Sorry, had to come back. Didn't read the first time round. This is amazing. Read this bit again: We are the wives/cooks, just slip him a tranquilizer every now and then to get him to do what you want. We are the secretaries, the nurses, the nannies.. ...now isn't that a wonderful position of influencing how the world runs! You killed it, walaalo. Stick to Allah's course and don't tire yourself what you can not change. P.S. I am not pro-Male. I love women and have a huge respect for them and I wouldn't be here without one of them or many, and would be nothing without one or more.

Hmmmm, let me clear my throat! Oh, oh! Sorry. I didn't see the Excl Female Club bit. Sorry. I am out. ..Goes out as ducks to avoid the flying shoes aimed at him.....oh! Salaam.

Maansha-Allah. Stimulating.... I'm enjoying reading it, keep going.

People need help, guys. They don't need to be laughed at. If they can't get a cohesive and structured way of their own culture to conduct their wedding, they are going to opt for other methods, international or otherwise. I think many would have adopted a somali wedding fashion, if it is modern and eye-catching etc. Someone needs to sit down, think and come up with Somali Wedding Mag. You won't make a lot money, but you will certainly help a lot in these situations. I am confident it will happen so long as we remain in the Gaalo world. But I and many others will miss out.....lol.

Unlike the many nonentities that post “opinions†on this site ....There you go! No-one is non-entity, and everyone has an opinion and is entitled to voice it here as long as they abide by the rules of the site. However, I was hoping that my slight highlight of your words might just bring your attention to your tone and use of words, obviously, it doesn't seem to have. And I end it right here, right now. P.S. Apologies, folks, for interrupting your topic.

Thanks. It was good one.

wouldn’t stoop so low as to patronise you [baashi]! ...How about the rest of us? You are more than patronising and calling us acronyms [QED]! Latin, for Allah's sake! We can barely handle english, and you are using terms of dead tongue that we can't make a head and a tail of. As Baashi said, tone it down, walaalo. This is madal for the good, the bad and the ugly. Everyone will throw in their towel, no matter how wet and stinky! P.S. Whatever happened to these are words on screen, only words on screen! ----your signature, i guess.

Baashi, Qoraa kobcayaa tahay. Shaqada hanaanka wacan leh, daadihi, walaal. Isticmaalkaaga ereyada iyo sida ay sheekadu iskugu duba-dhacayso, dhamaan waa astaan qoraa kobcaya oo leh dhamaan ifa-faalihii qoraa faraha looga guban doono. nasiib wacan. Ha iga iloobin markii buugo soo baxo inaan saxiix iigu dhufato. Dabcan, waana dhiibayaa qarashka. Nasiib wacan, saaxiib. Salaam...

*YOUR OWN DEATH* This will be accepted as an excuse. However, we require at least two weeks notice as it is your duty to train your replacement. ..That shouldn't have been good enough. The memo should have stated that "in the event of your death, we require you to notify us in advance which of your family member we should take as your replacement. And he/she must be trained to do your job. Trained from birth, that is, or you should've trained him/her in commencement to your employment with this company"....HAHAHAHAH!

Physicists today offer a similar view of the world through the String Theory (someone who’s familiar with this field can do a much better job explaining the theory, I'll give it a go nevertheless). The theory stipulates (in a much simplified manner) that everything in the universe consists of tiny strings that vibrate, so tiny that it’s average length is 10 to the power of -33 centimeters (or about a millionth of a billionth of a billionth of a billionth of a centimeter). These strings vibrate in nine, ten or even twenty-six dimensions (several dimensions beyond the four, three spatial and time). These vibrating strings are bound by physical laws that are mathematically precise! After making a decision (or taken a certain course) one often wonders, “WHAT IF I had done this or maybe that, WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPENNED?†Just as you missed the bus/train, there are various probabilities of your life (in a parallel) world of how your life would have turned out (or maybe has) in the other dimensions parallel to ours. Am I losing you? I often lose myself thinking of this ....Yes, you've lost me, big time. The idea of us figuring out what might happen if we've done otherwise is CAMAL-U-SHAYDAAN. It is humans trying to ascertain a degree of an unforeseen knowledge to an unforeseen events. And they will NEVER find out what might........if....! Forget it and stick to the QADR and accept its GOOD or BAD. And....thank Allah for both. Allah Hafiz.

Top stuff, bro. Thnx for sharing. Allan Little's voice makes the icing on the cake.

This is what Imam Al-Ghazzali says about the subject (least arguably the most accurate) and bear in mind, IT IS NOT HARAM. The Imam is merely pointing out here the ways of attaining or manners that are "inducive a happy and conjugal life": "That she shouldn't be a close relative as it would lessen desire. The Prophet PBH said, "Don't marry close relatives, for then the child is born scrawny". That to say weak,; such is the weakening effect it (marrying close relatives) has on desire. For desire is excited by the deep emotions which result from sight and touch; emotions are strenthened by whatever is unfamiliar and new. On the other hand, what is familiar and seen continously renders the faculties incapable of fully appreciating it [desire], being affected by it, or becoming arousing through it. These are qualities desired in women."

Let me give you a taste of what the book entails....Just a mere taste (I can not do justice to the contents of the book at all) Talking about the disadvantages of Marriage, this is how the book describes the man who can uphold his wife's rights; the characteristics of the man: "A man possessing good character and insight into the ways of women, is tolerant of their tongues, is not driven by their desires, is careful to fulfil his obligations towards them, can overlook their mistakes, and is cognizant of their manners" Please read the book it is a good guide. One of the best there is. Many of yo out there are in their marriage age and are willing to marry, so have a guide. Just like you would want to have, if you were to visit a foreign city! It is only 62 pages, but once you get started, you won't quit in the first few pages, i promise you.

This is a wonderful piece of work from the great muslim philosopher, and I can not stress enough for the young (unmarried)and old (married) to read. Apologies for my choice of words. It is an eye-opener. Just read, you will love it. Marriage is viewed from every angle. Book on etiquette of marriage N.B. It is in PDF format. Allah Hafiz.

The author/brother is day-dreaming. Bro, ideas are money, specially those that can be the basis of a fortune in the future, plus we're living increasingly selfish world. Unless one is a fool, in which case fools don't come up with good ideas, or extremely generous, people of this Zaman don't feel like giving what they can buck on. I admire your intentions, though. They're noble. Good luck and Allah bless.

^^Fatal-e, you've been selfish. Sorry, but you hve. Meantime, point i'm interested commenting on is the 'wiring cash home' one. There are people out there who are claiming that this practice will come to seize once the generation gap takes effect. Meaning when the current generation of Somalis - those who've come to the West in their early teens or lower - grow up, the pool of cash being wired for Somalia will dry. Because this generation will have no much of a connection with the people back home. Their argument was, this generation knows little about their culture - the exteneded family - and will adopt to the cultures of host countries, thus will not bother about people of Somalia. Do you think that is going to be the case? 'cos if it turns out to be case, Allah help the people of Somalia, as the results will be catastrophic. The money sent from the West is what maintains Somalia and its people today, if this stops and people and country continue to lack central authority, it will be DISASTER! ...Share your thoughts. Allah Hafiz.

^^And what exactly would MEN talk about in this section? I think it is absurd to think that 'cos ladies have a section we should too. Ladies are bursting with issues of their own to discuss about, unique to them, but us, the men, everything out there applies to us and we are part of everything, so since we part and parcel of everything, we don't need to have a section of our own. If you have anything off the topic to vent about,go to General, if you have 'women issues' go to Women's, if you need to do some 'FADHI-KU-DIRIR' go to Politics etc...... I think, we have no need for MEN's section, unless someone can come up with some good reasons why we do. Allah Hafiz.

Why do girls always go on the offensive!? Apart from the look, which was wrong, and as you said, the sister didn't dress up 'islamically' to draw attention, the brother shared his admiration with us, which I and many others out there happen to share. We should be mentioning and encouraging such behaviours. Brother, Orgiliqe, thanks for sharing that with us. Salaam.

Asalaama allaikum all. I've read almost all of the posts and I am speechles. Everything that one would say has been said. But can I say this: IT IS TOUGH BEING A SOMALI/MUSLIM MAN IN HOLLYWOOD ERA, IN THE WEST. This affects every bit of our lives, not least of our sisters (our potential wives/mothers of our kids). I see war, a counter-war that is waajib on us (somali men) to secure our women back from West and its evil temptations. If we all go and get wives from elsewhere, we've neglected our responsibilities. These too are our responsibility. Let's not give up on them. Let's put our lives on the line and take what is ours. On a serious note, I suggest guur waa calaf, and there is nothing one can do to change that course, so don't lose your energy on that. I also say this, girls in the west are not all the same, some are good some are bad, but before you just hazard on the idea of a guur to a girl, think, what can you offer for this girl, lifewise. As a person, do a trial balance on yourself, does your credit balance your debt? I think, we've nothing to be afraid of. A good muslim, and I mean a good muslim has nothing whatsoever to worry about when it comes to challenges posed by the life in the west. Cos, muslim is always a winner! And that is true, wallaahi. P.S. I apologise if I messed the wonderful ideas and discussions of those before me. There are potential people leaders in this place. I take off my hat for them.

Very interesting, brothers, sisters.

What would happened if we were doing our best like those Christians missionaries & preachers?? ...reminded me what once a kuffar I know said, which was 'if muslims around world were to have an amir (Khaleefah), he said, I would suggest that everyone in this world run/hide for their life'. He reads, and tries to analyse the events, and made a simple calculation of two plus two, and realised the potential of united Islam. The story is interesting. It shows that Allah's hidaayah knows no boundary, creed or color. I know that Islam is a beautiful thing, but only when one tastes it. May Allah bless us with real Islam.

This article is published on JUS jihadunspun.com, which is an independent news website, run and owned by muslims. I found this article thought-provoking and in line with my thought of how the so-called hostages are treated by the resistant fighters. Finally, let us all know what your line of thinking is, when you read this interesting article. ======================= In times of war, Islamic law permits the taking of hostages from the enemy camp and they can be: released, ransomed or punished appropriately. Ideally, the choice exercised should be taken in the interest of Islam and the concerns of the immediate community. However, the Muslims will be constrained and influenced by two external factors. First of all, the behavior of the enemies with regards to how they are treating the Muslim prisoners and conducting the war in general; secondly, the military capability of the Muslims in comparison to their enemies. The first two options of releasing the prisoners or ransoming them for a price are not disputed. But the latter category of punishing the prisoners has caused some level of controversy due to the recent abduction of foreigners by the Iraqi resistance. Many of the Muslims, in particular the moderate brigades and unfortunately even some of the so-called radical groups, have capitulated to the media-generated pressure around them and started to issue erroneous verdicts on the matter that not only contradicts Islam but common sense. They have adopted the language of the belligerent aggressors, exclusively condemning the abduction of a small number of foreigners by the Iraqi resistance while remaining mute on the thousands of innocent civilians taken as hostage from their homes and subsequently tortured, abused, and in some cases murdered. The abductions of the foreign and Iraqi hostages are certainly related like married couples, even though the media pretends, that, they are divorced! Just to digress a little, it is worthwhile noting the use of the word ‘foreign’ with respect to the Iraqi resistance. Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi from Jordan, across the artificial colonial installed border, sharing the same blood, culture, language and religion, is a foreigner according to the occupying forces! So, who are the Australians and the Americans that have come from thousands of miles way across the ocean? Do they hold the Iraqi Green-Card issued by the former CIA operative Iyad Allawi? We certainly do not hear the Iraqis referring to the small number of Arabs/Muslims who have come across the border to aid the Iraqi resistance as foreigners: to the contrary how could they operate without the approval of the indigenous Iraqis? Let us first examine the evidences pertaining to the permissibility to punish and execute prisoners of war. One should bear in mind that in Islamic law, there are mandatory obligations and prohibitions. And what lies in between these two rigid points is a matter of choice, to be selected as the best option on what should be done. Islamic Evidences Muslims are generally encouraged to treat the prisoners well; there are sayings (Hadiths) of the Prophet (SAW) on this matter. And he said, treat the prisoners well. The companions (Sahabas) of the Prophet (SAW) used to feed the prisoners with better food before feeding themselves. There are numerous incidences of where Muslims have released captives unharmed or for a very small price. No torture or humiliation was exercised over them. Indeed, the Taliban treated the prisoners far better than the US forces reciprocated. They mass murdered the prisoners with their hands tied behind their backs, as was reported by Robert Fisk of the Independent along with pictures. Similarly, prior to the gruesome revelations of Abu-Ghraib, the Muslims did not behead the hostages; they treated their prisoners far better, given that the Iraqis are the real victims in defending their lands. Recently even the two Italian women released from captivity also confirmed the good treatment by their open support for the Iraqi resistance in media interviews. However, the issue of treating the prisoners well is not an absolute decisive command but an advice. Furthermore there are other evidences that show the permissibility to execute prisoners of war they are elaborated below. a) Battle Of Badr After the battle of Badr, the Muslims acquired prisoners of war. Some of the companions of the Prophet (Sahabas) were inclined to ransom them for money whilst others took the more stern view, that, they should be executed. The Prophet (SAW) opted for the lenient option. However, it was the latter point of view that was upheld by the revelation, meaning that, execution was not only permitted but in this instance the preferred thing to do. “It is not fitting for an Apostle (Muhammad) that he should have prisoners of war, until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You look on the temporal goods of this world but Allah (SWT) looks to the hereafter†Holy Qu’ran 8:67 Another incidence after Badr was the capture of the notorious Umayah ibn Khalaf and his son who were the owners and torturers of Bilal (RA). When Bilal (RA) spotted them as prisoners of Abdul Rahman bin Auf (RA), he with the help of the residents of Medina (Ansars) cut the two prisoners to pieces for their earlier belligerent hostility. Similar punishment was given to the tortures of Abu-Ghraib in Fallujah for their heinous crime! The Prophet (SAW) did not rebuke the action of Bilal and therefore consented to the execution of these prisoners of war. The Prophet also ordered the execution of three prisoners of Badr by the name of Ruqba bin Abi Muwayed, Nadr bin Harith, Tuima bin Adiee, another clear evidence of the permissibility to execute the Prisoners of war. b) The Incident With The Jewish Tribe Of Banu-Quraiza The tribe of Banu-Quraiza committed treachery against the Muslims; they were taken as captives and all the adult men were put to death, around 600 men. Note, all of the adult male captives were slain not just those committed the breach. Why? Because, they were engaged with the Muslims as a nation hence punished as a nation. c) The Quran Apart from the abovementioned verse (8:67), the chapter of Muhammad (47:4) also alludes to the permissibility or in this case recommendation to execute prisoners of war. It states: “Therefore, when you meet (battlefields) the unbelievers smite their necks; At length, when you have thoroughly subdued them bind (the captives) firmly: therefore either Generosity or ransom: until the war lays down its burden.†Holy Qur’an 47:4 Here, the verse clearly recommending the execution of prisoners until the Muslims has the upper hand. When they are encouraged to either set them free or ransom them. The use of the word “smite their necks†(Darab ar-Riqab) refers to execution as oppose to the general killing in the battlefields mentioned in the other verse where it uses the word “Qatil†There are other evidences but the abovementioned evidences should suffice to prove the point that the Muslims have the three options in dealing with the prisoners of war. In general advice is that they should treat the prisoners well but at certain times, harsh measures may be more suitable and necessary. These situations arise primarily due to the circumstances imposed upon the Muslims, as stated earlier the treatment of prisoners will be influenced by the behavior of the enemy and the huge disparity in the military capability between the Muslims and non-Muslims. Hence let us briefly examine these external factors. External Factors Moazzam Begg, the British captive held at Guantanamo Bay, who was originally kidnapped from Pakistan by the US, has clearly stated in his letter about the use of torture, abuse, and other forms of violations. He has even witnessed the torturing of prisoners to death by the US authority. The Iraqis and the world have already witnessed the inhuman brutality of the US soldiers in Abu-Ghraib, where even young boys and girls were subjected to rape, sodomy, torture and other forms of sexual perversion that is definitely ‘foreign’ to the Arab/Islamic culture. It certainly does not come from ‘foreigners’ like Abu Musab al-Zarqawi! Seymour Hersh revealed that young Iraqi boys were sodomized and shrieking while they were being filmed as souvenirs for the friends and relatives back at home. This speaks volumes about these subhumans, exhibiting a behavior that is worse than animals! When the Pentagon showed the pictures and videos, implicit references were made to executions and Necrophilia committed by the US soldiers. If this were not an American phenomenon, why else did Arnold Schwarzenegger recently abolish Necrophilia in California? The abuse is not confined to Abu-Ghraib. Recent investigations by American legal investigators [1] have once again showed that torture and rape is rampant throughout the U.S.-run prison system in Iraq. Such incidences are still occurring. Proving the point that Abu-Ghraib was only a sample of what was caught on camera; the real horror is much greater. Therefore, the Iraqis are entitled to inflict equivalent punishment on their prisoners in retaliation and as a means to deter the enemy from abusing their prisoners. Here too, the Muslims have excelled. Beheading a handful of captives is far less painful than being tortured to death as acknowledged by Nick Berg’s father. Even the degrading sexual torture can be worse than beheading. However, that only applies to those who have some degree of self-respect and honor. Sexual abuse inflicted on Lyndie England is unlikely to constitute punishment but rather a kind of titillation. Indeed, such examples highlight that Islam is indeed very different from the secular fanaticism of ‘freedom’! The US forces have also used heavy weapons in civilian populated areas without any regards for their life. If the US truly wanted to minimize civilian casualties why could their ‘brave’ and well-equipped soldiers not engage in hand-to-hand combat? Incineration and beheading by the use of high-tech weapons entitles the Iraqi resistance to behead and dismember the captives who are party to the conflict, directly or indirectly. Even if the US forces treated the Muslim prisoners well, the Iraqi resistance would be entitled to execute their prisoners or resort to other harsh measures as they have been invaded. Hence, it could be used as a form of deterrence and retribution. Furthermore, given the huge disparity between the US firepower and the Iraqi resistance, they are naturally entitled to use other means to defend themselves. In addition to common sense, there is general permission in Islamic law to widen the scope of permissibility in order to survive, providing it is a legitimate action of self-defense which is not disputed in the case of Iraq. Many have argued that politically and militarily, it is better to restrict the target to the combatants. Of course, nobody disputes this but due to the vast disparity between the Iraqi resistance and the US forces, their options are very limited. Status Of Non-Combatants This brings us to the final argument about who is a non-combatant. Some people have argued civilian contractors and charity workers are not legitimate target. Many of these people have entered Iraq under the flag of the US, who is an illegal occupier. Even the UN Secretary has endorsed this point as he admitted that the war was a violation of the UN Charter. Thus, the non-combatants have entered without any covenant with the Iraqi people, as there is no legitimate Iraqi authority. If they have come under the US flag, they have come as part of the aggressor party. "In any case, most of these non-combatants are mercenaries not on charitable missions. Like vultures, they are making a quick profit in exchange for the stolen (‘mismanaged’) Iraqi oil, Iraqi lives and their blood. They are helping the US forces directly or indirectly and are therefore part of them. The Prophet (SAW) took hostage a man from the tribe of Uqail because of his alliance with the belligerent tribe of Thaqeef. Even though Uqail was not a combatant. This is a clear evidence to show that allied nations or those assisting the combatants, even if it is indirectly are treated the same way. Finally, why should Muslims distinguish in taking only combatants when the Americans are clearly not doing this! The US has incarcerated many innocent civilians, including old men and children. Some were subsequently released as evidence of their innocence. Since, one is held without charge, it must be presumed that the detainee is innocent - that is if you believe another one of the masks of democracy “innocent until proven guiltyâ€, which is a mask that is pealing off rapidly. At present, many Muslims and non-Muslims are exhibiting double standards, fostered by the mass media. So, they can’t stomach the beheadings of a few hostages done in retaliation but they are ready to tolerate the beheadings, incineration and much more of thousands of Iraqis using high-tech equipments. Even the deliberate torturing to death of prisoners in US custody is somehow appears to be more palatable than beheadings! Footnote: (1)http://www.antiwar.com/orig/croke.php?articleid=3645 Copyright © 2004 by Yamin Zakaria. Published exclusively by Jihad Unspun. All rights are reserved. P.S. despite the rumours on the net, JUS is a genuine site, as far as I can believe. Read their response to the allegations.

That is the nature of sick, individualistic western society. In Islam, we have a clear guidelines as to how to act in a situation of this kind. It has three stages: 1. if you can, act. 2. If you can not act, use verbal warning. 3. if you can not speak, hate it from the heart. That is a common code of conduct for social responsibility. Coincidentally, recently, i was on a bus, where two ladies started to fight. Everyone on that bus, and there were few of us, was watching. Even the guy that accompanied one of the ladies was watching. Moi, being a Maali and a Muslim, I jumped to stop more unnecessary harm, before I got there, the guy re-acted to my concern, and stopped the fight. Some were laughing and enjoying the fight, whilst others were in the mindset of 'if it aint me, it aint my biz'. So, the short answer is, yes, you should shout to stop the person getting hurt. If as a result, he/she decides to sue you then he/she is simply sick. And this goes deep into the structure of the society - may be they should consider putting some limit into their liability laws. How far are they gonna take responsibility? To the point where an individual can not act in good heart? P.S. I'm so tired and worn out, I hope it makes sense, if not sorry for rubbishing your thread, lady.

^^Me? Worked up!!? When did stating the fact is labeled as 'worked up'? Then again, it is wild, wild world! I'm out.

Actually, it was 7,000 words for ladies and 2,000 words for the men per day. It has nothing to do with men not understanding women. You've distorted the facts to suit your own conclusion. macsalaama.