Pi, How unfortunate but not unexpected. I'm sorry but I'm not having that type of discussion. Red Sea and Khalaf, Think for a moment about the difference between the prophet (csw) providing guidance within the parameters of allowed marital practices (remember the forbidden is few but clear) in the laws/sunnah of God and his private matters. There is a stark difference. Within his short life, he could not have possibly touched upon every facet of the matter but the forbidden he made clear from the message and no doubt adhered to it himself. If inclined, you would find a hadith where he strongly advises women to guard the secrets of their home. Did his own wife miss that lesson? I think not. When God advices people of his time not to talk too much and linger about in his home, it is to protect the decency and sanctity of his home.

Originally posted by Khalaf: but as Muslims we were told in the Quran: 'Whatever the messenger giveth you, take it and whatsoever he forbiddeth, abstain from it).' (Qur'an, 59:97) If you're going to quote a verse in the Quran, its best to quote in its entirety (or at least mention the context) and explain if you can (or cut & paste, otherwise). The actual reference for the verse is 59:7.

^ Nonsense. Titillating details about showers are nothing but gossip and you know it. Referring to a chain of old gossipers does not excuse this violation of his home's privacy. This islam coverest the smallest detail is a parroted, brain-dead phrase to justify the bottom-half indulgence in affairs that have nothing do with the faith. You're defending the indefencible and not giving a second's thought to the admonishes in the Quran. Instead of gossiping, refer to the Quran and see what's allowed and not in a marital/sexual relation. Give the man the deference and respect that the people of his home deserve and don't repeat rubbish that guides nothing. That's the only learning that is in order.

If people want advice on showering with a spouse, they can consult any sex advice column or better yet, ring Dr. Sue. Her gap-toothed smile of the absurd will surely solve all problems. Is this the same prophet whom God admonished people not to linger and talk in his home because he is too shy to tell them himself despite the harm he feels (33:53)? Is this the same wife of the prophet believers were told to speak to from behind a curtain? Is this the same man whom God describes as possessing great morals/manners (68:4)? Why so many instructions to guard the sanctity of his home if tales of his relations with his wife will become fodder for everyone. He was sent to guide people morally not instruct them in the kama sutra. People had sex before and after the message. You don’t know what his wife said or if she said anything at all. You’re obligated to respect the man and his home. No man or woman would have private details of their married life talked about but you and others see it fit for Mohammed (csw). It is pure rubbish what Bukhari and others put in their books about the sexual details of his life and everyone since then who speaks of it is violating his sanctity. Disgusting lot.

Originally posted by Red Sea: The Prophet peace be upon him use to shower with Aisha(his wife) at times And how do you know that? Were you the one handing them the towels? Repeating this nonsense about mohammed (csw) and the sanctity of his home is utterly shameful.

SB, It is my assertion that psychology is art dressed up as science/medicine. Could it be both? I get what you're saying. In the 19th century (when it was the b*astard child of philosophy), psychology's folly began as an inferiority complex in the face of the physical sciences. In a thirst to prove that similar 'experiments' could be done to become a true science, they didn't give due credit to ideological goals mostly behind their research. In many ways, it is more of an art than a science. It is also sociology. But that is a huge generalization because the field's just exploded in the past 30 years or so and what the general knows is usually the interpersonal drivel in Psychology Today or Dr. Phil. There are more applied fields in linguistics, cognitive, neurology, neuroimmunology, and medicine that psychological research is active in. Like artists, psychologists paint us a picture of the world as they see it. Like art critics, they pass personal opinions. I agree with your first statement but not necessarily the second. Your average therapist (who may or may not be a psychologist) will practice and apply the craft as he sees fit. Thanks to the many aspects of talk therapy that's pure quackery but tends to be attractive to the midlevel practitioner, very little is offered to the client but the opinions you speak of. A scientist who claims a discovery is susceptible to falsification attempts. But with psychologist, we're stuck with his/her words. Again, a very broad generalization, I'm afraid. Most medical doctors are not scientists and the diagnosis of illness can be art as well. The example of an infection like TB is not like one of back pain, for instance. One doctor can implicate muscles, another nerves, another stress, and so on. With functional disorders, sometimes you don't see what's wrong on an x-ray or in a blood sample and must rely on clinical presentation and self-reporting. Not all research done by psychologists we are 'stuck' with, many are falsifiable in both animal and human experimentation. Had psychology been considered art and not science, would this man not have gotten the proper treatment he needed? Any self-respecting psychologist/psychiatrist would have recommended a full check-up to rule out underlying physical causes for depression. Many disorders including the deficiency you spoke of, thyroid problems, anemia, and even some cancers can cause symptoms clustered togethered as depression. This man should sue for malpractice. There are instances of people going from one medical doctor to the next being prescribed all kinds or drugs but not offered either the diagnostics or the treatment they need. Again, psycho- and therapy quacks are abound but the field is simply too large to be dismissed. Will it disappear in favour of cognitive science and neuroscience? Maybe. Interpersonal psychology will always be around, though.

Nur, brother, thank you for responding and please take your time with the answers. You said looking at this problem from the perespective of an orphan is indeed a strong case. I'm not certain what you mean by 'strong' but it seems from reading the entire thread and others, the linguistic condition for multiplicity through the if and then clause is not broached at all. My brother, since you are the resident learned one, could you tackle the sura from the beginning by drawing a picture to the nomads about the overall theme of silat al arham with which it begins in verse 1 to just before the inheritance issue in verse 6?

Originally posted by Cambarro: There was never any 'accept islam or die'. It just means terretories are opened up, old structures of power are removed and Islam is offered to the people. :eek: Your first contention is true. The choices were actually 3: islam, gizya, or war. territories are opened up = invasion old structures of power are removed = owner or occupiers fought and power annexed Islam is offered to the people = more like offered as one of 3 choices. Whether this violates the no compulsion in Islam (2:256, 18:29, 10:99, 88, 20-22, and many more) or the admonition to not transgress but return aggression in equal measure (2: 190, 194) is a matter for historical analyses. Originally posted by Hayam: How about reproducing atleast some of these historical records you speak of, so that we may gain some knowledge that would allow us to make a qualified decision...since you obviously are convinced that Islam was wholly spread by the sword in our continent... [/QB] I don’t know about ‘wholly’ or ‘continent’ but records are abound with conquests. To the inclined, a quick read of Al-Tubri’s records gathered by Ibn Kathir in the matter of a battle on some Kurds by Salma bin Qays outlines the communiqué back to Khalifah Omar that the Kurds were given the three choices. They chose war, lost, and had many killed. The women and children were taken as slaves, money annexed, and the fifth of booty and slaves sent back to the khalifah. This you could find in Ibn Kathir’s History p.7/ 133. The kurds had no engagement with the Arabs of the peninsula. Ibn Kathir also documents in his book a trek to Helwan and the choice given to the inhabitants. The people, largely farmers, chose to pay gizya and yet his account shows that their women and children were taken as slaves and split as booty despite agreeing to the surrender and gizya. Similar accounts, given mostly cursory mention and from the viewpoint of the invading arab Muslims, are abound in Al-Tubri’s books and others. History, as they say, is written by the victors and Muslims are taught in schools that the Muslim conquests were largely benevolent acts of spreading the word of God and sparing people the loss of dying as non-Muslims. In the case of some lands as Egypt, Muslim armies, we are taught, freed the people of Egypt from the Byzantine occupation. It is all well and good. What is unfortunate is why we Muslims need to defend some of these historical accounts and men such as Al-Haggag Al Thaqafi. If we believe in god’s words as seen in the verses above and many others, then we’d understand that the annexing of land, money, and slaves had as much to do with empire expansion and wealth gathering as spreading the word of god, if not more. It was a double reward for the early Muslim, gain wealth and guarantee your paradise through jihad, which as a concept continued to mutate after the death of Mohamed (csw). Why, then, worry about these early Muslims’ actions and their legitimacy or bother with making it seem what it was not after the fact? Armies fought and won, Christians fought for god, Muslims fought for god, countries were invaded and people enslaved. Might stole wealth as it does now. It is the human condition. Now, history also attests to the relative peace, tolerance, prosperity, and justice that marked many of the lands rule by Muslims from Andalusia to Baghdad. It also attests to atrocities, power mongering, in-fighting, and more, among Muslims and towards others. The decisions of these rulers on how to proceed with the spreading of the word as they saw it, defending against armies, building an empire, and maneuvering the political climate of the times goes back to them. Invaders or liberators, they were Muslims but NOT Islam. Sorry, SB .

Cambarro, I am not contesting the role of early muslim scholars in the renaissance. No one can. It was your contention that a nomadic/beduin civilization became an empire through scientific advancement. This is only partially true. Yes, the beduin tribes of arabia became a military and financial empire to contend with but Iraq, which would become one of the centers of Islamic thought in those thousand years, was the center also of a much older civilization. Mesopotamia produced a great deal of the earlier writing, math, and sciences. The same can be argued for Egypt. The bedouin tribes of arabia remained largely beduin. No doubt that the scientific pursuits of early muslims in these regions kickstarted the renaissance when much of Europe battled plagues.

^ Islam raised muslims from nomadic and beduion tribes to empires that spanned a thousand years plus. It only survived and maintained this through constant scientific and technological advancements. This statement is not historically accurate. The so-called empire flourished like any other empire through pillaging and acquisition of wealth. No shame in that; history attests to the might of the sword. No need to wax poetic or rewrite history by claiming that any 'scientific' advancement expanded the empire. Sure, early muslims from Damascus to Baghdad had flourished in a climate of scientific encouragement. They translated ancient Greek books and built on new knowledge from mathematics to philosophy. The history of knowledge reveals its cumulative nature and the early contributions of these muslims are astounding. Unfortunately, muslims have fallen behind since the 13/14th century and continue to lag.

Seeker, I get what you're saying. Advertising relies on a hypersexual image of women, mostly unnecessarily to play to the natural human attraction to all things sexual. I agree with you that many depictions are vulgar and demeaning. Fashion photography, however, can be beautiful and creative art. The images teach a young girl earlier on that she is expected to be skinny, fashionable, sexy.........she is not taught that she can be a smart, innovative woman While true, your argument is perhaps a few decades late. There are plenty of successful and positive role models for young girls. Girls are outshining boys in many educational fronts and the results are showing at the college level. A woman has never had it so good, in my opinion. Now, more than any other time, she IS smart and innovative and has made serious leaps in all fields in such a short time given the history of humanity. Yes, young and emaciated women seem to be the standard of beauty in fashion magazines but since when are women not subjected (and not subjecting themselves) to standards of beauty outside the norm. Forget TV, BET and Glamour for a second and think of beauty standards in the past from impossibly small waists, physiologically improbable small feet, unnaturally large ankles for svelte nomads, fair skin for people in the sun, dark skin for pale folks, and so on.

Originally posted by Janna: quote:Originally posted by Naden: I don't get it, you're not interested in him, don't find him attractive, think he's a no-good muslim, and yet this is a MAJOR dilemma in your life? How can it not be a major problem when the guy owns properties worth five million? Girl, you should have said so from the beginning. Never mind what these haters will tell you and quit blowing air up our butts with this good muslim claptrap. You know you're in for a dig . Quick! Say YES! Get married, get knocked up in weeks, pop out a little rugrat and you are set for life.

Nur, bro, will you be addressing the issue of polygamy and orphans soon? I posted a couple of questions/comments for you on page 12. I can't see how it could even be brought up without so much as a cursory mention.

^ Excellent post. The woman is making a political statement, and so are much of the folks behind the veil/niqab debates in muslim and non-muslim countries alike. Clothes, colours, symbols of political movements are a staple of human societies and they often cleverly hide behind religion. Muslims, in general, are weak politically whether inside or outside their countries and are very much oppressed in the former. This 100 year debate is not likely to go anywhere and will continue to resurface in lieu of other statements.

^ Make sure you refuse a liver, kidney, heart or lung when yours become pickled too.

The third from the top is absolutely gorgeous. Don't forget, it doesn't need any neckwear. Stilleto heals are an absolute must.

Just how much attention seeking is enough for some muslims. If we muslims as a group had brought any ethics or mores other than a special dress to the countries we immigrated to, we would not be stomping our feet like adolescents.

What a load of cow dung! :rolleyes: Your patronizing drivel isn't fooling anyone; make fun of women studying nursing all you want but don't try to hide it behind an earnest question. Nevermind suitable careers for the 70% of Somali women in nursing, get yourself to a farm quick, lots of constipated cows need your helping hand.

The Ugly:: The Mexican resort hotel you chose puts you in a room where 2 Canadians had their throats slit last year. The carpet stains are still there.

I don't get it, you're not interested in him, don't find him attractive, think he's a no-good muslim, and yet this is a MAJOR dilemma in your life? And you're certain that marrying you would increase his iman? Hmm. I see you're clearly not swayed in the least bit by the stethoscope and dolla' bills and your charitable soul wants his doctoring a*ss to be spared hell. How islamic!!!! Want to turn him down gently and coax him to do better at the same time? Tell him to lie about the 5 prayers thing the next time he proposes to a chick he's known for a month .

Seeker, The images from ads. are just that, images. Some are even beautiful. The first image is clearly dramatized, and to infer male aggression and female subordination is simply your interpretation, and one you're entitled to. I see an image of 2 lovers, he wants to be heard and draws her closer to be heard. There is defiance and sadism in her pout. Power, no less, despite the strength of his hand. More importantly, I see 2 very young, healthy people. They're not selling whatever it is they were hired for alone, they are selling us symmetrical beauty, youth, health and drama. It is a photographer's eye, a make-up artist's vision, a model's ambition, and a business' marketing plan. The sociology of rape and violence against women is an alien graft, an afterthought that may or may not ring true. Your interpretation of image #3 as violating the NO means No campaign is noted. But it really misses a wide range of reactions it is perhaps meant to illicit. Again, two young people are selling the rest of us a dream (and a couple of products). There is illusion and a voyeuristic appeal, the same reason we watch movies and reality TV, to watch other people's drama. It is human nature. For the bra ad., do we have any doubt that a pair of young, bouncy boobs have moved the innards of men since the beginning of time? And why the hell not, they're gorgeous. Compared, of course, to a grandmother's, um, mammaries. Beauty, beauty, beauty, nothing more, nothing less. A woman is dehumanized to the point that you are not seen a factor in this world but merely a contributor to the man's world.A woman is placed in a box and therein she will lie. Seeker, I'm sorry but 'dehumanized' is unfortunate. Women, their bodies, minds, ambitions, sex appeal and every other thing are powerful. It drives men crazy and makes many desperate to control, comment upon, imprison, maim, own, and lust after. The man grows in a woman's belly and is forever contained by her. His mother, wife and daughter decide how his life is lived. Now his boss and doctor have a say as well. Rape is a crime of sex, violence, opportunity, upbringing, poverty, opulence, ignorance, overexposure, repression, sadism, and power. Most importantly, it is the violence of one human against another - most rape victims know or are related to their assailants. Civil society/rules can curb and punish it but can't do much about the above factors.

This story was refuted as a fabrication. A small fight among adolescent boys was told and retold in blogs as some mob attack and online Arab magazines picked it up as news. Most recanted a few days later. So much for journalistic reporting.

^ Ewwww....uggggh....*reaches for a bucket* There's one about Isis breastfeeding the pharaoh.

^ Mmmm, yeah, the crazy mufti's words were the talk of the town just a few days ago in le general. A bunch of geniuses (you know, the kind that must drop their pants to count to 11) were wonderin' too about leftover meat, theiving cats, and rape. I'll bet they can help you crunch those numbers. Buuuuuuut, don't you have some sinning to do before next year's hajj? . Well, then, git to it: Times a-wastin' Times a-wastin' Times a-wastin'

Forget that SAW stuff, you should see Shaun of the Dead. Brit zombie flick at its best, scary and funny!