They don't need to after all they do own the place.

I don't know, i don't usually take interests in Qoomiyadaha Itoobiya. I'm Somali!

There is turbulence ahead for puntland.

^^ What do think about this? Dadka Reer Somaliland Oo Ku Guulaystay In Ay Calankooda Ka Dhex-Muujiyaan Madashii Xuska Qoomiyadaha Itoobiya

^^ This is not about Secularism for you is it?, but rather an apportunity to score cheap points against theism or more specifically against Islam. Personally i despise religious zealotry but I also loathe the arrogance of atheism. In my experience most atheists are just as dogmatic and as cult like as the religious flock the love to mock. Atheist will have you believe that their views are based on scientific rationalism, when in fact their views are motivated by the most basic of human desires. In my opinion my most atheists disbelief for one of two reasons. The first reason is that, some athiest disbelief in god becuase they feel as though god has some how abandoned them in the hour of need. Perhap a prayer went unanswered.The second reason is that some atheist just hate the idea of being morally accountable for the actions to a higher power, thus the elimination of god is necessary to justify their life style choices

The Ethiopians were allowed to proceed with their journey but the somali was detained. It's a cause for celebrations.

Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar;990156 wrote: Another gloomy, dark stain on Soomaaliweyn iyo Soomaalinimo. Gobanimo halyeydii u soo halgamay, naftooda u huray, maalkooda iyo mustaqbalkooda u huray Soomaaliweyn, waxmagaratadaan ayaa ka dambeysay. Maanta Soomaalidu waxay ka mid noqotay Qawmiyadaha Ethiopia. Wadankuna waa kilinka 6lixaad. There goes all the chimerical states.

^ In what way is the article, a piece of propaganda?

malistar2012;990034 wrote: What a disgrace!

December 6, 2013 By Mohsin Mahad Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdoon, aka Saacid, has been sacked unceremoniously by an overwhelming majority of the members of Parliament. Incompetence has been given as the reason for his impeachment and loss of parliamentary vote of confidence. His political demise and departure was predictable once the president, hitherto his handler, has signalled his political death warrant and mobilised his supporters in parliament for the hatchet job. This affair, which amounts to a pantomime of Somali parliamentary practices, sheds light on the four principal actors involved: first the outgoing Prime Minister, secondly the parliamentarians themselves, thirdly the speaker of Parliament, and fourthly the president- the main actor, the man behind the curtain and pulling all the strings. jawaari1Starting with the former Prime Minister, few objective Somalis will shed tears for his departure which was overdue for a long while. If there is one indisputable fact, it is that Saacid was unfit to remain Prime Minister given that he failed to act as one since his appointment. His meek acceptance to cede almost all his powers to the President and be dutifully submissive to the President whims were the very reasons which ensured his selection by the president in the first place. In other normal countries, this might sound unthinkable but Somalia is not a normal country and it is the unthinkable which rules. Until recently, Saacid plodded along as a titular Prime Minister and remained safe in his nominal role so long as he toed the president’s line and served his interest. For some reason, he seems to have had enough of the ridicule he has been subjected to for so long from many quarters: cartoons, reflecting public perceptions of the PM, have caricatured him as a political eunuch in perpetual hibernation, allowing the president to pose or act as the superman in charge of the affairs of the State and government. His temerity to tell the President to his face that he was his own man and no longer prepared to be his obedient poodle in the end brought about his downfall. The crunch came when Saacid presented to the president the list of his cabinet nominees for the reshuffled government, who, in the manner he was accustomed until now told off the PM and ordered him to change the list to his liking. Having stood his ground for a change, he was humiliatingly thrown to the president’s henchmen in parliament to do the hatchet job. The rest is history. Saacid paid the utmost political price, not so much because for his proven incompetence and failure as a Prime Minister. If that was the case, he would have gone long ago and many Somalis would have applauded it. Rather, he was removed at the behest of the president who saw no use for him once he dared to be independent of him. What happened in parliament during its proceedings can only be described as a charade, a circus. If the legislators cared about their constitutional functions in letter and spirit, then listening to the Prime Minister to defend himself and his government’s performance should have been the first step of the motions they have to go through before they take their final votes. Not only natural justice demands this, but also the public who are ultimately the body to which they, the government and the president are all accountable to. But the legislators are not mindful of, nor receptive to, such constitutional imperatives. Instead, they were baying for the PM’s head and in the end got what they wanted. They have certainly done a big favour for the president (and themseles financially) but at the cost of doing immense damage to the very institution they were supposed to serve and above all the nation which deserved better than pantomime. Much of the blame for the disorderly unparliamentary hysteria demanding the PM’s departure falls on the shoulders of the Speaker of Parliament. To his credit, he is always soft-spoken, composed and dignified. These qualities might be appreciated among his type or in mature democracies but are out of place among the mob in Parliament. What was required of him was to do his utmost to maintain order and use the full weight of his office, sometimes acting in a pro-active way, and guide the proceedings ensuring fair play. The Speaker’s quasi abdication was certainly to the advantage of the president. Whether they were in cahoots as some conspiracy theorists would allege is a moot question. Now coming to the president, he is the man rather Saacid who has much to answer if Parliament cared and was doing its duty to the nation: it is the President who usurped the PM’s powers and run the country like his personal business with no checks and balances; it is him who unscrupulously and shamelessly siphoning off most of the foreign aid to the country to the extent that the disobliging, uncooperative governor of the Central Bank had to flee from the country for her life. Often, he is out of the country globetrotting as if on pleasure trip. And when he is at home he is preoccupied stoking divisive regional and clan tensions. Under him, the country has retrogressed in some areas and in others is at a standstill. It is therefore President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud who should have been in the dock and face the music for his failures and abuse of power. Instead, it is poor Saacid who has been conveniently made the scapegoat for the President’s failures, and punished by a parliament taking its cure from the President’s. As Saacid has been shown the door ignominiously, his downfall has generated an air of euphoria and triumphalism among the president and his parliamentary supporters. Demonstrators belonging to the president’s constituency in Mogadishu were out in the streets celebrating the “victory”. It is as if the nation has won a battle against an enemy. It is certainly a personal victory for President Hassan for he has came out on top and won the day when he should have been impeached and booted out. But that is a pyrrhic victory and no more. Saacid’s departure would have been worthwhile if it was going to lead to a better president, parliament and government. Nothing quarantines this and if anything the opposite is likely to happen. For one thing, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud, who yearns to became one of the grand African one-man-rule leaders would have been reinforced in his “invincibility” delusions after his victory over Saacid. Parliament has tasted its power to unseat a Prime Minister willy-nilly for their own personal or clan interest and are likely to do it again for the same reasons. The Speaker, whose performance was patently wanting to say the least, is unlikely to tame a resurgent Parliament that has tasted blood. All in all, the only redeeming aspect of Saacid’s sacking is ironically Saacid himself. Unlike most of his uncouth parliamentarian tormentors, he has always been as a person and as Prime Minister a paragon of dignity and gentlemanly conduct – polite and gracious. And he left Office without a fuss, proud, polite and with his head high. This is the only endearing consolation to the nation from this Machiavellian, backstabbing of Prime Minister Saacid that President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud has brought on the nation. One day, sooner rather than later, he too could run out of luck and friends in Parliament. When that happens, he should take a leaf from Saacid’s book and follow his example and his dignified departure. Mohsin Mahad http://www.wardheernews.com/pantomime-somali-parliamentary-practices/

December 6, 2013 By Mohsin Mahad Prime Minister Abdi Farah Shirdoon, aka Saacid, has been sacked unceremoniously by an overwhelming majority of the members of Parliament. Incompetence has been given as the reason for his impeachment and loss of parliamentary vote of confidence. His political demise and departure was predictable once the president, hitherto his handler, has signalled his political death warrant and mobilised his supporters in parliament for the hatchet job. This affair, which amounts to a pantomime of Somali parliamentary practices, sheds light on the four principal actors involved: first the outgoing Prime Minister, secondly the parliamentarians themselves, thirdly the speaker of Parliament, and fourthly the president- the main actor, the man behind the curtain and pulling all the strings. jawaari1Starting with the former Prime Minister, few objective Somalis will shed tears for his departure which was overdue for a long while. If there is one indisputable fact, it is that Saacid was unfit to remain Prime Minister given that he failed to act as one since his appointment. His meek acceptance to cede almost all his powers to the President and be dutifully submissive to the President whims were the very reasons which ensured his selection by the president in the first place. In other normal countries, this might sound unthinkable but Somalia is not a normal country and it is the unthinkable which rules. Until recently, Saacid plodded along as a titular Prime Minister and remained safe in his nominal role so long as he toed the president’s line and served his interest. For some reason, he seems to have had enough of the ridicule he has been subjected to for so long from many quarters: cartoons, reflecting public perceptions of the PM, have caricatured him as a political eunuch in perpetual hibernation, allowing the president to pose or act as the superman in charge of the affairs of the State and government. His temerity to tell the President to his face that he was his own man and no longer prepared to be his obedient poodle in the end brought about his downfall. The crunch came when Saacid presented to the president the list of his cabinet nominees for the reshuffled government, who, in the manner he was accustomed until now told off the PM and ordered him to change the list to his liking. Having stood his ground for a change, he was humiliatingly thrown to the president’s henchmen in parliament to do the hatchet job. The rest is history. Saacid paid the utmost political price, not so much because for his proven incompetence and failure as a Prime Minister. If that was the case, he would have gone long ago and many Somalis would have applauded it. Rather, he was removed at the behest of the president who saw no use for him once he dared to be independent of him. What happened in parliament during its proceedings can only be described as a charade, a circus. If the legislators cared about their constitutional functions in letter and spirit, then listening to the Prime Minister to defend himself and his government’s performance should have been the first step of the motions they have to go through before they take their final votes. Not only natural justice demands this, but also the public who are ultimately the body to which they, the government and the president are all accountable to. But the legislators are not mindful of, nor receptive to, such constitutional imperatives. Instead, they were baying for the PM’s head and in the end got what they wanted. They have certainly done a big favour for the president (and themseles financially) but at the cost of doing immense damage to the very institution they were supposed to serve and above all the nation which deserved better than pantomime. Much of the blame for the disorderly unparliamentary hysteria demanding the PM’s departure falls on the shoulders of the Speaker of Parliament. To his credit, he is always soft-spoken, composed and dignified. These qualities might be appreciated among his type or in mature democracies but are out of place among the mob in Parliament. What was required of him was to do his utmost to maintain order and use the full weight of his office, sometimes acting in a pro-active way, and guide the proceedings ensuring fair play. The Speaker’s quasi abdication was certainly to the advantage of the president. Whether they were in cahoots as some conspiracy theorists would allege is a moot question. Now coming to the president, he is the man rather Saacid who has much to answer if Parliament cared and was doing its duty to the nation: it is the President who usurped the PM’s powers and run the country like his personal business with no checks and balances; it is him who unscrupulously and shamelessly siphoning off most of the foreign aid to the country to the extent that the disobliging, uncooperative governor of the Central Bank had to flee from the country for her life. Often, he is out of the country globetrotting as if on pleasure trip. And when he is at home he is preoccupied stoking divisive regional and clan tensions. Under him, the country has retrogressed in some areas and in others is at a standstill. It is therefore President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud who should have been in the dock and face the music for his failures and abuse of power. Instead, it is poor Saacid who has been conveniently made the scapegoat for the President’s failures, and punished by a parliament taking its cure from the President’s. As Saacid has been shown the door ignominiously, his downfall has generated an air of euphoria and triumphalism among the president and his parliamentary supporters. Demonstrators belonging to the president’s constituency in Mogadishu were out in the streets celebrating the “victory”. It is as if the nation has won a battle against an enemy. It is certainly a personal victory for President Hassan for he has came out on top and won the day when he should have been impeached and booted out. But that is a pyrrhic victory and no more. Saacid’s departure would have been worthwhile if it was going to lead to a better president, parliament and government. Nothing quarantines this and if anything the opposite is likely to happen. For one thing, President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud, who yearns to became one of the grand African one-man-rule leaders would have been reinforced in his “invincibility” delusions after his victory over Saacid. Parliament has tasted its power to unseat a Prime Minister willy-nilly for their own personal or clan interest and are likely to do it again for the same reasons. The Speaker, whose performance was patently wanting to say the least, is unlikely to tame a resurgent Parliament that has tasted blood. All in all, the only redeeming aspect of Saacid’s sacking is ironically Saacid himself. Unlike most of his uncouth parliamentarian tormentors, he has always been as a person and as Prime Minister a paragon of dignity and gentlemanly conduct – polite and gracious. And he left Office without a fuss, proud, polite and with his head high. This is the only endearing consolation to the nation from this Machiavellian, backstabbing of Prime Minister Saacid that President Hassan Sheikh Mohamoud has brought on the nation. One day, sooner rather than later, he too could run out of luck and friends in Parliament. When that happens, he should take a leaf from Saacid’s book and follow his example and his dignified departure. Mohsin Mahad

There are two areas, however, within which secularism seems to me of the greatest possible importance. The first is the law. The courts must have nothing to do with religious belief, and must ensure that whatever is contrary to the law is punishable, no matter what the religion of the offender. The other institution within which religion must have no privileges is parliament. Of course people may give their views on the morality of proposed legislation from their own religious standpoint, but if they do so, they must make it clear where they are coming from. This is why I have no objection to the presence of the bishops in the House of Lords. We all know that they speak for the church, and the church often needs to be heard, given its history of educational and social philanthropy. But it is crucial that religion has no special rights; we must at all costs remain a democracy, not a theocracy. • Mary Warnock is a moral philosopher and cross-bench life peer http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/26/secularis

Our panel discusses whether a secular society merely separates church and state, or if secularism has a wider remit Will Self: 'I think of it as the separation of church(es) from the state' Will Self I suspect it doesn't mean anything particularly original to me: I simply think of it as the separation of church(es) from the ambit of the state – which is why I consider it a desideratum. The disestablishment of the Church of England would be a welcome move, as would the removal of all bishops, rabbis, mullahs et al from the upper chamber. That the state shouldn't be in the business of funding faith schools goes without saying. • Will Self is a novelist and professor of contemporary thought at Brunel University, London AL Kennedy: 'It's a pathway to sanity' AL Kennedy We live in a time of faith-based everything. Economics is supposed to have no foundation in maths, or reality – we just have to believe. Political policy is based on swivel-eyed assumptions and prejudices, rather than the world, evidence, the reality of suffering, the reality of global warming. And religion – in rather too many cases – wants to be a faith-based political and economic force and to hell with all opposition. Ours is an age of faith as a path to control on a very wide scale – something rigid, paranoid and utterly destructive. And we've been here before, but it would be just immensely cheering if we didn't have to stay long, or reach this point again. It's not OK for what you believe to hurt other people, or hurt you. Massive disconnects between reality, behaviour and policy threaten our species in both small and apocalyptic ways and if I see secularism as anything it's as a pathway to sanity. We probably always will believe weird shit, but it doesn't have to harm us, or others, or the world. Our beliefs can elevate and inspire, and well-policed secularism – a version of secularism that doesn't itself become an alternative set of rigid, aggressive beliefs – could help us to do both. • AL Kennedy is a novelist and critic Nina Power: 'It's having the courage to question everything' Nina Power Secularism means the possibility of getting things wrong and being corrected as a matter of collective concern; it means not having to take orders from one particular way of thinking, but to put oneself in a position to try to understand them all. Secularism to me is a situation where reason meets empathy and compassion in the name of shared values. It means accepting that the spirit of inquiry should always be allowed to flourish and go wherever it is led, even if these are paths that continue to displace the centrality of the human or upset the usual ways of conceiving of the world. Secularism is having the courage to question everything in such a way that no one belief system – religious or otherwise – is permitted to dominate. Secularism is tolerant, critical and open-minded. Above all, secularism means keeping open the possibility that there may not be satisfactory answers to difficult questions, be they scientific, political or existential, that humanity cannot help but ask. • Nina Power is a senior lecturer in philosophy at Roehampton University and the author of One-Dimensional Woman Pragna Patel: 'It is the absence of religious power' Pragna Patel Secularism for me is the house that is Southall Black Sisters, where black and minority women, of all cultures and religions and none, co-exist freely in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect. It is not about the absence of religion but the absence of religious power, a freedom from patriarchal straightjackets that might stifle our lives, dreams and aspirations. It is a space which validates our right to choose our own identity, unlimited by culture, religion or nationality. To quote one of our users: "Tomorrow I celebrate Valentine's Day. Islam says we shouldn't dance. I used to get awards for dancing. I love celebrating Valentine's Day. I will wear red clothes and red lipstick and get a red rose from my husband. I wear lots of make-up and perfume. I also love celebrating Diwali and Christmas and Easter. These are small pieces of happiness." Secularism for me is about the removal of religion, not just from the state, but also from power relations within the family and the community. That is why our struggle for feminism is linked inextricably to our struggle for a secular space. • Pragna Patel is director of Southall Black Sisters Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: 'Secularism stops collapse and chaos' Yasmin Alibhai-Brown I have faith. I pray. Prayers sustain me. But my faith is personal, in my head and heart, within my home. It's the way I connect with my mother and the past and my private conversation with God. It is not a battle cry, not my identity, not something to parade, not a demand on my nation and absolutely not a mark of segregation. Secularism to me means the separation of state and religion. I believe in that separation almost as strongly as I believe in God. We must all live under the same laws and buy into codified human rights. Those take precedence over religious obligations. India, a nation with more religions and believers than almost anywhere else, is a secular state. If it was not, religious wars would tear the country apart. (Pakistan, an Islamic country, is a failed state.) Turkey was secular too and is now hurtling towards becoming an Islamic state, and fragmenting. The US holds on (just) to secularist principles. The UK is in a dreadful muddle. The established religion and the state are tightly plaited together. Which then means other religions can legitimately press the ruling elite for their bit of power, their strand of hair. So we end up as a country of separate religious schools (what did our children do to deserve that in an interconnected world?), exceptionalism in law and even human rights. The centre will not hold for ever with these arrangements. Secularism is the only way to stop collapse and chaos and to foster bonds of citizenship in our complex democracy. • Yasmin Alibhai-Brown is a journalist and a founder of British Muslims for Secular Democracy Jim Al-Khalili: 'Secularism means the freedom to think what I want' Jim Al-Khalili Jim Al-Khalili To me, secularism means more than simply living a life without religion. The son of a Muslim father and Christian mother, I grew up in Iraq in the 60s and 70s, but was lucky enough to be given the freedom to learn and question in a way that would be far more difficult in that country, and indeed many parts of the world, today. So to me, secularism means freedom: freedom to think what I want and to hold a world view that is not forced upon me by government or society. As a scientist I have a rational conviction that the world is comprehensible, that mysteries are only mysteries because we have yet to figure out the answers. So secularism also means the scientific freedom to question why the world is the way it is and to search for empirically testable and reproducible scientific truths that help me make sense of the universe and my place in it without any of the constraints of religious teaching. It also means the freedom to hold dear all that defines what is most precious about humanity – to value attributes such as morality, empathy and tolerance because they define who I am and not because they are imposed on me by the teachings of a holy book. • Jim Al-Khalili is president of the British Humanist Association Jenni Murray: 'Religion should be confined to church' Jenni Murray I've always envied France its insistence on a society that is secular. Separation of church and state took place there in 1905, when it declared that religion should have no influence over government and government should keep its nose out of church affairs. So, no difficulty banning religious symbols from public buildings, no religion in education except in a cultural and historical context, and hatching, matching and dispatching without the need for a God or any mumbo-jumbo about "the devil and all his works" or "those whom God has joined together" or a heavenly afterlife. We, on the other hand, are stuck with an established Church of England and places in the House of Lords for powerful and influential religious leaders. They're from institutions that won't shake hands with a menstruating woman, steadfastly refuse to ordain a female priest or still refer in some quarters to those they have ordained as "pulpit *****". Shocking. Religion should be confined to church, chapel, mosque, synagogue and personal choice. No way should bishops or imams or rabbis have the power in parliament, unelected, to influence the way we heathens (or humanists) should live our lives. Assisted dying is a case in point. • Jenni Murray is a presenter of BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour Mary Warnock: 'Courts must have nothing to do with religious belief' Mary Warnock I would not like to live in a country that was entirely secular. As long as no one is in a position to tell me how to interpret it, or that I must believe in the literal truth of holy writ, then I like there to be an established church, a repository of a long-shared cultural heritage, with a ceremonial function, and a source of genuine belief for many people, of whom I am not one. m-what-does-it-mean-to-you-panel

You folks have flooded the forum with so many Somaliland related topic that It begs the question, are guys lobbying for recognition through Somaliaonline?

^^ War kalay, ma seexatid miyaa?

I have a good relationship with the government of the United Kingdom, I have taken pictures with the Prime Minister David Cameron, the Foreign Minister William Hague and the Home Secretary Theresa May. I want share this picture with you but i wish to remain anonymous.

Nelson Mandela was great man but I am uncomfortable with this sudden messiah like adoration of the man and the cult of personality that has developed around him, especially after the news of his death. Condolences should be offered to his family and to his native country but the mass media coverage of his death and this mass weeping and grieving is distasful to say the least. I also think he hasn't done enough to condemn the corrupt one party state of the ANC, which has developed after he left office.

^^ lamictal

Che -Guevara;988920 wrote: Audio "Xadku waa cirka". More meaningless empty rhetoric

Naxar, you're right our political system does incentives this sort of thing but i also think our fixation with causes of these petty conflicts distract us from where the really faults are within the system. For me, the post for the Speaker of Parliament is central to the development of a mature and a proper form of Government. It 's post which is arguably more powerful and influential than the prime ministry. The Speaker is the chief officer and highest authority in parliament and if he remains politically impartial at all times, like he should, then we would have a fit and proper parliament that could hold the executive branch accountable. If we had a politically impartial Speaker who followed the parliamentary procedures, it would also deter the executive and perhaps minimums conflicts. At the moment we have a Speaker who is not political impartial, a speaker who has complete political immunity and a Speaker who manages parliamentary affairs like school headmaster. His last performance on the Saacid affair was disgrace that reduced the whole process to a farce, It was like he was a co-sponsor of the motion. When Saacid asked to appear before parliament to defend his record and his government, Mr Jawari abdicated his responsibility by cowardly calling for vote of hands, knowing fully that the MPs would reject the request.He denied Saacid his rights, denied parliament their right to hear from the PM and he ultimately denied their Somali people the right to be informed. He then amazingly he calls for a debate and allocates 3 minutes to each MP ( speed dates last longer than that) and then he seats there for 2 days listening to the "debate"(80 MPs reading 3 minutes speeches), before telling us what we already knew. What a joke.

It would be suicidal for Mr Hassan to appoint Farmaajo. The president has some unenviable characteristics. He is incredible inarticulate, amazingly unimaginative, lacks leadership skills and has an authoritarian style. If he appoint the political shrewd and the unabashed self-publicist Farmaango, he will be crucified to his presidential chair and he will be sidelined. And given Hassan characteristics that could lead to an ugly and bitter conflict in the future.

I actual think Saacid should have been deposed the day after he was appointed, he clearly wasn't up to the job. More importantly, I also think Somalia deserves better than this one man circus that Hassan sheikh Mahmoud

Xaaji Xunjuf;988881 wrote: Madaxweynaha ayaa shacabka soomaaliyeed ugu baaqay in ay ka fogaadaan waxyaabaha khilaafka keeni karo,isagoo sheegay in hadii khilaaf dhaco lagu kala baxayo dastuurka dalka u yaala. The audacity and brazenness of this man unbelievable. He has the nerve to lecture people on the rule of law and the constitution, after he just orchestrated the ouster of his Prime Minister.

^^^ Kalun your comments are just tedious and irritating, i know you think your funny but who ever told that played an hideous joke on you. Stop polluting the forum with your verbal diarrhea.

:D