Rahima, It all depends on who you ask. Look at the site islamq&a and you'll see how many fatwas they get from ibn Baz et al. This would explain why the aboveanswer was given. Brother I don’t see how the fatwa you posted opposes the one I provided :confused: . The fatwa you provided does not deem it a sin to call yourself a Salafi-it is just a description, what is not allowed is when it is used as a way of unnecessary segregation. As for this and that shaykh, like I said, all culama do not see eye to eye. Sh. Albani for example, probably the greatest scholar of our lifetime, deems it permissible for one to call him/herself Salafi but with the clause that once again it is not used for unnecessary segregation. Either way, many have an obsession with this whole thing. Often it becomes apparent when they vomit “wahabism†:rolleyes: . After that, the view becomes very obvious

ain't nothing manly about aman crying or nagging about bullsh1t. So is that what you equate with femininity? I'd like to think that we are not about that . And mind you, ain't nothing wrong with a man crying. At times it can be a blessing from the Lord, our prophet cried

^Bloody bully . Leave the new comers alone and pick on someone your own size .

^ Baashi I am extremely disappointed in you. Never did I take you for the overly-sensitive type or that you wouldn’t “get itâ€. Then again perhaps you just don’t know how to handle compliments . Rahima has gone past her “primeâ€, so any attempts of emphasis would be foolish. It was nothing more than admiration for a brother . Nothing more and the assumption that one would need to adverstise such ****** meaningless matters is to say the least offensive. Am I sensitive? Sure (pleasures of femininity), but you're not allowed Oh Dhuubo, don’t you realize that Rahima’s aint better than yours? I swear it (although you're making me look bad ); I was thinking the exact same thing . My Somali does not pass the borders of everyday lingo. Start getting into poetry and the like, and you might as be speaking in Chinese as far as my understanding goes. Kaleidoscopic Can’t help you there, perhaps we should begin classes together :confused: ? Seriously it bothers me.

'Father' of Malaysia Savages Bush and Blair Source: Guardian Simon Tisdall in Kuala Lumpur Friday May 27, 2005 The Guardian Mahathir Mohamad, modern Malaysia's founding father and moderate Islam's self-styled champion, denounced the Bush administration yesterday as a "rogue regime" bent on terrorising innocent civilians. He also said he was disappointed that Tony Blair, who he called a "proven liar", had won re-election after joining the US invasion of Iraq. Reflecting the rage felt across the Muslim world over abuse scandals in Afghanistan and Guantلnamo Bay, and continuing violence in Palestine and Iraq, Mr Mahathir said President George Bush and other US politicians were "ignorant" people who believed might made right - a return to colonial-era "old thinking". Speaking to the Guardian at his offices in Putrajaya, near Kuala Lumpur, Mr Mahathir also claimed that the Israeli government had been given a free hand by Washington to continue to expropriate Palestinian land and entrench its control over Jerusalem. The war on terror would not end until the Middle East conflict was justly resolved, he said. Asked whether he regretted his statement that "Jews rule the world by proxy", which caused an international furore in 2003, Mr Mahathir said he took nothing back. "US politicians are scared stiff of the Jews because anybody who votes against the Jews will lose elections. The Jews in America are supporting the Jews in Israel. Israel and other Jews control the most powerful nation in the world. And that is what I mean [about Jews controlling the world]. I stand by that view." On his balcony overlooking the tower blocks, mosques, bridges and artificial lakes of Putrajaya, Malaysia's new administrative capital which he created in the 1990s, Mr Mahathir, 79, cuts a slight, almost self-effacing figure. His personal manner is reserved and courteous to a fault. Earlier in the day, he had lectured students at his Perdana Leadership Foundation on the importance of education and development in the Muslim world to defend the Islamic faith. The problem was not Islam itself, he said, but the many incorrect interpreta tions of the Qur'an that were exploited by extremists. "Islam is a positive, not a negative force. Today most Muslim countries seem incapable of developing good governments, they are always fighting each other, assassinating each other and doing all the wrong things." Distortions of the Prophet's teachings had held back the peoples of many Muslim countries, he said. But Mr Mahathir's strongest criticism was directed outwards. Even though he retired as Malaysia's longest-serving prime minister in 2003, many in the region still regard him as the country's leader and one of Asia's most influential voices. His anger is undimmed; his rhetoric flows unstaunched. "The US is the most powerful nation," he said. "It can ignore the world if it wants to do anything. It breaks international law. It arrests people outside their countries; it charges them under American law. It kills them. "The US war on terror is a way of terrorising people. If you are an Iraqi and you are expecting to be bombed, aren't you terrified? If you have done nothing, if you are an innocent Iraqi citizen and you are expecting any time a rocket to fly in and blow you to pieces, aren't you terrified? "That is terror [and] the US is as guilty of terrorism as the people who crashed their planes into the buildings ... Bush doesn't understand the rest of the world. He thinks everybody should be a neocon like him." Mr Mahathir was equally scathing about Israeli policies in Palestine. He said his visit to the West Bank last month had been deliberately disrupted by the Israeli government. Specifically, he said he was blocked from travelling to Jerusalem and Jenin, scene of some of the worst Israeli violence in 2002, where he was to open a school funded by Malaysia. Israel has denied impeding his visit. "I suppose I was mistaken in thinking that there are parts of Palestine that are under the control of the Palestinians. But apparently the Israelis have occupied the whole of Palestine. They do anything they like there," he said. Mr Blair had discredited himself and Britain in Muslim eyes by backing the Iraq war, Mr Mahathir said. "He was wrong and he was more wrong because he tells lies. You know, Jack Straw came to see me [on the eve of the war in January 2003] and I asked him, 'Why are you with the Americans?' He said we're trying to influence the Americans not to take that kind of action. But it seems it was the other way round. "They [britain] were influenced in supporting America to do something that they knew was wrong ... They knew they were being lied to, and yet they supported the Americans and today 300,000 Iraqis are dead because of these lies. "I think a person like Blair would feel very guilty and I am disappointed that the British people would re-elect a person who obviously told lies ... We're beginning to lose faith in the present leadership of Britain." One eventual consequence, he suggested, could be Malaysia's withdrawal from the Commonwealth. Malaysia, which is encircled by conflicts in western Indonesia, the Philippines and southern Thailand, fully supported the fight against religious and political fanaticism, he said. But the west was going about it the wrong way. "Even if you get Bin Laden, you can't be sure there won't be another Bin Laden. You cannot get terrorists to sign a peace treaty. The only way to beat terror is to go for the basic causes. "They don't blow themselves up for no reason, they're angry, they're frustrated. And why are they angry? Look at the Palestinian situation. Fifty years after you created the state of Israel, things are going from bad to worse. "If you don't settle that, there will be no end to the war on terror. For how long are you going to go on examining people's shoes?" From GP to PM Mahathir Mohamad, 79. GP turned politician. Malaysian prime minister, 1981-2003. Premiership precis Developed Malaysia into tightly-controlled democracy with moderate Islamic bent and open market economy. Achieved through emasculating the judiciary, restricting media freedoms and stifling virtually all political dissent, including jailing his deputy in 1998. Now Most high-profile of many roles is adviser to national car company, Proton, one of the nation's flagship industrial enterprises. Formally eschews limelight, but still regarded as influential political heavyweight. Most famous for Slagging off western nations at every opportunity. Ignoring the International Monetary Fund during the 1997 Asian financial crisis. After ridiculing his policies at the time, the IMF has admitted Mr Mahathir's action proved extremely effective. Bringing Formula One motor racing to Malaysia. Most infamous for Grand, often wasteful, infrastructure projects. These include the Petronas towers - until 2003 the world's tallest buildings - and Putrajaya, a, purpose-built capital city. · John Aglionby

Oh people lighten up and leave the sister alone. She isn’t the only one who is curious, so big whoop .

^Enjoy yourself , but make sure you have a good look around. Don’t spend it on just family, but have a good look at the country and possibly conclude how you could add your two cents worth . I have been to Mogadishu too in January 2004 and saw the two-sided life of the city: one with developments and the other with total lawlessness, poverty and the legacy from the civil war. Yeah, that shocked me more than anything. The difference is staggering, especially the “refugee†(I can’t see how Somalis can be refugees on their own land) camps. I was so taken aback, but then comforted by the efforts of the many good people working tirelessly to make a difference in the lives of the poor. Suldaanka, I kept those pics to myself . Sadly all the pics of the ocean and beach have us in them. I was kicking myself i didn't take ones seperate. Oh well, maybe next time :cool:

The noose around the neck of the ummah is tightened once again. Perhaps this and similar events are signs for us to pack up and travel back to the Muslim lands before it is too late.

Question : I have come to know a person who follows the Salafi da’wah and I have read a book about this movement. I believe that the Salafi da’wah is correct and that those who follow it have the sound ‘aqeedah belief), but there are some matters I want to ask about How correct is it from an Islamic point of view to use the word “Salafi†and to describe oneself in this way? If a person says that he is a Salafi, is he praising himself? Is this considered to be dividing the ummah? If we tell the Sufis that their madhhab is not correct, and that neither the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his Companions taught it, they will respond that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) or his Companions did not use the word “Salafi†either, so how should we reply to them? Answer : Praise be to Allaah. We can answer this question with the following points: Each person is obliged to follow the guidance of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his Companions. This is the way of Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah and the followers of the righteous predecessors (al-salaf al-saalih). Allaah says (interpretation of the meanings): “Say (O Muhammad): ‘This is my way; I invite unto Allaah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me with sure knowledge. And Glorified and Exalted be Allaah (above all that they associate as partners with Him). And I am not of the mushrikeen (polytheists… those who worship others along with Allaah or set up rivals or partners to Allaah).†[Yoosuf 12:108] “And whoever contradicts and opposes the Messenger (Muhammad) after the right path has been shown clearly to him, and follows other than the believers’ way, We shall keep him in the oath he has chosen, and burn him in Hell – what an evil destination!†[al-Nisa’ 4:115] Whoever follows the way of the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) belongs to the salaf al-saalih, even if the people call him something else; by the same token, whoever goes against it and deviates from the Sunnah is an innovator, even if he claims to be a Salafi. If a person calls himself a Salafi to express his gratitude for having been guided to this way, or to clearly distinguish himself from innovation, then this is OK and is allowed in Islam. But if he says it only for the purpose of praising himself, then this is not allowed, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “… therefore justify not yourselves…†[al-Najm 53:32 – Yusuf ‘Ali’s translation]. Similarly, it is not allowed if it is said in a spirit of tribalism or sectarianism, because such attitudes are forbidden, as is clear from the following story: Jaabir ibn ‘Abd-Allaah said: “A man from the Muhaajireen shoved a man from the Ansaar from behind, so each man’s people gathered around him, saying ‘O Muhaajireen (come and help)!’ or ‘O Ansaar (come and help)!’ News of this reached the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and he said, ‘Stop this, for it is repulsive.’ Then he said, ‘What is this call of the people of jaahiliyyah? What is this call of the people of jaahiliyyah?’†(Reported by Imaam Ahmad, 14105; the hadeeth is also to be found in al-Saheehayn). The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called it the call of the people of jaahiliyyah and described it as repulsive, even though the words “Ansaari†and “Muhaajiri†are Islamic words, the first referring to those who supported Allaah and His Messenger, and the second referring to those who left the land of kufr and migrated to Allaah and His Messenger. Why were they described in this manner? Because in this instance, the words were not used in a permissible fashion; the usage was a sectarian and political one that could have led to fighting between the two groups. The same applies to the word “Salafiâ€. If the Ahl al-Sunnah and the salaf draw a line between themselves and the innovators, this is not considered to be dividing the ummah, as those who criticize the use of this word think is the case, but this distancing of oneself has to be done in accordance with the degree of bid’ah – whether it is major or minor – and should be regulated by the overall interests of the Islamic da’wah. The Sufi claims mentioned in the question are not valid. The denunciation is not merely because of the word “Sufiâ€, which is a general word that may be applied to things approved of in Islam, such as asceticism (zuhd) and fear of Allaah, or it may be applied to innovations such as monasticism and extremism. Rather the denunciation is because of the various types of shirk, major and minor, that are connected with Sufism and its tareeqahs. The word Tasawwuf (Sufism) now refers to the Sufi tareeqahs and the kinds of innovations they have. Sufism – as is obvious from their books and how Sufis actually are – includes deviant ideas of kufr, such as hulool (incarnation or the belief that the Creator may be indwelling in His creation – exalted be Allaah above what they say), ittihaad (union) and wahdat al-wujood (pantheism or the unity of existence, which is the belief that the Creator and His creation are the same thing, and that everything in existence is Allaah – exalted be Allaah above what they say), and going to extremes in what they say about the awliya’, in addition to their innovations in the matter of acts of worship and awraad (du’aa’s). The one who is seeking salvation has to work hard to gain beneficial knowledge and do righteous deeds, and he should avoid vain arguments and futile discussions in which there is no benefit. We ask Allaah to help us and you to follow the truth and act upon it. May Allaah bless our Prophet Muhammad. Islam Q&A Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid (www.islam-qa.com)

Ali al-Tamimi: An Embodiment of Faith Basim Abdullah Alim Article ID: 1231 | 128 Reads A few days ago, the Federal Court in the United States of America convicted Ali bin Mahdi Al-Timimi, and after brief deliberations, it is expected that he will be given a life sentence without parole. Who is Ali al-Timimi? What were the allegations made against him? What was the evidence that substantiated those allegations that led the Court to confirm and attest the Jury’s verdict? Ali al-Timimi was born in Washington DC to Iraqi parents, who had come to Washington in the early nineteen-sixties to join the Iraqi Diplomatic mission. It was there that Ali grew up until he completed his Junior High and a part of his High School education. His parents then took him with them to Riyadh so that he could attain a High School Certificate there. He then returned to Washington for his university education, and it was there, at university, in the mid-nineteen-eighties, that Allah had decreed for me to meet him. I was highly impressed by him, and by the high level of earnestness with which he worked to achieve an education. He completed two degrees in two different disciplines: one in biology and the other in computer science. In addition to this I was impressed by his knowledge and by the zeal and protective attitude he showed towards his religion. He would be hurt by any youth, whether male or female, who had slipped away from their religion. I cannot remember a day in which he did not strive hard and persevere in calling to Allah the Most High. He would constantly communicate with various students, whether they were Muslim or Non-Muslim, and encourage them to have a passion for this great religion. One could see him fully engrossed and highly enthusiastic about the facts he would explain to others. In the moments in which he preached to others, it was as if he was also reminding himself, and reviving his own spiritual strength. He then left us to travel to Al-Madina Al-Munawwara (May Peace and Blessings be upon its inhabitant, the Prophet Muhammad), so that he could study under some of the scholars there, due to his desire to learn the Sciences of Hadith. I met him on his return and it was as if he had found his long-cherished objective in the Sunna of our beloved Prophet (May Peace and Blessings be upon Him). He resumed his Dawa work with fervour, like a tireless bee travelling through the cities of America without any worry. Even after taking on all of this, by Allah’s grace and the blessings He grants to His sincere servants, he managed to attain a Phd in the nature of cancer and the uses of Computers in diagnosing the nature of the disease, its movement, the methods of its prevention and ways to cure it. The scholars of Biology and Computer Science all attested to the originality of his work and of its academic significance. When Ali left his studies to study the sciences of hadith and the Prophetic Sunna, he faced a lot of criticism and mockery from those who consider scientific knowledge to have a status that cannot be reached by any other discipline. These people believed the sciences of this world to be completely separate and unrelated to the knowledge of the hereafter, but Allah caused Ali to excel in science beyond his peers and contemporary scientists without it conflicting with his love and learning of hadith and the Prophetic Sunna. His personality is one that combines eloquence, steadfastness in times of adversity, and unique opinions from one angle, with gentleness and a good community spirit from another angle. I was very impressed with this unique mix that made me see him as being similar to the martyr Sayyid Qutb (May Allah have mercy on him). Despite the fact that our views differed, I can say that he is sincere to his methodology and in what he believes. His sense of self-sacrifice in both body and soul for calling to Allah, and the time and effort he spends in his Dawa work are difficult to parallel. As any Muslim who is zealous and protective over his religion, he was pained by the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq by the United States of America. He was the first, from within the United States, to call for a political effort opposing the American Occupation of Muslim Lands. He led demonstrations to put pressure on the government and the Congress, and he co-operated with various American organisations that believe in the right of mankind to freedom, self-determination, and an end to American aggression of peaceful countries that are thousands of miles away from the United States. He announced in his sermons that resistance to the American Army is legal in both Iraq and Afghanistan and that this is something acknowledged within the United States of America, as many legal theorists and peace protestors have stated that both the attacks and the occupations that followed them are illegal. International law allows countries to resist occupation. With the escalation of events and the control of the Jewish influenced Christian Right over various parts of the government, the American authorities launched a number of raids upon Mosques, Islamic Schools, and homes of prominent Islamic preachers who had angered the Jewish influenced Christian Right. Among them was Ali al-Timimi, who was arrested and imprisoned under the accusation of calling for a war against the United States of America, due to his allowing and encouraging Muslims to resist the American Occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and for stating that whoever dies defending his homeland dies a martyr. In addition to the above allegation he was accused of calling for war against a nation at peace with the United States of America, claiming that its relationship with Iraq and Afghanistan is one of peace and not one that an occupying country has with the country it has invaded in accordance with the classification of the United Nations and its resolutions. American Law according to its statutes and legal precedents does not consider one’s mere call or opinion as being an incitement even if its subject is fighting or the use of force. It does not consider it to be an infringement of the law, as it is protected by freedom of thought, as long as the opinion does not translate into action, or into the drawing out of plans that are to be implemented. American Law also states that confirmation of an allegation of calling to war or incitement to violence, as Ali al-Timimi has been accused of, must be based on the consequences of the call and the incitement. It is here that one asks, as Ali’s lawyers asked before: How can it be possible for an individual to call for military action in Iraq and Afghanistan when the only control he has is over the house he resides in? His call does not go beyond the mere expression of an opinion to even the most basic stage of implementation. In addition to this, he is thousands of miles away from both Iraq and Afghanistan. The reality is that it was crusade inspired hatred [that is behind this], [the same hatred] that led the World to submit to its aims, and sought to justify its beliefs and evil actions. It is the same hatred, which is apparent on the white crusader, which leads him to keep for himself the right to have an opinion. One does not have the right to oppose his opinion [if they do not share his creed and colour], even if they are an American Citizen who has all the rights that come with citizenship, as the determining factor in this matter belongs to the white man, who is ruled by race and colour rather than laws and citizenship. Everyone should be under his control, and all efforts should be for his benefit. I mentioned all of this for two reasons: Firstly: In order to commend a man who spent his life in calling to Allah right until this moment, and persisted in it and kept firm upon his stance, without making any distortions or changes to it. He remained far from accepting any bargains offered to him by the American authorities, such as their offer to reduce any allegations made against him or maybe even waiving them completely in exchange for his standing as a witness against his brothers in faith. When his conviction was attested in the courtroom, he smiled as one would when being pleased, and informed everyone that he was only created to worship Allah, the Most High, in any place that Allah willed him to be, and if Allah’s will and decree is that he spend all of his life in a prison, then he shall worship Allah in it with sincerity even if the disbelievers detest that. Through his actions he said, “My Lord! Prison is more beloved to me than that which they call me toâ€. Secondly: To wake the Ummah, and to wake the Muslims in the United States of America to the reality of their situation, which is that the United States of America has declared war against the Religion and its adherents. It is now time to stop people from looking at that country as a place of hope and as a safe country. Allah’s land is vast, and even if the United States of America oppresses [the Earth’s inhabitants] and puts pressure on them, a noble life is not one of pleasure and comfort; it is one of pride, honour, and the ability to implement that which Allah wants, namely His worship, even if one’s conditions are harsh or difficult. I cannot see for any Muslim who has zeal for his religion or his honour a place in that country, nor do I any longer believe that the United States of America has any steady principles by which one can determine their safety or protection, whether they be inside it or outside it. Its anger threatens all, as does Jewish influenced Christian Right’s manipulation of its laws, traditions and heritage. In closing, I ask Allah the Most High that he relieves our brother Ali al-Timimi from his troubles, that He grants him freedom, that He returns him to his family safe, for despite the cutting off of all means, the tightening of handcuffs, putting him in shackles, and his being thrown into the darkness of prison, our faith in Allah makes us expect that Allah’s Help and the victory of this religion are close. When it takes place the believers rejoice at the victory of Allah. Indeed Allah’s victory is near. Allah’s [pleasure] is the objective. Lawyer and legal advisor alim@alimlaw.com

^Inshallah and that we can climb up right .

Salax u diin, Thank-you for providing that. This is a problem to be tackled. Whilst the problem may be more severe in SL, the rest of the horn is not far off. Sadly many know the negative effects of qaad yet they still choose to chew it.

^Something like that Hoping he is over 35 , thirteen good years to get there :cool:

She must be from Collingwood for Richmond Not that I live there but Richmond and Collignwood dear are both middle-class suburbs. Perhaps Footscray would be a better option? Or any other western suburb.

I think that once girls reach the age of 20 or so, they soon realize that the bad-boy is all wrong for them. The cool bad-boy image is what girls are attracted to in high school because it is the “in†thing- they grow out of it quickly me thinks! Unless they are bad-girls themselves, which then makes sense. Then again, what exactly do we all mean by bad-boy? For me it is the chain-smoking, qaad-chewing, night-clubbing, gorgarad-wearing, unemployed, uneducated young brother who is also a womanizer.

^Right on brother That is why i said that we need a third party to give credit or disapproval. But you look so determined and No need for a third party dear. All people are innocent until proven guilty. You cannot base guilt or unfair generalizing comments on nothing. All I was asking is that you not paint this unfair image and at the end of the day these same youth, whether they are in Sydney or Melbourne are our brothers and sisters. Giving them this evil identity serves no purpose and solves no problem, especially if it has no basis. So what do you reckon mate? Sister I agree with you wholeheartedly. Our youth everywhere (not an issue restricted to reer Melbourne-which is where I disagreed) need help. We have being sucked in by the jaws of the society we have being raised in, of course as compared to how we should be. Many are just dhalinyaro and as compared to our older generation I cannot see them being much worse really. Youth helping the youth is a great idea. It has already begun, the youth have opened their own centre here in Melbourne and they organize most events themselves without the intervention of the older generation. So far alxamdullilah it seems to be working somewhat with many youth coming back from the clasp of the western ideology.

Dreamer, And some families require the income of two to survive and/or meet their basic needs. So please stop splattering us with that BS. I’m not exactly sure where that was directed, but if you noticed the article appeared in an Australian newspaper and the writer is an Australian woman. Generally speaking, here in Australia, one income is more than enough to meet the basic needs of an average family. We have many advantages as compared to many other countries, free education, health care, numerous sorts of government financial assistance, so basically the other income is not necessary, it is more of a choice. The case of course would not be the same had there not been a choice. Here, women work to either progress their own careers and climb the corporate ladder or to have the small luxuries of life-it is not a matter of necessity. Successfully? I wouldn't know. That sister was the sticking point of the discussion. We can manage quiet a lot in life, but as far as career and children are concerned, success is the path some of us want to follow. Like I said, the goal is to have that great career and raise upstanding children. Sure there are many options, but this was meant to be a discussion where we could explore the pros and cons of these, not to mention decide if that ever-so elusive success factor is attainable without feeling a sense of guilt. What about spacing your children? Wonderful (I'm sure we have all thought of that), how long (3 years between children perhaps)? We are bound by the tenets and beliefs of Islam, there are restrictions that come into play and for those of us who care it is once again another hurdle. We can argue the points of part-time work and working when the children finally reach grade school but the former is not a way to succeed career wise (which was a goal as stated) and the latter is not feasible for the reason that more than likely one will always have a child under the age of gradeschooling because of the religious restrictions (until of course we most probably reach the age of 40). Extended family is also wonderful, but who is willing to look after your children five days a week, eight hours a day? My mother for example is in her early 40s; she is still working full-time and living her life. It would be tremendously unfair of me to expect her to stay home to raise my children when she raised me. Basically this is not Somalia where we can rely on extended family to look after our offspring. Some of us are lucky perhaps who have stay-at-home mothers but not all. I mean there are so many different options available if one really thinks about it. There are, and like I said this was nothing more than an attempt to have a meaningful discussion on our options and possible pass on different experiences and information to one another, not a debate on feminism or the like. Jawaahir, In all honesty, university for me is nothing more than a stepping stone to get me to what I believe is a better stage of life. Knowledge is not gained by the four walls of a university institution, fun might be, but we can gain that sort of knowledge in various ways but unfortunately it is not recognized, which is why we are bound in this way. If my chosen career path did not require a university education, I certainly would not bother with such a debt. On daycare...honeslty i had live in filipino maids all my life..back when....i cannot say the experience was negative Here in Australia we have a new program where women can do day-care within their homes and get paid for it by the state government. Many Somali women gain some extra cash this way and so far seems like the only feasible form of childcare for us over here. I personally would not trust my children with non-Muslims or in the mainstream childcare centers where often the children are neglected. At the end of the day, if the choice comes down to the proper upringing of my children or pursuing a successful career, it is a no brainer. But can we have both and if so how?

I voted yes! I want to know exactly how many years I have left to reach that level. The older he is, the better I’ll feel .

Timely article Rahima Virginia Haussegger is mad at feminist poineers but I gotta hunch that some of our late bloomers r mad in everything man Dang! She is right on the money wallahi. I don’t know about the timeliness of it (for as Kaleidoscopic pointed out we don’t have any middle-age-childless women on this forum-me thinks anyway, but then again we are Somali, reduce every age by 10, so 40 means 30) but it was more of an attempt to discuss whether or not we can have the life of marriage with children as well as pursuing a successful career. I believe it would be fair to say that most of us are either university educated or are in the midst of gaining it-therefore we are faced with this dilemma. Work or housewife for the next 20 years until all the children are independent, or can we have both without feeling that we are neglecting our children or homes? Realistically speaking, can we have a 9-5 job and raise upstanding children? I’m sure we all want our children to excel, to have the best of the best , be the best of the best (or at least as close as possible), upstanding citizens of humanity etc. So can we do all that and pursue a career? Often I wonder and even though I have not had children yet, I think about it so that I can weigh up my options beforehand. Like all people I have plans for this short life, to as they say live life to the fullest. Whilst I respect housewives and believe that it is probably the hardest job in the world (apparently equal to two full-time jobs), I’m not sure if I can do it for too long of a period. I mean I’ve spent so many years gaining an education, at the very least I hope to utilize it. We can perhaps argue it would be beneficial to educate our children, and sure, but a high school diploma is enough for that. So many questions come up and so many matters to contemplate. I think of these matters now for I don’t want to get myself in a situation where it will hit me with a blow that will knock me senseless. So before Baashi and Kaleidoscopic desecrated the topic :mad: with their hook-up exchange (ever heard of pm folks? :rolleyes: ), this was an attempt for us as “educated†sisters to discuss matters of concern to us and perhaps pass on experiences &/or information to one another to ease this transition (which is inevitable). mizz_S.lander Rahima alhamdullilah is not having to face that problem , but just a quick question, a live in nanny? What’s the point of working then? You’re only paying her wage at the end of the week. This is the other thing I worry somewhat about. Finding suitable and trustworthy childcare-I don’t know if I can trust my children in the hands of non-Muslims or even weak Muslims. Like I said, I hope to instill in them Islamic morals and beliefs that will last a life time and to make sure they become strong Muslims rather than some of the weak-gaalo-following Muslims we have today. I would give up everything to raise children, but is it possible to have both and if so how would that work? Can we have it all or is it an elusion? I have specific plans about work, further education,family, financial stability etc(to the point that i think at times it scares my family and friends) so i often wonder, can i realistically achieve it without comprimising my children? Sometimes it's so hard being a woman!

I believe this is NGONGEs attempt at devaluing the womens forum :rolleyes: , so i say delete .

The sins of our feminist mothers By Virginia Haussegger July 23 2002 The Age newspaper-Australia. A few years ago, in my mid-30s, had I heard Malcolm Turnbull pontificate about the need to encourage Australians to marry younger and have more children ("The crisis is fertility, not ageing", on this page last Tuesday), I would have thumped him, kneed him in the groin, and bawled him out. How dare he - a rich father of two, with perfect wife and perfect life - presume for a moment to tell women, thriving at the peak of our careers, that we should stop, marry, and procreate. The sheer audacity of it. Yet another male conspiracy, a conservative attempt to dump women out of the workplace and back into the home. A neat male arrangement: a good woman to run the household, and a workplace less cluttered with female competition. A win-win for patriarchy. And precisely the kind of society I was schooled against. As we worked our way through high school and university in the '70s and early '80s, girls like me listened to our mothers, our trailblazing feminist teachers, and the outspoken women who demanded a better deal for all women. They paved the way for us to have rich careers. They anointed us and encouraged us to take it all. We had the right to be editors, paediatricians, engineers, premiers, executive producers, High Court judges, CEOs etc. We were brought up to believe that the world was ours. We could be and do whatever we pleased. Feminism's hard-fought battles had borne fruit. And it was ours for the taking. Or so we thought - until the lie of super "you-can-have-it-all" feminism hits home, in a very personal and emotional way. We are the ones, now in our late 30s and early 40s, who are suddenly sitting before a sheepish doctor listening to the words: "Well, I'm sorry, but you may have left your run too late. Women at your age find it very difficult to get pregnant naturally, and unfortunately the success rate of IVF for a 39-year-old is around one in five - and dropping. In another 12 months you'll only have a 6 per cent chance of having a baby. So given all the effort and expense, do you really want to go through with this? Why don't you go home and think it through? But don't leave it too long - your clock is ticking." Then he adds for comic value, "And don't forget, the battery is running low!" For those of us who listened to our feminist foremothers' encouragement; waved the purple scarves at their rallies; read about and applauded the likes of Anne Summers, Kate Jennings, Wendy McCarthy, Jocelyn Scutt, Morag Fraser, Joan Kirner, Elizabeth Proust etc (all strong examples of successful working women); for those of us who took all that on board and forged ahead, crashed through barriers and carved out good, successful and even some brilliant careers; we're now left - many of us at least - as premature "empty nesters". We're alone, childless, many of us partnerless, or drifting along in "permanent temporariness", as sociologist Zygmunt Bauman so aptly put it in a recent Age article by Anne Manne to describe the somewhat ambiguous, uncommitted type of relationship that seems to dominate among childless, professional couples in their 30s and 40s. The point is that while encouraging women in the '70s and '80s to reach for the sky, none of our purple-clad, feminist mothers thought to tell us the truth about the biological clock. Our biological clock. The one that would eventually reach exploding point inside us. Maybe they didn't think to tell us, because they never heard the clock's screaming chime. They were all married and knocked-up by their mid-20s. They so desperately didn't want the same for us. And none of our mothers thought to warn us that we would need to stop, take time out and learn to nurture our partnerships and relationships. Or if they did, we were running too fast to hear it. For those of us that did marry, marriage was perhaps akin to an accessory. And in our high-disposable-income lives, accessories pass their use-by date, and are thoughtlessly tossed aside. Frankly, the dominant message was to not let our man, or any man for that matter, get in the way of career and our own personal progress. The end result: here we are, supposedly "having it all" as we edge 40; excellent education; good qualifications; great jobs; fast-moving careers; good incomes; and many of us own the trendy little inner-city pad we live in. It's a nice caffe-latte kind of life, really. But the truth is - for me at least - the career is no longer a challenge, the lifestyle trappings are joyless (the latest Collette Dinnigan frock looks pretty silly on a near-40-year-old), and the point of it all seems, well, pointless. I am childless and I am angry. Angry that I was so foolish to take the word of my feminist mothers as gospel. Angry that I was daft enough to believe female fulfilment came with a leather briefcase. It was wrong. It was crap. And Malcolm Turnbull has a point. God forbid! Virginia Haussegger is ABC TV news presenter in the ACT. She has been a television journalist for 15 years, hosting the 7.30 Report in various states and reporting for the Channel Seven's Witness and Channel Nine's A Current Affair.

All About Voting Haytham bin Jawwad al-Haddad Article ID: 1225 | 547 Reads In the name of Allâh, and in Him we seek assistance, and all praise is due to Allâh, Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is no deity worthy of worship besides Allâh alone, without any associate, and there is nothing comparable to Him. And I testify that Muhammad is His servant and final Messenger. Introduction: When we discuss the issue of voting or any other similar contemporary issue we should try to understand its reality before coming up with a conclusion about its ruling, this is what is termed as fiqh al waqi’(being aware and understanding the environment and factors surrounding the topic of concern) which is mentioned by the scholars. Ibn al-Qayyim considered understanding fiqh al waqi’ as one of the prerequisites of the mufti alongside fiqh al mas’alah (possessing proper perception of the issue at hand and its related rulings) that were necessary in order to arrive at a legal opinion about a certain issue of concern. Let us commence by considering the following scenario: we have a ruler and his subjects and the ruler leaves it to the people to decide, giving them two choices, either the law of Allah or man-made law. In this situation there are three parties involved: 1- The ruler himself who puts the law of the Creator (Shari’ah) in question or debate between people; there is no doubt that this ruler committed an act of kufr for he is obliged to rule by the law of the Creator . Allah says, “Legislation is for none but Allah. He has commanded that you worship none but Him.†[Qur’an, 12:41]. To him this ayah is addressed, “And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed, such are the Kafirun (disbelievers).†[Qur’an, 5:44]. 2- The subjects who were asked to select between the Shari’a and man-made law; they have to choose the Shari’a. The mechanism of choosing the Shari’a may take various forms; voting is one form, demonstrations are another form, and sending letters is a third form. People must do their best in order to choose Shari’a and make it dominant. Can any one say, here, that it is impermissible for people to vote to choose the Shari’a since voting is part and parcel of democracy which in turn is kufr? If we say that then we do not correctly conceptualised the issue at hand. Saying that such voting is an act of kufr is total nonsense. Imagine the case when a person is consulted, as happens in some countries, whether he wants to take his case to the Shari’a court or a court that will rule on the basis of man-made law. Should this person say I do not want to choose since choosing is voting and voting is part of democracy which is Kufr!? What shall he do? Shall he abstain from doing anything? What if the constitution states that the judicial system is man-made law unless the person opts for the Shari’a court in which case he is allowed to do so. Can we say in this case that this person is obliged to vote or choose the Shari’a court? Can we also say that abstention from voting means that the person implicitly accepted the man-made law as the judicial system and this is an act of kufr? From this discussion we can conclude three important points: a. Voting means, in many cases, choosing or selecting. b. Participation in a kufr system does not necessarily mean participation in kufr. It depends on the nature of this participation. c. Abstention from voting some times causes more damage or harm than voting itself. 3- The people who want to be part of the legislative executive like those who want to be members of parliament. This issue requires a separate detailed study and is beyond the scope of discussion here Let us also take another important scenario. It is when the inhabitants of a country, who have the Shari’a as the dominant system, want to choose a leader for their country; say they have four candidates to choose from. They employ elections as a mechanism to select the leader, can we say this is democracy and it is an act of kufr? Brothers and sisters, from the above discussion we conclude that it is absolutely wrong to generalise the ruling by saying that democracy is an act of kufr. We should instead say something that makes sense to people which reflects that we understand what we are talking about. Leave alone the issue of accusing some one of kufr being a major sin and that is why we should be extremely careful before doing such. The prophet e says “The one who accuses his brother of kufr then surely one of them is suchâ€. Democracy originally meant people’s ruling. However these days it has various ways of implementations. It is used as a selection mechanism. That is why we see another term is being introduced now which is liberal democracy. Some observers believe that it was introduced to emphasise that Muslim countries should not only use this mechanism to select the rulers while the constitution remains Islam rather they should vote for the constitution which in their case is Islam itself. So democracy from this perspective means the constitution itself has to be subject to selection through a democratic mechanism. Muslims living under Kufr system: Muslims living under a dominant democratic system which they can not change in the near future should understand their situation in all its various facets. Muslims believe that ultimate justice, peace and coherence can not be achieved unless the divine system is dominant. In many cases they are unable to achieve this in the foreseeable future. So what shall they do until they reach this stage? They are living under a kufr system where either party A, B or C will be in power. People have the privilege to choose among these parties. If you do not choose any of them you are not going to change the system since one of them will still be in power. You might say that if all people were not to choose any of them then the system will change. This might be true; however it is almost impossible for this to take place in the foreseeable future in all so called democratic non-Muslims countries. So the question arises that until the system changes, what shall we, the Muslims do? Any sane person would say that abstaining from selecting the least evil option would only leave room for the more evil option to win. It is a very simple and straight forward equation. Here let us answer various queries forwarded by those brothers who are against selection through voting. However, before doing so, in our discussions we should identify why we are against voting, is it because it is an act of kufr i.e. the ruling of voting from the Shari’a point of view or because it is harmful and damaging for Muslims? Such a distinction is crucial to have a fruitful academic debate. If the reason is the first, then we should refer to the first part of this article. If the reason is the second then let us examine the possible arguments and respond to them: 1. Doesn’t selecting one of these parties ultimately endorse their policies that are based on man made laws (kufr law). The answer is No, this is not necessarily the case for the following reason: Choosing an option means that you endorse it only if there are better options offered. But if the other choice is worse, then actually you are endorsing the difference between this and the less harmful option. Take for example eating unslaughtered meat for a starving person. He is allowed or even obliged to do so, yet does it mean that he is endorsing eating unslaughtered meat? Rather, he is endorsing the difference between these options which in this case is saving his life. Saving his life by eating unslaughtered meat is good compared to starving to death. That is why this is an agreed upon principle. So quoting each party’s statements that they are going to do so and so if they win separately and without comparing this with what other parties say is not a very honest approach since it does not give the audience the full picture. This becomes worst when the alternative presented is just a hypothetical solution. So I urge the brothers and sisters not to accuse any body of kufr or sins just because they vote for one of these parties in such a situation. Such accusations reflect ignorance as well as naivety in comprehension. 1- By voting you are involved in the political system which is a step towards integration which ultimately means loosing the identity of Muslims living under western countries. I agree that integration in its wider meaning leads to the loss of identity and it is a hidden agenda by the enemies of Islam to deceive Muslims so they loose their identity. However, this is not necessarily an implication of voting. I agree that full political participations might lead to major problems for Muslims and we have to be very careful when stepping into this arena. However, ticking the box for one of the candidates does not mean full political participation. I would like to mention here that I also advise our brothers who are involved in leading Muslims in terms of politics to be aware that some Muslims might understand that voting means full involvement in the game of politics which is full of lying and tricks as has been realised by many non-Muslims themselves. So they should use careful language and words when encouraging Muslims to vote. Statements such as: voting is the only way for Muslims in this country, voting is the lifeboat, voting is part of our belief, voting means citizenship, and so on should be avoided. Such emotional and extreme statements lead to converse statements and reactions that are equally emotional and extreme. 2- It is not true that we do not have another option. We have to strengthen our Muslim community and work hard for our independence. I think no one disagrees that the Muslim community needs to strengthen themselves and build their own organizations and schools etc. However, this is not an option that is incompatible with having party A,B or C in power. This is one matter and that is another, there is no contradiction between the two options. We can vote to select the best option while we are working for our community and our future. 3- We are not going to get anything by voting while it might be impermissible so it is better to abstain from it. It is not easy to come up with such a conclusion. We need a deep thorough study and analysis to confirm that all parties are nothing but different faces of one coin. I also agree that voting is not the lifeline for Muslims in this country as represented by some Muslims. I have asked parties on both sides of the voting argument to come up with an academic study to prove their points. However, it is difficult to say that all parties are exactly the same in internal and external policy. Logically, not all non-Muslims are the same, even the kuffar of Makkah were different. Abu Talib, the uncle of the Prophet is totally different from Abu Jahl. Abu Talib helped the Prophet e and sheltered him while the other one used to torture the Prophet and the companions. Should we not do our best to choose the one that is less evil and better for humanity? Also, I would like to clarify here that abstention from voting is actually indirect voting. Let me explain this by the following example. Imagine that 6 people were to vote for two parties named A and B. A says in his manifesto that he will legalise pornography, ban faith schools, kill 1000 Muslims, prevent Muslims from Hijab and other rights. While B said that he will legalise pornography but allow faith schools and kill 500 Muslims. 3 of us vote for A and 2 vote for B and Me as a Muslim believing that voting is kufr abstained from doing so. Then what will happen? A will win, however if I vote for B, then no one will win. So I participated in lessening the evil. Let us now say that we have 2 more people, either they vote for B or abstain. Abstention will not change the situation while encouraging them to vote for B, who will do all these filthy things, will mean that A will loose which means that we saved the life of 500 Muslims and had a chance to have faith schools and practice hijab! So whether we vote or note, we actually vote since we are part of the population. This is how the system works, at least in Britain. If someone disagrees with this then he should prove this to us and bear in mind that he should be systematic in his approach and clear in presenting his case. In his abstaining to vote he has implicitly accepted the principle of voting when it is proved that abstention from voting is indirect voting. 4- If we vote we will not bring any Muslim to power? It is true, but who said that our aim in the near future is to bring a Muslim into power. Our realistic aim in the near future is to have a better person with a better system in power. It is impossible and impractical to think of having a true Muslim leader in the near future in most or even all the non-Muslim countries. Our ultimate aim is to help those who are better than their co-politicians into power. 5- Boycotting elections is better for Muslims since it sends a strong message to the politician that we are not happy with them and their system. Moreover it will show the ineligibility of this round of elections. This might be true but as I said earlier we need a deep study and understanding of the complicated political international situation to confirm such conclusions. I urge those brothers who believe in this to produce a provisional work proving this point. In the mean time we should know that such boycotting will not be effective unless all Muslims do so. That is why, before we arrive at such conclusions a deep discussion with all Muslims involved in politics and other related fields should take place. It should not be an individual opinion of a single party or so. However, we should bear in mind that if a decision were taken to boycott elections, then we should be clear why we do so. Is it because of the original ruling of voting and elections or because of the impracticality of it? Conclusion: I would like to conclude here by urging the brothers and sisters to be united in their decision. Such unity is the only way for their voice to be effective. Unity here means following one strategy whether we decided to vote or to boycott elections. Once we decide to vote, which is the decision now at least in the UK, then we should appoint one main body to lead us in this decision. I believe that we, Muslims in UK, should follow the opinion of the Muslims Association of Britain. They have prepared a good strategy for Muslims to use. You may find it on their website www.mabonline.net Haitham Al-Haddad Haitham01234@yahoo.co.uk 25th Rabiee al Awwal 1426 4th May 2005.

What is wrong with u girls? Do you want eqaulity or not? You should offer to pay for it all in such circumstances. Infact, if he is not very quick to pull out the purse, pay for it immediately... show off that you're truly independent and loaded. As i was thinking. I never really get it with us sisters. Double standards and contradictions seem to be the norm nowadays. Modesty, men like that most probably will not get much done. They seem to be too consumed with themselves, so be grateful you saw the signs early .

man you take me for a fool or something? hell no! Boooring. You’re no fun ! You wait for others to answer :rolleyes: .

nin_brown, As for Rahima...she is consumed by hatred towards Pland Get a life No seriously, where and what did i say for your royal highness to conclude this? and anything good that happens in Somalia Stop lying. That is so not true :eek: . See now i know you don't follow any of my posts. But that's ok, i understand. London does that to people .