Originally posted by Northerner: True, i was scared witless last week on the trains, now i have to do it all again, but now ppl will focus on me rather than the Asian guy listening to his ipod! Yes, Muslims are under the microscope more than ever before but so are Somalis (the invisible community as one columnist called us). Northerner, I was with a mate who came from abroad yesterday and we travelled from the north all the way to the west on the underground with a huge back pack. People were scared of us all the way; not that we gave a damn, why let the actions of a few make us feel uncomfortable? Once we came to the west, we took a bus and when boarding, the eyes of the driver almost popped out when she saw the bag. It was so comical that we burst into laughter. She realised how paranoid she was and couldn't help but laugh too. People have pieces of paper on their back-packs saying things like...NOT A BOMB, or CAMPING EQUIPMENT just to ease the worried passengers on the London public transport. Damn terrorists!

Originally posted by Shams-ud-Din: Viking, The commentary clearly says the Suurah is Madinan, and that makes all the difference to their interpertations of historical settings! The commentary does say that the Surah was revealed in Medina but it states that there are otehrs who believe it was revealed in Mecca. They also state the reasons why they believe it was revealed in Medina. Do you find the reasons presented to be unreasonable? Please post a commentary that explains this Surah better from another source where also the issue of horses is discussed. I was looking for commentary of the Qur'an online and this was the best site I came across, if you know of any other sites that offer comprehensive commentary, please give me the links so that I too can benefit from them. I intend to purchase volumes of commentary in the near future InshaAllah but I have to settle for what I can get online at the moment. All your help (in finding a similar online comprehensive commentary) is appreciated. Originally posted by Shams-ud-Din: You are still trying to make the issue personal, but may Allah be my witness, to me it's all about supporting the Xaqq!! Akhi, you made the issue personal the first time you adressed me by referring to me as a LIAR and EVIL. I was merely trying to get you to show proof as to why you thought I was all evil. If you are supporting Haqq then you have to be careful about your approach because (in Islam) the end doesn't justify the means. Originally posted by Shams-ud-Din: I have to go now, but in the mean time be my guest and start a constuctive conversation, since I'm clearly unable to behave as civilised as you are, and I promise to be softer with my approach next time I get the opportunity to post. You are not "unable to start a constructive conversation", you just need to be give people the benefit of the doubt and refrain from attacking them for no apparent reason.

HOW TO BE THE IDEAL SHOPPING COMPANION Relaxation exercises, meditation and breathing techniques No amount of training could help a man become an "ideal shoping companion". Men go and buy what they went for and leave while women browse around for hours, often admiring things instead of purchasing. Originally posted by Afromali: quote: REAL MEN ASK FOR DIRECTIONS WHEN LOST Real life testimonial from the one man who did I agreed with everything.Except This Bull-Xaar right here. If Christopher Columbus didnt need it,why should we. To the rest of it,Who really cares? Afromali, But Columbus was actually heading to India. You are right, if he asked for directions he would have never "discovered" America.

NGONGE, Originally posted by NGONGE: I read that article three times and still don’t know who the author is preaching to! Not surprised that it met with your approval, Viking. One foot in each side, eh? I found the message to be rather clear and adresses both Muslims and non-Muslims; the author said..."Fighting terrorism is only by spreading justice and education, but not by force as what is happening now." Originally posted by NGONGE: The author narrates a great story. However, he’s playing the usual two-faced game of politics by applying it to the Bush administration (I never think these guys mean to be two-faced. It’s merely a fashion that everyone follows nowadays). Again, he would have done much better and got better results if he concentrated on Muslims and told them how to “fight†terror instead of crying about how Bush (a Non-Muslim) is fighting terror...In other words, instead of preaching to Bush about what Islam ‘used’ to be, why not preach to us about what Islam ‘aught’ to be? If only he would have focused on the last paragraph and based his whole piece on it. If only... Click on the word "Source" (in blue) and find out how you can forward your critique to the author. Originally posted by NGONGE: Ps I note here that you have no problem with the use of the word "Islam" in the title! How very consistent of you, saaxib. Umar (RA) was a highly respected ruler (even among occidentals) and ruled in accordance with the Shari'a, so why should I have any problem with the title? PS: I think you are too apologetic mate, stop trying to please the westerners because they will never be pleased until you leave the fold of Islam.

I heard that Jumatatu. The Osman dude in Italy looks more xabashi than Somali. But the guy on the balcony must be Somali oo Ethopian kudhiiban, did you guys see how the he was spitting?

Originally posted by Ducaqabe: Are you saying this hasn't happened? There's no such thing as freedom of speech in Somalian culture. You may end up in a fight if you criticize someone else's qabiil in your local restaurent let alone back home. My friend do me a favor and try it at your own risk. Go to Somalia and criticize the warlord/qabiil of the city you're in. Waxaad ka heshid waxba ha iga siin sxb. We are simply addicted to tribalism. I learnt it the hard way. Some years ago, I was having a discussion (about which towns one could think of calling home) with a dude I'd shared a flat with for almost two years, a very decent guy. The name of a certain town came up and I said what I thought of it and he reacted negatively. He asked me what I meant and I told him what I thought, that I thought it was a shit-hole! He got so angry and told me I was the biggest clanist he'd ever met. The situation got heated and we were close to getting into a fight - I later learnt that almost all Somalis who lived there were from "his clan". I was shocked and was angry at him because I knew a lot of people in that town and didn't even have a clue what clan they belonged to, plus, it was disturbing to find out that someone I thought I knew well was so clan-oriented even in his reasonning.

And by the way, you've posted that website with the full knowledge of its misleading contents, without bothering to worn us in advance, that you shouldn't be held accountable or criticised for posting such a source containing falsehoods. This is why communicating with you is not easy. Why would I communicate falsehood to my fellow Muslims? The commentary clearly says why some people claim the Surah is Meccan and others Medinan. It is also Islamic to give someone the benefit of the doubt instead of accusing them of wrongdoing based on doubt, but you have shown to lack this important Islamic trait when you accused me of being a liar and evil the first time you adressed me and now you accuse me of spreading falsehood. You sound rather well versed in the Deen but potray highly unIslamic traits for these are rather grave accusations. When I asked to start afresh, you could have started in a constructive way by asking me anything (i.e. about the source, the reason for my using it, giving it, accepting it etc.) but you opted for insulting me instead. Was that not the reason you declared that you NOT believe everything read?...Don't push it too much bro. I declared it because I do not subscribe to any group (whether Salafi, Sufi, Shi'a, Deobandi etc.) and don't believe everything these groups say. I regard myself as MUSLIM (This day, I have perfected your religion for you, completed My favour upon you, and have chosen for you ISLAM as your religion -- Al-Adiyat verse 3) and therefore read all the available materials from all groups under the banner of Islam. But trust you to doubt even my CLEAR words and somehow find ill in them. This is only harming you in the eyes of Allah SWT for He is closer to us than our jugular veins. Plus, I'm not pushing anything, you are the one throwing insults and accusations left and right. PS: I am familiar with Tafsir.com and it doesn't offer broad commentary but mostly translations only. There was no commentary on Surah Al-Adiyat either.

Shams-ud-din, I think you know yourself what’s wrong with some of the sources you’ve listed above, and do not need anyone to tell you how stinky they are. The above source is a Shi'a website and I provided it after WoL asked for the source I had used. That is commentary of the Qur'an (the best online commentary I have come across) and if you found anything wrong with it (the commentary) please say so instead of clutching at straws. I have no personal qualms with you except for what you write. You said... "you're not the problem, but the sources misleading you are" , this implies that I am reading from wrong sources which are corrupting my beliefs (if you meant otherwise please be clear next time). Now, I asked you for the reasons that have prompted you to write the words above, nothing more, nothing less. 1) Where have you seen me being "misled" by these sources? 2) Have I said something that contradicts the Qur'an and Sunnah?

ROME (Reuters) - The fourth man suspected of trying to detonate bombs on London's transport network on July 21 has been arrested in Rome, Italy's interior minister said on Friday. Interior Minister Giuseppe Pisanu said in a statement that the suspect was a naturalised Briton of Somali origin named Osman Hussain. A municipal source said Hussain was arrested at a relative's residence in Rome. Italy's ANSA news service said Hussain was 27 years old and fled to Italy after the failed London bombings. ANSA added that Hussain was the suspect in an incident on the underground rail network in west London. A massive manhunt was launched in Britain after July 21 for four suspected attackers whose bombs failed to explode. British police early on Friday said they made two "potentially very significant" arrests at an apartment in west London, and media reports said they were of two of the suspected bombers. Another was arrested in Birmingham on Wednesday. Source

While Caesar had sleepless nights, Umar (RA) slept under a tree without anyone guarding him. The U.S. method of fighting terrorism by force, injustice, pre-emptive strikes, unilateral action and "regime change" only adds fuel to the fire. As witnessed by the recent world events. The Bush administration has released a new National Security document which has been likened by the Moscow Times to Hitler's Mein Kampf, and described by the New York Times as Bush's "How I'll rule the world" blueprint. This method which is used by Israelis has only been devastating to both sides if measured in human cost, loss of freedom, psychological trauma and economical loss. The U.S. and the rest of the World will be expected to suffer similar losses when it mirrors the method used by Israel and Hitler as shown by the following statement from the Bush administration, "the only path to peace and security is the path of action". That is, the U.S. must wage a perpetual war, because without war there can be no peace. If we compare this attitude with that of the Early Muslims who are considered the best generation, we find the following example of Caliph Omar. The Caliph Omar was the governor or president of the Islamic Empire, which included Saudi Arabia, Palestine, Syria, Egypt, North Africa and Spain. One day Caesar wanted to know how Omar lived and how he treated his people. He sent a person to Al Medina where Omar lived. When this man entered Al Medina he asked the people, "where is your king?" The people replied, "we have no king but we have an Amir similar to a president." This man asked, "where is he?" They told him, " he is outside Al Medina." He went to find him. What did this man see? He saw Omar sleeping alone on the sand holding a little stick with no guards around him. When he saw him like that he became very impressed and ashamed of himself and said, "A man all the kings in the world are scared from, sleeps that humble without any guards? You governed your people with justice and honesty so you became safe and slept. Our king is unjust and dishonest. That is why he is always scared and awake most of the night surrounded by guards inside a fortress. Fighting terrorism is only by spreading justice and education, but not by force as what is happening now. In the Qur'aan, Surah Al Nahl (16) verse 90, " Allah commands justice, the doing of good and looking after our relatives. Allah forbids all shameful deeds, injustice and rebellion. Allah instructs you so you may comprehend." However, spreading only justice is not enough because some ignorant people may do acts of terrorism. In Surah Al Nahl (16) v. 125, " O Mohammed, invite to the way of your Lord, which is Islam, with wisdom and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better. Truly, you Lord knows best who has gone astray from his path, and he is the best aware of who are guided." This was the character of the Early Muslims which allowed Islam to spread throughout the whole World. Allah said that the most honorable to Allah is the most fearful of Allah and not the richest, strongest or those who belong to a certain group or nationality as shown in Al Hujurat (49) v. 13. "O mankind; we have created you from a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes that you may know one another. Verily the most honorable of you to Allah is that who is most faithful, pious and fearful of Allah." There are numerous historical examples in the Qur'aan showing the eventual outcome of oppressive tyrants such as Pharaoh compared to those who are righteous. The Qur'aan teaches us the morality, wisdom and meaning behind these events. Unfortunately in Schools and Universities, history is only taught in a factual manner only showing the consequences of military conquests where morality, responsibility and accountability are considered irrelevant. It is no wonder that we can never learn from our previous mistakes. Particularly if the Christians insist on believing the Paulian idea that "the means justifies the aims". That is, it does not matter how evil your actions are as long as your intentions are good. Whereas, for a good deed to be accepted in Islam, it must be sincere, with good intentions and done according to the Sunnah of our Prophet. Source

Shams-ud-Din, I'm not naive if that is what is you are implying. I read all sources available to me (Shi'a, Sufi, Salafi, Deobandi, Tablighi etc.) but I do NOT believe everything I read. What made you question the sources I use? Have I said anything that is inapropriate and in contrast to the Qur'an and Sunnah? Please show me where I have done so. As for your approach, a good Muslim should have good manners and should epitomise his/her faith. You made a mistake by calling me a liar and evil the first time you ever adressed me and for no apparent reason. This was inapropriate, uncalled for and a very unIslamic approach. Be gentle in your ways (when communicating) in order to earn respect from the people you are adressing and in this way you also avoid the wrath of Allah SWT.

Only in India... Only in S Africa...

WoL, I've seen them before, here are others... Only in Africa...

A group of Sikhs were recently arrested in New York and handcuffed in the middle of the street. The Americans can't even tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim. The New York mayor had to apologise. The Brits are subtle in their ways because they are seasonned in the art of deception.

Originally posted by ORGILAQE: DUCAQABE I believe it is you who has a problem with Qabil.You might as well condemn your family if you are going to condemn your family's root, the Qabil.The issue is not the Qabil but rather how you use it.Allah created the tribes races but only so we may recognise each other and know our relatives not to use it for any negative purposes and the same goes for the Qabil.It is perfectly OK to be proud of your qabil, I know I am and I am proud of all that is good about it's culture way of life because I am them and they are me and If i am not proud of them I cannot be proud of the larger somali roots that I have!! ORGILAQE, This is the excuse some people use to justify their behaviour. Allah SWT says in Surah Al-Hujurat verse 13... O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and TRIBES, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you. And Allah has full knowledge and is well acquainted (with all things). People who use this verse to justify their actions have totally misunderstood the message. All the clans belong to ONE TRIBE which is Soomali; this is the name of our tribe. We should use this (tribe=Soomali) to know each other but we segment each other further into clans and subclans. This verse does NOT support clan affiliations at all so be careful not to present the words of Allah SWT in support of an evil ideology. Furthermore, Somalis used to identify with ONE tribe before the advent of Islam, this is why most clans claim that their "father" (sheikh hebel, who the lineage starts with) is an Arab.

7 of Nine, Are you serious? Do you believe what the article says? Netherlands was involved in the war in Iraq, but I don't know how they were "affected". Why isn't Dublin, Oslo, Geneva, Berlin, Brussels, Stockholm, Helsinki and the other capitals of European countries targetted? Egypt has been in some kind of internal turmoil since the 50's; the secular govt has tried to repress any form of Islamic parties. Same case with Saudi Arabia, the monarchy is seen as a puppet of the USA and that is why they have been a target. As abhorrent as terrorist attacks are, they are always connected to the events hapenning elsewhere in the 'Islamic world'.

Originally posted by NGONGE: Viking saaxib, I could try everything in my power and write long or short sentences to help you understand but I can’t teach you to READ. Stop being emotional and read my words. I’ve replied to all your questions a dozen times already. If you CAN’T READ, it’s your shortcoming and not a failing in my ability to write. Go back and READ my words again, and again, and again. Try to comprehend them then come back and have a mature discussion with me. This is still obtuse. NGONGE, Thank you for your wise response and your kind words. I will now go back and try to re-read everything you have written on these boards so far. Pray for me so that I grasp the very few wisdom-filled words that you have tucked away somewhere in the loooooong passages you've written for the obtuse on SOL.

NGONGE, Words are the means we are using to communicate on this medium and you are doing a lousy job! An example is how you play around with the term ISLAM. You say Islam needs to change (which has sparked a reaction from me, Jamaal, xiinfaniin etc.), then you say Islam is perfect and then turn around and say the term Islam and Muslims are interchangebale. If you had proper comprehension of the words (in this particular context) you are throwing around then you might have saved us all a lot of time because we seem to be running around the same issues. 4. If one is talking from a Western, political, left-wing or right-wing point of view then number 2 above becomes null and void. I don't know what madrasa you went to but politics does not lie outside the scope of Islam. You probably write ten times more (in every single post) than the average SOL forumer but yet you have a difficutly putting simple points through to the readers. Why is this? Haddad, as short as his posts are, there is no doubt or confusion in comprehending what he is saying. You stand to learn from him, and all the other "pedantic" individuals you accuse of being obtuse. Forget the other points I raised and ADRESS number 2 and 3 because that is what seems to have sparked this discussion. Here is what you said (in bold) and my response to it (in italics)... 2. What happened in London and Iraq are two distinctly different things. Though there is a link between them, it should not matter to us (as Muslims) when we make our judgment on each. You have to be clearer in this case; you can not say they are two distinctly different things and then in the same breath say there is a link between them. They are either disntinctly different (if you mean unrelated and if you mean anything else please make it clear) or linked, you cannot have it both ways. 3. People that try to excuse one with the other are being duplicitous. There is no excuse for killing civilians (as we agreed in your first point) but seeing a link between the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't imply duplicity (contradictory doubleness of thought). You said yourself that there was a "link" between the two and it would be hypocritical accuse anyone who agrees with this position of applying duplicity.

1. Killing civilians is wrong (anywhere in the world). Agreed! 2. What happened in London and Iraq are two distinctly different things. Though there is a link between them, it should not matter to us (as Muslims) when we make our judgment on each. You have to be clearer in this case; you can not say they are two distinctly different things and then in the same breath say there is a link between them. They are either disntinctly different (if you mean unrelated and if you mean anything else please make it clear) or linked, you cannot have it both ways. 3. People that try to excuse one with the other are being duplicitous. There is no excuse for killing civilians (as we agreed in your first point) but seeing a link between the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't imply duplicity (contradictory doubleness of thought). You said yourself that tehre was a "link" between the two and it would be hypocritical accuse anyone who agrees with this position of applying duplicity. 4. If one is talking from a Western, political, left-wing or right-wing point of view then number 2 above becomes null and void. The leftists were mostly against the war on terror, can you elaborate in what you mean here? 5. Indifference in this case is also duplicitous. ..and inhumane! 6. Muslims that say there is nothing wrong with Islam then sit back and watch while rogue elements hijack the faith and use it for political reasons are duplicitous. Don't you also fall into this category? You said... "Viking, you’re being obtuse now. If I thought there was a problem with Islam (the faith) I wouldn’t be a Muslim, would I now?"

NGONGE, Originally posted by NGONGE: What is the point of explaining the link, the 25000 dead Iraqis and the invasion if not to play down the bombings in London? Do you see the duplicity in your argument at all, saaxib? Do you see how obtuse you’re being? You’re mixing your causes and moral positions, saaxib. Even when you try to explain the collateral damage concept, you still carry on with the twisted style of arguing It would be very ignorant of me (and others) to say that the events of London are an isolated incident that has nothing to do with what Britain is doing in the world. I responded to your question as to whether it is fair to say that the bombings in London was revenge for the invasion of Iraq. Blair and Bush (just like you are here) have tried to avoid discussing the link between the bombings to the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Get this through your skull sxb, although the bombings were immoral, brutal and wrong, they did not come as a surprise because the British govt knew that their actions in the Middle East might eventually bring the war to the home turf (or were you unaware of all the preparations they've been making, expecting this to happen anytime). This is no duplicity in my morality but it is a fact that, what goes around comes around (in this life or the next), even if we do not like it. Originally posted by NGONGE: I hate to fall into the vulgar style of arguments of listing incidents and occasions (because, frankly, it would be very obtuse of me). However, as a demonstration of what you’re doing yourself here, I’ll ask you what collateral damage can be found in mosques and markets where no police or army are to be found? The “insurgents†are blowing these places too, are they not? Collateral damage has a moral justification when COMPARED to the drivel you’ve been spouting, saaxib. Have you been paying attention to anything I wrote in the past three weeks? The insurgents target civilians and so does the invading army, why are you giving one party the benefit of the doubt? There also were no bombings in Iraq before the invasion (besides the ocassional bombs dropped by the foreigners who imposed the "no fly zone" in the sovereign state) so the people who invaded Iraq should provide protection for the people. Originally posted by NGONGE: That’s not taking a moral stance, saaxib. That’s being evasive and (you guessed it) obtuse. The people that bombed London did not do it out of a sense of fun. They did not randomly choose a city on a map and decide to bomb it. The WHOLE world knows that there is a link. Why repeat the obvious when condemning the bombings, saaxib? Does it make a difference to your moral stance on the issue? Would you have condemned it louder if there were no connection with Iraq? Do YOU make your moral judgments as a reaction to what Bush and Blair do? Is any of this making sense to you at all? AT ALL? You fail to understand what I've been saying all along; I do not condone the bombings but understand that they hapenned because the British are waging war in other countries, deposing govts and killing innocent civilians. I understand why the bombings hapenned but do NOT condone them, just as I don't condone the actions of the British and Americans. Originally posted by NGONGE: All you need do is explain your moral position in this situation and how you’ve arrived at it. Quite simple sxb...the Qur'an says that anyone that kills an innocent person it is as if they have the whole of humanity. This applies to Muslims and non-Muslims.

Ngonge has a point. He's been trying to hammer it in for weeks now. I think I got it and I appreciate his fervor. Fidel, Would you please, in a few sentences explain what NGONGE's point is? I think we should talk about sex. We will have far greater concensus on it than any other subject on earth. The floor is yours!

I've never heard of this hadith; so the Abyssinians will succeed where Abraha and his army of elephants failed :confused: ? I think this world is not going to be around for long, maybe a couple of more hundred years. We already seen too many of the signs of Yaw'alqiyamah. Never has this world been awashed as much with macaasi and shirk as today's. This is at a stage similar to the ones when ALlah (SWT) destroyed the Qawm of Luud, Qawm of Nuuh and other previous civilisations. Subxaanalah Suldaaanka, Almost every generation has thought they were approaching the end of times (including the Saxaabas). It might be 100 years or 1 000 000 years, only Allah SWT knows.

NGONGE, Maybe I, and everyone else who's been adressing you on this issue are just obtuse. What are you on about? Did I (or anyone here) claim to support the terror attacks in London? I don't fink so! So what is your concern (since no one seems to quite understand it)? Are you against the killing of innocent people? Good, then we are all on the same page. You have written pages and pages on this issue and no one seems to get the gist of your argument; if anyone needs to implement some clarity then it is you sxb. Or are we all obtuse? I reject the argument that what happened in London is a fair consequence to what has been happening in Iraq. I reject it on intellectual and moral grounds and have shown CLEARLY why and how. Not really fair if we are talking about the role Britain played in the invasion or Iraq...over 25 000 innocent Iraqis have lost their lives since the invasion two years ago. But I hope you aren't naive enough to fail to see the connection between the foreign policy of Britain and the latest bombings. It is duplicitous to try to apply the term collateral damage to deliberate blowing up of civilians and innocent people. Collateral damage implies a main target that is attacked with civilians being a lesser and unavoidable consequence of such an attack. Collateral damage is ALWAYS regrettable and undesirable by those that cause it. The insurgents seem to be targetting the police and the army that has been set up by the invading army. Many civilians have been caught up in the blasts. Plus, regretting collateral damage doesn't make it moral sxb. I sincerely wish that you would choose a moral stance and stick to it, saaxib. This position of condemning these actions, yet accepting how the insurgents having no big nuclear weapons and how they can’t penetrate the Green Zone would lead to collateral damage, is bent saaxib. The application of words like "sympathy out of helplessness†is also misleading and implies a implicit tolerance of such cases. I thought I made my stance earlier, and I've stuck to it. I am against the killing of civilians by any party. Does that mean that I fail to see the obvious connection between the London bombings and Britain's foreign policy? Nope!

Oh bosh. What you like to call “State-terrorism†is what most of us conventionally call War. It’s straightforward, it’s clear and all sides know where they stand. I would condone it depending on the side I’m on and my moral stance on it. What I don’t do is mix my causes and wars. NGONGE, It isn't that straighforward mate! The population of Iraq was starved for a decade (through sanctions) before the invasion. Even the UN acknowledged that these sanctions were targetting civilians and not Saddam's regime and cost over a million lives (mostly children). The term state-terrorism is used to described the terror perpetrated by states, this might seem as straightforward conventional war as you (and the govts perpetraing these atrocities) would like to call it but is terrorism nonetheless. First of all, I don't think anyone in their rightful mind supported the bombings of London, but, they aren't fooled by the govts of USA and GB who are doing their best to reject (and conceal) any connections between the blasts and their agressive, opressive and hegemonic foreign policies. If those who are attacking these govts (the terrorists) had access to nukes, stealth bombers, F16's, flight-carriers, Abraham tanks etc, then they would use them just as the state-terrorists do. Then what we would have is what you seem to be asking for, a conentional war. But, they are not as equipped as their opponents and are left with very few targets. Look at the ring (Green Zone) the American soldiers have created in Iraq, it is virtually impossible for the ill-equipped insurgents to penetrate; that is why they target those who assist them and unfortunately (using your language here) collateral damage is inevitable! If you think that the problem is with Islam (the religion itself), come out and say it clearly point by point where you think the ills lie. If you (like most of the Muslims) believe that there are a few Muslims who have a skewed interpretation of Islam are responsible for the (i.e. London) bombings (and that many more sympathise with them out of helplessness), then be clear about the way you express yourself.

Zephy, Contemporary but very sterile! It is important to sustain an equilibrium when opting for a contemporary interior design.