baqar

Did you see a doctor after the three episodes and get yourself checked for S.T.D.s (sexually transmittable diseases)?
 
That is most important.
 
 
You are not allowed to punish yourself.
 
Repent that you will not do do it again. 
 
And leave it to God to decide what He wants to do.
 
And pray for His forgiveness.. 
 
Nothing else is required. 
 
Be happy that God has motivated you to turn to Him.
 
And thank Him for it.
 
That is all.

I wouldn't marry a woman with a bad breath either if she insists on not taking medication to address the problem.

I wouldn't marry a woman with a bad breath either if she insists on not taking medication to address the problem.

I wouldn't marry a woman with a bad breath either if she insists on not taking medication to address the problem.

I wouldn't marry a woman with a bad breath either if she insists on not taking medication to address the problem.

I wouldn't marry a woman with a bad breath either if she insists on not taking medication to address the problem.

I wouldn't marry a woman with a bad breath either if she insists on not taking medication to address the problem.

I wouldn't marry a woman with a bad breath either if she insists on not taking medication to address the problem.

I don't think you understood what I meant.  
 
What I meant was that a religion does not change. It is the understanding of those who claim to be its followers that changes. To an external observer, it might appear that the religion has changed.  But it doesn't.
 
Barring perhaps a very few, no single individual follows the true religion that he claims to follow - be it is Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism or whatever.

As was Mahatma Gandhi: 
 

“Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French." 

 
 
Gandhi's major statement on the Palestine and the Jewish question came forth in his widely circulated editorial in the Harijan of 11 November 1938, a time when intense struggle between the Palestinian Arabs and the immigrant Jews had been on the anvil in Palestine. His views came in the context of severe pressure on him, especially from the Zionist quarters, to issue a statement on the problem. Therefore, he started his piece by saying that his sympathies are all with the Jews, who as a people were subjected to inhuman treatment and persecution for a long time.
 
"But", Gandhi asserted, "My sympathy does not blind me to the requirements of justice. The cry for the national home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me. The sanction for it is sought in the Bible and in the tenacity with which the Jews have hankered after their return to Palestine. Why should they not, like other peoples of the earth, make that country their home where they are born and where they earn their livelihood?"
 
He thus questioned the very foundational logic of political Zionism. Gandhi rejected the idea of a Jewish State in the Promised Land by pointing out that the "Palestine of the Biblical conception is not a geographical tract." The Zionists, after embarking upon a policy of colonization of Palestine and after getting British recognition through the Balfour Declaration of 1917 for "the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jews," tried to elicit maximum international support. The Jewish leaders were keen to get an approval for Zionism from Gandhi as his international fame as the leader of a non-violent national struggle against imperialism would provide great impetus for the Jewish cause. But his position was one of total disapproval of the Zionist project both for political and religious reasons. He was against the attempts of the British mandatory Government in Palestine toeing the Zionist line of imposing itself on the Palestinians in the name of establishing a Jewish national home. Gandhi's Harijan editorial is an emphatic assertion of the rights of the Arabs in Palestine. The following oft-quoted lines exemplify his position: "Palestine belongs to the Arabs in the same sense that England belongs to the English or France to the French. It is wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs... Surely it would be a crime against humanity to reduce the proud Arabs so that Palestine can be restored to the Jews partly or wholly as their national home."
 
Gandhi's response to Zionism and the Palestine question contains different layers of meaning, ranging from an ethical position to political realism. What is interesting is that Gandhi, who firmly believed in the inseparability of religion and politics, had been consistently and vehemently rejecting the cultural and religious nationalism of the Zionists.
 
What follows then is that he was not for religion functioning as a political ideology; rather, he wanted religion to provide an ethical dimension to nation-State politics. Such a difference was vital as far as Gandhi was concerned. A uni-religious justification for claiming a nation-State, as in the case of Zionism, did not appeal to him in any substantial sense.

Christianity is not a religion of unquestionable Pacifism.
 
If peace cannot be reached, Christians have the right to self-defence against an unjust aggressor.
(CCC 2309).
 
In fact, it is even a 'duty' to protect those who cannot otherwise protect themselves and to defend oneself and homeland in these cases. (CCC 2310).
 
The Church even has a teaching, sometimes referred to as the "Just War Doctrine' on this very issue.

Did you see a doctor after the three episodes and get yourself checked for S.T.D.s (sexually transmittable diseases)?
 
That is most important.
 
 
You are not allowed to punish yourself.
 
Repent that you will not do do it again. 
 
And leave it to God to decide what He wants to do.
 
And pray for His forgiveness.. 
 
Nothing else is required. 
 
Be happy that God has motivated you to turn to Him.
 
And thank Him for it.
 
That is all.

Hi Placid
 
Neither Islam nor Christianity have moved even an inch. It is we Muslims and Christians who have moved away from our original teachings.

Regards
 
baqar

Throughout my life I've had male and female friends. The key is to not act on any attraction that may occur and not put yourself in any situation in which you are tempted to cross the lines of decency. In other words, establish and maintain proper boundaries.
Good friends are hard to find. Can't be friends with men, can't be friends with non-Muslims, can't have friends too rich or too poor or too old or too young or the wrong race or ethnicity!
Just use good sense.

Education and martial arts -  that is a very good idea. 
 
But that is a good advice only from the perspective of places where the opportunity exists.
 
There are large parts of the world - both among Muslims as well as non-Muslims - where opportunities are scarce, at least for most or many women.
 
What protection from exploitation or abuse does Islam provide women in these places?
 
Unless I missed some posts or did not understand them , I think this thread has given out mixed vibrations. 
 
On the one hand, the contention is that men are not allowed to beat their wives at all, even though it has also been stated that the word 'daraba' in [4:34] definitely means 'to strike'.
 
That is for me quite confusing.
 
To add to the confusion, it has also been stated  that women are bound to be dutiful to their husbands, in other words, obey them.
 
To begin with, my understanding is that there is no verse in the Quran clearly stating this injunction.
 
Secondly, 'obedience' except to God is itself a very demeaning thing.
 
If nothing else, it gives the husband a clear psychological superiority over the wife, which I find somewhat disturbing.
 
In short, I still think the whole issue is unclear and enigmatic.
 
I believe that those who support this view have not explained clearly what 'obedience' means.  

You are absolutely right, brother.
 
It is strange that we like to talk about our rights more than our duties. If you ask Road Transport managers, they will tell you that the good driver is the one who chooses to relinquish his rights than to insist on them. That leads to far greater safety for everyone on the road.
 
The same goes for our relationships with our family members, with our friends and with the world at large.
 
t is far nobler to give than to take. It is an immensely nicer person who will not insist on his rights.
 
Let us consider some other Quranic instructions.
Retaliation, for example, is permitted but foregoing your right to retaliate is deemed a higher virtue.[2;178, 5:45]. The Muslim is encouraged to be patient rather than to exact his rights [16:126]. When someone harms us, we are permitted to deliver an equal harm but forgiving is better [42:40].   Men are commanded not to take women heritage against their will [4:19]. And when divorced couples make their final settlement, it is better for the man to forego his rights [2:237]. On the other hand, we here are talking about our right to be obeyed by our wives or even to strike at them.
 
What sort of a legacy are we leaving for others - 'Oh jolly, Islam requires my wife to obey me'.
 
However true that premise might be, it must be seen in context of Islam's overall teachings.
 
But I am afraid that is not what we are doing here. 
 
I believe this thread can only undermine the spirit of Islam's overall teachings among our youth and old alike.

Education and martial arts -  that is a very good idea. 
 
But that is a good advice only from the perspective of places where the opportunity exists.
 
There are large parts of the world - both among Muslims as well as non-Muslims - where opportunities are scarce, at least for most or many women.
 
What protection from exploitation or abuse does Islam provide women in these places?
 
Unless I missed some posts or did not understand them , I think this thread has given out mixed vibrations. 
 
On the one hand, the contention is that men are not allowed to beat their wives at all, even though it has also been stated that the word 'daraba' in [4:34] definitely means 'to strike'.
 
That is for me quite confusing.
 
To add to the confusion, it has also been stated  that women are bound to be dutiful to their husbands, in other words, obey them.
 
To begin with, my understanding is that there is no verse in the Quran clearly stating this injunction.
 
Secondly, 'obedience' except to God is itself a very demeaning thing.
 
If nothing else, it gives the husband a clear psychological superiority over the wife, which I find somewhat disturbing.
 
In short, I still think the whole issue is unclear and enigmatic.
 
I believe that those who support this view have not explained clearly what 'obedience' means.  

Education and martial arts -  that is a very good idea. 
 
But that is a good advice only from the perspective of places where the opportunity exists.
 
There are large parts of the world - both among Muslims as well as non-Muslims - where opportunities are scarce, at least for most or many women.
 
What protection from exploitation or abuse does Islam provide women in these places?
 
Unless I missed some posts or did not understand them , I think this thread has given out mixed vibrations. 
 
On the one hand, the contention is that men are not allowed to beat their wives at all, even though it has also been stated that the word 'daraba' in [4:34] definitely means 'to strike'.
 
That is for me quite confusing.
 
To add to the confusion, it has also been stated  that women are bound to be dutiful to their husbands, in other words, obey them.
 
To begin with, my understanding is that there is no verse in the Quran clearly stating this injunction.
 
Secondly, 'obedience' except to God is itself a very demeaning thing.
 
If nothing else, it gives the husband a clear psychological superiority over the wife, which I find somewhat disturbing.
 
In short, I still think the whole issue is unclear and enigmatic.
 
I believe that those who support this view have not explained clearly what 'obedience' means.  

Agree.  Education and work training/experience.  And learn a martial art.  And parents need to instill them with confidence.

This is why all girls should have as much education as possible as it gives them greater chance for financial independence (aka life options) if they are ever in a situation where they need Plan B. 

You are absolutely right, brother.
 
It is strange that we like to talk about our rights more than our duties. If you ask Road Transport managers, they will tell you that the good driver is the one who chooses to relinquish his rights than to insist on them. That leads to far greater safety for everyone on the road.
 
The same goes for our relationships with our family members, with our friends and with the world at large.
 
t is far nobler to give than to take. It is an immensely nicer person who will not insist on his rights.
 
Let us consider some other Quranic instructions.
Retaliation, for example, is permitted but foregoing your right to retaliate is deemed a higher virtue.[2;178, 5:45]. The Muslim is encouraged to be patient rather than to exact his rights [16:126]. When someone harms us, we are permitted to deliver an equal harm but forgiving is better [42:40].   Men are commanded not to take women heritage against their will [4:19]. And when divorced couples make their final settlement, it is better for the man to forego his rights [2:237]. On the other hand, we here are talking about our right to be obeyed by our wives or even to strike at them.
 
What sort of a legacy are we leaving for others - 'Oh jolly, Islam requires my wife to obey me'.
 
However true that premise might be, it must be seen in context of Islam's overall teachings.
 
But I am afraid that is not what we are doing here. 
 
I believe this thread can only undermine the spirit of Islam's overall teachings among our youth and old alike.

in our days a wife and her mother in law just can't live under one roof.this is a fact.no matter how sweet both of them are it just can't happen..shouldn't happen..this is a big mistake..
 
OP,u should have said that to ur husband before the nikah..now it's a bit hard for him to accept or understand ur pov.
 
some here are assuming too much...the guy's parents are too old,can't do anything,need help..almost dying :wacko: ...i don't know why!
 
however,if this is true he can buy the upper floor or the lower floor ,where his parents live,it doesn't have to be 'under one roof',this way he will still take care of his parents and he will be pleasing his wife>>living happily ever after :shifty:
 
good luck..

The question is not whether He can become something that He is not but whether He will.  
 
The Islamic view is that He will never even contemplate such a thought. 
 
God will remain God for ever and beyond.
 
There are many things that are below His dignity and glory.
 
And that includes having a family, a son, daughter, wife, brother, sister and the like.

I am sorry I find it hard to explain.
 
But I just cannot accept it.
 
 
I agree.
 
Just for kicks, I was over-doing my case.
 
 
Also agreed 
 
I am not sure of that.

Dear 'Zeinab is here'   Salams
 
Welcome to the site and to this forum and may you enjoy your stay here.
 
No, we don't pray because of the consequences. 
 
And remember, there is a subtle difference between 'worship' and 'prayer'.
 
As you have quoted Imam Ali, we should worship God  because we find him worthy of worship.
 
As for prayer, we pray to Him also because He is the Only One who can always answer our prayers and fulfill our needs.
 
God is worthy of being worshiped and also capable of answering our prayers.
 
 
Yes
 
 
 It is hard to generalize and give a one-stop answer for all situations.
 
In Islam, you are not allowed to cheat anyone.
 
So if you think that the government is not taking care of its poor, for example, you cannot steal from the state coffers to help a poor person.
 
But again, it wold probably depend on the precise situation.  
 
 
Different people would give you different answers to that question. 
 
Depending on the situation, I think, the answer may sometimes be 'yes' and sometimes 'no'.
 
As I said, it might be hard to generalize. 
 
Because it is right to do so.