Since when did religion become something to tuck away in the deepest part of your closet and only bring out during communal celeberations e.g. Eid.?

*Blessed;713888 wrote: Say what you like, but this lady does not lack talent! Idil's Work What you have done with that quote is under mine Yourself (as a Muslimah) and the worth of muslim women who take care of their families and do no envy the modern women's lifestyle. It is sad to see that you value and call her a women with "talent" when really she was a jahilla. All that talent amounts to Zero when Divine Law is trangressed. Ya muqalibal quulub, thaabit quulubina caala deenak!

LayZie G.;714427 wrote: Miskiin wrote the following: According to Miskiin, Muslim men and Muslim women are forbidden from marriage. In the above quote, Miskiin clearly states, marriage between Muslim men and women is not permissible. Miskiin appears to be saying that he is the authority for everything Islam. In other thread, he stated that its Waajib for women to wear niqab. I'm shocked at the above quote because I didnt believe when some nomads warned me about him and said he was certifiable until I read the above quote. Its good thing miskiin asked for Allah's forgiveness, may your sins be washed for misrepresenting Islam.... my advise is to go back to your deen and strengthen your imaam. You are not fit to speak about delicate issues that deal with the faith. yours truly, and forever, LayZie G. For some strange reason, all I can remember are the stories of Abdullah ibn Ubayy and his people.

{ وَلاَ تَنْكِحُواْ ٱلْمُشْرِكَاتِ حَتَّىٰ يُؤْمِنَّ وَلأَمَةٌ مُّؤْمِنَةٌ خَيْرٌ مِّن مُّشْرِكَةٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَتْكُمْ وَلاَ تُنْكِحُواْ ٱلْمُشِرِكِينَ حَتَّىٰ يُؤْمِنُواْ وَلَعَبْدٌ مُّؤْمِنٌ خَيْرٌ مِّن مُّشْرِكٍ وَلَوْ أَعْجَبَكُمْ أُوْلَـٰئِكَ يَدْعُونَ إِلَى ٱلنَّارِ وَٱللَّهُ يَدْعُوۤاْ إِلَى ٱلْجَنَّةِ وَٱلْمَغْفِرَةِ بِإِذْنِهِ وَيُبَيِّنُ آيَاتِهِ لِلنَّاسِ لَعَلَّهُمْ يَتَذَكَّرُونَ } (Wed not idolatresses). This was revealed about Marthad Ibn Abi Marthad Al-Ghanawi who wanted to marry an idolatress woman by the name of 'Inaq. Allah prohibited such marriage, saying: do not marry idolatresses women (till they believe) in Allah; (for lo! A believing bondwoman) marrying a believing slave woman (is better than an idolatress) who is a free woman (though she pleases you) though you may like her comeliness and beauty; (and give not your daughters in marriage to idolaters till they believe) in Allah, (for lo! A believing slave) Allah says: giving your daughters in marriage to a believing slave (is better than an idolater) is better than your daughter marrying an idolater who is free (though he pleases you) though his body and strength may please you. (These invite unto the Fire) they invite to disbelief and to works that lead to hell, (and Allah inviteth unto the Garden) by means of His divine Oneness, (and unto forgiveness) through repentance (by His grace) by His leave, (and He expoundeth thus His revelations) His commands and prohibitions regarding marriage (to mankind that they may remember) so that they may take admonition and refrain from unlawful marriage Al Baqarah, v. 221 Wa kalimutuAllah xeeya al cuuliya!

Prometheus;713186 wrote: ^ I suppose you think there is no such thing as moral progress ? Alas, the conservative mind is ever ossified. To suggest that humans have made only technological progress in the past 2000 years is flagrant fundamentalism. Obviously, you know more about science than someone who lived a thousand years ago. Do you really think that you know nothing more about ethics and morality than a bronze-age Bedouin? Has our moral knowledge, our moral imagination, not expanded one iota since the golden age when people thought camel urine a panacea? Unlike people who lived in 12th century, we no longer believe in the inherent inferiority of women—we don’t insist that a woman’s testimony is inherently inferior to the testimony of a man. Slavery is a moral stain that can never be whitewashed. Those who defend any form of slavery today—this is true of right-wing Christians and Muslims—are moral monsters. We can forgive, but not embrace, our benighted ancestors’ ethical abominations. Their moral ignorance was no less pronounced than their scientific ignorance. You wouldn’t trust a medieval doctor to perform surgery on you, so why would you trust his moral guidance? Why should a rational person pine for the moral traditions of a primitive people? Does the accumulation of knowledge mean anything to rabid conservatives? I think you're conflating moral progress with moral relativism. Progress does not necessitate relativism. Call it what you want, to the mumin, it is all the same. Progress carries the banner of constant renewal and non preminance. It is a regression and not a progression because it is a spiralling down to nothing. What does the search for another universe do for MAN? What does making a car faster and faster do for MAN except for make more money at the expense of everything (family - longer distances to travel and faster times to travel. So no more communities but rather commuter based neighborhoods. Hence, people seeing their families a handful of times a year. Thats only one aspect of that argument. I could use the argument of the environment too.) There is no premenance in Progress and Moral Relativism. So what was Wrong yesterday can become Right today and this is detected by those who have influence. Why else is democracy so much celeberated by Corporations, by the wealthy and affluent? Remember Obama, he sure hell wasn't a poor black boy and he sure hell didn't raise a billion plus for his campaign from the air. Just look at the people he put in power. From the islamic perspective, Tawhid is everything and the idea of Tawhid, the Unity of God, the Premenance of God is NEVER CHANGING. So therefore, the Shariah based on the Quran and Sunnah and the ijtihads of the Ulama are also NEVER CHANGING. What was Wajib 1400 years ago is still Wajib today.

U can't just make up u'r mind, before even looking at the evidence wich I'm about to present. That is the ailment for jahil. Infact, there are accepted normas today. What is wrong is right and what is right is wrong. Examples are: 1. Sex before marriage 2. Freedom to belief today and tomorrow to not belief. Aka Freedom of Choice 3. Homosexuality - accepted as a social norm and is now acceptable. 4. Hijab and Niqaab - they are choices and not wajib (obligatory). 5. Living with the opposite sex before marriage. Now known as "common law" partnership. It was wrong to do 50 years ago but today it is "right" to do. In 2011, you can't even have a debate with anyone about these topics and this includes "muslims" because these are all altruisms, accepted truths. The Believers are now told that they can't question socially accepted norms. If you do, then you are labelled all kind of names and your name is dragged through the floor. Caajib in deed. SubhanAllah!

Laws, legislations and policies change with the times. The yard stick for any particular law is not whether it stands up to a particular "charter of freedoms" but rather what the current social morals are. 20 years ago, gay marriage was illegal but because homosexuality has become accepted in modern societies, marriages (which was by definition a union between a man and women) were extended to homosexuals. Why? because marriage was scene as a social class and if the gay community was left out of it, then they would, by defaullt, have been discriminated against. Its all relative really. What was illegal 20 years ago e.g. prostitution, is and can be made legal today - if society is to be "progressive" and if legislators interpret legislation with that in mind. With the idea of evolving legal rulings. Hence, why polygamy won't be made legal and any arguments for it is over shadowed by the logical fallacies of Fear (fear for women, fear for children, fear and more fear). The same arguments are used against Niqaab.

Boy, did the cameras make mubarak long skinny and youthful. I luve this drama and how the U.S. keeps changing their tone, every minute. All this has exposed the corruption of Israel and the U.S. It has really embarassed them. This is all covered in al-jazeera, very beautifully. I don't think that the other news medias are doing the same job. Oh it shall be very interesting what the khateebs say in the jummah today in masr. I predict that it will be bloody!!!

Prometheus, I take any thing written from the washington post by someone with the last name Cohen and that is written about Egypt, muslims, gaza and the Shariah - with a grain of salt's weight! It is inadmissable evidence, as the "expert" that El Punto quoted is heavily biased and has alot to gain, in their not being an "islamist" controlled state in Egypt.

Nur, JazakAllah khayrun for your clarification on the term "Jahilliyah". B. Partial: When aspects of Jaahiliyyah is visible i. In a person ( Does not make him Jaahili) ii. In a Society ( Does not sufficiently make it Jaahil) This part is confusing and does not support your other comment of: Now, let us use modern terminology of this Jaahiliyyah Beliefs to simplify for the Facebook and Twitter generation. Let us call it a Worldview, which signifies our perception of the past, present and the future. This world view can be influenced by the revelation, or it can be different than the revealed information, in which case it becomes a JAAHILIYYAH worldview or Dhannal Jaahiliyyah. The Jaahili World view in above verse is based on selfishness " Naftooda ooo qudha ayaa u daran", which leads to the corruption of all other aspects of common interest and social life hence the corruption of the law ( Xukmal Jaahiliyyah) and Loyalty system ) ( Xamiyatul Jaahiliyyah) aka the anger, haughtiness and stubbornness. Naxar, How ironic is that you respond to this thread?

ِAl Maedah Verse 50: Do they then seek the judgment of Jahiliyyah? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who have firm Faith. If only those demo-crazy jean wearing young arabs in Egypt would reflect and those that suppor their cause. SubhanAllah!

It's not some parochial protest for this God or that God. Instead, it is about the universal needs and rights of humans. To eat and shytt and grow richer - is that the universal need of humans. If that is the case, then you cease to be human and are just like the animals - except in the animal kingdom, it is about marking your territory to assert your power. Wait - isn't that a "universal need" too. What makes Humans different from the animals then? Do tell....

For your Lazy: Congressman Keith Ellison Stands with Egyptian Protesters “The Middle East would be a much more powerful and dynamic place if there were less authoritarian regimes, and historically the U.S. has supported all of them,” Ellison said in an interview. “We’re always on the side of “stability” rather than justice. So let’s get on the right side this time.” The Snake moves to the sound of the flute. If it benefits them, they will support you. It is funny how El-useless aka El-Baradei (a certified U.S. puppet) flew in time for the "shows" this week. The Ikhawan are the next in line to goven in Egypt and are a very well established and organized group but the Western Media is completely ignoring their relevance ----hmmmm, I wonder why?

I love Amy Chua's article. The Chinese don't become #1 because of sheer genetics or luck but rather through practice. Practice and reptition breeds confidence and builds memory. A Child or anyone who develops this strong focus and dedication in any discipline be it math or playing the violin, whill inevitably come ahead in life. The role of the parent is critical in becoming not only a coach but in being the railroad that keeps that keeps the train (the child) going and going, at a faster pace then the other trains and thus, reaching the end goal first - which is to be #1.

"There are no Islamic Flags being waved, there are no chants of God is Great. What is going on in Egypt does not have Islamist aspect to it. That is what makes it so different." said the Reporter today. What a statement and all from a non-muslim, white reporter? What is with this "Denim Revolution"? Just a mob of young denim wearers screaming and yelling for what? and guess what folks, this was started in Egypt by the Egyption Middle-class. They are rich enough to have access to computers and facebook and to complain for "demo-crazzzinez". The majority of Egyptians are very poor and can't afford "Denim Jeans". If it ain't about God, then what is all this sweat and tears for - Democracy???

Good! Now if they could only put a ban on dhumaarka and talking forever on cell phones or texting non-stop, then the men's shaaxs and caashos wouldn't get cold.

This just all the work of mobs of denim jean revolutionaries and what started it all - a man burning himself to death because he was frustrated with life and the government. The deen is clear about the fate of such actions! The man dies in self inflicted Fire and will suffer that same fate in the akhira. SubhanAllah! Look at the mobs of people now, all the bloggers and denim jeans revolutionaries. What is there cries for? It is nothing but a futile cry. If there cause was for the deen, it would be different but then again - would the world give the same support (after all who wants the return of beards, hijabs and the whip (chop chop, slash slash - isn't that the imagery that comes to mind with shariah in society) in muslim societies :rolleyes: Caajib!

Autism rates today are at least 10 times higher than they were just a couple of decades ago, Insel says Doesn't this negate your premise - the high rate of autism in the somali community is caused by frequent births in the same families and minimal gaps between each birth in a family.

Could this be the cure against Cancer?

Who is making the argument here and what is the argument that is being made(not as linearly stated by Ngonge unless he is the arguer (although his arguments are usually of the stuff and nonsense kind! On a side note, When Rocky IV, came out, I was in total adoration of the Italian Stallion aka Rocky and grately hated anything remotely resembling his opennent, the Russian boxing perfection. All I can remember is Rocky v. the Russian. I can't remember his name but I definitely remember that he came from the Cold U.S.S.R. aka Soviet Union, home of Lenin and Communism. Now Ngonge, what are you huffing and puffing about old boy (did you catch my example!)

blekko....slash searching....hmmmm why is it the future for internet searches?

You know google has collected billions of data over the years and is primarily a "data search engine". Facebook is primarily a social network and is not structured to become a date search engine. You may be able to find people and companies on facebook but you can not find any and all topics. I will concede to this - Facebook is becoming the address book for millions of people. The catch phrase nowadays is - whats your facebook name or email?

A quack talks nonesense. Jamal H talks nonesense. Therefore, Jamal H(the writer of the article) is a quack!

Oh he has now pissed off the world's goons and crooks. Very soon,wikileaks will be out of operation and any one that supports or funds might be held accountable and silenced too. This begs the question, can google be ordered to limit searchs on wikileaks? After all it is a U.S. based company. Wikileaks founder charged

The Chilean miners....how come there are still pot bellied ones down there? You would think that after 60+days trapped, that they would lose weight dramatically. SubhanAllah, what an ordeal for them and i dont know who draw the short straws but there are 5 rescuers going down there in the mine.