The entire clan or reero sool will have a large meeting to discuss the matter. Thus there is a sudden rush to war as some would think.....

Humbug that does not tell me anything. When you say that the Alliance is best placed to end the occupation, what exactly do you mean by that? How is it going to end the occupation? Again, I've already mentioned that they don't have the financial, political or military ability to do so. What exactly do you want from the man? Perhaps a scientific formula or the Somali equivalent of the U.S consitution? Bal adigu Talo sheeg wa kaase? What should the Somali people do given the situation they are in according to Mr Ngonge?

IF YOU arabsat try find a german chnl called SFZWEI. They show live cl on tuesdays..tnite ter showin Barca vs Rangers.....

Arsenal 2-0 liverpool scorers Adebayor and Fabregas!

It wont probably wont be long before some Wadaads ect are rounded up in Lasanod on the premise of belonging to i.c..u etc......To asnwer Castro's question: Its a ruwayad, even the Geedi saga. After the failure and disillusionment of all these political leaders they are trying to instigate a clan war/s in the North and South....

Mammo Muchie In a recent Conference in Lund some delegates who should know better tried to spread some unusual tales claiming that the current Somali invasion by the Ethiopian Government was a continuation of the imperial colonial project of the Scramble for Africa where they alleged Ethiopia participated by sending a delegation to the Berlin 1885 infamous meeting. Even if Ethiopia sent an observer, it is a far cry from exaggerating such a presence into a role that Ethiopia was part of the forces that carved the African continent. Ethiopia suffered as an oppressed country, and whatever it managed to recover from the imperialist onslaught is gained through huge sacrifice and resistance. A particularly sinister reading and twist was given to its role during the Scramble for Africa, as if it was part and parcel of the Great Powers, and indeed a great power itself!! It is therefore a preposterous claim that Ethiopia was part and parcel of the imperial and colonial system. Conceptually such a claim is outrageous and bankrupt. The Ethiopian emperor was clear that the people from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean are historically and culturally connected. But he lamented the fact that the imperial project disrupted their unity and appealed to God to restore their unity at some possible time in the future. That prescient insight by Emperor Menelik has nothing to do with a colonial project. It has everything to do with redressing great power imperial and colonial injustice visited upon not only on the people from the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean, but also Africa from the Mediterranean to the Indian and Atlantic Oceans. There are many articles and pamphleteering from the various fronts from the TPLF to OLF, ONLF, Sidama Liberation Front and others that spread loosely the false conception of Ethiopia's relations with the various communities both inside and outside the region as a colonial relation. This sinister anti- intellectual and devious misconstruction must be rejected and the precise concept that truly characterises relations of oppressions involving the peoples of the region re- formulated by mounting an unsparing criticism of so much of the propaganda masquerading as science. Ethiopia's relations with Eritrea, Somalia, Djibouti or Sudan has never been colonial and is not colonial in the sense of a relationship that Britain, Italy or France had with these various states including Ethiopia. Prof Muchie is Director of Development, Innovation and International Political Economy, Aalborg University, Denmark. http://allafrica.com/stories/200710230093.html

Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar: You better stop that otherwise some ppl might start licking their computgers!

Originally posted by Suldaanka: The answer is the obvious one. Ilaa 1991kii ilaa maanta wax is bedelay ma jiraan. Dhulka Somaliland iyo xadkiisu nabad iyo colaad labada waa lagu tagaya, nabadda ayaana priority leh. [/QB] I am dissapointed in your Suldanow. You and your mates have not provided any concrete evidence why L.A is part and parcel of SL,apart from the usual about the colonial border and some other rhetoric about SL lands. As for your above analysis "History didnt start in 1991".

Originally posted by Castro: quote: KA: GARAD JAMA GARAD ALI. 21/10/2007 KU: CIDII AY KHUSAYSO. Does anyone have a copy of the letter the Garaad wrote to Meles Zenawi when he invaded Somalia? Saxiib occupation to some of them is when a rival drinks from their wells. I mean the Ethios are always around Buuhodle... have you ever seen SL or PL condeming them for entering the very territory they claim? No because occupation to them is three thin men with macawis crossing a line drawn on the sand!

Yes virtually half the U.K. But too bad they lost football, rugby and know formula one! But the pubs made a lot of money..................

People are more concerned about Somaliland iyo Puntland. Kurdistan iyo meelaha wali lama ghaadin!

Exactly adeer, I said "IF".

Originally posted by SheekhaJacaylka: I'm still laughing at you guys .... where da hell did anyone bring that stastistics to say 99% ??? .... who did the survey ?? or it is just an imaginery ?? Bottom line: quote: Magaalada Laascaano ayaa laga qabsadey maamulka Puntland kadib markii beelaha daga gobolka Sool misaanka u dheeliyeen dhinaca maamulka Somaliland As reported by Bugland itself Case closed ,,, Saxiib nobody said 99%, it was hypothetical number. But our dear friend Suldanka says it doesnt matter if 110% of Reer Lasanod say no to SL what matters is the colonial line drawn by the British. And I suspect that you Sheikh have this belief aswell. There is nothing in the world that could change Somaliland's quest to redraw its supposed colonial border. I also suspect that the majority of Somaliland supporters in this forum share that view!

latest grafiti from L.A http://www.afnugaal.com/warka.php?num=4067

latest grafiti from L.A http://www.afnugaal.com/warka.php?num=4067

quote:To put it bluntly, SL’s war against the people of LA is a fight for resources and for the billions of petro-dollars buried beneath the SSC landscape. For SL, the huge potential of oil and gas in SSC's Nugaal valley portion is a must have. Indeed, that(oil) is one of the biggest or perhaps the biggest motivator for this little war. quote:Fatah, It isn't about whether Lascaanood is 50% or 100% anti Somaliland or pro Somaliland. It is about, where LA falls on the international border. Lascaanood falls inside Somaliland borders as was drawn by colonialism. So the answer is the affirmative, ya suldanow?It matters not what the people of Lasanod want, rather precedence and weight is given to what the colonialists drew?But even this way of reasoning is severely flawed. Given the fact that the the international communtiy recognizes Somalia and not Somaliland. As of yet the borders of 1960 still stand. The international community never recognized the declaration of independence by the S.N.M and other various clans in 1991. In any case, I think it is very sad that Somalilanders value a meer line drawn by an Englishman above anything else.

lolll@Beer and Salad.... Kimis and Shaah all the way for me.....

quote:Wixii lagu saxeexay 1991kii ee lagu dhaartay ayay Somaliland ka dhalatay. Then why claim the British borders all the way near Garowe? And you still havent answered my question:If 99% of Reer Lasanod rejected Somaliland you would still firmly believe that they are still part and parcel of Somaliland due to the colonial borders! I am right or wrong? In other words no what matter the British Colonial is inherited by Somaliland!

Aqidah al-Tahawiyya: Imam Abu Ja’far al-Tahawi al-Hanafi (239-321 AH) In the Name of Allah, the Merciful, the Compassionate Praise be to Allah, Lord of all the worlds. Imam Abu Ja`far Ahmad ibn Muhammad al-Azdi, known as Imam Tahawi after his birthplace in Egypt, is among the most outstanding authorities of the Islamic world on hadith and jurisprudence (fiqh). He lived at a time when both the direct and indirect disciples of the Four Imams of law were teaching and practicing. This period was the greatest age of Hadith and fiqh studies, and Imam Tahawi studied with all the living authorities of the day. Al-Badr al-`Ayni said that when Ahmad died, Tahawi was 12; when Bukhari died, he was 27; when Muslim died, he was 32; when Ibn Majah died, he was 44; when Abu Dawud died, he was 46; when Tirmidhi died, he was fifty; when Nisa’i died, he was 74. Kawthari relates this and adds the consensus of scholars that Tahawi allied in himself completion in the two knowledges of hadith and fiqh, a consensus that included, among others, al-`Ayni and al-Dhahabi, with Ibn Taymiyya singling himself out in his opinion that Tahawi was not very knowledgeable in hadith. This is flatly contradicted by Ibn Kathir who says in his notice on Tahawi in al-Bidaya wa al-nihaya: “He is one of the trustworthy narrators of established reliability, and one of the massive memorizers of hadith.” Kawthari calls Ibn Taymiyya’s verdict “another one of his random speculations” and states: “No-one disregards Tahawi’s knowledge of the defective hadith except someone whose own defects have no remedy, and may Allah protect us from such.” Tahawi began his studies with his maternal uncle Isma`il ibn Yahya al-Muzani, a leading disciple of Imam Shafi`i. However, Tahawi felt instinctively drawn to the corpus of Imam Abu Hanifa’s works. Indeed, he had seen his uncle and teacher turning to the works of Hanafi scholars to resolve thorny issues of fiqh, drawing heavily on the writings of Abu Hanifa’s two leading companions, Muhammad Ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani and Abu Yusuf, who had codified Hanafi fiqh. This led him to devote his whole attention to studying the Hanafi works and he eventually joined the Hanafi school. He now stands out not only as a prominent follower of that Hanafi school but, in view of his vast erudition and remarkable powers of assimilation, as one of its leading scholars. His monumental scholarly works, such as Sharh ma`ani al-athar and Mushkil al-athar, are encyclopedic in scope and have long been regarded as indispensable for training students of fiqh. He was in fact a mujtahid across the board and was thoroughly familiar with the fiqh of all four schools, as stated by Ibn `Abd al-Barr and related by Kawthari, and as shown by Tahawi’s own work on comparative law entitled Ikhtilaf al-fuqaha’. Tahawi’s “Doctrine” (al-`Aqida), though small in size, is a basic text for all times, listing what a Muslim must know and believe and inwardly comprehend. There is consensus among the Companions, the Successors and all the leading Islamic authorities such as the four Imams and their authoritative followers on the doctrines enumerated in this work, which are entirely derived from the undisputed primary sources of Religion, the Holy Qur’an and the confirmed Hadith. Being a text on Islamic doctrine, this work sums up the arguments set forth in those two sources to define sound belief, and likewise, the arguments advanced in refuting the views of sects that have deviated from the Sunnah. As regards the sects mentioned in this work, familiarity with Islamic history up to the time of Imam Tahawi would be quite helpful. More or less veiled references to sects such as the Mu`tazila, the Jahmiyya, the Karramiyya, the Qadariyya, and the Jabariyya are found in the work. It also contains allusions to other views considered unorthodox and deviant from the way of Ahl al-Sunna. There is an explicit reference in the work to the controversy on the creation of the Qu’ran in the times of al-Ma’mun and others. While the permanent relevance of the statements of belief in the `Aqida are obvious, the historical weight and point of certain of these statements can be properly appreciated only if the work is used as a text for study under the guidance of some learned person able to elucidate its arguments fully, with reference to the intellectual and historical background of the sects refuted in the work. Since the present book is intended exactly as one such aid towards understanding the details of Islamic belief with clarity, it is hoped that the quotation of the entire text of Tahawi’s “Doctrine,” which we consider as the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a, will be of benefit to the reader. And may Allah grant us a true understanding of faith and count us among those described by the Prophet as the Saved Group. `Aqida tahawiyya is representative of the viewpoint of Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama`a. It has long been the most widely acclaimed, and indeed indispensable, reference work on Muslim beliefs, of which the text below is a complete English translation. http://sawawawasat.wordpress.com/2007/10/13/aqidah-al-tahawiyya-imam-abu-jafar-al-tahawi-al-hanafi-239-321-ah/

Holocaust Denial Undermines Islam (Shaykh Hamza Yusuf) This article originally appeared in Tikkun Magazine and is published here with permission. Epistemology is a branch of philosophy that studies the nature and basis of knowledge. How do we know things? It also studies the veracity of “truth.” How do we know the difference between belief, knowledge, opinion, fact, reality and fantasy? The Greek philosopher, Carneades, believed that knowledge of reality, of what is true or false, is impossible, that nothing can be known with certainty; his philosophy is known as skepticism. It does not reject belief altogether; Carneades felt that our belief about any given matter should be subjected to intense scrutiny and then, using a scale of probability, we should accept or reject the likelihood of its truth or falsehood. But we must make no absolute claims to it. Another Greek skeptic, Cratylus, however, was more radical in his approach and believed that nothing could be known at all, and thus no statements could convey anything true or meaningful. He finally gave up talking altogether. :mad: Most of us are neither moderate nor extreme skeptics; we believe what our teachers told us. Although some of us learned later that perhaps a little skepticism was indeed warranted, we survived with our grasp of reality reasonably intact. We live in a world where facts are meaningful and opinions can be assessed, at least to the degree that we deem them sound or unsound. When it comes to religion, those of us who are raised in traditions often reject such assessments and simply believe what we were taught. For many religious people, skepticism is anathema, the work of the devil. However, our Abrahamic traditions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have always been concerned with and seriously interested in epistemology, because each of these faiths have profound truth claims that need substantiation or “believability.” Islam, at its advent, developed a sophisticated methodology for the validation of truth claims. One of the greatest achievements of the Islamic scholastic tradition is ‘ilm ar-rijaal, the science of narrators. It is the study of reports of events in the life of the Prophet, especially of his sayings and deeds. Its formulators established a rigid set of criteria to validate the truth claims of those who asserted they saw or heard the Prophet do or say such-and-such. Reports were grouped into two categories: ahad, or solitary reports in which one or a few people claimed to have heard or seen something, and mutawatir, or multiply-transmitted reports narrated in numbers large enough to preclude collusive fabrication. The solitary reports must meet many criteria before being accepted as sound statements that nonetheless contain, depending upon the degree to which the criteria were met, a certain probability of error. On the other hand, firmly established multiply-transmitted reports, in numbers that rule out collusion, are taken as uncontestable fact. The Quran, the seventh century book narrated by Muhammad, is considered mutawatir, and thus epistemologically undeniable. Whether one believes it is from God or not is another matter, but the Quran in its current form is the same Quran the Prophet taught to his companions more than 1,400 years ago; untold numbers in each generation of Muslims have transmitted the same recitation, making it infallible in its historicity and accuracy. Islamic scholars accepted multiply-transmitted reports from Muslims and people of other faiths. Upon this epistemological foundation rests the Muslim faith. Creedal matters are deemed valid only if they are buttressed by multiply-transmitted traditions that can be traced back to the Prophet. Although Islamic jurisprudence is largely based upon solitary evidence (hence the differences of opinion in the various schools), the Quran and the creed of Islam are both founded upon multiple narratives that achieve an undeniable status. Early Muslim scholars would certainly consider much of our current knowledge of history to have achieved such status. For instance, there is consensus among historians that the Normans invaded England in 1066; too many accounts of this momentous event exist and have been recounted in each generation through multiple sources. In the case of any solitary original source, healthy skepticism is warranted. When Lee Harvey Oswald claimed to be a patsy, it led to an entire field of conspiracy studies among Kennedy assassination buffs. Did he act alone or didn’t he? That aspect of the event is debatable. But was John F. Kennedy shot on November, 22, 1963 in a motorcade at Dealey Plaza in Dallas? Far too many accounts of that tragic event exist; to deny it is simply to deny reality and have one’s sanity questioned. Much of what we know about the world and what we accept as truth comes from multiply-transmitted accounts. Let’s say I claim that Australia doesn’t exist and is merely a figment of our imagination, that its origins lie in a whimsical cartographer in the Middle Ages who decided that such a large ocean needed a land mass. And, when confronted with people who claim to be from Australia and can prove it, I dismiss them as part of a conspiracy of cartographers who wish to perpetuate the myth of their forbearer. I would be laughed at, or ignored, or deemed “certifiable.” While this example seems absurd, many people actually believe things just as fatuous and far-fetched. Holocaust denial is one such example. As one who has read some Holocaust denial literature, with the poorly reproduced pictures and claims of the orchestration of these scenes in collusion with the U.S. government, I can attest to the tragic gullibility of people who take such literature as historical truth. To return to the Kennedy assassination, if one reads Mark Lane’s version that a rogue element within the CIA killed Kennedy, the “facts” seem overwhelming. But if one reads another version that the Mafia killed Kennedy because of his failure to return Cuba to the gambling lords of Italian America, the “facts” also seem overwhelming. Finally, one can read the version that Mossad killed Kennedy because he wanted to force nuclear inspections in Israel, and again the “facts” seem conclusive. Each of these accounts is presented with utter certainty by the “researchers.” In the end, reality is manipulated to meet the needs of the mythologist. Indeed, we are each entitled to our own opinions, but not to our own facts. And those who present alternative versions of “reality” tend to reject everything that does not suit their theory, and cherry-pick and interpret everything—facts, innuendos or “coincidences”—that does. In the case of the Holocaust, the facts are clear and transmitted from multiple sources. Tens of thousands of Jewish and other individuals who survived the death camps and other horrors of Nazi Germany lived to tell of it. Nazis were brought to trial, evidence was presented in court, and they were convicted. Mass graves were found, and gas chambers were discovered, which were clearly not delicing rooms as some callously claimed. The ovens exist and cannot be reduced to an efficient way of preventing cholera outbreaks or disposing of victims of starvation. I have personally met many Holocaust survivors and their children. I have seen tattoos. I have also heard firsthand accounts of the horrific events. The numbers and details of such events may be legitimate areas of research and inquiry for scholars, but questioning whether the events took place at all undermines the epistemological basis of our collective knowledge. Muslims, of all people, should be conscious of this as their religion is predicated on the same epistemological premises as many major events in history, such as the Holocaust. To deny such things is to undermine Islam as an historical event. That a “conference” examining the historicity of the Holocaust should take place in a Muslim country hosted by a Muslim head of state is particularly tragic and, in my estimation, undermines the historicity of the faith of the people of that state. In our inherent contradictions as humans, and in order to validate our own pain, we deny the pain of others. But it is in acknowledging the pain of others that we achieve fully our humanity. A close friend of mine, a professor of religion in a Muslim country for many years, recently told me that his wife, an English teacher in that country, had wanted to use Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl as a text for her Muslim pupils. But the school administrators repeatedly denied her request because they deemed it inappropriate reading for young Muslims. It is sad that the current political morass in the Middle East has led to this intolerable refusal to confront a people’s collective suffering. Perhaps in acknowledging that immense past of Jewish suffering, in which the Holocaust is only the most heinous chapter, Muslims can better help the Jewish community to understand the current Muslim pain in Palestine, Iraq and other places. In finding out about others, we encourage others to find out about us. It would greatly help our Jewish brethren to know the historical facts of Jewish experience in the Muslim world, which are often heartening and humanizing and very different from their European experience. In our mutual edification, we grow together. Tikkun Magazine, 2007.

Somaliland has border which supposedly date back to the British era of colonialism. But we know that the British are not around today nor were they in 1991. So how did the S.N.M decide to incorporate all these cities such as Lasanod as being part and parcel of their territory without any vote or consent from its residents? Even if 99% of Reer Lasanod rejected Somaliland you and many others would be still be claiming this as part of Somaliland simply due the line drawn by the British. I say there is something deeply wrong with this, wouldnt you agree?

Something which I forgot to mention is the prospect of oil fuelling this war. http://www.biyokulule.com/Puntla3.jpg

MMI, the Garad has been working day and night over the past few months in order to remove some of the militias from the city, in particular some his subclan. But warlords dont listen to Garads, Wadaads or professors. They only understand guns and a good old kick up their behind. Secondly this Garad doesnt have the same influence as his father did. Ethiopia, Somaliland and Puntland couldnt approach this men with any nonsense. Infact he warned his folks many a time about bringing the conflict of PL and SL to their city.

Originally posted by Dhulqarnayn -alSumaale: Paul B Henze is a Anti-Somalist and a former CIA agent on the pay-roll of Meles Zenawi so his comments mean little to me cause he is obviously biased if he were not, C.I.A probably runs Somali today and probably did so in the last sixteen years.

Waxaan Ummadda ku nool magaalladda Muqdishu ugu baaqayaa inay iska celiyaan dadka magaca Dowladda huwan ee doonaya inay ku bara-kiciyaan..” With those kind of words he might land himself a job in Asmara!