SomaliNet Forums

Kareem99 wrote:

tmac wrote:

Kareem99 wrote:Tmac, in all honesty, I address you from time to time only because you it appears you have a little reason. But you're quickly fading into "the slave of Johnson" territory. As you can see, he's an uncle Tom that shall not be dignified with my address (and I hope more people ignored this attention whore), You're better than that kid. Be a cool, more egalitarian liberal, not a xenophobe cloaked in the garb of a liberal.

Im anything but an Adeer Tom. I might be an Atheist but unlike people like Ayaan I'm not in bed with right wing nut jobs who hate anyone who isn't white.

I'm pro-Somali and pro-black. I support free choice, free speech and freedom of religion. But people like THEMAILMAN want to flog people like me because I have pre-marital sex, because I'm an Atheist, because I support gay rights and other LGBT rights etc. He is anti-choice.

I get all of that. I'm telling you is that it's still an ugly opinion to have if you call yourself a liberal, and it's even more ugly to express it so shamelessly. You are no different than the SECULAR white supremacists who believe the white man is superior to the black man. He'll ALSO tell you "that's my opinion man, it's not the law." That's free speech, I get that. But it's still NOT CONDUCIVE to liberalism. Why don't you say gay relationships are hideous and disgusting? Why don't you say blacks are savages for being such criminals? Because you know that, as a liberal, it is not consistent with your core values. All I'm telling you is to be consistent on THIS (not insulting the hijab/jilbaab/abaya) as well. In addition to letting women wear what they wish, you should NOT insult them for doing what they believe is right. This ain't liberalism, it's xenophobia. I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose kid, which is why I'm bringing it to your attention in a cordial fashion.

As for the slave of Johnson troll who wants to lure me into a hate filled tirade: I don't feed attention whores. He can call me every name in the book, it's not my style to dignify nor engage with trolls. He can keep insulting me to make himself feel better But I hope he doesn't feel suicidal because of my refusal to acknowledge him.

Fair enough. You have a point. I don't think the jilbaab is nice but I'm not rude or disrespectful enough to insult people to their face about it. Just like I wouldn't insult Sikhs to their face even their turban look ugly as sin.

I do not why people still bother. I have thrown in the towel, do not waste your energy, people's minds are already made up. Guys, you will not convince anyone by arguing.

SaciidAyanleh wrote:

Kareem99 wrote:
I get all of that. I'm telling you is that it's still an ugly opinion to have if you call yourself a liberal, and it's even more ugly to express it so shamelessly. You are no different than the SECULAR white supremacists who believe the white man is superior to the black man. He'll ALSO tell you "that's my opinion man, it's not the law." That's free speech, I get that. But it's still NOT CONDUCIVE to liberalism. Why don't you say gay relationships are hideous and disgusting? Why don't you say blacks are savages for being such criminals? Because you know that, as a liberal, it is not consistent with your core values. All I'm telling you is to be consistent on THIS (not insulting the hijab/jilbaab/abaya) as well. In addition to letting women wear what they wish, you should NOT insult them for doing what they believe is right. This ain't liberalism, it's xenophobia. I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose kid, which is why I'm bringing it to your attention in a cordial fashion.

As for the slave of Johnson troll who wants to lure me into a hate filled tirade: I don't feed attention whores. He can call me every name in the book, it's not my style to dignify nor engage with trolls. He can keep insulting me to make himself feel better But I hope he doesn't feel suicidal because of my refusal to acknowledge him.

The spirit of liberalism places inherit value in the rights of the individual as long as they do not transgress on the rights of others.

Muslims who choose to wear any sort of covering are free to do so. But what is the spirit of awra as it applies to women? It is derived from the concept that men are the possessors and protectors of women. This is antithetical to liberalism, which is why it is despised by liberals and Islamophobes alike. Personal levels of modesty are different from a culturally oppressive modesty.

Incorrect, that is the spirit of awra as it occurs to a materialist who sees nothing beyond this brief life, to a Muslim they behold the concept of awra quite differently, the more you delve into this the more complex it becomes, what you have done is to describe it as it befits the perspective of the common westerner who practices " do what thou wilt".

ZubeirAwal wrote:

tmac wrote:Zubeir

I support gay rights in the sense that they should be protected from persecution and violence.

You people are funny. You hate liberalism and liberals but I lm sure you all vote for the left leaning liberal parties where you live. . Why don't you all vote Conservative who are anti gay, anti-choice, "family values", dogmatic and religious? Because you know liberals are more open minded and more likely to defend you and protect your rights, despite your views being more aligned with right wing conservative Christians.

You people are so dishonest

Do you also support how liberals in Canada are trying to teach sex ed to 4-6 year olds? Danyeer foqol danyeer, niyo be who you want to be but remember what land your tredding on when you step foot in that stretch of land in the Horn of Africa

I like how you ignored what I aimed at you so I'll assume you agree with me. You enjoy the fruits of liberalism but you hate liberals

No I don't support sex ed to 4-6 year old. They are way too young. I disagree with many liberal positions (case by case) but I support the overall concept of liberalism.

tmac wrote:

ZubeirAwal wrote:

tmac wrote:Zubeir

I support gay rights in the sense that they should be protected from persecution and violence.

You people are funny. You hate liberalism and liberals but I lm sure you all vote for the left leaning liberal parties where you live. . Why don't you all vote Conservative who are anti gay, anti-choice, "family values", dogmatic and religious? Because you know liberals are more open minded and more likely to defend you and protect your rights, despite your views being more aligned with right wing conservative Christians.

You people are so dishonest

Do you also support how liberals in Canada are trying to teach sex ed to 4-6 year olds? Danyeer foqol danyeer, niyo be who you want to be but remember what land your tredding on when you step foot in that stretch of land in the Horn of Africa

I like how you ignored what I aimed at you so I'll assume you agree with me. You enjoy the fruits of liberalism but you hate liberals

No I don't support sex ed to 4-6 year old. They are way too young. I disagree with many liberal positions (case by case) but I support the overall concept of liberalism.

Whatever man, live life believing that people can defy nature as long as they are in 'love' , I believe that law has to be exercised in support of what nature and subsequently God had designated for us, it's not a imaginary world out here son.

TheMailMan wrote:

MaliPrince wrote:

LiquidHYDROGEN wrote:I haven't seen the video but judging from the pic the one without a xijaab looks like an african american chickenhead. No doubt being liberated from the xijaab means giving head at the back of the science lab to tyrese iyo timothy.

The xijaab is beauty. It's the abaya I have problems with, especially the somali multicoloured binbag variety.

the one with the hijab would look foreign to all somalis 50 years ago.

hijab = modern phenomenon.

nothing about it is remotely somali. its a carab cultural relic adopted by somalis after they learned the outside world actually exists. just like somali men did with pants.

Are you actually advocating that Somali women not wear hijabs despite the fact that hijabs are obligatory in Islam and are worn by the vast majority of Somali women?

Is there something wrong with you?

ZubeirAwal wrote:

SaciidAyanleh wrote:The spirit of liberalism places inherit value in the rights of the individual as long as they do not transgress on the rights of others.

Muslims who choose to wear any sort of covering are free to do so. But what is the spirit of awra as it applies to women? It is derived from the concept that men are the possessors and protectors of women. This is antithetical to liberalism, which is why it is despised by liberals and Islamophobes alike. Personal levels of modesty are different from a culturally oppressive modesty.

Incorrect, that is the spirit of awra as it occurs to a materialist who sees nothing beyond this brief life, to a Muslim they behold the concept of awra quite differently, the more you delve into this the more complex it becomes, what you have done is to describe it as it befits the perspective of the common westerner who practices " do what thou wilt".

How is it not?

Men can wear whatever they like in public and women can't. There's nothing deep to understand. It is materialist to believe clothing is at all representative of spirituality.

tmac wrote:Zubeir

I support gay rights in the sense that they should be protected from persecution and violence.

You people are funny. You hate liberalism and liberals but I lm sure you all vote for the left leaning liberal parties where you live. . Why don't you all vote Conservative who are anti gay, anti-choice, "family values", dogmatic and religious? Because you know liberals are more open minded and more likely to defend you and protect your rights, despite your views being more aligned with right wing conservative Christians.

You people are so dishonest

Not so much anymore dude. Liberals like Bill Maher and Sam Harris have pushed the conversation in a different direction, and now we even have left-leaning Liberals opposing Muslims and trying to curtail our rights.

We Muslims should be pragmatic and vote for whichever party is most beneficial for us at the time.

Most people don't know this, but American Muslims used to vote Republican until the George W Bush era. Only recently did US Muslims start voting Democrat.

SaciidAyanleh wrote:

ZubeirAwal wrote: The spirit of liberalism places inherit value in the rights of the individual as long as they do not transgress on the rights of others.

Muslims who choose to wear any sort of covering are free to do so. But what is the spirit of awra as it applies to women? It is derived from the concept that men are the possessors and protectors of women. This is antithetical to liberalism, which is why it is despised by liberals and Islamophobes alike. Personal levels of modesty are different from a culturally oppressive modesty.

Incorrect, that is the spirit of awra as it occurs to a materialist who sees nothing beyond this brief life, to a Muslim they behold the concept of awra quite differently, the more you delve into this the more complex it becomes, what you have done is to describe it as it befits the perspective of the common westerner who practices " do what thou wilt".

How is it not?

Men can wear whatever they like in public and women can't. There's nothing deep to understand. It is materialist to believe clothing is at all representative of spirituality.[/quote]

Men cannot wear whatever they want in the laws of Islam, they cannot wear anything that lies above their knees so the awra law applies to them too, Islam is not a chauvinist religion, although with a trickery of rhetoric many have come to believe that it is. Modesty is compulsive upon women and men in a Islamic society, although today it is safe to say most Muslim (especially Arab) countries have lost all comprehension of that fact.

ZubeirAwal wrote: Men cannot wear whatever they want in the laws of Islam, they cannot wear anything that lies above their knees so the awra law applies to them too, Islam is not a chauvinist religion, although with a trickery of rhetoric many have come to believe that it is. Modesty is compulsive upon women and men in a Islamic society, although today it is safe to say most Muslim (especially Arab) countries have lost all comprehension of that fact.

Awrah for women serves a dual purpose, first to preserve their chastity and second to not tempt men. Temptation is to be limited at the expense of female expression. When it is hot it is natural to wear less clothing. There is nothing immodest about short skirts (at or below the knees) or tanktops/tshirts. Women cannot FREELY enjoy themselves at beaches or swimming pools. But, because men are dogs that mode of expression is oppressed.

SaciidAyanleh wrote:

Kareem99 wrote:
I get all of that. I'm telling you is that it's still an ugly opinion to have if you call yourself a liberal, and it's even more ugly to express it so shamelessly. You are no different than the SECULAR white supremacists who believe the white man is superior to the black man. He'll ALSO tell you "that's my opinion man, it's not the law." That's free speech, I get that. But it's still NOT CONDUCIVE to liberalism. Why don't you say gay relationships are hideous and disgusting? Why don't you say blacks are savages for being such criminals? Because you know that, as a liberal, it is not consistent with your core values. All I'm telling you is to be consistent on THIS (not insulting the hijab/jilbaab/abaya) as well. In addition to letting women wear what they wish, you should NOT insult them for doing what they believe is right. This ain't liberalism, it's xenophobia. I'm not saying you're doing this on purpose kid, which is why I'm bringing it to your attention in a cordial fashion.

As for the slave of Johnson troll who wants to lure me into a hate filled tirade: I don't feed attention whores. He can call me every name in the book, it's not my style to dignify nor engage with trolls. He can keep insulting me to make himself feel better But I hope he doesn't feel suicidal because of my refusal to acknowledge him.

The spirit of liberalism places inherit value in the rights of the individual as long as they do not transgress on the rights of others.

Muslims who choose to wear any sort of covering are free to do so. But what is the spirit of awra as it applies to women? It is derived from the concept that men are the possessors and protectors of women. This is antithetical to liberalism, which is why it is despised by liberals and Islamophobes alike. Personal levels of modesty are different from a culturally oppressive modesty.

This is the narrative that is very popular on Fox News and the like. I suggest you speak to the many hijab-donning, practicing Muslim female doctors, lawyers, professors, or even some of the hijab-donning females right here on this forum: and ask them if they wear the hijab because a man told them so.

I'll follow Zumaale's advice and end my side of the discussion right here.

Kareem99, halka ka hay

can someone post the link to the video? thanks.

SaciidAyanleh wrote:

ZubeirAwal wrote: Men cannot wear whatever they want in the laws of Islam, they cannot wear anything that lies above their knees so the awra law applies to them too, Islam is not a chauvinist religion, although with a trickery of rhetoric many have come to believe that it is. Modesty is compulsive upon women and men in a Islamic society, although today it is safe to say most Muslim (especially Arab) countries have lost all comprehension of that fact.

Awrah for women serves a dual purpose, first to preserve their chastity and second to not tempt men. Temptation is to be limited at the expense of female expression. When it is hot it is natural to wear less clothing. There is nothing immodest about short skirts (at or below the knees) or tanktops/tshirts. Women cannot FREELY enjoy themselves at beaches or swimming pools. But, because men are dogs that mode of expression is oppressed.

I made a point in a other thread to this contention, awra is not inclusive to how a specific society may define what arouses them generally or what doesn't, like the open display of a woman's breasts, or her legs, or her arms, for example, 200 years ago Somali women in their native land did not wear the Hijab, much like their male counterparts they donned a sheet that went around their armpit that left one of their shoulders exposed, unmarried girls had a particular plaited hairstyle, married women wore a light sheet over their head, and that was for mere distinction..

That was the codes and conventions of what was 'morality' then in Somalia, what it is now is different, you can argue if it devolved or if it evolved, however what I am saying is were those Somali Muslim women any less modest than the ones that wear the Jilbab today? They are both the same, the obsession on women's attire on the part of modern muslim sheikhs is a modern obsession and is not one to be seen in past times...

However you can't go to Somalia and expect women who are arguably innately bashful to strip themselves of their clothes simply because it's too hot, many social factors go into these things, there has to be a distinction line that separates fantasy from reality, yes the idea of a world where women can practically walk naked (like the Khoisan) and yet have no sexist attentive response from men sounds great, but is it realistic? No it isn't.. you might say it works here in the west, the west needed a evolution of 100 years to be where it is at now, through the propagation of certain ideas through many mediums of communication, subtle changes now allows children at the age of 12 to gaze and imitate what they see on youtube (e.g Nicki Minaj's Anaconda) and this is all seen as 'okay' by most western scholars, however the concept of chastity and modesty is still one held very seriously by the majority of humans, regardless of what religion they may follow...

Some women desire to express themselves, some women desire attention be it sexual or ordinary, but one thing we can all agree on is that a woman moderately dressed (doesn't have to be one wearing a hijab) will not be gazed at with a eye of lust, when compared to a woman who exposes her behind and her bosom...

In conclusion, I don't know about you but I and 99% of Somalis are Muslim, and we believe that life isn't for us to wildly express ourselves as do the mindless beasts of the earth, but that there is a purpose in life and that life isn't meant to be treated as our one and only experience, with that being said it is required of Muslim men to retain their lustful feelings towards a woman before the requiring of her dressing modestly..

I never quite understood the need for some men to speak on behalf of the feelings, aspirations and desires of Muslim woman or any woman for that matter. You wonder where are they when a sister needs some gogorad-dirac matching tips