### INTRODUCTION The intrinsic idea of responsiveness and discernment, the conscious subjective experience and the complex objective properties of content creation indicate a new conceptual correspondence. Inside a process of evaluation, the dimension of context effect, the content of understanding, and expansive significance design a new fact-based and empirical approach to reality. Consequently, the apposite value and the value of dilatation that define the progress of Crossbones involve a discount of docudrama and docu fiction within the scope and the content of the reality of objects dives Nuruddin Farah into the essential features and relations of truth. In this way, through an inventive dynamic and inside invective criteria, the definite environmental description, the physical and the psychological descriptive understanding determine an original ontological issue. Therein, objective representation and expressive representation through graphic interchange dimensions, circumscribe a corresponding interleave order of truth and experience. The chronological derivation contained by degradation and acquiescence wherein Farah develops his narrative engages the author in a different figure of origination within the realm of reality principle moves beyond the hindrance of a distorted mental process, instinctive reaction, and subliminal sensitivity. In this run, the effectiveness and persuasiveness of his artistic propensity find itself using a forced-choice procedure within which truth remains substantiated within a specific context of facts. Therefore, under the schema of dialectical materialism and societal instantiation, the implementation and the rationalization of a realistic stylization and the representation of individual experience involve this mockumentary narrative inside the essentiality of social realism and relational aesthetics. In this view, the relation dialectics therein Farah frames his subliminal message and subliminal perception, determining the hostility that distinct social entities undergo while experiencing paradoxical compulsions. Correspondingly, the relationism through which Farah defines the representation of social and physical experience and the aspect of the ordinary objects, in a manner to delve into perceptional and conceptual arrangements, involves a dimension of relational transgression. The implied illusion focuses mainly on reflexive and irreflexive fractional-order relations. Similarly, through a realm of social practice and evidence-based practice, the relational theory of Crossbones determines features of linguistic performance and linguistic determinism, which its relational expression tends to a plausible representation of truth and experience. It is in this perspective, Nuruddin Farah, through an aesthetic realism and an analytical pragmatism, frames the run of his narrative in the scope of an epistemic structural realism, which completely alters the complex congregating whole of conventions in the dynamic to reveal the fundamental attribution and interaction of the Be-ing regarding its relational model with society and its relational quality with nature. In this respect, the dimensional sphere of the frame of Be-thinking becomes a decomposing and a deconstructive entity-relationship model within the associations and dependencies of the bodies of truth and experience install a dynamic of structural functionalism. Farah congruently observes the material and formal causation and the efficient and final cause of truth and reality as a structural and evolutionary relationship. It is in this perspective; the individual within the intersection of agency and structuration, ascertains the realm of truth and reality utilizing intellection and affectivity. In the next section, I deal with the aesthetic defect criticality of the function model and function object through a macro-level orientation and within a diachronic dimension. In the following area, I emphasize the micro-balances between experimental connotation, relational denotation, and logical implication to underline the compositionality consequence and contextual material of relational psychoanalysis and social constructionism. In the third section, my attempt remains the analysis of the structures of intersubjectivity and the processes of interjection with regards gradual assimilation of truth and the interpretation of reality. ## I. THE STRUCTURAL DEFECT AND THE CONTRADICTION OF CONCEPTION AND EXECUTION Throughout a mimesis criticism method and an inculturation process, the realistic mode within Farah dives his observation implies a discernment of reality. Therein, the object of thought and the realm of representation establish a dimension of efficiency and value, a dimensional relation of logical possibility and rational necessity. Correspondingly, with the synthesis of images and the dialectical schema construction of natural sensation and imagery, the realm of reality and thought inside the run of Crossbones move beyond the dimensional and intentional tautological judgment, then inserting itself as a modal logic. Within this respect, the temporal and epistemic logic within the interface system that Farah compatibly utilizes to analyze the reality of facts inside their diversity, their exactitude through details determines logical conjunction, and connective preference of the concrete, a penetration in representation and an experimental design. Therefore, with the introduction of ordinary characters, more often determined by the organic milieu and physically and psychologically characterized, the incipit of Crossbones unveils the intentions and explicit information as regards the effect of reality and the realist illusion of social product effect. Through the contradictory dimension of Theo-political specificities, confrontational theories, and the frame of time sampling sovereignty, Farah defines the relational concept of structural defect inside the impact forces and intent of the ideological and political establishment concerning religio-political and philosophical relations. In this run, by installing a performative contradiction, the relational aesthetic within Farah evolves, exhibits a discourse ethic inside the dimension of jahiliyyah. This fact indicates, in this view, a relational condition that does not characterize the domain of social representation and legal authority. Indeed, it becomes a normative ethic conflicting with the prescriptivism realm of Hakimiyyah (sovereignty). In this measure, jahiliyyah, through its actuality and knowledge obscurantism, annihilates the frame of the Be-ing executive function and cognitive control. It stands as an atypical and counterintuitive relational operator; thus, its propositional variables remain irreconcilable with the hakimiyya schema of relational dialectics. Within this respect; Farah, through the growth of his character, YoungThing, describes this context: His hair is the color of ash and is cursed with kinks that no comb can smooth out. From the little she has heard so far, his voice has not broken. Yet his face crawls with the deep furrows she associates with the hardened features of a herdsman from the central region, where all of Somalia's recent political instabilities have originated. Shabaab, the military wing of the Union of Islamic Courts, has been trying to terrorize the residents of the city into submission, and it appears to have succeeded to a degree. She assumes that he is one of the conscripts charged with "consecrating"- or rather, confiscating - a house in the neighborhood, from which he and his colleagues will launch attacks on their enemy targets (Farah, 2011, p. 13). Then, through the apparent anomaly and the monologic approach of this jahiliyyah system, Farah emphasizes the politico-economic, intellectual, and moral sphere within which the human hakimiyyah of ethical realism and ethical cognitivism does not shimmer to a spiritual incarnation; it, therefore, defines a saturated reality and a subjectivism of transformation. Correspondingly, through the failure to characterize the structure and properties and the pneuma of the Be-ing sovereignty, Farah focuses on the conflation of these contradictions to underline the fallacies of equivocality that define the jahiliyyah conception. This respect, through a classical praxeology, dynamic relational sociology becomes a generic intellectual method of transformation; therefore, tribal society, social bound, conception, and belief define a monistic and a praxis-oriented ground of reality. Across a phenomenological analysis of experience, metaphysical dimension of culture, the sensitivity of figures, and categories of understanding, Farah encompasses the frame of relational interactionism inside a practical materialism wherein formal logic fundamentally stresses the contradictory conception and execution of the principles of llahiyyah (from God) Aqlaniyyah (rationality) and Insaniyyah (humanity). Therein, this conceptual and intellectual relational modal methodology displays that the inconsistent imaginative potencies range from a binary model; within the order relation embodies the illusion of understanding and functional connection stands as an aesthetic illusion, which removes itself from rational awareness and reality principles. In this line of ideas, it appears that the interactive and evolutive phenomena within remains inserted the relational, structural contradiction develops a necessary circumstance referred to as Hal. Indeed, this frame becomes status and an action including an altered state of consciousness and paradox. This fact remains well illustrated when Farah writes: Malik is of the view that perhaps an empire of a different thrust is now at work in Somalia. The Muslim world, from what he can tell, is at a crossroads, where several competing tendencies meet. One path is a burgeoning umma, a community of the faithful as conceived in the minds of Islamists who see themselves in deadly rivalry with both moderate or? secularist Muslims and people of other faiths. The way Malik sees it, Somali religionists of radical persuasion are provoking a confrontation with the Ethiopian empire in hopes of pitting the Muslim world against Christian-led Ethiopia, even though Ethiopia, being militarily stronger and an ally of the United States, is very likely to gain the upper hand in the face-off (Farah, 2011, p. 42) Within this dynamic that Farah, through a systematic verisimilitude of rationality, juxtaposes the condition and immediate relational impact of $\text{jahiliyyah}$ and the substantive condition of $l/m$ (knowledge). In effect, this fact underlines, in the same perspective, that disregarding understanding does not signify a discrepancy between reality and the perception of that reality. The realm of $Dalaal$ (deviant) efficiently characterizes the significant context of this relational model; it typifies a complex statement and a quasiscientific content analysis; therein the Theo-political context and the socio-political dimension are complete and sufficiently satisfy their purpose. Appropriately, their explicit stereotypes move beyond contrastive analysis, then introducing a stereospecific relational instance within each of them functions in instruction. Within this dynamic, the religious-politico foundation of $\text{jahiliyyah}$ in the run of Crossbones displays separately relational aggression inside which confrontational theories and contentious issues embody a central position in community consideration, over composition, and the very quintessence of cultural identity. Through the contradiction of conception and execution, Farah engages the reality of $\text{Kawniyyah}$ (universality) inside a time-independent reasoning and in a sequential-dependent logic in the perspective to enlighten the conceptual and intellectual relationship to the concept of $\text{Hakimiyyah}$ and $\text{Insaniyyah}$. This systematic approach efficiently corresponds to what Ipshita Chanda observes: But the question may be returned to history once more: were the sovereignty and self-determination of these nations in existence before the external threat? Clearly, for the nation-states arising out of the colonial encounter at least, this was not the case. So arises the inescapable reality that the nation as we know it today is itself a colonial legacy. The political challenges of this legacy have, for the most, been too overwhelming for the not-so-new nation-states. And as we have grappled to live within nations that we had very little say in crafting, we have realized that it is necessary to redraw the terms that enable us to conceptualize the nation itself. Quite conclusively, then, this political formation bequeathed to us by the colonizer as a mark of progress and civilization has been too decisive to our collective futures to be dismissed as a "catalytic incident" merely (Chanda, 2004, p. 124). Hence, by demonstrating the combinational value and ideological significance of their relational model, Farah, inside an esoteric dimension and through a combinational rule explores the direct relational forces and stereospecific intent of these concepts and their constitutional influence on the sociopolitical establishment with a specific performance about the relational model of $\text{jahiliyyah}$. In this way, Farah, through his ability to perceive the real principles of Alamiyyah (world), observes that the condition and relational of the normative functionalism of the religious-political dynamic of $\text{jahiliyyah}$ establishes the normative tenets of $\text{Ubudiyah}$ (servitude). In this case, the reality of the relational model of the frame of $\text{jahiliyyah}$, in respect of Crossbones, becomes separated from the norms of $\text{Insaniyyah}$ and the rules of $\text{Hakimiyyah}$. Indeed, through the run of $\text{Ubudiyah}$, the argumentative theory of $\text{jahiliyyah}$ inherently disturbs conventional identity and cultural concepts. In this stand, we observe that the creative force of contradiction depends on the $\text{jahiliyyah}$ relational model, which through the framework of $\text{Ubudiyah}$, claims responsibility for authority; then, through its Theological-political system, annihilates one's freedom, and independence. ## II. THE MORPHOLOGY OF DISORDER AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF ITS MANIFEST COMPONENT Throughout a parodic style, dissimulation, free indirect speech, and a degree of realism, the mainline of Crossbones highlights the hypocrisy of the Jahiliyyah relational model inside its dimensional models and maladaptive characteristics. In respect of a dimensional classification and a dimensional assessment, the realm of disorder endures a continuum within which the qualitative conception of Hakimiyyah and Insaniyyah do not embody the individual capacity to absorb a multidimensional level of a characteristic. The dimensional construction and representation of this disorder appear in deterministic encryption within a mental and physical state of submission and obedience stand as ethical intuitionism. Thenceforward, by organizing the effect and through a process theory of typification, the realm of total surrounding to the relational model of the religious-political authority enhances component-based usability within the frame and the production of Ubudiyyah decomposes the aesthetic cognitivism of the domain of Hilm (understanding). In this perspective, the relational aesthetic and the relational dialectics wherein Farah involves his characters and describes the signification of the context determine the Yusaffi (fool) dynamic in the inner confrontational concept of jahiliyah. Applicably, the political discourse morphology and the argumentative theory of jahiliyyah in their construction of reality imply a quantum relational system within the purpose of existence is, correspondingly correlated with mental and physical control. This correlation harmoniously unveils a dimension of causality inside which the Be-thinking dynamic becomes an Abd (enslaved person) according to the Jahiliyyah moral construction and normative ethic. Within this respect, Seyyed Hossein exposes the quintessential relationality between the individual and the frame of understanding. He writes: Rather than define wujud, therefore, Islamic philosophers allude to its meaning through such assertions as "wujud is that by virtue of which it is possible to give knowledge about something" or "wujud is that which is the source of all effects."16 As for mahiyyah, it is possible to define it clearly and precisely as that which provides an answer to the question What is it? There is, however, a further development of this concept in later Islamic philosophy that distinguishes between 'mahiyyah' in its particular sense (bi'l-ma'na'l-akha,,), which is the response to the question What is it?, and 'mahiyyah' in its general sense (bl - ma'na'l-a'amm), which means that by which a thing is what it is. It is said that 'mahiyyah' in this second sense is derived from the Arabic phrase ma bihi huwa huwa (that by which something is what it is). This second meaning refers to the reality (haqiqah) of a thing and is not opposed to wujud, as is the first meaning of 'mahiyyah.'17(Hossein Nasr, 2006, p.66). Therefore, this construction of social principle involves the natural relational forces of the individual in a state of Be-mourning, correspondingly overwhelming the interactive product of the individual domain of Fitrah and his situation of Hakimiyyah. In this way, moving against the realm of social choice theory, the relational model of the jahiliyyah theory removes any cognitive architecture of intellection; therefore, the mechanism of submission and obedience installs an object permanence imagination consequence. The framework of affect theory has no prescriptive applications inside the argumentative theory of jahiliyyah. It indeed disconnects the Be-ing affective experience and the interaction between innate mechanism and interacting ideo-affective materializations. In this stand, the run of information correlation inside Crossbones demonstrates the deprivation of an ethical principle in consequence of non-performance of the responsibility of Fitrah. Thus, the dimensional assessment of the jahiliyyah conception of the individual, in this respect, obliterates the Be-thinking ideo-affective dimensionality regarding his aptitude for Hilm and his sphere of Ibtida (origination). Respectively, through the theoretical realm of the relational model of jahiliyyah and inside the practice and production of Ubudiyyah, the Theological-political system and the purpose of existence that are correlated inside the quantum field of Crossbones become a praxis wherein the dimension of effective action of creation "Al fitrah" and integral formation of human intellect (Al-aql) are regarded as transgressive. It is in this measure we understand Khaled M. Abou El Fadle's statement: The most dangerous threat was not foreign military dominance, but the external cultural invasion that persuaded Muslims to distrust the coherence or validity of their Islamic heritage. The real struggle was not territorial or military but cultural and civilizational. Whether it be Marxism, communism, secularism, capitalism or liberalism - these are alien cultural categories designed to undermine and dissipate Islamic intellectual autonomy and worth. It is important to note, however, that this intellectual orientation was not introspective - it was far more interested in asserting independence. There were rather interesting assumptions that informed the idea of the Islamic Civilization, but the source of these assumptions were rarely explored (Abou El Fadle, 2001, p. 2). Within this respect, Farah, through evolutionary psychology and within the principles of experimental psychology, demonstrates the relational aesthetic within evolves the condition and the relationship context of this social theory determines a deliberate affected ignorance. Therefore, the individual affect does not correspond to itself inside a dimension of affection and appropriation of the systematic theology of Al-Khalaq. In this measure, the intuitive method we observe in the esoteric size, and the peripheral mode of speech of Crossbones demonstrates that the relational model inside the jahiliyyah social theory determines in its internal and external sphere the development of a frighteningly clear-side class. Subsequently, in a state of confusion where ethical cognitivism remains withheld by the expertise of the religious-politico perspective and the sectarianism relational model, Farah exhibits that the Insaniyyah metacognition becomes a metamaterial dynamic subjective to the Theo-political metacenter. With litany and unimaginativeness applied science, this usurping metacenter makes believe that its intelligence quotient and exoteric intellectualization nature transcends the realm of understanding; then, dealing with an ascetic and a straightedge methodology as regards the domain of reality. In this way, the Kawniyyah approach they are referring to pretends to behold an imperceptible relational truth that develops an immediate sociopolitical context within the framework of surrender, typically corresponds to the constantly expected from the individual. This approach makes Peter Hitchcock see Farah's writings as a postmodern dimension; he, writes: The borders of the individual and that of a culture are less the sign of exclusion but of socialization itself. But it is not enough to suggest that an author opens perspective on a discreet cultural domain or bounded space; rather, the author's constitutive outsideness figures a taxonomy of space, or what Bakhtin describes as "an intense axiological atmosphere of responsible interdetermination" (AA 275). This grounds not just the answerability to nation, but also articulates the trans in transnational. Responsible interdetermination has the authors of the long space question the boundaries of nation in decolonization even as nations are made by such responsibility (Hitchcock, 2010, p. 92). In this view, this prerequisite appears as a depraved reinforcement, a relational wandering and impossibilism within the social theory in question do not corroborate the common acceptance and the strict principles of rationality and the involvement of a conceivable representation of the truth, a descriptive experience, and a prescriptive relational model reality of the context. In this way, Farah, through his dialectical ingenuity where he opposes the relational model of the jahiliyyah social theory and the individual Hakimiyyah discloses the aseptic perception of the realm of Fitrah and the attributive conception of the dimension of Ibtida and their consequences appear as the construction constituent of confusion. Therefore, the relational aesthetic and potential differences between Islamic and this Jahiliyyah social theory configurations remain with the intellection affectivity of Insaniyah and the affecting significance of Ilm that are not efficiently commissioned in the exposition of dispositional affect. Through a complex aesthetic interpretation, the socialist realism process of Crossbones focuses on exegesis, semantics, and a formal differentiation of forensic knowledge acquisition and document structuring. Within this respect, the signifier and the natural constitution of Hakimiyyah and Insaniyah create the essential self of a Be-ing beyond the Theo-politico androcentrism. Then the essentialism of the quality of experience of Bethinking moves beyond the signified constitution and Jahiliyyah execution of Fitrah. In this way, Farah involves the frame of primordial-self in a structural object model in perspective to reveal the praxis-oriented social theory, the relational model overlapping of categories. In this run, he writes: The former dictator ran the country, and when censorship was at its severest; when telephone tapping was common; when one handed over his passport to the immigration officer at the airport on returning from abroad and was expected to collect it from the Ministry of the Interior a week later. There is nothing new, is there? The present situation is nothing but dictatorship by another name. He leafs through an illustrated picture book of ancient Mogadiscio, thinking that Somalis, long familiar with dictatorships of socialist vintage, are now getting accustomed to a brand of religionist authoritarianism. But the imposition of will by religious fiat is still the imposition of will (Farah, 2011, p. 51). Therefore, the run of Crossbones remains an undertaking of a quantitative analysis of behavior within which the natural constitution of legacy becomes controversial with the potential different in opinion of nature (Tabi'ah), the significance of Kawniyyah, and the dynamic of Insaniyah. Through the potentiality and actuality within Farah develops his approach of affective theory, it appears to be a relational and an effectual order, which decomposes the causal paradigms of the contentious Jahiliyyah relational model. Thus, with an analytic continuation and beyond the meaningless and absurd dimension of the natural constitution of social theory, Farah, through his applied aesthetic realism, defines a new realm of aesthetic illusion within the primary line of Islamic perception and conception becomes a relational aesthetic perfection. In effect, its usability effect determines a fusion of a cognitive style and a cognitive ability that influences the structuration of a deviating relational aesthetic. Therefore, throughout its relational mobility quantum, we observe a dimensional projective perspective and a correlation coefficient between the nature of Kawniyyah and the nature of Insaniyah. Correspondingly, through the compositionality significance and circumstantial significant of the Jahiliyyah relational model theory and social constructionism, it appears a figure of renunciation concerning the opinion of a person-product instant of $l/m$, a well-balanced realm of Ibtida and a congruent and definite relational interface between the dimensionality of Kawniyyah and Insaniyah. ## III. THE CORRELATION DIMENSION OF ABSURDITY AND TORTURE Through the contradicting system of the Jahiliyyah relational model theory, the framework of reality in its complete characteristic and exteriority facts impels a dynamic opposing level concerning the interiority and the organizational dimension of the Theop-political praxis-oriented and practice of conception, execution, and transformation. With the compellingly standard process of perception, the active affective change of nature, and the diffusion coefficient of the religious-politico relational model, Farah describes a context of Alamiyyah, where the transformative experience of Haqiqah, the vital forces of Tariqah, and the theoretical realm of Yaqinniyah stand as an absurd approach of intellection. Within this respect, the material organization of the emotional state, the immateriality significance of the image-object, and the intellectual form of Al-ma'rif a appear inside the causal paradigms of the relational model of jahiliyyah social theory as a phenomenon of speculation and anticipation about human intellect. Therefore, the discourse ethics and classical conservatism inside which the frame of understanding remains disconnected from identity capsizes the functioning principles of faculty of choice and psycho-intellectual sense; then, the dimension of Wujud (being) and Mahiyyah (essence) becomes an architectural abstraction of understanding and implementation of the conscience of difference and inferences to grasp the reality of Fitrah. Throughout a denotative interpretation, an association of object and elaborated images, the realm of transcendental aesthetic inside the transformative ideological perspective of the religious-politico theory happens to modify the complex usability and its rapport to the established dialectical reality. It is within this dynamic; we, find the essence of Hitchcock's analysis: Theory is marked by insufficiency, a failure that is not a sign of hubris but of hope: that its shortfall mimes the logic of truth in language.Take Being, for instance. Whatever the truth in Being, its human axiom, it is not outwardly given in the language that communicates it. The dilemma of the existentialist is precisely the "about" of Being in relation to existence, not the "is" that is its truth. Heidegger writes of the "unconcealment of Being," its aletheia, yet it is not a revelation of truth in language, but a sign of what superadequates it.1 One of the significant tensions in modernity and theories of the modern has been structured by the play of difference between existence and Being (Hitchcock, 2010, p. 44). Within this respect, aside from a critical intellectual analysis and inside an affectivity and opinion schema of approach, the socio-political theory that is efficiently designed in the run of Crossbones displays the esoteric domain of reality, and its relational model remain characteristically a wholesome mental composition and a definitive sociopolitical alternative mechanism in respect of a neo-conception of conservative reality. In this way, the relational model and the formal logic within evolves the model of conception and execution of socio-politico theory develops the notion of nonsense effect, and an idea of contradiction within the framework of cognition and emotion contradicts the Theo-political praxis of social awareness. Throughout the refusal of activating a dialectical reality by means of context and active affectivity and imagination, the religious-political system that Farah is describing in his docufiction impels the individual's accessibility of Al-aql in its schema and behaviorist conceptions, directly linked to its perception of origin. Correspondingly, through the modifying environmental variables and introspective method, Farah contains in his applied behavioral analysis a mental decomposing process within which he seeks through the human intellect to define an operative representation of reality; therein, the dimension of embodiment cognitively stands as a meta-analysis. In this run, the realm of relational aesthetics enhances a system of measurement within modeling the functioning of thinking under a perpetual guideline quantity between conception, execution, and adaptation determines executive functions; therefore, we observe a shifting dynamic of perceptual schemes, a contextual transformation of the content of agreement and a capacity of resisting the interferences concerning non-pertinent understanding: The word authorized coming out of such a small thing gives Dhoorre a jolt. Perhaps this is one of the boys he's heard about—the new order of youths trained for a higher cause, who, even though they receive their instructions from earthlings, ascribe their actions to divine inspiration. He has heard about boys such as this, whom Shabaab has kidnapped and then trained as suicide bombers, boys and a few girls who see themselves as martyrs beholden to high ideals. But what can this boy want? Or, rather, what can his superiors want? And why here, why him and his family? He must disabuse the boy of the notion that he, Dhoorre, harbors any resentment toward religionist ideals, it is only that he privileges dialogue, prioritizes peace (Farah, 2010, p. 73). 389 This approach allows the dimensionality of *Insaniyah* to move beyond the contradictory nature of the religious-politico theory of social cognition; in the same perspective, the Be-thinking dimension embodies a cognitive process inside which the reproductive coercion of the relational model of origin enhances a new figure of assimilation. Therefore, transformative experience establishes a new method of cognition and organizational behavior. This complex function defines essential relational mobility; hence, with an efficient interaction between the realm of *Insaniyah*, *Ibtida*, and *Tabi'ah*, the schema of inhibition becomes a fusion regarding the relational operator of *Ilm*, *Al-ma'rifa*, and *Wujud*. Consistently, throughout the relational usability of voluntary violence, Farah encapsulates the relational model theory of origin in a new approach of psycho-affectivity, which through its relational aesthetic embodies a new context of social competence and a relational dialectics that efficiently ensures the regulation of a rational choice theory the consent to autonomy intentionality and emotional intelligence. Through the contradicting performances of the relational model theory in the course of *Crossbones*, the conception of constructivism appears to be entangled in a chaos that is correspondingly characterized by a relational social perception in which its limit of a function and limit of a sequence define a dichotomizing method and a paradox of dichotomy within the human intellect appears to be relational aggression as regards the execution of the relational theory of the revelation. In this way, we observe that with human intellect to define intrinsic value and understanding inside their own *Insaniyah* and *Be-thinking* relational *Mahiyyah*, the original resentment between the individual, the dimension of *Al-aql*, and the underlying experience of the perception of revelation, appear to be the contradictory nature of the two prevailing instantaneously. In this dynamic, the religious-politic-social theory befits a coercive function inside which the schema of relational disorder and relational theory display the dimensionality and the contentious relationality between freedom of intellection and religious execution. This fact remains well illustrated when Farah writes: Qasiir says, "People change unrecognizably when the country in which they live changes. The civil war opens their eyes to areas of their lives to which they have been blind—the same way going to university and receiving a good education help you see things anew. People's attitudes toward life change with a change in their circumstances, more so in war than in peace. Nobody wants to feel left behind when others move on and do well, or to feel excluded... Qasir says, "Shabaab prefer their recruits to be much younger than I, greenhorns who know no better, who haven't developed their own way of looking at the world. They concentrate their efforts on recruiting teenagers from broken homes or young boys and girls to whom they can provide a safety net, a « guaranteed livelihood after training. They brainwash them, then attach every new recruit to a trustworthy insider (Farah, 2011, pp. 174-175). In this dynamic that Farah, through his aesthetic realism approach, focuses on the realm of religious intolerance and ethnocentric approach, which, correspondingly, he signifies as the main principles of discrimination and categorization concerning the relational aesthetic between Insaniyah and Al-aql. Consistently, the intentionally preposterous and supplice of the religious-politico relational model theory appear to be an inherent structural belief that the function of human intellection and imagination (Al-aql) remains organically partial through instance and space. Therefore, its substance and relational database cannot efficiently encompass the sphere of embodied knowledge, the idea of reference, and the epitome structure of truth. In this perspective, the dimension of Insanyah and Wujud inside the relational model theory and its approach to human intellect become correlated with anthropological circumstances and conservational factors that characterize the impermanence of individual concerns. At this stand, it becomes evident that the disarticulation between the religious-politico relational model and human intellect remains the belief that the Be-ing intellection cannot postulate a coordinated arrangement for human life or perform in complete intelligence in place of the revelation (al-wahy). ## IV. CONCLUSION Throughout an object language, Nuruddin Farah involves in his aesthetic realism an esoteric interpretation concerning the realm of relationality between the individual psycho-affectivity, capacity of understanding and absorption, and the meta-rule dimensionality of the religious-politico-social theory. Correspondingly, the meta-fiction dynamic of Crossbones unveils a reality distortion field within contradiction defines a new mental force sphere inside which the idea of origin determines conservative logical conjunction and optimization in perspective. The individual appears disconnected from its relational nature of reality and its relationality to conception and perception. In this stand, by emphasizing the causes and effects of relational uncertainty, Farah shows that the frame of ethnocentric reality and ethnoreligious concept limits the Insaniah dimension of perceptual order. This dynamic dives into the realm of Hakimiyyah inside a notion of absence. Therein, the individual's relational mobility about the process of choosing, systematizing and understanding the source of truth from his self-own-experience to give significance and instruction to the world around him, becomes an aberration. Through the psychoanalytic method of the different characters and inside the context-adaptive quantification of reality inside the dynamic of Crossbones, the realm of relational dialectics appears inside Farah's approach of reality, as a meta-data. Within this view, the religious-politico relational social theory believes human intellect to be only a receptacle, a passive agent and has no accessibility to thinking. Therefore, compliance with ethnoreligious order remains his only fundamental cause. Within this respect, that the moral compass and the reality principle of the theory of origin appear to embody relational aggression within the source material of truth, and the purely morphological fact of authority is the revelation. Consequently, the Be-ing intellection and the Be-thinking relational model do not correspondingly embody the quintessential accessibility relation and the frame of possibility theory in respect to interpreting and confronting the mental imagery of revelation. In this stand, the human intellect, despite his construction of Al-ma'rif, his approach of Ibtida, and his absorptive capacity of Tabi'ah, remains intermingled with disorder. It then stands as a straight consequence eccentricity as regards conservative relational construction of reality. It is in this respect, the dynamic nominalism that efficiently withstands the theory of origin, annihilates the Wujud dimensional dialectical phenomenology, in the same run, overwhelms the dialectical realism of Mahiyyah in the perspective of human intellect. At this level, the relationalism and relationism that Farah involves in his aesthetic and rational realism display the presence of contradictions within things, are mainly correlated and limited to personalistic and coercive social theory. In a long-run frequency interpretation and within epistemological constructivism, the realm of relational aesthetics becomes inside the dimensionality of Crossbones, a relational frame theory.

Generating HTML Viewer...