Mizz_unique, I don't see the contradiction. Abaayo, As a Somali citizen, he is eligible to hold the office. Yes, he has won awards in Western literature. As a person, he is a good man and he is much better than the current warlords. However, that does not make him the best candidate for Somalia. For one thing, he is not in-sync with Somalis and their clan politicking. By the way, I think you would agree with me that I am free to vote for (when and if I ever get that privilege) whomever I please. Enterepreneur, True sxb, authors often use analogy in their plot to dramatize. All I’m saying is that I was not expecting to hear it from him at this particular reception.

Maansha'Allah, Edna and muxajabadaha...beautifull pics. Two thumps up for Edna's good work.

Entre, I have met him awhile back just after his big win, Neudstadt International price of literature. He was at Linda Hall, U of M, we were about seven Somalis, and the rest were Americans. He was asked to read excerpts from Secrets, one of the trilogies (hope my memory doesn’t fail me). The excerpts he chose shocked me...the setting was Afgoye and it was about a man having sex with a cow in early (morning some1 plz double check this if u have a copy of the book). He was kind enough to meet with us, in private, and pose pictures with us and I asked him about his readers (are Somalis included) and why he hadn’t written in his own native language. He said the Government in power at the seventies censored and practically denied access to Somali readers. He went on to explain that Somali language was written after he come of age as a writer. He is very agreeable man. One of the Somalis kept asking him questions in English and Nuradin gave the answers in Somali...that was awesome, I thought. I agree with OGUN, I would not recommend him to run let alone vote for him. He ought to do what he does best - writing. He is a qualified citizen to run for the presidency though.

Mr.Chege Mbitiru hit the nail on the head. Harsh commentary? Yes, but true characterization of the actors in this latest drama. Start from the strongman in Puntland to lords in Mogadishu they all fit quite well what Mbitiru delineated in that peace. Shame on us I had high hopes in this particular peace conference but it seems all the effort from the participants and the goodwill of IGAD are going to end up in the waste basket. I'm very disappointed nomad.

My question is ; why is it hard for Somalis to say "I don't know"? To answer ur question: I don’t know! There it is u see most of us do say ‘I don’t know’ after all! Entrepreneur, sxb not all Somalis lie about their credentials nor do they act as experts on matters beyond their reach. Yes Somalis (if I can generalize) are assertive, confident, and bit opinionated. Even if ur observation is widespread phenomena, still it is not a malady per se but a blessing in some corners. There are instances where conveying this perception “Waan daadshe” and “ I’m somebody” attitude get u ahead. In fact, that’s what is being taught in employment search classes: don’t ever give the impression of inaptitude. Nomads are doing subconsciously what motivational speakers preach to their audiences: believe in yourselves and always have high self-esteem. In job interviews, for instance, where your task is to answer the questions in a way that convinces the potential employer that you are the right person for the job or to sell yourself as the best candidate for the job, “waan daadshe” attitude comes handy. In any event, I agree your premise that “I don’t know” is what we supposed to say when we are asked the subjects we have no knowledge whatsoever.

obit Edward Said By Christopher Hitchens Posted Friday, September 26, 2003, at 12:44 PM PT The loss of Professor Edward Said, after an arduous battle with demoralizing illness that he bore very bravely, will be unbearable for his family, insupportable to his immense circle of friends, upsetting to a vast periphery of admirers and readers who one might almost term his diaspora, and depressing to all those who continue hoping for a decent agreement in his birthplace of Jerusalem. To address these wrenching thoughts in their reverse order, one could commence by saying quite simply that if Edward's personality had been the human and moral pattern or example, there would be no "Middle East" problem to begin with. His lovely, intelligent, and sensitive memoir Out of Place was a witness to the schools and neighborhoods in Jerusalem and Cairo where fraternity between Arabs, Jews, Druze, Armenians, and others was a matter of course. (His memory also comprised a literary Beirut where the same could be said.) He took an almost aesthetic interest in the details, eccentricities, and welfare of his own particular confession—the Anglican Christians of Jerusalem and especially St. Georges school in the eastern part of the city—but it's hard if not impossible to imagine anyone with less sectarian commitment. When talking to him about the various types of sacred rage that poison the region, one gained the impression of someone to whom this sort of fanaticism was, in every declension of the word, quite foreign. Indeed, if it had not been for the irruption of abrupt force into the life of his extended family and the ripping apart of the region by partition and subpartition, I can easily imagine Edward evolving as an almost apolitical person, devoted to the loftier pursuits of music and literature. To see and hear him play the piano was to be filled with envy as well as joy: One was witnessing a rather angst-prone person who had developed the perfect recreation to an extraordinary pitch. To ask him for a tutorial and a reading list, as I more than once did, was to be humbled by the sheer reach of his erudition. I can still hear the doors that opened in my mind as he explicated George Eliot's rather recondite Daniel Deronda. Nor did he mind being slightly teased at his advanced appreciation of the finer points: He was always faultlessly dressed (as far as I could tell, anyway) and used to delight in buying clothes for his wonderful wife, Mariam. On one occasion in New York, after giving us a tremendous tour of the Metropolitan Museum during its show on the art of Andalusia (and filling out the most exquisite details on the syntheses and paradoxes of Islamic, Moorish, and Jewish Spain), he took my own wife on a tour of the shops to advise her expertly on the best replacement for a mislaid purse. I never met a woman who did not admire him, and I never knew him to be anything but gallant. As I look back, I am inclined to be overcome at the number of such occasions, where his bearing and address were so exemplary and his companionship such a privilege. His feeling for the injustice done to Palestine was, in the best sense of this overused term, a visceral one. He simply could not reconcile himself to the dispossession of a people or to the lies and evasions that were used to cover up this offense. He was by no means simple-minded or one-sided about this: In a public dialogue with Salman Rushdie 15 years ago, he described the Palestinians as "victims of the victims," an ironic formulation that hasn't been improved upon. But nor did he trust those who introduced pseudo-complexities as a means of perpetuating the status quo. I know a shocking number of people who find that they can be quite calm about the collective punishment of Palestinians yet become wholly incensed at the symbolic stone he once threw—from Lebanon! Personally, I preferred his joint enterprise with Daniel Barenboim to provide musical training for Israeli and Palestinian children. But for Edward, injustice was to be rectified, not rationalized. I think that it was, for him, surpassingly a matter of dignity. People may lose a war or a struggle or be badly led or poorly advised, but they must not be humiliated or treated as alien or less than human. It was the downgrading of the Palestinians to the status of a "problem" (and this insult visited upon them in their own homeland) that aroused his indignation. That moral energy, I am certain, will outlive him. I knew and admired him for more than a quarter-century, and I hope I will not be misunderstood if I say that his moral energy wasn't always matched by equivalent political judgment. Indeed, it should be no criticism of anyone to say that politics isn't their best milieu, especially if the political life has been forced upon them. Edward had a slight tendency to self-pity, and the same chord was struck even in the best of his literary work, which often expressed a too-highly developed sense of injury and victimhood. (I am thinking of certain passages in his Orientalism and some of the essays in Culture and Imperialism as well.) He was sometimes openly alarmed at the use made of his scholarship by younger academic poseurs who seemed to despise the classical canon of literature that he so much revered. Yet he was famously thin-skinned and irascible, as I have good reason to remember, if any criticism became directed at himself. Some of that criticism was base and outrageous and sordidly politicized—I have just finished reading the obituary in the New York Times, which in a cowardly way leaves open the question as to whether Edward, or indeed any other Palestinian, lost a home in the tragedy of 1947-48—but much of it deserved more patience than he felt he had to spare. And he was capable of stooping to mere abuse when attacking other dissidents—particularly other Arab dissidents, and most particularly Iraqi and Kurdish ones—with whom he did not agree. I simply had to stop talking to him about Iraq over the past two years. He could only imagine the lowest motives for those in favor of regime change in Baghdad, and he had a vivid tendency to take any demurral as a personal affront. But it can be admirable in a way to go through life with one skin too few, to be easily agonized and upset and offended. Too many people survive, or imagine that they do, by coarsening themselves and by protectively dulling their sensitivity to the point of acceptance. This would never be Edward's way. His emotional strength—one has to resort to cliché sometimes—was nonetheless also a weakness. I was astonished, when reading his memoirs, to learn that such a polished and poised fellow had never lost the sense that he was awkward and clumsy. And yet this man of enviable manners could be both those things when he chose. He did come, as a member of Yasser Arafat's Palestine National Council, to meet at Reagan's State Department with George Shultz. (Indeed, he could claim to have been the intellectual and moral architect of the "mutual recognition" policy of the PLO at the Algiers conference in 1988.) When invited to the summit between Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat in Washington in 1993, however—which I happen to know that he was earnestly entreated to attend by the Clinton White House—he told me that it was quite simply beneath his dignity to take part in such a media farce. Now, by no standard did the 1993 meeting sink below the level of the Shultz one, and by no means had Arafat become on that day any more contemptible than Edward later discovered him to be. But it wasn't just that inconsistency that distressed me: It was the feeling that Edward was on the verge of extreme dudgeon before I could press the matter one inch further. I can't shake the feeling that a microcosm of the Israeli-Palestinian agony is contained in this apparently negligible anecdote. There is at present a coalition, named the Palestinian National Initiative, which never gets reported about. It is an alliance of secular and democratic forces among the Palestinians that rejects both clerical fundamentalism and the venality of the Palestinian "Authority." It was partly launched by Edward Said, and its main spokesman is Dr. Mustafa Barghouthi, a distinguished physician and very brave individual, to whom Edward introduced me last year. In our final conversation a few weeks ago, Edward challenged me angrily about my failure to write enough on this neglected group, which certainly enjoys a good deal of popular support and which deserves a great deal more international attention. Perhaps then I can do a last service, and also dip a flag in salute to a fine man, if I invite you to direct your browsers toward the sites for Barghouthi and the PNI. Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair. With Edward Said he co-edited Blaming the Victims: Spurious Scholarship and the Palestine Question.

Good to be back! This article is very interesting one, take a look. Men Choking The Faith By Saadia Malik The Believers, men and women, are protectors one of another: they enjoin what is just, and forbid what is evil: they observe regular prayers, practice regular charity, and obey God and His Messenger. On them will God pour His mercy: for God is Exalted in power, Wise. (Quran 9:71) I have often felt dejected at the way most of the western media projects the status of women under the banner of Islam. Whereas Islam enjoins perfect equality between men and women, it is heralded to the world as a faith that suppresses women, confines them within the four walls of their homes and alternately, looks down upon those who set foot outside the house. I have however, stumbled upon the fact that neither the western media nor the non-Muslims are to be blamed. It is really a matter for men who profess to be Muslims to look beneath their skin, into their blood with which they asphyxiate the breath of Islam and choke the life out of it - in effect, portraying it as a cruel faith. Men of one faith will understand the other faith vis-à-vis the way it is practically witnessed by them because not all will delve into original sources with utmost devotion in order to realize the true spirit of the other. Consider the following illustration. Being alien to the religion of Islam, I walk into the village of Jubala - an underdeveloped and non-education oriented region. I am told that the natives there follow the religion of Islam. I shall easily be led into interpreting Islam as defined by the ancient customs of tribes inhabiting the region. Consider another illustration. Being somewhat alien to the religion of Islam, I walk into the city of Los Angeles - relatively a developed and education-oriented region. I am told that a vast number of the area's residents are Muslims. I, thus, understand Islam in the spirit of activity of the locals. I have been briefed. According to which, Islam is a tolerant faith. It grants equal status to men and women and it enjoins peace. But… Alas! My observance runs averse to all pre-conceived notions. Islam does not enjoin the treatment of women in perfect likeness to men. Quite contrary, in fact. My discovery owes itself to a chance affiliation with a local family. The man sets out to work. The lady of the house stays at home. She is not supposed to be involved in any intellectual exhibition since that is not an option on her side of the 'equation'. Rather, she is supposed to stay at home, cook and keep the house clean. It takes an hour or two. Then what? Can she move out for - if nothing else - air? Not at all. Her religion requires her to stay inside her house and wait for the hard-working, deserving individual to return. Eleven hours in the office and he has earned the day's worth. It would only be fair if he were allowed a couple of hours to chill out with friends. Ten would be a good time to get back home. Dinner would be ready by then. Surely, its on the table. In the follow-up - and being human - it is only understandable that he gets a bit drowsy. The wife must not ask for any simple talk time, for Islam enjoins on the woman to allow her husband to relax since he is obviously providing her with food, clothes and shelter. She need not and should not demand more. He does his share of the work and goes to bed. She does her share of the work and must go to bed to rise again early morning and prepare breakfast for hubby dear. For surely, he has a tough day ahead of him. The weekend finally approaches and she welcomes it with open arms. A tough week, full of chores at home and zero interaction leaves her exhausted. But then, he deserves rest too. It would be a better option for her not to get used to the bed linen and get a wonderful breakfast-in-bed prepared for her man who obviously, deserves getting used to the linen. She feels tired and short of sleep but she must wear the best smile to please him. He has obviously been laboring throughout the week for her sake. He approaches her to acquire the one pleasure he must obtain. She can not decline because her religion forbids her to. She must understand her. He doesn't need to . . . end of story. And then we raise our voices arguing about how dare they defame Islam? The mentality of superiority that prevails among men of our societies is a shameful incidence. Professing to be Muslims and wanting our women to be protected from the predatory eyes of other men is good, and we must not be apologetic about it. But suppressing her under the man's nauseating demands, depriving her of education, stealing her right to feel and to express and giving her the sole symbol of being the answer to man's lascivious desires is not good - least of all, something to be proud of.

I think future Somali state will be financially hard-pressed. Some may well argue with you about the need for financial emergency fund by the future state to rehabilitate and jump-start the economy outweighs the downside of IMF policies. There is no question about the IMF policies being a tool the bullies in the West use to control 'us' in the third world under disguise of "liberalizing the economy" crap but I honestly don't see a way out for the poor states in the third world let alone our failed state. We are, and will be, in this trap for sometimes to come. As much as I would like us to be financially free, the chance that happening very soon is almost zero. I'd be interested to know if nomads know a way out from this economic shackles IMF/World Bank put on us. Granted the part of the blame should be placed on ourselves but I believe there is 'world order' out there, backed by power and wealth, controling all the economic decisions. I see one remote possibility that can save us from IMF/World Bank bullying tactics and that is if we can somehow negotiate a loan package from Islamic Bank. Anything short than that, in my humble opinion, is not a feasible alternative.

Athena, that's very well said qallanjo. I'll add my 2 cents later...gotta run now.

Silent_Sista, Abaayo how many Somali friends do you really have? How many Somalis have you known or have some dealings with? Let's flip the coin and put it this way how many friends of other nationalities have you dealt with?

Were the Greek Philosophers Muslim? On the basis of what we know about them, my answer is NO. We know through their writings that they were thinkers who tried very hard to understand the nature of man, the nature of God, etc. For the most part they dealt with abstractions. Their criterion of self-evident truths were simple: it should be accessible to human understanding. The light of reason and testimony of sense are the basis in which they reach self-evident truths. They deduce it in systematic and elaborate methodology called logic. The revealed truths – Qur’an and other divine books – were not self-evident truth unless they pass deductive reasoning and the standard of logic according Neoplatonist and other rival Greek schools that adhered the teachings of big shots. The point is the supremacy of logic and deductive reasoning over the revealed truth amounts to denying divine books. Al-Farrabi, Avicena, and other Muslim philosophers who find the Greek philosophy impressive got lost into either circular reasoning or infinite regression. Even great philosopher and suffi Al-Gazali failed miserably to reconcile the revealed truth with Aristotelian logic. He started with the ‘Kalam’ in order to defend Qur’an and ended up contradicting himself. Unlike Al-Farrabi and Avicena, Al-Gazali at least insisted the revealed truth is not subordinate to the deductive reasoning and the Aristotelian logic. Given the Greek philosophy’s criterion of truth which precludes revealed truth and the guidance of God as basis of truth, I don’t see how someone can think of them as Muslims. Wise men? Yes! But prophets? Big NO. Plato and Aristotle were rivals!! They disagreed more than they agreed. They have different take on the question of free will, on existence, on science, on essence, on theology, etc. They questioned what God do, how He does things, and who He is. You don’t expect that kind of behavior from prophets of God. I concur that Socrates affirms the oneness of God but what’s impressive of this is not he is right but how he reached that conclusion – deductive reasoning! He had not received revelation from God – at least he never claimed that.

I’m bored! I can’t do my work cuz some egghead won’t let me finalize my report. Until further notice he said!…and yet deliverables are expected on time! Can u believe that? Whatta nutthole! I want my own business…no boss, no superiors, no instructions, no shit. I got sick of this office politics…ass-kissing, brown-nosing thing that goes on around here with this ******* fake smiles u supposed to put on all the time even when they cut you half…professionalism = slavery! Now, I’ve got that outta way; what’s the deal nomads? Man! What would I do without you? To u, SL, some glory loud and honor should be given. I’m entertained, informed, and yes sometime taken by surprise of what some nomads have to say…but it’s all good. Feel much better!…thanks for putting up with this.

Macaatha'Allah. It is called wife-swapping! About 4 yrs back, the UMN film society presented 'group sex in suburban America' at TC campus...it has a subtitle that was so provacative I wouldn't dare repeating it. MN daily, school's paper, advertised this documentary for about three wks prior its debut. This is a wild world where 'having fun' is the way to go!

Balsam, right on sis! Mansha’alah walaal post like urs is what I call real life notes. It is a genuine reflection of the opportunities missed and challenges ahead. I’m quite surprised how some of the SOL ladies reacted to ur post. Perhaps ur post touches a nerve or perhaps u have a way of articulating the very anxieties most ladies have to deal with when they make schooling as an ‘end’ and sacrifice too much in getting there. Sadness and depression won’t get u a qualified husband…so don’t get refuge in them. While divine decree dictates all events, we are still expected to take our own initiative and safe no effort in reaching results we so desire. Take satisfaction in what Allah had decreed for u in the past…but whatever the future has in store for u don’t u quit in asking a decent man. Effort is the key here. Go out and socialize, go places where the decent men hang out…there is nothing wrong in doing that. One advice is don’t put a lot of value in degrees and leave the arrogance behind. There are many qualified men from the school of hard knocks! My guess is that u will take the ‘lessons learned’ with u and move on… Thank u for sharing that

^^Excellent topics..thanks Shaqsii and Barwaaqo. Blind Imperial Arrogance By Edward Said The great modern empires have never been held together only by military power. Britain ruled the vast territories of India with only a few thousand colonial officers and a few more thousand troops, many of them Indian. France did the same in North Africa and Indochina, the Dutch in Indonesia, the Portuguese and Belgians in Africa. The key element was imperial perspective, that way of looking at a distant foreign reality by subordinating it in one's gaze, constructing its history from one's own point of view, seeing its people as subjects whose fate can be decided by what distant administrators think is best for them. From such willful perspectives ideas develop, including the theory that imperialism is a benign and necessary thing. For a while this worked, as many local leaders believed - mistakenly - that cooperating with the imperial authority was the only way. But because the dialectic between the imperial perspective and the local one is adversarial and impermanent, at some point the conflict between ruler and ruled becomes uncontainable and breaks out into colonial war, as happened in Algeria and India. We are still a long way from that moment in American rule over the Arab and Muslim world because, over the last century, pacification through unpopular local rulers has so far worked. At least since World War II, American strategic interests in the Middle East have been, first, to ensure supplies of oil and, second, to guarantee at enormous cost the strength and domination of Israel over its neighbors. Every empire, however, tells itself and the world that it is unlike all other empires, that its mission is not to plunder and control but to educate and liberate. These ideas are by no means shared by the people who inhabit that empire, but that hasn't prevented the U.S. propaganda and policy apparatus from imposing its imperial perspective on Americans, whose sources of information about Arabs and Islam are woefully inadequate. Several generations of Americans have come to see the Arab world mainly as a dangerous place, where terrorism and religious fanaticism are spawned and where a gratuitous anti-Americanism is inculcated in the young by evil clerics who are anti-democratic and virulently anti-Semitic. In the U.S., "Arabists" are under attack. Simply to speak Arabic or to have some sympathetic acquaintance with the vast Arab cultural tradition has been made to seem a threat to Israel. The media runs the vilest racist stereotypes about Arabs - see, for example, a piece by Cynthia Ozick in the Wall Street Journal in which she speaks of Palestinians as having "reared children unlike any other children, removed from ordinary norms and behaviors" and of Palestinian culture as "the life force traduced, cultism raised to a sinister spiritualism." Americans are sufficiently blind that when a Middle Eastern leader emerges whom our leaders like - the shah of Iran or Anwar Sadat - it is assumed that he is a visionary who does things our way not because he understands the game of imperial power (which is to survive by humoring the regnant authority) but because he is moved by principles that we share. Almost a quarter of a century after his assassination, Sadat is a forgotten and unpopular man in his own country because most Egyptians regard him as having served the U.S. first, not Egypt. The same is true of the shah in Iran. That Sadat and the shah were followed in power by rulers who are less palatable to the U.S. indicates not that Arabs are fanatics, but that the distortions of imperialism produce further distortions, inducing extreme forms of resistance and political self-assertion. The Palestinians are considered to have reformed themselves by allowing Mahmoud Abbas, rather than the terrible Yasser Arafat, to be their leader. But "reform" is a matter of imperial interpretation. Israel and the U.S. regard Arafat as an obstacle to the settlement they wish to impose on the Palestinians, a settlement that would obliterate Palestinian demands and allow Israel to claim, falsely, that it has atoned for its "original sin." Never mind that Arafat - whom I have criticized for years in the Arabic and Western media - is still universally regarded as the legitimate Palestinian leader. He was legally elected and has a level of popular support that no other Palestinian approaches, least of all Abbas, a bureaucrat and longtime Arafat subordinate. And never mind that there is now a coherent Palestinian opposition, the Independent National Initiative; it gets no attention because the U.S. and the Israeli establishment wish for a compliant interlocutor who is in no position to make trouble. As to whether the Abbas arrangement can work, that is put off to another day. This is shortsightedness indeed - the blind arrogance of the imperial gaze. The same pattern is repeated in the official U.S. view of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and the other Arab states. Underlying this perspective is a long-standing view - the Orientalist view - that denies Arabs their right to national self-determination because they are considered incapable of logic, unable to tell the truth and fundamentally murderous. Since Napoleon's invasion of Egypt in 1798, there has been an uninterrupted imperial presence based on these premises throughout the Arab world, producing untold misery - and some benefits, it is true. But so accustomed have Americans become to their own ignorance and the blandishments of U.S. advisors like Bernard Lewis and Fouad Ajami, who have directed their venom against the Arabs in every possible way, that we somehow think that what we do is correct because "that's the way the Arabs are." That this happens also to be an Israeli dogma shared uncritically by the neo-conservatives who are at the heart of the Bush administration simply adds fuel to the fire. We are in for many more years of turmoil and misery in the Middle East, where one of the main problems is, to put it as plainly as possible, U.S. power. What the U.S. refuses to see clearly it can hardly hope to remedy. Edward Said is a professor at Columbia University and the author of "The End of the Peace Process: Oslo and After" (Pantheon, 2000).

Taasaaba ugu daran!

MMA, Ouch! widaay u r out to humiliate nomads huh?...didn't know u were like that!

muraad, u wlc bro. flying still, u wlc sis. Barwaaqo, yes qallanjo...looking forward to read ur take on it.

Gabar gariye baan soo arkoo dumarba gaadhayne Alaylehe gob weeyee hadaan galay minkeedii Sida baarqal geel lagu daray oo garowo loo saantay Ama goray haldhaagoo ku jira goraya cawshiisa Haween lama gudboonoo ayadu gooni bay tahay Goraamada markay socota eey gacanta sii dayso Ee ay golxooy labada guluc galac ka siinayso gala jooga quruxdaan inaan galo ka yaabaa Allow yaa galbeed kuma wacnee gaadhi kula dhoofa Allow yaa gayiga aan dagniyo bariba gaarsiiya Allow gob lama caasiyee aniga ii guursho. By Ismaciil Mire

The Faith Triumphant `Do not be dejected nor grieve. You shall be the uppermost if you are Believers.` (3: 139) The first thought which comes to mind on reading this verse is that it relates to the form of Jihaad which is actual fighting; but the spirit of this message and its application, with its manifold implications, is greater and wider than this particular aspect. Indeed, it describes that eternal state of mind which ought to inspire the Believer`s consciousness, his thoughts, his estimates of things, events, values and persons. It describes a triumphant state which should remain fixed in the Believer`s heart in the face of every thing, every condition, every standard and every person; the superiority of the Faith and its value above all values which are derived from a source other than the source of the Faith. It means to be above all the powers of the earth which have deviated from the way of the Faith, above all the values of the earth not derived from the source of the Faith, above all the customs of the earth not colored with the coloring of the Faith, above all the laws of the laws of the earth not sanctioned by the Faith, and above all traditions not originating in the Faith. It means to feel superior to others when weak, few and poor, as well as when strong, many and rich. It means the sense of supremacy which does not give in before any rebellious force, before any social custom and erroneous tradition, before any behavior which may be popular among people but which has no authority in the Faith. Steadfastness and strength on the battlefield are but one expression among many of the triumphant spirit which is included in this statement of Almighty God. The superiority through faith is not a mere single act of will nor a passing euphoria nor a momentary passion, but is a sense of superiority based on the permanent truth centered in the very nature of existence. This eternal truth is above the logic of force, the concept of environment, the terminology of society, and the customs of people, as indeed it is joined with the Living God Who does not die. A society has a governing logic and a common mode, its pressure is strong and its weight heavy on anyone who is not protected by some powerful member of the society or who challenges it without a strong force. Accepted concepts and current ideas have a climate of their own, and it is difficult to get rid of them without a deep sense of truth, in the light of which all these concepts and ideas shrink to nothingness, and without the help of a source which is superior, greater and stronger than the source of these concepts and ideas. The person who takes a stand against the direction of the society - its governing logic, its common mode, its values and standards, its ideas and concepts, its error and deviations -will find himself a stranger, as well as helpless, unless his authority comes from a source which is more powerful than the people, more permanent than the earth, and nobler than life. Indeed, God does not leave the Believer alone in the face of oppression to whimper under its weight, to suffer dejection and grief, but relieves him of all this with the message: `Do not be dejected nor grieve; you shall be the uppermost if you are Believers.` (13:139) This message relieves him from both dejection and grief, these two feelings being natural for a human being in this situation. It relieves him of both, not merely through patience and steadfastness, but also through a sense of superiority from whose heights the power of oppression, the dominant values, the current concepts, the standards, the rules, the customs and habits, and the people steeped in error, all seem low. >From Syed Qutb`s Milestone

MMA, Woooooooow :cool: imagine that! we were classmates if u went Xassan Cilmi Qariindi elementary school in Hawlwadaag. Such a small world!

Wa caleykuma salaam. Ladnaan iyo gallad ilaahey baan sheegney, alxamdulilaah. While it is not realistic to solve societal problems in this forum or any other internet site, I would say discussing solutions of the problems our communities (to our respective localities) face is good step in the right direction. Whith that note, what issue you suppose deserve SOL nomad's immediate attention?

The Muslims and Copts of Egypt: Hostility or Harmony? Strategically located between Asia, Africa, and the Mediterranean Sea, Egypt ranks as one of the most influential Muslim countries in the world. It is the most populated Arab country and the second largest recipient of American Foreign aid (after the state of Israel). Its government is the first Arab entity to have signed a peace accord with Israel and has managed to build itself the reputation of being a major human rights violator. Nonetheless today, the Egyptian government is faced with several endemic challenges such as the constant need to create new jobs for its emerging young population entering the labor force along with the necessity to provide basic needs for its sizeable population which is increasingly dependent on foreign imports to meet them. In a time when the Muslim world map is being reconstituted and political alliances are shifting, the future of the 1400-year-old Islamic-Coptic relations may play an integral part in shaping the long-term stability of Egypt. Will the Egyptian Coptic community side with its Muslim neighbors to reform the currently corrupt government as it did more than half a century ago or will external forces and short-sighted Egyptian individuals fuel hatred among the Copts and Muslim to disrupt the historically delicate harmony and peaceful coexistence? Will the Copts ask for an autonomous or independent state in Egypt like the Southern region of the Sudan or will the Muslim and Coptic leaderships carefully re-evaluate their often good but sometimes sour relationships to re-craft them for a longer lasting peace? Author Sohirin Mohammad Solihin states in his book 'Copts and Muslims in Egypt: A study on Harmony and Hostility': ’The term Copt is used to refer to the indigenous Christian of Egypt. After the Muslim conquest at the hands of Amr bin al-As, in 639 CE, under the command of the second caliph, Umar ibn al-Khattab, Copts, by and large, having experienced the cruelty of the Roman Empire which opposed Christianity and massacred hundreds of thousands of the followers of St. Mark, founder of the Coptic faith, turned to Islam. Cyrus, the archbishop of Alexandria, following the fall of Babylon described Muslims in these words: 'We have witnessed a people to each and everyone of whom death is preferable to life, and humility to prominence, and to one of whom this world has the least attraction. They sit not except on the ground and eat not but on their knees. Their leader (Amir) is like unto one of them: the low cannot be distinguished from the high, nor the master from the slave. And when the time of prayer comes, none of them absents himself, all wash their extremities and humbly observe their prayers.' In view of the position of Egypt, as the home of the Copts long before he reached Egypt, the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) had clearly warned his Companions: 'If God bestows His grace on you to conquer the country (Egypt), take mutual advice from its inhabitants as I have marital kinship with them'. As Islam guarantees free choice of religion, a number of Egyptians retained their indigenous Coptic belief. The long, peaceful co-existence between the two communities, particularly prior to (Egypt) independence, deserves special attention. They jointly struggled to Liberate Egypt from foreign domination. In taking the liberation campaign to the masses, priests and Muslims Shaikhs used both religious platforms - church and mosque - in an endeavor to bring to an end the British occupation. Surprisingly, the Copts resented the entry of Western Christian mission into Egypt. The efforts of Western Christian mission to bring the Copts, before an approach was made to the Muslims, into their faith was not successful. Relations between the two communities ebbed and flowed.' From Islamicity Bulletin article

What we are witnessing in both Black Hawk Down and the current war against terrorism is the creation of a new myth of nationhood. America is casting itself simultaneously as the world's saviour and the world's victim; a sacrificial messiah, on a mission to deliver the world from evil. This myth contains incalculable dangers for everyone else on earth. right on!

MMA, Thanks widaay. Yaa allah, look at that! did you say it is the dabka/bakaaraha street? If I'm not mistaken, it seems that you used to live at Hajji Muqtaar's neighborhood. BTW if u do as Bari_nomad said u will be able to see the pics. Interesting but saddening pics...especially if you had known the area.