"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

"Any Muslim who opposes our fatwa is not a true Muslim and is betraying Islam," said Mohammad Masood Madani, a cleric of the Darul Uloom Deoband, known for its conservative views.

"She had a physical relationship with her father-in-law. It does not matter whether it was consensual or forced. She cannot live with her husband."

Mr Admin please confirm that ^^^ is not the teaching of the deobandi's

cos a certain deoband comes to mind

Ur right the teachings in that case was made by a Deobandi

"MuslimSister" wrote:

To ‘protect’ Hindu girls, BJP govt orders 2 colleges to swap buildings...

...But with the government adamant on implementing the decision, there are fears that several Muslim girls in MLB could be wary of moving out of the old city area and travelling to Hamidia, a co-educational college.

A former professor at MLB college Shaifqa Farhat says that a large number of Muslim girls may lose out on higher education if the college was shifted out. Social activists even formed a human chain recently protesting against the decision. The activists and students say that the excuse of ‘‘eve teasing’’ is just that—an excuse.

‘‘If this is the reason that government is dishing out then clearly it is an admission that the law and order in the city is bad and the government cannot provide security to the children,’’ says social activist Abdul Jabbar. He points out that a significant number of burqa-clad girls used to attend the college despite resistance from their family members. ‘‘Now their families will get a reason to stop them from attending the college,’’ said Jabbar.

[url=http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=73455]Link[/url]

gosh so basically, theyr trying to prevent muslim girls from being educated - everyone knows education is a strength.... :evil:

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

"Any Muslim who opposes our fatwa is not a true Muslim and is betraying Islam," said Mohammad Masood Madani, a cleric of the Darul Uloom Deoband, known for its conservative views.

"She had a physical relationship with her father-in-law. It does not matter whether it was consensual or forced. She cannot live with her husband."

Mr Admin please confirm that ^^^ is not the teaching of the deobandi's

cos a certain deoband comes to mind

I am not a deobandi, so I do not know.

If that is their opinion, it seems extremely stupid. (now lets wait for *someone* to come and say I am insulting their teachers again :lol:)

We can all wait for him to arrive, and hopefully he will give a straight answer. To the question, and not a question he has imagined and wants to answer. (heh, we could still tease him with the real question.)

Yes, you get different types of deobandis,

"Admin" wrote:

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

Mr Admin please confirm that ^^^ is not the teaching of the deobandi's

cos a certain deoband comes to mind

I am not a deobandi, so I do not know.

If that is their opinion, it seems extremely stupid. (now lets wait for *someone* to come and say I am insulting their teachers again :lol:)

We can all wait for him to arrive, and hopefully he will give a straight answer. To the question, and not a question he has imagined and wants to answer. (heh, we could still tease him with the real question.)

heyyy, admin no need to get all personal. i thought u were above that. :? and at the end of the day, these are scholars u r referring to so have some respect, even if u disagree with their opinions.

lilsis, from what i know "Darul-Uloom Deoband" is where the deobandi sect originated from - there is no other Deoband. i guess some deobandis are more conservative than others, as is the case in all sects. but i will find out from Mufti Muhammad (who i usually quote) whether this really is the genuine deobandi stance on the case.

Yes, sorry. It was in jest. I should use more emoticons (or better, keep my proverbial mouth shut).

However, I do not know the deoband position on this. If its what has been suggested, IMO it is wrong.

However, you must admit he did not answer the question last time.

I can stand views that are drastically different to mine. As long as the individual has the guts to mention theirs. Everyone has different views on different scenario's. Its nature. I will defend the right for everyone to have a different view to mine. However I will oppose it if I feel so.

But if you hide your view, you are a mouse. Noone respects a mouse.

You are right tho, I should never get personal.

(End rant :twisted: )

"MuslimSister" wrote:

I find it impossible to believe that a sane individual could be capable of such an act.

i totally agree...i mean no one in their right mind would have the cold heart to kill anyone never mind their own parents

Apprently that case of the rape of the indian woman who was then ordered to marry her father in law was false

On June 30, Dr. Tasleem Rahmani, president of the Muslim Political Council, called a press conference in Delhi in which he showed a 3-hour video in which Imrana appeared saying that no rape had taken place, that she was given five thousand rupees by a "feminist organization".

Rahmani said that the case was blown out of proportion to malign the Muslims and the Shari`ah. He planned to file a complaint in the Press Council of India against "irresponsible" reporting. Most newspapers and channels chose not to carry Rahmani's statement.

Full story here [url=http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-07/04/article04.shtml]Islam Online[/url]

her story was plastered everywhere...yet I doubt that ^^^ side of the story will be :roll:

UK cleric Abu Hamza's trial opens

LONDON, England (AP) -- Radical Islamic cleric Abu Hamza al-Mazri has appeared in a London court on charges including encouraging the murder of Jews and other non-Muslims.

Tuesday had been set for the start of Abu Hamza's trial, but the first session was taken up with legal arguments, which are expected to continue all week. Court orders forbid any reporting of the arguments, which take place without a jury present.

He pleaded innocent to all charges at a hearing in January.

"From my point of view and Abu Hamza's point of view, we don't see Muslims as terrorists, we see the Western governments as the real terrorists," the cleric's spokesman, Abu Abdullah, said in a telephone interview.

"Blair and Bush have killed more people in Iraq and Afghanistan than Osama bin Laden is accused of killing. Who are the real terrorists?"

[url=http://www.islam4you.co.uk/news/articles/249/1/UK-cleric-Abu-Hamza%26%23...

Quote:

[size=18]Cricket star confirms son to wed [/size]

Former Pakistani cricket captain, Javed Miandad, has confirmed his son will marry the daughter of India's most wanted man on 23 July.
Junaid Miandad became engaged to Mahrukh, the daughter of Dawood Ibrahim, last month.

Mr Ibrahim is wanted on charges of masterminding a number of bombings in Mumbai (Bombay) in 1993 that left more than 300 people dead.

Javed Miandad said the marriage would take place in Dubai.

The couple met while studying in England.

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/4673309.stm]BBC[/url]

Wow, wierd news Irfan.

And [url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2005320086,00.html]community talks, blacklisted scholars, terror, police and The Sun[/url]

It does seem pretty stupid for the police to allow it. Misguided outreach.

"100" wrote:

[url=http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,31-2005320086,00.html]community talks, blacklisted scholars, terror, police and The Sun[/url]

It does seem pretty stupid for the police to allow it. Misguided outreach.

"The Sun" wrote:

Extremist Islamic scholar Tariq Ramadan, who backs suicide bombings, is to address a London conference part-funded by police.

No. You are misguided.

Tariq Ramadan is far from being an extremist.

He speaks in this country all the time. I don't see why people are trying to undermine him, unless ofcourse this is just another attempt to discredit moderate Muslim speakers and present Islam itself as extremist.

Fair enough. I don't recall much about him. Why is he banned there and invited here?

"100" wrote:

Fair enough. I don't recall much about him. Why is he banned there and invited here?

He is not banned from any country.

He was refused a visa to the US after being offered a post a Notre Dame University.

"irfan" wrote:

"100" wrote:

Fair enough. I don't recall much about him. Why is he banned there and invited here?

He is not banned from any country.

He was refused a visa to the US after being offered a post a Notre Dame University.

the Sun seems to be doing a good job of sensationalising their news... :?

Thank you. I went reading up and there's certainly people who object to him, suggesting either that he has inherited his father's Muslim Brotherhood affiliations or that he is pursuing a bizarre line on Islam and Europe and that his moderation is a ruse, but I have to say it's all far from conclusive. He's written views I would be very reluctant to challenge such as [url=http://www.tariqramadan.com/article.php3?id_article=0378&lang=en]this[/url] lovely Guardian piece. On the other hand [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariq_Ramadan]he's alleged to be duplicitous[/url]. If he's duplicitous that's particularly cynical. I'm more inclined to think, he's not got it all sorted but he believes what he believes and he's intellectual enough and open enough to dialogue, and if he's being duplicitous well, there's either good evidence of that or it's an unhelpful claim. I have to say, I can see that's the borderline between being vigilant and being bigotted. (That's the annoying thing about the ideological aspect of [I've decided to call it] Islamic Supremacism, that it's designed to stay hidden but I really hate vague suspicion). So I'm undecided on Ramadan anyway.

Edit following Aasiyah's comment. The article in The Sun said:

Quote:

In one breath he condemns the horrors in London and Madrid. But through seemingly reasoned arguments he justifies similar attacks where Muslims are oppressed.

I have to agree with Aasiyeh, that's not outright hostility or grand politicking on Ramadan's part so unless there's a suggestion of funding such operations it's nothing to go off. The Sun usually throws it's oar in unreservedly so if there's really good evidence they would probably include it. It's one thing to start a debate about the man's views and get alternatives in, another to object to his presence.

Criticisms in the Western media of Tariq Ramadan only began after he made comments about French Jewish intellectuals which they took to be anti-Semitic... need I say more.

Quote:

need i say more

Yes.

"100" wrote:

Quote:

need i say more

Yes.

The undeserved label of anti-Semitism has stuck with him ever since. Any analysis of him is now coloured by the label 'anti-Semite'.

People who go around accusing any goyim who dares to even mention the word 'Jew' probably don't tire in letting anyone and everyone know that Tariq Ramadan is an 'anti-Semite'. (Does this sentence make me an anti-Semite?)

I've found a very nice piece by [url=http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/about-me/]this guy[/url] on that. The author is clearly not being petty and divisive, as The Sun was, and as Irfan was just now.

Quote:

[url=http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2003/11/tariq-ramadan-a/]Tariq Ramadan: A European Muslim Attacks French Jewish IntellectualsNovember 17, 2003[/url]

Today’s New York Times article, A Muslim Scholar Raises Hackles in France, outlines some of the controversial views of Tariq Ramadan, a European Muslim intellectual who has excoriated French Jewish intellectuals for their support of the effort to topple Sadaam Hussein. After doing further research, I came across Watch: Covering the War on Terrorism which features Tariq Ramadan accused of anti-Semitism, a translation of an October 10th article that appeared in Le Monde. This article portrays the Ramadan controversy in much greater depth and with more nuance than the Times version.

Here’s how the Times characterized the debate:

Mr. Ramadan touched off a verbal firestorm last month after he posted an essay on a Muslim Internet site suggesting that a number of French intellectuals (whom he identified as Jewish) took political positions because of their Jewishness.

Even before the most recent Israeli-Palestinian crisis, he wrote, “Jewish French intellectuals, who until then we had considered universal thinkers, started to develop analyses on the national and international front that were more and more biased toward the concerns of their community.” Their interests “as Jews or as nationalists or as defenders of Israel” came before equality and justice, he added.

He criticized, among others, three of the most high-profile intellectuals in France–Bernard-Henri Levy, Andre Glucksmann and Bernard Kouchner–for supporting to varying degrees the overthrow of Saddam Hussein’s government in Iraq.

Meanwhile, Ramadan’s views of his own community are equally provocative. As best I can summarize them based on this article, Ramadan believes that European Muslims should become militant within their respective societies in their pursuit of both their rights as Muslims and their responsibilities as citizens. He calls this a “silent revolution” and urges his fellow European Muslims to be “bombs” within their communities.

What Ramadan seems to lose sight of is that French Jewish intellectuals struggle with the very same issues within their own communities as he does within his own; and often their responses are not that dissimilar. If they chose to, could not Jewish intellectuals accuse Ramadan of the very same narrow and parochial pursuit of religious interest?

As for whether Ramadan’s characterization of the French intellectuals as “biased toward the concerns of their community” is anti-Semitism–that may be pushing things too far. What one can say is that Ramadan’s critique is wrongheaded. By being concerned with the interests of their fellow Jews, they do not necessarily lose the right to be called “universal thinkers” any more than Ramadan himself, by urging Muslims to take their rightful place as Muslims in European society, deserves to be called “biased towards his own community.”

Another troubling aspect of Ramadan’s attack is that he contends that their support for the Iraq War constitutes a retreat from “universal thinking” and is biased toward the concerns of their community. Knowing of Sadaam’s deep hatred toward Israel and Jews, knowing of the missles he launched which landed in Israel killing many innocents, does any Jew need to explain why he believes Sadaam a menace and believes that world would be well rid of him?

I must add at this point, that I myself did not, and do not support the Iraq War; not because of any sympathy for Sadaam Hussein. But because George Bush’s policy, strategy and tactics toward Iraq seemed based on fantasy, ideology and anything but cold hard reason. So in a sense Ramadan and I might agree on a few things. But I would never attack, criticize or suspect the motives of Levy, Glucksmann or Kouchner for supporting the War. There are plenty of good reasons to think that toppling Sadaam is a good idea. I just utterly oppose Bush’s prosecution of the War as being the worst possible way of going about doing that.

Ramadan’s misrepresentation of Levy, Glucksmann and Kouchner reminds us once again of how little Muslims and Jews understand each other. What the Jew does, says or believes becomes immediately suspect even though it might perfectly mirror what the Muslim does, says or believes. It is a sorry reflection of the disintegration taking place on a larger and more destructive stage in the Middle East itself.

No, that sentence doesn't make you an anti-semite but it doesn't explain your previous need I say more, which is slimy. I'm sure to be honest I could handle hearing all kinds of rubbish from Muslims and I would understand they aren't anti-semites, but some of their mates and family are, perhaps out of ignorance of any Jews.

"MuslimSister" wrote:

I can't find the right link...but did anyone watch Amir Khan's debut fight the other night?

I rate how fast he knocked the other guy out.

my sister came upstairs 2 tell me the fight has started n by the time we got downstairs it was over!!!...so had 2 watch the replay lol

hes an excellant boxer...n Insha'Allah he'l go far in his career

Apparently there’s nothing Amir Khan enjoys more than a pint down the pub with his old man.

"irfan" wrote:

Apparently there’s nothing Amir Khan enjoys more than a pint down the pub with his old man.

Really? Did he say that?

and here's me thinking that he a good Pakistani boy ready for his marraige back home

"MuslimSisLilSis" wrote:

"irfan" wrote:

Apparently there’s nothing Amir Khan enjoys more than a pint down the pub with his old man.

Really? Did he say that?

and here's me thinking that he a good Pakistani boy ready for his marraige back home

yeh i also thought he was a good decent guy

My mate met one of Amir Khan's mates, and he told him.