Haatu;972492 wrote: ^^That's one of the original meanings. You have to remember iskahadal being autobiography is the result of eraybixin as it did not originally exist in the Somali language. The word iska can have a few meanings from what I understand. The one you mentioned yacni iska hadal and one denoting something personal e.g. iska-wax-uqabso self help and iskahadal autobio. yacni adaa iska hadlaysaa . You are confusing 'iska' and 'iskaa'. It's 'iskaa wax u qabso'.

According to this map Ceel-afweyn, Qorilugud, Oog, Bohol, Midhisho, Jidbale and Ceerigaabo are all part of Puntland. These people really don't realize how far east the SNM clan lives.

Maaddeey;970700 wrote: Abbaas, diinta Islaamka gabar yar oon qaangaarin in nin ka weyn lagu mehriyo maxay ka qabtaa?. .

DoctorKenney;970695 wrote: Actually, no. Zakat is very much a tax which is paid to the Islamic State and is administered by the Caliph himself. Who are you to intentionally distort these facts when it is well documented that after the Prophet (pbuh) died, Abu Bake took over as his successor and there were various Arab tribes in the Najd area who refused to pay their Zakat (although they still believed in Islam) and Abu Bakr organized a war against them for that reason (Sahih Muslim 0029) The same way how in the United States, people here who refuse to pay their income tax are imprisoned and in some instances have their properties seized. So Zakat is very much a tax, whilst "Sadaqah" is something optional which you can decide to give however much you want. Either way, Non-Muslims shouldn't be surprised that they would have to pay a tax in order to live in the Islamic State, and the Jizyah tax is normally very light (under 2% of your income) Do not come on this website, register, and then immediately decide to give arguments on subjects you know little about +1000 Rageedi!

Until Somalis understand that it doesn't have to be a choice between Arab cultural backwardness and Godless feminism they will remain confused. The funny thing is the authentic reer miyi dhaqan seems to be the perfect balance between the two in terms of the role, rights and responsibilities of women. But as Somalis are so accustomed to doing, we continue looking for answers outside the parameters of our inherited cultural heritage. A shame really.

Below was a response I made to a post by Nuune. I dare any of u to come up with a rebuttal and/or challenge any of Gaaroodi's facts. You do realize that these British sources that you're complaining about were also used extensively by Aw Jaamax, Faarax Idaaja and the other practitioners of historical alchemy who miraculously turned fairy-tales into fact. So Gaaroodi isn't doing something new here by citing British sources, but he is doing something new by posting these online for all to see, free of the clan motivated selectiveness and distortions of the Kacaan/neo-D@@rood historians. Your notion that the British were biased and not neutral in reporting the events on the ground is illogical. Firstly, the British have no vested interest in painting one clan as more heroic than another nor as being more devoted to the daraawiish cause. But for arguements sake let's say the British were reporting in a biased fashion because they favoured the SNM clan over the Khaatumo clan (which I assume u are alluding to in your comment about neutrality). Why would they portray their chosen clan as hostile to British interests?. In such a case would they not go out of their way to highlight the loyalty of the SNM clan (loyalty being a virtuous attribute in their warped colonial minds) and exaggerate the belligerence and rebelliousness of the Khaatumo clan? This would make what Gaaroodi is currently doing almost impossible, as he'd have nothing or very little to substantiate his claims. But as you can clearly see we find no such bias in their historical records, because it is filled with accounts of perpetually shifting alliances within the region involving all the clans. There was no black and white divide between British friendly clans and pro Daraawiish clans, as the situation could and did change within months or a few years. Secondly, it was not in the interest of the British to report inaccurate accounts of what was happening in Somaliland, as much of these writings influenced the military and political policies pursued by the british in the said region. Inaccuracies in the form of additions, deletions and embellishments would cost them dearly in terms of human and economic resources. As for your last point, well it just boggles the mind how you could invest in Somali historians the power to be neutral in their accounts, knowing the power clan bias has on perception and interpretation, while accusing the White European who belonged to no clan, and who was only in Somaliland to ship somali meat to Aden and viewed all of us as wild and savage nomads, of being biased in his rendition of the facts.

Mad_Mullah;969508 wrote: Again one of these threads. Next he's going to post some Niiko videos to proof we belong with the Ugandans. So in ur simple mind the Somalis who refuse to claim to be Arabs are nothing more than bantu-loving booty shakers. What a profound dhicotomy. lool.

SOO MAAL;969490 wrote: You can disagree with him, but he is smart man who knows what he's looking for. He wants recognition and sympathy from the British Government. I was talking about u.

Mad_Mullah;969482 wrote: What does Kacaan even mean? Revolution.

^Intellectual migit-kan bal eega.

Mad_Mullah;969459 wrote: Gumaysi is gumaysi. You should never be proud of that. Huh? Who said anyone is proud of it? I'm just explaining that indeed it was a a period of distinct history, one which I of course wish did not exist.

Mad_Mullah;969456 wrote: They call being colonized by the British as 'distinct history' (in London). Whaaaa.... It's true though. The south went through a different type of gumaysi. The Italians were authoritarian in their colonial practices, while the British were aloof and laissez-faire for the most part. These distinct colonial experiences led to various tensions and misunderstanings between reer waqooyi and reer koonfur during the union.

Mad_Mullah;969419 wrote: I do think Landers have an image of being Uncle Toms, pics like these aren't helping: What in the pic makes them look like uncle toms?

Xaaji Xunjuf;969444 wrote: Garoodi adiguna u need to slow down on generalizing entire communities you are missing the entire point yes aw jamac and his version is far from the truth. The Dervish movement did not care about clan their objective was not achieving clan interest but an Islamic dervish state in the horn. The dervish attacked every clan they saw it was either join them or be attacked so the Garaad clan is no exception they did the same with the maakhir clan the burco clans the hawd clans and so on. You are not trying to correct historic mistakes made by other authors u are just trying to alienate other communities which is wrong and to down play their role in the movement. I agree. Gaaroodi needs to take a more balanced approach.

Haatu;969418 wrote: Then why not make your point quietly and educate the people (I doubt anyone really needs educating on this) without all this bruhaha and clan vitriol? Mise you blame the actions of a dictator and those on his payroll on a whole clan? Mad Mullah has a point as well. Laba meel baad kasoo hadleysiin. Marka hore mowqifkiina ku aadan Daraawiishta kasoo heshiiya then come back to us. I'm not blaming your whole clan. Where'd you get that idea from. I'm blaming the historians from your clan who were given license by the Kacaan to rewrite Somali history as they saw fit.

Che -Guevara;969422 wrote: Wadani. Aren't trying to lionize your own group? You can't accuse people of the very thing you are doing. If you want to do some justice, take broader view. Don't hit us with my clan were supreme leaders. Che, i'm not trying to do that. All i'm saying is the history of the daraawiish belongs to us all. We all had and still have pro and anti daraawiish elements in our clans. But the Kacaan inspired historians paint a different picture, which is inaccurate and unfair to my clan. Wallahi If SNM historians had done this to D-blockers I'd be upset about it too. I'm an objective realist who bases his opinions on facts and not clan bravado.

Mad_Mullah;969417 wrote: Didn't Landers make a camel corp and help the British? Aren't they till this day saying Mad Mullah was a thief, criminal etc. and that the British were protecting them? looool, Mad Mullah walaal, u clearly haven't read this through this thread. Yes, SNMers were in the camel corp. But so were D-blockers, what's your point? And as for SNM painting the Mullah as a criminal, you'd be surprised how much of D-block viewed him before the Kacaan revisions took hold among them. Read some of the poetry of Cali Dhuux and Qamaan Bulxan to get an idea, as these two were his contemporaries.

Haatu;969410 wrote: I'm still confused as to what Gaaroodi and his SNM brothers' point is. Are they saying the Daraawiish was not a clan movement but a national movement (even though everyone knows this) or are they saying Idaajaa & Co. left out doorkii SNMka in the movement? What we're saying is the history of the Daraawiish has been used to lionize certain Somali clans and alienate and stigmatize others, even though there is no evidence to back these claims up, except waxay afar oday oo isku hayb ahi jeebabkooda kala soo baxeen.

Che -Guevara;969408 wrote: Wadani. us? You aptly demonstrated the whole purpose of this thread. As you were... Huh?

Haatu;969404 wrote: Wadani & Co., please stay on topic. This thread is for highlighting the achievements of Uncle Ducaale. (PS: What do you mean bahdil? Isn't that their land and country and have a right to be included? Mise they should all grow dreadlocks, wield AKs and do exotic dances in the bush lol ) No, but he shouldn't say things like 'I feel like a part of this government', as if the Bantu's are being benevolent to him and giving him a piece of something he has not inherent right to.

Mad_Mullah;969405 wrote: I don't get what's going on, are you saying that the majority of followers of the Mad Mullah were from the Is--aaq? No, the followers consisted of all clans. Sometimes majority SNM, sometimes and actually for a long time majority SSDF, and sometimes majority Khaatumo/O.G. But Aw Jaamac and Idaaja and the rest would have you believe that SNM were gaalo raac and that D-block were valiant warriors fighting the British. The leadership of the Daraawiish is a different story though. Those at the very top of the movement were majority SNM.

Saalax;969399 wrote: Lol sounds like a uncle tom. My thoughts exaclty. 'I feel like i'm part of the government' kulahaa lool. Ninkan halkee lagu soo gumaysan jiray. Ma sidan ayay reer NFD u bah-dilanyihiin?

nuune;969341 wrote: Lander , waxa aanba ka soo hrojeedo illaa iyo waagii aan aniga iyo adiga meejan SOL isla joogney waa Britishka, ma Britishkii cadowga ahaa ayaan sourcigooda aaminayaa oon dhihi karaaba they documented these events pretty well, kaligoodna on the ground ma joogin, what makes them neutral anyway, ayagaaba cadaw ahaa at the time regardless the partnership they had with some tribes at the time, halkaa dib ugu noqo, Abti. The Portugeese one was metaphorical, hence I do hate the Portuqiis more since intey Xamar yimaadeen, quruxdeeda ka yaabeen, even better built than Lisbon at the time, ayey intey ku xanaqeen bey dambas magaaladii ka wada dhigeen dahabkiina wada dhaceen, laakin our friend, Gaaroodi, xoogoow ha yareeyo the non stop mentioning of British ayaa sidan ah and sidaan ah, sidaas yidhi, am sure Somalis documented the events much better than the British waa hadii la raadiyo, that is my point. You do realize that these British sources that you're complaining about were also used extensively by Aw Jaamax, Faarax Idaaja and the other practitioners of historical alchemy who miraculously turned fairy-tales into fact. So Gaaroodi isn't doing something new here by citing British sources, but he is doing something new by posting these online for all to see, free of the clan motivated selectiveness and distortions of the Kacaan/neo-D@@rood historians. Your notion that the British were biased and not neutral in reporting the events on the ground is illogical. Firstly, the British have no vested interest in painting one clan as more heroic than another nor as being more devoted to the daraawiish cause. But for arguements sake let's say the British were reporting in a biased fashion because they favoured the SNM clan over the Khaatumo clan (which I assume u are alluding to in your comment about neutrality). Why would they portray their chosen clan as hostile to British interests?. In such a case would they not go out of their way to highlight the loyalty of the SNM clan (loyalty being a virtuous attribute in their warped colonial minds) and exaggerate the belligerence and rebelliousness of the Khaatumo clan? This would make what Gaaroodi is currently doing almost impossible, as he'd have nothing or very little to substantiate his claims. But as you can clearly see we find no such bias in their historical records, because it is filled with accounts of perpetually shifting alliances within the region involving all the clans. There was no black and white divide between British friendly clans and pro Daraawiish clans, as the situation could and did change within months or a few years. Secondly, it was not in the interest of the British to report inaccurate accounts of what was happening in Somaliland, as much of these writings influenced the military and political policies pursued by the british in the said region. Inaccuracies in the form of additions, deletions and embellishments would cost them dearly in terms of human and economic resources. As for your last point, well it just boggles the mind how you could invest in Somali historians the power to be neutral in their accounts, knowing the power clan bias has on perception and interpretation, while accusing the White European who belonged to no clan, and who was only in Somaliland to ship somali meat to Aden and viewed all of us as wild and savage nomads, of being biased in his rendition of the facts.

Che -Guevara;969340 wrote: We shall contribute when there's something worthy discussing, till then not a lot effort needs to be wasted on grown men with chip on their shoulders. This is not tol khat session. You can belittle us and our arguements all you want, but it's reduced to nothing but hot air if you don't counter Gaaroodi's research with counter arguements supported by facts.

Classified;969323 wrote: What do you expect from a man with a self-contradictory username. lol The irony is too much.