This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...

Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts

Why are Arabs the Best?

SomaliNet Forum (Archive): Islam (Religion): Archive (Before Sept. 29, 2000): Why are Arabs the Best?

Runta	Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 12:20 pm It seems that every culture that becomes Muslim becomes Arabized... they all of a sudden begin to dress like Arabs, change their names to arab names, eat arab food, dress in arab clothing, pray in arabic, and read the qu'ran in arabic. Everything is Arab! What's up with that? It's not just names... If it was only name changes that's one thing, but why does the whole world have to become Saudi Arabia to worship God?
FAHAD	Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 05:55 pm Runta first of all why you moving from subject to onathar or from site to new one,is't you trying to escape from the truth which is what your claiming for or you trying confuse the uneducated people we can answer every thing but why you don't answer what the brothers ask you. About your question we love arabic becouse its the qur'an languege and we love them becouse our prophet muxxamad was an arabian and arabic languege is the official languege of the muslim people,its the same thing that made the Gaal of egypt call his self john or james.
ABUU MUHAMAD	Tuesday, September 12, 2000 - 08:58 pm DIE FOR YOUR JELEUSITY RUNTA WE LIKE ARABS BECOUSE THEY ARE CHOSEN BY ALLAH BY ABUU MUHAMED
Khalid	Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 12:58 am Praise be to Allah. Asalamu alaykum all, Firstly, Runta I hope that as your name says seeking the truth else you are being pathetic and thus is a 'Beenta'. Secondly, lets not make this an issue of race or racism or prejiduce. Because you point is invalid. How? One does not have to dress like Arabs (I think you are probably refering to 'khamiis') or necessary name themselves the so called arabic names by you. How ofted does your father dress 'khamiis'? And could you tell me a better name than that of thank-givingness to thy Almighty such as Mohamed=the thankful, Abdullah=the servent of Allah, Abdulrahman=the servent of Thy Mercyfull? Bro/sis which ever you happen to be, I advice you and myself not to fall into pondering into such minor, non-issue matters. More importantly, lets be focused and be the proper muslims that the Creator wants us to be. Just to get to the point there is no such 'Arabizing'. However, the arabic language NOT the culture happens to be unique for some of the following reasons: * The Holy Qur'an is revealed in arabic * The noblest of all the prophets sent by Allah (Mohamed(pbuh)) speaks arabic * On the day of judgement arabic is the official language of the people in 'Heaven'. Should not one make an effect to learn it? Allah knows best. Yours friendly, K.
Runta	Wednesday, September 13, 2000 - 04:51 am So why would God choose Arabic. God says that He is no respecter of persons. Somali culture has been arabized. Somalis even think that they are Arabs and descended from Muhammed. Why do you wanna be Arab? Be Somali and love God. The somali language has been diluted by arab words. Why speak a human language IN HEAVEN? The way we will communicate in heaven is beyond human language...it can only be a heavenly language. In human language there is room for confusion, but not in God's communication. He is clear. Why are you more blessed to read the Qu'ran and pray in arabic rather than your language. Is God that petty that He would rather His people be ignorant and stumble over trying to read His word in a foreign tongue? Why not in the tongue of the people so that they will understand more clearly. Why pray in a foreign tongue that you can barely understand what you're saying? Why not express what's in your heart to God in your own tongue? Do you speak Chinese or German well? What if the law made it mandatory to only speak in Chinese even to your wife and kids. How would you feel not to be able to express your love in your own language, but have to spend years learning another language that you fully don't understand?
formerguest.	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 04:50 am Tell us JESUS spoke ENGLISH or GREEK?. You are one hell of a desperate guy.
Runta	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 05:25 am He spoke neither... He spoke Aramaic, but there aren't a whole bunch of Christians walking around speaking Aramaic. Is God pro-Arab? Does He have a Saudi Arabian flag hanging in heaven.
asad	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 05:52 am "He spoke neither... He spoke Aramaic" why would your god choose and speak aramaic? is the language of heaven aramaic?
MAD MAC	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 06:21 am Formerguest Actually there's a good chance that Jesus spoke Greek, as he was supposedly well read and in Jerusalum of the time Greek was a commonly used language. There's also a possibility he spoke Latin - as it was also a Roman colony. The average lay person spoke Aramaic and Jesus most assuredly spoke this if he wanted to communicate with the masses. Abbu Mohamed If Allah chose the Arabs well there's no accounting for taste, because of all the peoples I've encountered around the world they're the most disagreeable. They have an annoying culture and a more annoying temperment. Funny how everyone thinks God is on their side - God chose the Arabs. That's just too funny. What did he choose them for?? Exactly what wonderous things do the Arabs do now to better this planet. Did I mention that the Arabs consider Africans, including Somalis, to be inferior???
Runta	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 06:29 am That's right Mr. Mac and Muhammed owned African slaves. Maybe the Europeans had slaves, but they weren't founders of Christianity. Jesus didn't own slaves, but Muhammed did.
asad	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 06:39 am "Funny how everyone thinks God is on their side - God chose the Arabs. That's just too funny. What did he choose them for?? Exactly what wonderous things do the Arabs do now to better this planet." God did choose prophets among different nations and tribes--that does not mean these nations and tribes were the best of people. in fact, it is a point of wonder that if the pagan arabs who used to bury their own daughters alive could change and choose islam, anyone else could. as long as they followed the law, then the favor of Allah was with them, but if people do not follow the laws of Allah, they will fall from grace; thus the jews and arabs whom there were among them prophets chosen by Allah. "Did I mention that the Arabs consider Africans, including Somalis, to be inferior???" what about the europeans. i was called a nigger many times by european american who happen to be christians. i know some of somalis also discriminate and see themselves as superior to other somalis. did i mention that the somalis consider whites and arabs to be inferiors?
asad	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 06:59 am "That's right Mr. Mac and Muhammed owned African slaves." he owned arab slaves too. arabs owned european slaves too. ;-) "Maybe the Europeans had slaves," maybe? ;-) "but they weren't founders of Christianity." they sure did. the name christianity never existed jesus's time. the romans with the help of paul invented christianity. europeans would use the bible to enslave africans. "Jesus didn't own slaves, but Muhammed did." jesus did not come to change the law. muhammad treated slaves equal. they ate with him in the same plate he ate. he encouraged others to free slaves. jesus never said that the slavery was wrong. the children of israel whom he was sent to practiced slavery.
Runtata	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 07:06 am I don't care how nice a person is to me... I don't want to be anyone's slave! Muhammed might been the nicest master in the world, but he still owned african slaves...while he encouraged others to free their slaves. Anyway, Jesus showed Israel the error of their ways by word and example. Jesus didn't own blacks or anyone else! The word Christian existed before the Europeans... Acts 11 26And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
asad	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 07:37 am "I don't care how nice a person is to me... I don't want to be anyone's slave! Muhammed might been the nicest master in the world, but he still owned african slaves...while he encouraged others to free their slaves." he owned arab slaves too. ;-) "Anyway, Jesus showed Israel the error of their ways by word and example." no, he used to tell people to give up their errors. if slavery were an error, he would have told them to give it up, but he did not. therefore, slavery is allowed. what do you call prisoners of war, runta? "The word Christian existed before the Europeans... Acts 1126And when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. " that is a lie. jesus's time, the word christianity never existed. there were no trinity beleifs either. paul invented it.
asad	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 07:41 am runta, besides, when was the bible written, including the verse you quoted? was jesus there?
Runta	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 09:57 am "what do you call prisoners of war, runta? " Are far as I know Jesus didn't go on any conquests to have prisoners of war. "that is a lie. jesus's time, the word christianity never existed." Sorry... that's what ACTS 11:26 says...the word Christianity maybe didn't exist, but "Christian" did. The Christians called Christianity "The Way" There is no way you can prove other wise... even if you quoted some guy from a book... he wasn't there either. Jesus loves you.
formerguest.	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 11:23 am RUNTA can comment on these attitudes in the bible: complete racism IN THE BIBLE: <[Gen. 9:21]When Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan, a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers, blessed be Shem, and let Canaan be his slave.">(see noah was drunk before and just woke up). slavery had been established IN THE BIBLE AS ONE CAN SEE CLEARLY IN THE ABOVE BIBLE VERSE. So, all descendants OF CANAAN(guess who CANAAN IS) are to be SLAVES for their WHITE YOUNGER BRETHREN. Tell US RUNTA that is a JOKE. watch the guy WHO wrote 75% OF THE BIBLE and his RACISM: <[Gal. 2:15] Paul said, "We ourselves, who are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners."> we are all sinners including you MISTER RUNTA. PAUL ruled it. SO EMBRACE AND WELCOME TO HELL IF YOU CARE. I almost forgot OUR IRISH GUY MAD he is welcome to the SINNERS too. <[Gal. 4:22] For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave, and by a free women. BUT WHAT DOES THE SCRIPTURE SAY? "CAST OUT THE SLAVE AND HER SON, FOR THE SON OF SLAVE SHALL NOT INHERIT WITH THE SON OF THE FREE WOMAN" SO, BRETHREN WE ARE NOT CHILDREN OF THE SLAVE BUT OF THE FREE WOMAN."> Watch how GENTILES are ruled to be enslaved FOREVER BY THE BIBLE: <GENTILES IN THE BIBLE !!! ------------------------- [Isia. 49:22] Thus the Lord said, "Behold I will lift up my hand to the gentiles, and raise up my signal to the people, and they shall bring your sons in their bosom, and your daughters shall be carried on their shoulders. Kings shall be your foster fathers, and their queens your nursing mothers. WITH THEIR FACES TO THE GROUND THEY SHALL BOW DOWN TO YOU, AND LICK THE DUST OF YOUR FEET. [Isia. 60:4] Lift up your eyes round about, and see, they all gather together, they come to you. THE WEALTH OF THE NATIONS(in K.J.version: gentiles) SHALL COME UNTO YOU and the sons of the foreigners shall build up your walls, and their kings shall minister unto you...MEN MAY BRING UNTO YOU THE WEALTH OF THE NATIONS (in K.J. version: Gentiles) WITH THEIR KINGS LED IN YOUR POSSESSION. For the nation and kingdom that will not serve you shall perish; those nations shall be utterly laid waste. YOU SHALL SUCK THE MILK OF THE NATIONS(in K.J. version: Gentiles), YOU SHALL SUCK THE BREAST OF KINGS. <[2 King 5:15]THERE IS NO GOD IN ALL THE EARTH, BUT IN ISRAEL.> Tell us that is not racism. GOD for particular people and nothing for others. <[Deut. 7:6] You are an holy people unto the Lord your God: THE LORD HAD CHOSEN YOU TO BE A SPECIAL PEOPLE UNTO HIMSELF,ABOVE ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH.> I have a lot more DISGUSTING LIES and fabrications against the prophets of GOD COMING. Supposedly WRITTEN IN THE BOOKS OF GOD BY ST PAUL. I hope RUNTA WILL BE READY TO COMMENT ON THEM or dismiss them. LET US SEE WHO HAS SOMETHING TO HIDE OR DEFEND.
asad	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 12:32 pm "Sorry... that's what ACTS 11:26 says...the word Christianity maybe didn't exist, but "Christian" did. The Christians called Christianity "The Way" the acts (the book) was written looooooooooong after jesus left from this earth. whoever wrote the acts (the book) made the name up. jesus had nothing to do with the name christians. "Jesus loves you" i love him too.
asad	Thursday, September 14, 2000 - 12:34 pm "what do you call prisoners of war, runta? " "Are far as I know Jesus didn't go on any conquests to have prisoners of war." the his followers, the so called christians, did, right?
Yaska	Friday, September 15, 2000 - 03:24 am Salaam 'aleukum Liman Taba'a Hudaa Thanks brothers asad,formerguest for your restless effort to dialogue with our guests, may Allah show them the true. I am afraid Mr runta, missed the point when he tried to compre two propheps agains each other, but not consider the time and space factors in order to reach reliable facts. Instead of Issa/jesus(peace be upon him) and Mohammed(ppuh), it would be logic if he trys Mosses(ppuh) and Mohammed(ppuh). about the slavery story, Islam solved this problem within 40 years, where no other person or civilisations ever done before. racial problemsis one of them main deases facing the humanity today, so what christian dominated civilisation of west did it our even could do it to stop this dilemma with your bible in hand? let us be realistic in this matter and ask our self how awful situation we in today? who owns who? I hope this two cents may not harm the continuation of the dialogue 1
MAD MAC	Friday, September 15, 2000 - 08:11 am OK everyone, how the hell did we get onto the subject of slavery. I'm pretty sure we can agree on two things. Anyone who wants to can justify slavery in Christianity or Islam. Slaves are being maintained in Sudan today, amongst other places, including Christian countries like Serbia. Let's just say no one has a clean slate on this subject and agree that slavery is wrong and move on. Asad Are you black?????? I didn't think I was talking with a black guy. I thought I was talking with a Somali.
asad	Friday, September 15, 2000 - 09:53 am "Asad Are you black?????? I didn't think I was talking with a black guy. I thought I was talking with a Somali." i'm a somali who is a black african. :-)
asad	Friday, September 15, 2000 - 10:45 am "Let's just say no one has a clean slate on this subject and agree that slavery is wrong and move on." i do not agree. what do you call prisoners of war, mad mac? in islam, the prisoners of war can be made to be slaves. in different countries, including america, the prisoners of war are made to work without salary in bad conditions.
NATIONALIST	Friday, September 15, 2000 - 11:37 am f.u.c.k you all phuck the arabs and the jews and who ever else u r related to..... SOMALIAN ARE GODS CHOSEN people god him self told me so,,,,,,, we are the chosen ones
MAD MAC	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 02:20 am Nationalist Whatever dude. Asad Prisoners of War can be made to work, this is true. However, they must be released from the captivity at the conclusion of the conflict. Also, you may not beat or execute them. Hence, there are some poignant differences. Also, the POWs are hardly made to work in bad conditions. Many of the POWs kept in America after we signed the Geneva convention paritioned to remain in the US and become US citizens and not be repatriated - hardly the mark of an individual being held in poor conditions. Slavery, that is holding one in bondage for an indefinate period for financial gain, is wrong - plain and simple. What's going on in Sudan is wrong, not that I'm surprised since th Sudanese are primitive barbarians living in the 10th century.
asad	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 03:45 am "Prisoners of War can be made to work, this is true." without pay, right? what if they refuse to work? "However, they must be released from the captivity at the conclusion of the conflict." specially, in exchange of other prisoners of war at the other side. "Also, you may not beat or execute them. Hence, there are some poignant differences." unless they do some criminal acts, right? "Many of the POWs kept in America after we signed the Geneva convention paritioned to remain in the US and become US citizens and not be repatriated -hardly the mark of an individual being held in poor conditions." the same way, in islam, many prisoners of war became muslims; thus, having the same rights as everyone else. "Slavery, that is holding one in bondage for an indefinate period for financial gain, is wrong - plain and simple" in prisons where the prisoners of war are placed in can be called a "holding" place. the prisoners are in bondage without their will. they are made to work for financial gain that benefits not the prisoners but other people-- without their consent and without salary. this is no different than slavery and being in bondage. "What's going on in Sudan is wrong, not that I'm surprised since th Sudanese are primitive barbarians living in the 10th century." can you compare with what went on in sudan and what went on in kosova and bosina? which one can you characterize as more barbarian than the other-- against one group to another in this centruy?
asad	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 04:53 am speaking of slavery in sudan, let's take a look at what others have to say------which is different than the christian missionaries version: read it at your leisure time: Sudan, Propaganda and Distortion: Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-Related Practices An Open Letter to Baroness Cox and Christian Solidarity International by David Hoile An occasional paper published by The Sudan Foundation (Director: Sean Gabb) 212 Piccadilly London WC1V 9LD United Kingdom Telephone within the UK: 0171 917 1854 Telephone from abroad: **44 171 917 1854 E-mail: main@sufo.demon.co.uk ISBN: 1 86234 020 X (c) 1997: The Sudan Foundation, David Hoile All opinions expressed herein are those of the author, and not necessarily those of the Sudan Foundation. Executive Summary Baroness Cox Heavily Criticised for "Propagandistic and Unproven Claims" of Slavery in Sudan In a new Report, Sudan, Propaganda and Distortion: Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-related Practices, An Open Letter to Baroness Cox and Christian Solidarity International, published by the Sudan Foundation and released today in London, Baroness Cox and Christian Solidarity are heavily criticised for their unproven and propagandistic allegations of slavery and slavery-related practices in Sudan. The author of the Report, David Hoile, shows that Baroness Cox has produced no evidence for the serious claims she has made: "Reports on Sudan by Christian Solidarity International have lacked any sense of balance and objectivity and have been somewhat selective in their reading of recent Sudanese history. The reports for example, have made no mention of the thousands of adult black Sudanese and young boys who have been abducted or kidnapped by the SPLA and subjected to forced conscription and forced labour practices which by your own definition qualify as the practice of slavery." He shows also how these reports have served merely to distort still further an already difficult situation, and have added a further layer of misunderstanding. And he points out that, despite her concern about slavery, Baroness Cox has "openly associated" and continues to associate with: "People and organisations closely identified with what would clearly qualify by your definition, and that of several human rights organisations, as slavery and forced labour. These people and organisations include Sadiq al-Mahdi and John Garang and his faction of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement." Baroness Cox has openely associated with people such as Mubarak al-Fadil al-Mahdi, a Minister under Sadiq al-Mahdi, and identified by British human rights groups as the architect of the 1980s "militias" policy during the Sadiq al-Mahdi government, which resulted in thousands of kidnappings and abductions, which in turn resulted in numerous cases of false imprisonment and forced labour. On the main issue of the allegations of slavery within Sudan, Mr Hoile categorically states that: "The various key human rights organisations have quite simply not produced any credible evidence of state-sanctioned or condoned slavery or slavery-like practices. What these human rights groups have documented contradicts such claims. These human rights groups have shown repeated interventions by government authorities to free people detained by tribal militias. They have also documented that due process of law exists in Sudan, whereby Sudanese courts have repeatedly freed people held illegally." Mr Hoile reveals that while, in 1992, the American Government was officially insisting that there was "no evidence of organised or officially-sanctioned slavery" in Sudan, this line changed abruptly, and without fresh evidence coming to light, to suit the new priorities of US foreign policy. What had previously been described as kidnapping and slavery was seemingly reclassified as "slavery", in keeping with new American propaganda themes. Mr Hoile calls on Baroness Cox to do the following: 1 To urge the British Government to adopt a balanced and more constructive approach to the Sudanese political situation, particularly with regard to abuses of human rights by all parties to the Sudanese civil war, and to consider increasing development assistance to Sudan to alleviate the social conditions in which many of these abuses take place; 2 To consider a more balanced and less partisan approach to the Sudanese civil war, particularly with regard to reports published and distributed by Christian Solidarity International; 3 To bring pressure on John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to end the slavery and systematic abuse of human rights with which they have so long been associated; 4 To call Sadiq al-Mahdi publicly into account for the practices and human rights abuses practised and encouraged while he was Prime Minister in the 1980s; 5 To urge John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to follow the lead of so many of his southern colleagues and enter into the ongoing Sudanese peace process - a process which has resulted in the signing of political charters guaranteeing most if not all of the demands of the southern Sudanese political leaders, including a referendum on the status of southern Sudan. 7 To reconsider her continuing support for the John Garang and Sadiq al- Mahdi, given their commitment to a violent resolution of Sudan's political problems, especially given that there are clear moves towards a peaceful negotiated settlement from within Sudan itself. ====Main Text Begins===== Politics File Number 5 Sudan, Propaganda and Distortion: Allegations of Slavery and Slavery-Related Practices An Open Letter to Baroness Cox and Christian Solidarity International by David Hoile I write this open letter with considerable sadness and regret. You will remember that we worked together on some political issues relating to Mozambique several years ago. As you may also know I have long admired much of your political and educational work within the United Kingdom. I must state, however, that I have become increasingly concerned at the nature and direction of your recent work on Sudan, and feel that I must publicly address you on this issue. Sudan and its problems have been in the headlines for some time. We in the West have a responsibility to take a measured approach to African and Middle Eastern issues, particularly when the repercussions of distorted images can only but worsen already difficult situations. This is particularly the case with Sudan and I have to say that I have grave concerns at the way you and Christian Solidarity International, the organisation with which you are closely identified, have approached the issue of Sudan. Much of your work and that of Christian Solidarity International on Sudan has centred on allegations of slavery within that country. Quite frankly, for all the somewhat sensationalist claims and allegations you and CSI have made, the evidence to support such grave claims is simply not there. While the government of Sudan may well have been guilty of human rights abuses within the course of the Sudanese civil war, your reports do not in any way produce credible evidence of a slave trade, certainly as we in the West would understand it, within Sudan or of any governmental involvement in this alleged trade. I am sad to say that your reports have served merely to further distort an already difficult situation and have added a further layer of misunderstanding. Paradoxically you have openly associated, and continue to associate yourself, with people and organisations closely identified with what would clearly qualify by your definition, and that of several human rights organisations, as slavery and forced labour. These people and organisations include Sadiq al-Mahdi, the Umma party president and prime minister of Sudan from 1986-89, and John Garang and his faction of the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A). Several of your visits to Sudan, for example, are within areas of the country controlled from time to time by SPLA gunmen As detailed further on in this letter, reports on Sudan by Christian Solidarity International have lacked any sense of balance and objectivity and have been somewhat selective in their reading of recent Sudanese history. The reports, for example, have made no mention of the thousands of adult black Sudanese and young boys who have been abducted or kidnapped by the SPLA and subjected to forced conscription and forced labour, practices which by your own definition qualify as the practice of slavery. It is very important, therefore, to examine the allegations of slavery within the Sudan in considerably more detail than the somewhat sensationalist and partisan way in which they have previously been presented. The Slavery Allegations Allegations of slavery have characterised much of the propaganda levelled at the present government of Sudan. The issue of slavery is a very emotive one within the Sudan. Much of the history of nineteenth-century Sudan is marked by a slave trade closely identified with the Turkish-Egyptian colonial authorities, slavery being therefore very much associated with Egyptian colonialism. Those who level accusations of slavery touch a raw nerve with the Sudanese. Those who have made such allegations, allegations that the Sudanese government condones and encourages institutionalised slavery, have, however, not provided the evidence necessary to justify such grave accusations. The slave trade as it existed in nineteenth-century Sudan involved the Turkish-Egyptian colonial authorities, their Arab servants and slavers and dominant black tribes in southern Sudan who supplied many of their captives as slaves to the slave traders. As Gray records, one of the most prominent southern slave dealers was Mopoi, a chief of the war-like Azande tribe, who provided slavers with thousands of his tribe's captives.[1] Grays also relates that "Europeans were amongst the foremost participants' in the African slave trade"[2] As the distinguished Sudanese academic, Mohamed Omer Beshir, stated: "The suggestion...that the `Arabs' or `the Northerners' were the only dealers in this repugnant trade and the ones responsible for the violence which accompanied it, is not true."[3] An end to slavery in Sudan had been one of stated motives for the British intervention in the late nineteenth-century. The subsequent Anglo-Egyptian government ensured that slave trading as an organised concern was brought to an end: the colonial government remained very hostile to the institution of slavery in all its forms. It is significant to note that while slave trading was at an end, inter- tribal disputes and fighting still resulted in the kidnapping and taking of captives, captives then often used as forced labour. The Report on the Finances, Administration and Conditions of the Sudan in 1904 records a "certain amount of kidnapping" in eastern Sudan[4]. There were also cases of kidnapping in Kordofan, Darfur and the Blue Nile. Beshir records that: "Abduction for the purpose of forced labour, especially among the nomad tribes of South West and North West Kordofan, continued until 1912".[5] McLaughlin documents that between 1905-1913 two hundred and forty-two people were arrested and convicted of kidnapping and abduction.[6] As late as 1947, an official Sudan government publication warned that kidnappings were still happening, being carried out by nomadic tribes in the north.[7] It would be another forty years before accusations of slavery were to be heard within Sudan again. They emerged in the mid-and-late 1980s in the course of the civil war being fought in parts of central and southern Sudan between central government and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement/Army under John Garang. The present civil war in Sudan started in 1983, towards the end of the Nimeiry dictatorship, and continued under the Transitional Military Council which overthrew Nimeiry in 1985, and then under the several coalition governments headed by Sadiq al-Mahdi from 1986-89. There are undoubtedly several key human rights issues with which the present government is still associated by inheritance. In addition to the civil war in the south, the government, for example, inherited the political and military conflict within the Nuba Mountains of Sudan, a conflict very much the result of specific policies devised in the mid-to-late 1980s by the then government of Sadiq al-Mahdi and John Garang's SPLM/A. These policies included the arming of tribal militias by Sadiq al-Mahdi, militias directly associated with the subsequent allegations of slavery that have been levelled at the Sudan, and the arming of these militias was the direct result of the SPLA's desire to spread the civil war to a new part of Sudan. The issue of the tribal militia raised, armed and used by the Sadiq al-Mahdi regime and the allegations of slavery go hand-in-hand. In order to examine the situation today it is important to trace the relationship between the two. The Nuba Mountains and the conflict within it have attracted considerable international attention, presently focused upon the present government in Khartoum. The British human rights group African Rights states very clearly, however, that "The war in the Nuba Mountains began in July 1985". African Rights also describes the genesis of this conflict, and the deliberate arming and use of tribal militias There were two events: an isolated raid by an SPLA unit on a cattle camp for Baggara Arab nomads close to the north-south internal boundary, and the government decision to arm the Baggara as a militia to fight the SPLA and the civilian population thought to be sympathetic to it.[8] The SPLM/A killed sixty Baggara tribesmen and wounded 82 others during the raid mentioned above. These circumstances unleashed raids by the army and newly equipped militia on villages and their inhabitants, resulting in the death of large numbers of Nuba Mountain residents and their leaders, numerous arrests and detentions, stock theft and army reprisals within areas in which the SPLA were believed to have had a presence. British journalist Julie Flint has also documented the origin of the violence in the Nuba Mountains and the role of the Sadiq al-Mahdi government and SPLA within it: Until the 1980s, Baggara and Nuba lived in intimate enmity - sometimes raiding, sometimes intermarrying, but with mechanisms for regulating disputes. This collapsed after the SPLA made its first incursion into the Nuba Mountains in 1985, killing and wounding more than 100 Arabs. The government responded by arming the Baggara against the Nuba...Neither side behaved well. The Baggara militia ran amok. The SPLA raided villages for food and forcibly conscripted young men. Tens of thousands of Nuba fled their homes.[9] African Rights have also summed up the essence of the Nuba conflict, pointing a particular finger at the Sadiq al-Mahdi regime: This stage of the war, and in particular the militia strategy, was designed by elected politicians, mainly from the Umma party. These politicians, most of whom are now in opposition and who speak grandly of `democracy' and `human rights', are among those who bear most guilt for the crimes committed against the Nuba.[10] Human Rights Watch/Africa have also explored the origins of the slavery allegations: The practices described as slavery in Sudan have their current origin in the human rights abuses committed in the civil war by government troops and militia in the south and the Nuba Mountains. These abuses did not start with the current government which took power in June 1989. They routinely were committed by Arab militias armed by local government and the Umma Party under the democratically-elected government (1986-89) of Prime Minister and Umma Party president Sadiq al-Mahdi.[11] African Rights states that several people were intimately involved in designing the militia policy: Fadallah Burma, who served as a Minister of State and defence advisor under Sadiq al-Mahdi; Abdel Rasoul el Nur, the Governor of Kordofan from 1987-9 and a former private secretary to Sadiq al-Mahdi; and Hireka Izz el Din, the chairman of the Umma party parliamentary group from 1986-9.[12] That the Umma party and Sadiq al-Mahdi opened a Pandora's box of inter- tribal violence is clear. And it is out of this deliberate policy that the allegations of slavery started to emerge. A comprehensive report on the El Diein massacres in March 1987, where Rizeigat tribal militia were involved in the shooting or burning alive of hundreds of Dinka men, women and children, was written by two Muslim academics at the University of Khartoum and showed the intensity of this new conflict. This report, The Diein Massacre and Slavery in the Sudan, stated that: Government policy has produced distortions in the Rizeigat community such as banditry and slavery, which interacted with social conflicts in Diein to generate a massacre psychosis...Armed banditry, involving the killing of Dinka villagers, has become a regular activity for the government- sponsored militia. Also linked with the armed attacks are the kidnapping and subsequent enslavement of Dinka children and women. All this is practised with the full knowledge of the government.[13] Sadiq al-Mahdi resolutely defended the militias, claiming against all the evidence that the Rizeigat militia were not guilty of the massacre, and subsequently stating that militias "were only to defend democracy".[14] Amnesty International was also able to describe the nature and effects of Sadiq al-Mahdi's policies: Between 1985 and 1988 northern Bahr al-Ghazal was devastated by a series of raids by the murahaleen, a militia raised from the Rizeiqat and Misseriya nomadic tribes of Southern Darfur and Southern Kordofan. Initially self-armed, the murahaleen developed close links with the armed forces and the Umma party, historically the strongest party in western Sudan. The raids, which involved the killing of thousands of Dinka civilians, rape, the abduction of women and children, the looting of livestock and the destruction of homesteads, led to severe famine in northern Bahr al-Ghazal and the displacement of hundreds of thousands of civilians.[15] This then was the appalling situation within parts of southern and western Sudan and in the Nuba Mountains before the present government took power in 1989. The position at least of the present government on slavery is very clear. It states that Sudan is a signatory to several key international conventions outlawing slavery. These include the Slavery Convention of 25 September 1926, as amended by the New York protocol of 7 December 1953 and the Supplementary Convention on the abolition of slavery, the slave trade and institutions and practices similar to slavery was ratified by the Sudan in 1956 and 1957. In 1995, following claims of the existence of slavery in remote areas of Sudan, the Sudanese government established a five man commission to investigate any alleged instances of slavery within the Sudan. Additionally, the 1991 Criminal Law Act clearly defines abduction, forced labour, kidnapping, unlawful confinement and unlawful detention as criminal acts punishable by imprisonment. The 1992 government publication, Sudan Yearbook, in a section reviewing measures to end the conflict in southern Sudan, clearly stated the government's position with regard to slavery: The issue of the slave trade, whatever historical justifications it had, and regardless of the participation of many quarters therein, whether colonialism, the North or citizens from the South, has been, and will continue to be for ever, the most atrocious practice ever known in history What then are the practices which have been described by some groups as "slavery"? What appears to have happened is that as the civil war spread to other parts of Sudan in the late 1980s, both the government and SPLM/A armed tribal militias within areas which had traditionally seen considerable inter-tribal conflict, including the raiding, abductions and kidnapping mentioned in the above colonial instances. Raiding, which had been virtually dormant for decades was given a new lease of life as traditional rivals such as the Baggara and Dinkas were armed with modern, automatic weapons and encouraged to attack each other. Additionally, given the vastness of Sudan, and even without the dislocation of civil war, several large areas of the country proved difficult to administer - just as they had been during the colonial government - providing ideal circumstances for abduction and kidnappings. It would appear that even travel guides have more of a grasp of the reality of Sudan than many human rights groups and Western governments. The Lonely Planet guide to travel in Sudan warns that: "The far west, particularly Darfur, is plagued by bandits who apparently have little compunction about robbing and sometimes killing their victims. The government is attempting - so far with only limited success - to bring these people under a measure of control".[16] There is also a particular difficulty in defining exactly what constitutes "slavery", an issue discussed below in more detail. What has been increasingly presented as slavery by anti- Sudanese and anti-Islamic propagandists can in no way be compared to slavery as we understand it. Additional attempts to project the present government of Sudan as either explicitly or implicitly supporting or condoning these practices is fundamentally dishonest, despite the clear implication of the previous government in allowing widescale abuses of human rights and practices within these areas. Given the present hostility of the United States government to the Sudanese state, it is interesting to note the references to slavery contained in the Department of State's comprehensive human rights publication, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. The 1990 entry on Sudan touches on several of the issues mentioned above: "Slavery reportedly exists in those remote areas where government control is weak and where displaced persons fleeing the war zones come into contact with armed groups...The revival of slavery is often blamed on economic pressure and the civil war, especially the practice of arming tribal militias".[17] The 1992 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices quite clearly states that: "Sudanese law prohibits forced or compulsory labor and there was no evidence of organised or officially sanctioned slavery".[18]The official United States perspective would seem to echo the Sudanese government's description of what was going on within Sudan. It is important to further note that the years covered in the above reports were years during which there was a marked escalation in the civil war, and the disorder and chaos that would have been associated with such increased conflict, and therefore the potential conditions for raiding, abductions and kidnapping would have been heightened. Yet the American position was quite clearly that there was "no evidence of organised or officially sanctioned slavery". From 1993 onwards, there was a marked de-escalation of the conflict resulting from the SPLM/A's loss of rear-bases in Ethiopia and the fragmentation of the SPLM/A itself. It is ironic and somewhat contradictory, therefore, that as the conditions for raiding, abductions and kidnappings decreased, what can only be described as a concerted propaganda campaign highlighting allegations of slavery and slavery-like practices was focused on Sudan and the Sudanese government from 1995/6 onwards. The early official United States government position outlined above was, of course, to change as the propaganda war was stepped up against the Sudanese government, when allegations of slavery would presumably have been seen as valuable and suitable propaganda and as the United States government and its allies stepped up their political and propaganda campaign. From 1995 onwards the allegations of slavery resurfaced with groups such as Christian Solidarity International claiming that "the institution of slavery continues on a large scale in GOS (Government of Sudan) controlled areas of Sudan".[19] In 1995, however, African Rights published a report on the conflict within the Nuba mountains. Facing Genocide: The Nuba of Sudan, which ran to 344 pages and was a forthright examination of both government and SPLA excesses. The issue of slavery is briefly mentioned in a section on forcible abductions. The report recorded that "El Amin Omer Gardud had been alerted to two cases, which he was investigating".[20]In one case three children had been "snatched" by a tribal militia: two had escaped. In the other case two girls were allegedly abducted by government forces. In a further reference, the report recorded that a woman had been abducted and was then "married" to a soldier. This was referred to as "a form of slavery".[21] One presumes that the slavery issue was not as pressing an issue as the American government and its allies may have wished it to be. It is significant in this respect that the black former Congressman Mervyn Dymally, a former chairman of the House of Representatives sub- committee on Africa, observed at a conference in November 1996, that allegations of Sudanese slavery were new and had never been brought to his attention during his twelve years on the Africa sub-committee. Dymally speculated that one reason for it surfacing in 1996 was that "it is a very emotional issue for forty million (black) Americans".[22] It is also notable that in its comprehensive 1994 report on Sudan, Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan, Human Rights Watch/Africa does not once mention slavery. Interestingly, the report cites a United States State Department cable which noted that government authorities in Wau and Aweil had freed kidnapped women and children, women and children detained by tribal militias.[23] What becomes clear is that there would appear to have been a time in 1995 or 1996 when what had previously been described as "abductions" were suddenly reclassified as "slavery". Human Rights Watch/Africa's 1996 report, Behind the Red Line: Political Repression in Sudan, for example, contains an eight-page section entitled `Taking Children and Women Slaves as War Booty'. The section is somewhat contradictory to say the least. The report categorically denies the Sudanese government's reading of the captives issue, which was that "these practices are nothing more than hostage-taking, done by both sides"[24] : the section records that "The government claims that with regard to slavery, `the element of intention is decisive.' In the Sudan, it maintains, tribal fights normally result in captives and prisoners of war on both sides of the conflict, but there is no intention to take slaves".[25] The report also went on to deny the Sudanese government's perspective that these captives would then normally be exchanged or ransomed at periodic meetings between the tribes and communities in question. While denying these practices, and preferring to label them as slavery, the Human Rights Watch/Africa report then goes on to describe exactly such circumstances later on in the section. It is worthwhile quoting the relevant passage in the report in some detail: In late 1995, meetings reportedly were held between representatives of the Dinka and the Rizeigat (Arabized western tribes, originally nomads in Darfur), a subgroup of the Baggara. In exchange for access to the fresh pasture land and water controlled by the SPLA, the Rizeigat agreed to release Dinka "prisoners" captured during their raids. They reportedly brought with them to a meeting a list of 674 children already identified and whose release has been promised. They were given Ls. 250,000 (US $473) for the immediate transport and clothing of twenty children said to have been gathered in Nyala in Southern Darfur.[26] What is cited above is precisely the sort of inter-tribal `conference' described by the government of Sudan, the existence of which was denied by Human Rights Watch/Africa in its report. What is also significant is that the report goes on to mention that in Nyala the relatives of two young teenage Dinka women had gone to court to secure their release from captors. The report also records that government authorities in El Diein in southern Darfur had ordered the release of "dozens of Dinka children brought to El Diein and surrounding villages by raiders who had captured them from the area around Aweil in Bahr El Ghazal in early 1996". These children were then handed over to the Dinka community in El Diein. The report also cites the case of an orphaned Dinka boy who had been kidnapped in 1986 by militias loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi. His uncle had located him and informed the Sudanese police and "The police issued a warrant for the release of the boy to the uncle".[27] The section also additionally documents that in 1995 government authorities in Aweil freed 500 captured women and children who had been taken prisoner during fighting between tribal militias. Human Rights Watch/Africa also recorded that the human rights committee of the Sudanese parliament was in southern Sudan in early 1996 "investigating reports of slavery". The report also confirms that on 22 March 1996, the government of Sudan "notified the U.N....that it was extending the mandate of an existing special committee to investigate alleged cases of slavery and related practices in the Sudan. This committee is composed of representatives of the ministry of justice and interior, internal and external security, and military intelligence".[28] The eight-page `slavery' section in Behind the Red Line: Political Repression in Sudan is made up of four heavily-footnoted pages dealing with the post-1989 period, and the remaining four pages relate to the years 1985-1989, during which Sudan was administered by the Transitional Military Council and governments headed by Sadiq al- Mahdi. Far from proving or substantiating the very grave charge of slavery, the four pages dealing with the present Sudanese government reveals that the age-old practice of abduction and kidnapping and then exchanging or ransoming prisoners taken during what are essentially tribal conflicts (albeit perhaps dressed up in pro- government and pro-SPLA clothes) is alive and well, having been rekindled and fuelled by the Sadiq al-Mahdi governments. Human Rights Watch/Africa also unambiguously documents that government authorities have repeatedly intervened to release prisoners from what is clearly unlawful captivity. Additionally, the report documented that civilians have been able to go to court in successful attempts to free people held illegally. The 1995 Human Rights Watch/Africa report Children of Sudan: Slaves, Street Children and Child Soldiers, contains a 23-page chapter entitled `Slavery or forced labor of minors kidnaped from their families during militia raids'. The evidence cited to support the claims of slavery were described as "summaries of the testimonies of some of the individual victims" and related over eleven pages. The evidence provided, in fact, rests upon three cases, those of three Dinka children called Alang, `Mabior' and `Akom'. (The last two are pseudonyms). Once again, far from proving any case against the present government of Sudan, these testimonies are an indictment in effect of the Sadiq al-Mahdi regime. Alang was six years old when she was captured during a raid in 1986 by militias loyal to Sadiq al- Mahdi. Her father was killed and her mother injured in the raid. `Mabior''s story is somewhat confused. The introduction to his testimony states that he was abducted at the age of eight by a soldier during a raid on his village near Bor in 1988. It is then mentioned that he was abducted during a raid in 1992. `Akom' was five years old when he was kidnapped during a raid by militiamen loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi in 1988. In all three cases these southern Dinka children had been abducted by soldiers or militiamen loyal to, or serving, Sadiq al-Mahdi governments. In all three cases the abducted children were subsequently kept in conditions of domestic servitude and abuse. And in two cases the children were released as a direct result of legal or judicial action during the tenure of the present government: in the third case legal action was underway but was curtailed by the removal of the child to a place of safety, which was interestingly enough, Khartoum, where the child was said to be "living in freedom".[29] Amnesty International has also documented the use of courts to free illegally held children. Amnesty International has also reported that government authorities have intervened to free villagers being held as prisoners by tribal militia in 1993 and 1994.[30] Even the material presented by Christian Solidarity International in its evidence to the United States Congressional sub- committees on International Operations and Human Rights, and Africa, in March 1996, reflected that a considerable number of the people cited as victims of slavery had in fact abducted during in the late- 1980s by forces loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi.[31] Quite frankly, if this is the best evidence that can be gathered to support allegations of slavery or the condoning of slavery by the present government in Khartoum, then there is not much of a case to answer. Human Rights Watch/Africa has undoubtedly been very keen to gather as much direct evidence of these allegations as possible. If they are not able to support the claims then that does not say much for the veracity of the allegations. Far from proving their case, the material presented by Human Rights Watch/Africa in fact contradicts the claims that the government of Sudan supports or condones slavery in Sudan. Despite lurid claims that the present government is implicated in the slaving of thousands of Southerners, the specific evidence produced by Human Rights Watch/Africa proves that military forces loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi were directly involved in the kidnapping and abduction of southern Sudanese children. The specific evidence provided by Human Rights Watch/Africa in two reports also clearly demonstrates that the present government's local government and police authorities have directly intervened on several occasions, occasions documented, in passing, by human rights groups, to release women and children detained by tribal militias. Indeed, once again, even evidence by Christian Solidarity International includes testimony that slavery- related practices "takes place in secrecy".[32] And, lastly, Human Rights Watch/Africa has also provided ample evidence that in case after case when evidence has been produced of illegal abduction, kidnapping or detention, the government has acted to free those victims of an earlier government's excesses. There is not one single recorded instance of this happening during the Sadiq al-Mahdi governments. The recourse to law to free illegally detained people, as mentioned in the various Human Rights Watch/Africa reports cited above is very significant. In Children of Sudan: Slaves, Street Children and Child Soldiers, for example, Human Rights Watch/Africa spends some time discussing the definition of slavery. This is clearly a crucial area. In the above report, Human Rights Watch/Africa cites "one authority" who states that: "The term `slavery' is technical and limited in scope, inasmuch as it implies ownership as chattel by another person and `the destruction of the juridical personality.'"[33] It is clear through the repeated use of the judicial process to free those subjected to involuntary domestic servitude that far from having been destroyed, the juridical personality exists and has been seen to have been enforced on numerous occasions (and in most cases far away from any Western eye, presumably precluding, therefore, any public relations motive). The present government in Sudanese government came to power through a bloodless military coup d'etat in July 1989 which overthrew the Sadiq al-Mahdi administration. It is a matter of record that the present government moved quickly to address the status and activities of the various tribal militias brought into being over the years. Shortly after coming to power, the Bashir Administration attempted to centralise, control and structure the various disorganised and undisciplined tribal militias, legacies of the Sadiq al-Mahdi government. In November 1989 the new government passed the Popular Defence Forces Act which absorbed the militias into the Popular Defence Force with the stated aim of instilling professionalism and discipline into these militias. Not surprisingly there were, and continue to be, a number of difficulties and problems in this process, but it was a process which the government clearly entered into. The behaviour of the militias had itself been a source of conflict between the Sadiq al-Mahdi regime and the Sudanese army. Apart from seeking to curtail the excesses of the militia from a military point of view there was another, political, reason why the government moved to control the tribal militias. The simple fact is that the Baggara militia so closely identified with these allegations of widespread abductions and kidnapping was not only a vehicle of the Sadiq al-Mahdi governments but owed long-standing historical loyalty to his sect and party. As the human rights activist Alex de Waal has stated: "the Mahdist Ansar organisation remains the dominant political element in the Murahalin". As de Waal has also pointed out, the present government in Khartoum are very aware of this: "the perceived continuity of tradition accounts for some of the fear with which the Murahalin are regarded in Khartoum".[34] Other academics have also pointed out that the present Khartoum government were keen to bring the militias under control: "there is no reason to suggest that they were all under the full control of the Government, a fact which prompted the Government to promulgate, in 1989, the Popular Defence Act".[35] The Religious and Race Issues Several of the allegations of slavery and slavery-related practices have additionally attempted to project them as linked to some sort of Islamic project against Christians within Sudan. Christian Solidarity International reports, for example, have carried statements such as "Slavery is used by the Government to debilitate and exhaust the Christian Communities".[36] Attempts to intrinsically link Islam and Islamic societies to slavery are patently false and misinformed. Slavery had been practised since the beginning of time and has featured within both Christian and Islamic societies. Both Islam and Christianity accepted the de facto institution of slavery, indeed it was the backbone of the deeply Christian, white southern states of the United States until 1865. Slavery is not supported or encouraged in either the Quran or in the Sunna: there are references pertaining to the good treatment of slaves. There is a tradition ascribed to the Prophet Muhammad, that the wickedest of people are those who sell people.[37] The inter-tribal raiding rooted in Sudanese history, which clearly reached a peak in the mid-to-late 1980s, and which exists to this day, is divorced from political or religious control from the centre. As the respected academic authorities on tribal militias, Salih and Harir, state: Even though the national political arena is dominated by debate over the values and ideology of the state, Islam and Christianity have never entered the realm of local politics nor have they provided the main source of antagonism at the village level, simply because they are not issues of political concern to the majority of the rural population...the rural populace used the war to pursue objectives that are different from those of the political elite, for instance, to square old enmities with neighbouring ethnic groups or to rustle cattle, seize women and plunder crops...It is therefore not possible to associate the emergence of tribal militias indirectly with the upsurge of strong Islamic sentiments within certain political elites in the North.[38] There have also been attempts to portray the slavery allegations as being racial in nature. It is regrettable that at least some of these attempts have been by Christian groups. In his March 1996 article on allegations of slavery, for example, an article based on material provided by Christian groups, Sam Kiley quotes a Christian minister: "`The slavery is obviously racially based. Black people are considered slaves by this regime, whatever its claims to adhere to the Koran's teaching on the brotherhood of men' said a cleric behind the anti-slavery operation'".[39] As we have seen, the allegations of abduction, kidnapping and ransoming are closely identified with the activities of the Baggara tribal militias. As anyone who knows, or has studied, Sudan will know there is very little, if any, physical difference between the Baggara and those they have been accused of abducting and kidnapping. The key reference source, Sudan: A Country Study, produced by the American University on behalf of the American Defence Department, makes this very clear stating, for example, that: "northern populations fully arabized in language and culture, e.g., the Baggara, cannot be distinguished physically from some of the southern and western groups with whom they are in contact".[40] It is disturbing to note that Christian Solidarity International has repeatedly added the term "black" when referring to those abducted when there is every likelihood that both parties to these allegations would have been black Sudanese. This is unfortunate because it does present these allegations within at best a questionable and at worst a non-existent racial context. Definitions of Slavery There has also been considerable confusion in defining or coming to terms with exactly what constitutes slavery or slavery-like practices. Allegations and accusations of "slavery" have been made by several groups, and in the absence of any strict definition of the term, there have clearly been exaggerations and distortions particularly with regard to Sudan. As pointed out by Sean Gabb in his open letter to the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, specific conditions and a certain framework must be present for a slave state to exist: "An institution like slavery, if it is to exist in any formal sense, must leave obvious footprints in the laws of a country." Gabb went on to observe that the law codes of slave states: "contain hundreds of pages devoted to questions arising from the existence of slavery. Are there any classes of free person forbidden from owning slaves? How are slaves to be bought and sold? If one escapes, after how long, if at all, is he to be considered legally free? What, if any are a slave's legal rights? If his religion is different from that of his master, may he be forced to convert? Is he allowed to marry? What is the legal status of his children? These and many other questions must be answered somewhere in the laws of a slave state...Yet the laws of Sudan are absolutely silent on all these questions. Indeed, at every point touching on the existence of slavery, Sudanese law is clearly prohibitive".[41] There are, however, definitions of slavery which are quite obviously far looser than the generally accepted one. The long-time British human rights activist Lord Hylton, for example, chaired a conference in London on what has been described as slavery in Britain in May 1995. The conference was titled `1995 Slavery Still Alive'.[42] The London Times of 23 September 1996 also reported that accounts of the imprisonment, assault and starvation of foreign domestic workers within the United Kingdom had provoked "a new wave of political debate on slavery in Britain, 163 years after its abolition". The Times went on to state that "Campaigners claim that Britain has become a `slave haven' for wealthy foreign diplomats'". Anti-slavery campaigners had recorded more than 2,000 cases of serious abuse of domestic workers: "Campaign groups claim that allegations of slavery are justified because of the lack of help offered to servants by the Government allows employers total control of their workers' lives." The issue of domestic slavery within Britain was debated at both the Labour and Liberal Democrat party conferences in 1996. Some commentators appear to lack any definition at all. The British journalist, Bernard Levin, writing in the Times in an article entitled "A slave state of our time", alleged, without the slightest evidence, that slavery was alive and well in Sudan. He claimed that twelve thousand southern children were "currently enslaved in the North". He freely conceded his article was based on CSI material.[43] It is somewhat disconcerting given the grave issue of slavery raised in his article that Levin has openly admitted to exaggerations in his work stating "It is quite widely known that my middle name is Hyperbole, and I think I can say that I have lived up to it...I have got into the habit of multiplying...awfulnesses, just for fun".[44] It would perhaps place Mr Levin's predilection for exaggeration into perspective that in 1993, in a Times column entitled `Of inhuman bondage', he states that: "Slavery has reappeared in Britain", claiming that he had in his hands "unchallengeable evidence of the truth of it. A book by Bridget Anderson, entitled Britain's Secret Slaves and published by Anti-Slavery International, has provided the copious evidence, scrupulously documented. There are slaves in Britain...it is absolutely essential, in thinking about this dreadful business, to understand that...the slavery...is going on at this moment, all over the country, and the British government condones it". He believes that there are hundreds, if not thousands of slaves in Britain. What Levin is actually referring to is the mistreatment of domestic servants brought to London by foreign families resident in Britain.45 This illustrates quite clearly a tendency to use terms such as slavery in a particularly slapdash manner, as clearly, from Mr Levin's point of view, the governments of Sudan and Britain both condone slavery. If in the minds of Lord Hylton, Levin and others, what they describe as slavery can exist within the United Kingdom, perhaps the freest and most democratic country in the world, where access to the legal and judicial system is direct and clear-cut, four observations follow. Firstly, there is the distinct possibility that these practices are not slavery as generally understood. Secondly, if these practices were alive and well in Britain, then they could well occur within a country racked with civil war, a country parts of which historically have never really been fully administered. Thirdly, if Levin is lax in his definition of what constitutes slavery in Britain, then there is every possibility he is equally ill-defined in what he labels as slavery in Sudan. And fourthly, both Lord Hylton and Levin provide examples of how certain illegal and odious practices can exist within a country, whether it is Britain or Sudan, without the government in any way condoning them. What is also clear is that what Christian Solidarity International has presented as slavery is in fact the taking of captives during tribal raiding (whatever the modern political context), followed in some cases by equally illegal forced domestic servitude. It is highly unlikely, for example, that a former captive such as the 65-year old tribesman, cited in a CSI report and featured prominently in a London Times article, would ever have been taken for purposes of slavery or slavery-related practices: common sense would dictate that he was simply too old and infirm.[46] He was, however, clearly one of the many tribesmen illegally taken captive during inter-tribal raiding - yet he is presented as a "slave" by a sensationalist media. Many of the instances Christian Solidarity International have described are clearly the kidnapping and subsequent ransoming of those abducted. While undoubtedly done for sincere reasons, the decision of Christian Solidarity International to pay the ransom on kidnap victims is questionable. Christian Solidarity International is then party to a process whereby it pays ransom to people who claim to have in turn kidnapped children from their original abductors, with no means of ascertaining that this is indeed the case. In summary, Christian Solidarity International's involvement in ransoming kidnap victims (and in some cases double kidnap victims), while providing media sensationalism, does not in any way provide evidence of slavery. It does provide evidence of tribal raiding, captive-taking, kidnapping and ransoming within areas of Sudan in which government administration is clearly weak or absent (evidenced by the fact that you were able to visit them accompanied by SPLA gunmen). Perhaps the last word on definitions can be given to British journalist Simon Sebag Montefiore who has thoroughly researched the claims of slavery in Africa, clearly in considerably more depth and with more intellectual and practical vigour than Levin, for a British television documentary. Writing about the issue in the London Sunday Times magazine, he observed: The word `slavery' is often used loosely in an African context: we frequently read tales of schoolchildren in, say, Sudan or Liberia being kidnapped and sold in the midst of civil wars. But chattel slavery, the formal system that existed in the Middle Ages and in the American South before the civil war, supposedly survives now only in Mauritania.[47] Human Rights Watch/Africa's attempts to define slavery have included the following positioning. Slavery was defined in the 1926 Slavery Convention in Article 1 (1) as "the status or condition of a person over whom any or all of the powers attaching to the right of ownership are exercised". Human Rights Watch/Africa added the following observation: "One power attaching to the right of ownership is the power to completely dispose of the (unpaid) labor of the slave". Human Rights Watch/Africa then cited this as justification for classifying the kidnapping of Dinka children and their subsequent use as forced unpaid domestic servants as slavery. Given that the evidence produced by Human Rights Watch/Africa dealt with individuals abducted during a previous government, and made to work as unpaid domestic servants until freed by legal intervention by the present government, the involvement or implication in slavery or related practices of the present government is unproven at best and unclear at worst. The SPLA and Slavery What is clear, however, is that by Human Rights Watch/Africa's own working definition, the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army led by John Garang is clearly and unambiguously identified with slavery and related practices. Garang has led the SPLA since 1983 and is therefore directly accountable for the kidnapping, abductions, forced labour, forced conscription and other slavery-related practices his organisation has been party to. The 1990 United States State Department's Country Reports on Human Rights Practices records that the SPLA were responsible for the arming of tribal militias in the Nuba Mountains.[48] It further stated that "the SPLA/M often forced southern men to work as laborers or porters or forcibly conscripted them into SPLA ranks. In disputed territories this practice was implemented through raids". The role of the SPLA in creating the circumstances for slaving was touched on in the 1991 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices which recorded that: "It was not clear at year's end whether the intra-SPLA fighting, marked by Nuer-Dinka tribal rivalries, would also result in the taking of slaves".[49] The 1991 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices placed on record that the SPLA had "forcibly conscripted at least 10 000 male minors"[50] and reiterated that the SPLA/M continued to use southern men for forced labour and portering. Human Rights Watch/Africa and the Children's Rights Project published Sudan: The Lost Boys which described the removal of young boys from southern Sudan by the SPLA in what has been described as the "warehousing" of children for subsequent use in the war.[51] These children are unaccompanied and the SPLA have refused any attempts at family reunification. Once suitably isolated these children are then used for forced labour and then forcibly conscripted into the SPLA. In its 1994 report Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan, Human Rights Watch/Africa documented the SPLA's use of "forced unpaid farm labor on SPLA-organized farms". Human Rights Watch/Africa also reported that "The SPLA has conducted forcible recruitment...since at least the mid-1980s" and that "Forcing civilians to porter supplies for the SPLA is a chronic abuse."[52] Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan also described the phenomena of "military slavery". Douglas Johnson in `Military Slavery in Northeast Africa' states that: "Military slavery involved systematic acquisition of slaves who were trained and employed as soldiers".[53] Human Rights Watch/Africa goes on to observe that "the southern Sudan and the Nuba hills were seen by Anglo-Egyptian officials as the main reservoirs of recruitment of new slave soldiers".[54] The clear and unambiguous resemblance between SPLA forced recruitment within these very same areas and what has previously been termed "military slavery" is obvious. The comparison between John Garang's SPLA and the old Turkish-Egyptian regime which colonised, enslaved and terrorised parts of Sudan in the nineteenth-century is also clear. The Egyptian state was sustained by a caste of soldier-slaves known as the Mamelukes, a grouping similar to the Turkish Janissaries. This caste was based on the deliberate enslavement and isolation of children who were then militarily trained to serve the political masters of the day. The SPLA's purposeful abduction and isolation of southern Sudanese children can be seen as a corrupted and less sophisticated version of the Mameluke model, the result of which is a grouping of child soldiers within the SPLA known as the "Red Army". The SPLA's abduction and gathering of children, and their subsequent treatment, is dealt with over almost thirty pages in Civilian Devastation: Abuses by All Parties in the War in Southern Sudan.[55] In a separate study, Human Rights Watch/Africa concluded that: The primary purpose, however, of luring and keeping thousands of boys away from their families and in separate boys-only camps was, in the judgement of Human Rights Watch, a military purpose. This resulted in the training and recruitment of thousands of underage soldiers who were thrust into battle in southern Sudan and briefly in Ethiopia.[56] In addition to John Garang's close identification with slavery and practices described as slavery by key international human rights groups, the SPLA has also been closely identified with terrorism and additional widespread abuses of human rights with Sudan. The United States Department of State's 1990 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices reported that the SPLA "conducted indiscriminate mortar and rocket attacks on the city of Juba, killing more than 40 civilians and wounding many others. These attacks...seemed intended to terrorize the inhabitants". The human rights report also stated that there had been "extensive pillaging and shooting of civilians by SPLA/M forces along the Sudan-Ethiopian border".[57] In November 1991 the SPLA again shelled the southern city of Juba, killing 70 civilians. In August 1991, the SPLA fragmented and one of the factions, the Nasir Group, accused Garang of human rights violations including the torture and execution of opponents, arbitrary detentions and the forced conscription of children. The SPLA-Nasir group claimed that some of Garang's southern opponents had been incarcerated for up to six years.[58] In 1992, the SPLA continued the random shelling of Juba, killing over 200 southern civilians. Garang's group was also responsible for the murder of three international relief workers and a journalist.[59] The SPLA has also admitted the shooting down of civilian airliners within Sudan, incidents involving considerable loss of life. It is a matter of record that in its 1994 report Civilian Devastation: Abuses by all Parties in the War in Southern Sudan, a 279-page study, Human Rights Watch/Africa devoted 169 pages to "SPLA Violations of the Rules of War": government violations were dealt with over 52 pages. Human Rights Watch/Africa reported that the SPLA was guilty of, amongst other things, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, abducting civilians, mainly women and children, torture, summary executions, the deliberate starvation of civilians, forced recruitment and forced labour, theft of civilian animals, food and grain, and the holding of long-term political prisoners in prolonged arbitrary detention.[60] Garang is also politically at best similar to many former Marxists within central and eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union, that is to say politically untrustworthy and opportunistic. A clear indication both of Garang's political orientation and his own ethics was the unconditional military, logistical and political support he received, and accepted, from the doctrinaire Marxist government in Ethiopia. The Mengistu regime in Ethiopia, the Dergue, was responsible for the murder of thousands of Ethiopians, the forced relocation of hundreds of thousands of other Ethiopians, a policy which directly resulted in the agricultural failures and famine highlighted by the Western media in the 1980s. For the SPLM/A to accept support and ideological comfort from such a bloodstained regime is a clear indictment on the ethics, judgement and political orientation of John Garang. Given the above facts about John Garang and his organisation it is somewhat jarring to read in Christian Solidarity International's June 1996 report that you recommend support for "the efforts of the SPLM/A...to promote the values and institutions of civil society". You also claim that "the SPLM/A shows a serious commitment to the implementation of principles and policies for the promotion of peace and justice".[61] Baroness Cox, your close association with both John Garang and Sadiq al-Mahdi, when coupled to your obviously sincere concern about slavery and slavery-like practices is confusing given that most, if not all, human rights organisations and commentators date the "slavery" issue to the mid-to-late 1980s, when the government of Sadiq al-Mahdi armed tribal militias against the SPLA. The then government and the SPLA armed long-standing tribal enemies and in effect renewed the culture of hostage taking, ransoming and abduction - which unfortunately continues to this day despite concerted attempts to stop it. The SPLM/A is additionally undeniably guilty of slavery and slavery-like practices through its abduction and use as forced labour of thousands of southern Sudanese men, women and children. What is even more questionable is that you have not only associated with these men and their organisations, but that you have actively argued their case within the United States Congress and at Westminster. It is indeed ironic that both the SPLM/A and Sadiq al- Mahdi's Umma party are partners in the National Democratic Alliance. John Garang's faction of the SPLM/A is now in direct coalition with the Umma party, a party responsible for many of the atrocities of record within the Sudanese civil war. It was not so long ago that Garang was calling Sadiq al-Mahdi an "Islamic extremist" and Sadiq al- Mahdi was referring to Garang as a "terrorist". It is also somewhat surprising that in addition to these two groupings, the National Democratic Alliance, an organisation you clearly support, has another questionable component, the Sudanese Communist Party - a party with as much of a commitment to democracy as the SPLA and Umma party. The close identification of Christian Solidarity International with Sadiq al-Mahdi has led what can only be described as a selective reading of recent events in Sudan. The CSI report on its visit to Sudan from 10-15 June 1996 provides an example of this selectivity. Baroness Cox was accompanied on this trip by Mubarak al-Fadil al- Mahdi, a former senior Umma party minister in his cousin Sadiq al- Mahdi's government and now General Secretary of the NDA, Hammad Salih, the East Africa representative of the Umma party, and Bona Malwal, a Sudanese exile who had been a minister during the Nimeiry dictatorship. The CSI report recorded the speeches made by all three during the visit inside Sudan. Mubarak al-Mahdi warned against any attempts to encourage conflict between the Dinkas and Arabised tribes "because such conflict is wrong, and because Allah will not tolerate wrong-doing: Islam does not allow us to attack innocent people." Bona Malwal, a Dinka, was reported as saying that the present government "has armed our local Arab brothers to fight against us". Haddam Salih stated that "Muslims have been attacking Dinkas, burning houses and killing people; this should not be our way; such behaviour reflects badly on Islam and we must stop doing such things...it is not in your own interests to fight your neighbours". There was not the slightest mention of the Umma party's involvement in years of actively encouraging the very things they were now said to be decrying. This may have been because Mubarak al-Fadil al-Mahdi was the Interior Minister under Sadiq al-Mahdi at the height of the human rights abuses within Sudan, a man described by African Rights as being "seen by many as the architect of the militia policy".62 Bona Malwal is also no stranger to the al-Mahdi militia policy and its related slavery-like practices. As the editor of the Sudan Times, an English-language newspaper published in Khartoum, Malwal had extensively reported on the militia policy, and the abductions and kidnappings associated with it, at the time in 1987. He was denounced by Umma party politicians as an enemy of the Sudan and Sadiq al-Mahdi threatened to close down the Sudan Times.63 Malwal's silence on the very history he so starkly documented in the late 1980s is possibly explained by his current close, and some would say opportunistic, association with the very same Umma party politicians who designed and unleashed the militia policy. It is clear that Sudanese exile politics certainly makes for strange bedfellows. Conclusion It is a matter of record that the present government inherited the Sudanese civil war and inherited the atrocious human rights record of the previous administrations. There is also no doubt that as long as the armed conflict within Sudan continues, there will be human rights abuses by all sides to the conflict, such is the nature of war, and particularly civil war. What can be said is that the present government presents itself as a pragmatic administration. It would appear to have quickly grasped the essence of civil war and the dynamics of guerrilla war. The present government realised very early on that despite a very positive military situation by 1993, it probably would be unable to militarily defeat its armed opposition and that those elements of the SPLA still in the field were very unlikely to topple the Sudanese government. The result was a political stalemate. The government of Sudan then made a number of strategic concessions: Islamic sharia law was limited, a federal system was introduced followed by local and state elections and then parliamentary and presidential elections observed by the Organisation of African Unity. The April 1996 Political Charter guaranteed a political referendum for southerners to determine the political status of the south of Sudan. The nation-wide code of sharia law within Sudan inherited by the present government from the Sadiq al- Mahdi regime has been limited to those parts of Sudan in which there is a Muslim majority population: non-Muslim areas in the south were exempted. Even the United States Department of State was forced to note that sharia exemptions were applied to the south. Given all the strategic concessions made by this government, its attempts to negotiate peace and achieve a political settlement with the leaders and people of southern Sudan, and the delicate balance within Sudanese politics, it is inconceivable that the government would be party to, or in any way condone, slavery or slavery-related practices. The various key human rights organisations have quite simply not produced any credible evidence of state-sanctioned or condoned slavery or slavery-like practices. What these human rights groups have documented contradicts such claims. These human rights groups have shown repeated interventions by government authorities to free people detained by tribal militias. They have also documented that due process of law exists in Sudan, whereby Sudanese courts have repeatedly freed people held illegally. The cases reported by groups such as Human Rights Watch/Africa also show that many of the children freed by Sudanese courts under this government were abducted by militias and forces loyal to Sadiq al-Mahdi before the present government was in power. Baroness Cox, in conclusion, it must be stated that your work on the issue of slavery and slavery-like practices within Sudan is somewhat undermined by your close association with, and support for, Sadiq al- Mahdi and the Umma party and for John Garang and his SPLM/A group, both clearly identified with slavery and related practices according to your own definition. Indeed, your June 1996 trip to south-western Sudan, the scene of so many of the horrific abuses inspired and sanctioned by the Umma party in the late 1980s, including abduction and kidnapping followed by what you term slavery (and documented in some of your own reports) was in the company of very architect of the policy of arming the tribal militias who wreaked such devastation, Mubarak al-Fadil al-Mahdi. For someone as deeply interested in the issue of slavery within the Sudan, your reports show not the slightest interest in the immediate history of slavery and slavery- related practices. Indeed, you openly support those men who are directly responsible for them. Nor do your reports show the slightest interest in the thousands of southern men, women and children abducted and used for forced labour or as "military slaves" by John Garang and the SPLA. Indeed, you visit parts of Sudan in the company, and under the protection, of the very SPLM/A gunmen responsible for such abductions and slavery-related practices. What your reports, and those of others, also do not explain, is that if what you say is true, and that there is widespread slavery of southern Sudanese by northern Sudanese, then why have two million southern Sudanese voluntarily sought refuge in Khartoum, the very heart of the north, rather than fleeing further south? There is a further twist. Is it not somewhat contradictory that Christian Solidarity International clearly seeks to hold the government of Sudan accountable for practices and human rights abuses which are happening in areas of Sudan in which government administration has historically always been weak, and in which there has been a clear break-down in law and order, given that the break- down in law and order has been brought about by the very SPLA gunmen you unreservedly support and openly associate with? Recommendations Given that there already exist many channels through which it is possible to bring pressure to bear on the Government of Sudan, and given that you are so closely identified with John Garang and his faction of the SPLA, those of us who are committed to a peaceful, negotiated settlement of the Sudanese conflict call upon you: 1 To urge the British Government to adopt a balanced and more constructive approach to the Sudanese political situation, particularly with regard to abuses of human rights by all parties to the Sudanese civil war, and to consider increasing developmental assistance to Sudan to alleviate the social conditions in which many of these abuses take place. 2 To consider a more balanced and less partisan personal approach to the Sudanese civil war, particular with regard to reports published and distributed by Christian Solidarity International 3 To bring pressure to bear on John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to end the slavery and slavery-like practices with which he has been so closely associated. 4 To particularly pressurise John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to return those children his organisation have forcibly removed from southern Sudan for the purpose of developing as a "Red Army" and to co-operate with Sudanese and international humanitarian organisations in reuniting these minors with their families. 5 To pressurise John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to end the systematic abuse of human rights with which they have for so long been associated. 6 To call Sadiq al-Mahdi publicly into account for the practices and human rights abuses encouraged by his party and governments during the 1980s. 7 To urge John Garang and his faction of the SPLM/A to follow the lead of so many of his southern colleagues and enter into the ongoing Sudanese peace process, a process which has resulted in the signing of political charters guaranteeing most if not all of the demands of the southern Sudanese political leaders, including a referendum on the status of the southern Sudan. 8 To consider investigating, and producing a report on, the issue of the "warehousing" of children by the SPLA for subsequent use as child soldiers. 9 To reconsider your continuing support for the National Democratic Alliance and particularly the Garang faction of the SPLA, given the commitment of those organisations to a violent resolution of Sudan's political problems, especially given that there are clear moves towards a peaceful negotiated settlement from within Sudan itself. David Hoile is a public affairs consultant. He has written and edited several books on African affairs. He has visited the Sudan on several occasions, and observed the 1996 parliamentary and presidential elections. http://msanews.mynet.net/~msanews/MSANEWS/199703/19970325.2.html http://msanews.mynet.net/~msanews/MSANEWS/199703/19970325.3.html
MAD MAC	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 07:30 am Ooohh Sahib good question. Who falls lower on the anthropological ladder, Sudanese culture or Balkan culture. This is a tough one. I have to admit I'm biased because I visited Balkan culture first hand. Overall I'd have to say the Sudanese win this one because at least in the Balkans people know how to have fun when they're not acting like Barbarians. As for the POW thing, you're really reaching here. Most of the work that POWs were forced to do in WW II (the last time we held POWs in the States) was farming - the POWs were growing their own food. I still think it's a reach to compare a POWs status to that of a slave. A POW has to be held until the conflict is over - there's nothing else you can do with him. Slavery on the other hand, is wrought solely for the personal gain of an individual or group of individuals. I can't believe you are now trying to justify slavery. Clearly you are playing the devils advocate here. I'm sure that any modern interpretations of the Qur'an forbid slavery because if it didn't slavery would definately be legal in Saudi Arabia today.
formerguest.	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 02:20 pm MAD. Ever heard of chain-gang ORDEAL.?. Where United States Built its Highways using prisoners mostly BLack. Chained together in miles?. It was in the south mainly where it was in their constitutions untill recently and they are thinking bringing it back. There was a white guy unfortunate enough to be among the minorities(white minorities) caught up in the system for stealing $10 dollars. He wrote a famous book called "I Am A Fugitive From A Chain Gang (1932)". America has its evils in the closed too. All the good highways were mainly built by those poor blacks enslaved and not paid at all. Care to comment on the subject?.
formerguest.	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 02:32 pm http://www.scstatehouse.net/bil97-98/3526.htm Bill 3526 Indicates Matter Stricken Indicates New Matter Current Status Bill Number: 3526 Type of Legislation: General Bill GB Introducing Body: House Introduced Date: 19970225 Primary Sponsor: Fleming All Sponsors: Fleming, Barfield, Koon, Barrett, Altman, Chellis, Allison, Rodgers, Simrill, Young, Seithel, McKay, Sandifer, Maddox, Woodrum, Hinson, Knotts, Cotty, Cooper, Whatley, Witherspoon, Stuart, Kelley, Limbaugh, R. Smith, Cromer, Robinson, Rice, Law, Hawkins, Walker, Sharpe, D. Smith, Harrell, Harrison, Webb, Phillips, McMaster, Tripp, Riser, Klauber, Quinn, Meacham, Stille, Bauer, Haskins, Battle and Davenport Drafted Document Number: dka\4101cm.97 Residing Body: Senate Current Committee: Corrections and Penology Committee 03 SCP Date of Last Amendment: 19970514 Subject: Medically-abled inmates, chain gangs, to work highways and state property; Prisons and Prisoners
Ahmed Qatal	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 03:19 pm Mad Mac, It is not illegal under Islamic Law to have slaves. In Sahih Al-Bukhari Volume 1, Book 2, Number 29, we read, Narrated Al-Ma'rur: At Ar-Rabadha I met Abu Dhar who was wearing a cloak, and his slave, too, was wearing a similar one. I asked about the reason for it. He replied, "I abused a person by calling his mother with bad names." The Prophet said to me, 'O Abu Dhar! Did you abuse him by calling his mother with bad names You still have some characteristics of ignorance. Your slaves are your brothers and Allah has put them under your command. So whoever has a brother under his command should feed him of what he eats and dress him of what he wears. Do not ask them (slaves) to do things beyond their capacity (power) and if you do so, then help them.' " In this Hadith we see the prophet did not outlaw slavery, he only set some conditions for it. In the Qur�an Surah 2 Aayat 177 we read, It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and each and every act of obedience to Allâh, etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets[] and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masâkin (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and gives the Zakât, and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.) in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles in Jihad). Such are the people of the truth and they are AlMuttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2). In this Aaya we see that to free the Slave is a great act. Abu Bakar (may Allah be pleased with him) freed Bilal (may Allah be pleased with him). This is Islam. Take it or leave it. But don�t talk about it like you know it.
Formerguest.	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 04:43 pm AHMAD QATAL. Care to enlighten me on this subject?. I agree with you in those quotations, there is no forbidding of slavery, but there is no order in them too, telling us to enslave people. The opposite is the indication. To free the existing slaves.
Luul	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 05:13 pm To Runta What a somali wanna be your,all i can say to you and anyone who thinks like you is got help,before it's too late for you all,because your sick incase you don't know,the way you thinking is so wrongggggggggggggggggggggggg.
Ahmed Qatal	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 07:31 pm Formerguest, Muslims are told that they should free slaves, In Sura 9 Aaya 60 we read Zakat should be use (Among othere things) to free slaves, "As-Sadaqât (here it means Zakât) are only for the Fuqarâ' (poor), and Al-Masâkin and those employed to collect (the funds); and for to attract the hearts of those who have been inclined (towards Islâm i.e. da'wah); and to free the captives; and for those in debt; and for Allâh's Cause (i.e. for Mujâhidûn - those fighting in the Jihad), and for the wayfarer (a traveler); a duty imposed by Allâh. And Allâh is All-Knower, All Wise." Muslims are also told that in war they can take captives. In Sura 47 Aaya 4 we read, "So, when (in Jihad) you meet , those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them), (i.e. take them as slaves). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost." Our prophet Mohamed (Peace be on him) is told in the Qur�an Sura 8 Aaya 67, "It is not for a Prophet that he should have prisoners of war (and free them with ransom) until he had made a great slaughter (among his enemies) in the land. You desire the good of this world (i.e. the money of ransom for freeing the captives), but Allâh desires (for you) the Hereafter. And Allâh is All-Mighty, All-Wise." In Islam there is only one way of acquiring a slave, that is though war as captives. But there are many way that they that they are freed. Here is a list of some of the ways that they are freed. In Sura 47 Aaya 4 we read that we should free them after the war is over, "So, when (in Jihad) you meet , those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islâm), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allâh], but if it had been Allâh's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allâh, He will never let their deeds be lost." In Sura 5 Aaya 89 we read that freeing a slave is a penance for a broken oath, "Allâh will not punish you for what is unintentional in your oaths, but He will punish you for your deliberate oaths; for its expiation (a deliberate oath) feed ten Masâkin (poor persons), on a scale of the average of that with which you feed your own families; or clothe them; or manumit a slave. But whosoever cannot afford (that), then he should fast for three days. That is the expiation for the oaths when you have sworn. And protect your oaths (i.e. do not swear much). Thus Allâh makes clear to you His Ayât (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) that you may be grateful." In Sura 4 Aaya 92 we read that a Slave can be freed as penance for the death of believer, "It is not for a believer to kill a believer except (that it be) by mistake, and whosoever kills a believer by mistake, (it is ordained that) he must set free a believing slave and a compensation (blood money, i.e Diya) be given to the deceased's family, unless they remit it. If the deceased belonged to a people at war with you and he was a believer; the freeing of a believing slave (is prescribed), and if he belonged to a people with whom you have a treaty of mutual alliance, compensation (blood money - Diya) must be paid to his family, and a believing slave must be freed. And whoso finds this (the penance of freeing a slave) beyond his means, he must fast for two consecutive months in order to seek repentance from Allâh. And Allâh is Ever AllKnowing, AllWise." In Sura 2 Aaya 177 we read that freeing a slave is the act of a truly pious person, "It is not Al-Birr (piety, righteousness, and each and every act of obedience to Allâh, etc.) that you turn your faces towards east and (or) west (in prayers); but Al-Birr is (the quality of) the one who believes in Allâh, the Last Day, the Angels, the Book, the Prophets and gives his wealth, in spite of love for it, to the kinsfolk, to the orphans, and to Al-Masâkin (the poor), and to the wayfarer, and to those who ask, and to set slaves free, performs As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât), and gives the Zakât, and who fulfill their covenant when they make it, and who are As-Sâbirin (the patient ones, etc.) in extreme poverty and ailment (disease) and at the time of fighting (during the battles of Jihad). Such are the people of the truth and they are AlMuttaqûn (pious - see V.2:2)." As you can see Formerguest, in Islam slaves are freed for many reasons, but they a taken only in war. I hope I have answer you question.
formerguest.	Saturday, September 16, 2000 - 08:02 pm AHMED QATAL. Thanks very much. I really appreciate the time you put into the subject. I knew the ruling of the disbelieving captives and their fate. It wasn't clear at first though - to me - how the slaves became about. I understand now. I am glad islam doesn't threaten people without a just cause.
MAD MAC	Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 01:36 am Formerguest Again you are mixing apples and oranges. The Chain gangs are convicts convicted in a court of law for criminal offenses. They are working to pay their debt to society. This is not the same thing as some poor fucker who goes walking down the road, has a truck full of Mooryan drive by and force him into the vehicle, drive him to a plantation and sell him, depriving him of his own free will to do what he wants for no reason other than profit. I can't believe you guys are arguing this. Frankly I don't care what the Qur'an says on this subject, this is just flat out wrong. The fact that the Qur'an doesn't say it is flat out wrong is just one more underpinning to my thesis, that all religion is relative to time and place.
asad	Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 06:56 am "Ooohh Sahib good question. Who falls lower on the anthropological ladder, Sudanese culture or Balkan culture." mad mac, the question was which one can you characterize as more barbarian than the other-- against one group to another in this centruy--which culture is more brutal and committed the most atrocious crimes against it's people of different faith? "Overall I'd have to say the Sudanese win this one because at least in the Balkans people know how to have fun when they're not acting like Barbarians." how is a fun-------the brutal crimes and atrocious acts against the muslims in bosnia and kosovo by the Balkan christians? "I'm sure that any modern interpretations of the Qur'an forbid slavery because if it didn't slavery would definately be legal in Saudi Arabia today." if the law of saudis says that slavery is illegal, that does not mean it is an islamic law. driving a car by women in saudi arabia is illegal, but that does not mean it is an islamic law. the Qura'n does not forbid slavery as the bible and torah didn't. . prisoners of war could be made to be slaves, in bandage, for work and for exachange in other prisoners of war. as to the rest of the world, human bondage is still legal, believe it or not, in the united states of america, what is outlawed is PRIVATE OWNERSHIP of bonded individuals, the state still can and does own bonded humans in both regular prisons and prisoners of war where they are made to work free. the western prison system is not only obscenely expensive but it is an inhumane abomination, far more cruel than chopping off hands or being a house slave. walk amongst prisoners in america------trust me the system is thoroughly evil. this is the accepted way of things and no one questions it, however strictly speaking this is bondage, slavery is private or state bondage. in the west, illegal sexual slavery is a multi billion dollar industry, especially in Israel, Thailand, Russia, and many parts of Eastern Europe. In many places it brings in so much cash that authorities wink upon it. slavery is a global phenomena, it has not changed excepting in the FORM and in some cases the specific legalities of it, but it exists, has always existed, and indeed in spite of 2 centuries of so called progressive social change still exists. slavery come in different forms. prisoners of wars can and are made to be slaves, but some other slavery is illegal. the kind of slavery the religion forbids is the one the prophet of islam has forbidden due to the industrialization of Britain and the Northern united States, and the politics associated with these phenomena. it is only 3 or so generations since slavery was legally stamped out by britannia and the united states. islam recognizes slavery as a constant in human society. slavery is a constant, it is ugly, like poverty, and sometimes a cause of misery, like poverty, but often slavery fulfills a valuable social function. the entire, or at least most, of the Ottoman government, and military ELITE were slaves during many periods of Ottoman history after they became muslims from many different faiths and cultures.
muslim sis	Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 09:29 am Salaamu Allaykum to all Muslim Brothers May allah reaward you ...about expalining and Educatiing us to eslam whit well form agruments as I just astarted practisinc Islam recently, when ever I came across....some pages like this I take time to search, some knowlage....so thank you again for taking a time.....to put togather these Informations. MAD MAC. I have some think to say toyou......long a go many of your people tray to spread your religion, to us.....but they never succeed.....so don,t ever think about it......to brain wash our children whit your nonsense.....if you look at history which country on this earth......which your ppl Colonise which they don,t spread in Christianity?.......guess what they fail in my Country......we where atleas 100% Islam....so next time use your brain ....and leave us a lone. peace and Love Muslim sis
MAD MAC	Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 10:59 pm Asad 1. Dude, Israel, Thailand, Russian and Eastern Europe are not generally considered "the west". 2. By far most prisoners in the US penal system do not do any siginificant labor. You hit it on the head the first time when you said it is "obscenely expensive." It is not a profit making industry - the Chinese are doing better in that area than we are. Again, prisoners of war and convicts are a special case, their loss of freedom caused by the exigencies of war or their own hand. Incidentally, they had prisons in Somalia and have them today in EVERY COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. They are not a US phenomenon or invention. Although there is clearly a problem in the US penal system with the disparity of blacks incarcerated this is due to social factors that have caused so many blacks to resort to crime. In your book of accountability, they get what they deserve. In my book it's just a serious social problem we have yet to effectively tackle. 3. Slavery was made illegal in 1864 in the US - earlier in Britain though I don't recall the date. At the end of the day slavery (Private ownership of Bonded individuals) is wrong - you know it and I know it. You and I also know that on many of the plantations in Somalia today slavery is happening. People are being forced to work for no compensation for fear of death. I'm not pointing the finger at Somalia or Somalis. This is the actions of a few criminals, but arguments such as yours that Islam says it's OK don't do anything to weaken their moral position. Not that that means much in Somalia today. As Mao said "all power comes from the barrel of a gun." That's certainly true in Somalia right now. If it were sister and father who were in the hands of these animals you'd be asking me to help you free them, regardless of what Islam says - at least I hope you would.
MA DMAC	Sunday, September 17, 2000 - 11:02 pm Muslim Sis I love you too. If you had bothered to read the discussion Asad and I are having you will note I am not a Christian and I am not trying to brain-wash anybody. We have a free exchange of ideas going on here. And Asad's arguments will ensure that anyone who starts this conversation a Muslim will remain one - at least as far as this board goes. So relax.
asad	Monday, September 18, 2000 - 10:10 am mad mac, there is nothing wrong slaving people who try to kill me for religious reasons. there is nothing wrong if my enemy is being put into bondage. for me, if a gaal like you wants me die in his religious war against muslims or he forces me to worship any other god other than Allah, i'll make him suffer. i'll humiliate him too before i kill him. the prisoners of religious wars (the captives) against muslims must pay the crimes they committed against muslims. they must be made useful for the society. it is foolish and immoral to let your enemy go free (and then only to come back and try to kill more muslims in wars). its is not good idea also to let them be in jail forever and throw the keys away. if he repents and becomes a muslim, i'll let him go free. if my brother is held captive by the enemy, i'll exchange with the one in my hand.
asad	Monday, September 18, 2000 - 10:13 am "I am not trying to brain-wash anybody." in your arguments, i don't think you can brain-wash anybody. "And Asad's arguments will ensure that anyone who starts this conversation a Muslim will remain one" i have no control of who stays muslim or he becomes a muslim.
abdulla	Monday, September 18, 2000 - 01:45 pm hi there runta get one thing straight that the quran was written in arabic and that allah chose a messanger who arabic so why are you trying to deny the arabic culture when the one person who's feet we must shadow is an arab. the is nothing wrong in trying to be like an arab, why should there be when people think it's right to follow the western ideas and try to be like them.
MAD MAC	Monday, September 18, 2000 - 09:53 pm Abdulla Well, if you want to be an Arab go right ahead. But they have lousy taste in fashion, can't fight their way out of a paper bag, make a mess when they eat with their hands (Somalis are much better at this), and don't believe people are allowed to have fun - they don't even think people should dance.
MAD MAC	Monday, September 18, 2000 - 11:55 pm Asad My arguments are sound enough, but your mind was made up before the discussion started. It doesn't matter much. I'm comfortable with my logic train just as you are comfortable with yours. The only thing I find troubling is that as the information superhighways get ever larger some Islamic countries are going to look for more and more ways to limit what comes over that highway and this could easily lead to friction and even violence. Esspecially among extremists. Tell me, why don't you live in a country that is more Islamic in orientation like, say, Oman or UAE or Yemen? Why did you choose a secular society?
asad	Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 05:38 am "My arguments are sound enough, but your mind was made up before the discussion started. It doesn't matter much. I'm comfortable with my logic train just as you are comfortable with yours." you are right that your logic train and arguments are what you are comfortable with as i'm with mine. your argument is that if you kill a person, it is not your fault, but it is Allah's fault and i'm saying to you that it is your fault; it is not Allah's fault. "The only thing I find troubling is that as the information superhighways get ever larger some Islamic countries are going to look for more and more ways to limit what comes over that highway and this could easily lead to friction and even violence." the internet is every where these days. even in america, there are censorship laws. "Esspecially among extremists" there are extremists in america that blow up buildings and others who learn how to make bombs through surfing the internet. "Tell me, why don't you live in a country that is more Islamic in orientation like, say, Oman or UAE or Yemen? Why did you choose a secular society?" Oman and UAE are secular states too. it does not make a difference to me (as far as my islamic is concern) if i live in UAE or Yemen and if i live in america. i would always practice islam and be a muslim.
MAD MAC	Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 09:51 am Asad The argument, that if I kill someone it's Allahs fault, is yours. You claimed that Allah made us the way we are, that he made the world the way it is, that he is all knowing and all powerful. I simply extended that to its natural conclusion. I personally don't believe any of that. Yes, in America there are censorship laws, but they're weak and getting weaker. The real issue at stake, I think, among Islamic societies will be exposure to non-Islamic thought and non-Islamic images. These images are all pervasive on the internet. You can see how, in a society like Afghanistan, some guy who is an internet provider can suddenly find himself being executed. Then his subscribers might be upset. Or maybe the providers place will be blown up, because the provider wasn't executed. You can see how the whole internet thing creates a problem for people who believe words and ideas are illegal - I mean the service is about words and ideas. As for American extremist - yep, we've got 'em. No doubt about it. Don't think too many want to blow up internet providers, though. they want to blow up the FBI and Black People and stuff. Not sure what they have to do with Islam. I did say "Islamic orientation". Meaning most of the people there are Muslims. The countries laws are designed to accomodate Muslim beliefs - you don't need to watch women in mini-skirts, etc.I'm just curious, why wouldn't you want to live somewhere like that as oppossed to someplace you obviously have a rub with?
Runta	Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 10:41 am There is no tenet in Christianity calling for the killing of people who backslide (I guess God figured He could do the job without us.) AND there is no verse in the Bible calling Christians to kill off Muslims if they attack Christians. Again God says that Vegeance is His and He will repay. In that same context Christians are told that if your enemy is hungry feed him, if he is thirsty give him a drink... and to not overcome evil with evil, but to overcome evil with good. Do you guys realize that love is the most powerful weapon? Hate and violence breeds more hate and violence... Love is a hate neutralizer. It's hard to hate someone with a passion who shows you nothing but love and kindness. You'll end up feeling like a jerk real soon. That is what make Christianity unique. Jesus didn't spread His religion with the sword. His followers would rather have their own blood shed than shed the life of another. They conquered the Roman empire with out one military army. It's hard for me to imagine people dying and being tortured for a falsehood they created.
Ahmed Qatal	Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 02:26 pm Assalaam u alaikum all Muslims, Arabs are not the best, Muslims are the best and the Arabic languege is the best. Runta and (should not be) Mad (at Allah) Mac, please read this when you have time, You may learn something. A Revolution Without Revolutionaries Author Sherif Mohammed -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why is it that makes Muslims believe that Islam is a tremendous bounty and a gift from God, when the rest of the world views ALL religions as a burden on mankind created by backward cultures? Islam is the faith that defines us, defines who we are, defines our identity. In fact anyone who truly understand's Islam will be well aware of it's simplicity, elegance and the power to lead man for what Muslims believe is mans true purpose. Why is there nothing like Islam on earth? Why is Islam so revolutionary? : It is Islam that has taught human beings that the Lord their God is One and Only. That He has no partners, no wife, and no son, and that there can be no compromise on the unity of God. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all equal and that no Arab is superior to non-Arab, nor a non-Arab is superior to an Arab and that the best of all of us is the one who is most righteous. It is Islam that has taught human beings that they are all brothers and sisters created from a single pair of a male and a female. Therefore, Islam , unlike Hinduism, neither recognizes nor condones the idea of a caste system. Islam is a war on caste systems, on aristocracies, and hereditary social groups of all kinds. It is Islam that has taught humanity the value of the intellect, the importance of reflection, and the role of the mind in attaining faith. Christians teach that one can never become a believer except when the Holy Spirit mysteriously occupies one's heart. Islam teaches that faith is the fruit of reason and it is through continuous reflection on the wonders of creation that faith can be obtained, maintained, and nurtured. It is Islam that has has taught humanity that people of all races, all colors, all ethnicities are perfectly capable of attaining faith in the One and Only God. Hindus believe that Hinduism is just for those privileged to be born in the faith and therefore they do not invite the "less privileged" to embrace their faith. Jews believe that they are the chosen race and even when they accept others to embrace Judaism, those converts are always lower in rank than those born as Jews. Islam rejects all that and calls upon all people of all backgrounds to submit themselves to their Creator. Once they do, they automatically become members of the community of Islam with the same rights and duties as any other Muslim. Islam is not, and can never be, the monopoly of one race or a certain linguistic group. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is absolutely Just and Merciful and that He will never punish one person for the sins of others. Christianity teaches that Adam and Eve had bequeathed their sin to all their descendants and thus all humans are born in this "Original Sin" and therefore Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed on the cross to redeem humanity of its 'original sin.' Islam says, NO. Humans are not born in sin. No person will be held accountable for another's mistakes. Every soul will pay for its own deeds, only. Divine justice is absolute. It is Islam that has taught humanity that righteous deeds are necessary for salvation. Faith is indispensable, but not sufficient. Humans will be admitted to Paradise by their faith and their righteous acts. They have to go together, hand in hand. Many Christian denominations teach that faith in Jesus is enough for salvations. If you accept Jesus sacrifice on the cross, then you are saved regardless of what you may do afterwards because Jesus has already paid for all your sins. Islam totally disagrees. No one can pay for your sins. Faith, doing righteousness, avoiding evil, and continuous repentance are the only ways for salvation. Islam does not accept , nor condone the corrupting influence on the individual as well as the society that can be caused by the idea of a "guaranteed" salvation. It is Islam that has taught humanity how to balance the needs of this life and the next. Islam does not accept the idea that renunciation of this world is the best means to get salvation in the next. Catholicism and Buddism teach that by living a reclusive life, one can attain higher spirituality. Buddism even taught the recluse must make his living by begging. Islam rejects the whole notion of the alleged goodness of renouncing the world. Islam teaches that best means for advancement in the next life is by getting involved in the affairs of this world by commanding good and forbidding evil; by helping one another in righteousness and piety; by doing Jihad, by struggling against all forms of evil, injustice, tyranny, intolerance...Islam does not teach rejection of the world, it teaches involvement, struggle, and change. It is Islam that has taught humanity that kindness to parents, to kin, to neighbors, and to fellow humans is an essential part of faith and righteousness. Christianity claims that Jesus has taught that one cannot come closer to God unless one hates one's father, mother, wife, children,...(Luke 14:26) Islam teaches the opposite. One cannot come closer to God unless one acts so kindly towards one's mother, father, family, neighbors, etc. It is Islam that has taught humanity that God is very close to them and that He is with them wherever they are and that He hears their prayers and respond to them. Islam teaches that God is so close that He needs no intermediaries to mediate between Him and His servants. Islam does not accept the concept of priesthood and clergy acting as mediators between God and humans. Islam teaches that one does not have to confess one's sins to a priest in order to get forgiveness. One can simply confess one's sins to God without any human intervention, seek forgiveness, and God will grant it. Many Jews today still believe that prayers cannot reach God and get a response from Him unless the prayer is made at the Wailing Wall in Juresalem. Some even fax their prayers or send it via the Internet to Jerusalem so that someone there would take it and put it on the Wailing Wall to reach God. Islam teaches that wherever one maybe, one can pray to God, confess to God, seek God's help and forgiveness, and God will certainly respond. No human intervention is needed, no special place or time is necessary. God is always very close. It is Islam that has taught humans to accept and respect their human nature. Islam recognizes the strengths, the weaknesses, and the needs of humans. Islam never requires humans to behave as angels or to ignore their physical and emotional needs. Christianity does not allow divorce. Islam recognizes it as a human reality. Catholicism considers celibacy an ideal. Islam does not. The Anglican Church frowns upon second marriages. Prince Charles in order to become King of England has to behave as a practicing Anglican. Therefore, he can commit adultery openly with his famous mistress but he cannot marry her or else he will lose the throne for violating the rules of the Church of England. Islam never engages in such irrationality and moral contradictions. There is nothing like Islam on earth. There is no faith, no religion, no ideology, no system of belief that can rival Islam in its clarity and simplicity ; in its submission to God, the One and Only; in its rationality and intellectual depth; in its egalitarianism and equality; in its spirituality; in its code of ethics; in its unparalleled balance between the needs of this life and the demands of the hereafter. Islam has elevated the human soul, body, and mind to heights that have never been reached by any other faith or tradition. Islam is the only religion that has truly enabled human beings to fulfill their humanity. Islam is like a perfect piece of art at which the human eye can keep looking and scrutinizing for days, weeks, years on end and still can find no flaws, no defects, and no contradictions. All the human eye can do is to keep wondering at the amazing beauty and coherence of this faith of ours: Islam. Leopold Wiess, the Austrian Jew who embraced Islam in 1926 and became one of the greatest Muslim intellects of the twentieth century has expressed the same level of astonishment at the overwhelming beauty and coherence of Islam, "I was asked, time and again: 'Why did you embrace Islam ? What was it that attracted you particularly ?' -- and I must confess: I don't know of any satisfactory answer. It was not any particular teaching that attracted me, but the whole wonderful, inexplicably coherent structure of moral teaching and practical life programme. I could not say, even now, which aspect of it appeals to me more than any other. Islam appears to me like a perfect work of architecture. All its parts are harmoniously conceived to complement and support each other: nothing is superfluous and nothing lacking, with the result of an absolute balance and solid composure. Probably this feeling that everything in the teachings and postulates of Islam is 'in its proper place,' has created the strongest impression on me." In a nutshell, Islam is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is important to note that Islam is not just a set of ideals, it is a tremendous force capable of transforming and regenerating individuals as well societies and whole nations. The influence of Islam upon the first society that embraced it, the Arabian peninsula, was nothing short of a revolution. Islam has revolutionized Arabia in all aspects of life: politically, economically, socially, and above all morally: It was Islam that transformed the fiercely independent-minded Arabs who knew no government, obeyed no authority, recognized no state into a nation with a government, a capital, and a respected authority. It was Islam that taught the anarchic Arabs how to elect a head of state from among themselves and how to run their government upon principles of mutual consultation. It was Islam that taught the Arabs who never agreed on any form of law to build a nation based on the rule of one sacred, just, and merciful law. Islam also taught them that they were all equals before the law and no one even the daughter of the Prophet was above the law. It was Islam that transformed the intensely militant Arabs from a group of tribes massacring each other all the time -- to the extent that they had to agree on four months of peace every year to prevent their whole race from extinction due to the incessant wars -- into one nation with united tribal armies able to confront and defeat the armies of the surrounding superpowers: the Byzantines and the Sassanids. It was Islam that abolished usury from Arabia and taught the Arabs how to make business transactions justly and fairly without exploitation or abuse. It was Islam that abolished the gruesome habit of female infanticide from Arabia. It was Islam that taught the Arabs that women were full human beings, not mere chattel, and that they were their sisters in humanity and in faith. It was Islam that guaranteed for Arabian women their rights to: inheritance, property, divorce, and independent legal personality. It was Islam that eradicated Alcohol, with all its evils, from Arabia. It was Islam that ended all forms of prostitution, gambling, and intoxicants from the Arabian society. And it was Islam that opened all doors for freeing slaves. It was Islam that uprooted racism from the Arab mind completely to the extent that the deeply racist and arrogant Arabs would accept to be soldiers in armies whose leaders were black Africans. And above all, it was Islam that transformed the idolatrous and superstitious Arabs into believers in the One and Only God. It was Islam that transformed them from idol worshippers into a people who stand together in one line in prayer and prostrate their heads to the Almighty. Arabia before Islam was a society bound by tradition and precedent. Whatever was customary was right and proper. Whatever the forefathers had done deserved to be imitated. Islam rejected this blind faith in tradition. Islam challenged all the customs of the society. Islam questioned all the mores and manners of the Arabs. Islam introduced to them the standards of morality and the fundamentals of right and wrong. Islam taught them how to think critically of everything around them and how to reject the bad habits and keep the good ones. Islam showed them the proper way for peace and happiness in this life and felicity in the next. This was the essence of the revolution that Islam...(is).
formerguest.	Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 03:48 pm RUNTA SAYS; <Again God says that Vegeance is His and He will repay. In that same context Christians are told that if your enemy is hungry feed him, if he is thirsty give him a drink... and to not overcome evil with evil, but to overcome evil with good.>. See what the religious west did(and still does): Races Debased and Unities Sundered: In November of 1095, Pope Urban II initiated the first European attempt at colonizing the Muslim world-known in the West as the Crusades-by drawing this fateful picture: For you must hasten to carry aid to your brethren dwelling in the East, who need your help, which they have often asked For the Turks, a Persian people, have attacked them I exhort you with earnest prayer- not I, but God-that, as heralds of Christ, you urge men by frequent exhortation, men of all ranks, knights as well as foot soldiers, rich as well as poor, to hasten to exterminate this vile race from the lands of your brethren Christ commands it And if those who set out thither should lose their lives on the way by land, or in crossing the sea, or in fighting the pagans, their sins shall be remitted Oh what a disgrace, if a race so despised, base, and the instrument of demons, should so overcome a people endowed with faith in the all-powerful God, and resplendent with the name of Christ Let those who have been accustomed to make private war against the faithful carry on to a successful issue a war against the infidels Let those who for a long time have been robbers now become soldiers of Christ Let those who fought against brothers and relatives now fight against these barbarians let them zealously undertake the journey under the guidance of the Lord. [15] The Pope's words lay out many of the themes that would characterize this mass colonial movement East for the next two centuries In one reading of the Crusading venture, restless knights and small-tune princes are enticed by their lords with tales of land and wealth, in the hopes of turning their swords away from the increasingly nervous feudal establishment, or what the Pope calls the faithful brethren Landless folks and the poor-euphemized by the Pope as criminals-can also be turned Eastward with enticements of land and Divine forgiveness But what is most interesting here is that the Pope conceptualizes his Oriental Other in racial terms The enemy, for now, is the debased races of Turks and Persians, and Islam is not yet a part of the Western conceptual matrix. There is also an overlap here with Christian treatment of Jews as the "instruments of demons", one of the key tenets of anti-Semitic white supremacy In Christian Europe, Jews and Muslims suffered the wrath of an increasingly rabid and intolerant resurgent Christianity, culminating in the expulsion of both from Muslim Spain in the 15th century, at the dawn of the expansionist age while this is not the place to trace this legacy in detail, this is also the period in which the religion of rationalism replaced Christianity, with the images of the other traveling full circle from Pope Urban's 11th century "debased races" to the Age of Enlightenment, with its biological explanation for colonization and genocide As Hentsch shows, [16 Read the complete writing at: http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid/islamicimageryinwest.htm I guess truning your other cheek doesn't apply to those who beleive in one god. The same god moses and jesus taught. I will be back to give RUNTA what he deserves for his saying ISLAM IS OUR FABRICATION.
asad	Tuesday, September 19, 2000 - 05:31 pm "The argument, that if I kill someone it's Allahs fault, is yours" no, it is not. it is yours. i told you to be responsible for your deeds (actions) and you want to blame on Allah. "You claimed that Allah made us the way we are, that he made the world the way it is, that he is all knowing and all powerful." no, i told you that Allah made you, but he didn't make you a thief if you steal; He didn't make you to deny His justice of hell and heaven; you decided. "I simply extended that to its natural conclusion." the conclusion that there is no hell or heaven; that a man should not be blamed if he steals something because Allah created him to be a thief. "Yes, in America there are censorship laws, but they're weak and getting weaker." they are not getting weaker. every politician or presedent that runs in the united states wants to be elected because he promises to protect people from what the people are tired of listening and seeing on movies, online and radio. "You can see how the whole internet thing creates a problem for people who believe words and ideas are illegal - I mean the service is about words and ideas." yes, words and ideas are service, but most people are tired of these services. they do not want their families to see and hear them. "As for American extremist - yep, we've got 'em. No doubt about it. Don't think too many want to blow up internet providers, though. they want to blow up the FBI and Black People and stuff." which one is worst---blowing up internet providers and blowing up black people? "The countries laws are designed to accomodate Muslim beliefs - you don't need to watch women in mini-skirts, etc. I'm just curious, why wouldn't you want to live somewhere like that as oppossed to someplace you obviously have a rub with?" i told you that i can practice islam and be a muslim in any country, but did you say that you want to be in somalia and may be live there? why would you want to live somewhere that obviously have muslims do not need to watch women in mini-skirts?
MAD MAC	Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 01:01 am Ahmed Qatal Your opening is most creative. I think you have a future as a write if you decide to go that way. I'm impressed. The write up you posted from Sherif Mohamed is interesting stuff. Be advised, although it may sound like it sometimes, I'm not really anti-Islam. I just think there's more to the story than Islam entails, that's all. Thanks for the write up though, it's quit good and I enjoyed it. Formerguest You are confusing Christian thought with Christian practice. What the religion preaches and what some people do are two different things. Many people call themselves Christians and then commit murder. That doesn't mean Christianity condones murder. Just like if a Muslim commits rape (like so many of your brethren have done to Somali women in the last decade) that doesn't mean Islam says rape is OK. Just as Asad has pointed out that there are no Muslim countries so it is even truer there are no Christian countries. Asad My old friend. Lots of ground here. Pretty soon were going to have to open a new page. I think we should call it Dear Asad, sort of a play on Dear abby. Anyway, down to business. To sum up my position on Judgement, I contend that I do not know (and did not say I don't believe in anything about the afterlife, that's extrapolation) if there's a heaven or a hell. I do not know if there's a day of judgement. However, I do not believe we are here as some sort of test to see where we go. There's more to it than that. I just don't believe we know the answers, that's all. And I don't think we ever will. I don't think we're suppose to. Sensorship laws are definately getting weaker. Don't talk about presidential races, please. In terms of law making they mean nothing. That's all hype. US Presidents don't make laws. All they get to do is validate them or veto them. And congress can always overide the veto. The President is the executive arm of government, not the legislative arm. I found your comment that words and ideas are a service but most people are tired of these services. Now there's a dangerous thought. The way fascists control there populations is through words and ideas. Whenever some government do-gooder wants to put a cap on them (because people are tired of all the trash, that's always one of my favorites) I look upon them with extreme sceptism. And as a minority in America you should too. Pretty soon, you go from no sex and violence on TV to no Muslim pages on the internet, it's sacriligeous. A little while later and the idea (proferred by the government run press) that all Musims are infidels and should be killeddoesn't sound so bad. Think I'm crazy, that's a rough draft of what happened in Nazi Germany and Bosnia in recent history. If most people are tired of it they don't need to subscribe. If they don't like what's on TV turn it off and curl up on the sofa with a good copy of the Qur'an. As for practicing Islam anywhere, I'm sure you can. But what I'm saying is right now you live in a secular society that, because it accomodates all kinds of beliefs, necessarily exposes you to things you must find annoying. Also, when you break for prayers at work, you're probably the only guy doing that. It's a lot more convenient to do things that are societal norms vice societal aberations. Since you don't seem to appreciate America why would you want to live there? Why not some place where Muslim standards are the norm? Lastly. Which is worse, blowing up internet providers or blowing up black people? Depends on the provider, depends on the people. Blowing up a bunch of Al Itihad terrorists would be viewed by me as a good thing, where as blowing up Somalinet would ruin my morale.
asad	Wednesday, September 20, 2000 - 05:10 am "To sum up my position on Judgement, I contend that I do not know (and did not say I don't believe in anything about the afterlife, that's extrapolation) if there's a heaven or a hell. I do not know if there's a day of judgement." you say that if you steal something, it is not your fault; it is Allah's fault. you say that a man like hilter may not be punished for his deeds. "I do not know if there's a day of judgement." then, you are kufar. you believe that a man like hitler would not have to face judgement for the crime he committed against his victims. "However, I do not believe we are here as some sort of test to see where we go." so what you are saying is that a man like here was here to kill and didn't have to worry about the consequence for his actions? "I just don't believe we know the answers, that's all. And I don't think we ever will. I don't think we're suppose to." speak for yourself. "Sensorship laws are definately getting weaker. Don't talk about presidential races, please. In terms of law making they mean nothing. That's all hype." but people who are tired of what they are given are buying the hype the presidential candidates are selling-----censorship. "Lastly. Which is worse, blowing up internet providers or blowing up black people? Depends on the provider, depends on the people." maybe it is not the fault the american extremists who want to blow up people (whoever they maybe); it is not the TV; it is not the providers of the bomb ingredients online-----instead what you are saying is the fault of Allah, right? ;-)
colaad	Sunday, September 24, 2000 - 12:57 pm why are the Arabs the best?do you want us to answer this equation and open a discussion through it,considering Arabs are the best,because when you ask the quation why?means you are not talking whether Arabs are the best or not,but you already consider it the best,but you are asking us the advantages which made them the best. second when you used the word best compared with whom? being Arab is it a race or culture? I am Somali and Arabic,I appreciate you if you consider us the best,but I don't think so that your intention is to flatter Arabs but is to put a question the Islamic religion.
MAD MAC	Monday, September 25, 2000 - 12:35 am Colaad Indeed I think you summed up Runtas position. The question is really rhetorical. By the way, I don't knwo anyone who thinks the Arams are best at anything. I don't want to sound prejudice here, but Arab societies haven't been on the cutting edge of techonology since the peak of the Ottomans. Arab dress is downright goofy. OK, they have decent food, I'll give them that. They might have decent women but there's no way to know that. They have a few decent distant runners but other than that are althletically pathetic. The last decent boxer was Mustafa Hamsho - and even he got clobbered by Marvin Hagler, although he showed a lot of heart. As for Islam, I am wholly unqualified to answer. Asad, you want to get in on this. You and formerguest seem to be the resident experts here. Ahmed Qatal also seems to know his stuff.
colaad	Monday, September 25, 2000 - 05:23 am "the question is really rhetorical,by the way,I don't know anyone who thinks the Arabs are best at anything?" anything? as I said before I cant go through a discussion without knowing what I am talking about,mad-max you talked about;technology,dress,food,women,sport. are you comparing Arabs with other nations,like Europeans,Africans,or maybe with their brothers Jewish? or you are talking another subject,which is comparing the civilizations,I need an specified argument mad-max.
MAD MAC	Monday, September 25, 2000 - 07:28 am Colaad I was talking about in general. In general (of course there are exceptions on an individual basis) the Arabs aren't best at anything.
Mad mac-hater	Monday, September 25, 2000 - 08:21 am Mad! I getta say this.. Go and •••• your self, you motha fuckin lawlife ape!!!! The son of frao!!!! Hell is your you home! Wooooooooooow what a beautiful home; CONGRATULATIONS!!!!!! Who is insane now? I guess it's me-!!!! Peace, bitch ass.
colaad	Monday, September 25, 2000 - 08:37 am "colaad, I was talking about In general,In general(of course there are exceptions on individual basis)the Arabs aren't best at anything." mad-max mad-max,what's the matter with you? Are you comparing with your nationality,race,or what? you said "best" If so tell me yours so that I can compare and tell you the difference. claryfie your Idea please.
Cumar	Monday, September 25, 2000 - 08:42 am Salaamu calaykum waraxmatullaahi wabarakaatuh, Alxamdulilaahi Rabilcaalamiin ILAAHII muslimka naga dhigay ee aan gaalo iyo gaal iska yeel yeel aan naga dhigin kana cuudu bilaahi mad mac iyo runta. Walaaaha Muslinka ah ee meeshani soo booqda waxaan dhihi lahaa hala iska jiro fidnada mad mac iyo runta (beenta) ay kula dhex wareegayaan meesha, waxaan filayaa waa kuwo noloshoodu cidhiidhi ku jirto oo dhibtoon waayo ilaahay iyo rasuulkiisii ayay dagaal kula jiraan iyakaanay u darantayhay ee qalbigiina yaanay duufsan shadaadiintaasi ilaahow yaa ogaada nolosha ay ku noolyihiin urta iyo bakhtiga ay cunaan IWM. Mida labaad iska ogaada carabta ay mar walba ka hadlayaan cadho ayay u qabaanee, Diinta Islaamka Carabi iskama laha ee Ilaahay ayaa Uunka oo idil u soo dejiyaya Diinta Ilaahay ayaanan haysanaa carabina waa walaalaheen inaga xiga cid waliba ka nasoo dhex galaaya anaka iyo carab waa taqaanaan wuxuu yahay waa yahuud ama waa nasaara. Carab nabigeenii suubanaa ee maxamed (scw) ayaa ka dhashay Quraanka kariimka ahina wuu noogu soo dagay oo ilaahay ayaa doortay alxamdulilaah waanan ku qanacsanahay (Samactu wa Adacnaa). Jacayl aan la koobi karina waan u qabnaa waanan la dagaal galaa iyana sidoo kale. mad mac iyo runta, Jelousy iyo cudur ayaa idin hayee ordoo nagala taga afkiina qadhmuun waxyahow kaatida iyo najaasada wataa ee aan daahirka aheen een xalaasha lagu dhalini. Ama ku soo biira islaamka ileen been iyo mugdi (man made religion) ah ayaad ku jirtaanee. Gaalka mad mac iyo dhilada runta Cadaab gala aakhiro iyo aduunkaba waaba ku jirtaanee, Aids iyo Cudur aan dawo laheeni idin dil. Masiibo aan la aqoon eebe mooyee samada idinkaga soo degtay oo accident iyo shaydaan idin dil. Amin
asad	Monday, September 25, 2000 - 09:53 am "The last decent boxer was Mustafa Hamsho - and even he got clobbered by Marvin Hagler, although he showed a lot of heart." this is very funny. are you saying boxing proves who got hearts or who is the best in human.! anyway, if i'm not mistaking, there is a guy by the name of nazim ahmad. he is not a decent boxer; he is the best in his weight. "Asad, you want to get in on this." get in on what? i don't care who thinks or claims to be the best---white, black, arab, somali, etc. i know that there is a verse in the Qura'n that says. INA AKRAMA CINDA LAAHI, ADQAAKUM.
Muslim	Monday, September 25, 2000 - 05:18 pm Hi Brothers!!! First of all let me say that i truly believe that as Somalis God(Allah) has made us a muslim people and excelled us in certain matters(we are among the best people ,kind, nice cuturally), even before the arabs we believed in the Waq(one God), the arabs are not a chosen people, would you say Sadam Hussein is a chosen muslim?? I do not think so. The only chosen people is the Muslim people wether black or white or yellow Muslim is the name. As for slavery well slavery if you look it up back then was not as the american enslavement of black people it was quite different, marriage was usual between slave man and free woman, as well as free man slave woman. Takbir Allahu Akbar!!
MAD MAC	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 12:19 am I meant culturally, not racially. I believe different races have different cultural charecteristics which are dominant. But if you take a Somali at infancy and raise him as a Puerto Rican then you'll just have a Hamitic Puerto Rican. Please, don't get me wrong. I certainly don't mean as a race. I don't believe in that crap. People are people. Culture sometimes seperates us, but race. Asad Are you a boxing fan?????? Figures you'd be a Hamed fan (It's Hamed, not Ahmad). He's a jerk but he can fight. But he's English, remember???? He comes from Yemen but he doesn't live in Yemen. He learned to box in England, no Yemen. Anyway, the jury is out on whether or not he's the best featherweight around. I think he has to beat Johnny Tapia and Eric Morales before he can make that claim. But he can bang, no doubt about it. Sorry, I overlooked him. I liked Hamsho more - I guess I'm partial to the old timers. He was tough and gritty, and he trained and lived in Syria until he made it big and made the move to the US - Boxings Mecca. You know, I've got this idea that after I become famous by building a Somali government I would open a gym and train fighters there. You've got all the right ingredients for some world class fighters in Somalia. First of all poverty. Nothing breeds hunger to excel like poverty. Second, tall, lanky builds. Look at a lot of you superstars - Tommy Hearns is a great example. Until you reach the heavyweight division height wins out over bulk every time. Thirdly, Warrior spirit. Somalis have got plenty of that too. I could turn those guys into animals. We could make some serious money. I boxed for 10 years - it's my sport. What do you think?
asad	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 09:20 am "Are you a boxing fan?????? Figures you'd be a Hamed fan (It's Hamed, not Ahmad). He's a jerk but he can fight." actually, i'm not a fan of boxing nor i'm a nazim's fan. i was just correcting you when you said the last decent boxer of arab origin was Mustafa Hamsho. nazim might be a jerk or he learn how to box in england, but the fact is that Johnny Tapia, Eric Morales don't want to fight him. many boxing experts think he's the best featherweight around. "You know, I've got this idea that after I become famous by building a Somali government I would open a gym and train fighters there. You've got all the right ingredients for some world class fighters in Somalia. First of all poverty. Nothing breeds hunger to excel like poverty. Second, tall, lanky builds. Look at a lot of you superstars - Tommy Hearns is a great example. Until you reach the heavyweight division height wins out over bulk every time. Thirdly, Warrior spirit. Somalis have got plenty of that too. I could turn those guys into animals. We could make some serious money. I boxed for 10 years - it's my sport. What do you think?" all i can say to that is----good luck with creating your next great white hope. ;-)
muslim brother.	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 12:59 pm ruunta to answer your q: about why ALLAH (s.w.t.) choose arabic is #1 arabic is the suuna of ALLAH (s.w.t.) #2 no other language expresses meaning stronger then arabic, #3 it is the lanuage of juunah, #4 it is easyer to understand and memorize, #5 never q: ALLAH (s.w.t) xikmah or decision, to do so is a sign of nifaaq. #6 if you don't like it to bad!! thats the way it is!!.
2NY	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 06:31 pm Normally I wish to steer clear of these baseless arguments but the Ignorance of some of these somali brothers here is mind-boggling.How can you claim that arabic is #1 language chosen by "allah"?This is clearly a sign of how our people(most of whom are Ignorant layman who profess to have a working knowledge of islam and somali history)have been brainwashed and culturally colonialized by the arabs and whoever they consudered to be superior to them in culture or otherwise e.g italians,british and the french.I do not profess christianity as runta does but he is entitiled to his own beliefs though they may be baseless and full of bull-••••.But I do not want to side with the arab-wannabes either for their interpretations and beliefs are the same as runta's.FAAAAAAAAAAAAAG!!! 1NY
formerguest.	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 07:27 pm 2NY. Runta is taking on arabs to make islam look like an arab relgion. Do you agree islam to be an arab religion?. That is what RUNTA is looking for, to instill arab hatred in people's minds so that they can disassociate themselves from islam. You don't have to side with anyone, but you have to see where everybody is going with his arguments. And accept my two cent apologies. If you don't accept, I have my sledge hammer next to me and will use it at no descretion.
asad	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 09:14 pm "even before the arabs we believed in the Waq(one God), the arabs are not a chosen people? if the arabs and the jews are not the chosen people, then they are the follen people if they left the teachings of islam. but are the somalis chosen people? i don't think so. before the arabs brought islam to somalia, somalis were pagans. some worshipped trees; others were animists. certainly , they were not muslims. ;-) INA AKRAMA CINDA LAAHI ADKHAAKUM
MAD MAC	Tuesday, September 26, 2000 - 09:37 pm Asad What do you mean Tapia and Morales don't want to fight him. Morales moved up in weight for the sole purpose of fighting him. This would be, BY a factor of about 10, a bigger purse than either of those guys can make on any other fight. And if they win there's the lucrative rematch. You better believe they want to fight him. Professional boxing is about making money, and win or lose, Tapia make a lot more money fighting Hamed than anyone else. If the boxing thing works, that would be a Great Black Hope - since Somalis are black. Or it could be a great Hamitic Hope. Whatever, at the end of the day it could make could money. Imagine we could promote these guys as warriors straight out of the bush - even if they lived their whole lives in the city, it won't matter. It sounds good. The Azumah Nelson thing.
asad	Wednesday, September 27, 2000 - 06:38 am "What do you mean Tapia and Morales don't want to fight him. Morales moved up in weight for the sole purpose of fighting him." well, according to the boxing experts, these guys know they will loose to naseem. so it is their best interest to fight against other less fighters than him and collect more dollors before they commit to fighting against naseem. "If the boxing thing works, that would be a Great Black Hope - since Somalis are black." i don't think you know about what great white hope stands for. great white hope is not always about blacks vs whites in america. american racists and bigots and the media will look for any "great white hope" to go against any black fighter they didn't like his stand in politics or religon. so in their search of this great white hope, every time muhammad ali fought a christian (black or white) he was their great white hope. when muhammad did beat sony liston and then become a muslim, almost all the whites and media wanted liston to win back the title and were cheering for their great white hope (liston). when in 1964 muhammad ali failed the armed forces qualifying test, intentionally, in order to avoid enlising the army and said these words "I ain�t got no quarrel with those Vietcong." and years later, when he came back to the boxing and he was fighting forman, almost all whites considered forman( who is black) to be their great white hope. ;-)
MAD MAC	Wednesday, September 27, 2000 - 10:02 pm OK, let me got back first to the Tapia and Morales issue. I am a boxing expert (and a boxer). Both Tapia and Morales would leap at the chance to fight Hamed. Hamed is good, but he is vulnerable to straight right hands. Kevin Kelley put him down twice, and Kelley is well past his prime. Hamed can be beat (like all fighters can) and he's going to lose in the next few years because of this vulnerability. Three guys who I would bet on to beat him are Johnny Tapia, Eric Morales and perhaps Barrera. Barrera is tough and strong and very determined, but he's really too small to fight Hamed and probably too slow. Tapia has all the tools and Morales is an animal - pressure fighter in the extreme - -exactly the kind of guy Hamed doesn't want to fight, except that it would be a megga fight worth millions to both fighters. Which gets me back to my central point. Hamed is the big name in the featherweight division right now. He commands pay per view bucks. Once he loses, and the boxing public views him as vulnerable, his value will go down. Tapias getting older now, he's only got a few good fights left in him. He lost his last bout to Ayala. If he were to turn down a big pay day now, he'd probably never get the chance to take it again. Morales will wait at least a fight or two. He needs to get used to the new weight and he's young, time is more on his side. But in boxing, you have to strike while the iron is hot. Morales vs Hamed is superfight right now. When Hamed loses it's no longer a superfight. It's still an intriguing bout that I'd like to see, but for Joe six pack it's no longer $29.95 at the pay per view. The reason Hamed has not fought any of these guys yet is because he's made good money fighting lesser opponents. In short, right now he's the man. He will only take a high risk fight when the money is BIG BIG BIG. But the time is ripe for Morales. I doubt he'll fight Barrera or Tapia because they won't draw enough revenue considering the risk. I'm with you now on the great white hope. But if I train Somali boxers I can hardly see how they would be considered great white hopes. They're Muslims. When they are political it's either something radical (Al-Itihad) or something Americans will know nothing about. Can you imagine some Somali waving an SPM banner at the cheering crowd in Las Vegas. They don't know what the hell the SPM is. Hardly something they can cheer for. I mean, I'd be training the Mohamed Alis vice the Joe Fraziers. Your analysis was good though. You know, what I didn't like about Ali was his lack of humility. But what I did like about him was his willingness to face the fire. When he refused his induction into the armed forces, he didn't run off to Canada. He went to Court (and ultimately won his case). He lost millions in revenue and three prime boxing years. That took cajones and I respect that. He was an interesting guy. His treatment of Joe Frazier was disgraceful, but his willingness to make a stand was admirable. And his Rumble in the Jungle with George Foreman was epic. A fight he clearly should have lost, he called on everything he had and won it.
asad	Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 05:33 am "I am a boxing expert (and a boxer). Both Tapia and Morales would leap at the chance to fight Hamed." i'm not a boxing expert nor am i a boxing fan, but i hear what the boxing experts, who make a living out of boxing, say. both the boxing commentators and the experts (also nasseem himself) said on HBO that both tapia and morales know that they are going to loose. they say nasseem can be beaten, but they don't think these guys can do the job. he is too good for them. the last fight naseem fought on HBO, he almost killed the guy (they took him to the hospital). at the end of the fight, nasseem was asked by the boxing commentators (experts) why morales is avoiding him to fight? he said he and others are scared to fight him against. they would not even talk to his promoters. maybe the purse they want to get was not good enough, but the fact is that if they thought they could beat him, they would have taken the chance to fight him right away so they could make large purse later on. "I'm with you now on the great white hope. But if I train Somali boxers I can hardly see how they would be considered great white hopes. They're Muslims. But if I train Somali boxers I can hardly see how they would be considered great white hopes. They're Muslims. When they are political it's either something radical (Al-Itihad) or something Americans will know nothing about." but it will be great white hope if your dream comes true. imagine you went to somalia and created price fighters. some radical somalis again dragged dead american bodies on moqadishu streets. what would the somali fighter whom you train do when he comes to america to fight against another somali figher who lived in america and never went to somalia. which one do you think the americans are going to cheer for and become the great white hope? ;-)
colaad	Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 07:57 am "Mad-max" The best way to answer the quations is to ignore it. continue your demonstrations.
MAD MAC	Thursday, September 28, 2000 - 08:47 am Yes, Hamed caught Sanchez clean (did you see the fight?) and hurt him. But that was late in the fourth. Between that opening bell and the KO, Hamed was on his ass three times. Sanchez was ranked 7th and it was his first big name opponent. I'm not saying Hamed can't fight, but I am saying that he can be beat (just like all fighters can). If Tapia were to fight Hamed and lose, it woul still be more money than he could make in all the rest of his fights combined. Believe me, as long as the purse were 7 figures he'd take the fight. These guys are top professionals - they're not afraid to fight. Fear isn't a factor in professional boxing, esspecially at the top levels. There have, in fact, been mixed reviews over why a big fight with Hamed hasn't happened. Morales has clearly stated he needs two more fights to be ready to fight Hamed - he just moved from Super Bantam to Featherweight. Morales is confident he can win the fight, which would make him a superstar (he's already big) and call for a big pay per view rematch. Tapia would clime through the ring ropes tommorrow - it's all about money. Same for Barrera who's on the down side now that he's lost to both Junior Jones and Morales. Glad you like my boxing idea. I like it myself. Remember, we can make money out of portraying some guy as some sort of Muslim psycho as long as he can fight. So the key is finding someone with natural talent that can be developed. I mean, think about it. Some guy yelling "I'll kill all the infidels. Bring 'em on." I can coach him. Mike Tyson has made millions playing up the animal theme.
asad	Friday, September 29, 2000 - 06:26 am "Yes, Hamed caught Sanchez clean (did you see the fight?) and hurt him." yes, i have seen the fight. did you hear what the the boxing commentators (experts) said after the fight was over? did you hear the questions that were asked of him about the other fighters and why they don't want to fight nasseem at this time? they know they can not beat him this time. the boxing commentators and experts are keep telling nasseem to move up because there is no one that can beat him at his level. did you hear the answer he gave and the comments that forman made? he said why should he have to move up. if Morales, barrera and tapia are not ready and do not want to fight now, that is their problem. nasseem said these guys would not even talk to his promoter. "But that was late in the fourth. Between that opening bell and the KO, Hamed was on his ass three times." that is a sign of great fighter---to come back and almost kill his oponant. george forman said at the end of the fight (something like this): "the guy has great heart, great chin and class. no wonder why the other guys are afraid of him" "Glad you like my boxing idea. I like it myself. Remember, we can make money out of portraying some guy as some sort of Muslim psycho as long as he can fight." the problem is that no serious muslim would like to be used and portrayed as psycho---for money. "I mean, think about it. Some guy yelling "I'll kill all the infidels. Bring 'em on." a serious muslim would fight for his religion and be glad to kill and be killed in the way of Allah while yelling "Allahu Akbar". "I can coach him" good luck finding that "great white hope" "Mike Tyson has made millions playing up the animal theme." good for him and look where it took him
MAD MAC	Friday, September 29, 2000 - 08:26 am Asad What do you mean look where it took him? He made a fortune. His misfortunes are not a result of his good fortunes. Anyway, you and I both know there are plenty of Somalis who are not good Muslims. We're talking promotion here, not a serious theme. Speaking of which, this will warm your heart. On the train today I was reading my Qur'an and this Tunisian guy sitting across from me noticed and spent the whole time talking to me about Islam. You'd have liked it.
formerguest.	Friday, September 29, 2000 - 04:09 pm MAD. I am concerned john(MAD), You see, it is kind of a request I like to put forth to you, and I hope you accept this, when you try to read the Quran, please read: 1- After you have a shower and are clean from any sexual contact you might have with your girlfreind. 2- Do get married instead of living in an adulterous life. It is not good for your soul. Particularly if you are fond of your girlfriend and she is fond of you. You don't need to wait that long to get to know her. Because you told us in another forums, you like her much and so she does. By the way this tunisian guy warmed our hearts. He is out there in the middle of a train trying to convince MAD to accept islam. What a scene. I wish I was there to see how you talked to him.
formerguest.	Friday, September 29, 2000 - 04:17 pm And let us call the cleanliness deal fair one, because Muslims themselves are required to do the same. It is not only you. I hope The Quran gets through your head with understanding and cause you to stop this rebellious attitude to your creator(I know you like to argue about this, enough is said already). Make sure you finish reading the Quran because all the Questions you ask here are answered in it.
MAD MAC	Friday, September 29, 2000 - 11:08 pm Formerguest Well, I shower after sex, so I think we're good to go on that one. As for Marriage. If things are still looking good when we got to Thailand next year we are going to get married there. Weddings are a big deal for women and she would like her parents to be there. So since the wedding itself is not that big a deal to me, I figure I can accomodate her on this. Of course, much to your chagrin, it will be a Bhudist wedding. But she is a big time believer in Bhudism, she'S not going to change even if I became a Muslims myself - which isn't very likely, although I'd never say never. I'm not rebelling against Allah, I reject that the Qur'an is divine. There is a difference. Thanks for the thoguhts though. Appreciate it.
asad	Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 02:02 pm "What do you mean look where it took him? He made a fortune. His misfortunes are not a result of his good fortunes." his misforturnes came as a result of his bad actions---which is the opposite of what a muslim should do. thus, he let himself to be used. "Anyway, you and I both know there are plenty of Somalis who are not good Muslims. We're talking promotion here, not a serious theme." yes, and i'm saying to you good luck with your aim of using the no so good muslims. ;-)
asad	Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 02:07 pm "I'm not rebelling against Allah, I reject that the Qur'an is divine. There is a difference." if you reject what is in the Qur'an (the fact that there is the day of judgment), then you rejected Allah's justice. thus, you became a kufar (a rejector). a kufar is rebelliing against Allah.
formerguest.	Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 03:39 pm Asad, So, mad is playing a manipulative games by using the no-so-muslim somalis?. Finally, I see a picture coming into effect. MAD. The bhudist wedding is kind of a funny scenario where mad is dressed in all yellowish pink clothes, several white dotts on his forhead, nodding to everybody that looks like asian for respect.
asad	Saturday, September 30, 2000 - 06:07 pm "So, mad is playing a manipulative games by using the no-so-muslim somalis?" portraying some person as being a muslim psycho---in order to make money for him and for the gaal promoter----is cheaping the religoin. any muslim who falls for this kind of manipulation is no good. like i said, the problem is that no serious muslim would like to be used and portrayed as psycho---for money.
MAD MAC	Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 01:45 am Asad Well, like I said, there are plenty of Somalis who aren't serious Muslims. If we don't play the Muslim terrorist theme maybe we can play the bushman theme. Azumah Nelson played that one up great. BTW Mike Tyson is a professed Muslim. As for manipulative games, you guys would consider any promotion that used an angle (which is really for fun, no one actually believes the crap) as manipulation. You want to talk about promotions, have you ever seen Hameds ring entry????? You guys reminded me of something. Last year when I went to Nairobi I visited the home of a Somali woman living in Eastleigh. Her daughter lived her in Germany and I was good friends with her husband. So I offered to take some medecine with me that her brother needed (doubt it helped much, the poor guy was a mess). Anyway, mom loaded me down with presents for her daughter whom she had not seen in 10 years. One of the gifts was a Qur'an. The woman I delivered it to upon my return was vexed because as I gave her each item out of my bag I toughed the Qur'an. Something about gaal not suppose to touch it. Can you guys more fully explain this. You've never mentioned it before so I figure there's got to be an angle.
asad	Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 07:25 am "Well, like I said, there are plenty of Somalis who aren't serious Muslims. If we don't play the Muslim terrorist theme maybe we can play the bushman theme." " yes, again, a serious somali muslim would not let himself be used and played. because of religion, he would not play bushman or terrorist themes. if he does such things, he would be doing dis-service to islam. "Azumah Nelson played that one up great. BTW Mike Tyson is a professed Muslim." are they serious muslims? "As for manipulative games, you guys would consider any promotion that used an angle (which is really for fun, no one actually believes the crap) as manipulation. You want to talk about promotions, have you ever seen Hameds ring entry?????" is nasseem promoting islam or himself when he fights and when she entertains people? "I toughed the Qur'an. Something about gaal not suppose to touch it. Can you guys more fully explain this." in the Qur'an, there is a verse that talks about the Qura'n. LAA YAMASAHU ILAL MUTAHADRUUN. a gaal is not suppose to touch the Qur'an because he is considered not clean (taahir) and even a muslim who is not clean can not tough the Qur'an. in the Qur'an, there is another verse that says: INAL MUSHRIKIINA NAJISUN. BTW Mike Tyson is a professed Muslim.
asad	Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 07:33 am "Can you guys more fully explain this. You've never mentioned it before so I figure there's got to be an angle." mad mac, as a gaal, do you urinate while standing and not wash after yourself? if yes, then you are not clean to touch the Qur'an.
MAD MAC	Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 11:09 am No I wash myelf afterward. It's a health thing. So this idea has to do with cleanliness I assume?? But if I wash regularly and so forth, then am I correct in assuming that my handling of the Qur'an is OK? And if it's not OK, then how is a gaal ever suppose to read the Qur'an in the first place, if he's not suppose to handle it?
asad	Sunday, October 01, 2000 - 02:01 pm "No I wash myelf afterward. It's a health thing. So this idea has to do with cleanliness I assume??" yes, it has to do with cleanliness. even a muslim who is not clean is not suppose to handle the Qur'an. "But if I wash regularly and so forth, then am I correct in assuming that my handling of the Qur'an is OK? And if it's not OK, then how is a gaal ever suppose to read the Qur'an in the first place, if he's not suppose to handle it? " if you wash properly, then it is okay. there was an incident that happened to umar, the second khalifa before he became a muslim. he over-heard his sister and her husband reading the Qur'an which was illegal at that time for muslims to read the Qur'an. they were reading the Qu'ran secretly because if they were caught by umar (who was then a gaal) they would be in trouble. when umar questioned them what they were reading, they said nothing. umar demanded that they told the truth. when he beated his brother-in-law, umar's sister told the truth and said that they were reading the Qur'an. then umar asked to see the manuscript of the Qur'an. the sister said the Qur'an is sacred text and that umar who was gaal was not suppose to handle it because he was not a pure---that he needed to wash up and clean himself. after he did that he read it.

Feel like posting? Pleaase click here for the list of current forums.

site-wide search

SomaliNet Forums: Archives

This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...

Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts

About SomaliNet

Site Sections

Share this page

Site Status