^ Atheer I know nothing and I never claimed to know anything. But beating your chest any more than you already have is making you look terrible. Please tell me what an Islamic scholar is, first, and how you fit that description? Which area of Islamic scholarship do you specialize in? Aqeeda and Tawheed? Jurisprudence? Sharia Law? Which is it, saaxib? Do you have any published works? Do you even attempt to do so in SOL? Have you attended any formal training in your area of expertise? For example, are you a graduate of the Al-Azhar university in Egypt? Or are you a self-taught caalim? How could you teach yourself when, by your own admission, you can't even read Arabic? You associated yourself with e-Nuri but that organization has a body of work (on SOL to say the least). Are you a member of e-Nuri? Would you like to be a member? Do you belong to a mosque in your area where your scholarship benefits the local muslims? Are you invited to conventions to speak on issues affecting muslims? Do you do workshops and teach weekend Tafsiir classes? You see where I'm going with this, right? When you claim to be a 'shiiq' and you're questioned on it, your knee-jerk reaction was to sling mud in every direction. What is so scholarly about your conduct, atheer? I won't hound you anymore. You've done more damage to yourself than anyone could have dreamed. And believe it or not, I'm sad about it. P.S. Ngonge, the hijacking occured much earlier than you think. This is the freeing of the hostages.

^ Now that white South Africans have lost power to the blacks, the only way they could rid themsleves of the locals is to infect them with HIV/AIDS virus and once they do that, prevent them from getting real treatment or access to prevention (new anti-retroviral meds). How's that for a conspiracy theory?

^ Now that's what I'm talking about. Yes, that's exactly what bothers me. How is it that biological natural selection (the one with ample proof) takes a back seat to Social Darwinism (one that has no more than anecdotal evidence)? JB, I knew you'd come to the rescue. Now talk to me about this. What makes Social Darwinism work in favor of religions (ideologies) and not natural selection? This should be good.

^ Atheer, they're actually not using Darwinism to further their agenda but Social Darwinism, a brain child of Herbert Spencer. The latter claims his Social Darwinism shows why strongest (hence smartest, most capable and with strongest moral character) are also most likely to be richest. At the same time, they're rejecting Darwin's natural selection for going against Creationism. That's the paradox the author of this piece is alluding to. So what say you?

Knowing that Bush always gets a spike in his approval ratings after a major policy speech, this CNN article shows just how bad things are going for the neocons. This is CNN, not Al Jazeera. Check it out: Poll: Most doubt plan for Iraq victory (CNN) -- As President Bush launched a new effort Wednesday to gain public support for the Iraq war, a new poll found most Americans do not believe he has a plan that will achieve victory. But the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll released Wednesday night also found nearly six in 10 Americans said U.S. troops should not be withdrawn from Iraq until certain goals are achieved. Just 35 percent wanted to set a specific timetable for their exit, as some critics of the war have suggested. White House officials unveiled a 35-page plan Wednesday to achieve success in Iraq, and Bush used a speech at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland, to tout what he said was progress in getting Iraqi security forces in place to protect their own country. Source And in other news, Insurgents have attacked US bases and government offices in Ramadi, in central Iraq, and then dispersed throughout the city, residents say. Scores of heavily-armed insurgents fired mortars and rockets at the buildings and then occupied several main streets. The attack came as local leaders and US military officials were meeting at the al-Anbar provincial governor's office. Ramadi has been a rebel stronghold for many months. Source Indeed, progress is being made in Iraq and in the US. In the former, it is a slow but steady progress towards a humiliating withdrawal and in the latter, a realization that all that glitters is not (black) gold. Most interesting times.

Originally posted by Rahima: but it has being bought to my attention from a few people (of many tribes,H, D and I ) that Mr. Togane is just expressing the views of his sub-tribe, which is why I question his intentions. So I questioned your intentions for questioning his intentions? You mean you're not calling him a bigot? You're not a bigot yourself? So all this was for naught? What shock, what horror? My sixth sense needs work.

Originally posted by Rahima: One day I will be strong enough to leave for good . Famous last words that they all say.

^ If it's a matter of indecency, then consider it nude art. Some people call it filth, I for one think it's great.

^ HA (Kashnare?), I had no intention inaan Raxima dhinac kaga dhaco. The jokester that I am, I couldn't resist saying that. To have found that line in a sea of words should tell Rahima that, at least I, read everything she writes. Now, what is the problem here? Is it Togane v. the H clan? Is it Togane v. Somalinimo? Is it Togane v. A subclan? Is it Togane v. decency? Is it Togane v. artistic bravado? Is it Rahima v. Togane? I am not an astute judge of poetry (or any other art, for that matter) and his poetry (which I find humorous, informative and enlightening) may be the worst attempt ever at poetry, but I take exception to the false accusation the man is bigoted. That's it chief! Edited to add (you're all sitting on your keyboards tonight :mad: ): Rahima, if I've ever come close to treating you the way I did Xiin, I'd be forever banned from SOL. There's no double standard on my side. I am under the impression you find Togane to be a racist (clanist) because of his harsh words. He's not walaalo. He's crude, rude and cruel verbally. But he's not a bigot. I know the man. If I didn't, I'd not have come out in his defence for I wouldn't know, or care, one way or the other.

Originally posted by Rahima: Any who read my posts would know what I stand for May be that's the problem, atheer. May be no one reads your posts. Seriously, though, does all the gripe you have with Togane boil down to his using the H word? Or is it the A word? What if Togane was a D man? Or an I man? Would his verbal steak knife cut just the same or worse? Does the "fact" that he is of the tribe that he lambasts the most make any difference to the nay sayers? I'm of the opinion that Togane has transcended all of this rubbish we engage in and descends to our level in some of his poetry. He uses, nay abuses, the language we've become accustomed to. The language of tribal nonsense we so eloquently write prose in daily. As you were.

^ I purposely used مثل not to entrap Alle-ubaahne for I'm not that evil but to make it easier for the masry-challenged audience (Ngonge )

The way I learned it was: ضرب الحبيب زى اكل الزبيب. Where زى replaces مثل. That's about all the Egyptians have done to it. The rest is classical Arabic.

Originally posted by SeeKer: Here is the thing since its an all or nothing game. The game is rigged, looking at it from my stance point. We are set up to fail. If we accept faith as the bread and butter of life completely it is then logically you would denounce secularism . Set up to fail for us flawed humans....... brings back memories to questions I had before about faith. Here's the thing: we're not naturally flawed. If we were, then Christianity is the way to go for it tells us we're sinners by birth. I don't believe that anymore than I do the flat earth theory (I can't get over this one ). What we are, are easily corrupted hence the greatest reward going to the most restrained and disciplined. The 'game', if you insist on calling it that, is not rigged. Rigging it defeats the purpose of having a game at all. Even in human courts, entrapment by the police is not admissible as evidence in courts. Why on earth would God entrap us when we've been given the message in its entirety. Yes, even I ponder religion. Homosexuality and its nature is not a mistery. It's not in the realm of the unknown. We've been told it's a deviation. If it ever comes to pass there is irrefutable evidence of it being "natural", we will have a problem. I didn't always but I now believe that day will never come. There are issues, however, of living with and dealing with homosexuals. Courts, the health system, employment, adoption, military service, civil unions, etc.. are all worldly issues people will have to deal with humanely and fairly. These issues are not the same as contemplating the nature of homosexuality. I can't possibly say anymore on this issue.

^ It's always a marvel to see you at work SB. You never tire, never give up. You'd explain this the last time as you did the first time. I'm in awe, saaxib. As for the topic, I was hoping to focus more on the Social Darwinism aspect and how some conservatives, while utterly rejecting the biological Darwinism, would spew the gibberish about wealth and intelligence. What say you SB on this? Are rich people inherently more intelligent and capable than us, regular folk? If they are, and following that argument to its logical conclusion, shouldn't biological natural selection be a no-brainer for the disciples of the "survival of the fittest"? Anyone? P.S. Brother Yeniceri, I'm not ignoring your post. I was hoping not to slide down the "is evolution a fact" slope. That has been discussed ad nauseam in this forum. I encourage you, still, to participate.

^ Careful there with the 'game' analogy. It's been used before with semi disastrous consequences. You should have read the final 5 pages or so of the coffee is homo thread. Push and shove your way past all the ego flying around. Now, let me get back to you after I feed my seeds.

The Conservative Movement, as its progenitors like to call it, is now mounting a full-throttled attack on Darwinism even as it has thoroughly embraced Darwin’s b@stard child, social Darwinism. On the face of it, these positions may appear inconsistent. What unites them is a profound disdain for science, logic, and fact. In The Origin of the Species, published 150 years ago, Charles Darwin amassed evidence that mankind evolved through the ages from simpler forms of life through a process he called "natural selection." This insight became the foundation of modern biological science. But it also greatly disturbed those who believe the Bible’s account of creation to be literally true. In recent years, as America’s Conservative Movement has grown, some of these people have taken over local and state school boards with the result that, for example, Kansas’s new biology standards now single out evolution as a "controversial theory." Until a few weeks ago, teachers in Dover, Pennsylvania were required to tell their students they should explore "intelligent design" as an alternative to evolution. (The good citizens of Dover just booted out the school board responsible for this, summoning a warning from Conservative Coalition broadcaster Pat Robertson that God would wreak disaster on them.) Social Darwinism was developed some thirty years after Darwin’s famous book by a social thinker named Herbert Spencer. Extending Darwin into a realm Darwin never intended, Spencer and his followers saw society as a competitive struggle where only those with the strongest moral character should survive, or else the society would weaken. It was Spencer, not Darwin, who coined the phrase "survival of the fittest." Social Darwinism thereby offered a perfect moral justification for America’s Gilded Age, when robber barons controlled much of American industry, the gap between rich and poor turned into a chasm, urban slums festered, and politicians were bought off by the wealthy. It allowed John D. Rockefeller, for example, to claim that the fortune he accumulated through the giant Standard Oil Trust was "merely a survival of the fittest, ... the working out of a law of nature and a law of God." The modern Conservative Movement has embraced social Darwinism with no less fervor than it has condemned Darwinism. Social Darwinism gives a moral justification for rejecting social insurance and supporting tax cuts for the rich. "In America," says Robert Bork, "‘the rich’ are overwhelmingly people – entrepreneurs, small businessmen, corporate executives, doctors, lawyers, etc. – who have gained their higher incomes through intelligence, imagination, and hard work." Any transfer of wealth from rich to poor thereby undermines the nation’s moral fiber. Allow the virtuous rich to keep more of their earnings and pay less in taxes, and they’ll be even more virtuous. Give the non-virtuous poor food stamps, Medicaid, and what’s left of welfare, and they’ll fall into deeper moral torpor. There is, of course, an ideological inconsistency here. If mankind did not evolve according to Darwinist logic, but began instead with Adam and Eve, then it seems unlikely societies evolve according to the survival-of-the-fittest logic of social Darwinism. By the same token, if you believe one’s economic status is the consequence of an automatic process of natural selection, then, presumably, you’d believe that human beings represent the culmination of a similar process, over the ages. That the conservative mind endures such cognitive dissonance is stunning, but not nearly as remarkable as the repeated attempts of conservative mouthpieces such as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and the Weekly Standard to convince readers the conservative movement is intellectually coherent. The only consistency between the right’s attack on Darwinism and embrace of social Darwinism is the utter fatuousness of both. Darwinism is correct. Scientists who are legitimized by peer review and published research are unanimous in their view that evolution is a fact, not a theory. Social Darwinism, meanwhile, is hogwash. Social scientists have long understood that one’s economic status in society is not a function of one’s moral worth. It depends largely on the economic status of one’s parents, the models of success available while growing up, and educational opportunities along the way. A democracy is imperiled when large numbers of citizens turn their backs on scientific fact. Half of Americans recently polled say they don’t believe in evolution. Almost as many say they believe income and wealth depend on moral worthiness. At a time when American children are slipping behind on international measures of educational attainment, especially in the sciences; when global competition is intensifying; and when the median incomes of Americans are stagnating and the ranks of the poor are increasing, these ideas, propagated by the so-called Conservative Movement, are moving us rapidly backwards. by Robert B. Reich Source

^ What honor? :rolleyes:

^ Skeletons indeed. I'm not one to worry about skeletons though. I'm all for cleaning out the attic.

^ Read about coffee and gays in another (similar) thread on SOL before you respond.

^ I'll take the path of least resistance. Alle-ubaahne, here I come.

^ Having read about Bonobos till I felt ill, it seems to me that extrapolating their behavior to that of humans is a leap of faith at best, and miscalculation of science at worst. We're not even sure why Bonobos do what they do. Is it out of aggression, lust, domination, submission, or are they just having fun? In addition, Bonobos will not have access to the divine knowledge that we do. Sounds obvious, right? It should. If the concept of morality is not even an issue for them, naturally or not, Bonobos will be Bonobos. I can't even begin to alleviate your confusion for I suffered from it. Re-read what Ngonge wrote on belief in God's commandments. It should then become a simple choice of choosing to follow or not follow. I know this doesnt' help. I just had to get it off my own chest.

^ And the two groups distinct they are. So what say you, good Xiin, on how Togane could approach this volatile issue differently than he does now? Would being mellow, non-confrontational or even non-abusive get his point across? Does Togane have to play by the same rules we do? Thanks atheer, that was clarity you spoke amid much chaos.

^ He's not a UN ambassador atheer. He's not a politican or an elected official. He's a citizen and a poet. Questioning the man's religion, his lifestyle, his wherabouts just goes to show how trivial we've become.

^ And no one is denying that atheer. Harshness does not mean bigotry, however. Togane is not a bigot. If anyone would be the critic of their tribe, it is one of them. The poet that he is, he uses the clan name to mean all the killers who damaged us all. He's not talking about innocent men, women and children. If some people take it as such, it is their own bigotry that blinds them to his words. As Somalis we agree on nothing so why should Togane be any different. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Callypso: I'm trying to understand why someone would NOT live a life of "self-hate and worry" if, say, they were devout Muslims and also gay at the same time. Even if they never slept with members of the same sex, human nature would dictate that they agonize about it. To be a really religious person sometimes seems to require a great deal of guilt and a sense of worthlessness. In the absence of conclusive and verifiable scientific evidence showing homosexuality to be a natural phenomenon, we as muslims are obliged to follow the divine teachings of Islam that say it is a deviation. I believe that's what Ngonge is trying to purvey. The quandary would have been the discovery of such conclusive evidence. But there is none, so we're safe in our knowledge in the Quran. There's ample 'research' out there on this issue, none of which by the way, shows with any comfortable degree of certainty that it is natural. What to do then if this is the case and homosexuals don't plan to disengage from their behavior? How do we reconcile our life on earth with the teachings of Islam? The million dollar question indeed. The teachings of christianity (though not followed by christians themselves) may be of some assitance here: hate the sin but love the sinner. I don't know what can be done about this. I've spent much time seeking an understanding of the nature of homosexuality without appreciating the social ramifications of it. It's not clear what we can do about it. Tolerance may be mistaken for acceptance and encouragment. Intolerance may cause some of us to commit other sins or crimes against those we have branded gay. We should all do what makes us comfortable with ourselves, our religion and our neighbors.