The outsiders have won and I say this is a good night for football! Do people here think this is a good night for football??? Remember guys, before this tournament, Greece had never won a match in the finals of any major football tournament. I call this football for the people and by the people (since Greek players are not super stars!). Who would have thought of this a month ago!

Originally posted by Devil's Advocate: Saddam had it coming to him. And I feel no sympathy towards that evil man, neither should anyone. I agree with Devil's Advocate.

This cartoon by Steve Bell in The Guardian, describes it all!

I came across this very interesting article in today's Guardian. Read and share with us whether you agree with it or not. I agree with it 100%! Comment The west's Arab racket George Bush is right about the lack of freedom in the Middle East - but wrong about its causes and solution Jonathan Freedland Wednesday June 30, 2004 The Guardian George W Bush may not have read much history but he likes making it. The recent run of insider accounts of the Bush White House show the president is a man with a constant eye on the historians of the future, anxious to lend every moment just enough semi-Churchillian gravitas to make him look good in the decades to come. So it was on Monday when he was handed a note that declared "Iraq is sovereign", immediately scrawling on it "Let freedom reign!" - as if ready for instant display behind the glass case at the future George W Bush presidential library. Those three words confirm how Bush sees himself and how he wants to be seen in the future - as a latter-day George Washington, leading subject peoples to liberty. He has in mind not only the Iraqi nation but all the people of what he calls the Greater Middle East. The "liberation of Baghdad" is but the first step towards the transformation of the entire region. It is not a secret plan, contained only in classified memoranda. On the contrary, Bush has declared it loud and proud, returning to the theme again in Istanbul yesterday. He articulated it most clearly in a November 2003 speech to America's National Endowment for Democracy where he set out how, though there were now 120 functioning democracies in the world, the wave of self-rule had barely touched the Middle East. Democracy had made inroads in Latin America and Asia, but had still failed to make a dent in the Arab world. Why not, the president asked: "Are the peoples of the Middle East somehow beyond the reach of liberty? Are millions of men and women and children condemned by history or culture to live in despotism?" Bush went on to reject such "cultural condescension", insisting that liberty is universal. He called on the Arab states to open up - to respect the rule of law, recognise the equal rights of women and allow political pluralism and free speech. For my money, it was the best speech Bush has ever given. Because on this fundamental point he is surely right. One has only to flick through the 2002 joint report of the UN development programme and the Arab fund for economic and social development to see why. This document, written by a group of Arab intellectuals, bursts with findings as stunning as they are bleak. All 22 Arab states combined, oozing as they are with natural resources and the black gold that is oil, still have a GDP smaller than Spain's and less than half that of California. Education is in a dire state: the whole Arab world translates around 300 books annually, one fifth the number translated by Greece alone. Rates of internet connection, the Arab scholars found, were less than those in sub-Saharan Africa. What's more, the Palestinians of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza are not the only Arabs to be denied fundamental democratic rights. Using the widely accepted freedom index - which assesses everything from civil liberties to government accountability and a free press - the Arab states come at the foot of the global league table. The report was especially damning on the exclusion of women, often denied the vote and access to a basic education: "Sadly the Arab world is largely depriving itself of the productivity and creativity of half its citizens." Bush was right to draw attention to this story of oppression and failure. Nor can he be faulted for placing it in the context of his war against al-Qaida. For if Bin Ladenism feeds off anything it is surely the frustration and despair of those who have to live in such suffocating conditions. If the right approach to the current global conflict is the one advocated by the likes of Bill Clinton and Gordon Brown - tough on terror, tough on the causes of terror - then surely the foremost "cause" is the desperate state of the Arab world. So Bush is right in identifying the problem. Where he is wrong is in understanding its causes - and in finding a solution. To his credit, the president does not imagine some innate Muslim or Arab incapacity for self-government: he attributes such attitudes to his enemies. But he speaks as if the Arab world became a desert for democracy through some strange act of nature, a freak accident with no rational explanation besides the evil rule of a couple of twisted dictators. What neither he, nor Tony Blair for that matter, ever acknowledges is the west's own culpability. One does not have to be a placard-waving anti-imperialist to note that for nearly a century the Arab world has been on the receiving end of constant western meddling. If they have not got on with choosing their own governments, that's partly because we kept (and keep) stopping them! Iraq is a case in point as Britain repeatedly, from the 1920s to the 1950s, ensured the regime was to our liking. That pattern has been repeated across the region, from the tiny emirates created by a stroke of a western pen, to mighty Egypt: first Britain and then America has always plotted and connived to secure a friendly face at the top, even if the price has been the denial of the people's will. So Bush's rhetoric is all very well, but it would ring truer if it entailed an explicit renunciation of that colonial habit. And this is not ancient history. The US still props up hideous, human rights-abusing regimes so long as the top man remains "our son of a *****". Look no further than Bush's closest chum, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia. When Bush severs his links with the House of Saud over their beheadings, oppression of women, rank corruption and denial of basic human freedom, then his words will have meaning. But the president is wrong on the solution, too. Democracy only very rarely flows down the barrel of a gun. Post-1945 Germany and Japan were surely the exceptions in exceptional circumstances. Even putting the 2003 war to one side, the images of abuse in Abu Ghraib alone would disqualify America as a credible bringer of democracy to the Middle East. Instead that task will have to be performed by other people and in a different way. That does not mean a new European mandate to meddle, but rather a more creative use of influence. The first move will be a withdrawal of support from offending regimes, Riyadh and Cairo among them. Next, aid and trade should be tied to democratic performance. (A cheaper and less lethal way to create a democratic model in the Middle East than invading Iraq was surely to make Egypt's annual $2bn aid package from the US conditional on Cairo sharpening up its act in the liberty department. That would have done the trick, without a shot being fired.) The west could put current Arab and other tyrannies on notice that their only way back into the global community is not simply to arrest al-Qaida suspects, but to grant basic freedoms to their own people. Do that and then Bush will have every right to his Washingtonian rhetoric. He can chant "Let freedom reign" at the top of his voice. But not till then. j.freedland@guardian.co.uk

Originally posted by maansoor: NGONGE sxb, like you I'm teasing the women a lil bit. NGONGE and Maansoor, tease the women in a different way if you want, but not by throwing half-baked truth around the forums. This is because, some impressionable kids that are roaming these forums might take your propaganda seriously, have you guys stopped and thought about that for a second?

NGONGE, I know what you mean, every time I visit here I have to come through the window—i.e. go to google and type ‘camel threads’ and then get it in. Do you know what is going on though?? Now is a good time though to get some good members who are about to leave Somalinet and welcome them here! Furthermore, as I said we have to help those in need and in this case they are our fellow countrymen! SisSade, you are right who knows they are already members here (is in our culture these days to have two identities)! But thanks for agreeing with me though and keep up the good work.

Some ***** started flooding Somalinet forum and as usual, the moderators are sleeping. Therefore, I recommend this site should help and offer full political refugee status the decent brothers and sisters of that site, so that they have breathing ground for their ideas. I hope this motion is accepted here.

Viking, good to hear from you brother and thanks for the analysis of the speech! I am hopeful Turkey would join the EU one day whatever the French might have to say today. As far as I can see, is question of when rather than whether they would join. The French are known to make noises and I say they bark more than they bite (or something along those lines)! I would ask of you to be careful to whom you call kufaar, even someone like Attaturk. The Othman empire was dead by the time Attaturk got there and all he has done is ensure his people got secular government. If you wish We can discuss the benefits and disadvantages of this issue on another time. But I beg of you to be careful who you call non-Muslim, only God could judge that. The part I liked about his speech though is where he talked about democracy. They are fine words but at least is good to hear some fine words now and then! Just like hearing a song or a poem being recited—is good for the ears mate! “Democratic values also do not require citizens to abandon their faith. No democracy can allow religious people to impose their own view of perfection on others, because this invites cruelty and arrogance that are foreign to every faith. And all people in a democracy have the right to their own religious beliefs. But all democracies are made stronger when religious people teach and demonstrate upright conduct -- family commitment, respect for the law, and compassion for the weak. Democratic societies should welcome, not fear, the participation of the faithful.” I am a greater believer of democracy and I think is the best system we have today. You show me a substitute and I will follow you! Iran had to be bashed just as Israel had to be bashed for the Palestine issue and both countries for trying to acquire nuclear weapons. In the case of Israel that might be too late, as there is a very good chance they already possess these weapons! Having said that, we live in an imperfect world and thus is very difficult for any USA president to criticize Israel and so the non-bashing of Israel is not unique to Bush and this will continue for the foreseeable future—so let us get used to it and not be surprised by it every time the USA doesn’t bash Israel! On serious note though, if I ever run for an office I would like you to be by my side and do the political analysis for me, though you will have to be a bit diplomatic sometimes, i.e. laugh while you are killing, lol!

Nur, I don’t think you understood the gist of my post and so I think I will try to clarify my position one more time and hope you understand where I am coming from. I changed the direction from soul to spacetime, in order to prevent you from making the classical mistake, which almost all religious scholars tend to make. This mistake is, to try to use today’s scientific facts as a justification for their beliefs. This is a dangerous road for one take and this is because today’s scientific fact could be thrown out of the window tomorrow. Therefore, what I am trying to ask you is , where does it say in Islam, we have three spatial dimensions and one of time (i.e. four spacetime )? The reason why I went to String theory is not to impress or show off. But rather I wanted to illustrate to you and other readers that in science there is strong believe that, we might not just live in a three spatial dimension universe but maybe in one of nine spatial dimensions! Had I just said to you there were more than three spatial dimensions you would probably would have asked me where I got this daft idea from and hence the reason why I dived into string theory. On other hand, I can see in your reply instead of answering my simple question (where does it say in Islam, we live a three-dimension universe) you went on the defence and this time using big words, like K-theory, NCG and so on. I do not think that was helpful in just throwing big words, which very few people understand, and I am one of them. The guy sitting opposite me spent a year of his lifetime trying to test some of the idea of NCG and did not get anywhere! Let alone me, who did not spend a single day except what I heard in seminars and you expect me to understand it! “But those scientists who carry on these research know their limits and are humble, they dont call people foolish, no decent reseracher uses that language, …” I don’t know what you mean by the above statement, but let me make one thing clear I never called anyone foolish and will never do that now either. All I know is I know nothing and I am happy to live in ignorance and doubt. I will finally end this reply by saying, even if we discover a fundamental theory tomorrow morning it wont solve all of our problems and as far as physics is concerned is not the end of the road!

Source: The Guardian UK The full text of the speech given by George Bush to the NATO summit at Galatasary University, Istanbul, Turkey. The full text released by the White House Tuesday June 29, 2004 Thank you all very much. Distinguished guests, Director of this fine university, ladies and gentlemen: Laura and I are grateful for the warm and gracious hospitality we have received these past three days in the Republic of Turkey. I am honored to visit this beautiful country where two continents meet -- a nation that upholds great tradition, and faces the future with confidence. America is honored to call Turkey an ally and a friend. Many Americans trace their heritage to Turkey, and Turks have contributed greatly to our national life -- including, most recently, a lot of baskets for the Detroit Pistons from Mehmet Okur. I know you're proud of this son of your country, and there's a lot of people in Detroit really grateful for his talents. I'm grateful to my friend, the Prime Minister, for his leadership and his hospitality. I also want to thank my friend, the President, President Sezer, for his hospitality. These men and your country have hosted members of NATO in an historic time in our alliance. For most of its history, NATO existed to deter aggression from a powerful army at the heart of Europe. In this century, NATO looks outward to new threats that gather in secret and bring sudden violence to peaceful cities. We face terrorist networks that rejoice when parents bury their murdered children, or rejoice when bound men plead for mercy. We face outlaw regimes that give aid and shelter to these killers, and seek weapons of mass murder. We face the challenges of corruption and poverty and disease, which throw whole nations into chaos and despair. These are the conditions in which terrorism can survive. Some on both sides of the Atlantic have questioned whether the NATO alliance still has a great purpose. To find that purpose, they only need to open their eyes. The dangers are in plain sight. The only question is whether we will confront them, or look away and pay a terrible cost. Over the last few years, NATO has made its decision. Our alliance is restructuring to oppose threat that arise beyond the borders of Europe. NATO is providing security in Afghanistan. NATO has agreed to help train the security forces of a sovereign Iraq, which is a great advantage and crucial success for the Iraqi people. And in Istanbul we have dedicated ourselves to the advance of reform in the broader Middle East, because all people deserve a just government, and because terror is not the tool of the free. Through decades of the Cold War, our great alliance of liberty never failed in its duties, and we are rising to our duties once again. The Turkish people understand the terrorists, because you have seen their work, even in the last weeks. You've heard the sirens, and witnessed the carnage, and mourned the dead. After the murders of Muslims, and Christians, and Jews in Istanbul last November, a resident of this city said of the terrorists, "They don't have any religion, they are friends of evil." In one of the attacks, a Muslim woman lost her son Ahmet, her daughter-in-law Berta, and her unborn grandchild. This is what she said: "Today I am saying goodbye to my son. Tomorrow I'm saying farewell to my Berta. I don't know what [the killers] wanted from my kids. Were they jealous of their happiness?" The Turkish people have grieved, but your nation is showing how terrorist violence will be overcome -- with courage, and with a firm resolve to defend your just and tolerant society. This land has always been important for its geography -- here at the meeting place of Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. Now Turkey has assumed even greater historical importance, because of your character as a nation. Turkey is a strong, secular democracy, a majority Muslim society, and a close ally of free nations. Your country, with 150 years of democratic and social reform, stands as a model to others, and as Europe's bridge to the wider world. Your success is vital to a future of progress and peace in Europe and in the broader Middle East -- and the Republic of Turkey can depend on the support and friendship of the United States of America. For decades, my country has supported greater unity in Europe -- to secure liberty, to build prosperity, and to remove sources of conflict on this continent. Now the European Union is considering the admission of Turkey, and you are moving rapidly to meet the criteria for membership. Mustafa Kemal Ataturk had a vision of Turkey as a strong nation among other European nations. That dream can be realized by this generation of Turks. America believes that as a European power, Turkey belongs in the European Union. Your membership would also be a crucial advance in relations between the Muslim world and the West, because you are part of both. Including Turkey in the EU would prove that Europe is not the exclusive club of a single religion; it would expose the "clash of civilizations" as a passing myth of history. Fifteen years ago, an artificial line that divided Europe -- drawn at Yalta -- was erased. And now this continent has the opportunity to erase another artificial division -- by including Turkey in the future of Europe. Turkey has found its place in the community of democracies by living out its own principles. Muslims are called to seek justice -- fairness to all, care for the stranger, compassion for those in need. And you have learned that democracy is the surest way to build a society of justice. The best way to prevent corruption and abuse of power is to hold rulers accountable. The best way to ensure fairness to all is to establish the rule of law. The best way to honor human dignity is to protect human rights. Turkey has found what nations of every culture and every region have found: If justice is the goal, then democracy is the answer. In some parts of the world, especially in the Middle East, there is a wariness toward democracy, often based on misunderstanding. Some people in Muslim cultures identify democracy with the worst of Western popular culture, and want no part of it. And I assure them, when I speak about the blessings of liberty, coarse videos and crash -- crass commercialism are not what I have in mind. There is nothing incompatible between democratic values and high standards of decency. For the sake of their families and their culture, citizens of a free society have every right to strive peacefully for a moral society. Democratic values also do not require citizens to abandon their faith. No democracy can allow religious people to impose their own view of perfection on others, because this invites cruelty and arrogance that are foreign to every faith. And all people in a democracy have the right to their own religious beliefs. But all democracies are made stronger when religious people teach and demonstrate upright conduct -- family commitment, respect for the law, and compassion for the weak. Democratic societies should welcome, not fear, the participation of the faithful. In addition, democracy does not involve automatic agreement with other democracies. Free governments have a reputation for independence, which Turkey has certainly earned. And that is the way that democracy works. We deal honestly with each other, we make our own decisions, and yet, in the end, the disagreements of the moment are far outweighed by the ideals we share. Because representative governments reflect their people, every democracy has its own structure, traditions, and opinions. There are, however, certain commitments of free government that do not change from place to place. The promise of democracy is fulfilled in freedom of speech, the rule of law, limits on the power of the state, economic freedom, respect for women, and religious tolerance. These are the values that honor the dignity of every life, and set free the creative energies that lead to progress. Achieving these commitments of democracy can require decades of effort and reform. In my own country it took generations to throw off slavery, racial segregation, and other practices that violated our ideals. So we do not expect that other societies can be transformed in a day. But however long the journey, there is only one destination worth striving for, and that is a society of self-rule and freedom. Democracy leads to justice within a nation, and the advance of democracy leads to greater security among nations. The reason is clear: Free peoples do not live in endless stagnation, and seethe in resentment, and lash out in envy, rage, and violence. Free peoples do not cling to every grievance of the past; they build and live for the future. This is the experience of countries in the NATO alliance. Bitterness and hostility once divided France and Germany, Germany and Poland, Romania and Hungary. But as these nations grew in liberty, ancient disputes and hatreds have been left to history. And because the people of Europe now live in hope, Europe no longer produces armed ideologies that threaten the peace of the world. Freedom in Europe has brought peace to Europe, and now freedom can bring peace to the broader Middle East. I believe that freedom is the future of the Middle East, because I believe that freedom is the future of all humanity. And the historic achievement of democracy in the broader Middle East will be a victory shared by all. Millions who now live in oppression and want will finally have a chance to provide for their families and lead hopeful lives. Nations in the region will have greater stability because governments will have greater legitimacy. And nations like Turkey and America will be safer, because a hopeful Middle East will no longer produce ideologies and movements that seek to kill our citizens. This transformation is one of the great and difficult tasks of history. And by our own patience and hard effort, and with confidence in the peoples of the Middle East, we will finish the work that history has given us. Democracy, by definition, must be chosen and defended by the people themselves. The future of freedom in the Islamic world will be determined by the citizens of Islamic nations, not by outsiders. And for citizens of the broader Middle East, the alternatives could not be more clear. One alternative is a political doctrine of tyranny, suicide, and murder that goes against the standards of justice found in Islam and every other great religion. The other alternative is a society of justice, where men and women live peacefully and build better lives for themselves and their children. This is the true cause of the people of the Middle East, and that cause can never be served by the murder of the innocent. This struggle between political extremism and civilized values is unfolding in many places. We see the struggle in Iraq, where killers are attempting to undermine and intimidate a free government. We see the struggle in Iran, where tired, discredited autocrats are trying to hold back the democratic will of a rising generation. We see that struggle in Turkey, where the PKK has abandoned its cease-fire with the Turkish people and resumed violence. We see it in the Holy Land, where terrorist murderers are setting back the good cause of the Palestinian people, who deserve a reformed, peaceful, and democratic state of their own. The terrorists are ruthless and resourceful, but they will not prevail. Already more than half of the world's Muslims live under democratically-constituted governments -- from Indonesia to West Africa, from Europe to North America. And the ideal of democracy is also powerful and popular in the Middle East. Surveys in Arab nations reveal broad support for representative government and individual liberty. We are seeing reform in Kuwait and Qatar, Bahrain and Yemen, Jordan and Morocco. We're seeing men and women of conscience and courage step forward to advocate democracy and justice in the broader Middle East. As we found in the Soviet Union, and behind the Iron Curtain, this kind of moral conviction was more powerful than vast armies and prison walls and the will of dictators. And this kind of moral conviction is also more powerful than the whips of the Taliban, the police state of Saddam Hussein, or the cruel designs of terrorists. The way ahead is long and difficult, yet people of conscience go forward with hope. The rule of fear did not survive in Europe; the rule of free peoples will come to the Middle East. Leaders throughout that region, including some friends of the United States, must recognize the direction of the events of the day. Any nation that compromises with violent extremists only emboldens them, and invites future violence. Suppressing dissent only increases radicalism. The long-term stability of any government depends on being open to change, and responsive to citizens. By learning these lessons, Turkey has become a great and stable democracy -- and America shares your hope that other nations will take this path. Western nations, including my own, want to be helpful in the democratic progress of the Middle East, yet we know there are suspicions, rooted in centuries of conflict and colonialism. And in the last 60 years, many in the West have added to this distrust by excusing tyranny in the region, hoping to purchase stability at the price of liberty. But it did not serve the people of the Middle East to betray their hope of freedom. It has not made Western nations more secure to ignore the cycle of dictatorship and extremism. Instead we've seen the malice grow deeper, and the violence spread, until both have appeared on the streets of our own cities. Some types of hatred will never be appeased; they must be opposed and discredited and defeated by a hopeful alternative -- and that alternative is freedom. Reformers in the broader Middle East are working to build freer and more prosperous societies -- and America and Turkey, the G-8, the EU and NATO have now agreed to support them. Many nations are helping the people of Afghanistan to secure a free government. And NATO now leads a military operation in Afghanistan, in the first action by the alliance outside of Europe. In Iraq, a broad coalition -- including the military forces of many NATO countries -- is helping the people of that country to build a decent and democratic government after decades of corrupt oppression. And NATO is providing support to a Polish-led division. The government of Iraq has now taken a crucial step forward. In a nation that suffered for decades under tyranny, we have witnessed the transfer of sovereignty and the beginning of self-government. In just 15 months, the Iraqi people have left behind one of the worst regimes in the Middle East, and their country is becoming the world's newest democracy. The world has seen a great event in the history of Iraq, in the history of the Middle East, and in the history of liberty. The rise of Iraqi democracy is bringing hope to reformers across the Middle East, and sending a very different message to Teheran and Damascus. A free and sovereign Iraq is a decisive defeat for extremists and terrorists, because their hateful ideology will lose its appeal in a free and tolerant and successful country. The terrorists are doing everything they can to undermine Iraqi democracy, by attacking all who stand for order and justice, and by committing terrible crimes to break the will of free nations. These terrorists have the ability to cause suffering and grief, but they do not have the power to alter the outcome in Iraq. The civilized world will keep its resolve, the leaders of Iraq are strong and determined, and the people of Iraq will live in freedom. Iraq still faces hard challenges in the days and months ahead. Iraq's leaders are eager to assume responsibility for their own security, and that is our wish, as well. So this week at our summit, NATO agreed to provide assistance in training Iraqi security forces. I am grateful to Turkey and other NATO allies for helping our friends in Iraq to build a nation that governs itself and defends itself. Our efforts to promote reform and democracy in the Middle East are moving forward. At the NATO summit, we approved the Istanbul Cooperative Initiative, offering to work together with nations of the broader Middle East to fight terrorism, to control their borders, and to aid victims of disaster. We're thankful for the important role that Turkey is playing as a democratic partner in the Broader Middle East Initiative. For all of our efforts to succeed, however, more is needed than plans and policies. We must strengthen the ties of trust and good will between ourselves and the peoples of the Middle East. And trust and good will come more easily when men and women clear their minds, and their hearts, of suspicion and prejudice and unreasoned fear. When some in my country speak in an ill-informed and insulting manner about the Muslim faith, their words are heard abroad, and do great harm to our cause in the Middle East. When some in the Muslim world incite hatred and murder with conspiracy theories and propaganda, their words are also heard -- by a generation of young Muslims who need truth and hope, not lies and anger. All such talk, in America or in the Middle East, is dangerous and reckless and unworthy of any religious tradition. Whatever our culture differences may be, there should be respect and peace in the House of Abraham. The Turkish writer Orhan Pamuk has said that the finest view of Istanbul is not from the shores of Europe, or from the shores of Asia, but from a bridge that unites them, and lets you see both. His work has been a bridge between cultures, and so is the Republic of Turkey. The people of this land understand, as that great writer has observed, that "What is important is not [a] clash of parties, civilizations, cultures, East and West." What is important, he says, is to realize "that other people in other continents and civilizations" are "exactly like you." Ladies and gentlemen, in their need for hope, in their desire for peace, in their right to freedom, the peoples of the Middle East are exactly like you and like me. Their birthright of freedom has denied -- been denied for too long. We will do all in our power to help them find the blessings of liberty. Thank you for your hospitality. May God bless Turkey, may God continue to bless the United States.

Originally posted by Aeryn Sun: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Miss Sun, why are you just rolling your eyes instead of adding your two cents to the topic!? We are just educating ourseleves here, nothing else; so dont go deleting the post, !

Originally posted by Nur: I am not quite sure of what you mean by the fourth dimension, but in Islam we have the phyisical with al its four dimensions, 3+ time, as a single dimension, then there is another Ghaib, dimension, which is where heaven and hell lie, and all others like angels and Jinn. Nur Nur where does it say in Islam we have four dimensions-- three space and one of time, known as spacetime? What I am trying to say here is be careful in what you say, cause the idea of spacetime was put forward by Einstein in his theory of special relativity. The theory does show how time is another dimension, by linking object’s speed through time just as we can link an object’s speed through space. When an object/particle moves through space relative to us, its clocks runs slow compared to ours. In other words, they age less than we do! Today however, we believe there might be more than four dimensions. According to string theory there are nine space dimension and one of time-- in total 10 spacetime, beat that! What I am trying to say here, don’t say there are only four spacetime dimension unless you are 100% sure that Islam says so—I am not so sure Islam says there are only four dimensions. The idea of more than four dimensions has been around since 1920s. The Polish mathematician Theodor Kaluza put it forward in 1919 when he sent a paper to Einstein in which he suggested he could unify Einstein’s general theory of relativity and Maxwell’s electromagnetic theory into a single theory provided there were more than three spatial dimensions. At first, Einstein was not convinced of the idea and discouraged Kaluza from publishing. However, two years later Einstein wrote back to Kaluza saying, ‘I am having second thoughts about having restrained you from publishing your idea on unification of gravitation and electricity two years ago. . . . If you wish, I shall present your paper to the academy after all.’ As approvals go in the field of physics, there is nothing higher than your paper being accepted by the man himself! The need for extra dimensions and why we don’t experience or sense these extra dimensions is a subject on it is own right. Nevertheless, it will suffice to say, extra dimensions cure negative probabilities and it redistricts the probability range to between 0-1 in our theories! Thus, extra dimensions seem to be imposed on us by nature and why this is the case, nobody knows. On the other hand, the reason why we don’t experience these extra dimensions is because they are very very small— maybe in the region of Planck length i.e. 10^-32 cm! After all of the above ranting Nur, my central message is, there is a very good chance that there are more than four dimensions and as such, it would be foolish to say Islam says there are only four. My understanding of Ghaib is the unknown and it doesn’t mean is a dimension. On the question of soul, well I believe the soul is nothing but a command/order of God and we know nothing of it. However, one thing I am sure of is not what Plato thought it was, that the soul was lying in some cookie jar and waiting for a body. Having said that I don’t know what it is and anything I might say here is just speculation and hence I will end this rant with the following verse from the Koran. [17.85] And they ask you about the soul. Say: The soul is one of the commands of my Lord, and you are not given aught of knowledge but a little. P.S. Is it the heart or the brain, which believes? This question has been fascinating for sometime now and I personally believe is the brain! Having said that, I am more than happy to hear what others think.

Originally posted by Devil's Advocate: Q, they might be. I heard Barawanis (?sp) come from different places, like indian, yemen, etc. I heard of the Portoguese one as well. I hate to disappoint you, Bravanese people do not come from Portugal but they come from Yemen, Oman and some other parts of Arabia. However, if you know something I do not please share it with the rest of us. I am more than happy to learn anything new you have to say about the Bravanese people, since this will give me the chance to learn some history. I am eagerly waiting for any new info. Sue, why should the topic be deleted??

Originally posted by Devil's Advocate: The basic concept of feminism is the social and political movement for equality of men and women. I could not agree more and hence why I consider myself a feminist. I am for the equality between the sexes, races and different beliefs, only through justice for all can we live in a just and peaceful society that is in harmony with itself. Originally posted by Devil's Advocate: Feminism is not a lesbian movement, its a women's movement. But then again, that propaganda and hate is being perpretrated by the male species Again, I agree with you, but I dont agree that all the propaganda and hate is being perpetrated by just all men and I am living proof of that! A good book that I could recommend on this subject for those who would like to read further is, The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir.

Originally posted by Qac Qaac: p.s. I heard barawe ppl, are originated from Portugees, is that true. No that is NOT true but rather a daman right lie.

PK, you who claims to be a philosopher king, should know belief is based on faith, which does not have any rational basis whatsoever! The whole concept of faith is based on believing or taking a leap into the unknown; since reason can only go so far due to our lack of knowledge. I can not but think that there is a rational basis to faith and religion. If you can back up what you said above, I will be happy to hear your arguments and learn from them. Until then I will wait for your response. Remember philosophy doesn?t have all the answers and most of the things philosophers rant about cant be tested or verified experimentally for how close they are to the truth (not that I believe there is such a thing as the absolute truth). Because of this, one should be cautious of what philosophers say!

Sophist, since you proposed the questions surely you must have some answers to your own questions and as such, it would only be fair if you could share them with us. I have to say none of what I have read so far convinced me of either way! I must also confess I know nothing of economic matters and any opinion I might have is just what I gathered from papers. However, if I am forced to choose a system I would choose the European form of capitalism—this is at least capitalism with a human face. I believe (this believe is not based on any concrete evidence) but nonetheless I believe that European capitalism to be the best system we have and I do not see another alternative that could work in this world. Thus, I would have rephrased your question and asked what form of capitalism comes close to being a fair system or What are the Economic and Moral Criticism of Different Capitalist Systems. //----side issue! If anyone here seems to know, what is debt or even better, what is money at a fundamental level, would they care to share it with me and other interested parties? I am asking this question because, recently someone told me; when you borrow money from the bank the money they are lending you do not really exist! She went on to say the bank is lending you money against a profit, which they might make in the future, say 20 years from now. This confused me and made question the whole economic system at a fundamental level what is money and does it has to be conserved or can it be created from nothing? When a country such as USA when they are in debt, who are they in debt to, when they happen to be the richest country in the world? The only think I could think of after learning the above fact, maybe they borrowed against their future earnings! Hypothetically speaking, what happens if the US refuses to pay their debt, would the world economy collapse? Q PS. Sophist I am still waiting your response on why you think scientific experiments are not good indicators of the truth!

I thought I should share this interesting article by the late Pakistani physicist and Noble Laureate Prof. Abdus Salam. Part I 1. The Holy Quran and Science Let me say at the outset that I am both a believer as well as a practising Muslim. I am a Muslim because I believe in the spiritual message of the Holy Quran. As a scientist, the Quran speaks to me in that it emphasises reflection on the Laws of Nature, with examples drawn from cosmology, physics, biology and medicine, as signs for all men. Thus "Can they not look up to the clouds, how they are created; and to the Heaven how it is upraised; and the mountains how they are rooted, and to the earth how it is outspread ?" (88: 17) and again, "Verily in the creation of the heavens and of the earth, and in the alternation of the night and of the day, are there signs for men of understanding. " (3: 189-190) Seven hundred and fifty verses of the Quran -(almost one eighth of the Book) -"exhort believers to study Nature, to reflect, to make the best use of reason in their search for the ultimate and to make the acquiring of knowledge and scientific comprehension part of the community 's life". The Holy Prophet of Islam (Peace be on him) emphasised that the quest for knowledge and sciences is obligatory upon every Muslim, man and woman. This is the first premise on scientific knowledge with which any fundamentalist thinking in Islam must begin. Add to this the second premise - eloquently reinforced by Maurice Bucaille in his essay on "The Bible, the Quran and Science". There is not a single verse in the Quran where natural phenomena are described and which contradicts what we know for certain from our discoveries in sciences. Add to this the third premise: in Islamic history there has been no incident like that of Galileo. Persecution, excommunication (takfeer), which unfortunately continues even today over doctrinal differences, but not, to my knowledge, directly for scientific beliefs. [1] 2. Modern Science, A Greco- Islamic Legacy How seriously did the early Muslims take these injunctions in the Holy Quran and of the Holy Prophet? Barely a hundred years after the Prophet's death, the Muslims had made it their task to master the then-known sciences. Founding institutes of advanced study (Bait-ul-Hikmas), they acquired an absolute ascendancy in the sciences that lasted for the next 350 years. An aspect of reverence for the sciences in Islam was the patronage they enjoyed in the Islamic Commonwealth. To paraphrase what H.A.R. Gibb has written in the context of literature: "To a greater extent than elsewhere, the flowering of the sciences in Islam was conditional. ..on the liberality and patronage of those in high positions. So long as, in one capital or another, princes and ministers found pleasure, profit or reputation in patronising the sciences, the torch was kept burning". The Golden Age of Science in Islam was doubtless the Age around the year 1000 CE, the Age of Ibn-i-Sina (Avicenna), the last of the mediaevalists, and of his contemporaries, the first of the moderns, Ibn-al-Haitham and Al Biruni. Ibn-al-Haitham (A1hazen, 965-1039 CE) was one of the greatest physicists of all time. He made experimental contributions of the highest order in optics. He "enunciated that a ray of light, in passing through a medium, takes the path which is tlie easier and 'quicker'. [2] In this he was anticipating Fermat's Principle of Least Time by many centuries. He enunciated the law of inertia, later to become Newton's first law of motion. Part V of Roger Bacon's "Opus Majus " is practically an annotation to Ibn al Haitham's Optics. [3] Al Biruni (973 -1048 CE), Ibn-i-Sina's second illustrious contemporary, worked in today's Afghanistan. He was an empirical scientist like Ibn-al-Haitham; as modern and as unmediaeval in outlook as Galileo, six centuries later . There is no question that western science is a Greco-Islamic legacy. However, it is commonly alleged that Islamic Science was a derived science, that Muslim scientists followed the Greek theoretical tradition blindly and added nothing to the scientific method. This statement is false. Listen to this assessment of Aristotle by Al Biruni: "The trouble with most people is their extravagance in respect of Aristotle's opinions, they believe that there is no possibility of mistakes in his views, though they know that he was only theorising to the best of his capacity". Or Al Biruni on mediaeval superstition: "People say that on the 6th {of January) there is an hour during which all salt water of the earth gets sweet. Since all the qualities occurring in the water depend exclusively upon the nature of the soil. ..these qualities are of a stable nature. ..Therefore this statement. ..is entirely unfounded. Continual and leisurely experimentation will show to anyone the futility of this assertion". And finally, Al Biruni on geology, with this insistence on observation: ". ..But if you see the soil of India with your own eyes and meditate on its nature, if you consider the rounded stones found in earth however deeply you dig, stones that are huge near the mountains and where the rivers have a violent current: stones that are of smaller size at a greater distance from the mountains and where the streams flow more slowly: stones that appear pulverised in the shape of sand where the streams begin to stagnate near their mouths and near the sea -if you consider all this you can scarcely help thinking that India was once a sea, which by degrees has been filled up by the alluvium o f the streams". In Briffault's words: [3] "The Greeks systematised, generalised, and theorised, but the patient ways of detailed and prolonged observation and experimental inquiry were altogether alien to the Greek temperament. ..What we call science arose as a result of new methods of experiment, observation, and measurement, which were introduced into Europe by the Arabs. ..(Modern) science is the most momentous contribution of the Islamic civilisation ...". These thoughts are echoed by George Sarton, the great historian of science: "The main, as well as the least obvious, achievement of the Middle Ages was the creation of the experimental spirit and this was primarily due to the Muslims down to the 12th century". One of the tragedies of history is that this dawning of the modern spirit in sciences was interrupted; it did not lead to a permanent change of direction in scientific methodology .Barely a hundred years after Al Biruni and lbn-al-Haitham worked, creation of high science in Islam effectively came to a halt. Mankind had to wait 500 years before the same level of maturity and the same insistence on observation and experimentation was reached once again with Tycho Brahe, Galileo and their contemporaries. 3. The Decline of Sciences in Islam Why did creative science die out in Islamic civilisation? This decline, which began around 1100 CE, was nearly complete two hundred and fifty years later . No one knows for certain why this happened. There were indeed external causes, like the devastation caused by the Mongol invasion. In my view however, the demise of living science within the Islamic commonwealth had started much earlier. It was due much more to internal causes -firstly, the inward-turning and the isolation of our scientific enterprise and secondly -and in the main -of active discouragement to innovation (taqlid). The later parts of the eleventh and early twelfth centuries in Islam (when this decline began) were periods of intense politically-motivated, sectarian, and religious strife. Even though a man like Imam Ghazali, writing around 1100 CE, could say "A grievous crime indeed against religion has been committed by a man who imagines that Islam is defended by the denial of the mathematical sciences, seeing that there is nothing in these sciences opposed to the truth of religion", the temper of the age had turned away from creative science, either to Sufism with its other worldliness or to a rigid orthodoxy with a lack of tolerance (taqlid) for innovation (ijtihad-), in all fields of learning - including the sciences. Does this situation persist today? Are we encouraging scientific research and inquiry? Of the major civilisations on this planet, science is the weakest in the Islamic Commonwealth. Unfortunately, some of us Muslims believe that while technology is basically neutral, and that its excesses can be tempered through an adherence to the moral precepts of Islam, science -on the contrary - is value-loaded. It is believed that modern science must lead to "rationalism", and eventually apostacy; that scientifically trained men among us will "deny the metaphysical presuppositions of our culture". Leaving aside the fact that high technology can not flourish without high science and also leaving aside the insult to the "presuppositions of our culture" for implied fragility, I believe that such an attitude towards science is a legacy of the battles of yesterday when the so-called "rational philosophers", with their irrational and dogmatic belief in the cosmological doctrines they had inherited from Aristotle found difficulties in reconciling these with their faith. One must remind oneself that such battles were waged even more fiercely among the Christian schoolmen of the Middle Ages. The problems which concerned the schoolmen were mainly problems of cosmology and metaphysics: "Is the world located in an immobile place; Does God move the primum mobile directly and actively as an efficient cause, or only as a final or ultimate cause? Are all the heavens moved by one mover or several? Do celestial movers experience exhaustion or fatigue?" When Galileo tried, first to classify those among the problems, which legitimately belonged to the domain of physics, and then to find answers only to those through physical experimentation, he was persecuted. This persecution damaged the progress of science in Italy at least till the eighteenth century. Ideological restitution for this however, is being made now, three hundred and fifty years later. At a special ceremony in the Vatican on 9 May 1983, His Holiness the Pope John Paul II, declared: "The Church's experience, during the Galileo affair and after it, has led to a more mature attitude. ..The Church herself learns by experience and reflection and she now understands better the meaning that must be given to freedom of research. ..It is through research that man attains to Truth. ..This is why the Church is convinced that there can be no real contradiction between science and faith. ..(However ), it is only through humble and assiduous study that (the Church) learns to dissociate the essential of the faith from the systems of a given age". 4. The Limitations of Science In the remarks I have quoted, the Pope stressed the maturity which the Church had reached in dealing with science; he could equally have emphasised the converse -the recognition by the scientists from Galileo's times onwards, of the limitations of their disciplines -the recognition that there are questions which are beyond the ken of present or even future sciences and that "Science has achieved its success by restricting itself to a certain type of inquiry". And even in this restricted area the scientist of today knows when and where he is speculating; he would claim no finality for the associated modes of thought. In physics, this happened twice in the beginning of this century, first with the discovery of relativity of time and space, and secondly with quantum theory. It could happen again. Take Einstein's discovery of relativity of time. It appears incredible that the length of a time interval -the age one lives -depends on one's speed -that the faster we move the longer we appear to live to someone who is not moving with us. And this is not a figment of one's fancy. Come to the particle physics laboratories of CERN at Geneva which produce short-lived particles like muons, and make a record of the intervals of time which elapse before muons of different speeds decay into electrons and neutrinos. The faster muons take longer to die, the slower ones die early. Incredible but true. Einstein's ideas on time and space brought about a revolution in the physicist's thinking. We had to abandon our earlier modes of thought in physics. In this context, it always surprises me that the professional philosopher who in the nineteenth century and earlier used to consider space and time as his special preserve has somehow failed to erect any philosophical systems based on Einstein's notions so far! The second and potentially the more explosive revolution in thought came in 1926 with Heisenberg's discovery of limitation on our knowledge. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle affirms that while experiments can be made to discover where the electron is, these experiments will then destroy any possibility of finding simultaneously whether the electron is moving and if so at what speed. There is an inherent limitation fu our knowledge, which appears to have been decreed "il:' the nature of things". I shudder to think that what might have happened to Heisenberg if he was born in the Middle Ages -just what theological battles might have raged on the question whether there was a like limitation on the knowledge possessed by God. As it was, battles were fought, but within the twentieth century physics community. Heisenberg's revolutionary thinking -supported by all known experiments -has not been accepted by all physicists. The most illustrious physicist of all times, Einstein, spent the best part of his life trying to find flaws in Heisenberg 's arguments. He could not gainsay the experimental evidence -but hope was entertained that such evidence may perhaps be explained within a different theoretical framework. Such framework has not been found; but no one -at least no physicist -would say that this is the end; 5. Faith and Science But is the science of today really on a collision course with metaphysical thinking? Again the problem -if any -is not peculiar to Islam; the problem is one of science and faith in general. Can science and faith at the least, live together in "harmonious complementarity"? Let us consider some relevant examples of modern scientific thinking. My first example concerns the metaphysical doctrine of creation from nothing. Today a growing number of cosmologists believe that the most likely value for the density of matter and energy in the Universe is such that the "mass" of the Universe adds up to zero, precisely. If the mass of the Universe is indeed zero -and this is an empirically determinable quantity -the Universe shares with the vacuum state the property of masslessness. A bold extrapolation, made ten years ago, then treated the Universe as a quantum fluctuation of the vacuum -of the state of nothingness in a space and time created ex nihilo ...What distinguishes physics from metaphysics however is that by measuring the density of matter in the Universe we shall know empirically whether the idea can be sustained in the physicist's sense. If it cannot be, we shall discard it. My second example concerns the recent excitement in physics -which follows on our success in unifying and establishing the identity of two of the fundamental forces of Nature, the electric and the weak nuclear. We are now considering the possibility that space-time may have ten dimensions. Within this context we hope to unify the electroweak force with the remaining of the two basic forces -the force of gravity and the strong nuclear force. Of the ten, four are the familiar dimensions of space and time. The curvature of these familiar space and time dimensions determines the size and life-span of our present Universe, according to Einstein's ideas. The curvature of the extra six dimensions one has newly postulated gives the electric and the nuclear charges we are familiar with. But why don't we apprehend these extra dimensions directly? Why only indirectly through the existence of the electric and the nuclear charges? Why the difference between the four familiar space-time dimensions and, the extra internal dimensions which, according to our present thinking, have sizes no larger than 10-33 cms? At present, we make this plausible by postulating a self-consistency principle. The theory works if and only if the number of extra dimensions is six. However, there will be subtle physical consequences; for example remnants, like the recently discovered three degree black-body radiation which fills the Universe and which we know was a remnant of an early era in the evolution of the Universe. We shall search for these signs. If we do not find them, we shall abandon the idea. Creation from nothing, extra dimensions - strange topics, for late twentieth century physics - which appear no different from the metaphysical preoccupations of earlier times. But so far as science is concerned, mark the provisional nature of the conceptual edifice, the insistence on empirical verification at each stage and the concept of driving self-consistency.a For the agnostic, self -consistency (if successful) may connote irrelevance of a deity: Faman yudlilhu fala hadiya lahu. "Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him." [The Qur'an/7/al-Araf/186] for the believer, it is part of the Lord's design -its profundity, in the areas it illuminates, only enhances his reverence for the beauty of the design itself. As I said before, personally for me, my own faith was predicated by the timeless spiritual message of Islam, on matters on which physics is silent, and will remain so. It was given meaning to by the very first verse of the Holy Quran after the Opening: "This is the Book, Wherein there is no doubt, A guidance to the God-fearing, Who believe in the Unseen". "The Unseen " -"Beyond the reach of human ken" - "The Unknowable" -the original Arabic words are yu'minuna bil ghaib [who] believe in the unseen [The Qur'an/2/al-Baqara/3]

I come from United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Island! I live and work in London. Sex? Yes please! I am male and I work doing what I don’t know. When people are not looking, I look at them up close and personal. I listen to a variety of music and this depends in the mood I am in. If I am stressed, I listen to classical music, when depressed rock and roll and when chilling slow jams. General interest? Well I have a lot and I do none of them, for the simple reason I am depressed and unhappy with life to enjoy anything. This is the problem of my life, when I was at six form; I said to myself when I get to uni I would be happy. Once I got there, I was happy for a while and went out every night for the first two years. Then I realised I was not happy, I thought well after my third year I will continue and go to the end! I have done that and in the meantime, I was carrying with my going out every other night. However, I was still not happy. Once finished education I went and got a job, then I occupied myself with work and thought if I become workaholic I would be happy and doing that now and still not happy. So the question is, what would make me happy??? I just passed my mid 20s, no wife (a g/f who is workaholic like me and thus we hardly see each other), still going out every other night and on average sleeps five hours in a day. SO I WANT TO BE HAPPY TO ENJOY LIFE, WHAT DO I DO??? Sue and Idil, how the hell in God’s world do you two enjoy reading science journals; please enlighten me, cause I have never seen anything more boring in my life than science journals???

Hi All, I am new here and I do not know whether posting my reply to an article posted here to be the right thing to do or not. But I will post my reply and apologise for it�as one of my teachers used to say is easier ask for forgiveness than asking for permission! The article by Chuck Morse on Islamic Liberation Theology is the worst piece I have ever seen written by someone on the RIGHT. I don�t know who this Chuck Morse is, (if I have to guess I would say he is some American right wing) who has no idea what he is talking about. Let me make this clear before I go any further, I am what you call centre left, I fight for social justices and equality, as do my fellow comrades in the leftist movement! Unlike the right, the left never tried to back dictators or murders in any form or shape�Chile just to mention one example in this case. I strongly believe that people from the right created most the problems the world is facing today. What is more, the right always courts the religious elements of any society and the living proof of this today is the Republican Party in the USA. Why do you think Bush today is supporting the Sharon policy on Middle East, love for the Jewish people? I doubt that very much. This support is not either based on the few votes, which, the Republicans might gain from the Jewish voters (most of American Jews vote for Democratic Party anyway). However, this support is based on the bonkers beliefs of the fundamentalist Christian that Jesus will return to Earth one day. For this to happen though a state of Israel has be created and this state in turn should occupy the holy land and build the Third Temple on the site where Al-Aqsa mosque is situated. Once the Jews implement these two pre-conditions, Jesus will have the chance to return to Earth. From there onwards, the Jews either have the choice to believe in Christ or burn with the rest of non-believers! If the above belief is not a fundamentalism, I do not know what is. What is more, sooner rather than latter (if not already doing so) this belief will lead the world to more wars and misery. So you tell me if we don�t blame the religious fanatics and their right wing allies who should we blame? Blaming the left wing Soviets for launching the Islamic terrorism we are facing today, is a dishonest and distortion of history, to say the least. I am not advocating the Soviet system was fair or just, but it was not to blame for Islamic insurgence we face today. The other thing this person needs to know is, when the left were opposed to Saddam�s brutal rule, why were his lot doing business with him if he was evil. Even better why is Bush doing business with Saudi Royal family, when the whole world knows them to be brutal rulers and non-democratic? The way I see it, until the rightist admit the wrong they have done and continue to be doing, the world will be in a messier situation than we are today; this is just the beginning ladies and gentlemen!