Valentine's Day

[OneNoteSong 132]

When you get married, are you planning to celebrate Valentine's Day? Or, do you think it's haraam and a waste of time?

[Calm 68]

When you get married, are you planning to celebrate Valentine's Day? Or, do you think it's haraam and a waste of time?

1-It's not haraam, no Shia scholar ever said it's haram so we're done with that.

2-Why on earth would it be a waste of time for a married couple to celebrate one day of the year filled with some special romance and expressed love? This day happens to be love's day for every two who love each other, why would married people be exempt.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Calm

[Rohani 637]

1-It's not haraam, no Shia scholar ever said it's haram so we're done with that.

2-Why on earth would it be a waste of time for a married couple to celebrate one day of the year filled with some special romance and expressed love? This day happens to be love's day for every two who love each other, why would married people be exempt.

(salam)

I had someone bring up a question about this being celebrated in iran to me.have you come across any marja giving permission for it in a fatwa? i would be interested in seeing some if you have.

(wasalam)

[Calm 68]

(salam)

I had someone bring up a question about this being celebrated in iran to me.have you come across any marja giving permission for it in a fatwa? i would be interested in seeing some if you have.

(wasalam)

Sister, celebrating a romantic day in the year with your husband whether it's called Valentine or XWZ day, is mubaah, meaning not wajib, not haraam just permissible. Marja's do not issue a fatwa in the halalness of everything however if something is haraam they issue a fatwa, so Valentine's celebration is halal since NO marja said it's haraam. it's like eating ice cream on Ice Cream's day.

[hijabiprincess 3]

Sister, celebrating a romantic day in the year with your husband whether it's called Valentine or XWZ day, is mubaah, meaning not wajib, not haraam just permissible. Marja's do not issue a fatwa in the halalness of everything however if something is haraam they issue a fatwa, so Valentine's celebration is halal since NO marja said it's haraam. it's like eating ice cream on Ice Cream's day.

Both comments well said i totally agree. There is nothing wrong in it. Tho forgive me for my ignorance is there really such a day such as ice cream day? I did a quick search on google and i believe it said its celebrated in the US. Is that right? I have never heard of this event. Tho i guess its like pancake day, its just an excuse to eat pancakes!

[MBS110 0]

inshallah, my everyday will be a valentine's day once i'm married....

...."mr future-hubby are u listening?" :wub: :wub: :wub:

[Muskaan 21]

When you get married, are you planning to celebrate Valentine's Day? Or, do you think it's haraam and a waste of time?

I donno about haraam or waste of time...but surely nobody happier on VDay than the florists, restaraunt & hotel owners, card sellers, confectioners, bakers etc. Should be renamed a Big Hoohaa Day.

[Leda 4]

When you get married, are you planning to celebrate Valentine's Day? Or, do you think it's haraam and a waste of time?

It's not haram, have fun. ENJOY

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

Sister, celebrating a romantic day in the year with your husband whether it's called Valentine or XWZ day, is mubaah, meaning not wajib, not haraam just permissible. Marja's do not issue a fatwa in the halalness of everything however if something is haraam they issue a fatwa, so Valentine's celebration is halal since NO marja said it's haraam. it's like eating ice cream on Ice Cream's day.

Sister,

Yes you are correct. But doesn't Islam also tell us to use reason?

Reason tells us a few things about Valentine's day:

1) It is just another capitalist, profit-driven holiday. Love has nothing to do with it.

2) It is just another way the imperialists can export their culture to our countries. In the IRI, for example, Valentine's day has become very popular.

3) Husbands and wives need to love each other and appreciate each other every day, not be vile toward each other almost every day only to buy flowers and/or chocolates one day of the year.

Considering these reasons, I think this is something we should definitely avoid.

[Guest]

^Agreed.

My god, it's not always a halal vs. haram issue. Sometimes its just a common sense vs. insanity issue. So many stupid holidays are made for the purpose of giving people excuses to buy things, to consume excessively, and therefore giving others excuses for others to make money off the whole thing. It's increasing the surface area of capitalism's reach.

Ever notice how, at least in the US, there is this inescapable "holiday" cycle every month? You go from Halloween to Thanksgiving to Christmas to New Year to Valentine's Day to St. Patrick's Day to Easter to Mother's/Father's Day to Independence Day to whatever else and then the cycle repeats again and again and again.

You know what common thread unites these all? That's right. Buy! Buy! Buy! Consume! Consume! Consume! From candy to toys to alcohol to barbecues to gifts to more candy and then to more gifts to whatever else. It's an excuse for people to drink heavily, eat heavily, party heavily, and ultimately spend heavily.

There is virtually no meaning or purpose behind these holidays other than this narrow spectrum hedonism. There is virtually no sacrifice, no reflection, no introspection. I know why we have fasting in Ramadan now, and that is because partially it slaps this whole mindless prison in the face.

People can enjoy it if they want, but know they are just following some well crafted marketing campaign. Nothing wrong with that, but know that there is really no more substance than that. If you take your head out of the sand and attempt to try to find any meaning beyond the superficial, you will become massively disappointed. Perhaps then that will give us a greater appreciation for days with actual significance, such as Eid-al Fitr, Eid-al Adha, the birthdays of our divine messengers, Victory of Islamic Revolution, etc.

[OneNoteSong 132]

Sister,

Yes you are correct. But doesn't Islam also tell us to use reason?

Reason tells us a few things about Valentine's day:

1) It is just another capitalist, profit-driven holiday. Love has nothing to do with it.

2) It is just another way the imperialists can export their culture to our countries. In the IRI, for example, Valentine's day has become very popular.

3) Husbands and wives need to love each other and appreciate each other every day, not be vile toward each other almost every day only to buy flowers and/or chocolates one day of the year.

Considering these reasons, I think this is something we should definitely avoid.

I don't see why it can't be a day just to celebrate love. For instance, a husband can cook his wife a dinner and get her a bouquet of not-so-expensive flowers. So, he ends up spending very little money=avoid capitalism. It's okay to spend a LITTLE money to celebrate your love, you just need to go overboard buying $100000s on one day.

[Psychopath 67]

You know what common thread unites these all? That's right. Buy! Buy! Buy! Consume! Consume! Consume! From candy to toys to alcohol to barbecues to gifts to more candy and then to more gifts to whatever else. It's an excuse for people to drink heavily, eat heavily, party heavily, and ultimately spend heavily.

Drama, drama, drama!

[3ashiqat-Al-Batoul 11]

I agree that most if not all holidays are ways for companies to make money from consumers, I don't think anybody can deny that.

BUT, just like there is a day for people to celebrate their birthday, there are days to celebrate other things like love. And you don't have to spend a lot of money, or any at all if you don't want to. You can have a home cooked dinner with candles, dress nicely, etc with your spouse.

Most days we're so busy school/work/raising kids/cleaning house, etc etc we barely have time to sit and talk to our husband/wife. So setting aside a day to celebrate your love is a very good idea. Doing this continuously several times a year is even better, but if you cant, Valentines day is a good day to put everything aside and express love for each other.

[DoubleAgent4 1,493]

Just because you celebrate Valentine's Day it doesn't mean that you have to go out of your league to buy extravagant things for your wife/husband. It's just a day when you should be extra loving towards your partner and be extra helpful toward each other on that day etc. It shouldn't be about wasting all your money for no apparent reason. If this day makes someone happy then there shouldn't be any reason on why it shouldn't be celebrated. Valentines Day originated from Rome I think... it was when St Valentine went to prison because he married people in secret as men weren't allowed to get married due to the fact that they would not join the army if they had a family. It's an interesting story ...

[Guest]

I don't see why it can't be a day just to celebrate love. For instance, a husband can cook his wife a dinner and get her a bouquet of not-so-expensive flowers. So, he ends up spending very little money=avoid capitalism. It's okay to spend a LITTLE money to celebrate your love, you just need to go overboard buying $100000s on one day.

Please, with all due respect, that is extremely naive thinking. You have to think about society as a whole, not the theoretical willpower of a few exceptional individuals. The whole holiday is based and promoted on the fact that people will not be modest and will go overboard. Otherwise it would not be marketable. You are not avoiding capitalism, far from it, you are simply cutting off a few branches when the root is still very much alive and strong.

Anyway, there are much better ways to be celebrate love other than these ridiculous cliches and ridiculous psychological marketing campaigns. How about celebrating love by just living life? By going to the park in the afternoon? What authority are these people to tell us that "love" comes on this particular day, with these particular images, with these products, and with this and that setup?

[DoubleAgent4 1,493]

I don't see why it can't be a day just to celebrate love. For instance, a husband can cook his wife a dinner and get her a bouquet of not-so-expensive flowers. So, he ends up spending very little money=avoid capitalism. It's okay to spend a LITTLE money to celebrate your love, you just need to go overboard buying $100000s on one day.

EXACTLY!

[Guest]

[Photi 9]

bah humbug!

[Bonafide Hustler 67]

What a useless holiday this is, when it comes to the husband its almost like working overtime after all that he has worked for the whole year. Cant a brother get a day off?? NOOO hes gotta buy her the most perfect thoughtful gift. This holiday should be haramified simply due to the heartless murder of innocent rose plants. You think these plants find it romantic?

More romantic would be a perfectly sliced beef steak popped into the oven exactly 35 min prior to the husbands knock on the door.

[OneNoteSong 132]

And a wife may choose to make her husband that nice steak...maybe on some other random day, maybe on V day.

[BabyBeaverIsAKit 249]

I don't think it is very logical for Muslims to attack capitalism. Is it, perhaps jealousy, that drives people to attack it? I understand that Islam has some socialist concepts, but so do societies like the US, where capitalism exists. It might behoove some societies to give capitalism a shot-- it seems to be working for the US, a world power.

Although I'm not an economist, I know that you need to spend money to make money. If no one ever spent money, our economies would not function.

Edited March 26, 2010 by BabyBeaverIsAKit

[Guest]

I don't think it is very logical for Muslims to attack capitalism. Is it, perhaps jealousy, that drives people to attack it? I understand that Islam has some socialist concepts, but so do societies like the US, where capitalism exists. It might behoove some societies to give capitalism a shot-- it seems to be working for the US, a world power.

I really don't think you have an understanding of what capitalism or socialism really means. They are extensive terms that really require careful studying. All I know is that saying the US is a "capitalist" society is a gross understatement. Rather, it is a corporate oligarchical state, who's fate is very much sealed, and just like the USSR, will collapse on its own weight. It's taking a little longer, but it will happen nonetheless. We have been seeing the signs of a US economic collapse for many years now, with now even more self-evident than ever.

Many societies have given capitalism a shot, most not by choice, but by the point of a gun. You can see how it has affected a majority of the world's population.

It's not just Muslims who should go after capitalism, but any other sane human being who understands that a society built on overzealous consumption and excess can not self-perpetuate itself. It's like pushing a car on high acceleration with no breaks working. Eventually you will crash into something, but hey, it was still a fun ride wasn't it?

Although I'm not an economist, I know that you need to spend money to make money. If no one ever spent money, our economies would not function.

This is a basic rule of life. This existed way before "capitalism" as we know it emerged, and it will stay long after capitalism is long gone. People said the same kind of argument during the days of slavery and feudalism.

"If we free all the slaves, our economies would not function."

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

I don't think it is very logical for Muslims to attack capitalism. Is it, perhaps jealousy, that drives people to attack it? I understand that Islam has some socialist concepts, but so do societies like the US, where capitalism exists. It might behoove some societies to give capitalism a shot-- it seems to be working for the US, a world power.

Although I'm not an economist, I know that you need to spend money to make money. If no one ever spent money, our economies would not function.

First of all sister, Islam has no socialist concepts. Islam espoused certain concepts that, 1200-1300 years later, socialists caught up on and began to espouse (although in a [Edited Out]ized, perverted form which reduces human beings to one common denominator).

Secondly, of course capitalism works for the US. Capitalism is a system in which exploitation is an inherent trait; capitalism cannot exist without exploitation. At first, capitalism exploited certain people within a country to the benefit of other people within that country. But today, capitalism is the exploitation of certain countries to the benefit of other countries. Imperialism and neo-colonialism are the aggressive stages of capitalism. Capitalism reached this stage out of fear their their own populations would turn to Marxism. By doing this, they exploit people who are powerless to overthrow their system. That's how they have preserved their system in spite of its inherently oppressive nature.

Capitalism rules the world. It's not as if we sit and choose whether to adopt capitalism or to not adopt capitalism (which I believe you are suggesting). Muslim countries are all part of the global capitalist system; however, they are in this system as a part of the exploited. And as such, the capitalism in Nigeria or Egypt, for example, is not the same as the capitalism of the US and Europe. Even if countries resist this oppressive system -- as the IRI is currently doing -- it is an irresistible force which will overcome all defiance sooner or later. There is a reason why it governs the world.

As for "spending money," there are two ways of spending money. One is to invest in some other enterprise, and the other is to consume a finished product. The goal of capitalism is to have certain people using their money to invest in "some other enterprise," and to have as many people as possible consuming the finished products (which are the fruits of that enterprise). Meaning, if we as consumers buy flowers and chocolates on Valetine's day, we are not seeking returns on investment, because that's not an investment. It's just consumption.

Anyway this is one of my favorite topics so I might have more to say later on. For I will conclude in saying that embracing capitalism is not something that should be done. Rather it is something that we have been doing for quite some time, and which we should seek to stop doing.

(wasalam)

Edited March 26, 2010 by baradar_jackson

[Photi 9]

First of all sister, Islam has no socialist concepts. Islam espoused certain concepts that, 1200-1300 years later, socialists caught up on and began to espouse (although in a [Edited Out]ized, perverted form which reduces human beings to one common denominator).

Secondly, of course capitalism works for the US. Capitalism is a system in which exploitation is an inherent trait; capitalism cannot exist without exploitation. At first, capitalism exploited certain people within a country to the benefit of other people within that country. But today, capitalism is the exploitation of certain countries to the benefit of other countries. Imperialism and neo-colonialism are the aggressive stages of capitalism. Capitalism reached this stage out of fear their their own populations would turn to Marxism. By doing this, they exploit people who are powerless to overthrow their system. That's how they have preserved their system in spite of its inherently oppressive nature.

Capitalism rules the world. It's not as if we sit and choose whether to adopt capitalism or to not adopt capitalism (which I believe you are suggesting). Muslim countries are all part of the global capitalist system; however, they are in this system as a part of the exploited. And as such, the capitalism in Nigeria or Egypt, for example, is not the same as the capitalism of the US and Europe. Even if countries resist this oppressive system -- as the IRI is currently doing -- it is an irresistible force which will overcome all defiance sooner or later. There is a reason why it governs the world.

As for "spending money," there are two ways of spending money. One is to invest in some other enterprise, and the other is to consume a finished product. The goal of capitalism is to have certain people using their money to invest in "some other enterprise," and to have as many people as possible consuming the finished products (which are the fruits of that enterprise). Meaning, if we as consumers buy flowers and chocolates on Valetine's day, we are not seeking returns on investment, because that's not an investment. It's just consumption.

Anyway this is one of my favorite topics so I might have more to say later on. For I will conclude in saying that embracing capitalism is not something that should be done. Rather it is something that we have been doing for quite some time, and which we should seek to stop doing.

(wasalam)

good post, what do you thnk about "responsible" capitalism, or is there such a thing?

re: the comment in bold.  i am not so sure that is right, there is a dinner phase of valentine's day and then there is the dessert phase.  i think men have an eye towards the dessert for their ROI.

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

good post, what do you thnk about "responsible" capitalism, or is there such a thing?

re: the comment in bold.  i am not so sure that is right, there is a dinner phase of valentine's day and then there is the dessert phase.  i think men have an eye towards the dessert for their ROI.

Brother isn't what we are witnessing today "responsible capitalism?" Capitalists always seek to exploit. When the Keynesian model was implemented in the industrialized Western countries, they were forced to turn elsewhere to find people to exploit. But so long as capitalism is permitted to exist, capitalists will actively seek out those whom they can exploit (regardless of the legal barriers that may stand in their way), and there will always be a group of people capable of being exploited.

If what you say ROI is right, then we should mourn for humanity. Even our martial relationships have been reduced to "incentive-based" economics, grounded purely in self-interest!

[Photi 9]

Brother isn't what we are witnessing today "responsible capitalism?" Capitalists always seek to exploit. When the Keynesian model was implemented in the industrialized Western countries, they were forced to turn elsewhere to find people to exploit. But so long as capitalism is permitted to exist, capitalists will actively seek out those whom they can exploit (regardless of the legal barriers that may stand in their way), and there will always be a group of people capable of being exploited.

If what you say ROI is right, then we should mourn for humanity. Even our martial relationships have been reduced to "incentive-based" economics, grounded purely in self-interest!

i think we see instances of responsible capitalism, but on a global scale most of it is still oppressive. 

i guess i disagree that imperialism is an aggressive stage of capitalism.  i would say aggressive capitalism uses imperialism to secure resources.   maybe the distinction is slightly semantic, but i do see a difference.  imperialism pre-dates modern capitalism and is the means by which any nation-state or empire seeks to acquire wealth which does not belong to them.  i think imperialism exists regardless of the economic system under which it operates.  the middle kingdom of egypt became an imperial power and yet i don't think anyone argues that they were capitalists. 

the point is that by your phraseology imperialism and advanced capitalism are one and the same thing.  by looking at them separately, one can resist one (imperialism) while advocating the other (modern capitalism).   for all its ills, regulated capitalism results in the most equitable distribution of wealth.  capitalism is the economic precondition which gave rise to the middle class, and it is the middle class that allows for diversified economies to exist.  the diversified economies fuel progress and scientific pursuits, and these economies also provide the funds necessary to educate the people who are required to put this whole thing in motion.  with such a highly literate, educated population people are finally able to pursue knowledge on their own as well as they are able to exercise political will, previously the domain of the ruling class. 

going back to your statement that the exploiters were forced to operate on foreign lands as a result of the capitalists fear of the population turning to marxism, i think that is an oversimplification of history.  what happened was that in the advanced industrialized economies, the means for people to resist exploitation by the privileged few become more and more available.  whether we are talking about labor unions, advocacy and environmentalist groups, lobbyists, or other such experts and and civil societies, the biggest exploitation of all--labor--became more difficult to secure (i.e. it became more expensive).  this led to outsourcing of all types.  in addition to that, the world is replete with resources and as resources became more scarce in the homeland (either due to exhaustion of resources or prevention of extraction due to regulations), the adventurous secured and exploited resources elsewhere.  

the reason i have got into all this is that your solution appears to be to resist capitalism (and from my vantage point, the IRI is resisting imperialism, not capitalism), whereas my solution is more pragmatic.  the key to resistance is accepting that capitalism is not only here to stay, but because it is congruent with human nature and is not in and of itself against Islam (excessive consumption is likely a different story), the oppressed need to learn from those who were able to resist the oppression.  they need to develop strategies to diversify their economies, grow their middle class, and develop their civil society institutions so that the rights of the citizens can more responsibly be looked after.  

civil society (or other less formal associational networks) is a threat to rulers who turn away from accountability, and as such civil society appears to be destabilizing giving said rulers a pretext to repress.  however, in the long term, the initially destabilizing currents of civil society eventually lead to a strong nation-states.  a world full of strong nation-states is a world able to resist the exploitation of the imperialists as they (the imperialists) are nothing more than opportunists preying on the weak.  long story short, the focus should be on failed states, not aggressive capitalism.    

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

i think we see instances of responsible capitalism, but on a global scale most of it is still oppressive. 

i guess i disagree that imperialism is an aggressive stage of capitalism.  i would say aggressive capitalism uses imperialism to secure resources.   maybe the distinction is slightly semantic, but i do see a difference.  imperialism pre-dates modern capitalism and is the means by which any nation-state or empire seeks to acquire wealth which does not belong to them.  i think imperialism exists regardless of the economic system under which it operates.  the middle kingdom of egypt became an imperial power and yet i don't think anyone argues that they were capitalists. 

the point is that by your phraseology imperialism and advanced capitalism are one and the same thing.  by looking at them separately, one can resist one (imperialism) while advocating the other (modern capitalism).   for all its ills, regulated capitalism results in the most equitable distribution of wealth.  capitalism is the economic precondition which gave rise to the middle class, and it is the middle class that allows for diversified economies to exist.  the diversified economies fuel progress and scientific pursuits, and these economies also provide the funds necessary to educate the people who are required to put this whole thing in motion.  with such a highly literate, educated population people are finally able to pursue knowledge on their own as well as they are able to exercise political will, previously the domain of the ruling class. 

going back to your statement that the exploiters were forced to operate on foreign lands as a result of the capitalists fear of the population turning to marxism, i think that is an oversimplification of history.  what happened was that in the advanced industrialized economies, the means for people to resist exploitation by the privileged few become more and more available.  whether we are talking about labor unions, advocacy and environmentalist groups, lobbyists, or other such experts and and civil societies, the biggest exploitation of all--labor--became more difficult to secure (i.e. it became more expensive).  this led to outsourcing of all types.  in addition to that, the world is replete with resources and as resources became more scarce in the homeland (either due to exhaustion of resources or prevention of extraction due to regulations), the adventurous secured and exploited resources elsewhere.  

the reason i have got into all this is that your solution appears to be to resist capitalism (and from my vantage point, the IRI is resisting imperialism, not capitalism), whereas my solution is more pragmatic.  the key to resistance is accepting that capitalism is not only here to stay, but because it is congruent with human nature and is not in and of itself against Islam (excessive consumption is likely a different story), the oppressed need to learn from those who were able to resist the oppression.  they need to develop strategies to diversify their economies, grow their middle class, and develop their civil society institutions so that the rights of the citizens can more responsibly be looked after.  

civil society (or other less formal associational networks) is a threat to rulers who turn away from accountability, and as such civil society appears to be destabilizing giving said rulers a pretext to repress.  however, in the long term, the initially destabilizing currents of civil society eventually lead to a strong nation-states.  a world full of strong nation-states is a world able to resist the exploitation of the imperialists as they (the imperialists) are nothing more than opportunists preying on the weak.  long story short, the focus should be on failed states, not aggressive capitalism.    

The instances of "responsible capitalism" are generally in Europe, and are generally contingent upon the existence of "irresponsible capitalism" elsewhere in the world. For example: in one European country (I forgot which one), roadside guard rails are made from wood rather than from steel. They do this for environmental reasons. But where do they get the wood? From South American rain forests. How many trees in South America do they cut down to "protect the environment" in Europe? God only knows...

As for your distinction, I understand that imperialism pre-dates capitalism. What I am trying to say is that modern imperialism has been subsumed under capitalism (as a defence mechanism). Just as the modern Christian religious establishment has been subsumed under capitalism.

And I do not agree that imperialism can be resisted without resisting capitalism. Imperialism today has manifested itself in neo-liberalism (which in itself is a manifestation of capitalism implemented on a global scale). I would like you to elaborate on this idea because I really cannot divorce imperialism from capitalism no matter how hard I try.

Civil society can be forged without capitalism. Doesn't the IRI have a (comparatively) advanced civil society? Certainly it has a more advanced civil society than all the other poor countries who are quick to adopt capitalism. The whole idea of modernization being impossible without capitalism was debunked when the Soviet Union became an industrial power overnight and caught up with the Western world (which had been in the second century of its industrial revolution).

And the IRI is resisting capitalism by virtue of its resisting imperialism, because capitalism has become a global system. The nation-state, in my humble opinion, is no longer as relevant as it once was.

This is a good discussion though brother.

[rambo007 16]

GUYS N GALS

FYI

14 th FEB

1989

Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie for his book SATANIC VERSES.

SIMPLY PATHETIC, GENERATION SEEMS TO HAVE A GOLD FISH MEMORY .

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES ON A 14TH FEB TO BE DEALT WITH THAN TO GIVE A ROSE FLOWER TO SOMEONE YOU ALREADY IN LOVE WITH.....!!!!

[OneNoteSong 132]

GUYS N GALS

FYI

14 th FEB

1989

Ayatollah Khomeini issued a fatwa against Salman Rushdie for his book SATANIC VERSES.

SIMPLY PATHETIC, GENERATION SEEMS TO HAVE A GOLD FISH MEMORY .

THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES ON A 14TH FEB TO BE DEALT WITH THAN TO GIVE A ROSE FLOWER TO SOMEONE YOU ALREADY IN LOVE WITH.....!!!!

That fatwa wasn't against V day though. Also, it's okay to show your love to someone by giving them flowers. Just because you already "have" them doesn't mean you need to turn into a self-absorbed jerk who doesn't show any appreciation for your spouse.

Edited March 27, 2010 by OneNoteSong

[Guest]

^Forget this.

Please read what I and jackson have said have more carefully. It's not restrictive, it's liberating.

[Marbles 16,028]

Good stuff baradar_jackson. Thumbs up.

The unrestrained, madar pidar aazaad capitalism of our age coming down to less developed countries from wealthy nations is a drug that poisons every nerve, every vein of the body of a society. Nowhere this is more apparent than in Allende's Chile and in Suhartu's Indonesia. The biggest robbers of those two, and other, countries are two notorious loansharks popularly known as IMF and the World Bank. Spit on them both.

Edited March 27, 2010 by Marbles

[s.a.b 2]

Sister, celebrating a romantic day in the year with your husband whether it's called Valentine or XWZ day, is mubaah, meaning not wajib, not haraam just permissible. Marja's do not issue a fatwa in the halalness of everything however if something is haraam they issue a fatwa, so Valentine's celebration is halal since NO marja said it's haraam. it's like eating ice cream on Ice Cream's day.

Is there a Ice cream's day? :!!!: i kid i kid B)

Well i didn't read/heard from any maraja about this matter but if you really wana know then send question to your maraja.

(wasalam)

[baradar_jackson 8,057]

Good stuff baradar_jackson. Thumbs up.

The unrestrained, madar pidar aazaad capitalism of our age coming down to less developed countries from wealthy nations is a drug that poisons every nerve, every vein of the body of a society. Nowhere this is more apparent than in Allende's Chile and in Suhartu's Indonesia. The biggest robbers of those two, and other, countries are two notorious loansharks popularly known as IMF and the World Bank. Spit on them both.

Wait what?

YOU agree with me?

If that's the case then I take it all back!

[Marbles 16,028]

Wait what?

YOU agree with me?

If that's the case then I take it all back!

Dude its fine. You are not THAT bad. You sometimes talk sense. :dry:

[OneNoteSong 132]

Guys, you're just making up excuses to avoid celebrating V day. The truth is, you're either A) afraid of having to spend a few dollars on buying flowers, or B) you're afraid you'll forget this very important day and have your wife mad at you for the rest of the week.