xiinfiniin: Jamaal11, I failed to understand your red-hearing sxb. A little elaboration would do some justice to your take on the good Samatar’s analysis. xiin, no sxb, I am blue-hearing, and not 'red-hearing' . Thats why you've failed to understand me. I suppose you meant to say 'red-herring'. If that was your intent, then, I still say there was no 'red-herring', atleast in my opinion. PS: Now, do your own analysis of Samatar's article. Maybe that would do him, atleast, alittle justice.

CAAMIR, thank you brother. Samatar has for long been expressing his views as boldly as possible-though in somewhat lonesome position that is distateful to many unthinking, blinded minds. Although I may not wholly agree with his views, I admire his bravery to speak against the so-called 'wadar' that is Somali. This is the unchallengable concept that exempts one from reasoning and reflecting. A better approach for us to adapt is that which takes on board opinions, whether supportive or critical of us, and then reflect on their validity or invalidity. And if valid make the necessary changes, but if not valid, let them be. Guarding ourselves against critical opinions has already led us to self-denial, hence our nationhood's destruction. Conflicting opinions always lead to societal progress. The conflict of opinion arises only when some among a society think rather than just follow. Such are the baffling ways of the curmudgeon called Allah! I object! This is close to blasphemy, may Allah forgive him. But I shouldn't use my objection to justify an unthinking over-protectiveness of 'somaliness'. PS: Think!

It could be said that, by and large, Indha Cadde exposed the vulnerability of Jowhar and Baidabo. I am affraid not! This expedient invasion is indeed blunderous; a move towards Indhacade's self-annihilation. The sheikh's ill-adviced decision to capture Baidhabo carries with it the moral justification for Ethiopian intervention. Considering the geographical proximity of Baidhabo to the Ethiopian border, and the consequent enmities that would be emanating from the affected peoples, the sheikh gambled with life and limb; and our only chance of keeping Ethiopians out all together. The saddest of all is the consequences of the conflict upon the locals, who've had their fair share of death and destruction. May Allah defuse these tensions, aamiin. PS: Why should one capture a place that is impossible to hang on to?

By NGONGE: There are a couple of problems I often encounter with Nomads on this site; One is the quick issuing of fatwas concerning any topic not to their liking, and the other is poor reading comprehension! Usually, the two go together I’ve noticed. Not all people are as clever as you sxb .

(The poet is concerned with the scandals that had engulfed the former American president Richard Nixon.) Wootargayt (watergate) Suspicion has entered me, Carter, regarding you as a companion What I have seen from experience and the books that have informed Humanity still groans from the confusion you have caused A question I ask you is of fundamental importance to me The brotherliness I used to praise, who made it tight? While following segregation who was two-faced? A striped hyena is a danger to the driving which livestock are lost from. Each time a woman wears a mourning scarf having lost the one who married her I was aggrieved by the death of Malcolm X, by God Which one was it who skinned that combatant who stood up? When a hero becomes furious, who watered him with aloe juice? Who led the men who cut Luther King's throat? Who struck the Red Indians killing them in great numbers? By God, the calamities you've set down are beyond comprehension Nixon seems easy to me, if you are concerned with shame Admit it. The Watergates are more than the ones you've told about A man who knows the grief of the Palestians becomes thin with gloom When their country was plundered, saddled by desperation They are wanderers in foreign lands like [animals] told to shoo They do not enter a hut or yard from what winter has in store Who has forced that, put out to dry nation in that way Does someone not share the infamy and shame of the Jews? By God, the calamities you've set down are beyond comprehension Nixon seems easy to me, if you are concerned with shame Admit it. The Watergates are more than the ones you've told about. All the world wonders at what you have caused in Vietnam At dawn you attacked with heavy weapons Aeroplanes holding deadly danger brought in disarray Bullets exchanged places like winter rain drops A man who has sought information understands the stress of Saigon When a hyena has butchered the limbs of a first born The barking and wailing of the mothers comes together I still weep for the men you have hit with the spear The oldest man will never leave me Woe! At the death of Ho Chi Min my pupils have run dry By God, the calamities you've set down are beyond comprehension Nixon seems easy to me, if you are concerned with shame Admit it. The Watergates are more than the ones you've told about The war(?) of Angola has exploded and the noise of war has called They wanted to stop the Portuguese who had brought harm When it touched the heart they got on their horses [to fight] They struggled and struggled to the day when the flag was hoisted The rain clouds and clouds thundered, the rivers burst their banks When victory was named with Neto had struggled hard for That a representative go to the UNO set up(?) committee I don't understand the position of weakness, your clear duty Shame! Why did you throw in the sling of the veto? By God, the calamities you've set down are beyond comprehension Nixon seems easy to me, if you are concerned with shame Admit it! The Watergates are more than the ones you've told about. You drank your fill from us before, as from a well full of salty water Your industry is watered by the blood I spit The person who takes sides with `wabiin' has no wisdom (I became aware of ?) the spoken wallaahis and the lying mutterings I hold the worry of Zimbabwe, the one like Weris Men have cordoned off the river beds of Namibia with wire If it weren't for you support, Ian Smith would not throw the sling By God, the calamities you've set down are beyond comprehension Nixon seems easy to me, if you are concerned with shame Admit it. The Watergates are more than the ones you've told about Translation By: Martin Orwin ----- Wiswis bayga galay Kaartarow weheshigiinniiye Waayo-arag intii aan ka helay buugaggii weriyey Wareerkaad baddeen buu khalqigu weli la taahaaye Su'aalaan ku weydiinayaa ila sal waaweyne Walaalnimadii aan koolin jirey waadhka yaa geliyey? Isagoo takoor wada ayaa laba wejiileeyey? Waadaasha xoolaha lumaa weere waw halise Hadba weerka naag baw xidhaan weydey kii qabaye Wedkii Maalkom Ekis waan ka naxay wacad Ilaahaye Waa kee waraabaha dharqaday warangalkii toosay? Kolka geesi weyraxo ayaa dacar waraabsiiyey? Yaa wadey raggii Luudar Kiin waagi hanaq gooyey? Hindidii casayd yaa waddarey wadarna yaw laayey? Alla weger waxaad belo dhigteen waa ka waasacane Niksan wayla sahal ceeb haddaad ka welwelaysaane Qirta Wootargaytyadu ka badan taydun weriseene! Walbahaarka Falasdiin nin ogi qulub la weydowye Waddankoodi goortii la dhacay wahabku kooreeye Waa debed-wareeggii sidii woohow loo yidhiye Waab iyo ardaa kama galaan weedhka karameede Ummaddaasi wadhan yaa sidaa wajib kaga yeelay? Miyaan lala wadaagayn Yuhuud wiirsigiyo ceebta? Alla weger waxaad belo dhigteen waa ka waasacane Niksan wayla sahal ceeb haddaad ka welwelaysaane Qirta Wootargaytyadu ka badan taydun weriseene! Fiyatnaam wixii aad baddeen uunku wada yaabye Hubka waarriyuun baad aroor wagac ku siiseene Dayuurado waleecaad qabaa geliyey weesaaqe Sida dhibic wajiineed wixii gumuc is-weydaartey Nin waraystay waa garanayaa wahankii Saygoone Goortuu wasaashaday dhurwaa waaxyihii ubadka Isu baxe wishiiriga ci'diyo wiida naaguhuye Raggaad waranka siiseen anoo weli u ooyaaya Marna waxaan i deynayn duqii ugu fil weynaaye Hooheey! geeridii Hoo Shi Miin wiilashay gudhaye Alla weger waxaad belo dhigteen waa ka waasacane Niksan wayla sahal ceeb haddaad ka welwelaysaane Qirta Wootargaytyadu ka badan taydun weriseene! Woobiga Angoolee qarxaday wiririgtii yeedhay Boortuqiiskii wiiqay rabeen inay ku waabshaane Goortuu wadnaha taabtay bay wegen u fuuleene Waxay waarrisaba maalintuu calanku waaheelmay Waqalkiyo daruurihii onkoday webiyadii dooxmay Guushii kolkii loo waqlalay Neeto widhif raadshey In wakiil u tago Yuu-En-Oo golaha waaheelan Maan garan halkuu weyd ka yahay waajibkaa cadiye Wadhiyey! Maxaad ugu riddeen walagta fiitooda? Alla weger waxaad belo dhigteen waa ka waasacane Niksan wayla sahal ceeb haddaad ka welwelaysaane Qirta Wootargaytyadu ka badan taydun weriseene! Sida ceel wiyeeraad kol hore nooga wabaxdeene Warshaddiinna dhiiggaan tufaa lagu waraabshaaye Garaad ma laha ruuxii wabiin wacad la qaataaye Ka il baxay wallaahida afkaa walalac beenaade Werwerkii Simbaabwaan qabaa Weris-la-mooddiiye Waadiga Namiibiya rag baa waayir xidhayaaye Idinkaa watee Yaan Ismiidh wadhaf ma tuureene Alla weger waxaad belo dhigteen waa ka waasacane Niksan wayla sahal ceeb haddaad ka welwelaysaane Qirta Wootargaytyadu ka badan taydun weriseene! Notes: This poem was composed in 1976 after the United States used its veto in the UN Security Council against the entry of the newly independent state of Angola under Neto. For further translated Somali and non-Somali poems, visit the source: SOAS Poetry in Translation

Originally by OG_Girl: Doesn't matter the name whatever is " Democracy or Shura".People should have freedom to choose who rules them (the leader)not the system. Well said OG_Girl. That is exactly what the 'Structural System' I mentioned means. It is only a mechanism that provides people an access to information on HOW to choose their leaders. It also provides the needed facilities, observation and expertise to undertake a non-shadowy election. After successful election it should then create social frameworks that deal with the leaders' duties to their people and country. In 'duties' I mean things that pertain to: 'accountability', 'responsibility', 'transpiracy' and 'competence'. Such social 'structures' are required due to a concern with logistical incapabilities associated with conducting elections in big populations. There was a time when face-to-face choosing of leaders was possible due to smaller populations. Now that the Ummah is over billion, we need structures in order to allow each and everyone to censent to/against to the leadership elected, not the 'Principles and Values' employed to lead them. This is surely not unIslamic, since it is Islamic Sharia that is our 'Principles and Values', and is used as a directive. Only when our leadership's competence is scrutinized, their loyalty, accountability, transpiracy and faithfulness tested, can there be an Ummah that progresses strongly and prospers economically. If not, we will have to brace ourselves for more 'puppet' monarchies and corrupt dictatorships. IN MY OPINION, the old ways of not questioning the quality leadership is costing us our beingness and cannot be maintained anymore. [The Sharia]...has adequate structural definitions. CHE' absolutely true. And I am more than happy with those structural definitions. They are not truly implemented however. That is why I advocate for a 'structural system' that questions the quality of the leadership, and if lucky,one that educates the masses with comprehensive Islamic and other necessary knowledge. Openness is the key word here sxb.

And so the vangueness above 'democracy'and Islam continues. Nomads, what are you exactly talking about? The 'Structural System' that envelops democracy, or the 'Principles and Values'of (a particular type of)democracy? The two are different. While the former is applicable to any society, the latter is specific to a country and can vary from one country to another. Muslims are in dire need of democracy's 'Structural System' while using the Sharia as 'Principles and Values'.

But can we all reject the aspects of western influence be it technological or philosophical and yet succeed? Good question STOIC. Farah, regardless of who wrote the article, YES, I think its criticisms are 'well-placed', but not, as you put it, 'well balanced'. Happy?

This is by far the best article authored by a Somali that I ever read. It is content is absolutely refreshing, its criticisms of the Somali psyche and analysis is well-placed. Thanks Caamir

The US, my dear Nomads, has found herself a playmate of her size. An interesting era is upon us: China's century. Want to know more about China's emergence? Oh! The BBC has dedicated the whole of this week to China's World. You know when something quite serious is up .

'Somalia is I'. You are the I thus in control of it or can influence it. If you are also that(Somalia) which you equate to I but you cannot control it or have influence upon it, are you truly it (Somalia)? Or were you talking about your fantasy Somalias' .

Hiv in many ways is no longer the menace it once was, with current treatment one can can carry on a relatively comfortable life, and given da fact that these drungs are increasingly being made available .. Vanquish lol..and what are world are you living in? You think HIV/AIDS is no longer the menace it use to be? That must be the uderstatement of the century, sxb. Here let me up date you statistically. Check below: 3 years ago this was the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa; HIV/AIDS statistics ( See Table 1 and 2) It gives you an idea of the pattern of infection. If you look with an open eye and mind, you might just (luckily) realise something! That out of the millions of Africans affected, only 50,000 are getting medical help!! What a shock, isnt it! Now tell me where are these medications you say are available? Moreover let me add, say, if a region as that of Southern Africa has only 2% of the world's population, but is now home to 60% of HIV/AIDS sufferers, wont you get worried? Its quite naive to think depopulation always takes place with the population in mind withou a thought being given to the land they inhabit. As for the origin of the disease, I am not certain, but if a country like South Africa for example, is widely known to have had a Chemical and Biological Warfare (CBW) projects (such as Project Coast), capable of 'genetically' targetting specifically 'pigmented' races with intent, isnt there a probability that the spread could have been an apathied work. In South Africa it has already happend that they employed a skin-absorbing substance poisonous to only Blacks during the apathied regime. That shall give you a headstart. If not it is no surpise 'cos scepticism is the newly-found African thing . I doesn't have to a substancial scepticism, we do it 'cos our old colonialists taught us so . For more information check; (a) http://stimson.org/cbw/?sn=cb20020113266 ...(b) http://www.zkea.com/archives/archive10004.html ---- That said, I was more concerned with the socio-economic factors of HIV/AIDS Southern Africa's communities. There are many rural households dissolving due to the death of the head or both parents. This dissolvement affects the local community and thus the general society. With women and children (the cornerstone of any community) being the worst affected, will we witness a large scale breakdown of social (economic) structures, hence state aparatus?

^^^ Yes, I have seen the Libyan case on TV. The Native Indians case is a historical one but not taught in schools. Are you aware of NSSM 200 document?

^^^ Do abit of research and update yourself of the issues and questions you have raised. Then come back and we will talk of malthusian agendas . PS: Read abit of history about Chief Pontiac and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma (the poison gifts of the British centuries ago) if you are interested in conspiracy theories or even disproving them. This topic is not that.

Deaths spiral out of control in Aids crisis South Africa suffers 59pc mortality jump in six years Peter Beaumont, foreign affairs editor Sunday February 20, 2005 The Observer South Africa's mortality rate has jumped by 59 per cent in six years, fuelled by the HIV/Aids epidemic, according to new figures published this weekend by the country's central statistical office. The report, which has been mired in political controversy even before its publication, says women have represented the biggest increase, while more adults of both sexes now are dying than in 1997. In 1997 149 men aged between 25 and 29 were dying for every 100 deaths among women. In 2003 that figure had leapt to 77 male deaths for every 100 female deaths. The figures are based on a survey by the government agency Statistics South Africa which analysed the cause of death of around three million South Africans notified to the Department of Home Affairs between 1997 and 2003. The poll is a potential bombshell in a country where health professionals and the government have been locked in a bitter struggle over the real scale of the HIV/Aids epidemic. Although tuberculosis, influenza and pneumonia, and cerebrovascular diseases were listed as the leading causes of death, the Statistician-General Pali Lehohla, said on Friday that the data had 'provided indirect evidence that the HIV/Aids epidemic in South Africa is raising the mortality levels of prime-aged adults, in that associated diseases are on the increase'. The release of the mortality figures was already controversial even before their publication with claims that the statistics were being suppressed by President Thabo Mbeki, who has long attempted to play down the scale of the Aids crisis and who criticised the same agency in 2001 for the claim that 40 per cent of South Africans were HIV positive. The report concluded that the average number of deaths rose to 1,370 a day in 2002 from 870 in 1997, an increase that could not be explained by the 10 per cent increase in population during the same period. Dr Steve Andrews, an HIV clinician and consultant in Cape Town, told the New York Times he believed the figures suggested that far from the report having been made more politically palatable, 'we should not be seeing this aggressive move in death rates - not at all'. The new figures have emerged amid an escalating row over the South African government's handling of HIV/Aids which forced the country's Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, to issue a statement maintaining that South Africa's Aids policy is among the world's best. 'Very few plans are as comprehensive as ours, bringing together elements of prevention, nutrition and a variety of different treatments,' Tshabalala-Msimang claimed. But the government target of having 53,000 people at 113 state-accredited health centres on free antiretroviral therapy by March 2005 is still falling short. Recent figures from the Aids lobby group, Treatment Action Campaign, indicate that only 29,332 people were accessing the drugs. The escalating Aids crisis - and claims that the government is doing too little to stem the spread of the disease - has seen increasing public discontent. Last week Aids activists once again marched to parliament to demand a ten-fold increase in the number of people being treated on retroviral drugs by 2006. Receiving the petition South Africa's presidential head of communications, Murphy Morobe, said that he personally had lost six family members to HIV/Aids over the past three years. Morobe's remarks are in contrast to President Mbeki's statement in 2003 that he 'did not personally know anyone who had died from Aids'. The latest official figures will put new pressure on the president, following hard on research published earlier this year in the journal Aids whose authors estimated that more than 112,000 people died of HIV-related illnesses in 2000-01 alone - nearly three times the figure given by South Africa's department of home affairs. The country has been accused repeatedly of deliberately underestimating the Aids death toll - and therefore failing to allocate sufficient resources. A 2002 survey by Statistics South Africa showed that only 8.7 per cent of deaths in the country were caused by HIV/Aids. But medical researchers and Aids charities insisted at the time that it had massively downplayed the scale of the pandemic. The Guardian Unlimited - 20 Feb 2005 -------- Nomads, is aids/ebola virus really an accidental disease or an intentional agenda to depopulate (racially - as President Thabo Mbeki + Moi believed to be) Third World countries? Many African rural communities are dispearing, and social structures - due to the economic impact of aids - are breaking down. The death toll is beyond any known proportion, so can this be classed as a silent 'Genocide' of a different kind? PS: Only objective responses welcome. If you have nothing useful to add to this thread then please stay away. Thank you.

Indeed, an independent view of things. I have come across yvette's blog about (I think) a year ago while googling. Her blog is as interesting and as informative (independent) today as it was then. Although it would be nice to have Somalis doing the same thing. I am of the view that there are out there many good-hearted Somalis who can do the job and be as independent as Yvette . Their objective views of the reality of the population on the ground is required in order to device overall developmental schemes.

^^^ Quite an interesting blog too.

Innaa Lillaahi Wa innaa Illaahi Raajicuun. Illaahoow u naxariiso marxuumka, una dambi dhaaf, Samir iyo Iimaanna ka sii eheladuu ka geeriyoodey. Aamiin

^^^ Now what are you saying? That your topic about humour unintentionally offended some? If so, sorry, cos I thought it was intentional in that it carried the name: " (humour) I have a right to offend". And that also you didn't care about others' pain. NB: I am human, and at that a reflectivist (to some extent), so to claim am always unemotional or remorseless in this kind of matters will be a complete lie. It is the very fact of your believe in 'only' others being emotive in response and you unemotional got me involved in this topic. Purely objective (but not without emotions). I am sure you know (even if little ) of moral conducts. Agree it or not we are both emotionally involved in this. I stop here. I wont bother you further sxb. As you were .

Originally posted by NGONGE: J11, so far, we seem to argue the same point, saaxib! No sxb! We are not arguing from the same point. If memory serves me right, you argue that you have a right to offend (victims) by humourizing their sufferings, and opposite to what you believe, I argued (and still argue), 'no one (including you) has a right to offend victims. I add that only victims themselves have the moral right to humourise their sufferings and no one else. So in this case, it is immoral to use your tongue to infringe on other peoples' right to stay unhurt. And to add a reminder to your immorality on this matter, you are going contray to the prophetic sayings about guarding ones' tongue from hurting other Muslims. The Prophet (saw) said about the best Muslims: "The one from whose tongue and hand the Muslims are safe." Muslim & Bukhari On a serious note, it aseems, by arguing for a right to offend, you are creating a surplus of emotional wellbeing for yourself as opposed to the 'deficit' of wellbeing of the victims. Surely that itself is selfishness and purely emotively motivated. I do not see that logic behind one's assertion that some people are emotional when he/she directly appeals to others' emotions in his/her's persuit of gaining comfort and wellbeing. Ngonge, I so believe that, above other things, you were at best emotional and 'unreasonable' (since your words were not produced out of reasoning, if they were, you would have 'reasonably acted differently), and at worst, value-driven. PS: If you think you have a right to offend then see what is happening to the Mayor of London, and the implications of his remarks of the Holocaust camps. I will leave you with this: http://society.guardian.co.uk/governinglondon/story/0,,1412601,00.html

NGONGE, The examples you gave are supportive of what I wrote in my earlier post. As I said, ‘victim-hood’ comes with some moral ‘privileges’. One of these privileges constitutes the right of conveyance of story of victim-hood in any way they (victims) deem suitable. This is to say that they have a moral right to either convey it through humour or prose. The ‘other’ moral privilege they have, which grants the victim in account of their suffering, is to speak of the oppressors or victimizers in any tone they so desire. So when Jewish producers in Hollywood or in London produce a thematic play or movie about what happened, it is a right granted to them morally by fate (I use fate here not independent of Qadr). That said, the offensive acts of expressions you gave me as examples could be categorized into two sections. Offensive humour based on: Insensitivity or Intolerance. In the former category of Insensitivity/Sensitivity belongs humour such as the one of Prince Harry, Mel Gibson, or even Roberto Benigni. The determinant factor of whether this kind of humour offends or not, dependents on (as I mentioned before) on whose humour it is. Is the humour by the victims themselves or by an outside? In the case of Prince Harry who is, apart from his insensitivity, of Royal descent coupled with German origins (this strikes a nerve to those who were victim to German soldiers) has a great significance to offend. In the latter category belong exercises/humours that pertain to the ‘freedom of expression’ (or whatever you might like to call it) of an individual who is citizen to a democracy. I believe expressions of such a humour should be permissible, in that such a humour is not necessarily based on ridiculing the person's victim-hood but purely attacks the ideas and beliefs of the said person. As long as there is no personal attack involved in humour, I say, it is understandable. So NGONGE, when you use the Birmingham play, Salman Rushdi, or the Jerry Springer, you should also know that such humour or expression is wholly different from that which ridicules actual victimization of a people. And the reason why it is taken out of context by some is because those who object toit often make the mistake of opposing it (as an‘expression’ and ideas) with acts of violence, rather with equivalent ‘expressions’ and ideas. If I remember it well Sheikh Ahmed Dedat gave a different approach in dealing with Rushdi’s blasphemy, a non-violent one. Now back to the hits and misses of humour. Answer me why an African-American can use the word that begins with ‘N’ freely as he wishes as opposed to a white man using it to describe African-Americans? If you watch Chris Rock’s movie Down To Earth , there is a scene where he is hit by a track. As the moviemakers claim he dies before his time and goes to (what supposedly they call) heaven, however, at reaching there he is told you must go Down To Earth. And since his old Black body was damaged in the process he is brought back to life in the body of a white billionaire. The soul is black, the body is white, and so, Chris Rock with his new body visit his old hanging out places such as the Apollo, where he was a comedian who used the word ‘N’ as freely as they came. In from of a Black crowd, while in his white body, he starts to hurl the word at his audience. All his of audience go silence and gob smacked. Thus after a short while is he booed of the stage. Now tell me, what does that signify to you? Is doing such a thing admirable or just plain foolish?

NGONGE. You have asked a very interesting question about the prospects of humour. “Should humour be banned?†was your question. My answer is definitely no. I advocate for the expression of humour not because I am all for offending others, but I say so, because your question seems objective rather than subjective. As I know there are several types of humour (including the ones you mentioned plus banters, blunders etc). There are also 'conditions' that are tied to humour, which are appropriate for different people in different situations. So in the name of subjectivity, I will say a word or two regarding the subjectivity of humour. In order to make clear your advocacy for the right to offend, it is interesting that you have used Heller's classic "Catch 22" which dealt primarily with the dilemmas its characters (Yossarian as lead) were confronted with. Subjectively, (and truly as you mentioned) Heller wrote about the madness of war, but the jokes content in the dialogues, were based on the experiences of characters that were not victims, who later became victors. (Bear with me here its been sometime since I read the book.)Soldiers (or aggressors) have one vantage point through which they see things, and their perspective on what on the impact (or victim-hood) of war is usually limited to them and not their families. In that war, which the book is concerned with, almost 60 million people perished, but in those 60 million people, the leading allied country, and her soldiers, lost only 400,000 troops in comparison to the millions lost by say China or Japan or Germany. So Heller's humour was for specific people in a specifically favorable position compared to those in Auschwitz-Birkenau camps. For that reason alone, it’s a bit naïve to find such humour applicable to all and funny. No one, except the victims themselves, has a right to joke about the plight of those in the death camps. Not because its immoral or insensitive, but because it does not make a humour material for the purpose of entertaining some. There are human instincts (independent of reason or logic) that decry such an entertainment, which if enjoyed, qualifies one to a different status of human-ness. Sometimes even Jews themselves cannot joke about the tragedy that beset them. At times its okay if comedian Roberto Benigni (an Italian Jew himself whose parents were affected by the deaths and deportations of Italian Jews) makes La Vita e Bella about the tragedy of his family, although he does not hide or ridicule what took place. He is a victim of the war so he has a right to create humour out of it; however, he had to seek the permission and advice of the Jewish council of Italy. The outsider has no entitlement to offend others by appealing to their raw emotions. And when he/she (supposedly independent of emotions), writes or tells such a humour but complains about emotive reactions, then, it should be borne in mind that the teller of such a joke is he/herself emotively motivated in some remote sense. He/she can reasonably and knowingly (with disregard to others' feelings) coin a question or a topic from what pains others or is sensitive to them, and yet perfectly ridicule them by asking “why are you emotional?†In the eyes of the readers they may seemingly come across as ‘emotive in response’, however, emotions become present only when they are called for. As action is always followed by reaction, emotively set topic will rightly be followed by emotive responses. So there is nothing new here. If one is honestly and truly interested in logic and reason, then, one should appeal to logic and reason not to raw emotions. If one remains to claim humour is all we have left, then, one must first not fall under that illusion of ‘we’ but determine who is 'we'; ‘for who’ and ‘against who’ humour is produced. If one still persists that one has the ‘right’, ‘freedoms’ of thought or speech, then one must re-read and consult the liberal doctrines that grants these said rights and freedoms. Under the liberal doctrines one must first have the ‘freedom from’ and the ‘freedom to’. It is the last freedom that the ‘right to’ falls under. Thus one has these ‘right to’ only and if he or she does not infringe on others’ right. In this light, and in the case of the type of humour produced at the expense of others’ pain, in my opinion and observation is that it infringes on others’ state of well-being and thus its exercise shall be avoided. No offense intended.

^^^ I was also in the Kenya/Somali border by then and together with my mother was listening to a one hour ethiopian (somali language) broadcast from 2-3 oclock. In the news bulletin they mentioned something about 'sporadic shootings' in the center of Mogadishu and the second we heard that my mother almost got a shock heart attack. By then I had my older Sister residing in Wardiigleey with a large number of relatives in some parts of xamar. Just few days after the war started, the borderline had a Somali exodus fleeing from the war. Among these refugees were close relatives, affected tremendously by the war. Death and Distruction. There was no way the small town I lived could cope with such a number of people, so we had to improvise and atleast gather food supplies. Whatever the war experiance might had been for these Somalis, the hardship they went through the journey and the refugee camp was a horrid experiance. That is when I was heartbroken as I was looking forward to settling back in Somalia. I had big dreams. All were vanquished at once.

"Waa Dameer iyo labadiisa dhaggood". Things assumed or things implied point to things meant. Semantics or no semantics, the 4 assumptions on which you based your assumption are present in the charactors of many Muslims, who are yet to be 'branded'/hinted to, as being kufaar or 'kaafir'. Sorry for the disturbance; its just that the usage/implying of the word 'Kaafir' on another Muslim, is not something that should be taken lightly. PS: Am sorry to author of the topic for contributing to its digression. Forgive me.

VR: Assuming I have problems with my reading(and now going beyond the assumption game), did Nur really use the word "Kufaar" or "Kaafir" to describe anyone, particularly in this thread? Yes or No would do.