president Maduro captured after US strikes

[UltraBudgie]

I mean she should have just been praying to Allah loudly while sitting instead of exercising her right to protest.

Lol, oh you silly goose that would perhaps be haram! But I suppose it may depend on the situation.

Can women pray with a loud voice?
Answer

All perfect praise be to Allah, The Lord of the Worlds. I testify that there is none worthy of worship except Allah, and that Muhammad sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) is His slave and Messenger.

A woman's prayer could be performed in two different situations; the ruling of each situation differs from the other.

First, she performs the prayer alone or in the presence of her Mahaarim (unmarriageable male relatives) only, or she leads other women in prayer; in this case, reciting aloud in the prayers which are performed aloud and reciting silently in those prayers which are not performed aloud is Sunnah. The ruling of reciting aloud when it is required to do so, and reciting silently when it is required to do so, is same for women and men. However, she should raise her voice only to the degree that only she can hear herself and those who are near to her can hear her.

Second, she performs the prayer in the presence of non-Mahram men. The majority of Muslim scholars dislike her raising her voice so that the doors of temptation that might be caused from her voice will be blocked. The Maaliki scholars are of the opinion that if there is fear of temptation from her voice it is forbidden for her to raise her voice.

A few scholars permitted the raising of her voice, but for a hearer to enjoy her voice is unlawful according to them. The evidence of those who dislike the raising of a woman's voice in the presence of men is the Hadeeth of the Prophet sallallaahu `alayhi wa sallam ( may Allaah exalt his mention ) who said: “The saying of 'Subhan Allah' (Glorified is He) is for men [i.e. when correcting the Imam in prayer] and clapping is for women.” [Al-Bukhari and Muslim]

They deduced that correcting a mistake in prayer is an obligation; despite this fact, it is not permitted for a woman to say 'Subhan Allah', thus, it is more appropriate not to permit her to perform a prayer aloud which is not an obligation.

For more benefit that a woman’s voice is not an ‘Awrah, please refer to Fataawa 246091, 263791, and 84462.

Allah knows best.

https://islamweb.net/en/fatwa/84179/wome...loud-voice

[DBCowboy]

Ah cool. Thank you for the heads up. Anyone else arrested? I mean she should have just been praying to Allah loudly while sitting instead of exercising her right to protest.

Or maybe she should’ve have done it on the Golden Gate Bridge for migrant rights?

Guess some protests are more equal than others. Who needs Free Speech and dissent anyway.

I mean hell, what are we the USA? Almost sounds like we’re going the way of a dictatorship…

Ruh-ro. Nevermind….

*shrugs

Point out to me where it is in the Constitution the right to infringe on other people's rights and I will stop posting forever.

[chr0naut]

Article 1 section 1:
yes Trump is a narcissist and yes it's annoying.

And you think that doesn't have some consequence? Do you even consider how a narcissist could properly serve anyone else?

Article 1 section 2:
The steele dossier where complete and total fabrications the individuals that used them in court to obtain a fisa warrant 100% knew they were a fabrication The fisa warrant was in fact illegally obtained. The fact that they coerced a foreign nation to help them break the law and misdirect the citizens of the united sates in an effort to change apolitical outcome could be seen as an act of war which would place it in the relam of treason.

That's easy to say after all this time. But at the time, the veracity or otherwise of the dossier's claims were unknown. The dossier also states the unverified nature of the allegations.

But if the POTUS was being controlled by Russia, the damage that could be caused is fairly dire. It's not something that could be deferred for later review.

The Steel dossier contained some unverified allegations. Unverified does not mean proven, nor does it mean disproven. Other allegations in the dossier have been verified.

What’s True in Trump-Russia Dossier? Key Parts Proved Over Last Year

Article 1 section 3:

Politicians lie, and if you don't believe that I've got a bridge I can sell you. IYKYK

I am fairly sure that you don't. And therefore I can only conclude that you are lying too. So it seems to underline the point that it's not only politicians that can lie.

Article 1 section 4:

Racism isn't political it exist equally among all humans. 

Extremists (on both sides) use racism as argument to make political points. Just like they do with religion.

Article 1 section 5:

Trump negotiates like Trump

Ghengis Kahn negotiates like Ghengis Kahn. Thump! Aaaargh...

LOL

, Statesmen try to use classroom theory that some bloviated college professor instructed them as proper and expected. Capitalism is business not philosophy class, I'll take the business man.

Why, then, does Trump not try to monetize things that would bring him the greatest return?

Why does he always try to double-down on all those losing prospects, one after the other, and not even buy into a slice of the things that have historically proven even greater return?

Article 1 section 6:

Go ask your conservative black friends.

I'm not American, so none of my friends are even capable of voting in your country for either the Republican Party or the Democratic Party. The partisanship is entirely meaningless to those outside of the USA.

All my friends, of any ethnicity or skin tone, are fairly centrist or apolitical. Most people are. There are very few people at the left or right extremes of politics.

Extremists are a minority of very similar kooks shouting at each other about fairly trivial differences, and your nationhood has no importance at all to those who are of different nationality.

[SteamyAmerican]

Lol, oh you silly goose that would perhaps be haram! But I suppose it may depend on the situation.

https://islamweb.net/en/fatwa/84179/wome...loud-voice

Dang. Here I thought my logic sound, argument impervious to flaw.

Alas. Ya got me.

And you thought I mis-stepped on the draw.

Thanks for showing the error. Knew I could count on ya!

*wink

P.S. In any event I love being American. But my favorite thing is not swinging from light poles when I express my opinion, nay disdain for all the shotty things the government does to others in the name of Freedom. I understand people are pro-Trump/anti-Maduro. And that is fine. But why the vitriol from others that disagree with this stance from others is beyond me.

its still a free country. I think. Alas. Venezuela is about to explode into a boondoggle that’ll make Vietnam look like a dog and pony show.

Just my two pennies.

[putnam6]

See here’s the thing. Just because something can be done doesn’t mean it should be….

AND conversely if we are so omnipotent as a nation, then release the files and start actually taking out bad people that do bad things to women and children.

In any event, the drugs/oil argument is dumb AF and we all know Trump is being told what to do and when to do it. Meaning I won’t hold my breath for Prez. Sheinbaum to be military seized and extradited, even as she calls on the UN (the irony) to “do something” about Trump.

ETA it’s like when the Saudis and Israel did 9/11. So of course we went back to Iraq and Afghanistan. In the same way China is providing fentanyl to Mexican cartels so naturally we extradite  the leader of oil-rich Venezuela and his wife. See how that works?

So there’s that too.

Yeah, the charges against Maduro are solid, because so is the evidence, so there's that. 

We can argue the mission should we, shouldn't we, but the motivation behind it was likely a combination of positives for Uncle Sam

[SteamyAmerican]

Point out to me where it is in the Constitution the right to infringe on other people's rights and I will stop posting forever.

Not sure what you’re referring to, but I do believe the Prez has to get congress’ approval to go to war or enact military engagement against another country.

But I’ve been wrong before. And as much as I may be eccentric, contrarian and contradictory, I would never dream of telling you to not post or speak your mind.

That’d be so unAmerican. And not hot at all.

*wink

[Mantiss2021]

The SCOTUS recently ruled that a sitting President is immune from prosecution for "official acts" ("crimes") taken (committed)  while in office.

Nicolas Maduro, as the sitting President of Venezuela (even if that title is in dispute), should therefore be able to claim, therefore, that even under US law, under which he (and his wife)  is being prosecuted, he is immune from prosecution on the basis that every action he is accused of was an "official act" undertaken as the President of Venezuela.


If US law is applicable to a foreign nationals, in their own countries, then shouldn't those laws be applied to such foreign nationals as it is applied to US citizens...especially since abbrogation of those enforcement principles, especially in this case, would expose the sitting US President to similar prosecution?

[SteamyAmerican]

Yeah, the charges against Maduro are solid, because so is the evidence, so there's that. 

We can argue the mission should we, shouldn't we, but the motivation behind it was likely a combination of positives for Uncle Sam

No argument there.

Alas there are so many others that would like to experience a helicopter ride at the hands of Uncle Sam just because. So why stop at Maduro. I mean are you just gonna sit pretty here and not take a hard look at the rest of the world leaders that don’t align with our policies?

Looking at you Sheinbaum…..

[SteamyAmerican]

The SCOTUS recently ruled that a sitting President is immune from prosecution for "official acts" ("crimes") taken (committed)  while in office.

Nicolas Maduro, as the sitting President of Venezuela (even if that title is in dispute), should therefore be able to claim, therefore, that even under US law, under which he (and his wife)  is being prosecuted, he is immune from prosecution on the basis that every action he is accused of was an "official act" undertaken as the President of Venezuela.


If US law is applicable to a foreign nationals, in their own countries, then shouldn't those laws be applied to such foreign nationals as it is applied to US citizens...especially since abbrogation of those enforcement principles, especially in this case, would expose the sitting US President to similar prosecution?

Shhhhh! We GOT HIM. Aren’t you happy. Weren’t you fearful for your life and that of your friends and family at the hands of this crazed narco-terrorist Caligula?

Gosh. So unpatriotic to administer turnabout as used by US courts.

C’mon Man!

[SomeStupidName]

She was described as a lost puppy.

So leaving these guys to take over the government was in the original plans?

yeah, otherwise the Democrats could make legit claims of regime change. Now they just sound like looney toons and the little people left behind will just implode one at a time as we run Venezuela town now.