Leaderboard

You're not Muslim anymore :o Welcome to the dark side, we have cookies.

What a wonderful development, and what a wonderful opportunity. There's little inherently Islamic about minarets; they were introduced as an architectural feature several centuries after Muhammad and in many parts of the world, as Islam spread, the shape and appearance of mosques showed a nice tendency of trying to fit into the architecture of the local area. Swiss Muslims, and Western Muslims in general, must strive for similar feats of architectural synthesis. It sends a powerful and positive subliminal message that Islam is compatible with the people there. It makes the religion more attractive and welcoming without sacrificing anything. Win win. One of the beauties of constraints of form in art is that it drives the artist to be creative in expressing him/herself despite the restrictions.

I think.. maybe :D Your thoughts...

زہرا (س) 'نے اپنے گھر میں ایسا ہی معنوی ماحول قائم کیاہواتھا 'حتیٰ ان کے بچے بھی بچپنے سے' ایسے ہی ماحول میں زندگی بسر کر رہے تھے۔ ان کے فرزند امام حسن (ع) دیکھا کرتے کہ ان کی والدہ راتوں کو اٹھ اٹھ کرعبادت ِالٰہی انجام دیا کرتی ہیں۔وہ فرماتے ہیں : ''ہماری والدہ راتوں کواس قدر عبادت کیا کرتی تھیں کہ ان کے پیر سوج جاتے تھے ۔ '' . اگرطویل قیام اور دیر تک کھڑے رہنے کی وجہ سے پیروں پر پڑنے والے دباؤ کو پیش نظر رکھیں تو یہ ایک قدرتی بات نظر آتی ہے۔ بی بی کے طویل قیام 'ان کے بہت زیادہ مناجات میں مشغول رہنے اور خدا سے اتصال کی علامت ہیں۔آپ کے فرزند( امام حسن (ع) )بچکانہ معصومیت کے ساتھ اپنی مادرِ گرامی کی سرگوشیاں اور رب العالمین کے ساتھ ان کے راز و نیاز کو سنا کرتے اور دیکھتے کہ ان کی والدہ مومن مردوں اور عورتوں کے لۓ دعا گو ہیں ۔وہ انتظار میں رہتے کہ کبھی تو ان کی نحیف و نزاراورعمر بھرمشکلات سے نبرد آزما رہنے والی والدہ ' خود اپنے لۓ دعا کریں۔ لیکن انہوں نے (انہیں اپنے لۓ دعا کرتے) نہ سنا . ۔( ایک روز) جب ان کی والدہ نماز و مناجات سے فارغ ہوئیں توانہوں نے پوچھا : اماں ! آپ اپنے لۓ کیوں دعانہیں کرتیں؟ جبکہ آپ دوسروں سے زیادہ دعا کی محتاج ہیں؟ آپ کی روحانیت اور معنویت سے لبریز نماز خدا کی طرف سے استجابت دعا کی امید پیدا کرتی ہے۔ کیونکہ انسان دل و جاںکی جس قدر زیادہ گہرائی کے ساتھ درگاہِ الٰہی میں حاضری دیتا ہے' خدا اتنی ہی زیادہ اس پراپنی رحمتوں کی بارش برساتا ہے اور جلد اسکی دعا قبول فرماتا ہے۔ . حضرت فاطمہ (س) نے جواب دیا : یا بنی ! الجارثم الدار (بیٹا ! پہلے ہمسایہ پھر گھر) یعنی ' ہمیں اپنی فکر کرنے سے پہلے مسلمانوں کی حالت کے بارے میں سوچنا چاہۓ۔ اس طرح ہم مسلمانوں کے دکھوں اور تکلیفوں کو محسوس کریں گے اور خدا سے دعا کریں گے کہ ان کے دکھوں کا مداوا فرماۓ۔ ہم مسلمانوں کے لۓ دعا گو ہوں گے توخداہم پر بھی اپنی رحمتیں نازل فرماۓ گا' اور جو چیزہم ان کے لۓ طلب کرتے ہیں وہ ہمیں بھی عطا فرماۓ گا۔ . قرآنِ کریم نے اہلِ بیت (ع) کو دوسروں سے ممتاز کرنے والے ان جذبات و احساسات کوہمیشگی بخشی ہے ۔یہ احساسات صرف حضرت زہرا (س) میں منحصر نہ تھے بلکہ تمام اہل بیت ( جنہیں خدا نے رجس اور نجاست سے محفوظ رکھ کر پاک و پاکیزہ بنایا ہے) ان احساسات کے مالک تھے۔ ان سب نے روحانی ' دانشمندانہ اور معاشرتی میدان میںایک پاکیزہ زندگی بسر کی ہے : ویطعمون الطعام علی حبہ مسکینا و یتیما و اسیرا۔انما نطعمکم لوجہ اﷲ(یہ اسکی محبت میں مسکین'یتیم اور اسیر کو کھانا کھلاتے ہیں۔(اور ان سے کہتے ہیںکہ)ہم صرف اللہ کی مرضی کی خاطر تمھیں کھلاتے ہیں۔سورہ انسان٦٧۔آیت٨'٩) ۔ہم تمہیں کھانا دے کر اپناروزہ پانی سے افطار کرتے ہیں 'اس لۓ کہ ہم تمہیں خود پر ترجیح دیتے ہیں'ہم اہل خانہ پرہمساۓ کو مقدم سمجھتے ہیں :لا نرید منکم جزاء ولا شکورا۔انا نخاف من ربنا یوما عبوسا قمطر یرا۔فوقا ھم اﷲ شرذلک الیوم و لقاھم نضرہ و سرورا (ور ہم نہ تو تم سے کسی بدلے کے طلبگار ہیں'نہ شکریے کے۔ہم اپنے پروردگار سے اس دن کے بارے میں ڈرتے ہیں جس دن چہرے بگڑ جائیں گے اور ان پر ہوائیاں اڑنے لگیں گی ۔تو خدا نے انھیں اس دن کی سختی سے بچا لیا اور تازگی اور سرور عطا کیا۔سورہ انسان ۷۶۔آیت ۹تا۱۱) حضرت علی نے یہ دیکھتے ہوۓ کہ فاطمہ بیماری اور سخت محنت کی وجہ سے بہت تکلیف میں ہیں' ان سے فرمایا : کیا ہی اچھا ہو' اگر آپ پیغمبر کی خدمت میں حاضر ہو کے ان سے ایک خدمت گار طلب کریں 'تاکہ آپ کو کچھ آرام مل سکے اور آپ کے کام کا بوجھ کچھ ہلکا ہوجاۓ۔ لیکن حضرت فاطمہ نے اس درخواست سے گریز فرمایا کیونکہ آپ جانتی تھیں کہ اگر یہ ضروری ہوتا تو خود پیغمبرانہیں ایک خدمتگار فراہم کر دیتے ۔انہوں نے یہ تعلیم پائی تھی کہ ہر حال میں رسول خدا سے ہم آہنگ اور ان کے ہم قدم رہنا چاہۓ ۔ . سیرت کی کتابوں میں آیا ہے کہ :ایک روز حضرت فاطمہ نے حضرت علی کی طرف سے تحفے میں ملنے والا دست بند یا گردن بند پہنا ہواتھا ۔اور ایک دوسری روایت میں آیا ہے کہ نیا پردہ گھر میں لٹکایا تھا ۔رسول اﷲ سفر سے واپسی پرحضرت فاطمہ کے گھر تشریف لاتے ہیں اور یہ چیزیں دیکھ کر بغیر ٹھہرے ہوۓ واپس پلٹ جاتے ہیں۔ فاطمہ رسولِ کریم کا یہ انوکھاطرز عمل دیکھ کر متعجب ہوتی ہیں' سوچتی ہیں کہ پیغمبر کا اس طرح فورا گھر سے چلے جانا غیر معمولی بات ہے۔غور کرتی ہیں کہ کیا نئی بات ہوئی ہے؟کیا تبدیلی واقع ہوئی ہے؟ ۔آپ کی نظر اپنے زیور (یانۓ پردے) پر پڑتی ہے ۔ . روایت میں آیا ہے کہ آپ اس دست بند یا گردن بند کو فروخت کرکے اس رقم سے ایک غلام خرید کرراہِ خدا میں آزاد کرتی ہیں۔ ایک دوسری روایت میں یہ آیا ہے کہ: آپ پردہ اتار کر اپنے بچوں (حسن و حسین ) کو دیتی ہیں اور ان سے کہتی ہیں کہ اسے پیغمبرکے حوالے کردیں اور ان سے کہیں کہ آج کے بعد ایسا کوئی عمل مجھ سے سرزد نہ ہو گا' اب جیسا آپ مناسب سمجھیں اسکے ساتھ کیجۓ۔ حسن اور حسین اپنے نانا کی خدمت میں حاضر ہوتے ہیں 'پیغمبر منبر پر تشریف فرما تھے۔ بچے نزدیک پہنچ کر امانت پیغمبر کے حوالے کرتے ہیںاور اپنی والدہ کا پیغام انہیں پہنچاتے ہیں ۔ پیغمبر اپنی بیٹی کا یہ پیغام سن کر وجد میں آ جاتے ہیں اور فرماتے ہیں : فدا ھا ابوھا ' فداھا ابوھا' فداھا ابوھا' مالآل محمد والدنیا انھم خلقوا للآخرة (اسکاباپ اس پر فدا ہو' اسکاباپ اس پر فدا ہو' اسکا باپ اس پر فدا ہو! آلِ محمد کو دنیا سے کیا کام وہ تو آخرت کے لۓ خلق کۓ گۓ ہیں)

Yes, they were two types of fornication and that's what they called them... Look, I didn't make up the language or the culture, that's how it was. "extra stuff"?? So now, paying a mahr, reciting an `aqd, having an `idda, and all the related ahkaam defining the halal from the haram are just "extra" stuff? That's because you apparently can't read Quranic Arabic properly and are following made up tafsirs. Where does it say all relationships done in "secret" are thus forbidden? And what's to prevent a mut`a from being public, or a permanent marriage from being hidden? As to the whole lust and relationship thing, err, didn't you know that in Arabic the word for marriage and sex are the same, i.e. an-nikah? (yes, there are other terms too, but that's one of the most common obviously). Sex is part and parcel of it, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging it's primacy here. Nor is there anything wrong with a _legal_ "relationship" whose primary motivation is sexual. As was mentioned, how about the purchasing of slave girls back then? You could buy one, have sex with her, then she could be sold eventually to someone else. Sure, it may conflict big time with modern values on these things, but from an Islamic legal perspective, it's lawful and this is something neither Sunni nor Shi`i fiqh denies. You can follow "Imam" Asi all you like, but I'll stick with Imam `Ali (as), Imam Sadiq (as) and all the other true Imams (as) who clearly taught to lawfulness of mut`a. Such as?

Neither side takes the time to understand the other party. For 12r shias the 3 calipahs are not any different from Muawiyah and Yazid. For Sunnis the AHlul Bayt are not that significant enough to be mentioned on a daily basis. If we have such closed minded views then don't expect a marriage to successful.

Inherent bigotry can explain why this referendum got enough signatures to go to ballot. It does not explain how it got 57% support. If people believe that, especially people who live there, I have to ask what they are doing there. If you think seriously think 57% are inherently bigoted toward you, no matter what you do or how you present yourself or reach out to them, than what are you doing in the country? Get lost; go somewhere else. Make hijra in the earth. If you believe that the 57% figure is changeable, and based simply on propaganda, then what is the objection to making some efforts to counter that propaganda that go beyond simply shouting "Islamophobe!" to actually building bridges with people. As for the Quran verse, this is probably the most abused and misused verse around when it comes to relations between Muslims and others. This verse is constantly trotted out to scuttle any suggestion that Muslims have a responsibility to present themselves in a positive way to bring people to the faith and maintain good relations with outsiders, even the most obvious, simple things. "What do you mean I shouldn't beat myself with swords in the streets? What's next, give up prayer? Maybe you should worry more about pleasing Imam Hussain than these dirty kuffar!" The verse does not apply here. Who is telling you to "follow their religion?" What Islamic principle is sacrificed to not have minarets or crescents on the mosques? To open the mosques up and operate them in the language of the land? To make efforts to reach out to the people around to show them you are human beings who strive to good morals and good relations with people?

(wasalam) what does istimt'atun actually mean from root to verb active passive etc?

It has a lot to do with lifestyle and you will see fat people all over the world (including Britain). In certain Tanzanian tribes they send their daughters to fat camp (where they consume 14,000 calories a day) to make them obese and more marriageable. They are basically round, plush pillows for their husbands to sleep on and they still manage to engage in sexual intercourse.. lots of it. I mean I suppose the number of children is more indicative of their lack of birth control awareness.. Pretty sure Americans will be having sex with non Americans for a long time. If your "another species" comment wasn't a failed attempt at humor.. I strongly suggest you retake that 9th grade biology class and pay attention this time.

Good post, I'm amused by the last word of the sentence and that of your name... You have a different perspective as to how you assess the OP's situation. Perhaps we, the shielders, just wanna be on the safe side; we don't wanna be influenced by the greater 'bad' which can affect our inner self, our spiritual self. Just like the idiom says, "One bad apple spoils the barrel" I can't imagine how the Holy Prophet (pbuh)and the Imams are constantly surrounded by infidels, hypocrites and they have to be there, dealing with all these people with patience, full of wisdom. Why? For the sake of Islam.. subhanallah.. I respect and admired such people who are able to be in such a situation especially when they made it as part of the lives. wassalam

(salam) Damn , this is what I told my mum , and she said SHUT UP , GO FIND A JOB FIRST :-(.. I mean it really hurts , when my own mother refuses to get me married because I am poor and jobless :-(... Peace

(bismillah) (salam) I think a women who is religious (not always religious though), would accept marrying a religious poor man, remember Fatima (sa) married Imam Ali (as) even though he was very very poor, at first before he married her he didnt have a house, and to give her the dowry he had to sell his shield for money. (wasalam)

(salam) (bismillah) æóÅöäú ÎöÝúÊõãú ÃóáÇøó ÊõÞúÓöØõæÇú Ýöí ÇáúíóÊóÇãóì ÝóÇäßöÍõæÇú ãóÇ ØóÇÈó áóßõã ãøöäó ÇáäøöÓóÇÁ ãóËúäóì æóËõáÇóËó æóÑõÈóÇÚó ÝóÅöäú ÎöÝúÊõãú ÃóáÇøó ÊóÚúÏöáõæÇú ÝóæóÇÍöÏóÉð Ãóæú ãóÇ ãóáóßóÊú ÃóíúãóÇäõßõãú Ðóáößó ÃóÏúäóì ÃóáÇøó ÊóÚõæáõæÇú If ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly with the orphans, marry women of your choice, Two or three or four; but if ye fear that ye shall not be able to deal justly (with them), then only one, or (a captive) that your right hands possess, that will be more suitable, to prevent you from doing injustice. (4:3) æóÃóäßöÍõæÇ ÇáúÃóíóÇãóì ãöäßõãú æóÇáÕøóÇáöÍöíäó ãöäú ÚöÈóÇÏößõãú æóÅöãóÇÆößõãú Åöä íóßõæäõæÇ ÝõÞóÑóÇÁ íõÛúäöåöãõ Çááøóåõ ãöä ÝóÖúáöåö æóÇááøóåõ æóÇÓöÚñ Úóáöíãñ "And marry such of you as are solitary and the pious of your slaves and maid servants. If they be poor; Allah will enrich them of His bounty. Allah is of ample means, Aware." (24:32) Remember though that Islam is more than just the Qur'an. The Prophet Muhammed (pbuh) was married, so it is Sunnah to do the same. Neither type of marriage is wajib, but highly recommended.

Renounce yourself foremostly, and insh'Allah you'll find some clarity. We avidly distance ourselves from those we think would be a danger to us, but we too often miss out on acknowledging the truest enemy, the one within. I personally believe that the manner in which 'bad company' affects you depends far more on you than it does on 'them'. You can be a beacon, reaching out to those immensely different from you and bringing light to them through your company; you can be in the presence of the worst of sinners and transform a part of them with your own shining akhlaq. Or you can become a shadow, darkly mirroring acts that will distance you from God as you see them done around you. All this can happen amidst the same group of people; the deciding factor is the surety of your own faith. When you start dividing yourself and closing yourself off to people you presume aren't good- particularly tragic if that presumption is not based in absolute, incorrigible fact tested 70 times over- you might possibly be doing yourself a service, perhaps preventing yourself from becoming a shadow. But you're also potentially limiting your capacity to be a beacon, don't forget that. How could we ever expect to do amr bil maroof and nahy ana'l munkar if we were if intended to surround ourselves only with 'good' people, and why would God make these practices an essential part of the furu al din if we were meant to perpetually run away from wrongdoers? Maybe it's just me, but I have a difficult time respecting someone who has a clean slate purely because they've shut off every possible avenue of sin. I'm more inclined to respect people who can befriend their fellow human beings- regardless of creed or lifestyle- with an open mind and heart, and consciously, actively choose goodness without even momentarily feeling superior to anybody else. And before you feel inclined to determine that someone is 'good' or 'bad', remember the words of Plato: "everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." If we could see how much effort it takes someone to achieve the same sort of goodness that comes easily to us, or see how wonderful a person was before untold waves of anguish turned them bitter and 'bad', would we still be so quick to dismiss? The guy you see in the prayer hall lecturing children on how to be good Muslims might be the same guy you see in the library smooching with his kafir girlfriend, just as the fellow you see smoking a blunt in the park might be the same guy who regularly volunteers at his local homeless shelter. Appearances can be deceiving, and life is short. Why waste time condemning when we could be healing? :wub:

Assalamu alaykum. I don't know if anyone remembers me or not, my old screen name was uthman87 and I used to post questions here until the site stopped working on my phone. Currently I am looking for books on the contraversial points in Sh'a-Sunni history, such as the Khilafa, the battles that took place between Mu'awiya, Yazid and the Prophets Family (pbut) and Companions, why the Prophets Family (pbut) seems to have been persecuted by the ruling powers of the time, as well as why some companions are exalted by Sunnis and despised by Shi'as. Please give me some suggestions. JazakAllah Khayr.

Oops. You had us! We were hiding this fact for so many centuries but I guess we couldn't hide it any more. :squeez:

I think it's possible that this is the reason why they're so hard on you. Although I haven't lived with my parents for 9 years (moved out when I went to college), they still treat me the worst of all the kids. I never really understand why... I'm the most successful (have 4 degrees, a job, in a stable relationship), and treat them respectfully and kindly. My brothers don't have any degrees yet (despite one being in school for 7 years now, yikes), one drinks and does drugs and never shows up for family events (or is really late and shows no remorse), and the other is always arguing with them and being grumpy (treats my mom like [Edited Out]; argues with her, criticizes her, puts her down). They often ask them for money (and if it doesn't work, they try to make them feel really guilty), while I don't. They have been kind enough to pay for my cell phone and my car insurance while I was in college (same for my brothers). But, over the summer, I had just graduated and was having difficulty finding a job - I couldn't even get a job at a grocery store! It was a very depressing time to say the least. Finally I told them about my situation (I didn't ask for money or help though; I just wanted them to know what was going on). Their response was to ignore all that and tell them that since I've graduated I need to pay for my car insurance and my cell phone on my own now. I was shocked to say the least. They're always on my case, criticizing me, not valuing anything I have to say, arguing with me (when I have degrees in the particular areas they seem to think they're superior in)... my brothers have no respect for me and make fun of me and don't take me seriously either. My mom likes to talk to me but all the men in the family ridicule her so much too that she usually gives up and sides with them. My family isn't Muslim - they're Christian (although this type of behavior isn't appropriate in Christianity either). They don't know I'm Muslim either, so that isn't the source of it. They've always treated me this way. I don't know if it's because I'm the oldest and they're harder on me... or if they think being hard on me was the cause of my success so they continue to be hard on me.... Someone else told me that my family seems to have no respect for women, which is possible. It's similar in my extended family - everyones makes fun of each other (it's eat or be eaten basically), and the 'men know best and the women are just dumb and emotional'. I always responded to it all by trying to make myself invisible. So, the point is that parents being hard on their children isn't always the fault of the child for being direspectful or rebellious. Sometimes parents follow the way they were treated growing up, thinking it's the best way. Sometimes they have misguided beliefs that this particular way of treating their kids is better than other ways. Sometimes they're just so unaware of their own problems and emotions that they blindly take it out on the easiest target - the one who will suck it up and take it and not fight back. Now that you're trying to stand up for yourself by talking to them about it, your mom is conveniently 'forgetting'. This is likely because as human beings, we hate change. She is responding to her dislike of the change you are proposing by ignoring it completely. The family system has been set this way for a long time, and now you're shaking things up and trying to change things around. Everyone is comfortable with the roles each person plays (except you), and no one wants it changed. They won't like their 'whipping boy' being taken from them - who will they take everything out on? No one else in the family will take it, it seems. They would then be forced to deal with their own issues and emotions in a responsible way, which is much, much harder. In family therapy, this is one of the big challenges faced when one member of the family decides to make a change - it upsets the entire family system. Everyone will be forced to accomodate the change in some way, and if the person is making a change from dysfunctional to functional, the other members may object to having their dysfunctional roles challenged as a result.

I think the relationship between Muslims and non Muslims in Europe absolutely needs repairing and a lot of this is due to our practices. There is a legitimacy in suggesting that we integrate in the community and not react violently when people practice their rights to freedom of speech, even if it is against Islam. My concern is that these fundamental rights are being voted on by a movement that is funded and supported by ignorance. I can't see this concession not opening the door for other concessions that may not be as benign and are still motivated by the same Islamophobes. I understood where you were coming from and I can appreciate your points.. but your response just doesn't cut it for me. If we know this thing is not threatening, if we know it comes from ignorance, if we know it has no place in the law books.. then why are we so passively accepting its legitimacy? The minarets are symbolic of a deeper, profound tension and clash between Islam and Europe.. so where do we draw the lines? We both know that 4 minarets in Switzerland are NOT ruining Swiss culture.. its not like Muslims are trying to integrate them into Sweedish society by putting them on top of court houses and public libraries.. they are on top of mosques like a cross would be on top of a Church. They are sparse and this overreaction has absolutely no place on a ballot. As for calling these people "bigots" I really have no choice in the matter. I can't imagine that they were anything but fundamentalist Christian groups who were selling the idea that Muslim minarets were scary and evil, a threat to Swiss culture :huh: . I don't even accept this as a clash of cultures, but rather a clash of religions where one faith is being singled out because they are in the minority right now. This is outright oppressive and I would be furious and am furious when it happens in the Middle East to Christians or other minorities. The difference is that in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia in particular) they don't pretend that they advocate religious freedom and diversity. What about when they find my hijab scary or a threat to their culture.. should I remove it? Should I comply because noncompliance won't make the relationship between Muslims and non Muslims any smoother? I just can't follow the logic of that. If my country says it has freedom of religion then I don't care what Christian Islamophobes have to say about a minaret.. it stays because it posses no threat except the one inside their paranoid heads.. and that is not my baggage.

I trust from the reaction here that I'll never read any threads here complaining about MacDonalds and KFC within 5 minutes of the haram in Mecca. The outcries of "cultual imperialism" are clearly just overreactions borne out of Arab xenophobia. After all, MacDonalds and KFC are just buildings where they serve KFC, and the MacDo sign is just a glowing neon M, right?

I believe that religion should not take away from the quality of other peoples lives, so if they had loud adhaan every morning for fajr I could understand why the Swiss government would feel compelled to pass a law or allow a vote to forbid that. I don't want anyone's religious beliefs to inconvenience me in that manner, so Muslims should not expect their religious beliefs to be above scrutiny. There should be an obvious benefit to laws. But the minaret on the mosque does nothing to take from their quality of life and the only purpose of this law seems to be a barely concealed Islamaphobia in a country with a growing Muslim population. The minarets do not do any harm except remind people in that country that Muslims exist, just like a hijab would, and I see a problem with being so nonchalant about this very obvious attempt at suppression. I can't see anything too ominous about 4 minarets in a country with 400,000 Muslim citizens. This is not being peddled in the name of unity, it is being pushed by Christian groups who are not concerned with making Islam more welcoming and compatible. The intentions are not nearly as benign as we are painting them. Edit: The government should stay the hell out of peoples mosques and churches unless they are disturbing the lives of the citizens.. in EVERY instance.

Hang on brother you have got be joking. Wonderful opportunity? Strive for synthesis? POSITIVE SUBLIMINAL MESSAGE OF ISLAM?????!!!!!!!!!!!!! They are making the religion more attractive???? i have attached from the campaign in switzerland to ban the minerets. It resembles the propaganda by the Nazis in the holocaust. The pictures show minarets looking like missiles, that pierce and impale the swiss flag. And on the side a woman in a burka made to have dark and slit eyes looking menacing and evil. It is cultivating hate, racism, and anti-islamic sentiment.

The secret to becoming a world famous athlete is a harsh grueling work term at your local McDonalds below minimum wage.

oh dear

AbdullaQ - it's a movie, not a relgious edict. relax

^ I don't think that's simply the case, but anyway, what the statement implies is incorrect; abuse doesn't necessarily indicate ignorance. Conflict is common, but self-control isn't. Depth and complexity of a relationship make it more sophisticated and less obvious. As a result, many victims of abuse in general experience a false sense of guilt and insecurity. Parents and children are human first and last by right and responsibility. That human side of their lives is what makes the relationship possible despite the odds.

STAY AWAY FROM HER LIKE YOU WOULD STAY AWAY FROM POOP hope i was clear :unsure:

This is what I wrote about the film "The color of Paradise" a while ago:I am awestruck by the simple elegance of this movie. In one movie Majid Majidi has elaborated on so many themes (life of a gifted blind child, love of granny, the journey of Mohammad's father etc.)that its flabbergasting.I had previously seen The Children of Heaven, and had developed respect for Majid Majidi. But this movie is on a different level. The mystic messages are too many for so short a movie. The sound of nature is enhanced as to give the perspective of a blind child, who care too much about nature then those with sight (he didn't have sight but he had insight into the beauty of life and nature). The discerning ability of the child is portrayed as he loves nature and can tell that the hands of his granny are "pure white".There are some other situations which are telling like when the granny leaves her son's home as protest, rescues a fish (metaphorically: his son), puts it into a small pond (this world), but at the same time loses the gift (metaphorically: loses Muhammad) which Muhammad gave her.The sounds of the beast, that the father hears, are also ominous and can be interpreted as the moan of conscience. i.e. his father is innately a good man and has a potential for seeing the world as it needs to be seen.

The link is in my signature, I was not specifically giving it to you, though you're free to read from it of course :-) A person who denies the finality of the prophethood, that says someone else was a prophet after the Holy Messenger (pbuh) is agreed upon as being a kafir. They are neither Ahl al-Kitab nor are they Muslims, thus it is haram to marry them. The fact she knows about Shi`a Islam, and is a sayyida herself, yet rejects it and prefers kufr only makes it even worse. If she repents of this and converts to Islam it would be different of course, but as it is if she believes what you say she believes, this is out of Islam. As to the permissibility of a non-sayyid man marrying a sayyida female, this is the generally accepted view of scholars as there is no good proof of it being forbidden. Those who argue otherwise most often are ignorant of our religion. Her being a sayyida doesn't automatically mean you could marry her though of course, her religious affiliation trumps that.

a bunch of lame old boring guys criticising ppls weddings blah !

Awwww sis, thank you!!!! ily Hehe, don't worry I won't eat more than required XP

unbelievable :wacko:

Really? Because last time I checked, the majority of Sunnis adhered to a madhab, each single one approving of intercession. See below. You can't be half baked in your ideology, either you are a Salafi or you follow a madhab and are a Sunni. And there are countless other narrations in support of intercession. Therefore, if one follows a madhab, you must believe that intercession is permissible (although you do not need to engage in it if you are not comfortable.)

woooow ! I feel more relax now , I'm also an Iranian Nice to meet you all :)

hmm i think they should consider having a 35 over or 40 over format to this IPL thing. People would probably still storm in and it would make for a better game all around. The best players would really mean more to the team, right now 20 20 has devalued the Tendulkars etc.

HOW ON EARTH CAN YOU have A CHAMIONS trophy without players from the best Twenty 20 TEAM IN THE WORLD IN PAKISTAN GOD IT SHOULD BE CALLED THE RUNNERSUP and the rest trophy

(salam) India is getting hammered; Salawat! Wassalam

Imam al Sajjad (as) :wub: My "favourite" infallible. The right of your brother is that you know that he is your hand, your might, and your strength. Take him not as a weapon with which to disobey God, nor as equipment with which to wrong God's creatures. Do not neglect to help him against his enemy or to give him good counsel. If he obeys God, well and good, but if not, you should honour God more than him. And there is no strength save in God.

...and what about homo sapiens?

It's not to do with the minarets so people reacting with either a "who cares?" or a "good for them, we shouldn't have minarets anyway" are missing the point. The point of this is that the Swiss people (yes, the people, not the government (for once)) have given Muslims a clear message that their "kind" is really not welcome there. Oh sure, if they'll just assimilate and give up their beliefs and practices, relegating religion to the background (if anywhere) like most of today's secularized Europeans, then fine. Otherwise, they aren't welcome. In a dark way I think this is actually good for Muslims, so that they see how hypocritical these people really are with all their nice talk of tolerance and openness. Just imagine the outrage there'd be if been legislation passed saying that synagogues would be disallowed from displaying menorahs or stars of David, putting up sinister looking posters of the hook nosed "kike" sticking a fork in the nation's flag devouring it's resources in his usurious greed. To see Muslims though actually defending these anti-Muslims (not just "non-Muslims") is beyond the pale though. They've passed legislation targeting your houses of worship, with acts of vandalism being taken against them, and you have the gall to defend these people? Do you really think our Imam (as) would be happy with this, that you support kuffar in their display of spite against other Muslims? That you try to make excuses for them, saying that Muslims need integrate themselves to a culture that hates them? Are you really that hateful and ashamed of your own kind, desperate to separate yourself from them and ingratiate yourself to those who hate you and your religion? It disgusts me. How true Allah's words are. æóáóä ÊóÑúÖóì Úóäßó ÇáúíóåõæÏõ æóáÇó ÇáäøóÕóÇÑóì ÍóÊøóì ÊóÊøóÈöÚó ãöáøóÊóåõãú Þõáú Åöäøó åõÏóì Çááøåö åõæó ÇáúåõÏóì æóáóÆöäö ÇÊøóÈóÚúÊó ÃóåúæóÇÁåõã ÈóÚúÏó ÇáøóÐöí ÌóÇÁßó ãöäó ÇáúÚöáúãö ãóÇ áóßó ãöäó Çááøåö ãöä æóáöíøò æóáÇó äóÕöíÑò Never will the Jews be satisfied with thee, neither the Christians, not till thou followest their religion. Say: 'Allah's guidance is the true guidance.' If thou followest their caprices, after the knowledge that has come to thee, thou shalt have against Allah neither guardian nor helper. (2:120)

^^ RE; American History X, it's a great movie because Derek Vinyard is such a fantastic character, one of my favourite fictional characters of all time. Ed Norton is an excellent actor too and he does the role justice. I associate E.N with D.V., like I associate Hugh Laurie with Gregory House (best thing to happen to TV for a long time), even though H.L has been a big part of British TV since the early 90's.

Thank you for your very kind thoughts, Marbles, Dirac Delta Function, Zahratul_Islam and Bonafide Hustler!! Water birth sounds like a good idea to me though, and due to those pics, I am now hungry for birthday cake!! :)

I am not suitable for this Poll ! :cry:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: does it make sense now??? hey don't say anything bad to Pak team... the team is quite good, if not best of all!!!

ÏæäæŸ ÌÀÇä ÊیÑی ãÍÈÊ ãیŸ ÀÇÑ ˜ÿ æÀ ÌÇ ÑÀÇ Àÿ ˜æÆی ÔÈö Ûã ÒÇÑ ˜ÿ æیÑÇŸ Àÿãی˜ÏÀ Îã æ ÓÇÛÑ ÇÏÇÓ ÀیŸ Êã ˜یÇ Æÿ ˜À Ñ抪 Æÿ Ïä ÈÀÇÑ ˜ÿ Çö˜ ÝÑÕÊö äÇÀ ãáی¡æÀ Ȫی ÇÑ Ïä Ïی˜ªÿ ÀیŸ Àã äÿ ÍæÕáÿ ÑæÑÏÇÑ ˜ÿ ÏäیÇ äÿ ÊیÑی یÇÏ Óÿ ÈیÇäÀ ˜Ñ ÏیÇ Ê̪ Óÿ Ȫی ÏáÝÑیÈ ÀیŸ Ûã ÑæÒÇÑ ˜ÿ Ȫæáÿ Óÿ ãÓ˜ÑÇ Êæ Ïیÿ ʪÿ æÀ ÂÌ ÝیÖ ãÊ æª æáæáÿ Ïáö äǘÑÏÀ ˜ÇÑ ˜ÿ

bro im still open to suggestions about 2012, but 100% guarantee that planet nibiri, annunaki and elohim are a load of [Edited Out]. not worthbandwidth. zacharias sitchin is a muppet.

not seen that one, but i have seen it in reverse - a newly married woman always stays near the new bride to give her luck or something, not too sure i was too busy eating. i will not be present at my own wedding. thatll show em :mad:

یÀ áÝÙ áÝÙ ãÍÈÊ ˜ی یæÑÔیŸ Ȫی ÝÑیÈ یÀ ÒÎã ÒÎã ãÓیÍÇÆیÇŸ Ȫی ̪æŠی ÀیŸ

Well I can believe you were a nurse, but I doubt Maryam was born in a hospital - she would accept nothing less than a waterbirth..the girl loves her water. Still, the only reason I question it is that she may not want people knowing her birthday if she keeps it private on her profile.

same irrelevant arguments. There is a joke about Pashtuns in Afghanistan that relates to such arguments as free speech or freedom of press etc. The story goes- The Judge asks the defendant (Pashtun) why he stole the gardener's fruits" to which the defendant replies 'It was so because his daughter had pink sandals'..... totally unrelated. I dont believe in any freedom but the expediency of the apparatus of the state. Where they have TOTAL control they throw the masses bones under the name of freedom of this or thte right of that.... but the moment its monopoly of control is challenged it takes those freedoms far too quicker than they give them. You know that people could be deported without even getting to see the evidence tying them to whatever they are accused of? Not untill so long ago the West (contrasting itself with the godless commies) prided itself with freedom of religion. They were so convinced by their propagated arguments that they even started believing in it as some noble truth. How is the case today? Religion is the number one institution that is under attack. In the name of religion resource wars are waged and masses discriminated. Today French children of muslim faith cannot wear their headscarves or the ridiculous and retarded move of the oh so liberal swiss to have banned the minarets etc. All it took to derail West of its bs freedom wagon was apparently some 19 terrorists and three planes. No amount of freedom of press or the operation of the system could justify the amount of pain that mahr's family and friends went through. My Point- freedom etc are meaningless and non existent. Its a concept that justifies oppression of the strong over the weak. It was through such arguments that the wealthy secured the Iraqi resources through the suffering of the masses- be it that american family that lost their dear ones or the countless and nameless innocent Iraqi victims.

Win vs. Cotto puts Pacquiao among all-time greats by Mark Kriegel LAS VEGAS - In violation of every expectation, and the blood oath he made to his trainer, Manny Pacquiao put his back to the ropes. It was the one place he was not supposed to be, gloves up in a posture that conveyed a great dare, as he waited to take shots from the bigger man. "I heard that he's stronger than me," said Pacquiao. "I wanted to test his power." This was the fourth round of what still seemed a very close fight, Miguel Cotto having won the opening round by establishing a powerful jab. At best, Pacquiao's rope-a-dope seemed to defy common sense. More likely, as you watched Cotto banging him around the body, it was evidence of the natural welterweight's physical superiority. And then, without warning, everything changed. Not only did Pacquiao escape, he began tearing into the bigger man. The flurries came from angles that Cotto was not accustomed. "I couldn't see from where the punch came," he said. The most damaging of the blows was a big left that sent Cotto down for the second time. The first knockdown had seen Cotto's gloves touch the canvas. This time, he went down for real. You could see it in the distant, dumbfounded look in his eyes. If it hadn't happened so late in the round, Cotto might not have survived. As it happened, I had Cotto winning the next round -- a testament to his heart and a classical style. But Pacquiao shut him out the rest of the way, another six-plus rounds until referee Kenny Bayless finally called it off. By then, Manny Pacquiao — who began his career as a 106-pounder — looked like a heavyweight. Through that long stretch, he became, not just the aggressor, but the stalker. The bigger man kept trying to dance away, and Pacquiao kept walking him down, closing the distance. By the end, he had made history, becoming the first man to win titles in seven weight classes. Of course, weight classes aren't what they once were. But that's not Pacquiao's fault. Nor is it his greatest accomplishment. More important, he now merits inclusion in the elite fraternity of all-time greats. "The best fighter I have ever seen," said his promoter, Bob Arum. "And that includes Muhammad Ali, and Sugar Ray Leonard and Marvin Hagler. The best fighter I have ever seen." A buzz went though the room as Arum invoked Ali. Arum might be practiced in the art of hyperbole, still the statement had merit. Pacquiao is an anomaly. Who else gets better as he gets bigger? What other erstwhile 106-pounder has become a welterweight champion? None. Never happened before. And it probably won't happen again. There's never been a bigger little man. What's more, it seemed apropos that he should borrow from the most famous big man of all in Ali. The rope-a-dope might be a high-risk tactic, but it allowed Pacquiao to establish a physical dominance that belied his size. "I yelled at him every time," said Freddie Roach, Pacquiao's trainer. "Why are you fighting his fight?" "I can handle it," Pacquiao told him. With his back to the ropes, Cotto was free to bang the body and use his left hook. "I tried to pretend that it's not going to hurt," said Pacquiao. "But it really hurts." He could laugh afterwards. Pacquiao, an apprentice balladeer who said he would sing eight numbers at the Mandalay Bay after the fight, is nothing if not a happy fighter. But to hear his explanation, he is also a daring, if underrated strategist. In other words, in taking punishment with his back to the ropes, he had Cotto exactly where he wanted him. "I was trying to control the fight," he said, pointing to his temple. "In my mind." He took blows few welterweights have been able to withstand. And in taking them, the little guy looked like a heavyweight. Cotto landed 93 power punches, compared to 276 for Pacquiao. By the end, Cotto had a terrible gash over his left eye. His face had become grotesquely quilted mask. His wife and son had left their ringside seats, unable to witness more. His father asked for a stoppage in the 11th. Finally, with Pacquiao still stalking, Bayless granted his wish. The Nevada State Athletic Commission ordered Cotto to skip the postfight press conference in favor of a body scan at the hospital. A publicist was left to convey his sentiments: "He wanted the media to know he fought the best fighter he ever fought." By then, everyone had heard the chants for Pacquiao's next prospective opponent: "We Want Floyd! We Want Floyd!" Floyd Mayweather Jr. used to be the best fighter in the world. But now that he's not, you'll find out how big he really is.