Rosie, I am so so sorry and so saddened to hear of this news. There is absolutely nothing I can say that does any justice to the hardship you are facing and pain you and your daughter must be feeling so I won't even attempt to pretend I could understand that. Please take care of yourself. <3

I did with DS 2. He was a surprise and I was actually at a get-together with some friends and saying how I missed having a baby. When I got home, I was overwhelmed by nausea and thought I'd eaten something bad there but it continued for several days. I was in such denial that I waited 2 weeks more of really bad morning sickness convinced it was a really bad stomach bug before I decided to take a test to prove to my husband that wasn't the cause and it was positive. I had strong morning sickness with him and it actually lasted through my 2nd trimester.

I find it ridiculous that the GED is meant to assess the completion of even a 10th grade education. I took it as I was home-schooled (poorly so, if I might say) and wanted to start college and it was ridiculously easy and shallow in depth. I would say calling it an assessment equal to an 8th grade education would be being generous. They say it takes several hours (spread in 2 different days) but both times I finished within 15-30 minutes of beginning and had to go home early and call my ride back to pick me up (they were expecting to have to go occupy themselves for several hours and had just left). Obviously an exaggeration but I used to joke that a typical GED question was more like this: Read the following passage and answer the questions: The sky is blue. It is definitely blue. Question 1: What color is the sky? a) Banana b) Kitten c) Blue D) 7 I'm not trying to be arrogant, I don't consider myself especially smart or anything. I was just surprised by HOW easy it was. I didn't study at all either or take any classes, just went in to take it. I was fortunate that I took the ACT on my own as it gave me an advantage with college placement that I would not have had with the GED alone.

Does anyone know whether it would be better to self supplement d3 in large doses or take the prescription d2? My vitamin d level was 7 when I was tested which I'm told is very low and the doctor prescribed d2. I've been taking it but don't feel any improvement at all and the last time they checked, levels hadn't increased much. The prescription is for 50,000 iu weekly. I assume even after I stop taking it I should continue to take some sort of supplement regularly to avoid going back to this low.

........

Constantine killed his second wife, Fausta, and son.

I was 7 cm for one week before having my baby at 39+ weeks AND I have problems with PTL and keeping baby in. :) The labor was very fast though (1-2 hours total).

The original poster would have to give you an explanation as to WHY they feel that way. I tend to disagree with her and think that argument is flawed. The problem with the Pearls' book is that it is being applied 'as it should be'. The Pearls' book does encourage these acts. I don't believe that because a minority of people use a book to justify misdeeds and atrocities that this can logically be linked to the conclusion that the book itself is rotten in its core. The use of the bible in this comparison is a valid point because you can find Christians who misuse the bible to do things that are unChristian and in some cases, abominable however, I as well as most of the members on this forum would argue that the bible itself is not rotten to the core and these people are abusing the text for their own ill motives. The same can be said of Jews, Muslims, and Hindus with regards to people who commit heinous acts in the name of the Torah, Qur'an, or Vedas/Bhagavad Gita....that this does not represent a book rotten to its core but people who are rotten to their own cores acting in a way they choose to but using the title of the book to bolster their actions. And of course, this does not extend only to religion. Humans will always find a way to hurt eachother and it might be in the name of faith, political ideology, race...etc and it is not a logical conclusion that faith, the political ideology, or the whole race is foul. To be clear, I disagree with the post that said that "any book that can be misapplied this badly must be rotten to the core" because ANY book can be misapplied just as badly and even worse and that is not a reflection on the book but the doer as they are "misapplying" it. This is the problem that opened the door for Albeto's argument. In this case, the doers were using the book as written and it was being correctly applied. THAT is why the book is rotten (because when applied correctly it is rotten).

I am not a Christian but I know the Apostles' Creed by heart (as well as the Nicene Creed and various rosary prayers). Once I've heard something once, I have trouble losing it from my memory.

I've been a bit busy and haven't been around the forums lately but I was reading the Arabic news and thought of this post. I haven't seen if it has been mentioned in the US news yet but the military went to two towns Ar-Rabaa and An-Nahda and are slaughtering men, women, and children even after they have come out peacefully and surrendered. Reportedly they are burning the bodies to dispose of evidence or a realistic body count. Estimates are close to 300 civilian deaths though.

Good thoughts for your birth! Since no one mentioned this and I saw someone made a spin off thread asking, the president most people refer to as having been gay was James Buchanan. Huma (Weiner's wife) has a disadvantage because of her background. When I googled for the current article on them one of the first results were some ultra-conservative sites who insist on speculating she's secretly a terrorist with seriously the most ridiculous explanations I've ever heard. And I've heard some really ridiculous thins.

Nope. A different one. It seems like it less about the individual women as it is that he has a strange addiction/compulsion to send people pics of his junk and have phone affairs. Seems like the women involved are more a means to an end to him than someone who was attracted/had a relationship or even loved a woman and cheated on his wife with her.

I know there was a lot of speculation that they had a political marriage and so she is benefiting from the marriage as well for her own career ambitions (and perhaps was most upset with the incident because of the damage it caused to their careers and reputation than for it being infidelity). They could have an arrangement based on that which does not require fidelity amongst themselves (although having a baby together did throw off the original speculation somewhat). Obviously, we don't know. It is certainly possible that she loves him in spite of everything and is staying although they did promise fidelity despite pain to herself. OR it is possible she really doesn't mind that he does that. Hilary stayed with her husband and her career has taken off even more since her husband left office. His position and connections certainly helped her own career in the long run and she likely benefited more from staying in the relationship than she would have if she left as the scorned wife. There have been all kinds of rumors about why she stayed and it could be any of them or none. But, politically, IMO it was a smart move for her own career. It doesn't surprise me that her right-hand woman would act the same way under her advice, especially if she has her own ambitions. The 2nd incident, btw, happened after he resigned and after the public attention on the first scandal but before running again. His wife and he 'dealt' with it after it happened but it hadn't hit the news so when he wanted to run again and get back into the public eye, he came clean about doing so before the woman involved came out with it for notoriety after he was back in the public eye again as a politician.

Extremely offensive to all the posters here who say they don't choose their candidates based on what they do with their private parts (so long as it isn't a crime). That is a pretty awful comparison for people who just disagree with you. As a sidenote, I think Weiner is a word I can't write here. He seems like a pretty awful husband with some addiction behavioral issues and in general, I'm not a fan of many of his views. I just don't think that excludes someone from being a good politician. JFK and FDR would tend to disagree, among others. As for the dishonesty, please do find me an 'honest' politician. I'd much rather one who is doing a legitimately good job but is dishonest about cheating on his wife than one who is 'honest' (ie hasn't been caught yet doing something wrong) but not good for his position.

Because some people feel like his sex life is irrelevant to his ability to be a good politician. He can be a legitimate douche and still good at his job, I imagine.

I don't know about the Emirates, I think they give either life imprisonment or the death sentence though I'm not sure if they can choose either or if, more likely, a person might be sentenced to death and then have his sentence commuted to life imprisonment. Islamically, a rape conviction (even if the person confessed of their own volition) is automatic death penalty though some have allowed exceptions for life imprisonment and lashes. Either decision would require a cash settlement paid to the victim in addition to serving out the punishment.

There were multiple reasons for him to be buried at sea: a burial at sea prevented any sort of shrine or memorial being erected for him by followers as well as any sort of defacement of his grave and Muslims require a speedy burial so there was a time issue regarding that. I think it makes sense that they would respect spiritual beliefs in that context because regardless of who the person is, many (not all, but I'd say a lot) humans would still grant that person a proper disposal of their body after they're dead. Also, they were hoping to prevent any bad feelings within the Muslim community (even those who disowned him) by disrespecting the body and as such, tried to dispose of the body in a way that would not offend and seem respectful while also not opening up the opportunity of having his burial place accessible to others. Also, I read that they did offer his body to Saudi Arabia (where he was born) and they refused it as they did not want him buried in their country. I don't think any of the Muslim countries wanted to take him. My understanding was that the government consulted some prominent Muslim religious leaders in the US (though I could be mistaken) about whether it would be acceptable or the lesser of 2 evils. The situation was a special circumstance given his infamy and the fact that burial in a place that people could find would be problematic (either for veneration or grave vandalism). True, I don't know that they did the Islamic funeral prayer over him (maybe they had a Muslim government person do it, I really don't know) but I also think in that case they were limited with what they could do because no one in the community wanted much to do with the proceedings given who it was.

Well, it can be the lack of evidence and he said, she said situation but since I had mentioned that already in the post, I was referring more to cases where there is a good amount of physical evidence and the accused's defense is something like they had consensual, rough s*x and because there was some sort of interaction between them prior or drinking or something that others witnessed or she was perceived as being promiscuous, the victim blaming gives them an extra way to justify believing that type of story. Seems like this is a legitimate issue in our own justice system in the US, so I was pointing out that under the circumstances with no physical evidence and the word of 2 people against one another (moreso if the victim decided not to testify) and a death penalty attached, I highly doubt any country would've touched that with a 10 foot pole. Of course, Dubai never let it get that far but I just don't get acting like he would've been definitely convicted here either. They certainly wouldn't have arrested her (maybe for perjury though I doubt that) but I'm not sure if they would prosecute.

Since you responded to my post where I said 'I don't know that the US would take a case to court if they didn't have physical evidence and also didn't have complainant' referencing another post talking about filing DV charges without a complainant, let me ask, in what place pray tell would they prosecute a rape where the accused says they had consensual sex, the victim says she was raped but the physical evidence is inconclusive and does not show rape (likely because the poor woman was unconscious in this case and couldn't fight back, but this would be a problem even if she just was scared and didn't fight...in Islam, there is no obligation for a woman to fight back if she is scared or threatened with her life though perhaps Dubai misses this point), there are no witnesses so it essentially boils down to his word vs hers with no concrete evidence for either side and a victim who recanted and is no longer pursuing the case? And add to that the punishment upon a guilty verdict would be a death sentence. Because that is the specific instance I referred to in the post you quoted me on. I think you'd have trouble, under those specific parameters, finding a DA to prosecute the case here with all of those factors at play. The difficulty of he said, she said cases especially with the added fact that a lot of 'date' rapists tend to go unconvicted here because the public blames the victim alone are often reasons such cases are unsuccessful.

This is true but I've never seen a he-said-she-said case with no conclusive physical evidence prosecuted without a woman's complaint. DV statutes differ by state (some states require a complainant, some states require actual physical assault while other states will file without a complainant and others only require the 'fear' of assault).

No. Under Islamic law, rape can be proven in three ways: 1. Witnesses - there is differing over the qualification of witnesses. As you mentioned, some take the view you need 4 male witnesses or that 2 female witnesses equal 1 male witnesses. This is based on a specific verse regarding business contracts and the witness there. Others take the view that 4 female witnesses are equally sufficient either because a) they feel that the male witness vs female witness is exclusive to the one business contract mention or B) because they believe a female witness is sufficient in an area where they have expertise of a specific perspective and a woman would recognize another woman being raped or assaulted. 2. Confession 3. DNA + physical evidence of rape. If a woman alleges rape (married or not) but the evidence is inconclusive and there is not enough to prove rape, then neither party should face prosecution. Both are considered innocent without proof of guilt. So, in a way, the woman's story of being raped is sufficient that it is believed even if it cannot be proved and by the same token, as it cannot be proven, the man is seen as innocent. It is left for Allah to judge. The exception, I suppose, might be if there is clear evidence that she made a false complaint, such as she confessed to accusing a person who was innocent, she could be prosecuted since his conviction would've carried the death penalty so there has to be accountability for lying under those circumstances. Essentially, it needs to be proven that he raped her or he is considered innocent and let off. However, it would likewise require a burden of proof to prove that she wasn't raped without a doubt for any prosecution to take place against her. The man is not so much considered a victim as a woman is in an opposite situation. If a man accuses her of adultery or extramarital sex without evidence, that is considered one of the major sins in Islam and requires a serious punishment under Islamic law (and is considered something that gains punishment in hellfire). Well, personally, I don't equate Iran or the revolution much with Islamic principles. It is complicated by sectarian differences and the fact that Khomeini and his ilk are pretty reviled by Sunni Islam. I certainly don't consider Islam having much to do with the revolution so much as it was a way for a nutcase on a power trip to treat actual people like pawns in his sick game :). As to why we see more oppression today, I would argue that it is because over time Muslims drifted farther from the Message and lost understanding of Islamic principles as our generations got further from their predecessors. When you look at the people who immediately surrounded Muhammad and his companions, those who ruled after him, and the direct descendents of those people, you often see women playing a major role in society. These were still religious women, they were women who veiled too even and clung closely to Islamic teachings and principles, but in doing so, this gave them a freedom to pursue avenues of education, science, the arts...etc that previously had not been as closely occupied by women. They had much more rights over their marriages, it was easy to divorce if it was unhappy and was not taboo, and could choose their own husbands. It is often mentioned in textual evidence occurrences of certain women being hard-headed, ruling over their husband, arguing with them, being outspoken with regards to education of all matters, advocating for themselves in all aspects of life (the right of a woman to s*xual pleasure for example is mentioned in religious texts and there are instances of female companions asking for clarification on these matters as well)...things that are a far cry from the submissive, quiet, beaten and broken housewife in a burka* locked inside her house and deprived of any sort of education or care that we are seeing in some countries. It is sad to think that these same men probably would've disapproved of the most revered women in our faith (including Muhammad's wives and daughters) because their ideas have gotten so backwards. *I throw in the burka reference more as a reference to the Taliban and the way women are treated under similar groups than to a negative on women who choose to cover their face. I cover my face myself in addition to the regular hijab so obviously I don't see it as a negative or something to be looked down upon.

But that is not Islamic culture so much as it is specific Arab cultures, Persian Cultures, and South Asian cultures (which though they make up a large part of Muslim societies are not the entirety of Muslim societies either). Non-Muslims within the same cultures have the same problems and often times it is put under the guise of their Christianity, Hinduism, or the like. I do think it is interesting that in many ways in the past, after Islam was introduced (as pre-Islamic Arabia was a pretty horrible society for women and Islam granted women a lot of rights they did not have at the time) was more progressive than some of the behaviors we see these days. When I read Islamic history books and profiles of Muslim women of the past, I'm often taken aback with how tough many of them were, how many rights they had, and how often they did and said things that cultures of these areas would find taboo in modern day. It is like we went forward and now are going backwards which is strange, in a way, when even if we emulated much of the attitude that was had at the time when Islam was at its peak, women might actually be in a better place than what some societies have right now! I'm not sure if that makes sense. We have an issue, no doubt, however I believe this issue is largely a result of culture and the men (and women) perpetuating these ideas through the generations as a way to control people who know no better as well as political aims of certain groups. I don't know if I'm clear at all. I'm probably making no sense. I don't feel super coherent atm and I'm NAK.

Firstly, Alcohol is served at many hotels, restaurants, and bars in Dubai. I believe Dubai and one other Emirate are the only ones the decriminalized alcohol. Dubai has several laws regarding alcohol which tourists should be aware of before visiting: Alcohol is available only at licensed premises, usually attached to hotels (most nightclubs and bars are in or attached to hotels, though they may have separate entrances). Alcohol is not sold on religious holidays, nor during daylight hours in Ramadan (even to non-Muslims). It is illegal to drink alcohol in public places, and there is a zero-tolerance policy on drunk driving. Anyone involved in a collision found with alcohol in their blood will usually get a month's jail sentence and fine. Alcohol can be bought only for home consumption at certain outlets in Dubai, and an alcohol license is required. Supermarkets only stock non-alcoholic beers. Even food items containing alcohol are not sold in supermarkets. Remember to carry some sort of identification when visiting a bar if you are young, as you will not be let in otherwise. The law prohibits anyone below 21 to enter. The Authorities take disruptive behavior while intoxicated very seriously, which as you can imagine will lead to jail time or deportation. You should definitely meet some Emirati women as I think you'll find they do have a choice and are pretty content with the governments. While I've seen differing in how women feel about their governments in many countries, the responses I've always gotten from Emirati women were overwhelmingly in support of UAE law and the Emir. However, I think the point is that firstly, Islamic law never blames women for rape. Secondly, the UAE has their own law loosely based in shariah and, as a general rule, the law is not supposed to prosecute rape victims and is supposed to prosecute the attacker. The issue is that culture/society has not yet 'caught up' regarding date rape or some of the different types of rape beyond what they typically see. It seems that the authorities did not believe that she was raped because of their ignorance on this matter and the lack of physical evidence combined with the he said, she said situation. That is inexcusable, however it is also not the same thing as the law itself criminalizing being a rape victim.

I don't really want to post here anymore but I can only say this one more time. I agree that this case was a HR violation. I cannot tolerate it either. I do plan to live overseas in the future at some point and it is my desire to start some things to help women in these situations (victims of abuse, rape, also women who are involved in prostitution and need help-- not trying to compare the other victims to prostitutes but overseas, a lot of prostitutes are victims themselves). Perhaps I'm overly optimistic or this is an unrealistic goal in the eyes of some. My husband and I have at-length discussions about this and we are on the same page. I don't think a woman ever deserves it. I don't think it is ever justifiable. Honestly, I do feel bothered by the fact some people are acting like I'm trying to somehow justify a case like this. I have only justified people being in favor of theocracy's right to have a law preventing people from having sex outside of marriage (namely publicly since it has to be public to be witnessed) when it is CONSENSUAL and no crime has been committed and no rape or sexual assault has taken place. I don't think I ever belittled the plight of this woman or any other who has been a victim. When women are victimized like this it is a crime and a black spot for the whole ummah (muslim community) and we have a responsibility to remedy this. I believe in sharia and I also believe that sharia does not allow for this. IMO, this gives me a better chance to make change within the realm of sharing a religion, beliefs, and a culture. The idea that so many people would insist on the assumption that I have somehow blamed the victim or that I think women deserve treatment like this or that I support this sort of thing in any form when the entire reason I posted to this thread knowing the direction it would go in was to condemn this and to publicly speak against it as a Muslim woman, is so abhorrent to me it really makes me sick.

Did I ever say what happened to her wasn't wrong? Is it possible, in some of your eyes, for a conservative Muslim woman to also be opposed to injustice because it seems like my posts on this point are continuously ignored. I don't know so much about the UAE but my understanding is that much of it is pretty modern, despite having theocratic laws. There is a difference between saying extramarital sex is illegal and as such, we should respect that law and not go there and have public intercourse and expect not to face a charge on that (and I am NOT referring to the victim the post was originally about but another poster who spoke solely of consensual encounters) and saying it is ok for women to be whipped or beaten on the street for being women? I just don't even know why some of you are so insistent to make everything I say into a sanction of being ok to beat/rape/arrest women. My point is this: if a country wants a theocratic government, then who are you to insist that you know better and they should have the same government as you. They aren't coming to the US and forcing theocracy on you because they believe their form of government is better since a theocracy is based on divine revelation. The same way we've had multiple topics about how it is inappropriate to use religion for lawmaking since there is separation of church and state here in the US, it is not right for you to command a nation of people (most of whom are sharing the same faith) to put aside and disregard their religious laws and beliefs in a country that is founded on theocratic principles with the desire to live in a theocratic nation because YOUR beliefs disagree. I understand interfering if it is clear that the way the government is working is at odds with the wishes of the people or if there are clear human rights' violations occurring (such as prosecuting a rape victim in this case), but to completely take away the people's right to choose a theocracy for themselves is unfair as well. However, to my knowledge, the Emirates are not a place where women get beaten just for being a woman or where it is extremely difficult to be as a woman. I've known a lot of Emirati people and expat women married to Emiratis and I have honestly only heard the utmost praise for the ease of living for Emiratis and their spouses there and the combination of modernity with *some* Islamic values (depending on the emirate). This is not a place where women get beaten for uncovering their faces (in fact most of those places are Taliban or AQ territory or extremely rural areas of certain countries where they are pretty far removed from the cities). I kind of feel we've snowballed into putting every atrocity committed by any government claiming to be Muslim upon the UAE's shoulders and are mixing issues where we're talking about apples and oranges. Anne in Oregon, you are right. 'Do' is the more appropriate term.