just bloody sperm It’s business mate. Ah! I see you finally came round to accepting the idea of multiple wives. Turnover is measured by the number of babies each wife delivers. The candles, flowers and gifts are merely benefits of the job.

Enjoy it while it lasts. I hear that as if the 1st of next month your weekends (in the UAE) will change into Friday and Saturday instead of Thursday & Friday. I am doing what I always do. WORKING but not very hard this week.

Why ban it though? Would it not be better to regulate it? In a place with no government, high levels of unemployment and widespread poverty the last thing any ‘authority’ needs to do is to ban a trade or restrict business without providing an alternative. The businessmen that sell the charcoal and animals to the Gulf states will not suffer that much, they probably have enough capital to move their trade to another (more accommodating) part of Somalia, or even diversify into another sector. But what of him that cuts the trees, loads the trucks or hunts the animals? Where will he get his income?

Though I started this thread as a response to the events in the Middle East, the resurrection of another thread about the subject matter forces me to also bring this one up again and present you with my puzzle.

She should go with good intentions. If you’re saying he’s a practising brother why doubt his other intentions. Anyway, the real issue that might put her off marrying him is the one to do with living arrangements. Will she be willing to live with him in Somalia or does she (and he) want to come and live in the country she’s in? If it’s the latter, has she looked into the details of that and how hard/easy it is to bring him there? How long would it take? What papers, proof of income and guarantees she has to provide? What jobs will he be doing when he arrives? Does he look like someone who has the temperament to cope with and live in the country she is in? Will he be happy with her (initially) providing for them? Will she?

Too soon to judge, Libbax. Give it a year or two before we tell if the ICU is the real deal or not. People are excited about it and believe that things will easily work out for them. But, to my mind, the ICU need to carry on moving very fast if they have any dreams of government. The longer that bodies such as the TFG, the Puntland and Somaliland government are in place, the less the chances of the ICU to control the whole of Somalia (it’s a pipe dream)! It’s no secret that some people have been muttering about the clannish nature of the ICU from day one. However, most well meaning Somalis choose to ignore such ‘rumours’ and are instead choosing to look at the bright side and be optimistic about it all. But the longer the standoff remains, the weaker the ICU’s position will become. The best we can hope for is that the situation remains as it is and that the TFG gets folds like many other ‘governments’ before it. This will still leave Puntland, the ICU and Somaliland as the three big entities to remain from the ashes of the former Somalia. The TFG’s small fish will each hurry back to their respective sides and the game will carry on with new players. Even within the ICU, one wonders how solid is the alliance and how long will it be before the cracks start to appear! I hope they don’t and hope that peace remains but I have my doubts. At any rate, I don’t think Somali politics is worthy of any analysis. It’s chaotic and follows no set patterns (though, as someone mentioned above, the players and power-brokers are always the same, safe one or two newcomers).

Originally posted by Dabshid: THere are some somalis who are christians, some were born christians and some converted. Fpr example, Micheal Maryama was somali christian and the same time somali hero. So i don;t see what is the surprise.You don;t to be a Muslim to be a somali. How do you expect people to know who he was, saaxib? I mean there is no Wikipedia entry for him.

Watch this! Disclaimer Though I might have repeated similar sentiments in the past, I in no way agree with the actual point this lady is making. Still, it’s quite ironic that A British TV channel would show A Brit defending Muslims and an Arab channel would show an Arab attacking them! Strange world we live in.

No romance in marriage? You’re a hard woman, Rahima, hard hard woman. Imagine if the whole world thought that way! Instead of pet names for your husband/wife, you’ll get couples affectionately referring to each other as their ‘pro-creation partners’! You’ll see women talking to their friends and saying things like: “my husband is a good man, I trust him fully and would not dream of pro-creating with anyone in the world but him. He feels the same way about meâ€. While on the other hand, you’ll get women running to their mothers’ houses and shouting: “ the rascal has just informed me that he intends to marry and pro-create with another, mummy! Was I that bad? Were my children ugly or ill-behaved that he wishes to go pro-create with another? What has this other woman got that I haven’t? She hasn’t even given birth yet! Her womb hasn’t even been tested! These men are deceitful, they’re untrustworthy, you sacrifice your whole life to them and agree to give them eternal usage of your womb but they soon tire of you and go seeking a new womb! If I were one of those that believed in love, mummy, I’d be broken-hearted by nowâ€.

Don’t go burning your bra just yet, sister. I don’t think you’ve grasped the concept of feminism. Still, the problem you speak about does exist but not in the way you presented it. The irresponsibility is not in the fact that men don’t work. Rarely do unemployed men get married these days anyway. In fact, I doubt that many girls or their families would accept to marry an unemployed man (in the West that is). The real problem is one of responsibility. All those single mothers didn’t just happen to be. Now, without attributing blames to individuals and individual situations, when one looks at this phenomena as a whole one has to wonder at the rationality and maturity of people that marry these days. Could it really be that they’ve all had irreconcilable differences? Or could it have something to do with the way society (and Somali society in particular) views marriage? With such a huge number of single mothers about, it’s not a surprise that other marriages suffer. Here you have women in their prime with the time and means to entertain themselves without being encumbered with a demanding husband. They’re free to do whatever they want to do. Married women look at them wistfully and are jealous by such freedom. Why should I cut down going to weddings just because I’m married, they ask! Why can’t I up and go on holiday (on my own) when I want to? Why share, discuss and agree every little detail with my husband when ‘her’ across the road from me (who is of less intelligence, uglier and down right common) could do whatever she likes? I should be free to make my own choices; this is a free country after all. If he (the husband) does not like it, well tough! The men themselves look at their fellow (but divorced/unattached) men and also long for such freedoms. How could ‘he’ across the road from me (who earns less, knows less and is a total simpleton) have the freedom to do whatever he likes and whenever he likes without having to appease his wife, and I can’t? I should be free to make my own choices; this is a free country after all. If she (the wife) does not like it, well tough! In my observations, Somalis are people of trends and fashions. Whatever is fashionable at the time (good or bad) they’ll follow! In business for example, it wasn’t long ago when in every corner and every street we had a Somali Net Café. One started it and was successful and thousands (all over the world) followed. It also wasn’t long ago that we had the phenomenon of ‘classy’ Somali restaurants. Again, one or two sprang up and now even your old dusty Coffee Shop tries to masquerade as a classy restaurant. Even in matters of faith, the jilbab is all the rage! Still, all these examples are the good instances of Somali trends. Yes, in business they do stifle the market and cut the profit margins of others but they’re still a benefit to the whole community nonetheless. The bad trends are more numerous and cringe worthy but, trends, they remain. It’s all trivial and might not be worth discussing (in normal circumstances) but the sad truth is that ALL that is connected with being Somali these days IS trivial, even our politics (or maybe that’s the root cause of it all?). If you want to sort your end of the world, maybe a little arrogance is called for. Maybe you need to distance yourself from those you deem inferior! Maybe if you set yourself higher standards and adhered to them, you’ll rise above the riffraff and become a model Somali! In no time at all, you’ll notice that all other Somalis will follow your footsteps (being the world famous trend seekers that they are) and our society will become an elite, righteous and virtues society. But, of course, as is the case with humans the world over, we’ll suddenly break into classes and arrogance, aloofness and pride will become our visible characteristic (some would argue that we already have it now). But would that be a bad thing, I wonder! Surely it’s easier to change an ordered and principled society than a chaotic one? Ps Pardon my stream of consciousness there; I got carried away a little.

Castro, you’re moving the goal posts there, saaxib. It’s not fair or nice to do so. From the start of this discussion my argument was about Muslims who intentionally cause the loss of innocent lives. It was not about Hezbollah or Hamas, saaxib. For with those two one could clearly and rightfully argue that they’re resisting occupation and defending their lands. At times, I disagree with some of their decisions but in no way do I regard them as terrorists, nor do I use the western application of the term (it would go against all I’ve been arguing for and about here, see). Besides, you’ve gone all Muslim Council on me and switched the blame to the other side. That’s a different topic, I tell you. PS To all those reading this: I realise that most of you (including myself) are bombarded (perish the thought) daily with all sorts of propaganda and Islamphobic arguments in the news and other forms of media. I understand that it can be frustrating to read, hear and listen to all of that and not having the opportunity to answer back. However, I’m not that media and would appreciate it if you don’t tar my comments and arguments with that same brush (you can drench Socod Badan if you like though).

^^ I know Like a fully covered woman getting of the bus and a bit of her calf is revealed as she disembarks. It feels good to catch a glimpse of such hidden treasures but it is still wrong to look. As for the Brother that set me the impossible question of working out what the Muslims should do in these ‘critical’ times! Well, after thinking long and hard about it all and then thinking some more, I’ve reached the conclusion that nothing should be done. Nothing that would cause confusion and cause damage to the faith that is. The above was the short version of my reply. The long version starts by dealing with your question and the way you phrased it. Here it is: There is a clear crusade against the Muslims…..and to me you sound like an apologetic Muslim. So do tell me what is to be done by the Muslims in these critical times both in the west and at the Muslim countries? Shukran if you can answer. Clear Crusade and Critical Times? It’s true that Islam (and the Muslim world) is going through a difficult time at the moment. But to call it critical (in the way you use the word) would be an exaggeration. To claim that what’s taking place today is a crusade is an even bigger overstatement. If one goes back and looks at the history of the Crusades one will easily realise what a critical time for Islam that was. The invading crusaders (back then) came with an aim and clear plan to take up the holy lands and defeat Islam. There were no hidden agendas, no double-speak and no conspiracy theories. I suggest that you read up on that subject and find out what a wretched time it was for Muslims (in between the great victories of course). When the Mongols invaded the Islamic lands and sacked Baghdad, it was also a critical time for Islam. When Bonaparte tried to emulate Alexander and conquer the east (in addition to dealing with the unemployment problems in France at the time), that too was a critical time for Islam. And when the British convinced the Arabs of the Gulf (who were led by Shariff Hussein) to rebel against the Ottomans, then double crossed them by signing the Sykes-Peco agreement with France; that too was a critical time for Muslims and Islam. When a million Algerians were killed while resisting the French occupation, that was a critical time for Islam. When Omar Al Mokhtar was hanged by the Italians for resisting occupation, that was a critical time for Islam. When pseudo-Sufis, conmen and Arab nationalists were dominating public opinion and attempting to cancel out simple Islamic rules and duties, that was a critical time for Islam. Each of the above can be explained in more detail and compared to contemporary events and hardships. However, that will take up a long time and (though educational) might divert us away from the argument we’re having here. Still, if you have not done it already, I urge you to read up on every single topic up there and contemplate the grave dangers that Islam faced back then. What did the Muslims do back then and how did they cope with all these troubles? Well, for the most part, they did nothing that eroded on their faith and allowed Islam to be tampered with. In fact, this reminds me of the Arab defeat in 1967 and what Sheikh Mohammed Motwali Al Sha’rawi did when he heard about it (he was based in Algeria at the time). When he heard of the defeat, it’s claimed that he told his followers to pray and thank Allah! Of course, many Egyptians turned against him and wondered if he was happy that Jamal Abdulnaser was defeated (and didn’t care for Egypt itself). His reply is said to have been along the lines of having to thank Allah for good and bad news. Many interpreted it as being grateful that the Socialist/Marxist regimes of Egypt, Syria (and others) were defeated and, with them, the sacrilegious communist ideas that, if it were not for this defeat would have spread across the Muslim world. So, as you see, we’ve been through a lot in our recent Islamic history and we have managed to survive without compromising our faith. Isn’t then the greatest of follies to allow a bunch of ragtag dodgy ‘freedom’ fighters to erode on our faith and cause untold damage to the way we and those that follow us would understand it and practise it? It is not about being apologetic or brave. It’s about making the right and rational choices. If our starting point is that terrorism is FORBIDDEN then none of the cause and effect arguments should really matter (in an Islamic sense). If it’s not, well, I guess it’s a free for all .

Val, If she were the intimidating type I doubt that this situation would have arisen. She probably looks as innocent as a lamb. Ever see an angry lamb? Me neither. Sounds like the tribunal people did though. Now, how can one persuade the lamb to buy us a free coffee? (My attraction to rich ladies is fatale, as I’m sure you know). On a serious note, well done lamb. If they’re at all sensible, they’ll never repeat that trick on a Muslim woman again.

Simple Islam will indeed be preserved by Allah. But is it not our duty too to help preserve it? Why then are we ordered to enjoin good and forbid evil? Shouldn’t we just leave it all and say Allah will preserve the faith? What can Muslims do and not do is an entire topic that needs time and lots of thinking. It’s late saaxib and I can’t do that subject justice if I wrote a line or two in reply. Having said that, it’ll still be an opinion and not an exact or solid plan.

^^^^Heh. I love the simplicity of that argument and would easily agree to it had I not given it a bit more thought. How does Allah preserve Islam? Is it done directly or through his slaves (you and I)? It’s a complicated issue and can not be dismissed with the sweet words of Allah protecting Islam (that’s the ultimate of course but think of how that is done a little, saaxib). Castro, yes I thought of that and I understand that the circumstances is what cause the reactions. I’ve conceded that point already. However, in my own mental scale, I don’t see that as great a problem as what terrorism does to the faith itself. Muslims (and Muslim lands) have gone through worse problems in the recent and distant past. At one point, it was not just Iraq that was occupied but ALL Muslim lands. However, at the time and the great blessing that we had was the lack of mass communication. It shielded most Muslims from crazy ideas of indiscriminate revenge back then. However, today, things are not the same. Today we are being sold new ideas of revenge, vengeance and war as being part of our faith. Those that know reject these (attractive) ideas. But how many bother to know? At times, I think it quite ironic that we resist calls for reform from immoral westerners but at the same time are being forced (unawares) to let down our guard and ‘reform’ anyway (through anger, helplessness and confusion). Trust you me, if you give these ideas a little more thought you shall see that the business of cause and effect pales into nothingness in comparison. I’d go as far as call it offensive in its unwitting duplicity.

Heh@ Castro I did say it was a joke. Still, the players could be any you want to place in those positions. The only innocent parties here were the child and the frog. The frog for being an innocent animal that got trampled on through no fault of his and the child for unlawfully and through no fault of his losing his frog. One can’t even blame the child for the disastrous way in which he decided to carry out his revenge. He’s a kid after all and knows no better. All he wanted to do was to hurt the person that killed his frog and caused him all that anguish. To his childish mind, the end justified the means. That his mother, father, the maid and the postman were going to suffer by these actions were of no consequence (in fact, they might even deserve it for their other sins). But the biggest tragedy in this story is how this child has lost his innocence and committed all those crimes and sins in the process of carrying out his revenge. What’s worse, he caught the same disease that was to kill his enemy! Now how do you convince that child that what he did was WRONG? Surely he’ll only argue back that he achieved his goal and that all those people deserved what they got. Had they not indulged in fornication (and killed his frog in the process) he would not have had to resort to such drastic actions! Even then, some might be rooting for the child and agreeing with his logic. But aren’t children supposed to be innocent and pure? Should we accept such acts from children? Should we squabble over the actions of the adults and forget about dealing with the greater tragedy (that of the child losing its innocence and soul)? Now, compare this story to the topic on hand (whilst pardoning the extreme vulgarity of course). What is the greater problem? The loss and erodent on our Islamic principles or the foreign policies of transient super powers? I’m arguing that it’s not the latter but rather the first. For if we carried on arguing about the latter and lowering the pole at every turn, we will soon lose sight of what it is where were fighting for in the first place. I’m arguing that we can’t see the wood for the trees right now and that if our main priority was not about preserving the principles of our faith (even if it makes us look like sell outs to some hot heads) then, in time, we shall not have a faith to protect (not in its intended form at any rate). I’m not really sure if the message has been received. I hope it has or I’ll be forced to tell another story.

Ayuub, I have no idea why you decided to post that article. To criticise Muslim reactions is NOT to support Bush (and Blair’s) policies. They way you’re conducting this argument seems to be in the style of Mr Bush’s ‘you’re either with us or against us’ statement. My opposition is and always has been with the Muslim reaction and lack of direction when it comes to these events. I have indeed the leader of the Muslim Council dismiss terrorism (very ambiguously might I add) and then reserve the bulk of his comments to criticising foreign policy! It takes away from the actual argument and renders his criticism of terrorism insincere (or so that’s how it appears to me). You needn’t go far to see an example of the attitude of the Muslim Council. Just read Xiin’s reply above. It’s totally duplicitous (unwittingly of course) and, as ever, deals with the wrong problem. The issue here is not about the actions of super powers that are here today and gone tomorrow. The issue is about the preservation of the faith and those parts of the faith that we hold sacred. Apart from a few twisted hot heads, when one speaks to almost any Muslims today they all agree that terrorism and the killing of innocent lives is not an Islamic act. Many would even take us back in history and recite speeches that Muslim leaders used too give to their armies before they embarked on new battles. Speeches about not harming the old, children, animals, trees and females! Many would quote verses from the Quran and say “la taziro wazirat, etcâ€. A very large number would argue that the principle of ‘the ends justifying the means’ as being not an Islamic view to hold! Yet, when it comes to the current issues of terrorism we let our hearts rule our heads (which is understandable but unacceptable) and reluctantly (almost petulantly) condemn such acts! I am uneasy about the whole attitude we have towards this issue and can not understand how it is that most people can’t see the danger of ignoring the threat these terrorists (for lack of a better word) pose to our faith and the way it’s being shaped. Besides, if Islamic rules change according to events and popular sentiments, what is it exactly that makes Islam (the faith) different from secular ideologies? It is quite understandable that we would root for our Muslim brothers in this ‘war’. I can even understand how some people felt slightly vindicated (maybe even satisfied) when the events of the eleventh of September took place. I can also sympathise with the perverse satisfaction some Muslims derive from the American failure in Iraq and Afghanistan (perverse because it blocks out the suffering of our Muslim brothers/sisters in that land and is only happy with American failure). However, all these are affairs of the heart and the mind (most definitely) should reject those that allow their hearts to dictate their actions. To explain the folly of this whole thing, let me retell a joke I read years ago. Be warned that it’s slightly vulgar though. The story is about a young boy who walks into a brothel clutching a dead frog in his hand. He goes to the Madam and asks her to supply him with her filthiest and most disease ridden prostitute! The Madam is shocked at the request and the boy’s tender age. She refuses. But the boy produces a bundle of dollars and repeats his request. The greedy Madam weakens and tries to pacify him by offering him one of her youngest and cleanest whores. The boy refuses and insists that he wants the worst woman she has! He produces an extra wad of dollars and the Madam gives in. The boy is introduced to the filthy prostitute and goes with her to a private room (still clutching his dead frog). Ten minutes later, he emerges looking content and with a devious smile on his face. As he prepares to walk out of the establishment, the curious Madam stops him and asks him why did he insist on having the filthiest whore and why is he clutching a dead frog! The boy, with tears welling in his eyes and shivers running through his body replies: “ I wanted to sleep with your filthiest girl so that I can contract her diseases and then go home and sleep with the maid, who in turn will catch them from me. Later, when my father gets home, he’ll sneak into the maid’s room and have his way with her. He too will catch the infections. Later, he’ll sleep with mother and she’ll catch the disease! The next day, when nobody is in the house and mother allows the postman (her lover) into her bedroom, he’ll sleep with her and catch her diseases and HOPEFULLY die. Because he’s the evil man that killed my frogâ€. Hope you got the moral of the story, saaxib.

^^^ It's the only reply this thread deserves

Who says there are no Somali Christians? Next time ad aragto qof ab tirsanya, pay attention to the words he’s uttering. If he starts with the name of the Father, the Son....

I like your infectious optimism, Nur. Though I can’t trust Somali leaders (be they half-secular politicians or Mullahs) I do hope that your wish comes true. I just can’t imagine these courts to be just, fair and even-handed to all Somalis. I can’t help feeling that they’ll come tumbling down because of the irresistible lure of clannish pride, greed and power (which are all human failings regardless of one’s best intentions). I hope my cynical instincts are wrong though and these guys spread with their (hopefully) genuine application of Islam to all parts of Somalia.

Tahliil, I’ve got no argument with anything you wrote there. In fact, I wholly agree. However, that’s a different argument altogether. This is not about how the Muslim Council deals with the British government. This is about how the Muslim Council deals with its own people. The events of last July and the arrests last week give ample proof of the existence of radical Muslims in our midst. There are many young Muslims that are angry and upset about British (American) foreign policy. A large number of these have a passing acquaintance with their own faith and don’t understand or know the basic rules. Many more do understand but allow their anger to rule their heads. In shouting about foreign policy and laying the best part of the blame on the doors of the UK & America, the Muslim Council is giving these impressionable people the idea (and belief in some cases) that terrorism is justified. This is my point of contention with the Muslim Council, not the fact that they stated the obvious idea of cause and effect. There is already (and justifiably so) a feeling of victimisation and discrimination in the Muslim Community (the world over). This is caused by (among other things) the treatment of Muslims in the Middle East and the distrust of Muslims in the West. That in turn is caused by the acts of terrorism that, for the most part, are a result of Western foreign policies. Still, from a political point of view (if nothing else) the Muslim Council needs to be seen and heard when condemning these acts of terrorism and advising Muslims in the UK to distance themselves from them. From a religious point of view (and this is really the point I’ve been trying to make all along), one needs to understand how the Muslim Council (and you) view terrorism. If it’s viewed as being wrong, forbidden and Haram then would you not consider it the responsibility of the Muslim Council to reiterate this fact at every opportunity? After all, you, I and every Muslim that is frothing at the mouth at the treatment of Muslims all over the world do follow the news and are bound to read OPEN LETTERS that the Muslim Council writes to Mr Bush and Mr Blair. Would it not be the duty of these so-called Community Leaders to remind us of how wrong terrorism is? Surely terrorism erodes on our faith and dealing with it is of more importance than the tired argument of cause and effect! (as you can see, I’m going from the starting point that terrorism is wrong here).

^^ Good for you, SOS. If you were not a stranger and I was not scared of paedophilia laws, I’d pat you on the head for these obliging remarks. Care to share any of your exciting sightings with us? Or maybe, if it's not too much trouble, you will comment on the topic rather than its author. Give us the Self-loving-Muslim’s point of view, so to speak. I see no contradiction in what I wrote, Ayuub. They’re self-appointed and they never take the initiative. The Muslim leaders have not got the balance right. Their attitude here (and unwitting message) tilts heavily towards the laying the blame elsewhere and arguing about foreign policies. Besides, at the moment, the youth are alienated anyway (see the Channel Four documentary). As for the timing of the letter, even if we concede that it was written in advance, it’s still a giant cock-up to have it broadcast once the news about the arrests were out (again, as you can see from the article above, it was not yet published by the Friday. They could have easily adjusted it, postponed it or even explained it).

Congratulations Duke. Hope mother and baby are both doing fine. Welcome to the baby world. Now, your car will never feel comfortable without the ‘baby on board’ sign. Your house will never have a knife, screwdriver or even fork lying about in an easily accessible place. And, your sleep patterns will flow and ebb like an obese man’s belly button.

^^To say it was coincidental would be stretching things a little, saaxib. It’s either these ‘community’ leaders are in denial or (even worse) are not politically savvy! The arrests were made on Thursday, the tenth of August. The author in your article above claims he was approached on Friday the eleventh! Still, he’s been at least balanced in his views and he seems to appreciate the quandary we find ourselves in. However, and this is an important fact, he’s a member of the Blair ruling party and not many Muslims would take his words seriously (as he seems to attest in his referral to comments such as being a sell out, etc). It’s the self-appointed Muslim Council of Britain that I have a problem with. They never seem to take the initiative and tackle this problem. All they do is react to arrests and talk about being victimised (not that there is no truth to this fact of course). I needn’t remind you of the recent channel four survey and the damning findings, saaxib. I’m sure most of it was exaggerated however, I’m also sure that such people as those that took part in that poll do exist (and also believe that most of them are not bad or blood-thirsty but, rather, ill-informed).