Corrections: It doesn’t interest me if the story you are telling me is true, I want to know if you can disappoint another to be true to yourself. if you can bear the accusation of betrayal and not betray your own soul. I want to know if you can be faithful and therefore trustworthy. I want to know if you can see beauty, Even when it is not pretty every day, and if you can source your life from God’s presence. Good one FF.

Shirka waa xiran yahay brother MT...adi rageedii aa tahay. Checkmate soo ma'ha sxb waqooyi aan u wada fiirino issaga. Hadii afjini kasoosidna alaabta campo amxaaro tan luujino ama shaqal dheer ka Kismaayo igula kalaam sxbkii Checkmate haba wareero .

Jeego mate, Sharci aa ka yaal single motherkii Toronto oo hip iska dhigaaya oo sidii teenagerkii u hadlaayay aa lagu yaqaan...adi intee noo wadaa galawyahow . Hadda inaa Tuujiye uu soo danaanisid aa keentay miyaa...ilmo Baro = reer dudaayey . Awoowe ayeeyadaas xarashka ii gedisay tumeey ahayd waaba mid fariid ah oo wax kala garanaysa e! Annigu oday cad ah oo gaboobay oo cadadka bilaha tirsaday inaan ahay sow taan berri hore shaaca ka qaaday oo dadka si caam ah u ogeysiiyey. Maxay tahay sowdigan misana igu yara laadaya oo cilad iiga dhigaya. Nin rag ah iyo da’ kala cararaya waa waxa “ciyaalka xaafada†lagu yaqaan oo lagu gartaa . Soo ma weynaataan...niman yahaw! maansha wiil hoogii yiri waa da’ walba la fil wada darbiyo salaan ah . Ahem! odaygan caadka ah yuusan sabaaxo iyo sinsaaryo iyo ruug iyo suxul iyo waliba daliig with jilay kaala daalin ee joogso biiqyahaw :cool: .

Widaay Tuujiye...hadda ma waxaad leedahay aan kala gambisano Adeer qootada naga yaree hade Halkoo gabay oo kaaba ahna mar markoo iska soo tuur yaah...did I hear u say sharci aa ka yaal just like the Torontonians would

Oh! WoMeN!...what was the song...

Zu, warkaasu war xun ma aha Awoowe lama diririn oo dee dhib la iska cafiyo maba dhicin; anniguna waxba ii maad dhibin. Awoowe "girlie man" tilmaan xun ma'aha ee shido badan yuusan kuu keenin. Hadaadse dhibsatay waan kaa raali galinayaa ee xaal qaado sxb.

^^ @ Jamaal Zu, Halkee baad la aaday Ain't blaming u buddy for sharing ur wisdom with us! It was very simple fairy tale...right The girl hurting...goin thru medical problems and the guy taking comfort in her ordeal just didn't seem to add up! Waa is qaban wayday bahashu sxb Waxaan is iri malaa xaafadiinaa hawsha laga yaqaan!

Is that how Faraxs in ur neck of the wood handle rejection? Don't give manhood a bad name plz Where would we (the male species) be without manhood? (note: difference btw male n manhood - one is merely being part of the gender...physical features u born with; the other is the backbone that every real man is expected to have...the total sum of ur expr's) Don't u be a girlie man sxb U can read it as a win win sitaution! Both had moved on. She was free to court with other qualified hunks and he was happy the fact that she was honest and blunt and the fact she didn't play the fimiliar head games some of our qallanjooyin are known to practice. She knew what she wanted and his name was not on her list. He on the other hand moved on and found the best match...a one made in heaven(way better than one he was willing to give all he's got). Zu the warrior u could read it that way

genius

Hoyaalayeey hoyaalayeey hoo yaa la yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeey...maa caleesh maanta gabay ma I haayo. Awoowe xikmada badan baa ku jirta gabayga ee ila soco waligaa. Waa ogahay in aa beesaani groupo di benne tahay oo kabaha luujitadooda iyo abati dhuuqsigiisa aa ku mushquulsan tahay ilaa yoomul haadaa. Widaayoow hee waa ogahay ciyaalka xaafada kaaba inay yihiin ee saan u lahaa dadka ha ku dhahaan beesaani waaye Baashi aan wareer ka qaaday . Hee war ma heeneenaa beesaani waa loo dhashaa ee ma liska dhigo karo ma ahoo. Wareer badanaa saan ugu haayay aan dalacay hadda waxaa iga soo haray gabay iyo war lee . Wareer badanaa maxaa waaye shaah la’aanta maanta! Maceey Camaleey , hee addina Afrika maa wax ka sheegee. Bus ku lahaa! maxaa addi New Jersey maa ku dhalato hada annagaa amar aragnee. Runtaa waaye anni qaxooti tarbiic aan ahay shalay maanta lee imaaday inta hee mar lee la qabsan doonaa. Addi soo ma’aha calaa caleeyk aan ku dhahay sadexda bilood aa iga soo horeeysay lee waaye. Hadii kaa badin waayin filmaankaan oo jaariyadaha fiirsadaan maxaa la dhahaayay horta Soup opera wax magac saabuun ku jirta, anni been boodi ma la i dhahoba . Ayaamaha hore lee waaye gabayga iyo afkaan Afrikaanka! Now back to the topic: Tuujiye = Beesaani oo korontada ka maqan tahay. sweet.. = Camaleey oo mac I told u I'm a psychic.

^Is that how u read it: The poor chick run into another car and went into comma and because she got hurt he lived happily ever after!!!!! Of all the things that could make him lead happy life, this is all u could think off. How scary! What else u expect from a Zu warrior but to be a heartless vindictive kinda guy

^I see that you set aside the most crucial question and went on to demonstrate your favored example for one more time! Impressive! Stay with me Mutakalim and keep your eyes on the ball friend. We’re getting somewhere with this and hopefully we may even agree on the validity of having faith in unseen Omniscient, Almighty, and Creator whose attributes and whose beginning is beyond the narrowly constructed and vaguely defined logic conceived by infallible men is infact valid an acceptable position to take. I’m not interested in the details of how archaic Greco-Roman terminology is defined within philosophy discipline. I’m interested in how philosophy with its impressive logic can explain several difficult questions: what can we know? (knowledge), what is there (metaphysics), why should we obey? (politics), what shoul we do?(ethics), what can we believe? (religion), what will become of us after death (metaphysics), etc. Given the universality of reason (all human beings have the capacity to perform abstract thought) and the principles of reason (are known and hence can be employed to decide which thought is valid and which in not), how do you Mutakalim explain the existence of the many schools of thought within philosophy community? Who is right and who is wrong? What standard (definitive and known) can one use to sieve the speculations and opinions of these thinkers? Our discussion is going to that direction, I hope. What I’m doing here is to get you agree, with minimum understanding, on the terms used in this discussion. It will be quite a ride, assuming you’re willing to come along, and there will be pumps along the way but we’ll reach the finish line Allah willing. Sure! there will be some detractors throwing in unsolicited help but keeping an eye on the ball is sufficient to keep the discussion going to that direction. Back to the topic! You were saying that the product of reason (not reasoning) can be valid or invalid. You also said that reason is a term interchangeable with logic. Very well! Moving on...I say, for instance, if X = A, Y = B then X = Y. Is my reasoning correct here and by reasoning, I mean the derivation (or calculation, or even say proof) that I performed there. Or can one characterize my mistake as error in reasoning. OK forget all of that as there are semantics that can be exploited. Let me turn to reason = logic concept. For the sake of the discussion, I accepted that. Let me ask you this question: How your view (the faculty or process of drawing logical inferences) in which reason is narrowly reduced to can account the various views on the nature of reason that are not compatible with one another (many thinkers have pondered reason and come up different definisions). Let me give you three definitions(Source: free-definition webside): “General: reason (from Latin ratio, by way of French raison) is the faculty by means of which or the process through which human beings perform thought, especially abstract thought.†“Rationalists see reason as the faculty by which fundamental truths are intuitively apprehended. These fundamental truths are the causes or "reasons" that things exist or happen. Empiricists, of course, deny the existence of such a facultyâ€. “For Immanuel Kant, reason (Vernunft in Kant's German language) is the power of synthesizing into unity, by means of comprehensive principles, the concepts provided by the intellect (Verstand). The reason which gives a priori principles Kant calls "Pure Reason" (as in his The Critique of Pure Reason), as distinguished from the "Practical Reason" which is specially concerned with the performance of particular actionsâ€. “In theology, reason, as distinguished from faith, is the human intelligence exercised upon religious truth whether by way of discovery or by way of explanation. The limits within which reason may be used have been laid down differently in different religion and periods of thought: on the whole, modern Christianity, tends to allow to reason a wide field, reserving, however, as the sphere of faith the ultimate (supernatural) truths of theologyâ€. There you have it! Different thinkers weighing one subject. Different conceptions on the very nature of reason. It’s clear that people find that they disagree as to the truth of some of these assertions. Keep an eye on the ball sxb, we’re shooting for the big picture!

Mutakalim, It’s true that ordinary people use imprecise language more often than the philosophers. Language to be useful, I’ve always maintained, debaters must share a consensus on the definitions of terms. The dictionary defined the terms in question vaguely. I have to accept it as our reference point, however. In light of the established definitions of these two terms, feel free to correct me here, reasoning is synonymous to logic Noh? and the two are interchangeable terms right? Excellent! Now I was working under the impression that the two terms were different in one fundamental way. Reasoning can be valid or invalid! Is the same true with logic? According to what standards do reasoning become valid or invalid? Is the principle of reasoning learned knowledge or these principles can simply be known through intuition? I take there are “logical†rules that govern the making and evaluation of arguments? Are these rules (all) agreed (universally)? Nin baa waxa laga hayaa: hashu maankay gadayee ma masaarbey laqday! Hawl uu xirfad badan u lahaa buu garan waayey waxa ka qaldan iyo si xaal yahay. Sidoo kale haweeneey reer miyi ah baa waxa iyanna laga hayaa: Ilaahii sac madoobe caanihiisa cadeeyayow waa mahada. Iyadu lo’da yey aad u badisay. Awood weyn oo ka shisheysa oo aysan sharixi karin oo hawlahaan maamula bey garatay in ay jirto. Mahada awoodaa bey la beegsatay oo ay ku magac qabsatay.

Mutakalim, Let’s take this thing one by one shall we! Let’s first define the terms for the sake of the discussion. I'm hesitant to proceed lest we are using the key terms here loosely. Here is how I understood the terms in my write-ups Reasoning is a mental process or the act of using our innate cognitive faculty (conscious intellectual activity) to drive a conclusion from certain premise. Logic, on the other hand, is a known (constructed and defined by wise men) method in which the validity of argument, premises, inference, and practical conditions for its determination are weighed. Logic encompasses rules that govern the making and evaluation of arguments. That is how I understood the terms. Is that how you understood them as well? Let's get these misconceptions out of the way first.

^careful there lady I can see pple objecting that characterization...

^True that Suldaanka. That's all he does and he does it well.

Who are we? Who defines us? 4/9/2005 - Religious Social - Article Ref: IC0504-2671 Number of comments: 14 By: Dr. Aslam Abdullah IslamiCity* - A debate has been going on within certain circles of the Muslim community about defining or redefining Islam and its followers. Several terms have been designed to make a distinction among Muslims' various political schools of thoughts. These terms sometimes appear attractive, especially in the state of confusion in which we live. They provide us with a different approach to identify ourselves. However, when we look at these terms deeply, we begin to realize that they are meant to define us in the mold of our thinking influenced by our social and political milieu. Terms that are in fashion currently are moderate Islam, progressive Islam, enlightened Islam, modern Islam, extremist Islam, liberal Islam, conservative Islam, reformed Islam, orthodox Islam, fundamentalist Islam, medieval Islam, and obscurantist Islam, etc. What is interesting is that these terms emerge from the limitations of our own readings of Islam controlled by our own social-political experiences. For instance, in the context of the U.S. and the West, it is now fashionable to use terms such as progressive Islam and moderate Islam. When asked to define these terms, their proponents say that "moderate" or "progressive" Islam opposes violence, accepts the universal charter of human rights, promotes gender equality and recognizes the idea of pluralism. Dialectically, what they are saying is that there is an Islam that does not recognize the value of non-violence, that rejects universal charter of human rights and that opposes the idea of gender equality and pluralism. If this is the basis of redefining Islam, then it is a weak premise. Islam is a faith given to human beings to live their lives according to certain values originally defined by the Divine. People have a choice to reject them or accept them because they are responsible for their own actions. Islam does not advocate violence. Those who use violence as a means to achieve their goals, however noble their goals may be, are essentially in violation of their faith. They are the ones who are deviating from the path of Islam. Why should their deviation cause some Muslims to redefine Islam and form a separate category of moderate or progressive Islam in order to make a distinction between the two? There are always people and groups who use their faith to promote their own political and economic agenda. This is true with all religions. The most effective way to confront such people is to develop a sound argument on the basis of a comprehensive understanding of the divine values and prophetic teachings. This is a struggle that we all have to carry on within ourselves and in the society at large. Creating further divisions and categorizing ourselves in terms that refer to our own political expediencies will not serve the real purpose of the faith. Islam, after all, demands from every Muslim to be a witness to the truth. The truth is clear in Islam. We cannot change it for our political purposes. Thus, the coinage of these terms is primarily a weak strategy that defeats the very purpose of the faith. The questions that ought to be raised, then, are: what is this truth and how do we discern it from the falsehood? The truth will emerge from our quest of knowledge, experiences, wisdom and guidance from the Divine. The truth will not be dictated by a few sound bites of President Bush or Daniel Pipes or people like them. In the case of Islam, the truth, as perceived by Muslims based on their general readings of the Quran, is that Islam is a divinely revealed faith that commands its adherents to follow the principles of monotheism, justice, equality, and peace in all aspects of their life. We have to understand our world in the context of these divinely revealed truths and develop suitable instruments to ensure that they are shared with the rest of the world. Thus, our struggle is to be a witness to these truths and to challenge all those who are in violation of these regardless of what label they assume. In the Quran, the Divine tells us of people who would call themselves Muslims, yet, would do everything that is contrary to the teachings of Islam. It is not a prudent strategy to say that because of the deviations of others, we are changing our self definition and coining a new term to describe our relation with our faith. Our commitment to our faith is based on the criterion of right and wrong. The propagation of new terminologies by various Muslims is leading our community into a bewilderment of confusing ideas without realizing that the principles of faith cannot be compromised for our understanding or lack of understanding of political realities. Thus, we have two tasks at hand. First, internally--we have to challenge those who are deviating from the foundation of Islam, and second we have to communicate to the rest of the world the real foundation on which our faith stands. It is better that we spend our time and resources in these areas rather than wasting our energy in coining and re-coining terms that confuse us and others as well. When we do what is expected of us in Islam, we will notice qualitative change in our own attitude as well as the attitude of the people in our faith. ------------------------------------------ Dr. Aslam Abdullah is editor of the Muslim Observer, director of the Islamic Society of Nevada and the director of the Muslim Electorates' Council of America. He can be reached at Aslamabdallah@AOL.com

III. On logic - the heart of the matter - raw meat on the menu. This is the heart of our disagreement. You are somehow under the illusion that I am against reasoning as a tool to analyze problems. I’ve said before and I will say again I concur with you and others that reasoning as an innate human cognitive faculty is essential in reaching conclusions. In that context it is universal as most people are endowed by their Creator the ability to think and to reason. That much is agreed my friend! Where we seem to differ is the standard or methodology called logic defined as the science of the formal principles of reasoning. Let me try to be as clear as possible so that the subsequent discussion can be meaningful and useful as well. I will start with what logic is not. Firstly, I maintain that logic or rather logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe nor is it a set of rules which govern human behavior. Logic is simply a method or rather science invented by a fallible man, Aristotle to be precise. Furthermore, logic is not the only method to communicate, discuss or debate. Debaters can simply decide whether logic is the right tool for the subject under discussion (I have metaphysics realm in mind here). Secondly, I maintain that human reasoning has its limitations. There are areas where our reasoning stops before “impregnable wallsâ€. Because of such constraints, we are left to wrestle with fundamental questions which we have no verifiable answers. There are many metaphysical questions that philosophers had penned their speculative opinions but could not reach universal definitive answer! You demanded examples and I shall give you several examples. Corrections are welcomed. On Religious Knowledge. Aquinas makes a distinction between faith and reason. William James emphasizes the role of the will in believing and knowing. Russel follows the way of the agnostic. On Existence of God Freud argues that religion is the product of wish. Anselm formulated the ontological argument by a purely intellectual method. Aquinas offered five proofs from motion, cause, necessary, degrees of perfection, and design. Hume held that evil refutes the argument from design. Kant said that there are limits to rational knowledge in religion so that there is no possibility of rational proof of God’s existence. On Soul and Body Descartes said that body and soul (mind) are two quite different substances. Ryle replies that Descartes’s dualism is a “myth†which rests upon a serious “mistakeâ€. On Death and Beyond Plato believed that only the soul is real and that the soul is immortal. Hume not only rejected the doctrine of immortality but also denied that there is a self that can in any way be discovered. Kierkegaard believed that certain kinds of truth can be known only individually, subjectively, and immortality is one of them. May I remind you, by the way, that I am no relativists lest you think along these lines. Now if you ever had the pleasure of reading the works of these gentlemen, you would have noticed one thing that they have in common and that is they first assume that proposition X is true, and then use that premise (directly or indirectly) to prove that proposition X is true hence the term "circular reasoning" (it is the practice of assuming something in order to prove the very thing that you assumed). Eloquent, persuasive, and consistent in their presentation that they certainly are. Infallible they are not! In math or physical sciences logic is perfectly fine as the applied subjects are demonstrable, verifiable, testable, and even controllable. In metaphysics, however, I, as a person, do not think speculations/opinions of these enlightened folks are good enough for me to base the validity of my beliefs. Just because this particular standard was not strictly followed, does not mean absolute universal law is being violated! They, speculative philosophers that is, usually end up engaging in circular reasoning (reasoning in circles) and infinite digression. As someone who made up his mind about these metaphysical questions, I use different methodology than the “standard†one. Mine is simple and very useful for me: 1. Guidance of Allah 2. light of reason 3. Testimony of senses

II. The straw man charge under magnifying glasses It’s always good to get your opponent to agree premises of your argument before proceeding any father. I stand by that challenge although I concede the fact that I didn’t make sure whether you were willing to defend the correlation between the title, post itself and the statements you penned at the end of the post. Had I known that you would hide behind the empty hair-splitting technicalities I would've first gotten you to agree with what I inferred from the post is in fact what you intended to get across. As to the charge that my challenge didn’t amount to an argument according to the standards, I wouldn't agree with that assessmant! This standard of itself is a point of contention, of course. We’ll get into that in my last post on logic later. It suffices to say for now that even if this standard is brought to bear still my argument stands unscathed! You see, notwithstanding the hair-splitting semantics, assertion is simply a statement of opinions in which one declares a proposition. In fact I maintain that proposition is the meaning of the statement, not the precise arrangement of words used to convey that meaning. In any case the list (in the form of 1 thru 5) was part of the statement (assertions) not stand alone list of nouns as you misleadingly distorted it by presenting list of fruits. That was very disingenuous of you! In any case, if this was a trap and you “willfully†wanted to confuse the subject you have done very well for yourself! Bravo! It’s high time for you though to come out from the fortified bunker and pen a simple, concise, straightforward rational for the correlation between the title, facts you stated, and the last two statements.

I. The trigger - initial post revisited. I won’t quote you for the simple reason that we often times say something and sound as if we are saying completely different thing. Words are slippery for sure not to mention the fact that language is inexact. We Somalis have a saying that goes like Hadal waa margi hadba docdii loo jiido u jiidma. The important thing is the meaning that one can infer from what one posts without reading things into it. Intaa waa afeef Let me say at the outset that I don’t have any problem conceding where you have a point. What I don’t want to do is engage exchange where the topic is shifting or the target of the discussion is moving constantly. From what I gather you posted a topic with very daring name: Martyrs of thought. The body of the initial write up consisted of “factsâ€: how group of philosophers had died. The last two sentence of the post were interesting and perhaps telling: “ Such was the end of the soldiers battling the seige of truth. Indeed, the plant of philosophy requires no less†. From these two sentences, one could arguably infer that there is a correlation between “martyrs of thought†= “soldiers battling†= the dead men and the “martyrdom†designation. Or one could simply see the whole post as an incoherent thought penned by boastful “philosopher kingâ€. The latter your highness is a sin and I wouldn’t stoop that low to dismiss a pro with your caliper especially when in his home turf . Your subsequent posts in response to my playful challenge perplexed me even more to say the least. Merriam-Webster dictionary gives the word martyr three meanings: 1 : a person who voluntarily suffers death as the penalty of witnessing to and refusing to renounce a religion 2 : a person who sacrifices something of great value and especially life itself for the sake of principle 3 : VICTIM; especially : a great or constant sufferer. There are an unanswered questions when one puts the whole post together. Number two seems to fit but... On the one hand, you insist on not having any argument (semantics was a convenient shelter). On the other hand, you stated that you “willfully†chose the title to advance the proposition that these philosophers were “martyrs†of sort not because of the facts you listed in your initial post but they “sacrificed†a whole lot to one principle and then you went on to spell it out. Add that with last turn you took in your last post where you said you didn’t explain your rational of labeling philosophers as martyrs. Well I don’t know what to make of it. If the post was incoherent (loosely stated facts with implying concluding sentences and unrelated title), if you didn’t have any argument, if you didn’t explain your rational for labeling (and labeling you did) philosophers as martyrs – by the way you could (if you didn’t) and made the discussion more clearer and useful than it had been so far – then I discard all the preceding posts as far as the exchange goes and await a new post in which you make a coherent clarification of your first post.

Mutakalim, I went back and reread the initial post and subsequent exchanges excluding what other posters had to say about the subject. Because I was at work multitasking several tasks (including engaging you and others), I didn’t get enough time to refute your self-asserting write-ups or pen a very serious rebuttal. Therefore I felt necessary to post a comprehensive write-up on the topic (it proved to be a moving target). I will limit this write-up to several important points that I thought were central to the discussion. However, I won’t dignify your cartoon-like view of the debate section/debaters with a response. You seem to be full of yourself assuming of an air of superiority hence it will be fitting to ignore the bulk of your post where you veered to different direction. I will post three write-ups (see the next three posts): I.One for your original post and your subsequent clarification. II. The other one for the straw man charge and your lecture-like self-assertion lessons of what argument is supposed to be. III.And finally I will address what logic is and what logic is not and all that mentioned about it in the context of this discussion. That said, it is always good to know your audience. Prudence requires not to assume about that which you don’t have knowledge. In this case it’s not prudent to assume that all cyber characters are well-versed in philosophy. Likewise not all enlightened people (or educated folks as you put it) are subject-experts in this discipline and its various specialized areas. Let me put myself with the layman league for philosophy is not my specialty. My write-ups are just my views on the subject at hand. I’m of the opinion that having extensive knowledge in philosophy under one’s belt or being well versed with its speculative and rhetorical debating skills does not give one an exclusive license to decide what is valid and what is not valid argument (I will expand this later). Braeking it up for you...look below

“Ciyaalka Xaafada†vs. Hardball politics Critic by the name of Mudane Been-Boode Maxaa la yiri Desk newswires Every now and then, we hear new terms unfamiliar to us used by certain groups. First, these informal terms come across to us as street language spoken by sub-cultures in the fringes of the society. Slowly these terms are picked up by more people and in no time they are accepted as part of the language. This is the case with the word “Ciyaalka Xaafadaâ€. First term started as a label to excuse the absent-minded youths whose devotion to soccer, hanging out at barxada, watching movies, and having fun overshadow everything else in life. Being part of this group was a status worn with pride. It had various connotations. Today the self-professed ones associate the term with kids whose parents are urbanites that lead civilized and settled households. Contrast the term with “Ciyaal gobolâ€(in Xamar) or “Galti (in Kismaayo)†and one would have a clear understanding of what it entails to be part of these privileged kids exclusive club! They used to call each other by their first name. They used to treat their friends' parent as uncle or aunt and actually accord eedo/adeer tittle to anyone above certain age in the neighborhood. Qabiil was irrelevant abstract thing to them. That was then before the civil war; fast forward time to the present time after fifteen years! The civil war had a profound impact on all Somalis who went through that horrible experience. The reverberation and the after shock of the political upheavals emanated from the civil war earthquake had been felt within trather detached and far away Somali communities in the Diaspora. Even though the civil war’s effect was far reaching, its impact is more pronounced in the psychic of “Ciyaalka Xaafadaâ€. Enter into the Somali politics in the SOL forum. The lines are drawn. Any astute observant would notice one subtle characteristic that sets apart “Ciyaalka Xaafada†from others. Lumping many different sects within the group together and risking generalizing many innocent folks in the process, this group is condescending in attitude, dismissive in tone, wrong on facts, ignorant about politics and history of Somalis, vocal in their posts, judgmental in their write-ups, and contradictory in their exhortation. They would easily conclude that Somali politics is not for them and exhort nomads to be wary in getting into the political discussion to the extent that they come across as if they are dictating nomads when and where to forum. In the same breath they would plunge head first into a shark infested, wave-splashing high seas without taking a minute to double check their facts. At times, they would come to the rescue of one notorious warlord defending him as any good lawyer would have done and convict another lesser profile warlord to high crimes including genocide. They would easily get irritated when challenged or their take on an issue is refuted and readily accuse the skeptic with bias and clannism. They would advocate a position today with vigor and when the whims of the warlord who they unknowingly tailgate after his behind changes they come out strong to advocate the new position in which the said warlord is taking. Sometimes they exhort nomads or rather forcefully advocate hiding from the harsh reality of life and the hard choices we must make relative to the situation at home on the basis that we might get corrupted if we take a stand on a major moral/political question. Islam is sometimes used to get the higher road. Some even go father to justify seemingly biased position, say secession, because of Islam. Even “Maxkamadaha†whose legions occupy in properties that don’t belong to them are supported because of Islamic religion. Confused ain’t they? Perhaps but again “Ciyaalka Xaafada†are not willing to take a stand on the issues of the day and certainly are not ready to explain why do they take the positions they take. Politics, the good politics is just dialugoe and discussion about the major issues of the day. Divergent special interests are bound to clash head on. It’s real hardball. “Ciyaalka Xaafada†arguably are bit confused. They mistakenly equate discussion with action. They unnecessarily want to shun dialogue and prefer to stay in their bedroom. Yet they won’t stay away...they come out screaming foul, foul, foul.... ---------- This piece is aimed to provoke several posters in SOL politics section.

Smiling @ list of fruits. Very hilarious but no substance! I think you were so fixated on the caption of this thread to the extent that you thought it was part of some argument. In the orginal post, there was no argument (remember what an "argument" is), however, there were facts (i.e. how each philosopher died). I imagine you will retort, "What the hell does the title of the thread have to do with the post? Why not call the thread "How philosophers died? What has martyrdom to do with car accidents and suicides?". I entirely concur that such a query is germane. I also believe that it is contributing to a fundemental source of confusion in this thread. The title of the thread was no accident , good Baashi, as I willfully wrote it. Now you see, philosophers were martyrs of sorts not because they died in car accidents, not because they committed suicide, not because they were killed by lesser peoples; instead, they were martyrs because they "sacrificed" their lives, their time, their intellect to one principle, to wit, that only those propostions, those beliefs, those statements, which conformed to reason are to be espoused as true . Firstly, I must congratulate you for taking up the challenge. That was very brave of you . Secondly, although bit didactic and below the belt dismissals at times nevertheless the last write-up addressed several pertinent points. Over all not much of refutation except: a) the way I structured the argument didn’t conform to your preferred methodology. b) You were merely addressing historical facts hence I unnecessarily took issue with something you never argued for in the first place. Very well Mutakalim. Still the facts you delineated in your first post and the deliberate but misleading title you have given the thread says nothing about martyrdom. In fact it might be the case that these men had a profession where they utilize their intellect and rational thinking to enquire and “dare to think†and get rewarded wholesomely for their work. It might be the case that these gentlemen spend much of their time socializing with monarchs, aristocracy, and upper class folks in luxurious palaces until the end when they contracted that syphilis or the cold or what have you. If you really think about it the “martrydom†door is wide open to many professionals who make use of their intellect, sacrifice their time to advance their ideologies irrespective to the odds they face. It’s noticeable that you somehow kind of equating people who “dare to think†or come up with a new ideas that form the basis of new ideologies with martyrs. I disagree with the title "martyrs" designated to philosophers. Anyone who wishes to expound such claim ought to come up more than a list of men who used to “dare to think†and ultimately went to their graves dying in natural death. Everything else must be committed, as Hume said, to the flames, as they are nought but sophistry and illusion! It is rather conspicuous that there is no uniformity in the thought of philosophers. Do you know why? Should you argue once more that logic is relative because philosophers come to different conclusions, then I will have to answer this silly argument with a joke. Do you not see anything amiss in arguing in such a fashion? At the risk of offending you I argue once more that the fact that rational, reasonable people well versed with the art of logic and deductive reasoning weigh in one single subject and come to divergent positions and at times opposing conclusion. What does that say about logic? A fallible methodology of searching truth perhaps! It would be very interesting if you rather refute this supposedly “silly†argument instead of sharing with us a joke - that would be, I’m sure you would concur, uncalled for .

This is dangerous territory, saaxib. You mean to say that on the Day of Judgment (if it ever should arrive) you will find out if Islam is/was the right religion? This gamble of yours begs the obvious question, what if it was not? In our holy book and many of the sayings of the prophet, we’re invited, encouraged and urged to observe the earth, sky and all that’s in between, to find the truth. We’re repeatedly instructed to contemplate, think and reason. The answers we search for are all there, we’re told. By submitting to Allah’s will, we do so with the conviction that Allah is true, his book is true and the judgment day is true. I believe, not with faith alone, but with reason too, that I have chosen the right faith. I’m convinced, through my own contemplations and the logical evidence in the Quran that this is the correct faith to follow. Every religious dilemma and quandary I face, I treat as an opportunity to further discover and strengthen my faith. I can’t go by blind faith alone and hope that, on The Day Of Judgment I’ll find that I followed the correct faith and was not seduced by Christianity or Judaism (who, if I followed your “reasoning†would have a 1 in 3 chance of being the correct religion for me). Perhaps it’s a dangerous territory sxb but my “reasoning†led me there Should I stop reasoning now . And yes the Day of Judgment when it arrives is the day of reckoning. We know as Muslims that we are on the right path. We know that because we have faith in Allah’s revelation. Today here on planet earth, I belief (emphasis added), with conviction, honest, and sincerity that Islam is the only true religion. If I’m wrong (Allah forbid) then I will pay, as a sane, intelligent, and responsible man, the price of believing in Islam sxb. Why do I believe in Islam? Well yes blind faith in part, parental and societal influence has its role also, but ultimately I believed in Islam because I reasoned, contemplated, and finally concluded this is the way to salvation in that Day that I have faith will come. Notice here I too reasoned in replying to you and explaining why I believe what I believe. This is the gizzillion time that I’m using this word to emphasize that I too use my innate cognitive capacity known reasoning to decide what the ultimate truth is. The difference between us is not whether reasoning, rational thinking, reflection, contemplation, or what have you, has a role in reaching conclusions in matters that pertain to belief systems. It has an important role!!! Our difference rather lies in the standard in which our reasoning should conform to. My position is that people who are fit and sane to reason do reason differently! They look at the same abstract questions, weigh in, reflect, contemplate, rationalize, and yet they reach different conclusions. I also happen to think that reason have its limitations. It cannot answer everything under the sun. You, on the other hand, seem to think that belief should be restricted to what is directly supportable by “logic†and evidence if I read your take on the subject correctly! In matters pertaining to metaphysics unlike math and other physical sciences, I insist “logic†as the standard is not much of help. Admirers of philosophy should not rely on what other people speculated but rather dig deep in their heart and sincerely look at creations and reason, contemplate, and reflect, and I’m sure they will arrive. The creations alone will give contemplators a sense of owe and reverence! As to blind faith sxb perhaps you are in denial in this area but if you probe a bit father you will see, I’m confident, that ultimately any belief system has blind faith in its make up. I argue faith is integral part of Islam. How else can one explain the mystery of eternity, the existence of the Day of judgment, the origin of the Creator! What evidence or “logic†is there that can one use to answer these questions if faith alone is not the basis of the belief in itself. Let’s not kid ourselves here sxb the fact of the matter is faith in its definition entails trust and trust in turn places all its eggs to someone else and that happen to be the Creator of this universe that Muslims know as Allah. Pray with me sxb...May Allah forgive us if we erred.

Summary I. 1. Six Somalis have been executed by Saudi authorities. 2. They were thieves. 3. The Saudis have not issued an executive order exclusively for Somalis to carry out this execution. 4. This kind of execution had been in use for quite sometimes now. II. 1. I am Somali. 2. I’m not an expert in Islamic fiqh but I’ve always heard that theft is not punishable by beheading. 3. I don’t think the punishment fits the crime. 4. My heart goes out for the victims who had to endure such cruel injustice. III. 1. I never liked Saudis. 2. I know they are racist. 3. I know they don’t accord their fellow Muslims the same respect they have for westerners. 4. I know their rulers are corrupt authoritarian monarchist. IV. I don't agree with what other nomads are saying and I want them to see things the way I see it.