if your on a mac, i know you can save as a 'web archive', not sure in the PC realm. perhaps print to PDF could be an option as well, rather than cut and past with each post.

i think it has to do with some of those funding newer versions not wanting some of yusuf ali's more sufi oriented mystical commentary, but liking his overall translation skills. someone gave me that same recommendation years ago and i've done a side by side comparison with two copies i have here at home (from different time periods). The first from 1934 and the later from 1989, with the former having a much more in depth commentary. It may be you can still find the original one - as my 1989 edition states 'with revised translation and commentary' on the cove - so perhaps there are recent reprints of a non revised nature.

Agreed with Bill on those recommends as well. One small note (for Erik KarenNC's husband, or anyone else intersted) - if you can possibly find an older version of a Yusuf Ali Quran translation, its well worth it - as much of the newer ones, tend to not have his FULL commentary.

I havn't personally read any of John Esposito's books, but I know he is a well respected professor of Islamic Studies, and his books looked at with high regard. Karen Armstrong is also known as a strong supporter of inter-faith dialogue, though again - other than watching some interviews with her, I can't say I've read her works personally. Off the top of my head (and insha'allah, I will post a more comprehensive list later), these are some books I would recommend. understanding islam by frithjof schuon imaginal worlds: ibn al-arabi and the problem of religious diversity by william chittick swedenborg and esoteric islam by henry corbin The Tao of Islam: A Sourcebook on Gender Relationships in Islamic Thought by Sachiko Murata and for a great reference try the concise encyclopaedia of islam by cyrill glasse (looks like there may be a new edition out as well)

I was just sitting down to answer an older post regarding Jesus, and concepts of the Messiah within Islam - when I saw this, so figured I would tie them together. The figure who assumes the role in Islamic eschatology and is similar to both descriptions of The False Prophet and The Anti Christ (some Christian Theologians believing those two figures to be one and the same) is called Al-Masih ad-Dajjal (the imposter messiah). Signs of his coming are "People will stop offering prayers Dishonesty will be the way of life Falsehood will become a virtue People will mortgage their faith for worldly gains Usuary and bribery will become legitimate Imbeciles would rule over the wise Blood of innocents would be shed Pride will be taken on acts of oppression The rulers will be corrupt The scholars will be hypocrites Adultery will be rampant Women will dress like men, and men will dress like women The liars and treacherous will be respected There will be acute famine at the time" In regards to the earlier posters question. Yes, we do await a return of a Messiah, and specifically, in the form of Jesus. In our eschatology, the Mahdi (as) and his followers will be preparing to battle the Anti-Christ when Jesus descends from the heavens, and ultimately kills the Anti-Christ - defeating the forces of evil - and creating a world of peace and happiness for humanity. Jihad will cease. Camels will graze with Lions, cattle with etc. Basically a Utopian vision of the world returning to a idyllic state, with a din al-fitrah or din al-haqq predominating (i.e. a pure and primordial faith of submission to God, unhindered by man made religion, sectarian division and so on).

A bunch of great questions! Heading out the door to work, but, insha'allah, I will do my best to answer these when I get home later today.

Well, i suppose it would depend on which point in history we are talking about with regards to US law not having allowances for chopping off body parts. This was a regular punishment for runaway slaves for a large portion of this countries existence in many states. Likewise, if we are judging religions in a derogatory manner based off of their use of corporal and or capital punishment, lets not forget that under the rule of the Church in Europe, amputation was also a regular practice, as was torture, burning at the stake and so on. Arguments that are usually used in the west, by atheists and secular humanists, as reasons to reject Christianity. Arguments that I don't think are valid (even as a non-christian), since they don't speak to the essence of what Christianity is or isn't. And by extension, arguments that are not legitimate coming from Christianity towards Islam (since one can look to similar events in each others history, as well as in contemporary times - thus negating that as a point of refutation, and bringing us back to theological principles as the basis of argument). The point is, one can always point to abuses by the 'other' as justification for NOT building bridges, for isolationism and so on. Clearly, there are those in the Muslim world who could look to the brutality of the Crusades, the centuries of colonialism against the Muslim world in Asia, Africa, and Middle East; the forced expulsion of Spain's majority Muslim population - or in more recent times, the genocide committed by professed Christians against Muslims in Bosnia, the invasion of Iraq and so on, as reasons to shut the door on the west - to say 'to your way and to us ours'. And of course, some fanatics take that course. But the majority of people understand these actions are not those of Christianity (nor the citizens of the West), but of men using religion as a tool to achieve worldly aims. And in line with that, our scholars are spending much of their time engaging with scholars from other religions, attending conferences to help build bridges between east and west, writing papers, and so on. Are there examples of brutality from some in the Muslim world ? Certainly. Are those examples present in the Christian world, as well as from the Hindu and Buddhist sphere (see Sri Lanka right now)? Absolutely. Playing on people's emotionalism doesn't serve the Truth (whether that Truth is ultimately contained in Christianity, Islam, or elsewhere). The purpose of this thread - in light of this board being made up primarily of people concerned with education, expanding their children's horizon's and preparing them for an ever changing and complex world - was to shed some light, from a Muslim perspective, on the nature of our faith, to those of other faiths, in order to all benefit and grow from the experience. Inflammatory posts, no matter how couched in niceties, whilst simultaneously alleging that what we are speaking of is 'rhetoric' - as well as others posting links to notoriously anti-islamic books from pseudo scholars (people with no grounding in Islamic theology, or middle eastern studies, but rather, well documented agenda's in regards to promoting political or religious viewpoints that define themselves as 'anti-islam') does nothing to help further either the purpose of this thread, or of the larger need for the religious communities (in an ever shrinking world), to know and understand each other. If the path to God is narrow as some are suggesting, and there is no need for such dialogue, I have to wonder what their purpose is to post here, other than to either disrupt such positive dialogue or to push forward agenda without actually seeking communication. And should anyone wonder, I am not referring to the many great and challenging questions that people have raised. I am talking about those who utilize sensationalism, over reason. And that, to me at least, seems out of place on a forum of educators.

http://www.amazon.com/Mexico-Beautiful-Cookbook-Susanna-Palazuelos/dp/000215949X I have a lot of cookbooks, but this is the only one I really use. I make everything vegan by substituting a few ingredients. There are tons of full color photos, and brief descriptions for each dish.

I make my rice in a cast iron pan with a domed glass lid. The pan and lid are very important, once you find the right one this dish is easy. I just measured out how much liquid I use because it's just a random cup whose measurement works perfect with the pan. I'm using a cup that holds a little over 1 1/2 cups. oil,long grain rice, sm. 1 diced carrot, 3 roma sized tomatoes, garlic, onion (yellow or white), cumin, salt, peas, cilantro coat pan in oil, add rice, then carrot, low heat until rice is translucent, pour off any extra oil if you have any. Blend tomatoes, 2-3 tbsp raw onion, 1-3 raw pieces of garlic, maybe 1/2 tsp. cumin, maybe 1 1/2 tsp. salt, I put in about a tsp. vegan chicken broth powder (opt), puree. Now you have to add liquid 2 to 1 for long grain, so fill your original cup with blended tomato add it to rice, then add your 2nd cup of liquid using water. Bring up the heat. Throw in some frozen peas if you like put some cilantro in a little pile in the middle. Put on the lid, bring the heat down low, cook 20 min. Don't lift the lid!!! When it's done remove the cilantro. I don't measure so it's hard to pass this recipe on. Also you don't have to add the carrot or peas. My mom and grandma have a version of this with the tiny shrimp that come in a can. It's been years since I've had it but it was SO GOOD! I think you use less salt in that one. I remember being a kid and wanting to lift the lid to see what was in the rice, plain good, veggies yuck, shrimp woo hoo!

yes - agreed. my point was merely that the quranic ayat in question was in regards to the pagans of mecca, and not the jews and christians. clearly, there is no denying, that as time passed, jews and christians were driven out of the hijaz during the early years of islam. sort of the tragic consequence of the open warfare of the period, as the original intent, judging by the medina community, was of the different faiths co-existing. and not to always be giving a clarification - but also important to point out, we are talking about a pretty wide open and generally desolate region - where these were also tribal affiliations - so when there was trouble politically with say a jewish tribe, and that tribe left after being banished, it didn't take many such occurrences before an entire religious group was no longer in the region and with the knowledge that they were no longer welcome in the region. I'm stating this, to make clear for some other readers, we are not talking a door to door ethnic cleansing program - that rather, it was a time lots of political intrigue - various tribes making alliances with the pagans, religious issues taking a back seat to power, status and position in regards to such alliances - seeing people of the book uniting in some cases with pagans (desiring to maintain the old status quo against this new group 'the Muslims'). from a historical perspective alone, a really fascinating period. also, I think another factor that can't be forgotten in this regard, is the actual conversions that took place, from pagans, jews and christians, to the new faith that was sweeping the region. clearly many of examples of this historically as well. For those interested in some of this history and its relation to Jerusalem, I highly recommend the historical novel The Rock: A tale of Seventh Century Jerusalem by Kanan Makiya.

I just did a search for one, and found one that lets you chose from any of the prominent english translations, as well as transliteration, and original arabic. its http://www.tanzil.info

the online translation you had found for that ayat was actually better than the one i had cut and pasted for you, which stated wrongly "oh you who believe in God's Oneness and his Messenger" when the closer translation is as your quote stated "Those Who Believe." Likewise, where it had said ""(polytheists, pagans, idolaters) disbelievers in the Oneness of God, and in the Message of Muhammad are Najasun (impure)" again, looking at the arabic, the closer translation would be "The Pagans are unclean," with nothing beyond that, and going straight from there to "after this year of theirs, let them not approach the Sacred Mosque". This is actually a good example, of the danger of translation. Especially when grabbing something off the internet (which I did quickly to avoid typing:) ) Very often, translators will try to push one agenda or another in their translation. Out of ease of reading, I usually use a Yusuf Ali translation, but if looking for the meaning of a particular verse, will turn to the Arabic to see what something actually says. I know this can be a difficult process for those without any knowledge of Arabic, but unfortunately, without doing so, this current problem can always arise, with so many translations out there, and even the good ones being correct in many areas, but then wrong in others... as far as being disingenuous - there was no such intent. During the time of the Prophet, Mecca was primarily inhabited by Pagans, the Muslims having fled the city, and taken up residence in Medina. Upon their return to Mecca, and AFTER the later revelation in regards to the remaining Pagans, they were ultimately banned from the precinct of the Sacred Mosque. This in time grew to include the whole Haram. But again, at that point in time - and what this ayat is in regards to, is indeed the Pagans. Christians were not traditionally residents of Mecca (even before these events) but there still were cases of Christians coming into Mecca after the Pagans were expelled. However, over time, it clearly became the practice for the entire Haram to be only for Muslims. At face value, for someone who perceives this as being banned from an entire country, or even a normal city - I could see how this would seem strange. But one has to realize, that even as Muslims, when we enter the Haram for Hajj, we have to be in a ritual state of purity. That at no time, is anyone allowed to shed blood in the Haram, one cannot hunt, and so on. One actually has to view the entire area more as temple grounds so to speak - from which one needs to know the rules in order to follow them properly in such a sacred place. That said - there could be arguments made, and there have been from within the Muslim world, that if a Christian or Jew wanted to visit the Kaba, in regards to it having been built by Abraham, and were to undertake the right rituals of Purity, that it could be allowed. Of course, with centuries of crusades, followed by further centuries of colonialism, that view is not a popular one - and I guess, one would have to question if a Christian or Jew really would feel the need to come worship at Mecca (since they are not instructed to do so in their faith). The point is - it was the pagans who were expelled, not Christians or Jews. Their not being allowed to enter has more to do with the area being sacred to Muslims, and an understanding that developed after the pagans were told to leave. Likewise, the center of the Islamic world quickly moved to Syria and Iraq, and clearly, the Christians were never expelled from those countries, and in fact, many Christians held high positions within the Islamic realm for centuries. in regards to the Jizyah (or tax). From Yusuf Ali's commentary Jizya: the root meaning is compensation. The derived meaning, which became the technical meaning, was a poll-tax levied from those who did not accept Islam, but were willing to live under the protection of Islam, and were thus tacitly willing to submit to its ideals being enforced in the Muslim State. There was no amount permanently fixed for it. It was in acknowledgment that those whose religion was tolerated would in their turn not interfere with the preaching and progress of Islam. Imam Shafi'i suggests one dinar per year, which would be the Arabian gold dinar of the Muslim States. The tax varied in amount, and there were exemptions for the poor, for females and children (according to Abu Hanifa), for slaves, and for monks and hermits. Being a tax on able-bodied males of military age, it was in a sense a commutation for military service. (9.29) Again, not here to argue that this was always applied fairly throughout the ages. Just to clarify that in that time, it was normal for any victorious party, who would in turn become the new state, to tax the conquered population, and make them accept their laws etc. Looking at the bad examples within Islam, is similar to us Muslims looking at The Crusades, or The Reconquista of Spain, with the subsequent inquisition, and expulsion of Jews and Muslims etc, as examples of true Christianity which they are not. Are there theological differences between Christians and Muslims? Clearly. My goal is not to convince Christians or Jews to leave their traditions for Islam - rather, to put these issues where they should have been for the last 2000 years, which is in the realm of theological discussion. And in that regard, looking at the similarities, and high points of cooperation between cultures, and religions, is the better place to start than trying to search out the negative occurrences over the centuries in either religion, when they are not rooted in the actual teachings of Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad (sal), but rather the flaws of man. Not saying your questions were in that direction, because they were all valid questions towards getting a clearer understanding of what I'm sure must be a very misunderstood faith to a lot of westerners. Just making that point to set at least what I see would be an ideal tone for future discussion should anyone else want to chime in.

Hey one of my stars is gone, has anyone seen it???:lol: I've told my hubby he is free to answer questions on this thread, I have moved on to AuntieM's mexican appetizer question:) PQR it looks like he already started an answer to your question, I'm sure he'll write more later! Thank you all for being so gracious.

just a quick response as I am out the door to work. I want to point out that my answers are in relation to the time period of the Prophet and shortly thereafter, in terms of application of Quranic instructions being carried out properly and with respect to other religions. Certainly, over the history of Islam, as with the history of Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism and so on - there are countless examples of people using religion as a tool to maintain power over others, and oppress people. In this regard, there is no denying that over the centuries, you can find some Muslim rulers having absolute tolerance for Christians and Jews (as well, as in certain points in time, for Hindu's and Buddhists) whilst in other times, other rulers, and governments have been overtly oppressive. I'm not trying to paint a Utopian picture, that humans are capable of living up to God's commands in perfection (whether in Islam, Judaism, Christianity or any other religion), and that is why most religions tend to await an end times redeemer of some sort. I'll go into more details later, but wanted to at least clear that up before I head out the door.

Flautas/taquitos are practically fail proof, the ingredients are inexpensive, they look great piled up high in a dish, and there will probably be tons of salsa to eat them with. And they're deep fried:tongue_smilie:

First, in regards to surah 5:51, i reiterate what a previous poster had written, that the english translation is simply wrong - that the word Awilya does not mean friends, rather 'protector, guardian and so on... Next, it is important to realize, that various ayat as well as entire surah in the Quran, are in relation to specific events. So for instance, while the overall tone of the Quran is brotherhood of man, that each nation has had a Prophet, and so on- there are also contextual passages, during times of war - usually with pagans, but also occasionally with tribes who may have been people of the book, but were often in military alliance with the pagans- where verses were revealed, warning Muslims not to take alliances with this group or that. Similarly, in the midst of a war, other verses instructing how to wage the battle against that group were revealed. One has to understand the context in which the instructions were presented, as well as in which certain battles were fought. This is important, because, someone may look to a battle with a group of Christians or Jews, and assume that such a battle signified a larger battle with that religion in and of itself. However, history shows, that while the early Muslim community was at war with some groups who were Christian, whether tribes, or states, they were simultaneously at peace, and in good relations with Ethiopia, who were also Christian. Likewise, one can look at examples of battles with Jewish tribes in Arabia, but during the same period, can also see that the Muslims helped the Jews in Palestine, pushing for the Christian religious leaders to an agreement whereby the Jews would be allowed back into the city. In specific response to Surah 9:29 it is important to also look at surah 9:28 And to understand that again, this all happens during a time of war, and ever shifting alliances 28. O you who believe (in God's Oneness and in His Messenger! Verily, the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters) disbelievers in the Oneness of God, and in the Message of Muhammad are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al-Masjid-al-Harâm (at Mecca) after this year, and if you fear poverty, God will enrich you if He will, out of His Bounty. Surely, God is All-Knowing, All-Wise. [/i][/i] 29. Fight against those who believe not in God, nor in the Last Day, nor forbid that which has been forbidden by God and His Messenger and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. In short, that the pagans who ruled Mecca, whom the Muslims had finally defeated after years of being persecuted by them, would no longer be allowed in the Holy Precinct. That those who were against the Muslims who had not yet been defeated, should continue to be fought against - and in areas that were coming under Muslim control - those who had been fighting against the Muslims who also happened to be people of the book, would be required to pay a tax. In the last regard, it is important to point out that Muslims also had to pay a tax to the state, and also serve in the military etc - while the none Muslims were not required to do military service, and their tax covered the same types of things a normal tax would afford a citizen of normal times - police protection, building of roads, infrastructure, national defense etc. The point is, none of this happened in a bubble. Initially, the Muslim community was completely pacifist, but were being assaulted, slaughtered, tortured, raped etc by the pagan rulers of Mecca. And in the broader sense - it was an era of expansion, and conquest by many world powers, and in that context, Muslims went from winning defensive battles, to turning the tide and conquering new lands. Within a relatively short period (25 years) Muslims went from a very small group of believers, to being a political, spiritual force to be reckoned with across a large section of Africa, Asia and the Middle East (as well as parts of Europe). Looking to periods of war to understand how a religion plays out in regards to inter-religious relations, only brings one part of the picture. It is important to also look at times of harmony, such as Muslim Spain, when the dialogue and interaction of Muslims, Christians, and Jews, was a golden age for that country, and a lasting benefit for the development of European civilization as well as Islam.

i wouldn't necessarily go that far in defending the malaysian governments motivations. i.e. i don't think its so much a 'positive' approach, with concern of religious freedom in mind, as it is fear that communal violence could erupt again, combined with them being used to the form of islam they are used to, and wanting to maintain the status quo in that regard. so they let the various ethnic communities practice their religion, build their temples, churches and so on - and with the muslim community, they want to make sure that the islam that is practiced stays how it has been for centuries, relatively liberal and maybe more importantly, friendly to the state. again, i wouldn't suggest going with an intent to do missionary work - but on the other hand, i also dont think you experience any problem whatsoever, in terms of being a christian, and representing your faith by example to those you interact with.

HI. Helena's husband here. Yes. Originally Maliki. But one of those things where the immense love for the Ahul Bayt (as) - that is so pronounced within the mystical orders present in the Maliki madhhab's sphere of influence - eventually led me to a change of Madhhab itself (to Jafari) - in a desire to be more closely connected to the teachings of the Ahul Bayt (as). Sorry if this post makes no sense to anyone but me and Bill:)

Im going to let my husband address this, as he's spent some time in Malaysia... Malaysia is a somewhat complicated situation, which makes answering this different from if we were talking about, say, Saudi Arabia for instance - where I could just reference their puritanical version of Islam, known as wahabism. However, in Malaysia, there are other factors at play, not to defend them (since they for instance, also prohibit the school of law within Islam, that our family adheres to), but which do not necessarily revolve around any extremist forms of the faith. Malaysia has a colonial legacy, like much of the Muslim world. In addition to hard feelings with regards to the British colonial subjegation of Malaysia, and by extension, anyone seen in the Missionary light (who usually came in tandam with the Colonialists) - there has also been communal violence in the past between the three major ethnic groups in Malaysia - The Malays, The Chinese, And The Indians (again, with many of these tensions arising from the Colonial era, where different groups were brought into Malaysia as laborers, and other historical tensions in some cases, concerning the Chinese (even though some Chinese in Malaysia were Chinese Muslim immigrants, and many Malay's also have Chinese heritage). Point is - there's been some trouble in the past, and the government has taken a position, that they want each community to not anger the other community, to basically stick to their own religions, and be ruled according to the law of their community. Thats not to say that on the ground, there isn't mixing - because there is. For instance, Muslims and Hindus in Malaysia, very often take part in each others holidays. And the form of Islam in Malaysia tends to be relaxed, with a high level of Sufi influence. But again, the government wants to keep things at a status quo with the type of islam they have, staying the same way - and with the other communities keeping to their traditions as well. Sort of how Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, allowed religions traditional to Russia, such as Eastern Orthodox Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, and others, to play an official role, but have been hesitant to allow certain missionary groups in which might bring outside political influence. Not saying that the way the Malaysians are approaching it is right - again, we would not be allowed to openly pracatise nor preach our school of Law within Islam in Malaysia. But, that aside - Malaysia is a wonderful country, the people very friendly, and its not the type of thing I would think you would especially notice, unless your goal was to go as a missionary. I have a cousin who lived there (who is not Muslim) and she and her family had an amazing time and felt well respected and loved by the Malaysians they interacted with (whether Malay, Indian or Chinese). Hope that helps

Jcodevilla, The simple answer is that Muslims do not perceive Jews and Christians to be infidels. The term infidel actually has its roots in Christendom - based on the latin 'infidelis', meaning 'unfaithful' and used by European Christians to describe Muslims - especially during the Crusades. Later, this also came to denote any non-Christian or "unbeliever." The rough equivalent in Islam, would be the arabic word "Kafir" - meaning "rejecter of faith" - which was specifically used against the Pagan Arabs who were waging war against the early Muslim community. Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians etc are considered Al-Kitab, or "People of the Book" and in relation to that, are afforded protection within Muslim society and are NOT considered to be unbelievers (i.e. it is against the law under Sharia, to call People of The Book a Kafir, or oppress them for their religious beliefs). Where the disparity lies in modern times, with fanatical interpretations of Islam - is that in the legacy of colonialism, and, sometimes continued imperialism - there are those who out of ignorance and anger, wrongly assume ALL westerners to have abandoned their Christianity, and thus make statements out of anger, in regards to westerners being "al-Kafirun." This view is not supported by scholars or valid religious leaders in any of the major schools of law within Islam - and is a simpletons reaction against a perceived "other" (a type of view that an uneducated minority in every culture, and country will tend to display, despite their religious books or leaders tell them to the contrary) As to references on Jesus in Islam - there are many Hadith Books with sections regarding this - but it may be abit hard for you to track down and even more cumbersome to search through all of them. A couple of great books in english regarding Jesus from a Muslim perspective, are "The Muslim Jesus - sayings and stories in Islamic literature" and Jesus in the Quran and Shi'ite Narrations - both of which can be found on Amazon.com Hope that helps.

My husband and I have been following the post "Do you teach your children that your faith is the only correct one." Seeing that the subject of Islam came up in relation to the Christian and Jewish faiths, and that some gross inaccuracies were presented (albeit with some excellent clarification provided by Bill in Islam's defense), we as a Muslim family felt compelled to respond in order to clear up some misconceptions perpetuated on the original thread. Hopefully this can serve a small part to removing barriers between faiths that are not all that different in their essence. As Muslims, we raise our children from within our own tradition, while maintaining a respectful view towards other religious faiths, and a love for all of God's creation - a viewpoint that is inherent in the Islamic understanding of revelation and brotherhood of mankind. According to the Quran, every nation on earth has been sent a Messenger or Prophet (Lo! We have sent thee with the Truth, a bearer of glad tidings and a warner; and there is not a nation but a warner hath passed among them (Qur'an 16:36). Likewise - it is clearly stated in the Quran that there is No compulsion in religion (There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing - Qur'an 2:256) The various religions, are, from a Muslim point of view, man made differences - springing from cultural perceptions and or theological understandings - as well as in some cases, degeneration of a religions original message (i.e. scholarly research into Buddhism clearly shows the early Buddhist communities did not use statues in their religious practice, nor does the folk Taoism practiced in China represent the pure philosophical Taoism of Lao Tse). Likewise, even with the Big Three of the Monotheistic tradition - Judaism, Christianity, and Islam - you will find schism and sectarian division, based off of theological, and or political disputes. But despite these divisions - no matter what our perceptions are as 'Believers' - the Nature of God remains unchanged i.e. in all of the worlds religious traditions - God is not reliant upon his Creation - and his nature does not change depending on what we as humans think that nature is or isn't. In light of that, we teach our children according to our religious understanding, to the best of our knowledge - but also in awe of the fact, that we are not God, and cannot speak for God. We find it both reckless and disheartening to see some people continuing to perpetuate division, whether intentional, or accidental (through their own lack of education in regards to the mater at hand), when our world is in dire need of ecumenical understanding. In particular, the abject falsehood being propagated, that Muslims somehow worship a different God in 'Allah', than that of the God worshiped by Jews and Christians. First off, this is insulting to the Arab Christians who have used the divine name 'Allah' in their Bibles and religious practice for over 16 centuries. Secondly, it also smells of Xenophobia, when western Christians condemn the use of a word like "Allah' for the Supreme Being, when the term for God in Aramaic (which is the language Jesus spoke) is 'Elahh - compared to the use of the English word of God, which has no connection to any Semitic word for God present in the Old Testament, New Testament or elsewhere (and yet us Muslims, Jews, and non western Christians, still seem to know what you mean, when you say "God'). In regards to the Christian view of their God being that of a Triune God (Trinity). Clearly, Muslims believe Allah to be One, and not a Trinity. But all Christians do recognize that their faith springs forth from Judaism, and that Jesus was a Jew. The fact that Judaism does not perceive God to be Triune in nature, has never caused Christians to lay forth the argument that it is a different God for which they speak. Rather, the correct argument made, is that their is a different theological understanding, or perception of the same God. This, by extension, has to be applied to Muslims, and the Arabic word for God "Allah" - when for the entire history of Islam, both Muslims, as well as Christians and Jews, have understood Muslims to be worshiping the same God as them - albeit it, with a different theological understanding. And even in regards to that different understanding - it should be pointed out, that Christianity has by no means been unanimous in its acceptance of The Trinity. It is not actually in the Bible, and in fact, for the first 325 years, was neither a universally held Christian viewpoint in regards to the nature of God, nor was it the Original conception of the earliest community). Furthermore, during the time of Muhammad (sal) relations between the early Muslim community and the Christian Negus (King) of Ethiopia, were quite cordial - with him offering protection and shelter to the Muslims as fellow believers in the same God. Finally, in regards to the Christian and Jewish God having a 'different' personality - it should first of all be made clear that the 'standard' lay person understanding of the Christian God, even in relation to that of the "Old Testament' God, is that The Christian God is more a 'God Of Love', as opposed to the Jealous, Wrathful God of old. That said, Christian and Jewish scholars alike will readily point out, God has always encompassed these various attributes (as well as others), and that we are merely witness to different aspects of the same God at different times within both the Old and New Testament. Similarly, Allah has many of the same attributes of which were of primary concern to the author who felt Allah to be devoid of such things. For the record - in regards to the Christian God being Holy, Pure and Just, let it be known that some Divine Names of Allah - in regards to his attributes, are al-'Adl - The Just; and al-Quddus - The Pure, the Holy. And in regards to Mercy and Grace - we have Ar-Rahman, and Ar-Rahim (the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful). Lastly, as to Muslims not expecting a Messiah, this again, is false. Not only do we await a Messiah, we expect it in the form of Jesus whom we believe will come in conjunction with the Mahdi (as). And to add further clarification, should there be any doubt about inherent similarities between our faiths - we as Muslims also believe in the Immaculate conception of Jesus - and that he was invested with the Ruh (or Spirit of Allah). This post was in one way a response to inaccuracies presented against Islam - but we also don't want to leave anyone with the notion that it was purely to defend "our" religion, against 'another' religion. Our purpose is to try to bring clarity to what we believe, so that others can respect it, as we respect their faith (not just Christianity, but all religions). It shouldn't just be about "tolerating" other peoples views. It should be about respecting the fact that their faith brings them into communion with God and makes them better people. In that regard, we have close friends and family, who run the gamut of world religions - and we are able to see the beauty in all of their faiths. That does not mean we personally accept all of their beliefs, and as mentioned earlier, we do raise our children as Muslims - but at the same time, we are not scoffing at our friends and family who are not Muslim, for their beliefs. Only God knows what is in each person's heart, and its not up to us to dictate peoples faith.

One of the harder things about having Lupus is knowing how much to share with your kids. On the one hand I don't want them to be burdened with fear or worry for me, on the other hand the fact is I need more and more help. I need help with the house, cooking, gardening, and I NEED them to pull their weight in the classroom. It's pretty obvious when I'm having a flare,& I think it's fair to say I've layed on the guilt. I've totally said "I'm sick, so if you want to be homeschooled I need you to do the work like a big girl". I hate the idea of having 2 daughters that don't feel a duty to the family unit. The Lupus is here to stay, it means delegating the work, like it or not. We read a lot of older books that show the children working, studying, and obeying their parents. I don't know where else to find modern examples of family duty with a happy, gracious heart. The older they get, the more important these "old fashioned" values become to me. There is no way I can keep going at the pace I'm at right now. I'm hoping it all pays off as they mature in the coming years... That said, please understand on a sick day 5 min of french, the worlds quickest music practice, a shoddy math worksheet, time for learning (average 15 min.), a couple of fights, and 5 "The Way Things Work" dvds from the library is GREAT!!:D At 10 & 8 cleaning is.. well you know slightly cleaner, cooking is a box of cornbread, gardening is hosing EVERYTHING in the backyard including a box of paperwork, and so on. In the end, Peela gave you the BEST advice. Sometimes you have got to say forget it! If your kids fill the day with good play, who cares! Play is just as, if not more important at their ages. In my opinion...

I have a 10yo, and an 8 yo so they can get a lot done independently. When I am feeling good I keep my classroom running like a well oiled machine. I have trained them to have good work habits, how to move on to the next work etc. I think that has helped a lot! Of course sometimes they act like they have no idea how to work on their own:confused:. There are days where I have to stay in my dark room and rest here are all the things they can do: Time 4 Learning for math and language arts (no where near classical, but serves a purpose). Kumon daily math worksheet, cursive, printing, phonetic zoo spelling (she corrects it herself), piano & violin practice, poetry, pimsleur french cd, read whatever chapter book their working on at the time, books on cd while working with any kind of building materials or knitting, united steaming videos, NGA website, working with any kind of Waldorf art materials(felting, bees wax, etc). For me the trick on bad days is to quickly establish a peaceful content pace in the house. I turn on the fire place, put out a big fruit and snack bowl, lay out my general expectations, and then go pass out!:) It's kind of funny, but on my really bad days the house always feels relaxed and productive. I'm almost always fine with what ever they've gotten done. hope you start feeling better soon:grouphug:

Some other poems we enjoyed were 'In the Shadows' by Pauline E. Johnson 'How Happy is the Little Stone' by Emily Dickinson, 'Pippa's Song' by Robert Browning, 'Last Word of a Blue Bird As Told to a Child' (I love hearing my 7 yo recite this one) by Robert Frost, and 'When I Heard the Learned Astronomer by Walt Whitman. What's kind of cool about doing this is they know what different poets look like, as we repeat some of the poets I put up a picture of their younger or older years, so they can see the poets at different stages of their life. It's amazing to watch them memorize and recite with such an understanding and love for the words. It figures the one thing I do that is free and simple, will probably stay with us through high school:tongue_smilie:. Thanks for all the responses! Any more??? By the way my kids are 10 & 7. But I'm collecting for future years as well!

Every month I put up a new poem on the bulletin board, with the name and photo (or drawing) of the poet. This is the end of our 2nd year doing this. We keep a folder of our growing collection and recite them to each other often. My fav is 'Woman's work' by Maya Angelou my daughters are 'Gathering Leaves' by Robert frost and 'Trees' by Joyce Kilmer. This months poem turned out to be a bit of a snoozer, and it's got me looking for next years poems. I'm wondering what some of your family favorites are? Any suggestions? thanks!