplying that the people not of Somaliland were the initial investors, then you may have a case. Come to Burco for collection ps will you refund me the money i spent on rebuilding my house that was bombed? youknowmsayin,,,

^^ She is the Epitome of the 'modern' muslima (in the eyes of the media)

Yes and that heavy investment resulted in a war! We dont like handouts you see, we like to fight for it!

I disagree saxib. This is not just a fad. It will become something of 'status symbol' to have such a marriage whether it be first, second or fourth. Arabs tend emphasis 'status' so this will be another one to add to the list and glorify (all be it descretly). The Institute of Islamic Religious Law in Saudi Arabia has legalised it (over 70 prominent Saudi Mullahs makeup that institute). The Sheikh of Egypt’s Azhar has also endorsed it and several other ‘celebrity’ mullahs have spoken about it and approved it. So, it sound that from an Islamic point of view, you’re good to go, saaxib. Apparently, as long as the conditions for a marriage contract are there, the marriage (call it misyar or otherwise) is legal. The only difference between this type of marriage and the traditional type of marriage is that the wife, at the outset of the marriage, agrees to waive some of her rights! Hmm, but can the woman 'agree' to waive rights given to her? Are those rights 'optional'? Ditto for the male. ps who are the 'celebrity' mullahs?

Incitement to violence The political and media onslaught on Muslims is already fuelling physical attacks on the streets Daud Abdullah Tuesday October 17, 2006 The Guardian Where is this political opportunism taking us? Into the dark tunnel of national strife. The corrosive effect of the political and media onslaught against British Muslims is having its impact on all sections of society. What is claimed to be an assertion of free speech and democratic rights is rapidly becoming the demonisation of a community. Once they are dehumanised, who cares for their democratic, civil or human rights? Since John Reid demanded that Muslim "bullies" must be faced down and Jack Straw declared the veil a "statement of separation", ministers have fallen over themselves to make increasingly unbridled attacks on Muslims. The shadow home secretary, David Davis, has accused our communities of creating a "voluntary apartheid" and colleges have taken action against veiled teachers and students. The tabloid press has declared open season on Muslims with one hostile front-page story after another. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In practice this has amounted to incitement to violence. In recent weeks verbal and physical attacks on Muslims have surged alarmingly. Women have had their scarves ripped off. Mosques and Islamic centres in Preston and Falkirk have been attacked by mobs and firebombed. Not only is it is dangerous for the media to vilify and demonise an entire community, even if they are only 3% of the population as British Muslims are; so too it is pure brinkmanship for ministers to fan these flames. By their nature politicians are an opportunistic breed. Yet they must have a sense of when to pull back from the abyss. If they claim that Muslim extremists are the source of all the ills in British society, then let them recognise that secular extremism is not the solution. Two extremisms would only tear us apart. In such charged circumstances, people might hope to hear words of tolerance from others of faith. But alas, the Church of England has added to the confusion. The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu, demanded that Muslims do more to integrate; then a "leaked" document criticised the government's multi-faith policy for allegedly pandering to Muslims at the expense of Christians. When in modern British history has a community been subjected to such intrusion and nationally fomented aggression? Muslim parents are lectured on parenting, imams are ordered to monitor their worshippers and women are told what to wear. Profit and political advancement now seem to depend on defamation of Muslims and their faith. The veil is deemed a symbol of the subjugation of women, whatever the women themselves say and believe. Newspapers that carried pictures of veiled women beside hostile stories displayed advertisements over the page of naked men and women posing together. The secular extremists who lash out at religious practices, including wearing a crucifix, presumably see this as a form of liberation. What is going on is an abuse of power, an echo of what took us into the quagmire of Iraq - from which the political and media attack on Muslims is evidently intended to be a distraction. The government's refusal for so long to recognise the link between its own disastrous foreign policy in the Muslim world and and the extremism it was fomenting is now fuelling the flames of Islamophobia. No one should underestimate the destructive potential of this calculated and incessant propaganda. Instead of fostering cohesion it is accelerating division. The Third Reich historian William Shirer recalls that, despite people's distrust of Nazi propaganda, its steady doses of falsification and distortion in the long run affected even well-meaning and decent Germans. Will we not then learn from history? · Daud Abdullah is deputy secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain media@mcb.org.uk

'Even other Muslims turn and look at me' Muslim journalist Zaiba Malik had never worn the niqab. But with everyone from Jack Straw to Tessa Jowell weighing in with their views on the veil, she decided to put one on for the day. She was shocked by how it made her feel - and how strongly strangers reacted to it Tuesday October 17, 2006 The Guardian 'Idon't wear the niqab because I don't think it's necessary," says the woman behind the counter in the Islamic dress shop in east London. "We do sell quite a few of them, though." She shows me how to wear the full veil. I would have thought that one size fits all but it turns out I'm a size 54. I pay my £39 and leave with three pieces of black cloth folded inside a bag. Article continues -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The next morning I put these three pieces on as I've been shown. First the black robe, or jilbab, which zips up at the front. Then the long rectangular hijab that wraps around my head and is secured with safety pins. Finally the niqab, which is a square of synthetic material with adjustable straps, a slit of about five inches for my eyes and a tiny heart-shaped bit of netting, which I assume is to let some air in. I look at myself in my full-length mirror. I'm horrified. I have disappeared and somebody I don't recognise is looking back at me. I cannot tell how old she is, how much she weighs, whether she has a kind or a sad face, whether she has long or short hair, whether she has any distinctive facial features at all. I've seen this person in black on the television and in newspapers, in the mountains of Afghanistan and the cities of Saudi Arabia, but she doesn't look right here, in my bedroom in a terraced house in west London. I do what little I can to personalise my appearance. I put on my oversized man's watch and make sure the bottoms of my jeans are visible. I'm so taken aback by how dissociated I feel from my own reflection that it takes me over an hour to pluck up the courage to leave the house. I've never worn the niqab, the hijab or the jilbab before. Growing up in a Muslim household in Bradford in the 1970s and 80s, my Islamic dress code consisted of a school uniform worn with trousers underneath. At home I wore the salwar kameez, the long tunic and baggy trousers, and a scarf around my shoulders. My parents only instructed me to cover my hair when I was in the presence of the imam, reading the Qur'an, or during the call to prayer. Today I see Muslim girls 10, 20 years younger than me shrouding themselves in fabric. They talk about identity, self-assurance and faith. Am I missing out on something? On the street it takes just seconds for me to discover that there are different categories of stare. Elderly people stop dead in their tracks and glare; women tend to wait until you have passed and then turn round when they think you can't see; men just look out of the corners of their eyes. And young children - well, they just stare, point and laugh. I have coffee with a friend on the high street. She greets my new appearance with laughter and then with honesty. "Even though I can't see your face, I can tell you're nervous. I can hear it in your voice and you keep tugging at the veil." The reality is, I'm finding it hard to breathe. There is no real inlet for air and I can feel the heat of every breath I exhale, so my face just gets hotter and hotter. The slit for my eyes keeps slipping down to my nose, so I can barely see a thing. Throughout the day I trip up more times than I care to remember. As for peripheral vision, it's as if I'm stuck in a car buried in black snow. I can't fathom a way to drink my cappuccino and when I become aware that everybody in the coffee shop is wondering the same thing, I give up and just gaze at it. At the supermarket a baby no more than two years old takes one look at me and bursts into tears. I move towards him. "It's OK," I murmur. "I'm not a monster. I'm a real person." I show him the only part of me that is visible - my hands - but it's too late. His mother has whisked him away. I don't blame her. Every time I catch a glimpse of myself in the mirrored refrigerators, I scare myself. For a ridiculous few moments I stand there practicing a happy and approachable look using just my eyes. But I'm stuck looking aloof and inhospitable, and am not surprised that my day lacks the civilities I normally receive, the hellos, thank-yous and goodbyes. After a few hours I get used to the gawping and the sniggering, am unsurprised when passengers on a bus prefer to stand up rather than sit next to me. What does surprise me is what happens when I get off the bus. I've arranged to meet a friend at the National Portrait Gallery. In the 15-minute walk from the bus stop to the gallery, two things happen. A man in his 30s, who I think might be Dutch, stops in front of me and asks: "Can I see your face?" "Why do you want to see my face?" "Because I want to see if you are pretty. Are you pretty?" Before I can reply, he walks away and shouts: "You ******* tease!" Then I hear the loud and impatient beeping of a horn. A middle-aged man is leering at me from behind the wheel of a white van. "Watch where you're going, you ****** Paki!" he screams. This time I'm a bit faster. "How do you know I'm Pakistani?" I shout. He responds by driving so close that when he yells, "Terrorist!" I can feel his breath on my veil. Things don't get much better at the National Portrait Gallery. I suppose I was half expecting the cultured crowd to be too polite to stare. But I might as well be one of the exhibits. As I float from room to room, like some apparition, I ask myself if wearing orthodox garments forces me to adopt more orthodox views. I look at paintings of Queen Anne and Mary II. They are in extravagant ermines and taffetas and their ample bosoms are on display. I look at David Hockney's famous painting of Celia Birtwell, who is modestly dressed from head to toe. And all I can think is that if all women wore the niqab how sad and strange this place would be. I cannot even bear to look at my own shadow. Vain as it may sound, I miss seeing my own face, my own shape. I miss myself. Yet at the same time I feel completely naked. The women I have met who have taken to wearing the niqab tell me that it gives them confidence. I find that it saps mine. Nobody has forced me to wear it but I feel like I have oppressed and isolated myself. Maybe I will feel more comfortable among women who dress in a similar fashion, so over 24 hours I visit various parts of London with a large number of Muslims - Edgware Road (known to some Londoners as "Arab Street"), Whitechapel Road (predominantly Bangladeshi) and Southall (Pakistani and Indian). Not one woman is wearing the niqab. I see many with their hair covered, but I can see their faces. Even in these areas I feel a minority within a minority. Even in these areas other Muslims turn and look at me. I head to the Central Mosque in Regent's Park. After three failed attempts to hail a black cab, I decide to walk. A middle-aged American tourist stops me. "Do you mind if I take a photograph of you?" I think for a second. I suppose in strict terms I should say no but she is about the first person who has smiled at me all day, so I oblige. She fires questions at me. "Could I try it on?" No. "Is it uncomfortable?" Yes. "Do you sleep in it?" No. Then she says: "Oh, you must be very, very religious." I'm not sure how to respond to that, so I just walk away. At the mosque, hundreds of women sit on the floor surrounded by samosas, onion bhajis, dates and Black Forest gateaux, about to break their fast. I look up and down every line of worshippers. I can't believe it - I am the only person wearing the niqab. I ask a Scottish convert next to me why this is. "It is seen as something quite extreme. There is no real reason why you should wear it. Allah gave us faces and we should not hide our faces. We should celebrate our beauty." I'm reassured. I think deep down my anxiety about having to wear the niqab, even for a day, was based on guilt - that I am not a true Muslim unless I cover myself from head to toe. But the Qur'an says: "Allah has given you clothes to cover your shameful parts, and garments pleasing to the eye: but the finest of all these is the robe of piety." I don't understand the need to wear something as severe as the niqab, but I respect those who bear this endurance test - the staring, the swearing, the discomfort, the loss of identity. I wear my robes to meet a friend in Notting Hill for dinner that night. "It's not you really, is it?" she asks. No, it's not. I prefer not to wear my religion on my sleeve ... or on my face.