Originally posted by Scarlet: Excellent article, thanks for sharing Darqawi. I agree with everything the author said. Especially masjids not catering to the needs of the people. There should be programs designed to attract women and youth to the masjid, which I find sadly lacking. Most masjids have Dugsi Quran, but there should also be Islamic History, Fiqh, Aqeedah and Arabic language lessons taught. We need all these and I don't understand why it's not being offered. Knowledgeable brothers and sister should also volunteer and help the masjid out as much as they are able to. You can't just take and not give back. I get your point about having a more broad based program of knowledge and making sure that the Masjid is welcoming and accomodating especially of the women. But I didn't like the word 'attract' u used. This religion is for ppl's benefit and we shouldn't glam it up or sex it up to appeal to wayward ppl. It reminds of a clip that I saw recently on CNN - where Jewish synagogues are offering a cocktail/social hour before services to attract the young, professional and harried. Wierd - a religion should have it's own bedrock attraction and sensibility. My local Masjid is very clean but we do have a big problem with women sitting around and gossiping amongst each other, letting their out of control chilren run around, and distrub the people listening to the lecture or lesson. How many times have I wanted to body slam them to the ground. It's really sad. We usually leave the majid, without hearing half of what the Imam said, and a big fat headache to boot. Please do body slam down - I beg of you. Something needs to be done - Imams plead with them to stop and nothing happens. Seriously, we need bouncers - just grab the mother and child and eject them.

Originally posted by ibtisam: ^^^ and you jumped right in with both feet. i will have you known that we have no such characters on SOL. (shakes head, such an insult to our old men) they are all above 35, so it will look a bit odd, you see p.s. wlc cheers Unbelievable - how dare you label the men old - I am certainly not above 35 or even 30! Cheeky female. And besides - don't you know 35 is the new 25 - so countless 'old' men drop their pants. And the black women egg them on! ~ 'that's my gangsta etc.' - so it's all ur fault really.

Originally posted by facklexm: Helping Somalilanders acquire skills to support themselves is one of many goals of a $200 million Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA) – to improve the lives of Somalis in the four main countries of asylum (Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya and Yemen) and returnees and displaced within the country. In an area where being rich is defined as eating three meals a day, the regional CPA is designed to help place Somalis on a more stable footing by, among other aims, protecting returnees and displaced people, improving the nutrition of women and children, improving access to clean water, and increasing access to health care and education. With initial backing by the European Commission, Denmark, Netherlands and the United Kingdom, UNHCR and other United Nations agencies plan to present the CPA to donors later this year. This fundraising event will be the first phase of a larger donor appeal that aims to turn an assessment of needs of Somalis into a three-year development plan. Where was UNHCR before? Why are they TRYING to fund stuff now - after many people have invested personally and have done well for themselves and their community? These people want to usurp the successes and progress made by individuals to press for moneys and funding that will go mostly into the pockets of UNHCR staff.

Originally posted by Johnny: Thepoint , am sorry , am not having that kind of discussion !! Then, don't make idiotic comments. Keep them to yourself.

Originally posted by Johnny: One good reason for NOT wearing hijab would be : Hijab is everything but modest, Hijab does not only cover your body it covers your thoughts about yourself too, not to mention the unwanted attention it draws to you due to it´s strange looks. Modesty is marked by simplicity, Hijab ( the tent type -just diffrenciating types)is everything but simple, and you´re not a piece of meat to be covered but a free intelligent human beeing . It covers your thoughts? Simply because you say it does? What a moronic statment. It draws attention to you due to its strange looks? So the looks of other people determine your clothing. And when they look - what do they see -someone who is modestly dressed. The looks only signify people's ignorance, nosiness and lack of awareness about others. So you wear a 'tent' - you are an UN-intelligent piece of meat and if you don't wear a 'tent' - you are intelligent UN-piece of meat. What you wear determines the person you are according to this idiotic logic. How utterly liberal and tolerant! Sweden is just churning them out!

Sorry - too swamped to respond for the longest time. Originally posted by Socod_badne: Ok, now back that up with evidence. I'm not aware of any laws in Sweden or Holand that discriminate against immigrant. Since you claim you do, please back it up. Come on - in the 1950s, American laws stated that Blacks could vote but in practice they were unable to. The laws on the books matter much less that the actual practice. And the actual practice in these countries(and much of continental Europe) is that even educated immigrants face innumerable obstacles and are unable to get into the middle class because of the denial of jobs and opportunities. Where are the educated and prosperous Dutch or Swedish Muslims - have you heard of them? Why is it across the Channel in Britain - there are scores of them. Hmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! No they don't. Van Goh was killed in Holland, not in America. A. Hirsi is in hiding in Holland, not American. The firebrand Imaams of Britian who preach ineffable inflammatory sermons/speechs are in Britian not America. Europe in general failed to assimilate its muslim population and now its paying the price. And why did they fail to assimilate their Muslims while Canada/US and for the most part Britain has assimilated them? Could it be because of their fake liberalism and tolerance - where people who have been born and bred in Germany are referred to as 'guest workers'. Please. Can't you see that differences in host nation attitude to immigrants and particularly Muslims in Canada/US as compared to Europe makes all the difference since these immigrants come from the same place. And this bastion of 'liberalism' produced Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh - both nasty, anti-Muslim racists - one of which got elected to Parliament. Next I assume you will tell me that Austria's Jorg Haider is a cuddly puppy. Let me understand this: you're suggesting it is OK to kill anyone you disagree with? Now I have no idea how you drew that conclusion from what I wrote - I am quite flabbergasted in fact. The point I was making is that liberal and tolerant societies don't elect to national office committed racists and demagogues. That is in fact the very antithesis of a liberal and tolerant society. Can you name any politician elected to national office in Canada and the US with views similar to Pim Fortuyn, Jorg Haider, Jean-Marie Le Pen??????? Because the electorate has chosen to national office individuals such as these - it completely debunks this myth of liberalism and tolerance. On a side note - all of these people who claim 'one must respect Holland's traditions etc.' - Please. Few Muslims have disrespected Holland's traditions. And when a host country INVITES immigrants to its country - it too has an obligation to learn about and accept those immigrants for who they are. Not for being a carbon copy of white Dutch or Swedes.

Originally posted by makalajabti: In muslim countries, most laws are man-made.But they still quote Quran and Hadiths to make their point and pass their laws. Afterwards, you will never hear a muslim authority outside the Kingdom complaining about how the Saudis religious authority hijacked our religion for their weird patriarchal anti-women society. Even here everyone here agrees that women should not be allowed some things. WHat is the difference between the Saudis and You? You're funny! The difference between me and the Saudis is that I affirm those fairly non-contentious issues mandated by God through his religion, Islam. I don't affirm Arab or Saudi culture like our friedns in Saudi are doing. But don't concern yourself with my affirmations since that shouldn't prohibit you from engaging in whatever you like just as your proclivities should have no bearing on my ability to affirm Islamic dictates.

^I said some not all. And I was specifically referrring to women covering. And I most certainly DON'T agree with you. You have a rather quaint idea of Sharia. Sharia does not equal Hudood laws. Once you have distinguished between the two - then we can have a discussion. Tata.

Originally posted by makalajabti: Actually I understand their point, would-be immigrant will see men kissing each other at one point in their life in the Netherlands so they better got accustomed it now, I have seen some somali people cursing every gay couple they come across and giving them bad looks. And they are right about female circumcision (it's a disgusting practice that should not be allowed in any country). The only harsh thing is the knowledge test: Dutch art and paintings are not in every school curriculum around the world. Which means that immigrants should learn a lot more about the country History before they contemplate the thought of settling in the Netherlands. You understand their point? I guess then if Christian immigrants want to come to Muslim countries they should be forced to watch female circumcision since everyone's norms have to be 'learned about' and 'accustomed' to. This is some of the worst logic I've heard. This is horrific.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: OMG - this is ridiculous. And sad and funny. They are such paragons of liberalism - that they are forcing Muslim immigrants to watch something that is so blatantly contradictory to their values. WOW - where can I sign up for such benevolent liberalism! :rolleyes: Are you oblivious to the fact that the Dutch WERE once along with the Swedes the most tolerant society on earth. To such extent that entire major cities are today half filled with immigrants. When the same people are forced to administer puerile test/s such as the mentioned to immigrants you KNOW the problem isn't with them! Lest we forget, a film director was knifed to death in broad daylight by his fellow countrymen of immigrant extraction. An elected dutch politician is in hiding after death threats on her life. Testing the tolerance levels of who enters their country in the light what has happened prior to now, is sensible and frankly tame reaction that we should be relieved over not lament. I know for sure if roles were reversed and Somalis were in place of the Dutch we wouldn't be having this discussion. Utter bullshid. Swedish and Dutch 'liberalism' and 'tolerance' was and is a fake one. This liberalism only applies to those who think and act like them - but if you refuse to do that - you're a damn foreigner! Murders and death threats occur all the time in US and Canada - but you don't see them blaming an entire community. And this bastion of 'liberalism' produced Pim Fortuyn and Theo Van Gogh - both nasty, anti-Muslim racists - one of which got elected to Parliament. Next I assume you will tell me that Austria's Jorg Haider is a cuddly puppy. If there is a truly admirable liberalism towards immigrants - it is that practiced in Canada and the US.

lol - he definitely has been sympathetic to Muslims/Islam. But I don't know of any particular reason to give him that honour now. And it strikes me as rather strange that a renowned Muslim university would so honour a confirmed multiple adulterer, liar and snob. I thought character mattered in our religion. But then again - we seem to have been going downhill for centuries.

Originally posted by ScarFace: [QB] Look at what these cheese eating cadaans came up with. No wonder so many somali's moved from that country :eek: :eek: Dutch test immigrants with gay kiss UPDATED: 08:31, March 14, 2006 Two men kissing in a park and a topless woman bather are featured in a film that will be shown to would-be immigrants to the Netherlands. The reactions of applicants including Muslims will be examined to see whether they are able to accept the country's liberal attitudes. OMG - this is ridiculous. And sad and funny. They are such paragons of liberalism - that they are forcing Muslim immigrants to watch something that is so blatantly contradictory to their values. WOW - where can I sign up for such benevolent liberalism! :rolleyes:

Originally posted by makalajabti: quote:Originally posted by Tukaale: ^^Still you are not making any improvement. OK let me get along with you take on your point Who is exactlay taking control over woman? If I may ask so? You are the one who refuses to understand. WHen a society decides what clothes are acceptable for a woman, when there are special laws to limit women right to travel, work, who she should go out with, who she can marry or can't..... I am fed up with teaching the basics to newbies Some that is God, dear - not society. And he has placed restrictions on men. Indeed all humans. And not just the sexes. He has placed restrictions on the wealthy, the political leadership, employers etc.

What is the point of this bullshid? The Bible has the story correct and the Quran doesn't? Whatever. Each side is entitled to their beleifs. I am hardly gonna consider the possibility of the accuracy of this crap - the Bible has been a written and revised text for centuries while the Quran has not.

What is wrong with this iniative? This is a good thing for Somalis. Some people in this forum are prejudiced freaks. Get a grip.

ok - isn't this a little bit much? Black land stolen by Columbus and Darwin?? There were no blacks in the Americas. I really dislike it when Blacks try to pin the blame all on others.

Originally posted by Jawahiir: ^^...ahm...well said, well said. One point I would like to add is that when alot of people create comparisons btw Asia and Africa we have to understand that during cold era there was alot of money(millions) pumped into countries like Korea by the americans and so on . This did not happen in AFrica, not because Africa was a void where the cold war was not waged no...a different form of investment was chosen for this land, instead of mulitnationals building roots in the continent, arms and weaponary was funnlled in, rebels supported against pro-russian african govn's and unfriendly african states( unfriendly to america), leading to the wars that plauged the continent in the 1990's. SO ! the question remains...why did the west choose not to invest in Africa as it did In Asia. There is no one answer.. One way we can look at is that, the American state was not a pot of gold, where one could dip and take whatever they needed whenver they did. Bugdets had to be passed by vote and so, therefore one can ask, did racist preceptions of Africa come into play? Just a theory. You have to create the proper environment for investment - ppl just don't invest willy-nilly. And the idea that there was less investment in Asia vs. Africa as a key reason for poverty levels is definitely a stretch. Many of the posts seem to me to have touched on symptoms of poverty like illiteracy etc and the minor contributors to poverty in Africa. At the end of the day - what is the bottom line answer that Africa is poor - it is because of leadership. Africa has the most rapacious, corrupt and brutal leaderships of any continent. Leadership determines illiteracy, investment levels, education, access to water and health etc.

Anyone who has seen the record of African governments over the last 50 yrs should have no desire to have one in place. If you have doubts about that with regard to Somalia, just check this out: http://www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf or html: http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:liWFRyRxehkJ:www.peterleeson.com/Better_Off_Stateless.pdf+better+off+stateless&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=1

Originally posted by Socod_badne: Here I disagree. It is cheaper for the US to buy ALL of Iraq's proven oil reserves than it was to invade and stay in the country afterwards. Considerably less cheaper both the human toll and cost after invasion stay over. And if the need for oil determined whether to invade other countries or not, why hasn't the US invaded: Canada, Russia, Britian, Venuzuala (spelling), Nigeria, Iran, Kuwait... all major oil producers. Why invade Iraq only; why even stop there! Iraq invasion was a shot across the bows to the US's foes. Namely China and Bin Laden's people. It was demonstration, a tour de force , of US power and resolve. There is no better, more effective way to show what you're capable of then actual demostrate it. Everyone NOW knows what the US is capable of if tested. And no one will dare cross it's path. The outcome of Iraq war was predictable -- US victory. The rout of Iraqi army and subsequent smashing into smithreens of remanant units was foreclosed fact. The only disappointment was how the promised awe and shock tranmuted into aw shuked ... a cauldron of madness, heartwrenching mess. [/QB] I don't know where the first point about buying all of Iraq's oil comes from, maybe you were engaging in hyperbole. Estimates put Iraq's oil at 150 Billion barrels plus. Thus, at at today's average price of $60 a barrel - that would run into the trillions. I think the US invasion had a lot to do with oil. As non-OPEC oil runs out in the rest of the world - OPEC oil and the Middle East especially become even more vital than now. And after Sept 11 showed how much ordinary Arabs hate the US - they understood that their oil security relied on hated Arab regimes that could be toppled at any time. Thus - why not manufacture a friendly regime in the place of Sadaam - surely if they can turn Iraq into a friendly country with a popularly backed gov't in charge - US oil supplies become a lot more secure. They just didn't know that when the messenger has little credibility - the message tends to be dismissed quickly as well.

Originally posted by Zafir: The Point, Oh in that case let us consider Canada (where you live The Point) do you unconditionally believe you would get everything you got as FOB (fresh of the boat) of Canada in Saudi Arabia? Or even remotely be considered as Muslim being? They would throw you’re a$s in jail faster then you can say the four letter word (help). As far as Australia and Italy are considered after they have denied you the rights to their countries at first, they still valued you as human being and took you under their wings the second or the third time around. In Arabia countries that’s even impossible, you will get a life time denial into their countries. But hey, we still brothers and sister by religion; they don’t mean anything by it. Now can I please get a Ooouuc! No - not the same rights. But in both countries I would end up in jail. or asylum centre - might as well be jail. The point I was making(and it is relatively minor) is that no one like asylum seekers. No one.

Originally posted by naden: ThePoint, Nothing in my post or the topic is especially funny. If you reread it, I said Africans reaching Arab shores. I look at the tens of thousands of muslims living in Italy and Australia who are granted citizenship rights and hold these Arab countries to that standard.. few countries give blanket asylum to illegals. In fact, the standard practice in the west is to deport them. No one is advocating blanket asylum. In any case, there would have to be a system in place to decide who is an illegal, a refugee claimant, an immigrant and so on. Western countries do deport, often after a lengthy legal process and people area allowed to work in the interim. I do agree that countries largely inhabited by immigrants are more likely to open their doors to refugees but many western European countries are a clear exception. Don't get me wrong - not really defending Arab behaviour in general. I am making the point - that quite frankly - every country hates asylum seekers and refugees. And they make life as difficult as they can for them. That said - yes - western countries do treat them better in general although if they haven't gone through the process - they will deport.

Originally posted by The Flipmode: [QB]Then my father mentioned that this man was a 'Moslem.' First, I hated the idea of meeting an "infidel, hijacker, kidnapper, bomber, terrorist, non-believer." Any normal person would be repulsed at the idea. I couldn't believe my ears. A 'Moslem?' No way! interesting article - but I am disgusted by this above quote. This was 1991 and this is what he thought. Brothers and sisters - I ask you - what sort of hole have you been in to think like this? What kind of unthinking moron with zero intellect thinks like this? I simply don't understand ppl who are like this at all. They should be shot. It's lucky God saved him not only religiously but intellectually as well. PS - one part in this whole story strikes me as Islamically wrong. The part where he says Muslims believe in the Bible. Muslims do not believe in the Bible. They believe in the Injeel - only parts of which are in the modern day Bible, much of which is authored corruption.

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: How can we expect such high standards from Arabs? Because (supposedly) they are our brothers and sisters in Islam who also (accidentally) happen to be filthy rich. Ok - fair enough. But they are also humans and when some of the most 'enlightened' nations of the world treat immigrants/refugees in a similar way - I am inclined to not press Arabs to super-human feats.

Originally posted by naden: “The forthcoming conference will request an assurance from the European Union to improve the situations of Muslim minorities in Europe, Denmark in particular. And we want Europe to respect the rights of Muslims and understand the values of their faith.†This is well and good. I wonder if they would bother themselves to request from their own assurances that: 1) A muslim reaching Arab shores from a poor/war-zone will not be left to drown. 2) African Muslims from unstable areas and those who have lived in Gulf nations for years would be given asylum or at least temporary working/studying papers to support their families. This is would protect the muslim faith as well. Are you kidding?? Haven't the Italians let a number of African refugees drown in the Med as they were reaching Italy? Didn't the Austrailians turn back a ship full of starving refugees etc? How can we expect such high standards from Arabs? Same with point number 2 - few countries give blanket asylum to illegals. In fact, the standard practice in the west is to deport them. I am not here to defend rich Arab treatment of immigrants, Muslim or otherwise. I think where there is legitimate criticism is how they treat those ppl within the country rather than those trying to get to the country. Few rich countries welcome poor, downtrodden refugees unless they have gone through the 'process'.

Originally posted by codetalker: The simple fact is, any country with a sizeable Muslim population these days is likely to have problems with terrorists, murderers, and insurrectionists, not to mention polygamists and anti-Semites. No amount of politically correct platitudination can change that. An increasing proportion of children being born worldwide are Muslim. So what does that mean for the future? Australia has decided to legalize the abortion pill while Muslims are against abortion. What does that indicate about the future character of the Australian nation? Mr. D'Agostino, former Associate Editor of HUMAN EVENTS, is Vice President for Communications at the Population Research Institute. lol - good. White Austrialians should become extinct given views like this. Go Muslim Austrailia.