^^The aim, if deployment ever materializes, is to complicate things for the Islamic Courts and halt the progress they made. What else would you do if your policy were to keep Somali anarchy continue as it has been?

It’s all about expectations yaa Nur. Given the fact that Islamic Courts are in their early stages, I would die happy if they achieve two things in our time: 1- Establish effective administration in Mogadishu and its environs. By effective administration I mean the restoration and the return of organs of governance. If the Courts authority and political influence ring supreme in Mogadishu they will undoubtedly have a lasting influence in Somalia and their legacy will outlive our generation. Mogadishu, though raped, is still the symbol of Somali nation. If they make it stable and thriving they would’ve indeed proved themselves, as Castro calls it, worthy governors who deserve to be trusted with our leadership. That [edit]assumes Courts have strong central control and policy objectives toward which they strive to achieve. 2- Show an attitude of national leadership and break from make-shift-courts they have been. Take initiative and come up a new strategy (and peaceful one at that) to revive the Somali state. Somehow articulate a political vision that appeals (not threatens) Somali masses beyond Mogadishu and work toward establishing relationships with stable regions. Somalia is ripe for change but to leverage that political maturity requires, I am afraid, more than stirring sermons or slogans full of Islamic appeals. As Nur pointed out Court’s success seems to be accidental and pure fortuitous! Some in the Court’s leadership, I sense, seem to be more ready than others to assume the responsibilities this victory brings. There is a vacuum of leadership in Somalia and they need to fill. Open a national dialogue and reconciliation to heal the wounds of civil war. A step that, mind you, no one has thus far done. Lets hope this one succeeds. P.S: NGONGE, sorry about the hijack of your puzzle thread .

LOL@Pi. You know, I felt obliged to share following verses---a timeless guide of how to handle likes of Hornafriik and what happens if I honor, with response that is, his distraction, dare I say interruption. يخاطبني السÙيه بكل قبح ÙØ£ كره أن أكون له مجيبا يزيد سÙاهة Ùأزيد حلما كعود زاده الإحراق طيبا SOS, adeer we are flogging a dead horse, I am afraid, if we don’t admit we have tactical differences on this issue. You seem to hold that public disagreements with Courts would amount betrayal of sort (not quite betrayal, but certainly inappropriate) whilst I insist voicing concerns and raising issues with their public policies are needed at this initial stage of this movement. I concede that SOL is not the best medium to share those disagreements with the Courts, but again it was not meant to be. Constructive criticism is a must for the Courts. If you were old enough may be you remember what happened when we all song official lines of early Islamic movements. It collapsed before our eyes. This one is no different. Emotions aside, it hasn’t even met first few benchmarks---namely establishing administration for Mogadishu and institutionalizing their militia. I see huge challenges in both fronts---you seem to think they could win hands down. I don’t. Midda kale, you never know that good Shiekh Shariif reads these pages looking constructive clues from the Diaspora! Seriously, there was a teleconference sat up with him in where I live and he performed brilliantly as he always does. Hot-button issues come up, and he seemed to be aware of it. So lets be realistic and discuss things without being timorous about it.

Originally posted by S.O.S: Dear brother Xiinfaniin , criticism must wait I insist! The only reason I put forward the strategic route argument was to show that there could be justified reasoning in the court's choices to prioritise their options in a manner, seemingly unwise to some of our commonly held viewpoints. It doesn't mean that (given what I know so far) I agree with them totally on this, but I understand that UIC's proclaimed noble causes is only human in its implementation, and what they deserve from men of understanding like you is advise and whatever tactical aid you're able to provide, and not (yet) public disproval of their (arguably) minor misjudgements, assuming you're correct on this one. I agree with your above attitude! But to say criticize must wait implies weakness to the causal reader! Pray, I agree. But to be silent about Court’s obvious mishaps defeats the purpose of our declared support. We have seen before what happened to religious movements in Somalia and how they miscalculated and ultimately failed. This one, I pray and hope, must succeed. To succeed it must be different in its thinking and approach.

SOS-ow, criticize we must I say! For if we don’t our silence, as it were, defaults to an agreement! What’s needed is not sporadic raids in remote villages rather what we all want from the courts is to show capacity to think ahead and translate their Mogadishu victory in to a lasting peace and exact a sustainable and effective administration in that city first. I believe that it self to be a challenging task given the history of Mogadishu. That didn’t happen. And they seem to be preoccupied with Ethiopia and its military propaganda. Ethiopia, my good brother, is a weak enemy. It’s maintaining its influence in Somalia through proxy entities, and not through an army of men. As external enemies always do, Ethiopia thrives in our chaos and instability. Court’s strategy should be to consolidate power in Mogadishu by establishing law and order and erecting institutions. That should be their priority---and not securing routes for future battles. Because in the final analysis, the real challenge in reviving Somali state will come from within, not from without. And if the courts are perceived as a mere army and not an institution, then that’s not reflecting the real intent of the Court’s leadership. Midda kale, it really reeks incompetence at best, and clannish at worst, to have the cities of Afgooye, Marka, Baraawe, and Kismayo, all held by friendly warlords so to speak, and do nothing about it. I justified it, before their latest quest, because Mogadishu, I thought, was enough of a responsibility for them to wrestle with. Since you admitted that you talk war, let me pose a question for you then: in their effort of securing strategic routes, hundred of miles away from their base, if the Courts men clash with Puntland, say in Galkacyo or Bandiiradley, and real military hostilities erupt do you still hold that to be a worthy fight in this stage of Court’s movement? What signal would it send to the large Somali masses? Would that scenario enhance or impede Court’s cause? It goes without saying that the notion that the Courts would just respond wherever, and whenever they got called is absurd and beyond simplistic. Either you are an institution with central command whose actions, political or otherwise, achieve goals or you are not. With responsibility comes accountability. Hence mistakes of the past need neither repeated nor easily explained away.

Wale Xiinow nabad kuma fadidid cariga massachutes ^^LOL. I thought you were being tutored as you conversed with Baashi using your own mother tongue…but your knowledge about Somali turned out to be more superior than originally thought. Hadda laga bilaabo waa in layska kaa jiraa. Here are Sayid's original verses. His, unlike yours , represented a clear and credible threat! Eeboo ku caynsha iyo anoo ku cafa mooyaane Wallee caafimaad uma fadhidid caliyow Buuhoodle ................ Mar unbaan cirshiga kaaga iman sida daruur caade'e War Baashow, JB waa libaax alamtara soo dhaaf . Not only will i need to dismantle his secular argument but i will have to aslo find a reliable shelter from gabayadiisa .

lol@dumucda. JB-yow bal^^ taa noo jilci...

G Duke hambalyo iyo tahniyad adeer. Allaha kuu barakeeyo hanuun aakhirana siiyo. Aamiin.

^^Hooyo waa hooyo, dead or alive, she will always accupy that especial place in her child's heart. Thanks for the reminder. P.S: lol@ at first part of your signature . Waxay dhoosad ?

^^Ayoubow, do you first understand what ‘time to part’ means (who’s parting from whom )? And please announce to the public what ‘my new stance’ is! It’s easier for you to comment about what’s not said rather than sharing you two cents about the issues I raised, I suppose! Adeer ma anaa mooday mise sibaad u gaabisay? Or you are just being difficult...fill me in yaa Ayoub!

^^And our archenemy, good SOS, will never be defeated as long some of us feel unjustly occupied---an obvious source of division. It’s not an impossible task for the Court’s to seek unity by serving justice wherever they can. Marka supposedly falls under their direct authority. If time is not ripe for that change to come now (there are many reason for that to be the case) flexing thier military muscle at this time is meaningless, I say. I understand the wisdom of being in a defense posture given TFG’s stance and its subordinate relationship with Ethiopia but as a man of understanding I could not understand what is to gain from Court’s latest quest! To be fair your argument has some meat on it but the truth remains that Islamic Court’s are loosing some momentum to affect lasting changes in Mogadishu and in the immediate regions of the south. Obviously some good has been done and progress has been made. But I fail to see any military value for them to be in those remote areas; it’s a friendly region after all (except some of southern Mudug). And if their efforts were to secure those routes from Ethiopia I dare say it’s a misplaced one. Ethiopia, my good brother, would most likely make its stand in the south. Gedo and Bay would be their entrance point. As you know it have the means and the platform to exact their influence in Somalia. In both Puntland and Somaliland they have more friends than enemies and I suspect both would be willing to serve Ethiopia’s interests for their own survival. Now the question becomes this: do the gains of marching in to Central and Mudug regions outweigh its benefit and create a perception of a Movement that is unwilling or unable to address the political impasses of the south yet happily marching distant lands and, in the Gaalkacyo’s case, recklessly seeking confrontation? In my opinion not only does it outweigh its short-term political gains but it also goes against Court’s declared objectives: bringing stability and peace to Somalia. I hope you notice that my difference with the Mogadishu’s Courts is on tactical level and it’s not one of a principle. As you’ve correctly noted the question of injustices in the south is a great concern to many of us. I have always maintained that as long Courts are busy cleaning Mogadishu and continuing their effort to impose law and order in it, they need be given the benefit of doubt. But it gets harder to defend their latest adventure when Marka next door and its population are pleading help and the Court’s men are waving victory flags five-hundred-miles away! It’s true that most of those Court militias were already there but some have been deployed from Mogadishu and traveled all the way to Bandiiradley! This begs the question. Do they really recognize political challenges before them? If indeed Mogadishu Islamic Courts think that issues of looted towns and farms are no priority for them, then it’s unfortunate for such a movement to miss one of the most fundamental ingredients of southern instability. And that’s where my disappointment lies. Needles to say that, in the end, we support principles and not men per se. As for Puntland’s response I think they need to realize that the Courts have a moral responsibility to serve neglected communities in Central and Mudug regions just as they should for the people in Shabeelooyinka and Jubbooyinka. My fear is for that region to be put in an unnecessary war footing and for Ethiopia to be involved and take advantage of it as it always does! That would be a disastrous outcome in my opinion. I am suggesting that Puntland should talk to the Courts instead of fighting them. For fighting the Courts is avoidable and unnecessary as they do not pose any threat. People need to resist recent and formidable cries of war for there is no such conflict to be had! I have already conceded Court’s latest adventure as being injudicious. I just do not like the whole episode! It’s distracting from the real and pressing issues!

^^Couldn't agree more with you on that. Read on this: Israel, Defeated Round one: Lebanon, 1 – Israel, 0!

It’s time to part! News reports from Somalia’s central region indicate that Mogadishu’s Islamic Courts have made substantial progress in the Mudug valley. Both Bandiiradley and Harerdheere have fallen into the Court’s hand, and if some news reports are to be believed, historic Hobyo is already in their column. Remarkably enough, leaders of Puntland, who few weeks ago were commenting from the comfort of their seat and hastily describing this movement as a theatrical play, are now forced to admit Court’s real existence in the region. Even Cadde Muse revealed that his administration has been in contact with the Court’s leadership! Notwithstanding reactionary threats from Puntland’s military establishment, most Punlanders now realize that Mogadishu Courts are real and looming large from the south of their region. Some are even beginning to swallow their pride and conceive the possibility of Baraxley falling in the Court’s sphere of influence if not under their direct authority! What to do now? Allow the natural separation of Mudug region and claim only that which’s yours! It’s time to part, I say! Before I make that plain argument let me make one thing clear though: Court’s latest military adventurism is foolish and, quite honestly, lacking strategy. It may excite some laypeople in some circles but it sure shows where their priority lies when it comes the challenges before them! With Mogadishu barely manageable, Indhacadde sitting on his Shabeele loot and still in their ranks, and, above all, facing Ethiopia in their doorsteps, one would not expect from Courts to send rolling army along grazing lanes of Central Mudug! There are larger issues that need addressing in the south and of which their effort is worth. But by making unnecessary headlines in barren and remote villages of Galgaduud, they are timidly neglecting moral responsibility of solving the problems of Shabeelooyinka and Jubbooyinka! That’s disappointing! Now back to my argument. It’s time for Puntlander’s to divorce from this superficial appearance that they control and rule Mudug! They are not! In fact, as far as Mudug is concern Puntland does not even control the city of Galkacyo in its totality! Why then pretend like they have a full authority of it when indeed they partially control it? Why raise an outcry in defense of a passing custom when it’s to their benefit if the status quo changes (i.e. southern Mudug develops a system of governance of its own and peacefully coexists with Puntland)? What Puntland needs today is to face the challenges put forth by the emergence of Mogadishu’s Islamic Courts and realize times are indeed changing! Although the timing of it does not sit well with me, I still appreciate the political values for the Courts to expand their rule and impose law and order where it’s absent. Those regions are entitled to have the benefit system of governance brings, I hold, just as Puntlanders and Somalilanders have been enjoying and harvesting its fruits for the most part of this decade! That political thinking should prevail for it’s critical for Puntland's survival. It’s not a charity to allow your equals to enjoy what you yourself enjoy and whose value you so dearly cling to. What rationale is there to deny and prevent the birth of peace in southern Mudug? True that Puntland’s sole political dominance will be threatened if Islamic courts are erected in Baraxley but that’s hardly an excuse. Politics without morality is wrong and, in the end, ineffective. Even if Puntland adamantly decides to defend southern Mudug either through proxy (Qaybdiid) or direct confrontation with the Court’s men the cost of sustaining such a war would be unbearable not to mention the outcome of it is less certain. Alternatively, Puntland could pioneer a new political territory and enter a mutual contract with Court’s leadership! Creative and adoptive political strategy is needed and a clean break from old man’s boastful, yet ineffective, military approach is a must. And if Puntland is to stay alive it must not be used by Ethiopia.

As we keep our views hidden and continue to swallow our anger lets watch how the tales of suffering and deep-felt anguish is written in blood. At least we are allowed to mourn silently as we witness how a child’s skull is crushed under debris and wreckage of death. Qana directed by Tears. Remember Qana and its children.

Salafi-Online; I hope your elaboration serves as a great clarifier and clears this fog of confusion about this term. Nuurow, if I read your posts right, your argument is very simple and effortlessly put: let us all wrap ourselves with our Islamic gown and shun from divisive labels and names! It’s good that way, I hear you say. That’s all dandy and good with me. I hardly take issues with such a constructive message of unity. Whether it’s tabliiq, ikhwaan, or our Islamic Courts I welcome them all. Get that point yaa Nur. What I don’t hear you say, or, worst yet, seem to be taking it lightly, however, is the weight of the salafi term. It’s very significant, my good brother, to judge each and every term by its merit. Despite this discussion’s audience’s tacit disapproval of continuing this tread, I would like you to either invalidate or affirm my understanding of your stance about labels and names (other than Muslim of course): do you deem them all divisive and unnecessary? Remember my good brother what I am taking issue with is your depiction of Salafism as a label that helps in dividing the Ummah in to sects. That’s very gross charge, mind you, against what I consider the attitude and approach of our Islamic forefathers, so to speak! I await your answer! Kheyr wrote: The Salafiyyah (that name romanticizes them) ignore all 1400 yrs of Islamic Scholariship and say that All the knowledge and ijtihadat where made in that area. So anything after that era, is innovation. However, that discredits the work of other ulema and their understanding of the deen, who didn't necessarily live in that era. Also, the Salafiyyah completely ignore Human pyschology and the ummah at large. With the Salafiyyah, its as if we still live in the Meccan period, wherein the ayats that were revealed were largely about Hell and the punishments of the idolaters. The persona of the rasul (salallahu caliyhe wasilm) is very much downplayed and the wisdom and the flexibility of the rasul (salallahu caliyhe wasilm) is not reflected in some of their leading figures . Assuming of course that you understand that unity mottos and catchphrases are no substitute of discussion, care to tell us, my good brother, where in the manhaj of salafu saalix our beloved prophet’s persona is downplayed? And while you’re at it, and as an act of charity, point to us who are those leading figures whose deeds do not reflect the wisdom and flexibility of Muhhamad? As I await sheikh Nur’s and brother Kheyr’s response let me say that I found this tread to be revealing and helpful to gauge how misleading propagandas and false literature about this term made tangible progress in creating negative perception about it! What’s next? Perhaps Jihadists---a reference to those who affirm this religious tool in resisting and defending their faith and values? If our pious leaders of yesteryears were fine with it, why would we hesitate to use this term (Salafism refers to the salafu saalix), I ask? As for brother Khery’s Q, I think you are asking the wrong question! If you meant to ask why the sahwah movements in Somalia tends to align itself with the strict interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah then the answer is ridiculously simple: fidrah. In other words by strictly following the Qur’an and Sunnah, sahwah in Somalia naturally satisfied deliverables of the awakening movement in the Islamic world; to go back to the original interpretation of the scripture, do away with the excesses of religious innovations, and reflect teachings and values of the Qur’an! Simple! Is it not yaa Kheyr? Given the fact that you wrote the passage I quoted above I am not surprised however that your understanding about Salafism and what it entails remain crude! The true answer of your question lies not in soliciting views of online nomads to perhaps solidify your initial, and clearly hostile, thoughts about Salafism! Rather I would advice you to do some basic research beyond Google tool to understand and absorb what this term means!

Nur wrote: Salafiya term, in its present usage was born within Saudi Arabia as an answer to other revivalist movement who have introduced innovations in aqeedah or ibaadaat, but like any other movement it has its positive and negative aspects with respect to its ability to take the ummah from its presnet demise to where it should be, it has rightfully awakened the Ummah about the importance of adherence to the two sources. The scope of this thread however, is the validity of naming the ummah other than Muslim. Anyone who coins a name for the Ummah other than Muslim is indeed helping in dividing the Ummah into splinters. Nur, it’s clear to me, from this passage^^ of yours, that you think the usage of this term to describe its adherents is ‘dividing the Ummah into splinters’. You also think that Salafiya is closely associated with Saudi Arabia. On both accounts you’ve failed to capture the essence of being a follower of the salafu saalix. You’ve missed, in a big way I must say, to point out that Salafism, contrary to the popular perception, is an attitude and approach to stay within the defined parameters of interpreting divine revelation and it transcends borders. To see good Nur not being able to articulate the true meaning of this term was disappointing enough. But what broke the proverbial camel’s back was your assertion that those who use this label help the division of this Ummah! I can understand good Muttakalim, who has fundamental ideological difference with the direction which the Islamic awakening movement went, slandering salafism and the men who propelled it to reach its contemporary success, such as Imaam Albaani. But yours, yaa sheikh Nur, was misplaced remark. How else could one characterize the centripetal force of this dawcah, in terms of its attitude and approach, as its dividing feature? Bal ka tali! Muttakalim, it’s quite disingenuous of you to describe the spread of salafism and its widening scope as a result of Saudi petro-dollar influence. Adeer remember that the watch repair man was the son of Albanian immigrant who lived, for the most part of his life, in socialist Syria and under its brutal dictatorial regime! His ascendance in the realm of science of hadith and his influence in the direction of Islamic Sahwah were due to his God-given talents, and not a creation of Saudi petro-dollars as you would like to have us believe! There are far more plausible reasons for this remarkable Islamic renewal than your attribution to a mere Saudi influence! Needles to say none of those reasons have anything to do with money and its perceived power . Will comeback with more, IA.

Originally posted by NGONGE: have those that regard the Shia as infidels always been an irrelevant minority? I think that has always been so. In that light, you would forgive me if I assert there is no puzzle to the current Muslim street sentiment. Given how Muslim interests are converging today I wouldn’t put too much emphasis on the seemingly fundamental difference between sunni-shia divide. And although I can see how it could be a source of wonder for many of us still there are clearly more elements of unity than there are of disunity.

To Israel with love Aug 3rd 2006 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition Why America gives Israel its unconditional support ANYBODY who doubts the size of the transatlantic divide over Israel should try discussing the Middle East conflagration in Britain and then doing the same in America. Everybody watches much the same grisly footage. But, by and large, people draw very different conclusions. The emphasis in Britain is overwhelmingly on the disproportionate scale of the response. Americans are much more inclined to give Israel the benefit of the doubt—and to blame Hizbullah. Some Jewish organisations are so confident of support for Israel that they even take out slots during news programmes, pleading for donations. Opinion polls confirm that Americans are solidly on Israel's side. A USA Today/Gallup poll conducted on July 28th-30th showed that eight in ten Americans believed that Israel's action was justified—though a majority were worried about the scale of the action. A plurality (44%) thought that America was doing “about the right amount†to deal with the conflict. An earlier USA Today poll found that 53% put “a great deal†of the blame for the current crisis on Hizbullah, 39% put the blame on Iran and only 15% blamed Israel. Similarly, Americans are far more likely than Europeans to side with Israel in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A Pew Global Attitudes survey taken between March and May found that 48% of Americans said that their sympathies lay with the Israelis; only 13% were sympathetic towards the Palestinians. By contrast, in Spain for example, 9% sympathised with the Israelis and 32% with the Palestinians. The political establishment is even more firmly behind Israel than the public is. Support for Israel stretches from San Francisco liberals like Nancy Pelosi to southern-fried conservatives like Bill Frist. The House and Senate have both passed bipartisan resolutions condemning Hizbullah and affirming Congress's support for Israel. The House version passed by 410 to 8 (of which three were from districts in Michigan with concentrations of Arab-Americans). The Senate resolution, sponsored by 62 senators—including the leaders of both parties—passed unopposed. Indeed, the parties are engaged in a competition to see who can be the most pro-Israeli. Twenty or so Democrats, including Ms Pelosi, the House leader, and Harry Reid, the Senate leader, demanded that Iraq's prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, retract his criticisms of Israel or have his invitation to address Congress cancelled. (Mr Maliki, strongly backed by the administration, was eventually allowed to go ahead.) Several leading Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, have addressed pro-Israeli rallies. The contrast with the simmering rage within the Labour Party over Tony Blair's support for George Bush could hardly be more marked. Pro-Israeli forces command the intellectual high ground as well as the corridors of power. Commentators such as Charles Krauthammer issue column after column ridiculing the notion of proportionality and stressing Hizbullah's responsibility for civilian casualties. Most middle-of-the-road commentators question the effectiveness, rather than the morality, of Israel's actions. Out-and-out critics of Israel are relegated to the sidelines. Why is America so much more pro-Israeli than Europe? The most obvious answer lies in the power of two very visible political forces: the Israeli lobby (AIPAC) and the religious right. AIPAC, which has an annual budget of almost $50m, a staff of 200, 100,000 grassroots members and a decades-long history of wielding influence, is arguably the most powerful lobby in Washington, mightier even than the National Rifle Association. “Thank God we have AIPAC, the greatest supporter and friend we have in the whole world,†says Ehud Olmert, Israel's prime minister. The lobby, which is the centrepiece of a co-ordinated body that includes pressure groups, think-tanks and fund-raising operations, produces voting statistics on congressmen that are carefully scrutinised by political donors. It also organises regular trips to Israel for congressmen and their staffs. (The Washington Post reports that Roy Blunt, the House majority whip, has been on four.) The Christian right is also solidly behind Israel. White evangelicals are significantly more pro-Israeli than Americans in general; more than half of them say they strongly sympathise with Israel. (A third of the Americans who claim sympathy with Israel say that this stems from their religious beliefs.) Two in five Americans believe that Israel was given to the Jewish people by God, and one in three say that the creation of the state of Israel was a step towards the Second Coming. Religious-right activists are trying to convert this latent sympathy into political support. John Hagee, a Texas televangelist who believes that supporting Israel is a “biblical imperativeâ€, recently founded Christians United for Israel. Last month he brought 3,500 people from across the country to Washington to cheer Israel's war against Hizbullah. Mr Hagee's brigades held numerous meetings on Capitol Hill; both Mr Bush and Mr Olmert sent messages to his rally. These pressure groups are clearly influential. Evangelical Christians make up about a quarter of the American electorate and are the bedrock of Mr Bush's support. Congressmen take on AIPAC at their peril. But they deal with well-heeled lobbies every day. And the power of the religious right can hardly explain why Democrats are so keen on Israel. Two other factors need to be considered: the war on Islamic radicalism, and deep cultural affinities between America and Israel. Seeing themselves in Israel Americans instinctively see events in the Middle East through the prism of September 11th 2001. They look at Hizbullah and Hamas with their Islamist slogans and masked faces and see the people who attacked America—and they look at Israeli citizens and see themselves. In America the “war on terror†is a fact of life, constantly reiterated. The sense that America is linked with Israel in a war against Islamist extremism is reinforced by Iranian statements about wiping Israel off the surface of the earth, and by the political advance of the Islamists of Hamas in Palestine. But the biggest reason why Americans are so pro-Israel may be cultural. Americans see Israel as a plucky democracy in a sea of autocracies—a democracy that has every right to use force to defend itself. Europeans, on the other hand, see Israel as a reminder of the atavistic forces—from nationalism to militarism—that it has spent the post-war years trying to grow beyond. Americans are staunch nationalists, much readier to contemplate the use of force than Europeans. A German Marshall Fund survey in 2005 found 42% of Americans strongly agreeing that “under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice†compared with just 11% of Europeans. A Pew survey found that the same proportion of Americans and Israelis believe in the use of pre-emptive force: 66%. Continental European figures were far lower. Yet all this unquestioning support does not mean that America will give Israel absolute carte blanche to do whatever it wills. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, was visibly shaken after the tragedy in Qana where at least 28 civilians, half of them children, were killed by Israeli bombs. There are growing worries both about Israel's conduct of the war and its wider impact on the Middle East. Many of these anxieties are expressed by the “realist factionâ€. Chuck Hagel, a Republican maverick, has given warning that America's relationship with Israel “cannot be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationshipsâ€. Richard Haass, a State Department official under George Bush senior who now heads the Council on Foreign Relations, has laughed publicly at the president's “birth of a new Middle East†optimism about the crisis. Some of the worries extend to conservatives. Tony Blankley, a former press secretary for Newt Gingrich and a fire-breathing columnist for the Washington Times, says that “We ignore world opinion at our peril.†A few cracks are starting to appear. But they are still insignificant in the mighty edifice of support. The Economist.

Originally posted by Nur: Xiin walaal Salafiya term, in its present usage was born within Saudi Arabia as an answer to other revivalist movement who have introduced innovations in aqeedah or ibaadaat, but like any other movement it has its positive and negative aspects with respect to its ability to take the ummah from its presnet demise to where it should be , it has rightfully awakened the Ummah about the importance of adherence to the two sources. The scope of this thread however, is the validity of naming the ummah other than Muslim. Anyone who coins a name for the Ummah other than Muslim is indeed helping in dividing the Ummah into splinters. Nur Nurow,I respectfully disagree with that assessment of yours. Saudi Arabia, like many other countries in the Muslim world, had, and still has, scholars whose theological and jurisprudential approach reflect of that of Salafu saalix. To say that it has a particular claim on Salafism however is incorrect. I am astonished that you are tacitly assigning certain negativism to this term! As far as I know Inbu Wahabi’s anti qubuur-worshiping movement was the only revivalist group that was closely associated with Saudi Arabia!

lol@General Zu ----to complete the destruction kulahaa ! The Point: we’ve come very close in getting into a recursive argument here saaxiib! That was one reason I’ve dropped of this discussion. Salafism, contrary to what good brother Nur suggested, is an approach where one restricts own self to follow a particular derivation when constructing proofs. You could genuinely object to any branding in Islam other than Muslim label but to suggest a name for a scholastic approach somehow smells negativity is, I am afraid, a failing of sort! I perfectly understand that, in today’s’ poisoned environment, one would be guardedly careful to stay away from negative partisanship that’s prevalent in our wider Muslim community. What I can’t understand, however, is for us to distance ourselves names and labels that should rather be the source of our pride and a part of our heritage. I tried to give you examples were a specific identification was used to describe particular segment of Prophets companions or a fiqh school was named after his originator to designate its jurisprudential conventions. Likewise Salafism represents approach and tradition of an admittedly blessed generation who put the roots of our Islamic science foundation. You attempted to counter by saying that needs not to be honored with a label since the Qur’an and the tradition of Muhammad both educate and give similar instructions. I would almost agree with that argument if I didn’t sense that your understanding of Salafism is insufficient and, quite honestly, at times completely wrong! Remember it’s always helpful to understand the thing you want to object to! Salafism, to repeat, is not a label that just popped up! Nur, I don’t understand why you are attempting to somehow link Salafism with Saudi Arabia or for that matter to the Somali sahwah! I did understand that Kheyr’s question needed addressing but I still think to suggest Salafism is a latter day concept is quite misleading! Saudi Arabia is where Salafism met its demise. Saudi and its Islamic schools didn’t help revive Salafism rather it subverted it.

Krauthammer’s “Morality†Friday, July 28th, 2006 in News by Justin Raimondo Comparing the capture of two Israeli soldiers by Hezbollah guerrillas to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Charles Krauthammer weighs in on the Israeli reponse: “Disproportionate? No. When one is wantonly attacked by an aggressor, one has every right — legal and moral — to carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one’s security again. That’s what it took with Japan.†Let’s apply the principle enunciated here to everyday human relations. Say I “capture†your wallet on a crowded bus, and make for the back in an effort to evade your attention. In pursuit, you push over a few old ladies, floor a woman carrying a baby, and trample several young and rather small children. Not only that, but you start shooting — and hit five or six people without landing a bullet on me. According to the Krauthammerian moral doctrine, you are perfectly within your rights. After all, I am “hiding among civilians,†just as Krauthammer alleges is Hezbollah’s favorite tactic. Besides which, those “civilians,†who know perfectly well that I’m a pickpocket — this bus line has been plagued with them recently — have done nothing to stop me. They let me pass, and isn’t this a form of collaboration? As the Israeli “Justice†Minister Haim Ramon, in advocating that villages under attack by the IDF should be “flattened,†put it: “Israel had given the civilians of southern Lebanon ample time to quit the area and therefore anyone still remaining there could be considered a Hezbollah supporter. ‘All those now in south Lebanon are terrorists who are related in some way to Hezbollah,’ Mr Ramon said.†There aren’t “innocent civilians†in the back of the bus, and anyone who gets in your way is fair game. You finally get to the back row, and find I’ve locked myself in the bathroom. You’re out of ammunition, but luckily you remembered to take your switchblade: this is used to persuade the bus driver to hand over the key. You, of course, have a perfect right to hold all the passengers on that bus hostage: after all, you must “carry the fight until the aggressor is disarmed and so disabled that it cannot threaten one’s security again.†According to the logic of Krauthammer’s moral creed, you have the right to blow up the bus and everyone in it provided the threat to your security, i.e. the pickpocket, is eliminated, which is precisely what Israel is doing to Lebanon. Disproportionate? If individuals engaged in the behavior exhibited by Israel in Lebanon, they would be prosecuted and imprisoned in order to protect the public. No doubt Krauthammer believes Israel’s status as a state grants it transcendence over a legal and moral code meant for mere mortals. But of course a state can be guilty of war crimes, which Israel is surely committing as I write. (Or is Krauthammer now joining the “revisionists†in repudiating the war crimes trials at Nuremberg?)

Ethiopian Generals and Somali Warlords The Bush Administration's Dubious Allies in the Horn of Africa Posted on Wednesday, August 2, 2006. By Ken Silverstein. Add Ethiopia to the list of countries cashing in on their cooperation with the Bush Administration's “war on terrorism.†Two weeks ago, with the world's attention focused on the Israel–Hezbollah war, several thousand heavily-armed Ethiopian troops tiptoed into neighboring Somalia. Their mission was to halt the advance of a radical Islamic group that already controls most of the country and to provide support for the weak transitional government based in Baidoa. It's not clear if the Ethiopian army's move into Somalia had the tacit approval of the Bush Administration, but the U.S. certainly did not ardently oppose its intervention. The Islamic militia is mustered in the mullah-led Union of Islamic Courts (UIC), which the United States characterizes as a Taliban-style movement with ties to Al Qaeda. In June the UIC drove a U.S.-supported coalition of more secular (but nasty) warlords from Mogadishu, Somalia's capital. The warlords had marketed themselves as the Alliance for the Restoration of Peace and Counterterrorism, and had received money and assistance from the CIA. “Everybody is playing the counterterrorism card on the Bushies,†said one former intelligence officer who has followed the situation. “All you have to do is say 'counterterrorism,' like this silly alliance in Somalia, and you'll be given guns, money, and trucks. It's becoming a sick joke.†Like the Somali warlords, Ethiopia has proved adept at the game. Following the 9/11 attacks, the country emerged as a key American ally in the Horn of Africa. The Pentagon has a large base in neighboring Djibouti and has worked closely with the Ethiopian military, conducting joint exercises and keeping a watchful eye on events in the region, especially in Somalia. In December of 2002, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Kenyan President Daniel arap Moi met with President Bush in the Oval Office. The White House lauded the two leaders as “friends and allies of America, [who] have joined in global war on terror.†But Zenawi is no Nelson Mandela. His government is accused by human rights groups of widespread torture, extrajudicial killings, and arbitrary political imprisonment. Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index ranks Ethiopia 137th out of 158 countries. In March of 2005, the opposition was running strong in the early returns of a general election, at which point Zenawi's ruling coalition abruptly declared victory and canceled the remaining count. As foreign observers cried foul, people took to the streets of Addis Ababa in protest. Zenawi sent in troops, including sharpshooters, and when the protest was over, 42 demonstrators were dead. In addition, the Ethiopian military has been implicated in a number of bloody attacks on the Anuak, a large ethnic group who live near the Sudanese border. There's also trouble in Southern Oromiya Province, where violence broke out this spring between the Guji and Borena clans. When the Ethiopian government, keen to secure access to the potential income stream from a gold mine in the Borena Zone, put the mine under the control of the Guji, a group it has historically favored in the region, fighting ensued, and the government aided the Guji. Sources in the region said that the violence continues and that the province is now in the throes of a major humanitarian crisis. More than 100,000 people are reported to have fled their homes. But it's not likely that the Bush Administration will take too tough a stand against Zenawi's policies now that Ethiopia is an ally in the war on terrorism. “The last five years have been among the most feeble in the history of U.S. diplomacy in Africa,†says John Prendergast, a former State Department official now with the International Crisis Group. “[American] policy towards Africa is totally directed by the Pentagon and by concerns over terrorism, nothing more.†Harper's Magazine

It’s not ‘a hope in the unseen’ to suggest that dialog is the only way forward for the Islamic Courts to succeed in their mission. In the end the Courts will attend in the planned talks. There just isn’t any other viable option for them. I can understand them buying time and sitting it out for now but as good Baashi suggests they are in an advantageous position to negotiate. An obvious challenge for the Courts is they seem to have blurred their diplomatic voice. Sharif’s eloquence and his unique talent to articulate political vision shouldn’t be replaced by good Sh.Dahir’s resentful pronouncements. This is a time of diplomacy and not an opportunity to settle old scores. And the Courts need to realize that. I think they will. Go to Khartoum and negotiate, I say.

Your Were Made To Pray, Dont Spend it In a Play! ^^I like that motto yaa Nur! It's a good reminder. JZK and keep it up! P.S; although you lack no marketing skillsin propogating you Dacwa call still i would encourage you to visit this section more often than you currently do.

^^Still spinning eh ? Originally posted by AYOUB_SHEIKH: Well done to them, but why don't you judge Somaliland on it's merits as well? ^^But I always do and you know it. Somaliland, Puntland and Islamic Courts do provide some governance and serve their respective constituency’s interests. I appreciate their positive achievements. It’s the secessionist tendencies that I oppose, and not Somaliland as a political entity per se, saaxiib. Needles to say that the two are not mutually exclusive and Somaliland as a region can still continue to thrive without being a separatist state!