Prof. Samatar, Elephants, Somalis, and History

[Tuujiye]

As far as I know this is waa sheeko guud. Hadday adiga kugu gaar noqotto waa shiddo aanan xal u ahayn awoowe.

Xiin aniga wax gaar ii noqday ma jiraan abti laakiin waan is fahanay sidaan arko so is all good...

 

 

Cicero.. Abti hadaad Gaal tahay maxaad diinteena ka rabtaa? waaba ka baxday diintee, maxaad ula soo fara galeysaa? Mise wili confused baad tahay sidii bajaq yar oo shopping lageeye?

 

Waraa quraanka wax kale baa lugu sheegay "lakum diinakum waliya diin" diintaada iyo qulaafdka aad aamin santahay ku ekoo anagana noo daa teena... aan iska aaminsanaano doontii nabi nuux iyo mucjisadeeda..bax education adiga karaadso dadka aan barnay sida loo quweysto oo nijaasada la iskaga dhooro adigaa reer magaal ahee....

 

 

For all you gaalo in SOL why are you in here to bash the faith that you all left? if you don't like being muslim is fine thats your problem but leave us alone and stop bringing your personal problems to us....

 

 

If I was the SOL Admin kuligiin ruqso aan idinka dhigi lahaa....

 

 

Wareer Badanaa!!!

[Abtigiis]

Originally posted by xiinfaniin:

^^I never heard of a fourth Samatar.

 

Said S. Samatar, Professor @ Rutgers

 

He is a Ph.D., Northwestern, wuxuu sheegay inaan laga badin:

 

Modern African history, esp. eastern and southern Africa; African resistance movements to European imperialism; Middle East; history of Islam.

 

This is him! He hails from one of the clans in Puntland but is from SomaliGalbeed. Xinn and SayidSomal will mind this catagorisation.

This bible-translator graduated from the Bible Acadamy in Nazreth, Ethiopia.

 

As to the sheeko-baraleey he read out at the Institute of Ethiopian Studies (which happenes top be located at the Palace of Haile Sellasie in Sidist Kilo), it is nothing more than intellectual sychophancy.

 

First of all the fairytale of Saba and King Solomon is disputed by 70% of Ethioipians (except few from the Amhara and Tigre elites). Second, Prof. Said chose to ignore the dark sides of Ethiopia, rising poverty, bad governance (there are almost 8 Liberation Fronts in th country) and mounting ethnic tensions. Plus, a very low literacy rate.

 

Professor can wish Ethiopia good, but for him to subordinate all his intellect to come up with a rosy story about Ethiopia is opportunistic.

 

Plus, I think the Prof is getting old. The other time, he recommended that the way to stop piracy is by going to the ground and hunting elders of the Pirates!!!!

[Cicero]

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?

[Valenteenah.]

Isn't it also well known that historians are historically very deceptive?

 

 

Prof Samatar's speech induces severe lalabo.

[Sikaawe]

Originally posted by Cicero:

..... Contemporary efforts to circumvent Hume's argument have failed. Compare these two claims:................................

 

A. Hitler invaded Poland in 1939

 

B. Muhammad flew to outer-space on a winged-donkey in 621

 

Why is (A) historical and (B) unhistorical (legend). The answer is that (B) is so fantastical that no amount of testimony could ever render it plausible.

It is really sad that this professor is a typical confused human being like Salman Rushie, the writer, who is always against Islam and belief of creation as a whole.

 

In my view, if one believes only in science and Darwinism then they have to stop creating frictions against other people's beliefs by badmouthing and demeaning their religion. I saw many places that this guy giving speeches and always relating Somalis ills to their religion and their bel;iefs. So, would say that this mule who thinks that he is horse for just grazing with them needs to be reminded who he really is.

[Paragon]

Originally posted by Cicero:

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.

[quick response]

 

First, thanks for the response. Second, I must tell you that 'revisionism' in history is a naughty exercise. Oh yes it is, my friend. I will tell you why it is. You see the operational word here is 'revision' - divorced from the privilege of 'real time' interrogation- of available evidence. Now, without real time interrogation, and so-called 'objective observation' of the subject-matter, what does the revisionist historian have to derive new meanings to previous historic accounts? Educated imagination and proximate interpretation of his own, that is what he/she has. The so-called revisionist historian looks at what has happened - that doesn't make current common-sense- alters, and tailors those historical accounts to make sense to today's world. And that revisionist exercise, takes place in the name of the now dogmatic - in itself mind you - objectiveness. I say 'dogmatic' because I am certain that you mostly likely 'believe'(note my emphasise on believe) in the infallibility of the 'facts' produced by objective processes of (scientific) investigations.

 

In other words you believe more in facts than you believe in the 'truths' of religious texts. That makes you an unshakable 'believer' in scientific facts, just as the devout 'faith-head' believes in his/her own religious truths. The question then, is, what does that make you personally? It makes you no better than those whose holy texts you dismiss, doesn't it? You may say I don't believe in scientific facts but then again, if you don't, how may you deploy a fact against another fact (i.e truths)and come to the conclusion that one is right while the other is wrong? Do you follow what I mean? Because otherwise your entire effort to 'disprove' falls into its own futility. In the end, you yourself will become a 'futile' existence with no facts or truths to hold on to. Think of the Greek Cynics (or in modern terms, the Dogs) and their lifestyles.

 

This is the reason why I first questioned you on a basic level, before we could proceed to the very historic accounts you have so easily dismissed (and ridiculed). And you must never forget to acknowledge that historic revisionism is the result of arrogant, self-righteous, academic exercises by groups of scientific zealots. That's all it is. Revisionists give you an ultimatum: it's our words against their words (meaning the words of earlier, perhaps, orthodox historical accounts). Whose words you believe cements your position.

 

OK, get back to me on the above first. Declare public your belief system/s and then we can proceed further.

 

On the rest of your response, there's only one allegation that I can't accept. In fact, I resent being labelled an 'Intellectual Anarchist' when there are more suitable terms that can be used. But I will reply to you in length on other points raised.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Valenteenah.:

Isn't it also well known that historians are historically very deceptive?

 

 

Prof Samatar's speech induces severe lalabo.

and to add to it:

 

The "his-tory" has always bene one sided. History has been dictated and written by the "victors".

 

As Ceciro put it, history is indeed revised aka redited - by the victors. It is written from a particular worldview, a particular psychology.

 

The idea that an archeologist can't find the arc of noah or a scientist can't calculate how the prophet (salallahu caliyhe wasilm) went to the heavens is irrevelant to the muslim personality. His-story writers championing modernity and imperialistic ideas i.e. all must think rationally, all must be dominated by liberal democractic ideals, will not be able to comprehend the muslim pyschi. Namely because the []i His-storians[/i] are myopic (centered on their own worldview and are busy championing their own version of how the world became and ought to be.

 

The truths and wisdoms in the fables and legends in religion are far greater then having them caculated for mathematical accuracy.

[grasshopper]

Originally posted by The Zack:

Quick question for y'all: Why does ALMOST every PHD holder Somali end being caas-caas and xoolo?

LOL! I wonder about that too. It's like the chicken and the egg problem... does the PhD lead to being an ***? Or is it mostly ***es that go for the PhD?

[Khayr]

Originally posted by grasshopper:

quote:Originally posted by The Zack:

Quick question for y'all: Why does ALMOST every PHD holder Somali end being caas-caas and xoolo?

LOL! I wonder about that too. It's like the chicken and the egg problem... does the PhD lead to being an ***? Or is it mostly ***es that go for the PhD?

I don't know if you anyone that has a PH.D or applied for a PH.D. In order to get your Doctorate (PH.D) you need to have your Thesis approved and it is often reviewed and judged by a Panel of professors (whom are considered as experts in the subject area). They are akin to your academic peers. If they don't agree with your thesis then it does not get approved and you get another crack at it.

 

The point here is that it is approved by "academic peers" aka professors whose mind site and values the 'doctorial canaddate' must possess and eschew and through demonstrate in their thesis.

 

It is a weeding process to get into the academic circles. You have to conform to their norms to obtain the coveted title of PH.D..

[Xidigo]

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro:

Samatarkaas baad idinkuna wax ka sugaysaan ,,,

Samatar clanland buu ufff yidhi.

[Abtigiis]

Xidigo, fadlan ha u camirin. Samatarkii clanland uff yidhi ma aha kan isku dhex yaacay.

[NASSIR]

In other words you believe more in facts than you believe in the 'truths' of religious texts. That makes you an unshakable 'believer' in scientific facts, just as the devout 'faith-head' believes in his/her own religious truths. The question then, is, what does that make you personally? It makes you no better than those whose holy texts you dismiss, doesn't it? You may say I don't believe in scientific facts but then again, if you don't, how may you deploy a fact against another fact (i.e truths)and come to the conclusion that one is right while the other is wrong? Do you follow what I mean? Because otherwise your entire effort to 'disprove' falls into its own futility. In the end, you yourself will become a 'futile' existence with no facts or truths to hold on to. Think of the Greek Cynics (or

in modern terms, the Dogs) and their lifestyles.

That is what it is. Well-said, Paragon.

 

 

The Qur'an on Deep Seas and Internal Waves:

 

"Or (the unbeliebers' state) is like the darkness in a deep sea. It is covered by waves, above which are waves, above which are clouds. Darknesses, one above another. If a man stretches out his hand, he cannot see it..." (Qur'an, 24:40)

[xiinfaniin]

Cicero ma macno badna, ee yaan lala doodin

 

I support AT&T's call in the other thread

[Sikaawe]

Originally posted by Tuujiye:

...

 

 

Cicero.. Abti hadaad Gaal tahay maxaad diinteena ka rabtaa? waaba ka baxday diintee, maxaad ula soo fara galeysaa? Mise wili confused baad tahay sidii bajaq yar oo shopping lageeye?

 

Waraa quraanka wax kale baa lugu sheegay "lakum diinakum waliya diin" diintaada iyo qulaafdka aad aamin santahay ku ekoo anagana noo daa teena... aan iska aaminsanaano doontii nabi nuux iyo mucjisadeeda..bax education adiga karaadso dadka aan barnay sida loo quweysto oo nijaasada la iskaga dhooro adigaa reer magaal ahee....

 

 

For all you gaalo in SOL why are you in here to bash the faith that you all left? if you don't like being muslim is fine thats your problem but leave us alone and stop bringing your personal problems to us....

 

 

Wareer Badanaa!!!

Good one sxb, people must respect other people's religion and beliefs, however if one is confused and is in need of help for couselling they must say so and come out of the woods.

[Eng.Cadde]

I would call him a proffessor.ninka wax baa ka qaldan,i think he had too much red win.