LANDER, I stand corrected, saaxib.

first of all, our sis who asked for the advice. i dont think its good idea to give her a divorce shower, it will be like celebrating her failure. The “person†you spoke off was I, sister. I’m slightly puzzled though! It might be a case of understanding, but how does my joke about “nacánimo†differ from your serious point about “failure� The man’s part in the story was not the point of this discussion, therefore there was no need to cover that part, see! Or is he getting a party too? Cajiib! :rolleyes:

^^^^ I have no idea what criteria you’ve used to reach your conclusion. Our dear Mandela has been criticised by many peoples (some from his beloved ANC). Many blacks and whites still criticise this great image of a saint that was given to him and point out all his faults and errors. When looking at his struggle as a whole though, most will conclude that he was indeed a great man. Still, when put alongside Arafat I’d always choose the latter. Two totally separate struggles, you see. Where Mandela sat in his prison cell content at being the symbol of Black South Africa; Arafat fought, ducked, dived and suffered in addition to being the symbol of Palestinian resistance. Where the PLO is accused of being corrupted, the ANC WAS a corrupted organisation. I could go on and on with this passion-driven comparison and I’m sure I’ll end up declaring Arafat the greater man, saaxib. The situations, instances and heroic positions the man took are too numerous and overwhelming that Mandela’s symbolic prison sentence will pale into insignificance when put alongside them. Nonetheless, this comparison is really meaningless and I doubt if even Arafat was serious enough when he made it. I’m still willing to make it and continue to make you concede point after point until the first statements made by you and others in this thread are completely contradicted.

^^^^ I agree that both have been in charge for far too long. That though is a completely different argument to the one we have here. Here, we were trying to belittle all the hard work of Arafat. In fact, some were even refusing to compare him to Mandela! I personally don’t even begin to see where we can compare a man who spent most of his life in jail to a man who spent all his life fighting for the independence of his people and the liberation of one of our holiest lands (well, it was an emotional comparison, was it not? ).

So, in your mind’s eye a Palestinian election is what’s needed to sort everything out and give legitimacy to the Palestinian cause? The issue of the “corruption†of Arafat is what’s holding up progress, right? I suppose you already think that the 1996 elections that were overwhelmingly won by Arafat were also corrupted, which would beg the question of why another corrupted election is needed! Maybe the answer would be to have Israeli observes overseeing this new election and making sure it’s fair and transparent, eh? This side issue still doesn't explain why Arafat is such a bad guy though! PS I apologise for seeming to chase you from thread to thread I just find your opinions interestingly intriguing and would like to hear more of them (no sarcasm intended).

Prior to the 67' war Herut & Co were concidered as fascists and they were political outcasts By whom? The Arab world or the Western media? Was the Labour party of Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan better? Why are you so concerned with the voting patterns of the Israeli public? Do you seriously think that will make a noticeable difference? Would the Palestinians get Jerusalem back? Would the Israelis dismantle their settlements? Your outrageous statements give an idea of your opinions but I wouldn’t like to assume so would you please spell it out to me?

^^^^ With all due respect, that’s your interpretation of it, sister. My point was if he was going to criticise the scholars he had to make sure that his words were not left open to interpretation. He had to be clear with such a serious subject. Frankly, he would have been better off talking about the politicians and their followers instead. The same point would have been made and we would all wholeheartedly agree with it. With Scholars though, I don’t easily agree with every nobody who decides to have a go at them.

^^^ Thanks a million

“If you were in a position to help a fellow Somali land a job, would you help?†At first glance, this looks like a straightforward question with a straightforward reply; Yes. However, after reading the story the sister related above, one starts to think that the answer to this can be anything but straight forward! First of all, let me try to understand and make a few assumptions about the story of the job that never was! The job involved working with “migrantsâ€. It wouldn’t be a far-fetched guess if one assumes that a huge percentage of those migrants are likely to be Somali. With such a background to this occupation one can also assume that the perfect candidate should be a migrant too (preferably a Somali). This last assumption is usually made by people who have never worked with Somali migrants. Of those Somalis that have worked with their fellow citizens, many usually complain about the lack of cooperation or respect they receive from their clients (Somalis). A lot of workers wonder why would an ordinary Somali listen, respect and cooperate with people of other nationalities but only accept the words of a Somali person in the same occupation if the words of that person made sense to him/her (even if what makes sense is wrong). Someone who worked in such a field and faced such absurdities is more likely to recommend a foreigner for such a job than a Somali (reasoning that neither side would benefit). Of course these assumptions might all be wrong and the particular individual in our story might have been vindictive or wanted to protect his own legacy. Allah only knows. Still, the assumptions made in this last paragraph are borne out of the experience of working with our fellow Somalis. They’re also gained from daily mingling with our people. If one were brutally honest one would lament and highlight the general ignorance of the average Somali. This ignorance seems to have found its way into every part of our lives. It’s not due to a lack of education (though that’s a factor), it’s not even (mostly) a lack of wisdom. It seems to be something that’s inherent in our culture that’s very hard to pinpoint. An example of this could be revealed in this discussion about professions and networking. The lack of Somali cooperation in the professional side of the labour market probably has more to do with the shortage of candidates than a reluctance of those candidates to pool their resources and help each other out. Here is where we Somalis attempt to display our great talent of fitting square pegs into round holes! A Somali Bank Manager would receive countless applications from young graduate Somalis requesting to work in his branch (the applications don’t usually arrive through the proper channels). The idea itself has nothing wrong with it and sounds perfectly reasonable. However, the absurdity becomes clear when one discovers that none of these graduates are qualified for jobs in the banking sector! This scenario repeats itself in many other fields (which probably explains why the sister commented on the effortless way Somalis in the unskilled labour markets help each other out). I wonder how many employed readers have faced similar situations as applicants or facilitators (for lack of a better word). The second part of this surreal issue is the way Somalis in general view the “professionsâ€. A doctor is respected, a lawyer is revered and a journalist is looked up to! However, if a plumber earns more than the three combined he’s the one who gets listened to (hope you excuse the necessary sweeping generalisations here). There is a shortage of opportunities and those who do “make it“, find themselves submerged by the requests for the secret formula! Unlike the Princess who had to kiss too many Frogs to find her Prince, these “professionals†are not seeking any “princeâ€, yet they’re expected to “kiss†the first frog that forces itself on them without question or disgust. Dare they show signs of either; they get accused of being aloof, haughty, unhelpful or spiteful! Another fact to consider is the issue of familiarity. A Somali in a position to help another Somali in a clear-cut situation that has no repercussions will usually do so. On the other hand, when one is asked to help a total stranger land a job while knowing that the future actions of that stranger might reflect badly on one’s own occupation, one would justifiably dither or might even refuse. This last one brings us back to the idea of networking, which the original poster referred to in her post. The conclusion seems to be “Don’t dither, NETWORK†and I wholeheartedly agree.

lol@J Now to explain this poem: *** Drivel mode switched on *** This poem is all about water and how it flows through us, around us, over us and under us like one big maze that even though we know off still remains a secret. Aqua sustains life, the lives of those here and those in the future (even though it’s transparent). *** Drivel mode switched off *** Or of course it could be all about the Barbie Girl.

You must be a kissaholic, dear.

lol@J11 He shoots, he scores He keeps making goals The stadium is almost empty Nobody was there to watch He shot away a volley And hoped it’ll win the “match†The shot swerved to the left It then swerved to the right But before we saw the goal Someone extinguished the light We sit and wait with anguish And a little suppressed delight To see if it hit its target Or caused a little fright In any case it’s funny to witness such a “fight†The suspense keeps increasing How long for the second “part�

No, not at all. I was telling you the difference between the two because you asked. I’m not sure how your bank works. But what I’ve posted above is my understanding of how Islamic Banks work. Would be a real shame if all Islamic Banks worked in the way you describe them though. Where would we put our money? Und the mattress?

"Never explain--your friends do not need it and your enemies will not believe you anyway". Ever since she chose this signature she did nothing but explain. Heh. I think it’s time for the silent treatment now. (Carry on..).

^^^^ When they sue you, are they going to sue you for more than the total amount of the car?

^^^^ His profit from selling you the car was fixed. He will not ask you to pay any other extra amounts nor is the amount of £38,000 variable. The difference with interest is that it varies. Say I’ve lent you £100 today and asked you to pay me £500 back next week. The time for payment came and you couldn’t pay that £500. I gave you a longer period to pay me the money but this time I decided to add another £100 to the money you owed me (inconvenience money). Excuse the very simplistic definition of both here.

For every suicide bomber, the israeli public will be supporting the fence even more. Just look a Beer Sheva last month, the bomber came from an area where the fence hadn't been built yet. All of this idiotic violence from the palestinians, what good have they gained from the intifada? Prior to the intifada in 87, how many roadchecks were there? Useless. Idiotic violence? Do you call their rebellion against the obvious oppression, destruction of houses, arrest, insults and treatment as second-rate citizens in their very own land idiotic? Do you espouse the “turning the other cheek†philosophy perchance? I don’t know of road checks before 1987 (though it’s very possible that they existed). However, prior to the Oslo agreement and the Palestinians getting back control of some of their lands, they were totally controlled by the Israeli police and army. So, you see, some might argue that the “idiotic†intifada did achieve something after all.

Originally posted by Cawralo: He needs to do like Mandela and step off..it's ironic how his corrupt leadership keeps prosponing the elections (this spring inshAlah) and how that's supported by both Sharon and the white house. hmm :rolleyes: Labeling him as a terrorist would be to complement him, to say that he is as the likes of Sharon...Sharon has done so much for his ppl, which is more than what can be said about Arafat. Nice analysis there, sis. The man has many faults. Corruption is indeed rife in his “administration†but you’re implying that the West and Israel favour him! Are you being serious or have I missed the sarcasm? Aren’t you people asking for the impossible here? Like him or hate him, you can’t deny that Arafat is synonyms wit the Palestinian struggle. “In my piont of view, i think that if he would have step down as a leader for a while, Palestine would have a new leader who could may be put in a better situtation then he ever did in his entire time as thier leader.†How did you make this opinion of yours? You’re basing it on his entire time as leader, which implies that you were not satisfied with all that he did to organise the Palestinian struggle and fight the Israelis home and abroad. What exactly do you think that a new leader will bring that Arafat didn’t have? Fighting? Political know-how? Empty promises? Arab and world lobbying? Total and utter belief in the Palestinian cause? Arafat has all these and then some. Ayuub Sheikh u are right walaal, he is living in this huge compoun with Air condions, while the rest of the Palastine ppl are out there dying, well, that is what happens when u have a leader like that. Erm, he’s the leader of his people who the Israeli’s would love to assassinate, where would you have him live? Lander, As I said, I agree on the Arab leader’s weakness and corruption. However, I have my reservations as regards to their courage. The last twenty years have been a disaster for the Arab world. But, if we’re being generous and try to extend a bit of justification their way, we could say that they’ve given up after losing three wars with the Israelis and their allies (not forgetting the infamous Oil crisis). In the case of Arafat, there are even more excuses to be made. He’s a leader of a people with no land. He has no real power to defeat the Israelis with. He’s been let down by most Arab leaders in the past twenty years. He got old and tired, etc.. This business of defending everything and everyone is getting tiresome. I wish, for once, to get a topic where I could agree with the general sentiment and go on the attack too (maybe I’m just naturally argumentative).

Originally posted by Viking: quote: However, when you’re going to criticise (not question) the scholars of Islam, you do have to say who you are and what gives you the authority to do so. NGONGE, Are you claiming that scholars are untouchables in the sense that a non-scholar cannot critisize their decisions? What support do you have in the Quran and Hadith that a person needs some sort of "authority" in order to critisize fatwas given by scholars? Hell, I've heard that Napoleon had some scholars in Al-Azhar declare him to be the long awaited Mahdi...what level of education do I need to have so that I can disregard and critisize such ********* ? Saaxib. You can say that you “think†such and such a scholar is wrong in whatever fatwa they made. Nothing at all stops you from doing so. However, if you write it up as an article and want to be taken seriously, at least show signs of being on the same level of knowledge as those you criticise. Let us assume that you are a scientist who devised a new scientific formula that sounds extremely ridicules, would other scientists say that you’re wrong without completely and clearly showing why your formula is wrong? What if you’re right? Remember Galileo and his Earth revolving around the Sun theory! We don’t accept such shabby assertion when it comes to science and yet you sound shocked to find that I also don’t accept it when it comes to my faith too? You seem to confuse the difference between questioning the scholars and critiquing them. I question them all the time, I’m sure you and everyone else does too. But, when it comes to criticism, you’ve got to put in a bit more effort into it and show me (your reader) why do you believe those scholars are deviant, wouldn’t you agree? Let me give you another example of a scholar that might fall into the camp that this article criticises. Dr Yusuf Al Qaradawi came to the UK recently at the invitation of the Mayor of London. Following this article’s logic, this would mean that Dr Yusuf is a deviant scholar who rubs shoulders with the “enemyâ€. The Dr was in the UK to take part in an Islamic conference on the subject of Hijab. He was here to condemn the French government’s decision to ban the Hijab in its schools! This is the opposite of what Sheikh Tantawi said, which I assume, would make Dr Qaradawi a good guy, right? (The British media, by and large, portrayed Dr Qaradawi as a radical Muslim scholar who condoned suicide bombing and wife beating by the way). Is he a radical? Is he a moderate? Is he a deviant? How could we tell if we don’t look at his various fatwas and scrutinise them before making a judgement? As I said in my first ever reply to this thread, he makes some good points as to the state of the Muslim world today. But, rather than wondering why these scholars would issue such “incoherent†fatwas, he resorts to attacking their qualifications and making assumptions about their motives. These are serious accusations and are not to be taken lightly just because his “overall†analysis seems to be “on the ballâ€. Which is why I said it smelled like sour grapes to me. Would still love to know who he is.

Yassir Arafat The above is a biography of the man on the Nobel Prize website. Looking at his history not many Arab historians will dispute (not even the Israelis would, even though they might try to distort it a bit and use it as proof of his terrorist tendencies). Looking at that, I’d struggle to call the man a coward, saaxib. Even when he finally conceded and agreed to peace with the Israelis, he didn’t completely sell out. Rather he started playing the game of politics of thrusting and parrying and trying to prove to the world how untrustworthy the Israelis were (you can disagree with his policy but call him a coward or weak?). Why would the majority of the Palestinians follow a coward? Surely if he was that bad and considering the predicament they find themselves in, they would have consigned him to the pages of history long ago. Why do you think the Israelis try to discredit him and demonise him at every turn? Why do you think they’re demanding a change of leadership before they negotiate again? I agree on your stance on the rest of the Arab (and Islamic) world. However I don’t think the Arafat story, in spite of his many faults, is as black and white.

^^^^ I beg to differ, saaxib. He made serious accusations against the scholars of Islam. He might have mentioned a couple of names and briefly mentioned their “errorsâ€. However, his “political†analysis of the issue included people such as the Saudi Scholars, Al Sistani of Iraq and more or less every other Muslim scholar! He might have not mentioned them by name but the criteria he set would certainly include them all. You and I could say his words hit the nail right on the head but you and I are not scholars and do not have all their knowledge and reasons for making these “errors†readily available to us. Like I said, if he was talking about kings and presidents then his article would be perfectly legitimate. However, when you’re going to criticise (not question) the scholars of Islam, you do have to say who you are and what gives you the authority to do so. As for the reader verifying the “factsâ€, again I don’t concur with you on that point either. He who raises the issue is obligated to provide the evidence if he expects his piece to be taken seriously. You see, if this guy and others can write such trash and be treated as serious “commentators†on Islamic issues and get away with attacking the people of knowledge, they’ll soon start using the same “perfectly logical†method to issue their own fatwas. I believe my criticism of this piece is more than objective. For if I agreed to the “message†of this person on the strength of this shabby article, I’d have no scholars to seek knowledge from. They’ll all be lackeys, opportunists, apologists and therefore dishonest!

^^^ So says the man who just dismissed the “fatwa†of the Grand Mufti of Egypt. If it weren’t sad, it would be laughable.

I can sense you loosening up a little. Your last sentence could almost be construed as kind advice! Now, we can talk. My long intro also included the parts in Italics, sister. I have a feeling you think I’m many things already. But I doubt that you think I’m mad enough to call a woman I don’t know ‘***** ’. It really does not need any explanation but since it distressed you that much, I apologise for my badly received humour.

Are you sure you're calm? Oh. Calm but very alert, eh? You’ve already blocked my exit and are sitting by the door ready to shoot down anything I write back as being a mere “excuseâ€! I never thought I’d ever get the chance to use these words, but, mala af somaliga kugo adag, walaal. My comments were tongue-in-cheek (thought the long intro was enough for any calm person to realise that). At this point, the only gentlemanly thing for me to do is return the favour and permit you to reply to this post if you so wish.

Secondly, Islam does not prohibit us from questioning the stance of the scholars-only Allah and his blessed prophet are beyond such questioning. I don’t see why there would be any pre-occupation on what this man stands for, the bottom line is that without overanalyzing the piece, he is pretty much right- or is their a disagreement on that? Had he made mention of particular scholars, it would only have turned things ugly. This is a method which was employed by the prophet anyway, to speak generally to get a point across (unless you tell the person directly). There is a difference between questioning the scholars and attacking them without providing a very clear explanation that’s laden with proofs and sound argument to show why you’re attacking them. You yourself are doing the same thing here! I could get all pedantic and ask you to keep providing me with proofs for every point you make until I’m sure of what you’re talking about (you’ll probably refuse). However, I don’t pay attention to your fleeting fatwas because this is a discussion forum and it’s not always possible to expect everyone to back their arguments with evidence and proof. The case of the article above is different. The man made very serious accusations against the scholars and even if he was correct in every word he wrote he still didn’t follow the correct method when discussing such issues. Surely you can see that, sister? What if we got another article attacking Islam itself and following the same “logical†style? Would you agree with it because it made sense to you? Look at the Salafi’s for example, they’ll attack other scholars but they will not do it in the method this man did. They’ll make sure they cover every angle to drive their point home. They’ll go as far as praying for forgiveness for these guys that they so despise. I don’t want to preach here but the defence of such shabby articles is alarming. PS The Osama Bin Laden comment was in relation to the author’s assertion that the scholars only reacted after the September 2001 events. It was not in relation to his guilt or innocence