This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Thursday, November 23, 2000 - 01:26 am By Mohamed Khodr After watching both the Arab and the Islamic Summits and the failure of their participants to achieve any measure of self-respect or take any concrete actions to help the Palestinians or their own people, I am reminded of a song from the movie My Fair Lady. The song, sung by Eliza Dolittle (Do-little: an appropriate title for both summits), expresses her frustration with her two suitors, who only utter words but take no action. She sings, "Words, words, words. All I get is words. First from him, then from you. Is that all you blagards can do?" Indeed, it seems the only functioning organs we have as Arabs and Muslims are our mouths. For 52 years, our leaders have been more adept at making speeches and empty promises, backbiting, telling lies, and engaging in conspiracies – all geared toward selfish self-preservation and ego-building – than they have been in serving their own people. Much less helping the occupied Palestinians, Syrians, and Lebanese. What came out of these summits is a true reflection of the priorities of these leaders – how to pacify the masses (by feeding them with more lies) without jeopardizing their position as leaders and their relationships with the world's sole superpower, Israel, and its protégé, the United States. And, while the oil rich nations were "generous" with some money - one billion dollars as of yet unseen – the money was really just a “feel good” gesture toward the Palestinians who have been killed and their families. It's the least they can do. Tragically, while the Palestinians are being killed, bombed and burned, these disrespectful leaders have the audacity to demand that Europe, America, and the United Nations do something to help them. Why should anyone in the world help the Palestinians when we as Muslims and Arabs aren’t helping them ourselves? Why should America reassess its ironclad relationship with Israel when Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania won't even consider downgrading their diplomatic embassies, much less cut ties? Who on this planet can have any respect for our leaders, our masses, and even our faith when we don't even have the desire, the will, and the knowledge to respect our own selves and our faith? Who among our leaders has the genuine legitimacy or support of his own people? The masses of us are irrationally media-driven to applaud and appease their leaders – even when those very leaders humiliate our faith; insult our honor; imprison our fathers, brothers and sons; rob our money; and control every aspect of our lives. We have the leaders we deserve. Surely, we can blame our poverty, ignorance, illiteracy, low morale, defeatist attitude, hopelessness, and cowardly approach – in a word, our demise – on the technological superiority of the West. Yet, we've seen, around the world, multiple examples of people with similar situations rise up and demand freedom, democracy and a better life. From China, the Philippines, Vietnam (who defeated America and France), Indonesia, Poland, Algeria, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Latin America, people fighting with zeal and willing to die for freedom have overturned their dictators. As important as it is for us to do everything within our power to help our Palestinian brothers and sisters through regular demonstrations and other means of exerting pressure on our leaders who must decide between being our leaders or being America's puppets, we need to consider and be prepared for an ISLAMIC INTIFADAH in order to change our leaders and control our own destiny. Allah (SWT) will not help us to live as Muslims in peace, justice, equality, and democracy until we help ourselves. The only faith for which freedom and equality for all – regardless of their faith, race, color, or position of wealth – is a part of its Aqeedah is Islam. The only way for the Islamic world to achieve any respect and weight in the world is that it must first achieve self-respect. Before we proclaim Jihad against Israel, let's proclaim Jihad on ourselves, and then on our nations. Our current leaders spend more money on American weapons than anyone else in the world, and then direct those weapons against us – the silent, intimidated, subservient masses who applaud, hang banners and pictures, and digest the daily dose of indoctrination that the media feeds our minds. Hezbollah, may Allah (SWT) bless them, liberated Southern Lebanon with sheer will and determination and a readiness to die for their cause. Our leaders, kings, and presidents are more interested in preparing their sons to assume leadership and continue their dictatorships than they are in achieving any real progress for their people. Despite decades of "Corrective Movements," nothing has changed. Thanks to Saddam Hussein's stupid and disastrous invasion of Kuwait, America has a permanent residence in the Gulf, which serves to deter any threat to its supply of cheap oil, or any threat to Israel from Iraq or Iran. America and Israel have neutralized Egypt, Jordan and the Gulf states. Syria is militarily weak and has a novice leader. Morocco, Tunis, and Algeria are in America's camp – far more willing to thwart any Islamic movement than to challenge western and secular hegemony. No one is left to help the Palestinians and to protect Masjid Al-Aqsa except Palestine's children. While, daily, we are being fed scenes of horror in the occupied territories (thanks to the competent Al-Jazeerah), one wonders what, if anything, our leaders are doing. …Oh yes, they're wondering whether their allegiance should be to Bush or to Gore. Recall that Madeline Albright visited the “client” Arab states prior to the Arab Summit in order to predetermine its outcome, while William Cohen is now visiting the same states after the meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) to be briefed that America need not worry after all. The only true winners following both summits are America and Israel. The losers, as usual, are the world’s 1.2 billion Muslims. Ramadan is coming soon, Alhamdulillah. That gives Israel an opportunity, for a month, to kill fasting Palestinian children who barely have the strength to throw stones while we enjoy our Iftar meals, our parties, and our mind-numbing television programs. And we say the West is apathetic. Our choice is clear. An Islamic Intifadah and Jihad as Allah's (SWT) servants fighting for peace, justice and freedom, or dormant servants to secularism, materialism, western domination, and corrupt leaders who have no faith. So far, the West has nothing to fear in our doormat leaders. Remember the murdered Palestinian children in your prayers during Ramadan!!!!!!!!!.
|
| | Friday, November 24, 2000 - 05:31 pm Thanks for the article!
|
| | Monday, November 27, 2000 - 01:26 am Comrades I've said it before and I'll say it again, states put self-interest first. If you think for a New York minute that any state (Islamic or otherwise) is going to put its own interests at risk for the sake of some "Islamic brothers" then you need to put down the Khat and do some reading. Just like the Americans aren't going to put their balls in a vice for some notion of christian solidarity neither is Egpyt going to weaken itself, either economically or militarily, for the sake of a bunch of Palestinians. Islamic brotherhood sounds good in theory, but when that theory runs smack into reality, reality wins every time. As I said before, you put a bunch of rock throwing kids in the street and try and use them as a tool to change Israeli policy and all you'll end up with is a bunch of dead kids. The Intifada can't work in this case, because what the Palestinians are fighting for now is a turning back of the clock which can't occur. they have to stake out reasonable ground and then undermine the Israeli political will. Violence only strengthens the hand of the Israeli right. The more violent the situation, the stronger the right will get. The stronger the right gets, the fewer concessions are put on the table by the Israeli side and the more dead Palestinians we have. You will notice that now, the violence is so frequent and killing kids so routine it barely makes the back page of USA today. Soon, no one's going to give a •••• about the how many Palestinians ar killed on a given day. the media stops covering it because people have lost interest. At some point we all say "Who cares what they do to each other? I don't know any Israelis or Palstinians. Screw 'em." That attitude is starting to take hold now. It's the old "if a tree falls in the woods, but no one is there to hear it, does it make a noise?" So far, in two plus months of blood letting, the Palestinians have accomplished nothing. If they piss the Israelis off enough, the Israelis will start killing thousands of them. The PA needs to change tactics if they want to be successful. They need to undermine Israeli from within politically, and they can't do that through violence.
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 02:25 am Hei! Mad, Is that you? old dog never learn new tricks!!! History repeats itself, as always is the case. Let us allow that law of mother nature solves this trouble..........WHAT IS TAKEN BY FORCE......HOW TO GET IT BACK???????by force or by endless and lies talk??? I am not surprised your way of though, always thinking material interest before everything else no matter what cost.....very familiar way of emptyed minded, godless euroupean.
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 04:00 am Mad_Mac: You seem to be ubiquitous on Somalinet forumss. Your contempt for the Somalis and their way of life (Islaam) is very apparent. Are you inherently evil or just annoying? Now a few things about your posting... True, states put self interest first but that is assuming that the intifadas are state sponsored. If you read the title of the forums and the article thoroughly, you will notice that no where does it say the so called muslim states/leaders will put their interest at stake and liberate the holy lands. History testifies to it that Islaamic solidarity has worked before and it will insha Allah (God willing) work again. The fortunate thing is, the intifida is not orchestrated by the those puppets who will indeed not put their interest at risk as you so brilliantly noticed. You say, "you put a bunch of kids...". It is not supprising to see that you echo that same shallow minded thought prevalent in the Western media and the pundits. Where have you ever seen a kid approaching a tank with a rock? I'm sure even those under you pathetic command will not attempt that, even when armed to the teeth. You hear your likes say, "if the PA does not stop this or that..." One can only stop what s/he started. How can Arafat stop what he didn't start? The West bank, Gaza strip and East Jerusalem are Occupied territories under international law. You talk about violence. I agree to some extent it is not going to slove everything. Those kids are not going out of their way to throw stones. The triggy-happy zionist soldiers are coming to them. To thier homes. What does the world expect those kids to do? welcome the zionist killing machine with roses? Think again. Intifida or no intifad, Palestinians are dying every day, so they might as well die an honourable death. That is what 32 years of humiliation, torture and killing begeth. They just don't care anymore. What the heck do they have to lose anyway. It is not like things are changing for the better, peace or no peace.
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 04:32 am T-Girl (had shorten it, sorry) I am most definately NOT contemptuous of Somalis nor their "way of life." I would contest the assertion that Islam is their way of life. This is an exageration for sure. In my one year living there I NEVER, I say again NEVER, saw a single Somali pray. In my compound (embassy) we had a Mosque set up for the Somalis who worked there and the only people who ever used it were the Pakistanis. Maybe some Somalis did, but again I never saw it. I did see bars and brothels (not on the compound - OK there was a bar), but I never saw a praying Somali. I also saw plenty of Somalis wielding weapons, but never saw a single one carrying a Qur'an. When I was deployed to Desert Storm, you couldn't swing a dead cat without hitting a praying Saudi. Somalia wasn't even a faint replica of that. I also NEVER heard the call to prayer, and I lived a stones throw (OK, a little further than that) from the Wadajir Mosque. In Bosnia and Saudi, it woke me up every morning. Maybe the gunfire was drowning it out. Which brings me to my next assertion, I am certainly not contemptuous of Islam. I'm not Muslim, but I respect many of Islam's teachings and principals and regard Islam as a mainly positive influence in Somali social fabric. Am I inherently evil or just annoying. My friends assert number two, but I think it's a matter of perspective. But evil or annoying, it doesn't mean I'm wrong. And in this case I'm not. You ask what the Palestinians should do?? I'll tell you what. They should take a chapter out of Mahatma Ghandis book. They need to analyze the weakness of their oppressor. Israel is a regional superpower. It's military capability is unrivaled in the region. Couple this with the advantage of interior lines of communications and Uncle Sam riding shotgun and you have a military problem that a handful of Palestinians can't solve. Nor can the rest of the Arabs. But where do democracies (and Israeli is most assuredly a democracy) derive their strength from?? From the consent of those they govern. If the governed no longer give their consent to state policy, the state must alter its policy or the leaders of that state will find themselves unemployed. If you want to undermine the political will of the Israelis to oppress the Palestinians (and most assuredly they are oppressed) then you need to demonstrate that: a. The Palestinians don't want to kill all Jews. Nor do the Palestinians consider the Jews to be animals. Nor do they want to destroy the Jewish State. They want to live in Harmony, but harmony with equity. b. The Palestinians are wrongly oppressed. This means a media campaign in Israel (where it counts) that focusses on discriminatory practices which victimize Arabs. Jews know they exist, but you need to make the picture stark. One of the reasons mainstream Israelis accept the discrimination is fear of Palestinian intent. Go back to point a. Now how to generate the appropriate sympathy? Peaceful protest. I know you guys hate the idea of turning the other cheek, but imagine how powerful the image of a large group of disciplined Palestinians, moving to a checkpoint, stopping to pray, moving to disuputed sites, staging a peaceful sit in, inviting Jews to join them. How does Israel deal with that???? If you shoot them THAT will make the evening news in Israel. And soon, mainstream Israelis are going to say "Wait a minute, these people weren't rioting, they were just engaging in peaceful protest. There were even Jews with them. These people aren't a threat. What are we doing here?" When that happens, the government will lose its consent. The right will lose its momentum. The Israeli government will have to deal. Suddenly, making East Jerusalum the capitol of Palestine doesn't seem so unreasonable. Suddenly the notion that ALL Israeli citizens, regardless of ethnic background, be given equal protection under the law seems not only reasonable but a must. To get to the point where the Israelis people demand this of their government, the Palestinians must generate empathy. The rioters are failing to do that. Remember, you can be dead right. It all comes down to what the Palestinians want. Do they have concrete objectives they want to attain? If they do, they need to analyze the problem set and determine how they can achieve their objectives. Right now, the Israelis hold the military cards. This is not going to change in the near future. Trying to match the Israelis with force will not change Israeli policy and will not lead to a set of compromises better than what they got offered in Washington (which admitedly fell short).
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 08:45 am For once - Mad Mac- I agree with you! You are right- it is time to move from the emotional driven rally cries! Fight them from within. Sounds reasonable. Sounds like a good plan. But here is the problem- you are dealing with jews- a group of people that have the largest lobby in America. How can one beat an enemy that is invisible? An enemy that is more educated, more connected and dispersed throughout? What good came out of the 10 year peace talks? Don't forget the number of settlements were increasing as the Isrealis were conducting the so-called peace talks. Then when it is time to speak about "palestinian land" the response is: "but we have settlements there! " For Palestinians there is no way out of their dilemma..except to pick up the stone.....they have nothing to loose.
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 10:51 am Well, the problem with the peace talks (which you have to admit did do some good. Israelis have psychologically gone from no Palestinian state ever, to merely disputing the form it will take) is that while the talks were ongoing there was never any pressure on the Israeli government. At least no internal pressure, and that's the best kind. Peaceful protest, of the kind we saw in America in the 60s, is veryy effective in a country with an open media. The media LOVES this kind of story. And don't believe that "the Jews control the media" nonsense. The Media is no more monolithic than anything else. Sure, some Jews control media. And some Jews disagree with current Israeli government policy. The key for the Palestinians is to change some to most. And they can do it. Let's face it, when it comes to PR, the Arabs suck. They have a remarkable ability for turning even bleeding heart liberals into zionists. All they need to do is change methods. But to be honest, I doubt this will happen. It's just not the Arab way.
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 11:47 am <In my one year living there I NEVER, I say again NEVER, saw a single Somali pray.> Mad_Mac: I strongly doubt the bove. But, since you've been there atleast and I have never seen the place before or even after the war, then I can't really say anything. However, how about the Somalis outside of Somalia? Are you gonna pull the same notion in their case too? Whether they pray in public or private, Islaam is the way of life of Somalis, atleast to a very high degree. Sure, there are things that are in their culture that don't have roots in Islaam but look at them: from their everyday talk to the way they dress, thier values, morals, food, language, you name it and Islaam is there. But then again, what you are saying is typical of Westerners like yourself. You guys love to extrapolate things to all places and all times. Granted you were in Somalia, one part of Somalia I should emphasize. Have you travelled to other parts of the country? better yet, did you even leave the camp? Now, all of a sudden, you have the audicity to tell us Islam is not their way of life. You guys never cease to amaze me! By the way, I think I will accept your points of view about the mid-EAst conflict. After reading some things you said in other places, I was a bit supprised at what you wrote above. For now, I will hold my peace.
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 12:19 pm To Mad-Mac and Arrawelo I disagree with you both on this issue. The rather patronising Mahatmian concept forwarded by MM will not work in this conflict, and should not be tried by the Plaestinians. MM's argument seems to miss the bigger picture about this conflict. the West bank and Gaza are occuppied terrotries under all internationally recognised laws. Israel is an occupying force. Under the otherwise almost pacifist UN convention, all nations under colonial rule have the right to bear arms and take back what is theirs through armed struggle. This is exactly what the Palestinians are doing, and what countries like the US have done in the past. I also disagree with the suggestion that Palestinians should avoid violence since it may attract stronger Isreali reaction.This simply lacks historical perspective in armed strugle. Being the underdog in any armed struggle gives you an untold strength. MM should remember the VC in Nam, they were always the underdog, even when they were fighting the South 'Namese regime on its own. Such popular uprisings have a number of innate strengths. These include: You can choose the battles you want to fight: You fight when you want, where you want it. You tie up huge resources, military and economic at minimum cost to you. You slowly errode the morale of the enemy by keeping the conflict simmering and keeping your foe in constant low-level fear. This was effectively used in Lebanon. Every member of the IDF dreaded to be posted there. There is also a unique disadvantage to Isreal in this conflict. It lacks the strategic depth which the Palestinians have. Every death in Israel is semi-catastrophic to public morale, since the Jews rightly feel besieged by a potentially much bigger enemy, ie the Arabs. The P'tinians, of course have no such concerns. And now to the issue of under-age stone throwers which MM mentioned a number of times. Your moral outrage in this issue, while understandable, shows a degree of naivity. All major armed struggles, where nations felt threatened, involved the use of children. The Americans did during the War of independence and the civil war, the Soviets did it during the second world war. The shame in this lies with Israel, and the Palestinians know it. This highly developed and technologically advanced nation, should surely be using non-lethal means, like water cannon or foam or something against rioting civilians. Instead, the world sees one of the world's most powerful armies using automatic gun-fire against teenage kids throwing nothing more lethal than rocks. Lastly, Israel made a living out of playing David, while depicting it's enemies as Goliaths. The world can at last see it for what it is: a powerful nation who illegally occupies and oppresses a poor, weak nation. Palestinians should pursue their independence through every means possible, and this should certainly include using violence against Armed Israelis, be they the IDF, the Police or the armed settlers. They should also be prepared to negotiate with their enemy, as and when that enemy feels weak enough, or exhausted enough to negotiate real peace.
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 05:15 pm Galool...good to see ya awoow :-) How are you keeping up with Ramadhan?
|
| | Tuesday, November 28, 2000 - 10:36 pm Galool Well, I would agree with you if the assertion were simply that the Palestinians want the West Bank and Gaza. But their demands are justifiably more than that. East Jerusalum for one (which you can argue is on the west bank). And what of the Arab-Israeli citizens. Surely they too deserve all the rights granted to any other Israeli citizen. Violence begets violence. The Israelis have been under seige with a no-conession to violence mentality for 50 years. Also, remember that the right wing believes the Israel, including the West bank, was given to them by God and that the Palestinians are the old Phillistines - traditional enemies of sub-human value. The extremists in this group want to drive all of the Palestinians out of the West bank. And Israel certainly has the military capability to do that. So the perpetual use of violence could back-fire. The Palestinian-Israeli problem is difficult to equate with other conflicts because from the Israeli perspective they are not an occupying power. It is their land, given to them by God. While I concur that this is not a reasonable perspective, in conflict resolution you have to understand the mind-set of each faction if you want it to come to a conclusion. As I said earlier here, the Israelis have been fighting for 50 years. I think it's obvious they will continue to garner American support (I don't think this is just or wise, but it's the way it is), so the Palestinians have to work around those facts. Good to see you back on dude. T-Girl Well, I will agree with you on two points. Outside of Somalia i have seen and prayed with plenty of Somalis. I am sure that in private plenty do pray. I lived in Hamer and Wanle Weyne when I was in Somalia. I lived on a compound but I got off frequently. Neither Somali culture nor the people are foreign to me. You are correct that in dress, cuisine, and language there is strong Islamic influence. But that's where it stops. If you inferred from what I said previously that Islam is irrelevant to Somali culture, certainly that is not true and I did not intend to communicate that. I mean, look how many Somali women turned me down because I was gaal (of course that could have been an excuse. Maybe they just don't like short, white guys). Certainly Islam is an important aspect to Somali culture. But as for societal traditions and laws (when Somalia had them) Islam is not the sole defining factor. Like I said, when I was in Somalia there were bars, night clubs, brothels - it wasn't any different than being in Mombassa - except the violence of course. There was a lot more violence. When you say Islam is Somalis culture, I think you are overstating things a lot. Islam is a strong influence, but certainly not the only one.
|
| | Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 07:24 am Galool- the name is Caraweelo not Araweelo- that is someone else. Second, I think my sarcasm was lost on you. I am not advocating any "gandhi-type" uprising. Mad Mac- There once was a demonstration- DC Mall area- large gathering of Muslims and Non-Muslims against the events in Palestine- Wonder how many networs carried it- or even mentioned it? Also, the shooting of the young boy that was huddling behind his dad- it was carried repeatedly by TV outside the US- wonder how many US Networks showed the footage? US media is THEIR media.
|
| | Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 12:39 pm MM Good to hear from you too. I decided not to engage in religious arguments during Ramadan as I have no desire offending anyone in this holy month. However, this is a political debate (albeit one with religious connotations) so I am happy to express my views on it. It is true that the more radical Arabs want the whole of the country for themselves - a view mirrored in the other extreme. East Jerusalem was occupied in the Six-day war, and therefore is an occupied territory under international law. Israel will negotiate on this issue, and has already started to do so. I think there are only few mainly Latin-American countries who moved their embassies to Jerusalem in recognition of Isreal's preposterous claim that this holy city is the "indivisible" capital of the Jewish people. It is true that Israel is militarily capable to take over the whole of the West bank whenever it wishes to do so, but I don't believe it will be able to hold it for any substantial period. It will face a continuos and violent popular uprising. The Military is trained to seize territories and subdue armed foes, but they are not very good at containing unruly civilians. As we have witnessed over the last few months, even the best trained soldiers make lousy Policemen. Violence in any shape is distasteful, but it is justifiable when faced with occupation and oppression. The trick, for the P'tinians, is to realize when violence has served its course, and time comes to lay down the rocks and sit on the negotiating table. Carawelo: My apologies. Was it sarcasm? how did I miss that?(no sarcasm). Can you kindly use another username as Cara and arra sound very similar?
|
| | Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 01:24 pm Hi I am a 12 year old somali and can't find my home so can you fellow somali bros/sis help me pleeeez.O my god someone coming helllllllllllpppppppp pllleeeeeeez before I get attacked1
|
| | Wednesday, November 29, 2000 - 09:58 pm Caraweelo The kid getting shot made the news plenty. So did the three Israeli soldiers who were killed in the Police Station and thrown out the windows. OK, so a DC demonstration doesn't make the news (maybe local news). Of course not. It's not taking place in the disputed area and not being resisted with force. But how about a demonstration blocking the paths to the Israeli settlements? How about a demonstration by Israeli-Arabs around dispossessed property? Demonstrations that shut down Israeli infratructure the Israelis can't ignore. It will be carried by the media because it's news. And if they respond in a heavy handed way you get plenty of good footage. Get this idea that the news media is controlled by anyone out of your head. The media in the US is anarchic. There are rightest publications, leftist publications, center publications, unaffiliated publications. They all sharre one thiing in common. They want to make money. If it's juicy news it makes headlines. The reason the Arabs have not been able to positively manipulate the media isn't because it's controlled by the Jews, it's because they have a bad habit of deliberately killing women and children and rioting. These activities don't garner sympathy. Remember, all the women and children that the Israelis kill are usually actively engaged in riots - this doesn't garner much sympathy, regardless of the reason. On the other hand, if a terrorist kills a bunch of kids, it makes the Arabs (and in a larger view Muslims) look like animals. Understand the dynamic going on here? The Arabs are simply doing a poor job advertising their position and developing empathy for it.
|
| | Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 12:21 am Salaam 'alukum to my muslim sis/bro Caraweelo; Thanks sis, that you rised a question of why local or even national channels did not covering the event, since US media is THEIR media, !!! and I bring the proof......... check it out from the new thread I called " Who rules America"
|
| | Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 12:31 am I couldn't find your new thread. Is it on the Islam page or somewhere else?
|
| | Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 02:34 am I hope you got it already by this time. Didn't know you can't wait to see it. Enjoy it and reflect it not just receive it.
|
| | Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 05:21 am Mad Mac- Your bias tone is truly incredible! Your assertion: "... all the women and children that the Israelis kill are usually actively engaged in riots" - is LUDICRIOUS! So were those who were killed by Isreali missiles, in their homes or in the markets "engaged in riots"? How about the young men who were shot in cold blood as they drove there car near a check point? Were they "engaged in riots"? Let me ask you a question: How come when the media reports on those that died during the current intifada, they continuously state it as "many of whom are palestinians"- but when an isreali soldier or two are killed- we get to hear their names and history. This is an age-old tactic- dehumanize the enemy and his death is meaningless. If you truly believe that networks in the US are unbiased than you are exteremly naive. Visit this link for personal stories of those who are suffering under Isreali occupation. http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/middle_east/2000/voices_of_conflict/default.stm If the US Networks will not put a human face on these innocent victims- as a fellow human being- it is your duty to seek the truth- before you make sweeping condemnations. Galool- walaal- maxaan sameeya haddu magacayga truly yahay Caraweelo- should I change it for you? :-)
|
| | Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 08:08 am "Living among the headlines I cringed at the photo of the Palestinian man protecting his son from Israeli bullets. Then I realized he used to work for me. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Helen Schary Motro Oct. 7, 2000 | KFAR SHMARIAHU, Israel -- This week's photo has been burned into the world's consciousness beside the Vietnamese girl aflame with napalm, the Oklahoma City firefighter carrying the dead baby after the federal building explosion, the boy with raised hands in the Warsaw ghetto. Little did I think when I saw the picture that this anonymous man was far from anonymous to me. Jamal al-Dirrah and 12-year-old Mohammed were cowering against a wall in Gaza, seeking shelter from the rain of gunshots between Palestinian police and Israeli soldiers, the terrified boy screaming in the crook of his father's arm. Moments later, the boy slumped dead and his father lay wounded with eight bullets in his body. I knew a Palestinian named Jamal. I sat in my garden looking at the wall he'd built for me when a team of Palestinians had helped build my Israeli house at the height of the intifada. His first son, I recalled, was born 12 years ago, shortly after my daughter. I thought how easily the anonymous victim might have been the Jamal I knew, with whom I'd had an uneasy relationship that tentatively grew into something else. Then I read in the newspaper that the dead boy's father, 37 years old, was a house painter from Gaza who worked for Israelis in the suburbs north of Tel Aviv. The same first name, the same job in the same area, the same general age. Too many coincidences. I studied the photo more closely. What if? It was too blurry to see, the man's head turned away. To put my suspicions to rest I telephoned Moshe Tamam, the Israeli contractor for whom Jamal works. "Tell me, Moshe, the man in the hospital, that's not our Jamal?" But the contractor told me the news I didn't want to hear. I telephoned the hospital in Amman, Jordan, where Jamal had gone for surgery, and I was able to reach him. "A crime!" said Jamal. "Forty-five minutes firing without stop. And I cried, 'My son! My son! My son!' but nobody listened. Now he is dead and I am half finished. To shoot at a boy; it's a crime." Jamal began to cry. There was commotion in the background, people talking in Arabic, and somebody hung up the telephone. In the Middle East, I have often observed, people live their lives maneuvering between the headlines. This week our Jamal became a headline. Jamal was angry and proud, and wouldn't drink my coffee. It was the height of the grass-roots Palestinian uprising, the intifada, when I first met Jamal. In 1988 my husband and I hired a contractor to renovate an old house we had just bought in Tel Aviv's suburbs. Jamal stood apart from the other Palestinian workers. In his 20s, he was angrier, prouder, with a resentment more palpable. We were never really introduced. I just learned his first name over time, and he learned mine. Tall, thin and glowering, Jamal spat out his words in low monosyllables. He accepted begrudgingly, without a smile, the cold drinks in paper cups I brought out to the team of workers. But he would never drink my coffee. Shaking his head dismissively and clicking his tongue, he would pad silently to the periphery of my unfinished patio, crouch down on his heels, extract a crumpled nylon bag from his jacket pocket and shake some dark granules into a glass cup to brew his own strong coffee over a little portable gas heater. The other workers in the crew -- Nasser, Abed and Yusuf -- were unobtrusive. They bent down in my garden to pray, facing east. I wondered whether they knew about the old mosque atop a seaside cliff at the beach nearby, the mosque where a muezzin no longer calls. As the workers arrived each morning, the radio reported the injured of the day before -- Israeli soldiers wounded by hurled rocks, Palestinians shot, the tear gas fired, the order from army headquarters to break protesters' limbs, the latest death toll. It was a dark and hateful time. Still the workers came to my house day in and day out, plastering, setting tiles, installing plumbing. They arrived at dawn, worked quietly, kept their heads down. They considered themselves the lucky ones, the ones with steady work. But when terrorist bombings heated up inside the country, Israel retaliated by sealing off the borders, allowing nobody from the territories occupied by Israel to work inside Israel proper. Sometimes weeks would go by while the men sat in enforced idleness inside Gaza. Then suddenly the order would be rescinded, and construction on my home would start anew. Part of Jamal's job involved putting up a garden wall. I was walking next to the newly finished wall when something close to the base caught my eye. I bent down to look closer. "Jamal - 1988" I saw, inscribed in looping English script letters, the handwriting of a foreign schoolboy. The cement was already dry. Indignant, I went straight to the contractor and insisted a new layer be spread over the offensive signature. It was my house after all, not a public sidewalk. If anybody had a right to make graffiti, it was me. The next morning the signature had been obliterated, large circles of new gray cement in benign swirls over the words. The new spot dried a different shade of gray than the surrounding wall, and for a few years it was visible if you knew what you were looking for. But with time that difference has faded, and it became hard to discern the place where Jamal had tried to leave his mark. During the period we were building, my third baby was born. Jamal's wife was expecting their first child. When I offered my no longer needed maternity clothes, he nodded his head ever so slightly. I packed up a big bundle. I especially liked my navy wool jumper with red piping. The next day I looked until I found Jamal, and happily presented him with the bag. He took it with averted eyes. Months later I found the bag, still full, stuffed into a crevice in an old repainted cupboard, my navy dress in a wrinkled ball. Then my house was finished and the workers went away. The years went by, tumultuous ones in Israel. The 1991 Gulf War brought acute fear, then two years later the Oslo accords afforded the first ray of hope for coexistence. When Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by a Jewish extremist, things seemed to go back to square one. There was a series of terrorist bombings inside Israel in which hundreds of civilians were killed. In their wake hard-line Benjamin Netanyahu was swept into office. But in the meantime, people living in the Middle East continued to lead their private lives, maneuvering between the headlines. A couple of years ago, I hired the same contractor to repaint my house. I saw there was a new foreman. He came up my steps limping slightly, thin and wiry, reminding me of the physique of Ahknaton, the elongated Egyptian emperor. When he got close, I saw it was someone I knew. Through the graying hair and bony cheeks I recognized Jamal. He smiled, and I did too. There was something of old friends in our greeting. I could read in his eyes that I'd gotten older too. I supposed Jamal's traumas had been much worse than mine, and yet here he was again, after all those years. Years of arising from bed at 3:30 a.m., to take the bus at 4 to the border crossing, and then board a second bus an hour later out of Gaza to start work at 6 a.m. Was it this backbreaking cycle of physical labor that made the 35-year-old man look like he was 50? Yet he was smiling. I say we greeted as friends, but I know this is not the deep truth. Even beyond the economic inequality, I could never look at him without "the conflict" on my mind. His Arabness and my Jewishness hung in the air. I wondered what I could represent for Jamal, in my big house, transplanted to this soil of my own will from another place. I still brought coffee out to the workers in the morning. This time Jamal looked happy to get it. "But I hope this is real coffee -- not Jewish Nescafé!" he would laugh. In his surrender to reality Jamal had kept both his spunk and his dignity. Jamal and I conversed in Hebrew, neither his native tongue nor mine. On Fridays when he went home to catch the earlier weekend transport bus, Jamal would call out over his shoulder, "A peaceful Sabbath!" Although I couldn't see it, I could feel him grinning. After the first coat of paint went on, and the workers needed to let it dry, there was still time before the bus came to pick them up. So the boss suggested I ask Jamal to do small jobs around the house. I ran to get out my university diplomas from a drawer. Jamal studied the gothic lettering on one for a long time. "It says New York University, right?" he asked finally, his voice serious and hushed. I nodded yes, flinching a little at the memory of his proud, painstaking English graffiti, which I had ordered covered up. Jamal hung the diplomas in my study with exquisite care. There was still time before the bus. I remembered an old reproduction of Renoir's "Girl With a Watering Can" hanging in my youngest daughter's room. It had been my own as a child and was passed on like a talisman to each of my three daughters. By now the wooden frame had fallen apart at the hinges. I asked Jamal if he could patch it up somehow. He nodded. "Do you have any masking tape?" I foraged in the storage room and came back with a jumbo roll. "Here take this -- it's left over from the Gulf War! Remember when we had to tape up our windows and doors against gas?" "Allah protect us!" Jamal called with a laugh, holding up the roll. "Imagine how silly we were to think this sticky paper could save our lives. Believe me," he went on, "in my house we never taped the windows or the doors. I told my wife, 'If God wants to kill us, he will, and if he wants to save us, he will.' I never put on any gas mask in the war. Never again! Let that be Allah's will," said Jamal. An hour later he appeared at my study door. In his hands he held Renoir's "Girl With a Watering Can" -- in a new frame, I thought. Looking closer I saw I was mistaken - it was the original frame bought halfway across the world at the Metropolitan Museum decades before. He hadn't used any of the tape at all. Jamal had repaired it by knocking in dozens of tiny nails perfectly lined up all around the edge. Then, somehow, he had polished the wood to make the black lacquer shine like new. I asked Jamal how many children he has now. "Six," he told me proudly. "Four sons, two girls." This time he didn't hesitate to accept my old clothes and toys, though I hesitated to offer them. I had learned enough not to hand them to him anymore. Now I left the bags in the garden, next to the lamppost where he left his rolled-up jacket when he came to work. I wished I could help Jamal. I wanted his kids to get enough schooling to read the lettering on their own diplomas. But he was a victim of circumstances larger than both of us, I rationalized weakly. So I didn't do much of anything. I just stuffed shopping bags full of old sweaters with fuzz balls, men's jackets that had gone out of style, toys my children had gotten tired of and scuffed boots they had outgrown. Jamal took them all. I watched his thin frame receding and saw his limp as he walked down the garden steps. The sinews in his long arms moved as he carried the bulging nylon shopping bags with Hebrew writing down toward the boss's pickup, in a rush to make the afternoon ride back to Gaza. The fresh white paint covering Jamal's wall gleamed in the sun. From the western horizon over the beach the afternoon rays shone on the bronze crescent atop the seaside mosque before reflecting in the glass of my windowpanes. Was Jamal watching the fading sunlight too, through the dusty window of his bus? I wondered whether Jamal would be back when it came time to paint again. Would his hair be all gray then? Would his four sons be old enough to throw stones, or will the time of stone-throwing have passed? "I am a man of peace" My daughter is 12, like Jamal's boy was. Mohammed loved to swim in the sea; my daughter is on a swim team. Mohammed was good in English -- I know he took after his father. My daughter walks to school beside cypress trees, amid bougainvillea. Her pet dog waits impatiently for her to come home. Mohammed had pet birds. But had he lived to be a grandfather, it's unlikely he and my daughter ever would have met. Right after Jamal was wounded, Moshe Tamam, the contractor who employed him, said he had tried to get Jamal transferred from Gaza into a big Israeli hospital. He offered to pay for all the expenses, Moshe said, but the Palestinian Authority hadn't allowed it. Jamal had worked for him for 20 years, since he was 14 years old. "These people are born in hatred, raised in hatred, " Moshe told me. "They return home from working in big houses to their shacks without even sewage. Jamal is a terrific man. He slept in my own home many times. He is a wonderful worker, and I know that I can leave him alone in any customer's house and there will be no theft, no vandalism, no breakage." Israel radio reported that Jamal also said that Moshe had offered to send him to an Israeli hospital and pay for it, but that he preferred to be treated in the Arab world. Everything in the Middle East has two stories. When I reached him by telephone, in Amman, Jamal called his boss, Moshe, a "brother." "I hope to be healthy again, but back to work I don't think I will ever be able to go," he told me. I asked Jamal what does he wish for his remaining children. "My children? To grow as all the children in the world." I heard his voice break. "That they will be surrounded by all good things and nothing bad, nothing bad." Not a week had passed since his boy was killed. And yet when the reporter from Israel radio asked him if his attitude toward Israelis changed forever in those terrible moments beside the wall in Gaza, Jamal said, "I am a man of peace. We two peoples must live together. There is no other possibility. There is no other possibility." salon.com | Oct. 7, 2000 - - - - - - - - - - - - About the writer Helen Schary Motro, an American lawyer and writer living in Israel, is a columnist for the Jerusalem Post. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2000/10/07/jamal/index.html The children's war Palestinian mothers talk about the pride and anguish they feel as their sons fight and die. - - - - - - - - - - - - By Flore de Préneuf Oct. 17, 2000 | JERUSALEM -- Najah il-Khatib, in a traditional Palestinian dress covered with golden embroidery, stands by the hospital bed of her wounded son, Zahran, 15. Her face, framed by the white lace of an Islamic veil, exudes calm and pride. Zahran, who winces with pain as his mother speaks, did the right thing, according to Khatib, when he ran out of the house at lunchtime, threw stones at Israeli soldiers and got shot in the chest. "I am honored that my son got shot in a demonstration," says Khatib, caressing Zahran's curly brown hair. Doctors say Zahran's life was spared only because the high-velocity bullet fired by an Israeli soldier hit a rock before penetrating his chest and abdomen. Zahran's aunt, a stern figure sitting on the other side of the bed, seems to regret this stroke of luck, having hoped that the boy might become a martyr. "Three days before the demonstration, Zahran was asking to die for [Palestinian] liberation," she points out. "We can't live like this any longer. Either we set ourselves free or we die trying." In the violent clashes that have pitted Palestinian stone-throwers and scattered gunmen against well-armed Israeli soldiers and settlers for the past two and a half weeks, more than 100 people -- most of them Palestinian -- have been killed. Of those killed, 30 were children. According to UNICEF, children also make up a third of the more than 3,500 people wounded so far. Are Palestinian children dying because their mothers are prepared to put their children's lives on the line? "They are our children but they're also Palestinian," says Khatib, 42, the wife of a construction worker and the mother of 10. "They're here for this particular reason, to defend the land. "God gives them, God takes them," she adds with a bittersweet smile. From the Israeli point of view, Khatib's seemingly detached attitude is typical of all Palestinian mothers -- and is shocking in its apparent coldness. Stories circulate here about Palestinian families literally selling their children to the cause: Rumors say Palestinian parents receive hundreds of dollars from Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to send their sons into the street to throw stones -- and thousands of dollars if they die. The stories are not based on any evidence, but the pernicious, racist message is there: Palestinians love their children less, therefore they are less human than Israelis. By contrast, the Israelis see themselves as much more sensitive to the deaths of their children. In particular, Jewish mothers loom large in the collective imagination as tenderhearted women whose grief is a centerpiece in the national drama of soldiers' funerals. When the Israeli army finally pulled out of southern Lebanon in May, the retreat was described in the media as a victory of Israeli mothers who had become less and less tolerant of the loss of their sons' lives. When the world's televisions showed images of Mohammed al-Dirrah, a 12-year-old Palestinian from Gaza caught in a heavy exchange of gunfire and shot to death by Israeli soldiers under his father's helpless eyes, international public opinion registered a surge of sympathy for the Palestinians. In Israel, however, the blame was placed squarely on Mohammed's parents. "The father should have lain down on his boy to protect him," criticized a left-wing Israeli acquaintance, before concluding: "Arabs do not attach the same importance to human life [as Westerners do]." "There's a child! Don't shoot!" The Israeli media reported that Mohammed and his father, Jamal, were at the dangerous Netzarim Junction in Gaza specifically to throw stones at Israeli soldiers when the army outpost was being attacked by Palestinian snipers. Palestinian media said that the two were caught in the crossfire after running an errand. The TV footage, which shows the father waving his hands and shouting "There's a child! Don't shoot!" while trying to protect his son with his arm and back, would suggest that Jamal was extremely worried about Mohammed, but ultimately unable to save his life. In a public statement, the Israel Defense Forces expressed sorrow at the child's death but emphasized that "the Palestinians make cynical use of children's lives by sending them to throw stones under the cover of Palestinian fire that endangers their lives." Yet, in talking to the Palestinian mothers whose sons risk death in the streets as the grim conflict grinds on, a different picture emerges: not of coldness, but of love -- mixed with belligerent despair. Khatib is a good example of those mixed feelings. When her son Zahran ran out to join the riots in Hizma, a small village outside Jerusalem, Khatib's first instinct was to run after him. "I tried to catch him because I knew something would happen, but I was too late. Next thing I heard, he was wounded," she says. At the same time, she says, "I have no problem with him going out to demonstrate. If I could, I would go too." Women have played a relatively small part in the current round of violence, in contrast with the days of the first intifada, the Palestinian uprising that rocked the West Bank and Gaza between 1987 and 1993. Women then were a staple of mass demonstrations against Israeli occupation. A woman and an 18-month-old girl are the only female casualties so far in the current conflict. Here and there, young Palestinian women run with buckets of stones to help the boys on the "front line" or distribute masks and onions to try to fight off the effects of tear gas. But by and large, the riots have been an all-male affair. The reasons are mainly cultural: First, because lethal weapons are being used on both sides, the riots are considered unsafe for women. Secondly, unlike in the past intifada, in which protests spread from street to street involving anyone who happened to walk by, the areas of confrontation between Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians have been more limited this time. Indeed in the past seven years, Israeli troops have withdrawn from the heart of most Palestinian cities. Israeli soldiers are posted on the outskirts of town where "proper" women have no business going in times of war. The resurgence of Islam, which frowns on mixed male and female gatherings, also is a factor. Khatib, an observant Muslim, says she would never allow her daughters to go out and riot "because they are girls." Women, however, are "the unknown soldiers, the ones holding the fort in every Palestinian household," wrote Muna Muhaisen, a Palestinian-American journalist, who has been keeping a war diary since the violence erupted two weeks ago. "They're the ones calming their kids and tending to them while keeping their eyes glued on their TV screens. I don't know a single woman in Dheisheh [a Palestinian refugee camp in the West Bank] who isn't closely following every single development. Even my 77-year-old mother-in-law sits in her room with the radio close to her ear." A gynecologist who sees many Palestinian women in clinics around the West Bank says her patients are under huge stress these days: "Having a child is not easy, so losing one is awful," says Dr. Ghada Shomali. "I can't tell him not to participate in demonstrations" Shomali hasn't seen Amir, her 19-year-old son, in days, because a tight Israeli military siege is barring the short road between Jerusalem, where Amir studies, and Bethlehem, where the family lives. "I can't tell him not to participate in the demonstrations," she says. "One, because he wouldn't listen. Two, because it's his right to protest. This isn't a life we have. You can't just sit there and say 'I want life to be better and the occupation to end.' It will never end that way. All I ask is for Amir to call once a day to tell me he's alive." Many women are torn between their nationalism and their motherly instincts. Khatib wished Zahran safe at home the day he was shot, but also believed he was old enough to fight. "When Israeli soldiers attack the village, they don't make any distinctions between 15-year-olds and 25-year-olds," she says. "They will shoot to kill no matter what the boy's age is. We have to protect our village no matter what the price is. If we want to complain, we complain to God. This is our destiny." Yet, one floor below Khatib in the same Jerusalem hospital, a mother sitting with her 13-year-old boy in an intensive care unit feels differently. Her son Mohammed, who is hooked to a respirator, has been paralyzed on his right side since a rubber-coated metal bullet fired by Israeli police penetrated his skull. Mariam Jodah, 34, still can't believe her son escaped her watchful gaze, slipped out of the house on Oct. 6 and joined the Friday prayers at al-Aksa mosque in Jerusalem. The day had been declared a "day of rage" by Muslim clerics and radical Islamic groups. Violence was foretold and she had strictly forbidden her son from taking part in it. Mohammed, who looks much younger than his age, went to the mosque with an older cousin, probably out of curiosity. "It's a fun trip to go down to al-Aksa mosque and see things along the way," Jodah explains. A Norwegian news correspondent who was at the mosque at the time Mohammed was wounded said the police first shot in the air to disperse rioters, but Mohammed, who could not run fast enough, trailed behind and was shot in the head. "I want to ask what harm a kid Mohammed's age can cause a well-armed soldier? Their aim is to kill young children. It's not the children's destiny. It's the way soldiers act in demonstrations. Sometimes I think God chose him," says Jodah, her small face knit with sorrow under a Muslim veil. "But I don't think it was Mohammed's destiny to end up like this." "I think Israel offered him to God. [His mother] didn't offer him herself," suggests Raeda, a nurse at the unusually busy hospital. Dozens of human rights groups, as well as the United Nations, have condemned Israel for excessive use of force in dealing with the riots. One of the key issues at the regional summit hosted in Egypt and mediated by the United States on Monday is the Palestinian demand for an international investigative commission that would look into the methods used by Israeli forces to put down civilian protests. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, however, is opposed. Israel blames incendiary broadcasts on Palestinian television and radio, which call day and night for people to give their blood to fight the Israeli occupation or simply "kill Jews," for the feverish violence on the streets. Israelis also accuse the Palestinians of using child warriors to win support in the international media by forcing Israel to pour innocent blood. One Israeli journalist quoted Israel's late Prime Minister Golda Meir as saying in 1972: "We can forgive the Arabs for killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children." Certainly Jodah did not force Israeli troops to paralyze her son. And even Khatib, in her own way, would rather her son, now in 10th grade, lead a healthy, happy life. Neither woman says she feels she has had the freedom to shelter her children. Still they maintain completely different points of view about whether their sons should have been on the street. Their philosophical differences refute the generalizations applied to Palestinian mothers, who, like everyone in the conflict, are individuals with distinct feelings. "The question should be: 'What's the alternative?' When you're struggling for liberation, you fight with what you have -- and we have nothing else but ourselves," argues Muhaisen. "If it weren't the sons going in the streets, it would be the daughters; if not the daughters, then the mothers." Appetite for destruction Ehud Barak's ultimatum passes and violence continues to mount between Israelis and Palestinians Editor's note: This story has been updated to reflect events that took place after its posting Monday. The Day of Atonement, when, according to Jewish tradition, God seals the fate of every person for the coming year, coincided with the last hours of a deadline set by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak for Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to quell the Palestinian uprising or bear the brunt of full-fledged Israeli force. On the most solemn day in the Jewish calendar -- when people are supposed to fast, say prayers, stop driving and turn off their TVs -- the cacophony of police cars, ambulances and helicopters disturbed the peace. Clashes between Palestinians, Israeli security forces and Israeli settlers raged on in the West Bank and Gaza. And Jewish residents of Upper Nazareth, the town of Jesus' youth, went on an anti-Arab rampage that resulted in the deaths of two Israeli Arabs. An Israeli settler and yeshiva student, Hillel Lieberman, whose family claims he was the second cousin of Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman, was found dead in a cave near the Palestinian town of Nablus. He had been shot five times. And in Ramallah, Palestinians claimed Jewish settlers brutally tortured and killed 36-year-old farmer Issam Hamad. The killings brought the toll of 12 days of violence to 89 deaths. Intense rounds of high-level diplomatic activity by the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations are now under way to prevent the clashes from spiraling into a full-blown regional war. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan flew in Monday to meet with Arafat and Barak in a last-minute attempt to defuse the situation. "Time is short, the stakes are high and the price of failure is more than any of us can afford," Annan told reporters gathered at a press conference in Tel Aviv. As Barak's deadline lapsed Monday night, bringing no notable change on the streets, it became clear that the fate of the Middle East would still be turbulent for some time -- a fact not lost on the Israeli prime minister. Following a cabinet meeting that lasted well into the night, Barak announced that the ultimatum he issued would be prolonged by "a few more days" while officials pursue diplomatic solutions. The decision drew intense criticism from the right. But the chances of resuming substantive peace negotiations in the near future appear slim as the mood on both the Israeli and Palestinian sides becomes more stridently bellicose by the hour. "Many of us once again believe that everyone is against us, that the last straw has been broken, that all attempts are futile and that only force is left," wrote Hemi Shalev in the Israeli newspaper Maariv. "Many are once again convinced that violence is the only language understood by all," Shalev wrote. Blamed for igniting an explosive situation through unnecessary provocation, Israelis have felt besieged from the start of the Palestinian uprising. On Saturday, the United Nations Security Council nearly unanimously condemned Israel for "the excessive use of force against Palestinians" in dealing with the riots (the United States abstained from the vote). But the U.N. resolution only added to what Israelis perceive as a worldwide pro-Palestinian bias that is throwing the Jewish state back to the days of international isolation. One media mishap in particular has reinforced this belief. A caption on a widely distributed Associated Press photograph last week incorrectly identified a bloodied teenager as the victim of Israeli police brutality when, in fact, Tuvia Grossman, a Jewish student from Chicago, had just been dragged out of his taxi and badly beaten by a Palestinian mob. The mistake was unintentional -- committed by a harried Israeli employee -- but it was read by Israelis as proof of the media's one-sided view of the clashes between Israelis and Palestinians. "They don't let Jewish people be strong," said Dan Ravital, a computer analyst who prayed on Yom Kippur at the Western Wall for the improvement of Israel's world image. "They prefer the image of the Holocaust, of the Jews standing like this against a rifle," he said, raising his arms in a posture of surrender. "I want the world to understand us. We were attacked -- we protect ourselves," Ravital said. Mob scenes and vigilante justice http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/tues/2000/10/17/palestinian_women/index.html "An Israeli settler and yeshiva student, Hillel Lieberman, whose family claims he was the second cousin of Democratic vice-presidential candidate Sen. Joseph Lieberman, was found dead in a cave near the Palestinian town of Nablus. He had been shot five times. And in Ramallah, Palestinians claimed Jewish settlers brutally tortured and killed 36-year-old farmer Issam Hamad. The killings brought the toll of 12 days of violence to 89 deaths."
|
| | Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 09:04 am Rahamdhan Kareem
|
| | Thursday, November 30, 2000 - 10:09 pm Caraweelo I am not making sweeping condemnations. And I have yet to hear the name in mass media of a single person killed there except that kid, and I don't remember his name anymore. OK, admitedly in the missile attacks there was some collateral damage. And I believe a couple of cars have been lit up as well. But most of the people shot in the intifada were rioting. You know it and so do I. I mean, some innocent Israelis (like that chick caught shot in her car) have been killed too. But most of the Israelis killed in this uprising were killed on the line. I don't deny a certain element of bias (I mentioned that already). The media here follows the general trend of the public opinion. But you are denying the fact that the Palestinians couldn't sell a vacation to Florida to a bunch of Eskimos. They SUCK at PR. That's the bottom line. And their actions are not the kind of actions that are likely to garner much sympathy in the western world. I don't deny they are oppressed and have gotten the shaft. But if they want to turn the tables they had better stop rioting. Look who's about to become Prime Minister again - that old Palestinian Friend Netanyahu. He's ready to make some concessions. Actually he's ready to just go out and kill all of the Palestinians. And who brought him to power??? The Palestinians - that's the real funny part here.
|
| | Friday, December 01, 2000 - 06:54 am Mad Mac- I agree with your point re: the PR. But my question to you- Is it Arab PR that "sucks" or is it the Zionist Networks that are making Arabs poor at PR? the egg or the chicken?
|
| | Saturday, December 02, 2000 - 08:22 am Caraweelo Look, the "Zionists" do not own all networks in the western world. As I said, Jewish ownership of certain mass media outlets doesn't help the Palestinians, but they're their own worst enemies. If the Arabs were able to think this through, they would buy their own media outlet to get their side of the story out. But the problem is, this won't work so long as Palestinians riot. Because western countries are never going to be sympathetic to rioters regardless of why they are rioting. So, first the Arabs have to adjust their tactics, the advertising their issues will work.
|
| | Saturday, December 02, 2000 - 09:53 am I don't think the Palestinians are waiting for sympathy from the Western world anymore. The "rioting" is good for them as long as it is disrupting the zionist system. Though the gain is slow and painfull at times the impact of the riots is undeniable. As long as the intifida continues, tourism, foreign investment, and the general economy of the zionist state will continue to be affected. The intifida seems to be the Palestinians best weapon so far. Time Warner, the parent company of CNN also owns Time Magazine , Entertainment weekly, Fortune, Peoples, Sports Illustrated, to name a few. I wonder if the coverage of the Mid-East conflict in any of this media is objectional (and objectionality does not mean neutrality). To me looks something like this: Use images and terminologies in the media to portray Palestinians/Arabs and Muslims in general as the devils. Manipulate facts to influence public opinion, thus maitain the status quo. Isn't this what the Nazis did to the Jews before the holocaust?
|
| | Saturday, December 02, 2000 - 11:59 pm T-Girl First of all, how can you say peaceful protest wouldn'T work, they've never tried it. They've been using the violence method for over 50 years!!! And what's it gotten them? Israel keeps getting bigger!!! Now, remember, there is a group of conservative Israelis that believe the West Bank is the former Judea and Samaria (they are correct on this count). Therefore, in their minds God gave them that land and they have every right to eject the Palestinians (this is completely absurd). This faction must never be a in a position to dictate Israeli policy or we will see literally hundreds of thousands of dead Palestinians. That would certainly earn the worlds approbation, but we wouldn't be able to reverse the event with a nuclear armed Israeli state. Rioting and attacking the Israelis pushes the rightests into positions of power and pushes the more liberals out. There could be an extreme backlash to the course of action you propose and it's not going to get anywhere. Now Barak has been forced to call for a new election. Likud is going to win it. This can not be good for the Palestinians. Likud will let the Israeli people eat strw if it can put the heat on the Palestinians. They won't stay in power if they do that, but they can certainly take more land and kill a lot of Palestinians in while they are in power.
|
| | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 01:04 am MM, Is the next step, they should claim the pyraminds since literally they (Jews) were the ones who built it.I wonder what Husni Moubarak will say!It will be Fun seeing 6th of October again, don't u think so :-)
|
| | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 04:05 am Or that they should claim Argentina.. or the Congo seeing as Balfour thought it was a good idea. chuckle chuckle Mad Mac.. your logic..all of it, ever single thought process, analogy, arguement, point of view is based on the premise that the muslims should stop beliveing in the Quran.. You are so determined in this offeniive "jihad" of yours . The stupid thing is even if we did, you wouldn't accept us as I have mentioned..you expect us to exchange honour for dignity, which you will never bestow upon us becasue we are muslim. The Staunchly secular Turkey, can't even join your crew.. and the President laments "its becasue we are muslim and they won't say so" So why.. when we don't want to, you don't really want us anyway shall we stop beliveing in the Quran?. would this not then be only a self defeating exercise for ourselves, in which we sink lower into the depravity were we exsit in our current szitcophernic roles, in which we belive in the Quran but do not act accordingly Lets cut to the chase MM, for all your flowering, and delicatly placed, "reasoned" rational approach, essentially your mission here is to stop people beliving in the Quran. Therefore how can you assume any other postion than that of a missionary?. Of course you claim a love for Somali culture, which you demostrate eagerly, but didn't the missionaries always tell us how great we are compared to the others, how somalis are so beuatiful with their long soft hair, straight noses and how wonderful we are becasue we resemble the european. Can you explain what disingiushes you from a Missionary?. Apart form your "poorly equiped" knowledge of the langauge, which would make you a particulary bad missionary. Every one of your statements is a attack on Islam.A urgent stifled attack on Islam. You are not concerned with Somali culture, but on the engineering of a new Somali culture. Enter your friend...some would argue alter ego, to argue that Somalis have never been a Islamic people, and that we are dumb Africans, having to deal with another conquering people, and the burden of a Triple heritage. Funny how this charge is never ascribed to Iranians. Is it not racist. You assert in your travels,that you cannot swing a cat for for people praying in the Gulf, yet you swing mutliple cats here, attempting to undermine our faith. what say you to these charges?. Why do you resemble a missionary so much, if you are a innocent little somali lover. Somalis! should we not be offended by such treatment?.
|
| | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 07:40 am Salam all. Common First of all, you could not be further wrong in your assessment. I do not think Muslims should stop believing in the Qur'an. Peaceful protest is not giving away your dignity. No one had more dignity, no one has earned more respect, then Mahatma Ghandi. You can't acknowledge that just because he's a Hindu. The fact is, it is YOU who does can not respect others beliefs. This discussion is not about religion, nor is the conflict. But the peoples of Israel and the surrounding Arab countries are way to stupid to figure that out. Now, let's assume your premise is correct. Do you know how many Somalis have tried to convince me to give up Macsim and become a Muslim? Trust me, the list is long. And there's nothing wrong with that. I am not offended when they try and do so. However, in my case, I am not a deeply spiritual man. Frankly, I don't care if people want to worship cows or Monkeys or stars or whatever. Religious beliefs of others, while I am interested in what people think, I have no desire to change their opinions. I don't think the Palestinians are morons because they're Muslims, I think they're morons because they act like morons. Allahu Ahkbar. Have a happy Ramadan. Idea Well, give it a few more wars and we'll see what else the Israelis can conqueor. The moronic Arabs have certainly gone out of their way to give the Israelis excuses to expand. Got to admit, they have a talent there. Only recently have they begun to figure this out and adjust their courses of action - which has caused their less than astute populations to charge them with being un-Islamic - as if this had anything to do with Islam.
|
| | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 11:19 am MM, To tell you the truth, I really don't know who is the moran here. The Arabs! The Jews! The Americans! But I am enjoying the Trio's comedia,n so the rest of the world. But if i were you,I would have started my trip to Japan or even Africa before they stop accepting American Refugees! The FLA civil warfare, is really music to my ears buddy. And believe or not whatever the outcome is, is the begining of the Big Fall. Rome Fell, why not DC :-) "Allahu ahkbar" Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar, Allahu Akbar.
|
| | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 11:45 am Idea There will not be a civil war due to this election. BUT, if it makes you feel better, certainly America will not remain a superpower indefinately. History demands a transition at some point to some other state. But I suspect it won't be rapid or dramatic, but a gradual shift. And it's better that way. Rapid power shifts often result in chaos and anarchy and lots of death. The US producers a great deal of the worlds food and a great deal of the worlds goods. If the US economy collapsed it would trgger a world-wide crises. Remember how the US depression effected the global economy in the 30s? Better for all concerned if this transition is gradual. Believe it or not, many Americans would rather the US were not so involved in global afairs and simply concentrated on improving things at home. I definately believe we are over-committed and too intrusive in the internal affairs of other states and would like to see us back off a bit. Particularly when it comes to the Middle East.
|
| | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 04:17 pm MM, My friend, I don't care whether America remains superpower for ever or not. I am just an observer. The crisis of the 30s is mainly due to the trade protectionist polices of the Republicans. Many have learned from America's mistakes and you find people everywhere condemning the pro-american model. Rapid transition or not, the world survived WWs, and can take this one too :-) And your point of denying that there is no civil warfare in Fla, made me laugh, good to see second degree citizen caring that much :-)
|
| | Sunday, December 03, 2000 - 09:41 pm Well, obviously I care. I mean, I'm dependent on the US for my income. If something nasty, like a civil war, happened in the good ol USofA, then I would find myself unemployed (I would never fight in such a conflict, against my own countrymen). But as I said, at some oint this little crises is going to come to an end and people are going to get on with the business of making money. Would the world survive a sudden shift in global power? Sure. but it would be painful. just like the Somalis are surviving their own crises, but it sure sucks.
|
| | Monday, December 04, 2000 - 12:54 am the world is in pain already. Mad i knew you would deny the charge, perhaps you don't even know what you are doing. Hegel argued that each conciousness seeks the death of the other.Everry time you open your mouth, you attempt to change our belief. The muslims who tried to get you into the fold of Islam, where straight up about their intentions, whereas you.. wanna open up our minds.. you wanna talk like rational human beings, you wanna relax a little and crack open the bubbly. Lets call a spade a spade, same way you would not go to war with your people, a admirable stance for some one who yells show me the money so often. (Tell me what makes a american less worthy of your bullet, if you are the worldly humanist.. who has thrown his lot in with somalis.. okay okay you are an intelligence officer, what makes your strategic bullet less worthy?) THat same way we will not indugle in comprimising Islam.. and honestly MM no matter how much you deny this. You will never be satifisfied, until we chill with the Islam a little, you hate the thought of a "theocracy" in Somalia Of course your mouth will appease, but what your breast conceals reverates acros this page Thanks for the retohric which i assume was meant to pacify my rage, but you would do well to utter it humbily with sincerity, , pehaps if the life you cherish turns out to be a vivid dream in which you were consummed it will save you from the hellfire. But hey what would i know, A dumb little mallauble afarican.. spin me some more of your reasoned debate.
|
| | Monday, December 04, 2000 - 02:19 am OK, here's some more reasoned debate, which Muslims can't resist anyway. They loved reasoned debate so long as it doesn't lead to anything un-Islamic. Back to the charge at hand. Common, exactly what am I trying to convert Musilms to? Macism? I mean think about it. Esspecially in this debate, I never mention Islam except in repsonse to someone else who brings it up. Now, as for Somalia being a theocracy, you are correct, I believe it would be a HUGE mistake for Somalia to establish some sort of Khalifate. In my mind this is another word for dictator. How does the "Ummah" choose this guy? How long does his term run for? How do we ensure his administrators don't abuse their power? In short, how do we ensure that this government does abuse its people in the name of Islam? Additionally, how do we ensure that the rights of non-Muslims are protected? Just as I would be oppossed to a bunch of Pat Buchanen clones running America, so I would be hesitant to see a bunch of Al-Itihad freaks running Somalia. For the same reason that communism is a failed system (it depends on people good will to work for the good of the many) so I object to governmental systems that allow power to be consolidated in the hands of a few people who then rule "in the name of God's will". Who makes sure that's what they're doing. Maybe they're ruling for their own sake - you know, like most of the Ottoman swine did. As for who's worthy of "my bullet". Whoever the US government says is. That seems pretty simple to me. I believe civil wars are destructive. I don't condone them. Certainly I would not condone one over a dubious constitutional conflict such as ours at present. So if there's a civil war I will move to Somalia and become a Somali citizen (you know, seeking refugee status there). When I start to operate as a private entrepreneur, I intend to do that as peacefully as possible - i.e. force is only used in self-defense. Those damn marauding moryan ensure that I have to be able to defend my personnel and assets.
|
| | Monday, December 04, 2000 - 02:29 am MM, Your peasant sense of humor made my primitive nomadic spirit smile! Keep on the good work soldier :-) " a dumb little mallauble african.." lol, two thousand years ago, an ancient roman writer said referring to Africa, "semper aliquid novi" out of africa always came something new, hear me Common :-)
|
| | Monday, December 04, 2000 - 02:43 am whatever \i personally think the suitabilty of Islamic government in somalia. I will appose your establishment of what is right or wrong. This even makes me angry. who makes sure america is democracy unless you are saying they are white poeple they know what their governments are up to. as for the ottomans, I just finished with s.o . they were great rules. of course they had their down falls and especially the last ten rules. to call them swine is Eurepean way of looking at other poeple's ways. and now it became a way the muslims to follow. Arawelo
|
| | Monday, December 04, 2000 - 04:35 am Arawello Look, all absolute rulers are swine. OK, almost all. Rare is the ruler who's primary occupation is not making sure he remains the ruler. America is certainly not a perfect society. But it does make an effort to put a check on individual power. Government power is a neccessary evil. We should only tolerate the minimum needed to maintain law and order. The right of the individual to live his life without undue burden created by central authority should be upmost in the minds of those framing the new Somali government. You, as someone originating from a basically nomadic society, should understand what I'm trying to say here. Do you think I look back upon the days when Europeans were colonizing the world and think those were the good old days? When the crusades to "free the holy land" were kicking Muslim ass (until Saladin returned the favor), were those times that I look back to with fondness? Of course not. The more free people are to express themselves, the more free people are to invent, the more free people are to build business, the stronger that society is. What comes with that is the fact that some people will conduct themselves in ways that others find morally reprehensible. One persons good time is anothers decadence. That's the price for freedom. If Somalis want to be free - that's the price they have to pay. If they want to live in a closed society, where only that which is properly influenced by Islamic thought (presumably determined by the Khalifa and his boys) is tolerated, then they give up their freedom of expression and eventually everyone becomes fearful to express themselves lest the regime take to their expression in a negative way. This is true in all centrally controlled societies, whether they are theocracies, facists, communist, or whatever. Abai, do not mistake my jibes at some "Islamic societies" to be jibes at all that is Islam. Common has this nasty habit as well. I am also critical of things in my own government and society. I try to draw the good that I see out of it and discard / discredit the evil. And I don't pull punches. If people don't like what I say, tough. Sometimes I don't like what others have to say. But that's the price of living in a free society. Even jerks get equal air time.
|
| | Monday, December 04, 2000 - 08:15 am Hi,Well, I understood what you said, but afraid on this point I am adamant. You have to understand our points as well, respecting is not enough! lets take one point you made, ' you s.o originating from basically nomadic society, you have to understand what I am trying to say' okey. But why it has to be only your understand of freedom. wht you consider freedom i may determine sin, or what you presume right i may think is wrong etc. this is to say if you think, islam and religious rulings are swine. I amy beleive is the other way around. your point of' the more poeple express their point the better' sure, i agree that, but why that has to be only one way. surely, during the ottomans ( the good time of their rulings) most of the Islamic phisophy developed. Do not also think i am bausting about that there were warriors during the Ottomans but i do not beleive they forced anybod y to accept islam unlike what the europeans did in part of africa.as for me beleivin in a good islamic government will do good for the somalis, i also think it should start fromthe bottom not from the top. in other words, teaching can make the poeple better, not forcing on them things they do not undertsnd.the nomads as you called have their beleives, they only need to worke out from there. unless we are saaying this is the progressive system you have follow me else you are novice.i am actually tired now and run out of idea.
|
| | Monday, December 04, 2000 - 09:46 pm What I am saying is that the Ottoman regime USED Islam. Just as Pat Buchanen USES Christianity. I also agree that if you think Islam is the right way, that is fine. You want to follow Islamic requirements, that is fine. What I think is a mistake is when you say, we're going to make the laws of the land in accordance with the laws of Islam. Of course to some degree that's going to happen. You might want to frame your divorce laws that way. You might want to frame your property laws that way. But let's take fornication for example. If I decide I want to live with a Muslim woman, and she with me, that is our business. The state has ABSOLUTELY NO RIGHT to intervene. This is one of those victimless crimes. If a Somali wants to chew khat (which is clearly a violation of Islamic law) that is HIS BUSINESS. The state has no right to intervene (and I think the stuff is disgusting). If you, on the other hand, think khat is wrong and un-Islamic, you don't have to imbibe. Same with relationships. You think extramarital sex is a sin, don't do it. This is what freedom of choice is all about. For sure Somalis are influenced by Islam. But if they want there to be room for personnel choice, as well as personnel growth, they need to recognize that legislating religious values is simply another way of forcing people to be Muslim - like the Saudis do.
|
| | Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 04:44 am MM, I wouldn't return your complement by saying that even jerks get equal air time and living example is you but I would join your parade for freedom of choice and tell you sometimes it is needed that people do choose for you. Common showed you a good choice in his previous posting, try it as a change :-) If u didn't understand my point, you will this, wild horse spirit can't be compared to a domestic rotten donkey! Free your self for your earthly desires, then you will comprehend the right definition for the concept of Freedom :-)
|
| | Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 05:30 am Common and Asad both continue to maintain that it is better to die than live oppressed. I maintain that it is better to use your intellect and develop a workable solution to your problem rather than simply act like a wild animal (horse). Obviously, after 50 years of getting butchered like cattle and losing fight after fight and land mass after land mass, the Palestinians have not developed a very effective solution to their problem. I am not likely to start following the rationale of casting around for people to blame for my problems. Even if it's true, it accomplishes nothing. As long as the Palestinians continue to butt their heads against the wall, the world is not going to help them in any serious way. Best they'll ever get is gestures. Even the Arab are sick of them. Syria isn't ready to fight the Israelis over the Palestinians and if it did, it would lose. My old Special Forces instructor once told me, there are no supermen in the world. Just intelligent men and stupid ones. Since the last 50 years of fighting and terrorism and uprisings has failed to do anything other than result in a lot of dead people and a lot of land gains by the Israelis, I can't understand how you can continue to advocate that course of action. But whatever. They want to go on killing each other fine with me. Like I said, I don't like either of these ethnic groups very much anyway. Let 'em have at it.
|
| | Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 07:12 am If we just hold on th discussion of somali and the possiblities of islamic rules. I find very hard to accept the European thoughts and attittute towards the Eastern society, and I have to say they would not continue so if some of us blindly did not eccept that. Now, you are giving me an example of fornacation should be acceptable for the sake of freedom. You now man, freedom has limits in any given society. Again, I am furious to hear that evryone should do what they want regardless the boun costume. You know I know many many somalians who says like that. though, some of them are my friend I deeply concern about that. Again, how do you expect to have all your ways of living somewhere that the poeple are fundamently different from you. Look at the Somali women working in hotels they have to take of their scarf and put it again when they finishthe jobs. I personally do nor have scarf and have some other kind of job, but I try to challenge the rule I would be told look this is our rule. Your point of Khat, I do not know much about it is haramness or not, but say it is why any islamic government should not be allowed to forbid if it bad for the society. Drugs including the Khat are illegal in the states, is not it? You know we somalis heve problems. any of us who have contact with other poeple we do not give the true discrption of the somalis and the somalis. we talk from our clan beleive, if we hate sisters and brothers we say okey they are horrible etc. And you know MM I get the picture you know those of the somalis who are really went stray. ( no offence) I read an Article a week ago about the outcome of the somali conference by Lewis. I will tell you what i think another time.
|
| | Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 09:49 am Mad_Mac: You are doing it again. Viewing other people's ways with that Western mentality. I thought your living amongst people of other faiths and culture would actually have a bearing on how you view the world. But I guess not. Now, about the the fornication thing and living with a woman that wants to live with you. It only shows your poor understanding of the Islamic law and why it is developed. In Islam, community rights override individual rights unlike in the Western system, where it is the other way round. WE have to look at the greater good of the community. Today, u might want to live with that woman and tomorrow u might want to live with another one. Then what? what about the rights of those women? the children? You essentially want to releive all responsibilites off yourself. Then we end up with the problems that we have in the West. Kids born out of wedlock, neglection and then psychological disorders resulting in disorented beings, serial killers and total distruction of soceity. Freedom in the islamic sense only comes with responsibility. Now, in an Islamic state, no one will go door to door looking for those that are fornicating or living together. The honesty is upon the individual and it is btn him and his God, but the state will not promote or allow things that lead to disobedience. If you want to enjoy the laws of divorce and property while shunning the ones that put a cab on your worldy disires, then you better look into living in another place where the sharia will not be imposed. Islaam comes as a package. There is no picking and choosing. You either take it or leave. In the Islamic sense, freedom ony comes with responsibility. And FYI, the hududs or laws of punishment only apply to the beleivers. I don't understnd why you are whining, since you already told us tht you are a "lousy kaafir". oh, now I know why. You are trying to plant doubt into the minds of the weaker amongst us.
|
| | Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 10:54 am MM Interesting discussion. I will have a lot to say about the topic of suitability (or otherwise) of Islamist theocratic rule in Somalia. It is an issue which I feel strongly about. But I have to restrain myself during Ramadan. (Well in fact I have no energy left to put together coherent arguments after a long days' fasting!) Arawelo I agree with you that people should dress as they wish, including wearing the Hijab or the Burq'a. I am against the type of Secular Fundamentalism practised by Turkey, for example. This should be a matter of personal choice. Men, in particular should get out of the business of telling women what they should and should not wear. To me it is quite unmanly (whatever that means) to legislate women's wear, as some arabs and Iranians do. TLG Nice to hear from you. How is my favourite beardess coping with Ramadan? Your coherent and often balanced arguments are always refreshing and enlightening. Looking forward to debating with you on some of the above issues after Eid. Ramadan Kareem
|
| | Tuesday, December 05, 2000 - 11:37 pm All I definately concur that what someone wears (or doesn't wear) is a matter of personnel choice. A personnel employers standards, however, are not bound by law. The individual can always get another job. For an extreme example, if a woman works as a stripper, then she can not say she disagrees with the dress code after having taken the job. T-girl (and Araweelo) You hit the nail right on the head when you said Community rights overide individual rights. Follow the logic train and see where tht leads. Let's take a gander at some "Islamic Societies" (and Asad rightly points out we have no perfect examples). We have the Taliban. Easily the most conservative of the lot. There, a woman who violates Qur'anic teaching by showing any bare skin anywhere on her body is quickly beaten. I don't think I need to address the litany of issues where the Taliban have taken things so far many woman can't get educated or seek medical treatment. In Saudi Arabi we have the Gestapo running around looking for any little violation. I almost had to shoot this Matawa dude who was trying to assault me with a stick (not to smart, bringing a stick to a gunfight) because I took a picture of a shop that happened to have a woman in it (dressed head to toe in her sexy little BuiBui). Your view of Islam reminds me of Karl Marx, who thought that the community will over-rode personnel freedom. See where that led? Remember, all of these systems are run by people. God ain't playing. That means that the more room you leave for abuse (in the name of God, in the name of "the community", etc.) the more it will be abused. You said Sharia wouldn't apply to me since I am Kufaar. Well then, what law would apply to me? What law would apply to Somalis who were animist or Jewish or Christian or Atheist (and I know a Somali woman who's atheist)? Are you going to have two court systems, on for believers and one for others? When an "other" has a legal issue with a believer which court do you use? What I am saying is that while of course Islamic tradition is going to influence the Somali legal process, the Qur'an shouldn't be considered you book of laws. Each law needs to be legislated. Just because it's un-Islamic doesn't mean it should be against the law. The laws need to be orchestrated to serve ALL members of the society, not just the favored ones. If you can come up with an "Islamic" system that doesn't put all the power into the hands of a few people, that has checks and balances, that respects the rights of non-Muslims, then I would agree that this system is as reasonable as any other. But as of now, I have not heard of, nor do I know of an historical example, of such a society. Clearly the Ottoman empire, while relative to the era a fair government (all governments during the 15th century completely sucked) is not a shining example. I guess the challenge for you is to come up with a legal and socio-economic system which both of us would be happy living under. Allahu Ahkbar!!! Having a happy Ramadan and enjoy Eid (which has to be the best part). Boy would I love some good Somali food now.
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 12:37 am MM, My friend,I will tell you why Quran should be the Only Constitution, the Right Constitution that Muslims had to abide by, simply because if individuals were the law makers and knowing how they tend to be immoral definitely their outcome will be a defficient system where you all get is the abuse and over abuse that you were talking about due to their conflicting interests(you hardly can find a point of equilibrium!). But if we all agree that we all will be equally under this Holly Law and no one is above it, Order is maintained. I think that the society which is capable of protecting the poor as well as the rich and making sure that each have their Equal rights of Peace and Harmony, is to me the righteous society and its Law the righteuos law. About you, my friend, if you don't like that you can always practise your civil rights and find another country which suits you! By the way, I think i rather die for the cause i believe in rather than be a slave with no dignity. Hafiz al-asad was one of the slaves of Karl and so his late friend king Hussien ( a major traitor) but now political front has changed, we will see how things will come out! PA better stick to their stones!!
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 02:53 am Idea Here's the problem with you Qur'anic constitution. There isn't one. Tell me, in this constitution you reference, how are the leaders chosen? Who interprets the laws of this constitution? Since there's a whole host of things the Qur'an doesn't mention, someone is going to have to interpret the Qur'an. What if my interpretation doesn't agree with yours? Someone will have to sort that out. So, since we have to have legislators, to raise armies, to tax, to police, to build infratructure, to do all of those state-like things, who is going to pick the leaders to run this Islamic Constitution. Because the Qur'an doesn't specify how this is to be done. I have never recommended being a slave with no dignity. Where have you heard me say that? I said the Palestinians have to use their intellect and determine a course of action which will be successful I said that their current course of action (which they have pursued for over 50 years now) has been demonstrably unsuccessful. Therefore they need a new course of action. I have proposed one. You have rehashed the old one. there have been now four Arab-Israeli wars. I will affectionately refer to them as rounds one through four. If there is a round five, there is a distinct possibility that the Israelis, being sick and tired of dealing with the Palestinians, will decide that Palestinians are reall Egyptians and Jordanians and promptly deposit them in the appropriate countries, killing all who don't wish to be deposited. It's hard to have an Intifada if the enemy isn't close to you. Then, if the Arab armies attacked, Israeli would destroy them. And that would be the end of that. Given an adequte excuse the Israeli right would do this. So while my course of action leaves the PA with East Jerusalum and most of the West Bank as well as Gaza, your COA leaves them on the East Bank looking West trying to throw stones across the Jordan River. So if throwing stones across the Jordan is your definition of dignity, then you're right. On the other hand, if having your own state with reasonable compensation for losses suffered is having your dignity then I think my COA is a little better.
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 07:39 am MM, No, there should be law that defends the muslims. I think it will be very naive to say that they can get another job. They should be able to do their jobs while wearing their scarfs and long dress. Otherwise, in my understanding they are discriminated against cus of their religion. We all know non-muslims lived under islamic rule. They lived in Makka and medina during the prophetpbuh so i do not see why you ask now how would the muslims be able to deal with the non-muslims under their rule. To sister TGL, that is excellent! though, I will hasitate to say ' take it or leave it' but I thibk I know what you mean.
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 08:06 am Galool: The feeling is mutual my adorable awoow:-) Ramadhan is going well, alhamdulilah. Can't wait to finish exams and go home to good home made meals, going to the masjid for taraweeh and the whole Ramadhan environment. How about you your excellence? how is ramadhan? debating after eid? hmmm...you have to cut me a lil slack coz i'm not a politician or a historian, or an islaamic scholar...only know about enzymes, pathways, reactions and DNA...hehehe. I'm a product of higher learning...special area they call (narrow minded approach may be?) However, you still have to answer some of my questions from the old folder(2 questions). I'll let you think about my last posting in that folder till eid. Mad_Mac: My response after my 7pm exam....if I have any energy left :-)
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 08:09 am Arawello sis...thanks... we need people like u to keep reminding us we can't be so harsh and judgemental...:-)
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 08:36 am MM, "the problem with Quranic constitution, there is no constitution" Do you mean like GB has no constitution and yet has proven to be superpower at one time!!Hmmmmm My friend, ofcourse Quran laid for us the basis of Islamic Constitution, what do u think that all these Laws which are mentioned in 114 surat. Do u think Allah had created them for our bed time story!!! or that We MUSLIMS should take it as our divine guidance. Islamic constitution is based on the principle of One God "There is no good except Allah" It is based on the principle of equity, sharing, respect. It (Quran) even tells us that in accordance with the commands of Allah, we should consult between us (ulma) and thus that is the basis of our legislative body "their affairs are by consultations among them.."42:38. And regarding your point of non-muslims, Quran commands us to treat them Equally and Fairly as long as they do not conspiracy against us (muslims)"God does not forbid you to deal kindly and justly with these who have not fought against you because of your religion and who have not expelled you from your homes" 60:8 I have a respect for Hammurapi dude! What is taken by force should be retaken back with the same force. I find a great similarities between the Croissant of the French and the Stones of PA! Both are symbols against oppression. The first were against the Muslims and they did their best to kick them out or else Mahmmed Mahmmed could have been the president of France, and the second are just exercising for their right against oppression and aggression and You come here lecturing us how stupid they are. Why on earth would they believe that Jews will allow them share the country when they are seeing by their own eyes that Israelis bit by bit are genociding them.PA are great ppl, they are not just fighting some Jews but the whole world.
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 11:11 am This page is irritating me. It seems to be out of margins - and that is too much for someone who learnt their typing on an old Remington. Could one of you young IT supa-dupa guys fix it? Otherwise, could someone please continue the discussion somewhere else, perhaps under the same title? Idea Is that you Common? Why the new Username? If not, please accept my apologies. Afterall, I am Somali, and is therefore entitled to my portion of cynicism and doubt. Thanks.
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 04:51 pm MM, Since you voted for push bush :-) tell me what good he will bring apart from prisoning ppl for 17yrs for stealing a candy(true story)and what kind of moral system do u have that accepts his plot of making 15,000 deseased folks vote for him. Do you agree with me that a government which breaks its own laws, will in the long run, break you too! Just Wondering :-) Arawelo, Good to see you are begining to change your point of view of on one major Point.
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 04:53 pm can't believe my eyes that i posted as Ideal. i DON'T believe in earthly utopia!
|
| | Wednesday, December 06, 2000 - 09:55 pm Well Idea, I don't know the cases you are referring to. I'll be the first to admit America is not a perfect society. As you allude to, there is no such thing here on earth. The choice between Gore and Bush was a choice between dumb and dumber. What gave Bush my vote was Colin Powell. If Bush wins Powell will be secretary of State. If Gore wins he wants Holbrooke. I despise Holbroook. Since the Office of Secretary of State has a direct impact on my day to day life it was a no-brainer. Also, Bush will bring more qualified minorities and Democrats into government. Gore talks the talk, but when it comes to who he will appoint for cabinet posts most of the minorities and woman he would appoint are not qualified but share his Karl Marx view of the world.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 02:28 am MM, Okay big chief. Thanks for the discussion. I needed it so much or else i would have gone mad reading my school books all day long :-) By the way, MM to answer a comment u left for FG: I don't believe in computer dating either :-) Galool, So u r wondering whom am i?hmmmmmmmm I m ur nasty little sister Hakima whom you gave such a hard time not accepting her apology(i have to admit that was not an act of the gentleman whom u claimed!) TLG, The forums is urs dear, show these two, how brilliant Somali girls could be. I M OFF for real this time...or else i would be in a very very very bad shape :-( Arawelo, My apology sis for seeming weird at times. Walaahi you are such a kind hearted and sweet muslim sister, maa-shaa-allah.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 07:07 am To ideal, I think what anyone else think about me will make me feel better or worse. BUT why do you think so? If I do not have Hijab and you would not know it anyway would that make me a different muslim. I will not surprise by that I have to eal that on a daily basis.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:02 am You know something, though, I beleive the Hijab is compulsary for all the muslims beleifers. I think there are many women who have the Hijab but at the sametime can be biteful and melicios. I really do not want to bring in that but I felt I shuold since the only thing that can make me different from you is that. I will insha Allah wear one day but when my heart is ready for it. It could be tommorow.... What I would like to see is that the muslim sisters shuold not be so judjemental all what you need is to be warm with your other sisters who does not. I will tell one thing sometime ago I tried to hang with two somali sisters who both know the Quran whith a beautiful tajweed, i wanted them to be my freinds but none of them continue to be my freind. This what I want do Insha Allah when I soon start the Hijab I cannot wait for it; I will warmelly welcome any sister who I know. I will provide them a freindship, and I will never be judgemental. I will sometimes make party for them then will give them da'wa. And one more thing I will not mention the Hijab to them, I will leave that to them to learn about it. MOdesty, modesty, modesty that is what is important at the first time. I peasonally will phisophise Islam. If you look at the chronology of the Quan the ayah of Hijab was not come down at a very age. Why could not we follow the taeching of islam. Allah SWT has not sent down the quran at one time. The Prophet pbuh taught the sahaba slow by slow. Whhy are we different? At this time when even the age has a lot of things to blame. I beleive we should slow down and teach the other sisters what we know and not expect them to be angles. By the way, I decided to refrain myself from this discussion, especially as it can create argument btw us. My Allah SWT forgive us. To all of you salama, ramadan kareem and eid mubarak.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:29 am Arawello I have to address your point on dress code. You say the law should mandate that employers allow people religious dress. Let me give you a few examples where this is not practical: a. The Sikhs carry ceremonial daggers as part of their faith (don't ask me why). These puppys are sharp and occasionally some dude gets made at his neighbor and actually uses the knife for its intended purpose. In countries where carrying a two edged blade around all the time is illegal, the sikhs claim they are not being allowed to practice their religion. b. Let's say I own a topless bar. The dancers are suppose to dance topless. You insist that you must where a Bui Bui and Hijab. I then say you are not suitable for the job. c. Let's take this a step further. You are not allowed to serve alcohol. You work as a waitress and someone orders an alcholic beverage. You then say you can not serve it. d. Take that a step further. Some Muslims maintain it's Haram to work in a place that serves alcohol. You take the job and then say the offending agency must stop serving alcohol as you have a right to work there and the serving of the alcohol is against your religious beliefs. So I think an employer has to have jurisdiction over the dress code of his company. If you don't concur with the dress code, don't take the job. What courts should protect against is an arbitrary altering of dress codes designed to force people who are of a given religion out of the work place. The keys are arbitrary and prejudicial.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 11:28 am A salaam aleikum Dear All. Galool..comeon now. Idea is far more smart thane me. Let me voice my concerns.(quietly) Friends and family, we go round in circles. I have noticed that i pay very little attention to humility, so i will be doing more reading, than writing on this page. There was a great scholar of ours who went missing for ten years to teach himself humility. i also heard the asahabya used to go round in circles when someone used to ask them for a Fatwa, not because they didn't know the answer but becasue they were aware of the significance. I heard this little saying, i herad it before but it resonnates true, the toungue is practically weightless yet so few can hold it. So let me quickly say a few things <smile> Idea.. the latin stuff you talking bout, threw me sweet friend. Duclum decorm est, was the last i heard of latin..oh and that awful little logo we had embroided on our school blazer. But i felt the love you had when adresssing me so i am throwing a big muslim hug your way. TLG.. man you so cool..manshallah my Allah grant you some more of his wisdom. Mad mac & Galol dear friends. If i am correct, if i were you i would be hesitant to call my self a macist.. or a atheist or agnostoic or anthing of taht nature. I would prefer to call myself a truth concealer. If i am correct the muslim word for "unbeliever" comes from the same root word used for a farmer, who covers the seed with dirt(earth). For in all reality you can never disbelive, the defintion of a kuffar (which i am not suggesting you are) is an ingrate, someone who is not gratful for Allah (swt) blessings. Wouln't in be sad if you failed in your disbelive too. May Allah guide you both, your families, and wash you for your sins with watre, rain, snow and sleet. Whiten your bad deeds (galool. don't start!.lol) i gotta go. one love ps did i write too much?
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 02:33 pm Arawello: Please allow me to throw my two cents in eventhough I know you might not have directed the comment at me. My dear sis, I totally understand your point of view. Yes there are many women who have the hijab but are a menace to the hijab and Islaam. This stems from the fact that they don't understand why they wear it. Knowledge is the key to every problem I tell ya. Let me share with you a lil personal thing here... Before I wore the hijab(BTW, if you wanna know the events that led to my wearing it, I can tell you over e-mail) , a year and a half ago, I never wanted to be around muslims let alone hijabis due to that judgmental/ holier than thou attitude (I must point out a few are really nice). whichever way, that should not discourage us from fullfilling the commands of Allah as muslim women because our intention is soley to please Allah. NOT any woman or man for that matter. I think what a lot of us muslim women don't realize is that when we wear the hijab, we are a billboard saying "look, i'm muslim" and whether we like it or not, Islam will be judged through our sayings and doings. So, those of us that wear the hijab have a bigger responsibility to Islam than anyone else. Having said that, I understand if you feel that u are not ready to deal with all that comes with wearing hijab (and I know from experience it is not easy especially in this society). However, you don't know if you will die tomorrow, so no benefit in waiting. The honesty is upon you my ukhtee al azeezah. And Allah does not burden one with more than s/he can bear. I totally agree with you on the point that we as muslims sister need not be judgmental. If anything, we need to create a support system for our sisters. Harsh words and cynism only push people away from Islam and the truth. On the other hand, those of us that don't wear the hijab or don't fulfill some of our obligations should not be too sensitive when we are given naseeha. Finally, the hijabis need to know that hijab is not just a physical thing. There is hijab of the heart, eyes, ears, tongue and limbs. There is little benefit in covering your head when you can't control your heart, tongue, eyes or ears. There is a saying of the prophet(SAW)that says something to the effect of: the best of muslims is the one who other muslims are safe from his hand and tongue. If we can't benefit our brothers and sisters with something good, then the least we can do is remain silent. Common: you are adorable:-) Mad_Mac: The answer to the above scenarios is simple. They should not have taken those jobs to begin with.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 04:26 pm Arawello, Please accept my sincere APOLOGY. HOPE my e-mail will explain to you...things that I can't write it here. Your muslim sister
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 09:49 pm Common One mans truth is another mans lie. The arrogance of religion, however, never ceases to amaze me. And Islam and Catholisism are definately among the league leaders. I maintain that there is no true religion. No one here has even come close to pursuading me otherwise.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:08 pm And I presume that you hold 'Science' as your supreme belief? You know, I've been battling with bigots such as yourself at another forums for the past month or so(Only none of them were Somalis or Muslims for that matter) and it baffles me how easy it is for some people(Such as yourself) to generalize religions(Islam in particular) and make it sound as if the believers(1.6+ billion of them) are all dumber than you are. I agree some religions are quite arrogant(For example Judaism with regards to what they call "Gentiles"=Non-Jews), but are all religions what you make them sound? I think not. You said "..there is no true religion." May I ask based on what? I've seen many young people ditch their religions & customs because they sound annoying to them today(It's in the season). And I am not the least bit surprised to find one here in the midst of Somalis(Who have been Muslims for as long as history dates back). Let me get a little personal here. Firstly, are you ethnically speaking Somali? Were you born a Muslim? Are you currently an atheist, scientologist, etc? Sorry, I am new to this forums. If interested, I can give you the link to the other forums I was talking about.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:21 pm MAD MAC, I started this discussion thread at the 'Independent forums' called; Islama-Phobes:Misconceptions about Islam. Maybe I should start one here as well huh? Here is one of the articles I've on my thread: ISLAM AND 'TERRORISM' Every time speculation arises that a bomb is responsible for a tragedy, such as the TWA Flight 800 crash, we in America and in other Western countries (including Muslims) suspect the Islamic connection. Of course the disclaimers abound, but a lingering suspicion about Muslims is left in the general views of terrorism, even if other groups are identified as the main culprits for any particular incident. This perception is not due to any intrinsic resentment of Islam by the American people. It is understood that the mainstream of Muslims, the vast majority of them, like in every other faith, is peaceful and pay their taxes, trying to make America a better society, trying to improve relations with neighbors and colleagues. But images and terminology influence public opinion, and a bitter taste is left when Islam is reported in the daily headlines. The term "Islamic fundamentalism", whatever it means, has been repeated enough times in relation to violent incidents that naturally, any thinking human being has to be uncomfortable with the fact that America is home to a vibrant Muslim community. The problem stems from negative images about Islam. In the court of public opinion, Islam is guilty until proven innocent. Even though the Middle East was home to fewer terrorist incidents than Latin America and Europe, for example, it is still regarded as the region where terrorism is rooted. According to a recent US State Department report, Patterns of Global Terrorism, issued earlier this year, 272 terrorist events occurred in Europe, 92 in Latin America and 45 in the Middle East. Sixty-two anti-US attacks occurred in Latin America last year, 21 in Europe and 6 in the Middle East. These numbers represent the terrorist trend and not an anomaly, whereby the majority of perpetrators are not linked to the Middle East or Islam. The Red Army Faction in Germany, the Basque Separatists in Spain, the Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, the Shining Path in Peru and the National Liberation Army in Columbia are not viewed with the same horror as terrorist groups of Muslim background. There is no moral justification for terrorism regardless of the ethnic or religious background of the perpetrator or the victim, but the factual basis of terrorism has been either hidden or twisted in the public's perception of this policy problem, especially in congressional hearings on terrorism. The countries with the worst terrorist records in the world are not in the Middle East either. They are not even Muslim countries outside the Middle East. They are Columbia and Germany, havens for drug lords and neo-Nazis. The negative association of Islam with terrorism exists, but no one has ever asked "Why?". Could it be that American society cannot overcome the Khomeini phobia, even though he is dead? The US Congress found it necessary to push $20 million towards covert operations in toppling the Iranian government even at the dissent of people in the CIA. The Arab countries, both friend and foe, are run by tyrants who kill more of their own people than those outside their countries. The presumption that these countries represent a threat to American interests or that any one of them can dominate the region or even rival the only remaining superpower is indeed generous. So the issue is not these countries' hegemony in their region or the world, but about who can dominate their people and exploit their resources. The perception in the Middle East is that US policy does not serve the peoples interests; it protects Israel and friendly Arab dictators even when they violate human rights, while it slaps sanctions on and takes military actions against countries whose dictators misbehave, resulting in suffering, starvation and even slaughter, all in the name of teaching the tyrants a lesson. The priorities in the Middle East for the US are not human rights and democracy, but rather oil and Israeli superiority. Consequently, anti-American sentiment increases. This mood of the general public is then characterized as "Islamic fundamentalism", even though the resentment is not rooted in religion. When it turns violent, it is termed "radical Islamic fundamentalism" or "Islamic terrorism." The various "terrorism experts" promote linkage to the Middle East before any other possibility every time terrorism is speculated. They exploit the human suffering of the victims, their families, and the fears of the American public. Indeed, extremists of Muslim backgrounds are violating the norms of Islamic justice and should be held accountable for their criminal behavior, but we in America should not be held hostage to the politics of the Middle East or biased reporting. An Israeli journalist, Yo'av Karny, reporting on the events in Chechnya made a striking observation about this development: "The West will be told--and will be inclined to believe--that the oppression of the Chechens is part and parcel of a cosmic struggle against 'Islamic extremism' that rages from Gaza to Algeria, from Tehran to Khartoum. Russians will seek Western sympathy. They should not be given it." The issue is not Chechnya, and it is not even about Islam and the West. Debates about religious wars and cultural clashes only distract us from the real issue: the powerful want to continue dominating the powerless, manipulating facts to influence public opinion, hence maintaining the status quo.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:24 pm Women in Islam – liberated or dominated? For those of you who believe that women in Islam are degraded, then this may come as a slight shock, as all these stereotypes shall be put aside, to allow the principles of Islam to be discussed not some assumptions based on the tendencies or practices of human beings. Islam acknowledged a separate and independent human status of the woman imposed upon her that she could not achieve perfection without knowledge. Only through knowledge can both women and men develop rational faculties along with their physical ones and therefore, ascend to a higher plane of spiritual existence. It is essential for women to educate themselves in order to understand and follow the principles in letter and spirit. Women during the time of the Holy prophet (SAW) acquired profound knowledge of teachings and were remembered for their excellent capacity to learn and understand. Aisha, the wife of the prophet (RAA) is particularly remembered for her supreme ability to learn. Muslims learn approximately two thirds of the hadith from Aisha. The prophet stressed this saying; “the search for knowledge is obligatory on every Muslim man and woman.” Islam therefore, recognises an independent economic status of women and gave her this right without any trustee or mediator. Many westerners also believe that just because a lot of women in the Middle East have not got a job or career must mean that Islam does not allow them. This is incorrect because the choice is there- whether they choose to work or not. In England today, women serving in government departments continue to receive less pay from the government– is this equal economic existence? The rights to hold property are recognised by both men and women, they are free to mortgage it, to give it in lease, or bequeath it, sell, buy or exploit it for her or his own benefit. Any such money or property which a women owns or any business which she runs is entirely her own and her husband has no right to any of it. That is one of the reasons why Muslim women keep their maiden name after marriage, an indication of independent property rights as legal entities. It was not until 1938 that the French law was amended so as to recognise the eligibility of women to contract. A married woman in France before this, was still required to secure her husbands permission before she could dispense with her private property. In terms of political and social life, the general rule is that there is equal participation of both women and men, Islamic history has illustrated this, the first person to die for Islam was a woman, the first person to accept the message from the prophet was a woman, this same woman named Khadija was a successful business woman who also proposed to the prophet, despite him being fifteen years her junior. In terms of domestic duties, Islam has relieved women of all manual drudgery. It is not obligatory for a woman to cook the food for her husband or children, or to wash their clothes or even to suckle the infants. A woman is free to refuse all of these without any legal compliant being made against her. However, if she does voluntarily perform these, it is an act of grace. In some areas of the world like Pakistan, young girls are forced to marry the man their parents choose for them without their permission. This is clearly wrong and is not part of the teachings of Islam but part of the traditions of that particular area. The issue of choice is very important in Islam – the girl’s decision is the most important, so if she disagrees then her decision is final. Traditions, customs and culture of may countries should not be confused with the teachings of Islam. The permission for polygamy is an exception to the ordinary course, a rare case instead of the norm. This point is much ignored by the westerner. It is an emergency law and doesn’t represent any fundamental principles of Islamic Law; it has come to solve any social and moral problems. And it must not be forgotten that in both the Bible and the Talmud, polygamy is permitted, however, the practice of polygamy declined during the eleventh century in much of Europe but does not conclude that the choice was not there. However bad the current practice of polygamy may be, it must be remembered that the blame should be directed to the tendencies of these men which have led to these abuses, not at the Divinely revealed ordinances. Muslims believe that people should live up to the standards set by God, not for these standards to be brought down to human weaknesses. Islam emphasizes the need for modesty and decency of dress. Muslim women expect to be appreciated for their character and minds. Their clothes can be smart, respectful and modest. Muslim women don’t want to be seen as no more than ‘objects’ of male pleasure, but to be treated with respect, only than will women reach real liberation for who they are and what they stand for. Consider this situation, what do men want? A woman to be modest or revealing? I assume that most of you will be opting for the latter conclusion, how can the choice of wearing a scarf or being modest be ordained by a man when its totally against what men would want? Who is the liberating one here? The Muslim woman who forces people to appreciate her for her mind or the page 3 girl? who is more liberating? The woman who has become a prisoner of fashion, weight and beauty or the woman BY CHOICE who defies all these external things? I'll let you decide...... The miserable plight of the eastern woman is the result of economical, psychological and social conditions prevailing in the East today. The wretched poverty that is present in the East- where there is a minority of people living in luxury and others struggle to survive. As a reaction to this harsh living, many people especially women are subjected to rough treatment and persecution as people suffer the injustice and poor living – can love and respect find expression in an atmosphere of poverty and social repression? A reason for this is that many women and men are disgraced and ill-treated by chiefs of the village or factory owners. This humiliation will turn to anger on their husbands, wives and children. Islam also can not be blamed for the injustice many men do to women interms of mistreatment and degradation. Similarly, the mistreatment of women in a country like Columbia will not blame religion for this. Islam is not to blame as it preaches revolt rather than obedience to injustice. What the Muslim women lack in the east is not rights but the consciousness of their rights. They are depressed, they are ignorant of what Islam has given them and have been placed under many restrictions of customs and artificial traditions not sanctioned by Islam. If they receive proper Islamic education, become conscious of their rights and duties then they will surely break from their chains. But the reason western people believe women are suppressed in Islam is because of the power of the Media. It seems evident that Western studies on Muslim women are based on confusing Islam at the practical level with Islam on the ideational level. Muslim women in the Middle East are represented instead of studying Islam itself; they produce data and st ...[Message truncated]
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:25 pm Many people who have limited or no knowledge of Islam, believe that Islam is all about sins and rules. Islam is a way of life, it is a culture, a religion, a belief system and science plays a major role in Islam. Islam talks from astronomy to human embroyology, from the formation of iron to the expansion of the universe. I thought I might start this new thread and show the relationship between Islam and many scientific concepts as we know them today. HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? The Bible provides a chronology of history that extends back to the creation of Adam and Eve and to the creation of the earth. From this chronology it is possible to determine the date of the creation and hence the age of the earth. Archbishop Ussher of Armagh (1581-1657) had calculated the year of creation to be 4004 BC If that was not precise enough, Dr. Lightfoot of Cambridge worked out that the exact time when God completed His creation was 9 a.m. on Friday, October 23, 4004 BC (see the book whinking about God by Sr. R. W. Maqsood, p.63). Many scientist on the other hand believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old with a maximum error of 2.2 % (see The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 148) The Quran, on the other hand, does not contain any historical or scientific or any kind of error. God challenges us to test this claim by examining the book for ourselves (see Quran 4:82).The Quran does not repeat the incorrect biblical chronology we have seen above. The Quran does not give a chronology since its purpose is not to provide us with the details of history, but only to teach us the lessons arising from specific events in history. The Quran does, however tell us that God measured the sustenance of the earth in four periods (Quran 41:10). As to what could be the significance of these four periods, Dr. Bucaille comments as follows: "One could perhaps see in them the four geological periods described by modern science, with man's appearance, as we already know, taking place in the quaternary era. This is purely a hypothesis since nobody has an answer to this question" (The Bible, the Quran and Science, p. 150). How did the author of the Quran avoid the mistake in chronology committed by so many others, and believed in by so many others even up to our present day? Could a man in the seventh century have known that the earth was much more than six thousand years old? How could he come by this modern knowledge unless God was revealing knowledge to him? God tells us that the Quran is His book and not the work of any man (see Quran 10:37).
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:31 pm MAD MAC and Others, Those were just a few of the arguments at the 'Independent Forum' here is the link if anyone is interested in arguing from ethnicity, to religion, from the U.S. elections to the Middle East, from Mandela to Blair and so forth: http://www.delphi.com/n/main.asp?webtag=id-argument&nav=messages&msg See you guys there!
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 10:46 pm MAD MAC, "T-Girl First of all, how can you say peaceful protest wouldn'T work, they've never tried it. They've been using the violence method for over 50 years" There was a peaceful protest within Israel by what the Israelis refer to as "Israeli-Arabs" These people are citizens of Israel who are of Arab descent. They marched on the streets of W. Jerusalem only to be met by an angry mob of IDF(Israeli Defense Forces). 8 of the protestors were killed on the spot, including women. There was a woman who was getting beaten by 2 Israeli soldiers on live T.V. Also, there was a peaceful 'Sit-in-protest'... ..Erm was it today or yesterday, but the IDF acted violently, because that's what they know best. So, you see Israel doesn't care if the Arabs are marching "Peacefully" or not, to them an Arab's life isn't worth an Israeli dog's life.
|
| | Thursday, December 07, 2000 - 11:09 pm Israel was founded in 1948 by Jewish Zionists who wanted a state of their own. Did you know that the British first wanted to plant Israel in Uganda, since it was colonizing there as well as Palestine? They later changed that idea to the Middle East, since many Jews claim that the land of Israel was their "Promised Land." Britain and the U.S. went ahead and forced Israel upon the people of Palestine. Palestinians and other Arabs were resistant to the existence of Israel, but couldn't do much about it, since they were under-powered compared to the Israelis who had the unltd. support of the West. Many events followed the creation of Israel which have led initially to the current Intifadah. Israel has refused to obey many U.N. resolutions such as 242, 383, and the most recent 1134. Israel has been accused of human rights violations over and over again by the international community, but never paid any mind to it, because it has the total and undivided support of the world's "Super-power" a.k.a. the U.S. The most recent Intifidah is as a result of the visit of the Hitler-like character to the Al-Aqsa compound. He is responsible for the death of more than 2,000 Palestinian refugees in the Sabre and Shatila camps in Lebanon in 1982. Those are the simple facts. These are people who have been oppressed for the past 52 years. They've been denied the right to exist as a nation. They're denied the right to exist as humans. The previous Intifadah lasted for more than 5 years(from '88-'93) with the dead in the thousands and the wounded in the tens of thousands and this one has been going on for 3 months now with the dead around 350 and the wounded 10,000 mostly Palestinians. There are Palestinian and Arab news agencies that tell what is really happening there instead of the more biased news agencies such as CNN and BBC. Visit these links if interested: http://www.addameer.org/september2000/index.html Or http://www.arabicnews.com Or http://www.iap.org Ramadan Karim & God bless!
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 03:08 am I would just like to say to mad mack before you go on juging on what the palestians or arabs should do to isreal with your stupid and subjective terms, you should consider these terms: 1:this is a somalia net, meaning we don't like to hear about arab problems and issues. 2:somalis have there serious problems. 3:I don't like the rubbish you talk about how arabs should buy their own communication stations for news broadcasting and all that dum s'it 4:i think your not a muslim tells me that you are kufar(losser) If all the points that i have written are clear i would tell you go and fu'k off,ok. IF not I would advise you that the reson that isreal occupies MUSLIM terrotaries is because we are at war with ALLAH. PEACE SOMALI NIGGAZ
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 06:11 am Somali Boy - ahhhh, whtever dude. You will note I did not start this thread. A Somali did. If you don't like "the rubbish I talk" then don't read it. MAD MULLAH Man, you were busy. OK, let'S start with the basics, because I can see you don't know your audience here (not a knock on you, just an observation). I am a US Army soldier who served in Somalia. You would call me a non-believer, although truth be told I believe in certain aspects of Islam. Reference Peaceful protest. The initial protests did have some effect. Note the Jewish Mayor of Haifa released all Arabs arrested in protests and censured the police for being too heavy handed (and no one even died in those protests). He also stated that Arab-Israelis had legitimate complaints that need to be addressed. He also stated that in a democratic society peaceful protest has to be tolerated. As I said, it could work if the Palestinians stayed the course. Israeli is a democracy and in democracies when you're on the right side certain methods are efffective and certain are not. As for Islam and terrorism, the Palestinians in the last 50 years did a great job advertising terroristic murder. They also did a great job linking it with Islam by screaming "Allahu Ahkbar", etc. when killing people or when giving TV interviews. On top of that, the embracing of suicide bombers gives the impression of unreasoned fanaticism which gets big play as well. As I said before, the Palestinians could not have engendered less sympathy and ironically done more to give Islam a bad image if they had tried. Islam has many solid points, esspecially from a scientific standpoint. But proving part of it is accurrate does not prove all of is accurrate. I do not believe there is a perfect religion here on earth. I do not subscribe rto any pre-ordained beliefs. I have shaped my own beliefs. I don't expect anyone else to subscribe to them, nor do I object to others (such as Muslims) embracing their own faith. That's all I can pack in now. Welcome to the forums.
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 08:16 am Salaams all, Madmullah, welcome to the Forum. I have tried organizing your postings under various subt-topics in the main folder (current Islam). I hope you don't terribly mind....the place was getting messy...I'm a lil neat freak :-) Lets leave this area for politics in the mid-east/Palestine issues. Madmullah, mad_mac and all others. See: Islam and 'terrorism', Women in islam-domninated or liberated, and Islam and science folders that I created to continue the discussions
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 09:11 am MAD MAC, If you're an American soldier who doesn't believe in the existence of God, that's entirely your business. You see Islam is a religion of choice and tolerance. And I can assure you that you'll never see me with a sword in one hand and Qur'an in another ordering you or anyone else for that matter to convert, your belief is your business. But my business is to protect Islam from lies and to tell the truth as it is. Now, back to the Middle East. Israel is not a democracy. It's a country founded by Zionists after WW2 with the help of the West. Israel was created at the expense of the Palestinians, Egyptians, Syrians, Jordanians, and the Lebanese people. Israel has no regard for human rights nor does it obey U.N. resolutions. In the past few weeks, Israel has killed around 350 and wounded 10,000 most of the dead are young. Between the ages of 8-33 years. There are 97 children killed, 65% of the dead were shot in the head and the chest. The Israelis are using dum-dum bullets(That explode within the person). These bullets were used by South Africa and are illegal. The Israelis are also using Apache helicopters, tanks, and M-60 guns while the Palestinians are using stones and AK-47's. Please visit this link; http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0042/gun.shtml The Palestinians have been made refugees in their own land. They've been degraded to the lowest human existence. Please visit this link; http://www.alnakba.org/photo/unrwa.htm The jews have committed the same atrocities that were done to them by the nazis. This is holocaust 2000. You see its human nature, yesterday's victim becomes today's aggressor. The Israeli Arabs are just as victimized as the Palestinians, they've very little human respect. And they're discriminated against simply because they're Arabs!
|
| | Friday, December 08, 2000 - 09:13 am Assalamu Aleikum, T-Girl, Thanks for welcoming me. And No, I don't mind, I think what you're doing is a great!
|
| | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 03:57 am Mad Mullah T-Girl is right. Let's most to the folders she organized. The one thing I will answer is - I do believe in God. The same God you believe in. The God of Abraham. I just don't believe the Qur'an is devine. I believe it is devinely inspired. Please note the difference.
|
| | Saturday, December 09, 2000 - 10:29 am MM The correct term is one mans meat is another mans poison, which would have an entirely different meaning in our context. Truth can only be constant. Secondly you are so dogmatic. Brother anyalist what have you made of the fact that below you walk on molten rock, which is in the earths core. The thickness of it which is like the peel of an apple. Or above you is outer space where you could not survie for a minute. Oh yeah.. but Islam is arrogant?. Ya Allah!
|
| | Sunday, December 10, 2000 - 11:17 pm Common OK, so I occasionally suffer from hubris. Doesn't mean I'm wrong. And you are at least as guilty as I of this particular trait. And Islam is just loaded with it. Also, I wasn't using an idiom there. I wasn't quaoting someone else. I was using my own term. And you are not correct. The truth is not finite. There is not always only one truth. Truth is not, in fact, always constant. As they say, the truth changes.
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 03:07 am wrong again. truth never changes, its always crystal clear. It is the people who manipulate its meanings.
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 04:42 am Idea Wrong again. You let five different people look at the same truth and they'll give you five different interpretations of that truth. Truth is certainly not definitive. This is never truer than when subject to human interpretation. Some facts are simple and easy to follow. In other cases, well meaning people can analyze the same information and derive conflicting facts. This is the status of the human condition and requires no evil influence to account for the phenomenon. What you hold for a truth today you may not hold for a truth tomorrow. Common I would expect you to understand this.
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 05:09 am MM, '' what you hold for the thruth you amy not hold thee same tommorow' but that does not apply to islam. islma is not RELATIVE. HOPE THAT WILL APPLY TO YOU AND SEE ISLAM INSHA ALLAH.
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 05:23 am Arawello Of course Islam is relative. Look at these pages here. They are full of well-intentioned Muslims diagreeing on various points written down in black and white. You see everything, even the "truth", is subject to human interpretation. And through that prism is the "truth" distorted. Not because people don't care enough or are influenced by evil, but because the human condition doesn't allow an unrefracted viewpoint.
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 05:38 am relative and subject to intrpretation are two different things man. of course there are many ayah of the quran that their meaning has to be interpreted and this was so since the time of the Prophetpbum. but would that make the thruth of islam different from what alrady it is, no. to be continued
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 11:05 am MAD MAC, Just because you do not believe in God does not give you the rights to bash Islam. Your beliefs are none of my business and ours shouldn't be any business of yours. You said "They are full of well-intentioned Muslims diagreeing on various points written down in black and white." Disagreeing comes when people are arguing and discussing things. It's perfectly natural for people to disagree because it is human nature to do so. Now, about the Truth as you question. There is only 1 book of Islam and that is the Holly Qur'an. Muslims follow the Qur'an and the Qur'an is interpreted only one way and that way is the truth, it is the way it says. With, Christianity, everybody finds a different interpretation of the bible and teaches it how he/she perceived it or understood it. That isn't the case with Islam. The Qur'an has existed for more than 1400 years and it is today as it was 1400 years ago. Recently, archeologists digging for an ancient tomb in Yemen found a very old copy of the Qur'an dating back to the early periods of the spread of Islam. When compared with the current Qur'an. They match, they are exactly the same! Now, if Islam was a religion where every Muslim told things how he/she thought it to be, Islam would have lost all its credibility and became as manipulated as the Bible is. Today, Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world. There are 4 people everyday that covert in the U.K. alone with the conversion rates being higher in other regions. There are over 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. Every 1 out of 6 people in the world is a Muslim. Now, my question to you is how can a religion that seems so back-ward among other things you've said have that many believers? Are they all MAD? Are they all dumb, gullible, and naive as the West likes to think? These Muslims have everything from Physicists to Physicians, from Astromoners to Mathematicians, from Anthroplogists to Professors, from Presidents to Students. I am talking about scores of societies. Actually, scores of countries that come from every part of the globe and speak every language immaginable. So, why don't you cut us some slack? You think Muslims are dumb enough to follow a religion that you categorize as belonging in the "Middle ages"? Just because you lack the capability to comprehend Islam, does not mean that Muslims don't. We(Muslims) understand Islam, it makes a lot of sense to us, we know why we do everything we do. Therefore, we choose to follow Islam. Today, all the things that you take for granted. Such as Algebra, Algorithm, Global positioning, Human embroyology, medicine among many others were all inventions and scientific work of Muslims. And all of it was derived from Islam, specially the Qur'an. Think carefully about what I've said before you bash Islam again!
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 11:21 am MM you fall on the premise of your logic. You have defined truth , as synominous with its intepretation, which of course then is not static, nor finite. The truth, by defintion is the truth. If we wish to understand truth as what is is not, then you may infer the assumptions you have made. However the truith, shall remain the same regardless of your or mine intpretation. Now here is where if you can hack the pace we move on to predestination and human will
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 01:12 pm "arawelo with a hijab now" Maa-shaa-allah, may Allah grant you more of His wisdom and fill your heart with peace and harmony and fear of Allah. Many congratualtions for your step to the right path. Jaazaaki allah kuul kheer.
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 05:30 pm Asalaamu caleikum. Arawelo. Congratulations sister!. One big giant step you have taken there. Keep up the good work and stay firm.
|
| | Monday, December 11, 2000 - 09:56 pm MadMullah You say Muslims follow the Qur'an and the Qur'an is only interpreted one way. Oh really? So you and the Shiites interpret the Qur'an only one way? What about the Druzes? What about the Wahabis for that matter? You guys all interpret the Qur'an the same way? Then why do you have different names for different sects? You think I'm a moron here? Come on, Islam has different sects because different Muslims believe different things. Just like Christians only not as diverse in opinion. where did I say I didn't believe in God. In fact I believe in the same God you believe in, the God of Abraham. Lastly what do you mean I don't have a right to bash Islam? This is a discussion page right? And I do live in a free country where speech is protected. In fact, I have the right to express my thoughts on religion whether you find them offensive or not. If you can't take the heat stay out of the net, because I'm not going anywhere. Sorry if I sound harsh, it's a tough life. Common You're much more fun. You are correct in the sense that there may be a finite reality, which we could call truth. The problem is, establishing that reality ALWAYS brings us back to interpretation. So some "truths" become easy to assert ("that steel pipe is hard"  . Others, howver, ar more difficult to asset ("Does God care if my Hijab is black or multi-colored". It is in these grayer areas that from a human perspective the truth changes, even amidst a bunch of Muslim fanatics. BTW How did your exams go? Everything kosher? When are you scheduled to graduate? Arawello, Read what I wrote to Common. It addresses your point to. Hope everyone is having a fullfilling Ramadan and enjoy Eid.
|
| | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 06:05 am Salaam 'aleukum, Arawelo with a hijab now!! Alhamdul-laah, sister, you choosen the path you shall not regret it after that, walk like a candle in the dark room or be like a start shinning from far far in space. Be strong where ever you are, may Allah grant you more of His strengh and fill your heart with peace of Allah.
|
| | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 10:52 am I said it before and I'll say it again Muslims all follow 1 book and that is the Holly Qur'an. Those other groups are all inventions created after the Prophet(SAW) and anyone who strays from the teachings and change the meanings of the Qur'an are not Muslims. What makes a person a Muslim? Submission to the will of God, declaration that there is only 1 God and Muhammad(SAW) is his prophet, following the teachings of the Qur'an as is and following the teachings of the Prophet(SAW) as they were, anyone who doesn't do any one of those things isn't a Muslim. He/she may claim to be, but he/she isn't. Do you understand? So, you are indeed Wrong and you've failed at your attempts to make Islam seem as if it has dozens of sects. There is only 1 Islam and that is the religion as it was unchanged when the Prophet(SAW) first brought it down! I am a Muslim, I was raised in Islam and know 100 times more than you think you know about Islam! "Lastly what do you mean I don't have a right to bash Islam? This is a discussion page right? And I do live in a free country where speech is protected. In fact, I have the right to express my thoughts on religion whether you find them offensive or not. If you can't take the heat stay out of the net, because I'm not going anywhere." Do you even know the difference between Bashing=Insulting and Arguing? I did not say do not argue, I said do not insult, get the difference? We are all adults here and there is no need for anyone to resort to insults, people argue all the time, but do they all insult one another? No, they don't! Another thing, I couldn't care the least bit what kind of land you live in. No one has denied you the right to argue and speak freely, but do they all have to be vulgar and insulting? No one has said you have to go anywhere and you can't tell me to get off the net, you don't own Somalinet and don't have any right to tell me to get off!
|
| | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 11:03 am MM Thank you for the concern. I graduate at the end of this academic year, my exams begin in Jan. Dear MM, i like the tactics you deploy with me, they very cute. Okay Lets be grown ups and agree the truth does not change even in grey areas, becasue we disagree on it. Secondly.. with reagrds to yoru referenace on Druze muslims shites etc etec. The prophet (pbuh) realted that his ummah would be divided into 70 odd sects(I THINK 76 OR 77) However, do they disagree in the truth as revealed?, nope, they all belive in the Quran as the word of Allah (swt). So sadly, even in times where the muslims have divergened, your idea flops, becasue even here truth has remained constant. The Quran is protected, it is the book wherin their is no Doubt, it is eternally protected and a blessing for mankind. All doomsday theories and seculasation projects are hopeless. Its not for the muslims, to reprsent the truth- THe Quran, Allah is protecting it. So muslims do not need to establish that reality, it has been established, what you can do as a man of reckoning, is reflect, and then the truth may be available to you. The prophet Mohammmed also said a true dream is 1/46 of a prophecy. Here we can site things like De -ja -vou etec So we do have access to the truth, even amonst a bunch of hardcore "dunna"  this world) fanatics just some folk like to conceal it <smile> Clearly some things are easier to establish than others, ie: what the Quran specifically outlaws, is easypeasy. But tell why you so worried, about the anguish of Allah's will on black hijaab or multi colour hijaab, when you will be judged according to your deeds. Let me remind you, we have more right to be secure than you, dear MM i will not be responsible for not warning you for the inevitable, even though you will probably point your finger at me on the day and say he did not warn me. Allah willing, i will reply, you had the colours of womens hijaab on your mind, and a smirk on your face Will you not feel rather silly, in front of your lord, you created you from mud and water, who fashioned you perfectly and bestowed on you favour?
|
| | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 11:13 am asalaamu caleykum wa raxmatulah wa barakaatu!!! MADMULAH i agree with you.anyone who says they don't believe in nabiyullah(SAW)is not a muslim...anyone who says the quran is different is not a muslim...a person is a muslim because they follow the religion..they don't change it jazzakulah bil kheyr for all the good deeds you are doing here.
|
| | Tuesday, December 12, 2000 - 01:30 pm <you had the colours of womens hijaab on your mind, and a smirk on your face> loooooool. this is hellarious. Common: good to see you bro :-) man, did I say you are adorable? well, let me say it again...you are truly adorable...the hadith about the splitting of the ummah says that the Jews will split to 71, the Christians 72 and the muslims 73.
|
| | Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 03:51 am TLG good to see you too sistuh Ramdhan is the bomb for me, for you? keep reprsenting sistuh wasalaam
|
| | Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 07:57 am MM, Bro common said all. I will to that if you do keep comparing Islam with the cotemprory christianity you will never get a prober understanding of islam.
|
| | Wednesday, December 13, 2000 - 10:49 pm Arawello Exactly what I've been saying here. Mad Mullah Look, what I'm trying to say is that if you read the Qur'an and Asad reads the Qur'an you will come to different conclusions about some of its guidance. Look at some of the debates Asad and Formerguest have had. Or that Common and formerguest have had. Here we have well meaning individuals all reading the same book and drawing different conclusions from it. This is not including folks like myself that don't believe the Qur'an is divine but concur it is probably divinely inspired. I also find it interesting that for you it is critical for someone to eb "saved" they must believe the Qur'an is divine - that believing in God is not enough. This dovetails nicely with my "all religions are corrupt" theory.
|
| | Thursday, December 14, 2000 - 06:19 am Common, wow, so u r graduating huh, allow me to be the first who congratulates you bro: Congratulationss and since TLG is also is graduating soon...n moi aussie...hey folks...we should make a get together virtual halaal party..lol (TLG sounds familiar)lol Ps: common plz go for ur PHD...n if it ever happens that you see in the future a wacko somali sister advocating for Islamic economics...don't hestitate to talk to her...cuz it will be moi :-) salaamsssssss EID MOUBARAK FOR U ALL
|
| | Thursday, December 14, 2000 - 08:36 am Salaam 'alukum, Ramadan Moubark for all of you. As you noticed through out this discussion, MM didn't and never will change his believes no matter what ever proof you show it, the last place he hided him self was " THERE IS NO THRUE" there is no RIGHT AND WRONG .....in another term there is no any kind of scale which we could measure the things...means the whole world is just "Big Joke" the life it self is meaningless!! I will forward new topic (new thread: You and Me) which concerns every american's life now and tommorow, so let see again how MM behaives this time.....I am not expecting from him anything different.
|
| | Thursday, December 14, 2000 - 10:41 am Hakim Already answered your last thread. I didn't say the whole world was a big joke, I said that the true meaning isn't availed to us. We only have bits and pieces to work with. That's what I said. I've read the Qur'an and while I agree it's a compelling work, it did not alter my basic belief about the nature of mans relationship to God.
|
| | Friday, December 15, 2000 - 11:06 am Mad Mac Do you not recall a sistuation in which me and Asad disagreed , and then which he reminded me that is was in the Quran. Do you also remember my exact response, which was "that settles it then". The reason that i ask this, is that i remember, vividly you groaning, and lamenting sarcastically "yep that settles it then". So tell me, when we do belive in the Quran and seek to it for guidance. You plea, dogmatism and "narrowmindness" When that did not work, you have reverted to a "we can not establish the truth" due to different intreprations of muslims..and cite the very me and asad as evidence?. exaplain, you missionary
|
| | Friday, December 15, 2000 - 11:58 am Common You of all people should know that whatever I am, it ain't a missionary. Come on. Of course if you cite a verse in the Qur'an and then state "that settles it then" I'm going to groan. You know that. I never reverted to "we can not establish the truth" I never left it. I maintain certain things to be self-evident, but I also maintain there's plenty of room for argument even concerning those. Now, how many times have you and Asad argued, oh let's say about whether or not the Palestinian intifadah qualifies as Jihad???? There you have the same book and can't reach the same determination. And if you rolled on it, Formerguest sure wouldn't. There's an example for you.
|
| | Saturday, December 16, 2000 - 04:19 am everytime i accuse you of being a missonary, you say "i ain't even a christain", you don't have to be christain to be a missionary, what was i telling you about Hegel and each conciousness seeking the death of the other. Don't act up on your mission. No examples to be found you said we all read the same book and reach different conculsions, and you have also said we all read the same book and reach the same conculsions. I have problems with the lack of consistancy. To correct you on me and asad and palestine, i didn't argue with the brother at all. You see..i said i would fight..and then he was arguing with a female writer about that not constiting jihad.. i simply stated i would fight. There was no question on my side of whther that was jihad or not, and thus i did not question his statement. You perhaps took my silence for disagreement, whne it was agreement and respect which casued my silence. Is it only defeat that silences you?. woe what little self restraint
|
| | Saturday, December 16, 2000 - 07:17 am Idea Sister <smile> I think i will have to do a PHD, eventually, but am not sure, i might pack up and leave for somewhere in the Islamic world to study. I am thinking maybe Al Azhor in Eygpt. What do you think?. I have heard that it has become very influenced by Eygptian politics though. What about Medina Univerity, i heard that is good, do you know anything about them. Inshallah i think i have had enough of the west for now. But my parents would probably be more happy if i did somemore study in the west so i am tryna do some compromising balance act. Thanks for the concern ,i will definatly look out for you in the Islamic economics feild. This sheikh i listen to his lecture he reckons that muslim women are the key to the future of the ummah, i think he is right, you guys are the movers and shakers of the muslim world  wasalaam your brother in Islam
|
| | Saturday, December 16, 2000 - 08:12 am Common I definetly think you should go to Medina University, its really good, but you'd have to learn arabic for a couple of years before you can get into the islamic stuff(thats if you don't speak it already) besides its the prophet's city.
|
| | Saturday, December 16, 2000 - 08:54 am MadMac what do you know for the '' thruth'? I am not sure if I am not with you.
|
| | Saturday, December 16, 2000 - 03:46 pm Common, I think i will agree with sweetgirl. First, learn Arabic...i think it will be hard if you go there without at least having a good command of the language. I don't know about Medina...but going to Egypt is in itself a fascinating experience...it is the only country that the east and the west meet...by all means of that expression. And, i think to some degree the egyptian politics have shaped the tradition of al-azhar al-shareef. But STILL it is numero uno in the middle east :-) egyptians say about their country that it is the "mother of the world". Egyptians by the way, are the most civilized ppl i have ever met...they r really cool ppl...but once they feel that you r foreigner...man their will exploit you by all means...for example, if an egyptian is paying for something for L.E 1, they will make sure you pay L.E 10 :-) otherwise, egyptians ROCK :-)
|
| | Saturday, December 16, 2000 - 04:08 pm Idea They teach you arabic in the University itself if you are a foreigner, so you don't really have to go else where, and even though al-azhar has a great reputation for being one of the best islamic universities and egyptians really rock, I still think Medina University is way better, oh and its an all guy university so he doesn't have to worry about getting distracted.
|
| | Sunday, December 17, 2000 - 12:39 am Hey bro COMMON! Salaamun caleyka bro. check your e-mail. I sent you a message. And stay out of trouble young man.
|
| | Monday, December 18, 2000 - 01:26 am sweetgirl, maa-shaa-allah, did i tell you that your nick is soo sweet to my heart:-) well, my beloved sister, unfortunately, i didn't get my education neither from al-medina uni nor from al-azhar uni (though i wished) but from my experience of the educational system in the Middle East...Egypt is way better. Or maybe i am biased, egypt is the only home i know:-)
|