^ The implication was that goodness (or morality) is indepedent of religion. There are good muslims and good nonmuslims just like there are bad muslims and bad nonmuslims. Do you think damage to your iman (how is that measured?) is more serious than getting whacked on the head with a minature-size steel Budhha? Any "damage" that someone's mere act of worship does to your faith can probably be reversed; brain-damage, not so much. And even if such damage to your faith could not be reversed, would you prefer to be brain-damaged instead?

lol@ gaal with muslim character. What if the gaal was Maykal Maryama. Perhaps you would describe him as having "muslim character". However, you could equally describe him as manifesting "christian character", unless you are of the conviction that "christian character" is compatible with thuggish behavior while "muslim character" is only compatible with goodness. This would be bigoted. From a religious perspective, it matters not a whit if the nonmuslim is performing an act of worship. Unless he assaults you with his object of worship, it's harmless. Non-islamic beliefs are not like some airborne vector that you are at risk of contracting if you happen to be in proximity.

A thought-experiment is in order. If you were on a bus, would you rather sit next to a marauding thug or a peaceable, law-abiding citizen? Trivially obvious, right? If you discovered that the thug claimed he was muslim, and the peacable citizen was nonmuslim, would that alter your sentiment as to whom you would feel more at ease with? You would have to loose all your moral moorings - to say nothing of survival instincts - to prefer the seat next to the maruading muslim thug. I'll take a law-abiding gaal over a law-breaking muslim any day. Why wouldn't a scrupulous gaal be more honourable than a scandalous muslim?

^ Of course. Some have argued that the above-verse is an endorsement of religious pluralism. Deeds take precedence over dogma. A caring, kind, selfless pagan is preferable to a selfish, nefarious, wicked muslim.

I think I have to retract my intial comment regarding the J. Peter Pham column on the premier - even neoconservatives tell the truth some of the time. Perusing the PM's shallow thesis, I can't help but think he lacks the kind of political sophistication and historical discernment required in a national leader. Some of the passages could have been easily written by Palin, if Palin were a fawning Siyadist.

The claim that leading politicians from some tribes achieved political prominence only as a result of colonial favoritism is both ahistoric and myopic. Enemies of the democratic process always label their opponents as agents of an external hegemon. Somalia would have been a very different place had Barre not contravened and crushed the nascent democracy of the 60s.

^ Yes. How people like the sheepish wadaad, Maaddeey, interpret religion. How people like the UAE judges interpret religion. Hadalku waa intaa, ee ulajeeddo qarsoon iyo macno maldahan ha sii raadin.

xiinfaniin, in a previous post I wrote that the problem isn't so much scripture as it is interpretation (and by extension what is accepted as authoratative, as opposed to apocryphal, scripture). Marka, qalin daarka iga daa awoowe. Edit: lol@ rag baa meesha kula jooga. Awoowe dood-cilmiyeedka iyo hadallada fadhi-ku-dirirka kala saar. Fikrado uunbaa lays dhaafsanayaa ee laysma weerarayo.

Good grief. Here come the dyspeptic dunces full of sound and fury. Adeer, waa kaa xiinfaniin la baxaye, the prophet Muhammad can be considered a legitimate icon in the long history of the enfranchisment of women. In your oafish outburst, you assumed that he was the culprit of my criticism. My qualms are with those mullahs (and their fatuous followers) who have made a cottage industry out of misogynism and backward ideas. Kolka, waxaad yeelaysaa qof kula miisaan ah la yooyootan.

Not surprising that most Nomads concur that physical discipline (i.e. violence of any sort) visited upon a dignified, grown woman is "barbaric", "bronze-age", "chauvinist", and "primitive". Of course, the medieval authors who originally counseled men to use physical discipline and violence were not too big on women's rights or, for that matter, civility. Thank goodness for moral progress. No need to elicit a response from the sheepish Wadaad. His is a case pious androcentrism.

Another timely and timeless analysis by Lazyie.

O tempora! O mores! Somalis had an ecumenical mindset back in those days - peacable Qadirites and Salihites. Then came the virulent preachments of Wahhabism. Nowadays, a great many Somalis, of the finger-waving and jalbab-dragging variety, would not countenance the liberal and reformative views of their fellow muslims much less accept the genuine disbelief of their countrymen.

^ Wadaadku wuxuu leeyahay waa caruur cago weyn.

Kii yaraa ee Xudeedi beryahan lama arag. Malaha macdanta Maakhir difaaceeda buu ka qayb galay. He must be off somewhere in the mountains of Galgala, tail between his legs, breaking bread with Atam. A scapegrace never goes gently into the good night.

Pure piffle. "Dr." Pham revels and excels in penning political hitjobs. It's remarkable how charlatans like him pass off for "experts" in geopolitics.

Originally posted by NGONGE: Good news. بذا قضت الأيام ما بين أهلها مصائب قوم عند قوم فوائد Norf, awoowe, dhul shisheeyaan iminka joogaaye, ee bal haddaad jimcaha aaddo kor xaadis inoogu samee khutbada.

^ These bronze-age bedouins say things like: if you discpline your wife, don't leave bruises, stay away from the face, use a soft stick, it should be symbolic. Symbolism be damned. Too bad for them, violence doesn't suddenly become more palatable when it is sugar-coated with absurdities.

^ Good for you. No reasonable person ought to accept this verdict from the obstinately misogynstic mullahs. It is intuitively (and immediately) obvious that physical "discipline" - not-too-subtle euphemism for violence - as a conflict resolution stratgey is insanely self-defeating. One wonders if the male authors of this old-fashioned humbug would agree to this demeaning gesture if societal roles were switched. John Rawls, the remarkable moral thinker, argued that the morality of any subject should be considered behind a 'veil of ignorance'. Take the issue of wife-beating. Imagine that you live in a world that will be reogranized and refashioned. The social role that you will come to fill is unbeknownst to you. When the reshuffling is complete, for aught you know you might find yourself a female. Would you consent to legitimacy and morality of wife-beating?

All scripture is interpretation. Hasan El-Hanafi, the enlightened egyptian professor of philosophy at Cairo University (and perhaps one of the most rigorous muslim thinkers of his generation) once compared the holy Quran to a supermarket. One can find in a supermarket whatever one fancies, from rat poison to raspberries. On the one hand, those who want rat poision will always find their product in abundance, marshalling a ridiculous case for the utility - dare I say divinity - of domestic violence. On the other hand, those who think that any violence against one's spouse is venal and indefensible will interpret the verses in a way consonant with their humanistic ethos. Raspberries are the choice of sustenance for this group. Only in the minds of benighted conservatives is violence and terror a solution to marital discord. The verdict is disastrous, but it is far from final. Educated and liberal muslims, a sizable demographic in many muslim countries, scarcely find the medieival harkings of the mullahs persuasive.

Court rules on domestic "discpline" ABU DHABI -- A man has the right to discipline his wife and children provided he does not leave physical marks, the Federal Supreme Court has ruled. The judgment was made in the case of a man who slapped and kicked his daughter and slapped his wife. The wife suffered injuries to her lower lip and teeth, and the daughter had bruises on her right hand and right knee. The court ruled that the bruises were evidence that the father had abused his Sharia right. According to Islamic law, a man has the "right to discipline" his wife and children, which can include beating them after he has exhausted two other options: admonition and then abstaining from sleeping with his wife. Although scholars differ in their definition of "beating", all agree it must not be severe. In the case of the wife, it was the degree of severity that put the man in breach of the law. The daughter, however, was 23, and therefore too old to be disciplined by her father. He claimed he did not mean to harm either of them, and had hit his wife by mistake while trying to discipline his daughter. Sharjah Court of First Instance fined the father Dh500 for abuse. The decision was upheld by the Sharjah Court of Appeals on February 14. He appealed against the verdict at the Federal Supreme Court. "Although the [law] permits the husband to use his right [to discipline], he has to abide by the limits of this right," wrote Chief Justice Falah al Hajeri in a ruling issued this month and released in a court document yesterday. "If the husband abuses this right to discipline, he cannot be exempted from punishment." The court also ruled that a father does not have the right to beat his children after they become adults. In Sharia, reaching the age of puberty is evidence of adulthood. "He is not allowed, according to Sharia, to beat his daughter, who is 23 years old," wrote Chief Justice al Hajeri. Jihad Hashim Brown, the head of research at Tabah Foundation, said: "It's unlawful in Sharia - if taken in its entirety - to injure one's wife. It's unlawful to insult the dignity of one's wife. "That is if we look at the tradition as a whole: the Quran, the hadith and writings of Islamic jurists." He said beating one's wife was in conflict with "clear and concise" Islamic texts, which encourage Muslims to treat their wives in "love and kindness". He said a Quranic verse might appear to allow certain things but if the verse was not "clear and concise", it should not enter courts of law. "The vast majority of scholars overwhelmingly agree it is forbidden to injure or insult the dignity of one's wife," Mr Brown said. "If there is no clear text, then the court should treat it as a criminal act." He added that Islamic texts stipulated the essence of healthy marriage was constant and mutual love. When any one of the couple felt there was need for beating, he said, "it's time for divorce". Dr Ahmed al Kubaisi, the head of Sharia Studies at UAE University and Baghdad University, said that under Sharia beating one's wife was an option to prevent the breakdown of the family. He said it should be used only as a substitute to resorting to the police. "If a wife committed something wrong, a husband can report her to police," Dr al Kubaisi said. "But sometimes she does not do a serious thing or he does not want to let others know; when it is not good for the family. In this case, hitting is a better option." Dr Jassim al Shamsi, the dean of the college of law at UAE University, said the article in UAE law about wife-beating was not there to permit husbands to beat their wives, but to exempt them from punishment. He said Sharia made it clear that any beating should be in no way severe. But Sharia, he said, repeatedly emphasised that love and respect were more important among husbands and wives than any discipline. "The law does not ask husbands to beat their wives, it only means a man cannot be charged with anything if the beating did not leave any marks," Dr al Shamsi said. "It is a beating for discipline, not a violent or a vengeful beating. The Prophet said: "Only a wicked person hits his wife." The National

Somali rebel movements sprung up across the country to correct the grave injustices and enormities of the Barre dictatorship. The tactics and personalities of the various rebel movements are not of consequence. Their casus belli was to reclaim a semblance of autonomy and democracy - a goal that Somaliland has been able to attain to a certain degree. But wrapping the just cause of a rebel movement in jejune jihadi parlance is parochial and borders on the delusional.

Good luck to the new PM. I hope his leadership skills become an important contribution in pacifying the congenitally maniacal riff-raff in Mogadishu.

Awoowe, clan is everything, as our resident apostle of aphorism, NGONGE, reminds us. Reer Puntland innagaa calanka Somaaliya samaynay haday yidhaahdeen waa run inkastooy rakhiis tahay. Dee Shariif halkaaga ka duuli. Taasi ceeb maaha.

Nina is Maaddeey without the religiosity; Xudeedi without the inferiority; General Duke without the banality; NGONGE without the levity; Oodweyne without the verbosity; xiinfaniin without the credulity; Jacaylbaro without the duplicity; and Mr. Somalia without the vulgarity. Regardless of the supposed crudeness of her political commentary, the amount of ad hominems that she was inundated with in this thread shows that some supporters of the old Colonel are smitten with neurotic hero-worship.

^ Better the company of Neitzsche in Hell than the company of mental midgets like Aden Hashi Ayro in Heaven. To quote the flambouyant philosopher, "in Heaven all the interesting people are missing".