New servers (or webspace) come at a hefty cost walaal.. and it’s kinda hard when only one person has to pay it… The statements above-mentioned are untrue. The Adminstrators of this site, I think, are lacking in areas of management and organization. I have been an adminstrator for a philosophy website (members exceed 5000, Philosophy Fourms) for a couple of years now and as such I am intimately acquainted with forum logistics. If the administrators of this web-site can not maintain a "sustainable" forum , I would fain purchase ownership of this site and develop it further. Buisness is Buisness.

Concious Manipulation: Why do you post articles articles that are too dry; do not destroy the forest of your mind (intellect). Alas! if only your articles were as appealing and arresting as your tag-line (signature) :confused:

Sophist: I am indeed greatly influenced by Ghazali. He was great man, a man who encouraged thinking and contemplation not a blind following consequently I am following his methods and assuredly he will be elated to have heard my theories in life. A most dedicated Ghazelian desciple I am, notwithstanding Ibn Taymiyyah's critical castigation of our mystic teacher. I am most confident that Al-Ghazali would be elated by your methodological adherence. Ghazali a martyr of Islamic thought, ought to be studied in all schools. Most delighted I am to find a philosophical and ideological ally in thee. Nothing exists independently of our minds is a statement only audacious men of reason would pronounce. An Idealist I became as I read Berkley's Principles of Human Knowledge. Love is a mere concept and thusly it's existence independently of our minds is nonsenical; and lo! so too the existence of anything, be it physical or psychal, independent of any Mind is inconcievable. "To Be is to be percieved" said the old philosopher; how puissantly penetrating an idea he so concieved. [QOUTE] Real beauty (independent from our minds) does not exist in our physical world. Ah! you are invoking the ancient doctrine of Ideas and Forms, the Platonic Forms. Plato must have been a mystic of some sort, else how would he formulate this most ingenious thesis of reality. Thus you Spake my freind. Thus you spake indeed. P.S. Intaan ciyaalada meeshan yaacaya la gurtamilahaa , waxaa lay qaati inaan odayaasha la munaaqasho.... Mase anigaa oday keliya meesha ka jooga (Oday being anyone who has passed the "dreaded" age of thirty) With Salaams PK

Viking:- Have you inherited your religous beliefs or have you acquired them through rigorous ratiocination? Are you a Muslim by choice or chance? If you were born a non-muslim, how would you go about searching for the "True" religon? Why do you think Islam is the right religon? Is Islam more rational than any other creed? You need not answer these queries, only reflect upon them meticulously. 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. Enough of the digression! Islam is generally a rational religon albiet one that has some doctrines that are impregnable and impenetrable by Reason. Hence, the gist of my thesis: Should there be any some such Doctrine that is incomprehensible to our rational faculty, we need not attempt the explication of it employing Reason(after you apprehend this you may dance over the details of my thesis ). God's Existence is a prime example of this suppostion. Since His existence is not demonstrable we need only to "believe" and not demand a rational argument a priori or a posteriori As to your Mysticism-related query I will say that it is my tentative belief that there is a supra-rational and supra-logical faculty that is latent within our Being. In the same way that our sense impressions, sense-datum, or sense-preceptions are subordinate to reason, so too reason is subordinate to the supra-rational faculty. The "higher" states of Being are the mystical states of conciousness. This is the state where one experiences the powers of "kashf" (direct vision) and "dhawq" (fruitional experience) Jamaal:- You wrote I am a Muslim because I belief Islam will deliver me from Hell and evil. I bear witness that there is no god worthy of worship except Allaah, and Muhammad (PBUH) is His messenger. I suspected as much. Baashi:- The rational and the revealed must needs (i.e. necessarily) be in accord. In the event that there is a manifest contradiction, one can either a) supercede the revealed (naqli) with the rational ('aqli), b) accept that one is inept to conceptualize and apprehend the meaning thereof. Finally, as I said to Viking, Reason is, to use a phrase from the rabble, "the next best thing". Only the supra-rational states can show you things "as they really are" (haqiiq al-umuur). With Salaams PK

Thank you for the rudimentary introduction to Islamic Theology, the so called Islamic Dialectics. Perhaps some of the less read Nomads can learn much from you. Reason is the cardinal, certainly not the sole, soldier in the front trenches in the siege of truth. However, even the lesser soldiers are corrected, commanded, and consoled by "Reason"(sense impressions, experience). I am rational empiricist, Descartes (rationalist) and Hume (empiricist) would have liked me more than Kant (transcendalist). The purpose of this thread was to enquire about the rational legitimacy of Religious Irrationalism (not a contradiction mind you). That there is not a demonstrative proof of the existence of God is not an opinion but a logical consequence. Given that there are no purely "demonstrative" (logically, rationally etc.) proofs or disproofs of the existence of a Diety , what ought a reasonable person to do? In a way, one has three options: one can believe anyway in the existence of God (meaning that one has a theistic faith); or one can believe in the non-existence of God (meaning one has an athiestic faith); or one can hold no beliefs at all on the question (in which case one is an agnostic). Rationally, is there some reason for preferring one of these courses of action over the others? There is a classical argument advanced by Pascal that purports to show that the only reasonable course of action is to hold a thiestic faith. Pascal points out that if you do anything else, you run the risk of losing (if you are wrong) eternal life and suffering eternal damnation. However, if you have a theistic faith, even if you are wrong, there is little you will really have lost. In short, belief in God is the only reasonable course of action open. "God is, or He is not." But to which side shall we incline? Reason can decide nothing here. There is an infinite chaos which separated us. A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up... Which will you choose then? Let us see. Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery. Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose... But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is... If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager, then, without hesitation that He is Ofcourse even this argument is not flawless... With Salaams PK P.S. Am I a Sufi or Shia? I am a Muslim who believes that there is no God worthy of worship but Allah.

There are Somali Jews, Christians, Buddhists, and perhaps even Athiests (I have met one myself). So what?

Originally posted by pearl: satan works in many wonders. he tries tediously to confuse ur faith in allah, so as to lead u astray, dont be fooled by him. i find it hard to believe that a devout shia wants to discuss faith, p.s. werent u bounce from here? Either you are lying about everything you have said or you are mistaken. Either your judgements or Ethics are wrong. Please do not post simply to enflame others. Rule #7 states, unequivocally, that you must attack ideas not persons. Attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position; 'tis a fallacious straw man. Clearly, you have violated this rule; with aghast I am apprehending the double-standard of the Administration. Also, please stop constructing straw man arguments. Finally, by "bounced" if you mean banned then you are mistaken. I have been a member for a few months now; Zalylici was the person who recommended this site.... Anymore questions?

[QOUTE] This sounds a bit like the Asharite contra Mutazilah line of reasonnning. But I could be wrong. Really? I have been accused of being everything but an Asharite? At any rate, this particular philosophical enterprise shares some, albeit few, tenets of the Asharite view. You cannot say that the 'teleological thought is slain by reason' -Hume's critique floored the Teleological Argument for good. Although it is revived from time to time in theological circles, philosophically the argument is a refuted argument.-- Should you wish to know all the inherent flaws in the argument I shall my best attempt its explication. Aren't you content with what is in the Qura'n? Was that a rhetorical question? Yes I am content with the Quran. Does it say that we must needs accept that there exists a rational proof for the existence of Allah? I think not. "knowledge of the divine will is possible by reason but certain by revelation". Philosophy and theology are two distinct realms. Thusly you need not, neccesarily, conglomerate so to speak, these two sources of epistimology. Or else a petitio principii would ,ineluctably, be the resultant fallacy of the above-quoted statement. [QB] What do you think of it as a way to be in touch with the divine? Mysticism and I'rfan are religious dispostions that I esteem are more favourable and attractive than arcane orthodoxy. Be it ever so hard to attain an intimately proximate postion (metaphysical ofcourse) to the Beloved, the fruits are well-worth the labour. Spinzoa articulates that the transcendent experiences are labouriously obtained. "If the way which I have pointed out as leading to this result seems exceedingly hard, it may nevertheless be discovered. Needs must it be hard, since it is so seldom found. How would it be possible, if salvation were ready to our hand, and could without great labour be found, that it should be by almost all men neglected? But all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare." With Salaams PK

I did not know that the requesting of credentials is inappropriate. I do not know this OG_moti character, therefore it is perfectly logical and appropriate to enquire about some such matters; viz., his credentials and experience. With Salaams... P.S. Ya ustaad OG_moti , thou hast a strong legion of dedicated decsiples.

To Admins: I have tried to PM you but the PM system does not work? Why has the "pearl" post not been deleted? With Salaaams PK

I kindly ask the Administrators to delete the preceding post as it is nothing save inflammatory ad hominimums. With Salaams PK

More Conspiracy Theories...

Q:- You wrote "Remember philosophy doesn’t have all the answers and most of the things philosophers rant about cant be tested or verified experimentally for how close they are to the truth " This is simply not true. Logic gives us sure conclusions, no less if not more, then any empirical experimentation. Logical conclusions are verifiable, falsiable, and certainly refutable, for if this were not the case, then what, I beg of you, are we doing here? You wrote "belief is based on faith, which does not have any rational basis whatsoever!" Need I enumerate the implications of your stipulation? Are you an Athiest? To say that faith has no connexion to reason is , forsooth, offensive to Islam. Amaanimeenah:- The Holy Qur'an has laid the foundation of faith and belief on thought and reasoning. Throughout, the Qur'an insists that men should attain faith through the agency of thought. In the view of the Qur'an, intellectual servitude is not sufficient for believing and understanding its basic doctrines. Accordingly, one should take up a rational inquiry of the basic principles and doctrines of the faith. You wrote "but than philosophy as it stands dictates a certain level of blind following." You must needs expound your statment! NGONGE:- You wrote "I’m more than happy to take a leap of faith and trust my “instincts" It is a very precarious volition. What shall be your abode should your instincts err? Many Zen-Buddhist practitioners can proclaim the self-same reason. I must abruptly finsh now..... Must needs I come back to-morrow. With Salaaams PK

Being is an unrequited passion Of which the object is eternity. No answer is more salient than the question, Not of why, but what it is to be. In each of us there burns a fuel-less fire Eternal in amazement and desire. Meaning is the means by which desire Alleviates the pain of pointless passion, Revealing in the miracle of fire Knowledge of a just eternity, Unending love and paradise to be, Sufficient to semanticize the question. Let us de-semanticize the question, Intent on separation from desire, Letting be the wish to ever be. In time alone we touch the ancient passion. The moment is its own eternity, Holding us forever in its fire. Given that eight days a fuel-less fire Answered for our ancestors the question, Bearing embers of eternity. Reason cannot overcome desire, Insisting that the sense was merely passion Embracing the demand to ever be, Longing more than life to ever be. Eight days we witnessed the untended fire Lapping at the hollows of our passion, Lighting the dark chambers of our question, Entering the pith of our desire, Noumenescence of eternity. Stopped time does not describe eternity. Each soul in time must also ever be The infinite of its most dread desire, Having been itself a fuel-less fire, Each the answer to the wordless question, Leaving all behind with bitter passion. In that passion, too, we'll ever be Zealous for eternity on fire, Answering a question with desire.

Reason can be quite unreasonable. Ethics finds its anchor in the heart. An unexamined life is not worth living So long as one does not pick life apart. Oceans may be analyzed and still Not bow before the preacher, lean and shrill Lloyd Thompkins

There is no being at the heart of being, No soul beneath the shifting shards of self, No way of seeing past the act of seeing, No faith enough to walk across that gulf. There is no love more loving than our loving, No meaning that means more than we can mean, No proof that we are capable of proving, No grace that pain and sorrow might redeem. Nothing is the object of our passion, The void within the vastness of the void, The rule no rule can rule nor reason ration, In which all is created and destroyed. The sea lies lucid in the morning light; Yet when we dive, we dive towards perfect night. J. Marques

There exist an array of religous creeds and dogmas, islamic and otherwise, that we can not believe, according to Kierkegaard, by virtue of reason. That there exists a purely, absolutely demonstrative proof of the existence of God is not true. All the classical proofs of the existence of God that have been propounded hitherto (ontological, teleological, cosmological...) have all been stupendously slain by Reason. Kant, Hume et al provide a decisive rebuttal and demonstratively remonstrative criticism of these arguemnts. Hence the psuedo-agnostic postion, viz. the existence of a Supreme Being can not be, rationally, proved or disproved . However, clinging to this rationalistic claptrap is , au fond, atheistic in terms. Thusly we must needs "suspend" our reason and take "a leap of faith" and believe in God and all the other dictates of religion. In fact we must believe "in virtue of the abusrd". The mantra of the 19th century existentialsts was "I believe because it is irrational". I can not but think that there is a rational basis to faith and religon. It is perchance my existential angst that is causing me to ruminate thus. P.S. Christian dogma asserts the eternal, infinite, transcendent God simultaneously became incarnated as a temporal, finite, human being (Jesus) and hence the conception of Religous Irrationlism. However, if there be no intelligible answers to some Islamic doctrines we need not attempt to demonstrate it employing syntactical/logical instruments. We need but to believe and have "faith". Kant and Kierkegaard although devout christians rejected the afore-mentioned arguments proving the existence of a diety. With Salaams PK

Originally posted by rudy: and how come philosphy never solves any of the mankind problems but gives all kind of solutions no 1 follows!! :confused: Would I see you expound your assertion?

Originally posted by J11: Why do I get the feeling that I need to do alot of explaining. I am not fond of disparaging , thusly I will let someone else answer you.....

Originally posted by Nur: again it is AfSomali, not Somali Si Jiwi( Kenya), or somali Shunuu( Sudan) or Somali Khaliiji, or Somali Kangaroo, just plain Somali, I've tried to write like the BBC Somali. If ,perchance, you wrote in English you would betimes recieve replies. You must needs employ English as your language of communication as the alternative (Somali), as it were, is dead. With Salaams PK

"Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." (pace Bernard Shaw) I would fain rejoice with jubilation should the world become ideal , utopian states whose modus operandi is the democracy of the schools not the democracy of the polls (pace Plato) With Salaams PK

J11/Cali:- I presume you be an infant not; at least not literally. Either you have not been paying attention to my responses or you are incredibly slow. Please delete your first post in this thread as we mutually agreed that it is nonsensical. P.S. You are less annoying in person.

Originally posted by J11: ^^^ I think you should go to what was the topic? erm .. Nothingness and Being... Being and Nothingness say you is the topic of discussion? Please do not confuse yourself further. I wasn't really expecting anything from you. Because obviously you got on the wrong foot to begin with. So that is that. Why are Somalis a haughty lot? I believe you will not concede that you were blissfully ignorant when you penned these thoughts. This is nothing save a philosophical subject; insofar as you define your thoughts as "pure" or "non-philosophical" is irrelevant. Please stop posting drivel....*****..... :mad: When someone is pedantic, he/she pays attention to detail. You were not that person, are you? You missed the point again. P.S. The "pink elephants" are a irritable species. Should you *******ize this thread further, viz. by posting another incoherent response, the "pink elephants" will forthwith invade your dwelling. Beware of those creatures! Do you not apprehend the pink elephants? You must needs apprehend this conception in the same fashion you apprehended your all-encompassing "cosmic universe". :rolleyes:

J11:- That I was anticipating you to formulate coherent thoughts there can be no doubt. However, you could not even form so much as a single thought which could substantiated. To say I was expecting you to substantiate your "Dreams are more real than life" theory would be a great mendacity. I was more interested in your critical thinking skills and you have displayed that you have no such faculty. You have made more than 23 logical fallicies in the previous post alone(Pedantic am I?). By the way, I believe in Elephants that are pink.. actually, I think they also have the capability of flight. You will never see them because they are "untouchable"; they exist in their own cosmic universe. I can prove this by asking you to prove that these elephants can be touched. This is precisely the structure of your argument; a blatant fallacy. This one sure gave me a good laugh.