Originally posted by Suleyman: Akhee Khayr, I wasn't trying to offend you and I apologise if I did, but I was rather advising that one should not take statements from those who have uttered disbelief in their books. In fact, one cannot quote books riddled with major kufr. The mere fact that the excerpt that you quoted approves taweel is blameworthy. Lastly, I wasn't aware that this was a debate, but more like an elucidation of the allegations mentioned in the primary article. Asalaam Alaikuum The scholars differed concerning the meaning of Allah's "descent" in the mass-narrated (mutawatir) hadith: Our Lord - Blessed and Exalted is He! - descends every night to the lowest heaven in the last third of the night and says: Who is supplicating Me so that I may answer him? Who is asking forgiveness from Me so that I may forgive him?1 IBN HAJAR'S COMMENTARY Following is the text of Ibn Hajar's commentary on the hadith of descent: Those who assert direction for Allah have used this hadith as proof that He is in the direction of aboveness. The vast majority of the scholars reject this, because such a saying leads to establishing boundaries for Him and Allah is exalted above that.16 The meaning of "descent" is interpreted differently: * Some say that the external meaning is meant literally: these are the Mushabbiha and Allah is exalted above what they say. * Some reject the validity of the hadiths cited in that chapter altogether. These are the Khawarij and the Mu`tazila in their arrogance. What is strange is that they interpret figuratively what is related to this in the Qur'an, but they reject what is in the hadith either out of ignorance or out of obduracy. * Some have taken them as they have come, believing in them without specificity, declaring Allah to be transcendent above modality (kayfiyya) and likeness to creation (tashbih): these are the vast majority of the Salaf. That position is reported by al-Bayhaqi and others from the Four Imams, Sufyan ibn `Uyayna, Sufyan al-Thawri, Hammad ibn Salama, Hammad ibn Zayd, al-Awza`i, al-Layth, and others. * Some interpreted them in a way that befits the linguistic usage of the Arabs. * Some have over-interpreted them to the point that they almost tampered with their text. * Some have made a difference between a kind of interpretation that is likely and current in the linguistic usage of the Arabs, and another kind which is far-fetched and archaic, interpreting in the former case and committing the meaning to Allah in the latter. This is reported from Malik, and among the Khalaf it is asserted decisively by Ibn Daqiq al-`Id (d. 702).17 Ibn Hajar, Fath al-Bari (1989 ed. 3:37-38; 1959 ed. 3:32-33 #1094). Al-Qadi [`Iyad] said: What is meant by His descent is the approach of His Mercy, the increase of His kindness toward His servants, and the acceptance of their contrition, in the custom of generous kings and clement liege-lords when they alight near a needy, suffering and weak people. It was narrated: "Allah comes down from the highest heaven to the lowest heaven."63 That is: He shifts from all that is necessitated by the Attributes of Majesty - such as the rejection of the arrogant, indifference to them, the subduing of enemies, and the exacting of punishment from the wicked - to all that is necessitated by the Attributes of Beauty, such as forbearance, mercy, the acceptance of contrition, gentleness toward the destitute, fulfillment of needs, leniency and alleviation in the commands and prohibitions, and pardon towards apparent sins. Hence it was said that this is a figural manifestation (tajalli suri) and not a real descent (nuzul haqiqi). The difficulty is thereby resolved, and Allah knows best. 64Al-Qari, Mirqat al-Mafatih (1892 ed. 2:136-137, 1994 ed. 3:298-301). source Taken from al-Salafiyya marhalatun zamaniyyatun mubarakatun la madhhabun islami (The Salafiyya is a blessed historical period, not a school of law in Islam) Dr. Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti recapitulates the essential similarity of the respective methods of the Salaf and Khalaf, both centered, as we have established, in the priority of Allah's transcendence. He shows that both the Salaf and the Khalaf applied figurative interpretation, but the Salaf applied an implicit, non-specific form of figurative interpretation which he calls ta'wil ijmali, while the Khalaf applied an explicit, specific form which he calls ta'wil tafsili: Source on pg.7

Originally posted by Amelia: Boys , we don’t need a scholar for this kinda question, I, Amelia Papazafiropoulos will answer and tell you that intellectual superiority or inferiority/reasoning is a case-by-case issue. Totally unrelated to sex, age, race, religion... its an individual thing. Honest. No sheikh told me that (infact, I reckon I deduced it from reading one of those istubidh kaafir scientific books) and its absolutely foolproof. Thanks. Thank you for coming out of the closet and showing us your true colors. The subject of Women and leadership is a very sexy subject that is used to demonize Islam and all other traditional religions. Hence, why people are encouraged to participate in Democratic elections because it precisely appeals to people's xawa/ego i.e. I am important, I must be heard, I am intelligent etc...it all becomes about I...I...I...nafsi, nafsi...ya nafsi... The hubris is fed over and over...and over again... Walahi, its caajeb, people are becoming so self engrossed via their gender, their self. It is to the point that they can't even make Sujuud to Allah anymore. Why? It is because that would require Submission to something that is impertial to our Hubris/nafuus. Waterlilly and Naden Why do you as a women need to aspire to be a member of parliament or anywomen for that matter? Are women incomplete until they were pants? :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Suleyman: As-salaam Alaikuum I had a slight feeling that some members would object against the statement of Imaam Ibn Baaz (may Allaah have mercy on him). The hadeeth regarding the shortcomings of women: The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: "I have seen none having more of a shortcoming in reasoning and religion yet, at the same time, robbing the wisdom of the wisest men than you." They said: “O Messenger of Allah what is the shortcoming in our reasoning?†He said: “Is it not the case that the testimony of two women is equivalent to that of one man.†They said: “O Messenger of Allah what is the shortcoming in our religion." He said: "Is it not the case that when you have your menses you neither pray nor fast?" (Saheeh al-Bukhaaree and Saheeh Muslim) The Shaykh after explaining this hadeeth added additional points to consider his statement. He said: "However, this does not mean that they have a shortcoming in understanding in everything or that they have a shortcoming in religion in every matter. The Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) made it clear that their shortcoming in understanding is with respect to their non-proficiency and in religion with respect to their not praying or fasting during menstruation or post-partum bleeding. This also does not mean that she is less than men in every matter or that men are superior to her in every aspect. Yes, as a class, men are superior to women in general. This is true for a number of reasons, as Allaah has stated: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has made the one of them to excel the other, and because they spend [to support them] from their means." (4:34) However, she may excel him in many matters. How many women are greater than many men with respect to their intelligence, religion and proficiency. It has been narrated from the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) that women as a species or class are less than men in understanding and religion from the point of view of the matters that the Prophet (Peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) himself explained. Asalaam Alaikuum Xin and Pi, Easy up on the brother. I think that there is a misunderstanding here and the communication channels are not working. Suleyman provided illustrations to his post, lets not all gang up on him now.

Suleyman, saxib i'm aware of the source of those writings and the shiekh that wrote them. Were are debating ideas here, so lets try to keep the 'Takfeer' talk out of this. This will only lead us away from Tawhid and into useless argumentation. to be con'td

Pi, I'm just wondering why you posted this? Just a bit cautious...thats all The article by Shiekh Nuh has many references to alot of Ulema. Its a scholarly reply and so to is the site that Suleyman cited. You are dealing with issues of Aqeedah (Salafi and Ashari (most sunni ulema except for the some of the Ahl ul irfan) and they are interpretations dealing with Theology. Positions and schools of thought can be explained but lets try to avoid attacking each side for that will lead us AWAY from TAWHID. Something interesting that I found.... (Connection (tasbih) and anthropormorphism in the expressions of the Sunna) An example of that is when the Prophet said, "The heart of the believer is between two of Allah's fingers." [at-Tirmidhi] The intellect looks at what the subject demands of reality and metaphor and that a 'limb' is impossible for Allah! 'Finger' is a sharted expression which can be applied to the limb or applied to blessing. The shepherd said: Weak of staff [2], of Bedouin origin, you see him over them when people have not had their blessing end in drought. He said, "You see him over them" is a good indication of blessing by looking after them well. The Arabs say, "What an excellent finger so-and-so has over his property" meaning that his effect on it is to make his property grow because of his good management of it. The swiftest turning over of things is what is turned over by the fingers because of their small size and perfect capacity for that. So their movement is swifter than the hand and other things. When Allah turns over the hearts of the slaves, it is the swiftest thing. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was most eloquent to the Arabs in his supplication. using what they understood. Because for us, things are only turned over by the hand, he used turning with 'the fingers' because the fingers are part of the hand and are quicker. Thus the Prophet said in his supplication, "O Overturner of hearts, make my heart firm in Your deen!" [ibn Majah] Allah's overturning of the hearts is what He creates in them of concern for good and interest in evil. When man senses the succession of thoughts which come to him in his heart, this is referred to as 'Allah turning the heart'. Man's knowledge cannot turn this away from himself. That is why the Prophet said, "O Overturner of hearts, make my heart firm in Your deen!" Regarding this hadith, one of his wives said to him, "Do you fear then, Messenger of Allah?" He, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, replied, "The heart of the believer is between the fingers of Allah," so the Prophet indicated the swiftness of the turning from belief to disbelief and what they both contain. Allah said, "He inspired them with their depravity and godfearing." (91:8) This inspiration is the turning and the fingers are for speed. The fact that they are two ('two fingers') is the thought of good and the thought of evil. So 'fingers' should be understood as we have stated. 'Fingers' can mean the limb and it can mean the blessing and good effect. So which of the two aspects will you connect to the limb when these disconnected aspects demand it? Either we will be silent and entrust knowledge of that to Allah and to the one whom Allah has acquainted with it - a sent messenger or an inspired wali as long as the limb is negated, or we are overcome by inquisitiveness which takes control of us, although we ascribe that to an assimilating anthropomorphising innovator. It is not by inquisitiveness, but it is obligatory for the knower in that to clarify the aspects of disconnection in that expression so as to invalidate the argument of every disappointed anthropormorphist. May Allah turn to us and him and provide him with Islam! If we discuss that word which must give rise to tashbih, its explanation must be modified to an aspect which befits Allah - glory be to Him! This is the portion of the intellect in the linguistic convention of the phrase. Source

I think that this thread is a good example that illustrates the islamic ruling on this issue. People that put aside all else but their xawa, really have a problem b/c you can't view Islam from a Women's prespective only or a Man's prespective only. That would be self-serving, meaning - that the deen would be serving your personal aspirations and whims. Naden, Pragmatism is not what muslims live by, we can use practical solutions. However, if the easier and more 'pragmatic' approach contradicts Islamic Parameters, then it is to be negated. You have described the redefinition of gender roles in Somalialand. Its shameful to see that happening but that doesn't prove the 'Rule' wrong. What it does show us is that gender roles have been redefined, so that the family can have a 'full belly'. But what if there are less traditional families (as seen in Europe and N.A.), then who is there to feed, if the houses are empty i.e. divorces,single home families etc.? Where pragmatism contradicts Islamic Parameters, then it should be rejected.

Originally posted by Yahoo_UK: Well going any sort of trvelling without a muxrim is a no-no for u ladies ... but for some reason we Somalis seem to deem it 'caadi' to let our sisters travel without such muxrim every where ( am guilty of it too )... but wen it coms to ummrah the 'muxrim' is gladly mentioned.

Salams, Have you thought about going for Ummrah instead? Alhamdulillah, it is a sign of Iman that your desires conflict with your deen and that you are AWARE of this. Meaning that you have a conscious that speaks LOUD to you at night when you are in bed alone or praying to Allah etc. The better road is often the less travelled one and the more difficult one to take. Inshallah, make your Istikhara salat and ask yourselve what your Intention is for going on this trip. Money comes and goes, so don't mourn too much if you lose out financially (easier said, then done). Think of the finiancial loss as giving Allah a 'Goodly loan' (Who is he that will lend to Allah a goodly loan, then (Allah) will increase it manifold to his credit (in repaying), and he will have (besides) a good reward (i.e. Paradise). Sura Al Hadid There is a dua that I say when I'm confused about a route to take in life, a decision I have to make etc... 'Allahuma aarinaa Al-haqq haqqan waa arzuquna ittibacaxu waa aarinaa al-battila battilan waa arzuquna ijtinaabaxu' 'Oh Allah show us the right way as the right way and let us follow it and show us the wrong way as the wrong way and let us reject it' Fi Amanillah

I hardly see Chauncey make errors when he is on the court. Anyone for Tim Duncan? I mean he carries his team and they do have the 2nd best record and are defending champs? How about King James? That boy is kinda nasty as of late....making winning shots, passing the ball...he is on a tear. Vince Carter is pulling off some stunts that wanna make you press REWIND. Can't wait for the playoff to see the nets v. cav's-would be a nice serious. Kobe is really doing it this yr and if his team gets past the 1st round in the playoffs, he might get a crack at MVP but i'm going for King James.

It sounds almost too good to be true....its like applying for a scholarishp of sorts... Blessed, MashAllah, you are very lucky and I am a bit jealous. The experience is like non other-so I here! Inshallah, Allah grants you that gift. Remember, that it won't be an easy trip, so prep yourself for many moments that will test your patience. Fi Amanillah

Salamun caliykum Blessed, I seem to recall your involvement in a another thread titled 'somali female president'..... In Anycase, the 'American Muslim Women's League' aka the site that you gave reference to is a rather well funded site. Here is their view on Muslim women leading prayer from that site Women Leading Prayer: Muslims do not have a clergy. Any knowledgeable, respected Muslim is qualified to perform our important socio-religious tasks such as leading prayer or officiating a wedding. It was, however, not customary for women to lead prayer during the Prophet’s time, but we believe it is important to ask whether this was a reflection of custom or religious edict. In our paper on the participation of women in politics and leadership the MWL reviews the literature on the subject and concludes that, based on the Qur’an and authentic traditions of the Prophet, it is not forbidden (haram) for a woman to lead a mixed congregation in prayer . (see http://mwlusa.org/publications/essays/polirights.html) Some would say in fact that it is allowed (but whether or not it is recommended may be debated.) The Qur’an is completely silent on the matter of women leading prayer, and there is one example, as cited in the Traditions compiled by Abu Dawud, where Prophet Muhammed instructed Umm Waraqa bint Abdullah to lead her household and its environs (which included at least one man) in prayer because she had the best knowledge of the Qur’an in her community. MWL They also use Fatima Mernissi , Morrocon author, professor and researcher for citation Traditionally, an aspect of leadership in Islam is the ability of the leader to lead the Muslims in prayer, i.e. act as the imam. (Fatima Mernissi, The Forgotten Queens of Islam, University of Minnesota Press, 1993, p. 32). Some argue that women cannot hold positions of leadership because women cannot lead men in prayer. (Fatima Mernissi, The Forgotten Queens of Islam, University of Minnesota Press, 1993, p. 32). However, this argument requires two assumptions which may be invalid. First, one must assume that the leader himself or herself is obligated to lead prayer. Second, one must assume that women cannot lead men in prayer. More to be said but I have to run.... Fi Amanillah

Originally posted by Amelia: Let me first address the hadeeth by Abu Bakrah (not to be confused with Abu Bakar Al-Siddique RA) stating that those nations who entrust their affairs (A clarification of this word in its Arabic context would be nice) to a woman are doomed to failure (And if I may add the contradiction in reality, specially in the case of Somalia, led by our 'God-blessed' Somali men). Have you really done a thorough research and come to a conclusive conclusion? Or like most people, skimmed, read what you wanted to read and taken the path of least resistance? Having done my own bit and read the historical context of this hadeeth, as Stoic said, it was reported by Abu Bakrah - an ex-slave who embraced Islam and whose freedom was bargained for by the prophet scw and as a result had his status catapulted and gained economic progress. Like most people of his status at the time, his lineage is unclear and history blur. He reported this hadeeth at a rather opportune moment when he didn’t join one or the other in the ‘battle of the camel’ between Aisha and Ali, as his reason for not joining Aisha, who enjoyed the support of the populace of Basra, where he resided. Some contemporary writers, historians and scholars doubt the authenticity of this hadeeth due to his murky past, both in his personal history and the fact that he was convicted of and flogged for false testimony in a zina case by Umar Ibn al-khattab. According to Malik, one of the criteria for taking a hadeeth from a transmitter depends on them being known not to lie in other affairs. So, why is this hadeeth in Bukhari then? The closest collection to authentic hadeeth? And why is this single hadeeth taken as unequivocal proof when there is nothing in the Quran for the same? A Response Abu Bakrah and the Feminists by GF Haddad As-Salamu `alaykum, It began with a feminist who said out of the blue that the hadith in al-Bukhari where Abu Bakrah says that the Prophet said, upon him and his Family blessings and peace, "A nation that is led by a woman will not succeed" is a lie and that Abu Bakrah may not have been truthful because he was whipped by Umar ibn al-Khattab for lying about a charge of fornication against someone, and the testimony of one who is punished is not acceptable as mentioned in the Qur'an (24:4). Ah, but the Qur'an also commands the noblest, most knowledgeable, AND most feminist women in creation (the mothers of the Believers) to stay home; and the Sunna curses women that imitate men. So a nation that is led by a woman may not succeed regardless. How typical are God and His Messenger of the "male elite"! Then there was that neo-Mutazilite creature who said he keeps a kennel at home and prays behind his wife (presumably au naturel? or at least en cheveux), and he calls our liege-lord Abu Bakrah "this character." Abu Bakrah3 - Allah be well-pleased with him - was convinced by his own eyes that the man and woman in question were guilty of fornication and he refused to pray behind that man, wrote to the Commander of the Believers, went to see him, and then bore witness against that man according to his conscience along with three other witnesses as the Law demands. But because the fourth witness retracted his testimony or was found unacceptable, the conviction fell through and the witnesses whipped and declared unreliable, as the Law also demands. After the whipping, Abu Bakrah still said, "I spoke the truth and the man did do what I said." `Umar motioned to whip him again but `Ali said, "If you do, then have the other one stoned!" i.e. the testimonials would now amount to four. Abu Bakrah suffered through this trial all his life and would say incredulously, "Fassaquni" - They declared me corrupt! This, however, as Ibn Hazm said in the Muhalla, is NOT how countless subsequent generations of hadith Masters consider him but rather - beginning with the most stringent of them, al-Bukhari and Muslim - a faultless Companion-reporter of the utmost probity whose hadiths are 100% reliable including this one which is in the Sahih, despite what the feminists claim. Then, in a hurry to make sense out of nonsense, someone proposed the reasoning that "If you can't be a witness you can't transmit hadith, if you have slandered someone you can't be a witness, thus if you've slandered someone you can't transmit hadith... ergo Abu Bakrah and MORE IMPORTANTLY Nafi', a major hadith transmitter [sic], are not kosher.... This reasoning is correct if you're a Hanafi or Mutazilite (or both) during the first three centuries of Islam." No, it is not. First, countless Muslims who couldn't be witnesses such as children, women, and slaves, can and do transmit hadith. Second, there is no established Hanafi report in the early books of riwaya questioning Abu Bakrah as a transmitter of hadith except a disputed report from Imam Abu Hanifa which his own practice disproves. In this respect the Hanafis do not differ from the rest of the Sunnis in that Abu Bakrah is a Companion and the Companions are all Upright (`udul) without exception among the Sunnis by Consensus as per Imam al-Haramayn and others. The Fiqh al-Akbar and `Aqida Tahawiyya show no exception and from the first moments of the discussion on whose riwaya is accepted and whose not, the category of potentially impugned1 narrators is precluded2 from the Compa-nions of the Prophet, upon him blessings and peace. Third, the Nafi` meant above is Abu Bakrah's half-brother, Nafi` ibn al-Harith ibn Kalada al-Thaqafi who is NOT a hadith transmitter except for a lone hadith transmitted by him in Ibn Sa`d, much less a major one, - much less in Malik or al-Bukhari as the same poster also seemed to suspect, but later he seems to have changed his mind. More on the claim about the early Hanafis. Hanafi texts and practice in the first three centuries of Islam show that they accepted the hadiths of Abu Bakrah (who is by the way among the Fuqaha and Ahl al-Fatwa of the Companions in whose time *extremely few of whom* were more knowledgeable than him contrary to the claim made on zaytuna.org/. Al-Sarakhsi in his Usul does mention a report from Abu Hanifa to the effect that someone in Abu Bakrah's case cannot report hadith but he questions that report because it contradicts what he calls "the predominant position of our School": "The repentant one after having suffered the penalty for leveling a rejected charge of fornication (al-mahdud fil-qadhf), in the transmission of reports, is like anyone else according to the predominant position of our School (zahir al-madhhab). For Abu Bakrah - Allah be well-pleased with him - is an accepted reporter (maqbul al-khabar) and no one busied themselves checking the dates of his reports to see whether he was reporting after the sentence was carried out against him or before, as opposed to [his] testimony. For the rejection of his testimony is part of the completion of his penalty. This is firmly established by textual stipulation [i.e. the Qur'anic verse] while *the narration of reports does not have the same meaning as testimonies.* Do you not see that women cannot witness over penalties at all? Yet their narration in the chapter of penalties is the same as the narration of men. And [contrary to this], in the narration of al-Hasan [ibn Zyad al-Lu'lu'i] from Abu Hanifa - Allah be well-pleased with both of them: The repentant one after having suffered the penalty for leveling a rejected charge of fornication is not an acceptable reporter." Usul al-Sarakhsi (p. 354-355). But Abu Hanifa's practice belies that he ever said the above since he narrated from Abu Bakrah as did his early and late Companions. All of the following narrate Abu Bakrah's hadiths: Abu Hanifa in his Musnads, Muhammad ibn al-Hasan in the Muwatta' and the Hujja, Zufar in al-Tabarani's Awsat, Waki` ibn al-Jarrah in Ahmad's Musnad, Yahya ibn Ma`in (a fanatic Hanafi) in Muntaqa Ibn al-Jarud (a book of exclusively sahih reports), Yahya ibn Sa`id al-Qattan in Ahmad's Musnad, al-Tahawi in his books.... All those early Hanafis were certainly aware that the Sahaba one and all accepted the riwaya of Abu Bakrah and so did they. What "some early Hanafis" did or said otherwise" Apparently no one known to al-Sarakhsi in al-Mabsut, nor to al-Kasani in Bada'i` al-Sana'i`, nor to Ibn al-Humam in Fath al-Qadir and Tahrir al-Usul. All of them explicitly concurred that the Sahaba accepted the riwaya of Abu Bakrah while al-Kasani went on to explain, like al-Sarakhsi: "because bearing testimony is different from reporting." The late School in this respect echoes the above position. [From Musa W Furber]: Sadr al-Shari`ah says: "...Shahadah being rejected eternally is part of what completes the hadd [min tamam al-hadd]..." Sa`d al-Din comments that after tawbah, their shahadah will never be accepted [since it is part of the hadd], though their hadith is accepted because they are `udul. This is at the end of al-rukn al-thani (al-sunna), fasl fi shara`it al-rawi. Source: Sa`d al-Din Mas`ud ibn `Umar al-Taftazani, Sadr al-Shari`a `Ubayd Allah ibn Mas`ud. _Al-Talwih ila Kashf Haqa'iq al-Tanqih_. Ed. Muhammad `Adnan Darwish. Dar al-Arqam. 1419/1998. 2:17. So do the Shafi`is. Al-Shirazi in his Usul goes a step further to explain why the uprightness of the flogged accusers remains unquestionable. [From Musa W Furber also, slightly modified]: In Al-Shirazi's _Sharh al-Luma`_ (2:638, paragraph 738) and in the just the Luma` (p. 165, paragraph 208.). Both read: "As for Abu Bakrah and those who were flogged with him for qadhf, their narrations are transmitted since they did not say what they did as qadhf, rather they said it as shahadah. `Umar only flogged them - may Allah be pleased with him - based on his own ijtihad, so it is impermissible to question their uprightness for it, nor can their narrations be rejected." Similarly in Imam al-Ghazzali's Mustasfa (p. 287): "`Umar flogged Abu Bakrah when the minimal requirement of testimony was not met although the latter came as witness in a tribunal (shahidan fi majlis al-hakam), not as an accuser of fornication (la qadhifan). However, he [`Umar] judged him by analogy with the accuser of fornication." The above shahada-is-not-qadhf distinction with relation to Abu Bakrah's upright status is faithfully echoed in the Hanbali sources such as Ibn Qudama's Rawdat al-Nazir (1:234-235), the Miswadda of Al Taymiyya (p. 233), and Ibn Muflih's Nukat `ala Mushkil al-Muharrar (2:250-255), the latter mentioning in detail the reasoning of their early authorities (such as Ibn `Aqil, the Qadi Abu Ya`la in his `Idda and Abu al-Khattab) then citing Ahmad ibn Taymiyya's point that "[hadith] reports are not rejected for the same type of suspect causes as testimonies, such as kinship, friendship, enmity, or the like; or because a reporter and what he reports can be one and the same, contrary to testimony." Hence Ibn al-Qayyim accurately reports Consensus in I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in (1:127) over the universal acceptance of Abu Bakrah's narrations. Also preposterous is the linkage of al-Bukhari's chapter on the testimony of the defamer, in which he supposedly "devotes a commment disagreeing with "a certain person" i.e. Abu Hanifa over whether or not Abu Bakrah and Nafi are acceptable hadith transmitters [see Abd al-Ghani al- Ghunaymi (d. 1298AH), Kashf al-iltibas 'amma awrada al-imam al-Bukhari 'ala ba'd al-nas, ed. Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda (Aleppo: Maktabat al-Matbu'at al-Islamiyya, 1414/1993), 22." Not at all! There is not one word of discussion nor even an oblique reference whether or not Abu Bakrah and Nafi` are acceptable hadith transmitters, whether in al-Bukhari or al-Ghunaymi and you are confusing the two issues: "Ba`d al-nas" here does not extend to a purported rejection of hadith riwaya but only to the rejection of "the testimony of the transgressor who leveled a charge of zina that was dismissed" based on the verse that forbids acceptance of their testimony forever. Nor is there an ahl- al-hadith vs. Hanafis rift on the acceptance of hadith riwaya from Abu Bakrah whatsoever, nor does al-Ghunaymi's discussion in Kashf al-Iltibas say otherwise. Al-Ghunaymi only says that the position of the Kufans is the everlasting rejection of the testimony of the transgressor who leveled an inacceptable charge of zina. He then cites Ibn al-Qayyim in I`lam al-Muwaqqi`in showing [as per Ibn Abi Shayba in his Musannaf] that the same position is also reported from Ibn `Abbas, Mujahid, `Ikrima, al-Hasan, Masruq, al-Sha`bi, and Shurayh. Before him, Ibn al-Humam in Fath al-Qadir cited this everlasting rejection of testimony as the position of Sa`id ibn al-Musayyab, Shurayh, al-Hasan, Ibrahim al-Nakha`i, Sa`id ibn Jubayr, and Ibn `Abbas. Before Ibn al-Humam, al-Tahawi in Ikhtilaf al-`Ulama' had cited it as the position of Imam al-Awza`i. So the khilaf "pre-repentence / everlasting" very much pre-dates and is wider than the Fiqh of Ahl al-`Iraq, including the Kufans, including Hanafis and Thawris. Note well that al-Hasan al-Basri narrates liberally from Abu Bakrah even though he believed, as we cited, that the testimony of the repentent qadhif remains forever rejected. And Allah knows best. Not most but all of what rears up its head today as progressive, feminist, liberal, South African liberation theology, Syrian do-it-yourself(-dare-to-be-ignorant), contemporary, top of the pops re-readings, is in fact a banale catalogue of ancient heresiographical history. All of those strange and new positions or the arguments that prop them up have long crumbled to dust in the vaults of deviant Usul! The sooner we learn about the historical non-Sunnis that specialize in Companion-character-assassination, the sooner we can identify the near-totality of the mashrab of today's "progressive" dona ferentes. After this, why be circumspect and polite with those that are bigger losers than the {she-wood carrier}? If the same Abu Bakrah were reporting, let us suppose, something that said, "Woman was the first creation and she is man's boss, godfather, and capo di tutti capi here and hereafter," the same critics would have made him infallible. But they have a problem with the hadith "A nation will not succeed" so they set out to find ways of undermining it. Their aims are of course much more ambitious and the Abu Bakrah issue only one trojan horse among many others in their program, as their books and arguments have made abundantly clear. GF Haddad [Jan 14, 2005 ] Source JB, Your badly timed jabs are an Ad Nauseum!!!

Originally posted by Kashafa: What's my take ? My take is to wish you better luck finding a way to discredit Islam. After getting thoroughly owned on other threads, you come at us with this bogus story of Noah's curse as evidence ?? Just like half of the 'parables' in the Bible, they're made up by human beings like yourself with ulterior motives. Did you know that according to the same Bible, Lot slept with his two daughters ? Maybe in your next thread you can analyse how 'eastern and western' religions justify and encourage incest. Kashafa, jazakAllah khayrun for saying it straight. Nuff Said!

Originally posted by Jamilah: I have always had an interest in politics but due to other commitments (namely study) I never pursued this interest, I also believe the diversity of the political spectrum seemed too intimidating to me and I didn’t know where exactly I fitted in. Well, my interest was most recently stirred during the orientation week at my university for first year students. It was the day of glamour “clubs and societies day†various groups attempted to woo us first year students into to joining their respective clubs. The chocolate lovers society ( surprise) was a favorite along with the African drummers group, but when my friends and I approached a stall which had badges labeled FREE PALESTINE and NO Howard we were immediately fascinated. The group called socialist alternative I came to know were most passionate about the persecutions countless Muslims around the world are enduring. I thought at last I found what I was looking for and I am now able to quell my constant guilt that I am not doing enough as an educated young (and at the risk of sounding immodest) intelligent woman. Not only did the views of this group coincided with mine but they were very proactive in the measures they took in being heard (so I naively thought). It seemed out of my friends I was the one most eager and they were politely feigning interest, so I decided to attend their meeting by myself sometime during that week. On the day of the much anticipated meeting I entered the room mentally noting things we far from what I expected. As I have mentioned I never pursued my interest in politics so I don’t know what exactly was the source of my expectations, what I came to see however was an informal gathering of men and women who were mostly in their twenties and needless to say I was rather conspicuous in my modest attire. Despite my instinct to run and never turn back I forced my self to take a seat in the lecture room and waited a good 20 minutes before a man in the front began speaking. Prior to the commencement of his speech rest assured I was entertained by engaging in conversations in which I was bombarded with questions about my views on certain matters; it was all very strange as if they were speaking in a foreign language. I recall being asked whether or not I considered myself a socialist which I responded in the affirmative (I answered without thinking really I reasoned that if I answered no I would be more so the centre of attention). Anyway, the man who started speaking with a distinct kiwi accent wore a T-shirt which had JUSTICE FOR JACK THOMAS printed across it (for you guys who are unfamiliar with him, he is one of the first Australians to be charged under the Howard government’s new anti-terror legislation). By this stage I was impressed and was keenly waiting for him to begin his speech. To my utter shock he started to talk about abortion and how it is a woman’s right and freedom of choice. I was shaken up and at this point was inwardly screaming what have I gotten myself into? If that was not bad enough he continued to talk about the freedom of sexual expression (I had to hold myself from crying out in distress) for people attracted to the same sex. It was then and there that my hopes of finally fitting into the broad political field were cruelly shattered. Much to my utter discomfort they were quite elaborate in the things they said (thus only prolonging my presence). At the end of it all a woman accompanied by two men came to introduce them to me both men offered to shake my hand in which I quickly explained why I could not do so, I was then invited to attend another meeting with them over a couple of drinks. I politely declined this preposterous invitation and looked for the closest exit door. Now my fellow nomads I know what you are all thinking so much for my “interest†I rarely write on this side of the site, that’s true enough. But what I hoped was to pose a question. I wanted to know whether you guys identify with a particular political party, ideology and organization or do you believe that different parts have its own merits. If it is the latter or the former, what is the justification of your choice? What a vivid and realistic account of the world of the Socialist/liberals/pluralists etc.... These groups take GOD OUT OF THE PICTURE and replace them with their personal whims of what is the RIGHT thing to DO and SAY. They are more idealistic then most but are a good sample population that reflects 'Popular Sentimentality'. Its good that your Iman and sense of 'where you are from' raised Alarm bells in your head-Alhamdulillah Fi Amanillah

Sounds like a Biblical story like Nabi Dauud (a.s.). This is hiliarious....the man has patience and stamina.

علم التصو٠علم ليس يدركه إلا أخو Ùطنة بالحـق معـرو٠وكي٠يعرÙÙ‡ من ليس يشهـده وكي٠يشهد ضوء الشمس مكÙÙˆÙ The knowledge of gnosis is not abstract, rather it is existential. Any mortal can engage in mental meanderings and juridical joustings; however, it takes a 'Arif to see the world as it really is. Nicely put by Mutakalim By the way, where is he?

good topic that shows the confused mentality of muslims. I was listening online to a talk to Hamza Yusuf when blurted out that we should aspire to this idea: 'LIFE, LIBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS' Does that sound familiar? Those who do not judge by what God has sent down are the dis Believers (kafirun). 5:44 The following verse also proclaims: "They are the wrong-doers (zalimun)" (5:45), while a third verse in the same chapter says: "They are the evil-livers (fasiqun)" (5:47). In other words this means that if the temporal authorities regard their own words and decisions to be right and those given by God as wrong they are disbelievers. If on the other hand they regard God's commands as right but wittingly reject them and enforce their own decisions against God's, then they are the mischief-makers and the wrong-doers. Fasiq, the law-breaker,is the one who disregards the bond of allegiance, and zalim is he who works against the truth. Thus all those temporal authorities who claim to be Muslims and yet violate the rights sanctioned by God belong to one of these two categories, either they are the disbelievers or are the wrong- doers and mischief-makers. The rights which have been sanctioned by God are permanent, perpetual and eternal. They are not subject to any alterations or modifications, and there is no scope for any change or abrogation. 1. The Right to Life 2. The Right to the Safety of Life 3. Respect for the Chastity of Women 4. The Right to a Basic Standard of Life 5. Individual's Right to Freedom 6. The Right to Justice 7. Equality of Human Beings 8. The Right to Co-operate and Not to Co-operate Are these Rights unconditional or conditional? What is the defintion of Human in the Islamic Tradition? Is there Equality of Human Beings? Are these Rights Absolute? What comes first-Fulffling Divine Rights or Human Rights?

Good Topic

Imam Junayd, may Allah be pleased with him, said, “If there is doubt about the acceptability of an action, imagine that you have performed it and examine the outcome. If the outcome has bad in it, refrain from it.†You know Shiekh Abdelqadir sounds like he has become more aggressive and is no longer obsessed with the 'coin/durham' system implementation in Europe. He looks beautiful in his picture as of late... you know I once saw his mureeds/students wearing green thowbs and green turbans all around him...MashaALLAH, that was a beautiful site. Fi Amanillah

interesting thread

a well written and moving account of the Habib's visit. He sure does look very handsome and noble with the white turban. JZK

Khalaf, well said. Amelia, Don't measure Goodness on a yardstick that uses Anti-Religious Metrics. Translation: Don't sell your deen short and your self image short if it does not boast well with 21st century ideals. You are a Muslimah first, then somali, then a women etc...-that is how you should view yourself, if you are to take any pride in your religious tradition. Fi Amanillah

Originally posted by Honesita: You can't say Physics should not be taught because all the freshmen in college failed the class....and you can’t say vinegar tastes so nasty it should be haram when Allah already made it halaal...!! You have no right to do so, because again common sense says dont judge the actions judge the rulings.....!! What also works me up is how we speak against things that the non-Muslims raise questions about...and instead of us getting on the offensive side, we get on the defensive side and we just end up losing because we criticize Islam not attempt to educate married people...!! There are so many social, political, economical and personal violations of the Quran and Sunnah every where you look, but we focus on polygamy and say 'those controlling men'...how come we dont say 'those women that dont know their rights'...!! We are becoming obsessed with Man and Woman relations that we can’t move forward in our lives....Billah aleekum WAKE THE HECK UP AND LEARN AND ISLAM not rubbish...!! Allah Yahdeena...!! Fii Amaani'Laah MashaAllah, well said!

From Zaid Zakir's article posted by Darqawi, SOl Nomad: We should note that the interpretation of the Prophet’s, Peace and Blessings of God be upon him, words concerning the outcome of a woman’s leadership, may involve intangibles which we are incapable of comprehending. In that context, they might not be the expression of a binding historical law. Were they the expression of such a law, they would seemingly be contradicted by events which occurred both before and after its utterance. As for pre-Islamic times, the Qur’an itself relates the story of Bilqis, the legendary Queen of Sheba. She is mentioned in the Qur’an as attaining worldly success, [27] and as eventually accepting Islam. Ibn Kathir mentions that she commanded a council of 312 delegates, each of whom represented 10,000 men. [28] She was a very successful leader, and her people prospered under her reign. After the time of the Prophet, Peace and Blessing of God be upon him, there are similar instances of successful woman leaders. Both in general, and in specific military campaigns, of the type undertaken by ‘Aisha. In this latter category, we could mention the British rout of the Argentines during the 1982 Falklands War. That victory occurred at a time when England was under the leadership of two women, Queen Elizabeth II, and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. These two examples in no way contradict the statement of the Prophet, Peace and Blessings of God be upon him, “A people who depute their affairs to a woman will never succeed,†if we accept that the tradition in question has an interpretation beyond our superficial understanding. Surely, God knows best. A nomad's Reponse -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Legend of Zu: Waxaad tiri Balqiis markay xukunka haysay waxay ahayd Gaal, waxaadna raacisay markay islaamtay ka dib way dhaaftay madaxtinameedii. Waxaan ku leeyahay uma aysan dhaafin madaxtinameedii maxaa yeelay waxay ahayd dumar. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Legend of zu .. Bilqees ( the quen of Saba) was a disbeliever at that time as is clear from the verses: "I found her and her nation prostrating to the sun ...." [Verse 24] "Verily she was of a disbelieving people". [Verse 43] Later, with the invitation of Hazrat Sulayman (Alaihis salâm) she brought Islam. She said: "Oh my Rabb! Verily I have wronged my soul and I have surrendered with Sulayman to Allâh, Rabb of the worlds."[Verse 44] After embracing Islam, she also surrended her kingdom to Sulayman (AS) as was the order of Sulayman (AS). This is apparent in the following verse: He said: "Do you give me abundance in wealth .... go back to them, for we will most certainly come to them with such armies that they will not be able to oppose, and we shall expel them in disgrace and they will be humbled." It is sometimes argued that after Bilqees brought Imân, Sulayman (AS) married her and therafter sent her to rule Yemen. This argument is however incorrect because it is based on very weak Israeli narrations and besides being weak, It may be concluded that although men and women are equal and that both have rights, they do not have the same rights. Among the sole rights of a male is that he is always the head of a family since he is the guardian of the women. Leadership of a country is in a similar vein the sole right of men. Most commentators of the Qurân have explained the verse under discussion that just as men only rule a country, lead the salâh etc. only men can be the head of a family. A few examples are : QURTUBI Says..... and the judges, rulers and mujahideen are among the men and this is not found among the women." IBN KATHEER Says..... that is why nubuwat is reserved for men just as rulership .. BAIDAWI " .... that is why nubuwat (prophethood), leading the salâh, leading a country and establishment of other sha-âir (distinguishing features) of deen (e.g. adhân, iqamah) are confined to men only. among the ummah that female leadership is not permissible. Ijmâ is the third most important source of Islamic law and cannot be opposed. Rasulullah sallallahu alaihi wasallam said: "A lady is 'AWRAH' (something to be concealed). Thus when she leaves, shaytân stares at her. In short, this verses has a major reason why women cannot rule in the Shariah. Just as she cannot lead a home, she cannot lead a country. May Allah (sw)Increase our Islamic knowledge Ameen w/salaam all An SOL nomad put it well

Originally posted by Nur: Nomads I must share you that I found reading Quraan among other things as a healing for flu, as I started to male tarteel, my voice cleared up aND THE coughs subsided notoceble, I get more coughs when I am in bed that making Sallaat, moral of story: If you get sick, dont skip your Quraan Nur In need, the Quran is a Shifaaca... If I need to concentrate or calm myself or having anxiety and/or stress about an issue, I find reading the quran just brings tranquilty and reassurance-Alhamdulillah.