What the mistake that was made is that this new techonology....... looked at from the point of view of Science and basically saving this individuals live. How so? Has science gone to far? Probably not far enough. Are we still human if a chip is implanted in the brain? :eek: Are we still human if one cannot even blink yet the brain is intact. ALS severs the connection between the brain and the body. Why would a chip that offers some remedy make one less human? Khayr, seriously man! Wouldn't you want everything done for you if you were this poor b@stard?

Northerner, But it all boils down to belief and it’s understanding. For you, perhaps, but not necessarily everyone. Since the dawn of creation, people prayed to lift misery and ask favours. Since the advent of religions, especially what are termed the Abrahamic faiths, they’ve grappled with choice and predestination since the messages stress both personal responsibility and the divine hand in everything. You seem to have worked out the details in your mind, events are both prewritten and up to the person, preordained to the letter and yet up to the person to navigate. But why are the poor usually the one’s filling up the mosques if their prayers are no being answered? A very good question. I think it is because many believe that they have much less control over their lives than they actually do but that may a different discussion altogether. Would the complete understanding of the above justify your notions? You’ve lost me on the notions you’re referring to but a solid, linguistic analysis and understanding of these terms would be a good starting point for me. Originally posted by Dhucdhuc & Dheylo: Naden, I dont understand your point above. Are you saying Allah is unable to go against gravity Xashalillah! Of course, he is able. But would he be willing to do so if you pray hard enough? Xiin, I don’t have problems with fate and predestination; they are areas of complex interest for me (as is prayer) and worthy of a solid discussion. I don’t believe there is a you and we in this instance .

Northerner, It’s a test of one’s belief (something you wouldn’t understand). I hear what you're saying but you have to admit that even the staunchest of believers wonders why a child was found dead after an abduction or a grocery store clerk begging for his life is killed. There is an internal working to our world, biological and physical, that is both within and outside of our control as humans. It seems to work despite the religious leanings of a group or the devout practices of an individual. Even as a believer, I am not so sure why the weak and desperates' prayers are ignored with such dedicated regularity. And I don't mean the everyday please god, make my boss go away or I really need that 30 million lottery win . Pps Naden, God’s intervention in ‘changing’ a specific course of events is unknown to man but didn’t he already change the event? Ie causing the lift to fall rather than go to its next floor? I don't know. Is it any comfort to a believer then that God spends his days sending psycho ex-husbands or sacked employees or lazy maintenance workers to kill them in freak accidents? Sometimes, it is just human error or intention that causes things to happen. And humans are also part of a nature that has its own workings like a tsunami killing 250K people in a few minutes. It is not all mysterious. Difficult to accept or live with, but may eventually be understood and even intercepted. I guess what I am thinking is that perhaps we are not as micromanaged as we believe. JB, All the abouve is yours, the point was, there are situations where answering one's prayers mean depriving others.........by answering one or all your prayers God has to intervene the course of events that were favoring others somaha?. I get what you're saying. It's like me praying triple overtime for an out of reach job (which I've done in the past and will do again). Is getting it a function of divine intervention or my competitors' crummy luck? The problem with the metaphysical world of wishes and prayers is that it is not conducive to study and prediction. I do think that prayer and wish granting are a small part of a much larger issue of choice versus preordained course. Muslims face difficult and often conflicting ideas of just how much of their destiny is written (and perhaps can be edited or rewritten by God through prayer) and how much is left to their devices, other people's actions and nature's workings. For muslims, there awaits the difficult task of understanding the meaning of words such as ordainment,القضاء and destiny, القدر not to mention other references such as حق which points to physical realities in some instances, and أمر, instructions/orders. I think that an understanding of these Quranic terms as well as a grasp of temporal arrangements are in their infancy.

JB, a thread titled do you have a wish or something like that had me curious about how people perceive prayer in the Quran. Wish fulfillment or response to a call for belief? I think the latter much more than the former. It's clear that you don't get what you want by saying some words an x number of times. Would a God that doesen't intervene and shape the fate of his creation be qualified for our prayers i wonder? I don't know why anyone thinks that God would intervene to change a specific course of events. If an elevator cord is severed, it will plummet the full 10 floors thanks to gravity. If your sorry behind is in it, no amount of God save me will suspend the force of gravity in that 5'X5' spot in the world.

Hey JB , Prayer is a complex and mysterious affair that is rarely given its justice in discussion or analysis. Aside from any theistic inclination, it touches upon a human tendency towards wishful thinking. But I think that is only a part of it. Perhaps the childlike part (I won't say childish ). Before one has any earnest discussion on prayer, maybe a definition or a deeper understanding is in order. A 15-year old boy's prayer is surely different than his 50 year old father's. Or is it? It is interesting to read some of the literature on prayer and recovery from surgery/illness. The same problem exists in this research because we don't have a uniform definition of what prayer is, what motivates a person to pray, and how convinced people are that their God has responded to their prayers. It may not even matter to people to connect the outcome to their prayers. Could it be the act of prayer itself that provides the comfort? Maybe Alle Ubahne would drive around for half an hour (like the rest of us) to get a good spot and then thank god when he finally spots someone leaving. Prayers come true sometimes, don't they?

Caano Geel, I don't doubt the significance of the correlation at all. I've actually read a few publications and the evidence is compelling. A high fat diet is a serious risk factor for breast cancer and a number of other gynecological cancers. My only wish would have been better study designs, especially when they have been aware for the past 3-4 years that HRT increased breast cancer risk dramatically. If the focus now is on a poor diet, then concluding that women who eat lots of fat are at serious risk for bc yet adding that most were on HRT adds little value to the research question at hand.

Originally posted by Caano Geel: However, those women with the highest fat intake were more likely to have been taking hormone replacement therapy (HRT) - which has been linked to breast cancer - when they joined the study. The problem with some of these correlational studies is that you can't tease so many of the variables apart. Especially when you believe that they behave synergistically. I could see why a high fat diet would contribute to a raised risk of breast cancer since fat cells tend to add estrogen to the body, which in turn fuels estrogen dependent tumours. HRT's showing it carries much greater harm than benefit. There also seem to be little gains in bone health as it was sold to women in the 70s and 80s. It is a mighty mess and will only get worse as preadolescent and adolescent girls get heavier and expose their bodies to greater amounts of estrogen over a longer period of time.

Khalaf, Of the reasons you've listed, which one is most laughable in your view? The thing about matters of belief and conviction, little changes when people hold opposing views. Sidenote: Is is just me or is there a rash of yaa placed in front of names? It's spreading like mono in a public high school.

^ I'm not for the wiping off of any historical site. The Ka'aba is a house of god and will remain where it is as long as he wishes. The so-called house of Omar (RA) should have been kept for nothing more than historical preservation, not religious significance. His old home means nothing to Islam. Unless, the muslims of the desert and anyone else who follows them go full circle 1000 years from now and start worshiping remnants of stones. Back where they started.

^ Probably not a fake mullah but perhaps a born-again one? No sooner than they are dipped in holy water do they shake their wet hair and splash the rest of us.

^ How do you think he did that? I suppose he rubbed the ka'aba 7 times and then said the magic words and voilà, God dropped gold and silver from the skies. And who said anything about destroying the ka'aba? A little calm and a lot more thought are in order. Khalaf, You're mixing and matching topics. Tackle them one at a time. And try something a little higher than capitalism-bad, secularism-uff. what about preserving islamic sites, ahh thats not important. So, this is an anthropological insult added to serious archaeological injury? In that case, I couldn't agree more. Ugly malls and over-priced lingerie shops should be scrapped immediately. I suggest eco-friendly buildings, sustainable homes, organic farms, large community based rec. centers, wellness centers, and effective, green schools.

Why so much hysteria ? A mall, a shop, a business, no matter the form, employ people, energize an economy and raise the standard of living. Materialist, capitalist or not, that is another debate. And to compare this development to Las Vegas is simply ludicrous. Why is the entire city holy? Says who? It is littered with the poor and the destitute, children and women begging in the streets, the disabled homeless. All of the fancy buildings and shops (which are hallmarks of Gulf cities and hardly rarities) may not ultimately help the poor but young, unemployed people may find opportunities.

Originally posted by Zafir: Hi Naden. Hi Zafir .

Why the hysterics? You sound like an old, remote village woman shown a coke bottle for the first time in her 90 years.

Very fair and about time. Promotions and advancement affect a woman's lifetime earnings and how much she saves for her retirement. She should not be penalized for having and caring for an infant.

Originally posted by -Serenity-: I'd have also voted for Naden - the most balanced chick in here... Too kind! Centurion, :mad:

Her statements about religious practice and wear are valid. Hijab or niqab, a particular dress is not required but a manner of dress and, most importantly, behaviour admonished. Also, people can choose to believe or disbelieve in the entire message/faith so practice, which is secondary to belief, is optional as well.

Originally posted by Northerner Al Burcaawi: Muslims will justify it as they may have a problem accepting it (a disabled child)if they were in that position. 'Accepting' what Allah (swt)wills as a test and .........is something lost on many a Muslim. I gather the muslims you are referring to are the ones who replied to this thread. I see you've honed your mind reading skills and can make out what people accept and don't accept. Since you haven't attempted to approach any ethical detail of the child's condition and treatment, I will come up with a conjecture of my own and say that you haven't read or understood the case. Speaking from atop a moral high horse is the easiest thing to do. This also applies to Khayr's uninspired rant about sentiment and revelation which he may have vomit just as diligently onto the boards if the topic was about Kraft cheese.

^ Words like 'dismember' and 'mutilate' are unnecessarily sensational and editorialyzing. Medical necessity is one determined by physicians and ultimately agreed upon by family. Have you ever carried a toddler wearing a snow suit? They're bloody heavy and may not be more than 35lbs. Wiping the @ss of a 30lb., 50lb., or even 70lb. child is doable. Carrying them up and down a flight of stairs is difficult. Now, imagine carrying a 150lb. woman. She is also doubly incontinent and unable to turn in bed and prevent bed sores. She is not now but will have eventually become heavy and at serious risk of obesity and resultant stuff like heart and kidney damage. She may still develop health problems but remaining at about 4'5" and 80lb. is what the parents can handle at home. Reducing her health risks may also help delay institutionalization as much as possible. Comparing this family's plight to families with Down's syndrome children is inaccurate. While a range of mental and physical competency exists for this syndrome, many afflicted can gain independence in mainting personal hygiene and even social functioning. I don't know all the details of the case and don't necessarily understand the partial hysterectomy (& leaving the ovaries), but from what I've read it's not an easy decision and certainly not one that extends itself to an approve/disapprove or agree/disagree public discourse.

^ What do you think, Khayr? The decision, like the prospect of an infant who will never grow, is no doubt a torture for the parents. It is uncommon but maybe a lesser of two evils for this family. Many disabled women are raped in care facilities which is where adults are eventually housed when elderly parents cannot care for them. It will eliminate any discomfort during menses and fear of pregnancy. It is probably also geared towards inevitable weight gain and to minimize immobility risks. There are medical concerns that will surely need to be addressed but the amount of judgment and abuse hurled at the parents in unfortunate. This family's lot in life cannot be envied.

Xoogsade, there is a difference between needing someone and being at their mercy.

Joining the army at 39, what an extraordinary decision! I am disappointed she's helping the Americans; I'm also puzzled at how she justifies this direct assistance of a military invasion and genocide of the Iraqis. Not to hypocritically single her out, as most (Western or Arab) gaining from the oil trade and the West's economy benefit directly from their policies. However, I couldn't fathom any moral justification for being of assistance to an army that destroyed Iraqi society for the past 15 years. Having said that, she sounds as though she made a transformation in her life. No longer at the mercy of a husband, a father, a brother, or an unfair judicial system, she seems like she gained the strength and independence to be a doormat no more.

This is good news. Any public health measure that helps will eventually curb the spread of the virus. It will be interesting to see how agencies promote the practice among groups unfamiliar with it.

^ Khalaf, there is no need for grandstanding. Interpretation of any text, and especially of religious text, will always be a matter of disagreement (as Socod Badne tried to explain). The discussion offered some opposing views and one can't only pick what they want to support posturing.

Originally posted by Reality Check: "Deem not the summons of the Messenger among yourselves like the summons of one of you to another: Allah doth know those of you who slip away under the shelter of some excuse: then let those beware who withstand the Messenger's order, Lest some trial befall them, or a grievous Penalty be inflicted on them" (24:63) considering that I concede with your interpretation of the orders/summons/commandments" to be the Sunnah, and not in fact referring to the Messenger bringing the Holy Text, then using this ayaat, it says there will be a penalty (i.e. punishment). Reality Check, I was wondering how you came to concede that the summons in the verse refers to what is commonly referred to as Sunnah (which includes what is called ahadith). I agree with you that the verse does not refer to any punishment for a rejection of this common reference or comes close to kufr. The verse is preceeded by several instructions that put proper and respectful manners at the center of the interaction of muslims amongst each other and with the prophet (csw) including seeking permission when entering private versus non-private homes. Verse 62 holds the believers who meet with the prophet in a matter of the gama’a responsible for respecting this manner of shura. That is done by participating and not leaving until one asks for permission. The prophet (csw) is then given a choice to grant them leave or not. The way I understand it, the admonishment to not leave is to preserve the coherence of the group and their active presence is a must for shura or consensus. Or else any hypocrite or anarchist or the just plain lazy can come and leave as they please without committing to the group’s matter. As the leader, the prophet (csw) led and instructed in the manner of shura. Verse 63 is then a direct order to believers not to take the summons of the messenger lightly and not sneak away from the shura for trivial reasons. The shura in this instance could certainly be the elements of the holy text (as you had initially said) and laws, to iimaan, good deeds, or the day-to-day concerns of the group of believers at the time. What is termed as sunnah and not rejecting it may be an interpretation of this particular verse. However, the sequence of verses leads to a lesson in akhlaq and mannerisms for the believers. It is also a relevant lesson, I believe, to those of us who are alive now to commit in behaviour and intention to the matters of consensus.