^^^ As pointless as ever. One of those days I’d like to see you really join a subject, Haddad. Why are you out of the chat room anyway?

Though I can see that this is a futile exercise I can’t help but come back again and again. YOU CAN’T READ, saaxib. That alone would not have been a problem if you stood still. You keep jumping from one idea that you can’t comprehend to the next. If I was the cruel type I’d say it’s quite comical watching you do so. However, it’s not comical. It’s annoying, irritating and perplexing to see someone that knows the words, can read the individual words and presumably, understand the words act in the way you’re acting when words are made into sentences and paragraphs. You tell me that I’m: too submerged in occidental ideology yet you’re the one quoting Western think-tanks to support your hypocritical position! You say: As for my comprehension skills, I don't think they are as lousy as you would like to potray them. Do your megalomaniac self a favour and visit that post to see how many people actually agreed with your views on the issue of Irshad Manji and terrorism. They’re not lousy, saaxib. They’re dreadful. The number of people that agreed/disagreed with me on those two issues is not an indication of your poor reading abilities. Viking, some of those respondents have actually managed to elevate their replies to the level of a ‘debate’, you have not. You’re still stuck on words and untenable positions. Do not cite the crowd as evidence of your ability (or lack of). You say: You have still failed to show why you thought I was being left-wing (which you claim contradicts Islam). Just in case you've been living in a cocoon the last few weeks, there have been many sources that claim the terrorist attacks are linked to do to British foreign policies. Even a highly respected think-tank in the UK linked the war in Iraq with terrorism, does that make them duplicitous and hypocritical too? Read the links below in case you missed it... I can’t accuse these sources and think-tanks of being duplicitous (though they probably are) because simply, they’re not Muslim. You are Muslim. You are trying to hold an Islamic position on the issue and at the same time apply the think-tank logic. I’m telling you that such a difficult juggling act is duplicitous. One either holds a direct Islamic position here of denouncing terrorism with no qualifications, riders or caveats. Or, one disregards the conclusiveness of the Islamic position for the flexibility of the left-wing (right-wing if you like) stances. To try peddling both is duplicitous. It’s akin to one saying “ I’m totally against the war in Iraq but will place the lion’s share of the blame on Saddam’s refusal to cooperateâ€. The absurdity of the second part of that sentence renders the first part null and void. It effortlessly exonerates the invaders of Iraq from any wrongdoing by citing Saddam’s refusal to cooperateâ€. This is what you’ve done and have been doing throughout. Stop right there. Read it again before you type a long and predictable tirade about Saddam’s cooperation and Western propaganda (this is NOT the point I’m making). Will you try to read this time? PS Thank you for pointing out that I could reply to the author of the article above. I certainly will reply to him and request that he improve on or remove such shabby pieces.

Originally posted by Viking: NGONGE, You are one weird character! You were recently defending vehemently an article written by a secular homosexual who denies the authenticity of the Qur'an and questions the morality of our Noble Prophet SAWS. Yet you question why I posted this article which explains in simpleton how terrorism is best fought according to Islam. Did Caliph Umar (RA) rule according to the Shari'a? Was he just? Did he epitomise the teachings of Islam? If you answer YES to these questions then you will not have a problem with the title. quote: Lastly, let me return the brotherly advice and also inform you that your duplicitous position is not healthy and that applying left-wing views to an essentially Islamic problem will, in time, erode on your values and make you leave the fold of Islam. Is it at all possible that you’ll heed my words and rethink your position? You have abused the word duplicitous and used it on anyone who wasn't on your line of thought. Now I'd like you to be a fair chap and point out which points make my argument duplicitous in this post (plus any other post where you think I've used TWO opposing and contradictory ideologies to present my case). This is also the second time you have used the term left-wing in describing my views. What exactly (in my arguments)prompted you use the word left-wing to describe my views? I'm really keen in finding out about these left-wing tendencies that (as you put it) would "erode on your values and make you leave the fold of Islam" . First of all, Viking. Don’t take my words out of context. The thread about Irashad Manji is still there and ANYONE who has basic comprehension abilities (excluding you and Jamaal of course) will attest to the fact that at no point in that discussion was I defending that woman. Don’t be like a hasty child that quickly swallows hot food and deprives himself of the flavour therein, chew saaxib. Chew. Now on the word duplicitous. How about if I call you a hypocrite, saaxib? An unwitting hypocrite (which by the way is worse than one that does so on purpose). I’ve told you before and I tell you again, you are duplicitous because you do not hold a sustainable position. You pick a bit from both sides. You’re a bit Islamic and a bit left-wing. Your arguments for linking the Iraq war to terrorism are nothing but left-wing rhetoric. They don’t follow an Islamic position (though you try to supplement it with articles such as the see-saw above). Besides, I’ve already pointed out, in boring detail, why I think you’re being duplicitous. Still, I’ve changed my mind on all of this now. Judging by your comment above about Irshad Manji alone, it’s very clear that your main problem is that you CAN’T READ. I’m sincerely not saying this to insult you or score points, saaxib. I really believe that you can’t read. You can get upset about it or you can try to improve and work on this failing of yours. You’re not alone in this by the way. Orgi, I was surprised that Viking couldn’t read simply because he’s usually not that obtuse. In your case though, there is no surprise. I wouldn’t tax a goat was something as complicated as the ability to read. When it comes to you, I’ll always try to keep it simple (just like the original article above) and give you sheeko xareer about Omer (RA) and how great a ruler he was. Stick around, I shall post you a story about him soon. waad ku farxi, saaxib.

Originally posted by Fidel: Had this been a white boy with an axe in his skull, white people would have made us all cry for him. FCUK whitey! :mad: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/merseyside/4733895.stm Be fair, saaxib. This murder has not been treated lightly. Almost every newspaper in the land had his photo in the first page and talked of the despicable racist murder (they have juicer news to have in their front pages, remember). It’s being condemned by almost everyone. At this point, I need to inform you that what I’ll say next is one of my biggest pet hates, but they are all crying over it and wailing like it’s their youngest brother or something. If this follows the Steven Lawrence story, we’ll have countless documentaries, short films and articles on the subject of race and why the UK still suffers from it! This is where the well-meaning “white†guys will join in the discussion and, along with Trevor Philips, start talking utter tripe.

^^^He was the main player. To southern Sudanese, the sudden death of Garang is akin to Nelson Mandela being released from his prison cell after 27 years and dying the minute he became president! Garang has been fighting the Sudanese government for 25 years. The minute oil was found in Sudan, America and others interfered and contrived a peace deal. Garang was made vice president! Now the face of the South, their leader and hero is dead. Developments in that part of the world are probably worth watching more than what coronation King Abdullah is going to have.

Originally posted by Zulfa: quote:Originally posted by M.I.L.K: Now that Prince Abdullah was named king Saudi Arabia is going to be a different country. I don't think King Abdullah is going to be a lackey for America like his Father and I hope he does not. The dead was his Elder brother not father. Not to mention that Prince Abdullah was running the kingdom for the past ten years anyway. If any change should occur in the Kingdom’s foreign policies it will likely be a superficial one. PS M.I.L.K, could you please delete that photo? It's spoiling the thread, saaxib.

With all due respect, Viking, if you’re going to be pedantic try and be consistent. Umar (RA) was NOT Islam. He was merely a mortal ruler (a great mortal ruler). See how pointless such pedantry can be? I trust that it stands to your usual level of trivial scrutiny. Islam is not a word to play with; you can’t dictate that people apply it as YOU please, saaxib. Either refuse to accept it in any context other than the religion itself or accept the use of the word in both the positive and negative senses (as you’ve done there yourself). As for your childish accusation about being apologetic and trying to please Westerners, I shall play along and say YES I’m trying to please Westerners. Every word I write in here is done to impress and charm passing Westerners. However, every single one of them poses a (in my opinion) very valid question. Do you have the capacity and aptitude to deal with these questions instead of wallowing in the gutter of assumption and duplicity, saaxib? Is it possible that you could ever see beyond the tip of your nose? Lastly, let me return the brotherly advice and also inform you that your duplicitous position is not healthy and that applying left-wing views to an essentially Islamic problem will, in time, erode on your values and make you leave the fold of Islam. Is it at all possible that you’ll heed my words and rethink your position?

Juma, setting foot in Somalia or not setting foot there makes no difference to my argument. As for me being an Amxaar, I don’t think I need to do any ‘ab tirsimo’ here, certainly not to you of all people (you already know waxaan ahay, saaxib). The Amxaar you speak of claims to be Muslim before being Somali. Being Somali here does not matter. Unless of course, one places nationality before faith. I don’t think any of you are intentionally doing that. It’s more to do with the un-harnessed emotions. In your case it’s anger and rage at Somalis wrongly being accused (on this occasion) of being bombers. In Zeph’s case it is apprehension, fear and discomfort. To be fair to Zeph, she made it clear that it’s feelings that are ruling her head and not good judgment. Emotions will always be there, but emotions should not be what we base are judgments on. Go kick a bucket or something. Shout in the toilet. Kick the neighbour’s dog. Get it out of your system and THINK. Saaxib, is it not curious that you didn’t shout as much when these guys were bombing innocent people in the name of Islam yet now you’re making a real racket because these guys are alleged to be Somali? The Somali issue is really not a big deal. The mud you speak of will be thrown at us regardless. Care to widen your field of vision and take the goggles off? PS Though you're not likely to believe me, this is not a baseless attack, this is real advice.

Originally posted by Fidel: quote:Originally posted by NGONGE: .... not the meaningless idea of Somalnimo! Them are fighting words Ngonge! Must you always be cruisin' for a bruisin'? They are as human as anyone in the world and twice as reckless. 2.779 to be exact. It’s a tried and tested method, saaxib. It grabs the reader’s attention, and though his/her anger would lead him/her to disagree with me at first, I believe that with time and other arguments most people usually come round to seeing the sense in what I’m saying. Of course, I’m not always right but one can’t be so foolish as to let such a minor detail get in one’s way. :cool:

I read that article three times and still don’t know who the author is preaching to! Not surprised that it met with your approval, Viking. One foot in each side, eh? The author narrates a great story. However, he’s playing the usual two-faced game of politics by applying it to the Bush administration (I never think these guys mean to be two-faced. It’s merely a fashion that everyone follows nowadays). Again, he would have done much better and got better results if he concentrated on Muslims and told them how to “fight†terror instead of crying about how Bush (a Non-Muslim) is fighting terror. This boastful article reminds me of the Arabic verse : ليس الÙتي من قال كان ابي ان الÙتي من قال ها انا ذا A man is not he who says my father used to be A man is he who says HERE I am In other words, instead of preaching to Bush about what Islam ‘used’ to be, why not preach to us about what Islam ‘aught’ to be? If only he would have focused on the last paragraph and based his whole piece on it. If only... Ps I note here that you have no problem with the use of the word "Islam" in the title! How very consistent of you, saaxib.

It really matters not that they’re Somali or Ethiopian, saaxib. It’s clear from their names that they ARE Muslim. Is it more important to you that they’re Somali than Muslim? Does it make a difference if papers like the SUN criticised Muslims instead of Somalis? Don’t you think it’s time we dropped the empty nationalism, or at least limited it to attacks on Abdullahi Yusuf and his ilk instead of applying it to situations such as these? Here Islam is being criticised and not the meaningless idea of Somalnimo! One must be able to make a distinction. I hate to see you people misleading some of the young and impressionable Nomads with your backward and xenophobic ideas. Somalis are capable of being terrorists, rapist, killers or even child molesters. They are as human as anyone in the world and twice as reckless. Instead of writing thread after thread denying that such a thing could ever happen and flogging the infallibility of the Somali make-up, why don’t we talk about ways to insure that such a thing could never take place again. It can be easily confirmed tomorrow that all the suspects were not Somali. In fact, with them still being classed as “suspectsâ€, it could be announced that they were mistakenly suspected and now released. Would we be vindicated then and could go back to sitting on our laurels and ignoring such stark possibilities? Don’t just listen, HEAR!

الÙكره يا اختي العزيزه مش Ùكرة انك تبكي لامريكي ولا بريطاني علا حساب المسلمين. الÙكره انك تكوني ضد الارهاب اللي يستخبي وراء غطاء الدين. الارهاب الامريكي, بريطاني ولا حتا الهندوسي معرو٠و ما يحتاج تÙسير. ÙÙŠ ناس تسميه ارهاب بس انا ماشي بالاسماء القديمه واسميها حرب مستمره. الحرب معا الغربيين واسرئيل حرب واضحه ومعروÙÙ‡ من سنيين. شعاراتنا ÙÙŠ هالحرب اننا امة محمد, اننا احسن منهم لانا قيمنا اسلاميه سموايه وغير محرÙÙ‡. بس اسلوبنا ÙÙŠ الحرب اتغير Ùˆ صرنا نغير اللي نؤمن Ùيه بسبب غضب وزعل. ادانة الارهاب ما لها دعوه بادانة حرب العراق. يعني هيا العراق احسن من Ùلسطين ولا اي ارض اسلاميه محتله؟ ما احنا من يومنا ندين, نرÙض ونشجب! اليوم السبب كان العراق, بالÙيين وواحد كانت السعوديه, قبلها كانت الهند Ùˆ المكسيك...الاسباب دايما موجوده! بس اللي مش موجود طول هذا الوقت اي سوؤال وتÙكير عن قدرة الارهاب علا تÙكيك دينا Ùˆ مبادءنا! لو كان الارهاب (الاسلامي) غلط Ùهذا معناه انه ÙÙŠ ناس تستهتر ÙÙŠ دينا! اللي استغرب منه انه الاخ عطوان كرهه للغرب , ÙÙŠ بعض الاوقات, يبين اكثر من حبه لدينه! بصراحه شي يقهر.. علا Ùكره انا اتكلم عن الارهاب عامة(يعني شرم الشيخ وغيرها) واللي من وراه مسلمين. حرب الامريكان محنا رضعنها واتربينا عليها, يعني ما ÙÙŠ داعي اكتب عنها مقالات طويله كتبها قبلي عبدالباري وغيره... يقول احمد شوقي العلم يبني بيوتا لا عماد لها, والجهل يهدم بيت العز والشرÙ.. لا Ùوض Ùوك يا امير الشعراء لي مده طويله ما كتبت بالعربي, Ùاعذريني لو اسلوبي ردئ بعض الشيئ. بيت الشعر اللي كتبته ÙŠÙسر كل مقصدي بكلمتين. لو قتل الابرياء علي يد المسلمين غير مقبول بس غضبنا Ùˆ غير قبولنا لم يسمع دويه ÙÙŠ كل انحاء الارض...الجهل (قتل الابرياء) سيكون طبيعيا بين المسلمين..وسلام الله علا بيت العز والشرÙ..

عبدالباري عطوان صحÙÙŠ عربي من الطراز القديم....اخونا من جماعة الوحده العربيه وعبدالناصر! اسلوبه ÙÙŠ مناقشة الموضوع لا يختل٠كثيرا عن الاÙكار Ùˆ الاساليب اللتي يتبعهااليسارييون ÙÙŠ الغرب من شومسكي,سعيد وهتشنس. المضحك ÙÙŠ الامر انه الاخ عبدالباري مسلم. الاخ عبدالباري يدين الارهاب ويقول انه لا يبت للاسلام بصله ÙÙŠ جمله واحده, ثم يقضي بقية مقاله يدين اشياء ومناقشات تاÙهه كاسباب الارهاب او نظريات لا يمكن اثباتها, مثل: لولا حرب العراق لما كان هناك تÙجيرات ÙÙŠ لندن! اكيد عندالاخ عبدالباري اجابات لتÙجيرات مومباسا, اسطنبول, السعوديه, شرم الشيخ, الخ.... بكل صراحه, اكبر مشاكل الارهاب التي تشجع علي استمراره وتحليله هيا مقالات الاخ عبدالباري وامثاله! اخونا دايما يخلط العربي بالمسلم ÙÙŠ مقالاته, دايماينتقد سياسات,اعمال, اÙعال, خطط ومقالب. لكن, متي راح ينظر للداخل ويحاول يشجع الشباب اللي تÙجر حالها انها تÙكر بطرق جديده لرÙع راية الاسلام Ùˆ ترك دنيا الغضب الÙاضي والانحباط المحزن؟ ما دام عبدالباري وامثاله يكتبوا المقالات الÙاضيه التي تبحث عن كبش للÙداء لكل عمل يقوم به المخربوون, سيكون هناك ارهاب وقتل للابرياء! تحليل قضايا المسلميين لا بد ان ياتي من قوة مبداء وثبات راي, لا بد ان يكون من ايمان وقيم لا تتزعزع....الاخ عبدالباري يستعمل قيم نووم شومسكي ومبادء يساريه تتغير معا تغير الجو.. الاخ عبدالباري,مع احترامي لشخصه وتاريخه الصحÙÙŠ, اÙكاره قديمه واسلوبه ركيك. عبدالباري وامثاله كتبوا المقالات لمدة خمسين سنه! لا Ùلسطين اتحررت ولا العرب اتطوروا..بالعكس: جبنا ارهاب Ùˆ تدمير Ùˆ Ùرقه Ùˆ شتات وبعد عن الدين والمبادء والاخلاق! الله يسامح عبدالباري بس...

Humans are products of their environment, prone to exonophobia (sp?). But the intellect reaches beyond these parameters in many people, and these take it upon themselves to expose the ways of the future to their fellows. An 'eye for an eye' probably didn't make good 'copy' in the days it was written, but today it has gained popularity. I don't know about the scholars who have condemned " eye for an eye' concept , if u can provide proof to that would be gr8. I will reiterate, religions don't commit violent acts...........intrepretation is an intellectual pursuit, and so should be one's approach to life, religion or not. First of all, let me sidestep the request for “proof†about the scholars‘ condemnation. In such current topics, I don’t do proof. My assumption when having a debate with anyone is that the person(s) I’m debating with has some background information about the subject being discussed. We are not having a discussion about some obscure part of Islam or rarely addressed area. We’re talking terrorism; an issue that has been in the news for the past fifteen years (and more so in the past two weeks). I suggest that you use goggle. The way you managed to squeeze the history of humanity in the last 2000 years into three short paragraphs is very impressive. Still, the gist of your argument and moral position lies in the last paragraph. Yours seems to be a secular and pragmatic position! What stance you choose is not my concern. For like you said; everyone is entitled to their opinions and interpretations. Where I disagree with you is in the method you used to reach that position. I believe it to be flawed, you see. You say “interpretation is an intellectual pursuit, and should be one’s approach to life, religion or notâ€! Now, I appreciate that this sentence of yours can be viewed and dissected from many angles. However, I’m going to concentrate on just the one. When you say “religion or notâ€, I get the impression that if religion suits your previously made interpretation, you’ll follow the religious path (or at least use it to support your argument), and if religion clashes with your interpretation, you’ll ignore it because, after all, interpretation is an intellectual pursuit! Lest we forget what we’re talking about here, let me remind you that we are still on the subject of terrorism and its justifications. You seem to be justifying it by saying that when one is attacked, one is free to choose whatever interpretations of the religion that are available. If no “agreeable†interpretations are available however, one is free to devise his/her own! There are no moral absolutes there. One’s moral positions, therefore, will change in accordance to events, norms or changes in environments! That’s fine. Though I still believe it to be an unsustainable position to hold, it’s nonetheless, a prevalent one. Where I’m puzzled and can not reconcile such a position with these situations, is in the level of anger for places like Iraq, Palestine, Kashmir, etc. If we are not applying Islamic standards and adhering to its strict moral positions on such issues; if we would rather apply and pursue our own “intellectual†interpretations (sounds more like justifications to me); and, if we are being secular in our outlook, why then should we care about foreigners such as Iraqis, Palestinians or Muslim Indians? Is it because they’re Muslim? What does it mean to be “Muslimâ€? Is it a cultural concept? Is it a political one? Not an Islamic nation, surely! The Islamic position on such issues (terrorism) is very clear. It rejects the killing of innocents regardless of the nature of the provocation. It rejects the “eye for an eye†concept (in the way that you interpret it) and condemns all these ineffective acts of rage in the name of Islam. The only way such acts could be justified (and even here it probably will not be easy) is when one applies manmade laws and moral justifications. Even then, the executers of such attacks will have to be Iraqis or Afghanis.

A whole new world A new fantastic point of view No one to tell us no Or where to go Or say we're only dreaming A whole new world A dazzling place I never knew But when I'm way up here It's crystal clear That now I'm in a whole new world with you Now I'm in a whole new world with you Unbelievable sights Indescribable feeling Soaring, tumbling, freewheeling Through an endless diamond sky A whole new world Don't you dare close your eyes A hundred thousand things to see Hold your breath - it gets better I'm like a shooting star I've come so far I can't go back to where I used to be A whole new world Every turn a surprise With new horizons to pursue Every moment red-letter I'll chase them anywhere There's time to spare Let me share this whole new world with you A whole new world That's where we'll be A thrilling chase A wondrous place For you and me The photo is from Somalient and the lyrics from Disney’s Aladdin. :cool:

للكبار ÙÙŠ السن وعشاق الممثل اللبناني الكبير عبدالمجيد مجذوب, ها هيا رائعة المتنبي بصوت عبدالمجيد الجهوري والقائه الرائع...... الخيل والليل والبوتجاز يعرÙني والÙرن والبن والتÙاح والبصل علا Ùكره اعتقد الاخ اسمه Ùيدييل مثل: ÙÙŠ السكه..ÙÙŠ الحمام..ÙÙŠÙÙŠ عبده .....

Let us have a little more hysteria please. Read the article below. How dare they? Heh. Free holiday for shooting officer A police officer involved in the fatal shooting of an innocent Brazilian man at a London Tube station has been given a holiday paid for by Scotland Yard. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair personally authorised the break for the officer and his family. Jean Charles de Menezes was shot eight times at Stockwell on Friday after fleeing three undercover officers who mistook him for a suicide bomber. The body of Mr Menezes, 27, is due to be flown back to Brazil on Wednesday. Non-firearm duties The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is investigating the death. Mr Menezes was shot seven times in the head and once in the shoulder after apparently refusing police demands to stop. They had suspected him of being a suicide bomber, but it later transpired the electrician had no connection to terrorism. The officers have been moved to non-firearm duties for the duration of the IPCC probe, expected to take several months. A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "An officer has had a break paid for by the Metropolitan Police, authorised by the commissioner, to allow him to take his wife and family away from the family home." One of the other officers is already on a family holiday. Return of body Relatives and friends of Mr Menezes have marched in his Brazilian hometown of Gonzaga, calling for arrests over the killing. The victim's family has also consulted lawyers about possible legal action against the police. Relatives are due to accompany the body on the flight to Brazil on Wednesday. A family funeral will take place there later. Sir Ian told Channel Four News on Tuesday that the shooting had been a "dreadful mistake" but that police had to protect the public. A "shoot-to-kill" policy for UK police dealing with suicide bombers, codenamed Operation Kratos, was introduced six months after the 11 September 2001 attacks. Source

Originally posted by Hibo: Walaalkiis, from the way u r posting seems like ur on the Judge's seat. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. And interpretation of Islam is open to anyone who has the mind to read between the lines. When u kill my brothers and I can't get to you, I have the right to kill ur brothers too. That is the way I interpret an eye for an eye concept as far as Westerners go. But when its within the reach of the person who has committed the crime to avenge it kill the criminal. Simple. I do understand my religion walaalkiis, but ur mind has been manipulated by the western Media. They know how to seek compassion by showing you their suffering, appealing to your humanity side. I don't think so. Not with me. When a man kills several people he is labeled as being " Murderer" and if the same man kills thousands he is " Conqueror" That is the message the West is selling I am not buying it. Americans & the British deserve what they got, coz they are also terrorizing people. Who gave the privilege to sleep soundly in their beds and the rest of the people can't even dare to put their heads down in fear that a bomb or a bullet will tear their bodies? We are all humans.. we serve to sleep well in our beds and live among our loved ones. [/QB] It is a discussion forum, Hibo. One has to make some sort of judgment and choose a side of the argument for the discussion to continue. Having said that, my judgment should really not upset anyone – they’re only words on a screen after all. I’ve decided to return to this thread because of a couple of sentences you wrote. Please don’t misunderstand me now and think I’m patronising you (or judging you; in a bad way at any rate). I’m not. If interpretation of Islam is open to anyone that can read between the lines. And, if everyone can apply the ‘an eye for an eye’ concept at their whim, how do we know who is wrong and who is right? Surely there must be some sort of agreement somewhere. The majority of Muslim scholars have agreed that such acts of ‘an eye for an eye’ are wrong. I don’t think we can interpret Islam in any way we like just because we are angry or there is something we don’t agree with. Because if we did, many other opportunists will do too and use the same logic that you’re using to justify their “improvised†interpretations. One such person is Amir Tahiri who wrote the following in today’s Times Online: Muslims could also help by stopping the use of their bodies as advertising space for al-Qaeda. Muslim women should cast aside the so-called hijab, which has nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with tribal wear on the Arabian peninsula. The hijab was reinvented in the 1970s as a symbol of militancy, and is now a visual prop of terrorism. If some women have been hoodwinked into believing that they cannot be Muslims without covering their hair, they could at least use headgears other than black (the colour of al-Qaeda) or white (the colour of the Taleban). Green headgear would be less offensive, if only because green is the colour of the House of Hashem, the family of the Prophet. Muslim men should consider doing away with Taleban and al-Qaeda-style beards. Growing a beard has nothing to do with Islam; the Prophet himself never sported anything more than a vandyke. The bushy beards you see on Oxford Street are symbols of the Salafi ideology that has produced al-Qaeda and the Taleban. Some Muslims also use al-Qaeda and Taleban-style clothing to advertise their Salafi sentiments. For men this consists of a long shirt and baggy trousers, known as the khaksari (down-to-earth) style and first popularised by Abu Ala al-Maudoodi, the ideological godfather of Islamist terrorism. Muslims who wear such clothes in the belief that it shows their piety, in most cases, are unwittingly giving succour to a brand of Islamist extremism. It would also be useful if Muslim preachers paid a bit more attention to God, which means doing some theology, rather than making speeches about Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq which are, after all, political, and not religious issues. The excessive politicisation of Islam has created a situation in which the best-known Muslim today is Osama bin Laden. Islam must decide whether it wants to be a faith or a political movement. It cannot be both without being hijacked by Salafis or Khomeinists who have transformed it into a breeding ground for terror. As you can see, most of what he’s saying is total and utter nonsense. However, there are words and ideas there that grabbed my attention(and I bet most readers). Despite finding him a despicable opportunist, I don’t have much of a problem with his last paragraph about politics and Islam. I do have a problem with the way he belittles the Hijab by first, saying get rid of it and then saying: you can keep it but not in such and such colours. It’s as if he’s pointing out the would be women terrorists by the colour of their Hijab! I also don’t like the way he seems to imply that terrorism and Salafis are synonyms. Mr Tahiri thinks he can interpret Islam his own way; he’s reading between the lines there. What allows him to get away with it and take many undecided and confused Muslims with him, is our own ambiguousness and anger. The full article can be found below. Lest I get accused of taking his words out of context, I invite you all to read it. Source

Originally posted by OG_Girl: @NGONGE: والله أنا وحده من الناس ممن يسيرون على نهج أنصرأخاك ظالما أومظلوما.Ùاقول مداÙعا عن الأخ الصومالى ماأدراك لربماأن الأخ برئ حتى لو حكم وثبت عليه الجرم المشهود وياما المحاكم حكمت على أبرياء Salam لا تÙهميني غلط. الصومالي المتهم ÙÙŠ هذا الموضوع ممكن يكون برئ Ùˆ ممكن لا. انا مشكلتي مش معاه انا مشكلتي معا الجماعة اللي يقولون انه مش ممكن صومالي يقتر٠مثل هالجريمه بس ممكن الجنسيات الثانيه تعملها....بصراحه هذا كلام Ùارغ وعنصري.. انصر اخاك ظالما او مظلوما ÙÙŠ هذه الحاله..راح تصير اني اوريهم غلطهم لما يقولوا ان العرب..الهنود..الاÙريقين والبيض ممكن ÙŠÙجروا حالهم بس الصومال مش ممكن ابدا انهم يعملوا Ù†Ùس الشي مش من نزاهتهم وايمانهم..لا..لانهم صومال بس!! Fidel I thought the “humour†was spot on, saaxib. Did the emotion therein not tug at your heartstrings and make your eyes water? Reading some of the replies (the obtuse ones in particular) I almost stood up and sang the Somali national anthem at the top of my lungs. Alas, I don’t really know the words to that. You don’t know how much it worms my heart to find out that Somalis are a separate breed from everyone else and do not have the ability, waywardness or susceptibility to fall into bad ways (such as, err, erm, suicide bombings). Ooops, made a mistake there. It’s Somalis born and raised in Somalia or Africa that don’t. We don’t know about the rest, but seeing that they’re Somali too, it’s unlikely that they’ll suffer from the mortal weaknesses that the rest of the world suffers from. Somaaliyeeey tuuusoo... What? What?

My Son Cali is not a smoker. He’s a good boy. I brought him up with my own hands. Read my lips, Cali does not smoke. He’s too young and too innocent for smoking. You say you saw him with your own eyes? You really have pictures? They’re doctored, distorted and altered photos. Cali sigaaar ma cabo. Horta meyan ku sheegay eno Cali bad childhood lahaa? It was really awful. We used to sleep 50 to a room. It’s the trauma of his childhood. Yes, it’s the trauma. Poor Cali has been framed. I know Cali. He’s my son and he would never do anything wrong. I blame that Eritrean friend of his. He taught him how to smoke. Cali wa maskiin dee! Did I tell you about how we used to sleep 100 to a room? Cali is not a smoker. :mad:

No you can't, kiss him. The last girl that tried that got beaten up by her brother. Look:

Viking saaxib, I could try everything in my power and write long or short sentences to help you understand but I can’t teach you to READ. Stop being emotional and read my words. I’ve replied to all your questions a dozen times already. If you CAN’T READ, it’s your shortcoming and not a failing in my ability to write. Go back and READ my words again, and again, and again. Try to comprehend them then come back and have a mature discussion with me. This is still obtuse. Kashafa, Option one is perfect. Option two has been modified by you now (the jihadist rhetoric of earlier disappeared and it’s more subtle and benign). I am telling you that YOU CAN’T have option two. I am telling that by choosing option two you are being dishonest and not sincere here. There is a difference between being asked if there was a link and volunteering such information. And here, to be honest, most of you that choose option two didn’t only volunteer it; you’re in fact treating it as a vital part of the discussion! You’re saying that statement two puts the bombing in context! Puts it in context for whom? For ME? Or for the other readers in the site? For Blair? What’s Blair got to do with our discussion as Muslims and our moral judgments? Why do you need to keep referring to it? Don’t you reject the bombings already? Why qualify your rejection with this “context†and “frame of reference†nonsense? You’re a Muslim; you’re talking about this whole thing (one assumes) from an Islamic point of view. You don’t care about Iraq because you’re a liberal leftist but because YOU ARE a Muslim. You reject the bombings because they’re not Islamic. You (one would think) believe that the perpetrators of such acts are a wicked minority. You don’t agree with or condone their actions. BUT, you still link the bombings to Iraq and say it was expected, chickens come home to roost, etc! You insist on endlessly repeating that point. Why? Context? Frame of reference again? But you are not a left wing liberal, saaxib. You are a Muslim and you don’t need to prove any of that or apply any such ‘frame of reference’. Your frame of reference should be and stay as: This is Un-Islamic and I reject it. Call it sophistry, call it a play with words and call it waffle with no substance, if you wish. If you reject the bombings on one hand and insist on providing a link on another, I also insist that you’re being two-faced (how about that for a new word?). I think I’ve said enough on this thread and don’t need to add anything new on this discussion. If someone decides to view things from a different angle or pose new and unexamined questions, I might pop back and post another of my laborious and short of substance lectures. The questions posed here have all been fully and satisfactorily dealt with methinks. PS Read Xu's post above if you've an allergy to my words. I agree with every word she says of course.

Have you lost your sense of humour too now, Jamaal? PS How's that for a one-line reply?

^^^^ He's great isn't he? Been avoiding me for months now. But, even with his quick darting runs, he finally fell down a trap of his own making. That indeed For this time only and in the honour of my dear Haddad, I too will try to be a hopeless pedant. Enjoy.

^^^^ Quod erat demonstrandum Pedants you say? (A useless pedant at THAT)