Sheikh Nurow , with all due respect , it's not so exciting at all to re-educate every 'Mutawa' who happens to have read Science a la 'Harun Yahya' or and few ID arguments. that is a task I leave to the other freethinkers of SOL, I've done my share and it went to my 'qaldan' brother , namely Norf, but if you insist and put your respectable 'cimamad' over my head to spill some basic amino acid beans, I'll have no choice but tell you to find the red-herring in your argument if you can , that is. I rather not spill some advanced Amino acids before I get back from BORAMA , yes , you heard it, and unlike NGONGE, I tell everybody to be going to SOMALIA and not Somaliland.

As for the interrupted 'Niqabi' i'd say your freedom to dress as fit is a Human right, but being not able to enjoy the freedom of saying NO to your husband is but a prerogative.

^Pourquoi courber à vos orteils quand vous pouvez étirer un peu plus ?

It's always interesting how the interpretations evolve to stay up-to-date, a classical way of baking the result. Here is another enjoyable evolving Ostrich theory of the earth shape. The inherent desire to be intellectually dishonest just to shore up the Faith, is as divine as it gets.

Hassan, The term ' Concept ' seems to be what you looking for, and I'm more than willing to help you out there, but for now let us concentrate on what Sheikh Nur believes a God is. Sheikh Nurow, If you worship something that is living,yet indescribable, and you KNOW of his/her existence, I'm afraid that you haven't communicated much. Your Deity of choice seems to be a mystery for your own self . Hence , Neither Atheists nor Theists of different religions have an inherent need to 'DENY' your mysterious Deity of choice, it's all in your head Sheikh Nurow. My question remains WHAT is the God you worship? Is s/he a Superman like figure that lives in a cosmic fortress of solitude with a single gigantic chair?

Khayr, And your contribution to the thread is? Norf, there are qualifications all right, not allowing the marriage of a nine year old girls is one, I'm sure you can work your way down to the Burqa problem. Addressing Siren,C&H and Zulfa's arguments of Sarkozy being Another man telling woman how to dress i'd say, Arab men require their women to cover their face when they go out,French men don't do, In Arabic culture parents often remove their girls from school very early just so they will have a better chance of marriage,because Arab Men demand that,namely uneducated child-factory. French parents don't do. Now, Does highlighting the bad treatment of women in the Arabic culture and forbidding it in our secular society, justify it's continuation because of the highlighter's gender? Does it? is it not reasonable to disregard a solution for a Woman problem just because it comes from a male human being. um-hamid, your choice is not in question , and all those Muslim women/girls who are not 'burqed-up' ARE DEFINITELY NOT 'ho-ed' out. It is not like either you go under a Tent or you're a ho-ed out.

Zulfa, "3) As Europa wanna convince us that being naked has nothing to do with being bad or cheap,then we have the full right to tell them that wearing Burqa has nothing to do with being radicals, oppressed or criminals. " Isen't that the VERY , Them and US bile , Layzie were talking about? You've agreed that BURKA is not religiously demanded of women to sweep along, the conspiracy theory of THEM against US is but a resolution of your unwillingness to be realistic?!.

Originally posted by LayZie G.: Fabre, paradise is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Layzie, you and your signs of paradise. Norf, bring the attempted proofs dee. In conclusion, Sarkozy's comments are actually AGAINST the very same values he thinks he is trying to uphold (and LG believes in) and France has become renowned. Not necessarily against , unless you equivocate on what freedom of religion coveys in our Secular Society that is. It's not an evening YET .

Abti, he never did , have own opinion that is , he is so used to pulling legs he finds a leg in every thread. Not my Niece's , I say. Abti, Qaldankan, ani iyo Ngonge no daa.

LG, Abti, The individual Arab female is demanded by her man to cover , hence the veil is forced on alot of women because of men's needs, and nothing whatsoever is religious about that.

Sheikh Nurow, I don't think we have linguistic problem, lest you insist we do. My question is simple and straight forward, namely , What is a God ( an 'Ilaah' if you like )? and not Who is a God as you assumed. Give us an humanly adequate definition of the Deity you worship, and then see if we're denying i's real existence or if you really are not communicating anything at al.

Ms DD, i thought the old Mickey pic served a purpose. There is a long way to go from I've a faith in certain doctrine and I pretend invisible. only Allah decrees on how one of his flocks dresses or not. Classic ,Flockic, init ?!

Sheikh Nurow, I've no problem with what certain Arabic word means or can mean in different contexts , my question is what a God ( an 'ilaah',if you must) is?. As you may know,in the history of Mankind different types of Deities have been presented at different ages. What I'm questioning is your very knowledge of the Islamic God (your Deity of choice), such knowledge that you're so certain you can with pure sincerity , based on your knowledge about that Deity, define that Deity and present it to us. Remember, if you can't define the Deity you claim to devote your life to, it's neither honest to accuse the Atheists of 'denying' it's existence, nor appropriate or just towards other religions that worship other Deities. Once again , What is a God?

Ms DD , it's the other way around Both NGONGE and Michael Jackson can't let Val be.

I agree with Sarkozy here. The plain sexism in the Arabic culture covered as religious certitude has no place in France. Look at that child !!

Duke calling the president or anyone for that matter, an 'amxaar' is a contradiction in terms. The pet name 'Amxaar', went down to history with Abdullahi yousuf , whenever you hear 'Amxaar' you can't help but think of him, or am i being unjust here?

An opening is always there, as everything can be improved, refined if you like, but bringing a workable solution for their country hasen't been Somali's forte, and from what we witness to judge in terms of illiteracy figures, I'm not hopeful. ps... i'm going to Borama and apply for Somaliland citizenship.

^ Maybe neither 'Talibanic' Somalia nor a 'dismembered' Somalia are an alternative to the Man and his Islamic TFG!

Originally posted by Che -Guevara: Useless bunch! Al-qaida / Al-shabab = Useful bunch? This is the msg of the Muslim world , live with it.

"The Secretary General of the Organization of the Islamic (OIC), Prof Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu who has been following with grave concern the latest escalation of the insurgency in Somalia, has launched an appeal to the international community to discharge its full responsibilities by taking urgent necessary action to ensure the survival of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in Somalia. " The Muslim wordl takes an important stand

^ What was the cheapest commodity on earth again?! If a contest regarding this cheap commodity was thrown could our Sheikh threaten Duke's superiority?

Originally posted by bint hamid: they know what they are fighting for and it is paradise and firdaus cuz thats the highest level of jannah!! "What grim future has befallen that sperm and egg."

Originally posted by Nur: Johnny saaxib Of course Atheism and Evolution are different saaxib, my understanding was that the statement implied that Atheism stands on more solid proofs than the theory of Evolution alone, which I called their lethal argument and you challenged me to provide to Hassan with lethal argument to counter it. This is the statement : Since you know the necessity of Atheism relays on more and better solid ground than the young one's wanting but grotesque analogy of a philosophy professor, why don't you feed him with few of those 'lethal' arguments and let him wrestle with them.? Originally posted by Nur: An argument has two sides means two perspectives on every argument. You have to wear my shoes and walk a mile to understand my point of view, mind you, I used to wear your your shoes and know exactly your point of view. Sheikh Nur, The amount of miles it takes to walk to understand your perspective doesn't amount to much. All that is needed is to have been born to a family that indoctrinates one from childhood into having faith in the existence of a Deity,without ever bothering the task of proving it, but i sincerely doubt if you walked an inch to understand my perspective, the reason is simple and obvious, you came up with totally different assertion than the one i made. Originally posted by Nur: If as the professor denied existence of God, you also deny God's existence by way of science, it becomes necessary for you to show the flaw in the logic that led in the belief of God, and that is exactly what the Professor in this thread was doing which attracted you to throw your hat in the debate. Sheikh Nurow, what happened to the promised intellectual honesty , where is that sincerity that is supposed to help us debate thoroughly the subject matter and hopefully widen our horizons? Firstly, Atheists don't 'Deny' the existence of a Deity, To do that would not only be difficult position to hold, but a cognitive deficiency of some sort. To deny is totally different than to lack belief in, To claim that Atheists 'Deny' the existence of your Deity of choice you've to present your Deity of choice to them beyond question, which leads us to the following question, Do theists really present their Gods cogently and beyond question?,whose answer is overwhelmingly negative. So accusing the Agnostics/Atheists of the Denial of the existence of one's choice of Deity is a but a lagging sagacity,It's like me accusing you of denying the existence of my choice of Ghosts, namely 'Casper' thus shifting the burden of proof for it's existence from myself to you, which can only mean a severe deficiency in intellect or pure intellectual dishonesty, and i tend to believe the later. Originally posted by Nur: By siding with the Professor, I thought may be you can show logically that God does not exist, if you decline, than there is no argument, for Muslims will derive their values from God, and Atheists will draw their values from their liking. Of course, my position regarding the existence of 'Gods' is well known,as i lack belief in their real existence, but your belief in the existence of your Deity of choice is not supposed to be based on my ability/inability to prove or disprove it's existence,unless you believe in everything i lack belief in, which would be quite absurd. It's supposed to be based on your absolute personal knowledge of it. As for the Moral values and where Humanity turns to , i think Human beings are social beings. and all social beings have to create a system of rules in order to live together without killing each other, There is no reason to bring an imaginary moral-making Deity into the equation, The word 'morals' is but a fluffy term for societal rules. Originally posted by Nur: Kindly please answer my last question Is there a possibility of God's existence in your opinion? You can answer this question three ways: A. NO B. YES C. I Dont Know If your answer is B. What is the implications? Nur [/b] My deep honest answer is C followed by what a god is , or ' I don't know what a god is '. Now let me ask you what a God is? can you kindly answer me in a cogently manner?

Originally posted by Nur: Johnny saaxib My question: In the absence of God, what does Morality need to manifest itself in our lives instead? For Human morality the absence or presence of a Deity is relative, The common good of Humanity/ Society is and has always been what manifests it on our lives. Originally posted by Nur: My questions: 1. In the absence of a God, who sets the standard of what is right and wrong, and who consequently rewards good behavior while punishing bad behavior. How can we agree on a common Moral standard that is agreeable to everyone? Shall we accept our politicians moral code? Is Morality static or is dynamic ( I mean changing with respect to times) 2. If reward and punishment shouldn't drive our decisions, hence actions, why should we obey the secular law? are all those who obey the secular law for fear of jail, or hope of better living irrational people in your opinion? Nur It's obvious in your question that you still need to couple Morality and your Deity of choice, but again, what is right or wrong remains relative ,inferring 'God' to be the one rewarding or punishing in an afterlife has never changed Humanity's total moral realities. There may be few universally accepted moral acts but standards vary from society to another. In conclusion, your claim of Atheism not having any morals falls plat since Atheism lacks belief in Gods but believes solely in Humanity.

Sheikh Nur, Despite the fact that you may be sincere in your engagement to save my 'soul', I'm having trouble with what you thus far helped me with, regarding my recollection, that is. What I've no recollection of claiming and what you helped me with are again two different things. For i never claimed that Atheism relies on more solid ground than Evolution. That is wholly your own assertion, And lest I'm forced to quote myself i stand by my statement that Atheism is as old as Theism, while the scientific theory of Evolution is around 200 years old. They're two different things altogetehr. Since any argument has two sides, I helped define science. It would be fair to suggest that you, As an Atheist, use science to disprove God's existence. I'm not sure if i understand what you exactly mean by argument having two sides, but It is neither Science's nor Atheism's task to proof a negative , namely a particular God's non-existence, it is on the Theists to proof his/her existence, since it is the theists who claim to absolutely know of his real existence ,and it's there where the trouble lays. As for this thread , i haven't thrown my hat in , Since you corrected Hassan regarding the strength of the arguments Atheism raises, I thought you'd help Hassan realize the fallacies in the philosophy professor analogy. As for the scientific theory of Evolution,I've no intention whatsoever calling you on your claim of it being 'the ultimate lie'.