Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) on Cats.

Tags:
Last response: in News & Leisure
Share
May 18, 2012 8:48:31 AM

Cats hold a special place to the Muslims, since Prophet Muhammad is very fond of cats.

One story mentioned that a cat saved Prophet Mohammad from being bitten by a deadly snake.

There was also a story of the Prophet cutting off his shirt sleeve rather than disturbing his sleeping cat when it was time for prayers. When people at the mosque noticed him wearing a torn sleeved robe, they asked "Holy Prophet, why is your garment torn?"

The Prophet simply replied that his cat is sleeping soundly upon the sleeve of his robe and rather than disturbing the cat, he cut the sleeve and put on what remained of his garment. The Prophet is so kind to animals that he would not pull the garment or awaken the cat, instead he rather cut his robe and let the cat sleep undisturbed.

It is a well-known fact that the Prophet is a cat lover and respect animals. Muslims are taught to follow his exemplary behaviour on kindness to animals.

A companion of the Prophet was given the name Abu Hurairah. The name Abu Hurairah means 'father of the cats'. Abu Hurairah was given this name because where ever he goes, he always had a kitten with him.


The Prophet also mentioned "To catch birds and imprison them in cages without any special purpose is considered abominable." Hence if you have birds living in cages, set them free.

In Hadith (Muslim religious text) of Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 4, Book 56, Number 673, narrated by Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, "While a dog was going round a well and was about to die of thirst, an Israeli prostitute saw it and took off her shoe and watered it. So Allah forgave her because of that good deed."

In another Hadith text, the Prophet told his companions of a woman who would be sent to Hell for having locked up a cat; not feeding it, nor even releasing it so that it could feed herself."



So what you think?
Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAW) is the most kindest person this universe.
May 18, 2012 9:01:39 AM

I bet the women he enslaved didn't think so.
May 18, 2012 11:45:55 AM

jsc said:
I bet the women he enslaved didn't think so.
Hadith narrated by Abdullah Ibn Umar (R.A.) that once a person came to the Prophet of Allah (PBUH) and asked "O Prophet of Allah! To what extent should we forgive the mistakes and faults of our slaves and servants?"

The Prophet (PBUH) remained silent whereupon the man repeated this question. The Prophet (PBUH) again, remained silent and when the man asked for a third time, he replied "Seventy times a day."
(According to Anas): I was eight years of age when I became the Holy Prophet Mohammad's (SAWS) servant and served him for 10 years. He never rebuked me even when I broke or damaged something. If his family said something strong, then he would tell them leave it & to forget about it. Whatever Allah has destined will happen".
May 18, 2012 12:48:43 PM

I guess if you werent slaved into the house, the slave couldnt break anything.

Would then God not forgive this person?
Was it then the greatness of Mohamed that this person was forgiven?
May 18, 2012 1:14:18 PM

I'm glad he advocates being nice to slaves. That's refreshing. Really.
May 19, 2012 4:54:04 AM

I'm more interested in the Israeli prostitute who kindly gave water to the dog from her shoe.

She sounds like a good person ... particularly when Muslims were going around culling dogs left right and centre due to commentary in the Hadith.

I will consult the scriptures here and just make sure the interpretation is correct ...

The Hadith only authorised the killing of dogs, and black dogs in particular due to a rabies problem at the time.

Cats hold no special place in Islamic society ... however Muhhamed personally liked cats and your comments above indicate that.

Just because he liked cats is no reason for the rest of us to like them ... we are not lemmings.

(Read Imam Nawawi's Sharh Saheeh Muslim, Kitab: Al Masaaqa, Bab: Al Amr bi qatl Al Kilaab wa bayaan naskhahu wa bayaan tahreem iqtenaa'iha, Commentary on Hadith no. 2934, Source) and (Read Muhammad Shams al-Haqq al-Adhim Abadi's Awn al-Mabud Sharh Sunan Abu Dawud, Kitab: Al Sayd, Bab: Fi Itikhaazh Al Kalb lil Sayd wa Ghayruh, Commentary on Hadith no. 2462, Source and Kitab: Al Libaas, Bab: Fi Al Suwar, Hadith no. 3626, Source)

You also directly plagiarised a previous post below ... if you can't post original ideas and debate them, then at least acknowledge the original poster.

http://singaporecats.multiply.com/journal/item/229/Prop...
May 21, 2012 12:48:41 PM

Because everyone knows that once you wake up a cat, it will never go back to sleep.
May 21, 2012 8:19:18 PM

A cat killed a snake to save its master? Right......the cat would watch you die and then go its own way, far more independent creatures. Dogs > cats. On a side note, do you think the love for cats was inherited from the proximity to Egypt?
May 21, 2012 8:24:34 PM

johnsonma said:
A cat killed a snake to save its master? Right......the cat would watch you die and then go its own way, far more independent creatures. Dogs > cats. On a side note, do you think the love for cats was inherited from the proximity to Egypt?
Mishkat Al-Masabih concluded from "Bukhari" and "Muslim" to the effect that: "A good deed done to a beast is as good as doing good to a human being; while an act of cruelty to a beast is as bad as an act of cruelty to human beings," and that: "Kindness to animals was promised by rewards in Life Hereafter" (Mishkat al-Masabih; Book 6; Chapter 7, 8:178). :) 
May 21, 2012 8:31:16 PM

johnsonma said:
A cat killed a snake to save its master? Right......the cat would watch you die and then go its own way, far more independent creatures. Dogs > cats. On a side note, do you think the love for cats was inherited from the proximity to Egypt?


Yeah, Egypt. Good observation. Cats have been revered throughout out the centuries in ancient Egypt and its many religions. Also, knowing the the current big 3 religions borrow many things from the traditions of ancient Egypt, this makes sense.
May 22, 2012 1:50:28 PM

Quote:
Surah 4:157-158, That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah., but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."


This is basically saying that Jesus wasn't crucified and killed? It was all a fake and all the witnesses are liars..

So, one book has to be incorrect. You have one written around the time it happen, the other written hundreds of years afterwards.
May 22, 2012 2:12:41 PM

riser said:
Quote:
Surah 4:157-158, That they said (in boast), "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah., but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no (certain) knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Nay, Allah raised him up unto Himself; and Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise."


This is basically saying that Jesus wasn't crucified and killed? It was all a fake and all the witnesses are liars..

So, one book has to be incorrect. You have one written around the time it happen, the other written hundreds of years afterwards.
Yes Jesus was killed nor crucified. It was just perhaps impersonating. How you can call the event itself fake. Quran has spoken truth always. By the way which book(s) you are referring that these or Quran has to be incorrect.
May 22, 2012 3:00:45 PM

Uh, The Bible which states he was crucified?

Are you saying the Bible is incorrect being that it was written closer to the event and that the Koran/Quran written long after the events is more accurate? My understanding that it was written by Muhammad and assembled long after his death. Many pages of his original writings were missing and sections have been left incomplete.

Based on my understanding, that seems like it would be as inaccurate as the Bible then.
May 22, 2012 3:30:45 PM

riser said:
Uh, The Bible which states he was crucified?

Are you saying the Bible is incorrect being that it was written closer to the event and that the Koran/Quran written long after the events is more accurate? My understanding that it was written by Muhammad and assembled long after his death. Many pages of his original writings were missing and sections have been left incomplete.

Based on my understanding, that seems like it would be as inaccurate as the Bible then.
The Quran has not been altered slightly ever since it was revealed to Holy Prophet (SAW). The Quran is not written but has been revealed by GOD. How do you know it is incomplete. :sarcastic:  Though Bible was also revealed to Jesus by GOD Almighty , people added their stuff for their own taste & it got altered very much than original version. Therefore Quran is true as it has been in every verse. For eg. if you know that recent nobel prize was given to scientists who proved that universe was accelerating and it is not static. But amazingly see that Quran verse. "And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it" (musi'un)
May 22, 2012 3:43:40 PM

Based on what Muslim's Scholar debate:
http://thequranrevealed.com/slider/2011/04/how-did-the-...

Quote:
The words were initially written on “scraps of wood, palm leaves, bark and bones.”1 Yet, not all were written down. Some of the surahs (chapters) were committed to memory by Muhammad’s followers. In the first decades following the death of Muhammad in 632, the surahs were collected and organized into a book, what is now known as the Qur’an. This took place during the caliphate of Uthman (644-656). All other collections were deemed inauthentic and destroyed. “However, people did not follow the caliph’s instructions to destroy all previous versions of the Qur’an for these were preserved at least in fragments.”2 Hence, the Uthman codice became the authorized version, which is what everyone reads today.


This is stating that not everything was written down immediately. Other versions existed. How could more than one version exist? Likely because it was written down, or the scholars who recorded it used different words or grammar, thus creating multiple versions.

Much like the Bible, the final book was created and that is accepted. Decades after he died they collected the words and combined them into the book. Many based off the memory of what someone had heard decades earlier and recited over the years.

Do you truly believe that nothing was misinterpretted, recorded incorrectly, or otherwise altered in some way/form that was either intential or unintential?

If you believe in the Quran, you must also believe in the Bible. I do not understand how you could not. If that is a true statement, can you explain why you would not believe in the Bible, yet choose to believe the Quran?


Interesting:
And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it" (musi'un)

I would interpret that specific line as the a made-man religion based on their own version of Heaven created from the Bible and that by spreading their word they would create their own heaven on earth. I don't know how you equate the heaven to be the universe? The words "We go on expanding it" would be mortal words to me and mean that the people spread the word. You may need to provide additional context to support your interpretation of that line.
May 22, 2012 3:52:28 PM

hussanali said:
The Quran has not been altered slightly ever since it was revealed to Holy Prophet (SAW). The Quran is not written but has been revealed by GOD. How do you know it is incomplete. :sarcastic:  Though Bible was also revealed to Jesus by GOD Almighty , people added their stuff for their own taste & it got altered very much than original version. Therefore Quran is true as it has been in every verse. For eg. if you know that recent nobel prize was given to scientists who proved that universe was accelerating and it is not static. But amazingly see that Quran verse. "And the heaven We built with Our own powers (aydin) and indeed We go on expanding it" (musi'un)



Just to make a clarification. The bible wasn't really "altered" so much as it was just translated into different languages over the centuries. Just like any translation among different languages, things get lost, but the basic story and teachings are unaltered. I suppose the re-ordering of how the books appear in the hebrew bible and the Pentateuch could be considered an alteration but the stories in the books remain the same.

And im sorry, I don't want to offend but the bible, old and new testaments, including the quran were written by both men and women over a long period of time.

Some would even argue that islam is a creation of the Vatican in order to use the Arab populations to secure the holy land for the Roman empire from the Jews and Christians. Which they did after a time and realizing the power of the Muslim armies, thumbed their noses at the Vatican and kept the holy land for themselves.
May 22, 2012 3:55:18 PM

Arguing about the Bible being more or less correct than the Quran is like arguing who would win in a fight between superman and batman.

But for the record Batman hands down in most scenarios.
May 22, 2012 4:05:05 PM

wanamingo said:
Arguing about the Bible being more or less correct than the Quran is like arguing who would win in a fight between superman and batman.

But for the record Batman hands down in most scenarios.


I'm a fan of batman.. but really, superman would win hands down. The only way batman could win is with kryptonite. No kryptonite in Gotham City.. but then again, it is always dark there which doesn't aid superman. But Batman is a just a man. Superman has special powers. I don't see how Batman could ever win. Batman has issues fighting dogs, let alone a super human from another planet.
May 22, 2012 5:07:49 PM

riser said:
I'm a fan of batman.. but really, superman would win hands down. The only way batman could win is with kryptonite. No kryptonite in Gotham City.. but then again, it is always dark there which doesn't aid superman. But Batman is a just a man. Superman has special powers. I don't see how Batman could ever win. Batman has issues fighting dogs, let alone a super human from another planet.


If they met in a dark alley, superman would easily overpower batman. But with Wayne Enterprises behind him and careful planning I don't think there is anything the Batman couldn't do. Just have Morgan Freeman weaponize some kryptonite (Why does autocorrect recognize krypton but kryptonite?). Pick the time and the place using his superior tactical skills and kill Superman.

But yes in a straight boxing match superman would tear batman to pieces.
May 22, 2012 5:15:12 PM

Batman would need a tactical advantage (where, when, how). He would also need some sort of technology to be able to hold superman still long enough to use the weaponized kryptonite to kill him. A tall order, even for Mr. Fox and Wayne Enterprises.
May 22, 2012 5:34:33 PM

Oldmangamer_73 said:
Just to make a clarification. The bible wasn't really "altered" so much as it was just translated into different languages over the centuries. Just like any translation among different languages, things get lost, but the basic story and teachings are unaltered. I suppose the re-ordering of how the books appear in the hebrew bible and the Pentateuch could be considered an alteration but the stories in the books remain the same.

And im sorry, I don't want to offend but the bible, old and new testaments, including the quran were written by both men and women over a long period of time.

Some would even argue that islam is a creation of the Vatican in order to use the Arab populations to secure the holy land for the Roman empire from the Jews and Christians. Which they did after a time and realizing the power of the Muslim armies, thumbed their noses at the Vatican and kept the holy land for themselves.
Have you ever bothered to read it except you are trolling. First read it and then judge. It is absolutely not written by people but revealed.
May 22, 2012 5:46:12 PM

hussanali said:
Have you ever bothered to read it except you are trolling. First read it and then judge. It is absolutely not written by people but revealed.



Fine, that's what you've been told, taught, and what you believe. I believe something else.
May 22, 2012 5:46:23 PM

wanamingo said:
If they met in a dark alley, superman would easily overpower batman. But with Wayne Enterprises behind him and careful planning I don't think there is anything the Batman couldn't do. Just have Morgan Freeman weaponize some kryptonite (Why does autocorrect recognize krypton but kryptonite?). Pick the time and the place using his superior tactical skills and kill Superman.

But yes in a straight boxing match superman would tear batman to pieces.


Ah ok so you're playing the angle that superman sits idly by while Wayne Enterprises creates anti-sun ray or reverse affects of the sun, weaponized kryptonite, and other elements to counter Superman's abilities. It could take days W.E. to create all that stuff! :) 

In the meantime, superman being the reporter he is could track Bruce Wayne around and Batman, come to the conclusion they're the same guy (that's what he does) and go on the offensive. The Batcave can't hide from Superman's vision unless Batman developed a way around that prior to have Clark Kent over for a report on fixing the Gotham City. But Clark Kent would use his super power vision to look through Wayne Manner and I'm sure he'd see some interesting things.

But then, Superman never really used his powers correctly. He was kind of an idiot and often won by sheer brute force. Me? I'd just lazer zap everyone with my eyes (Kind of like Ironman 2 where he uses that red lazer thing).

So.. yeah, Superman is kind of an idiot. He hides in plain sight, Bruce Wayne has the tech to do facial recognition.. so yeah, you're right. Batman probably does have the edge. 55/45%.
May 22, 2012 5:48:33 PM

The contradictions within both books leads to the logical reasoning that they were written by groups of people and altered throughout the centuries. Unless you were there when it happened your just taking the word of someone else as truth. If the universe is expanding then at one point it was smaller, much smaller. Giving credibility to the big bang theory. Why do neither of these books address this? Why do neither of the books address the fact that evidence points to multiple supernovas leading up to the formation of our planets? Why do neither of the books address supermassive black holes being the generators for galaxies? There are holes and contradictions within the books, not being able to see this is pure ignorance. I am not saying there isn't something to be gained by reading either of the books but when it comes to being pristine unaltered works of God I can't help but laugh.
May 22, 2012 6:10:40 PM

He must have went to bed. He didn't answer my questions.
May 22, 2012 10:55:58 PM

Quote:

In an effort to show the scientific accuracy of the Koran, Muslim's are quick to bring up the claim of embryology revealed in stunning accuracy, before man discovered for himself. Muslims love to tell the story of how professor Keith L. Moore, the former anatomist at the University of Toronto, was impressed with the Koran’s embryological information.

However many Muslim are completely unaware that all of the information in the Qur'an about embryology had already been revealed many different times, centuries before hand. Furthermore, some of the information is scientifically inaccurate.

But don't take my word for it, early Muslim doctors, like Ibn-Qayyim, were first to blow the whistle when they saw the Koranic material, mirrored a Greek doctor named Galen, who lived of 150 AD. In 1983 Basim Musallam, Director of the Centre of Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Cambridge concluded, "The stages of development which the Qur'an and Hadith established for believers agreed perfectly with Galen's scientific account....There is no doubt that medieval thought appreciated this agreement between the Qur'an and Galen, for Arabic science employed the same Qur'anic terms to describe the Galenic stages" (B. Musallam (Cambridge, 1983) Sex and Society in Islam. p. 54) In other words when it comes to embryology the Qur'an merely echoes the scientific knowledge man had already discovered 450 years earlier.

Samuel ha-Yehudi was a 2nd century Jewish physician, and one of many with an interest in embryology . The embryo was called peri habbetten (fruit of the body) and develops as golem (formless, rolled-up thing); shefir meruqqam (embroidered foetus - shefir means amniotic sac); 'ubbar (something carried); v'alad (child); v'alad shel qayama (noble or viable child) and ben she-kallu chadashav (child whose months have been completed).(J. Needham (Cambridge, 2nd edition 1959) A History of Embryology, p. 77)


I just grabbed this off the internet because im very lazy..... i was going to link to a few site that had already collected quite a bit of info that shows much of this information was already known or had been in the fringes of "Science" for a very long time, but most of the sites were very....um.....Pro Jewish..... So im deciding not to link to any sites that might be offensive. Google on the subject and see for yourself, if you want to.

Also I believe there was some kind of correction theory about Allahs 3 daughters from a previous universe, that Muhammed literally told people to forget about.
May 23, 2012 4:05:47 AM

My money is on Superman ... the only foes of note that could come close would be The Hulk or Gambit.

Spiderman and Batman are small fry ...

:) 
May 23, 2012 8:22:36 AM

Thor, Silver Surfer,Vision and throw in a mutant or two
May 23, 2012 12:10:48 PM

Reynod said:
My money is on Superman ... the only foes of note that could come close would be The Hulk or Gambit.

Spiderman and Batman are small fry ...

:) 


Gambit? Whatever you're on you need to share. :D 

The Hulk I could see, but Thor beat Hulk up without too much effort. Now Thor vs Superman would probably be interesting.
May 23, 2012 2:31:58 PM

Thor>Superman
May 23, 2012 3:02:53 PM

I would have to agree with John. Especially when you look at the original superman, he could still be shot and killed, he literally couldnt fly. Thor has always been a flying, lightning wielding hammer God.

May 23, 2012 3:21:03 PM

You guys are both wrong. If you look up the Superman Vs Thor, they have Superman coming out as the winner.

(Yeah, I didn't know they actually did that)

Superman has superspeed which Thor lacks. That's a major advantage. But it was Superman would have to hit Thor 3 to 1 to win.
May 23, 2012 3:30:11 PM

Quote:
Like all Asgardians, Thor is not truly immortal but relies upon periodic consumption of the Golden Apples of Idunn to sustain his extended lifespan, which to date has lasted many millennia. Being the son of Odin and the elder goddess Gaea, Thor is physically the strongest of the Asgardians. If pressed in battle, Thor is also capable of entering into a state known as the "Warrior's Madness" ("berserkergang" in Norwegian), which will temporarily increase his strength and stamina tenfold, although in this state he attacks friend and foe alike.

Thor possesses a very high resistance to physical injury that approaches invulnerability.Thor also possesses keen senses that allows him to track objects traveling faster than light and hear cries from the other side of the planet.Thor has the ability to travel through time.His stamina allowed him to battle the entire Frost Giant army for nine months without any sustenance or rest;Thor has also shown the ability to regenerate wounded portions of his body, including entire limbs or organs, with the aid of magical forces like Mjolnir, Thor has superhuman speed, agility, and reflexes, enabling him to deflect bullets with his hammer.Like all Asgardians he has immunity to all Earthly diseases and some resistance to magic. However, exceptionally powerful magic can overwhelm Odin's enchantment that transforms him between Asgardian and mortal forms
May 23, 2012 3:34:35 PM

Thor has more stamina than superman too, Superman has to recharge his solar cells every 20 minutes.
May 23, 2012 8:15:38 PM

riser said:
Thor has superhumans speed, sure.. compared to a human. Superman is far faster and relies on the sun for his recharge.

Superman wins.
http://superherouniverse.com/articles/fights-thor-super...



lol why does Thor weigh 640 lbs? Ill have to track down the comic, but there may have been some interference with Martian Manhunter...... But supes did lift the Hammer which I thought only the Hulk could do, and one time I think I read a deadpool comic where he lifts the hammer.

Im not sure how fast superman could be since I guess Thor can see faster than light..... which maybe he is some sort of time lord? But if time travel is one of his skills I would Imagine that superman's adoptive parents would have been very surprised when they see his ship crash land and then Thor takes his hammer to an infant Clark Kent..... THOU SHALT FEEL THY HAMMER KRYPTONIAN! FWACK!

To keep this somewhat topical are there any Islamic superheroes? Is there a comic industry in Iran?
May 23, 2012 9:57:46 PM

wanamingo said:
lol why does Thor weigh 640 lbs? Ill have to track down the comic, but there may have been some interference with Martian Manhunter...... But supes did lift the Hammer which I thought only the Hulk could do, and one time I think I read a deadpool comic where he lifts the hammer.

Im not sure how fast superman could be since I guess Thor can see faster than light..... which maybe he is some sort of time lord? But if time travel is one of his skills I would Imagine that superman's adoptive parents would have been very surprised when they see his ship crash land and then Thor takes his hammer to an infant Clark Kent..... THOU SHALT FEEL THY HAMMER KRYPTONIAN! FWACK!

To keep this somewhat topical are there any Islamic superheroes? Is there a comic industry in Iran?


http://the99.org/
May 24, 2012 8:35:32 PM

johnsonma said:
The contradictions within both books leads to the logical reasoning that they were written by groups of people and altered throughout the centuries. Unless you were there when it happened your just taking the word of someone else as truth. If the universe is expanding then at one point it was smaller, much smaller. Giving credibility to the big bang theory. Why do neither of these books address this? Why do neither of the books address the fact that evidence points to multiple supernovas leading up to the formation of our planets? Why do neither of the books address supermassive black holes being the generators for galaxies? There are holes and contradictions within the books, not being able to see this is pure ignorance. I am not saying there isn't something to be gained by reading either of the books but when it comes to being pristine unaltered works of God I can't help but laugh.

Ah, but Qur'anic contradictions and inconsistencies are handled by abrogation. Later passages have the effect of cancelling earlier passages.

And then, you need to consider that Mohammed was illiterate. He had no direct way of checking the accuracy of what the scribes wrote.

And look at the hard science (chemistry and physics) Nobel Prizes:
Muslims (about 20% of the world population) - 3, and they did their work in the West.
Jews (about .2% of the world population) - 84.

The "scientific" Muslims also believe that the djinn live in your nasals passages when you sleep. And sorcery and black magic are capital crimes.

If the Muslims were so scientifically advanced back then, what happened?
May 24, 2012 9:16:06 PM

My POV is, Islam is just emerging from its dark ages, if you will.
And is why theres so much turmoil within itself, as the old guard fight to hold onto things that show it cant work, where the rest of Islam embraces the more pertinent messages of worship, but also of love
May 25, 2012 10:50:45 AM

I support your optimism ...

I'm still with superman vs the rest though ... call me old school.

As for Islamic literature I am afraid I am more interested in the Rubyait of Omar Khayam (Ahura Mazda) or the various Indian transcripts which are much more positive approaches to a useful religion ... one with decent moral values.

I am afraid Islam is too violent for me, and women are treated as cattle and slaves.

:) 
May 25, 2012 12:33:33 PM

Is it true in Islam, that it is considered a honor to lie to the face of an infidel (non-believer)?
May 26, 2012 8:02:37 AM

Not exactly an honor, but it is permissible.

Evasion is also permissible. And "lying by omission" is an alien concept to Muslims. I have had that conversation with my Saudi counterparts. They see nothing wrong with leaving out things. After all, it is not Khalid's fault if Abdullah does not ask him the proper questions.
May 26, 2012 3:24:30 PM

Yes I have had a case of this with regard to non payment of fees for contracts with a company in Qatar ... they still owe us money.

Won't deal with them again.

Dealing with BHP, Rio Tinto, Woodside, Chevron ... entirely different ... very honest companies ... tough but honest.







!