Bro Nur! I´d to make a long distance call to verify the name of the honorable Campus "Garasbaaley", becouse it happens to be a very dear and valueable Compus for my own family. The legacy of Sheikh Ibrahim Ali Ga'al in a recomendation letter is something HUGE. The candidate at hand Dr WOL might argue to have mastered the appropriate social scientific method involved in developing constructions of everyday E-Nuri Algorithms,ideal for SOL´s sense of consumption, aimed at capturing the subjective meaning of the SOLers,but burdensomely fail to objectively construct her own ingenious Algorithms. that is, according to my intentions, the meaning of the Candidate as opposed to the social scientist and not some introspective inner process. JB( the floor-filler of every devilish party), conceived statistical and other elementry formulations from the candidate and has no choice but to conclude that WOL is not of the right clibre to be associated with the honorable name of that holy Campus.The candidate has YET to master the E-Nuri social scientific laws as a legitimate kind of intellectual shorthand for heaven´s sake, always presupposing the meaningful activity of the individual SOLer, I hearby advice you to recommend the “forgotten man†from "Hadaftimo" namely Bro Muhammed. It´s Just an Idea, but keep in mind the Legacy of "Garasbaaley" and that of Sheikh Ibrahim deserves nothing less than the best SOL can offer. With those words i trike WOL off the list and prepare myself to interview Muhammed.

Originally posted by Socod_badne: JB, I owe you a reply but I'm strapped for time now. Will get back soon. SB, skip it bro. I´ve been observing, collecting the data and coining the theory, and voila i get my reply. Reply(your point) is validated | evaluated and accepted.

Bro Khayr,I´m glad that i´m not the 1st one to break the bad news on ya , but a recursive,and often seemingly unconscious pattern of recklessness. and out of the scope behavior that you've shown in the course of this debate missunderstanding burdensomely the point and revel in your own coarseness, Khayr,isen´t it about time you pen down your point of view and convince the rabble why ID/creationism is the correct theory and how an Intelligent Designer is behind it. in so doing,you sure won´t be making Mary lonely. If you don´t contribute but stick to selective quoting and beeing irrationally judgemental, I for one am not gonna bother addressing you again. Now,back to your defination, we already know what Humanism is,it´s just so horrible to see you think, but have yet deeply to understand it. Originally posted by Khayr: My Definition of Humanism: Human Well-Being is the Reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN. First, Humanism dosen´t beleive in creationism or supernaturalism.capisci? second,Humanism doesn´t beleive in raison d'etre , Humanism is a progressive lifestance.capisci? your dull defination of Humanism is based on these assumptions. 1: Human beeings ARE created. 2: Everything has a reason. 3: The raison d'etre of Human beeings is NOT to be well. lastly,look at what your cut-rule looks like. here is the reductio statement of your defination. Human ill-beeing is the reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN. Originally posted by Khayr: In the future, JB, festina lente! We know that 'making haste slowly' is not your motto, but what i don´t understand is if this was a warning or a threatening directed at me? or was it just to show me that you too know latin proverb but settled for a motto instead? Now let us go back to the topic. What triggered your erroneous defination was nothing less than your inability to distinguish and grasp the diffrence between eudaimonia and Humanism. take a look again: Originally posted by Khayr: quote:That is to say, human well-being (eudaimonia) is and should be the highest aim of moral thought and conduct. In otherwords, HUMANISM! Which in Islam would be considered SHIRK! Why? Human Well-Being is the Reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN. That is the goal and this goal contradicts every, revelation, every revealed religion. Now,somebody get to bring forward the gist of ID theory and the rationale behind it.

Originally posted by Khayr: quote:That is to say, human well-being (eudaimonia) is and should be the highest aim of moral thought and conduct. In otherwords, HUMANISM! Which in Islam would be considered SHIRK! Why? Human Well-Being is the Reason d'etre fo the creation of MAN. That is the goal and this goal contradicts every, revelation, every revealed religion. How on earth do you THINK khayr? what you´re saying is definitely what you don´t want to say. Do you understand HUMANISM? if so, do you understand it´s opposite? i don´t think so, then congratualations,you´ve just declared yourself inhumane. Homo sum, humani a mi nihil alienum puto I am human, nothing human is alien to me

Welcome back Nur! and YES it´s a girl, what a wonderful creature. Boni pastoris est tondere pecus, non deglubere!!

SB I´m not sure if you got the point of Einstien in that context , It´s a counterbalance to what you talked about as religious morals and ethics. Einstien maintains a virtue-based eudaemonistic ethics,That is to say, human well-being (eudaimonia) is and should be the highest aim of moral thought and conduct. As we all know ,the defination of what is happy/good life? is something we need to come to terms with , and is highly personal. That is why we´ve so many religions and the order of the entire universe is the way it is. while religious ethics are based on Idealistic philosophy, the church/mosque teaches that this goal (a happy/good life)can be achieved only as the reward for obedience and meekness. The church/mosque threatens the wrath of God (alah) and the torment of hell for those who dare to oppose its teaching, the teachings are (mind you)not as simple as you stated,"like giving alms, helping others, being kind to others" It´s a doctorine that goes beyond that and dictates every aspect of ones life,That doctrine sees science and man as subordinate to religion, to "idea"(look at every pro ID´s post in this debate) and sees knowledge as subordinate to faith.(look at Bakar´s standpoints) The ultimate object of the ID theory is to furnish evidence of the existence of God(alah) THE DESIGNER. ID lays great stress on moral questions, but the morality ID and it´s religious theories preach is one of meek submission, of passive acceptance, and thus, of justification of existing social evils. This morality substitutes prayer and appeals for divine assistance for struggle and protest against social injustice. The entire Idealist philosophy is contrived, with deliberateness, to bolster the status quo. Therefore not encouraging man to TRY to master his environment or do something about it, on the contrary the answer is simple concise " an Intelligent Designer created and wants it so" and no further questions are encouraged. Now, SB, There is a diffrence between beeing morally/ethically restrained from conducting scientific experiment, or striving to answer a vital question that withholds a vital knowledge or anything you might find necessary to indulge, becouse of the wrath of God(alah), and beeing restrained becouse of the speed limit of the state? Albert is of the idea that the first is unnecessary and puts man in a POOR way, in short it holds him back I´m of the idea that a confrontation is inevitable becouse ID theory´s claim a possession of knowledge where evolution theory or other scientific theories holds contrary facts. It seems that the ID camp have insidiously snuck into the consciousness of this debate the notion that ID theory and it´s religious doctrines deserve special insulation from criticism, ridicule, and doubt. Religionists have poisoned the debate about ID and religion by passing off this concept that, "from the outset, religious claims must be treated with a kinder and gentler type of criticism than that leveled at other types of belief systems that generate sustainable knowledge like Science and it´s doctorine." That is why we´ve yet to see a tiny statement that asserts or hints to explain the nucleus of the ID theory without reducing itself to the absurdity. This , if anything can and will only lead to the conclusion that we´re not debating the subject matter in a fair and morally/ethically just way, as Einstien pointed at . We´re beeing held back.

Wow, this was quite a reaction !! Firstly , i´d like to appologize to bro Xiin on behalf of brother Yonis. Yonis, bro Xiin wants only the best for YOU,It's just that he's woefully wrong about what that is,and you sure assume that he lacks the humility to accept your judgment and exercise of free will at face value, but i Assure ya , there is more in him. secondly , i see no diffrence between Yonis´s reaction compared to the rest , except for it beeing too obvious and badly phrased, while others have practised the same defensive attitude but in a lofty and pretentious manner. The hedgehog defence mechanism is always up and running, specially when the subject matter is an issue so dear to us,and and a perceived ill-intentioned enemy from Banadirland is on the loose. That our biggest ethical problem today is hypocrisy is no secret. Any proposed standard, normative or descriptive, is instantly scrutinized and criticized for hypocrisy and consistency-- one could easily come to the conclusion that the measure of an idea is not if it has any merit, but whether or not it is self-consistent. that is why some reduced themselves to absurdity and come up with new terms like "puntlanization of Somalia" , but to that, I reply, "Bah!" Actually, I just like saying, "Bah!" But in this case, it's also how I feel. lastly , lemme go back to the subject matter.,Puntland eggs and try to strew some ideas. I sketched my personal understanding of what is the future of Puntland state of Somalia and in the process i asked myself a number questions, some of which i shared with you in my previous post. My vision blazed through Imponderable eventualities,I even asked myself WHO is a Puntlander but concomitantly refrained from sharing becouse of the intimidations it might impose on the house rules of this forum. Thus,i see myself casting brightness from a self-fueled pyre, so i dare say Puntland political landscape is predominantly occupied by the dying embers from the south , The few locals who made to the top are of little if any political significance. The subClan structure of puntland is of time bomb as well as it is the Golden thread in the socio-political networks. Puntland´s deep association and intermarriage with the TFG policies can ONLY be concieved as unholy and not appreciated by the other (to be) States of Somalia including Somaliland,for a reason that is obvious and has to do with the Persona YEY. Some had like to see me concentrate on Puntland as the State and disregard it´s association with the TFG , but in my view that would be denying many Puntlanders a well needed glory and an association to a winning team led by col Yey . With that i burn myself, again, Consumed by hope..... more to come..(weekend)

Whatever circumstances that lay behind the birth of Puntland , today Puntland´s existance is not questioned by the vast majority of Somalis,except for Somalilanders who question Puntland´s existance geographically but tend to ignore it´s significance politically. Nonetheless,It´s future is questionable. Is what is considered by some Col Yey´s crusade Southward decisive for punland´s existance? Shal it perish if Yey fails and prosper if Yey delivers?Is Puntland that integrated with Col Yey and puts all it´s eggs in one basket? Does puntland have a future of it´s own? I as Banadirland kid think , Puntland and Col Yey should not be the two sides of the same coin. What´s your Take?

Originally posted by Bishaaro: He couldn't have picked any place better! Those Arabs will be so star struck in wacko Jacko's presence, willing to put their children in danger or harm them for life! Isn't sodomy with sheeps, cows, and so on persmissible in Bahrain? or was it Lebanon? Bishaaro pumbkin,At last,Michael realized that there are parts of this world where he can practice his filthy love for children.be them boyz or girlz,don´t be surprised if he converts and marries a very young child who happens to have had her first period,( a widely practiced sidekick from what i heard). All this legally under the human and divine laws of the ARABS.

Originally posted by IGaDaaRiwaaYada: Bro S.B. it is good to see u becoming more understanding of where iam coming from. The qoute is absolutely summing up wat i was trying to enlighten you, that niether religion nor science can stand by itself Firstly, I think qouting Albert Einstien won´t strengthen any of the positions you guys have taken,but i can live with the fact that you guyz made a mystical, long and complicated handshake. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. Albert Einstein Now, do you guyz still agree with Albert?

Dean Xiin, Though i´m a bit retarded i do understand that approach , i´m even smarter than that ,becouse i understand the diffrence between him taking them out and them taking him out. Good Xiin,If a miracle takes place and your dream becames a reality and he takes them out with the happily ever after saga of yours,That adds up to everything but next Somali peace confrence. Dear Xiin,The peacemaking meeting scheduled for after col YEY has been cancelled due to a conflict, so WAKE UP. if you fail to understand that wisdom ,you strengthen my 'Puntlanders MUST be corrected 'theory. Thus, the ammount of songs with terrible lyrics, but with nice music outnumber the ones with the engraving and touching lyrics. Originally posted by xiinfaniin: ^^^Call it pessimist or defeatist if you wish, but the fact remains that the old man is meaner than yours and seems to be on a mission. Strange, indeed, that you should not have suspected that your universe and its contents were only dreams, visions, fiction! Strange, because they are so frankly and hysterically insane like all dreams: Good Xiin, You want to stand upon your own feet and look fair and square at the world , its good facts, its bad facts, its beauties and its ugliness. You better see the world as it is and not be afraid of it. thus, I Upped My Pledge - Now Up Yours.

Why do we love? It has been suggested by NGONGE that any account of love needs to be able to answer some justificatory question. Although the issue of the justification of love is important on its own, it is also important for the implications it has for understanding more clearly the precise object of love: how can we make sense of Ngonge´s Orientalia type of love, How do we deal with our intuitions not only that we love the individuals themselves rather than their properties?, Is my beloved Curling Waterfall not fungible that no one could simply take her place without loss? I´m of the idea that our Lubna has came to the conclusion that she better fall in love with the idea of falling in love instead of becomming "Qol Ku raag". After all, the only justifieable love is that kind of love

Good Xiin, To take a Yey qua Yey (Yey as beeing a Yey the Animal) aproach is what i was expecting from a pessimist defeatist like you, If Yey and his 1000 Puntland Militia who made to Jowhar are supposed to be a foreplay of what is to come then you do agree with me that Yey as the guest of the de facto prime minster Mohamed Dhere is gonna be a long episode of Dallas and time is not on his side. Your Vaticinium of the yet to come Somali peace conference and the imaginary assupmtion of Yey mystically vanishing from the scene after doing what he is supposed to do , floor and founder your equivocation that avoided the unpleasant truth of Mogadishu beeing more satisfied with the current political stalemate than your claim of happiness. " Let the old man do what he does best ,---> fight" Those were your words last time we exchanged two cents on the political section. the term YEY qua Yey is copyrighted

In Somalia´s clanish politics , we´ve no pragmatical choice but to recognize Mr Dhere as the Prime Minster while we can consider the vet Professor a relative pawn of Sergeant Dhere. The incompelete Charter of the TFG dictates that the President and the Prime minster to hail from diffrent clan backgrounds.as a counter balance in power. the choice of Gheddi (Defacto Sergeant Dhere) by Col Yey was not and could not be the natural corollary seed of a balanced, sincere and free of hostility judgement. That leaves the right wing of the political dichotomy of southren Somalia no choice but to militrily/politically correct the left wing AGAIN. Eeven if we give Col Yey the benifit of the doubt,neither Mr Dhere nor his relative vet pawn Gheddi are of clibre to address the intrest ,density , muscle and glory of the right wing rabble. unfortunately nothing better could be expected from Col Yey, becouse he is Warlord/President, who never experienced a popular sympthy. What is your take?

I´ve listened her Shabele Radio interview , What a shy but concise and on the point answers she gave. A brilliant mind indeed.

Dear IGaDaaRiwaaYada ; Weather the relationship between Religion and Science should be hydrophilic or hydrophobic can neither be related nor decided by the ammount of posts in this thread. That is not Ceteris paribus. to conclude the way you did was a mere attempt of ad captandum vulgus "An attempt to capture the gullibility of the naive among the listeners or readers". SB is clearly of the idea that ID and Science shoulden´t be mixed, becouse solving tortuous paths of the endless labyrinths of theology is nothing for Scientific Theories. Science can calculate the length of the wings of the heavenly Angels ONLY if and when you can see the heavenly Angels.in short( only if the Angels do exist naturally). While Your reality seems to be that Theological Theories ARE the base of our knowledge,but we should mix them with Scientific theories that we use to verify and validate our natural knowledge gained through our natural senses,in order to make our Theological theories too Verified and Validated. Your need to Mix is triggered by the lack of natural verification of your theological, intellectual machinations, deceptions and masquerades, becouse ignorance is not an attractive alternative to even a tacit knowledge. And there i give you the last word of this round.

Originally posted by IGaDaaRiwaaYada: Johnny B i am not giving the cridet to creationism simply because i cannot find a scientific anwser but science itself lacks a vaible explanation. IGaDaaRiwaaYada, I´m not gonna argue about where you placed the credit, i think it´s obvious, but let us just conclude that The evolution theory is a scientific theory, sincere enough to declare it´s ignorance and fade out when things go outside it´s scope, while creation theory intrinsically provides answer to every dilemma that we may encounter, including scientific ones, and never fades away ,since NOTHING falls outside it´s scope. The problem with science is naturally the lack of scientific explanation to a specefic issue entails an epistemic discomfort, That paves the way for the less convincing but highly comfortable and trivially available aproach of creationism. A: An omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect God(an Intelligent Designer if u like) has created the Universe,i.e everything,period. Voila ! and that is the most prevalent statement for many, all our queries are mystically answered, and no explanations are necessary. Now the odd thing is , You´ve to exhaust science with endless queries till it ceases to respond, then turned to creationism without querying for explanations,and simply declare it´s universal answer considerable., ain´t that weird? Ofcourse creationism answers any assumption be it nr 5,1,2,4,3 and comes to bedrock(7) , but can you make a narrow depiction of that Intelligent Designer behind it? So we can start evaluating and verifying the creation theory, just as we did with the scientific theory. Brother IGaDaaRiwaaYada, I´ve been asked that Question regarding where i stand earlier in the debate by Bakar, so please scroll up/back and read it.

DP

Originally posted by IGaDaaRiwaaYada: The question is how does these organisms become to existence?????? since everything have a start point! Common answer is from bacteria etc. Well are not bacteria itself an organism …where does this bacterium emerge? Here is where creationism can play a reasonable role. It has been created by whom? Obviously god . Unfortunately, atheists don’t like to dig the argument that deep, so usually we see them rowling on the surface and trying to set up a cyclic argument;.. Brother IGaDaaRiwaaYada , Here is the undressed version of your argument. 1: Everything has a start point. 2: organisms Do exist. 3: organisims has a start point. 4: organisims probably come from bacteria. 5: bacterias too has a start point, but HOW? 6: No clear answer is available,(you don´t know) 7:(conclussion) since no clear scientific answer is available, it MUST have been created. Now Brother IGaDaaRiwaaYada, the problem with your thinking is assumption 1,6 and your conclussion 7, The failure of assumption nr 5 doesn´t yield 7 through 6 . You´re giving creationism the credit just becouse you can´t find the scientific answer. In a just and sane thinking creationistic world ,creationism should answer assumption 5, don´t you think so? so much for digging, and see who got a cyclic argument.

Originally posted by *Proud_Muslimah*: Peace Jonny B, If the 9 year old has reached the age of puberty YES! A person who reaches the age of puberty (be they male/female) is considered as an adult. No, Proud one, i´m not intrested !!

Four Catholic ladies are having coffee together. The first one tells her friends, "My son is a priest. When he walks into a room, everyone calls him 'Father'." The second Catholic woman chirps, "My son is a Bishop. Whenever he walks into a room, people say, 'Your Grace'." The third Catholic woman says smugly, "My son is a Cardinal. Whenever he walks into a room, people say, 'Your Eminence'." The fourth Catholic woman sips her coffee in silence. The first three women give her this subtle, "Well.....?" She replies, "My son is a gorgeous, 6'2", hard-bodied stripper. When he walks into a room, people say, 'Oh my God...!'." if this joke was funny it was coined by JB if not.. it was found on the internet.

Everybody who is sad ,in gloom and full of sorrow by the safe home comming of Adero Qaybdiid is a Muslim according to bother SKY. With this kind of philosophy: Every Somali will end up in the Hell version of another clan. thus we´re all going to some sort of hell. ] ] ]

Originally posted by *Proud_Muslimah*: A'isha Siddiqa Bint Abi Bakr and amongst them was a little girl called 'A'isha, the daughter of Abu Bakr. Soon after arriving in Medina, 'A'isha, who was now nine years old, as married to the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), who was now fifty-four years old. It was at this point that she left her family's household and joined that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him). 'A'isha later reported that the Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) had told her that Jibril came to him and showed him a picture of her on a piece of green silk and said, "She is your wife in this world and in the next world." About her wedding, she related that shortly before she was to leave her parents' house, she slipped out into the courtyard to play with a friend. "I was playing on a seesaw and my long streaming hair became disheveled," she said. "They came and took me from my play and made me ready." They dressed her in a wedding dress made from fine red striped cloth from Bahrain and then her mother took her to the newly built house where some women of the Ansar were waiting outside the door. They greeted her with the words, "For good and for happiness, may all be well." Then, in the presence of the smiling Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) a bowl of milk was brought. The Prophet drank from it himself and then offered it to 'A'isha. She shyly declined it, but when he insisted she drink as well and then offered the bowl to her sister Asma' who was sitting beside her. The others who were present also drank from it, and that was all there was to the simple and solemn occasion of their wedding. Her marriage to the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) did not change 'A'isha's playful ways, and her young friends continued to regularly come to visit her in her own room. "I would be playing with my dolls," she once said, 'with the girls who were my friends, and the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) would come in and they would slip out of the house and he would go out after them and bring them back, for he was pleased for my sake to have them there." Sometimes he would say, "Stay, where you are," before they had time to leave, and would also join in their games. "One day," 'A'isha said, "the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) came in when I was playing with my dolls and said, "'A'isha, whatever game is this?' 'It is Solomon's horses,' I replied, and he laughed." I found a contemporary debate about the tales of young Muslim girls beeing married. " Two iraqi men, aged 28 amd 34, who live in lincoln, nebraska, married two iraqi girls, aged 13 and 14, in a private Islamic ceremony attended by family and friends. The two men have been arrested, charged with the sexual assault of a child and could be sentenced to 50 years of prison because the marriage age in nebraska is at least 17 years of age. Their attorney argued that the men didn't know about the law and that they were merely following their religious custom of courtship and marriage. Do they really do such things in today's Iraq? " - Abdul Abdi " The point I would like to make is that The Muslim world has been exploiting younger girls a quite sometime now in the name of Islam. These are child abuse and it does occurred in a daily basis throughout Islamic world, including your birth place, Somalia. Rich Arab Muslims have been caught on the exit ports of India and Malaysia leaving with clueless, helpless girls clutching onto their dolls and other meager belongings. " -Faisal Hassan. "Now you want to clebrate American man made system while ignoring one of the things islamic shariah APPROVES. What a shameful statement?!!. Please note: Islamically, there is NOTHING wrong of marrying fifteen OR LESS as long as they have period and full feminhood signs. Any women reach the age of period can be married if and when she decided to ratify the contract of marraige.. That was the way our Prophet peace upon him got marry Caasha [ Ayesha ] . And that was the way our great Somali women delivered the majority of us. I DON'T THINK YOU WILL DARE TO SAY OUR PROPHET (PBUH) EXPLOITED ON CAASHA. [ Ayesha / Aisha ]" - daud7@aol.com (Daud7) my Question: Does Sharia Law APPROVE the marriage of 9 years old girls as our Somali brother claimed?

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Perhaps you should know, in the art of debate, to delineate and lay bare all the logical fallacies of a shaky argument is an essential function. P.S: I hold Muttakallim responsible for your anomaly . Illaahow danbigiisa dhaaf. Dear Xiin, you really put a smile on my face ! Generally speaking i´ve nothing against the eNuri troops specially their deputies and ministers and Ukhtis, but i just think it is unfair to see intresting topics of all other subjects, be it socially, culturally or scientifically intresting issues abandoned becouse an eNuri officer with the right to shoot verses stumbled in and reads a papal bull. P/S.. If half of Mutakalims good deeds were weighed against this anomaly of mine, i think still he´d make to Paradise, but i wont leave it there , i´ll make some cincere "Duá" for him.

Ngonge, This is far too intricate for your Arabic humour. My Adero´s words made to Tronro´s local buses. let us moan with him for he misses a lost freind.