^^^ it aint clicking, i mean the somaliland issue, so pls rid it.

^^^ knowing men from the net, is to load yourself with a burden of regrets and a great deal of 'lifeless'. keep away gals. men, i mean some, turn out too bad. ragii lagaranaayay ayaaba tabar loo la'yahee, nin laga bartay qadka, talow muxuu noqon!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

^^~~~ mob psychology has the lowest degree of rationality. when many say out of their feelings without clear opinions as to why, it makes the whole issue of talking nonsense and results in loss of sight. knowledge should be in full force and should trigger the reasoning. the problem sets in when some muslims dont know, what makes someone a muslim and what not and failing to know exactly what being a muslim entails. no sane muslim shall ever advocate for secularism or western ways of living, ONLY IF THEY KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN. p.s irrespective of who thinks what, islam is the only true way of living. and come what may, it shall raise and rule.period

~~`empty vessels make most noise!!! ultimum puzzle,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i am and am not just mean i was and I aint, if being is, i dont know what is, is,,,,,,,,,,,,, ninbo meeshu udhumo ayuu reerkii moodaa, p.s. rag iska dhicin iyo RABI ka cabsasho meel ma wada galaan,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i thought only qofkii aaminsan RABBI inuu isticmaali karo this mahmaah, and this justifies jb knows the existence of RABBI

maaddeey mashaALLAH. that is really marveleous. this website has it, www.addacwah.com or www.aflax.net

^^^it beats logic to see a 'purposeless being' like raamsade should be bothered about humanity!! after all, he doesnt know what he is or why he is here,,,,,,,,,,,only after he defines himself shall he be 'being'. nur thanks for the translation. p.s; its important to note that islam is one thing and alshabab is another. islam is perfect but alshabab is not, they can commit wrong which is subject to corre ction,

~~~~charles knows how to hunt them, in thailand and nepal, even in india. i really like the man. though he is in jail in nepal, waiting for justice. anyone who follows the natgeo channel knows exactly what am talking about!!!!!

!!CICERO!! ^^WHAT MAKES THIS FELLOW DIFFERENT, STILL REMAINS MYSTERY. he/she is an indifferent function in the equation of humanity, where feeling is the limiting factor!!!!!! may ALLAH HELP THE SISTER. AMIIN ps.when the world is too you, stand for others.

^^mz, congrats. let them say, watasema na wata choka.

~~~when has it ever occured women being equal to men???? :mad: such ideas ruin the essence of the two gender, and do many know that, equality is not JUSTICE?? when someone talks of women rights, aint he/she being baised towards the other sex(men),,, i wonder then, where the equality comes in? but to mention, aint it men who deprive women their 'rights' and yet fight for women 'rights'???? who is fooling who? ps. women are different from men in anyway, and the two can never be equal, but if the equality means, equal opportunity, then theres no need for women rights.

b.adeer, if on earth any religion calls for its people to think and reflect, it must be islam .period. that does not need any evidence. not to understand is not a problem, but not wanting to, is. my point is, sincere and healthy asking calls for sincere and healthy responce. ps.seeking knowledge is a noble course.

Originally posted by burahadeer: .AS for inheritance,why not let each family run as it sees fit. I guess you forcing facts to fit impossible desires. i know a muslim and i know a non muslim. for a muslim, he/she follows what islam says. for a non-muslim he has no business in what muslims do, beacuse he/she is least bothered.

Originally posted by genius pauper.: for such a tittle;"a secular somali state" the points you would discuss should have been, what really secular means, its origin, its merits and what factors in somalia makes it favourable for such system of governance, what secularity entails and its building blocks, compairing secularity with other system of governance,,,,,,,,,,,,,and many other scholarly forms of deductions,[QB] i have no business in attacking someone i dont know. :mad: all i call for is, sincerity in purpose should lead us and not mere personal feelings. theres nothing wrong with expressing ones feeling or what he/she thinks about something, but let clarity be the defining guide. ps.islam is there to be, come what may. wata sema na wata choka, ,,

ailamos, its funny when you irritate your essence of logic. i thought to misinteprate is not an adult way of escaping reality. the fact remains, your deeply personally held views, cant mean alot, my point was, if at all you deem you are educated, let that be manifested in what you do, than come up complaining about what others feel right. i thought previuosly you were preaching, lets tackle the poster's point and not attck him/her, least you forget.(it shows, preaching water and taking wine) i aint any ambigiuos as you, but very clear,. to be told the tittle of your thread and the package therin aint in compliance, is but that sugar coated, rational criticism, and if you feel offended, you should come scholary with a different equation. mark you, reasonability is not a monopoly of secularity neither does constructiveness come with ill sighted uneducative utter as yours. ps. if anyone appreciates the difference in opinions, ailamos you stand executed by time.

^^^ailamos, take note that your thread is lacking any focus, for theres no any central theme it is dwelling on, irrespective of your tittle ''a secular somali state?'' you would have better tittled it '' an attack on the underlying blocks of islam"" i guess that sounds better? isnt it? ilko iyo warbo waa la cadeeyaa. for such a tittle;"a secular somali state" the points you would discuss should have been, what really secular means, its origin, its merits and what factors in somalia makes it favourable for such system of governance, what secularity entails and its building blocks, compairing secularity with other system of governance,,,,,,,,,,,,,and many other scholarly forms of deductions, but just coming up with conlusions based on refuting the bases of the islamic sharia, means you are either baised,(which means your intollerant to others believing in contrary to your believes) or that you lack the knowledge to scholarly bring out course effect relation about the subject.it does not fail to capture any educative eye, the faults and loopholes in your arguement, and that it really narrates one eye perspective, which renders injustice the scale to measure events. as if the thread was on what in islam are you incomfortable with, your flooding the floor with uneducative insights of the genesis of your hatred.!!!! p.s islam is a religion and those who follow it are muslims, least you confuse.

!!~~^^ ailamos, iga wareeji noo

posted by ramsade ''Don't be fooled by Jihadi propaganda that all Muslims want Sharia. It's a lie.'' i wonder why the lie of others bothers him, while he himslef is more liar than them bye the fact he is a liar by any standard. if on earth anyone was fooled, i bet it MUST BE YOU. for they pumbed non-sense in the name of non-faith in you.( i guess u wont ask whom i refer them to) ''When given the opportunity Muslims, time and again, gravitate towards den of Kafirdom which indicates that they favor Secular Democracy over Sharia Theocracy. '' i wonder when such weak indication amounts to your sound observations, and for others you see as fallacy.(my point is how does it indicate) raamsade, i thought you know, secular democracy is not a branch of atheism, then i end up asking why all this energy. as for you, till we finish the other thread about GOD, its immature to talk about system of governance, because you even dont know why your here, i mean on earth!!!!

IF DARWIN HAD KNOWN ABOUT DNA The Darwinism That Developed in a Climate of Ignorance -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aspect of The Cell Discovered In the 20th Century In the second half of the 20th century, advances in the field of molecular biology entirely altered our perspective on the miniaturized world inside the cell. With today's rapidly developing technology, biologists have become aware of the flawless and complex mechanisms possessed by the cell, realizing that these could not have come into being by chance or spontaneously. Most of the systems that constitute the cell are smaller than the wavelength of visible light. Some details in the cell can be examined only by advanced techniques such as X-ray crystallography. However, at the time when Darwin launched his theory, the level of science was extremely backward. Not even the basic structure of the cell had been revealed, let alone the discovery of the helix structure and data capacity of the DNA molecule, which James Watson and Francis Crick revealed nearly 100 years after the publication of Darwin's book The Origin of Species Darwin had no means of foreseeing the advances that molecular biology would subsequently make. Clearly, his theory of evolution built on fundamentally flawed knowledge and hypotheses cannot account for the existence of a structure like DNA, which amazes scientists. The well–known Cambridge University philosopher Dr. Stephen C. Meyer compares modern science with that of Darwin's day: During the last half of the twentieth century, advances in molecular biology and biochemistry have revolutionized our understanding of the miniature world within the cell. Research has revealed that cells--the fundamental units of life-store--transmit, and edit information and use that information to regulate their most fundamental metabolic processes . . . biologists now describe cells as, among other things, "distributive real-time computers" or complex information processing systems. Darwin, of course, neither knew about these intricacies nor sought to explain their origin. Instead, his theory of biological evolution sought to explain how life could have grown gradually more complex starting from "one or a few simple forms" . . . in the 1870s and 1880s, scientists assumed that devising an explanation for the origin of life would be fairly easy. For one thing, they assumed that life was essentially a rather simple substance called protoplasm that could be easily constructed by combining and recombining simple chemicals such as carbon dioxide, oxygen, and nitrogen.5 However, some scientists, the heirs of Darwin, still consider that atoms spontaneously combined to give rise to complex living things. In the light of the extraordinary advances made in the field of molecular biology especially over the last 50 years, it is quite astonishing that Darwin's claim should have survived this long. This state of affairs is admitted in a statement by Dr. Richard Lewontin, an evolutionist and Harvard University biologist and geneticist: . . . evolution is not a fact, it's a philosophy. The materialism comes first (a priori), and the evidence is interpreted in light of that unchangeable philosophical commitment. 6 Because of their devotion to materialism, the inheritors of the theory of evolution are generally unable to accept scientific facts. They therefore insist on trying to carry an outdated 19th-century scientific conception into the present day. However, the facts are too evident to be covered up by any superstitious philosophy. In the Qur'an, Allah reveals that there will be those who "use fallacious arguments to deny the truth" (Surat al-Kahf, 56). In another verse, He tells us: Rather We hurl the truth against falsehood and it cuts right through its brain and it vanishes clean away! Woe without end for you for what you portray! (Surat al-Anbiya', 18) The Cell Is More Complex Than a Major City Some four billion years ago, according to the evolutionist scenario, various inanimate chemical substances entered into reactions in the primitive Earth's atmosphere; these then combined with the effects of lightning and earthquakes–and thus the first living cell emerged. The fact is, however, that the structure of the cell is more complex that even the most populous and technologically advanced city. A great many systems operate non-stop with a flawless organization, from power stations that produce energy inside the cell to protein-producing factories, from a freight system that transports raw materials to decoders that translate DNA, and a dense and constant communications system. For evolutionists to believe that the cell came into being by chance is as illogical and nonsensical as claiming that all the buildings, roads, transportation systems, electricity and water networks in a city such as Istanbul, with its almost 15 million population, came into existence spontaneously as the result of such natural phenomena as storms and earthquakes. Prof. Gerald L. Schroeder, an Israeli scientist working in the fields of physics and biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) describes the order inside the cell: DARWIN WAS IGNORANT OF DNA In advancing his theory, Charles Darwin could not account for the variety of species. In any case, he would have not been unable to, being ignorant of DNA. Darwin knew neither genetics, nor biomathematics nor microbiology–branches of science that emerged only after Darwin's death. He made illusory deductions based on the limited means at his disposal and on visible similarities among living things. Since the above branches of science had not yet emerged, he had no opportunity to investigate the cell. The period in which the claims of the theory of evolution were put forward is therefore important in terms of our seeing the dimensions of the ignorance concerned. The human body acts as a finely tuned machine, a magnificent metropolis in which, as its inhabitants, each of the 75 trillion cells, composed of 1027 atoms, moves in symbiotic precision. Seldom are two cells simultaneously performing the same act, yet their individual contributions combine smoothly to form life. 7 Despite being an evolutionist, the late astrobiologist Carl Sagan speaks of the amazing order in the cell as if it were a work of art: 1- Nucleus 2- Centrioles 3- Mitochondria 4- Endoplasmic reticulum 5-Ribosome 6- Golgi body 7- Chromatin 8- Micronucleus 9- Microvilli 10- Lysosome 11- Cell membrane 12- Cophula 13- Cell pore 14- Pyroxysome 15- Cell skeleton In its complexity, the cell resembles the structure of a large city. Yet the order within it, far too small to be seen with the naked eye, exists in every one of the 100 trillion cells in the human body. A living cell is a marvel of detailed and complex architecture. Seen through a microscope, there is an appearance of almost frantic activity. On a deeper level it is known that molecules are being synthesized at an enormous rate. Almost any enzyme catalyzes the synthesis of more than 100 other molecules per second. In ten minutes, a sizeable fraction of total mass of a metabolizing bacterial cell has been synthesized. The information content of a simple cell had been estimated as around 1012 bits, comparable to about a hundred million pages of the Encyclopedia Britannica. 8 The nucleus inside the cell bears the DNA, the most important genetic material. Mitochondria inside the cell turn glucose (in the form of food products) into energy packets. Microscopic tubes extend throughout the cell, constituting vital pathways along which proteins and other required substances can be carried to the appropriate location. In addition, the billions of cells in our bodies build all their systems out of molecules, at the same time consistently maintaining and repairing themselves. As well as performing their own tasks, they also renew themselves.9 They also obtain their own energy. Prof. Werner Gitt, director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology, emphasizes how the cell is far superior to any machinery made by human beings: "The biological energy conversion system is brilliantly and cleverly designed that energy engineers can only watch, fascinated. Nobody has yet been able to copy this miniaturized and extremely efficient mechanism."10 In his book Blind Faith: Evolution Exposed, the science writer Howard Peth states that there is no such thing as a simple cell: Formerly, it was thought that a cell was composed of nucleus and a few other parts in a "sea"' of cytoplasms, with large spaces in the cell unoccupied. Now it is known that a cell literally "swarms."' That is, it's packed full of important functioning units necessary to the life of the cell and the body containing it. The theory of evolution assumes life developed from a "simple"' cell - but science today demonstrates that there is no such thing as a simple cell.11 1- Tissue 2- Cell 3- Cell nucleus 4-DNA strips packaged as chromosomes 5- DNA helix All the details of the body are coded in the DNA in every cell of every living thing, whether it be a flower, a chick or a child. In conclusion, cells are not simple sacs of jelly, as was imagined in Darwin's day. On the contrary, as the 20th century physicist and astrobiologist Prof. Paul Davies puts it, they resemble computers with the most highly advanced technology, or complex cities. ---------------Chapters----------------- FROM THE DEPTHS OF THE UNIVERSE TO THE DNA MOLECULE THE MOST ADVANCED DATA BANK KNOWN: DNA ASPECTS OF THE CELL DISCOVERED IN THE 20TH CENTURY THE SOURCE OF THE DATA OF LIFE THE DNA MOLECULE'S MIRACULOUS STRUCTURE DNA'S EXTRAORDINARY DATA-STORAGE CAPACITY THE CRYPTOGRAPHY IN THE DNA MOLECULE PROTEIN SYNTHESIS: THE MATCHLESS PRODUCTION SYSTEM RECORDED IN DNA THE WORLD'S MOST ADVANCED COPYING TECHNOLOGY THE BUILDING PLAN RECORDED IN HUMAN DNA DARWINIST-MATERIALIST ERRORS REGARDING THE HUMAN GENOME PROJECT THE INFORMATION IN LIVING STRUCTURES AND THE END OF MATERIALISM SOME OF DARWINISM'S ERRORS ON THE SUBJECT OF DNA HOW THE MIRACLE OF DNA INVALIDATES THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DNA IS AN EXAMPLE OF OUR ALMIGHTY LORD'S CREATIVE ARTISTRY 5. Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs, From First Things 102, April 1, 2000 6. Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism By Opening Minds, InterVarsity Press, Illionis, 1997, p. 81 7. Gerald L. Schroeder, The Hidden face of God, Free press, 2002, p.49 8. Carl Sagan, "Life" in Encyclopedia Britannica: Macropaedia, 1974, pp. 893-894 9. David S. Goodsell, The Machinery of Life, Springer-Verlag, New York Inc., 1993, p. 45 10. Werner Gitt, In the Beginning was Information, Mas­ter Books, 2006, p. 243. 11. Howard Peth, Blind Faith: Evolution Exposed, Amazing Facts Inc., USA, 1990, p. 77 http://www.harunyahya.com/books/darwinism/if_darwin_had_known/if_darwin_had_known03.php

!!##what on earth. when does a blind blame others for not seeing, waa yaabe.!! waa duni aakhiru samaan ah, runti. personally i feel, ramsaade should question himself why s/he is here on earth, than go round preaching that,, the ipod is the product of someone, but the universe just came by chance. mathematicaly, in a basket of green, yellow, and red marbles, numbering 100,(assumethat each is in proportion to the other,till when they number 30 forfeit the others on prorata respectively, because picking is but a afucntion of time) what is the chance of continuously picking red marble till you finish picking all the red marbles in the basket???? if you feel your clever enough to question, it beats logic if you fail to answer this. lol ailamos, why bring your secularity issues everywhere? i thought u started a thread to that effect??

~~`why would johnny b show any concern about giving or war in somalia........... he/she should atleast conclude on the search of the reason behind his/her existence on earth. i bet he/she would not question whether i exist, lol

^^ to single out part of the islamic sharia as a failed time tested issue, may render one miss his faith. if anyone, for any reason thinks that securality is an option for islamic shariah, he/she must be a product of western wave tailored to question the rationality of ethics and morality. deep insight may render ailamos and the like mided folks ask for the sake of 'rational criticism'~~^^^

^^^nin noloow maxaa aragti kuudhiman.^^^ alxamdulilah.

what on earth is ailamos saying????????? lx is but exactly the opposite of what your saying and in addition, your qoutes show him against what you dare claim on him. the quotes show that lx is not pro-taqalud of culimaa, because, despite his respect for them, he checks their sayings for compliance with what the prophet (s.c.w) said.

masha ALLAH. am really happy about your post laba-x. thnks

Asalamu caleykum wrwb all muslims bros and sis for the issue of somalia, it aint one sided, but a function of multiple events. in fact-wise, here we go,, islamically, it aint negotiable to get rid-off non muslims occupying forcefully ardal muslim.period. it is a must to fight them, irrespective of the means you employ, COME WHAT MAY.so, to fight amisom or whom ever follows them falls in this category. perfection is not an attribute of the human. irrespective of the good intention you have, as human, you act within the faculty of committing wrong. there are many mistakes committed. and others will be committed. that doesnt mean, it is right to commit wrong, but it is wrong to commit wrong.so here falls dadka sida qaladka loo diilay oodhan.( runta weey fiicantahayee, horaan, waagi qabqablayaasha, yaa isweeydiin jiray qofkii ladilo??? runti waxaan u arkaa ineey horumar tahay in dadka kusoo bararugeen muqadasnamada dhiiga aadanaha) there are elements of bad within the fold of muslims like munafiqiin. about the issue of hotel shamoow, the act was wrong and wrong, but with regards to who did it, it calls for further clarity.(koleey muqawamada sida looga bartay, markeey howlgal sameeyaan, weey sheegan jireen. lakiin hadaad leedahay, tan arday ayaa kujirtay, oo saas ayaa loo qariyay, cadeyn uma haayo) for muslims to fight between them, is something which can happen without anyone ceasing to be a muslim.this is clearly stated in the quran. for the issue of who is wrong or right, one is definately right and the other wrong.under islamic rulings, it is fitnah, and we muslims are better to not discuss it. absolutely, implementing ths islamic sharicah, is a must, following the islamically prescribed rules. to curse a muslim or abuse him/her waa wax laga fiicanyahay,,,,,,,,as a muslim, i would prefer inaan uduceeyo. ALLAH HANOO XIFDIYO DALKEENA IYO DIINTEENA. AMIIN