Originally posted by Northerner: Bring-em out bring-em out! Milan can be beaten, a master tactician like Rafa shall be prepared. Its evident that Milan do not like other teams getting down the wings and doubling up on Cafu/Maldini. They are not very good in the air from set pieces. Northerner, Don't be mistaken sxb, Milan are beatable but they are usually their own enemies. Wingers are not the way to stop Milan; Man U's Ronaldo and Giggs were stopped effectively in both legs and they usually don't come much stronger than that. What I think hapenned last nite was that Milan players thought the tie was in the bag and it looked like they were all thinking of the Juve game this weekend. Four games remain and the two giants go head-to-head at the San Siro this weekend; they have the same amount of points and the Italian league cannot be won on goal difference. This game has been talked about for a long time and would most likely decide who wins the league. The two worst performances by Milan were against PSV. This came after stunning performances against Man U and Inter and also leading the league. Milan players were almost disrepsectful towards PSV and they were very close to being punished. I feel for PSV but like I always say...if you don't take your chances against big sides you are going to be punished. For the final...Milan will go back to 4-4-2 and bring in Crespo. They would probably have wrapped up the league title (or lost it) by then and L'pool will have to play differently because Milan can not be locked out like they did with Juve and Chelsea. Forza Milan! Sunday May 8th 1:45pm Milan v Juventus on British Eurosport

Originally posted by SoMa_InC: In my eyes that wasnt a goal........simple.. Someone kill that ****** Slovakian referee....The punk lost us the game. It was going to be a penalty and a red card for Cech if the referee stopped the game. Chelsea were extremely lucky because they kept their goalie and had more than 90 minutes (86+6mins) to cancel out that goal. The fact remains that they couldn't score against Liverpool in over 180 minutes (both legs)...all credit to Liverpool players and the man who taught them all the tactics they need for a European tie, Rafa Benitez. They better hope PSV wins the other game because playing AC Milan for 90 mins seems too much for any team this season. It's not easy to beat them...the last goal they conceded was in the group stage against Barca when Dinho scored a wonder goal with one minute remaining.

When Real Madrid won the CL a few years ago but ended up fifth in the league (Zaragoza was in 4th), the Spanish FA gave the spot to Real Madrid and Real Zaragoza played in the UEFA Cup. I don't see the same thing hapenning in England simply because of the rivalry between Everton and Liverpool. It would be a blow for Everton to lose that spot but to lose it to their local rivals makes it extra painful.

Originally posted by BOB: Viking, I know he is good and I also know that he has all the time in the world to become even better and I am even prepared to say he is better than Becks and Owen put together but to mention him in the same breath with Pele and Diego? I am sorry if I don't suffer from a syndrome known as "English Hype" and sometimes I ask myself "do English commentators really listen to themselves?" BOB, I would not go as far as saying he is in the same league with Pele, Maradona and Zidane. He simply isn't that talented! I don't have any "English hype" either but one doesn't need have it to see that Rooney is a good player. I hate the way English commentators are so biased...in the L'pool-Chelsea game, they failed to mention that Gerrard was by far the worst player on the pitch. They always exagerate anything done by an English national team player and scrutinise the actions of foreigners. Unfortunately, the foreign players have to do what Henry, Vieira or van Nistelrooy have done in the Premiership to avoid critisism. Any bad fouls by the English national team players are referred to as "unfortunate" or "unintentional" while the same foul committed by a foreign player is "dangerous", "reckless" etc. Shearer has been elbowing defenders for over a decade and gets away with it but the likes of Lauren are not spared any critisism. I agree that goal against Newcastle was top draw but with the new NIKE ball around these days with a little bit of luck you can score those sorts of goals. LOOL, he's scored at least 5 "wonder-goals" this season, all different but equally amazing. You have to give the devil its due mate. by the way AC Milan were very lucky to beat "lowly" PSV..don't you agree? Every big team needs luck on the way. Did Barcelona deserve to lose to Chelsea when they had over 66% of the possession and a lot of clear chances? Did Man U deserve to win the CL in 1999 in the dying minutes when Bayern was by far the better team all night (hitting the post a couple of times and dominating possession)? AC Milan had a day off, all their players said that PSV were the better team that night...but if you don't put away your chances against big sides you get punished. Obviously 2-0 did not reflect the game, a 1-1 draw would be fairer, or even a narrow PSV win...but who said football was fair or that the results always reflects the game?

xinfaanin, I thanked you for your the effort (this meant that I was going to read it) but I was suprised when I saw where you got the info. Maybe you aren't really familiar with that site but those who do know how much effort they put in trying to tarnish the Noor of Islam. In my humble opinion, Authenticity matters and not the location of it. Just a word of advise...your opinions is anything but humble when you point to your humility.

xiinfaniin, Thanks for the effort bro. But I'm wondering why you got the information from the most anti-Islamic site on the net :confused:

Ina Lilahi wa ina ileyhi Raajicun.

Northerner, For a L'pool supporter it must have been nerve-wrecking but neutrals like I didn't have much to enjoy. I was extremely disappointed with Gerrard and I'm convinced Hamann would have done much more last night. The only good thing he did in the whole game was when he crossed to Baros for the header that Cech saved with his LEFT :eek: hand. He was by far the worst player on the field, could hardly get a pass right. But I heard this morning that he underwent some dental surgery moments before the game where they removed some abscess. No wonder he looked lost! The L'pool defence was great, it looked more like an Italian defence. As for Drogba, his contributions especially in the Bayern game made it possible for Chelsea to progress to the semis. In the first leg, he put Lucio to work for 90 minutes and in the return leg he scored the decisive goal that saw them through. He is a class player but the system Chelsea play stop him from scoring a lot of goals. I don't know if you realised but Chelsea havebeen playing with ONE player on the top. When Gudjohnson and Drogba play, the former usually plays as a midfielder and they use the flanks (Duff and Robben/Cole) to support the player at the top. This is why they don't have a top scoring player (Gudjohnson has 11 goals, Grogba and Lampard have 10). When was the last time you saw the Premier League winners win without a high scoring forward? Man U have played in a similar fashion (they call it 4-3-3 but it has worked more like a 4-5-1) and that's why their highest scorer (Rooney) has 10 goals so far. Compare this to Henry with 25 and Andrew Johnson of Crystal Palace with 20...plus I find it amazing that NO Chelsea or Man U player has scored more goals than Pires so far!

Bro Nur, I know what Syed did is very controversial and against all the schools of thought. I have not accepted his argument wholeheartedly 9although it might seem that way to you), however, it is an issue that needs clarification (for people with little knowledge Like I) and your previous response didn't offer any further clarification to the matter. There are many verses that Syed has used to support his claim, one is found in Suratul Baqarah There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing . I'm hoping that you will make clear what this verse means and explain whether there are different intepretations. I'm looking forward and hoping to benefit from your response on this subject. Again I apologise for any statement of mine that may be interpreted to be out of step, Kamaal ( Perfection) is for Allah alone, the rest of us goof frequently, and I have my share of goofs which remind me to be humble, and further, I am no hollier than any Nomad, if not worse. Apology accepted bro. It wasn't something I "intepreted to be out of step" but rather a clear conclusion you had reached that I was being impartial for my "blanket rejection for all the logic behind" your arguments. I didn't reject your logic without clearly looking at it but proved to you that a hadith which says someone was killed for disobeying the Prophet SAWS could NOT be used in support of killing apostates (simply because there is a Sahih Hadith that clearly states that some Sahaba refused to listen to the Prophet).

Rooney, Man U beat Arsenal twice in the league but they are still 4 points behind. Gunners have got back Gilberto and Edu who have been missed immensely this season (the reason why theydidn't do well in the league and in Europe) so I think ManU aren't big favourites to beat them this time. The only thing they have is a slight psychological advantage (for ending their unbeaten run) and the Gunenrs are dying to get revenge. North, True sxb. Man U gets twice as much money as Arsenal every home game and that has an eefect at the end of the season. Wenger has to be given a lot of credit for challenging Man U (the dominant factor in the 90's) with a very small budget. He has a good mixture of young and experienced players. As you saw against Spurs, Reyes was on fire (but premiership is too tough for his style, just like it was for Crespo and Veron who are back to their old selves in Milano. I think this is the reason the best players never came to England - Platini, Zidane, Maradona, Romario, Ronaldo etc.). Senderos is as good as they get and Fabregas (ONLY 17) is palying extremely well. Arsenal are set, all they need is a couple of established players to expand their squad so they don't suffer when someone gets injured (like they did when Sol, Edu and Gilberto were out leaving a 17 year old to play alongside Vieira). As for L'pool, I see Benitez doing the same thing he did at Valencia, he's a master tactician who plays very well according to his resources. He will bring titles to Anfield but he needs some cash to bring in some good players to challenge the top 3.

I found tonite's game to be quite dull and with very few chances but it worked out (tactically) in favour of L'pool. Let's hope they make home advantage count. Last nite's game was more exciting, PSV played very attractive football and didn't deserve to lose 2-0. But as the football experts always say,you gotta take your chances against big teams, otherwise they'll punish you.

The solution: delayed male marriage and accumulation of savings that will reverse the trend from parent's dependence on children, to the parent's care and education of children to improve the family and the society's economy. Also important is the higher education of the would-be wife in order to instil in the children good attitude towards education. Quick male marriage has vested interests not for the man or woman, but for other agents J'maal, Ndugu, instead of delayed marriage, why not continue the trend of marrying early but instead delay the bringing forth of offsprings? There is a huge amount of pressure put on (mostly) the female. Members from both families inquire just months after a wedding whether the female is pregnant and if a year goes then there are whispers all over asking whether there are biological problems. By delaying with about 3-5 years, one can still get married early (a deterrent to sin and a joyous union which brings peace and harmony) and concentrate in saving money, acquiring a higher education or skills that would make the couple self-suficient. The problems most Somalis face in the west is some sort of 'loss of identity'. The man is no longer the sole 'breadwinner' who commands respect in the society and the woman takes on (together with her traditional role) the role of other relatives and the 'house-keeper' (for urbanites) in being solely responsible for taking care of the children, cleaning, cooking etc. Most Somalis who are in the west still live in their taditional roles that were suited for their homeland and this has been the root cause of many problems we face today as a people. Women see that a man who doesn't help out at home as 'useless' and a man who is 'helpful' is seen as 'weak' by the other "alpha-males" who have been able (despite all odds) to maintain their old roles in the new and challenging environment. They are basically adapting their environment to themselves instead of adapting to their environment. In that case (as the old saying says) there won't be any progress. I might be on the wrong track here so please correct me if I'm 'out of topic'

Originally posted by BOB: Rooney isn't even half as good as Ronaldo and a quarter of a kid named Robinho but unfortunately we live in a world which is publicity orientated and Rooney is another example of an average player from England who shot to superstardom over night thanks to a powerful machine called HYPE found in a small island called England. BOB, Rooney is one of the most talented players the English have ever had. They are known for making average players like Owen and Beckham "world stars" but Rooney is in a class of his own. I never liked Man U but always enjoyed watching Scholes play...together with Rooney they make Man U a team worth watching. North, That volley was amazing! I think the two he scored against M'boro were also amazing. Very few players are capable of scoring such goals. Would you trade Cisse+Morientes+Baros for Rooney? Henry is gonna brun out in 3 seasons and we have perfect replacement for Van da Man.. who do you have?? skinny lil Reyes?? lanky Van Purse?? oh no its mr Muscle Alialisomething.. Rooney, Remember that Rooney and Ferdinand cost more than the whole Arsenal first team combined! The few players Mourinho bought cost more than the whole Arsenal squad, yet they failed to beat them this season. You should give the Gunners credit because they have a very low budget but challenge the likes of Man U (the richest club in the owrld) and Chelsea in the Premiership.

But to be honest, your support for all of Br. Syed's premises and blanket rejection for all the logic behind my argument left me with questions about your impartiality as a neutral Nomad. Bro Nur, I have much respect for you but get disappointed everytime you attack me instead of adressing the issue at hand. You did this when we had the Sunni-Shi'a discussion where you constantly suspected me of having sinister motives. Do I have to agree to anything without clear proof? The author used verses from the Qur'an to support his points (this doesn't mean that I agree with him wholeheartedly, if that was the case, what would be the point of this discussion?). If you came with a clear verse from the Noble Qur'an then (as a Muslim) I'd have to accept it and abide by it 100% (samicnaa wa atacnaa). But a hadith that says someone was killed for not listenning to the Prophet SAWS doesn't mean that apostates are to be killed. I "logically" refuted the logic you applied by showing you that some Sahaba defied the orders of the Prophet SAWS too (as recorded in Sahih Bukhari) and that it would be equally unwise if someone was to say that they would be considered apostates because they refused to obey orders from the Messenger of Allah SWT. Take as much time as you need bro and enlighten us on this difficult issue. In the meanwhile, please stop questionning my impartiality/sincerety everytime I don't agree with you, it is totally unIslamic.

I saw the whole program on BBC FOUR a few weeks ago. Quite interesting! Makes you wanna visit Toledo, Cordoba and above all Al-Hambra in Grenada. Al-Hambra

Everyday is earth day for the Muslim. We should reflect on the bounties of Allah SWT every single day and walk and live with humility on mother earth because she will, on the day of Reckonning, bear witness of our arrogance and and ill-treatement towards her. Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 41: Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, "If any Muslim plants any plant and a human being or an animal eats of it, he will be rewarded as if he had given that much in charity."

Nur, Bro, I appreciate the time you've taken to respond and enlighten us further on this subject but your rebuttal is not sufficient to make people believe (beyond doubt) that the punishment for an apostate is death. Syed said: The Qur’an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations. To which you replied... This statment is false, Please read the following verses of the quraan and then read the asbaabul nuzuul ( Purpose of Revelation): (وقالت طائÙØ© من أهل الكتاب أمنوا بالذي أنزل على الذين أمنوا وجه النهار واكÙروا آخره لعلهم يرجعون، ولا تؤمنوا إلا لمن تبع دينكم، قل أن الهدى هدى الله أن يؤتى أحد مثل ما أوتيتم أو يحاجوكم عند ربكم، قل أن الÙضل بيد الله يؤتيه من يشاء والله واسع عليم) (سورة آل عمران/ 72-73 A group of the people of the book conspired and said "Convert to Islam in the early part of the day, and become apostates at the end of that day, so that (Muslims) becomes apostates (like us), and do not believe (in any Mulsim) unless he is following our faith, say (O Muhammad) guidance is (ONLY) the guidnace of Allah SWT. It was reported by ibn Ubbas RAA, that he said that this verse was revealed when Abdullah ibn Saff, Adi ibn Zeid, and Harith ibnu Auf (people of the Book) conspired and said to each other " let us convert to the belief of Mohammad and his companions in the morning and become apostates at sunset to confuse them about their faith so they will do what we do and revert back from their faith. In other narrations, it was reported that they wanted to show believers that the people of the book found errors with Islam after they have asked their Rabbis about the religion of Muhammad and after converting found the religion of Muhammad not to be true just like their Rabbis told them, therefore, they became apostates. Then, Allah revealed this verse on that occasion. You started by saying that his statement (above in bold) was false but you failed to prove his saying that "The Qur'an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations". The explanation to the verse you quoted refers to apostates who become disbelievers after converting to Islam with sinister agendas. This comes under high treason and I don't think anyone doubts that the people who fall onto this category should be spared because they come under the the ruling of those who are creating unrest in the land. I think the sentence for these people are made quite clear in the Qur'an in Suratul Ma'idah... Ù…Ùنْ أَجْل٠ذَلÙÙƒÙŽ كَتَبْنَا عَلَى بَنÙÙŠ Ø¥ÙسْرَائÙيلَ أَنَّه٠مَن قَتَلَ Ù†ÙŽÙْساً بÙغَيْر٠نَÙْس٠أَوْ Ùَسَاد٠ÙÙÙŠ الأَرْض٠Ùَكَأَنَّمَا قَتَلَ النَّاسَ جَمÙيعاً وَمَنْ أَحْيَاهَا Ùَكَأَنَّمَا أَحْيَا النَّاسَ جَمÙيعاً وَلَقَدْ جَاءتْهÙمْ رÙسÙÙ„Ùنَا بÙالبَيّÙنَات٠ثÙمَّ Ø¥Ùنَّ ÙƒÙŽØ«Ùيراً مّÙنْهÙÙ… بَعْدَ Ø°ÙŽÙ„ÙÙƒÙŽ ÙÙÙŠ الأَرْض٠لَمÙسْرÙÙÙونَ "For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than man slaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if be had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had : saved the life of all mankind. Our messengers came unto them of old with clear proofs ( of Allah ' s sovereignty ), but afterwards lo! many of them became prodigals in the earth." (Suratul Ma'idah 5:32) The verse above lays the groundwork for the Hadeeth ruling which was meant to close this loophole, the Sharia requires once a danger is identified that Muslims take a course of action to minimize the danger to their faith, thus the sufficient and necessary ruling. The verse you quoted doesn't mention any punishment at all. It says is that "say (O Muhammad) guidance is (ONLY) the guidnace of Allah SWT" and I fail to see how this verse has laid the "groundwork" for persecuting anyone who disbelieves. The commentary doesn't do that either, it refers to people who were working against Islam by creating confusion among Muslims. Their intentions and punishment (as I see it) is justified because they are "creating unrest in the land". ...The Prophet SAWS ruled for the favor of the Jew, the Muslim was not satisfied, he went to Abu Bakar, likewise, Abu Bakar ruled for the Jew, then the Muslim went to Omar for judgement, Omar asked him if he was dissatisfied with the judgemnet of the Prophet, when the Muslim plaintiff confirmed, Omar killed the Muslim for apostacy, here, for rejecting a ruling by the Prophet SAWS. It is this incidence and many others that show the bases of the Ulema's and the companions like Omar's fatwa that an apostate is not a crime alone, it is a treason against the ummah, therefore, he is deemed at war against Islam in essence thus the ruling. If we follow your logic (or the hadeeth you refer to about Umar (RA) killing someone for not listenning to the Prophet SAWS) then some of the Sahabas (incl. Umar [RA]) can be accused of apostasy because they refused to listen to what the Prophet SAWS said. This can be found in Sahih Bukhari... Volume 7, Book 70, Number 573: Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: When Allah's Apostle was on his death-bed and in the house there were some people among whom was 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, the Prophet said, "Come, let me write for you a statement after which you will not go astray." 'Umar said, "The Prophet is seriously ill and you have the Qur'an; so the Book of Allah is enough for us." The people present in the house differed and quarrelled. Some said "Go near so that the Prophet may write for you a statement after which you will not go astray," while the others said as Umar said. When they caused a hue and cry before the Prophet, Allah's Apostle said, "Go away!" Narrated 'Ubaidullah: Ibn 'Abbas used to say, "It was very unfortunate that Allah's Apostle was prevented from writing that statement for them because of their disagreement and noise." It is of special interest to know that no one at the time of the Prophet SAWS doubted the punsihment of an Apostate, when the companions learned of some of the hypocrites who were consealing their kufr, they suggested to the prophet to allow them to kill them, but the prophet SAWS rejected on the grounds that it will seem as though Muhammad was kiulling his own companions, which was an issue that would have ill served the advance of islam and its acceptability. If the Prophet SAWS never killed apostatese because it would(as you put it) "have ill served the advance of islam and its acceptability", then why should his Ummah do it? Syed said: The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256 . This verse does not support to his argument, but I wonder why he mentioned it after the universal declaration of human rights, does he believe that Quraan is infrior to this declaration? anyway, I have already classified above that non Muslims have their rights to live peacefully with muslims in their lands, and that their persons, property and dignity is safeguarded by Allah' sacred law, anyone who violates their rights is doomed in hell. Bro Nur, You have also failed to explain what the above verse is distincly referring to. We all know that non-Muslims have the right to live alongside Muslims as they did in Yathrib and other places but why should there be compulsion in religion when this verse clearly says otherwise? Does it refer ONLY to non-Muslims as you make it out to be? If so, how do we know this? Brother Syed continues: Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137. Finally, he quotes a verse that shows that apostasy is no SIN, but kufr. and that its ruling is hell in the next life, and in ithis life, the believres are given the mandate to determine how to set controls for this phenomena so that Islam does not become a permeable religion with destructive elemnents breaking its internal structure as a viable faith. If the believers are given the mandate as you said above, then it means that they have an option. Which means that the death penalty is not an obligation but something that has come about on Qiyas and Ijtimaa from the scholars. I know you wrote this in haste, but you cannot say it has clear support from the Hadith and then say that "the believers are given the mandate to determine how to set controls for this phenomena so that Islam does not become a permeable religion. This is somewhat contradictory for the readers like I who are trying to make sense of it all. Apostacy does not have always to be declared, an apostate who hides his apostacy is known as hypocrite, thus, one can become a believer without being noticed, and likewise, he can become kafir privately, so in that case, no earthly punishment for him, just a devine punishment in hell as the verse says. What you are saying here Bro Nur (correct me if I'm mistaken) is that anyone who declares his disbelief in public is to be killed but the person who keeps it private (to himself/herself) is not to be put to death? If there's no earthy punishment for the person who doesn't openly declare his apostasy (as you put it) isn't the message that it is OK (according to the Shari'a) if you disbelieve, but don't do it publicly otherwise you face excecution? Islam, means submission to Allah swt, it is a binding covenant between man and his Maker, it entails total submission, and allegiance, and following of its teachings, Apostacy constitues breach of the covenenat, and contempt of the veru Sharia law that Syed is arguing for the protection of the Apostate. What needs to be asked is, how can any law protect a person who has declared contempt to revealed foundations on which that law was based? Bro Nur, it seems that you are arguing here that there the apostate is not protected by any laws like those the Ahlul Kitab and others are protected within the agreements. It seems like a minor technicality reather than a Law. The Sharia unanimously sets death penalty for an apostate after being given reasonable time to repent, no one in his right mind should forgo to at least save his skin by claiming that he repented while concealing bis disbelief, but when that person fights for his right to declare and practice his disbelief, one wonders about his motives. Bro Nur, let's assume that we living in a land that enforces Shari'a that the apostate in question has NO motives at all but just simply does not believe. Is the ruling on him different then? There seems to be ambiguities atleast from the way I understood your points. A group of the people of the book conspired and said "Convert to Islam in the early part of the day, and become apostates at the end of that day, so that (Muslims) becomes apostates (like us), and do not believe (in any Mulsim) unless he is following our faith, say (O Muhammad) guidance is (ONLY) the guidnace of Allah SWT . From this it seems that only those who plan on "creating unrest in the land" (as Surah Mai'dah clearly says) should justifiably be put to death for their actions. It seems that they are not being persecuted for disbelief but for the agendas they have. Brother Syed claims: There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy. There are many, please refer to the hadeeth about Omar killing a Muslim who refused ruling in favor of a Jew by the Prophet, the Muslims refusal constituted apostacy, and was killed for it. If we refer to the Hadith I posted above from Sahih Bukhari, some Sahabas refused to follow the orders of the Prophet SAWS on 'The Calamity of Thursday' so it is not enough to use this as a justification because as the hadith explains, they refused to listen to listen to the orders of the Prophet SAWS and (if we follow your pattern of thought) that should also constitute as apostasy. The Qur'an clearly says... “Obey Allah and his Prophet and if you dispute, then on him is what is imposed and on you is what is imposed on you; and if you obey him you are guided aright; and there is no duty on the Prophet save the clear deliveryâ€. (Suratul Nur 24:54.) “Obey Allah and Obey his Prophet and worry, and be warned that the Prophet’s duty is only to deliver the message clearly†(Al-Mai'dah 5:92.) Sharia is Dynamic, its first priority is self preservatiuon, no one can argue to use Sharia to abolish Sharia, opening the door for mockery without penalty could make it possible for allowing non Muslims to convert to temporarily marry Muslims women, and then apostate back after they have tried "Muslim" women as the case in Canada when a convert confided to a friend that he converted to Islam just to try a Muslim woman, other motives could be more severe, unless the Sharia activates controil mechanisms for protecting the faithful, Islam will be made a joke just like Christianity and Judaism, next thing will be for some enlightened "Muslims" to argue for the acceptance of other lifestyle based people to be accepted as full members of the community. Again, the reader gets the impression that it's the intentions of the apostate that is the main focus point and not the act of apostasy itself. InshaAllah I'm looking forward to more clear-cut references where one can see beyond doubt that the killing of an apostate is justified solely on the act of disbelief itself and not the motives behind the apparent disbelief. Allah SWT says in the Holy Qur'an that He seals the hearts of those who disbelieve... As for the disbelievers, whether thou warn them or thou warn them not it is all one for them; they believe not. Allah hath sealed their hearing and their hearts, and on their eyes there is a covering. Theirs will be an awful doom. (Al-Baqarah 2:6-7.) Allah SWT knows best!

Originally posted by J'maal11: ^^ ur wlcm. Viking, lol I know the book bro, I have it at home. As apocalyptic as the guy's theory seems, I don't think its scary or holds water for that matter. Sxb read some Critical Theory perspective on these issues, cos the realists are simpletons who only 'pretend' to explain a world in which they have helped to create. J'maal, Sxb, I did not agree with everything that Huntington said in his book but he had brought up some imoprtant issues which seem to be very true in the world we live in. He mentioned (if I recall well) China, India and Japan as 'civilisations' and if we see how the events are unfolding, the three seem to be taking huge steps to be recognised in the world. Japan is going fora permanent seat in the Secuirty Council, China and India are seen as the new emerging superpowers (both economically, militarily and population-wise) who will have a major impact in the world. The EU (Christian Union as he called it) is also expanding to accomodate the other Christian nations like Bulgaria, Romania etc. There were 12 members of the EU when I read the book some years back and I believe today there are 25 or so, and as Huntington predicted, Turkey is not one of them. He also correctly stated (according to my understanding) that the 'Muslim civilisation' lacked a 'core state'; all the other civilisations according to him had one. I beleive this to be true too because if Turkey or Iran (the two he thought had most potential) had taken that role of being the 'head' or voice of the Muslim world, then a balance to our favour would be created. But Turkey is busy kissing a$$, trying to join the Christian Union and the 'Western civilisation' is doing all it can to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons which would make it a power to be reckonned within the 'Islamic civilisation'. It was an interesting read, not as facts but as theories which would probably shape the world in the near future. I don't think he was right in everything he said, never the less, it was an interesting read. Thanks for the tips, I will try and read them soon. At the moment am reading more "theories", lol. This one is by George Monbiot (of The Guardian) in his book 'The Age of Consent'.

Originally posted by Warrior of Light: Viking this article has disturbed and confused me. Personally, I stay hold to the hadith of the Prophet and believe that an apostate should be reminded of his duty to Allah then if failed killed. The question of how long the grace period lasts I know not of. But I do know that fire is not allowed to be used to kill such a person. Warrior of Light, As the writer mentionned, nowhere in the Holy Qur'an is it mentionned 'killing of an apostate' for leaving the fold of Islam. "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256. As Muslims, we always refer to this verse without really pondering on the meaning...does it mean that even a Muslim who reverts cannot be forced or killed? It doesn't make sense, why would a beautiful religion welcome converts and then threaten them with death if they change their mind? "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137. As the author said, this verse shows that even someone who toys back and forth has his punishment with Allah SWT. Should it be the responsibility of men to persecute someone for disbelief when someone can disbelieve for their whole lives without being discovered? Only Allah SWT knows the real extent (or the evidence) of a person's disbelief because as He hassaid in the Glorious Qur'an, he closer to us than the jugular vein. Those who were killed for disbelief in the eraly days (as I've always understood it) were those who conspired with the enemies of Islam. Like the Jews who pretended to be Muslims and then went back to their people to reveal the secrets of Muslims and compromising their saftey. Allah SWT knows best!

The 'war on terror' is just an excuse to push for American hegemony. J'maal, The book by S. P. Huntington (of the same name) written over 10 years ago was quite informative.

Khayr, I understand your concerns sxb. I read the article and was shocked by the paragraph you quoted...but when I read on, I thought he was referring to 'intermingling' with men and general behaviour (expected) of women. Hijab for women does not only refer to clothing but behaviour etc. This is the definition I found on IslamicWeb for the word HIJAB and might explain what the author meant. 'Hijab' is an Arabic word that describes Muslim women's entire dress code, which includes a veil and whatever else is needed to cover everything except the face and hands. It is adopted at puberty - an age when Muslims, say children, should become accountable for their actions... The term 'Hijab' itself includes not only dress and covering the body, but methods of behavior before members of the same and/or opposite sex, promoting privacy for females and prohibiting loose intermingling between males and females, and thereby encouraging modesty, decency, and chastity. As for the 'rebuttal' on the issue of apostasy - it could only be valuable by quoting verses of the Qur'an or sound Hadith. If you know of any please don't hesitate to share it with us. Peace.

This is what it came down to after years of being beaten by the city-rivals. In the last photo...Metarazzi and Rui Costa watch as the flares rained down on Giuseppe Meazza stadium. The Inter fans in the (notorious) North Curve held up a banner saying You have your victories and we have our pride...what pride one wonders!

Is Killing An Apostate in the Islamic Law? by Ibrahim B. Syed, Ph. D. President Islamic Research Foundation International, Inc. 7102 W. Shefford Lane Louisville, KY 40242-6462, U.S.A. E-mail: IRFI@INAME.COM Website: http://WWW.IRFI.ORG Ridda or Irtidãd: Literally means "turning back". The act of apostasy -- leaving Islam for another religion or for a secular lifestyle. Murtadd: Literally means "one who turns the back." An apostate. Murtad Fitri: Literally means apostate - natural. A person born of a Muslim parent who later rejects Islam. Murtad Milli: Literally means apostate - from the community. A person who converted to Islam and later rejected the religion. Due lack of education and critical thinking several myths have taken root in the Muslim world over the ages, and there have not been any efforts in the past to clear these doubts. On the contrary, there has been a sort of effort to strengthen these myths and misconceptions. These misinterpretations of Islamic teachings have taken their toll on the Muslim world and have strengthened a misplaced perception that Islam is a symbol of obscurantism, a religion of intolerance and answers everything with the sword. And there is no bigger misconception-strengthened with misunderstanding of Islamic beliefs over the years-other than the belief that Islam doesn't tolerate apostasy. The Christian missionaries and the Western world are cashing in on it. Ulama have tried to strengthen their point of view and several leading Muslim reformists have failed to tackle the issue. This misconception has also presented Islam as a medieval and killer religion. Islam bashers have time and again tried to carry the point by pointing out that Islam orders the killing of a person if he or she reverts to another religion from Islam. No body is forthcoming to challenge this widely held belief as well as put forth a convincing argument about the misinterpretation of Qur'anic teachings by Ulama. The Qur’an is completely silent on any worldly punishment for apostasy and the sole Tradition that forms the basis of rulings is open to many interpretations. Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: ‘Whosoever changes his religion, Kill Him (man baddala Dinahu faqtuluhu)’â€. It is this last quote from the Prophet that forms the basis of the said ruling. While jurists are agreed on the authenticity of this tradition, they differ very widely on the appropriate interpretation and thus, the law concerning apostasy. Understanding the different viewpoints, and arriving at the truth is crucial to our discussion of this subject. This tradition does not refer to Muslims who leave the religion of Islam for other religions. Finally, there is the crucial dispute over the nature of the punishment and the crime. Al-Nakha’ee and, according to Sha’rani, al-Thawri, hold that the apostate is a grave sinner who should however be continuously called back to the fold for the rest of his life, and not killed. By implication, they do not consider the offence a hadd (fixed penalty) offence with a fixed punishment that must be carried out. This view is similar to the view that apostasy is a sin that carries no fixed punishment, and any penalty for it is discretionary (ta’zeer). This is a view held by the Hanbali scholar, Ibn Taimiya and he attributes it as well to the Maliki Imam al-Baji. Among Hanafites, the jurist Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi holds the same view. He says in al Mabsut that the fixed penalties or hudud are generally not suspended because of repentance, especially when they are reported and become known to the Imam. He then adds in the case of apostasy “renunciation of the faith and conversion to disbelief is admittedly the greatest of offences, yet it is a matter between man and his Creator, and its punishment is postponed to the day of Judgement. (“fa’l jaza’ ‘alayha mu’akhkhar ila dar al-jazaâ€). If repentance is accepted, then apostasy is not a hadd offence with a fixed punishment. Secondly, once scholars accept that a Muslim apostate has the right to be given the opportunity to repent, they lose the right to set a time limit for his repentance. Allah (SWT) says in the Glorious Qur’an (39: 53-54: Say: “ O you servants of Mine who have transgressed against your own selves! Despair not of God’s mercy. Behold God forgives all sins, for verily He is much forgiving, a dispenser of grace! Hence, turn toward your sustainer and surrender yourselves unto him before the suffering (of death and resurrection) comes upon you for then you will not be succored.†Any scholar who says the death sentence applies to leaving the faith, then the convict is to be given a life-time to repent, and this is the view of Sufyan al-Thawri, Ibrahim al-Nakha’ee, Shamsuddeen al-Sarakhshi, Imam al-Baji and, by strong implication, Ahmad Ibn Taimiya. One must conclude that the death sentence is not for “simple apostasy†(mujarrad al-ridda), but for apostasy accompanied by treason and sedition, or by the abuse and slander (sabb) of the Noble Prophet. Freedom to convert to or from Islam "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance." Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Glorious Qur'an says, "Let there be no compulsion in the religion: Surely the Right Path is clearly distinct from the crooked path." Al Baqarah, 2:256. "Those who believe, then disbelieve, then believe again, then disbelieve, and then increase in their disbelief - Allah will never forgive them nor guide them to the path." Surah An-Nisa', 4:137. For example, the Qur'an says: "Let him who wishes to believe, do so; and let him who wishes to disbelieve, do so." (Al-Kahf: 29) In another verse, Allah Almighty says: "Yours is only the duty to convey the message; you are not a guardian over them." (Al-Ghashiyah: 21- 22) The quotation from Surah An-Nisa', 4:137, shown above, seems to imply that multiple, sequential apostasies are possible. That would not be possible if the person were executed after the first apostasy. From the above verses it can be argued that religious freedom and the absence of compulsion in religion requires that individuals be allowed adopt a religion or to convert to another religion without legal penalty. Hence the death penalty is not an appropriate response to apostasy. The former Chief Justice of Pakistan, SA Rahman, has written that there is no reference to the death penalty in any of the 20 instances of apostasy mentioned in the Qur'an. Muslims who support the death penalty for apostasy use as their foundation the above cited hadith, in which the Prophet (pbuh) is reported to have said: "Kill whoever changes his religion." But this is a weak foundation because this hadith was only transmitted from Muhammad (pbuh) by one individual. It was not confirmed by a second person. According to Islamic law, this is insufficient confirmation to impose the death penalty. The Shari`ah has not fixed any punishment for apostasy. The hadith is so generally worded that it would require the death penalty for a Christian or Jew who converted to Islam. This is obviously not the prophet's intent. The hadith is in need of further specification, which has not been documented. Many scholars interpret this passage as referring only to instances of high treason. (e.g. declaring war on Islam, Muhammad (pbuh), God, etc.). There is no historical record, which indicates that Muhammad (pbuh) or any of his companions ever sentenced anyone to death for apostasy. The issue of killing a murtad or the apostate is not a simple one. Scholars have debated it from various angles and it is not simply an issue of killing someone for choosing one religion or another. The question of apostasy has been debated among scholars based on their interpretations of some hadiths since the Qur'an does not specify any worldly punishment for it. For example, there was a case at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) where a man came to him in three consecutive days and told him that he wanted to apostate. The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never took any action against him, and when the man finally left Madina, the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) never sent anyone to arrest him, let alone kill him. This is why some scholars distinguished between individual apostasy and apostasy which is accompanied by high treason. So, it cannot be confused with the freedom of conscience for every individual, which has been guaranteed in the Qur'an through hundreds of verses. For example, one version of a hadith narrated by `A'isha (RA) concerning apostasy relates to one who left his religion and fought against Muslims. QUR'ANIC VIEWS The Qur’an has referred to the issue of apostasy at more than one place (for example see Al-Baqarah 2: 217, Al-Baqarah 2: 108, A’l Imra’n 3: 90, Al-Nisa’ 4: 137 and Al-Nahl 16: 106). But at none of these places does the Qur’an mention the punishment of death for such people who change their religion. The Qur’an does mention that such people shall face a terrible punishment in the hereafter but no worldly punishment is mentioned at any of these instances in the Qur’an. This situation obviously raises a question mark in the mind of the reader that if Allah had wanted to give the punishment of an apostate a permanent position in the Shari`ah, the punishment should have been mentioned, at least at one of the above mentioned places. If the Qur’an had kept completely silent about the apostate, the matter would have been different. But the strange thing is that the Qur’an mentions apostasy, and still does not mention the punishment (if any) it wants the apostate to be subjected to. Furthermore, the Qur’an has strictly disallowed the imposition of the death penalty except in two specific cases. One of them is where the person is guilty of murdering another person and the other is where a person is guilty of creating unrest in the country (fasa’d fil-ardh) like being involved in activities that create unrest in a society, for example activities like terrorism etc. The Qur’an says: Whoever kills a person without his being guilty of murder or of creating unrest in the land, is as though he kills the whole of mankind. (Al-Ma’idah, 5: 32) Obviously, apostasy can neither be termed as "murder" nor "creating unrest in the land". Thus, in view of the above facts, we are left with one option only. We can only say that either the saying has been wrongly ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh), as it is clearly contradictory to the Qur’an and the Prophet could not have said anything contradictory to the Qur’an, or that the saying ascribed to the Prophet (pbuh) relates not to all apostates but to a particular and specific people. Shaykh Subhani Shaykh Inayatullah Subhani (author of the Book Apostasy doesn't carry death penalty in Islam) says that neither Islam forces any person to embrace neither Islam nor it forces him to remain within its fold. He writes, "Apostasy has been mentioned several times in Qur'an. It also describes the bad treatment that will be meted out for committing apostasy, but it never talks of punishment for the crime in this world." The learned scholar mentions three Ayaat (verses) from Qur'an on apostasy (Al-Baqara 217, Muhammad 25-27 and Al-Maida 54) and then says that none of these Ayaat prescribes any punishment for that though these Ayaat pass strictures on the people who commit it. There are several other Ayaat on the same issue and none of them prescribes either death penalty or any other punishment for apostasy in this world. He then adds that had there been some punishment in Islam for apostasy there was no reason as to why the issue was mentioned repeatedly in Qur'an but no punishment was prescribed. Misinterpretation of the hadith, Man baddala Dinahu faqtuluh (kill him who changes his religion) has caused the problem. This order has been made to look general and permanent, though it was said in a particular circumstance for a particular group. Shaykh Subhani writes that this order was made to counter a scheme prepared by Jews of Madinah. They had planned that some of them embrace Islam for some time and then return to their old religion. Then some other people do the same. It was aimed to create restlessness among Muslims against their own leadership so that the strong Muslim unity should start crumbling. It was made clear in Qur'an in (Aal Imran, 3: 72-73). To counter this planning the Prophet (SAW) ordered his companions to act in such a manner. Despite this order lengthy investigations were made to ascertain that the case was true and the person concerned was given adequate time to explain before the punishment was carried out. Shaykh Subhani says lack of clear grasp of Qur'an misguided even leading Ulama. Otherwise it was not difficult to understand the hadith. Qur'anic teachings on the issue were not kept in mind. He emphasizes that people who were awarded death penalty for reverting to other religions from Islam during the time of the Prophet (SAW) or during the reign of his caliphs were not given the punishment for the crime of apostasy but for the fact that they were at war with Muslims and Islamic government. Shaykh Subhani regrets that punishment that was prescribed for certain people under special circumstances was made to look like a general order. He says that it was the order for people who posed threat to Islamic state and became at war with Islam and not for any person who reverts to other religion. A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, Ibrahim al-Naka'I, Sufyan al-Thawri, Shams al-Din al-Sarakhsi, Abul Walid al-Baji and Ibn Taymiyyah, have all held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. In modern times, Mahmud Shaltut, Sheikh of al-Azhar, and Dr Mohammed Sayed Tantawi have concurred. In conclusion, we must never confuse the issue of killing a murtad with the freedom of conscience guaranteed in the Glorious Qur'an. For a detailed discussion, one should read (1) the Dr. Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's book on this issue: Jareemat ar-riddah wal murtadd (The Crime of Apostasy and Apostate) - published by Ar-Risalah foundation. source: http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_251_300/is_killing_an_apostate_in_the_is.htm

Gandalf A wandering spirit caring for a multitude of just concerns, you are an instrumental power in many of the causes around you. And so am I, very dangerous: more dangerous than anything you will ever meet, unless you are brought alive before the seat of the Dark Lord. Gandalf is a character from the Middle-Earth universe. TheOneRing.net has a description of him.

Goofy, They were talking about that song recently on 'Talk sport' radio and it was said to be copied from Glasgow Celtics.