^^ It's not a single clan anymore, saaxib. Pay attention now.

^^ True. But wasn't that the same case with LA a while back? If Faroole keeps upsetting his kin like this we will close those borders without even trying, saaxib. Are you having doubts about him?

^^ There are other threads for SL and the phantom Yehoodi icteraaf. This one is about Buuhoodle and their demand that Faroole leaves them alone. In your considered opinion, would you say they are correct?

Heh@Paddington (for the Americans and A&T: Paddington is a police station in London). I can see why 2+2 go worked up. This one's words don't add up. One minute going to classes for this stuff and the next claiming not to be an expert and only doing photography as a hobby. Are you Oz girl in disguise?

^^ Don't change the subject with fake news about Tel Aviv. This is real news with pictures and video clips. I saw them on TV shouting 'Faroole ha na fara galin'. What was that all about, saaxib?

The last time these two teams played each other we had to suffer the dullest CL final ever. May they both lose.

Originally posted by Qhalib: Are you saying they're divided even in Buuhoodle or that the PL SOL contingent have been making it up as they went along?

Right or wrong, it is all about timing. Al Shabab's timing here was wrong.

^^ Take it easy and don't do anything out of the ordinary.

Morning. Looks like people got themselves new jobs.

A rubbish response to a masterpeice of spin.

I'm still awake and thought I'll send this to Kashafa... الرّأيُ قَبلَ شَجاعةِ الشّجْعانِ هُوَ أوّلٌ وَهيَ المَحَلُّ الثّاني فإذا همَا اجْتَمَعَا لنَفْسٍ حُرّةٍ بَلَغَتْ مِنَ العَلْياءِ كلّ مكانِ وَلَرُبّما طَعَنَ الفَتى أقْرَانَهُ بالرّأيِ قَبْلَ تَطَاعُنِ الأقرانِ لَوْلا العُقولُ لكانَ أدنَى ضَيغَمٍ أدنَى إلى شَرَفٍ مِنَ الإنْسَانِ وَلما تَفَاضَلَتِ النّفُوسُ وَدَبّرَتْ أيدي الكُماةِ عَوَاليَ المُرّانِ

Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: It appears that some people are still using the smokescreen of the proposed Niqab Ban only affecting all female institutions as an excuse for the late Tantawi and his ilk. This is merely a weak and feeble defence of someone who committed a great crime against Muslim women. It is a clear case of defending the indefensible. "Some people" are me, Karl. War miyad iga baqaysa dee? What's this some people nonsense? Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: I have one question for you people: when did the Sheikh suddenly become a woman? One should have their facts ready before they lunge into any debate. For your information, the young girl in question does not even wear the Niqab when she is with other Muslim females. She only adorned herself with the Niqab because Sheikh Tantawi and his entourage, who just happen to be members of the male race- btw, entered the building. The eyewitnesses reported that her teachers explained this issue to the Sheikh. However, he was not satisfied with having her remov her Niqab. It was reported by the eyewitnesses that he went as far as insulting her appearance with these disgraceful words, "So if you were even a little beautiful, what would you have done then?”. The eyewitnesses also reported that he said, "“I have already told you that the Niqab has absolutely nothing to do with the religion, and it is something that is from custom!”. Finally, he finished his abuse with more equally disgraceful insults, “and I know the religion better than you, and those who gave birth to you (i.e., your parents).” The girl who you are saying is a mahram was a child. You give the accounts of eye witnesses and I gave you the words of the Sheikh himself. Again, I ask you to put your anger aside and tell me who should I side with? Waxa la yedhi or someone i hor taagan and explaining himself clearly? Give him the benefit of the doubt, dammit. Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Now, even if some of you may dispute the authenticity of those words, can we not at least agree that ordering her to remove her Niqab was a wrong act in the first place? Simple question: was the Sheikh right or wrong to order her to remove her face veil? If the Pope did a similar thing to a nun, would the Catholic faith followers not have the right to be outraged about his conduct? Indeed, the Sheikh transgressed his Islamic, Human and all civilised obligations in forcing a non-mahram female to remover her Niqab. We can give a scholar the benefit of the doubt when he slips up once. What excuse can there be for a scholar who is constantly being reported to have transgressed on the rights that non Mahram Muslim women have over him? What excuse is there for a scholar who continuously tries to force his liberal opinions on others and makes what Allah and his prophet have made forbidden halal? Excuse? The girl was a CHILD. (I am not using my words, I am using the sheikh's words). Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: It was only a few years ago when our sister Yvonne Ridley was part of a delegation who went to meet the said Sheikh. Yvonne refused to shake his extended hand. In his typical manner, Sheikh Al Azhar was upset at the fact that some Muslim Women had chosen to follow the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad and disobey his Hosni Mobarak version of Islam. So she claimed that he insulted her with the following words, ""Who is teaching her? She can shake my hand, why she is like my daughter. This is the problem with Muslims in Europe today, they listen to extreme voices." I'll ignore the fact that you (ironically) used the words she claimed and will only remind you that we did not hear the sheikh's version of events here. Give him the benefit of the doubt, dammit. Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: As for those who said every Muslim should be concerned with his affair and leave Allah to judge others, these are indeed words of Xaq (truth) and, believe me, I am not enjoying bringing the many errors of a great Alim to the public. War ana idhi dee. Maxaad sinka o taagaysa? I am NGONGE not 'those' wax yaho walan. Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Having said that, unfortunately, our brother Ngonge is using this concept in the wrong context and thus they became devoid of truth. Of course, I am responsible for my actions. My sins are large and wide as the oceans. I fear to stand before Allah. I fear of being a hypocrite. But this does mean that every man should lock himself up in a box, stand by idly when the religion is being mocked, when Muslims are being attacked on the streets, when a scholar is blessing this crusade, and when the Hijab and Niqab are being banned left, right and centre. You're mixing your battles, adeer. Sarkozy is still alive. Hosni is recovering from an operation. All those that mock, insult and attack Islam are still there. Kuwa ku ciil bax and leave the scholars alone (even if you think they are wrong). Yet, I still say you are wrong for displaying all this empty anger. Islam is not a football team. You can't keep sacking the 'managers', adeer. Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: We are only criticising these scholars because they are bringing their errors to public and then attempting to make it a new religion I sin, yet I do not encourage others to openly sin. I may make an abundance of errors, but I do not make my errors, fears and personal prejudices into actions, which are part of the Shariah. I make errors, but I will never support the anti Islamic Governments legislations, which forbids Muslim women to practice their religion. When I go to the doctor and he tells me that I have cancer, I seek a second opinion (from a second doctor) I do not go to Khayer (who is not a doctor as far as I know) and ask him for his Xabba sood mix, adeer. Since you do not have the level of knowledge of these scholars and do not know (beyond a shadow of a doubt) if their fatwas are acceptable, I think you should hold your tongue and stop badmouthing the scholars (all of the scholars, those you like and those you don't). Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Therefore, when a scholar takes such actions, we reserve the right to criticise him, as he has betrayed the Ummah and sideded with the enemies of Islam. It is not befitting of a true Muslim to stay silent on such issue and every person has an obligation to forbid the evil and enjoin the good, each according to his own ability You don't have the ability, adeer. And by shouting from the rooftops about things you are not qualified to talk about you are showing a lack of respect for your own faith. Not to mention eating the flesh of your fellow Muslims (you do regard these scholars as still Muslim, I hope). Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Today, the issue of Niqab and Hijab is not an issue that you can choose to take a neutral stance on. It is something that affects every single Muslim with Iman in the West, and whether you like it or not, it is an issue of right versus wrong. If you want to pretend it does not, then, fine, go and tend to your affairs. However, do not try to inject the needles of carelessness in those of us who have spoken on this matter. I cannot for one moment buy this feeble argument of yours, which says the layman cannot criticise scholars when they take sides against the interests of the Muslims in our every day issues. I know you can't (buy this argument). I suspect that you will not but I hope you do. Eveyrthing else you wrote is stuff and nonsense. It is manly anger and the 'us' against 'them' playground confrontations. I'd rather talk about football to be honest. Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Are you saying the poor, defenceless Muslim women- who were prevented from entering the university campuses and from studying in one Egyptian university, purely because they were wearing Niqab cannot criticise the position of Tantawi who was a major catalyst for the ban? Yes I am. They can ask for an explanation and if they don't like it they can choose to go to other schools. Sheikh Al Azhar (using his experince and knowledge) has issued a fatwa regarding the place he heads. Poor and defenceless women don't come into it. Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Are you saying Sister Yvonne Ridley cannot criticise Tantawi and his likes, even though he tried to make her shake his hand and accused her of being an "extremist"? You want to silence her because she is a laywoman, no? Are you saying a Muslim woman in France cannot criticise Tantawi for supporting the Hijab ban in France. Singapore? Ms Ridley is a new convert, saaxib. She is in no position to criticise anyone. The women in France (mostly) ignored the Fatwa. I am saying stop badmouthing the scholars, dammit. Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Yet, on the other hand, when a "zealot", a “ radical", a "xawayan" and a "extremist" Sheikh says something unpopular to the Western world or something that goes to your against your tastes, every single person this forum reserves the right to ridicule him and call him all kinds of names? Where is the justice? Who is the "zealot" you speak about? Give names adeer. Unless it is you, Kashafa and Khayr that you mean by 'zealots'. Then, yes, I will mock you and tell you that you are wrong. I will do it to your face, saaxib. But when you die, I will pray for you and let it go. War I'll even pray for Bin Laden if he happens to die tomorrow. Wado khalad bad ku jirta ee ka so noqo saaxib. I maqal oo ka so noqo, nin fiican bad tahay. Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Love them or Loath them, The Fatwa’s of Alazhar are monitored across the world and they the impact the lives of many Muslims (male or female). It was only one day after Tantawi's actions that the Italian party proposed to ban the Niqab: "MP Barbara Saltamartini, of the People of Freedom, said:’ banning the burqa can not be considered anti-Muslim because wearing it is not obligatory in Islam. 'The Imam of Al-Azhar University in Cairo, the highest authority in Sunni Islam, has just stated unequivocally that Muslim women have the right to their own identity and that the burqa is not part of Muslim tradition". The gaalo use the fatwas that they like whenever such fatwas meet their needs. So when Tantawi gives a fatwa on the niqab in France they think it's good and praise him for it. When he gives a fatwa that does not meet their approval they go back to their 'all muslims are terrorists' cries. Adigu why care about what the gaalo say? Are you not a Muslim? Do you not regard Sheikh Tantawi as a Muslim (despite all the reservations you have about him?) where is the mercy and love then? Mese "ruxa'maa'o baynahom" only applies to those that agree with your stance only? Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi: Therefore, as you can see- the likes of Tantawi and Ahmed Al tayeb are the ammunition and the Sheikhs that give blessing to the actions of Singapore, Egypt to a lesser extent, France and Italy when they want to prevent Muslim women from exercising their Islamic rights. When My Muslim sister, my cousin, my auntie, is prohibited from wearing the Niqab/Hijab, in whatever country is next and the likes of Tantawi and Tayeb are used as justification, I hope you people will not tell me to keep silent. Look here. You have two choices. Either go study the deen and become the Sheikh Of Al Azhar yourself (or Om Al Qora Uni). Or, leave Islam alone and make your struggle a political one instead (there is even communists fighting against the hijab ban). If you choose to do neither, just leave the scholars alone warya.

Nobody was here, Lily. And Val is right.

Arrrrgh.

^^ Khayer you still don't get it. Allah ha kuu sahlo, saaxib. Kashafa, All the evidence you give is not enough, adeer. Men better than you and more knowledgeable than you are have not dared do it marka why should I listen to you? Again, wax fahan adeer. You gain nothing by badmouthing the guy. This is not football or hip-hop ( ). I can't kick a ball to save my life but I spend every single day telling people that Fabergas is not as good as people claim. I think all hip-hop singers are retards even though I can't string two rhymes together. But, other than some tongue lashings from you or some Arsenal fans I really have nothing to worry about there. On the scholars (regardless of what doubts I have about them) the consequences of badmouthing them are a tad higher. So (like I asked someone earlier) why bother? Can't you go and let off all your steam on Hosni or Abbas instead?

^^ Adeer, whatever you say about him (and on the day of judgment he may turn out to be the biggest zandeeq Allah ever created), today, now, he is a million times the man that you are. Be honest with yourself and tell me why should I listen to the words of a hip hop quoting angry young man over the words of an Azhar sheikh? Lakin ma waxbaad iga maqlaysa. Adeer iska claasho hilibkaaga.

Originally posted by ElPunto: quote: What is your criticism based on? Did you look into the actual dispute? The man went into a school, saw a young girl wearing a niqab and asked why she was wearing it. From there, he decided to ban the niqab in girls' schools. For you to agree/disagree with him is ok. For you to air that disagreement really isn't. For a start you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt and are faffing about political reasons and what not. Secondly, you do not even know (despite Karl's posts) if the man was right or wrong (you are layman, saaxib). Yes your criticism is invalid and yes you must be a scholar. My criticism is based on this: before his fatwa niqabs were ok in all female schools - that is to say - it was theologically permissable to wear them. Then it became theologically impermissable and I don't see how. I haven't seen a theological explanation as to the change of the heart. What you are saying is he was right before the fatwa and he was right after the fatwa? And I have no ability to ask questions or post criticisms even though I'm not a scholar. I think we will have to disagree on this issue. Are you really saying that you, Ngonge, would never speak against a scholar on any position no matter how it deviates from the religion? That would indeed be something. I think part of our disagreement is that you think that something is irking people who air their disgreements with scholars/insittutions, that there must be an ulterior and nefarious motive etc. Just as you asked me to give the scholars the benefit of the doubt - you must give the benefit of the doubt to those dissenters. I think we'll agree to disagree at this point. But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, you sponge. I am asking you why bother. I am giving you a chance to explain yourself. What more benefit of the doubt do you want? Your opposition to Sheikh Tantawi is not giving him the benefit of the doubt (ignore Khayer, saaxib). You are asking questions of a dead man. Would it not be better to give him the benefit of the doubt than to hint at political control and what not? What exactly do you gain by doing that? I mean look at Khayer above going on about shaved beards and other nonsense to belittle men whose knowledge is higher than all his ancestors and mine (though my grandmother told me that my great grandmother hada karaamo and what not). The scholar's faith might not be better than Khayr's (or mine) but since we are not in a position to look into their hearts we only judge them on their merits. I know the clean shaven Azhar man is a more knowledgable person than angry Khayr. P.S. Had more or less the same discussion five years ago.

Originally posted by ElPunto: Ngonge, As a layman my criticims may not be constructive - but as long as they are not bashing or derogatory - why put the kibosh on me? And frequently it's not a matter of layman or not. It's a matter of prerogative. Before Tantawi's latest fatwa, ladies in all ladies schools could wear the niqab - but then something all of a sudden changed. I disagreed with his change of heart and thought that it may have been politically motivated. Is my criticism invalid? Must I be a scholar to criticize? What is your criticism based on? Did you look into the actual dispute? The man went into a school, saw a young girl wearing a niqab and asked why she was wearing it. From there, he decided to ban the niqab in girls' schools. For you to agree/disagree with him is ok. For you to air that disagreement really isn't. For a start you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt and are faffing about political reasons and what not. Secondly, you do not even know (despite Karl's posts) if the man was right or wrong (you are layman, saaxib). Yes your criticism is invalid and yes you must be a scholar. Originally posted by ElPunto: Ngonge, I was talking about the independance of the institution as a whole. If it was more independant - it would have greater weight than it does now. And it would reduce the perception of stoogism. And thus serve its stakeholder better. As to trust or not - I look to the consensus of the scholars not to any particular person. The problem is the perception, saaxib. Saudi Arabia has loads of scholars (and no Azhar) yet the perception remains. Forget about them, adigu wiswiskaaga ka adko, saaxib. Originally posted by ElPunto: Ngonge, There is a difference between everyone giving their opinion and taking an opinion seriously. Who people take seriously are scholars and respected institutions. That's why it is important their objectivity is unquestioned(or rarely questioned). And when that objectivity appears to be or is indeed clouded - there is a duty to speak up. Speak up for them and never against them, saaxib. You are not a scholar and you can not compete with them on that front in the same way that I can not compete with Xiin or A&T in Somali. Besides, we live in a time of fitna where everybody's objectivity is questioned because of the sect/group/xaraka they belong to. Ka dhix bax, saaxib. Originally posted by ElPunto: Ngonge, It's not a bother for many. I ask you - if it's not a bother - why the need to keep these folks quiet? I just don't get that. If your position is - I don't give a fig for those opinions then that's perfectly reasonable. But the whole why bother - why speak up - I don't get that position. I am asking you why bother so I can get to the bottom of what's irking you, saaxib. I already gave you the reasons why I want to 'keep these folks quiet'.

Originally posted by Norfsky: Remember David Nugent hype? Its a white english thing. What Defoa was white? Waa markaagi. War Rooney has spent the entire season carrying a very average United side on his back. Look at it this way: If Drogba gets injured tomorow Chelsea will still have a chance in the league. If Fabregas gets injured Arsenal will still have a chance. If Rooney gets injured United will not win anything. P.S. Defoe is good but is not in the class of Rooney.

Karl, I asked you if you watched the clip I posted because you wrote the following: Therefore, this issue of the Niqab is not about insulting the scholars nor is it a matter of arrogant young men insulting their knowledge. We are only criticising those people of knowledge and the so-called “modernists”, who have decided to ignore all of the Shariah evidences and come up with a completely new innovation: “Niqab is alien to Islam”. Many of the Ulema have also labelled these people, be they scholars or nonprofessionals, as people who are completely ignorant of the Shariah. In the video, he is interviewed by a female journalists (with her hair all out by the way) and he answers questions about that Niqab scandal. The man makes it clear that his problem was not with the niqab but with the wearer of that niqab. He repeats (several times) that he does not have a problem with women wearing it at home, in the street or anywhere else. He even does not have a problem with that young girl wearing it in the playground. But he says that he does not condone young girls wearing a niqaab in a classroom that has a female teacher and female classmates (he says it is not part of Islam).

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: LOL! Absolutely not! And such man ilaahay baalaga magan galay. Yeah, I think I missed what you were saying. The man is responsible for the household expenses. My point was if the woman makes enough money, she should contribute some of her money but she CERTAINTLY doesnt have to. soo waan is fahanay. So she will not cook for him AND if she works she'll keep her money for herself?

Originally posted by ElPunto: Ngonge, There is nothing in it for me(directly) and it's not a bother. But I disagree that it's not for me or you to say. I as a Muslim am a stakeholder in all Islamic institutions particularly when they have the importance that Al-Azhar does. As long as it is constructive criticism and not gratituitous bashing - I see no reason to circumscribe the ability of a layman or scholar to point out disagreements. They and you then have the ability to counter the arguments made or simply ignore them. No judiciary is truly independant of the state or the cultural millieu but I would like to see the leadership of Azhar elected independantly of the state and for dissent at that institution to be tolerated. That would be a big improvement on the current status. All sounds good when one reads it but you know and I know that the world does not work this way. Number one: as a layman you cannot criticise constructively (because you ARE a layman). Number two: Independence, freedom or 'freer' as you put it are subjective terms that are neither here nor there if you already do not trust these scholars (the same if you trust them). Number three: If everyone gave their opinions on the faith (because they are stakeholders) nobody will trust anybody (as is the case today) and, ultimately, the so-called stakeholders will suffer. Again I ask you, why bother?

^^ Did you watch the video I posted? It would have saved you all this typing, saaxib. Forget all you wrote. Tell me what exactly you thought that man had said?

Originally posted by Valenteenah.: quote:Originally posted by Queen Arawello: I have known of a woman who after the 8th time, finally was the braid. I am on 4th one now. 3 of which ended up in divorce. Is that a bad omen? Only one marriage survived out of the four huh? That does sound like a bad omen. Are you implying that she gave those poor newly weds the evil eye?