Originally posted by Salafi_Online: Bro NUr Islamic unity is absolutely crucial and obligatory, but is it feasible? .... The usual rant on “Islamic unity “is superficial and simplistic at best. There is no consensus on what we should agree or unite upon.... Hmmm - I thought it was the Quran and the Sunnah as the Prophet himself has said. The consensus is ahl al sunnah wal jamaca within the parameters set by the Prophet, his companions et al. Calling this other than Islam or the sunnah makes Islamic unity less feasible. Originally posted by Uthman1: And unity will only be brought about once we adhere to the Quran and Sunnah and interpret it like the way of the salafs, whether you name this order Salafism or not is irrelevant because this is the true teachings of islam. and 'interpret the way of the salafs'?? Isn't the interpretation supposed to be the way of the Prophet, his companions and other learned scholars agreed upon by knowledgeable Muslims? Who are the salafs - did the above mentioned call themselves that? Why are you calling them that? And naming it salafism is relevant - since you're putting on a label that they did not give themselves. If it is the true teachings of Islam - then call it just that. Don't add a man made label. Originally posted by xiinfaniin: What I don’t hear you say, or, worst yet, seem to be taking it lightly, however, is the weight of the salafi term. It’s very significant, my good brother, to judge each and every term by its merit. Despite this discussion’s audience’s tacit disapproval of continuing this tread, I would like you to either invalidate or affirm my understanding of your stance about labels and names (other than Muslim of course): do you deem them all divisive and unnecessary? Remember my good brother what I am taking issue with is your depiction of Salafism as a label that helps in dividing the Ummah in to sects. That’s very gross charge, mind you, against what I consider the attitude and approach of our Islamic forefathers, so to speak! I await your answer! Those supporters of salafism and salafis claim that it is back to basics and the true teachings of Islam. If it is so - why would you add a label? If it is the truth that everyone should be seeking and practising - adding a label other than 'truth' is inherently divisive. It signifies my truth(as forumlated by X, Y and Z and given a label) as opposed to God's truth. If salafism is other than back to basics and the true teachings of Islam - then the label has merit in the sense that it distinguishes it an offshoot from Islam much like the labels Shia or Druze etc. And of course in this case - it hardly merits defending.

Originally posted by Rahima: Perhaps not you, but we all know that certain folks oppose them for just that . Some of our people rejoice at what they perceive as the downfall of the enemy tribe. I still find it amusing how some are crying day in day out about how supposedly evil the courts and Sh. Hassan Dahir Aweys are, when all they have done thus far is positive and not to mention they have the support of their constituents (that alone speaks volumes about them). As with any human entity, none can claim the courts to be perfect, but it’s interesting how some are like I said hell-bent of trying to tarnish them. An obsession with how others might perceive X or Y in terms of clannishness is hardly healthy. I'm not sure it's much better than the clannishness itself.

^Interesting back and forth Baashi and Valenteenah. Valenteenah - I wonder whether you are prepared to concede that, notwithstanding the sensible scenario you presented - the duties of taking care of and raising children are many times more rewarding and valuable for both the individual parent and society at large than a career. Of course, not all women are clones who should be forced into such a role especially if they can balance things as your scenario suggested. However, and this is in general - what bothers me is the vogue for debasing and slighting motherhood and all that it entails for the wondrous world of work. It is a totally inverted way of thinking.

JZK on all your hard work Viking. I find this need by some ppl to denigrate Islam and Muslims at every opportunity repulsive.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: ^^Very good! I am begining to like your reasoning ! Salafism is also a descriptive school that adheres to a particular approach in exacting jurisprudential verdicts, good Point. Ever heard الإ ستدلال السلÙÙŠ (istidlaal a-salafi)? What that basically means is to adopt a restrictive approach in terms of formulating proofs in solving fiqh issues! It doesn’t mean however living back in time and ignoring new realities! It’s very critical to understand this concept of Salafism especially when doing scholarly Ijtihaad! People who consciously attack this concept understand what it entails; true adherence to the scholastic learning of that era! You of all people shouldn’t get thrown out of balance upon hearing this word! You shouldn’t view it in a negative light. Indeed I think we should all appreciate the religious significance of this concept! Roots of most fundamental principles of our Islamic sciences were put down during that era. Processes of validating ahaadiith were argued and agreed up on. Theological positions were solidified and settled. Sophistry aside, Salafism is a good label. To argue that we all be satisfied calling ourselves Muslims, though commendable a call, is missing the point of this discussions. You see, you are not cracking a hole in your Muslim identity if you subscribe to the Shaafi’ school. Likewise[edit] you are not doing any harm by categorising yourself as a Salafi. Oh come on - restrictive interpretations is the correct way to go about it - since we are taught to remain conservative in matters of religion. And one subscribes to the Shaafi' school - one is not a Shaafist(unlike a 'Salafist'). A legitimate and well-recognized school of jurisprudence. But this salafist label has emerged in the last few years. And if it is the process as you've described above - it hardly needs a label since it describes the very religion of Islam.

^^Institutionalized education is not a waste of time. It is only a waste of time to those who sleep thoroughout the lessons.

Becoming educated and seeking knowledge are the correct goals in anyone's life. As to the method - institutionalized education is not the best method for everyone. But let's face it - life in the modern world demands accredited education. And running to house-wifery as opposed to choosing it is not the best way to go about it.

Originally posted by sheherazade: quote:Originally posted by Mr. Red Sea: Malaysia, Indonesia, Pakistan, Kashmir, all these places I can understand because we have some important thing in common, religion, but Vietname? Probably, you have seen those old Vietnam war movies, where Rambo (Sylvester Stalone) lights the day light out of the those Vietkongs, I wonder if that is offensive term, vietkongs? Anyways good trip, carry on. Originally posted by Northerner: ^^You are right, the whole of Asia is not worth it apart from the countries you mentioned plus Maybe Pakistan/Kashmir. Its easier for some to just get up and leave :rolleyes: People like to identify with something so that they can be right about it. They will like what is familiar to them(because it is similar to who or what they are and since they like themselves they will like what they see and they can then celebrate being right about being right all along). It's dizzying and insular. Travelling just to be right is just wrong. 'The whole of Asia is not worth it apart..'. Now that is one hell of a sweeping statement unless u have been to the whole of Asia and deemed it unworthy except for some parts, don't u think? There is little point in traveling to insular and culturally closed societies such Japan or South Korea. Japan the second richest country on earth barely permits any immigrants. I don't know about you but I generally wanna enjoy myself and learn while travelling. And to keep the 'alien' factor as low as possible. From all that I know about certain parts of Asia - this would be tough.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: ^^By logical extension labels such as al-ansaar and al-muhaajiriin do not sit well with you then, no? There is no harm in subscribing to Salafism yaa Point! It's a good label, i say. Those labels are hardly in the same category Xiin - shame on you These labels are descriptive of the qualities of people or actions that they took. They in no way define their religion or belief system which a wrong-headed label like 'salafist' tries to do.

^Djib - enemy talk is so cliched - Somalis are their own worst enemy. No need to drag any others in. Yo-Yo - Warlord support before the ICU emergence is something I don't quite fully understand myself. But some ppl were just grasping for some semblance of a federal government for Somalia, however deeply flawed, after umpteen years of disorganization. And thus they supported warlords and TFG. After the emergence of ICU and the reports of their desiring to take control of Baidoa - some suspicions have inevitably grown. Let's hope that the ICU doesn't realize them.

^Good Xiin - our appellation has been given to us by God as stated in the Quran. How can you in good conscious refer to yourself as anything but a Muslim? If people desire further information - it's ahl al sunna wal jamaca Any other appellation or label you give yourself with regard to Islam would be mistaken my friend

^I don't know. But have you guys actually asked these people why they support the warlords and Ethiopians instead of dismissing them as crazy etc. That makes you a partisan of the UIC as much as these others are partisans of the warlords.

^I find this self labelling very strange. There is no question that the Sunnah is the only correct path for a Muslim. Why can't you follow the Sunnah to the best of your ability without being labelled anything other that a Muslim. And do ppl really refer to themselves as 'Salafis'? I find that totally wrong.

But how could it not be! He's a westernized former nomad much like you guys. Very few O.N.(Original Nomads) left out there.

Nope and if it was - that is so not funny

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Somalia has suffered enough and its human misery seems to have refused to fade. But if there were ever a meaning to war, this one [the looming one] is utterly justified. I see some people here who are openly clapping for Ethiopia’s pending invasion (it’s not an invasion as such as they have crossed that imaginary border many times before). They are misreading these current events and Ethiopia won’t save their day! It never did. One thing is for sure: Ethiopia won’t be able to enter Mogadishu and having them in Baydhabo is frankly useless. Somalia’s political equation will remain unresolved, as long there are some parties who refuse and boycott negotiated settlement and continue to count on foreign help to exact favorable outcome. Mark that one down yaa asxaab! [/QB] I don't think it's in the interests of any future Somalia to have one monolithic group with all the cards - be they ICU or TFG. And personally, I have suspicions about wadaads who seek power and territory. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt for now. The best outcome is for some sort of negotiated settlement that would allow both parties to show what they can do in the respective areas under their control. Then, hopefully, the rest of the populace can choose whichever group has proven themselves in governance.

^Malaysia and Indonesia interest me and China too. Maybe Vietnam with Sheh's tales now too. But the rest don't at all. The cultures are too closed - can u imagine asking for directions in Japan?

Originally posted by Alle-ubaahne: The Somali people are united now behind the Islamic Courts and ethiopian forces will learn a formidable lesson in tresspassing our territories. This war will give us an excuss to touch down Addis Ababa and claim more than they invaded from us, including the Tigrey land, inside the mainland of ethiopia. Let's roll down, my fellow country men, in our famous heroic Islamic Spirit, insha-Allah. A little bit too jingo-istic for endeavours that will involve death and destruction, no? :confused:

Originally posted by sheherazade: ..I keep getting cancelled on.. Sure

Originally posted by Asxabul_kahf: First all brother or sister' I dont know what to say about your last comment- because if i tell you to fear allah- are you saying i am not daacad? are you saying no one will take me serious untill i loose the righteous tone? how should i talk like- use words that are full of nifaaq- by the way this is just to warn all people ' us included. Everyone is painted with a black brush- guilty before innocence with words like this. pur·port·ed -Assumed to be such; supposed: the purported author of the story. Supposed: Presumed to be true or real without conclusive evidence. Allegedly-Represented as existing or as being as described but not so proved; supposed. Depending on the context - when someone says 'fear allah' - the implication is that those to whom they say that don't fear allah. That is a self righteous tone - do not assume that people don't fear allah. Purported, supposed, allegedly are all words indicative of some doubt as to the facts. Thus they simply cannot be as you put 'painted with a black brush' nor are they 'guilty before innocence' since, again, these are words indicative of doubt! :eek:

Originally posted by Paragon: ^^You don't think he has any connections, previous or present, to Ethiopia? No? Another question is: in this TFG gangster parliament, is he not the head? If you don't blame the head, whom should you blame, the toes? I said there is no reason to single him out but of course as head of the TFG he bears some blame. And of course he has connections to Ethiopia past and present and nowhere did I indicate otherwise.

Originally posted by ibtisam: I think the reasons people (married couples) have problems is because the women stays at home all day by her self, and when he gets in tried from work, she talks his ear off about how long it too her to make lunch, and how she made it. then the resentment starts from there.... she thinks she is not getting enough attention, he is like "give me a break, I've been working all day, you did jack all". she is like "how dare you!! it took me 2hrs to cook today and another 2hrs to clean, not to mention your endless shirts i ironed" :eek: :rolleyes: A little too pat, no?!

Originally posted by Paragon: Who are we kidding here. Although I might commend Duke's u-turn in condemning the intervention of Ethiopia in Somali matters, we cannot, at any time, believe the notion that Gheedi and Jurile, are the ones ordering Ethiopians into Somalia! That C.Yussuf is ceeb-ka-saliin . Please! These two men (Gheedi & Jurile) are and always have been the vessels of C.Yussuf's power. Any war, intervention or restlessness that comes to Somalia which involves Ethiopia fairly and squarly falls on Ina Yussuf's shoulders. No one else is to blame. If Ina Yussuf is innocent of these allegations I make, then, let him make clear his position and say: I am not with the Ethiopians and that it is these two men who are inviting them. Only then could we even entertain the thought of the old man being innocent. I doubt Ethiopia needs anyone's permission or orders to protect its interests in Somalia. And its interests are to prop up the TFG government as a whole. Far be it from me to defend Yusuf - but it's hardly only his skin on the line. The entire warlord cabinet/MPs is encouraging this development to save themselves. Thus, I don't understand singling out Yusuf as the blameworthy party vis-a-vis Ethiopia.

^'So called' is hardly name calling. And the only reason I called them 'so called' is because this purported action to invade Baidoa hardly comports with the actions of true Muslim leaders. One other thing - if you want people to take your comments as dacaad - lose the lecturing, self righteous tone.

You gotta love these so called wadaads - since when was it the behaviour of true Muslim leaders to conquer another Muslim territory. As if they don't have enough to do in Mogadishu itself.