This was an opinion piece - the tone is something else. I disagree. Preachers are a dime a dozen on this site and the tone you refer to leaves little space for opposing views. When people use deterministic words like 'kafir' - which I find to be a most unfortunate description of Christians, they are speaking from a point of severe judgement and disdain. So in the opinion of the original poster, a seminal difference between Somalis in the West and those in Somalia is a 'culture and faith so untainted by kafirism'. What are the implications of this? You believe it is a 'gushing' tone and I think it's 'preachy'. Enough of that. I think words are an important tool of communication and so I place a lot of value on specificity and clarity. Preaching tries to tell you who to be and what to do. There was little of that in the original post. The most that was said was 'should live in Somalia' and 'should visit a Muslim country'. The original post does not fit the preaching label. As to any implications of the phrase 'culture and faith so untainted by kafirism' - there are a number. But those are ones you draw - and were not elucidated or drawn out by the poster. The tone of this peice can best be described as gushing because it focused solely on positive aspects. Reasonable metric, huh? According to the UNDP (2002), Somalia has one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world (1 in 4) and it is estimated that 71% of the population is chronically undernourished. Twenty-five percent of newborns dying and 7 in 10 people undernourished is a 'bad' situation by any standard. Pick a reasonable metric of your choice and find out if it will pass the hell-hole test for you. There are painful indications that long-standing droughts and environmental degradation make economic and agricultural recovery perilous at best. This, in my book, is a sign of stagnation and potential for worse hunger. I could go on and on but if you have a healthy mistrust of NGOs and their figures, like I do, I rely on personal experience. I've supported one relative or another even as a high-schooler. So many died of preventable illness preventable by a nourishing diet and primary health care. You see the return of Somalis to invest and open businesses and so on as 'reasonable metrics' of improvement. We clearly see this aspect of recovery and its impact on Somalis differently. To each his own. Your first paragraph posits little to argue about. But the question becomes: much of sub-saharan Africa registers similar stats - are they then all hellholes - the lot of them? As to your second paragraph - your easy dismissal of the signs of recovery I mentioned poses a conundrum for your point of view. Is it reasonable and rational to see members of the diaspora returning to and investing in a hellhole? Does that make sense? Again, words are important. What one could say about the situation in Somalia is that on a global basis, it is bad. But characterizations like hellhole are really intemperate, inaccurate and unilluminating. The term tells you very little but allows the one using it to dimiss and discard with ease. since you established the metric of people fleeing as something that indicts the society they fled. No, I didn't. A society seeing its members run out of fear for life and limb should be indicted. I pointed that fleeing a place in addition to other indicators of collapse (people dying then and at the threat of starvation now) fit my definition of a hell-hole (your word). What would the purpose of such a comparison be? To debate what defines a present state of unmitigated disaster? We can certainly engage in that too, the UN does it all the time. From the quote I used - you only stated the fleeing aspect as the primary determinant of indicting the society in which it occurred. If that was not your intention, then that changes the argument. Where is the delusion and the head in the sand syndrome? It's fascinatingly interesting - unsubstaniated and irresponsible accusations are made right and left. The delusion I saw in the original post is that despite abject poverty and at times lack of basic sustenance, many Somalis live a 'life here is so stress free, you see people who might not even have anything to eat but they never frown or get depressed'. These are the sister's words. You continue injecting your thesis on the faith of these folks into this. This, unfortunately, is not what I have the contention about. People with nothing to eat have a stress-free life that doesn't even warrant some depression????? Are we understanding this sentimental, dreamy interpretation the same way? Perhaps not. I did not inject faith into the argument. Her point was that faith helps to create a life that is 'stress free' and faith helps to alleviate their 'frown..and depression'. And, again, this was her PERSEPECTIVE and OBSERVATION. Why is that so hard to understand or to accept? It is as if some illiterate nomad was taken to the States and shown only the slums and ghettos and the drug dealers - he then came back to his community and told them of all the negative things he saw. This nomad's PERSPECTIVE is legitimate and correct but it may not be complete. This was the same with the original poster. She simply stated her perspective and in the absence of proof that her perspective is fraudulent - the most you could say is that it is incomplete. And I doubt she would object and say that it was complete. I find interesting your repeated references to sentimentality, dreaminess, romanticizing etc. Does one's persepective and observation have to be unsentimental, undreamy and unromantic supposing that her post conformed to those characterisitcs? Isn't one allowed leeway and freedom with one's own perspective and observations? I just find the attack on her persepective rather strange unless limited to the legitimate point of incompletness. I did not say the anyone should forgo medicine and rely on 'salvation'. What I said was in the absence of food(or medicine) one should put one's reliance in God and hold steady and stay hopeful. I never said you said it, I drew an example to illustrate my view of this silent and admirable suffering. Is it too much to say that people are suffering and very few have the means to alleviate their suffering? If the sister who posted this felt better sleeping at night believing this, I certainly don't. It is a personal, wretched, and unsolvable problem in my lifetime that haunts my dreams. It is not too much to say that 'people are suffering and very few have the means to alleviate their suffering'. I wish you had simply stated that in your earlier posts. What is too much is 'head in the sand', 'delusional' and 'give your passport away'. And the hostile and dismissive tone I found too much also. But, again, this was her persepective and observation. She, apparently, did not see much suffering. Must she post on something she did not observe and was not part of her perspective? I find this viewpoint strange and wacky to say the least. Because she mentioned one positive aspect about Somalia and said it lacked in the west - she must unceremoniously leave. If you think saying Somalia has a simpler way of life and people are rooted in their faith as 'utopic' - then you have little idea what that word means. I understand what the word means and the reference is to this stress-free life where one is non-depressed even when hungry. Would you not think of this place as a Utopia? I do. This is the point of contention, not whether Somalis in Somalia have an untainted, astounding faith lacking in their Western counterparts. No, a utopia is where one has all their needs and wants and nothing troubles one's ever present happiness. That is not a conclusion you could draw from the original post. The stress-free life and the lack of depression stem from sticking to the faith. The faith is an alleviator. The post does not say that hunger, stress, and depression do not exist. The post is confined to a particular perspective. Is the thread about the poverty or lawlessness of Somalia or about what one poster's opinion on the state of Somalis' faith and condition. Neither. The original poster posted her views, people posted their views. She may have initiated the topic but her views are not rare. The discussion moved beyond her reflections into larger ones. Talk of poverty is inescapable when we bring up people who may not have enough to eat. I disagree. The thread is about her perspective on conditions in Somalia. If your commentary is restriced to agreement/disagreement with her narrow perspective or a commentary that her perspective is incomplete then the thread makes sense. If you take it upon yourself to digress from the original post and launch into a discussion about the numerous ills affecting Somalia - then that is another thread altogether and is definitely off-topic. But even that is not so bad - the nasty tone and dismissive content were what bothered me. and I agree that on the point of their faith Somalis have a strength even if they are lacking in other things.(essentially my point) The sister's simplistic outlook did not warrant this lenghty thread. Unlike what was asserted, I do not believe it was a simple opinion piece of someone going for a visit and sharing reflections. It contained a romanticized characterization of the suffering (due to hunger) of people in Somalia. For me and maybe others, this is bizarre and difficult to tolerate. This was my point and it was certainly not as simple as you make it to be in your second post. NO - it did NOT contain a romanticized characterization of the suffering (due to hunger) of people in Somalia. It contained almost nothing about suffering. What it contain was her PERSPECTIVE. Evidently, a mostly positive one. She did not say that suffering and poverty do not exist or are limited etc. What is so bizarre and intolerable about one positing her perspective? Or must the perspective posted conform to your pre-conceived notions? To me this latter response is not reasonable, legitimate, or respectful. It is an extreme response. It really has no place in a proper discussion. I could be wrong but likely not. Fortunately, you do not decide the legitimacy of my argument (which surprisingly is not in contradiction with yours). Don't worry yourself with the respect or reason behind my points, I don't believe enough realistic discussions are taken on by Somalis on this topic. A proper discussion calls out trite and superficial arguments that are confounded by non-debatable issues such as faith. Back-slapping and dreamy reflections of a better life in present day Somalia don't impress me. You're probably not wrong about this, but then again, we're not discussing the same thing. The rigour of your argument decides the legitimacy of it - for the intelligent and unbiased person. Respect and reason matters greatly if as in your words you "don't believe enough realistic discussions are taken on by Somalis on this topic". How can one engage with you in good faith to discuss a problem if your level of respect and your reasoning abilities are in question? A proper discussion does call out trite and superficial arguments - but it has no place in dimissing and degrading an individual perspective. The dismissing and degrading of individual perspective is trite and superficial in itself! "Back-slapping and dreamy reflections of a better life in present day Somalia don't impress me" - but who wanted to impress you? No one. It was simply, again, a perspective. At the end of the day - it seems you and I don't have huge disagreements on the fundamental issue - more a matter of tone and content. If you would like to start a thread on the poverty, lawlessness, disorder, hunger and other issues affecting Somalia and how we could begin to address those, I would happily contribute. Until then......

As I ponder this thread I am amazed at some of the postings. To me - it seems you could have only 2 reasonable responses to the original post: 1- That's interesting sister, and we are glad you enjoyed it - but on the whole Somalia's disadvantages are more than its advantages. 2- That's interesting sister, and we are glad you enjoyed it - and I agree that on the point of their faith Somalis have a strength even if they are lacking in other things.(essentially my point) What is not reasonable is a post like this(summarized or quoted directly): 3- OMG sister, you're deluded, head in the sand, give your passport away and leave, "A stress free life leads only to people being hungry, faith alone doesn't build hospitals and schools", "Anyone who gets all excited about this return to the earth crap" To me this latter response is not reasonable, legitimate, or respectful. It is an extreme response. It really has no place in a proper discussion. I could be wrong but likely not.

Well - Naden, I am surprised you are willing to give me the last word since you were so vehement in your arguments and liberally sprinkled in insults and insinuations in your posts. However, here goes: Originally posted by naden: [QB] Proselytizing? Exaggeration much! She was giving her opinion on how people deal with their (sad) lot in life on the basis of their faith. You and I both know it was not an opinion piece on dealing with a 'sad lot'. Where is the evidence of any type of coping other than a non-depressed hungry face? Any time you admonish people to leave a 'kafir' land and to shed a 'western individualistic culture', you are preaching, maybe even proselytizing. This was an opinion piece - the tone is something else. You can accurately describe the tone as gushing but little in the way of preaching far less proselytizing. The post has the phrases "everyone should live in Somalia" and "...should visit a muslim country". When you put qualifiers in your statements you are hardly forcing your opinion down anyone's throats as in the case of preaching or proselytizing. I have read and re-read the original post - there is no instance where it says leave 'kafir' land or shed 'western individualistic culture'. If from the criticism of those two latter items, you have foisted upon yourself the implications of leaving and shedding - then that is something that you have done yourself and not the poster. Because thousands ran away from Somalia - it is a hell-hole with no redeeming points about it? Hardly. Hundreds of thousands ran away, hundreds of thousands more died, tens of thousands are dying now of hunger and disease, not to mention the hundreds who will venture out to the sea every few weeks and die there. That pretty much defines a hell-hole in my world. Yours? Let's not mix the past with the present. Somalia during the civil war and for a period afterwards was a hell-hole. Hell-hole being in my definition - a place where things are bad and where the situation is stagnating or getting worse. Is Somalia a hell-hole now? Not according to any reasonable metric. This supposed hell-hole has seen hundreds of members of the disapora return, invest, set up businesses, schools, hospital, universities, libraries etc. etc. Well, how did this square with the term hell-hole and what is your definition of hell-hole? And how is Ethiopia or the Congo different or for that matter much of sub-saharan Africa - is all of it a hellhole with nothing redeeming at all about it? Thousands flee Mexico risking their lives to enter the US - I would hardly call Mexico a hellhole. Mexico and Somalia, the comparison is laughable. I'm not touching it. It's funny - since you established the metric of people fleeing as something that indicts the society they fled. Here is what you said: "She was proselytizing about the purity and wonders of Somalia when everyone knows the hundreds of thousands who ran with their tail between their legs know how desolate it is." Ergo - according to the metric you established - hundreds of thousands running with their tail between their legs = desolation(aka hellhole, maybe??). So using that metric I stated that hundreds of thousands flee/fled Meixco - is it a hellhole(or to put it in your exact comparison - is all of Mexico a desolate wasteland because hundreds of thousands fled?) Establish appropriate metrics and your arguments may be more relevant. when faced with that how do you deal with it? Do you persevere, remain stoic and put your faith in God and do your very best? Don't even try to shove faith in my face and scare me away. They don't need anyone to point out their stoicism; resignation to one's poverty and hunger maybe an academic exercise for the likes of you but it is an inescapable reality for others. Shoving faith in your face? Faith and its power in the lives of Somalis in Somalia was an intergral part of the original post. You have to deal with it. Scaring you away? I hardly tried to do that - strange what the mind will believe when it wants to. Whether they need anyone to point out their stocism or not is beside the point - the comment made was that their stocism is admirable. You can either agree with that or disagree with it. Resignation to poverty and hunger? Is that what you believe their faith and reliance on God is about? You have sadly misunderstood the case indeed. In Somalia, you have an extended family of 25 people living in one person's home - their only physical sustanance is biil sent out from the West - hardly enough for 5 or 6 people. It is stretched out to feed everyone and although those receiving it hardly know when/whether the next one will come they put their faith in God and do their very best. This is the admirable moral and spirtual basis that I was referring to and which even in the direst circumstances provides for the people. The point here is the basis of the faith in Islam and God gives Somalis sustenance that the average Westerner is unable to tap into in troubled times No, the point you're espousing, others are clapping for and the sister initiated is one of delusion and hiding your head in the sand. This is actually akin to catholic fervor of silent suffering. A lot like mother Teresa encouraging poor, TB-ridden Indians to accept salvation instead of medicine and running to a Santa Monica clinic for a stomach ache. Get a grip, the lot of you! Where is the delusion and the head in the sand syndrome? It's fascinatingly interesting - unsubstaniated and irresponsible accusations are made right and left. I did not say the anyone should forgo medicine and rely on 'salvation'. What I said was in the absence of food(or medicine) one should put one's reliance in God and hold steady and stay hopeful. Now, much to my consternation, that latter point is apparently not as widely shared as I had assumed. Silly Me! I don't know what you mean by the 'average Westerner' not being able to cope with troubled times. I will give you this illustration, though. When any Somali sister is giving birth in any Western hospital, as Western doctors and nurses hover over her and her infant so they are healthy, I doubt she will trade places with a sister back home whose child has a 22.5% chance of dying. Look it up if you want. Troubled times = natural catastrophes, personal loss, death of a loved one. Many people in the West turn to drink, drugs, etc. Now some in Somalia certainly do the same but because the society is faith-based more or less, many more lean on their faith and take sustanance from it. I hope that point is clear now. So she mentions positive aspects of somalia - she automatically has to give up her western passport and live there? Yes, she does. She is the one who finds the Western world objectionable and describes a Utopic Somalia. My call for anyone who does that to return to Somalia is a simple extension of their arguments. Arguments that are shallow and self-deceiving. When you find a place intolerable and a threat to your faith, don't waste your breath trying to get others to see things your way, simply leave. If you are truly nostalgic (as we all get), do share with the rest of us the smells, taste, pcitures of Somalia. Otherwise, pull the rest of that crap with young Somalis who have either never seen Somalia or are too young to imagine a place with no infrastructure. :rolleyes: What a hilarious concept you have here. Because she mentioned one positive aspect about Somalia and said it lacked in the west - she must unceremoniously leave. If you think saying Somalia has a simpler way of life and people are rooted in their faith as 'utopic' - then you have little idea what that word means. I wonder if we could conduct a thought experiment here: If a white British woman went to the Middle East and commented on how she like the close-knit families there and how it was lacking in British society - would you demand she pack of and move the M.E.? I bet not! But then I could be mistaken. You could be an equal opportunity ejectionist rather than one focused solely on Muslims/Somalis who dare to criticize. That no matter the physical poverty and lack of order - spirtual and moral order rooted in Islam Say the men and women who have passports and money to fly back and forth. Again, put the Quran on the table and back away slowly where I can see your hands. You don't scare me. Keep repeating that to yourself, sooner or later you will be delusional enough to never explore any issues of poverty and lawlessness. A spiritual and moral order rooted in Islam is useful for everyone and anyone regardless of where they are. A single mother with 5 kids in the west has as much need of it as someone in Somalia. Physical poverty and lack of order do not define the individual or the society - how they cope with them is what defines them. For you, however, poverty and lawlessness define the individual and the society. I am at a loss to understand why you keep referring to me trying 'scare' you? For the record, I haven't tried that or done that(to the best of my knowledge). I also adore your last line there: "you will be delusional enough to never explore any issues of poverty and lawlessness." Is the thread about the poverty or lawlessness of Somalia or about what one poster's opinion on the state of Somalis' faith and condition. If somehow I have been completely dyslexic and the thread is about the poverty and lawlessness of Somalia - then disregard everything I wrote for I have oodles of subject matter on that topic! This reminds of me situations where you are commenting on one person's good points and then others keep coming in and pointing out their bad points. That is legitimate but off-topic yet that escapes them. This kind of moral armour is something few in the West have. Again, I don't know what this means. Moral armour = strenght of character, high level of faith, patience. You have good moral armour if you have lost your job, your wife left you, your kids were taken away, sued by your business partners, been diagnosed with cancer and still you are hopeful, patient, are not bitter and do your best to get on with life. At the end of the day, the post of Modesty was not about pro/con, Somalia vs. the West. Yes, it was. Reread the post. No it wasn't. It was about the impact of faith in governing the lives of Somalis in Somalia. There is only one reference to the west and here it is: "Somalis in the west are so different, I just noticed the major difference in their cultures, it seems the ones in the west take the western individualistic culture, but the ones here masha'Allah ...." She's not even referring to the West in general - she is referring to the character of SOMALIS in the West. Could you be more wrong in your characterization of a blatant contrast between Somalia and the West?????? you shouldn't veer off into the unrelated question of pro/con, Somalia vs. the West. Again, I wasn't the one who brought up the contrast between the two. The sister's post repeatedly paralleled Somalia vs. the West. And honestly, I used the Cheney pellets equivalent to disagree with the original post's thesis statement. The next time I run across a trite argument that paints a romantic, glib view of today's Somalia, I will point my kalashnikov up their asses and pull the trigger To this I say - prove it. Show where she paralleled the West and Somalia. If anything, she paralleled 'western' Somalis with Somalis in Somalia. That is a major difference.

^^^Yes, all Somalis in Somalia should just end it all and just drown themselves in the Indian Ocean. Matter of fact, since global warming is coming and ice sheets/shelves will melt and flood the heavily populated coasts of the world -all those residing there should all just kill themselves. What a can-do attitude that just ensures progress and prosperity for human-kind Naden - a reply will be forthcoming later on tonight - tata

Wow Naden - where to begin with a post such as yours and how much time to allot to it? Given I don't have much time, let me repost the original post. Maybe that is the best beginning for overheating heads. Here it is in its entirety (with bold highlights on relevant stuff I thought with regard to your post": Salaamu Alaykum from Somalia, I just wanted to say everyone should live in Somalia!! It's so beautiful here. The Somalis here are so welcoming and not stuck up like "western" somalis. They have their true culture, the guys here are so respectful, masha'Allah.Contrary to what many people people say about somali girls being oppressed, I haven't seen that at all, girls here are respected as muslim sisters, they have many organizations run by women. Sure it gets hot sometimes, and there are lax and orgi running around the place like maxaa kaa galey, but nothing beats drinking caano ari oo hadaa la lisay.NOT TO mention caano geela!! Everyone who lives in the darkness of kafir lands should visit a muslim country, I hear the athan everyday, Quran is read out loud!!I don't even need an alarm clock to wake up because the fajr athan wakes me up! Masha'Allah, life here is so stress free, you see people who might not even have anything to eat but they never frown or get depressed, people here have strong faith and trust in Allah, their culture and faith is so untainted by kafirism. Somalis in the west are so different, I just noticed the major difference in their cultures, it seems the ones in the west take the western individualistic culture, but the ones here masha'Allah it makes me so proud of my country. I love Somalia!

^^^^BUY, BUY, BUY, Range - it's a screaming buy! Good article - thanks. Too bad so little is known quantitatively about the country's mineral resources.

Originally posted by Castro: Naden is just angry and I didn't think anyone could be angrier than I am. That's cool too. But sister Modesty is glossing over stuff. It ain't all caano geel iyo shaax. It's death, destruction and devestation with some caano geel and shaax. What are you so angry about? Conditions in a country that you have no control over? Do what you can, pray for them, and channel your energies to a more useful end. There is death, destruction and devastation but there is also hope, progress and renewal. I don't like those who harp on the Triple D at the expense of everything else. Because in varying amounts some form of Triple D exists in all parts of the world. Downtown Eastside ring any bells?

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: And the reference by Modesty to that strength is something I can fully understand. That said - I will not be relocating to Somalia anytime soon. I see that you got your nice little disclaimer at the end. But only after huffing and puffing for a bit. That's cool. We're all on the same page but not the same paragraphs. Blessed got it right. Naden is just angry and I didn't think anyone could be angrier than I am. That's cool too. But sister Modesty is glossing over stuff. It ain't all caano geel iyo shaax. It's death, destruction and devestation with some caano geel and shaax. That point about the passports is not racist. If you continually call the people who took you in kaafirs and lowlives, the very least you can do is not parade their passports all over the world. I did not say it was racist - I said it is the inverse of an argument used by bigots! DIFFERENCE. What it is a moronic argument: You bigging up that other place and you dissing us, so get out and leave. Intellectual Age equivalent: 2 year old. I did not call them kaafirs or lowlives - I don't think the poster called them lowlives either. Kaafir=unbeliever - I doubt the average Canadian is gonna get all het up because we called him/her an unbeliever!! That said - it is ungrateful and petty to disregard the open arms and opporutunities that have been offered to Somali immigrants in the West. I certainly have not. And don't take kindly to any implication of any such attitude. At the end of the day, the post of Modesty was not about pro/con, Somalia vs. the West. It was a simple statement of the fact that one Pro - Somalia still retains much of Islam's spiritual and moral order and resilience. You can either agree or disagree with that specific thesis statement but you shouldn't veer off into the unrelated question of pro/con, Somalia vs. the West.

Originally posted by Jaylaani: Black people don’t like white people claiming African nationalities, South Africa and Zimbabwe are prefect examples, why should those people tolerate black people and cater to them in their homelands? P.S. North America is different. It doesn’t belong to the white people. They are immigrants like us. HUH?????? Are you on crack?? Seeing a psychiatrist?? The white people in South Africa and Zimbabwe invaded those countries, killed the indigenous people, took over thier lands and resources, then ruled over them in racism and humiliation and you expect them to welcome them as citizens with open arms. To my mind, the black citizens of Zim and SA have been remarkably restrained in their treatment of whites there. On the other hand, you have black players who were invited to these countries to play for them because their rich and pampered citizens pretty much suck and those very same citizens that are being represented have the gall to insult those representing them. If this a serious post, you need a headcheck and maybe a permanent visit to a gas-chamber.

Originally posted by Blessed: quote:Originally posted by Castro: Blessed, this is what the gripe is all about: quote: Originally posted by Modesty: Everyone who lives in the darkness of kafir lands should visit a muslim country,............ you see people who might not even have anything to eat but they never frown or get depressed, people here have strong faith and trust in Allah, their culture and faith is so untainted by kafirism. I know, love. I agree with Naden on the fact that people (praticulary the young) sensationalize life in Somalia but never stay, it's something that I always question. And, yet, I also agree with Modesty and The Point on the impact of faith in a persons attitude. Despite all that hardship, they're faith and sanity remain in tact; I love that about our people. And in the great scheme of things, Allah will reward them greatly for it, insha Allah. I tend to look at things from all angles, which usually puts me on the fence, so I’m just going to sit it out. *gets pop corn* I DEFINITELY don't think life is sensational in Somalia!!!!!!!!! But I refuse to take as credible arguments that it is an irredeemible hellhole etc etc. The biggest strength Somalis have going for themselves is Islam. And the reference by Modesty to that strength is something I can fully understand. That said - I will not be relocating to Somalia anytime soon.

Very interesting stuff Viking. Did not come to the same conclusions Castro. Especially on Point number 1 that you have(we can barely keep our homeland together - imagine having 200 million Indonesians to contend with!). What would be informative is a discussion of what 'back to basics' means in the fullest sense given the world we live in today? I think that some(well-intentioned) Muslims use this phrase without having a framework with which to really begin to apply it. Don't get me wrong - I think the theory of it is definitely correct but the practice of it has yet to be laid out by anyone that I've seen.

Been away for a while - so let me take a stab at a rebuttal here. Originally posted by naden: No she wasn't. She was proselytizing about the purity and wonders of Somalia when everyone knows the hundreds of thousands who ran with their tail between their legs know how desolate it is. Proselytizing? Exaggeration much! She was giving her opinion on how people deal with their (sad) lot in life on the basis of their faith. Because thousands ran away from Somalia - it is a hell-hole with no redeeming points about it? Hardly. Thousands flee Mexico risking their lives to enter the US - I would hardly call Mexico a hellhole. life here is so stress free, you see people who might not even have anything to eat but they never frown or get depressed, people here have strong faith and trust in Allah, their culture and faith is so untainted by kafirism. What the hell is that all about? Coming from someone who probably has both the passport and the money to go for this rapturous excursion and then run back to the west. No one wants to be hungry and the looks on their faces are not peace but resignation to agony. A stress free life leads only to people being hungry, faith alone doesn't build hospitals and schools. Your first statement is a cynical insult that illuminates nothing. Of course no one wants to hungry but the question is - when faced with that how do you deal with it? Do you persevere, remain stoic and put your faith in God and do your very best? Or do you collapse morally and commit suicide or engage in mass robbery etc? The point here is the basis of the faith in Islam and God gives Somalis sustenance that the average Westerner is unable to tap into in troubled times - unless they are a committed Christian or Jew. it seems the ones in the west take the western individualistic culture, but the ones here masha'Allah it makes me so proud of my country I said it earlier in the thread and I will say it again. Anyone who gets all excited about this return to the earth crap, give your kafir/western passport to someone your age in Somalia and stay there enjoying the caano geel and no one would be the wiser. What is a 'return to earth crap'? Not quite sure what such a subjective statement really tells one. So she mentions positive aspects of somalia - she automatically has to give up her western passport and live there? This is hyperbolic nonsense. You may as well say - 'oh you don't like it here in the West because you're protesting Guantanamo Bay etc - Give up your passport and go back home'. This is BS - and this argument is moronic and generally used by bigots. It's interesting that a Somali is using the inverse of this latter argument. At the end of the day, I think the poster was getting to an important and valid point - that no matter the physical poverty and lack of order - spirtual and moral order rooted in Islam(the latter does not appear in all areas of the country) can create personal and communal harmony that allows you to survive/learn from the inevitable difficulties and tribulations of life. This kind of moral armour is something few in the West have.

^^I don't know, desperation or lack of Imaan(take your pick) - but the thing is, a large percentage of these people are not Somali. I am told quite a few of our Oromo friends trek all the way to Bosaaso to get on these boats. And what a WELCOME they receive from our friends in Yemen

Originally posted by sheherazade: From oh-so-last-year: quote: Originally posted by MR ORGILAQE: Are u Canadian? That would explain the inferiority complex oozing out of your response. Classic sheh response Loved it And now: Originally posted by ThePoint: I'm not sure why u have such a harsh view on the States - inferiority complex? What a come-back! Did ya steal it from me? You remind me of a Goonle. You have a patent on the phrase 'inferiority complex'? I will assume you are joking!

Originally posted by Callypso: Muslims shouldn't internalize the perceptions of others so much, and they ought to know when they are being led by the nose. I wholeheartedly agree!!! And now I'm ready to move on from this protracted debate.

Originally posted by Pi: Point:- D'uh! Of course that's what he meant. You have a penchant for stating the obvious. What Callypso is criticizing and analysing is how the enraged enthusiast, Kashafa, is using the interaction of animals (hence, the animal metaphor) to justify human responses. If you cant see that the two belong in two different spheres, I have to say this again, with utmost respect, the dunce cap's gotta go! I don't think Kashafa was 'justifying the human responses'. He was saying it was understandable as opposed to justified. There is a difference in definition between 'justified' and 'understandable' or 'not suprising'. Go look it up. Additionally, he clearly stated he didn't like the violence or did you not read that? I state the obvious because individuals like you cannot seem to work it out for him/herself. Instead of propounding logical and well-thought out responses, you engage in name-calling. I don't understand why you changed your previous handle of 'Zero' since that is an apt description of your intellectual and debating abilities.

^I wonder how their English service is actually doing? I hope they don't overextend themselves based on their success in the Middle East.

Originally posted by Callypso: Hello Kashafa, quote: I'm not condoning the way the protests were carried out. But they were inevitable. Basic Human Nature 101. You don't poke a lion in the eye and when he starts going after every animal in sight, say: "Gee, now why'd he do that ? That was uncalled for." Don't poke him in the eye in the first place, and if you just can't resist it, well man up and deal with the consequences. As Colin Powell said about the Iraq war: You break it, you own it. You say that the reaction to the cartoons is basic human nature, but then use an animal as a metaphor. People generally understand that there's a division between animals and humans, such that a human can curtail their reactions in response to aggravation. Not suggesting turn the other cheek or something, but how does burning embassies and killing or maiming innocents prove that Muhammed was not a terrorist? If the reaction was not intended to achieve that goal, then I can indeed see why you used an animal as a metaphor to explain Muslim sensibilities. I think the point being made Kashafa is that it shouldn't be surprising that violence happened. It's wrong but not suprising given the inflamed passions and those pouring fuel on those flames.

Originally posted by AbStraCt: Lets get back to the man in question tho...he's a 24 year old hearing impaired immigrant, due to his age no suburban school would allow him to enroll.....is it his fault he cant read.....I SAY NAY! (heh, always wanted to say that) At the end of the day it's your fault if you are unable to accomplish a task many other hearing impaired individuals are able to acheive with/without school. But, he should sue the school if they were negligent in their duties.

Easy, dear Castro! You seem unsually worked up about this. Even when read your rights there are coerced or forged or distorted confessions. I'm sure you know that. Let's see what the judge rules regarding confession. Then, we can refer to it as a regular confession instead of alleged.

^Easy - I believe SB was joking

Go Ib! Discipline the heretics

Oh My! - what a thread. Who cares about others and their Muslim-ness or lack thereof. Let's concentrate on our own Muslim-ness.

Originally posted by Pi: quote:Originally posted by ThePoint: From what I have seen and read in Canada - most people are able to grasp that. For them - the puzzlement is in the 'ferocity' of the reaction. But then when you are secular, nominal Christians - religious sensitivties are hard to understand. No dude! When you are a human being its kinda hard to understand that level of barbarism. Christians (nominal or not) are not the only ones surprised at the barbarism (ferocity just doesnt do justice to describe the embassy-burning, apocolaptic protesting etc) displayed by our brothers and sisters in faith. Civilized muslims are surprised just as everybody else. Barbarism - a little harsh, no? I am not surprised by the violence or the threats of violence - some government and religious leaders were using the issue to whip up their populations. So, while it's not surprising - I am dismayed by it. The 'ferocity' I was talking about was the initial reaction of protests, boycotts and diplomatic recall. Many non-Muslim Canadians were surprised at even that - that is where my comment came in. PS - it's generally not good policy to bandy about words like 'barbarism' and 'civilized' - it implies a superiority that is not present. All peoples are subject to their baser emotions.

Thanks Viking - excellent video - interesting, informative and extremely apt.