^I can't believe the Northeast escaped that storm *heading to Superbowl party Go Saints *

^I was tempting the Sunday churchgoers.

I thought this was the most interesting bit! Origin of the World Turning from the attributes of God to the actions of God, where he delineates his view of creation, Ibn Rushd in his Tahafut al-Tahafut clearly deals with the charge against the philosopher’s doctrine on the eternity of the physical universe in his polemic against al-Ghazzali. Ghazzali perceived that the philosophers had misunderstood the relationship between God and the world, especially since the Qur’an is clear on divine creation. Ghazzali, sustaining the Asharite emphasis on divine power, questioned why God, being the ultimate agent, could not simply create the world ex nihilo and then destroy it in some future point in time? Why did there need to be some obstacle to explain a delay in God’s creative action? In response to this, Ghazzali offered a number of lengthy proofs to challenge the philosopher’s assertions. Ibn Rushd, who often labeled Ghazzali’s arguments dialectical, sophistical or feeble, merely replied that the eternal works differently than the temporal. As humans, we can willfully decide to perform some action and then wait a period of time before completing it. For God, on the other hand, there can be no gap between decision and action; for what differentiates one time from another in God’s mind? Also, what physical limits can restrict God from acting? Ibn Rushd, in the first discussion, writes about how Ghazzali confused the definition of eternal and human will, making them univocal. For humans, the will is the faculty to choose between two options, and it is desire that compels the will to choose. For God, however, this definition of will is meaningless. God cannot have desire because that would entail change within the eternal when the object of desire was fulfilled. Furthermore, the creation of the world is not simply the choice between two equal alternatives, but a choice of existence or non-existence. Finally, if all the conditions for action were fulfilled, there would not be any reason for God not to act. God, therefore, being omniscient and omnipotent would have known from the eternal past what he had planned to create, and without limit to his power, there would no condition to stop the creation from occurring. Ghazzali’s argument follows the typical Asharite kalam cosmological argument, in that he argues the scientific evidence for the temporal origin of the world, and reasons from that to the existence of a creator. Ghazzali’s first proof contends that the idea of the infinite number of planetary revolutions as an assumption of the eternity of the world is erroneous since one can determine their revolution rates and how much they differ when compared one to another. Ibn Rushd weakly maintains that the concept of numbered planetary revolutions and their division does not apply to eternal beings. To say that the eternal can be divided is absurd since there can be no degrees to the infinite. Oliver Leaman explains how Ibn Rushd accepted accidental but not essential infinite series of existents. There can be an infinite chain of human sexual generation, but those beings that are essentially infinite have neither beginning nor end and thus cannot be divided. In his Decisive Treatise Ibn Rushd summarily reduces the argument between the Asharite theologians and the ancient philosophers to one of semantics. Both groups agree that there are three classes of being, two extremes and one intermediate being. They agree about the name of the extremes, but disagree about the intermediate class. One extreme is those beings that are brought into existence by something (matter), from something other than itself (efficient cause) and originate in time. The second, and opposite, class is that which is composed of nothing, caused by nothing and whose existence is eternal; this class of being is demonstratively known as God. The third class, is that which is comprised of anything or is not preceded by time, but is brought into existence by an agent; this is what is known as the world. Theologians affirm that time did not exist before the existence of the world, since time is related to the motion of physical bodies. They also affirm that the world exists infinitely into the future. As such, since the philosophers accept these two contentions, the two groups only disagree on the existence of the world in the eternal past. Since the third class relates to both the first and second classes, the dispute between the philosophers and the theologians is merely how close the third class is to one of the other two classes. If closer to the first class, it would resemble originated beings; if closer to the second class, it would resemble more the eternal being. For Ibn Rushd, the world can neither be labeled pre-eternal nor originated, since the former would imply that the world is uncaused and the latter would imply that the world is perishable. Ibn Rushd finds pre-existing material forms in Quranic texts such as 11:9, where he maintains that one finds a throne and water pre-existing the current forms of the universe; he contends that the theologians’ interpretation of such passages are arbitrary. This is because nowhere in the Qur’an is the idea of God existing as pure being before the creation of the world to be found. The debate for Ibn Rushd and Ghazzali centers, ultimately, upon the idea of causation. Ghazzali, the dedicated Asharite, wants to support the position that God is the ultimate cause of all actions; that no being in the universe is the autonomous cause of anything. For instance, a spark put on a piece of wood does not cause fire; rather God causes the fire and has allowed the occasion of spark and wood to be the method by which he creates fire. God, if he so desired, could simply will fire not to occur when a spark and wood meet. For Ghazzali, this is the explanation of the occurrence of miracles: divine creative actions that suspend laws habitually accepted by humans. Ghazzali, in his Tahafut, speaks of the decapitated man continuing to live because God willed it so. Ibn Rushd, the consummate Aristotelian, maintains in his Tahafut Aristotle’s contention that a full explanation of any event or existence needs to involve a discussion of the material, formal, efficient and final cause. Ibn Rushd, then, insists that Ghazzali’s view would be counter-productive to scientific knowledge and contrary to common-sense. The universe, according to the human mind, works along certain causal principles and the beings existing within the universe contain particular natures that define their existence; if these natures, principles and characteristics were not definitive, then this would lead to nihilism (i.e. the atheistic materialists found in the Greek and Arab worlds). As for the idea of cause and effect being a product of habitual observation, Ibn Rushd asks if such observations are a product of God’s habit or our own observations. It cannot, he asserts, be the former, since the Qur’an speaks of God’s actions as unalterable. If the latter, the idea of habit applies only to animate beings, for the habitual actions of inanimate objects are tantamount to physical laws of motion.

Existence and Attributes of God Ibn Rushd, shortly after writing his Decisive Treatise, wrote a treatise on the doctrine of God known as Al-Kashf ‘an Manahij al-Adilla fi ‘Aqaid al-Milla (the Exposition of the Methods of Proof Concerning the Beliefs of the Community). His goal was to examine the religious doctrines that are held by the public and determine if any of the many doctrines expounded by the different sects were the intention of the “lawgiver.” In particular he identifies four key sects as the targets of his polemic, the Asharites, Mutazilites, the Sufis and the “literalists,” claiming that they all have distorted the scriptures and developed innovative doctrines not compatible with Islam. Ibn Rushd’s polemic, then, becomes a clear expression of his doctrine on God. He begins with examining the arguments for the existence of God given by the different sects, dismissing each one as erroneous and harmful to the public. Ibn Rushd contends that there are only two arguments worthy of adherence, both of which are found in the “Precious Book;” for example, surahs 25:61, 78:6-16 and 80:24-33. The first is the argument of “providence,” in which one can observe that everything in the universe serves the purpose of humanity. Ibn Rushd speaks of the sun, the moon, the earth and the weather as examples of how the universe is conditioned for humans. If the universe is, then, so finely-tuned, then it bespeaks of a fine tuner – God. The second is the argument of “invention,” stemming from the observation that everything in the world appears to have been invented. Plants and animals have a construction that appears to have been designed; as such a designer must have been involved, and that is God. From establishing the existence of God, Ibn Rushd turns to explaining the nature and attributes of God. Beginning with the doctrine of divine unity, Ibn Rushd challenges the Asharite argument that there cannot, by definition, be two gods for any disagreement between them would entail that one or both cannot be God. This, of course, means that, in the case of two gods, at least one’s will would be thwarted in some fashion at some time by the other; and such an event would mean that they are not omnipotent, which is a essential trait of deity. Ibn Rushd’s critique turns the apologetic on its head, contending that if there were two gods, there is an equal possibility of both gods working together, which would mean that both of their wills were fulfilled. Furthermore, Ibn Rushd adds, even disagreement would not thwart divine will, for alternatives could occur giving each god its desire. Such arguments lead to absurdity and are not fit for the masses. The simple fact is that reason affirms divine unity, which, by definition, is a confession of God’s existence and the denial of any other deity. Ibn Rushd maintains, as did most of his theologian contemporaries that there are seven divine attributes, analogous to the human attributes. These attributes are: knowledge, life, power, will, hearing, vision and speech. For the philosopher, the attribute of knowledge occupied much space in his writing on the attributes of God. He contends, especially in his Epistle Dedicatory and his Decisive Treatise that divine knowledge is analogous to human knowledge only in name, human knowledge is the product of effect and divine knowledge is a product of cause. God, being the cause of the universe, has knowledge based on being its cause; while humans have knowledge based on the effects of such causes. The implication of this distinction is important, since Ibn Rushd believes that philosophers who deny God’s knowledge of particulars are in error. God knows particulars because he is the cause of such things. But this raises an important question: does God’s knowledge change with knowledge of particulars? That is, when events or existents move from non-existence to existence, does God’s knowledge change with this motion? Change in divine knowledge would imply divine change, and for medieval thinkers it was absurd to think that God was not immutable. Ghazzali answered this dilemma by saying that God’s knowledge does not change, only his relationship with the object. Just like a person sitting with a glass of water on their left side does not fundamentally change when that same glass is moved to their right side. Ibn Rushd felt that Ghazzali’s answer did not solve the dilemma, stating that a change in relationship is still change. For Ibn Rushd, then, the solution came in his contention that divine knowledge is rooted in God being the eternal Prime Mover—meaning that God eternally knows every action that will be caused by him. God, therefore, does not know that event when it occurs, as humans would, because he has always known it. As for the other traits, Ibn Rushd next turns to the attribute of life, simply stating that life necessarily flows from the attribute of knowledge, as evidenced in the world around us. Divine will and power are defined as essential characteristics of God, characteristics that define God as God. This is because the existence of any created being implies the existence of an agent that willed its existence and had the power to do so. (The implication of this, Ibn Rushd notes, is that the Asharite concept that God had eternally willed the existence of the world, but created it at some particular point in time, is illogical.) In regards to divine speech, Ibn Rushd is aware of the great theological debate in Islam about whether the Qur’an, the embodiment of God’s speech, is temporally created or eternal. Ibn Rushd contends that the attribute of divine speech is affirmed because it necessarily flows from the attributes of knowledge and power, and speech is nothing more than these. Divine speech, Ibn Rushd notes, is expressed through intermediaries, whether the work of the angels or the revelations given to the prophets. As such, “the Qur’an…is eternal but the words denoting it are created by God Almighty, not by men.” The Qur’an, therefore, differs from words found elsewhere, in that the words of the Qur’an are directly created by God, while human words are our own work given by God’s permission. Ibn Rushd concludes by discussing divine hearing and vision, and notes that scripture relates these attributes to God in the sense that he perceives things in existing things that are not apprehended by the intellect. An artisan would know everything in an artifact he had created, and two means of this knowledge would be sight and sound. God, being God, would apprehend all things in creation through all modes of apprehension, and as such would have vision and hearing.

Philosophy and Religion Until the eighth century, and the rise of the Mutazilite theology, Greek philosophy was viewed with suspicion. Despite the political support given to philosophy because of the Mutazilites and the early philosophers, a strong anti-philosophical movement rose through theological schools like the Hanbalites and the Asharites. These groups, particular the latter, gained public and political influence throughout the tenth and eleventh century Islamic world. These appealed to more conservative elements within society, to those who disliked what appeared to be non-Muslim influences. Ibn Rushd, who served a political dynasty that had come into power under a banner of orthodox reform while privately encouraging the study of philosophy, was likely sensitive to the increasing tensions that eventually led to his banishment. Though written before his exile his Decisive Treatise provides an apologetic for those theologians who charged philosophers with unbelief. Ibn Rushd begins with the contention that Law commands the study of philosophy. Many Quranic verses, such as “Reflect, you have a vision” (59.2) and “they give thought to the creation of heaven and earth” (3:191), command human intellectual reflection upon God and his creation. This is best done by demonstration, drawing inferences from accepted premises, which is what both lawyers and philosophers do. Since, therefore, such obligation exists in religion, then a person who has the capacity of “natural intelligence” and “religious integrity” must begin to study philosophy. If someone else has examined these subjects in the past, the believer should build upon their work, even if they did not share the same religion. For, just as in any subject of study, the creation of knowledge is built successively from one scholar to the next. This does not mean that the ancients’ teachings should be accepted uncritically, but if what is found within their teachings is true, then it should not be rejected because of religion. (Ibn Rushd illustrated this point by citing that when a sacrifice is performed with the prescribed instrument, it does not matter if the owner of the instrument shares the same religion as the one performing the sacrifice.) The philosopher, when following the proper order of education, should not be harmed by his studies, hence it is wrong to forbid the study of philosophy. Any harm that may occur is accidental, like that of the side effects of medicine, or from choking on water when thirsty. If serious harm comes from philosophical study, Ibn Rushd suggests that this is because the student was dominated by their passions, had a bad teacher or suffered some natural deficiency. Ibn Rushd illustrates this by quoting a saying of the Prophet Muhammad, when asked by a man about his brother’s diarrhea. The Prophet suggested that the brother should drink honey. When the man returned to say that his brother’s diarrhea had worsened, the Prophet replied, “Allah has said the truth, but your brother’s abdomen has told a lie” (Bukhari 7.71.588). Not all people are able to find truth through philosophy, which is why the Law speaks of three ways for humans to discover truth and interpret scripture: the demonstrative, the dialectical and the rhetorical. These, for Ibn Rushd, divide humanity into philosophers, theologians and the common masses. The simple truth is that Islam is the best of all religions, in that, consistent with the goal of Aristotelian ethics, it produces the most happiness, which is comprised of the knowledge of God. As such, one way is appointed to every person, consistent with their natural disposition, so that they can acquire this truth. For Ibn Rushd, demonstrative truth cannot conflict with scripture (i.e. Qur’an), since Islam is ultimate truth and the nature of philosophy is the search for truth. If scripture does conflict with demonstrative truth, such conflict must be only apparent. If philosophy and scripture disagree on the existence of any particular being, scripture should be interpreted allegorically. Ibn Rushd contends that allegorical interpretation of scripture is common among the lawyers, theologians and the philosophers, and has been long accepted by all Muslims; Muslims only disagree on the extent and propriety of its use. God has given various meanings and interpretations, both apparent and hidden, to numerous scriptures so as to inspire study and to suit diverse intelligences. The early Muslim community, according to Ibn Rushd, affirmed that scripture had both an apparent meaning and an inner meaning. If the Muslim community has come to a consensus regarding the meaning of any particular passage, whether allegorical or apparent, no one can contradict that interpretation. If there is no consensus about a particular passage, then its meaning is free for interpretation. The problem is that, with the international diversity and long history of Islam, it is all but impossible to establish a consensus on most verses. For no one can be sure to have gathered all the opinions of all scholars from all times. With this in mind, according to Ibn Rushd, scholars like al-Ghazzali should not charge philosophers with unbelief over their doctrines of the eternity of the universe, the denial of God’s knowledge of particulars, or denial of bodily resurrection. Since the early Muslims accepted the existence of apparent and allegorical meanings of texts, and since there is no consensus on these doctrines, such a charge can only be tentative. Philosophers have been divinely endowed with unique methods of learning, acquiring their beliefs through demonstrative arguments and securing them with allegorical interpretation. Therefore, the theologians and philosophers are not so greatly different, that either should label the other as irreligious. And, like the philosophers, the theologians interpret certain texts allegorically, and such interpretations should not be infallible. For instance, he contends that even the apparent meaning of scripture fails to support the theologian’s doctrine of creation ex nihilo. He highlights texts like 11:7, 41:11 and 65:48, which imply that objects such as a throne, water and smoke pre-existed the formation of the world and that something will exist after the End of Days. A teacher, then, must communicate the interpretation of scripture proper for his respective audiences. To the masses, Ibn Rushd cautions, a teacher must teach the apparent meaning of all texts. Higher categories of interpretations should only be taught to those who are qualified through education. To teach the masses a dialectical or demonstrative interpretation, as Ibn Rushd contends Ghazzali did in his Incoherence, is to hurt the faith of the believers. The same applies to teaching a theologian philosophical interpretations.

Ibn Rushd (Averroes) (1126—1198) Abu al-Walid Muhammad ibn Ahmad ibn Rushd, better known in the Latin West as Averroes, lived during a unique period in Western intellectual history, in which interest in philosophy and theology was waning in the Muslim world and just beginning to flourish in Latin Christendom. Just fifteen years before his birth, the great critic of Islamic philosophy, al-Ghazzali (1058-1111), had died after striking a blow against Muslim Neoplatonic philosophy, particularly against the work of the philosopher Ibn Sina (Avicenna). From such bleak circumstances emerged the Spanish-Muslim philosophers, of which the jurist and physician Ibn Rushd came to be regarded as the final and most influential Muslim philosopher, especially to those who inherited the tradition of Muslim philosophy in the West. His influential commentaries and unique interpretations on Aristotle revived Western scholarly interest in ancient Greek philosophy, whose works for the most part had been neglected since the sixth century. He critically examined the alleged tension between philosophy and religion in the Decisive Treatise, and he challenged the anti-philosophical sentiments within the Sunni tradition sparked by al-Ghazzali. This critique ignited a similar re-examination within the Christian tradition, influencing a line of scholars who would come to be identified as the “Averroists.” Ibn Rushd contended that the claim of many Muslim theologians that philosophers were outside the fold of Islam had no base in scripture. His novel exegesis of seminal Quranic verses made the case for three valid “paths” of arriving at religious truths, and that philosophy was one if not the best of them, therefore its study should not be prohibited. He also challenged Asharite, Mutazilite, Sufi, and “literalist” conceptions of God’s attributes and actions, noting the philosophical issues that arise out of their notions of occasionalism, divine speech, and explanations of the origin of the world. Ibn Rushd strived to demonstrate that without engaging religion critically and philosophically, deeper meanings of the tradition can be lost, ultimately leading to deviant and incorrect understandings of the divine. This article provides an overview of Ibn Rushd’s contributions to philosophy, emphasizing his commentaries, his original works in Islamic philosophy, and his lasting influence on medieval thought and the Western philosophical tradition. read

LooooooL...You are good spin doctor bravo.

Originally posted by poiuyt: Good thread. Here's the issue though: I think an appreciation for the rule of law -- for the necessity of a government-- must precede democratic secularism. Consider the fact that nearly all European countries were monarchies for the longest time where the common man was not free at all to have a voice in the creation of laws. But the rule of law was always forced upon the non-elite so that after hundreds of years they became culturally dependent on it. It was in no one's interest to have everything devolve into anarchy. And it isn't just European countries that this is true of. Consider Japan and China. Both countries had systems of government that enforced rigid laws for, in the case of Japan, at least 1.5 thousand years and in China's case considerably longer. These sort of governments are obviously far from today's ideal but at least they were governments, and they had a lasting and deep impact on the culture of the people. There is also the issue of literacy. A significant portion of the population of these people -- Europeans and Asians -- could read and write for hundreds of years. This also had an effect on their governments and laws. Somalis on the otherhand had practically never known of the concept of government (and literacy!) before the arrival of Europeans. Sure, we had our own indigious form of conflict resolution and so on, but our way of life didn't necessitate any form of central government. To go from this chaotic state to a secular democracy is, simply, too much of a jump. The cultural inertia from our pre-European contact years was simply too strong against the systems the Europeans gave us and, therefore, the military dictatorships and eventual disolution of the government was inevitable. You're talking about hundreds of years of clans and tribalism. This cultural inertia is still strong today because quite frankly there remain entirely rational reasons for your average Somali to cling to it: if he or she doesn't, he or she would lose any protection that clan/tribe offers. In the olden days your possessions and sheep and camels were protected by your fellow clan/sub-clan members against other clans. How could anyone in such a circumstance forsake his tribe/clan? How can anyone in Somalia today forsake his tribe/clan? It simply isn't rational to do so. And yet, the clan/tribe system doesn't really make sense in a world where people have united as NATIONS to further their interests. The nation is the ultimate tribe. Somalis need to come to understand first the benefits of nationhood, and a people cannot achieve secular democracy without having been prepared in the rule of law and literacy for hundreds of years. The only person that made any sense thus far,

Qabyaalad is not sickness. It is social, economic, and political instrument that lived beyond its usefulness.

^Laa nagadaa sheekada ha,iibadaliney

^LoooooooooooL..Aree geeljirana superbowl goormuus bartey.

^There's no such thing as Burca xalwo. Any Burcawaani who attempts to make Xalwo will give you uncontrollable diarrhea.

Duca,aa qofyahay waranka qaado diinta difaac *Imagining Somali Xena with qamaal of course* LooL@white Somalis-I guess that's literal translation Somali cad cad. Xalwo barawaani is white and solid. Aight, I will add bajiye and shushumuu to that.

LoooL@ku margo..hadeey saastahay. Bal hoo. haye xalwo barawaani mase xalwo banaadiri key rabtaa? SOL muslin iyo gaal lookala baxay.Bal jihaadka kasoo qeybal. A&T iyo Sayid muslinka hogaaminiya

^LoL..Maya, waakuu naxayaa qofyahay.Horadaa iyo gadaashaada in lakala garan waayo ka cabsanaa.

^Gabar dhuuban baa tahay, shaax iyo xalwo xaas ku faley.Sukorta suxulada yeekaa galin

Would you kill one to save many?

Originally posted by Kool_Kat: Sayid or Che, show your faces here please...Thank you! I'm lost Ayeeyo?

SSC News Bomb is miidaamin ah oo ninkii fulin lahaa ku naf waayey Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 09:58 AM Send this story to someone Printer-friendly page Qarax is miidaamin ah oo ka dhacay Hotel Xamdi agtiisa oo fuliyihii ku naf waayey Nin sida la rumaysan yahay watay walxaha qarxa ayaa habeenimadii xalay ahayd damncay in uu isku qarxiyo Hotel Xamdi ee magaaladda laascaanood. web page

Habeen wanaagsan *off to sleep*

No Alternative To President Rayale There's always an alternative!

The Politicization of Food Aid under One-Party Rule in Ethiopia By Seeye Abraha Feb 01, 2010 The West has provided hundreds of millions of dollars of food aid to Ethiopia in the past several years. However, donor countries have placed few monitoring and accountability mechanisms to ensure that the aid provided is delivered to the target populations. As a result, the ruling party has been able to effectively use relief aid to mobilize support for itself and undermine support for its opposition. The politicization of food aid in Ethiopia operates crudely in the open. Members and supporters of the ruling party and their families are given top priority in the delivery of ample relief aid. Relief aid is dangled in front of non-party members who are presented with the option of joining the ranks of the ruling party if they want to receive aid. Opposition party members are forced to make the choice of going hungry or involuntarily joining the ruling party by abandoning their own. The intense pressure to join the ruling party is reinforced through family, community and peer pressure. Those who speak up against such practices or openly protest are targeted for persecution, intimidation and harassment. The people forced to make the impossible choice between life and liberty choose life and do the best they can under the circumstances. Western donors are fully aware of the misuse and abuse of the unfortunate situation their relief aid has caused in the country. For some inexplicable reason, they have chose to remain deaf, blind and mute. The opposition coalition, Forum, has raised this issue repeatedly with the Western diplomatic corps in Addis Ababa. Forum has provided eyewitnesses to provide corroboration for the misuse and abuse of relief aid. Recently, eight residents from Tigray who were members and supporters of coalition member Arena were brought to Addis to provide eyewitness testimony on the political use of relief aid experience. These brave individuals who risked their lives to tell the truth were picked up by plainclothes policemen and detained on Dec.23, 2010. They were forcibly returned to Tigray after five days of detention and interrogation and were given stern warnings that they would face severe consequences if they testified. On January 4, 2010 Jason McClure, the American journalist for Bloomberg, went to Tigray to investigate the allegations of politicization of relief aid. Shortly after he arrived he was taken into custody and detained for in a prison in Mekele before being whisked back to Addis where he was served with a notice of expulsion, which was later retracted, from the country in 48 hours. The story of Mr. McClure, a highly respected journalist, and his harrowing experiences in trying to investigate this matter are yet to be told in public. Over the past two weeks, I have travelled to Tigray and visited Kola Tembien election district. I spoke with Teklezgi W/Gabriel and Zenawi Asmelash, two of the eight eyewitnesses who had agreed to speak to Mr. McClure during his visit there. They told me that they are labeled as traitors and their life is under threat since their return from Addis Ababa. I also talked to others in the community. The story is much the same. If they want to get relief aid, they have to join. Hunger, food aid and politics have been intertwined in Ethiopia since the 1973 Ethiopian drought which caused the downfall of Emperor Haile Selassie's regime. As a veteran politician and an ex-commander of an insurgent army that brought down the Derg military regime, I know relief aid could be misused to purchase ammunition, weapons, spare parts, fuel and other materials. Grain and cooking oil can be converted into cash to buy any thing including voting cards. Forum has raised its concerns about the danger of relief aid driven vote buying as early as August 2009. The issue was included as an agenda item in the inter-party dialogue that was initiated through the good offices of the UK Ambassador, Norman Ling, here in Addis Ababa in September but was rejected by the ruling party. I was a member the leadership of the core of the ruling party coalition in Ethiopia, the TPLF, for about twenty five years. I served as an elected member of the Parliament for two terms until I was illegally denied my seat in Parliament in 2001, following a split within the leadership of the ruling party. In this context, it is instructive to look at the way the Meles-led clique used food grain to stage manage my “recall” from my parliamentary seat and that of eight other colleagues. In 2001 the farmers of Kola Tembien, my electoral district in Tigray, were ordered to collect their wages in food grain for work done in soil and water conservation activities. This was the usual method of dispensing food aid to the able-bodied citizens experiencing food shortage. When the farmers showed up at the designated sites to receive their grain allotments, they were asked to put their names and signatures on sheets of paper as evidence of receipt. Incredibly, the list of names and signatures was later presented to the National Election Board of Ethiopia (NEBE) as a petition of my electorate to effect my recall from Parliament. The so-called recall petition was sustained and we were forced out of our elected offices. We sued the NEBE but to no avail since Kemal Bedri, the Chair of the NEBE, was also President of the Supreme Court of the country. Victimized by such dirty tricks, we were illegally barred from entering the premises of the Parliament and effectively dismissed from our elected positions. The use of food grain as a weapon for sidelining dissidents has been perfected by the ruling party ever since. It is their preferred weapon of choice to squeeze the farmers and rural residents into following their one-party system lockstep. My recent visit to Tembien was to assess the political situation in the context of the coming election. I visited many villages in the district, but limited my contacts to friends, relatives and acquaintances. Although I have visited Tembien many times, the way the local officials treated me this time around was quite different. I visited Tambien as a member of the Unity for Justice and Democracy Party (UDJ), another opposition party active in Tigray and member of Forum coalition. I would not be surprised if my visit was viewed as sort of a political debut by the local administration. Unlike other times there was an intense interest and activity in the security apparatuses in the villages I visted. Security forces were fully mobilized to put all my activities under security surveillance, including open harassment of my visitors and relatives. It was deeply saddening to be treated a fugitive and security threat in my own hometown, amidst my relatives and friends. As soon as I arrived at Abiy Adi town, the capital of Kola Tembien district, my father-in-law’s house was surrounded with plain clothes policemen and informants who tried to dissuade people not to enter the premise and speak to me. Those who ignored the warnings, and many did, were later harassed by the police and given strong warnings not to speak to others favourably about me. In Adiha, my birth place, where I stayed for two days, a Lieutenant and three other policemen were dispatched from Abiy Adi town to augment the resident policeman. They sort of created a makeshift police station to monitor my activities. The residents were so disgusted by the level of intrusion that the local administrators told the Lieutenant: “As much as Meles Zenawi is entitled to visit and run for election in Adwa, Seeye is equally entitled to do so in Tembien and will take it as our duty to facilitate his participation.” The surveillance procedures used against me revealed great concern on the part of the officials. Before I visited every village, the local security police officials would coordinate by mobile phone my expected itinerary. Local leaders and members of the ruling party in the villages were instructed to maintain surveillance of the locations and individuals with who I met. When I arrive at the location, these party hacks would openly tell people not to have contact with me or speak to me. Those who met with me were blacklisted. They would hang around collecting information and taking notes on what I said, what others said and any activities that occurred. Once I left the villages, the district governors would call public meetings, collect information and warn them not to associate with anyone connected to me. Despite the surveillance and false propaganda against me, I am grateful to the people for their affection and support. There is little distinction to be made between the ruling party and the local police institutions. The security institutions are in effect appendages of the party. Their principal purpose is to neutralize any opposition to the dominance of the ruling party. Lawful political opponents are viewed as a security issue and treated in the same way as criminals. I did experience this personally; but the vast majority of the people view me as their son, brother or friend and would not abandon or ignore me despite the risks of not getting relief aid, or the price they have to pay for associating with me. They have my everlasting respect and appreciation. Some people may believe Tigray to be the “backyard” of the ruling party. That is simply not true. People in Tigray want change and genuine multiparty democracy as much as their compatriots in other parts of the country do. There is general consensus in Tigray that a united democratic opposition could be a major positive factor in forcing the TPLF to re-evaluate its present course and out of enlightened self-interest pursue a democratic process that meets the urgent and critical needs of all the people. This is a view widely shared by the majority in Tigray. They welcome the coming of Arena and UDJ to compete openly for the votes and support of the people of Tigray. The 800 pound gorilla in the room is of course election rigging. There is general consensus in Tigray that the TPLF will rig the election and declare itself the winner in May. Many have asked me to make sure and get enough independent international observers to monitor the elections. Forum does not have the ability to guarantee the presence of an adequate number of international observers in any part of the country. I have nevertheless decided to present myself as candidate of the Forum in Kola Tembien district. The reason is simple. I know that the ruling party can not field a candidate who can beat me in most of the election districts of Tigray, let alone in Tembien. I also know that the ruling party with its complete monopoly over the electoral process and security apparatuses will not hesitate from rigging the election in broad daylight. If it declares victory, no one will be surprised. But the people of Tembien will know their voice has been stolen and the declaration of victory, by the ruling party, would only serve as a proof that it stole the election. As to the West’s commitment to democracy in Ethiopia, the big talk needs to be backed up with at least a little action. There is a viable alternative in Forum, and the West should do what it can to help level the playing field. Seeye Abraha Email: seabrag@gmail.com ------------------------- The writer Seeye Abraha was Defence Minister of Ethiopia and is currently vice chair of the UDJ party. wardheer

^Sorry late reply sbx.Faroole's first year in office could be described as erratic at best. I had better hopes for the guys.He did say good things but no deeds. I concur with you he made big blunder with Somaligalbeed issue and the same mistake with the Somalis from Bay/Bakool though he alone is not to blame for that. It became all too convenient to blame ordinary people from south for the lawlessness. To me it seems, and I don't think share this, there are internal issues at play that is not being addressed, an inter-clan rivalry that's not getting its due attention. I must applaud him though resolving or atleast being of part solution to the Ufeyn conflict. There's however an issue brewing in Galgala with individual called Atom. Sool situation is also out of his hand since he failed to address the issue (in reality, I don't know how much he could have done about Sool). He's slow on democratization process. Personally, I think that's for the best.I don't know how much I could say about his goals on social and economic progress.His role at the national and international has been mixed though in terms of substance, he hasn't achieved anything tangible. We will see what this year brings.

^

^It is not him. Xiin..I think the article merely presented an opportunity for Cicero to jab at religion. He didn't take view on Samatar's article one way or another. LooL@trained in natural science