^You are still here. Why?

Originally posted by ThePoint: There is such a thing as consensus in Islam. Like the consensus the earth was flat?

^Some people's trascendently myopic tribocentric perception of what's really happening in Somalia is equally doleful. What, then, gives? Naught

Originally posted by LayZieGirl: PS:LOL, did you mention B-control out loud in SOL, LOL, goodluck, because I be surprised if they don't start jumping out on u all @once. Don't be so presumptuous, maybe her "husband" was shooting blanks. Not all guns are loaded on the mere fact of being just a gun. At what age is poor syntax, wording and general diction OK?

This is certainly aimless exercise that I sometimes wonder why some of you even bother with it. Whether rejecting Hadiiths is unpardonable omission is a question settled by hermeneutics (ie interpretations). Not empiricism or logic. If one person has an interpretation disparate from someone else, what should those of us on the sidelines appeal to as the decider? More hermeneutics? Why, yes of course. What else is there? Ergo the utter vacuity of discussions like these.

Originally posted by Northerner: ^^What do you think of the article? I thought it was poetry section material. Do you agree/disagree, what are it's shortcoming, if any etc. Aren't it's shortcomings too evident too all? I would have thought so. Just another guy talking out of his stinky hole. Another brain fart among sea of brain farts feigning profundity. One can disagree or agree with it the same way one dis/agree with a piece of art. What will settle the issue? How you feel about it? Think again.

^Why don't you just disappear? Why are you even posting in this site? Or do you mistake the verbal miasma you spew as something worth considering? Hint: NO!

C&P articles are not substitute for cogent expostulation. They're just that, copy and pasting. I for one would like to see an honest debate on Morality. Up until now, just about everyone has been pusyfooting around the subject. We can only speculate why?

Fartun Somalia is scrubby land inhabited by petty people, locked in never-ending petty squabbles. All four corners of it. If you've never been there, consider yourself lucky. My advice to you is to keep it that way.

Originally posted by Khayr: In both cases for the Murtad (one who lives the religion) and the Kafir (the disbeliever)-they are dammed to spend eternity in the infernal (hell) world. Why are you anthropomorphizing Allah :confused: God is not answerable to anybody, He can do whatever He wants. He can send a life long pious muslim to hell while pardoning life long impudent Murtad. That's for Him and Him alone to decide, not you. No reason need be provided. Do not mistake your wish for what Allah should be like to what Allah is. Else, you're only lending more credence to the charge "humans make God in their own image."

Originally posted by Khayr: Please explain to us your doctorinal Moral Relativism i.e. Morality without GOD(The Absolute) There's no doctorine here, just universal fact. A fact that can be instantiated by conducting a survey of world's different cultures. You can either refute the claim of univeral moral relativism, accept it or in your case do what you do best. Be irrelevant.

^Belated welcome to the MadHouse!

^Pathetic cop-out.

If you think about it, Ethiopia and Eritrea are waging a poor-man's Cold War. Fighting proxy wars via regions of the former Somali State proper. Somalis should look to the past and draw some valuable lessons as to how to deal with this morass. Further, unless one is under delusions, Ethio/Eritrea meddling in Somalia is the ineluctable outcome of years of petty squabbling and political abulia among Somalis. If you don't get your act together, it's only matter of time before others do it for you. And if politics wasn't exceedingly reactionary, say maybe a tad bit progressive, we prolly have headed-off this precarious pass. The war will take place in PUNTLAND! ... and that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

Originally posted by Sophist: Socodbadane: Maandhoow the question was jiritaanka Jinka. I understand that but the question (believe in jinns) is still tautologous. What besides believe is there to Jinns? Morever, I always wondered how we can tell these purported Jinn sightings, counted as anecdotal evidence, are not people's hallucination and flights fancy. The fact is we can't be certain.

Don't expect Kheyr to ever honestly address the issue. He's honorary member of Intellectually Bankrupt Society. Rape case roils Saudi legal system By DONNA ABU-NASR, Associated Press Writer Tue Nov 21, 4:49 PM ET AL-AWWAMIYA, Saudi Arabia - When the teenager went to the police a few months ago to report she was gang-raped by seven men, she never imagined the judge would punish her — and that she would be sentenced to more lashes than one of her alleged rapists received. The story of the Girl of Qatif, as the alleged rape victim has been called by the media here, has triggered a rare debate about Saudi Arabia's legal system, in which judges have wide discretion in punishing a criminal, rules of evidence are shaky and sometimes no defense lawyers are present. The result, critics say, are sentences left to the whim of judges. These include one in which a group of men got heavier sentences for harassing women than the men in the Girl of Qatif rape case or three men who were convicted of raping a boy. In another, a woman was ordered to divorce her husband against her will based on a demand by her relatives. In the case of the Girl of Qatif, she was sentenced to 90 lashes for being alone in a car with a man to whom she was not married — a crime in this strictly segregated country — at the time that she was allegedly attacked and raped by a group of other men. In the sleepy, Shiite village of al-Awwamiya on the outskirts of the eastern city of Qatif, the 19-year-old is struggling to forget the spring night that changed her life. An Associated Press reporter met her in a face-to-face interview. She spoke on condition of anonymity to protect her privacy; the AP does not identify rape victims unless they ask to be named. Her hands tremble, her dark brown eyes are lifeless. Her sleep is interrupted by a replay of the events, which she describes in a barely audible whisper. That night, she said, she had left home to retrieve her picture from a male high school student she used to know. She had just been married — but had not moved in with her husband — and did not want her picture to remain with the student. While the woman was in the car with the student, she said, two men intercepted them, got into the vehicle and drove the couple to a secluded area where the two were separated. She said she was raped by seven men, three of whom also allegedly raped her friend. In a trial that ended in November — in which the prosecutor asked for the death penalty for the seven men — four of the men received between one and five years in prison plus 80 to 1,000 lashes, said the woman. Three others are awaiting sentencing. Neither the defendants nor the plaintiffs retained lawyers, as is common here. "The big shock came when the judge sentenced me and the man to 90 lashes each," said the woman. The sentence was handed down as part of the rape trial. Lashes are usually spread over several days, dealt around 50 at a time. The sentences have yet to be carried out, but the punishments ordered have caused an uproar. "Because I could make no sense (of the sentence) and became in dire need of patience, I muttered after I read the verdict against the Girl of Qatif: 'My heart is with you,'" wrote Fatima al-Faqeeh in a column in Al-Watan newspaper. Justice in Saudi Arabia is administered by a system of religious courts according to the kingdom's strict interpretation of Islamic Sharia law. Judges — appointed by the king on the recommendation of the Supreme Judicial Council — have complete discretion to set sentences, except in cases where Sharia outlines a punishment, such as capital crimes. That means no two judges would likely hand down the same verdict for similar crimes. A rapist, for instance, could receive anywhere from a light or no sentence to death, depending on the judge. Saudis are urging the Justice Ministry to clarify the logic behind some rulings. In one recent case, three men convicted of raping a 12-year-old boy received sentences of between one and two years in prison and 300 lashes each. In contrast, another judge sentenced at least four men to between six and 12 years imprisonment for fondling women in a tunnel in Riyadh. Saleh al-Shehy, a columnist for Al-Watan, asked Justice Minister Abdullah Al-Sheik to explain why the boy's rapists got a lighter sentence than the men in last year's sexual harassment case. "I won't ask you my brother, the minister, if you find the ruling satisfactory or not," wrote al-Shehy. "I will ask you, 'Do you think it satisfies God?" "Please explain to us how one judge ruled and how the other ruled? What evidence did the one rely on and what proof did the other use?" he added. The broad discretion judges enjoy have been a disaster for Fatima, another Saudi woman. She suddenly found herself divorced from her husband, Mansour al-Timani, after her half-brothers went to a judge and told him their sister had married beneath her. Fatima, whose full name has not been given in media reports, had been married for over three years and was pregnant with her second child when the judge declared the marriage void in July 2005. Today, Fatima sits in jail with her 11-month-old son — her 4-year-old daughter was recently freed — rather than return to the custody of her family as the judge decreed. The problems over sentencing are exacerbated by loose trial rules, in which physical evidence sometimes is not presented. The Girl of Qatif said her trial had two sessions. The three trial judges asked for her statement, then heard the statement from the seven defendants in the first court session, according to the woman. In the second, about a month later, the judges pronounced their verdict. It was not known if there were other sessions she did not attend. Judges in the case referred The Associated Press to the Justice Ministry when asked about the sentencing. The ministry, in a statement Tuesday, said rape could not be proved. There were no witnesses and the men had recanted confessions they made during interrogation, the statement said. It said the verdict cannot be appealed. Sharia allows defendants to deny signed confessions, according to Abdul-Aziz al-Gassem, a lawyer who was not involved in the case. They still get punished if convicted, but the verdict is lighter. "The lack of transparency in the investigation, the trial and the sentencing, plus the difficulties that journalists have to get access lead to deep a darkness where everything is possible," said al-Gassem. source

Originally posted by Djib-Somali: Do you deny the influence of your mind/psyche/whatever-you-call-it on your body or the placebo effect so central in medicine? The mind and psyche (whatever that means) are mental state, not brain state. What does the placebo effect got to do with this other than show what is true for YOU is not the same as what is true in the real world. There's a difference between the world as each one of us sees it and reality. THere are two german words that aptly describe the difference that I can't recall right now. We're not covering virgin territory here. Are you hence asserting that our body is regulated by purely physical laws just like a sophisticated machine? Yes. Our body is most optimally regulated when all it's constituent components (organs like brain, liver, heart etc) are working in unison and as they should. Again, we're not covering new material, are we? what about stress effects, for instance, which are linked statistically with increased risks of cancers, cardio-vascular diseases ect whereas positivity is linked with a stronger immune system and hence increased survival rate? Link is not a cause.

Originally posted by Naden: Again, a very broad generalization, I'm afraid. Most medical doctors are not scientists and the diagnosis of illness can be art as well. The example of an infection like TB is not like one of back pain, for instance. Doctors and scientists are comparable in the following way. Both devise a hypothesis, both test their hypothesis, both issue tangible claims for their hypothesis. Diagnosis is the equivalent of scientist's hypothesis. The one major difference between a Doc and a scientist is the Doc is knowledgeable with the etiology of many maladies. There's a body of accrued medical knowledge which the doctor relies on. A doctor wouldn't need to test his hypothesis that a patient who described to him the common symptoms associated with Influenza is indeed suffering from Influenza. All that will suffice, in the first viist, is prescribing the typical medication that have been demonstrated to work. If the patient returns couple weeks later complaining about the persistance of symptoms, then any competent doc would reconsider his initial hypothesis. THis time not only is he impelled to come up with a new hypothesis but test his hypothesis by sending the patient to take a series of tests. Furthermore, we know the etiology of back problems. The reason being the design of the human body is most suitable for quadruped, not biped. Ever come across a 10 or 15 yr old complaining about back problems? Rarely if ever and that's because back problems arise from putting too much stress on our spinal cord from years of living life. Almost all of us will experience back problems of varying intensities as we age. Just like most of us will need to wear glasses for reading as we get older. For the exact same reason. Our eyes are poorly designed. Having said all of that, I agree that not all maladies are readily diagnosable. I just fail to see how that takes away from the method itself. Not all research done by psychologists we are 'stuck' with, many are falsifiable in both animal and human experimentation. I agree somewhat. The prevailing view among most psychologist today (to the best of my knowledge) is that psychotherapy, psychoanalysis, dream interpretations etc work.

Originally posted by Mutakalim: Kant, Hume et al provide a decisive rebuttal and demonstratively remonstrative criticism of these arguemnts. Ha-ha-ha-ha Kant, Hume et al were metaphysicians. Utterly ill-equipped to have a epistemologically meaningful say on rational rebuttal of any sort. In fact all philosophy from the ancients till perhaps Comte was nothing but metaphysics pretending to be furthering epistemology. Aristotle asked what is justice? 2500 years ago and since then we haven't inched closer to answering it.

Originally posted by Djib-Somali: Shouldn't we deduct then that, scientifically, religion remain a natural and vital human need as body and mind strongly interact? Body and mind strongly interacting is psuedo-science, not science.

To say do you believe in Jins is to be redundant.

^In that part of the world, the bikini babes are nocturnal. Skin complexion is a major priority, ya know.

I did and you still have to show, not just say, he's raising bogus questions.

^Action speak louder than words. Rather than tells he's raising spurious questions, why don't you show us. Or do you want us to take you at your word alone?

It is my assertion that psychology is art dressed up as science/medicine. Take the case of psychologist assessing the help a youngester with behaviour problems should recieve. After going through his diagnosis routine, the psychologist will recommend a plausible treatment regime. But have another psychologist assess the same patient and he's liable to submitt equally convincing treatment. Yet, a third psychologist may still come to entirely dissimilar conclusion. Each one of them is right in own way as their prognosis is accompanied by reasoned recommendation. But regarding the etiology of patient's symptoms, not an iota of knowledge is gained. Like artists, psychologists paint us a picture of the world as they see it. Like art critics, they pass personal opinions. Reason being there is no way to disprove their suggestions. No tests exist that would show psychotherapy works. Contrast that with science or medicine and you begin to see why these two disciplines have been sucessfull at solving real human problems. If a doctor thinks a patient has TB, whether he is right or wrong is easily ascertainable by running medical tests like X-Ray and skin tests. A scientist who claims a discovery is susceptible to falsification attempts. But with psychologist, we're stuck with his/her words. If you think this is all hypothetical, consider this real life case. A man had a severe form of depression for over a decade. he has been through all the cliched routines. Seen a half dozen psychologists administring scores psychotherapy sessions or talk sessions. Then one day he was advised by a medical doctor to consider taking Vitamin B12 deficiency test. The doc's hunch was nigh prescient, he was B12 deficient. Just weeks after taking B12 supplements he was all the sudden feeling good. His symptoms quickly evanesced. Now, this man spent over a decade pouring his heart out in psychotherapy sessions in the faint hope that he was being treated. Had psychology been considered art and not science, would this man not have gotten the proper treatment he needed? To this day, psychotherapy is still widely used.