I renounce my support for Sheik Sharif & Cumar Cabdirashid

[Enemy_Of_Mad_Mullah]

wtf

New flag of Somalia

[AR1223]

wtf

That's the flag of the last Caliphate.

[FAH1223]

wtf

New flag of Somalia

make it blue

quit copying mauritania flag

[afisoone]

[James Dahl]

They would (will?) make terrible leaders, they will stifle commerce, strangle trade and brutalize the citizenry.

That sounds like a sentence you copied from Rush Limbaugh.

Don't be silly, there is more to governance than strict adherence to Shariah. What is their economic policy? Do they have one? How will bringing their Jihad from Japan to Alaska fix the crumbling infrastructure and roads? How do they plan to house everyone made homeless by the Ethiopian shelling?

This is why they will make terrible rulers. Fanatics make the worst rulers, no matter what form their fanaticism takes, whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Xasan Turki. Their idealogical battles always take priority over the day to day 'boring' business of running a country properly.

Pragmatism seems to be demonized in today's Somali politics, where it is forever viewed as 'selling out'. Pragmatism is a rare and precious thing in a leader, and Somalis should wean themselves off of demanding that their leaders be 'true believers' in the cause. Give me a pragmatic leader who can make win-win compromises anyday over some ideologue who views politics as a zero-sum game.

[AR1223]

Don't be silly, there is more to governance than strict adherence to Shariah. What is their economic policy? Do they have one? How will bringing their Jihad from Japan to Alaska fix the crumbling infrastructure and roads? How do they plan to house everyone made homeless by the Ethiopian shelling?

This is why they will make terrible rulers. Fanatics make the worst rulers, no matter what form their fanaticism takes, whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Xasan Turki. Their idealogical battles always take priority over the day to day 'boring' business of running a country properly.

Pragmatism seems to be demonized in today's Somali politics, where it is forever viewed as 'selling out'. Pragmatism is a rare and precious thing in a leader, and Somalis should wean themselves off of demanding that their leaders be 'true believers' in the cause. Give me a pragmatic leader who can make win-win compromises anyday over some ideologue who views politics as a zero-sum game.

Your argument isn't convincing. You appear to have little to zero familiarity with Islamic history. For instance, you aren't aware of the fact that it was fanatics and their strict adherence to Shariah that built an Islamic empire that has lasted close to a millennium and half. An Islamic empire that was strong militarily, scientifically, economically, etc. Muslims become weak when they become secular and abandoned strict adherence to Shariah.

As per Al-Shabaab, they haven't stifled commerce, strangled trade and brutalized the citizenry, as you've alleged. Your allegations lack a dose of logic. Why would a movement that's trying to get strong and expand stifle commerce and strangle trade? Wouldn't that doom them, as they require taxes and profits that finance their strength? And why do the West and Ethiopia interfere militarily when they can sit and wait for Al-Shabaab to collapse as a result of stifling commerce and strangling trade? Almost all brutalizations against civilians occurred before Al-Shabaab come into the picture, at the hands of secular warlords who are supported/financed by the West/Ethiopia. Wherever Al-Shabaab control, there's peace and little to zero brutalization against civilians. In a country marred by chaos, violence, criminal activities, etc-- the strict adherence to Shariah is necessary and efficient. Somalis who live under Al-Shabaab are very happy with the strict adherence to Shariah, as it has brought peace & prosperity.

Pragmatism, like other shiny concepts such as democracy, federalism, etc-- are attractive on paper, but impractical in real life. Is it pragmatism that the West support, finance and continue to arm the secular warlords who have caused Somalia's destruction and the brutalization of civilians? Is it pragmatism that Obama recently sent tons of arms/weapons to those warlords who have caused Somalia's destruction and the brutalization of civilians?

Al-Shabaab have an economic policy, a very efficient one that's sure to succeed. They are business/commerce/trade friendly. Recently, they have introduced a welfare program in Kismaayo. I haven't read about malnutrition or famine in areas they control; a clear indication that they know what they're doing and how to do it. So, you're mistaken about Al-Shabaab, but that's expected from a rightwing cadaan who copies from his master Rush Limbaugh.

[AbdiWahab252]

AR1223,

Leave James alone. He was very supportive of the UIC and looked down at the TFG. The UIC were more effective administrators than Shabab could ever dream of being. The UIC instilled confidence and had a lot of intellectuals, and members of the Diaspora working in their ranks.

Al Shabab are more of a reactionary force with a radical agenda similar to the Khmer Rouge. We all know what the Khmer Rouge agenda did to Cambodia in the 1970s:

"The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments.

The Khmer Rouge believed parents were tainted with capitalism. Consequently, children were separated from parents and brainwashed to socialism as well as taught torture methods with animals. Children were a "dictatorial instrument of the party"[3] and were given leadership in torture and executions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

[James Dahl]

Don't be silly, there is more to governance than strict adherence to Shariah. What is their economic policy? Do they have one? How will bringing their Jihad from Japan to Alaska fix the crumbling infrastructure and roads? How do they plan to house everyone made homeless by the Ethiopian shelling?

This is why they will make terrible rulers. Fanatics make the worst rulers, no matter what form their fanaticism takes, whether it is Rush Limbaugh or Xasan Turki. Their idealogical battles always take priority over the day to day 'boring' business of running a country properly.

Pragmatism seems to be demonized in today's Somali politics, where it is forever viewed as 'selling out'. Pragmatism is a rare and precious thing in a leader, and Somalis should wean themselves off of demanding that their leaders be 'true believers' in the cause. Give me a pragmatic leader who can make win-win compromises anyday over some ideologue who views politics as a zero-sum game.

Your argument isn't convincing. You appear to have little to zero familiarity with Islamic history. For instance, you aren't aware of the fact that it was fanatics and their strict adherence to Shariah that built an Islamic empire that has lasted close to a millennium and half. An Islamic empire that was strong militarily, scientifically, economically, etc. Muslims become weak when they become secular and abandoned strict adherence to Shariah.

As per Al-Shabaab, they haven't stifled commerce, strangled trade and brutalized the citizenry, as you've alleged. Your allegations lack a dose of logic. Why would a movement that's trying to get strong and expand stifle commerce and strangle trade? Wouldn't that doom them, as they require taxes and profits that finance their strength? And why do the West and Ethiopia interfere militarily when they can sit and wait for Al-Shabaab to collapse as a result of stifling commerce and strangling trade? Almost all brutalizations against civilians occurred before Al-Shabaab come into the picture, at the hands of secular warlords who are supported/financed by the West/Ethiopia. Wherever Al-Shabaab control, there's peace and little to zero brutalization against civilians. In a country marred by chaos, violence, criminal activities, etc-- the strict adherence to Shariah is necessary and efficient. Somalis who live under Al-Shabaab are very happy with the strict adherence to Shariah, as it has brought peace & prosperity.

Pragmatism, like other shiny concepts such as democracy, federalism, etc-- are attractive on paper, but impractical in real life. Is it pragmatism that the West support, finance and continue to arm the secular warlords who have caused Somalia's destruction and the brutalization of civilians? Is it pragmatism that Obama recently sent tons of arms/weapons to those warlords who have caused Somalia's destruction and the brutalization of civilians?

Al-Shabaab have an economic policy, a very efficient one that's sure to succeed. They are business/commerce/trade friendly. Recently, they have introduced a welfare program in Kismaayo. I haven't read about malnutrition or famine in areas they control; a clear indication that they know what they're doing and how to do it. So, you're mistaken about Al-Shabaab, but that's expected from a rightwing cadaan who copies from his master Rush Limbaugh.

The Rashidun Caliphate, which built the Islamic Empire was a fine example of pragmatism and tolerance. They did not force anyone to convert or die, they in fact established firm rules protecting the rights of minorities. The Rashidun and Ummayad Caliphs brought in advisors from Tang China and the Roman Empire. The people who tore apart the empire were religious fanatics who considered the empire 'impure' (the Khawarij, Shi'as, Abbasids) for whatever reason. It is no surprise that after the Abbasids took over from the Ummayads, the Caliphate declined while the Ummayad successor state in Spain flourished.

If you're looking for an example of pragmatism in western governments don't look to the United States, they do not have a pragmatic policy (or at least they have not for a very long time, perhaps Obama will change that). Look to Sweden, Switzerland or Finland, or some other incredibly boring, extremely well-run country, if you would like examples.

Pragmatism is, by the way, the arch-enemy of 'right wing cadaans like Rush Limbaugh', who are actually a lot closer ideologically to al-Shabab than I think you realise. Swap out Islam and Shariah for Christianity and the Ten Commandments, leave everything else the same, and you have Republican paradise.

AR1223,

Leave James alone. He was very supportive of the UIC and looked down at the TFG. The UIC were more effective administrators than Shabab could ever dream of being. The UIC instilled confidence and had a lot of intellectuals, and members of the Diaspora working in their ranks.

Al Shabab are more of a reactionary force with a radical agenda similar to the Khmer Rouge. We all know what the Khmer Rouge agenda did to Cambodia in the 1970s:

"The Khmer Rouge wanted to eliminate anyone suspected of "involvement in free-market activities". Suspected capitalists encompassed professionals and almost everyone with an education, many urban dwellers, and people with connections to foreign governments.

The Khmer Rouge believed parents were tainted with capitalism. Consequently, children were separated from parents and brainwashed to socialism as well as taught torture methods with animals. Children were a "dictatorial instrument of the party"[3] and were given leadership in torture and executions."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khmer_Rouge

I don't know about the Khmer Rouge, I mean Pol Pot was a disciple of Mao, with his "kill everyone who doesn't fit in your utopia" viewpoint on governance. I don't think that al-Shabab will do that, but they will reverse any progress on education and will end the economic renaissance that Somalia was beginning to experience before the war and still has a chance of reviving, and their ham-handed approach to Shariah is open to abuse, especially as they are not fond of fair trials.

[Murax]

Renounce Your support for Hutus

[Grant]

"You appear to have little to zero familiarity with Islamic history. For instance, you aren't aware of the fact that it was fanatics and their strict adherence to Shariah that built an Islamic empire that has lasted close to a millennium and half. An Islamic empire that was strong militarily, scientifically, economically, etc. Muslims become weak when they become secular and abandoned strict adherence to Shariah."



The Islam that conquered sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia was not only not militant, it was Suufi. Current divisions, even within mosques and existing certainly on both national and international levels, makes the whole idea of empire a bit ludicrous. Power centers rose and fell in the Islamic world, just as they did elsewhere. Besides, compared to Roman or British standards, Caliphal powers were usually darned lax outside their own immediate bailiwicks.

The founders of the great fitnas, Ibn Taymiyya and Abdul Wahaab, both spent most of their careers out of favor with their governments. Ibn Taymiyya was often in jail. Abdul Wahaab was in open rebellion against the Ottoman Caliph, whom he accused of shirk because of the Caliph's Suufi practices. You know the end result: We now have no Caliph and the holy sites are held by a govenment that is not only tribal and nationalist, but also sectarian and proselitizing.

Islam has been divided ever since the first muslims fled to Mogadisho during the wars of succession following the death of the Prophet, and there has never since then been a single- unitary- Islamic state.

It takes a Takfiiri to believe there is now a single version of Islam that unites all Muslims in any one "strict adherence to Shariica." I would love to see a codification, but as far as I am aware, there isn't one. Shariica remains a description of how the law should work; It is not a legal code. And we have seen in the hands of the Shabaab just how dangerous it can be.

[SahanKoonfur]

The Rashidun Caliphate, which built the Islamic Empire was a fine example of pragmatism and tolerance. They did not force anyone to convert or die, they in fact established firm rules protecting the rights of minorities. The Rashidun and Ummayad Caliphs brought in advisors from Tang China and the Roman Empire. The people who tore apart the empire were religious fanatics who considered the empire 'impure' (the Khawarij, Shi'as, Abbasids) for whatever reason. It is no surprise that after the Abbasids took over from the Ummayads, the Caliphate declined while the Ummayad successor state in Spain flourished.

If you're looking for an example of pragmatism in western governments don't look to the United States, they do not have a pragmatic policy (or at least they have not for a very long time, perhaps Obama will change that). Look to Sweden, Switzerland or Finland, or some other incredibly boring, extremely well-run country, if you would like examples.

Pragmatism is, by the way, the arch-enemy of 'right wing cadaans like Rush Limbaugh', who are actually a lot closer ideologically to al-Shabab than I think you realise. Swap out Islam and Shariah for Christianity and the Ten Commandments, leave everything else the same, and you have Republican paradise.

You've confirmed that your knowledge of Islamic history is handicapped. It wasn't only the Rashidun Caliphate who didn't force anyone to convert/die or protect the rights of minorities; other caliphs/leaders practiced that throughout the Islamic history. Also, it wasn't only the Rashidun and Ummayad Caliphs who brought in non-Muslim (including Jewish) advisers; the rest of Muslim caliphs/leaders did as well the same. You're mistaken about the Abbasids; they didn't tore apart the empire. In fact, the Golden Age of Islam was during the Abbasid Caliphate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age

Pragmatism didn't suspend Huddud punishments during the Rashidun or Ummayad Caliphate. The Huddud punishments were administered regularly throughout the Islamic history. The empire didn't decline after the Ummayad Caliphate; it continued to flourish and expand. The empire declined only when Muslims abandoned strict adherence to Shariah.

I don't think Sweden, Switzerland or Finland are extremely well-run countries, where the concept of pragmatism flourishes. For example, Switzerland is a country where the wealth of Third World countries are deposited. Repressive and corrupt Third World leaders deny their countries and citizens badly-needed $trillions that could be used in development, education, research, agriculture, etc. The wealth ends up in Swiss banks, and Switzerland is happy with that, while countries and citizens of the Third World suffer from hunger, malnutrition, internal conflicts, lack of education & medical coverage, etc. There are similar or other examples than could be applied to Sweden and Finland. The picture in those countries isn't rosy as you paint it.

You might be trying to distance yourself from Rush Limbaugh, but you're using his language, and subconsciously expressing his ideology. You're the duck that flies like a duck, quacks like a duck, and hunters shoot it like a duck.

[SahanGalbeed]

War bal kan eega nimanyow ^ . Waryee al kalaabtu sahan ma laha , waxaanay u lahayn na waan ku sheegaya insha Allah .
1/ horta eydu markey is racdo , mid mid-ka kale ka sii horeeya ma'laha
2/ Al shabaab , pakistaani iyo Al qacida baa u aqli ah , Somali shaqo ku ma laha !
Pashtuun-ku reer guraa ma'aha , marka wax u sahan ah oo reerka ka sii hor baxa ma'laha .
3/Sahangalbeed aniga aya la i yidha , haddaad rabto inaad igu dayato na , de al kalaabta ayaad ka soo hadhaysa , intaad magacaagi asliga aha ee ku soo gali jirtay halkan aad ku noqoto .Haddaad aniga i daba gurayso , sahan ma noqon kartid e ANIGA aya ku sahan ah .


Midda kale een rabo inaan ka hadlo halkan waxa weeye .
ARRINTI is bedel ba ku dhacay .
Is bedelku AW oo aqli yeeeshay oo mooryaanimadii ka baxay , oo qabyaalad ka bogsaday ma' aha !
Is bedelku waxa weeye sahangalbeed oo Hargeysa ka soo amba-baxay, ba la socda
Shanshiboy, Allah ha u naxariisto , anagu Xamar u maynaan dirin , qori na u maanaan dhiibin .
Shanshi baad sheegtay e , darood hawiye iyo Isaaq middad rabto ahow , haddad qori dhegta saarato , cimaamad foodana ku soo duubato , xabada kugu dhacda adiga isku dhigay !
Allahu Akbar , asaxaabti reer MN intuunan dhoofin baad la talin lahaydeen.

PS: AW adigana mid baan ku sheegaya , wax ma qariyo anigu e , haddaad discipline yeelan waydo , eydani way inaga faro badan tahay ma ogtahay , markaa way inagu qaninii doonta halkan ...inaga ilaali hadalada qarkood

[abdisamad3]

War bal kan eega nimanyow ^ . Waryee al kalaabtu sahan ma laha , waxaanay u lahayn na waan ku sheegaya insha Allah .
1/ horta eydu markey is racdo , mid mid-ka kale ka sii horeeya ma'laha
2/ Al shabaab , pakistaani iyo Al qacida baa u aqli ah , Somali shaqo ku ma laha !
Pashtuun-ku reer guraa ma'aha , marka wax u sahan ah oo reerka ka sii hor baxa ma'laha .
3/Sahangalbeed aniga aya la i yidha , haddaad rabto inaad igu dayato na , de al kalaabta ayaad ka soo hadhaysa , intaad magacaagi asliga aha ee ku soo gali jirtay halkan aad ku noqoto .Haddaad aniga i daba gurayso , sahan ma noqon kartid e ANIGA aya ku sahan ah .


Midda kale een rabo inaan ka hadlo halkan waxa weeye .
ARRINTI is bedel ba ku dhacay .
Is bedelku AW oo aqli yeeeshay oo mooryaanimadii ka baxay , oo qabyaalad ka bogsaday ma' aha !
Is bedelku waxa weeye sahangalbeed oo Hargeysa ka soo amba-baxay, ba la socda
Shanshiboy, Allah ha u naxariisto , anagu Xamar u maynaan dirin , qori na u maanaan dhiibin .
Shanshi baad sheegtay e , darood hawiye iyo Isaaq middad rabto ahow , haddad qori dhegta saarato , cimaamad foodana ku soo duubato , xabada kugu dhacda adiga isku dhigay !
Allahu Akbar , asaxaabti reer MN intuunan dhoofin baad la talin lahaydeen.

PS: AW adigana mid baan ku sheegaya , wax ma qariyo anigu e , haddaad discipline yeelan waydo , eydani way inaga faro badan tahay ma ogtahay , markaa way inagu qaninii doonta halkan ...inaga ilaali hadalada qarkood

^^^^^^

[SahanGalbeed]

James dahl a white guy has more knowledge on islam and somalis than that majeerten former CY supporter turned islamist called ar1223 .
Sahankoonfur ? another darood , these guys are shameless !!
Abdisamad , ma tahay darood adiguna haa iyo maya ?

[abdisamad3]

SahanGalbeed: Iam muslim...