Leaderboard

So based on what you sense of some guy's inconsistency from an internet forum you'd throw out a sahih hadith from your religion? And all the many others that affirm some form of capital punishment for this offense? As to my saying I don't advocate carrying out this verdict here that's me trying to be careful for the people reading this. The application of the hudud in general require the fulfillment of their proper conditions in being carried out that we, living in a country not ruled by Shari`a law, do not have. So, I want to be cautious that folks don't get the wrong idea from what I'm posting here that they aught to take the law in their own hands and go beat the crud out of some local queers. As to the law itself, it's pretty much undeniable if you have the least care about being honest to your religion. Or would you prefer to just ignore any objectivity to the evidence at hand and make up our own rules instead? We need only read this and the many other hadiths that lay out what Islam prescribes for the offense of lawat. It isn't really abstract and obtuse here, no matter how much you might like to obscure it. You can verfiy in Majlsi yourself if you like, but yes he lists it as sahih. Even if you ignore this one, you still have the multitude of others hadiths from our Imams (as), with different chains attached, that teach us the hudud for this crime. And of course you have what Allah tells us in His book about the people of Lut (as) and what happened to them. ? You can think whatever you like of me, but it's completely irrelevant to the issue at hand. As is the fact that the kuffar around you have become openly accepting of something Allah hates (even according to their own religion). Fact is, your religion prescribes this punishment for those who commit this offense. Now it's your choice to deal with that. It's not necessary to be able to carry out the full scope of the Law in order to learn a lesson from it. In this case, it's a crime for which a person may be executed, hence, we should understand from that there's no room for us to be softening up on it in terms of our own personal perspectives as to its gravity and consequences. See let me tell you something about myself in this regard. After I converted to Islam, this was one of the hardest issues I had to deal with. I don't mean the punishment for this, at that point I didn't really know about it, I mean the fact that this is even considered a sin. Not because of my own proclivities, but because my background was one that was very open and accepting of the gay lifestyle. My mother had a number of close male friends who were gay so I was exposed to it a fair bit, and add to that my own (at that time) more radical, leftist tendencies, and I was one who would strenuously (before it became the popular thing to do) argue for the acceptance of this. Come to Islam though, and I find it being strongly condemned. So, I had to make a choice. Do I believe in this religion or not? And if I do, then I have to actually accept that God knows way better than I do. Once He and His Messenger (pbuh) decree a law, I am nobody to object to it. And if I find myself with any disagreement in my heart about it, it's me who needs to change, not the Law as I am not the lawgiver. Fast forward now a decade and a half later and I don't have any issue with this law. Reason being was that once I put aside my own prejudices on the matter, accepted the authority of the religion's laws over us, and actually researched this issue, I came to realize that actually yes, this is a very serious crime that needs to be dealt with in a serious manner.

Well, I think some of the reactions in this thread speak to exactly what you were talking about. Homophobia? Gay rights? Not a choice? Plight of gays? Well, let's take all that, and then compare with how Islam deals with this. The following is from al-Kafi, and yes, it's sahih. ÃÈæÚáí ÇáÇÔÚÑí¡ Úä ÇáÍÓä Èä Úáí ÇáßæÝí¡ Úä ÇáÚÈÇÓ Èä ÚÇãÑ¡ Úä ÓíÝ Èä ÚãíÑÉ¡ Úä ÚÈÏÇáÑÍãä ÇáÚÑÒãí ÞÇá: ÓãÚÊ ÃÈÇ ÚÈÏÇááå (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) íÞæá: æÌÏ ÑÌá ãÚ ÑÌá Ýí ÅãÇÑÉ ÚãÑ ÝåÑÈ ÃÍÏåãÇ æÇÎÐ ÇáÂÎÑ ÝÌÆ Èå Åáì ÚãÑ ÝÞÇá ááäÇÓ: ãÇ ÊÑæä¿ ÞÇá: ÝÞÇá åÐÇ: ÇÕäÚ ßÐÇ¡ æÞÇá åÐÇ: ÇÕäÚ ßÐÇ¡ ÞÇá: ÝÞÇá: ãÇ ÊÞæá íÇ ÃÈÇÇáÍÓä¿ ÞÇá: ÇÖÑÈ ÚäÞå ÝÖÑÈ ÚäÞå ÞÇá: Ëã ÃÑÇÏ Ãä íÍãáå ÝÞÇá: ãå Åäå ÞÏ ÈÞí ãä ÍÏæÏå ÔÆ¡ ÞÇá: Ãí ÔÆ ÈÞí¿ ÞÇá: ÇÏÚ ÈÍØÈ ÞÇá: ÝÏÚÇ ÚãÑ ÈÍØÈ ÝÃãÑ Èå ÃãíÑ ÇáãÄãäíä (Úáíå ÇáÓáÇã) ÝÃÍÑÞ Èå. Abu `Ali al-Ash`ari from al-Hasan b. `Ali al-Kufi from al-`Abbas b. `Amir from Sayf b. `Umayra from `Abd ar-Rahman al-`Arzami. He said: I heard Abu `Abdillah (as) saying: A man was found with a man during the rule of `Umar, and one of them got away and the other was taken. So he was brought to `Umar, and he said to the people. What do you regard? He said: So this one said “do thus” and this one said “do thus.” So he said: What do you say O Abu ‘l-Hasan? He said: Strike his neck. So he struck his neck. So he said: Then he wanted him borne (off), but he said: No. Verily there remains something of his hudud. He said: Which thing remains? He said: Call for firewood. So `Umar called for firewood, and Amir al-Mu’mineen (as) commanded by it, so he was set afire by it. More hadiths on the hadd of sodomy here: http://www.*******.org/hadiths/hudud/sodomy There are even more hadiths in addition to those, so we're not only talking about a solitary report, the evidence on this is very strong. Again, I'm not even remotely suggesting we take the application of this law into our own hands living in these lands as such. However, the very fact of these laws in our Shari`a should be teaching us a very clear lesson with what our take on this should be, and our stance with regards to any softening of our reaction to it. Sure, if someone is struggling and fighting with evil feelings, recognizing them as wrong, but without acting on them, that person has my compassion. But to extend that to the one who is giving in to them and is not repentant, that's another story. In that case being "open and accepting", valuing them as being "special people" and whatever other liberal buzzwords you want to throw at it is in fact _not_ being compassionate at all to them, as your acceptance of their sinning may only encourage them to continue in it. Sure, maybe they'll feel better about themselves in the short run, but how do you think they'll feel as they burn in the fire of the hereafter?

Actually all women (and I will also extend this to men and children) are unique in their own right. However, those that need to shout from the rooftops about their uniqueness, perhaps they are the ones who suffer from some sort of complex.

Someone is PMSing. :) According to your very "Islamic" standards, a man should be financially independent to be able to get a wife. So till he can afford to do so, he can maybe have girlfriends and/or turn to porn. Sounds like a good, Islamic solution to moi. Now, 1. I did not say that anyone should "plot" to mooch off their parents. 2. Men who are still studying cannot be expected to earn a lot of money. If the parents are ready and capable enough to support their kids till they become financially independent, there is nothing wrong in that.

Salam I thought this was the sisters' section only and only women would read this

Not PMSing? Then I guess you are just having one of your (many) blonde moments. You first. And which part of my post states that I believe you do? Bullsh*t. And where have I mentioned that they are obligated? Unless someone is really mentally retarded, they wouldn't see my post as advising people to force their parents to maintain them and their spouses. All I was saying was that till the couple can become financially independent, the parents can help them out. Now I don't know how it works in lala land, but I am talking about what I have seen people doing. There are parents who marry their young sons [studying or just out of uni] and support them till they get themselves a well-paying job. And obviously they do it on their own accord and aren't "forced" or "obligated" by their child to support them and their spouse. A boy studying or just of of uni might be working and still not earning lots and it isn't so because he is "lazy" or wants to "mooch off" anybody. More bullsh*t. Come up with something intelligent or else please do not expect me to waste my time replying to your foolish assumptions and pathetic accusations.

^Actually, you may change your opinion if you consider the relentless bombing campaign carried out by the United States and United Kingdom from 1991 to 2003, sometimes known as the 'No-Fly Zone War.' Most people are simply unaware or choose to ignore the devastating cost of the No-Fly Zone War on Iraq - it probably has to do with little to zero coverage of it in the international media. Tariq Ali's The Clash of Fundamentalisms's chapters on Iraq, and Betool Khedairi's novel Absent provide an excellent insights on the ramifications of this period when thousands of tons of armaments were dropped on Iraq.

Funny how she was just defending a select few here instead of attacking you, and weirdly enough that prompted you to reveal your nature. Again as she said, your response speaks volumes about you but says absolutely nothing about her. Knowing Zahratul, I doubt she will bother responding to you. Honestly from reading half your posts here, you seem to come off a bit insecure and I assure you, seeking attention on sc won't help you get rid of these insecurities.

(salam)

Try to imagine what insecurities, challenges, fears, heartbreaks, and doubts might've led her to change; after you've covered ALL possible bases, you might actually find that it would be difficult not to be altered if you were in her position... you might also realize a truth we often miss out on when we judge others: the average human being doesn't do bad things with the knowledge and intention of doing bad, they do bad things because sometimes, it's possible to become convinced based on your experiences in this harsh world that wrong is in fact right. And the more idealistic and pure you are to begin with, the likelier it is that the world's bleakness will tear you down and make you question whether it's even worth it to pick yourself back up and live by the same high standards you valued previously. Also, all you can perceive are the changes in her outer condition. Realize that you have no idea what's going on within... what if she's enduring a grave spiritual crisis and questioning the very core of herself, while you're sitting on the sidelines looking down on her? While you're wasting time judging her or attempting to gauge her piety based on superficial elements, what if she's spending her time grappling with profound spiritual questions you haven't even considered yet? If that be the case, who's really the one in need of a judgmental nudge? Lastly, take a very long, harsh look at yourself. Is it fair or sensical at all to base your respect for a fellow human being- a complex, multi-layered creature every bit as deserving of leniency and understanding as yourself- on differences that appear thereof? Whether or not you're justified in doing so, does it improve your life, or hers, for you to think this way? Does it bring you nearer to God or elevate your own piety to think disparagingly of someone else? Just remember, no matter what a person's external countenance is like, for all we know, a person we deem immoral might actually have a better grasp of faith in their pinky finger than we have in our entire beings. In the words of Mother Teresa... "if you judge someone, you have no time to love them." All that being said, I should mention that I'm really proud of you for stopping to question your own judgmentality and being (rightly) disappointed with yourself- that takes a degree of courage and humility most people never bother with, and speaks well of your character. :)

Salam, Websites already exist, we need something different. Birmingham central mosque has a database with details of 1000's of ppl wanting to get married and they match people up. Shia's should start something similar.

birth as a muslim is not that important the important thing is to die as a muslim

A bit of fun aside, Genetics and Homosexuality co relation was not meant to be the purpose of this thread. Muslim sensibilities and our fears were. Shaytan comes in steps, hope we as Muslims , break those steps............more so in this month, Muharram is here. Wasallam

And for the other folks here who like to see beyond palm trees and Christian view points : http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Genetics Thats non partisan enough, eh ?

Oh, come on.............Sherlock ? . You are starting to scare me to death lately. What next, le me guess...........you calling me an Imbecile....................

No-one is acquiescing that homosexuality isn't a sin.Its quite an un-intentional phenomenon.It deals with Ur genetic make-up.You're born with this.Ordering death penalty for such individuals isn't gonna bring any good to them.we should deal with them comprehensibly.

Outright indefensible law that did nothing but benefit politicians and bureaucrats (especially Zardari). It is promising that this has been overturned and that these people are left vulnerable once more because politicians who feel no sense of obligation/transparency to the people will always act out of pure self interest. If they are never held accountable for their actions what is it (besides the noble virtues most politicians lack) that will keep them honest? All this law has done is reinforce the fact that Pakistan is currently one of the most corrupt countries in the world.

_jen_,i just loved Ur post.That's Wat truism is all about.No twisting of words or sugary coating Whatsoever.To say whether our society is gonna bear the homosexuality baggage or not,is gonna be a tough one.Sometimes we get so much intense about this issue that we start talking about slashing and killing homosexuals.Such a biased attitude.Why don't we pay any attention towards their proper counseling?I guess that's the best way to get them realize that homosexuality is far behind nature so get rid of this sickening thought.Ordering Fatwas and raising slogans of haram will worsen the situation.

(salam), ^ Why are you equating sodomy to having gay feelings? They are two very different things. A gay can not be punished, until he does sodomy. Every hadith, you read, will be against sodomy, and not against the feeling of homosexuality, which can be natural, I believe. I believe, being gay could be a test of Allah. All gays say that they just can't get rid of that feeling of attraction. It's really like a man is overcome by lust, when he sees a nude, or a partially nude woman. He can't control it. What he can control is to do adultery with her. Same goes for the homosexuals. They can't control their feelings, but they can control themselves from doing sodomy, because Allah will not make something Haram, if you can't control yourself from doing it. And mind you, it is sodomy that is Haram, and not homosexual feelings. A homosexual, can learn to cover up his feelings, and not to show them off. It's not impossible. He is to take his homosexuality as a text from Allah, to see how far can he control his desires. I agree with the rest of your post, about the severe strictness of the laws about sodomy. wa (salam), Basim Ali Jafri

Calm down, cousin. The OP is having a laugh.

I have thought about it for a long time. And I have thought about in light of Suratal Anaam and I thought about the flow of what has been said about Thiker and Ayat and the noor, and then all these practices of ignorances they were practicing blinding them, and I thought about the basic Waseeya told to us, and then it being siad to be the way of the Messenger (pbuh) and so follow that way, and not to follow other ways (then his ways). And believe me Quran is never just about the past. It holds judgment on the differences of each age. He should think more then twice before saying such a statement. But I'm more prepared to face Imam Hussain (as) rejecting innovations and it's practicers (just as taught to us to do so in Saheefa Sajadiya, Du'a Makramal Akhaq), then to come to him having not condemned satanic inspiration that is issued in his blessed Name (as). However I am not prepared to face any of the Anbiya (as) or Ahlebayt (as) having done nothing for God's cause, and having not all helped their cause which they were ready to give everything for. And indeed, one of the crimes commited against them is ingoring their clear teachings and replacing the emptiness with baseless innovations, that does not resemble real love of Ahlebayt (as) which is remembrance and path way to God and only those possessed of understanding remember. What does what has been termed following the light brought down, ascending, taking a path to God, a straight path, have to do with this hitting on the head?

The reward won't be great, it will simply be increase in ignorance and Satanic trees in the soul.

I didn't want to answer that question for a reason. I am honored to be your first vote :blush:

Women complexes,Wat a misogynist title?Ya should rather name it as," Women insecurities".That sounds better.This topic is mainly concerned with married women so my answer is in that regard. There's no absolute harm in grooming yourself but the question that holds much importance is that Why married women are so busy day and night to enhance their beauty?The answer to this perplexed question is that they're compelled to do so 'coz of their husbands.They do know that if they wouldn't groom themselves then their husbands would get an excuse to throw them out of their lives like a trash.Such a blokish attitude from the domineers of society,[Edited Out].I dunno why women are so interested in marrying such men who're so concerned about their looks,figure,complexion etc? Wat's the reason of their craving for perfectionism,which never ends? To hell with such men who're not gonna compromise on their wives shortcomings.Its pretty good to work-out regularly,to eat veggies,to drink lot of water,to cut on fats in-order to make yourself much more presentable for Ur spouse but my question is how many husbands do groom themselves for their wives? How many of them do regular work-out? How many of them are trying to cut down on smoking 'coz their wives don't like it? How many of them don't forget to visit dietitian to get rid of obesity and to look much more presentable for their wives? I guess,0%. Why? 'coz they've much more busy schedules and there's no need of wasting Ur precious time in such attributes.Wat's the need of grooming yourself ?for that homely,garden-variety. no not at all. Stop twisting Ur words.One can't deny the fact that they do so 'coz they think their marriage is unraveling. This is the truism,the hidden reality. Regarding the usage of breast-enlargement creams so many of them do cause cancer but if ya don't have the family history of cancer so ya can switch to a herbal formulation.They're quite safe and have no side-effects.

Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman banned hadith so that the people would forget. Then when Mu'awiya took over, he first ordered imams to curse Imam Ali (as) in every khutba. Later he tried a different strategy, giving rewards to people who could fabricate pleasant sounding hadith about Uthman. After that, he started paying people to write down all sorts of things about the first 4 Caliphs, but when it came to Ali (as) for every hadith regarding him they had to fabricate something contradictory.

Rana Tanveer Hussain is the current Minister of Defense Production in the Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gillani-led cabinet. He was son of Haji Muhammad Anwer who died in 2008. He was elected from Sheikhupura-I NA-131 as a member of National Assembly from Pakistan Muslim League (N).

You can pinpoint the exact moment of the Shi'a-Sunni split to the day Prophet Muhammad (saws) lay on his deathbead requesting a sheet of paper to write down his last will and testament by which the Ummah would never go astray. Umar shouted "He's only halucinating, don't listen to him! we already have the Quran!" and party of those in the house said "Come close to the Prophet (saws) so he can write it down," and a party of them sided with Umar saying what he was saying. This argument between the Party of Umar and the Party of those who choose to obey the Prophet (saws) has been going on for 14 centuries.

Very true. Working out daily makes me much easier to get along with :squeez:

How does knowing about his weaknesses but still remaining patient and loyal make her responsible in any way? You always try to think the best of someone, especially if it is someone you love. Why would you even say something like that even if you thought it?

I will say this one more time for the sake of clarifying for both Baradar and Hassan. The United States is by no means infallible and it has committed its fair share of atrocities. This is a fact that no one is attempting to deny and this is not the discussion at hand. The United States (during the crisis in Rwanda) was hesitant to involve itself because it feared hurting its own interests. The idea of principle vs power was heavily debated and at the end of the day it was WRONG to not call it out for what it was.. in fact advisers to the president were urged to not use the word "genocide" in fear that it would demand the United States to take a stance based on humanitarian grounds. Yes, the United States (like every other country in the world) pursues its own national interests and the interests of its people before anything else. That does not justify Ahmedinejad's denial of the holocaust and I will personally continue to denounce Americas lack of action during Rwanda, Japanese slaughter of the Chinese, and those who deny the holocaust.

Take a class on the history of World War II in America (which I have taken) and you will find that significant attention is paid to the war crimes of the Japanese as well as the Germans because historically these two groups were the most brutal and oppressive throughout the course of the war. No one is denying that the Holocaust is used to illicit sympathy for the plight of Jews (err duh). This is a reality that is perfectly reasonable given the United States foreign policy interests and their stated, emphasized allegiance with Israel. We can absolutely have a discussion (as I have stated repeatedly throughout this thread) about what the implication of this historical occurrence is and how it has shaped the framework for the current situation. What we can't do is deny the holocaust ever happened or deny it was as extensive as it was.. or say "well hey, those Japs killed people as well!"

No one said they loved any of those you mentioned above. Also, I am very aware of these deaths and if someone attempted to deny them I would object. Unfortunately for us given the context of this conversation (this is not a thread on a Japanese forum about how no Chinese people were executed) this would seem a tad out of place and random. Feel free to start a thread regarding that incident (or the Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide.. Saddam denying the mass slaughter of Kurds) and I assure you that I will be just as vocal in denouncing and rejecting their stances. Attempting to dismiss opposition to the status quo on this website as "Zionist-loving sheep" only takes away from your credibility. By no means does Ahmedinejad act in my interests or in my name and that does not make me any less of a Muslim.

But why? Why would a man attack a historical occurrence? This isn't a "belief.." this actually happened. Millions of people were slaughtered and systematically killed. We teach it because it happened, like so many things have happened in history that we teach as well. In elementary school 1/3 of my historical education was on slavery and why it was wrong, why intolerance is wrong, why it was ethically, morally repugnant. The course of Germany sparked a world war, these things are essential to our understanding of history and its implications. Denying it is most certainly an act of defiance.. no one is saying it is not.. but what does it accomplish? Where there could be dialogue there is now rhetoric and thoughtfulness has been replaced by stupidity. It is not noble by virtue of being defiant. When people deny genocide, slavery, or any other historical atrocity.. they do nothing but rob themselves in the process and Ahmedenejad is a tragic example of this.

I think you misunderstood my statement. I said that wee can absolutely have a debate about whether or not American politicians pursued their interests in that region ethnically or even critically, but we can't deny that they were responding to an attack on American soil. You seem to have interpreted that as a blanket pardon for an actions that took place and the manner in which they occurred, which has never been my position. I have many criticisms regarding how the war was carried out, but unless you are suggesting that 9/11 was an inside job done by the United States to give them a reason to invade Afghanistan, you cannot possibly deny that the United States was attacked and thousands of civilians were slaughtered which was bound to illicit some response, be it militarily or through another show of American strength.

Discussion and debate? Where are these intellectual conversations so discreetly hidden? His forums are filled with guests that include former KKK members (surprise surprise they deny the holocaust too) who do not present a conflicting side of the argument or a challenging academic debate. No academic or intellectual takes these discussions seriously because they are a joke. You want to deny the holocaust ever happened, have at it.. but please refrain from framing your denial as the product of intelligent discourse and debate. When Katie Couric asked him about denying the holocaust and his proof for doing so, he responded by re framing the question to "well it happened in Europe so why are they in Palestine?" Sure, lets discuss why they are in Palestine. What does not require discussion is whether or not the incident ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Yes. My qualm with Ahmedinejad is that he is a pious man who does not sit in comfy chairs and drink tea. :huh: Trust me, there are many political leaders I have admired who were also "outside the mold." The deal breaker with Ahmedinejad is that he is also an idiot. I don't care how long his beard is or how many times he mentions Allah (swt) in his speeches.. that does not command my respect. What commands respect is a thoughtful man who offers more than rhetoric in the place of academic debate.

I thought I had missed something :P I don't agree with you about Afghanistan not being a threat to America's security after 9/11. We can have a debate about whether or not American politicians pursued their interests in that region ethnically or even critically, but we can't deny that they were responding to an attack on American soil. I think discussing this would be a great digression that will get us into the same debate we usually find ourselves in.. With the case of Ahmedjinejad just because the dangers he pose are "hypothetical" does not mean they can be dismissed or downplayed by other international actors. I am not saying preemptive strike is rational or effective, but all actors on the international stage are simply trying to protect their interests and he presents a threat. They emphasize his mental instability because their foreign policy interests are threatened by his anti American rhetoric and his alliances with those whose goals conflict with that of America's ally.

From where have you got this idea? Go to Germany and ask. Visit France and see. Whites are whites and if they are white, they call themselves so. There are no clear boundaries. Iranians can be as white as Italians but the former are not categorised as 'white'. It has also to do with geography. Romans and Greeks in the past long gone were regarded as part of the Orient, not of the Occident. So in today's terms, old Romans and Greeks were not 'racially white'. The classification we have today puts them into white Europeans. Your professor describing himself as 'white British. . ." has nothing to do with race or racism. His white skin colour is a statement of fact. The reason he chose to use this description is because this is how people describe themselves in local parlance when they want to distinguish themselves from other, non-whites groups. What would you call a black person who said "I am black South African". They have white South Africans there too. That was the argument. Skin colour is part of one's background alongwith ethnicity, language, religion etc. This factor is strong when a society is a mix of different shades of colours, from the lightest to the darkest - as is the case in many Western countries. So you can't do away with 'skin colour factor'. It would be racist if it was used for the purposes of racism. Otherwise, it is just stating the fact. As to the emboldened, it is not good to patronise other people - "patronize" for North Americans.

I don't understand. What is the difference between "there is no shred of humanity in them" and "there is no shred of humanity in their worldview."? Where does the worldview come if not from the people? But I wonder what exactly is "white worldview". Actually, baradaram, if I may say so with no offence, your ideas about racism and political/imperial manipulation of one people at the hands of another are rather messed up. You are confusing a few things here. The fact that hegemonic governments in the West are run by most whites doesn't mean that they are doing this because they are white. It is a matter of having the power to make an impact, either in a right or wrong way. This is why I gave the example of Chinese, who are going to be the new power if predictions stay true to the predictors, and they are not white. They will act as powerful people act - just like US, UK et al act now - because they will be reeking with arrogance that comes with power. Would you blame "Chinese race" (is there a such thing?) when that happens? There is a diverse historical background to the nuanced concepts of "freedom" and "the civilised world". You will confuse them with attacks on non-Western nations if you look at them without taking into account the history which gave birth of these ideas. I can't believe this is coming from you. People with a superficial understanding of Western civilisation use these sort of arguments. It doesn't suit you.

White converts to Islam, since they are a rarity, are looked at with excitement and wonderment by almost entirely brown/black born Muslims. Such as, those folks are interesting objects, to be discussed enthusiastically, talked about cheerily and admired for finding the Truth. This is popular behaviour among non-white born Muslims. Now, the problem begins as soon as you try to create family relationships with white converts. It is not liked because non-white Muslims (hailing from the East), due to their small world dictated by culture and custom, are not as accepting of other races as much as whites are of them. Personal experiences make us what we are and some people have a reason to complain when they speak of racism, often tacit and sometimes casual, among brown/black (mostly brown) Muslims towards whites. This was about white converts. We have people hiding their anti-white racism - unsuccessfully I might add - behind historic imperialism (and ideas of white racial superiority which were common then), behind hegemonic political powers who are mostly under white command, and behind their dislike of the ways how most (non-Muslim) white people choose to live their lives. The issue is not that Brent (and others) made explicit or implicit anti-white comments. To him his own. The problem is the acceptance of this behaviour by so many Muslims. This makes perfect sense in theory. But I don't know what to make of racist diatribes and dislike of whites among Muslims. (When I say Muslims, I mean overwhelmingly brown/black Muslims). Casual racism among Muslims is a pretty acceptable phenomenon. It is hardly spoken against. This is more stronger against pitch blacks than whites. Maybe it is difficult for you to notice this phenomenon because people wouldn't speak ill of white race in front a white person - who is also a convert.

You are on a completely different thing. This is political power. The more you have that, the more you are held responsible for any trouble going around. Bring into the equation the neo-imperial hegemony and things get worse. Now, the fact that neo-imperial, exploitative capitalist countries happen to be majority white doesn't mean that it is happening because those are white, or, as you put it, whites have "no shred of humanity left in them". I'm amazed at this statement. Condi Rice wasn't white. Collin Powell wasn't white. Anyways. . .China (and possibly India) is going to be a new power and you will see them acting in the same manner as some Western governments with power and agenda do. Which race would you blame then? Your Rawandan example came out of nowhere. Every country, every government and every army protects its own people first before getting worried about the others. This is rule of thumb. There's nothing white or black about that.

Woah relax sis, dont let these things get to you.

What are you trying to say bro, get to the point. White people have racially discriminated people around the world to a more revealing, apparent and greater extent mostly due to their position relative to other races around the globe. That is not to say they are inherently more racist than any other race. Actions do speak louder than words, and we ALL should have learned something from all the racial atrocities, however it seems we still have a long way to go. This is not a matter of coming full circle, its a matter of stopping the line dead.

Apparently his posts are too much for Muslim sensibilities. (I wonder what does that mean) This is from Irishman's profile: Admin 1: "...but the problem is that your comments come across as jibes against, culturally insensitive statements towards, or attacks against the various peoples and places that you discuss." Admin 2: "It was already explained to you why you've been put under mod preview. It isn't a matter of single post having got you under that (were that the case it'd more likely have gotten you banned), it's the character of what you've been bringing to the forum. As explained, this is an explicitly pro-Shi`a forum, it's not an open avenue to come and take potshots at us." And Brent gets away with a mere 3 day suspension due to his blatant and famous racism. Why? Cos his target is White race.

Irishman is under moderation? Why?

Yours is a lone voice in a cold desert night. No one is likely to hear. If I said the same thing about Arabs and Blacks what this guy Brent said about whites, I'd be thrown out of these e-premises at once. No admonishes, no warnings, no mods previews, nothing. Mods should have edited his trash but they have chosen to leave it there for everyone to read, even his hateful racism against the "pure evil white people". It is people like Brent who should be under constant moderation not Irishman.

Do not tell me to finish my homework. It's not funny, and just because I'm 14, doesn't mean I have homework 24/7.

Oh kohl is so paindu...

(salam) Well,I think ya should carry on with you're fast as you weren't menstruating at the sehri time and when you closed you're fast.Anyways,i would definitely try to do some research on it. (wasalam)

Don't worry sis. Fast will break soon and then you can have your ice creams and milkshakes :P

^ Tell me about it :dry: