shehehe my bike is my baby, she takes me everywhere .. how would she feel if i ditched her for tasty looking flavoured biscuits, anyhow she has space for you to glide on. wrt the harag maroodi, did you try that the Canton Garden in Brewer St. by any chance? Any how she was after an experience, is there more of an experience than the taste of a turkmans half a days worth of sweat, mixed with the classic mystery sauce lovingly splashed on pigeon meat.

shehehehehe, I see, so when are you taking me out to dinner so that i can cycle in

I meant the airport. and the smoke in the background looks worrying

kreepy kid, interesting, if you keeping it simple and relaxed why not just continue and just seat the audience in front of the stories and have them watch and listen the way you did

^ I cycle and slaver past that place every week and as pretty as the deserts are (and they are) i'm yet to feel that my wallet needs to go on a diet. P.s if you want character, just go any of the restaurants in china town .. the crazy smoked, boiled, and barbecued wildlife on display and waiters that give you dirty looks should keep you entertained pps. whats wrong with a £4.00 kebab a carton of juice and knees up in town given the warm weather, or you worried that the pitta bread might clash with your pals colour coded suits

centurion.. I remember the first time i saw that pic.. it disturbs me every time. Jabhad. Khartuun, looks small. my contrib this week, A US wheelchair user becomes stuck on the front of a lorry and is driven down a highway at about 50mph. story

Originally posted by Puuja: banning qat didn't stop the many people spending 50-80 dollars every weekend on this stimula The problem is that blanket bans dont work. First, its wrong to say conclusively that qaad causes mental illness, statistically there may be a high correlation between chewing and mental illness, but that does not imply causality. It ignores the more complex and often unmeasurable relationship between the appeal of qaad and the mental state of the individual. There are many more people that chew but are not mentally ill. Prohabition just doesnt work, all it just creates back markets and inflates price, which in return attract criminality that distributes the problem and product efficiently .. look at the American alcohol prohibition in the 30's and the crack trade in 80's, in short bans just don't work. There is a reason why people subject themselves to the conditioning required to become an addict. An interesting example here is heroin addiction, were a treatment center in Switzerland which gave free heroin alongside treatment to addicts had according to officials an astounding 70% success rate and its being copied across europe. .. anyhow wrt qaad this would require caring about the heath of qaxooti.

North, There is no superiority complex here, just an argument on ideals, hence no need for punches, words will do. The problem is this, it seems you've walked yourself into a trap. The voted Khalif is the curiosity, let me tell you why. First lets make one of two conjectures about the nature of sharia law, assume either that: (I) Its a fool proof set of divinely ordained constructs, laid down perfect and do not need any messy and quarrelsome interpretations, they just are. Or (II) Sharia gives a set of ideal guidelines which require some work from the people that apply them, for example, they may need to be interpreted to gauge their true intention, suitability and application. These are two extremes anything in the middle would say that some laws are divine and others are not, and so would land in the second category of ideals that require work, since at the very least we would obviously need to part the divine from the human. Now the problem is that in the first case, since everything is laid down and obviously why would you need some one to propose or arbitrate how to apply it. At the very most you would only need an enforcer to curtail deviations. The problem here is that there is no need for a khalif, at that an elected one. Since everything is plain and obvious from the go and there cannot be any deviations on what is obvious, what would you be voting for? what is there to select between -- unless obviously the job description of the khalif is now that of an enforcer. In the second case, the situation would of conceded that there are some opinions that are more worthwhile/valid than others. As such, if those that choose are the people governed rather than an elite, you would need to introduce argumentation and discourse to the process, where everything is relative to what the population considers important for them and those making the most persuasive arguments attain the vote and power. Otherwise what would be the point of voting. The problem here is that you've just recreated the modern political machine i.e. everyone has a say - and at that, in the words of xiin "dare i say it" a democratic process (careful, I can see you wincing behind the screen there) - ask your self how is it any different - aside from the fact your now using an arabic name. There is another problem here too. The population is faced with having to choose between "persuasive arguments", how do you make sure these are consistent with a 'sharia' that is open to discussion? Would you have them approved and vetted first, possibly by a Majlis that would decide what are valid subjects for people to able to discuss? would they also be elected or just appointed .. You can see where this goes, the buck must stop somewhere, either everything is up for selection or nothing is. Next we come to the peodophile and rapist tale... I don't really want to lower the argument to this but it must buried. What your doing there is commonly known as the "politics of fear", is hollow and repetitive. It is the argument that says women in xijabs represent the segregation that creates the next suicide bombers, so we'll ban the xijab. Remember the French case you were so fond of ... they used the same argument. Its the same argument that is used to justify the large number of 'random' searches i somehow attract when ever I fly... You get votes when you scare people, not policies and at that nothing beyond the draconian with no foresight. The problems of crime are nothing new, there is no crime that hasn't been committed repeatedly from the moment its feasibility was sussed. So yes, my voice is no different, sadly it happened yesterday and it will happen tomorrow and with all due sympathy for victims of such horrendous crimes, i don't think your backward, but if you read any research on crime i think you will find that the effective solutions are not just punishment but prevention, restoration, accountability and treatment. Btw, being in tax break heaven, you may have forgotten that tax laws are always a voters fav. subject . Now, with regard to your resentment of your past, I'm sure you suffered under the laws that educated you with such impeccable English. I'm sure that they gave you no opportunity to advance yourself, and blocked your every avenue to worship and practice your faith as you saw fit. You really must of suffered brother. p.s. Turkey's government is a very thin veil over a military dictatorship. The system that Ataturk setup was specifically designed to suppress any outward religion for fear that it may hinder a weird notion of 'modernity', not, to provide an open forum for ideas and debate. And France is Xenophobic, they hated and feared the jews before the muslims arrived there and now they have just transplanted their phobias and prejudices to the muslims, namely the Algerians and Moroccans and if you've ever been there, you would see that its just plain racism. Having said that, the law says that it "applies" (deliberate quotes) to skull caps and visible crosses too.. one last thing. You have made no distiction between sharia and khalifet - which is why i have assumed that one implies the other for you here. They are not so tightly coupled, khalifets have existed without Sharia in the past.

Aaliyah, I think it might be regional. i.e. the 'dh' is disproportionately used in the north, from "qadhaadh" i would guess that your family is from the waqooyi anyhow qaraar as resolution is new to me

Qaraar or Qaran? I'd always thought Qaran was decision/resolution and Qaraar meant bitter. i.e. Shaaha waa qaraar, and Amarkaas qaran baan ka gaarne [edit] with regard to 'Ciyaalbaas' i have some vague recollection that the 'baas' is derived from snake or devilish for example. if its from the word "abaaso" for a snake (or adder - i don't know if we differentiate between them) - it could literally mean "snakes children" and the 'oow' ending like Ciyaaloow can be used in many terms for example 'Ciyaalkeygoow' to mean o' my children .. but then you could also say "Cilyaalkiisoow" to mean o' his children, however it sounds wrong. Does anyone have an idea on the restrictions on the 'oow' ending?

Khalaf, Sorry if you felt i didn't answer the question earlier. You asked: "Shariah is the Law of Allah. Caano Geel do u prefer the laws of England, (US systems ect) over Shariah? I am not talkin about talibans ect, but the idea of Shariah itself vs the idea of other systems?" I believe that you have to be careful before you bestow such unquestionable authority on something. For me, you can only make that statement if and only if every word in the sharia is also in the quran. Since the sharia *also* includes rulings not directly in the quran, it is not the direct word of allah, do you disagree? If that wasn't the case, then any development/debate on islamic law would of ended when the quran was compiled. Since everything would of been covered and codified. As i said before, to me at least, there is nothing wrong with a system inspired by a religion, so long as it can be applied equally and fairly. Hence the ideal of the sharia, in providing for the wellbeing of all is no different to that of any other system of laws which aims for the same target, Its still simply an ideal. And still the problem again is in the how's and who's. p.s. Don't worry, you can put the mud down, it still doesn't hurt me to be reminded that i think its none of my concern if some faarax wants another, and i'd still be happy to defend and support their right to be treated equally in this world. But a question do you need a codified set of laws telling you xallaals and xaraams to be able to tell a right from wrong?

depends on what is in the 'iman' and 'aqeedah'. You have your 5 basic pillars, then anything outside of the quran and limited number of sunnah, is the result of scholarly work and interpretation. Its therefore there to be debated discussed and enriched as its always been.

Ciyaal = children Ciyaalka = the children Ciyaalkeena = our children Ciyaalkaanaa = these children Ciyaaloow = o' children Ciyaalkeenoow = our children Ciyaalkaasba = *and* those children Ciyaalkaanba = *and* these children Ciyaalkooda = their children Ciyaalkee = which children Ciyaalkiisa = his children Ciyaalkeeda = her children Ciyaalkaaga = your children Ciyaalkeyga = my children Ciyaalkaas = those children Ciyaalkaan = these children Ciyaalbaas = troubled children Ciyaalkeenoow II = o' our children

First, I say bull, second I say bull, and last i say that no body brought doubt of faith into the debate, so don't.

I don’t think anyone is calling for pan islamism or calling for the rejection or expulsion of the secular movements. I think what the Ulamas are calling for is staying true to the message,the ways and means of the prophet & his Saxabas. I don’t think this qualifies as an anathema Caano. Faarax saaxiib, the stated aim of the Khalifet movement is the creation of one worldwide Khilafah and like any other movement/philosophy, the Ulama has always called for staying true to the message - regardless someone will always feel something is missing. Why would doubting the Khalifah lead to doubting the quran? .. careful there, otherwise it will sound like the 'keep your self dump and your mouth shut' argument.

Originally posted by Naden: what is even more troubling is the number of young people reared and bred in so-called secular laws handing over their brain to these new calls for a return to the past. Impoverished and hopeless youth in the muslim world, their future cannibalized by a parasitic upperclass, are rightly drawn to this utopic return of a khalifa who will do justice by them. Naden, i agree with you on that, its sad for the notion that a pan-islamic movement is the anathema to the secular political movements for no reason other the kleptomania of modern muslim rulers. Its also sad that its no more than the current bandwagon, much like the socialist inspired movements were in the 50's and 60's. and lets not even start on the "awakening" Originally posted by xiinfaniin: With today’s well-advanced knowledge about almost anything, what makes you think I dare ask that a Islamic government with a framework of accountability could not be established, and be the best again? Nothing at all, and on the contrary it is probably a good thing that a society has some moral aims. It would at least stop politicians from deciding which bandwagon to hitch their policies to based on if its going up or down. The point is which aims -noting that its got to serve a population, not just replicas of you, how and whom are they judged by and who are the guardians. In short, so long as the people governed are ultimately the ones that define and ratify what they are governed with and by whom, it doesn't matter. Sadly, this simple concept of choice seems to repel the *modern muslim* for no other reason than it may have a non-arbic name.

North, thank you for the link, luckily you don't need to educate me on what a Khaliphate is via a brand new second hand pass me down of regurgitated words. Religious Jurisprudence such as Sharia is not on trail here, there is nothing wrong with the notion, the question is what goes in it, who decides and how... and since we've moved from Ms Joy, and on to this topic, i'm wont be using the 'ignorant tag', i'll be telling you that you don't know what your talking about. You are clinging onto what are worthwhile ideals, but which can sadly only ever be installed in either a completely homogeneous society or under the personality cult of a charismatic leadership or under a dynastic type rule were a single interest point is propagated - otherwise you have deal with a heterogeneous society where the views of its members (god forbid) may change - sadly the first one doesn't exist, the second is called a cult, and the third is a monarchy, khaliphate or a plutocracy, and none likes to share power. Power and rule always stay in the system. Wanna prove me wrong, tell me about the social mobility of a khalif. What really intrigues me is the way that when you reference classic islamic civilisations like the Umayyads and Abbasid dynasties you are able to separate their political motives from their actions, as though they gained nothing from their position and their decisions or laws were inconsequential to their power and only benevolence was the overriding incentive behind their admirable expansions and advancements. This relegation of history to 'conventional wisdom' with only ethereal gains is not just deluded, but wrong and troubling. Talking of deluded, lets take this wacky idea of a *democracy* on shall we and apply it to the example you cited. If labour is voted out tomorrow *based on* the Blair governments Iraq campaign, then by definition yes, the war would end. Because people would be voting *against* the war and only those parties against the war would be able to attract significant votes. Therefore, its not about taking down a government, but convincing the population of your ideas and ideals. Having said that, labour has already lost a significant number of seats and support due to its warmongering. If this was not the case, then, there would be no capital to be gained when politicians from other camps or the media harass labour with the latest death tolls and government ministers would not be up there week in and week inventing new ways to scare the population into believing more Iraqi's need killing - it simply wouldn't be done since it would be a waste of time. Sadly with regard to the current situation, the millage gained from preaching the devastation caused in iraq, is negligible compared to that gained from scaring people with the (thankfully) dismally small chance that they might be victim of some terrorist attack. For recent examples of the public turning against a british governments war, look at the collapse of Anthony Aden government after the Suez campaign. Or america's response to the vietnam body bags -(incidentally also the reason why there is still a partial ban on showing americans returning in coffins there). Or closer to home, the effect lack of popular credibility has on the TFG with regard to the funding and support it receives from everyone except the americans. So sadly, the theory works and in practice, it needs the people to make the arguments and to convey the ideas. In short, if you just want to be ruled without any thought on your part, we'd be happy to oblige.

a major difference saaxiib, you can vote out the politicians you vote in, along with their policies. If you are fond of the silent population and autocratic and learned theocracy, there are a few next door in the KSA, Israel and Iran.. I hear they are doing wondrous things for the word progress. .. or are we still time-traveling?

My point is with the definition of to "abide by the tenets of his faith". Since any Majlis will be there to arbitrate on an interpretation of what has been defined. Now if we go to "tenants" there are only 5 basic pillars, and a handful of *direct* rulings mentioned in the sunnah and quran. Beyond that we come to the interpretation of the scholars, the ulema. So, whose interpretation is valid, under what circumstance, how is it ratified and how does it get updated/evolve (or maybe it doesn't need to!) and what constitutes to valid argument against it. Remember, since people are too dump to know what is good for them, we can't go back letting people decide on consensus, otherwise we will be going back to the evidently evil "secular" law.

^ right and if i dont agree with them?

Originally posted by Northerner: Compare the Sharia of the times of the just Caliphs to todays secular UK laws and we may have something to chew on. I would love to, but sadly my time-machine is out of action right now. Anyhow, while that remains the case, have we found a way to identify the just people that will practice the just law yet? p.s. You didn't say that people could not choose their faith, but if your still defending that Malay courts ruling, your defending a law that does say that, and in agreeing with them, your also saying it.

Theiry, I agree with you on the 28 day ruling, and signed the petition against it (which made a difference since the original proposal was 90 days) but the fight is not over. And yes it does give you a reason to oppose it, being a secular law it also gives you the tools to do so in the form of argumentation, petition and a vote. But lets come back to the facts on the ground. I remember that the first mass rally against the afghanistan campaign coincided with the first day of ramadam, and the police had cordoned off Trafalgar sq. for us, we prayed with thousands of other muslims surrounded by the symbols of the government we were protesting against, food and drink was provided courtesy of westminster council and local mosques, when the ducca was said, the whole square muslims and non-muslims alike said 'Aamiin' with us. So please, before we next boost of the superiority of this over over that, ask why the city you live in has one the most diverse and dynamic muslim communities in the world and why it has become a home for so many exiles - surely it can't because they all like the taste of the hard water. Sharia or any other law is meant to provide a fair and yes *just* protocol of conduct for a population. If its not doing that, its failing. So lets not develop a name-cult over the word "sharia" and start defending something just because it happens to use the word. It no better than the 28 ruling that vexes you so much. norf, wrt " Is this in accordance with Sharia? " If sharia is based on Islam, where in the quran does it say that you have no choice over your faith?

^ so still, what has this got to do with islam and why are you defending it?

The court upheld the decision to deny her from changing her ID cards details, and consequently she cannot marry. The chief justice said that "she could not expect to convert from one religion to another on a “whim”." -- an almost 20 year old whim, but none the less, a whim in the courts eyes.

Since you answered no, how does the Malay courts ruling square up?