So you would prefer a measly student who failed her admission test then made a fuzz about being rejected on racial/class grounds over a celebrated author like Nuruddin Farah? What a taste! lol@ measly student who failed her admission test.... Duh, didn't you know that there is a litmus test named after miskiin? (was she wearing niqab because that will explain his favourable reception) Miskiin, I told you yesterday to take some time off, take a break, have a kit kat or something and if that doesnt work, why dont try it again and again...seriously, this cant be healthy for you. I can appreciate what you are doing here but not everybody can be as understanding as me. I get that you are on a crusade and I applaud you for your efforts but you really need to take a step back, reflect on your recent performance, only then can you truly move forward with your agenda. Also, I can't emphasis this point enough, which is that you are not qualified to speak about religious matters and thats the honest truth......(u are stubbornly subjective, ee madaxa adeega iska daa)

I wondered what was so interesting about a tribute to a photographer to take it to 7 pages. Should have guessed some random Somali girl would be getting a cyber lynching. and dont forget, it has has over 5000 hits....lynch mobs have a way of attracting audience. val, the fitnah was started by ayeeyo Somalina.....she went out of her way to search for the story and if that wasnt bad, she provided the arsenal, oops, I meant the poor girl's picture. PS: forgive me Somalina for I have sinned.....hahahaha, but seriously, did you have to post her picture? ofcourse not but this topic is non-issue for me and it should be non-issue for the rest of us, including the 'hurlers'...

Miskiin wrote the following: Yes akhi, its clear in the teachings of Islam that muslim women and muslim men can't have relationship, let alone marriage. According to Miskiin, Muslim men and Muslim women are forbidden from marriage. In the above quote, Miskiin clearly states, marriage between Muslim men and women is not permissible. Miskiin appears to be saying that he is the authority for everything Islam. In other thread, he stated that its Waajib for women to wear niqab. I'm shocked at the above quote because I didnt believe when some nomads warned me about him and said he was certifiable until I read the above quote. Its good thing miskiin asked for Allah's forgiveness, may your sins be washed for misrepresenting Islam.... my advise is to go back to your deen and strengthen your imaam. You are not fit to speak about delicate issues that deal with the faith. yours truly, and forever, LayZie G.

Two or three posts earlier, you said the following: As I said, if the evidence says that its wajib, than it doesn't matter what other scholars says. The scholar should only be followed with the proofs he have, and nothing else. Hadalkayga bal hal maroo kale dhuux: Anigu ma lihi in aynan jirin aduunkoo dhan HAL GABADH oo lagu khasb niqaabka, kolay waxkasta aduunka waa laga helaa. Culimadda muslimiintuna ilaa salafkii(saxaabaddi, tabiciintii, iyo kuwii ka dambeeyeyba) way ka hadleen arintan niqaabka. In badan oo ka mid ahina waxay qabaan inuu waajib yahay, in yarna waxay qabaan inuusan ahayn, laakiin shay fiican uu yahay. Hadaan qawlka culimadda ee ku saabsan arintan keeno, miyaad ku qanci? As you can see, you talked about women's choices and in less than 2 posts, you were telling me how NIQAB is waajib, and while you did not explicitly come out to state that niqab was waajib, (and Allah knows how many times I asked you to take a position for the sake of clarity), you insisted that the majority of the opinion, according to Miskiin supports the position that NIQAB IS WAAJIB. You said warka culamada waan inaa lagu qan'aa. As a result, I asked you to produce evidence to the contrary, you went around it not once, twice but more than three times and to this day, you continue to dance around the issue instead of producing evidence. I went as far as to state that when in doubt, allah instructs the believer to question and investigate, I produced evidence from the quran that instructs the believer to do just that. On the other hand, you remained silent about that. I went as far as stating some of the hadiths and opinions you will be using to make your point before you shared them, I said that is in doubt because some culamas dispute some of the so called opinions you used on the basis that the evidence (narrations) they used were inauthentic, this isn't Layzie G saying it, this is the information I shared with you thats long been out there but instead of providing commentary, you remained silent. I went as far as sharing some of the hadith narrations and opinions that were long established which shows that women did not wear a veil in the presence of the prophet (s.a.w) but instead of sharing your views on that, you remained silent. I went as far as saying that when doubt is raised and doubt is raised by the presumed scholars, we need to turn to the word of Allah and continue to search for the truth. While I did my best to help move the debate along (assuming that we had one since you dont even know how to present an argument), the onus was on you, not on me to produce evidence to the contrary. I asked you to kindly produce textual evidence.(if you want to read what I wrote, please dig up the post in question) to make your case. Mida kale, you strengthened my argument by citing secondary sources full of parenthesis, which shows that inserting a word or extending the meaning of come here to mean more than come here is exactly what I warned you about but you choose to believe what you want to believe and I can't help someone who is determined to follow people blindly. You did not dispute the examples I shared with you about some of the hadiths, which testify to it that women did not wear the veil in the presence of the prophet (s.a.w) and most importantly, the verses in the quran that speak about women's garments and lowering gazes but not about niqab or niqab being waajib. I dont choose my beliefs, I follow the evidence and the evidence says there is no evidence to contradict that the veil is not waajib. Granted that you disagree with me, state the obvious, tell me you disagree with my extreme views but do not come here and sell me the idea that NIQAB IS WAAJIB. We only obey Allah's words, not individuals. YOu choose your believes and thats were you and I have profound disagreements. Furthermore, when you disagree with someone and you say, well I dont share your view that NIQAAB is not WAAJIB, you are in word saying, NIQAAB IS WAAJIB, which means you are taking an opposite stand and you cant run from it. Embrace and own your position. In short, I've cited the quran as well as the hadith and scholarly opinion, you have only cited secondary and at times, unverifiable sources, which at one point or another were dismissed as being inauthentic, which means those sources are not credible by the standards of some cullama's who spend a life time mastering the methodology of the hadith. Moreover, you will agree that our esteemed scholars have more knowledge about the deen than you and I and perhaps all of SOLers put together, which means atleast we agree on something, even if its not the subject of niqab. yours truly, and forever, LayZie G.

Miskiin, this is turning out to be fun since you have chosen to dance around this issue instead of actually debating about it, so what I will do is play your game, I too can copy and paste, so here it goes and let me know when you have had enough and you want to get serious about this niqab business which you insist is waajib. During the day of Nahr (10th Dhul-Hijja), when Al-Fadl bin 'Abbas was riding behind the prophet on his she -camel, "...a beautiful woman from the tribe of Khath'am came, asking the verdict of Allah's Apostle. Al-Fadl started looking at her as her beauty attracted him. The Prophet looked behind while Al-Fadl was looking at her; so the Prophet held out his hand backwards and caught the chin of Al-Fadl and turned his face (to the other side) in order that he should not gaze at her..." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Hadith No. 6228) 
 The Prophet is reported to have said, "...The Muhrima should not cover her face, or wear gloves." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 3, Hadith No. 1838) 
 There can't be one rule for ihram and a different rule for everything else. Narrated Ata bin Abi Rabah (R.A.) Ibn 'Abbas said to me, "Shall I show you a woman of the people of Paradise?" I said, "Yes." He said, "This black lady came to the Prophet and said..." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, Hadith No. 555 - Dar Al Arabia- Beirut- Lebanon & Sahih Muslim Hadith No. 6571-Darusslam- Arabic) If the complexion of the female was known, she couldn't possibly be veiled. (Sahih Muslim, Vol. 2, Hadith No. 1926) "...a woman having a dark spot on her cheek stood up..." seeking clarification on the subject the prophet was discussing. Esteem scholars believe that a woman would not have stoop up or be in the presence of our prophet without a veil nor would she have been allowed to roam around freely without her veil, assuming that it was waajib......better yet, the woman in question would not have been recognized, dark spot or not without her veil on. During the day of Nahr (10th Dhul-Hijja), when Al-Fadl bin 'Abbas was riding behind the prophet on his she -camel, "...a beautiful woman from the tribe of Khath'am came, asking the verdict of Allah's Apostle. Al-Fadl started looking at her as her beauty attracted him. The Prophet looked behind while Al-Fadl was looking at her; so the Prophet held out his hand backwards and caught the chin of Al-Fadl and turned his face (to the other side) in order that he should not gaze at her..." (Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 8, Hadith No. 6228) When Ibne Abbaas (RA), the leading commentator of the Qur'an was asked about 24:31 which states: And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof... , he replied, "it refers to the face and hands". (Collected by Ibn Abee Shaybah in al-Musannaf, Vol. 3, p. 540 & 541, hadith no. 16997 & 17012 and al-Bayhaqi in Sunan al- Kubraa. Al-Albaanee ruled in Jilbaab al-Mar'ah al-Muslimah, pp 59-60, that the isnaad of this statement is saheeh.) How do you interpret ibne Abbaas's explanation? Does an opinion make the veil waajib because someone says so? What of allah's words? What of the many examples of women who were in the presence of our beloved prophet and were not wearing the veil? In regards to the interpretation of Jilbaab as "a garment which covers the face", the late Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaanee stated the following: This misinterpretation is contrary to the basic meaning of the word in Arabic which is “to come close”, as is mentioned in authoritative dictionaries like al-Mufradaat by the well-known scholar, ar-Raaghib al-Asbahaanee. However, there is sufficient evidence in the interpretation of the leading commentator on the Quran, Ibn ‘Abbaas, who explained the verse saying, “She should bring the jilbaab close to her face without covering it.” It should be noted that none of the narrations used as evidence to contradict this interpretation are authentic. Like the previous misinterpretation, this interpretation has no basis linguistically. It is contrary to the interpretation of the leading scholars, past and present, who define the jilbaab as a garment which women drape over their head scarves (khimaar). Even Shaykh at-Tuwaijree himself narrated this interpretation from Ibn Mas‘ood and other Salafee scholars. Al-Baghawee mentioned it as the correct interpretation in his Tafseer (vol. 3, p. 518) saying, “It is the garment which a woman covers herself with worn above the dress (*** ‘) and the headscarf.” Ibn Hazm also said, “The jilbaab in the Arabic language in which the Messenger of Allaah (pbuh) spoke to us is what covers the whole body and not just a part of it.” (vol. 3, p. 217). Al-Qurtubee declared this correct in his Tafseer and Ibn Katheer said, “It is the cloak worn above the headscarf.” (vol. 3, p. 518) About the Khimaar (headscarf) covering the head and the face, al-Albaanee says the following: In doing so “the face” has been arbitrarily added to its meaning in order to make the verse: “Let them drape their headscarves over their busoms” appear to be in their favor, when, in fact it is not. The word khimaar linguistically means only a head covering. Whenever it is mentioned in general terms, this is what is intended. For example in the hadeeths on wiping (mas-h) on the khimaar and the prophetic statement, “The salaah of a woman past puberty will not be accepted without a khimaar.” This hadeeth confirms the invalidity of their misinterpretation, because not even the extremists themselves – much less the scholars – use it as evidence that the covering of a woman's face in salaah is a condition for its validity. They only use it as proof for covering the head. Furthermore, their interpretation of the verse of the Qawaa‘id “… to remove their clothing” to mean “jilbaab” further confirms it. They hold that it is permissible for old women to appear before marriagealbe males in her headscarf with her face exposed. One of their noteable scholars openly stated that. As for Shaykh at-Tuwaijree, he implied it without actually saying it. Abul-Waleed al-Baajee (d. 474 AH) who further added in his explanation said, “Nothing should be seen of her besides the circle of her face.” al-Albaanee talks about at-Tuwaijree: Shaykh at-Tuwaijree claimed that scholars unanimously held that the woman's face was ‘awrah and many who have no knowledge, including some Ph.D. holders, have blindly followed him. In fact, it is a false claim, which no one before him has claimed. The books of Hambalite scholars which he learned from, not to mention those of others, contain sufficient proof of its falsehood. I have mentioned many of their statements in Ar-Radd. For example, Ibn Hubayrah al-Hambalee stated in his book, al-Ifsaah, that the face is not considered ‘awrah in the three main schools of Islaamic law and he added, “It is also a narrated position of Imaam Ahmad.” Many Hambalite scholars preferred this narration in their books, like Ibn Qudaamah and others. Ibn Qudaamah in al-Mughnee explained the reason for his preference saying, “Because necessity demands that the face be uncovered for buying and selling, and the hands be uncovered for taking and giving.” Among the Hambalite scholars, is the great Ibn Muflih al-Hambalee about whom Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah said, “There is no one under the dome of the sky more knowledgeable about the school of Imaam Ahmad than Ibn Muflih.” And his teacher, Ibn Taymiyyah, once told him, “You aren't Ibn Muflih, you are Muflih!” yours truly, and forever, LayZie G.

If I didn't know any better, I would say you are hesitating but why? This is not the first dance you did on this issue, I asked you not once, not twice but more than three times to produce evidence to the contrary, why are you hesitating? If you want to buy time, take all the time you need. I won't rush you, I want you to come here prepared and ready to engage. I dont want you to dance around the issue or play with words or throw my questions back at me. I want you to A: state your position on the niqab clearly and I then need you to provide the textual evidence that supports your position, its that simple really. Namely, when asked, where is the car parked? I will answer, in the garage and someone else, presumably you will say, no it aint so, the car is nowhere is not in the garage and nowhere near it without looking what's inside the garage and my reply is, if you think its not in the garage, prove it. I dont have to prove anything because I know that the car is in the garage but you didnt look, you just assumed that it wasnt in the garage or you said it wasnt to start an argument, either way, I turn to you and say, MISKIIN, no more dancing around this issue.....prove it. It seem that u dont understand what it means marka la dhaho "refer back to scholars", but I'll try to explain it. NO no no, the problem is that you can't accept that there is a difference between understanding and accepting things at face value and incase you are wondering what I mean by that, dont wait long as I will explain to you very shortly using quranic verse to support exactly what I just said. and you also said the following: With all do respect sis, That's not correct! No scholar believe suicidebombing is wajib, I repeat non. Is that an opinion or a fact? If its the ladder, I would gladly list atleast 2-3 names which would be of interest to you, so please, clarify your statement otherwise, you will give people the wrong impression. (I can appreciate that you added a disclaimer of sort when you said some of the scholars who promote this type of violence but answer me this simple question: how do they command authority? They dont use their good charms to sway followers right? It cant be their angelic voice, so what else? Oh-huh, they sway by producing evidence which support their mission, to corrupt the mind of the muslim, they make compelling argument about being a waajib, now thats how you get a young man to strap on a bomb vest, what's more powerful than honouring the sacred words of the so called expert? He knows better and if he says a higher authority will in fact reward me, I must not neglect my duty and off they march on, states the young recruit.) Culimadda hadalkooda in la raaco, oo ayaga markii diin la isku qabsado la waydiiyo, Allah baa quraanka ku sheegay Culimadda rule and I will go as far as saying that I'm in total agreement about the portion of the Qur'an, which states: [ in Surat Al-Anbya, 21:7] And We sent not before you, [O Muhammad], except men to whom We revealed [the message], so ask the people of the message if you do not know. and while I agree with the above verse, the Qur'an in 49:6 goes on to say: O you who have believed, if there comes to you a disobedient one with information, investigate, lest you harm a people out of ignorance and become, over what you have done, regretful. (disobedient/evil/someone who looks to corrupt your pure heart) all of which emphasize the danger in following scholars blindly. The qur'an instructs a believer to question and doubt requires that you question sources. getting back to the subject: When you say something like the niqab is waajib, you have to prove beyond doubt that it is infact waajib and you are not in fact confusing with other "outer garments". Haith found in clothing (Kitab Al-Libas) of Sunan Abu-Dawud states the following: Narrated Aisha, Ummul Mu'minin: Safiyyah, daughter of Shaybah, said that Aisha mentioned the women of Ansar, praised them and said good words about them. She then said: When Surat an-Nur came down, they took the curtains, tore them and made head covers of them. and another hadith states: Narrated Umm Salamah, Ummul Mu'minin: When the verse "That they should cast their outer garments over their persons" was revealed, the women of Ansar came out as if they had crows over their heads by wearing outer garments. Are you suggesting these hadiths are inaccurate or incomplete? Do you dispute or know any better than the women in question? Do you think they didnt understand what outer garment meant? Do you think they misinterpreted the qur'an, especially the surat An-Nur, which states: and speaking of outer garments, Surat An Nur, 24:31 states: And tell the believing women to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts and not expose their adornment except that which [necessarily] appears thereof and to wrap [a portion of] their headcovers over their chests and not expose their adornment except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, their brothers' sons, their sisters' sons, their women, that which their right hands possess, or those male attendants having no physical desire, or children who are not yet aware of the private aspects of women. And let them not stamp their feet to make known what they conceal of their adornment. And turn to Allah in repentance, all of you, O believers, that you might succeed. Where in the above hadith translations and the qur'an does it say a woman is obliged to conceal her face, and in your case, the niqab is waajib? Furthermore, why would Surat An-Nur, 24:30 state the following: Tell the believing men to reduce [some] of their vision and guard their private parts. That is purer for them. Indeed, Allah is Acquainted with what they do. Lets indulge in hypothetical here for a brief moment and assume that the veil is waajib as you say and all women are obligated and its their duty to wear the veil, why then would men be instructed to lower their gaze in the holy scripture of all places, seeing as they cant see the person infront of them? sounds to me you didnt think this through before you came here. YOu might want to consult an expert to get your head around the question, only then would you achieve satisfactory results. going back to ayah 24 verse 31: If the women believers interpreted Surat An-Nur as to cover themselves(head), we the observers of such hadith are not given a reason to doubt them or their interpretation nor does it demonstrate to us that they interpreted it any differently. speaking of experts, you said the following about scholars: The scholars lagama maarmo..... If you want to take what these self-proclaimed scholars say at face value or blindly follow their word, thats your choice but you can not come here and pretend that their words are sacred or pretend to sell the idea that what they say is absolute. For example, lets take your Bukhari as an example. How many hadiths did he collect and how many of those made it to print? This is not a trick question, this a simple question that needs simple answer. If we are to believe that the narrations he collected and compiled were authentic, why didn't he use all of the narrations, why only a small percentage?(I hope I didnt give you the answer to my own question here) and when you said: The scholars lagama maarmo, waa KHASAB in ayaga loo celiyo waxyabaha diinta ku saabsan. did you really mean it? Does this mean that you would take the late Shaykh Naasiruddeen al-Albaane's findings authentic? After all, he was an authority on fiqh and hadith, so it must mean that his words, at point time or another carried great weight, so what say you? Maku khasbanahay inaan warkiisa qaadano and revert back to his verdicts? Why did al-Albaane go to great lengths to distinguish between the different garments, why did he chastise other so called presumed scholars for deviating from the sacred words? Why do Al-baane and others differ so greatly about what can be interpreted as the awrah? At the end of the day, when you attempt to use examples of hadiths which clearly is interpreted by men to strengthen their argument that the awrah can be extended to all parts of the woman's body and not just private parts like the man and go to great lengths to interpret as including all parts, including but not limited to the face, you are in fact forming an opinion above and beyond what is intended by the qur'an. So again, I Repeat, do you think its wise to follow scholars blindly? They take a word here and there and use it. The very same hadiths you want to use to strengthen your arguments are probably the abu Dawood Book 32, or Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 1 that you like so much or Tafseer ibn Jarir, vol 22, which is probably your favourite opinion of scholars who go to great pains to emphasis the importance of the veil, based on a judgement which accomplished scholars refute and call it "inauthentic". I don't except you to come up with all the answers but you can see why I asked you to produce evidence and not opinion because most of the times, you can find anything and everything to convince people that it isn't so but when some of the source of the hadith is questioned by the esteemed culumas, it leaves room for doubt eedo. but ofcourse, you believe all and every hadith yet the ones you briefly mentioned went to get pains to select the ones they thought were the most authentic based on versions of the narration they heard previously while others when so far as to exaggerate the interpretation. Like i said, produce evidence or dance around the issue, the ball is in your court. Yours truly, and forever, LayZie G.

Aaliyah, Maskiin is coming to your aid, waayo, you had poor performance, there is nothing to be ashamed of. You can learn as much about failure as you can learn about success. He believes he can do a better job, so give your side a chance. Layzie, if i decided not to engage in this discussion with you that doesnt give u the right to call me names.. What names? When did I call you names? Bal take a notebook and pen out and go through the 3 pages of writing and find some examples to post here. This is exactly why you bailed out because you were getting frazzled, not knowing when it was appropriate to use contradictory in a sentence or stating an opinion and thinking that it was a fact. I asked you to explain yourself, you couldn't do it, so you decided to take a break from it all but you are still here, giving commentary and making up stories about being called a name and pretending to be a victim? Go find me an example of a time I called you a name....assuming you know what name calling is...until then, you are open to join the discussion. I stated my position to you, you failed to state yours, you just didnt have an argument, you never did and probably you never will, waayo, you cant even decide if you should wear the niqab or not. Definition of a name-calling:- (just incase you didnt know) is when you call names to belittle another person, abusive names that degrade the other party. I find you adorable and sometimes entertaining, how can I call someone like that names? It just doesn't make sense. Now let me get back to your teammate... Daliil waan kuu keeni, anigu waxaan aaminsanahay arinta niqaabka diinta Muslimiinta way ku sugantahay, quraan iyo axaadiith-ba. So adiga waxaad aaminsantahay that scholarly opinion is absolute and scholarly opinion is supreme? This is exactly why I brought up the example about the suicide bombers and their promised virgins because some scholars believe that suicide bombing is waajib, does that make such verdict absolute for you, since you seem to be inclined to believe whatever ruling is delivered by your beloved scholars? Please explain yourself or I will take your silence as a yes. The other reason why I talked about the reasons behind women wearing niqab is that they are of the opinion that the garb is waajib because they were told that the scholar's word is absolute. What of the other scholars who do not come to the same judgement, what does it mean for you were their nay judgement is concerned? I'm intrigued by your position because you feel that you can pick and choose the rulings that only applies to you, which means that if I were to answer your own question, by asking if the word of a scholar is absolute, your answer will probably be no, because you chose to follow one ruling over another, assuming that they are all in the same profession with the same qualification just differ in their opinion from subject to subject, meaning some feel it isnt waajib, while others you want to mention by name with their ruling are for niqab being waajib, then where does that leave the qur'an? the five pillars? is Niqab the sixth pillar? the five pillars are waajib...is the kitaab subordinate to the ruling of the scholars? and as far as I know waajib is not the same thing as recommendation....Waajib=obligatory, to recommend= is to suggest And if it happens, and by the will of Allah It will, that u agree on that Niqab is wajib No, no, no, Niqaab is not waajib. No ifs, no buts, simple answer, NIQAAB IS NOT WAAJIB.. and if you disagree with the contrary, produce evidence to the contrary.....and dont interpret evidence as opinion. I want concrete, textual evidence that states NIQAB IS WAAJIB. (if you dont think qur'an is surpreme, then you are right, you and I dont have much to discuss since you believe qur'an is subordinate to scholarly opinion) If some of your beloved scholars rule on a verdict, in this case, the niqab, as waajib, it means some of these scholars are compelling our dear sisters to wear the niqab...leaving the matter of choice full-stop, so what do you say to that? Yours truly, and forever, LayZie G. PS: To the jackie's of the world, you should be empowered to say and do what you like and no one can make you feel inferior, not even LayZie G.

^^^runaway princess, adiga war makuu yaalo, waayo, you failed to answer my questions, so let him, the one above you come to your aid, atleast he is trying, I dont see any harm in that, do you? Al-Maskiin-Sakiin, you asked if aan daliil hadalka aan dhahay u haayo? As in, do I have explanation as to why I said the Niqab is not prescribed by Islam, is that what you mean by daliil? The answer is simple enough, our holy scripture, the Qu'ran does not command women to wear the niqab. In other words, the hideous garb is not divinely ordained piece of clothing, which means it has no place in our religion and that means you can not invoke religious privileges without solid evidence to support your counter claim. (you might want to dig up Ibti's thread about this very same subject to aid you in your witch hunts) Now, if you are in disagreement with the above statement, you, the party opposed to this position needs to produce evidence contrary to the statement, you need to prove me wrong. In other words, the onus is on you, my dear Maskiin-Sakiin. Mida kale, if the discussion is moving in the direction of the garb and its place in Islam, lets discuss the reasons why women who wear the garb wear what they wear. If you go around asking women, why do you conceal your face, what is the top response you get? I'm doing it out of piety, I want to be closer to Allah because I want to go to Jannah. I want to be a good Muslimah, those are just some of the responses, which means, the answers boil down to what Muslim women think they are doing in order to have an edge over other Muslims. Similarly, our young Muslim men are lectured on long periods of time about the rewards that are waiting for them in heaven if they were to carry out acts of violence against the public. They are promised virgins, waiting for the young brave soul but only if he is willing to strap a bomb vest on himself and willing to blow himself up inside a masjid, a market place, hospitals and in the case of Hotel Shaamo, in front of a group of medical school graduates, celebrating their success with their loved ones, beaming with bright. In short, the Niqab or any garb that conceals the identity of the woman is worn because women and I'm speaking about the very same outspoken crowd, are of the opinion that it is waajib for them to wear it and failure to comply will have undesirable results, one that includes but is not limited to being ostracized by the community. This means that, while the decision is theirs to choose (the women folk), the choices are limited for some and not so much for others, being boxed out on a either and/or scenario. As you can see, this type of interpretation of personal choice is convoluted. More often than not, fear prevails. Fear of losing honour is more prevalent than the choices these women claim to be making. Honour, ya Maskiin-Sakiin is a tricky thing, sometimes, it can be construed as being a choice and thats when things get muddy. Mida kale, ya Maskiin-Sakiin, you said the following: Waxaad soo qortay boqol kun oo qalad baa ku jira, meel laga bilaabo maba laha walee. If I made inaccurate statements, point it out to me. Tell me that on this occasion, you stated this as fact and the truth is far from it, making what you said inaccurate but if I stated an opinion and you happen to disagree with what I said, that doesn’t make my words wrong, it just makes my words disagreeable. Somali makugu soo qoraa saa waxa aan hada kuu fasiray aad ugu fahanto mase adiga afka ajnabiga maku liitadid like Aaliyah? Unlike you, I took the time to view the video, I didn’t form an opinion of the guests based on their attire. I used the words of the mask one to help Aaliyah and Blessed identify their beloved’s shortcomings. In short, read my previous posts and that should some up my reasons for contributing to this thread were the masked one is concerned. France iyo yurub oo dhan waxaa ka jirta waxa la dhaho "xuquuqda diimaha", taas oo laga wado, qofkastaa diintiisa buu siduu doono ugu dhaqmi karaa, ilaa aynan qofna waxba u dhimayn, yacni dadka kula nool. In my view and as far as Aaliyah is concerned, xuquuqda diimaha does not apply, to borrow aaliyah’s own words, niqab is a recommended product. Going back to what I stated at the start of this post, you will have to produce evidence to the contrary, otherwise, I will have to take your statements as opinions and nothing more. If you want me to take you serious, you are going to have to do better than daliil keen adiga, you will have to show me and the many more people who hold similar view why you are right and we are all wrong. and finally, you stated: Hadalkayga bal hal maroo kale dhuux: Anigu ma lihi in aynan jirin aduunkoo dhan HAL GABADH oo lagu khasb niqaabka, kolay waxkasta aduunka waa laga helaa. Laakiin waxaan ku leeyahay boqolkiiba 90, ama ka badan(just being generouse, for sake of the debate), gabdhaha doorta Niqaabka inay xidhaan ayagaa iskooda u doorta, qof ku khasbaana ma jiro. You will forgive me if I ask you for sources, I need you to show me credible sources which you cited before you reached the 90% conclusion. Mida kale, you use statistics when you have the facts on your side, in your case, it just makes you look inept and futile. Yours truly, and forever, LayZie G.

Aaliyah states: Layzie I have already pointed out how you contradicted yourself. I wont repeat myself!. if you dnt see ur contradiction. So be it. Aaliyah, wallaalo, its not that you won't repeat yourself, its that you can't explain yourself. Wallaalo, I have to be honest with you, I'm seeing a pattern here. First you pulled what is now famously called "a John Kyle moment", were you stated an opinion as factual but instead of retracting like John Kyle, the senior Senator from Arizona claiming something similar to "how his statements are not intended to be factual", you stubbornly remained silent, not to mention that you have called my statements contradictory without an explanation, what giveS? The other interesting thing you said while you were putting your fences up was the Niqab was a recommended garb, does that mean it deserves equal protection in the eyes of the law? You are not saying that Islam prescribes the niqab but you are saying its recommended, so why should the law recognize an item thats only optional? Why should the law exempt the niqab but not all over masks that conceal the face in public places? If your position is that its recommended, why do people who support the right of woman to wear her niqab invoke the religious clause when arguing in favour of the niqab? Last year, there was a case were a Muslimah was compelled to testify on behalf of the prosecution and she invoked a religious clause, insisting that she must wear her niqab in an Ontario court, under oath, and I ask you, who is protecting the rights of the defendant? Doesn't he/she not have a right to face his/her accuser? Why invoke special privileges, especially religious privileges when you and others insist that it isn't a religious obligation and merely a recommended product. It is recommended that you wear Sun screen lotion to protect against skin related cancers and sun burn but does that mean sun-screen producers should invoke special privileges to compel you to buy their products?No, its just a recommended product. If one side of the room claims that the motive of the supporters of the ban are simply baseless and not pure, the other side's counter argument similar in tone, which suggests that motives are questioned when people deal with emotionally charged subjects, namely the burqa, no wonder you are putting fences up this early in the discussion. Something tells me that you are ill-equipped to take part of the discussions, so until next time, I bid you goodbye. lol@Prometheus, I don't know how I could have missed your first post, you are a joker. LOL@ I think a religious costume like the Niqaab is risible and ridiculous—but I would not, aesthetic considerations notwithstanding, ban it. There are interesting parallels (and distinctions) between this issue and the issue of polygamy. YOu really do take the mick out of the garb but in all seriousness, I think you raise some valid points, costume or not. For one, ,while the battle to ban has just began, the fight is far from over. Sure, there are challenges, especially where it concerns personal liberties and infringement of rights and freedoms, consciousness and such but each country's constitution, especially our beloved charters and freedoms does say, what you emphasized earlier, which is that freedom is not absolute. In article one, it states that rights and freedoms are subject to reasonable limits as prescribed by law and invoking article one from the charter is a first step but there is and could be other challenges in other areas of guarantees within the charter and freedom that supporters as well as opponents of the ban can invoke and its quite possible that the Supreme Court of Canada can rule in either and/ or, depending on the argument put forth but never say never. I think constitutional scholars would be better equip to put forth an argument but then again, I'm a firm believer that the state can be a force of good when acting in the interest of the public. For example, under Jean Chretien's administration, bill C-20, which passed the parliament of Canada, which became law at the turn of the century was a legislative success. The purpose of this bill, most widely known as the Clarity Act strengthens the federal government's negotiating power in the event of a successful referendum by the province of Quebec, this was a direct response to the previously failed referendum in the 90s, which the supreme court of Canada ruled in an unambiguous terms, basically stating that while Quebec was not in violation of the constitution if majority voted in favour of secession(and while majority was not defined in its ruling), Quebecois could not unilaterally secede from the union without negotiating the terms of secession with the federal government and this bill puts the federal government in a better negotiating position and failure for Quebec to violate the tenets of the clarity Act would result voiding the results of the referendum as it will be in violation of the Act, even if majority of Quebecois were to succeed in favour of secession, as they say, third time is a charm. Ya Prometheus, what my above example shows is that where there is will, there is a way. Yours truly, and forever, LayZie G. PS: I miss Ibti, atleast she was an effective communicator.

^my dear, unlike you, this lecturer is not under the illusion that all women choose to conceal their identity or that they conceal their identity without coercion. She is very careful to limit her views on the few women she came across and she goes on to say that individuals who conceal their identity are in the minority in Australia, which tells a different story altogether. That said, I want to go back to your earlier post and provide commentary to the following quotes: Aaliyah states: you are arguing that women in the middle east have no voice and should be given a voice (which I fully agree islam is a religion of choice no women should be forced. She has to want to follow islam willingly)... What I stated above is not limited to the portion of the quotes you used to take my words out of context. That said, if you wish to know my position on the Burqa as a subject, please just ask, don't assume anything. Moreover, if we need to take this discussion in a positive direction and to come to clear conclusions about this controversy, we must first identify what is it we are discussing here. What is the discussion all about? Is is about the ban of the Burqa in France? the fundamental freedoms and rights of women and/or society? Role of Muslim women in Islamic republics? Is the discussion geared towards the role of the Burqa, and is the question focused more on the contention that the burqa is a religious symbol or a cultural symbol? We need to be able to define our subject and outline the course of action. Furthermore, if you want to know my position on the Burqa, it is as follows: I argued and continue to argue that BURQA and/or NIQAB is not prescribed by Islam. So, as you can see, my position on this subject is clearly defined, what about you? Do you have a position or are you undecided? Are you just as unsure about the subject as you are about concealing your identity? If yes, please state your reasons. Teeda kale, You stated the following: This is a clear contradiction walaal. Do you think your arguments make sense??? Please explain yourself as I need to know where you feel I'm being contradictory. Marka kale, in response to my earlier post about engaging issues and not people, you stated the following: lol I simply stated facts. She is like Ayan Hersi. Muslim women who convey western values so they can get some fame. I don't know what I find more troubling, you not being able to distinguish a fact from an opinion or you painting all Muslims with the same brush when they speak about unpopular issues which are not desired by the Arab lords, especially if these Muslims are women like Mona. I really I'm troubled by your earlier statement. I dont know if you are saying this for the sake of appeasement or if you truly believe that all Muslims should speak with one voice and no Muslim, especially Mona should be able to come on television and condemn the Burqa because the garb is a desirable feature and a religious symbol. Its consistant with the ideals of a good Muslimah and failure to prescribe to such ideology results in you, a muslim being condemned by a fellow Muslim, especially a woman in the case of Aaliyah who equated Mona with Ayan Hirsi, a self-professed non-believer with a believer in Mona. Mona, as far as I know did not come out to condemn Islam nor did she claim to be a non-believer, so for you to draw your own conclusions about her and what she is about, simply because she happens to have a platform and she happens to express views which are different from yours, she must be ought to get the Muslims, she must be out for her 15 minutes of fame, she must be like Ayan Hirsi, without any facts is simply disturbing to me@Aaliyah. As far as I know, what I read about Mona does not give me the impression that she is anything but what she presents herself to be, a Muslim woman. If opponents of the hideous garb were to say to you, Aaliyah, that all women who come out against the banning of the garb are agents of Islamists, what would you say? How would you react? Your folks should be coming out speaking out against the ban, argue the merits of the law, do not form an opinion of people and claim it as a fact. YOu do not know anymore about Mona than she knows about herself. If she said she was working for neo-cons as Tariq Ramadan recently accused her, she would have come out and said so herself, instead, Mr Ramadan proved to be incompetent on BBC by being incoherent because she ruffled his feathers and he didnt have anything to say, except that she was working with neo-cons. He turned a debate over the outlawing of Burqa to a debate about Mona and who she works for. So does that mean, as a woman, you agree with Ramadan, you believe that all Muslim women, who have a public platform are working for neo-cons just because you disagree with them? IF thats the case, does that mean, you share Mr Ramadan's view that all Muslims should speak with one voice? Just think about what you said on your earlier post and think about what I just wrote above, just think for a moment, take a moment to regroup and revaluate your earlier statement and let me know your findings. Mona is not critical of Islam, she is critical of individuals and practices, not the religion. On the other hand, Ayan Hirsi is critical of Islam. So you can see why I was troubled by your so called "fact" when in fact you wanted to say, my view is that the two appear to be converging on some issues, while they may differ on their approaches, something to that like@aaliyah. I'm sorry that I find your words troubling, thats because I had high hopes for you. I thought that you knew when and how to distinguish fact from an opinion. Now I'm very doubtful you know the difference between a fact and an opinion. I thought you knew facts were indisputable and opinions were statements not usually based on fact or knowledge and I thought you were capable of demonstrating the difference between the two but you proved me wrong. Mida kale, you stated the following: And, I was not getting personal but rather u were with Heba (I wont call her by her name lol..or oh the masked one.. ).. I did not get personal with her, I did not offend her, I just called her what she was, a masked woman. If you dont believe that, ask yourself, what was she wearing? Was her identity not concealed from the viewers? Was her face not masked? What do you have me call her? I cant call her by her full name because she forfeited the right for people to call her by her full name when she parted ways with her identity and self-respect by opting to conceal her identity from the rest of the world. So, I called her what I thought was fitting for people like her, the one whose name I will never mention, your beloved masked one because you afforded her false praises and for that, she will forever be known to me as the masked one. I did not disrespect her, belittle her, I just called her for what she truly represented, a woman without an identity. Yours truly, and forever LayZie G.

Aaliyah states: However, I am amazed that you put all this effort to write abt Heba in such a negative way. My critique of the exchange in respect to the false praises afforded the masked one was to help you and blessed identify the areas in which your beloved masked one has failed to deliver, while showing you the flaw in her own position as a woman who made the decision to mask her identity. And while you may be entitled to your own view about my critique of your beloved masked one, my intentions were positive so far as to show that the exchange lacked logical reasoning with respect to the masked one. and just like you are entitled nw to share ur opinion every woman is entitled to wear her niqaab or anything else for that matter this is precisely the point I made on my earlier post, which is to say that every woman is not entitled to wear her niqaab, not if she is an Arab and lives in a back alley (somewhere in the middle east) with its primitive practices. Therefore, it is our job, as females, as Muslims to take the initiative, to perhaps inspire in the case of Mona and allow her voice to reach these back alleys. Women, especially Muslim women need a voice and for you to sit there and pretend all women have the same entitlement is quite frankly dishonest. The reality is that not all Muslim women have a voice, not all Muslim women want to put a veil, not all Muslim women are afforded education, which is another reason to speak out against falsehood thats spread by people like the masked one. She lives in a world that gives her opportunity to better herself, assuming that what she said on the interview is true, that said, not every woman is in the same boat, nor do women(some women) have the courage to speak out by the wrongs carried out by the men in their lives.. And, your argument abt governments protecting its citizens by banning niqaab is just ridiculous... Take a moment to think about what government does on a daily basis. How does government affect your life? We are a country of laws (Canada), we obey laws, and the law protects all citizens equally. Some of the rights and freedoms you enjoy was enacted by a government body. The very pillar of our democracy is based on our Canadian Charter of rights and freedoms. We are guaranteed rights and freedoms as individuals, we have democratic values that our charter protects, we have equality rights, all of which was enforced by regulators, the very same regulators you said should focus on other things. Therefore, it is very hypocritical of you or anyone to say that government should mind their business when you are reaping the fruits of the government's labour. Another example of people telling you what to do, including the private and public sector is the conduct of business and dress code. You do know that you have to follow your employer's code of conduct and personal behaviour, including but not limited to dress code policies. You, as an employee agree to adhere to the basic code of conduct of your employer, which means t hat, some of these dress codes, while protecting religious symbols in some places, does not protect the right to wear a hideous "drape" because Burka/Niqab is is not and never has been part of Islam, which means the garb needs to be banned from public places. It is only a phenomena among few religious zealots. Thus, banning the garb is exactly what rational thinking people should call for, wherever, whoever they may be. Going back to this topic and the reason why you opened the discussion goes back to France and the recent veil enforcements that were put in place. Your beloved masked one did not argue the merits of the ban nor did you correct her, instead, you falsely praised her for speaking out and having courage. If she had courage and if she really wanted to make a point, she would have taken the veil off and stayed on topic, instead of bringing personal stories to the discussion. To me it seems that you are not at all that familiar with Mona's work, which explains why you thought she was a bit faced out. If you had the pleasure of watching her going head to head with folks like Tariq Ramadan, you would know that Mona's passion comes out because she genuinely believes in the values that she is championing. Furthermore, the Mona you saw on T.V is the very same Mona all around, both in her writing and in her appearances. Its one thing to disagree with her positions, its another to engage in betty insults by comparing her to Hirsi. Engage the issues not the people. and lastly... You are either fully for women doing what they want with their body...or Not! there no room for buts and being wishy-washy. The idea that women should be free but they shouldnt wear niqaab wa shaqo gaalo waana wax aanan ka fileen marka no need to be a hypocrite just like you are free to do whatever you want with your body every other sister is (including heba.).. We are all for women having liberties for as long as they have reasonable limits and assurances are made that all women make decisions for themselves, starting with the initiative to outlaw this hideous garb. Culturally speaking, we live in civilized world not the Jahiliyyah era and niqab or Burqa or what have you has no place in this civilized world. Yours truly and forever, LayZie G. PS: I almost forgot the person above. Unknown, hayehee, war meesha maku haysaa? Dont worry about others, speak for yourself as I'm known to entertain multiple views while sufficiently providing necessary feedback ee warka keen. Dont be shy, have your say aan ku dhahay.

Aaliyah states: So proud of ********.She made articulate arguments more on the masked woman: mashallah **** is an amazing speaker and blessed added the following: Unfortunately there are many ***** in the Somali community and you'll get the most aggravation from other Muslims rather than gaalo. Blessed, I'm sorry that you find voicing concern for the plight of millions of Muslim women a nuisance of sort. I'm truly sorry, please accept my deepest apology on behalf of all those who work and speak tirelessly about women and issues facing women. Marka kale, this exchange was bizzare and at times comical, seeing as a deranged masked woman was on the screen and I couldn't make much of her, except her eyes troubled me, she had shot eyes, very unattractive in a lady. No one person in the so called "exchange", "interview" or even call it a "debate" won. Waayo, mostly the exchange was happening between the disgraced governor turned host and Mona Eltahawy. Host Elliot Spitzer: A sexed-obsessed former attorney and disgraced governor of the great state of New York. A compulsive liar by profession, who has zero credibility on matters of moderating the so called "debate", much less hosting a show on cable news attempted to take Mona Eltahawy, a world renowed columnist to task and he failed. In addition, the so called exchange between the women was as much a sham as the host himself. Mona Eltahawy, an accomplished columnist, whose writing appears on the pages of Washington-post, The guardian, New York Times just to a name a few, who delivers speeches, engages both Arab issues, and especially issues dealing with women and who enjoys a world wide recognition, from Israel to Sweden, was booked with a masked-nobody, that in itself is a failure, not by Spitzer as he is new to the television business but by his producers. Going in, the masked woman , whose name I will not mention, enjoyed the warmth of her own shadow, seing as she can't see herself and by virtue of covering herself in the famous marx "drabe" characterization of the veil, she was booked along side an all-star in Mona Eltahawy. Some of the shows audience were familiar with Mona. They knew her as the lecturer, researcher and were familiar with her work and understandingly so, spitzer attempted to take her to task in hopes of making the Masked woman look credible. On the other hand, the masked woman, in an effort to gain recognition and some understanding, uttered the following words: " I HAVE A MASTER's degree in chemical engineering" when the so called debate was about the recent events involving the enforcement of the veil in France. Mona did not speak about her lecturing engagements or mention her superb resume, that says more about Mona's character than the masked woman, who made attempts to make herself relevant on tv. with the claim that, the veil was her decision, and her decision only and if you dont believe me, just so you know, I completed graduate studies. She sounded like a broken record. She sounded like she was trying to convince herself, more than attempting to articulate a point of view. The masked human being did not have settling eyes, her eyes gave her away. She did not come off convincing nor did she put forward a logical argument, leaving me disappointed because I was looking forward to being challenged on this issue. In sum, I would say that this "get together" was more about the rational discussion of the veil with the irrational among us, including but not limited to the masked woman. I say "us" only because the masked woman had a female voice, otherwise, I would have questioned her gender as well as demanded to see her face. Likewise, the masked woman appears to object the whole premise of banning the veil because she feels that its a right-wing ideology, yet she failed to to elaborate further, yet again, leaving me disappointed. The masked woman claims that banning the veil is another example of "men telling women what to do" while having little or no regard for the counter claim that the veil is a form of "oppression" and the veil is used to suppress some women, which is why the opposition groups, including several countries have taken the liberty to protect the right of the person, that of a woman and subsequent bans taking place is genuinely concerned with providing women protection and platform to air their grievances, in other words, an opportunity to have their voice heard. Failure for the masked woman, whose name should not be mentioned to concede the counter argument that some Muslim men are indeed forcing the "drape" on some women's throat and the numbers of those who object to this form of subordination is growing and in a way, these grassroots movements to ban the veil exists solely for the benefit of the woman was very evident throughout the show and it did not make a substantive argument. She did not acknowledge that some women are indeed forced to wear the veil, which shows that she has very little concern for personal choice, as she claimed it loudly. If she is concerned with personal choice, why doesn't she speak or acknowledge those that are robbed of the personal choice and liberty to wear what they want, when they want. The freedom to dress however they want, veil or unveiled. The option to have an education and make up their own minds about what is permissible in Islam and what is not? Why does she not acknowledge such women? She knows they exist but she choose to ignore them at the expense of her furthering her career as a blogger in this media business because her chemical engineering or whatever she studied not work out. Her failure to concede the counter argument shows the flaw in her own argument that men are telling women what to do, thus, proving Mona and critics of the veil correct and giving them another ammunition against the ignorance associated with the veil and those who propagate the practice. Moreover, the masked woman failed to recognize her own arrogant position, as a woman wishing to impose her own view on others while being dismissive of critics of the veil, the very same thing she accused Mona of doing in that so called "debate". The masked woman fails to strengthen her position that banning the evil is wrong(perhaps she should have have attacked the constitutionality aspect of the ban, maybe she would have been versed in French so she can find holes in the government's legislation), instead, she circulates the claim that women, all Muslim women are indeed free-spirited women who can think for themselves, especially those in Saudia Arabia who Mona brought up but the masked woman dismissed rather arrogantly. For this reason, I have to declare a draw between the so called degenerate former governer and Mona, as the exchange was mostly one between them and not so much about the so called masked, masters in disguise turned blogger and Mona. And finally, I have to say that I respectfully disagree with Aaliyah. I adore you, you know this Aaliyah and sometimes, while I find you to be alert and insightful, as refreshing as that may seem, I have to say, this time, you are wrong about the masked one, the one whose name I will not utter in this thread. Yours truly, LayZie G. PS: London, kindly show some restrain, especially when you are discussing women. You can and should be repulsed by the practice of the veil while at the same time attempting to have a meaningful dialogue and maybe generate a discussion about the issue of veil as it concerned not just women but society as a whole@CHE.(this is more than a wardrobe choice, its about politics, the role of religion and the infringement of personal freedom, women rights that should be a concern of yours as well as your pretty xalimo) We are not trying to reject the niqabis of the world, we want them reformed. We want them denouncing the garb and embrace the universality of the human being. We want them to be secure in their bodies and at the same time, assertive in the presence of great adversity.

^I think you missed the point of the thread....no one cares about Akon's opinion or some Music Executive and you cant speculate the what ifs scenario, that chapter has ended. That said, I can't help and wonder why Sanka drew him out. Why now and Why him ya Sanka? Are you trying to tell us something? Does it have to do with his ties to the clan enclave?Possible death threats from the Emir himself, le chef of the clan enclave aka Abu Muqtar Abu Godane ya Zubeyriini? Is shabaab now tabbing into the Music industry? Que left his old life behind. He appears to go by a new name, quitter. He is not supporting the pierced earnings or chains and much to my surprise, he is nursing a beard. Talk about doing 360? I normally believe in change but this sudden change isn't something rational people can believe in.

Clever title but I was secretly wishing to read about Silaanyo being nursed back to health, instead, I find out he is out visiting hospitals with Ethiopian entourage as his security detail, terrible precedent this old man is setting. The person who said Riyaale didn't travel with this many entourage and security detail, I second that. Riyaale rageedi waaye, he walked the streets of the clan enclave like he owned it, this one appears to have a faint heart and in danger of collapsing from the hot humid.

Nassir, whenever I read a success story such as the one above, I'm reassured that we can and we will take our country back and I hope others too are taken notice. Time is up, you either are on board or get out of the way, no two ways about it, I say.

^my sentiments exactly. SHAMSO MOHAMED FOOT, while being a talent in her own right, has the added advantage afforded to late bloomers. (as the saying goes: better late than never) I think most of us remember SHAMSO FOOT from the "QEYLODHAAN" track with jooqle and Co. but did the track burst her to the scene or did she pay her dues long before that memorable track? What's her story? Paragon, I can't say I'm as well versed as you about the Somali Music scene but I appreciate your honesty about the habro, I feel the same way about odayaasha like Samatar, they give bad name to all musicians.(I never understood why pple like him, he sounds horrible, although I admit I cant understand what he is saying and he looks horrible) I had no use for Somali singers, male or female alike until King Khalid aka the hit maker burst to the scene with his angelic voice and sang Najmaaay. I felt like he was singing to me, I didnt know what he was saying but I felt like he was speaking to me. King Khalid had me at hello and at that moment, a fan of Somali music was born. King Khalid had the looks , the voice. Thus, a generation of groupies were born, lol. Seriously, my infatuation with King Khalid's voice let me to discover Somali Music and ofcourse it let me to I enjoy listening to Abdi Holland, terrible name but he is easy on the eyes, lol.

nuune;706019 wrote: ^^ Val , apart from xildhibaanada(550 of them), there are up to 23 wasiiro, here is a quick glance of their salary: 550 MPs, each receives 13 thousand Dollars a month(correct as of December 2010), their expenses such as travel(they all travel a lot), hotel(they all live in hotels), food(they all eat at big restaurants), and other expenses are not included in the salary. One more time: 550 X 13,000 = $7,150,000, yes, that is $7 Million Doollarka Mareekanka ayey 550 xildhibaano qurquriyaan bil kasta. :o:o@nuune, if I didn't know any better, I would say you are the somali-male version of Michelle Bachmann with your wild and inaccurate figures about the payroll system of the TFG. Last year, if you remember, a United Stated Congresswoman from the state of Minnesota, one Michelle Bachmann came on tv to claim that President OBama's trip to India would cost tax payers a whopping 200 million a day because he will be renting hundreds of hotel rooms for his entourage as well as the security detail, all putting burden on tax payers, etc, etc...(the interview she had with CNN's anderson Cooper came after the republicans and teabaggers won majority in the house of representatives) Her claims about the wild estimation came from a source in India who she heard about in the blogs, similar to what Nuune did here. Nuune writes gossip blogs for a living, which is why this doesn't come as a surprise to me but ask Nuune, how many individuals does he know in parliament? Ask him who his sources are? Nuune is anti-government, especially big government, another reason to resent the 550 individuals who volunteer for the position and who can barely support themselves in neighbouring states. I know a handful of the members and their families. Some of these xildhibaans are supported by their families in qurbaha because the pay is not consistent. Some resign in protest and some grow resentment, while few enrich themselves with side businesses but not all 550 live a life of luxury.

Paragon, su'aal: #1: Why only the "new female singers" category? Why not the new male category and all boqol of them who come out with videos on an hourly basis and post it on youtube? #2: As a man, would you have initiated this discussion if you were not bombarded with the videos of the female newcomers on your Universal screen instead of male new comers? (there are boqolaad , all of whom come out with a single and flop on the first 30seconds) #3: Do you think the list of female newcomers (above) are a flop or fantastic?

No, magaca Cara aad aa ugu dheeloysaa, gabadhaas is Idi Amin's great grand daughter from his mother's side, or atleast thats waxa ay ku qaraabato. Btw, why is it that you don't agree with the claim that enemies are around us, among us and surely, some of those enemies are one of us? Sometimes, said enemies use the pain and suffering of fellow Somalis to further their interest, which makes them an enemy, but you disagree? Waayo Mida kale, are you calling Somali nationalists ignorant and maybe even incompetent for not tolerating secession? I can only imagine how warm your welcoming would be if we entertained the idea of secession. In many cases, the loyalty of the sympathizer shifts and it makes them a dangerous....are you a secessioner symphatizer, ya VAL? You already stated that your loyalty is divided, which brings me to my earlier question, if there are no enemies, who are the so called ignorant and incompetent bunch? Just by reading your replies, one gets the impression that you are fence-sitting because you appear to be sympathetic to separatist causes, is that a fair observation to make? and If the answer is yes, wouldn't you be considered an enemy of Somalia and isn't that why you dont believe that there are no enemies in the Somali world?

Meet the women behind the Libyan Campaign: Name: MARGARET H. WOODWARD Title: Major General Current Assignment: Commander for Operation Odyssey Dawn, leading the air raid campaign, overseeing air assault in Libya on an hourly basis.... and the other women, among them are Mrs C. as most of you know her as the wife of former President Bill Clinton of the United States and now madam secretary of state HILARY CLINTON, the undisputed, the heavy weight herself...MRS C. #2 #3 YOu know her as Obama's mouth piece at the UNSC, the infamous Dr. Susan E. no relation Rice, wanna be Condoleeza Rice and last but not least, the less known but more vocal of the group, the woman who was known as the " Hilary Clinton is a monster" in the 08 campaign, I read about wars, I dont engage in wars, Mrs Humanitarian herself, SAMANTHA POWER Now, who is to stay the above women can't fair well with Gaddafi's 40 lipsticked virgins?

^Val, you better decide soon, neutrality doesn't agree with you. You are either a pro Somali weyn or you are with the enemy, no two ways about it. I recommend you all spend some time with Adam, Cara or Canno Geel or ailamos to find the sprit of Somalinimo. Ibti, horata, goormaad su'ashaasheyda ka jawaabe? Marka kale, why Cara? Ailamos waan kula garte, xataa Tuujiye but Cara? FACT: My Macalin Nuune, who I adore has more somali spirit than all of your spirits combined, why didn't you mention him? Are you counting him as pro-lander(and you probably think he has a bit of secessioner spirit in him) because he has not denounced Silaanyo? going back to the Cara bit...(love her or what have you) We don't even know iney Cara Somali tahay....waligeed ayadoo Somali qoreyso ma aqrin and Cara can attest to this, won't you Cara?

;)@@@London2010

Nassir, you stated the following: I argued that Libya shouldn't be de-estabilized but immediate political reform must be pressured on Libya & Gaddafi. According to CIA's world factbook, Libya has 22 states with a head of government. I will go even further and add that potential for human loss, through intervention is great but that inaction is much worse. In fact, outside intervention does not offer solutions to Libya's internal problems but neither does so called "reform" you are proposing. What you are suggesting is reform on the assumption that Libya is lacking leadership and just needs a make over of sort. Once the wolf's head is removed, normalcy will be reproduced and thats a flawed argument. Waayo, reform means having a viable civil society who can organize in a short time, without having to confront the problem of division in the country, as Libya is known to be a tribal society, all operating under committees and towns people as heads of so called (states), different interests, etc, one in which you described as making up a 22 different associations etc. Libya is no Egypt. So what you proposing is the impossibe as Libya needs to rebuild their federal system, they need to come up with new constitution, they need to assemble freely in a fair and democratic election. In short, Libya's problems can not be casted aside nor can they be characterized as needing"reform" only...Libya faces difficult future, she has many challenges ahead and country re-building is what needs to take place not so called reform.(u are saying that Libya has solid foundation, one which needs to be improved and I am saying no, the foundation is poorly constructed and its not on solid footing, which means it needs to be demolished and rebuild.) Lastly, no, I don't believe foreign intervention is a viable solution but right now, its the only solution as the status quo is unsustainable. Anyone, with a sound mind will tell you internal problems can only be solved internally and foreign intervention only exacerbates the problem. and as for my Macalinkeyga aka Nuune, nuune;703542 wrote: Lyzie-Gaal , wasn't I the one who was posting countless news articles one after the other denouncing Gadafi and supporting a peaceful protest like the one happened in Cairo and Tunis. Now when myself and 98% of Solers who posted here outlined the intentions of the West against Libya, you all of a sudden made us supporters of Gadafi and his regime. Nuune, he who should not be mentioned by name is making more sense than you caawa and he is a secessioner. Since when does he make more sense than you? Aniga macalinkeyga aa tahay and I wuv you but leave Gaddafi's mess for Libyans and address Silaanyo for the last time. You can't speak about the Silaanyo mess but waxaad rabtaa inaad i dhahdo aniga Sarkozy aan taageeraa? See waaye macalin? BTW, i take offense to your earlier assertion about supporting Sarkozy. The only person I support here is you Nuune ya macalindiid....:p:p

Read the Wiki page here: http://saifalislamgaddafithesis.wikia.com/wiki/Plagiarism Saif , while I adore him to bits, failed to defend himself from his accusers, who say he plagiarized his thesis paper (or failed to cite his sources probably, examples can be seen on the above link, which show examples of in proper use of others work) and to make matters worse, he donated 2.4 million following his PHD completion to the LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS....in essence, he bought his doctoral degree from LSE. Some say the donation made to LSE was hush money because those scholars charged with overseeing Saif's work, including his supervisor had suspicion, which was not pursued do to lack of evidence. In short, if anyone is giving back anything, it should be Saif-Al-Islam al quruxloow...give back the degree ya Saifyyyyyy

Yes to Arab Revolution and ouster of Gaddaffi , but no to morrran Sarkozy (Hungarian/ Jew) playing neo-con war games with the lives of Libyan citizens just so that he can boost his dwindling poll numbers in France. if not Sarkozy, who? Surely not the Arab league as they turned to the United Nations body for Arab solutions, so who else can spread head the efforts to stop Gaddafi? Not some of the Arab leaders themselves? oh no, where are they? they are nowhere to be found...so who else? do we stand idle and not response to possible genocidal actions by Gaddafi? What do you have the world do? You dont want Sarkozy and surely, you are disappointed with your main man, Obama, so what else is there to do and who should be in charge? While Sanka's emotionally charged response only speaks about one of the problems, he fails to address the question of HUMAN RIGHTS and protection for the living. The British, French and United States effort may not even deter Gaddafi but atleast attempts would be made in the right direction and the world will know that Arab leaders can not under any circumstance continue to act on their own without consequence. Gaddafi is a lose canon and with him gripping to power, it is no where that the UNSC took action, while China and Russia got out of the way of the Americans, British and French administrations to do what is necessary to oust that nutcase. Gaddafi is the unknown factor and the fact that he is certifiable that makes the Libyan case special interest and I would support similar effort on Iran. With Egypt, atleast you had faithful obedient soldiers, who knew their place and who could control their society when the call for law and order came knocking on their doorstep. And in the case of Yemen, as long as they allow their airspaces to be used for drone attacks they can pretty much do whatever they want with their population, as that scenario has been proven time in and time out. If Arab states are cooperating, there will be no invasion but the day they pretend to exercise autonomy, when in fact they are useless arabs as someone mentioned earlier and start threatening the civilized world with death and destruction, it is no wonder that the world will unite to force the nutcases out. Frankly speaking, nothing short of death will be enough where Gaddafi is concerned. No man deserves the world's sympathy if all he does is who use airstrike to wipe out a segment his population and for that Gaddafi will be killed, not captured, but killed. and as for sanka, calm your nerves eedo. Gather your composure and if you decide to be honest with yourself, you will know your problem is not with Sarkozy. Sarkozy was never your problem. On the other hand, Obama has been and continuous to be a problem, maybe even a disappointment, so why dont you admit it to yourself? (OBama is after American interest, so what is your interest adeerow?) LAstly, the so called free-spirited group are emotional basket case. Reactive group. They are what I call, scripted mannequins, incapable of judgement and totally without rational thought. Therefore, it is no wonder that their first objection to invasion was on religious grounds. Yes, say the free spirited group, " we support the prevention of mass atrocities but for as long as gaalo's are not spread heading the effort"...talk about a flawed logic ya mannequins You should be less concerned with what France, Britain and United States are doing to help prevent genocide in Libya and instead ask yourselves, where do the Arab Leaders stand? Why is the Arab league inactive and ineffective? What is the role of the Arab league? Isn't the organization build to address the concerns and aspirations of the Arab people? and more importantly, why were the Arab League largely absent in the last 2 and a half months, almost three months? Do they not form as a collective body who can exercises greater power as an autonomous organization, who have the well being of the Arab masses? Are they not more relevant than Sarkozy? and lastly @sanka, where Sarkozy lacks in height, he makes up in wit.........:cool::cool::cool: