For me, I go with the fatwa of syaikh al Utsaimin :

Syaikh Muhammad bin Sholih Al Utsaimin memaparkan pula kaedah di atas: “Sesungguhnya ibadah yang memiliki batasan waktu (awal dan akhir), apabila seseorang mengerjakan ibadah tersebut di luar waktunya tanpa ada udzur (alasan), maka ibadah tadi tidaklah bermanfaat dan tidak sah.”

Syaikh rahimahullah kemudian membawakan contoh. Misalnya shalat dan puasa. Apabila seseorang sengaja meninggalkan shalat hingga keluar waktunya, lalu jika dia bertanya, “Apakah aku  wajib mengqodho’ (mengganti) shalatku?” Kami katakan, “Engkau tidak wajib mengganti (mengqodho’) shalatmu. Karena hal itu sama sekali tidak bermanfaat bagimu dan amalan tersebut akan tidak diterima.

Begitu pula apabila ada seseorang yang tidak berpuasa sehari di bulan Ramadhan (dengan sengaja, tanpa udzur, -pen),  lalu dia bertanya pada kami, “Apakah aku wajib untuk mengqodho’ puasa tersebut?” Kami pun akan menjawab, “Tidak wajib bagimu untuk mengqodho’ puasamu yang sengaja engkau tinggalkan hingga keluar waktu

Kalau ikut kisah dari nenek aku, orang dulu2 berak dalam tong najis. Bila penuh diangkat buang jauh2 dan di kambus tanah.
Iklan syabas pun ada gambar kartun orang angkat tong najis.

If you have time, watch this Omar series.

If live n work in Selangor can we pay zakat to PPZ or must be LZS?

geng. puasa tahun ni berapa hari bulan ye ?

Important to note
The principle ruling of ibadah is haram, until there is dalil that changes the status
On the contrary, worldly matters (or you can say, things that are not an ibadah or part of the religion) are halal, until there is fail that changes it
Example:
Fasting for a whole month in Ramadhan was only allowed (and even made as one of the pillars of Islam) when there was instruction. Similarly, the five daily prayers was not recognized until the even if Isra mi'raj...
On the other hand 
khamr was not made haram until there is the ayat in the Quran that forbids it (in stages, too).
There are other examples that demonstrate these principles, of course.
Disclaimer : the above words are how I understand them, or how I would explain them. Scholars would have much more comprehensive words (not to mention more correct, too)

mengucapkan merry krismas = happy depaavali etc = bererti kita secara tidak langsung redha dengan agama mereka

just nak minta pandangan semua
soalan ni ada brader kat fb tanya

"kalau org eskimo/asli amazon yg memang xtau langsung pasal Islam, kemudiannya mati tanpa mengenal islam, adakah akan dimasukkan ke dalam neraka selama2nya atas ketidaktahuan dia tu? adakah dia akan dipersalahkan sbb tak uasaha sendiri keluar dari hutan dan cari Islam itu sendiri? bukankah Allah itu Maha Adil?"

salam,
boleh ke jumpa doktor gigi time puasa?
tampal or cabut gigi

dibulan puasa bukan sekadar menahan lapar dan dahaga
juga menahan diri dari racing dan butthurt

no, what is this? seems like consiparcy theory punya gathering aje?

btw, need to pay?

to be honest im muslim just because my parents did

It's good that he's honest.

Should we just accept Islam simply because we were born into it? Is that a true choice? A true belief?

nope, i accept
just imagine you born as non-muslim, what is the odd you convert?
des why they said lahir dalam islam juga satu nikmat

guys, nak tanya. adakah kita di wajib kan atau sebaiknya nikah di tarikh//bulan tertentu?

thanks reply. bukan apa, makcik cleaner aku (dr Indonesia) cakap kita Islam di wajibkan nikah pada tarikh besar seperti Hari Raya Haji atau pada bulan Raya Haji. aku tak nak argue sebab tak nak keruh kan keadaan. aku cuba google tapi tak ada jawapan. Aku pelik mana dia tahu pasal ni

First all, this is a kampung level Ustaz

Very lowly educated, he is not to be taken seriously

He is clearly wrong, because the Prophet Muhammad PBUH said :

"Beware!  Whoever is cruel and hard on a non-Muslim minority, curtails their rights, burdens them with more than they can bear, or takes anything from them against their free will; I (Prophet Muhammad) will complain against the person on the Day of Judgment."

Matlamat tak menghalalkan cara. Reference yang selalu diginakan adalah masa perang yang milibatkan rampasan harta. Zaman dulu orang pergi perang bawak segala harta benda sekali so bila kalah lari tinggalkan harta kat medan perang.

Mencuri dan merampas berbeza definition dia. Mencuri tetap haram. Membunuh (murder, bukan kill masa perang) tetap haram, berzina tetap haram dsb.

Betul. Yang dibolehkan membunuh dan mencuri adalah sewaktu perang menentang kafir harbi, mereka yang memerangi islam. Kalau mereka nak berdamai, kita kena berdamai. Yang kafir tak memusuhi islam, kita jangan kacau.

Sama juga dgn yg pencipta/pembuat barang perisian. Selagi mana kita tak nampak mereka secara terang melakukan kekerasan/menindas ke atas Islam, kita tak bolehlah melakukan kekerasan/menindas ke atas mereka.

That depends on what you meant by "new", because Islam copied from pagan practices, and attempted to extend the lineage and teaching of Judaism and Christianity while improvising along the way to suit situational needs. All religions more or less evolve in this way, improvising ideas from the past ...

it is simple my brader:

We USE their softwares/technologies to create new weaponry/technology to OVERCOME them.

we EAT their food (read: McDonald) to gain energy to become smart by learning new technology/methods to OVERCOME them.

Bukan boikot membuta tuli sana sini.

Hmm? What is this about? I lazy to scroll far. About whether Islam is a new religion brought by Muhammad?

It's not. Muhammad did not brought an all new original religion. Islam during his time adapted practices existing at that time, e.g. hajj/pilgrimage, "biblical stories" such as Adam and Moses, etc. But all of these teachings and practices, came from God, so its not "someone elses". We all worship one same God.

My belief is that, Islam has always exist throughout these times. God did not confer a brand new religion in 500 AD. But since Adam. It was just not known then as "Islam", and not known as the same as what it came to be during Muhammad's time.

What Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc believed was the religion that became Islam during Muhammad. The same thing. I believe Jesus did not preach trinitarianism, but unitarian, one God, no begotten "son".

After Jesus died, his teaching evolved into many, with one prominent one being Christianity. But it is modified/derailed so far that it is not acceptable in the tenets of Islam. In the same time in the pre-Islamic Arabia, there is this teaching/religion called "Hanif", which I believe is the closest to what the prophets preached before (Jesus, Moses, etc). However, perhaps even Hanif was not close enough to be acceptable, making Muhammad preached Islam.

Islam has always been evolving, before Muhammad, DURING Muhammad, and now after Muhammad. And this is ALL ACCEPTABLE.

Our (muslim) mistake today is thinking Islam is rigid and fixed. It's not. Islam has always been malleable. As long as the core beliefs (thawabit) are not changed.

Betul. Yang dibolehkan membunuh dan mencuri adalah sewaktu perang menentang kafir harbi, mereka yang memerangi islam. Kalau mereka nak berdamai, kita kena berdamai. Yang kafir tak memusuhi islam, kita jangan kacau.

That is not quite right. Within the historical context, perang berlaku kerana Muhammad berniat nenakluki and menguasai orang tempatan, orang yang dinamakan kafir harbi oleh Muhammad. Oleh itu kena tanya siapa yang buat kacau dahulu, siapa yang mencetuskan peperangan di sekitar Medina and Mekkah?

Bayangkan kalau hari ini sesiapa yang pergi ke Mekkah dan Medina dengan membawa pengikut dalam ribuan, ingin menubuh agama baru, lalu mengisytiharkan Quran mesti digantikan dengan kitab baru, apakah reaksi orang tempatan atau orang Muslims?

So read and understand the historical context before attempting to paint a deceptively nice picture of your religion ...

That depends on what you meant by "new", because Islam copied from pagan practices, and attempted to extend the lineage and teaching of Judaism and Christianity while improvising along the way to suit situational needs. All religions more or less evolve in this way, improvising ideas from the past ...

I don't see how the first war is relevant in this discussion.

If you refer to the episode Muhammad was chased out of Mecca, after he was allowed to preach openly his brand of religion to the people of Mecca, the Jews, Christians and pagan Arabs, for nearly 5 years. They tolerated him for that long.

Imagine now a self-proclaimed prophet were to preach no God but his one God is true, how long would Muslims tolerate this person with his few hundreds followers? One month maybe before he is brought down for heresy?

So what you have been told is not wrong, Muhammad was being persecuted and mocked but because he denounced idolatry, pagan practices and that provoked harsh reactions from local inhabitants. Just like you would the same for Islam ...

Sapa raya kat KL tak balik kampung?