Who cares if a teenager wants to have sex. That's what their hormones are there to do. Plenty of cold showers, full time school, part time job, community work and house chores should take care of that problem. Only an i*diot parent would open a marital home for a child, essentially, so they can bring more children into the world. They can help them with education, trades training or even opening a business at some stage. Unless the parents want to have teens and their babies staying in their homes, with all the privileges of adulthood and none of the responsibilities. Most jobs require people to be at least 18 and with a high school diploma. Not to mention how expensive housing and other living costs have become. Muta'a or halal designation doesn't pay any bills.

^ And hostile too, double :rolleyes: .

^ “Marry! For the best of this ummah are those with the most women.” I hope that the most has an upper limit of 4.

^ Indeed. Given its potency as a political symbol (thanks to Hassan Al Banna's party), it is no wonder that it is at the center of all the banning and near political toppling that you write. I think that the so-called Hijab works, as a symbol of protest against economic oppression, as a protection against assault when civil laws break down, or simply as a personal choice to wear it in whatever form. I think it even works as sign of affiliation with muslim parties against the cannibalism of national parties. What is irritating is that it obscures and suffocates any other serious moral debate. Mullahs (paid and pseudos) will not froth at the mouth at something such as ethical business codes, ethical treatment of the homeless/infirm and so on, at bribery, cheating, price-gouging, lying, and hypocrisy. I suppose as political symbols go, it is natural that it would garner such attention.

Lily and Ghanima, my sincere apologies ladies, that was a st*upid and unnecessary insulting remark. It still stands that Muslims always fall back on a severely insignificant piece of cloth. We flock to any spot in the world to be away from moral and ethical decline in our backyards. Corruption, bribery, non-existent human rights, and so on. There are far richer and deeper issues that need debate than this safe, superficial, symbol of Islam.

Always a wonder how that silly little fabric brings out so much discussion. The Programme sounds mildly interesting, perhaps as much as any human interest 'how different yet how similar we are' sort of thing. Muslims are at the center of attention because of the large oil reserves that some of them sit on. They will remain of interest till it runs out; then the muslims of Arabia will go back to being dusty and insignificant while the remainder debate a silly little fabric the covers uncombed split-ends. P.S. The women's career choices can be just a degree more interesting than this 'Gee, look Moslems are people too' trash programming.

She must be paying that kingdom back for raising Tarzan for us.

^ ThePoint, dude, I thought we were friends! Red Sea, It's unfortunate that you resort to personal insults. I've reported your post and I hope the moderators will remove it soon.

^ Xiinfaniin, maybe the men should guard the crops since they are not the objects of the monkeys' desire and breast-grabbing . [ August 27, 2007, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Naden ]

And because women are primarily responsible for the farms... The predominantly farming community is now having to receive famine relief food. Those women should divorce their useless husbands and marry the monkeys instead. They maybe sexist pigs but at least they're actively seeking their food unlike their 2-legged counterparts.

Can you meet someone once and know they are your other half? Maybe but you don't really know someone unless you've lived with them & they've left their underwear in the bathroom or ate the last cheesecake piece you've been eye-balling. Is it there truly only one person in the entire universe for you? NO! Who keeps spreading this ugly rumour? Do you HAVE to know a person to be in love with them? I would say that it is a minimum prerequisite or else it is stalking. Is love a necessary ingredient for marriage? Marriage is a necessary ingredient for the destruction of love. We are not talking about lust here. Why not? :mad:

What do you think since you've opened the thread? What makes you think that a single person/party can solve all the problems in Somalia?

Oh, how I would like to see Naomi Wolf tackle something other than her lily-white, over-privileged neuroses about dirty, dirty sex and dirty, dirty men. For now, I may settle for a coherent paragraph on a well developed idea.

Nephthys, no one is too old to date a 17 year old boy . Come to think of it, he could've been cruisin' for a tip also. Works either way .

You should've been nicer to the boy :mad: , sounds like he wanted to do a gentlemanly deed. Besides, if he's a teenager (16 or 17), the mid or late twenties are so far away, you might as well be dead .

She probably misses hunting the whole day and is out for a kill. And he probably misses his 15 hour naps and is sleeping with his eyes open. King of the Jungle??? More like Earnest of the Jungle .

ThePoint, Isn't it the case in matters of religion duty and obligation for all is what is addressed by scholars rather than autonomy? Not really. As someone who follows the work of many scholars (most of whom do not fit the label, unfortunately), I find that writing on matters of interpersonal relationships, which is essentially where most of the output is, can do with much greater input from a diverse voice. By that, I don’t mean women as a gender alone, but people who are trained/working in other fields and not religious matters alone. When speaking of rights, it is limited severely to the married woman, and maybe a daughter. It is also phrased largely as though directed at her husband/guardian who is urged to do this & that. Certain divorce laws, custody issues, inheritance problems, political participation, and a multitude of other issues have a very wide margin of interpretation and development. The way I understood his take on these issues is to have a general framework rather than a specific methodology . To me, his call to renew the rights and responsibilities debate from a framework of autonomy for women is certainly a timely response to the influx of women in all arenas of social and economic participation. I don’t necessarily think that simply having a larger quota of women religious scholars fulfills the requirement for this autonomy. Training and indoctrination predict a stance much better than gender. Perhaps he could have phrased his ‘unislamic’ label of circumcision or forced marriage better. There are many odious cultural practices that should not be debated in terms of Islamic/unislamic. They are simply odious and may eventually be eradicated on social, health and/or personal rights grounds.

^ Why is it interesting?

ThePoint, you're the one who posted. Anyway, here's what I thought initially. In general, I find Ramadan to be a very competent and thorough scholar. I think he could benefit from distancing himself from some of the lobby groups and governments with whom he's associated while parading as a spokesperson for the model European Muslim. In the above, his coverage of Jihad is nothing new. However, his discussion of apostasy is pretty good. It is unfortunate that the Goma'a fellow above cannot stand by his statements in the face of editorial demagoguery. I think the most spot on and mature examination is in women’s rights. I respect the approach he is advocating. No longer should the rights' debate take the parent-child format, with men scholars and writers speaking as though they are entrusted with the decision of what’s best. His statement that women should be autonomous ontologically, religiously, socially and economically can begin to open the debate on many human rights fronts, of which women’s rights are only a subset.

^ What is your assessment?

Legend of Zu, before you hammer Khayr with evidence, perhaps you (or he) could clarify the difference between the terms Prophet and Messenger as they are used in the Quran (نبى and رسول, respectively). Although right in his assertion in those instances of chiding and correction, Khayr does not clarify that the Prophet (csw), as a man, was the one chided and corrected. Although right in your own assertion, you do not clarify that the Messenger is infallible (or معصوم) in delivering the message of the Quran completely and without change to people. If you notice, when being chided and/or corrected by God, the Prophet (csw) is often called O Prophet (يا أيها النبى) but not O Messenger (يا أيها الرسول ). It indicates that the man who is being corrected is only a man, despite being of the highest morals. If you also notice, believers/people are instructed to obey the Messenger (أطيعوا الرسول). However, instructions to the Prophet (csw) are phrased as O Prophet while instructions to obey the Messenger are not phrased as Obey the Prophet (أطيعوا النبى). The dual designation of Prophet and Messenger is important and can clear both your points. Originally posted by Legend of Zu: You just said the Rasul is fallible and discounted the reliability of the Sunnah. Sunnah in the Quran refers to the laws/ways of being as ordained by God and has nothing to do with the Prophet's fallibility as a human being.

^ Viking, and yet honey and cuppering do not heal all illness (a generalization I gather from the hadith as it does not specify ailments) even if we consider them amongst what was brought to us was from Allah. The verse you refer to (53:2-3) illustrates the important difference between نطق and قول (utterance & saying).

^ Careful there, prophethood and divinity can be too close for comfort. If Mohamed's (csw) every act/speech was divinely directed, it will be difficult not to think of him as God personified, no?

tHe oNe aNd OnLy, Burning off diseased parts was the only way to save a limb or heal a wound (although some of the practices of people past were more desperate voodoo than medicine). The modern versions of cauterization, using electricity or chemicals, are used in surgeries to stop small vessel bleeding, treat future nose bleeds, and maybe remove warts and so on. I'm curious about what you think of the whole supposed saying. The prophet (csw) was not a doctor and probably used what was available to his contemporaries. Muslims do not treat illness by honey, they rush to antibiotics, BP lowering drugs and all other modern treatments. Could he have been simply speaking of his preferred methods of treatment to people who asked him?

Here is a website that will allow you to do a keyword search. I don't think there's any room for misinterpretation. There is another version on that same site ( Number 5468). It claims that the practice of cauterization is disliked .