This guy seems to have a romantic idea of us, just like most white eccentrics who roamed Africa did at the time! I have to say though I like this bit and it describes us to the letter, “If you have the patience and use the slow, steady drip technique, keep your temper, stick to your points, and never let yourself be rushed, you can beat a Somali in argument. I have never known a Somali to admit he was wrong, once he has taken up his position, but I have managed to exhaust quite a few, when it mattered. And I have crawled away, completely worn out, after many about with the chiefs on the finer points of justices.†Prove of the above look no further than SOL! Another romantic Briton that I would recommend to read is Sir Richard Burton’s book, First Footsteps in East Africa. This guy showed up in Somali disguised as a Muslim holy man calling himself Al-Hajj Abdullah, and his observations of Somalis was, “Constant in nothing but inconstancy.â€!

Well well nothing changes in this place! I think I should now delete my old poems here just in case someone decides to use against me sometime in the future (if I decide to run for the presidency)! You can never be too careful. Well done 7 of 9. Let me say you are worth of the name you are carrying lool! In this place, there are two rule one for some (who r deemed to be special) and another for the rest!

Dear Nomads and Aliens, I have reached the end of the road as far as my association with this site is concerned and thus this is my last post. I have been a member here since April 2004 and before that I was a member for short period of time (~Jan-Feb of 2004) before I was banned for reasons that I never really understood! The first time I was here, I was going under the name of Just Cause—which is by the way, the same name that I have used in Somalinet for the last three years. This end came about due to the hypocrisy/double standards that I have encountered in the last few days here. As some of you are aware, others and I were engaged in a debate with Nur (Sunnah Versus Shia Discussion Forum) and as time went by the debate turned sour, to say the least. This was mainly the doing of the person who started the discussion as they were running from post to post and not reading what was written to refute their allegations against fellow Muslims. The initiator of this debate never expected there would be people who will oppose the serious allegations their advanced. This expectation on their part came about as they are hardly challenged in this forum and always thanked for their services to the community. This time though others and I could not let go, as the nature of the allegations are serious to say the least. Seeing they are loosing the debate or not getting enough thank you from the public, this party starting playing dirty and the admin who is meant to be neutral in these matters, decided to be part of this dirty campaign. He had the moral fibre to say this is done for, “educational/info purpose to combat any such abuseâ€. So why taint the name/s of the accused while (maybe properly) with holding the name of those who reported it. Since the admin are neutral in all of this why did not they conduct their investigation privately and once the allegation is proved take action then by punishing the guilty part. This place always prides itself with fairness and golden rules, which are meant to keep the place, clean and enforce the fairness it prides itself in! However, I found the hard way that those who wrote and some of those who enforce these rules have no respect for them to say the least. Why have rules if you cannot live by them? I on the other hand, have few principles in my life, which I believe and live by them. One of these principles is, do not be part of hypocrisy (if you cannot correct it and/or attack it) and thus my withdrawal from this place. I cannot attack or correct the double standards since in doing so will result in my banning from this place and with this I will be dismissed as another bad apple! Furthermore, given that I do not have sufficient evidence to bring the specific nature of my allegation to public; hence, I have decided to leave with my conscious clear and let those I accuse know the contempt I hold for them. In closing, I would like to express my sincere appreciation to the few friends that I have met here and as well as to the many nomads that I have debated with at these forums. I have truly enjoyed some of the debates and I am grateful for the many things that I have learned from my fellow fellow Somalis. I wish all of you at SOL continued success but remember to stand up for what you believe in, or else is meaningless to just say I believe! As Martin Luther King said, “In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.†Kind Regards, Feynman

Originally posted by Jumatatu: ^^^ bet if he came around with another post saying Shia believe madona is a weli you will believe that too.... It seems a lot of people would out of ignorance. I urge people here to go and study and find the truth for themselves rather than believing what someone is telling them here.

Well you should have told us this was not a debate but a forum for you to bash Shi’as (calling them Kufr and so on) and everyone as always agreeing with you, what great job you have done! How wrong we were in believing you wanted sincere debate in the beginning. Both parties contribute where we come from to a debate and one should always challenge what is posted. We have done our share of that and refuted everything you accused of Shi’as and you done nothing but repeat the same allegations over and over again. For instance take the question of the completeness of the Qu’arn, we refuted that hideous accusation and yet you are asking PK to prove it again. We are confused to say the least about your methods of debating. To us you seem someone who uses cheap shots and who runs from one post to another. Cheap shots are nothing but cheap and used by people when they are insincere and have nothing to say to advance their cause. Well since this seems to be the case we are out of the debate and you are free to continue with your bashing. We are sure there will be a lot of people who appreciate what you are doing. But don’t call your post honest, educational debates, since they are anything but that. We are out of the debate forever and enjoy your bashing.

Nur is good to hear from you but we are saddened to learn again that you have not added anything to the debate. As far as we can see the debate is one sided—since we are the only people backing everything we state with evidence. The question of what we believe or not should not concern you at all. Since this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. You have every right to attack our points and scrutinise them but please do this with evidence. As for Viking, we cannot speak for him and we hope he will do that himself in due time. If you are here to just paint the Shi’as as non-Muslims (i.e. kafir/mushrik) we are sorry we cannot continue the debate. This is because we are not here to debate whether they are Muslims or not. What is more, we cannot accept under any circumstances that they are non-Muslims. They are Muslims as long as they believe Islam. We showed you the commonalities we believe we have in common and we are more than happy if you attack this claim with evidence---but please stop implying Shi’as are non-Muslims. You keep saying, this is an educational post about Shi’a and yet we do not see Shi’as in this forums (not in noticeable number anyway) or people hopping to convert to them/Shi’as trying to convert people here. So please enlighten us, about the education you are talking about or is this just a forum for Shi’a bashing! We hope we continue to have this debate in a meaningful manner and we look forward to hear what you have to say.

The discussion is pointless because is not educational but rather one sided and this will create deep divisions within the Muslims—and in our eyes nothing is more harmful than that. If you on the other hand, had approached this discussion by first looking the commonalty between the communities and emphasised on our commons (which we believe to be greater than our differences), we could have then said this discussion is both educational and beneficial. Unfortunately we cant say that. We don’t doubt that, differences exist between the two communities but we should concentrate on our similarities, since this way we can eliminate common held misconceptions by both sides. By the way, there is no correlation between how long a response/writing is to the discussion at hand. Anyone looking for the correlation between the two is barking at the wrong tree! The most beneficial writings that humans produce are the work of science for instance and if you look at this literature, you will find they are concise and short. With all due respect, brother I don’t think you even read our last long post, and from where we stand it seems you pretty much made up your mind and you are here to denounce Shi’as as non-believers. We hope we are wrong on this assertion and we are more than happy for you state the opposite. No one can pronounce a judgment of Kufr/shirk on anyone who says, there is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet. We wont bother with Salafi as he seemed to have monopoly on Islam and thus decides who is and who is not a Muslim. From where we stand that is a judgment only Allah can make. You are claiming there are fundamental differences and yet we don’t see your evidence except we get a hearsay from you. You said the Shi’as believe the Qur’an is NOT COMPLETE and when we showed you this is not the case by providing you what both the Shi’a and Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars had to say about this charges, you are still insisting on your accusation. You are insisting it by saying, how can you trust the Shi’as at face value when they believe Tuqya (a means to conceal ones beliefs—we will touch on this later on). Tell us then, how come the two Sunni scholars we quoted who are prominent scholars trusted them on this issue? We will be glad to know what you know and those scholars do not know. Let us illustrate to you that there no fundamental differences between the two sides, because a scholar like Shaikh Yusuf al Qaradawi is arguing the opposite of what you are saying. So do we believe him or you? His argument runs like this; both Shi’as and Sunnis share many fundamental beliefs, such as faith in one God, in Prophet Mohammed (Pbuh) as the 'Seal of the Prophets', in all the heavenly scriptures and prophets and in the Qur’an as God's word. Shi’as as well as Sunnis agree in the matters of the five pillars of Islam. Furthermore, he goes on to argue that the differences between Shi’as and Sunnis in the ways in which the five pillars are understood are like the scholarly difference in opinion among the four Sunni schools themselves. Again you throw very powerful charge carelessly by saying, the Shi’as said the Sahabah were ‘kufaar’. We ask you to back this charge up with conclusive evidence and not just present us with hearsay. We will be the first to admit the Shi’as don’t consider the first three caliphs as their spiritual leaders but nonetheless they believe they were good Muslims and good companions. Imam Jafar Sadiq, whose mother and grandmother came from the line of Abu-Bakr, had said of Abu-Bakr, "He gave me birth twice." Shi’as respect Ayisha and call her the "Mother of Believers," since Ali respected her when he sent her back from Basra to Madinah after the Battle of the Camel (in which she fought against him). Therefore, if some Shi’as do insult the three caliphs and Ayisha, they do it out of ignorance, but this doesn’t make them kufaar/shirk. In an authentic Hadith agreed by both Sunni and Shi'a, the prophet said that his Nation would be divided in to 73 sects; only one would enter paradise and all the rest would go into hell. Based on this saying, let us for arguments sake assume that the Shi'as due to their criticism of the Sahabah are one of the 72 sects that shall enter the hell. That leaves us with a further 71 sects that shall also join the Shi'a in hell! The difficulty here is the fact that the remaining 71 sects most of them admire/respect the Sahabah, and are not critical of any one of them. Despite this fact, they shall still enter the hell! How do you explain this? Do you have proof from Islamic theology that says criticizing the Sahabah leads one to the hell fires of tomorrow? On the question of Shi’as considering their imams to be infallible is not true. We beg you to produce evidence that backs this very serious charge. All prophets are born Prophet but as mentioned in Quran about Abraham that after passing the test, a prophet becomes a leader (Imam). Imams are carriers of the message of Islam and nothing more. Now let us turn on the question of Tuqya. The definition of Tuqya is 'concealing one's religion or faith due to fear, but in one's heart, the person must believe in the religion s/he is concealing'. In other words, it is a form of self-defence that allows one defending, one's life, property and beliefs. The Shi’as used this to defend themselves and their property from attacks; we all see this happening all the time and recently we witnessed this in Pakistan. Thus, this usage is permissible under Islamic law and it says, if a person is caught up between two hardships and one of them is intolerable, then to save one's self from the bigger hardship, one should tolerate the smaller one. Therefore, Imam of Ahl'ul Sunnah Fakhruddin Razi wrote, “When faced with two hardships, one should go through the smaller one to save one's self from the bigger one. This is a recognized fact.†Tafseer-e-Kabir, Volume 5, Page 746-750, published Istanbul Thus, we ask you to show us with proofs that, the intensions of the Shi’as when using Tuqya are a way for them to cheat and deceive the Sunnis as opposed to saving their lives and property from danger. I think we will stop here and wait for your reply. However, we beg of you not to just throw seriously charges recklessly, but rather to think carefully of what you are saying, and please back up anything you say. Remember, Allah is watching us and we ask him for guidance on these discussions.

The post below is Viking's reply to the topic. ---------------------------------- Nur, What have you to say about 'Abasa bro? Do you genuinly believe that it was the Prophet PBUH who frowned at the poor blind man? Frowning is not something connected to Our Beloved Prophet, he was even friendly towards his enemies, let alone a poor blind man who was interested in the Diin of Allah SWT. Our Prophet is not known for preferring the rich to the poor, like in the case of Abdullah ibn Um Maktoum. Do you think that the verse referred to Our Noble prophet or one of his companions? There are numerous verses in the Holy Qur'an where Allah SWT praises His Noble Prophet and told us to follow him, for Prophet Muhammad PBUH was the BEST of mankind. In the following verse of the Qur'an, Allah SWT says... Now hath come unto you an Messenger from amongst yourselves: it grieves him that ye should perish: ardently anxious is he over you: to the Believers is he most kind and merciful. Qur'an 9:128 The Shi'a and the Sunni schools differ on this matter and I am not trying to support the notion that Our Noble Prophet PBUH was infallible (although this Sura negates that claim) but just have a hard time believing that Our prophet PBUH would frown and turn away from a blind man. Salafi, You forgot to mention Salafi in the group of sects Islam has disintegrated into since the death of our Noble Prophet PBUH. He told us that we'd break into 73 divisions and only ONE would be right. So you could use some updating to that list sxb.

The post below is Salafi_Online's reply to our post. ---------------------------------- Innalhamdulillah... quote: I have never seen a longer response to a pointless discussion, how long is your rsponse for beneficial topics? Excellent observation! However brother Nur im quite perplex as to why you would want to debate with the shia’s when their state of affairs is well know. Their actions have reached the level of Shirk, But what about those who wear the cloak of Ahlul Sunnah waJacamah, but have strayed beyond belief? At least the Shias are up from about their beliefs…about what the following groups who have misguide the tender Muslims from the Correct Aqeeda? . Nation of Islam . Ansaru Allah . Moors . Warith-deen . Bahaullah . Naasibis . Shi'ites . Baatiniyyah . Boharas . Dawoodi Boharas . Nusayris . Durze . Agakhaani . Jamaat-e-Islami . Sufism . Deobandism . Tableegi-Jamaat . Bareilwiyat . Naqshabandis . Hizb-ut-tahreer . Ikhwani . Jihaadis . Qur'ânites . Qadariyyah . Khawariji . Jahmiyyah . Ash'ariyyah . Matrudiyyah . Murji’ah . Zaahiri . Khalifites(19ers) . Takfiris . Habashis . Mehdavis . Goharshahi -------------------- unto Allâh falls in PROSTRATION whoever is in the heavens and the earth, willingly or unwillingly, and so do their shadows in the mornings and in the afternoons.(13:15) *** www.salaftalk.net ***

The post below is Nur's reply to our post. ---------------------------------- Unknown Shia Debator You write: "Let us say from the outset that this discussion is pointless and it will only go on to deepen the divisions and the mistrust of the two communities" I have never seen a longer response to a pointless discussion, how long is your rsponse for beneficial topics? Honestly, after looking how long your response was, I expected more convincing arguments than actual, Thsi pointless discussion is meant to educate Muslims of the differences between Sunni and Shia, if you claim that there are no fundementral differneces, my job is to show it and back it from the Shia scholars and their books, so relax, If I put forward a convincing argument, I am just helping you save your skin, so it is not a matter of who wins an argument, instead, its is who wins Paradise. The above was to prepare you for a more substantiated discussion of the Aqeedah of the Shia Imaamiyah and Ithnaa Cashariyah. Now that you say that the Shia accept the Quraan as complete, How can I accept that statements face value when you also believe the Al Tuqya as a means to conceal your hidden beliefs from the Sunnis?, Sheik Babouweih Al Qummi said " Tuqya is waajib, a must, hwo does not practice is similar like someone who dose not pray salaat" he also said, explaining the verse " The best of you in the eyes of Allah, the most God fearing, " "the one who uses Tuqya the most" in other words, How can we trust people who believe that the Sahabah to be Kufaar, and have cheated and conspired against Imaam Ali, stole Fatima's land, interpreting the Quraan in a whole different way (by Tusi, and Tubrusi) just to make Ali, Hussein and fatima the center of the Universe, and idols? What has to be clarified is: 1. Shia's stand about the authenticity and completeness of Quraan, because there is nothing in the Quraan to support many of their claims of the importance of imaams, so in secret the Shia are taught to hold on to the current Quraan, up until the Mahdi comes ( the 12th imaam, wh they claim that he disappeared 1000 years ago) . Amazingly you said they agree with Sunnis, On Quraan, I say , they dont, I have the burden of proving a negative, a difficult task, luckily it is easy, wallahul mustacaan calaa maa tasifuun. 2. Shia Do not accept any of the Sunni Sheiks, Hadeeths or sources unless it is convenient to support or advance one of their key theological philosophies of Wilaayah of Aalal Beit, the axis of their religion, as you have skilfully used on this thread, 3. Shia believe that no one is saved except through the Imaams, the last Imaam, is hiding for over a 1000 years and he will appear as the Mahdi. 4. The imaams are the infallible, Macsum, and because The prophet SAWS said that all himans are fallible, it follows that the imaams are not humans, thus Gods whose Shafaaca gets the Shia closer to God, just like Quresih used to make Tawasul to Allah what they claimed to be his daughters, Latta, Cuzza, and Manaat, saying, " We only worship them as Tawassul to Allah" 3. Shia believe that all the Sahabah cheated Ali and that they are Kufaar, they denied Ali His Sacred Wilaayah, and Abu Bakar cheated Fatima of her Fathers inehritance, and Aisha Committed Zina ( Macaadhal Allah). Let us take a bite out of these topics, this should be very educational. Nur

Since the post is split and we cant continue the discussion like this I have decided to post the missing posts here. The post below is reply a friend and I, made to the topic. ---------------------------------- I am posting this post on behalf of a friend who cant post here for reasons beyond their control and I am happy to act as an intermediary between the author and anyone who has a differing opinion on this issue. Through out the text, the author used ‘we’, as I have let them use my name and back everything they say here! Therefore, if there are any mistakes I am more than willing to share the blame with the author! ----------------The response------------------- Let us say from the outset that this discussion is pointless and it will only go on to deepen the divisions and the mistrust of the two communities. Is also pointless because there is no need for it as there are no visible Shi’as in these forums. One of the reasons why we decided to step in and challenge any myth that put forward about fellow Muslims by you. We hope you know what you are doing here and may God guide us all. “For the Shia, The Quraan is NOT COMPLETE, they believe ONLY thir IMAMS know the real Quraan, so the Shia rely on folk stories for their faith and few books written by their scholars.†The above statement we believe is not true and we will refute in due time with evidence from both Shi’a and Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars. Shi'as, believe like their fellow Sunnah Muslims, that the Qur'an is the Divine Revelation (wahy) from Allah, upon his noble Prophet, containing an exposition of all things. It is also His everlasting miracle barring all humanity from keeping pace with it in respect of rhetoric and eloquence, and the realities and sublime knowledge it contains, being guarded against any alteration or changing or mutation (tahreef). The Qur'an the Shi’as have today is the same exact one revealed to the Prophet. Anyone claiming to the contrary is misguided, mistaken, or ignorant (to say the least), for it is surly Allah's Word, and falsehood can never come at it from before it or from behind it. The Shi'a recites the same Qur'an at their homes and the same Qur'an is taught at their Madrassas (religious schools). Apart from this, Shi'a scholars have written commentaries of the Qur'an in many languages including Arabic, Persian and numerous other languages. If anyone here have seen a different version of Qur'an in any Shi'as house or at their religious schools, please come forward with it; we can assure you we have not seen it. Shi'as believe that this Qur'an is complete and a miracle of the Holy Prophet (S), which is an undoubtedly the fact. However, some dishonest (we admit we are using a very strong word here and doing so to emphasise how displeased we are with the whole accusation), so-called scholars have accused Shi'as of denying this high status of Qur'an. This accusation is baseless to say the least. To refute the above, we would present what some of the Shi'a scholars and the scholars of Ahl'ul Sunnah say on this issue. The completeness of Qur'an is beyond doubt among Shi'a and that the greatest Shi'a scholar of Hadith, Abu Ja'far Muhammad Ibn Ali Ibn al-Husain Ibn Babueyh, known as "Shaykh Saduq", wrote: "Our belief is that the Qur'an which Allah revealed to His Prophet Muhammad is (the same as) the one between the two covers (daffatayn). And it is the one which is in the hands of the people, and is not greater in extent than that. The number of Surah's as generally accepted is one hundred and fourteen ...And he who asserts that we say that it is greater in extent than that, is a liar." Etikadat Shaykh Saduq 93, Published Iran) Sayyid Murtaza Alam ul-Huda: We have a firm belief that the Qur'an is complete in the same way that we believe in the existence of Kufa, Basra or any other city, or the great events that occurred through history. The reason for this firm belief is (firstly) due to the deep affections Muslims have towards the Qur'an and other reason which keep this book, of Almighty Allah, safe from any alteration. Also the Qur'an is (a sign of) the miracle of Prophet Muhammad's Apostleship. It is the source and foundation via which we locate our religious edicts and regulations. It is for this reason that Muslim scholars throughout history have taken great care in its compilation to the extent that if they were unsure about the minutest of matters, they would to examine it (the Qur'an) rigorously. Our belief about the compilation being the exact copy (as the original) is as strong as our belief that the Qur'an is the Book of Allah (swt). The present Qur'an is exactly the same Qur'an that was compiled during the life of Prophet Muhammad (S). Tafseer Majma-ul-Bayan, Edition 1 Page 15, Published Iran Shaykh Muhammad Hussein Kashif: The Qur'an that we possess is the same text that Allah (swt) sent as a miracle, to bring fear to the people, to let them know about the commandments and the difference between good and bad. It has never been changed nor has any addition or subtraction ever occurred to it, all the scholars agree to this fact. Moreover these scholars agree to the fact that whoever alleges that Qur'an has been changed is wrong. Also all the claims of Qur'an not being complete, whether made by Shi'as or Ahl'ul Sunnah, are very weak. These claims are not beneficial in any regard whether that be to attain knowledge or perform a good deed. These claims should be disregarded. Usul al-Shi'a wa Asool-laha, Page 101-102, Published Najaf The above was just a drop in the ocean of what some of the Shi’a scholars have to say about the completeness of the Qur’an. We will now present the opinions of some Ahl'ul Sunnah scholars, who confirmed that the Shi'a believe that the Qur'an is the uncorrupted Word of Allah (swt). Sheikh Ghazzali of Egypt whilst addressing the allegation that the Shi'a ascribe tahreef to the Qur'an, he had the following to say: In one gathering I heard a man say that Shi'as have a different Qur'an, which is unlike the Qur'an we have. I asked him, "Where is that Qur'an? Islam is being practiced on three continents. Since the demise of the Holy Prophet (S) until today, a passing of fourteen hundred years, the Ummah has known of the existence of only the one Qur'an, we possess knowledge of where the chapters begin and end, end as well as the number of verses that they contain. Where is this other Qur'an? During this long passage of time how is it that any man or jinn have not located this 'other' Qur'an? These lies cause dissention between brothers and cause dissention about the Book. There is only one Qur'an, if it is published in Cairo, it is considered holy in Najaf and Tehran as well, they will hold it in their hands and keep it in their homes. They have nothing but respect for the Creator that sent it, and the person through whom it was revealed. Why then are such rumours and lies spread about people and this message? Wafa an Al aqida wa Al Shariah, Page 265-266, Publishers Al kutub Al hadisia, Egypt, 1985 Principal of the Shariah Department of Al Azhar University, Sheikh Muhammed-al-Madani: To state that the Shi'a Imamia believe that the Qur'an on account of traditions that can be located in their texts, is just the same as reaching the conclusion on the basis of such references in our books - but both Shi'a and Sunni scholars have refuted these claims. None amongst the Imamia Shi'a and Zaidia believe in this lie, in the same way that none of the adherents of Ahl'ul Sunnah do. Whoever accuses the Shi'a of ascribing to tahreef of the Qur'an, should read books such as Allamah Suyuti's "Tafseer Itqan" and objectively look at the traditions that point to tahreef of the Qur'an. Although we do not accept these sorts of traditions, one Egyptian scholar in 1948 wrote a book titled "Al Furqan" in which he copied many of these traditions from the works of Ahl'ul Sunnah. Should we on this basis conclude that the Ahl'ul Sunnah do not believe that the Qur'an is complete? Or should we on account of these traditions which were copied by someone or written in such and such book by such and such a person, adopt the viewpoint that the Ahl'ul Sunnah believe that the Qur'an is incomplete? The same conclusion could likewise be reached about the Shi'a, as like us they also have similar traditions in their books. Risalah'thul-Islam, 11th Edition, Pages 382-383, 4th Par The above opinions from different scholars of the divide puts to rest the myth that the Shi’as believe the Qur’an is ‘NOT COMPLETE’. If anyone thinks other wise please produce your copy and let us all see it. “The Shia imaamiyah believe that the imaams are sacred and devine, they worship them ad ask them for help, which is essence of Towheed al Uluuhiyah". Here you are talking about, "Tawassul" and the meaning of this word is ‘nearness’. Nowhere does say in Shi’a literature that they ‘worship’ their imam’s and you are challenged to back this accusation with hard evidence; we beg you brother not just to throw accusations without backing them up. Furthermore, this concept of ‘Tawassul ‘ is not only limited to Shi’a but even some of Ahl'ul Sunnah believe it and if one were to stretch your logic here, these people too are committing ‘shirk’. Having set the groundwork and answered the charge of whether the Shi’as possesses a different Koran to you and us, let us now explain what Tawassul is and it is origin. The meaning of tawassul as stated before is 'nearness' or a 'means' through which to reach a certain goal [see Lisan al-'Arab and any other dictionary for that matter]. For instance, according to the prominent Sunni scholar, Sayyid Muhammad Alusi al-Baghdadi, ‘wasilah is a means of imploring in order to gain nearness to God through good deeds and abstaining from sins.’ We will back the following claim, the use of tawassul with Islamic literature and further show that eminent Islamic characters/scholars have used it and so on. It should be noted that intercession/intervention in no way diminishes the fact that everything is under Allah’s dominion. When we use the means of approach toward Allah (SWT), it does not mean Shi'a or anyone else are worshiping that means, thus in no way does it go against the verse, “Thee do we worship..â€(1:4). However, Allah created secondary causes and means, which He has encouraged us in the Holy Quran to use as assistance. For instance the following verse, “Oh you who believe! Fear Allah and seek the means of approach to Him, and strive hard in His way, that haply you may have success†(5:35). When one analyses the words in this verse closely one sees that "fear Allah" is an order to abstain from sin, while "seek an approach unto Him" is an order to perform worship and acts of devotion (see Ruh al-Ma'ani, vol. 6, p. 124-128). Bukhari, Tirmidhi, and many others relate, through their chain of narrators from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf, that a blind man came to the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and said, "I've been afflicted in my eyesight, so please pray to Allah for me." The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) said: "Go make ablution (wudu), perform two rak'as of prayer, and then say: "Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me]." The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) added, "And if there is some need, do the same." This hadith was recorded by Bukhari in his "al-Tarikh al-kabir", Ahmad (4:138 #17246-17247) and many other hadith masters have conformed that this hadith is Sahih. This authentic (Sahih) narration proves the validity of “tawassul†through a living person. This is a clear and unambiguous text from a companion of the prophet proving the legal validity of tawassul through the dead. If tawassul was idolatory (shirk), or if there were any suspicion of idolatry in it, the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) would not have instructed to it, when the blind man asked him to beg Allah for him. The fact that he told him to make "tawassul" to Allah through him proves that it is not shirk. What about after his death, did any of his companion perform it, indeed they did. It has been narrated in Sahih al Bukhari by Anas, “Whenever drought threatened them, 'Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin 'Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, "O Allah! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain." Sahih al Bukhari Volume 2, Book 17, Number 123 Chapter “Istisqaaâ€, Narrated by Anas. Why would the second khalifa turn to Abbas as a Wasila? Why could he not ask Allah (swt) DIRECTLY himself for rain? Why was he placing this matter into the hands of Abbas? These very important questions need answering by those who accuse Shi’a and others the use ‘tawassul’ is committing ‘shirk’; this dare I say is the ultimate sin one commit. Look forward to some convincing answers for these rather important questions. It doesn’t matter whether one approaches Allah with or without tawassul (provide that they don’t commit shirk), and both means are acceptable in Islam. As shown this method of practise is not exclusive to Shi’as only and nor do they condemn for not using it. Nor do they say to one, the fact that you did not Shafee’ (intercessor) will not get your prayer accepted. That was our brief response to this post and look forward to any replies that people might post.

Originally posted by Viking: Nur, The other half of this thread is on.. http://somaliaonlinecom.siteprotect.net/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi? What to do? Nur as Viking is asking, where do we go from here, since the post is split????

I thought I would share this long article! ------- THE RELATION OF SCIENCE AND RELIGION Some fresh observations on an old problem by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN "The Relation of Science and Religion" is a transcript of a talk given by Dr. Feynman at the Caltech YMCA Lunch Forum on May 2, 1956. In this age of specialization men who thoroughly know one field are often incompetent to discuss another. The great problems of the relations between one and another aspect of human activity have for this reason been discussed less and less in public. When we look at the past great debates on these subjects we feel jealous of those times, for we should have liked the excitement of such argument. The old problems, such as the relation of science and religion, are still with us, and I believe present as difficult dilemmas as ever, but they are not often publicly discussed because of the limitations of specialization. But I have been interested in this problem for a long time and would like to discuss it. In view of my very evident lack of knowledge and understanding of religion (a lack which will grow more apparent as we proceed), I will organize the discussion in this way: I will suppose that not one man but a group of men are discussing the problem, that the group consists of specialists in many fields à the various sciences, the various religions and so on à and that we are going to discuss the problem from various sides, like a panel. Each is to give his point of view, which may be molded and modified by the later discussion. Further, I imagine that someone has been chosen by lot to be the first to present his views, and I am he so chosen. I would start by presenting the panel with a problem: A young man, brought up in a religious family, studies a science, and as a result he comes to doubt à and perhaps later to disbelieve in à his father's God. Now, this is not an isolated example; it happens time and time again. Although I have no statistics on this, I believe that many scientists à in fact, I actually believe that more than half of the scientists à really disbelieve in their father's God; that is, they don't believe in a God in a conventional sense. Now, since the belief in a God is a central feature of religion, this problem that I have selected points up most strongly the problem of the relation of science and religion. Why does this young man come to disbelieve? The first answer we might hear is very simple: You see, he is taught by scientists, and (as I have just pointed out) they are all atheists at heart, so the evil is spread from one to another. But if you can entertain this view, I think you know less of science than I know of religion. Another answer may be that a little knowledge is dangerous; this young man has learned a little bit and thinks he knows it all, but soon he will grow out of this sophomoric sophistication and come to realize that the world is more complicated, and he will begin again to understand that there must be a God. I don't think it is necessary that he come out of it. There are many scientists à men who hope to call themselves mature à who still don't believe in God. In fact, as I would like to explain later, the answer is not that the young man thinks he knows it all à it is the exact opposite. A third answer you might get is that this young man really doesn't understand science correctly. I do not believe that science can disprove the existence of God; I think that is impossible. And if it is impossible, is not a belief in science and in a God à an ordinary God of religion Ñ a consistent possibility? Yes, it is consistent. Despite the fact that I said that more than half of the scientists don't believe in God, many scientists do believe in both science and God, in a perfectly consistent way. But this consistency, although possible, is not easy to attain, and I would like to try to discuss two things: Why it is not easy to attain, and whether it is worth attempting to attain it. When I say "believe in God," of course, it is always a puzzle à what is God? What I mean is the kind of personal God, characteristic of the western religions, to whom you pray and who has something to do with creating the universe and guiding you in morals. For the student, when he learns about science, there are two sources of difficulty in trying to weld science and religion together. The first source of difficulty is this à that it is imperative in science to doubt; it is absolutely necessary, for progress in science, to have uncertainty as a fundamental part of your inner nature. To make progress in understanding we must remain modest and allow that we do not know. Nothing is certain or proved beyond all doubt. You investigate for curiosity, because it is unknown, not because you know the answer. And as you develop more information in the sciences, it is not that you are finding out the truth, but that you are finding out that this or that is more or less likely. That is, if we investigate further, we find that the statements of science are not of what is true and what is not true, but statements of what is known to different degrees of certainty: "It is very much more likely that so and so is true than that it is not true;" or "such and such is almost certain but there is still a little bit of doubt;" or à at the other extreme à "well, we really don't know." Every one of the concepts of science is on a scale graduated somewhere between, but at neither end of, absolute falsity or absolute truth. It is necessary, I believe, to accept this idea, not only for science, but also for other things; it is of great value to acknowledge ignorance. It is a fact that when we make decisions in our life we don't necessarily know that we are making them correctly; we only think that we are doing the best we can à and that is what we should do. Attitude of uncertainty I think that when we know that we actually do live in uncertainty, then we ought to admit it; it is of great value to realize that we do not know the answers to different questions. This attitude of mind à this attitude of uncertainty à is vital to the scientist, and it is this attitude of mind which the student must first acquire. It becomes a habit of thought. Once acquired, one cannot retreat from it any more. What happens, then, is that the young man begins to doubt everything because he cannot have it as absolute truth. So the question changes a little bit from "Is there a God?" to "How sure is it that there is a God?" This very subtle change is a great stroke and represents a parting of the ways between science and religion. I do not believe a real scientist can ever believe in the same way again. Although there are scientists who believe in God, I do not believe that they think of God in the same way as religious people do. If they are consistent with their science, I think that they say something like this to themselves: "I am almost certain there is a God. The doubt is very small." That is quite different from saying, "I know that there is a God." I do not believe that a scientist can ever obtain that view à that really religious understanding, that real knowledge that there is a God à that absolute certainty which religious people have. Of course this process of doubt does not always start by attacking the question of the existence of God. Usually special tenets, such as the question of an after‑life, or details of the religious doctrine, such as details of Christ's life, come under scrutiny first. It is more interesting, however, to go right into the central problem in a frank way, and to discuss the more extreme view which doubts the existence of God. Once the question has been removed from the absolute, and gets to sliding on the scale of uncertainty, it may end up in very different positions. In many cases it comes out very close to being certain. But on the other hand, for some, the net result of close scrutiny of the theory his father held of God may be the claim that it is almost certainly wrong. Belief in God à and the facts of science That brings us to the second difficulty our student has in trying to weld science and religion: Why does it often end up that the belief in God à at least, the God of the religious type à is considered to be very unreasonable, very unlikely? I think that the answer has to do with the scientific things à the facts or partial facts à that the man learns. For instance, the size of the universe is very impressive, with us on a tiny particle whirling around the sun, among a hundred thousand million suns in this galaxy, itself among a billion galaxies. Again, there is the close relation of biological man to the animals, and of one form of life to another. Man is a latecomer in a vast evolving drama; can the rest be but a scaffolding for his creation? Yet again, there are the atoms of which all appears to be constructed, following immutable laws. Nothing can escape it; the stars are made of the same stuff, and the animals are made of the same stuff, but in such complexity as to mysteriously appear alive à like man himself. It is a great adventure to contemplate the universe beyond man, to think of what it means without man à as it was for the great part of its long history, and as it is in the great majority of places. When this objective view is finally attained, and the mystery and majesty of matter are appreciated, to then turn the objective eye back on man viewed as matter, to see life as part of the universal mystery of greatest depth, is to sense an experience which is rarely described. It usually ends in laughter, delight in the futility of trying to understand. These scientific views end in awe and mystery, lost at the edge in uncertainty, but they appear to be so deep and so impressive that the theory that it is all arranged simply as a stage for God to watch man's struggle for good and evil seems to be inadequate. So let us suppose that this is the case of our particular student, and the conviction grows so that he believes that individual prayer, for example, is not heard. (I am not trying to disprove the reality of God; I am trying to give you some idea of à some sympathy for à the reasons why many come to think that prayer is meaningless.) Of course, as a result of this doubt, the pattern of doubting is turned next to ethical problems, because, in the religion which he learned, moral problems were connected with the word of God, and if the God doesn't exist, what is his word? But rather surprisingly, I think, the moral problems ultimately come out relatively unscathed; at first perhaps the student may decide that a few little things were wrong, but he often reverses his opinion later, and ends with no fundamentally different moral view. There seems to be a kind of independence in these ideas. In the end, it is possible to doubt the divinity of Christ, and yet to believe firmly that it is a good thing to do unto your neighbor as you would have him do unto you. It is possible to have both these views at the same time; and I would say that I hope you will find that my atheistic scientific colleagues often carry themselves well in society. Communism and the scientific viewpoint I would like to remark, in passing, since the word "atheism" is so closely connected with "communism," that the communist views are the antithesis of the scientific, in the sense that in communism the answers are given to all the questions à political questions as well as moral ones à without discussion and without doubt. The scientific viewpoint is the exact opposite of this; that is, all questions must be doubted and discussed; we must argue everything out à observe things, check them, and so change them. The democratic government is much closer to this idea, because there is discussion and a chance of modification. One doesn't launch the ship in a definite direction. It is true that if you have a tyranny of ideas, so that you know exactly what has to be true, you act very decisively, and it looks good à for a while. But soon the ship is heading in the wrong direction, and no one can modify the direction any more. So the uncertainties of life in a democracy are, I think, much more consistent with science. Although science makes some impact on many religious ideas, it does not affect the moral content. Religion has many aspects; it answers all kinds of questions. First, for example, it answers questions about what things are, where they come from, what man is, what God is à the properties of God, and so on. Let me call this the metaphysical aspect of religion. It also tells us another thing à how to behave. Leave out of this the idea of how to behave in certain ceremonies, and what rites to perform; I mean it tells us how to behave in life in general, in a moral way. It gives answers to moral questions; it gives a moral and ethical code. Let me call this the ethical aspect of religion. Now, we know that, even with moral values granted, human beings are very weak; they must be reminded of the moral values in order that they may be able to follow their consciences. It is not simply a matter of having a right conscience; it is also a question of maintaining strength to do what you know is right. And it is necessary that religion give strength and comfort and the inspiration to follow these moral views. This is the inspirational aspect of religion. It gives inspiration not only for moral conduct à it gives inspiration for the arts and for all kinds of great thoughts and actions as well. Interconnections These three aspects of religion are interconnected, and it is generally felt, in view of this close integration of ideas, that to attack one feature of the system is to attack the whole structure. The three aspects are connected more or less as follows: The moral aspect, the moral code, is the word of God à which involves us in a metaphysical question. Then the inspiration comes because one is working the will of God; one is for God; partly one feels that one is with God. And this is a great inspiration because it brings one's actions in contact with the universe at large. So these three things are very well interconnected. The difficulty is this: that science occasionally conflicts with the first of the three categories à the metaphysical aspect of religion. For instance, in the past there was an argument about whether the earth was the center of the universe à whether the earth moved around the sun or stayed still. The result of all this was a terrible strife and difficulty, but it was finally resolved à with religion retreating in this particular case. More recently there was a conflict over the question of whether man has animal ancestry. The result in many of these situations is a retreat of the religious metaphysical view, but nevertheless, there is no collapse of the religion. And further, there seems to be no appreciable or fundamental change in the moral view. After all, the earth moves around the sun à isn't it best to torn the other cheek? Does it make any difference whether the earth is standing still or moving around the son? We can expect conflict again. Science is developing and new things will be found out which will he in disagreement with the present‑day metaphysical theory of certain religions. In fact, even with all the past retreats of religion, there is still real conflict for particular individuals when they learn about the science and they have heard about the religion. The thing has not been integrated very well; there are real conflicts here à and yet morals are not affected. As a matter of fact, the conflict is doubly difficult in this metaphysical region. Firstly, the facts may be in conflict, but even if the facts were not in conflict, the attitude is different. The spirit of uncertainty in science is an attitude toward the metaphysical questions that is quite different from the certainty and faith that is demanded in religion. There is definitely a conflict, I believe à both in fact and in spirit à over the metaphysical aspects of religion. In my opinion, it is not possible for religion to find a set of metaphysical ideas which will be guaranteed not to get into conflicts with an ever‑advancing and always‑changing science which is going into an unknown. We don't know how to answer the questions; it is impossible to find an answer which someday will not be found to be wrong. The difficulty arises because science and religion are both trying to answer questions in the same realm here. Science and moral questions On the other hand, I don't believe that a real conflict with science will arise in the ethical aspect, because I believe that moral questions are outside of the scientific realm. Let me give three or four arguments to show why I believe this. In the first place, there have been conflicts in the past between the scientific and the religious view about the metaphysical aspect and, nevertheless, the older moral views did not collapse, did not change. Second, there are good men who practice Christian ethics and who do not believe in the divinity of Christ. They find themselves in no inconsistency here. Thirdly, although I believe that from time to time scientific evidence is found which may be partially interpreted as giving some evidence of some particular aspect of the life of Christ, for example, or of other religious metaphysical ideas, it seems to me that there is no scientific evidence bearing on the golden rule. It seems to me that that is somehow different. Now, let's see if I can make a little philosophical explanation as to why it is different à how science cannot affect the fundamental basis of morals. The typical human problem, and one whose answer religion aims to supply, is always of the following form: Should I do this? Should we do this? Should the government do this? To answer this question we can resolve it into two parts: First Ñ If I do this, what will happen? à and second à Do I want that to happen? What would come of it of value à of good? Now a question of the form: If I do this, what will happen? is strictly scientific. As a matter of fact, science can be defined as a method for, and a body of information obtained by, trying to answer only questions which can be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen? The technique of it, fundamentally, is: Try it and see. Then you put together a large amount of information from such experiences. All scientists will agree that a question à any question, philosophical or other à which cannot be put into the form that can be tested by experiment (or, in simple terms, that cannot be put into the form: If I do this, what will happen?) is not a scientific question; it is outside the realm of science. I claim that whether you want something to happen or not à what value there is in the result, and how you judge the value of the result (which is the other end of the question: Should I do this?) à must lie outside of science because it is not a question that you can answer only by knowing what happens; you still have to judge what happens à in a moral way. So, for this theoretical reason I think that there is a complete consistency between the moral view à or the ethical aspect of religion à and scientific information. Turning to the third aspect of religion à the inspirational aspect à brings me to the central question that I would like to present to this imaginary panel. The source of inspiration today à for strength and for comfort à in any religion is very closely knit with the metaphysical aspect; that is, the inspiration comes from working for God, for obeying his will, feeling one with God. Emotional ties to the moral code à based in this manner à begin to be severely weakened when doubt, even a small amount of doubt, is expressed as to the existence of God; so when the belief in God becomes uncertain, this particular method of obtaining inspiration fails. I don't know the answer to this central problem à the problem of maintaining the real value of religion, as a source of strength and of courage to most men, while, at the same time, not requiring an absolute faith in the metaphysical aspects. The heritages of Western civilization Western civilization, it seems to me, stands by two great heritages. One is the scientific spirit of adventure à the adventure into the unknown, an unknown which must be recognized as being unknown in order to be explored; the demand that the unanswerable mysteries of the universe remain unanswered; the attitude that all is uncertain; to summarize it à the humility of the intellect. The other great heritage is Christian ethics à the basis of action on love, the brotherhood of all men, the value of the individual à the humility of the spirit. These two heritages are logically, thoroughly consistent. But logic is not all; one needs one's heart to follow an idea. If people are going back to religion, what are they going back to? Is the modern church a place to give comfort to a man who doubts God‑more, one who disbelieves in God? Is the modern church a place to give comfort and encouragement to the value of such doubts? So far, have we not drawn strength and comfort to maintain the one or the other of these consistent heritages in a way which attacks the values of the other? Is this unavoidable? How can we draw inspiration to support these two pillars of western civilization so that they may stand together in full vigor, mutually unafraid? Is this not the central problem of our time? I put it up to the panel for discussion.

I am sorry people, I was having system problems. Thus, the reply here was just a test, whether I could reply or not, so carry on with the discussion!

“You wouldn't have, there was a media block on the story.” Are you telling me, respectable papers like The Guardian, The Observer, The Times, and so on wont report on such a story? I doubt that very much and anyway I do not want to know such information! “it is our business as long as he is an elected PM.” No is not. He should be under the ‘watchful eye’ of the people in matters regarding policy, decisions he makes and anything along these lines. Having said that is none of our business what his children do and it should stay that way. When he is making decisions, he does not and he should not consider what his children/wife thinks of them. If he thoughts their views are important than the interest of the country, we might as well have elected his wife and children to run the country! “I see this as a sign that the Blair era is close to its end.” Sorry to disappoint you, Blair is not going anywhere and he will go on being PM as things stand now. If you were looking for a condemnation from Lord Butler’s report well there are no condemnations that warrants for his resignation! On the contrary, the report absolved the government and the intelligence agencies of "deliberate distortion or culpable negligence"!

Sophist, I never said logic was an absolute truth. Here are two simple questions for a man of your calibre, what is logic and what is 'absolute truth’? I would be grateful if you could illustrate your answers with examples. I eagerly wait for your answers. PK take your time mate but remember I am waiting for your reply too.

Originally posted by AlwaysLearning: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2004/06/293456.html How many of us have heard that Tony Blair's 16 year old daughter attempted to commit suicide? - 'Hush' was the word! well it doesn't surprise me - while father is playing second fiddel to bush, daugher is left to deal with the pressure of being Blair's daughter! whats your intake on this? We dont even know whether the story is true or not. Cause I read the papers everyday and I have not come across it. Besides is non of our business, what his children do. I dont vote for him cause of his childern, family or so on. I do it for his beliefs (in terms of politics).

We have an open room (11/07/04) at PalTalk now. The room name is SOL Room (Nomad) and the password is Nomad! See u all there!

We have an open room at PalTalk now. The room name is SOL Room (Nomad) and the password is Nomad! See u all there!

How come no one here is saying, what the Republic of Somalia tried to do for this region in the 1970s? Somalia spent a lot of resources in terms of money and human lives when it was able to do so. The Republic will do whatever it can in the future to help its fellow brothers and sisters. First, though the Republic itself needs healing from the wounds it is suffering from at the moment. Until that time, I suggest we should do what we can to help the Republic and keep in mind the plight of our fellow brothers and sisters in that region.

I am glad to know some day soon my Swahili would have some use in an official capacity. I am looking forward to the days when I wont have to write, read and speak the master language! Long live Swahili. P.S. My written Swahili is almost non-existent at the moment, will starting learning soon!

credo quia absurdum—I believe because it is irrational! PK and others sorry for my late reply to this post and this delay was a deliberate one. This is because, I wanted to hear and learn from what people had to say. The apology now out of the way, let me get on with the task. I am sorry to say, you have not answered the question/s you put forward and that disappointed me. Not that I thought you would had an answer that would have satisfied me but at least I thought you would have some form of an answer nonetheless that would go someway! “That there is not a demonstrative proof of the existence of God is not an opinion but a logical consequence.” That is bullocks mate. What is logic—the thing that you seem to hold so dear? I am asking this question, because I am tired of hearing logic this and logic that all the time. You talk of logic as ‘absolute knowledge’, when we both know there is no such thing as absolute and logic is a mere tool. Let us see where we are so far in the discussion for finding a rational reason for our beliefs. I hope I understood your points thus far and not doing you any injustices when I say, you concluded we have three choice when there are “…no purely "demonstrative" (logically, rationally etc.) proofs or disproofs of the existence of a Deity” and they are, 1)Believe in some of form of belief (i.e. theist), 2)Believe in the non-existence of God (i.e. atheist) and finally, 3)Believe in no belief at all on the question (i.e. agnostic). From this, you say one has a rational reason to choose the first one based on a reason given by Pascal (known as Pascal’s wager). I am sorry to say Pascal’s reasoning is flawed and you yourself hinted at this! Here are some of the problems I (and others) have with this wager. 1. There are many Gods/religions out there and this wager assumes in your case the Muslim God and for someone else their own God. Therefore, if all these different Gods have equal probability in being the right one, then the probability of your God being the right one becomes negligible! Thus, the chances of you worshiping the right God from rational reason is slim! 2. On other hand, if we assume all Gods are not equal say only one of them is true then, how does one choose the right one, again from rational reason? 3. Does not this wager defeat the whole of purpose of believing in God out of love, if you are only doing it to avoid hell fires of tomorrow? Does not this in turn lower the standards of beliefs? I do not have any problem in leading a life restricted by religion provided I know what I believe (as far as I am concerned) to be true, whether this seems to be rational or irrational to anyone else. At the same time, I do not want to worship a God on selfish grounds, i.e. the fear of hell fires! My point here is, ‘truth is subjective’— as Kierkegaard said! This means, the important truth are those personal to oneself. Hence, this ‘important truth’ can only be reached through faith and any other means won’t stand the scrutiny of reason or logic. On the question of truth reached through logic/rational and which we know for certain to be the truth, are trivial to my/our existence! An example of this, 2 + 2 = 4. Do we worry about this truth in our daily lives? Do we even include it in our daily prayers? On the other hand, we all worry about whether someone forgave us after we wronged them, since this is important to us. Just as you cannot tell 100% certain whether someone loves you and thus you just have to take it as a matter of faith (half of the time!) and hope they do: that is the beauty of faith! So what I am trying to say is, if you convince yourself with some proof or logical argument, you would lack faith and this in turn would lead to loss of religion passion!. You asked Viking, whether he was a Muslim by choice or chance. Almost most of us (you can exclude yourself from this ‘us’ if you want) are believers to the first approximation by chance. What I mean by this is, the environment in which we live in however much we deny (this simple fact) influences our beliefs and thus we are believers by chance, i.e. believe in what we are brought up to believe (give or take here and there). I personal don’t have a problem with this. Look at it this way, what is the percentage of people currently who hold a belief, which is not close to what they are born into? I would say very small number and hope that answers your question. However, I do have a problem in believing something in order to avoid the hell fires of tomorrow. I might not be doing justices to you when I say the following, but I will say it though; I have a feeling you belong into this category and thus why you are looking for a rational reason in your belief! I am more than happy for you to contradict me on this matter. “Taqlid and blind faith are necessary for the simple believers whose minds are free of the kind of intellectual curiosity one finds in philosophers and scientists, and who are therefore content to accept things based on the authority of the experts.” Is not this intellectual arrogance? What do you mean by the following, “Only the supra-rational states can show you things "as they really are"”? Is not that just saying, I do not know and I might never know, in a fancy way. So the question you might be wondering by now is; what am I? Where do I stand on the three choices open to me above and why do I choose the one I chose? Well let me say, I am theist. Why I chose this path? Because like Kant, I assume when something cannot be proved and this has to be done for the sake of man’s morality. Is not convincing but it is to me! In the words of Kant, “It is a moral necessity to assume the existence of God” Having arrived at the first stage how do I make the transition to Islam? I am lucky in the some ways as my parents were Muslims and this made this irrational decision easier for me (even though for sometime I resisted this). However, one day I was struck by the following sura (111) Thorns (Al-Masad) and it convinced me of the validity of the Koran, but this might not work for someone else. The first verse of the sura is, [111:1] Condemned are the works of Abee Lahab, and he is condemned. The above verse sealed the fate of Abee Lahab during his lifetime forever. If the Koran was false Abee Lahab would have easily come to the prophet and said, Mohamed I believe you are the prophet of God and there is no God but Allah. He could have done this without being genuine and this would have falsified the Koran. However, the fact that he did not do this in his life time either in pretence or in sincere, for me proves the Koran is not written by Mohamed and thus Islam is the right religion for me! Warning, this simple sura might not work for anyone else just because it worked for me. All of the above is bullocks to those who are looking for reason in faith and I apologise for wasting your time since I have none to offer.

NGONGE, if I seem argumentative I apologise, for this is not my intension and this comes about from a bad habit that I have picked ages ago. I am not just talking about myself here when I say; I come here for ideas and so on. I can understand what is said even if I have to read it several times and always look past the words (as you say they are only words on the screen). I am rather thinking of the young of our community who come here and read our thoughts. What would they make of them when they are put in such a grand ways? I believe they will be put off and think of us as posh and show offs. The message I am trying to advance here is, we should not put them (the young) off but rather engage them in our discussions and the best way to do this is through plain English. I hope that is not much to ask. Sophist is right in saying, one should write, as one feels comfortable. However, one should do this in they private writings and not when you are forwarding new ideas. I am in the business of experimental science and whenever we write a paper, it has to be written in a clear and concise way—so that the readers can understand what you are trying to convey. Of course, it will contain a lot of technical jargon and this is to be expected and but minimised to the minimum. I do not know why I picked the example I picked (consciously that is). Thinking of it now maybe my ego picked it and I cannot be blamed for that! I am sorry to say I am not a big fan of poetry and this is because due to my lack of culture. More importantly, I believe poets do not know what they are saying/writing half the time! The following is an excerpt from Apology by Plato (Socrates' Defense) and hope it illustrates what I meant above! “When I left the politicians, I went to the poets; tragic, dithyrambic, and all sorts. And there, I said to myself, you will be detected; now you will find out that you are more ignorant than they are. Accordingly, I took them some of the most elaborate passages in their own writings, and asked what was the meaning of them - thinking that they would teach me something. Will you believe me? I am almost ashamed to speak of this, but still I must say that there is hardly a person present who would not have talked better about their poetry than they did themselves. That showed me in an instant that not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration; they are like diviners or soothsayers who also say many fine things, but do not understand the meaning of them. And the poets appeared to me to be much in the same case; and I further observed that upon the strength of their poetry they believed themselves to be the wisest of men in other things in which they were not wise.” I hope to be more cultured one day and enjoy finer things in life, until then fellow friends bear with my ignorance. This is the last time I should touch upon the subject of someone else’s writing and hope I made my motives clear with this post. By the way I picked George Orwell because, even him who mastered the English language always aimed (even if he did not achieve) but still aimed for the simplest way he could have written any idea down!

Viking: my friend thus I spoke to deaf ears! NGONGE, I did not come here to learn words and phrases and I am sure the same applies to many other people. You want to learn the language go to school! However, I am here to expand the little I know in terms of exchanging ideas and discussions. This can only be achieved in this kind of environment when the written language is plain. You are right sometimes you have to read a passage twice or so to get the gist of it, but that is beside the point here. This is because; whatever that is said here could have been stated in a simple way without the need for long words and sentences. Can anyone tell me what does the following two sentences mean—the second one is not even a sentence in the sense of the word? Could not the writer just have said what he wanted in a simple way rather putting fake images into our head? “Uuh, such a fresh breeze engulfs us all diffusing the stalemate era SOL had been experiencing of late. Indeed a great ally and companion of grand ideas.” If I had written the above sentences, I would have said something along the lines ‘is good to see a fresh face like you here, to liven up this place as it has been boring lately. What is more, you are someone who shares the same ideas as mine’. Never use a long word where a short one will do. I have learned this simple rule from George Orwell. This simple rule is my guide whenever I write something, and I have got far in life with it so far! When I see people, using long words and writing grand sentences, there can only be two reasons for it. First, they are being economical with the truth to say the least. Secondly, they are trying to empress you with their intellect rather than just defending their position! The following is an excerpt from a George Orwell essay entitled, POLITICS AND THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE. “Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this: ‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’ The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” I hope with the above I made my position clear.

Guys, I would be happy if you just spoke (as opposed to ‘spake’ all the time) or wrote simple English! In this day and age, no one writes or speaks in the following manner; “Thus you Spake my friend. Thus you spake indeed.” This type of writing can only be found in ancient literatures such as, The Iliad, War and Peace and so on. The point of my post is, if you lot keep writing and talking like this, we (the commoners) would not be able to follow or pay any attention in what you say/write. I thus hope you will keep it simple for our sake!