Originally posted by Castro: We're all speculating here though. Marriage is definitely the most complex endeavor I've ever engaged in. And I sure prefer it to being unmarried. Most of the time. All aptly thrown sandals at Castro are probably cheaper than any other form of therapy for his better half.

^^ Nephy, Taaso maryihi dhigatay? Few things are best when covered, waaba hairy-arab-woman, darn you Nephy,you lil saqajanad. msDD, adi wanku nacebahay, horta ma adiga un a sual i weydin, ma jwabtid mar mar? Seriously MsDD,That you take umbrage at my eventual bad-intention instead of the child's plight is worrisome trait. I know Aisha was 9 when she married, this child was 8, i know the difference. Makortadii waa la korinayaa kolba koodh madow loo gelinayaa kalmadeeda la tixgelinayaa sida islaan loo kuurayaa oo walaalkeed laga kaayayaa. Hooyadeed Bilan bay tidhaah Aabeheed......

"I am happy that I am divorced now. I will be able to go back to school," Husbandophil acknowledged that the marriage was consummated, but he did not beat her

"Stuff and nonsense"®

^So Afraid that i get wobbly legs. What do you think of me 'horta',Ms DD?

Originally posted by NGONGE: ^^ Best reply of the lot. ^Ngonge, though i very much enjoy the scene where you're at Dr Kashafa's table, i refuse to accept the Morphine-laced Lollipop Kashafa offers as a Sucidal man refuses to accept the excuses offered by the Sucide-Alert Squad. The sieve i'm, i'd to tell the gallery that your Possession with Llamas goes back to the "Adhi" in "Hawd", where Boys and smart-goats share the secrets of why the grass is always greener on the other side. Having met few people who orriginate from "Burco", i've conclude that it's a "Burcawi" thing my dear, Live with it, as there is no cure to it.

Originally posted by Castro: Good reminder overall but that part about the "devil" girlfriend says a lot about the author. Only that part? Something tells me that the "devil" girlfreind is not much of an agitation source as the percentage increasing of Death is. The msg is load n clear. be afraid, be very afraid. grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Nice to have you back Atheer.

Hi Lazie !How u doing abti? It seems as if Cara and co for sometime to come will have no choice but to get used to dealing with the be-quite-little-lady , as neither me nor NGONGE is willing to trade off the coziness beeing equal human beeings entails, lest them girls pull the we-re-ladies-after-all card on us, so unleash it NGONGE, nevertheless,you girls present better arguments than Norf who more or less conviniently refues to be on the same page. If we stay on track and seperate regiligious indoctrination and educating a 4,5 year old kid ( a daughter) in this case, we've ample reason to conclude that, From the child's part there is a great deal of dependency on concrete reality which makes children unable to reason about abstract, hypothetical, or any contrary-to-fact idea, Religious indoctrination as NGONGE pointed out gives religious concepts the advantage of not having to face any informed criticism. which none of you have troubled him/herself to answer the golden question of WHY do that to a 4 years-old--girl? For a reason unknown to us, you keep answering another question , namely Is doing that a good thing? which depends on who you ask,and is a different question altogether. Neither me nor NGONE has done anything but ask why, To venture a responsible position one almost needs be able to step out of his /her skull to evaluate own indoctrinations. At that age of 4,5,6 etc etc, children can't even sperate variables, so concluding, we must explain the 'unmoved mover' to someone who wonders how 0.5 ir related to ½ is absurd. A child's natural curiosity and skepticism is an essential and eminently valuable part of human nature, as a responsible parent, you better help that child develop healthy mental skills by anwering her questions as proportioned to her abilty to grasp your answers and be frank in your answrs, not the otherway around, namely meterialaize on her underdevelopped cognitivity, and place a seed of faith, she is yet to grow to be burdened upon. The more you expose the child to religious doctorines the more you send them the message that critical thinking and reasoning are not only unreliable and wrong, but should be readily dismissed when inconvenient,and that will tear apart even the tiny life-experience she gained during her few years becouse of the strength in your message and her inability to counter. By presenting that specific religion of yours as an indisputable truth to your child, whot does not have the capacity to scrutinize the concepts you are giving her with critical thinking and her own informed personal opinions,forces her to just take the cue of the religious adults around her by disregarding any critical reasoning and later make up her own answers to the gaps in her religious knowledge. By assuming that this practice of fabricating answers will not then spread to other more practical areas of the child's knowledge and make her intellectually lazy rather than encourage use of their critical reasoning skills is naive, The vanity of your 4 years old girls looks wearing 'hijab' is neither a demandable act from any known diety nor its a defandable act for a caring parent, so again, why ? I think, playing dummy is an equal opportunity , so let's get some answers , shall we?

^Now that we've gathered enough seriousity into our exchanges ,i'd happy to sift through the vile intentions of religious indoctrination from the perspective of educational psycholog, juts in the next few minutes, but first , let me not spoil it for Ngonge , as i can see him positioning himself in an attaching position. Ibti, i did agree with you for a good reason, lest you think Serenity went into idle kicking dead whales down the peach.

Cara, i'd to agree with ibti ( in that case i'll skip loosing one of my ear hair daily, like Ngonge does as he tries banging witt into her head ) regarding it beeing an innocent act. As for the indoctrination, depending on how you see it, in a way or another a great deal of it goes with whatever parenting means,preparing your offspring for a fit survival is almost a gene-duty ,yet knowing the amount of blurring you make onto your kids mind will reflect on that young persona, helping that persona develop it's own path, even if it means committing same faults as you is (should be)the way to go, me thinks. i know it's a hard task .

^Norf, ha cadhon dee! ( huba huba , my Qaldan lessons really paid off ) And hey, i don't disagree with 25 years old covering herself, boy, it's about time i let you in on a secret .. i find them yummy . Seriously Norf, they're two different subjects.

A view in its own right could be, that religious indoctrination of children as young as 4,5, etc is a vile tool, used by insecure parents against their kids' underdeveloped cognitive abilities. Main reason if not the sole one beeing, to teach the vulnerable children accept the parents' religious doctrines without having to worry about serious challenge of critical thinking. religious indoctrination of children is nothing but a futile attempt to discourage children to question and or challenge the very so called truths in their parents religions, which perverts the future critical thinking skills of these children, hence, religious indoctrination of children is not an education as claimed but the opposite, namely it lays a cognitive hinder in the mindes of those vulnerable children. How many of you adults of today can't rationally reconcile what you been religiousely indoctrinated in as a kid and what you've experienced in real life , yet hold to or value more what you been indoctrinated in? Lastly , children lack the cognitive capacity to completely understand or critically question the information being presented to them with an informed personal opinion, and that is the whole point. Norf, If the answer to your question " why did my beloved father take me to the mosque on a Friday as a 4 year old when I obviously didn't know what was going on? " could be anything but another reason to drag your young ones to the mosque and make the act a cultural virtue that never gets explained. Seriously though, what is the answer and why letting you as a child of 4 do things you din't compeletely understand their real implications is a -must-do-thing?

^If you as an adult choose to believe in the paranormal and more importantly choose to show your belief by ironically hiding yourself, its an understandable thing, as it is hard to cincerly reconcile such ambiguity with the uncompromissing realities of life, but to cover a child or make a mini-tent of little girls who have yet to know why and how they must hide themselves and most importantly from who, is an innocent parental abuse and protectionistic at best or and a parental show-off at worst, if not an outright enforced-mal-parenting. But then if you know your 9 years old daughter can and will be regarded as a fullfledged hottie by the honourable pious people ,you got a defination problem.

Thanks for the kind words my Sheikh, Despite Josephus Flavius truning twice in his Grave regarding Theocracy,and my willingness to debate, i can not cede legitimacy to the following grotesque piece of reasoning, "So following Democracy is following someone who claims to be a GOD. While following Allah is following the TRUE GOD." therefore i concede.

Though Human power relationships are very complex they seem to follow a pattren of percieved hierarchy , it is believed that in order to sustain the hierarchy in place, freedom or too much of it ( if there is such a thing) for females has to be rationed as they're incabable of handling it, It is quite disturbing that almost in every culture, the power relationship does not reflect the real social contribution structure of that society. A theistic view of God-Man or a Master-Slave sort of relationship is replicated socially and politically instead, a mantra of wives must obey husbands and citizens must obey the "Ulema" is in effect, which is in itself a proxy for the very dogmatic view which the percieved hierarchy rests upon,namely, Mankind should submit to God(s)and females should submit to their divinely-ordained betters instead of insisting on equality and liberty. Things don't look any better on the individual-family level, the Hierarchy is deeply rooted in those cultures that marriages are supposed to be successful not becouse expectations are equally leveled on both genders, but wives are expected to submit to the leadership of their husbands, and not only for their marriages to succeed,but even for them to have a shot at paradise, thus the devinely hierarchy is maintained. Can marriages be successful only when and if women submit to men ?

Brother Nur, As always , your cincere answers are deeply appreciated . You coulden't have been more wrong regarding the Scotsman fallacy, but then that doesen't neccessarily warrant a removal of your perception of it, It could be of intrest to those who're not familiar with it. You're making a common innocent mistake made in the comprehension of the Scotsman fallacy,namely, you misunderstand that it is a combination of several fallacies and a form of equivocation, not to mention that it begs the question, but basically it rests on shifting the meaning of terms. Now , if you go back to your example and add "real" or "true" beteween the "No" and the "Scotsman" in #3 you'll have a whole different meaning in assertion # 3. Incase this is not clear enough let us take another example , a Somali example this time ,and why not SOL member names as well? 1:You say: No SOL member smokes. 2: I counter: NGONGE smokes "shisha" . 3:You then say : (a) yes, but no "true" SOL member smokes. or 3:You then say: (b) yes, but no "real" SOL member smokes. You see my brother , there is difference between " a SOL member " and " a TRUE SOL member" or " a REAL SOL member", the difference between a sol member and a TRUE or REAL sol member shifts the meaning of the challenged assertion, namley assertion #1, and there is where you've lived far shorter within your comprehension capacity regarding this otherwise well known fallacy.Q.E.D Now this may not even make sense if i can not relate it to the exchanges between you and sister Naden, becouse that is the whole point behind why i mentioned the fallacy in the first place, bear with me for a second or two , hmmmm , what was the term " Shura", what was the other ? hmmmm, got it ... "Consultation" yeah , that is it. My brother, your assertion, and i quote "The role of a Muslim in the institution of Islam is a SUBJECT, A SLAVE who has to fulfil his Masters commandments. So, the power is NOT FOR THE PEOPLE. The role of the slaves in this institution is consultation of best interpretation of the Devine Commandments, aka (Shuuraa)" has been valiantly challenged by sister Naden and from there on, you were revelling in an ambiguous definination of " Shura", shifting its meaning, just to shore it up. To jug ( read refresh) your memory the following definations are your definations of the term " shuraa" , all are in this single thread. 1: (Shuraa) is the right way to realize Allah's wishes 2: Shuraa in Islam is the problem solving process in Shuraa, regular Joe with no understanding or acceptance of supremacy of Sharia is not qualified to cast his opinion. 3: Shuraa means consultation, sharia means the law or the way to live. Shuraa is not LEGISLATION, its the deliberation that can lead to interpret the moral of the Sharia law 4: Shuraa is A Devine Initiated (Allah ordered His Messenger: Wa shaawirhum fil amr) 5: Shuraa is Heavily Devine influenced 6: Defintion of Shuraa: "Activity of Extrating the best feasible opinion among many competing opinions submitted by those who are competent by virtue of their specific knowledge to set controls for the upholding of the Moral of Sharia on a given subject". Now , Which one is it my brother? To answer your fantastic question of Who is in greater ERROR then, someone who follows a GOD, or someone who claims to Be GOD? i'd say someone who claims to Be GOD is is in greater ERROR, but wait a minute , does people who live under Democracies claim to BE GOD? exactly my thoughts . Could demanding a little more cincerity regarding this be much to ask? If Islamic theocracy( or any other religon's for that matter ) was purely devine and robust, the very people who lived with Mohammed ( pbuh ) woulden't fight among themselves and kill each other in pursuit of power. . Answer: This is a Scottishman never lie Fallacy! Devine systems dont fail if the Devine directions are followed. In your examples, people failed to follow the Devine direction. Now that we've covered your perception of that specefic fallacy we understand why you think so , but if devine systems don't fail if devine directions are followed, who can possibilly know more or better than the very people who lived with Mohammed ( pbuh ) the very link to God? you?, Sheik Joe?. for you to be able to say that , you've to consider yourself more knowledgeable than the people who knew, lived with, and believed in Mohammed? As for reliving the thread i think despite your attempts to seperate Islam from its sources namely Judaism and christianity you seem to understand that its Theocracy that you can compare to Democracy and not a particular faith in particular Deity. The obvious problem that fails theocracy and all you advocate for here is since your merciful God "Allah", for a reason or another does not or cant come down to earth and lead those he chooses to the right path and lead those he dislikes to the helfire, he must be represented by human beeings like you and me and that contradics the credibility of such almighty. And as for beeing impartial and a philosopher , i'm neither Bernand Show nor a philosopher but most important i know the difference between bashing and beeing impartial.

^Where is that picture of Serenity in a compromising pose? i get to see it ?!

Intresting exchanges here !! Despite my lack of belief in certain doctorine one must be senseless to not have enjoyed the amount of cincere attempts made towards what seems to be innocent subject matter, namely a comparasion between Islam and Democracy. A failure to cincerely define Islam as Theocracy has led the exchanges into a narrow path where the only seed left to the debators seems to be semantic hair-spilitting , namely what certain Arabic word means and what it's "rea l" meaning is in it's "real" context...... and so forth. in short, a real Scotishman fallacy savehaven. In an attempt to relive the thread i'd say the comparasion of Islam to Democracy is unfair to boot and biased as it camouflages Islam(a religion) as a widespread contemporary governmental system. Islam is a belief systam, therefore it falls under the category of Theocracy, hence a comparasion between Theocracy and Democracy would be more fair and into the level, though what is more unfair is there're different types of Democracies which are not mentioned. In Theocracy (Religious authority) the ultimate ruler is God ( Allah if you must) and God's wills and laws will be interpreted by totaliterian ecclesiastical authorities ( Human beeings who claim to KNOW what God wants), first off is ofcourse God's messenger(s) and those who understand "the messenger(s)" best, the rest have no say whatissoever in how and why they have to conduct a life of devotion to that authority due to their ignoranc and inability to crack "the code". A code obviously meant ONLY for the elite to crack and the wrath of God is scary enough to keep the masses at bay, while the love of God is sweet enough to lock them with whatever they desire in this life but can't attain, in an imaginary next one , be it food, wine, sexuality etc etc. This my freinds is the Authority brother Nur is talking about when he said: "Islam is an Arabic word that means among several meanings, Surrender, submission, acceptance and reverence of a Sovereign Authority etc" With the messenger(s) gone, a direct link to God's wills and laws is impossible, what is left is the so called "learned" or "Ulema" whose only common denominator is a claim to a belief in what exactly the messenger(s) said and did and vague one at that, most religioins have those "learned" Munks specefically the Abrahamic religions, The "Ulema"s, the Archpishops, the Rabai's and so forth. To compare a governmental system where citizens can and have the right to say what they think is best for the themselves by having their say on any subject matter that is of concern to them and a self-appointed totaliterian ecclesiastical authority that interpretes the supposedly God's wills and laws for them and imposes on them is obviously pregnant and begers blind belief at best and beeing apologetic towards the so called "learned" in fact, but brother Nur is onto something one might assume. Theocracy have failed itself in the ancient nations,it gave birth to a line of totaliterian dictatorship dynasties, kings,sultans,kalifs, and more, whereas democracy survived and gave people back their rights to conduct their lives as they see fit and compete about their God's sympathy against the elite's monopoly on it on equal basis and that explains both the hatred the religious elite harbours against Democracy and what is generally wrong with Theocracy, though that doesen't absolutely mean Democracy is the best system mankind has come up with but anyone who want to venture a responsible idea can and will see the difference. If Islamic theocracy( or any other religon's for that matter ) was purely devine and robust, the very people who lived with Mohammed ( pbuh ) woulden't fight among themselves and kill each other in pursuit of power. The ploy "It's God's will, so obey it (read obey me )" has long been undressed,people's sentiment to obey what their Gods will is genuine innocent attempt of having a shot on that God's paradise but the price is too high as the middleman's wills and laws melt into Gods. In simple terms , In theocracy , you either obey the interpreted supposedly Gods laws and wills or be punished in this world and probably in the hereafter if you believe that , while in Democracy you vote for a politician (who does just about anything to get elected ) and hope he keeps his words For anyone who is familiar with the Arab history, the dynasty of the Arab Clan "kureish" and the Islamic khalifas dynasty , the war of the Camels, the birth of the Shiites etc etc , speaks its language of truth. This is not to bash any religion from my part but an attempt to show where brother Nur went wrong in his comparision and to enlight where it should go.

^You girls and i've one thing in common, I hate pregnant women.

Originally posted by NGONGE: ^ Frankly speaking , aren't they invisibly hot behind that....? The mist of familiarity obscures from us the wonders of our own being, this time , intentionally .

^ This is becoming more like a deja-vu comedy. Those who want us to believe that the killing and assasination of all Somalis like atheer Abdi Kahiye is what will drive the TFG and Ethiopia out of Somalia and power are in dire need of reality doese, they're but few delusional Somalis who have yet to learn the difference between a Fatzooka and Bazooka. A terrorist is a terrorist is a terrorist!.

^I gather Bishy haven't heard of the victim and his iconic non-political profile, so she is forgiven,but what is unforgiveable is the barbaric heinous act of the cowards who assasinated atheer Kaahiye. A God-blessed terror is not necessarily a better terror.

^If 'Eman' means 'Faith' then increasing it is as simple as increasing the percentage of life after one is 100 per cent dead. no?!

^ There seem to be certain amount of vanity that actuates your coupled stance against 'TheMarc'.

Lazie , there is good reason why i asked my sister (your Mom) to let me adopt you, you've always been such a demanding kid. JB maa qof lagu qosla sideey kaa noqotay. people might fall for that and think JB qof lagu qoslo maaha.