Archive
Sermon of Imam Ali ibn Abu Talib (as) on the occasions of Eid
On the day of Eid al-Fitr, Imam Ali bin Abi Talib (as)
delivered a sermon in which he said:
“O people! Verily this day of yours is the day when the righteous are awarded and the wretched are losers.
It is a day which is similar to the one on which you shall be standing (before your Lord).
Therefore, when you come out of your homes to go to places of your prayer,
remind yourselves about the day when you (your souls) shall come out of your bodies to go to your Lord.
When you stand on places of your prayer, remind yourselves of your standing in presence of your Lord (on the day of Judgement).
And when you return to your homes (after prayer), remind yourselves about your returning to your homes in Paradise.
O Servants of Allah! Verily the minimum reward for those men and women who fasted (during Ramadhan),
is an Angel, who calls out to them on the last day of the month of Ramadhan (saying):
O SERVANTS OF ALLAH! REJOICE THE GLAD TIDING THAT ALL YOUR PREVIOUS SINS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN.
Therefore, watch out in those things which serve as your re-creation (on this day and days to follow)”
(Nahjul-Balaghah)
May Almighty bless you and your family on this auspicious occasion
May He accept your fasts, prayers and other good deeds performed during the holy month.
O Allah give us the tawfeeq to continue doing good deeds during the rest of the year, (ameen)
PR: 
I: 
LD: 
I: 
C: 
SD: 
Births outside marriage – a real cause for concern
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2008/09/births_outside_marriage_a_real.html
Unless trends change, in just eight years time most babies in Britain will be born outside marriage.
Already the majority of newborns in Wales (52%) and the North East of England (55%)are delivered to parents who are not married. Nationally, the figure for 2007 is 44.3%, having risen from just 8% in 1971 (data can be downloaded here).
If the rate of increase remains as it has been since 2000, my maths shows that by 2016 more than 50% of UK babies will be born outside wedlock
Does this matter?
Well, today the Economic and Social Research Council pulled together some of the key findings from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS) – a huge study of 10,000 British adults interviewed every year since 1991.
In an article entitled ‘Births outside marriage: the real story’, Professor John Ermisch from the Institute for Social and Economic Research, assesses the evidence and concludes that “the rise in births outside marriage is a real cause for concern”.
Using 17 years of detailed longitudinal data from the BHPS, Professor Ermisch has been able to follow the stories of hundreds of real babies and calculate how much time they have spent living with just one parent.
This matters because there is powerful evidence that children growing-up without two parents have worse outcomes as young adults. Professor Ermisch refers to the “long-term negative consequences” of a child spending significant parts of their childhood in families with only one parent.
A baby born to married parents, on average, spends 1.6 years of their first 16 years with a lone parent. A child born to cohabiting parents spends 4.7 years with just one parents and an infant born into a single mother household spends 7.8 years.
The experiences of the babies in the British Household Panel survey indicates that being brought up by a lone mum or dad, particularly before they start school, translates into lower grades, worse job prospects and poorer health.
Marriage levels in Britain are at an all time low. Cohabitation has risen 64% in a decade, with just over a quarter of recent births to parents who live together but are not married.
But why should it make a difference to the life-chances of children whether their parents have a marriage certificate stuffed in a drawer? The BHPS provides help in this respect.
Only 35% of children brought up by unmarried parents will live with both parents throughout their childhood. For those with married parents the figures rises to 70%.
As Professor Ermisch puts it: “Having a child in a cohabiting union is often not indicative of a long-term partnership.”
What is more, if an unmarried mum breaks up with her partner, it can take a long time to find a new relationship. More than half are still without a partner five years after the break up.
The conclusion, according to Professor Ermisch, is that “non-marital childbearing in cohabiting unions tends to create lone mother families”.
The research has been seized upon by religious groups who regard procreation outside marriage as a sin.
The findings have also informed David Cameron’s argument that government should do more to support and encourage marriage. He has promised “to overhaul the tax and benefit system in favour of marriage as part of a Conservative crusade to mend Britain’s ‘broken society’.”
Elsewhere in today’s tribute to the BHPS, there is an essay on what the survey tells us about young people and the importance of families.
“The more frequent family meals the less chance there is of young people being involved in vandalism, truancy or wanting to leave school as early as possible”, writes Cambridge Sociology Professor Jacqueline Scott. “Family meal-times perhaps reflect strong family values and/or family cohesion.”
What the data and scientific analysis does not do is make a moral judgement about the way people should bring up their kids. Clearly, millions of parents do a fantastic job in rearing children within a wide range of family types that don’t match the traditional nuclear model.
But what the British Household Panel Survey does is demonstrate why the nuclear family became traditional. In terms of outcomes for children, it is most likely to work best.
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you’re new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
- Previous
- Next
- 1. At 4:53pm on 24 Sep 2008, tarquin wrote:
the stats don’t lie I guess, (actually, they probably do) but speaking as a child born out of wedlock, one of 30% of my age group apparently, do you really think promoting marriage when many of those at my age, now thinking about the future, are particularly warm to the idea of marriage?
I had a single unmarried mother, i’ve come out the other end with a degree from a good uni, meanwhile, one of my friends on the same course as me, from a married parentage, had worse grades, worse health and has domestic problems at home – it’s anecdotal evidence, but there are plenty of people out there, like me, who came from a single parent or unmarried couple who have done fine and particularly resent being called a ‘problem’ within Britain by groups like the tories
- 2. At 5:43pm on 24 Sep 2008, toydrum wrote:
I know quite a few women that deliberately chose to become single parents and I could never understand that decision. Parenting is incredibly difficult work and it is much easier with 2 people.
Besides which, like it or not, men and women do not parent in the same way and children (boys and girls) learn different things from them. Many single parents have been successful in making sure their children are exposed to role models of the opposite sex, but I would think that would normally be much easier within the household than having to go outside of it.
As for economic incentives to encourage marriage, I can’t see that being terribly useful. Marriage is a huge emotional and psychological commitment — I don’t think there are very many people that consider economics as a major factor in that decision.
- 3. At 5:58pm on 24 Sep 2008, NicolaHale wrote:
There is a contradiction between your last two paragraphs and it stems from a failing of the rest of the article. Correlation does not imply causation, and you paint a misleading or at least incomplete picture by not mentioning any of the potential confounding factors. Surely there is a correlation between rates of birth in/out of marriage and socio-ecomomic status? Is the important correlation for poor life indicators with ‘time spent with a single parent’, or ‘time spent away from parents’ – single parents may be forced by economic circumstances to work and so spend less time with their children. You acknowledge that many non-nuclear families can work well but you have insulted them in the paragraph “The experience of the babies… indicates that being brought up by a lone mum or dad … translates into lower grades…” by not emphasising that these are average trends and tendencies, not determinants. Surely we need to focus on the specific pressures that (SOME) single parents face which translate into these problems. The nuclear family ‘working best’ is not an inviolable necessity but true only within specific social and cultural contexts. It remains for debate as to whether it is better (and more cost-effective) to support single parent families or to support the institution of marriage. I hope you agree with that.. but by not addressing these subtleties you play into the hands of the Conservatives’ fuzzy logic. Sorry for the rant, I know you have the best of intentions and are probably just passing on what the ESRC say (I’ll take a look at their data now!). I really do appreciate your blogging.
- 4. At 7:05pm on 24 Sep 2008, fspeirs wrote:
I seem to remember reading that the out-of-wedlock birth rate in Edinburgh in the early 1800s was around 50% and that the (Western) nuclear family was a phenomenon of the post-World War II generation.
Can anyone substantiate this?
- 5. At 7:41pm on 24 Sep 2008, samaeth wrote:
As people have said there seems to be a lot of generalisation in this report, and no consideration of other factors. I also was brought up in a single parent family. I gained excellent grades, 3 A levels, a degree, MSC, and have a full time high level job. My mother worked incredibly hard to support me, and quite frankly I think I would not have achieved all that I have if she had remained with my father. The comments of Professor Scott are ludicrous – single parent families are less likely to have sit down family meals with their kids? Crazy. I and most of the other single parent kids I knew all had a strong tradition of family mealtimes. More so in fact than many of the traditional “nuclear” families. I came out of the experience far closer to my mother than many of my two-parent friends, and with a healthy respect for the benefits of hard work.
- 6. At 8:04pm on 24 Sep 2008, Incognitoscenti wrote:
Heard the one about shark attacks and ice-cream sales?
- 7. At 8:50pm on 24 Sep 2008, Joan Olivares
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
- 8. At 9:08pm on 24 Sep 2008, tanlin wrote:
Hardly surprising!
Anyone with any money would be mad to get married, when if they get divorced they can potentially –
lose half the money the wealth they had before they got married,
plus half the wealth they may have inherited whilst they were married,
Plus half of what they saved whilst they were married.Did Paul McCartney get a fair deal?
- 9. At 9:10pm on 24 Sep 2008, alphaHebrides wrote:
It’s hard to square averaged statistics with personal experiences – that’s what averages are for! The problem is that politicians seem to make policy on the basis of anecdotes, not statistics; and in so doing, stigmatise those who are facing trying personal circumstances.
As a working single parent (I own a successful small business, which I started up when I was deserted by my ex-husband) I spend inordinate amounts of time worrying that my children will be less successful or happy than their nuclear-family-parented friends. I neither sought to be a single parent nor wish to remain one, but have little choice over the matter.
I wish the public debate about marriage, parenting and families would move on from hand-wringing about failure in often unwished-for circumstances and focus more on how all parents can improve the life chances of their children.
- 10. At 9:51pm on 24 Sep 2008, deepintheheartof wrote:
At 7:05pm on 24 Sep 2008, fspeirs wrote:
I seem to remember reading that the out-of-wedlock birth rate in Edinburgh in the early 1800s was around 50% and that the (Western) nuclear family was a phenomenon of the post-World War II generation.Can anyone substantiate this?
I don’t know about Edinburgh but was taught in a US sociology class that the nuclear family was aptly named as emerging with the economic boom of the post war period and the rise of the suburbs, urban housing projects and welfare for single mothers, and the interstate highway system to easily hit the road. Until then the extended family was the norm. The author on disturbed sleep said that historically we were never meant to sleep together but in fact historically you had to be wealthy to have the space for single beds, let alone the heating to sleep alone in the winter. Children born out of wedlock were added to the group, sometimes by adoption and sometimes not. This is the pattern we see with most of our poorer immigrants before they have the money to be as isolated and self-absorbed as we are. There’s nothing so conducive to learning how to cooperate and work through problems as an extended family. If you can just take off, you don’t try very hard. We are seeing the results of that.
- 11. At 10:16pm on 24 Sep 2008, armchair_red wrote:
It’s quite strange being apprehensive posting in support of marriage. Has it become politically incorrect to be an advocate of marriage?
It’s not that single parenting, or co-habitation is bad as others here have already pointed out. But what I find a bit depressing is that the concept of life-long partnership and stable family life is no longer treated as an ideal.
I’m not sure I like the idea of tax breaks for families but I do like the principle of celebrating and promoting marriage and family.
- 12. At 10:21pm on 24 Sep 2008, NZOZcouk wrote:
I’m with Nicola Hale.
Further, the difference between cohabiting and marriage is a bit disingenuous.
Marriage as something different from cohabiting is a purely artificial distinction. Historically cohabiting was marriage. Indeed, the euphemism of ?clandestine marriages? dictated that if you broke it, it was yours so to speak.
However, due to the Industrial Revolution, the population became less settled and men and women could move away with little chance of being found and it was felt by the government that some record should be made of all marriages and ordered the church to cooperate in what now would be called a private finance initiative. So we got the Hardwiche or First Marriage Act in, I seem to remember, 1753.
This required that all marriages, for a fee, should be performed in or recorded by the CoE. However, many couples preferred not to swell the coffers of the church and stuck with common law. As the populace became richer more could afford the church service although registry office weddings increased in popularity. With the increase in the licensed venues churches have become less popular.
I would suggest that, with the reversal of the Industrial Revolution and a government obsessed with controlling its citizens by records, the requirement for some form of official documentation has gone. Given that for thousands of years there was no requirement for marriage lines once two people desired to live together, the headline statistic of half babies being born outside of wedlock is misleading. Indeed the word wedlock itself is a clue to this as its origin predates the First Marriage Act by some centuries.
Two people living together are married in all essentials.
- 13. At 10:46pm on 24 Sep 2008, NassyM wrote:
Interesting study but it is based on flawed logic that states that if couples who are married are less likely to split up than couples who are not married then clearly marriage must be preventing couples from splitting up. But what if there is some other cause?
I think it would be fair to say that there are x number of stable relationships and x number of unstable ones. Could it not be the case that out of the stable relationships ,a greater proportition decide to get married? Getting married would then be an indicator of stability but would not be the lone indicator ie there are other factors that might determine a stable relationship?
The problem with modern life is that we are all to eager to look at statistics and try to make a story out of them when really there is no story to be made.
- 14. At 11:26pm on 24 Sep 2008, herbmanbob wrote:
hmm both sides of the coin for myself and my wife, we celebrated 14 years of marraige yesterday although our eldest is 21. Concepts have changed over the last few years with reguards to the single parent not for the good in many cases through the pressure of political policys making it impossable for a lot of low income familys to survive together.
Start at the bottom of the pile with those traped in areas were high unemployment exists and there are a lot of unemployed people living together either as couples or man and wife. The choice to stay together is indeed a very hard one for economic reasons alone, the single mum or dad gets on average 10% less income than the couple in some form of partnership. So right from the outset the concept of the single parent is a good one why keep a partner for �10 extra a week on your benifit when if your both single your income almost doubles.
Tax credits did a lot to help support the concept of family through the child credit system but still falls fare short on making a stable economic environment for couples and children. So to be single with children is good.
The only thing that saddens me about this is the loss of the family tree, most children now are just branches far from the support of the main trunk. - 15. At 00:00am on 25 Sep 2008, kassandra08 wrote:
The study (or the blogger) fails to account for social factors such as lower income, less stable housing, and less support for single parents and their children — these are the causes of poor educational outcome, not the parent’s marital state. If caring were recognised as full-time employment and childcare were truly universal, indicators for the children of single parents would be the same as for co-habiting, civil-partnered or married parents. And as an aside to the conservative/Christians: focus on the nuclear family ignores that a) it is an invention of Victorian culture, and b) that it harbours and facilitates abuse of all kinds.
- 16. At 00:50am on 25 Sep 2008, BohemianbabeUK wrote:
I’m not sure how these stats came about, but I do feel that a part of the whole scenario of bringing up children is based on the capability of the parents. If there is more support available to people to rear a family, and more education available in how to rear children into happy, confident individuals in society, it would suppose it would not matter. But alas the most fundamental time that parents need help with their kids whether a married couple or single parent is when the child is in its teens, and the support there is just not adequate enough for all the moral distractions and temptations kids are exposed to in today’s society.
Also many young single people with low prospects feel the only way to get their own places/homes is by having a child/children to get out of the family home, via the housing register as housing priority is given to those who have children and this also means time for courting and marriage is not taken as a priority. Women also do not need to rely on a partners wages, therefore the traditional roles have changed. And as the icing on the cake, alot of men and women are put off by marriage because of the financial aspects if there is a divorce. But I remember reading a report on Robert Chester’s the Neo-Conventional family now that was an interesting read. But ideally there should be more discussion and guidance for young individuals on their ‘life expectations’ in the education system.
- 17. At 01:05am on 25 Sep 2008, Elettaria wrote:
This sounds like we’re back to, “Couples should stay together for the sake of the children,” to me. Marriage makes it harder to split up, children must have two parents, therefore let’s make it as hard as possible for the parents to leave!
The most common cause of relationship breakdown is domestic violence. Trust me, witnessing this does not improve the experience of childhood. My mother stayed with my father for about twelve years past the start of the abuse, partly because of all the media and social pressure to stay together for my sake. Those twelve years were accordingly a misery, and I had chronic health problems in childhood from the stress I was picking up from my parents, as did other children of parents in abusive relationships that I know. My father finally kicked my mother down the stairs in front of me and left when I was sixteen, and I cut off contact with him at that point. I’ve lost all memories of him.
Pressuring couples to stay together under the assumption that this is the best thing for their children, no matter what is wrong with their relationship, is a grave error. Yes, childrearing is hard work and it’s easier with two to share the load, but that only applies if the two are in a happy, healthy relationship.
Meanwhile, cohabiting is an excellent way of making sure that a relationship is solid enough to last the course before committing to marriage. If we’re worried about couples having babies before they’re all that committed to each other, maybe we should work on the accidental pregnancy rate by improving contraception access and education. Bullying people into marriage when it’s not suitable for them will not help anything.
- 18. At 02:53am on 25 Sep 2008, Sheena77 wrote:
Are there any statistics about the wellbeing and happiness of those 70% of children who spend their childhood years with both parents? Living with both parents isn’t always a good thing, especially if they remain in an unhappy, destructive marriage ‘for the sake of the children’.
And wouldn’t the statistics be skewed depending on whether that one-parented child still saw and spent time with the other parent? And if that one-parent-family had support and contact with wider family and friends?
I too object to the assumption that I am worse-off because my parents were separated when I was young. They are both much happier now, with long-term partners, and I like to think I am a successful, relatively well-rounded individual!
- 19. At 06:45am on 25 Sep 2008, meltonmark wrote:
Always the rationalisation, attempting to justify that which is plain wicked. Our society is an absolute mess and growing worse each year. When someone produces any evidence to show what that wickedness is doing, out come the rationalisations; and from whom? Why, the wicked of course.
The day will come when a husband and wife, walking down the street with their children, will be attacked and ridiculed.
And we wonder why our nation is being taken over. - 20. At 08:44am on 25 Sep 2008, amayamay wrote:
People with stable relationships are more likely to get married, but that doesn’t mean that marriage provides any kind of glue. The real question is this: what proportion of children are being born into relationships that will prove to be unstable, or more simply, how many parents are splitting up, whether married or not. That would have been easier to measure and avoided using the pretence of caring about the kids to grind this moralistic axe about marriage.
- 21. At 09:18am on 25 Sep 2008, Not_amused wrote:
At last a bit of research that tells us what most of Britain already knew. Of course, there will always be the individuals that fair well in single-parent familiy situations but that, by and large, is not the norm (as the research shows).
Marriage has been undermined in recent years (not least by the Labour government). This has the effect that co-habitation and the single parent are respected and promoted in the society.
I’m please with this research. Hopefully this research will be seized upon by politicians (and not just the religous) — for the long term good of British society.
- 22. At 09:38am on 25 Sep 2008, peterjol wrote:
The terrible financial unfairness of my own divorce makes me bitter and angry and I strongly warn any unmarried men I meet against getting married. …only recently a judge has made a man pay for the upkeep of his ex wife’s pet ‘horses’!!
Children or not… with the laws the way they are… a man is foolish to get married.
- 23. At 09:56am on 25 Sep 2008, EosOlympus wrote:
Are there stats on how many of these couples end up getting married after their child is born? I believe this happens quite a lot.
- 24. At 10:23am on 25 Sep 2008, ChicaTigress wrote:
Do they know anything? Since my Dad left my mum, we’ve gotten a better house, my mum has been able to get a better job in order to provide for myself and my sister, and I have just recieved 4 A-level qualifications, and am working in a 9-5 job, on a good salary, in an office. On the other hand, a friend of mine who was brought up by both her married parents has failed one of her A-levels, (passing the other two) completed less than two weeks work in McDonalds before quitting and has since then failed to even start looking for another job. Doesn’t that tell you something?
- 25. At 11:15am on 25 Sep 2008, bluecrashdive wrote:
1 in 3 of children from poorer backgrounds have little or no relationship with their father. This is 1 in 4 of all children in the UK.
Benefits of all kinds has ensured now that the vast majority of children living in poverty are in 2 parent homes.
It makes financial sense for couples to split.
The huge majority of studies (adjusted for poverty) show that children from single parent homes are generally more likely to drink/smoke/take drugs earlier etc teenage pregnancies, multiple partners with different children, have mental illness etc The list goes on.
While children from 2 parent families have far greater life chances (even when they are poorer than single parents).
Yet this govt continues to encourage single parents. Of course there will be many children from single parents who will say they went to uni, have a good job etc but in reality there are far, far more who will be suffering throughout their lives because they only had one parent.
Emotionally, even the so-called successful children of single parents will likely have a host of problems in sustaining a long-term relationship and the cycle of single parenthood will continue which is so abusive generally to children.
- 26. At 11:16am on 25 Sep 2008, Artypie wrote:
My children were both born in wedlock but have had considerable years living with me with no father figure in the home.
My son has just gained a first class degree in computer science and can programme in numerous languages. he has a love of classical and japanese music, is in various choirs and has had only one day of illness absence in his school/college life. My daughter has ambitions to be a lawyer.
I have always worked and supported the family myself.
Just goes to show that over generalisation is a dangerous thing. I find the assumptions in this study patronising and dont see what marital status has to do with anything, rather it is social conditions that causes the results found in this survey.
- 27. At 11:19am on 25 Sep 2008, tarquin wrote:
4. fspeirs wrote:
I seem to remember reading that the out-of-wedlock birth rate in Edinburgh in the early 1800s was around 50% and that the (Western) nuclear family was a phenomenon of the post-World War II generation.
Can anyone substantiate this?
—
i have no sources available at this time, but as a nineteenth century historian i can say the idea of monogamous relationships came out of the late Victorian period – this is pretty much where all conservative ‘tradition’ comes from – you look at things like the pomp and ceremony of state funerals, and think they’re timeless, they’re actually only from around the 1860s onwards (it’s the whole empire thing)
but anyway, basically as the middle classes swelled as they headed for the 20th century, more and more people tried to emulate upper class society and became very strict on the rules (such as the behaviour of women, the idea that women couldn’t work was very much out of this period) – far more so than the old upper classes ever bothered with
and through the early twentieth century, as conditions improved for the masses the working classes adopted such ‘moral’ behaviour – and then the second world war came along and its massive propaganda campaign with happy nuclear families doing their bit in posters, which you may still have an image of, cemented the view of how british life should be – to the extent that war propaganda still resonates in society today
sorry it’s very general, it’s a blog – but yes, the nuclear family is very much a modern tradition
- 28. At 12:02pm on 25 Sep 2008, mike4898 wrote:
I believe that David Cameron is right to propose encouraging a social “ideal” of married parents bringing up their children through the tax system.
While there are many other ways to live the statistics repeatedly prove that this is the most stable and successful model for children and therefore should be encouraged.
That is not to say that all single parents are failures or that all married couples are successes in bringing up children, nor does it stop people making whatever life choices they want to make.
For too long policy and legislation has actually worked against the “ideal” of two parents of opposite sex bringing up a family and it is time to reverse that.
- 29. At 12:44pm on 25 Sep 2008, microRaconteur wrote:
At the end of the day – women decide whether or not to have children – men can’t have them – its a simple as that.
So its up to the female half of the partnership to decide whether she has the capability and financial resources to parent however many children she decides to have, in some cases for the first 25 years of their lives.
Whether married, co-habiting or single – she must make this decision on the basis that she could be single for all or part of that time – and if she isn’t sure – the answer is simple – don’t have children!
Whether man or woman, the fact is that fewer of us want to stay with the same partner for life – and its not necessarily a good thing to do. After all, few of us live in the same house or drive the same car, or even keep the same friends all of our lives.
I think there are more people stuck in stale marriages because of children or some sort of social pressure than we care to admit.
Choose to commit for as long as you want to – but be free to get out when you need to – and if the female half of the partnership wants children – they should go into it with their eyes open
- 30. At 1:33pm on 25 Sep 2008, Th1nk-about-it wrote:
This study backs other statistics I’ve seen showing that children born to married parents have the best outcomes (health, education, comfortable adult life), while those of single parents have the worst and those born to cohabiting couples fall in the middle.
Of course there are many exceptions, but overall I have to accept it seems to make sense – even though it doesn’t support my own previous opinions. I would have thought kids were better off born to single mothers, because fathers so often leave, which is a bereavement for the child. But I suppose children born to single mothers have that experience many times if the mother has a series of men in her life. Maybe the children learn to disconnect their emotions – not a good thing.
It’s also important to distinguish the extended family from the nuclear family here. A child with a single parent in a supportive extended family may have a good life. But unfortunately, the extended family barely exists any more.
- 31. At 2:07pm on 25 Sep 2008, Katerlina wrote:
I agree that the research should be paired with socio-economic indicators. I am pregnant and my partner and I have yet to get married. We probably will – except it’s an expensive business, and bringing up baby has become the financial priority for now.
I am liberal and non-religious, so don’t feel that marriage will make my man and I approach our relationship that differently. I think the difference is that we are older, ‘higher’ educated, both from ‘middle-class’ backgrounds and have good jobs.
I suspect that the majority making up these ‘statistics’ are from so-called ‘working class’ backgrounds and socio-economic circumstances, and are considerably younger.
Two parents are probably – in most circumstances (not mine, thanks) better than one, but when it comes down to it – money and opportunity are what makes the real differences.
- 32. At 2:16pm on 25 Sep 2008, manchester_mum wrote:
I am an unmarried mother of one and pregnant for the second time. I am 38 and have been with my partner for 5 years. We are in a strong relationship but don’t intend to marry.
All the statistics seem to be based on parents who aren’t together – what about couples like ourselves? - 33. At 2:30pm on 25 Sep 2008, themalina wrote:
The postings on this Blog describe some tremndous examples of Adults and Children succeeding in spite of the most difficult circumstances. This is fact not patronising. There are also example of the nuclear family not working in particular circumstances.
There will always be a range of experiences both reinforcing and also contradicting any social norm or set of collected data.
What is then very difficult is to discuss the issue dispationateley and without allowing ones own particular personal experiences to dominate ones thoughts.
Plainly the statement that “the nuclear family harbours all sorts of abuses” is a good but sad example of this.
Sharing your life with another person and bringing up children in a stable and loving long term relationship has to be a common sense ideal for the benefit of both the individual and the children. There will always be exception that work and dont work.
To argue against this and to treat partners as items of clothing that can be discarded as the mood changes is to argue personal freedom at the expense of social responsibility.
We are fixated on freedom/liberty and liberal values – but what have we lost? Care of others. caring for/about our extended families, our children, our friends and neighbours and those we just meet in the street. Self is all that matters – apart from benefits of course.
- 34. At 2:36pm on 25 Sep 2008, fivish
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
- 35. At 2:53pm on 25 Sep 2008, tarquin wrote:
as 3 Nicola points out – this is about correlation and causality
if you accept that children from a married couple do better, then does that mean marriage = better?
look at who is getting married, probably the most stable relationships result in a marriage, and perhaps marriage is becoming a more ‘middle-class’ (or higher socio-economic whatnot) pursuit – so it is perhaps more likely that the worst off will be in the single/cohabiting block anyway – making them get married would have zilch effect – this is just me making assumptions as an example, but these stats need much further scrutiny and as usual are being presented in such a way to further one cause
in fact, marriage has decreased – but has the overall performance measured decreased too? because it should’ve, to at least present a rationale for claiming marriage is intrinsically beneficial
- 36. At 3:38pm on 25 Sep 2008, Gothnet wrote:
I have yet to be convinced that marriage is the factor keeping couples together.
What evidence is there to say that a cohabiting couple, cajoled into marriage by tax benefits etc. would stay together any longer than they do without the certificate?
Maybe the problem here is people are having children when they aren’s suited to each other in the long term.
Maybe the “problem” is that people are splitting up when before they would have stuck together because of societal pressure. And who’s to say that children in those families would do any better if mum and dad stayed together but hated each other, compared to families where each parent was free to pursue their own happiness?
This is not as simple as the statistics say.
- 37. At 4:33pm on 25 Sep 2008, YOOKSAN22 wrote:
There are other problems too, because most illegals cannot marry without approval certificate from home office they are giving birth without marrying and these babies are counted as children born out of wedlock.
- 38. At 5:40pm on 25 Sep 2008, Phil_Bloggs wrote:
We look at the decline of the nuclear family as a sad thing yet the nuclear family itself is fairly new. The extended family where children would be exposed to the influence of a much broader group of family members clearly has a big advantage over the nuclear family where only two adults provide the stable environment they grow up in.
That is if we conclude that being a child of a lone parent is itself the only factor in determining its chances in later life.
Being a lone parent puts you at a major social disadvantage. There are no short term fixes for this. We adopted a liberal philosophy and this is just one bill to pay.
As someone once said ‘If you want to influence a child then its best to start 100 years before he is born’.
- 39. At 6:13pm on 25 Sep 2008, busby2 wrote:
manchester_mum wrote:
“I am an unmarried mother of one and pregnant for the second time. I am 38 and have been with my partner for 5 years. We are in a strong relationship but don’t intend to marry”.Why? Aren’t you intending to stay together? And if you are, what is wrong with making a public commitment to that effect?
manchester_mum went on to write “All the statistics seem to be based on parents who aren’t together – what about couples like ourselves?”
The answer to your question is in Mark Easton’s blog. He wrote “Only 35% of children brought up by unmarried parents will live with both parents throughout their childhood. For those with married parents the figures rises to 70%”.
The fact is that married couples are, on average, probably more committed to one another than co-habiting couples. If that wasn’t the case there would not be any difference between the percentage of children living with both parents throughout their childhood.
By the way getting married is very cheap. Marriage only becomes expensive because it has become very fashionable to spend ridiculous amounts on a wedding. This manufactured and unnecessary cost has in itself become a barrier to couples getting married.
- 40. At 7:00pm on 25 Sep 2008, SuperJulianR wrote:
As several posts indicate, the potentially disasterous financial consequences of divorce are having an effect on the statistics.
Those who are already married are incentivised to stay together – whether they are happy or not – because the cost of divorce may be ruinous (one wonders on what particular planet a judge lives, if he can award maintenace of �50,000 a year for the upkeep of horses by a (childless) woman).
On the other hand, a couple who are not yet married must fear the consequences of getting married and are thus less likely to choose to get married in the first place, however committed they may feel – especially where one party is better off than the other.
It is therefore unsurprising that figures for both marriage and divorce are falling – the law of unintended consequences.
Question is, though, whether it is right for the state or the judiciary to coerce people to stay in an unhappy relationship, whether married or not. In my view there is nothing more ‘nanny state’ than a government that seeks to interefere in private domestic relationships by promoting marriage or otherwise.
- 41. At 00:11am on 26 Sep 2008, redkate98 wrote:
When I was younger, I thought marriage a waste of time and money – meaningless bit of paper. I was co-habiting with a man and we thought we’d be together forever anyway. It was only when we started (after 7 years together) thinking of buying a house and having kids that I realised we’d just stayed together through inertia, and I really did not want to live with him forever. Luckily I got out in time. When I met my future husband, I almost immediately had a strong desire to marry him, which rather surprised me (and him!). Luckily he accepted, and 11 years later (10 married) we have 3 children, and are very happy together.
I think the important thing about marriage as opposed to co-habiting, is that it forces you to think about the long term before you do the mortgage and kids thing (hopefully). I think many co-habitees slide into parenthood, often by accident, or someone’s ticking clock, without having considered the long term.
Parenting is not an easy task. If I did not have my husband to call upon when I’m sick or just plain fed up with three small rascals, I’d go mad. I can’t imagine being able to manage this on my own, and hats off to those who do, and get a good result as many have attested to in these comments.
As to the comment from microRaconteur:
“Choose to commit for as long as you want to – but be free to get out when you need to – and if the female half of the partnership wants children – they should go into it with their eyes open”
What a cop-out! A real man takes responsibility for his progeny. How shallow to flit from relationship to relationship, never committing to anyone. Men who think they can just walk away from their families are the real problem. Grow up.
- 42. At 03:12am on 26 Sep 2008, Howardddddddd wrote:
Marriage is not the formula for success in their offspring. It is the parent(s)’ capability to …erm, parent. If you have a mother and father who believe in a strong work ethic, responsibility, good manners etc. then their children will more than likely be fine examples to society. Whereas a narrow minded, regularly drunk couple with insular views will raise up children who will cause damage to society… e.g. the hoodies in my local area, most have parents who live together/married. The difference being, they too acted like their kids when they were young.
@Joan Olivares
What an utterly condescending tone to take. I have seen more marriages broken up by women over THEIR affairs, than men. Of course custody is awarded to women usually, severely limited fathers to their children. So it’s not so much “men abandoning children” as “women telling telling their children than he abandoned them, whilst limiting his access through court orders but still accepting child payments for 18 years”.As for redkate’s personal example, it was all to do with timing… her first relationship of cohabitation built up a strong foundation, but without any true commitments (mortgage, kids) – that gave her the option to choose a newer (better?) man before the big gamble. No doubt she would have been “very happy together” with the cohabitee if she gambled with the major commitments beforehand.
- 43. At 11:08am on 26 Sep 2008, AgrivatedCM wrote:
I do feel that growing up in a home with a single parent in a relaxed and caring environment is far better than being subject to arguments and constant friction between two adults who probably should never have been married in the first place.
In todays economy, middle class / working people are generaly putting off having children untill their careers and lives are established by which time it could prove too late to have children of their own.
Whereas people living off the governent that can afford large families.
I feel that until the UK Government does something about teenage pregnancies i.e puts their foot down about giving free housing and benifits to young mothers that have never worked, and have no intention to ever work it will never change.
If young / teenage girls fall pregnant, it should be up to their parents or families to support them. I feel this would prove to be the best contraceptive ever!
Maybe having older and more responsiable parents, will inject some family values back into society.
- 44. At 11:09am on 26 Sep 2008, kamekathee wrote:
Up until recent times the marriage contract included the legal responsibility of the husband to “keep” the wife and children. If he failed he could be brought to court.
This is a major factor, for good or ill, of the demise of the marriage contract. It doesn’t mean very much any more. - 45. At 11:11am on 26 Sep 2008, watersummergirl wrote:
i am a Romanian woman living here in the Uk and i live with my partner whom is British we have a son together who is now 16 months old.
- 46. At 11:27am on 26 Sep 2008, watersummergirl wrote:
hi, i have moved to the Uk 3 years ago and i have been with my partner who is British(i am Romanian) for 2 years.we have a 16 month old son and would like one day to be able to afford a nice small wedding and to make our family whole.
unfortunatley with all the different laws about imigration changing as often as the wind we can only wait to see what the future brings
at the moment i am a full time mum to our 2 boys(he has a son from a previous relation) and i am not allowed to work here until i become a citizen or something like thati was raised by my grandma as my mum had to work full time to support me and my sister .we never met our father as he killed himself soon after the birth of my sister
i never had a father figure in my house and was always surrounded by women
but i finished highschool and came here to try and get a better life and make something out myself
now that i am a mum i want to offer my kids everything i never had, a proper family, food on the table and a good education
my partner is the only one who works ,so we cant afford a weeding ,as me being a foreigner the expenses grow much more and that is only on paperwork
if the goverment willl help the genuine couples that want to form a family and raise their children together more couples will have children in a proper family
at the moment is so much easier to just co-habbit with the partner …many other reasons can be named not just the money or the true love for having a family - 47. At 11:45am on 26 Sep 2008, tarquin wrote:
43 – I feel that until the UK Government does something about teenage pregnancies i.e puts their foot down about giving free housing and benifits to young mothers that have never worked, and have no intention to ever work it will never change.
—
I often think about this – and yes while there are people out there who abuse the system, there are also decent people out there who have been put into very hard situations and need a hand, I know some of them and how they try to get off handouts and support themselves, because at the end of the day they, like me, think it’s wrong to live off handouts if they don’t need to
but how do you remove those vicky pollard types who enrage us so? at the end of the day both types are on a government form that says – “2 kids, no job etc” – meanwhile in the tabloid one would be a hero and one would be a villain, unless we want the government going around to each person and passing a judgement i don’t see how you can remove a benefit that helps people without hurting the people who actually need it
- 48. At 11:48am on 26 Sep 2008, alextfish wrote:
Relationships across our society are breaking down, as the Relationships Foundation’s studies continue to demonstrate. It’s not good to force couples to stay together if the relationship is abusive, but it’s also not good for couples to take on a long-term responsibility – like a child or a marriage – without giving it the thought, preparation and commitment it deserves.
What we need is for individuals to take responsibility for their relationships – with partner, children, and extended family. I do believe that marriage is a better setting to bring up a child, because there’s a greater permanence (even in today’s divorce-when-I-change-my-clothes culture), and more chance of the couple being genuinely committed to stand by their love for each other and work through their difficulties.
Marrying someone is a great commitment, and it’s not something to be entered into lightly. It is (or should be) a promise to continue to work at your love so that when troubles come, you keep communicating and get through them. And that’s the kind of relationship that provides a good place for a kid to grow up. (And I do appreciate that non-marriage relationships can have that kind of commitment, but most couples with that depth of relationship will get married.)
- 49. At 12:41pm on 26 Sep 2008, CarolineOfBrunswick wrote:
People cohabitating are more likely to split up than people who are married! I can’t wait for the research to find out the correlation between housing tenure and how long people live in the same place, the impact of fixed term contracts on how long people stay in jobs, and how much people on pay-as-you-go mobile phones use them.
Will the Conservatives be propsing tax-breaks for dining tables?
- 50. At 12:46pm on 26 Sep 2008, DisgustedOfMitcham2 wrote:
Oh dear, I would have expected better of the BBC. This article, as many other contributors have already noticed, is based on a schoolboy error in statistics: correlation does not imply causation.
It may well be true that outcomes are, on average, better for children of married parents than for children of unmarried parents. Does that mean children would do better if more people chose to get married? Absolutely not.
Consider this: statistics show that children born to fathers who wear silk ties do better at school and end up in higher paid jobs than children born to fathers who don’t wear silk ties (well, I don’t actually know of any such statistics, but I’m absolutely confident that they would show that if anyone bothered to record them). Does that mean that issuing all fathers with silk ties would be helpful? That’s really no different from the arguments about marriage.
- 51. At 1:19pm on 26 Sep 2008, ristmi wrote:
1 ? Many people commenting on this blog need to read a little more closely! Mark Easton, it seems, has been very careful to avoid ?causation? throughout the article, instead referring to other opinions or interpretations (e.g., Professor John Ermisch and Professor Jacqueline Scott) and using terms like ?translate? (e.g., ?? [this] translates into lower grades, worse job prospects and poorer health?) instead of ?cause?.
2 ? The pleural of anecdote is not data.
3 ? I see plenty of people implying that ?nuclear marriage? and ?life outcome? are autocorrelated (as opposed to the former causing the latter? or is it the latter causing the former?!), but no suggestion of a cause driving this autocorrelated behavior. A lot of experts with no insights, huh!
4 ? For this to be a blog, surely Mark Easton should have addressed some of the issues since he posted the article almost 48 hours ago. Otherwise, this is just an article with a section for comments?
- 52. At 2:06pm on 26 Sep 2008, queenofpuddings wrote:
Ah, so we’re back to this hoary old chestnut, are we?
All the ills of society are all the fault of nasty old single mothers? No doubt they’re milking the benefits system and getting free council housing while decent folk are struggling, too?
What a gift to the religious conservatives. Save the family! Ban divorce! Shame the council-estate mums and their little byblows!
From my observation the problem is that single parent families are more likely to be poor. They’re more likely to live in areas of low opportunity (and where most of the men are a poor prospect as responsible mates). In that situation, who can blame them for choosing to be single?
The answer is to make the whole of society fairer, not to froth at the mouth about morality. That is, if the people who produced this “study” are actually concerned about the life opportunities of children, rather than providing a rationale for right-wing knee-twitching.
And I agree with the poster who wished he had lived in a single parent home. Growing up with two parents who are unhappy or abusive doesn’t do anything for a child’s life chances. My therapist has done quite nicely out of it, though. - 53. At 3:32pm on 26 Sep 2008, andrian007 wrote:
I agree with many of the posters above who say that while statistics prove so, it is unfair to say that people should be encouraged to marry while many children born with single parents have succeeded in life.
The problem is not so much whether there are two parents rather than one, but that whether the parent/s realise that raising a child is extremely hard work and that serious commitment is required to raise a child well.
Instead of the government changing tax and benefit laws favouring marriage, I would rather have my tax money going into making sure that parent/s-to-be get a few-days “training course” and understand the financial and emotional aspects of raising a child and what it takes to do it well. Most new parents will probably feel patronised, but in the long term this might do some good to British society.
- 54. At 5:10pm on 26 Sep 2008, Secret Love wrote:
Ah – that old chestnut – the facts don’t suit what I think – the facts must be wrong.
A stable relationship is better for children than a dynamic one. Most people would call that common-sense.
How can this be expressed in a way that doesn’t offend the liberal left ?
It doesn’t seem possible that people think putting children into day-care from the age of 6 months is going to produce secure, stable citizens, yet that is what most contributers ask us to believe.
The breakdown of today’s society is telling us something – is the Conservative Party the only group who are listening ?
- 55. At 11:12pm on 26 Sep 2008, robotwarlord wrote:
Is it not fairly obvious to anyone else that this statistics reflect the nature of people who get married rather than the effect of getting married itself. David Cameron is now going to use this daft evidence to impose some kind of pointless religious based based tax laws on us all just because it will win him a few votes from the dim witted tabloid readers who probably still think knife crime can be solved with cold showers.
- 56. At 11:21pm on 26 Sep 2008, Phoenixarisen wrote:
Heaven forbid that we should return to the Victorian ethos of shunning the unmarried mother and her child. The horrors of the Magdelan Convent Homes for Unmarried Mothers wwre places of slavery, cruelty and despair. But a sensible solution must be found for the unfortunate children born to mothers who are really only children themselves. Unmarried motherhood is often a choice made by women who are capable of earning a living to support themselves and their offspring. Whatever one’s personal opinions may be, they are unimportant since these women are not being supported by the State and lead independent live. Those who are reliant on the State are another matter. The worst thing that ever happened was when public housing created for working people was filled with teenage mothers. Many of these girls deliberately becoming pregnant to receive their own homes and full benefits. These poor babies grow up, usually, to become the problem children who vandalise estates and are low achievers at school. Nu Labour will do nothing to alter this situation of dependence since thet are a guaranteed core of voters for now and in the future.
- 57. At 12:38pm on 27 Sep 2008, SarahCardiff wrote:
Whatever the implications of single-parenthood to children, I think it’s a terribly sad fact that many people today see marriage as a huge emotional and financial commitment.Yet they are very blase about having a baby. In an ideal world all children deserve a stable,loving, family with 2 parents. The next generation needs to be educated that a marriage is not always for life.Raising a child is (or should be!). I believe that if the benefits system was changed (which is currently heavily weighted in favour of single parenthood) the rate of children born outside wedlock would plummet. The benefits system encourages today’s broken society.Granted many people from single parent homes do well- many,many more do not.
- 58. At 4:54pm on 27 Sep 2008, little5mudger wrote:
Since when has the”concept of life-long partnership and stable family life” not applied to cohabiting couples who have made an informed decision not to marry and raise children?
I’m unsure how a certificate (creating potential debts resulting in thousands) provides the solution to bringing up a non dysfunctional family?
Society has changed since Darwin’s theory of evolution, couples no longer need to follow a religion to create intelligent, well grounded children.
- 59. At 6:18pm on 27 Sep 2008, coed14 wrote:
As a single mother and having just taken one of my three sons to Uni Freshers week, I’m taking no notice of these statistics. Single parents of both sexes are more than capable of breeding and nurturing intelligent weel adjusted law abiding children
- 60. At 10:13pm on 27 Sep 2008, kiki_2too wrote:
What does it matter wether or not a child lives with co-habiting parents, married or otherwise?
As long as the child is given the love and support that he/she needs to attain the ‘standard’ set by the government(which is a joke) what does it really matter?
Personally speaking the population should be raising concerns with the idiots that initiate a blog in this manner as it is so useless in the sense that the large majority were born with silver spoons in their mouths and have strived for more at the expense and pleasure of the ‘lower classes’.
I am a single father of my 5 year old son and have been since he was 12 months old….so is the government concerned about me or my child??
I strive for the best for my child and always will do but we can only do with what we are provided.
- 61. At 05:47am on 28 Sep 2008, Loops2112 wrote:
There seems to be some confusion in this article where children born outside of wedlock seem to be assumed to be living in a one-parent family. This is certainly not the case with many people – myself and my husband included. We’re married now but when we had our children we were not. We lived together for 15 years before we finally tied the knot, so according to the stats, our children were no doubt born into a one-parent family which was not true at all, we were both there for them and have been ever since – just not always married.
Many of our friends have done it this way too – got married after the children were born, so I think the stats are wrong, I think there are more partnerships out there than the office of births, marriages and deaths (or wherever they get their stats from) would realise.
- 62. At 12:22pm on 28 Sep 2008, Phoenixarisen
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
- 63. At 12:38pm on 28 Sep 2008, Phoenixarisen
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
- 64. At 1:54pm on 28 Sep 2008, Phoenixarisen
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
- 65. At 2:06pm on 28 Sep 2008, maddddermax wrote:
Single parent families and kids born to unmarried parents are 2 totally different subjects. This article is nonsense as there seems to be an underlying assumption that couples who have children outside of marriage split up.
More nonsense from the BBC; whom I suggest take a step out into the real world. Yes….I mean outside ofLondon.
21 Important Rules in Life from Anthony Robbins
ONE. Give people more than they expect and do it cheerfully.
TWO. Marry a man/woman you love to talk to. As you get older, their conversational skills will be as important as any other.
THREE. Don’t believe all you hear, spend all you have or sleep all you want.
FOUR. When you say, ‘I love you,’ mean it.
FIVE. When you say, ‘I’m sorry,’ look the person in the eye.
SIX. Be engaged at least six months before you get married.
SEVEN. Believe in love at first sight.
EIGHT. Never laugh at anyone’s dreams. People who don’t have dreams don’t have much.
NINE. Love deeply and passionately. You might get hurt but it’s the only way to live life completely.
TEN.. In disagreements, fight fairly. No name calling.
ELEVEN. Don’t judge people by their relatives.
TWELVE. Talk slowly but think quickly.
THIRTEEN! .. When someone asks you a question you don’t want to answer, smile and ask, ‘Why do you want to know?’
FOURTEEN. Remember that great love and great achievements involve great risk.
FIFTEEN. Say ‘bless you’ when you hear someone sneeze
SIXTEEN. When you lose, don’t lose the lesson.
SEVENTEEN. Remember the three R’s:
Respect for self;
Respect for others; and
Responsibility for all your actions.
EIGHTEEN. Don’ t let a little dispute injure a great friendship.
NINETEEN. When you realize you’ve made a mistake, take immediate steps to correct it.
TWENTY. Smile when picking up the phone. The caller will hear it in your voice
TWENTY- ONE. Spend some time alone.
NINE Gifts for Eid-ul-Fitr
When Unwan al-Basri, a 94 year old man went to seek counsel from Imam Jaffar Sadiq (as), the Imam replied:
“O Unwan! I exhort you to observe NINE things because these are the things that I advise to those who resolve to seek God and to journey on His path. I beseech God to give you success in acting upon them.
Three of those things pertain to the “Training and Discipline of the Soul”.
Three of them pertain to “Forbearance and Patience”
And three of them pertain to “Knowledge and Wisdom”.
So, commit them to your memory and be careful lest you should be negligent or lethargic in acting upon them.”
Unwan says, “I emptied my mind and my heart so as to dedicate them to receive and practice what Imam said”.
TRAINING AND DISCIPLINING OF THE SOUL
1. You should not eat anything for which you have no appetite because it creates stupidity and foolishness in man.
2. Do not eat anything unless you are hungry. Keep 1/3rd of the stomach for food, 1/3rd for water and 1/3rd for breath.
3. When you want to eat anything, eat of that which is lawful, taking God’s name and remember the tradition of the noble Messenger, because no man has ever filled a vessel worse than his stomach”.
FORBEARANCE AND PATIENCE
1. If someone were to say to you, “If you say one word, you will have to hear ten”. Tell him, “If you say ten words, you will not hear from me even one”.
2. If anyone should insult and abuse you, tell him, “If what you say about me is right, I pray to God to forgive me. And if what you say is false, then I beseech God to forgive you”.
3. If anyone threatens to betray and abuse you, reassure him that you will be his well-wisher and mindful of his rights.
KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM
1. You should question the learned concerning what you do not know and never ask to confuse or to belittle them.
2. Avoid giving legal verdicts (Fatwa) as if you were running away from a lion and do not make your neck a bridge for the people to cross over.
3. In the matters of the “Shariah”, never do anything in accordance with your own subjective judgment. When you find a way to caution and care, make caution your practice.
EID-UL-FITR MUBARAK
Collection of Published articles on al-Muntazir
|
|
Archive for the ‘Women in Muslim Society’ ” Muslim Women The Most liberated Women “And say to the believing women that they lower |
|
|
|
Important Message Of Ayatullah Sayyid Sistani for Khums Collection ” In The Name of The Almighty The Honorable Scholar Sayyid Murtaza Al-Kashmiri, may his |
|
|
|
” Make a resolve to win the maximum favour of Allah by performing extra voluntary prayers |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
” Khadija tul Kubra and Islam Today, Islam is the greatest force in the world. Its enemies |
|
|
|
” Why is hijaab so important? Hijaab is obligatory for women. Allaah is the One Who has |
|
|
|
moon sighting based on the opinion of our great JURIST “As salaamo a’laikum, I am sending you this research of the moon sighting based on the opinion |
|
|
|
Few answers from Ayatullah Sayyid Mohammed Saeed al Hakeem “Few answers from Ayatullah Sayyid Mohammed Saeed al Hakeem Q: 1) Who is the Wilayat al- |
|
|
|
MUSLIM UMMAH AT THE END OF THE TIME ” MUSLIM UMMAH AT THE END OF THE TIMEThe following are narrations of the Holy |
|
|
|
Few question and answers from Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Fazel Lankarani “Few question and answers from Grand Ayatollah Muhammad Fazel Lankarani As salaamo |
|
|
|
IMAM HASAN (a-s) In his teachings are the solutions to today’s problems. “IMAM HASAN (a-s) In his teachings are the solutions to today’s problems. One of the great |
|
|
|
SAYEEDA KHADIJA (s-a): A SUPERB AND SUBLIME BELIEVER. “SAYEEDA KHADIJA (s-a): A SUPERB AND SUBLIME BELIEVER. Sayeeda Khadija (s-a) |
|
|
|
LESSONS TAKEN FROM THE BATTLE OF BADR “LESSONS TAKEN FROM: THE BATTLE OF BADR By: Brother Ali Ja’afary. In the Name of |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ALI BIN ABI TALIB The Model of Islam” “ALI BIN ABI TALIB”The Model of Islam”by Nasir Shamsi The name of Ali bin Abi Talib (a) is synonymous with Islam; no episode of early Islam can be mention…” |
|
|
|
Reading Qur’an daily will change you ! ” Reading Qur’an daily will change you ! An old man lived on a farm in the mountains of |
|
|
|
Marsiya..Qasida…Nazam..Nauha ..writeups in urdu ” Majalis 19 RamzanMarsiya WriteupsJosh / Nasr Ghalib / MarsiyaSHAHSAWAAR E |
|
|
|
Collection Of Books for beginners….. ” Masterpieces of Rhetoric Methood (Nahj Al-Balagha) The Role of Ideology in Constructing |
|
|
|
” Click here to listen the audio and view the Video of this Ziarat Ziarath-e-Ashora Listen |
|
|
|
Shab e Qadr Amaal, dua and Ziarath |
|
|
|
Collection of Supplications & Salutations |
|
|
|
Religious Authorities – Al-Marja’iyyah Al-Deeniyyah “Religious Authorities – Al-Marja’iyyah Al-Deeniyyah Click on the images to view pages. “ |
|
|
|
LAYLATUL-QADR: THE NIGHT OF PREDESTINATION “LAYLATUL-QADR: THE NIGHT OF PREDESTINATION “In the Name of Allah, the |
|
|
|
Must live in harmony with the non-believers unless they transgress and oppress “Must live in harmony with the non-believers unless they transgress and oppressSurah Al – |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Commemorating the Wafat of Sayyida Khadija (AS) “Commemorating the Wafat of Sayyida Khadija (AS) 10th of Holy Ramadhan is the day when |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What is written in Mustadrak Al-Sahihain of Al-Hakim Al-Nisabori about Maula Ali “What is written in Mustadrak Al-Sahihain of Al-Hakim Al-Nisabori about Maula AliThe |
|
|
|
Difference of jihad and terriorism “O ye who believe! Stand out firmly For Allah , as witnesses To fair dealing, and let not The |
|
|
|
More than 100 dua and ziyarat audio ……Urdu Lecture ” Dua / Ziyarat Click Above Pic By S.Husnul Hassan |
|
|
|
“Ramdaan Daily Dua O Allah, on this day,bestow on me the blessings of Laylatul |
|
|
|
Why should we do Taqlid (follow a Mujtahid) in religious problems? ” Why should we do Taqlid (follow a Mujtahid) in religious problems?by Ayt. Makarim Shirazi |
|
|
|
Music from the Islamic point of view |
|
|
|
Why should women cover themselves in Prayers? “Religious Questions Answered: Logic for Islamic Rules by Ayt. Makarim Shirazi & Ayt. Ja’far |
|
|
|
Amirul Mumineen, Ali ibn Abi Talib – Najaf and Kufa, Iraq “Amirul Mumineen, Ali ibn Abi Talib – Najaf and Kufa, Iraq In the sacred house of Amir-ul- |
|
|
|
How does Prayers keep a person away from sin? ” Religious Questions Answered: Logic for Islamic Rules by Ayt. Makarim Shirazi & Ayt. Ja’far |
|
|
|
Why to face the Qibla in Prayers? “Why to face the Qibla in Prayers?Religious Questions Answered: Logic for Islamic Rules by |
|
|
|
” Religious Questions Answered: Logic for Islamic Rules by Ayt. Makarim Shirazi & Ayt. Ja’far |
|
|
|
Contributions; The Ahl al-Bayt (by Sr. Sayeeda Abid Ali “Contributions; The Ahl al-Bayt (by Sr. Sayeeda Abid Ali The Ahlal Bait are the Godly ones of |
|
|
|
SHIA-SUNNI UNITY–Misconceptions ” SHIA-SUNNI UNITY The centuries-old Shia-Sunni differences are the major obstacle to |
|
|
|
Amirul Mumineen, Ali ibn Abi Talib – Najaf and Kufa, Iraq ” Amirul Mumineen, Ali ibn Abi Talib – Najaf and Kufa, Iraq In the sacred house of Amir-ul- |
|
|
|
“Indication of descentSayyids often include the following titles in their names to indicate the |
|
|
|
” Man of many distinctions by Prof. Madud-ul-Hasan, Published by Islamic Publications (Pvt) |
|
|
|
Four Qul with Translation |
|
|
|
Cyber Love |
|
|
|
” Totally 39 Presentations THE MIRACLE IN THE LEAFCUTTER ANT NEW In every |
|
|
|
” salam (salutation) has 70 rewards, 69 parts of which are for one who salutes and one part of |
|
|
|
Welcome to Mohamad Masooms Dua (Cure Disease) Page! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As-Salamo Alaika Ya Baqiyyatul-Lahe Fee Arzehi! |
|
|
|
Love and Attachment with Imam-e-Zamana (a.s.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
O HUSAYN, WE SALUTE YOU |
|
|
|
Fourty Hadith of Masumeen (a.s) and some good Books ” Imam Hadi, the tenth Imam [a], said: “People are respected in this world for possessing |
|
|
|
Islamic Teachings Presentations……..Beautiful Collection must see ” As-Salamo Alaika Ya Baqiyyatul-Lahe Fee Arzehi! Slides are an effective teaching tool in the |
|
|
|
Interview with Shaitaan by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w) “Interview with Shaitaan by the Holy Prophet (s.a.w.w) Iblees, most commonly referred to as |
|
|
|
Complete Ramadan Guide, Amaal, Dua ,,,,….. ” The Sermon Given By The Prophet (s) On The Last Friday Of Sha’ban Holy Prophet (s) : One |
|
MUSLIM UMMAH AT THE END OF THE TIME…..Hadith of the Holy Prophet (s)
HADEETH NO.1
“There will come a time upon people (Muslims) when:
They will not respect their scholars except for their good clothing; they will not listen to the Holy Quran except for the pleasant voice; and they will not worship Allah except during the month of Ramadan.
There will be no modesty (sense of shame) in their women; no patience in their poor people; and no generosity in their rich people.
They will not be contented with little; nor satiated with abundance; they will strive (only) for their stomach; their religion will be their dirhams (money); their women will become direction of their worship; their homes will become their mosques; and they will run away from their scholars just as lambs run away from wolves.
When all these happen, Allah will afflict them with three conditions:
Blessings will be lifted from their wealth; they will be dominated by cruel leaders; and they will leave the world (die) without Imaan (faith & belief)”. (Waqa-iyul Ayyaam)
HADEETH NO.2
“There will come a time upon my Ummah (nation) when:
Their rulers will be cruel; their scholars will be greedy and lack piety; their worshippers will be hypocrites; their merchants will indulge in usury and conceal the defects of their transactions; and their women will be busy with the ornaments of the world.
Hence, at this time, the most vicious of them will dominate over them; and their good doers will invoke (pray) but they will not be answered”. (Bihar al-Anwaar)
HADEETH NO.3
“There will come a time upon my Ummah (nation) when they will love five things whilst neglecting the other five:
They will love the world and forget the Hereafter;
they will love wealth and forget (its) accounting;
they (the men) will love corrupt women and forget the Houries (of Paradise);
they will love the palaces and forget the graves;
and they will love their selves and forget the Lord. (Ithnay-‘Ashariyyah)
Complete set of the Holy Qur'an along with English Verse-by-Verse translation
LET US PREPARE FOR LAYLATUL QADR….The Night which could change our Destiny & our Life..Part 4 (of 4 parts)
WE are advised that this night be divided into 3 parts –
1st part to be allocated for Gaining Knowledge – Najhul Balagha, Tadabbur etc
2nd part to be allocated for Meditation (not when you are too sleepy)
One should not forget to select a period for having a private union between oneself and ones Creator and
3rd part to be allocated for Salatul Layl to connect with Nawaafil with Subh prayer
“
1: Imam al- Sadiq (as) quotes “On all these nights, it is recommended that you perform the ghusl twice: once at the beginning of the night, and once at its end“.
When performing the recommended ghusl, to remember that while god likes physical cleanliness, more important He loves inner cleanliness of the heart, from immoral character e.g. jealousy, greed, etc. Thus resolve to clean the soul also by TAUBAH + JIHAD of NAFS
2: When praying 2 rakat namaz of recommended prayers with 7 times surah tawheed, make efforts to concentrate on the message of tawheed
3: After the salaah when repeating ISTEGHFAR 70 times try to first be really repentant for serious mistakes done, sincerely ask for forgiveness either by:
(d) recalling the variety of punishments of different sins and finally resolve NOT TO Repeat them in the future,
4. When opening the Qur ‘an and praying for your needs with the intercession of the qur‘an, realize that while the Qur ‘an is a cure for spiritual illness,
5. While placing the Qur
‘an on the head, remind yourself that true salvation can only be achieved by always keeping the rules of qur ‘an ahead of us to follow.6. As you seek intercession of the Al mighty (bika ya al
…) and the 14 infallibles realize that God’s Mercy is limitless and7. While performing Ziyarah of Imam Husein (as) , remind yourself that on this august night, the souls of 124,000 Prophets (peace be upon them all)
• Firm bond of love and obedience of God (SALAT).
• Economic betterment of community (ZAKAT).
• Overall mobilization of forces towards virtue (AMR BIL MA`RUF).
• Overall cleansing of evil from society.
• All-out war in all spheres of life to promote truth (JIHAD).
• Tremendous endurance of all ensuing difficulties (SABR).
• Complete distancing (LA`NAH) from all forms of injustice (DHULM) with destiny-shaping opportunity of this night
According to Ahadeeth, both the Night and the Day are interconnected, as far as their worth, value, esteem, and splendour are concerned,
On a final note, our destiny to large extent can be changed in this very night and much depends on us,
Let us therefore pray together that:
A humble request that we remember each other in our prayers and especially those we do not forget our Marhumeen…
Rabbana Taqabbul Minna ……………
Full P1/6: CNN's Larry King Interview with Iran's President Ahmadinejad
Larry King interviewed Iran’s president on Tuesday night 23 September 2008. This interview covers Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s take on America’s elections, political candidates, Israel, Zionism and Iraq.
Ahmadinejad was staying in New York for the United Nation’s 63rd General Assembly.
Imam Khomeini Documentary – 'Ruhollah' with English Subtitles
http://www.aimislam.com/aim-tv/videos/imam-khomeini-documentary—ruhollah-with-english-subtitles
The world community was first introduced to Imam Khomeini towards the end of 1978 after he was exiled to France for his opposition to the monarchy of Iran. It was from Neauphle-le-Chateau, on the outskirts of the French capital Paris, that Imam Khomeini attained worldwide media coverage while he delivered his severe statements in opposition to the United States of America and orchestrated his final strike against the Shah of Iran, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi. He was acclaimed as one of the greatest pioneers of Islamic revival in the 20th century. His pictures filled the front pages of newspapers and took the headlines in news bulletins; pictures that were unknown to millions around the world beforehand, especially in the West – with his white beard and black turban – as if someone from the depths of time, from a book of history or an ancient tale, everything about him was unique and new; even his name — Ruhollah, Spirit of God.
The question that every politician and journalist was asking was: What kind of revolutionist was Khomeini?
In a world that saw the likes of men such as Abraham Lincoln, Lenin, Churchill, Hilter, and Mussolini; also glimpsing over Abdul Nasser, Nehru, Castro and Che Guevara; Khomeini was different he led the only Islamic revolution in the 20th century that was destined to succeed. He was not a Communist, Capitalist or Nationalist, rather he was an Islamic Leader before anything else, his slogan was ‘No East and no West, Islam is for us’.
More than 100 years have passed since the birth of Imam Khomeini. In this time, his name has spread far and wide amongst peoples mindsets for his leadership in a revolution that was the first to bring an Islamic government in the 20th century and arguably since the early advent of Islam 1400 years ago. It would seem his character as a revolutionary was the most known factor in his personality, whilst other aspects did not attain as much emphasis. Imam Khomeini is known amongst Islamic circles as a reformiing jurist, and through his movement he was able to revolt against 1400 years of a tendecy for Jurists of Islam to abstain from political activism, as opposed to dealing soley with religious enquiries, distributing finances and awaiting the return of the Saviour (atf). Imam Khomeini revived the importance of one of the disputed jurisprudential theories in the history of the Islamic Seminaries – Wilayat Al-Faqih; the theory which invests power in the Islamic jurists defining them as guardians of the affairs of the people, and scraping the idea that political affairs can be administered without the acceptance of Islamic Jurists. Imam Khomeini abolished unequivocally any idea of separating Religion and State, such that it has become unacceptable in today’s world for Islamic Jurists not to partake in giving guidelines in the political affairs of the people.
Imam Khomeini succeeded where many others failed, such that for the first time in almost 1300 years, since the occultation of Imam Mahdi, the 12th Imam of Shi’a Islam, Imam Khomeini through the concept of Wilayat Al-Faqih was able to establish a government led by the Islamic jurists – it is the Islamic Government, the Government which was a dream. A Government which Islamists have tried to establish for centuries. This government is but the biggest heritage and achievement of Imam Khomeini.
Provoking Thoughts 