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

Photi

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    1,303
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Photi

  1. wow! mashallah those rings are incredible. how do i get an antique ring like those, that site does not seem to working properly.
  2. hamid, mukhtar, mujtaba, mustafa sakinah, nourah, atiqa, zahra (unfortunately in english speaking places ppl would make the -h- silent)
  3. hafsa was the daughter of umar. hafsa married muhammad (as). if the umm khalthoum in question is referring to the daughter of Ali and Fatima (as), then that makes Umm khalthoum the grand-daughter of Muhammad and Step-granddaughter of all Muhammad's wives, including hafsa. since Umar is hafsa's father, that makes Umar the Step-great grandfather to any ali's children through fatima, thus mahram to Umar. can anyone confirm if these are the proper rules of mahram? once i read that argument (assuming the facts are correct and these are in fact the rules of mahram) i was convinced that the marriage could not have taken place. from shia point of view, imam ali (as) is infallible. from sunni point of view umar and ali are the rashidun. in either case, the marriage would not have occurred.
  4. has microsoft released the copywrite? you'd hate to be advocating theft. go for open office, it is totally free, and once you get used to it you will never know the difference. or go for something like google docs. docs might still be in beta, but applications like that are the wave of the future. i have not used the spreadsheet or the presentation app, but from what i have read you can get all the basic functions. the word processor feels totally adequate. opensource is the way to go.
  5. tread cautiously akhi. on the one hand she might be interested in your beliefs, on the other hand you would hate to find yourself in a position where you make a bad choice because any other choice was too painful.
  6. i just hope the lebanese can hold it all together. it would be so sad to see another civil war. it is my dream to live there one day. tabouleh every night :excl:
  7. well, in fairness, the interview might be two interviews or at any rate appears to be edited. did you notice galloway's background go from day to night in the course of what he is saying? regardless of that, perle still doesn't address the actual issues of american aggression. it like the whole of the zionist/imperialist ideology is a hallucination.
  8. oh good, you watched that youtube movie. doesn't perle make you want to puke? :sick:
  9. you know, i was at thanksgiving dinner last night, and my uncle made some comment about the muslims wanting to take over the world, and so i mentioned how in fact reality says otherwise. i said that given the geographic distribution of US military bases, it appears as though it is the ameircans who want to take over the world. his response was something to the effect of 'i don't want to hear about US military bases, Ahmadinejad is an idiot and i am a christian and i believe the jews are a chosen people and they have a God given right to Israel.' i pointed out how the question should be about justice, i told him of our beliefs about Jesus and Moses and Mary, peace be on them, and he just stared at me in puzzlement. it is hard for a christian to hate someone who professes his love for jesus, and yet he has so much hate for the muslims. in the end i got told to shut-up and to not speak of these matters. my family does not realize it, but in effect they say to me "please don't exist, for the peace of the family, please don't exist." if you have the time, you should watch this video. it is only four minutes or so. especially watch the part at the very end when richard perle gives his 'rebuttal.' perle is one of dubya' favorite hawks. zionist and imperialist extraordinaire. watch his calm demeanor as he sidesteps the issue and discredits galloway and his argument. a tried and true tactic of the imperialists--apparent emotional distance coupled with disparaging remarks. carrie grant, you might now be wondering what this has to do with you. i bring these points up because you share the same tactic. three posts in a row now you have tried to silence me or you have otherwise tried to either make me feel bad about myself or make me look bad in front of the others. textbook definition of an ad hominem argument. if you disagree with my point that your idea of islamic chastity leaves not a lot of room for the institution of mut'a despite on the surface agreeing with the fiqh aspect of it, then tell me how i am wrong. imo, this is important because this attitude seems to be commonplace amongst the shias. the individual ambivalence towards mut'a would be comical if it didn't say something deep about our collective and fractured existence. Brother, i wanted to put your comment there because it reveals so much truth about the shia ambivalence towards mut'a. 'serial monogamy' as a term is problematic. its meaning can be stretched to the point of including a series of one-night-stands under the umbrella of 'serial monogamy.' a one night stand hardly exemplifies islamic ideals, but it doesn't contradict them either so long as that fleeting relationship is done within the protection of mut'a. most people will find this sort of relationship not fulfilling and empty, but it is there and it is halaal if that is what one chooses. any number of reasons could be motivating the need (in addition to sex) for a lightning-quick relationship of this sort. i agree with you sister bint alhoda that the preferred scenario in islam, under the right conditions, is a lifelong relationship wherein a family is raised. but that's one of the many beauties of islam, it recognizes that 'the right conditions' might not always be there, so it accepts alternatives--namely mut'a. i did a search on shiamatch. there are 1579 women between the ages of 25-40 who have never been married and are currently seeking marriage. under the same parameters there are 3783 men seeking. i sorted these by last log-in date, and the least active account was accessed as late as August of last year, so it appears the admins of the site delete the unused profiles somewhat regularly. i don't do statistical analysis, so i don't know where to start analyzing these data. it is probably impossible to extrapolate onto our population as a whole, however, i think we can conclude that it is not uncommon for our brothers and sisters to be unmarried past the age of 25. does this exemplify an islamic ideal? how many of these people, men and women, are still virgins? given what Azadar-e-Ali says above, probably most of these people practice abstinence. We all know the reasons why they are not in nikah yet, on average they have probably been seeking education and careers. there is much virtue in education making it impossible to tell the muslims not to seek these things, but if the chosen alternative to nikah is abstinence then that leaves a lot to be desired, literally. mut'a is the way out, but the social stigma is glaring. we worry about our chastity society's perception of our chastity. what is the definition of "islamic chastity?" according to culture and according to fiqh, what is the answer?
  10. then why impersonate a guy? i would hardly think i am the first one to make the mistake. cary grant, you look like a guy, you bring the presumption on to yourself, change your name and your picture if you want to stop that from happening. don't persecute me for falling into the trap you set. let me get this straight. in order for me not to come across as one of those "cyber booty" guys, as you put it, i should be unaware of the sexist culture that pervades our everyday interpretations of islam? there is a catch-22 in here, i am either a perv and "aware" of the oppression of women, or i am a pig and unaware of it. where is the proper place for a muslim brother to go in this dichotomy? you have no clue about me, you have no clue as to what (if any) knowledge i have, you have no clue as to what my motivations are, you got nothin on my history, so what's your trip sister? from my perspective, my initial response is about a collective self-criticism. clearly something is critically wrong on the global level with the muslims and our societies, look how weak we are in the collective. we are getting walked all over in today's geopolitical climate, the imperial powers do not respect our interests or our concerns and they would get rid of islam tomorrow if they could. probably today they would. we are going to keep our Religion of Truth, and so it must be something else that is keeping us weak. language is one of the first places we should look because it tells so much about our inner collective mentality. read Said again or read him for the first time, you will see in his "orientalism" how racism and the belief in the righteousness of imperialism are ideas embedded in the discursive language the imperialists use against us. Edward Said (himself an arab christian fwiw) was applying theories on language and POWER that Michel Foucault developed in the '60s and '70s. foucault probably picked up threads of his philosophy from someone before him. regardless, language is like the roadmap leading to the inner workings of our societies. Napolean, his cohorts and all those who came after them wrote the imperialist discourse, they established the "truths" about muslims and about the arabs, and the Muslims and arabs have been reacting to that discourse ever since. listen to G.H.W.B. talk to Iran. the imperialism is so nauseatingly patronizing. if we ever want to write our own discourse so that the muslim people and powers can once again be sovereign before all except Allah swt, then we have to start taking a serious and in-depth look at our cultures. i don't care who you read, chatterjee, asfaneh najmabadeh, leila ahmad, saba mahmoud, nilufer gole, whoever, all these social scientists use the theories on language and Said's writings and ideas of cultural relativism in general to investigate various islamic/non-western societies and how those in power use language and cultural constructs to establish that power. whether we are talking about the british in india, Ata Turk in turkey, Reza Shah or the Ayatollah Khomeni himself (ra) in Iran, they all integrate ideas on the proper comportment of women into their overall political paradigm. identity politics. this is so striking in iran when you compare Khomeni and his ideas to those of reza shah. they were very aware of women and their role in society and they used this to their advantage. they manipulated the construct of 'woman' as one tactic in their overall strategy consolidate power. if ordinary everyday muslims like you and i are ever going to have power in the democratic sense, then we have to steal away the discourse from the imperial powers. one very important way of doing this is by taking a sincere and genuine look into the way muslim women and muslim men behave towards muslim women. your statement, the one about the islamic sense of chastity is a clear window and a clear opportunity to start thinking about that discourse. who defines the islamic sense of chastity? from an intellectual perspective we say that islam defines chastity. this might be true in theory, but is this true in reality? there is a clear double-standard when it comes to mut'a, women get looked at one way and the men get looked at the other way. we've all read the threads, the cultural double-standard is self-evident. syed fadlullah says that when a woman is mature and if she has knowledge then she, on her own accord, can make the determination as to whether or not she should engage herself with mut'a. virginity has nothing to do with it. her decsion, yes or no, should have no effect on society's perception of her chastity. the problem is that if a mature woman were to do this and a third party became aware, the likelihood is that her reputation will be tarnished. i thnk most of us will agree that nikah is the more family friendly option, but given the sophistication of today's modern societies and the levels of education that that sophistication demands, often early marriage is not practical for neither the men nor the women. in this scenario, men choose mut'a and women choose abstinence. how is that fair and how does that jive with the societies in which we currently live? sexuality is hugely important for a healthy psychology. a few hundred years ago early marriage was common, and so it made sense to expect young girls to save their virginity until nikah. society is different now, so as a collective--you, i and all the rest of us muslims--need to start actively imagining what a more perfect society should look like. culture is beautiful, but some of it holds us back. we need to put our culture, language and nationalities included, through the filter of Islam and be willing to toss aside those practices, ideas and stigmas that are detrimental to our social well-being. this will help us to attain a more perfect society and a more perfect akhlaq. stigmatizing a woman as though she is promiscuous or dirty because she partook in a halaal mut'a is not part of that perfect akhlaq. i am not saying you carrie grant did this, but your statement about "islamic chastity" was suggestive. your being a woman proves my point all the more, you are probably not a chauvinist and yet your language assumes characteristics about "islamic chastity" that, rather than being islamic, might be more cultural in their origin and unnecessarily oppressive towards women. anyway, i am not looking for enemies. truce? peace out sister.
  11. chill dude. it's a forum where we discuss things. end of story. you took it way too personal, i was pointing out the subtleties of language that exist whether we like it or not. those subtleties effect our behavior in the world at a subconscious level. as such, we should be more aware of those subtleties so we can have a more clear perspective. in this very thread many assumptions were being made, directly and indirectly, about the "proper" way pregnant women should feel. there is 'proper' in terms of fiqh, which is the gist of your argument, and there is 'proper' in terms of the culture, which often times is at odds with islam. i was showing how you, a brother who understands it from the fiqh point of view, still uses language that is contradictory. i think this is why it is so important to 'know thyself' if one is to have strong iman. the subconscious mind is a sandpit. i fall into the trap of language myself, i was not engaging in one-upmanship. peace bro.
  12. correct me if i am wrong, but the islamic sense of chaste is the act of confining those behaviors that become halaal within a marriage to that marriage. islam accepts serial monogamy (for women) as a form of chastity. cary grant, this is probably unintentional, but the sense you give in your language above is that on the one hand non-muslim women are promiscuous, when in fact most practice serial monogamy, and on the other hand your implication is that muslim women are shy of sex altogether (in order to be chaste), when in fact they would likely be more willing to engage in mut'a if there was not such a stigma attached to the women who have been married in mut'a. look at shiamatch. look at how many of our numbers are still not married even though we are in our 30s! most of those sisters who are single and in their 30s are likely still virgins. this is not natural! as a group musilms should either start practicing early nikah, or stop being so hung-up on female sexuality. virginity is over-rated. seyyid fadlullah is a man of our times: (from here and here) and here. anyway, i quoted you Cary Grant because you seem to be quite open-minded about the subject, within the islamic guidelines of course, but even the language you have used is rather chauvinistic and is suggestive of an un-islamic double standard. look at Edward Said and his ideas on 'orientalism.' Said's skills as a linguist allowed him to quite easily see the imperialism embedded in the language of the orientalists. in much the same way, often the language muslims use (men and women) is unislamically oppressive towards women. i think societal reform must necessarily entail looking at the language we use to describe reality, as our language is a major determiner of reality. if i were to re-state what you said above in language that is sensitive to chauvinism, i would say something like this: men tend to go after women (with the intention of only muta) who they are more confident they will have sex with rather than being turned down by a muslim woman who, despite what the fiqh says, is well aware of what will be the socio-cultural repercussions if she loses her virginity in a non-traditional way. as opposed to this: men tend to go after women (with the intention of only muta) who they are more confident they will have sex with rather than if shes chaste in the islamic sense of the word. can you see how that changes the sense of what was said? if cary grant is of the more enlightened ones, then what does that say about the majority of muslim men? islam uplifted women and the oppressed, it did not degrade them. our language is often oppressive. [EDIT: i just realized that in my own statement above, i used "...loses her virginity...," which implies that the state of virginity is a positive value. at what age does virginity lose its value? certainly it is of value if the girl is still quite young, but is it really all that healthy for a 35-year-old woman to be a virgin? i think at some point virginity becomes an unhealthy liability. so, maybe a restatement of my restatement would be "...socio-cultural repercussions if she has sex for the first time in a non-traditional way (i.e. in mut'a)."] and to the person who said this: given all the hormones raging through the body of a pregnant woman, i would think she is more inclined than normal to seek out a relationship for the sole purpose of sex (assuming she is not in a relationship).
  13. i concur with the concurrence. i converted over 10 years ago, then and now i think it is kind of weird for people to change their names. easy for me to say, my name is david, so to each his own. i don't have kids yet, so i don't know what i will do then, i like the name sakinah for a girl, but i may very well go with an americanized name for either a boy or a girl. i don't think islam is against culture or identity.
  14. i was born in the West, i live in the West, i love the West. i HATE what the West does to the East. this is called hating the game, not the player. it is not the freedoms of the West that the Muslims hate, rather it is the belligerence of itself outside its borders. one of the duties of living in a 'democratic' society is openly criticizing the leader. imo, a most important form of patriotism. in romantic terms this is referred to as the 'natonal debate.' in real terms (in the US at least) that's a crock of bs.
  15. this is nothing more than the oppressor playing the part of the oppressed. nothing new. filth like this is why european history has had such a hard time with the jews. lies, deceit and obfuscation of reality. israel is the aggressor, they were then, they are now. any other response is to accept the falsehood of the discourse. the narrative is empty and the honest of the world know that. tick, tick, tick.
  16. omg, that was awesome! if only the US had politicians like that.
  17. lol, if only all kaffarah were that easy. to the op, i know exactly how you feel. i used to drive a taxi. i used to have to dodge squirrels, raccoons, possums, cats, dogs, mice, people, they were all over the place. the worst kinds were the tourists, all over the road. do they think just because they are on vacation they can forget the rules of the traffic? after 85,000 miles alhamdulillah, i only hit one creature, a possum. ugly animal but i still felt really bad. i made du'a for him. i don't see how kaffarah could be imposed on an accident like that. kaffarah is for intentionally violating things like the rules of ramadan fasting and oaths and such.
  18. i saw the provisions that give iraq jurisdicition. despite that, i see the US forces as the entity with power in the country, and given their power the US forces are in a better position to exploit the articles of the agreement. in order for israel to remain in existence in the absence of a comprehensive regional peace treaty, it is necessary for them to be the regional hegemon. they accomplish this in two ways. first, they increase their absolute power by arming themselves with america's best weapons. secondly, they increase their relative power by keeping ALL other nations in the region weak and ineffectual, even the ones with whom they have "peace." look at egypt, the cultural hub of the arab world and the most populous nation in the region. despite this, egypt is poor, they have a high illiteracy rate, and their economy cannot absorb those who are already educated, not to speak of those whom the government should be educating. and their military is 100% dependent on the USA. do you think the US sells egypt the same kind of weapons (purchased with bribe aid money from the US) that they sell to the israelis? why do 'we' americans call egypt, clearly a police state, our moderate ally? because we know damn well that that police state may as well be a failed state when it comes to comparing its power to that of israel. this policy of destabilizing nations or making them dependent on US protection (e.g. the Gulf States, including KSA) is designed to keep Israel on top and oil in control of the imperialists. were israel not there, i don't think the oil mongers could get away with all these wars, as it is the propaganda system put in place by the american zionists that sells this policy to the american people. don't for a moment think that iraq is not included in this scheming, because it is. all of that said, i didn't mean to come across sounding as thought iraq should not act in its national interest. what i was saying is that its interest lies beyond the national borders of iraq. iraq's enemies are formidable and conniving. therefore iraq needs regional allies and you can safely assume that hizbollah is a regional ally. much more so than iraq's american conquerors.
  19. salams, i think it is wrong to say that islam destroys cultures when people embrace the faith. if fact if you look at the cultural diversity found within the islamic world, one is bewildered that such cultural diversity can be encompassed by people all professing the same faith. levant arabs are quite distinct from gulf arabs. many iraqi arabs are probably more similar in culture to persians than they are moroccan arabs. muslim black africa in an of itself must comprise 100 nations of people each with their own cultural practices. did you know that there is a significant and well established population of gujurat indians living in east africa? they have been there for a couple centuries at least. there might possibly be 100 million chinese muslims, distinctly chinese. persia, india, thailand, indonesia, malaysia, the phillipines. compare thai food to persian food, that's your proof right there ^_^. even in america, we muslims have our own cultural customs and even within these customs we have nuances and gradations. give us another hundred years to witness the various cultures of our immigrant populations melt together to create even more culture. in fact i come from a white german protestant background, and i am a little embarrassed at the lack of culture in my upbringing compared to most of my muslim co-religionists. yes, a little culture envy :blush: what ever made you think that that islam is against culture? have you been talking to too many salafis? i think rather Islam and musilms celebrate culture, how else could one religion be the source of so much beautiful variety? Allah (swt) created these differences between us, why would we want to destroy part of Allah's creation? you express so much fear in your statement above, and yet history and the demographic displacement of islam and muslims should lead you to think otherwise. The Heart of Islam by Seyyed Hossein Nasr has a great chapter on the diversity of the Muslim world. Chapter 2. check it out, highly recommended. in fact, he argues that 'modernism' has been the biggest killer of culture in recent times. and as far as the second coming of christ (as) goes, muslims believe in that too. the end of time will witness many people from many different faiths recognizing Jesus and our Imam and they will join the side of good and fight against evil. conversely, many muslims will choose to fight on the side of evil. sad but true.
  20. is punishment in this life for the sinner? i think rather punishment is a combination of justice for the victim and more importantly justice for society. if two people do zinna but no one ever finds out, then their transgressions are with Allah and He will deal with them. If society discovers the zinna, then innocent bystanders will be affected by the crime and so society seeks justice for the sake of the innocent. the concept is "collective guilt." if zinna is occurring in the open all over the place, the theory is that it is then easier for an innocent person to engage in the crime because his sense of guilt will be diluted over many individuals instead of having that guilt focused on himself. this is why we are not supposed to talk about our sins, because we don't want to encourage others to do the same. keep it private people, keep it private. read this little snippet from here: clearly the concern is for society, not the individual.
  21. :donno: let me know when you find out, i wanna see it.
  22. imperial hypocrisy will never end. israel's window to attack is quickly closing. i think it is either now or never. israel cannot attack iran except via iraq, and obama is about to become the commander-in-chief there. he has shown himself to be a friend of israel, but i don't think he would authorize an israeli fly-over. obama is in favor of de-escalation and obviously an israeli attack would be quite provocative.
  23. i am not trying to say that iraq should not act in its interest. i am saying that its interest is fundamentally tied into the regional interest. given the arab world's central importance to the islamic world, we can by extension say that iraq's interest is intertwined with the islamic interest generally. the islamic interest, as i perceive it, should be sovereignty, genuine sovereignty, for all muslim nations even if (oh no!) those musim nations have to work together to achieve that end. on this basis, it is not just iraq who has something to say about iraq. as for how israel has benefitted, it is quite clear that saddam as a nationalist pan-arabist (pan-arabist of couse as long as the arabs saw him as their leader) was an open enemy to israel. getting rid of him got rid of a powerful albeit neutered enemy of israel. as long as the new regime is "responsible" with their status as leaders of iraq, israel is more secure, where 'responsible' means that iraq can have no political position outside of itself. if you read the SOFA document, the only true sovereignty is given to the United States forces on official duty regardless of where on Iraqi soil they may be. in a sense, it is like a fluid sovereign united states enclave that moves in tandem with and is intrinsic to "official US duty." sounds to me like iraq remains a client state. from here: SOFA does give power to Iraq to demand 100% withdrawal of US forces at any time. it remains to be seen whether the US will honor that. i have my doubts. here is what Syed Fadlullah says about the attempts at colonialism and imperialism in the region and why it should be everyone's business: [this is from his biography on his official website] assuming iraq is an independent iraqi concern whose national interest is limited to the borders of iraq is petty nationalism, given the history and the reality. i don't trust the imperial powers. they give no reason to believe they have anything but their own interests at heart.
  24. in the pacific northwest usa, dude is practically formal english. when hangin with my homies i say it a least 10 times per hour. if i want to be more informal, i would say 'yo dawg, wasssup?' kidding, i almost never use dawg. dude, however, is quite common and is not really considered disrespectful, although it sounds funny if you say it to someone sig. older.
×
×
  • Create New...