Originally posted by *Ibtisam: :confused: we don't worship mohammed but you must believe in him, your worship is to allah alone. Exactly. Allah alone is not sufficient to get into heaven. That is pure shirk as per Muslims' own logic.

Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel: Again, follow Hamas coverage on BBC. And go to Gaza. Do not speak of what you don't know. I didn't speak of what I "don't know." I posted what Hamas speaks. You're in denial. Hamas is fascistic organization that throws its fellow Muslims (FATAH) off buildings. It sends masked gunmen to shoot its opponents in the leg, oddly enough. They quote the virulent antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion forgery.

^And understand where I'm coming from. I will never tolerate bigotry whether it is from my own people (Somalis), Muslims or Brits. Nothing justifies bigotry. Period! Jewish (and NOT Israeli) demonization and vilification is staple in Muslim/Arab media. Muslims/Arabs justify their bigotry on what Israelis allegedly do. They're lairs and wrong. And so are those that justify bigotry against Muslims on the grounds of what the BBC does.

Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel: I don't know where you get your info on Hamas, Raamsade, but if you followed the BBC or Reuters, or any reliable news source (I'd also say Al-Jazeera English, but you'd probably object), you'd know they're nothing like Shabaab & co. From Hamas covenant (official policy paper), from its leaders and actions. It unabashedly uses in its covenant this quote the Nazi sympathizer Hassan Al-Banna (the grandpa of Tariq Ramadan, another Salafi): "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

^No one is waging a war. Nothing the BBC does can justify bigotry. This is same risible reasoning employed by Muslims for the hate of Jews (for example) by justifying it on what Israel does. If you're hate Mulsims for the policies of the BBC, you were bigot to begin with.

^Nothing justifies attacks on minorities. Don't fall prey to the rationalizations of bigots.

^Then by dint of your logic above a Muslim can get into heaven by believing in Allah ALONE and not Mohammud (or any other prophet), right?

All spring from the same poisoned well, so yeah they're the same. They hate everybody including other Muslims who don't share their views and fascistic in their approach to just about everything. And they yearn for martyrdom, what's wrong with expediting their ascent to heaven? The world would be better place without them. But you're one of them, so I can empathize why you're not too keen on the idea.

So believe in Allah alone will not get you into heaven. You need to believe in Allah AND someone else to get into heaven. To any objective observer, this sounds pure shirk.

No personal attacks please. And what is "qaasi?" I think SOL needs Somali language police as I see too much butchering of our language.

Lets not get defensive and hysterical as usual. I asked a simple question: can a Muslim get into heaven by believing in Allah ALONE? If the answer is anything other than yes, then Muslim protestations against shirk rings hollow.

Well, there is obvious flaw in Dr. West's analogy. Muslims are not a race or even a monolithic group. Black people are a race. Moreover, Blacks because they were a race were not constrained by religious dogma unlike their Muslim counterpart.

^Nope. Just bloodthirsty Salafis/Wahabis and their offsprings (Taliban, Alshabaab, Hamas, Al-Qaacida etc).

Can a Muslim get into heaven by believing in Allah alone? If not, how is that not a shirk?

Nah! Just the teabaggers.

The more Salafis that fight the US and NATO, the better IMO. Salafis will surely be exterminated and the world will be better place for that.

Originally posted by Jacphar: ^Madmadoobe Alla ku yaqaan. Hey, since you seem to be in personal contact with one Mr. Chomsky as evidenced your constant quoting of him, kindly pass this to him courtesy of Hamas Charter: "The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. " "After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying." "Moreover, if the links have been distant from each other and if obstacles, placed by those who are the lackeys of Zionism in the way of the fighters obstructed the continuation of the struggle, the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of Allah's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, Allah bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews." (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim)." Let me know what he thinks of Hamas' proclamations.

Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: (1)It is a common belief that when confronted with an uncomfortable situation, ostriches- which have the distinction of having eyes bigger than their brains- tend to bury their heads in the sand so that they do not see the approaching danger. Ostriches DO NOT bury their heads in the sand when they sense danger. It's a rank falsehood that is at variance with everything we know about Ostriches. What an inauspicious start in a tirade lambasting me for my "false assertions" and for sounding "irrational and unreasonable." One would think that someone making such accusation would refrain from indulging in the same vices he's deriding. Which raises the interesting question: if you can't get a basic and well-known behavior of Ostriches correct AND if you're unaware of long discredited baseless myth about Ostrich behavior, what confidence can we have that you'll be able to discern myths from reality regarding other matters? The answer is NONE. I have no confidence that you can tell myth from reality and the rest of what you write only reinforces my lack of confidence. BTW, you should dispense with all the psychobabble. It's superfluous to this topic and personalizes the thread. Debate ideas, not people. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: Who have displaced the largest number of people from their houses? Clearly, the Arabs and by a long margins. Let the numbers speak for themselves: The most authoritative sources put the number of Arabs forced (or became refugees) out of their homes during 1948 Arab-Israel War in 650,000-800,000 range. Averaging these two limits gives us a 725,000 figure. Similarly, the most authoritative figures on the number Jews forced out of their homes from 1948 War to 1973 War range from 800,000 to 1,000,000. Again, averaging gives us a figure of 900,000. The descendants of Jews from Arab/Muslims lands make-up nearly half of all Jews in Israel today. Not only are they full and equal citizens with other Jews in Israel but they rose to ranks of Presidents (Katsav - Iranian Jew), Chief of Defense Staff (Moshe - another Iranian Jew), cabinet members, parliamentarians, famous artists and players (benayoun of LFC) etc. So, relying on the numbers alone, more Jews have been forced from their lands by Arabs/Muslims than Arabs by Jews. Of course, you'll claim that you're solely motivated for humanitarian reasons and not hatred of Jews. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: who have taken over the land of someone and keeps it while the owner of the house is languishing in abject penury next door? And why is the owner of land "languishing in abject penury next door?" Israel absorbed the Jews forced out of their land (about FOUR times the size of modern Israel at 100,000 sq km) by Arabs/Muslims as have the French (Algerian and Morocco Jews) and US. Kuwait expelled approximately 400,000 thousand Palestinians and in Lebanon (probably other Arab countries) Palestinians are deliberately kept in state deprivation by denying them equal rights. How can you explain these discrepancies? Israel and the rest of the civilized world welcomes Jews forced out of their Muslim dominated lands (similar to the Christian exodus of nowadays) but Arabs not only deny Palestinians citizenship status but discriminate against them and even expel them from their homes. Arab expulsion of Palestinians is OK. Jewish expulsion of Palestinian is unmitigated evil. Only antisemitism can rationally account for this. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: Who have razed Beirut to the ground just few years back? Actually it was the Lebanese themselves. Have you forgotten the Lebanese Civil War? This sort of hyperbole and selective amnesia is emblematic of Arab/Muslim failure to assume responsibility for their actions. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: Who have flattened Gaza, using white phosphate and dangerous substances? White phosphorous is not a prohibited substance, so I don't get what your issue with its use is. You might as well object to the use of guns, tanks and airplanes while you're at it. With regard to Gaza, not a single building would have been bombed nor would a single Palestinian have been killed if Hamas seized its rocket attacks on Israeli towns. One must live with the consequences of one's actions. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: The question here is not whether Isreal is threatened by Arabs or whether its claim of the land is legitimate. The existential and very real threat facing Israel from its Arab neighbors shapes EVERYTHING Israel does. So your suggestion that we forget about it reflects your naivety. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: The question is how can Ramsade deny the brutality of the Israeli's when the world have seen a father being shot after crying over his dead son (totally unarmed) some years back? I never denied Israel's brutality. I just brisk at the cant and hypocrisy of you and others. You judge Israel by standards that you apply to no one else. There is NO conflict/war in human history that is shorn of brutalities. No army in the world today that is as tested as the IDF is without blemishes. Army personnel going berserk and committing crimes in contravention of established laws of warfare are almost given in any protracted conflict. The important question is: is the criminal behavior of individual soldier based on orders from higher up in the chain of command or based on army policy? I've seen no evidence of IDF policy intended to gratuitously brutalize Palestinians. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: Ramsade's hate for Arabs (whom he holds responisible for turning Somali's into muslims) have blinded him even from his suppossed religion of "reason" and "objectivity". You're scrapping the bottom of the barrel. I've never expressed "hate" for any ethnic group on this forum. Certainly not Arabs, that would betray everything I stand for. I don't hate people for who their great-great-great-great grandpa happened to be but I might for what they do. Nor do I subscribe to any ideology/world-view that militates hatred of Arabs. This scurrilous attack only vindicates me. Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: He can accuse me that I too have developed a 'counter-intelligence' of denying jewish predicament, but that is a charge I accept at face value. What are you accepting? Jew hatred? Originally posted by Abtigiis & Tusbax: (2)On the Dubai issue, it is not because Isreal did have a moral considerations that they didn't blow up the Hotel. Maybe, maybe not. But I prefer not to engage in idle speculation. Instead, I rely on historical precedents and there is ample evidence showing that Israelis do not attack targets if they know ahead of time that the civilian casualties will be high. Even Palestinians rely on this predictable Israeli behavior by running away from PA/HAMAS buildings during Israeli reprisals. Why would they do that if Israel randomly attacks anything that moves or stands? And even sometimes, Palestinians form "human chain" around buildings Israel plans to attack and you know what? Israel has called off a number of planned targets because of Palestinian "human chain." Now, if those Palestinians can predict Israeli behavior, why can't you?

Originally posted by Legend of Zu: So Raamsade, if you apply the same logic as you posted above (Isreal's battle for survival) if a Palestinian suicide bomber kills civilians because he is acting on for the survival of his people, would you argue on his behalf I wonder? You gonna have try that again because it resembles nothing like the logic I employed. I said Israel -- like every nation on earth -- has the right to defend its territory(ies) and people from external and internal enemies. That does not imply Israel has the right to purposefully target civilians. What it implies, instead, is Israel has the right to engage Arab military targets -- sadly, that sometimes includes mosques, schools and residential buildings that have been converted into military targets by Hamas. It is well documented that Hamas and other Palestinians have no moral compunction in storing their weapons in Mosques, schools, farms, hospitals, using ambulances to ferry fighters and ammo etc... and using civilian buildings to fire Kassam rockets aimed at kindergartens and shopping malls in Israeli. Palestinians make no attempt in discriminating their targets. To them, it appears that every Jew is legitimate target whether a child or an adult, armed or unarmed. An analogous Palestinian right to self-defense or fight for survival would be them targeting legitimate Israeli military targets. These targets include Israeli security forces (military and police), other security establishments targets like the intelligence services. No one, least of all me, would have any qualms with Palestinians if they limit their targets to the Israeli security (or occupation) establishment. So long as the Arabs are purposefully and premeditatedly are targeting civilians, the moral high ground -- by default -- belongs to Israel.

Originally posted by Cawaale: Waa doqomiin ma is tiri. Had they implanted bomb in the whole Suite of Hotel, there would have been no evidence left of the assassination and the investigative report would came out saying "bin-ladin hits his people" and Alshabab of Somalia would claim it on behalf of Al-Qaida. Of course Israeli government would never do that for moral reasons. Which shows, in my opinion, the higher moral plain Israel occupies compared to its Muslim/arab arch nemesis. In contrast, Arab/Muslim counterparts would feel no moral restraint in blowing up the whole hotel if they could kill one Israeli official. It seems to me that in the eyes of some in this world, Israel can do nothing right in its battle for survival. If it uses conventional military power against those that send rockets and suicide bombers against its cities, Israel is guilty of War Crimes. Despite the fact that Hamas and other Islamists deliberately use civilians as human shields; using hospitals, mosques and schools as weapons depot and staging grounds... Israel is guilty of war crime if it fights back. But when Israel quietly assassinates avowed enemies without a SINGLE collateral victim, Israel has committed a genocide. They should've just blown up the whole bloody hotel! What Israel's critics are basically asking is for it to sit back and do nothing as its enemies slowly bring about its demise. But they're discounting one critical distinction between modern Jews and the old, docile and supine Jews. Modern Jews have vowed to never passively walk into gas chambers ever again. They will fight for self-determination and right to exist as equal with dignity. When Arabs/Muslims abandon their deep and atavistic hatred of Jews, accept the Jewish people's right to self-determination and Israel's right to exist, stop their fanciful designs of driving the Jews into the sea... when Arabs/Muslims do that like Jordan and Egypt have somewhat, they'll find a willing partner in Israel.

Originally posted by Shaakirullaah: I mention their apostasy to clarify the Islamic ruling with regard to their condition Maasha'allah yaa akhi, but could you please elaborate on "their condition." What is the condition of those who permit what Allah has forbidden and forbid what Allah has permitted? What should come of them? How should they be dealt with?

Originally posted by Khayr: If you take religion out ofthe picture, why is racism wrong? This is exceedingly contrived question. What do you mean by "if you take religion out of the picture?" Are you insinuating what I'm thinking that religion tells us that racism is wrong? I'll wait for your reply before I reply to it. In the meantime, I'll further elaborate what I've said in my initial response. The source of all morals is human empathy. We don't want to be discriminated against based on my skin color or my ancestry, so we feel it is wrong to discriminate against others on similar grounds. Ethics and morals are not absolute contrary to what you and other theists (Muslims, Christians, Jews etc) believe. They're not "written in stone." Morals and ethics are relative. They vary with time and space. If racism was acceptable in the past but no longer is, this fact is merely validation that morals and ethics are relative and not divinely ordained. Morals and ethics are created by community of individuals. Community can be anywhere from few individuals (i.e. in business partnership), to a village, to a town, to a whole country or the international community at large. Any time you bring together disparate individuals, you get a shared common (community) interests in peace, justice, freedom/opportunity and security. While morality is entirely consensual, the community reserves the right to uphold the common interests by means of coercive measures (law enforcement) with reasonable violence to the individual that transgressed the shared common interests. Because each community has its own morals and ethics, morality is be definition relative and mutable. When one individual interest (say that of the a rapist) competes with another individual interests (say the rape victim), the community considers the competing interests. One one side, you have the interest of the rape victim; here you have violation of three shared common interests (peace, justice and freedom/opportunity). On the rapists side, you have only one countervailing interest - the rapist's freedom to rape. Relying on utilitarian assessment, any community presented with such moral dilemma will have no problem condemning the rapists as reprobate who violated the shared common interest of his community. All morals, including those that claim divine providence, are arrived at using the same process I delineated above. In the case of racism, it is not difficult to envisage how it is a moral opprobrium. Racism violates shared common interests of peace, freedom and justice. Therefore, it is morally wrong. The moral framework I outlined has only led to true and wide-scale ushering of human rights and justice across the globe only in the post-Enlightenment era. Morals and ethics that are informed by dogma (religious or not), superstitious and magical thinking have often led to the darkest moments in human history. Think of the Crusades and Inquisitions (by Muslims and Christians), Stalin's gulags, Hitler, apartheid, slavery, segregation etc. When the underlying assumptions that you base your moral judgments are logically and factually untenable, you'll make poor and erroneous decisions. The greatest insight that European Enlightenment has bequeathed to word is that correct and desirable decisions are often made when reason and evidence are employed.

Shameless Seumus is at again. Why am I not surprised?!

Yaa akhi, Shaakirullaah, why is it important to mention their apostasy?

Originally posted by 2+2=5: What "substantive" something does she have to share, exactly? Well, off the top of my head, here is some of her valid criticisms of Islam: -FGM and the role Islam plays in perpetuating it -Punishments for apostasy, adultery, theft -Political Islam and violence that often accompanies it -Discrimination against unbelievers -Gender inequality etc ... all are legitimate issues that deserve serious consideration, not invectives and death threats. Originally posted by 2+2=5: Nope. The holy Quran very clearly says: "Let there be no compulsion in religion" (2:256) You are just as ill-informed as she is. Am I misinformed or are you really flirting kufr? Capital punishment for Apostasy is prescribed by all schools of Sunni Islamic Jurisprudence (Hanafi, Shaafici, Hanbali and Maliki) as well as Shia schools of jurisprudence. Mohammed said "he who changes his religion, kill him." He also remarked in another hadith that the blood of a Muslim can only be spilled under three conditions: apostasy, murder and adultery. Islam is not Quran only. It is also hadiths, ijma of the culima and historical precedents set by authoritative figures like Rasihduun Khalifs. By saying "nope," you're essentially saying prophet Mohammed didn't know what he was talking about and the ijma of the culima is not worth the paper is written on. Those are grounds of apostasy. So I implore with you to reconsider. Originally posted by 2+2=5: You are just defending her as an excuse to attack islam on these boards. You never take part in any discussion unless it gives you a reason to bad-mouth islam. I don't need to "attack Islam." True blue Muslims are doing fine job of giving Islam and other muslims a bad name as is.