hahaha... I never said there is or there wasn't a God... it was your assumption that I was an atheist

See how everything revolves around religion here ... I think if and when the qabiil matter dies, Somalis will start to bicker about religion... @Ibti... I'm not going to justify myself to anyone as it's between me and God but I feel that you understand where I come from when I start to question matters when I see Muslims start to taqliid and not ijtihad...

Originally posted by *Faheema: quote:Originally posted by Sayid*Somal: why do atheist like to argue? :confused: Is that a trick Q? Ins't an atheist hypothesis based on arguments? Speaking of racist, did anyone see This LOL

Originally posted by Cara.: This is fun! "One should be kind to one's parents but..." "You shouldn't throw babies into a lava pit but..." "It's wrong to set your teacher's hair on fire but..." hahahahaha....

@Ibti, the blind date one was hilarious... totally, got me off guard!

^^ ayayaya... funny enough you're the one looking for arguments now... It's just typical of hardcore religionists of accusing others who don't agree with them of heresy/atheism. So, I won't go down that well because it seems that every thread started in this forum somehow leads its way towards religion.

@Sayid: Are you labeling me an atheist because I question things and challenge the status quo? In any case, it's amusing that you talk about how atheists like to argue in a thread that has nothing to do with religion. @Ibti, you're cracking me up sister!

hahaha... that was a great link Ibti... thanks!

hahaha... it's all good the bottom line is that everyone learns something from a discussion.

What? :confused:

I recently stumbled upon this article. Not sure if it has already been posted. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Arraweelo: A Role Model For Somali Women By Ladan Affi This essay was presented by Ladan Affi during the Somali Peace Conference in October 1995, held in Paris, France and was published in a book called “POUR UNE CULTURE DE LA PAIX EN SOMALIE” edited by Mohamed Mohamed Abdi. Here’s the article in its full form. Once upon a time, there was a famous queen named Arraweelo, who ruled most of what is now Somalia. When she was younger, Arraweelo had witnessed many wars and conflicts between Somalis. She had also seen how the council of elders had, on many occasions, made some unwise decisions. She felt that these were due to the fact that some of the men on the council were not intelligent and capable enough to be in a position of leadership. Her recommendation was that these men should be replaced by women who were intelligent and competent to make decisions, that would be of benefit to the community. However, Arraweelo’s husband disagreed with her and felt that that kind of work belonged to men and that women were better left to do what they did best housework and childcare. The steps that Arraweelo took to get power are very well known to most Somalis and especially to Somali men. She organized the women into striking from doing household chores, so that the men were kept busy with the cooking and looking after the children. While they were preoccupied with that, Arraweelo took over the leadership, declaring herself queen. From then on, there was peace and prosperity in the land Christine Choi in her article “Finely Etched Chattel: The invention of Somali Women”, states that “much of the research on gender and in particular, women in Somalia, with notable exceptions, suffer from serious flaws.”[1] She continues in the same article that “Orientalism coupled with a patriarchal view of African women has yielded the systematized anthropological studies of I.M. Lewis and other colonial anthropologists, which has created the image of the Somali women as chattel, commodity and a creature with little power”. This image is in complete contradiction with the reality of Somali women and their position in society. The theme of this conference is peace culture and its promotion in Somalia. Somali women as natural peacemakers must be an integral part of this process. However, women who have shown interest in participating in the political decision making process, such as Arraweelo, have traditional ly been ostracized and treated as though they were abnormal and unwomanlike. Somali women have always been the backbone of Somali society and women in nomadic Somalia do almost all the work ensuing the survival of the Somali family in a harsh environment. “Somali women play a significant role in Somali society; the division of labor is clearly defined and heavily weighted towards women. Traditionally, the nomadic woman milks the animals, processes the milk, feeds the family, and cares for and watches the livestock. She also collects firewood, cooks, feeds the children, cleans the house and washes the clothes and the utensils” [2] In addition to that, women have the responsibility of “building and dismantling the nomadic aqal (home)” as they move from place to place in search of grass and water for their livestock. Meanwhile, the men have the very formidable job of “where to move, arrange additional transport from other families”[3] and looking after the camels. To keep the peace between clans in times of conflict, Somali women served as sacrificial lambs when they were married off to the clan, their father, brothers and uncles had been fighting against in the past. During the struggle for independence, many Somali women took part. Many contributed financially by selling their jewelry, others took part in the demonstrations. Many hid the freedom fighters against the colonial powers at a great personal cost , some were jailed and beaten, all for the sake of achieving freedom for the Somali people. One well known woman was Timiro Ukash who was jailed while pregnant by the Italian colonial powers. She gave birth to a baby girl while in jail. When independence was finally achieved and British Somaliland and Italian Somaliland joined together to form the Somali Democratic Republic on July 1st, 1960, Somali women were nowhere to be seen. There were no women representatives in the Cabinet or in Parliament. Their services were no longer required in achieving independence. The benefit of independence was minimal to Somali women as it was mostly the men who were educated and who benefited in terms of employment, education and prestige. However, with the movement into large cities, many Somali women lost their defined position in society, resulting in many women being left to fend for themselves, their children and other extended family members In urban centers like Mogadishu, approximately “50% of small scale businesses are run by women”. Others were civil servants and were involved in jobs as “teachers, nurses and clerks”[4] who were given very few opportunities to advance in a society were patriarchy and clan lineage are the order of the day. In October 21, 1969, Siyad Barre came to power through a coupd’etat . The Somali language was developed into written form and a phenomenal literacy campaign was successfully launched. This was an opportunity for many Somali girls to get access to education. As many entered the universities, the future looked hopeful for Somali women. However, the reality has proven otherwise. “Although 8 years of schooling is compulsory, it is estimated that 96% of Somali women cannot read and girls receive about one third of the schooling of boys and that female literacy is 39 percent of male literacy.[5] Barre government’s attempt to try to better the situation of Somali women failed partly due to opposition from some men who based their arguments on religion. Their position however contradicted the Quran’s message of equality between women and men. According to Country Report 1992, women have been subject of discrimination in work and family matters. I rural areas, women are “treated as beasts of burden” [6]doing much of the work but receiving little recognition. Although Somali women have had the right to vote in Islam for over 1400 years, In Somalia since 1958 in the south and since 1961 in the north, yet they are not permitted to take part in the tribal or assembly of elder where the real clan decision making process takes place. The outbreak of civil war in 1991 affected the whole country, but it has had the greatest impact on Somali women and children: “The tragedy of the current destruction and violence in our country has been leveled disproportionately against the Somali women. It is not surprising that this is so, given that women have, for a long time, occupied a marginalized and powerless position in our society.”[7] The situation of women in areas of armed conflict, as well as the role of women in Somali society, are issues that have drawn the attention of human rights groups and Somali analysts. The present position of Somali women continues to be unacceptable. According to Dr. Safia Shire, a former diplomat with the Somali Ministry of Foreign Affairs, “when the slow disintegration of (Somali) society and institution as well as the destruction and violence started, the rights of Somali women began eroding and they became a voiceless group”.[8] Many of the victims during the past four years of war were specifically targeted because of their weakness and vulnerability due to their lack of military strength and clan or sub clan affiliation. While many men were away, fighting for the honor and prestige of their clan, the women were left to take care of the family. Close to one million refugees, mostly women and children, fled to neighboring countries such as Kenya, Ethiopia and Djibouti. “Women who flee become refugees at the mercy of incomprehensible bureaucracies and hostile governments”.[9] On the way, they were abused, tortured, raped and killed because of their clan affiliation or that of their husband and children. Amnesty Information and other sources described “that the number of rapes in Somalia was massive in scale…and commonplace in the villages”.[10] When Africa Watch interviewed women in the refugee camps, nearly one half said they had also been attacked in Somalia Unfortunately, many were ostracized as if the abuse they had received was something they had brought on themselves. They were used as pawns in the game of clan politics. Many women remained in their cities trying to make the best of the situation. They were instrumental in trying to save many people through the opening of soup kitchens, operating schools for children, running the hospital and were generally involved in the delivery of social services. Thirty five years after independence, the position of Somali women is worse than it was before. Even though they suffered much in the aftermath of the civil war, Somali women have been marginalized and excluded from taking part in the reconciliation efforts, both by the Somalis as well as the International community. When the U.N. announced that each region would have three individual based on their clan affiliation, it left me with a mixture of emotions. I was happy that Somali women were finally being acknowledged and at the same time realizing the futility of implementing this plan as the clan establishment is a purely male oriented realm. True to form, none of the clans agreed to have women represent them. Country reports 1993, noted that “with social breakdown caused by the civil war, clan loyalties have grown even stronger”. This does not bode well for Somali women or their participation in Somali society.[11] The growing Islamic movements in Somalia, whose main focus seems to the domination and subjugation of women in the area of political and social participation will also be a barrier for women. These men’s obsession with women and especially women’s dress code points to disturbing trends that is destined to erode any gain Somali women have made in the past 35 years. Unfortunately, many Somali women believe that Islam is the domain of men without investigating what Islam has to say about the political and social involvement of some men. Some men feel threatened when women do claim their Islamic rights such as equality between men and women, the right to education and the right to participate in community affairs. Their reaction is to put women down so that the authority of men will not be questioned. This suppression is not confined to women in Somali, but seems to afflict, from my observations, women in the Diaspora as well. Those who use Islam as a means of gaining political power are using similar means of oppression through fear as those who use the clan as a means of legitimizing their power. Some women also work within the clan framework choosing to overlook the fact that the clan is a male dominated system that contributes to their oppression. They do not seem to realize that it will not benefit them as women. Somali women need to support and work with each other whether from the rural or urban areas whether from the north or from the south. They need to learn about their Islamic heritage and study the Quran for themselves. “Equality proposes a principled approach to society. It concerns structural adjustment as well as domestic production” [12] Many people might feel that the equal participation of Somali women is an impossible and an unrealistic task. Somali men who are active in the reconciliation efforts in Somalia should realize that without the participation of half of society, very little has been or can be achieved. Somali men must actively participate in opposing those whose ego is comforted by the subservience of Somali women. They must be the ones to insist that Somali women be equally involved in the decision making process in Somalia Somali women must question and challenge a culture that contributes to their domination. It is vital for women to educate themselves and t take a more visible and active role in society.” Dr Orbinski, a physician with Medecins sans Frontieres, has witnessed anti war demonstration by women and believes that women the “fabric of (Somali) society” and according to other reports, aid experts believe that “women are the most powerful force rebuilding Somalia.[13] Anna Abdallah Msekwa, Minister of State in the office of the Tanzanian Prime Minister and a veteran of women’s organizations as well as the initiator of Creators of Peace believes that people have to “start initiating peace in the world from where you are, in your heart, home, workplace and community”[14] Somali women have demanded to be included in the peace negotiations but they have been excluded. They are “not allowed to speak in meetings and have been noticeably absent from any international or internal for for peace negotiations”[15] For a lasting peace to be achieved in Somalia, women must be involved. Violence, threats of violence and abuse of women should no longer be tolerated. In Islam, education is a right as well as a responsibility upon every Muslim, whether male or female. Lack of access to education has serious consequences in terms of the participation of Somali women and must be remedied immediately. Attention and support must be given to women’s groups by Somali society and the International communities. “Substantive equality is about taking into account the naming consequences of women’s social exclusion. It is about stopping and correcting the exclusion mechanisms.”[16] Therefore, in order for Somali women to achieve equality, women must be provided with the support and training necessary for social and economic empowerment; for example, by funding women’s organizations and providing the necessary structure to facilitate women’s economic success and political activism. Through innovative ideas and practical implementation, women can provide ways of overcoming the distrust and hostilities between the various clans. Somali women need a platform on which they can come together, regardless of clan affiliations, to discuss common concerns and needs In order to achieve this, “we must encourage the establishment of the mechanisms that will serve to advance women in all official capacities related to International diplomacy.”[17] Somali women must be provided with the opportunity to participate in forums, such as this conference where the future of the Somali people is being discussed. The frustrations and anger felt by Arraweelo at having to be ruled by an inept and useless council is one that many Somali women, including myself, can relate to. I firmly believe that if Somali women have been involved in the reconciliation efforts from the beginning, the hostilities would not have reached the levels they had nor would it have lasted as long as it has. I believe that now is the time to remedy the situation. The efforts being made on behalf of Somalia should be one that focuses on our similarities rather than on our differences. Somalis everywhere should be reminded of our need and support for each other. In the Qur’an, in the translation made by Yusuf Ali, there is a commentary in the Chapter of Women (Sura al Nisa) that says “What can be a holier cement to society than the….women’s right secured; …and all life lived in faith, charity and kindness sincere to all our fellow creatures.”[18]. The essence of this is that of women are treated well, the whole society benefits. [19] History seems “to indicate that Arraweelo did actually live and rule most, if not all of Somali territory”[20]. The story of Arraweelo is one that has been told for generations and is still told to children, both girls and boys today. Although it is primarily used as an example of why women’s rule should be vigorously opposed, it provided me with a concrete role model of a Somali woman. It illustrates and highlights the positive characteristics of having women in leadership positions. Although Arraweelo is portrayed as a violent woman who enjoyed castrating men (I believe that the castration was political rather than physical), the reality is that she took over the control of Somalia at a time when it desperately needed order, peace and prosperity. My paper is dedicated to all the Somali women who continue to struggle against injustice and violence and have had the courage and strength to world towards building Somalia that is equitable and peaceful for all Bibliography [1]“Christine Choi, “Finely Etched Chattel:the intervention of a Somali Woman”, The Invention of Somalia, ed. Ali Jimale Ahmed, Red Sea Press, Lawrenceville, NJ, 1995, pp. 157 189 [2]Rhoda Ibrahim, “The changing lives of Somali women”, “Changing perceptions: writings on Gender and Development”, ed. Tina Wallace with Candida March, Oxfam publications, Oxford, 1991, pp 132 136. [3]Rhoda Ibrahim, 1991, op.cit. [4]Rhoda Ibrahim, 1991, op.cit [5]Centre d’Etudes Arabes pour le Developement (CEAD), “Somalia: Women’s Human Rights”, “Women in the Horn of Africa: Background papers”, Alternatives, Montreal, “Quebec, 1995, pp. 144 168. [6]Dahabo Farah, “Role of Women in Somali Society”, Montreal, Canada, 1994. [7]Centre d’Etudes Arabes pour le Development (CEAD), 1995, op.cit. [8]Centre d’Etudes Arabes pour le Developpement (CEAD), 1995, op.cit. [9]Diana Wong, “War and Women”, “Canadian Women Studies: Women’s rights are Human Rights”, 15, 2&3, Spring/Summer 1995, pp. 25 29. [10]Centre d’Etudes Arabs pour le Development (CEAD), 1995, op.cit. [11]Centre d’Etudes Arabes pour le Developpement (CEAD), 1995, op.cit. [12]Lucie Lamarche, “An historical review of Social and Economic Rights: A case for real rights”, “Canadian Women Studies: Women’s Rights are Human rights”, 15, 2&3, Spring/Summer 1995, pp. 12 18. [13]Centre d’Etudes Arabes pour le Developpement (CEAD), 1995, op.cit. [14]Anna Abdallah Msekwa, “Creators of Peace Inaugural Conference”, Caux, Switzerland, 1991. [15]Hibaaq Osman, “Somali women rally for peace”, “Match News”, July 1995, p.2. [16]Lucie Lamarche, 1995, op.cit. [17]Hibaaq Osman, 1995, op.cit. [18]The Holy Qur’an, Sura al Nisa, translation by Yusuf Ali [19]Jamal Badawi, “Gender Equity in Islam: Basic Principles”, American Trust Publications, Plainfield, Indiana, 1995. [20]Christine Choi, 1995, op.cit.

A couple of hours ago, I was in a nearby cafe. I stood by the cashier as I waited for my coffee and next to me sat a young couple. The guy mentioned some play about the revival of modern African dance. The girl asked what was modern African dance. The guy then gestured in a manner that primates move and uttered what he thought were African sounds. The girl, who was the one facing me, noticed that I was looking at them and gave the guy the typical "shut up" look. After I got my coffee, I came over to them as asked the young man, "do you really think that's how modern African dance is performed?". He then replied with a "I don't know, it was just a joke" and told me to "chill". I then told him that people tell jokes about sensitive matters because they do not want to be perceived of having certain viewpoints and that his childish attitude does not help black/white relations. I then walked out. This leads me to share with my fellow nomads a piece I had during and after a backpacking trip I made last year from Lisbon, Portugal; across Spain; ferry to Italy; Genoa-Napoli-Venezia and everything in between; Slovenia; Austria; and finally ended up in Germany. Here we go: The Implicity of Racism You enter the metro and as soon as you do you notice the guy standing next to you slowly reach to his over-the-shoulder bag and closes the zipper; a couple of stations later a second man enters and stands not far from the guy next to you... the paranoid man reaches down to his bag and makes sure he closed the zipper... what would you think? a routine precaution perhaps in a crowded metro? Sadly, to a white person it might, but not to someone of a darker skin color. The 'you' in this story happens to be me and the second 'suspicious man' was a dark skinned Bangladeshi man. The guy taking the 'routine precaution' was a Ukrainian tourist... Ukrainian is an educated guess since he had a Ukrainian flag sewn to his bag and was wearing an AC Milan "Shevchenko" jersey. Since I started this backpacking journey around southern Europe I've been noticing repetitive pattern of “implicit racism” from different people in Portugal, Spain and now in Italy. The first instance happened in Portugal and I've been carefully observing incidences ever since; one night, a woman walking her dog was passing by the front entrance of the building I lived in, as I approached the entrance that the woman took off her necklace and put it in her pocket. I just stood there and simply shook my head as I went inside the building. It was a smart move because if I had been a thief, she would’ve given me the incentive to steal something I hadn’t known was there. In any case, it's not like I hadn't noticed implicit racism when I lived in the US, I did, but I didn't feel it as much as I do in Europe since I've always lived in mixed areas in the NY metro area. Unfortunately though, most of the implicit racist I encountered on this journey had been American tourists: In a recent episode when I was in Granada, Spain, I happened to be standing at a traffic signal behind an American twosome, the female member of whom was boasting about how “multicultural” and “diverse” Brooklyn has become and how she would love to move there as she likes that kind of “stuff”. I didn’t make much of the conversation and I made my way to a small Kebab restaurant where a nice Moroccan man I befriended earlier in the day worked, as I sat to eat my shawarma, I heard the familiar voice of that girl from the traffic light (familiar because it was one of those annoying high-pitched nasal voices), apparently they decided on eating in this particular place as they were reading the menu outside. When they came inside, the girl looks at me, turns to her friend then starts with “you know what?” and decides on eating later because she apparently could hold out a bit longer. I suppose she didn’t want to be sitting opposite a black guy in a tiny, cramped restaurant. Certain Americans I had met over the years love to show-off how multicultural they are and how many “people of color” they have as friends, it has become a sort of status symbol to make statements such as "my friend Takiysha” or “my friend Miguel” but when it comes to actually acting on their so-called ‘open-mindedness’ they fail miserably as their insecurity towards the black (or brown) color becomes apparent and no amount of show can hide that. On one angle, the Bradley Effect has proven the contradiction, hypocrisy and outright lies of some so-called ‘open-minded’ folk who have a habit of telling opinion polls in the US they will vote for the non-white person running for office but when the time comes switch sides in the booth, apparently they don’t want to be seen as racists yet they are racists of the lowest degree... those that cloak their racism with a deceitful cover of so-called ‘open-mindedness’, but that’s a different, yet related, matter to what I’m writing about here. On with the Americans: during the leg of the journey in Italy, I joined an information tour group in Rome to get a better insight of what I was looking at in the Colosseum and the archaeological remains on the Palatine Hill. There were, rather expectedly, a majority of Americans in my group including three US servicemen from Ohio, South Dakota and California that were stationed in the UK and were in Rome on holiday, I knew all that because one of them was talking to a lady who had asked him where he was from, but his response was for all to hear. After a quick introductory session about the tour, we headed to pick up our headsets and we gradually formed a small crowd around the window where they were being distributed. As I got in, I was behind the burliest of the servicemen, a tall young man with a muscular physique. He took a quick glance at me and almost immediately reached to his back pocket to make sure his wallet was still there. It was a sad sight because even though he saw me earlier as part of the group he couldn’t resist succumbing to his insecurity despite the fact of my unfailingly touristic look (the guidebook and camera) and not to mention payment into the monument and the tour itself. The servicemen in general turned out to be full of cocky, half-witted comments throughout the tour ("young and estupido" is an understatement) that got annoying to an extent which reaffirmed my notion (or rather bias) that it isn’t exactly the intellectuals that join the (US) military as I could count with my ten fingers the number of US military men and women who, by my standards, are reasonably intelligent people. I used the word “unfortunately” in the third paragraph because albeit I’ve met some amazing and truly “open-minded” Americans during my time in Europe, a good majority has been the ignorant ones. All these incidents lead me to ask the question: what kind of tourists/people does America export? Which parts of the country do they come from? Now on to the Europeans, who are no less implicitly racist than the Americans. I was riding a bus on the way to the hostel in Granada when I noticed a black woman about to enter, so I focused on the faces of the people on board; rest assured as soon as she boarded, two Spanish women abruptly moved away from her (rather hurriedly) and started talking, presumably about her, unfortunately I was too far to clearly decipher what they were saying. They did, however, wear mocking smiles and were looking at her (she was facing away from them). Spain has been suffering from a wave of African immigrants, most of whom are illegal and trade in commodities such as purses, sunglasses and artifacts on sidewalks. This is something new to Spain and, unlike Portugal, had only one black African colony. There are, however, large numbers of Latin American immigrants, and unfortunately I don’t know much about the social status of Latin Americans in Spain to comment. In any case, from my experience, these immigrants have been the most humble and helpful people I’ve met. A couple of them even walking me to a grocery store that I was looking for. Perhaps this is part due to our shared darkness of skin color, it might just be their nature to be as helpful as possible, or it might be because they yearn for acceptance into society. It will be a matter of time before they get become bitter at the rejection of society, just think African immigrants in France and Turkish immigrants in Germany. Manu Chao's Clandestino describes the thoughts of an immigrant rejected by society: Solo voy con mi pena / Alone I go with my sorrow Sola va mi condena / Alone goes my sentence Correr es mi destino / To run is my destiny Para burlar la ley / To escape the law Perdido en el corazon / Lost in the heart De la grande Babylon / Of the great Babylon Me dicen el clandestino / They call me clandestine Por no llevar papel / For not having any papers Pa' una ciudad del norte / To a city of the north Yo me fui a trabajar / I went to work Mi vida la dej / I left my life Entre Ceuta y Gibraltar / Between Ceuta and Gibraltar Soy una raya en el mar / I’m a line in the sea Fantasma en la ciudad / A ghost in the city Mi vida va prohibida / My life is forbidden Dice la autoridad / So says the authority On this trip, typically and without fail, people glance at my face, then at my camera, in constant chronological succession ... wha? He’s black, and he looks like a tourist... how is that possible? He probably stole that camera from somewhere. Where is his fake Luis Vuitton merchandise? Generally, I’ve noticed three distinct looks people give me while on this journey: the look of surprise/intrigue which in itself is a rather innocent one if one isn’t used to people of a darker shade than themselves; then there is the look of conceit, the sort morally low people exercise, who failingly attempt to place themselves in a position of prestige; finally, there’s the one of fear/discomfort when a person has an ingrained or rather tattooed imprint in their minds that a black man posses danger to them, or, much like the apprehensive US servicemen, display obvious insecurity that results from their ignorance. I took note of the first look, the one of surprise/intrigue while traveling around the Portuguese countryside. People just look, sometimes almost to the point of staring, and from that look I could tell that they’ve never seen a black person much less interacted with one. I was looking for a famous landmark in Rome and had stopped an Italian woman to ask for directions. Her response? She flat out refused and looked rather terrified. Why? I had my hoodie on. I have noticed that a black man in a hoodie petrifies (non-black) people. In order to experiment and to also check that I was not exaggerating, I asked a friend who had joined me in the Italy leg of the trip to notice the expression of people passing us as I have the hoodie on . Rest assured he concurred with my notion. The woman who had refused to assist me was relieved to notice that I was indeed looking for directions and not trying to rob her as I kept repeating “Dove Piazza Venezia?” several times. Media generally portrays black people with hoodies as the “gangsta” type looking for a kill and not to be messed with. That has gradually filtered down to society and even amongst the black people themselves. This whole societal construct of White=Normal, Black=Bad/Evil angers me greatly. I think people are unware of their conformity to this construct and act upon it without any thought; they don't stop and think "why am I afraid? is this a justified fear? or just a reaction that has been programmed on me by society?" A couple of Americans came up to me as I was taking pictures of a monument in Rome and asked me if I could take a picture of them, in return I asked them, “I’m a black person, are you sure I won’t run away with your camera?” The male member replied with a self-confident smile, “why would you, you’ve got a better one”, then I replied, “If I didn’t have a camera and looked like a tourist, would you still ask me?” this time there was a pause, then the expected "No". That pause made me decline to take their photo and moved on. Perhaps it was a gross over-reaction on my part, but to me it was justified because I had had enough. At that moment I remembered a piece from the song “The Spark” by The Roots: My attitude a product of society, So sometimes for gratitude, you know you can't rely on me, Niggaz eyein me, with looks of they anxiety, Wonderin what's in my heart, velocity or piety. These are but a few of many instances and I came to the realization that implicit racism isn’t my problem at all; it’s the problem of the people who have a problem with darker skin, whether they know it or not, they can move their purses to the anterior and feel their back pockets as much as they desire, it will simply show me what’s inside of them. I would like to finish by saying “hold on to your purses, and check your pockets white people, there’s a black man behind you” but I won’t because I don’t believe that to be a fair statement to the Spanish/Italian family that welcomed me to their home in my first destination in Spain, Seville. I was a total stranger yet I completely felt like a member of the family, even playing with their children. Thinking back... it is an interesting paradox. I suppose there is a balance somewhere.

From Portugal

Hey A.Z, thanks for the information, it's difficult to find a comprehensive historical account on Somalia. Is your website up and running? Do you contribute to the Wikipedia project? We could use people like you to contribute articles.

^ No apologies needed saxiib. We're here to discuss and learn from one another

Originally posted by ailamos: This INDIVIDUAL civility that, according to you, was present before enlightenment included among other things: witch trials, inquisitions (people 'reporting on their neighbors' alleged heresy), and severe gender inequality (e.g. "every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." - St. Clement). Let's try this one more time: the enlightenment brought "reason" into the equation, people started to be free of religious dogma and had begun to think for themselves. A good example are the debating clubs started to emerge where people discussed a range of issues, something which would not have been possible under the Church where one could not question what God had supposedly stated, whether or not it made sense. Try to think outside your religious box here. I am not arguing that religion brought good things but you have to realize that is also brought bad things to humanity. This is something you (and many other religionists) refuse to acknowledge while you poke your ears with your index fingers and yell "lalalala". The civility of today’s ‘enlightened’ populace includes high cases of rape, alcoholism, murder and paedophilia. See how illogical you’re argument is? Swings and roun****uts as it were. Nor, please stop these statements and generalizations. Needless to say they are both unintelligent and ridiculous. These matters (high cases of rape, alcoholism, murder and paedophilia) were also present at the time of religion, so I don't see what's your point. Again, you’re trying to attach the ‘enlightenment’ to civility as if European people were low down dirty brutes before secularism. Is that what you’re trying to say? I did not insinuate that, that is purely your simplistic generalization. All I said was that people's 'civility' (and I'm getting tired of this word' was guided by what the Church had ordained. There were perfectly civil people before the ‘enlightenment’. This civility came about as a result of most people’s attachment to a religion. Being civil as a person has nothing to do with the ‘enlightenment’ and the separation of Church and state. It originated way before that period. Oh but wait, the world started in the 18th century according to you. Oh boy. Nor, let me satisfy you by saying that people's civility was 'enhanced' be reason after th enlightenment. For the last time, I am not disputing that people were civil before the enlightenment, I am saying that after it they started to use reason and not unquestioning obedience. I am tired of having to keep telling you this so please stop it. Any mention of religion having a good impact on people seems to boil your blood enough that you come out with ill thought out explanations/posts. Like I said, I'm tired of repeating myself over and over so I will just paste what I had said in the previous post which was "I am not arguing that religion brought good things but you have to realize that is also brought bad things to humanity. What you want me to say is that religion brought peace, stability, civility to humanity, which, although true, is simply an incomplete sentence.

Ibti, after re-reading our round-and-round discussion, and after reading what you have written above to LG, I realize that we're not all that divergent but were too defensive and stubborn to see the other's point. You have earned my respect by stating "whether I approve or like or think it is attractive is neither here or there. For this simple reason I will always a support a women option to wear or not wear, and if she does wear it, how she wears it" and that is it outright wrong when the authority makes "something that was at best recommended by scholars or in a hadith compulsory, but they also enforced this notion by force; there by the women had no choice in the matter." This is basically what I have been trying to say, that it's always the woman's choice, not the male authority's, she has the sole responsibility to read and interpret and not succumb to someone else's interpretation. But sadly as the Taliban and Alshabab have shown that certain interpretations are enforced through the barrel of a gun; or as the House of Saud have shown through legislation; or in many Muslim households simply through the male authority. Freedom of choice is a right. If a women freely chooses to wear something without any of the above influences, then I have no problems and would be the first to defend that right. I think I rest my case on this matter. Thank you for a stimulating, albeit at times circular, discussion

Originally posted by *Ibtisam: See my above post, I already told you once my position on man and his urges and who is blamed. I am not the Taliban, never was and never agreed with them, so it is pointless you quoting me what they did or did not do. But aren't they your brothers in Islam who enforce the blanket which you admire so much? Why the drift? Women empowerment is NOT found between their legs or how much/less clothing they wear. It is state of mind enhanced by education and opportunities. You fail to add an important but to this statement... "It is state of mind enhanced by education and opportunities and choice... which is missing... a woman's choice is non-existent. It is not so much that they are not revealed, but that no one carries out these researches and the support system is lacking. As for rape is only reported in the West, yes I agree that they are reported to authorities and more likely to get persecution and support. But as with any crime and even disease, recorded data and investment in research is poor or none existent, so we can never know the true extent. You're sounding like typical apologist. Recorded data and investment in research are widespread in Muslim lands. They just choose not to record certain things because of the shame it will bring them. Opportunity in the key dear, an accompanied female is not a target. As for the clothing, the opportunist wants the easiest and fastest option. As for the mahram, that’s your opinion and not a fact, but after travelling on my own a few times, I see the perfect sense and wisdom in travelling with a male in some societies and if I ever go back to those countries, if I can’t find a mahram to go with me, I will hire a man to pretend to be mine. :rolleyes: Your paranoia is a personal matter to you so I'm not going to comment here. In any case, rape is not that straight forward and in this day where modern science allows the use of advanced techniques to identify the rapist with the highest accuracy from semen, saliva, blood, hair, fibers, skin scraps, bite marks. And if sharia existed, the same man could not rape again. But we don’t live under Sharia anywhere in this world, so our arguments will only remain as ifs and buts. I see that we're staring to accept "modern science" instead of the Islamic "witness" program. If only you would put this though into broader use instead of picking and choosing where and when to apply modern "stuff", then we won't be having this discussion. Are the matters of forensics that you just mentioned in the Quran since according to you it was "revealed for everyone in any time period because Allah was aware that things change". If not, then why use them and stick to the primitive system? It worked then and it will work now too, no? Ibti don't start avoiding the issues here. It would be helpful if you answered my question as to how this verse "does not condone violence" and how "a beating improves the situation" and regarding your contradiction. I don’t have time to spoon feed you; I like how you like to clink to the prevailing Arab culture at the time of the Prophet (PBUH) when it suits you, and yet when I tell you that this ayah was dealing with the needs and the circumstances. As for how it can help; the measures may work in some cases and cultures (the nomadic Somali culture which you admire so much is one of them) and on the same token it is not effective in other cases. In fact the prophet discouraged this measure, "Do not beat the female servants of Allah"; "Some (women) visited my family complaining about their husbands (beating them). These (husbands) are not the best of you." As for how does not condone violence; In Islam if an act is "permissible" it is not required or nor is it forbidden nor is it encouraged. There are many examples, but the one I can think of right now is the issue of Divorce in Islam. You make another baseless assumption... what makes you think I admire the Somali nomadic culture? Besides, I don't "clink" to the culture at that time when it suits me but rather this misogyny is rooted there, it started there and now it's in the Muslim lands. Again, you have not failed to amaze me. The ayah was dealing with the needs and circumstances... so by your admission it is a circumstantial matter and that is exactly what I am getting at here. So many circumstantial things in the Quran have been applied for all circumstances. The fact that a violent act was made "permissible" does not prevent it from being used. This illustrates that there is a need for revision and reflection when it comes to the interpretation. In any case, religion is judged by the scripture Not its followers action, otherwise we'll be here all year talking about what different Muslims do. Oh really? This is a highly illogical statement. Where do the followers get their instructions, inspirations and laws from? Actually you are being illogical here, two different people can never read the same line and understand it the same way, particularly considering the diversity in background and culture. Two people. Two men. Not a man and a woman. You conveniently neglect the matter of influence here. Men control Muslim societies, not women, and their influence is clear in every aspect of Muslim life. From public prayer to the household. Two interesting comments coming from you: "I don’t agree with this and believe that it was revealed for everyone in any time period because Allah was aware that things change and with his wisdom accounted for this." the measures (of the ayah) may work in some cases and cultures (the nomadic Somali culture which you admire so much is one of them) and on the same token it is not effective in other cases. Make up your mind. Reminds me of my philosophy class when the lecturer told me to leave God and such ideas outside the door and pick them up on my way out in an effort to get me on the same ground as everyone else. Same way Cicero, Johnny and I will never be able to discuss religion without meeting at a starting point, and the application is not that place. I like your philosophy professor. It is necessary to be on the same ground and not float in superstition from the onset. I for one am getting tired of this discussion because the circling has already begun.

I'll add the final paragraph of my previous post, so please try not to ignore it this time. Whether you want to admit it or not, it makes reasonable sense. "... the sad part is that a deeply believing (and not reasoning) person would strictly conform to these codifications: they will not steal AND burn people accused of witchcraft. This where reason comes in."

Originally posted by Norfsky: The civility you're referring to has routes in religion does it not?Remember we are talking about INDIVIDUAL civility which, in my opinion, was present before ‘the enlightenment’ and was the result of people taking up religion to be their way of life. ‘Treat thy neighbour well’ and all that as well as, funnily enough, the 10 commandments you’ve just acknowledged. If you’re of a different opinion, feel free to present it to me without the red herrings and aggrieved apostate commentary. This INDIVIDUAL civility that, according to you, was present before enlightenment included among other things: witch trials, inquisitions (people 'reporting on their neighbors' alleged heresy), and severe gender inequality (e.g. "every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman." - St. Clement). Let's try this one more time: the enlightenment brought "reason" into the equation, people started to be free of religious dogma and had begun to think for themselves. A good example are the debating clubs started to emerge where people discussed a range of issues, something which would not have been possible under the Church where one could not question what God had supposedly stated, whether or not it made sense. Try to think outside your religious box here. I am not arguing that religion brought good things but you have to realize that is also brought bad things to humanity. This is something you (and many other religionists) refuse to acknowledge while you poke your ears with your index fingers and yell "lalalala".

Originally posted by Norfsky: Originally posted by Norfsky: Ah, so before 'the enlightenment', Europeans, on an idividual level, were low down dirty mongrels? I see where you're going with this... on a personal level Europeans, instead of being guided by their own reason, were guided exclusively by what the Church had laid down. This guidance included a distinct mentality that if one does not conform to the teaching of the Church then one is deemed a heretic and be put to death or tortured. A similar notion to what we see in the Islamic world today. Is that so? In conclusion, because of the Church, people were un-civil then 'enlightenment' occured and all that changed. Funnily enough I don't think people were savages before 'enlightenment' Norfsky, I don't know why you are making gross generalizations of my comments, the matter is not as simplistic as you make of it. I don't know how you come up with "because of the Church, people were un-civil then 'enlightenment' occured and all that changed. Funnily enough I don't think people were savages before 'enlightenment'", from what I said which was was "on a personal level Europeans, instead of being guided by their own reason, were guided exclusively by what the Church had laid down." The question here is what the guiding force of people's actions was; the Church had it's own methods of introducing 'civility', which, in this case, is synonymous with conformity. And since you asked is 'civility' based on what govenments/establishments do? I would advice you to look at the subject of this thread "The Debate on Religion & the Logic of Submission". What I had stated earlier was that religion has always been a means to make people conform. Now as to the matter of whether 'civility' is based on governments/establishments, then the answer to that is both a yes and a no. Yes, because establishments such as the Church have codified their views on 'civility' for example the 10 commandments and the witch trials; No, because I think it is ultimately the choice of the 'follower' whether to follow these doctrines or reject them. But the sad part is that a deeply believing (and not reasoning) person would strictly conform to these codifications: they will not steal AND burn people accused of witchcraft. This where reason comes in.

Originally posted by *Ibtisam: quote: I think you are confused brother, the ayah you refer to is: "O you who believe! Do not go into the Prophet's rooms except after being given permission to come and eat, not waiting for the food to be prepared, However, when you are called, then go in and when you have eaten, then disperse, and do not remain wanting to chat together. If you do that, it causes injury to the Prophet though he is too reticent to tell you. But Allah is not reticent with the truth. When you ask his wives for something, ask them from behind a screen (33-53) Notice I did not quote that Ayah above for Lazyie- so I don't get what you are asking me, nor is your argument by extension about covering correct, since you picked on the wrong Ayah. Hold on a second here, you're accusing me of confusion because I am quoting what's in the Quran? Tell me you dispute the historical facts of ayah 33:53? If you do then I would love to hear your argument. Not at all, the store is true and well known, I was asking you why you are asking me about this Ayah about privacy when I spoke of Hijab as in covering your cawra. I still don't understand how this ayah supports or not Hijab (as in dressing) and why did you bring it up? Hmmmm... interesting... http://www.islamswomen.com/hijab/virtues_of_hijab.php Originally posted by *Ibtisam: 1) It does what matter what you cover your bosoms with so long as it covers. I am glad we have reach at least one conclusion The less clothes you wear, the more likely men will approach or harass you. You're tied up, or rather welded, into the "system" that it is always the woman's fault. The man has no control over his urges and thus is excused, but the woman, she is the one who must cover-up completely. This statement of yours is very relative because it doesn't have a "bounding box", whether a woman wears a t-shirt and jeans, a skirt and blouse, a diirac, a shalwar kameez or a sari.. she will always be wearing less compared to the full blanket, used by e.g. the Taliban, in order to prevent women from participating in the public sphere as they rightfully should. Religious fundamentalists such as them also view that what they interpret of the Quran is the most accurate interpretation. And unfortunately you fail to see through that. 1) What you refer to as a blanket mockingly I hold in high regards and honestly regard it as blanket from the world. Exactly my point. This is the system's way of sidelining women and keeping them "away from the world", a world that is controlled by men... whether it be religion or otherwise. And since you bring up rape; statistically in the west most rape cases are committed by someone who the women already knew, and yes it is true random rapist often will try to find someone with least clothing or restrictions, looks most venerable and isolated and possible intoxicated (I was once the researcher for government run women's safety Magazine). Although I don't doubt your experience as a researcher, but at least you have numbers from the West, but in a Muslim society these kinds of statistics are not revealed nor are they recorded for that matter. Whatever rape cases are heard of are of Western women... and please don't make me explain why this is because I know you're smart enough to figure it out. So I assure you a random rapist is less likely to pick someone with 5layers of clothing and with her mahram (male family members) I'm amused by your assurance. A rapist will go for anyone if given the opportunity, whether it's 5 layers or not. Please try to see where I'm going with this. You mention the "mahram" which is also another method for the control of women because as they are not competent or intelligent enough to be on their own. They are weak, feeble and need the protection of the male. They are not equals but they are beneath the male and thus they must be controlled and told where, when, and with whom to go. As for your most people will leave you alone if you saw No; while you may not be physically sexually assaulted on the street, Many women are followed and pestered in both Muslim and Non- Muslim societies. I can testify to that, so yes we are verbally harassed and bothered, and yes the level varies with how dressed up we are (rightly or wrongly) and no acknowledge that is not making excuses for immoral men. "By extension" you say? and is that fact? if so please furnish me your proof... please. Is what a fact? that there will be no new prophet? YEs. Or that we are subject to the same religion and conditions- Again YES. I asked if it was a "fact" that what you are saying automatically goes "by extension",I did not question whether or not there will be a new prophet. Okay feel sad all you want, if it is any comfort the four witness have to be people who are normally known for their honest, and secondly they will need to answer to Allah like the rest of us. Rape is very difficult to claim under Sharia because in Islam the burden of proof is on the woman and since her testimony is half that of a man, she's pretty much screwed... again. I guess I will take comfort in knowing that I or my daughters were punished wrongly and Allah will reward them in the hereafter for their suffering. No comment. The reason we have so many problems in our societies is because of this misuse of religion and unfortunately the APPLICATION of the laws of allah unlike the rules themselves are not free from human error. Interesting. This verse neither permits violence nor condones it, while it uses the term "beating" and only applicable in extreme cases and ONLY if one is sure it would improve the situation, if it only worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then no he can't. Furthermore, the prophet expanded on this as "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark" and not on the face. So if my husband was practising Muslim in all aspects and I was in the wrong, then a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush is the least of my worries. And Yes I have no problem with he man being the head of the Family and in charge of ME and his family, while I was living with my parents/family then it is them who are in charge of me. How does this verse not permit violence? and why are you contradicting yourself by stating that it "does not permit violence" and then say that it's "only applicable in extreme cases". And how does violence improve the situation? Are you out of your mind? Violence never improves situations, it only makes them worse. Also, either you are ignorant of the Arabic language or you have no understanding of the meaning of the word "mubarrih", it does not mean "a light tap", as you try to cushion it but rather that does not leave a mark and do you know what? A lot of internal injuries do not show marks on the body... for example a severe punch to the stomach. I don't want to get into this, but I see no contradiction between the Quran and Hadith (You can also read the story of Prophet Ayoub and his wife with regards to this issue if you are really interested), whether you like it or not is irrelevant and beside the point. And no it does not mean physically harm your wife. The culture at the time was to beat your wife severely, the prophet commented on this in the Hadith which goes something along the lines of "how can one of you beat your wife like you beat a thirsty camel and then sleep with them" I don't have time to look for the source now but will do so later for the exact wording. Ibti don't start avoiding the issues here. It would be helpful if you answered my question as to how this verse "does not condone violence" and how "a beating improves the situation" and regarding your contradiction. And this is not about ME, but about Islam. Agreed. In any case, religion is judged by the scripture Not its followers action, otherwise we'll be here all year talking about what different Muslims do. Oh really? This is a highly illogical statement. Where do the followers get their instructions, inspirations and laws from? Cicero: As I keep telling Johnny I am not going to debate about the meaning of an Ayah or its application with someone WHO does not even believe in the authority of the Quran or its validity or a GOD. Kind of pointless really. If you cannot reasonably defend what you believe in, then what is the point of believing? and by reasonably I don't mean "just because it's written here then it MUST be true". What do we teach our children before they go to school... "do not believe what people tell you, but think for yourself and come up with your own conclusions".

Originally posted by Naxar Nugaaleed: Let There Be No Compulsion in Religion ~ The Koran If only...

Originally posted by Norfsky: Ah, so before 'the enlightenment', Europeans, on an idividual level, were low down dirty mongrels? I see where you're going with this... on a personal level Europeans, instead of being guided by their own reason, were guided exclusively by what the Church had laid down. This guidance included a distinct mentality that if one does not conform to the teaching of the Church then one is deemed a heretic and be put to death or tortured. A similar notion to what we see in the Islamic world today.

From Kenya