SB, Good to see u, saxib. I enjoy reading your views despite the fact that you and i stand two opposite end. You said: What laws of Allah say we can't separate religion and state? As far as I know, the Quran which contain the words of Allah, is not a book for modern governments or modern economies or modern medicine or modern militaries...we are FORCED to use laws of modern states to run out countries. In fact this is the reality of all the muslim majority countries . SB, I failed to comprehend why a Muslims use theories or some diestic belief advanced by European as a yardstick in measuring human development, while shari` is perceived as inconsequential. If the Qur’an is merely words of Allah and plays no roll in human betterment, then why do we claim to be Muslims? Your statement resonate deism belief--God as being discovered through nature and reason, rejecting revealed religion and its authority over humanity. Hence, can we claim to be be a Muslim whilst distancing the decree of his/her creator? It is immensely crucial to understand the principle behind the notion of religion being separate from state! Also, it is equally imperative to know who were the pioneers or the advocate of secularism and most importantly the state of their society. In other words, what were the political, economical and social setting of their respective society and why religion was perceived as detrimental or stagnant to human progress?

I believe two people made an honest comment on the issue while admitting their lack of understanding of this Shari`a tribunal. Before taking any stance, we need to understand what this tribunal means and how it is practised. Judging from your comments, none of u made any logicla explanation as to how its detriment or beneficial to muslims abroad, particularly Onatrio. If u don't mind me asking, how many of u know the Shari`a law? I don't knoe much about this law; therefore, my stance on this one is unclear. We should abstain from making any judgement (i.e., separation of state and religion) since our judgement comes from mere understanding of this law.

And there we differ, so,please for the 1st time in this debate share with us , how an intelligent designer is behind it and what made you come to that conclusion.? Proving how the intelligent designer made the universe is tantamount to proving the existence of the designer HIMSELF. When delving into constant immobility of nature, faith and conviction instead of evolution is required. When we make an attempt to explain things whether scientifically or not, we use our sense perception—seeing hearing, touching, smelling and tasting, and thereof make our judgement. What this means is that our judgement (which is in direct relation to the external objects) is contingent upon our experience. Then, how can we believe ourselves capable of understanding things beyond which our senses can no longer perceive. It is preposterous to acquire scientific data in the hope we know the nature of our existence. Faith and human reasoning can not walk hand in hand there sxb, actually the power of reasoning or Rationalism is used to wipe out many if not all creationistic claims. so your answers are soley based on faith which is a deadly substitute for a thought. Is that a conjecture from your part? Are you insinuating reason and faith are irreconcilable? What religion or faith do you think contradict reason, vice versa? I find your statement very ambiguous. I thought rationalist heavily relay on reason when investigating the unseen world and its connection with physical world. Though they reached different conclusions, most of them believed the concept of God being the “designer†of the universe. Unfortunately, I don’t possess intellectual ability needed to venture distinction between rationalism and empiricism school of thoughts. According to my understanding, the former uses human intellect for exploring the intelligible entities (unseen) which is beyond our observation, while the later requires human senses to investigate tangible entities, that is, the seen world.

Zaylici, It is good article! Thanks for investing your time in such a good cause.

Mr. JB Now in terms of what we can and can´t know the latter seems appealing unless some of us enjoy a somehow higher and advanced hman senses:D What we want to beleive is a matter of our choice which is trivial i.e scientifically un intresting First, I am not physicist, nor am I depicting myself as pseudo-intellectual. However, there are those who use paradoxically the term "Science" while rejecting or refuting creationsim on the basis that it is bereft of "scientific proof". It is human propensity to conceptualize differently and form categories for which they specify their experience. Here I will take the term science as an example, and how some people use its definition for various reasons. For example, we have been witnessing how some folks in this thread attempted to bring evolutionism under banner of pure scientific knowledge. In other word, they say that theory of evolution holds scientific evidence, meaning that it can’t be proven to be otherwise. According to my understanding, when such thing is said to be a "fact" or true, the implication is that we can not think of any thing opposite; and hence everthing else is opionion. Can we say evolution is science? Because, according to definition of the word "science", subject of the origin of life and the universe is outside the scope of human observation and, therefore, does not technically come under the definition of science per se. Since no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by chance or evolution. Similarly, no human was present to observe life and the universe coming into existence by design or creation. The later does not need scientific proof. Why? This is where faith and human reasoning provide answers to these question: Where do we come from? Where are we going? Who are we? What is our purpose? So if evolution is neither science nor faith, then what is it? If my memory serves me well, you, yoursefl, are tentative to say the true defintion of science fits theory of revolution. In fact I posed a similar question in my first post. Since an intelligent power was behind the origin of life and the universe, scientific evidence from genetics, biogenesis, thermodynamics, information theory, laws of probability, and other areas of science better support faith in creation than chance or evolution.

SB says: We see this lack of scientific knowledge evinced in this proposterous claim that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics contradicts evolution theory. He failed to mention in his article that the 2nd Law applies ONLY under specific condition -- closed systems. As the 2n Law states: the entropy or disorder in a CLOSED system will increase. However, the Earth, where evolution took place, is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun. What I have gathered from your argument is this: for such life form to take place, there must be some sort of energy—sun. According to my understanding, the author acknowledges the implication associated with both system (closed and open system), whilst provides a counter argument to what evolutionist scientists postulated. For instance, as you stated, that 2nd Law can only be applicable to closed system. The author acknowledges the fact that sun is the sole energy for animate objects; and hence without it there wouldn’t have been as such, as you put it. It is my conjecture that you deliberately mistreated the premise that every animate object needs some sort of energy conversion mechanism which is Compatible with their physical and chemical properties. Read these paragraphs and provide scientific evidence stating erronousness of his logical conclusion. An "open system" is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun, that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures. However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol . The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts JB and SB I am yet to see any proof or refutation in direct relation to this topic. On the contrary, the whole discussion resorted to discrediting intellectual figures such Yahya, who invested all his time in refuting and explaining logical shallowness and distortion of claiming that all life evolves from simple structure. Again I am asking you: How can a scientist believe aformentioned process takes place without any relation to the Law of Universe? The underpinning of science is that everything has a cause, yet how can an act of genuinely free will be caused? Likewise, how can any chance event, i.e. one that is uncaused? When confronted with these dilemmas, natural scientists twist and turn with arguments that virtually always amount to denial of the phenomena of free will and chance. Salamatiin

JB, I have said: ".. alternative explanations (creationism) are needed because science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. Hence it is contradictory to say all life evolve from simple cell structure." In other words, if all life evolves from simple structure, then there is no such thing as causal connection in the universe. Brother Harun put it very eloquently what i have been trying to stress. Thermodynamics Falsifies Evolution By Harun Yahya The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything, whether living or not, wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another, and according to the law, the process cannot be avoided. This is something that all of us have observed. For example if you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly expect to find it in a better condition when you came back years later. On the contrary, you would see that its tires had gone flat, its windows had been broken, its chassis had rusted, and its engine had stopped working. The same inevitable process holds true for living things. The second law of thermodynamics is the means by which this natural process is defined, with physical equations and calculations. This famous law of physics is also known as the "law of entropy." In physics, entropy is the measure of the disorder of a system. A system’s entropy increases as it moves from an ordered, organized, and planned state towards a more disordered, dispersed, and unplanned one. The more disorder there is in a system, the higher its entropy is. The law of entropy holds that the entire universe is unavoidably proceeding towards a more disordered, unplanned, and disorganized state. Source: http://islamonline.net/english/Contemporary/2002/12/Article02.shtml

JB don´t get confused .. science is nothing but observation, identification and description. But to apply science and call a phenomena scientific one has to carry out experimental investigation, and bring forward theoretical explanation of the given phenomena. I am more confused about the discussion at hand than more so the topic—argument from design and theory of revolution. It is bit late for me to retreat from the perplexity of this topic, therefore,I can’t help but continue on enquiring, as I read some of the abstract philosophical terms used in your explanation of what constitutes real or scientific evidence. Moreover, though I support the notion of everyone having their conviction, still one needs to provide a reason why he/she holds certain judgements. Suppose I am one of the proponents of the creationism, before anything else, I have to provide explanation as to why creationism holds validity or more weigh over naturalism. For instance, my argument would be: alternative explanations (creationism) are needed because science rests heavily on the principle of cause and effect. Hence it is contradictory to say all life evolve from simple cell structure. Therefore, there must be an intelligent being who designed the universe. JB, this is an easier way to either reject or support an argument rather than throwing those abstract terms at us. After all, this is basic discussion, and I don’t suppose we are all theologians, philosopher or scientist. At least I am not. PS. I am not suggesting science doesn’t correspond to the Revelation, but it is the conclusion mad by its advocates which raises eyebrow. Beside science should not be an instrument by which we gauge validity of God's revelation.

"Our educated men and women are, unfortunately, blindly loyal to their respective clans. It seems that their education was not strong enough to liberate them from the shackles of the clan system and to open their minds to the unlimited opportunities we could all have if we widen our horizons and work in unison. It is not possible to write our history without the mention of clans and even when we write a critical essay about a national figure his clansmen and clanswomen will be offended. Clanism continues to cloud our judgment. "This story, however, does not only exonerate **** but it also demonstrates, like so many other stories, which are without any foundation whatsoever, how events are misconstrued or distorted by people who neither witnessed them nor heard them from authentic sources. I sometimes wonder in total amazements how young people write distorted versions of our history in the websites, and I have seen contradictory accounts being portrayed as authentic historical rendering." Tuujiye, I thank you for posting the articles on this so-called politics section, and I am very optimistic that these folks will someday renounce this concept of qabiil. If my memory serves me well, I came across articles posted HonAfrique and some others nomads. These sources were devoid of authenticity, and are principally based on tribal dogmatism, and which I believe their version of Somali history is as an enterprise of not only distorting fact, but also legitimising immoral conduct taken by their respicetive clans. Unfortunately, thsee folks fail to realize their relentless effort to continue this misrepresentation is chiefly manifestation of their bigoted nature...

JB said I neither beleive in creationisim becouse it is based on the possibility of a supereme Intelligent Designer having designed it JUST so, nor do i beleive in Naturalisim just becouse it is based on the propability of life beeing a self-driven mechanism (coincidental actions and reactions if u like). I see no constructive argument resulting from refutation of creationism. If you don’t mind my ignorance, do you care to shade light on the other doctrines (if there are) that the world can neither be understood in scientific nor creationism terms? Because it seems that you rejected both realms’ and their doctrine of world/universe.

quote: Is it true the Barre of the South and Geddo boys are playing ball and contemplating peace among them so they can fend off the intentions of Bu'aale folks to declare a region of their own under auspices of Geedi? Ridiculous Baashi and even you know it. Indeed, it was..

Originally posted by rudy: did the sunaame move this city to pland!! holla back if u got the 411! :confused:

xidigahan dusheena middaan uga dan leeyahee Waxaan umaleynaa Eebe/Allah. Ileyn asaga ayaa daacad loo noqdaa, kana koreeya Xidigaha. waxyaalo badana baa ka koreeya xidigaha, balse Illaah uun baa daacad loo noqdaa. Haye qatar ma ahay

Nuune, widaayow waan kugu wareeray. Farxan waxu ku jawabey Albatros, anigana waxaan ku jawabey fiidmeer. labada xayawan soo makala gedisna? Haday saas tahay, Farxan baa sheegey, marka ka raali noqo jawaabt aan kuceliey.

Originally posted by Suldaaanka: ^^Waji kaaki? whatever that means sxb Kaaki hadiis jajab yahay waa lafeereya. Marka wajigaa waatagan yahay sida kaaki feero lagu toosiyey. I think he meant as complimemtary remark. Suldaan, is she as good as her sister?

Originally posted by Hibo: lamo goodlee meel leesku keenay wal feylan malaka filow. Mey meehaan af may may luga waramo un filaashe, widaygow dhimadi walkiis iin biloowdeen. Dad badan iyaa kaloosadka ka jira. Adeeba haka bati, waana saasa lafade ariitana. Lama goodle wareersho noo dhaaf waana hadalka meela hal kuwadooy. Haye barbaarey salamantiin.

Jawaabta koowaad waa fiidmeerta , sababto ah fiidmeerta geedaha unbey kudagataa ama hoy ka dhigata. jawabta hadaysan taas, waan ka gudbaya.

Originally posted by HornAfrique: Quite a retort for a simple question innocent -one. You are not expecting me to use my real name, are you? After all this a virtual world, and nicknames are commonly used when logging on ot SOL or any other forums. In case u forgot, site asks you to write loggin name as opposed to your real name. hope that answered your "innocent" question

Originally posted by nuune: anyway, waxa duula waa un xayawaan saas ogoow. Nuune, haadkaba waa xayawan, wuuna duula. Mise waxaad rabtaa hal nooc? In other words, are u asking specific one?

Though one could possibly make the argument that some situations require both revolution and evolution, there is nothing circular about this interplay. Evolutionary (gradual process) is the better approach, I think, when tackling crises in muslim societies. Many societies underwent all forms crises that emenated from their respective rulers. To eradicate existing social problems, revolutionary approach has in most case failed, in spite of the widely believd notion that it is antidote to the problem. Its aftermath poses difficulties to dealwith political vacuum that is left behind by the previous regime. Prime example is the unconstructive inherent in revolutionary approach in 1991 Somalia, which became a major setback to reinstate political and social order. It has been more than a decade ever since they ousted the previous regime. Evolution is the best way to produce a society capable of dealing with any political or social issue with civility, that is, it is not driven by emotions and xenophobic behaviour. If we take look at current state of muslin society, it is apparent that we are in constant struggle which can only be attributed to the lack practice and knowledge of basic principle of Islam, which encompasses every aspect our society. Illumination of the mind and soul is the only path to promising future. salaama

"Ibraahim Shaaweyna waxaan u sheegayaa in indhihiisa ay qaac ka bixi doonaan haddii uu sii wad-wado hadallada uu maalmahan ka dhex hayo warbaahinta†ayuu yiri Macallin Xaashi oo....." Waxa soo xasuustey bootadi aan sameyn jirney marka bacaadka la iskugu tago: Waa kaaga dhejinaa ama caro maanyo aan kusiina..

dhulka waxaan usoo dagan cirkana daarad ku laheyn Waxaan filaya haadka duula cudurkii ku doorshee daduu helana aan dilind daawa aan yeelan iisheeg Caashaq/jacayl

Q: How do you plan to go about this? A: We cannot absolutely force the people to give up the occupied land seized by gunmen. The solution is to use the traditional method to convince the person and to use traditional leaders to tell the occupier that he must leave the land. We cannot force them or use guns to get them to leave occupied land. We want to use our own traditional methods to vacate the land occupied by gunmen in Somalia. What traditional method does he think be implemented? I gather we no longer honour our respective method whether it would be “Xeer†or what have you: those days are gone. Faatixadii laqadan jirey waydhamatey. Maant ninkaad ku tiraahdid war qofyahow faatixada qaado kuna har ilaahaga, waxa lagu arka inaad qob moos u dhigeysid.

Originally posted by Jason: QUOTE]I mix them up too sometimes when I am high. That was a good one.

Originally posted by ORGILAQE: hibo say that once again in somali please Widaayow, kiin jawaabi fadey laakin nick name iyaa ko obsidi, widaay dadk lee in dhunjidooy Lan orgi liqaaw orodiis wal kubirimee, in ahayna adi orgi kitaawiye