I Cara thanks, it was more pointed at Ngonge. The articles point is (just as you've said) that these men are busying themselves with women's clothing and such instead of focusing on what it is they set out to do in the first place. I personally think it's perverse that they would choose to eye women's bodies when Islam teaches us to all lower our gazes. After all these women aren't provocatively waltzing around they're generally covered but no you have to get into details about the texture of the fabric. Oh the nerve!

Actually GG that's what got me wanting to start knitting but I didn't know how and tehre was no one to teach me. I think it's fun and its the sense of achievement you get afterwards. My work colleague gave me some interesting yarn so I'm going to see what I can make out of it. It's that black frilly stuff. looks more suited to a costume party or something.

Well it would great if we didn't have to face any discrimination. I see your point but its all ignorance to me, if a person can honestly think someone's skin colour should affect the type of person they are. It's just conditioning...just like we Somalis have this natural aversion to being called 'madow'. It's only once you're educated that you can say yes I am madow and proud of it and even then you find your self describe a non Somali as a madow and a Somali as a Somali... isn’t that just as bad?

I think we should all be careful about tarnishing people before seeing all or what they have to say. Although I don't agree with all his comments I still choose to listen to it and take away what I feel co-exists with my ideals and values. Just like if any of you were to have a compelling argument I would obligingly listen and deliberate my conclusion. This is a debate and swaying people one way of other in dependent on evidence to back the point of view. I've tried my best to dig up something whilst keeping in mind how convoluted the media is ...yet no one has come back saying here's an article of news to say otherwise. I’m already wary about what I read, see or hear in the media but I’d like to give myself enough credit to say that I’m not brought in by just anything I read or see and that I make my opinions based on what facts I can gather. This might mean looking at the tone of the article is it “third party”, is the referenced article referenced by well known sources and are there other articles out there reference other sources that agree with the article?

Ok now, you all deny the claims without actually producing any proof. We can argue that all these 'tabloid' articles are false or pushing the boundaries of truth all we want but have a look at this... *SOL won't allow me to post the link* Just google ... Wikipedia > Al Shahab(Somalia) Although it's only a Wikipedia article, if you type in Somali Islamic Courts and bras you'll find 14,600 hits on just that and the sources range from all manner of news media claiming just that. I point out the Wikipedia article because it logs all these reports in timeline format.

I feel like I've had an epiphany over night after watching this documentary on Channel 4 about Racism. Definitely a must for everyone, although it will probably frustrate you! Although I didn't agree with some of Jane Elliott's ideas or methods it still gave me a completely new outlook on how I see subtle racism. I grew up in an area were racism was extremely visible and in your face so I think I’ve conditioned myself to ignore the subtle racism. With my mother calling anyone who even looked at her funny "racist" I started to change my perception after all life is what you make it right? If you ignore it and keep going it's not going to effect you right? See there's the problem, at one point in the doc a white school teacher asks a black lady "so what are you going to do about it?" so Jane Elliott replied " why are you asking the victim to change?" or something to that effect which made me think hang on, why am I the one having to adapt or resolve it? Have I been conditioned to think because racisms is so inbuilt in the UK you start having those defeated thoughts? One mixed race man really clarified it for them by explaining that he would not visit his child's school because he didn't want people treating his child differently because they already thought she was white. When challenged as to why he was doing that he answered with "the sad thing is why someone brought up in this country would think that". That definitely silenced me! I still think that some black people use racism as an excuse not to try, but I suppose that's just me trying to make lemonade out of lemons. One thing that will stick with me is when the white teacher related back a story about a black child in her class that slipped and fell on her face and how the teacher was so surprised that her skin was pink underneath. I wouldn't want someone that ignorant teaching my child...will she even have a job after this I wonder? http://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-event-how-racist-are-you In The Event: How Racist Are You, Jane Elliott, a controversial former schoolteacher from Ohio, recreates the shocking exercise she used 40 years ago to teach her young pupils about prejudice. What is the controversy surrounding the exercise – and why is it still relevant today? The first Blue Eyes Brown Eyes exercise ‘Anything you learn, you can unlearn, including racism.’ Jane Elliot. On 5 April, 1968, the morning after American civil rights leader Martin Luther King was assassinated, Iowa schoolteacher Jane Elliott divided her class of eight year olds according to the colour of their eyes with the aim of showing them how racist discrimination feels. What she did next and her methods in general have been described as ‘objectionable’, ‘unethical’, ‘Orwellian’, even ‘evil’. Despite this, Elliot, now in her 70s, still receives regular requests for her workshop and many of the pupils in the class that day thanked her for helping them experience the impact of arbitrary discrimination. The exercise On that fateful day, Elliot placed blue eyed children in one group and those with brown eyes in the other, then wrote ‘MELANIN’ on the blackboard. She explained that melanin ‘causes’ eye colour, hair colour and skin colour. She also added a fabrication: melanin causes intelligence. She told the children that the more melanin you have the darker your eyes and the cleverer you are - so brown-eyed people have the most and are better. On the other hand, she explained, blue-eyed people sit around doing nothing; you give them something nice and they just wreck it. The exercise gradually took on a life of its own, with the blue eyes becoming more and more subjugated – gifted children were soon rendered incapable and downcast - and the brown eyes becoming confident, outgoing and, in some cases, plain cruel. Elliot then reversed the exercise and noticed that the blue eyes were far less nasty. This was perhaps because, empathetically, they hadn’t wanted to inflict the cruelty that was fresh in their mind. The reaction Word got out about Elliott’s exercise and she was invited onto the Johnny Carson show. Viewers were appalled and hundreds sent letters of complaint. One asked, ‘how dare you try this cruel experiment out on white children? Black children grow up accustomed to such behaviour, but white children, there’s no way they could possibly understand it. It’s cruel to white children and will cause them great psychological damage.’ But Elliott was forthright. Her response was ‘why are we so worried about the fragile egos of white children who experience a couple of hours of made-up racism one day when blacks experience real racism every day of their lives?’ Back in Riceville, Iowa life became difficult for Elliott, her husband and their four children but, despite opposition, she continued teaching and carrying out the exercise. In 1970 she demonstrated it for the White House Conference on Children and Youth. In 1985 she gave up teaching altogether in order to focus on the exercise and in taking it to a wider audience. The Blue Eyes Brown Eyes exercise today ‘It's very, very difficult. Doing that exercise for me is to deny everything that I believe in for three hours or five hours or however long the exercise takes. Every time I do it I end up with a migraine headache. I absolutely hate this exercise. But more than I hate the exercise, I hate the necessity for something like this in the year 2002. And the worst of it is that the exercise is as necessary today as it was in 1968.’ Jane Elliott Jane Elliott is today known as a diversity trainer and carries out her exercise worldwide to companies, large corporations and government departments. She describes the exercise as an inoculation against racism. The exercise is set up so that blue-eyed people are isolated in the middle of the room and the brown-eyed people are sitting on each side of the blues, able to effectively keep them under surveillance at all times. She doesn’t reverse the exercise with adults because, she says, that would put it in the category of a game. ‘Discrimination based on physical differences over which we have no control is not a game. It is a reality, and to reverse the participants' positions during the exercise would destroy the reality of the experience. I don't foresee a time when white folks in this country are going to say to people of colour, “Look, we've been in the driver's seat for about 600 years. Now we're going to give you a turn."' A controversial exercise – divided opinions ‘I’ve reached a point now where I will no longer tolerate the intolerable. I’m a ball of barbed-wire and I know it,’ Elliot says. ‘After 30 years of dealing with this subject of racism, I am no longer a sweet, gentle person’. She has been accused of not recognizing that social and political change has occurred since the time period in which she originally developed the exercise. According to Alan Charles Kors, a professor of history at University of Pennsylvania, Elliott’s exercise teaches ‘blood-guilt and self-contempt to whites,’ and he believes that ‘in her view, nothing has changed in American [sic] since the collapse of Reconstruction.’ But Stanford University professor Philip G Zimbardo thinks otherwise. Zimbardo is the creator of the also controversial 1971 Stanford Prisoner Experiment, which was stopped after college student volunteers acting as ‘guards’ humiliated students acting as ‘prisoners’ and writes in his 1979 Psychology and Life that Elliott’s exercise is ‘more compelling than many done by professional psychologists’. Elliott remains steadfast in her belief that her approach is still relevant and expresses frustration that she still needs to do the exercise at all, saying, ‘It shouldn’t be necessary,’ she says, to ‘…say things that are difficult for people to hear. I’m not kind about it. But neither are the racists.’ Does the exercise work? The academic jury is still out about the efficacy of the exercise and whether it reduces long-term prejudice or if the possible psychological harm outweighs the potential benefits. One of the few studies made was by Dr Tracie Stewart and her group and published in 2003 in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology. She assessed the effectiveness of the exercise in reducing college students' stereotyping and prejudice. Her results were mixed. The white students reported significantly more positive attitudes toward Asian American and Latino/Latina individuals, but only marginally more positive attitudes toward African Americans. Stewart also found that white students reported ‘anger with themselves when noticing themselves engaging in prejudiced thoughts or actions’, which she concludes is not necessarily a good thing and could prove to be ‘either helpful or detrimental in promoting long-term reduction of stereotyping and prejudice.’ Long-term results of the diversity training for adults are unknown. Notable countries where it’s been carried out Elliott has carried the exercise out in many countries where the issue of race is sensitive, including Germany, Northern Ireland, South Africa, and Australia. She fervently believes that the reaction is always the same: revealing the need to undertake it in the first place.

Well, I personally believe it. After all the sad truth is it's not that hard to believe that it would be taken to that extreme. Besides I think the author is very careful and demonstrates both sides.

Now this article is one healthy dose of reality to us all! Although I don't agree with the idea that democracy is the answer I still think we need to take a good long look at what everyone else sees. Alaa Al-Aswany: When women are sinners in the eyes of extremists Somalia is in the grip of famine and chaos but officials there are inspecting bras The Shabaab movement in Somalia controls large parts of the south and centre of the country, and because officials in this movement embrace the Wahabi ideology they have imposed their views on Somalis by force and have issued strict decrees banning films, plays, dancing at weddings, football matches and all forms of music, even the ring tones on mobile phones. Some days ago these extremists carried out a strange operation: they arrested a Somali woman and whipped her in public because she was wearing a bra. They announced clearly that wearing these bras was unIslamic because it is a form of fraud and deception. We may well ask what wearing bras has to do with religion, why they would consider them to be a form of fraud and deception, and how they managed to arrest the woman wearing the bra when all Somali women go around with their bodies completely covered. Did they appoint a special female officer to inspect the breasts of women passing by in the street? One Somali woman called Halima told the Reuters news agency: "Al Shabaab forced us to wear their type of veil and now they order us to shake our breasts... They first banned the former veil and introduced a hard fabric which stands stiffly on women's chests. They are now saying that breasts should be firm naturally, or just flat." Related articles Yacht couple's family issue plea to pirates In fact this excessive interest in covering up women's bodies is not confined to the extremists in Somalia. In Sudan the police examine women's clothing with extreme vigilance and arrest any woman who is wearing trousers. They force her to make a public apology for what she has done and then they whip her in public as an example to other women. Some weeks ago the Sudanese journalist Lubna al-Husseini insisted on wearing trousers and refused to make the public apology. When she refused to submit to flogging she was referred to a real trial and the farce reached its climax when the judge summoned three witnesses and asked them if they had been able to detect the shape of the accused's underwear when she was wearing the trousers. When one of the witnesses hesitated in answering, the judge asked him directly: "Did you see Lubna's stomach when she was wearing the trousers?" The witness gravely replied: "To some extent." Lubna said she was wearing a modest pair of trousers and that the scandalous pair she was accused of wearing would not suit her because she is plump and would need to lose 20 kilos in order to put them on. But the judge convicted her anyway and fined her £500 or a month in prison. In Egypt too, extremists continue to take an excessive interest in women's bodies and in trying to cover them up entirely. They not only advocate that women wear the niqab but also that they wear gloves on their hands, which they believe will ensure that no passions are aroused when men and women shake hands. We really do face a phenomenon which deserves consideration: why are extremists so obsessed with women's bodies? Some ideas might help us answer this question: Firstly, the extremist view of women is that they are only bodies and instruments for either legitimate pleasure or temptation, as well as factories for producing children. This view strips women of their human nature. Accusing the Somali woman of fraud and deception because she was wearing a bra is the same charge of commercial fraud which the law holds against a merchant who conceals the defects of his goods and make false claims about their qualities in order to sell them at a higher price. The idea here is that a woman who accentuates her breasts by using a bra gives a false impression of the goods (her body), which is seen as fraud and deception of the buyer (the man) who might buy (marry) her for her ample breasts and later discover that they were ample because of the bra and not by nature. It would be fair to remember that treating women's bodies as commodities is not something found only in extremist ideologies but often happens in Western societies too. The use of women's naked bodies to market commercial products in the West is merely another application of the idea that women are commodities. Anyone who visits the redlight district in Amsterdam can see for himself how wretched prostitutes, completely naked, are lined up behind glass windows so that passers-by can inspect their charms before agreeing on the price. Isn't that a modern-day slave market, where women's bodies are on sale to anyone willing to pay? Secondly, the extremists believe women to be the source of temptation and the prime cause of sin. This view, which is prevalent in all primitive societies, is unfair and inhuman, because men and women commit sin together and the responsibility is shared and equal. If a beautiful woman arouses and tempts men, then a handsome man also arouses and tempts women. But the extremist ideology is naturally biased in favour of the man and hostile to the woman, and considers that she alone is primarily responsible for all sins. Thirdly, being strict about covering up women's bodies is an easy and effortless form of religious struggle. In Egypt we see dozens of Wahabi sheikhs who enthusiastically advocate covering up women's bodies but do not utter a single word against despotism, corruption, fraudulence or torture because they know very well that serious opposition to the despotic regime (which should really be their first duty) would inevitably lead to their arrest, torture and the destruction of their lives. Their strictness on things related to women's bodies enables them to operate as evangelists without any real costs. Throughout human history, strictness towards women has usually been a way to conceal political abuses and real crimes. Somalia is a wretched country in the grip of famine and chaos but officials there are distracted from that by inspecting bras. The Sudanese regime is implicated in crimes of murder, torture and raping thousands of innocents in Darfur but that does not stop the regime from putting on trial a woman who insisted on wearing trousers. It is women rather than men who always pay the price for despotism, corruption and religious hypocrisy. Fourthly, the extremist ideology assumes that humans are a group of wild beasts that are completely incapable of controlling their instincts, that it is enough for a man to see a bare piece of female flesh for him to pounce on her and have intercourse. This assumption is incorrect, because humans, unlike animals, always have the power to control their instincts by will power and ethics. An ordinary man, if he is sane, cannot have his instincts aroused by his mother, sister, daughter or even the wife of a friend, because his sense of honour and morality transcends his desires and neutralises their effect. So virtue will never come about though bans, repression and pursuing women in the street, but rather through giving children a good upbringing, propagating morality and refining character. Societies which impose segregation between men and women (as in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia), according to official statistics, do not have lower rates of sexual crimes than other societies. The rates there may even be higher. We favour and advocate modesty for women but firstly we advocate a humane view of women, a view that respects their abilities, their wishes and their thinking. What is really saddening is that the Wahabi extremism which is spreading throughout the world with oil money and which gives Muslims a bad image is as far as can be from the real teachings of Islam. Anyone who reads the history of Islam fairly has to be impressed by the high status it accords to women, because from the time of the Prophet Muhammad until the fall of Andalusia, Muslim women mixed with men, were educated, worked and traded, fought and had financial responsibilities separately from their fathers or husbands. They had the right to choose the husband they loved and the right to divorce if they wanted. Western civilisation gave women these rights many centuries after Islam. Finally, let me say that religious extremism is the other face of political despotism. We cannot get rid of the extremism before we end the despotism. Democracy is the solution. © 2009 Shorouk Newspaper; all rights reserved Alaa Al-Aswany's books include 'The Yacoubian Building' and, most recently, 'Friendly Fire' Article on the Independent

LOL are they debating if I'm female? Anyways the word is cencored here so I guess I'm not allowed to post it. Pm me your email if you want the site that badly. Is that allowed?

I had a browse of the site, it gets more interesting. As you narrow down the family name/tribe you come across famous Somalis with a short bio. You can add your family name etc...and I'm learning I hope I don't turn into some raving tribalist after this lol

oops I didn't realise that was censored I had ago and the thing is amazing you work you way up from you tribe down to you family name.

This is hilarious! As I was googling Allamagan I wonder why there couldn't be a database of abtirsi like a live social network and then I stumbled across this website called ***********, lol which does just that. http://www.***********/view.php?person=3954 but how would it work?

lol nuune thanks for the correction, the trouble with these Nickname/ Naanaysyo threads you could be giving a whole lot away. Goes to prove Me's point in the Surname/lastname thread that nickname can be used to easily identify a whole family. Nuune, I bet that name awr-liqe is very common.

So many hilarious names, I've heard names like (mind my somali spelling)... Habarlo-lyo (I could only imagine he was a woman beater) Oore lixco (swallowed a whole oore , is that a cow or camel?...I don't know!)

Fair point me, although I feel like you've misunderstood me. I personally think we need a naming system that's clear...like I said I wouldn't know what to name my child especially when the western systems dictates parents share surnames with their child. Speaking of which I've always wondered what names like Allamugan and Bailey meant in Somali.

Yes we realise that Malika, me was just trying to come up with a surname system that could fit into the western system of surnames. His attempts are good but we should take into consideration that many Somalis who enter the UK often completely fabricate their surnames to follow trends of those who have successfully entered the UK before them. Which might explain the growing number of Jama's, Sheikh, Sharif and even Kadiyeh which I thought was so unique! I've met Somalis who would claim surname such as Sharif to fit with their stories that they are from a minority in Somalia. So a surname system is brilliant if people are ready to be honest.

Well I've seen names like Mohamed Mohamed or Muse Ali or the likes. More and more we are learning to give up the tradition of nicknames. And people prefer to be known by an Islamic name. In fact my grandfather's dying wish was to only be called by is real name Mahamood rather than his nickname. Although many people do not uphold it. Btw, I thought 'Tuur' meant humpback or something. Isn't that an insult of sorts?

lol, I have a couple of those name in my family. Both my grandmothers (maternal and paternal) have the surname Kahin with no relation. Which brings me to the question I was hoping you’d attempt to answer? Why do so many Somalis have the same or similar surnames? I used to think my surname was very unique till more and more Somalis entered the UK. BTW not to debunk your theory but some families don't have nicknames. My surname/middle names uses my families full name which is my father's name, my grandfather's name, my great grandfather's name and my great great grandfather's name. It's annoyingly long but for ease I shorten it by using my great great grandfather's name. But you know I always wondered how my brothers would continue the tradition would they drop the 4th Surname for their own name? Definitely confusing!

loool...I think that type of knitting is a little advanced for me, but i'm flattered you thought I could. What's this about chicken? Maybe it's all the talk of fruit is unsettling for these 'manly men'.

Originally posted by NGONGE: It is true! This is a Bessed Baby and I am planning to set up a travel agency to send all the faithful pilgrims to visit him in Dagestan. I also propose that we take him away from his parents and put him in a private Islamic school. Such a Miracle Child should not be left to the whims of parents uneducated in Islamic history and law. Furthermore, and to help all the followers of the Blessed Child, we suggest that a world tour should commence as soon as possible. In that way, the Blessed Child can visit all his followers and the income raised from the various events, meetings and Islamic debates can go into building a shrine for the Blessed Child in greenest Dagestan. ^^^lol, sadly someone is probably trying to do that and more as we speak and considering he's already being used to prompt a revolt.

Well not everyone has the same taste, for a change I agree with Ngonge. Eating fruit and a life long commitment is no where near comparable. If a person can't tell the difference between that then I suppose that person shouldn't be making a commitment in the first place. Besides there far more factors in a relationship, it's not one constant thing... which was what Elisa trying to explain metaphorically I think anyway. Plus you've got to put in some effort too, spontaneity etc. Zu: Not all people are the same, that's why everyone has they're own taste/type.

don't you think?

Is that a statement? I personally think it's called wisdom...you know that thing that people gain through life experiences and knowledge.

^^^Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. So word to the wise don't cheat! I'm loving the stats, regardless of who does it and why it's wrong and I'd like to think we humans have enough intellect to not just follow basic animal instincts. Although it seems not many of the men in SOL are giving themselves that much credit. As for all the "because a woman let him" that sentence is just as incorrect as the first one "why do men cheat" which implies only men cheat in the first instance, the second sentence implies women are the sole transgressors. Let just put this all to rest as Blessed attempted. "Cheating happens because a person wanted to and someone else let them" Any other 'explination' is called an excuse!

Thanks Blessed! I hope you get started soon...It would be nice see someone else attempts.