Message
Hi OP, I think it would be easier for you or your DH to ask them directly if they have any dietary restrictions or if they just eat halal. Some Muslims only eat Halal, and some will eat anything as long as it is not Pork or pork derivatives. If in doubt, you can just go with Seafood, as all seafood is considered halal so Muslims can eat seafood from anywhere. As far as alcohol is concerned, some might be uncomfortable if you have it around but will be polite and not say anything but will probably not want to come back lol, and some might not care at all if you have it around but won't drink it, also some Muslims do drink as well since not all Muslims follow everything, but the majority don't drink. I think the best thing to do would be to ask your guests if they have any restrictions that you need to know before hand and Im sure they'd be glad to let you know and you can then plan accordingly. Have fun hosting 
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh
Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.
I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.
More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.
With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?
Same new PP here. Forgot to add, here in the United States, we like to say, "Ignorance of the law is no defense." We expect all residents to abide by US law, regardless of whether they agree or disagree with it, regardless of whether they know about it. Why should the same NOT apply to Malaysia's law, which happens to be the Sharia? Btw, I ask this as someone who actually is against many Sharia laws. It's just that PP's line of reasoning simply makes no sense.
Not sure what is so hard to understand. I'll spoon feed it to you.
Malaysia has two legal systems, the broadly utilized federal-level constitution, and state-level ordinances. This fairly modern legal system is based on British common law, a leftover from British colonial days much like elsewhere in the world that has legal systems based on British common law. This is the law of the land. The second legal system, Sharia law, has limited scope largely pertaining to family and religious matters, and applies only to Muslims. Sharia law is recognized and practiced in Malaysia because the Muslims there demands it. Muslims current make up a little over 60% of Malaysian population, and as indicated in my previous post, 86% of them believe Sharia law should be the law of the land, and 55% of those wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.
Why is this relevant?
Because the poster Muslima claimed:
"since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there"
As you can see, Muslims prove her wrong because instead of living under the unified law of Malaysia, they demand and operate under a secondary legal system. They want their own law, Sharia law, to be the law of the land, replacing the exisiting one. This is not respecting the laws of the land.
2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws.
Again, as you can see, Muslims in Malaysia prove her wrong again, with a significant portion of Muslims wanting Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.
Because the poster Muslima claimed:
"since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there"
As you can see, Muslims prove her wrong because instead of living under the unified law of Malaysia, they demand and operate under a secondary legal system. They want their own law, Sharia law, to be the law of the land, replacing the exisiting one. This is not respecting the laws of the land.
Uhm... Critical thinking is not your forte, is it? How is common law the law of the Land in Malaysia? Stop Bullshitting people. Malaysia has 2 laws, one for Muslims under sharia Law and one for non-Muslims which is the common law. 2ND the land is their land, they didn't immigrate there, they are Malay, so they can vote any laws they see fit. The "law of the land' theory doesn't apply here. That theory applies if Malays were to move to the US and want to apply their own laws in a Foreign Land. Got it???
2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws.
Again, as you can see, Muslims in Malaysia prove her wrong again, with a significant portion of Muslims wanting Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims.
?????
This doesn't even make sense to warrant further commentary 
I think he had a mosque in DC at some point, not sure if he still has it. I disagree with some of his views but the Qur'an and sunnah' s stance on homosexuality is much more complex than many muslims realize. I think a lot of gay Muslims are starting to live more openly especially in the West. There was an article a few months ago about 2 Muslim gay women getting married. Most mainstream Muslim scholars consider homosexuality to be a sin, and I think there aren't many resources in the Muslim communities to deal with these issues or even talk openly about homosexuality. It's usually the elephant in the room, people don't want to discuss it, know about it or even think about it. This in return causes many issues and further widens the gap between the 2 groups. Some Muslims believe it is even sinful to sit in the same room as someone who has a different sexual orientation. Going forward, more discussion is needed, more tolerance and of course more education of Muslim scholars about these issues. We can't just keep ignoring them!
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh
Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.
I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.
More evasive dodging from offering anything substantial. Why are you here engaging other people if this is not the right outlet to exchange knowledge and ideas? Clearly people are interested since the thread is receiving active participation. No one is asking you to explain the intricacies of Sharia law in one paragraph, only to address certain points and perhaps provide some context from your knowledge - this is not a all or nothing proposition.
With respect to the point about application of Sharia Law to non-Muslims, we have your baseless assertion on one side, and the Pew research on the other side, showing that 86% of Malaysian Muslims favor making Sharia law the law of the land, and 55% of that population wants Sharia law to apply to non-Muslims in Malaysia. You may be living in a fantasy world where your own understanding of Islam pervades the word, but this is clearly not true. If as you say Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, why do such an overwhelming majority of Malaysian Muslims practice their faith in direct opposition to that?
1st of all, you didn't ask a specific question, so there was nothing to dodge. If you have a specific question about sharia law, please do ask and I will be glad to entertain, discussing sharia without a specific question is pointless as it is too broad. 2nd my assertion that Muslims are asked to flow the law of the land where they live is not baseless, it is based on Islamic Jurisprudence and texts. Whether specific Malay Muslims, Random Muslims surveyed on the street or Pew research show that those specific Muslims desire otherwise is irrelevant as they remain just desires/wants of those specific people. You can want everyone in the entire state of NY to wear pink, that doesn't make it a law. The Islamic text is clear on this issue, Muslims who enjoy the liberty to practice their faith are required to honor the government of their country, and to live as decent, law-abiding citizens :
The obligation to follow the law of the land
That the Shari'a obliges Muslims to comply with the laws of their country of residence is premised on the Qur'anic dicta demanding fulfilling "obligations" and "covenants," as in the imperatives "You who believe, fulfil your obligations" and "Honour your pledges: you will be questioned about your pledges." Hence, when asked for a fatwa about the extent to which the Shari'a allows Muslims to obey the governments of the non-Muslim countries in which they live, the prominent contemporary Shaykh Salman al-Oadah replied:
"The Muslims living in a non-Muslim country, even if they originally entered that country by means of forged documents, are considered to be living in their adopted country under a covenant. They must, therefore, comply with the laws of their country of residence without, at the same time, disobeying Islamic Law."
By "disobeying Islamic law" is meant matters that relate to personal obligations as, for example, Muslim women being asked by the Australian government to remove their hijab (head scarf), or Muslims being asked to consume alcohol or unlawful food, which is unconstitutional and farfetched. Given that section 116 of Australia's Constitution separates religious and civil authority and prohibits the Commonwealth from enacting laws establishing any religion or enforcing religious observance, or prohibiting freedom of religious practice, it is evident that no authority, religious or otherwise, can force a Muslim to abide by, or abandon, any personal religious laws unless deemed illegal by Australian law.
Classical Muslim jurists applied the same rule for Muslims passing through enemy lands (in other words, an abode of war), as demonstrated in the fatwa of the imminent jurist of his time, Muhammad ibn Hasan al-Shaybani (748-804):
"If it happens that a company of Muslims pass through the enemy's front lines by deceptively pretended to be messengers of the Muslim's Caliph carrying official documents - or if they were just allowed to pass through the enemy lines - they are not allowed to engage in any hostilities with the enemy troops. Neither are they entitled to seize any of their money or properties as long as they are in their area of authority. This also applies in case of being truly trusted by the other party."
Source: http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2013/05/10/3756163.htm
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:It being sacred to Muslims doesn't answer why it's offensive when non-Muslims do it. A catholic person doesn't want other people to be disrespectful of Mary but they don't think they get to react when a non-believer is.
That's an important difference.
There is over a billion Muslims in the world, not even 0.01% of them reacted
First, that's a gross characterization of the facts. Fact shown by Pew research show that a not-insignificant portion of the Muslim population believe Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims. These may not be the one committing the violence, but they clearly condone and support such behavior. Pointing out that they didn't react is like saying that only a small minority of whites in pre-emancipation US actually owned slaves.
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh
Your response simply evades the debate. Why don't you educate the readers here on what Shariah law says about images of the prophet.
I don't think this is the right outlet to educate readers about Sharia Law, I doubt there is any interest and even if there was I doubt I'd have enough time or energy to explain the intricacies of Sharia Law in one paragraph. And my previous response wasn't to evade any debate but to point out how ridiculous was the assumption from that PP that Muslims wanted sharia law to apply to NON-muslims, since 1- Muslims are specifically told they need to respect the laws of the Land where they reside, not bring islamic law there and 2- sharia law should be applied to Muslims with non muslims being judged according to their own laws. Example: Malaysia operates under 2 laws, sharia law for Muslims and civil law for non-muslims.
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:It being sacred to Muslims doesn't answer why it's offensive when non-Muslims do it. A catholic person doesn't want other people to be disrespectful of Mary but they don't think they get to react when a non-believer is.
That's an important difference.
There is over a billion Muslims in the world, not even 0.01% of them reacted
First, that's a gross characterization of the facts. Fact shown by Pew research show that a not-insignificant portion of the Muslim population believe Sharia law should apply to non-Muslims. These may not be the one committing the violence, but they clearly condone and support such behavior. Pointing out that they didn't react is like saying that only a small minority of whites in pre-emancipation US actually owned slaves.
Uhm, ok.... Do you even know what shariah law is? smh
Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:It being sacred to Muslims doesn't answer why it's offensive when non-Muslims do it. A catholic person doesn't want other people to be disrespectful of Mary but they don't think they get to react when a non-believer is.
That's an important difference.
There is over a billion Muslims in the world, not even 0.01% of them reacted
Not reacted like the crazies. React in the sense that they get to condemn and say people have to not do it. I don't think I get to condemn when other people don't follow the rules of my religon as to people/saints/God who are holy to me but not to them.
This isn't about the crazies.
This is pure B.S. Anyone is entitled to their opinions. You are free to agree/disagree with anything, just like they are to say they disagree with the offensive depiction of the Prophet saw. It is their prerogative to condemn it if they choose to do so, as long as it is peaceful, why aren't they entitled to their opinions?
Anonymous wrote:It being sacred to Muslims doesn't answer why it's offensive when non-Muslims do it. A catholic person doesn't want other people to be disrespectful of Mary but they don't think they get to react when a non-believer is.
That's an important difference.
There is over a billion Muslims in the world, not even 0.01% of them reacted
It is not a secret that the Saudi regime is oppressive to women and Saudi women do face many problems and cultural discrimination. Again, that is NOT the point of this discussion. There isn't a debate there, I fully Agree from my OP that those issues exist and are REAL. The discussion I wanted to have was one about the women described in the article whose "choices" and social etiquettes mirror those of Saudi women. From what I see, most people automatically argued that those UES women "chose" that lifestyle, they couldn't certainly have been pressured to leave their careers behind and devote their lives to their families, their segregation is a choice that is totally acceptable. The paradox is that based on the definition of freedom that a lot of people like to hand left and right, the UES women do not look so free and their motivations/justifications are sometimes the same as those living in what are considered "oppressed" regions, their choices at the end make them dependent on men and disempowered . What is even more interesting to me, is that this occurs in an Upper Class, wealthy sub-society where, presumably these women have a wide variety of choices and options of how to live their life at their disposal, and this is the route that is chosen. There is also the issue of the wife bonus, where at the end of the year, the husband gets to stand in judgment of the wife, determine how good she did, and allocate money to her based on a set of performance metrics for the wife, that is crazy to me.
Anonymous wrote:Hey, I like you, Muslima!
Misogyny is worldwide, and takes on different cultural aspects in different parts of the world. Even here women are paid less than men for the same jobs. There is an important question of degree, though. Theoretically, Western laws are much more women-friendly than Saudi laws. In practice, there are significant differences as well. But if you're talking about like-minded people hanging out together (women shopping and taking care of children for ex), then that is in response to a deeper, more primal, imperative than anything you could stamp out by a law. Women are in general more social, affectionate and gregarious than men. There are well-researched differences in brains.
I agree with you that western laws are way more friendly and gender neutral than Saudi laws. The point I was trying to make was more on cultural acceptance and norms. The Social life of a rich segregated Saudi woman is very similar to that of the women described in the article. Yes, the western woman might have access to more laws, "freedom" ect but at the end of the day as the author pointed: "The worldwide ethnographic data is clear: The more stratified and hierarchical the society, and the more sex segregated, the lower the status of women." . The gender segregation and power relations in both the lives of these women and Saudi women are very similar, however the western women are seen as normal because they chose this lifestyle while no Saudi woman would choose to live the way they do.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Saudi women living in the U.S. are free to be as different as they wish and to practice their religion to the degree they with (within the common law of the people in the U.S.).
Before there was a U.S., religious pilgrims came here fleeing oppression in Europe; we celebrate them yearly at Thanksgiving.
Be as modest as you want and pray as often as you like. We encourage it in fact. Diversity is our strength.
But we also value tolerance. We don't believe that prohibiting women from driving is tolerant. We don't believe in having Saudi-style religious police to enforce sharia. We tolerate people of all faiths, and people of no faith. And we tolerate freedom of expression - even offensive speech like burning our flag or burning a Koran. It is protected speech.
I'm not convinced you've managed to reconcile the freedoms we give you with the tolerance we require as Americans.
+1
And I'm a Muslim-American from a very modern Muslim-American family. I have no idea what the purpose of OP's thread is. Comparing Saudi women's circumstances with the circumstances of American women is a ridiculous equivalence. OP, you know that a lot of Middle-Eastern countries think the Saudis are batshit crazy, don't you?
I doubt you read my post. I never said Saudi Arabia was the epitome of freedom, equality and women's Paradise. If anything, I have stated it was misogynistic and not the Issue at debate. Where I wanted to bring this conversation was more on the choices of the women described in the article, but everyone keeps going back to how unfairly women are treated in KSA which is not what I'm debating since I agree with that view.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think the big thing you're missing here is choice. These women CHOOSE this lifestyle.
Some Saudi women also chose that lifestyle...
NP here. No, they aren't choosing anything so much as accepting a choice that has been made for them by men.
This I know you will tell us all we are wrong because no one can disagree with you. 8 can choose to be whatever kind of women I want to be. Sure some people will look down on me (mostly other moms) but I can be a WOHM who barely sees my kid, can be a SAHM who stifles my kids, or can be a SAHM who spends all her husband's money and leaves the kids to the nannies. Sure, some may roll their eyes and some may look down on me. But that's about it. Saudi women have that same lifestyle choice? I think not.
Why do you think not? There are Saudi working mothers and SAH moms and others who spend their husband's money and leave the kids to the nanny. What makes you think these Saudi women don't exist?
First NP here. Now you're just shit-stirring. I really cannot believe you're this stupid.
Are we talking about Saudi women living in the US? Because that's a whole different ballgame if we are comparing American born women in the US and Saudi born women in the US.
I'm talking about Saudi women in Saudi Arabia. There is no denying that Saudi society is sexist and I have stated that on the opening post. The point I was raising was that the women described in the article have a life that parallels Saudi culture a lot, however theirs is seen as acceptable while the other is not
Anonymous wrote:SMH...
Further proof that "news" is not objective information about recent events or happenings. "News" is selective information for entertainment purposes. If the roles were reversed and this was a Muslim guy planning a similar attack on Christians it would be the lead story and front page material of every media outlet in the country. A Muslim extremist trying to tear some shit up here in the New York?
"Oh hell yeah gimmie that news that's entertainment!!"
But no, it was just some nutjob white guy who wanted to attack a Muslim community in New York.
"Eh, who cares no need for anyone to report on it that's not entertainment."
Damn shame.
Unfortunately, spot on. I'm still waiting on the mass call for Christians to apologize
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Muslima wrote:Anonymous wrote:I think the big thing you're missing here is choice. These women CHOOSE this lifestyle.
Some Saudi women also chose that lifestyle...
NP here. No, they aren't choosing anything so much as accepting a choice that has been made for them by men.
This I know you will tell us all we are wrong because no one can disagree with you. 8 can choose to be whatever kind of women I want to be. Sure some people will look down on me (mostly other moms) but I can be a WOHM who barely sees my kid, can be a SAHM who stifles my kids, or can be a SAHM who spends all her husband's money and leaves the kids to the nannies. Sure, some may roll their eyes and some may look down on me. But that's about it. Saudi women have that same lifestyle choice? I think not.
Why do you think not? There are Saudi working mothers and SAH moms and others who spend their husband's money and leave the kids to the nanny. What makes you think these Saudi women don't exist?
Anonymous wrote:Saudi women living in the U.S. are free to be as different as they wish and to practice their religion to the degree they with (within the common law of the people in the U.S.).
Before there was a U.S., religious pilgrims came here fleeing oppression in Europe; we celebrate them yearly at Thanksgiving.
Be as modest as you want and pray as often as you like. We encourage it in fact. Diversity is our strength.
But we also value tolerance. We don't believe that prohibiting women from driving is tolerant. We don't believe in having Saudi-style religious police to enforce sharia. We tolerate people of all faiths, and people of no faith. And we tolerate freedom of expression - even offensive speech like burning our flag or burning a Koran. It is protected speech.
I'm not convinced you've managed to reconcile the freedoms we give you with the tolerance we require as Americans.
I don't think you read what I wrote and you're circling back the conversation to issues that come from tribalism and the plight of Saudi women. And I don't know who you're referring to when you say 'we' and as opposed to whom? Many Saudi women might agree with you on those points, and let's not talk about Thanksgiving which is another issue..