Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends rather than believers; and whoever does this, he shall have nothing of (the guardianship of) Allah, but you should guard yourselves against them, guarding carefully; and Allah makes you cautious of (retribution from) Himself; and to Allah is the eventual coming. Sura Al-Imran. v. 28 Say: Whether you hide what is in your hearts or manifest it, Allah knows it, and He knows whatever is in the heavens and whatever is in the earth, and Allah has power over all things. Sura Al-Imran, v.29

Originally posted by Jaylaani: Incase you didn't know, Somaliland has nothing against Habashis. Ethiopian airline comes there 7 days a week and there is an Ethiopians embassy in Hargeisa. It's all about money. I was only concern for the poor people in Somalia..I could careless who wins and who loses. Adigi=ui sidii aad cabdalihai yusuf iyo xabashida ula xisaabtami lahay bal ka fakar waxba Somaliland kaagama 15 ahee. waa cajiib... You are contradicting your statements. At one moment you don't affliate and/or define yourself as being a 'Somali' yet you say you are concerned with the 'poor people of somalia'. Is it destitution and poverty that moves you to have pity for 'Poor Somali people', of which you try to distance yourself from, Mr. S. Lander? And exactly who are the 'poor people of somalia' and how could you care for them, if you are a non partisian? After all, you couldn't care less who wins or loses, Mr. S. Lander.-right!

This is a nice dua to read in times of hardship and when faced with enemies. Just a suggestion, Might we try a Khatam Al quran i.e. we read a juz or more and try to finish the quran. That way inshallah, we are using the shifa of the Quran. Surely, that is direct access to having an audience with Allah. Our dua's inshallah will get their time. Allahmu aaiz al islam wal muslimeen wa thabit aqdamahum wa ansurhum alaa aadaeyka waa aadeyhim. Ameen P.S. Count me in

SB, Somehow you remind me of this character from the Simpsons "Is there a word in Klingon for loneliness" On an additional note, I was reviewing old SOL posts dealing with these characters and their uni-dimensional arguments. What I've come to find out is that they have been refuted over and over again, ad nausium.

Originally posted by Ameen: One more thing, is it more correct to say that Islam is a religion of equality or a religion of justice? And Allah knows best The above phrases are oxymorons because Islam is not a religion of equality if by equality we mean men and women are equal, the scholar is equal to the peasant etc... Islam is not a religion of justice if by justice we define and equate with sentimental correctness. That is, something is define as JUST when it FEELS right to us. So a prerequiste for JUSTICE becomes SENTIMENT. If has to FEEL RIGHT, to be called JUSTICE. i.e. It is not Just to stone an adulterer or that nonmuslims be treated differently in Islam. These are echoes of modern sentiments. Allah is JUST (AL ADL) and that userbs and surpasses our rational faculties. i.e. the story of Khidr and Musa and the slaying of the child-in the quran.

So, let me ask you the question you beg to answer. As a religious person ,how do you rationalize your morals? why do you act morally? becouse God says so or becouse God will punish you if you don't or reward you if you do? Are you of the idea that religious people's morality and system of ethics are based on Reason? Rationality and Reason-Can the Religious have Rationality and Reason in their Faith in GOD? To be cont'd....

dare assert that human moral values don't need religions or Gods , a simple emperical proof for that is the millions of agnostics/atheists who live and lead a moral life every single day. If human moral values don't need religion, then what is the yardistic for MORALITY? A genuine moral act "always" constitutes the desire that others do well Whom determines what is 'WELL'? Eating dinner can become a moral or an immoral act. i.e. Eating human carcasses (immoral) Take a survey of different cultures and for every conceivably moral question summons plethora of dissimilar takes. To some, terrorism is legitimate method. To others, often those at the recieving end, it's indefensible method. Take other subjects like the Death Penalty, Sex Crimes, Cannabolism etc... you'll find weatlh of dissimilar approaches by each unique culture/civilisation. So because there exists difference in people's interpretation of such subjects, then that negatives the Absolute Morality? I am sure that there some Absolute Morals that you can identify with-i.e. Not inncocently murdering others not stealing not lying etc. More than 4000 yrs old, these laws layout appropriate actions on subjects such as Theft, Marriage, Women's rights, Childrens rights, murder and so on. Unmistakeably of human artifice, not of divine providence. Therefore establishing beyond debate the fact religion doesn't militate morality. If they were layed out 4000yrs ago, then why the denial in the play of influence of REVELATION in those ancient civilizations? Could not the mayans or mesopatamians have encountered Revelation and a Prophet?

If inclined, you would find a hadith where he strongly advises women to guard the secrets of their home. Did his own wife miss that lesson? I think not. When God advices people of his time not to talk too much and linger about in his home, it is to protect the decency and sanctity of his home. Might there be confusion as to where the line is drawn. I don't think that in Fiqh, that explicit and methodoligical details i.e. how many nights a week couples should have sex, how to touch your spouse etc. What is outlined in Fiqh and the deen in general, is general anecodotal accounts from the Seerah (life of the Rasul salallahu caliyhe wasilm). No explicit and overrally detailed accounts of the prophet's spousal relations. We don't discuss EXPLICIT DETAILS but Generalists. Shariah rulings are derived from these generlists and delineated through the Ulama's qiyas/analysis. In anycase, I can understand the good intentions of the Sister Naden, albeit misexpressed (new word for 2007's webseter ) Fi Amanillah

If people want advice on showering with a spouse, they can consult any sex advice column or better yet, ring Dr. Sue. Her gap-toothed smile of the absurd will surely solve all problems. Is this the same prophet whom God admonished people not to linger and talk in his home because he is too shy to tell them himself despite the harm he feels (33:53)? Is this the same wife of the prophet believers were told to speak to from behind a curtain? Is this the same man whom God describes as possessing great morals/manners (68:4)? Why so many instructions to guard the sanctity of his home if tales of his relations with his wife will become fodder for everyone. He was sent to guide people morally not instruct them in the kama sutra. People had sex before and after the message. You don’t know what his wife said or if she said anything at all. You’re obligated to respect the man and his home. No man or woman would have private details of their married life talked about but you and others see it fit for Mohammed (csw). It is pure rubbish what Bukhari and others put in their books about the sexual details of his life and everyone since then who speaks of it is violating his sanctity. Disgusting lot. Can I ask you a question-how did Islamic Jurispendance (FIQH) develop if it weren't for the various sunnans of the rasul (salallahu cailyhe waslim)? How would we know if it is permissable to take a shower with your spouse, if there was no hadith about it? How would we know about Ghusl and impurities if it wasn't for hadith narrations of various sunnans (prophet's actions)? I think that some muslims are secularizing the deen and making it puritanical. Intimacy and sexual relations can be a source of a Barakha/Divine grace-provided they are done in a HALAL MANNER.

Salams, Maybe I'm the odd one here but I can't picture how someone shifts from singing A-is for Allah and B is for Bismillah to pluralism and outright secular songs. The brother is apeing his is pre-islamic days and his nonmuslim fans are praising for him for doing just that. Its as if they were saying that this Muslim phase of Cat Stevens, would one day come to an end. Guess they are right-in some ways! And as for the story of the differring opinions on Music, I don't think that the ULAMA (at least the classical ulama) would support secular songs. Non of the 4 Imams would ok songs that are of a secular nature. For if that was the case, then the Beatles, Aerosmith, 50's accapella groups, Jayz etc. would be acceptable in Islam. But that is not the case, so why the acceptance of secular songs from a muslim figure? :confused:

I thought that it would be appropriate to start a new thread. Reason being a particular subject matter emerged in another thread, that more aptly required its own space. dare assert that human moral values don't need religions or Gods , a simple emperical proof for that is the millions of agnostics/atheists who live and lead a moral life every single day. A genuine moral act "always" constitutes the desire that others do well , without that an action fails to qualify beeing moral, that we eat our dinner is not particularly moral , neither is grudgingly helping NGONGE whom we otherwise wish to drop dead is a moral act, and it is absolutely not morality to help someone besouce that someone or someone else on his behalf either threatens you with punishment or promises you a reward. J.B. ( I take it Cara too) is your defintion of Morality. Might this be one of the reasons, if not the MAIN reason why you reject Religion?

dare assert that human moral values don't need religions or Gods , a simple emperical proof for that is the millions of agnostics/atheists who live and lead a moral life every single day. A genuine moral act "always" constitutes the desire that others do well , without that an action fails to qualify beeing moral, that we eat our dinner is not particularly moral , neither is grudgingly helping NGONGE whom we otherwise wish to drop dead is a moral act, and it is absolutely not morality to help someone besouce that someone or someone else on his behalf either threatens you with punishment or promises you a reward. J.B. ( I take it Cara too) is your defintion of Morality. Might this be one of the reasons, if not the MAIN reason why you reject Religion? Could we start a new thread to delve into this for the others to understand. Reason being, that more and more people, are starting to have similiar thoughts i.e. I don't have to be Religious to be MORAL/GOOD. Inshallah, I think that a new thread in this section would help clarify some of these issue. Please not that I couldn't careless about the individuals but rather the IDEAS that are being expressed.

He must have very slow employers from them to have give him the 7days off work. It took them 7days to crack his lie....lol

Originally posted by Sophist: JB adeer, there is no hostility. It is just that I am not fond of Murtadiin! how could I when Allah said in the Furqaan ""But those who reject Faith after they accepted it, and then go on adding to their defiance of Faith,- never will their repentance be accepted; for they are those who have (of set purpose) gone astray. As to those who reject Faith, and die rejecting,- never would be accepted from any such as much gold as the earth contains, though they should offer it for ransom. For such is (in store) a penalty grievous, and they will find no helpers! No personal hard feelings old boy. In both cases for the Murtad (one who leaves the religion) and the Kafir (the disbeliever)-they are dammed to spend eternity in the infernal (hell) world. SubhanAllah! Sophist saxib, You are a real man and akhi, when I saw this post what comes to mind is the hadith wherein The Rasul (salallahu caliyhe wasilm) praised the Believer who 'Loves for Allah's sake and Hates for Allah's sake' Fi Amanillah

Originally posted by Cara: I rather surround myself with people who doubt themselves and question whether they are in the right continously. It's a healthier atmosphere, and makes for more congenial conversations to boot Are you sure your 'circle of friends' does not largely constitute members of the asylum? What your arguing for is INSANITY (doubting themselves and question whether they are in the right continously) that people of the faith have defficulties beeing moral without a guiding God is a known shortcomming Junior B., tell us please how you can be MORAL without a Guiding GOD. Please explain to us your doctorinal Moral Relativism i.e. Morality without GOD(The Absolute)

Mabruuk Bishaaro! Enjoy the honeymoon because you are to report for Kitchen duties next monday-5am SHARP.

Originally posted by Djib-Somali: Why should colonials practices automatically be followed? Wouldn't be such school more practical in the midst of Hargeysa, Borama ect? Also, despite the IT equipment, books are scarce in what looks like a library. Hard to believe that expensive IT equipment is more vital than books. Which criteria do they use to select their students and what provision is made for modest students? Frankly, it seems that everything is done out of nostalgia and other emotionals reasons, not mentioning Western brainwashing that caused the country destruction in first place, than pure holistic assessment of our local priorities in accordance with our faith ... I was going to express similiar thoughts but you beat me to it. The old men in my family never cease to stop reminscing about their days in 'Sheikh school'. I must admit though, it looks very beautiful, MashaAllah and the students look disciplined and studious. Fi Amanillah

Salams, What do you lot think of Yusuf Islam's decision to go back to his pre-islam roots by releasing a pop rock cd? Do you support him in his undertaking?

So if you live in the 6th century. i think you would be hard pressed to tell people wait for 1400 yrs and you can use DNA testing, but until then use, this. Therefore, hypothetically if these rules were put forward today, do you think they will make use of benefits offered by the technology and society of today? by Caano G. What comes to mind is The saying of the Rasul (salallahu caliyhe wasilm) of : Every Biddah/Innovation leads Astray and all thatleads Astray, leads to Hellfire. At the end of the day, they are technological innovations and do not serve to Compliment Religious traditions but rather to Negate them. These technological innovations serve their own purpose or to put is in Industrial Capitalistic terms-Efficency for the sake of Efficency. Where something plays a complimentary role to Religion but is still an innovation i.e. better roads for Hajj travellors, zakat e-filing etc., it should still be approached with caution. For after all it is a Biddah. One more thing to note and that is an ayat and/or a hadith,are not historical bound. Meaning, that if building tall buildings is frowned upon in hadith and seen as a sign of the Qiyamah, regardless of how population efficient the buildings are; that it is something looked down upon and not encouraged. It doesn't matter what century you live in, the islamic tradition is still valid. The Shariah is still valid and does not need amandements to appease popular mob sentiments. I'm tired so I'll get going....

Originally posted by Cara: Khayr, quote: Also, why the rules for making someone guilty of fornication/adultery/rape are so stringet i.e. 4 WITNESS present during the actual act of penetration (a virtual impossibility) What about pregnancy? Is that admissible evidence for adultery/fornication? I don't know if this is a rhetorical question or not or if you believe that 'Immaculate conceptions' can become normative in society. In anycase, I think that it is in relation to the subject of 'Rape'. i.e. If someone became pregnant, then that does not consitute 'substantive' evidence for rape. Fornication/Adultary-Yes, but rape-more info. would be needed. This is what I have heard from the Ulama. The question is-Does DNA sampling take precedence over the '4 witnesses' rule? Do new scientific findings negate religous rulings and standardizations? It is a matter of Pragmatism. If we follow the way of Pragmatism, then who is to say we can't say that murder is a Crime. We can just have medical practitioners diagnos it as a Mental Illness. Thus, exnorating the murderer from the crim. Is this not what lawyers argue for in criminal trials? i.e. Temp. Insanity, Mental Disability

Salamz, Maybe this topic should be moved to the General Section. In anycase, I think that this issue brings into light 'Ancient Beliefs v. Modern Superstitions' . It brings into the question of what is the role of individual/citizen of the state? On one hand, you have liberal democratic ideals of the rights of the Individual trump state rights. The values of individual rights and freedoms being of the utmost sacredness. Hence, why phrases such as 'It is My RIGHT', MY CHOICE' are often heard in the media and general public. From such a propsective of holding the 'Individual Rights' at the Apex of the Societal Value Pyramid, it can be seen why such an amendement is of value. In particular in a muslim dominated culture and state. On the opposite pole, is the Islamic societal ideals which are based on: UNITY sTABILITY RULE OF SHARIAH This means that exposing corruption, people's sins etc. is not an Islamic Ideal. Why? Because it promotes FASAAD/Corruption of souls. It creats Disunity and instability in society. Eventually, leading to the undermining of the ][/b]Rule of the Shariah.[/b] Hence why the punishment for Slander in the deen, is severe. Also, why the rules for making someone guilty of fornication/adultery/rape are so stringet i.e. 4 WITNESS present during the actual act of penetration (a virtual impossibility) So how do you reconcile the two vastly different value systems i.e. Liberal democractic v. Islamic? The answer would have to be in the negative. The Islamic ethos is sharply different and opposed to the idea that 'Individual Rights' trump all other societal values especially anything remotely religious. This is why Pragmatism i.e. Making changes to society due to social taboos because Ancient Beliefs are well-impractical, is anti-Islam. Pragmatism is self serving of a world view that RELATIVISES everything. A world view that nothing is SACRED. This evenT in Pakistan is important, in that it demonstrates the drifts between the DEEN v. Dunya in the Muslim WORLD. This is a very sentiment inspired-ruling. The deen was side stepped and the Ulama ignored. The question can and will be asked ofcourse-How do we prevent Rape? To which a conservative answer would be: Stick to the Islamic Community and Family Nucleus. Don't let your families be ALONE in the home or in public. Live in close knit communities and close to relatives. Fi Amanillah

Just a quick question or two: Can you be a MUSLIM and NOT believe that what the Shariah says re: having '4 witnesses' in fornication/adultery cases? Do you believe in Euthanasia as a practical way of ridding someone of their incurable illness? What if you know that Islam is against Suicide and assisted Suicice? Would you still support Euthanasia? (It is in line with the topic because it is an issue of PRAGMATIGISM (what is practical))

Originally posted by SeeKer: ^^^I can't help but say this so forgive me. When I read that I pictured a dude in a dishdash and Quran preaching at street corners. Don't you think you are holding that leash a little too tightly? The "sister" has a brain and morals too and can figure it out herself. "Someone gots to say it" From your statement, one can conclude that the the protagonists/lovers/main actors in the movie take the right directions in their lives. By that I mean; since they have a brain and 'morals', that there choices are correct and free from error. So if they chose LOVE at the expense of ALL ELSE i.e. family, religion etc., then it is the right choice for them to make. Priorities Love is #1, Family #2, Allah #3....or #3000 You are echoying morden sentiments and cheapening things to -sentiment (love).

NEWS CENTRAL/S. ASIA Pakistan votes to change rape law Musharraf praised the vote to change the country's "unjust" rape laws Pakistan's parliament has voted to amend controversial laws on rape, removing it from the sole jurisdiction of religious Sharia courts and placing it under the civil penal code. The change makes it easier for victims of rape to prosecute their attackers and has been praised by the Pakistani president. Pervez Musharraf said the vote was necessary to amend the "unjust rape laws" and helped improve women’s rights. The change however met with strong opposition by politicians from conservative Islamic parties, who stormed out of the parliament chamber in protest. They are angry at what they say is the curtailment of Islamic law. The changes must still be approved by the Pakistani senate in order to take effect. Unfair treatment Under the Protection of Women Bill, judges will now have the discretion to try rape cases in a criminal rather than an Islamic court. Until now, rape victims had to produce four – usually male - witnesses to the rape in order to result in a conviction. If not, they could themselves be prosecuted for adultery. "We are fully aware of the fact that we still have a lot more to do" Shaukat Aziz, Pakistani prime minister The laws formed part of the Hudood Ordinances introduced in 1979 by Pakistan’s then military ruler, Zia-ul-Haq. The changes, if approved, will allow convictions to be made on the basis of forensic and circumstantial evidence. Shaukat Aziz, the Pakistani prime minister, said after the vote would "help lessen to a great extent the unfair and illegal treatment meted out to women". But, he added, "we are fully aware of the fact that we still have a lot more to do." Women’s rights groups meanwhile have given the vote a cautious welcome. "We wanted a total repeal of the 1979 rape law, but the government has not done it," Hina Jillani, a leading Pakistani activist, told the Associated Press news agency. Conservative opposition politicians have said they will fight to make sure the bill does not pass the senate stage. "We reject it," said Malaun Fazlur Rahman, head of the Jamiat Ulema-i-Islam (Islamic Party of Religious Leaders). He said the vote was a "dark day" for Pakistan. Source The Ulema had it wrong all along I guess, 4 Witnesses is a bit Unpragmatic in a world of'Judge Judys' :confused:

Originally posted by Azmaya: walaalo your holy “Islamic” courts are bandits and are polluted by the same killers, rapists, and looters you speak of, indhaacde anyone? Save it walaalo, yesterday they were killers, rapists and today they are wadads, a beard and arab dress may convince you, but were sorry we are not buying it. Familiar with Crenshaw LA? Crips and bloods anyone? If the black community of Crenshaw cleans up its streets, drives out the bad guys, killers, rapists in their community and the populace has a new holy cause, does this give them the right to take over rest of peaceful LA with force? Don’t you understand this is what is happening? This is not how a civilized society works, wa suuq madow. I recall long ago how a one man transformed his community into nobleman. For some of us, our lineage comes from that community and our deen comes from that Man-Muhammed (sallahu caliyhe wasilm). People can redeem themselves and it is proven over history that the Worst in Jahilliyah make the BEST MEN in Religion. The Sahaba are the Par-example of that transformation.