Originally posted by Cambarro: I missed it. I was cleaning the house. It frightens me to think that i was sweeping the floor if it was doomsday. Imagine that !!

Cambaro, As you've noticed ,my knowledge of Islam equals nothing and i've nothing against Islam in particular, hence, my appreciation of your(any knowledgeable person's) inputs. As for where the Mullahs turn to nutrute their ill-will,i don't exactly know, but i don't think that they solly turn to the 'Quran/Hadith'( though there are more fake 'Hadiths' than changed 'Quranic ' verses), as that would conevy the unrealistic claim of " Quran/Hadith are source of hate ". You said , you think the answer lies with education, and it sounds reasonable, but how do you educate the 'educated'?,i mean , who will educate the Mullahs?. Aren't the Mullahs those who are with that little extra knowledge of Islam? if not, who is? Are you possibilly suggesting Islam 'ala Vatican' style, where Mullahs are schooled,trained and appointed, where Islamic Fatwas are fired in consensus , unlike today's 'abra kdabra'? . i'm sure you'll help me disregard this tiny hint of it beeing "another Camabro frivolousness " . Abu_Geeljire, The Issue of Nuradin Farah has to do with my thread as it's a paralell to 'Islamic acitvism', as for the 'conspiracy theory', it is a fact that i've encountred in this very Fora , in fact it is more or less the prevalant Muslim mode if u like,and since you're not denying but instead choosing to highlight what you perceive to be its equivalent in the West , namely 'Islamic Invasion', i do understand you, though i don't agree with you, becouse i'm of the idea that the 'Islamic inavasion' mantra is more of a political nature than theological hatred, hence my suggestion to takle one thing at a time. As for the redefination of Islam , we've already covered that and due to misconception,i/you (we)'ve decided to not address that issue for now. What seems to be an "invitation" is nothing but a typo from my part, it was meant to say 'Islamic invasion'. Now that your questions are answered , i think you'll contribute and help us analyse the real reasons behind the obsession with the 'Conspiracy theory' and willigness to both gullibly accept and act sometimes violently on whatever said and done in the name of 'Islamic activism'.

Thanks Ngonge, that was an informative piece. Now that we know who shoulders that blame , could it fair to ask , where do the entire multitude of Mullahs turn to nurture their ill-will? and lastly where is the alternative voice? It seems as if thoses with the sporadic knowledge has no alternative but munch on what is beeing served. Abu-Geeljire, You seem to be intrested in everything but the thread's subject matter , how come? Regarding the " Islamic invation" , we'll take one thing at a time.

LOL @ WORSE SWEDISH. Khary, all i was saying is, you've choosen (un)intentionally to deny the very senses that enabled you to derive that fatuous conclusion of "Morality is inextricabley tied to Revelation.". How would you know that?, assuming that you don't get Revelations.

Khayr,when you say: "Morality is inextricabley tied to Revelation. For how else would we know what is Sin? What is Good and What is bad?" You sound very convinced, yet you're un-intentionally denying your senses that collect all emperical data available to you to enable you make a reasonable conclusion. It's fallacious to deny the very senses that enable you to derive that fatuous conclusion. and if you succeed in removing the relativeness in the Good and the Bad ( sin is another term for Bad) you'd for once defeated moral relativism.

Abu_geeljiore , I'd the decency to note the litigiousnes in your post, but can't cede legitimacy to such grotesque piece of reasoning. Originally posted by Abu_Geeljire: Simple really, can any Christian or Judaic empire compare to the Islamic Civilization?Did they create systems where minorities where tolerated and the Sciences flourished before the rise of the secular West?Simply stating Islam is an Abrahamic religion like Christianity and Judaism is hardly any evidence for your assertations! I'm afraid it does.Since Islam adds little or nothing to the Abrahamic theology, it remains Mohammed's version of that dynasty, nothing more ,nothing less. Worse was the surfacing of the underlying current of type'The religion of my Car Mechanicer is crucial to my car'. That, sir Newton was Christian or 'Elgebra' was a Muslim etc undermines both your supposedly point of contention and the prevalant and seductive dictum that " Islam is the best ". Now, let's concentrate on the thread's subject matter and see how you can contribute. Ngonge, Regarding the Issue in the issue, i've admitted the effect of the 'article's un-common isses , but the point of the " Islamic activists" including our SOL having common denominator is what i'm alluding to. And you're right on the bucks as i question the idea, not that particular activist. Now, you said the backbone of it lies in the " Conspiracy theory "and that much is understandable. but the 'paranoia 'in my view does a disservice to the supposedly efficacious theological medecine. becouse the more paranoid the more active one has to be , hence more human action and less theology. Again, you'll have to help me understand the unforgiveable gullibility and reseptiveness, as i coulden't answer Why do non-virgin brides wear a white dress in their wedding day.. Ans lastly, let us take on a point that was made in the 'article', namely the physical threat, the right to physically hurt if you like, a phenomenon that is associated with Islam more often than not. how and when such an action is justifieable?

Abu_Geeljire, Thanks for the somewhat spiced history lecture, but what was your point of contention again? did you by any chance redefine Islam ? or made it more than another Abrahamic religion.? I heard the noice, but coulden't tell the direction it was coming from so to speak,attempting to point some inconsistencies in one thing , finding it is another,and the term Mohammedanism ( a term i avoided to use)actually suffices to convey my whole point. Maybe , you'd the term 'pacified' to turn your stomach , but, even in that case, you haven't picked the sharpest knife in the drawer. Ngonge, i'm still chewing your paralel inquiry , and time is not a freind , but will come back with why a mud is not my clarity.

Well, it is not wrong if you want to be censored , but it is if you don't want to be censored. Do you want me to open a remote connection to my server so you can access that site to see it?

Are you under censorship?

Northerner, Apology is on my part for beeing so vauge and terrible to have presented such a vulgar 'article'. i look forward to your two cents, preferably a densy explanation of the trigger-happiness that seems to prevail. Abu_geelJire, unless there is a wolf in a sheepish clothing i think it's fair to say that Christianity is a Islamic source of faith or Islam is a spurious/genuine younger brother of Christianity in the Abrahimic theology's dynasty,without superfluous explanation for the read,and you can always be out for a Duck as they say. One has to almost be a mouth breather to assume Islam is new in the west, and i've given myself the right to not 'define' Islam for the obvious reason that it needs not another defination, if you're of the idea that we need to define it,i'd gladly be all ears. I must have been two sandwiches short of a picnic to have thought that it went without saying that Islam theologically adds little if any to Christianity,nonetheless, taking that leap of granting you that knowledge has shown to be the only gross generalization i've commited. Paragoon, I,as in the one who presented the 'article', coulden't have claimed to have digested the gist in the whole thing as you did, but allow me to fall short as far as the Author's failure of shifting or diverting a blame is concerned. I think not that neither the Author nor me are such slow in the uptake to insinuate a diversion of blame, it is rather a question about the genuine justification of an Islamic Activist's dishonsty for an honest religion, for that let me introduce you to the three add-on pictures and an interview with one of the men who did it . hence, my questioning of the moral justification of Muslim's immoral deed, if and when it seems to be in the intrest of Islam for a that particular Muslim. Having said that, or be that as it may, there is this unforgiveable gullibility of a forever apologetic attitide towards such immorality in the gallery, i'd be lucky if someone took the time to explain it for me and for those who're not dealing from a full deck.

Now that the smoke is settled ,i can lean back and harvest the fruits of my earlier apology regarding comprehension beeing as slippery as eel. It'd be plain dishonesty from my part to claim complete un-awareness or miss-understanding of the religious beef and reef at stake for the reading beleiver, yet to catch the falling star, i needed to stick to the article's ever shrinking common middle-ground, so to speak. With that out of the way, the need to dap our hands at the different kettles to fish for 'the truth'about Islamic activism gets even more sensitive , experience tells us that one gets green about the gills by finding out an un-favored reality,thusly, letting the Autopilot on is a natural and expected defence mechanism . Yes, dear Ngonge, It's this neither fish nor flesh of 'Islamic activism's role i question , and without clinging to the righeousness/errorenousness of the 'Article' ( it actually is from R.D's book ) it is a tragedy / comedy that is so played you can't tell where the Comedy fades and Tragedy appears. None of those "wanna be activists "did spare the rod and spoiled the child,as they state clear in their judgement, and giving the dog a good name never been a forte so to put it. That it is a mutual exposure to the extremes of one's nightmare coulden't be more of a reality and pragmatic platform to boot from, hence the constant slapping. All one needs to do is claim beeing Islamic activist and voila , you've a penalty against the elleged 'enemy' at your disposal, and there is where the gallery is fed , Tragedy for lunch, Comedy for dinner. And i don't disagree with you regarding the constant slapping and the amount of sidekicks in the 'Article'.

What Famous Leader Are You? personality tests by similarminds.com 45 Questions and voila...... Just imagine that . Now i understand why Cara disliked the result.

Time is not what i get plenty of , but having somehow succeded in implanting that hint in your mind i've no choice but to carelessly agree, As i'm getting older, let me bacome a light version of NGONGE and withhold a respectful but tiny suspicion of your comprehension of the gist of my previous post. for which i in advance apologize had it been about a deliberate disregard from your part. You pose two, presumeably three connected yet independant questions, 1:why pick a fight with Islam/Muslims? 2:Why so affraid of Islam? 3:why the west is depicting Islam/Muslims in such a negative light? First, i'd like to stress that i'm a westrener only to the sense and extent that i've lived more than a 3½ / 4 of my life in the West, thusly,it remains questionable weather i can give you answers in the name of a westrener. Nevertheless, this is my 'ett öre'. Question number one ,from my prespective, its not about west picking a fight with or against Islam , you may acknowledge or get mystified by this , but the West has already pacified Islam before it even could be a problem, and not by the crusades which are probably the first to occupy your mind, but by pacifying Christianity which is West's previlant faith and a direct or indirect Islamic source of faith. It seems to be about Islam whining to be redefined and entitling itself for a rematch against a West that is more of a different class nowadays. christianity as west's prevelant faith had been tamed to what a faith should be, a theological idea that competes about followers at home against not only Islam which it sees an adultred version of itself but against all possible/probable faiths mankind has known. Question number two assumes a non-existant fear, so there is no legitimate or genuine answer. Question three, Islam and Muslims in the West as in any other faith are subject to exposure in terms of conformity to reality, an exposure Islam doesen't seem to be used to in its own home-town,due to lack of competition from equally privileged doctorines. That Islam is reconcileable with the West is a well entertained mindset in my circles , but it remains to be seen if West is reconcileable with Islam, i'm an optimist as i consider myself a living proof for such a Reality.

The previous September, the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad. Over the next three months, indignation was carefully and systematically nurtured throughout the Islamic world by a small group of Muslims living in Denmark, led by two imams who had been granted sanctuary there.12 In late 2005 these malevolent exiles travelled from Denmark to Egypt bearing a dossier, which was copied and circulated from there to the whole Islamic world, including, importantly, Indonesia. The dossier contained falsehoods about alleged maltreatment of Muslims in Denmark, and the tendentious lie that Jyllands-Posten was a government-run newspaper. It also contained the twelve cartoons which, crucially, the imams had supplemented with three additional images whose origin was mysterious but which certainly had no connection with Denmark. Unlike the original twelve, these three add-ons were genuinely offensive - or would have been if they had, as the zealous propagandists alleged, depicted Muhammad. A particularly damaging one of these three was not a cartoon at all but a faxed photograph of a bearded man wearing a fake pig's snout held on with elastic. It has subsequently turned out that this was an Associated Press photograph of a Frenchman entered for a pigsquealing contest at a country fair in France.13 The photograph had no connection whatsoever with the prophet Muhammad, no connection with Islam, and no connection with Denmark. But the Muslim activists, on their mischief-stirring hike to Cairo, implied all three connections .. . with predictable results. The carefully cultivated 'hurt' and 'offence' was brought to an explosive head five months after the twelve cartoons were originally published. Demonstrators in Pakistan and Indonesia burned Danish flags (where did they get them from?) and hysterica demands were made for the Danish government to apologize. (Apologize for what? They didn't draw the cartoons, or publish them. Danes just live in a country with a free press, something that people in many Islamic countries might have a hard time understanding.) Newspapers in Norway, Germany, France and even the United States (but, conspicuously, not Britain) reprinted the cartoons in gestures of solidarity with Jyllands-Posten, which added fuel to the flames. Embassies and consulates were trashed, Danish goods were boycotted, Danish citizens and, indeed, Westerners generally, were physically threatened; Christian churches in Pakistan, with no Danish or European connections at all, were burned. Nine people were killed when Libyan rioters attacked and burned the Italian consulate in Benghazi. As Germaine Greer wrote, what these people really love and do best is pandemonium.14 A bounty of $1 million was placed on the head of 'the Danish cartoonist' by a Pakistani imam - who was apparently unaware that there were twelve different Danish cartoonists, and almost certainly unaware that the three most offensive pictures had never appeared in Denmark at all (and, by the way, where was that million going to come from?). In Nigeria, Muslim protesters against the Danish cartoons burned down several Christian churches, and used machetes to attack and kill (black Nigerian) Christians in the streets. One Christian was put inside a rubber tyre, doused with petrol and set alight. Demonstrators were photographed in Britain bearing banners saying 'Slay those who insult Islam', 'Butcher those who mock Islam', 'Europe you will pay: Demolition is on its way' and, apparently without irony, 'Behead those who say Islam is a violent religion'. In the aftermath of all this, the journalist Andrew Mueller interviewed Britain's leading 'moderate' Muslim, Sir Iqbal Sacranie.15 Moderate he may be by today's Islamic standards, but in Andrew Mueller's account he still stands by the remark he made when Salman Rushdie was condemned to death for writing a novel: 'Death is perhaps too easy for him' - a remark that sets him in ignominious contrast to his courageous predecessor as Britain's most influential Muslim, the late Dr Zaki Badawi, who offered Salman Rushdie sanctuary in his own home. Sacranie told Mueller how concerned he was about the Danish cartoons. Mueller was concerned too, but for a different reason: 'I am concerned that the ridiculous, disproportionate reaction to some unfunny sketches in an obscure Scandinavian newspaper may confirm t h a t . . . Islam and the west are fundamentally irreconcilable.' Sacranie, on the other hand, praised British newspapers for not reprinting the cartoons, to which Mueller voiced the suspicion of most of the nation that 'the restraint of British newspapers derived less from sensitivity to Muslim discontent than it did from a desire not to have their windows broken'. Sacranie explained that 'The person of the Prophet, peace be upon him, is revered so profoundly in the Muslim world, with a love and affection that cannot be explained in words. It goes beyond your parents, your loved ones, your children. That is part of the faith. There is also an Islamic teaching that one does not depict the Prophet.' This rather assumes, as Mueller observed, that the values of Islam trump anyone else's - which is what any follower of Islam does assume, just as any follower of any religion believes that theirs is the sole way, truth and light. If people wish to love a 7th century preacher more than their own families, that's up to them, but nobody else is obliged to take it seriously . .. Except that if you don't take it seriously and accord it proper respect you are physically threatened, on a scale that no other religion has aspired to since the Middle Ages. source = R.D ---> the Relusion ________________________________________________ Nowadays , The average Muslim has became more receptive to anything that any person who claims to be Muslim and dislikes the " West" has to coin as the alleged " conspiracy agains Islam ". Mostly ,this receptiveness drives its narration from the failures of westren politics or from the walls of the Vatican, but sometimes the sources of a Muslim tragedy is nothing less than the fabrication of a dishonest Muslim. Had i not know Atheer Nuradin Farah in person, had i been sold the idea that he is an anti-Islam writer by people who are at war with the world from allegedly an Islamic point of view.

Originally posted by -Serenity-: So I'd assume, they perform their duties (and more) in that department. Duf ku choog !!

Selective quoting is least desireable in a healthy and decent exchange, her words " you're not Allah " in context, that is, stand to reason. It's upto you to prove the contrary. Go ahead , the floor is yours, and while you're on it,please, help us understand how Nudarin gets paid of the " Anti-Islam " fund for stating that a "Jalbabaad" is not culturally Somali, and accompanies Ayan in whatever" Anti-Islam " campaign she may run.? Just remember,nobody is intrested in your personal vacuous indices,wrapped in an out of context verses. You'll need to give the Islamic account( not the Talibanic account , mind you) of where Nuradin steps out of the Islamic fold by stating that "Jalbabaad is not culturally Somali". now, put upp for the gallery or shut upp. We've had more than our share of Cyber sanctimony.

one need define 'Secular' for the gallery first , no?

Arab woman is hot ? so is a traffic-light pole.

Djib, who can lambaste a Creator's wisedom? none i'd say. its just that darn reality of Asprin doing great job against headaches and Condoms protecting agains STDs either from un-lawfully cheating husband /wife, namely a non-polygamous partner or from a lawfully cheating partner, namely a polygamous partner. Khalaf , Stop beeing dishonst and pulling Lily's legs, technically, there is no difference between a player boy-freind and a polygamous husband, they both sleep around with different partners, only difference is one is claimed to be doing it with God's blessing. Hiv is only one of many STDs and the data u presented does not represent soley the role of polygamy. polygamous or player partners contribute equally to the spreading of STDs , and thanks to CONDOMS, we can limit the damage they cause.

I adore condoms, its just a rubber yet very effective against many holy diseases, that otherwise come along with a 'legally' or 'illegally' cheating partner. A polygamous partner is just as flithy & risky person to cuddle with. Lily , on a serious note i do agree with you. Condom for Life .

polygamy is God's will and no diaspora feminist can tell the Men back home to give up their God-Given right.

Cambaro, " where are we going wrong here ?" Some people are so into the next life that they see this life as nothing but a pandemonium. I can only imagine Somalis deciding to have 'Sharia' law as their nation's legal system and Qadisiya people as the Judges.

Originally posted by ibtisam: ^^i knew here was a reason i liked you ^^ Can we consider that a confession of secret feelings? , you're not alone. NGONGE got that effect on all chicks .

Originally posted by MKA Yoonis: So you cannot discuss with us on such issues Mr. JB self-confessed kaafir! Secondly Nuraddin Farah is not a kaafir and he is a muslim and our brother 'BOB' (Burhaan from now on inshallah) said that he will be investigating the issue inshallaah and that he will get to the bottom of it, understand? I have a valid point and contention, which you will not be able to understand, get it? Now go on with it. ^ eh , and i thought that was you singing " coming on a wing and a prayer " . Sullking off seems to be a forte !,It's kina tempting to ask you to try me , but then i'd be infringing my own religious liberity with your waste.

Yonis,That you're an abject with an irresistable need to call people names is noteable, as your sentences were dripping with intellectual and moral cowardice, that you're not assailed with the least portion of respect to a differing stance is obvious ,but it is quite out of proportion to claim that a Somali person is not entitled to support his/her 'Somali dhaqan', culture ? eh, skip it , i know, i know , i'm jumping on the wagon to support our new Somali-Gaal " Nuradin Farah" ..., oh , the shock , oh the horor !! What i think of you and you of me is irrelevant to the subject matter ,hence i can't allow you to shift the light from the wrong claims of your 'Talibans'. ulterior motive in plain is why you're indignantly jumping on the persona of a Somali Icon, whose only fault is allegedly stating a fact namely, " Jalbaab" doesen't belong to the Somali culture. calling him ignorant might give you a direly needed Ego-insulin , but the gallery is so used to Yonis and his 'Taliban' wanna be'z to fret about. "Jalbaab"(meaning that Taliban ) is neither culturally Somali,nor it is ordained from heaven, now,deal with that without resorting to the old and tired " the world is conspiring against Islam" mantra.