Originally posted by ibtisam: Most young people, don't think that clan, race, Family status are toooo important, where parents are more likely to look for these things. Where? Never met these "young people" you're alluding to. I mean slice it and dice it anyway you like but the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree. If your parents are racists (ie trabilists), you're likely to be racist as well. For racism is learned behaviour. We learn it from those around us, firs and foremost our parents.

Henry, like any ambitious footballer, wanted to be part of the Revolution at Stamford Bridge but was at the end (after Mourinho arrival) turned down as he didn't fit the profile of the CF Chelsea were seeking. He simply didn't pack enough gear, eventually dropping out of the race. Then Drogba arrived at the scene and the rest -- as they say -- is history. As a gooner you're woefully inept at passing an impartial opinion on Henry vs Drogba discussion. All you're capable of is whining. I have my theory. Methinks ardent gooners are all stricken with severe case of Wengeritis shown in acute laceration of the limbic system. Such is the severity of you envious bunch's ailment that rarely does one see a gooner genuinely happy or satisfied or paying others due credit where deserved. Take solace in this though, the Kops and Manures aren't far behind.

Beautiful soliloquy! On a sour note, your dialogue is lacking.

Drogba SHINED and ALWAYS shines on the big stage. Big stage = Fifa Champions league, World Cup and big league comptetition games (like this weekend's Arsenal vs Chelsea game... I'm all psyched up, can't wait). Drogba singlehandedly took his coutry through AU and WC truimphs... lets not forget how indebted Marsielles were to him for their success while he was with them. But you're Kop fan, you'd hate him. Bet this is still fresh in your mind, heh? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p7FOQLjgkY (Goal of the YEAR!!) Amazing Drogba tribute (made by Marseille fans): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3FSWeYqPvtM Consider also who Jose "The Special One" Mourinho, who is argueably the finest footballing mind in the game today, CHOSE. He could've gotten Henry for paltry $50 million (Chelsea premium)if he wanted to. Instead, who saw something in Drogba. And given how Drogba proved himself since his signing, we can only look at the rear window and take a moment to admire the sagacity of the "Special One."

Originally posted by Khalaf: lol.......the Quran says worship Allah Alone....i guess another interpration can be no it says to worship Jesus...or a calf. True only if this equally absurd equivocation is also true: Kids are like headaches, Tylenol makes headaches go away, therefore taking Tylenol will make kids go away. Words only gain their relavent meaning in sentences and conveyed concepts. In the subtext of this discussion, Quranic/Hadith interpretive disagreements are over gray area subjects. Not the all too palpable and widely agreed upon subjects. What will adjudicate competing interpretations? Stop futzing around and answer the question.

Mecca-to-Medina dude is glamorizing frugality. Besides, I thought $25k weddings were out of fashion nowadays in favour of $50-100k scaled ones.

These girls who wear the Hijab while skimply dressed are like those girls you may have run into in elementry school... they'll call over everyone, lift up their skirts and show their bare coochie but then inexplicably run to the principal crying "they looked at me?" If you sow the wind, you reap the whirlwind.

Originally posted by Khalaf: the ayats of the Quran which say none have faith until they comply with the sayings of the nabi scw........ Now, this is egregious lie. The Quran doesn't say anything, there's only what we say the Quran says. And short of impartial Golden Standard for proper interpretation or empirical facts we can appeal to, we're stuck with competing often irreconcilable interpretations. Two the Glorious Quran is not a mere text...........it is the words of Allah Most High. No one ever hinted otherwise. The only point of contention is the subjectivity inherent in any interpretation proffered.

The Sphinx from Mystery Men: -Once you can balance a tack hammer on your head, you will head off your foes with a balanced attack. -When you care what is outside, what is inside cares for you. -To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn. Of course, all aphorisms are meaningless but that doesn't make them any less entertaining.

Originally posted by General Duke: ^^ Saxib the site is not your, nor do you speak for the owner. So kindly either add to the topic or keep quite.. WHERE is your take on the topic? What are you afraid of? Just dispense your two cents worth rather than hide behind what so-and-so said. We would like to know what your agenda is.

^Sure can and more than do mere comparison, I give reasons. -Drogba can post players, ie play his back to the goal unlike Henry (well, he can but is terrible it at). -Drogba can head the ball, in this sense he's a true centre forward. Henry is more of a winger. Drogba can play in the box, get physical unlike Henry. -Skills wise, the two are head-to-head although Henry got more spring in his step. -But what seals the deal is Henry is chocker at the big stage where as Drogba produces the goods. THERE, Drogba is better.

So? Do you think relaying the day's news is articulating a thought? We can all get the news on our OWN. We don't need YOU. Either put forth your take or stop wasting so much band width.

Originally posted by Reality Check: I'm not the one here making statements of facts without solid proof. Alas, there is your problem little one. The notion that proofs and statements facts will be forthcoming from discourse of this nature. Put it this way, if two people disagree like you and Nur have on a subject matter like this (meaning: that which exists only in language and not in reality), what can you go to that'll resolve the matter? Is there objective guidlines delineated by objective being (in this case only Allah would qualify) that you can use to say, "aha!, you broke rule number 2 of correct hermaneutics of Axadiith reading." The answer is obviously no. All opinions proffered are just mere opinions with the caveat not all opinions are created equal. So, when Nur gives his take, he can only bring along textual backing and HIS interpretation of them. But textual support is just textual support. Nothing more, nothing less.

What do you get when you put Hijab on camel-toe showing thingy? KITSCH! Listen ladies, any judgement of what you wear is between you and your maker is to state the obvious. It's your prerogative to dress as pleases you and no one has a right to sass you about it. However, dismissing those who question the appropriateness of wearing the Hijab while at the sametime sporting body-hugging clothes that'll make Britny Spears envious, is specious. It's not an arguement, it's mere handwringing. Further, you know full well there are valid reasons people heckle you for wearing the Hijab while displaying your belly-button ring. The Hijab is sacrosanct garment and you're defiling it, desecrating it, devaluing it for selfish ends. Either wear the Hijab with it's dignity unviolated or don't wear it all. What does all this mount to? If you wanna work in the kitchen you better be able to handle the heat. You and only you brought all this unwanted attention unto yourselves. Either put up with it or shut up.

Originally posted by Reality Check: who are you again? The last emperor of China. Can you kindly explain to me why you came to such conclusions. I have eyes. I see. I saw you had chip on your shoulder. What about you? How do you come to conclusions?

What is a terrorist network? Please please teacher, let me guess the answer. Any network that's deemed inconvenient?! Am I right teacher?

Nur, RealityCheck has a chip on her shoulder. So transparent if she was anymore she'd be invisible.

Originally posted by rudy: somali culture has no comparision in the african content. its rich, pure and unmatched. Of course, other nations would say the exact same about their culture. What were we talking about again? About whether Somalia has a culture, I would say yes. As with any self-identifying group of people, which somalis certainly are regardless of their claim of distinctive clan descent, culture is of absolute neccessity. Afterall, what is culture but widely shared acceptable standards for everything... from arts to politics, behaviour, sociality etc. Not only does Somalia have over-arching, universal culture but it has many sub-cultures. The independent variable being geography, not heritage or social standing.

This is the price that comes with prima donnas nowadays. Literally convincing themselves that the world and everyone else is subservient to their whims. That's why I've always been huge Drogba fan. Now, there is self-effacing jock one can be proud of. Who's Henry again?

You know you've gone mental when after you get home and turn-off the lights, your bet cat plaintively says, "oh no, not again tonight!"

Originally posted by Elysian: However when faced with questions such as how to run a society, human relations etc. there are no given answers simply because “reasoning” to obtain an answer will always be affected by “emotions” and to what degree one or the other has affected the outcome is impossible to assess. Maybe reasoning that appears to be affected by emotions is just poor reasoning or all emotions and no reasoning at all. Reason, unlike mere thinking, always entails stringing together a chain of premises that can lend support to particular conclusion. It is a purposeful, calculated, carefully weighed process. Very unlike the capricious nature of our emotional states.

Originally posted by ThePoint: you would have understood the consensus I'm talking about is that on the interpretation of the Quran, Hadith, Fiqh, etc that govern the day to day life of Muslims. This is the established consensus that renders null and void the actions and declarations of fringe groups that they alone are acting on the 'true' religion. If this is what you actually believe, why are you then taking exception to my initial riposte? I re-read what you wrote. With this There is such a thing as consensus in Islam. The consensus of scholars over-rides the claims or actions of what are, very plainly, fringe groups. and the above quote in bold, aren't you essentially saying consensus of Scholars settles the issue or in your words overrides claims of fringe groups? I will be extra cheritable this time and let you articulate your thoughts so as to leave no room for misunderstanding. While you ponder that, it might be useful to consider this. You're simultaneously committing two well known logical fallacies. Appeal to Authority or Argumentum ad Verecundiam (as if Scholars are final arbitrers of truth!) and appeal to numbrs or Argumentum ad Populum (as if by mere virtue of 'consensus' of scholars means we know truth). If only triteness wasn't the very essence of your intellect - you would have understood that - but then again I expected nothing less :rolleyes: Again, you miss the point completely. I can only work with what I'm given. Want better from me? Give me better material to work with. Want better answers? Ask better questions. And in the occasions where you're unprepared for my replies. Tough luck!

What is Moral Relativism? What is this? Grammatical joke? While you're at throw in other equally meaningless questions like what is justice?, what is beauty?, what is bad. These and other similar questions can not, ipso facto, provide useful discourse as they'll inevitable descend into mere opinions. And you know opinions are worth a dime a dozen. Moreover, when did is morality relative or absolute? morph into What is Moral Relativism?? Seriously, do you think gratuitousness and peddling Non Sequiturs is a virtue. If not then I implore you to take shots against impertinence because your penchant for impertinence is that bad. So bad that it fits pathological disorder profile. Good luck, you sure need it. Back to the pertinent subject of this thread: Is morality absolute or relative? This is meaningful question unlike the question in the title of this thread. In the case of this thread's title, no usefull answer can be attainted as there's no impartial parameters or body of evidence to settle it one way or another. Contrast that with Is morality absolute or relative?. Here we DO have a fair arbitrer; stats. Take a survey of different cultures and for every conceivably moral question summons plethora of dissimilar takes. To some, terrorism is legitimate method. To others, often those at the recieving end, it's indefensible method. Take other subjects like the Death Penalty, Sex Crimes, Cannabolism etc... you'll find weatlh of dissimilar approaches by each unique culture/civilisation. Q.E.D. morality is relative. Lastly, and this touches on somewhat extraneous but nevertheless noteworthy point that was raised by JB. It is this: does morality hinge upon Religion? Put differently, without religion can one have moral scruples? To me the point is mute one. It's also anachronistic as well. Hammurabi Code of Laws are the oldest codified human ethics/morals. More than 4000 yrs old, these laws layout appropriate actions on subjects such as Theft, Marriage, Women's rights, Childrens rights, murder and so on. Unmistakeably of human artifice, not of divine providence. Therefore establishing beyond debate the fact religion doesn't militate morality.

Quran is just a book? :eek: What an absurd thing to say.

^Sorry but the tent and choir you were looking for is in Islam section. You: the earth is flat The choir: resoundingly echoes you, "THE EARTH IS FLAT!!!" Science: the earth is not flat as empirical evidence disproves you... look even Aritotle knew this and he descried it from observing the shape of earth's shadow during lunar eclipses. You: stomp your feet and stubbornly repeat "THE EARTH IS FLAT!" I got consensus to back me up. Oh boy, isn't this consensus stuff surefire way to attain knowledge!