Originally posted by Baashi: I don't shy away to call spade a spade and the look of it, Ngonge is at fault here and he has been tackling the player instead of the ball quite sometimes now. Drop it saaxiib. Raggu waa shaah waana cadays - the treat is on me. You see, Baashe, here we HAVE what one would call a disagreement (memorise this scene lest you forget what a disagreement looks like). I wouldn't be too sure though that you're calling a 'spade' by its correct name, saaxib. Previous experience tells me that you mistook it for a bulldozer on several occasions. Still, since we’ve regressed to the schoolboy level of discussion. Baashe, o fair headmaster, in my defence, let me tell you that the ‘ball’ was mine to begin with. Surely you’re not saying I left the ball where it was and instead had a lung at Viking? Baashe, saaxib, I have total respect for you but I wish you would not patronise me with all this family and contribution talk. Sometimes, contributions do not meet with people’s approval. That’s to be expected, however, when such contributions are tackled with childish arguments and bad comprehension, I too believe in calling a spade, a spade. My spades are the real garden type (picture provided upon request). I said it before and I’ll say it again, play ball dammit. PS Don't worry yourself about Viking. He's unlikely to provide me with any worthwhile discussion anytime soon. That tiff is over.

Viking, This is the final reply you’re going to get from me on this subject. Read it slowly. NGONGE, No one is trying to censor you or anything you say dude, so chill out! You try to make it look like as if you represent a force of intelligent debate in contrast to those who say "jazakallah khayr" (as if it was something bad ) when responding to a post they benefitted from. Not a force of intelligent debate, no (I doubt if I have such great skills, I merely have the basics). Those that use phrases such as ‘jazakallah’ and the like (the ones I was referring to) mostly go on to prove that they don’t know much about their faith. The affected decoration is what I mock, blind Viking (other than e-mailing you a painting of my meaning, I really don’t know how to get such simple ideas past your stubborn resistance). Affected decoration means: put on, fake, phony, pretend, cantar baqash.. Mullahs, beard-strokers? Muslims ought to speak and think from an Islamic point of view (I know this sounds crazy to your liberated self) and it is inappropriate to call people names (and also unislamic). Muslims aught to speak and think from an Islamic point of view indeed! The beard-strokers and Hijab-adjusters speak out of emotion, ignorance and haste (stop being a tedious child by the way and fully quote me if you’re going to ‘tell me off’ – I talk about fake-mullahs, pseudo-mullahs, artificial-mullahs and not muallhs per se). Viking, if you called me a donkey, you would be calling me names (though I would understand why you might decide to refer to me as such), if you called me fake and proved that I am fake, it does not become an insult, it is simply stating fact. Like the fact that most of your statements when addressed to me are obtuse (calm down, saaxib. At least I didn’t call you a donkey). I am criticising a whole phenomenon here. If you’re really that protective of Islam (and twice as pedantic), why did you not ‘correct’ the brother that claimed some nonsense, which another Nomad wrote was part of the Quran? You were a participant in that thread after all, o Mr unislamic. Will you ever stop being duplicitous, brother? Irshad Manji and Salman Rushdie do make people uneasy and you knew pretty darn well when you used her (Ms Manji) opinions and claimed that "she had a point". You like controversy but lack the balls to take responsibility for what you exude. So? What’s your point, caller? It sounds to me as if you’re saying that because some comments make people ‘uneasy’ such comments should not be discussed (now, you’ll come back and say it’s not censorship). What exactly is your point? Rushdie and Manji wrote stuff about Islam, I posted the stuff and asked you to discuss them. If it makes you feel uneasy, stay away. Though, if that were the only reason you would stay away, it wouldn’t say much about your wisdom and adulthood (little girls allow things that make them uneasy to overwhelm all their thinking, Viking). I’ll return to reading comprehension once more (at least you’ve accepted it now). Viking, regardless of what is written on your screen, regardless of how uneasy it makes you and how nonsensical you think it is; still, always deal with the argument and not the arguer, saaxib. I know you’re a football fan so let me give you a football analogy. Imagine playing a game of football against some skilful Brazilian. He’s running rings around you. He’s flipping the ball over you, under you and through you. Nonetheless, you’re coping with him ok. Someone whispers in your ears that this opponent is gay! Will you still play the ball or will you decide to play the man, saaxib? In all your ‘arguments’ thus far, you’ve been playing the man and not the ball (Irshad manji is this, Salaman Rushdie is that). This whole spat is childish and I regret having fallen into it, however, my shock at your inability to read brings me back again and again. Show improvement and I’ll come back once more. But if you repeat the same thing, this reply should suffice. Just read it slowly like I told you.

^^^^ Yet another example of gibberish that its author mistakes for an argument! You’re not ‘agreeing’ to ‘disagree’, saaxib. You chose another path altogether. Starbucks being gay or not is one argument. The ‘philosophers’ you speak of are having another. You started a third (all by yourself) and decided to use the tired and tedious cliché of ‘agreeing’ to ‘disagree’. Who, pray tell, are you agreeing or disagreeing with? ...and people wonder why I get all haughty and uptight in this place. 99% of discussions in this place are below the level of the high school debating society (this includes many of mine by the way). People are getting lazy and spraying us with their trying nonsense. I really don’t mean to offend (though I believe it to be a necessary evil here) but I refuse to accept that posts such as the one above have any place next to the words of Castro, Mutakalim and Critica. Still, it would not surprise me if some eloquent buffoon retaliated with humbug arguments about equality, freedom of speech and some such nonsense. :mad:

^^^ There is no point, saaxib. When it comes to serious debates, I want to debate with like-minded people. People that I would learn from or those that would help me to see things from a different angle. Those that I believe to be of a lesser level of understanding, knowledge or comprehension I needn't waste my time ‘educating’. Experience tells me that this is a thankless task and that people with the blinkers fully switched on are never likely to ‘learn’. Still, I’m an optimist and know that if you knock a door long enough someone eventually opens up. I don’t think this thread is worth pursuing because, after reading my contributions (I even referred to that Irshad Manji thread) and my opinions you still asked me what I think the silent majority should do (it makes me wonder if you actually read either of these threads). At least you were one step ahead off Xiin, who just rehashed old arguments and did not deal with the points I raised. The perplexing thing here is that I don’t regard either of you as obtuse or lacking understanding. Maybe it’s just religious topics that do this to you! At any rate, this topic has been tarnished now and I doubt it could be resurrected by either of us. Should someone present us with new arguments, I’ll be sure to return. In the meantime, I’ll beg your pardon and politely decline from entering into another of those cul-de-sac argument.

Viking, Dry your eyes out, saaxib. That last post was something even a fifteen-year-old girl with a hormone imbalance would be ashamed of writing (at least Xiin hid his little digs behind a story). Are most of the artificial-mullahs on here anything but what I said? What reasonable person tried to engage me from an ‘Islamic point of view’ and was rejected? Other than Nur, Mutakalim (stop shaking that head, saaxib) and Xiin (when he wants to be serious and stop the duplicitous nonsense) I have not come across any knowledgeable or reasonable Mullahs in here. Yet, one can’t move for these damn beard-strokers and Xijaab-adjusters! As for using the arguments of Irshad (I’ve used her articles long enough, I now feel I could call her by her first name) and Salman Rushdie, what exactly is wrong with that? You are talking nonsense, Viking. This is worse than not being able to read! This is censorship. I can’t help it. I am going to have to rant again. Here comes another long reply. The owners of this site have banned the use of tribe names, use of bad language and direct insults in the hope that such rules will help in improving the quality of the site and differentiate it from other vulgar places. This was a form of positive censorship. I believe that such rules only serve to hide the dust under the carpet but nonetheless appreciate the chance to read posts without seeing any four-letter words or direct attacks on tribes and people. It’s a form of censorship I can live with (alas it does nothing when it comes to improving quality). Your type of censorship on the other hand, is something I can’t accept. The irony of course is that you’re too duplicitous to even make it as a fake-mullah! I assumed this was a public site and that public topics could be discussed here. I could easily write a long post about the devil and all his tricks and manners without being censored. In fact, many beard-strokers will over do it with the ‘jazaka Allah’, ‘baraka Allah’ and ‘axsant’ praise. Yet, if I quote Irshad you all act as if I urinated on your prayer mats! Come out of your mosque confinement and look around you, saaxib. Such opinions and arguments are out there in the real world. Your attitude towards them and childish censorship is what overworked mothers say to their two-year-olds when they’ve done something wrong; ceeb, ceeb, ceeb! At least the mother can claim to be overworked when one asks her why did she not explain the reasons things are considered ‘ceeb’. You have no excuse. You want topics and discussions stopped simply because YOU don’t like them! The more you write, the worse it gets. Get your act together or just stop wasting my time, Viking.

Great article, Baashe. However, it really does not address the problems we face here in the West. As I already said in my first post, there is an abundance of writers, scholars, intellectuals and fraudsters in the Muslim world. The debate there has been (from the days of Jamal-El-Deen Al Afghani and Mohamed Abdo) and is still raging in those parts of the world. I have come across great articles by Egyptian, Jordanian, Kuwaiti and North African writers (of all walks of life and all ideologies/political persuasions and religious sects). They all speak about the Muslim Ummah in general and the assumptions they make as they build their various hypothesis is that Muslims are in charge of their own destinies and can rule themselves. All well and good if you lived in Muslim lands. However, most of it does not apply to you and me in our daily lives. You say that you are not interested in what Rushdie has to say because he’s a hypocrite. You have been lucky enough to have been around when the row over Rushdie’s book exploded in the late eighties/early nineties. Like me, you probably eagerly followed the news back then and knew all that was needed to be known about Rushdie and his Satanic Verses (I will bet though that you have not read the book). Having been there and seen the events unfold, you have strong feelings about Rushdie and his ‘hypocrisy’. Hence, why you feel justified in rejecting all that he says. However, the majority of the Muslims in the West are not you and I. Many don’t even know about Rushdie’s background (it has been almost 18 years since his book was first published and the first murmurs of disapproval heard). The issue is not one of being impressed with Rushdie’s ability to write, not for me anyway, for I don’t agree with the man’s ideas to begin with. I don’t agree with his ideas because I know better. I don’t agree with him because I have the education and knowledge (albeit basic) to rightfully reject some of his arguments (he makes sense in parts). The issue is for others to be impressed with Rushdie’s words. I shudder to think what a sporadically educated Western Muslim will make of such words (assuming that the artificial-mullahs didn’t get him/her first). The article itself already carries letters of encouragement from some UK Muslims who liked Rushdie’s previous piece about Islam. Try to read the piece again in that light and not how it relates to you then let us begin this debate, saaxib. PS To say that opinions vary, people disagree and not everyone follows the same line of thinking is to state the obvious, saaxib. You have your occasional faults but (usually) stating the obvious is not one of them. Am I to assume that this was a gentle telling off then? I’m afraid I’ll have to lecture you again, saaxib. Have the goodness to bare with me as I rant. Baashe, if I say to you that the sky is blue and you tell me that it is cloudy, we have a disagreement. We might use the power of sight to SEE if it is indeed blue or cloudy. It is possible that even with the naked eye we would still struggle to decide if the sky is blue or cloudy. I might decide that it is more blue than cloudy and therefore it is blue. You might decide that it is cloudier than blue and therefore it is cloudy. Though it’s trivial, this is what I consider to be a disagreement, having different opinions or a different line of reasoning on the SAME issue. When I tell you that the sky is blue and you decide to argue about the shortage of rain and blame the ozone layer or some such nonsense, I’m forced to conclude that your reading comprehension abilities are wanting. Those I accuse of having appalling reading capacities have proved me right time and again. Those I’ve accused of being emotional have been blubbering all over the site since the day it was opened. This place is an online version of a Somali coffee shop. When I go to one of those and am faced with some simpleton spouting nonsense in my direction and expecting me to engage him in a non-existent debate, I would normally put him down and mock him mercilessly. Will you call it arrogance? So be it. Moreover, I’m an adult, a grownup and a responsible person. I don’t debate with kids. I either teach them or tell them off (the latter has been taking place on SOL quite often lately). In this place, one can’t guess the ages of the Nomads (they could be eight or eighty for all I know). However, one can and should always judge them by the words they write and the debates they put forward. Many here attempt to punch above their weight and fail miserably. I said it before and say it again, this is not due to a lack of intelligence on their part. This is due to un-harnessed emotions, uncultivated minds and the enemy of all men, HASTE. If you give me reason to think you suffer from bad reading skills, I shall not mince my words and waste my time and yours by engaging you in endless argument. I shall tell you to work on your reading before attempting to take part in serious debates. The rules of the site might forbid personal attacks, however, in this case, nothing but a personal attack will suffice. If one points out to a deaf man that the wax build-up is what’s causing his deafness, one is doing the deaf man a service methinks.

^^^ These sorts of posts do not help at all, Baashe. I wish you would not fall into such traps, saaxib. Sometimes, emotions and strong feelings about a subject blinkers one’s vision and stops them from seeing things for what they are or how they were presented. If we sympathise (and in this case I speak for myself) we do because the person is making sense and providing a reasonable argument (right or wrong is not even the point here). Many ignore the ‘argument’ and waste their time second-guessing the ‘arguer’s’ beliefs, motives and goals. He’s there, right in front of you and ripe for the picking, Baashe. Take him on and don’t waste your time on what the sympathisers think or don’t think. To tell the truth, I personally still don’t know where Castro stands on this issue and how he reconciles his views with Islam (the slippery slope he talks about). I don’t know it because to ask him such questions in this atmosphere will only make it look like I’m joining in the witch-hunt. In addition, those opposing him have not really pushed him in that direction (even though that is EXACTLY the reason for their quarrel with him). It really is time the pseudo-mullahs (I don’t include Baashe in this group) learned to debate. Even though it is a shame that such a debate will start on such a pointless topic, something is better than nothing I suppose. Do you think you can take him on without resorting to covering your ears with your hands and shouting the words “xaram xaram xaram� He already conceded that fact, see. I stated an opinion which is based on some research, not a lot but enough to steer me in that direction. I'm of the school of thought that environment and anatomy, among other factors, cause homosexuality. Is it immoral? According to Islam, yes . Is it a sin? Again, Islam forbids it . Why? Allah's decree . I'm not evaluating the morality of it, that has already been done, just the nature of it. Consequently, believing that something is natural leads one to wonder if the sin associated with it is justified. But that's a slippery slope and one I choose not slide down. However, even if it were proven anatomical and genetic, Islam still forbids it . Whether it is an excess or a natural compulsion, I will not pass judgement on anyone engaging in it for that is not my place. You have passed enough judgment for the both of us. Why is my concurrence important to you ? Play ball, dammit..

^^^^As I stated already, the whole topic is pointless and not one I’d stoop to really discuss. However, I never hid my dislike for my fellow Somalis and their superior attitude. Whenever I see manifestations of such an attitude, I sadistically enjoy bringing them back to earth and throwing the mud in their faces. Now, stop trying to be so fair and reasonable here and join me in sneering at the following people who wrote these great gems (mutually exclusive, my dacas). Aeronwen Member: 178 posted September 12, 2005 04:11 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sickening. liibaan Member: 5258 posted September 12, 2005 05:38 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm not surprised.This is India,after all... Naku Penda Piya Member: 3669 posted September 12, 2005 06:02 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Indians and their vicious customs The following deserves a quote of it's own: Animal Farm Member: 2186 posted September 12, 2005 06:11 AM -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I remember seeing this documentary on the mentally ill in Africa and how they get treated, they tie them up in public and people harass them, or some cultures believe the mentally ill are possessed , so they chained them up in the jungle only bring food to them occasionally. Truly, this is an ignorant act – at least in Somalia the mentally ill aren’t being harassed or locked up, and yes there are many of them . A friend of mine who recently came back from there was telling he had this crazy guy chasing him throughout the town asking him for money, and the guy even threatened him to sh!t on their car --- was that guy crazy, maybe a hustling scheme, nonetheless, treating the mentally ill in inhumane manner is unacceptable . Grrrrrr :mad:

I notice that most people have missed out Djibouti’s generous donation of $50000 to the American cause. In other news (waxa la yedhi) that the government of his Excellency Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed have also offered to help the United States in its hour of need. In a long and elaborate speech delivered to the journalists of the world, the president sought to compare the tragedy besetting America today to the one that’s been crippling Somalia for the past fifteen years. He started by talking about the chaos, death and despair. He talked about the need for strong leadership and steady resolve. He cleverly contrasted the floods engulfing New Orleans to the flood submerging Somalia (him). He concluded that mischievous comparison with a chuckle and repeated the old age maxim of one man’s meat being another man’s poison. His Excellency the president praised the efforts of the countries that sprang to the aid of the United States of America. He told of his amazement at the expertise of the Cuban doctors, the discipline of the Mexican soldiers and the calmness of the Egyptian rescue-workers. With what seemed like neighbourly banter, he praised Djibouti for its very large donation of $50,000 and used it as an example to other bigger and larger nations to also donate to this cause. He spoke of the temporary negative impact such a large donation will have on the economy of Djibouti, yet still praised that selfless country for answering the American calls for help. President Yusuf is a very meticulous man. He made sure that he spoke about every country that made a donation to the United States of America. He marvelled at all their efforts. However, (and here, most people that are familiar with this great man would have anticipated the sting in the tail) President Yusuf said that none of these efforts were of that much benefit to the United States. Like the wise man he’s always been, he reminded everyone that America was the sole superpower in this world. That it was the richest, strongest and most organised. However, he also spoke about its naivety when it comes to natural disasters and the way to deal with them. In one of those sentences that are usually quoted and repeated by the masses when great men utter them, he said ‘America does not know everything, only Allah does’! While everyone was lost in thought and looking up in awe at the great man, he amazed them further by suggesting the most obvious of ideas. With hindsight of course, we say such an idea is obvious. However, if his Excellency did not suggest it, it would have stayed in the recesses of his mind and the world would not have benefited from such great wisdom. Be that as it may, the idea is now out and President Yusuf’s name will, once again, enter the history books with yet another great thought. This idea was so simple, so cunning and so ingenious that most present journalists agreed (as if lowly assent was needed) that Mr Yusuf was the wisest man alive. Seeing the level of devastation and lawlessness in New Orleans reminded Mr Yusuf of his very own capital. He recounted his feelings as he watched those people shooting at the police on TV. He told of his anger as the looters were shown walking away with other people’s goods. He wiped a tear as he thought of the killing, rape and abuse. All of a sudden, there was a twinkle in his eye and a naughty look in his face as he eulogised the abilities, organisation and greatness of the Somalis of the capital Mogadishu. He then stood up. All the journalists stood up with him. He looked far into the distance and started speaking. He was not speaking to the journalists anymore. He was not speaking to the Somalis and he was not speaking to himself. Mr Yusuf was talking directly to America. He told them that he’s not going to send them money. He’s not going to send them medical supplies. He’s not going to send them doctors or nurses. He told America in general and New Orleans in particular, that he’s going to send them ROAD BLOCK experts. There shall be no more looting, he said. Peace will return and New Orleans will be back again on its feet. Mr Yusuf then turned back to the awed journalists and told them that he’s sending 50,000 of these roadblock experts (along with their leaders). He looked back into the distance and whispered words of encouragement to America before blessing them all and refusing to accept any thanks for his efforts. The journalists, the Somalis and everyone else wondered why other world leaders did not have a similar aura as this great man! Some worried that the Americans, after seeing the success of his idea, might decide to headhunt him.

This is why Somalis are always happy despite all the trials and tribulations. We have the memory of a goldfish. The story of this Indian woman is pretty trivial really and not worth commenting on. Besides, they have not even investigated the reasons and truthfulness of her incarceration. Come, come my fellow indignant Somalis. Never mind the Indians and their ‘despicable’ practises. Have a look at these pretty people: It's for their own good...

The above should be read alongisde the following this thread. Mr Rushdie is back. He’s firing on all cylinders and sprinkling his article with lots of sense and wisdom. In fact, if one sets emotions to one side and reads the article with an ‘open mind’, one is bound to concede the man’s ability to reason and convince. Still, those with a grasp superior to that of a ten-year-old when it comes to reading and writing, would also recognize that being able to reason and convince does not equal being right (it’s a real shame that one has to make such qualifications in every piece one writes, but, such is the nature of discourse in this place). There are many problems facing the Muslim world today. There are many more facing Muslims in the West. Writers, intellectuals and scholars in the Muslim world are conducting their own debates on all issues concerning Muslims (there are even Doctors and Professors being imprisoned in Saudi Arabia and other places for daring to voice opinions incompatible with the official line). These same lights are also discussing the problems facing the Muslims in the West and offering opinions, solutions and fatwas. The vast majority of them have not lived in the West and do not understand nor appreciate the intricacies involved in living in such environment. Many offer solutions that are the exact carbon copy of those being applied in (predominantly) Muslim lands! Round holes and square pegs spring to mind. In the West, Muslim opinions are divided right down the middle. One group rejects all solutions, ideas and thoughts that are different to Muslim conventional wisdom. Islam is perfect, they say. The problem is with the people. People should come back to the way of Allah and everything will be fine! Though the advice is great, it is not a practical solution to the problems facing Muslims in the West today. Still, regardless of how many times one shouts, there is no convincing the pseudo-mullahs. The other group, are those that completely bought the secular dream. They decided to shed the cultural aspects of Islam (and in their eyes that is almost everything). They chose to keep their faith, belief and spirituality private. With some, it’s so private that one only finds out that these people are Muslim when they occasionally condescend to transmit such a well-hidden secret. Within each of these groups, there are huge numbers of people that know this is not the ideal situation or place to be in. They realise and are amazed at the folly of the pseudo-mullahs. They despise the excesses of the ‘designer’ Muslims. However, at every turn, they’re confronted with these two choices and almost forced to pin their flags to one of these crooked masts! Many of these people suffer from rabble-rouser fatigue. They don’t want to hear the same old rhetoric about the West and how it seeks to corrupt our young, poison our souls and dilute our faith. Most have heard this a million times before and fully understand these arguments. A good number reject such rhetoric. However, they also reject the rhetoric of the secularists, liberals and faithless. This is unlikely to remain the case for too long though. The Mullahs (pseudo or otherwise) mainly reside in mosques, Muslim countries or (specifically) Islamic websites. Their messages, arguments and ideas are only seen by those that actively seek them out. And even when one does seek them out, they (mostly) leave a lot to be desired. The other group is mainstream. One sees them at work, school and on TV. They spread the message of tolerance (which is a great message by the way), peace (another great message) and understanding (how could such people ever go wrong?). They recruit figures from all over the Muslim world to help them further their objectives. In addition, they use people like Salman Rushdie (above), Irshad Manji and the like. People that (despite their deviations) are of a similar background to Western Muslims and have (had) similar experiences, faced similar obstacles and ruminated on similar thoughts! Their articles seem to be appearing on newspapers on a daily bases now. They manage to appear on regular news programs and even talk their way into presenting their own documentaries about Islam. This constant bombardment (one that uses good logic, coherent arguments and fair analysis) slowly chips at the will of western Muslims and creates cracks in their stubborn resistance. The Mullah’s (artificial ones mainly) meanwhile, wring their hands, promise hell fire and pat each other’s back for their own steadfastness and indefatigability! Is it not time that the ‘silent majority’ stood up to both groups. Should we not (depending on what side you find yourself leaning towards) air our own opinions on the subject and why we think one side is correct or why we reject one (or both)? Read Rushdie’s piece above! If you disagree with it, can you possibly challenge it without appearing like a child having a tantrum or a half-wit? Could you present an acceptable argument without sounding like a hypocrite? Good. That’s what needs to be done. The man said, let there be light..

Salman Rushdie A FEW weeks ago, in an article written in response to the London bombings, I wrote about the urgent need for a “reform movement to bring the core concepts of Islam into the modern ageâ€. The response to this article has been widespread and extremely interesting. Naturally there were those who rushed to dismiss my arguments because they came out of my mouth. “The man who lost his personality and beliefs should not speak about the great religion of Islam,†wrote Anna Tanha, of Glasgow. However, there was an encouraging flood of more positive commentary, much of it coming from Muslims. “Absolutely right; it is time Muslims accepted that it is Islam’s 8th-century attitudes that are causing so much suffering in the 21st-century world,†wrote Mohammed Iqbal, who comes from Leeds, home of three of the 7/7 bombers. “Please keep dogma aside and let reason be part of the debate. We believers have done enough to harm ourselves. What European monarchs and clergy did in the Dark and Middle Ages is exactly what Muslim rulers and clergy are doing to the Muslim world,†argued Nadeem Akhtar, from Washington, DC. Ozcan Keles, of London, insisted that only “faith-based Muslim leaders†could perform the act of Quranic reinterpretation known as ijtihad, but Haroon Amirzada, a former lecturer at Kabul University, felt that “secular Islamic and non-Islamic Western and Eastern scholars and politicians should work together to modernise Islam to meet the realities of our timeâ€. Dr Shaaz Mahboob, of Hillingdon, Middlesex, pointed out that: “There are hundreds of thousands of Muslims in Britain who do not follow their religion as strictly as do the older generations . . . We are the mainstream Muslims who are keen to live in peace and harmony with other faith groups, feel proud of being British and are patriotic . . . I know of no organisation that represents the secular and liberal Islam that the vast majority of Muslims follow.†Several writers challenged me to take the next step and hypothesise the content of such a reform movement. The nine thoughts that follow form an initial response to that challenge, and focus primarily on Britain. It may well be that reform will be born in the Muslim diaspora where contact (and friction) between communities is greatest, and then exported to the Muslim majority countries. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened. The idea of Pakistan was shaped in England, too. So were the history-changing characters of Mahatma Gandhi, Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the pro-British Indian Muslim leader Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. British Muslims, who are mainly of South Asian origin, should remember their own histories. In India, Muslims have always been secularists, knowing that India’s secular constitution is what protects them from the dictatorship of the (Hindu) majority. British Muslims should take a leaf out of their counterparts’ book and separate religion from politics. Remembering history, part 2. Within living memory, Muslim cities such as Beirut and Tehran were cosmopolitan, tolerant, modern metropolises. That lost culture must be saved from the radicals, celebrated, and rebuilt. The idea that all Muslims are kin to all others should be re-examined. The truth is that, as the bitter divisions between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias demonstrate, it is a fiction, and when it deludes young men such as the British 7/7 bombers into blowing up their own country in the name of an essentially fantastical idea of Islamic brotherhood (few British Muslims would find life in conservative Muslim countries tolerable), it is a dangerous fiction. Pan-Islamism, part 2: the people most directly injured by radical Islam are other Muslims: Afghan Muslims by the Taleban, Iranian Muslims by the rule of the ayatollahs; in Iraq, most people killed by the insurgency are Muslims, too. Yet Muslim rhetoric concentrates on the crimes of “the Westâ€. It may be that Muslims need to re-direct their rage against the people who are really oppressing and killing them. In the 1970s and 1980s the politics of British peoples of South Asian origin were largely organised around secular groups, mostly run by activists of Left-Marxist persuasion. The Black/Asian unity of that period was broken, and then replaced, by the mosque-based, faith-determined radical Islam that grew in part out of the protests against The Satanic Verses. That ground needs to be reclaimed (not necessarily by Left-Marxists) by creating truly representative bodies. Then the increasingly discredited “leaders†of the Muslim Council of Britain can be relegated to the fringes where they belong. Reformed Islam would reject conservative dogmatism and accept that, among other things, women are fully equal to men; that people of other religions, and of no religion, are not inferior to Muslims; that differences in sexual orientation are not to be condemned, but accepted as aspects of human nature; that anti-Semitism is not OK; and that the repression of free speech by the thin-skinned ideology of easily-taken “offence†must be replaced by genuine, robust, anything-goes debate in which there are no forbidden ideas or no-go areas. Reformed Islam would encourage diaspora Muslims to emerge from their self-imposed ghettoes and stop worrying so much about locking up their daughters. It would emerge from the intellectual ghetto of literalism and subservience to mullahs and ulema, allowing open, historically based scholarship to emerge from the shadows to which the madrassas and seminaries have condemned it. There must be an end to the defensive paranoia that led some Muslims to claim that Jews were behind the 9/11 attacks and, more recently, that Muslims may not have been behind the 7/7 bombings either (a crackpot theory exploded, if one may use the verb, by the recent al-Jazeera video). Not so much a reformation, as several people said in response to my first piece, as an Enlightenment. Very well then: let there be light. Source

Originally posted by Kashafa: Abti , Isn't it telling that after 6 pages, you're perhaps the only Nomad not to venture an opinion ? Rail agaisnt Viking, Knock Kashafa, and Chummy-Chum-Chum with Castro, all that begs the question: where's the beef ? For or Against ?( Or haunted by the phrase he coined: Obtuse Fence-Sitter. Karma, Abti, Karma ) You call me a Pseudo-Mullah for opposing homosexuality for *check this* religous reasons . That could actually be a prime candidate for Most Idiotic Comment of the year come December '05 and we're doing the annual SOL dig-up-dirt thread. But I digress. Aight, Fine. Where do you stand ? Please do tell. Or Bounce. Silence on an issue this grave is akin to assent. No, I'm not implying you're a 'Bikrah' Oh! There you go again, kid. The writings in coffee cups are not a grave issue. The vendors can promote as many benders as they like, son. As for homosexuality, I realise that at your age, this whole area of discussion is alien and new to you, but I assure you it’s not to me. I’ve probably made up my mind on it when you were in nappies, son (assuming that you‘re the fifteen-year-old boy you keep pretending to be). STOP! Before letting that idea form in your head and start dreaming up the killer reply that you just thought off, let me give you more fuel. A couple of years ago, while standing at a bus stop waiting for a bus; I got chatted up and asked out by a very pretty gay man. He was nervous as he fluttered his eyelashes at me and asked me if I wanted to go for a coffee with him (wonder if he had Starbucks in mind:D). I politely declined and told him that, as a Muslim, I was forbidden from playing for the other team. He looked horrified when he heard the M word. Ok, my story is done. You can stop shaking your head at the screen and prepare one of your typical schoolboy replies predicting Armageddon and promising that if such a thing would ever happen to you, you would stab your eyes (and his) out with a Starbucks fork. This reminds me, were you a member of SOL when I told them about my gay dog? Yes, I didn’t just own a dog (filthy animal) it was also a homosexual dog.

Shams, Saaxib, take a very deep breath as you read these words and cleanse your heart of any anger. For this time (and this time only) I’m going to curb my natural tendency and try to be gentle with my advice. The Quran is, for us Muslims, the word of Allah. We respect it, revere it and some overexcited people even kill or die if they hear a single bad word uttered against it. When we quote words and phrases as being part of the Quran we mean EXACTLY those words and phrases. We don’t mean words of a similar meaning, similar goal or close description. What modesty wrote were her OWN words, but you (being human) told Juba that those were not her words but verses from the holy book! That’s the beauty of humans, we make mistakes. We will always make mistakes. I’m pretty certain that this was not an intentional mistake. However, I also am sure that most of the mistakes that are made on this section are a result of haste and excitement. None of us really have to reply to threads the minute we read them. If you know (and I’m not talking to Shams alone here) that you’re the type that easily loses his/her cool then it is better that you take your time when you read any posts on SOL. It’s even much better if you give it some time before replying. I know that I personally could have replied to you straightaway and made all sorts of wild accusations, saaxib. But, I also know that most of it would get us nowhere and I’d be as wrong and hasty as you were (these words are said in the most temperate way you could think of). As for the topic and your challenge, I suggested that you read my ‘bad habits’ thread because I believe I was addressing the same problems there. I don’t think such bad habits are limited to living in the Western world. People pick bad habits EVERYWHERE. Still, my opposition to the article was not in its intention. I don’t at all doubt the author’s intentions. Like you, I also believe he meant well. I however, totally disagree with his tone and attitude. It’s very patronising, paranoid and weak. He assumes that his readers are half-wits that require scare-mongering and harsh words in order to realise that they live in non-Muslim lands and that some of the practices of the people of these lands are not compatible with Islam! It is not a matter of knowledge, experience or intelligence. In fact, it’s not even about being right or wrong. It’s all about attitude and delivery. In all of my replies on Islamic matters, I always try to avoid quoting verses from the Quran or throwing about random ahadeeth. It’s not because I can’t, don’t know any or are not able to fit them into my arguments. I don’t do it because I’d rather use my own words and make mistakes on those alone instead of misleading others by using a verse or hadeeth out of context. On the odd occasions that I use those sources, I still don’t quote any. Rather, I hint and refer the reader to a story, occasion or situation that would lead him/her to the hadeeth or verse I have in mind. This (one hopes) will allow him/her to go and read it in it’s correct context (should he/she decide to take it out of context, it is their mistake and not mine). On this occasion, I shall invite you all to go read the Almighty's words when sending Nabi Musa to speak to the wicked pharaoh. While you’re at it, read the story of Nabi Musa and Alkhadar. Observe the interaction, check out the haste (of a Nabi no less!) and see the importance of patience. See how not all things are the way they seem to be at first sight and see how sometimes those you deem less knowledgeable than you might turn out to know much more than you do! (For the avoidance of doubt, I am not talking about myself or any single person on SOL here. This is general). Islam is an easy faith. It’s not rigid, harsh or unkind. When it first arrived, it was delivered in the most benevolent of ways and that is how it always continued. To turn it into an angry, confrontational and hostile faith now will mislead many and repel most. Softening one’s words does not mean softening one’s principles. On the other hand, constant aggression and harshness is most likely to eventually erode on one’s values. For hasty words and hasty actions are rarely ever wise and reasonable. I also invite you to reacquaint yourself with the verses below. Surat Al Naxal (125 to 127) Surat Aal Cumran (159)

^^^^^^ Originally posted by NGONGE: If you stay focused and don’t get distracted by his unbelievable and genius-like logic, you will remember that his opposition to homosexuality is religiously based (as evidenced by his continued use of the phrase qoom luut). Religiously based! These Pseudo-mullahs crack me up. They’ll use anything and everything to further their own agenda. Son. Decide what game you're going to play. Are you going to be a fake Mullah or are you going to play the Viking game of 'cause and effect and everything being relative'? It’s either you have absolute convictions and play the narrow-minded game that you play so well or you loosen up and play Castro at his game. Mix and match is no good, my dear teenager. Viking That's the best thread to help you get rid of your gremlins, saaxib. Give it a try.

I’m happy to report that I managed to train my Mrs on all these points apart from number eight. I would love to be able to moan about work and life while I’m having my dinner but I can’t. She’s too busy clearing up and preparing the salty water for my tired feet. I’ve given her until the end of the year to get her act together. Her family have also been informed.

^^^ He didn't lie. He just answered a question that was never asked.

Jim Fisher-Thompson Washington, DC Uganda has joined other African nations responding to devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina with a donation of $200,000 for relief and rebuilding efforts in New Orleans and communities along the Gulf of Mexico coast. Visiting Ugandan Foreign Minister Sam Kutesa told the Washington File September 7 that the government of President Yoweri Museveni and the people of Uganda "feel with you and sympathize with you at this time of sorrow. We know you have lost dear ones, as well as considerable property. And we want Americans to know we are thinking of them and are standing shoulder to shoulder with them." The official made a point of mentioning the donation was not just a pledge but that the money would be transferred immediately to the Bush-Clinton Katrina fund. Hurricane Katrina struck the U.S. Gulf Coast August 29. The storm and subsequent flooding have devastated parts of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama and left thousands homeless. A statement released by the Ugandan Embassy September 8 announcing the donation quoted Museveni as saying, "The United States has been generous in responding to natural and humanitarian disasters all over the world, including in Africa. Uganda has more than once been the beneficiary of this generosity and justice requires us to aid the people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama who have lost their homes and loved ones." President Bush named his father, a former president, and former President Bill Clinton to head up fund-raising efforts for reconstruction that may cost more than $150 billion. The hope is they can duplicate their very successful fund-raising efforts for victims of the devastating tsunami that struck South Asia in December 2004. (See related article.) Kutesa said, "We know that under the guidance of the two former presidents money will go where it is needed most and where it can be used best." Uganda joins other African nations contributing to Katrina relief including: Djibouti, $50,000; Gabon, $500,000; and Kenya, $100,000. Noting the symbolic value of the Uganda donation matched against the immense sums needed for reconstruction, Kutesa told the Washington File, "America has been very generous in helping Uganda fight HIV/AIDS and developing its economy. So it is only right that we try to help as much as we can. We wish we could do more but we are limited." Kutesa said, "We know what human tragedy can mean. Unfortunately in Africa much of it has been man-made instead of natural. The human tragedies of Idi Amin and Milton Obote, for example, led to the deaths of more than 800,000 Ugandans" in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Now, he said, Uganda is one of the best friends America has in Africa and "we look forward to strengthening our relations as we both cope with the aftermath of disasters that have struck our countries." Kutesa's next stop in America is New York City, where he said he will participate in the annual United Nations General Assembly meeting the week of September 13-17. President Museveni plans to attend with a number of other African leaders. A highlight of the U.N. gathering, Kutesa said, will be a meeting of the foreign ministers of the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda and Uganda in a tripartite peace process for eastern Congo begun two years ago with the help of the U.S. State Department. After Burundi recently joined, the Great Lakes peace effort is now called the "3 plus 1" talks. (The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov) Source

Originally posted by juba: quote:Originally posted by Shams-ud-Din: P.S. Juba, your lack of Qur'anic understanding horrifies me! In fact what you're doubting here are verses from the Qur'aan, and not merely Modesty's opinion! WHAT? that's in the Quran? my bad i just personally don't see that around thats all not doubting the quran. Is that it? You took his words as being true? quote:Originally posted by Modesty: [QB] They have no love for you, they seek to convert your children and they hope to eradicate Islam. Your kidding right? Come on Modesty lets be realistic here because i don't think im the only one who highly doubts that! The above was your question. It was a valid question. Our hasty Mullah told you off for asking it. Don't you think the least you could have done was to ask him to tell you WHERE in the quran were those exact words found? PS Shams, read my 'bad habits' thread, saaxib. It deals with your 'challange'.

Viking, to engage you would be a waste of my time and yours. I’ve been generous enough to explain things once already on this topic and I’d be a half-wit if I allowed you to drag me into a pointless discussion about what is very obvious to anyone with the ability to read basic English. I repeat my advice about working on your reading. PS Kashafa would not know morbid humour if it laughed loudly in his face, saaxib. The boy is 100% earnest when he pens those thoughts (I’m telling you this because this is more to do with observation than reading. Work on that area too, saaxib).

Ah! Nostalgia! My first ever job was a volunteer worker here. I worked with them between the ages of 15 to 18. This was my best ever experience and so far, nothing in life has topped it. On my last month with them, I had, along with two other volunteers, to accompany a group of 30 disabled children to Cumra. I’m yet to meet a person who did more ‘tawaaf’ than I did back then( had to look after ten kids). We spent the first twenty days of Ramadan there, and were only forced to go back home for the last ten days because some of the children started to miss their parents. My second job was in Soho (England). I was a controller for a dodgy cab office on weekends. I got to know half of the prostitutes in that area (shush you sniggering Mullahs at the back, the customer is always right). I also got to know most of the drug dealers, drag queens and police officers. I quit when my Nigerian boss got greedy and asked me to wait outside theatres and tout for business. ** Does a Radio Raheem soliloquy **

^^^ Kick a bush and random sleepy birds will fly off in fright. Very well. Give me the story, saaxib. Full details please. If possible, try to give dates, locations and reasons homosexuality was forbidden (would love to hear your take on that last one in particular). Take it away, son. Give me that crush (Freudian slip there, perchance?) course. 7 of 9 Stop being so damn apologetic and rational. There is a conspiracy afoot and we have to uncover it.

^^^^ You would have thought such was common sense, saaxib! The excitable one’s even use the phrase ‘qoom loot’ in reference to homosexuals and homosexuality, yet don’t bother to take a minute to think about the phrase, the story behind it and how long ago all this took place. I think the problem here (shock horror) is one of semantics, again. The word natural has softer connotations and for some (though it’s unclear how they ended up there) it also implies acceptance. Castro, time to benignly adjust your language to the comprehension of the mob. How does natural mutation strike you? Viking, It’s ok, saaxib. I never sneer at polite questions. Our dear cultured Khashafa was banging on about Sharia law, homosexuality and qoom loot. You can see his indignation and self-righteous anger coming right through your screen. He was, for all intents and purposes, taking the moral high ground there. All of a sudden, he changes tack and starts talking about Karma and how the sins of the father revisit the sons! I might be getting old or just wrong but I really can’t see how Karma fits in into the beliefs of these Mullahs. Maybe you or Xiin can enlighten me. If I die, would I come back as one of these cantar baqash mullahs, Xaaji Xiin? I really don’t have a problem with long beards and short trousers. However, if they also come with an empty head, I’m sure you can easily see the reason for my vehement protest. No Karma for me. PS Did you see the adverts found on this site lately? Wine glasses You can even find it in the Islam section. :eek: This calls for a hearty riot, methinks. :mad:

^^^Forwarding? And Salaxuddiin thought you were a group

7, This has always been the case though. Everyone tries to push their own agenda. There is nothing sinister or illegal about it. Look at hasty Kashafa above hinting darkly about Karma and the sins of the fathers revisiting the sons and some such nonsense. If you stay focused and don’t get distracted by his unbelievable and genius-like logic, you will remember that his opposition to homosexuality is religiously based (as evidenced by his continued use of the phrase qoom luut). Religiously based! These Pseudo-mullahs crack me up. They’ll use anything and everything to further their own agenda. Castro, your son (if you have one) is going to pick up your bad habit of saying other guys are hot, saaxib. Like father like son, eh? Though I suppose father/son will not be the words you address each other with. Sister is more appropriate, daddy-o.