The nature of any regime it backs in the Arab world is secondary to control. Subjects are ignored until they break their chains By Noam Chomsky Feburary 05, 2011 --“The Arab world is on fire,” al-Jazeera reported on January 27, while throughout the region, Western allies “are quickly losing their influence.” The shock wave was set in motion by the dramatic uprising in Tunisia that drove out a Western-backed dictator, with reverberations especially in Egypt, where demonstrators overwhelmed a dictator’s brutal police. Observers compared the events to the toppling of Russian domains in 1989, but there are important differences. Crucially, no Mikhail Gorbachev exists among the great powers that support the Arab dictators. Rather, Washington and its allies keep to the well-established principle that democracy is acceptable only insofar as it conforms to strategic and economic objectives: fine in enemy territory (up to a point), but not in our backyard, please, unless it is properly tamed. One 1989 comparison has some validity: Romania, where Washington maintained its support for Nicolae Ceausescu, the most vicious of the East European dictators, until the allegiance became untenable. Then Washington hailed his overthrow while the past was erased. That is a standard pattern: Ferdinand Marcos, Jean-Claude Duvalier, Chun Doo Hwan, Suharto and many other useful gangsters. It may be under way in the case of Hosni Mubarak, along with routine efforts to try to ensure that a successor regime will not veer far from the approved path. The current hope appears to be Mubarak loyalist Gen. Omar Suleiman, just named Egypt’s vice president. Suleiman, the longtime head of the intelligence services, is despised by the rebelling public almost as much as the dictator himself. A common refrain among pundits is that fear of radical Islam requires (reluctant) opposition to democracy on pragmatic grounds. While not without some merit, the formulation is misleading. The general threat has always been independence. In the Arab world, the United States and its allies have regularly supported radical Islamists, sometimes to prevent the threat of secular nationalism. A familiar example is Saudi Arabia, the ideological center of radical Islam (and of Islamic terror). Another in a long list is Zia ul-Haq, the most brutal of Pakistan’s dictators and President Reagan’s favorite, who carried out a program of radical Islamization (with Saudi funding). “The traditional argument put forward in and out of the Arab world is that there is nothing wrong, everything is under control,” says Marwan Muasher, former Jordanian official and now director of Middle East research for the Carnegie Endowment. “With this line of thinking, entrenched forces argue that opponents and outsiders calling for reform are exaggerating the conditions on the ground.” Therefore the public can be dismissed. The doctrine traces far back and generalizes worldwide, to U.S. home territory as well. In the event of unrest, tactical shifts may be necessary, but always with an eye to reasserting control. The vibrant democracy movement in Tunisia was directed against “a police state, with little freedom of expression or association, and serious human rights problems,” ruled by a dictator whose family was hated for their venality. This was the assessment by U.S. Ambassador Robert Godec in a July 2009 cable released by WikiLeaks. Therefore to some observers the WikiLeaks “documents should create a comforting feeling among the American public that officials aren’t asleep at the switch”—indeed, that the cables are so supportive of U.S. policies that it is almost as if Obama is leaking them himself (or so Jacob Heilbrunn writes in The National Interest.) “America should give Assange a medal,” says a headline in the Financial Times. Chief foreign-policy analyst Gideon Rachman writes that “America’s foreign policy comes across as principled, intelligent and pragmatic—the public position taken by the U.S. on any given issue is usually the private position as well.” In this view, WikiLeaks undermines the “conspiracy theorists” who question the noble motives that Washington regularly proclaims. Godec’s cable supports these judgments—at least if we look no further. If we do, as foreign policy analyst Stephen Zunes reports in Foreign Policy in Focus, we find that, with Godec’s information in hand, Washington provided $12 million in military aid to Tunisia. As it happens, Tunisia was one of only five foreign beneficiaries: Israel (routinely); the two Middle East dictatorships Egypt and Jordan; and Colombia, which has long had the worst human-rights record and the most U.S. military aid in the hemisphere. Heilbrunn’s Exhibit A is Arab support for U.S. policies targeting Iran, revealed by leaked cables. Rachman too seizes on this example, as did the media generally, hailing these encouraging revelations. The reactions illustrate how profound is the contempt for democracy in the educated culture. Unmentioned is what the population thinks—easily discovered. According to polls released by the Brookings Institution in August, some Arabs agree with Washington and Western commentators that Iran is a threat: 10 percent. In contrast, they regard the U.S. and Israel as the major threats (77 percent; 88 percent). Arab opinion is so hostile to Washington’s policies that a majority (57 percent) think regional security would be enhanced if Iran had nuclear weapons. Still, “there is nothing wrong, everything is under control” (as Marwan Muasher describes the prevailing fantasy). The dictators support us. Their subjects can be ignored—unless they break their chains, and then policy must be adjusted. Other leaks also appear to lend support to the enthusiastic judgments about Washington’s nobility. In July 2009, Hugo Llorens, U.S. ambassador to Honduras, informed Washington of an embassy investigation of “legal and constitutional issues surrounding the June 28 forced removal of President Manuel `Mel’ Zelaya.” The embassy concluded that “there is no doubt that the military, Supreme Court and National Congress conspired on June 28 in what constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup against the Executive Branch.” Very admirable, except that President Obama proceeded to break with almost all of Latin America and Europe by supporting the coup regime and dismissing subsequent atrocities. Perhaps the most remarkable WikiLeaks revelations have to do with Pakistan, reviewed by foreign policy analyst Fred Branfman in Truthdig. The cables reveal that the U.S. embassy is well aware that Washington’s war in Afghanistan and Pakistan not only intensifies rampant anti-Americanism but also “risks destabilizing the Pakistani state” and even raises a threat of the ultimate nightmare: that nuclear weapons might fall into the hands of Islamic terrorists. Again, the revelations “should create a comforting feeling—that officials are not asleep at the switch” (Heilbrunn’s words)—while Washington marches stalwartly toward disaster. © 2011 Noam Chomsky

yaa tahay;683024 wrote: The barriers of the Takfir are three and two extended conditions. First three conditions "mistake, forgetting and ikrah" are the barriers under every condition includes both usuluddeen and furuuddeen. The extended two conditions "ignorance and ta'wil" are not real excuses. The latter ones will be an excuse with the relation with the first three in the secondary matters of tawhed and fiqh etc. (furuuddeen). The principle of "fault will not render permissible another fault" will also give you the same answer. Ignorance is itself a fault how could it be an acceptable excuse in the usuluddeen while "it is fard upon every Muslim to seek ilm". For the taw'il it has its own conditions to be an acceptable excuse. Unless this conditions and requirements are fullfilled; it will never be an acceptable excuse. Therefore there is no place for ignorance or mistaken ta'wil in the matters of usuluddeen but furuuddeen. If anyone performs an action of (minor) shirk/kufr because of being ignorant or making mistaken taw'il in the matters of furuudden he will not be performed Takfir but he will be a sinner and he should learn the knowledge (of 'ilm'i-haal) to get rid of his ignorance/mistaken taw'il. Akhi Yaa Tahay Baarkallahu feek, well done, I just want to clarify it further so readers can benefit. Mawaanic Al Takfiir in Islamic Shariah ( ALIBI, Legitimate Excuses against being considered a Kaafir) are: 1. Erroneous Judgment: This first excuse leads to "Wrong Taweel", which does not make a person a Kaafir instantly, until his/her mistake is clarified to him/her and he/she insists on it. Remember the meaning of Kufr is to COVER UP the Truth with falsehood. However for this excuse to work as you have pointed out , the issue that leads to the wrong Taweel ( Interpretation) : A. Must not fall in the well known facts of Aqeedah ( Al macluum mina Deen Bil Daruura) B. Does Not introduce Bidca ( Radical Departure from the Sunnah and aqeedah of the first three generations) C. The Muta'awil ( the Interpreter who makes such a mistake) Must have sufficient knowledge of the mainstream Islamic Literature as a prerequisite. D. The Error in Judgment or Interpretation( Taweel) must not contradict the spirit and/or the letter of the Holy Quraan and the Mutawaatir of the Sunnah ( Saheeh) 2. Forgetfulness : A Statement made by a scholar who is forgetful of other sources of knowledge. He/she should be reminded 3. Ikraah ( Making a statement or doing an action against one's will, being threatened, forced etc) This Alibi is temorrary. 4. Mental Disability This Alibi is permanent. 5. Ignorance For this Alibi to be acceptable in court, we have to consider the following qualifiers: A. The Location of the Person making the statement or action. ( Dar ul Kufr, or Dar ul Islam) In Dar Ul Islam, ignorance is not accepted. In dar ul Kufr, this excuse can be accepted, and its up the Judge, a case by case examination. B. The subject that The person is ignorant of (the Usuul Fundementals of Aqeedaha, aka Tawheed, or Furuuc, Details i. Ignorance of the Usuul al Tawheed is fatal, there is no excuse for it. ii. Ignorance of the Furuuc can be excused. Wallahu Aclam Nur

Akhi Kheir Let remove the confusion from the above statement: I wrote: Now, let us use modern terminology of this Jaahiliyyah Beliefs to simplify for the Facebook and Twitter generation. Let us call it a Worldview, which signifies our perception of the past, present and the future. This world view can be influenced by the revelation, or it can be different than the revealed information, in which case it becomes a JAAHILIYYAH worldview or Dhannal Jaahiliyyah. The Jaahili World view in above verse is based on selfishness " Naftooda ooo qudha ayaa u daran", which leads to the corruption of all other aspects of common interest and social life hence the corruption of the law ( Xukmal Jaahiliyyah) and Loyalty system ) ( Xamiyatul Jaahiliyyah) aka the anger, haughtiness and stubbornness. This paragraph is simply explaining Dhannal Jaahiliyyah which is the Aqeedah component that governs all other aspects of the Jaahiliyah system ( its like the source code of an application software . If the Aqeedah aspect is seriously flawed, its sufficient enough to make a person or a society a Jahili, because it will adversely affect the Laws, and the social system . If the Aqeedah concept is not critical, then it does not by itself make a person or a society a Jahili and this is the case that I have concluded with at the end of the thread, notice that I have used TABARRUJ, since it is not a critical Jahiliyyah component as serious as the Aqeedah ( Dhannal Jahiliyyah) component. Baarakallahu feek Nur

Bismillah, wa bihi astaciin Regarding the translation of the terms used in the translation of some of the fatwas, I found as I suspected that the Term " GENERAL" Jaahilyyah, was grossly mistranslated. In the Arabic Language, the term used was "ITLAAQ" in the sense of absoluteness, which different from the word, "Caam" as in General. The meaning hence is that in the absolute sense "Jaahiliyyah" means The STATE OF AFFAIRS" (Xaalah) ( Sidii lagu dhaqmi jrey) The period before the appearance of The Messenger of Allah Muhammad SAWS and after the disappearance of the last Abrahamic guidance. In that sense, "Jahiliiyah" can be the immediate period before appearance of any Prophet/Messenger according to the Hadeeth narrated by Cimraan Ibn Xussayin that the Messenger of Allah said in that hadeeth a ( Part of The Hadeeth) (There was no Prophethood that was not preceded by "Jahiliiyah" Reported by Tirmidhi. "Jahiliiyah" Partial "Jahiliiyah" can be found in a specific person. Also, a partial "Jahiliiyah" can be found in a given society, in both cases, we can not say that the person or that society is a Jahili, but according to the Hadeeth, we say he/she is a person with a "Jahiliiyah" trait akaif that person claims superiority on others by insulting them. Wailing at loss of a loved one etc. Here we have what I call a partial "Jahiliiyah", not specific, which is a misleading term even if it was translated from the Arabic word " Khaassah". Likewise, a society can be partially Jahiliyyah if that society displays a limited trait of "Jahiliiyah", such as TABARRUJ ( Women displaying their bodies to attract men), but that trait alone is not sufficient to make that society "Jahiliiyah", since that is a partial "Jahiliiyah". We have to understand that Islam is a complete system which opposes another complete system aka Jaahiliyyah. When Allah SWT said in Holy Quraan " Today I have completed for you DEEN (System that is composed of Human interrelationships and Human-Divine interrelationship), this meant that SYTEM was complete and it is DIFFERENT than Jaahiliyyah. Its important to note that when Islam appeared that it opposed "Jahiliiyah", NOT KUFR. Because iimaan opposes Kufr in the strictest sense, while Islam opposes a system that is at odds with it in every sense (Beliefs, laws, loyalties etc). Because in the beginning, there was only a set of information from Allah that were to revealed to be believed in, and rejection of such belief was disbelief KUFR. Later when the belief in the information the Messenger of Allah delivered was accepted by a the companions and their numbers swelled, it followed that the code of orders for changing the SYSTEM of the "Jahiliiyah" were revealed, which became a test for those who claimed to have believed in the information that was revealed to Muhammad SAWS, to see if they would indeed fulfill the orders that were sent down by Allah SWT, and precisely its here where the Jaahiliyyah of Beliefs of the hypocrites (Munafiqeen) was exposed in Al Imran 154 that Allah SWT says: Then after the distress, He sent down security for you. Slumber overtook a party of you, while another party was thinking about themselves (as how to save their own selves, ignoring the others and the Prophet ) and thought wrongly of Allah - the thought pattern of Jaahiliyyah. They said, "Have we any part in the affair?" Say you (O Muhammad ): "Indeed the affair belongs wholly to Allah." They hide within themselves what they dare not reveal to you, saying: "If we had anything to do with the affair, none of us would have been killed here." Say: "Even if you had remained in your homes, those for whom death was decreed would certainly have gone forth to the place of their death," but that Allah might test what is in your breasts; and to atone that which was in your hearts (sins), and Allah is All* Knower of what is in (your) breasts. Now, let us use modern terminology of this Jaahiliyyah Beliefs to simplify for the Facebook and Twitter generation. Let us call it a Worldview, which signifies our perception of the past, present and the future. This world view can be influenced by the revelation, or it can be different than the revealed information, in which case it becomes a JAAHILIYYAH worldview or Dhannal Jaahiliyyah. The Jaahili World view in above verse is based on selfishness " Naftooda ooo qudha ayaa u daran", which leads to the corruption of all other aspects of common interest and social life hence the corruption of the law ( Xukmal Jaahiliyyah) and Loyalty system ) ( Xamiyatul Jaahiliyyah) aka the anger, haughtiness and stubbornness. My question in this thread was examining the case when all of the elements of the Jaahiliyyah System are manifested in a modern society that claims to be "Muslim Society", we set out in this thread to verify such a claim in a scholarly way. A common mistake in most translations including the above Fatwas is that Jaahiliyyah is translated as mere ignorance or not having the right information. ( Fuqdaan al Cilm). Ig that was the case, it woul have been logical that the minute the knowledge was revealed to any Jaahili Society, that they would immediately adopt this new faith. But it was always quite the opposite. Although they have realized the information revealed to them as TRUE, they have always stubbornly rejected it as Allah SWT tells in the Holy Quraan referring to Pharoah of Egypt's rejection of the signs of Allah as shown by Prophet Moses May Peace Be Upon Him: "But when Our Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) came to them, clear to see, they said: "This is a manifest magic." 14 . And they belied them (those Signs) wrongfully and arrogantly, though their own selves were convinced thereof [i.e. those (Ayat) are from Allah, and Musa (Moses) is the Messenger of Allah in truth, but they disliked to obey Musa (Moses), and hated to believe in his Message of Monotheism]. So see what was the end of the Mufsidun (disbelievers, disobedient to Allah, evil-doers, liars.). The above verse shows that the act of rejecting clear signs of Allah is the epitome of Jaahiliyyah as displayed by Pharaoh who was blinded by his power to subjugate the oppressed Children of Prophet Israel ( Yacqub- Jacob) May Peace Be Upon Him. Sheikh Utheimeen, Raximahu Allah's quote has been taken out of context. What the Sheikh says is that by the arrival of Islam, falsehood was weakened, in the sense that no one can claim that they don't have the right information from Allah as an alibi. We know this to be true since the Prophet SAWS talked about an era that would come later that Islam will be strange again like the early days of Makkah, and for that to happen, Jaahiliyyah must be fully established in a previously "Muslim" society. The quote from Sheikh Uthaimeen Raximahullah clarifies that if we find a partial Jaahiliyyah trait in otherwise observant Muslim society that we can not call it a Jaahili Society. The Sheikh says: And even if they are falling short in some aspects of Islam they cannot be described as jaahili Note the word Some aspects, which implies if all aspects are are manifested there is no Islam Inside . Ibn Taimiyah's caption above used the word Itlaaq ( which is mistranslated as General instead of word Absolute). He supports also that partial and absolute Jaahiliyyah can be found in a person or a society. The Sheikh says: [...But after the coming of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), it may exist in one place and not another – as it exists in the lands of the kuffaar – and it may exist in one person and not another; a man is in state of Jaahiliyyah before he becomes Muslim, even if he lives in a Muslim land. In Conclusion. The answer to the my question lies in understanding the context: The Context of Term Jaahiliyyah: 1. Historical: Its only the period prior to the appearance of Islam and the Prophethood of Muhammad SAWS. And this is what most of the Ulema referred to. 2. Judicial ( Xukum): Any Period when Islam as a system is replaced by any other belief system with its own Laws, Culture, Allegiance, Social Norms etc. This further classified as: A. Absolute: When it is the only visible SYSTEM i. Person: Who is not a Muslim is Jaahiili ii. A Society : That has chosen to take a wholesome SYSTEM opposite to Islam as their System. B. Partial: When aspects of Jaahiliyyah is visible i. In a person ( Does not make him Jaahili) ii. In a Society ( Does not sufficiently make it Jaahil) Wallahu Aclam. Nur 2011 e-Nuri Caqeeda Vigils Standing For Allah Alone

What Corruption and Force Have Wrought in Egypt By Chris Hedges January 31, 2011 "Truthdig" -- The uprising in Egypt, although united around the nearly universal desire to rid the country of the military dictator Hosni Mubarak, also presages the inevitable shift within the Arab world away from secular regimes toward an embrace of Islamic rule. Don't be fooled by the glib sloganeering about democracy or the facile reporting by Western reporters-few of whom speak Arabic or have experience in the region. Egyptians are not Americans. They have their own culture, their own sets of grievances and their own history. And it is not ours. They want, as we do, to have a say in their own governance, but that say will include widespread support-especially among Egypt's poor, who make up more than half the country and live on about two dollars a day-for the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic parties. Any real opening of the political system in the Arab world's most populated nation will see an empowering of these Islamic movements. And any attempt to close the system further-say a replacement of Mubarak with another military dictator-will ensure a deeper radicalization in Egypt and the wider Arab world. The only way opposition to the U.S.-backed regime of Mubarak could be expressed for the past three decades was through Islamic movements, from the Muslim Brotherhood to more radical Islamic groups, some of which embrace violence. And any replacement of Mubarak (which now seems almost certain) while it may initially be dominated by moderate, secular leaders will, once elections are held and popular will is expressed, have an Islamic coloring. A new government, to maintain credibility with the Egyptian population, will have to more actively defy demands from Washington and be more openly antagonistic to Israel. What is happening in Egypt, like what happened in Tunisia, tightens the noose that will-unless Israel and Washington radically change their policies toward the Palestinians and the Muslim world-threaten to strangle the Jewish state as well as dramatically curtail American influence in the Middle East. The failure of the United States to halt the slow-motion ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by Israel has consequences. The failure to acknowledge the collective humiliation and anger felt by most Arabs because of the presence of U.S. troops on Muslim soil, not only in Iraq and Afghanistan but in the staging bases set up in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, has consequences. The failure to denounce the repression, including the widespread use of torture, censorship and rigged elections, wielded by our allies against their citizens in the Middle East has consequences. We are soaked with the stench of these regimes. Mubarak, who reportedly is suffering from cancer, is seen as our puppet, a man who betrayed his own people and the Palestinians for money and power. The Muslim world does not see us as we see ourselves. Muslims are aware, while we are not, that we have murdered tens of thousands of Muslims in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. We have terrorized families, villages and nations. We enable and defend the Israeli war crimes carried out against Palestinians and the Lebanese-indeed we give the Israelis the weapons and military aid to carry out the slaughter. We dismiss the thousands of dead as "collateral damage." And when those who are fighting against occupation kill us or Israelis we condemn them, regardless of context, as terrorists. Our hypocrisy is recognized on the Arab street. Most Arabs see bloody and disturbing images every day from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, images that are censored on our television screens. They have grown sick of us. They have grown sick of the Arab regimes that pay lip service to the suffering of Palestinians but do nothing to intervene. They have grown sick of being ruled by tyrants who are funded and supported by Washington. Arabs understand that we, like the Israelis, primarily speak to the Muslim world in the crude language of power and violence. And because of our entrancement with our own power and ability to project force, we are woefully out of touch. Israeli and American intelligence services did not foresee the popular uprising in Tunisia or Egypt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, Israel's new intelligence chief, told Knesset members last Tuesday that "there is no concern at the moment about the stability of the Egyptian government." Tuesday, it turned out, was the day hundreds of thousands of Egyptians poured into the streets to begin their nationwide protests. What is happening in Egypt will damage and perhaps unravel the fragile peace treaty between Egypt and Jordan with Israel. It is likely to end Washington's alliance with these Arab intelligence services, including the use of prisons to torture those we have disappeared into our vast network of black sites. The economic ties between Israel and these Arab countries will suffer. The current antagonism between Cairo and the Hamas government in Gaza will be replaced by more overt cooperation. The Egyptian government's collaboration with Israel, which includes demolishing tunnels into Gaza, the sharing of intelligence and the passage of Israeli warship and submarines through the Suez Canal, will be in serious jeopardy. Any government-even a transition government that is headed by a pro-Western secularist such as Mohamed ElBaradei-will have to make these changes in the relationship with Israel and Washington if it wants to have any credibility and support. We are seeing the rise of a new Middle East, one that will not be as pliable to Washington or as cowed by Israel. The secular Arab regimes, backed by the United States, are discredited and moribund. The lofty promise of a pan-Arab union, championed by the Egyptian leader Gamal Abd-al-Nasser and the original Baathists, has become a farce. Nasser's defiance of Washington and the Western powers has been replaced by client states. The secular Arab regimes from Morocco to Yemen, for all their ties with the West, have not provided freedom, dignity, opportunity or prosperity for their people. They have failed as spectacularly as the secular Palestinian resistance movement led by Yasser Arafat. And Arabs, frustrated and enduring mounting poverty, are ready for something new. Radical Islamist groups such as the Palestinian Hamas, the Shiite Hezbollah in Lebanon and the jihadists fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are the new heroes, especially for the young who make up most of the Arab world. And many of those who admire these radicals are not observant Muslims. They support the Islamists because they fight back. Communism as an ideological force never took root in the Muslim world because it clashed with the tenets of Islam. The championing of the free market in countries such as Egypt has done nothing to ameliorate crushing poverty. Its only visible result has been to enrich the elite, including Mubarak's son and designated heir, Gamal. Islamic revolutionary movements, because of these failures, are very attractive. And this is why Mubarak forbids the use of the slogan "Islam is the solution" and bans the Muslim Brotherhood. These secular Arab regimes hate and fear Hamas and the Islamic radicals as deeply as the Israelis do. And this hatred only adds to their luster. The decision to withdraw the police from Egyptian cities and turn security over to the army means that Mubarak and his handlers in Washington face a grim choice. Either the army, as in Tunisia, refuses to interfere with the protests, meaning the removal of Mubarak, or it tries to quell the protests with force, a move that would leave hundreds if not thousands dead and wounded. The fraternization between the soldiers and the crowds, along with the presence of tanks adorned with graffiti such as "Mubarak will fall," does not bode well for Washington, Israel and the Egyptian regime. The army has not been immune to the creeping Islamization of Egypt-where bars, nightclubs and even belly dancing have been banished to the hotels catering to Western tourists. I attended a reception for middle-ranking army officers in Cairo in the 1990s when I was based there for The New York Times and every one of the officers' wives had a head covering. Mubarak will soon become history. So, I expect, will neighboring secular Arab regimes. The rise of powerful Islamic parties appears inevitable. It appears inevitable not because of the Quran or a backward tradition, but because we and Israel believed we could bend the aspirations of the Arab world to our will through corruption and force.

The Torture Career of Egypt’s New Vice President: Omar Suleiman and the Rendition to Torture Program By Stephen Soldz January 31, 2011 "Dissident Voice" -- In response to the mass protests of recent days, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has appointed his first Vice President in his over 30 years rule, intelligence chief Omar Suleiman. When Suleiman was first announced, Al-jazeera commentators were describing him as a “distinguished” and “respected ” man. It turns out, however, that he is distinguished for, among other things, his central role in Egyptian torture and in the US rendition-to-torture program. Further, he is “respected” by US officials for his cooperation with their torture plans, among other initiatives. Katherine Hawkins, an expert on the US’s rendition-to-torture program, in an email, has sent some critical texts where Suleiman pops up. Thus, Jane Mayer, in The Dark Side, pointed to Suleiman’s role in the rendition program: Each rendition was authorized at the very top levels of both governments….The long-serving chief of the Egyptian central intelligence agency, Omar Suleiman, negotiated directly with top Agency officials. [Former U.S. Ambassador to Egypt] Walker described the Egyptian counterpart, Suleiman, as “very bright, very realistic,” adding that he was cognizant that there was a downside to “some of the negative things that the Egyptians engaged in, of torture and so on. But he was not squeamish, by the way” (pp. 113). Stephen Grey, in Ghost Plane, his investigative work on the rendition program also points to Suleiman as central in the rendition program: To negotiate these assurances [that the Egyptians wouldn't torture the prisoner delivered for torture] the CIA dealt principally in Egypt through Omar Suleiman, the chief of the Egyptian general intelligence service (EGIS) since 1993. It was he who arranged the meetings with the Egyptian interior ministry…. Suleiman, who understood English well, was an urbane and sophisticated man. Others told me that for years Suleiman was America’s chief interlocutor with the Egyptian regime — the main channel to President Hosni Mubarak himself, even on matters far removed from intelligence and security. Suleiman’s role in the rendition program was also highlighted in a Wikileaks cable: the context of the close and sustained cooperation between the USG and GOE on counterterrorism, Post believes that the written GOE assurances regarding the return of three Egyptians detained at Guantanamo (reftel) represent the firm commitment of the GOE to adhere to the requested principles. These assurances were passed directly from Egyptian General Intelligence Service (EGIS) Chief Soliman through liaison channels — the most effective communication path on this issue. General Soliman’s word is the GOE’s guarantee, and the GOE’s track record of cooperation on CT issues lends further support to this assessment. End summary. Suleiman wasn’t just the go-to bureaucrat for when the Americans wanted to arrange a little torture. This “urbane and sophisticated man” apparently enjoyed a little rough stuff himself. Shortly after 9/11, Australian citizen, Mamdouh Habib, was captured by Pakistani security forces and, under US pressure, tortured by Pakistanis. He was then rendered (with an Australian diplomats watching) by CIA operatives to Egypt, a not uncommon practice. In Egypt, Habib merited Suleiman’s personal attention. As related by Richard Neville, based on Habib’s memoir: Habib was interrogated by the country’s Intelligence Director, General Omar Suleiman…. Suleiman took a personal interest in anyone suspected of links with Al Qaeda. As Habib had visited Afghanistan shortly before 9/11, he was under suspicion. Habib was repeatedly zapped with high-voltage electricity, immersed in water up to his nostrils, beaten, his fingers were broken and he was hung from metal hooks. That treatment wasn’t enough for Suleiman, so: To loosen Habib’s tongue, Suleiman ordered a guard to murder a gruesomely shackled Turkistan prisoner in front of Habib – and he did, with a vicious karate kick. After Suleiman’s men extracted Habib’s confession, he was transferred back to US custody, where he eventually was imprisoned at Guantanamo. His “confession” was then used as evidence in his Guantanamo trial. The Washington Post’s intelligence correspondent, Jeff Stein, reported some additional details regarding Suleiman and his important role in the old Egypt the demonstrators are trying to leave behind: “Suleiman is seen by some analysts as a possible successor to the president,” the Voice of American said Friday. “He earned international respect for his role as a mediator in Middle East affairs and for curbing Islamic extremism.” An editorialist at Pakistan’s “International News” predicted Thursday that “Suleiman will probably scupper his boss’s plans [to install his son], even if the aspiring intelligence guru himself is as young as 75.” Suleiman graduated from Egypt’s prestigious Military Academy but also received training in the Soviet Union. Under his guidance, Egyptian intelligence has worked hand-in-glove with the CIA’s counterterrorism programs, most notably in the 2003 rendition from Italy of an al-Qaeda suspect known as Abu Omar. In 2009, Foreign Policy magazine ranked Suleiman as the Middle East’s most powerful intelligence chief, ahead of Mossad chief Meir Dagan. In an observation that may turn out to be ironic, the magazine wrote, “More than from any other single factor, Suleiman’s influence stems from his unswerving loyalty to Mubarak.” If Suleiman succeeds Mubarak and retains power, we will likely be treated to plaudits for his distinguished credentials from government officials and US pundits. We should remember that what they really mean is his ability to brutalize and torture. As Stephen Grey puts it: But in secret, men like Omar Suleiman, the country’s most powerful spy and secret politician, did our work, the sort of work that Western countries have no appetite to do ourselves. If Suleiman receives praise in the US, it will be because our leaders know that he’s the sort of leader who can be counted on to do what it takes to restore order and ensure that Egypt remains friendly to US interests. There are some signs, however, that the Obama administration may not accept Suleiman’s appointment. Today they criticized the rearrangement of the chairs in Egypt’s government. If so, that will be a welcome sign that the Obama administration may have some limits beyond which it is hesitant to go in aligning with our most brutal “friends.” We sure hope that the Egyptian demonstrators reject the farce of Suleiman’s appointment and push on to a complete change of regime. Otherwise the Egyptian torture chamber will undoubtedly return, as a new regime reestablishes “stability” and serves US interests. Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher, and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He maintains the Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice web page and the Psyche, Science, and Society blog. He is a founder of the Coalition for an Ethical Psychology, one of the organizations leading the struggle to change American Psychological Association policy on participation in abusive interrogations.. He is President of Psychologists for Social Responsibility and a consultant to Physicians for Human Rights.

Ukhti Al Fadilah I went through the entire post, I found it very interesting by representing differing opinions of some modern and old scholars. Noteworthy is Ibn Taymia, and Sheikh Fawzan's take on the issue. The Classification that there are two types of JAAHILIYYAH, a General one and a Specific one, and that the Specific one may apply on a. Individuals, Groups and Societies, although there is no Daleel Sharci from the quraan and Hadeeth to support, is sufficient to answer my thread question: "Can we then safely say that a society that displays all four manifestation of Jahiliyyah is a indeed a Jahili Society? in the Affirmative. The Hadeeth that Muslims will follow the Jews and Christians in every way and the Verse in Surah Al Maedah 50, that was describing the Jews "Do they then seek the judgment of Jahiliyyah? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who have firm Faith. connects the dots that, as the jews have sought the Jahiliyah Law instead of the Tawraat that was revealed to them, likewise, Muslims will one day follow them to the end, and adopt Jaahiliyyah Law. If that happens, the question is : Can we safely refer to such a society a Jahili Society? the classification of General Jahiliyyah and Specific Jahiliyah is a red herring, it does not add value in the afore mentioned question. However, to settle the linguistic errors that I found in the post, inshaAllah, when I get more time, I will filter the following verses to show clearly that some of the translated words from the Sheikhs words require simplification for those who only rely on the English translation as it can be misleading at times. The scholars have their own limitation ( what the say can be accepted or rejected based on Quran and Sunnah) , when you add that limitation to loss of original meaning in the translation from the Arabic to the English text, the confusion increases. For that purpose, before I respond fully for the above post, I will attempt to find the Arabic sources of the quotes in order to make sure that I capture the subtleties in the translations. Secondly. The word Jahiliyyah and its derivatives have been brought up in the above thread in a way that confuses the topic which is centered on a single Term ' Jaahliyyah In the Holy Quraan, the root verb JAHILA and its derivatives have been mentioned in the Holy Quraan as follows: 1. YAJ HALU a. Ancaam 111,YAJ haluun, b. Acraaf138, Huud 29, Al 55Naml , Axqaaf 23 TAJ haluun, 2. JAAHIL a. Al Baqara 273 3. JAAHILUUN, a. Yusuf 89, Al Furqaan 63, Al Zumar, 64, 4. JAAHILIIN a. Al Baqara 67, Al Ancaam 35, Al Acraaf 199, Huud 46, Yusuf 33 5. JAAHILIYYAH a. Al Cimraan 154, Al Maedah 50, Al Axzaab 33, Al Fatx 26 6. JAHAALAH a. Al Nisaa 17, Al Ancaam 54, Al Nxl 119, Al Xujuraat 6 InshaAllah, I will go through the above verses to glean useful information that will enrich the debate. Baarkallahu Feeki Nur

Ukhti Al Kareemah You write: I hope you have first understood that the lexical definition you provided above conveys a sense of what the term Jaahiliyyah means, but does not convey how it is applied I have done so, After explaining the Lexical Definition ( Lugha), I applied the term on four Technical contexts. ( Istilaax Sharci) 1. Dannal Jaahiliyyah 2. Xukmal Jaahiliyyah 3. Xamiyatal Jaahiliyyah 4. Tabarrujul Jaahiliyyah For Example. In Arabic Zakaat Lexically means growth, Technically ( Istilaaxan) though , it means The Poor Due, or alms giving. You write: The reason I did not directly address the question in your original post is because the way it is formulated is flawed. Quoting verses of the Quran which talk about pre-Islamic Arabia and its pagan society and then saying let us apply those verses to modern Muslim societies in a general way is basically an invitation to take them out of context Can we apply this term when comparing the Pre-Islamic Arabia with present day Muslims? Yes, Narrated Abu Said: The Prophet said, "You will follow the wrong ways, of your predecessors so completely and literally that if they should go into the hole of a mastigure, you too will go there." We said, "O Allah's Apostle! Do you mean the Jews and the Christians?" He replied, "Whom else?" (Meaning, of course, the Jews and the Christians.) Saheeh Bukhari 662 You write: There is no real basis upon which to draw a general, overarching correlation between what existed before the advent of Islam and what came after it, or what exists now, especially when it comes to societies that have accepted Islam. In a comparison, we only compare particular parameters, apples to apples, we are not looking for all parameters. In our case we are only interested in four aspects of the First Jahiliyyah ( In the Holy Quraan it reads, Al Jahiliyatil uulaa, hinting a second Jahiliyyah to come) You write: Jaahili society was a non-Muslim society. Muslim societies are Muslim societies, and the scholars make it very clear that it is impermissible and unacceptable to label them as 'Jaahili' in a general way. It would have the meaning of saying, implicitly or explicitly, that they are non-Muslim societies Names are assigned to attributes. What happens when the name remains and the attributes are lost or changed or replaced by its opposite? I have shown four attributes of Jahili society. What happens when all four are found in a "Muslim" society? How about if I tell you that there is George and his Wife, both Catholics reading the Quraan, praying late night taraweeh and slaughtering a sheep to celebrate Eidul Adhaa , while their next door Muslim neighbors, Hassan and Halima celebrate Christmas with a big decorated Christmas tree and their children sing choir in the local Baptist church? Ukhti, lastly, are you saying that : The Term Jahiliyyah does not apply to any Muslim society even if they: 1. Have the wrong Aqeedah 2. Follow or legislate secular laws 3. Whose loyalty is not for Allah alone 4. Who collectively ignore Islamic etiquette in public? Nur

Sleeping Giant Wakes Up By Yvonne Ridley January 27, 2010 "ICH" -- The Arab world’s sleeping giant has finally woken from its slumber after years of being drugged and mugged by the West. Having witnessed -- and experienced –- first-hand the brutality of the Egyptian and Tunisian police and their undercover stooges, I can tell you that the uprisings of the masses took real courage. Over the years, dictator Hosni Mubarak has traded on their fear, using some of the foulest methods of intimidation imaginable. But like their counterparts in Tunisia, the Egyptian people are losing their fear and tearing away the chains of oppression. The pharaoh’s police state is now teetering after a second day of protests. Whatever the outcome over the next few weeks, I think it is clear that America and Britain can no longer manipulate and control the politics -- or lack of it -- in the Middle East. Washington’s silence over the weeks of civil unrest on the streets of Tunisia was almost deafening, so when Barack Obama chose to congratulate the uprising only after Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s plane was in the air, his message of support rang hollow. On Tuesday, he urged the Egyptian authorities to show restraint. The world’s most powerful man’s weasel words tripped from his lips as blood was shed on the streets of Cairo, Asyut, Alexandria, Mansura, Tanta, and Aswan as the people faced down hundreds of thousands of uniformed and plain-clothes thugs using water cannon and teargas. The truth is the scenes of civil unrest from Tunis to Cairo speak volumes about U.S. and Western interference as much as the actions of the tyrants they have bankrolled and supported. All of them have seriously underestimated ordinary Arabs. The brutality of tyrants has been allowed to go on for countless decades and the silence of the Western powers today exposes their own deep-seated racism and double standards toward the people. Is the blood of an Arab worth less than that of an American? It’s a rhetorical question and we all know the shameful answer. With the exception of Iraq (and let’s not go down the road of who created and supported Saddam), all of the governments in the Middle East are identified by their Western-installed family dynasties, sham democracies, and rigged elections, punctuated by extreme reaction to any signs of dissenting voices. While these leaders have lived a life of luxury bordering on obscene, they’ve carried out their orders from Washington, London, Paris, and beyond without question -- and this goes for the corrupt Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) and his Palestinian Authority. If ever there was a dictator-in-the-making, it’s this odious man. As Robert Fisk pointed out a few days back, the emergence of The Palestine Papers is as damning as the Balfour Declaration. The right of return for millions of Palestinians, for instance, was traded and eroded beyond measure. From the West Bank to Gaza and the refugee camps beyond, Abu Mazen sold his people down the river. And the fact that Hillary Clinton’s predecessor, Condoleezza Rice, saw no problem in moving the Palestinians halfway across the world to settle in South America exposes the real contempt U.S. administrations have for the Arab people, not to mention those living in Latin America. And why? For Israel, a festering pustule not the size of a South African game park, squatting in the Middle East. The creation of this nuclear-powered Frankenstein and the determination to force it on Arabs will turn out to be America and Britain’s biggest mistake ever. But it’s not just the U.S. to blame. Britain under Tony Blair was a prime mover in overseeing the brutalization of the Arab world. The UK’s intelligence service, MI6, drew up plans to help the Palestinian Authority crush the Islamic political movement Hamas and resistance groups in the West Bank. Documents -- part of nearly 1700 transcripts and emails leaked to the Al Jazeera network documenting more than a decade of Israeli-Palestinian talks -- shed light on a little-known role played by British security services in shoring up the corrupt PA’s security apparatus. It was all done on Blair’s watch. The West has bribed, bullied, and cajoled Arab leaders into accepting the vile Zionist regime, to the detriment of their own people, and this is now coming back to haunt them. The movement of the masses isn’t just about oppression under tyrants, it is also about the creation and maintenance of Israel and the unconditional support it is given by the West and the West’s puppet leaders in the region. Well, the sleeping giant has finally woken up, and when the people start to lead, their leaders will and are becoming irrelevant. Israel’s biggest ally Mubarak must now be planning an exit strategy, wondering where he can flee to -- or even if he can rely any more on his Western puppet masters. They all turned their back on Ben Ali, didn’t they? In Lebanon, America’s friends are folding as a prime minister is appointed who will support Israel’s archenemy Hezbollah, and from the West Bank to Gaza, Hamas is seen as the peoples’ choice. The Muslim Brotherhood is being re-energized in Egypt, where it has been robbed of election victories over the years. They would be the ruling party if free and fair elections had ever been allowed. And in the coalition unity government of Tunisia, alliances may well be made with returning and previously banned Islamic political parties. It’s only a matter of time before the rest of the tyrants come tumbling down like a pack of cards. The game is up. It is over. The Arab world is going to start to choose its own leaders. We in the West might not like the choices of the people, but we should respect their wishes. Western leaders have a great deal to think about in the coming weeks as the Arab people decide how to shape their future in the Arab world. But the first thing to do is send Air Force One around the region to collect all the dictators, tyrants, and despots on the U.S. payroll and take them back to Washington. Like pet poo in New York’s Central Park, you have to take responsibility for the mess your dogs make. British journalist Yvonne Ridley is also the European President of the International Muslim Women's Union

Can I deduce from the above that the answer to my Question: "Can we then safely say that a society that displays all four manifestation of Jahiliyyah is a indeed a Jahili Society? To Be: NO, we can not. Even if all four above qualifiers appear in a Modern Muslim society ( That is all Muslim Societies since the Prophethood of Muhammad SAWS). Reason being that the scholars have reached that conclusion because applying this term to modern Muslim societies would imply that we have all lost touch with Islam altogther, which is an impossibility, therefore it follows that today's Muslim societies can never be referred to as Jaahili Society no matter what Jahiliyyah attribute they display, because Jaahiliyyah was only a period in time that have passed long ago and will never appear back again in modern Muslim societies. Recapping the above summary of my understanding of your answer: "If Muslim Societies become oblivious to the true meaning of Islam as it was meant by Allah and His Messenger, they can not be referred to as Jaahiliyyah Society, because Jahiliyyah would imply that they are oblivious to Islam " ( a circular logic). Let me know if this is your answer before I respond. Nur

A Small Step By A Woman! And A Giant Leap For The West! A Jewish Scholar Resets Western Vision On Quran. http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html Nur 2011 eNuri Opticians Correcting The Western Blind Spot

Nomads. The Holy Quraan has gems of knowledge that many readers do not pay attention to. When you read the Holy Quraan with a sincere soul ( Qalbun Saleem), you can get inspired in a special way. Today I would like to share a Quraanic Terminology and its shocking meaning. Jaahiliyyah! What is Jaahiliyyah. Jaahiliyyah is like the night, its dark, its evil and the opposite to Islam in every sense which is the daylight. Omar Ibnul Khattab RAA said: He who can not identify Jaahiliyyah, Does Not Know Islam! What a contrast! According to Lisaan al Carab, the word has root in Al Jayhala, which is a a stick that was used to move firewood around in a fire place. From that root, the Arabs began using the word for moving the fire, and then it progressed to be used as an adjective describing an angry person like a fire reacting to the stick that moves it by violent flares, and at the end it became synonymous to a person speaking without a knowledge of the subject matter. From that origin, when Islam was born and the word of Tawhid, the Arabs reacted violently against this new religion, and their reaction earned them the name Jahiliyyah. Now, let us examine Four Manifestations of the Jahiliyyah System: 1. Their Belief System: Dhannal Jaahiliyyah Allah SWT says in Surah Al Imran Verse 154: ".......and they thought wrongly of Allah - the thought of Jahiliyyah..." Meaning, they have the wrong idea about Allah, hence their actions. 2. Their Judicial System: Xukmal Jaahiliyyah Allah SWT says in Surah ِ ِAl Maedah Verse 50: Do they then seek the judgment of Jahiliyyah? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who have firm Faith. Because they yearn for the Jahiliyyah legal system, it follows that they build their allegiance in line with those opposing Allah's law, which is the third quality of those described in Holy Quraan as the people ofJahiliyyah 3. Their Loyalty System: Xamiyatul Jahiliyyah For the Clan Allah SWT sys in Surah Al Fatx Verse 26: "When those who disbelieve had put in their hearts pride and haughtiness the pride and haughtiness of the Jahiliyyah, then Allah sent down His Sakinah (calmness and tranquillity) upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and made them stick to the word of piety, and they were well entitled to it and worthy of it. And Allah is the All-Knower of everything Xamiyyatul Jahiliyyah means loyalty to the Clan and Nationalism and acting in a fiery way and violently in their preservation. From this definition, all of the human misery that took place in Somalia in the past can be traced back to this form of Jahiliyyah 4. Their Social Norms: Tabarrujul Jaahiliyyah aka Fashion Show Allah SWT advices Muslim women in Surah Al Axzab, verse : .......and do not show yourselves off like the show off of the Jahiliyyah This type of Social Jahiliyyah is the basis of the social decadence in Muslim societies. Now, let us apply this lesson on Somalia, Somaliland, Puntland, Jubbaland, Shababland, Ahlusunnaland or e-Nuricyberland. If The Belief System is Not Based on Tawheed and has the wrong idea about Allah SWT If The Legal System is not Allah's Law If Loyalty is Xamiyatul Jahiliyyah, for the Clan If Social norms are permissive and not observing Allah's Law If in a court of law, four proofs are presented against a suspect, a jury is likely to send the suspect to jail If a Medical Doctor confirms four signs of a ailment, the Doctor prescribes the right medicine to save the patient Can we then safely say that a society that displays all four manifestation of Jahiliyyah is a indeed a Jahili Society? If you disagree, please enlighten us. Nur 2011 eNuri Aqeeda Vigils Standing Up For Allah Alone!

Nomads. The Holy Quraan has gems of knowledge that many readers do not pay attention to. When you read the Holy Quraan with a sincere soul ( Qalbun Saleem), you can get inspired in a special way. Today I would like to share a Quraanic Terminology and its shocking meaning. Jaahiliyyah! What is Jaahiliyyah. Jaahiliyyah is like the night, its dark, its evil and the opposite to Islam in every sense which is the daylight. Omar Ibnul Khattab RAA said: He who can not identify Jaahiliyyah, Does Not Know Islam! What a contrast! According to Lisaan al Carab, the word has root in Al Jayhala, which is a a stick that was used to mover around the fire in a fire place. From that root, the Arabs began using the word for moving the fire, and then it progressed to be used as an adjective describing an angry person like a fire reacting to the stick that moves it by violent flares, and at the end it became synonymous to a person speaking without a knowledge of the subject matter. From that origin, when Islam was born and the word of Tawhid, the Arabs reacted violently against this new religion, and their reaction earned them the name Jahiliyyah. Now, let us examine Four Manifestations of the Jahiliyyah System: 1. Their Belief System: Dhannal Jaahiliyyah Allah SWT says in Surah Al Imran Verse 154: ".......and they thought wrongly of Allah - the thought of Jahiliyyah..." Meaning, they have the wrong idea about Allah, hence their actions. 2. Their Judicial System: Xukmal Jaahiliyyah Allah SWT says in Surah ِ ِAl Maedah Verse 50: Do they then seek the judgment of Jahiliyyah? And who is better in judgment than Allah for a people who have firm Faith. Because they yearn for the Jahiliyyah legal system, it follows that they build their allegiance in line with those opposing Allah's law, which is the third quality of those described in Holy Quraan as the people ofJahiliyyah 3. Their Loyalty System: Xamiyatul Jahiliyyah For the Clan Allah SWT sys in Surah Al Fatx Verse 26: "When those who disbelieve had put in their hearts pride and haughtiness the pride and haughtiness of the Jahiliyyah, then Allah sent down His Sakinah (calmness and tranquillity) upon His Messenger and upon the believers, and made them stick to the word of piety, and they were well entitled to it and worthy of it. And Allah is the All-Knower of everything Xamiyyatul Jahiliyyah means loyalty to the Clan and Nationalism and acting in a fiery way and violently in their preservation. From this definition, all of the human misery that took place in Somalia in the past can be traced back to this form of Jahiliyyah 4. Their Social Norms: Tabarrujul Jaahiliyyah aka Fashion Show Allah SWT advices Muslim women in Surah Al Axzab, verse : .......and do not show yourselves off like the show off of the Jahiliyyah This type of Social Jahiliyyah is the basis of the social decadence in Muslim societies. Now, let us apply this lesson on Somalia, Somaliland, Puntland, Jubbaland, Shababland, Ahlusunnaland or e-Nuricyberland. If The Belief System is Not Based on Tawheed and has the wrong idea about Allah SWT If The Legal System is not Allah's Law If Loyalty is Xamiyatul Jahiliyyah, for the Clan If Social norms are permissive and not observing Allah's Law If in a court of law, four proofs are presented against a suspect, a jury is likely to send the suspect to jail If a Medical Doctor confirms four signs of a ailment, the Doctor prescribes the right medicine to save the patient Can we then safely say that a society that displays all four manifestation of Jahiliyyah is a indeed a Jahili Society? If you disagree, please enlighten us. Nur 2011 eNuri Aqeeda Vigils Standing Up For Allah Alone!

Warrior of Light;689651 wrote: By Wael Abdelgawad .....when we get to the end of the road we will regret only that we suppressed our hearts, and shoved them down into silence, and failed to live up to our potential as believers and as unique individuals, with our own God-given gifts. So true! WOL. This statement sums it all up. We do regret dreams that we did not purse for fear of failure. You wanna laugh? here is a partial list of my top 3 dreams. 1. Rural Development, complete with low cost housing, clean alternative energy, water supply and treatment, rural education, vocational training in horticulture and agriculture, and setting up my eNuri Entrepreneurial Training Academy in Baidoa! 2. Imam of local Masjid 3. Quran Linguistic Research. The sooner I pursue, the happier, inshaaAllah! Nur

Akhi Xiin Assalamu Caleyukum Wa Raxmatullahi Wa Barakaatuh You ask: " on what basis did alshabaab found an entire segment of Somalia’s political community(including the late ministers of Shamow and Beledweyne terror acts) murtaddiin, that is apostates whom the spill of their blood is permissible?" Bismillah wa bihi nastaciin: The Issue of Kufr and Islam is the major driver of turmoil and upheavals in most Muslim countries. Coming back to my old Train analogy, if we Somalis are on a train and the public, specially the young ones who have not been corrupted by the material glamor, feel that this train we are riding as a nation is headed to the wrong destination. The old Train drivers, have failed big for the last twenty years and they are keeping the passengers in captivity of their never ending lies and promising them a better future. Most older passengers, at least those who have been trained in the old school, have somewhat adjusted to the situation and feel a good country scenery peeking out of the train windows of the train to be good enough, since the final destination is anyone's guess. Many youthful passengers have also joined the passive old guard, however, a very small minority of the youth have taken matters into their hands. They dared to say that the King has no clothes, that the train is destined to the wrong destination and further that the drivers are not qualified to lead the nation, they lack the certificate of total allegiance to the MASTER and are taking signaling from the enemy. As I have written many times before, Islam and kufr are abstracts that can only be detected through action. A serious look at the action of many "Muslims" begs answers, and when a "Muslim" becomes an ally of the invading Ethiopians to appease the people, I am sure that they have a case, at least it calls for an examination, if their claim is supported by the Quraan and Sunnah or not. InshAllah, that is what would be worth our while. If an scholarly treatment of this issue interests you, I would be more than glad to examine their claims in light of Quran and sunnah, hoping that we both abide with the findings. I hope that we do not start with an idea and the look for verses that support our ideas, but to divorce ourselves from our passing needs and look deeply into the validity of the verses and their dalaalah in our case. Baarakallahu feek Nur

Seymour Hersh Unleashed By Blake Hounshell January 18, 2011 "FP" -- In a speech billed as a discussion of the Bush and Obama eras, New Yorker journalist Seymour Hersh delivered a rambling, conspiracy-laden diatribe here Monday expressing his disappointment with President Barack Obama and his dissatisfaction with the direction of U.S. foreign policy. "Just when we needed an angry black man," he began, his arm perched jauntily on the podium, "we didn't get one." It quickly went downhill from there. Hersh, whose exposés of gross abuses by members of the U.S. military in Vietnam and Iraq have earned him worldwide fame and high journalistic honors, said he was writing a book on what he called the "Cheney-Bush years" and saw little difference between that period and the Obama administration. He said that he was keeping a "checklist" of aggressive U.S. policies that remained in place, including torture and "rendition" of terrorist suspects to allied countries, which he alleged was ongoing. He also charged that U.S. foreign policy had been hijacked by a cabal of neoconservative "crusaders" in the former vice president's office and now in the special operations community. "What I'm really talking about is how eight or nine neoconservative, radicals if you will, overthrew the American government. Took it over," he said of his forthcoming book. "It's not only that the neocons took it over but how easily they did it -- how Congress disappeared, how the press became part of it, how the public acquiesced." Hersh then brought up the widespread looting that took place in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam Hussein in 2003. "In the Cheney shop, the attitude was, ‘What's this? What are they all worried about, the politicians and the press, they're all worried about some looting? ... Don't they get it? We're gonna change mosques into cathedrals. And when we get all the oil, nobody's gonna give a damn.'" "That's the attitude," he continued. "We're gonna change mosques into cathedrals. That's an attitude that pervades, I'm here to say, a large percentage of the Joint Special Operations Command." He then alleged that Gen. Stanley McChrystal, who headed JSOC before briefly becoming the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, and his successor, Vice Adm. William McRaven, as well as many within JSOC, "are all members of, or at least supporters of, Knights of Malta." Hersh may have been referring to the Sovereign Order of Malta, a Roman Catholic organization commited to "defence of the Faith and assistance to the poor and the suffering," according to its website. "Many of them are members of Opus Dei," Hersh continued. "They do see what they're doing -- and this is not an atypical attitude among some military -- it's a crusade, literally. They seem themselves as the protectors of the Christians. They're protecting them from the Muslims [as in] the 13th century. And this is their function." "They have little insignias, these coins they pass among each other, which are crusader coins," he continued. "They have insignia that reflect the whole notion that this is a culture war. … Right now, there’s a tremendous, tremendous amount of anti-Muslim feeling in the military community.”" Hersh relayed that he had recently spoken with "a man in the intelligence community... somebody in the joint special operations business" about the downfall of Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia. "He said, ‘Oh my God, he was such a good ally.'" "Tunisia's going to change the game," Hersh added later. "It's going to scare the hell out of a lot of people." Moving to Pakistan, where Hersh noted he had been friendly with Benazir Bhutto, the journalist told of a dinner meeting with Asif Ali Zardari, the late prime minister’s husband, in which Hersh said the Pakistani president was brutally disdainful of his own people. Hersh described a trip he made to Swat, where the Pakistani military had just dislodged Taliban insurgents who had taken over the scenic valley, a traditional vacation area for the urban middle class. Hersh said he asked Zardari about the tent cities he saw along the road, where people were living in harsh, unsanitary conditions. “Well, those people there in Swat, that’s what they deserve,” the Pakistani president replied, according to Hersh. Asked why, Hersh said Zardari responded, “Because they supported the Taliban.” (Note: Hersh's conversation is not recounted in his 2009 New Yorker article on Pakistan's nuclear weapons, presumably because it coudn't be verified.) The veteran journalist also alleged that the CIA station chief in Islamabad, who was recently recalled after his name surfaced in Pakistani court documents and in the lively Pakistani press, had actually been fired for disputing the plans of Gen. David Petraeus, who took over the Afghan war last summer after General McChrystal was summarily dismissed. "When Petraeus issued a very optimistic report about the war in December that he gave to the president," Hersh said, the station chief "just declared it was bankrupt... internally. He just said ‘This is completely wrongheaded. The policy's wrongheaded.' Off he goes. Out he goes." "I've given up being disillusioned about the CIA," Hersh said. "They're trained to lie, period. They will lie to their president, they will lie certainly to the Congress, and they will lie to the American people. That's all there is to it." Hersh was speaking on the invitation of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, which operates a branch campus in Qatar.

Yaa Tahay Waxaa ku soo arooray Xadiithka Rasullkua SAWS inuu yidhi hadal macnihiisu yahay in Shirkigu aragtidiisu ay adag tahay sidii wax dul socda dhagax madow habeen gudcur ah, sidaa darteed, hadduu lumo macnaha ereyga DIINTA, loo yaqaan, oo uu ka baddalmo macnihii loo oqoon jirey waaguu Quraanka soo degay, waxaa dheceysa in DIINTA laga baxo oo Shirki la galo ayadoo la isu heysto in Islaam lagu jiro. Allahna Quraan waa nooga digay in aan aamin ka noqonno inaan shirki ku dhacno. Nur

Lazie Ghaalya! "Nuurini"! Thanks for the endearment Yaa Ghaaliyah! Now let me summarize your concerns as I understand: 1. My Position on Afghan War 2. My irritable recycling of articles on Afghan war from the Blogsphere. 3. Glen's Lifestyle 4. Why I post articles without any comment ( synopsis). 5. The Existence of the Al Qaeada Franchise in West Africa. Yaa Ghaalya, 1. Like you and many other people worldwide, I consider Western invasion of Afghanistan as an unjust and inhumane war . 2. I use this page as a living archive for all articles written on the Afghan war so that those who have missed it can always find a historical account of how the Afghan war progressed from a big lie to a bigger lie. When a civilizations survival depends on a lie and crimes against humanity, it has just passed the torch to another civilization that is more just and kind. 3. About Glen, if he is indeed Qawmu Lut, to say that you have no problem with his lifestyle is THE PROBLEM, if Allah has a problem with his lifestyle, you should too, political correctness has limits. 4. I prefer posting articles that interest me and that are controversial to seed a healthy debate but without my comments so that I don't influence readers thoughts before reading the post to solicit their real points of view. 5. Yaa Ghaalya, I have followed the 911/Qaeda Drama since 2001, I have never believed this fraud, unless of course I surrender my intelligence. The Maghreb faction of this CIA created FRANKENSTEIN organization, is everybody's guess, I have never been to Maghreb nor Mauritania, but like you I have seen the desert drama in Al Jazeera, I think it puts a lotta people to hypnosis, I suggest you wake up and smell Shaahi with Zanjabil and Qorfo, and like you have brilliantly frased, "nothing America does should surprise me", some of America's politicians have lied to lead their nation to a "war of choice" that is costing the nation trillions of Dollars and thousands of lives, I used to wonder who will deserve hell if its as horrible as I read, thanks, these politicians have helped me reconcile this difficult question. Justice must be served some time, somewhere! No one should escape JUSTICE! Nur

^ Aw Nuurow where is the head-on collision with Tawxiid in that argument? Akhi, I was trying to let Nomads answer the questions I posed on the apparent contradiction between Tawhiid and Nationalism-Clannism. Ngonge has attempted from a high level perspective ( not delving deep enough) but failed to satisfy my last two questions, therefore I may be obliged to answer my own questions if no Nomad participates with their own views on the thread starter questions (this includes you yaa Ayoub. Maaha!) Nur

The main question this thread raised was: 1. How should people be grouped? Ethnically or by religious affiliation? 2. Should we be loyal to nation-states based and founded along western colonial borders? and if so, pre- Berlin or after Berlin? In the above example, neither does the Somaliland map serve the ethnicity of its inhabitants nor the religious grouping, it thus creates ethno-religious conflicts, as a result making these people poorer and at the mercy of scavenger colonialists. Nur

Countdown to An Economic Meltdown? Nur

Ayoub Bro Before the 1884 Berlin European Colonial Borders Conference for Africa, all of what is now Central and Northeast Somalia, Somaliland, Western Somalia, Djibouti were all part of SOMALILAND (Mogadishu Brava and Kismayu were part of Zanzibar). Siilanyo has to claim all of 1872 borders of Somaliland, not the Berlin borders only. Here is the map Greater Somaliland Circa 1872 Nur

Ngonge says: " There is a problem in Somalia. It has become a problem of faith where one group is accusing another of Kufur. We are asking, on what grounds are you accusing these others of Kufur?" "On all the threads that LX started and you supported him on, not once did either of you come out straight and say Sh. Sharif (or the TFG) is a Kafir because of A, B and C. This thread is general in nature, Islam is a set of beliefs and actions/non-actions, being a Muslim begins with total surrender to Allah SWT ( no selective pick and choose) and a recognition of His Sovereignty and Denial of any Competitor with Allah in His Domain which encompasses all of Time and Space everywhere. Let not Somalia tiny problems blind you from our assured destination, which can present HUGE problems forever. Cosmologists tell us that there are some 100 -200 Billion Galaxies scattered in space as debris after the big Explosion known as the Big Bang, they are hurling apart at speeds that boggle the mind, our own galaxy being one of them, is 100 thousand light years in Diameter. Our Sun being the a tiny star of 200 to 400 billion other stars lies between W3OH star breeding region and Sagittarius, is hurling with all the stars toward the center of the Galaxy black hole, where this planet of ours and your Somalia are finally expected to come to rest in peace. Its true that there are ONLY two groups on earth, as Allah SWT says in Quraan "Its He who created you, and thus there are among you (those who surrender to Allah) Muslims, and among you are Kaafir, (those who rejected to surrender to Allah)" but, you have to be careful in defining the two groups, like the cosmology analogy above, all of us, believers and non believers are destined to a point of no return. One group, believes that we are heading for Dar ul Qaraar, ( Home of Permanence, the other group, does not believe in that concept). In Somalia, when confused on who is who, just see where everyone stands on issues and with who they have an alliance, that should make it easy for readers and this is what should be discussed. Calling a specific person to be Kaafir, is at best immature, its also subjective, its more productive being objective, when an argument is presented for or against a person or a government the right way is to let the reader make up her/his mind by giving her/him the tools for decision making, it also respects their intellect. The current government of Somalia presents a very complex plethora of characters. The Shariah Judgment in their case will largely depend on clarifying their stand on many issues as well as their beliefs which are hidden, it will look at exceptions, such as if they are mentally challenged (a legitimate defense), ( qualified Ignorance), (free Choice) etc which are all in the Fiqh. It therefore follows that after such an intellectual journey is exhausted, that a committee of sincere, learned , free scholars who have a firm grip on current issues, politics and the Fiqh, issue a fatwaa in their case. But like I always say, if all the news that we read is true, I thank Allah that I am not in their shoes, nor encourage anyone to join them. Nur

El Punto Every story has two sides. Let us see the other side of the story, as seen by eNuri: Cutting Costs Nur

When discussing a problem, and if one has the good cause in heart, its wiser that one does not alienate those he hopes to convince and win over by using misnomer names that are uncalled for. Objectivity (discussing issues) is to discuss the problems that arise from applying aqeeda on real situations and people, subjectivity (discussing people) is always a sure-fire to cause a break down in discussions, and its always a resort for those who fail to be objective by sticking to the issues. Its subjective to call a fellow Muslim (" He is Takfeeri", "Jihadi" etc). While its objective to question the validity of such an accusation, its impact and contribution to a common goal we all have to attain ( Like Peace). When a debater personalizes a problem under discussion , it follows that he will be part of the problem itself instead of being a part of the solution. Objectivity means discussing the drivers of each groups actions, and hence evaluating it against a neutral principle all parties agree on (Like Islam, Quraan, Sunnah, Tawheed and Fiqh). based on the Quraanic teaching to revert to Allah (Quraan) and the Messenger ( Sunnah) when there is a disagreement. For the sake of peace, I hope that we all control our emotions, and instead use our heads more, so that we might all begin to see each others concerns and if valid, closing the gaps that divide us. I understand that this is easier said than done, but a reminder is always beneficial as Allah SWT said, "Remind (them of the right course), reminders indeed add value to believers" Nur