Blackflash;928785 wrote: Drivel. It's getting tiring having to read your backwards, circular logic. Islamic law is great in your eyes because Islamic texts say it is so. Whenever confronted with evidence, your ilk claims no one has correctly implemented Sharia. There are plenty of other forms of governance which have yet to be fully realized (such as Marxism, Anarcho-Capitalism), don't the past failures of these ideologies being properly implemented provide an argument for reform? Capitalism has mutated and taken on different forms throughout history, and many would agree it was for the better. Could Islamic law ever improve? Given that it claims it is perfect, and its arguments were set in stone centuries ago. Obviously you think it's circular logic, because it was a short paragraph and I never took the time to elaborate why the Islamic system is great. You seem to think that complex systems can be explained in 1 paragraph. You really do have a simplistic view of the world my friend. The thing is, secularism was originally created as a sort of compromise between various Christian sects after they couldn't overcome one another in their various "heretical" battles. Secularism itself is a hollow ideology, but again; This is a long discussion and takes time to elaborate on. Most Westerners believe that societies should be judged by a certain standard (ie. their standard of secularism, freedom of speech, liberal values, etc.) and they view this standard as universal and just. I view the Islamic system the same way. I believe Islam is the standard of justice and is universal. How that is "backward" makes no sense to me. But I shouldn't be surprised; People like you tend to have a condescending, smug tone. Grow up

Inda cadde should be kept in solitary confinement until Allah decides to take his soul

I don't like the belief which some people have, that Islam is "incompatible" with Western values, and should thus be "filtered out" and adjusted. The question should be: Are Western liberal values compatible with Islam? Not the other way around. Islam sets the standard for how a society should be run. Westerners should take a good long look at their laws and see where they are wrong. I don't like this condescending attitude that some Westerners (and some sell-out Muslims) have towards the Shariah system. We are the ones who set the standards, and anyone who does a deep research on Islamic law would conclude that it's the best system (if applied correctly)

Xaaji Xunjuf;927799 wrote: The question i am asking my self why did the Ethiopians vacate the city, and why did President hassan declare yesterday that Alshabaab was completely defeated. This is probably just one of those last-minute show of force by Al-Shabaab. Shabaab knows they're not capable of governing any region of Somalia again. So they "re-capture" abandoned towns and use this as a propaganda tool. This is pathetic

I don't understand how this is relevant to Somalis in any way ....? Unless we would welcome the Vatican opening up offices in Somalia and Somaliland with the intention of proselytizing their Catholic religion (which will not happen)...how is this important to us at all?

Xaaji Xunjuf;926747 wrote: Malistar that was not for you it was for oba who came with stuff we defeated somaliland because hillary took a picture with us. I wish xamar somalia all the peace and stability do not ever get that wrong. I my self wish to invest there in the future. I just believe we should be good neighbors instead of being forced be in one country against our will. I believe in peaceful solution i do not wish to rule over you and no somalilander wants that. But somalilanders will not allow foreigners to rule over them. I have no right to say somalilanders have the right to remove amisom govt from xamar. Because its urs and and wats our is ours. I always say waxad idinku isla jeceshihin wanu idin la jecelnahay waxan anagu isla jecelnahay nala jeclaada. If we do that than we will be even great allies in the region As much as I disagree with Xaaji from time to time, I have an immense amount of respect for him. He truly cares for the best interests of all Somali people.

Apophis;926601 wrote: Ask Obama Mr hypocrite. You've probably been raised, educated and protected under someone who doesn't fear your god, what does that tell you? Both of my parents are Muslim, what are you talking about!?! And what is your obsession with Obama? Why do you always have to bring him up? Why do you think I'm a fan of Obama, when I've said many times that I can't stand him as a President! Somalinimo and Islam go hand-in-hand. You can't expect to be the Prime Minister of Somalia (and thus run the government) but yet not even believe in Islam. That's going way too far.

Very few Somalis are gaal, they're insignificant. If I'm a Somali resident, I could never tolerate my Prime Minister being a gaal. It's unthinkable. I don't know who in their right mind would allow this at all. Somalia isn't like Egypt, where 10% of the population is Christian. We're almost 100% Muslim, and our leaders should be as well. How can someone who doesn't fear Allah be expected to run the affairs of our country?

This is what happens with Central Planning. It ends up in failures such as this These cities should never have been built in the 1st place.

Saying things like this amounts to kufr. What a character Ahmedinejad is

Not in our lifetime at least.

I'm disgusted by Obama and Bush as well. You seem to think that anyone who disagrees with you is automatically supportive of Obama and Bush. And North Korea is nothing more than a Big-Brother Society where the Government has direct control of the media, so the North Korean people don't have any access to the outside world. And they're fed this BS that their Leader is perfect and has no flaws. And you support that? And then you ignore how prosperous and well-off South Korea is, in comparison to the North. Apophis, you're full of it. I can't even consider you a reasonable person

Apophis;924386 wrote: Your uncle, Sam, tortures, imprisons and kills his opponent at will sxb (even under Obama) so spare us the righteous indignation and while you're at it, the hypocrisy too. Chavez opposed "humanitarian intervention" trojan horse and so does all reasoned people. Ps: you're not a neo-con, you're worse; a soulless libertarian. You support Kim Jong Il of North Korea and Hugo Chavez. Even though Kim was responsible for unbelievable atrocities towards his people. You seem to think that any Dictator who opposes the United States is a good Leader. What if the United States didn't exist. Would you still support these disgusting dictators? And then you refer to me as "soulless" Why should I take you seriously? I can't think of ONE reason why I should take you seriously.

Naxar Nugaaleed;924358 wrote: what if a christian Somali or a Buddhist wants to lead his people, what happens then guys lol No one will ever allow a gaal Prime Minister of our country. It's unthinkable

Alpha Blondy;924345 wrote: Nuunooooow, let the good Doctor Intelexual be.......he's right...we're all incapable....ma istidhi? Warya go to sleep. You're annoying

Wadani;924333 wrote: Ur right, people have a simplistic binary vision of the world. I'm neither a neocon nor a socialist. Im more of an anti-imperialist/anti-neoliberal, anti-communist, socially conservative and economically liberal (in the classical sense) Muslim, Somali nationalist. To these people, it comes as a shock that I oppose George W Bush as well as opposing leaders such as Hugo Chavez and Bashar Assad. Alpha and his gang are intellectually incapable of understanding that this world is a complex place. He should stick to watching soccer games and leave political discussions up to others.

You ****** seem to think the world consists of only 2 types of people; Neocons and socialists!! Don't ever slander my name by referring to me as a Neo-Con, simply because I refuse to support Hugo Chavez and his policies You're simple-minded, all of you! Sure, I agree with Hugo Chavez that the United States shouldn't be meddling in other countries affairs all the time. Sure I agree with Hugo when he said that George W Bush was a horrible President. But Hugo Chavez himself was a dictator. He imprisoned his opponents without trial, he restricted freedom of speech. He violated the property rights of his people. He opposed the Free Syria Movement. I could go on and on forever. But you people show your hypocrisy when you speak of supporting Chavez whilst criticizing men such as Siad Barre, who was just as bad

How are you people celebrating the life of Hugo Chavez, when this man instituted many of the same policies of Siad Barre? Stay consistent people. Hugo Chavez was no good. Sure he was a "champion of the poor"....but he violated the human rights of thousands of Venezualans. I don't want to disrespect the dead, but let's not forget reality.

The United States used to be a "nation" of people hostile to one another. People in Pennsylvania didn't trust the people of Georgia, who didn't trust the people of Tennessee, who didn't trust the people of New York, etc. And this was perfectly fine, because the US Federal Government was tiny. It did almost nothing at all. But over time, these state identities no longer mattered, and people stopped seeing themselves as "New Yorkers" or "Georgians" and started seeing themselves as Americans instead

Xaaji Xunjuf;924110 wrote: I think that is very good idea if its conducted in the correct way, i think that idea should be considered, because if that is done for like 20 or 30 years, Somalis than would evolve their statehood and upgrade it and they would have a real functioning state, and allow more of the goverment in their daily society. i think its a very good experiment and i think it would work if you ask me., because its part of the Somali political culture that we never liked to be governed Somalis do not like to be told what to do by a superior power. We need some Libertarian politicians in Somalia. We don't need a Government that builds hospitals and schools. Somalis are perfectly capable of doing that on our own. You would be surprised at the entrepreneurial capability of Somalis. We're a very creative people, and we can make anything happen, without the Government. Perhaps in this system, we can further develop Xeer law, and every district would consist of tribal elders who would administer justice. Somalis are much much different than Swedes or Canadians or Norwegians or Brits. We need our own system, that fits us as a people.

Xaaji Xunjuf;924102 wrote: Wadani i have observed Somalis allot in their political capabilities their leaders and their political culture , the only way Somalis to stay together under one country is if they are forced. Like general siad bare did ,nin walba meel ba u cad cid badinaysa na wali ma hayno lol Xaaji, do you think Somalia would do well under a massively de-centralized, small-government administration---similar to the one seen in the United States in the 1800's? Essentially, we would have a tiny Government, made up of only a few Ministers who administer a basic military and law enforcement. And that's it. The government would not build any schools, no hospitals, no road construction. Nothing at all. This is exactly how the United States functioned for the first 150 years of nationhood. Every district of Somalia would function independently, and the State would only provide safety, nothing more. Somalis can't function under a dictatorship. It seems that we can't function well under a democracy. Maybe we need to create a system that fits us as a people. Maybe we should have (almost) no real government at all. What do you think of that?

Apophis, don't lose this Dunya as well as the Akhirah. Don't let this trivial Dunya mislead you until a Day when you will have the deepest regrets (The Day of Judgement) If you have any doubts on Islam (which you do), then email me if you want and I can send you thousands of articles that have answers to all questions you might have on the Deen. Just be open-minded enough to accept Islam if you're convinced by my arguments

Jacpher;918654 wrote: ^You can't condemn the same government that provides your salary. It is a little hypocritical for you to call names to the man that is ultimately responsible for your source of income or act in disguise of something you are not. Either way, look yourself in the mirror before you look at others. Qoslaye doesn't pay the salary of the Somali government workers. It's not coming out of his pocket. The money comes from taxing the Somali people or from foreign aid. Don't make it look like he's hypocritical, when he's not

I'm thinking it's best for Somalia--for the time being at least--to adopt a laissez-faire style of governance. The government should only be involvd in terms of National Security and law enforcement. We Somalis are an entrepreneurial people. We don't need a centralized bureaucratic government like the ones you see in Europe. We don't "need" the government to take care of us, outside of providing national security. Governments generally get their revenue from "taxing" the rest of the population, and then use those funds on various government programs. This encourages waste and corruption, and we can best serve ourselves by cutting the middle-man out

The high-growth rates experienced in Africa within the last decade is due to the commodities boom. That's it. The prices of natural resources--especially African natural resources--have skyrocketed in the last 10 years, contributing to high growth rates. But I'm not saying that investing in Africa is exactly a bad idea. No, I actually think there's a lot of business opportunities to be made in Africa, I have family members who are heading successful businesses in the Congo, Zambia, Gabon and Tanzania. But I unfortunately don't think this century is going to be the African century. We still have a long way to go