TOP 20 Countries with the Highest number of Internet Users Only 15.7% of the world's population are internet users. The Top 20 countries make up 79.4% of the world's population-interms of internet usage. What does that mean? Well considering that the TOP 20 countries for Internet usuage do no include any african or middle easter nations (Turkey ain't middle eastern, its a wanna be EU at best), its safe to conclude that there is a correlation between internet usage and the economic prosperity and wealth. That means that the rich, well to do individual who might reside in Pakasitan can type 'danish cartoons' more because they can: a) Afford to buy a computer and internet access b) They are familiar with the english language to read and write, hence either being in a private school once upon a time or studied in North America or Europe. Therefor, Google Trends is misleading and givies off skewed statistics.

Originally posted by Nur: Qalbiga wanaagsan calaamadihiisa waxaa ka mid ah: 1. Camal wanaagsan 2. Calool xumo gaabinta dhniaca diinta 3. Naxariista loo naxariisto uunka Allah 4. Hadal qurxan ( Qowalan sadiidan) 5. Jeceylka Allah ( xasuustiisa oo badan) 6. Neceybka macaasida iyo asbaabteeda 7. illinta indhaha qoysa oo qalbiga qaboojisa 8. Qalbi jileeca ( ka yara jilcan buuraha!) 9. Jeceylka iyo kaalmeynta masaakiinta iyo madluumiinta, kuwa deynka lagu leeyahay, kuwa la liido, kuwa jirran, iwm.) 10. Wanaag lal jeclaado dadka. Waa calamadhaxa luugo aarku mumineenita oo kaa qayb ax qooroxta iyo waanga imaanka. MashaAllah

Originally posted by Castro: Far away killings, embarrassment? Far away killings, embarrassment? Tough choices, eh, good Khayr? Not really, You are using the same metrics of measurements for the two issues. In physical distance, both might be far. However interms of impact on our lives, on our kids, on our families, on our self identity; one is closer then the other. Ayan's campaign can and has impacted on perceptions of somali and muslim people as a whole. She has magnified the sterotypes and gone out of her way to become a spokeperson in the name 'Slandering Islam and Muslims'. She has been on a smere campaign that has been well funded by the Dutch government. Her negative smere campaign has propagated negative sterotypes of muslims and somalis. Just take a look at the Dutch immigration policies along with the rest of the EU. My family and yours are now looked at as FGMers and wife abusers First, then Humans or Somalis etc. How would you feel if at an interview or at work, they asked you if you did FGM to your daughter or if you slap your wife etc... because thats what they see on and hear on T.V., print media and internet. Ayan the Mulheeda is part of that driving force that propagates these views. Do you think that she would have gotten the attention from the media had she been a mother who took care of her kids and aging parents?

Originally posted by WaTerLily: What most of you seem to be missing, the Muslim majority of you that is, is that this woman is an enemy of Islam and an enemy of God. If you are a true believer you would not even be making up excuses for her. The simple fact is, true believers hate those who are against their Lord and are always ready to defend their faith. Now it's almost a problem for you to even say she deserves what she gets or that she is wrong. Nobody is talking of killing her here but even condemning her is suddenly hard. I'm tired of apologetic Muslims and those believers who are always on the verge of doubt. 'Allah will defend his faith', what an excuse to hide behind! MashaAllah, wells said!

Originally posted by STOIC: Thank you all. Thanks Abrar, you are right that we have to pray to Allah to guide us all as we edit our lives. Immediately after you walk out the graduation lawn, the first question everyone asks you is, what is next? Graduate school? Job? Or even marriage plans? For now I have a plan of applying to graduate school this June before I find myself lonely and deserted by the world. I am longing for the sight of Kenyan shores to visit my mom (IA). The only book I will open for now will be the book that will fill my eyes with the sight of the global world . Thats a big accomplishment, so congratulations for making it to the 'Real World'. Hope you keep in touch with your classmates, so that you can network with them. In the 'Real World', it ain't what you know but rather - who you know. In anycase, take some time off and enjoy your time.

Originally posted by Viking: As you say, killing is more serious than lying, and, what you don't need a fatwa for is getting rid of the warlords who are making life a living hell for millions of Somalis. Malik related to me that Safwan ibn Sulaym said, "The Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was asked, 'Can a believer be a coward?' He said, 'Yes.' He was asked, 'Can a believer be a miser?' He replied, 'Yes.' He was asked, 'Can a believer be a liar?' He said, 'No. From Imam Malik's Muwatta Castro, The killings in xamar are not realities for some of us. It might be sad but it is true as we are thousands of miles from that part of the world and are not bombardered with daily gruesome images of those killings. However, with Ayan the Mulheeda, its a different story because she is a symbol of Embarassement to the larger Somali community and has committed the grave sin of making a life out of Mocking our Deen. It is the Deen that unites somalis at the end of the day. Thats what we have most in common and it is our uniting factor. When someone tries to chip away at that and get their 'expense accounts' paid for, as a result of it, it becomes a different story. We then have a right, an obligation as people of this Ummah - to speak on it.

Originally posted by Castro: Farah Blue, thanks for the links atheer. I know you're a man of peace but could you find Ayaan Hirsi Ali and stab her in the chest with a pair of scissors. Also attach a note to her chest that says "I got you now you lyin' b!tch". Then take pictures of her bleeding to death and post them here on SOL. We can then officially celebrate the death of our public enemy number 1. Could you atheer? Thanks. Jimcaale, atheer, in the great scheme of things, specially TODAY, Hirsi Ali ain't shit. It's exactly your reaction and Khayr's that keeps her in the headlines. In actuality, by playing the role of 'SHOCK JOCK', you're giving her the most attention. She is 'yesterday's news' but your 'SHOCK JOCK' antics necessitated a response. In addition, despising these people because they make their living off insulting your family and values, is hardly a wasted emotion and neither a futile excercise. Rather, it is a display of a sense of culture, history and refinement.

I saw a clip today where she held a press conference entitled-The Right to Offend.......needless to say, thats all I could stand to hear. She is scum and made her fame off insulting what I and other muslims VALUE and Cherish. Castro, Saxib, cut out the 'talk show'provado i.e. Why scold the mugger, when you are stealing cable and cheating the government of taxes...etc. You can't make things equivalent. Her insults to Islam and muslims is a more serious crime. Sepreading Corruption is more serious then killing, re: sura Baqrah, the last 1/3 of the sura.

In the real world, the challenges posed by Islam are not only overstated by the Vatican, but are miniscule in comparison to the influence of secularism on the world’s billion or so Catholics. A far greater threat is the secularisation of Catholics in Europe, which is significantly higher than any other continent. Only 21 percent of Europeans say that religion is “very important†to them, according to the European Values Study, conducted in 1999 and 2000 and published two years ago. Sad but true

Originally posted by Brown: WARYAAA or should i say WADHYEEE!! I even had somaliland boxer as my avator and here Y O U is[are] not even mentioned. War dee happy May 18 Nooh err Dee... Ps,Barwaaqo ISNT a L A N D E R,NO? She's a Puntlander, soo maaxa abti Silly faraxs, don't you know its all about Buurco, the rest of SomaliLand has no clue which day of the week it is, on any given day i.e. Sabti iyo arbaacad are the same to them

I think that some people fancy their energy and time in areas which they have little knowledge off and have little patience for. Naden, Why don't you conduct some due diligence on your part and be more apprehensive about your ill contrived, badly timed, quips. ....and quoting OxFam (for attempting to cure worldhunger) or Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP (for the Ethics of Slavery or the Compensation Packages that Slaves should get) won't cut it. :rolleyes:

Sex with slaves and women's rights Answered by Shaykh Gibril Haddad Sex with slaves and women's rights Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuh: The following is a response on the issues of female slaves in Islam in reply to two sets of questions. THE FIRST SET OF QUESTIONS I came across tafseer of the beginning verses of Surat-Al-Mu'minoon (Al-Mawdudi), [The Yusuf Ali translation reads, "who abstain from sex, except with those joined in the marriage bond [spouses], or (the captives) whom their right hands possess,-for (in their case) they are free of blame."] and I was kind of shocked and surprised that he states it is permissible for a man to have sexual intercourse with female slaves in his possession, in addition to his legal wives (v.5-6). Was. Slavery is unlawful (1) in the absence of the Caliph of the Muslims AND (2) unless it results from captives following a lawful war. Even so, there was always the alternative to {let the captives go free, either with or without any ransom} (47:4). Furthermore, the Ottoman Caliphate had declared - long before the US Abolition - that it prohibited slavery in its realm. Further preliminary remarks before addressing the questions: It should be clear that Islam raised the status of slaves higher than that of free men in un-Islamic societies even by modern standards. The author of _The House of Saud_, an American journalist, recounts how the staff and management of the New York Waldorf-Astoria hotel were horrified that King Faysal in an early US visit had not only allowed his black servant into the state dining room but had seated him at his very table - a "white-only" table in a "white-only" room! They had no idea that even slaves in Islam had to be FED and CLOTHED with the same food and clothing as their owner as the Prophet, upon him peace, had stipulated in his "last pilgrimage" speech: "And your slaves! see that you feed them such food as you eat yourselves and dress them with what you yourself wear. And if they commit a mistake which you are not inclined to forgive then sell them, for they are the servants of Allah and are not to be tormented!" In another hadith he said, upon him blessings and peace: "Be kind to slaves as to your own children...and those that say their prayers are your brethren." A contemporary commentator said: "The masters were obliged not to put slaves under hardship; slaves were not to be tortured, abused or treated unjustly. They could marry among themselves - with their master's permission - or with free men or women! They could appear as witnesses and participate with free men in all affairs. Many of them were appointed as governors, commanders of army and administrators. In the eyes of Islam, a pious slave has precedence over an impious free man." Al-Tabataba'i, Tafsir (16:338-358). What ignorant times we live in, in which a nation that used a legally - enforceable concept of "white-only" since its inception and then went on to use it for two centuries, now crusades against Islam and the rest of the world over self-proclaimed civilizational values. Islam restored dignity to slaves and enhanced their social status both by ancient and modern standards. Islam made no distinction between a slave or a free man, all were treated with equality. It was this fact that attracted non-Muslim slaves to Islam in droves. As someone said, it is sad to see that those who never cease to be vociferous in their unjust criticism of Islam remain blind to this principle of equality when even in this age there are countries where laws are made that discriminate against the vast majority of population to keep them in practical servitude. As for the allegations of slavery made by the US and UK against Islamic Sudan they are part of a joint missionary and government rogue propaganda campaign against an Islamic government which has always condemned and actively repressed instances of abuse in inter-tribal warfare, while there has never been anything remotely near a full-fledged slave trade, cf. the Sudan Foundation papers by David Hoile posted in full: http://www.sufo.demon.co.uk/politics.htm What follows concerns the Fiqhi rulings pertaining to the slave period even if the present tense is used. I'm far too ignorant to make judgments about the verse and that hukum taken from it, so I wanted to ask if you could explain the verse, if that opinion is generally accepted and why. Do these verses refer solely to men, or women Believers also? These verses refer to the permissibility of a man for intercourse with his unmarried female slaves without having to marry them. Such an option was not available to women owners of male slaves nor to men owners of married female slaves. Is it in order to fulfill his desires and avoid any unlawful fitna? (this is hard for me to understand, seeing as how taqwa, self-restraint, and other things are so emphasized in Islam) His and her desires, yes, but within certain parameters including rights. This will be detailed insha Allah. However, it seems that intercourse with slaves was probably considered a method of contraceptive sexual enjoyment through coitus interruptus (`azl), since the slave owner could practice `azl without prior permission from his slave mate while he could not do so with his free wife without prior permission from her. And if the contraception intended by this `azl failed and the slave woman still bore a child from her master, her child was automatically freed and obtained a son or daughter's rights including inheritance. In addition, the mother herself could no longer be sold and was freed upon the owner's death. From the slave's perspective, the above scenario could have formed an accepted kind of lawful gamble from which she stood to gain much more than to lose. This could be problematized with the claim that "the cost of freedom is therefore rape" but such is just an inflammatory rephrasing of the truism that the cost of a war captive's life is her imprisonment; emancipation from which is a dramatically enhanced possibility in the above scenario. Consider some more the dynamic of manumission in Islam. It took the French until the 1780's and 1790's through their "Revolution" and "Terror" to finally decide that any slave that steps into French territory automatically becomes free; but Islam had already said, 11 centuries earlier: a free parent's newborn from a slave is free and that newborn inherits from his or her free parent. In addition, Islam gave all slaves the inalienable right to buy themselves out, either on payment of an agreed sum or on completion of service for an agreed period. The legal term for this is mukataba and the slave party to such a written contract was called a mukatab or mukataba. {And those of your slaves that seek a writing (of emancipation), write it for them if you are aware of any goodness in them, and bestow upon them of the wealth of Allah that He has bestowed upon you} (24:33). {Alms are only for the poor and the needy, and those who collect them, and those whose hearts are to be reconciled, and to *free the captives and the debtors,* and for the cause of Allah, and (for) the wayfarers; a duty imposed by Allah. Allah is knower, Wise} (9:60). {Righteous is he who believes in Allah and the Last Day and the angels and the Scripture and the Prophets; and gives his wealth, for love of Him, to kinsfolk and to orphans and the needy and the wayfarer and to those who ask, and to set slaves free} (2:177). Note that the above verses stipulate that when a slave wants emancipation the master not only has to agree to it but is also directed to help the slave from his own wealth and from alms, which includes the public treasury (bayt al-mal), the only provision being the satisfaction that the slave would live a respectable life after earning his or her freedom! In addition, if a non-Muslim slave accepted Islam before their masters, they would become free automatically. If the slave became blind or handicapped he would also become free. In addition to these compulsory ways of emancipation, voluntary emancipation of slaves was declared as the purest form of charity and included providing the freedmen with sufficient means to earn their livelihood respectably. Thus, Islam is the first and only religion that has prescribed liberation of slaves as a virtue and a condition of genuine faith. How is intercourse permissible without a marriage contract binding them? Because the contract in place is that of property which includes the right to sexual enjoyment but excludes the abuses used under all other historical forms of slavery such as mutilation, inhumane labor, or killing as was the rule in Egyptian, Greek, and Roman times, and the cruelest of all forms, unparalleled in human history, the United States Transatlantic slave trade.(*) (*) Incidentally, many scholars estimate that over 20 percent of Africans brought in bondage to both American continents and the Caribbean were Muslim. If the man then later frees the slave-woman, and perhaps she has a child, would the man need to marry her? Is he still liable for child-support? Does he still raise his children as a father? Is the man allowed to do this with slaves that are not Muslim? (if so, under what conditions?) and is this woman entitled to any inheritance from him? I was under the impression that a person can only inherit by either marriage or blood-ties. wouldn't she be considered a "concubine"? Yes, the word concubine literally means bed-mate and applies to any female slave that shares the bed of her master. The man is liable to support any child of his and whatever need of its mother that is related to that liability. He is not obliged to marry her but is definitely held to the responsibilities of a father including inheritability whether the mother is a Muslim or not, her child being Muslim. Nor is she entitled to any inheritance unless he decides to marry her AND she is Muslim. Allah knows best. THE SECOND SET OF QUESTIONS 1- Is slavery allowed in Islam? See the very first answer in this reply. If not then what is the concept about female slaves that the right hand possesses? This phrase has been said in the quraan a few times. Captives in a legitimate defensive war. 2- Why was sex with female slaves allowed? There was no concept that it could or should not be. If a man is married and he has a slave then why is he having sex with her? Sex was part of the benefits to which the slave owner was entitled within the framework of rights already described. I read that the prophet (pbuh) had a male child from his slave (Mariah). why should a married man have sex with a salve woman? Aren't their limitations to sexual desire? Precisely, these limitations are those mentioned by the Qur'an. Doesn't the slave have any rights? Of course the slave has rights as we have already mentioned. In addition, in Islam, the slave even has rights to bring his or her owner before a law-court. What happened to human rights in this whole scenario? As we mentioned already, slavery and ransom were the alternatives to killing in war, but the slaves had to be fed and clothed with the same food and clothing as their owner, they could not be burdened with inhumane tasks, they could buy their freedoms, sue for their rights, and had other human rights that place Islamic ethics in the context of slavery above anything comparable in the ancient and modern worlds. And when the slave gets pregnant there why doesn't the man have to marry her? She and her child do obtain other rights as already mentioned but this is not one of them. 3- Why did the prophet (pbuh) have 11 wives when only 4 at one time was allowed? [...] the rules set by Allah are equal for everyone, right? So how was this possible? Allah Most High set some rules only for the Prophet, upon him peace. These are known as the Khasa'is al-Nabawiyya or "Exclusive Prophetic characteristics." Some of those fall in the category of wajib; others in the mustahabb; others in the mubah; others in the makruh; and others in the haram. An example of the Prophetic wajib is tahajjud or late night praying for most of the night. This was obligatory for him but is Sunna for the Umma. An example of the Prophetic haram is the eating of onion and garlic due to his intimate communication with the angel, while it is mubah/makruh for the Umma. Another example of the Prophetic haram is the acceptance of sadaqa, while it is permitted for the Umma except true descendents of his. Another example is that Prophets are forbidden to leave any inheritance other than sadaqa while anything any Muslim leaves is obligatorily inheritance. An example of the Prophetic mubah is his having more than 4 wives while it is haram for the Umma. Another example is that he could marry any man's widow while it is haram for the entire Umma to marry any of his widows after him because they are literally like our mothers, and some said, because his life in the Barzakh is literal. An example of the Prophetic mustahabb is to show that certain inappropriate acts are permissible by being seen doing them at least one in his life, such as urinating or drinking while standing up, both of which are makruh for the Umma while they were acts of obedience for him. Another example was to leave certain meritorious acts such as congregational tarawih and i`tikaf to show they were not obligatory, while they are Sunna for us. Another example of the Prophetic mustahabb was fasting without breaking fast for longer than one day and night while such is haram or makruh for the Umma. An example of the Prophetic makruh is to exert himself in learning the Qur'an while it is wajib for the Umma, or to avail himself of the niceties of this world while it is mubah for the Umma, or to eat types of food exotic to his native Hijaz which is also mubah for us. There are other things that only the Prophet, upon him peace, did such as going into battle on a mule when no one had the courage to use a mule but used either a horse or a camel. Or naming the objects in his property including his mirror and comb. Or his superlatively eloquent speech and knowledge of all the Arab dialects. And many, many other attributes. Among the most famous books on the Prophetic Khasa'is are al-Suyuti's al-Khasa'is al-Kubra and Qadi `Iyad's glorious masterpiece al-Shifa'. 4- It is said in the koran that when a man dies he can have up to 70 wives if he goes to heaven. Where does it say this?? It says that he will have the wives in this life and HOORIAN. But for women they are only allowed one husband. Why is this so? We do not know with certainty that there will be such a restriction on women even if the reverse would hardly be mentionable to a decent woman. A woman in the traditional world would and does consider it a horrible thing to say to her that "You can have all the men you want"! The Qur'an would never use inappropriate language. However, the Qur'an does mention that for the inhabitants of Paradise - male and female - {There wait on them immortal youths} (56:17), {There serve them youths of everlasting youth, whom, when you see them, you would take for scattered pearls} (76:19). If this does not make a believing woman happy then, as Imam al-Shafi`i said to the one who is not moved by erotic poetry, "You have no feelings." As for the believing men, as one of the Awliya said, some of them will need ghusl just for hearing the verse {Same-age young-bosomed girls} (78:33). As for us hard-hearted analphabets we may read it and read it without effect. In this life we know that if a woman were allowed more than one husband, then there would be problems with the identity of the father if she should have a child. So this will create problems, and the father of the child will not be known. But in the after life, there will not be new births. Correct. So then why cant women have men in the after life either? It is not clear they cannot, short of an all-but-explicit orgiastic promise if that is what one wants. Aren't women supposed to have the same rights as men? No. They have some rights men have, some rights men do not have, and men have some rights women do not have. In the koraan it says that men have a degree of power over women, ok fine, but even in the after life its like this? Wont women ever have the same freedom that men enjoy???? Wont they ever be able to have the same privileges that men have?? Are women the lower cast? Is this the way it is? And women should just accept it???? The so-called "degree of power" verse you mentioned is not about power but responsibility and accountability placed squarely on the shoulders of men. The rest of the relevant questions have been answered insha Allah, and Allah knows best. Hajj Gibril © Author, 2002-2004. Except for fair usage, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the Copyright owner. Fair usage is defined as sharing printed or electronic copy with others through email or keeping for own record. For information, contact info@sunnipath.com †ADVERTISEMENT This site has been optimised for Internet Explorer 5+, Netscape 7+ and a resolution of 1024x768 SunniPath.com | Question and Answer | Contact Us | Advertise © Copyright 2003-2004, SunniPath, LLC. All Rights Reserved. A Response

Can't help but to be very moved by this nasheed/dhikr. Emotionally Moving

The Letter is not being disclosed to most western media outlets-to my knowledge. Its a very simple and sincere letter, that makes Iran look like the 'People's Champ', the 'Real Liberators'..... Africans, Arabs,Poor,underprivileged people can relate to them now. Even Christians can relate to them now... This wasn't move that was 'rushed' but rather a well thought and strategized letter. The timing is impecable.

If you sleep before midnight (meaning halfway between Maghrib and Fajr), after ‘Isha, then that sleep is worth up to twice as much as the sleep that occurs after midnight. The Sunnah of the Prophet is to go to bed right after ‘Isha, and sleeping after Fajr, before sunrise (shuruq), is considered negative sleep. So, if you slept for two hours it is as if you were deprived of two hours of sleep. It is negative sleep. If you sleep before Zuhr or before ‘Asr, then that is positive sleep and it is worth twice in terms of the rejuvenation of the body. According to Imam As-Suyuti in Tibb An-Nabawi, “Whoever sleeps after ‘Asr and wakes up mad let him blame only himself.†The Prophet (peace be upon him) used to sleep after Zuhr and he said: “Take an afternoon sleep (qaylula) because Shaitan does not take one.†This practice helps you get up at night for the night prayer (tahajjud). When you take the afternoon rest it literally brings you back to the freshness of the morning. It is like starting the day all over again.

Qaac Qaac iyo xaaskeesay, Barakha Allah feekum aajmaceen Waan ku faraxey warkaas. Enjoy the honeymoon saxib, it only gets better from there.

Originally posted by ThePoint: quote:Originally posted by Castro: ^ I agree with the slight edge to Iran. But it's only slight. Have you thought of this scenario: Israel strategically bombs Iran's nuclear facilities and in the process "accidentally" kills a few hundred Iranians. Iran retaliates by declaring war on Israel and shutting off the Hormuz strait and oil prices skyrocket. When the whole world feels the pinch of higher oil prices, the US will be seen as "justified" in bombing Iran and they will. This whole scenario could transpire before the November elections, you know. A plausible scenario. But you don't think that the world will resent that Israel sent them into this crisis by attacking Iran. Especially when Israel can be restrained by a few words from the US. Mark my words - there will not be a US attack unless and until meaningful talks are held with the Iranians and no deal comes of it. And any attack will be only a US/Israel affair - and if the fallout is seriously negative, as it will no doubt be, that will isolate the US/Israel even more. The Iranians are not as ****** and crude as people would like them to think. They are politically and intellectually savy people. How else can you have an Islamic State for over 27yrs in the 21st century? They are also a very proud nation and will unite under one banner. This letter is not a show of defeat but rather political maneuvering by Iran. You have to understand that a hardline, uncompromising approach is not the way of the current leader of Iran-Ayatollah Khamanei and at the end of the day, he has a final say and not the current president.

Originally posted by STOIC: There are lessons to be learned from the past in which America was unable to restore peace in Somalia. I personally would love to see American imperialistic ambition extended to Somalia. Warlords and clan based leaders remains the only threat of Somalia. The American invasion should be motivated by restoration of peace in a lawless country. While the conduct and record of America should be suspiciously guarded in a sovereign nation, but it is not an important issue when you have a country that is being washed by ignorance. It is not a secret that America envisions itself as the major revolutionary nation. I wholeheartedly support their invasion of that wretched land called Somalia to restore normality. Time to export America limitation of sovereignty to Somalia. I am thankful that Senators count on a Somalis vote. Saxib, When did you stop eating laaxox and shax for breakfast and started eating bacon and eggs? Do you also support the campaign against 'mexican workers'?

The Nets over Miami in 6 (at the most) Layzie G, I'll call Vince to sign you a 'Get Well' card after he embarasses Shaqq and Mr. Pat "I'm desperate for a championship" Riley. Detriot-is well, an old school team. Defense First. King James has his hands full in this series. Spurs and Mav's should be a good serious. Clippers and Suns-it just doesn't have that edge to it like the lakers and suns series. Will anyone care?

7. You are welcome to sit with me to watch one game and you can talk to me during halftime but only when the commercials are on, and only if the halftime score is pleasing me. In addition, please note I am saying "one" game, hence do not use the World Cup as a nice cheesy excuse to "spend time together". and only One Game (and that game can't be the FINAL)

Strange is the fact that media becomes 'Bad and Gruesome Images' quickly like a fly on shiidh. However, when it comes to anything good-it ain't worth the Headlines or even a breath of attention. :rolleyes: SubhanAllah, This was done with a very gruesome imagery in mind. It sounds all too fishy to me that this imagery pops up on the net and around the world, when the islamic courts of late, have been gaining the support of some of their people.

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by Simple_Nomad: Sorry once again to dwelge into your debate but am sure brother Nur would excuse me as it is the duty for every muslim to defend the Quran and correct misconceptions about islam.location of Muhammad saw? Curb your enthusiasm, atheer. Nur has things under control here. Castro, Simple_Nomad is within his right as a muslim to respond to individuals that mock the Quran. Its a sure sign of Iman and Intelligence and not the other way around for Simple_Nomad to feel that way. As for this debate/discussion, Its brought about in a 'PUBLIC FORUM' therefor, it is not a discussion btwn just 2 individuals. For if that was the case, then their dialogue would be done through Private Messaging tools. Individuals who want to participate should not be made 'unwelcome' especially by those that are not Nur or Care and are posting the same if not more posts on this thread.

more grammar than truth

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Those action items are very critical to our discussion, Naden eey. Your vacillation, good naden, is beyond control. You have not been forthcoming in your last post. I don’t like when you speak out of the corner of your mouth, and make a limp handshake, as it were, with the truth. I would have preferred you be direct. My preference matters not though--I recognize. I tried to explain and address your thoughts about the hadiths you cited. I said they could be explained in relation with the larger Qur’anic theme. Isolating them is not a good way to understand them, I wrote. If one seriously wants to understand these prophetic sayings, one ought to respect and follow the standards of science of hadith. If you neither respect nor follow the process of authenticating hadith then yours is a reckless freelancing that lies outside of Islamic framework in interpreting traditions of the prophet. My aim was to advice, and I wasn’t trying to score. Before I let you fleet with your self-referential bid, let me leave you with the following, yaa naden. To hastily and single-handedly retire authenticated hadiths is a clear sign of ignorance. Calling that a critical thinking is a compounded one; it is a double jeopardy walaal. You are neither correct in your approach nor willing to acknowledge your shortcomings. You want to discard two prophetic sayings to satisfy a mere inconvenience of yours. Alas, and you do it with a particular pride. If it contradicts with a Qur’anic principle, you reason, that hadith must go. But could it be that you are afraid of the vapors of your mind, and there isn’t any contradiction at all. Could there be a chance that this active brain, somehow, got it wrong. Probable scenarios--all of those are--you refuse to consider. As for me not playing the game, I thought I did, and had the ball for a while. I could’ve even taken it home, and cause quite a scene. I know I could. But that was not my aim, as I said before. One can’t clap with a one hand, yaa naden. Discussions could be useful and come to a full fruition if their parameters are well defined. With amount of evasiveness and dodging in it, this discussion is another failed crop. So, good Xiin has called the quits, and went home safe. Alhamdulillah, you have now come to that realization.

Faith is like the compus that stirs you to what is BEYOND. Socrates believed that the highest form of knowledge was wisdom. When Socrates asked the Sophists (greek teachers that taught and engaged in rhetoric and debate)asked them simple questions such as what is truth?, what is honor? etc... the Sophists couldn't answer them properly.