Travelling can be a very fruitful experience. Muslim scholars and philosophers of old have always encouraged travelling. Indeed, it would be a shame if one does not become enlightened after travelling... I believe Shafi', the ingenious Sunni Jurist, penned this poem regarding the virtues of travelling ساÙر تجد عوضا عمن تÙارقـــه وانصب Ùإن لذيذ العيش ÙÙŠ النصب مــا ÙÙŠ المقام لذي لب وذي أدب معزة Ùاترك الأوطـــان واغترب إني رأيت وقو٠المــاء ÙŠÙسـده إن ساح طاب وإن لم يجر لم يطب والبدر لولا Ø£Ùول منه مــا نظرت إليـــه ÙÙŠ كل حين عين مرتقب والأسد لولا Ùراق الغاب ما قنصت والسهم لولا Ùراق القوس لم يصب والتبر كالتبر ملقى ÙÙŠ معادنـــه والعود ÙÙŠ أرضه نوع من الحطب

I have suggested that the caption of the General forum be changed to "Off Topic" or "Community". Most of the Nomads of this site are rather afresh when it comes to forum administeration, so let me give you a cursory introduction. It does not matter one bit if the title "makes you feel that it is nonsense" , "does'nt sound great" , or if it "adds flavor to the forum". It is an editorial decision desgined to improve the quality of the fora. Appeals to emotion will not change this. General topics are topics that do not have a distinct "focal point". That is to say, topics are general if, and only if, the topics are either too nebulous or too ambigious. The word "General", if it be referred to mindless social chit chat, is misleading. More than 6/8 of the topics in the off topic section are more or less devoid of any substantive meaning. Therefore, it is prudent that there be a forum where Nomads who have a tendency to while away the hours with mind-numbing chit chat can go to. This way the quality of the other forums can be salvaged. Of course, this is not to say that there is anything "wrong" with the Off-topic section, because sometimes one needs to be casual. At any rate, the title is very befitting of both the topics and the "respones" to the topic. With Salaams PK P.S. If the title of this forum does irreparable damage to your emotions, then you do not have to post in this section. Perhaps you might want to try to post something in the Islamic, Debate forums. This way you can "contribute" something to this site and save your precious ego.

I have expressed my view on the matter, the ball is in your court. Do you have any "ideas"?

Originally posted by JamaaL-11: Alle-ubaahne, you are a far-sighted brother. Maasha-Allaah sxb. Too empty to opine in a articulate vein are you, Good Cali? One would have thought that even you are above "endorsing" acerbic ad hominems. Is this the "summum bonum" of the debate forum? Those who are willing to debate are disparged, and those who are not willing to debate applaud he who berates ungratiutously? I think you like to see me exasperated beyond endurance. Or perhaps I have misconstrued your true intentions, Good Cali. In reference to a pervious exchange that we had, you used the word "plagiarize" to mean "unorginal"; I wonder what it is that you mean by "far-sighted". Is it possible that you are looking for the antonym of that word? The "Baahane" character you are applauding did not so much as write anything pertaining to the subject of this thread. Please do reread his proposition once more as you will find the truth of what I am saying in its midst. You always fail to understand the underlying concepts of any subject by engaging some trivial and unimportant matters. This is a clear ad hominem. Insults are, indeed, the trade of the broken man. Will the poster expound the nature of these "trivial and unimportant matters". Let us peruse the rest of the post. Your failing philosophy displays this incompetent impression of you! Again, this does not address the subject of the thread. Why do you think that insults are a sign of "far-sighteness", Good Cali? assimilation and integration are nothing but the same words in literal sense of the whiteman's linguestic books! Finally, a statement that is relevant to the subject of this thread. Be that as it may, it is neither intelligible (i.e. comprehensible) nor intelligent (i.e. enlightening). I am confident you would agree that the phrase " the same words in literal sense of the whiteman's linguistic books" is nonsensical and unintelligible. I have provided the definition of Integration and Assimilation as it is used by those who make regular use of it(english speakers and writers), and as it is found in an english dictionary ( this is what "reportive defintion" means). What is "the same words in literal sense of the whiteman's linguistic books" suppose to mean? I must confess that I have a hard time comprehending poor writing, so can you explain the meaning thereof. Do Baahane a favor and explain to me in proper english what he means. understand the meaningless advocacy you wage for the secular west and its psuedo idealism, but none of those things are acceptable within the Somalis. I am still looking for anything remotely "far-sighted". If you think disparagements are a sign of farsightedness, then I will, sincerely, importune the Lord to heal you of this ailment. I discussed with you a while ago about the concept of existantialism in which you insisted the existance of Allah is technically and intellectually unverifiable because your western science says so! This "straw man" is irrelevant. What has this to do with this thread. You take that argument to your mentaly imbalanced scholars as well. Such people of your likes irritate me when I see their faulty reasoning which is nothing but to pretend white man by acting as their beloved rep. agent. That is so sickening, indeed! Please let these charming people of ours enjoy here by ceasing your meaningless advocacy and smearing back our Islamic values, can you? Ilaahay baan kugu dhaarshe ma hikmad iyo aragti baad hadalkaan ka dhadhamisay? Are these insults even relevant to what I have penned in this thread? Dastardly chicaniries are to be fulminated against not endorsed! I can only hope that you will look at this matter objectively. With Salaams PK P.S. To the intiator of this thread: I can only hope that you are different.

And the derangement continues...

تضاحكت بينهم معجبا*** وشر البلية ما يضحك NGONGE: That I am affected by divine delight as I read aspersions and ad hominems is as true as that which is red all over cannot be green, a "necessary truth". I will ask the obfuscated poster to pen thoughts, to wit, ad hominems that are creative and comical. I would recommend the poster to write his dispargements in a poetic form and preferably in Arabic. You see, I procure optimal delight when I read arabic defamatory poetry or الهجاء . أبت Ø´Ùتاي اليوم إلا تكلماً * بسوء٠Ùما أدري لمن أنا قائله٠أرى لي وجهاً شوّه الله خلقه٠---- ÙÙ‚ÙبّÙØ­ من وجه٠و Ù‚ÙبّÙØ­ÙŽ حامÙله٠The above-poet is referring to none other than himself. I will mayhap say the following, after the poster pens his thoughts: تجاوز قدر الهجو حتى كأنه ..باقبح ما يهجى به المرء يمدح

How does one stay Muslim yet be integrated into this society? You see, the terms integration and assimilation are not, despite the the misinformed responses of others, synonymous. Indeed, there is clear difference in meaning that has nothing whatsoever to do with the misapprehended "negative connotation". Integration, in this context, simply means providing people of different social and racial backgrounds with "equal oppurtunity" whereas assimilation means the adoption of the Mores and Ethos of the "home culture" by the minority segment of society. In other words to say that Muslims have been assimilated in North America, for instance, would mean that Muslims have espoused the cultural, ritual, and social norms of North America. On the other hand, if one says that Muslims have been integrated in the North America, then one is stating that Muslims are afforded an equal and urestricted oppurtunity, viz., social oppurtunities (i.e. work, school). What does integration mean to you (although ultimately it's how they define it that matters)? Do you think that words have a "private" meaning. For instance, when I ask you to hand me the scissors could I possibly "mean" the glue? This is not plausible or even feasible for that matter, because if I "meant" something else by scissors, then we would not be able to communicate aught. Integration is an english word and it "means" (i.e. defintion) exactly the same to everyone. The word "integration" does not require a stipulative or essentialist definiton, rather a reportive defintion is the requiste signification. Perhaps you meant to query as to what the "concept" of integration entailed, the repercussions, implications, and ramifications as it were. As I have penned down above, integration contextually means, in sofar as minorities are of concern, the equitable provision of oppurtunity. Integration essentially means assimilation but perhaps recognizing the negative connotation associated with it, it's better to market it as integration? Perhaps you meant to say that the west is attempting to assimilate Muslims by integrating them. After the integration process(i.e. unrestricted and equal access to "social goods"), the west hopes that the muslims will assimilate themselves. In any event, integration helps minorities more than it hinders them. As regards assimilation, it depends on one's personal belief system. As far as I know, irreligousity encourages one to re-evaluate one's values, to use a Nietzchean phrase, to better one's social and economic prospects. If one be a muslim, however, then one cannot espouse anything unislamic even if the adopting thereof is socially and/or economically advantageous. I suppose the late Egyptian, Islamic revivalist, Sayid Qutb, would have protracted one to a dialogue, finding ill in the process of assimilation. In his celebrated masterpiece, Milestones or معالم ÙÙŠ الطريق, Qutb argues that to partake of an unislamic system of goverenment howsoever, is, forsooth, to challenge the Soveriengty of Allah. The concept of Uluhiyyah intimately implies that the power of Legislation and Rule belong to Allah alone, and to give this attribute to a mere mortal is a mold of putrid polytheism. Qutb correctly deduces that to follow man-made rules on everything is to worship Man, because legislation stems from one of Allah's attributes. In the western world, the laws are made by the people, for the people. To accept valueless man-made laws is inimical to Islam. Does this mean that one should not stop at red lights or stop signs as they are "man-made"? No. Perhaps I should, in accordance with Wittengstein, say "back to the rough ground". A concrete example of Qutb's proposition would be voting in a "طاغوت" goverenment. According to Qutb, voting in an unislamic system of goverment is proscribed, because by voting one assents to partake in an exercise that leads to the conception of "ungodly" legislation. Moreover, if one, for instance, has voted for Senator John F. Kerry during the recent US Election, then one has consented to give the Masachussete's senator the power to "legislate" in all domains of human life. It matters not an iota, Qutb vociferously decries, what is the rationale for partaking in a goverment that decides everything that is good and bad. The "lisan al-hal" لسان الحال clearly says that Allah is a God and the US system of goverment (i.e. congress, house of representitives etc.) is a God. Some scholars invoke the age-old juridical formula that "Necessity supercedes proscription" (الضرورة تبيح المحظورات). What if it is necessary that one vote so as to attain representation. If one does not have "representation", then one's rights will be swallowed by the quicksand that is the unruly american environ. They argue that Jews are well represented because of the influence of the jewish lobysists in Congress. Therefore, if a candidate promises Muslims that he will curtail acts of racial profiling and unconstitutional apprehensions, then one ought to vote for such a candidate. This is simulataneously a delicate juridal query and an intricate doctrinal enquiry. In any event, a muslim never "assimilates" (note the inverted comma) into an unislamic socitey. Sometimes assimilation can lead to an unpardonable sin, viz., Shirk. With Salaams PK P.S. It is incorrect to assert that either Muslims will be assimilated or Muslims will be left behind. That is equivalent to saying, "you are either young or you are old". Clearly, this is not an exhaustive premise as you can be "middle-aged". Muslims might be integrated without being assimilated. The afore-mentioned premise commits the fallacy of false dichotomy and as such is erroneous.

Originally posted by Sophist: Nina ninkiis ma dhalo. Xirsi Magan *awoowe* waa nin rageed; caqli nin uu biyo dhigey. I have the pleasure of seeing him regularly. One of the most intelligent Somali elders I have had the pleasure meeting-- wuxuu isoo xusuusiyaa ragii OLOL iyo Maan buuxiye lahaa. Xirsi Magan, this name has the ring of familiarity. Xirsi Magan, if we be referring to the same person, is a freind and collegue of my father; Xirsi graduated from the University of Columbia(ivy league school) many moons ago. I have had the pleasure of meeting Xirsi Magan whilst I was travelling Bari a few years ago. The conversation I had with him after making a phone call at Netco (a telecommunications company in Bosaso), although breif, was memorable.

I have written a few "risaalaat" or "treatises" on ma'rifah, 'irfan, or gnosis. Insha Al-Xaq, time permitting, I shall post some of my thoughts on this. With Salaams PK

If one attains actual freedom (i.e. control of the nafs ), then one will be forever satisfied. Ramadan, indeed, is a soul exercise (riyaadah ar-ruuh)that is meant to teach one how to control one's soul. Firstly, the soul is restrained by putting on hold the natural appetite (i.e. food, intercourse etc.). Secondly, the soul is cultivated by a qualitative and quantitative increase in worship. Afterwards, one will put to work, in subsequent months, what one has learned through the soul training of Ramadan. As a result of fasting(fasting is two: fasting from material things such as food and fasting from immaterial things such as backbitting, insulting etc., the latter being "macnawi"), one will hopefully be, better able, to worship Allah by abstaining from that which is unlawful ( the fasting of Ramadan teaches and trains one to "abstain" from that which is proscribed). In addition, one will worship Allah more, because during Ramadan one has also learned to "force" the nafs to improve and increase the Cibaadah. ياايهاالذين ءامنوا كتب عليكم الصيام كما كتب على الذين من قبلكم لعلكم تتقون Ideally, one will be beaming with spirtual light as the month of Ramadan comes to a conclusion. However, this beaming light will inevitably grow dim as time goes on. Light bulbs must needs be changed every once in a while, and the energy of the soul like a light bulb grows dim. If one is fortunate enough, then one will live to witness another Ramadan; in other words, one will be granted another chance to change the light bulb. O Allah! do not deprive us of the chance of recharging our spiritual light. With Salaams PK P.S. When this blessed month comes to an end, one should ask Allah repeatedly for another Ramadan. Allaahumma balliqnaa Ramadan.

That there is nothing "wrong" with being childish there can be no doubt. The suppostion that most of the respondees of this thread are adolescents is not a gratitous judgement. During my adolescent years, I can recall, quite vividly, (quite memorable I might add) the incessant, irrational, inimical exchanges with many a female. Ah! How green and fresh I was. Of course matters and methods evolve as one reaches the midpoint of one's life. Indeed, different it is now than then. Alas, I am afforded the comforts of "youthful bickering" no more! "When I was child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish things"; this biblical aphorism aptly amplifies and captures my approach.

What is a "Somali's" view of Shiism ask you? Surely you are not serious about formulating a question so misinformed and asanine. The view of "Somalis" of Shiism has no relevance at all in the same way that the view of a Chinese person towards shiism has no relevance. By God, what possible relevance can this question have? Are you doing a research in which the view of a particular people of an islamic sect is a part thereof? Should this be a formal research, then you ought to, perhaps, construct a formal survey, because you will not obtain a "representitive sample" from this site. Also, I doubt that this is a research, but if it is a research, then I must say that it is not in accordance with academically accepted manuals. Somalis are predominantly Sunnis and as such do not give credence to many shia doctrines. Do you know the stance of the Ahlu Sunna towards shiism; the stance of the sunni somali is no different. I thought that this much was even obvious to even those who have a modest understanding of sectarian islam; however, you have proven to be an exception. I cannot really emphasize this enough: the opinions of laymen have no bearing on the legitimacy of islamic doctrines. If you want to know the verdict of those who have an islamic erudition (scholars from all sides), then you can consult the appropriate literature and sources. Perhaps you were anticipating an ill-concieved conjecture of the following nature: "Umm, I think the shia are kafirs, because they worship their imams" or "Shias are good. Sunnis very bad. They pray like the Zorastrains. I am shia." In both replies, the affirmative and the negative, the respondees, clearly, have not the intellectual or islamic knowledge to opine either way, and to ask of them for an "opinion" speaks volumes of the enquirer's rationale and Reason. P.S. You say you are a Shia, good for you. I was not particularly interested in knowing this. I suppose I will take this into account whenever I converse with you. :rolleyes:

DO NOT GO GENTLE INTO THAT GOOD NIGHT Do not go gentle into that good night, Old age should burn and rave at close of day; Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Though wise men at their end know dark is right, Because their words had forked no lightning they Do not go gentle into that good night. Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight, And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way, Do not go gentle into that good night. Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay, Rage, rage against the dying of the light. And you, my father, there on the sad height, Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray. Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light. Dylan Thomas

I am not a Somali

This topic clearly belongs in the General Forum.

Well, I think it is healthy that the Admins and Moderators have a unique sense of humor. I think this character should be kept around, because even I had a good chuckle whilst reading this thread. Political comedians are warmly recieved at SOL.

Originally posted by Nationalist: To answer your question Nassir: 1- It resembles the writing script of the Amhara. 2- It's associated by many tribalist Somalis as a script of a certain clan. Thus adopting it would be proof for them that this clan is more superior than others. These days, a minority in Puntland can read and write Usmaniya and the newspaper Horseed stopped publishing after Siad Barre's coup. I consistently use the Usmaniyyah script when I am reading and/or taking notes. Also, many of my collegues are also acquainted with the use of the Usmaniyyah script. It is not a script used by a single clan. In other words, the abandonment of this script by the majority of Somalis has nothing to do with what you refer to as "tribal associations". First, the Usmaniyyah script does not resemble the Amxaro script at all. The similarities are so miniscule so as to be negligible. Second, to say that the afore-mentioned script, if adopted, would give a clan a form of "superiority" is simply foolish and ill-concieved. I suppose tribalists will, naturally, have qualms over everything and anything, but they had no bearing on the abandonment of the Usmaniyyah Script. If you consult authortative sources on the history of the Somali written language, then you shall find that the rationale for not adopting the usmaniyyah script was due to the influence of colonial masters. In fact, Somalis intially wanted to espouse either Arabic or the Usmaniyyah scripts as the formal written script of communication. The hegemony of colonilal rulers discouraged the use of an original somali script. Hence, the adoption of the Latin alphabets and orthography. With Salaams PK

It seems that both the meaning and significance of this poem was lost on those who replied. Foolish I was to expect more insighful and informed remarks from the hoi polloi .

I think the poet of this poem I think is مشاري بن راشد العÙاسي . I am not, however certain of this. I am not a fan of the particular "wazn" employed in this poem. Be that as it may, this poem I enjoyed.

Originally posted by NGONGE: Heh. All true and very informative, saaxib. I for one welcome this voluntary lesson. Still, I believe the topic of discussion to be unworthy of an academic like rigorousness when penning a reply. I might be wrong. One could say NGONGE that rara avis among SOL members, he fancies replies' as engendering "academic rigor". Think you my reply was a "alot of writing" too?

Originally posted by Jumatatu: It is hypocrisy that I dont like not Puntland. Infact I have my roots established in Qardho, guess that will give many people hints . [/QB] I went to Qardho during my visit of Bari in 1997. Although it is not as developed as Garowe, Galkacyo, and Bosaso, it is, nonetheless, a great city. One benefit of living in Qardho (at least back then) was reliable electricity(i.e. eeneeyo). Even in Bosaso, electricity was only available every other night(of course if you have a motor or a generator then you will be fine). Perhaps this has changed.

I have neither the aptitude nor the time to translate this poem into english. Perhaps some of the better translators of SOL can offer you a hand. The phraseology of this poem is eerily similiar to the one in Sura Al-Qamar. Islamic scholars have always maintained that the phraseology of the Quran was original. The rhetoric of the Quran was something entirely new to the bedouins of Arabia, to wit, the juxtaposition of the words and phrases. The poem of Imru Al-Qays provided a reason to doubt the superiority of the Quran's rhetoric if not the Quran itself. The far-famed Sunni hersiographer, Al-Shaharstani, argues in his book Al-Milal Wa' Nihal that a deviant sect founder was the author of this poem and not Imru Al-Qays. There is no way, argues Shaharstani, that this poem was written before the time of the holy prophet. Other islamic scholars, not being plagued by this poem as Sharahstani, did not see the need to reject the ostensible author of the poem. Instead, they argued that even if Imru Al-Qays was the author of this poem, the similarity in phraseology is impertinent. The principal superiority of the Quran lies in its meaning not its expression. There is more to this subject than I have penned, but brevity is the soul of wit or so they say. With Salaams PK

If she was referring to her inaptitude with regards to the Somali language, then she has made a double referential ambguity. Ambguity in language, whether it be double referential or grammatical, ought to be avoided. And finally, words only have meaning when they are used in a context; "meaning as use" is a philosoco-linguistic theory of meaning, and with respect to other competing theories of meaning, this theory is accepted by linguists, philosophers, and philologists (i.e. Chomsky, Wittengstein et al) to be the most plausible. The adverb "actually" cannot mean anything in this context save that she does not understand most of what I pen. Thusly, clarity requires that the proposition be written as "I actually understand your Somali" not "I actually understood what you wrote". One cannot, if one be a good writer, assume unnecessarily, anything about the reader. Although this might be percieved by some as painfully pedantic, I must own, it is imperative that we avoid, as best we can, ambiguities of language. A writer cannot assume that a reader knows something about the writer; this is the rationale behind an acedmecian's literary castigation of "personal allusions". Allusion, although an effective poetic device, cannot be erroneously invoked. With Salaams PK

Originally posted by Sullen_Sue: mutakallim, I actually understood that, and Amen to that. You know what they say ignorance is bliss. It seems that you are insinuating that you do not understand most of what I write; the adverb "actually" signifies that. I am sorry to leave you behind. I suppose Thomas Gary, the eighteenth century poet, was right when he wrote "Where ignorance is bliss, 'Tis folly to be wise". He was not, however, advocating that ignorance is always acceptable. I am sure you have heard the cliche "what you do not know cannot hurt you". This, I think you would agree, is not true With Salaams PK

Originally posted by sheherazade: Call them names that have nothing to do with one another and let the kids have some space in their entwined destiny. Twins have a "entwined destiny"?