Originally posted by Allamagan: If there is nothing to hide then let people to discuss and be challenged. There is something to hide. Letting the people to discuss and be challenged can lead to self-incriminating truth.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: i thought you already conceded on this issue. On the issue of marrying a Christian woman who associates Allah with partners, I did. ThePoint defeated me on that issue. However, on the issue of marrying a Muslim (Sunni) woman who commits shirk, I have yet to concede. Someone has to defeat me by failing my new case miserably. Perhaps you could be that someone? Originally posted by Ameen: Now why does it seem like everybody is ganging up against Taliban? He does make some solid points. Thanks for the kind words. Originally posted by Lieutenant Xalane: Taliban,geez,its like i got to elaborate on almost everything.Fine. Just the line I quotation-marked, sxb, not everything. I asked the elaboration, because I was taught there were people of the Book who knew about the coming of nabi Muhammad (pbuh). When Allah sent nabi Muhammad (pbuh) with the message of Islam, some of those people accepted Islam and the prophethood of nabi Muhammad (pbuh), while many others rejected Islam altogether. You make fine points on the issue of marrying a woman who associates Allah with partners. The issue of marrying a Christian woman doesn't stop at associating Allah with partners, the top and worst kind of sins, a sin Allah never forgives (if you die without repentance). In addition to associating Allah with partners, a Christian woman eats pork, drinks alcohol, does a host of other actions and has beliefs that are in contradiction with Islam. How can Islam allow a Muslim to marry, make love to and have children with a Christian woman in such state? I agree with what you have stated, those that we can marry, are those that are 100% monotheists. Associating Allah with partners is in direct and total contradiction with the spirit of monotheism. Allah knows best.

Originally posted by Lieutenant Xalane: Mr.Taliban,a person who associates partners with Allah can't be called a muslim,even if they claim so. What can such a person be called? And can a Muslim marry her? The pple of the book can be married coz they don't associate Allah with partners but they rejected his prophet. Please elaborate "they don't associate Allah with partners but they rejected his prophet." Today's pple of the book associate Allah with partners,their religion has been changed alot so its biased. Agreed. Those that we can marry ,are those that are 100% monotheists. Please tell us where we can find them. The issue regarding shias,they do lots of shirk and things that are gravely forbidden,and they are a sect so i don't know but many sheikhs accuse of them of being mushriks,my local imam says that shias are not muslims. In light of what you have said, do I conclude your local imam doesn't allow marrying Shia women? Thanks in advance for the answers.

Originally posted by ThePoint: It's not about willingness or desier - it's about persimibility. On that score - your case has failed miserably. I concede my case has miserably failed. You're perfectly correct a Muslim can marry a Christian woman who associates Allah with partners. I am curious, can a Muslim marry a Muslim woman who associates Allah with partners?

Question: As-Salamu `alaykum. Could you please shed more light on the Islamic view regarding visiting the graves of Al-Awliya’ wa As-Salihin (saints or pious people) and making du`a’ there? Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. Dear questioner, thanks a lot for your question and your apparent fear of contradicting Allah’s laws. May Allah enlighten our hearts with the light of Islam! Responding to the question you posed, we’d like to cite the fatwa issued by Sheikh `Atiyyah Saqr, former head of Al-Azhar Fatwa Committee, which reads: “It is well known that when one loves somebody one loves all that is related to him. Such an innate human characteristic is not opposed by religion; rather, it is guided in two ways. The first is choosing those who deserve that love and veneration and the second is not violating the principles of religion in expressing this love or in any of its consequences. Seeking the blessings of pious people or saints is not forbidden under Islam but it might have some features that are against religion such as: 1- Going round the grave is blameworthy because it is an imitation of circumambulating the Ka`bah. 2- Seeking blessings by touching or kissing the grave and the like. Imam Al-Ghazali states that touching and kissing graves is not stated in the Sunnah and it is better to stand at a distance from the grave. 3- When one performs du`a’ (supplications) at graves, one must direct such du`a’ to Allah alone for He alone is capable of granting help and warding off harm. It is forbidden to direct the du`a’ to or seek the help of the one in the grave however venerated he may be. Moreover, performing du`a’ at his grave is not better or more likely to be answered than doing it elsewhere. Ibn Taymiyyah was among those who expressed such opinion. He says: ‘Making supplications (du`a’) at graves of the righteous thinking that the supplications are more likely to be answered than in any other place, is a practice that had never been done by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) or any of his Companions, their successors, or the Imams of Islam and has never been mentioned or recommended by any of the righteous scholars.’ It may be better to prevent such a practice in order to dissuade people from invoking or seeking the help of others than Allah or even along with Him.”Source Read also this: Fatwa

Originally posted by General Duke: US Assistant Secretary of State Jendayi Frazer told reporters that US hopes a more moderate group might emerge to lead the group had not materialized. "The Council of Islamic Courts is now controlled by al Qaeda cell individuals, East Africa al Qaeda cell individuals. The top layer of the court are extremists. They are terrorists," Frazer said. "They are killing nuns, they have killed children and they are calling for a jihad (holy war)," she added. Isn't Jendayi Frazer the disgraced US official who was rebuffed by Sudan's Omar Al-Bashir? She has gone too far to claim Muslims are calling for jihad. What does she want? Permission from the US to call for jihad? And what are her allegations based on? The same source that claimed Iraq had connections with al Qaeda and possessed weapons of mass destructions? The question is; will this time work? Highly unlikely. The US is working on exit strategy from Iraq and Afghanistan; what does it thinks it can accomplish in Somalia where it was already humiliated in the 90's?

Originally posted by HornAfrique: What's wrong with this picture? Please permit me to answer the question. The TFG, the "legitimate" Somali government, a government "certified" by the international and regional organizations (UN, AU, EU, IGAD, iwm) of the world, a government overwhelmingly "elected" by the citizens of Somalia, a government that has a "mandate" from its citizens-- is a government that's everyday (well almost) whining about its recognition by a terrorist movement (Union of Islamic Courts), a government that's earnestly negotiating (Khartoum) with said terrorist movement, a government that several months ago applauded (maybe even collaborated with) the said terrorist movement's victory over the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counter-Terrorism (an Alliance the government was supposed to help). Don't you know it's an international crime to ask recognition from a terrorist movement? Don't you know it's an international crime to negotiate with a terrorist movement? Don't you know it's an international crime to not collaborate with a Counter-Terrorism Alliance against a terrorist movement? :confused:

Originally posted by ThePoint: 1. Marrying a Christian woman is something that Allah has permitted in the Qur'an (An-Nisaa': 5), and you are not allowed to forbid what Allah has permitted. A Christian woman believes Issa (aleyhi salam) was the son of Allah (subhanallah). She also believes in the doctrine of Trinity (the belief that Allah, His son and the Holy Spirit are one). I am not saying Christian women are polytheists, but am saying they commit polytheism (shirk). For those of us who practice Islam, we aren't even willing to marry a liberal Muslim woman who parties at nightclubs and engages in adventurous affairs. Are we willing to marry a Christian woman who commits shirk? I rest my case.

Originally posted by ThePoint: Go look it up - this is not shocking new stuff But you didn't answer the question. Why are you afraid of answering it? It's simple, yes or no.

Originally posted by ThePoint: That is simply incorrect - modern scholars do not interpret 'People of the Book' as the ones who followed the original books - 'People of the Book' is interpreted as the modern day Christians and Jews. Are you saying Islam allows marrying a Christian woman who believes in the divinity of Issa (aleyhi salam) and the doctrine of Trinity? :confused: I am asking the question because the original Christians didn't believe Issa (aleyhi salam) was divine, nor did they believe in the doctrine of Trinity (which didn't exist back then).

Originally posted by Khalaf: Taliban arent we allowed to marry women of the book (jews/christains), whats wrong with shia woman if she is a good woman? for the woman u are to marry a believer in Tawheed (means no shirk "my sheikh has powers" or belief in omens, ect some sunnis do this ie somalis) and one who preforms salat, cant marry a tarag salat. (this is what imam said). Who are women of the Book (Jews/Christians) that Islam allows to be married? They are those who have have received divine scriptures, the Torah and the Injil. Is the Torah or the Injil in its original format? Nope, at least not the current Torah or Injil(s) that the vast majority of Jews and Christians follow. The current Torah and Injil have been tampered with and contain human handiwork, laws, instructions, values, iwm. A typical Christian woman believes in the divinity of Issa (aleyhi salam) and the doctrine of Trinity, two shirk beliefs. A typical Jewish woman believes in at least one belief or doctrine that's in contradiction with Islam. The women of the Book that Islam allows to be married are those who follow the original Torah and Injil sans the tamperings. If you can find such women of the Book, then there's no problem with marrying them. Nothing is wrong with a Shia woman per se, especially if she is a good woman, except her beliefs and practices of mut'a marriage and taqiyya (two Shia beliefs I am against, so far). Allah Knows best.

Originally posted by Somali_Friend: In General here is how it should be done: 1. Verify that the call is Legitimate 2. Verify that the proper process of validation was followed 3. Verify that its agreed and called by the proper procedure, proper persons and body. None of this was done in Mugadishu. Not a single Islamic organization or state has agreed with the call legitmacy or appropriatness and not with the callers standing. But you are a secular, and seculars don't practice Islam. Seculars know little about Islam, except what the West taught them about it. What does a secular know about jihad and how it should be done? :confused:

Originally posted by Northerner: Waar wax maqla, this topic is about the current situation in the ME not who is best for being the custodian of the two holy mosques. Start a new thread if you want! Sorry, it was Oromia who hijacked your topic. Irrelevant suggestion was made about people (Shia) who aren't fit for the custodianship of Makkah and Medina, and I had to rebut and set the record straight.

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro: isn't Mohamed Omar dead by now ???? Is that your wish? The death of a fellow Muslim who is a decorated mujahid? No, amir al-Mu'mineen Muhammad Omar is alive and well, in field defensive jihad, Ilaahey cimrigiisa dheereeyo.

Originally posted by Oromia: Makkah and Medhina should be transferred to Iran to look after and protect. The Saudis are fit to have custodinaship of the White House or the Vatican. My humble opinion. I disagree. There are capable Saudis who are fit to have the custodianship of Makkah and Medina. They have excellent track record of fighting for Islam, the rights and interests of Muslims. One of them is Sheikh Osama bin Laden. If we are talking about non-Saudis who are fit to have the custodianship of Makkah and Medina, then Sheikh Dahir Aweys and Sheikh Sharif Ahmed are more than fit to have the custodianship. So is amir al-Mu'mineen Muhammad Omar of the Taliban.

Originally posted by Somali_Friend: There is a Jihad call on my head, even though it has been proven to be fake and by imposters. You're in error. There are no impostor Islamists; all Islamists can only be genuine. Why? Because the West can't take any chance in impostor or genuine Islamists; they destroy all kinds of Islamists. Historically (at least in modern history), there has not been documented any impostor Islamists. I challenge you to bring any example of impostor Islamists. I also challenge you to bring any example of genuine Islamists. Therefore, jihad called by Islamists is genuine, not fake as you allege.

Originally posted by Kamalu Diin: Taliban why don't you answer my quetions please Which questions? If you're referring to your questions #7 & #8, then these are the answers: 1. Ending U.S. aid to Israel and the ultimate elimination of that state. 2. Removing U.S. and Western forces from the Arabian peninsula. 3. Removing U.S. and Western military forces from Iraq, Afghanistan, and other Muslim lands. 4. Ending U.S. support for the oppression of Muslims by Russia, China, and India. 5. Ending U.S. protection for repressive, apostate Muslim regimes in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, et cetera. 6. The conservation of the Muslim world's energy resource and their sale at higher prices.

Originally posted by Kamalu Diin: Osman Bin Laden his follower including Dahir Awes will go to Jahanama. How do you know who will go to Jahanama?

Originally posted by SeeKer: Taliban, first off taaqiyah is only supposed to be used in terms of danger and people who misuse it are not really practicing are they. As for mut'a marriage if you read their text its intentions are meant to be noble. Here is another case in which it is misused and misunderstood by people who listen instead of read. Anyway Allahu ya3lam we all have our own beliefs and stand by it. I was having this arguement with someone and realized I didn't know much about what shias are about except the propaganda being said about them. As a Sunni Muslim, mut'a marriage is haram to me, while it's halal to a Shia woman. In the likelihood that I and a Shia woman decide to get married, she will lie to me if she has practiced mut'a marriage because she knows it's haram to me and I would never marry a woman who has married multiple times for sex and fun. She will lie to me, and it will not factor what taaqiyah is only supposed to be used. I find it difficult to grasp how as you have claimed the intentions of mut'a marriage are meant to be noble. Marriage is a very important institution in society that's meant to last in the lifetime of married people. Islam highly discourages divorce. Marriage is about procreation, companionship, fatherhood, motherhood, responsibilities, sacrifices, iwm. If anything, marriage isn't about temporarily satisfying your natural urges. You know that not all shias practice the short term engagement, what taaqiyah is only supposed to be used, how the intentions of mut'a marriage are meant to be noble, yet you claim to not know much about what shias are about except the propaganda being said about them. This sounds like a form of taaqiyah. Are you Shia? :confused:

Originally posted by NGONGE: How about a Sunni woman that practised 'Misyaar' marraige? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=woman+that+practised&btnG=Google+Search

Originally posted by SeeKer: Taliban, not all shias practice the short term engagement. You didn't get it. There's no need to twist the definition of mut'a marriage (short term convenience marriage for sex and fun); it's marriage, not "engagement" as you allege. There's a difference between marriage and engagement or someone married and someone engaged. Of course not "all" Shias practice it, but the majority do it. So why would I risk marrying a Shia woman who practiced mut'a marriage? Besides, a Shia woman is allowed to lie (taqiyya or dissimulation) and not tell me the truth that she practiced mut'a marriage.

Originally posted by Kamalu Diin: Al-Qa'eda is power hungery individuals by no means their actions can be associated with islam. as you know only about five percent of Muslim world is supporting were ninety five percent they don't approve their actions period. thus is a virus that needs to get host celll. this will not be Somalia. I will work against that mission the rest of my life. What actions of Al-Qaida cannot be associated with islam? You claim only 5% of Muslims support Al-Qaida, while the rest of 95% don't approve of their actions; what source (poll, statistics, iwm) is your allegation based on? Hearsay?

Originally posted by Kamalu Diin: 7) what are Al-Qa'eda is defending? 8) for who Al- Qa'eda is defending? What's so bad about Al-Qaeda?

Originally posted by SeeKer: Can a sunni marry a shia and make it work or is there something between the doctorines that would cause there to be no union whatsoever? As a Sunni Muslim, the question that concerns me isn't "Can a sunni marry a shia", it's; Does a Sunni want to marry a Shia? Why? Because Shia allow muta' (short term convenience) marriage. See, as far as anyone knows, a Shia woman could have married 10 different men in a span of few years. Now, who would want to marry a woman who has gone through 10 marriages with 10 different men? Not me.