Ngonge, If you're not willing to dedicate a new thread to your ridiculous premise "Iraq/Afghan war justified", then I have nothing more to say to you on that matter. You keep on trying to link your premise with the London bombings when they have nothing to do with each other. Can't go around in circles all day. One piece of advice: In the future, please show some caution in your choice of words when discussing Islam and the Muslims. That 'saying' you mentioned is a Hadeeth Shareef. not a proverb. Brushing off Muslim dead as a 'tasteless distraction' may fly here thanks to online anonymity, but I assure you in the real world... well, let's just say a retraction and apology would be due. At the very minumum. I won't add the "or else" part as I would expect full compliance.

^^ You may not care whether it's true or not. But some of us do actually care about disparaging a great companion of the Prophet(PBUH) who narrated more than 6,000 hadeeths. I know for a fact that Shi'a don't accept Abu Hurayra as an authentic narrator. I was wondering whether they also started spreading false stories about him. Character assasination, basically. Which is why I asked you where you got the story from. It sounded more like the old "Ju7aa" stories. It's hard to believe that any credible person(let alone a companion) would say: "Well, the food's better at Ma'wiyah's place, but Ali's Salaat is off the hook. and I'm better off watching people kill each other from the safety of a hill."

OG, I'm wondering whether that Abu Hurayra incident you mentioned actually happened ? or is it just a made-up story intended to make people laugh at Abu Hurayra's expense. the source would be appreciated.

Two quotes,people Ngonge,up first There were civilian casualties during the invasion (surprisingly kept to a minimum though Iraqbodycount.net, next This database includes up to 7,350 deaths which resulted from coalition military action during the "major-combat" phase PRIOR to May 1st 2003. Now that's raw statistics. To be fair, I must add the human element. That is seven thousand three hundred and fifty men, woman, children of your brethen(assuming you're muslim) killed(justifiably, in your opinion, correct me if I'm wrong). Not by radical savage ferocious suicide bombing terrorists, but by Uncle Sam and John Bull. Do you still consider that to be "suprisingly minimum ? If not, what would be an acceptable number that 'civvilised' people could live with. For some reason, I happen to think that your "Iraq/Afghan war is justified" statement is more of a dumb comment you wrote right after the blasts. You were rattled, angry and needed to blow steam off. Now, we all make dumb statements, but we usually retract them. You're digging your heels in and arguing a insane position. To top it off, you say something like this: the war in Afghanistan was justified because of the attacks on New York and the fact that the groups that made those attacks was said to be based in that country! Wars do not start because "it was said to be"..or "somebody said so". Gulf War 1 did not start because Saddam was 'said to be' in Kuwait. It started because his tanks were cruising in Kuwait City. For arguement's sake, let's assume the "it was said to be" claim is valid. How does that justify attacking Afghanistan ? There is no evidence whatsoever linking the Taliban to 9/11. NONE. The Americans needed to strike out because they were badly humiliated. and they did so because they could. Might is Right. Very similar to Bubba Clinton ordering air strikes after the Embassy bombings in East Africa. Target: Pharmacetuical factory in Sudan. Ego boosted, Stars and Stripes avenged. Mission accomplished. At the same time, sane people would agree it was nothing more than plain aggression. If you honestly think that the Iraq and Afghanistan war is even remotely justifiable, open a new thread and give specific information to back up your argument. "it was said so" just doesn't cut it.

WHY ARE WE LETTING COLD-BLOODED KILLERS COMMIT ATTROCITIES IN THE NAME OF ISLAM? WHY ARE WE LETTING THEM KILL IN OUR NAME? Enough. Enough beating up on ourselves. We(the Muslim Ummah as well as SOL members) did not aid or abet this terrorist attack. It was carried out by misguided fanatics. Not us. So there's no reason to grovel and apologise. Self-abasement is not a virtue. For Nomads in the US, watch out for 'brother' Kamal Nawash to break out on talk shows describing in great detail what exactly is wrong with Islam(most of it, in his view). He normally surfaces after terrorist attacks and is a constant fixture on Fox.

Northener, I think most of us clearly condemned ALL cowards who kill ALL innocent people EVREYWHERE in the world.(that does include cowards in well-pressed uniforms) What some of us object to is the way Ngonge justifys the Iraq/Afghanistan war while condeming the London bombings. Killing civillians in war is ok(as long as it's civillised), but attacking my city of London is wrong. How do you respond to that kinda B.S ?

Ngonge's War 101 is really appealing. It's nice, neat, and concise. At the risk of over-simplication, it goes likes this: Two well-dressed , well-equipped armies who follow the "rules of war"(Abu Graib/My Lai./Sand Creek/Wounded Knee..list goes on) go into combat, after putting up a brave fight, the vanquished side surrenders, and to the victor goes the spoils. We are civillised. Civillised people surrender and do not continue fighting after all hope is lost. Unfortunately, We live on the Earth. History has countless examples of men who fought to the death for what they held dear. Sayyid Maxamed Abdullah Hasan, William Wallace, Omar Muktar, Fidel Castro(he still lives) etc were not fighting wars. They were engaging in gurreila warfare(terrorism in your book). They didn't have a copy of the Geneva Conventions handy. War is hell, friend. Don't simplify it.

Ngonge,(how do you pronounce that by the way ? Joonji ?) Easy with the temper akh, you don't have to tweak ofleh's pigtails or even braid my beard. Let's just talk. In your logic, illegal wars fought between armies that result in massive death and destruction to a unarmed civillian populace is OK(Iraq/Afghanistan). I disagree with this point. Reckless acts perpetrated by half-witted Mullahs(your words) is NOT OK. I agree with this one. For the record, I condemn the London bombings because civillians were attacked. An attack on, say Navy ship, HMS Phillip the Turd(spelling mistake) , for example, would be a whole differnt story. As the old adage goes: "One man's Freedom's Fighter is anothers Terrorist" and vice-versa

Ngonge, I understand your city has been hit hard by a horrific terrorist attack, I can also understand you have feelings of anger, fear, and terror(kinda of like what people in Palestine go through on a daily basis). If you need to lash out to relive your stress, do so. but not on the account of your fellow Muslims who had nothing to do with either Saddam Hussien or the Taliban. Try writing a letter to your MP.

^^ His point is quite clear: Indicating a disapproval of Shi'a Beliefs through a series of open-ended rhetorical questions. What his point is NOT is: eye-rolling and trite proverbs.

Good lookin out, Haddad. and a virtual shout-out going out to Islamicweb, very resourceful and well laid-out

Asalamu Alaikum, all Looks like this Topic is about to fizzle out without even getting started. I will add my two cents once I get my hands on Kitaab Al-tawheed, but for now, Let's keep this topic alive. In age of misinformation, with labels being thrown left and right(Wahhabi/Extremist/Takfeeri), calm and collected discussion is the only way out. A few observations, We're all grown people here. A percieved(incorrectly mostly) veiled attack or sly back-handed comment won't hurt us. but if we respond to it, it will derail the discuission. So for the sake of this important discussion, I suggest no response to a personal attack or offensive comment. Just keep it moving with responding only relevant points. Nur, I hope you will lay out your views about Mohamed ibn Abdul-Wahab and his book Kitaab Al-Taheed. and respond to various accusations of his critcs Sakina, I hope you'll be more flexible and continue in the discussion.

Originally posted by Sniper: we're neither...i mean we are not Arabs ofcourse, and we're not Africans by blood, nor Arabs by any means...we're probably uniqiue people. But we're in Africa by map. Thank You The Expert. Sniper, I would have to agree. Somalis don't share the same blood as the Western or Southern Africans(Bantu), but the fact remains Somalia is a country in Africa. So what would you say your definition of an African is?

Black is a color not a nationality. Technically, Somalis have different shades. Africa is the Origin of humanity. So therefore Africans (meaning your orgins come from Africa) were here before Arabs. So if you were here first you can't say that you are part of Arab, they are decendents of Somali or Africans. Yes East Africans have different Physical characteristics than West Africans but still part of the continent of Africa. Go to Saudi Arabia and find out how the Arabs treat the Somalis and other foreingers. The show respect to Americans why? So if you are Arab, why is your Arab brother showing more respect to the Kaffas than you brother?

Originally posted by Missy: I have a little test for all of u who are still confused as to who or what u are: 1)stand next to the nearest white person u can find and compare skin colour. Are u darker than he/she is?.....if answer is yes then u are black! 2)next find an atlas and locate Somalia. Is it in the African continent?......if answer yes then u are African! 3)finally try to speak in ur mother tongue (if u have forgotten then locate the nearest elderly somali person and try to engage in conversation). Are you/they speaking arabic.....if answer is no then u are not an arab! In conclusion you are: Somali-black-African. This is not very hard to work out people! Now stop talking about this nonsense and post more useful topics such as 'how can i help my people back home' Well, to tell you the truth, the reason why things in the english language are refered to as negative are black are because europeans would go to great lengths to take away from anything African. Europeans have no great civilization, so they can only glorify by taking away from others.