Sh. Nur, I believe we're now on the same thinking path. The first moral reference to Abraha still has significant lessons and a degree of continuation even in today's world. Best example is also from that same historical narrative during the advent of Islam. When the Prophet was harassed, mistreated and oppressed in the most severe ways possible, looking down on the town from the hills with Jibril, Allah gave him the choice; if he wanted, Jibril would destroy the town with its polytheist dwellers. The prophet (pbuh) said no, for he understood that no ideological compatibility with them was NOT necessary at the time. Rather, he recognised the importance of their children and future generations for the Islamic cause. When does the Moral sympathy translate to material support? With regards to your specific question above, let's take the following hypothetical situation. Say you are the leader of a very powerful faraway Islamic country we shall refer as country X. Country X is situated in a continent with two other countries, namely Y and Z. Country Y is very small and weak and country Z is bigger and more powerful, although not as powerful as X. Z decides to attack Y in order to conquer and take Y's land whilst in the process killing, raping and maiming entire populations to achieve their objectives. What are you going to do as the leader of country X, when X is ideologically neither compatible with Y nor Z?

^^The BBC has not changed. They still remain foremost promoters of western crimes, wars and genocides committed around the world. Ever from its inception, the BBC functioned as the propaganda mouthpiece of a crumpling empire and of colonial apologists, often an extension of HMG and the Anglican Church's policies under colonial subjects in the true spirit of white man's burden. Why would any government sponsored media outlet have such a global presence? The sinister intentions were there for all to see. We Somalis still remain religious followers of the BBC which played an important role in the polarisation, destruction and ensuing anarchies of Somalia in the last 30 years. The kind of journalistic and editorial standards the BBC upheld in the brutal wars against Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon and the continuous slaughter of Palestinians over the years has left no doubts about the BBC's role in this world –not to mention the psychological and religious warfare against Muslims in the UK and elsewhere. They are not unique in that sense however as all western mainstream corporate media is toeing the same line, predictably I must say. I read "Manufacturing Consent" in 2002, a book co-authored by Noam Chomsky, outlining the propaganda model of corporate media (in both methodological and operation level) and the layers of filtering mechanisms in place (about four if I remember it correctly). Definitely an eye-opener for anyone new to this subject.

Sh. Nur would be the one to answer such matters, but in his absence let me inform you of the following. There is a consensus among scholars that the silk content in men's clothes should not exceed the size of four fingers in width –making reference to a Hadeeth narrated by Umar ibn Khattab (ra) and reported in Saheeh Muslim. If your four fingers can fit into that pocket (in all likelihood they will), then that would be a good indicator for its impermissibility. Even if it didn't, if when the material unfolded as a piece without shapes, its width still exceeds the size of four fingers, then again that would be out of bounds. In any case, it's better for men to avoid silk at any cost whatever size, shape or decorative (especially fashionable) purposes unless you have a medical excuse. I've seen a Fatwa on this subject in Islamweb.net, you'll do good to visit there for more information.

Sheikhunaa Nur, Let me start by commenting on your excellent choice of historically framing these ideology-morality maxims as a backdrop on the best and most illustrious period in the history man. Your observation that our prophet (pbuh) was a) sent to entire humanity, b) had to start his mission somewhere and c) that Makkah happened to be that place, are filled with many answers we should look closer before I can comment on the reminder/conclusion of your writing (no general disagreement there). In reality it's no coincidence that Makkah (Arabian Peninsula) was chosen to be the city of the prophet (pbuh) because of its unique conditions. Conditions, even if filled with darkness and moral degradation at the time, Allah (swt) decreed in His infinite wisdom to be preserved –an implication made apparent by the destruction of the elephant army of Abraha who intended on destroying the Kacbah. So asks Allah (swt) Alamtara kayfa facala Rabbuka bi'asxaabil fiil? I cannot but reflect on the fact that Allah destroyed an army of Christians (the monotheists at the time) and saved a city full of mushrikeen (perhaps with few exceptions). Even if I exclude Makkah and the Makkans inhabiting the city, in the spirit of traditional seerah, and only base my reflection on the Kacbah as the sole reason of the destruction of Elephant army; were Manaat, Laat and Cuzza not the occupants of the Kacbah? Decades later, we have the saxaabah showing moral sympathy to (in comparison with Abraha) less Unitarian post-Constantine Christendom of the Roman empire following their defeat by the Persians (mushrikeen). At what point has moral realignment occurred between the two historical incidents? Muslims are in my opinion our greatest assets in this world for the purpose of achieving our destiny. Muslims (including their lands and wealth) under attack or under occupation are even greater assets in value, therefore, we have to preserve them from today's Abraha (using B52s instead of elephants). In recognition of the potential, we can realise that in the long-term everything is perforce ideological. Ideology is not the moral of our actions, it's the goal: this goal dictates our actions to fulfil morality. For relative morality to exist ideology is neither necessary nor sufficient –that is not to say it's correct. As a man of this world, are you sure you've never experienced situations of temporal divergence morality from ideology for the sake of achieving long-term permanent parity? Of course without ideology we are no Muslims, without morality we're not much of a Muslims (as in today's world) and without possessing both qualities our actions will never succeed; that makes ideology our cement. Why would otherwise Carra de Vaux suggest, in order to break our moral unity, to target ideology by the use of political differences, Muslim heresies and the Sufi orders? (Questions Diplomatiques et Coloniales,1901)

Originally posted by Nur: But, let me state a quick note on your question: I am in no way advocating for the ONLF to lay down their resistance, they have a right to resist occupation to the last man, and rightfully so, its more honorable to die on your feet than to live crawling on your knees. Sh. Nur, In that case we're not in a disagreement at all. It was because you didn't make that clear and instead began the discourse with the other side of the coin on ideology, morality and material consequences, that my impatience induced me to question where you stand on the more fundamental question of the topic. Now that your position is clearer to me, we can continue discussing ideology, morality and action. In my opinion differentiation is possible in certain circumstances and obviously you disagree with that. If I'm wrong I'll not be surprised since I get many things wrong all the time and I'll learn few things from you to correct my thinking. If you're right on the other hand, as the sheikh with the superior knowledge, we don't expect anything less from you and Allah will reward your efforts.

Following the decisions to steal Palestinian gas of the coast of Ghazza including –the now evident– prerequisite formality to annihilate the spirit and backbone of Palestinian resistance, we have witnessed the next logical step; to create demand for these (undoubtedly costly) contracts. Mysterious things has happened that lead to the cut-off of gas supply to Europe from Russia through Ukraine, what lead to increased European incentives to diversify their gas supply sources. In theory, they are probably hoping that when bankrupted US government will be unable to guarantee the existence of Jewish state on a borrowed land, they may have other economic and geopolitical alternatives. My question is: What's the Egyptian role in all this?

^^The funny thing about these so called Islamic instruments is hat they are promoted by non-Muslims mostly. The British government is intending to issue sukuk as part of current Bank of England's quantitative easing process. If it's up to Gordon Brown, according to his own speeches, London will be the centre of Islamic finance. In Holland, when the VVD (a right wing political party) criticized Islamic finance in their political publication, the defenders and promoters of Islamic finance in the media were all non-Muslim lawyers and accountants who accused the VVD of ignorance and urged them to retract their statements.

Shaykhunaa Nur, I couldn't possibly agree with you more on most of what you said, but the premise you're basing on your (otherwise well founded) discourse is where our argument lies. The sole reason I decided to address you in the language of considerations was precisely for you to consider them as such (masaalix and mafaasid), and in all fairness, thus far it's not reflected in the contentious comments. To go back to your central premise, there are several assumptions central to that position that you need to clarify in the continuation of above treatise. 1) What is the basis for your conclusion that the struggle of ONLF is not in the interest of Muslims relative to the current Ethiopian oppression? Bluntly put, how can the Ethiopian occupation be more favourable for the spiritual condition of these Somalis, hence Islam? 2) How can we ascertain that the adopted charter of ONLF is not an opportunistic act rather than an ideological one, if in doing so, they can maintain their struggle which they believe is in the interest of their religion as well? 3) If their current actions can be reconciled with the 'greater maslaxa' as you put it, as well as the sum of all other masaalix, what is wrong with supporting them? Your faith in them of achieving victory is certainly bigger than mine, as your objections are based on what comes after the Ethiopian defeat. I personally believe that the struggle will ultimately move on and the torch will be carried by other movements like it has always been in the past. The struggle must be kept alive, a task being fulfilled by the ONLF of today and in maintaining, at least this status quo, is the very reason they are extremely beneficial per my argument. Morality can make you choose between two evils without compromising your Caqiidah, ONLF may have made theirs in formulating their charter (Allahu aclam) and I have made mine. Please do continue ..

Brother Nur, My comment was specifically intended for a realistic situation that I've seen, and subjectively defined scales rather than philosophically defined rules. To be more precise, my differentiation of ideology from morality in this case follows the logic inference that the former is more Aqeeda based and universal whereas the latter knows absolute as well as relative forms. From what I know, ONLF fighters are Muslims and their decision to sacrifice their lives was a moral rather than ideological choice. Their moral choice is understandable when you take into account the suffering, the killing, the raping, the hangings, the humiliation and denial of any rights. At least that is what they told me and I have no reason to suspect otherwise. The logic train makes you choose a side between the opposing parties for indifference is a moral impossibility in the realities on the ground. As a Muslim, I have a moral obligation to support them (the material support would be a natural outcome) as wouldn't want them to fight with no ammunition: Who would want that? Memorandums, articles or charters of the ONLF movement don't come into play there, but when they do, morality becomes absolute and it has to conform to our ideological standing. I believe that there is no conflict or perceived conflict in my statement. Brother Xiinfaniin, Your view is the correct one regarding what I was attempting to say above. I was in addition trying to expand the discussion to more rational and factual grounds, which I believe should be weighed more heavily, instead of only focusing on traditional and theoretical considerations.

^^..that sounds like him. Indeed! I've been looking information about him for a while now; kindly post any details you may have access to..

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: There was also Sheekh Zaylici whose bio I dont have. Appriciate if Abu Salman soo helo sheekha taariikhdiisa. Which Zaylici? Most of the great Somali scholars were nicknamed Zaylici or Jabarti after the special sections reserved for students from the Horn (these centuries Somalia was not defined as a region) at major learning centres of Islamic studies, such as that Riwaaq al-Jabartiya corner of al-Azhar at the time. There are even records of at least one Somali scholar who was sent to king Louis of France as part of a special diplomatic mission. Anyway, make note of this list: Sh. Cismaan Cali Zaylaci (a great scholar and author of Xanafi school of jurisprudence) Sh. Cabdullahi bin Yusuf bin Muxammad Zaylaci (a great muxaddith) Sh. Ali Jabarti (spent his intellectual life under the Mamluk dynasty) Sh. Muxiyiddin Sh. Cabdullahi al-Qaxtany (1789-1869, born and raised in Baraawe, Chief Qadhi and Chief Minister during the Omani Sultanate in Zanzibar, authored many books in Arabic and Swahili) Sh. Cali Suufi (does not need any reference) Homework for you Xiinfaniin: there was a great scholar who studied in Baghdad (and maybe in Makkah as well) who came back to his family in the Bari region of Somalia, but then was chased away and he eventually settled in Baraawe. He authored possibly more books than any other Somali known in history. I'm ashamed not to know his full name, but I think it starts with Sh. Cali. Provide us some more information if you can.

Islamic banking isn't Islamic The contractum trinius was a legal trick used by European merchants in the Middle Ages to allow borrowing at usury, something that the Church fiercely opposed. It was a combination of three separate contracts, each of which was deemed permissible by the Church, but which together yielded a fixed rate of return from the outset. For example, Person A might invest £100 in Person B for one year. A would then sell back to B the right to any profit over and above say £30, for a fee of £15 to be paid by B. Finally, A would insure himself against any loss of wealth by means of a third contract agreed with B at a cost to A of £5. The result of these three simultaneously agreed contracts was an interest payment of £10 on a loan of £100 made by A to B. I had read about the contractum trinius some months before first encountering the full documentation behind an Islamic banking murabahah contract. It was the kind of contract that Person A might use in order to finance the purchase of good X from Person B. The bank would intermediate in the transaction by asking A to promise to buy good X from the bank in the event that the bank bought good X from B. With the promise made, the bank knows that if it buys good X from B it can then sell it on to A immediately. The bank would agree that A could pay for good X three months after the bank had delivered it. In return, A would agree to pay the bank a few percent more for good X than the bank had paid to B. The net effect is a fixed rate of financial return for the bank, contractually enforceable from the moment that the bank buys good X from B. Money now for more money later, with good X in between. The above set of legal devices is nothing other than a trick to circumvent riba, a modern day Islamic contractum trinius. The fact that the text of these contracts is so difficult to come by is one shameful fact of Islamic banking. If so clean, why so secretive? The following is an excerpt from a murabahah contract that was used frequently by two major institutions during the 1990's. The 'Beneficiary' is the client that needs finance, and earlier clauses require that the Beneficiary acts as the agent of the Bank in taking delivery of the goods. Click here to continue reading this article.

May Allah reward you for the article posted. It is good practice to acknowledge at least the author of articles posted here if not the source.

Originally posted by Caamir: BBC is mostly impartial and credible.. Astonishing!

Watching the War on BBC By MUHAMMAD IDREES AHMAD On February 29 last year the BBC's website reported deputy defense minister Matan Vilnai threatening a 'holocaust' on Gaza. Headlined "Israel warns of Gaza 'holocaust'" the story would undergo nine revisions in the next twelve hours. Before the day was over, the headline would read "Gaza militants 'risking disaster'". (The story has since been revised again with an exculpatory note added soft-pedalling Vilnai's comments). An Israeli threatening 'holocaust' may be unpalatable to those who routinely invoke its spectre to deflect criticism from the Jewish State's criminal behaviour. With the 'holocaust' reference redacted, the new headline shifts culpability neatly into the hands of 'Gaza militants' instead. One could argue that the BBC's radical alteration of the story reflects its susceptibility to the kind of inordinate pressure for which the Israel Lobby's well-oiled flak machine is notorious. But, as will be demonstrated in subsequent examples, this story is exceptional only insofar as it reported accurately in the first place something that could bear negatively on Israel's image. The norm is reflexive self-censorship. To establish evidence of the BBC's journalistic malpractice one often has to do no more than pick a random sample of news related to the Israel-Palestine conflict currently on its website. In a time of conflict, BBC's coverage invariably tends to the Israeli perspective, and nowhere is this reflected more than in the semantics and framing of its reportage. More so than the quantitative bias – which was meticulously established by the Glasgow University Media Group in their study Bad News from Israel – it is the qualitative tilt that obscures the reality of the situation. This is often achieved by engendering a false parity by stretching the notion of journalistic balance to encompass power, culpability and legitimacy as well. The present conflict is no exception. "Hamas leader killed in air strike", reads Thursday's headline on the BBC website. Notwithstanding the propriety of extrajudicial murder, there are fourteen paragraphs and the obligatory mention of the four dead Israelis before it is revealed that 'at least nine other people', including the assassinated leader's family were killed in the bombing of his home in the Jabaliya refugee camp. The actual number is sixteen dead, eleven of them children; twelve more wounded, five of them children; ten houses destroyed, another twelve damaged – a veritable slaughter. Had a Hamas bombing killed or wounded 28 Israeli citizens including 16 children you'd be sure to see endless coverage – of the kind the BBC lavished on the disconsolate illegal settlers in 2005 as they were made to relinquish stolen real estate in Gaza. The BBC's Mike Sergeant, sitting in Jerusalem, would not concern himself with such sentimentality. There is no further mention of Palestinian civilian deaths. Their tragedy was no more than a sanguine message which Sergeant tells us will 'be seen as an indication that the Israeli military can target key members of the Hamas leadership'. "Israel braced for Hamas response", blared the ominous headline on the next day's front page. With all references to Hamas in its coverage prefixed with 'militant' and invariably accompanied by images of blood and debris, the average viewer is very likely to assume the worst. It transpires what the world's fourth most powerful military is bracing itself for is merely a citizen's protest called by Hamas in the Occupied Territories. Further on we learn that Israel has been bombing such 'targets' as a mosque and a sleeping family. The BBC's next headline on the same day – "Gaza facing 'critical emergency'" – is an improvement. It quotes Maxwell Gaylard, the UN's chief aid co-ordinator for the territory, highlighting the magnitude of the humanitarian crisis. Following this is a warning from Oxfam that the situation is getting worse by the day: clean water, fuel and food in short supply, hospitals overwhelmed with casualties, raw sewage pouring into the streets. And then we get 'balance'. Israel, we learn, has claimed Gaza has 'sufficient food and medicines'. It of course ought to be easy to verify which of the competing claims is valid, but that presumably would violate the 'usual BBC standards of impartiality'. There is also a more mundane reason why the BBC won't present its own findings, but it is tucked away in the very last paragraph of the article. Israel, we learn, 'is refusing to let international journalists into Gaza', including no doubt those of the BBC. The ethics of reporting would require that the BBC preface each of its reports with the disclaimer that it has no way of knowing what is going on in Gaza other than through the propaganda handouts of the Israeli military. The final act of chicanery comes in the shape of a sidebar which lists the number of rockets fired by Palestinians for each day of the conflict. This is particularly odd in an article ostensibly about the consequences of the Israeli blockade and bombing, especially since no similar figures are produced for the number of bombs, missiles and artillery shells rained on the Gazans. The source the BBC uses is the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center based in Israel. What it does not mention however is that the 'private' think tank is a conveyor belt for Israeli military propaganda which, according to the Washington Post, 'has close ties with the country's military leadership and maintains an office at the Defense Ministry'. Any Palestinian claim on the other hand would not appear unless enclosed in quotation marks, even if independently verifiable. The quotation marks are a useful distancing device deployed to show that the characterization may not be one shared by the BBC. This would be understandable if their application were consistent. It isn't. To take one telling example, after the Lebanon war when both Israel and Hizbullah were accused by Amnesty International of war crimes, only in the case of Israel did the BBC enclose the accusation in quotation marks. It is through these subtle – and not so subtle – manipulations of language that the BBC has shielded its audience from the ugly realities of Occupied Palestine. In the BBC's reportage Palestinians 'die', Israelis are 'killed' (the latter implies agency, the former could have happened of natural causes); Palestinians 'provoke', Israelis 'retaliate'; Palestinians make 'claims', Israelis declare. Schools, mosques, universities and police stations become 'Hamas infrastructure'; militants 'clash' with F-16s and Apaches. 'Terrorism' is something Palestinians do, Israelis merely 'defend' themselves – invariably outside their borders. All debates, irrespective of fact or circumstance, are framed around Israel's 'security'. If the Apartheid wall is mentioned, it is in terms of its 'effectiveness'. In the odd event that you have an articulate Palestinian voice represented, the debate is rigged with a set-up video that is meant to put them on the defensive. When all else fails, there is the reliable 'both sides' argument – if reality won't accommodate the image of an even conflict, the BBC figures, language will. Then there's the framing: Israel's violence is always analyzed in terms of its 'objectives'; Palestinian violence is of necessity senseless. This is no doubt how it must appear to the average reader since the word 'occupation' rarely appears in the BBC's coverage. It hasn't appeared once in the last twenty stories on Gaza on its website. And if occupation is mentioned rarely, then the UN resolutions almost never. The picture is even worse on television, where the Israeli point of view predominates. While Matan Vilnai's threat of a holocaust is consigned to the memory hole, the statement invented and attributed to the Iranian president about wiping Israel off the map is still in play. It is this double standard which also allowed the BBC to cover the story of a British Jew joining the Israeli military as a life interest story – which may not be entirely surprising considering the BBC's man in Jerusalem, Tim Franks, is himself a graduate of Habonim Dror, a Zionist youth movement. It is this inhuman devaluation of Palestinian life that allowed the BBC at the peak of the criminal blockade in July 2007 to have two stories up on its website related to the occupied territories, both about animals – an eagle and a lioness. While the BBC's refusal to by-line its online reports makes it hard to trace stories back to individual journalists, a revealing glimpse of the editorial context in which they work was offered by an article in the Observer by the BBC's Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen – a man whose modest analytical skills are matched only by his historical illiteracy. With the BBC workhorse – 'both sides' – weaved into the very headline, Bowen piles inanity upon cliché, sedulously avoiding any mention of the occupation. He is no doubt aware that the fragile narrative he has constructed -- where the conflagration begins with Hamas firing rockets into Israel -- will collapse with the first mention of the occupation which predates both the rockets and Hamas. Bowen, who has been conveniently transported to Sderot – an Israeli PR ploy to 'embed' journalists within range of Hamas rockets in order to make them report with empathy – plays his part to the tee. On the other hand there is no mention of those at the receiving end of Israel's lethal ordinance. He mentions civilian casualties only in the context of the 'lot of bad publicity' they get for Israel. On the basis of this evidence, he then concludes 'it is probably fair to say that [israel] does not hit every target it wants, otherwise many more would have died'. We then end with speculation on Israel's possible objectives. Despite 'both sides', there is no similar scrutiny of Hamas's objectives. At a conference in London in 2004, a BBC journalist based in the Occupied Palestinian Territories told me that when it comes to Israel the editorial parameters are so narrow that journalists soon learn to adapt their stories in order not to upset the editors. And editors likewise know not to upset their government-appointed managers. Since the days of Lord Reith, the BBC-founder who assured the establishment to 'trust [the BBC] not to be really impartial', on foreign policy the corporation has acted as little more than the propaganda arm of the state (whatever independence it had once enjoyed evaporated with the purge carried out by Tony Blair in the wake of the Hutton Inquiry). Contrary to the prevailing view in the US, where progressives don't tire of comparing it favourably against US media, the BBC's record of coverage in the Middle East is dismal. As media scholar David Miller revealed, during the Iraq war the representation of antiwar voices on the BBC was even lower than on its US counterparts. A Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung study found the corporation to have the lowest tolerance for dissent of the media in the five countries it analyzed. Just as its correspondents in Iraq celebrated the fall of Baghdad as a 'vindication' of Blair, its man in Washington Matt Frei threw all caution to the wind to exult: 'There is no doubt that the desire to bring good, to bring American values to the rest of the world, and especially now in the Middle East, is especially tied up with American military power.' The BBC's partiality in the case of the Israel-Palestine conflict is a mere reflection of the close affinity of successive British governments with Israel. Both Blair and his successor Gordon Brown have been members of the Israel Lobby group Labour Friends of Israel. The Foreign Minister David Miliband has kin who are settlers in the West Bank. All three major influence-peddling scandals in the past five years that engulfed the leadership of the ruling New Labour party involved money from wealthy Zionist Jews (all linked to the Labour Friends of Israel). If the BBC is not impartial, then the UK government most certainly is not. And the BBC, as is its wont, merely reflects the latter's tilt. This is blatant enough that, despite Israel Lobby pressure, the BBC's own Independent Panel concluded that its coverage of the Palestinian struggle was not 'full and fair' and that it presented an 'incomplete and in that sense misleading picture'. But the gap between the alternate reality that the BBC inhabits and the reality on the ground witnessed and relayed by independent media is so great today that it has compelled John Pilger to write: 'For every BBC voice that strains to equate occupier with occupied, thief with victim, for every swarm of emails from the fanatics of Zion to those who invert the lies and describe the Israeli state's commitment to the destruction of Palestine, the truth is more powerful now than ever.' Muhammad Idrees Ahmad is a member of Spinwatch.org. He can be reached at m.idrees@gmail.com

..thought you may find this interesting.. That very same month, the Israeli authorities contacted British Gas, with a view to resuming crucial negotiations pertaining to the purchase of Gaza's natural gas:

Brother Nur, Since you've stated that your knowledge is quite limited, let me share with you the fundamental scales that I use as my guiding principles when it comes to the judgement of ONLF. To base the discussions simply on the prefix name to their movement or the ill-conceived marketing charter (both of which are secondary to our main considerations, but I'm more than willing to elaborate thoroughly FYI) are inward looking diversions that will lead to more catastrophic harm to Somalis everywhere than bring any benefits. Consideration 1: Natural resources Let us take the initiating topic of this thread as our first consideration. The impression given in the above statement posted by A&T is that the gas and oil exploration activities are still at the exploration stage. This is factually major understatement for two reasons; 1) no profit-seeking-risk-assessing company will be willing to invest in contracts at the exploration stage and 2) Ethiopia is too desperate to confine itself when there are far quicker and easier alternatives. The only project still at exploration stage is that in Oballe region. In Hargeelle, the exploration stage has been completed long time ago, whereas in Hillaale at least 20 well are at the pumps installation stage. However, it's Jeexdin where there are almost 30 pumps already installed and ready for use. The number of countries and companies that have worked on these projects are too numerous to mention, but I have their names so let me know if need any of these. If you thought that world's 'superpowers' are aiding and armouring Ethiopia in their fight against Somalis, what do you think would have been the result if they had vested interest that included economic, material and energy security? More importantly, imagine the power of Ethiopia with a vast source of steady stream income and the impact it would have on those resisting them with moderate means? ONLF is the only obstacle to such a catastrophic outcome right now. We used to have an effective alternative in the region, especially in mid 1990s before American F-16s started fighting side by side with the Ethiopians and bombed them into practically non-existence, who where Islamic in their ideological movement despite many shortcomings. It's up to us to ignite anew similar revival that will liberate us this time for good, but until such time, there is no other strategically alternative front. Consideration 2: Population Head of the World Bank in Ethiopia, Ishac Diwan, said in 2003 the following: "in 2050 there will be 150 million Ethiopians of which 50 or 60 million will be in the cities. You do not want to have the remaining population of a 100 million or so, in the highlands. The situation in the highlands is already unsustainable, and parts of the area are in a Malthusian trap with poor farmers eating up the land, with soil degradation and soil losses due to deforestation. So you have 30 or 40 million that have to be somewhere else. There is a lot of land in the country that is not used. There is a limit to how many livelihoods can be sustained on the highlands. Take advantage of the rivers in the fertile plains in the lowlands. There are three to four million hectares that could be irrigated." It may be one of the few instances where such statements are made in public, but the policy objectives are not new. Mass expulsion of general populace has frequently occurred in the past through various means and tactics. My grandmother for example, narrowly escaped with my mother as a child in the 1960s when their village, cattle and all means of livelihood was burnt, men rounded up and executed. Tactics not too dissimilar to that carried out by the Jews against Palestinians, one that you organise your terrorisation in a way that predetermine even the direction to which the terrorised are able to flee. Much of its success also depends on the 'international' organisations such as the UN in creating refugee camps as pools of attraction to encourage and facilitate mass exodus at borders to whatever distance and direction necessary. Few camps in Somalia come immediately to mind. There were other more direct social engineering projects funded by various countries and agencies. The flagship projects were that of the early 1980s by the Derg regime when they resettled thousands of farmers from the drought-affected areas of highlands Wollo and Tigray in Qoraxey, Jarar, Fafan, and Welmal (these settlers eventually fled back to where they came from). Other well-known endeavours from that period were the Godey cotton project and Godey State Farm – these have also been on the drawing board of current regime for the last 10 years and they have so far not succeeded to implement their designs completely. Western countries are concerned with long-term future of Ethiopia and have identified social engineering and resettlements as the magic bullet to maintain its existence; UN, World Bank, IMF and other 'international' agencies have shown that they are all too willing supporters who can't wait to start implementing the programs. There are also ample willing donors to guarantee the fees. Any sane person would concede that in fact it was Al-Ittixaad first (by Allah's leave), and now these young men who had no choice but to fight (that it was only ONLF that could offer them training and weapons is a circumstantial aspect) and who so far succeeded in bringing halt to these notorious schemes. Elsewhere in Ethiopia, like the ethnic groups of Gambelle such as Anwak, Komo and Majangir would probably wish they had active resistance fighters, whatever name they may be using. A report written in 2000 by the MRG concludes: "Various projects including the forced resettlement of 50,000–60,000 people from elsewhere in Ethiopia on Anwak land, irrigation and mechanized agriculture have had a drastic impact upon their livelihood.38 The Derg's villagization programme and Christian missionaries have also deeply influenced Majangir society" Consideration 3: Inter-clan fighting One of the most eye-opening things that I've encountered when I travelled to the Somali region in Ethiopia was what I learned from a local elder in the Dhegaxbur area. He told me that the inter-clan fighting were of epidemic proportions (sidii daacuun dillaacay) in periods when armed resistance were weakest (i.e. conjuncture in the subsidence of Al-Ittixad and prior to the strengthening of ONLF). I suspected that fighting would make them redirect all sources available to them, especially propaganda, towards winning the war by any means. A survey conducted by OWS and funded by US Embassy Addis Ababa and TROCAIRE (2000) founded more than 3000 politically inspired inter-clan fighting after the Tigrey came to power. For instance, the 280 people who died in Garbo between two sub-clans of the same clan after the military arrested the old Chief and appointed a new chief, or 84 who died in Mindicir when the government arbitrarily gave a well belonging to one clan to a different clan. At least 319 died in a clash in Qalafe area due to manipulations by federal government in their interference with existing divisions of resources ownership. Another 310 people died in Aba-Qorow after the appointment of two new chiefs for two rival clans and just as you thought this can't get any worse, they did in fact promise some clans from the same area more parliamentary seats if they subdued one and another – as a consequence 395 tribesmen died. The choice is simple: Either fight each other or fight the enemy. All other things being equal, there are two ways to look at ONLF: 1) Superficial and short-sighted view by sentiment (i.e. unfortunate events, leadership decisions or clan names). 2) Maturity and prioritised rationale on grounds of morality (i.e. necessity whose being is more beneficial than its absence). I'm not an ideological supporter of ONLF, but I'm a moral and material supporter of ONLF. SOS

More like ehlu shufto wal jaadcun by the sound of it!

Reigniting Violence: How Do Ceasefires End?

...it's vital to remember that what we are witnessing in Gaza is not Israeli retaliation, but an act of unprovoked Zionist genocide using American-made weapons, based on a bloody lie about Qassam barrages obligingly circulated ...

Well,... Apparently US' support for the Nazi-Jewish-Zionists, be it in diplomatic cover, abundant dollars or free deadly weaponry is not enough. They had to join the massacre of Palestinians actively by deploying their forces on the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing! Speaking of Egypt, my sympathy has become more receptive of GG's words.

I'll be the last one to deny the many shortcomings of these youth (leadership), some you've mentioned and other –maybe even greater in severity- you didn't mention. Some things are better not discussed. We all accept that so far their benefits outweighed anything else that could be construed as negative. The alternative that I see is a dirty game being played to divide and rule along clan lines, that this would quite evidently will be accompanied by violence and anarchy is a given. Time is our best ally yaa Xiinfaniin.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: The point I am laboring to make is: Sharif ha la ii daayyo, haddii nabad layga rabo Xiinfaniin, I understand where you're coming from brother, but your conclusion is haste at best, yet undignified at worst against those who sacrificed their lives for the cause of freeing Somalis from oppression. You may reject all suppositions outright, but practical facts do not support your very own theoretical supposition. A man of your intelligence knows full well that both parties in the pact you've described are but leverages themselves used by the same powerbrokers to counter the real heroes in this affair: namely, the brave sons of Somalia who fought the oppressors. In fact, any assertion made that discounts the resistance and the impact of their efforts on the agenda of these powers (at least forcing their hand to withdraw Ethiopian troops) is in my opinion not only unjust, but historical revisionism in clear daylight. Yaa Xiinfaniin, let's assume the Tigrey agents honour their principal's dictum and rollout to other parts in Somalia, and that our good Sharif is anointed president of a 4.5-system-joke-constitution: What next? Said he not to aspire shariicah gevernance? Anigu marka hore wax xun kama sheego Shariif iyo cid kastoo magacaa sidetaba ee kolka maxaan daayaa? kolleeyba nabad in ay na dhextaal baan rajeyn!

Originally posted by Nur: 3. Resistance JAAHADA ( Wa in jaahadaaka calaa an tushrika bii maa leysa laka bihi cilmun, falaa tudichumaa, wa saaxibhumaa fiddunyaa macruufaa) Cankabuut, 8 The above Aayah refers to a situation where the non-Muslim parents were waging Jihad (hunger strike in this case) against their Muslim son -a Sahaabi. Many Muslims, especially most nomads here, may held fatuous believes that Jihad can only be waged by Muslims, not realising that non-Muslims always waged Jihad against Muslims. We know their Jihad can also be subdivided and categorised into different types. Allah permitting, brother Nur, we hope to hear of your understanding of that perspective for the benefit of us all.

^^You made me laugh there! Naflacaarinnimo la'aan show maxaadan irbad caaraddeed ku fakateen? I personally think that Cigaal Shiidaad is completely misunderstood and as a consequence, much of the wisdom of his words are lost. If camel raids had taken place, you'd probably have been part of an ergo mission to negotiate the return of raided camels. Perhaps much in the tradition of past victims of bygone centuries: Appealing to their goodwill while humbling yourselves, and all this in poetry! Remember Cali Dhuux's begging to the raiders of his camels..: Maantaan gu'yaal badan jiroo, guudku I caddaaday Labadeenna qolo may dhex marin, xaajo gedobeede Iyadana ha garan waayinee, geela igu siiya! Or like Aw-Yuusuf Barre when he begged ..: Sacab dhigadka waxa iigu wacan, waa sidaan ahaye Samay inuu ka rido reer tolkay, yaan yaan u sugahayne Sar-sarkiinna magantaan ku jirey, geela igu siiya! Luckily enough you've been spared the ordeal this time, but it would have been an enjoyable tale to hear your experience first hand