The above article reminds me of an essay I once read in the London Review of Books titled "The Great Middle East Peace Process Scam" by Henry Siegman. A tribute to Professor Nizar Rayyan. The scholar, the author, the teacher, the soldier, the Muxaddith, the family man, the spiritual leader, in short; Palestine has lost a courageous son. It was his wish to be a martyr for which he defied every advice to seek the relative safety of underground bunkers knowing full well the consequences. We can only be happy for him in achieving his objectives. Nevertheless, we should pray for him, his family and most important, the cause for which he sacrificed everything.

The UN has never wasted any opportunity to betray Somalis for the last 50 years. We have never had in reality friends or allies we could trust and had the best intention for us, save Allah (swt). Millions have suffered while heedless amateur politicians are selling themselves to be used by foreign powers in exchange of satisfying twisted motives and personal gain. Every time I came across some news doing round the restaurant I ate relating to Kenya-Ethiopia axis, United Nations or any of the western countries involved are facilitating or financing the creation of a Somali government, I thought of the Trojan Horse. For you should fear most those enemies who pretend to gift you something –Timeo Danaos et dona frenten! Yet we are where we are: Do we not learn?

Africa is far from free. Still colonised through self perserving corrupting criminal leaders who provide their mercenary services to the ighest offeror. A master class act of illusion-free advanced colonialism without moral accountabilities.

Robert Fisk’s World: One missing word sowed the seeds of catastrophe No one in 1967 thought the Arab-Israeli conflict would still be in progress 41 years later Saturday, 20 December 2008 A nit-picker this week. And given the fact that we're all remembering human rights, the Palestinians come to mind since they have precious few of them, and the Israelis because they have the luxury of a lot of them. And Lord Blair, since he'll be communing with God next week, might also reflect that he still – to his shame – hasn't visited Gaza. But the nit-picking has got to be our old friend United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. This, you'll recall, was supposed to be the resolution that would guide all future peace efforts in the Middle East; Oslo was supposed to have been founded on it and all sorts of other processes and summits and road maps. It was passed in November 1967, after Israel had occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, the Sinai and Golan, and it emphasises "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war" and calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". Readers who know the problem here will be joined by those who will immediately pick it up. The Israelis say that they are not required to withdraw from all the territories – because the word "all" is missing and since the definite article "the" is missing before the word "territories", its up to Israel to decide which bits of the occupied territories it gives up and which bits it keeps. Hence Israel can say it gave up Sinai in accordance with 242 but is going to keep East Jerusalem and much of the West Bank for its settlers. Golan depends on negotiations with Syria. And Gaza? Well, 242 doesn't say anything about imprisoning one and a half million civilians because they voted for the wrong people. No one in 1967 dreamed that the Israeli-Arab conflict would still be in ferocious progress 41 years later. And as an Independent reader pointed out a couple of years ago, the Security Council clearly never intended the absence of a definite article to give Israel an excuse to stay in the West Bank. Alas, our reader was wrong. I've been going back through my files on 242 and discovered a most elucidating paper by John McHugo, who was a visiting fellow at the Scottish Centre for International Law at Edinburgh University. He points out that pro-Israeli lawyers have been saying for some years that "Resolution 242 unanimously called for withdrawal from 'territories' rather than withdrawal from 'all the territories'. Its choice of words was deliberate... they signify that withdrawal if required from some but not all the territories". McHugo is, so far as I know, the only man to re-examine the actual UN debates on 242 and they make very unhappy reading. The French and Spanish versions of the text actually use the definite article. But the Brits – apparently following a bit of strong-arm tactics from the Americans – did not use "the". Lord Caradon, our man at the UN, insisted on putting in the phrase about the "inadmissability of the acquisition of territory by war" in order to stop the Israelis claiming that they could cherry-pick which lands to return and which to hand on to. Britain accepted Jordan's rule over the West Back – the PLO were still shunned as super-terrorists at the time – but it did no good. Abba Eban, Israel's man on the East River, did his best to persuade Caradon to delete both "the" and the bit about the inadmissability of territory through war. He won the first battle, but not the second. That great American statesman George Ball was to recount how, when the Arabs negotiated over 242 in early November of 1967 – at the Waldorf Astoria (these guys knew how to pick the swankiest hotels for political betrayal) – the US ambassador to the UN, Arthur Goldberg, told King Hussein that America "could not guarantee that everything would be returned by Israel". The Arabs distrusted Goldberg because he was known to be pro-Zionist, but Hussein was much comforted when US Secretary of State Dean Rusk assured him in Washington that the US "did not approve of Israeli retention of the West Bank". Hussein was further encouraged when he met President Johnson who told him that Israeli withdrawal might take place in "six months". Goldberg further boosted his confidence. "Don't worry. They're on board," he said of the Israelis. Ho ho. It's intriguing to note that several other nations at the UN were troubled by the absence of "the". The Indian delegate, for example, pointed out that the resolution referred to "all the territories – I repeat all the territories – occupied by Israel..." while the Soviet Union (which knew all about occupying other people's countries) stated that "we understand the decision to mean the withdrawal of Israeli forces from all, and we repeat, all territories belonging to Arab states and seized by Israel...". President Johnson rebuffed the Soviets and bluntly refused to put the word "all" in the resolution. Bulgaria, not surprisingly, said much the same as the Soviets. Brazil expressed reservations – rightly so – about "the clarity of the wording". The Argentinians "would have preferred a clearer text". In other words, the future tragedy was spotted at the time. But we did nothing. The Americans had stitched it up and the Brits went along with it. The Arabs were not happy but foolishly – and typically – relied on Caradon's assurances that "all" the territories was what 242 meant, even if it didn't say so. Israel still fought hard to get rid of the "inadmissability" bit, even when it had got "the" out. Ye gods! Talk about sewing the seeds of future catastrophe. Well, Colin Powell, when he was George W Bush's secretary of state, gutlessly told US diplomats to call the West Bank "disputed" rather than "occupied" – which suited the Israelis just fine although, as McHugo pointed out, the Israelis might like to consider what would happen if the Arabs talked about those bits of Israel which were not included in the original UN partition plan as "disputed" as well. Besides, George W's infamous letter to Ariel Sharon, saying he could, in effect, keep large bits of the West Bank, set the seal on Johnson's deception. McHugo mischievously adds that a mandatory warning in a city that says "dogs must be kept on the lead near ponds in the park" clearly means that "all" dogs and "all" ponds are intended. These days, of course, we use walls to keep dogs out. Palestinians, too.

Haneefah, It's the unsustainable madness of a Muslim state that I care about, especially when many of their brethren are being slain, their lands put to waste and their carrion filled seas are circled by vulturine nations, that it makes me wonder about Allah's respite of the imminent. Nothing is without a consequence. Nur, I wish to become a different kind of geeljire, one with new modus operandi rather than the geeljire of old in classical sense. A close examination of original geeljire lifestyles shows that it has many positives as well as negatives. I am only interested in the positives, so a new method needs to be devised where the negatives can be eliminated and the positives expanded. Other wise, brother Nur, you may wish to be in Qurac Dheer, but you'll find yourself in Qansax Wareer! When you btw say "minus the inter-clan camel raids", I hope you don't mean ALL camel raids, because there would be a clear dilemma here. Camel raids had so many dimensions that they simply cannot always be classified as inter-clan raids. Let's ignore the obvious inter-clan camel raids and counter raids, also the technically criminal raids by thieves against indiscriminate clans. There are some difficulties that I foresee with such a position.

Nur, Have you read Aw Jaamac Cumar Ciise's two volume book 'Maansadii hore ee Soomaalida' especially first volume on 'Geela, Fardaha iyo Haweenka'? Got it for F2850 from Djibouti and still is easily the best book I read in 2006. Many of the sentiments you've described can be found in there, put into most eloquent gabay forms. In particular, what would interest you most, I suspect, will be the prosaic debate that took place at one point between proponents of magaalada iyo daaraha and the defenders miyyiga iyo geela. When a man in Saylac for example says: Darajadda adduun waa ninkii, dahab sameeyaaye Dadna waxaa la maatiya ninkii, daara hoos gala e Magaalada hadduu degi lahaa, dalow ma gaadheene Waxaad igula doodeysid waa, laguma daalaane Another one from Qardho says this: Lama siisan karo xoolo kale, sidigta dhaameele Waxba yaan surweel mideble iyo, saacad lay xirine Sicirka dunida geeleennu waa, ugu sarreeyaaye Soomaaligii diidayoo, waad silloontahaye The only criticism I would have is that the debate should not have been confined to just poets (I know at the time poets were the only intellectuals around), but perhaps more inclusive approach may have served the public, still under colonial rule at the time, much better. Brother Nur, I applaud your fascination and enthusiasm for camels, camel milk and the open sky environment or "the true freedom" as you put it. May I suggest to have a dedicational thread to discuss and celebrate our rich traditional heritage with camels; history, culture, family, war, peace, etc.? As for Dubai, I'm quite frankly weary of possible disastrous end to adopted course. One cannot simply create a Las Vegas without gambling, drugs and prostitution, a 'sin city' as it were for surrounding region/states. Take for example the in October announced 38 billion dollar -1 km tower- apartments complex: who is going to live in there?

Another Bush, another times.

Two events took place not long ago with two cousins of mine. In short: one bought a property in Dubai and the other moved to miyyi/baadiye to become geeljire. The family is dismayed about the latter's action whilst the former has been met with general approval. Except me! I couldn't afford to try and convince them otherwise though, credibility is a precious commodity these days and I don't wish to risk that yet (saving for another day insha'Allah). Because this forum allows experimentation of ideas as long these can be traced to Islamic foundations or positively contributes to the changing conditions in our lives (at least that is why I'm here for), I have no problems with sharing some of my thoughts with you. I was in Dubai not long ago and have witnessed the unbelievable madness there at close quarters. The completion of Burj Dubai in 2009 should mean Dubai will have the highest skyscraper in the world, but just few months prior to my visit there, Al Burj, a new building project of what should become even higher -decrowning the yet-to-be-finished tallest skyscraper in the world - was started; Burj this, Burj that, Burj here, Burj there ... This puzzled me on many levels. For once, given the fact that Andrew Lawrence's 'Skyscraper Index' has shown such remarkable consistency in the predictive correlation of building highest skyscrapers and financial disasters in the last hundred years, the sheer indifference thereof still continues to puzzle me. On the the level of economic inefficiency, it was the civil engineering professor Henry Petroski who produced calculations to prove that marginal efficiency of high-rise buildings are at their optimum up to 280 meters, whereas Al Burj in comparison, although exact height still top secret, is rumoured that it'll be over 1 km. Just taking into account not only the extremely costly weight of engineering requirements for factoring climate, earth quakes and structural materials, elevators and ventilation mechanisms will render about 40% of the building space unusable and completely wasteful. This serves no purpose whatsoever other than show-off extravaganza and baseless grandeur of a kind not seen since the first Burj of them all –namely, Burj Babil- whom, to quote from Genesis chapter 11 are alleged to have said "let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name", but then destruction was their fate! The same fate awaited pharaoh when he said to his chief Haman "build me a lofty tower, in order that I may see the God of Musa". Allah also informs us in the same surah Al-Qasas of Qarun who "behaved arrogantly" thus says Allah: "So We caused the earth to swallow him and his dwelling place" What puzzled me most was the deplorable refusal to consider the prophetic prophesy regarding the signs of the Hour. It was only yesterday when a small group of Bedouins numbering in the hundreds possessing nothing other than few camels and donkeys settled in the area. I was in their so called history museum in Dubai hiding from the heat of the sun one day when a shock of disbelieve suddenly hit me (or maybe it was the sun). What I realised was that in the Qur'an, Allah informed us that the Hour will occur "when the pregnant she-camels shall be neglected" in surah At-Takwir. Indeed the pregnant she-camel should traditionally be most precious asset deserving most care and love, and in this new world of property booms, exchange traded share equities and shopping malls all seem to have changed. The good news is that we Somalis possess most number of camels anywhere in the world, and many of those who are blessed with these camels still give the pregnant she-camels care and love. I know this will sound preposterous to many of you, but how would you all feel if the fate of the world rested on us poor Somali nomads?

THUS DID POWER PASS FRM KINGS Those with deadened thinking glands could not perceive the cheating hands that Shiteman brought with words of silk to speak of wealth with King and ilk That they in need of greater rank might throng en masse at Shiteman's bank to borrow papers newly printed (Shiteman's house had no coins minted) In marble halls on leather hide Shiteman sat at counters wide to watch his clients sinking deep in credit binges newly steeped And only when the door slammed shut did Shiteman's silken words turn smut for debt collection came next day with mortgaged assets under sway Thus pounced the greedy leaden hand while snoring Princes in their land saw hard earned toils of ages past fill bankers' purse through bailiff's grasp Oh what fun that con to play but Shiteman hid it well that day for waiting patiently he found the King himself had debts unsound! And sure enough did come the grovel from men of State in language novel granting Shiteman powers new in ways whose import struck but few And by whose deed the King did borrow sufficient more to last the morrow till war did force him down at heel once more in need of Shiteman's seal Thus did power pass from Kings and peoples' hands to stench filled things that had no love for honest toil and only lived by others spoiled And debt repayment came to rise above the Sun in most men's skies and ruled by fear of repossession the very soul of life's expression By their menace lands would starve three hundred years of concrete carved and poison gas would swathe the earth to cull one-half in deathly dearth Who would have thought this of the world when Shiteman's *******' bank unfurled on paper slips a solemn promise to pay in gold (though none was honest) Protest oh children, while still young, or has the debt tied up your tongue? what, hungry now, too tired to speak? but GDP was up this week! Then die as data nicely charted in glossy brochures finely crafted that tell us much of worldly ills but mention not the hand that kills And manufacture disagreement counting costs but not bereavement plotting forward better times though each year's graph shows downward lines And knowing well that trap infernal the cure unsaid in every journal is that life for which we hanker means the end for Shiteman banker Tarek El Diwany, June 2003

Nur, I used to live in Germany long time ago and every time my brother and I went with our mother anywhere, there was never an occasion where at least one or more policemen failed to appear out of the blue exclaiming "Ausweis bitte!" Not the best of memories. With regards to Mozart, personally I wouldn't know, but I'll keep my eyes and ears open for future reference if I stumble on relevant information concerning the exact nature of his name changes just before his death. For proper contextual perspective though, the two to three centuries span preceding the 19th century there was a feverish hysteria surrounding anything tht was remotely associated with Islam or Muslims; feverish that is in either hatred or curiosity bordering interest. In fact, considering the nature of deamonisation by the use of pamphlets propagating the same seeds of hostilities towards Islam and Muslims as is the case in modern day, we would feel right at home. For some reason or other, these feverish imaginations in public minds died once Muslims stopped knocking the gates of Vienna, only to be confined in dark secret places outside the periphery of mainstream academia. It would not surprise me if Mozart was one of the many (presumably thousands) whose imaginations transposed into accepting Islam, be it in secret or openly after immigrating to south-eastern regions. History records that many of them were probably massacred during the sacking of Buda. For those not yet familiar with history of ottoman wars in Europe, it is in effect the 'Buda' part of present day Budapest and was ruled at the time by a Swiss convert to Islam when it fell to the crusading armies of the (un)Holy League. Historians compare the bloodshed that took place to scenes reminiscent of the Jerusalem massacres by their bloodthirsty crusader predecessors.

Originally posted by Nur: The TFG will be based in either Somaliland who will be forced to accept the Ethiopian-American Plan and foreget about the autonomy due to the strategic plans of the sponsors. That was always the UN's preferred strategy as far back as the early nineties in subduing some of the uncertainties in the unpredictable conditions and explosive tribal climate. Ethiopians, always the most important objective/consideration of all western policy makers, were vehemently opposed to any intrusion of their established sphere of fiefdom control. If this is to be pursued, it'll most definitely translate into a setback of their bloody agenda. I personally believe that to be too late now.

Even if this thread dies, this is not a topic that would die any time soon. So take your time to suit your earliest convenience, especially in these sacred days, priorities always require some reshuffling.

Nomads, I'm not sure about the general appreciative level nomads around here would cherish towards Germanic literature, but let me say one thing to help you appreciate this topic: Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is Germanic literature. This man's work has been many a times in history raison d'etre in pursuance of learning German. So much so that wikipedia doesn't do him much justice in many ways (try finding there anything relating to the below). When Allah grants someone beautiful mind, it's for the purpose of recognizing Allah in the miraculous beauty of His creation. This man explored beauty throughout his life in many directions and by various means, but nomads, Allah in His mercy guides whomsoever He pleases. The full lecture is to be found in Die Wahre Religion by going to Alle Videos tab, then clicking on Alle Videos von A bis Z and scrolling down till you get to "War Goethe ein Muslim?" or by typing Goethe at the bottom where it says suche. My apologies for the non-German speakers, but the best I could do in English is this article. All the achievements in the world are meaningless if you die heedless.

Nur, I've read large parts of the original paper a while ago and I must say the most interesting thing I came across was their exact categorizations and unambiguous definitions of different types of Muslims. thanks to hem, now we officially know the meaning of "moderates"! There's a drama going on in Bahrain (as a consequence of aforementioned policy) for the last few months ever since influential and intellectual shi'ite individuals were invited for a "briefing" on Capitol Hill titled "Impact of Political Reform on Religious Freedom in Bahrain." The Royal family in the meanwhile, obviously smelling fish, decided to introduce restrictions much to the disgust of some groups and there's probably more to come. This, it seems, is the best they can come up with –a blatant lack of imagination- and in all honestly, tested and failed! Historically, whichever power aligned themselves with the shi'ites to attack Muslims always ended up losing. Think of Fatimids alliance with the Crusaders, collusion of the Buwayhids with the Byzantines, shi'te treasury during the Mongol genocides, etcetera.

Originally posted by Nur: ............What other reason is there to attack a governing body which has produced more, in less time, in Mogadishu ,than the US has produced in Iraq with huge resources which have mostly been squandered on already wealthy corporate mercinaries and their masters while the poeple of Iraq still suffer and hope for an end to their occupation By Jerry Gates (respnding to above topic) .. because it would not be compatible with their adopted shaping strategy toward the Muslim world. Read this paper commissioned by the US Air Force describing critical cleavages between Muslim groups and outlines strategies available to utilise these conditions to their advantage. Needless to say, they'll not succeed.

Nomads, Our beloved Prophet (scw) said: "Do not inform anyone nor talk to people about whispers that come to you in your dreams from Satan" (Muslim). Advice: Let's fear ALLAH (swt), obey His Messenger (scw) and abandon this fruitless topic.

Meet the smearcasters Islamophobia's dirty dozen

by 'Abdul Wâhid Hamid We do not know precisely how the young Abyssinian girl ended up for sale in Makkah. We do not know her 'roots', who her mother was, or her father or her ancestors. There were many like her, boys and girls, Arabs and non-Arabs, who were captured and brought to the slave market of the city to be sold. A terrible fate awaited some who ended up in the hands of cruel masters or mistresses who exploited their labor to the full and treated them with the utmost harsh ness. A few in that inhuman environment were rather more fortunate. They were taken into the homes of more gentle and caring people. Barakah, the young Abyssinian girl, was one of the more fortunate ones. She was saved by the generous and kind Abdullah, the son of Abd al-Muttalib. She became the only servant in his household and when he was married, to the lady Aminah, she looked after her affairs as well. Two weeks after the couple were married, according to Barakah, Abdullah's father came to their house and instructed his son to go with a trading caravan that was leaving for Syria. Aminah was deeply distressed and cried: "How strange! How strange! How can my husband go on a trading journey to Syria while I am yet a bride and the traces of henna are still on my hands." Abdullah's departure was heartbreaking. In her anguish, Aminah fainted. Soon after he left, Barakah said: "When I saw Aminah unconscious, I shouted in distress and pain: 'O my lady!' Aminah opened her eyes and looked at me with tears streaming down her face. Suppressing a groan she said: "Take me to bed, Barakah." Aminah stayed bedridden for a long time. She spoke to no one. Neither did she look at anyone who visited her except Abd al-Muttalib, that noble and gentle old man. "Two months after the departure of Abdullah, Aminah called me at dawn one morning and, her face beaming with joy, she said to me: "O Barakah! I have seen a strange dream." "Something good, my lady," I said. "I saw lights coming from my abdomen lighting up the mountains, the hills and the valleys around Makkah." "Do you feel pregnant, my lady?" "Yes, Barakah," she replied. "But I do not feel any discomfort as other women feel." "You shall give birth to a blessed child who will bring goodness," I said. So long as Abdullah was away, Aminah remained sad and melancholic. Barakah stayed at her side trying to comfort her and make her cheerful by talking to her and relating stories. Aminah however became even more distressed when Abd al-Muttalib came and told her she had to leave her home and go to the mountains as other Makkans had done because of an impending attack on the city by the ruler of Yemen, someone called Abrahah. Aminah told him that she was too grief-striken and weak to leave for the mountains but insisted that Abrahah could never enter Makkah and destroy the Kabah because it was protected by the Lord. Abd al-Muttalib became very agitated but there was no sign of fear on Aminah's face. Her confidence that the Kabah would not be harmed was well-founded. Abrahah's army with an elephant in the vanguard was destroyed before it could enter Makkah. Day and night, Barakah stayed beside Aminah. She said: "I slept at the foot of her bed and heard her groans at night as she called for her absent husband. Her moans would awaken me and I would try to comfort her and give her courage." The first part of the caravan from Syria returned and was joyously welcomed by the trading families of Makkah. Barakah went secretly to the house of Abd al-Muttalib to find out about Abdullah but had no news of him. She went back to Aminah but did not tell her what she had seen or heard in order not to distress her. The entire caravan eventually returned but not with Abdullah. Later, Barakah was at Abd al-Muttalib's house when news came from Yathrib that Abdullah had died. She said: "I screamed when I heard the news. I don't know what I did after that except that I ran to Aminah's house shouting, lamenting for the absent one who would never return, lamenting for the beloved one for whom we waited so long, lamenting for the most beautiful youth of Makkah, for Abdullah, the pride of the Quraysh. "When Aminah heard the painful news, she fainted and I stayed by her bedside while she was in a state between life and death. There was no one else but me in Aminah's house. I nursed her and looked after her during the day and through the long nights until she gave birth to her child, "Muhammad", on a night in which the heavens were resplendent with the light of God." When Muhammad was born, Barakah was the first to hold him in her arms. His grandfather came and took him to the Kabah and with all Makkah, celebrated his birth. Barakah stayed with Aminah while Muhammad was sent to the badiyah with the lady Halimah who looked after him in the bracing atmosphere of the open desert. At the end of five years, he was brought back to Makkah and Aminah received him with tenderness and love and Barakah welcomed him "with joy, longing and admiration". When Muhammad was six years old, his mother decided to visit the grave of her husband, Abdullah, in Yathrib. Both Barakah and Abd al-Muttalib tried to dissuade her. Aminah however was determined. So one morning they set off- Aminah, Muhammad and Barakah huddled together in a small hawdaj mounted on a large camel, part of a huge caravan that was going to Syria. In order to shield the tender child from any pain and worry, Aminah did not tell Muhammad that she was going to visit the grave of his father. The caravan went at a brisk pace. Barakah tried to console Aminah for her son's sake and much of the time the boy Muhammad slept with his arms around Barakah's neck. The caravan took ten days to reach Yathrib. The boy Muhammad was left with his maternal uncles of the Banu Najjar while Aminah went to visit the grave of Abdullah. Each day for a few weeks she stayed at the grave. She was consumed by grief. On the way back to Makkah, Aminah became seriously ill with fever. Halfway between Yathrib and Makkah, at a place called al-Abwa, they stopped. Aminah's health deteriorated rapidly. One pitch dark night, she was running a high temperature. The fever had got to her head and she called out to Barakah in a choking voice. Barakah related: "She whispered in my ear: 'O Barakah, I shall depart from this world shortly. I commend my son Muhammad to your care. He lost his father while he was in my abdomen. Here he is now, losing his mother under his very eyes. Be a mother to him, Barakah. And don't ever leave him.' "My heart was shattered and I began to sob and wail. The child was distressed by my wailing and began to weep. He threw himself into his mother's arms and held tightly onto her neck. She gave one last moan and then was forever silent." Barakah wept. She wept bitterly. With her own hands she dug a grave in the sand and buried Aminah, moistening the grave with whatever tears were left in her heart. Barakah returned with the orphan child to Makkah and placed him in the care of his grandfather. She stayed at his house to look after him. When Abd al-Muttalib died two years later, she went with the child to the house of his uncle Abu Talib and continued to look after his needs until he was grown up and married the lady Khadijah. Barakah then stayed with Muhammad and Khadijah in a house belonging to Khadijah. "I never left him and he never left me," she said. One day Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, called out to her and said: "Ya Ummah!" (He always called her "Mother".) "Now I am a married man, and you are still unmarried. What do you think if someone should come now and ask to marry you?" Barakah looked at Muhammad and said: "I shall never leave you. Does a mother abandon her son?" Muhammad smiled and kissed her head. He looked at his wife Khadijah and said to her: "This is Barakah. This is my mother after my own mother. She is the rest of my family." Barakah looked at the lady Khadijah who said to her: "Barakah, you have sacrificed your youth for the sake of Muhammad. Now he wants to pay back some of his obligations to you. For my sake and his, agree to be married before old age overtakes you." "Whom shall I marry, my lady?" asked Barakah. "There is here now Ubayd ibn Zayd from the Khazraj tribe of Yathrib. He has come to us seeking your hand in marriage. For my sake, don't refuse." Barakah agreed. She married Ubayd ibn Zayd and went with him to Yathrib. There she gave birth to a son whom she called Ayman and from that time onwards people called her "Umm Ayman" the mother of Ayman. Her marriage however did not last very long. Her husband died and she returned once more to Makkah to live with her "son" Muhammad in the house of the lady Khadijah. Living in the same household at the time were Ali ibn Abi Talib, Hind (Khadijah's daughter by her first husband), and Zayd ibn Harithah. Zayd was an Arab from the tribe of Kalb who was captured as a boy and brought to Makkah to be sold in the slave market. He was bought by Khadijah's nephew and put in her service. In Khadijah's household, Zayd became attached to Muhammad and devoted himself to his service. Their relationship was like that of a son to a father. Indeed when Zayd's father came to Makkah in search of him, Zayd was given the choice by Muhammad of either going with his father or staying with him. Zayd's reply to his father was: "I shall never leave this man. He has treated me nobly, as a father would treat his son. Not a single day have I felt that I am a slave. He has looked after me well. He is kind and loving towards me and strives for my enjoyment and happiness. He is the most noble of men and the greatest person in creation. How can I leave him and go with you?...I shall never leave him." Later, in public Muhammad proclaimed the freedom of Zayd. However, Zayd continued to live with him as part of his household and devoted himself to his service. When Muhammad was blessed with prophethood, Barakah and Zayd were among the first to believe in the message he proclaimed. They bore with the early Muslims the persecution which the Quraysh meted out to them. Barakah and Zayd performed invaluable services to the mission of the Prophet. They acted as part of an intelligence service exposing themselves to the persecution and punishment of the Quraysh and risking their lives to gain information on the plans and conspiracies of the mushrikin. One night the mushrikun blocked off the roads leading to the House of al-Arqam where the Prophet gathered his companions regularly to instruct them in the teachings of Islam. Barakah had some urgent information from Khadijah which had to be conveyed to the Prophet. She risked her life trying to reach the House of al-Arqam. When she arrived and conveyed the message to the Prophet, he smiled and said to her: "You are blessed, Umm Ayman. Surely you have a place in Paradise." When Umm Ayman left, the Prophet looked at his companions and asked: "Should one of you desire to marry a woman from the people of Paradise, let him marry Umm Ayman." Ali the companions remained silent and did not utter a word. Umm Ayman was neither beautiful nor attractive. She was by now about fifty years old and looked rather frail. Zayd ibn al-Harithah however came forward and said: "Messenger of Allah, I shall marry Umm Ayman. By Allah, she is better than women who have grace and beauty." Zayd and Umm Ayman were married and were blessed with a son whom they named Usamah. The Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, loved Usamah as his own son. Often he played with him, kissed him and fed him with his own hands. The Muslims would say: "He is the beloved son of the beloved." From an early age Usamah distinguished himself in the service of lslam, and was later given weighty responsibilities by the Prophet. When the Prophet migrated to Yathrib, henceforth to be known as al-Madinah, he left Umm Ayman behind in Makkah to look after certain special affairs in his household. Eventually she migrated to Madinah on her own. She made the long and difficult journey through the desert and mountainous terrain on foot. The heat was killing and sandstorms obscured the way but she persisted, borne along by her deep love and attachment for Muhammad, may God bless him and grant him peace. When she reached Madinah, her feet were sore and swollen and her face was covered with sand and dust. "Ya Umm Ayman! Ya Ummi! (O Umm Ayman! O my mother!) Indeed for you is a place in Paradise!" exclaimed the Prophet when he saw her. He wiped her face and eyes, massaged her feet and rubbed her shoulders with his kind and gentle hands. At Madinah, Umm Ayman played her full part in the affairs of the Muslims. At Uhud she distributed water to the thirsty and tended the wounded. She accompanied the Prophet on some expeditions, to Khaybar and Hunayn for example. Her son Ayman, a devoted companion of the Prophet was martyred at Hunayn in the eighth year after the Hijrah. Barakah's husband, Zayd, was killed at the Battle of Mutah in Syria after a lifetime of distinguished service to the Prophet and Islam. Barakah at this time was about seventy years old and spent much of her time at home. The Prophet, accompanied by Abu Bakr and Umar often visited her and asked: "Ya Ummi! Are you well?" and she would reply: "I am well, O Messenger of Allah so long as Islam is." After the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, had died, Barakah would often be found with tears in her eyes. She was once asked, "Why are you crying?" and she replied: "By Allah, I knew that the Messenger of Allah would die but I cry now because the revelation from on high has come to an end for us." Barakah was unique in that she was the only one who was so close to the Prophet throughout his life from birth till death. Her life was one of selfless service in the Prophet's household. She remained deeply devoted to the person of the noble, gentle and caring Prophet. Above all, her devotion to the religion of Islam was strong and unshakable. She died during the caliphate of Uthman. Her roots were unknown but her place in Paradise was assured.

Originally posted by Xiinfaniin: So take the ‘if’ out. It’s clearly xarfu shakk! Why don't you take the 'if' as a xarfu shard? I'm looking forward to your take on the subject, it'll undoubtedly benefit us to gain deeper understanding.

Now for comparison. Have you heard how many attrocities the Ethiopian troops committed by raping and killing Somali women? How many crimes committed by Warlords? Of course not, but it happens everyday, no one reports it, its Democracy! Oh, you dont agree? you say that is not "My Democracy"? Well. stoning a 13 year old is no "MY Islam " its your wish! Well said Nur! Many of these groups are in fact agents of Western imperialism. BTW, what do you think of the following link? http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/HRW.htm l

On the second question, some istifsaal is in order before I comment on it. What do you mean by ‘Jahiliyyah methodology’ in the Somali context? What is ‘religious subservience’? A quick explanation of those two terms would suffice! Brother Xiinfaniin, The first is concept is based on ignorance, tribalism and injustice; whereas the second is as you've probably guessed, strictly based on the credo-dictum rules of Islam.

Brother Xiinfaniin, I know you're dying to get your teeth stuck in the plenty of camel meat on display, so I'll change my planned strategy and start throwing the issues prematurely rare from the cooking pot. Principles of unity, in my humble opinion can best be achieved through the Qur'an and Sunnah. I'll do my best to very quickly summarise the principles found mainly in the Qur'an (perhaps we could discuss the Sunnah another time) as a course of action for every Reer Baadiyye society. The first principle is very simple; it's about obeying Allah (swt) and His will. Second principle of unity, happens then through His grace and mercy for those favoured slaves with guidance after their obedience. Thus relates Allah (swt) in the Qur'an clearly the following: "And hold fast, all of you together, to the rope of Allah (i.e. the Qur'an), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islam), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allah makes His Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided." (Aali Imran 3:103) Third principle negates any other possible way of achieving the same/similar effect, and we must disbelief whoever comes forth with such claim. It may sound tempting and pleasing for the ears, but it cannot be done. So Allah (swt) says: "And He has united their (i.e. believers') hearts. If you had spent all that is in the earth, you could not have united their hearts, but Allah has united them. Certainly He is All-Mighty, All-Wise." (Al-Anfal 8:63) Fourth principle is also straightforward and follows this simple logic; in unity lays our strength and in division our weakness. Our weakness means our enemies' strength, with what we see in today's world as a consequence thereof. Allah (swt) warns: "And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you (Muslims) do not do so (i.e. become allies, as one united block), there will be Fitnah (wars, injustices, polytheism, etc.) and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption." (Al-Anfal 8:73) Fifth principle is that when we unite using aforementioned Islamic principles, our unity will be far superior to any other political convenience or worldly interests based union. For that's neither a union of the hearts nor minds, let alone the love and compassion we aspire to. Allah (swt) informed us in that respect by saying: "They fight not against you even together, except in fortified townships, or from behind walls. Their enmity among themselves is very great. You would think they were united, but their hearts are divided, that is because they are a people who understand not." (Al-Hashr 59:14) Whereas our unity stems from our identity, per se speaking, we don't distinguish unity and identity as these reciprocally necessitate each other. We believe in a division, not based upon race, wealth or nationality, rather one based upon ideological differences through the choices people have taken: Believers or non-believers. When Allah described His creation and how their division came about, He (swt) said: "Mankind were but one community (i.e. on one religion), then they differed (later), and had not it been for a Word that went forth before from your Lord, it would have been settled between them regarding what they differed." (Yunus 10:19) "And had Allah willed, He could have made you (all) one nation, but He sends astray whom He wills and guides whom He wills. But you shall certainly be called to account for what you used to do." (An-Nahl 16:93) Final principle that I wish to add is that of sacrifice. Without striving for these believes with your wealth and lives, it'll not suffice to achieve the higher status of common purpose, identity and ultimate success in both this life and the next. It has been Allah's Sunan that the cost of such achievements is quite high in materialistic sense, but the returns are so in multitude that those original input tally could never proportionally warrant anything like it! The Reer Baadiyye would always find satisfaction in what Allah said: "Say (O Muhammad SAW) to the Reer Baadiyye who lagged behind: "You shall be called to fight against a people given to great warfare, then you shall fight them, or they shall surrender. Then if you obey, Allah will give you a fair reward, but if you turn away as you did turn away before, He will punish you with a painful torment." (Al-Fath 48:16) Some of the certain issues; Do you believe like I do that the dominant features of our behavioural culture are based on the Reer Baadiyye tradition? If you do not ascribe to that hypothesis, what are your major points of contention? If you do ascribe to the Reer-Baadiyye-hypothesis, how then do you propose to establish peace in Somalia without unity? Given the fact that historically observed Reer Baadiyye have collectively only united on two opposing matters of, either Jahiliyyah or guidedence –and let's say you're, or to your credit at least come across that way, a propagator of unity, do you hold the view that we should seek unity by means of Jahiliyyah methodology (compromise or no compromise)? If you're proposing to achieve unity between us on the basis of religious subservience, would that entail identity before unity or unity before identity? Enjoy your meat

The Muslims were constantly besieged by the Abyssinian Christians because of their weakness due to lack of unity and internal differences. Starting with Amda Seyon's invasion of Ifat, who killed and maimed his way through our territories until he captured the Sultan and finally defeated Muslim alliances in the early part of the 14 th century; to Secadedin's defeat and capture in Zaylac by the start of the 15 th century, and subsequent exile of his family to Yemen. From Zara Yacquub's advances and attacks inside the frontier regions halfway 15 th century, to the killing of Amir Maxfuudh at the start of 15 th century and soon after that, the destruction of Zaylac by the Portuguese fleet. The Abyssinian Christians used all of these opportunities to organize series of murderous attacks against innocent Muslims in general, but the Reer Baadiyye in particular suffered every time their flocks of animals were looted and many died as a consequence of starvation. Cities were also destroyed, villages burnt and masaajid turned into churches. There were a lot of instabilities, frequent changes of power, assassination of kings, infighting, chaos and disorder, and general hopelessness. Muslims were divided on many levels such as ineffective occupied little emirates (like Dawaro, sidema, Bali, etc.) and fierce tribal divisions among the Reer Baadiyye of Somali-dominated Sultanate. Given the complete social disintegration at the time, how did Imam Axmad Gurrey achieve in such a short period of time, the turnaround that has become one of our most celebrated historic moments ever? How then, you may wonder, is possible to achieve unity and social order when I've suggested that the Reer Baadiyye have culturally innate disposition to rebel and disregard any authority, be it divine or human in nature? The factors causing such disposition are that they're "more likely to be in ignorance" as Allah said, and that they "pay no attention to the Religion" as our Prophet (pbuh) said. All of these characteristics (pride, arrogance, rude, aggressive, etc.) are a consequence of their cultural life styles and the environment they live in with their cattle, but can easily be overcome by redirecting their loyalty towards newly acquired identity and purpose, and away from their traditional inclinations (tribal superiority, wealth and status). Ibn Khalduun explaining about the Reer Baadiyye: "But when there is religion (among them) through prophethood or sainthood, then they have some restraining influence in themselves. The qualities of haughtiness and jealousy leave them. It is, then, easy for them to subordinate themselves and to unite (as a social organization). This is achieved by the common religion they now have. It causes rudeness and pride to disappear and exercises a restraining influence on their mutual envy and jealousy." More importantly, Ibn Khalduun asserts that "no people are as quick to accept (religious) truth and right guidance, because their natures have been preserved free from distorted habits and uncontaminated by base qualities." That is consistent with what I gather from history in relation to the religious role of most, if not all major achievements of our past. So contrary to his predecessors, Imam Axmad Gurrey had the genius to attract the Somali Reer Baadiyye by (1) preaching them to fulfill their Islamic duties and wage Jihaad to defend their territories, (2) granting them greater power and positions of authority within the region and (3) changing the traditional self-defense strategies in favour of an offensive one. In normal circumstances, it would practically be impossible to unite so many Reer Baadiyye tribes who normally fight/retaliate and regularly carry out barbaric raids among themselves. It's one thing to achieve that by our Prophet (pbuh) in the Arabian Peninsula, but altogether quite something else to occur within the Reer Baadiyye of the Horn region. Of course the principles are exactly the same! I will insha'Allah continue on these very principles next time.

Brother shaken .., you said: well the ayat in surat ul tawbah uses the word, al-3rabiy shadd-du, not bedouins. Allah revealed the Qur'an in Arabic so it would make sense to uses the word al acraabu rather than the English word Bedouin. that includes arab city dwellers as well as country folk cause they all live in the desert. Using your logic, are you implying that the aayah should be translated as "The Arabs are worst in disbelief and hypocrisy .."? i think your use of Bedouins is a bit of a stretch, because it makes it seem as though Allah were speaking to that particular group instead of Arabs in general as the actual wording, and the context of the ayat's revelation, suggests. If Allah is speaking of Arabs in general, then explain to us why in the preceding and immediately following aayaat each group (Bedouins, Muhajiruun/Ansaar and the hypocrites of Medina) are addressed separately? same thing for surat-ul hujurat. it was revealed when there was an increase in fighting amongst the muslims, the majority of whom were arabs but of different tribes and origins. Allah (and He knows best) isnt singling out the bedouins in either surats, he is admonshing the ansaar, muhajireen, and the bedouins altogether. Get your facts straight before you accuse anyone of twisting the meaning of the Qur'an: You might take that lightly, but I would advice you to take it back. You clearly don't fully comprehend what you're trying to say here.

Originally posted by shaken and deterred: uhm... did you just make your little tafseer on those surahs? in surat-ul tawbah, for example, Allah is addressing the hypocrites, in particular the people who dodged the battle of Tabuk. that would include the ansar, the muhajireen and the bedouins. the bedouins, though criticized often, were sometimes praised for their pride which would make them hate falling into error. furthermore, they weren't blanketly suspected of hypocrisy, as you are suggesting. if there were a demographic group during the prophet's time suspected of hypocrisy, it was the jews who vehemntly did not want to accept an arab as their leader, and who couldn't openly fight against the muslims without severe repercussions both financially and socially. can i know what tafseer you are using? i know its common in debates to twist evidence to fit your argument, but surely the quran holds a different status? no? Shaken and deterred, If you think that I translated aayah 97 in at-Tawbah wrongly, please don't hesitate to enlighten us by giving the real meaning and where you suspect that I've twisted to fit my argument.