they claim this to be the transcript of the his speech, if this is true, then the sheikh is not only blaming women on rape but also they're the reason men steal. "BELOVED brothers and sisters, we have spent this good and blessed night kneeling and prostrating, worshipping God, Lord of the Universe, through the prayer of al-Qiam, listening to the most truthful of words. And from the Sura of Al-Ma'ida (The Table), I stand before you to discuss this legal, criminal, legislative position through a Koranic judgment issued by the Supreme Koranic Court of Justice for the crime of theft. In it, God put forward man before woman. God says, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred" - an example from God, for God is ... What should it be, God is forgiving, merciful, or mighty, wise? No, it has to be mighty, wise, not forgiving, merciful. Not at all. No way. For God is mighty, wise. So, we look at the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. In theft, the man was put forward before the woman. We come to the penal code in the Koran for the crime of adultery. God says, "The adulteress and the adulterer, you shall whip each of them a hundred lashes." So why is the man put forward before the woman for theft, and the woman put forward before the man. In the code of what? Adultery. Dear beloved, God called the Koran the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. He called it the Al-Dhikr Al-Hakim. A book whose verses are wise, a book whose verses are detailed. And who is someone wise? The one who prescribes the right medicine for the right illness, we call him wise. And the one who says the right word at the right time, we call him wise. And the one who acts appropriately on issues, wise. All the verses of the wise Koran, at their beginnings and at their ends, there is a connection between the body and the end. Between the context of the verse and its beginning, and then its closing, the end of the verse. "Forgiving, merciful" has a meaning. "Mighty, wise" has a meaning. "Forgiving, patient" has a meaning. "Patient, forgiving" has a meaning. "Hearing, knowledgeable" has a meaning. Every verse, when it ends with the mention of one of the attributes of God, has a wisdom that is legislative, rhetoric, in the body of thatverse. This verse in particular, the verse in the Sura of Al-Ma'ida, when the Koran was revealed, and it used to get revealed to the Messenger of God, there were no recording devices to tape them. And they didn't have then telephones that can take pictures and record. And at that time, there were no cassettes, and even 99 per cent of the people didn't know how to read or write. So they relied on memorising. On intuition. On their memories. One would hear the verse spoken by the Messenger of God, so he'd recite it and chant it in prayer until he memorised it. Very few knew how to write. One Arab man heard this verse by the Messenger of God, and while he was in his field, his orchard, at his work - he's a working man - he was reciting the verse: "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful". A nomad was passing by, he was a non-Muslim. The companion of the Prophet was reciting the verse, and the nomad was passing by. He heard the verse. Immediately, naturally, and with refined eloquence, he said that it was not right. Without hearing the full verse. So that nomad asked the companion of the Messenger of God what was he saying. He answered, "I am reciting something from the Koran". But the nomad said, "Your Koran is in Arabic, but you have never had such linguistic fault. Recite it again." So the companion recited, "The man thief and the woman thief, cut off the hands of both as a punishment, for that they have erred - an example from God." But instead of saying "for God is mighty, wise", he said "for God is forgiving, merciful". He (the nomad) said, "That is not right". The man said, "You, a nomad, (inaudible). He answered, "It's not right. And I challenge you that it is not right. These words could never have been spoken by Mohammed son of Abdullah, the master eloquent. And they could never be words revealed unto him by God.." He said, "Let's go to the Prophet." He then said, "Oh, Messenger of God, I have recited a verse but the nomad corrected it for me." He said, "Yes, your companion says, for God is forgiving, merciful". If God forgave and was merciful, He wouldn't command the 'cutting off'. But He is mighty, wise, which is why He commanded the cutting off. The verse should end with "For he is mighty, wise". The Prophet said to him, "The nomad has corrected your mistake with the eloquence and good style and beauty of the Arabic language." Yes, the nomad is right. "For God is mighty, wise", not forgiving. "For God is forgiving, merciful", that's in another life where forgiveness and mercy is hoped for. But in a verse where there is "cutting off", and where there is a limit imposed, God is mighty and wise, so He commanded the cutting off. But if He was forgiving and merciful, He wouldn't have commanded the cutting off. Also, in the same context, what we heard yesterday in the verse from Al-Ma'ida, in its end, what Jesus said. "And when God asked: Oh Jesus, son of Mary! Didn't you say unto mankind: Take me and my mother for two gods beside God?" He said, "Be glorified." He did not even want to repeat the accusation. He didn't want to repeat the same word. He said "Be glorified. It was not mine to utter that to which I had no right. If I used to say it, then you knew it. You know what is in my mind and I do not know what is in your mind? You alone know what is hidden." We come to the end of the verse, "I only told them what You bade me. I said, 'Serve God, my Lord and your Lord. I watched over them while living in their midst, and ever You took me to Yourself, You have been watching them. You are the witness to all things'." We come to the closing of the verse, "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them, surely You are forgiving, merciful?" Not at all. Why wasn't the verse ended with forgiveness and mercy? Because there is a crime of polytheism. God does not forgive polytheism, and forgives everything else. These people said that God took a son, these people said that divinity united with man, and the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and they will see mercy? They will never see it, not him or his father. Not dad or mum. No one will see mercy, of those who believe in polytheism. Our Master Jesus knows that the crime is big. And there is no appeal for it. No way the judgment can be appealed. And they will never have intercession on the Day of Judgment, because polytheism is a great injustice. If it was a simple matter, the verse would have ended with "For God is forgiving, merciful". But it ended with "If You punish them, they surely are Your servants. And if You forgive them." They'll never see it. You will be wise, You will rule, then they'll cop it. Those who disbelieve amongst the people of the Book and the polytheists, where will they go? Surfers Paradise? Gold Coast? Where? To the fire of hell. And not part-time, they'll be in it for eternity. What are these people? The most evil of God's creation on the face of earth. The issue is clear. So, the verse should be ended with what? "For God is mighty, wise." Not "For God is forgiving, merciful". In regard to polytheism with our Master Jesus, and in regard to the judgment on those who steal, rob and mess everything, God is mighty, wise. "The man thief and woman thief." Why, my Lord. I am wondering, why didn't the Koran say "The woman thief and man thief, cut off their hands"? While there is "The adulteress and the adulterer, whip them". Why didn't He say, "The adulterer and the adulteress"? It's because they are wise words. The reason for putting the man ahead of the woman in the issue of stealing is because it is the wisdom. This is reality. This is the truth. On the issue of stealing, when the man is responsible for earning. He's responsible for the expenses, for the food and water. He is the one who has to pay the rent, he is responsible for the alimony, he is responsible for feeding his children. Maybe circumstances forced him and Satan tempted him, and there is a woman like hell behind him; she never has enough. She wants to change the furniture, change the lounge every year. And behind every man who is a thief, a greedy woman. She is pushing him. Not our women in Australia, the women of Canada. The hall up there is full. They are the women of Canada and Mexico, the ones who encourage their men - to do what? Go! Get me! And no matter how much he brings her, she wants more. She wants to change the car, and change ... Of course, the woman keeps demanding from her husband more than his ability. Either she will tell him to go and deal in drugs, or to go and steal. What's more than that? Spend as much as you have! You know your husband, upside down! If you demand from your husband more than his ability, then what does that mean? Who is the one who would have to become a mafia? A gangster? And steal cars? And smash banks? And deal in the "blue disease" (drugs)? Who is the one who commits these crimes of stealing? Who? The man or the woman? It's the man. That's why the man was mentioned before the woman when it comes to theft, because his responsibility is to be the provider. "The male thief and the female thief, cut off their ..." But in the event of adultery, the responsibility falls 90 per cent of the time with women. Why? Because the woman possesses the weapon of seduction. She is the one who takes her clothes off, cuts them short, acts flirtatious, puts on make-up and powder, and goes on the streets dallying. She is the one wearing a short dress, lifting it up, lowering it down, then a look, then a smile, then a word, then a greeting, then a chat, then a date, then a meeting, then a crime, then Long Bay Jail, then comes a merciless judge who gives you 65years. But the whole disaster, who started it? The Al-Rafihi scholar says in one of his literary works, he says: If I come across a crime of rape - kidnap and violation of honour - I would discipline the man and teach him a lesson in morals, and I would order the woman be arrested and jailed for life. Why, Rafihi? He says, because if she hadn't left the meat uncovered, the cat wouldn't have snatched it. If you take a kilo of meat, and you don't put it in the fridge, or in the pot, or in the kitchen, but you put in on a plate and placed it outside in the yard. Then you have a fight with the neighbour because his cats ate the meat. Then (inaudible). Right or not? If one puts uncovered meat out in the street, or on the footpath, or in the garden, or in the park, or in the backyard without a cover, then the cats come and eat it, is it the fault of the cat or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem! If it was covered the cat wouldn't have. It would have circled around it and circled around it, then given up and gone. If she was in her room, in her house, wearing her hijab, being chaste, the disasters wouldn't have happened. The woman possesses the weapon of seduction and temptation. That's why Satan says about the woman, "You are half a soldier. You are my messenger to achieve my needs. You are the last weapon I would use to smash the head of the finest of men. There are a few men that I use a lot of things with, but they never heed me. But you? Oh, you are my best". source

congratulations!!!!, good luck with your career.

khalaf, do you ever think before you hit the reply button, they did not marry in the church, there are a lot of people who held their ceremony in a church for the lack of space. think son before you talk.

because somalis did it long time does not make it right. and prophet(ppuh) married Aish(ra) 1400+ years ago. sagaal jir wakhtigaa la mid maaha sagaal jir maanta.

Pope Seen Criticizing Islam IslamOnline.net & News Agencies Using the words, "Jihad" and "Holy War," the pontiff quoted criticism of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) by Christian emperor Manuel II. (Reuters) EGENSBURG, Germany — In what some immediately saw as a serious diversion from the rapprochement approach of his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI on Tuesday, September 12, said the Islamic concepts of "Jihad" was unreasonable and against God's nature. Using the words, "Jihad" and "Holy War" in lecture at the University of Regensburg, the pontiff quoted criticism of Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessing be upon him) by a 14th Century Byzantine Christian emperor, reported Agence France-Presse (AFP). "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached," Benedict quoted Manuel II. Quoting the Byzantine Christian emperor, Benedict said spreading the faith through violence is unreasonable and that acting without reason was against God's nature. "Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul," added the pontiff in his own words. British Karen Armstrong, a famed prolific writer on all three monotheistic religions, has criticized stereotyping the Arabic word "jihad" as merely meaning holy war. She stressed that "jihad is a cherished spiritual value that, for most Muslims, has no connection with violence." At a giant open-air mass earlier Tuesday, Pope Benedict urged more than 250,000 pilgrims to stand up for their beliefs in the face of the "hatred and fanaticism" tarnishing religion. "Such an atmosphere made it important to state clearly the God in whom we believe," the pope said. Strongest criticism "This is maybe the strongest criticism because he doesn’t speak of fundamentalist Islam but of Islam generally," said Guolo. Pope's criticism of Islam made his address the most political of his six-day visit to Germany, which had previously dealt exclusively with spiritual matters, commented AFP. "This is maybe the strongest criticism because he doesn’t speak of fundamentalist Islam but of Islam generally," Renzo Guolo, a professor of the sociology of religion at the University of Padua, told The New York Times on Wednesday, September 13. "Not all Islam, thank God, is fundamentalist." Marco Politi, the Vatican expert for the Italian daily La Repubblica, said the pontiff's speech revealed "deep mistrust regarding the aggressive side of Islam." "Certainly he closes the door to an idea which was very dear to John Paul II — the idea that Christians, Jews and Muslims have the same God and have to pray together to the same God," he asserted. Daniel A. Madigan, rector of the Institute for the Study of Religions and Cultures at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, agreed. "If we are really going into a serious dialogue with Muslims we need to take faith seriously." But papal spokesman Father Federico Lombardi sought to ease the severity of the Pope's rebukes of Islam. He argued that the pontiff used Manuel's views of Islam only to help explain the issue and not to condemn all of the Muslim religion as violent. "This is just an example. We know that inside Islam there are many different positions, violent and non-violent," he said. "The Pope does not want to give an interpretation of Islam that is violent." Unlike late pope John Paul, Cardinal Ratzinger, who took the name of Benedict after his election, does not approve of joint prayers with Muslims. He is also skeptical of the value of inter-religious dialogue. In the summer of 2005, Pope Benedict devoted an annual weekend of study with former graduate students to Islam. During the meeting, and since, he has reportedly expressed skepticism about Islam’s openness to change given the conviction that the Noble Quran is the unchangeable word of God. In 2004, Pope Benedict also caused a stir by opposing Turkey's accession into the European Union. He said Turkey should seek its future in an association of Islamic nations, not with the EU, which has Christian roots.

that's interesting question, i never thought about it. but i know that day of judgement parts of our bodies will testify against us, like the eye will say what we saw with it, ear will say what we heard with it, and the hand will say what we touch with it, but i think it will also say what we wrote with it. i would like to hear what the scholars said about we write though.

Modesty, you know that islam erases all color suprerioty, just read the last sermon of the prophet what did he say about color issue. white people who did all those things were not muslims,also i am sure white muslims the only history they consider theirs is islamic history juts as you, chinese and arab muslims do, so when you say their histoty, who's 'their'.

castro you know what i mean, (bieng whitest of white) plus i did not know blond men are considred dumb

why do you care what color he was, Allah gives his message to whoever he chooses, regardless of their color. why would you be uncomfortable if he was white with blond hair and blue eyes that does not change the fact that he was a messenger of Allah.and his message is universal.

Xoogsade what are your views. you can not post article with telling us what you think about it, to be honest i did not read.

no Mr. farax they're talking about practicing muslim brothers, who because of fate happen to me non-somali, that's what amazes me these people claim to be religious, how can they be religious and at the same time hold onto racist views is beyond me.

I do not know why you assume i am ashamed, being a mother is an honor, but some people will never be a mother, should we pretend that they do not exist. some women put their kids in a day care cause staying with them is a luxury that they cannot afford, believe it or not some women have responsibilty beyond shoes and make up.as i said before not all muslim women are mothers and wives, 60 year old muslim women and 16 year old muslim needs and struggles deserve to be addressed, i'd like to see more lectures about problems that working muslim women are facing.

whenever i go to islamic lectures, or listen or read books about muslim women, it really pisses me off that they put all muslim women in one catogary which is wife/mother/stay at home. i am not in any of those catogary and i will never be stay at home mother unless i marry some one like Bill Gates , and i know a lot of people who will never be for different reasons , so everything that they talk about does not apply to me, and it does not apply to millions of women are either unmarried, widows or could not have children, are they considered second class citizens. it really amazes me that they think the only problem that muslim women have are how to please their husband, they never talk about problems muslim women are facing in work place,they never talk about problems that muslim girls are facing in schools and colleges,why can not they see muslim woman for what she is. i wish someone can tell those sheikhs that we fit more than one catogary. 16 year old girls does not have to listen that she needs a permission from her husband to visit her sick mother :mad:

^^ who calls them, the only one i hear from that phrase are somali boys(sorry can't call them men) who ever somali women decides to marry is not your problem unless she's your sister or daughter,shaqo la'aan badanaa dadkaan :rolleyes:

best plan is separation between sexes,it is easy, cheap and right way to start a family, but to be honest i do not think the idea of everyone has to have invitation will work cause your own family will not bring the invitation then what.

what an injustice :mad: , it is really amazing how these muslim countries apply their islamic laws, it's always applied only to women, then we wonder why non-muslims believe muslim women are oppressed. the only way these things can be stopped is if women from those countries stand up and fight their Allah given rights.

how many black men fit that profile? :confused:

lol nice pictures, what the heck were you doing with ex's niece never mess with a family twice as a rule of thump JK, i heard his songs they're nice, i just wish he would have a hair cut.

the other day i was looking back previous ramadans, and it is really sad but the truth is i never did more than fasting, i did not take advantage the holy month;however this ramadan i am determined to pray tarawih at the masjid and do more than fasting.it is really hard to be good muslim in this society.

listen bro, let's not beat around the bush, why do not you answer my questions. this is not about ethiopia, and this is not about religion, this is same old somali disease, clan war, cade muse is not your problem, why are you worried about him :confused: . and to be honest i do not think these criminals repented do not compare them to khalid ibn walid and sahaba. they did not even take a break to ask forgiveness and look back their crimes,in 24 hours they changed sides and continued fighting killing more people. believe whatever you want to believe A'U, but i am sure no one will open their door to those thugs.let's hope they will not go to places they have no business.

lol Alleu baahane, the problem is i do not think i can trust the courts, first they said all they want is to make mogadisho peaceful and everyone rallied behind them, did they stopped in mogadisho no; however instead of going to the south where the real probelm is they went to north, so who can guarantee that they'll stop on their part, tell me why installing an islamic court in gaalkacyo is more important than marka, baraawe, or afgooye, how far is afgooye from xamar?, but no they would never go to these areas because their clansmen are controling them, another thing where are the millitias who just yesterday were killing, rapping and terrorizing people, i do not see them in jails,and i do not see them putting down their weapons, they are the same criminals but this time they are told they're fighting for higher power. who in his right mind would want criminal, qat chewing, clanist to enforce islamic laws?

salaam that was so good, especially the work one i have seen people like that, they try to hide their religion so hard when they are around non-muslims.

i would like to know when the courts and its supportes become the only muslims in somalia, it is becoming old fashioned how you hide behind religion, it worked the first few months, but not anymore, why on earth would you want a region that was stable 15 years and people who left everything they owned and started a whole new life over again to have their lives uprooted again, is that hate? people in those areas do not live in stolen houses and do not raise their children from the income of stolen farms.i guess you know where those folks live, so why do not your holly warriors go and install courts over there. if there is a war, it will be worse than 1991, so i can't understand why would any sane somali dream something like that :confused:

WOW, all these arguments cause all she said is what this man did was disgusting, i mean this is public forum and everyone is entitled to their opion,i am sure you would be saying that too if these girls were your sisters or daughters, what kind of woman in her right mind would accept to share her new husband with a new wife. anyway it shows this man and his wives do not take marriage as serious step in their lives.

what a shame this man can tell the truth that many muslims can not say it on CNN, Fox.