إذا نطق السÙيه Ùلا تجبه Ùخير من إجابته السكوت One would normally abstain from sowing in to a barren land per Al Shafici’s instruction but try I shall for it could sometimes produce and blossom with God’s will. A Samaritan act that could sooth this distress, I hope it will be, as I try to reason with people who seem to be protesting without merit. But let me underline that the good thing about this thread is that most participants in it, with the exception of our charlatan boy, seem to have a sense of ownership with their Deen. I like that, and it pleases me when even the ignorant, but intelligent, of us exhibit interest and own their faith. But owning is different than knowing. Now, why a simple application of Islamicly imposed attire causes all this fuss? It looks like a tent. Fine. Its not you who wearing it, right? No, my mom did not wear it and that was the case with my aunts as well. So what? If my Muslim mother did not wear it then, it must not be a right thing to do. Oh. I see now. The gauge with which we validate the authenticity of this attire is whether or not it conforms to your mom’s. How about if your mom in particular and the larger society in which you grew up in general were not practitioners of this Hijaab? What about if they were not in compliance with it at all? And above all, what about if your mom was an ignorant mother who simply flock with the herd, so to speak, and did not know what Hijaab supposed to be? Realize now, my dear friend, while her actions could be excused and forgiven on the basis of ignorance and lack of information, yours may lack such leisure as you have the access and intellectual capacity to assess most of the religious verdicts. Indeed it is both easily attainable and readily available to you as they are to me. In this age and day not knowing the essentials of your faith is no excuse. Go and learn. Put some meat on your argument if you wish it to be taken seriously. Oh no you got me wrong! Your lecture vanished in vain as I am not the one who is against Hijaab at all. What I am objecting to is not the Hijaab per se but the form and shape of the one which most Somalis wear. It ‘s both new and alien to us. With all the variety of Hijaabs that’s available to us why choose the one that has the ugliest stain on it. It just isn’t to my liking. Am I wrong? And how so, I ask? You’re partly wrong for your objections are pure desire for style, and, to top it, you seem inconsiderate to the other’s choice of dress. A dictator in the making, I detect. Why else would you express your distaste for this jalbaab if its not some thing deeper, I ask? Ok. So good Xiin what you are basically telling me is respect what others choose to wear as a Hijaab as long it meets the legal specs of the Shariicah. You right, dear friend, that’s all I am suggesting to you. If you don’t respect it you’re simply disrespecting one of your faiths directives, and that’s very disturbing, to say the least, and you could gain Allah’s anger without knowing it. Hope you understand it now why it is not cool to mock it. For those who are predicting or rather wishing for certain setbacks for this Hijaab, time will not be (IA) nice for your estimate. What you probably did not consider is that once faith and education are combined perseverance and determination are the wonders they tend to produce. Seldom is the case that faithful and educated souls wither in the face of social and political challenges. The pendulum has been swinging to the right direction and there is still enough gravity for it to continue on that track. And if the past twenty years are any indication, one could easily predict for a greater acceptance of the dictates of this faith in the wider society. Get that through your dented skulls, I say.

I think FF said it all: The 'tent' is here to stay, deal with it, if you can't, tough luck brah. Afkaaga caano lagu qabay. P.S: This is for all rascal souls whose nature is to envy the product of principled people!

Originally posted by Rowda: MMA & Tolstoy; What is it that you’re so ashamed of in the above picture that made two of you eulogize that cursed regime? How could intelligible people like you confuse issues?Is it the mere khemmar that made you disgorge? You owe us explanation. Is it the hijaab you object? Or the shortness of the trouser? Or both? Or is it the whole Islamist politics that you do not like?

^^@ الÙتنة أشد من القتل @ Could be what he is getting at. And indeed in some ways it is worse.

Assuming of course that by caqiidah you meant Islamic creed, questioning it implies that the faith of who questions it is not settled yet. Only those who are still in the darkness of uncertainty would doubt and question the existence of God. Though pondering on the signs of Allah and reflecting upon the faith in His presence are encouraged by the Precious book, there is, however, a world of difference between a firm faith and ceaseless inquiry that originates from a doubtful mind. Reflection done by the former is a good deed while the latter is a futile exercise. To deprive this duplicitous argument from its rhetorical gown let me say that rational enquiry is not necessarily a bad thing. Not knowing its functions and limitations is. Our quarrel here is not about whether science and reasoning are necessary tools that have yielded great benefits in the advancements of human civilization. To use it as an ultimate method to know the truth is the point of our contention. Whether logic has bounds is a subject that has been tended by great scholars of theology. That fact would not be changed by the emergence of these rookie greens in this thread. The application of science to disprove God is another futile exercise, as I said before, and subjecting the tenets of faith to philosophy and its speculative methods is indeed the zenith of intellectual lawlessness. Faith, my dear friends, is a blessing from God. Its beauty is to believe in the unknown and the unseen, but intelligible things that could not be demonstrated by scientific methods. Either you have it or you don’t. In between the two is void. Ha is karaama seejina, saaxiibayaal.

Calypso, what a incoherent post you penned! In defense of science (which was worthy of the effort, mind you), you’ve managed to commit a logical incongruity which in turn led you to conclude that Divine Revelations are mutable (Quran included), and hence it correspondingly went through the process of trail and error like science did. Divine Revelations are not mutable. Qur’an is a divine revelation. Qur’an has never been altered nor will it be. The understanding that Qur’an has been subjected to alteration is simply erroneous. True that some verses have either been completely dropped or its legal effect voided but that was before the revelation was completed and sealed. Qur’an, once completely revealed, has been preserved. And forever so, I may add. The multiplicity of divine revelations has never been a point of moot. Its authority and legitimacy has been and it still is. Rational inquiry and reasoning is one method of reaching the truth. But it is not the only method nor is it the primary one. Divine revelation has primacy over reason when in conflict. As for the topic at hand, what amazes me most is the notion that the burden of proof is on the believer in the existence of God, and not the denier who’s equally resolved in believing in God, not in His presence, but ironically in His absence. That is a patent absurdity indeed. Big Bang could very well be a sound phenomenon that’s inline with how Allah invented and originated this universe. But it could never be used as a camouflage to deny the existence of the life Giver. On a different note, contrary to the assertion that lack of questioning your cawiidah is an ‘invitation to disaster’, such exercise is the foreplay of satanic seductions, I say. A rejection of which, mind you, is divine decree. P.S: I liked The Point’s articulacy. Good job, saaxiib.

^^Good one STOIC.Thanks. Here is one more. -------------------------------------------------- Domestic spying indicates changes at the NSA Supersecret agency moves to gather wide spectrum of info in real time ANALYSIS By Robert Windrem Investigative producer NBC News Updated: 6:16 p.m. ET Dec. 21, 2005 It’s not your father’s NSA, and that may be at the heart of the current domestic spy scandal. The National Security Agency, the nation’s supersecret electronic spy agency, has moved from just intercepting “information in motion†to seeking out “information at rest.†It is seeking out information, not passively waiting for it to arrive, an outgrowth of Bush administration policy that favors intervention rather than retaliation after the fact. What’s the difference? Information in motion is data moving between one person or computer to another. Information at rest is that which sits in a computer or in a cell phone that is vulnerable to penetration via the Internet. One is interception, the other intrusion. And that distinction, say both government officials and intelligence historians, could be the reason why President Bush decided to go around the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), as his five predecessors did, and instead relied on the executive powers of the president to order the spying. He contends that the FISA Court, which approves secret warrants for spying inside the U.S., did not permit the intelligence community to move quickly enough to protect the American people. At least one member of the secret court, U.S. District Judge James Robertson, strongly disagreed with Bush's contention and is resigning from the court in protest. A dissenting view But officials and others say the issue is more related to the manner in which the information was gathered rather than whether the FISA court can act fast. The administration wants a web cast wide, broad enough to gather information on a broad spectrum of individuals in real time, an eventuality the administration would argue that was not foreseen by those who wrote the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act in 1978. “It’s a technical issue, one related to link analysis,†said one former intelligence official in trying to explain the need without providing detail on why the president shunned the FISA Court. What does that mean? William M. Arkin, an NBC News military analyst, thinks he knows. Instead of simply intercepting a single phone or a single e-mail address, the NSA is now taking whatever it can get from a variety of sources, including the hard drives of terrorist computers, and creating wide “influence nets†or “social network analyses†that encompass not just the original target, but his or her contacts. In some cases, the casting of such a wide net can lead to surveillance of thousands of people. “It’s much broader than just telephone calls or emails,†says Arkin. “It’s taking an enormous amount of data — say all the phone calls between the U.S. and Pakistan — and sorting it and resorting it in different ways.†That information, he says, can be “data-mined†to produce a network ideal for looking at a terrorist organization and its various linkages. The means by which people are identified as terrorists changes as well in this new world. In fact, the first step may not be a name, but a profile. “One standard, the old one, is that you’re monitoring a person or group,†Arkin says. “The other is you have established a profile and you’re looking for people who might fit that profile … for example, Muslim men who go to strip clubs. Don’t laugh. All the 9/11 hijackers went to strip clubs.†Massive data grabs “Motivations, socioeconomic backgrounds, connections, you might able to identify them in the massive link-analysis world, it’s about extracting intelligence from massive amounts of data," Arkin says, "In fact, the NSA secret program to develop advanced analytic techniques is called NIMD, Novel Intelligence in Massive Data.†Drawing those “influence nets†requires that data must be identified, captured and analyzed. “The level at which the cat and mouse game between the NSA and the terrorists is being played out is incredibly elevatedâ€, says Patrick Keefe, author of “Chatter: Dispatches from the Secret World of Global Eavesdroppingâ€. It is not just can you listen in on a phone call. That’s very good for tracking info and people, but the desire is to get at the computer themselves get at information at rest.†That "take" can include telephones, faxes and e-mails, of course, but also cell phone data, text messaging, chat room identities and information contained on a target's computer hard drive, including contacts, word documents, audio and video clips, etc. In theory and in practice, all of it is remotely available if the computer is connected to the Internet. In some cases, if the NSA can get collection devices close enough to a computer, it can even access files if the computer is not connected to the Internet. “So you essentially get a reversal of the traditional paradigm where you or I would go to the computer,†adds Keefe. “We would sit down at our computer and we look out at the Internet through the computer. At the NSA, they actually use the Internet to look into people's computers.†Casting a very wide net The intelligence community, while not confirming specifics, has given hints of how broad the net is. In a statement to the 9/11 Commission in 2002, the FBI described its participation in a secret center in northern Virginia, the National Media Exploitation Center. “The National Media Exploitation Center was established in late 2001 to coordinate FBI, CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) and National Security Agency (NSA) efforts to analyze and disseminate information gleaned from millions of pages of paper documents, electronic media, videotapes, audiotapes, and electronic equipment seized by the U.S. military and Intelligence Community in Afghanistan and other foreign lands,†the FBI statement read. And it’s not just about gathering data on a possible suspect, it’s about finding them. All of this data can be collected for creating profiles that can help track an individual. The NSA has developed "Geo-Location" profiles. Once it knows what media a target uses, it can track him or her as they move, permitting the U.S. or its allies to track them, sometimes in real time. In fact, the NSA doesn't even need to know a target's identity. If link analysis tips the NSA to someone who has an interesting profile, the CIA or friendly intelligence service can track that individual to determine his or her identity. A Western diplomat told NBC News this spring that the NSA had the city of Riyadh so “wired†that, using traditional methods and geo-location profiles, it was able to provide Saudi security forces with the addresses of specific "safe houses" where al-Qaida operatives were hiding. In response, the diplomat said the terrorists were forced to communicate via short "bursts" of communications while driving at high speed around the Saudi capital's ring road. The fact that the diplomat knew of the counterstrategy indicates that the U.S. knew it as well and was capable of targeting it. Of course, the challenge of all of this is finding the right data. The problem is being able to pick the electronic needle out of the electronic pile,†says Jim Bamford, author of several books on the NSA, including the classic “Puzzle Palace.†“And that's always been the, the failing of intelligence community, not just not collecting it, which they're able to do very well, but actually being able to zero in on one key communication. “If you look at it, you can pick up 2 million pieces of communication an hour from a listening post, you can have computers filter out a lot of that, but eventually in order to get a piece of that communications from that huge stream into a memo on the president's desk, it's going to take human beings and that's sort of the Achilles' heel for NSA.†More changes to come The future is more likely to produce more data —different data. “What about London and the bombings of the Underground?†asks Arkin. “What’s to stop intelligence agencies from going back and looking at surveillance video? You could use a combination of biometrics and other data obtained on motivations and social network analysis. An intel analyst could hope to identify tip-offs that might be automated in the future: a combination, say, of facial recognition with groups of men wearing backpacks.†It is not an exaggeration to suggest that the capabilities available could create, if left unchecked, the ultimate police state. The question is: Who watches the watchers? Who monitors the communication monitors? President Bush says there are enough safeguards in place. “We're guarding the civil liberties by monitoring the program on a regular basis, by having the folks at NSA, the legal team, as well as the inspector general, monitor the program, and we're briefing Congress,†he said at his news conference on Monday. “This is a part of our effort to protect the American people. The American people expect us to protect them and protect their civil liberties. I'm going to do that. That's my job, and I'm going to continue doing my job.†Not good enough, say congressional and other critics, who note the restrictions placed on congressional oversight. The domestic spying is a "waived special access program" meaning that the administration presented it to the so-called “Big Eight†on Capitol Hill — the speaker and minority leader of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, the chair and ranking member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the chair and ranking member of the House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence. Checks and balances questioned These "waived SAP's" are the most secret programs carried out by the intelligence community and the congressional leaders are not permitted to discuss with anyone else — not the staff of the committee, not the counsel of the committee, not other members, not their families, etc. Unless a majority of the Big Eight objects, the program is deemed approved, or "waived," and goes forward. As far as we know, only one of the Big Eight, Senator Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., objected. Rockefeller went so far as to pen a handwritten letter to Vice President Dick Cheney expressing not only his reservations about the plan, but also about the restrictions placed on him. As for the program itself, Rockefeller, then the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wrote of his “concern regarding the direction the administration is moving with regard to security, technology, and surveillance.†On the lack of oversight, he was just as troubled. “Clearly, the activities we discussed raise profound oversight issues,†Rockefeller wrote. “As you know, I am neither a technician nor an attorney. Given the security restrictions associated with this information, and my inability to consult staff or counsel on my own, I feel unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse, these activities.†Over the next few months, the NSA’s capabilities are likely to be exposed and debated, something the agency is not happy about. It never is. The question is whether the exposure and debate will result in an advantage for the terrorists, as the president argues, or an advantage for civil liberties protection, as his critics hope. Robert Windrem is an investigative producer for NBC News, based in New York © 2005 MSNBC.com

L o Z: Marka qabiilka iyo siyaasadda laga reebo, dhaqanka soomaalidu aad buu u fiicanyahay. Suugaantooda, hab-guursigooda, martisoorkooda, ganacsigooda iyo macaamiladooduba waa wax aan la heli karin. But all of that would be easily eclipsed when examined through wrong lenses. Selective and isolated incidents that exhibit off-putting incidents of ours do not give you the whole picture of Somali culture. I personally think that Somalis are good people who are going through very tough times. If not because of their unique qualities they would’ve been extinct by now. They have a culture that supports the needy and elderly, that recognizes and respects the role of woman in the society and values charity and compassion. Remember all these mid-night phone calls from distant relatives whom yo have never known but still felt obliged to send some money to them. Remember the qaaraan you paid for building a school or a well or something for a social cause. Where else would you find a society that still functions without central authority? Sure we are segmented society that does not appreciate the meaning of compromise and seeking common ground. Sure we still cling to our old and clannish concepts of governance, and we are certainly not a civilized people and still have our nomadic tendencies, but our culture is not villain of our social ills. If any thing we survived because of it. be proud of it, saaxiib. Time to give credit where it truly belongs.

^^I can’t blame you being resigned to your fate. And you’re right that there isn’t much anyone could do. I don’t think, though, that you don’t appreciate the significance of this matter. Do you not feel good about the fact that Bush has been put in the defense about this? I still think there's so much one president could do and like when he is reminded about the legal limits of his presidential power. P.S: who knows they been listening what poor Xiin was saying to his friends.

^^And are you seriously not bothered by it ?

^^Not quite, good Caamir. The failure of Cadde’s leadership is many levels. But for Allah’s sake the man has been sick and I should withhold judgment. I also hold the view that the old man and his crew stood what has been wrong with that region. That he used Puntland as a platform to launch himself in to the leadership of greater Somalia. That he neglected every aspect of Puntland’s development that was not security related. That he lacked managerial capacity and accountability was an alien concept for him. And that the men in his cabinet were anything but qualified and capable. If anything, Cadde needs to sack the rest of old man’s ministers and bring new and fresh blood to that region. Time will tell if Cadde is meant to be…..till then I should wait and see.

^^Bush is not a particularly bright guy! Few angry men got hold on his ears. And as you know, good Paragon, angry people tend to make wrong decisions. I think that answers your question.

^^Liked the ‘Eco-warriors’ term. Paragon & Tukaale, one could only hope for this trend to grow and spread to the other areas. May be this is the first sub-clan that felt the need to contain this outbreak of environmental deprivation. If that is the case here, I sure see a moral obligation to support them. Stoic, you’re sprinkling snippets of political wisdom today saaxiib . It is time to promote these paradigm shifts in that ruined land. I absolutely agree that the significance of environment in the psychic of our society is unfortunately missing. The blame falls on the shoulders of traditional leaders and religious scholars. There must be some awareness program on this issue. Are we retardates of sort? How do a society fail to recognize if they cut trees the rate they are doing now, they will soon face environmental consequence?

^^In that case all Cadde needs to do is to imitate Cabdullaahi and keep his men since they were most qualified and capable men . Why reinvent the wheel.

Paragon, This is sad news as it reports the loss of innocent lives. But this fight is one of the most principled southern conflicts, I must admit, that I have heard in recent years. One sub-clan is surely engaging in a worthy cause. The other sounds a bunch of scofflaws, to me any way, that need be stopped. Very brave men, indeed. Anyone knows who this sub-clan is so we can support them incase they couldn’t sustain this fight?

Stoic, in my estimation the worst times in Bush presidency are behind us. He is a waning star now. His opponents are getting bolder. His staunchest loyalists are getting unsure and hesitant. And the media, which seemed timidly subservient before, is now daring to defy him and expose the shadowy policies he secretly enacted. Though a lot would depend how forcefully the senator from Wisconsin drives this, I can see how Bush could be in a deep trouble, domestically. Yeniceri, the question is not if Bush cares, rather it is if people care. I think they do. These laws were put in place for a reason. Lets see how this plays out. P.S: Stoic, yes, I do watch PBS and since I don’t have cable, it is one my news sources. This news outlet has very impressive educational programs; Nova, Frontline, and other useful ones.

Faarax Coonow, diiday dee ! I decided to live in the hill . Let Minnies live in the town. Ducaqabow, that’s exactly what my late dad told me; wax lagu khasaaro guur baa ugu fiican wax la bartana dad baa ugu wanaagsan.

Mods, please move this topic to Islam section; thats where i intended to post.

Islam and the Family By: Sayyid Mujtaba Musavi Lari Light of Islam While the warp of society is the individual person and the woof is social order, the unit of the design is the family. Families in which mutual understanding, sincerity and tenderness reign, form details of a harmonious pattern. But a family in confusion and disarray distorts and mars the pattern. The instinct for survival is innate in human beings. Producing children is the expression of one urge of this instinct, for a child seems like an extension of one's own personality, and a guarantee of the continuance of the same life-force. The primary origin of the urge to found families is sought by many thinkers in this instinct for survival. The need to feed and support a family incites a man to industrial productivity. Other thinkers hold that the primary urge towards family-founding was merely the sex instinct; others favour the gregarious instinct; others regard wedlock as a mere commercial transaction between families entered into for the profit of both. In fact, communal living in society requires families as its units of construction. To degrade the pure love between husband and wife merely to sex, profit or protection, is to deny human nature at its highest. Some say that, since in the inchoate days of human living the woman as a weaker being could not exist except under a man's protection, family life is merely a feminine institution imposed on man. This is manifest nonsense: for it ignores a man's need of woman, which may be different from woman's need of man, but is just as deeply and inextricably a part of his nature. True, man has to be the breadwinner in most cases. But he needs his mate as a partner in happiness, in joy and in sound living. In marriage is the end of loneliness. Each sex needs the other. This is why "male and female made He them." God implanted the sex instinct. God created sex differences. He created the survival instinct, the security instinct and the society instinct of gregariousness. All these were part of His providence in preparing mankind to be His joyful family Sociologists give each instinct its due weight in the scheme. They say that the exact role of each instinct varies with the changes in social structure. In primitive society the need to find food and housing is of primary importance. In the ancient agricultural community the need for children became paramount since many hands make light work. Today the sex urge has come very much to the fore, since humanity has devised means to achieve adequate food, satisfactory housing and machines to do the work. But over and above the instincts, the urge to love and the need to be loved are amongst the highest attributes of human nature. Islam answers the call of nature affirmatively, with its insistence on the family as the best safeguard of public virtue, and its asseveration that it is the only right and legitimate way. It is written in the Sura XVI: Nahl- "The Bee" verse 72: "God has made mates for you of your own nature and made for you of them children and grandchildren and posterity, and provided for you sustenance of the best. Are they then going to believe in vain things and not be grateful for God's favours?" Islam sets out to protect young people from being led astray by the strength of the God-implanted sexual urge in the years before their character and conscience have matured and their will is governed by discretion. That is why it lays on parents the responsibility of I admonishing youth, and of imparting rules of. life and guidelines of prudence which will lead to godliness and the natural use of the power of procreation. It also holds parents responsible for arranging early I marriages for those who are mature enough to wed. Young people not yet I economically capable of supporting a family may find the thrust of the sex urge so strong that, without the guiding hand of their parents on the 1 reins, the horses of nature may run away with them and carry them into danger or into the trap of illicit sex. Parents must steer the life-force into I its God-given legitimate channels where peace of mind and calm of conscience accompany the happiness of a shared life. The Prophet is reported to have preached thus from the pulpit of the mosque: "O Muslim community! Your daughters are like ripe fruit on a tree. Fruit must be picked at its optimum moment; otherwise the sun or other agencies will rot or spoil it. You must likewise give your daughters in marriage at the moment when they are ripe, and neither later nor sooner. If you leave them hanging about too long, their inevitable , corruption will be your fault. They are human, and their human needs must be met." Ali bin Asbat wrote a reply to a letter which he had received from the 5th Imam, thus: "I find no young men who are suitable and fitted to be husbands for my daughters. What then is my duty?" In answer the Imam wrote: "Do not wait until you find young men who are exactly to your liking in all respects. For our Holy Prophet said: 'If you do not find young people to wed your daughters who correspond with your personal desires, have regard only to their character, especially their morals and their religion, and let the qualifications you require in husbands for your daughters be faith and morals alone, since with these a young man makes a satisfactory husband; and if you choose someone without these qualifications you are personally responsible for misleading and perverting your young people." Thus Islam not only does not put obstacles in the way of matrimony, but turns this force of nature to the advantage of society and of the individual for his physical wellbeing, mental health, calm of spirit and contentment of heart. Islam regards marriage as a sacred union of hearts, a source of serenity and security for both partners. To fulfil this function it needs the qualities of purity, loving-kindness, humanity, gentleness, goodness and faith in the depths of the heart. As it is written in Sura XXX: "Rome" verse 21: " Amongst God's signs for you is this, that He created mates for you from among yourselves for you to dwell with in tranquillity. It is He who put love and compassion between you. Verily in these are signs for those who reflect." Islam lays down clear rules to govern the relationships within the family. Sura IV Nisa'a -"The Women" calls marriage "the firm bond" and is concerned throughout the first 42 verses with the practical details of the contract of marriage and its fulfillment. The sense of belonging together is nourished. Fairness governs the share each partner gives and takes in the compact. Each gives according to their ability and each takes according to their need. As Sura 11: Baqara -"The Heifer" affirms in verse 228: "Wife and husband, women and men, have reciprocal and commensurable rights according to what is equitable." Islam pays the closest and most meticulous attention to the capacities of each sex with regard to their occupation, profession and work. The man has the duty of being the breadwinner and providing for material needs and the production of things. The woman is the housekeeper with the duty of providing for the family's needs and for the production of new people, for nursing the new generation and caring for the upbringing of posterity. Islam recognises the natural consequences of the way a woman is made, and will not allow her to be demeaned or degraded in any way; but preserves her from the wickedness of those who would lead her astray into corruption, and confers upon her a dignity, both at home and out of doors, which is worthy of her calling. It is of course possible that in an emergency a woman may be called to undertake tasks outside her home. But Islam seeks to avoid the kind of contacts between the sexes in the course of their employment which could turn fellowship into familiarity and comradeship into concupiscence. Therefore women must not dress in a provocative or enticing fashion nor titillate men's sexual lusts so that the madness which leads to promiscuity of intercourse is aroused. Like any other institution, the family and its home needs a responsible head. Without a firm hand at the helm a family can drift in confusion. Either the wife or the husband must therefore take the lead, and nature shows that in general it is more fitting for the man to steer, even if in exceptional cases the woman must take command. The man, in accepting the responsibility of the household, its livelihood, its wellbeing, its children and their care, merits the authority of a head, because his greater strength, perseverance and endurance make him more fitted than the woman to carry the heavy burden of safeguarding the family from collapse and confusion. Further, woman is a creature of emotion, and quicker to be swayed by feelings. Woman is more ruled by her heart and man more by his head. So Islam gives the prime responsibility to the person of reason, precisely as Article 213 of the most recent constitution of France does. At the same time, Islam lays down that teamwork, partnership, consultation and joint planning are to be the rule. The man is on no account to be left free to pursue his self-willed desires regardless. He must definitely never tyrannise over his wife or abuse or bully her. It is written in Sura IV Nisa'a -"The Women'. verse 19: "Believers! You may not take over a brother's widow without her consent. You may not treat your wives harshly. You may not goad wife into suing you for a khula' (divorce) by which she has to a part of the dower which you gave her - save only if she be guilty of forfeit lewd conduct. Nay! live with your wives in kindness and equity. Should you dislike them for something, that very thing may be a point through which God will bring much blessing." The husband, in shouldering the burden of external affairs for the support of the family has full control of everything relevant to his task. But inside the walls Of the home the wife is in full control, and hers is the duty of arranging the details of daily living, the disposition of the household effects and the upbringing of the children. The Prophet said: "The man is the breadwinner responsible for the family, while the wife has the responsibility for the house and for her husband and for the children.-' (Majmoo'é wa ram p.6/ Collections and Remains.) Modern disrespect for the bond of marriage is due to the negligence of this high conception of wedlock. Instead it has been degraded by a mass of petty dreams and twisted imaginations. Men's thinking about marriage was in ruins before their families began to fall apart. Too many have entered on the married state without a thought for the importance of harmony of mind and spirit between man and wife. Fortune hunters, Casanovas, women-chasers prizing a pretty face above all else, have pushed the spiritual values out of sight and trodden their own best interests underfoot. The prevalence of such badly founded families forebodes a tragic future. The deep incompatibility of thought between man and wife sets them as far apart as the poles. The gap between them gapes wider daily. Contentment and peace of heart flee from them. They get on each other's nerves. The harmony which ethical values, unselfishness and human affection bring, as both sides do all they can to strengthen the spiritual life of each other, departs. A family must be founded firmly on due consideration of the environmental conditions, the proper setting for the wife, and the compatibility of the partners' ways of thinking and of their moral standards. Marriage must be thought of as holy and basic. Only from this correct viewpoint can the inevitable difficulties of living together be satisfactorily settled. Islam has paid due attention to all the deleterious consequences of wrongly based marriage, its divisions and unhappiness. It therefore founds the family not on fortune or passion or outward beauty or any material things, but on faith and virtue, and chastity and purity and spiritual qualities and affections, and piety both in the man and ID the woman. The Prophet is reported to have said: "Whosoever takes a wife merely because of her beauty will never find what he sought in her. Whose takes a wife solely for her fortune, the Lord will abandon him. Seek therefore a wife whose beauty is that of faith and whose fortune is purity of living." (Vassa'el, Vol. 3, p.6.) In the book "Man la yahdhur" (p.209), "There is no institution more beloved than marriage" is stated as Islam's policy for matrimony. Persons who seek to avoid founding a family on unreasonable or false grounds are sternly rebuked, and condemned for every form of pretext to which they resort for perverting the God-given force of sex from its proper use. In the book "Safeene al-Bahar" (Vol. 1, p.561), we read: "Wedlock and matrimony belong to my religion. Whosoever protests against this way of life excludes himself from my religion and is not one of mine." Similarly Islam is against the wedding of people who lack the qualities of personality and the excellences of spirit which are required: and against wedding into families which do not profit from religious upbringing in moral standards. As is written in the "Vassa'el" - chapter 7 of the .'Book of Wedlock" "the Prophet in a sermon said: Avoid beautiful plants and flowers which grow by the side of filthy and polluted waters.' The Prophet was asked: 'O Prophet of Allah! what is a plant by a stagnant pool?' He replied: A beautiful woman brought up in a perverse family that has not known the restraints of instruction'." It is natural that consorts who are not brought up on absolute moral standards and religious laws can never be sure of true family happiness and blessedness. The fruit of such marriages can only be delinquent children, rough, violent, without serenity or security of spirit. Therefore Islam, to ensure the happiness of both parties, lays particular stress on matters of morals and of mentality. It is to guard against the production of a generation that is corrupt and perverted that Islam seeks to avoid matrimony with members of families that are polluted and degraded. If young people, at the moment when they have to choose their life's partner, would do so in accordance with Islamic rules and regulations instead of only looking at externals, and weigh the realities which are vital to happiness, setting aside false thinking inspired by polluted passions that so swiftly pass, there is no doubt that the unhappiness and family disasters brought on family life by the devotees of sexual freedom and permissiveness would all very rapidly disappear into thin air. Yet some of today's youth have been taught that a trial-marriage, to see if a couple suit each other in intercourse, is the right way and the ideal preparation for happy life-partnership. How can they think that a brief experience of a fleeting pleasure of two bodies can plumb the depths of the spiritual qualities, mental abilities, moral gifts and personality-traits of another soul? To expect to found an eternal relationship on a few moments of pleasure is a nonsensical piece of illogic. That should be enough to condemn it out of hand, quite apart from all the moral and spiritual damage which such temporary liaisons cannot fail to cause. The inner qualities of a personality only appear in a long period of a shared life. It is the ever-changing scene and stage of their living together which reveals the truth of two partners' inward nature to each other. Patience, forbearance, equanimity, steadiness, contentment, selflessness, self-sacrifice are discovered when life's pressures crowd in on the soul. How can brief moments of rest and fun and trips a deux penetrate to the deep ethical characteristics? Can a visit to the cinema or some other place of entertainment reveal their true selves to a couple? Indeed, in trial-marriages both partners try to conceal their bad sides and put on a good mask to fool each other. Can a young man in the heat of passion make a decision which is the most fateful of his life? Can a trial-marriage ensure that there is no difference in spirit and no weak point in their relationship? And how can a young person ruled by the conditions of his years when the inclination to satisfy sexual instincts is so strong. weigh the essential conditions for a sound marriage dispassionately and detachedly? How can he be sure that quarrels and differences will not arise in the future? It is for this reason that Islam recommends that, before the final signing of a marriage contract, the young people should meet each other and talk; but also, and far more important, they should get an assessment of their proposed partner's character and tastes and traits and capacities from independent observers who are able to judge from long acquaintance. Or, since the family happiness depends in the first place on the equality of the relations between man and wife in their shared life, the firmer the spiritual and ethical bonds the surer the happiness of the household and the greater its ability to stand the shocks of life in selfless self-sacrifice and union. This is why the Prophet said. ."'Best of my people is the man who shows his family not harshness but perfect kindness and goodness." (Moral Excellence. p.247 "Makarem-ul-Akhlaq".) And again ("Man la yahdhur" p.625): "Best amongst you is he who treats his family well: and I am kindest of all to my own family." Similarly the wife should treat her husband with kindness, and this is called her ."Sacred Jehad" (Tafseer-ad-Dorr al-manthoor ."Gems of Wisdom"). One of the sad obstacles to early marriages today is the difficulty which finance poses for young people. Provision of the marriage portion, expensive ceremonies, the high cost of houses, and a dozen other extravagant charges are too much for the average youth. Islam insists , that the state should take steps to enable these difficulties to be overcome in the interests of the institution of matrimony. The book "Gems of I Wisdom" reports the Prophet of Islam as saying: "It is an auspicious and beneficent act that the bride's family should make their demands for dowry and terms of the marriage contract mild and lenient." Excessive demands may reveal not only that the bride's family but possibly also the bride herself is grasping and hard. The chapter on marriage portions in the book '"Vassa'el" tells the following story. One day the Apostle of God was seated with the assembly of his companions when a young woman rushed in and after the customary courteous salutations said: "O Apostle of God I want a young husband." The Prophet turned to all those present and asked: "Has anyone an inclination to take this woman to wife?" One man said he was willing. I The Prophet asked what dowry he would give. He replied: "I have nothing I can give." So the Prophet said. "No!" The woman returned on a later occasion and requested to be married. No one replied. Finally the same young man who had no fortune or property at his disposition made a sign, and the Prophet addressed him thus: "Do you know the Qur'an?" He said: "Sure!" The gracious Apostle then decreed: "I will marry you to this woman at the price of the dowry which will consist in your teaching her a portion of the Qur'an every day." Islam therefore refuses to recognise that financial difficulties may put obstacles in the way of young people's matrimony. It allows indigent and needy persons to found families by law. Islam regards fear of poverty and of involvement as false excuses for avoiding the divine law of life in wedlock, and says that Providence knows a family's needs and will not let them fall into deprivation. It is written in Sura XXIV: Nur-"Light", verse 32: "Provide the means by which worthy and fitting persons who have no spouse may marry. If they are poor and indigent God out of His gracious care will supply their needs." Of course hard work and industry is the way in which a man should supply his needs. When a man undertakes the responsibilities of matrimony, in order to make both ends meet he must increase his activities and his hard work. This is one of the functions of marriage in raising the standard of living for the whole of society.

Bush's Wartime Dictatorship The threat of presidential supremacism by Justin Raimondo In defending his edict authorizing surveillance of phone calls and e-mails originating in the United States, President Bush reiterated legal arguments, long made by his intellectual Praetorians, that imbue the White House with wartime powers no different from those exercised by a Roman emperor. As Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer pointed out in the Washington Post the other day: "Bush's constitutional argument, in the eyes of some legal scholars and previous White House advisers, relies on extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Bush said yesterday that the lawfulness of his directives was affirmed by the attorney general and White House counsel, a list that omitted the legislative and judicial branches of government. On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president's war-making powers in legal briefs as 'plenary' – a term defined as 'full,' 'complete,' and 'absolute.'" The new presidential absolutism infuses not only Bush's foreign policy, which asserts the "right" of the White House to make war on anyone, anywhere, anytime, and for any reason, but also, increasingly, his domestic policies. The doctrine of wartime presidential supremacy has been dramatized, in recent days, in a series of disturbing developments on the home front: the utilization of "national security letters" by the FBI to snoop on thousands of U.S. citizens, the creation of a permanent database that amounts to an electronic "enemies list," and just this past week the revelation that the National Security Agency is eavesdropping on phone calls and e-mails originating in the U.S. – without going to the FISA court that normally oversees such activities. This doctrine of presidential supremacy is derived, in substance and style, from the unrestrained militarism of the regime. That we are now in a state of permanent war requires that our government undertake a perpetual war on what is left of our civil liberties. Given the nature of this conflict with a formless, stateless enemy, more a concept than a combatant, there is no longer any division between the "home front" and the struggle against the worldwide Islamist insurgency, between domestic and foreign policy. We spy on Americans because we fight in Iraq, and, as time goes on, the converse will be true: we will continue the overseas battle in order for the regime to win the fight against its political opponents in the U.S. That the antiwar opposition, already demonized by neoconservative ideologues as "appeasers" and worse, will wind up being treated as "the enemy" should surprise no one. Of course, the regime isn't locking up its domestic opponents and "renditioning" them off to some godforsakengulag quite yet. However, it is more and more treating opposition to its policies – or even discussion of its methods – as the equivalent of treason, and this story about how, in response to the NSA revelations, the president summoned the executive editor and the publisher of the New York Times to the Oval Office merely underscores how far we have gone in that direction. The president went out of his way to denounce the Times piece as "a shameful act," and this overbearing style is part and parcel of the developing tyranny. Lew Rockwell has posited the rise of what he calls "red-state fascism," as have I, and we can see, from recent events, that this phenomenon is quickly congealing from a fluid potentiality into a hard reality. All the elements of a new American fascism are in place: a regime that recognizes no restraints on its power, either moral or constitutional; the rise of a leader cult surrounding the president; and a foreign policy of relentlessaggression. And make no mistake: it is this latter that makes all the rest of it possible. Without the pretext of a wartime emergency, the neoconservative ideologues who seek to reconcile constitutional "originalism" with a legal and political doctrine of presidential hegemony that would have horrified the Founders would be relegated to the margins and considered harmless crackpots. Today, however, the crackpots are not only in power, they are going on the offensive – with much success. Just how much success is evidenced by the complete inability and unwillingness of the Democrats to stand up against this systematic assault on our liberties at the most crucial point: that is, at the time it was initiated. This is underscored by the fact that Sen. Jay Rockefeller is coming out in public against the NSA eavesdropping only now that it is politically popular to do so. When it really counted, however, those few congressional Democrats who were let in on the secret unauthorized wiretaps, such as Rockefeller and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, said nothing. In the summer of 2003, Rockefeller wrote to Vice President Dick Cheney that, while expressing "concerns" about bypassing the FISA court, he refused to pass judgment: "As you know," he wrote, "I am neither a technician or an attorney," and he therefore felt "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse" the NSA intercepts. Could a wimpier "opposition" even be imagined? Rockefeller held this secret close to his chest for years, as did Pelosi. These Weimar Democrats are gutless wonders, fully complicit in the regime's assault on our liberties and the constitutional order. To anyone looking to the Democratic Party as the locus of an effective opposition to red-state fascism, I would strongly suggest that they are setting themselves up for a severe disappointment – and that they'd best look elsewhere Source

^^U r off one mile and hodhodho, saxxib .

^^Bakheyl.

^^Waryaa coon nadaa dee.

Ducaqabow, thanks walaal and aamiin. My beloved mom only spent with us a month and, I will visit her more often now (IA). The hadith U cited is well noted. It is the mainstay of my believe system, wallaahi. There is nothing like mom! CW, I have intentionally taken Minnesota off the list for a reason . P.S:I enjoyed those heated exchanges between Xirsiyo-Zahra and Xoogsade .

CW, Very creative of you to confirm that educated guess ! But good Xiin is still in the hunt of that elusive #3 wife! Canada is where they told me to go. Some suggested OH. Others insisted London is definitely the place. I am still undecided. But I am leaning more to Canada. As my highlights in this year: My mother finally joined me after lengthy visa process and we spent Ramadan together. Got my first professional job. They told me I am knowledge worker now . Not sure what that means. Planned beyond the calls in the near future (IA): Enroll (June) & finish my masters D Go to the Hajj Get that # 3 wife Visit Somalia (some where in Somalia ) P.S: The reason I said it was ok year (with all these apparently remarkable events) is because I did not think that I did a good job in pleasing my Maker!