He did not die fighting for his country. He died fighting to remain in power at the cost of thousands of dead, billions in damages and hundreds of thousands of refugees having fled. Just because you dislike the way this happened doesn't mean you whitewash his crimes of 40+ years.

GoldCoast;752368 wrote: Such shortsighted and almost dogmatic thinking is incredible. Incredible especially because you'd assume Somalis who are aware of the trends of their conflicts and the groups within it might have learned something along the way. But alas, it seems all it takes is for a black and white narrative for everyone to lose all logic. These mantras of AlShabaab being evil and satanic child killers obscure a more complex issue at here. It can easily be established that this group has played a negative role in Somalia. However to argue that they are the ONLY factor that contributes to instability, conflict, famine etc. is laughable IMO. You don't have to support AlShabaab to acknowledge the negative roleforeign intervention has played in this conflict. You don't have to support AlShabaab to recognize that this type of unnecessary escalation is the exact thing that could serve as a catalyst to unite its divided leadership. I also find it incredibly dishonest for people to pretend their key reasons for supporting it are with regards to civilians well being and what could be done to them by alShabaab. This invasion, if sustained, will do untold damage to areas already under a famine crisis. The only groups who have been operating to provide medical attention among other things will be forced to pull out. This will contribute directly to more deaths than alShabaab could dream of combined. There is a reason MSF the same organization whose workers were kidnapped( supposedly by AS) have completely condemned and disassociated themselves from the invasion. They've stated there is zero info on the identity of the kidnappers and do not agree with this escalation taken on their behalf. They've also added that it will place their doctors under great distress throughout Southern Somalia and will negatively impact civilians. Considering this its quite clear this is politics at play and not humanitarian interest. This is without touching upon the fact, its campaign will likely fail in "defeating" AS. So what exactly is the rationale for supporting this? I'm not sure why you're getting worked up. This will likely play out as we have already seen - Shabab vacates towns and villages and Kenyans move in. After a sufficient amount of time Kenyans will declare victory and leave. And they won't have accomplished much. I don't forsee a great humanitarian disaster. I can see a rationale for supporting this - that is if you believe that Al-Shabaab is the greatest single obstacle to peace and progress in the south(which it is) and you believe that this invasion will serve to weaken them or destroy them. I just don't believe they will weaken or destroy Shabaab - at best they will give them some karbaash and humiliate them. Additionally, the way Kenya went about this is highly improper and objectionable. However, I can understand the domestic and likely foreign pressure that precipated this invasion.

ailamos;750908 wrote: You're trying to say that polygamy stems out of Pagan societies? If so, then didn't Pagans have their own polytheistic religions? And did these religions not consider polygamy as the norm of their societies? It's a twisted argument when you state that "the ban on polygamy in fact based on religion" when, at the same time, it was practiced by religious (not to mention Abrahamic) communities i.e. when the law instituted by Justinian, the early Christian emperor, it banned Jews from entering into several marriages, not to mention that polygamy is taught in the Bible (e.g. David's seven wives including those of Saul). Furthermore, just a quick FYI, polygamy was not the natural social order before the religious institution as you, and other religion apologists, tend to elude to. Polygamy was prevalent and perhaps more widespread than monogamy, but to say that monogamy was first instituted by Christianity simply a fallacy. Several indigenous populations, such as certain Aztec tribes of the past and those of the Andaman islands of the present, were and are monogamous, even though they are construed as Pagan because of their Animist beliefs. Additionally, the reforms of Solon in the 6th century BC instituted monogamy as the sole legitimate family form, preceding Justinian's rule by some 1000 years, and the advent of Christianity by some 500 years. Here I'm simply saying polygamy is not specific to religious people or religion per se. You earlier alluded that the US banned polygamy because it was the practice or habit of other religions. It is not. I'm glad you acknowledge that the Islamic ban on alcohol is an infringement on one's liberties (we've been given the gift of reason, it is up to the individual Muslim to make the choice of whether to drink alcohol despite God's words). They are apples to oranges because if Person A wishes to have a polygamous marriage, 1:n, under the pretext of religious right, and Person B wishes to have alcohol under a personal right, i.e. the said person is having a drink by his/herself, they are not one and the same, are they? Furthermore polygamy is legal in secular countries such as South Africa, where it is strictly regulated as to prevent gender inequality that is prevalent in customary patriarchal societies. Both are an infringment of one's liberties. That was the similarity that was being argued earlier. The rest here is beside the point. We can also theorize about all sorts of things. We can theorize, if you wish, that since Shari'ah acknowledges slavery and the keeping of concubines, that it is legalized, applied, and eventually abused. And because it was prevalent in Muhammad's (SAWS) time, and he also kept slaves and concubines, then why not bring it back? Because we're talking about a system in which "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space", are we not?** So due to this "consistency", theoretically speaking, slavery and concubinage cannot be rescinded. You're putting up a straw argument here. You're the one who claimed that the secular system and its ability to change laws at will was an advantage. Instead of addressing that - you've chosen to side step. First off, let's be clear, there is no assault on religion here, so there is no need to be defensive. I will be the first to say that religion has brought a lot of good to the world, however religion has also led to many injustices and crimes. I am certain that you'll be quick to dismiss that and state that "every other system has it's pros and cons", which is (and will be) a fair statement. This is not unlike one that is oft-heard in Muslim circles around the world, wherein the negative aspects of religion are quietly swept under the rug, and in most (all?) cases completely unacknowledged*, while the positive aspect are glorified and touted left and right. By this dismissal, through the comparison of the cons of other systems, you're not only ignoring the wrongs committed by religion but you are, at the same time, exasperating self-righteousness. Not defensive - i just find it odd how some people choose to hange everything negative on religion. Why don't people talk about how athiests Stalin and Mao committed terrible crimes in imposing that sytem etc. I don't know where you arrive at my 'ignoring wrongs committed by religion'. Where it is reasonably clear that folks are misusing or abusing religon to further a moral wrong - I stand ready to condemn it. Instead of citing cases like this you seem to be simply generalizing again. *= see earlier point. Fair enough point. Which present countries would you say are evidence of "proper Sharia" states? **= see earlier point. So, you're basically saying that a decision by the highest Sharia court is irreversible since it is based on a system wherein "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space", whereas decisions by the Supreme Court, contrary to your supposition, are reversible by overturning earlier precedents. Can you prove that is the case with the highest Sharia court, contrary to the notion that Islamic "morality and ethics is consistent over time and space"? There are no countries that are proper Sharia states sadly. Contestability is different from reversability. If the latter is what you meant earlier - then there may be some laws that would be reversible in a Sharia/Islamic court. Those laws that society has formulated to govern itself could be subject to revision and amendment. Those laws that are the mandate of God would be different. They wouldn't be reversible or amendable. On this - I would ask - are there any laws in the United States Constitution that for practical purposes are not reversible even though technically every man made law is reversible? The answer is yes. In that sense this purported difference between the two systems is in reality and in practice a sham.

ailamos;750162 wrote: The fact that the US bans polygamy, because the Supreme Court decided to call it "an offense against society" is indeed an infringement on one's liberties. The reason, in my opinion, that polygamy is illegal is because if it is legalized under the pretext of religious observance, then it will open the doors for all sorts of excuses based on religion. This, I think is one of the benefits of a secular system, that it levels the playing field by not playing favorites, and hence, equality before the law. Furthermore, if polygamy is legalized, you can bet that the legalization of polyandry will follow. I think we all know why polygamy was instituted in Islam, but that situation no longer applies but it's still being applied because, like I said, of the immutability of religious doctrine. Having said that, I have no qualms against families that practice polygamy (nor polyandry for that matter) provided that the written consent of the spouse be mandated as well as permission from a Shari'ah court. As for your comparison of polygamy to alcohol, I say apples and oranges because of the underlying pretexts, i.e. one is considered by some a "religious right" and the other is not. How did you come to the conclusion polygamy was somehow 'religious' or based on religion? Traditional societies(ie pagan) have been polygamists for thousands of years and are still. The ban on polygamy is in fact based on religion, Christianity - and there is no such thing as a level playing field here. And it is in fact playing favourites. The ban on polygamy is as you acknowledge 'an infringement on one's liberties'. Similarly the ban on alcohol in Islam is also such an infringement. It is up to you to prove the claim that they're apples and oranges with respect to your earlier argument about secular systems not 'regulating the way people choose to live their lives with the threat of punishment' Yes, that is an advantage. Maybe it will bring back slavery and rescind women's rights, (two notions which were based on religious conservatism) and maybe not. However, the current trend of the evolution of humanity points to the contrary. A system that theoritically could bring back what we both agree to be social ills is somehow advantaged by the fact that its law making procedure allows it to regress on morality and ethics? I think you have a lot of work to prove this advantage. How did you come to the notion that slavery and lack of women's rights were based on religious conservatism? You remind me of those people who ascribe everything negative to religion particularly alien religions. Women can't drive or vote in Saudi? - because of religion. Women get beaten up or undergo FGM in Somalia? - because of religion. Maids are maltreated in the UAE? - because of religion. Etc. The fact is patriarchy, chauvinism, opportunism, preying on the weak etc has always existed. Separate from and apart from religion. Don't ascribe to religion what could be based on other things. Those leading the fight against slavery were the Quakers and other religious people. Those leading the fight for women's suffrage had many Christian believers. Presumably if slavery and the lack of the women's vote were based on religious conservatism - these folks wouldn't have participated in these battles. You really don't have a sound argument here. The fact that these unfortunate events happen in the name of 'religious law' and are merrily justified as 'God's will' is undeniable. Simply saying that "Saudi Arabia is not a Shari'ah system" does not negate the fact that it IS a system based on (a certain interpretation of) Shari'ah and that has been reiterated time and again by the religious leadership of that country. Shari'ah has its pros and cons, just like any other system. However, I do not agree with the incontestability of such laws because of their supposed decree by God, hence opening the doors to the abuse of the system. I wonder if a solicitor can successfully contest in a Shari'ah court that, although the Qur'an states it is allowable for a man to have four wives, that the reasoning behind it no longer applies today and there is no need for it. Saudi Arabia is not a Sharia state. Simply having willy-nilly elements of Sharia doesn't actually make it a proper Sharia state. Similarly simply having elections a la Mubarak's Egypt does not make you a democracy. I don't think this concept requires much elaboration. Again you're making a mythical claim for the secular system vis-a-vis Sharia. Contestability ends somewhere in the secular system. It's called the Supreme Court. Similarly contestability ends with the highest Sharia court. But you have the right to contest in Sharia any law you wish to. However you have to abide by the courts decision similar to the secular system. I don't care whether any one person is anti Sharia or pro secular. What I do care about is making sound and logical arguments for your opinions if you so desire. So far you have not.

ailamos;749981 wrote: There is no double standard there. There was no mention of polygamy in the US. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife so be it, provided the opposite is true. Equality before the law I say And since you brought up polygamy, I am certain if enough people were for it that it would be legal in the US right now. Look at the prohibition, they tried banning alcohol, with stiff penalties, and that gave rise to Al Capone, eventually it was repealed, legalized, taxed and regulated, because the position of the populace differed. Huh?? I'm not sure why you're skirting the issue but just to clarify. Is polygamy illegal in the USA? Yes. Is it a punishable crime? Yes. Is the ban against polygamy an example of 'the law should not be regulating the way people choose to live their lives with the threat of punishment'? Yes. Does this legislation differ substantively from the Sharia ban on alcohol? No. Is there anything in this narrative you wish to dispute? Because the view of society on certain matters might change. Take a look at slavery, women's right to voting, etc. However in Shari'ah you have Huduud, whereby a punishment is fixed because the person has committed a "transgression against God". For example, if a person is found innocent after being convicted of theft then that person will have lost a hand. Punishments such as these, I think, have no place in society (see next comment). How else should laws be made if not at "the whims" society? Aren't laws made for societies? If yes, then should they not be made by societies? So presumably if the view on society changed we could, theoretically, bring back slavery and rescind women's right to vote. Is this really an advantage? In Islam morality and ethics is consistent over time and space. As Muslims we believe certain laws are the prerogative of God who created mankind and knows what is best for him. Where you put traffic lights and whether to build a new school is something society can set the rules for. Punishment is fixed in many secular societies. There are sentencing rules and minimum penalities. If a person has been convicted of a crime in a secular court and it later turned out he was innocent he would have lost 20 years of his life. Have you heard of the Innocence Project in the states?? You've made no point here - travesties of justice happen in all systems. According to who's interpretation, yours, mine or the mullah down the street? At the end of the day it will be up to the people of a country that is 99.99% Muslim, as Norf put it, who will decide on which course to take, whether it is that of state-level secular governance like Turkey, Shari'ah like Saudi or a hybrid like Malaysia & Indonesia. If society can have a consensus on one system, then the ride will be smooth and there is no reason for debates such as this, but when there are differing voices as to which legal system to adopt, then accommodation must be made and the assumption must not be made that every Muslim will go for Shari'ah. Sharia is based on precedent(as in English civil law) and the consensus of the scholars. At the end of the day it will be upto each society to decide what course to take. And whatever Saudi Arabia is - it is not a Sharia system. What would be helpful is if Muslims who are against Sharia knew what they were talking about. As in not reducing an entire system of governance to the chopping of hands and the stoning of women. Or claming incorrectly that secular systems do not legislate morality when in fact they do.

^Glad to see our scumbaginess isn't as bad as others! What is the answer to the thread's title? Poverty? I don't think those chauffered ladies of Saudi Arabia with multiple maids are poor. Is it they have a lot of kids unwillingly? But she needs a lot of kids to provide for her old age given the poverty of her situation etc. There is no price necessarily for oppressing your women. It's simply wrong and unjust and should be tackled on that basis rather than on the basis of selective anecdotes.

The correct answer here would be put a white man in charge or better yet an East Asian-)

^^ "The law should be not be regulating the way people choose to live their lives" But it is already. A man in the United States can't marry more than one woman. If you do there is a punishment. Presumably you're ok with this set of laws regulating how people live their lives but you have a different standard for Sharia laws. Why? How does the fact that these laws can be changed in the future make it any better? It is still about 'regulating the way people choose to live their lives'. And the ones in the future could still be about yada yada yada. In fact, this makes it completely arbitrary subject to the whims of society and the zeitgeist of the times. You can trespass any rule of Sharia you want but to legislate on a societal level something clearly against Sharia is contrary to the faith. The point here is that the faith or lack thereof in any one individual isn't that important. As to your last point - Sharia is a just system as envisioned by the Creator. Its application reinforces the one true faith. Ie in Islam to break a business contract willfully is a sin - Sharia allows recourse for the aggrieved party in court. Thus the system provides a feedback loop to faith.

ailamos;749880 wrote: I think what I stated above explains my reasoning very well. If not, then please be specific as to where I am being unclear. As for my statement, there are several different 'forms' of Muslims e.g, some who want to give equal shares of inheritance to both their sons and daughters, some (women) who may fall in love with a non-Muslim and would like to marry him, some who may have an (alcoholic) drink occasionally, and so on. To have Shari'ah is to force everyone (whether you are a "liberal" Muslim or a "conservative" Muslim) in one pot and tell them: "look you're a Muslim and this is how you should live your life because you're obviously too incompetent to make your own decisions regarding your faith". A secular system will tell you none such, you are your own regulator of faith because faith is between you and The Almighty. I am of the opinion that no one should force their version of morality on others. People should be able to come to their own conclusions regarding faith, God and how to live their life. I personally think it is a form of weakness in faith that one should require fear of punishment in order to be a good Muslim or a decent human being for that matter. And that people who have a necessity for such rules suffer from moral poverty. You have a blinkered view of the way the world works. Sharia is a system of laws and regulations. As is the social democracy practised in Sweden or the system as practised in the US. Just like a law in those latter systems can be broken - so can laws under Sharia be broken or circumvented. So your 'liberal' Muslim could without fear drink in the privacy of his/her own home. She could marry a non-Muslim and could divide assets as she wishes provided she could deal with the consequences under the law. All sytems of governance legislate morality and consequently force them on others. Why does Sweden not allow one man to marry 2 or more women who sincerely desire to marry him while allowing 2 men to get married? Why does the USA not allow women to abort a fetus in the 3rd trimester? Why in Norway must a successful enterprising fellow pay 50% tax rates in order to fund someone who won't work? Why did Malta until a few months ago ban divorce? Try breaking these rules and telling the respective justice systems that 'you are your own regulator of faith because faith is between you and The Almighty'. All systems of human governance are based on faith. Either faith in the reason of man to arrive at correct laws or faith in the will of a higher being to legislate most matters for humans. Or a blend of the two. Sharia is not about enforcing individual faith through the rules/punishments - it is about establishing justice, manifesting and reinforcing faith on a broad level. It is not about whether one individual or a group sins/breaks the law. That doesn't affect the integrity of the system.

^Don't you know - you can't state that you're not a big fan of Mo Farah(even if it's because his Q-ball of a head)? See the first page. So you hate talented Africans who leave their crappy countries to seek their fortunes where they can?

^Good to hear. There are no real stats on divorce in the Somali community but it's not a minority just on anecdotal basis. I'm not sure why there is shoulder shrugging about it tho. While it is an available option in Islam - it is really disliked. Sometimes I think Somalis could do with a bit of that Arab culture that puts a real stigma on divorce and propels couples to find a solution to their problems. Especially when there are kids.

^Saw that. Poor scapegoats. The end result of Gadaafi's meddling in Africa is injustice and oppression for Africans in their respective countries and in Libya itself.

Ngonge - due process is good in itself but it's not going to make any difference to these migrants. There is no naturalization law and the end result of the due process is deportation. Abu - no country permits unrestricted migration. There are too many downsides to that. How the Somaliland government has gone about this is mistaken but utlimately free migration of Oromos into Somaliland is not a desirable long term phenomenon. There has been quite a bit of friction between Somalis and Oromos in Kilinka 5ad particularly in the south with the Boran. I don't think the relations between the 2 groups is all that rosy despite the many commonalities. If Somaliland or Somalia had an actual immigration policy - I agree that Oromos would be good candidates for immigration especially those with education or capital. But we're clearly not at that stage. Folks making comparisons with the fact that Ethiopia permits free movement of Somalis into its territory to this new 'policy' are under a mis impression. Somalis live and have lived in the territory that is within Ethiopia for centuries. Crossing into this territory from Somalia proper is not comparable to an Oromo moving to Hargeisa. Somalis didn't make these borders and when Ethiopia pushed Britain to take over this region it knew that it was dealing with nomads for whom this border meant nothing. Which is why the present policy is as it is.

These Libyan tribes are peasants compared to Sadaam Hussein's well armed well financed and organized Tikriti tribe. How can Gadaffi's tribe protect him when Sadaam's tribe failed? They'll dump Gadaffi when they see that he's not coming back.

^For the vast majority - there isn't much of a case - they're economic migrants struggling to make it. And as far as I know - there isn't an official Somaliland immigration policy that would grant them residency. This whole announcment is pointless. If you're serious about the Oromos then you start with controlling your border, finding out how and where these ppl are coming in. And by limiting the pull factor that is bringing these people in. Why should the person who hires the illegal Oromo suffer no consequences when they're complicit in breaking the law by hiring them? How can you be a supporter of these deportations when you employ illegals? These folks are not coming in to beg on the streets - they could do that at home in their own language. As Somalis we should be especially sensitive to this sort of half assed scapegoating when no real effective policy is being articulated let alone being implemented.

War dadkaan wa yaab. It is possible to walk and chew gum. Simply commenting on this man's death doesn't mean starving Somalis are being ignored. Jack Layton was a force for good in Canada. He will be missed.

A young child sits in a modest seat in front of a computer and a room full of expectant people. He presses a button, and the computer tells him where to begin reciting from and where to stop. What happens next is an incredible string of intonations and harmonious poetry that sail out with eyes closed. It’s a stunning feat of memorization, and a testament to the beauty of an ancient language and text. This is the world’s oldest Koran memorization contest, and in Koran By Heart, director Greg Barker tells a sweetly compelling story about three of the youngest competitors. There are few documentaries that get every element right, but this is certainly one of them. It takes the base of a competition film and uses the space to tell rich, vibrant stories about a group of talented young people who (in almost all cases) are shining examples in communities that struggle to support potential. More than that, it’s an introduction to another side of one of the world’s largest religions that seems to see Western headlines most whenever a bomb goes off in a public place. However, it’s not a defender of the faith by far, because any political or social commentary that emerges is straight from the people on screen and never from those behind the camera. The three children in the spotlight here are all ten years old – an impressive feat considering that they’re competing against much older children. Nabiollah is from Tajikistan, and he’s trying to get into a private school in Dushanbe after the government shut his rural school down in an effort to crack down on religious extremists. Rifdha excels in all of her studies, but her father wants her both to be perfect and to be a housewife when she grows up. Djamil has traveled to Cairo for the event on his own, leaving family in Senegal behind. All have memorized the 600-page Koran. None of them speak Arabic. What’s at the center of this fantastic film is a coming-of-age story that takes place halfway across the world (at least from where I’m sitting). The success of it all rests on the ingenious way in which Barker and company have told those stories in both a familiar and a foreign way. These children could very well be headed to the National Spelling Bee, but their futures (both familial and societal) are contentious and not at all in their hands. The complex underpinnings of each story are never lost on the production, and neither are the opportunities for postcard-esque shots of Cairo, Maldives, Senegal or Tajikistan. Somehow, a careful balance was struck, and nuanced moments win the day over the kind of ham-fisted politicking that might have infected the event at the hands of a different documentarian. Even though there are many different religious and societal viewpoints at work, none of them loses momentum or is given the short end of the stick – Barker lends even time to Rifdha’s encouraging mother and to her rigid, traditional father, for example. There’s a sense in this film of a world community which continues to disagree with itself, but all of those debates are silenced at the sound of a young child’s voice singing its most holy scripture. That glorious recitation punctuates the movie with soul-cradling excerpts from the children in the competition. One child brings tears to the judges’ eyes, and it’s easy to see why. At the heart of the story is an incredible art. After all, no matter the deep thinking that’s present in this compelling flick, the truth of it all is that the children are just so damned talented and adorable. It’s like watching Alvin and the Chipmunks lose themselves in the word of God. What they’re doing is amazing both for the hard work involved and for the beautiful, melismatic result. The same stomach-sinking moments that exist whenever children compete in movies are present here, but there’s a touch of magic to the rest of it simply by engaging these extraordinary kids and their families. Plus, the look of the film is sleek and professional, propelled by interesting cinematography that’s been edited together with serious skill. Political commentary, theological lesson, and coming-of-age story all calmly wrapped up together, Koran By Heart is a kind piece of filmmaking in a weary world. Trailer - http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xk756o_hbo-documentary-films-summer-series-koran-by-heart-hbo_shortfilms

puts on helmet A little overboard with Turkish love. Better if he stayed home and donated the cash equivalent of his trip. Or give residence to the Somalis in Turkey who flee to a hostile Europe because they're unable to stay.

^Actually there was a Somali boy killed - Ismail Haji Ahmed. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/02/world/europe/02norway.html

Put it all on there since NYT requires a subscription beyond a token number of free articles.

“Even in Muslim-majority countries, there is a huge debate about what it means to apply Islamic law in the modern world,” said Andrew F. March, an associate professor specializing in Islamic law at Yale University. The deeper flaw in Mr. Yerushalmi’s argument, Mr. March said, is that he characterizes the majority of Muslims who practice some version of Shariah — whether through prayer, charitable giving or other common rituals — as automatic adherents to Islam’s medieval rules of war and political domination. It is not the first time Mr. Yerushalmi has engaged in polemics. In a 2006 essay, he wrote that “most of the fundamental differences between the races are genetic,” and asked why “people find it so difficult to confront the facts that some races perform better in sports, some better in mathematical problem-solving, some better in language, some better in Western societies and some better in tribal ones?” He has also railed against what he sees as a politically correct culture that avoids open discussion of why “the founding fathers did not give women or black slaves the right to vote.” On its Web site, the Anti-Defamation League, a prominent Jewish civil rights organization, describes Mr. Yerushalmi as having a record of “anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black bigotry.” His legal clients have also drawn notoriety, among them Pamela Geller, an incendiary blogger who helped drive the fight against the Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero. A stout man who wears antique wire-rimmed glasses and a thick, white-streaked beard, Mr. Yerushalmi has a seemingly inexhaustible appetite for the arguments his work provokes. “It’s an absurdity to claim that I have ever uttered or taken a position on the side of racism or bigotry or misogyny,” he said. When pressed for evidence that American Muslims endorse the fundamentalist view of Shariah he warns against, Mr. Yerushalmi argues that the problem lies with America’s Muslim institutions and their link to Islamist groups overseas. As a primary example, he and others cite a memorandum that surfaced in the federal prosecution of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, a Muslim charity based in Texas whose leaders were convicted in 2008 of sending funds to Hamas. The 1991 document outlined a strategy for the Muslim Brotherhood in the United States that involved “eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within.” Critics emphasize a page listing 29 Muslim American groups as “our organizations and the organizations of our friends.” Skeptics point out that on the same page, the author wrote, imagine if “they all march according to one plan,” which suggests they were not working in tandem. Nevertheless, a study by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center to be released next week found that only a minority of American Muslims say that domestic Islamic groups represent them. It also concludes that American Muslims have as much confidence in the judicial system as members of other faiths and are more likely than the other groups to say that elections in the United States are “honest.” “There’s a conflation between the idea of Islam being a universalist, proselytizing religion and reducing it to a totalitarian movement,” said Mohammad Fadel, an associate professor specializing in Islamic law at the University of Toronto. “All good propaganda is based on half-truths.” Reaching Out The movement took root in January 2006 when Mr. Yerushalmi started the Society of Americans for National Existence, a nonprofit organization that became his vehicle for opposing Shariah. On the group’s Web site, he proposed a law that would make observing Islamic law, which he likened to sedition, a felony punishable by 20 years in prison. He also began raising money to study whether there is a link between “Shariah-adherent behavior” in American mosques and support for violent jihad. The project, Mapping Shariah, led Mr. Yerushalmi to Frank Gaffney, a hawkish policy analyst and commentator who is the president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington. Well connected in neoconservative circles, Mr. Gaffney has been known to take polarizing positions (he once argued that President Obama might secretly be Muslim). Mr. Gaffney would emerge as Mr. Yerushalmi’s primary link to a network of former and current government officials, security analysts and grass-roots political organizations. Together, they set out to “engender a national debate about the nature of Shariah and the need to protect our Constitution and country from it,” Mr. Gaffney wrote in an e-mail to The New York Times. The center contributed an unspecified amount to Mr. Yerushalmi’s study, which cost roughly $400,000 and involved surreptitiously sending researchers into 100 mosques. The study, which said that 82 percent of the mosques’ imams recommended texts that promote violence, has drawn sharp rebuke from Muslim leaders, who question its premise and findings. Mr. Yerushalmi also took aim at the industry of Islamic finance — specifically American banks offering funds that invest only in companies deemed permissible under Shariah, which would exclude, for example, those that deal in alcohol, pork or gambling. In the spring of 2008, Mr. Gaffney arranged meetings with officials at the Treasury Department, including Robert M. Kimmitt, then the deputy secretary, and Stuart A. Levey, then the under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence. Mr. Yerushalmi warned them about what he characterized as the lack of transparency and other dangers of Shariah-compliant finance. In an interview, Mr. Levey said he found Mr. Yerushalmi’s presentation of Shariah “sweeping and, ultimately, unconvincing.” For Mr. Yerushalmi, the meetings led to a shift in strategy. “If you can’t move policy at the federal level, well, where do you go?” he said. “You go to the states.” With the advent of the Tea Party, Mr. Yerushalmi saw an opening. In 2009, he and Mr. Gaffney laid the groundwork for a project aimed at state legislatures — the same year that Mr. Yerushalmi received more than $153,000 in consulting fees from Mr. Gaffney’s center, according to a tax form filed by the group. That summer, Mr. Yerushalmi began writing “American Laws for American Courts,” a model statute that would prevent state judges from considering foreign laws or rulings that violate constitutional rights in the United States. The law was intended to appeal not just to the growing anti-Shariah movement, but also to a broader constituency that had long opposed the influence of foreign laws in the United States. Mr. Gaffney swiftly drummed up interest in the law, holding conference calls with activists and tapping a network of Tea Party and Christian groups as well as ACT for America, which has 170,000 members and describes itself as “opposed to the authoritarian values of radical Islam.” The group emerged as a “force multiplier,” Mr. Gaffney said, fanning out across the country to promote the law. The American Public Policy Alliance, a nonprofit organization formed that year by a political consultant based in Michigan, began recruiting dozens of lawyers to act as legislative sponsors. Early versions of the law, which passed in Tennessee and then Louisiana, made no mention of Shariah, which was necessary to pass constitutional muster, Mr. Yerushalmi said. But as the movement spread, state lawmakers began tweaking the legislation to refer to Shariah and other religious laws or systems — including, in one ill-fated proposal in Arizona, “karma.” By last fall, the anti-Shariah movement had gained new prominence. ACT for America spent $60,000 promoting the Oklahoma initiative, a campaign that included 600,000 robocalls featuring Mr. Woolsey, the former C.I.A. director. Mr. Gingrich called for a federal law banning courts from using Shariah in place of American law, and Sarah Palin warned that if Shariah law “were to be adopted, allowed to govern in our country, it will be the downfall of America.” Also last fall, Mr. Gaffney’s organization released “Shariah: The Threat to America,” a 172-page report whose lead author was Mr. Yerushalmi and whose signatories included Mr. Woolsey and other former intelligence officials. Mr. Yerushalmi’s legislation has drawn opposition from the American Civil Liberties Union as well as from Catholic bishops and Jewish groups. Mr. Yerushalmi said he did not believe that court cases involving Jewish or canon law would be affected by the statutes because they are unlikely to involve violations of constitutional rights. Business lobbyists have also expressed concern about the possible effect of the statutes, as corporations often favor foreign laws in contracts or tort disputes. This is perhaps the only constituency that has had an influence. The three state statutes that have passed — most recently in Arizona — make corporations exempt. “It is not preferable,” Mr. Yerushalmi said. “Is it an acceptable political compromise? Of course it is.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/us/31shariah.html?pagewanted=1&ref=middleeast The New York Times The Man Behind the Anti-Shariah Movement By ANDREA ELLIOTT Published: July 30, 2011 NASHVILLE — Tennessee’s latest woes include high unemployment, continuing foreclosures and a battle over collective-bargaining rights for teachers. But when a Republican representative took the Statehouse floor during a recent hearing, he warned of a new threat to his constituents’ way of life: Islamic law. The representative, a former fighter pilot named Rick Womick, said he had been studying the Koran. He declared that Shariah, the Islamic code that guides Muslim beliefs and actions, is not just an expression of faith but a political and legal system that seeks world domination. “Folks,” Mr. Womick, 53, said with a sudden pause, “this is not what I call ‘Do unto others what you’d have them do unto you.’ ” Similar warnings are being issued across the country as Republican presidential candidates, elected officials and activists mobilize against what they describe as the menace of Islamic law in the United States. Since last year, more than two dozen states have considered measures to restrict judges from consulting Shariah, or foreign and religious laws more generally. The statutes have been enacted in three states so far. Voters in Oklahoma overwhelmingly approved a constitutional amendment last November that bans the use of Islamic law in court. And in June, Tennessee passed an antiterrorism law that, in its original iteration, would have empowered the attorney general to designate Islamic groups suspected of terror activity as “Shariah organizations.” A confluence of factors has fueled the anti-Shariah movement, most notably the controversy over the proposed Islamic center near ground zero in New York, concerns about homegrown terrorism and the rise of the Tea Party. But the campaign’s air of grass-roots spontaneity, which has been carefully promoted by advocates, shrouds its more deliberate origins. In fact, it is the product of an orchestrated drive that began five years ago in Crown Heights, Brooklyn, in the office of a little-known lawyer, David Yerushalmi, a 56-year-old Hasidic Jew with a history of controversial statements about race, immigration and Islam. Despite his lack of formal training in Islamic law, Mr. Yerushalmi has come to exercise a striking influence over American public discourse about Shariah. Working with a cadre of conservative public-policy institutes and former military and intelligence officials, Mr. Yerushalmi has written privately financed reports, filed lawsuits against the government and drafted the model legislation that recently swept through the country — all with the effect of casting Shariah as one of the greatest threats to American freedom since the cold war. The message has caught on. Among those now echoing Mr. Yerushalmi’s views are prominent Washington figures like R. James Woolsey, a former director of the C.I.A., and the Republican presidential candidates Newt Gingrich and Michele Bachmann, who this month signed a pledge to reject Islamic law, likening it to “totalitarian control.” Yet, for all its fervor, the movement is arguably directed at a problem more imagined than real. Even its leaders concede that American Muslims are not coalescing en masse to advance Islamic law. Instead, they say, Muslims could eventually gain the kind of foothold seen in Europe, where multicultural policies have allowed for what critics contend is an overaccommodation of Islamic law. “Before the train gets too far down the tracks, it’s time to put up the block,” said Guy Rodgers, the executive director of ACT for America, one of the leading organizations promoting the legislation drafted by Mr. Yerushalmi. The more tangible effect of the movement, opponents say, is the spread of an alarmist message about Islam — the same kind of rhetoric that appears to have influenced Anders Behring Breivik, the suspect in the deadly dual attacks in Norway on July 22. The anti-Shariah campaign, they say, appears to be an end in itself, aimed at keeping Muslims on the margins of American life. “The fact is there is no Shariah takeover in America,” said Salam Al-Marayati, the president of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, one of several Muslim organizations that have begun a counteroffensive. “It’s purely a political wedge to create fear and hysteria.” Anti-Shariah organizers are pressing ahead with plans to introduce versions of Mr. Yerushalmi’s legislation in half a dozen new states, while reviving measures that were tabled in others. The legal impact of the movement is unclear. A federal judge blocked the Oklahoma amendment after a representative of the Council on American- Islamic Relations, a Muslim advocacy group, sued the state, claiming the law was an unconstitutional infringement on religious freedom. The establishment clause of the Constitution forbids the government from favoring one religion over another or improperly entangling itself in religious matters. But many of the statutes are worded neutrally enough that they might withstand constitutional scrutiny while still limiting the way courts handle cases involving Muslims, other religious communities or foreign and international laws. For Mr. Yerushalmi, the statutes themselves are a secondary concern. “If this thing passed in every state without any friction, it would have not served its purpose,” he said in one of several extensive interviews. “The purpose was heuristic — to get people asking this question, ‘What is Shariah?’ ” The Road Map Shariah means “the way to the watering hole.” It is Islam’s road map for living morally and achieving salvation. Drawing on the Koran and the sunnah — the sayings and traditions of the prophet Muhammad — Islamic law reflects what scholars describe as the attempt, over centuries, to translate God’s will into a system of required beliefs and actions. In the United States, Shariah, like Jewish law, most commonly surfaces in court through divorce and custody proceedings or in commercial litigation. Often these cases involve contracts that failed to be resolved in a religious setting. Shariah can also figure in cases involving foreign laws, for example in tort claims against businesses in Muslim countries. It then falls to the American judge to examine the religious issues at hand before making a ruling based on federal or state law. The frequency of such cases is unknown. A recent report by the Center for Security Policy, a research institute based in Washington for which Mr. Yerushalmi is general counsel, identified 50 state appellate cases, mostly over the last three decades. The report offers these cases as proof that the United States is vulnerable to the encroachment of Islamic law. But, as many of the cases demonstrate, judges tend to follow guidelines that give primacy to constitutional rights over foreign or religious laws. The exceptions stand out. Critics most typically cite a New Jersey case last year in which a Moroccan woman sought a restraining order against her husband after he repeatedly assaulted and raped her. The judge denied the request, finding that the defendant lacked criminal intent because he believed that his wife must comply, under Islamic law, with his demand for sex. The decision was reversed on appeal. “It’s wrong to just accept that the courts generally get it right, but sometimes get it wrong,” said Stephen M. Gelé, a Louisiana lawyer who represents a nonprofit organization that has promoted Mr. Yerushalmi’s legislation. “There is no reason to make a woman play a legal game of Russian roulette.” While proponents of the legislation have seized on aspects of Shariah that are unfavorable to women, Mr. Yerushalmi’s focus is broader. His interest in Islamic law began with the Sept. 11 attacks, he said, when he was living in Ma’ale Adumim, a large Jewish settlement in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. At the time, Mr. Yerushalmi, a native of South Florida, divided his energies between a commercial litigation practice in the United States and a conservative research institute based in Jerusalem, where he worked to promote free-market reform in Israel. After moving to Brooklyn the following year, Mr. Yerushalmi said he began studying Arabic and Shariah under two Islamic scholars, whom he declined to name. He said his research made clear that militants had not “perverted” Islamic law, but were following an authoritative doctrine that sought global hegemony — a mission, he says, that is shared by Muslims around the world. To illustrate that point, Mr. Yerushalmi cites studies in which large percentages of Muslims overseas say they support Islamic rule. In interviews, Islamic scholars disputed Mr. Yerushalmi’s claims. Although Islam, like some other faiths, aspires to be the world’s reigning religion, they said, the method for carrying out that goal, or even its relevance in everyday life, remains a far more complex subject than Mr. Yerushalmi suggests.

"The hours are too long in the west" or " I want to be served first class and not lift a finger that month". Can't imagine anyone saying that - are you sure you're not projecting your own thoughts on others?

Urban legends this descent from Arabs. According to wikipedia: According to Y chromosome studies by Sanchez et al. (2005) and Cruciani et al. (2004), the Somalis are paternally closely related to certain Ethiopian groups, particularly Cushitic speakers:[38][39] "The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population − closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya − with predominant E3b1 [E1b1b1] cluster lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000−5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa."[38]