Salam LST how u doing bro. Speaking from my view point. I think there many guys out there who are: sensible, mature, and reasponsible. who dont avoid Commitment, but rather attempt to push that back a step until they are in a position to commit to a real woman Emotionally Financially and so secure the relationship. A'd add myself in that group. I am not in a position yet to commit to anyone, but Inshallah i will not to far off into the future. I mean who wants to be alone, jumpin from one frill to another?? who? Not me and am sure the sames goes for many of the Gents in here. Its just a matter of time rather than Hesitance.

I thought it was posts like this that the admistrators specifically said not to POST????.... yep. I guess not all took time to read through the Admin post

Inshallah 10+

inshallah i will

I dont quite agree with all of the assertions of the writer Amitai Etzioni being a sociologist that he is. But i thought this was a worthwhile article to read. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Don't Separate Mosque and State 6/17/2003 - Social Political - Article Ref: LT0306-2004 By: Amitai Etzioni Los Angeles Times* - The United States should cease promoting a secular civil society as the only alternative to a Taliban-like theocracy in Iraq. We cannot quell the religious yearnings of millions of Iraqis merely by fostering democracy and capitalism. The most effective way to counter a theocracy is to promote moderate, liberal religious institutions. The 1st Amendment's separation of church and state is not a foreign policy tool; it's a peculiar American conception. Just because the American government is banned from promoting religion within the U.S. does not mean that it cannot promote it as part of a civil society in Iraq or Afghanistan. I know a bit about how receptive Shiites (and arguably also Sunnis) are to moderate Islam because they laid out their position during a three-day meeting in Iran that I attended a year ago. It was organized by reformers, but hard-liners also participated. The main point, repeatedly stressed during the meeting, was that both camps want to live in an Islamic society. The hard-liners are committed to enforcing the religious code by the use of moral squads, secret police and jails, while the reformers favor encouraging people to be devout. "If you do not force people to come, they will want to come," they said. Liberal Islam is spiritual and social rather than political. Indeed, it differs from the rigid authoritarian version much as liberal Protestants differ from Southern Baptists, and Reform Jews differ from ultra-Orthodox ones, although by a higher order of magnitude. What would a pro-Islam policy look like in Iraq? Instead of demanding that the current madrasas be replaced by wholly secular schools, as Sen. Joseph Biden has suggested, we might favor the inclusion of religious electives in public schools (as long as the teachers are qualified, which entails tolerance for a diversity of viewpoints). We could allow the funding of social services through religious organizations, as long as the funds are used for social and not political or religious purposes (call them faith-based institutions). And we could allow the state to pay the salaries of clergy and for the maintenance of places of worship, as do most democracies (other than the U.S. and France). One may ask, "What about Christians and those who do not wish to adhere to any religion?" A religious society, as opposed to a religious state, can tolerate nonbelievers. It is the difference between enforcing adherence to a religious code and merely supporting it as one alternative. If this sounds abstract, consider that in the U.S. you can be legally married by religious authorities or government authorities, despite our insistence on the separation of church and state. Favoring liberal Islam as an antidote to fundamentalist Islam is not to be confused with a related but different issue, whether Islam is compatible with democracy. I take it for granted that Iraq can and should have a democratic form of government. However, it should not treat religion as a threat but, potentially, as one mainstay. The current U.S. position ignores that potential. The 13 points released by U.S. Central Command - that the rule of law be paramount, for instance, or that the role of women be respected - are fine, but they all speak only to secular issues. Whether deliberately or unwittingly, they reflect the concept of the "end of history" - that all ideologies are on their last legs as the world embraces the American version of democracy, human rights and the free market. This idea, in turn, is an extension of the Enlightenment conceit that modernity is based on rational thinking. Irrational religion, then, belongs to history, and secularism - reason and science - will govern the future. However, as we are learning all over the world, people have spiritual needs that cannot be addressed, let alone satisfied, by Enlightenment ideas. We see the explosive growth of Christianity in East Asia and Africa, a resurgence of religion in Russia and other former communist nations in Eastern Europe and a rise in Islam even in countries that had extensive secular, modern periods - most tellingly, in Turkey. People ask: Why are we cast into this world? Why are we born to die? What do we owe our children, our elderly parents and our friends and community? Neither democracy nor capitalism speaks to these issues. Hence for the many millions of people there is religion, hard-line or moderate. Which one we should favor is clear, as long as we can get off our Enlightenment horse. Amitai Etzioni, a sociologist and professor at George Washington University, is the author of "My Brother's Keeper: A Memoir" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2003). -------------------------------------------------------------

Just thought i would post this up as an update article. The piece is on the Foriegn Affairs select committes question of amongts others Robin Cook (Former Foreign minster n Cabinet Member) and Claire Short (For Minster for International Development and 3rd world) ------------------------------------------------------------- Exposed: Blair, Iraq and the great deception By Ben Russell, Political Correspondent 18 June 2003 Tony Blair was charged with deliberately misleading the public over Iraq's weapons of mass destruction yesterday as two former cabinet ministers revealed that MI6 believed Saddam Hussein's arsenal posed no immediate threat. In an extraordinary public hearing at Westminster, Clare Short and Robin Cook told MPs that intelligence chiefs had concluded that the risk of Saddam using chemical or biological weapons was not high. Ms Short, the former secretary of state for international development, said Mr Blair was guilty of "honourable deception" and claimed he used "a series of half-truths, exaggerations, reassurances that were not the case to get us into conflict by the spring. "I believe that the Prime Minister must have concluded that it was honourable and desirable to back the US in going for military action in Iraq and therefore it was honourable for him to persuade us through various ruses and ways to get us there - so for him I think it was an honourable deception," said Ms Short. Mr Cook, the former foreign secretary, accused ministers of "not presenting the whole picture" and presenting selective evidence to back the case for war. Both former ministers said Mr Blair exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and condemned the Government's dossier on Saddam's arsenal as "shoddy" and "thin". They spoke out at the start of the all-party Commons Foreign Affairs Committee's inquiry into Mr Blair's handling of the run-up to war. Their testimony, based on detailed knowledge of intelligence reports from Iraq and personal briefings with senior figures from the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, undermined repeated claims made by Mr Blair and other senior ministers that Saddam represented an imminent threat to the Middle East and world. Mr Cook told MPs that in his briefing with the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee: "I heard nothing to contradict anything I said in my resignation statement that Iraq does not have weapons of mass destruction in the understood sense of the term." Mr Cook, who saw all intelligence reports on Iraq between 1997 and 2001, said he did not believe that Saddam had succeeded in building biological weapons. He revealed that concerns about Iraq had eased to such an extent in the late 1990s that Britain considered "closing the files" on Saddam's nuclear and long-range missile programmes. Ms Short, who saw raw intelligence reports and was briefed repeatedly by MI6 and the Defence Intelligence Staff before the war, said: "There is a risk, but the risk of use is not high, was probably the tone." She insisted that she had never heard Mr Blair's now infamous claim that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons "within 45 minutes" in any of her intelligence reports. Both former ministers bitterly attacked the Government's dossiers on Iraq's weapons. Mr Cook said of the first dossier: "I was taken aback at how thin the dossier was. There was a striking absence of any recent and alarming firm intelligence. The great majority was derivative. "The plain fact is that a lot of the intelligence in the dossier turned out to be wrong. "Stripped down, there was very little in that document that presented new alarming evidence of an imminent threat." He said the second dossier - criticised as "dodgy" after it was revealed to include material from a PhD thesis culled from the internet - had been a "glorious and spectacular own goal", while Ms Short said it was a "shameful piece of work". Mr Cook said: "There was a selection of evidence to support a conclusion, rather than a conclusion that arose from a full consideration of the evidence." Ms Short added: "This phrase 'weapons of mass destruction'. When that is used, people think of bombs full of chemical and biological weapons waiting to rain out of the skies. They don't think of scientists in laboratories doing experiments ... That is where the falsity lies. Yes, he [saddam] was dedicated to scientists carrying out chemical or biological work, but the suggestion to the public was it was all weaponised and a dangerous threat." Mr Cook said: "Iraq was an appallingly difficult intelligence target to break. There was very little human intelligence on the ground and no hope of putting in a Western intelligence agent." But he warned: "The absence of intelligence is a bloody thin ground on which to go to war." Ms Short used her hour-long appearance to attack Mr Blair's style of government, accusing a cabal of unelected advisers of sidelining the Cabinet and the Foreign Office in the approach to war. She said: "Things were not decided properly; no records, no papers; in the Prime Minister's study - all informal with a small group of in people." Downing Street declined to respond to the claims. Michael Ancram, the shadow Foreign Secretary, said: "This reinforces our call for an independent judicial inquiry." ----------------------------------------------------------------

apparently there is a huge drought in London . You can say that again LST, lets hope the monsoon returns in the economic order so that the rivers of emplyoment are burgoning with Big Fish Employers

As for my Beloved Giallo Rossi we need re-enforcement pretty much everywhere. we have great players already like Samuel Emerson Totti Montella Cassano but we: A stricker i.e. Ibrahimavic or Viduka, a defende like Legrottaglie (new cannavaro) and someone to replace Cafu i.e. Za maria of periugia Then we will retur to our rightfull place top of Seria A and Europe

I think i got to check out Egypt by the sounds of the it

^^^^^^^^^THANK YOU^^^^^^^^^.

wlmc to the site sis am sure u will enjoy it as much as the rest of us addicts

lol @ Pledge hey @ least your honest i suppose. But u shouldnt really expose your'self like that your have now branded yourself a simpliton....hey dont worry your in the majority .

lol K North i Can Digg thatb Line up, but am waiting to see your team. Lambada that is a great line up, but i think i would stick to my all star line up

Your accurate in your analysis Baay...but arsenal need a couple of good Center Backs a bench warmer for ashley Cole since van bronkhurst is a midfileder and a regular goal scorer/poacher to compliment Henry's wing play But what about Man U, with Ronaldinho and a Good Goal Keeper i.e. Paul Robinson of Leeds they could be even more consistent. I myself would like to see someone gamble on Joe Cole and Jermaine deFoe

Interesting article ........................Islam in the wings......... by Rhoda Metcalfe Mother of the Brothers: Cairo Ever since the war in Iraq began, the US and its allies have been promising a new wave of democracy in the Middle East. But, as the allies discovered, the only opposition leadership that survived under Saddam Hussein's brutal regime were the Islamists. The same is true throughout most of the Middle East, and any democratic push could easily lead to the rise of elected Islamic governments, including inside the region's most populous country, Egypt. That makes many people, especially businesspeople, very nervous. In the lobby of the Egyptian Doctor's Syndicate, a young man sings the Muslim call to prayer into a PA system. The doctors' union, the lawyers' union, and the pharmacists' union are the home territories of the Muslim Brotherhood, a banned Islamist movement more than half a century old. Confident "They know that democracy means Islam in this area. Are the Americans ready to accept Islamic civilization?" challenges Essam al-Aryan, one of the Muslim Brothers' top leaders. These days, Dr al-Aryan is sounding cocky. He knows if the democracy that the US administration has been talking so much about came to Egypt tomorrow, the Muslim Brotherhood would be the only group with enough popularity to defeat the current government. Dr al-Aryan is also aware that many people, especially businesspeople, fear an Islamic government. But he says they shouldn't: "You know the Muslim Brotherhood, they are doctors, engineers, lawyers, professors. We are modern people." That does little to reassure Hamed Ghanem. He's general manager for Toshiba in Cairo, and the thought of the Muslim Brothers heading a government sends shivers down his spine. "In our present history, all the so-called Islamic governments are from my point of view not successful. They are, in my view, just dictatorships. I don't like it. I don't think it´s good for the country, it´s not good for people, it´s not good for business." Iranian example The pre-eminent example of a modern-day Islamic government is Iran. Asif Bayat, an Iranian sociologist, remembers how the business sector abandoned his country, sending the Iranian economy into a tailspin. "All these people who were running it, they had fled the country and things were really bad, in terms of management. So you had land, hotels, cinemas, cabarets. Who is going to manage this? The whole thing eventually went to this huge foundation, but really it is the state." Muslim Brother-led anti-US rally in Cairo stadium The Iranian state also took over the banks and began their first experiments with interest-free banking: under Islam, charging interest is considered sinful. The experiment failed. The banks eventually went back to charging interest, in the guise of a service charge. Most economically damaging of all, Iran's snarling anti-Western stance made it a pariah. Businessman Hamed Ghanem fears the same would happen in Egypt if the Muslim Brotherhood were voted in. "They'll say the West is our enemy - we're not going to do business with them. Definitely this is a disaster." Business support But not everyone agrees. Businessman Mohamed el-Kaissouni, the deputy director of a US-based business conglomerate he asked not be named, argues that the Muslim Brotherhood is far more moderate than Khomeini and the Iranian leadership. In fact, he says, many of the Muslim Brothers are businessmen. "Very successful businessmen. And very popular. And when you deal with them, if they promise something, they carry it out. That's one of the things helping people to feel there won't be a problem if we have an Islamic government." The Muslim Brothers themselves say their first economic concern is not with foreign investors, but with local corruption. Abdel Hameed Ghazali is an economics professor at Cairo University. He spent three years in prison for being a Muslim Brother. "Bribery, illegal activities; we are living in a corruption culture. We are going to fight corruption in politics, in economics. I think the foreign investor will be much happier dealing with people who have some law and order than people who really don't honour anything." And then? Many businesspeople would agree with that. But what comes after the corruption is stamped out? The Muslim Brothers have a slate of economic ideas, including an alternative approach to interest-free banking. They say they would welcome foreign investment, as long as it is "ethical". What that means is, like so much surrounding a potential Islamic government in Cairo, still unclear. Source: islamicity.com ------------------------------------------------------------

Wa Calayakum Salam. Wlcm to the site bro/sis am sure u wull enjoy conversing with your nomads

Threatened by smart woman? I am Taken aback by smart i.e frendilly level headed mature intelligent sisters, but am not threatened. I am threatened by the competiton for them .

Indeed why should we enjoy such freedoms when we end up abusing them they way we do. Clearly the welfare thing is somewhat un avoidable given the situation most famlies find themselves in. However i really gets to me when those who have got the oppotunity to learn here for free and you see them doing nothing with themselves except stand around street corners chatin shiid, going to riywaads. And a new phenomenom. Supposedly educated somalis , supposdly Intelligent, esposing there freedom of speech and expressing the views. Now wouldnt this be so great if all of us actually took this right with a pinch of responsibility and actually take due care to what is said when we express our freedom of speech?? wouldnt that be a great thing .

I think this was these where the outstanding individuals of the year. ...............................Buffon...................... ......Carlos.....Nesta......Maldini...... Thuram..... .........Nedved.........Zidane.........Davids........ ...............................Totti....................... ..................Ruud.V.N......C.Veiri.............

petty huh..........i would say that the post itself was petty & ill concived.

True Lander, yet it is still amazing that the those pro-israel proponents in the media and govt of serveral countris in the west like to say 'its a becone of light, in an otherwise dark region of the world' and they are not actually challanged. why??

An Interesting Compliation

Democracy's oasis -- a mirage Israeli war crimes go unpunished as human rights reports blast Israeli practices. Jonathan Cook writes from Nazareth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Palestinian prisoners released from Kitziot prison in Israel show victory sign to waiting relatives and journalists; Israeli soldier removes shackles from feet of Palestinian prisoner as a busload of released prisoners arrives at Kalandia checkpoint near Ramallah photos: Reuters -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Israel's image as a democratic state took a further heavy battering last week as two separate reports were issued, the first by Amnesty International into Israeli military policies in the occupied territories, and the second by a United Nations watchdog monitoring Israel's commitment to human rights. Both reports follow on the heels of a survey last month by the Israeli Democracy Institute, an academic think-tank in Jerusalem, that ranked Israel close to bottom of 32 countries in terms of the value its politicians and citizens put on democratic participation. The results showed a particularly weak identification by the Jewish majority with the values of pluralism, with 53 per cent believing Arabs should be denied equal rights and slightly more, 57 per cent, wanting Arabs transferred out of the country. Only 77 per cent of respondents thought democracy was the best system of governance. Amnesty's findings were familiar to those who have followed the events of the past two and half years in the West Bank and Gaza. It documented a catalogue of human rights violations against the Palestinians: the extensive destruction of homes and farming land, the lethal shelling and bombing of residential areas in response to mortar fire from militants, the use of Palestinian civilians as human shields by the army, extra-judicial assassinations that have killed bystanders, the eradication of most economic life through a system of curfews and internal closures, and the torture and mistreatment of thousands of suspects, including children. It also pointed out that the army command rarely investigates or punishes soldiers accused of reckless or intentional firing at non-combatant. But while Amnesty's report showed -- in Israel's continuing violent occupation and collective punishment of the Palestinian people -- a flagrant disregard for international law, it was the more neglected UN report that more clearly illustrated the mirage of Israeli democracy. Despite the diplomatic language required of a UN body, the report concludes that it is "deeply concerned by the continuing differences in treatment between Jews and non-Jews" and notes that Israeli law "does not enshrine the general principles of equality and non-discrimination". It lists many aspects of Israeli life in which the rights of Palestinians and the country's one million Arab citizens are being violated in favour of the Jewish population. Israel signed up to and ratified all six of the UN human rights covenants in the early 1990s, during Yitzhak Rabin's premiership. But successive governments have failed to incorporate any of the treaties into the country's legal codes. A large part of the reason, as the latest UN report implies, is that Israel's founding principles -- that it is a Jewish state and that every Jew has a unique privilege to settle in Israel and now, by extension, the occupied territories -- are incompatible with the covenants. Implementation of each of the treaties by ratifying states is monitored periodically by a committee of independent experts. The narrower focus of several of the treaties -- on, for example, the rights of children or women, or the use of torture -- has caused Israel less embarrassment than the broad-range of human rights. One report, into civil and political rights, is due later this year and is expected to be highly critical of Israel, particularly over its attacks on the political representatives of the Arab minority. The other report Israel has been dreading, from the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), was issued on 23 May. The committee monitors land, economic and educational rights. Although it is critical of Israel's performance on a whole raft of human rights tests, including policies towards women and foreign workers, it reserves its harshest rebukes for the treatment of Palestinians and the country's Arab population. In fact, Israel has been foot dragging on reporting to the committee since it signed the economic, social and cultural rights treaty in 1991, partly because implementing its provisions would mean overhauling the system of privileges enjoyed by Jews, both in Israel and the settlements. According to UN practice, Israel should have submitted its first response to the CESCR in 1994, but it failed to do so. Israel was eventually forced to report after the committee threatened to accept an unofficial document compiled by several Israeli non-governmental organisations instead. Israel's first response, submitted in 1998, caused friction with the committee, which is comprised of 18 international academics and economists. They were frustrated by Israel's failure to provide answers on several important social and economic topics and by the refusal to reveal any information on relevant policies towards the Palestinians. Israel claimed it was not obligated to reply because the Palestinians were under the rule of the Palestinian Authority and so not its responsibility. The committee, however, rejected the argument saying that as Israel controlled the borders and trade of the occupied territories, supplied their water and electricity, levied many of the taxes affecting Palestinians, set the laws governing building permits and house demolitions in much of the area, and allowed the expansion of settlements on Palestinian land, its record should be monitored. The UN body demanded that Israel make a special presentation on its rule over the Palestinians in Geneva in 2001, but the single Israeli delegate who attended refused to participate. Given that the Israeli army has effectively reoccupied almost all Palestinian areas over the past year, the committee was clearly expecting that Israel's 2003 submission would finally detail what it is doing to protect the Palestinians' economic and social rights. Again, Israel refused to provide information. At more than one point in the report, the committee "reiterates its request that the state party [israel] provide detailed information". Nevertheless, Israel takes the committee's hearings in Geneva -- and its judgement -- seriously. It sent 11 officials to try to persuade the committee members that it had made giant strides since the 1998 report. "Last time Israel largely failed to provide information to the committee or used the excuse that it did not have time at such notice to provide the sort of figures the committee wanted," said Mohamed Zeidan, director of the Arab Association for Human Rights (HRA) in Nazareth, who was at the hearings representing one of the Palestinian NGOs from inside Israel. "On this occasion, five years later, it could not sound so unprepared. The Israeli delegates still refused to comment on what was happening in the occupied territories but they tried to blind the committee with stacks of statistics on the Arab minority. Most were given without context, or comparison with equivalent figures for the Jewish public, and so were entirely misleading." The committee was apparently unimpressed: its final report includes a list of sharp criticisms of Israeli policies towards Palestinian populations on both sides of the Green Line, the pre- 1967 border. Given the lack of information provided about the treatment of Palestinians, the committee's main rebuke is to express grave concern about "the deplorable living conditions of the Palestinians in the occupied territories, who -- as a result of the continuing occupation and subsequent measures of closures, extended curfews, roadblocks and security checkpoints -- suffer from the impingement of their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights enshrined in the Covenant, in particular access to work, land, water, health care, education and food". On the issue of Israel's Arab citizens, the committee finds 10 areas of major concern. These include Israel's continuing policy of excluding Arab citizens from almost all state land, more than 93 per cent of Israeli territory. It notes -- despite claims to the contrary made by the Israeli delegation -- that a precedent- setting Supreme Court judgement allowing one family, the Kaadans, to move into a Jewish community has still to be enforced three years later. Also noted is "the continuing lower-standard of living of Israeli Arabs as a result, inter-alia, of higher unemployment rates, restricted access to and participation in trade unions, lack of access to housing, water, electricity, health care and a lower level of education". Israel's discriminatory policies towards the reunification of Palestinian families, effectively preventing Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza from being united with a spouse who is an Arab citizen or from being able to gain Israeli citizenship, are also condemned. There is concern about "the persisting inequality in wages of Jews and Arabs in Israel, as well as the severe under- representation of the Arab sector in civil service and universities". But the biggest censure is reserved for Israel over its treatment of the Bedouin population, particularly those living in "unrecognised villages", without proper provision of schools, health care, water, electricity or sanitation. The committee observes that the Bedouin "continue to be subjected on a regular basis to land confiscations, house demolitions, fines for building 'illegally', destruction of agricultural crops, fields and trees, and systematic harassment and persecution by the Green Patrol [an Israeli paramilitary police force] in order to force Bedouins to resettle in "townships". The committee also expresses doubt about the true purposes of a five-year plan for the Negev, presented by the Israeli delegation as a way to develop Bedouin communities. The committee says the transfer of the Bedouin population from their villages into concentration townships is being carried out without consulting the villagers and they are being offered "inadequate" compensation. Instead the committee urges that Israel to "recognise all existing Bedouin villages, their property rights and their right to basic services, in particular water". The 24 Israeli, Palestinian and international NGOs who were represented at the hearings provided the committee with a barrage of information on discriminatory policies. Adalah, the legal centre for the Arab minority in Israel, presented information showing that 45 of the 46 communities with the highest unemployment in Israel are Arab and that poverty rates among Arab families were up to three times greater than Jewish families. On land rights, Adalah figures showed that Arab municipalities in the Galilee controlled just 16 per cent of the land despite accounting for 72 per cent of the population. In the Negev, Arab councils had just under two per cent of the land despite comprising a quarter of the population. Furthermore, in the past year more than 100 Bedouin homes had been demolished and 3,000 acres of crops destroyed. Similarly, said Adalah, there was blatant discrimination in education rights, with Arab students faring worse in terms of dropout, matriculation and university-entry rates. Although 90 per cent of Jewish three and four-year-olds attended kindergarten, only 50 per cent of Arab children did. Arab schools also received a small fraction of the truant officers, psychologists and education counsellors needed to address such problems. Several participants also tried to counter misleading information from the Israeli delegation about a $1bn programme for the development of Arab communities. The plan was launched amid much fanfare in late 2000 by Ehud Barak, but most of the money has never been accounted for. One Israeli NGO, Sikkuy, has accused Israel of fiddling the books and re- labelling existing budgets as money from the plan.

In the name of Allaah the most beneficent the most merciful NAMING THE CHILD It is the infant's vested right to be honored with a good name. When choosing a name for the child, it should be done with the intention that the child will be blessed with the barakah of that name. Here are some Ahadeeth to show the importance of selecting a good and correct name: Ibn Umar (RA) relates Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) as saying: "Truly, the most loved of your names by Allah are Abdullah and Abdur-Rahmaan." It is also reported in the Aboo Dawood that Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) said: "Keep the names of prophets. And the most desirable names by Allah Ta'ala are Abdullah and Abdur-Rahmaan. And names that depict honesty are Haarith (planter) and Hammaam (thoughtful). And the most disliked ones are Harb (battle) and Murrah (bitter). THE BARAKAH OF NAMING A CHILD AFTER THE BELOVED NAME OF RASOOLULLAH (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) Rasulullah (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) said: "Whoever is named after me with the hope of being blessed, he will be blessed and will be in peace till the day of Qiyaamat." He also said: "To whomever is born a boy and he names him Muhammad solely for the love of me and for the blessings of my name, then both he (the father) and his son will enter Jannah." THE IMPORTANCE OF KEEPING GOOD NAMES HADITH: "On the Day of Qiyaamah you will be called by your (own) names and the names of your fathers. Therefore keep good names." (Abu Dawood.) HADITH: "To whoever is born a child, the child should be given a good name and sound education. And when he becomes of age he should be married." It was Rasoolullah's (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) practice to inquire the names of persons and villages. If they were pleasant, it became apparent on his face. If not, his displeasure could be seen. Once Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) called for a volunteer to milk a camel. Four persons volunteered: he refused to accept the services of the first three because their names did not imply pleasantness. The names of the first two were Murrah (bitter) while Jamrah (burning coal) was the name of the third person. When the fourth said his name is Yaeesh (long live) Rasoolullah sallallaahu-alayhi-wasallam said to him: "Milk her." UNDESIRABLE NAMES SHOULD BE CHANGED Aa'ishah (RA) reports that Rasool sallallaahu-alayhi-wasallam used to change displeasing names replacing them with good names. Abdullah bin Umar (RA) relates that one of his sisters was named Aasiyah (disobedient). Rasoolullah (Sallallaahu alayhi Wasallam) changed it to Jameelah (beautiful). Zainab (RA) says that I had been named Birrah (pious). Rasoolullah sallallaahu-alayhi-wasallam said: "Do not claim piety for Allah knows best who amongst you are pious. Name her Zainab!" NAMES MAY INFLUENCE THE LIVES OF PEOPLE Sa'eed ibne Musayib (RA) relates from his father that his grandfather went to Rasoolullah sallallaahu-alayhi-wasallam and was asked: "What is your name?" He replied: "Hazn" (sorrow). Rasoolullah sallallaahu-alayhi-wasallam said: "You are Sahl." (contended). He replied: "I will not change the name my father had given me." The narrator says that thereafter sorrow continually remained with them. KEEP AWAY FROM NAMES IMPLYING SHIRK As Muslims, we should always abstain from keeping names implying any elements of Shirk, like adjoining the word 'Abd'(servant) to names or epithets other that those of Allah Ta'ala. Rasoolullah sallallaahu-alayhi-wasallam also forbade keeping pompous and self-glorifying names, for this reveals arrogance and haughtiness - human elements most abhorred by Allah Ta'ala. BE PROUD OF YOUR IDENTITY AND FAITH Muslims should always be proud of their identity and faith. Nowadays, to conceal his identity, it is common practice for a person to 'westernize' his name, like substituting Yoosuf with Joe or Joseph, Sulaimaan with Solly or Sully, Faatimah with Fatli, Sumay-yah with Summi, etc. Efforts to distort such beautiful names merely reveal an un-Islamic and sacrilegious attitude. Remember, there exists behind each Islamic name an Islamic spirit and meaning, which, when distorted, is ruined. For example, there is intended love for the Prophet of Islam, and barakah when naming a child Muhammad. But when Muhammad is called Mahmad or Gammat, this spirit of love for Rasoolullah sallallaahu-alayhi-wasallam and the acquiring of barakah by such a name is shattered. Should we not then refrain from such sacrilegious practices? May Allah Ta'ala guide us so that we may realize the beauty and uniqueness of the religion of Islam propounded by no other than the one who is the best of Allah's creations-May Allah shower His choicest blessings upon him. May Allah Ta'ala guide us on the Right Path. Ameen. Source: Names for Muslim Children: M Rafeeq Hathurani. Database of Muslim Names & Meanings The following sites have a comprehensive list of Muslim names; spelling, meaning etc. Please note: Consult an Aalim or Sheikh, before applying names from the Internet for naming a child. Everymuslim.com will NOT be responsible for information supplied by external links. http://www.islamzine.com/names/male.html http://www.muslim-names.co.uk/ http://islamicity.com/Culture/Names/default.htm http://www.unn.ac.uk/societies/islamic/names/male.htm http://talkislam.com/muslim-names.htm http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/names.htm http://members.lycos.co.uk/amiwd02/babynames.htm Courtesy: www.everymuslim.com AL-ISLAAH PUBLICATIONS www.everymuslim.com the_humble_servant2000@yahoo.com Say: He is Allah, the One and Only, Allah the Eternal, Absolute. He does not beget, nor is He begotten. And there is none like Him. (Ikhlas 112:1-4) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/domeoftherock1

I mean is it too much to aks that this particular user be banned from the site? Isnt it clear that she hasnt got anything good to contribute and infact is out to cause mischeif and instigate unconstructive arguments on this (currently) the best of somali forums. I have to be honest i am very dissappointed that the moderators, in line with there own rules and regulations, havent banned this user from this site yet.