Interesting article! Anything that improves the quality of life is positive but the problem is this is unknown territory. Some scientists in Newcastle were this week asking for permission to use cow cells with human cells for stem cell research. They say that the result will be 99% human and 1% cow. It doesn't sound applealing does it? Someone on the transplant list would be delighted to get an organ but what are the future risks? Murky waters! PS Fukuyama seems to be spreading his wings.

Russia has been home to many African students but the great rise in racism is a big deterrent to any new applicants. The skinheads in Moscow could easily beat you to a pulp and no one will come to your aid, including the police. Being a Muslim makes it worse because of the situation in Chechnya. Kazakhs, Uzbeks, Khazars, Chechens etc are attacked on a daily basis on the streets and on the Metro.

Arrawelo

SeeKer, You have access to drugs! Some years ago, I tried Dixyrazine (Esucos) and it made a difficult day much esier (no side-effects and not addictive). You also have the "uppers" for the most diffiult days PS: Am not recommending drugs to you but just reminding you of the options you have :cool:

The hidden is worse than the manifest.

Castro, Throughout history, an increase of wealth has always led to a decrease of faith. Perhaps prosperity makes man think he is not in need of God. Nur, I think that Matthew was also known as Matthew Levi son of Alphaeus, John is son of Zebedee but I don't think much is known of Mark and Luke.

Originally posted by Castro: Is this you TYJAWANAIA? You're starting a fitnah by posting these luscious lips. Istaqfurulah. Can you post the rest of the face? LOOOOOOOOOL Here's a side shot, just slightly disguised for confidentiality...

akakakaka @ well the girl next door is a bit of a minger, so take to Chicago to film Jerry Springer! The second call was fonny!

It is true, they are getting away with much more than Nazi Germany did, and with almost no condemnation. Until today, Jews who survived the Holocaust visit schools and educate youngsters on the evils of the Third Reich but no Jews go around in schools condemning Zionism. How would Israel be perceived in 50 years? Would there still be as much spin in the media? Or will their role as the regional bully and agressor change as soon as the USA starts declining and losing it's "superpower status"?

Since it's not a "World Cup dream team" I'll try going with overall performance the last 12 months. 1. Lehman (best clean sheet in CL history) 2. Eboue (my favourite right back and still VERY young) 3. Zambrotta (best left back, played extremely well on the right in WC) 4. Marquez (complete defensive player who can play central midfield, had a good year with Barca) 5. Cannavaro (deserves player of the year award, alas, he's a defender) 6. Essien (Ghana could have beaten Brazil if he was on the pitch) 7. Pirlo (was together with Canavarro the best players at the WC - an intelligent passer of the ball) 8. Gerrard (best player in the England squad by a mile - I can't believe I once thought Lampard was as good as him, sorry North ) 9. Eto'o (fast, technical, opportunistic and above all a very humble player - he if he was Brazilian he would have won the world's best player) 10. Ronaldinho (had bad world cup but won both the league and CL) 11. Henry (lost both the CL final and the WC final, but still had a decent run in all tournaments) Let me try and justify my selection... Barca 3 players - won both Spanish League and CL. Arsenal 3 players - Herny played in CL & WC finals, Lehman broke the CL record and Eboue is just too good He marked and frustrated Zidane, Nedved and Ronaldinho in the CL last year and neither of the three could get past him. Juventus 2 players - Zambrotta and Cannavaro won both Italian League and WC and were immaculate. Chelsea 1 player - nothing against them but the only thing they won was domestic, plus, they are no crowd pleasers like Barca and Arsenal - Essien is often overlooked by the media and commentators but stands out, and he has been very bright so far this year. AC Milan 1 player - Pirlo helped Italy win the WC and was together with Zambrotta and Cannavaro Italy's best players. He was also consistent in Serie A. Liverpool 1 player - I'm not a L'pool fan and never liked their style of play, but Gerrard stands out of that team like a sore thumb. He is a few classes above all his team mates. Players who almost made it to the team and can be subs are... - Buffon - Makelele - Thuram - Ribery - Ballack - Luca Toni

Salafi_Online, Islam is inclusive bro, not exclsive! Nur, Well said bro!

I hope the piece (which adresses how they misrepresented ibn Qayyim's work) helps elucidate what I've been trying to say all along. Here's more for you to read and help you understand this issue... -------------------------------------------------- MUHAMMAD THE ABOLITIONIST: SLAVERY IN THE QUR'AN by Adam Watson (2002) AUTHOR'S NOTE The Holy Book of Islam has been given various English spellings over the years. I have chosen to use Qur'an. Scholars have also used Quran or Koran. When they have done so in quotes I have used for my essay (or in the titles of their works I am quoting), I have retained their particular spelling so as not to alter their original intent. Likewise, and more importantly, there is an unfortunate male chauvinism pervasive in some of these scholars' translations of the Qur'an, or in their comments; "Allah" and "humanity" as Male and men, respectively. (All but one of the scholars cited in my essay are male.) Although I try to be gender-neutral when using either concept, I retain their exact wording as given. All verses quoted from The Qur'an are from Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation, unless otherwise noted (see Works Cited). ESSAY The existence of slavery is an ancient condition. It existed long before the Qur'an was revealed to Muhammad, starting in 610 C.E. What is interesting is comparing the depiction of slavery in the Qur'an to the Old and New Testament. In these older Jewish and Christian holy texts, a specific plan to eliminate the human bondage of our temporal present is never discussed. The Qur'an, on the other hand, not only recognized the immorality of slavery in seventh century Arabia, but sought to end it. The plan to do so is both implicit and explicit. To recognize this is to respect the Islamic attempt, in the name of Allah, to destroy an evil custom nearly thirteen centuries before America would legally and politically do the same. The Qur'an is a pragmatic book. It recognizes that a negative institution that is deeply part of Arabic culture could not be eliminated instantly, with a single surah: "Slavery was widely prevalent in Arabia at the time of the advent of Islam, and the Arab economy was based on it" (Hassan 374). Instead, repetition of thoughts is often used that either collectively make God's plan apparent, or build from criticism to condemnation. An example of the latter is how the Qur'an gradually forbids the consumption of intoxicating substances: They ask you concerning wine . . . Say: "In them is great sin, and some profit, for men; but the sin is greater than the profit." (2:219) O you who believe! do not approach prayers with a mind befogged, until you can understand all that you say . . . (4:43) O you who believe! intoxicants . . . are an abomination, - of Satan's handiwork: eschew such (abomination), that you may prosper. Satan's plan is (but) to excite enmity and hatred between you, with intoxicants . . . and hinder you from the remembrance of Allah, and from prayer: will you not then abstain? (5:90-91) The Qur'an is always aware of humanity's resistance to change. Fiery pronouncements may be more dramatic and gain immediate results, but water wisdom seems to be the path of Allah (rivers and streams are persistent images in the Qur'an); the Muslim has old habits and prejudices washed and eroded away, while simultaneously getting cleansed and purified. Extending this water metaphor, we can see how Islam will end slavery: with subtle trickles of revelation and rules that only become an unstoppable river when seen in context as a whole. First, we will examine Qur'anic passages that specifically describe releasing slaves: It is not righteousness that you turn your faces toward East or West; but it is righteousness . . . to spend of your substance . . . for the ransom of slaves. (2:177) Never should a Believer kill a Believer; but (if it so happens) by mistake, (compensation is due): if one (so) kills a Believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family . . . For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah. (4:92) Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons . . . or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. (5:89) Alms are for the poor and the needy, and those employed to administer the (funds); . . . for those in bondage and in debt . . . (9:60) But for those who divorce their wives . . . then wish to go back on the words they uttered, - (it is ordained that such a one) should free a slave before they touch each other: this you are admonished to perform . . . And if any has not (the wherewithal), he should fast for two months consecutively before they touch each other. But if any is unable to do so, he should feed sixty indigent ones. (58:3-4) Verily We have created Man into toil and struggle. . . . And what will explain to you the path that is steep? - (It is:) freeing the bondman . . . (90:4-13) There are several important facts to glean from these verses. First, freeing slaves is shown as clearly an easier choice of penance, whether in expenditure of money or physical effort, when compared to fasting (from three days to two months) or feeding or clothing the poor (from ten to sixty people). Therefore, freeing slaves seems to be the choice that Allah prefers Muslims to take, since the All-Powerful always desires Muslims to avoid faith-tasks that overburden them, whenever possible. This also shows the importance of ending slavery for Muslims by determining the equivalence of freeing a slave with seemingly the more difficult tasks (part of Surah 90's "steep path") of fasting, or feeding and clothing many of the poor. Indeed, one slave is equal to days or months of fasting, or feeding/clothing ten or sixty needy persons. The Qur'an's statistical analysis of slaves is important to note. Another example of this is the punishment of female slaves if they are found guilty of promiscuousness: "if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that of free women" (4:25). "In making such a distinction," Riffat Hassan writes, "the Qur'an while upholding high moral standards . . . reflects God's compassion for women slaves who were socially disadvantaged" (373-374). In quantitative logic, Allah constantly and consistently shows a preference of freeing slaves over other penances, even giving slaves more compassion than free Muslims. Secondly, as 2:177 and 9:60 shows, Islamic society is directed to create a permanent fund for freeing those in bondage. This is an example of the Qur'an's pragmatism. These particular verses do not argue if people should not be slaves on principle. Instead, the Qur'an talks to the Muslims that consider slaves property; and, like any assets that are "lost," want compensation for freeing them. Very well, you can almost hear the Qur'an say, here is your money, if you need a reason to free them. But, it would be better if you freed them without compensation, if you only knew. Finally, putting the above verses in context with the rest of the Qur'an is important. Nowhere can you find verses that prescribe slavery as punishment, that creates slaves. The freeing of slaves even includes those gained in war with the enemy, Muslim and non-Muslim alike (Maudoodi 187). In fact, by freeing POWs, the elimination of slavery was unavoidable, since "[t]he major source of slaves - men and women - was prisoners of war" (G.A. Parwez, qtd. in Hassan 375). Allah's mathematical intent is clear. By having rules for reducing the amount of slaves instead of rules adding more to the total, the phasing out of human bondage will inevitably occur. Other verses address the treatment of slaves. "The believers must (eventually) win through, - Those who . . . abstain from sex, except those joined to them in the marriage bond" (23:1-6) is an indictment against sex with slaves. "When slavery existed in early Islam and the master had sexual rights over his slaves," Fathi Osman writes, "Islam, as part of its plan to gradually end slavery, commanded that a sexual relation with a slave was lawful only through marriage" (840, my italics). "[T]hey may wed [believers] from among those whom your right hands possess," the Qur'an tells us (4:25); it also implores us to "Marry those among you who are single, or the virtuous ones among your slaves, male or female" (24:32). A slave is equally fit for marriage as a freeperson, the beginning of a process that asks: if slaves and freepersons are equal for marriage, why are they not therefore equal in other ways? The condemnation of forcing slaves to have sex with their masters (or others) is also stressed: "[D]o not force your maids to prostitution when they desire chastity" (24:33). Earlier in the same verse indicated above, the Qur'an gives more details on the emancipation of slaves. Muslims should not only grant them freedom, but help them financially so that they may begin their new life with dignity: And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if you know any good in them; yes, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. (24:33) "According to the Quran, and the juristic inference from it," Osman writes, "helping the slave to become free is an individual and social obligation" (851). The end of the verse is a warning to the person who believes what he or she owns - whether it is personal riches, or slaves - as belonging "only" to him or her, accomplished without outside help: "The Quran here reminds the individual and the society that the wealth they have belongs initially to God . . . and any individual or society is only entrusted by God with the wealth and has to deal with it . . . according to God's guidance" (Osman 852). Ownership becomes a temporary privilege, not a permanent right: Allah has bestowed His gifts of sustenance more freely on some of you than on others: those more favored are not going to throw back their gifts to those whom their right hands possess, so as to be equal in that respect. Will they then deny the favors of Allah? (16:71, my italics) The Qur'an's equalization of slave and master works to further eliminate any distinction between the two in the eyes of Allah: [W]ith regard to those whom "one's right hand possess," an authentic tradition of the Prophet indicates that they are merely brothers whom God has placed under one's authority and they should all eat the same food and be equally clothed. Morever, they should not be required to do what would over-burden them, otherwise the one who has them himself/herself should help in such a case. (Osman 781-782) M. Umaruddin's description of Muhammad echoes the above: He led an absolutely frugal and temperate life, subsisting on the simplest fare, consisting mainly of dates and barley. He patched his own sandals and repaired his own clothes. He meted out equal treatment to all, free or slave. . . . No Muslim, says the Prophet, is a believer unless he desires for his brethren what he desires for himself. This injunction is one of the corner-stones of the moral order of Islam. (45, my italics) This "corner-stone" of Islam, this equality for all men and women, is perhaps the main teaching of the Qur'an. In a verse quoted earlier that allowed Muslims to marry a slave, it continues: "Allah has full knowledge about your Faith. You are one from another" (4:25). (Osman translates the last sentence as "each one of you is (equally) a part of the same wholeness" [849].) In an earlier verse, this phrase is repeated; it is the work of the Believer that will be judged, not whether the work comes from master or slave, man or woman: [Allah tells them:] "Never will I suffer to be lost the work of any of you, be he male or female: you are members, one of another . . . verily, I will blot out from them their iniquities, and admit them into Gardens with rivers flowing beneath; - a reward from the Presence of Allah, and from His Presence is the best of rewards." (3:195) Of the equality of humanity, Muhammad could not be more explicit: The sermon of the Holy Prophet on the occasion of his last pilgrimage declares: "All men are like brothers: the black has no superiority over the red, nor has an Arab any preferential claim on a non-Arab. All are sons of Adam and Adam was made out of clay." This was in fact a charter of equality and freedom for the enslaved people of the world from whom loyalties of diverse types were expected. The doctrine of tauhid (Unity of God) broke all these chains. (Dar 19) [Muhammad] releases them from their heavy burdens and from the yokes that are upon them. So it is those who believe in him, honor him, help him, and follow the Light which is sent down with him, - it is they who will prosper. (7:157) The removal of the slave's chains, the slave's burdens; indeed, the removal of the yoke of slavery itself - this is a crucial gift from Allah, made clear by the Prophet. Commentators on the Qur'an further elaborate Muhammad's intention. Osman mentions al-Nasafi (d. 1142 C.E.), and the following long excerpts are invaluable in illuminating Allah's attitude toward slavery: [al-Nasafi] points out that freeing a human being from bondage is the only way to make up for killing another human being, as freeing a person is comparable to giving life in its true meaning to a person deprived of it (commentary on 4:92). . . . Considering bondage equal to death, al-Nasafi states that slavery is related to a society dominated by the stubborn concealing of the truth, "kufr", and the injustice of such a society made its life in its real sense mere death . . . Thus, Muslims inherited slavery from previous societies, and Islam has strongly indicated that its principles are against it, and has presented a comprehensive plan to liquidate it. (Osman 944) [al-Nasafi says] that freeing a slave means actually bringing him/her back to life after the allegorical destruction of the human personality caused by slavery, and this is the only possible way to make up for killing an innocent person, since it is impossible to bring the victim back to life. This can be supported by the Quranic expression for freeing a slave which is "freeing or releasing the neck" . . . and it implies that slavery is a chain which strangles the essential human merit of free will. . . . lavery was not accepted except as a temporary transitional solution that had to be terminated by the collective efforts of the people . . . [Also, the] Quran did not initiate slavery or determine it as one of its laws . . . [in fact, the] Prophet taught that even the word "slave" should not be used, but one could only say "my boy" or "my girl" . . . (Osman 989) Muhammad wanted even the word "slave" eliminated, and we should have affection for them as we would a member of our family. After all, we are all equal members in the family of Allah. The word "master" should only be used for the Creator: "God Himself is the sole master, ruler, director, and administrator of His creation" (Maudoodi 191). This idea extends into politics. Humanity has and needs leaders, but they only lead their people; the leader does not own the people, and Allah forbids an unjust dictator. While Abu Ala Maudoodi may claim the Qur'an ultimately allows slavery, his own description of a proper Islamic State show how the master-slave relationship is untenable: "[A]n Islamic Caliphate cannot claim an absolute or unlimited obedience from the people. They are bound to obey it only so far as it exercises its powers in accordance with the divine Law . . . There can be neither obedience nor co-operation in sin and aggression" (194). Certainly one of the definitions of "slave" is a person forced against their will to serve another, unable to quit their servitude with their own volition without risking death or punishment. Traditionally, slaves were forced to do services that Muslims would consider sinful: sexual acts with someone other than their spouse, work without fair reward, and other humiliations that destroy their dignity. For these reasons, as Maudoodi points out above, Allah supports their disobedience, their refusal to be slaves. Conversely, the masters themselves are guilty of actions not congruent with Allah's will. How can these so-called masters gain the obedience of their slaves? Ultimately, only with coercion and aggression -- two actions forbidden by Allah. Slaves also increase the chance of sin-doing for the Believers; they provide an opportunity to have sex outside of marriage, and create idleness by doing work he or she could do himself/herself. It is clear that slavery hurts the master as well as the slave. Furthermore, Maudoodi notes: [T]he relations between State and individual are so balanced in this system that neither the State has been vested with absolute authority reducing individuals to virtual slavery, nor has individual freedom been allowed to turn itself into licence threatening the interest of society. (198, my italics) What is true politically between the government and its citizens is also true between "master" and "slave"; if the State cannot impose "virtual slavery" on its citizens, how could Allah allow one person to impose actual slavery onto another? As Hassan says, "A Book which does not give a king or prophet the right to command absolute obedience from another human being could not possibly sanction slavery in any sense of the word" (375). We must end our discussion of slavery with two final questions. First, if Allah did not want slavery to exist, why not simply forbid it, as the eating of swine and the consumption of intoxicants are forbidden? We must first remember this: "Because the Qur'an does not state explicitly that slavery is abolished, it does not follow that it is to be continued, particularly in view of the numerous ways in which the Qur'an seeks to eliminate this absolute evil" (Hassan 375). Still, it is true that some things in Arabic society, such as alcohol, were considered so destructive that an outright, unconditional, and immediate ban was necessary. (Even then, as pointed out in the beginning, intoxicants were gradually banned over the course of three different surahs.) Slavery, however, was more difficult to eliminate. As noted earlier, it was an integral part of the Arab economy. In order to successfully destroy the weed of human bondage, the roots had to be carefully examined, discovered to be harmful, then slowly pulled out. The culture of slavery was so ancient a condition it was considered normal, intractable, inevitable; thus, the Qur'an had to force Muslims to first rationally conceive that slavery was evil, so that it would eventually be eliminated: "Through the use of their own intellect they will determine their responses - of course, in the light of the broad principles laid down by the Qur'an - to the changing socio-moral situations that we are bound to come across in life" (Khaliq 112-113). The dynamic nature of the Qur'an laid the groundwork for Muslims to examine the social and moral evils of human ownership. An Islamic State that understands the universal principle of equality also understands the particular principle of why slavery cannot exist in a just society. The second question is more philosophical; although it may sound cynical and antagonistic, it is a valid point to logically address. If one accepts that Allah wants slavery eliminated among the Believers, does not the submissive nature of Islam itself create slaves of its Believers? More to the point, does Allah wish us to be slaves of God? I turn to Toshihiko Izutsu's translation of two Qur'an verses (207): Verily, We have written in the Psalms, after the remembrance, "The earth shall my [righteous] slaves inherit." (21:105, my italics) [solomon] said, "My Lord, urge me to be thankful for Thy favor wherewith Thou hast favored me and my parents, and to do good work that shall be pleasing unto Thee; do Thou admit me by Thy mercy in the number of Thy [righteous] slaves." (27:19, my italics) Yusuf Ali's translation of the same verses is similar, but he pointedly chooses to use the term "servants" instead of "slaves." Is this simple mistranslation? I could argue it is, since the obvious negativity associated with the word "slave" seems not intended here; for further proof, we can remember Muhammad's own objection to using the word "slave," as noted earlier. Yet I can strongly show the difference goes beyond mere semantics. Ethically speaking, the relationships of Allah-Believer and master-slave are shown in the Qur'an to be completely different. There are two core differences. The first is: Allah warns, the slavemaster threatens; furthermore, Islam is a system of reward, slavery a system of punishment. It is true that both Allah and slavemaster cause destruction, and fear is an important component of both Believer and slave. The slavemaster's destructiveness and the slave's fear of him or her is obvious, so we will instead concentrate on Allah. The most obvious, visceral, and repeated examples of Allah's destructiveness is the annihilation of several ancient towns for immoral and unjust behavior. However, the Qur'an clearly shows these acts are carried out in the name of justice, and only done after Allah has given repeated warnings to the townspeople to repent. The townspeople's transgressions are not as trivial as refusal to work or give sexual favors. Very well, you may say; but does the slavemaster not "warn" the slave of the consequences of not following his or her commands; what is the difference between a slavemaster's "threats" and God's "warnings"? And if one must obey the law, is it not justice for the slave to follow the word of the slavemaster? To the latter, I repeat the assertion that if the law is unjust to Allah, disobedience is not only allowed, but encouraged. To the former, I answer: the difference is in selfness and definition of terms. Allah is unselfish because the Believers are warned to save themselves from eternal damnation, for their own sake ("if they only knew," the Qur'an repeats over and over!); whereas a slavemaster is selfish because he or she threatens the slave to follow his or her bidding (actions that do nothing positive for the slave) for the sake of the slavemaster. If the difference between warning and threatening is not yet clear, here is a metaphor. Consider a driver, driving at night down an unfamiliar road while talking on a mobile phone with an operator. The driver casually mentions a bridge over a ravine she is beginning to cross; the operator knows this bridge recently collapsed in the middle, and the driver will certainly plunge to her death. The operator does not personally know this driver; what personal value does the driver have to her? None, but because the operator cares, she must do the unselfish act of saving the woman's life. When she shouts for the woman to hit her brakes, is she threatening her? Or warning her? The difference between Allah and slavemaster lead to two different systems. Islam is a system of reward. The Qur'an makes clear, in several passages, that bad deeds are met by Allah with equal punishment, no more, no less; however, good deeds are rewarded with interest: "Allah is never unjust in the least degree: if there is any good (done), He doubles it" (4:40); "But those who have earned evil will have a reward of like evil" (10:27). Although bad deeds have negative consequences, we can see the emphasis is on rewarding good deeds. On the other hand, slavery is a system of punishment; the definition of "good" and "bad" is perverted. To the slavemaster, obedience is the most important "virtue." It is imperative for slavery's existence that rebellion is not only quelled but discouraged to occur in the first place. If a slave does the good deed of obeying, he or she is only allowed to live without damage or harm; as farmers do for their horses, so will slavemasters give their slaves food and shelter. If a slaves does the bad deed of disobeying, he or she is punished above and beyond the necessary means, for the end is not merely retribution, but as a warning (to this slave and all slaves) never to disobey. The emphasis clearly is on punishing bad deeds. A slavemaster more concerned with being humane, with rewarding slaves abundant luxuries, will only undermine his or her authority, and appear "soft"; the slavemaster only cares what slaves can do for him or her, and certainly cannot truly love them. Allah does love humanity, as any Creator does its Creation, as any parent would a child. This brings us to the second core difference between Allah-Believers and slavemaster-slaves; fear is in both relationships, yet the fear of the former is one of deserved awe and respect, the latter is one that only leads to hatred and contempt. The divine Allah created all of humanity; humans only created slavery, but not the slave. We should therefore honor not slavemasters, but our parents and our Parent. Of course, human parents do not own their children as slavemasters own slaves, but there is an undeniable and unshakable bond between parent and child. The Qur'an only asks for Believers to recognize this bond and give thanks, as they should give thanks to the Ultimate Creator: We have enjoined on man kindness to his parents: in pain did his mother bear him, and in paid did she give him birth. . . . . At length, when he reaches the age of full strength and attains forty years, he says, "O my Lord! Grant me that I may be grateful for Your favor which You have bestowed on me, and upon both my parents, and that I may work righteousness such as You may approve; and be gracious to me in respect of my offspring. Truly have I turned to You and truly do I bow (to You) in Islam. (46:15) Serve Allah . . . and do good - to parents, kinsfolk, orphans, those in need, neighbors who are near, neighbors who are strangers, the Companion by your side, the way-farer (you meet), and what your right hands possess [i.e. your slaves] . . . (4:36) By teaching us to be grateful for being created, to "do good" to both our parents and our "slaves," the Qur'an once again emphasizes the equality of Allah's creation. A Creator so concerned with equality deserves respect. The Prophet Muhammad did not believe that only the slaves of a particular race, religion, or ethnicity should be freed; instead, he desired to break the chains of slaves all over the world. The fact that the Qur'an did so with a specificity unparalleled in a monotheistic holy text makes it one of the greatest of anti-slavery books, and Muhammad himself one of the greatest of abolitionists. Peace be upon him. Source.

Originally posted by J B: Good Viking, normally one would flag for re-iterating the same point on n on , actually some would get exhausted and flag for comprehension but i know my good Viking better so here i'm whining again. as i told you earlier the propensity to engage you in this is so irresistable, so i'd like you to deliver my good Viking, I repeat myself because you don't seem to have grasped what I've been saying all along. You take misinterpreted words from Orientalists and then challenge me to counter it? Don't you see the absurdity in this? Are you arguing and educative point of view or merely trying to use the same weapons as them? Originally posted by J B: In my post i quoted the book "Zad al-Ma'ad" (Part I, p. 160), (part 1, pp. 114, 115, and 116), now , my knowledge about Islam no matter how futile,weather i own the book or which sites use that book is of little or no importance to the point of contention here, it is a sidekick if u like. Perhaps this will be of help (someone adressing the missionaries misquoting ibn Qayyim... 4. Slavery Islam and the Bible: The author claims that “the Bible condemns slavery†and “one who practices slavery contradicts right teachings.†In order to prove his point he even adds “the slave traders†in 1Timothy 1:10. There is no such word there in the Revised Standard Version. Actually in the whole Bible this word does not exist. The author also makes false allegation against Prophet Muhammad -peace be upon him- by saying that he used to buy, sell, hire and rent slaves. Slavery existed throughout the Biblical period including the time of Jesus -peace be upon him. Most of the Biblical Prophets had slaves, both males and females. Perhaps the author of this flyer did not read his own New Testament. Otherwise he would have found there the following advices to salves: “Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be defamed.†(1 Timothy 6:1) and “Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to be refractory … (Titus 2:9) Prophet Muhammad - peace be upon him - did not own slaves. He had many slaves purchased and freed. The author quotes Muslim scholar Ibn al-Qayyim who said about the Prophet, “His purchases of slaves were more then he sold.†This is correct because he used to purchase slaves in order to free them, not to sell them. However, the author mistranslates Ibn al-Qayyim when he says, “The Prophet use to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves then he rented out.†The author has mischievously added the words “many slaves and more slaves†in the text. Ibn al-Qayyim is not talking here about the sale, purchase, renting and hiring of slaves, but about general business practices of the Prophet before he received the Prophethood. Actually he is saying that “the Prophet himself was hired before he became the Prophet to take care of some sheep and he was hired by Khadijah to do business for her. (see Zad al-Ma’ad, vol. 1, p. 154) The Qur’an teaches that freeing the salves is a great virtue (See Surah 90:13). One of the expenditures of Zakat (obligatory charity) is to spend the money for the freedom of the slaves (Surah 9:60). It is forbidden in Islam to enslave a free person. If Muslims had consistently followed the Islamic teachings in this regard, slavery would have become extinct long time ago. It is unfortunate that some Muslims did not follow these teachings of Islam and slavery continued in Muslim lands for centuries. We are ashamed that some Muslims practiced slavery against the teachings of Islam. However, it is also a historical fact that for centuries the worst type of slavery in its most extensive and horrible form was practiced by those who claimed themselves to be the followers of Christ. They enslaved millions of free men, women and children and shipped them like animals from one continent to another. They made millions in profit by this most shameful trade of human beings. I wish to remind the author of this flyer what Jesus -peace be upon him- said, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, `Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.†(Matthew 7:3-5) Source Originally posted by J B: As you've agreed, Muslims practiced slavery both during Muhammad (pbuh )'s liftime and centuries after his death, and that is definitely why the traces of Slavery untill today lingers in the Muslim world, specefically in Arabia where it enshrined what the believers of Islam considered to be an eternal principle. All I did was to point out to you that what Muslims do is not the same as what Islam says, some people don't seem to grasp this. There were Muslims who killed during the Prophet's time and after but this does not mean taht it is condoned by Islam. You are the one who is calling it "an eternal principle", it is what you want to make it out to be, just keep taht in mind. Originally posted by J B: Since you haven't found any name in the list of Muhammad( pbuh )'s slaves that doesen't belong there , but claimed his sole purpose of buying the slaves or accepting them as gifts was to set them free, you leave me with no choice but to accept the fact that these human beeings actually were slaves he bought or accepted them as gifts , sold or gave them away as gifts both during and after he was empowered by "the message", that per se speaks volumes of its own and would make me or any sinsible human beeing not only shed crocodile tears but cry a river. I pointed out two name right on the outset, one of his adopted son and another of his wife (Zayd and Maria RA). Did you miss it? I can see that you are trying to employ sophistry, good luck mate! Originally posted by J B: Good Viking, I find it very hard to belive that you diden't encounter in the Quran the Islamic stance of "the free for the free, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female", For the humble questioning eye the mere mention of these three categories quite casually indicates that slavery was an accepted category in Islam along with the other two categories as an acceptable state for a human being and for a Muslim ( a slave one ). If you are aware of ANY verses which say that a free man should not marry a slave woman then be a sport and present it instead of being all hazy about it. Here are some verses that deal with marrying and freeing of slaves. If any of you have not the means wherewith to wed free believing women, they may wed believing girls from among those whom your right hands possess: And Allah hath full knowledge about your faith. Ye are one from another: Wed them with the leave of their owners, and give them their dowers, according to what is reasonable: They should be chaste, not lustful, nor taking paramours: when they are taken in wedlock, if they fall into shame, their punishment is half that for free women. This (permission) is for those among you who fear sin; but it is better for you that ye practise self-restraint. And Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. (4:25) And if any of your slaves ask for a deed in writing (to enable them to earn their freedom for a certain sum), give them such a deed if you know any good in them; yes, give them something yourselves out of the means which Allah has given to you. (24:33) Do not marry unbelieving women until they believe. A slave woman who believes is better than an unbelieving woman, even though she allures you.... Unbelievers beckon you to the Fire. But Allah beckons by His Grace to the garden of bliss and forgiveness. And He makes His signs clear to mankind, that they may receive admonition" (Qur'an 2:221). It is not righteousness that you turn your faces toward East or West; but it is righteousness . . . to spend of your substance . . . for the ransom of slaves. (2:177) Never should a Believer kill a Believer; but (if it so happens) by mistake, (compensation is due): if one (so) kills a Believer, it is ordained that he should free a believing slave, and pay compensation to the deceased's family . . . For those who find this beyond their means, (is prescribed) a fast for two months running: by way of repentance to Allah. (4:92) Allah will not call you to account for what is futile in your oaths, but will call you to account for your deliberate oaths: for expiation, feed ten indigent persons . . . or clothe them; or give a slave his freedom. If that is beyond your means, fast for three days. (5:89)

Originally posted by Socod_badne: The Andalucian Spain and House of Wisdom in Bagdad, among others, were the beacon of a short lived Islamic/Muslim ascendency in Sciences and Learning in general. But who brought it to screaching halt? Specially in Andalucian Spain? Other muslims. Muslims? I thought it was the blood-thirsty Christians under the orders of Ferdinand and Isabella.

Socod_badne, Originally posted by Socod_badne: I read several Sahih Ahadith to the contrary. Your double-edged reference, Maria, is one such example. Correct if I'm wrong but she wasn't freed prior to being married to the prophet, was she? Some people claim that she was a "concubine" but that is just rubbish. Those who lie about her are indeed the ABTHAR. Here's a bit about Maria Al-Qibtiyya. JB, Originally posted by J B: Good viking, even i of all people can understand that a non-Moslim or an Orientalist (as you label some) with an ulterior motive might give an invalid account of Islam and slavery, Be that as it may, Naturally speaking my good Viking all you needed was to educate me ( and Salahh for that matter) and share that solid account of yours regarding Mohammed (pbuh) 's relation to slavery in general and his relation to the slaves he owned ( as you've affirmed) in particular, given that there is one and you were willing to share. JB, What you posted was gotten from anti-Islamic sources, are you going to formally admit it (you seem to be evading this issue)? Once you admit where you got it from (since it is evident you didn't get it directly from ibn Qayyim's book) only then can your motives be evident for everyone. Orientalists always gave negative accounts of Islam and the work you quoted is actually being spread by Christian missionaries who wish to promote their faith by discrediting islam as some sort of barbaric alien faith (the same thing Orientalists of the past like Dante, Flaubert, d'Herbelot et al.). What is puzzling is why the heck a Somali bloke from Sverige would be getting "info" from these people. Do you want to know what islam says aboaut slavery? Open the Qur'an and you'll see verse after verse talking about how people should be treated and even asking Muslims of the 7th Century to marry their slaves. Do you want to know how Prophet Muhammad SAW lived? Open one of his many biographies out there and find out first hand. You don't do any of this; you go and get some false and misrepresented "facts" from a Muslim scholar and post it as "your evidence" that the Noble Prophet himself owned slaves (basically saying that slavery is condoned in Islam which is not true). My job is not to educate you brother, you are a grown man who is literate and if you want to learn anything all you need to do is open a book and VOILA! Originally posted by J B: It really saddens me to know that you of all Nomads think that i'm here to discredit Islam with few rubbish quotes from an Orientalists, but it is more saddening to see that you've yet to deliver to me, Salahh and the world . If you are not out to discredit Islam, why then would you get your info from such horrid sites without even checking out what you are saying? If you are not well read in Islam, why then do you constantly debate about Islam? You couldn't even tell who Zayd ibn Harithat and all the others are on that list of yours yet youare READY to claim that the Prophet was dealt slaves and crying crocodile tears for the poor souls (who you thought were slaves out of ignorance). There is nothing to deliver! You made an accusation based on what Christian missionaries are claiming to be "evwithout even checking it. The difference is that the Christian missionaries are adressing their people who know almost nothing about Islam but you are presenting these "facts" to Muslims. As I said, there is nothing to deliver...Let us start with Zayd, you tell me how he was a slave, you are the one making the accusation so the burden of proof is on you. Originally posted by J B: resorting to my intentions and depicting them as ill might help you blurr my point of contention but it never removes the question mark of why slavery mysteriously survived in Islam and why Muhammad (pbuh) owned slaves, whose names i don't have to have heard of to grant them their intrinsic human value, namely their dignity, that they were human beeings should be more than enough for any self-respecting one . If you haven't heard any of those names then obviously you have no idea what you are talking about. Why would anyone bother? Your intentions are known to you and Allah, that is not my concern. My concern (and evryone lese's) is your actions here on SOL, the lies you spread (about the Prophet) while ignorant about the people who you call the Prophet's slave. Slavery NEVER "mysteriously survived in Islam" but some Muslims still practised it. Know the difference, Islam is the faith, Muslims are the people. What "dignity" and "intrinsic value" are you talking about? I'm telling you these people were not slaves of the Prophet. One was married to him, another was his adopted son whom he loved and cherished. If you are really keen I could take my time and write something about every single person on that list. But would this convince you? By the looks of it, no, because you already posted lies and you are here fighting for your lies although futile. Originally posted by J B: For the last time good Viking , that Muhammad(pbuh) bought slaves have you agreed with me ( though you mentioned the sole purpose behind it beeing to FREE them) , but disprove to us that he sold or rented slaves and as a result forbad his wives , relatives and followers to enslave and own a human beeing . You are making the accusations here with material that has been manipulated by Orientlists and Christian missionaries. You don't know much about Islam yet you ready to vehemently defend lies. If you want to know about the character of the Prophet and his relationship to the people you call "slaves" then pick up any of the well known Seerahs books around and learn! Originally posted by J B: With that , i'm trying to say , the Issue is not about those who don't beleive in Islam , at issue is human rights in Islam , hence the Islamic account of slavery. The issue is where do you get the "facts" that you post and use as your argument. If you read direct from ibn Qayyim then you wouldn't be saying the same thing, you would have understood it as it really was. The Qur'an, Hadith and Seerah is out there for scrutiny by all. If you find a hadith saying that the Prophet practised slavery and mistreated any human beings then please produce it. Islam forbids alcohol but some Muslims drink, but this does not mean that Islam condones it. Therefore Muslims might have dealt with slaves and mistreated them long after the Prophet, that doesn't mean the Prophet or Islam is responsible for their actions.

Originally posted by J B: "Muhammad had many male and female slaves. He used to buy and sell them, but he purchased (more slaves) than he sold, especially after God empowered him by His message, as well as after his immigration from Mecca. He (once) sold one black slave for two. His name was Jacob al-Mudbir. His purchases of slaves were more (than he sold). He was used to renting out and hiring many slaves, but he hired more slaves than he rented out." Here are the names of Mohammed (pbum)'s slaves. Radwa,Yakan Abu Sharh, Aflah,Salma Um Rafi', 'Ubayd, Dhakwan, Tahman, Mirwan, Hunayn, Sanad, Fadala Yamamin, Anjasha al-Hadi,Rayhana, Mad'am, Karkara, Abu Rafi', Thawban, Ab Kabsha, Salih, Rabah,Khadra, Yara Nubyan, Fadila, Waqid, Mabur, Abu Waqid, Kasam, Abu 'Ayb,Maymuna daughter of Abu Asib,Razina, Abu Muwayhiba,Um Damira, Zayd Ibn Haritha,Maymuna daughter of Sa'd,Mary the Coptic, and also a black slave called Mahran, who was re-named (by Muhammad) Safina (`ship'),in addition to two other maid-slaves, one of them given to him as a present by his cousin, Zaynab, and the other one captured in a war. JB, This kind of things make evident your inept knowledge in Islam (and of those Orientalists whose sites you visit). I ignored adressing your post because it was basically rubbish! The Prophet bought a lot of slaves and he didn't sell them on, you know why? Because he bought them to free them! But the morons who are quoting ibn Qayyim won't tell you that because they have a sinister agenda. Those who stayed on with him were not living as slaves but were saved from bad treatement from their "masters". The list above consists people whom you probably haven't heard; do you know who Zayd ibn Harithah and Maria the Copt were? Maria was his wife given to him as a gift. The Coptic leader of Egypt gave Maria as a gift, a slave, but the Prophet didn't own slaves and she became his wife. Did the Orientalists you read mention this? Zayd was among the first five people to covert to Islam. he was also known as Zayd ibn Muhammad because he was the Prophet's adopted son. naturally, the sites you visit don't teach you this because it goes against their plans, but they know not that Allah is the best of planners! Here is a bio of Zayd even available on Wikipedia. One can punch holes in every single person mentionned on the list but you are not here to have a civilised discussion. You are here do discredit Islam and even if you are convinced beyond doubt with proofs, you will emerge in another thread with other "proofs" from your Orientalist or Christian missionary sources that you quote in ignorance and often out of context. Happy GOOOOD JB? I guess not! PS: Do you read ibn Qayyim or did you just go and copy "his words" from one of anti-Islamic sites I mentionned above? Did you go "directly to the source" as I suggested to Salahh? My advice to Salahh is stretched to you too, study Islam instead of using the lies spread by those who work against the great faith.

Dhubad, I'm a big fan of The Contender too. "The man they call the Latin Snake" was a worthy winner last year. He had a good balance of boxing skills and mental strenth. Originally posted by Socod_badne: Separation of Church and State is the reason why the Age of Enlightenment and Reason took place in the West and no where else. It's also the reason why world migration patters are from Theological to Secular, not the other way around. History says that the preceding Muslim thinkers of Andalucia who translated Greek works into Arabic and developed sciences immensely (while Euorope was willowing in The Dark Ages - controlled by the Church) paved way for the Enlightenment.

Originally posted by Salahh: JB, Thanks for the Education....I had no clue the prophet was rolling that deep. Atleast he was buying more than he was selling but I do not get why (him being the prophet and all), he didn't set them free? I am even more appalled that he was selling some? Salahh, Don't rely on JB to educate you on Islam because his knowledge in Islam is extemely inept! It is highly doubtful that he has ibn Qayyim's books lying on his shelf (correct me here if I'm wrong on this JB - and tell me where in the world this book by ibn Qayyim is available in its entirety in English - not the summarised version by al-Tamimi that doesn't touch on the issue of slavery) and a quick "google" search will show you that his sources are very likely to be from one of these three anti-Islamic sites on the net... http://answering-islam.org/BehindVeil/btv5.html - This website is known all over the world for writting anti-Islamic material that mostly consists of materials from Orientalists and misquoted texts. There is a website called answering-christianity.com which was set up by some yuong Muslims to counter the lies on this website. http://uk.geocities.com/jonpartin/muslims6.html - This site is run by Christian missionaries doing their best to discredit Islam. http://debate.org.uk/topics/coolcalm/slaves_in_islam.html - This is a Christian website taht is set-up to "debate" with Muslims but a quick look at thewebsite and you will quickly understand what it really is about. I would reiterate that it is better for you to learn about Islam from direct sources instead of engaging in discussions with scant knowledge on the subject or relying on the utterances of inept non-Muslims [on Islam] like JB.

Khayr, The points Nur raised and the petro-dollars you mentionned probably did have a lot to do with it. But I think that two more aspects might have also played a significant role in the directions Somalis take. 1. Somalis generally are people of an oral tradition and don't have a history/tradition of academe, or libraries of domestic literature from the past. Therefore, most of the population followed "literally" what the handful of scholars (educated abroad) had to say because there is/was no alternative. You will hardly hear a Somali (I'm generalising here) say I read this and that (about a certain issue and the different points of view scholars have) but you will often hear Sheikh hebel said this and sheikh hebel said that, their source of information is oral, either from the pulpit, casettes, word-of-mouth or through madrasas (from teachers with links to the Hijaz). 2. We don't have a culture of questionning things that are of religious nature. To do this, you will have to refer to books or other scholars from the past whose works you need to know about by reading. This makes the issue of "taqleed" very easy to swallow for most Somalis because of the reasons stated above.

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^^US and Tehran, the Shia Badr Brigade and the Mahdi millitia were in exile in Iran when Sadam was in power. Now they have been brought to power by the Americans... So it's the Shia who are killing their own people en masse?

JB, No rest for the wicked eh?

naden, It's 2006 and Saudi Arabia despite being the centre of Islam is still a despotic monarchy and a nation where even Muslims feel uneasy to stay. The important thing for people to understand is that Islam does not condone slavery and that the slavery of the 10th century Arabia was nothing like the American slavery where people were over 400 million people were taken from Africa and bred solely as slaves based on the colour of their skin.

Originally posted by me: I understand your arguments although I think you are wrong in perceiving Arabic influence as benign and in some cases desirable; I understand where you are coming from and that Islam is your main justification. But our religion recognizes the different nations of the world and their customs. Yes there are universal Islamic rules that all believers should follow. I agree with that 100%. We should not have customs that are contradictory with our Islamic faith. However there are many customs that we Somalis have that that are not against Islam and I am suggesting that we keep those customs. Instead of throwing everything that is Somali away and replacing them with Arabic ones or western. I am not against Islam; I am against Arabism and the Arabization of our people, language and culture. I am also not in favour of these western values. me, You had such kind words to say about Ataturk and this may come across as support for westernisation. Arab culture is only benign when compared to the common alternative, western culture. Cultures are changing all over the world all the time and if our culture survives it all then alhamdulillah, if it doesn't then alhamdulillah, all that matters is for our faith to remain unadulterated. I understand your point of view much better now. Salahh, Islam doesn't say that the hands of poor people should be cut off when they steal to feed their hungry stomachs, this is an illusion spread by those who are against the Shari'a. The Caliph Umar (RA) suspended HADD punishment during famine because the state could not fulfil its obligation towards the people. The limb of a thief is to be cut only when there is no need for a thief to steal (meaning there is a Bait-ul-Maal which sees to the need of the society). Therefore this kind of punishment should not be implemented in poverty stricken regions like Somalia, Afghanistan etc. until there is peace, a legitimate govt, religious scholars who oversee the judicial system and a kind of welfare system (like has been earlier during the advent of Islam). Religious laws do not opress the people but is there to protect their rights, those opposing it do their best to tell you otherwise. I would advise you to study Islam as much as you can before you pass a judgement from your agnostic point of view. Don't study it from an Oriental or Occidental point of view but delve into the subject with an open mind before you make up your mind. Don't rely on what you hear or merely what you gathered from your childhood.

me, Originally posted by me: The problem in Somalia is that there are two cultural imperial forces competing for us, namely the Arab and the Western. In my opinion they are equally dangerous since they both have one mission and that mission is the destruction of the Somali culture and replacing it with theirs. Who ever wins, it will be us Somalis who will loose, unless we do something about this. This is where you have gone wrong! With western influence, not only do you lose your culture but your religion too. Hypothetically, let's say we all adopt Arabic as our language and wear Arabic dresscode, what have we lost that is of great value to us both in this life and the hereafter (keeping mind that a Muslim should always think of both this world and the hereafter)? But if you follow the western culture, it is not only about McDonald's and Holywood movies; with it comes secularism, rejecting and mocking Allah and leading a non-Islamic lifestyle. As a Muslim, your first priority should ALWAYS be your faith, culture won't help you in the hereafter, your faith in Allah will. Originally posted by me: Opting for Arab culture or regarding Arab culture as benign in comparison with the Western culture would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire. In my opinion the Arab culture is more dangerous to us as Somalis then the western culture. This is mainly because this culture is being pushed down our throats with the excuse that it is Islamic. The western culture is alien and incompatible with our ‘dhaqan’ and it can be dealt with a relative ease compared with Arab culture which is more sensitive. That is not really the case. Anyone who has a little knowledge of Islam and can read and write is capable of telling Islam from Arab culture. This is especially the case if you can speak Arabic since you can read the daliils staight from the source. Western culture is not as benign as you make it out to be; just on these boards, we have Somalis who have westernised, secularised and even gone as far as becoming agnostics after coming in contact with western culture either as children or as young adults. There is nothing benign about this. Originally posted by me: We as Somalis should protect our culture and language, because the day we loose our SOMALI culture and language is the day that we as a nation have lost our identity. Today you hear some people say that we are ‘Arabs’ while others are saying that we are ‘Africans’ this schizophrenia come from the identity crisis that we are facing today. We have to look deeper in ourselves. It is time for reflection. Who are we and what is our place in the world? I as me would rather be a first class Somali then a second class Arab or a cheap imitation of a Westerner. Look around this forum and others alike, a group of young and adult Somalis interacting on a daily basis in English. We have already lost the battle to the western culture. There are at least ten times more Somalis that speak good English than those who speak good Arabic. So if you are concerned about Somali culture your efforts should be primarily aimed at western influences. The schizophrenia doesn't stem from anything other than lack of written pre-Islamic history. We have an oral tradition and with this comes mutations and alterations of narrations. Somalis learnt clanism from Arabs and their abtirso doesn't usually go beyond the time when Islam reached our shores. I don't care much about being a first or second class Somali, Arab or an imitation of a westerner. I would rather just be a good Muslim, anything beyond that is a bonus. This is because I'm a Muslim first then a Somali (if Somalism comes before Islam for anyone then they need to go back to the basics and learn the Deen and understand the consequences of their choices). Originally posted by me: Somaliness and being Muslim is not a contradiction. Saying that I want my language pure does not make me less of a Muslim. Keeping my culture and respecting my heritage makes me a better person, leaving my culture is the way to mental enslavement if not the destruction of our people. You can indeed be both SOmali and Muslim, no contradiction. But if a Somali practise is forbidden in Islam then you have to abandon it since your faith in Allah takes precedence over anything else, even your own parents. Let's say your house is on fire with your wife and four children in it (God forbid), would you save your furniture or would you first try to save your loved ones? In this analogy, the Somali identity is the burning house, the wife and children is your religion of Islam and the furniture is your culture. Loosing your religion is far more sinister than losing your culture, and in times like this when we are being eroded by western culture and Arab culture as you put it, you do what is in your best interest. Plus, losing your language and culture does not bring about destruction of a people, losing your religion does. Reflect on this walaal and understand your priorities. Originally posted by me: Frantz Fanon – “I ascribe a basic importance to the phenomenon of language.... To speak means to be in a position to use a certain syntax, to grasp the morphology of this or that language but it means above all to assume a culture, to support the weight of a civilizationâ€. This kind of statement must put you in a dilemma! As a Muslim, learning Arabic is important for you to understand the Qur'an and the Deen in general. With Arabic comes an Islamic civilisation too to which we are part of as our Ummah. What would learning English make you part of? The commonwealth? Originally posted by me: With this quote I would like to illustrate that with each Somali word that is replaced with a new alien word (mostly Arab) would mean us loosing a bit our culture. Every word has a deeper meaning and carries our history. We Somalis are an oral society, our history has been transmitted to us through our language, not seeing the dangers that Arabism poses to our culture would be highly irresponsible. There is no language in the world that does not have words from other languages, ask any linguist. As time goes by, new inventions are made and a language transforms. The problem with the Somali people is that a vast majority of us don't know how broad our language is. Again, this could be because of our oral literature which is not easily transmittable especially since people have become ever so displaced in the last two decades or so. In etymology you find out a lot about a people and there is even a piece I posted on this forum that looks at words from a pre-Islamic point of view, their probable origins and their meanings. No sane Somali would want to eradicate the Somali language, but, this does not come about by saying MashAllah, InshaAllah, Istaghfurullah, Alhamdulillah etc, words that often make people think that we are Arabising. Originally posted by me: We should be fighting all attacks on us and we should fight back with our culture and re-examine our history. Our history did not start with the colonials; we are an ancient people with an ancient civilization. We Somalis are unique. I agree with you there, but as a people we have sunk to new lows since the collapse of the Barre regime and need to first learn how to become and act like human beings before we can dig for our history. Our destiny is also more important than our history. Just like the Arabs, what we did before the advent of Islam is not as important as what we do with our lives in the present and in the future.

Originally posted by me: It is not a secret that there are forces that would like to see the Somali culture and language disappeared and replaced with an Arabized one. One of those groups is the group whose link I have posted in the previous post. Somali Youths opting for western culture are doing this by ‘choice’ and not because the West is interfering with out culture like the Arabs are under the disguise of Islam. And I think that you are very wrong when you suggest that Somalis think that ‘Western’ culture is superior to Arab culture, please back this claim up with evidence. There are forces that would like the SOmali people to be far from Islam as much as possible. The lates evidence in this is the funding of the warlords by the Americans who were doing it to block the emergence of Islam as a force. The west is interfering with the Somali culture (and theri religion of Islam) under the disguise of "freedom", "democracy" and "free-trade", but why don't we see you complaining against this? I don't need to back up anything regarding how Somali youth think western culture is superior, the truth is out there for you to see. Our so called president dons a western style suit, what does that tell you about what he sees as "respectable and decent dresscode?" The dominant culture all over the world is the western culture, especially the Anglo-Saxon culture. English is also the most wide-spread language in the world. So in reality, if there's any culture that threatens ALL other cultures in the world then it is the western mono-culture. But I don't understand why this doesn't bother you at all but find it within yourself to blame Arabs, a people whose culture is also being eroded by the western mono-culture. Do you see the duplicity in all this? You claim that Somali youth follow western culture 'out of choice', are you insinuating that Somalis who wear Jilbaabs, Sirwal-khamiis, the Arab Khamiis etc are doing it out of coercion? Can you back this up? Correct me if I'm wrong but you must think western culture is superior to Somali or Arab culture because we dont see you lamenting its influence among the Somali youth. Originally posted by me: A question, aren’t the Arab youths not doing the same thing, Listening to 2pac and reciting all hip-hop lyrics and are their weddings not the same as the western ones? Yes, their culture is being overwhelmed by western culture. But you seem more concerned about them than the main enemy which is western culture. I once read about an American writer who was complaining about the spread of American culture. Most countries he visited had McDonald's, Burger King's etc and the people were watching Holywood movies and imitating westerners in almost all aspects of their lives. He wanted to experience the local culture but couldn't find much. Somalis are Muslims and would take after the Arabs in some things. The countries that were colonised also took after their colonialists i.e. Djiboutis look up to france and French culture while a country like Kenya would be more in touch with Anglo-saxon traditions because of their link with the colonialist Britain. But the problem is thet the western culture has a much larger influence on Somalis but you are only lamenting the Arab influence. Why is that? Originally posted by me: I believe that Salah meant that religion is a personal affair and that there should be no state interference between an individual and his or her religious practice and that the state should be fair to all forms of practice. I would like to raise one point. In Islam the worship is between god and the believer and there should be no intermediary. It is the believer that is submitting to Allah swt. I don't know whether you are saying this out of ignorance of Islam or whether you are in the belief that religion should be confirmed to the home (like the Occidentals who divorced the church). There are some things that are between you and Allah, i.e. Salat, Fasting, Hajj, paying of Alms etc. But there are some things that are run and enforced by the govt just like they are in western countries. Things like taxes, crime and punishment, determining what is acceptable or legal and setting up sets of laws taht would govern the nation. The view of Islam in some cases is different from that of the west. For example, adultery in the west is seen as something private and out of the reach of the govt while in Islam it is viewed as a sin and against the Law, something that breaks down the values that a society is built upon (trust, loyalty, truthfulness etc). So you will see a departure from the western thinking in such cases and being against enforcement of such laws shows that you are against the Laws of Allah SWT. If you understand Islam, you will learn that by being a Muslim, you must accept that the Laws of Allah should take the front seat (and not be confined in the 'home' as you suggest). Islam is against things like usury but in the west it is a major source of income for big gluttonous commerce insitutions. If it goes unchecked, things like this can destroy a society, whose rsponsibility is it? Originally posted by me: It is god who will judge us in the hereafter for our deeds. There should be no human meddling in the worship of Allah. Or no human judging our deeds and saying whether we are ‘Good Muslims’ or ‘Bad Muslims’ I agree with you. Are people beaten with sticks in Somalia or any other Muslim country and forced to go pray in the mosque? I think not. But the dress-code rules must be enforced by the govt because even in most western countries, despite their laws, one cannot walk naked (or topless for women) in the streets because their laws forbid it. As I mentionned before there are some things that are between you and Allah and no one has the right to interfere, Salat, Fasting, Hajj and belief in Allah. These are private matters that none other than Allah can punish. Originally posted by me: Each individual should have the freedom to worship Allah without any pressure from any group. After all Islam is the true way and the true way will never be deserted as long as it’s illuminated, if there are forces that want to force individuals to pray or to worship Allah swt. it would work counter productive, because if a person is worshipping because they fear prosecution that that is not right and Allah swt. Knows that and another effect would be that people will associate worshipping not with the right path and salvation but with the human enforcers of religion. No one is arguing against this. "There is no compulsion in religion: The Truth stands out clear from Error." Salahh, Originally posted by Salahh: As 'me' mentioned, my main point was that religion should be a personal choice and shouldn't be enforced by the public. If my devotion is towards my God, I will be sorry for my deads and would seek the punishment stated in my doctrine. But if the public will punish me for my sin, who do you think I will be afraid off? I can assure you that it would definately not be God. When it comes to Ataturk, some of the actions he took were inapropriate. I am pro-choice in every aspect of my life and if a woman wants to wear Hijab in public or wants to have an abortion, I don't think that should be anybody's business. All in all, what I am trying to say is that what I do with my life should be my personal problem and no soul should tell me otherwise. No one is forced to worship Allah, it is done out of choice. What is the value of faith if it is imposed and doesn't come naturally from the soul of the human being? Wouldn't it be futile? However, as I told 'me' some things are viewed differently in Islam. I gave the example of adultery which is a sin against the spouse, society and also Allah. An Islamic govt would not force you to pray, fast, or pay alms but, just like other govts in the world it will not let you cheat, steal, kill etc. "Pro-choice" sounds good but the laws put up by govts are there because if let unchecked humans would sink into new depths of decadence. Abortion is also allowed in Islam but not as a method of contraceptive which is how it used in the west (i.e. a couple has too much to drink, have unprotected sex and oops, an abortion ahs to be done). As for the Gunners game, InshaAllah some day