Originally posted by codetalker: There must be an order and purpose to existence. Must? Who's feeding you this horse crap? Or do you think that all of this world is for absolutely no purpose? Why must the world have a purpose? Rather than reason to your question, you simply insert it based purely on pressumption -- that the world must have a purpose. BTW, we discussed this subject already haven't we? Or am I experiencing De Javu?

ThePoint, Mark Twain was right but no sure if his quote applies in this incident.

^^Smart Alien! From the farside? Tone, Awoowe, homosexuality is not moral issue but customs. As is all sex related issues.

Originally posted by Nur: Your claim that Apostates are more learned in Islam than Muslims needs some qualification. Could you support your statment with reliable examples? Of course I can, I'm SB. Man of stats and facts. Ibn Waraq (spelling!). Regardless of your view of him, agree with him or not, you gotta admit the man knows his stuff. Honesita implies, when it comes to religious convertion, that Christian converts to Islam know more about Christianity then Muslims converting to Christianity know about Islam. I don't know but from my vantage point she seemed to imply ignorance with apostasy. Turning on the TV, one can easily discredit this assertion. How often do you watch news clips of benighted, dirt poor muslim protesters lacking most rudimentary knowledge of Islam professing zealous affection and commitment to Islam? Ignorance being cause for leaving Islam is tenious claim at best, spurious if we're frank. Christian converts are driven by an avid search of spiritual fulfilment while many apostates are driven by a material fulfilment as you have eloquently described as ( not fitting their Personal Taste ) I'm not sold on that to be honest. All I know is human decisions are complicated and never in black and white terms. Instead they occupy the entire breadth of the spectrum. It's rather simplistic and reductive to put it the way you did. And all generalisations (even THIS ) are generally wrong. We Muslims fail to see Fauth as a fashionable fad, that is why Islam and Quraan endured centuries with a change compared to Christianity. I have different take on that, a more down to earth one. But that is for another day. Christian Converts include former priests, and nuns, scientists, diplomats, high profile personalities, in contrast, Christianity failed to evengelize Somalis for over a century of Catholic missionary work except for few individuals seeking a worldly gain. This flies in face of the incontrovertible fact of human history: that where ever prevailing generals went followed their faiths. Socod Badne, as a Jew ( by Birth), not faith, you can relate to your brothers who converted to Islam, they were highly learned people unlike poor people from Somalia, read the link: From outward appearance those guys don't look they know shid from shinola... no thanks I'll remain lizard worshipper. Shalom!

Originally posted by Amelia: I decided to start cooking for the family I don't know why but I have this image of Mr. Bean in your gorgeous visage cooking.

Originally posted by Honesita: those leaving Islam to Christianity seem to be the most ignorant about religion, it's purpose and mainly about Islam, Bull! Maybe they didn't find Islam to their personal taste. I'd argue former muslims are more erudite about Islam. Your bogus litmus test -- ignorance equals more proneness to leave Islam -- doesn't hold up. Most ubiquitous excuse used to explain away the unislamic behaviour of many devout muslims is ignorance about deen. What gives then huh?

Originally posted by Kashafa: Why couldn't pedophilia follow the same trajectory? 'Cause pedophilia is moral issue while homosexuality is customs issue (from strictly utalitarian moral viewpoint). Duh! Even Homer would know that!

Simply put: sedentary life style is not economically viable in our environment (Somalia). Be it farming or fishing or what not. Rest assured when it does become viable the shift over will imperceptibly come and pass. One morning will wake up and find ourself as agrarian society not longer nomadic.

Cara, Do I want to kill myself? No, absolutely not. I love me too much to even contemplate doing such thing. And what kinda question is that? What's gotten into you :confused: Oh must be the smoke up in the air, internet sand in our eyes before your egregious denial and backtracking. That's ok, we both know what you meant. The silver lining in all of this is Castro can now save face. Naden, You're weird gal! For thinking discourse about apocalyptic end of the world is FUN. I'm trying my hardest to see above and beyond the daily doom and gloom. Whatever sails your boat sis! About starting african butt waggling topic, something to chew on. Of more pressing curiosity is these anecdotal accounts I heard about Somali girls sneaking out to dance with boys in pitch dark, save for the moon light, Somali country side. I asked my Ayeeyo and she served me scathing, acerbic aflagaado. Got smacked in the face when I put the same question to 1 of my habos. Now I'm mortified to approach ANY older somali woman. A bit of quandry I find myself in.

Poor avuncular (wannabe actually ) Castro completely missed impish Cara's veiled insinuation. Dear Castro, crafty Cara wasn't so much highlighting Assyrian's timeless wisdom as she was accusing the non-divine nature of the foundational documents of Judiasm, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism etc. Of course done surreptitiously and in so many words. SO characteristic and expected of the Godless (<--said with tongue in cheek ). Like for instance, the Godless ones will ask how come the flood story and Noah's ark, featured in all 3 monotheistic faiths, are mentioned in the older Epic of Gilgomesh. It goes without saying that this is bogus and immaterial. What's more it's Arguementum Ad: Consequentiam, Hominem, Ignorantiam, Metum, Odium, Misericordiam, Superbium... throw in for good measure the fallacy of Texas Sharpshooter... I tell you these people have no scrupulous, no panache and certainly unversed in topics they visit with their unwantd tongues. With regard to Naden, I think she's going little soft in the head. I have no idea what she's babbling about. Greatly dispointed reading the title of the thread. I was expecting after reading, shacking booty, a delve into exotic primative african folk lores, fertility rites, catatonic dances involving lots of wiggling booties and the works but instead she, the much exalted one, lowers my spirits with doomsday scare shid. What's the matter with you woman?! Thanks for killing my brief levity. :mad:

You clearly admit to not knowing(you say remembering) what you're talking about. The only thing I admitted to not remembering was where I read Ali accused Aisha of adultery. What was it you said about disregarding the truth? Yet you analyse it like you studied Islamic history in college. Neither did I study Greek history but I can discuss about Troy's demise. How is the Battle of Jamal any different from Mithridatic Wars and all other historical battles/wars? Unless of course you're saying Islamic history should be approached the same way Islamic religious texts are, ie the Quran, Hadiths etc. Are you? If not, then your quibble is blithely dismissed. you have no sources to quote from, and you expect us to take you seriously ?? I have no need to present sources since you pretty much agreed with me on most points. You agreed or didn't present any evidence at varience with the following: 1. Battle of Jamal was fought by forces commanded by ALi against opponents commanded by Aisha. 2. The Battle of Jamal was named after the imposing camel Aisha was mounted on, from where she commanded the battle AGAINST Imam Ali! 3. Aisha harboured ill feelings for Ali from adultery accusation affair. YOu agreed that Ali didn't back her by advising the prophet (scw) to divorce her. Where as I went further by saying Imam Ali accused her of adultery. Granted, I can't present at the moment sources backing me but honestly does it substantively detract from the point I'm making: that Aisha wasn't at best of terms with Ali? These 3 points comprise the gist of my arguement and you haven't so much as substantively scratched them at your repeated attempts at rebuttal. Since you're pretending you're leading me to some inescapable alley where you'll reveal your master plan whereby exposing me as empty shirt, I thought I throw you a bone in the hope you ditch this lack of sources facade. Read History of Al-Tabari, especially sections pertaining to Aisha's attitude toward Uthman and Ali. Now, I got no bone to pick about who lit the match in the powder keg separating Aisha's and Ali's poised armies. In my humble opinion, Aisha shouldn't have been leading an army against the chosen leader of the Ummah. It was bold and inexcusable act of rebellion, disobedience. PERIOD. By the way, tell SOLers Aisha's post-bellum manners. I'm sure it will be of indispensible help to them in deciding wether Aisha's intentions were as purely innocent as you'd like us believe. I understand it's your desire to present Aisha in the best light possible. But I prefer my history raw, dry and unvarnished. I want the truth not what a particular partisan narration promotes. And I approach Islamic history no different from other worldy history: I apply the rules of parsimony. After considering all the sources (some of which are telling the truth, some not or all of them sometimes wrong), I use my best judgement and take as fact the most probable, least complicated scenario. Finally, the Riddah wars were purely religious. I know that is what you say, unfortunately for you you don't persuade me one inch. Originally posted by Kashafa: b)You habitually disregard the truth, facts, or any semblance-of whenever it's convenient for you. Right back at ya!

^Another Arab hater joining the choir. Shame on you! Mrs. PrimeTime, maxaa ka dooni Somalida shacbiga Bantu sidey u maamuli jireen in laguu sheego? Sowdigii ahaa inan aan aqoonin Af hooyadeed. Orod oo luqada waalidkaa soo baro kadib baa laguu sharaxi Taarikhda. Stoic Don't be another unwary victim of my wisecracks, I was only pulling your leg.

Originally posted by Faaraxov: The African chimpanzee in central & west african rain forest,had all along been the source of the HIV virus after all.. Damn! They've beaten me to the punch! I am no sciencetist Thank God! "But SIVcpz has not been found to cause any Aids-like illnesses in chimpanzees, so researchers are investigating why the animals do not suffer any symptoms, when humans - who are so genetically similar - do" WTF! is this? do i sense some racist[OUI]whiteman supremacy in this report? I don't sense any whiteman uber-racism, I think you're letting your prejudices get the better of you. So,how exactly did the gay man in Sanfransisco gay district contract this thing then? The same or similar way/s americans contracted the Ebola Virus -- hosted and transmitted by C. African rainforest Chimps -- a while back in the US (few people died of it). Or the West Nile virus, the Bird Flu virus or the plethora of other diseases originating in non-human species. What seems hard to fathom Awoowe? What other dreaded disease originated in Africa? The Ebola Virus. For one.

Stoic, You letting out some pent-up hate here or is this part of your persona we've being spared in the past percolating through your posts? If the latter, I suggest joining anger management self-help group ASAP. Crashing your local Alcoholics Anonymous will suit. It's imperative you get your anger under control before it ruins your life.

Originally posted by S.O.S: If I was Superman I would fly, be the fastest man and catch bullets on my chest. Would you consider me Superman? Yes but I first need to see you pull off those stunts. Here, if we were non-Muslims, we would be immoral and unethical beings. Since both morality and ethics aren't the inventions of Islam, I fail to see what, if any, credence I should lend to your claim above. Perhaps you can enlighten us by telling us HOW muslims are spared morality and ethics shortcomings. FYI, I can easily demonstrate the contrary. Can you understand that immorality is subject to being non-Muslim (or ones ability to deny, disbelief or refuse to act according to Islamic laws)? Not only is it impossible for me to understand, I know it to be false. The Hammurabi Code of Law wasn't written by muslims and yet it enjoined binding moral and ethical laws on its subject. Go figure! I know cannot teach logic to someone who doesn't even recognise her Creator, but you're all over the place now. Logic and truth are two separate things. Sometimes they agree, other times they don't. For example this is logically sound or correct syllogism: All birds fly penguins are birds Therefore, penguins can fly ... logically it's flawless, the conclusion follows from the premise. But we know it's not true because from observation we are aware penguins can't fly. This is why science relies on inductive logic as opposed to deductive logic as our knowledge is imperfect, conclusions are only tentatively drawn their fate hanging on observational results. Here is logical syllogism that is both factually true and logically sound: All cars have engines Hond civic is a car Therefore, Honda civic has an engine I think my Homer Simpson Course at Mickey Mouse University will help you immeasurably.

Arab haterzzz...carry on choir.

Originally posted by Kashafa: ...say towards the few flaming tribalists in the Politika section, and I'll be polite and civil. We might even become pen pals Naah! Not while Pretzel Head Mods are still at the helm. Besides I need to get Baptized in Qabiilism... haven't had my apprenticeship yet, ya know like someone show me how to get my shine on, all this despite being beady eyed 65 yr old. Where'd u get this from ? Ali never accused Aisha of anything anywhere anytime. The only people accusing Aisha of adultery were the Munafiqs(hypocrites) of Madinah, who were using it to attack the Prophet's stature. I don't recall where I read 'cause it was so long ago but that is neither hither nor thither. It's common knowledge (I hope!) Ali refused to back Aisha, accused of adultery, in her plea of innocence and advised the prophet (scw) to divorce her. For that reason Aisha had understandable dislike or resenment for him ever since. The Caliph of the entire Muslim world is murdered in his own house while reading Qu'ran and the capital of the Ummah is under siege by a band of rebel cutthroats. You think this should only concern "Uthaman's OWN blood relatives" ? Listen, Aisha was a fallible being prone to making errors of judgement and her heedless decision to lead an army to Basra after cordial dissuasion by the bereaved immediate relatives of Uthman and her leader the Caliphate of the Ummah Ali (who sent his 2 sons Husyn and Hasan to protect Uthman!), raised alot of suspicions of her motives, foolish thing to do on her part not to leave out the casus belli of the whole Battle of Jamal. In a time when the political and military conditions of the nascent new Caliphate was fluid and highly charged set to go off at the slightest provocation, you must at least agree it was colossal mistake of Aisha and her half brothers to expose the underbelly -- political and military will and wherewithal -- of the young Caliphate Ali. Imagine if Ali lost, did you consider that? The Arabs rebelled after the Prophet's death. Some claimed their own Prophets. If-Quraysh's-got-a-Prophet-so-can-we kinda thing. Some refused Salah and Zakat. Some just refused to pay zakat and would do everything else. Most simply refused to pay Zakat to new elected Caliphate Abu Bakr not because they turned their back on Islam but they were under the impression that they had special pact with the prophet and once he passed away they were no longer bound by it. Admittedly others apostated. The Riddah war was political war, not religious as some tendentiously glossy historical accountings claim. Abu Bakr had a major insurrection in his hand, he had to forcefully quell it and thereby prove himself capable and the Ummah viable. He did the right thing. But it was muslims fighting other muslims.

Originally posted by hodman: in that case waxaan kaa iri means exactly the same then, no? Let me meditate on that one, I gotta be in trance before I can tap into my impeccable Somali... kinda tricky one. I think it means: i said about you instead of said to you.

Originally posted by Cara: Let's say it is though. If they (the evil whities) were smart enough to genetically engineer a race-specific virus 30 years ago, then let's be smart enough to find a cure, please? Loool! Lets, please! All the geniuses who uncovered this vast, sprawling conspiracy that has wrong-footed all the world's top scientists and/or bought them all off... please do the world a favour and pool together your exceptional talents for cracking mysteries and solve this emblematic enigma.

I'm afraid not.

Originally posted by Kashafa: Waraa Urr-Badne, cut the crap aight, it's seeping out of your pores digitally. Thanks. [ Watch the language kiddo... we will not tolerate any name calling -- the Admin! Heed the warning son. Let me hastly parse this article... which pretty much agrees with me of course neglecting to mention some stuff. Whereas Aisha and a few other prominent Sahabis wanted immediate punishment of all those responsible for the murder of Uthman. I've heard this version and inclined to dismiss it as too wishy-washy. The truth prolly lies in between my account and this one. Mainly because its no major secret Aisha disliked Ali for previously accusing her of adultery. Which she was totally innocent of. Aisha and her half brothers weren't blood relatives of Uthman and yet they were more vocal in hankering for avenging Uthman's death than Uthaman's OWN blood relatives. That, on it's face, invoked suspicion of their motives and is what spurred Ali and his forces to gear up for battle. that would for the first time make two Muslims face each other with a sword. Wrong there ranger! Abu Bukr (the 1st Kaliphate) had to suppress a rebellion shortly into his rule. That was the first time muslims faced each other with a sword. The battle itself was instigated by rogue elements on both sides that knew they were going to be brought to justice should peace take place. I agree with that but it doesn't change the fact the Battle of the Camels or Jamals occured between forces allied to Ali and forces allied to Aisha. Or Aisha disliked Ali. Or the battle was named after the statuesque camel Aisha was mounted on.

Originally posted by HornAfrique: SocodBadne- Have you ever read the literary work Uncle Tom's Cabin? Maybe

Originally posted by hodman: ^^ Waxaan ku idhi is also different from waxaan ku iri Nope, they mean exactly the same.

^^Ay ay Captain...

Originally posted by ScarFace: SO WHAT should I practice my somali chat up lines........OR roll with the jajab somali lines..... 90% of all communication is non-verbal (I'm not making this up!), did you knew that? This suggests effective communication is best done non-verbally. So things like smiles, winks, body language/posture, leering looks will do the trick more often than not.