Didnt they already make up a story about a breakaway faction called millatu ibraheem. Now all of a sudden everything is back to normal and there is another leadership dispute. Listening to the media is like watching episodes of The Simpsons. No continuation from one episode to the next.

The situation on the ground seems to be such that the TFG and Sharif only grow more and more unpopular each passing day. Every time their protectors shell the market to punish civilians for not fighting al shabaab. Every time they hear the president is touring foreign countries on his magic carpet, while his palace is used to slaughter his own kin. At the beginning many people really didn't see a difference, other than the fact that Sharif left the country when it was invaded. They were willing to look past that. But now they are understanding that a gov't is not about 1 man. The fact that Sharif surrounded himself with the worst of human beings said a lot about his gov't, although the people didn't understand that at the time. But now they see it every time they get robbed at a checkpoint. Or shelled indiscriminately without a word of condemnation. Imagine people in Moqdisho to this day resent America for their military actions in Moqdisho 15 years ago. So imagine what they think about Abdullahi Yusuf, Sharif, Uganda, Burundi. Many people judge whats going on in Somalia through the diaspora. The diaspora is filled with hypocritical, ignorant clan cheerleaders, who would never go live in their country even if their favourite tribal warlord took over.

Subhanallah. This filthy Abdullahi Yusuf supporter is still ranting on this forum?

Are they fighting or belly dancing. I couldn't tell with that music.

I have confirmation that more than 90% (between 40-70 men) of the UWSLF army have handed over themselves to the Military in Godey. A group of 10 steadfast is better than a group of 100 potential deserters. It is more about hearts than numbers. If they didn't surrender then you would have 40-70 men in your ranks who dont have the heart to be there, which only brings down morale.

Raamsade, Don't be a snake in the grass. Didn't you say South African apartheid would be a more accurate reflection of "Islamic Surahs and hadiiths". So what difference does it make to you, & why are you wasting your time and ours when you have your mind made up. Che-Guevara, Don't you think Somalis have been affected by Kenyas rendition program? Of course. Sheikh Faisal is only the latest casualty.

It's not about Sheikh Abdullah Faisal per se. It is the principle that is the issue. The Kenyan gov't is being encouraged (by everybody knows who) to excersize more control over the curriculum in the kenyan muslim community. In other words, who is allowed to speak and what they are allowed to teach. ie. Certain Surahs, and ayahs are not to be taught w/ tafsiir. Of course certain ahadeeth and Islamic literature are not to be taught. Those Sheekhs who do not comply simply are not allowed to teach. Sheikh Abdullah Faisal is one of those. For example British authorities confronted him for giving a lesson on Suratul Bayyinaa, calling it racial hatred when Allah says "Sharrul Bariyya". They realize that if they are to control the Muslim community, they must control the curriculum. So what is at stake here is the principle, & not an issue of 1 man.

It's an issue of tarbiya (upbringing). European colonialists didn't ask anybody permission when they seized Somali territory, raised an indegenous elite in it's schools and military academies, who learned to behave like them, dress like them, and later left to run a state in their image. 50-60 years later, everybodys heart is attached to a blue banner that didn't mean anything to anybody just a couple generations ago. It's fascinating. How do you make something up with your own two hands, then pledge absolute loyalty to it. The way it's saluted, honoured, revered with khushuu and humility alongside the national anthem. People don't really think about these things. Reminds me of the hadeeth of the entrance of shirk being as undetectable as a black ant creeping on a black rock, in the dark night.

Originally posted by MoonLight1: Look at the white spot in th middle of the flag it says "Allah rasuulu muxammad" which means "Allah is the massenger of Muxammad" inaalilaahi waina ileyhi rajicuun, these guys are even distorting the greatest Kallimah on earth which is Lailah Ilalah, Muxammadun Rasululah. In alshabab's world everything is upside down. It's read from bottom to top. To avoid putting Allah swt at the bottom of the white emblem. Allah... above...get it...geeet it?

The verses were not basically meant for rulers or leaders. They were meant for Jews and their scholars. They generally apply to all Muslims who do not apply Allah`s judgment, both the rulers and the ruled. The general point the author is making is that, Islamically there is really no difference in the responsibilities of the ruler of a land and the responsibilities of the ruled. But of course Quran differentiates between the two. The word yahkum (yaxkum) means to make a ruling/judgement. It is an action of authority and is only attributed to someone in a position of authority, ie. 1 of Allahs name is al-Hakim (the ruler). When Allah says "wa man lam yaxkum bi maa anzal Allah fa Uwlaa'ika hum al Kaafirun" (those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed, indeed they are the disbelievers) it obviously directed to those in the position of authority to rule. On top of that it mentions in the same ayah the authority figures among bani israel (the Rabi's). Secondly, Allah didn't say "jews who do not rule by what Allah revealed". It's speaking generally about any ruler. Time after time in the Quran we find that Allah mentions bani Israel simply as an example, but is talking to Muslims. So to say Allah is talking to the jews is just negligent. The verses are: “If any do fail to judge by what God hath revealed, they are (no better than) unbelievers" Allah didn't say "they are no better than disbelievers", Allah said, "they are indeed THE disbelievers" AWLAA'IKA HUM AL-KAAFIRUN. There is no basis for deflecting the title unless one has other intentions. Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Exclusively Publishes the latest book of the Egyptian Islamic Group.. When somebody comes out of prison with the opposite view of what they had when they went in, you have to ask yourself what happened inside the prison. Some sort of re-education. But we all know the only re-education program in egyptian jails is to stick things in your butt until you change your mind.

I have not seen it.

Dhubad, The point is you can't see, so to assume the bomber was even in the room is based on politics, not evidence.

Apart from TFG sources, none of the survivors saw any 'suicide bomber', just an explosion from a stationary source, which could have been planted by anybody with access to the hotel.

Has anybody ever heard of Sheikh Abdifatah (no last name) make any statement before this day. Coincidentally his 1st statement is a statement which contradicts what the official spokesman (Sheikh Ali Dheere) has said. False flag operations are covert operations conducted by governments, corporations, or other organizations which are designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities designed to deceive the public in such a way that the operations appear as though they are being carried out by other entities. The name is derived from the military concept of flying false colors; that is, flying the flag of a country other than one's own. False flag operations are not limited to war and counter-insurgency operations, and have been used in peace-time; for example, during Italy's strategy of tension. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Originally posted by General Duke: Kampala:"Waa in aad u sheegtaan Shabaab in aanay cirka ku nooleyn Hadday dayaxa degganaan lahaayeen xorriyad ayay haysan lahaayeen laakin xaabdeena ma huri doonaan"Yuweri Museveni 23. oktober 2009 Kampala(AllPuntland)Madaxweynaha Uganda Yuweiri Musaveni ayaa si kulul ugu hanjabay kooxda Al-Shabaab oo ku tilmaamay kuwa aan waxba u tareyn oo caada qaatayaal ah. "Hadday isku dayaan in ay weeraraan Uganda cawaaqib xumo ayay kala kulmi doonaan, sababta oo ah waan naqaan sida loo weeraro kuwii na weerara ee ayagoo kala ah" ayu yiri madaxweynaha Uganda. Waxa uu sheegay in ay muhim u tahay in ay ogaadaan in aanay cirka ku nooleyn. Hadday dayaxa degganaan lahaayeen xorriyad ayay haysan lahaayeen. Hadalka Musaveni ayaa jawaab u ah hanjabaad uu waaliga G/Banaadir u jeediyey dawladaha Uganda iyo Burundi oo uu sheegay in ay ku weerari doonaan caasiamadahooda. Xafiiska wararka Muqdisho AllPuntland It's the welfare talking. Insha allah he will be sold in suuqa bakaara for no more than 50 shilling.

Thats what happens when you go from camels to cadillacs in 1 generation jokes aside, that would happen anywhere there is not proper law enforcement.

UNESCO is run by people who clearly have different values and societal norms. Here's an article that discusses UNESCO and UNFPA's (branches of the UN) stance on 'sex education'. It came from a report released by UNESCO called "International Guidelines on Sexual Education". The title itself shows it's agenda is to shape our social values, starting with our children. But here are some quotes pulled from the document, which is almost 100 pages long and quite detailed on what they plan to teach our children. The guidelines are designed, according to the report, to be “age-appropriate” and break down the suggested curriculum into four age groups: 5- to 8-year-olds, 9- to 12-year-olds, 12- to 15-year-olds and 15- to 18-year-olds. For those aged 5 to 8, some key concepts to be discussed are: -- “Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called m*sturbation” and that “girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.” -- That “all people regardless of their health status, religion, origin, race or sexual status (gay, lesbian, trans*vestite etc) can raise a child and give it the love it deserves.” -- “Gender inequality,” “examples of gender stereotypes,” and “gender-based violence.” -- Description of fertilization, conception, pregnancy, and delivery. For those aged 9 to 12, key concepts include: -- “specific steps involved in obtaining and using condoms and contraception, including emergency contraception” and the “signs and symptoms of pregnancy.” -- That “legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe.” -- Discussing the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.” -- Discussing that “every person has the right to decide whether to become a parent, including disable people and people living with HIV” as well as “ART (anti-retroviral therapy) and side-effects on puberty.” -- That “both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure” and the “definition and function of orgasm.” -- Discussing “examples of harmful traditional practices,” listed examples of which include female genital cutting, honour killings, bride killings, and polygamy.” For those aged 12 to 15, the report recommends discussing “access to safe abortion and post-abortion care” and the “use and misuse of emergency contraception.” UNESCO also suggests those as young as 12 should be told, “the size and shape of the penis, vulva or breasts vary and do not affect reproduction or the ability to be a good sexual partner.” By age 15, adolescents should be exposed “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion,” according to the guidelines. http://www.cnsnews.c om/public/content/ar ticle.aspx?RsrcID=52 988

UNESCO is run by people who clearly have different values and societal norms. Here's an article that discusses UNESCO and UNFPA's (branches of the UN) stance on 'sex education'. It came from a report released by UNESCO called "International Guidelines on Sexual Education". The title itself shows it's agenda is to shape our social values, starting with our children. But here are some quotes pulled from the document, which is almost 100 pages long and quite detailed on what they plan to teach our children. The guidelines are designed, according to the report, to be “age-appropriate” and break down the suggested curriculum into four age groups: 5- to 8-year-olds, 9- to 12-year-olds, 12- to 15-year-olds and 15- to 18-year-olds. For those aged 5 to 8, some key concepts to be discussed are: -- “Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation” and that “girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.” -- That “all people regardless of their health status, religion, origin, race or sexual status (gay, lesbian, transvestite etc) can raise a child and give it the love it deserves.” -- “Gender inequality,” “examples of gender stereotypes,” and “gender-based violence.” -- Description of fertilization, conception, pregnancy, and delivery. For those aged 9 to 12, key concepts include: -- “specific steps involved in obtaining and using condoms and contraception, including emergency contraception” and the “signs and symptoms of pregnancy.” -- That “legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe.” -- Discussing the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.” -- Discussing that “every person has the right to decide whether to become a parent, including disable people and people living with HIV” as well as “ART (anti-retroviral therapy) and side-effects on puberty.” -- That “both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure” and the “definition and function of orgasm.” -- Discussing “examples of harmful traditional practices,” listed examples of which include female genital cutting, honour killings, bride killings, and polygamy.” For those aged 12 to 15, the report recommends discussing “access to safe abortion and post-abortion care” and the “use and misuse of emergency contraception.” UNESCO also suggests those as young as 12 should be told, “the size and shape of the penis, vulva or breasts vary and do not affect reproduction or the ability to be a good sexual partner.” By age 15, adolescents should be exposed “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion,” according to the guidelines. http://www.cnsnews.c om/public/content/ar ticle.aspx?RsrcID=52 988

UNESCO is run by people who clearly have different values and societal norms. Here's an article that discusses UNESCO and UNFPA's (branches of the UN) stance on 'sex education'. It came from a report released by UNESCO called "International Guidelines on Sexual Education". The title itself shows it's agenda is to shape our social values, starting with our children. But here are some quotes pulled from the document, which is almost 100 pages long and quite detailed on what they plan to teach our children. The guidelines are designed, according to the report, to be “age-appropriate” and break down the suggested curriculum into four age groups: 5- to 8-year-olds, 9- to 12-year-olds, 12- to 15-year-olds and 15- to 18-year-olds. For those aged 5 to 8, some key concepts to be discussed are: -- “Touching and rubbing one’s genitals is called masturbation” and that “girls and boys have private body parts that can feel pleasurable when touched by oneself.” -- That “all people regardless of their health status, religion, origin, race or sexual status (gay, lesbian, transvestite etc) can raise a child and give it the love it deserves.” -- “Gender inequality,” “examples of gender stereotypes,” and “gender-based violence.” -- Description of fertilization, conception, pregnancy, and delivery. For those aged 9 to 12, key concepts include: -- “specific steps involved in obtaining and using condoms and contraception, including emergency contraception” and the “signs and symptoms of pregnancy.” -- That “legal abortion performed under sterile conditions by medically trained personnel is safe.” -- Discussing the ideas of “homophobia, transphobia and abuse of power.” -- Discussing that “every person has the right to decide whether to become a parent, including disable people and people living with HIV” as well as “ART (anti-retroviral therapy) and side-effects on puberty.” -- That “both men and women can give and receive sexual pleasure” and the “definition and function of orgasm.” -- Discussing “examples of harmful traditional practices,” listed examples of which include female genital cutting, honour killings, bride killings, and polygamy.” For those aged 12 to 15, the report recommends discussing “access to safe abortion and post-abortion care” and the “use and misuse of emergency contraception.” UNESCO also suggests those as young as 12 should be told, “the size and shape of the penis, vulva or breasts vary and do not affect reproduction or the ability to be a good sexual partner.” By age 15, adolescents should be exposed “advocacy to promote the right to and access to safe abortion,” according to the guidelines. http://www.cnsnews.c om/public/content/ar ticle.aspx?RsrcID=52 988

And neither was Saddam behind the attacks of 9/11, but it's not important. It's not the same akhi. Uganda and Burundi are not there for the sake of Uganda and Burundi. The situation in Somalia has nothing to do with their immediate national interests. They did it for the same reason Poland sent troops to occupy Iraq. Financial benefits. Aside from that, Amisom operates as Obamas right hand in Somalia. This is according to US officials. "We've shipped probably in the neighborhood of 40 tonnes worth of arms and munitions into Somalia," the official said. "We remain concerned about the prospects of an al Shabaab victory, and we want to do as much as we can to help the TFG." The United States funded the purchase of arms for the Somali government and also asked the Ugandan and Burundian troops in the country to give the government weapons and then reimbursed them , the official said. He said the United States also set aside money to pay the Ugandan and Burundian units to train government forces rather than having U.S. troops conduct the training. http://www.reuters.c om/article/latestCri sis/idUSN2649445

That's a joke in bad taste. I have yet to see a reliable source that confirms such a call was made. It's an internet myth propagated by the anti-Shariif bandwagon who never tire of trying to draw comparisons between the current president of Somalia and Mr. Yusuf. I wish it was. "The government is weakened by the rebel forces," parliament speaker Sheikh Aden Mohamed Nur told reporters. "We ask neighbouring countries -- including Kenya, Djibouti, Ethiopia and Yemen -- to send troops to Somalia within 24 hours," he said. http://www.france24. com/en/20090621-soma lia-calls-emergency- foreign-military-aid -ethiopia Hmm...what could have been happening during those two years that persuaded the Ethiopians to pull out? I dunno, 18 000 people dead for nothing, the realization that 99.99% of Somalis HATE them, the Ethiopian economy degrading to a point where keeping soldiers abroad was vampirising the little resources left for the starving Ethios...and so on. I don't think it makes a difference to the Ethiopians how many Somalis are killed and lives are destroyed. What matters is how many casualties and damage their army incurs. 2ndly, the occupation only becomes costly if their resources are eaten up in the process. Had the mujahideen left their land to the Ethiopians, it would have become a profitable expedition since Ethiopia would be making use of Somalia's sea ports tax free as we speak. Don't be naive enough to think they wouldn't. Kindly stop pretending you don't know what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with territory and you know it. It's a question of legitimacy. Look at Somaliland. Territorialy, it's a country. Economically, it doesn't exist. Nobody trades with Somaliland, because no one recognizes Somaliland as a separate country. Whether you disagree with me when I say Shariif has the support of most Somalis isn't important. But you must agree with me that Shariif has the support of the international community. And the international community will decide, whether we like it or not, whether Somalia is a country or a rogue territory. Therein lies the problem. Shabaab is just trying to get rid of Shariif by force and leave the President's seat empty, so that the outside world doesn't have the choice anymore but to recognize them as legitimate leaders. That's the pie they're after. Whether they control more pasture land and desert is not so important. We have fundamental differences on this issue, but I'm going to leave that aside and respond simply to the logic you've used. If legitimacy is a title that's handed down by organizations like UN, EU and those behind them, what do the Shabaab and HI need from Sharif. He obviously isn't the source of this 'legitimacy'. Abdullahi Yusufs 'legitimacy' didn't do him any good, so his sponsors stripped him of his 'legitimacy' and gave it to Sharif. So if they wanted his pie, he wouldn't be the one to talk to anyway. They would just talk to his sponsors. Which brings me to my 2nd point. What have the Islamic groups done or compromised on to make you think they want the approval of Sharifs sponsors?

Sherban, Shariif signed the agreement that took Ethiopians OUT of Somalia. If that's the case, why did they refuse to return to Moqdisho when Sharif and his parliament made the 24 hour emergency call for them to come back. Sharif was offering to negotiate with them since he arrived in Nairobi in Jan 2007, why did it take them 2 years to consider his offer? Could it be something that was happening during those 2 years that persuaded them to look for a way out. It's not that Shabaab was betrayed by Shariif, it's that Shabaab was (and is) jealous and wanted (and wants) a bigger piece of the pie. Listen to yourself. The only territory the man controls is his office desk & you're talking about his pie. Abtigiis, You are diverting tyhe focus away from what it is: mode of punishment. Can you tell me why a theif who robbed a$15 USD cellphone must lose his hand? You answered your own question. Because he's "a theif who robbed a$15 USD cellphone". What is wrong with alerting if the basic rules are not breached? There is no "basic rule". There is a command. You breach the command when you don't obey it. Ignore it, alter it, change it, swirl it, twirl it. You can come up with all kinds of fancy words. At the end of the day, you either obey the command, or you disobey the command. I am saying they should not be punished in a cruel way. And who is better in judgment than Allaah for a people who have firm Faith? Al Maa'ida, 50

Abraar, What's the difference between disobeying and "altering" a command? "Altering" is worse. Wanna know why? Why is cutting a hand the silver bullet. Simple. Once you "alter" a thing, that means it's "alterable". No? You can say we should heed the decree, but to try to provide reason for it is laughable. I prefer Sheikhs who tell me 'that is the word of Allah, Please accept. He knows best!". Well to begin with, that logic only works with those who accept the Qurans divinity and have certainty in their heart. But that doesn't mean the rest don't deserve an explanation, as long as their questions are sincere. And what about the theif who repents? Must he live with perpetual disability for a mistake he might have done in split seconds? You're mixing two matters. Crime and punishment is a state matter. Repentance is to Allah, not the state. And if the repentance is only on the condition that the punishment not be carried out, then it's not a sincere repentance. You show repentance outwardly by accepting the punishment (because the crime was committed), then not doing it again. The state is not in the business of reading hearts. Are the children who will take example of a 'handless and legless man" his too? What will those feel? If it's about feelings, victims of theft also have feelings. You seem to see it as the poor man taking a bullet for all society, when that's not the case. He's simply being punished for his crime. The difference is, true justice has a more positive & meaningful long term impact on society. And why execution is not stopping drug trafficers from going on their business? Now you're arguing the effectiveness of shariya, which is best done through example. History proves that it is effective when carried out by sincere authorities. This through the eyes of non-Muslims. The Taliban opium ban in 2000/2001 had, there is no doubt, the most profound impact on opium/heroin supply in modern history, as the authors argue. Exogenous global causes can indeed be eliminated as explanations. It was a rare historical moment that allowed almost absolute compliance in the south of the country, with hardly any direct enforcement or punishment required. From the eastern regions, where Taliban control was far from absolute, several cases of disobedience were reported, largely resolved by means of negotiations and pay-offs to local warlords. By harvest time in spring 2001, the effectiveness of the ban was already confirmed beyond any doubt, and astonished the international community at the time. (Major Donors mission, 2001). Bernard Frahi, then head of the office in Pakistan of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC, at the time operating under another name but for the purpose of consistency and ease of reading UNODC is used throughout this text), applauded the success of the opium ban: "This is the first time that a country has decided to eliminate in one go - not gradually - these crops on its territory," and called it "one of the most remarkable successes ever" in the UN drug fight.(Transnational Institute, 2001). http://www.tni.org/d etail_page.phtml?pag e=archives_jelsma_ta liban But the Taliban's policy of zero tolerance worked. The streets were safe and cleaned regularly. The police were harsh, but honest. Doors to Afghan homes and cars were left unlocked, without fear of theft. Many warlords stopped fighting. The Taliban maintained a network of community mobilizers who used Koranic verses to shame farmers out of poppy production while also introducing alternative crops. http://www.csmonitor .com/2009/0429/p09s0 1-coop.html No matter what deterent you put forth, there will always be those who will commit crimes. That's why we need laws and law enforcement to begin with. Perfection is an attribute of God. So if human beings can never be perfect as individuals, what makes you think we can ever have perfect crimeless societies? The objectives are to promote accountability for the state and taqwa for the individual. Those are our obligations to Allah swt. So are you saying the idea of Mahram is purely for women's security? Why can't the woman take the discretion of deciding whether they are in danger or not? So what woman would knowingly compromise her life or honor to begin with, if she knows how to avoid it? And will it stop robbers in Jo'burg that a skinny somali is swaggering beside his wife, if they really mean to strike? It adds difficulty & limits a lot of activities, not just robbery. You only have to use your imagination. By the way, is this not defeating your same argument about cutting hands being a strong deterrent. If rapists are to be stonned to death, why need this extra precaution. That ALONE should have done the job of ensuring safety for women, if we go by your logic about the thieves. Like I said, prevention, not intervention. And again, theft and rape aren't the only issues regarding mahram. You only need to ask women in the west. Maybe my statement is false if you take it LITERALLY! But please tell us the list of what is not allowed? I reckon it will fill 1000 pages if you dare! So when you said they ban tv and internet, you were speaking figuratively? that makes sense to you?

I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for the last part about me trying to read into Shabaab hearts. I'm just looking at the facts here, and I don't think it's difficult to understand why I've lost all faith in Shabaab since May 2009. To be clear, I'm not talking about you in particular. With that said I'll address your points. The opposition was repeatedly invited to talks from January to May. Most of these invitations were refused. And they weren't invited to negotiate with Ethiopia or AMISOM, but with their fellow Muslim brothers from the government. In late April, Sheekh Aweys was WELCOMED by Shariif back to Xamar (he'd been hiding in Asmara for quite a while). Two weeks later, he and the Shabaab/Xizbul-Islam alliance launch a bloody coup which would (un)fortunately fail. 1st of all, the whole concept of legitimacy by way of a UN rubber stamp is a myth and quite an arrogant myth. So calling it a conflict between government and opposition is a play on words, and doesn't at all reflect the situation. To address the basic issues, Al Shabaab and Hizbul Islam have not changed the position they've had from the beginning which was always the withdrawal of Ethiopian and AU troops, as well as the removal of those who brought them, the tfg. Sharif and his group decided to abandon that position and join the tfg & make his former enemies into his most precious asset. The Islamic groups didn't make this transition with him. So the story begins not where you started it, but from Sharif aligning himself against his former self, and by extension against the Islamic groups he led at one time. 2ndly, after the Ethiopians withdrew, they sat in Djibouti, quickly formed their gov't, selected their cabinet, divided the map of Somalia amongst their MP's, and then went to Moqdisho to try and install the gov't expecting al Shabaab and Hizbul Islam to simply hand over all the territory they administer & recognize their authority. Again, doing things backwards. If you've noticed, al-Shabaab or H.I hasn't called itself the gov't of Somalia, although they control more territory. This is because they know it's premature, and that you have to actually control a land before declaring yourself a governor of it. There are many preparations that have to made, people to be consulted etc. This was the formula that made the ICU successful, and this is the formula al Shabaab and H.I are following. As for your point about Aweys. Aweys was in Asmara, Sharif was in Djibouti. Sharif arrived through Moqdisho international airport which was held by AU. Aweys arrived through an airstrip south of Moqdisho controlled by his group, and went to Moqdisho by land. Nobody did anybody any favors. And referring to the current fighting as a "coup" is another play on words based on a false claim to legitimacy. If we're to ask who started the fighting, I think a quick read of the events I mentioned in the last paragraph make it clear who the aggressive party was. How many "kuffar" AMISOM soldiers have died in this war? You can probably count them on one hand. How many Somalis? Amisom never really had to sacrifice lives, with the tfg militias so generously dedicating their lives to gaurding their bases. All they've done is send in heavy armor to provide cover for tfg counter offensives. Their casualties until recently, are taken from attacks on their bases, which they respond to by raining artillery shells on civilians whom they regard as potential enemies anyways (as they've stated). The tfg gave them this luxury.

Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel: [QB] I'm not Somali, so I can't say what's best for Somalis. But I believe the state shouldn't enforce religion, because it's a big waste of energy. Every state enforces laws, and in Islam laws are regarded as a fundamental element of religion. So if you're not following the religion of Allah, then you're following the religion of Thomas Jefferson & Benjamin Franklin. There is no "leave to Caesar what is Caesars", or leave to Jefferson what is Jeffersons. For example (and there are many), Allah swt says "inna anzalna Ilayka Kitaaba bil Haqqa li tahkumu bayna an-naas" 4:105 (We have revealed the Book of truth to govern mankind) You either accept God or you don't. Some people will follow his rules strictly and be admired for it, others will follow his rules more loosely. But the thing is you can't terrorize people into having faith or being religious. The "faith" you get as a result is fake, it's not valid. If it doesn't come from your heart, if you just pretend so you don't get whipped/stoned to death, then it's not real faith. Remember we're speaking with regard to laws and not religion in and of itself. Nobody has the right to enforce religion on people, the Quran says "Laa Ikraaha fi deen" (no compulsion in religion). But you still have to abide by certain principles when living in any society, because all societies have moral codes, whether it's the morality of Allah and His swt Messenger, or the morality Frank, Robert & Sally. You can't publicly walk around naked in America and expect the authorities no to say anything. But you can walk around naked as you want in your house. It's human nature to separate private and public matters. The difference here is man-made morality changes with time, while morality in Islam is constant because Allahs standards are not governed by time. Secondly with regards to enforcing religious beliefs, this is not done. Once someone is a Muslim they have taken an oath to fulfill their duty as a Muslim. Nobody is going to ask a Muslim whether or not he prayed, or kick in his door & see whether or not he's fasting. He can do what he wants. But he can't walk around the streets with a burger and fries while everybody is fasting, or chillax on the street while everybody else is answering the call to prayer. He can eat at home, and go home if he's not going to pray. If one isn't a Muslim in the 1st place, then these don't apply. There is a separate contract that applies to non-Muslims living in an Islamic state. Maybe Sharia law is a good idea for Somalia, but it has to be applied in a just manner. For instance, I'm not very educated when it comes to Islam, but I believe you need 3 witnesses to convict someone no? So people will do what they want behind closed doors, and be discreet. People won't get stoned to death just because someone *heard* they slept around. It's 4. And the objective of the state isn't to see and hear all things, that's for the Almighty. Private matters are private matters. It's not allowed for the state to violate peoples privacy just to flex the states muscle, like some governments do in the 'free world'. On the contrary, Islam encourages people to conceal their wrong doings. Repentance is only to God. This applies to adultery aswell. For example a man approached the Prophet Muhammed saws and informed him that he had committed adultery, the Prophet basically asked the man 'are you mad?', turned away and gave the man the opportunity to walk away, but the man insisted. So the punishment was implemented. So, people are given the opportunity to review their confessions, such as the case of the young lady in Kismaayo (and btw you have a right to believe your sources regarding the incident, my objective is not to debate whether or not Shabaab gain anything by unjustly killing people) Another thing is it has to be adapted to the current situation in Somalia. I'm very sorry, but I think God expected us to be intelligent enough to realize that some things don't apply universally. For instance how can you possibly support amputation for thieves in a country where hundreds of thousands have NOTHING TO EAT? If this was a country at peace, prosperous and rich, and everyone was looked after, then yes you can amputate thieves' arms. But when people need to steal to survive, I don't think this is a just punishment. There are conditions that apply for theft in order to punish individuals. 1stly the state is expected to collect charity from Muslim households as this is one of the pillars of Islam. So assisting the weak is a pillar of Islam to begin with. 2ndly, people are not punished for stealing survival items, or taking items that are just publicly laying around. But for example the last group of young men who were punished in Moqdisho, stole guns & cell phones. To me it sounds like they were trying to start a highway bandit militia, rather than survival. Of course there are ignorant and immoral people here, there and everywhere that responded 'ohh they're just kids, give them a break'. And why should they do that? Look at what you're teaching your children. All in all Sharia law would do Somalia some good, if applied considerately, and if not used as a mere tool (a la Shabaab) to terrorize the people into submission. In Islam people are judged by their actions, because we can't read whats in peoples hearts. So people who claim al-Shabaab are just doing what they do as a tool to gain power etc. are actually claiming to know whats in peoples hearts, which is an act of shirk. And they have their reasons for doing this, which Allah knows whether they're honest about it or not. They need to be aware of what they say, and don't just say things because you perceive it to be a political gain to slander your opponent. Assalamu aleykum.