Haye, haye..waa kaalay ela moran meya? war edinko nabi moxamad meel walba meyad la gashan? I wouldn’t want to fall into this trap and explain that our noble prophet was much more than a military leader, saaxib. Nevertheless, what I’ll try to point out to you is the beauty of one single word! The word I’m talking about is “arguablyâ€. Memorise it, use it and whenever you’re faced with it in the future, know what the writer means by it. Glad to have been of service. PS The History of the Roman Empire is unlikely to be taught in any philosophy classes, saaxib. I’m not an expert on this but if I had to guess, I would think that in all probabilities it might be, just might be, taught in the history section. Don’t take my word for it though. :rolleyes:

WE thought the squabble had ended And all parties withdrew wounded But Aeryn came and expressed her shame And Seven obliged and once more injured The gloom has passed It rained at last A stirrer brought a brand new cloud Her reproachful words riled the crowd How did Seven react so fast?

Heh. I somehow had an inkling that you will not account for any of your comments. Still, I wouldn't accuse you of being a Zionist. If I was debating with a Zionist and he bombarded me with such feeble arguments and random emotional bursts, I’d at least understand the source of his passion and blinkered views. With you though, I’m truly flabbergasted! Nonetheless, you show great potential; all that’s needed is a way to curb that tourette like tendency to spit out off the cuff statements camouflaged as valid arguments. You bring up (albeit unwittingly) a very good point regarding the Zionists. The Arabs, Muslims and many Western Socialists have a habit of crediting every suspicious event to Zionist Conspiracies. Those sandcastles of doom are often built on hearsay and suppositions. I assure you that I suffer from neither and I’m glad that in this instance your lottery of words had hit the jackpot. While we’re on the subject, should you change your mind and decide to charm me further in this discussion, I’ll be more than happy to study your thoughts and might even (eventually) find myself agreeing with them.

Saaxib. I don’t want to get into an argument with you over this. I just think it is counterproductive to go on and on about it. I don’t need to show you where you attacked any scholar; you attacked them all by referring to them as cults etc, saaxib. You’ve got a whole thread talking about them. What is that if not exactly what you’re accusing them of doing? I’ve already stated that I do not agree with attacks on the scholars of Islam (regardless of what madhab they follow). However, when they have disagreements amongst themselves, I leave them to it and follow those that make the most sense to me, in the hope that I made the right decision. Be proud of your deen, brother. Defend it as much as you can and don’t accept attacks on the scholars from every upstart who thinks he knows what he’s talking about. However, when other scholars make the comments, I’d advice caution. None of them are prophets. They’re fallible humans like you and I. They DO make mistakes, but since neither of us is on their level of knowledge we’re left with no choice but to lament this crisis and pray that Allah shows them (and us) the right path. To jump with your own defensive declarations and condemnations only goes to muddy the already muddied water even more. Salafi does not use his own words, he cuts and pastes fatwas, and this is why I don’t condemn him. It has nothing to do with me agreeing or disagreeing with him. This is the way I see and treat such issues. Some might regard it as a form of fence sitting, however, if trying to avoid falling into sinful arguments over things I know nothing about is fence sitting then may I never get up.

Heh. It didn’t disturb me at all, saaxib. Like I said, I loved your work. It was a refreshing change from the ordinary political analysis we’re used to. Still, it was amateurish propaganda (why deny it?); nonetheless, it was pretty impressive for a 15-minute job. Well done.

Read my words again, saaxib. I don’t agree with him nor do I agree with you. Neither of you is willing to address the other side of the argument. You say that his “cult†attacks the scholars but you go on and attack them too. What if they’re right? They’ve endeavoured to give their opinions on the scholars you mention, rightly or wrongly, they’ve concluded that those scholars are in the wrong. It was an Ijtihad on their part. THEY COULD BE WRONG. If you disagree and have the knowledge then go ahead and ADVICE them, saaxib! But, if you disagree and don’t have the knowledge, then pray that they see the light and halt your condemnations. He on the other hand, continues to indulge you in such a pointless argument, an argument of no benefit to either of you or your readers. It only serves to confuse and mislead. Let us assume that there is a revolution in KSA tomorrow. Lets say that the Royal family is killed or exiled and that a new government is formed. Are these Salafi scholars going to refuse to cooperate with them? Like I said, the king is dead, long live the king. As for attacking the Scholars, have you read anything I wrote in this thread at all? AT ALL? If my position has not been clear there I doubt it will ever be clear.

Heh. Love you amateurish propaganda, saaxib. I’m not sure of what similarities you speak. One is an old man and the other was only 18 years old when he inherited Caesar’s army. One got his mandate at the negotiating table and the other fought the killers of Caesar one by one and then fought his “adopted†cousin Marc Anthony to finally have total power of the Roman Republic. One was adopted by arguably the greatest military leader of all time and the other was the president of Puntland. You really can’t compare the two men at all. Search your history books and see if you can find someone else who’s more comparable to the new president (How does Richard The Lion Heart strike you? ) Still, your wish is a great one. Lets hope they’re similar in peace. Paxa Romana lasted more than a hundred years.

I might be wrong, saaxib. But, the way I understood their argument was in the style of “ The king is dead, long live the king†et cetera.

A very good summary, Baashi. But, like you said, there are more twists and turns to come before we’ve heard the end of this. The man is faced with a gigantic mountain and going by history alone, he’s likely to try to crush that mountain than climb it! Even the world backing that you speak about is an uncertain one. This is Africa, saaxib. The world talks a good game but when the first bullet is fired, they usually stand on the sides and wait for an outcome. The questions you pose about Somaliland are all true. However, did you expect them to say anything other than what they’ve already said? Like you said, this is politics, they realise the predicament the new president is in and they know that he’s not sure of his own presidency yet. To crumble immediately and announce their intentions to “sit down†and negotiate with him will give him extra ammunition to use against his foes. Somaliland are the last people to do him any favours, saaxib. They know that nobody wants war and are therefore at liberty to dismiss these new developments. Should the new Somali president make the first move and mention the word “warâ€, they can take the moral high ground and remind all and sundry of all that they were saying all along about this war-loving so and so... The “fun†is just about to start and only those willing to take the serious gambles and bet their entire political careers on the outcome are going to succeed. The new president of Somalia has more sense than gamble it all away at this current time while the administration of Somaliland has every reason to do so (their whole being is at stake). I suspect that the new president of Somalia will limit himself to comments and announcements about Somaliland but do nothing in the meantime. He’ll try to consolidate his position in Somalia proper before he moves on to tackle the issue of Somaliland. If he does not, I suspect that he will not be president for long; the vultures on his “side†will contrive a tactic to run away with the spoils. Lets hope, regardless of the outcome, that no hasty bullets are fired.

I hardly start any “thought-provoking†topics of my own. Should I entertain the idea of starting one, I soon change my mind as it’ll either be an inadequate topic that will not contain ALL that I want to convey or it’ll receive hollow replies thus making a mockery of my pedantic efforts. I’d rather comment on and reply to existing topics instead. It takes relatively less effort to do so and allows me the chance to give tiny glimpses of my disorganised thoughts here and there. On the whole, it’s about passing the time (mostly at work). Post something interesting - serious or amusing really doesn’t matter - and I’ll reply to it in one way or another. What I find annoying though is when I purchase a new item of clothing and prance about while wearing it, hoping that somebody will notice and compliment me on it or advice me to never wear it again! It’s distressing when the verdict on your fashion sense is utter and complete indifference.

Viking, I dont claim to have the solution to this problem. I'm sure that if there is one, large groups on both sides would definetly end up angry and feel betrayed. For me the main goal is that as many ppl as possible on both sides can live in peace without having to see the blown up remains of their dead children in a Cafè in Tel Aviv on public broadcasting. Or having to ask a 19 year old for permission to get the body of your 13 year old daughter who's been shot twenty times on her way to school. That makes the discussion of the refugee-issue increadbly cynical since these refugees are reduced to pawns in a political game. Lets be honest, Israel will never accept it, it would mean the death of Israel as a jewish state (having a 20 % arab minority already). And also there was about as many sefardic jews who fled to Israel after 48' and the following wars, so it evens it out. 21sqkm is a small area, these refugees could easily re-settle in neighbouring arab countries, who have land and sometimes even wealth - assuming the other arab-countries really care as much as they claim. Why should they re-settle in other Arab lands though? You seem to have sadly fallen for the Israeli propaganda here. Following your (and their) logic, the Somalis living under Ethiopian rule should just forsake their lands and move to Somalia and Djibouti! The Catholics of Northern Ireland should just save themselves all the fuss and shuffle off to Southern Ireland! I ask you; again, what moral measures are you using here to work out right from wrong? The arabs back them weren't occupied by the jews. Palestine was under the control of the british, remember? They were under British rule indeed. They however, had to fight off the encroaching hordes of Jewish settlers who started to slowly acquire more and more Arab lands, aided and abetted by the British establishment (that’s before we even start to mention good old Belfour’s declaration). Mapai a peace loving party? I dare you to point out exactly where I said that. Still searching? I said "the doves of Mapai" which is quite different from saying "Mapai - the doves", dont you think? I'm not naive, I'm aware of the fact that Israel was funded by terrorists. But I'm also aware of the fact that the arabs back then were just as much of terrorists, tactically challenged terrorists, but still. As for your first point here, I don’t wish to indulge in a squabble over semantics, suffice it to say, your words painted a picture of cautious and peace loving doves. I’ve already given you a taster of that party’s history. One that shows that this party was anything but peace loving! Your second throwaway point is more intriguing though. In what book, religion, logic or even sentiment does it say that people who resist and fight against their lands being overtaken are terrorists? As I told you in a previous post, your moral compass needs a bit of tweaking, dear. You’re calling everyone who takes up arms a terrorist. I advice you to rethink your words or rephrase them so you don’t come across as a total novice (resist the temptation to just spit out words, dear). Occupied, oppressed..and what more? Yes, voiced by those in a helpless and weak position. A group that cant afford to do things that will lead to having ppl like Netanyahu at power. Now this is a different argument, isn’t it? So you want them to play a “political gameâ€? Isn’t that what they’ve been doing since 1993? Have they not conceded and finally recognised the state of Israel? Did they not negotiate and shake hands with the OCCUPIER? What further concessions do you expect from them? It really does not matter who is in charge of Israel at the time; the policy is mostly the same! Talk of peace while building more settlements. It has always been thus. As I've already stated, I dont put all the blame on arab leaders. I put most of the blame on them. You seem to share their thinking patterns (that's the only explaination to ur obsession of Arafat, that, or ur his cousin who's hoping for a good position in his parlament). Now I'm not a pacifist, but if I'm about to use violence, I'll use it tactically. Take this latest brilliant move, where some arabs decided to shoot primitive misiles from Gaza. Let me see, since operation DP started about 5 israelis lost their lives..compared to oer 100 palestinians. Now you might think that 95-0 for Israel is a good score, but for me it's unacceptable. You’re starting to waver a little but not enough to make sense. Arafat is not my cousin (though since he’s a Muslim, he’s my brother). Where I differ from you is in the fact that I try to give credit where credit is due. I don’t condemn people just because I’ve heard it on CNN, I condemn them when I’m presented with overwhelming evidence against them. I’ve already given you enough information about the man on another thread for you to make a BALANCED and fair judgment on him or at least use it as a guide to read more on the subject and learn about his history. As for using violence “tacticallyâ€, how would you achieve that? I recall VIKING asking you similar questions, which your only reply to was that you didn’t have a solution to this problem. In all honesty, I doubt if anybody is expecting you to supply them with any solution. I seriously doubt if VICKING expected you to give him a solution to a problem that’s been troubling the world for the past fifty years. What he was asking you though, I suspect, is to explain your offhand comments and outrageous claims. If it’s peace you’re espousing, great. But bear in mind the history of this conflict, the difference between the responsibilities of the occupiers and the occupied, outside pressures, religion and the scarce economic resources (not forgetting WATER). As long as you take all those (and whatever else I’ve missed out) into account when making your analysis, your idea of peace might eventually resemble a genuine and coherent argument. At the moment, and judging by the wayward logic you’re using, the peace you espouse is the peace of cowards. The peace that is forced upon the occupied and follows the old adage of “To The Victor The Spoilsâ€! The Palestinians don’t want such a peace and would rather continue with their “idiotic†violence instead. Just in case none of my words manage to make a breakthrough and you insist on carrying on with your obstinate line of argument, let me humbly request that you make your next reply one that gives your whole outlook on this conflict and how you’ve reached these conclusions of yours. Don’t take any of my words to heart. This is a debate and contrary to the popular misconception of “agreeing to disagreeâ€, debates are all about challenging weak arguments or even mocking them if presented with a chance to mock. May your arguments never be weak.

Nice to see Ambassador OG and Ambassador Suldaanka clear out the misunderstandings between their people and agree on a future of cooperation and mutual respect. His Excellency the president of the republic of Somalia must take all the credit for such a happy ending. Salute the flag, open up a bottle of ceeran and be merry. The republic is back. Long live the republic.

I'm sure you'll find away to bring it back to the way it was, saaxib. Any comments on my questions by the way?

Thought you might be interested in this thread.

Six full pages of gobbledygook! Homosexuals are bad and sick people, are they? What if I were to tell you that homosexuality is ok and that all your comments are prejudiced and bigoted. What if I were to say that all these statements about killing, torturing et cetera were myopic views that have no relation to the human race. What would your reply be I wonder? :rolleyes:

Offcourse not, if that was the case, Israel wouldn't have been at all. The arabs back then weren't "passive doves" either, the difference is that they were tactically challenged..and yes..loosers of all the wars. The Arabs back then had every right to fight back. I’m intrigued as to the measures you’re using to equate the actions of the occupied and the occupiers here! Offcourse they were! They as much as their arab counterparts who murdered and attacked jewish immigrants before 48'. Again, I refer you to my earlier statement. First of all, I'm not your sister Secondly, you are wrong. As I've already pointed out (which you conviently missed) Mitznas administration could have been a step in right direction. I’m wrong? You didn’t prove me wrong (sorry was just about to call you sister again! can’t help it, you see. I call all Somali females sister, you are Somali, right?). You didn’t dispute the fact that the party you claim was a party of peace was the same one that created the state of Israel and the terrorist roots of the IDF, yet in the same breath you’re trying to convince me that they were a peace loving party? What was the peace that they were after? Were they going to withdraw from the Arab lands? Hang on, let me rephrase that, what is your understanding of a just peace in those circumstances and during that time? "Peace is indeed a good and noble idea but your foes have to be peaceful people before you decide to make peace with them, they have to show that they’re willing to demonstrate their desire for peace with action not simple words." That sounds a lot like what Sharon and his crew says. Of course it sounds like Sharon, but where it differs from Sharon is the fact that it’s voiced by the occupied and oppressed. Your moral compass seems to be long overdue for a service by the sound of things (the Israelis would say it‘s not “mensch“). The way you talk about this situation, anyone reading it would think history started with the Intifada or the first suicide bomber! You blame the Arab leaders for the predicament the Palestinians are in but you completely disregard history, the Zionists or the role of world powers. This argument of yours has more holes than a sponge. I recommend that you go back and read your essay notes or the website you got your information from then come back and fight the Israeli cause with a bit more zest and conviction. I await a meatier and more worthy reply.

I am hoping all parties involved are not taking any of this to heart. I agree with Shayma’s wise last words there. Here is an apology: I come across as a bit of a seed planter But my aim was just a little banter I think it’s prudent to retire Before I feel the moderator’s fire Should I trot away or should I canter?

^^^ lol I’m not in the business of planting any seeds (least not hatred ones). I don’t think you should fall over this if that’s what you’re asking. I seriously would have loved to see this “disagreement†done in the form of a poem though. Didn’t you like my lymrics? I thought I was being fair to both in a humours way (to the lady more so purely because it’s the gentlemanly thing to do rather than any malice for you, saaxib).

This is seriously disappointing. If you’re going to squabble so at least do it in the form of a poem. Here are a couple of lymrics There was a man called J11 He once had an argument with Seven She told him where to go and mentioned people they know But the potential “red card†was still not given. There was a girl by the name of seven She had a face as pretty as heaven She picked up the wrong fight To our general delight And the irritation of Mr 11 Should you decide to continue this argument, make sure you do it in the style of a poem, a haiku or lymric.

^^^^ Turning this into a personal competition of who’s right and who’s wrong does neither of you any favours, saaxib. If you think the brother is “wrong†try gentle persuasion, ignore him or refute his claims without making it look like you’re conducting some kind of vendetta against him. Anyway, I thought you already had a whole thread dedicated to this issue!

This gets better and better! So the Mapai of Ben Gurion were Doves? The first and main political party for the Zionists that settled in the land of Palestine were passive doves? The people who created the Haganah (and the Irgun) and went on to slaughter countless Palestinians and British were doves? Sharon says he’ll dismantle the settlement but his history tells us otherwise, sister. The “peaceful†groups you mention are not in power in Israel and have never been. All the previous governments (Labour and Likud) have acted the same way when it came to the Arabs, sister. Peace is indeed a good and noble idea but your foes have to be peaceful people before you decide to make peace with them, they have to show that they’re willing to demonstrate their desire for peace with action not simple words. You seem to have knowledge of the history of this conflict but it’s a very very distorted picture you paint, sister. I wont even advice you to check out Arab and Islamic sources to find out, I wont advice you to check out international and UN sources, I’ll advice you instead to check out Jewish and Israeli sources and see what the Mapai, Labour, Likud and all the various personalities stood for. Let us hope peace does indeed reach that land but it has to be one where the aggressor (which you conveniently ignored) makes all the running.

Well, I’m glad that my words amused you. Nonetheless, they’re as true as those that sing the praises of Mandela’s heroism. Like I said, Mandela was stuck in a prison cell for 27 years and that’s more or less what created the “mythâ€. He didn’t have to live amongst his corrupt ANC for those 27 years or he would have been as tarnished as his Mrs was. Arafat on the other hand, did spend most of his life in active struggle. In Jordan, Lebanon and even Tunis. He had to deal with bigger and more complicated issues than the single problem of apartheid. He had to deal with more pressures. He was facing pressure from the two major world powers (remember the Soviets?). He was also being coerced by Arab leaders (mainly Egypt) and he was getting pressure from within his Fattah Party and the PLO. The fact that the PLO stayed in tact all those years is testament to the man’s political ability. The fact that the Palestinian issue has not left our TV screens for the past thirty odd years can also be attributed (in part) to Arafat’s tenacity. To push all that brave history aside because of some minor faults the man has made is not much of an impartial view, wouldn’t you say? Cawrelo, Your argument is a different kettle of fish altogether. You seem to blame the man for the actions of his enemies! The Israelis (and the Americans) will always find ways to discredit any future Palestinians leader. This is not an issue of leadership this is a matter of interests and politics. They want someone who will agree to all their demands without setting an upper ceiling to what is and what isn’t acceptable for the Palestinian people. They’ll twist and turn events to their advantage, just as they did with the recently aborted road map and Abu Mazen’s negotiations, just as they did under the government of Barak (before we even mention Sharon and his Likud party). You speak of peace, but peace at what price is the question that Arafat asked? He spoke of the Peace of the Brave when he finally agreed to recognise the state of Israel and attempted to negotiate a settlement with them, I’m sure you know what followed (well, unless your sources for information are the Jewish press of course).

^^^^ Notice how what the scholars in these fatwas say about all the accused men and Culama differs from the style of the person in your first post, sister? Did you see the language used? See the clear way they articulated their words? Even in the short “discussion†between Salafi and his “teacher†(if the words he wrote are as the conversation went) did you see the style of the reply? See how he left room for doubt and didn’t outright convict the man but rather what is reported of the man? Was I asking for too much when I expected the gentleman who attacked the credentials of the scholars to do the same and follow the same method rather than mislead people with words that leave no room for uncertainty at all?

I agree on both counts, sister.

Originally posted by Xoogsade: I find this Notion of subservience to be disgusting. I am not Obeying anyone. So is my islam valid or Not? Just wonder This is a trick question, right? Lucky that Salafi didn’t fall for that meagre bait you’ve dangled in front of him, saaxib.