Originally posted by JUSTICE: Mamdouh abdelaleem died two years ago of cancer, Allah yrhmo. Wow, how come I didn't hear about this?! He was relatively young. Allah yerhamo. He was brilliant in Layali Al Helmiya. Edit: This guy is alive and kicking. I think you meant Abdallah Mahmoud who died of a brain tumour in 2005.

Poor spelling is inexcusable. Nearly every application has some sort of proofreading ability. If not, it takes less than 30 seconds to open a word processor and spell check your writing. My teen cousins' English is unreadable: poor grammar and spelling plus numbers in the place of letters. I don't understand what they're teaching them in public schools. If you're older than 15/16 and insist on writing poorly when you know better, it makes you seem illiterate.

Che, do what? The statement refers to recitation without understanding, a very natural thing at 2. What exactly are people praising? A child repeating information at the prompt of an adult who is shouting a little too much. Now show me this little girl in 25 years when she graduates cum laude in religious studies and has authored a couple of original and thoughtful papers, I will cheer and holler like the gallery here.

Monkey see, monkey do. Toddler style. Oprah had this 2-year old who could name/point to countries on the map. If there is ever a time to learn and regurgitate all sorts of information, this would probably be it.

Yes, Khayr, scientific engineering is the new kid on the block. If the heavens don't re-certify, they will be deemed redundant and promptly pushed into retirement.

Fatima has guts and she is a beautiful girl, she is doing all she can to make it in this cutthroat business. I've been rooting for her since the first show. Whitney? A cold, over privileged bigot. Go Fatima!

Yum, Vimto. Nothing made teeth red like it did.

Moussy!! Who uses a vermin's name for a drink?

The art project was an elaborate hoax.

Democracy has no direction and lust overides restraint almost all the time. Classic.

Next time, make your peeping hole in the wall bigger. You'll see more things French that you've bargained for.

It's not your English but your censorship, dude. I suggest a second read through and some judicious editing.

^ Us Somalis carry the no-claw gene.

^ Hmmm. I sorta agree, Cara. Maximum manipulation and mind control for the next 40 years require complete secrecy. I gave you children. I lost 2 organs, tore 5 sinews, messed up 8 hormones for your babies. Now your soul is mine. ALL MINE. Men have no idea how much evil motherhood entails.

Cara, I knew as soon as my soft-featured fingers left the keyboard that I was being unfair to donkeys!

I heard something about long muscles and dancer's body. Does Pilates promise that? If it does, I want it in writing. Sheh, are your muscles getting longer?

With many blessed with the intellect of donkeys and the ethics of grave robbers, giving Somalis non-African looks, whatver the heck that maybe, is the least that God can do.

^ And 'dagax', the single most infuriating pejorative used by many arrogant and ignorant nomads. #3: Signing the organ donor card or the back of their driver's license. We have no issues getting brand spanking new kidneys and livers from people who died. But put our selves in the shoes of that donor? It will be a breezy day in hell.

Nur, walaal, you’ve misquoted me in your first paragraph. Perhaps you’d like to change that and then modify your first point built on the misquote. You write: " Shura by definition, is a heavily man-influenced set of legislation through the influence of qiyaas and igmaac. " First, let me thank you for the thorough explanation of the terms ‘sharica’ and ‘shura’. Second, we have some fundamental disagreements on several of your assertions. For instance, sharc (as in the Quran) and sharica (it’s loosely based interpretation) are two different things. I think of the meat stew metaphor. God tells people not to put pork in their stew but beef. This is the sharc. The remaining 9 ingredients (veggies, spices, oil), the person who prepares it, the manner in which it is served, and who is fed, are all decided by a number of people and may vary from place to place. This is the sharica. And this is an instance where an instruction (no pork in stew) is clear. Even then, the space for manoevuring is large. Another example is that of lashes given out at the discretion of a judge in the KSA. Suppose 2 unmarried people are caught on a date in a cinema. They are punished with 50 lashes each. Where is this particular punishment for this particular offence in the Quran and/or Sunnah? It is at the discretion of the judge. Another muslim society may choose to fine people for public lewdness (holding hands, etc.). And this particular offence may not be an offence at all in other Muslim societies. The sharc (zina, witnessed by 4, 100 lashes) is clear. The sharica, on the other hand, is a group-specific effort to reconcile 1-part God law in the clearest of circumstances and 9-parts human input. My main disagreement remains to be your narrow definition of shura as a process operating within an interpretation of Quran and Sunnah in developing sharica. Shura is much broader than that, may not necessarily refer to the Quran & Sunnah, and is open to everyone in society and not just people who ‘should have a cerfication in the area of their expertise to offer an expert advice’ , though I agree with you that they should do their homework. Shuraa is just the Devine inspired venue to get a consensus on any matter that causes difference of opinions on the Maqaasidul Shariica ( Moral of the Devine Law) This means that shura is limited to the religious class in most societies because who else is involved in understanding Maqaasidul Shariica or providing new legislation and fatwas to respond to modern concerns. Deferring to this class creates the high priests of Islam (a religion that does not recognize it).

Nur, Forget about ‘Western’ democracy for now, walaal. These are simply names and what the spirit and practice of the name entail are much more telling. Anyone who says that the US electoral college is based on democratic principles is lying. My last neighbourhood zoning meeting, on the other hand, was based on sound democratic principles in both theory and practice. In my view, it is not only the origin of a concept or a practice that invalidates it. The so-called kufaar of the prophet’s (csw) era wore the same clothes as the mu’mins, named their children Abdullah, and were generous with their neighbours. Shuraa means consultation, sharia means the law or the way to live. So a Muslim is not free to have a consultative meeting that conflicts with the Sharia as Sharia is the broad ball park shuraa takes place. Your conclusion does not follow your 2 premises. Sharia, by definition, is a heavily man-influenced set of legislation through the influence of qiyaas and igmaac. Second, shura or consultation is a process and a sharia law/legislation is an outcome. Your comment that a muslim is not free to have a consultative meeting at odds with Sharia, though that very Sharia is being developed by other muslims, is very strange. Are we talking about different classes of muslims? First class muslims who are of a religious understanding, according to your statement, who can influence legislation in ALL aspects of life and a 2nd class muslim who is now bound by that very legislation, whether in agreement or not. I do not disagree that the power is all for God and the matters all return to him. But who dispenses this power on our earth and who interprets matters that ought to return to him? Let’s go back to your initial assertion. The use of ‘shura’ in the Quran is expansive and general. Verse 3:159 says: And consult them in the matter. Verse 42:38 also says: Their matters are consulted amongst them. You assertion that this consultaton is limited to interpretation narrows the scope of this consultative process as well as the participants. Yours is the narrow interpretation of Shura, by confining Shura to only the high level scholars Fiqh issues. It is not me who confined the interpretation but you. In your initial essay, you asserted that ' The role of the slaves in this institution is consultation of best interpretation of the Devine Commandments, aka (Shuuraa)' When was the last time that a math teacher or an electrician (and not a modern day ex-accountant and now TV daciya) were involved in a matter of interpretation or were involved in issuing a Fatwa? Because in Islam the Law ( Sharia) supersedes any Conusltation not in line with it, whereas in Democracy, the consultation supersedes any past Law. If we were to examine a Sharia legislation, any legislation, based on Qiyaas and/or Igmaac alone and a society wishes to expand on it, modify it, or scrap it altogether, wouldn't the consultation or shura and its results supersede the past legislation? Who is consulted and what shape the consultation takes would be left to the group. Please read what I wrote once more citically: The role of a Muslim in the institution of Islam is a SUBJECT, A SLAVE who has to fulfil his Masters commandments. So, the power is NOT FOR THE PEOPLE..... Okay, I read your statement once more and I was going to come back to it once we’ve discussed your shura definition. Let me ask you a question. A slave, as most people understand this word, means someone who has no opinions and in the end, NO choice in what he or she does. The Quran in more than one instance says that a muslim has a choice to believe or not to believe, to follow or not to follow guidance, to do good or not do good, to love God or not. Is that the normal relationship between a slave and a master? This is actually a very interesting, albeit difficult, discussion on the difference between Cabiid (slave) and Cibaad (worshipper) and their uses in the Quran. Perhaps we can engage in it in a separate thread once we are done with this one?

Nur, Shura in the context of the quran is the closest approximation to a principle central to ‘democracy’, which is consulting people in affairs relevant to them. My initial question is your statement that reaching a consensus on interpretations of the religious text is what shura is known to be. Consensus on the best interpretation of religious text/commandments as you have written in your initial essay and subsequent writings is NOT the definition of shura. That is too narrow of a scope. Such an interpretation is left to the religious class of society. It is a closed door process. That is the opposite of shura. The verse says the following: And their matters are consulted amongst them. What the matters are and the shape in which the consultation occurs and who are consulted is kept open. Given this, how is people-rule different from consultation of people in matters of concern to them? Consultation, consensus, and then agreement/disagreement would be a path in shura as it is in a democratic process. Both are methods, of course, and not goals, to reach ideals of protection of individual and civil rights. The resources used in the consultation/consensus stages of the process depend on the group. In my opinion, the Quran and what is termed Sunnah are a resource, so are expert knowledge, accumulated experience, average Joe’s opinions. They may all go into the democratic process in the same manner as shura depending on the matter itself, from zoning by-laws to legal legislation. If I am reading you correctly, you are saying that one's opinion, knowledge, experience should all be instructed by the Quran and Sunnah. Partly, perhaps, but not entirely, and certainly not in all matters. The Sharica you brought up in a later post depends on 2 man-influenced processes: qiyas and igmaac . Both largely depend on expert opinions of learned religious men and neither is open to the 'common' man's opinion. Shura, by definition, would include them and the larger society as well.

Nur, Allah SWT says in Quraan : "Innal Amra kulluh lillah" Meaning, judgement of all affairs that matters to be people rightfully belongs to Allah SWT. Based on above, the Sharia is composed of Revelations ( Quran and Sunnah), Qiyaas and Ijmaac. Which gives ownership of the legislation to Allah SWT, and makes man an executor of the law even if its his his best attempt to interpret what Allah would have legislated in light of precedents (Qiyas) or consensus ( Ijmaac). The verse (3:154, I presume) in its entirety does not refer to the common shura as you had discussed in your essay or sharia as you are now alluding. My initial question was in regards to shura in matters relevant to a group, which can certainly include interpretation of religious text. How did you come to define shura as consultation of best interpretation of the Devine Commandments?

Nur, how did you come to explain shura as a consultation of best interpretation of the Devine Commandments? Verse 42:38 references shura in relation to the matters common to people. The consultation in this context is not about the divine commandments alone but all their affairs. These affairs could span the common good affecting a group.

Nur, walaal, the punishment for adultery is in the Quran. It is one of the few punishments for a transgression that is detailed clearly with a manner and a number. If there is a differentiation between a single or a married transgressor, surely God would have put in the extra 2 or 3 words as, xashalillah, he does not confuse people willfully. That is the 'real basis' for the punishment. Stoning is mentioned in the Quran in historical contexts but never in relation to adultery as a punishment ordained by God. I am surprised that you think that above Hadith is a 'diverging' issue. If you prefer the remainder of the discussion to include Arabic supporting text or be in Arabic entirely, please feel free.

Nur, let’s begin with one hadith in Sahih Muslim (Book 017, Number 4194). Here’s the text and the reference : 'Abdullah b. 'Abbas reported that 'Umar b. Khattab sat on the pulpit of Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Verily Allah sent Muhammad (may peace be upon him) with truth and He sent down the Book upon him, and the verse of stoning was included in what was sent down to him. We recited it, retained it in our memory and understood it. Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) awarded the punishment of stoning to death (to the married adulterer and adulteress) and, after him, we also awarded the punishment of stoning, I am afraid that with the lapse of time, the people (may forget it) and may say: We do not find the punishment of stoning in the Book of Allah, and thus go astray by abandoning this duty prescribed by Allah. Stoning is a duty laid down in Allah's Book for married men and women who commit adultery when proof is established, or it there is pregnancy, or a confession. So it says the following: 1. Stoning verse is included in what was sent from Allah to the prophet (csw) 2. Mohamed (csw) has delivered what was sent to him in the book 3. People in the future will wonder about the verse – it is a mystery now how it was sent down, included in the book, and now not present in the book 4. Stoning is a ‘duty laid down in Allah’s book’ despite its absence in that very book. From the outset, the implications of this hadith are grave and here are two: 1. The prophet (csw) did not deliver the message and record it as it was sent to him 2. Allah ordains serious legislation that is in the book and yet not in the book And this is only a comment on one account in regards to this matter.