Coofleh, What are you on to, saaxiib? Endorsing alcoholic beverages and admiring anti-Islamic profanity is (assuming you’re Muslim) a worrisome sign indeed. Could it be that you’re bamboozled by the catchy liberal phrases and their progressive slogans? Or is it just a mere habit of yours that tends to promote a culture of perpetual quarreling: a typical Somali Muran and Qaja-jac!

This is the picture that caused Cusmaan Caato's friendly expulsion

@NGONGE Didn’t want to steal your thunder, But the inmate of the month is still a convict, don't you say?

Originally posted by NGONGE: Some discussions are nauseatingly redundant and cause nothing but division and fetna. This is one of those discussions. Nauseatingly redundant indeed

@This is the last time i answer that evolving question. And that would spare us from your random and incoherent thoughts!

The Logic of Suicide Terrorism

Today I have browsed and read most of what’s written here. NGONGE, I must report, is a soul of our kin who lay, as it were, gasping on the agonies of death. His shallow writings are in dire need for some realistic gloss. The London incident, or so it seems, has waken him from his snoring sleep and stirred his emotions. And I must wonder if he lost the majority of his captive audiences in this land of SOL! With all the things he wrote this I could not swallow as a thought of his: At this moment in time, sadly, Bush and Blair comfortably hold the moral high ground. Yes they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. There were civilian casualties during the invasion (surprisingly kept to a minimum though). They used the most sophisticated of weapons in their “shock and awe†attacks. But, they fought a standing army and they won that fight. Sadly, in NGONGE's post, signifies reality! How a man who seems intelligent and bright could miss the basic cause and effect of things?Or because the fact that Britain has bigger guns that could spare them from the dirty method of resorting to blow trains gives them the higher moral ground he speaks of? Does he understand war? Aggression? Injustice? Is this method unique? Are the Muslims expected to issue apologies and condemnation any time bomb goes off? I personally did not rejoice the death of innocent people. But it did not surprise me a bit! Indeed the leaders whom NGONGE seems to embrace and justify their war warned and expected such retribution from their adversaries. Simply put, IT IS A WAR and the old man needs to get used to it. Stop arguing about it.

Filthy Ethiopians, they indeed are. This article is wishful thinking at best or a treacherous campaign to simplify and depict the thorny issues of the horn in a manner that’s quite disingenuous at worse. If any thing Somalia’s prolonged civil war deepened the mistrust between the two countries. Ethiopia proved to be an entrenched enemy who spared no effort to destabilize Somalia by undermining its territorial integrity and arming its proxy dummies (warlords) to the teeth to prevent any meaningful reconciliation. That’s a political reality in that part of the Dark Continent; an actuality that can’t be eclipsed by Ismail’s creative writing! What’s stake is no less than the land and its people. Wondering though if what seems to me an empty looms has stuffing that’s worthy of Samurai and Caamir’s thunderous cheering!

Mutakalim, excuse the playful exchanges between us (I and JB). JB, How could you answer both? You seem to have missed the point of my argument (I am not arguing against reason per se) and created a dummy arguer instead. Do you not realize that clash between the two is inevitable and frankly obvious? When that happens (I am lowering the level of this discussion as I am stating the obvious here) wouldn’t you be forced to give precedence and primacy one of the two? Which one would you consider to be fitting to have that dominance was my question, good JB. The reason I reverted to argue from this angel is because good Mutakalim tried to tell us that Micraaj was graspable and possible! It was astonishing event that defied the unaided human intelligence, I thought! Think again saaxiib (I know you can do it) and give me some thing plausible rather than conveniently saying both, old boy. Miqyaas ---> yardstick or scale P.S. NGONGE, I found very hard to believe that you agree with JB's!

Guhaad aka Jamaal11, if nationalism is derived from the passionate loyalty toward institutions (Qaran) of your country and patriotism is the loyalty to the principles and ideals (Wadan) of your nation, then I think this tread cries for some clarity as to what it would mean to associate your self (or others as you would like us to do) to either of these two names!

My sympathy and sorrow goes out the innocent victims of this war. Glad to know that SOL nomads in particular and other nomads in London are safe. ------------------------------------------------ July 7, 2005 London Terror Mystery What did Bibi know – and when did he know it? by Justin Raimondo London's Terror Thursday establishes three realities beyond the shadow of a doubt: (1) the West is losing the "war on terrorism," (2) in our present strategic mode, we are essentially defenseless against al-Qaeda's offensive – I agree with Michael Scheuer, the former chief of the CIA's Osama bin Laden unit and author of Imperial Hubris, who said on National Public Radio that this is undoubtedly al-Qaeda's grisly work, and (3) there are more than two sides in this war. With the G-8 meeting being held in Scotland, security measures in the United Kingdom were at an all-time high – and yet, despite that, al-Qaeda pulled off a fairly complex operation, involving four separate bombings, three underground trains and one bus, which was peeled away from its chassis like an opened can of beans, as one witness described it. Indeed, the London attacks have opened up a very big can of worms for Blair's government, and in Washington too, where they're realizing that the "fly trap" tactic they've been employing in Iraq has backfired rather badly. If the Brits couldn't prevent such a sophisticated and highly coordinated attack at a time like this – when the meeting of the G-8 had British security on high alert – then one can only conclude, along with Scheuer, that the terrorists held back, and could have caused far more damage and taken many more lives if they so chose. Perhaps that thought is meant to sink into the British consciousness. The terrorists' message is clear enough: your government can't protect you. This much seems beyond dispute. The second message may be gleaned from the statement of responsibility for the attacks, which appeared on a jihadist Web site that has been utilized by al-Qaeda on previous occasions to make announcements. Here is screenshot of the message posted shortly after the attacks, and here is a translation, courtesy of Wikipedia: "In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, may be upon the cheerful one and undaunted fighter, Prophet Muhammed, God's peace be upon him. "Nation of Islam and Arab nation: Rejoice for it is time to take revenge against the British Zionist crusader government in retaliation for the massacres Britain is committing in Iraq and Afghanistan. The heroic mujahideen have carried out a blessed raid in London. Britain is now burning with fear, terror and panic in its northern, southern, eastern, and western quarters. "We have repeatedly warned the British government and people. We have fulfilled our promise and carried out our blessed military raid in Britain after our mujahideen exerted strenuous efforts over a long period of time to ensure the success of the raid. "We continue to warn the governments of Denmaark and all the crusader governments that they will be punished in the same way if they do not withdraw their troops from Iraq and Afghanistan. He who warns is excused. "God says: 'You who believe: If ye will aid (the cause of) God, He will aid you, and plant your feet firmly.'" Bin Laden's message to Muslims is that the West, far from being invulnerable, can be defeated. His primary target remains the U.S., not Britain or any of the other countries mentioned in the claim of responsibility, and his chief objective is to get us out of the Middle East. The jihadist mindset is eerily similar to that of our own leaders, and their neoconservative amen corner, who continue to advance the proposition that we must fight "the terrorists" in the streets of Baghdad so we don't have to do battle in the streets of London, Rome, and New York City. Bush declares that "we are going on the offensive," but, as I pointed out only last week, so are they: "The President gloats that 'we're on the offense' – and explicitly justifies this on the grounds that we have to go after them before they go after us. Yet why it is impossible for them to attack the U.S. [Ed: or the UK] anyway, even while fighting American troops in Iraq, no one seems to know." For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction: while the Islamists cannot begin to bring the sort of firepower that we wield in Iraq to bear in the streets of London, they can, over time, create conditions where a stiff upper lip is not enough. At that point – or, hopefully, well before then – the Brits, and indeed all of us in the West, are going to have to make a cold calculation of the costs and the benefits of invading the Middle East. Is it worth the high price we must pay, or is it time to come up with a strategy a bit more sophisticated than shaking the tree in which the hornets' nest sits – in the hope that it will eventually fall to the ground? If the answer is yes, it is worth it, then we must be prepared to do what the War Party has been urging since 9/11: abolishing for the duration many of the freedoms we now enjoy and signing on to a foreign policy of perpetual war against much of the Muslim world. Aside from taxing ourselves into penury and instituting a military draft, this means basically shutting down the relatively free society we have been living in and replacing it with a garrison state, one in which freedom of movement, of privacy, of the right to not be tracked by the government 24/7 goes the way of the horse-and-buggy, spats, and the music of Tommy Dorsey. To answer "no," however, is to take the path of what the War Party derides as "appeasement" – in spite of the reality that our present policy is an invaluable aid to bin Laden and his cohorts. Against the tidal wave of emotion – a good deal of it cheap histrionics – the advocates of a rational foreign policy will have to fight an uphill battle, at least for the moment. However, when the dust clears, and common sense sets in, the backlash against the Blair government is sure to rise up: after all, the Israelis claimed – at least at one point – that the Brits warned them of the attack "minutes" in advance. The British authorities, for their part, deny any such warning – as the Israelis are now doing, at least offfically. The first Associated Press story about a warning received by former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu said this: "British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said. Israeli Finance Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said. … "Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position." In subsequent versions of the same story, all references to the call from Scotland Yard have been scrubbed, and we are told that Netanyahu received the warning after the blasts. This instant revisionism was duly noted by the blogosphere. It took them a while to get their story straight – and I'm not talking about the Associated Press. So when did Netanyahu receive his warning – and who warned whom? Stratfor.com circulated an interesting analysis shortly after the first stories began to come out: Although several news reports had Netanyahu on his way to the conference, Stratfor avers that he simply stayed put. Also noted is Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom's denial that Scotland Yard informed the Israeli Embassy of the attacks in advance, with the Brits echoing this "clarification," but Stratfor has the supposed scoop: "Contrary to original claims that Israel was warned 'minutes before' the first attack, unconfirmed rumors in intelligence circles indicate that the Israeli government actually warned London of the attacks 'a couple of days' previous. Israel has apparently given other warnings about possible attacks that turned out to be aborted operations. The British government did not want to disrupt the G-8 summit in Gleneagles, Scotland, or call off visits by foreign dignitaries to London, hoping this would be another false alarm. "The British government sat on this information for days and failed to respond. Though the Israeli government is playing along publicly, it may not stay quiet for long. This is sure to apply pressure on Blair very soon for his failure to deter this major terrorist attack." I would also point out that Stratfor, with its passion for reiterating the obvious, stated in its summary that "there has been massive confusion" over the warning – confusion generated by whom, and to what purpose, is best left to the fertile imaginations of my readers. The Stratfor piece puts the best spin on this story, at least from the Israeli point of view. If word that Netanyahu had a warning got out, then the best way to salvage it – and even score a few brownie points in the process – is to float the story that the warning was received not minutes but days before the attacks, and that the recipient of those warnings was not Netanyahu but the British government. Taking the focus off the eternal "war on terrorism," and trying to solve the problems of world poverty and global warning, the British government deliberately downplayed the threat, even ignored it – in spite of Israel's best efforts. And if you believe that, there's a bridge in Brooklyn you may be interested in purchasing. Netanyahu was no doubt a target of the bomb plot – why else would the terrorists bomb an underground station directly below the hotel where the investment conference was going to take place? If Israeli intelligence knew about the attacks days in advance, and only thought to let Netanyahu in on the secret "minutes" before the bombs went off – well, that's a little hard to believe, now isn't it? (Oh, wait … maybe not.) I don't believe that Scotland Yard knew diddly-squat about the terror plot, either days or minutes before the bombs exploded, although what seems beyond dispute is that Netanyahu was warned beforehand. The question is, who warned him? My longtime readers know that the question of how much the Israelis knew about 9/11 before those planes ploughed into the World Trade Center, and how they knew it, has been taken up in this space on many previous occasions. My short book, The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection, shows that Israel wasn't behind the 9/11 attacks, as many in the Arab world allege, but that they did have some knowledge that a terrorist attack was about to take place on American soil and somehow neglected to tell us about it. A controversial thesis, to be sure, and one that has caused me no small amount of trouble, perhaps understandably so. I would submit, however, that in this instance, too, the same pattern seems to be repeating itself – and that this goes a long way toward vindicating the thesis initially presented by Fox News reporter Carl Cameron in a four-part series broadcast in December 2001, and elaborated on by me in The Terror Enigma. When you think about it, the idea that Netanyahu may have had advance warning of the attacks isn't all that improbable. Israel, after all, depends for its survival on the ability of its intelligence services to track Osama bin Laden and his allies worldwide. However, the decision to share that intelligence with Israel's ostensible allies in the "war on terrorism" cannot be taken for granted; and surely the choice not to do so, in the case of both New York and London, can be easily understood in terms of Israeli interests. Who benefits from the London attacks, aside from the obvious candidate, which is bin Laden? With the "coalition of the willing" showing signs of going wobbly, and the recent announcement that Britain was withdrawing a good portion of its forces from Iraq, the political momentum in Britain (and the United States), which was going against the Iraq war, is suddenly reversed. Politicians are doing their best Churchill imitations, and the questions arising in the U.S. Congress and the media are swamped by an emotional tidal wave of pro-war sentiment. The scandals that plague the War Party both in Britain and the U.S. are eclipsed, and suddenly, with the prospect of suicide bombers in the streets of London – and perhaps New York – Martin Peretz's battle-cry uttered in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 is taken up once again: "We are all Israelis now." (Although, for good tactical reasons, Ariel Sharon is telling his diplomats not to say this too loudly.) Who benefits? Who loses? And who knew? Surely Netanyahu knew, either "days" or "minutes" before the blasts shattered all hope that the War Party might yet be defeated – and it wasn't Scotland Yard that clued him in. In any case, the key question that must be asked, and answered, before the lesson of London's Terror Thursday can be fully assimilated and learned, is this: What did Bibi know, and when did he know it? Justin Raimondo

JB, Re-read my post saaxiib and answer the vital question I posted:which is more fundamental (reason or revelation)as a source of knowledge? 1-if you answer reason, then I should tend to your incoherent writing. 2-if you answer revelation, then we have both profited from the pouring rain of that heavenly cloud and you shoud modify your writing to reflect that conviction. Inaad garta muslimka iyo masiixiga gasho waxaa ka horreeya in miqyaaska wax lagu cabirayo laysku raaco. For now, that's all for you old boy!

Since logic is a mere tool to study the process of reason, let us first put reason on the scale. Reason on trial: bal aan iyada ku heshiinno. It goes without saying that I do not quarrel with the necessity of employing reason to acquire knowledge and reach truth for if I were I wouldn’t be wasting my time to pen this rebuttal. Reason occupies a very prominent place in the human system of attaining knowledge. Without reason, man would’ve never entered in the domain of knowledge and it’s it which differentiates man from the grazing animal! The words of Allah that instruct and enjoin man to think, ponder, and contemplate had indeed not been grounded in vain. Imam Abu Hanifa, the great salafi jurist, maintained that by sheer and unaided intelligence man is perfectly capable to recognize his Creator even if Allah did not send messengers for that purpose. But the ultimate and the vital questions of reason are its function and degree as it relates to faith. Is reason more fundamental than revelation? Is it the basis of truth and reality?Or is revelation the source of truth and the function of reason is mere conformation of what’s given by it? It’s in these questions where men with great authority in the science of Fiqh and Qur’an disagreed with rationalist theologians. And I therefore deem it critical for SOL nomads to know how these men refuted and repelled the intellectual lawlessness and the daring application of philosophy and its speculative guesswork to the very tenets of our faith. Islam, the salafi theologians held, is based on certain fundamental principles of faith that are incapable of rational proof. These principles must be believed in on the basis of revelation, they maintained, and NOT on mere reason. The divine Word and the truth it brings can’t submit itself to the judgment of reason; a fallible human reason that is. Reason, it follows, must be subordinated to the divine Truth. It can’t be the criterion and the standard by which ultimate judgment of faith is reached. Neither can its function be to validate the principles of faith. That’s not to strip reason from rationalizing the doctrines of Islam and its faith. But its degree must be within the bounds of Qur’an and Sunnah. It was the great Hanafi scholar and theologian al-Maturiti who disarmed the orthodox rationalists on the question of reason and revelation quite eloquently. The true nature of the human intellect, al-Maturiti pointed, is a subject for internal and external influences and it can therefore be easily obscured. As a result, he continues, reason even fails to give us true knowledge of things that are within its own sphere. Hence, reason often requires, he argues, the service of a guide and helper who will protect it from straying, lead it to the right path, help it understand delicate and mysterious affairs, and know the truth. This guide, he says, is the divine revelation received by a prophet. If anyone denies the necessity of this divine guidance through revelation and claims that reason alone is capable of giving us all the knowledge we need, he concludes, then he will certainly overburden his reason and oppress it quite unreasonably. Here is where the gap between traditionalists and orthodox rationalists widens even deeper. The yawning between the two is so profound that any effort to bridge it is wasted in a sure vain. Take for instance, the conception of God and the nature of His attributes; the point of contention in this discussion. Rationalists had made capital out of their ignorance when they deemed Allah’s attributes unworthy of Him. Allah, they asserted, exists without His attributes. So Allah can’t speak and nor can He love; He did not speak to Moses nor did He take Ibrahim as His friend, they asserted! These are mortal actions, they maintained, and not suitable for Him. No hands, no face and no feet, they said. If Allah had possessed limps and sat on the Throne, they reasoned, He must be possessed of spatial character and subjected to division! A composite God, they declared, that’s in clear contradiction with the concept of tanziih. But it is plain obvious that the zeal of rationalists had indeed destroyed the personality of God and reduced Him to a bare indefinable and impersonal God; an abstract unity whose attributes is divested of Him. The ship of their thought, so to say, had drifted on un-chartered seas of reason. And this (the indefinable God) is the result, as Nadawi would put it, of random thoughts and haphazard conclusions based on few sketchy notes and incomplete hints! Ibnu Taymiyya, the great theologian and salafi jurist pointed out that the choice is not between composite God and abstract One, rather, he suggested, it is between following the tradition of the Prophet and his companion and deviating from it! The tradition of the Prophet and early Muslims, Ibnu Taymiyya says, is to ascribe to Allah His attributes without asking how, and without drawing analogy, or making alterations, or divesting Him of His attributes. In the final analysis, the Sheikh-al-Islam concludes, one can only say about Allah what He said of Him self and that which His messenger said about Him. The final questions of faith had been settled by the divine Word of God and it’s unwise to labor the obvious and dispute that which is right and truth. God has names and attributes that best fit His Majesty. "There is nothing like Him" and His difference is in kind, and not in degree. I have to note that the Sheikh-al-Islam reserved his harshest words for Aristotelian philosophers who committed blunders in the name of knowledge and reason. His Kitab al-Radd ala al-Mantiqiyyiin attests to his authority on the subject of philosophy and demonstrates his talents to meet philosophers on their ground. Tahawi, the Hanafi jurist and the great theologian, maintained the tradition of our prophet must be upheld. Allah, he writes, ‘has always existed together with His attributes since before creation.’ And ‘so He will remain,’ Tahawi continues, ‘throughout endless times.’ Needless to say that Allah’s attributes is totally unlike that of human beings. A man’s Islam, Imam Tahawi writes, is not secured unless it is based on submission and surrender. Any one who desires to know things which is beyond his capacity, Tahawi adds, and whose intellect is not content with surrender, will find that his desire veils him from a pure understanding of Allah’s True Unity. This is a sheer intellectual lawlessness whose result is veer between confirmation and denial and accepting and rejection; a position full of confusion and doubt. And so I can safely argue that faith is based on revelation. Revelation is the source of truth. A Muslim who believes in the literal meaning of Allah’s attributes without delving how is not irrational at all. To equate this article of faith with that of trinity is ridiculously wrong. Muttakalim, as you attempt to demolish my argument, would I see you choose sagacity over artfulness and righteousness over intellectual arrogance. A word of caution, which if heeded could steer this discussion to its correct path. Compiled by Miskiin Xiinfaniin.

Hadal nin weyn weeye kaasi! :cool: I shall now pen and show that accepting the literal meaning of Allah’s attributes is the correct theology and that logic is not applicable to validate how these attributes are! This, I warn, will be a rough ride for those immature pseudo intellectuals whose curiosity tends to snoop around Allah’s divine qualities. But in the end, it shall prove that the proper and healthy marriage between logic and revealed truth is for the first to yield to the truth and authority of the latter! P.S: Mutakallimow, cayaayir sow maaheyn kii Haaji Gooni-gii Hobyood ku tilmaamay inuu yahay nin weyn shuqulki? Rag cayaayir iyo maanso waa camaladiisiiye Ceynaanka anigaw hayya iyo celiyeheediye Mar haddaan callaqo looma furo cagaha dheel-dheele .

Originally posted by Suldaaanka: Mr. Patrick Mizimhaka: I think when you say Europe; we are talking about Western Europe. Western Europe had an interest in the collapse of Soviet Union and other communist countries like Yugoslavia. Africa has no interest in the collapse of any of its member states; we come from different points of view, it would be unfair to compare the two. Africa is actively and ideologically working for the stabilization of each of its members, in the end to facilitate a union of the people of Africa. But to be able to unite the people, you must be under a situation that works towards that objective and therefore stable countries are very important. That is where Africans are coming from, where Europe was very interested in dismantling the soviet empire. Mr. Patrick Mizimhaka has the correct assessment of unity whose value eluded from our northern brethren. And although one appreciates the significant political progress that our fellow nomads achieved and the stability they maintained, one, however, must wonder if the leaders of the north have devised a workable plan if the bid for recognition fails. A plan short of a war, that is. How would they handle the possibility of reuniting with the south, as there is a good chance of that prospect? Will the rhetoric and insistence of nationhood in the end get some polishing truth?

This shall be my last reply to this topic. Mutakallim, intaad dhowr dhagax igu tuurtay baad gogoshiina ka kacday! Adeer, sidaa looma doodo!

Oh Arabs! I am conflicted about them, I find my-self coming to their defense any time I see a confused Somali with incurable identity crisis attack them simply because they are Arabs. It’s even beyond me why many Somalis hold these negative perceptions about Arab people. Having said that, one can’t escape the ugly socio-political realities on the Arab ground. Lets start with those silly Gulf States who seem to be more interested in food and style than they are in dignity and self-respect. They fatten themselves and graze with ease while the life they so jealously guard is diminishing in value. They seem to have divorced from the reality around them and happily sleep, eat, and play while the house of their kin is burning. I object the moral bankrupt, the sheer ********* , and the pure foolishness of that ilk. I care the people but detest those Sultanates small and big. I some times question the stuff that the Saudis are made off! If they are not happy with these retarded rulers, why not take to the streets, sacrifice and die for their cause? Do they not know it was two million marchers who sent Shah to exile and to his dying bed? Do they not know that it was the angry crowd that brought Romania’s communist leaders to their knees? History is full of dignified people who stood up, defied, and eventually changed corrupt systems. What about Egypt? And Syria? And Morocco…?

It is both in terms of how it does happen or it is.

JB; Justice is blunt instrument indeed and it may some times sound a bit harsh. It’s not revenge to evict the thugs out of the taken land. And certainly it’s not revenge to remove them from the cities they took. You see, good JB, you can’t admit where the faults lie. Perhaps it’s the punishment of God that the liars believe the very lies they tell. Revenge you may call it, but it’s exactly what Somalia needs now. As what’s wrong with that ilk (inability to govern), well I don’t really know and I suspect you don’t either and we may as well leave it for yet to be writen history books. It’s true that the old man has unfavorable dictatorial tendencies, but he’s not certainly occupying my property neither is he guilty of emptying entire cities (tell me where are the good looking people of Bravo) to gain political dominance. Nabarkan inaan hadba kaa danqiyo baan ku tala galay so get used to it old boy. But next time you write, try to give us something we can all chew on and don’t you spew this rubbish on us!

I sense a somber tone from our flamboyant lad; political reality has dragged him back down to earth and he now seems to have become resigned to it! But again his rhetoric has always been in dire need for some realistic gloss! What happened to the bold initiatives of the good leaders of Mogadishu to remove roadblocks, unite militias under one command, and restore some civility to the city? Or was it another maneuvering to maintain their grip on power? Who’s disappointed and who’s surprised? And worse yet, who has been afraid with the vapors of his brain and thought that the sun would not rise again if clan X gets power? And tell me, dear nomads, who is clapping and cheering for the empty looms? There are those who’re unable to see the loots they sit on, the cities they pillaged, the innocents they displaced, and (the above all) the civilization the trampled. Yet they’re busy digging the trenches of jihad and fortifying the bunkers of victory! For them, a government that restores the law and order and imposes some authority is a deadly enemy that should be defeated by any cost. They’re unfit to govern and hard to be governed. Men like these make the likes of old man a statesmen of sort. They just don’t get it, or do they? They must be defeated, I say, if we want Somalia to take its rightful place in this world. On the other hand there’re those who seriously think they can rule on the cheap; they talk the talk but can’t walk the walk. History will record if this government fails that it failed not because of Mogadishu warlords but because of an old man who rose to power without political strategy, who has the will to survive but lack both the political strength and intellectual fortitude to affect any meaningful change. You see, I am not expecting much from him; all I wanted him to do is to fight and reverse the ill-gotten gains of the civil war. Leave Mogadishu alone, old man (General, would you tell him that) and go to the heart of south. Jowhar is probably a good choice but not enough if Kismayo, Marka, and Bravo are in the hands of the thuggish gangs. War odaga jaakadaha ka bixiya and let him do what does best!

What a difference a few weeks time makes; I thought you were in celebratory mood yesterday or was it a youthful triumphant? It now seems that the political festivity of the likes of OLOL has easily vanished.

Rahima, You need not be confused, sister. This is not difficult at all. How is unknown (al-keyfu- majhul) is not an intellectually bankrupt proposition. That Allah created the universe is an article of faith but How is unknown; that Allah will revive the dead but how is unknown; and He ascended Jesus for his rescue, but How is unknown. Likewise Allah had attributed divine qualities to Himself; sight, knowledge, hand, and more, but How is unknown! That ( How is unknown) does not signify, fellow nomads, irrationality rather it’s a candor acknowledgement of human inability and reliance on revealed truth. We have to concede, however, that this theology can’t be defended by a mere logic. If logic is the only yardstick then not only Mutakallim is right but atheists would be right as well.

The old man is not performing; he is thoughtlessly standing on the stage! As for the thugs in the south, they seem to have prepared for the upcoming conflict and, so far, outmaneuvered him politically. But alas, they’re sinking even deeper in the mud; the problem is not only they are immoral and wrongheaded but it’s the thinking of that they’re right. The words of Thomas Pain ring true: A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it the superficial appearance of being right!

Saaxiib, I think it’s save to summarize the gist (marka tookha laga reebo) of your argument (unless my reading comprehension fails me) as the following: 1-A Muslim who accepts the literal meaning of Allah’s attributes is equally irrational when debating with Christians; answering “al-keyfu- majhul†is essentially a dodging technique. 2-The belief in a ‘composite God’ is a pointless theological roadblock to the sound and inquiring mind. Now, (correct me here if these two do not represent your argument) the first argument has two gaping holes in it, saaxiib. For one it makes a false analogy by equating a solid and well-seated (in terms of it’s sources) theology with a fabricated one (trinity that is); that lacks both sourcing and reason. In that count you compared incomparable and as a result committed a fallacy, saaxiib. It’s erroneous notion to compare the two. Theology is a matter of faith and it needs be derived from a sound and original source. Trinity is a myth that does not measure up with Christianity’s original divine scripture; an evasive and slippery claim that defy the logic (so there’s a logic!). It’s a subverted logic to assert that Allah can’t have these descriptive attributes while it’s Him who claimed it! Scoffing this established theological position (the correct one, I may add) is, to say the least, intellectual dishonesty, saaxiib. Another serious error (yourargument) in this argument is the implicit assumption that logic and reason should be the yardstick with which matters of faith ought be resolved! A game of cheap score keeping where one wins not by the weight and credence of his case, but by the style and eloquence with which he presents it! I wonder how that benchmark scale to the measured words of our مصطÙÙ‰; say when he came back from his ascendancy اسري to the heavens in that blessed night and responded to the doubters that he was indeed telling the simple truth. Unlike logicians, ابوبكر الصديق settled to accept the revealed truth. I also wonder how many great minds have indeed failed to see that reality; for them, it simply was not a certainty! If that analogy still rings true in your mind, I have to concede to that donkey wisdom when it complained about the gross unfairness of time; a reversal of the usual order of things, it suggested, would be a proper remedy for the situation it found itself in; قال حمار الحكيم تومــا لو أنص٠الدهر كنت أركب ****** Ùأنا جاهل بســـيـط وصاحبي جـــاهل مركب As for the second point of your argument; this, I say, is not a new argument and it originated from sound intent to glorify Allah but failed to observe the bounders of نصوص. I am with Shiekhul-Islam on this though, saaxiib. It doesn’t matter a bit how you characterize him; he remains to be the embodiment of the ideals of the salaf, a matchless intellectual icon, and above all a martyr who chose the truth and died for it. I hope you concede this fussy argument is not new one and thusly bringing it up entails re-fighting old battles and in the end accepting to observe same ceasefires and sign same peace deals. Re-inventing the wheel is not an exercise of a wise man, saaxiib, and I refuse (unless you plead to) to spend energy on this futile effort. There are numerous books about this issue (both pro and con) and it’s adequate to say the argument for it is quite disarming and only the fool could dare to face its over-whelming credence.

@... all the lone, harrassed-looking somali women pushing prams loaded with shopping bags with two/three other kids hanging off their skirts. That’s a disturbing picture, Zephy! And very discouraging one indeed.