Originally posted by Socod_badne: Unwise you say? I tell you what's unwise. Denying non-muslim women the right to dress as they see fit in muslim majority countries. Remember the hue and cry while back in Nigeria about Miss World Pageant competition to be held there? The mere proposal to hold the event there sent thousands of muslims to the streets in protests. And here we are decrying an elected official's right to free speech. Amidst it all, we forget that this right of his to air his displeasure with Hijab (the kind that leaves bare only the eyes) is the same right that allows muslim women to wear the Hijab. To your latter point - I didn't forget anything. I never said Jack Straw has no right to voice his opinion. I said his opinion was meritless in the wake of facts and that it was unwise given the hieghtened tensions. Particularly as all women that he asked to remove their veils did so thus reducing his discomfort. Then he has the gall to complain about it in public. Opinions that have little basis in facts are much like hot air - easily dimissed. But I never said Mr. Straw wasn't entitled to voicing his opinion. And I hope you will acknowledge my right to dismiss it. Now to your former point. There are only 2 countries in the Muslim world, Saudi Arabia and Iran, that enforce a particular dress code on non-Muslims. For the rest - you can wear what you like( I hear the topless beaches of Tunisia and Morrocco rival any found in the south of France). If somehow - Saudi/Iran encompasses for you the entire Muslim world, then you're sadly mistaken. Secondly, the riots that occurred in Nigeria were, I believe, in response to the quote by a journalist to the effect that the Prophet would've chosen one of the contestants for a bride. The rioting etc was less in reponse to the scantily clad ladies and more to that percieved insult since the ladies had been in town for a while before anything happened. Third, I hold Britain to its self proclaimed standards - the home of Magna Carta, Parliamentary democracy, Habeus Corpus - and not to the standards of Saudi Arabia or Iran. Niether of which proclaim themselves as multicultural success stories. Why would you compare apples and oranges? This device is mostly a red herring. Let us compare the actions of senior British MP to the values he proclaims for his party and country rather than say Iran's mullahs. I wonder what the reaction would've been if Jack Straw had said that he felt uncomfortable with flamboyantly, effeiminate men and wished they would act more like the 'mainstream'. I wonder whether his 'discomfort' would have been allowed such wide latitude.

^Yes! - we get it - we understand you are for Hirale and against the takeover of Kismayo. It really can only be said in so many different ways.

^I'm hearing the ruckus over his statements has yet to dissipate. I think his commentary has 2 aspects. The 'correctness' of his opinion and his wisdom in expressing it. In essence, Straw feels uncomfortable with veiled women and believes it to impede intergration. If he's uncomfortable with these women he should get over it. One's discomfort with pierced ppl, Rastafarians etc says more about the one expressing discomfort than the other party. As to integration - if one believes that a piece of cloth determines every aspect of one's life in a new country that is simply ignorant. Thus his 'opinion' is simply informed by his own prejudices and stereotypes and can be dismissed as baseless. In a time of hieghtened tensions for the Muslim community in Britain - for Jack Straw to express these private sentiments is unwise to say the least. And then to call to ban the veil - that is simply heaping insult on insult. On both counts Straw fails - one can only conjecture political posturing as the reason for his statment.

^You're just another lazy African Zu - don't you know? - all that we're good for is dancing and prancing:D

Originally posted by Nistisa: They are “shitting†all over the Muslims. I don’t think you have noticed it yet. These riots are of no benefit to Islam. Every Muslim should be outraged about this. But we are forgetting that Allah can punish this kufars. If riots take place then it won’t profit Islam or the Muslims in general. What is the use of Muslims destroying properties in their own countries and burning flags? Muslims can riot(or more neutrally) protest all they want as long as there is no violence. Expressing one's opinions by burning flags, yelling and screaming is none of anyone else's business. It's clear we should condemn any violence associated with that. But I fail to understand this obessesiveness with Muslim protests and this constant harping from Muslims that 'it doesn't benefit Islam; it makes us look bad etc.' I wonder if these same sort of juvenile arguments would be used in the case of angry anti-global warming or anti free-trade protests! People are different - let them be angry and protest about what they wish to - as long as there is no violence.

^Yes about the credit union. But with the Islamic system - it is de rigeur whereas with a credit union you have to explore and negotiate. I think the point behind Islam's directives lie with a more equitable distribution of risk and gain/loss. Islamic finance for a commercial entreprise becomes straight forward but with consumer goods it is much more murky if not similar to secular institutions.

Originally posted by Rahima: quote: I'm glad you are one of the few in support of the ICU to recognize this clan basis of it. That is why it is really important when they set out to spread their stated Islamic agenda - they do so peacefully and through consultation and negotiation. Otherwise - it begins to look like a clan driven expansion of territory and power. Are they not doing so? As for the clan basis, it was the case. It no longer is, so any arguments of clan driven expansion of territory and power are nothing but nonsense. They are to a degree - but not with Kismayo takeover and excursions to Baidoa and Galkacyo. I wonder why you believe the clan basis is in the past tense. What specifically has occurred in the past several months to convince you otherwise?

^Sometimes you have a particularly sarcastic way of addressing religious issues But what you said in your last paragraph is fundamentally correct. There really needs to be a better explanation and discussion of riba and the reasons why Islamic institutions are not charging riba when they ask for a 'supplement' on a loan. However, the Islamic system with regard to profit earning entreprises like a business is clearly and fundamentally different than its western counterpart. This system is more akin to a profit partnership or equity partner. The issue with riba regards consumer goods.

Originally posted by Rahima: Was it a secret that the courts were established along tribal lines to deal with their moryaan? What’s this ‘I knew it’ like it’s a bloody discovery. There is nothing wrong with establishing an entity so as to do well for your tribe (PL and SL are both just that), especially in Somalia where as I see it only every tribe can deal with it’s respective problems and then can we unite as is the plan of the courts obviously. Now that they have expanded, they need to move on from the tribal structure which was undoubtedly necessary in Mogadishu. As long as one works for khayr there is nothing wrong with division among tribal lines, even Rasuallah s.a.w at his time would divide his army at times along tribal lines. Big difference between tribalism and dividing along tribal lines for the good. I'm glad you are one of the few in support of the ICU to recognize this clan basis of it. That is why it is really important when they set out to spread their stated Islamic agenda - they do so peacefully and through consultation and negotiation. Otherwise - it begins to look like a clan driven expansion of territory and power.

^Well - they may certainly beat the drums - but if there is any possiblity that the man refused to do his job because of religious or nationalistic reasons - those beating the drums certainly have a case. We don't know the facts yet - but it would be outrageous that someone would refuse to guard a building simply because he objected to the objections of those he was guarding.

Originally posted by Cara: I think naivete is by definition blameless. These women/girls are NOT to blame for being exploited by sociopathic b@stards. Blameless? You think? I always thought that naivete when you have the opportunity to know and learn and be educated makes one much less blameless. At the very least, one hopes naive people realize their naivete and seek counsel so that they may avoid the potential harmful consequences of their self-inflicted naivete.

^Ah - as I suspected - this debate is fruitless. You have a vision for an ICU dictatorship. God knows the future - but I believe it shall not pass. Each region and community, particularly the North, has tasted the freedom of making local decisions - they will never allow your grandiose, all encompassing dictatorship to pass. Your dreams most definitely make Siyad seem a pushover. We shall see. We shall see.

Originally posted by Djib-Somali: More explicitely, the founding principle of Islamic Finance is risk and profit sharing in-lieu of arbitrary usury regardless of the actual results of the business or borrower's solvability. To illustrate it simply, an Islamic bank may lend you the funds for starting Thepoint cattle export company but you become de facto associates, in the sense of benefices as well as losses are distributed in function of the participation. Alternatively, the bank may purchase the trucks needed to transport the camels and lease it to you, though you may finally acquire the lorries by paying regularly an additional fee. I fully understand this part - when it comes to a business with the potential to earn a profit - you and the Islamic finance house share the risk and the profits. Here is the issue: Buying consumer goods on credit is not an activity that has the potential to earn a profit. So the collateral offered against the loan for the house or the car is the asset itself. And that asset will be repossessed on non-payment. This is exactly the same as western banks. In the above scenario, what is the risk that the Islamic finance house is taking? And how is different again?

At this point it really becomes straightforward Paragon. The answers to the questions below will decide whether this debate is fruitless or not. I await your responses to the questions below: 1- Do you believe that those who are opposed to the ICU should have thier blood shed as you claimed in your previous post? 2- Do you believe that the ICU should expand, militarily if necessary, to Puntland, Somaliland and Baidoa? 3- Do you believe that individual communities have the right to pick their own leaders and determine their own agendas? 4- Do you believe that no political grouping apart from the ICU should exist anywhere in Somalia? 5- Do you believe that there should be a modicum of accountablity to the public by allowing them to remove those in the ICU they have deemed harmful to their interests?

Originally posted by Paragon: ^^ThePoint, don't you see the dichotomy in your paragraph? It is like we are having a north-south debate on international development- them versus us. As far as I am concerned, Somalis are Somalis and there is no theirs or others' or even imposition of one ideology by one group on others. For Allah's sake, implimenting the Sharia by the community for the community is an imposition? That is the sort of question that came to my mind soon as I read your paragraph and I decided not to reply to it. There is no Us vs Them in my paragraph - but there is an Us and a Them. Just like you are an individual and I am an individual. There is a You and there is a Me. Do not conflate the two together. By labelling/including Me with You, you deny me my most basic self - you deny my very existance and humanity. 'Implementing the Sharia by the community for the community is an imposition?' - I don't see the community of Kismayo implementing the Sharia for itself - what I've seen is the ICU coming in to implement it for them. Is the community of Mogadishu(the ICU) the one who implements Sharia or whatever else in the Community of Hargiesa or Galkacyo or Baidoa? My belief is NO! The community of Mogadishu has no such right. If you really believed in the question you posed at the beginning of this paragraph - you would allow the communities of Hargiesa, Galkayco etc to impose Sharia for themselves rather than your desire to see it imposed by the ICU, a separate community. No. I don't. ThePoint, it says, ‘the Courts’ intentions have thus far been commendable’. I guess you were greatly anxious to lambaste a fellow with blasphemy. It is quite interesting how dramatic your questionings have become in your last posts, suggesting that I have made a claim to possess a God-like ability-Subxaanallah. How can I make you understand this without you becoming wild in reading the worst of sentences? I have no idea why you are misrepresenting your own quote - perhaps because you realize the errors of your ways. Here is your exact quote: "And I know, although there are always those engaged in smear campaign, the Courts’ intentions have thus far been commendable." Note the 'I know' at the beginning of your paragraph. You imply a certainty about the ICU's intentions. It really doesn't matter about the 'thus far'. Now how can you have a certainty about their intentions given only a few months? You can certainly say I believe/think etc. But 'I know'? The man you stand beside at Jumuah prayers every Friday - how can you know his intentions? You can certainly say his actions underline his intentions - but at this point with the ICU - no one can claim a certain knowledge about their intentions as you claimed. Now - if you would like to remove the 'I know' - then I would have little problem with your statement because it implies a belief. Nothing wrong with that. You have asked me how I have come to know the Courts intentions thinking that I claim to know what future plans the Courts have intentioned. That is the problem with haste; it impairs one’s sharpness and comprehension. I'll you this: what impairs debate and discussion is the slicing and dicing of quotes to come to a false argument. As you pointed out, their intentions would be known given time, but for the time that has gone; we know what their intentions were. There you go again claiming certainty about people's intentions - I'm tempted to throw out my accusation again - but I won't since it is Ramadan after all. I will not address the smear campaign part for now, but I will like to know more about ‘the dichotomy between their actions to date and their stated agenda’ which you have an issue with. State an example where they have made out an agenda and yet deviated from it by their actions? Only then can we discuss this point more deeply. On the issue of support or opposition, you say ’I am not opposed’ to the ICU, and you claim to be neutral yet again you are no longer neutral but opposed , in virtue of the ‘thrust of their tactics’. My issue is simply this: their stated intentions, on the whole, are Islamniimo and Islax. Yet their preoccupation at least as reported by the press is territory. There is takeover of most of southern Somalia and now Kismayo. And, previously, attempts at Baidoa and Galkacyo. Now why would a 2 month old movement be concerned with expanding territory rather than consolidating its gains and concentrating on delivering the fruits of its stated agenda. Because of this - I have my suspicions but I have not made up my mind as yet - I am neutral. Let me clarify things for you: the statements 'I am neutral' and 'I am not opposed' do not cancel each other out. That should be straightforward. The statement 'I am opposed to the main thrust of their tactics' is just that. You can be opposed to the tactics of someone you have known only for a short while - because they raise suspicions - but you don't have to be opposed to the person him/her self yet. It is early for that. Capische? What does that mean, ThePoint? If you oppose a man’s thrust of tactics, which I must translate as his actions, what else is there to support him for? Again, which of the two –opposition or condemnation- is more detrimental to a man? To be condemned and left alone or to be opposed and fought against? This is a bit hard to follow. So I will just skip to your next paragraph which has much relevance to this paragraph. Allow me to skip. There is no support or opposition - but as I showed in my previous paragraph - one's tactics for a short period of time do not necessarily define one. And to be clear - I said thrust of their actions(also can be labelled direction). I am not hasty to make judgements. Those who are opposing the Courts are crying foul- crying foul is the next stage to mounting an opposition. But that is beside the point. You said in your previous paragraph that you were opposed to the ‘thrust of their tactics’ and now in this paragraph that has changed to the ‘brunt of their tactics’. There is a difference between the two words – thrust and brunt. While the former one is velocity-induced, the latter one is impact-induced. Thus while you are opposed to the Courts’ speed of advance and expansion; you are also opposed to the impact or pressure of their rule. That is basically what I can derive from your use of ‘thrust’ and ‘brunt’. Am I therefore allowed to think that your issue with the Courts isn’t about their expansion to, say, Kismayo, but also you are against the impacts of their rule in Mogadishu? For specificity I will stick with 'thrust' - I was using 'brunt' and 'thrust' interchangeably but I see I wasn't being clear enough. My issue is about the military expansion plain and simple. As to the brunt of their actions - I say 'Yay' to no khat, no roadblocks etc. I congratulate them on that. But once again - I have no desire to see a military takeover to ensure that 'no khat' takes hold in Hargeisa or Galkacyo. That is mistaken. On the issue of who did what in Somalia, are you telling me the business and local organizations that back the Courts haven’t built schools, hospitals and even set up courts? Doing such things is good but not good enough. When I speak of the good being done, I mean good in general terms – such as collective efforts to change wider Somali society for the better. Building a clinic or a school is commendable but that is retail – I took part in such things myself and helped built hospitals, schools and mosques – still I felt that was in adequate. No, I didn't say so. This, however, is what you said: "those who stand opposed to the UIC have for the last 16 years done nothing good to alleviate Somalis’ hardship, they can be hardly considered a force for good." This is clearly a vast generalization. Now you have obviously tempered your generalization by saying that building hospitals etc is inadequate and grassroots politics is better. Fine - glad you cleared it up. But please let the people of Kismayo build up their political grassroots - why do you need to impose the Mogadishu grassroots on them. By all means advise them, support others who are sympathetic to your ICU model but military threat and intimidation? No thank you. What the Courts are doing is the collective good which makes other smaller goods worthy. So don’t get me wrong, I am speaking of another good, a political good. I don’t see how that can be considered ‘huge generalizations’. See your above quote for your huge generalization. Whatever I have done to discourage clan mischief, soon enough my efforts will come to fruition for you to enjoy. I don’t need to brag but the joint will of Somalis (and mine) to change matters for the better, has made us even more powerful than the Hercules you speak of. To affirm it to you, until you make a conscious decision to work for what is good for our people and make your decision materialize into action that makes real change, only then can you question the efforts of the ICU. Now stop arguing and do something. So sir, this is the raw fact. Get it? Adeer - You have certainly peaked my interest in your work in Somalia with all of those veiled references. Please do tell what you have done for Somalis and I will clap for you, in all sincerity. But until you do so - you have no right questioning my ability to raise concerns about the ICU's tactics or anything else for that matter. And you can't avoid this with charming homilies like 'soon my efforts will come to fruition' and 'I don't want to brag'. Put up or shut up. Allow me to rephrase your sentence, The Point. ‘Anyone who believes the universe is only about black and white choices is [not]a Neanderthal’. But anyone who doesn’t see things as clear as they are, must be dwelling in a permanent state of indecision. That isn't a good quality about a man, a man who cannot clearly identify one point from the other, or cannot tell white from black! The application of black and white approach is what Somali politics has been lacking since independence – and it is now that it needs more clarity than ever. Ah - it's important to not only read words but to comprehend them as well. I agree with you that it's not a good quality in a man to not identify black from white. What I said, though, it's not a good quality(in fact, neandrathalish) for a man to assume the universe is only black and white. Black and white is what Somali politics has been lacking since independence eh? Spoken like a typical dictator a la Stalin, Hitler, Mao etc. Lol. Sorry, The Point, my view of realist disposition goes beyond Kissinger and Scowcroft, and goes back to thousands of years to Thucydides. Your knowledge of realism seems to be limited to American Foreign Policy which doesn’t even consider the fathers of American realism. For your education, Bush didn’t create the words ‘with us or against us’, empires have fallen as a result of it in history. The references in both of our previous posts was to the Bush quote and America. Thus I used Kissinger and company. If you would like to educate me about the Greeks - please feel free. Empires have fallen as a result eh? Is this the essence of your grandiose dreams - empires? As I assume you know - empires have a history of neglecting the interests of their inhabitants and collapsing under their own wieght. PS: For the rest of your post, I am already bored in trying to answer your repetitive questions, so I will leave it at this. If there are specific questions that interest you more than others, then I oblige to answer them. Bored eh? Guess you want to spend your time dreaming, plotting and planning for the ICU empire. Bon chance!

^The British government could do more for sure. But there has to be more of a concerted effort for action in the home countries of these women. After all, is the British government supposed to care more about Lithuanian, Moldovan or Ukrainian women that their respective governments and societies? The other thing I find slightly odd - these stories of women lured by the promise of jobs and then trafficked is hardly unusual. So if you were a women in one of these countries, would you not be able to investigate these claims of jobs in some fashion or other before heading off? After all, these countries are not at African levels of destitution - you can telephone, look up on the internet, talk to NGOs, speak to embassy staff at the destination countries etc. I don't know - this certainly is no easy problem to solve.

LOL - what an enterprising fellow but 500 pounds is absolute theft. I wonder how anyone could pay that much for a driving test. I wonder if they made him return the money.

Originally posted by Djib-Somali: The fundamental difference is that usury based on interest rates eludes the risk factor to the consumer's detriment, a fact corroborated by the overwhelming human suffering througout history not least by farmers'suicide endemic in India for instance. According to Islamic rules for financing your house or car - the provider does not take risk either - he/she simply reposses your house or car in case of non payment just like the secular finance provider. And the Islamic finance provider also adds an amount for profit over and above that of the debt. Again this is similar to secular loan providers except they call their profit interest. So what is the difference again? Djib - you've simply failed to answer my question unless my paragraph above is mistaken is some fashion or other.

Originally posted by Miskiin-Macruuf- Legal in some countries but listed as a controlled substance in Canada since 1998, khat is typically chewed or made into tea . Allah! Really? What a fool I've been - if it is made into sweet tea - what possible reason can I have from staying away from it

Somehow - you've failed to respond to the essence of my argument in an earlier post - I wonder whether that was deliberate or not The point of this is that real change comes from within and must be determined by the community that is being held back. Just like in Mogadishu. The broader community in that city defeated the warlords and chose(hopefully) a better future for their city. Those who brought about that potentially better future in Mogadishu have no right to impose it on others - they can only demonstrate it concretely and invite others to it.

Originally posted by Paragon: Shame you speak of monopoly to invoke a reaction. There is no monopoly on goodness; but there is one on the opposite of goodness from your side. You are asking me, if assumingly in an innocent tone, ‘who are you’ to judge what is good. I will tell who I am. I am that one who sees when good is on the horizon and I clearly consider the UIC a force of good. Apparently, only you and like minded people can see good when it's on the horizon? Are the rest of us to be relegated to slaughter because you 'consider the UIC a force of good'? Let's try and aim for some sanity in this discussion, otherwise it becomes a waste of time. And I know, although there are always those engaged in smear campaign, the Courts’ intentions have thus far been commendable. Have you got a special God-like insight into their intentions? How does one judge a person's intentions, barring that God-like ability? Simply by their actions. To date, the ICU have focused on expansion of territory and power. This does not necessarily mean they have bad intentions - but their focus so far has certainly left me with suspicions. Their intentions will be known given time. Alongside those whose assigned role is conducting smear campaign are those who claim not to support a warlord, not to be neutral but yet claim to be opposed to the UIC. Smear campaign? Certainly not be me. I simply raised the dichotomy between their actions to date and their stated agenda. I am opposed to the warlords and I am neutral on the ICU - I certainly haven't condemned the ICU but I am opposed to the main thrust of their tactics so far and thus remain suspicious of them. However, when their opposition is scrutinized, they are quick to cry foul. If you stand in opposition to the courts, for whatever reason (because even the warlord has founded opposition) then you are simply against them, and since those who stand opposed to the UIC have for the last 16 years done nothing good to alleviate Somalis’ hardship, they can be hardly considered a force for good. Who's crying foul? These oblique references to 'others' and 'some people' do not make our debate any clearer. As I said, I am not opposed to the courts(it's a little too early for that) but I am opposed to the brunt of their tactics thus far. So, let's for argument sake's say I'm opposed to the courts, so why would you lump everyone else like me as having done no good in Somalia? There are countless individuals in all parts of Somalia who have opened hospitals, schools, wells etc. I'm sure you'll find some opposed to the ICU - are those people to be dismissed too? Your huge generalizations is the hallmark of fuzzy logic. So, ThePoint, if you stood around for sixteen years supporting or even not supporting a warlord, and did nothing against the mischief of your clan’s or another clan’s warlord, you are not in a position to question the good the UIC has done for the last few months. You either acknowledge their work or remain as mute as you were under the warlords that terrorised our people. That is the raw fact. Me do something against my clan's mischief? I eagerly await to hear all that you've done on that front before responding. By your logic above, until you show me all your Herculean efforts to combat clan mischief, you are in no position to question those who oppose the ICU or like me are suspicious. This latter point, sir, is the raw fact. On the point of intellectual maturity, anyone who fails to understand which side he should be supporting has no claim to intellectuality. If you must know, Bush may be deemed an id!ot , but the ‘you are you with us or against’ is a timeless wisdom of Realist disposition. Only the coward, due to overwhelming fear, gets confused as to which side he should support. If your intention is to disdain that sentence, then I tell you, ThePoint; your attempts are nothing but ‘intellectual masturbation’, from which nothing of value can be derived for the purpose of good discussion. Anyone who believes the universe is only about black and white choices is a neanderthal. And then to apply black and white to present day Somali politics - well what I can say. And for your education: The realist disposition in American foreign policy as espoused by Kissinger, Scowcroft et al is in direct contrast to Bush's famed 'You're with us...'. They advised to take each case on its merits. So you would have other Muslims live under warlords? Or do you consider the warlord a devout Muslim? More importantly, are you saying the tyrants who mistreat Muslims, although they claim to be Muslims, should not be dealt with altogether? What human decency are you talking about then? Where was your human decency in the last 16 years? Why did it not compel you to fight against the human wrongs across Somalia? I don't want other Muslims to live under warlords. However, that doesn't mean I think the solution is to launch a military response. This is the moronic logic of Bush. As to the human decency I'm talking about - it's the one where one doesn't get slaughtered because one opposes the ICU as you espoused in an earlier post. I am fascinated to learn about your valiant efforts on behalf of Somalis - since you keep demanding to know what I have done. I eagerly await your response. ThePoint, I tell you one thing; if you or another Muslim or in this case the whole of Somalis, lost their mind and dwell in inhumanity, I will come to knock some sense and humanity into them. Is this what you do in life regularly - knock sense into people? Your neighbour is abusing his wife - you go over and knock sense into him? Keep on with that strategy - you will go far. Somalia has lost dignity and decency during the last 16 years of carnage, and you are talking about human decency now. Shame! You speak of something escaping from my own people and killings. If anything escaped my own people it is basic human decency and there are those who are giving to our people that which had escaped them. I wonder why you are opposed to it. I will tell you again, if you oppose me in my quest for what is good for our people, you become an enemy. Let's get one thing clear: Human decency and dignity does not emerge from the barrel of a gun! Again - I am opposed to people, such as yourself and the ICU, who claim that human decency and dignity will be restored by military takeover after military takeover. The two are simply incompatible. 'Enemy'! You have an extremely self-righteous view of yourself - I do oppose your thinking. I await your mighty sword. No, those haven’t asked to be liberated were drug-dealers, who demonstrated the day the Courts took over Kismayo. Their concerns are motivated by greed. However, the majority of reer Kismayo celebrated and slaughtered camels for the UIC forces. Get your facts correct sxb. The Courts have pacified Mogadishu and have replicated the same in Kismayo, Bualle and other villages surrounding Kismayo. So, yes, this replication will continue till the entire country is under their control. So no one who demonstrated was other than a greedy drug dealer? You have a tendency for extremely obnoxious sweeping statements. I don't know who the protestors were - I readily accept that some may have been part of the 'khat lobby'. Nor do I assume that the residents of Kismayo are against the ICU. But - according to how politics works in Somali society - I am not informed of any grouping of elders going to Mogadishu and requesting the ICU come and take over. If you are aware of such a mission, please do share. Barring that - I think anyone who claims that Kismayo residents welcome and support the ICU is premature to say the least. I don’t need to show you any proof for your short-comings. The cliché is this. Every Tom, Dick and Harry says I need proof to this and proof to that – or I need proof to my inherent lack of understanding. Most probably what is needed here is self-reflection to revise own perception and values. And so ThePoint, the creation a dichotomy of ‘us’ and ‘them’ or ‘ours’ and ‘theirs’, which is evident in your arguments is reliant on a segregated Somaliness. Generally, reasonable and logical people provide proof for their accusations. You accused me of having a segregated view of Somaliniimo - and yet you provided no proof to back that up. Apparently on your planet of Pluto - there is only a giant amorphous 'we' sucking up everything and everyone. Let me educate on how things work on Earth - your friend, his house and his car is properly termed 'theirs' since it doesn't belong to you. Your own self, your house and your car is properly termed 'ours'. Simply because there is an 'ours' and a 'theirs' does not consign you to perpetual hostility and enmity - in fact, it is better if both of you work together to increase both of your assets. But, you CANNOT have any human decency and dignity without recognizing the right of others to 'theirs' - for if you don't, you deny them a basic humanity.(which, as an aside, you seem to be doing in your constant baying for blood and territory for the ICU)

I want to ask my learned brothers and sisters something that I've found rather odd. With all Islamic financing of consumer goods like houses or cars - a profit amount is added to the cost of the item. How is this fundamentally different from interest - where a profit based on a percentage rate is charged to the consumer/buyer?

^EIBOR = Emirates Interbank Offer Rate; the rate at which banks lend to each other; obviously the average consumer will have to pay more than that. It's not just Musharaka on offer; Mubaraha asks for 25% of price.

Originally posted by Paragon: Yes, if you stand in opposition to what is good and state your support for a Warlord, then your blood would be shed. Sir - you have no monopoly on goodness nor do those for whom you cheerlead. And let me educate you - you can be in opposition to a faraway group taking over your city/region etc without supporting any warlord. Your guantlet reminds me very much of one George W. Bush - You're either with us or against us(You are either for the ICU or for the warlords). Your argument above has about the same level of intellectual maturity. Again, after sixteen years of cheer-leading for a Warlord, if you are still insistant that I and others should join the cheering, then you are up to no good. And then so be it if your blood is shed. I do not and have never cheer-leaded for any warlord. And nor do I ask anyone to cheerlead for any warlord. But I do find it extraordinary that anyone claiming any shred of Muslim-ness should wish for the domination and takeover of other Muslims through military means. And I also love the casualness with which you dismiss other people's humanity and pronounce that the shedding of their blood is legitimate. I suspect you know the Islamic rules on that. And even if you didn't, simply human decency dictates that one does not simply kill those who oppose one. But somehow that escapes you - and saddest of all - it escapes you with regard to your own people. So you would rather have us support that which has no goodness in it? Compare the results of 4 months to that of 16 years. If you are still making excuses for Warlords, then you have no point in appealing to Muslim-ness or goodness. We have suffered far too long not to know what brings goodness. The Courts bring goodness. I don't ask you to support anything. I simply ask you to uphold Islamic principles and common human decency. See paragraph above for further details. I also don't make excuses for anyone - I simply ask the courts to enact their stated agenda of Islamniimo and Islax. So far they've seemed to concentrate on expanding territory and power. Sorta undermines their stated agenda no? Yes, it is the Islamic way to demonstrate goodness in one, and that is what the Courts are doing. All Somalis are one community and liberating them means liberating us. I can see you have segregated Somaliness in your mind - a Somaliness that alienates one from the other. Exactly the sort of the Somaliness the warlord and his supporter use to divide among us. For me, others are the neighbouring countries - the non-Muslim ones. If anything, I would expect them to follow the example of Somalia if things work out. In Somalia, there is no such dichotomy of 'us' and 'them' as far as I am concerned. If there was such a thing, then I tell you, it ended with the end of the warlord's era. Get over it. If people did not ask for their liberation and some are protesting and demonstrating - it really calls into the question the liberation to begin with. Nor have the ICU demonstrated much evidence of goodness apart from their pacfication of Mogadishu. They have seemed to concentrate on other things. I have not segregated Somaliness for anyone nor have you shown any proof of that - you've simply thrown out yet another accusation. It is clear that Somalis have lingering clan divisions - that is a reality that must be dealt with. I suspect if Abduallahi Yusuf suddenly claimed he was reformed and had become a reborn Muslim - you would not welcome him with open arms. As I suspect many of his kinsmen would not. The point of this is that real change comes from within and must be determined by the community that is being held back. Just like in Mogadishu. The broader community in that city defeated the warlords and chose(hopefully) a better future for their city. Those who brought about that potentially better future in Mogadishu have no right to impose it on others - they can only demonstrate it concretely and invite others to it.

^I will donate money to which ever one of you, Sharif or Me, ends this thread. Big Bucks I tell ya!