Jump to content
Islamic Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About disabled0335

  • Rank
    Full Member

Previous Fields

  • Marital Status
  • Religion

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    London, UK
  1. Using Other Languages In Prayer

    Salaams The ruling for using another language is only allowed for people who do not know the arabic version of the supplication. So if you have a translation of a known supplication of Rasoolullah, but don't have the Arabic, you can say it in English during sujood. So the following is found in Abu Dawud: "Glory to the One who has all power, kindgom, magnificence and supremity." Since you don't know the Arabic of this, you could say this in English. But I'm assuming you want to ask Allah for something specific in your sujood. But this is only allowed if you can say it in Arabic. So you can either say a sunnah supplication in Arabic like the one below. Then supplicate what you want specifically after the salah. Or, you could ask someone to translate what it is you want to say into Arabic (if it's not sensitive), so you can say it in sujood. Subhaana thi-l jabaroot w-al malakoot w-al kibriyaa w-al 3azama ÓÈÃÇä Ãí ÇáÌÈÑæÊ æÇáãáßæÊ æÇáßÈÑíÇà æ ÇáÚÙãÉ[using large font size is not allowed] I think the first option is better. The sunnah supplication is the best, as this will get you closer to Allah. Saying your personal dua after the salah is just as valid, and of course, Allah swt will hear you. Istikhara is a prayer that Allah guide you towards that which is best (khayr) for you. If you do the prayer of guidance (istikhara) with the proper manners, the most important of which is to truly consign the matter to Allah and suspend your own inclinations, then Allah will make events unfold in the direction that is the best for your worldly and next-worldly affairs. So what happened between you and your friend meant to happen. That doesn't mean the outcome is set in stone. It could be that Allah has put you both in a difficult situation as a test, and as a means to expiate some sins. Perhaps Allah swt has decided that these complications you are facing is the best course for your life. The istikhra prayer doesn't solve life's issues and make everything clear-cut. It is a request to Allah to guide you to the eventual best result. And you should be hopeful that Allah swt answered your prayer and events are unfolding in a beneficial way, even if it doesn't feel like it. So the fact you changed your mind a couple of weeks later doesn't neceassarily make the first decision a wrong one. This is how the events will unfold, as willed by Allah. As Muslims we should strive to be close and friendly with our fellow Muslims. It is good that you are at least saying salam to each other. But sometimes characters clash, despite our best efforts to compromise. If you are feeling sad, I imagine she's feeling the same. Do you see any noticable benefits from cooling the relationship? Do you think she's benefitting? If the answers are no, then you may want to consider trying again, after you've both had some time apart. And you can always do istikhara again, to help guide you.
  2. No interaction whatsoever except with spouse and family members. I remember when I was at university a Muslim girl went up to a brother to get directions. He literally turned away and walked off. The sister was simply bewildered as to what she had done to cause him to turn away like that. I asked the brother why he did that, to which he responded with 'Islam doesn't allow men and women to freely mix.' :sl:
  3. Five Steps For Effective Da'wah

    Except the advice was not to change people's name, was it? The advice was to call people by the name that they like to be called by. The example given was not fully explained which is why you didn't understand it. But I imagine most Muslims know the story so the poster didn't bother narrating all of it. Also, many Muslims have a 'kunya', or nickname. Many people prefer to be called by their kunya because it may have an interesting meaning, or refers to a nice characteristic they have.
  4. Five Steps For Effective Da'wah

    The quote said use the names people like to be called by. The quote of the Prophet s.a.w was when he gave the man a better name. The man was pleased to have this new name and insisted people call him by it and no longer address him using his old name.
  5. Men Restricting Womens Rights!

    Salaams, JazakhAllah khair, that was a nice post. :sl: Peace
  6. Minaret Ban Wins Swiss Support

    I don't respect hypocrisy, even if you do. To claim to be a democratic country with democratic values you must uphold it in all areas. By denying the rights of a minority whilst claiming democracy is hypocrisy. Are you a racist? Let me correct you. Swiss Muslims are not 'guests' or 'newcomers' as many of them are born there or settled immigrants, thus are citizens of that country. Once again, Swiss Muslims and European Muslims do abide by the laws and they do respect the native customs. You are asking them to imitate the natives and deny them the basic democratic right of choosing their own lifestyle. "You can live here as long as you don't do anything too different to us." Your grossly biased views are becoming more evident with each post. You seem to be missing the point that it was the Muslim minority which was singled out with this ban. No other religious group is affected. Therefore, it is discrimination against Muslims. They, as a law abiding community, are not allowed to express their democratic right of choosing their own lifestyle via architecture, which is available to all other people. This is a democratic value being violated. Yet you can't link me a youtube video with your oh-so critical thinking mind? I want you to show me that shrill demands of Muslims affected the vote. Evidence that Swiss Muslims demand special prayer areas during work hours, which affected the vote. That European Muslims do not debate, which affected the vote. That European Muslims went marching in the streets calling for an end to democracy, which in turn affected the vote. This should not be difficult if nothing is hidden. The truth is, nothing you said has any basis. I would have left it at that but your matter-of-fact tone forced me to expose your rather obtuse comments. What your critical thinking mind does not comprehend is that something like one quarter of the Swiss population voted for the ban. So a yes-no referundum was won by only 1/4 of the population. Perhaps if you critically analysed that you might come to the conclusion that the ban might not actually reflect what the majority of Swiss people think. Yet you bang on about respecting Swiss values. You don't know what Swiss values are because turnout was so low. In fact, one thing you do know for sure about Swiss values is that a lot of people simply didn't care about the issue, hence the low turnout. I know you're not going to bring me any evidence to back up what I suspect are slightly racist and discriminatory views, so I'll end with this. The discerning amongst the readers may benefit. Those who are more astute in their thinking will be able to identify this as an example of the dangers of direct democracy. Where mass politics is involved, minorities are always in danger. What protects the rights of minorities is the system. Perhaps 60 or 70 years ago, being homosexual was considered an abomination in many European countries. If referenda were used to determine what rights gay people had back then, you would no doubt have seen homosexuals having almost no rights at all, because the public perception against their lifestyle was so hostile. But what protected this minority was the refusal to give in to mass politics. Governments upheld the rights of a minority who were unpopular because that is what a democracy holds as most valuable. With this in mind, you can see that the Swiss system has failed to protect the rights of a minority who happen to be unpopular at the present time. They now have less rights because they belong to a minority who happen to follow the wrong religion. Those who hold the rather silly view of "it's not a big deal, they can still build Masjids" are ignoring the fact that Muslims have been singled out, which is discrimination and undemocratic.
  7. I see you have refused to answer any of my questions, It doesn't matter, because your original point has been refuted by one example. In the 1950s (for example), people who considered the Reichstag fire to be a false flag operation were expressing a conspiracy theory (retrospectively). It was a conspiracy theory because there was no factual evidence to link the Nazis with the fire. According to your first post, these people who believed this were lacking in critical thinking, like all conspiracy theories. However, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, the Gestapo arhives, which were not available before, confirmed that the Nazis were involved in the fire. Thus the conspiracy theorists were correct. You can argue the semantics about critical thinking if you like, but your underlying premise is that all conspiracy theories are wrong. The Reichstag fire example proves you wrong.
  8. Minaret Ban Wins Swiss Support

    Yes, which is what Swiss and Europeans Muslims do. The core value is to obey the law. But you want more than that. Not only obey the law (which is the core value) but to immitate the natives. No, your statements are stupid. What you said about the Swiss was stupid. What you said about European Muslims was stupid. Are you going to provide any evidence for anything you said in your first post? Yes I would. You gonna give us any evidence for these 'facts'? Show me what your using that says events in Europe were a determining factor for the minority of Swiss who voted for the ban? I demand the protection of minorities from mass politics. The issue here is that Switzerland is a democratic nation, which claims to uphold democratic values. Yet their system has allowed a minority to be victims. They have not said cathedrals or synogoues cannot be constructed, they've specifically singled out the 300,000 Muslim population. Anyway, your half baked thinking has been exposed. You are unable to justify your claim that 'shrill' demands of European Muslims amongst other things were a determining factor in the Swiss vote. You've not acknowledged that only 57% of the 53% who bothered to vote pushed the ban through, meaning this wasn't really a reflection of the Swiss people at all. It exposes the farcical nature of referenda, when only a quarter of the people are needed to push legislation through because of a lack of turnout. I'm not from Saudi Arabia, so they are not 'my people'. I'm from the UK. Try to focus. Justify this claim by explaining what you mean by core values and why immigrants must follow it. I see you didn't refute anything I said above. Liberal democracies allow people to choose their own lifestyle without coercion or force. Do you not like this democratic value? No, you don't. Again, in a democracy you can live how you want. If one abides by the law they can not possibly encrouch on other people rights. Muslims living as Muslims, Seikhs living as Seikhs, Buddhists living as Buddhists under the law do not infringe anyone else's rights. Swiss Muslims were abiding by the law. And that's just the way it should be, eh?
  9. British Police Spy On Muslim Toddlers

    This comment addressed nothing I said.
  10. Try reading what I said again. I said "acknowledging this asymmetry is an essential part of critical thinking." I then went on to give you an example of what happens when there is asymmetry of information between someone who is conspiring and one who is investigating. Is that clear? If you wish, you could answer some of the questions I posed in my previous post.
  11. Minaret Ban Wins Swiss Support

    What facts have you presented? That Muslims don't debate? That Muslim demands are 'shrill'? You call these facts? Why don't you present some evidence for these so-called facts? I've called your opinions stupid. You don't speak on behalf of the Swiss people and have presented no evidence that your reasons are the reasons used by the Swiss. And your opinions are indeed stupid. You've made sweeping statements as if they are fact. Somehow, things happening in some parts of Europe dictate how Swiss people vote on national issues. But you've provided no evidence for this. Your overuse of stupid comments exhibits a disregard and disrespect for critical thinking. Making sensationalist claims like 'Muslims not playing by the rules' is disrespectful to European citizens who happen to follow a different religion than you. The real fact of the matter Joachim, is that Swiss Muslims have been abiding by Swiss law. What history is there of Swiss Muslims causing problems, anymore than any other 'group'? The ban reflects an anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant sentiment in sections of Swiss society, and in no way implies anything else. Minarets have nothing to do with shariah law so you've made a moot point, once again. I'll say it again, minorities need protection from mass politics and the Swiss system has failed. Immigrants have to assimilate? Why? It's funny how people who champion democracy like to suspend its core values when it comes to perpetuating their narrow-minded view of identity. Democracies give people the freedom to live the lifestyle they desire, as long as they abide by the laws. But for you, this isn't enough. Not only should they abide by the law, they should assimilate and imitate the natives. And cultures change all the time, even without the influence of immigrants. Why shouldn't immigrants want to change the culture they live in? Is there some sort of democratic rule to not allow it? In a democracy, everyone is allowed to influence the culture in a law-abiding way. If the peope don't like it, they will reject it. That's how liberal democracies work.
  12. Minaret Ban Wins Swiss Support

    Why are these demands shrill? Are they any more shrill than homosexuals demanding the right to marry? Are minority groups not allowed to demand rights because the majority don't agree? And how have you come up with this false premise that it was a reaction to things happening in some parts of Europe? Which shows how stupid the Swiss people are eh? Allow Libyan actions to decide your domestic policies, yea that's the way to go... Got any evidence for this? No, this is simply you perputuating a rather stupid and narrow minded portrayal of the 'Muslim problem'. I've never gone to the streets screaming for the overthrow of democracy and freedom and I don't know of any Muslims that have. When have Swiss Muslims called for the overthrow of democracy? What failure to debate are you referring to? What evidence do you have to claim that it is European affairs which provoked the Swiss reaction as opposed to their own national issues? No, Swiss domestic policy should not be rationalized based on the sufferings of other people somewhere else in the world. Your comparison is stupid. The fact of the matter is that only 53% of the population bothered to vote on the referendum, and a small majority of 57% won. What percentage of the Swiss population does that represent? You do the math. If anything, this vote exposes the farcical nature of referenda in a system of part-representative democracy. The vote is a form of bullying against the tiny 300,000 Muslim population who live in Switzerland. Minorities require protection against mass politics. The Swiss system has failed.
  13. And here's a revelation Joachim, Gestapo files were necessary to prove that it was a false flag operation. Without them it would have forever been a conspiracy theory. Why the double standards? People of a reasoned mind can claim their government is conspiring today, but you would seemingly dismiss them as lacking in critical thinking. Why? Because they wouldn't have proof. So a reasoned mind didn't need proof that the Nazis started the fire but a reasoned mind would need proof to show USA is guilty of economic imperialism (for example)? I was referring to the Reichstag who allowed the Nazis to emerge from a banned organisation to having it's leader become the chancellor. If they were fully aware that he would then dissolve the Reichstag, why would they have allowed him in? Could you provide me with a source of what you've said above? Okay, let's agree there was no critical thinking around the time the fire happened. What about after the war ended? Those who believed the fire was a false flag operation in hindsight would have also been expressing a conspiracy theory. There was no proof. But these people would have been proven right years later. You seem to be missing the fact that there will always be asymmetry of information between those who are conspiring and those who suspect them. The 'real facts' are presented by the very people who are conspiring. Ackowledging this asymmetry is an essential part of critical thinking. This is how police investigations work, where they suspect someone of conspiring against the system. They assume that the supposed facts being expressed by the suspect are not true or may not be true. There is asymmetry here, i.e. the suspect holds all the cards to their chest, whilst the police have to dig out the real facts.
  14. Emotion, predisposed bias, political or social agendas are arguably features of all theories (bar scientific ones). Sure, but that doesn't take away from the fact that people who believed it was a false flag operation at the time would have been conspiracy theorists because they had no evidence to support their claim. Nor did they have the forsight that the Enabling Act which would follow would usher in Hitler as the dictator of Germany. If they were alive today they would have been proven right in their suspicions. This was another interesting argument. I have to say, I don't agree with your account of history. Perhaps I'm wrong and you could correct me? If all their goals were completely transparent by 1933, why did Hitler get 35% of second round votes when he ran for President? Why was he allowed to become chancellor of a coalition government only two months prior to the fire? This could not have been possible if all his goals were utterly transparent. People of the Reichstag would not have allowed such progress if they knew he would later stampede the Reichstag and declare himself a god of Germany. By the time the fire happened, political activism was still happening in Germany and the Nazis were yet to crush critisism or desent as they didn't have the strength. The Nazis were conspiring, and those who realized this were conspiracy theorists. It seems rather naive on your part to believe that conspiracies cannot be devised by supposedly free governments or elements within free societies. Not all conspiracy theories lack critical thinking, they lack evidence. There's a difference. One could look at certain facts, join up all the dots and produce a picture different to the one the authorities are portraying. But if you don't have access to the stuff required to prove your point, you will forever be a conspiracy nut. Kinda like the people who after the Reichstag fire couldn't get the Gestapo files which were locked away safely in a Nazi party building.
  15. That's an interesting comment. Are you saying all conspiracy theories are false? The Reichstag fire, which helped the Nazi party gain a majority and pass the Enabling Act, is now being considered by historians using Gestapo archives as a false flag operation by the Nazis themselves. Meaning they started the fire and then claimed it was a communist plot to take over Germany. Anyone who thought that at the time would have been dismissed as a conspiracy theorist.