Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Get busy living or Get busy dieing

(Reflect on your life and better it, Don't ignore it and let it fly away)

If you've watched The Shawshank Redemption then you understand the title of this post.

A lot of problems go on in America, and they stem from one thing, objects that get you busy dieing:

  • 1) Smoking
  • 2) Alcohol
  • 3) Illegal drugs, such as cocaine, weed, Meth, or Illegal Prescriptions drugs.
  • 4) Excess time on the Computer
  • 5) Excess time playing games
  • 6) Excess time in front of T.V
  • 7) Dreaming of being immensely rich (or wasting time trying)
  • 8) Dreaming of being a celebrity (or wasting time trying)
  • 9) Arguing for no reason (no reason = not learning anything, arguing for arguments sake, or because it's fun for them)
  • 10) Buying Expensive cars or wasting time adding hundreds of horsepower to average ones.
  • 11) Shopping for happiness, where you start buying unnecessary things. (You shouldn't be in love with malls, materialism has no good ending, nor does it lead to true happiness.)

Falling into Traps you've been warned about already

People fall into these traps, these holes that they've been told to watch out for.

You would think if someone warned you that a big pit was 5 feet in front of you, and you should change direction and walk around it instead, that you would.

You would think after being told that others would try to drive you inside that pit, that you'd be wary.

You would think after seeing the results of others falling in that pit, that you'd stay away.

You would be wrong though.


People, especially my generation, seem to be busy dieing, wasting away their lives on things that aren't important.

The things that used to matter in this world, that made you busy living, are now meaningless to most of my generation:

  • 1) Getting a proper Education (An Associates degree [a.a or a.s] at least)
  • 2) Preparing for a Family (Finding your wife, and making criteria for choosing her; saving for a home)
  • 3) Finding a career you love by exploring different classes and trying out different things (This helps you find your major and decide your future career)
  • 4) Planning your life, where to live, where to go to college
  • 5) Planning your finances (How am i going to afford college, what steps do i take, where do i work after college, are they hiring, who already works there)
  • 6) Having a daily schedule of things to do, followed up by a weekly and monthly outlook(Every home needs a calendar, you can start there)
  • 7) Assessing your day, and actions of that day, every night.
  • 8) Making short term goals of the above, and long term goals.
  • 9) Having a monthly budget, the moment you start working.
  • 10) Contemplating life and spirituality, it's meaning and your place on this earth.
  • 11) Contemplating about your Morality, where it is derived from and how you might change it to better it.
  • 12) Contemplating on Death, knowing that is your final resting place. (Death shows mercy to no one and treats the youth and the elderly the same)
  • 13) Putting a stop to materialism, injustice in the world, and helping your fellow man.
A shorter way to say it is: Planning all finances, all family issues, all career issues, all personal moral and spiritual issues, creating those goals, and organizing your time properly in a daily, weekly,monthly, and yearly manner to meet your goals.

The bulleted list is more helpful because it gives you concrete things to work on, and i mentioned the short list so you can fill in any gaps you have in your future outlook that i didn't add to the bulleted list.


Loans (The ultimate answer that doesn't answer anything):

It's just, when i ask people questions based on their future, no one really knows, or they give me horrible answers.

Every time i ask someone about paying for college, 9 out of 10 of them say they're taking out loans.

Then they just stop talking, acting as if the problem is solved, but there is an inherent question they never get to which is, "how will you pay those loans back?"

Bad answers

I ask them that and either they don't know or they give me a bad answer.

Such bad answers include:
I'm going to be a doctor or a lawyer, so after i work it will be easy to pay the loans off.

Why is that a bad answer?
Because they still haven't planned out their future.

To prove so i ask them "Which city do you plan on working in and who do you plan on giving your resume to?"

I've never received any answer to this.

What's worse is the majority of people haven't even made their own resume....

And then i continue, "Which doctors or lawyers offices are available in this city and are they hiring?"

They don't know the total number of doctors or lawyers offices, and they have no clue if they're hiring, and yet they want to work in this city....

Talk about not planning your future.

What's worse is when they don't have any idea where they want to live...

I mean you have wasted so much time, doing the first bulleted list at the top, you haven't even thought of where you want to live.... that has never crossed your mind?


There's a very nice quote I once read that addresses the importance of organization and planning:

"You spend 80% of your time organizing the other 20%"

If you did the opposite, you'd end up with an unorganized life, with unfulfilled goals, and end up dead never having done the things you love or wanted to do.

Is that how you want to end up.. Never having control over your life?

Or as Harvard business school says:

Productivity Means Working Smarter, Not Longer

Workers in the United States put in more hours at work and take fewer vacation days than those in most industrialized countries. But the U.S isn't the most productive country in the world. When it comes to full productivity, according to an article in The Economist, France wins, working only forty hours a week with lots of vacation. Conversations with clients and friends suggest we're working hard, but, well, stupidly. We're busy, but our important priorities are falling by the wayside as we work hard when we should be working smart.

Working smart means getting the same results in less time. To do that, you must change how you work. You'll get the most by changing your speed, increasing focus, and organizing to do things in parallel.

It continues with:

So your highest-leverage activity is taking regular time to reexamine and tweak how you work. This year, I'm spending a half-day every two weeks to build a life and business that are productive. And to me, productivity means producing maximum happiness for me, my family, and friends. I entreat you to do the same. Give it a shot. You'll be happier, you'll get more done, and you'll get to see your kids for dinner. And that's what I call working smart.


The key to life is to organize it. Organize it. Organize it. Plan it. Understand it. Research it. Organize it.

The first bulleted list at the top ignores life, it completely ejects you from the passenger seat and forces you to think of something else, putting life on the back burner.

Either get busy living or get busy dieing.

You will be doing one of the two, the question is which one are you doing?

Harvard Logo copyright of Harvard

Albino Animals

I thought I'd have some entertaining posts for my readers, in between the deep philosophical debates and discussions :)

This post will show a whole array of albino animals.

Albinism (from Latin albus, "white"; see extended etymology) is a form of hypopigmentary congenital disorder, characterized by a partial (in hypomelanism, also known as hypomelanosis) or total (amelanism or amelanosis) lack of melanin pigment in the eyes, skin and hair (or more rarely the eyes alone). Albinism results from inheritance of recessive alleles.

Most humans and many animals with albinism appear white or very pale; the multiple types of melanin pigment are responsible for brown, black, gray, and some yellow colorations. In some animals, especially albinistic birds and reptiles, ruddy and yellow hues or other colors may be present on the entire body or in patches (as is common among pigeons), due to the presence of other pigments unaffected by albinism such as porphyrins, pteridines and psittacins, as well as carotenoid pigments derived from the diet. Some animals are white or pale due to chromatophore (pigment cell) defects, do not lack melanin production, and have normal eyes; they are referred to as leucistic.

The eyes of an animal with albinism occasionally appear red due to the underlying retinal blood vessels showing through where there is not enough pigment to cover them. In humans this is rarely the case, as a human eye is quite large and thus produces enough pigment to lend opacity to the eye, often colouring the iris pale blue. However, there are cases in which the eyes of an albinistic person appear red or purple, depending on the amount of pigment present.

The albinistic are generally (but see related disorders below) as healthy as the rest of their species, with growth and development occurring as normal, and albinism by itself does not cause mortality (though the lack of pigment is an elevated risk for skin cancer and other problems.) Many animals with albinism lack their protective camouflage and are unable to conceal themselves from their predators or prey; the survival rate of animals with albinism in the wild is usually quite low. However the novelty of albino animals has occasionally led to their protection by groups such as the Albino Squirrel Preservation Society.

Albinism is a condition that cannot be "cured," but small things can be done to improve the quality of life for those affected. Most importantly to improve vision, protect the eyes from bright lights, and avoid skin damage from sunlight. The extent and success rate of these measures depend on the type of albinism and severity of the symptoms; in particular, people with ocular albinism are likely to have normally-pigmented skin, and thus do not need to take special precautions against skin damage.

For the most part, treatment of the eye conditions consists of visual rehabilitation. Surgery is possible on the ocular muscles to decrease nystagmus, strabismus and common refractive errors like astigmatism. Strabismus surgery may improve the appearance of the eyes.[citation needed] Nystagmus-damping surgery can also be performed, to reduce the "shaking" of the eyes back and forth.

The effectiveness of all these procedures varies greatly and depends on individual circumstances. More importantly, since surgery will not restore a normal RPE or foveae, surgery will not provide fine binocular vision. In the case of esotropia (the "crossed eyes" form of strabismus), surgery may help vision by expanding the visual field (the area that the eyes can see while looking at one point).

The condition is known to affect mammals (including humans), reptiles, amphibians, and insects. While the most common term for an organism affected by albinism is "albino" (noun and adjective), the word is sometimes used in derogatory ways towards people; the term "albinistic" (adjective) can be used to avoid the risk of being interpreted thus, while the politically correct term is "person with albinism" (noun). Additional clinical adjectives sometimes used to refer to animals are "albinoid" and "albinic".

And a few more pictures :) :

Description text about Albinism from Wikipedia
All pictures from

Thursday, July 24, 2008


Very few movies move me, especially to the point where I blog so early after my last successful one.

The movie Felon was the exception.

It is writing, screenplay, directing, and acting at it's peak.

Philosophy curving every little nuisance on the screen, slowly coming up from behind you, deep from the shadows, moving you like a rush of wind from a hurricane.


To think, philosophy, and a Hollywood movie, i thought I'd never see the day.

Let alone me even mentioning a movie on my blog, a thought provoking movie was just unheard of especially in these times.


I really want to meet the writer of this movie, it takes a lot of work to stimulate my interest, let alone inspire me.


I leave you with my favorite quote in the movie:

Usually I'm quoting someone elses words...the least I could do is give you some 'John Smith originals'. They won't be poetic, but they'll be the truth.

Yes, prison desensitizes you. But it also forces you to see whats most important. Family..and loyalty. Because a con like you know neither exists in this place. So don't run from who you've become, felon. Embrace it. Grow from it. And you'll never lose sight of what truly matters...that's my final piece of advice.

Wait porter, and protect your family at all costs...even if you're forced to kill again. Because if I had to, I'd wipe out the whole planet to get mine back. So long, friend.

In a world where so many of us struggle with perspective, a felon has it figured all out.

Family and loyalty, two things never to be sacrificed, two things never to be sold for petty gains, two things not to be lost in a materialistic world.

Don't go to a guru or some guy in India who will tell you the meaning of life.

Watch this movie and discover it for yourself.

There will be true heartbreak, few have ever felt, and you will see it permeate from this movie.

Sacrifice, the kind that most understand but have never actually witnessed, will be seen.

In the end, you will leave, and forever take a piece of this movie, as a part of your own soul.


Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Two Party System - Is 1 choice a choice?

(Democrat, Republican, or American?)

I've been wanting to talk about America's two party system for a long time but the right inspiration never hit me, until i saw this video:

My response in youtube to the vid:

You can't be a democrat the way he mentioned it; he acts like being a democrat is a birth right.

You CHOOSE To be a democrat, or a republican, that's a choice that is REINFORCED by your beliefs.

This man's beliefs CONTRADICT his political affiliation, so him being a democrat is useless.

Again your political affiliation is not a birth right, it's a choice made by inherent beliefs you hold on certain issues.

This man's beliefs contradict his affiliation.


Loyalty not ideals:

The man in the above video is what worries me about the two party system. It seems like people in America have some sense of loyalty when voting, as if their beliefs mean nothing.

He threatened to vote against Barack Obama if Hillary wasn't on the ticket....

Don't get me wrong, there will be a whole new post about Barack Obama and why no true liberal should vote for him, or how Hillary is a better candidate than him.

But if your beliefs are liberal and you go to vote, how in the world can you vote for John McCain?

Why does Hillary being on the presidential ticket even matter?

You would rather have someone with completely different ideals than you win power, just because Barack didn't make Hillary his running mate?

What logic is there to that?


A man is claiming to run the government 100% differently than your ideology and you want him in power to ruin your government?

Please read this post if you haven't yet, it speaks about how you're responsible for your government's actions:

Electing McCain and letting him destroy your government essentially makes you responsible, and any other countries he attacks while in power, also makes you responsible for the innocent deaths.

State of our Current affairs:

Currently Americans do not vote on ideals.

They do not vote for character, they do not vote for ideals, they do not vote based on honesty, they do not vote for the real reasons that matter.

They vote for party lines.

The excuse they use is:

"This party has the only real chance of winning, if i vote for any other party it will be a waste of my vote. Also if i don't vote for this party the other party will win and i definitely don't agree with them."

So many people believe this doctrine that they refuse to vote for "third parties" and essentially pick one of the two main parties currently in power in America.

Even worse if a third party candidate like Ralph Nader takes millions of votes in the Election, and a republican wins, like in 2000, the third party candidate is blamed for the loss of the Democrats.

Even today Ralph Nader is believed by many Americans to have lost Gore the presidency, when in reality it was the Supreme court and their controversial decisions that gave Bush the win.(And possibly Bush's Brother Jeb Bush who sepressed the black vote in Florida)

Effects of Not Voting for third party candidates:

You have 2 ideologies that conflict with one another, and choose the least conflicting one.

But what do you do if the least conflicting one is only a little more conflicting than the other one?

You basically have no vote, you have lost your vote, because the majority of your ideals are lost.

One party conflicts with 60% of your ideals, the other conflicts with 75% of your ideals... but it's either one or the other.

That and the stigma of voting for a third party.... you're looked down on for voting for a third party.


So what do we do?

If we want to preserve freedom and we want to vote on our ideologies and beliefs, than we need to stop voting for parties that conflict with our core beliefs.

We need to remove the stigma that voting for third parties is bad.

We need to break the link between third parties and the top two parties and show their true differences and why we can't vote for the top two.


Consequences if we don't:

We lose our freedom, we've been losing it, and we lose our vote (the thing that guarantees us freedom).

Examples of lost freedom:

The democrats promised us an end to the Iraq war, both parties promised no spying on Americans or wiretapping, they both promise us healthcare for all of America, and nothing happens.

1) Iraq war: 1 party vowing to end the war if they are elected into power, so they are, and in 2006 they get a definite majority in the congress.

Then they refuse to de-fund the war, as they promised.

2) FISA bill: A recent bill was proposed that gave immunity to companies that helped the bush administration record our phone calls without warrants. Basically warrant less wiretapping of domestic calls.

At first the democrats were up in arms about this, then later after a secret meeting with republicans, they changed their stance, even Barack Obama, and voted for the Fisa bill giving Telecommunications company's complete immunity over taking away our civil liberties.

3) Both parties pledge Universal Healthcare, neither delivers. The only candidates planning to deliver are kicked out (John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton).


Both parties seem to be playing a game of who can manipulate the American people more.

If you read the above points, you see that the parties do not keep their word, and in fact are manipulating us.

To say one thing, and do another, is textbook Hypocrisy.

It has gotten to the point where it is popular to consider the two top parties , one party, forever manipulating America for their best interests.


The two presidential candidates proof of Manipulation:

John McCain:

1) Sponsored and wrote a Bill on Immigration that was pro Immigrant.

Later on in a debate he says he does not support that bill and would vote against it.

2) Torture: If you listened to him argue with Mitt Romney over torture in the debates, you might be shocked to learn he has changed his stance.

As someone who has been tortured, he now has changed his stance on torture, something the majority of Americans haven't changed their stance on.

He claimed at first:

“One of the things that kept us going when I was in prison in North Vietnam was that we knew that if the situation were reversed, that we would not be doing to our captors what they were doing to us,”


The senate passed a bill that would ban torture.
What was McCain's vote.... he voted against the bill.

In February, McCain was a crucial swing vote in a bill pending in the Senate to explicitly ban the CIA from employing torture in the form of waterboarding. When given the opportunity to vote against torture and take a moral stand, McCain chose to appease his pro-torture base.

So he voted for torture.

Now there's some straight talk for ya.

Quote source:


Don't worry though, once the bill passed the house and the senate it was vetoed by Daddy Bush.

3) He was originally against the Bush tax cuts that gave the top 1 10th of 1 percent of Americans billions of dollars, but now he is for them.

When the cuts were first proposed in 2001, McCain joined Democrats in voting against them. At the time, he said the tax breaks didn't do enough for the middle class, and because of a need for increased defense spending.

In 2003, the phased-in cuts of 2001 were accelerated but McCain again voted no, saying taxes shouldn't be cut in time of war. But in 2006, when the cuts were extended, McCain voted yes because he said opposing the extension of cuts already in place would amount to a tax increase.

Quote source:


The rest of McCains manipulations, if you have time to read them:

Another longer list:

It highlights 60 some stance changes with sources.

Barack Obama:

1) On the new Fisa bill he said:

"It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses."


Yet last October he declared:

"To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."


Btw, further Support for Hillary being a better president:

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton voted no -- a surprise considering her typically hawkish stances on national security issues. "


It seems though that Barack will not honor his word, and will not filibuster the fisa bill.

2) Israel: Barack obama was very pro Palestinian as a senator of Illinois. This is not a surprise because he ran on this during his senate campaign and it was a very popular issue in Illinois.

He has now changed his stance, and is for a 2 state solution in the middle east.

To show the power of his new stance I only need offer this:

"In between these two sections of Mr Obama's itinerary, he meets the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, in his office in the Muqata in Ramallah. In other words, of the 36 hours Mr Obama has devoted to this visit, he will spend around 45 minutes talking to Palestinian spokesmen."


Also, consider Jerusalem now a part of Israel, according to Obama:

1) He mentions Jerusalem is to be the undivided Capital of Israel:

2) He mentions again, on his own Channel this time, that "I believe that it's not an acceptable option for Jerusalem to be severed from Israel, along the lines of the 1967 borders; that is not going to be an option."

According to internation Law though, Israel cannot claim Jerusalem as it's capital:

United Nations resolution 476:

3. Reconfirms that all legislative and administrative measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, which purport to alter the character and status of the Holy City of Jerusalem have no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;


And many other resolutions:
Resolution 252, 267, 270, 298, 476, 478, and many others; some i can't list because they were vetoed by the U.S.


3) Ending the embargo with cuba:

Barack Obama: "As president, I'll maintain the embargo it's an important inducement for change because we know that Castro's death will not guarantee freedom." (Beth Reinhard, "It's Got A Good Beat And You Can Dance To It," The Miami Herald's "Naked Politics" Blog, 8/25/07)

Then he said:

Barack Obama: "I think it's time for us to end the embargo with Cuba." (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL, 1/20/04)


Read the 17 total flip flops, couldn't write them all here:

Another longer list:


I mentioned the 2 presumptive nominees so people couldn't say that manipulation of the two top parties was in the past.

Manipulation is happening now as we speak, by both top party members, and it will continue, this isn't an old issue, it won't change, it will continue until we start electing 3rd party candidates.

True Representation:

A free country will never be free without proper representation.

We lack that.

We have no true representation anymore, we have people who manipulate us, and make us hear what we want to hear.

We will be responsible for the acts these manipulators make and the innocent lives they take.

We need true representation.

Until we stop being scared to vote for third party candidates that truly represent us, we will not undo the chains that bind us.

And Iraq will be a whisper compared to the future damage our manipulators make.

Sum it all up:

When you're only given 1 choice, you're in a dictatorship.

So for those of you who say you have to vote Democrat or the Republicans win, I have one reply, "Then Freedom is lost".

A democratic country always has more than one choice, keep that in mind when you go to the polls and tell yourself you must vote democrat or republican.

A single choice is no choice at all.


Top picture made by me, all rights reserved.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Celibacy of the best Christians

(Why let the best christian lineages vanish?)

I stumbled on this topic by listening to a speech where a young christian girl was criticizing the modesty of Muslim women.

Basically the speaker was talking about this modesty, mentioning that woman don't have to wear the hijab or head scarf in most situations.

They only wear it if strange men are around, because Islam has a very negative attitude with flaunting one's beauty whether you be male or female.

So if a group of woman are around, you don't need the head scarf, if your husband is around you don't need the head scarf.

A few more examples

If your:

  • Parents
  • Brothers
  • Sisters
  • Children
  • just women
  • and a number of other people that i can't list, you don't need to wear the head scarf, and women don't wear it then.

It's only in the case of strange men that the head scarf is worn, as a protection of the wandering eye.


It makes sense, if your chest is bare, that others can see it. But they can't if it's covered. Similarly if your beauty is covered, no strangers can see it.

Also women have lived normal lives hardly ever wearing a head scarf.

The list of people who can see you without your headscarf is very long.

Don't expect Muslim woman to wear headscarves around their family, they don't need to and therefore take them off.

This is something most Christians are ignorant of, let me tell you why.


The Christian Theology, Celibacy, and the lost lines of the Best christians.

That is actually the true title of this post, but it was too long, so i shortened it.

So i mentioned all the back story above because it's to show the contrast between the Muslim women and nuns.

Nuns, or wives of Christ, do not take off their hijab also known as a habit.

The only exception to that rule is to bathe or sleep.
Even while with family members they still keep it on.

On top of that, they can't get married.

Why? Because they are married to Christ of course... you didn't think of that one right away did you...

[don't worry neither did i]


So we find the best women among Christ, do not procreate(have children).

But wouldn't you want the best women among your community to have children?



As for men, there is a bit of a double standard, priests can marry but the vast majority don't.

It's a trade off really, basically if you want to be considered as giving yourself to Christ truly, you want to be celibate.

Another person says it better than I:

Celibacy was a discipline for entering into the presence of God just one time on one day. But our priests are in the Presence of Christ in the Eucharist every day. Therefore, perpetual celibacy is a fitting fulfillment of the OT law. ... Additionally, Tradition with a capital “T” refers to the unwritten teaching of the apostles. And the Catholic Church is as bound to follow that teaching as sacred scripture. Tradition with a lower case “t” would apply to the traditions of men, family traditions, ethnic traditions etc. Celibacy is a Church discipline, as it was passed down from the disciples and is what you WILL find today in the Catholic Church to this day.



The gray area ends with priests, if you want to get higher celibacy becomes a requirement.

To be a bishop, you must be unmarried and celibate, for the vast majority of bishops.

Then the next step up is cardinal, strict celibacy here, no exceptions.

And finally if your lucky enough to be Pope, celibacy again is a requirement.

You might ask why, and again the writer above gives a very good summary of why celibacy is so imporant:

There are many good reasons to keep celibacy but the best is because the celibate Priest most closely models Jesus Christ, who was celibate. He also, stands in Persona Christi in most of the sacraments and since in Heaven there will be no marriage, the priest also models life in the age to come. In the Eastern Orthodox churches and even some non Latin rite Catholic Churches married men are ordained to the priesthood. But the married ones cannot become Bishops. And people in these churches prefer the unmarried priests to the married ones for the obvious reason that an unmarried priest can be married to the Church as he is called to be, and a more available father.

Same Source:


This may seem to be an admirable position at first, one of intense sacrifice and devotion.

The amount of discipline a person needs to never marry, and never fulfill those urges in him, is tremendous.

The problem is, there are certain effects that come out of this that maybe the church never anticipated.


The first major effect; Procreation:

If the best christians in the world become celibate, they have no way of continuing their line, teaching their children what they themselves were inspired with, and showing them the path to enlightenment.

Your left with above average, average, and poor christians left to procreate the earth and teach their children right from wrong.

This happens every generation, time after time, parent after parent, never meeting the greatest standards of God.

Imagine now the pope, with a family, teaching the deepest meanings of God.
How inspiring would he be to his children?


There is a cascade effect, where each generation the family might become more pious, and more gifted, learning from each other.

All this is lost when the pope is forbidden to have a family and procreate.

Second effect, Marriage:

There seems to be this stance that Marriage isn't the best option.

Basically if given an option between Marriage and Celibacy to God, you should always choose Celibacy...

But assuming all Christians indeed took this path, they would all die, Christianity with it.

So does Christianity need a constant supply of evil doers, or people who refuse to take the best position in God.

As the man I quoted above said:

There are many good reasons to keep celibacy but the best is because the celibate Priest most closely models Jesus Christ, who was celibate. He also, stands in Persona Christi in most of the sacraments and since in Heaven there will be no marriage, the priest also models life in the age to come.

Marriage is such a tainting thing, or such an imperfection, that it will not be allowed in heaven, it will be completely absent there.

"For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven" (Matt. 22:30)

So what are the effects on a Religion who consistently kills off the lines of the best of it's people?

What do you end up with if the only people keeping a religion alive is never the best, always littered with more faults than the best?

Is it fair to make Christian children be born to families who are consistently not meeting the best standards set by Christ and God?

What are the consequences of treating children in this way and giving them lacking parents?


There is but a glimmer of hope:

You are absolutely correct. There is no Biblical mandate that Priests are to be celibate. In fact, we know since Peter had a mother-in-law that he must have been married, at some point. The normal discipline of priestly celibacy could be changed to allow priests to marry. Celibacy is a discipline in the Latin Rite Catholic Church it is not an unchangeable doctrine or dogma. Eating fish on Fridays, similarly, was a discipline in the Church but it was changed and priestly celibacy might be changed, could be changed, theoretically. But it probably will not be changed any time soon. So disciplines can change but dogma does not change.

Same source as above


I do find it odd though, that if celibacy was such a great act, that God would mandate it for his Pope, bishops, and cardinals.

The fact that he didn't might suggest he never wanted celibacy for the greatest christians but rather procreation.

Possibly increased procreation, as he mandated on Adam and Eve.
"Be fruitful and multiply" (Gen. 1:28)


So is the bible lacking in something mandatory?

Or is it purposefully showing that such an act is not acceptable or mandated on humans, especially the best christians.


An informal logical syllogism:

1) If the bible is not lacking in what Mankind needs to know, then what it lacks is not necessity or shouldn't be mandated.

2) Mandating something missing from the bible is wrong .


Therefore mandating celibacy on the pope, bishops, and cardinals is wrong because God didn't mandate it and he mandates all we need.


The most important premise here is that the bible doesn't lack what mankind needs to know to live on earth, which is not a stretch.

It makes sense God would give us everything we needed to know, in order to live here, or else he abandoned us, which is completely illogical.


If you've read this and still don't believe Christianity has a problem with Marriage, i need only give you the writings of the Apostle Paul:

"Are you free from a wife? Do not seek marriage. . . those who marry will have worldly troubles, and I would spare you that. . . . The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband" (7:27-34).

Sadly he did end up contradicting himself when he also said:

Each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband" (1 Cor. 7:2)

He also takes the middle road ....

"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (7:8-9).

You can't say each man should have his own wife, and then say, he shouldn't be married if he hasn't married yet.... they are in stark contrast.

It's a topic christians will have to discuss with each other.


I only ask, who gave humans the authority to mandate celibacy on the pope, when peter, the first pope, was married...

Some people actually say he isn't the first pope BECAUSE he was married lol, yet there is no mandate for celibacy for popes :D.

In logic, that means your trying to prove something wrong, with a rule, that is non existant.

Basically like me saying,

"Hey you're not a human!!!
Because i can see you."

If i can see you, you're not a human, is the false rule.

They say Peter wasn't the first pope because he was married.... again a mandate that wasn't created by God.

He might not be the first pope, the word pope isn't even mentioned in the bible, but you have to give a better reason than the one listed above.

So again i ask, who had the authority to make these rulings:

"Council of Elvira (c. 305)
(Canon 33): It is decided that marriage be altogether prohibited to bishops, priests, and deacons, or to all clerics placed in the ministry, and that they keep away from their wives and not beget children; whoever does this, shall be deprived of the honor of the clerical office.

Council of Carthage (390)
(Canon 3): It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavour to keep… It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity."

What gives you authority to make such laws?

The level of pride here staggers(amazes) me.


Finally to get back to the beginning of this discussion and how it all relates to hijab.

Muslims have a system of modesty in place to protect women from the gazes of strange men, and only strange men.

But it seems Christians have a system in place that requires full celibacy, that is if you want to reach the pinnacle of the religion.

It seems one of them is extreme, but it ends up not being the one we thought it would be.

To kill of the lines of the most prominent christians is a travesty, an extreme act of worship, an unneeded mandate never given by God.

When compared to protecting women from the eyes of a peering stranger, it truly does seem extreme and it goes against human nature itself.

Christians often say love is what keeps the world going, but without marriage, we have lost our greatest source of love and passion in this world.

God never asked us to give up marriage, it would be wise to ask fellow christians who did.

Even paul doesn't have the authority to destroy the sanctity of marriage.


Thursday, July 10, 2008

Being Rich vs Being Immensely Rich

What i wanted to talk about today is something that motivates all of us but sadly I've seen a trend of motivation that i find to be unhealthy.

Throughout those golden years at high school, all i would hear from people is that they wanted to be immensely rich.

That or they wanted such and such career because it made good money...

I thought in college maybe this perception might have changed slightly by now, but I still see it as i go by, as if my generation is infatuated with being immensely rich.


Why do i define it as immensely rich, when they usually just say rich?
Because what i define as rich and what they define as rich are two different things.

If i were given a one time gift of 200,000 dollars, I could take advantage of that, to the degree where i would become rich.

I would live my life with little worries, and struggle at a minimal level.

Actually, if i made 70,000 dollars a year, I'd consider myself rich, where as the vast majority of Americans wouldn't.

Why would i be rich, because i hardly have to struggle with anything in life at that income bracket.


So i say immensely rich, because these are the people who want to be MULTI millionaires, or sometimes billionaires....

Yes... some people have said they want to become billionaires...
I just shake my head and wonder why...

Do they understand a billionaire can make 1,000 millionaires?
Think of 1,000 people in your head (if you can even do that).
Now imagine you just gave them all a million dollars.....

That's a billionaire....

Why anyone would want to have that much money boggles my mind, why not aim for something lower?

Why a billion? Is life hard at 100 million dollars? or 10 million?

Or god.... don't say it... 1 million (gasp :O )!!!

Life must be miserable with only a million dollars!!

These people do not want to be rich, they want to be immensely rich, and that's what they're striving for.

So as a consequence of their aim for lavish amounts of money I'll label their ambition as being 'immensely' rich.


Anyways, I wanted to delve into the reason why so many people want to be immensely rich, or even sacrifice happiness at their jobs to be immensely rich.

I want to first take you to an event that happened in my college bio class, that pertains to this subject.

Basically my professor was going around the class asking people what they wanted to do with their lives and what profession they might want to go into.

I listened to one person's answer in particular, he mentioned he wanted to own real estate all around the world, and be able to travel between them. After being asked what his profession might be, he mentioned again, probably selling real estate and getting a big cut from each property he sold.

Bear in mind, he mentioned he didn't know much about real estate, and had no idea how he was going to make this dream a reality.

After being criticized a bit more about his ambitions, he finally mentioned that he just wanted to be rich to do as he wanted. That he wasn't sure how he was going to get there.

I think his answer reflects the answers of a lot of people in my generation.
His answer seemed to provide the main motivation behind him becoming immensely rich.

It seemed as if he wanted to become immensely rich because he wanted the freedom to do whatever he wanted without sacrifice.


In nearly every decision in this world, by the majority of people, we see sacrifice. One thing given up for another, consistently, because nothing is free.

A person who is immensely rich on the other hand, who has immense quantities of money at his disposal, doesn't have to sacrifice.

The amount of money he has is seemingly limitless, so if he needs something, he gets it, and he has seemingly not lost anything.


So it seems that people want to be immensely rich because they want the freedom to do whatever they want WITHOUT sacrifice.

They want the easiest job with the highest amount of income, so they can sacrifice less of their time and energy.

But after talking to these people, you find they don't really want to work, they just want the freedom to do whatever they want, however they want, without giving anything up.



So to me it seems like we've just bred the laziest generation to ever come into existence.
  • A generation that wants the ability to do whatever they want, without sacrifice.
  • A generation that is willing to give up their happiness at a job, for another job that pays twice as much but is twice as dull.
  • A generation that sadly it seems I'm a part of, because i first noticed this trend among my peers.

Laziness seems to create this need for immense wealth.


In the past you could be rich and be considered as someone not having to worry about money (without an infinitely large checkbook).

Now it seems, greed and laziness, have taken us to the point where we want to BUY anything we want and not sacrifice anything.

What's wrong with working hard 5 days a week, at a job you love, making 70-80,000 dollars a year?

Seriously, our perspective of rich has dramatically changed, to the point where your not considered rich unless you can throw money around like it's nothing, or burn it....

It wasn't like that in the past, so why is it like that now?


An interesting article that addresses my point:

A 2006 study done through the University of Chicago shows that men who post online profiles indicating income of $250,000 a year generate significantly more contacts (up to 151% more) than those who make under $50,000…

250,000 dollars a year or more... really, you need that much money?

For what?.... right... really?... that much huh?... that expensive!... wow...

Give me a break, you don't need that!
You don't need shiny objects to make yourself happy in life, or a mansion of a home.

You need that like you need a golden toilet!! You bought one of those too!! wow...

Another similar study done in the same article:

An oft-quoted study by John Marshall Townsend of Syracuse University and Gary Levy from the University of Toledo showed just how strongly women are still attracted to money. They presented a group of women with three groups of photos and asked them which men they would like to date. The first group showed men in suits and expensive watches who the women were told were doctors. The men in the second group wore plain shirts and Swatch watches and were described as teachers. The third group wore Burger King uniforms. The women overwhelmingly picked the doctors, even when they weren't as good-looking as the men in the third group.


So where are we at now:

  • 1) People want to be immensely rich nowadays, not just rich
  • 2) They want the freedom to do whatever they want, without sacrifice
  • 3) They are willing to give up a job they enjoy, for another that makes twice as much and is twice as dull
  • 4) Woman seem to find men attractive, if they are immensely rich (Also read this post: "Compromise marriage": )


I don't understand what changed in our culture to bring such a change in the latest generation.

Something seemed to promote:

  1. Happiness with immense wealth
  2. Attractiveness with immense wealth
  3. Freedom with immense wealth

Not just regular wealth too, immense wealth....

There is affluence, and then there is a seemingly endless supply of money, we seemed to have blurred the line between the two.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Astrology and Free will

I usually need a good reason to blog, and i usually won't blog for a while if i really enjoyed my last one.

But sometimes, just going through the internet or life, i stumble over issues that philosophically i must address.

By the way, my last blog was one of the greatest writing experiences I've ever had, so it shows the severity of this one, to have to blog so early after my last one.

So what sparked such a huge reply in me?

I was reading the many discussions that go about online, through forums, youtube chat, and a number of other places when i ran across this:

I'm a redheaded Scorpio...passionate... I love or hate... I never accept being insulted.

And my reply before my commentary:

You actually let someone dictate your life by terms like Scorpio ? That's beyond astrology, you should get passed that, and live your life as your own, not what someone else thinks of creatively and ascribes to you based on your birthday.


So lets define some points before we get deep into the commentary:


  • 1. Astronomy. Scorpius.
  • 2. Astrology.
  • a. the eighth sign of the zodiac: the fixed water sign.
  • b. a person born under this sign, usually between October 23rd and November 21st.


  • The study of the positions and aspects of celestial bodies in the belief that they have an influence on the course of natural earthly occurrences and human affairs.
  • A pseudoscience claiming divination by the positions of the planets and sun and moon.


So what are we entailing here, what are we implying?

We're implying that celestial bodies(planets, sun, meteoroids), have a effect on us here on earth.

If this were a small effect, insignificant, no one would take time out of their precious lives to study it.

So we're implying again that these planets, starts, and meteors are actually having significant effects on our lives that we need to be aware of.


So I'm not going to do what most people do at this point, because most don't understand that for humanity to get anywhere you must accept everything as true at one point or another.(Also as false, later on)

(The airplane, cars, radio, the internet, etc, would not be around if we didn't give credence to seemingly irrational ideas.)


What i will do is assume truth in the given statements and premises and go from there.

So here we go, effects of astrology if given true:

  • 1) Humans essentially are being influenced in their daily lives significantly by celestial bodies.

Remember in those magazines how you read how you were going to have a good day, get a promotion, or maybe you were going to get pregnant!!!

Well now you know why, you understand how large an impact the shift of the moon is having on your life, and you now have a heads up on the FUTURE!!!!!!

IF you've gotten this far, like most people you will be amazed that this is actually what horoscopes are for and the ideas behind them.

Right now i recommend slowly reclining in your chair(if it reclines), because this subject will get harder to accept as we go further...

Problems with this effect:

1) Loss of free will: essentially there are certain significant things that will happen to you, that you have no control over.

I'm sure, if astrology is so important, that maybe some of these celestial bodies have such a huge affect on us that they may have caused someone to murder, or rape, or steal, and as a result get thrown in jail.

Now imagine for a second, being in a court room, and blaming your murder, rape, or other crime, on the sun or the moon and their positions....

Astrology implies in some way that significant things happen as a result of their movement, even if they arn't murder, they may be things that lead to it, such as anger, outrage, distrust, or revenge.

  • 2) Astrology is a science, and can be used to help steer clear of problems in the future:

Problems with this idea/effect:

If astrology truly is a science, how did it come into being?

It seems like a simple question, but when you dig deep you see what problems arise.

So i want to know the effects of the shift of the moon (by 2 degrees) on humans , or the sun, or some other object.

How do i go about doing that?
Lets say I'm observing someone to see what the effect of the moon has on them, and i see them trip and fall. Was that their fault or was it the moon? How would i know? How could i tell?

What if it was the sun? What if it was the interaction between the 2!!!

So even if we assume astrology is a science, there doesn't seem to be any way to actually find the real effects to celestial bodies on humans.

Why can't you isolate the effect?
Because you don't know what caused it, whether it was the sun, moon, or just the person's clumsiness.


So what have we learned here so far.

1) That if Astrology exists we essentially have lost our control over free will (If astrology has a significant effects on our lives, if it doesn't than why would anyone study or care about it?).

As a result we might have to release prisoners for murder, rape, or stealing because they might be innocent bystandards; the result of the Universe's movement.

2) If we assume astrology exists, we would never be able to interpret it, and we'd have no control over it. There would never be such things as horoscopes, our birth dates wouldn't matter, and we'd all be victims of celestial bodies.

Why is this? Because there is no way to know the affect of a celestial body, on a human.

I may trip and fall, and one person may blame the moon, another the sun, another an asteroid, while i blame my clumsiness.

Either way, there is no way to use astrology to our advantage because we can't know how planets affect us.


So working on the basis that astrology is true, even then, we see huge gaps within this ideology.

That's why i was upset at the above poster about writing their comments on how they were a scorpio and they didn't forgive people.

Imagine that, someone labeling you a "scorpio" telling you that from your birth, because of the day you were born, you are not to forgive people for injustices.

You would say that is nonsense, that's just horrible to think that everytime someone does an injustice on you, you hold it against them forever.

I can guarentee you, that person will have a horrible life because even their parents will sooner or later do an injstice on them (parents arn't perfect).

But think... they believe this, because they were TOLD this... and ALL THIS IS BASED OFF OF THE DAY THEY WERE BORN!!!

I mean... to think, in America, with literacy rates through the roof.... we still believe that?

All i have to say is wow.... even logically if astrology is true, it still fails, because all it proves is all those horiscopes you read, or traits about yourself, are lies.

Why is it a lie, because you can't isolate the affects of the moon, or the sun, or the earth, on you.

Logically, illogically, whether considered true, or blatenly false, astrology fails the test of truth or atleast comprehensibility.


So why do horoscopes exist, why do people give themselves traits based off what others say they are, why is astrology still accepted?

I think it's because no one has really delved into it, no one has been told: "Hey, you know that the reason they say you'll have a good day today, is because they say they can predict it by the shifting of the stars and the moon and the sun. They are so smart they know EXACTLY what each shift does to us, they'll tell you when you crave icecream before you even know it!!"

If people were told this and shown what astrology truly is, they wouldn't think twice about it.

So sadly it seems the thing that keeps astrology going is ignorance of it.
That and maybe because it's fun reading horoscopes, even if you know they arn't true, it's still fun looking through them.

Will i criticise you for looking through horoscopes for fun, no definitely not.

Will i criticise you for not forgiving people because someone said you're a "scorpio"; you better believe it.



[The person who sparked this debate replied back sarcastically and also implied to not get in the middle of their argument, here's a snippet:

Thank you very much for your lesson. I think my life will be a lot better now.

My reply:

It's not a lesson, I'm not trying to criticise, i just want you to be you, not what others tell you to be, and if you never forgive an injustice, you will end up hating everyone, including your parents (We all make mistakes). Except you right? No? Even you make mistakes?... Then why not give others the kindness you show yourself

Friday, July 4, 2008

A Compromise Marriage

The family is the groundwork to any society. At least that is what I've observed and been told by my religion.

It seems that if a family does well, or the family unit is properly cohesive, than all members of that family seem to succeed.

They say:

"Behind every great man is a great woman"

And they say this for a reason, because for any man to succeed he needs his shortcomings fixed or dealt with.

That's where the beauty in marriage and partnership arises, both partners gain from the other, and both help plug up any weak spots in the other, thus actualizing both individuals.

So as i watched the sun come up this morning, waking up after fajr(morning prayers) and unable to sleep, i thought of these many things, and one other point that started this whole conversation in my mind.

The key word that describes what made me think of this whole topic and want to blog about it is this:



The state of our affairs and the state of the family unit seems to now hinge on this, from what I've personally witnessed and from my own experiences.

The man is known to be the one who is supposed to be the bread winner, and in Islam he is actually defined as that, that it is his, and only his, duty to provide for the family.

That doesn't mean the wife can't be the one who is the bread winner of the family, just that it's not her responsibility.

A good example:

You go to work and your swamped by all the projects and assignments they want you to do.

Your boss seeing that your busy feels no regret and gives you another assignment to do on top of everything else, putting you even further behind on your work.

Your friend offers to help you by doing this new assignment, you tell him that's o.k and you can do it, but he insists seeing you are struggling to keep up.


According to your boss, you are responsible for turning in that new project they gave you. According to everyone actually, even though you expect your friend to now finish the project, it ultimately is your responsibility.

Anyways, luckily for you, your friend was generous and decided to take that new assignment from you to help you, even though it is not his/her responsibility. They then give you the assignment to turn in when they've finished it, helping lessen your work load.


Similarly, you are in charge of bringing in the ample amount of money to sustain your family, not your wife, although she is allowed to help you whenever she wants, she doesn't have to but she can.

For example if your family is struggling she may give a higher percentage of her income, or maybe take a job (if she wasn't working), to help pay for the family's expenses.

(To be fair to men, at a certain point, when the family is struggling very hard, it might become wrong for a woman to not sacrifice and give some of her God given wealth to her family.

After all, hoarding it for herself, when her family is struggling doesn't seem like the most moral of things to do and I'm sure God would agree with that point. Her children would agree too.)

So what does this have to do with compromise? This income responsibility, is the framework for the problem.

It seems now that woman, specifically Muslims, but also some non-Muslims, have started compromising on the qualities they want for a husband, if he has a safe and steady income coming in.

Safe income implying that it's high enough not to have to worry about money too much, or at all, and steady being some sort of job security.


I've seen on a number of occasions people putting too much weight on this standard, this safety standard.

They are thinking that if they solve their money problems now, the rest of the marriage will be easier.

The problem with this is, while money is important to a marriage, if it is one of the factors of the marriage, what do you do later on once you're settled, have a home, and are getting ready to start a family?

You now live with a person who isn't the ideal man, or close to it, and now all you have to show for it is a shiny car and a large home.

What do you do now? Do you learn to love? Can you handle the rough edges of your husband, can you maybe smooth them over.


The sad thing about this situation is a woman does become emotionally attached to the guy, even if he isn't her ideal candidate.

How can you not become emotionally attached during the engagement and early marriage?

Women can give their hearts away, and they can create links of love with partners, so the issue isn't if they'll fall in love, there will be some love there if not a lot.

The issue is, the love,
that you generated,
the chain that you created,
will be constantly fighting the rough edges of the husband you picked.

Wouldn't you rather be living with someone, you fell in love with, not created love with.

Wouldn't you rather be with someone who is, if not the ideal husband, very close to it?

Someone who meets the standards you first set down as a young teenager, or a child dreaming of her prince?

When did you become "disenchanted" and feel this was an illusion?

When did money become so important to you, especially in Islam?

Can a home, a nice car, and not worrying about money really make up for the man you truly would have fallen in love with and enjoyed every minute with?


By the way, this would be a good time to show what percentage of people actually struggle with money, just to show you how many good male candidates for marriage are essentially being removed from the marriage equation:

(click on it to see it bigger)


Easy to see number document:

Actual 2005 Census data source:


So as of 2005, more than 60% of people in America struggled with their income, making less than $57,660.

That's more than half of America, so you can just imagine how many good Muslim candidates you've removed there.

You only get to the safe level at about 80%, so about 20% of households make $91,705 or more.
Or another way of saying it, 80% of the population makes less than 91 thousand dollars.

You may be saying, "Phoenix, 91 thousand is too much, what about 80 or 75, that might be considered safe"?

I would concede the point and so, alright, let us use that marker, and at about $75,000, you would be making more than 70-75% of the population.


So what are we saying here? What does all this information imply?

It implies, if you truly want safety, if your most important criteria is to be stable economically, than you now have to pick between 1 in 4 men.

Actually there is catch... and your pick is less than 1 in 4 men.

About 70-75% of the population is out of your hands, and mind you that's not all men, that's men and woman, so if your a woman looking for a husband, the 30-25% that's left is about half woman and half men.

So 30-25%, divided by 2 = 15%-12.5%

So you now have lost 85% of the population, and are left with, at best, 15% all being male Americans of different ethnicities and religions, but all being safe and meeting your economic criteria of about 70,000 dollars a year or more.

Convert those numbers to Muslims(Not just Americans)... and boom, who knows how little your crop of men becomes.

And don't even start with being thin instead of being fat, or tall instead of short. Atleast 1 in 3 Americans is considered overweight and that number is now being ratcheted up to 2 out of every three Americans.


So think, just those 2 criteria, weight and economical safety, just about eliminate the vast majority of your crop leaving you with some very sparse few pickings.


It's no wonder that I sit by and watch more and more woman pick people who are economically safe but clearly lack other necessary traits and again it's clear right from the get go.

So again i go back to these questions:

Wouldn't you rather be living with someone, you fell in love with, not created love with.

Wouldn't you rather be with someone who is if not the ideal husband, very close to it?

Someone who meets the standards you first set down as a young teenager, or a child dreaming of her prince?

When did you become "disenchanted" and feel this was an illusion?

When did money become so important to you, especially in Islam?

Can a home, a nice car, and not worrying about money really make up for the man you truly would have fallen in love with and enjoyed every minute with?

Stop compromising.

If you must compromise, compromise on MONEY, if nothing else, rather than compromise on the most important thing:


The Prophet of Islam( once tackled this same issue, and i urge all woman who want an economically safe husband to read this story:

Jowaibir And Zalfa

"How beautiful it were if you could marry and establish a family, ending this forlorn and isolated lif? You could fulfill your natural urges and also she could help you in your temporal and spiritual needs and goals."

"O Messenger of Allah, I have neither wealth nor beauty; nor I have a noble descent or lineage. Who will marry me? And which woman likes to be wife of a poor, short, black and ugly man like me?"
"O Jowaiber! God has changed the individual's worth through Islam. Many people were high places in the pre Islamic society and Islam brought them down. Many were despised nonentities and Islam bestowed them with honor and high rank and brought them up. Islam abolished the un Islamic discrimination and pride of lineage. Now all people irrespective of their color and origin are equal. Nobody has superiority over others but through piety and obedience to Allah. Among the Muslims, only that person would be higher than you whose virtues and deeds are better that you. Now do as I tell you."

These words were exchanged one day between the Prophet and Jowaibir when the Prophet came to see the people of 'Suffa'.
Jowaiber was a native of 'Yamamah' where he came to know about the Prophet and the advent of Islam. He was poor, black and short, but at the same time intelligent truth seeking and a man of determination. He came to Medina to look at Islam from near; in a short time he embraced Islam. Since he had neither money, house nor any friends, he temporarily was accommodated along with other poor Muslims in the Mosque by permission of the Prophet. When it was revealed unto the Prophet that the Mosque was not a place of habitation, it became necessary to shift them elsewhere. The Prophet selected a site outside the Mosque and erected a shed of them. The place was named as 'Suffa' and the residents were known as 'Ashab-e-Suffa' ; all of them poors from places far away from Medina.

The Prophet came to visit them one day. Noticing Jowaibir among them, and he decided to bring him out of this forlorn life. It was beyond the fancy of Jowaibir to own a house and have a wife in his condition. And that was why he replied to Prophet as to how it was possible for anyone to accept him in matrimony when the Prophet advised him to marry. But the Prophet removing his doubts, explained to him the changes brought about in the social outlook of the people by Islam.
After bringing Jowaibir out of his inferiority complex, he directed him to house of Ziad-ibne-Lubaid to request him for his daughter's hand in marriage.

Ziad was one of the wealthiest persons of Medina and commanded high respect among his tribes. When Jowaibir entered his house, he was surrounded by his relatives and some of his tribes-men. Jowaibir took a seat, paused for a moment and then raising his head said, ''I have brought a message from the Prophet. Do you like to hear it confidentially or openly?"
Ziad: " A message from the Prophet is an honor to me, better you tell it openly."
"The Prophet has sent me to request you for your daughter for myself"
"Did he himself make this suggestion to you?""
"I don't speak on my own accord. Everybody knows me, I am not a liar""
"Strange! We don't give our daughters to persons of unequal status nor outside our tribe. You go back; I shall go to the Prophet and have a talk with him myself."
Jowaibir left the house murmuring: 'By God, whatever the Quran teaches and whatever is the purpose of the prophethood of Muhammad is totally against what Ziad says."
Those nearby heard his murmuring; and then Zalfa, the lovely daugther of Ziad, and the beauty-queen of Medina, heard these words of Jowaibir. She came to her father and asked: 'Father, what was that man who just went out saying? And what did he mean?'
"He had come to ask for your hand in marriage and was claiming that the Prophet had sent him for this purpose."
"Isn't it possible that he had really sent him, and thus your rejection may amount to disobedience of Prophet's order?"
"What do you feel about it?"
"I feel you should bring him back before he reaches to Prophet, and then go yourself to find out the truth."

He brought Jowaibir back to his house with due respect, and then himself hurried up to the Prophet. When he saw him he said:
"O Messenger of God, Jowaibir came to my house and brought such and such a message from you. I would like to inform you that our custom is to give our daughters to persons of equal status and belonging to our tribe, who are all your helpers and companions."
"O Zaid, Jowaibir is a Faithful man. That dignity and honor which you are talking about has now been abrogated. Every Believer man is equal ( for marriage purpose) to every Believer woman."
Ziad retuned to his house and explained the matter to his daughter. She said, "Please do not reject the proposal put by the Prophet. This matter concerns me. I accept Jowaibir whatever his condition may be. If the Prophet is please with it, I am also pleased."

The wedding was duly solemnized. Ziad paid 'Mahr' (Marriage) from his own wealth and offered good articles to the pair. They asked the bridegroom, "Have you got a house where to take the bride?" He said, "No, I had never thought that I would get a wife and sattle in domestic life. It was the Prophet who came suddenly and had a talk with me and sent me to Ziad's house."
Ziad arranged for him a house equipped with complete house-hold effects, and transferred the bride superbly adorned with ornaments and perfumes.
Night came. Jowaibir did not know where was the house meant for him. He was guided to the house and led to bridal-chamber. When he saw the house and its equipments and looked at the dazzling bride, his past came to his mind and he said to himself, 'How poor I was when I entered this city. I had nothing; neither money nor beauty, neither any lineage nor family; now God made these affluences available to me through Islam. Indeed it is Islam that has brought such changes in the social outlook of the people beyond any imagination. How grateful I am to God for bestowing upon me all these Blessings!'

From the book Anecdotes of Pious Men
By: Ayatollah Murtada Mutahhari

I have no problem marrying my ideal wife dirt poor and with nothing to her name(no cars, home, or inheritance).

Can current day women say that?
Or more importantly, to me anyways, can current day Muslim women say that?

There was a time where they could, nowadays I'm not so sure.

A part of the story mentioned above that needs to be reiterated:

"O Messenger of Allah, I have neither wealth nor beauty; nor I have a noble descent or lineage. Who will marry me? And which woman likes to be wife of a poor, short, black and ugly man like me?"

"O Jowaiber! God has changed the individual's worth through Islam. Many people were high places in the pre Islamic society and Islam brought them down. Many were despised non-entities and Islam bestowed them with honor and high rank and brought them up. Islam abolished the un-Islamic discrimination and pride of lineage. Now all people irrespective of their color and origin are equal. Nobody has superiority over others but through piety and obedience to Allah. Among the Muslims, only that person would be higher than you whose virtues and deeds are better that you.

If only you were here, to see the state of your ummah.

That we have been debased to such a lowly form, that a person is willing to give up their ideal husband, and partake another man, if the other man be more economically stable.

The majority of America struggles with money, is that such a bad thing that you would sacrifice your heart to a man unworthy, just to rid yourself of this travesty?

Is not your compromise, in the end, the true travesty?

Would you pity the majority of people happy and content with their spouse, never worrying about the future, being with the person they love?

Such people who are not economically stable, but possibly people as happy as your parents were?

Are they the ones truly in need of pity?

Or would they pity you, surrounded by shiny objects, a true love no where nearby to be seen, and many an arguement at night to be heard?

Click Daily to Feed the Hungry