Originally posted by Nationalist: Ngonge, my point exactly. There is no doubt in mind that these two men are criminals. And criminals should be sentenced accordingly. But my objection to this case is that it will lead to a chaotic and vicious chainreaction of tribal vendettas thrown from one side to the other. As I said before. Let bygones be bygones and move on. You can't wake up the dead, your own clock is ticking. Way to miss my point, saaxib! Individuals, Somali individuals at that, don’t really care for consequences and repercussions. If I understand you correctly, you’re worried that if such a case succeeds then many others will follow and try to sue most of the members of the new Somali parliament (and the Somaliland president)! This, of course, is very unlikely. For the Somali president and all the members of his parliament (not forgetting any wrongdoers in Somaliland) are not in the United States. This case was brought in the United States were the plaintiff and the defendant reside. It is an individual case. We might find it distasteful, however, if we believe in freedom, justice and fairness, we can’t condemn a victim for wanting to see his oppressor punished! If, however, other Somalis decide to take any of the current warlords, parliamentarians or presidents of “Somalia†to court, they’ll have a hard time finding a willing court. There, and I’m no expert on International law, diplomacy will prevail and they’ll either be ignored (for the good of the whole of Somalia) or told, as you rightly say, to let bygones be bygones. There is a very subtle difference between the two cases, hope you can see it now.

The thing about this issue is that it’s an individual thing. Someone who has suffered at the hands of someone else will react differently when given the opportunity for revenge. Some people are strong and have enough Iman that allows them to forgive; Others, due to the suffering and oppression they went through, are bitter, depressed, feel that all the ills that befell them in life were due to the treatment they suffered at the hands of their assailants! It’s understandable then that these people WILL seek revenge and try to see their foe punished. The people of Chile tried to do it to General Pinchot. The Bosnian Muslims tried to do it to Slobodan Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic! The Rwandans complained about a number of war criminals too. A war crimes tribunal exists to deal with such things. The fact that the person who committed these crimes is now old and frail is neither here nor there. Did he commit what most people would consider to be a crime against humanity? Is there proof of such a crime? Can he be punished for such crimes? These are the questions to be asked, not the emotional mumbo jumbo of age, excusing someone from being punished for their wrongdoing! Now, in a fair and just world, every person that has a grievance should get his grievance heard. It is not sad (as some brother said), it’s not wrong and it’s not unnatural for people to complain. Rahima spoke about it not being Islamic which in a way is irrelevant to the way the topic has gone now; because, though I agree that it’s, probably, un-Islamic to complain to a “kaafir†court, it does not negate the fact that the complaint exists and that the plaintiff will still complain in an Islamic court and be heard. They might even win their case! The only thing that remains to be cleared here is; Are those complaining, doing so as a result of some “tribal†vendetta? Or, do they have genuine grievances? :confused:

This topic does not interest me. I wonder if the admin has the ability to merge threads! :rolleyes:

^^^ See? This is another of those Somali phrases that I try to get into my head and understand but I fail! Why does she need anyone to do that? Is she spoilt or disabled? :mad:

Alle-ubaahne, Far be it for me to go on defending the Ethiopians or their government here, saaixb. However, I think people like the author of the article you’ve posted, exist everywhere without any influence from outside forces. This person looks like he’s proud to be a Somali but he has a problem with “religious fanaticsâ€. I will not completely assume that he’s anti-Islam, though his words seem to paint him as such. His whole article appears to be one long rant against the Salafis! I’m not sure if you have been following the Western (and many Islamic) press but attacking the Salafi’s (Wahabis) is the done thing these days. The author of the article you’ve posted, like many other Somalis, seems to have picked up the Western rhetoric and added a bit of his Somali flavour to it, by implying that every “wadaad†is a Salafi! You can clearly see that the man has no knowledge of his deen, saaxib. This is NOT “integration’s†fault, as you seemed to hint at the start of your post, this is entirely the individual’s failing. I don’t wish or see any need to discuss this article in any detail. Now, back to your Ayan Hirsi contention. I see that you declined the opportunity to shed some light into your rejection of my earlier words, so I’m left with no option but to make some assumptions about this rejection and, hopefully, clarify my words. I seriously dislike discussing Islam on an interactive discussion board where people’s whims, desires and affiliations sometimes discolour any good intentions they might have. I try as much as I can to avoid being a teacher lest I mislead others. Still, I will attempt to explain my words and the context they were written in. Ayan Hirsi and Salman Rushdie were supposed to be Muslims. As I understand it, and though there are some disputes amongst the scholars on how to treat “former†Muslims, the popular view is that a “Murtad†(i.e. someone who has forsaken Islam) is punished by Murder. But, even then, there are still many conditions and qualifications attached to such a rule. This brother, is my understanding of it and as I said in my earlier post, I could be wrong. I await correction and may Allah forgive me if I am. The Dutch film director, was not a Muslim, has never been a Muslim and showed no signs of wanting to be one. In short, he was not a “Murtadâ€. He was a non-believer. Need I explain the meaning of non-believer? I’ll repeat, I am not the most knowledgeable of people on this subject and I would not want you to take my words (as the saying goes) as gospel! You can go and ask the people of knowledge, in fact, you should. From the little I know however, Islam does not encourage or condone the killing of non-believers. When it does, it gives very specific reasons for doing so and explains, clearly, the situation where killing is permissible. The Dutch film director is not the first ever non-believer to criticise Islam. He’s not the first to insult the prophet (SAW). The early days of Islamic history paint images of events much worse than a modern Dutch film director making an ill-advised movie that belittles Islam; for 13 years did the prophet (SAW) and his companions suffer at the hands of non-believers (some of them close relations!). The Muslims back then were a minority too. Did they murder Abu Jahal for his transgressions against the prophet? Surely they would have had the best ever reason to do so and “defend†Islam (there is even a whole verse in the Quran dedicated to Abu Jahal). This Dutch film director, as appalling and sickening his movie was, is no Abu Jahal. His murder serves no purpose whatsoever. It rather jeopardises the position of, and causes difficulties for the Muslim minority in the Netherlands! I’m hoping that my words are clear now and need no further explaining. If you think me wrong, I’ll gladly receive your corrections. If you agree, we can move on, or rather I should say return, to the subject of integration. Is it possible to “integrate†if you kill everyone that badmouths your religion? Are you of the opinion that Muslims SHOULD not reside in non-believers lands? Should we always applaud the actions of Muslims purely on the flimsy fact that they’re Muslim? Finally, this is a discussion forum; people of all persuasions and beliefs are likely to post in these pages. On the odd occasions that someone posts something we deem controversial or anti-Islam, we should not froth at the mouth and insult these people. If they can’t articulate their words clearly and are only doing it to cause offence, we can get the moderators to delete their drivel. If, however, their words are clear, articulate and unambiguous, we should either engage them or (if we don’t like such discussions) ignore them. Bullying someone into silence is unjust, unfair and probably (qualifying it again just for the trigger happy amongst you) UNISLAMIC.

A well-deserved “burdenâ€, saaxib; I’m not sure if I should congratulate you or commiserate with you. Still, I can’t think of a better man for the job. May Allah sustain your good judgment and virtuous intentions.

Heh. You took a bus in Dubai? :eek: :eek: :eek: Why man? Why? Couldn't you afford a Taxi? NOBODY takes buses in Dubai, saaxib. Well, at least not tourists. Heh. Frankly, you deserve all you got, man. You took the Bush. Heh.

Chackmate, the man above claims to be a dhagacas from Burco, i'm not going to be harsh with him coz he could turn out to be my in-law. I don’t claim, inadeer. It is where I was born and where my family reside (if that’s qualification enough of course). You’ll probably argue that I’m a dhagacas and I’ll, probably, agree. Back to your photo: it looks nothing like the photo I posted above. Yours, is the one I always see of Hadraawi, which is why I asked the question. They look like two different old men, saaxib. We need further confirmation. As for being your in-law, erm, no comment.

Haaa; sax; fiican; aad eyo aad; boqolka eyo boqol;alxamduliallah ; ellahi mahadi; bash bash eyo xooga barwaqo; waa jaam jaam, naam naam eyo dhac dhac; kheer; heedh sare; bariga dhixe; nac nac; wareer; dhibaato; qaxar; maseebo; abaar; cantar baqash; ega tag; wax walan; af somali ku hadal; kuman fahmin; ma garatay; kugu xiinte; bax; kaalay; eska tag; waa la edin salaamay; qofac; hargab; madax xanuun; kineen; dawo; dakhtar; wadaad; quran ku akhrista; sax; maya; ma ogi; kuma? tuma? meya? waaa beenta! korsi ka dhac; god ku kuf; dhaqax liq; qalin jabi; qodax ku joogso; indha beel; ka leexo; ku so noqo; ka leexo; la wareeg; bood bood; fadhi; kac; fadhi; xaggan; xagga; xagay; xagaxag; dhulka la dhac; xabxab; tufax! meeshan; waa heedh sare; somali; ega mo hadhin; ela taliya; wa la edin wada salaamay; hadalki; woo dhamaday; meeshan; waan kabaxay; niicaygee; baa farabatay; akhyarta; yanay cadhoon; af somaliga; o ma leh aqoon; entaan haystay wan tufay; enta kale na wan ediin daayaay; laakin waxan edin ka codsaday; en aad afka no jilcisaan. (afafka kale meeshan maya lago hadli kara? wallahi waan xiiqay)

Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne: Mr. NGONG said, quote: This was a non-believer who criticised a religion. He did what non-believers often do. The “Muslim†reply was harsh, savage and probably not Islamic. I say probably, in case I’m wrong. Though I’d be surprised if his murder was confirmed to be legal in an Islamic sense He used three words that I regarded very critical to the efforts of those who defend their religion in any acceptable means HARSH, SAVAGE, AND NOT ISLAMIC. And in response to that, Baashi says this, “Ngonge (if u don’t mind yaa Raami), I’m with you on this one sxb. I gotta tell you Ngonge you are one of the few nomads in this site that I enjoy reading their thoughts. Simple, articulate, eloquent, and to the point, some of your posts are more than awesome sxb. Plz contribute more, if you would, in Debate section of the forum Indeed, am very confused about the flip-flopping state of these people! Our religion is under attack round the clock, and none of them is acting in defense of it. Those who acted are smeared on their backs. No wisdom, no courage and no meaningful position. I can see the absense of sound knowledge in their writings, and thus they are running around and calling each other 'articulate, eloquent and awesome'. Walaahi aduunkaan dadka qaarkiis waa wax lala yaabo, cajiib. Ilaahoow nahanuuni, adaa hanuunka bixiyee, aamiin. I’m sitting here waiting for my guests to arrive for the Eid lunch that I’ve prepared. Having arranged everything and left the ladies downstairs to chatter away and organise the inevitable last minute items, I decided to come to my “office†and pass the time surfing the net. It’s Eid! I’m excited at the arrival of this great day. The smiles on the kid’s faces take my breath away. It seems that I’m not the only excited person here! My brother, Alle-ubaahne’s excitement appears to be greater than mine. In fact, the excess testosterone seems to have completely blinded him and instead of posting the great praise that I’m sure he intended to post, he lost his way and started firing indiscriminately (wounding Baashi in the process). Ah well, like I said, it’s Eid and therefore, I (and I’m sure Baashi too) will forgive this gigantic slur and patiently ask my brother (and any who are as wound up as he is) to read my words again and ask for clarifications before jumping into such major conclusions! I have to admit, after reading his words, I’ve considered making a few judgments of my own. Nonetheless, for the time being and until I read his reply, I’ll limit my verdict to the aforementioned disproportionate hormones. Should any other Nomads feel baffled by my words, find them hard to comprehend or, simply, obtuse, I humbly request that they ask, hint or allude to the source of their puzzlement and I‘ll happily explain, retract or gladly accept their superior knowledge. Nomads spoiling for a cyber scrap are hereby challenged to a virtual duel in the off-topic section of the site; I refuse to defile this fine section with my victims’ innards.

^^^^ "taxta amrak yaa akhuuyu"

As William Shakespeare once said, there was never yet a philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently! Heh.

^^^ Heh. Well, as the Arabs say "he that does not know the falcon, fries it". I met this old man on several occasions, but, seeing that I'm a "dhagacas" and wouldn't know anyone unless pointed out to me, I never bothered asking him who he was (though he asked me). Can't really say much about his poetry or "greatness" but he seemed to be a kind old man nonetheless. (That's the trouble with Somalis, they expect you to either magically know or rudely ask old men who they are - I only do rude when I ask, see).

I love looking at photos of nothing, saaxib. Horta ma reer Burcaad aheed? I'm confused about this photo from the same website, saaxib. Maybe you can confrim that I'm not wrong. This is what it says: "First time I meet the legendary poet, Maxamed Ibraahim Warsame "Hadraawi", Who gave his point of view on the recent attack and the killing of a Kenyan women". Is this correct? I could swear the old man in the middle is someone else! :confused:

Originally posted by Northerner: Thank You for treating the POWs well, please make sure their tea is made with xawaash, their xilib is fresh and that they can call their families every night. Thank you again! I think such posts are nothing but an opportunity to mock and ridicule for all of us. You’ve got to admit though; the prisoners in the photos do look healthy. So, if you recognise any of them, phone their mummy and tell her the good news.

Silence and Nomadic Princess, calm down and don’t take everything too seriously. I seriously doubt any of those that participated on this thread do not know or understand the message you’re trying to convey. I think this thread was started in a jovial spirit and was intended as such. When you come at them this strongly and talk down to them in such a way, the humour will disappear and they might take the whole thing as badly veiled attempt to have a dig (I’m sure it’s not). Anyway, tell me, how do people meet before marriage? (Yeah, I’m changing the subject on purpose).

I agree with NP. What's all this talk of dating and mating? Get married already..

Wishing you and all those you love and care for a happy, peaceful and prosperous Eid. May ALL your Eids be full of health, peace and gladness. InshaAllah. ** Does a spastic jig and breaks into song ** Should auld acquaintance be forgot, And never brought to mind? Should auld acquaintance be forgot And auld lang syne? For auld lang syne, my dear, For auld lang syne, We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet For auld lang syne. Ooo for aaaaaaaaaauld laaaaaaaaaaaaang syyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyne.... Sorry. Wrong party. :cool:

Originally posted by Rahima: As for the topic at hand, this is wrong; Muslims should never seek justice against one another in a kufaar court. If justice cannot be achieved in an Islamic court, then there is always the day of judgement. To do such a thing (sue a Muslim in a gaalo court) is to put your Islam in danger. Heh. Muslims shouldn’t kill each other either, sister. It’s a crazy world with no rules at all. Those that have been wronged over twenty years ago are still bitter about it and will not let go. I’m neutral on this issue since I have not been around when any of this took place and what happened in Somalia twenty years ago is not different to me to what happened in Nicaragua or Lebanon. However, I can’t understand what pleasure or compensation will the plaintiffs derive from getting these guys punished in an American court. I’m assuming the victims want to see their oppressors punished but, I somehow feel that the punishment they seek is much more severe than a fine or a prison sentence! Will the US courts oblige? Will this quench their thirst for revenge?

Heh. Nationalist, I’ve got to admire your doggedness and single-mindedness, saaxib. If only you would put all that effort and energy into something useful for us all..if only...

It’s a bit difficult for anyone to go in now, saaxib. The city is completely surrounded by American troops. Pray for the brothers in there.

I find myself more inclined to agree with Baashi on this topic. Nonetheless, I could also see where the others are coming from and appreciate that voting in a Western democracy is unlikely to yield the desired results. I can’t say that I’ve ever participated in any elections (more through laziness and indifference than strong principles). Still, the topic seems to have veered into the familiar ground of different scholar’s opinions and could easily transform into the usual slinging match of “My Mullah is better than yours â€! I feel I have more to add here but I’m finding it hard to articulate myself right (few interruptions at home). However, what I’ll try to do is pose a few questions that have crossed my mind in the past or I’ve read about in Western press: Do Muslims have a siege mentality? Is it of any benefit to us? Christianity (or rather post reformation Christianity) claims to be all about the individual and individual rights. Many Christians argue that Islam is not, which is why it’s having a hard time coping with secular western democracies! Is Islam really anti-individual? (Pardon the simple terminology here). I’m posing these questions in relation to the topic and not in general terms. Hope they make sense. When I have more time to organise my thoughts, I’ll try to expand on them and convey some of the scattered thoughts I’m experiencing right now. PS Thanks Baashi. The respect is mutual, saaxib. Or better still, let me borrow Mutakalim’s game of bridge and redouble my spades here. PPS The following article might be worth reading: Muslims in the West

^^^ Right

Can you drive? Do you think women are better drivers than men? Think men are better? Take the test and prove it. VROOM VROOM

An Obituary by an Israeli writer. A Man and his People November 08, 2004 By Uri Avnery Wherever he may be buried when he passes away, the day will come when his remains will be reinterred by a free Palestinian government in the holy shrines in Jerusalem. Yasser Arafat is one of the generation of great leaders who arose after World War II. The stature of a leader is not simply determined by the size of his achievements, but also by the size of the obstacles he had to overcome. In this respect, Arafat has no competitor in the world: no leader of our generation has been called upon to face such cruel tests and to cope with such adversities as he. When he appeared on the stage of history, at the end of the 1950s, his people was close to oblivion. The name Palestine had been eradicated from the map. Israel, Jordan and Egypt had divided the country between them. The world had decided that there was no Palestinian national entity, that the Palestinian people had ceased to exist, like the American Indian nations - if, indeed, it had ever existed at all. Within the Arab world the "Palestinian Cause" was still mentioned, but it served only as a ball to be kicked around between the Arab regimes. Each of them tried to appropriate it for its own selfish interests, while brutally putting down any independent Palestinian initiative. Almost all Palestinians lived under dictatorships, most of them in humiliating circumstances. When Yasser Arafat, then a young engineer in Kuwait, founded the "Palestinian Liberation Movement" (whose initials in reverse spell Fatah), he meant first of all liberation from the various Arab leaders, so as to enable the Palestinian people to speak and act for itself. That was the first revolution of the man who made at least three great revolutions during his life. It was a dangerous one. Fatah had no independent base. It had to function in the Arab countries, often under merciless persecutions. One day, for example, the whole leadership of the movement, Arafat included, was thrown into prison by the Syrian dictator of the day, after disobeying his orders. Only Umm Nidal, the wife of Abu Nidal, remained free and so she assumed the command of the fighters. Those years were a formative influence on Arafat's characteristic style. He had to maneuver between the Arab leaders, play them off against each other, use tricks, half-truths and double-talk, evade traps and circumvent obstacles. He became a world-champion of manipulation. This way he saved the liberation movement from many dangers in the days of its weakness, until it could become a potent force. Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, the Egyptian ruler who was the hero of the entire Arab world at the time, got worried about the emerging independent Palestinian force. To choke it off in time, he created the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and put at its head a Palestinian political mercenary, Ahmed Shukeiri. But after the shameful rout of the Arab armies in 1967 and the electrifying victory of the Fatah fighters against the Israeli army in the battle of Karameh (March 1968), Fatah took over the PLO and Arafat became the undisputed leader of the entire Palestinian struggle. In the mid-1960s, Yasser Arafat started his second revolution: the armed struggle against Israel. The pretension was almost ludicrous: a handful of poorly-armed guerillas, not very efficient at that, against the might of the Israeli army. And not in a country of impassable jungles and mountain ranges, but in a small, flat, densely populated stretch of land. But this struggle put the Palestinian cause on the world agenda. It must be stated frankly: without the murderous attacks, the world would have paid no attention to the Palestinian call for freedom. As a result, the PLO was recognized as the "sole representative of the Palestinian people", and thirty years ago Yasser Arafat was invited to make his historic speech to the UN General Assembly: "In one hand I carry a gun, in the other an olive branch…" For Arafat, the armed struggle was simply a means, nothing more. Not an ideology, not an end in itself. It was clear to him that this instrument would invigorate the Palestinian people and gain the recognition of the world, but that it would not vanquish Israel. The October 1973 Yom Kippur war caused another turn in his outlook. He saw how the armies of Egypt and Syria, after a brilliant initial victory achieved by surprise, were stopped and, in the end, defeated by the Israeli army. That finally convinced him that Israel could not be overcome by force arms. Therefore, immediately after that war, Arafat started his third revolution: he decided that the PLO must reach an agreement with Israel and be content with a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That confronted him with a historic challenge: to convince the Palestinian people to give up its historic position denying the legitimacy of the State of Israel, and to be satisfied with a mere 22%of the territory of pre-1948 Palestine. Without being stated explicitly, it was clear that this also entails the giving up of the unlimited return of the refugees to the territory of Israel. He started to work to this end in his own characteristic way, with persistence, patience and ploys, two steps forwards, one step back. How immense this revolution was can be seen from a book published by the PLO in 1970 in Beirut, viciously attacking the two-state solution (which it called "the Avnery plan", because I was its most out-spoken proponent at the time.) Historic justice demands that it be clearly stated that it was Arafat who envisioned the Oslo agreement at a time when both Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres still stuck to the hopeless "Jordanian Option", the belief that one could ignore the Palestinian people and give the West Bank back to Jordan. Of the three recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, Arafat deserved it most. From 1974 on, I was an eye-witness to the immense effort invested by Arafat in order to get his people to accept his new approach. Step by step it was adopted by the Palestinian National Council, the parliament in exile, first by a resolution to set up a Palestinian authority "in every part of Palestine liberated from Israel", and, in 1988, to set up a Palestinian state next to Israel. Arafat's (and our) tragedy was that whenever he came closer to a peaceful solution, the Israeli governments withdrew from it. His minimum terms were clear and remained unchanged from 1974 on: a Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip; Palestinian sovereignty over East Jerusalem (including the Temple Mount but excluding the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter); restoration of the pre-1967 border with the possibility of limited and equal exchanges of territory; evacuation of all the Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territory and the solution of the refugee problem in agreement with Israel. For the Palestinians, that is the very minimum; they cannot give up more than that. Perhaps Yitzhak Rabin came close to this solution towards the end of his life, when he declared on TV that "Arafat is my partner". All his successors rejected it. They were not prepared to give up the settlements, but, on the contrary, enlarged them incessantly. They resisted every effort to fix a final border, since their kind of Zionism demands perpetual expansion. Therefore they saw in Arafat a dangerous enemy and tried to destroy him by all means, including an unprecedented campaign of demonization. So Golda Meir ("there is no such thing as a Palestinian people"). So Menachem Begin ("Two-footed animal…the man with hair on his face…the Palestinian Hitler"), so Binyamin Netanyahu, so Ehud Barak ("I have torn the mask from his face"), so Ariel Sharon, who tried to kill him in Beirut and has continued trying ever since. No liberation fighter in the last half-century has faced such immense obstacles as he. He was not confronted with a hated colonial power or a despised racist minority, but by a state that arose after the Holocaust and was sustained by the sympathy and guilt-feelings of the world. In all military, economic and technological respects, the Israeli society is vastly stronger than the Palestinian. When he was called upon to set up the Palestinian Authority, he did not take over an existing, functioning state, like Nelson Mandela or Fidel Castro, but disconnected, impoverished pieces of land, whose infrastructure had been destroyed by decades of occupation. He did not take over a population living on its land, but a people half of which consists of refugees dispersed in many countries and the other half of a society fractured along political, economic and religious lines. All this while the battle for liberation is going on. To hold this packet together and to lead it towards its destination under these conditions, step by step, is the historic achievement of Yasser Arafat. Great men have great faults. One of Arafat's is his inclination to make all decisions himself, especially since all his close associates were killed. As one of his sharpest critics said: "It is not his fault. It is we who are to blame. For decades it was our habit to run away from all the hard decision that demanded courage and boldness. We always said: Let Arafat decide!" And decide he did. As a real leader, he went out ahead and drew his people after him. Thus he confronted the Arab leaders, thus he started the armed struggle, thus he extended his hand to Israel. Because of this courage, he has earned the trust, admiration and love of his people, whatever the criticism. If Arafat passes away, Israel will lose a great enemy, who could have become a great partner and ally. As the years pass, his stature will grow more and more in historical memory. As for me: I respected him as a Palestinian patriot, I admired him for his courage, I understood the constraints he was working under, I saw in him the partner for building a new future for our two peoples. I was his friend. As Hamlet said about his father: "He was a man, take him for all in all, I shall not look upon his like again." Arafat is dead