Edit. No need to Hijack the topic.

Originally posted by Callypso: I'm trying to understand why someone would NOT live a life of "self-hate and worry" if, say, they were devout Muslims and also gay at the same time. Even if they never slept with members of the same sex, human nature would dictate that they agonize about it. To be a really religious person sometimes seems to require a great deal of guilt and a sense of worthlessness. So that's why I asked you if you followed all commandments religuously, so to speak. Otherwise this "rant" devolves into "Obey god when you can". Not exactly a rousing battle-cry. It's easy for you to say, drop everything and follow the commandments but hard in practice. Who has never lied? Gossiped? Envied another? Who has never missed a prayer? It's easy to visualize god forgiving all of those sins, but when it comes to homosexuality, oooh boy . Let's lock them up, or beat them up or kill them or shoot hormones into them. Note this part isn't aimed at you, just commenting on a general attitude among many here. I don’t think you could be a devout Muslim and a homosexual at the same time. At least I don’t think you could be a practising and ardent homosexual and still claim to fully follow Islam. It just does not add up. As I understand it (without digressing into the natural/unnatural arguments) homosexuality is a lifestyle. A man or woman that have homosexual urges but don’t act on them surely can’t be sinful and can not be judged on those urges (see the article about Pope). My argument is for and about active homosexuals that are also Muslim. If they want to be devout, the guilt must tear them apart (this is assuming, they’re happy to adhere to the faith as it is and not as they would wish it to be). I don’t and can’t imagine the guilt of lying would lead to such self-hatred as the guilt of homosexuality (or adultery, for those with any real feelings and values). My battle cry (if battle cry it is) is follow the faith as much as you possibly can. That does not mean to pick and choose what to follow but rather that being human it’s understandable, expected and natural to sin. The real quandary comes after one sins and one’s reaction to that. The beat them up, shoot them down brigade sometimes have a point, but like the lawyer in the article they’ve become too obtuse to bother to explain it. They make a long story short by killing, beating or injecting homosexuals with hormones. They fear that to discuss is to justify it.

Heh. It is, after all, poetry. This is not a sect, cult or political movement. This is a poet expressing his views in verse. I personally think his opinions are pointless and poetic style nonsensical. It does not move me at all. It neither appeals to my reason or tugs at my heartstrings. I’ve read several of his poems and my only (and recurrent) reaction was a quite chuckle (at him). Having said all of the above, one has to give the man his dues. His words seem to move some, anger some and impress others. Some of his poems might give us a glimpse of what he’s like as a person but would never give the full picture. Still, since he chose to use this provocative style and expected (for only a simpleton wouldn’t) to receive disparaging views, I don’t see why we shouldn’t (if we disagree with him) let him have it. I would still remind you all that the man is not some sort of a Messiah and his words should not be taken as gospel (as it were). If it appeals to you, praise it, and if it does not, criticise it. A poem that garners no reaction from those reading it is not a poem at all. Again, my personal opinion is that it’s all nonsense. I don’t see pictures as I read his words, there are no great images and his turn of phrase does not make me, gasp, cringe, smile or wince (not after the initial shock with the crudeness of his words has passed). To me, he is like every other Somali political commentator: A bad history teacher. I’ve recently developed an aversion to those that want to drone on about history whenever politics is discussed. Nonetheless, I doff my hat to the nonsensical professor for creating such controversy with his words. You never know, it might inspire some to emulate his style and repay him in kind with a poem (wasn’t that the Somali way?). On the subject of nonsensical poems. This whole episode reminded me of Lewis Carroll’s Through The Looking Glass and the great JABBERWOCKY poem. The poem makes no sense, but the pace, rhythm and feel of it is undistinguishable from other poems. Enjoy. `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe: All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. "Beware the Jabberwock, my son! The jaws that bite, the claws that catch! Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun The frumious Bandersnatch!" He took his vorpal sword in hand: Long time the manxome foe he sought -- So rested he by the Tumtum tree, And stood awhile in thought. And, as in uffish thought he stood, The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame, Came whiffling through the tulgey wood, And burbled as it came! One, two! One, two! And through and through The vorpal blade went snicker-snack! He left it dead, and with its head He went galumphing back. "And, has thou slain the Jabberwock? Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. `Twas brillig, and the slithy toves Did gyre and gimble in the wabe; All mimsy were the borogoves, And the mome raths outgrabe. Source PS Reason, etiquette or current trends do not restrict poets. The job of a poet is not to be constructive (though he could if he wished to be). A poet’s only job and vocation is to report on things in language and prose that is a cut above the everyday hubbub. To insist that Professor T be constructive with his poetry is akin to appointing him as the Somali poet laureate or court poet. He’s too crude and controversial for such a job.

^^^ Ah! But, it’s not our place to judge until we catch them in the act. What they do or don’t do behind everyone’s back is not our concern (and this would apply to adulterers and fornicators too). The point of all of this, as I see it, is to preserve society and halt the spread of undesirable practices. There are punishments that the law prescribes and then there is the Almighty’s punishment. In the first, we are required to provide evidence, real and strong evidence that these people were caught in the act of doing such and such. In the second, it’s God’s preference and with that, not even his beloved prophets would take for granted (hence how even though they were singly chosen by him to convey the message, all still begged and prayed for his mercy and forgiveness as if they were an everyday human or didn’t know that heaven was already promised to them). How the almighty eventually deals with them is not our concern (unless we aim to advice them to his probable wrath). What is our concern is how we treat them. Lock them up and throw away the key is not much of solution. Have we established guilt first? And if we have, what stops us from applying the usual Islamic punishment? If we have not established guilt but know that these people are homosexuals, would that be reason enough to lock them up and throw the key? It’s curious that you chose the beat it out of them method.

^^^ In a way I suppose I am. As you can see with the Catholic Church, it’s been forced into a corner by the gay rights campaigners. But the Pope refused to further dilute his faith and therefore he decided to play the game of words. His argument still remains that homosexuality is forbidden in Christianity and that no new priests can be practicing and at the same time, practicing. What he did is consent to allow transient homosexuals to become priests. Once they’re priests they’re expected to stick to the vow of celibacy and that would make them, erm, not gay. The point is that the Pope is asking them to put their faith before their transient urges. That reasoning is the same that any other divine faith demands or should demand.

The evidence is conclusive. Any self conscious, fashion-aware, self-preserving and modest girl worth her salt would not be seen dead on a bike. A motorbike, maybe. But one (male or female) can never look dignified on a pushbike. I think it was Mrs Beckham that once said ‘one is too posh to push, darlin’.

Originally posted by Northerner: NGONGE Your last post is interesting but it is obvious these guys(girly guys) have not or are not following their knowledge and teachings obtained throughout their lives. They most probably know much of the Quran by heart but are then attending such places with such people with the aim/intent of doing what is forbidden. Flip the coin and you will get those who are hetrosexual but comitting sins 'hetrosexually' before or even during marriage. You are being very idealistic here, saaxib. Yes these guys grew up and were educated in an Arab country with a strong Muslim culture, but that does not mean they have to know and understand their faith. You’ll be surprised how many people can’t recall (or even know) the names of the shortest surahs in the Quran (never mind memorising it all). Many don’t know or understand much of the basics of our faith. The education is there but some people don’t want to be educated. You’ll even find a few in Mecca and Medina who daily tread on the same ground that the prophet and his companions trod on, and still not know things you were expected to know as a child (or not of course, depending on your education). It’s all about education, some people travel far and wide to seek it and others don’t benefit from it when it’s free and on their doorsteps! The information war you speak about has just started. In the past, the government of the UAE seemed to turn a blind eye to the antics of the ‘girly men’ (they were the most visible of the gay community) but now, there seems to be new orders to stamp on that phenomenon! Do you follow all religious commandments? I didn't know it was possible. Not sure if the question is to ME directly or a general one. I am assuming it’s a general one for to ask me such a direct question serves no purpose here (and just for the record, no I don’t follow all commandments, though I’d love to of course). I think the argument really is about being a believer or a sinner (note that a sinner is still a believer). And just as if by magic: Pope's gay priest ruling is hailed by moderates By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent and Richard Owen in Rome A VATICAN ruling on homosexuals entering the priesthood received a surprising welcome from leading Roman Catholics in Britain yesterday after it became clear that it was not as severe as had been feared. However, gay pressure groups and liberal Catholics were critical. Senior Catholics said that the ruling showed a slight softening of Pope Benedict XVI’s hard line against gays. The instruction from the Congregation for Catholic Education said that ordination was not permissible for men with “deep-seated†gay tendencies but was permissible for those who could show they had overcome “transitory†homosexuality for three years. It does not apply to those already ordained. The instruction was welcomed by moderates because it is not an outright ban on all men of homosexual orientation, celibate or not, but it will disappoint traditionalists because it does not call homosexuality a “tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evilâ€, a phrase used by the Pope in his previous post as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac MurphyO’Connor, said: “A priest is primarily a witness to Jesus Christ. Anything that detracts from this impedes that witness. “Priests are required to live lives of celibate chastity, whatever their sexual orientation, and must be able to relate freely and well to both men and women. Bishops must ensure that men are not admitted to the priesthood for whom its requirements and demands will be too burdensome or impossible to fulfil. “The instruction is not saying that men of homosexual orientation are not welcome in the priesthood. But it is making clear that they must be capable of affective maturity, have a capacity for celibacy and not share the values of the eroticised gay culture. This is especially important because seminaries are all-male environments.†In 2004 the bishops of England and Wales said that “a homosexual orientation†was not sinful or evil in itself. The Cardinal said: “The Church utterly condemns all forms of unjust discrimination, harassment or abuse directed against people who have homosexual tendencies.†The Vatican ruling was attacked by Peter Tatchell, of the gay rights group OutRage!, who said it was “bigoted and hypocriticalâ€. He said: “If these rules had existed in the past, many existing archbishops and cardinals would have never been allowed to enter the priesthood. Given the high proportion of gay clergy in senior positions in the Vatican, this new policy is rank hypocrisy. “Given that about a third of Catholic clergy in Britain are gay, the new rules are an own goal that could result in hundreds of churches being left without priests.†He added that the Church should concentrate on eliminating child sex abusers from the priesthood.Widespread child abuse by Catholic priests has been revealed in the United States and other countries. The Boston Archdiocese agreed to pay £49 million to more than 500 victims in 2003. Last week a Brazilian priest was jailed for 14 years for abusing two children, and Italian police said yesterday that a priest in Tuscany had confessed to molesting 30 boys over the past five years. Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of The Catholic Herald, said the Vatican ruling was “a highly intelligent compromiseâ€. He added: “It is not nearly as bad as the gay community was expecting. They were fearing a blanket ban on the ordination of anyone under any circumstances who was gay.†He conceded that the reference in the document to “deep-seated homosexuality†would offend many but said that the document’s references to showing “respect†for gay people were also signs of a softening attitude. “All this is language that would have been inconceivable coming from the Vatican in the 1980s. The gay community was really worried that Benedict was going to come out with a blanket ban.†Father Timothy Radcliffe, former Master of the Dominicans, said that it would not be correct to interpret the document as ruling out men with a permanent homosexual orientation as there were “many excellent priests†who were gay and who clearly had a vocation. The Human Rights Campaign, a gay pressure group based in the US, said gays were being used as scapegoats and called on “all fair minded Catholics†to protest to their local priests. “We urge them to consider what Jesus would do if he saw his neighbour treated this way,†the group said. Father Donald Cozzens of John Carroll University, a Jesuit foundation in Cleveland, Ohio, said: “Our seminaries are likely to be depopulated to a significant extent.†He added that the hunters might become the hunted, suggesting there were “hidden†gays in the Vatican. Source Looks like the Vatican is trying to sweet-talk homosexuals into celibacy which, by any stretch of the imagination, would only mean they will not be gay anymore! There is a point to me posting this article.

^^ You're not against locking up the girls the right way? What, as opposed to chaining them to their bedposts you mean? Your comments there sound likes those of the man in the article. He spoke about the recent economic boom and influx of westerners and hinted that this might be the reason for the proliferation of homosexuality (and in the same breath, he went on to mention that almost all those arrested were nationals of his own country with no Westerner in sight). The issue of homosexuality is a great taboo to us Muslims and those that discuss it (in the case of the article above, psychologists and prominent lawyers) either deliberately chose to be obtuse or ignorantly bury their heads in the sand. They talk about it being an issue of faith yet do not have the sincerity to even view things as they stand and would rather use spin and propaganda to make it all go away. It really is not a big deal, as the lady in the article said, until it’s your son that’s involved in it. Still, why is it an issue of faith and what does it all mean? Why does someone who has homosexual urges and lives in those lands (Muslim lands) need to suppress those urges and stick to the rules? Is homosexuality natural or unnatural? Does it matter? I was about to rant on about it just now but I think I’ll save myself the bother and use a quote from a reply I gave elsewhere to a similar topic. The whole point of faith is that those who follow it need to submit to a collection of rules and commandments. If I confess to being a Catholic then I have no choice but to accept the authority of the Pope. If I am a Jew, I’ll have to follow the rules laid down in the Torah and if I am a Muslim, I’ll have to follow the Koran and Sunna (as much as possible of course). Note that I use the word ‘follow’ cautiously here (one might not strictly follow, in which case one would be a sinner but still a follower - if that makes any sense). God (for those that believe) has spoken about Heaven and Hell. God also informed us all (those that believe again) that he is the Almighty. God PUNISHES the sinners and rewards the good. God gives life and takes life away. God is (if you’re a believer) our creator. We (if you’re a believer) are merely the SLAVES of God. People always talk about the softer side of GOD. They talk about how the almighty forgives those that repent. They talk about how he hears the prayers of those that sincerely pray to him. They talk about a benevolent and merciful God (which is something no believer should dispute). However, God is also MIGHTY and STRONG. God forgives the repentant and promises to severely punish the sinners. God’s anger and wrath destroys entire nations within seconds. In short, for those that believe in GOD, he is the owner, the big boss, and the one in charge! Not many people question simple earthly authority (like the latest rules your employers introduce, etc), how then could they (those that believe) question or attempt to trick divine authority? God commands us (those that believe) to follow some basic rules. Some of those rules might sound absurd. Like not engaging in fornication for example; surely if we were all careful and made sure the women did not get pregnant, everything will be ok and we can have sex until our bits drop off. Or like drinking alcohol (or drugs); surely if we did it in moderation things will be ok and we will not get near prayer while we’re drunk, etc.... There are a dozen other examples that one could (if one is the pedantic type) question. However, all those are really beside the point. The real point being that such and such a faith has such and such rules and if you confess to be a believer of such and such a faith, then you will have to forsake some of your ‘indulgences’ and follow those rules. Those that wish to argue about homosexuality being unnatural from some philosophical or scientific angles are also missing the point and need to rethink their own belief and faith. It’s not about nature, Bees, Dogs or Homosexuals. It’s all about the wrath of GOD and if you think (nay believe) that such a GOD exists. If you do, then you would drop everything and follow the commandments. If you don’t, then you would carry on as you are without the burden of guilt and doubt. I personally don’t think the middle ground here is advisable. There is no point in living a life of self hate and worry or living life as a hypocrite that believes in GOD but refuses to accept some of his commandments. Not that I think any of it will get through. But despite my cynical tendencies I also, in spite of the daily disappointments, believe that some of this stuff sinks in with repetition.

Sheh, You’re almost as vulgar as Castro now (Castro will take this as a compliment I bet). I know what you’re saying and agree with the wrongness of the categorisation (it’s obvious really). With gay men, there are many that act like any heterosexual men yet are gay (give and receive, as it were). However, there are also loads of gay men that are very girly in the way they behave (not womanly, girly). The Arab world is full of that kind of gay and therefore everyone assumes that in order to be gay you have to be ‘girly’. So, as you can see, it’s all about the action not the act. The hormones will only make them manly in action but no less gay. Besides, who says gay men are not MEN? We’re not back on the manly men argument, are we Johnny? I think the assumption is if these guys were more manly in their actions they would not be gay anymore. Very simplistic really. PS I’ve always assumed the term ‘gay (i.e. happy) was applied because of the girly gay men (hear that lovely giggle in your mind’s eye?). PPS Editorama day for me today it seems.

I saw Somalis they’re all crazy But I’m the son of the Craziest of all I speak to trees, can they? I roam the waves and write nonsense But it’s all profound and it’s all deep Go to the site and read it all I’ m the height of fairness I mock my people and praise the rest I praise my people and mock the rest Equal opportunities is the name of my game The game of my name is equal opportunities My words don’t rhyme but poetry it isn’t’ It’s deeper than that As Deep as the pit in a nitwit’s head My words are deep and my people are bad Those other people (on the other side) They Are good. I ‘m the epitome of fairness and fountain of wisdom Can you read what I say and see what I read? The Chinese have a proverb that goes Dong Dang pong I don’t know what it means for I speak no Chinese I saw a butterfly it came from the South I now like the south for they have great butterflies A dog that limps is not like a cat With Four legs or a cat o nine A cat of nines is what we need To lash the Bosaso people and their greed A gun, a bullet or an RBG To blow up the north and Hargeisa This cup of coffee has gone lukewarm I wish upon Jowhar, a tropical storm To Bury and kill the whole lot So once and for all we will be shot Of Certain people of that tribe and no decent people will hear their tripe I’m nothing special but I want to be fair to all the people Of our land! We are Somali and can never be pleased With Anything at all! So I’ll please myself and insult them all and that way I’ll Be fair. For I am The Professor! There are professors everywhere With PhD galore They write to sites and news organisations With issues beyond their qualifications But our brave people love professors And I’m the best of all As you read this I’ll bet you’ll gasp It’s shocking, isn’t? Not many understand my words or grasp The Meaning behind the wisdom The wisdom behind the meaning Beyond the meaning wisdom Beyond the wisdom meaning A bird flies up to bring you my words Will it head south, will it head north PS I did not hear the interview.

^^ It's not an Arab thing alone though. Read what SKY wrote above. The Greeks (ancient and current) view things the same way. Edit: It was not worth writing a new post. This is an answer to the comment below. The 'woman' part is not in the act but the action. LOOK: :rolleyes: Now go away and talk to to the hand (very limp hand). :rolleyes:

^^^ That’s not the case here. The majority of those caught were nationals of that country and were, as the article indicates, punished. In many Middle Eastern and African countries only those taking on the women’s role are considered gay. They’re the one’s being offered hormone treatments, etc! In the West, they're both GAY.

^^^ That was not the reason I posted this article. It was more to do with how out of touch the authorities in Dubai are. Besides, if you read the title and some of the explanations in the article, you would notice that the meaning of gay (in Dubai) is men that dress as women! The ones that dressed as men were not mentioned and are not likely to be offered hormone treatments!

Gay party men may be given hormone treatment (AP) 27 November 2005 DUBAI — More than two dozen gay men — arrested at what police called a mass homosexual wedding — could face government-ordered hormone treatments, five years in jail and a lashing, authorities said yesterday. The Interior Ministry said police raided a hotel chalet earlier this month and arrested 26 men as they celebrated the mass wedding ceremony — one of a string of recent group arrests of homosexuals in the emirates. The men are likely to be tried on charges related to adultery and prostitution, said Interior Ministry spokesman Issam Azouri. “Lately people have been talking about (homosexuality), but it has been here for a long time,†said Nadia Buhannad, a Dubai psychologist. “It becomes shocking only when it is your own son.†Police acting on a tip-off raided a hotel in Ghantout, a desert region on the Dubai-Abu Dhabi highway, and found a dozen men dressed as female brides and a dozen others in male Arab dress, apparently preparing for a ceremony that would join them as husbands and wives, Azouri said. “It was a real party with balloons and champagne,†he said. The 26 men arrested include those from the Emirates as well as an Indian disc jockey and three men from neighbouring Arab states. One of the arrested was to perform the wedding ceremony. Azouri said some of the group told police they worked as prostitutes. Others had been arrested before. Last year, police made mass arrests at an apparent gay wedding in Sharjah and at the Khor Fakkan beach resort in Fujairah, a police official said on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak to the Press. Two dozen men arrested in Sharjah were lashed and then released from jail, said prominent Emirati lawyer Abdul Hamid Al Kumaiti. “There are so many others like these guys,†Al Kumaiti said. “The police and rulers need to do more than just lash them and let them go.†Azouri described the arrests in Ghantout as a “delicate†matter made public for the first time — more than a week after the event. The arrested men have been questioned by police and were undergoing psychological evaluations yesterday. Azouri said the Interior Ministry’s department of social support would try to direct the men away from homosexual behaviour, including treatment with male hormones. “Because they’ve put society at risk they will be given the necessary treatment, from male hormone injections to psychological therapies,†he said. “It wasn’t just a homosexual act. Now we’re dealing with a kind of marriage. There was a ritual involved.†Foreigners arrested will be deported after serving any sentences imposed in court, he said. Azouri said government psychologists were grappling with the possible causes behind an apparent increase in homosexual behaviour in this country. The booming economy has lured hundreds of thousands of Western residents and millions of tourists. Azouri said authorities want to be seen to be taking action at a time when complaints of gay behaviour were emerging from the country’s schools and myriad shopping malls. If some of the men are determined to be deficient in male hormones, they could be ordered to undergo hormone treatment, Azouri said. Azouri suggested that other countries with laws based on religion, including Christianity and Judaism, also ban gay behaviour and marriage. “It’s not about freedom of opinion, it’s about respecting religion which forbids this type of behaviour,†he said. Source

Just in case you’ve never come across this site (though it would be a travesty really), here: An open buffet of all you can read in Somali http://www.boqolsoon.com/ Bon Appétit

CW, Now you’re belittling the other subject. Wit need no references. :mad:

^^^ Heh. I was hoping the man with the buns of steal would get the hint. butt out...

It’s sad, so sad. It’s a sad sad situation and it’s getting more and more absurd....

I’m sure that by now, this habit of mine is becoming very tedious. I try to stay away, I honestly do. But then I feel that I’d let you all down if I didn’t come in and draw your attention to such and such area. Everyone seems to be suggesting new sections to be added to this site. As I’ve already said on another forum, we’re all trying to rearrange the furniture here. There is a group advocating for a Men’s only section, another group insisting the women’s section is important and now Duke is asking for a History section. I demand a music section. I also recently found out that Femme is only 17 years of age and insist that she has a kids section all to herself. Johnny B wants a computer section and the Arabic speakers here (our numbers are rising) would not mind an Arabic speaking section. Still, seriously now, why the need for all these bits and ideas? Are we gushing with articles, ideas and thoughts that our current sections can’t hold? Never mind that. Is this new History section going to offer something different to what can be found in other parts of the net? Could I not find it with a quick Google? You see, what keeps me here (though the need recedes day-by-day) is the quality of some of the Nomads. I know if I wait long enough I’m going to read a juicy article, come across an interesting debate or be inspired to start one of my own. Steady now; don’t start thinking I’ve gone soft in the head or anything. I still believe the Nomads have many faults and are in general very lazy with their thoughts, but I also believe that this website (and those that visit it) are the best of a very bad bunch (easy now, that was a compliment). The Internet is full of Somali discussion forums. All offer different kinds of discussions but the reason that brings us here is that we liked something about the discussions on this site. If the site is going to add new sections, they have to have the same uniqueness. They have to be different to similar sections on other websites. They have to offer something new. I personally don’t believe a history page will offer something new. First of all, Somalis in general are masters (even the dumb ones) at misrepresenting the facts. We rewrite history every single day and we’re not likely to stop now. It will only be more detailed, eloquent and readable. But, history will still be rewritten! Still, and you have my permission to feign surprise here, I think all these are very good ideas. If nothing else, they’ll get you all thinking and the initial excitement and drive to make it work might stick. Do it, do it, bring life back to this ghost ship.

Originally posted by Man Of Freedom: The work of the exposed author reveals a disturbing trend in the professional realm of our intellectual elites. It is colossal mistake and serious misjudgment of readers intellect. Mr. Dirie has done a plausible job for exposing this embarassing mistake. It is naive and prelious to assume Somali's as passive nomads who only know how to read without using their analytical capabilities to decipher the orinigality and the creativity that is involved with the pieces of articles they came accross. Nonsense! I love it when you talk dirty, Man Of Freedom. Plagiarism is a very serious offence. In fact, in this society (the online one), it is the ONLY offence. I don’t know who Libaax is, have never met Femme and are unlikely to have a real kick about with Castro. However, in this online world, I know and esteem every single one of these people (though I choose to display that estimation in my own way). They’re good upstanding citizens of the information superhighway and are, as far as I know, virtually law-abiding. If one of them suddenly loses it and starts spraying us with insults and profanities, the moderators would stop him/her. If they start posting a whole load of nonsense, it wont be the end of the world and people might even learn to ignore them. However, if they start copying other people’s work, stealing other people’s ideas and try to make profit from other people’s thoughts, then they’re nothing but criminals that should be BANNED. Arguments about motives, mistakes and giving the benefit of the doubt should not matter here. NO explanation is good enough once the act of intellectual theft has taken place! To excuse the act by talking about grudges and the motives of the author (while mentioning another prevalent problem) misses the whole point. Two “authors†having a tiff is a minor issue when compared to the theft of words and the robbery of the hard work of others. Someone above tried to excuse the news sites by arguing that the owners of those sites could not verify all that they print! It would be true if the plagiarised pieces were about the percentages of Indian maids in Saudi Arabia(i.e. something that has nothing to do with Somali news). However, when the articles are supposed to be about Somalia and Africa any news editor worthy of the title should notice the discrepancies straight away. Besides, if you don’t keep up with the news articles written about Africa and elsewhere and are not that well read, what are you doing editing a news site? Disagreements, differences, paranoia and even pure and utter hatred can exist in a world were we all still can hound the plagiarists and stick to the rules. The rules of always trying to tell the truth (I appreciate that many people are emotionally involved in some subjects that they can’t distinguish between fact and opinion)!

I was playing a five-a-side game of football with my friends when a lanky bald guy dropped in to join us. Plagiarism you say? Game of football

Here is one I made earlier On a side note, isn’t curious that these articles about the correct ways to say sorry are both written by women?

^^^Crouch was man of the match, saaxib. His one of Liverpool’s best buys in the past five years. His goal drought is going to end soon, I’m sure. The real problem with Liverpool is that all the strikers have hit a barren patch at the same time. Plus, there is no Michael Owen in the side and Cisse is a very bad imitation of Baros. Crouch has been impressive every time I watched him (well, apart from that missed penalty). He’s got a very good first touch and his awareness is not bad. Even if he does not score, he still causes opposition defenders untold problems. Now if only we had a Defoe or Owen playing alongside him! Rafa is really not much different to Houlier. The only difference is that with Rafa (so far) the plan is coming off and things are working. Houllier won hat triple and then became pointless with his tactics. Both guys want to play very defensively and rely on the counter attack. Both wanted to play with wingers and tall strikers (remember Hesky?). Both try to stifle the midfield. The only difference is that Rafa always had better players in his teams (oh how desperately do Liverpool need an Aimar right now).

Sounds like a case of Rearranging the Furniture!

I’ve followed this thread (and the threads that preceded it) with interest and I have to say that Nur, for the most part, has handled the situation well. Of course, there are a few minor comments here and there that grate with one but the overall message is beyond dispute (IMHO). Before I get on with one of my usual rants about one’s right to offend, let me agree with Raheema’s trade off above and say that participating in controversial arguments is almost certain to impact negatively on Nur’s other (and more important) work. For my part, and if I were put in this situation, I would not bat an eyelid or try to pacify the protestors. If people choose to take offence, it’s their choice and problem. However, this is not about me (we’ll get to that in a minute), this is about Nur. His message is different and emphasis clear. Therefore, it’s understandable that he would seek to appease the crowd. It was done very expertly and he, surprisingly, did not have to retract much. Still, let us assume that the person that raised this issue was not Nur. Let us assume it was someone else. We need the replacement to be someone of similar magnitude (on this site at least). So, let us assume that this same argument (the FGM one) was brought forward by the owner of this site! How would things have turned out then? Would the dissenters attack him in the same way? Would they use the Arabic proverb that says: If the Head of the household distracts himself by playing the drum, one shouldn’t wonder when the rest of the family start to dance! By now, and from my experience with this place, I’m sure some of you are frothing at the mouth and forming ideas about NGONGE being mischievous again and attempting to prolong the fracas or some such nonsense. Far from it, if you bear with me and keep your passions in check, I shall happily guide you to the point I’m trying to make. Nur says he’s not here to win an argument, and that is probably true in some of his E-Nuri activities. However, in the FGM issue and in many that are discussed here, the argument is there to be won. There is no point in having a debate or a discussion if your aim is not to win the argument. Discussions you see, are initiated in several ways. One way is for the author to ask questions. Here, he is not sure of his own position and is asking the rest to join him and shed some light on the subject. If he later chooses to argue for a position, the rest could hunt him down should they find his stance to be weak or, agree with him if his argument is sound (yes, I said hunt). Another way of starting a discussion is for one to make an assertion, dig himself a trench and rally his troops. In this instance, the author is ready for whatever anyone might throw his way. He’s armed with conviction and is sure of the power of his argument and the solid reason behind it. It would take a great effort from the crowed to show him how wrong his position is (if it’s at all wrong). In both cases and many others, an argument, idea or thought is presented to the crowd. All those reading it need to take a position on it and decide whether they agree with it or not. They then need to convince everyone else of the correctness of their stance. If the subject were an inconsequential one about the best type of biscuit or most skilful football player, most reasonable people would not concern themselves too much with winning the argument. However, with weighty subjects regarding faith (within reason), knowledge or ways of life one has no choice but to win the argument. It’s your principles at stake after all (or it should at least be). One never compromises on faith, morals and principles. Yet, on so many occasions on discussion forums (here and elsewhere) people back down, backtrack and completely give in for the sake of some silly notion of peace or group harmony (online!). The worthy concept of tolerance always takes over. Everyone is quick to agree to disagree. Most decide to drop a winning argument because, and this never ceases to amaze me, someone got upset! Ideas, thoughts and facts all get sacrificed at the altar of emotion and offence. Discussions become stale because someone somewhere decided that such and such is too controversial and will upset such and such. To compare FGM with Abortion will upset the girls, so, one best avoid that subject altogether! Let us keep the peace and stay within the realms of accepted etiquette, is the popular cry. But, why should one keep the peace? Why should someone who thinks that FGM is a better alternative to abortion not be able to air his opinions without the fear of personal attack and counter insults? Surely, the only thing he has to do is make sure that he WINS the argument he started. These discussions are battles of wits (even if you’re arguing for the sake of Allah). Some would argue that if emotion takes over then one is not likely to win an argument against an angry crowd and is better off letting the whole thing drop. Humbug says I! The argument, in the first place, was not (or so I assume) aimed at the one or two angry respondents but at the endless number of Cyber citizens visiting, about to visit or will visit this site. Regardless of the emotional incoherence of the participators in the discussion, one will still (if it’s a matter of principle) have to plough on and make his/her point. One should not try to intervene in these cyber fights and call for calm and keeping of the peace at every turn or, worse still (as I’ve noticed with a couple of previous topics) close the thread and subject. Do we believe that such fights, arguments and fallouts are going to cease when we already know the place is full of opinionated people? Or are we going to forever jump in and beg people to calm down, ‘give the sister the benefit of the doubt’, ‘give the brother another chance’, ‘don’t fall out over a trivial thing like a discussion on the net’, etc. The beauty of the Internet is that it cancels out genders, colours and ages. All that matters and stands you out from the rest is the power of your argument and beauty of your words. You can be a flamer, troll or someone masquerading as one thing or other, but even then, you would still have to adopt and wear the right vocabulary and phrases for the role. If the garb does not fit, the crowd (sooner or later) will start to point at the emperor’s new clothes. The net is a safe haven for all those that seek to have controversial and troublesome discussions. One hides behind a net moniker and is shielded from the real glare or wild punches of the easily stirred riffraff and therefore, one should make the most of such an opportunity to discuss, point out and show the shortcomings of one’s society and people. A real life intellectual coward is an understandable thing; a cyber one is unfathomable! This brings me back to the one and only reason why there are so many intellectual cowards on the net. It’s all to do with keeping the peace, you see. Whenever anyone here comes up with a semi-controversial topic and a few take offence to it (which is their right by the way), we all act like a concerned mother shutting her children up with the words ‘stop fighting, you’ll wake the baby’! We need to change our attitudes and not let the desire for peace obstruct potentially good discussions. When given a choice, we should choose a good discussion over peace every time. We come from a country (countries) that suffered and still suffer from all sorts of problems. The way we’ve been discussing these problems for the last 15 years (here and in real life) yielded us no results. We need to change our approach and be controversial online (in the hope of achieving something) rather than controversial offline as our brethren back home are being. If you’re after quality discussions and not ones where we all pat each other on the back and skirt round topics without being bold enough to take a stand, you will need to take a step back and let the fighters fight, the quibblers quibble and the angry people vent. The site already has rules to stop the vulgar and obscene from polluting our eyes and thoughts with their nonsense. Anything else, one assumes, is fair game. AGAIN, it’s your words and the power of your argument that is most important here, not who got offended, what others think of you or controversy. Never place emotion before thought, passions before ideas and anger before reason. If people get angry, I say, frankly, stuff’em! The sterile discussions where nothing new happens and nothing of significance is talked about are called chats. It’s quite obtuse for one to chat about FGM, faith or morals. What’s even worse is when others get angry over it. Lets hope that none of our serious discussions ever become chats. :mad: UPDATE: I spoke too soon, atheer.