I wonder who those twelve "caliphs" or imams (there is more than one riwaayah that uses the word "imam" as opposed to "khaleef") are? Do they have names? Enlighten me.

This cultural hubris, a self-perpetuating disease, is found only in the minds of the "less lettered" segment of Somali society(or any society for that matter). Judging from physical appearance, one can not deducce or it does not thence follow (it is simply illogical to infer) that that person is in any way, shape, or form (as the cliche goes) inferior or superior. Alas! the whole matter is irrational. Be that as it may, still I believe that it is morally justfiable to "despise" persons , be they Africans, Arabs, Europeans, of a "intellectually inept" breed. Perhaps it is true that any publicity is good publicity or so the saying goes.

"Qaaluu adqaathu axlaamin wa maa naxnu bita'weeli al-axlaami bicaalimiin" Surat Yusuf With Salaams PK

Nur I have posted this message lest you think to yourself "fa buhita alladii kafar". Well that is not quite the case "Akhuuya".I am in the final stage of my research/compiliaton; inshallah, if there are no further time constraints on my part, I shall bring to a conclusion my "dialectic/explication", if you will, within a week. So far it is sixty pages in Word Document; hopefully, I can eliminate any extraneous information so as to keep it under fifty pages.

Yes. I have read this story a long time ago; the narrative comes in many forms (father &son , two men etc.). You have, simultaneously, refreshed my memory and put me to sleep... Thank you

Jumatatu:- That the difference between native authors of a language and non-native authors is one of comprehensibility is unfounded, and as such, untrue. Should one review and peruse, meticilously, the corpus of available english literature, then one shall find a complexity of languague in both native and non-native writers (William Faulkner is a native english writer; however, his writing is the cause of many a linguistic obfuscation while Ernest Hemingway, another native writer, is very simple to read.) There is a reason why I wrote "subtelties", "esoteric" and "meaning"(all are pertinent mind you). Why not just say "meaning". For example, instead of writing it is "heinous", "ungodly", "abonimable", this is "war". Why not just say that it is "war". Know you the "poetic device" employed therein? Do apprise me if you know. Curly Sue you wrote At school I was always taught to avoid repetition when writing maybe this is the case with Mutakalim. It is not repetition per se that is frowned upon in academia but "indiscrimnate" repetition. Indeed, "unpurposive" repetition has been, tradionally, considered a cardinal "sin" in english literature. On the other hand, purposive or "calculated" repetition is a oft-employed device of poetic speech. Poetic devices are employed in prose to induce the self-same effect of the poetic pieces. The repetition of a phrase in poetry may have an incantatory effect as in the opening lines of T. S. Eliot's "Ash-Wednesday": Because I do not hope to turn again Because I do not hope Because I do not hope to turn. To use a cliche, "last but not least" Ngnone: As the rabble say, "I gave you the benefit of the doubt". Whilst I perused your writing, (perhaps I should call it "free-writing") I was under the impression ("delusion" would be the appropriate diction here) that your seemingly aimless and futile pieces were, in fact, "genuine insights" to the human psyche, all the while, expressed in a simple and unconvoluted manner. For the "quintillionth" time, this (i.e. my posts) is not an ostentacious gesture of reproval; this is not an grandiloquent langugage enveloped in a "caustic" cover; this is not an attempt to "score points" (*note the repetition). The charge is thus: the baro group are guilty of posting incognitive propostions (i.e. the color of 9 is blue) while you are guilty of posting material with little, as Chomsky would say, "fruit value". Your statements are similar in breadth and depth to: "Fish only live in water" and "You should breathe regularly". This, my venerated freind, serves no "fruitful" purpose.

Are philosophers afforded any jobs? Nay, they ought to be Kings as Plato intimated in the Republic. So, who wants to participate in the "somali philosophers monarchy"?

I really do not apprehend and/or comprehend, for the life of me, as to the possible reasons, if there be any, behind the intitiating of threads of this nature. I have analysed the posts of our esteemed brother, but I have failed to find any "subtelties"; I have analysed the posts of our esteemed brother, but I have failed to discern any "esoteric" meaning; I have analysed the posts of our esteemed brother, but I have failed to find any "meaning". This is perchance a "idle" attempt at humour. Well, I am trying very hard to laugh. :rolleyes: P.S. Someone has to restore the waning "mental equilibrium" of this thread.

I hope I did not scare him away.

Sophist Inshallah I will pay heed to your advice. But I must confess that I have an incorrigible,(perhaps not)weakness, namely, anger. Oftentimes my posts exihibit a aura of superiority when in fact it is not so; it is interesting what one writes as one is livid. Allahayoow Xanaaqa iyo Kibirka ka dhasha ayaan kaa magangalay... Aamiin

Baahane Another well known, and much used, device is to misrepresent my position and attack things I have never said-. Straw man is a old and fallacious technique of debating; caricature your opponent's argument, then knock down the straw man you created. It is memorable because it vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched. A classic example is the evolution theory of Charles Darwin. I can understand how dearly you incline to their hallucinations, but it has never brought any meaninful sense to the unfortunate followers. First, Charles Darwin was not a philosopher but a scientist. Need I delineate this common-sense conception. Philosophers do not restrict themselves to the method of induction which the natural sciences apply as a yard-stick. On a different note, I do not accept Darwin's Theory of Evolution via the mechanism of "Natural Selection" because his theory is fatally flawed. I have rejected his theory on the basis of a research I have conducted eight years ago. Perhaps I shall post excrepts of my paper in the Debate section of the fora. I find your mentioning of him to be completly irrelevant to the matter at hand. Now, I asked you not only my legitimate questions to your incomplete and less-than-arguments but the ultimate questions of Allah, the creator of everything, and yet I read no response from your Western-wanna-be, and fading philosophy I must say my annoyance has blossomed into alarm! Think you the theory of evolution via natural selection is a "philosophical" theory. Is that your example of "fading" philosophy. :rolleyes: It's funny to see how full of discrepancies you are by sticking to some tactical denials in terms of downgrading the superior Islamic knowledge over your disorderly psychopath-generated philosophy. I believe your unreliable sources don't have the slightest right to question Islam as concrete knowledge. By the way, why can't you consider the Quranic questions to find for an answers from your know-everything-philosophy? Isn't it funny that some of your dearly atheists believe that philosophy, and in particular, the logical reasoning are not an absulate law that governs the universe! But unfortunately you are using the wrong law as an absulate law to measure the true existance of Allah. This is quite literally the twentieth time I have to address this misapprehension. I am not "downgrading" the "narrational sciences" aught. This is a "rational" enquiry and as such any allusion to the "revealed" is gratitiously unwarranted. This does not mean that the truths lying in the religious texts are not the aim, but they are not mentioned, otherwise it would not be a philosophical, or purely rational, demonstration. I do believe in God, exalted be He, however my belief is not a ramification and/or reprecussion of a priori or a posteriori evidence. It is "faith". At any rate, I formed, prima facie, a favourable impression of you. Unfortunately, you are a dogmatist "muqallid" par excellence. And therefore, it is a faulty reasoning to merely call something knowledge that don't fit the strict definition of knowledge. Was the "dont" a typographical error or is your grammer "greiving"? [quote And now you are admittingly insisting that Islamic philosophers were historicly existed! A sentence fragment? or a purely nonsensical statment. Is "admittingly" a neologism? Or maybe "altra-secularim" is a word; wait a minute I think you meant "ultra-secularism". Shall I continue in this vein; viz., cavilling your writing unnecessarily? Suffice it to say that spelling is a minor obstacle to clarity. Make sure your grammer and your logic are "formidable" before correcting simple spelling mistakes. It is also rather odd for a punctilously fastidous person to suffer from a most "debilitating" strain of obscurity. I guess I will go back to reading the islamic "kalaam" (ilmul al-kalaam) for now; later, I shall come back to indulge, once more, the lesser species of the SOL fora. With Salaams PK P.S. I have a very low tolerance for nonsense. Also, do minimize the number of ad hominimums (I do not feel like checking the correct spelling of this word, since you are intent on correcting spelling mistakes, do apprise me if I am wrong.) :rolleyes:

I think the very perplexing problems inherited from the unprincipled western thinkers are preserved solely to mislead those who happen to be weak in terms of intellectual capacity to reason, or utilize reason for constructive rational means This is mere assertion. No argument. What are examples of "perplexing problems" that are "preserved" to decieve persons of feeble intellect. I am suprised when I see the like of a growing number of people who question the existance of Allah, but can't deliberately consider their crooked philosophical arguments which have no sound and legitimate bases whatsoever! Again, either present your arguments or do not post. Do you know what it means to say an argument is "sound" as opposed to "valid"; know you the nuances thereof. What mean you by crooked? In the "vistas" of epistimology nothing is taken for granted. That I see physical objects, that I exist, and that God exists is not epistimologically "self-evident". Hence, the conception of the "method of doubt". If one starts with doubt one will end in certainty , however, if one starts with certainties one will, ineluctably, end in doubt. Foundationalism has its inherent problems but that is a topic for another thread. As to the Quranic references I will say this once more: this is a philosophical enquiry not a theological cofabulation! It is illogical to talk of grammer and syntax when one is discussing the aseisthetics of culinary arts. [quote And finally as an ethnic (somali) brother, I would honestly urge you to filter the philosophical intakes that you sometimes digest out of obliviousness. Because the greatest decievers are the ones in line of the idealogies of the Shaydaan. Again, please take far distances from those thinkers who think against the truth. Another "nay-sayer" I have to enlighten. Sighs! :rolleyes: P.S. Some muslims (many islamic philosophers disagree) believe it is outright heretical to question the existence of God; they employ the verse "Abillaahi shakkun fadira as-samaawaati wa al-ardi". However, there is an abundance of other quranic verses that invite the "intellectually soverign" to apply their "reason" in order to ascertain the truth or falsity of their beliefs.

Kownenyn It is a classical logical fallacy to assert the authority of a personage without expounding further, the "unadulterated" meaning of the scholar. In other words, what have Imam Musa and others said precisely? As to your comment about appearing scholarly, by God, I do not apprehend. Pray, do expound the meaning you want me to infer therefrom.

Saxib, you don't need to start several threads trying to put DOWN other ULAMA and their students b/c you don't agree with them and you find that everyone should follow your LINE OF THINKING. You are, it seems, the sole member who continues to harbour that sentiment. In the intial stages of the discussion, put downs by many members (including myslef ) were pervasive and omnipresent. That that tranistory feeling of hostility intially present, still has not been extinguished is untrue; know you the marked difference then than now? Niether Nur nor I are here to "put down" people; but we are here to bring to light the legitimacy and logicality of our respective ideologies. I do not desire to talk to Nur or anyone for that matter, instead I will talk to Nur's "ideas"; talking with ideas is far more productive than talking to people. Of course, there must needs be a person who utters those "ideas" I'm shia and the differences btwn sunnia and shia are too 'fundmental', therefor what? Both Aqida's can't be right? Can't be Islam? Yes. The two beliefs, Shiism and Ahlu Sunnah, are mutually exclusive. There is no compromise in the territory of 'aqaid. I think my implication is rather clear. Finally, your comment about Hawaa and the subsequent didactic post you wrote, I wish not to address. Though I will emphasize once more that this is a discussion of ideologies not a disparagment of people. Nur Brother do tell me when you have completed your postings on the 'aqaid so I can address your posts point-by-point. I do not wish to address each post at a time because I find it less taxing to write one detailed response as opposed to several less explicate posts. Take as much time as thou requires, patiently shall I await your conclusion.

Are Mosques sister freindly? Ah! such a intellectually ephermal thread is this. And herein, in the debate forum, I thought I would read a treatise on metaphysics or the islamic dialectics. Alas! some such subjects serve not as sustenance to the lay audience. :rolleyes:

Kowneyn At the risk of derailing further this thread, I will pose one last question. Think you the doctrinal differences between the shia and ahlu sunnah are a small matter? You must needs apprehend that the discrepencies between the two ideologies, above-mentioned, are indeed profound disagreements. I think Nur and I share this point: being a shia or a sunni is not the same as being a maliki or shafici. The disagreement in the former is a fundemental, doctrinal difference while the latter is merely a juridical difference. P.S. I find your sense of justice admirable. A minority group would never be subjugated and repressed under your watch.

Nur Wa iyyaaka yowman an tumaazixa jaahilan fatulqii alladii laa tashtahii xiina yamzaxu

Sophist:- In all honesty, I find myself abhorring the philosopher, Nietzche. Intellectual arrogance is a minor charge in comparison to the purely nihilistic philosophy that he espoused. Perhaps it was Divine Justice that caused him to die a most pitiful death. Matkey:- During my undergraduate years, I , too, had the advantage of reading Philosophy for Dummies. The book is useful in asmuch as it elucidates the concepts of the philosophy of religon. However, it does not address adequately, the different philosophical dispostions propounded in the days of yore. It would be advisable, should you have the natural interest in philosophy, to read the History of Philosophy before you delve into the abstracts thereof. I would recommend the following two rudimentary books for a novice: 1) Philosophy: History and Problems by Samuel E. Stumpf 2) Sophies World by Josten Gaarder ( a fictional novel of the history of philosophy)

"wa badaa lahum min allahi ma lam yakuunuu yaxtasibuun" O Necessary Existent, make us not of those that are decieved.

Nur Needs must I abandon the respite of my writing to display my prowess of moral suasion to the Nomads of the Somaliaonline fora. I only jest. For now, I care to address only the "doctrinal" part of your compilation. I shall address all the concepts in one post, so appraise me when your research is concluded. You have raised some important points; however, judging from the presentation and organization of your posts, you have chosen to present your arguments in a logically peculiar order, (weakest to strongest) thusly the more "damaging" doctrines I presume you will discuss in the succeding posts (The concept of "Al Bidaa" is one such concept that you have mentioned only breifly). Have you the time to address the two threads I have intiated a week ago: Necessity of Shiism? Kowneyn et al For the sake of discussion, if you can not address the arguments then you need not post aught! Do not commit the fallacy of ad hominimum. Also, you must understand that it is not arrogance and ignorance that prompts some muslims to label others as apostates and mushriks but a deep religous conviction of their own righteousness. If the shia in actuality worship thier Imams, then they are guitly of a most cardinal sin, viz., Shirk(I will show the de facto case is not thus). Note: Many members have written about their express reservation of labelling a muslim unfavourably; as one member said "only Allah judges". Whilst it is true that Allah is the only and Final judge, it is also true that Allah gave us the capability to judge. If you steal, then you are a theif (although it is pardonable in extreme cases). If you lie, then you are a liar. If you perform acts of shirk, then you are a mushrik. For those of you who have studied logic, you will notice that the above stipulations are deductive arguments. P.S. Regrettably, the islamic doctrines have become like the science of juriprudence (fiqh), a grey area open for interpretation.

We the nomads, if I can speak for them, have been inundated with excerpts from books we don’t have access to, with ahadith we never heard of, and with claims and counter claims we have no way of knowing.[/qoute] Baashi I had an inkling that most members of the Somalia fora would become infinitely obfuscated and frustrated with the method of discussion. Whilst I am still in the process of reading the "damning" arabic references that have been cited hitherto, I am percieving a most repugnant misinformation. Some of the "references" are distorted out of porportion; I shall post something pertaining to this matter when I wrap up my review of the islamic literature. Nur has espoused a decidedly antagonistic principle on this matter. The sentiments often expressed are biased and one-sided, it is as though the sentiments and opinions are an outward manifestation of the storm that is raging inside of the poster. From the "proofs" provided it is clear that they serve one purpose, if only; the purpose is to paint Shia as a deviantly aberrant sect whose doctrines is, as Sir Thomas Moore would have said, "directly repugnant to the Law of God". This is the reason for my invitation of Nur to discuss the caqaaid. In a "utopian" discussion, I would have discussed the most cherished beliefs of Islam, the 'aqaid, from the shia perspective, whilst Nur would expound the islamic doctrine in accordance with the understanding of ahul as-sunnah. Should the discussion run in the manner which was so described, then many a confusion and frustration will be thwarted. Answers to your question 1)Some of the books, especially Al-Kafi is a widely used shia literature. 2)Yes. However, if one finds something in these books that is contrary to rudimentary islamic teaching, then that "riwaayah" is to be rejected indiscriminately. See the thread "Is the Quran complete"; there are shia and sunni narrations that ostensibly prove otherwise. How dare they! With Salaams PK

Admins/Moderators I think that it is clear that this thread has plunged into abysmal depths of ad hominimums. As such it should be immediately closed. The discussion has ended in this thread. Thank you. With Salaams PK

Sophist Walaal In retrospect, I should not have written as I wrote. One should not put pen to paper when in the grip of strong emotion. After reading your evaluation of my comment as "idiotic", I temporarily took leave of my rational senses. Perhaps it would have been more prudent and conscientious of you to refer to an ill-concieved idea as "misinformed" as opposed to idiotic. At any rate, mea culpa. Matkey Read the "Necessity of Shiism" and "Shia as a Group and as a Concept thread". And then tell me whether you still believe that "historical evidence" is lacking. Of course you have to explain your answer.

As the arab poet prounounced: wa qaaluu rasuulullaahi makhtaara bacdahu imaaman wa laakinnaa lianfusinaa ikhtarnaa wa laakinnanaa ikhtarnaa alladii ikhtaara rabbunaa lanaa yowma khamin ma ictadaynaa walaa xilnaa sayajmacunaa yowma al-qiyaamati rabbunaa fatujzawna maa qultum wa nujzii al-ladii qulnaa hadamtum bi aydiikum qawaacida diinikum wa diinin calaa qayr al-qawaacida la yubnaa wa naxnu calaa nuurin min allahi waadixun fayaa rabbi zidnaa minka nuuran wa thabbitnaa With Salaams PK

Haddad: Read the following story. To have an infallible imam is necessary for the survival of islam in its pristine form. Also, read my thread on the Necessity of Shiism as I have adequately answered all the common objections. 'O scholar, I am a stranger here; will you permit me to ask a question?' He replied that I might, so I asked him: 'Do you have eyes?' 'Amr responded: 'Young man, what kind of a question is this? Why ask about something you can see to be true?' But I persisted, asking him to answer my question. He consented, so I repeated the question. When he answered in the affirmative, I next asked him; 'What do you do with eyes?' 'I see colors and people.' Then I asked; 'Do you have a nose?' 'Yes.' 'What do you do with your nose?' 'I smell things.' 'Do you have a mouth?' 'Yes.' 'What do you do with it?' 'I taste the food that I eat.' 'Do you have ears?' 'Yes.' 'What do you with them?' 'I hear sounds.' "'Now, do you have a heart?' 'Yes.' 'What do you do with it?' 'My heart is an instrument of weighing and measuring; by means of it I assess the truth or falsehood of whatever knowledge comes to my senses and limbs.' "Then I asked: 'Can any limb or member dispense with the heart (qalb)?' "'No.' "'Even if all limbs and members are completely healthy?' "'Young man, whenever any bodily sense is mistaken in its perceptions or doubts their accuracy, it has recourse to the heart in order to resolve its doubts and gain some measure of confidence and certainty.' "'So the role of the heart with respect to the members and limbs is, in accordance with divine command, to remove error, confusion, and bewilderment?' "'Yes.' "'So the existence of the heart in man is a necessity without which his members and limbs lose their sense of direction?' "'Yes.' "'O Abu Marwan, God has not left your senses and limbs without a guide to rectify their errors and doubts. Is it then possible that He should leave human society, despite all the dissension and ignorance that beset it, to its own devices, without any leader to guide it? A fitting leader who will remove all confusion and error?' With Salaams PK