Originally posted by Cara: Khalaf and Cambarro , maybe I'll write a book and I'll be sure to send you advance copies You are Ayaan Hirsi and I hereby claim my spotter's prize. ps Have you noticed how you girls bring out the best in Alle-Ubaahne?

Can't they just reply to the e-mail and tell her that this 'son' of hers is not telling the whole truth? Anyway, what is the purpose of these e-mails (or, rather, under what pretences is she sending them)? Before one jumps the gun and advices you to complain, protest or arrange for a petition to be signed, we need to know the actual background of this story.

Ah! The dullard still whines on and on. Very well. Since there is no hope in the world in conducting an actual discussion with Younis, for he's too busy performing to the gallery, I think it's high time I quit this thread. But, oh! My mischievous nature would just not let me. So let me ask the central question once more: Lets walk you through it, son. What is the logical explanation that says two men (or two women) should not have sex with each other? I don't want any drivel; I want a logical explanation. Is normal Zina (between man and woman) a faaxisha? Has it not been referred to in the quran as such (al faaxisha too, for good measure)? As for the normal natural interchange (in the great line of mine that you keep quoting) it's all in the context you untutored oaf. I repeat, I did not say it was normal (in the way you claim). To say it's normal is to approve of it. To say it's natural is to recognise that there is no default position for sexual urges. Let the dice fly high and hope the response this time will be different.

Where do you see these rich Saudi women in ten years time, saaxib? Liberated or ripped off?

I think Cambaro has an obsession with Saudi Arabia.

Heh. Oh you insufferable oaf! You just never know when it's time to quite, do you? I have no problem with my concession on the point: that there were no creatures that engaged in such sexual behaviour before Loot's people. On this I go by what the quran says. However, you simple child, one does not simply concede and accept without making sure of what they concede to. My reluctance to fully accept the argument (though I maintain that I yielded) was due to a multiple number of questions that came up as a result. Alas, this discussion and the calibre of participants is not the correct place to air such questions. I would be happy to debate with you. I will even graciously concede when I'm wrong (for I am wrong, sometimes but not too often). But I don't believe you are capable of carrying a civil debate. For a start, you misrepresent and misinterpret your oppositions' words: I said twice that I don't think homosexuality was NORMAL but rather that I thought it to be natural (work out the nuances therein). Yet, amazingly, you still chose to twist my words and try to pass your own interpretations as being something I said or believed. In addition, when I have not questioned Allah's reasons (for that's clearly what I said) you still managed to distort those words and make them look as if I'm questioning Allah's Hikmah! Never mind, this is a waste of time. By the way, the bit about 'fawaxish' and 'faaxisha' is total gobbledygook. If you bother to read the holy book you will come across the word 'faaxisha' (or even al faaxisha) in several places and not all are concerned with homosexuality. The rest of your contentions I would not deign to reply to. For you either didn't understand or you deliberately chose to use chicanery and underhand tactics! But that's neither here nor there. You will still come back with three consecutive replies repeating the same thing and distorting my words. Subtlety is not at all your thing. You rather follow the Arabic adage of: overwhelm them with noise or: خذوهم بالصوت Two more years and you'll calm down. I'm sure of it. In the meantime, here are a couple of old poetic verses: لو كنت تعلم ما اقول عذرتني او كنت تعلم ما تقول عذلتكا لكن جهلت مقالتي فعذلتني وعلمت انك جاهل فعذرتكا

All great sites. Here is another: Readbookonline.net

Mea Culpa! Pride goes before a fall and all that. I certainly make no bones about the fact that I might have erred in here (how is that for three clichéd sayings in one go?). Of course, I still stand by every word I wrote previously. However, having read MK's bumbling diatribes I have to admit that he might have a point in one certain area. Therefore, I grudgingly (would I do it any other way?) accept (and concede) the section of his argument in which he points out the verse that clearly indicated there were no homosexuals in existence preceding Loot's people! Of course I could have easily gone into dissecting the verse and enquiring weather it meant people rather than person, but that would have been futile and counterproductive. Moreover, it would only have been a weak and stubborn attempt on my part to have the upper hand. I'd be lying if I said that my opinion has suddenly changed and that I now believe homosexuality to be unnatural (in the way it's being presented on this thread). However, I'm neither juvenile nor a simpleton. When those I debate with start substantiating their arguments, I am left with no choice but to concede. Especially that I have no strong argument to counter such powerful proof! I may be vain, haughty and pompous. I might even come across as being superior, which I usually am (even if I say so myself). But obtuse I am not. In this instance (the bit about the verse only) the boys were correct (come on, MK let khalaf take some credit here). But, here is a parting shot before I conclude this reply: even a broken clock is right twice a day.

^^^ There is a Saudi satirical serious that has been broadcast around the Arab world for at least the past ten years that deals with something similar. In one episode it lampoons the situation of single Saudi women and their inability to drive cars! At the same time, they also show the plight of two guys who are looking for work but can not work as drivers for these ladies, because, they (the guys) are not married. Anyway, the two guys decide to cheat. One of them wears women’s clothes and puts on a veil whilst the other pretends to be the driver. They find work as drivers to four single female teachers. Things go well for a week or two until, one day, they have a slight accident and in the melee that ensues it’s discovered that the man pretending to be the wife was not a woman at all! Of course, like all Arab stories there is a happy ending. The boys need an income and the women need a mahram (if it were in English, I daresay this would be the rhyming title). Each man marries two women and they live henpecked-ly ever after. The moral of the story was to show how some Saudi (single) female teachers are required to relocate into different towns/cities and the kinds of problems this causes them in the ultra conservative Saudi society.

^^ Heh.If it meant that my people will stay backwards, with no means to defeat their enemies and living under the mercy of other Arab states (that have their own interests and motives), my reply would be YES. Tell me what have those messages of war and fighting done other than cause more misery, poverty and hardship? Arafat realised it and sought peace not because he’s a traitor, loved the Israelis or was pressured by America. He did so because he saw how his people were slowly being obliterated from the face of the earth and how futile those proud gestures of defiance were.

^^ Carry on talking your nonsense. Fifty years of 'force can liberate it' only managed to create fifty years of refugees and miserable Palestinians. Same old Haddad, same old pointless one-liners (I hoped the year away at that ‘other’ place would have improved you a little)! North, This will not make one jot of a difference. There are many in Israel that don’t want such a peace to take place. As for the demands being met, well, the last demand was for Arafat to step down and the Palestinians to have a legally elected government. You saw what happened when they (legally) elected Hamas! More of the same really. Besides, I doubt if Hamas mean what they say. They can’t suddenly renounce everything they stood for all those years with nothing tangible in return. They want the whole of Palestine back (an impossibility right now).

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's '31 plots' The alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has admitted his role in them, and 30 other terror plots around the world, in a hearing at Guantanamo Bay, the Pentagon has said. According to partial transcript of the closed-door hearing, released by the US defence department, the suspect confessed to the following attacks or plots. 1. The 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center in New York City that killed six people and injured more than 1,000. 2. The 11 September 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in Washington using four hijacked commercial airliners. Nearly 3,000 people were killed. 3. A failed "shoe bomber" operation to bring down two US commercial airliners. 4. The October 2002 attack in Kuwait that killed two US soldiers. 5. The nightclub bombing in Bali, Indonesia that killed 202 people. 6. A plan for a "second wave" of attacks on major US landmarks after 9/11 attacks. Alleged targets included the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank building in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York. 7. Plots to attack oil tankers and US naval ships in the Straits of Hormuz, the Straits of Gibraltar and in Singapore. 8. A plan to blow up the Panama Canal. 9. Plans to assassinate former US presidents including Jimmy Carter. 10. A plot to blow up suspension bridges in New York. 11. A plan to destroy the Sears Tower in Chicago by burning fuel trucks beneath or around it. 12. Plans to "destroy" Heathrow Airport, Canary Wharf and Big Ben in London. 13. A planned attack on "many" nightclubs in Thailand targeting US and British citizens. 14. A plot targeting the New York Stock Exchange and other US financial targets after 9/11. 15. A plan to destroy buildings in Elat, Israel, by using planes flying from Saudi Arabia. 16. Plans to destroy US embassies in Indonesia, Australia and Japan. 17. Plots to destroy Israeli embassies in India, Azerbaijan, the Philippines and Australia. 18. Surveying and financing An attack on an Israeli El-Al flight from Bangkok. 19 .Sending several "mujahideen" into Israel to survey "strategic targets" with the intention of attacking them. 20. The November 2002 suicide bombing of a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, frequented by Israelis. At least 14 people were killed. 21. The failed attempt to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet leaving Mombasa airport with a surface-to-air missile on the same day as the hotel bombing. 22. Plans to attack US targets in South Korea, such as US military bases and nightclubs frequented by US soldiers. 23. Providing financial support for a plan to attack US, British and Jewish targets in Turkey. 24. Surveillance of US nuclear power plants in order to attack them. 25. A plot to attack Nato's headquarters in Europe. 26. Planning and surveillance in a 1995 plan (the "Bojinka Operation") to bomb 12 American passenger jets, most of on trans-Pacific Ocean routes. 27. The planned assassination attempt against then-US President Bill Clinton during a mid-1990s trip to the Philippines. 28. "Shared responsibility" for a plot to kill Pope John Paul II while he visited the Philippines. 29. Plans to assassinate Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. 30. An attempt to attack a US oil company in Sumatra, Indonesia, "owned by the Jewish former [uS] Secretary of State Henry Kissinger". 31. One item was deleted from the transcript by the US Defense Department. The Associated Press news agency said it was the beheading of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl who was kidnapped in Pakistan in January 2002 while researching Islamist militancy. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/6452789.stm Published: 2007/03/15 08:19:16 GMT © BBC MMVII

^^^^ They've done a great job on that, saaxib. That's the one area the Saudi government gets praise on. Look at these photos: And now, look at this:

Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne: quote:Originally posted by NGONGE: Charlatan, If I ever decide to be gay I'll only accept you as my, err, what's the feminine person in a gay relationship called? Are you trying to sway from what you are after you already had revealed yourself in public? A person is what he/she advocates for, I say. You loved western, and you ended up in the worst western possible, becoming a gay advocate in 2007. That is for the record, awoowe! May you die on the bed of the U.K.'s biggest gay! lol Only your bed will do, darling. [Why is there no kissing graemlin?] Oh, did I tell you about the time I got chatted up by a gay beggar? He asked me for a pound so that he can buy me coffee. God's honest truth. To make matters even more comical, I was with a neqaabi female friend at the time and the poor lady almost had a heart attack. My milkshake brings... ps Khalaf and MK, I'm not responsible for your inability understand the written form, boys. Give it a year or two then come back into this topic.

What logical explanations can you, as a mere mortal, present that can’t be argued against? I know you find it hard to understand and that MK has confused you with his babble but it still remains the creator’s want! Since you profess to be a Muslim and declare your total submission to Allah, why bother second-guessing? Just submit and accept that you can’t always understand why we are commanded to do certain things. Is it really that hard to understand? As for homosexuality being normal! Well, that was not my argument at all. I said it was natural, innate and inherent. I based my argument on the fact that sexual urges have no default positions. If I put you in a desert island with no females for company, I daresay you’ll be tempted to abuse the local sheep (no offence intended). In fact, you may enjoy abusing the sheep even if there were women there. Your sexual urge would be paramount and would dominate everything you do. Surely it makes no sense when we keep saying that Man is only better than animals by virtue of having a brain, yet argue at the same time that there is an actual default sexual position! Did I tell you about my gay dog? I had one you know. He was male and was gay. ps I see silly statements, I mock. Luckily, haram or halal is not in your hands, akhi.

^^^ I dismiss MKA's straw man arguments. Sometimes, khalaf akhi (how is that for pious affectation), some twaddle is not worth of a reply. With MKA, I enjoy toying with him in harmless topics like numbers and billions. God only knows what nonsense he’ll come up with if I had a real religious discussion with him. So, no, he was not worth a reply. For you though, I say READ and comprehend what I wrote not MKA’s interpretation of it. When the blind lead the blind they clatter into everything and make a hell of a racket. Wa billahi el tawfiiq, akhi (Yes, I'm mocking you).

Cambarow & Changed: Let me cut a long story short. Read up on Section 28! It's an issue that's been taking place for the past 20 years. Charlatan, If I ever decide to be gay I'll only accept you as my, err, what's the feminine person in a gay relationship called?

^^ They are not acceptable to YOU. Be clear on what you say and how you say it. Now, in all honesty, what can you do about it? Protest? Well, if it takes the form of some of the protests we’ve had here it will only come across as some sort of homophobic discrimination. Your protest will not make a difference. In fact you’ll be rejected and vilified. So, what next? Leave the country? Well, I suppose that’s a reasonable alternative (and makes one less of a hypocrite). But what if you can’t leave the country! Teach your kids at home? Send them to an Islamic school? What? Don’t scream and shout on something that is quite normal and probable in a secular society.

I'm for Preservation of the Muslim Identity and by and large muslim community (visible and not an invisible, name tag wearing community). Which one is that? Maybe we should have a debate to find out. ps If you paid attention you would have noticed that at least two people in that debate could speak Arabic. The choice to have it in English was obvious. Calm down, saaxib, calm down.

The fact that a muslim audience is being asked what is of more value to them-Integration into western society or their Deen is damn outright insulting. Imagine this, Al jazeera arabiya had a panel discussion in england and invited only non-muslim anglos and told them to speak nothing but Arabic in the discussion and the topic of discussion was Are most White British women loose [big Grin] Damn outright insulting, ain't it! (to a white british to get him to respond in arabic in his homeland of England). Well the same shiiidh was and is being pulled of in Doha, Qatar in the name of 'Free speech for Arabs' . Its a debate meant to suggest that the arab-largely muslim way of life is a hinderance to PROGRESSIVE THINKING. Like the Maghrabi chick said to the niqaabi sisters "You are making it diffuclt for me to assimilate by wearing the Niqaab" It’s only insulting to someone that does not understand the question. Furthermore, you have used a poor analogy there. White women being ‘loose’ has no political bearings, the issue of the veil does. Again, I have a strong feeling that you don’t understand the meaning of DEBATE. A debate has to have two opposing sides. One of those two will always be against to what you think and believe. In this case, the side that says that the veil is a barrier to integration in the West is not to your liking. The debate was sponsored by a Muslim organisation, produced by Muslims and, other than the chairman, everyone taking part was a Muslim. None in the audience was insulted by it and, clearly, none of the participants were either. Khayer, this is basic stuff. There is no great conspiracy here. In fact, this could have been a topic you started yourself. Ah! You actually started something similar not long ago. So, are you hypocrite, a fool or just a hot head that is always ready to take offence when there is non to be seen? I dare say you’re the latter. Calm down, duqa. ps The debate was about things taking place in the West. Two of the participants did not speak Arabic. Nor do most Muslims living in the West. Not even you, brother. Pps It's 'Hawa' and not 'Xawa' (that's a girl's name).

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: NOGNE, There you gave a lengthy speech with little or no substance! You went off on a tangent, rambled aimlessly and predictably made little or no sense at all. The issue before you is very simple and you need to take a stance: 1- Is it appropriate to introduce a 5-year child to a gay literature? Whether the fact Muslims don’t necessarily need to rationalize divinely imposed orders contradicts with my claim of homosexuality being a deviation from the norm is beside the point adeer ( I can start you by pointing out that man is born in a state of fitrah, purity, and what comes after birth is due to external influences, and not necessarily an innate quality). The point I am trying to make though (and most people understood it and actually took a stance on it) is exposing young children to such a gay suggestive contents is wrong and harmful. Tolerance has nothing to do with it. This is a badly chosen matter and it can actually be objected on many grounds. Hating, or badmouthing as you try to disguise it in your creative writing, is not my forte! I don’t subscribe to the notion that sins deaden hearts eternally or prevent moral reform. In the other words there is always a hope that sinners could recover from their wicked ways and find guidance hence there’s no point in hating a potential Muslim from my perspective. But it seems that you are utterly confused and failed to distinguish between protesting against a particular wrongdoing and expressing repulsiveness about it AND hating certain group or category of sinners. The two are different yaa Xaaji! Despite what the nincompoops that are quick to brand whoever does not agree with their stances say, my points were clear, saaxib. The substance was all their if you stop being stubborn for a minute and read it with an open heart and mind. I shall not bore you with a long speech (or creative writing). I will instead answer your question that it is indeed wrong to teach five-year-olds about homosexuality. However, it is only wrong in my book and yours not in democratic, secular and multicultural societies. The hate message, by the way, was not aimed at you for I have not seen any hatred in your words. The issue of ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ is what I picked you up on. Again, I repeat, the powers that be (which don’t happen to be Muslim) have decided it’s ok to teach children about homosexuality. I feel no need to do summersaults and flail my arms about in protest, because this, truly, does not come as a big shock.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Being straight is the default sexual orientation. It’s natural. To call other deviations innate is quite a leap yaa Cara! That kind of argument to justify homo practices has become a passé’ now---it is not credible. But what conclusive scientific evidence do you have to support such a claim yaa Cara? What a load of unsubstantiated nonsense, saaxib. Sexual urges have no default positions. They fall into all sorts of styles and categories and all can be argued to be normal. The only reason that straight relationships are considered ‘natural’ is because of procreation and religious requirements. Do no go following the Catholic Church’s reasons for banning homosexuality with all this twaddle about it being not natural. Islam bans homosexuality because, simply, it’s the creator’s want. Since we submit to Islam and accept the message we are also required to accept the commandments. This is not at all different to sticking to one wife (or four) instead of fornicating with every willing woman/man. It’s also the same as not drinking a sweet cold bottle of Budweiser or a glass of whisky. There are no great logical explanations for such bans but we realise that it’s not our place (as Muslims) to question Allah’s commands. In the story of Sodom & Gomorrah the actions of those people were referred to as a sin (or Faaxisha in Arabic). It was not referred to as unnatural! We really don’t need to follow Catholic doctrines in order to show how wrong something is. It is simply wrong because we, as Muslims, have been prohibited by our faith from indulging in it. Living in the West, we are faced daily with all these problems and to feign shock or horror at such new secular ideas strikes me as being very naïve. It’s all there and we’ve always knew it was. Rather than box ourselves in a dark corner we aught to deal with these problems and find ways to hold on to our choices in life (being Muslim). I personally find it distasteful to badmouth homosexuals, drunks or fornicators if they don’t happen to be Muslim to start with. A hasty favourite Nomad I know would call this moral relativism, I on the other hand, would call it a logical conclusion. These people you condemn for these practices neither conform to our faith or believe in our god. Once you know this fact it becomes quite laughable that you would be appalled that they have other undesirable traditions, practices or acts. As for the toleration point, surely regardless of multicultural or democratic rules and consideration, as Muslims we are required to tolerate other faiths and people (with all those faiths and traditions entail). Tolerate I say, not accept or follow. The confused Nomad above that on the one hand agreed with the toleration point and on the other declared his total hatred for the people (rather than practice) does not sound like someone who gave this issue enough thought (or he’s just lying in order to be civil). Still, my conclusions might all be wrong and maybe with a better argument I could be persuaded to see how this is unnatural as you say or how, in a secular state, schools should not be teaching about homosexuality and the like.

^^ It wasn't meant as ab tirsi, even though it came out that way. More history than ab tirsi. But you get my drift I’m sure. Heh@Soudani! I hope you told them where to go. Soudani indeed. Pffffttt.

I would be very shocked if your daughter/son dreams of Princess charming/prince charming sweeping off her feet. Is it me or most somalis have become too liberal? Believe it or not, my kids think Cinderella is untidy and her prince very nosey (I don’t read them those stories without mocking the whole fairytale, can’t help myself). Snow White is greedy and her Seven Dwarfs already have names to describe how rubbish they are. It really is no big deal, sister. You’re blowing it out of all proportions. The school teaches, you guide. Ps Liberal and conservative are terms thrown about willy-nilly. In my eyes, apart from some occasional lapses, you come across as being liberal. In fact, other than a couple of die-hard extremists (not even conservative, and they know not what they do or say anyway) I’m yet to come across someone on this website that I would call very conservative. You’re all liberal in varying degrees.

This looks like an invitation for Serenity and Val to just have one long chat.