Blame It On Camel Milk!

[Nur]

DA

 

Walaal I just hate the D word, Allah asked to take the Devil for enemy, not a friend, even joking about his name sends shivering shockwaves around my skin. But, when DA is used figuratively, it means someone who always offers a different point of view than the prevailing mantra, that is why I questioned " what kind of DA are you," just figurative DA, but because you were consistent, that was the reason I questioned what kind of a DA are you, because figuratively DA should have supported the less popular idea just to help debators see opposing view. Please consider DA to stand for ( DAR ALLAH) which in Somali means ( For the Sake of Allah), just a suggestion, No harm meant

 

 

Nur

[Reality Check]

ummmm...I think you have too much time on your hands.

[Warrior of Light]

^^^

 

Bro Nur,

 

Im glad youve replied at last. Like some who said there was no call for an apology, I agree with them. Instead a retraction of your statement would have been in order especially as it wasnt supported by divine guidance. The approach you choose to take though was humble and out of generosity. May Allah reward you.

 

Fiamanillah.

[Cara.]

Nur,

 

some civility and good choice of words says a lot about a debator.

On that we can wholeheartedly agree.

[Dhagax-Tuur]

ummmm...I think you have too much time on your hands

Dhagihii Alle hanuuniyaa, hanuunsama!

[Rahima]

Nur,

 

You’re welcome brother and we look forward to more of your contributions .

[Haneefah]

Salaam,

 

Bro Nur, I'm glad you took the time to address this issue for once and all.

 

If after this, dadka qaarkii eey wali kaa cuqdadeysanyihiin, or they deem you non-credible, then so be it! Says more about them really.

[NGONGE]

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.

[Passion_4_Fashion]

^^nice essay!

[Castro]

^

 

It's not an essay, atheer.

[Passion_4_Fashion]

^Oh.....horta adiga soomaaliga maa xooga jig kugu eh? maxaa u dhahdaa "atheer" adeer maa ka wadaa? hadaad ka wadidna ani waxaa igu haboon eedo mase aan kuu sii jilciyo etho

[Castro]

^ Adeer, whether you're male or female, I'd still call you atheer. To call you eedo would mean I'm female, which I'm not (though sometimes I wish I were). Capisce?

[Passion_4_Fashion]

yeah i thought so 2....ur somali needs practice, bit rusty u c. what i said was eedo is more appropriate 2 me. now capisce

[-Serenity-]

A real life intellectual coward is an understandable thing; a cyber one is unfathomable!

Lo0oL.

[Warrior of Light]

^^^Lool, to that statement.

 

Refering to that statement,

 

well a person cant change his character just because he has changed his medium of communication. Its not normal, we coin them to have a "Split personality". So if he is a coward he should always be one.

 

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!

Thanks for the reminder.