Is she responsible if others keep focusing on her dress? or is it shared responsibility?

^^ I think that is trivialising the concept of niqaab. Ngonge You have a point there. My only contention is the distance this discussion could go. Where will it stop? Many muslim countries are also taking this position in order to make their western masters happy. The actual niqab wont cause fitnah, but the discussion itself will. But since stifling the debate isnt clever, one is hoping for the best.

India eunuchs turn tax collectors Tax authorities in one Indian state are attempting to persuade debtors to paying their bills - by serenading them with a delegation of singing eunuchs. Eunuchs are feared and reviled in many parts of India, where some believe they have supernatural powers. Often unable to gain regular employment, the eunuchs have become successful at persuading people to part with their cash. The eunuchs will get a commission of 4% of any taxes collected. In Bihar's capital, Patna, officials felt deploying the eunuchs was the only way to prompt people to pay up. We are confident that their reputation and persuasive skills will come in handy Bharat Sharma Patna official "We are collecting taxes for the municipal corporation, collecting money from those who have not paid their taxes for years," said Saira, one of the eunuchs on the streets of Patna. "Tax payment is necessary. When the corporation won't have any money how will they look after the people?" Accompanied by police officers, the eunuchs approached shopkeepers and large defaulters on their first foray into tax collection. "Pay the tax, pay the Patna Municipal Corporation tax," the eunuchs sang as they approached Ram Sagar Singh, who owed 100,000 rupees (£1,180), the AFP news agency reported. Mortified by the commotion, Mr Singh reportedly agreed to pay up within a week. The eunuchs collected about 400,000 rupees on their first day of work, authorities said, sharing 16,000 rupees (£188) amongst themselves. Bharat Sharma, a revenue officer, told the Associated Press agency he was pleased with the eunuchs' work. "We are confident that their reputation and persuasive skills will come in handy," he said. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/6134032.stm -------------- "Mortified by the commotion, Mr Singh reportedly agreed to pay up within a week. " :

Originally posted by Caano Geel: Cambarro Again, the point is not we are against her doing it, but: 1. She cant say this is for religion, it is more than requested by faith, therefore an option. And other people also have options. Niqab has a place in Islam, since the Prophet's wives were required to wear them. In today's context, many women attempt to emulate the best of women to bring themselves closer to God. All the power to them. Nevertheless why do you assume that a religion teaching would suddenly matter to these people (those who object the niqab)? It is matter of principle. Regardless of what is being said here, there is ongiong battle against Islam. This wont stop here. Next will be Hijab and who knows, perhaps there will be a law against prayers. Now it is time to make stand. We are citizen of the country and as such, we will voice our concerns and protest. Yes people do have options, but when Tony Blair and Jack Straw have their say, then it becomes a problem. Instead of harping on that the niqab will damage community relations, what do you think these comments would do? Do yo know how many women were attacked since this unhelpful debate? It is not like we suddenly have a flux of niqabis. Niqab involves a lot of commitment and for them it’s a really meaningful expression of Islam and they have the courage to do that. It takes a lot guts and courage to be able to go out in that attire. I say good luck to them and I wish i had the courage. Originally posted by Caano Geel: 2.We'll support her right to wear what ever she likes and it seems that the secular court thinks so too. I see everything but support for the niqabi sisters. This country prides itself for its values. Now they are all trampling on it now that muslims decide to stand up for their rights. Originally posted by Caano Geel: 3. On the liberal front, now from your posts, i wouldn't disgrace you by putting you in that camp. But you seem to arguing for that front. So if your willing to support Ms Mughal's rights to wear what she pleases, would be so willing to graciously extend you blessing to all other women's rights to do the same. You know..I would. From religious point of view, It wouldnt be appropriate to to force someone. Originally posted by Caano Geel: 4. Anti Muslim barrage -- its getting stronger and stronger, but the temporary suspension in function of the "common sense" gland in many loud Muslims seems to be feeding it. So please be as willing to lay criticism. This reminds me of Germany 1930s when Jews were vilified in the newspapers on a daily basis till the tide turned against them. We are on the same path. Shame you cant see it. There isnt a day that muslims are harangued. What is the debate really about? Is it about the veil or is this another opportunity to degrade Muslims again. Originally posted by Caano Geel: - Anyhow it all just seems ineffectual, its more like what i would expect from a 16 yr-old rebelling and sending two fingers up at the establishment, not an attempt to further the interests of Muslims. It shows that you have never spoken to a niqabi women. Women find comfort and solace in it. It's an expression of their identity, I don't think they do it to appear unreadable or invite suspicion. Nor do i think that they rebelling against the establishement. Once again, it is the establishmnt showing their hypocrisy.

Originally posted by Naxar Nugaaleed: As for the courts, passports will not make a difference. If the government wants to do so, they will simply ask neighboring countries, spaicaly our second capital nairobi, to not give these people visas or even arrist them. There also more and possible means of stopping them, navel blackade, no-fly zones, check pionts, communication cut off, stoping money wiring. Sense, some of these people are on the un's terrorist list, it would be easy force other countries to comply with this isolation of extremist. Salaam Not necessarily. It is not in the neighbour countries best interest to cut off the courts (Mogadishu in essense). Trade is two way street. Other neighbouring countries also benefit from the quality of goods Somalia provides. For instance,according to Washington Post, Kenya exports about $250 million of khat annually. beating out tea exports as one of the county's most lucrative exports, according to the Kenyan government. Dozens of flights leave Nairobi's two major airports every day, transporting burlap sacks filled with khat to Somalia in a trade that is worth about $300,000 a day, according to Kenya's National Agency for the Campaign Against Drug Abuse. Then there is the coal trade and rawhide and among other products. Many countries are taking advantage of the lack of central functioning govt. No i dont think other countries CAN afford to isolate Mogadishu and Court-controlled areas. I was wondering whether this new passport would be only issued in Baydhabo and no other city? If so, how will Planders get their new passports? Would they have to go to Baidoa? If that is the case, what is to stop people from mogadishu getting theirs?

Salaam Aaliyah How are you? I hear someone was looking for you at the chatroom It is always nice to dress conservatively whilst looking professional. I feel so proud when i see a sister wearing her hijab and dressed accroding to her deen. It brings warmth to my heart.

with a little hijab and trousers/skirt. Just dont wear the above dresses. They are evening dresses..it is not appropriate for a graduation. In fact not appropriate for a muslimah at all.

Somali women back govt 10/11/2006 11:53 - (SA) Salad Duhul Mogadishu - Hundreds of Somali women took to the streets on Friday to express their support for the weak transitional government, urging the international community not to neglect the administration challenged by a powerful Islamic movement. The peaceful rally, organised by female members of the transitional parliament, was held in Baidoa, the only city controlled by Somalia's internationally backed government. Khadija Mohammed Diriye, a member of the Somali parliament, said: "We call on the world to fully support the transitional government until it stands on its own feet, because that will serve the interest of women in the country." She spoke to about 500 white-clad demonstrators, who were chanting "success for the government". Seventy militiamen defected from the transitional government and joined the Council for Islamic Courts on Thursday. Islamic judge Mohamed Ibrahim Bilal said the men were sent to Mogadishu to be incorporated into the Islamic courts militia. 'We thank Ethiopia for support' General Ismail Qasim Naji, chief of staff of the government army, confirmed the defection, saying the men refused to attend a formal training. Ethiopian military advisers had been training militiamen to become a new national army. Diriye said Ethiopia's assistance was welcome. She said: "We thank neighbouring countries for the support they render to our government, especially we thank Ethiopia." Qamar Adan Ali, chairperson of the Human Rights Commission of the Somali parliament, said: "The world has to heed our call and not turn a blind eye to our suffering." One of the top leaders in the Islamic courts, Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed, said early on Friday that the United States mistakenly thought the Islamic courts harboured terrorists. The Islamic courts had demanded that Ethiopian troops leave the country before they would participate in peace talks and Ahmed said the US could help the peace process. He said the US "can pressure the Ethiopian government to stop its interference in Somalia's affairs. This could pave the way for success in the ... peace talks". http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2028438,00.html _______________________ Appealing to the 'international community''s sense of chivalry. The usage of the usual stick to beat Islam with.

I find bit hypocritical when the very people who champion the freedom of expression and the right to choose suddenly are up in arms because a lady chose to wear a niqab. Very so authoritarian. The fact they hide behind the lack of integration claptrap is quite laughable. This 'cant hear ya' excuse doesnt wash with me. I know many niqabi sisters and i have no trouble hearing them. What people wear is no no real importance. We are in a supposedly free society. People can wear what they like as long as they don't infringe on safety requirements (ie going through passport control) and people can either like or dislike what people wear. Why has this been blown out of all proportion by the media. Yet another anti Muslim headline in as many weeks. In reality the number of women who completely cover up are tiny. If a Muslim GP in the Midlands tells his local female patients to cover up their goodies when visiting him there will be an uproar. Many people tell us that they respect liberty and thye don't want to challenge freedom of expression. So why are we having this conversation? Critise or disagree all you like but defend the rights for the muslim women to wear what she likes (Voltaire style)..Isnt this the oft-repeated statement we hear in this society? Look deep into diversity and different cultures in the UK, how many styles and dresses will you find not in conformity with your "rationale." Should we then introduce a unique style for all? The fact is the West which takes such pride in "freedom of expression" for all, now seems to be repenting and losing its "tolerance." Some people in the West think they have the right to do everything but are not prepared to see others enjoying the same free will.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Life? How lucky you are. Some of us lead double, triple and quadruple lifes. So many lifes that we end up confusing ourselves. Methinks you dost protest too much. Grow up! I guess it is bit too much of a ask that one maintains a modicum of civility. I have had just about enough emotive language as i can take from you. Good day

^^^ joke yeah?

^^ no you didnt! The Good: You just found out that you have a grown up adult for a daughter (sperm from the bank). She knocks your door.

The bad: Seeing the neigbour being over friendly towards to your wife. Helping out when you were out in the wilderness.

Please dont stretch your mental capability too hard by wondering. We lead life away from the boards you know.. I am begining to learn that you dont do civil debate. "Why are Atheists and secularists Satan personified? And who do you think has the upper hand in the cosmic battle between Good and Evil?" One who doesnt see Force behind why we humans find ourselves here is ultimately bound only by his wants. With no imperative beyond the biological, a true atheist, pressed hard enough by circumstances toward unethical or immoral behavior, cannot feel compelled to resist. Why should he? Atheism can not provide a compelling argument at the concepts of ethics and morality themselves. To a true atheist, there can be no more ultimate meaning to good and bad actions than to good or bad weather. Besides where is good without God?

You know Sophist, some are unable to engage in discussion or debate without acrimony and belittling comments.

Great acheivements here. Maashallah. I hope (inshallah) they are just as dedicated to their deen.

The Bad: Then you found out that there was nothing fake about the shiekhs and that money were going to be used to feed the poor and orphans. It doesnt end there...The US puts you on their terror list for the intention of sending money to the courts and you are wanted.

The bad: You find out that it belonged to Hitler

Just to make it clear, One does not find any traditions that show the Prophet as an aggressive or coercive husband. Similarly, behavior involving coercion and force goes against the philosophy of mutual satisfaction outlined in the Qur'an and against the hadith which states that the best among Muslims are those who are best towards their wives (Riyadh-us-Salaheen, No. 278). Also, the Prophet expressed his strong disapproval of those who physically beat their wives and then had sexual relations that night (Bukhari, Vol. 7, No. 132, Vol.9, 81-82; see also Riyadh us-Salaheen, No. 274). It is just that i am against the concept of refusing your husband/wife (if they insist), cos you dont feel like it.

I cant imagine rape coming into the equation if she cant oblige one night. Having said this, a wife or husband shouldnt refuse each other, even if they are not in the mood. Our religion stresses the importance of mutual sexual satisfaction between marriage partners. Within marriage women and men will be able to enjoy a fulfilling sexual relationship that is each person's right. But you are right. Forcing shouldnt come into a loving relationship. The porphet (saw) said "Let none of you come upon his wife like an animal, let there be an emissary between them." When asked what is the emissary, he replied, "The kiss and sweet words." In another hadith, the Prophet points out that one of the deficiencies of a man is that "he should approach his wife and have sexual contact with her before exchanging words and caresses, consequently, he sleeps with her and fulfills his needs before she fulfills hers." But muslim women cant refuse her husband on the ground 'i dont feel like it honey'. This is according to prophetic traditions : "When a man sends for his wife for the satisfaction of his need, she should go to him even if she may be occupied in baking bread." (No. 284) Similarly, Muslim women are advised not to fast without the permission of their husbands since fasting would interfere with sexual relations (Dawud) We cant pick and choose.

^^ what an imagination! Good: You graduated with first class honours in travel and tourism

If she doesnt want him, why stay in that marriage? By the way, the man cant say no either. It is a ground for divorce.

Actually when the author of the article (post1) was asked the purpose of that artcle, here is what she said: "The point of the article is not to condemn secularism. The point is to historicise secularism and highlight its complexity and diversity. All I am saying is that secularism can be closed, intolerant and exclusionist, just as it can be open, humane and tolerant. The same applies to religion. It can be terrifyingly destructive just as it can be inclusive and tolerant. What annoys is the tendency to simplify socio-political phenomena, and to read everything through the ;ens of a set of ready made arguments, that equate all secularism with democracy, openness, pluralism and tolerance. I don't feel we are sufficiently aware of the dangers associated with certain forms of secularism. I know that in Europe the notion of tolerance and religious freedom emerged within the conext of secularisation in the modern era. I am certainly not opposing secularism per se -if any such thing exists. The title, which I had chosen for the article was "secularism's arrogant face" and conveys this point better. What I am opposed to is the arrogant and dogmatic expressions of secularism, which I fear are on the rise in northern Europe, and manifest themseves most worryingly against religious minorities. I am against the tyranny of secularism, just as I am firmly opposed to the tyranny of religion, whatever name it may take." http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/soumaya_ghannoushi_/2006/10/secularisms_arrogant_face.html#comment-276646 I agree with her, and i am sure you guys are too. Whether be secularism or religion, it is open to abuse.

Originally posted by J B: Very weird points Cambarro , Thank you Originally posted by J B: And i'll stay forthright enough to argue that it still is the ONLY threat to tolerance and coexistence. To strengthen that notion ,i'd say, religious people don't only Jostle to claim having monopoly on the one and only right path to their version of heaven by beliving in the one and only true God (allah) , but they're busy pouring all other human beeings, religious and non-religious alike in their version of hell . We are led to believe that secularism promote the concept of "live and let live" while i believe that it has an authoritarian kick that has little tolerance because an ideologue has little need for tolerance when she knows she's right and everyone else is wrong. You dont think this trait is exclusive to religious folks, do you? One could accuse the non-religious to be arrogant, belligerent, didactic, and sanctomonious. Therefore in my opinion the non-religious is a lot alike the religious. They bot like taking the moral high groung (it is often that you hear, killing is wrong in any circumstance etc) Originally posted by J B: Sister Cara has nicely wrapped it for you there , Every religion ends up in the hell version of all other religions. I am not disagreeing with you and Cara there. Originally posted by J B: That only few if any religions show respect and willigness to co-exist peacefully with other belif systems is a fact you have to deal with, every friday you pray for the destruction of the non-Moslims wishing them all the bad things one can think of,Judaism destroys You after friday prayers preparing itself for the Sabath ,Christianity repeats same scenario preparing itself for the sunday mass, The Hindu laughs at you all, on his way to take a devine dip in that holy river, etc etc ,that, dear Cambarro is a Fact . And how are atheist diffferent? Lemme tell you what i often hear from them:- "Atheism is a strong position to take and many people don't react kindly to strong opinions, mainly because they've never evaluated their own beliefs like so many atheists and agnostics have." Here is another gem: "With religion, ethics are decisions made for you and the reasoning on how they got there is either non-existant or revealed through some kind of hocus-pocus communion/prophesy/divination." Another beauty: "While the religious approach to knowledge is direct communion with a diety, complete subjectivity, giving in blindly to authority. Religion is at best a form of mass delusion, and at worst mass psychosis" Yup..real tolerance there. Now where do i sign up? Fact is, they are no different to any religious folk. Originally posted by J B: That, dear Cambarro is a Fact . A fact JB? What kind of masjids/churches/snygouges have you been to? If you have been to any? Nothing like you posted above goes on there. Of course you will find your odd over-zealous fanatics but they are minority. Originally posted by J B: In reality , religious people do exhaust their Gods with prayers, prayers that are not answered for a reason or another , i'll let you explain to us weather your God can't answer your prayers becouse (s)he is not really there or weather something is wrong with your prayers. and please support your claims rather than simply insisting that those who don’t agree with you are bigots. . After religious lesson now JB? Perhaps we should start another thread in the Islam section. There is nothing God CANT do. This is common misconception atheist have. They are like petulant child who couldnt get their own way and as a result, they end up apostating. In their case, religion would take away from their self-worship. Originally posted by J B: Secularism is a movement that serves to differentiate the modern times from the Middle Ages,. What is new that secularism brought into the modern world? What didnt we have before that we got now? I am not one who sees 'us religious people' as good and all our evils as good, and they as bad and all their vitues as evil, but I can see when a destructive way of life being promoted globally creates destruction and no amount of flowery language can hide it. Originally posted by J B: To claim that Secularism is a belif i.e a religion is patently missleading, religion (always) worships a Deity, it has rituals , religion turns to supernatural powers for help , Secularism lacks all those. it was funny though to see for once the people of faith acting as faithless. . In order to have a belief, it neednt be coupled with rituals. Atheist secularists do worship their desire and nafs. They believe (yes believe) that they only hold logical reason and rationality (whilst religious folks believe that they solely have the truth..see we aint so different after all). That is their hogaamiye. Make no mistake. This secular person will even start to tell others that their religion and sacred Way is wrong because this materialistic man has completely been blinded by his own ego. Originally posted by J B: With a belif in such a stance you're more or less demanding to be superior to all others and you've your God to thank that for. Once again, this superiority complex is not exclusive to religious people only. The secularists' notion of tolerance is nihilistic as they will only tolerate their own ways, all other ways they are intolerant of. It would be an ideal if we were all free of prejudice and agreed that no worldview has a monopoly on truth and reason, but we know better

I saw it. Regretted it ever sense. It's not clever or insightfully funny and doesn't make any comic parodies of things that prompt you to think ....it's just a VERY silly film with a man doing things so extreme and hardcore that your inherent sense of disgust barely vents itself in to laughter. Nothing to write home about really. That piece of overhyped, over-exposed clown doesnt make me laugh. I would advise anyone who hates toilet humour i.e yucky, cynical and overly reliant on shock value humour with constant references to sex and stuff, aviod it. It doesn't really take the piss out of Kazakhs - it tends to mock Americans and their imbecilic jingoism (especailly the part in the rodeo where he triumphs about the Iraq war and how he wishes Bush would drink the blood of Iraqi children - all to the cheers of the American crowd).