Originally posted by Somali_Friend: This is good development. The SOL nomads now have started to realize that the TFG is the best way (and for majority of somalis the only way) to put the country back together and reconstruct it. Mr. Geedi is now Somali and not Tigray. Thats one major improvement by the ICU crowd that needs to be commended. At this crucial juncture in the history of our country, how did we allow an Ethiopian missionary to take sides/part in this critical debate of ours? One can tolerate fellow Somalis taking sides in the conflict between the TFG and the ICU. There are two distinct camps: one camp are those who have (correctly) realised that their integrity lies in the safeguarding of their deen and country; the second camp is of those shortsighted individuals whose twisted logic has led them to believe that Zenawi's forces will come, hand power to Uncle Yey and promptly return to Addis. I don't know if the likes of General Duke have any family members or relatives anywhere in Somalia, but if any of you TFG supporters do, i ask you this: If an Ethiopian soldier comes across any family member or relative you may have in Somalia, do you think they will bother to ask whether they are TFG supporters, before either raping (as has already taken place in Baydhabo) or killing them? Mark the words of Sharif Hassan, the only credible member of the TFG, when he says: that "15,000 (Ethiopian) troops are now in Somalia", and futhermore that "they are not just sending a fighting force but the families of these fighters as well", as any sensible individual would have gathered long ago. Be more calculating in your assessments my brothers and sisters, the stakes are much higher than many of us realise.

Originally posted by Somali_Friend: This is good development. The SOL nomads now have started to realize that the TFG is the best way (and for majority of somalis the only way) to put the country back together and reconstruct it. Mr. Geedi is now Somali and not Tigray. Thats one major improvement by the ICU crowd that needs to be commended. At this crucial juncture in the history of our country, how did we allow an Ethiopian missionary to take sides/part in this critical debate of ours? One can tolerate fellows Somalis taking sides in the conflict between the TFG and the ICU. There are two distinct camps: one camp are those who have (correctly) realised that their integrity lies in the safeguarding of their deen and country; the second camp is of those shortsighted individuals whose twisted logic has led them to believe that Zenawi's forces will come, hand power to Uncle Yey and promptly return to Addis. I don't know if the likes of General Duke have any family members or relatives anywhere in Somalia, but if any of you TFG supporters do, i ask you this: If an Ethiopian soldier comes across any family or relatives you may have in Somalia, do you think they will bother to ask whether they are TFG supporters, before either raping (as has already taken place in Baydhabo) or killing them? Mark the words of Sharif Hassan, the only credible member of the TFG, when he says: that "15,000 (Ethiopian) troops now in Somalia", and as any sensible individual would have gathered long ago, that "they are not just sending a fighting force but the families of these fighters as well". Read more below, on this vulgar missionary named Somali_Friend. http://www.somaliaonline.com/cgibin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=007618;p=4

Originally posted by Somali_Friend: If Mugadishu can bargain with mengistu without any concern for WSLF, what makes you think that the somali ethiopian cannot say enough is enough, you speak for yourself we speak for ourselves.[/QB] Somali_Friend, I cautioned you to do your research. You've repeated this tendency of yours in your arguments with David_Letterman and others. I agree that the WSLF and Siad Barre fell out after the 1977-78 war. The WSLF is now a spent force and has since been replaced by the ONLF. In that respect, we ought to be discussing the ONLF and its political views. Secondly, my original contention was with the notion that the 'Somali Ethio' can bargain for himself. More specifically, the intention was not to argue the ability of the Somali People of the ****** to bargain with their foes but rather to point out the lack of a partner with which to bargain. The latest elections held on the 21 of Aug 2005, in the concerned regions, were dismissed as a smokescreen by the ONLF. The ONLF recognised the inadequacy of these elections and their inability in contributing to an overall political settlement between the Somali People of the ****** and the Ethiopian government. As the ONLF have rightly indicated, the chief aim of these elections was to produce yet another puppet administration that would bid on behalf of the Ethiopian regime to the detriment of the Somali People of the ******. Incredibly, ballots were held in military compounds. These same compounds thus acted as venues for casting ballots, a move designed to coerce voters in to voting for Ethiopian stooges. Apart from the defunct political process, the ONLF also draw attention to the continuing economic hardship, lack of freedom of assembly, of expression, wide spread detention and torture and of the rape of our Somali sisters (a matter which above all others, enrages me). The inability or rather unwillingness of successive Ethiopian regimes to recognise and to take measures to fulfill the rights of the Somali People of the ****** to self-determination, is what prompts us to lose confidence in a peaceful resolution to this crucial matter. Other regions in Africa have sought to use international legal norms to resolve their territorial disputes, as was the case with the now resolved oil-rich Bakassi peninsula, between Nigeria and Cameroon. Ethiopian regimes and Ethiopian citizens like yourself seem to lack concepts of sophistication and civility, in recognising that the Somali areas you occupy do not belong to you and that a recourse to a peaceful resolution is in your best interest. Ignorance and barbarism have been your lot in antiquity, except for the growing number of reverts in Ethiopia to the religion of Allah. I do not await a considered reply from you. I urge my brothers and sisters on this forum to cease from replying to the foolish notions/posts of this member, whose sole aim is to downplay the sufferings of our fellow Somalis in the concerned region while ignoring abundant evidence to the contrary. As for any SOL moderators who may be reading this post, i urge you to ban this member from SOL or at the least forewarn this member to cite evidence for any future posts. The reason i ask for such measures is not because i wish to silence critics (there are many others i do not agree with on this forum), but rather that i am filled with indignation at the tendency with which this member cites uncorroborated information in regards to the concerned region. As an occupied territory of our homeland, this member should recognise that this is a sensitive issue and that he needs to tread carefully.

Originally posted by Somali_Friend: The somali ethio speaks for himself and bargains what ever that has to be bargained himself. To whom can the 'Somali Ethio' bargain with? Before answering, you would do well to research on the areas concerned and their systems of administration. Some of your statments reveal a general lack of knowledge on Somali affairs. You keep tossing terms such as warlord, ethnicity, regional, Islamist etc - terms i'm sure you've picked up from mis-informed and unrealiable media outlets. I doubt that you're Somali at all. I hope the administrators at SOL start monitoring and filtering poorly researched and ill-considered information, as they guard against tribal statements.

An interesting commentary on Gulf War 1 and Aidiid's tussle with the U.S. not long after. Learning from Aidid. (military strategy of Mohammed Farah Aidid in Somalia) (When, Where and How to Use Force) : An article from: Commentary by A.J. Bacevich They are a study in contrasts. The one goes by the title of President, but in appearance and manner is the very model--if not the parody--of a modern field marshal. It is all there: the Western-style battle dress, the beret, the epaulets, the ceremonial sidearm, the bushy mustache above stiff upper lip that would win approval in any regimental mess, even the entourage of similarly outfitted staff officers and sycophants hovering respectfully nearby. The other styles himself General, but makes little apparent effort to look the part, his standard "uniform" consisting of slacks and an open-collar, civilian shirt. His public persona is suggestive less of a warrior than of some political hopeful running for election to the city council, his appearances on the front page of our newspapers typically taking place against a backdrop of cheering constituents. His most prominent feature is a seemingly affable grin--incongruous and disconcerting in that his machinations seldom inspire mirth. Appearances deceive. In this instance, appearances belie expectations. Which of these two individuals--Saddam Hussein and Mohammed Farah Aidid--is likely to possess the greater military acumen? Billed as a formidable opponent, Saddam turned out to be a pushover. Contemptuously labeled a "warlord" or "thug," Aidid has caused the United States no end of consternation and embarrassment. With all due respect to the ghost of General George S. Patton, sartorial splendor would seem to be a poor predictor of generalship. Yet the deeper deception--self-deception, really--derives from the conclusions drawn from America's successive encounters with these two adversaries, who in confronting the world's only superpower employed vastly different methods to vastly different effect. With the one, America's encounter was a smashing success; with the other, a minor but frustrating failure. Together, they have distorted our understanding of what war is or is becoming. They have confused Americans about the role of force in international politics. And as a result, they have thrown American military policy into disarray. II SADDAM HUSSEIN did more than conform to preconceived American notions of how a "real" enemy should look; his whole approach to warfare reinforced established American views of the proper character and rhythms of war. Just as Saddam affected Western-style battle dress, so did he mimic the standing conventions of combat between modern industrialized states. Consistent with the age-old faith in big battalions, Saddam weighed his forces down with Soviet-style fleets of tanks, fighter bombers, and guided missiles. He organized and trained his legions (albeit to indifferent standards of proficiency) in accordance with precepts common to mechanized armies going back to World War II. He even initiated hostilities in the manner expected of a dastardly adversary: with an act of brazen aggression. Yet, having thus boldly seized the initiative, Saddam obligingly allowed the United States and its allies six unencumbered months in which to reclaim it. He ordered his forces to sit idly in the desert while the American-led coalition mustered its forces--equally laden with tanks and fighter bombers and guided missiles--for a massive counteroffensive aimed at liberating Kuwait. The coalition's success in bringing this episode to a rapid and decisive conclusion dazzled the world. Dazzled in something like a literal sense: Americans themselves found it difficult to gauge accurately the factors contributing to the outcome of Desert Storm. That Saddam's own bungling had contributed mightily to his defeat was noted only to be dismissed. A victory so complete, so one-sided, and so sudden required an explanation more compelling than an inept opponent. Military analysts discovered that explanation in a concept borrowed from a most unlikely source: Soviet military theory. American performance in the Gulf war, these experts determined, portended the arrival of an entirely new approach to warfare, an approach made possible by what the Soviets termed a military-technical revolution (MTR). Although this technology-driven revolution had been under way for some time--as evidenced, for example, by advances in long-range precision weapons, in surveillance and target-acquisition capabilities, and in the military application of computers--it took the showdown with Saddam Hussein to reveal its true scope. What were the implications of this phenomenon? In short order, discerning an answer to that question became a cottage industry, particularly in the rarefied circles inhabited by Washington's national-security elites. Among the effusions to which this effort gave birth, a report entitled The Military Technical Revolution, issued by the highly respected Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, may be taken as representative. The product of extensive deliberations by over 75 outside experts," the CSIS report heralds Desert Storm as a portent of things to come. In this one brief, spectacular campaign it divines a template for all future combat. Realizing the MTR's full potential will mean, quite simply, that the face of battle and the nature of warfare will both be completely transformed." Nor will this event be long in coming. By the first decade of the 21st century, according to CSIS, warfare "will look very little like it does today." IN DESCRIBING the essence of this new style of warfare, the CSIS report generates a fair amount of balderdash: "The MTR is about integration, synergy, and flexibility"; "the MTR is a holistic phenomenon"; the MTR "may boil down to two fundamental effects: tempo and psychology"; "the heart of the MTR is information"; and so on. On two points, however, the report is emphatic. First, for the foreseeable future, "only the United States has the capability to achieve the MTR." Second, as Desert Storm's low-cost, lightning victory seemed to promise, this revolution in military affairs expands the utility of force. The military-technical revolution will provide American political leaders with an instrument possessing broader application while easing the constraints--notably the prospect of heavy casualties and widespread collateral damage--that heretofore have limited the willingness of democratic societies to use force. By exploiting the promise of this revolution, the report concludes, U.S. leaders will be increasingly free to conduct such operations without assuming massive risks. The MTR will render the military instrument more effective by reducing the costs of military operations, both to the United States and to its adversaries, and will thereby help mitigate the constraints on military operations imposed by media coverage and public opinion. The language may not be crisp, but the implications are clear: the MTR will free the United States to employ force not simply as a last resort--responding to outrages perpetrated by the likes of Saddam Hussein--but in pursuit of more positive goals. In short, according to the experts convened by CSIS, the MTR endows the United States--and the United States alone--with the ability to use military power to shape the future political order. To be fair, the CSIS experts describe the military-technical revolution as still in the process of being realized. Yet, as the "lessons" of Desert Storm worked their way into elite and then into mainstream opinion, such distinctions were soon lost. Confidence in American military superiority became so pronounced that the capabilities foreseen by MTR's prophets acquired the sheen of accomplished fact. Because such thinking discounted the peculiarly favorable circumstances of the Gulf war--circumstances as much, or more, the product of Saddam's bungling as of American genius--a belief took hold that the "troops" could accomplish almost anything. In the wake of the Gulf war, this perception opened the door to a rush of new American military undertakings. Viewed as a whole, it is the widely divergent character of these tasks that is striking: delivering humanitarian relief (Operation "Provide Comfort"); rebuilding shattered nations (Somalia); deterring the spread of ethnic violence (Macedonia); unseating oppressive regimes (Haiti); protecting minorities (Kurds and Shiites); and parceling out retribution from afar (Iraq)--not to mention proposals too numerous to count for military intervention in Bosnia. Few of these initiatives were anchored in any prudent calculation of American strategic interests. Rather, as many observers have noted, things were done largely in response to some uproar in the media. But in any case, there was no particular reason not to do them. What was there to lose? III ENTER Mohammed Farah Aidid. Whether the Somali leader ever had occasion to contemplate the wisdom proffered by CSIS, the display of American military might in the Gulf war can hardly have failed to impress him. Yet whatever thought Aidid might have given to theories of a military-technical revolution, he remained unintimidated. Contrary to the expectations of many American policy-makers, Aidid did not take to heart the lesson administered to Saddam Hussein and behave accordingly. As a military commander, Aidid appears to have had one great insight: unlike Saddam, he knew that to play your enemy's game is the height of folly. On the other hand, to engage your opponent on terms that emphasize your own strengths and expose his weaknesses is to gain a priceless advantage. Too few generals have grasped this seemingly simple idea. Grant understood it; Lee refused to acknowledge it, and led the Confederacy to exhaustion and collapse. In Vietnam, Ho and Giap understood it; French military leaders of the 1950's and Americans in the 1960's did not, and suffered disastrous defeats at the hands of a nominally weaker power. To be sure, properly applying this insight to the amalgam of circumstances bearing on a particular conflict is far easier to do after the fact than before. But doing so is a mark of true generalship. Saddam had challenged the United States on terms that could hardly have been less conducive to his own success. It was war in the preferred American style: a high-tech, high-firepower encounter conducted (for the most part) on a battlefield remote from large civilian populations, in which combatants and noncombatants were (for the most part) clearly differentiated, and where the operational goal--liberating Kuwait--had the virtue of being limited and unambiguous. The terms under which Aidid took on the United States were quite different. For starters, his chosen terrain was urban--a complex and congested environment as alien to American forces as it was intimately familiar to Aidid's supporters. The technology that had given rise to speculation about a revolution in military affairs proved ineffective, if not counterproductive, for close-in urban warfare. By the time Americans resorted to the use of anti-tank guided missiles to root out snipers, it had become apparent that the firepower which had demolished the Iraqi Republican Guards was ill-suited to the streets of Mogadishu. As American attack helicopters took to dispersing crowds of angry Somalis by spraying them with the fire of 20-millimeter cannon, the large numbers of dead and wounded--many of them women and children--suggested that the Gulf war's promise of a style of fighting minimizing noncombatant casualties was a long way from fulfillment. But all that was nothing compared to the astuteness with which Aidid identified the American "center of gravity"--the point at which Americans are most vulnerable, against which a successful blow will likely have a decisive effect. As is now readily apparent, that point is the new American sensitivity to casualties, a sensitivity as pervasive as it is acute. No doubt many factors contribute to this sensitivity, not least of them the trauma of Vietnam and even the personal history of the incumbent commander-in-chief But the main factor is the Gulf war itself, and the expectations inspired by that conflict. As the CSIS report suggests, at the very heart of the military-technical revolution lies the belief that American military power can hence forth achieve success without significant loss of American life. That expectation has become a bulls-eye painted on the chest of every G.I. sent into harm's way. It was Aidid's genius to seize upon this sensitivity, to orchestrate a campaign in which technological superiority counted for little and in which it would be only a matter of time before a minor reverse laid open the flaws of recent American thinking about war. The bloody firefight of October 3 did just that. Aidid's reward was not long in coming: the Clinton administration promptly signaled its intention of surrendering the field to the Somali warlord as rapidly as a semi-respectable withdrawal could be arranged. That American military power could destroy Aidid and all his henchmen--could obliterate the entire city of Mogadishu, for that matter--was beside the point. The United States would not do so. Having inflicted approximately 100 casualties on the American forces deployed to Somalia, Aidid had won a victory that by any definition of the term was decisive. IV WHAT are the implications of this defeat? Many analysts worry that the setback in Somalia will seriously undermine American military credibility. Whether that will be the case remains to be seen. Much depends on how the Clinton administration manages the details of disengagement, and how it responds to subsequent crises. (Haiti comes immediately to mind.) In some respects, however, the fallout from Somalia may even be positive. Among other things, the American encounter with Aidid might--indeed, should--accelerate the pace of Gulf-war revisionism. Did Desert Storm give us a glimpse of the future of warfare? Or was the conflict there a splendid anachronism, a style of warfare approaching obsolescence, if now finally done right? Is Somalia an unpleasant throwback to the colonial wars of the previous century? Or does it hint at a type of conflict that will continue to proliferate in the post-cold-war era? In considering these questions, we cannot remind ourselves too frequently that by its very nature, warfare is rooted in politics. Just so, the continuing evolution of war will be driven by political as much as by technological developments. The world today is entering into a period of profound political transformation; any nation fancying that a corner on the market of leading-edge technology will give it a military mastery that effectively transcends politics is setting itself up for disappointment. Indeed, such a nation ventures forth into an unruly world at its peril. Somalia provides the United States with a sharp reminder of what that peril entails. The fighting in Somalia has had little to do with the stakes over which wars have been waged since time immemorial--preserving sovereignty, controlling critical resources, extending spheres of influence, or seizing strategically vital terrain. It has had everything to do with ethnic identity, culture, history, and the rivalry of unsavory local elites vying for the privilege of picking over the remains of their pathetic quasi-state. In this regard, the Somali conflict shows a marked similarity to the brutal and murky conflicts convulsing many other societies of late. Events in Mogadishu--like recent events in Moscow, Sarajevo, Belfast, Monrovia, Port-au-Prince, and perhaps even at New York's World Trade Center--suggest that it is no longer the desert or the steppe or the pampas that forms the cockpit of struggle. Instead, the use of violence to achieve political aims is increasingly an urban phenomenon. Furthermore, as the fighting in Mogadishu and elsewhere suggests, when war erupts in the streets, distinctions between combatants and noncombatants become blurred, chivalrous "rules" of warfare go by the board, methods appropriate to winning air superiority or targeting armored columns prove of limited utility, and relatively crude hardware--mines, mortars, and small arms--is employed with telling effect. Such conflicts are seldom susceptible of rapid resolution. Where they are concerned, the finesse and expertise that are the hallmarks of modern military professionalism count for less than persistence and pure bloody-mindedness. He who refuses to quit wins--eventually. Thus, the expedition inaptly named Restore Hope can hardly be said to point the way toward a future in which "U.S. leaders will be increasingly free to conduct such operations," as the CSIS report hopefully predicted. Nor are such conflicts likely to loosen "the constraints on military operations imposed by media coverage and public opinion." Far from it. Absent clearly stated objectives and a persuasive rationale pointing to substantial American interests at stake, the firstsign of trouble will provoke a public backlash, a prospect that increases dramatically the political risk of such undertakings. So if General Aidid has deflated some of the wilder expectations derived from Desert Storm, it may be just as well. The painful lesson he has taught the United States will remain a useful one. The lost battle for Mogadishu has shattered the dangerous illusion that the American military prowess displayed in the desert foretold an era of war without the shedding of American or civilian blood, an era in which American military might would guarantee political order. Americans have learned again what they should never have forgotten: that to resort to arms is a proposition fraught with uncertainty. The lesson of Somalia is not that the United States must avoid conflicts of that type at all costs. Rather, Somalia reminds us yet again that for even a small war, clarity of purpose, resolution, and willingness to sacrifice are prerequisites of victory. Any adversary worthy of the namewill bring as much to the battlefield. No revolution in warfare can guarantee success on the cheap. The errors and oversights that led to the debacle in Somalia are mostly attributable to Washington. For those errors, young American soldiers paid the price. This is as usual. We can only hope that in helping to restore some sense of realism to American military policy, those sacrifices may yet be redeemed.

Brother Nur, may Allah reward you for you're efforts. I benefited immensely, and i'm sure other SOL members did. As for any sources, i first came across this 'idea', reading a piece written by an Iraqi surgeon and historian Dr. Ala Bashir. He called it 'The mask of Cain', in which he states that every human being hides behind a metaphorical mask. Believing that the skill of hiding behind a mask from other people has been built inside humans ever since the killing of Abel. He doesn't discuss this idea of his in detail, but after some research, i did come across a book written by Dr. Ali Shariati. Books authored by him include; 'Mission of a Free Thinker', 'Man and Islam' 'The Free Man and Freedom of a Man', 'A Glance at Tomorrow's History' and many more. Here are some excerpts from the book 'Hajj'. The particular section is entiled 'The Last Message'. "The three oppressors are the three faces of Cain, the "owner" who killed his brother Abel, a shepherd and became the guardian of Abel's orphaned children. The murderer became the heir of the victims!" -There is one Cain who is the murderer and killed his brother! -There is one Cain who made two enemies of two brothers! -There is one Cain who changed two equals into unequals! "He divided mankind into two races, society into two classes, made history bi polar and converted the unity into a duality, The Quran uses the term despising to describe the act of making people weak and vulnerable". It is one "ruling class" that has three faces (or powers). There is one Cain who converts the unity into a Trinity! He employs many approaches - openly or secretly, belief or disbelief, unity or trinity, anarchy or law, dictator ship or democracy, slavery or freedom, feudalism or bourgeoisism, faith or science, spiritualism or intellectualism, philosophy or sufism, happiness or suffering, civilized or savage, regression or progression, idealism or materialism, Christianity or Islam, Sunnism or Shi'ahism!" I haven't really had time to investigate any further on this 'idea', but i'm sure there are more references out there. Dr Ali Shariat used to be the Professor of Mashad University, IRAN. His biography claims that he was under close surveillance by the security agents of Iran. Which prompted his departure for England. Shortly after arriving in England he was killed, in 1977 by the ubiquitous SAVAK. I'm guessing that he must be a Shia, although i have seen some of his works being sold and promoted by Sunni Muslims. If he is Shia, then perhaps this 'idea' of the 'Mask of Cain' is something rooted in Shia tradition. Allah knows best.

Salafi_Online, my initial reply was based on the one argument, namely 'Knowledge'. You've raised many points, i'll address them soon inshallah.

Brother Nur, have you come across the idea, that hiding behind a mask developed after Adam's Son Cain killed his brother Abel. Ofcourse this was the first time a human being killed another. And so the idea goes that Cain, filled with sorrow, regret and fear from his brother's soul, Cain sought to hide behind a mask. The following Surah's of the Qur'an mention this incident. In this Ayats Allah(A'za Wa Jallah) advises Cain and gives him a solution. Some say that this solution was to hide behind a mask. The ayats talk about the disposing of the remains of Abel, there is no reference to a 'mask'. And also knowing that Allah does not protect those who brake his law, why did he advise Cain and give him the solution mentioned in the Ayats. There is great wisdom to be gained from the story of Cain and his brother. So many areas of wisdom, so can you expound on this story, its significance etc. I'm sure other SOL members will find some benefits from it, inshallah. Here are the ayats of the Qur'an regarding this story. Surah 5(27-31) 27. Recite to them the truth of the story of the two sons of Adam. Behold! they each presented a sacrifice (to Allah.: It was accepted from one, but not from the other. Said the latter: "Be sure I will slay thee." "Surely," said the former, "(Allah) doth accept of the sacrifice of those who are righteous. 28. "If thou dost stretch thy hand against me, to slay me, it is not for me to stretch my hand against thee to slay thee: for I do fear Allah, the cherisher of the worlds. 29. "For me, I intend to let thee draw on thyself my sin as well as thine, for thou wilt be among the companions of the fire, and that is the reward of those who do wrong." 30. The (selfish) soul of the other led him to the murder of his brother: he murdered him, and became (himself) one of the lost ones. 31. Then Allah sent a raven, who scratched the ground, to show him how to hide the shame of his brother. "Woe is me!" said he; "Was I not even able to be as this raven, and to hide the shame of my brother?" then he became full of regrets-

Originally posted by Salafi_Online: Saxib, Name me one Scholar from the Tableeg Jamaca who is known World Wide for his Ilm and is Alive? There are many, but it seems you haven't taken the time to research the people you're slandering. In fact many Uluma from the Egypt, Oman, Qatar and other places in the middle east travel every year to gain insights and wisdom from the tabligh Jama'ats. One of the most famous is Shaikul Hadith Muhammad Zakariyya Kaandhlawi, who is no longer with us, may Allah bless him. Sheik Zakariyya was well respected by all the top Uluma of his time both in the middle east and in the sub-continent. Not just for his knowledge, but for the way his acted upon it and the way he induced that knowledge into others. I will let him explain what the work of tabligh is all about and the great need for it today. While you read, make a note that despite you're acccusations that tabligh jama'ats don't value getting knowledge, that he emphasizes the importance of getting knowledge, in his own words, 'ignorance of law' is no excuse under any government, then why should it be accepted by the Master of all rulers? Khandalawi writes: In the name of Allah The Most Gracious The Most Merciful. We praise Him, and we ask His blessings on His Noble Prophet. First, I give thanks to Allah, who has enabled me to write this booklet on Tabligh (Faza'il A'mal). One of the best of the Muslim scholars of this age has advised me to select a few verses of the Holy Quran and some sayings of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam) on Tabligh and explain the same. Since my humble services to such sincere believers can be a means of my salvation, I present this useful pamphlets to every Islamic School, Islamic Association, Islamic Government, rather to every Muslim, and request them to serve the cause of Tabligh. In fact, during this age there is a day-to-day decline in our commitment to religion, and objections against our true Faith are raised not only by disbelievers, but also by present day Muslims. Obligatory observances (practices) are being neglected not only by the common Muslims, but by those also who hold important positions. Millions of Muslims have indulged in clear false worship, not to speak of neglecting Salaah and Fasting, yet they are never conscious of their practices being against pure obedience to Allah. Exceeding the religious limits is very common and making fun of religious beliefs has become a fashion of the day. That is why Muslim scholars have even begun to avoid the common folk and the result of this state of affairs is that ignorance about the teachings of Islam is increasing day by day. People offer the excuse that no one teaches them the religion of Islam with a keen interest, and the Muslim scholars have an excuse that no one listens to them attentively, But none of these excuses is valid before Allah. As a matter of fact, He will never accept the excuse of the common folk that they were ignorant about religious matters for to learn religion and to make a serious effort to get knowledge of its practices is the personal responsibility of every Muslim. Since "ignorance of law" is no excuse under any government, then why should it be accepted by the Master of all rulers? They say, making excuses for crime is worse than crime itself. Similarly, the excuse of the scholars that no one listens to them does not hold good. They boast of representing the great spiritual leaders and pious of the past, but never consider how many troubles and hardships they had suffered to preach the true religion! Were they not hit with stones? Were they not abused and oppressed to the extreme degree? But in spite of all these obstacles and hardships, they fulfilled their responsibilities about preaching and they propagated the message of Islam regardless of any opposition. Generally, the Muslims have limited the work Tabligh to the scholars only, whereas every Muslim has been commanded by Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala) to prevent people from doing forbidden things. Even if we admit for a moment that Tabligh is the duty of Muslim scholars only, who do not perform it properly, then it is the particular duty of every Muslim to preach Islam. The importance that has been laid on Tabligh by the Quran and Hadith will be proved by the Ayah of the Quran and sayings of the Nabi (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam) that are being quoted in the following pages. Therefore, you cannot limit Tabligh to scholars only, nor can it be an excuse for you to neglect the same. I would request every Muslim to devote his time and energy to Tabligh as much as he can. "Consider, the time at your disposal a blessing; for none knows what his end will be. " You need not be a perfect scholar to preach Islam and good moral values to humanity. Whatever knowledge of Islam you possess, you must pass it on to others. Whenever anything morally wrong or forbidden is done in your presence, then as a Muslim it is your duty to prevent it, as far as it lies in your power. I have described all the important things about Tabligh in seven brief Chapters and I hope that every Muslim will benefit from them. Haafiz Mohammad Zakariyya Sahib Kandhlvi.

Here is one for the sisters... Hadhrat Asma (Radhiyallaho Anha) Pacifies her Grandfather. When Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallaho Anho) emigrated to Madinah in the company of the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam), he took with him all his money, thinking that the Prophet might need it. It was about 6,000 dirhams. After his departure, his father Abu Quhafah (who was blind and who had not till then accepted Islam) came to express his sympathy with his granddaughters. Hadhrat Asma (Radhiyallaho Anha) says: Our grandfather came to us and said, "Your father has shocked you with his migration to Madinah, and seems to have put you to further hardship by taking all his money with him." I said, "No grandfather, do not worry. He has left a lot of things for us." I collected some pebbles and deposited them in the recess where my father used to keep his money. I covered it with a cloth. I then took my grandfather to the place and placed his hand over the cloth. He thought that the recess was really full of dirhams. He remarked, "It is good that he has left something for you to live on." By Allah, my father had not left a single dirham for us. I played this trick simply to pacify my grandfather. Look at this brave Muslim girl. Strictly speaking, the girls needed more consolation than their grandfather. Judged by normal course of things, they should have complained of their destitution to their grandfather to win his sympathy, as there was nobody else in Mecca to extend them any sympathy or help. But Allah had given such a frame of mind to Muslim men and women of those days that everything they did was really wonderful and worthy of emulation. Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallaho Anho) was quite a well-to-do person in the beginning, but he always spent liberally in the path of Allah. At the time of Tabuk, he contributed all that he possessed. The Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) once said: Nobody's wealth has benefited me so much as that of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallaho Anho). I have compensated everybody for the good done to me, except Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallaho Anho). He shall be compensated by Allah Himself.

Khayr it is my pleasure to do so. Posting these stories is as much a reminder for myself as for anyone else. One thing we should remember is that these are not just 'stories' or ancient fairytales, but actual happenings and circumstances. The beautiful ways in which our Prophet(p.b.u.h) and his Sahabah handled them may seem extroadinary to our sinful and weak hearts, but that doesn't make it just a 'story' for us to read and forget. We must ponder over them and train our hearts to react in the noble ways of our prophet(p.b.u.h) and his Sahabah in every aspect of our lives and in every situation or circumstance. -The Prophet's (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) reprimand on the Sahabah's Laughing. Once, the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) came to the Mosque for Salaat, where he noticed some people laughing and giggling. He remarked: If you remembered your death, I would not see you like this. Think of your death often. Not a single day passes when the grave does not call out, 'I am a wilderness, I am a place of dust, I am a place of worms.' When a believer is laid in the grave, it says, 'Welcome to you. It is good of you to have come into me. Of all the people walking on the earth, I liked you best. Now that you have come into me, you will see how I entertain you'. It then expands as far as the occupant can see. A door from Paradise is opened for him in the grave and, through this door, he gets the fresh and fragrant air of Paradise. But when an evil man is laid in the grave it says, 'No word of welcome for you. Your coming into me is very bad for you. Of all the persons walking on the earth, I disliked you most. Now that you have been made over to me, you will see how I treat you!' It then closes upon him so much that his ribs of one side penetrate into the ribs of the other. As many as seventy serpents are then set upon him, to keep biting him till the Day of Resurrection. These serpents are so venomous that if one of them happened to spurt its venom upon the earth, not a single blade of grass would ever grow. After this, the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) said, "The grave is either a garden of Paradise or a pit of Hell." Fear of Allah is the basic and essential qualification of a Muslim. The Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) advised the believers to remember death, off and on, and to keep the fear of Allah ever present in their hearts.

Here is a more detailed answer regarding knowledge. I believe you're argument simply put is that, since tabligh are not knowledgeable, only people of knowledge should go out and call the people to Allah. Not that the people of knowledge that you describe, are fulfilling this responsibilty of theirs, but anyhow lets take the ideal situation. First of all, knowlege is from Allah. He grants it to whom He pleases without limit. Allah says in the Quran: 035.028 And so amongst men and crawling creatures and cattle, are they of various colours. Those truly fear God, among His Servants, who have knowledge: for God is Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving. Salafi would you disagree that it is a duty on every believer to convey the message of Allah. 4.667: ------- Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Amr: The Prophet said, "Convey (my teachings) to the people even if it were a single sentence, and tell others the stories of Bani Israel (which have been taught to you), for it is not sinful to do so. And whoever tells a lie on me intentionally, will surely take his place in the (Hell) Fire." - Bukhari In the above hadith from Bukhari, Prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) commands us to convey the message. This command is for everyone. The prophet (p.b.u.h) orders us to convey the message even if it were a single statement. The prophet (p.b.u.h) also commands us to relate the stories of Bani Israel, and whoever says a lie about prophet Muhammad (p.b.u.h) will find his seat in the hell fire. It is a duty for every person to convey what they know to others. This is a duty on every person, not just the scholars. Whatever the amount the person knows, even if it is just one statement, it is a duty to convey it to others. The wise will tell you that the person with the most knowlege is indeed the one that remembers Allah Much. Not just by saying the words with the tongue, but by acting upon those words in order to fully please Allah. Like Allah says about the People of understanding (Oulil Albab): 003.191 Men who remember God, standing, sitting, and lying down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the heavens and the earth, (With the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught Hast Thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the penalty of the Fire. These people of understanding remember Allah much, standing sitting, and lying down. They have the understanding of Allah. They ponder over the creation of Allah of the universe, and they fear the punishment that Allah has prepared in the after life, the Hell fire whose fuel is human beings and rocks. These are the people of understanding. Another hadith in Bukhari: "...Beware! Do not become infidels after me, cutting the throats of one another..." Salafi i'm not a veteran of SOL, but it seems to me like you've almost made it you're trademark, to discredit and assign muslims into groups and sects. To help explain certain things to people is a worthy endeavour, but that can't be done by nullifying their position and branding them ignorant. Allah commands us to be helpers of Allah and His final Messenger (May Allah's peace and blessings be upon him). Prophet Muhammed (p.b.u.h) fulfilled his duty by conveying the message to his companions. It's now the duty upon us to convey the message to others, and Allah is well aware of what we do. All the praises are for Him the All Knowing. Knowledge becomes beneficial when Allah blesses one with Al-Hikmah. 039.009 Is one who worships devoutly during the hour of the night prostrating himself or standing (in adoration), who takes heed of the Hereafter, and who places his hope in the Mercy of his Lord - (like one who does not)? Say: "Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition. A person that calls on Allah with fear and hope during the hours of night, and strives for the hereafter, and rests his hope in the mercy of his Lord is indeed a very smart person. Are they the same as a person that doesn't do those things? Is the person who knows and is conscious of Allah the same as a person that is unaware? A person that remembers Allah much and fears him, is indeed knowledgable. A person that becomes heedless of the rememberance of Allah, despite having the knowlegde he is endowed with, has the shaitan as his companion. The greatest knowlege is the understanding of who Allah, the Creator and Master of this universe, is. That is the purpose of the Quran, Hadith, prayers etc., so that a person becomes conscious of Allah.

Salafi is that the only argument you have against Tabligh. Lack of knowledge. Have you ever been out with them, ate with them and seen their akhlaaq, or have all you're information come from you're 'trusted' sheikhs'. It is well known that the muslims of two or three decades ago, knew more quran and hadith as the ones of today. If it is Qu'ranic knowledge, Tablighis' know just as much any other muslim, the same goes with Hadith. There is one very important difference however, one that even you're so called sheikhs' may not possess. That is the intention to increase their knowledge and the fact that they regularly recite, and, more importantly act upon the knowledge they already have. Knowing more Qur'an or Hadith does not make you a better muslim, the important thing is to act upon the knowledge you already have and have the intention to increase you're knowledge. The tabligh have both of these characteristics. Check out the following and pay close attention to the offspring of the man the Prophet(p.b.u.h) describes in this Hadith. Narrated Ibn 'Abbas: The Prophet said, "I have been made victorious with As-Saba (i.e. an easterly wind) and the people of 'Ad were destroyed by Ad-Dabur (i.e. a westerly wind)." Narrated Abu Said: Ali sent a piece of gold to the Prophet who distributed it among four persons: Al-Aqra' bin Habis Al-Hanzali from the tribe of Mujashi, 'Uyaina bin Badr Al-Fazari, Zaid At-Ta'i who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Nahban, and 'Alqama bin Ulatha Al-'Amir who belonged to (the tribe of) Bani Kilab. So the Quraish and the Ansar became angry and said, "He (i.e. the Prophet, ) gives the chief of Najd and does not give us." The Prophet said, "I give them) so as to attract their hearts (to Islam)." Then a man with sunken eyes, prominent checks, a raised forehead, a thick beard and a shaven head, came (in front of the Prophet ) and said, "Be afraid of Allah, O Muhammad!" The Prophet ' said "Who would obey Allah if I disobeyed Him? (Is it fair that) Allah has trusted all the people of the earth to me while, you do not trust me?" Somebody who, I think was Khalid bin Al-Walid, requested the Prophet to let him chop that man's head off, but he prevented him. When the man left, the Prophet said, "Among the off-spring of this man will be some who will recite the Qur'an but the Qur'an will not reach beyond their throats (i.e. they will recite like parrots and will not understand it nor act on it), and they will renegade from the religion as an arrow goes through the game's body. They will kill the Muslims but will not disturb the idolaters. If I should live up to their time' I will kill them as the people of 'Ad were killed (i.e. I will kill all of them)." - Bukhari

In the letter (6) addressed to Negus, with'Amr ibn Umayya Al-Damri the Prophet (Sallallahu 'Alaihi Wa Sallam) had written that: "In the name of Allah, the Beneficient, the Merciful. From Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, to Negus, the great King of Abyssinia. "Peace be upon him who follows the guidance." "After this, Glory be to Allah besides whom there is no God, the Sovereign, the Holy, the Peace, the Faithful, the Protector. I bear witness that Jesus, the son of Mary, is the Spirit of God, and His Word that He cast unto Mary, the Virgin, the good, the pure, so that she conceived Jesus. God created him from His Spirit and His breathing as He created Adam by His hand and His breathing. I call you to God, the Unique, without any associate, and to His obedience and to follow me and to believe in that, which came to me, for I am the Messenger of God. I invite you and your men to the Great Lord. I have accomplished my task and my admonitions, so receive my advice. Peace be upon him who follows the Guidance."(Tabaqat Ibn S'ad, Vol. III, p. 15). Following is the reply given by Negus, to the prophet's (p.b.u.h) letter. The Negus received the envoy of the Prophet with great respect and showed him all the honour he deserved, and accepted Islam. He wrote a letter to the Prophet: "In the Name of Allah, Most Merciful, Most Gracious. To Muhammad, the Messenger of Allah, from Negus Al-Asham ibn Abjar. Peace upon you, O Prophet of Allah, and Mercy and Blessing from Allah, beside whom there is no god, Who has guided me to Islam. I received your letter, O Messenger of Allah, in which you mention the matter of Jesus and, by the Lord of Heaven and Earth, he is not one scrap more than you say. We know that with which you were sent to us and we have entertained your nephew and his companions. I testify that you are Allah's Messenger, true and confirming those before you. I have given my allegiance to you and to your nephew and I have surrendered myself through him to the Lord of the Worlds. I have sent to you my son, Arha. I have control only over myself and if you wish me to come to you, O Messenger of Allah, I will do so. I bear witness that what you say is true. Peace upon you, O Messenger of Allah. " The King seemed to have accepted Islam in his individual capacity but he could not convert other people of his country this is confirmed by a hadith of Bukhari which says that the Prophet said his funeral prayer in absentia in Medina when he died. The second letter of the Prophet was sent to his successor, who probably did not respond favourably.

Heraclius decided to satisfy himself about the contents of the Apostle's letter. He ordered to search for a man from Arabia who could tell him about the Prophet. Abu Sufyan happened to be there on a business trip and so he was summoned before him. The questions raised by Heraclius on this occasion showed that he had a deep insight into the scriptures and the teachings of the prophet of yore and he knew how and when God sends them and the way they are usually treated by their people. Abu Sufyan, too, acted like a true Arab for he considered it below his dignity to tell the Emperor anything but truth. The conversation between Heraclius and Abu Sufyan is significant enough to be quoted here in extenso or at full length. Heraclius: Tell me about his lineage. Abu Sufyan: He comes of the best lineage. Heraclius: Did anybody before him make the claim he does? Abu Sufyan: No. Heraclius: Had there been any king in his family? Abu Sufyan: No. Heraclius: Who have followed him? Are they the poor and the weak or the nobles? Abu Sufyan: They are all poor and weak. Heraclius: Are his followers increasing or deserting him? Abu Sufyan: Their numbers are growing. Heraclius: Do those who enter his religion despise and leave him? Abu Sufyan: No. Heraclius: Did you find him telling lies before he made the claim? Abu Sufyan: No. Heraclius: Did he ever break the word given by him? Abu Sufyan: Not as yet, but we will see what he does in the future. Heraclius: Did you ever fight against him? Abu Sufyan: Yes. Heraclius: What was the result? Abu Sufyan: The fortunes have varied, sometimes in our favor, sometimes in his. Heraclius: What is it that he teaches? Abu Sufyan: He asks to worship One God, and not associate ought with Him. To offer prayers, be virtuous to speak the truth, and be kind to the kinsmen. Heraclius then asked the interpreter to tell. Abu Sufyan: "I asked you about his lineage and you replied that it was the noblest among you. Prophets always come from the best lineage, I asked you if any man in his family had made a similar claim and your reply was 'No.' If anybody had made a claim to apostleship in his family, I would have thought that he was imitating him. Then I asked if there had been a king in his family, and you said 'No.' Had it been so, I would have surmised that he was trying to recover his lost kingdom. And I inquired if you knew him to be untruthful before making the claim, and you said 'No.' I know that it is not possible for a man to be truthful to the people but to mince the truth in regard to God. Then I asked you if his followers were drawn from the people of rank and distinction or they were the poor and the weak, and you replied that they were humble and meek. Prophets are always followed by the humble and poor in the beginning. And I asked if his followers were increasing and you said that they were gaining in numbers. Faith is always like that for it goes on increasing until it is triumphant. Then I asked if anybody had turned away from him and rejected his faith and your reply was 'No'. The faith once settled in the heart never leaves it. And then I asked if he ever broke his word and you said 'No.' Prophets never break their promises. Then I asked about his teachings and you told me that he asked you to worship One God, not to associate ought with Him; bade you to turn away from the idols and to speak the truth; and to be virtuous and to glorify the Lord. Now, if you have told me the truth about him he will conquer the ground that is beneath my feet. I knew that a prophet was about to be born but I had never thought he would come from Arabia. If it had been possible I would have called upon him, and if I had been with him, I would have washed his feet." Heraclius summoned his chiefs and courtiers and got the doors of his chamber closed upon them. Then, turning he said, "Ye Chiefs of Rome! If you desire safety and guidance so that your kingdom shall be firmly established, then you follow the Arabian Prophet." Whereupon they all started off but found the doors closed. When Heraclius saw them getting sore, he was despaired of their conversion, so he ordered to bring them back. He said, "What I had said before was to test your constancy and faith and I am now satisfied of your firmness and devotion." The courtiers lowered their heads and were pleased to hear him speaking thus. Heraclius lost the golden opportunity as he preferred his kingdom over the eternal truth. As a consequence, he lost even his kingdom after a few years during the time of Caliph 'Umar. Inshallah i will post replies from other monarchs.

Assalamu Alaikum, Following are some of the letters that our prophet muhammad (p.b.u.h) sent to different monarhcs of his time. Among them are Heracluis, Ruler of Rome, Khusroe, the King of Persia, Muqauqis, the Ruler of Egypt, Negus al-Asham, King of Abyssinia, and Muqauqis, Rukler of Egypt. Before we can appreciate and understand the signifigance of these letters, we must realize who Heraclius, Chosroes, Negus and Muqauqis were, the extent of their dominion, prestige, splendour and might in the world during the seventh centtury. Anyone who is not well-aware with the political history at the time might have taken them as local rulers for so many of them are found in every country. But one who is mindful of the political state of the world in the seventh century and the power and splendor of the ambitious monarchs who had divided the world among themselves, would but arrive at one conclusion. That only a man sent by God on a mission could dare summon the imperious autocrats to put their trust in his Prophethood. Such a man should be devoid of the least doubt in the success of his sacred task, or of a speck of fear in his heart. He had to possess such a glowing conviction in the glory and majesty of God that the proudest sovereign was to him not any more than an illusory puppet going through the motions of regality. For all these reasons, it would be worthwhile to give a brief sketch of the monarchs to whom the Prophet (p.b.u.h) had sent his epistle. Let us start with a brief history of Heraclius, followed by his reply to the letter. The Byzantine empire, then calling itself " New Rome", had along with its Iranian counterpart, kept a tight hand over the civilized world for several hundred years. Its emperors ruled in direct succession to the Roman Emperors over vast and populous lands in Europe, Asia and Africa. The empire was enormously rich while its phenomenally good armies and navies had compiled a successful military record. Coming from a Greek family, Heraclius was born in Cappadocia but was brought up in Carthage where his father was the Exarches of Africa. In his early years he never made any illusion to his fire of genius, avarice for power or qualities of leadership. When Phocus killed the tyrant Emperor Maurice, in 602 A.D., and usurped the throne, the Chosroes of Persia declared himself the avenger of his former benefactor. The Byzantine Empire absorbed heavy losses as the Iranians reduced Antioch, Damascus, and Jerusalem and took away the True Cross in triumph. Soon afterwards they entered Alexandria, and Egypt too was gone. It seemed to be the end of the great Roman Empire in the East.(9) It was then that the secret emissaries of the Senate prevailed upon the Exarches of Africa to send his son from Carthage to Constantinople. Heraclius was crowned in 610 A.D., when the Empire, afflicted by famine and pestilence, was incapable of resistance and hopeless of relief against the enemy laying a siege to the capital. Heraclius spent the first few years of his reign beseeching the clemency of Persians and suing out peace, but in 621 A.D. he was suddenly awakened from his sloth. This was the year in which the prediction of Roman Victory, something most "distant of its accomplishment",(10) was made by the Qur'an. In a sudden, displaying the courage of a hero, Heraclius exchanged his purple for the simple garb of a penitent and warrior and decided to become the deliverer of Christendom and restorer of the greatness of the Eastern Empire. He began a great counter offensive and defeating the Persians of their own territory, brought his victorious arms to the capital of Iranian Empire. He then, in 629 marched in triumph to Jerusalem for restoring the True Cross to the holy sepulchre. The people went forth to meet the victor, with tears and thunderous applauses, spreading carpets and spraying aromatic herbs on his path. (11) The glorious event was celebrated with the tumult of public joy. While the emperor triumphed at Jerusalem, he was conveyed the letter of the Apostle of God inviting him to embrace Islam. (12) By that time, Heraclius seemed to have exhausted himself. In the magnitude of his dominions, wealth and military prowess, he could be compared only with Chosroes II, the Emperor of Persia. Heraclius died at Constantinople in 641 A.D. and was buried there. Inshallah, i will post his reply to the prophets letter next.

Even though i don't reside in America, i am a student of american politics and follow it quite closely(both the good and bad). Unfortunately the 'bad' easily outweighs the 'good' in the current political situation, with Senator Kerry not differentiating himself from Bush atleast in foreign policy. The recent democratic convention held in Boston, did throw a suprise in Barack Obama, Obama's father coming from our corner of the world in east africa(kenya). Most commentators agreed that his speech was easily the best, given at the convention, out-gunning even the likes of Bill Clinton and Kerry running-mate John Edwards. Check out the full speech http://www.dems2004.org/site/apps/nl/newsletter3.asp?c=luI2LaPYG&b=131063 - choose Barack Obama from the list of transcripts. Here is an interesting take on that speech from iviews. On July 27, Democratic U.S. Senate candidate from Illinois Barack Obama gave one of the most inspiring speeches of the Democratic National Convention recently held in Boston. I dare say that the speech was more inspiring than that of the Democratic Presidential Nominee, Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. His speech began by expressing his deep gratitude for the privilege of addressing the DNC. His assent to the spotlight of the 2004 DNC is truly remarkable, and Obama told the gathered faithful that, "Tonight is a particular honor for me because, let's face it, my presence on this stage is pretty unlikely." Yet, his rise from "a skinny kid with a funny name" to president of the Harvard Law Review to Illinois U.S. Senate candidate for the Democratic Party was not the most remarkable aspect of his speech. It was the ideals he espoused, the principles he advocated. They were Islamic principles and Muslim ideals, despite the fact that the only thing remotely Islamic about Barack Obama is his first name, which comes from the Arabic barakah, or "blessing." He spoke about the premise of our nation "summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights. That among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.'" He spoke about how America can do better: better by preventing the bleeding of jobs overseas; better by providing healthcare to those who can not afford it; better by encouraging personal responsibility on the part of American citizens but still making sure everyone in America has a fair chance at getting ahead. The most basic premise of his speech is that, as he most eloquently put it: "If there's a child on the south side of Chicago who can't read, that matters to me, even if it's not my child. If there's a senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent, that makes my life poorer, even if it's not my grandmother. If there's an Arab American family being rounded up without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties. It's that fundamental belief-I am my brother's keeper, I am my sisters' keeper-that makes this country work. It's what allows us to pursue our individual dreams, yet still come together as a single American family. 'E pluribus Unum.' Out of many, one." I am my brother's and my sister's keeper. Barack Obama might as well have quoted this verse from the Qur'an: "And serve God and do not associate any thing with Him; And be good to parents, to the near of kin, orphans, the needy, the neighbor of (your) kin, the alien neighbor, the companion in a journey, the wayfarer, and those whom your right hands possess; surely God does not love him who is proud, boastful" (4:36). That "child on the South Side of Chicago who can't read," that "senior citizen somewhere who can't pay for her prescription and has to choose between medicine and the rent," they are the "neighbors" about which the Qur'an speaks. If we neglect these fellow Americans, then we abandon the command of God to treat them kindly. In fact, God has included in our wealth sustenance for those who are less fortunate: "And in their wealth and possessions is the right of the needy and deprived" (51:19) As Muslims, especially American Muslims, we can never forget this. "In the end," Barack Obama concluded, "that is God's greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation; the belief in things not seen; the belief that there are better days ahead. I believe we can give our middle class relief and provide working families with a road to opportunity. I believe we can provide jobs to the jobless, homes to the homeless, and reclaim young people in cities across America from violence and despair. I believe that as we stand on the crossroads of history, we can make the right choices, and meet the challenges that face us." These ideals are Muslim ones, spoken most eloquently by a non-Muslim politician. This struggle is our struggle, and as Muslim Americans it is our duty to help make this country better for all. We simply can not shirk our responsibility. We simply can not.

The Prophet's (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) passing near the ruins of Thamud during the Tabuk expedition. The Tabuk expedition is one of the major campaigns of the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam), and the last one in which he personally took part. When he received the news that the Caesar (of Rome) had mustered a large force to crush the power of Islam and was on his way (through Syria) to invade Madinah, he decided to lead the Sahabah to check him on his way. On Thursday the 5th of Rajab, 9 A.H., the devoted band marched out of Madinah. As the weather was hot and the fighting was expected to be very tough, the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) made an open declaration that the Muslims should gather in strength and prepare fully to face the forces of the Roman Empire. He also exhorted them to contribute towards the equipment of the expedition. It was on this occasion that Hadhrat Abu Bakr (Radhiyallaho Anho) contributed all his belongings. When he was questioned by the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) as to what he had left for his family, he replied, "I have left Allah and His Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) for them." Hadhrat Umar (Radhiyallaho Anho) contributed half of his belongings and Hadhrat Usman (Radhiyallaho anho) provided for the equipment of one-third of the whole army. Although everybody, contributed beyond his means, yet the equipment fell far short of the requirements. Only one camel was available for each group of ten persons, who were to ride them in turn. This is why this campaign is known as "The campaign of hardship." The journey was long and the weather hot and dry. The orchards were laden with ripe dates (the staple crop of Madinah) and it was just the time for harvesting, when all of a sudden the Sahabah were required to start on this campaign. It was really a test of their Iman. They visualized the long and arduous journey, the scorching heat, the formidable enemy opposed to them and, to top all, the prospective loss of the year's crop, but they could not even dream of evading the call to arms, and that solely on account of the deep-rooted fear of Allah in their hearts. Except the women, children (who were excusable), those who were ordered to stay behind by the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) himself, and the munafiqin, nearly everybody joined the expedition. Also among those left behind were such persons as could neither arrange transportation for themselves, nor was the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) able to provide them with any. It is about such people that Allah says in his Book: "They turned back with eyes flowing with tears in sorrow that they could not find means to spend." (IX: 92) Of the true believers, those who stayed behind without any excuse whatsoever were three in number. Their story would be presently related. On their way to Syria when the expedition reached the habitation of Thamud, the Prophet (Sallallaho alaihe Wasallam) covered his face with his shirt and quickened the pace of his camel. He also instructed the Sahabah to do the same, since that was the scene of Thamud's destruction. They were advised to pass there weeping and fearing lest Allah should punish them as he had punished the Thamud. The dearest and the most beloved Prophet of Allah and his privileged companions pass by the ruins of the punished people in fear and tears, lest they meet the same fate. On the other hand today, if any place is struck with an earthquake, it becomes a place of sightseeing for us and, if we come across any ruins, our eyes remain dry and our hearts unaffected. What a change of attitude!

An Admonition by Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas (Radhiyallaho Anho). Wahab bin Munabbah says: Abdullah bin Abbas (Radhiyallaho Anho) lost his eyesight in his old age. I once led him to the Haram in Mecca, where he heard a group of people exchanging hot words among themselves. He asked me to lead him to them. He greeted them with 'Assalamu Alaikum.' They requested him to sit down. He refused and said, "May I tell you about people whom Allah holds in high esteem? These are those whom His fear has driven to absolute silence, even though they are neither helpless nor dumb. Rather they are possessors of eloquence and have power to speak and sense to understand, but constant glorification of Allah's name has so overpowered their wits that their hearts are overawed and their lips sealed. When they get established in this state, they hasten towards righteousness. Whither have you people deviated from this course?" After this admonition, I never saw an assembly of even two persons in the Haram. It is said that Hadhrat Ibn Abbas (Radhiyallaho Anho) used to weep so much with Allah's fear that the tears streaming down his cheeks had left permanent marks on them. In this story, Hadhrat Abdullah bin Abbas (Radhiyallaho Anho) has prescribed a very easy way to righteousness. Thats is to meditate over the greatness of Allah. If this is done, it becomes very easy to perform all other acts of righteousness with full sincerity. Is it so very difficult to devote a few minutes, out of the twenty four hours of a day at one's disposal, to this spiritual meditation?

The Action of Rasoolullah (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam ) at the Time of a Storm. Aisha (RadiAllahu Anha) relates that whenever a strong wind bringing dense clouds started blowing the Prophet's (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam) face turned pale with the fear of Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala). He became restless and would go in and out with worry and would recite the following Dua: "Oh my Allah! I ask you the good out this wind, the good out of that which is in this wind and the good out of that which is the outcome of this wind. I seek refuge in you from the evil out of this wind from the evil out of that which is in this wind and from the evil out of that which is the outcome of this wind". She says: And further when it began to rain, signs of delight appeared on his face. I said to him once, "Oh Rasul of Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala) when clouds appear everybody is happy, as they foretell rain, but why is it that I see you so much perturbed at that time?" He (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam ) replied, "Oh Aisha! How can I feel secure that this wind does not bring Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala)'s anger? The people of Aad were punished with the wind. They were happy when they saw the gathering dense clouds, believing that they brought rain; but actually those clouds brought no rain but utter destruction to Aad. " Rasulullah (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam) was obviously referring to the following Aayah of the Quran: "Then, when they (Aad) beheld a dense cloud coming toward their valleys, they said, 'Here is a cloud bringing us rain.' Nay, but it is that very calamity which you did seek to hasten, a wind wherein is grievous penalty, destroying all things by commandment of Allah. And morning found them so that naught could be seen, except their dwellings. Thus we treat the guilty fold." (al-Ahqaaf 24-25) Look at the fear of Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala) in the heart of a person who is the best of all creation (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam). In spite of a clear Aayah in the Quran that Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala) would not punish the people so long as Rasulullah (Sallallaho Alaihi Wassallam) was with them (al-Araaf 33), he has so much fear of Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala) that a strong wind reminds him of the punishment awarded to the people in the past. Now let us peep into our own hearts for a moment. Although we are fully drowned in sins, yet none of the unusual phenomena such as earthquakes and lightning arouse the least fear of Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala) in our hearts and instead of resorting to asking for Allah (Subhanahu wa Taala)'s forgiveness or Salah at such time, we only indulge in so called investigations.

Feebaro thanks for the reply. I realise the five pointed star represents the five divided sections of Somalia, but i need the NFD one in particular for a historial piece, i am writing on the area.

Originally posted by IntrinsicDove: Salaams to all the fellow law students. So Iam hoping Insha Allah I specialise in international law and contribute. IntrinsicDove, i have found international and humanitarian law to be the safest in terms of areas of law to practice in the west. May Allah make it easy for you. As long as you keep firm and steadfast in you're deen and place you're trust in Allah(the best of trustees), then i'm sure you'll contribute positively and help to slow down the scourge of injustice that faces the world in which we live today. In terms of justice today, let us ponder on the following words of our beloved prophet(s.c.w) and the similarities it holds for todays 'loop-hole' based justice. "Bani Israil was ruined because of this. They applied law to the poor and forgave the rich."

Can anyone point to a url where i can find the flag of the NFD, i believe it is similar to the flag of the ****** region, occupied by the ethiopians. I've tried google and other search engines, but the somali, ******, djibouti and somaliland flags keep coming up. Nothing about the NFD flag, even though i have come across it before. I know it is not as recognised, but its gotta be somewhere out there.

"But is it not the responsibility of the slave of Allah to seek accurate and authentic knowledge.." Sister Rahima, you're right, it is the responsibility of each and every muslim to seek correct knowledge. I was simply pointing out that after undertaking this crucial first step, that we should once again turn to Allah with sincere intentions to accompany the knowledge gained.

Salafi, Jazakallah Khayr for the advice, it is much appreciated. However, let us both take heed of the following Hadith. The Messenger (SAW) said "The man who is most hateful to God is the one who quarrels and disputes most." Bukhari and Muslim.