Jacaylbaro;752968 wrote: This will only strengthen Alshabab sxb ....... that is my point AlShabaab's popularity has been dwindling, I'm not surprised that this Kenyan invasion will conveniently strengthen their position under the pretext of "defending the country". Do you not think that this was a strategy on their part? Execute cross-border attacks after their "strategic withdrawal" from Muqdisho in order to regain their popularity and make their control legitimate?

nuune;752747 wrote: Colonel Mo'ammar Gadafi died while fighting for his country That's the most ridiculous headline I've seen regarding this. naxariisto ma istaahilo, did he show kindness to his people? I hope he tastes hell for every soul he tortured.

N.O.R.F;752151 wrote: Every action has a reaction. Exactly. That expression pretty much sums up this issue. Anyway, I find it ironic that Kenya's Defense Minister is a Somali.

Dabrow;752100 wrote: I read somewhere its was fabricated and they blame alshabab for the attack and kidnaping. I know alshabab is not friend of somalia or kenya but I dont give "shit" about what kenyans should do or not, if they invade my country then its a problem. "you read somewhere" eh? your stubbornness is amusing... it's only rational that a country would retaliate the way Kenya has. If the TFG can't control what's going on within their borders then I'm sure Kenya "doesn't give a shit" (as you so eloquently put it) either, all they're concerned with is that they were attacked, end of story.

Dabrow;752054 wrote: Whats the lol about? Check my previous post here. Is it upside down-day today? Because it seems like it. No sane person would want his homecountry to be invaded. And I support anyone who resist the invaders. You forget that the Kenyans were attacked thrice. What did you think they would do? Sit down, fold their arms and wait for the fourth?

Dabrow;752000 wrote: I dont usually support alshabab and their politics but I support them against kenyan invaders LOL

Mohammed;751960 wrote: I can't believe there are Somalis who are opposed to what Kenya is doing. Baffles me as well.

Jacaylbaro;751961 wrote: How about you invite Ethiopia too ,,, so that they come in and fight Ashabab ?? I guess you propose Kenya just put its territorial integrity aside and swallow the past three incursions and future ones as well, no? Since they're already getting a flood of Somali refugees, why shouldn't they tolerate kidnappings of tourists as well?

Can you blame them? It makes sense after the recent string of attacks inside Kenyan territory.

A friend from Angola introduced me to this a couple of years ago.

Carafaat;751625 wrote: I agree about ridiculousness of the term. How else should we call the non-Western music? you just did by the way, when you say "western" music do you specifically mean Anglo music? or are you including Spanish, Italian, Romanian, Portuguese, etc.?

N.O.R.F;750066 wrote: Isn’t this a case of forcing societal ills on the Somali people? Can you imagine alcohol being made available to Somalis? There are Somalis in the west today who are alcoholics or addicted to qaad (just as there are in Somalia). Many of these guys have neglected their families resulting in unruly school drop outs (meaning no jobs/income and maybe a life of crime for those youths). I mean, if that doesn’t show you these individual freedoms you’re advocating for is a recipe for a broken society, I don’t know what will. Norf, this paragraph of yours stuck with me. I suppose what I'm getting at is, personally, I don't mind certain things being banned across the board because of their potential ills. But it makes no sense to me is when laws have no rational basis behind them and are backed up with nothing other than dogma. For example: ban alcohol, why? Because it is Haram, end of story. Women should not show their shoulders in public. Why? Because it's Haram. Men and women should not mix in public, and women should not hang out with men they are not related to. Why? Because that is Haram. So on and so forth. Those kind of responses completely incense me. So basically, I don't have an issue with a Shari'ah system per se, as long as the laws are rationally comprehensible, and irrational aspects like the testimony of woman being worth half that of man, etc. are scrapped. Sure, I welcome the "restrictions on my freedom", not everyone can do everything in any society, there are limits, but all I ask is a rational (not dogmatic) reason for that restriction. The second people give state so and so is not allowed because God said this and God said that, then it signifies the end of a rational discussion as far as I'm concerned.

N.O.R.F;750053 wrote: Quite true. But whereas the population centres of the secular west have high levels of crime, the population centres of the shariah middle/far east don’t. Why is it that the murder rate is lower in say Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta and Riyaadh than in New York and London? Why did the fraudulent banks collapse in the west with many countries now experiencing the after effects whilst the banks in the east have had no such problems? When all of the peripheral issues are done away with it boils down to the laws of the land and how much of a deterrent they are to would be criminals. In affect what you’re inadvertently saying to the Somali people is that their densely populated cities are likely to be criminal playgrounds under a secular system. That's a good point. Places like NYC, LA, London, Paris, Berlin, do have comparatively higher crime than many smaller towns and cities in Europe and the US. You mentioned Kuala Lumpur (1.6 million), Jakarta (9.5 million), Riyaadh (5 million), NYC (8 million), London (7 million). I think for the sake of consistency you can leave out Riyadh and Kuala Lumpur, and perhaps replace them with Cairo (7 million) and Tehran (9 million). In this comparison you do have higher levels of criminal activity due to the sheer size of the cities, but I agree that crime in NYC and London is still higher. However, I think that this has less to do with Shariah vs secularism and more to do with income inequality, poverty, marginalization and the respective histories of residents and immigrants to cities. Furthermore, I don't understand the connection between our current topic and the financial crisis. When you say "East" who do you mean? Do you mean the Muslim countries or are you lumping everyone together? Because if you're mean the former then I hope you realize that there are several "Eastern" non-Muslim (i.e. irreligious) countries that are also doing well; however, if you mean the latter, then that doesn't sit well against your earlier contrast between Muslim and non-Muslim countries. Anyway, if you want to mention financial markets, let's not forget the Asian financial mess of 1997. N.O.R.F;750053 wrote: Again, you choose to bring up the argument that not all of western society has lost its values. Fair point. But, are more teenagers getting pregnant and becoming fathers in Europe? Are there more teenagers loitering and getting drunk in towns and cities in Europe? Yes? But hey the system allows them to do what they want right? So let them be. Needless to say alcohol leads to alcoholism and alocoholism along with young girls with kids before they finish school are detrimental to society at large. No disagreement there. Teenage pregnancy happens in Europe and the US, no doubt about it. It has also been reported in Muslim countries where there are is no legislation for minimum age for girls to marry. So, I don't understand where this is going. Taboo topics such as these are seldom reported because of the level of "shame" they bring to families hence statistics are low, but that does not mean they don't happen. N.O.R.F;750066 wrote: Your reasoning has been one of portraying secularism as a system accommodating to individual ‘freedoms’ rather than catering for society as a whole which is what sharia intends. I have no problems with that. Laws (secular or religious) are meant to protect society as a whole. N.O.R.F;750066 wrote: Individuals should be able to do what they want is what you’ve said. However, what you’re choosing to overlook is that these freedoms have their limits and can affect society as a whole. One should be able to drink alcohol you say. It’s their decision. All this whilst ignoring the fact that easy access to alcohol leads to some becoming addicted which in turn leads to the break up of families and/or even death. Not everyone who drinks alcohol automatically becomes an alcoholic, that is a myth which is constantly perpetuated, similar to the "if you masturbate, you'll go blind and/or become infertile". It is meant to discourage people from drinking, and a person who does not know his/her limits, who is alien to alcohol, who drinks purely to get hammered, like young Saudis going to Bahrain on weekends, then yes, it can lead to alcoholism. Alcoholism can also be caused by constant drinking due to depression, unemployment, poverty and a host of other social problems that might befall a human. N.O.R.F;750066 wrote: Resulting in societies with a proportion of the population dependent on expensive healthcare paid for by the tax payer. Shouldn’t the tax payer be free not to pay as someone getting addicted to alcohol is not his doing? Or is it? What percentage of people in, say Germany, is addicted to alcohol? 2.7% or around 2 million people (*compare to drug use in Egypt below). Whether or not to have universal healthcare is not the issue being debated here. N.O.R.F;750053 wrote: Isn’t this a case of forcing societal ills on the Somali people? Can you imagine alcohol being made available to Somalis? There are Somalis in the west today who are alcoholics or addicted to qaad (just as there are in Somalia). Many of these guys have neglected their families resulting in unruly school drop outs (meaning no jobs/income and maybe a life of crime for those youths). I mean, if that doesn’t show you these individual freedoms you’re advocating for is a recipe for a broken society, I don’t know what will. Look, I'm not advocating giving alcohol or qaad to anyone. You have a valid point, and with this regard the Islamic ban on alcohol and other addictive substances was obviously meant to cleanse the society, but is it working? There is alcoholism in Saudi Arabia, rampant opium usage in Afghanistan & Iran, seven million hashish smokers in Egypt*, qaad in Yemen, more than a million Indonesian have experimented with drugs in their youth while half a million regularly abuse narcotics, so on and so forth. These societies, despite Shari'ah (or probably because of heavy restrictions) have these ills as well. In short, they are not pure.** N.O.R.F;750053 wrote: Sharia protects societies. Secularism tells individuals you’re free without offering any form of protection for society. A man is free to have a drink but when he drives home (illegally) and kills someone who is at fault? The man (who didn’t know what he was doing) or the system (that told him he is free to drink as much as he wants but not to drive home (how is he supposed to know not to drive home when drunk?))? Come on Norfsky, seriously? So you are blaming the system for the crime of an individual? Can we not apply that across the board? N.O.R.F;750053 wrote: You’re rather naïve in believing people should be left alone to decide what they want in a society with the presence of alcohol, clubs, drugs etc (thinking it will all be honkey doory). These things will always be available in any society but the restrictions imposed on them in a Sharia society will aid and protect society as a whole which should be the objective of any legislative structure. **=See above ... Really?!? N.O.R.F;750053 wrote: You only need to look at the AIDS epidemic in sub-saharan Africa where people ‘are free to choose’. Hold up... what does AIDS have to do with people having freedom of choice? I don't see the connection here. Do you think a person will knowingly engage in intercourse with someone who has AIDS? AIDS is not restricted to intercourse, I'm sure you know that, as there are unfortunate cases of people becoming HIV+ through blood transfusions.

ElPunto;750173 wrote: How did you come to the conclusion polygamy was somehow 'religious' or based on religion? Traditional societies(ie pagan) have been polygamists for thousands of years and are still. The ban on polygamy is in fact based on religion, Christianity - and there is no such thing as a level playing field here. And it is in fact playing favourites. You're trying to say that polygamy stems out of Pagan societies? If so, then didn't Pagans have their own polytheistic religions? And did these religions not consider polygamy as the norm of their societies? It's a twisted argument when you state that "the ban on polygamy in fact based on religion" when, at the same time, it was practiced by religious (not to mention Abrahamic) communities i.e. when the law instituted by Justinian, the early Christian emperor, it banned Jews from entering into several marriages, not to mention that polygamy is taught in the Bible (e.g. David's seven wives including those of Saul). Furthermore, just a quick FYI, polygamy was not the natural social order before the religious institution as you, and other religion apologists, tend to elude to. Polygamy was prevalent and perhaps more widespread than monogamy, but to say that monogamy was first instituted by Christianity simply a fallacy. Several indigenous populations, such as certain Aztec tribes of the past and those of the Andaman islands of the present, were and are monogamous, even though they are construed as Pagan because of their Animist beliefs. Additionally, the reforms of Solon in the 6th century BC instituted monogamy as the sole legitimate family form, preceding Justinian's rule by some 1000 years, and the advent of Christianity by some 500 years. ElPunto;750173 wrote: The ban on polygamy is as you acknowledge 'an infringement on one's liberties'. Similarly the ban on alcohol in Islam is also such an infringement. It is up to you to prove the claim that they're apples and oranges with respect to your earlier argument about secular systems not 'regulating the way people choose to live their lives with the threat of punishment' I'm glad you acknowledge that the Islamic ban on alcohol is an infringement on one's liberties (we've been given the gift of reason, it is up to the individual Muslim to make the choice of whether to drink alcohol despite God's words). They are apples to oranges because if Person A wishes to have a polygamous marriage, 1:n, under the pretext of religious right, and Person B wishes to have alcohol under a personal right, i.e. the said person is having a drink by his/herself, they are not one and the same, are they? Furthermore polygamy is legal in secular countries such as South Africa, where it is strictly regulated as to prevent gender inequality that is prevalent in customary patriarchal societies. ElPunto;750173 wrote: A system that theoritically could bring back what we both agree to be social ills is somehow advantaged by the fact that its law making procedure allows it to regress on morality and ethics? I think you have a lot of work to prove this advantage. We can also theorize about all sorts of things. We can theorize, if you wish, that since Shari'ah acknowledges slavery and the keeping of concubines, that it is legalized, applied, and eventually abused. And because it was prevalent in Muhammad's (SAWS) time, and he also kept slaves and concubines, then why not bring it back? Because we're talking about a system in which "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space", are we not?** So due to this "consistency", theoretically speaking, slavery and concubinage cannot be rescinded. ElPunto;750173 wrote: How did you come to the notion that slavery and lack of women's rights were based on religious conservatism? You remind me of those people who ascribe everything negative to religion particularly alien religions. Women can't drive or vote in Saudi? - because of religion. Women get beaten up or undergo FGM in Somalia? - because of religion. Maids are maltreated in the UAE? - because of religion. Etc. First off, let's be clear, there is no assault on religion here, so there is no need to be defensive. I will be the first to say that religion has brought a lot of good to the world, however religion has also led to many injustices and crimes. I am certain that you'll be quick to dismiss that and state that "every other system has it's pros and cons", which is (and will be) a fair statement. This is not unlike one that is oft-heard in Muslim circles around the world, wherein the negative aspects of religion are quietly swept under the rug, and in most (all?) cases completely unacknowledged*, while the positive aspect are glorified and touted left and right. By this dismissal, through the comparison of the cons of other systems, you're not only ignoring the wrongs committed by religion but you are, at the same time, exasperating self-righteousness. ElPunto;750173 wrote: The fact is patriarchy, chauvinism, opportunism, preying on the weak etc has always existed. Separate from and apart from religion. Don't ascribe to religion what could be based on other things. Those leading the fight against slavery were the Quakers and other religious people. Those leading the fight for women's suffrage had many Christian believers. Presumably if slavery and the lack of the women's vote were based on religious conservatism - these folks wouldn't have participated in these battles. You really don't have a sound argument here. True, they have existed before and apart from religion. Yet they have also existed after and within religion, and in some cases they have been amplified by religion. There is no doubt that the God's words in the Qur'an were intended to significantly improve the situation for women (not to mention all of humanity) in the face of harsh Arabian patriarchy and tribal injustice. However, customs that are deeply entrenched within a society (such as the Arab nomads of the 7th century) are, as we see today, hard to erase despite divine revelation. And in some cases these practices have intertwined themselves within the religion so far that they are now recognized as part of the religion; for example the Bedouin honor code of Namus which enforces a strict separation of the sexes, and having women wearing the Burqa, even though there is no specific mention of it in the Qur'an. ElPunto;750173 wrote: Saudi Arabia is not a Sharia state. Simply having willy-nilly elements of Sharia doesn't actually make it a proper Sharia state. Similarly simply having elections a la Mubarak's Egypt does not make you a democracy. I don't think this concept requires much elaboration. *= see earlier point. Fair enough point. Which present countries would you say are evidence of "proper Sharia" states? ElPunto;750173 wrote: Again you're making a mythical claim for the secular system vis-a-vis Sharia. Contestability ends somewhere in the secular system. It's called the Supreme Court. Similarly contestability ends with the highest Sharia court. But you have the right to contest in Sharia any law you wish to. However you have to abide by the courts decision similar to the secular system. **= see earlier point. So, you're basically saying that a decision by the highest Sharia court is irreversible since it is based on a system wherein "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space", whereas decisions by the Supreme Court, contrary to your supposition, are reversible by overturning earlier precedents. Can you prove that is the case with the highest Sharia court, contrary to the notion that Islamic "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space"?

N.O.R.F;750053 wrote: I would suggest you travel around a bit more and/or maybe live in a place other than the west to completely understand the difference between a society that is quickly decaying and one that is trying its upmost to maintain its ordained system. It seems as though you’ve ‘immersed’ yourself with one side of the argument and have decided to roll with it. OMG Norf, such a long post... No, TWO posts! I just got done with ElPunto, I'll get back to you at a later time. However, just for the record, I think having lived 15 years in the 'Khaleej' qualifies me as "immersed", no? I must say that they were some of the best years of my life.

ElPunto;750143 wrote: Huh?? I'm not sure why you're skirting the issue but just to clarify. Is polygamy illegal in the USA? Yes. Is it a punishable crime? Yes. Is the ban against polygamy an example of 'the law should not be regulating the way people choose to live their lives with the threat of punishment'? Yes. Does this legislation differ substantively from the Sharia ban on alcohol? No. The fact that the US bans polygamy, because the Supreme Court decided to call it "an offense against society" is indeed an infringement on one's liberties. The reason, in my opinion, that polygamy is illegal is because if it is legalized under the pretext of religious observance, then it will open the doors for all sorts of excuses based on religion. This, I think, is one of the benefits of a secular system, that it levels the field by not playing favorites, and hence, equality before the law. Furthermore, if polygamy is legalized, you can bet that the legalization of polyandry will follow. I think we all know why polygamy was instituted in Islam, but that situation no longer applies but it's still being applied because, like I said, of the immutability of religious doctrine. Having said that, I have no qualms against families that practice polygamy (or polyandry for that matter) provided that the written consent of the spouse be mandated as well as permission from a Shari'ah court. As for your comparison of polygamy to alcohol, I say apples and oranges because of the underlying pretexts, i.e. one is considered by some a "religious right" and the other is not. ElPunto;750143 wrote: So presumably if the view on society changed we could, theoretically, bring back slavery and rescind women's right to vote. Is this really an advantage? In Islam morality and ethics is consistent over time and space. Yes, that is an advantage. Maybe it will bring back slavery and rescind women's rights, (two notions which were based on religious conservatism, by the way) and maybe not. However, the current trend of the evolution of humanity points to the contrary. ElPunto;750143 wrote: As Muslims we believe certain laws are the prerogative of God who created mankind and knows what is best for him. Again, I ask you, according to whose interpretation? Mine, yours or the Mullah down the street? ElPunto;750143 wrote: Sharia is based on precedent(as in English civil law) and the consensus of the scholars. At the end of the day it will be upto each society to decide what course to take. And whatever Saudi Arabia is - it is not a Sharia system. What would be helpful is if Muslims who are against Sharia knew what they were talking about. As in not reducing an entire system of governance to the chopping of hands and the stoning of women. Or claming incorrectly that secular systems do not legislate morality when in fact they do. The fact that these unfortunate events happen in the name of 'religious law' and are merrily justified as 'God's will' is undeniable. Simply saying that "Saudi Arabia is not a Shari'ah system" does not negate the fact that it IS a system based on (a particular interpretation of) Shari'ah and that has been reiterated time and again by the religious leadership of that country. No doubt Shari'ah has its pros and cons, just like any other system. However, I do not agree with the incontestability of such laws because of their supposed decree by God, hence opening the doors to the abuse of the system. I wonder if a solicitor can successfully contest in a Shari'ah court that, although the Qur'an states it is allowable for a man to have four wives, that the reasoning behind it no longer applies today and there is no need for it.

in lilah wa ina ilayhi raji3oon... a revolutionary man

This is not about religion, it's a ruthless thirst for power and control that is cloaked in religious clothing

ElPunto;749949 wrote: "The law should be not be regulating the way people choose to live their lives" But it is already. A man in the United States can't marry more than one woman. If you do there is a punishment. Presumably you're ok with this set of laws regulating how people live their lives but you have a different standard for Sharia laws. Why? There is no double standard there. There was no mention of polygamy in the US. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife so be it, provided the opposite is true. Equality before the law I say And since you brought up polygamy, I am certain if enough people were for it that it would be legal in the US right now. Look at the prohibition, they tried banning alcohol, with stiff penalties, and that gave rise to Al Capone, eventually it was repealed, legalized, taxed and regulated, because the position of the populace differed. ElPunto;749949 wrote: How does the fact that these laws can be changed in the future make it any better? Because the view of society on certain matters might change. Take a look at slavery, women's right to voting, etc. However in Shari'ah you have Huduud, whereby a punishment is fixed because the person has committed a "transgression against God". For example, if a person is found innocent after being convicted of theft then that person will have lost a hand. Punishments such as these, I think, have no place in society (see next comment). ElPunto;749949 wrote: In fact, this makes it completely arbitrary subject to the whims of society and the zeitgeist of the times. Exactly. How else should laws be made if not at "the whims" society? Aren't laws made for societies? If yes, then should they not be made by societies? ElPunto;749949 wrote: As to your last point - Sharia is a just system as envisioned by the Creator. According to who's interpretation, yours, mine or the mullah down the street? At the end of the day it will be up to the people of a country that is 99.99% Muslim, as Norf put it, who will decide on which course to take, whether it is that of state-level secular governance like Turkey, Shari'ah like Saudi or a hybrid like Malaysia & Indonesia. If society can have a consensus on one system, then the ride will be smooth and there is no reason for debates such as this, but when there are differing voices as to which legal system to adopt, then accommodation must be made and the assumption must not be made that every Muslim will go for Shari'ah.

Of course he won't recognize Somaliland. That would be sheer hypocrisy on his part since the PKK wants a Kurdish homeland carved out of Turkey.

ElPunto;749940 wrote: Sharia is a system of laws and regulations. As is the social democracy practised in Sweden or the system as practised in the US. Just like a law in those latter systems can be broken - so can laws under Sharia be broken or circumvented. So your 'liberal' Muslim could without fear drink in the privacy of his/her own home. She could marry a non-Muslim and could divide assets as she wishes provided she could deal with the consequences under the law. Here is the point of contention. My "blinkered view of how the world works" states that the law should not be regulating the way people choose to live their lives with the threat of punishment. ElPunto;749940 wrote: All sytems of governance legislate morality and consequently force them on others. Why does Sweden not allow one man to marry 2 or more women who sincerely desire to marry him while allowing 2 men to get married? Why does the USA not allow women to abort a fetus in the 3rd trimester? Why in Norway must a successful enterprising fellow pay 50% tax rates in order to fund someone who won't work? Why did Malta until a few months ago ban divorce? Try breaking these rules and telling the respective justice systems that 'you are your own regulator of faith because faith is between you and The Almighty'. All the above laws you mentioned can be changed through legislative processes, just as Malta changed its divorce laws. So if there is enough of a demand for polygamy in a society (e.g. if most men in a society died because of war) then it will go through the process and instated as law. But when you have a set of rules and regulations based on (a certain interpretation) of religion, then they cannot be trespassed (or modified) because it would be contrary to the faith itself no? Besides how does the establishment of justice be made by "reinforcing faith on a broad level"?

sharma-arke451;749889 wrote: in my opinion, you lack focus and sincerity. however the truth is bitter, just say it. why on the defence all the time? These comments are neither here nor there. We're talking about the pros and cons of secular governance vs a shari'ah one, if you can't stick to the topic then we might as well drop the subject and convert this to a troll-highway... you can be wrong my friend, even once. you opinions are not always right, neither anyone else's his/her. I'm wrong a lot time, and I'll gladly admit to that and as long as this debate rages on then you'll hear more of my "wrongfulness"

sharma-arke451;749883 wrote: dee marbo meel umbu kasoo jeesan. straight umawadi karo warka I think I've explained my reasoning. The answers are as good as the questions that are asked.

N.O.R.F;749872 wrote: I will address your above post when I get ample time as I’m about to rush out. In the meantime, please explain to me how a Secular Somali state is a good thing because in effect, what you’ve stated above and in previous posts doesn’t really explain your reasoning. I think what I stated above explains my reasoning very well. If not, then please be specific as to where I am being unclear. As for my statement, there are several different 'forms' of Muslims e.g, some who want to give equal shares of inheritance to both their sons and daughters, some (women) who may fall in love with a non-Muslim and would like to marry him, some who may have an (alcoholic) drink occasionally, and so on. To have Shari'ah is to force everyone (whether you are a "liberal" Muslim or a "conservative" Muslim) in one pot and tell them: "look you're a Muslim and this is how you should live your life because you're obviously too incompetent to make your own decisions regarding your faith". A secular system will tell you none such, you are your own regulator of faith because faith is between you and The Almighty. I am of the opinion that no one should force their version of morality on others. People should be able to come to their own conclusions regarding faith, God and how to live their life. I personally think it is a form of weakness in faith that one should require fear of punishment in order to be a good Muslim or a decent human being for that matter. And that people who have a necessity for such rules suffer from moral poverty.

N.O.R.F;749798 wrote: Ps Pakistan = Mexico. Word! -> http://www.gwi-boell.de/downloads/Final_Country_Report_Mexico_July2010.pdf