Abbas.

Did you recently allow someone remote access to your computer? Anyway, I have spare licenses of Norton. Let me know if you would like to try it out. Please also uninstall most recently installed programs that you do not recognise.

Go to File>Info to see if you are allowed editing. Change the settings if editing is restricted or if you have opened the document in the 'read-only' mode.

Salams I think that it is appropriate for Muslims (and their religious scholars) to stay away from subject matters that are beyond their comprehension. It makes things worse, in fact, embarrassing, when they pretend or try to know & preach material facts of life in light of solely "religious evidence". Simultaneously, I prefer to remain open minded to any counter explanation (for e.g. against evolution) that is reasonable.

It most likely shows our bias towards the number(s) that we value.

Salams, There may be various traditions that guide us on this subject matter. How we prioritise or formulate them into an all-encompassing formula is something I'll have to ponder in my free time. For now, I'll try to recall a few traditions/teachings and extract probable/debatable principles from them. Principle 1 I recall a saying of one of the Imams to the effect that if the people had recognised their right (of [Divine] leadership), they would have received an abundance of sustenance. Principle: While this saying is specific to the rights of the Imams, it also highlights in general that competent leadership is one of the key factors in alleviating poverty. Principle 2 There is a saying of Imam Ali that a society can survive with kufr (infidelity) but not injustice. Principle: This saying highlights how adl (justice) is a key factor for the survival of a society. Justice demands that everyone is equal before the law. When a state or its leadership is competent to protect the people from various forms of frauds thereby allowing people to settle civil disputes amicably and/or receive their due rights in a timely manner and/or hold people/organisations accountable through pecuniary penalties imposed by the state, it deters (financial) corruption and encourages individuals/organisations to make an honest living. Principle 3 Islamic traditions stress the responsibility of people to pay taxes in the form of zakat, khums, etc. Additionally, they also encourage non-mandatory forms of charity such as sadka, assisting family-neighbors-friends with loans, etc. Principle: Collection of taxes is necessary for the government to function and allocate proportionate resources where needed. A society which pays its due taxes ensures that its citizens are in receipt of the basic necessities of modern life. In this regard, the state has a responsibility to introduce regulations and procedures to collect taxes, to ensure that the society trusts the government in terms of its spending and allocation and that there are mechanisms in place for checks and balances. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the citizens to view state-imposed taxes as an Islamic duty; it is an Islamic duty because we are bound to follow the state law regardless of our disagreement with the amount or form of tax that we have to pay. In my humble view, Muslims who already pay state taxes shouldn't have to worry about zakat and khums etc. In fact, there should be state laws clearly recognising and absolving the religious duty of the citizens to this effect. ...there is more but I am short of time. InshaAllah later.

Halal pork aye? On a serious note, If the source of a Genetically Modified Food (GMF) or any other form of lab product is haram in itself, it is better to avoid it by way of precaution at the very least [in my humble opinion] Small bugs are inevitable. We can never get rid of them. For this reason, we are disciplined by Islamic laws and by various forms of worship in Islam to observe cleanliness at all times [unless they cause a great deal of inconvenience OR unless we are left with no option to observe cleanliness in practical life]. Pork, on the other hand, is a meat which is expressly stated by Islamic law as haram for the purpose of consumption. Therefore, even if we create an artificial lab product or a byproduct from the cells of pork or bacon we are "technically" as well as "potentially", if not actually, using haram to invent & consume halal. Therein lies the issue of whether such a product should receive a welcome in the Muslim community. In this regard, the potential counter-arguments that I foresee are whether such products are essential in the near future due to the scarcity of food supplies or due to their need for medicinal reasons etc.

India Media: 1. Posted pictures of a Naswaar to prove that they had evidence of hitting PK F 16. lol ---> 2. Indian Media trying to prove how it destroyed PK F16s. The response of the guest aviation expert:

Ever heard of biryani?

Salams You have taken appropriate steps to convince a reasonable person that you are sexually fit instead of being impotent. Expert opinion (I.e. doctor) has also backed your case. Moreover, it is well known that males do survive in a marital relationship with one testicle. They can have a meaningful sexual relationship without any issue and are also able to produce offsprings. And what lump sum? I do not see any cause of action. Even if they try to sue you, the burden of proof is on them, not you. Unless of course, there was a stipulation in your marriage contract that you will have to pay your wife a lump sum and maybe also share an interest in a property if you ever divorce her? In which case, they want to pressurise you into giving your wife a divorce and be liable to pay her monetary compensation for breaking the terms of the contractual agreement.

I am not a scholar. But my personal understanding of the whole debate on beard is as follows: In terms of physical presentation, Islam recommends that we, as Muslims, should present ourselves as neat, clean, well-groomed and historically speaking, 'tough' in the battlefields. However, an ideal physical representation may be subject to the norms of a society in different eras. I understand that once upon a time Arabs, as well as many other men around the globe, considered their beards as a sign of nobility and a symbol of physical/intellectual maturity. It also allowed men to look tough in the battlefields. But things have changed over time. Unfortunately, for Muslims, the debate regarding beard continues to revolve around certain narrations. And for good reasons. If memory serves me right, some of those narrations expressly require men to keep beards as if its more than a recommendation. Since I have not done thorough research on such narrations, it is hard to tell whether their authority was confined to their context/time or whether their authority and scope extends to the day of Qayamah. @Ibn al-Hussain what are your thoughts on this subject? Done any research that we can benefit from?

How much time have you and I spent exploring other religions or even Atheism for that matter to ensure that Islam is the right path? If we have failed this standard, we better not expect it from others. In fact, we cannot expect this standard from the majority of laymen considering the realities of life and especially in the absence of a Divine Authority of God (Prophet/Messenger/Imam etc.). It follows that there is a responsibility on current Muslims, partially if not wholly, to introduce their religion to the world in a befitting manner. This struggle includes being a good ambassador of Islam in a number of ways such as being kind, humble, patient and tolerant enough to understand different perspectives, human observations and opinions before passing judgements that refer to hell. The struggle also means that we learn and practise our own religion in its true essence, explore other religions in all sincerity, and of course, learn other sciences and branches of knowledge too. Until then, let's not take things out of proportion. I struggle to be part of an ideology that, similar to its counterparts, offers salvation under its umbrella and throws people into hell on the basis of dissent, confusion and/or misunderstanding.

I would rather prefer a short summary here.

Such short online edicts are often a source of confusion. Which is why I prefer that whenever a religious scholar issues them online, he/she needs to take responsibility for providing an explanation so as to leave no doubt in the precedent. For example, when it is said that you may look at a potential partner's physique without sexual gratification, it is probably meant that one is allowed to look at the potential partner's "legs and other parts" to determine whether the person has the body physique that he/she finds attractive (slim, curvy, chubby, etc.). However, because of the high risk of persons being lured into sexual gratification (especially immature boys), the edict better stress upon the respectful and moral manners of communication with potential partners before marriage.