Well when you have: Mutual respect ‘An attitude of mutual respect needs to be promoted. “Treat humans with respect and love for they are either Muslims and your siblings in faith or non-Muslims and your siblings in creation.”’ (Ali) I shouldn't be remiss if I intrepreted it to mean behave like decent people. What do you think is the point of your post and the larger organization? It seems to be yet another one of those 'community groups' that serve to feed off the naive generosity of the state. Hence the platitude filled list above. Here's your opportunity to enlighten folks.

^Oddly enough you see qiimo in waving the Somaliland flag from Lawyacade ila Yoocade as per motto.

Adeer - if you wish to hold yourself above others - then responding the way you did undermines that. But I should known better than to wade in with you. As you were. :cool:

^This is especially pointless. Yeah - if I post something I would like it to have a point. ie enlightening, analytical, humourous etc. Telling folks to behave like decent people is rather useless. And then to have you post it. Well.....

I could pass that test. As if old Somali grannies are really expected to know the responses. Heck - most born and bred Brits likely don't know the answers. Citizenship tests don't mean much at all.

^Not sure how you came to interpret what's below to be 'af boodis'. It simply was to enlighten you that designing a state flag is not revolutionary, nor a big deal, nor a sign of separtist foment. But I have no qualms that it may be silly. A little overly sensitive today maybe. ^I don't know why you care what they fight about or what 'committee' may or may not make a flag. As if making a flag is an enormous drain on state coffers and energy. I don't know where you got the idea that they are separating or that they need to 'make up your mind'. Lots of sub-national entities have flags. It's not revolutionary really.

Originally posted by Oodweyne: ^^^ Mr. ThePoint , That is where you fall out from the wagon ( as it were ); for one address an argument that has something to "recommend" itself where others are concern. But, one does not waste his time and energy with a silly argument that was intended to be nothing more than a "social and collective insult" on others; which in turn, desperately was trying to come across to others, as something that was worthy of a decent discussion, indeed... Now, I take it you got that. For one, only deal with the "same coinage" that others are so chancing against you, by and large... Hence, mine, was no such thing about "defensively lashing" on others, as you rather alleged in here. But, on the contrary, it was a way of saying that: come now, dear ninny, try another line, for this one is so transparent ( both the intended sense of it, as well as the phraseology of it's usage ), that it's no use in chancing against us in here... Regards, Oodweyne. You have a point. But there is a factual basis to the article. It was not merely a series of insults as per your response. Whether the motive is to use it as a bludgeon against you and your cohorts is another matter.

^I don't chase any tail. I simply oppose secession. It's not revolutionary nor is it a big deal - as in your previous allusion that 'they' don't know whether they're coming or going. As to silly - that is a valid opinion you can have. I would say seceding from a country on the basis of colonial borders and the wrongs of the past is even more silly. But what have you....

^Not sure where it's really not acknowledged. Perhaps somewhere in the middle of a desert.

^I don't know why you care what they fight about or what 'committee' may or may not make a flag. As if making a flag is an enormous drain on state coffers and energy. I don't know where you got the idea that they are separating or that they need to 'make up your mind'. Lots of sub-national entities have flags. It's not revolutionary really.

^Instead of defensively lashing out - why not address the problem? Whole paragraphs of generalized insults say more about you than the person it's directed at.

Pointless platitudes.

I wonder what the mental and financial state of folks is where Shabaab has banned khat. That would be interesting to get first hand reporting about.

The only reason to come to Europe or the west is education. Seems he might be a bit too old for that. Otherwise stay in Africa. People who make just $1000 USD a month can live like kings. And Kenyan residency and passports can be easily had if you know the right people.

Dr Noor's devoutly-Muslim family are said to have made Dr Osborne's conversion a condition of the marriage. He is said to have spent months learning about Islam at a local mosque before agreeing to conduct his life according to its teachings, including praying five times a day and abstaining from alcohol The civil ceremony at St Andrews Castle was followed by a black-tie reception with alcohol and dancing. To each his own way I guess.

Originally posted by Jibreel: ^^ 1.People of the book are allowed to worship in their sanctuaries but the people of today are not the people of the book and they do not worship Allah. Instead ,they worship other deities. 2.The book in reference is longer the book they follow.Their Monks have subjected it to tremendous changes. This is nonsense. Their label of people of the book(and consequent rights)is not conditioned on what we think of their texts. After all the texts have been pretty much the same since the Prophet's time. Trinity etc.

Ultimately - Muslims need to get their own houses in order. This they treated us worse contest is pointless. None of us would be here if Somalia was a half decent place. And yes Friedman is a smug, self-assured and wrong on most things concerning Muslims.

Originally posted by Gheelle.T: Innaa Lillaahi wa innaa Illayhi raajicuun. Allah ha u naxariisto marxuumiinta dhimatay. And that suicide bomber and who ever sent him may burn in hell. I would add and those who support such actions and groups. In this day and age that Somalis would import the fitna of Iraq and Afghanistan is mind boggling.

Originally posted by NGONGE: On a serious note, the two issues cannot be compared. On the one hand, the Swiss government opposes the idea of a ban but is restricted by its own laws from doing anything to stop it. On the other, the French government simply banned all religious symbols from its schools. It had a logic that no matter how much you and I would disagree with would still stand up to scrutiny. The Swiss issue follows no discernable logic. One government insists on its secular traditions and bans school kids from wearing any religious symbols whilst another talks of Islamic conquests and the power of the minaret! The French minster is correct in calling it intolerance and condemning the Swiss. To his mind, to French Policy and to the way the French sold their Hijab (religious symbols) ban this is amateurish and intolerant. Was France not adhering to its secular traditions before the 'religious symbols' ban? What do you think was the motivation behind the sudden adoption of the ban on 'religious symbols'? Do you acknowledge that what qualifies as a 'religious symbol' is arbitrary and is solely at the discretion of the state? I think the answers to those questions will help to illustrate where the irony is coming from.

Layzie - I haven't got a clue what it is you're talking about. Just concisely state why you support this latest move by the Swiss.

Originally posted by *Ibtisam: North and the Point: You are both being short sighted although you both think that waad naga ihdo dheertihin!! The point is not that society is becoming more hostile to anything resembling Islam, it is that we have increased in numbers and more visible as a community within these societies in the last 10-20 years, but we have failed to educate our host communities about who or what we are or make an impact on the decision making arena. So others have done it for us, and the so called hostility is just fear of the unknown. We cannot say people are hostile to anything Islam- because we failed in our duty to tell them or give them an alternative option. When they ban our ritualize or symbolism in their country, we often react in anger by burning flags and ranting on TV like lunatics or moaning about how unfair it is. This in turn enhances this fear and alien Muslims, but we never build the institutions to defend us logically and in the individuals to occupy the relevant places in society and speak for us. What is the use of having a prayer hall or mosques if you do not have the pillars and insititutions to defend what role it places or stands for in our community. I'm afraid your theory is not supported by facts. Muslims haven't increased significantly as a percentage of the population in Switzerland in the last 10 years. Why would they be more visible unless their numbers have exploded? There are reported to be 4 mosques already with minarets in Switzerland. Were people more educated about Muslims when they allowed them to build those minarets but now they've suddenly become uneducated in the wake of this vote? I don't think so. The simple fact is there is more hostility and phobia about Muslims and Islam in the wake of 9/11. No amount of education or establishing of community organizations is going to really change that in the short-term. The other thing is that some societies are more closed off and xenophobic than other socities. In Denmark, Switzerland and Austria - right-wing neo-nazi type parties have been able to get upwards of 20% of the vote but the BNP in Britain barely registers at the polls. Is it because of education? Not really. It is because there is a national ethos that welcomes immigrants and accords them full respect. And doesn't scape goat them for national problems. The Anglo-saxon countries are miles ahead of continental Europe. I can't imagine anything like this EVER being put up in Canada or the States:

^Walle - you're fiesty today.

Originally posted by Gabbal: quote:Originally posted by Che -Guevara: ^What is the word for ethics in Somali? You said it loud and clear my friend but considering Puntland has self-declared itself to be above the usual Somali fray, one would have assumed the conduct would represent the rhetoric. Has it? Really? I would like to see evidences.

Their first 'crime' is letting in the media. What a sane person would do doesn't really apply here. Sanity is not that commonplace among Somalis but it is not an excuse in itself. He works yet the council pays his rent - is that how the system works in the UK? Their other 'crime' is to have picked the mini-mansion. I understand that the system allows for it but some damiir is not too much to ask. Ultimately - what this family is doing is not that rare. But it doesn't mean that they can't be criticized.

Originally posted by Mr.Paragon: ^ThePoint, I am not making claims. http://operationblackvote.wordpress.com/2009/11/30/the-sun-is-accused-of-giving-comfort-to-racists/ Clearly there are inaccuracies and it is appropriate to point them out. The Labour/Conservative angle is not in the article though. But you think the family has made no mistakes whatsoever? I think that is where your argument falls down.