Thank you all for the replies, Akh Aristote, Thanks for the correction. It did slip my mind that the Ottaman Empire was, in fact, a hereditary dynasty. Very similar, as you pointed out, to the Ummayads and Abbasids.That said, with all their corruption and oppression, they were the closest thing to a Pan-Islamic State. The point I was making related to Attaturk's changing the form of goverment from a semblance of an Islamic state to Western-style democracy where legislation is derived from the people. Bint Abee Saeed, The shaykh said, that there is a difference between the one who rules by other than what Allaah revealed and he thinks it is permissible to do so, and the one who rules knowing that it is not permissible (but does it due to desires.) the latter has not apostated but the former has disbelieved. some people may rule with a different legislation but they do not think it is better than Allah's legislation, and they know its not permissible, and that it is a sin. those who believe that other legislations are better and more appropriate than Islam, they have apostated. This is also mentioned and explained in the ebook in the 4th nullifier. As human beings, we don't have access to peoples intentions and hearts. So how can we tell whether a ruler doesn't belive in Shar'ah law, or whether he's just following his hearts desires ? We simply can't. That's why we have to look at his actions. Again, take Attaturk as an example. He obviously does not believe in Islamic Law (Shari'ah) by virtue of his actions. If one orders the hijaab to be banned, closes down Quraan Schools, and turns Mosques into Museums, are we to say: "wait, we don't know his hearts intention therefore we can't judge him" ?? Allah(SWT) will judge his intention, as for us, his actions speak to us. I agree that we should refer to the scholars on complicated issues. This case, however, is as clear as daylight.

She's worth 40 goats and 20 cows Throw in a camel or two...It's a wrap ! Click it here _______________________________________________ NAIROBI, Kenya (AP) -- A Kenyan says he offered Bill Clinton 40 goats and 20 cows for his daughter's hand in marriage five years ago -- and is still waiting for an answer. Godwin Kipkemoi Chepkurgor told the East Africa Standard newspaper last week that he wrote to Clinton asking for Chelsea's hand in 2000 during the then-president's visit to Kenya. Chepkurgor, a 36-year-old elected city councilor in Nakuru, recounted writing to the U.S president through the Kenyan government. He described his plans for a grand wedding presided over by South African Nobel Peace Prize winner Archbishop Desmond Tutu. He named then-President Daniel arap Moi and the president of his university as references. "Had I succeeded in wooing Chelsea, I would have had a grand wedding," he told the Standard in an interview published Friday during Clinton's recent visit to Kenya. Chepkurgor said his letter praised Clinton's leadership and commended his wife, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, for standing by her husband "like an African woman" in the face of the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The electrical engineering graduate said he promised to pay his would-be father-in-law 20 cows and 40 goats in dowry for his only daughter in accordance with African tradition. But he said the letter prompted security checks -- on him, his family and his classmates, and he was summoned to the Foreign Ministry in Nairobi for a meeting that he missed because of his graduation from university. A National Security Intelligence Service officer told the Standard the letter probably never made it out of the office. "We gathered that this man was a teetotaler and a staunch Christian who seemed to have been struck by Chelsea, and I thought maybe he just took the joke too far," he said. Chepkurgor vowed to remain single until he gets an answer to his proposal to marry Chelsea, 25.

"Al-sayfu wal Laylu wal Bay'dhaa'u ta3rifunii...Wal kitaabu wal galamu wal qirtaasu" Anybody have a link to Al-Mutanabi's poetry ? aka Fee waa7id 3indu mawqi3 li sh3r al-Mutanabi ?

Efforts to link the bombs in London to Britain ’s involvement in Iraq are worthless and a badly timed justification. None other than Mayor Ken Livingstone has that view. Take it up with him. Claiming the London explosions are a consequence of the British government’s participation in the war in Iraq lacks is devoid of any historical knowledge. After all, the ideology of al Qaeda and its affiliates is denouncing people as infidels and killing innocent civilians. Not true. Even as abhorent their methods are, they have specific and tangible goals. Get "infidels" off Muslim lands,namely Iraq and Afghanistan. End Israeli occupation of Palestine(although this one seems more like a rallying battle-cry). Overthrow supressive and apostate(in their view) Arab dictatorshops (Think Saudi/Egypt) If this prove anything, it is that Britain is one of the most generous host countries in Europe, to the extent that is has allowed its territories to be filled with deadly scorpions who are waiting for the appropriate time to leave their nests and sting their hosts. The latest attacks in London are a direct result of the government’s recklessness and its lenient attitude toward extremists it has refrained from deporting in the last fifty years. Let me re-phrase that last sentence: The latest attacks in London are a direct result of the goverment's imperialism and it's having created literal deathtraps in the Muslim World forthe past 90 odd years. Think Kashmir. Think Balfour Declaration. Think a group of old white males sitting in Whitehall chaging the fates of entire nations with a few strokes of a pen. And thus, creating bloodshed and conflict and untold suffering of millions. Let me remind the reader of the reactions in some sections of the media to terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia . Many alleged the bombings were a reaction to the presence of US military forces in the region, after the first Gulf War. Yet, an analysis of events in the last few years clearly demonstrates that the number of attacks rose after US forces withdrew from the Kingdom, thereby contradicting these claims. Terrorists never attacks US forces stationed in nearby Qatar , who sent its soldiers to fight in Iraq . The terrorist object to the presence of US forces in the Holy Lands. Troops are still there albeit, reduced in size. They are also at 'war' with the Saudi goverment. Ask them why they don't attack Qatar. However, the truth of the matter is, terrorism began in Afghanistan and was exported to Iraq, the Persian Gulf region, and Egypt, even affecting countries that have not taken part in the war, such as Yemen, Indonesia, and the Netherlands. Does the author of the piece belive that the Afghan/Soviet war in the late '80s was a training camp for terrorist radicals ? If so, why was the entirety of the "free world" and Arab goverments actively encouraging youngsters to go fight a Jihad against the Godless Communists ? Double standards gets quite disgusting at times. Justifying the London attacks and arguing events in Iraq are to blame only serves to perpetuate lies. In reality, terrorism is an ideological disease we need to get rid of. The most recent bombings in the resort town herald a new round in the war on terror that require a comprehensive understanding of the causes of the attack. London and Sharm al Sheikh are the latest pieces in the big puzzle that is terrorism, currently spreading its wings around the world. They are not internal problems but part of a wider global conflict that must be confronted socially and collectively Terrorism is not a ideological disease. Extremism is. Terrorism is a set of actions. Extremism is a mind-set, a thinking pattern. And that's what we have to combat. The best way to combat terrorism is to identify and solve the greviences(percieved or not) of the terrorists.

Ngonge, Sophistry aside, let's break this thing down: I'll make two statements. Tell me the difference between the two(if you can): 1- I condem the London Bombings. There is no justification whatsoeverforit. 2- I condemn the London bombings. There is no justification whatsoeverforit. That said, it was bound to happen/chickens come home to roost/what comes around goes around./it should be no suprise(take ur pick) You mean to tell me with a straight face, that because I added an explanation to Statement #2, I'm implicitly condoning the bombings ? that I'm guilty of moral vaccillation or your catch-phrase: duplicity ? you expect that to fly ? Sufferin Sucotash !! Keep it moving, man It is clear to all that both statements explictly and unequivocally condemn the bombings. The ONLY difference is that Statement #2 puts the bombings in context. It provides a frame of reference. You scream red murder when your words are takin outa context, why are you so desperately rejecting any attempt to put the London attacks in context, in the background of the "war on terror", in the root causes of this conflict ? What your basically saying is: Condemn the bombings..... unequivocally... THEN SHUT UP. Zip it. If you try to explain, search for the root causes, point out that as long as the UK continues "waging war on terror", there will likely be more indiscriminate attacks, you're a spineless wuss trying to have it both ways. I, for one, don't see it that way. I think it takes mucho backbone to tell people that what caused the horrific attacks is the foreign policy of their elected representatives. That if their military didn't causually carpet-bomb entire villages to showcase the awesome fireworks known as Shock & Awe, chances are they wouldn't have hordes of victims just thirsting for revenge anyway they can get it. Cause and Effect, friend, can't deny it. Even if you stick your head in the sand. Works just like gravity. You finally lose yourself in a convoluted bubble of nonsense by quoting the cousin of the dead Brazilian guy! Do you really expect me to base my moral judgments on the words of a Brazilian? Oh! Maybe you’re still under the mistaken impression that he was Muslim ! I quoted the Cousin to show you how an actual victim was taking all this in. HIS family was shot dead. Wrongly. He didn't go off on a tanget blaming Islam/The Muslims/The Bengali guy named Islam. He said EVEN if his cousin died at the hand of a Muslim, he'd blame the Limey Goverment. He obviously understands the Cause and Effect theory when he says: I heard last week that there are 25,000 innocent people dead in Iraq, people who have paid the price for this war. " Well, now the British are paying the price too. And now a Brazilian has paid the price for Iraq Ok, so you don't put much stock to what an actual victim thinks about all this. How about the Mayor of London ? Does he know what he's talking about ? Think for a minute, duqa. You can't muzzle the truth. And the Truth we both know fine and well is: Blair's involvement in Iraq is the main cause of 07/07. Sing that in the shower a coupla times. It'll get through.

Give it up, Ngonge. You put up a brave fight, but alas, your logic is twisted. You accuse others of using emotion-clouded reasoning yet you stand guilty of the same charge. What's with the "NOT IN MY NAME" rant ?. We, as Muslims, bear no responisblity for the actions of fanatics. We don't justify nor condone it. That's clear-cut. I guess you're having a tough time gettin' thru your main idea: Islam and the Muslims are at fault in this whole bloody mess. Let us stop Jihad(or at least restrict it to Jihaad-ul-Nafs), forget about Palestine and Chechneya, and become docile law-abiding citizens of the 21st Century. Let us fix Islam. Sorry, pal. That dog don't hunt See, it really isn't complicated. I'll let the cousin of the dead Brazilian take over: "It's not as if Jean has been killed by one of the bombings, but even if he had been, we, his family, would not blame the Muslims but blame the British government for starting all this ." "I heard last week that there are 25,000 innocent people dead in Iraq, people who have paid the price for this war. " Well, now the British are paying the price too. And now a Brazilian has paid the price for Iraq ." Telegraph.co.uk Cousin Brazil understands that there are consequences for transgression. You punch somebody in the face, chances are he'll punch back(unless he's Canadian). Cousin Brazil gets it. You ,as of yet, don't.

^^ You have joined November 2002 and have 6 posts thus far.. That's an average of 0.1875 posts a month. Do you have anything to contribute besides perfecting the sarcastic eye-roll ?

^^ Ooops. too late. can't change your mind now, you already gave me a 5/5 which is as close to perfection as you'll get

I’m not out here to teach you about the world; I’m here to debate with you Ok. I'm game. A basic part of debating is to provide sources when your assertions are challenged. Otherwise it's not called debating, it's called "spittin' out drivel' regardless of factual content". I can say that you, good friend, look like a hybrid of Scary Spice and Sebastion Coe, unless I provide a picture(will do so upon request, jk !), it's nothing more than drivel. are u gettin' it ? Good. Onto more important matters. We already know who the invaders of Iraq are, but, who are these people that blow up trains and kill civilians? Is there a way of finding them and fighting back? Did the air bombing set out to kill civilians or were they merely “collateral damage� See Ngonge, You got a good racket going on here. You jump on the "We gotta fix Islam" bandwagon and use that to vilify any resistance to Western occupation using the catch-phrase: terrorist. Anybody who doesn't agree: terrorist-lover. For arguments sake, Let's say the terrorist united under one banner, one leadership, and decided to attack exclusively military targets in the UK and USA. Any civilian casualties would be brushed off as "collateral damage"(as u so deftly put it). Would that be justifiable ? It's not too complicated so don't overthink. That my friend is terrorism. It is sanctioned terrorism by a coalition wearing uniforms, speaking softly and carrying a big stick. And it is not morally justifiable. Same with the London bombings. But the two are morally equivalent The whole issue can be summed up by these 2 lines courtesy of Fidel. Both are transgessions and you cannot justify one while vilifying the other. They are EQUALLY wrong. The whole equation falls apart when u add a BUT.. as in.. "Yes BUT... A) The Coalition forces and other terrorist groups(ETA/IRA) use early warning systems, Muslims(see how you use the word collectively) don't B)Coaliton forces primarily target insurgents(false btw) while Muslims(again generic use) primarily target innocent civilians. C) whatever other faulty logic u can come up with. You can do better. Up ur game.

Northener, The mis-education of our yourth today ey And the senility and infirmity of our old heads... Lord have mercy which is worse ? That said.. you might do us a favour by being more specific. Exactly which Imams and Sheiks are you talking about ? and what views...? Don't throw out a generic question and expect a detailed answer. Holla Ngonge, Your point stands. 'Semeblances' of a inquiry do take place. My point stands as well. The inquiry is selective and can be easily manipulated. Ahmed Diallo is just but one example. I can write volumes on other cases. So yes, the system, although corrupt, does have a semblance of a inquiry. In this specific case(subway shooting), my wager still stands. The Officers will not be found guilty(although they are) As for the ETA/IRA, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Artistic license with facts isn't really admirable. Unless, of course, you desperately need to bolster your argument. It can be understood then. PS What exactly is your position on all of this by the way? An earlier post summarises my position: Apparent Motive: To strike back at the UK for it's involvement in Iraq. Force a "Spain-like" withdrawal. Will it work: Tentatively, Yes. There's only so much carnage the public can stomach. "Get out of Iraq/Bombs will stop" will become more and more appealing. Justified: No Should have been expected: Absolutely. Tit-for-Tat. Newton's 3rd Law. Will happen again: More than likely Who are the bombers: Young muslims with the right intentions but wrong methods

Salaams, all I've been reading the Nullifiers of Islam (Nawaa'gid al-Ashara) by Shaykh Mohamed Ibn Abdulwahaab. in the form of a e-book(posted by bint abee saaed, good lookin' out, sis) Mashallah, both the Explanation and the Translation are excellent. At the end of the explanantion, There's a Q-A session where people ask about various real life applications of the Nullifiers. And That's where I had a few reservation on the Questions on page 26. It seemed to me that the Shaykh was somewhat ambivalent when it came to "Xukm bi ghayr maa anzallaah" Ruling by other than what Allah has revealed (rough translation). I think it had something to due with the way the questions were posed. He wasn't as hard in condeming Rulers(Xukaam) as he was in regular matters like consulting a sorcerer, or beliveing in horoscopes Example: Kemal Attaturk, The man responisble for dismantling the Caliphate, abolishing shar'ah rule, and pretty much doing his best to eradicate Islam from Turkish life. I think we can all agree that this man is not Muslim, or if he was in the begining, by his actions(Xukm bi ghayri ma anzallahu), became a Kaafir. Now, do we have to wait for a Scholar to issue an ruling on him..or is it as clear as daylight ? The man is fighting all signs of Islam, He is not ruling by what Allah has revealed, how can he be Muslim ? I don't have to go diggin into his heart to find out. I can see it by his actions. I could care less if he has a "Islamic" name and pedigree. We care and judge by the exterior and Allah(SWT) takes care of the Interior. I wish, Shaykh Rajihi was more explicit and clear on "Xukm bi ghayr ma Anzallah".

^^^ Correctomundo... Well-put Afro bro..ur using waaayyy to much "like"... Don't dilute Sweet Valley vernacular

Nicely Put: "gardening, dishwashing, feminism" Await the avalanche ! 48 Laws of Power - Robert Greene. Must-read.

^^ I'll take that !! What did it do ? umm didn't it like invade Iraq ? Umm like with the Yankees and stuff ? umm..yeah somethin like that.

^^ It's just you... and he's still a suspect. He can sue you for libel. Edit it out before he sees it.

Someone Anyone. How Many ppl here know of a HUMAN/ANIMAL that can run faster than a BULLET? Neo from the Matrix...don't know if he can run faster..but he sure can catch it.

The inquest will last no longer than a week, the officer(s) who did the shooting will NOT be punished due to the basic facts that he followed protocol of shooting suicide bombers in the head when there is a threat The police didn't do that. According to an eyewitness, They chased and tackled him, held him down, and unloaded 5 shots into him. reason for his being suspected ? Visiting a house that was under surveillance. That could have been me or you. As for him not stopping, would you have stopped if you saw men in regular clothes with no identifying badges, rushing you with guns drawn and pointed ? It's called Self-Preservation, sxb. You see death, you run. Very simple.

Still, and here is where civilisation comes into it (for those that don’t understand the meaning of the word), there is likely to be a lengthy enquiry in due course, those found guilty will be punished and justice will be seen to have been fulfilled. Tell that to Ahmed Diallo and the infamous 41 bullets. Reports say the police killers were hospitalised for traumau and "ringing in the ears" ! "Um yeah, I can't sleep real good, I'm always constipated, and I can't get it up at night" . Oh, the irony. You put 41 holes in a human and you want trauma treatment. Of course there was a lengthy inquiry, those guilty were aquitted, free as birds, and justice sweeped under the carpet. Point being: Justice, in these bastions of freedom, does tend to be quite selective at times. In this case, I'd wager to forego a year's worth of morning shaah if any officer is convicted. National Security and what not, see. "He looked left and right, he looked like a cornered rabbit, a cornered fox, he looked absolutely petrified. I saw the gun being fired five times into the guy. They held him down and unloaded five shots into him" Too early to tell, but it smacks of a revenge killing. Scenario A: He was wired with a bomb and the police had to kill him before he set it off. Ok, then why "hold him down". Why not shoot him from a distance ? Scenario B: They had terminate-with-extreme-prejudice orders. An exeucution, basically Just come out and say so. But nobody's buying the "he refused to stop so we had to wrestle him down and shoot him" theory However, and this is where this terrorist group, the IRA and even the Spanish ETA differ from our dear heroic brothers, whenever these groups were about to bomb a new place, they always gave/give advance warnings in case civilians get caught in the crossfire or explosions. Our brothers and sisters (and here I‘m referring to the suicide bombers), the people of Islam and the ones born occupying the moral high ground never bother with such formalities. Could you provide the source ? checked Wikepedia and even Google'd it some, but couldn't find any reference on how the ETA or IRA would *always* provide advance warning to civillians. Somehow the notion that a terrorist group would post flyers or send out brochures, actively broadcasting a future attack because they care for the health of old Mrs. O'Reilly, just doesn't ring true.

Apparent Motive: To strike back at the UK for it's involvement in Iraq. Force a "Spain-like" withdrawal. Will it work: Tentatively, Yes. There's only so much carnage the public can stomach. "Get out of Iraq/Bombs will stop" will become more and more appealing. Justified: No should have been expected: Absolutely. Tit-for-Tat. Newton's 3rd Law. Will happen again: More than likely Who are the bombers: Young muslims with the right intentions but wrong methods.

أيوه كده يا بطل . بس علي الله مو كلام Ùشوش ^^. Faahim min kalaamak anak ma sami3t Shaykh Tupak Al-Shakuur. khaleek bint kuwayisah wa ifhamii gabl ma taktubii.

Now you can't even carry bags without being suspicious!!I would say people be careful specially brothers with big beards. If it comes to it, then this is the way to go out: "What can we do when we're arrested, but open fire Life in the pen ain't for me, cause I'd rather die" Courtesy: My Block by Shaykhuna Tupak Al-Shakuur

just remembered... Even the mayor of London said the West's foreign policy was the main cause of the attacks.. If HE can see it clearly, why can't some of the Nomads on these boards

Kashafa's Law #1: What goes around comes around Kashafa's Law #2: What goes up must come down Kashafa's Law #3: Chickens come home to roost Condemable ?, Yes. But please spare us the "Ohhhh, it can't be happening here". Why can't it happen in London if it's happening in Baghdad ? Britons, blame Blair for "Battle of Britain: The Sequel"

^^ For the crime of carrying a baby and wearin a jilbaab ?

^^ War ninka dharka ha kaseebin !! But on a serious note, it does happen. I hear it's a running scam nowadays. Use a Faarax Tagsiile to come to the West, have him pay for the ESL classes, get that basaaaboor, and then sponsor her real xabeebi back home. Gotta be careful, G