NGONGE;794258 wrote: ^^ I found Caano_Geel's "explanation" of the joke funnier. :D I don't get Caano_Geel's version.

It's very strange to me why people in this forum get unbelievably sentimental about Somaliland. I think many would actually faint, or even die, if it were recognised. I'm mostly indifferent/lukewarm when it comes to political issues -- I just couldn't help but notice that.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Love it!

What do you think? Another property of wau is that every empty product evaluates to wau!

Carafaat;790503 wrote: JB, why do you oppose the blue colour? its the colour of the sky. its the colour of optimism and its the colour of the Somali people. Neytiri from Avatar was Somali then? I knew it!

Your avatar is creepy, man. Besides, I think you're too obsessed with this Puntland-Somaliland rivalry thing. Chill out.

ElPunto;790582 wrote: Who determines what is ridiculous or what is rationale? Is it your metric that the world should adopt? Are the anti-Holocaust denial laws ridiculous or irrational? It's odd that many don't get worked up over those and other similar rules. Clearly the authorities are legally justified - it is their laws after all. Are they morally justified - it depends on what base your morality is built on - if you are a secular humanist etc - clearly not. As a Muslim - I think this man should be given a warning since he has apologized and seems remorseful. And I don't find what he said to be of the extreme gratuitous insults which blasphemy laws would police. I also do favour keeping the internet a free zone regarding blasphemy rules. PS - your continous reference to persecution is simply a denial of facts. After all - there is a legal basis here. I think appeal to reason alone can serve as a fair common metric ground in determining what's rational and what isn't. Disagreeing with this will require explanation of the inadequacy of reason as basis as well as the providence of a method that triumphs it. I don't think the laws against Holocaust denial are well-justified. I don't really understand why you think what he said warrants a warning. Also, could you explain bit more about favouring to keep the internet a free zone regarding blasphemy rules? (It makes perfect sense reading it, but I wasn't expecting it so I guess I want you to repeat it). @ PS - I'm not convinced what he did warrants being tried at all.

For some reason, I can't stop laughing when he starts crying! Nin weyn oo ooyaya!

ElPunto;790573 wrote: ^What does justified mean from your perspective? If one has a law - however you may disagree with it or even ridiculous - if one breaks it - are you not justified in prosecuting him or her?? You are not, if it's ridiculous. There should be rational limits as to the rules you can create and one is never justified in persecuting someone over ridiculous rules. Putting philosophy aside, do you personally think they're morally/legally justified in persecuting him?

ElPunto;790562 wrote: If he knew the law and deliberately broke it - he should be ready to deal with the consequences. Are you saying they are justified in persecuting him for that tweet?

Riyadh (AsiaNews/Agencies) – Hamza Kashghari, a Saudi writer and poet arrested in Malaysia for a few remarks on Twitter about Muhammad, is an infidel and an apostate. His sacrilegious action deserve “harsh punitive measures”, warned Saudi Arabia’s Permanent Committee for Scholarly Research and Religious Edicts (IFTA). "Whoever dares make a mockery of Allah, the Prophet or the Holy Book undermines the religion and displays enmity toward it. It is the duty of the rulers to try such a criminal," the committee said. The accusation against Hamza, 23, stem from a few remarks he posted on Twitter last week, birthday of the prophet Muhammad. “On your birthday,” he wrote, “I will say that I have loved the rebel in you, that you’ve always been a source of inspiration to me, and that I do not like the halos of divinity around you. I shall not pray for you.” “On your birthday,” he added, “I find you wherever I turn. I will say that I have loved aspects of you, hated others, and could not understand many more. I shall not bow to you. I shall not kiss your hand. Rather, I shall shake it as equals do, and smile at you as you smile at me. I shall speak to you as a friend, no more.” In one day, his comment generated 30,000 responses, many accusing him of blasphemy or calling for his death. Even though he removed the offending tweet, and apologised asking for forgiveness, the flood did not stop. Someone posted his address on YouTube, and vigilantes from a nearby mosque went looking for him. The information minister banned all newspapers from publishing anything written by him, and the Council of Elders issued a rare statement of condemnation and harsh request that he be put on trial. King Abdullah himself issued the arrest order. Two days ago, the young man tried to leave the country, but he was arrested by Malaysian police. “Kashgari was detained at the airport upon arrival following a request made to us by Interpol after the Saudi authorities applied for it," a police spokesman said. Malaysia and Saudi Arabia do not have a formal extradition treaty. However, an official with the Malaysian Home Ministry who asked to remain unidentified said Kashgari could be extradited under other bilateral security agreements. Under Sharia (Islamic law), anyone who commits sacrilegious actions that may make him or her kafir should be given three days to repent, failing which the person is to be beheaded. What are your thoughts on this?

sharma-arke451;790363 wrote: you cannot always use the believe of other's to justify yours. be independant and argue freely. islam is this and islam is that, doesn't justify your quest for disbelieve. you champion on digress and denial. the only assets in your favour. you can never handle an argument straight. you are so immature that many times one resists assuming a child in the body of a ''man/woman'' It's ironic that you have responded to my post with the above yet you are telling me that I can't handle an argument straight. Practice what you preach and try to handle my argument straight by responding with a real objection instead of posts like the one above.

Sensei;790159 wrote: I do not blame the kid. This speaks to the greater point of religion and public schools. It becomes slightly hypocritical of us to oppose school prayers, and then act all surprised when school kid does not want to sing religious song. It is not even about Islam, it has much to do with providing religion free public schools for kids, and we as Muslims stand to benefit much from this. I agree with this.

Skeptic;789486 wrote: @Boondheere, when the scholars translated the Quran, these scientific facts where not available to them so they picked the closest meaning to the word but the actual word in its Arabic context is closest or lowest. It wouldn't have made sense if they said lowest given the time they lived in so they took the secondary meaning that was (the closest Roman-controlled land) which was the Jordan area at the time. That was the border of Arabia and the Roman Empire. In both ways, both translations remain legitimate and are undeniable facts and that only adds to the greatness of The Quran. I've explained in here, forming a religious position (or providing a translation/interpretation yielding as such) to claim a credit for something after it's been established by some other means is a form of bias. It even has a name - it's called 'hindsight bias'. You can't tweak the Koran's translations like that just to make it match with science and then claim it as a miracle of sorts that indicates the Koran's validity as divine work.

sharma-arke451;788705 wrote: this time round you failed miserably. scapegoat-ism is not a forever game. encourage your poor soul to enjoy the ''sweetness'' of life. This is not about scapegoating. You have read that quote completely upside down!

Mario B;788051 wrote: --------------- The salafist are obssessed with niqab, while the west is obssessed with bikinis. And I love summer!

Would Halimos be as kind if we were to win the cup!

Macallinka;788602 wrote: lol@Che, How come it doesn't feel Democracy@work when its to do with religion, if this guy started singing we would have think yeah its democracy but somehow this feels strange lol Dimuqratiyadu kuma farayso in aad ka madaarto meel arimo muhiim ah laga hadlayo.

Complicated;788610 wrote: Kuwiinan Carabiga fahmoow ninku miyuu ducaynayaa? Kuwa farta la geliyey bal haay noo turjumaan!

The speaker taught him a lesson: “There is a mosque outside for you to go and recite the Azan in and pray in if you want”.

sharma-arke451;788081 wrote: at least stephen is not denying the existence of ''god'' but he is arguing for whatever he believes as ''god'' is the real god. Goodness, it looks like your reading is as bad as your writing!

Samjamaa asked a sensible questions and all the replies are just wrong! Shame on you, people!

Somalia;788023 wrote: The picture is ok, it shows that she is quite attached to the man who's naked while she is wearing a tent. That made me laugh! sharma-arke451;788028 wrote: calling the hijab ''tent'' amounts to an insult. may you be watchful over your statements And here comes the haram police!

sharma-arke451;788006 wrote: to me ''claiming'' to be an ''atheist'' is like a middle state which doesn't exist in real but a DELUSION. time immemorial, people disbelieved in one and believed in another. like there are idolaters, who believe in idols, others believe in cows, and many more.,,, but never hanging. it is a hard choice that is never realistic. the easiest blind game. “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” - Stephen Roberts.