I have seen it before. The interesting thing about the link; it says the Cushites come from the Arabian Peninsula.

Originally posted by Zephyrine: We have the choice of making it unequivocally clear that such indiscriminate killings are unacceptable to those Muslims who think its an option... And the making it unequivocally clear is supposed to change something? If it won't change something, it would make sense to conserve the energy.

Originally posted by Rahima: I am not willing to lay responsibility on Muslims just yet- we need more proof than just some statements on a website. If you get more proof, what would laying responsibility on Muslims achieve or change? Common sense dictates that this like I’ve said harms Muslims more than any other group. You mean Muslims in the West? Originally posted by Zephyrine: Either way, the fact that they took the responsibility puts the rest of us in trouble. Do we have the choice of being in or out of trouble, whether they took the responsibility or not?

Originally posted by Athena: call me dim all you want Are you serious? You with the banning powers? It's like Lennox Lewis telling a skinny kid to punch him.

Originally posted by BN: What constituts a 'sad day' exactly? The fact it occured in the civilized world?

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Imperial Hubris An interesting book that provides analyses one wouldn't expect from an American, let alone a senior intelligence analyst. Originally posted by ofleh: The most convincing part of this theory is that support for the war was in fact declining rapidly in the US. We will now see an emotional uptick in the polls in support of the war. This war was thought to be one based on perception; it wasn't and won't be. A lot of things in this war no longer matter or factor. Whether supporting the war increases or decreases doesn't factor. Polls will not decide the outcome of this war. Many things will be tried in this war, but it's doubtful the desired results will be met. The track records of the past +2 years speaks for itself.

Linux Journal & National Geographic. Many others via online.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Their objective was not to weaken Britian in any way but to kill ppl. And what's their objective to kill ppl? As for to weaken Britian, consider weakening it economically; it's going to have drastic effects in the long term.

Originally posted by Papamaine513: For Nomads in the US, watch out for 'brother' Kamal Nawash to break out on talk shows describing in great detail what exactly is wrong with Islam(most of it, in his view). So, something is wrong with Islam, with exactness? Muslims believe Islam is perfect. What would Muslims gain from watching someone describing in great detail what exactly is wrong with Islam? The suggestion to watch that someone makes no logic or sense.

Originally posted by Zephyrine: WHY ARE WE LETTING COLD-BLOODED KILLERS COMMIT ATTROCITIES IN THE NAME OF ISLAM? Did we let them? If not IN THE NAME OF ISLAM, in what name? WHY ARE WE LETTING THEM KILL IN OUR NAME? So, we're complicit in the killing by having given them permission (LETTING)? What can you do to stop them; denounce them, vilify them, etc? What good would that do? Maybe physically fighting them is the way to go; are you willing to do that?

Originally posted by STOIC: I beleive that anyone who target civilians is driven by subcortial brain activity that have overuled the more rational cortex. Are you serious? Do you know what beleive does? I think you got carried away with emotions, and meant think by beleive.

Originally posted by NGONGE: To argue that one understands the “desperation†of the suicide bombers but would rate them as marginally less wicked than an invading army is repugnantly offensive. There is no desperation here. Actually, there's a desperation here. If the West ceases arms/weapons embargoes against Islamists and unfreezes their assets, there wouldn't be a desperation here. No one can squeeze outbursts, no matter what methods are employed. For each action, there will always be a reaction, no matter how long it would take or how technologically advanced the action is. Besides, it's absurd to insinuate reaction has to adhere to the rules of reaction prescribed by action. As SoMa_InC pointed out, Everyone knew this was going to happen, it was a matter of when, so it shouldn't surprise or shock someone.

Originally posted by Warrior of Light: This is the comment of the Saudi producer on this issue. Contrast this part of the comment: “Oprah is the most respected name in American television. She is known the world over for her open, fair and balanced view on different subjects. Judging from what I have seen on her show, I feel confident that if you can trust anyone in American television, it is Oprah,†I told Rania. To this one: Rania and I were used by the Oprah Winfrey Show to paint Saudi Arabia in an unfair and negative light. The moral of the story is, Oprah Winfrey isn't the rosy picture many African women have painted in their imagination; she's just another opportunist from the Land of Opportunism.

Originally posted by Guhaad: Maybe in that topic we can't delve into it at will. Sorry, this is going to be my last comment, but did you mean can by can't?

Originally posted by Guhaad: Start with the ingredients of nationalism. What is involved? Let me start with the 2nd ingredient: 2: the doctrine that your national culture and interests are superior to any other.

Originally posted by Guhaad: Comments were not asked for in the topic, yet most here failed to see that. most here failed to see that, because they didn't understand your question Today, who is a true Somali nationalist ?. It's not a simple question, because most visitors here are too young to know what being a nationalist means, let alone what a true Somali nationalist means. I asked what it means, but you chose not to explain. Besides, you could have made it easy for yourself by making the question a poll. Like this: A true Somali nationalist is...... Are you a true Somali nationalist ? a. Yes b. No

Originally posted by ofleh: Being muslim sucks nowadays. That's according to a Western-based mentality; it has little or no value. Being a Muslim, especially a practicing Muslim, means being assertive, exercising decision-making powers, becoming a force to reckon with, and not being a follower. What's abhorrent nowadays is being a follower.

Originally posted by Rania: How can I save myself from the hellfire? Holy Prophet Replied, "Protect your eyes and your tongue and your hands and what is below your waistline against evil". The above striked me most. JazakAllah kheyr.

Originally posted by ofleh: I believe it is a private matter. At least yours is less than Zephyrine's very.

This link from the same Islamway.com has the entire tilawa of al-Minshawi.

Originally posted by Ali_BaBa: your not the best city in Europe London isn't.

Originally posted by Zephyrine: Someone's faith is indeed a very private matter We know that could be applicable to non-Muslims, but elaborate how that's applicable to Muslims.

Originally posted by Ducaqabe: Moalim Shiekh Munshawi Are you sure that's his correct name? I often listen to qari' Muhammad Siddiq al-Minshawi (my favorite) at this link.

Originally posted by Dark Angel: A hardware firewall Example: NAT router.

Originally posted by Afromali: Am guessing that one has to be awfully ready and be the least bit intimidated by the whole ‘MAXKAMAD’ scene. Man, there's nothing to be awfully ready, or intimidated about. If it helps, just go to the ‘MAXKAMAD’, sit down there for some half an hour, listen to what it being said, observe how people act, and etc- just to get the feeling. I liken it to going to the post office on a busy day, standing behind the line, and mailing a parcel.