 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
 Posted - 11 May 2007 : 00:41:37
|
pls turk avoid using explicit languages to discredit lawrence!!!1
Is 'gay' explicit? |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
 |
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2007 : 05:15:55
|
Santafara
You are missing the point. I neither have problem with Lawrance act, nor his sexual orientation. My point was your so called islamic brotherhood was broken when arab take side with kafeer against turks. May I remind you hilaphet was ottoman that time. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2007 : 05:15:55
|
Santafara
You are missing the point. I neither have problem with Lawrance act, nor his sexual orientation. My point was your so called islamic brotherhood was broken when arab take side with kafeer against turks. May I remind you hilaphet was ottoman that time. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
rassimian
United Kingdom
168 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2007 : 16:59:33
|
Turk, my point was that lawrence's sexuality should be an irrelevance in terms of his involvement in Arab affairs. No one would dispute that he was homosexual although I disagree with your analysis that this was one reason why he fought with arabs. If he wanted homosexual relationships he could find them in the UK . I am certainly not confused about gay and homosexuality and as you don't know me or my views I don't know on what basis you make such a comment.
Not sure what your comments about reparations have to do with the history of lawrence.My reference to the Turkish/Armenian question was to do with 'denial of historical events'
As you say not really part of the original question and needs another
topic to be opened.
So Islamic States should be theocracies ,that is 'no separation of religion and government' Can I tempt fate by saying that 'is not the state of Iran a theocracy' From what I hear any decisions by the government have to be agreed to by the Immams. For an Islamic nation it sure has a lot of drug addicts,prostitutes and plenty of unemployment. It tries to enforce codes of dress and conduct which secular states should not impose. What would be the benefits to the Gambia if it were an 'Islamic' state. I am glad you mentioned capitalism. This is the overiding dominant force in most countries and is responsible for poverty. wars, corruption and modern day wage slavery. I don't see Islam overcoming any of these issues. |
|
|
|
rassimian
United Kingdom
168 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2007 : 16:59:33
|
Turk, my point was that lawrence's sexuality should be an irrelevance in terms of his involvement in Arab affairs. No one would dispute that he was homosexual although I disagree with your analysis that this was one reason why he fought with arabs. If he wanted homosexual relationships he could find them in the UK . I am certainly not confused about gay and homosexuality and as you don't know me or my views I don't know on what basis you make such a comment.
Not sure what your comments about reparations have to do with the history of lawrence.My reference to the Turkish/Armenian question was to do with 'denial of historical events'
As you say not really part of the original question and needs another
topic to be opened.
So Islamic States should be theocracies ,that is 'no separation of religion and government' Can I tempt fate by saying that 'is not the state of Iran a theocracy' From what I hear any decisions by the government have to be agreed to by the Immams. For an Islamic nation it sure has a lot of drug addicts,prostitutes and plenty of unemployment. It tries to enforce codes of dress and conduct which secular states should not impose. What would be the benefits to the Gambia if it were an 'Islamic' state. I am glad you mentioned capitalism. This is the overiding dominant force in most countries and is responsible for poverty. wars, corruption and modern day wage slavery. I don't see Islam overcoming any of these issues. |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2007 : 17:09:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by turk
Santafara
You are missing the point. I neither have problem with Lawrance act, nor his sexual orientation. My point was your so called islamic brotherhood was broken when arab take side with kafeer against turks. May I remind you hilaphet was ottoman that time.
turk ,am at lost here .i never said the arabs side with the kafir . i was only making reference to modern day turky as a secular sstate where masonary is very well engrain ,just like in egpt ,tunisai .it is all about elitism .but the turks arab wars is now history . i never use the phrase kafir. as i said i am familiar with islamic history so yes TURKEY WAS A KEY PLAYER IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD .i even watch vedios of the caliphate history . |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 11 May 2007 : 17:09:34
|
quote:
Originally posted by turk
Santafara
You are missing the point. I neither have problem with Lawrance act, nor his sexual orientation. My point was your so called islamic brotherhood was broken when arab take side with kafeer against turks. May I remind you hilaphet was ottoman that time.
turk ,am at lost here .i never said the arabs side with the kafir . i was only making reference to modern day turky as a secular sstate where masonary is very well engrain ,just like in egpt ,tunisai .it is all about elitism .but the turks arab wars is now history . i never use the phrase kafir. as i said i am familiar with islamic history so yes TURKEY WAS A KEY PLAYER IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD .i even watch vedios of the caliphate history . |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2007 : 02:35:11
|
Santanfara
Not you. I am telling you that arabs take side with kafeer. At the time of First world war, Turks were islamic. Even ataturk fight against Western with the people. Your so called islamic brotherhood was broken with saudis. So, not turks or their liberal or masonic view, the back stabbing arab were the reason ottoman termination. During our independence war under Ataturk, one of the greatest military men of world history, see gallipoli war, turks took the betray so deeply and kind of disappointed with their islamic roots. Turks defend islam for 1000 years against crusaders. See Seljuk Empire and ottoman empire. Without ottomans middleeastern would be colonized hundered years ago. Then when it was most critical moment, arabs back stabbing.
Turks had the first election in 1950s, the islamic party get absolute majority from the secular. Than coup. The leader of islamic party was executed. 10 years later same. Conservative got the majority again. Again coup by the military. Most recently, when conservative party get the government, radical secularist put pressure. While struggling, Turkey has the best system in islamic world that combines the reality of islam and the management despite all the problems.
At the same time I agree with the movement like radical secularism/liberalism in islamic society as you called it 'masonary' not very good for us. But please tell me, the devilish empire of saudis are not in your list. I thought the kingdom of the sauids are top when it comes so called masonary. Saudis are the worst enemy of islam today. They let kafeer army to be in our holy land.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 12 May 2007 02:56:35 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2007 : 02:35:11
|
Santanfara
Not you. I am telling you that arabs take side with kafeer. At the time of First world war, Turks were islamic. Even ataturk fight against Western with the people. Your so called islamic brotherhood was broken with saudis. So, not turks or their liberal or masonic view, the back stabbing arab were the reason ottoman termination. During our independence war under Ataturk, one of the greatest military men of world history, see gallipoli war, turks took the betray so deeply and kind of disappointed with their islamic roots. Turks defend islam for 1000 years against crusaders. See Seljuk Empire and ottoman empire. Without ottomans middleeastern would be colonized hundered years ago. Then when it was most critical moment, arabs back stabbing.
Turks had the first election in 1950s, the islamic party get absolute majority from the secular. Than coup. The leader of islamic party was executed. 10 years later same. Conservative got the majority again. Again coup by the military. Most recently, when conservative party get the government, radical secularist put pressure. While struggling, Turkey has the best system in islamic world that combines the reality of islam and the management despite all the problems.
At the same time I agree with the movement like radical secularism/liberalism in islamic society as you called it 'masonary' not very good for us. But please tell me, the devilish empire of saudis are not in your list. I thought the kingdom of the sauids are top when it comes so called masonary. Saudis are the worst enemy of islam today. They let kafeer army to be in our holy land.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 12 May 2007 02:56:35 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2007 : 02:48:45
|
rassmian
Let me try to explain one more time. In the islam, you are supposed to be believe in the umma (islamic nation) however, if arab choose to side with enemy of islam, in that case was british, and further, you are side with homesexual act, which is strickly forbidden in islam, you do the worst. From this ideal, the islamic brotherhood, siding with non-muslim further with homosexual is greater betrayal in terms of islamic point of view.
As a liberal society like yours, sexual orientation should be irrelevent, but one can't have same social norms in the other society.
You said, if he wanted homosexual life one would find it in UK. That is not necessarily right. Why do you think thousands of briths men or women come to gambia. Not for love?
Reparations not to do with lawrance, but to do with your bringing up armenian question. Please clarify, why you bring the armenian issue. You said it is to do with denial of historical facts. But please tell me where I 'denied the historical facts' and you bring armenian issue. I am lost. Please how armenian staff come up. I need you to enlighten me.
Now about the real topic. Personally, I am not supporting islamic state like iran. But one can't deny the the islam being part of our identity, we can't remove the characterists of islam from the administration. For example, in Turkey, if a girl has hijab can't go to university. This rule completely disregard of islamic identity in the name of secularism. In my opinion, you can have a state in muslim country, not necessarily islamic state, but have administration that take islamic values into consideration when it rules the society.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2007 : 02:48:45
|
rassmian
Let me try to explain one more time. In the islam, you are supposed to be believe in the umma (islamic nation) however, if arab choose to side with enemy of islam, in that case was british, and further, you are side with homesexual act, which is strickly forbidden in islam, you do the worst. From this ideal, the islamic brotherhood, siding with non-muslim further with homosexual is greater betrayal in terms of islamic point of view.
As a liberal society like yours, sexual orientation should be irrelevent, but one can't have same social norms in the other society.
You said, if he wanted homosexual life one would find it in UK. That is not necessarily right. Why do you think thousands of briths men or women come to gambia. Not for love?
Reparations not to do with lawrance, but to do with your bringing up armenian question. Please clarify, why you bring the armenian issue. You said it is to do with denial of historical facts. But please tell me where I 'denied the historical facts' and you bring armenian issue. I am lost. Please how armenian staff come up. I need you to enlighten me.
Now about the real topic. Personally, I am not supporting islamic state like iran. But one can't deny the the islam being part of our identity, we can't remove the characterists of islam from the administration. For example, in Turkey, if a girl has hijab can't go to university. This rule completely disregard of islamic identity in the name of secularism. In my opinion, you can have a state in muslim country, not necessarily islamic state, but have administration that take islamic values into consideration when it rules the society.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2007 : 07:07:24
|
Turk , history is written differently depending on ones orriantation. an arab would have a different account to all you have said.
the key reason for the fall of the ottoman caliphate is the apparent weaknesses in the rulership . the leaders pay little attention to the ummah welfare which lead to disenfranchisement and later revolt. this is what is happening all over the place. when leader believe that the massses are less important then peace becomes compromise .you can see how gambian are feeling at the moment with the current style of governance ,yet our government has it supporters who will actually laydown there life for their leader .similarly the ottoman empire was very big and later became uncontrolable .the caliphs decided to use means to exert control which didn't go down well with the masses. the ottoman rule was not only on the arab continent but also indian /persian
i will not character assasinate the arabs in any way .prejudice plays a big part in modern and yestredays historys.
the black communitee is a tastetament to that reality. so if you want to blame the arabs for every thing feel free it is your call. one thing i would say is ,i gain nothing by defending the arabs .the rulership are mostly to blame for all the choas in turky and in saudi . i will end my part in this topic here. the trukish ,arab animosity as nothing to do with a gambian unless it is islamicaly related but racial blame game i am not part of that. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
Edited by - Santanfara on 12 May 2007 07:11:08 |
|
|
|
Santanfara
3460 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2007 : 07:07:24
|
Turk , history is written differently depending on ones orriantation. an arab would have a different account to all you have said.
the key reason for the fall of the ottoman caliphate is the apparent weaknesses in the rulership . the leaders pay little attention to the ummah welfare which lead to disenfranchisement and later revolt. this is what is happening all over the place. when leader believe that the massses are less important then peace becomes compromise .you can see how gambian are feeling at the moment with the current style of governance ,yet our government has it supporters who will actually laydown there life for their leader .similarly the ottoman empire was very big and later became uncontrolable .the caliphs decided to use means to exert control which didn't go down well with the masses. the ottoman rule was not only on the arab continent but also indian /persian
i will not character assasinate the arabs in any way .prejudice plays a big part in modern and yestredays historys.
the black communitee is a tastetament to that reality. so if you want to blame the arabs for every thing feel free it is your call. one thing i would say is ,i gain nothing by defending the arabs .the rulership are mostly to blame for all the choas in turky and in saudi . i will end my part in this topic here. the trukish ,arab animosity as nothing to do with a gambian unless it is islamicaly related but racial blame game i am not part of that. |
Surah- Ar-Rum 30-22
"And among His signs is the creation of heavens and the earth, and the difference of your languages and colours. verily, in that are indeed signs for men of sound knowledge." Qu'ran
www.suntoumana.blogspot.com |
Edited by - Santanfara on 12 May 2007 07:11:08 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2007 : 09:15:33
|
santafara
You insist not seeing the point. This has nothing to do with turk, arabs or blackness or any other race. Your point is valid that the turks may not have given attention to ummah which indeed a great mistake by turks or arabs being different perspective. However, siding by the enemy is breaking the fundamental base of our great religion.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 12 May 2007 : 09:15:33
|
santafara
You insist not seeing the point. This has nothing to do with turk, arabs or blackness or any other race. Your point is valid that the turks may not have given attention to ummah which indeed a great mistake by turks or arabs being different perspective. However, siding by the enemy is breaking the fundamental base of our great religion.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
