Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله


Advanced Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About god_has_99_names

  • Rank
    Sulaiman Daniel
  • Birthday 10/22/1979

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Location
    U.S. of Freakin A.

Previous Fields

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

1,413 profile views
  1. OK, really it is just a question about the phrase astaghferallah, http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/cc147/a...99bf755d386.jpg What is the sign over the second letter? the one that looks like an "up Arrow"?
  2. I am lost. How is this action "not thaat of a Shia"? What is morally wrong with what she did?
  3. Are there any references for this hadith? I would really like to read it and it is certainly interesting.
  4. Yeah I totally agree with you.
  5. I would say that the main difference is that Nike was never attacked or accused of "mocking Islam" because we all acknowledged that they did not know what they were doing. They on there own, after consulting with Muslims, thought to change the logo. Any Music that has "a sick heavy beat" to it, that would be insulting to you if you heard Qur'an in it, you probably shouldn't be listening to anyway. Music only becomes makrooh when it is suitable for haram gatherings, and Qur'an or not, it should be avoided, according to our scholars. Well, I have not seen the documentaion itself. But all of the Articles have said that sony would not disclose the nature of what they called "the complaint. Plus when I said "bullied" it was a remark intended to indentify the current tactics we use in general towards such companies, not to singuarly indentify this instance. Actually, the artist who wrote the song is a self described "devout Muslim", so he was probably aware to some extent of what he was doing. But it also reveals our own hyprocrasy. When somebody forms a taqwa core band, we all get excited, myself included. I was listening to a song in chicago at the MSA PSG in a common area and even the most conservative old people thought it was copol, and it had Quranic verses in it. But then a non Muslim wants to use these songs, and all of the sudden we get really angry. The Qur'an was given to mankind. Not just to us. All mankind is in need of the words of Allah, and I do not care how a medicine is administered, so long as it gets administered. If this is the spiratual equivalent to a "sugar spoon" then so be it.
  6. That is easy! CAIR! No just kidding. It is clearly the fault of the employer. If a person opperates a business then they must act according to the Laws which govern their business, as well as the general rules of morality. I have run into that scenario before actually, and I also submitted an opinion to a newpaper regarding such acts in ohio. In my case, I was told that I could not use my break to make salat. I was somewhat less kind than cair. I nicely explained that I was fine with them saying that, and asked that the red tape be skipped, and I just move my things into the bosses office. When he asked why, I explained that the supreme court had ruled that religious freedom encompasses all acts and rites which the adherents of a religion believe to be obligatory on them, and since, in the case of Islam, Salat is an obligatory act, they were in violation of federal law and any legal action would surely result in such a large payout that I would be able to purchase controlling shares in the company, and therefore, I would own the company, and so it saved time if the guy just stepped down and gave the the company right then and there. After that, I went and prayed, uninterupted. In cases such as this, either a) the employer or offending party is ignorant of Islamic customs or b ) they know and just don't care. Either way, the employer is directly prohibiting the free excersize of religion, which is both illegal and imoral. In the case mentioned above, Sony was not prohibiting the free excersize of religion in any way. since nobody is forced to play the game, and if they do, they can turn the music off. I think a better case was the one against Nike, who put a symbol on the back of a shoe which looked like the arabic word Allah, and then they were contacted by cair, they removed the logo, and they all went to class to learn alittle something. That was good. While I do not like sensativity training, because it implies that an employer should be sensative, I do support employers being asked to learn about their obligations under the law regarding their treatment of Muslims. The difference being, an employer has no moral or legal obligation to like, understand, orbe sensitive towards Muslims. So they can hate us all day. But even so, they will hire us, if we are qualified, and once hired, we absolutely will be treated in such a manner that we would never guess they didn't like us, because anything else would be illegal and imoral.
  7. It certainly Behooves Sony To eran about Islam. It is also in each and every direct persons interest to learn about it, and follow it. Brother we have no disagreement there. But there are a number of differences between our points of view, and so as not to let either of us slip in and out of what is being stated here, lets enumerate them: 1) What is in Sony's best interest as a manufacturer, and indeed what is in their employees best interesdt ad creations of the true God, Allah, is indeed, to learn about Islam, but it is not necessarily our job to impose their best interests upon them. We can write, we can explain, we can do dawah. But if we claim to act on behalf of the defense of the Qur'an, then it behooves US to actually read what we claim to defend. One little verse in there jumps out "let there be no compulsion in religion" Those who choose to reject faith and piety do so at their own loss. And it is never our job to force piety upon someone else. Ever. There is not a single case of any Imam ever forcing somebody to revere God. The Imams taught and guided. They did not sue people into belief. So why should we? 2) Be it known, that nobody has "mocked" anything. They used a pre recorded song by Toumani Diabate, who is by the way, a devout Muslim, and who volutarily allowed them to use his song. Two of the lines in the song, also happen to appear in the Qur'an, but the recording is of the song itself, not of Quranic recitation. It is a really big streatch to say that Sony employees, have insulted Islam, by using a song by a Muslim guy when unknown to them HE (the Muslim, who you have not even begun to accuse of "mocking Islsm"), made the choice to include the verses in his song. 3) the last part, is a disaccosiated argument, which has nothing to do with the Topic at hand. If a book publisher is to publish a book, where the main theme is the life of Muhammad, peace be upon him and his noble family, then of course, they inherently, even in the reserch of their subject matter, would have an understanding of the culture and beliefs of Muslims, and would obviously know better. And yes, we can, and should voice concern about anyone who does something which is, at least apparently, done to scandalize and sensationalize our Prophet. Butg his is a far cry from throwing a fit when some media company includes a song in a game. A song which no Muslims spoke out against when their Muslim brother recorded it, so any sane person would conclude that if Muslims were fine with the song existing, then they would also be fine witrh the song being listened to. The CD was not meantr to be studied in a madrassa, it was meant to be listened to over dinner, or while driving, or while checking your inbox on MySpace. So if Muslims thought all that was OK, then why6 should Sony Assume that we would not be OK with them using it while somebody played a game? No reasonable person could conclude that sony was in any error at all. Again, did you object to a Muslim man when he recorded the song? And lastly, as to the remark "would you rather have done nothing?"... This is a direct attemopt to besmirch my character. you are attempting to imply that because I do not agree with you on this issue, that I must be OK with people making deliberate inflamatory remarks about Islam. Why would you even add this last part? If not out of an imature sense of anger and self righteousness? Surely you cannot believe that anyone who disagrees with you would be such a open enemy of Islam! But, it is not a problem. Let us live up to your example. In as much as you expect Sony to change their game design because somebody used a Muslim song in the game, and in as much as you have defended that they made a huge public appology. I will continue this streak. since you have implied that a devout Muslim (myself) would dare stand by while a publishing company mocked Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). And in as much as all the believers are as one body, and you have besmirched my integtirty, you have therefore infact leveled an insult against the entire ummah by insulting one of its members. and so, I hereby expect you to publically applogise for this, and admit that you were insensative towards the muslim ummah. Just the way sony did. If you refuse to do this, then it would be best for you not to continue this debate, because to do so would make you a hypocrite, who does not even believe in the very priciple for which he argues. yours in humble Waiting... Sulaiman.
  8. It has nothing to do with being passive. Nothing art all. In fact I am probably one of the least passive people you will ever meet in your life. The only thing it has to do with is justice, and equality. IT is not being passive to allow others to say what they want about us, it is being just, and the longer we insist that only we have a right to speak freely, the less just we are, and the less just we are, the longer it delays the coming of Imam Al Mahdi. Sony was not mocking our faith, I am sure in their eyes they thought they weree actually paying us a compliment. They did not undertand how we would take it, and since it was an issue of Islamic ediquitte, they should be expected to have known about it, or even if they knew about it, they should not be inspected to care. You can insist that others rever the Quran with our level of reverence the day I see you avoid working on the Jewish Saboth. Which by the way, according to some hadith collections, you are supposed to do anyways. The point is. There is a huge difference between being passive, and being smart and loving justice and freedom. Sony did not see that they were, they were bullied into taking the music out of the damn game. This is typical of us. We bully somebody and intimidate them until they make special concessions, all the while they become newly convinced that we are a bunch of weak, helpless crybabies who whine about anything we can, and then we tell our selves that they saw they were wrong. If I robbed your house, and you caught me, mid act, and I pointed a gun in your face, and said "don't you see? this stuff is actually mine, you were just holding it for me... Weren't you?" I promise that the average person is gonna say "oh yeah, I see your point, why dopn't you just take the stuff and leave." and I can walk out of the house, telling myself that they finally saw things from my perspective, but the second they call the police, I would see what was really the case. And this is the same. They may take the Quran out of the game, but they nbow have a bad taste for muslims in their mouth. we have accomplished nothing but making another enemy, and patting ourselves on the back, all the while, telling ourselves that we have just struck a blow for Imam Al Mahdi.
  9. ????? Dude, the song John Walker's Blues uses verses from the Quran at the end of the song. and countless everlast songs use phrases such as "La Illaha Ill Allah" and what not. Notto mention that wyclef Jean uses te phrase (and verse of the Quran) "Bismillh Ir Rahman Ir Raheem", followed up by ""see you don;t have knowledge of self, you don't know what that means" Why do we seem to think that it is ok to use litigtion as a weapon? We should recognize that we can't sue people into respecting us, nor can weprotest things until the americans fall in line and realize how cool we are. In western society, there is absolute desgust leveled at somebody who goes around suing everybody or draggingt everything into a court room. and rightly so. Suing people or raising cain about people, who dare to offend our delicate little sensabilities, is not going to yield good results in America. It is going to further marginalize us and cause peope to view us as a people so concerned with our own freedoms but totally against the equal freedoms of anyone else. And also, while it is true that we are not allowed to play the Quran if we are not listening to it, remember, the people who made the game are not Muslims. Should non Muslims really be expected to hold the same values and reverence as we do for the Quran or Shariah? If that's the case, then at what point, to be fair, can they start dictating to us what values to hold?
  10. Ironically, the answer is, becauser it is sunnah. According to what I have read and been told, at the battle of uhud, when the prophet Muhammad was injured, he exclaimed "Ya Ali Madhad!"
  11. Well, first of all, we need to seperate two things. The Shia belief concerning Aisha is that she made very bad mistkes AFTER the death of the Holy Prophet (pbuh), not that she was just an evil person in general. Secondly, many many times, the Quran, as well as hadith, talks about Widows, and what is owed to them. This, in the very least proves that there is a difference between a wife and a widow. The Holy Prophet (pbuh) durring his lifetime, oversaw the activities of his wives, and gave them guidence, which they followed. After he Died, when they ceased to be his wives, nd instead became his widows, he obviously was not there to guid them and teach them. And so they were just as prone to errors as anyone else from that moment on. And one wife / Widow in particular, Aisha, seemed to have made more mistakes, and worse mistakes than the others. This is to be expected, she was very young and given to passionate emotions which often lead her to do or say things that she later admitted to regretting. So, in the context of the verse, while the prophet of Islam may indeed continue to give us a symbolic guidence, he, durring his entire lifetime, never did anything unislamic, and so we can take his entire life as a good example. But according to 33:33 the wives were not included in Allah's protection from transgression the way Fatima and the Imams were, and so, after he died, as I said, many of the actions and attitudes changed for the worse. So we have to clearly seperate their lives and actions into "As as wife" and "as a Widow". So while the verse would apply to a great extent to Aisha as a wife, our problems lie almost exclusively with her as a Widow.
  12. alot of Marjaes have issued rulings about that very subject. you might just check some pages. While most of the people on here are very smart, and quite well read, islamically... This may be a bit more than we are qualified to answer.
  13. can't go wrong with some marvin gaye and a rotating bed!
  14. I am gonna try to answer two posts in one here. First, as to the verses. Yes I am of course aware of them. Very much so. But if you read carefully, you will notice that permission is given as a last resort. It never says "eat Halal Meat" it says "don't eat any meat, unless it is Halal". While I know these two statements seem similar, the difference is that the second putrs emphasis on not eating meat, and simply allows a small exception (that being if the meat is Halal). While the first encourages meat consumption. Since the Quran phrases meat eating like the second example, the same Idea applies. As I have said, it is NOT HARAM to eat meat. Not at all. Nobody is debating Halal Haram here. But if I was mad at a somebody, it would, for example, be perfectly halal for me to do mutah with their sister, just to mess with their head. There are no prohibitions regarding WHY somebody does mutah, as long as it is a valid mutah. However, would anyone say that that is a good Idea? probably not, it is actually a pretty mean thing to do to someone, yet styill legal from the shariah point of view. And that is all I am saying. Nobody can argue that it is forbidden to eat meat. I am simply saying it is cruel to do if you don't have to, and I am using hadith and ayat to give reason to my argument. MEat is mentioned seperately from food in every verse in the Quran where eating meat is mentioned, and so we can naturally deduce that while one can eat meat, meat is not food. I can eat Asprin, but asprin is not food. I can eat cotton, but cotton is not food, I can eat vitamin pills, but pills are not food, I can eat meat, but meat is not food. If I eat cotton I am just stupid, If I eat Asprin when I have no pain, I am wasting asprin and causing harm to my body, If I eat Vitamins when I am not deficient, then I am wasting the pills and possibly harming my body, If I eat meat when I am not deficient of the same nutrients it can potentially provide, then I am wasting an animals life. See? Now, regarding the plants are living too argument. It is actually one that I hear alot. And honestly, a very good one. Now first of all, the line which is drawn by vegitarians between the ethics of meat consumption and plant consumption is sentience. an Animal knows that it is alive. Scientists can, and have determined the neural process that occurs in all sentient beings. And it is assumed, with very few exceptions (suicidal people for instance) that any being which knows and understands that it has a life, wants to continue to have that life, and hence does not wish to die or be killed. Human life obviously over rides animal life, from a human point of view, including my point of view. And if Human life would end unless meat is consumed, it is then not unethical to consume meat. This is similar to what I pointed out above. For a people who have no access, or limited access, to a variety of vegitation (such as in a desert environment) their survival will from time to time, require them to take the life of an animal so that they can consume the nutrients from that animal. But for any human which does not need animal consumption to survive, then no comparrison can or should be made regarding human life as compared to animal life, because neither one needs to die to sustain the life of the other. as for famine without meat consumption. Alot of people say this, but it is a rather short sighted argument. To raise one cow, for instance, it takes over ten acres of grains and vegitables grown, specifically to feed to the cow, to keep it alive until it is ready for slaughter. plus it takes land on which a farmer must house his cattle. It has been estimated that if Americans alone, consumed just 10% less meat, it would free up enough land, grains, and vegitation to feed every hungry person on the planet. If all people stoped eating meat in America, we would have enough land and vegitation to supply the entire world with an abundance of food, more than we could ever eat. As it stands now, we already have excess vegitation and in fact do ship it out to sea to be dumped, and there are actually communes (like dancing rabit) which subsist simply on the fruits of their own labor, and getting ahold of excess food from resturants and such. So I don't think we can count on the state to actually feed poor people, but without the state, the people certainly can. Look up the "food not bombs" collective movement. So long story short, no, there would not be famine, there would be over abundant food and life would be great. OH, also, look up an article (it is all over the internet) with an interview of the band Vegan Reich, about islam and veganism. Vegan reich is obviously a Vegan band, but they are also a Muslim band. good reference material.
  • Create New...