Why would any wily wadaad tell a down-trodden, disenfranchised woman that she need not wear the Burka costume. It's just not in his interest. A wadaad would rather have four, burka-clad wives whom he can beat on the divine pretext of insufficient obedience . Had I not been an ethical humanist, I would be a muslim fundementalist. Mutliple wives, sanction to beat, and helpful angels who will curse on my behalf whenever one of my multiple wives refuses to have sex. As a male, the system is rigged in my favor. But I shall not succumb to such moral turpitude. I guess the fate of muslim women rests on the shoulders of free-thinking, fiercely intelligent females like Naden, Lazyie, Cara et al. Wadaads aren't into womens rights.

Unsurprisingly, stories of conversion (to a relgion) and deconversion (from religion) seem to differ in one crucial aspect; the former is oftentimes defined by a sudden, emotional transformation with little or no thought at all, while the latter is characterised by a lengthy, incremental process, spanning many years and resulting from much ratiocination.

Originally posted by Pucca: But then, if allah is doing that for women...why not just make men content with just one woman in heaven? wouldnt that just solve everyone's problem? I just dont understand the need for this 70women per every man incentive that men are offered. Sure that may be what every man wants (and heck, why wouldnt they when they're promised the strength of a 100 men?!) but what incentive do we women get? What if i dont fancy gold? or silk? subhanallah, may allah forgive me if im wrong in questioning. But it really just doesnt make sense ya know. Bless A mind's a terrible thing to waste. Pucca you're on the right track. Keep thinking. Don't stop.

Intact hymens. Perky breasts. The Quran goes out of its way to describe the female body. Sh. Nuurow, why isn't the Quran as detailed about what the pious women get in this regard? Oh, I get it. Speaking about perky breasts and unbroken hymens is not vulgar, but mentioning a huge phallus would be just obscene. Castro

^ Can you dig feeding any creature, say, a creature from our species? The indigenous Yanomamö of South America allegedly eat the ashes of their deceased with banana paste and soup. Spurred by sentiments of affection and devotion, these noble savages believe that by consuming a beloved one they can imbibe the decedent's traits: courage, wisdom, and kindness. Endocannabalism is such a heart-warming form of cannibalism, but I'd much prefer to be gormandized by hyenas and vultures. I always thought I didn't give a toss whether I was burnt, eaten, or thrown into a hole whenever my brain grinds to a halt. My views have evolved a little: I think I want my bones to remain. Assuming there's no repeat of the near-perfect annihilation of all life on Earth, the end-Permian extinction, the so-called great-dying, and assuming we homo sapiens don't go the way of 98% of all species ever to have inhabited this pale blue dot, I want my bones to take their place in the fossil record a few million years hence - Cicero Somalicus. What would those future species of primates think of us?

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: ^^What makes it so unfeasible, from a historical standpoint, for Adam to eat the forbidden fruit or for Noah to build the Arch giving a safe vessel for xayawaanaat and xasharaat as you put it? Lets forget about professor Samatar’s intellectual slip, and focus on your claim that historians and the methods they employ are utterly incompatible with biblical claims of the past. Start with Noah’s Arch, if you will, to show that it’s scientifically unconceivable for such event to had taken place. There are many ways atheist ridicule religious articles, but citing history as a proof against religion and faith is new to me. perhaps Cicero can educate us all. Of course I don't think the biblical and quranic Adam is even a real, historical personality sxb. He's every bit as fictional as Shakespeare's Hamlet. You would think that the theory of evolution put such local creation myths to rest. Oh well, evidence never persuaded or disusaded the pious of anything. But I digress. I never said that history disproves religion, but that the study of history makes one less credulous and more critical of religious fables. I quoted the Professor's article because he employed proper historical methodology, by not appealing to supernatural causes. Smallpox was the culprit behind the army's decimation, not divine birds. A Historian can belong to any religious persuasion (Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc.), but all historians must adhere to shared assumptions and criteria: what happens in the natural world, what the evidence shows, what is observable. Every religious tradition has a set of peculiar miracle claims for which there is no evidence. Should we accept all miracle claims as historical, rather than theological, claims? I suppose Zulu miracles are also historical. Piffle! Historians do not (and cannot) presuppose God. History deals with the natural, observable world. God is not observable; and hence, what he ostensibly performs (miracles) are outside the domain of history. Religionists have a congential defect when it comes to respecting boundaries. Why do the pious always encroach upon other magisteriums - this time magisterium of history. As for Noah's mobile zoo and the ensuing global floods, it is historically inadmissible as it implies the occurrence of a miracle. Miracle stories are best left to the imagination of theologians. Historians deal with the probable, the empirical, and the real. How else could history salvage a semblance of objectivity?

Paragon, revisionism is not a naughty exercise when it comes to the practise of history. Historians do it all the time. As new evidence is discovered, the previous historical account is revisited - and if necessary- revised. The same thing happens to scientific hypotheses. Sometimes no new evidence is found, but historians ask bold, new questions about the available evidence, giving birth to more research, and consequently, more meaningful accounts of the past. Having said that, I think one restriction bears mention. Revision does not give the historian carte blanche to trundle down the road of relativism. There's no major contention amongst working historians insofar as most historical issues are concerned. The dispute is almost always at the periphery, not at the heart of the narrative. To the chagrin of cultural studies enthusiasts, pommies, and all variety of pseudo-intellectuals, there is, indeed, a 'limit to interpretation'. No historian worth his salt, for instance, denies the reality of the Holocaust, or the basic facts and causes of American Slavery. Some matters are not amenable to revision. You're remarks about the illusory nature of 'facts' or objectivity intimate that you are a kind of 'intellectual' anarchist. LOL. It would be interesting to see the nuts-and-bolts of your epistemological apparatus. As someone trained in the natural sciences, I am astounded whenever I read the obscurtantist jibber-jabber of Derrida or Foucault, or any iconoclast of the humanities, or the latest fad in critical theory, I can't help but get on my scientific pedestal, and trumpet the objective, brute facts and theories of science. Tuujiye, haa sxb. Ilaa yaraantaydii waxaan ahaa mulxid. Quraanka iyo sheekooyinkiisa markii lay sheego waan qosli jiray. Aadan baa geed cunay oo markaa cawradiisa ayuu arkay, iyo Nuux baa doon xasharaat iyo xayawaan ku guray, iyo quraanji iyo shimbir oo sidii dadka conversation caadi ah ku hadlaya. It all seemed like something from the Wizard of Oz or Alice in the Wonderland but less intriuging. I think I always had a hope that Islam be reconcilable with reason, that hope became forever shattered as I became more educated. I'm just not capable of such intellectual double-think.

************deleted********** [ February 04, 2010, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]

Che, sxb, stop focusing on tangential personal issues. Derision is not my intention; nor was it the intention of the Professor. Let's not get distracted by imaginary, ulterior motives. This is about nature of objectivity and knowledge. I have a dear Christian freind, a meek and gentle faith-head. She really believes that the resurrection story of Jesus is a historical fact, that he was actually raised from the dead. One has to distinguish historical propositions from theological ones. This thread is meant to introduce the discpline of History to lay readers. History is not all bunk. Mythology, on the other hand, is.

*********this was a violation of SOL rules. Please avoid mocking other people's faith.************ [ February 04, 2010, 10:51 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]

***********deleted************* [ February 08, 2010, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: Admin ]

I just watched the clip. Congrats to all the diligent and intelligent Somalis out there.

Originally posted by Naxar Nugaaleed: You guys remind me of the witch hunters in monty python sketch. A mob demanding, in this case, a member should be banned for his views: He has insulted our culture, our woman and now our children, lol. Come down people, no harm is done, if don't like someone's view of things, move along. LOL. Good grief. I just pictured some of the melodramatic Nomads on SOL weilding pitchforks and torches, giving chase to poor peacenow, an ill-fated Somali expatriate. Qabtooy! Waawareey! Tol'ayeey! Somaaliyaay! Wuu na caayay. Gabadh buu wax ka sheegay. Gowraca! Gowraca! Gowraca! The remarks of Peacenow were arguably in poor taste. You can ignore him as Paragon does, or teach yourself how to control your emotions; it works for NGONGE. He's probably livid with peacenow's crusade against arabs, but tolerates it just the same. No histrionics.

Originally posted by Naden: As God slaps his giant hand over his slightly more giant forehead, he wonders where he could have gone wrong. Is it the book, he wonders? Nah. Is it the message, he ponders? Can't be! Oh wait, it is the bint heblayo hebel. A spontaneous abortion in the first week was ever so narrowly missed God didn't stop the earthquake in Haiti because it serves a moral purpose; it's spiritually edifying, a cosmic shock-and-awe. Abortion, on the other hand, is just gratuitous evil. God would never countenance it.

I don't think you can paint all feminists with a broad-brush. If it weren't for those vocal, fiercely intelligent 'feminists' in the womens rights movement, history would give a different verdict on this struggle. That being said, feminists have their fair share of loose canons and crackpot shrews. They often prowl around for non-existent wrongs so they can express deep offense and heartfelt grievance. In a 1998 review of the book: Intellectual Impostors by Sokal and Bricmont, Dawkins says The feminist 'philosopher' Luce Irigaray is another who gets whole-chapter treatment from Sokal and Bricmont. In a passage reminiscent of a notorious feminist description of Newton's Principia (a "rape manual"), Irigaray argues that E=mc2 is a "sexed equation". Why? Because "it privileges the speed of light over other speeds that are vitally necessary to us" (my emphasis of what I am rapidly coming to learn is an 'in' word). Just as typical of this school of thought is Irigaray's thesis on fluid mechanics. Fluids, you see, have been unfairly neglected. "Masculine physics" privileges rigid, solid things. Her American expositor Katherine Hayles made the mistake of re-expressing Irigaray's thoughts in (comparatively) clear language. For once, we get a reasonably unobstructed look at the emperor and, yes, he has no clothes: The privileging of solid over fluid mechanics, and indeed the inability of science to deal with turbulent flow at all, she attributes to the association of fluidity with femininity. Whereas men have sex organs that protrude and become rigid, women have openings that leak menstrual blood and vaginal fluids... From this perspective it is no wonder that science has not been able to arrive at a successful model for turbulence. The problem of turbulent flow cannot be solved because the conceptions of fluids (and of women) have been formulated so as necessarily to leave unarticulated remainders. Yes. You read that right. There's plenty of proofs in Newton's Principia that demonstrate his perverse yearning to ravage women. And Einstein? Why was he so obsessed with light? Duh. The speed of light is a big number. And men like to use big things to dominate women. There I said it. P.S. I think all pommies (post-modernists) and ninnies should peruse this book. Oh no, they'll just start deconstructing it won't they? :rolleyes:

Amna, dua is about as effective as twiddling your thumbs. It gives you (and others) something to do, but does not change anything. Maybe you're antiquated attitudes about halal and haram are making it difficult for you to meet people. Go out more. Don't be affraid to date someone if he piques your curiosity. Have fun, experiment, go wild. Life's too short for prudery. Good luck.

^ So the Burka is a just a benign expression of pious credulity, similiar to the mormon underwear? I disagree. The origin of the Burka, unlike the magic underwear of the Mormons, is a societal structure in which the inferiority of women is axiomatic. It's not simply a matter of religious observance. To say that Afghani women wear such clothing due to inclement weather is just cruel humor. Those who wear it in the West are often extremists and radicals. I'm still not convinced that banning the Burka encroaches upon civil liberties, or that it creates a slippery slope when it comes to government interference. NGONGE , good stuff.

Originally posted by *Ibtisam: [QB Errr Acudbika, A God using a man made invention(microphone) to let us know he is god (you brain was not even creative enough to assume if he made the world, he surely will have a way to communicate so that we can all hear) :rolleyes: [/QB] God has a throne ('arsh), chair (kursi), pen (qalam), tablet (lawh) and other furniture - all human inventions too. He could add a microphone to the collection. You see, if the people who wrote the Quran (ancient arabs) knew about modern tools and devices, they would claim that their God has it too. Of course, they would add a very important, albeit amusing, distinction: God's microphone is not like human microphones; God's chair is not like human chairs, as if chairs and microphones are anything but human things.

If God really wants to speak to humankind, then surely I can think of a dozen ways he could do it. Maybe write something in the starry heavens, or maybe just, for dramatic effect, take a microphone and say: Hello, Humankind. This is God speaking to you. Umm, I created the Universe, okay? I decided to make a public announcement since sending you a private message by whispering into the ears of some men isn't getting anywhere. Anyways, I also created Heaven and Hell. But don't worry. Now that I'm not hidden anymore and there's evidence of my existence (aren't I speaking to you aloud) none of you will go to Hell on account of using your brains.

^ Don't you find it strange that people who call themselves prophets these days populate mental asylums and sanitariums? Humanity has come along way. We know too much about science and nature to take charlatans and crazies seriously.

If someone standing beside you in the subway claimed that giant, invisible angels spoke to him and then launched into half-coherent blather about the revelation he recieved. Instead of God saying Wa Shamsi Wa layli, he says Wal Ipod, wal Linux - indeed the marvels of your Lord are many. Would you inch towards this person or away from him?

Ibti, the reason why I reject and oppose Islam does have a foundation. It's reason and logic, experiment and observation. Islam claims that Muhammad is a special person, a prophet of God; that the Quran is the miraculous word of the creator of the Universe. But these are very extraordinary claims with scant evidence. In fact,there's nothing in the Quran to suggest it's a miracle. It can be explained by natural and historical causes. Verses like beating women and the obsession with menstrual cycles and female control all point to the unmistakbly human origins of this book. I think it is a good sociological record of 7th century arabia. It provides anthropologists with insights into the arab pysche. But it's not a good manual for ethics and morality.

Mustafa Kamal Ataturk, the father of the modern republic of Turkey, banned the veil - his country is better off for it today. Peter the Great of Russia, in his various attempts at modernizing and westernizing Russia, introduced a beard tax. Maybe there should be a Burka tax of some sort in Somalia.

Oh what the hell. Let me indulge you. "I'm warm, wet, and people come inside me". What am I? Swimming pool. *plays the trumpet: wa wa wa* Almost as unfunny as Jay Leno.

originally posted by Ibtisam This verse neither permits violence nor condones it, while it uses the term "beating" and only applicable in extreme cases and ONLY if one is sure it would improve the situation, if it only worsen the relationship or may wreak havoc on him or the family, then no he can't. Furthermore, the prophet expanded on this as "dharban ghayra mubarrih" which means "a light tap that leaves no mark" and not on the face. So if my husband was practising Muslim in all aspects and I was in the wrong, then a light touch by siwak, or toothbrush is the least of my worries. And Yes I have no problem with he man being the head of the Family and in charge of ME and his family, while I was living with my parents/family then it is them who are in charge of me. This is quite a gem of torturous reasoning. I find it curious that muslims twist themselves out of shape when it comes to explaining this odd verse. Explaining God's nuances for beating and hitting a woman must be a source of much embarrassment for modern muslims. What is strange is that the verse says: as to those women on whose part you fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), refuse to share their beds (second) , beat them (third) Imagine if an inexperienced marriage counsellor told a man going through maritial problems: try talking to your wife; if that does not work, give her the silent treatment, and don't sleep in the same bed; if the situation does not improve, then beat her. Did I mention lightly? Such a marriage therapist would not be excused on grounds of inexperience, but he would rightly have his license revoked, uncerimoniously run out of town, and slapped with criminal charges and civil suits. For what can be more idiotic, unethical, misogynistic, and imbecilic than counselling a man to visit violence upon his wife? How illogical is such advice? You would think after step two, not sleeping in the same bed, that the conflict between husband and wife has reached dire levels. How does step three, beating her, magically make things better, not worse?