The concept of the Unity of Being (tawhiid Al-wujuud or wahdah al-wujuud) has an important philosophico-mystical meaning in Islam. Unlike Pantheism and Panentheism, which assert that God is everything and Everything is God , the concept of the Unity of Being in Islam articulates a diametrically opposed conception. The only true existent is God, and everything other than He is not truly existent. He, the True, the Real, the Existent is and everything else is-not. The word "existence", if it be applied to anything other than He, is sheer metaphor. Existence can be classified into the existence that a thing posseses in itself and that which it possesses from another. When a thing has existence from another, then its existence is borrowed and has no support in itself. Al-Ghazali provides an intelligible analogy in his book "Mishkaat al-Anwaar or The Niche of Lights" :- Do you think that someone who borrows clothing, a horse, a blanket, and a saddle, and who rides the horse when the lender lets him do so and only to the extent that the he allows him is rich, or just metaphorically so? Is the Lender rich or the borrower? Indeed, the matter is clearer than the light of day, nay to doubt this truth would be tantamount to labelling as dubious "necessary propisitions". The Borrower is rich (metaphorically) whilst the Lender is truly Rich. In like manner, the existence of everything is borrowed from He; thusly, everything exists in asmuch as He who has disappeared due to the excess of his presence, allows it. It has been often related that when the Gnostics (Al-Caarifiin) leave the lowlands of metaphor and ascend to the highlands of reality, they concieve of nothing but He. Plurality is totally banished from them, and they become immersed in sheer singularity. Thier rational faculites become so satiated that they are, as it were, stunned! No room remains for the rememberance of any other than God. Nothing is with them but God. They become intoxicated with such an intoxication that the ruling authority of their rational faculty is overthrown! Hence one of them says: I am the Truth انا الحق Another says I am He whom I love, and He whom I love is I انا من اهوى ومن اهوى انا "Glory be to me How high is my station" سبحاني ما اعظم شاني "There is nothing in my Robe but God" ما ÙÙŠ الجبة الا الله The Speech of Lovers in the state of intoxication should be concealed and not spread about in accordance with the Sufi dictum "To Divulge the Mystery of Lordship is unbelief". اÙشاء سر الربوبية ÙƒÙر This is so because the masses can not apprehend with their intellect the mysteries of the Lord. Ibn Rushd mentions in his treatise Ùصل المقال the methodology of Islam as pertains to spiritual and intellectual instruction; he mentions the Hadith in Sahih Al-Bukhari in which the prophet, Peace be Upon Him, says "We, the prophets, have been commanded to adapt ourselves to the conditions of the people, and address them according to their intelligence." When the Gnostics try to remember, recollect, and reckon what they had witnessed during the state of "Al-Fanaa" or annihilation (the annihilation of all other than He), it becomes excruciatingly difficult for them to articulate in human language that which they had experienced. This is the reason why some Gnostics attempt to explain this phenemonon by employing metaphors. If one peruses the book The Garden of Reality or حديقة الحقيقة by the eleventh century Sufi, Shirazi, then one will find many an allusion to wine and women. It is true that they, the Gnostics, cannot adequately communicate their experience and as result are labelled as unbelievers by those of weak insight (ضعÙاء البصيرة) It is not unlikely that a person could look into a mirror in an unexpected place and not see the mirror at all. He supposes he sees the mirrors form. Likewise, he could look at a glass filled with wine and suppose the color of the wine to be the color of the glass. However, when the situation becomes familiar to him and his foot becomes firmly established within it, he asks God for forgiveness and says: The glass is clear, the wine is clear, the two are similiar, the affair confused As if there is no wine and no glass, or glass and no wine. رق الزجاج وراقت الخمر** Ùتشابها Ùتشاكل الامر Ùكانما خمر ولا قدح**Ùˆ كانما قدح ولا خمر The Scholars of Allah (العلماء بالله) unlike the scholars of Law (العلماء باحكام الله), do not need to wait till the Day of Judgement to hear the Fashioner proclaim "Who is the Kingdom Today? God's the One, the Overwhelming". Rather, this proclaimation never leaves their hearing. A spirtual station that I am ever-crawling to reach. That everything is perishing except his face (كل شئ هالك الا وجهه)is not a phenemon that occurs to each thing at one point in time, but it is an assertion that everything is perishing from eternity without beginning to eternity without end(ابدا Ùˆ ازلا). A thing can only be said to "exist" with reference to He, because a thing cannot be concieved to exist with reference to itself. With Salaams PK

Originally posted by Jumatatu: Nationalist I dont see you waving the flag sxb....guess this side of 'reer-maxamudsyleyman' was not your ideal choice... < Although the final result was not welcomed by "some", soomaalidu waxay ku maahmaahdaa Hangaraarac lug uma dhutiyo

I do not think it is prudent to say that there are no "proofs" for any doctrine of eschatology, because that assertion is fundementally ambigous. What kind of proof are you demanding (epistemic proof, metaphysical proof, deductive proof). Needless to say, there are well-known rational arguments for and against the tenability of the conception Al-Macaad (المعاد) or Eschatology. Be it so, it is logically inconsistent, if not morally self-defeating, for a theist, to affirm the existence of a Diety whilst negating the continuation of existence in the afterlife. The denial of "Aakhiro" is a cardinal belief of agnostics and atheists.

Wail away good Moralists. Should you persist in your ever-loud moral lamenting and howling, then you are bound to effect a desirable outcome. With Salaams PK

Intriguing, indeed. The problem of the freedom of the will was an enquiry reserved for theologians and philosophers, from whence comes these responses of "pop science". I suppose I will start watching those movies to ascertain the truth of this matter? The String Theory, despite the claim of some, is scientific. One has to understand the difference between theoritical science and applied science. According to the nomological method of science developed by Karl Popper , a theory is only scientific if it can be disproven not proven; hence the assertion that the term "scientific proof" is a classical oxymoron. Theortical science, unlike applied science, does not have to be empirically "falsified", "disproven" or "refuted" to be scientific , rather it can be falsified in principle. The difference between the String Theory and the theory that there are leprechauns floating in your room is that the former is "refutable" in principle and to some extent empirically whilst the latter is not refutable aught; thusly, the latter is unscientific. Inshallah, I will give the subject of Free Will and Divine Foreordainment a proper treatment in the next fortnight. Inshallah I will not delve into the abstract and intricate arguments of this subject matter as it is unintelligible to the masses, I will provide an explanation that is closer to the understanding of most Nomads. With Salaams PK

لولا رجائي أبو تمام ألَمْ يان٠تَرْكÙÙŠ لا عَلَيَّ Ùˆ لا ل٠وعزمي على ما يَا Ùيه إصلاح حالÙيا وقد نال مني الشيب وابْيَضَّ Ù…Ùرقي وغالت سوادي شهبة ÙÙŠ قذاليا وحالت بي الحالات عما عهدتها بكر الليالي والليالي كما هيا Ø£ÙصَوّÙت٠بالدنيا وليست تجيبني أحاول أن أبقى وكي٠بقائيا وما تبرح الأيام تحذ٠مدتي بÙعَدّ٠حساب لا كَعَدّ٠حسابيا لتمحوَ آثاري وتخلق جدتي وتخلي من ربعي بÙكرْه٠مكانيا كما Ùعلت قبلي بطسم وجرهم وآل ثمود بعد عاد٠بن عاديا وأبقى صريعا بين أهلي جنازة ويحوي ذوو الميراث خالصَ ماليا أقول لنÙسي حين مالت بصغوها إلى خطرات قد نتجن أمانيا هبيني من الدنيا ظÙرت بكل ما تمنيت أو أعطيت Ùوق أمانيا أليس الليالي غاصباتي بمهجتي كما غصبت قبلي القرون الخواليا Ùˆ Ù…ÙسْكÙنَتÙÙŠ لَحْداً لدى Ø­Ùرة بها يطول إلى أخرى الليالي ثوائيا كما أسْكَنَتْ ساما وحاما وياÙثا ونوحا ومن أضحى بمكة ثاويا Ùقد آنست بالموت Ù†Ùسي لأنني رأيت المنايا يخترمن حياتيا Ùيا ليتني من بعد موتي ومبعثي أكون رÙاتا لا علي ولا ليا أخا٠الهي ثم أرجو نواله ولكن خوÙÙŠ قاهر لرجائيا ولولا رجائي واتكالي على الذي توحَّد لي بالصنع كهلا Ùˆ ناشيا لما ساغ لي عذب من الماء بارد ولا طاب لي عيش ولا زلت باكيا على إثر ما قد كان مني صبابة ليالي Ùيها كنت لله عاصيا Ùإني جدير أن أخا٠وأتقي وان كنت لم أشرك بذي العرش ثانيا

Originally posted by NGONGE: Minster of Propaganda & Trivialities (Mutakalim – He’ll make sure all our calacil makes absolute sense) That meaning be restored, I shall see to it. As for calaacal , or calacil as you like to call it, I do not know. Do you think orthography is trivial? With Salaams PK

Puntland was much better when it was under the rule of the Ittixaad (wadaadada). I have no confidence in a wayward "waranle".

Originally posted by Femme_Fatale: ^^^ Hmmm since people are answering my old childhood questions...wondering if I should post ones that are in my head as of now? :confused: OG Girl: Maandheey, joogso ya ku yiraahda. At any rate, if you have doctrinal or juridical questions, then post them in the Islamic section.

Originally posted by NASSIR: ooh somali-arabs at their sarcasm. Frank and Funny they are!

Thus, one would think that parents should answer their child's every question with patience. After all---arent they told that no question is dumb? Arent they constantly reminded that of the somali mah mah " *qof xishood ka batey iyo qof kibir ka batey...labadaba wax ma bartaan*? If I reckon aright, the adage you have utilized has its origin in Arabic, المتكبر والمستحي لا يتعلمان.Some parents, dare I say most, are, truth be told, atrociously ignorant of their religon. Hence, when a child of seven, for instance, queries as to the nature of the Natural Laws, the parent, bemused and bewildered, ignores, or worse yet, discourages the child from pursuing this natural enquiry. It is a shame of colossal porportions, indeed! My father had once said " there is no such thing as a silly question; if it can be asked, then it is a good question ". Naturally, I bombarded him with many a philosophical query to which he replied " Do you know what I said about there being no such thing as silly questions, well umm...." In retrospect, I find his reply quite humorous. These are some of the questions I had when I was 5-10 years old. (<----Dont look at me like that! I know I'm not the only one who had them! REMEMBER I WAS YOUNG Unless one is unfortuitously entrapped in a labrynith of arrested development or a maze of mental stagnation, it is ineluctable that one query till one become, as it were, replete of answers. 1. If Allah is neither male nor female..why do we refer to him as "HE"? Why cant we call him "She" or "IT" for that matter? 2. Why are there no black prophets mentioned? 3. Why didnt Allah allow women prophets to exist? 4. Why are there more women in hell then men? Why did Allah love men more than women? 5. Etc. Etc. Et.c (A lot more...some Im still thinking about! <---but not at that level!) The queries, above-quoted, are all genuine, Fair Femme Fatale. If one has but an iota of islamic illumination, then one can, quite easily, answer the above questions to the satisfaction of the enquirer. Alas, ignorance has become our eyes; indifference, our ears. Thusly, ye ears must be battered, so ye eyes may learn to hear! I think thats legitimate questions for a child to ask? How else are they supposed to learn? Islam is not programmed into our genes from birth...Its a life-long learning process ..we learn..practice...and learn some more in an unending cycle. Hear! Hear! Those queries you have brought-forth are natural for a child to ask; nay, it is equally natural if queried by he who is not in his salad days (childhood). If that be not the case, then woe is us, for we are save machines. Why are children (who geniuly want to know the answers to these questions---WHICH THEY DO NOT KNOW!) made to feel embarassed or naughty? Children recieve this treatment because thier Guardians are forever traversing the absymal valleys of ignorance. They apprehend not their religon and as such are dismal and blind. Indeed, embarrassed and naughty are not the children, but they! Isnt it the right and responsibiity of a muslim to learn about their religion? Didnt the prophet (S.C.W.) say Seek knowledge---even if you have to go to CHINA? The authenticity of that particualar hadith, according to the collectors and narrators of traditons, is not indubitable. Be that as it may, there are many verses in the Quran and authentic traditions, that prove, without a shred of doubt, the laudabilty, nay, the necessity of Knowledge. P.S. A child is just like a new convert to Islam or a non-muslim! Thats the type of questions that they would ask from the start. How is one supposed to answer them if they DIDNT GET SATISFACTORY ANSWERS THEMSELVES! There is a well known hadith in "Saheeh Muslim", which explicitly states that a child's default state is in accordance with the "Divine", the principles of Islam. This hadith, of course, has many doctrinal implications of which I shan't discuss herein. You see, Fair Femme Fatale, that which diffrentiates Islam from other worldly religions is that Islam affords the enquirer answers of astounding adequacy, whereas other belief systems, instead of providing the enquirer with answers of relief(answers to doctrinal queries), make the person laden with grief. It is most unfortunate that many adults who are professedly muslims breathe the dust that is dogmatism and swim in the smudge that is ignorance. To rephrase Hagar, the protagonist in Laurence's Book, The Stone Angel , Dogmatism is their wilderness and the demon that led them there was Ignorance! هل يستوي الذين يعلمون والذين لا يعلمون؟ انما يتذكر اولوا الالباب P.S. Perhaps you ought to read The Alchemy of Happiness or in arabic كيمياء السعادة by Imam Al-Ghazali. Therein he delinates the manner in which knowledge can facilitate the acquirement of Happiness or what Aristotle called Eudomania .

The Alchemist, I second that.

At last, we are making some head-way with this group. Classique: Out of the selection that you have provided, which book stimulated you the most? Do you think there ought to be a vote as to which book the group should read? I would imagine that all the members would have to be reading the same book if they are to engage in any meaningful discussion. What book would you recommend out of your list? Legend of Zu: Pragtisim has always been a strong suit of mine. A Man should be a a man of action in his thoughts and a man of thought in his actions. Thusly, mere wishful thinking is a foriegn concept to me. Do you think that each person should read any book from that list? Or do you think that all the memebers ought to be "on the same page" by reading the same book? If the latter, then a poll would be required. If Classique recommends the "best" book of the list she has provided, then we can start the reading forthright. With Salaams PK

Kowneyn: By He who exists necessarily, I thought you were more sensible than to use a tribal slur. Forthright do I hope you recant your proposition. ظننت هم ظنا جميلا Ùخيبوا ظني وما كل الظنون تصيب لعمرك ما ضاقت بلاد باهلها ولكن اخلاق الرجال تضيق

What you have done is create a group with a dull, predictable name... Is that the source of your distaste? I think that the name of the Book Group is superficial, but if you and others find it consequential, then, of course, you are free to dwell upon it at length (this is not a permission, mind you). Any name will do just fine for me. You are right, you are not a man of subtlety. Are you being equivocal with the word subtelty? Firstly, as we're supposed to be making suggestions, none of us require your permission and secondly, it's not the list yet, it's yours . By God I know not from whence comes this infantile antagonism! The first time it is that we exchange thoughts on these boards, but you seem to be most intent on settling some obscure score. Imposing guidelines on any soul I am not; instead, making stipulations and suggestions as to standard protocols I am. It was all done in good gesture, fair sheherazade. Is that not a question? My query, Good sheherazade, was save a rhetorical one. An example of a consipicous rhetorical question would be " Ophelia, are you retarded?". It is both a figure of speech and a device of poetry. Know you the function it served herein? I'm not obligated to anything any more than you are. The guidelines that you provide are just that- yours. I wouldn't want to limit anyone or create a group within SOL; we're free to post as we wish everywhere else on the site. Calaa mahlaki. If it makes you feel good, then I am all for it. With Salaam PK P.S. The list (or if you insist "my" list) is only tentative. I thought this much was obvious. وليس يصح ÙÙŠ الاذهان شئ اذا احتاج النهار الى دليل

Good piece. Your statements were, more or less, an articulation of my sentiments. Our memories, in reality, form our persons. What makes you "Dawaco" is not your name or your appearance, but your memories. If your name were Fatima, you would still be the same "person". In other words, what makes you, "you", is the aggregate memories in your mind. In fact, if I reckon aright, it was Liebniez, the seventh century Mathematician (the co-founder of Calculus) and Philosopher, who posed the question: If you were told that after you die today, someone that is you, will be born tomorrow; however, that person will not have any of your memories. Would you understand what that means? With Salaams PK

sheherazade How is it that you have taken it upon yourself to nominate members and a name? Be not livid with me, dear lass, as I have nominated no one (to nominate means to appoint or propose candidates). The names of the members in the aforementioned list are the names of those members who have professed implicitly and/or explicitly thier desire to engage and participate in this discussion group; the members "nominated" themselves, so to speak. If I were to nominate persons for this group, then I would have nominated but four people. However, I did not and do not desire to nominate anyone lest I disgruntle and displease our esteemed SOL brethrens. You're right, structure is required but you introduce your suggestions as decisions already made!! This is another low hanging piece of ripe fruit that I must, of necessity, pick. If my suggestions were meant to be read as "decisions", then I would have penned it thus; I, as many Nomads can attest, am not a man of subtelty. I would have said that to a nicety(to a degree of precison). For instance, the " guidelines are final, and there can be no discussion about it, period " رغم انÙÙƒ. That was not my intention. You see, I was merely proposing a standard procedure that is present in many discussion groups; my recommendations are nowise set in stone. Perhaps you did not read my post in its entirety. We're in this together. Is not that nice, Good sheherazade. In any event, if you think that the guidlines I have proposed herein are neither practicable nor reasonable, then you are obligated to provide an alternative. You can write five or more alterantives should such is desired. With Salaam PK P.S. .On a lighter note, whomsoever rebels against my rules, shall be hanged at noontide. Muhahahahhahahahah. *cough* muha *cough*

What sort of Book Group would it be without the Baros. Welcome aboard, Yaa Shaykh.

The members of the "SOL Book Group" are: 1. Classique 2. sheherazade 3. ORGILAQE 4. OG_Girl 5. Alle-ubaahne 6. Bee 7. Ameenah 8. *Diamante* 9. Legend of Zu 10. Lady X 11. NGONGE 12. Checkmate 13. Myself (Philosopher-King) If any member, above-listed, does not wish to participate in this Discussion Group, then that is just fine; apprise me of your wish and your name shall be forthright expunged from the list. The nature of any discussion group requires strict paramters. I will list some of the main rules: 1. Only the members of the "SOL Book Group" can recommend or suggest a book to read. 2. One book will be read every month . Since many Nomads are confessed bibliophiles (book-lovers), one month is, truth be told, ample time to read a book. 3. It, the book, need not necessarily be a "classic", but it has to be well known enough so that members can easily access it at a library or bookstore. 4. The discussion of the book will start during the last week of the month . By that time, you should have read a fair amount of the said book; thusly you will be able to make reviews, literary analyses, etc. 5. The first person in the list will recommend the first book, and we will go down the list. The list is random and arbitrary. These guidlines are in no way exhaustive, however, such rules allow for some "structure". If you would like to add anything to the list, then feel free to do so. With Salaams PK P.S. Since Classique "mothered" this infant (i.e. Book discussion group), it is only impartial that she be given the first choice of book.

Nomads To say that the word "Somalian", if it be referred to a person from Somalia, is a misnomer, betrays a gross ignorance of the english language. The word Somalian is actually a standard and formal english word that is to be found in most english lexicons. The word Somalian can be either used as an adjective (i.e somalian food is a delicacy) or as a noun (i.e. He is a Somalian ). In the english language, the latin suffixes ian and an signify "belonging to" or "relating to"; thusly it is often used to indicate and describe a person who comes from a particular place. For instance, someone who resides in the city of Toronto would be called a Torontonian. Needless to say, the afore-mentioned suffix has other uses, but that is not the cardinal concern herein. It is perchance true that the noun, Somali , is more common than the use of the noun, Somalian; however, both nouns are acceptable under the rules of Syntax. With Salaam PK

Classique: Perhaps you can initiate a book review session or a discussion group here on SOL. Someone can recommend a intriguing and worthwhile book (arabic or english) and the Nomads, after reading it, can discuss it. It is, needless to say, prudent to make a deadline as to when the discussion of the said book commences. A reading group on SOL, how refreshing.

Originally posted by Mohamed nuur: ok, when you refer to NUR, do you mean NUR as in ME or is there someone else with the name NUR Something tells me that it is not YOU.

Jamaal_11:- Do you suppose that all men are "selfish at best". Is altruism attainable by someone who is not a prophet? Would I be understanding you aright in making the suppostition that you believe that Humans are intrinsically selfish? Caaqil:- At the outset of this treatise, I have unequivocally expounded that the moral aspect of selfishness is the subject of this thread. Even our worship or "cibaadah" is ultimately selfish. Can you think of but one act that is not selfish? If you know of some such deeds, pirthee, apprise me of it.

"Socrates" kulaha! Alla maxaa magac lagu ciyaaray.

All prophets of Allah were humans, does your philosophy consider them as diametrically selfish? The prophets of Allah, peace be upon them, are not selfish, far from it, fair freind. The muslim exegete(mufassir), Zamakhshari, writes in his exegesis of the Quran, Al-Kashshaf, that the interpretation of the word "ancama" in the the ayah " اولائك الذين انعم الله عليهم من النبيين والصديقين والشهداء" signifies that Allah has given prophets the ability of "selfless worship". That is to say, these righteous persons worship Allah out of sheer love not so that they maybe pardoned from Hell or that they be granted Paradise. Of course, for those of us who have not reached a station in soul purification, we cannot act selflessly. Also, Allah will not punish those who are incapable and unwilling to act selflessly in as much as they observe the Divine Injunctions. Altruism is a exotic fruit that is eaten by a select few. Merry are they, indeed, who are intoxicated by the Love of Allah. Pray, Good Baahane, why did you reply to this topic? Was it a selfish or a altruistic act?