Pi, that is good question and one that’s worthy of discussion. Islam as you may know does not sanction this practice. It’s the influence of the good wadaado’s that this culture is beginning to diminish, at least in the urban centers. They understand that this practice is un-Islamic and breach against it. You see before Islamic awakening movements come this was impenetrable issue that few dared to speak against it. Now not only do they speak against it but this time they do so while armed with a religious justification that demolishes its premise, and so it lost the legitimacy it enjoyed before to a degree. There is along way to go, but the journey of eradicating this bad culture has nevertheless started. The solution has to come from within if this problem is to be confronted seriously. I see no point in explicit pictures that show parts that are not meant for the public eye. Books are fine with me but they got to have some useful contents to be effective. So Wadaado deserve more credit than we are prepared to give. Lets hope those efforts succeed. Some people, JB included, may allege FGM is Islam’s fault. But you know that is a sheer ignorance. It’s like blaming American constitution for body mutilation (read: piercing), which is a very pervasive culture in the west. P.S: @Xoogsade's principle. Ma'anaan garan. It now makes sense.

Sheh, It is really very simple: I object explicit drawing of Somali female private part in the said book for the two reasons I've stated. Let me repeat them again in the hope you would get it this time around. First, a book that is written for the consumption of the west is a world away in solving this problem. The problem exists in Somalia and not in USA. If the author intended to help raise some awareness about this issue, this approach is ineffective, and quite frankly useless. For one, those who live in the west are not at risk of this culture (there could always be some exceptions) and hence don’t need a book to do away with it. This practice is illegal in the west, as it should be, and no sane person would argue that Somalis in Minnesota are in dire need for stop-mutilating-your-daughter campaign. And the ones who are at risk need not read books about it. They need not stare at the graphic depiction of their injuries. They just need (not necessarily they realize that need, but nevertheless a need) some concrete act against the culture that causes it. Understand that fact. But that’s not where my objection emanated. My objection is about the explicit drawing of the thing. I some how feel that the thing assumes a Somali identity, and hence it is not just a female thing, as the book is about Somalia and Somalis. Now when one, say a Minnesotan, see what looks like a wounds from a savage beast, would he/she not take away a perception that all Somali Xalimos carry these scars? Now ask me if that’s not a bad perception. I think it is unfair generalization of Somali sisters. Not all of them went through that ordeal. I would go even further and assert that great portion of our new generation sisters are save from these wounds. When an unqualified author puts his pen on a paper and commences to parade our secret wounds and display it in the public square, what wisdom do you see in it to fight me teeth and nail when I object? If this book is widely published, I can even begin to imagine what an embarrassment it would be to our high school girls, a generation whose majority, mind you, has safely escaped from that rusty razor. Perceptions can easily be created, but it takes an organized effort to fight them and change. You can naively come back to me and ask; Maxaa ku jaban haddii dadka qaarki saa u qaataan? Wax badan baa ku jaban, I say. Now combine ineffectiveness with the potential unintended consequence it could create, and the net result would be incompetence. That’s not some thing I admire. Apparently you do. The difference. One more thing, may good sister, focus and remember that we are not talking about whether or not FGM is bad as we agree on that. We are not talking about whom to blame as we agree that also. We are discussing if the said book has a sound approach and the inappropriateness of drawing explicit (hand drawn but still graphic) mutilated Somali female part for the consumption of a remote societies in the Midwest of a continent called America! Remember also the subtitle of my objection is called ‘Anshax’ and its deeply rooted in our faith. Lest you are tempted also remember that we are not talking about instructional drawings found in the medical books and like. Bal hadda noo sheeg waxa habarta hab-hab-teeda ka danbeeya .

^^For us, Abu G, is just mere scars from a civilization that failed to translate its material achievements to a moral one. For the world, it represents an infamous and wicked incident that will continue to shame America for eternity. With all honest, I don’t know what it represents for the majority of American masses. But for the Bush admin, it is just another sir fakatay , and, in their estimate, it will take a well organized public relationship campaign to outdone its damage.

^^I am glad you affirmed that it wasn't intended to offend, and frankly shouldn’t offend! Suffice to say that I am not a task maker for if I were I would have avoided it all together, so you wouldn’t find it ‘slightly tasteless.‘ The irony is though you are blowing your stack about the mere mention of ‘intact’ and still want to defend a more graphic stuff! How plausible is that, my dear? Waxaadanse u xiiqin, idiin daaye iska daawada dee . [edit]:- Originally posted by sheherazade: I wasn't adding fuel, I was agreeing with her. You did put the attention on her unnecessarily, you did patronise her by calling her 'fickle' , u're still patronising her by calling it an 'imagined' dig and it doesn't matter what goes beyond this cyber environment, I don't know nor care to know, I only commented on what I read here and your offer of an apology if your cyber words extend beyond this forum(even though they only occurred within this forum) is the worst sort of I-may-apologise-if-my-bizarre-conditions are met offer I have ever read. Anyway, she'll expand on it or not, let's see whether she imagined your words and dragged their imaginary backsides beyond the cyber world. If so, I'd love to know how. I often imagine the most luxurious, fantastical of scenarios, dragging them into the real world would be a hoot. Amelia ought to givelife-changing seminars and teach that skill- I'd be first in line. What say u, girl? Can you or can't u make the unreal real? Thanks for the info, K. ^^Waxaan macno lahayn baad ku nuux-nuuxsanaysaa! Gabar, you must have a bone to pick with me then? Why else would you choose to dedicate two paragraphs for such an insignificant issue? I think that you have sharpened your claws for the wrong prey though, and will see if you walk on that fire un-burnt. As for the author and his intentions, we could only guess, as we know not what was in his mind. But reasonable people would conclude that he wanted to address, or at least give some ideas about FGM. But there is nothing substantial to debate here as we both agree FGM is a bad thing. Waa ka baxay.

^^Sheh, lets get one fact squarely straight: FGM is bad cultural practice and needs to be addressed, and eventually eradicated. It serves no purpose at all. Getting that out of the way lets now tackle what is the best approach to deal with it. There isn’t a silver bullet to this prevailing problem, you would agree, as it has its roots in a entrenched tradition where it had been presented, throughout the ages, as symbol of modesty and a virtue to be had. There are many plausible strategies to entertain, but writing a book for a western consumption and graphically depict disfigured part in it serves no purpose other than create a new perception about Somali sisters. Midda kale, if one genuinely aims to address this problem would it not be a logical step to target his campaign and direct it to the said community? Tell me what is the point of writing a book while the area where this problem persists is in the hinterland of rural Somalia, in which, in my estimate, very few people would be able to get it, much less read? The best approach to stop this culture is to get the people who are in place of authority involved. The elders, religious scholars, and educated class need to step in and do real work on the ground to raise awareness about this issue; highlight its severity in both emotional and medical sense, and educate people how it contradicts with the sound religious tradition that we ought to be following instead. That’s the way to go about it if one really wants to effectively address it. But if one interested to gain some profits and make capital out of the suffering of fellow sisters, one would not be wrong to tune his message to the dictates of market place and create appealing snapshot of it. That is not only ineffective, but it also has the scent of insincerity breezing out of it, I detect. And no, I am not suggesting that the Xalimos are to be blamed for this misery. As I said before, they are victims of a culture that still savagely practices a pre-Islamic tradition, and does it with a particular pride. And finally, why would you shrink from your duty and waste your precious energy in seeking fuel for a fire that does not exist? Amelia, as I am sure of it, knows that I of all people would not seek to damage her character or bring unneeded attention to her. That’s not what I do, and if she insists that the imagined ‘little dig’ went deeper than this cyber ground, I will do what I do best, which is retract it and apologize.

Amelia, I have known you not to be a fickle (read: picky) and unless you insist on it, there wasn’t a ‘little dig’ in my post. The discussion is not about you nor do I intend to make it go that direction. It is unproductive. As for your inquiry as to what my claimed wisdom is, a rhetorical question may suffice: how do you miss the wisdom of opposing creating new perceptions, and negative one at that, on poor Xalimos in the name of bringing attention to the FGM? It takes a village, as the cliché goes, to fight this bad culture of ours, you would agree, and parading the wounds of the affected sisters is a poor strategy to achieve that goal, me thinks.

^^Adeer dadka ha cayne dood la imow ama dhegeyste ka noqo. Odweyne, my good man, why do you always choose to speak more grammar than truth? I read your lengthy piece and it seems that you’ve decided to address what I did not say rather than what I said. You see, I am with the courts on this one, though I know that they have their shortcomings, as they present a better alternative to this painful Somali conflict. Come back and address the points I raised saaxiib, rather than dwelling in the lower part of the discussion. Zaylici, I have not overlooked nor ignored the intricacy that involves Mogadishu’s politics. In fact its that very complexity which I sensed that you oversimplified when you asserted that northern Mogadishu community are in a war footing against Islamic courts as they suspect that they are destined to loose their political capital for their foes. I in turn insist Northern clans truly represent, both numerically and politically, the majority of Islamic courts. If the courts win, then that community would win. Indeed, all Mogadishu residents would win. Though you have shown good analytical skills, you are using wrong gauge to measure the pulses of that part of the town, and hence your assessment fails to emerge from that clannish era where every thing is examined through the lenses of clan. This war is unprecedented as it departs from the norm of killing each other for mere ancestral lineage; it is a war rooted in religious principles. I would also like you to acknowledge that this war, from court’s perspective, is a defensive war and a struggle to exist. From the warlords perspective though, this conflict presents (at least from their earlier assessment) an opportunity to demonstrate to the interested world that they are indeed competent and able to put up a good fight with the alleged terrorist who supposedly freely roam in that city. True that this conflict produced an insurmountable set back for certain warlords, namely those who hail from the northern part of the city, but that does not mean that community would loose if their warlords are defeated. It is the opposite of that, and as soon as the incompetent warlords are removed from the scene, better and able souls will emerge from the ruins of their defeat. Further more, how could one suggest that the leaders of the Islamic courts, who have a fairly diverse background, would some how be dominated by the warlords of the southern part of the city? As I acknowledged the complexity of Mogadishu, would you also admit that it would be a rushed assessment, and hence incorrect, to predict a gloomy fate and political disappoint for the Northern Mogadishu at this juncture?

Amelia, I don't believe you don't object his drawings if they, as Kafaaxiye alleged, graphically depict disfigured parts of Xaliimos. And you said you might be one of his intended audiences, eh? I note that you are one of those few blessed Xaliimos who happen to be intact, anatomically I mean, but I also hold all Somali women are surrounded by the emotional scars of FGM as they constantly come in contact with their affected sisters. Hence they don’t need to visualize the wound itself, it follows, to appreciate its impact. Unless you want challenge oday Xiin’s wisdom, as you usually do, you can’t be serious to wanna see that drawing.

I think some nomads here are overanalyzing this conflict and few have already injected their clannish perspectives into the assessment of what this latest conflict could give birth to. I also found, I must say, good Zaylici’s appraisal of current situation and his gloomy predictions as to the fate of northern Mogadishu tribes quite pessimistic, to say the least. It also goes without saying that I see Odweyne’s mournful cry and his lament on the supposedly ruined political fortunes of Mogadishu clans as misplaced as I suspect him to have worn the wrong lenses to aptly analyze these developments. For him the defeat of these warlords represents an astounding win for the TFG and the policies of the man who heads it. And he would rather have preferred, if I were to hazard a guess, to see them united instead and form a unified front against what he perceives to be illegitimate entity. But to be fair both men’s concerns about the price poor civilians would pay, if this war were to turn out as destructive as some suggested it would be, are legitimate, I must note. Still, I beg to differ from the so-far-established view in this discussion, and by that I mean the view that says this conflict is similar to that of early 1990’s, in which much was lost to no cause. And so obliged I felt to chip in and throw my few cents in to the discussion. I believe, contrary to the prevailing view, at least on this forum, Mogadishu is not slipping back into the days of Aidiid and Mahdi. This conflict is between mercenary-turned-warlords who have little regard, if any, for ideological and national considerations and Islamic courts who has been serving that community for nearly a decade now and whose record of goodwill and concern for their community is indisputable. It is not clannish in nature, I insist. I think HA asked very good question about the peculiarity of court’s coalition and how it defies the clannish calculus that we all accustomed for. What unites between Sharif, Aweys, and Addani is ideology, rather than a clan. Because of their religious platform, their political thinking transcends clannish lines and rises above usual tribal settings and its political calculus; a fact that throws off balance even otherwise enlightened and educated nomads on this very site. So that should commit the notion of characterizing this conflict as a clannish to the flames. It just does not hold water. Another fallacy that’s beginning to formulate here is the notion that courts would loose credibility and rupture their repute if they somehow don’t show an open hostility toward other warlords who are not part of this current conflict. Simply because Indhacadde, Goobaale, and other less significant criminals in the south differed with Qanyare’s hastily formed coalition and, in some instances, openly pledged to support the courts, Islamic courts and for that matter the cause for which they stand is damaged. Or so the argument goes. That, I hold, is a cheap dent and does not make the Islamic court’s struggle against other mercenaries tainted and their stance impure. It does not suggest hypocrisy, as some nomads implied, and to me it is just part of normal dealings in a big and difficult city as Mogadishu is definitely one. One needs to understand realities on the ground and the political dynamics that brought this conflict to the forefront. Islamic courts have long accepted the harsh political and security realities of that city and swallowed their pride. They accepted that they are not the only armed entities in Mogadishu and hence can’t act as the sole power in it. They settled to control limited jurisdictions and ceded large portions of the city to the armed gangs where the culture of warlordism thrived. It was a bitter bill that the courts decided to take in order for them to function in their jurisdictions peacefully. That has been the default security and political arrangements of Mogadishu until Qanyare and co announced their coalition and declared war on the Islamic entities. Logic dictates that they would only fight against those who attacked them or made clear that they would attack them. Why would they do otherwise unless one incorrectly assumes that these sheikhs are drunk with power and would smash any potential opponent without giving it a proper thought? That’s not only an unsound strategy politically, as it opens another and an unnecessary front, but it is also logistically impossible for them to do so. Further more, it emits unmistakable and familiar odor of clannish smell when one always brings to the discussion the family links between AQasim, Aweys, and other players in the south and somehow suggests that this conflict is going to be the antecedent of their perceived political dominance in that region. That I found to be very naïve and utter misreading of the political dynamics of that city in particular and in the south, in general. It is also a misread to the political competence of the men who set up these Islamic courts as they have no intention to weaken warlords to strengthen other opposing warlords. It also does not do justice to the masses who support these courts and are still dieing for its cause as we speak. It is a high time for the cyber intellectuals to give these mullahs their dues, I say. Another asinine comment that I have been reading from these pages last few days is the assertion that both warring functions are warlords. Suffice to say that the record of Islamic courts is in stark contrast with that of Qanyare and co, and the court’s militias are no armed slum-dwellers who set up roadblocks and willfully rape and kill. It is quite a stretch to equate the two as they represent two very different ideologies. Finally, it is my belief that the fateful day in which Mogadishu warlords are utterly defeated, and the dignity of its people restored is not far away. So let the men of faith do their best to unchain shackled innocents of that city.

^^And that cyber scene gives this lovely discussion a particularly lovely end .

^Markan maxaa layku hayaa? Markuu mid kula xun tagaba mid ka liita baa imaanayya. Goormaan ‘udarso’ ka baxaynaa?

^Markan maxaa layku hayaa? Markuu mid kula xun tagaba mid ka liita baa imaanayya. Goormaan ‘udarso’ ka baxaynaa?

If he truly drew it (as you said) in his book, he must be another deformed Faarax, I say. Why else would he choose to shame the innocent for scars that were inflicted upon them? Are the Xaliimos responsible for damages they played no part in causing it? No. Don’t tell me it is because the grandma’s adamant and unyielding stance on it. It is the culture that did it to them. Hopefully, in due time, that culture will be reformed.

Meritocracy in America Ever higher society, ever harder to ascend. Dec 29th 2004 | WASHINGTON, DC From The Economist print edition The most remarkable feature of the continuing power of America's elite—and its growing grip on the political system—is how little comment it arouses. Britain would be in high dudgeon if its party leaders all came from Eton and Harrow. Perhaps one reason why the rise of caste politics raises so little comment is that something similar is happening throughout American society. Everywhere you look in modern America—in the Hollywood Hills or the canyons of Wall Street, in the Nashville recording studios or the clapboard houses of Cambridge, Massachusetts—you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs. read on

RC, I thought you have pleaded the fifth . HA, That’s very relevant Q as it relates to the significance of the Sunnah. But at this stage of the discussion I think it’s quite apparent that the man has no clothes. But let me highlight few points nevertheless. It’s really elementary knowledge for all Muslims that authenticity of the Qur’an partially hinges on the integrity and the character of Prophet Muhammad. It was him who brought this message to the masses. One can’t doubt the lawfulness of his actions and commands and yet seriously claim to have accepted the validity of the Qur’an. It just doesn’t add up. His, as it were, was a face that could not lie. Further more, Muhammad (scw) wasn’t just a mere messenger who handed down the message to us and vanished. Allah meant to clarify and expound the details of the Shariica through him. His sayings as well as his deeds were true representations of the word of Allah. In public and in private, his acts reflected that of the message he was chosen to deliver. If that weren’t the case we would’ve major crisis on our hands and this religion wouldn’t be complete. We wouldn’t know, for instance, how to pray or to fast. Qur’an is very clear on the role of prophet Muhammad. We are commanded to follow his example, imitate and try to be like him in submitting ourselves to the One he so passionately loved. So if one doubts the Sunnah, as I said before, that person is deemed to be a nonbeliever. It may be difficult for outsiders to understand the dynamics of the Islamic jurisprudence but without elucidations of the prophet and the interpretations of the learned ulumaa, Qur’an verses alone don’t suffice. If one attempts to break off ranks with rest of the Ummah and disregard the standards, the processes, and the science of interpreting the Qur’an, one is destined to fall in the trap in which our SB finds himself in. One can’t freelance solemn matters such as the Islamic Shariica, and, in essence, reject some and accept some according to his/her taste. When one understands these basics then and only then one is fit to talk about the details of the Shariica. One can’t entertain, for instance, to dive in the depths of the intricacies of Islamic fiqh without first understanding its basic concepts. Such is the dilemma I (we all face) face when confronted with the likes of SB who, with all their intelligence and burning curiosity, want to draw a circle that can’t be squared. He asserts that Sunnah of stoning to death contradicts with the Qur’anic verse that decrees the lashes for adulterers, for instance, without first understanding the concepts of khaas and caam or mujmil and mufasil or other important concepts of the science of tafsiir. No wonder he sees contradictions when there is none. Enough said.

^Nimaan sharaca diineed shaynaba ka suureyn Haddii aad u sheegtana shaqfadloo an garanayn Oo kula shikkaayooin illeen waa shiddiyo hoog! By what criterion have you accepted the Qur’an and rejected the Sunnah? Every Muslim knows, except you, that it is the method of narrating how we got what we have (Qur’an & Sunnah). Competent and reliable men with unimpeachable integrity passed it down to us. SB, you are presenting an argument that can’t even persuade a first grader. War iska aamu.

^^That’s very definitive answer, which highlights how shameless this fraudulent really is. I know try he will as he never tires to put a spin on everything if he could but we all now know that a rejecter of the Sunnah could not be possibly considered a Muslim . That’s the final verdict, supported by numerous verses in the Qur’an, and so I rest my case. Thanks abraar for the timely reminder. It proved to be a big buster. I knew there were countless unsupported claims and assertions that this character had made but I never bothered to dig his dirty. I hope, just hope, he hides his face from the public now.

Juba, I was not trying to prove that he is a nonbeliever. Rather I was trying to expose that he is imposter. The man has no knowledge on what he is talking about. His obsession about anything Shariica is jus bizarre. Waryee kaagan wareersan aka Socod-badane, adeer don’t test our patience. Why do you go in circle just answer that simple question. Do you believe sunnatu al Mustafa ? If you do how do you reconcile your rejection of the xad of the married adulterer with your believe? If you don’t believe the Sunnah then you can’t be a Muslim. Who says so? The Qur’an says so. Need a proof of that? Just ask. If you are entertaining to pick and choose which Sunnah to believe and which one not to believe based on your taste, then again you can’t be a Muslim. The proof is in the Qur’an. As I said before it is an enormous task to catch a charlatan but I feel like I finally succeeded to tear down some layers of your façade. Sham personalities thrive under the gloom of falsity. If you bother to come back try to be a man address those questions saaxiib. I know it is hard but at least try and I will help you find a way out. I promise.

Originally posted by Devil's Advocate: Infringing on Allah's rights because I do not want to live under the Shari'a laws of corrupt states? I don't think so. We do not live in a perfect world, and I hardly doubt there will be a "perfect" Shari'a anytime soon. That day will come when all scholars will agree with each other. I'd take my chances, thanks. Which one is it, good DA? All Muslim scholars agreeing each other or Shariica implemented under honest and legitimate government? If it’s the latter, I think your caution is justified and it is a matter that concerns all Muslims. But if you are really serious about all Muslim scholars agreeing then you must have resolved not to live under Islamic Shariica. A decision uncharacteristic of a faithful Muslim, mind you. Muslim scholars agree on the fundamentals of the Shariica but disagree on some details of it. For genuine reasons Muslim scholars arrived various interpretations and derivations of certain parts of the Shariica. Not just the xuduud, but also exact implementations of cibaadaat. From prayers, fasting, to giving charities major Muslim schools have slightly varying degrees of differences. Even the companions of the beloved prophet disagreed on the details of some parts of the Shariica, saaxiib. So for you to say that Muslim scholars have to agree before I submit myself to the rulings of Shariica just does not sound right. You are either grossly mistaken about what choices you could have in the realm of your faith, or just deliberately are throwing at us approximated views. The notion that Islamic Shariica is impractical, or in your case nearly impractical, is just sheer intellectual dishonest and is far from the truth. If you’re an observing Muslim you do indeed practice it every day. You pray. You observe it every year. You fast. If one means to attack the Islamic xuduud when asserting such absurdity then that too does not hold water as xuduud had been fully practiced since the dawn of the Islamic government until it collapsed. I am not picking on you but I am trying to drive a very important point: once one accepts Islamic faith, and by that i mean one understood what it entails, then one’s lifestyle is dictated by the principles of the said faith. One can’t have both ways. Let that be clear.

^^That’s a pregnant statement saaxiib. I thought you were asking if one could remain in the fold of Islam and yet appose Islamic Shariica. Let me say that’s no wise possible for Shariica is the only method through which we could accept Allah’s sovereignty. You see, good DA, before you make your choice it would be prudent of you to make sure your choice does not infringe and violate Allah’s rights. To be fair though the issue of apostate is not simple one, and for occupied Afghanistan of all governments to implement it makes one a bit curious.

^^DA, define what you’re apposing then you can get a fair answer to your Q. are you against Shariica or how some countries practice it? Come back with some clarity saaxiib. JB, With all fairness I value your stand: it has been consistent. You don’t believe what we believe. That’s fine. That does not mean I endorse it. It means I acknowledge it. Note the difference. Now the problem with your friend is that he is not brave enough to desert our camp and join yours. His is a wobbling of sort; veering between doubt and rejection. That, I thought, is not an admirable thing and when I saw you wasting your ink on its praise I called you out on it. I pointed the contradictions of his stand. Interestingly enough when SB came back he simply sidestepped the challenge and hid his face with his evasive style. I pursued him with another inquiry about his stance on the Sunnah of the prophet. Now here we have you, good JB, coming to the rescue of this sinking soul. But you are ill equipped, I am afraid, to offer any meaningful help. If you insist the value of your hand though, let me give you some pointers as to what I am taking issue with. SB, I believe, is an intelligent person and seems to have possessed some secular knowledge. But he also makes some interesting remarks and assertions about fundamental religious jurisprudences and theologies. In doing so, he needlessly exhibits compounded ignorance that’s beyond salvage. When some attempted to correct him, he even pushed further with his voyage and refused to learn. That I thought is a sign of insincere character. Hence, the reason I gave him his fitting and proper description. That was then. Now let’s recap some of his greatest plunders and see if you, and him together, can aptly address it. Use all the logic you could yield but don’t disappoint the gallery please. Plunder # 1—Shariicah is unfounded and not needed--and he is still a faithful Muslim :confused: ! Plunder#2---Sunnah is not authentic and not needed---and he is still able to perform his daily prayers :confused: ! Plunder#3----If it is not in the Qur’an, it has no validity--and he is still pays Zakaah, performs his prayers, and does the wuduu :confused: ! Plunder#4---Muslim scholars are no of service to us. You see such absurdities have the power to turn our loudest laughter into grief. With all of that plunders he still wants us to seriously believe that he adheres to the Islamic faith. I, in turn, pointed out the hard truth about his stance: it is very contradictory and incoherent. If you are a Muslim, I said, you can’t contradict fundamental principles of your faith. It is not feasible for you to believe in Allah, for instance, and in the same breath deny his Shariicah! You can’t reject the Sunnah of Muhammad and accept the Qur’an when he delivers both. There is nothing between faith and faithless. The only thing between them is void, I say. Remember brave JB that we are talking about a person who claims to be Muslim and yet chooses to contradict the very faith he confesses to have believed. Remember we are not talking how a faithless person outside of Islamic fold presents his argument. I thought you would choose your battles carefully but if you smell victory in this one, bring it on and lets have one, I say. As to your assertion that there is a gap between what Qur’an decrees and what the Sunnah I cited exacts that, I would say, is a rushed statement. It takes more lectures to instruct you the science of fiqh and Islamic jurisprudence, but JB-yow the two don’t contradict saaxiib. The prophet, with his Sunnah, is the sole interpreter of the precious book. It’s a well known punishment: those who never married get the lashes while the ones who did mary get stoned to death. Both get purified and while it may sound a bit harsh it might be the only shield for the said sinners from even harsher punishment in hereafter (another world and another reality we Muslims believe). P.S:I personally believe Afghanistan is not fit to apply Islamic Shariicah.

^^Stoning as punishment for adultery is a method employed by the prophet of Islam. It is not in the Qur’an. It is in the sound Sunnah of our prophet and a tradition upheld by all the subsequent Islamic governments. So do you believe the Sunnah of prophet Muhammad or not? answer that simple question, saaxiib.

In America, demagoguery has become the method of choice for American politicians nowadays. That does not amaze me at all. What’s astonishing about Ms. Clinton, in particular, and the democrats, in general, is the level of naivety and gullibility they exhibit when they utter such nonsense. Who are they appealing for? America is full of apolitical and ***** people who are uncritical in their thinking, I agree. But do they also forget that the world has shrunk and become a village which means the lies they tell can easily be exposed?

^Interesting story….clash between rafaad iyo raaxo. Do continue please.

Hillary the Hawk The Democrats’ Athena only differs from Bush on the details. by Justin Raimondo ------------------------------------------------ "Let’s be clear about the threat we face now,†she thundered. “A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist, anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We cannot and should not—must not—permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons.†To be sure, we need to cajole China and Russia into going along with diplomatic and economic sanctions, but “we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear message to the current leadership of Iran—that they will not be permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.†Read on..