Well this takes the fun out of everything.

^Maxaas kuhaaya igaaryahow Abyan-I was thinking of some annoying Sijiu person.

Originally posted by Raamsade: ^Are you agreeing with Piouyt that as their countries become economically developed, Muslims will reject Sharia for secular democracy? That's the gist of what Piouyt is saying. I'm not sure if that's what he's saying. My view of it is that there's natural progression of things in given society and within contours of each society, needless to say systems are borne out of experience-secularism is purely European experience.Expecting Muslims or in this case Somali Muslims to embrace it even in the context of economic and cultural prosperity is simply flawed.If anything, secularism in Somalia would be anomaly rather than it being the next evolutionary step in our capacity to govern ourselves. Makes wonder though what was state of the Somali tribes in the horn when the Treaty of Westphalia which ended religious wars in Europe and essentially established sovereign states or nation states was signed?

^Better yet, how about we invite aghori-help him attain that divinely enlightenment but that would be somewhat of ironic end for you though.

Looking from the perspective of the living, it does matter insofar your remains don't pose any health risk-I'm too practical and far less philosiphical. As for me, I would have preferred cataclysmic end that obliterates everything and no, I'm not volunteering for suicide mission.

Xumad

^Feybaro. *Giving Aaliyah the thermometer checking ayeeyo's temp the old fashion way*

Ibti-Good questions. So, how do you cure chronic insomnia?

^What's your field?

^a gynecologist

Originally posted by Jacaylbaro: They are clan militia when they're alive and high ranking officers when they die ,,,, We are learned from the best Series of killings and bombings ain't no accidents

Somaliland officers seem to be just easy targets. AUN

A peaceful city was transformed into military garrison and Qabyaalad is bubbling under the surface.

Hhhmm

Xamar Cadeey

Where's Juxa today? *goes back to sleep*

Originally posted by Sikaawe: What came after that then today? Chaos, crises after crises and a real anarchy which is hard to come out of unless one is clever enough to understand what is happening around them, what a pity for Somalia today let alone for Somali Galbeed plight. Ethiopia has come back with stinging and brutal vengeance with its some of Somali stooges leading it all the way to Mugadishu, the capital of Somalia. So, whether one likes or not, it was the Somalilander heroes in the army who defeated Ethiopia at the time and Ethiopians are well aware of it. I had once a chat with this fellow Somalilander who once was a senior army official in that war and who originally hails from Lascanod region, he told me that if it were not for northerners "who were the real warriors to the bones" we had no chance of dislodging Ethiopian from underground military defence system in Godey and Jijiga. "Military leaders or official from South in general, he said, did not know have any idea as to what a real military warfare was like"! For every question asked they would say " we did not learn this in our military course in Rome, Italy". Today's situation tells all that they hardly know right from wrong.......which is a pity. Yaa kula murmuuyu?

^Qaraarka jooji noh, the cool kids didn't invite you nerd

Move along then

And he recently get "engaged" expecting the fourth wife. Lazy...Odaga rageeda waaye iskadaa. All women he screwed are his friends' daughters including HIV positive one and this was before he became president-imagine now

^I can't believe the Northeast escaped that storm *heading to Superbowl party Go Saints *

^I was tempting the Sunday churchgoers.

I thought this was the most interesting bit! Origin of the World Turning from the attributes of God to the actions of God, where he delineates his view of creation, Ibn Rushd in his Tahafut al-Tahafut clearly deals with the charge against the philosopher’s doctrine on the eternity of the physical universe in his polemic against al-Ghazzali. Ghazzali perceived that the philosophers had misunderstood the relationship between God and the world, especially since the Qur’an is clear on divine creation. Ghazzali, sustaining the Asharite emphasis on divine power, questioned why God, being the ultimate agent, could not simply create the world ex nihilo and then destroy it in some future point in time? Why did there need to be some obstacle to explain a delay in God’s creative action? In response to this, Ghazzali offered a number of lengthy proofs to challenge the philosopher’s assertions. Ibn Rushd, who often labeled Ghazzali’s arguments dialectical, sophistical or feeble, merely replied that the eternal works differently than the temporal. As humans, we can willfully decide to perform some action and then wait a period of time before completing it. For God, on the other hand, there can be no gap between decision and action; for what differentiates one time from another in God’s mind? Also, what physical limits can restrict God from acting? Ibn Rushd, in the first discussion, writes about how Ghazzali confused the definition of eternal and human will, making them univocal. For humans, the will is the faculty to choose between two options, and it is desire that compels the will to choose. For God, however, this definition of will is meaningless. God cannot have desire because that would entail change within the eternal when the object of desire was fulfilled. Furthermore, the creation of the world is not simply the choice between two equal alternatives, but a choice of existence or non-existence. Finally, if all the conditions for action were fulfilled, there would not be any reason for God not to act. God, therefore, being omniscient and omnipotent would have known from the eternal past what he had planned to create, and without limit to his power, there would no condition to stop the creation from occurring. Ghazzali’s argument follows the typical Asharite kalam cosmological argument, in that he argues the scientific evidence for the temporal origin of the world, and reasons from that to the existence of a creator. Ghazzali’s first proof contends that the idea of the infinite number of planetary revolutions as an assumption of the eternity of the world is erroneous since one can determine their revolution rates and how much they differ when compared one to another. Ibn Rushd weakly maintains that the concept of numbered planetary revolutions and their division does not apply to eternal beings. To say that the eternal can be divided is absurd since there can be no degrees to the infinite. Oliver Leaman explains how Ibn Rushd accepted accidental but not essential infinite series of existents. There can be an infinite chain of human sexual generation, but those beings that are essentially infinite have neither beginning nor end and thus cannot be divided. In his Decisive Treatise Ibn Rushd summarily reduces the argument between the Asharite theologians and the ancient philosophers to one of semantics. Both groups agree that there are three classes of being, two extremes and one intermediate being. They agree about the name of the extremes, but disagree about the intermediate class. One extreme is those beings that are brought into existence by something (matter), from something other than itself (efficient cause) and originate in time. The second, and opposite, class is that which is composed of nothing, caused by nothing and whose existence is eternal; this class of being is demonstratively known as God. The third class, is that which is comprised of anything or is not preceded by time, but is brought into existence by an agent; this is what is known as the world. Theologians affirm that time did not exist before the existence of the world, since time is related to the motion of physical bodies. They also affirm that the world exists infinitely into the future. As such, since the philosophers accept these two contentions, the two groups only disagree on the existence of the world in the eternal past. Since the third class relates to both the first and second classes, the dispute between the philosophers and the theologians is merely how close the third class is to one of the other two classes. If closer to the first class, it would resemble originated beings; if closer to the second class, it would resemble more the eternal being. For Ibn Rushd, the world can neither be labeled pre-eternal nor originated, since the former would imply that the world is uncaused and the latter would imply that the world is perishable. Ibn Rushd finds pre-existing material forms in Quranic texts such as 11:9, where he maintains that one finds a throne and water pre-existing the current forms of the universe; he contends that the theologians’ interpretation of such passages are arbitrary. This is because nowhere in the Qur’an is the idea of God existing as pure being before the creation of the world to be found. The debate for Ibn Rushd and Ghazzali centers, ultimately, upon the idea of causation. Ghazzali, the dedicated Asharite, wants to support the position that God is the ultimate cause of all actions; that no being in the universe is the autonomous cause of anything. For instance, a spark put on a piece of wood does not cause fire; rather God causes the fire and has allowed the occasion of spark and wood to be the method by which he creates fire. God, if he so desired, could simply will fire not to occur when a spark and wood meet. For Ghazzali, this is the explanation of the occurrence of miracles: divine creative actions that suspend laws habitually accepted by humans. Ghazzali, in his Tahafut, speaks of the decapitated man continuing to live because God willed it so. Ibn Rushd, the consummate Aristotelian, maintains in his Tahafut Aristotle’s contention that a full explanation of any event or existence needs to involve a discussion of the material, formal, efficient and final cause. Ibn Rushd, then, insists that Ghazzali’s view would be counter-productive to scientific knowledge and contrary to common-sense. The universe, according to the human mind, works along certain causal principles and the beings existing within the universe contain particular natures that define their existence; if these natures, principles and characteristics were not definitive, then this would lead to nihilism (i.e. the atheistic materialists found in the Greek and Arab worlds). As for the idea of cause and effect being a product of habitual observation, Ibn Rushd asks if such observations are a product of God’s habit or our own observations. It cannot, he asserts, be the former, since the Qur’an speaks of God’s actions as unalterable. If the latter, the idea of habit applies only to animate beings, for the habitual actions of inanimate objects are tantamount to physical laws of motion.