Ecological crisis due to deforestation and related acts are seriously degrading our Somali (already affected) quality of life. The sooner we (in SOL to begin with, discuss and later find a way to deal with all our problems)and recognize the need to be sincerely concerned about our affairs and future, the better. May God make us conscious of ourselves. --------------------------------------- Somali sub-clans fight over trees, seven die Sun Dec 18, 2005 10:39 AM GMT MOGADISHU (Reuters) - At least seven people have died in gunfights between two sub-clans during a dispute over whether to burn trees for charcoal in the southwest of lawless Somala, residents and hospital sources said on Sunday. At least 12 people were also wounded in the sporadic clashes of recent days around three villages in the Tiyeglow district of Bakool region, they said. "We are trying to stop the fighting between the two brother sub-clans, but until now we have failed to achieve a cease-fire," local elder Abdiyow Hussien told Reuters by telephone. Residents said members of one local sub-clan tried to burn trees for charcoal, but another group opposed to the deforestation tried to stop them. Fires were started in the villages and gunfights raged, they said. Fighting among Somalia's myriad clans and sub-clans has been common since warlords overthrew ex-dictator Mohamed Siad Barre 14 years ago and took over the Horn of Africa nation. (Reporting by Mohamed Ali Bile) Source

^^^ Are you there now?

MMA, that man with the bakoorad was actually of part of gallery pictures that comprised of 'Somali Seamen' or was it Somali Elders, who came to the UK, especially to Wales, as seamen. The exhihibion had an accompanying book I think (that is if I can recall it well) and the exhibition itself took place in Oxford House - Bethnal Green, East London. You should see the rest of the faces, quite unqiue actually, considering the manner in which the postures of these elders were cought on camera. Here is the front page of that exhibition and few other photographs: Others: Source: http://www.bhac.org/ PS: There is nothing (even remotely) funny about these pictures.

^^^^ Yer bu' no bu' yer bu' no bu PS: "Am i bovered? ask me if am bovered? Bu' do I look bovered tho'" This woman is annoyingly funny too.

In litarary terms, I heard the word 'fir' is not necessarilly representative of 'descendent' or 'off-springs' but rather, the word is said to mean 'dynasty'. 'Coon' on the other hand is always refer to as being 'short', but infact, according to those well versed in the linguistical and etymological meanings of Somali words, the term 'Coon' is said to mean 'Ancient'. As such the combination of the words 'Fir' and 'Coon' is readable as: The 'Ancient Dynasty'. Cushitic languages have long shared alot with hemetic languages such as Hebrew and others like Arabic. There hasn't been enough research into the correlations between Somali and Ancient Egyptian language, but the little research that has been carried out did yield substantial results, showing the mutual sharing of terms with Arabic and not borrowing. The recognition of shared words also implicates many Somali words used in every day life since their origin and meaning are pre-Islamic and refer to the worship of gods. Evidence shows that cushitic languages such as Somali or Oromo are as old, if not older, than Arabic language. So in regards to the words 'Fir' iyo 'Coon', we shouldn't necessarilly subdue our langauge to Arabic or any other language.

The beggining stanza stresses or refutes disbelievers of the judgement day, yet in the following stanzas, it is discriptive and demonstrative. In its body it touches on many different subject areas. In the last stanza it concerns itself with a prayer for peace and unity. But my question is, comparative to modern sciences, do you think any of its descriptions by any chance correct? -- Allaa mahad lahoo mudan amaan, waana loo magane Rabbibaa macbuud xaqa ahoo, muran la'aaneede Rabbiba midnimadiisa uga mara kaceeynaaye Rabbibaan musaawaad lahayn lala maseeyaaye Rabbibaan tashbiih naga mudnayan amase miithaal e' Rabbibaan miduu sugo ta'wiil loo macnayn karine Rabbibaa masiibo iyo kheyr maamuloo wada e' Rabbibaan miduu kuu qaddaro maaro loo helin e' Nabigaa mutaabaca lehiyo maxabba dheeraad ah Mabtadda'a salliga diidanbaa mudan cadaabtiiye Allaahu masalli calaa sayyiddinaa Muxammad Aadmiga manida laga khalqaye madaxa taagaaya Oo maxalka hooyadii sagaal Mowla ku illaashey Mugdigaana lagu quudiyaan maara loo helin e' Usagoo maxiin ehe muttuxan magacna aan heysan Inuu marinka Eebe u yasiray waaba moogyahay e' Nin mardaadiyoo shaarubada kor u maleegaabaa Inuu mowd dhadhamiyaye waa laga ma maarmaan e' God madow inaynu u qodnoon mara ku duuduubno Oon madaxa ciida u dhignaa Mowlaheey qoray e' Wax is moodde laakiinse waad mala habaawdaan e' Waa mowqifkii aakhirood muransaneeydeen e' Waa madashi la idiin qabtoo marakan gaarteen e' Waa mowcidki lagu ballamay mowdka dabadiise Waa magacya badantuu ka digey Muxammadkeeniiye Waa maalinteey sheegayeen muqaranbiintiiye Waa muumin raaxadii kofrina murugadiisiiye Maskaxda iyo ruuxdiyo qalbiyo Mowla nagu beeray Magafiyaxa unuyada jirkoo mila xawaasteena Inta aalad nagu maaxatoo maqadada u heegan Mishinada is wada dhaafayoon magaca loo haynin Mirtaan aasnay, manidaan qubniyo madagti aan riiqnay Macnawiga qarsoonoo ku laran anigu ma aqaanno Illaaheeyse mahad baan u qirey kuman mallaayiin ah Midigiyo bidix mashyiga lugaha iyo marimadii dhiigga Maqsallada, marggiya jiidma iyo xidida meereeysta Maqaarkiyo jirkeeniyo xubnaha socodka miisaama Muuqaalka iyo haybadiyo midab wanaaggeena Afka hadalka soo marahayoo maqalka saameeya Macnawiga qarsoon ee ku dhega anigu ma aqaanno Illaaheeyse mahad baan u qirey kuman mallaayiin ah Mur iyo xuluh, makruux-iyo udgoon shayga kala miira Muudsiga macaan iyo kharaar mid i dareensiiyey Naftu waxaay ka maagtiyo waxeey muhatta laabteeyda 'Magnetka dookha maamka u hayoo maxabbada u seyra Mucjisada basiirada habtiyo madowga heehaaba Macnawiga qarsoonoo ifiya anigu ma aqaanno Illaaheeyse mahad baan u qirey kuman mallaayiin ah Dhul mug weyn leh buuraha ku mudan webiya meegaaran Dhirta munawaca ahoo indhaha kaga maqsuudeeysid mazraciyo dhul-beereedka iyo miraha soo yaacay Mawaashi'da nimcooleeyda oo Maligu leeyey Mucjiso iyo layaab uus iyo dhiig caana laga miiray Candhadana ka soo maaxayoo naaska laga maalo Macnawiga macaaneeynayoo midabkana u yeelay Manbaca iyo maciinkoodi hore anigu ma aqaanno Illaaheeyse mahad baan u qirey kuman mallaayiin ah Samaawaadku tiir muuqda iyo malaha awtaad e' Muuqaalka iyo haybadiyo midabka loo yeeley Masaabiixda qamarka iyo shamsada falagga meeraaya Mugdiyo iftiinka is badaley maalinta iyo leylka Hanqarkii masiibada ahaa mayayga hooraaya Biya heer macaan iyo hawada lagama maarmeen e' Sidii maamulkeedi u hirgaley anigu ma aqaanno Illaaheeyse mahad baan u qirey kuman mallaayiin ah Badda waa masiibo iyo kheyr meel ku wada yaal e' Hadba tii Alle u muujiyaa laga maleystaaye Marjaankiyo mallaygiyo nimcada moolka lagu aasey Maraakiibta iyo doonyahaan kaga macaashnaaye Imisaa maskiiniyo faqiir Mowle ka irsaaqey Meeqeyse mowjadi cuntoo lagu masiibeeyey Imisaa mallaayiin ku maqan ragiyo maalkooda Nimaan marini waa moogyahay mala ku suureeye Gindi malabsanaayo naflaha lagu dul meegaarey Oo soo madow ineey tahaan maanka ku hayaaye Maruu Eebaheey nagu masixi anigu ma aqaanno Illaaheeyse mahad baan u qirey kuman mallaayiin ah Makhrib dumay habeenkoo mugdiya mowjad kugu taagan Oo aan biriga muuqan karin muruga weeyaane Nimaan marini waa moogyahay mala ku suureeye Illaaheeyse mahad baan u qirey kuman mallaayiin ah Intaan gabayga soo mariyey waad ila maqleyseen e' Mid yar baan ku soo koobayaa muxiimadiisiiye Illaahayoow masalaxad caan ahoo lagu mattaanoobo Oo magaca soomaaliyeed lagu mideynaayo Oon lays maquunine qalbigu meel u wada jeedo Oon laysku maandhaafinoo laysku mari waayin Maskaxdeena Eeboow ku beer murugtay howshiiye Oon inaanan kala maarmi karin adigu noo muuji Mustajaaba duca inaan ahay igu maleeyaan e' Muraadkaan usoo toosay waa inaan midownaaye Illaahow maryana hayga dhigin kuu martaan ahay e' Oo hayga maanicin waxay muhatay laabteyda Amin! -(Allaa mahad leh) by Abshir Bacadle

such a meeting is tantamount to intellectual masturbation with power hungry despots engaged in rounds of 'I'll scratch yours if you mine'. . 'The old guard-dogs of oiled-reservoirs, wagging tails to the order of their master, Brain-dead Bush, while they are held on a leash by the haughty figures of establishment-Islam.'

^^^ Classic indeed. Dedicating this threat to the Sayid and his men would be wonderful. Beyond that I think there is a need for literary project where the works of all Somali poets are translated, explained and studied. A worthy exercise, if you ask me. PS: Glad you are familiar with the piece above.

Satirical Side Of Sayid Cabdulle: Hyena's Advocate Sayid iyo Daraawishtii oo taal ama degan tuullada Ayl, ayaa maalin maalmaha ka mid ah qof dumar ah oo ari-raaci ahi, u soo dacwootay nin la oran jiray Xusseen Dhiqle, oo Sayidka gabayada u qaban jirey, kuna tiri: Gabar: "Arigii Waraabaa marsdoo, maalin walba wuu soo hororayaa." Markaasuu Xuseen dhiqle ku jawaabey "Oo maxaad oran weydey: Dhurwaa ariga Eebaa lehe Eebiyo astaadkaa lehe Oo niman dableeyaa lehe Oo niman ku dili baa lehe Oo niman ku deyn baa lehe Gaaciyo mataan baa lehe Geeraarshihii baa lehe Laba ilmagaraadaa lehe Cabdinuur suldhaalaa lehe Carab garacya dheer baa lehe Cumar daba-gabooyaa lehe Doofeey jidhiidh baa lehe Inantii caddayd baa lehe Cawrala dabeey baa lehe Suubaan aan samreyn baa lehe Samawadoo ka daran baa lehe Waryaan gabas laguu qarinin Gablamoow ka soo joogso!" Markuu intaasoo majaajillo ah Xusseen Dhiqle tiriyey, oo uu waraabihii la hadley, ayaa Sayidkii yiri, "Xuseenoow bal dhageyso, Waraabihii baa isagana kuu soo gabyoo, waa aniga wakiil ka ahe" Sayidka wuxuu diidanyahay, midhkaa uu Xusseen ku soo daray majaajilloda ee ahi "Dhurwaa ariga Eebaa lehe, Eebiyo astaadkaa lehe ", Eebe wax lalama yeelankaro buu ka xanaaqey Sayidka. Markaa wuxuu yiri, Waraabihii wuxuu ku yiri: Xusseenoow aqoon xume Erey baan ku leeyahay Awal hore hadaad tiri Eebaa aduunka leh Imikana maxaw tiri Anagaa aryowga lehe Inaad laba afleysa Ma ansxi kareeysaa? Ma Alloo kalaa tahay Mase waad ka adagtahay War adaa ardaalyahaw Wartuna iga celin kara Adba wuu ku uumayee Ma anigaan abuurnayn? Mase aniga iyo adigaa Eebe weyne kala xiga? illeen waa Ibraahiim Aaqibu ku siinkii Mase U--deen aflagaadadiisii Mase il---- iyo umuurtuu ku kici jirey Gaaciyiyo aboodyaha Ma aabaan ka leeyahay Hadii uu islaan yahay Ingiriis ma aadeen Oo inamadiisii Aboor uguma taliyey Inta kale aad sheegtana Waa oorya naaga ah Adigana urhoofyahow Aawiyo iyo M-----teen Waa ina adeerkeey Tan iyo aamanuuntii ilig baan fadhiyi jirey Abtirsiinyahaygana Waa reer Ugaar----- Adigana adoogaa Uubatadoo fadhiyi jirey Hadaad aamin doon tahay Orod aayar igu guur Hadii kale ha ooyinee Adkeeysaan ku leeyahay" PS: Waxaa iga afeef ah in ay suurtagasho in magacyo reer ama gilib ay ku jiraan majaajilladan. Sidaad darteed yaanan la dhabaysanin wixii aad ku aragtaan oo magac reereed ah fadlan. Shukran.

While we are still talking about Muslim events in the UK, let me (albeit in short-notice) post this for anyone around EAST LONDON. Islamic Foundation for Ecology and Environmental Sciences (IFEES) Presents: IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON THE MUSLIM WORLD Date: Friday 2nd December 2005 Time: 6.45 pm - 9.00 pm Venue: London Muslim Centre (LMC), 46-80 Whitechapel Road, Whitechapel, London E1 1NX Speakers: George Monbiot (Guardian)* Professor Tariq Ramadan (Oxford University)* Fazlun Khalid (Founder/Director, IFEES)* Phil Thornhill (National Co-ordinator, Campaign Against Climate Change)* World famous Qari - Imam Hasan Bukhari (London's North Finchley Mosque)* Climate Change is possibly the biggest threat to life on the planet, especially when most of the effects will be felt in Muslim countries. For example; Future water crisis in the Middle East, flooding in Bangladesh, desertification of sub-Saharan Africa and much more...... All of this will lead to more wars and environmental refugees. Allah (swt) says in the Quran: Fasad (corruption) has appeared on land and sea because of what the hands of men have earned. That (Allah) may give them a taste of some of their deeds, in order that they may turn back (to the right path). (Surah ar-Rum, 30:41) These issues will affect us sooner rather than later and mankind has a responsibility as commanded by Allah (swt): It is He who has appointed you guardians in the earth, and has raised some of you in rank above others, that He may try you in what He has given you. Surely your Lord is swift in reckoning; and surely He is All-Forgiving, All-Compassionate. (Qur’an 6: 165) But as the ummah of Muhammed (saw) who have been given the responsibility of 'Amr-i maruf' (enjoy the good) and 'Nahy-i munkar' (forbid the evil) and of being the 'Khayra Ummatin' (best nation) then we must bring this isssues like many others to forefront of our work. Allah (swt) has bestowed for us, in Islam, the solution to all our problems. We proclaim this with great passion and confidence. But let us be honest and not deceive ourselves - can Muslims really deal with the environmental crisis that has gripped the world, despite environmental protection and awareness being ingrained in their faith? Do Muslims have any answers to these issues? Come to an informative event and learn more about Islamic environmental themes, the threat of climate change and whether or not Muslims can address the global environmental challenge that faces us all. *ALL WELCOME *FREE event HOW TO GET THERE: Buses: 25, 253, 15 Nearest Tube: Aldgate East / Whitechapel (District Line, Hammersmith & City Line) Nearest Rail: Liverpool Street http://www.streetmap.co.uk/newmap.srf?x=534328&y=180171&z=0&sv=E1+1NX&st=2&pc=E1+1NX&ar=N&mapp=newmap.srf&searchp=newsearch.srf&sq=3 For more information contact: Tel: 07092 032 136 E-mail: ahlan@ifees.org Website: http://www.ifees.org

Originally posted by Castro: quote:Originally posted by Paragon: I did so because you spoke of the existence 'woman-bashing' bandwagon. If that bandon exists, then I say it takes one to know another (fill the blank). I see that you insist on name calling and I will not indulge you. I will make a few notes on your speech above (which i believe adds insults to earlier injuries and not just to me):I fail to see the 'name-calling' of which you speak, Sinor Castro. The 'fill the blank', if you must know is 'woman-basher'. It takes one woman basher to know another woman-basher. That should clear the air that you need to be cleared. There are no insults, hidden or visible, in my words. If you take offence at something you percieved I've implied, then, tough luck. 1) woman bashing is real and it's not imagined. Yes. Woman bashing exists and is not imagined. However, as I hinted before, it exists among, to use use your term, the 'denigrades' of men. 2) at best your 'somali' quote was ambiguous and at worst it was demeaning. Otherwise, the lengths you've gone to explain yourself would not have been necessary. I realise you might have not understood my Somali very clearly, but certainly, I had no reason to 'demean' you or any other individual. Furthermore, I went to such a length of explanation, so as to make possible for you to understand clearly what I wrote. It was in my good effort to make sure that you find no reason to imply anything. You seem to think the provision of explanation and clarification is a sort of weakness. No, it isn't Castro. I believe not explaining sufficiently leads more to conflict than not saying sorry . 3) i know exactly what dhicis means. Both meanings you mentioned, in fact. I did not take this to be miscarriage. For you to think that I did is the miscarriage indeed. Ok. I now believe you know what the term means. I wasn't intentioned to be insultive my friend. I also (contrary to insisting that you took the term dhicis for miscarriage-though I used misappriated not mistook) was trying to make my use of the term clear. It was a polite bid to show you that I did not equate you to dhicis term in its biological term. So No there is no miscarriage on my part. 4) Naftu waxay ileedahay, your false accusations notwisthstanding, something else is bothering you about me. If you clear the air and bring it forth, may be we can have a productive discussion. Naftaada waxaay ku leedahay, iyadoo aan hubsiino loo hayn hadaadba talla ku go'aamineeso, kuna adacooneyso inaan been kugu haysto, Castrow, waa xujo. Castro, it is a discussion forum sxb, there is no use going beyond what is discussed and to assumption. Judge my word in accordance with the arguments or ideas I bringeth forth, and I will, Insha-Allah so do. Our excercise should thus be courteously concerned with displayed texts alone. Thank you. PS: Forgive me for being very explanatory.

Originally posted by Castro: quote: Originally posted by Paragon: Castro, you are quick to portray yourself as the protector of those whom you yourself 'deem' infirm, I demand a sincere apology for that. Sorry! You see I am not against saying sorry. Now let me tell you why I sincerely believe you portray women as infirm. You see, God has created women beautiful and kind, but most importantly strong in their own unique way. That being the case, any man who says bashing words toward women is not worth consideration of any sort. Even worse, any man who believes women can be bashed has got it all wrong. Women cannot be bashed, as bashing them invokes the imperfecterbility of God's creation. You cannot therefore either consider those who say unfavourable things to women or those portray themselves by using sentiments that rally women into feeling they've been insulted. Both types of men are in the same category. I have percieved you to be in the latter category. I did so because you spoke of the existence 'woman-bashing' bandwagon. If that bandon exists, then I say it takes one to know another (fill the blank). Ninkii guri ay gabari u madaxeeyso ku baarbaarey, walluu hubaanti yeeshaa saansaan dumareed , waa haduusan socodkooda yeelan . Tell me, atheer, if this does not reek of condescension to women. [/b]That is easy to explain. If a boy is raised by only females and in the absence of male role models, then it is logically discernable that he will only be familiar with the reasonings of females. This is just the natural procession of things. Therefore, the boy is likely to act like females. There is nothing wrong with that, but for his own safety during his adulthood, it is disireable he is found a male role model. This follows the reasoning that if all of humanity was raised by either one gender, then humanity will lose balance and perish. For that reason, it must be raised by both genders. While males naturally love independence to dependency, weakness and pity, females because of their natural disposition, love inclusion, compassion and nurturing to exclusion and unflinching rationality. It is therefore paramount, while 'saansaan dumar' is beautiful (appealing in feminine woman) to its native gender, for the man to acquire manly manners. That is if, he is caring and concerned towards the welfare of women. The Hunter and the Gatherer role and instincts are essential to the survival of humanity. Although, socodka dumareed is pleasing and alluring to the man, that walk is there for a significant purpose - for an evolutionary purpose. If a man walks like a woman, how is he to appreciate or be allured by the beautiful feminine walk? Or even more validly, why should another man be attracted to a man who has the walk of a female but not the productive capability of a female? It is a waste of time I say. So 'socodka dumar' is for females and is not useful for males, thats why they need to realise their role. For your information, a woman whose walk has been appreciated has not be condenscended at all. Read this lyric: Hanaan socodka laafyaha, hagar li'i wax qabashada, hindisihiyo faalada, ka hal celiska sheekada. Hadaan caana lagu habin, Aman hooyadeed korin, Ma hayseen asluubtee, hidahiyo xishoodkaa . Notice how feminine walk motivates men to write lyric as praise? Or in the same lyric, do you realise how paramount it is for female to be raised by her 'mother'? The same applies to young males. So NO, far from condenscending women, I am praising them. You should do more of that instead of reading between my lines sxb. Tell me again, atheer, who is often referred to as a 'dhicis' in our language? Further, what does the word mean? Is it a term of endearment? I think you should learn the language before you imply something else. In every chance you get, you seem to portray the same tendency in the above quote as you do in other places. I will give you another example of what dhicis means: Af gambigii dhicisoobey. If you are familiar with subjective terms that have one meaning in say mathermatics and another subject. Dhicis in literary term is failing to play up to the needed level. While in biology, it means miscarriage. So don't confuse terms my friend. Fair enough. You can begin by illustrating to the female audience I so shamelessly 'appeal' to how admitting error by sincerely apologizing denegrates a man (or a woman) to a 'dhicis'? Erm, I think you have written your above conclusion following your misapprioration of the term dhicis. Even more apparent is that while my sentence was 'hadalka yuusan kaa dhicisoobin', you found it convenient to replace it with 'man (or a woman). That I believe is a sorry affair. You shouldn't do that.

Castro, you are quick to portray yourself as the protector of those whom you yourself 'deem' infirm, so as to justify your advocation for saying sorry. You mention women-bashing, and other irrelevancy, so as to show your willingness to protect female-hood. I don't think there is such a case in here, or a needed protection. Talk to me about manly manners, as I recognize you as one. Now, read what I wrote in Somali. I promise you that it is not 'women-bashing' or that sort of stuff. Then tell me why you felt appropriate to the appeal the female audience so quickly whilst I spoke of other matters. Unless that is, you wish women to be insulted by other men, so that you can point to it and start up an argument. You really don't have to placate every man that speaks against your opinion as 'women-basher' or some such nonsense. PS: Ragga dumarka ma caayaan, Deel-Qaafkana weey ka xishoodaan sxb. Ee dumarka sheekada haku soo jiidin e', Ragganimada iyo 'Sorryda badan' daciifnimada eey u keento umada (Soomaali, walaa African illaa Muslim), ee sababtey in aan 2badii qarniyee ugu dambeeyey inaan gumeystaha sorryda iyo nacamlaynta ugu adeegeeyno, aan ka hadalno sxb. Let me remind you, we must find alternative to always saying sorry, since too many sorrymen is socially a very sorry affair . Now, don't be quick to make it a gender war please, because that is not useful.

Originally posted by Caano Geel: quote:Originally posted by Castro: ^ Not at all. It's expected. Men are missing the sorry bone. We wouldn't have wars if they didn't. Waa halkii Raganimo, sarajooga laysku cuni. Nin-yahow wax baad isku qaladay. Raganimo waa garka ku dhufo oo hore u soco. Sheeko naag baad meesha noogu tirineysaa Durduriyaaba, naasnaasi. Ninkii guri ay gabari u madaxeeyso ku baarbaarey, walluu hubaanti yeeshaa saansaan dumareed , waa haduusan socodkooda yeelan. Markuuse xaqiiqda nolosha qoonsada buu baraarugaa! Wallee, horaa loo yiri Sorry Rag ma kala saarto , ee Castrow, hadalka yuusan kaa dhicisoobin sxb.

I dont think if you go to any Swahili site and as member you write in somali that you will recieve applauds & Hurreeeys! Kikulacho ki nguoni mwako.

The newly 'elected' Somali president welcoming the African Union deligates. 23 minutes. Source: www.journeyman.tv

As I see it and I could be wrong. Both evolution and intelligent design are mean to play complimentary roles. The environment in which living organisms are evolving is in essence of intelligent design. Since this evironment has come to exist through the will of a Higher Being (since even the plausibility of big bang theory needs Kinetic energy resulting collusion could only have pre-existed in God), organisms or micro-organisms only 'evolve' to the point of 'adaptation', and after adaptation they seize to evolve. Their evolving, which some scientists mistranslate, takes place in an effort to adapt to an intelligently designed environment. In a sense therefore, evolving is a test from the higher being for us and all other living things to adapt to given environmental atmospheres by way of evolving. Just as human destiny is preordained and yet have been provided with the 'will' to somewhat alter the routes. As NGONGE said, we should maybe consider macro and micro level of things and see their combination as compatible rather than conflicting. And as Johny Bravo pointed out, afterall, Darwin did not falsify the existence of divinity or God. Nota Bene: Read about fracas surrounding the latest documentary "March of the Penguins", presented as a case for Intelligent Design. Many Christians contend that this incredible march 70 miles of the Penguins testifies to the hand of the Creator. As I was saying, the environment, if we study its demands on the living, sheds some light on the plausibilty of Intelligent Design thesis while at the same time supportive of the Evolutionary aspects of species.

Thank you Libaax . Gud to see you too.

By contrast, Muslims fatally weakened their ability to defend themselves by neglecting, even rejecting, the study of allegedly secular science and mathematics . This myopia remains a fundamental source of the oppression suffered by Muslims today. In general terms, I agree with Matathir, but in anylitical terms, I must disagree. One needs to understand that the term 'secular' has gained the companionship of 'science' and 'mathematics' under a difficult epoch of history, in which 'Christianity' tyranized the sources of knowledge (especially science) for those who wished to go beyond the confines of the Bible. Prior to 16th century, Christian theology controlled the ways of knowing and Christian knowledge on cosmology and cosmogony was held as absolute truth. This was made even more worse by 'literal reading of scripture' (a symptom evident with some Muslims today) of some theologians, which in turn produced overall restrictions of scientific knowledge. When Galileo asserted the earth isn't the center of heavens and the sun doesn't move, in essence he was challenging the validity of the Holy Scriptures of Chritianity. This made Cardinal Bellarmine, writing in 1615, to cry "to affirm that the sun is really fixed in the center of the heavens...is a very dangerious thing..injuring our faith and making the sacred Scripture false" (Woodward). To give you some idea of the knowledge which science stood to falsify, the Christian Bible claimed to contain the history and knowledge of the world, from its creation to the present day, in a chronological order. There was only one problem though, this historical chronology didn't contain 'modernity' in its chaptors! For that reason, Christianity fought the agents of modernity (science)dubbing them blasphemous and to some extent heretics. When the advocates of science were in a position of power, they invented the term we now refer to as secular, in a nutshell to denote the liberation of science (or knowledge or later the state) from gripping dogma of Christian theology. So when one hears secular knowledge or theological knowledge, categorically, the history behind their division should be borne in mind. The Qur'an did not restrict the source of all knowledge nor did not claim to contain chronology of the sort the Bible laid claim to. While the Qur'an is the absolute truth for Muslims, unlike the Bible, Islam encouraged the seeking of knowledge through Ijtihaad. Muslims never had the problems faced by Christians when generating epistemic knowledge on many matters, but the sort of restrictions Muslims had later faced came in the form of the closure of the gate of Ijtihad. If this gate is to be re-opened, Muslims can achieve modernization. There wouldn't be a need for the use of the term 'secular' because modernization has its own theories (i.e. modernization theory). Secularism isn't necessarilly a pre-condition for modernization, since even in academia the term 'secular is increasingly becoming associted sociological (and not modernization) matters with a negative connotation such as moral decay and spiritual emptiness. In short 'securalism' is purely the product of Christianity, just as Ijtihad (though it possess different set of relations to Islam than that of the secular) is the product of Islam. My point for providing this explanation is that even senior Muslim figures mistakingly use phrases such as 'secular science and knowledge' without paying much attention into them. If modernization or development is the endeavour of concerned senior Muslim figures, they should atleast be careful about confusing even more already confused Muslim countries. Lastly, Kamal Ataturk hasn't done anything for Islam in Turkey. His opression was only counter-productive in that it helped the Turkish mass remain firm on their religion and eager for the return of non-secular state. That is why they elected the current government hoping they would change political affairs to the more Islamic plain.

Definition of Slough : 1- The dead outer skin shed by a reptile or amphibian. 2-Medicine. A layer or mass of dead tissue separated from surrounding living tissue, as in a wound, sore, or inflammation. 3- An outer layer or covering that is shed. sym•bi•o•sis (smb-ss, -b-) n. pl. sym•bi•o•ses (-sz) 1-A close, prolonged association between two or more different organisms of different species that may, but does not necessarily, benefit each member. 2-A relationship of mutual benefit or dependence. . See if you can follow my reasoning fellow forum-users. It could be confusing or rather would be. __________ When an amphibian sheds a slough; it does so to reveal hidden new-ness and beauty that attests to nature's regularity and self-organization. Even more incredibly, this process of sloughing is testimony to the Creator's efficient regulation of life and it's stages. Any human who studies processes such as this and others, only comes to appreciate the intrinsic values of natural things for their own sake, due to the way these natural things and their existence work towards natures over all integrity . Living organisms, big or small, visible or invisible are perfected for life in their natural state. Any efforts to perfect a perfectibility which nature itself found suitable is both ungainly and in the long run destructive. Just as humans efforts on nature mean destruction for its integrity and beauty; so does its neglect and harm. Many organisms can fare well in symbiosis and not otherwise. Symbiosis usually involves a balance between organisms; therefore it is not advisable to remove one organism from the companionship of the other, owing to guess that they do not benefit each other. Humans are not advanced enough to identity many of nature's workings. Our technological advancement and scientific development may not reveal patterns of interdependency between organisms. For that reason alone, instead of studying other organisms, it should be possible to turn our attention to our human minds. In regards to different types of ( i.e.indigenous or foreign) knowledge, which our minds can accommodate, we must be able to identify whether our minds – to operate perfectly and in their natural manner- can prioritize between types of knowledge, so as to enable the creation of a good character; that is both socially and individually progressive. This is where the phrase: to shed a slough , becomes operative. Were our minds exposed to the right knowledge but with confused or imposed prioritization? Or the other way around, and that our minds require to slough off the pretence necessitated by alien knowledge to reveal natural and indigenous knowledge? As school children, is it arguable to say that many African minds were masked off from obtaining vital self-knowledge? Self knowledge builds and contributes towards the growth of genuine native character. If such growth of the native self is neglected, the mind is only made aware of foreign knowledge (quite irrelevant mostly) which harms the future symbiosis of different types of knowledge. This means as long as indigenous/native self-knowledge is neglected, the mind with the help of foreign knowledge lives and acts in pretence with little progress or growth. The mind only accepts the growth of what is organic to it and not what is alien to it, just as in the body, organ transplant can be rejected for being an alien body part, or even just as a piece of land accepts crops which are native or suitable to it and rejects the rest. Once the mind is taken over by alien knowledge, quite forcefully in most of the times, it always awaits inputs to be relayed to it from that initial alien source, because it cannot develop this alien knowledge further by its own since it is not accustomed to such a task. That, I believe, is the problem faced by most our so-called educated minds, which only end up performing automated tasks robotically. We may read as many books as we wish but the knowledge in those books does not grow; we can only skip from one book to another and forever regurgitate them, pretending we have gained more knowledge when in fact, all we are doing is, only increasing the dosage of books read! I am not against reading many books, but I am strongly suggesting that we need to slough off former mental constructs that were build and maintained with the help alien knowledge, in order reveal the genuine self that has been neglected for so long, so as to nourish it, educate it to produce organic and native knowledge, and mostly importantly, to create a suitable atmosphere for future symbiosis of types of knowledge. This symbiosis is currently not there. The inner-core of our mind is still remote to real organic or native education. This inner-core forms the foundation for a successful and progressive livelihood. As long as our inner-core is covered with a slough, whose job is to render useless the inner-core of our mind, self and our foundation of our being, we will not rise from this state of being. Civilizations and societies have in history risen to greatness, by educating and strengthening these inner-core and foundation. Only when they have educated their inner-core self and foundation did they endeavour for power. Power without such education and strengthening is useless and is quick to fade. The education and the strengthening of the inner-core requires honesty to one’s self. However if pretence or pride inhibits one’s heart, there is no hope of achieving individual or societal greatness. In this forum, there is a great deal of dishonesty with one’s self. Our so-called minds are bent on impressing each rather than being intentioned to grow. In every line written in these pages, I cannot help but feel an oozing pretence scattered all around. There are only few individuals, if any, who honestly reason and reply to posts with the aim to expand their minds. The rest are impressionists. Many here cannot tell the difference between their own thoughts and the books they have read. The future, if we let our minds live under the slough of pretence, is truly dim. All that can be done now is to catch ourselves short from such pretences. We must honestly, genuinely think and reason, so as to kick-start the process of sloughing off. We must do this because there is no other choice open to us. We have had enough of pretence and it doesn’t yield any fruits. Are we ready to slough off our existence in pretence?

Thank you very much for the welcome, NGONGE. I also show my gratitude to Roob who have welcomed me. He might be cunning, devious and conniving but, you have to admit, he hit on a juicy area in which to plant further seeds of division and doubt. Why should I, as a Somali, consider some distant fat Arab as my kin for example (I use this example because it is a popular one)? What do I, as a Sunni, have in common with a Shia who prays on a stone and weekly cut himself up with swords and knives in lamentations (pardon the extreme caricature)? Yes, I must admit that Rushdie seems to arrive at a point, NGONGE. However his point is dependently valid, and valid only in today's context in which inner Muslim communal division seems more apparent than before, at a time when there was at least an overarching authority, be it an empire or a caliphate. In the order of things, if such an overarching power is absent, anarchy creates a vacuum of equal distrust. To regain widespread order and progress among Muslims, we should be working hard to create an overarching power and central leadership. It is when such an overarching power is not instituted that majority Muslim peoples will eye each other with distrust. Rushdie rightly sees this distrust and proposes the hypothesis that pushes the idea of Muslim brotherhood and kinship to the extreme edge of falsity. Somehow I don't blame him. Anyone who analyses the current situation of the Muslim world, without the realisation of the need for an 'overarching and central power', is likely to come to the same conclusion. I think it is also a case of optimism here. Rushdie et al don't seem optimistic about such a power coming into creation; therefore he prescribes the Muslims to conform to the current status quo. For the time being, Rushdie is only too happy to entertain us with the reality of (ethnically) divided Muslims, rather than the potential and possiblity of unity in the future. My strong believe is that an overarching power pulls peoples together. It also attaches peripheral nations to the core of power. That difference between Muslims, which Rushdie banks on will become invalidated, if a core-periphery power system comes into existence. This sounds straightforward; however anyone hoping for such a system will be confronted by practically another structural problem, which I won’t go into now. Futhermore, untill the created overaching or central power, can achieve a balance-of-power with current dominant status quo, I am affraid Rushdie's hypothesis awaits a refutation. The summarizing equation on Rushdie's hypothesis is: (If Power then, Fasle, If No Power then True). But I hope I have presented a satisfactory reply to your question, NGONE. On the freedom of speech point, who or what decides what ‘ moderation ’ means? As for blasphemy, would it not depend on the context and reason rather than the blasphemy itself? Surely no sane person would debate with someone that uses blasphemy as an end in itself with no accompanying debate. Furthermore, surely all debates should be ‘anything-goes-debates’ (providing that they are logical and rational debates). Those that are not only armed with their own logic, ability to reason and wisdom but also with the superior words and commands of the almighty, should be able to ‘win’ any debate they engage in, regardless of the level of blasphemy involved. Right? Decision on what is moderation, I beleive, depends on a common aggreement of what the limits of debate should be. This should be initiated by the most wise, neutral and reasonable of individuals of a given community, in order to avoid discussions degenerating into extremity and illogicality. To impose any other sort of moderation is unnecessary. The reality is that sometimes moderation is easily mistaken with legitimacy, which makes authorities to believe they have a right to dictate debates. Debating, if formal and meant to be productive can tackle any subject upon which it is motioned. I will even go as far as stating that so long as we are logical or reasonable, a debate can be motioned to discuss blasphemy itself, but on one condition. On a condition that after debating certain understanding will be derived from the discussed subject. If that condition is not present, then, there is no use engaging in no-holes-barred debate. It is only right that even in heated debates, a freedom of equal expression or presentation is observed. That said, there are ethical reasons why a debate that is entirely logical is restricted from unsolicited blasphemy. The ethical point is: debates are conducted mostly for public consumption, in that if debate is unrestricted it may inappropriately inform the masses. The result of such happening is likely to contribute to social degradation. It is this very ethical or moral consideration that informs Western governments, in their decision of not allowing the Media to expose indecent information to the masses. All blasphemous or indecent material is usually scheduled to be shown at a later time during night, when only adults are awake. Lately, even blasphemies subjected towards faiths are prohibited in the UK. In the case of blasphemy in debates regarding Islam, the reasoning behind the restriction is that blasphemy is both unnecessary and unproductive. That is a reasonable point, but I guess in earlier days when Muslim ruled themselves, blasphemous individuals were easily suppressed or punished. These days of Muslim powerlessness and secularism, blasphemous individuals cannot be gagged, therefore it would be fashionable confront them. It seems I have come to agree with you after all.

and thus this coming stuns alot, those whose faith is not alot

Welcome all you fresh-blooded new Moderators. It is good to see you nomads in Moderator dress-code . King- The Moderators are meant to be the peace-makers, mediators and law-enforcers. And thus they need enough energy to do the rotta. If you like being a peace-maker, then you will like being a moderator . PS: New Mods, or shall I say Fresh-bloods , I am glad you are on the bench of Mods. Now I can deservingly table my retirement from the Moderatorship, you hear Admin? . Good .

Several writers challenged me to take the next step and hypothesise the content of such a reform movement. The nine thoughts that follow form an initial response to that challenge, and focus primarily on Britain. As far as Rushdie is concerned, these 'nine thoughts' encapsulate the change that needs implementation in order to keep Islam and Muslims from harm's way. These nine thoughts which Rushdie proposes are not new for those who follow the writings of the reformist agenda of some moderates, whom their echoes we regularly hear through the media. In essence, these nine thoughts are common to many reformists and seem to have the purpose of achieving Muslim pacification from sentiments of war, and compatibility with Western ideals and aspirations, all through the compartmentalisation of global Muslim psyche. Separation of Muslims in the West, from the rest of the Muslim world, in which they fear its influences. But without further ado, what follows are my point by point comments on some of Rushdie's so-called 'nine thoughts'. The first of his 'thoughts' is: It may well be that reform will be born in the Muslim diaspora where contact (and friction) between communities is greatest, and then exported to the Muslim majority countries. It would not be the first time such a thing has happened. The idea of Pakistan was shaped in England, too. So were the history-changing characters of Mahatma Gandhi, Pakistan’s founder Muhammad Ali Jinnah and the pro-British Indian Muslim leader Sir Syed Ahmad Khan. British Muslims, who are mainly of South Asian origin, should remember their own histories. In India, Muslims have always been secularists, knowing that India’s secular constitution is what protects them from the dictatorship of the (Hindu) majority. British Muslims should take a leaf out of their counterparts’ book and separate religion from politics. Rushdie here speaks of 'reform' which he contemplates 'will be born in the Muslim diaspora where contacts (and friction) between communities is greatest', a reform which in turn produces the opposite of the current sphere of influence between majority/minority Muslims. Currently, ideas and influences flow from majority Muslim countries to minority Muslim populations (i.e. in the West). It is this sort of geographical shift of sphere of influence that requires the compartmentalization (or division of a whole into small categories with little of no effective functionality in separate) of the Muslim psyche. Rushdie wishes to achieve such a compartmentalization by following the examples of 'Mahatma Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah ...and... Syed Ahmad Khan', who were all the product of British education. In a nutshell, it is a return to old colonial 'master and colony' sort of mentality' which Rushdie wishes to reappear. That is why Rushdie warns Muslims of South Asian origin to 'remember their own histories', or their servitude to colonial powers. Because he says, in India, for example, secularism saved the Muslim minority from Hindu dictatorship. Although I am sure Indian Muslims owe a lot to the separation of religion and politics, Rushdie doesn’t seem to advocate for such a separation ONLY where Muslims are a minority. Ridiculously, he believes that, for British Muslims to have such safety as Indian Muslims did have under secularism, a reform concerning Islamic teachings has to take place in minority Muslim countries and then 'exported to majority Muslim countries! This means, Islam and the majority Muslim countries, must work very hard for the interests of minority Muslims elsewhere, and as if that wasn't enough, to adapt Secular systems. Rushdie's proposition isn't therefore an acceptable one, and seems illogical. Illogical because one cannot hope for the stoppage of other influences, but again do the very thing he fights against to others. As I see it, Rushdie's first is valid, if and only if, he limits himself with the concerns of British Muslims and them alone. As it stands his first 'thought' is contradiction. Remembering history, part 2. Within living memory, Muslim cities such as Beirut and Tehran were cosmopolitan, tolerant, modern metropolises. That lost culture must be saved from the radicals, celebrated, and rebuilt. In reply to Rushdie’s first ‘thought’, I mentioned that secular systems have had protections for only minority Muslims in specific situations and not the majority Muslims in our current situation. For Rushdie to speak of Beirut and Tehran, and to wish for the return of their ‘cosmopolitanism and tolerance’, is simply nonsense. In the West, minority Muslims are expected to abide by the land’s law or the ‘majority’s law’. Secularism in Britain hasn’t been forced on the majority; rather it is because of the majority’s democratic choice that secularism is the law of the land. Such should be the case in countries where Muslims are the majority, and their choices should be the law of the land. The Christian minority in Beirut or Tehran must abide by the rule of the majority’s law, as is expected from a British Muslim. Rushdie should not therefore speak doubly in contradictable tone, while advocating for the proliferation of one majority’s law (secularism) across/upon Muslim lands and peoples, while disregarding another majority’s law (Islamic or traditional) altogether. The idea that all Muslims are kin to all others should be re-examined. The truth is that, as the bitter divisions between Iraqi Sunnis and Shias demonstrate, it is a fiction, and when it deludes young men such as the British 7/7 bombers into blowing up their own country in the name of an essentially fantastical idea of Islamic brotherhood (few British Muslims would find life in conservative Muslim countries tolerable), it is a dangerous fiction. In normal conditions, Muslims are indeed kin to all others, and that fact needs not a re-examination. However, the very thing that had created divisions among Muslims is the same thing which Rushdie portrays as the remedy. Although the priority of Muslims now is to try to fill the gap between Muslims, the initial divider cannot and will not escape Muslims’ eye. Rushdie wants to direct us to current division as a proof that the idea of Muslim brotherhood is fictitious. In reality, he wishes to deflect blame from the ‘West’, a land whose ideals he wishes us to embrace. In effect he means to say that we should busy ourselves mopping the wet floor, as it were, and not check the source of the wetness. To Muslim countries, Rushdie says, deal with your divisions, and to Muslims in the West, he advices them not to be tricked by the dangerous fiction of Islamic brotherhood. and that the repression of free speech by the thin-skinned ideology of easily-taken “offence†must be replaced by genuine, robust, anything-goes debate in which there are no forbidden ideas or no-go areas. This, I think, is worth discussing. Reasonable debates should be allowed to take place about all matters but with moderation. The ‘no-holes-barred’ debate which Rushdie wants is usually not a debate, but the permission of blasphemy in public spheres. I doubt if there is a need to grow thin-skin for reasonable and logical debates, rather, I believe, those who take offence do so because of the blasphemy which some mistake for debating. Reformed Islam would encourage diaspora Muslims to emerge from their self-imposed ghettoes and stop worrying so much about locking up their daughters. It would emerge from the intellectual ghetto of literalism and subservience to mullahs and ulema, allowing open, historically based scholarship to emerge from the shadows to which the madrassas and seminaries have condemned it. In other words, reformed Islam will do away with aspects of current restraints, which restrict British Muslims to ‘self-imposed ghettoes’. I wonder what these constraints or restrictions that need lifting are.

^^^ To the thinking being, a BSc or MA in any social science subject (granted the generation of material gain), may likely lead to unhapiness and disatisfaction in regards to knowledge of humanty's situation. In a capitalist state/society however, I must confess, if the human bolt (the so-called educated or programmed-for-purpose human) that is part of the bigger economic machine, is content with the position he/she holds, then he/she can surely enjoy elusive and temporal/material happiness (but never the joys of life ). But such temporal happiness in no way guarantees to translate itself into marital bliss.