LOL @ Alpha starting this. Not gonna answer until you tell what sorta of Muslim you are though I have a pretty good guess

^I'm not your lap dog producing evidence subject to your demands. It doesn't matter that I don't produce evidence now or before - you still can't say I'm making it up and thus implying I'm a liar. The only thing you can say is - I don't believe you because you haven't produced evidence. There is a big difference between the 2 stances.

High treason? Are the borders defined as the ones we have now? I guess this is more spice to campaign against the dastuur.

What do you think Arch? Whose fault is it this is happening? Should the land simply be unused or under used and left as is? Do NGOs actually care about Africans or is it that they want to see them not move out of subsistence agriculture in order to perpetuate the mashruuc that is international aid? I'll tell you this much - people across the Arab world are demonstrating and dying for political rights while Africans allow their governments to dispossess them of land underfoot they use for food or pasture.

^Do me a favour and don't rush to tell people they're lying before you are sure yourself.

*Blessed;847666 wrote: Actually, that reference was made to her fathers background before he moved to AD. Not an entire country. That is true for many Somaalis and I don't know when being of nomadic bakground became wax laga khashaafo, So if her father was from the 'desert' and not her why would it be included in her promo piece as if to say she went from the desert to doctor? It's not about being ashamed of being a nomad - though I would have less issues with from nomad to ... if in fact the actual person was a nomad and not putting xawaash in their story to appeal/sell to westerners. To reduce African countries and peoples to either jungle/desert etc is very common and this has been repeatedly used/allowed by Somalis of accomplishment particularly the ladies. It is inaccurate and denigrating. Additionally - this lady's face seemed familiar to me - it was her who claimed or sanctioned the claim of 'Fahima Osman became the first Canadian-trained MD of the country's largest African community'. http://somalilandtimes.net/2003/122/12204.shtml I highly doubt that claim - and I would love to know how this was established though I can't disprove it myself. This sort of personal self-aggrandizement to garner media attention comes only through the implicit denigration of the society you are from - before me they didn't have this etc. Waxaan wa laga ficanyahay.

ailamos;847668 wrote: It is widely known that NYT is a respected news outlet and a newspaper-of-record, what is not "widely known" , as you claim, is that NYT sets the news agenda for the entire country. These are two completely different things. Our exchange went like this: ME: Is that a fact? What are you basing this on? YOU: You can google new york times and setting news agenda and see what you find. ME: I asked you how is it "well known" that NYT sets the news agenda in the US? Paste a link if you have to. YOU: Google it if you are so curious. Just like Paris is widely known to be a prime city in fashion culture. ME: Oh please, you can't make stuff up, and then when questioned about it respond with "google it" + an analogy. That last statement from me came about because I failed to get you to provide proof beyond the "google it" phrase. The onus is on you to prove that the NYT sets the news agenda in the US. All you have proven is a clip of a guy that says that and it could be his opinion, soundbite. You can get hundreds of soundbites on a variety of topics but that doesn't mean they are facts. If you cannot produce reliable proof, like an article, for example, then just admit that you misspoke. Why do you insist that the NYT sets the news agenda in the US when it is clearly an unverifiable statement? It could be a piece of opinion, I'll give you that much, but it is not fact. Just because it's not known to you doesn't mean it's not widely known. Additionally - saying to someone you're making this stuff up is pretty clear what the implication is. If you haven't bothered to look at it up - how could you say it's 'clearly an unverfiable statement'? This statement isn't like Paris is the capital of France or 2+2 = 4 - but it's definitely not something I pulled out of a hat. There is another sector of the media, the elite media, sometimes called the agenda-setting media because they are the ones with the big resources, they set the framework in which everyone else operates. The New York Times and CBS, that kind of thing. Their audience is mostly privileged people. The people who read the New York Times—people who are wealthy or part of what is sometimes called the political class—they are actually involved in the political system in an ongoing fashion. They are basically managers of one sort or another. They can be political managers, business managers (like corporate executives or that sort of thing), doctoral managers (like university professors), or other journalists who are involved in organizing the way people think and look at things. The elite media set a framework within which others operate. If you are watching the Associated Press, who grind out a constant flow of news, in the mid-afternoon it breaks and there is something that comes along every day that says "Notice to Editors: Tomorrow’s New York Times is going to have the following stories on the front page." The point of that is, if you’re an editor of a newspaper in Dayton, Ohio and you don’t have the resources to figure out what the news is, or you don’t want to think about it anyway, this tells you what the news is. These are the stories for the quarter page that you are going to devote to something other than local affairs or diverting your audience. These are the stories that you put there because that’s what the New York Times tells us is what you’re supposed to care about tomorrow. If you are an editor in Dayton, Ohio, you would sort of have to do that, because you don’t have much else in the way of resources. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710--.htm The New York Times was included, because various researchers have found it to set the agendas of other mainstream media outlets (Lee, 2007; Reese & Danielin 1989). http://lippmannwouldroll.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/democratizationforweb.pdf Overall, then, the New York Times notably had the strongest agenda setting influence in our study.... Because the New York Times has been shown to influence other news media, the Times may have had an indirect effect on Internet users by influencing the users' local newspapers. http://rcirib.ir/articles/pdfs/cd1%5CIngenta_Sage_Articles_on_194_225_11_89/Ingenta847.pdf “Agenda setting does work,” Shaw said. “Major media, like The New York Times and CBS News, set agendas as much as ever. Now major media are setting the agenda not just for the audience but for horizontal communication.” Horizontal communication channels include Facebook, Twitter and radio talk shows, Shaw said. “Every day I listen to Rush Limbaugh,” Shaw said. “He reads The New York Times. Limbaugh just elaborates on [the story] quite differently.” Shaw is Kenan professor of journalism and mass communication at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill http://www.comm.vt.edu/News/News_Artiicles/shaw_visit_2011.html

ailamos;847652 wrote: Asking for verification of claims can hardly be called spoonfeeding. I had expected something better since you took your time in googling your claim, only to produce a documentary (on a professional networking website) about the paper in question, that's hardly impartial, but I'll accept it since it's all you've got, and that it seems you've put an effort into backing up your claim. You're backtracking. You said to me regarding my claim - you're making it up. That is a statement that I am lying about this claim period full stop. To ask for verification is not to say to one you're making it all up. At least own that much. It's amusing that spoonfeeding you wasn't enough - you expect 'something better' - ie more spoonfeeding - and that a documentary on a professsional networking website is 'hardly impartial' and that it's' all I've got' etc because presumably you've got a lot more that proves the NYT doesn't set the news agenda for the USA. Talk about a backhanded way of going about things. Anyone who knows something about the media landscape of the USA can hardly be in doubt as to how influential and importnnt the New York Times is in that country. That you've gotten worked up about the statement - it's widely known that the NYT sets the news agenda in the states - and the resulting back and forth here says much about your style of debate.

ailamos;847637 wrote: I don't understand how you construe my position of "letting people be" as making one group of people succumb to another? Did the local Malians Sufis of Timbuktu launch attacks on Ansar Al Dine and force them to their (the Sufis) way? No, they have not. It is clear who is the aggressor here. Oh please, you can't make stuff up, and then when questioned about it respond with "google it" + an analogy. Letting the people be - is that with regard to the mistaken practice of Islam or the shrines themselves. I don't think violence is the answer. But attacking shirk and eradicating it through non-violence is correct. And you can't be a believing Muslim without supporting that. Ansar al Dine is the new authority in Northern Mali - I don't know of any governing force that hasn't come about through violence or used violence to stay in power. It's taken for granted that they are agressors - its the default position of a new power. It's sad that you think I'm a liar simply for stating a piece of general knowledge that you are unaware of. And when I didn't spoonfeed you - you say I'm making it up. Here check this out: http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlny/andrew-rossi-new-york-times-movie_b37679

ailamos;847628 wrote: That's exactly it. Muslims are free to do what they want and that their actions is not attributable to the wider community. If the Islamic culture of the people of Timbuktu dictates that they revere saints, then so be it. Theological disagreements should be left to the local community to decide. They should not be succumbed to the viewpoints of purists such as Ansar Al Dine. I asked you how is it "well known" that NYT sets the news agenda in the US? Paste a link if you have to. No the Islamic culture never dictates that saints be revered. Their local culture may. It's wrong of them and you or anyone else to claim that there is anything Islamic about such practices. How they resolve that is ultimately upto them - but there is a clear stand that the religion has. Ansar Al Dine is not a foreign phenomenon - it's other locals who disagree with the 'local' saint reverence culture. Whether their viewpoints are succumbed to - is not upto you. But clearly it seems you want Ansar al Dine to succumb to the local saint reverence culture. Interesting. Google it if you are so curious. Just like Paris is widely known to be a prime city in fashion culture.

^let's just say farah22 is crazy and hasn't contributed one sane reasonable post to SOL in 518 posts so far. I love the reason crew - they display theirs so frequently when Islam is the topic of discussion.

N.O.R.F;847623 wrote: I was highlighting the real reasons behind the destruction of the shrines (and others elsewhere). The media outlets are as usual doing a terrible job but they're not helped by quotes from the guy below. . How are they religious buildings exactly? Are you sure destruction isn't the easiest way to eradicate these ignorant practices? Centuries of education have clearly failed. Agree with you re media and that *****. They're not strictly speaking religious buildings though some people have established a religious relationship with these buildings. I'm not sure it isn't the easiest way. It seems like a very blunt instrument to a larger and more noble goal. I'm not sure there is centuries of education - clearly not the obvious result. I just want you to understand it's not as simple as destroying shrines to get rid of shirk.

ailamos;847616 wrote: Could you clarify your positions here. You say: Which is interpreted to mean that what certain Muslims do is their business and should not be attributed to the wider community. And a few minutes later you state: Which is interpreted to mean that there should be a consequence or remedy for what certain Muslims are doing. So how do you reconcile your earlier statement with the latter? On the one hand Muslims are free to do what they want and you are unconcerned with their actions. On the other hand you think what certain Muslims are doing is wrong, and that they should be conducting themselves in a specific manner which you construe to be Islamically pure. I think you misunderstand here. I am not unconcerned with what Muslims do means - that what some Muslims do is of some concern to me. Where you got 'should not be attributed to the wider community' - you tell me. Though generally - as a life philosophy - it would make sense. Muslims are free to do what they want - I may or may not be concerned with their actions depending on the circumstances. It doesn't mean that I agree with them necesarily or that they're islamically correct. Your point here is what exactly? *You can google new york times and setting news agenda and see what you find.

Norf, There is no question that shrine worship and saint reverence is absolutely xaram and the worst of sins. But if you think that destroying shrines will solve this misguidance easily I think you're mistaken. If you don't try to change people's hearts through education you haven't really changed them.

ailamos;847610 wrote: Apparently this has nothing to do with this or any other particular story. From what I've gather so far is that you distrust Western media, which leads me to the assumption that you would question the motives of every story that comes out of a Western media outlet, or any other outlet (e.g. "Al Arabiya and company) because apparently they are all controlled by the West. Subsequently, all media would be unreliable and their motives must be questioned. I believe the stories of the actual people dying on conflicts surrounding these very monuments have been extensively covered by the "untrustworthy" Western media prior to the desecration of these monuments. If you think there is a reduction of Timbuktu to it's shrines then you're sadly mistaken. The shrines were the first historical monuments that have been destroyed, hence the story. Who knows what will be next? No- I don't distrust western media on a broad basis. I question when they report on Islam/Muslims. As to your assumption etc - you know how the saying goes. You do know that there is a difference between being controlled and setting the news agenda. The New York Times is widely known to set the news agenda in the USA - does that mean it controls WasPo, LATimes, CNN etc. Clearly not - I think you're intelligent enough to make this differentiation. No I don't believe the conflict in Mali has been adequately covered by western media. But this is a judgement call. Really - you really ask what will be next? Let me ask you - if they destroy a heritage building in London - does anyone think that Buckingham palace is next? Why is that do you think? It's funny.

A_Khadar;847589 wrote: ^^^ .. Tell me that now who went to shake? That same chap of yours went to handshake Sh. Shiriif couple of days ago.. Tell me about that too.. The post you inferenced is nothing to do with chap of XT whether he went to shake your chap or vice-versat, but just that his shake makes no difference for resolving the really matter on ground.. Huuuh?

Somalia;847602 wrote: The media portrays Muslims as intolerant, but when we do this, we give them ammunition. Are you expecting them not to report this? Why not be concerned with the Muslims who do this? It's like the drunk Somali girls who attacked the girl who was walking with her boyfriend, and then after getting arrested saying that they aren't used to drink cause they are Muslims so they weren't thinking straight. This time it's Muslims destroying something, then going around and saying "oh, the media, you are portraying us badly". I'm not unconcerned with what Muslims do. And I understand that some Muslims do give them ammunition. But then what they do with that ammunition is their handiwork. The 'portrayal' that ensues is owned by them. And that is the point I"m making. Western media are not generally impartia,l unbiased or without an agenda when reporting about Muslims or Islam.

N.O.R.F;847596 wrote: Whether its right or wrong depends on what the correct course of action is islamically. The correct course of action Islamically is that people not worship at shrines - but you can about 2 ways. Either destroy them or the better and longer lasting course - teach people that shrines can be no good nor harm to them and that worship is reserved solely for Allah. As to Islamic heritage - defined broady - it includes everything that an Islalmic culture produces - including that which is secular in nature.

ailamos;847594 wrote: So you're the ultimate skeptic? You question the motives behind every news story? This reminds me of Mel Gibson in 'Conspiracy Theory'. That's rich. What are you basing your skepticism on? Enraged because it is a part of Islamic heritage that should be preserved and not destroyed and because I've read about Timbuktu as a child in Islamic Studies class and how it was part of the Islamic Golden Age. I don't get the reasoning that because I question the motives of a particular story - I must necessarily question all stories in order to be ideologically pure..That makes no sense. I'm basing my skepticism on western hypocrisy and double standards. The hue and cry surrounding this story while actual people die in the conflicts surrounding the very monuments western media purport to care about. You do know Timbuktu is more than one shrine or 10 shrines destroyed or preserved. It;s about mosques, libraries a whole way of life that people preserve in their memories and histories. I'm not sure you're doing this place justice when you reduce its entirety to a shrine or shrines being destroyed.

Somalia;847591 wrote: ElPunto It will be the denominating factor in the eyes of the common man, the uninformed which gets fed this by the media. It's not his fault, it's simply his only news source to the rest of the world. He sits in front of the television before going to bed and work in the morning only to repeat this over and over again. He doesn't go to the library nor does he search up history or religion for himself. . This simply validates my earlier point - that this portrayal and consquent errant conclusion - Islam/Muslims is intolerant - is the work primarily of the media. Thanks. I'm not defending destruction - you would know that if you actually read what I wrote - I'm simply questioning motives and not wholeheartedly in the camp of hypocritcal western media.

Somalia;847576 wrote: The media blows up monuments? :confused: For a Puntie - you can be quite thick. The media doens't blow up monuments - it just convinces you that 20 people who do blow up monuments are the determinative factor in reaching a judgement about Islam. And clearly you have bought that - since you spew - oooh these guys are giving a negative portrayal to islam etc.

ailamos;847574 wrote: This is "defensive myopia". Would you have made this statement if I had posted an article from Al Arabiya, or Al Ahram or The National of the UAE? This is not about the reporting of the Telegraph, but of the event at hand. I will not disagree that events perpetrated by "Muslims" get the attention of the media, they do, but that does not mean that events such as this one, particularly when it is Islamic heritage that is being destroyed, should be ignored as hyperbole. It's not defensive at all. When I question ones motives for a legitimate reason - I am not being defensive. You do know that Al Arabiya and company don't set the news agenda - it's set in the west. But that;s neither here or there. I haven't seen any argument from you that would lead me not to question the motives of western media regarding this story. I still don't get the enraged part. You haven't told me why you feel like that? i am not ignoring this story - I am with Malika on this - I think it's a shame - but I'm not that worked up about it. Anymore than one gets worked up about some historic building in NY or London getting demolished.

A_Khadar;847556 wrote: Xaglo jumped Khatumo ship offf a long ago and multiple times expressed his disagreement. It's very interesting what the two met and if Xagle has any power to bring the so called peace.. This peace thing is so much out of touch touch of the reality.. I am not sure what the successionists are running around like headless chicken for peace when infact is so obvious and they know they're invade to others.. Now I am coming to the conclusion that insanity is at its highest with successionists. It's not successionists who went cap in hand to Xaglo. This individual was claiming a 'genocide' happened and now he's shaking the hands of the chief architect of the genocide. I wonder if successionists are the only insane ones in the North.

The-freeman;847568 wrote: How do you know no one gave a "rat's azz" about these things? people visit Timbuktu from all around the world because of its culture.And though you're quick to play the Islamaphobia card you'll notice it's Muslim people who have destroyed these shrines. They are the guilty party. Don't blame the victims for telling the world their story. You don't give a rat's azz if monuments and shrines are what makes the news regarding this place rather than the people their hardships and their poverty. It;s a judgement call buddy. I have not played any Islamaphobia card - I simply question their motives for publishing this story. I simply don't believe their motives have anything to do with the destruction of historical sites. Whether Muslims are the guilty party or not is upto their respective communities - not someone 5000 km away.

Somalia;847564 wrote: It portrays Islam as an intolerant religion, that's why one is against it ElPunto. This is history being destroyed. That portrayal is solely the handiwork of the media. And you are a tool for believing there is a link between what these folks choose to do and the tolerance/intolerance of Islam as a religion.