To the above, it helps to add the term's technical meanings and usage so that it is better understood. This term can have either a general or specific connotation. Its proper general usage refers to the period of time before the beginning of the revelation to Prophet Muhammad, salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam. That was an age during which ignorance and misguidance completely prevailed and no one was upon the right path. The People of the Book were following religions which had by then become corrupted and the inhabitants of Arabia were predominately pagan. With the coming of the revelation, that period of general Jaahiliyyah ended. The period since then has been one throughout which the final, universal revelation will remain preserved and protected by Allah, unlike the previous revelations, and rightly-guided adherents of Allah's religion will exist among humanity at all times. The Prophet, salallahu 'alayhi wa sallam, foretold that some aspects of Jaahiliyyah will persist and deviations will occur among the Ummah, but there will always be some Muslims who are on the right path and the world will remain as such until the Day of Judgment. It is for these reasons that <a href="http://www.islam-qa.com/en/ref/103660/jahiliyyah" target="_blank">scholars make the distinction between the age of general Jaahiliyyah and the specific remnants and reminders of it in the present day, saying that the term cannot be applied generally to all modern societies or whole Muslim societies. That would imply that Muslim societies have totally lost touch with Islam and have returned to the state of the pre-Islamic age and that no one in those societies is on the right path anymore, which would be a false idea. Certain types of attitudes and behaviours found among Muslims can be said to be of ignorance, but such statements have to be kept specific and restricted. I once misused this term in another section of SOL by applying it sweepingly and incorrectly (may Allah forgive me). No one corrected me at the time and the mistake dawned on me much later. Hopefully, others will avoid making a similar mistake.

Time flies, rudy. Next Ramadan may come even faster. Let us hope we live to see it with strong imaan and good health, insha'Allah. The Fasting & the Furious ilminar posted above is a recording from last year's online broadcast. This year's broadcast will air live on Sunday, August 8 at 7:10 pm (EDT). To tune in, make your RSVP at this link.

The Blessed Month is less than a week away. To help us maintain the right frames of mind, here is a beautiful presentation containing a clip from Sheikh Muhammad al-Mukhtaar ash-Shanqeeti's heart-warming lecture on the nature of life and the importance of gaining Allah's Pleasure. Followed by Muhammad ash-Shareef's ilminar on how to stay motivated throughout Ramadan and gain maximum benefit. The Fasting & the Furious

The second article above is excellent. Britain is also deeply involved as we know, though the article does not mention that. Its involvement in the Central and Southern Asia region goes much further back--as far back as its invasion of Afghanistan in 1839--than that of America and it, too, supported 'militants' and their 'ideology' during the anti-Soviet war. By their definition, the only difference between 'freedom fighters' and 'terrorists' is whether those people serve their interests or not. People who are promoted as 'freedom fighters' one day will be labeled 'terrorists' the next simply because they have stopped towing the line or are no longer useful to the interests of the Western elite. In other parts of the Muslim world, they have used Islam-oriented movements and 'militants' to destabilize or topple secular, nationalist, and even fairly democratic regimes that were not serving Western elite interests. In that regard, there is a history of the Western elite, particularly those of Britain, using the religion angle to exploit and manipulate Muslims (and everyone else) in order to further their plans for a New World Order. It is happening even today. Besides oil interests, the global drug trade is another big factor in their agenda in Afghanistan. It is said to be the third-most profitable trade in the world, next to oil and arms, and most of the multi-billion dollar profits go to criminal/business syndicates in Western countries. Money shapes policies. The American and British governments also have histories of spurring and protecting the drug trade, as well as being directly involved in drug-trafficking through their intelligence agencies. The British and American governments' role in Afghanistan shows how pro-drugs they are, despite their pretensions otherwise. The period of the anti-Soviet war, which they fostered through their intelligence agencies, was when Afghanistan was transformed into a big opium producer for the first time. They continued to support their favoured drug lords during the Afghan civil war that followed, as Pirbhai's article notes, so opium production continued to grow. The Taliban disrupted the illicit trade when it successfully enforced its ban on opium cultivation in 2000, but the invasion quickly set things back on track by deposing the Taliban, installing a puppet regime filled with drug lords, and putting America and Britain in a position to directly control and now even subsidize the global drug trade at one of its key sources.

Good initiative, Nur. Though I don't think the Shabaab leaders would listen to anything I have to say, seeing as they don't even listen to the 'ulema, it is worthwhile to have threads like this for the sake of enjoining good and forbidding evil in a general sense and exchanging ideas. There is a lot wrong with the Shabaab. Some of it can perhaps be said to be a continuation of questionable beliefs and practices they inherited from their predecessors among the political Islamic groups in Somalia and some of it seems to be foreign, un-Islamic elements they have adopted from external sources. I think all of the anti-occupation groups did much good in fighting the occupation and, by Allah's Mercy, most of the foreign troops were forced to leave within a relatively short period of time. But the Ethiopian withdrawal and the TFG's makeover were part of a change in strategy on the part of the US and its allies--from one of confrontation by proxy to one of mainly Divide & Rule--and, unfortunately, I think the groups that were known as the Muqaawama generally failed to properly adjust to that strategy and rise above it. They all lost some credit with me for that reason alone. The Shabaab, however, have gone off the deep end to such an extent that their self-defeating policies and excesses only make sense when you view its leadership as assets of foreign interests. (Their taking credit for the recent Kampala bombings only reinforces that idea.) That is a very unpleasant realization to make when you are hoping for an independent, Islamic alternative to all of the fragmented puppet entities throughout Somalia and instead, you find seemingly opposing sides that they are almost all puppets. I think the roots of the Shabaab's problems lie in their leadership's failure to do the following five things: 1. Adhere to what Allah has revealed, rule by it, and stay upon the middle path 2. Safeguard the collective interests of our people and the well-being of civilians 3. Have substance: a coherent political program, visible leadership, and open decision-making processes 4. Remain under the guidance of the 'ulema and people of knowledge 5. Know who their real enemies are and why they are fighting them In all fairness, just about every other political group and entity in Somalia can be said to be guilty of some, most, or all of the abovementioned points, but of course it does not make them any less true in the case of the Shabaab.

Nur, Brother, your view of the (mainstream) media--and I think what you have described is indeed the mainstream media, even though you spoke in general terms--is understandable. I can very much relate to it. The mainstream, corporate-owned or government-owned media does serve the interests of a small but powerful few and it is generally aimed more at influencing how people think and behave, rather than actually conveying the truth. But there is also alternative, independent media, which tends to be very different, so we can't paint the media as whole with the same brush. At the end of the day, if we want to keep our minds our own, it is up to each of us to learn how to recognize and filter out the propaganda so that we can at least gather the basic facts and form our own conclusions about what is going on in the world. My contention with things like grave excavations and public punishments being turned into media spectacles is not so much about what the media does with the videos and pictures it captures at those scenes, but about why the media is invited there with its cameras in tow to begin with. It would be one thing to invite members of the media without their equipment as witnesses, but it is another to allow a free-for-all. Especially since those groups that claim to be implementing Islamic rulings have no news mediums with which to minimize or counter the propaganda that can be expected to be used to stir public opinion against them and, more importantly, against Islam. Earlier in the thread, you mentioned the hadith about the Sahaba who took of the body of Prophet Daniel (peace be upon him) out of his tomb and buried him in an unknown grave in order to hide it from those who venerated the tomb. Notice the wisdom of the Sahaba (peace be upon them all), who they did what they had to do under the cover of night, and compare that to those people who invite Al-Jazeera to the scene so that it broadcasts footage of grave excavations to every corner of the world. The incidents of punishments-turned-media-spectacles are worse. I mentioned the case of the Quran, an amputated hand, and a blood-stained knife being put on display for the media. It happened in Kismaayo in May, 2009, and Al-Shabaab did everything there on the spot and on its own. It was not a case of the media taking footage of an amputated hand and superimposing an image of the Quran, for example. Tricks like that are used to manipulate audiences into making the kind of associations that the spin doctors in the newsroom want them to make and the post-9/11 propaganda piece you mentioned is an example, but there was no need for that in the Kismaayo case because the unthinking Shabaab did all the work for the spin doctors in advance. I hope you understand what I'm getting at. It is as though they prepackage the propaganda or provide a lot of fodder for it and I find that, among other things, very suspicious. They seem to pick and choose what they expose to the media too. There have been a few reports over the years of them executing alleged spies caught in their midst by line of fire, yet no videos or pictures of those incidents have ever surfaced. When the method of punishment has more shock-value, however, such as limbs being cut or someone being stoned, the stage is set for a media frenzy. You said the motives of a crime make a big difference. Before Allah, yes, and in a court of law, perhaps. In the media, however, the actual effects of someone's deeds or misdeeds are what matter most. When those factions do or say ill-conceived things that can be used to repel people from Islam or from the implementation of the Shari'ah, whether they did it with good intentions or not would make no difference.

There is no way to gauge anyone's intentions to find out whether they are truly doing something for the sake of Islam, but we can at least determine whether their actions are in accordance with Islam or not. Islam generally does not allow for graves to be disturbed, but there are circumstances under which legitimate exceptions are made in accordance with the Shari'ah. There are circumstances under which it becomes permissible or even obligatory to excavate a grave or demolish a mosque, for instance. So when we hear about such things, it is necessary to step back and see what Islam says about it first, rather than being quick to make judgments based solely on our own thinking and feelings or based on how people in the media spin their stories. That BBC article is quite loaded and biased. The writer misleadingly depicts the political faction that calls itself 'Ahlul Sunnah' as being representative of the views and values of most Somalis, whom he says are 'Sufis', in order to rationalize its war with its rival faction, Al-Shabaab. He peddles a presupposed idea, without bothering to establish its validity, that the two groups' opposing views on grave veneration have led to an ideological war between 'Sufis' and 'Wahhabis'. It is a false idea, but I gather its validity is of no relevance. The objective isn't to relate news in a factual and balanced way, it seems, but to divide and stir up conflict among Muslims by promoting (in the place of the war on Islam) an ideological 'war within Islam'. He makes it seem as though there is a 'Sufi' doctrine that allows grave veneration and a 'Wahhabi' doctrine that forbids it, but if those labels he uses can even be applied to the groups he speaks of, then technically 'Wahhabism' and 'Sufism' are a movement and a branch, respectively, within the broader fold of Sunni Islam. Sunni Islam has only one accepted position on the adornment and veneration of graves. The Quran speaks firmly against it, the Sunnah strictly forbids it, and all four schools of fiqh uniformly agree upon it being forbidden. That is where the ideological conflict hoopla falls apart. Clearly, if a person or group--be it even one branded as 'Sufi' or bearing some other Islamic-sounding label--defends the adornment and veneration of graves, their position has no basis in any Sunni madhab. It is not 'Wahhabism' they have a problem with in that case, but very basic principles and rulings of the Quran and Sunnah and their implementation. That said, what Islamic teachings and rulings stipulate in principle and how people implement them in practice are two separate matters. Even when a stance or decision is correct in principle, there may be failings or shortcomings in its application. So when people make it a point to reasonably criticize the methods of any group or entity which claims to be implementing Islamic rulings, it is understandable and, in fact, necessary. There is a need for approaches that are balanced, prudent, well-thought-out, and compassionate. Yet that is precisely what the factions in Somalia, especially those that claim to implement Islamic rulings, lack. I don't even have to dig deep to find the wrongs in their activities. I need only look at their propensity to turn everything from corporeal punishments to grave excavations into crude media spectacles. What is the purpose of them having pictures and videos taken of Muslims' bodies and remains as their graves are being excavated or as they are being stoned to death? What is the purpose of them taking someone's freshly amputated hand and, like a toy, putting it on display for media alongside the Quran and a bloody knife? I don't view those types of deeds as mistakes or things done out of ignorance. It shows they have no regard for how their senseless actions humiliate those on the receiving end, nor for how they may give people negative impressions of Islam and actually repel them from it.

Thanks for sharing. It's a very interesting topic. Sheikh Abdullah Hakim Quick, who is also a historian, has written and lectured a lot about it. Muslims have had a presence in the Americas and the Caribbean since before the arrival of Columbus so the role of Muslims in the Bahia slave revolts is just one part of the long yet still little-known history of Islam in this part of the world.

Some of the articles above mention that, according to a survey by WardheerNews, a purported 70% of Somalis support the so-called Somali pirates. Most of the Somali-written articles and commentaries I have read on the subject have actually been (rightfully) very questioning and critical of the shipping piracy, so I highly doubt that obscure survey of 15 people offers an accurate reflection of informed public opinion among Somalis. Piracy is un-Islamic and it has an overwhelmingly negative impact on Somalia. What good reason is there to support, defend, or justify it? The piracy that takes place off the Horn of Africa is technically of two types--foreign piracy and shipping piracy--and the reality is, both piracies are exploitative and destructive criminal activities. (Though not in the same ways or to the same extent because due to its sheer magnitude, severity, and duration, the foreign piracy has had a devastating impact, matched and surpassed only by the US and UN-sponsored destruction on land.) The foreign pirates pollute and plunder. They rob people in Somalia of resources, food security, livelihoods, and the basic human right to live in a clean environment. The shipping pirates, on the other hand, are a destabilizing force. They promote un-Islamic lifestyles, hamper Somalia's sea trade, impair the livelihoods of average people, impede the most basic survival needs of the poorest, and feed a shadow economy of crime (with more revenue than the regional administrations that supposedly govern the areas in which they are based), which in turn corrupts and undermines all of the authorities/structures that are supposed to maintain law and order. They have also provided a pretext for a so-called war on 'piracy', which, among other things, is an extension of the discredited war on 'terrorism' by other means. That is to say, when all things are considered, there is no Good Guys vs. Bad Guys duality. The two piracies go hand-in-hand in terms of their crippling effects in Somalia. The foreign piracy creates poverty and underdevelopment while the shipping piracy creates disorder, insecurity, and instability, which ultimately exacerbate and perpetuate the poverty and underdevelopment (and usher in new problems) and thus keep the general population stuck in that debilitating situation. That position of perpetuating weakness and disorder is what makes our people so easy to exploit and our resources so easy to steal to begin with. When you factor in the war on 'piracy', which is paving the way for a heap of other problems (think: oil, resource conflicts, geostrategic positioning, the New Scramble for Africa, the 'remapping' of the Middle East, etc.), all sides of the piracy issue seem to fit together quite well. The foreign piracy, the shipping piracy, and the war on 'piracy' read (respectively) like different pages of a new chapter in an old story, which by design is aimed at long-term impoverishment, destabilization, and recolonization. There is certainly much more to the situation than meets the eye, if you only hear or read about it through the mainstream media's generally superficial renderings of it, but in terms of the effects, I think that is the bare bones of it.

Mark your calendars! The Journey of Faith Conference, the biggest Islamic event of the summer, is fast approaching. See the poster below for details and for all other information, visit the JoF website.

Personally, it is not that I find our deen uninteresting. I mainly use this site to air my thoughts on things (news, politics) which I tend to follow closely, but don't much chance to talk about in my day-to-day life and in the circles (of deen-oriented, but rather apolitical people) that I associate with. In any case, I intend to contribute more to this part of the forum, insha'Allah. Reviving the Islam section is a good idea. Quality is what gives this part of the forum its appeal, though. It seems to consistently retain two qualities that are particularly appealing: meaningful, beneficial threads and a calm, pleasant atmosphere. If the idea is to make it more active, let us keep it in mind to also maintain or add to its substance. Ultimately, that is what determines whether this is a place where people can benefit themselves and each other in some way.

^^^ Asking that something be defined or clarified is understandable, but there is no sense in demanding answers to bizarre questions with a latent accusation that I judged or labeled other Muslims as kufaar. What Muslims, devout or otherwise, did I accuse of being kufaar or say something even remotely close to that about? You are expected to take me to task on what I actually said, not on what you assumed I meant by jumping to wild conclusions. The words Isbahaysiga Gaalada are self-explanatory. I use the term as a reference to the collusion among the non-Muslim powerbrokers who control the processes and instruments of domination we see being used against Somalia and other parts of the Muslim world. Rather than repeatedly name each so-called world power, regional or international organization, and client regime that plays a role, I say Isbahaysiga Gaalada for short. Any self-professed Muslims who serve that system are distinguished separately, but rightfully, as stooges. I hope we are clear on that.

It has been two weeks since the changing of the guard. Most of the discussions about the TFG (v2) still seem to have an oddly celebratory tone or focus entirely on particular individuals. Let us look at the big picture again in terms of what led up to the current state of events, what is going on now, and the direction in which things are headed. It is time to start having more critical discussions about the 'new' TFG and its 'new' mandate. Everyone knows what the TFG is, how it come into being, what it is built upon, and the role it has played since its inception. Everyone also knows what the so-called 'opposition' is, how it was created, and why. As I see it, the repackaged TFG is a coming together of the existing shaqaale gumeysi and a slew of eager new recruits who proved to Isbahaysiga Gaalada--during their months-long trial period--that, like the puppets already at its disposal, they too could be entrusted to kowtow and do its bidding. That is what got all of them into the positions they are in today: their roles as existing agents of foreign interests or their willingness to be ones. The aims and interests of Isbahaysiga Gaalada have not changed. Its strategy and some of its pawns have. It still wants to gain control over Somalia or, if nothing else, keep the fruits of what its people have been fighting for (the fruits of the Jihad) out of reach. All the more so now, as the Tigray-led mercenaries fled and almost all of the central and southern regions are back in the hands of the Muqaawama. So, in a move right out of the neo-colonialist handbook, it has allowed the various lackeys who were collaborating with it and accommodating it to inherit the puppet regime it created and still wants to impose on Somalia. In terms of why all of those people have been brought together under the TFG and exactly what they are expected to do, I think it is obvious. They have been contracted to combat, dismantle, and isolate the groups at the forefront of the Jihad. The coalition of warlords failed. The Tigray-led mercenaries, with the TFG (v1) on their backs and AMISOM by their side, failed. The latest strategy is one of reviving the Ashahaado La Dirir under a new (religious) cloak. It has been in the works on the ground, having manifested itself in Gedo and Galgaduud, and in the media, where gumeysi kalkaal propaganda machines play a big role in the effort to vilify and discredit the Mujaahideen. The repackaging of the TFG and the changing of its top-most figurehead is very fitting, then, considering what has been going on. While the secularist-types in the so-called 'opposition' generally seem to avoid talking to the media and being in the spotlight, the former ICU men among them act as the public faces and continuously play up to the 'moderates' vs. 'extremists' idea (a divide and rule tactic on the part of IG), which is exactly what the Ashahaado La Dirir revival is based on. The 'opposition' was playing a role in that scheme well before they joined the TFG. Having helped lay the groundwork, they have now been put in the driver's seat and no two sensible people have to ask each other why. They have been recruited to spearhead a new counter-'terrorism' onslaught with the pretext of eradicating the 'anti-peace', 'extremist' groups. Exactly what will transpire remains to be seen. If the news from the last two weeks alone is any indication of what is to come, the signs are not reassuring. I will leave it at that for now. What are your views on the repackaged TFG and the mandate of its new (puppet) administration? The idea here is to speak truthfully about what is going on and think realistically about the direction in which things are headed.

^^ The standard we are supposed to hold ourselves and each other up to is Islam. Do the people in this video reflect it? I think hearing and seeing what goes on in their circus is outdone by the knowledge that they are considered 'leaders' in some circles.

Acuudubillaah. No sense of order or decorum whatsoever. With all of their hooting and hollering, you would think these people were at a ball game.

What a joke. Clearly, the runaways' previous stances against the TFG had no basis in ideology or principles of any sort. The shifty bunch merely wanted a share of the meaningless titles and a chance to vie for the loot. No surprise there, as far as I'm concerned. The principle of responsible sharing of leadership positions will be adhered to; In other words, the 550 seats will still be divided in accordance with the infamous 4.5 formula. That means, in order to fill the 200 posts reserved for the token 'opposition', the runaways must now start recruiting people based not on their qualifications, but on what tribe they hail from. It would also mean that Shariif Sheekh Axmed is not eligible for the speaker of parliament post, the top (stooge) position reserved for the runaways. Ironic, to say the very least.

This mail-order groom thing must still be uncommon in my community. I haven't yet seen any cases of it. There is probably an element of self-interest in all marriages, as Cabdiyo said, but I tend to think the motives of the mail-order people (both the men and women) border on the I'm-about-to-hit-the-high-seas, tahriib-style kind of desperation. They view their prospective Qurbo-Joog husband or wife as their ticket out of Africa. So any thoughts of Duqqa's limp or Ceebla's dentures are outweighed by the hope that this person will take them to Qurbaha, the lands of opportunity and easy living in their eyes. If the general trend is that the grooms leave their wives as soon as they secure their stay in the new country while the brides stick with their husbands, it could be that they are more loyal or actually want to stay with their husbands. It could also be that they have no other options. I think the brides would have a harder time leaving their husbands, even when they want/need to. For one, compared to their male counterparts, they may find it more difficult to become financially independent of their spouses. When you are brought to a new country to take on the traditional role of a wife and you don’t know the language or have the skills/credentials to earn a decent living, you are stuck with whomever brought you for at least a few years. The divorcee status also seems to carry a sort of stigma that affects women more negatively than it does men. Divorce means freedom to the eager-to-bail groom, but to the average bride it probably means something completely different. Anyway, you know some enterprising Xaliimos are going to turn this mail-order groom thing into a business venture soon. Bye-bye bacadle, hello big pimpin'. Keep an eye out for the catalogs.

Muxaadaro: Halganka Geeska Afrika Speaker: Sh. Cabdiraxmaan Abyad Source: Addacwah.com Here is an informative series of audio lectures on the history of the struggle between Muslims and non-Muslims in the Horn of Africa. It is in af-Soomaali. Each lecture is about an hour long and quite detailed. May Allah, subhaana wa ta’aala, reward the Sheikh and any other contributors for all of the research and effort that must have gone into the making of this series. What they put together is a condensed, but very valuable, lesson that is sure to give many listeners a better sense of history and identity as Muslims from the Horn of Africa, a lesson that is also very relevant to what is going on in the region today. Lecture 1: Introduction Lecture 2: Before Islam, Advent of Islam, Early Muslim Sultanates Lecture 3: The Time of Imam Ahmad Guray Lecture 4: The Time of Imam Ahmad Guray Cont’d Lecture 5: The Time of Imam Ahmad Guray Cont’d Lecture 6: Post-Ahmad Guray Period

^^^ Could you clarify what you mean by civil war and expand a little on the above point of yours? As in when the war you are referring to started, who/what is engaged in it, the scope and nature of it, etc. (Thanks.) I'm aware that people have various understandings and explanations of what took place in Somalia throughout the last 17 years or more. I'm also aware that people sometimes say civil war in reference the whole period, during which, in reality, a lot of different conflicts and crises have taken place. Personally, I don't dispute that there is an enduring crisis in Somalia. I happen to think what is going on now is distinct and in many way far removed from what was going on before the proxy war--which, mind you, was in effect even before the six months of ICU rule (recall: the war between the alliance of warlords and the Islamic Courts)--took on a new face in form of the ongoing occupation.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Why would any informed Somali individual deny the root cause of Somali conflict and pretend that the brief six-month Islamic Courts rule on some parts of the country ended the Somali civil war? There is no denying that the current crisis in Somalia--the insecurity, the displacement, the massacres, the forced starvation, the assassinations, the renditions, the destruction of the economy, and so on--stems from the occupation. If you think it stems from something else, that is for you to explain. As for the period of ICU rule, those six months punctuated the end of the years of warlordism and marked the beginning of a new political reality in Somalia. The hard-won peace and security Somalis enjoyed after ousting the warlords and the stirrings of real, meaningful change the ICU ushered in were precisely what the invasion and ongoing occupation were meant to halt and destroy. The suggestion that a civil war was still raging in the country during the ICU period, or that a civil war is raging even today, is baseless. It belies the peace the invaders shattered and it bolsters the sinister notion that the Tigray-led mercenaries are doing the Somali people a big favour by, as some argue, 'intervening' in a supposed civil war. The actual point of the third paragraph of my previous post, which is what seems to have roused your question, essentially has do with the UN Security Council’s fraudulence as a so-called mediator in the signing of the 'agreement', something most evident in the fact that it never acknowledges the occupation. Read Resolution 1814. It repeatedly mentions the AMISON presence (numbering approx. 1400) in the country, but refers to the more than 50,000 Tigray-led mercenaries only once and, even then, not as Ethiopian troops or anything of the like, but as the 'other foreign forces'. The extent of the diplomatic cover they are being given is obvious, and this is just the very tip of the iceberg, so let there be no delusions about the role of the UN Security Council in Somalia. Its tactics, and the US agenda its decisions reflect, centre on protecting the puppets who do their bidding and maintaining an occupying force of one form or another. One could go on and on about the ways in which they are trying to do this, but I'll keep it short. For anyone who wants to understand the new offensives these menaces are carrying out in their proxy war against Somalia (the 'agreement' being chief among them), the facts are easily attainable and just as easy to understand. Why would she resort to label the leadership of the ARS who after thinking long and hard of this Somalis azmah entered this agreement as twofaced and treacherous runaways who can no longer be trusted with the task of ending this sad saga of ours? I gather it hasn't yet occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, some people hold the leaders of the ARS to a high standard because they know the nature of the struggle Somalis are engaged in and they know exactly what the ARS itself stands for. The runaways who signed the 'agreement' are wrong in many ways. The wrongfulness of their dealings is evident when viewed from an Islamic perspective. The Qur'aan is crystal clear on the course of action it prescribes when a Muslim land is attacked and we know there is consensus among the 'ulema on the correctness of physical jihad in this case. We also know that esteemed Somali 'ulema like Sh. Shariif Cabdinuur, Sh. Cumar Faaruuq, Sh. Cumar Iimaan, and other people of knowledge have given their religious opinions in the form of fatwas and lectures which pertain specifically to what is going on in Somalia and even the Djibouti 'agreement' itself. One need only read or listen to what they say about the importance of the jihad, the ruling on those who aid or side with the aggressors, whether a ceasefire can be declared, the permissibility of participating in talks like those held in Djibouti, whether a power-sharing agreement with the TFG is permissible, and so on. The runaways' campaign offers nothing of benefit to the resistance and, in turn, the overall population. Rather, it is an attempt to veer the struggle off course and, in the process, change the ultimate goal of gaining independence (in every sense of the word) and establishing Shari'ah-based governance in Somalia to something more palatable to, and more in line with the dictates/agenda of, Isbahaysiga Gaalada. This, to me, is more than enough indication of treachery and two-facedness on the part of those who are trying to lead people down that path. If they persist in what they are doing, if they do not turn away from it and correct themselves, then I have no reason to have a favourable view of them. There are some other things to consider. The ARS is an organization which, since its inception, has been working with clearly-defined rules, principles, and objectives. It is not a ship steered by the wimps or wishes of particular individuals, so one can very easily discern the ways in which some of its leaders and members-—not just the one particular individual nomads keep naming, but three dozen individuals of various backgrounds and positions within the ARS-—have wronged the organization they claim to represent, undercut the cause whose principles they claim to uphold, and misrepresented the people (the adherents of the cause) they claim to speak for. They knowingly sidestepped the clear-cut stance held not just by the ARS, but by the resistance as a whole, in terms of not engaging in talks with the stooges while the country is under occupation and, hence, not recognizing the stooges, legitimizing the presence of the occupiers, and absolving them all of the crimes they have committed against the Somali people. The terms of the 'agreement' they signed also go against the most fundamental principles of the ARS's political program. They have made false statements which go against the ARS's charter in the media. They have even gone so far as to say that, in the event the Tigray-led mercenaries leave, they want the Somali people to just forget about what happened and move on. (There goes the very idea of justice. Out the window.) The list goes on, and I could give specific examples. Whether one views the runaways' dealings/activities from a purely Islamic perspective or considers facts that do not have an apparent basis in religion, or both, the conclusion is the same. Something is very clearly amiss. Questions and criticisms will invariably be voiced by myself and whoever else that chooses to speak against the dangers (and the evil) they see in what is going on. Those who scribble miffed retorts and seem so agitated by views different from their own should simply find healthier ways to deal with their issues. And what is it that she liked in the current fight that she happily thanks Allah? It is abundantly clear that I believe the 'agreement' is only of benefit to Isbahaysiga Gaalada and its puppets, that it is something which serves no purpose other than to cripple the resistance by causing within it division and conflict. Considering the resistance is the only collective that has stood up to defend the Somali people in the face of foreign subjugation, it would be a very dark day in our history if (God forbid) infighting were to break out in its midst and the gains of the struggle were to thus diminish. It is by the mercy of Allah that, despite the plots and plans and multidimensional attacks of Isbahaysiga Gaalada, the resistance within the country remains united in purpose. So, again, alhamdulillaah.

The disingenuousness of the UN and the 'parties' who signed this farcical 'agreement' is there for all to read. They talk about peace without acknowledging what caused the war. They talk about justice without having any interest in stopping, never mind rebuking, the criminals who are causing the injustice. (In fact, they talk about justice with some of those criminals.) They talk about reconciliation for no other reason than to hide the truth of what the problem is and how/why it came about, so they can offer fake solutions to a fake problem while working their own nefarious agenda. The fact is, the whole Djibouti scheme is meant to further the interests of the imperialists who put, and keep, the occupation in Somalia in place (and, by extension, the sniveling sycophants who serve them). It is really to them that the runaways who broke off from the ARS and signed the 'agreement' proved most useful. Their willingness to meet, negotiate, and sign deals with people representing Isbahaysiga Gaalada and their minions while the Tigray-led mercenaries are still in Somalia, wrecking havoc, is downright appalling. Their willingness to use the UN as a mediator (as if it is a 'neutral' third party) also speaks volumes, as does their approval of the UN troops idea considering, among other things, Somalia's bitter history with a UN/US intervention and the UN's deplorable 'peacekeeping' record around the world. As has been repeatedly pointed out, the 'agreement' is an abomination. A lot of it is decorative fluff and duplicitous doublespeak. Did anyone notice the two references to an 18-year-long crisis? The situation in Somalia today is a completely different from what was going on during the civil war and the years of warlordism. It is an occupation, and any group or organization that is genuinely interested in resolving the current crisis has to acknowledge it. This is but one example of how the UN goes out of its way to avoid doing that. It would rather feign concern for an 18-year-long crisis, as if what is going on in Somalia today is no different from what was going on ten years ago, as if it is merely a new chapter of war among a people with a long and established history of 'internal conflict' rooted in supposedly inherent tribalism, lawlessness, and whatever else. They want the world to think it is a continuation of the 'protracted Somali crisis', something which in reality ended in 2006. It is a very devious approach, a way (on the part of the UN/US) of giving the occupiers diplomatic cover by not even acknowledging that Somalia is under occupation and that the current crisis is a direct result of it. Why people expect anything good—never mind peace and reconciliation—to come out of 'talks' or processes in which the sources of conflict and injustice are never truthfully addressed to begin with is beyond me. Moving on... Those of you who were airing your dismay and outrage in this thread were absolutely right in terming the 'agreement' a rubberstamping of the occupation. The part of it that Somalis are supposed to view as the most promising is one which merely legitimizes the current and continued presence of the Tigray-led mercenaries—up to and beyond the end of the 120-day period—by basing their withdrawal on a vague, conditional request that is highly unlikely to be fulfilled any time soon, if ever. That request is to be made in accordance with a UN Resolution, which makes it quite clear that the UN has no identifiable plans to deploy its own mercenaries to Somalia in the near future. Rather, it wants to support and strengthen the AMISON presence, and whether it will even consider replacing them at some future point in time is "subject to progress in the political process and improvement in the security situation on the ground". In other words, 'You beastly Africans can spill each other’s blood for now. We'll assist and finance the ones that serve us and, in the event that they successfully crush/subdue the Somali resistance, our Blue Helmets will swoop in carry out the natural resource plunder, war crimes, and sexual and human rights abuses for which we are so well known.' Promising indeed. To that, add another fact. The only clause that mentions the Ethiopian regime and its mercenaries is one which in effect gives them the power to decide when they will leave Somalia. Long story short, it is highly unlikely that the current occupiers will voluntarily withdraw and be replaced with other (UN) occupiers. The main purpose of the 'agreement' is evident in the last clause of the seventh point. The runaways are expected to publicly condemn all acts of armed violence and to disassociate themselves from any individuals/groups who don't do as their precious 'agreement' says. The stooges, on the other hand, are not required to do the same! For them and their militias and the occupiers, it is business as usual. This is such a clear, in-your-face indication that the 'agreement' serves no other real purpose than to cause division and conflict within the resistance. (To me it is also one indication, among many, that the runaways who signed it are not the mistaken, but well-intended, people I would have otherwise assumed them to be. Had they been so, this clause would have been impossible for them to stomach, a sure deal-breaker.) That is what the US/UN/imperialists set out to do. They want to divide and weaken the resistance and, at the same time, give the Tigray-led mercenaries, who are being pummeled on a daily basis, a respite during which to rearm, reposition, and recover from their increasingly debilitating defeats. Diplomacy is just another front in the imperialists' proxy war and it is one in which they have more resources, greater leverage, and greater potential to get what they want, how they want it. What took place in Djibouti was in no way a 'peacemaking' effort. The US and its allies unfurled a trap, a platform where they could carry out a tactical strategy under UN cover. Beyond their attempts to curb the growing strength and successes of the Mujaahideen, there were, and still are, noticeable attempts to disrupt the ties between the Somali resistance and Eritrea, to demonize and isolate both, and to forge justification for possible attacks on Eritrea in the future. The thought of the runaways practically tripping over themselves in their blind, feverish rush to partake that setup is made only worse by knowledge of the details of what they signed and have since been promoting. Without speculating on what their motives may be, I think they have displayed treachery and two-facedness of enormous proportions. There is too much shadiness in their activities for me to assume they made a few innocent mistakes and, considering the talk of an impending power-sharing deal between the runaways and the stooges, the ignominy we have seen so far might only be the beginning of what we can expect from them. In any case, alhamdulillaah, the plot failed to produce the intended results in Somalia. The Mujaahideen within the country all saw it for what it is/was and took a firm, united stance against it. Best of all, they have intensified the fight against the occupiers and their stooges, giving a very clear message in both word and deed that the Jihad will not be aborted for anyone or anything, especially now that the enemy has reached its breaking point.

Inaalilaah wa inaa ilayhi raajicuun. Geeridu waa xaq, Ma-Dhintena waa Allah, subxaana wa tacaala. May Allah have mercy on Macalin Aadan and everyone else that died in the attack. May He be pleased with them and grant them all Jannatul Firdaws with the rewards of shuhadaa. May He give the families and companions they left behind patience and contentment in the knowledge that their sons/brothers/husbands/fathers died while defending their religion and its people from foreign aggressors. What better way is there to leave this world than as a Muslim fulfilling his/her promise to Allah? Surely, the ones who depart in that state are the most fortunate among us. PS - I had hoped some of the people on this forum would muster enough decency to not bring any biting, snarky comments or petty political point-scoring into a tacsi thread. I was hopeful no one would stoop that low. Apparently, considering the filth some are already purging, it was too much to expect.

The estimates are up to 180 people killed, approximately 300 injured, and 70 kidnapped by the Ethiopians in the last two days, according to the BBC interview with Maxamed Xasan Xaad today. May Allah, subxaana wa tacaala, have mercy on all of those who were killed. May He give their loved ones patience and increased imaan. May Allah ease the pain of the injured and protect the people who were kidnapped, especially the children. May Allah continue to strengthen the resistance and may He grant his righteous servants victory in this world and the next. Be optimistic, nomads. The Ethiopian occupiers are broken and they know it. Naftaa heysa. If they think their ruthless attacks on unarmed, defenseless civilians will somehow frighten everyone else to the point of immobility or complaisance, they are dead wrong. It will only spur the resistance on and, insha'Allah, even more people will wake up and join it as a result of this.

According to the Haatuf article, many people view the false report as propaganda that was meant to bolster the Somaliland administration in the face of recent controversies--namely, the Guurti's extension of the President's term in office, something that was criticized from all corners. Hase yeeshee dad badan ayaa warkan u arkay inuu yahay mid olole loogu samaynayo Xukuumadda Madaxweyne Riyaale oo weji gabax kala kulantay muddo-kordhintii ay 10/4/2008 Golaha Guurtidu u sameeyeen muddada xilkeeda. Waxa kale oo la sheegay in sababta muddo-kordhinta keentay tahay Madaxweynaha oo rajaynayay in Maraykanku yimaado Berbera taasina ay u noqoto hal-ku-dheg uu doorashada ku galo oo uu bulshada cod kaga helo inuu waxqabadkiisu keenay inuu Maraykanku yimaado Berbera, isagoo rajaynayay markii hore inay bishii January ee ina dhaaftay Maraykanku yimaadaan Berbera, ilaa haatana aanu ka quusan taasi, inkastoo aanu Maraykanka ka haysan balanqaad la taaban karo, haddana Madaxweynuhu isagoo ilowsan doorashooyinka Maraykanka ka dhacaya bisha November ee soo socota weli wuxuu maanka ku hayaa in Maraykanku mar uun yimaadaan Berbera ka hor inta aanay qabsoomin doorashooyinka Madaxtooyada Somaliland, si uu labadaa arrimood iskugu beego-na Madaxweyne Riyaale waa sababta ku keliftay inuu golaha Guurtida uga qiil-samaysto sidii muddada loogu kordhin lahaa. ( Source ) That being a probable case, I'm not at all surprised at the antics of these SOL propagandists, who are running wild with this story. What surprises me is the BBC's failure to retract the report.

The thread needs to be updated, seeing as it is being said that this was a false report. See: War Ku Saabsan Maraakiib "Maraykan Ah oo Berbera Yimi" oo Beenoobay Maraakiib iyo Diyaarado Maraykan Ah oo Idaacadda BBC-du Sheegtay [...] Those of you that were in a celebratory mood can put the party hats away now.