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

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

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

General Duke, By anychance are you reer puntland? I don't read most of your posts so I am in the dark.

^^^ "Waar yaa maxaa iguu mudday" Funny Amazing story walahi!

Now does she have the rights to make political statement, yes, most definetly. Does she have the right to stick a finger up at the establishement, again yes and i will support her for it with all my heart. But, will i want her arguing my case behind her cloth, I'm sorry but the answer is no. Further, her actions are full of contradictions, first, if she's going to such lengths to protect her modestly against men, why engade in a profession that will expect her to constantly engage with men, and at that, men that arnt muslims. Now that does not mean dont get a job, it means get a job that minimises your risks. But hightening your risks of engadement, then arguing, you have a right to withdraw from the social etiquites that govern interactions in the profession she's chosen, that is just plain hypocrycy. I agree that the sister's actions and profession contradict her sentiments. Its a case of mixed intentions but then again, don't we all have mixed intentions. Its rare to a find souls with clear and pure intentions. Inshallah, May Allah preserve her Iman, increase her Sabr/Patience and Perserverance in these trying times for her. May Allah reward her in this dunya and Akhirah. Although I may disagree with the sister's Methodology but her Niyah though mixed at times, is inshallah good. This is reflected in what has transpired as a result of this. Niqaabis have it hard and we shouldn't be hard on them for their heart is in the right place, inshallah. Fi Amanillah

^^^ Ngonge, How do you find so much time to ramble on and on-so masterfully! The greatest achievement of the ego is to make virtue unattractive. True. Sophist, I see now that you are becoming a fan of Murad's Contentions. Me thinks that it would sound more eloquent in the arabic language.

There are several churches, a mosque, a Sikh temple and a synagogue within a two-mile radius of me right now. I'm unlikely to go to any of them, but most of my neighbors are affiliated with one or the other. It very delusional to say that you can have a church, mosque and a temple on the same street and still have those religions flourish. If I tell you that everyone can build what they want, then where is the value in my land, building, organization etc.? If Joe Tszu can erect a buddist temple right next to a syngogue, then how can that syngogue have its 'own community'? You are boxing in all these religions and making them all to be the same-INFERIOR in the eyes of the Secular state. The Churches are only visited on Sundays and maybe Wednesdays, but Godforbid it's church members created a community around it and a school and a community centre and their market etc. (Soundls Cultish-right!) Then they would be deemed as a threat b/c its no longer a Sunday thing but a 'Way of life' and more importantly it becomes an ALTERNATIVE to Secularism and its worldview. Religion becomes something alive and viable and that would make it anthetical to secularism. Are you catching the points? Religion is not attractive when it is belittled and truncated to just the 'church' or 'home'. There are loads of churches, masajids and temples around but on any given day, there are more people in line at the market then at any religious place.

Truthfully speaking and this might crush some of your illusions, but there is no SINGLE UNIFORMLY AGREED UPON system of Islamic Governance. The Rasul (sallahu caliyhe wasilm) did not draw out an Islamic Governance Oragnization chart. Neither did He (sallahu caliyhe wasilm) lay out in plain and simple language to us. It is open to interpretation and much tafruq/disaccord, seperation; has arisen as a result of this and most likely won't stop anytime soon. The Ibn Taymmis believer in one form of Islamic governance i.e. any ruler can rule as long as they implement the Shariah. The Mahdists believer that only One Khalifah can rule and that is Imam Mahdi. The Ithnasharis believer that we just sit around and wait for the Imam Mahdi too, except for Khommmeni. Others believe that the Ulama should Rule. So it is an system of Governance that is dynamic and flexible. What is clear is what the governing principles should be i.e. the SUBSTANCE Meaning Quran, Sunnah, Shariah.

You see, my contention is that morality is not something exclusive to me, you or the next-door Jew. Goodness, ethics and morals can be found anywhere and amongst any people. Morality existed before Islam and the faith (as the prophet pbuh) told us came to complement these. Goodness is not found anywhere and to say that cheapens it. It devalues it. Its like saying anyone can get a PH.D. While then what is the value of a PH.D. if everyone can get one. Morality is inextricabley tied to Revelation. For how else would we know what is Sin? What is Good and What is bad? If you take Revelation out of the picture, then what you are describing is Moral Relativism. Wherein Morality is something relative to someone's understanding or societal taboos and values. What is Good today can become defined as Evil tomorrow and this is decided by the Individual or the social collective. How can we guarantee that the same problems that are damaging democracy will not raise their ugly heads in an Islamic state? What is there to stop an Islamic ruler (are we talking Khalifa here by the way?) from abusing his powers? What will stop his chosen ministers, civil servants and governors from abusing their powers? Shariah and the Ulema-those are the guidlines and the Policy Makers and we are to abide by them in dar-al-islam. Those are the elements that keep rulers in check. There is no perfect Imam/Khalifah and no perfect dar-al-islam (save in the time of the RAsul (sallahu calihye wasilm).

You know, I think the problem with secularism, as far as the religious are concerned, is not so much that religions are given short-shrift as that religions are simply not given enough attention. Nothing quite makes a believer smugly fervent as having the perception that they are under-seige by the state. But people just don't care what you believe as long as you are not going to burn them at the stake, tear out their still-beating hearts and offer them to your god to appease him for another year, make them pay a special tax or wear special clothing, lay claim to their possessions, etc. And that bothers those who like to trumpet their religious convictions and foist them onto others. Secularism undermines religion and secular liberalism in particular. It gives the grandure illusion that religious equillibrium is attainable. Aslong ofcourse, that people practice religion in their homes and churches. Religion is then personalized and does not become a Way of Life. You don't attain religiousity by only going to church on sunday and observing lent. Religion is a living thing that needs its own territory and to claim its superiority over other things. That is part and parcel of the wisdom of God and his creation; to have multiple competing views but are also complimentary and hierarchic. What Secularity does is say that Secularism is at the Apex and that Religion is at the bottom of the pyramid of society. Religion is seen as unpragmatic because it does not work at creating a Utopia on earth. It does not solve world hunger or increase the employment rate or help people get jobs etc. It works on a set of different principles which are rooted in the Divine and the Revelation. Whhere as the former-Secularism, works on the premise that Revelation can't guide man. But then the question would be-towards what purpose-Attaining Heaven on Earth or preparing us for Heaven, where we belong ?

Salamun Calikyum ya muslimeen, It will not tolerate a competing worldview, especially one based on religion, because it considers faith assertions to be per se illegitimate for public policy. Spot on.... They imagine that their views are based on 'facts' which can be established by evidence and proof, they hardly ever question their own methodologies if they do, only superficially. And to cap it all they have this ridiculous attept at presenting themselves as the 'most knowing', most skeptical about religions', and as if they ask the most critical and relevant questions of religions'. Evidence is emphasised strongly but we first have to establish that their way of finding and defining evidence (methodology), is actually free from any beliefs and assumptions and is totally 'objective', however we find that their whole methodology is subjective and only given authority on account of the beliefs I posted above. Its like they set up the framework for what is TRUTH? For what is RIGHT? All else must fall under their scientific framework and metrics. Ignoring all else and its validity. Science has a role and religion has a role, both can co-exists if they remain within their bounderies and people know the limitations. It has a role in religion in so far that it does not deny revelation. For that would be Scientism which in of itself has come to replace Religion and Revelation among the academics. The average citizen can't comprehend these things and so follows what is dictated to them. i.e. Secularism brings world peace, universal rights etc. Also, one must dominate the other. This is natural and how the world works. No two things are equal (Which is what secularity propogates and religion negates this modern supersitition). if you slice a cake in a particular way, you end up with a different shaped cake...the act of slicing determenes what is found. Science is like the slicing....it finds certain shapes of cake, calls them 'true' or 'false' and constructs 'knowledge in this way....the point being the actual method (slicing) creates the truth/false and there is no way of by-passing this by using science (the same slicing method). The question is then what instrument should be used to 'slice the cake'? what is the aim of slicing the cake? (The Cake representing Knowledge) Modern researchers and scientists are never neutral and are heavily based. Innocence is gone in the toddler years and from then on we begin to formulate knowledge. This is done by way of the environment and the society that we live in. So to claim total unbiased objectivity when discussing a subject matter or formulating a hypothesis or a research paper is - ludacirous. Scientists stick their oar in on what kids are taught and what to include the school curriculum. Very true... Fi Amanillah

Originally posted by fat boy: But back to the topic, I simply asked the question to seek clarification. So, do I take it form you response nur that if one commits such felonies that he will not be pardoned as he preforms the haj carrying those intentions ?

Why is it scary for all? Any economists in here....

The English channel will have broadcast centres in Doha, Kuala Lumpur, London and Washington DC. How can you have offices in London and Washington D.C., yet claim to represent a pro-arab point of view? Lobbists will lobby regulatory boards to fine and maybe even close down the station, if anti-western liberal commentaries and newcasts are made by this sister station. These English speaking and english bred newscasters will inevitabley carry their own worlview which is laced with pro-liberal democractic idealism. It was reported that editors from both channels were trying to come up with a common mission statement and a code of conduct which included an agreement on the use of terms such as "martyrs", "terrorism" and "resistance".

Originally posted by Cambarro: "Activism will only succeed when it remembers that a misplaced rigorism is less dangerous than an improper liberalism." ---Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad. Cambaroo, I don't catch the naunces of the quote's content. What do you take from it? From what I can deduct, it encourages action and that the aim here is on the Intention (pertaining to misplace rigorism). Where as the latter, the intention is often skewed and tainted and God is altogether out of the picture.

I was listening to the somaliradio via internet and how much Somalilanders fear the UIC and it got me thinking about this post. This post deals with how muslims 'think' It seems to me that, today, with the exception of simple peasants and the few Bedus who still roam freely in the desert, all Muslims live "in the West." They live in the modern world, and that means a world built by the West from bricks fired in the factories of Western culture. Our wishful thinkers of whom we have, I believe, all too many, do not like to admit this. They try to make a sharp distinction between modernization and westernization, and this leads them to the claim — which seems to me absurd — that if the Muslims had not fallen asleep and "fallen behind" over many centuries, they would have constructed a world almost identical to the one that now surrounds us; the same worldly dynamism, the same science, the same technology. When we think of a social construct for Somalia, aren't our ideas heavily influenced by 'westerner ideals' such as consitutionialism; liberal freedoms i.e. all is equal;capitalist ventures etc...?

Talk about lost in translation. L.G. in this case stands for a particular SOL nomad. Anyways, so Bushra/Tjwuania and McFarah are collabarating on a duet? Is that right.... Libaax, By anychance can we put a 'LOCK' on people's names. I can't keep up with the multiple name changes by some nomads. It is a little frustrating.

Where's Castro by the way? RC/D.A./O.P. etc., are you by any chance related to L.G.?

The cleric is being vilified by, amongst others, many of his fellow Muslims, saaxib. The problem here is not one of comparing him to Western politicians, it’s the perception that many of his followers and fellows had (have) about his opinions of women. Have his words been misinterpreted? The question is if that perception is in line with democratic liberal values. If not, is what he said correct, acceptable and fair on women? What yardstick is being used to assess: What is CORRECT? What is ACCEPTABLE? What is FAIR ON WOMEN ? If not, and since he’s a preacher not a politician, how can he in any way, shape or form be compared to this politician you speak of? The comparison and contrast is there, showing a a biased and differential treatment towards religious personalities versus affluent and wealthy political figures.

Originally posted by Northerner: Why are all the contraversial Imams/Sheiks/Muftis all Egyptian???? Why do we not have Imams who are PR savy, who can speak good English and articulate their points in such a way that attracts the right attention (or even be able to spin bad publicity)? What do you mean by PR savy? The term iteslf is an oxymoron. If you are really PR savy, you would not put yourself in the public lime light because there are always critics in the crowds. Your messages would most likely be twisted and warped. I have recently noticed a trend wherein the 'media conglomerates' hand pick convert muslims and in particular caucasian converts. These caucasian converts are then ascended to the status of 'good muslim personalities'. These are the Hamza Yusufs, the Ingrid Mattesons etc. They are a face of what is called 'accepted and mainstream islam'.

^ ^Huh? Nonsense really. Ok, lets Reverse your ridiculous theory, what if an upper-class causation man was Muslim and has uttered this word? Btw, if your local Muslim cleric calls a woman a " b!tch" he is no member of the Muslim clergy, he is dayuus. The key variable is Religion-Muslim. Once a person converts to Islam, his social status changes and they can no longer be viewed as being an 'Upperclass caucasian man'

Originally posted by Naden: quote:Originally posted by SOO MAAL: I cannot believe how some westernized people arguing without supporting evidence that west respects more women then Islam, or west protects human rights!!! You're comparing a lovers' spat to a religious figure's words. What exactly is it that you're defending? The right to demean women and just who beats whom in comparing them to dogs or left over cat food. Seriously! :rolleyes: The parallels are there to show that a two-tier system is being utilized in liberal society. A different grading grid is used for liberal-valued people. Especially when compared to any noun (person,place,thing) that makes a mere mention or association with traditional religion. It is deemed acceptable for an upperclass caucasian man to call a women a '*****' especially when she is not liked by the media. However, Godforbid a muslim cleric says the same thing and he is villified for it.

Mabrook walaal! Looks like you have been having a good week-end of ramadan, eid and graduation on the same week.

Seeker and the shiekh have proven there theorems and have been proven by others through Regression analysis. To say that the certain events reflect the apocalyptic age is totally different then dropping a Red Herring and saying that you'll develop wings by Monday. There is a definite attribution bias on your part.