Jump to content
Islamic Forum

resend

Member
  • Content count

    430
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by resend

  1. Hello!

    Salaamu Alkum Sandstorm, I like your name like so original just like mine :sl: I wonder how you came about this site
  2. How come the video has now been removed? :D
  3. Am I Just Being Stupid?

    :D I think its only natural for anyone to keep possessions from a previous relationship. The issue is not really that she kept them is that she lied about it. May be when it came to it she was just unable to throw away a part of her past. If my husband died before me i know that i would probably keep some of the stuff he gave me, not because i was still in love with him but for sentimental reasons. The issue with his family is really what you should be concerned about, her having his brothers around when your not there is something that could cause doubt in your mind. Again it is natural that she will have a connection to his family if they were very close remember he died but her relationship with his family didn’t suddenly die. You should sit down and talk to her, this will solve things inshallah.
  4. If you are alone in the desert and fall down a well, to whom will you turn?
  5. Dutch To Ban Burqa

    The cabinet said burqas disturb public order, citizens and safety. :D :D :D
  6. Muslim officer sacked from guarding Blair By Robert Verkaik, Legal Affairs Correspondent An experienced Muslim firearms officer has begun race and religious discrimination proceedings against the Metropolitan Police after he was removed from a close-protection unit guarding senior dignitaries, including Tony Blair. Amjad Farooq, 39, a father of five, was told he was a threat to national security because his children had attended a Masjid associated with a Muslim cleric linked to a suspected terrorist group. The officer was also told that his presence might upset the American secret service which worked closely with the Met's close-protection group. His case raises further concerns about the treatment of Muslim firearms officers working in Metropolitan Police Force. Last month, at the height of the conflict in southern Lebanon, PC Alexander Basha was excused from guarding the israeli embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens, central London, because of concern about his family links with Lebanon. PC Farooq was a firearms specialist working for the Wiltshire Constabulary when he was transferred to the Diplomatic Protection Group SO16 (DPG) whose main role is to provide static protection at government, diplomatic and Metropolitan Police sites. All officers within the DPG are required to undergo security vetting including a counter-terrorism check (CTC). PC Farooq was told he would not be transferred until he had received full counter-terrorism clearance. On 16 December 2003, he was approached by a detective chief superintendent from Special Branch who informed him that he had failed his CTC. By then, PC Farooq had been working for the DPG for six weeks. The Met told the officer that they had evidence to justify the refusal of the CTC and referred to the fact that PC Farooq's children, two sons aged 9 and 11, had attended their local Masjid for religious studies when the building was associated with an iman whom the police suspected of links to an extremist Islamic group. Mr Farooq strongly denies any such links or inappropriate behaviour. At a tribunal to be held next year, Mr Farooq is expected to say that his colleagues had said words to the effect of "what will the American secret service make of him when he turns up there?" [referring to the likelihood that PC Farooq would be posted to duty at the US embassy in Grosvenor Square, London]. It is understood that the officer is the first person to have his CTC vetting status withdrawn. PC Farooq later challenged the decision to remove his CTC by lodging an appeal with the Security Vetting Appeal Panel (SVAP), which is administered by the Cabinet Office, itself headed by the Prime Minister. It has subsequently emerged in relation to the appeal that the Met refused to disclose any evidence for these allegations on the grounds of national security concerns. PC Farooq's case will challenge the secrecy surrounding vetting appeals so that he can be allowed to be represented by a Special Advocate who would test the national security evidence used by the Met to reach its decision to withdraw his special clearance. As a result of the clearance refusal, PC Farooq was transferred from the DPG to Hammersmith & Fulham constabulary. When he returned to collect his belongings, on 31 December 2003, he was asked to return to meet a police sergeant. He claims that he was taken to a basement room where he was searched in front of other officers. PC Farooq's solicitor, Lawrence Davies, of the law firm Equal Justice, said last night he was unable to comment in detail about the case, but did say: " We live in a society where it is possible to point a finger at a Muslim abroad and say that they have WMD and are a threat to national security and no questions are asked. Now those who 'protect' us feel emboldened to point the same finger at British Muslims. Muslims are labelled guilty by association. Doubt is insufficient to save them. They are assumed guilty before being proven innocent. We are very close to living in the days of Salem. If the head of counter-terrorism becomes a Witch-Finder General then any Muslim or Muslim-looking person or sympathiser best take cover." PC Farooq declined to comment about the case. Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said details of Mr Farooq's case would "not come as a great surprise to many British Muslims. Smear and innuendo appear increasingly to have taken the place of hard evidence when it comes to finding Muslims guilty of misdemeanours. There is no suggestion that Amjad Farooq himself represented any kind of security risk or that the cleric in the Masjid had been convicted of any actual crime." Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the "British Muslim Parliament" , said: "Unless the individual has close links with a terrorist organisation there is no reason to take these kind of decisions. I think it is a dangerous precedent to set and we have to be very careful about going beyond what is direct evidence, particularly when the allegation concerns the children of the person involved." Religion on trial * PC Alexander Omar Basha was excused from guarding the israeli embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens, central London, because of a possible conflict of interest over his family links with Lebanon. The Met said he was not " emotionally equipped" to be on armed duty at the embassy in the recent israeli-Lebanese conflict. He requested in summer that he not be sent there because of his family background and concerns for his safety. His superiors agreed after making a risk assessment. * The son of jailed Islamic cleric Abu Hamza was given a job working on London Underground, it emerged last month. Mohammed Kamel Mostafa, 25, who was jailed for three years in Yemen in 1999 for plotting a bombing campaign, worked for a sub-contractor of the network's maintenance company Tube Lines. The decision drew widespread condemnation. But London mayor, Ken Livingstone, warned that no one should be condemned for the sins of their fathers. Mr Mostafa no longer works with the subcontractor. * Muslim teaching assistant Aishah Azmi was suspended from her job after she refused to remove her veil at Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. She lost her claim for religious discrimination but won £1,100 for "injury to feelings". She will take her case to the European Court of Human Rights. An experienced Muslim firearms officer has begun race and religious discrimination proceedings against the Metropolitan Police after he was removed from a close-protection unit guarding senior dignitaries, including Tony Blair. Amjad Farooq, 39, a father of five, was told he was a threat to national security because his children had attended a Masjid associated with a Muslim cleric linked to a suspected terrorist group. The officer was also told that his presence might upset the American secret service which worked closely with the Met's close-protection group. His case raises further concerns about the treatment of Muslim firearms officers working in Metropolitan Police Force. Last month, at the height of the conflict in southern Lebanon, PC Alexander Basha was excused from guarding the israeli embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens, central London, because of concern about his family links with Lebanon. PC Farooq was a firearms specialist working for the Wiltshire Constabulary when he was transferred to the Diplomatic Protection Group SO16 (DPG) whose main role is to provide static protection at government, diplomatic and Metropolitan Police sites. All officers within the DPG are required to undergo security vetting including a counter-terrorism check (CTC). PC Farooq was told he would not be transferred until he had received full counter-terrorism clearance. On 16 December 2003, he was approached by a detective chief superintendent from Special Branch who informed him that he had failed his CTC. By then, PC Farooq had been working for the DPG for six weeks. The Met told the officer that they had evidence to justify the refusal of the CTC and referred to the fact that PC Farooq's children, two sons aged 9 and 11, had attended their local Masjid for religious studies when the building was associated with an iman whom the police suspected of links to an extremist Islamic group. Mr Farooq strongly denies any such links or inappropriate behaviour. At a tribunal to be held next year, Mr Farooq is expected to say that his colleagues had said words to the effect of "what will the American secret service make of him when he turns up there?" [referring to the likelihood that PC Farooq would be posted to duty at the US embassy in Grosvenor Square, London]. It is understood that the officer is the first person to have his CTC vetting status withdrawn. PC Farooq later challenged the decision to remove his CTC by lodging an appeal with the Security Vetting Appeal Panel (SVAP), which is administered by the Cabinet Office, itself headed by the Prime Minister. It has subsequently emerged in relation to the appeal that the Met refused to disclose any evidence for these allegations on the grounds of national security concerns. PC Farooq's case will challenge the secrecy surrounding vetting appeals so that he can be allowed to be represented by a Special Advocate who would test the national security evidence used by the Met to reach its decision to withdraw his special clearance. As a result of the clearance refusal, PC Farooq was transferred from the DPG to Hammersmith & Fulham constabulary. When he returned to collect his belongings, on 31 December 2003, he was asked to return to meet a police sergeant. He claims that he was taken to a basement room where he was searched in front of other officers. PC Farooq's solicitor, Lawrence Davies, of the law firm Equal Justice, said last night he was unable to comment in detail about the case, but did say: " We live in a society where it is possible to point a finger at a Muslim abroad and say that they have WMD and are a threat to national security and no questions are asked. Now those who 'protect' us feel emboldened to point the same finger at British Muslims. Muslims are labelled guilty by association. Doubt is insufficient to save them. They are assumed guilty before being proven innocent. We are very close to living in the days of Salem. If the head of counter-terrorism becomes a Witch-Finder General then any Muslim or Muslim-looking person or sympathiser best take cover." PC Farooq declined to comment about the case. Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said details of Mr Farooq's case would "not come as a great surprise to many British Muslims. Smear and innuendo appear increasingly to have taken the place of hard evidence when it comes to finding Muslims guilty of misdemeanours. There is no suggestion that Amjad Farooq himself represented any kind of security risk or that the cleric in the Masjid had been convicted of any actual crime." Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui, leader of the "British Muslim Parliament" , said: "Unless the individual has close links with a terrorist organisation there is no reason to take these kind of decisions. I think it is a dangerous precedent to set and we have to be very careful about going beyond what is direct evidence, particularly when the allegation concerns the children of the person involved." Religion on trial * PC Alexander Omar Basha was excused from guarding the israeli embassy in Kensington Palace Gardens, central London, because of a possible conflict of interest over his family links with Lebanon. The Met said he was not " emotionally equipped" to be on armed duty at the embassy in the recent israeli-Lebanese conflict. He requested in summer that he not be sent there because of his family background and concerns for his safety. His superiors agreed after making a risk assessment. * The son of jailed Islamic cleric Abu Hamza was given a job working on London Underground, it emerged last month. Mohammed Kamel Mostafa, 25, who was jailed for three years in Yemen in 1999 for plotting a bombing campaign, worked for a sub-contractor of the network's maintenance company Tube Lines. The decision drew widespread condemnation. But London mayor, Ken Livingstone, warned that no one should be condemned for the sins of their fathers. Mr Mostafa no longer works with the subcontractor. * Muslim teaching assistant Aishah Azmi was suspended from her job after she refused to remove her veil at Headfield Church of England Junior School in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. She lost her claim for religious discrimination but won £1,100 for "injury to feelings". She will take her case to the European Court of Human Rights. (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1961446.ece"]source[/url]
  7. Marriage Related!

    its just pre-wedding nerves everyone gets them, i got them.....and now allhumdillah we are happy.....
  8. Muslim Officer Sacked From Guarding Blair

    come on if he was really a risk there would have been a better reason than his children had attended a Masjid associated with a Muslim cleric linked to a suspected terrorist group. Notice that the muslim cleric was only linked to a "suspected" terrorist group. None of them are guilty, only guilty of being muslim. Personally I am of the opinion that you cannot rule with anything but the Shariah Law. Therefore being a police officer, lawyer, judge etc will put you into direct conflict with the laws of Allah. Having said that i think that in this day and age muslim lawyers are a necessity for survival. But i say to each his own, i wont be asked about Mr Farooqs job, and i shouldn't of said it was Haram.
  9. Muslim Officer Sacked From Guarding Blair

    :D Actually at first i was happy for the guy, I mean they saved him from a haram job right? :D I then got angry because this country talks about freedom so much, and exports it using force but when it comes to muslims in their own country its guilty by association.
  10. 50 Completely Useless Facts

    You're born with 300 bones, but by the time you become an adult, you only have 206. This one is!! I mean what happend to the other 94? Decay? or this one In 1386, a pig in France was executed by public hanging for the murder of a child Did the pig leave prints? :D :D
  11. :D The best joke I have heard in ages! Thank you....
  12. Modesty Of Women

    Hijab is for the modesty of woman, to stop anyone looking beyond anything visiable. When you see women that wear make-up and hijab its not that it is allowed, its just that these woman are still everyday women, who want to look good and practice their religion at the same time. Of course hijab and make up are oxymoron’s you cant have one with the other, but with some women its all about confidence, it might be that they just started wearing hijab in which case they are still in the process of completing their hijab by not wearing make up, as with everything it takes a lot of time and a lot of patience.
  13. Australian Outcry Over Muslim Cleric's Comments

    Partly, I think its more likely for any female not just a muslim who is dressed inappropriately to be attacked, or to be seen by her attacker as "asking for it". But this obviously doesn’t justify such actions taking place. Nor does it mean that everybody muslim and non-muslim should be frightened into wearing the hijab. Well I assume it’s just his opinion. There are a lot of opinions that are out of line, such as asking a woman to remove her veil. To some it will seem out of line, to others normal its just the way in which you perceive different aspects of life. I think that if a community abides by the rules of the land they shouldn’t necessarily be forced to fit into what that particular country assumes to be "normal". Again its a matter of understanding what is normal for some and what isn’t for others. No. In fact i think the perpetrator gets a death penalty for rape. I don’t really know the extent of Australia's response. I heard that the Prime Minister refuted the comments, which I think is a bit much given the fact that its not a particular dogma, just someone’s opinion. Just as Jack Straws comments were his opinion, and the muslim community didn’t need to get up in arms concerning them.
  14. Semantics: Convert Vs. Revert

    :D This is the most worthless topic I have EVER come across
  15. its revert cos you reverted back to the fitrah! just atleast understand that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  16. This is from the man who uses the quote that 72 sects of Islam will go to hell to condemn Abu Izzaden to hell. Who are you kidding? I think you mean which ever view falls into your "logic" Firstly we dont agree that it is punishable by death, secondly i dont agree with some of the views of Abu Izzadeen i just have no opinon on him personally because you cant have an opinon on another muslim you know nothing about! You are one of the few people that i have heard say that the blood of a muslim and the blood of a kafir is equal :D I put it down to you being a "revert"
  17. oh subhnallah! I am gonna stop arguing with you, because arguing wont get us anywhere. I just wanted to advise you not to say that someone is going to hell instead we ended up talking about an agenda bigger than both of us. You would disagree with Ibn Taimyyah, yet you would agree with Yusuf Al-Qaradawi who agrees that in Palastine Sucide bombings are allowed? :D :D :D You might have noticed that i not only quoted from Ibn Taimyyah (rahmahu Allah) but also from Al-Bukhari and Sahih of Muslim" Qayyim al-Jawziyya and Imam al-Shafii or are they all disreputed by your "majority of this Umma’s scholars" But who has answered this fatwa? Where are their sources? except the excellent book by I presume a non-muslim :D As i said i have a clear hadith, i'll bring it to your attention tomorrow inshallah
  18. Ibn Timiyya Ibn Timiyya emphasizes forcefully in Volume 14, "Nothing in the law of Muhammad states that the blood of the disbeliever is equal to the blood of the Muslim because faith is necessary for equality. The people of the Covenant (Jews or Christians) do not believe in Muhammad and Islam, thus their blood and the Muslim’s blood cannot be equal. These are distinctive texts which indicate that a Muslim is not to be put to death for (murdering) one of the people of the covenant or an unbeliever, but a free Muslim must be killed for a free Muslim, regardless of the race" (Vol. 14, p. 85). He reiterates the same statement (Vol. 20, p. 282) that a Muslim must not be killed for one of the people of the covenant; that is, a Christian or a Jew The Imam al-Shafii In section one of "Ahkam al-Qur’an" ("The Ordinances of the Qur’an", page 275), he says: "A Muslim is not to be killed for an unbeliever". Then he says (page 284), "If a believer murders an unbeliever, he has to pay blood feud to the Jew or Christian which is one-third of the blood feud of the believer, though Malik says it must be one half." Ibn Timiyya inclines towards Malik’s opinion and indicates (Vol. 20, p. 385) that: "The blood feud should be one half because this is what was transmitted by tradition about the prophet Muhammad and as the Sunnis said also." Whether the blood feud is one third or one half is not important. What really matters is that a Muslim is not to be put to death for a non-Muslim. Despite the disagreement among the Muslim scholars about the actual amount of the blood feud to be paid, the important thing is that the blood feud of the unbeliever is less than the blood feud of the believer, and that a Muslim is not to be put to death for a non-Muslim. Of course, if a Muslim murders another Muslim, the murderer must be sentenced to death because he assassinated another Muslim. According to al-Shafii, in this case the victim’s relatives have the option either to accept a blood feud or to kill the criminal. However, if the murdered is non-Muslim, his relatives have no choice but to accept the blood feud ("The Ordinances of the Qur’an", Sect. I, pp. 180, 279). Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya In his book, "Zad-al-Maad" (Sec. III, p.124), he says: "Muslim blood is alike (has the same value). A Muslim is not to be put to death for killing an unbeliever." "Sahih" of Al-Bukhari and" Sahih of Muslim" These are two authorized books acknowledged by all Islam scholars pertaining to Muhammad’s sayings. We read in Part 9 of al-Bukhari’s book (p. 16,) "A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for an unbeliever." He stresses that this is also the opinion of Ali Ibn Abi Talib. In "Sahih of Muslim" interpreted by Nawawi (Part 4, p. 244), we read, "A Muslim is not to be sentenced to death for one of the people of the covenant nor for a free man or a slave." This is what i found, and i must say i am not that happy with it BUT i do have a hadith that shows specifically that a muslim cannot be killed for a non-muslim, but it isnt coming to mind i'll find it though inshallah.
  19. Erm.....who is this 'prominent Azharite scholar' Where is the source of this "hadith" Do you believe the first thing that comes up on google? As i remember you was refuting a "fatwa" from a scholar that also graduated from Al-Azar University a while back...
  20. Erm...actually the spilt blood of a muslim and that of a non-muslim does not have the same punishment. If you kill an innocent muslim without a just cause then you face the death penalty if the family decides so, whereas if you spill the blood of an innocent non-muslim the punishment is that you pay the blood money. As I said you should possible investigate, you are just assuming that the punishments are the same, just as you have assumed from one Hadith that Abu Izzedeen is bound to go to hell him and his "group". Actually I don’t believe his group is one of the sects that is mentioned in the hadith, they as far as I know have the same aqeedah as us, pray the same, have the same pillars etc. His is merely a "group" whereas the shia I would say were a sect. Simply, my humble opinion. It is obvious to anyone - or rather should be - that you cannot go against the laws of the land you live in, this obviously includes killing and blowing up innocent people on buses and trains, therefore i have no problem in disregarding his "so called" comments to inciting the murder of innocents in this country. BUT we have no right as lay people, to assume he is heading towards hell him and his group and casting him out of the ummah. Also, we really have no proof who blew up those trains and buses on 7th July 2006, the question is why has the government refused a public enquiry? Do you believe everything the media spoon feeds us?
  21. Sorry what hadith do you have that says that he would get capital punishment for inciting hatred towards innocent people? The death of a non-muslim and a muslim does not have the same punishment, please investigate for yourself. This topic should be closed anyway, simply asking our opinion of another muslim shouldnt really be a topic of conversation.
  22. salaamu alkum, So because i dont agree with you thus far; i am ignorant, sticking my head in the ground and dont have any sense. I get the feeling that anyone that doesnt agree with you is banished to hell. You know nothing about HIM! Just like you know nothing about me, if i said i support 7/7 would i also be going to hell? This is just going round in circles! :D
  23. Ahem Well if that is not you banishing him to hell i dont know what is The difference between merely "condoning" (inverted commers as I read the article and he didnt condone them simply did neither) suicide bombers and sending troops to Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc to fight his own holy war is a slight difference! Well firstly he is not a monster :D I stand by what Zaki Naki said, i am not aware of the man personally, i have nothing against him, i know nothing of his taqwa and standing with Allah, and i would never ever air my personal opinion of another muslim from mere heresay (media). BTW here is the transcript of his interview with Newsnight (www.)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2370530,00.html"]Newsnight Interview with Abu Izzaden[/url]
  24. Salaamu Alkum, You can quote all the hadiths you like (by the way I know that hadith very well) you are still not able to banish him to hellfire. Do you know at the time of the prophet (saw) Abdullah bin Ubay, was the leader of the hypocrites yet the prophet never once condemed him to hell, he even prayed Janaza on him. Does reading about him in the media mean you know him? You can only truly know what a person thinks about if you know him on a personal basis. Zaki Naki was asked about Osama Bin Laden, and he replied I do not know him personally, and on the day of Judgement i will not be asked about him.
  25. Salaamu alkum, Who informed you he was of the sects that would end up in hell, and you and the "majority" of the muslims are the ones who will end up in Jannah? Remember well also that the Prophet (saw) said that One who calls another a kufar, one of the two is a kufar. Please be careful about sending other muslims to hell. Personally I know nothing about him, I am glad he heckeld John Reid. What he said needed to be said. And who the hell is John Reid to tell us to spy on our kids, not only are we told how to practice our religion i.e what to wear what not to wear, what is a fundamentalist, what we can say while we are protesting etc...but now we have to watch our kids for "fundamentalist behaviour" WHATEVER! :D Jazakallah
×