Let's just hope she doesn't die. Somalis are only unified by their hatred of this woman. If a bus does squelch her, we'd have to hold our tongues and then where will we be?

Jaalle for either gender, though by my time people were giving Barre/socialism a linguistic middle finger and only used it mockingly. "Jaalle, dameer cabanaya ayaan ku mooday."

^And of course those people living near Shabelle and Jubba are not Somali. And we are not African, we just have an African connection. As for the niiko, I've just smashed my "Learn to Dance" DVD to smithereens.

Nur walaal, I did apologize for the delay. Sometimes one must prioritize and unfortunately SOL must always remain at the bottom of the list, below professional and familial obligations. No, I'm not doing any extensive research, and there is only little old me debating under the Cara moniker. I'd be a little flattered but instead I'm hoping you yourself are taking a few days to prepare a one-two punch like never before seen on SOL. how can the Dead Sea be the closest and farthest to Makka at the same time, the conflict in semantics of the choices of meanings of DANAA can thus be resolved if it means LOWEST point on earth. Ah, I see where you are coming from now. Is there any questioning of this puzzling word usage during Muhammed's lifetime or in the centuries since?

LOL. Okay, that was seriously funny. Australia is still like WTF^^...

Nur, Walaal, I'm sorry about taking so long to reply. Originally posted by Nur: You beat me to it, My kitchen or yours? please follow the link below for the joy of Cooking, from eNuri Culinary Corps. http://www.somaliaonline.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=000641#000003 I was rather hoping for the recipe to a scrumptious cheese cake. Alas, it's another tract in which metaphors are stretched to the breaking point! the purpose of the first part of Surah Romans in Quran was not intended as a direct proof of the Existence of Allah; rather, it was a first step to show Muhammad’s prophethood, which is necessary condition to validate the Quraan he delivered to us from Allah SWT. Not really, it's merely a precondition. But I'm glad to see that this was only the first step towards proofing Muhammed's prophethood. Let's see the rest please. A prophet in Arabic, means some one who predicts the future with accuracy, the accuracy of the incidents therefore by itself is not the proof of His prophethood, but the culmination of many other incidents, teachings and events in his lifetime that together made Muhammad a phenomenon not many could have resisted are the proofs. The question, brother, is what are these proofs? Each one of them must be impressive, but like you said a whole host of them would be truly compelling. That's why I suggested 1 accurate prediction in 23 years/6000 verses is hardly clearcut proof of divine guidance. So I assume we will shortly get a numbered list of these proofs that together make it unquestionably clear that Muhammed received direct communication from a god. In short 23 years, his message fundamentally challenged all others, religious, social, political and even military powers that existed, his followers decisively winning on all fronts, establishing a nation that spanned the globe risen from the lowly barren desert, from tribal division to a national unity, from moral decadence, to the height of moral justice, a beacon of light that connected the Eastern wisdom to the western innovation, a nation that was (Wasatan) (Middle, moderate, media) in every aspect. All of this is debatable, but even if true, proves absolutely nothing. Muhammed's kind are called revolutionaries, rebels, etc. History is all about recounting their exploits. They arise in every culture and community, they shake things up, protest the status quo, gain dominance, spread their message, become the status quo, attain decadence, until another revolutionary is born to start the cycle once again. Compare Muhammed's birthplace (Saudi Arabia) in his time to the state it is in today. Just how similar are they? Rule by tyrants, check. Injustice against women, check. Decadent wealth cheek-by-jowl with abject poverty, check. Ignorant superstition, check. Where's the lasting change? The only way you could differentiate the social order of 21st century Saudi Arabia from 6th century Saudi Arabia is that instead of having slaves wealthy Saudis have servants they treat like slaves. Let us visit the verses of the Surah Romans as they: 1. Narrate of the place as The Dead Sea, Palestine. 2. Narrate The elevation of the place to be ( Adnal Ard) , meaning (Lowest Point on Earth ) which is proven to be 402 meters below sea level. 3. The Romans would win final decisive battle 4. The Time Span would be within Ten years ( Bidca siniin) 5. Credit to the victory belongs to Allah not to Muhammad. 1. I notice that your interpretation/translation is markedly different from that for three translations of the Qur'an I've seen. These translations make no mention of the Dead Sea, instead translating the first two verses as "The Roman empire has been defeated in a land close by". Please explain what you mean by referances to the Dead Sea. 2. The Romans did not win a decisive battle against the Persians until 627 AD, which is 12 years after their defeat on 614-615. The point here is not to count prediction or two to be correct, rather, its to show that Muhammad SAWS who was an illiterate could not possibly have known all of that without a superior source of knwoledge, as to be so specific to mention that the location of the battle, the Dead Sea to be the lowest point on earth which is a scientific fact. 1. Again, please clarify what you mean by the references to the Dead Sea, which is in not in the Qur'an nor in any explanation of these verses from that time. 2. Muhammed was illiterate, but illiterate does not mean deaf and dumb. Muhammed's knowledge of current events is unremarkable. He was a businessman and a traveller. He lived in a city with massive amount of pilgrims and visitors each. Obviously he would be aware if the Romans were defeated in a neighboring country. In fact, he wasn't the only one that knew the Romans were recently defeated in a battle--the whole town knew! Isn't that the tafsiir for why the verses were "revealed", as a response to Muslims being disappointed at hearing the news? So knowing 1) That the Roman Empire was defeated, and 2)That they were defeated in Palestine is out as proof of his powers of prophecy. What's left? The actual prophecy, which is really 1 part: The Romans would soon win against the Persians. No real mention of exactly how long this was supposed to take, which is a little strange. All we can say is that Muhammed predicted in this verse that the Romans would win against the Persians sometime in the next few years. I would think communication from on high would be a little bit more specific than that, to say the month and year if not the day. So far, Nur, your "evidence" consists of regaling me with a story about a prediction made 1400 years ago by someone who claimed to speak with God. I'm assuming you're employing the time-tested technique of debate by starting with your weakest point and working up from there. As you can see Cara, its more than two predictions in one Surah, Now that's a little strange. How did it become TWO predictions? There is only one prediction. Your spurious mention of the Dead Sea hardly counts as a prediction, since it's additional to the text. Maududi's tafsiir makes no mention of it. The Hadith collections don't make any mention of it either. Padding the numbers looks a little suspect, bro. For you to put Muhammad with David Koresh, or Ahmed Qadyan, is a fallacy of a scale, showing again what I was guessing when I asked about your exposure to religions, a fundamental deficiency of History of monotheist Religions. Actually, not at all. My intention was to demonstrate that, contrary to your assertion, people have gone to great lengths to promulgate their beliefs. Thus willingness to suffer does not provide any evidence of truthfullness. But you moved the goal posts by making it a question of impact. These cult leaders are, by your standards, either misguided or liars, yet they willingly face persecution and death. Thus, motivation-wise, the scale is exactly right. It's your belief in Muhammed that causes you to put in a league of his own. The people who followed these cults sincerely believed in their leaders, and consider their leader to be right and all others to be wrong. At any rate, what is a cult today, may be the next absolutely astonishing religious movement of tomorrow. Granted, it's a little bit more difficult to get away with claims of divine prophethood today. The unforgiving glare of modern technology, like newspapers, cameras and widespread literacy makes founding religions a little challenging. That's why gods only communicated with people a long time ago. Your unbalanced analogy of Prophet Muhammad SAWS to US based cult leaders was neither fair, nor intellectually acceptable, the only credible exception to the your line-up cult leaders is your selection of Buddha, but again, the analogy fails since Muhammad is not worshipped, nor was he a monk, Mohammed was a Statesman, spiritual teacher, husband, father, peacemaker, fighter and a friend. Again, you move the goal-posts. Buddha abandoned wealth and power, and endured great deprivation. You initially asserted that Muhammed could have had no reason but the truth to make the sacrifices he did. I demonstrated that plenty of people you would consider to be lying or misguided made the same sacrifices. It doesn't matter what the outcome is, only the motivation is in question here. What made these magicians change their minds? What made Cinderella run away from Prince Charming after the ball without giving him her email address? Really, Nur. Try to step back a little and be more objective. You are presenting as absolute fact something you must suspect I would view as Middle Eastern mythology. I don't stay up nights wondering why Zeus disliked Hera, or what possessed Krishna to reveal his true identity as the Supreme Diety to Arjuna, or why those magicians decided to believe in Moses. If I believed in magicians and Hebrew prophets turning sticks into snakes, then perhaps the question would have some merit. Rhetorical questions can only take you so far.

Hello Nur, Sorry for the delay. You misunderstood my point about using the Qur'an to argue for your beliefs. I wasn't prohibiting you from quoting from the Qur'an, merely pointing out that the authorship and significance of the Qur'an is part of what we are trying to clarify. By all means post a couple of fire and brimstone verses, my response will generally be "so what?", since you might as well be quoting from The Joy of Cooking. Originally posted by Nur: 1. How much knowledge do you have about Islam in general? from a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the highest? This is an odd question. Where do you see yourself on this scale? Where do you see the average Muslim? For the sake of discussion, assume I know enough about Islam to identify the key players, important historical incidents, key dogma, the contents of the Qur'an and Hadith, Muslim apologia, and so forth. I don't anticipate startling facts about Islamic history that will blow me away. To be honest I find the rest of your questions irrelevant. My knowledge or history is not the topic of debate here. Your "evidence" will not hinge on what religion I was raised in or how I learned about religions. If I'm ignorant of a particular subject matter it will become apparent within the debate itself, and that will be a point in your favor since I will be shown up for debating matters I have little knowledge of. Stop dawdling. By the way, I gather I'm being made an example of. But why don't we admit why this is? Some of your sermons have met with a chilly reception lately (the let's-circumcise-girls-to-prevent-abortions kind), and you want to lay the blame on a secret agnostic cabal that has drawn the congregation away. Kind of insulting to said congregation, but what do I know? I can hardly muster the will to live, being so empty of purpose and all.

Hello Xiinfaniin, Originally posted by xiinfaniin: But good Cara has been speaking more grammar than truth, so to say, and injecting her self in religious topics as of late. Are there topics that are off-limits to certain forummers but open to others? Is there a list, or is this an unspoken rule I've violated?

Nur, Brother, you told a story and gave quotes from the Qur'an, which I'm assuming is your evidence for the existence of your god. From your post, I gather your proofs fall into three categories: 1)The story of the Romans defeating the Persians, which proves that the Qur'an is prophetic; 2)The verses you quoted, especially the ones in bold, which say that there is a god, his name is Allah, he created everything and wants to be worshipped, he will punish those who refuse to worship him, and reward those who do; 3) The rhetorical question "What would motivate Muhammed to fabricate the Qur'an since he did not gain any material wealth?" If I've missed any key articles, feel free to correct me, please. 1. The Prophecy If I understood the story right, the Persians defeated the Romans, the early Muslims were demoralized, but Muhammed told them in this verse that soon the Romans would be victorious, which they eventually were. As proof for the existence of god, I would say this is not particularly convincing. The Roman and Persian empires were at war with one another for nearly 700 years, with first one then the other winning battles and skirmishes all over the Middle East. The "front line" was so long that predicting that the Romans would win is like predicting it will rain next week. Even if it doesn't rain in your town, it will rain somewhere. All the same, this prophecy would be truly remarkable if it was one of many or if it had been more specific. In a book of 6000+ verses, getting one or two predictions right is no miracle. 2. The Quotes from the Qur'an To this, I can't help but agree with JB. Your evidence here is begging the question. Unless there's some startling element I missed in the verses you quoted, you are essentially arguing that god exists because this book says god exists. What makes the Qur'an different from all the other holy books contradicting it? 3. Rhetorical Question Think, why would he invent such a lie? what would be the driver? and how would ita have benefited him. 2500 years ago, a king in a land near India had a son. The son grew up in court, with abundant wealth and every comfort. He was destined to become a powerful king, and his father went so far as to shield his son from suffering and death so that he was never troubled. But at age 29, the prince abandoned all his wealth, his young family and his status as a prince to become a monk in search of truth. He spend the next several years traversing the land, preaching his faith and helping the poor. At 35, the ascetic ex-prince declared that he had reached Enlightment, and spent the rest of his life explain his message to everyone, from the wealthy nobles to the lowliest members of society. He curtailed all bodily appetites, practicing celibacy the rest of his life, eating only enough to sustain his life, and sleeping on the ground. This man's name was Siddhartha Gautama, better known today as the Buddha. What could possibly have motivated a rich prince to become a pauper? Why would Mirza Ghulam Ahmad brave the ire of Muslim clerics and found the Ahmaddiya Movement? What motivated David Koresh to preach his message, and why would he and his followers choose to die rather turn themselves in? What motivated Joseph Smith to face violent protest to found Mormonism, for which he was later killed? The Falun Kong are persecuted severely in China, yet gain followers daily. Guru Nanak founded Sikhism, and for what? Do I need to spell it out any further? People have many motivations besides money, Nur. That you would ask such a naive question is baffling. Power, acclaim, influence, a desire to help others, ambition for one's people, the list of alternative drives is endless. That's one of the problems one comes across when one attempts to discover if there is a "true religion". Each religion presents its founder as somehow free of greed for material possessions or power, yet a consequence of founding a religion is that one inevitably gains one or the other or both. A quick aside, Nur: you and a couple of other people have indicated that the rules of logic and rational discourse will not be necessarily followed for some reason. If that's the case, then count me out of this discussion. I've no better tool than reason for arriving at the truth, and don't desire to spend my time rebutting irrational claims. In particular, those who think copying and pasting stories will somehow proof the veracity of their beliefs should re-think that strategy. It indicates an unability to defend your beliefs in your own words, due to lack of evidence or extreme mental laziness no doubt.

LOL. I'm getting apprehensive now, even though I've gone kayaking before. I'm going on a white water rafting/camping trip in August. It's supposed to be a level IV, and I've never rafted above level III, and only for a few hours at that. But this trip is supposed by 8 hours a day for 3 days (covering something like 140 miles). The thing is, being able to swim doesn't help much if you are in rapids. It's more important not to panic and flail about, making it difficult for others to pull you out. Few swimmers can fight the current if the river is really fast.

Originally posted by Djib-Somali: quote: The person who makes a positive claim is responsible for proving it true. Since you make the extraordinary claim, you must provide the extraordinary evidence. I speak from a default position of skepticism. Well, this position is called agnosticism rather than atheism (doubt).How about this then: in terms of knowing whether there is a god or not, I'm agnostic. In my view one cannot claim that there is or is no god or gods. But in terms of my personal belief, my feeling is that there is no god or gods. In fact, denying God's existence is in itself a claim, the atheist quintessential claim... When Muhammed (saw) smashed the 365 idols in the Ka'ba, was he not denying their existence as the gods his countrymen worshipped?

Khalaf, Thank you for your courtesy walaal. Everyone knows the position of Muslims, what is your position sis? Isn’t saying there is no Allah (if u think that) also an extraordinary claim? How do u come to that conclusion if that is your conclusion? In terms of what I know for sure, it's that I exist, the world exists, and that's about it. I know some people claim that there are other 'beings', like angels, gods, jinn, little green men, ghosts, etc. But I've never come across any of these things, and the accounts people give I find highly unconvincing. That's all. I'm not interested in challenging other people's beliefs. Everyone has a unique outlook on life, and what may be obvious to some, is a little uncertain to others. So it is seems a little foolish to me to ridicule others for their beliefs so long as those beliefs don't cause any harm to me or mine.

Nur, Athiest Cara and Muslim Nur, A Dialogue of Faith vs Faithlessness I think a better title would be "A Dialogue of Faith vs. Reason". See, I'm faithful and true to my family and friends; it's religions, cults and superstitions that I'm skeptical about. Originally posted by Nur: I invite Cara to tell us more about her faithless principles, the exhaustive proofs that rule out the existence of a creator and a judgement day and a purpose in life, I claim no such proofs, nor do I need them. The person who makes a positive claim is responsible for proving it true. Since you make the extraordinary claim, you must provide the extraordinary evidence. I speak from a default position of skepticism.

I'm tempted to agree with JB and just leave it at that. Nur, you penned rather hasty and lightly proofread thoughts there. I should try to respond to some of your points. Its not difficult, at one poiunt in my life, though very short, I was in your shoes, and I know how it feels from the inside out, it is a void, nothing can fill, except the purpose you are avoiding and you knwo it. That's funny, because there was a time I was in your shoes too, so I guess we exchanged footwear (for good, I hope). I used to think I had the truth on lockdown, that a book in a foreign language had all the answers (I didn't realize the questions were contrived), and that my purpose in life was to obey a set of often disagreeable rules in the hope that I would be rewarded for my blind faith by being given lots things after I died. In other words, your purpose is to eschew materialism today so that you can live in hedonistic purposeless bliss tomorrow. Tell me, what will your purpose in Heaven be? Without a goal, won't your eternal neverending afterlife be rather hollow and empty? Deep down inside, you must know the best and only life is the one we live now, and that any talk of life after death is fairytale fit only for children. You actually often wonder if it's all an elaborate hoax, and repress all the doubts and questions so you won't have a mental breakdown. If you find the preceding arrogant and inaccurate, I hope you realize how you sound, with your ridiculous assertion that I am "hollow" inside. I assure I'm chock-full of innards, not to mention thoughts, dreams, and plans. I know your blind arrogance will not be breached, and that it is in the best interest of your self-image to think that the non-religious are actually living frantic lives of empty pleasure-seeking, wondering all the while why they have this nagging voice telling them to be Nur. It would be funny if it wasn't so wearying. Living well is a mean, not a goal, living is not an activity of your choice, your were given, but due to your the cover of your chosen aimlessness on your perception you fail to see the purpose behind life, some agnostics do confirm that there is a purpose behind life, but they admit theor ignorance of what it is,. I actually don't follow the train of thought here. How do we go from "living is not an activity of your choice", which is manifestly true, to "some agnostics do confirm that there is a purpose behind life"? Who are these agnostics? How did they reach this conclusion? If life is to be dismissed because you didn't choose it, then what about the purpose behind life? Did you choose to have this purpose imposed on you? Shouldn't you be looking for yet another purpose to justify this purpose you didn't choose? Sometimes I try to make my friends understand how this religious purpose thing sounds to me by giving them an analogy. Imagine your friend believes that his purpose in life is to rub his left heel against his right ear three times a day. This involves some uncomfortable contortions, but your friend can just manage it and feels happier for doing it. Furthermore, your friend believes that this procedure is the only thing keeping the entire universe from imploding. Your friend is happy, filled with a purpose he believes to be very important, and he lacks for nothing. The fact that the contortion is rather uncomfortable is part of its appeal, because it reinforces the idea that it is of critical importance. He asks you to join him, on the grounds that he has a real purpose and you don't. He dismisses your claim that you have a purpose by saying that yours is a superficial attempt to fill an ear-shaped hole. After all, what have you done lately to save the universe from imploding? How can you be so self-absorbed and shallow? Don't you realize trillions of lives are at risk if he were to die and no one else performed the ceremony? Look deep within yourself, my friend, and you will find that your heel is fair itching to meet the side of your head. Really, why else do we have earlobes? I don't know about you but I wouldn't be pulling my shoes off in agreement any time soon. That's because your imaginary friend has essentially done what you are doing: he's taken an unsubstantiated claim and justified it by assuming that the claim is true, then he tries a guilt trip on you to make you feel ashamed, and finally makes ridiculous assumptions about your psyche. I know you won't believe it, but I see no difference between contorting my body to plaster my foot against my head and contorting my mind to accept your beliefs. If you feel happiest doing whatever it is you do, then good for you. But to me there is no necessity or truth in it. I just find it annoying to have people claiming to know what's really in my (empty) heart. Kind of like hearing a racist white saying that blacks really want to serve whites, and that we just aren't happy or fulfilled unless we are their slaves. The claim is ridiculous and hardly deserves a response, but you still want to give one because you hope others might see how wrong the viewpoint is.

Originally posted by Nur: How empty a life can be when one has no purpose nor a goal. Nur On that we can agree, Nur. What may be difficult for you to understand is that living well and doing good, without the expectation of a reward or to avoid punishment, is the greatest expression of human purpose. But to each his own I guess.

MMA: Very interesting stuff. Ciyaarta istunka ma dhalinyarada kiliyaa ka qayb gasha mise ragoo dhan?

Akademiyadan ayaa leh dhamaan qeybaha kala gedisan ee tababarada lagu qaato, hoyga askarta, goobaha lagu cunteeyo iyo qeybo kale oo badan ayaa markiiba qaadi karta 600 oo askari. This is good news, soon we should have a nationwide police force who answer to no one but the law and a few well-placed dollars (laaluush). But I wish there was a term for cop distinct from "askari" but not linguistically hideous like the alternative used in the article.

Volume 1, Book 6, Number 301: Narrated Abu Said Al-Khudri: Once Allah's Apostle went out to the Musalla (to offer the prayer) o 'Id-al-Adha or Al-Fitr prayer. Then he passed by the women and said, "O women! Give alms, as I have seen that the majority of the dwellers of Hell-fire were you (women)." They asked, "Why is it so, O Allah's Apostle ?" He replied, "You curse frequently and are ungrateful to your husbands. I have not seen anyone more deficient in intelligence and religion than you. A cautious sensible man could be led astray by some of you." The women asked, "O Allah's Apostle! What is deficient in our intelligence and religion?" He said, "Is not the evidence of two women equal to the witness of one man?" They replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her intelligence. Isn't it true that a woman can neither pray nor fast during her menses?" The women replied in the affirmative. He said, "This is the deficiency in her religion." Does any woman really think that this is a message from her creator? It's so wrong on so many levels it's kind of breathtaking. I can't believe some wouldn't reject it even on the basis that it clearly contradicts the Qur'an.

Not all of the alcohol will boil away, in any case, unless you intend to flambe for hours. Fruit juices and bread contain trace amounts of alcohol, and in some parts of Arabia, "non-alcoholic beers" are considered halal, though they may contain small amounts of ethanol. The rule Nur mentions is probably not realistic at some level. You can probably get a buzz from eating a few loaves of bread.

^Wonder why peace is so unattainable?

^ Naked sluts and prostitutes, alcoholic killers who can't succeed in business without using their bodies...depraved and dangerous women This explains why my thesis advisor looked so tired this morning. A 63 year-old woman really shouldn't lead that kind of life... I think The Rendezvous is doing what all men in all cultures do: reducing women to sex objects. A woman is walking genitalia. Whether she's being covered up and hidden away or used to sell sports cars, a woman is first and foremost for the edification of men. The important thing is to recognize and pinpoint this constant belittlement. Why does this Rendezvous person think that, given a choice, women will all become prostitutes and degrade themselves? Are women sexually mature infants who must be guarded against their own dangerous impulses so as to protect the fabric of society? For every sexually promiscuous slut there's a sexually repressed 17 year old covered in a tent-o-mobile and married off to the highest bidder at menarche. Do women only have these two options to choose from? When a Western woman questions the highly exploitative nature of popular culture vis a vis female images, some dismissively raise the spectre of Taliban-style society, and she's told she's got nothing to complain about. On the other hand ask why a Muslim woman should cover from head to toe and accept that her husband has the right to physically discipline her, and she's asked whether she'd rather be a fetus-murdering slut instead. Gimme a break.

Originally posted by The Flipmode: Now let us switch the topic to the circumcision on Boys It is another FGM... Do you know what the "F" in "FGM" stands for?

That's true, Castro. But I don't want to separate kids from their mom, as awful as she is. That'd also be on my conscience for decades. I have a very strong inhibition when it comes with meddling with other people's kids.

Originally posted by Scarlet: ^Have you talked to her about it? Yes, I asked her, and she said she can't be sure they won't sleep around when they are teens. The thing is, I wouldn't be surprised. She's the most indifferent, hands-off mom I've ever seen. She doesn't talk to her kids unless she's screaming at them. She spends more time talking on the phone than interacting with her 4 year old. She ships them off to her mother every summer. The kids have terrible manners, no self-discipline and little incentive to look after themselves. They will sleep around when they grow older, because they are desperately starved for attention. But since she's mutilated her daughters, that's supposed to protect them from making mistakes. What did she/the girls say about it? Thats horrible! To be honest I couldn't bring it up with the girls; I don't have the heart to ask them and then just mind my own business. Argh...

Originally posted by Johnny: Is there a possibility that polygamy encourages and somehow helps men develop emotionally and sincerely love all the four wives, or is it just a mating pattern in which male individual mates with more than one individual of the opposite sex, some sort of sexual quota adjustment? I'd like to see the equation worked out...