Originally posted by Nur: Raamsade You write: what happens to those who don't worship God? First let us define Worship as per Merriam-Webster: Why? What could concievably be gained from defining the word worship. We all got a rough idea of what worship means. It's a simple question with a simple (but uncomfortable) answer. There is no need for obfuscation and muddying the water. Originally posted by Nur: Now let us ask, why Worship? Because God said so in the Quran. Any answer you proffer is your your commentary and reasoning, not God's. God doesn't need a reason for demanding worship; He's above petty human reasoning, He plays by his own rules. You make your God sound awfully like a human creation with human feelings and thought process. Originally posted by Nur: Answer, because, Allah is Sovereign, and you are dependent on Him, so you need to pay respect, due to His worthiness to you as a source of sustenance, and well being in this life and next. Isn't that exactly what I've been saying all along except from different perspective? You're arguing from the perspective of the worshiper and ignoring the perspective of God. There are two sides to this act of worship: Creator and Creation. God needs a worship from his creation otherwise He wouldn't have promised hellfire for those who refuse to worship him. But as I have said earlier this is tepid rationalization for the seeming contradiction between a Perfect Creator and the demands for worship. Moreover, the only reason Muslims, for instance, worship Allah and Hindus worship their multitude of Gods while Buddhists are essentially atheists is because of what the respective religions command. So your argument that "Allah is Sovereign, and you are dependent on Him, so you need to pay respect" falls flat on its face. It implies that EVERYONE is worshiping God because if we're all dependent on Him then it must be self-evident and we all must respect and pay homage to Him. But we know that aint true. Originally posted by Nur: You see Raamsade, you either exist or you dont. Correct. Originally posted by Nur: If you don't exist, sorry, I meant to discuss with a human, not a computer. Sorry, this is too garbled to make sense. Originally posted by Nur: If You exist, you have either created yourself or you are created. This is a false dichotomy and absurd one at it. Why must there be only two false and absurd options? Why can't I be created by a third options: i.e. my parents? I hope your rhetorical abilities go beyond the number two. Originally posted by Nur: Since you dont believe in a god that created you, it follows that you believe that you have created yourself. Wrong! Your second premise was garbled (and probably false) and your third premise was demonstrably false, thus there is no support for your conclusion (that I believe I created myself). Your poorly constructed syllogism notwithstanding, do you have any evidence humans were created by God? Originally posted by Nur: What you are saying is: 1. Life doesn't have a purpose. 2. I am a living thing and part of life. 3. I have a purpose 4. I create my purpose Do you see how confused this is? No, I see how convincingly truthful I am. But care to tell me what you disagree with what I've written. I can understand that, as a religious person, you find the concept of people creating their own "purpose in life" difficult to fathom. As a religious person you believe God has given you a "purpose in life" which is a preparation for the afterlife. I need you to go beyond the knee-jerk shock and give reasoned counter arguments. Originally posted by Nur: Please tell me what is the purpose that you have created for yourself? My purpose in life is to embetter myself, loved ones and the rest of humanity. What is your purpose in life? Originally posted by Nur: OK, you are saying that Universe did not begin as a freak accident, which implies a creator. No, it doesn't not imply a Creator at all. You know, you have a habit of making bold assertion without backing them up. Nothing you've said in this thread or other threads I've read could remotely justify your assertion above. These leaps of logic are characteristic of the faithful. Originally posted by Nur: If you say, NO, then, God and the Universe can not be on this playing field, they are different, which makes it imperative that the decuctive and inductive logic we use for this universe and its creation can not hold water for GOD. This is special pleading (it is a logical fallacy, Special Pleading Fallacy). Why must the Universe have a creator and not God? We need reasoned justification for the exempting God from having a creator besides religious dogma. Do you have any? And you're also contradicting yourself. Earlier you were arguing using "deductive and inductive logic" to rationalize why a perfect God would demand a worship. Originally posted by Nur: True, but First, if in a court I can not prove my case it doesn't mean I don't have a case. You don't have a case if you're operating under Common Law. It's different under Civil Law. Originally posted by Nur: Second, let us assume that you lived during Moses' time, and you have witnessed the Exodus and the miracles he performed to free the oppressed Israelite from the cruel Pharaoh, or you have witnessed Jesus Christ quickening the dead, healing the leper etc, would you have accepted these as proof of God's existence? Yes, I would accept those as legit miracles and evidence for the existence of God. Too bad those miracles never happened and are alleged to have happened when most people were illiterate, in thrall of superstition and magical thinking. But Moses almost certainly never existed. I say "almost" because there is one piece of historical evidence that might suggest someone named Moses might have existed and that comes from the his name which is NOT jewish but Egyptian as in like the pharaoh Thutmoses. There is no historical evidence for any of the stories and miracles associated with Moses, the Exodus or other such nonsense. Originally posted by Nur: Is the Universe Intelligent? No but it is intelligible. Unlike God.

There is no such thing as "sin" outside of religious propaganda.

Originally posted by xiinfaniin: Raamka, requiring gratitude does not necessarily suggest that God is in need of one’s appreciation. So why does God demand worship or threaten hell? Originally posted by xiinfaniin: That requirement is simply a mere test case. From Islamic theology life in its entirety is test given for you. A bigger theological question would be why test at all. Perhaps it’s to see who is wise with his choices---a test after all is to gouge one’s ability to select few options from many. Well, this is yet another contradiction in Islam (and I think Christianity and Judiasm as well). If Islam is true there can be no meaningful test in life or free will. A perfect and omniscient God knows before hand whether you'll ultimately end up in hell or not before he even creates you. The test in life is similar to a teacher who assigns grades before a test but still asks his students to write the test. It doesn't matter what grades you get on the test, your teacher already decided your grades.

Originally posted by Abu-Salman: only after establishing for yourself the necessary existence of a creator, could we therefore come to terms with his attributes and qualities. One doesn't have to believe in Nazism or Communism for one to point out the glaring contradictions in either ideology. Similarly, one doesn't have to believe in God or religion in general to comment on contradictions contained within. Originally posted by Abu-Salman: It happens that I currently possess Arabic literature specifically explicating the parts of the Qur'aan that may seems ambiguous or contradictory for those of us not yet proficient and would happily part with it along other surplus, should you PM some details in all confidentiality... I have no problem understanding the Quran but thanks for the offer anyways.

Originally posted by Nur: Reminding you for the last time, I wrote that Allah does not need His creatures, and that His creatures need Him . But you chose to understand that this statement means that Allah needs to be worshiped , how absurd a comprehension saaxib? It's not about understanding but reasoning. You say His creatures need him, let me ask you: what happens to those who don't worship God? Do they not, according to Islam at least, get punished for eternity? What choice, if Islam is true, do His creatures have but to worship him? It's plainly clear to any sensible and honest person that God, as described in Islam, not only needs worship (and slavish submission) from his creation but demands it at the pain of hellfire for eternity. Originally posted by Nur: If you believe that you have created yourself and that there is no purpose in life, and that the universe began as a freak accident, then, why does it matter to you what God is and what not? Created myself? I'm sorry but how does that work? How can I create myself if I don't even exist? Second, life in general doesn't a purpose but my life does. It is a purpose I have created. Third, the universe didn't begin as a "freak" but if it did, so what? You have no trouble in believing in a Uncreated God, why do you find difficult to accept uncreated (or freakishly created) Universe? And I like to provide some semblance of reason amidst all the superstition and magical thinking being bandied about. Originally posted by Nur: Frankly, if I was in your shoes, I wouldn't have bothered that kind of question before I resolve the more basic issue of the possibility of existence of a God who created you and the Universe which you have dodged in our last discussion. Burden of proof lies with the claimant, in other words those who -- like you -- claim there is a God and afterlife to prove it. I don't have to resolve anything since there is no good reason to do so in the first place. And God didn't create me (my parents did) or the Universe. But now we can see more clearly why you're so anti-science and reason because you got one helluva theological axe-to-grind. What discussion did I dodge?

Originally posted by Fabregas: @Ram, you're old to insult other people roun here, just not Somali clans of course. I don't follow you. I insult somali clans. Is that what you're saying?

According to my sources, the battle for Buulo-barde is still raging on. We'll see tomorrow.

^I don't think you should make blanket generalizations against entire people.

"Ethiopian troops enter Beledweyne" This is a lie. They were Somali troops that were stationed in Ceelgaal. Must be desperate times for Alshabaab and their sympathizers. You can tell this story is a lie by noting the other development in Beledweyn -- the fact that some disgruntled clan militia, claiming to be Alshabaab, terrorized civilians in Western part of the city. Now, we know for a fact Alshabaab or their sympathizers will not dually control a city with Ethiopian troops. Hell, they will not be found dead anywhere near Ethiopian troops as evidenced by their cowardice retreat every time they hear Ethiopian troops are near by. So, does it make sense to you that Ethiopian troops entered Beledweyn in the same day Alshabaab "took" parts of the city?

Originally posted by Nur: Saaxib, Allah is perfect and has no need from his creatures, but its the creatures who need to connect with their creator in the form of obedience and following His natural and revealed laws. This rationalization is a clear abdication of reasoning and complete submission to religious dogma. In other words, it is total concession of the debate to me since you have provided no substantive response to what I've written. All we get above is a mangled rationalization of why God is perfect but is also needy. This rationalization is so feeble that it only survived for a about a paragraph because by the third paragraph you write: "you Raamsade and your ilk, ( and you are a many) are a living proof that your Kufr and denial... but you are in dire need to call it quits and bow down in surrender saaxib and you know it. The sooner, the better, and this is a caring advice from your Paesano" ... So God is now needy and requires my surrender? As the above quotation shows, there is a consequences for not worshiping God. Not only does God need gratitude from us but if we don't worship him and show Him gratitude we risk burning in hell for eternity. As I wrote to Abu-Salman, the attributes of God (perfections, self-sufficiency etc) and what is asserted He demands of his creation can not be rationally reconciled. And no amount of mental yoga will change that.

Originally posted by Abu-Salman: As usual, we see only what we chose to see, revealing our own pre-conceived assumptions in the process. No preconceived assumptions here, just calling out the blatant contradiction. This thread offered an understanding of the word Kufr. In the original post, the etymology of the word Kufr was analyzed and a context for its use was provided. The analysis reached the conclusion that Kufr describes one who turned his back on his Creator or showed ingratitude. But there is a glaring problem with this conclusion. God of Islam (along with Christianity and Judiasm and perhaps other religions as well) is said to be perfect in every sense of the word and in need of nothing including gratitude. A perfect God can not, by dint of pure logic, need a display of gratitude from his creation. That is what being Perfect entails. Either God is not perfect in which case He requires a show of gratitude from his creation or He is perfect and in no need of gratitude. It's either one or the other. But you can't have both at the same time. This much is obvious to any rational person. It's just that those bound by religious dogma can not accept the obvious truth. This is the terrible price religious dogma exacts on the faithful. Originally posted by Abu-Salman: Yet, although you specifically chose to focus on the Qur'aan, this core requirement was the reason behind all revelations, including those from which no or scant data has survived... What revelations are you referring to in the last part? If no data survived, how do you know they even existed?

Deadly gun battle in Gaza mosque At least 13 people have been killed and at least 85 injured in a fierce gun battle in Gaza, emergency services say. Eyewitnesses say hundreds of Hamas fighters and policemen surrounded a mosque where followers of a radical Islamist cleric were holed up. Hamas fired rocket-propelled grenades at the mosque and stormed the leader's house in Rafah, near the Egypt border. It is thought that at least 100 supporters of the al-Qaeda-linked group, Jund Ansar Allah, were inside. At least one Hamas fighter was killed by a grenade fired from the mosque but most of those killed were supporters of the cleric. One child was also killed. The entire neighbourhood was sealed off as the shooting continued after dark - in what was one of the most violent incidents in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip since an Israeli offensive in December and January. It was not immediately clear if the mosque's imam, Abdul-Latif Moussa, was captured during the fighting. Fighting pledge Earlier, during Friday prayers, hundreds of worshippers at Ibn-Taymiyah mosque declared Gaza an "Islamic emirate". These declarations [of an Islamic emirate] are aimed towards incitement against the Gaza Strip Ismail Haniya, leader of Hamas in Gaza Abdul-Latif Moussa and armed supporters swore to fight to the death rather than hand over authority of the mosque to Hamas. During his own Friday sermon, the leader of Hamas in Gaza, Ismail Haniya, dismissed Mr Moussa's comments. "These declarations [of an Islamic emirate] are aimed towards incitement against the Gaza Strip and an attempt at recruiting an international alliance against the Gaza Strip. "And we warn those who are behind these Israeli Zionist declarations: the Gaza Strip only contains its people." Jund Ansar Allah (Army of the Helpers of God) gained some prominence two months ago when it staged a failed attack on a border crossing between Gaza and Israel. The group is very critical of Hamas, which seized Gaza in 2007, accusing the Islamist group of not being Islamist enough. Hamas has cracked down on al-Qaeda-inspired groups in the past, the BBC's Middle East correspondent Katya Adler says. Hamas is concerned they may attract more extremist members, and has forbidden anyone except what it describes as Hamas security personnel from carrying weapons in Gaza, our correspondent says. BBC Hamas is not Islamic enough? Hamas assaulting a mosque? Whodathunkit! But big up to Hamas, they sure know how to deal with Jihadi wannabes.

Originally posted by Nur: I agree with you that they have been created for a purpose, just like the Awakening Councils in Iraq by the US Occupation forces after failing to tame the Iraqi resistance for the past six years. The Awakening Councils were created by concerned native Sunni Iraqis who were unhappy with the attitude, behavior and actions of foreign sunni Jihadists led by Al-Qaeda's main man in Iraq, Al-Zarqawi. The collaboration between the Awakening Council and the US occupation forces was one of mutual interests. A kind of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." The SAME people running and fighting on behalf of Awakening Council were often times the same people fighting US troops only months earlier. So no love was lost between them. The US assisted the Awakening Council only after it saw active interest and self-organization on the part of native Sunni iraqis. Just like they supported the Beshmerga and Kurdish political ambitions in Northern Iraq. Originally posted by Nur: 1. Who created the Somali Sufi Militias, provided them with financial assistance and weapons? No body provided them with "financial assistance and weapons." Do you have ANY evidence for such insinuation? In case you haven't noticed, the whole Somali peninsula is awash with weapons already. The Sufi Militias were created by the natives of the regions they operate for the purpose of defending against Salafi onslaught and preserving the Sufi way of life. This is why it's been so difficult for the Salafi hordes to overrun the Sufi strongholds. It's difficult to beat a determined foe fighting on own turf. Originally posted by Nur: 2. Who have The Salafi movements provoked and against whom have they committed said crimes? They provoked Somali Sufis. Their crimes include: desecration of the graves of Sufi saints and prohibiting Sufi practices like visiting the graves of venerated shiikhs. These acts alone suffice as justification for picking up the gun and fighting to preserve the traditional Somali Sufi way of life. Never mind all the other barbaric Salafi crimes -- such as beheading village elders, stoning to death 13 yr old rape victims, looting, forcing women to adhere to draconian dress codes, kidnapping children to fight their war, invading peaceful Sufi towns, uprooting and killing thousands of Somalis as result of using civilians as human shields. Originally posted by Nur: 3. Nature of the crimes you allege that the Salafi groups have committed? See above. Originally posted by Nur: 4. The US occupation of Iraq was prompted by the non-existent Saddam's weapons of Mass destruction (WMD) , and Saddams LINK with Al Qaeda in Iraq , both claims have since been proven a big lie. Technically speaking it was not a lie. There is no solid evidence that it was a lie. A lie is, by definition, saying one thing as true when you know it aint. There were indication before the invasion that Saddam did have a connections with AL-Qaeda and was resurrecting his WMD program although the facts may have been stretched and the evidence a bit far-fetched. There were indications nonetheless. So no lie there. Originally posted by Nur: That big lie , resulted in the death of 1.5 Million Iraqis and the destruction of Iraq's entire infrastructure and a non ending civil war. Explain to me, who has committed a bigger crime, Bush or Zarqawi in Iraq? Funny, last time I checked the casualty figures were about 100,000 civilian deaths and about 10,000 US soldiers. How did those figures balloon into 1.5 million Iraqis? What are your sources? With regard to who committed bigger crimes, Zarqawi or Bush... I'm assuming that's a rhetorical question and won't dignify it with a response. When you can get me tapes of G. Bush beheading a living and screaming human being, I might give you a response. Originally posted by Nur: can you see the US preposterous claim of Al Shabaab's LINK with Al Qaeda? . What are you talking about? Alshabaab DOES have links with Al-Qaeda mainly along ideological lines but also material as well since men who have fought and trained under Al-qaeda in Afghanistan are now (and were) members of Alshabaab. Where do you think suicide bombings and road bombs come from? There is no known history of somalis using these tactics before Alshabaab. Originally posted by Nur: Hence, if the two situations are similar, and the claims from the US are identical in the case of Iraq and Somalia, does'nt that mean that the Somali Salafi groups are innocent victims and have nothing to do with Al Qaeda (which we all know is a US created genie to advance its geopolitical strategies worldwide) ? Alqaeda is NOT US creation since the ideology of Al-Qaeda (Jihad against the unbelievers) predates the creation of the US. Al-Qaeda's ultimate objective is rooted in Islamic ideas and history and has nothing to do with modern policies. Second, the competition (often bloody) between Sufi and Salafi for the hearts and minds of common Somalis has been going on since at least late 1800s or early 1900s. It's not a new phenomenon.

Originally posted by Nur: Raamsade asks: Ingratitude towards who? Toward The One And Only , who gave you life, sight, hearing, intelligence and created you for the definite purpose of surrendering to His will by following his natural laws, and revealed commandments in the scriptures, of the Torah, Gospel and the Quraan. Nur But that would make God needy and human-like. A God that needs his "creation" to show gratitude is not a self-sufficient and perfect God. The Quran says God is perfect and self-sufficient. So which is it: the God that takes slight at human ingratitude or the perfect and self-sufficient God?

Somali Sufi militias were created in response to the unremitting provocations and crimes of Somali Salafi Militias (namely, but not limited to, Al-Shabaab). Same thing happened in Iraq. It was Al-Zarqawi and his Salafi gang who were ultimately behind the creation of the Awakening Councils.

Originally posted by peacenow: Very good news this happened. These pakis where their to teach taliban behaviour. Well they chose the wrong country. Good riddance they are gone. All of them should be shipped back to where they came from. I agree completely. Teaching Islam in Somalia a generation or two ago "might" have been ok. Because back then Islam was mostly benign and depoliticized and its teachers and proselytizers were humane, gentle and generally decent people. That's all gone nowadays. Modern "tabliiqs" spread virulent, politicized and hateful form of Islam that's alien to Somalia. These born again muslims are constantly angry (at everything and everyone), dour and impersonal. This version of Islam they spread goes by various names, among them include: Talibanism, Wahabism, Islamic extremism and what have you. It was alien to Somalia and Somalis just 5-10 years ago. But not any more. We now regularly hear of Somalis being arrested for "Islamic" terrorism and blowing themselves up in suicide operations in the cause of Allah. Now, since we know these ideas are not native to Somalia, then they must have come from abroad. There is two avenues for this message to reach Somalis. One, Somali foot soldiers learn these pernicious ideas from abroad and bring them to Somalis. Second, foreigners themselves come to spread them in Somalia. Do not be fool yourselves into believing those shiikhs came to Somalia to teach alif ba ta... they probably came to preach martyrdom and Jihad, i.e. terrorism.

I'm happy to read this woman's ordeal has finally ended. It's by now clear that she was done wrong. But do you know what's also putting a smile on my face? It's the vindication, yet again, that Liberal Democracy is the best system to live under. It is the only system extant that can deliver real justice. Here you had a woman that was accused by the mother of all The Powers That Be -- i.e. the central government -- of fraudulence. Not only was she able to challenge this accusation but lived to tell all about it. What's more, she can still pursue compensation for the ordeal she went through. Under what other conceivable political systems would this woman's ordeal have had similar ending?

I think Riyaale's painting really does it for him... he looks like a freak of nature.

Originally posted by Nur: Kufr is the epitome of ingratitude. Nur Ingratitude towards who?

Another African separatist group, No. 452568 and still counting. At first they all claim to be fighting for freedom and justice but are first to deny these ideals as soon as they get into power. Even worse is their use of ethnic or religious distinction as the basis of their movement. Hope Ethiopia eradicates these vermin.

This is too ludicrous to be true but then again we're dealing with Alshabaab, a group that that gloats over suicide bombing operations that kill scores; beheads its enemies for merely talking on the phone to someone they don't like and cuts the hands of alleged thief for stealing $90 worth of goods. With Alshabaab, expect the absurd.

Originally posted by GAAROODI: Naxar Nugalled, adam smith was a economist the man who created capatilism he was not what we would call a social thinker, he was more about money and markets. Adam Smith didn't invent capitalism; he merely wrote a book describing the mechanisms of capitalist economy. And he certainly was a a philosopher. He wrote The Theory of Moral Sentiments and was originally trained as philosopher. Economist as a profession didn't exist during Adam Smith's time. My favorite philosopher is Ludwig Wittingstein.

^And yet Somalis (and other immigrants) go to "USELESS and quite honestly prejudice" Canada by the droves. Go figure!

^And yet Somalis (and other immigrants) go to "USELESS and quite honestly prejudice" by the droves. Go figure!

Looking very Presidential. He sure got the right stuff.