Khadafi, I hate Al Shabab more than you can imagine. I've said it before on this forum numerous times. And I agree that the term "Islamist" is outright silly and redundant. It doesn't really mean anything, and is a made-up term by the media and Western policymakers. But there has always been a difference of opinion in Islam. Even during the days of the Caliphate, you had differences of opinion between the earliest generations of Muslims. Scholars have engaged in dialogue with each other, as well as with Christians and Jews for centuries, and this is nothing new in our history. We've been doing this for centuries. Men such as Ahmed Godane and Mullah Omar go against the very spirit of our religion, and are autocratic Rulers who use the name of the religion for their own personal ambitions. But what we all can agree on, is that we should strive towards the establishment of an Islamic government, and to spread Islamic ideals throughout the world. Today you have groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood, and within their ranks you have differences of opinion as well as differences in methodology. The least we can do is to leave our differences of opinion in our private lives. But when we engage the public, then we should strive to use Islamic principles as well as the principles of dialogue and compromise to govern the country. We even have a term for that in Islam and it's called Shura. The earliest generations of Muslims used it, as well as the subsequent Caliphs. And for hundreds of years, when we Muslims stuck to our principles, the Muslim World was at the forefront of the globe. Muslims in Somalia today should work on building their communities from the ground-up, infusing the communities with Islamic values and principles. Actions such as being a pious individual, standing against corruption, setting up charities and educating the people can go a long way. Muslims in Sudan and Nigeria and Pakistan can do the same thing, and then we can all slowly begin to create Islamic-style governments, which rule according to Islamic principles. When that happens, then we can start talking about establishing a common union between the many different Muslim nations, and by the Grace of Allah, it will eventually start coalescing into a Caliphate. This is a process which can take centuries, but we need to get the building blocks moving TODAY so that our great-grandchildren can reap the benefits of our actions today.

Khadafi, Marx and his ideas have LONG AGO been discredited saaxib. Marx's ideas have been responsible for nothing but stagnation, anemic growth, famines and a whole host of other disasters. Just read about what happened in Ukraine in 1932, when millions of Ukrainians starved to death because of the collectivization of agriculture. It's a disaster. It's always been a disaster, and it will NEVER work. Marx is not relevant and he will never be taken seriously again Khayr, If the minorities in the USA want to advance further, then they need to adopt a value-system which encourages advancement. Chinese immigrants in the United States started off as poor, even poorer than Blacks, but within a generation they moved up in the ranks. Blacks have been living in the inner-cities in America for several generations. You can go into Philadelphia or Detroit or Baltimore or Atlanta and find nothing but Blacks. Yet the place is a hellhole. But as soon as Whites start to move in, they start to gentrify the neighborhood, clean it up, build new businesses and make it a more pleasant place to live. Why are Whites capable of doing these things and we are not? What's stopping Black Americans from pooling their resources together and investing in their own community?

This is very true. Even many US Policymakers admit that their interventions in the Middle East ALWAYS backfire, giving birth to newer, more radical groups. Several Bush Administration officials admitted that their policy of overthrowing the Islamic Courts in Somalia back in 2006 was a bad idea. Because the Islamic Courts were more Moderate, and they could be reasoned with and negotiated with. The overthrow of the Islamic Courts gave birth to a newer, far more radical movement.

These were the same problems that existed in China in the 1980's when Western Corporations hired Chinese workers to work low-wage, unpleasant jobs. Many Chinamen died on the jobs and it was a serious problem at the time. And now China is doing the same thing in Africa in the 2010's. One should hope that Africa accumulates enough capital that one day, they won't need Chinese intervention anymore, and they would be self-reliant....inshaAllah. China went through many of the same growing-pains in the 1980's. India went through the same phase in the 1990's. Africa--unfortunately--has to go through this painful phase as well.

<cite> @xabad said:</cite> you very shallow doctor and this story proves it beyond doubt. LOL You really think your words count for something on this forum

LOL Nice title I thought for a second that it was confirmed he was killed ....Looks like that's not true (yet) Let's hope that this is the end of Godane, inshaAllah

This is a very interesting article I found on the web and I thought I might share it here The globalization of secular-liberalism is nothing new. Indeed, it has existed and persisted for many years; tacitly and subliminally manifesting in the realm of society, our homes and more perilously in our conscious and subconscious minds, writes Yemeni-based journalist Yousef Mawry. It is an obtrusive, vigorous force which will stop at nothing to reach its goals; obliterating anything and everything that stands in its way, whether it be a regime, a political movement, a universal concept, a religious belief, even the free-thinking mind. Many people are now aware of Globalization; or as I like to call it, Glob-liberalization. The idea of seeing a global society where people from all walks of life – irrespective of religious belief, culture, race or ethnicity, embrace one ideological political and social system has empirically become our reality. The reality of liberal democracy where liberal concepts dominate the norms of society. Liberalism, Secularism and Democracy are the all offsprings of Capitalism, which originated back in the 16th century, after 30 years of war between European powers and the Roman Church. The war ended with the “Westphalia Treaty” which united Europe under the principles of secularism, i.e., separation of religion from state. It was after the “Westphalia Treaty” that state-sponsored religion started to decline rapidly in society and in people’s affairs. People in Europe during the late 16th century began to embrace anti-religious movements emphasizing human reason, freedom, individualism, and skepticism about religious views. Ironically, such a movement was defined as: “The Age of Enlightment”. Although the Age of Enlightment materialistically pulled Europe out of the Dark Ages, it also spurned atheism, and raised sentiment against religious views due the oppression and exploitation Europeans faced in the name of religion – thanks to the Roman Catholic Church. The newly established secular Europe managed to eradicate religion from most western societies; however, it still faced a grave threat from the Ottoman Caliphate, which had previously swept southern and Eastern Europe under the religion of Islam. Apolitical Islam Britain and France countered the threat, not by military confrontation, but by attacking the Ottoman Empire’s greatest treasures which were the thoughts and concepts of Islam which Muslims politically and intellectually possessed. This was executed strategically by planting western missionaries in the Muslim world whose objectives were to: 1. Interchange the Islamic thoughts and concepts with secular and liberal philosophies. The Ottomon caliphate was disbanded in 1924 The Ottomon caliphate was disbanded in 1924 2. Detach Muslims from the political, social and economic regulations of Islam. 3. Instigate nationalistic conflicts between Arabs and the Ottomans. Eventually the Ottoman Caliphate was officially abolished in March 23, 1924, and a secular Turkish state was established, while the Caliphate lands were divided and acculturated by secular colonial powers. The map of the Middle East we see today is the work of the Sykes-Picot agreement where the British and French foreign ministers Mr Sykes and Mr Picot drew the national borders of the modern day secular-Muslim nations. Islam as a comprehensive political system is no longer applied today because the Muslim world has adopted the same secular-liberal tenets which toppled the Roman Catholic Church and the Ottoman Caliphate. These secular-liberal concepts are now inculcated universally throughout the world. They are praised and promoted by politicians, public figures, news networks, cartoons, and even so-called Islamic scholars and local imams who fervently hasten to show western-liberal powers that they have adhered and conformed to the global political ideology of liberalism. Gay marriage In the UK, some religious personal and commentators have come out publicly announcing unequivocal support for the right of men to marry men, i.e., conforming to the liberal political position. One has to question why these religious figures would approve of such a notion if it’s clearly antithetical to the religion they follow. Did they just make a simple mistake, or have they embraced the secular-liberal ideology which views same-sex marriage as a basic human right? The secular-liberal ideology has no tolerance for religion in state affairs, and will not accept any individual who uses religion as the premise for deriving laws and concepts of life. As the world has been witnessing in recent years, liberal society seems to be moving towards eradicating the effect of religion in people’s lives. Richard Dawkins, an atheist and hardcore proponent of secular-liberalism, publicly calls for the abolishment of religion from education and even declared it as “illegal” and as “child abuse.” It’s not a coincidence that most atheists are liberal; however, in accordance with the global trend, we now also see that more and more religious clerics, scholars and Imams are embracing the liberal dogma and are propagating it every chance they get. Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, who many view as a “spiritual reviver of Islam” has publicly denounced the association of religion and state. In a lecture he delivered in 2013, he stated: “the vast majority of Islamic history had relatively secular-states, they weren’t really Islamic states. The whole concept of an Islamic state is a fantasy.” He also said: “Religion really has little to do with the running of a state”. We are also coming to find out that liberal societies will stop at nothing to defame and discredit any person who seeks to shape his life in accordance with divine laws. Richard Dawkins Richard Dawkins On April 6, of this year, The Telegraph published an article with the headline: “extremist working as psychiatric for NHC”. The article attempted to defame Dr Imran Waheed for being a member of an Islamic political group that seeks to establish a political system in the Muslim world based on the religion of Islam. The article labeled Dr Imran as an “extremist” and a “radical” because he is against the state of Israel and against same-sex marriage. It seems liberal societies prefer a male doctor who is gay, than a Muslim who adheres to his religion peacefully and is against such sin. It is important also to note that choosing to be gay is not just part of a citizen’s freedom, it has become part of his/her basic rights in the liberal word. Secular-liberal powers such as the US, will not even tolerate Uganda’s law to ban homosexuality which was passed by President Museveni. The US Secretary of State has publically condemned the anti-gay law and has mentioned that it is similar to anti-semitism. John Kerry even went to the extent of sending “Homosexuality Experts” to convince Uganda’s president to change the law – which he passed after medical experts convinced the Ugandan President that there is no genetic basis for homosexuality. The Huffington Post quoted the US Secretary of State as saying the following: “I talked personally to President Museveni just a few weeks ago, and he committed to meet with some of our experts so that we could engage him in a dialogue as to why what he did could not be based on any kind of science or fact, which is what he was alleging.” In September of 2012, The Telegraph published an article with the title: “Teachers face sack for refusing to endorse gay marriages”. The article mainly stressed that if teachers refuse to teach same-sex marriage textbooks, they could statutorily be fired. The paper also imparted that parents would not be able to withdraw theirs kids from any same-sex marriage sessions in school. For people of faith, this is indeed startling, whether you are a Muslim, Christian, Catholic or Jewish. Irrespective of religion, people who practice any of the mentioned faiths, holistically, teach their kids to abstain from greats sins such as killing, fornication, intoxication and homosexuality. Secularism Children who live under a religious roof are taught to shape their lives accordingly with their faith. So why has liberal society suddenly decide to radically impose homosexuality as a universal common norm, which everyone must accept, and which every religion must conform to? Why should people of faith and their communities kneel before an arrogant anti-religious political system that demands explicit, unequivocal adherence? A system that will zealously rush to defend those who engage in sacrilegious invectives against God and his Prophets under free speech, and on the other hand, label those who get offended as extremist, undemocratic, close-minded and trying to suppress freedom. How does religion maintain any effect in society if its virtues and moralities contradict the very law? In such a society, religion ultimately faces extermination; thanks to the aid of religious scholars, clerics, local imams, public figures, and activists who for years programmed the youth to believe that religion should not get involved in politics. By default, if you hold the opinion that religion shouldn’t get involved in politics, you have indirectly embraced the most basic principal of secular-liberalism. And in such a case, any religious view you hold or try to live by, is not welcomed by law. Ironically, the sternest secular society is not in the West; it is actually in the last base of the Islamic Ottoman Empire-modern day Turkey. http://www.5pillarz.com/2014/05/07/the-spread-of-liberalism-and-the-extermination-of-religion/

I think this is over-exaggerated. I really don't think the Saudi regime is THAT dumb.

Yeah, Assad has dwindling resources and manpower and he can't keep this fight going on indefinitely. And his troops and people are becoming more and more demoralized day by day, as many young Alawi men are killed everyday in battle. But the Alawi people number at least 3 million. There is no way they won't attempt to form their own state and then defend themselves against all attackers. Remember, defense is always easier than offense. And if the Alawites fortify their positions in the coastal region and then declare their own independence as a Secular Alawite State, I don't see any reason why The Major Global Powers won't recognize their independence and even supply them with more weaponry. And the Rebels in Syria wouldn't consider it worth their while to use their resources to try and conquer the Alawite State on the Coast.

What Bashar Assad will do--in due time--is to consolidate all of his forces and make a push towards Syria's coastal region. And then he will attempt to create a Secular Alawi State in the Coastal Region, for his own people. And then he will leave the rest of Syria to the Sunnis. That's his only ploy in order to ensure the survival of his own people, because this war can't go on indefinitely. And there really is no turning back now. Syria will NEVER return to it's former state.

Modern Norm #5 All of the nations in the world must be judged according to British and American standards. How closely do they resemble the British/American model? Is it secular enough to their liking? Do they promote "diversity" and gay rights?

The Pakis in North America are great. I don't know what went wrong in the U.K!!

<cite> @Mooge said:</cite> AUN inta dhimatay. this is not good niyoow. siilaanyo is radicalizing SSC people and killing them every single day. Siilaanyo is literally killing the prospect of there ever being a "United Somaliland" Through his actions, he antagonized almost every single tribal group in the region, and Somaliland is looking more and more like a rogue "State"....and killing whatever chance they have of gaining recognition

Black Americans have low self esteem. They think they're not capable of developing their own communities independent of the White Man! Chinese people have their own communities in California. In Brampton, Canada you find entire neighborhoods full of Paki's and Indians. Entire prosperous neighborhoods. And so on and so on. But the prosperous Black people all want to pack their bags and live amongst Cadaan people who want nothing to do with them. Its very embarrassing

This is a 29 year old guy who has 9 children? Are you kidding me??

There is nothing more disgraceful than seeing the Black Community in America demanding to live amongst Whites, while Whites are running away to try and live separately from the Black Man. They even have a term for it. It's called "White Flight". Whites make it clear that they have zero desire to live with us. So what do Blacks do? We chase them around and demand to live amongst them. It's despicable and downright humiliating. Live in your own communities, clean it up and make it presentable! Pressure the city to hire more Black cops to police the neighborhood and set up a "Neighborhood Watch." Punish anyone who's littering or using graffiti and make it a safe, pleasant community....instead of running away and attempting to live amongst Whites, who want nothing to do with you

<cite> @FreeThinkingGaalo said:</cite> Haha Nice one! So you do believe in peadophilia. Cool not really much I can say about that other than I thank your non existent god that Sharia law doesn't exist in the country I live in. P.S definition of logical fallacy:A formal fallacy is a pattern of reasoning that is always wrong. This is due to a flaw in the logical structure of the argument which renders the argument invalid. Write that out a thousand times and stamp it on your Farah head. I don't know what else you want me to say Piss off

<cite> @FreeThinkingGaalo said:</cite> Takbir! Sharia is the truth since the infedels themselves have no morale framework! Who cares if Sharia Law allows domestic violence, Paedophilia, Slavery, Sexual Slavery etc. So long as the kuffars don't have a morale framework ours cannot be judged!! ^^^^^^^ That's basically your position. Complete joke. How can you not see the logical fallacy. Secularism is the separation of Religion from the state. I am arguing that a state has the ability to create a morally superior code than the Sharia. If you do not want to have a debate over this than just prove to me how paedophilia is morale? If you do not wan't to do that you don't have to reply to this post. In order to judge something as moral or immoral, then you need to have a moral framework in order to make that judgment. Otherwise you're just throwing allegations on no basis. That is so obvious that I can't believe you're incapable of seeing that for yourself. Or maybe it's because you don't know what you're talking about? Maybe that's it And you keep saying "logical fallacy logical fallacy logical fallacy" over and over again. You sound like a broken record . Did you learn what that phrase meant just yesterday? Or are you using that term in a desperate attempt to appear intellectual? These are piss-poor arguments and you're an Amateur.

And can you blame them? Any honest person would look at the situation and conclude that the majority of African-American districts have higher crime rates and as a result, property values drop. If the mostly-White people want to break away and form their own communities, then who are we to stop them?

<cite> @FreeThinkingGaalo said:</cite> Why write the P.S if you've said what you needed to say (again with the contradictory posts). Are you seriously asking me to create a universally acceptable morale code on the internet? Why not try defending the already existing Sharia. Asking me to define a universal morale code for you instead of you defending the Sharia surely raises questions about the morality of the Sharia. Your basically taking a cop-out position. For instance, it would be permisible for a man in his mid 50s to marry a 6 year old under Sharia law. You cannot possibly defend that, can you? I'm taking the cop-out position because I refuse to defend my positions to someone who doesn't even have an articulate moral framework with which he can pass judgments? This is equivalent to someone who wears a mask and calls others "ugly"!! You're perfectly comfortable sitting in the chair of judge, jury, and executioner. Throwing allegations against Islam while I spend hours formulating a response to defend myself against you. And then once the matter is concluded, you bring up something new, something unsubstantiated and its just an endless cycle where I have to " win" your approval. You Atheists are completely unable to defend your positions or even discuss Islam in a calm rational manner....which is why you prefer to get involved in pseudo-debates that take place on the internet. You think its absurd to defend your moral framework on the internet, yet you hypocritically ask Muslims to do just that. And then you have the nerve to call that a "discussion" I have news for you pal. Discussions are a two-way street. And if I had to waste my time addressing the concerns of every random Farah or Liban, I'd be out of time and energy.

Do you see the way Israel reacted when they lost like 65 soldiers in battle? They couldn't handle it wallahi. Israel can't handle casualties. Israel is a tiny country, smaller than Djibouti. It has a small population and they're surrounded on all sides by Muslim nations. They NEED the help of a foreign superpower to survive, and they know they can't stand on their own two feet. If just one Muslim country was serious about confronting Israel, then Israel wouldn't be behaving like this.

http://www.5pillarz.com/2014/07/13/israel-isnt-as-strong-and-mighty-as-many-think/ Look at this short article, "Israel isn't as strong and mighty as many think" Which is a very interesting article and goes into detail about Israeli vulnerabilities and weaknesses.

<cite> @FreeThinkingGaalo said:</cite> Wow your just not getting it. By posting on the thread you are engaging in a discussion, if you did not wish to engage in a discussion regarding the topic of the thread you shouldn't have posted a reply. It's as simple as that. P.S just because there isn't an international morale framework doesn't mean a framework that is morally superior to the Sharia cannot be created. You are committing a logical fallacy. Okay, I've said what I needed to say. P.S. Until you do establish a universal moral framework with which you can establish laws and customs, then a Muslim is not obligated to respond to you or to defend his positions.

<cite> @FreeThinkingGaalo said:</cite> Wait, what? If you weren't interested in any sort of discussion why did you comment? And why have you then asked me to defend my beliefs to you, which (news flash), would be a discussion that you are seemingly not interested in having. But you carry on with your contradictory f*ck fest by telling me to "believe in what I want" just after asking me to defend my beliefs! It's clear you lack the logic and critical thinking skills to engage in any decent discussion since you can't write a post without having it riddle with contradictions. I commented because you asked a question, and I answered. It's that simple. You believe in what you want. I've already challenged secularism in other threads, to other members on this forum, and they couldn't even defend their beliefs and cowardly stood silent when they couldn't even articulate what they believed in. They were unable to even establish a universal moral framework which was consistent and coherent. So I'm not going to re-invent the wheel and get into the same discussion, just with a different person. Everything that needs to be said, has already been said.

<cite> @FreeThinkingGaalo said:</cite> Instead of being passive-aggressive and insulting would you like to engage in a discussion in which I put forward the case against Shariah Law? No. I'm not interested in having any sort of discussion with you. I actually don't care what you think and I have no desire to persuade you at all. I absolutely refuse to defend the complex economic, political, social system that is known as the Shariah (which can fill thousands of pages and entire libraries full of legal material) to someone such as yourself. You defend your beliefs to me, not the other way around. Believe in what you want.