^ I tried to insert the arabic text and highlight ' muusicuunaa' but could'nt do it :confused:

AND IT IS We who have built the universe [30] with [Our creative] power; and, verily, it is We who are steadily expanding it (Mohamed Asad). 51:47

LG, You're typing for the sake of it now. You failed to bring FACTS to support your stance that a ban on the Burqa doesn't go against secularism as well as failing to address my previous post. Your own personal views are NOT facts. As for ME backing up the claim that Burqa is forced on women, you don't have to look far but read the testimonials gathered by women groups attesting to the abuse associated with wearing the garment. Who are these groups? Where are these groups? What have they said? Where did they get their evidence? France or Afghanistan? Did they speak to any Niqaabis? What did they say? But beside that, you and brother North will have to provide evidence supporting your counter claim that the burqa is voluntary and maybe even obligatory and that it is not in fact forced or 'pressured' for women to wear the garment by family members or society. A very easy search you could do yourself LG. But let me help you nonetheless. Here Wax la kaalay meesha! Sidanaad rabtaa miya?

Originally posted by Raamsade: quote: Originally posted by Norf 2: Do you accept that the recent discovery by scientists that the world is still expanding was foretold in the Quran? See verse 51:47. Of course not because the Quran doesn't say so. It's a complete lie. That's what enthusiastic Muslim apologists say in a bid to show the divine origins of the Quran. According to the Quran the entire world consists of Earth and Heavens (sky) and everything in between. No empty space, no galaxies, no solar systems, no black holes. [/QB]The Quran doesn't say 'we continue to expand it (refering to the universe in verse 51:47)? I'm interested in FACTS here. The FACT is, the Quran does state the universe is expanding in verse 51:47. The FACT is the Quran was revealed 1400 years ago. The FACT is the Quran hasn't changed since then (all you need to do is confirm it hasn't changed in your lifetime). FACT is scienists only recently confirmed the universe is expanding. If I'm wrong please prove it to me with FACTS! You're own assertions and commentary on Muslims and their take on issues is not what this threads is about nor is it something worth entertaining. Now, PROOVE to me you're right. The floor is yours

Well done Niama!

STOIC, I would like to point out that it wasn't me

Ngonge, Burco ha hadal keenin saxib. Burco ha hadal keenin

What is agreed is that Somalis are misinformed (ignore the stories).

^LoL Ngonge, this is not a debate saxib. we are trying to find the best way of informing Somalis about medical conditions and procedures. Some of the stories could be true or false but what is agreed is that Somalis and especially the older generation DO need informing.

Peace to all Somalis wherever they are.

LoL, I do need a new glove to hold the 9 iron

Thierry, The man who's time was before most young people were born has this much effect on them and world media. People will talk about this for a while. A part from Princess Di, I can't remember the last person to get so much coverage over his/her death. Who will get his estate and the all important Beatles collection? Also, the top 10s will all be MJ this weekend as everyone is downloading his songs

LoL Cute kids. Ben 10 waa marmarsiyo. You're an even bigger fan

^I think an appearance on Universal by a Somali medic maybe with a Shiekh as well would be very helpful.

^LoL Was he a Muslim?

Just got back from the airport. Tourists are an annoying bunch!

Black people in America have now lost ALL of their musical legends:- Marvin Gaye James Brown Ray Charles Another one of the blues guys Tupac Shakur Michael Jackson Gordon Brown just made a statement about Jackson's death. Ngonge, Billy Jean mate, Billy Jean :cool:

Originally posted by NGONGE: MARX, in his official fan site they are crying and wondering if he'll go to Janna. But now they all agreed it's too high to get over, too low to get under.... Legendary musician, crazy personal life.

Since 2006, how many decent sides did they beat? Euro 2008 was the only competition where they faced big teams and they won. LoL@Romania 'accident'

^Don't worry we will have a prediction thread come mid season IA A&T, you're right. I lost interest in international footy. Will still watch the tournaments but won't be as passionate as before (not about England anyway).

^We don't have the luxury of watching every Brazil game. In fact this Confeds cup is the first time I have watched International games since last summer. Brazil are over-rated. The best around now are the Argies, Spain and Holland. Come next year Brazil will lose to a decent team and won't even get the chance to face the super powers. Anyway, did you go to that game?

Originally posted by -MARX-: Anyways you are a SOL legend and this place wouldnt be the same without you! Ahh

^They do. Sheeko wax aan aheen ma hayaan. Knew an old lady who refused to be operated on (heart op) because she thought her time was up (as well as not wanting the male docs to touch her). Ilaahay ha u naxaristo. NB, there is alot of misinformation in the Somali community. You have your work cut out methinks.

Well played by the USA. Tactically superior throughout the game (at least defensively).

LG, Not one to quote a line at a time but needs to be done here. the French government is protected by their own constitution to keep state and religion separate Agreed why they went forward with the bill that banned religious symbols in state operated and state supported schools Disagree. Separation of government and church was solely for the 'running' of government and bore no effect on the populace and how they observed their religion. As of today, the freedom to practice one's religion is part of the French constitution with no qualifications on when and where it is deemed acceptable/unaccepta ble. In article 2 of the French constitution, it states that "the State should ensure the equality of all its citizens before the law and respect all beliefs". The ban on the Hijab and now the Burqa is contrary to the above as it disrespects Islam and Muslims are no longer 'free' to practice their religion. In other words, the law has not been broken by the previous ban and the law should not be broken once this ban is made to law. For this reason, the same faith will be dealt the Burqa from being worn in government buildings and government property, parks, roads, etc and it will not become a violation of its own constitution.(after all they will do their homework and get legal advise to see to it that they dont violate individual freedom, through the expression of religion with the ban) The constitution should be changed then. A qulification should inserted stating the latest bans. If this doesn't happen the new laws are going against the constitution. However, if the French do not do anything to combat this growing burqa phenomena from its territory, the majority of its citizens would perhaps view the state to be undermining their secular values and thats dangerous when the beliefs of few should be valued more than the view and values of the majority. Regardless, it will still be viewed as going against what are considered secular values. North, this ban, once its made to law will ensure that individual liberty and religious freedom are protected for as long as its done in the privacy of one's home. After all is done and said, do you still believe this to be in violation of France's constitution ya north? Like I said, unless the constitution is revised stating France's latest definition of religious freedom it IS a valuation of the same constitution. What the French are doing is dictate 'how' one should observe his/her religion therefore making it 'free' no more Definition of liberty from wordnet.princeton.ed u/perl/webwn:- # autonomy: immunity from arbitrary exercise of authority: political independence # freedom of choice; "liberty of opinion"; "liberty of worship"; "liberty--perfect liberty--to think or feel or do just as one pleases"; "at liberty to choose whatever occupation one wishes" # personal freedom from servitude or confinement or oppression # shore leave: leave granted to a sailor or naval officer # familiarity: an act of undue intimacy Additional reading: The French Hijab Ban Most reasonable people believe that the rule of law should be concerned with the administration of justice rather than the implementation of tyranny. The French government will be breaking its own law if it bans the hijab since : 1. The European Convention on Human Rights has been signed and ratified by France. ECHR rights including Article 9(i) rights to freedom of religion and freedom to manifest religion in worship, teaching, practice and observance, have been incorporated into French domestic law since 1974. Article 55 of the French Constitution confirms that any new French law should be in harmony with the ECHR. 2. Wearing the hijab is a voluntary act of religious observance and therefore a valid expression of Article 9(i) rights. The hijab is not worn as “a religious symbol” – it is an integral part of the prophetic way of life which has been embodied by all the true followers of all the true prophets, including Moses, Jesus and Muhammad, blessings and peace be on them. 3. Wearing the hijab is not a threat to anyone and does not violate anyone else’s rights and freedoms. In accordance with the ECHR Article 9 rights, anyone who believes in accordance with their beliefs that wearing the hijab is not necessary is free not to wear the hijab - and anyone who believes in accordance with their beliefs that wearing the hijab is necessary for religious reasons is free to wear the hijab. 4. This means that the proviso in Article 9(ii) is not applicable since banning the hijab can hardly be viewed as necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. 5. Therefore any French legislation banning the hijab constitutes direct religious discrimination by the organs of state in direct violation of the ECHR. This is a denial of a fundamental human right which the French state is in fact under a duty to protect and secure by virtue of Articles 1, 13 and 14 of the ECHR. 6. The same reasoning applies to all members of the European Union who have signed and ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. Ahmad Thomson Barrister Deputy-Chairman, the Association of Muslim Lawyers (UK) 10th February 2004 19th Dhu’l-Hijja 1424 Source