Despite the Duke's claims I have to give him some Islamic credit, the oldest continuously operating degree granting university is not Nanjing but university of Al Karouine in Morocco founded sometime in the mid-9th century. People get very defensive when it comes to criticism of Islam, and I don't understand why? In order for this religion to "move forward" we need to critically examine it and not live in past glories. Please wake up. - Was Islam a world force? Yes. - Was Islam a beacon of science and advancement? Yes it "WAS". (with heavy emphasis). - Is Islam a leading force in the world today? No. Why? Because Muslims stopped thinking and started imitating, they stopped criticizing and started blindly following. Putting fancy pictures of bright building is pointless. In the UAE there was recent cases of employers there starting to systematically reject job applications of people from Somalia. How is that for your Arab/Muslim unity? And what about enslaving fellow Muslims in getting their dirty work done? Heard this story: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/11/abu-dhabi-royal-acquitted-in-torture-trial/ Here to see the gruesome video: http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7407186 My friend's family lived there until recently and they were not fortunate enough to leave the country in an appropriate time because they thought they had it good in a 'Muslim' country until the father lost his job (which he had for decades) to a young Emirati graduate. He got fired after training the young man for six months. He was deported along with his family. When I was 10-11 years old I witness a South Asian housemaid commit suicide by jumping from a 10 story balcony because of the mistreatment she was suffering from at the hands of her Arab employers. She landed about 10 meters from me as I was heading home. Check this story of a similar case: http://www.nation.co.ke/News/-/1056/840238/-/vp9oc4/-/index.html So please save me your nonsense about Arabs being our fellow brothers in Islam. If there was true Muslim unity, people like us would be flocking to Arab/Muslim lands rather than the West.

Originally posted by ElPunto: quote:Originally posted by ailamos: I hope people don't get defensive and start to "guard" their faith by climbing up the palm tree, so please try to not feel attacked, I'm just trying to raise an issue and open the floor for discussion. Quite frankly - this discussion has veered completely off topic when you bring up why certain punishments are allowed in Islam or why some Malayasians are getting worked up over the word Allah. My bad my mexican friend... but I put the punishments and the Malaysians up simply as examples of why I am against our country being governed by religious law.

Hmm…I disagree with your first statement for two reasons: a) it’s discriminatory in nature. Are you saying if you’re a practicing Muslim man (I only said man because you seem to think women will not have religious authority) should be denied a government position? Isn’t that itself a discrimination by religion? B) Why are you assuming the masses are ignorant of their religion? As you know, in Islam everyone is required to seek knowledge. Unlike other religions, we don’t have priests that are a go-between God and us. You're right it would be discrimination and outright wrong to deny a practicing person a government position, and I wasn't specific as to what I meant. Let's try again... By religious authority I meant a hardwiring of religion into government decision-making. As to your point B... I am not assuming but it's a fact that some Muslims are ignorant of their religion, just take a look at what is happening in the world today... Check this out regarding the proper "punishment" of your wife: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do and this one at a Friday sermon: ... Imagine if that guy was the Minister of Religious Affairs in a Shariah country? --- You’re playing the “if I see it, then it must be true” game here. You certainly can debate better than this. Personal opinions and interpretations are not of importance. I put out those videos for two reasons; first one being that I anticipated the response of "Islam doesn't have priests"... we don't but we do have clerics which is rather synonymous who give religious decisions e.g. fatwas and the like and who's instructions are obeyed... the second reason was to give an example of what happens when the state supports a particular religion, you will inevitably get people who stand at the podium and preach religious interspersed with their personal opinions. [/QB]

Originally posted by Jacphar: If Indonesia, Saudia or Singapore votes on a referendum to uphold their constitutional right for Sharia governance and the majority of the public votes, would that violate your separation of church and state? Singapore is not a majority Muslim country, that's a common misconception. I hope people don't get defensive and start to "guard" their faith by climbing up the palm tree, so please try to not feel attacked, I'm just trying to raise an issue and open the floor for discussion. Take for example the recent Malaysian "Allah case" where the court overturned a government ban on the use of the word Allah by Christians and other non-Muslims in the country. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia-pacific/2010/01/20101114114404185.html For example in Malaysia the government meddled into religious affairs and targeted religious minorities by banning the use of certain words by them which caused open ground for conflict. When politics mixes with religion then it gets ugly. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1952497,00.html Religion is also used as a reason to vent frustration and abuse on minorities and in the case of Malaysia the majority Muslims are Malay and the minority Christians are Chinese, Indians and Bumiputras. Why are people completely closing their minds and failing to realize that Allah is a general Arabic word for God with no attachment to a particular religion? What if we have a Sharia Somali state and a couple of Somali Muslims decide to convert to Christianity or Hinduism or Judaism or Buddhism or drop religion altogether... should they by killed for apostasy as per Sharia rulings? Should we kill our own people because they do not share our religious convictions? is that justice or religious dictatorship? In any case, I think you see what I mean and in the end, I believe it is beneficial to be critical of religion and make it a a matter of personal choice and not as a basis for ruling a country. If I am not mistaken, the countries with a 100% Sharia government system are: Iran, Sudan, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Nigeria (half of the country), Yemen and Saudi Arabia... enough said.

Originally posted by chocolate & honey: quote: Hi chocolate & honey, when I say modern I mean lack of stonings, whippings, hand-choppings, women getting 1/2 the inheritance, wives being obligated to satisfy husbands' sexual needs even if she doesn't want to, four-witness rape cases... etc. etc. It is interesting that you said "if that's what the society wants, so be it"! And then quickly added "I doubt," meaning you dont trust that they CAN make that choice under the assumption that they're oppressed? Ehem... except the part where you stated that women are forced to satisfy their husband's sexual needs(which is an utter rubish because force is rape and Islam doesnt condone rape), most of what you consider ancient are effective laws(beats the hell out of sticking one in a hospital for sodomizing his son) passed to protect society's interests in here and the hereafter. See just like the Electric Chair and life without parole in four walls, stoning(while I dont defend it at the moment for the lack of an appointed Imamul Umma and unity)and rape witneses(which by the way can now easily be satisfied by producing DNA and other physical evidence ) are in place to protect people from predators and people with no regards to the rules. One could easily point out 1,000 things(hyperbole ) wrong with the current Justice System in place in many countries that are now the object of some people's envy. Lots of good points. Islam may not condone rape but it can easily be interpreted in the other direction, for example: "If a man invites his wife to sleep with him and she refuses, then the angels send their curses on her till morning" Sahih Bukhari, Vol. 7, No. 121-2 "When a man sends for his wife for the satisfaction of his need, she should go to him even if she may be occupied in baking bread." Tirmidhi and Nisai, No. 284 I think having a religious authority in a governmental position is a wrong step because of this ease of misinterpreting scripture and because people will believe whatever puts them in a better position. Check this out regarding the proper "punishment" of your wife: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yl8g8S6F3do and this one at a Friday sermon: ... Imagine if that guy was the Minister of Religious Affairs in a Shariah country? OK, will continue later, it's getting late... night night

Originally posted by Jacphar: ^The two go hand in hand though. Assuming Sharia is backward and incompatible withe 'modern standards', (which I have no clue what it means) is also assuming people shouldn't or wouldn't go for it. Both assumptions are linked and somehow boil down to the same thought. Running out of time. Later. Yeah, I gotta rush as well, it's getting late here... but quickly by modern I simply meant that certain things that were considered normal "back in the day" cannot be applied in this day and age.

True, true... I'm not advocating the treatment of prisoners in certain Western countries but seriously do you think prisoner treatment in Saudi or Iran would be any better? All I'm saying is that punishments such as hand-chopping and stoning held in a public setting for minor offenses are way to extreme and don't belong in this day and age.

Hi chocolate & honey, when I say modern I mean lack of stonings, whippings, hand-choppings, women getting 1/2 the inheritance, wives being obligated to satisfy husbands' sexual needs even if she doesn't want to, four-witness rape cases... etc. etc.

That's an excellent point. I think if a country chooses (in every sense of the word, and I'm not talking about Saudi or Iran) to adopt Shariah then so be it, if that's what the people really want. Somehow, though I am a bit skeptical about that because half of the population (women) is controlled by the other half who state scripture that enforces a woman's obedience of her husband, so for me whether "everyone" in a particular country wants Shariah or not is a bit of a question mark. My original post also revolved around a general 'enlightenment' of the Islamic religion, because I have seen that people who don't even speak Arabic "adhered" to the religion by simply obeying what bearded clerics say. And those clerics often make statements that benefit them.

Originally posted by Raamsade: Geographical disadvantage might not make imminent sense today with modern transport like airplanes, railroads and highways. But in the old days it made an immense difference. There were only two modes of transportation in the old days : by road or sea. Now, I don't need to expound on why transport by sea was more efficient and productive. Even today, most trade is done by sea on huge container ships. Thus, for trade to occur you needed navigable rivers that connected disparate villages, towns, cities and kingdoms. It seems that you're talking about Jared Diamond's theory of why certain civilizations triumphed over others. However, this theory doesn't tell me anything of how it was the European that have become world conquerers even though they shared the same geographical resources as the people in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Levant and Anatolia? Furthermore, the populations of Morocco had similar resources (if not richer) to their Spanish neighbors but they didn't become as advanced, why? The same goes for Iran. Furthermore, it's been a 50 years since the liberation of Africa from colonialists and 92% of the inhabitants of countries such as Nigeria, a classic example as it's the 10th largest oil producer with almost 3% of the world's reserves, live on under $2/day. Why is that? It has to be something other than simple geography and trade routes, no? I think it has more to do with mentality than anything. The Europeans shoved into democracies people that don't normally cohabit together and don't even speak the same language and perhaps, the prominent locals learnt from the colonialists that in order to survive you have to be corrupt and steal, which is why first generation African leaders clung to power for so long. I'm not saying these are concrete facts but I'm just speculating.

Originally posted by ElPunto: There is a simple answer here. As a Muslim one believes that Allah's method for governance, if properly applied, will be superior to whatever man-made systems there exists including the secular ideal you espouse here. That there haven't been any present day examples doesn't mean that this quest should be abandoned or that it is hopeless. Thanks for the reply, I appreciate your response... could you be more specific as to what you mean by the "proper application" of such method's of governance? What would be the use of religion in governance if citizenry would follow the principles of basic human decency and civility? Isn't that the reason religion was laid down in the first place? to "civilize" people? also, what can Shariah do that Civil laws can't?

I am new to Camel Milk Threads and decided to join because of the intelligent discussions I've been reading. It is refreshing to see such bright Somali minds in existence. Even though we have no country to call home, I see clearly that this has not diminished our future as a people. I decided to start this thread after some contemplation because it's something that I (and I believe some of you) care about: it revolves around the concept of religion and governance. In particular, I mean the application of Shariah in any future Somali administration. European civilization has come a long way since the middle (aka dark) ages, through the enlightenment and into the 20th century. There is strict separation of Church and State, the French Laïcité being the classic example (that has also been adopted in Turkey), that ensures religious clerics do not meddle in state affairs and impose their "righteous" agenda on the masses. Personally, I am against the inclusion of religious agenda in state matters and if developed countries are any proof then that system is a success. So, why are Muslim countries hesitant in adopting it? Perhaps the Christians have strayed from the path to God? Perhaps their faith is not as true or as concrete as the Muslim faith? Perhaps... Perhaps... we can go on and on with the excuses of Muslims but the facts are on the table... that the system works and anyone who lives in a predominantly Christian, secular country will acknowledge that practicing Christians have no less faith than practicing Muslims, Jews or Hindus. Islam has been the prime method to subdue people and make them "obey", particularly women, and it makes me ask: why are people silent? and when is the turn of Muslims nations to wake up and reform their religion up to modern standards? As for a future Somali state, I envision a country where one's religion is purely his or her personal matter. Where people would be free to wear whatever they want, where women and men are on an equal footing, where people are united not by religion but but shared "Somaliness". Of course we have the matter of the qabiil which I feel would be easier to over come than the issue of religion out of people's fear of being "heretics" but I think the inclusion of religion in governance worsens matters and hinders social development. I would love to know what other Somalis feel/think regarding this matter.

Originally posted by guerilla: quote:Originally posted by Sherban Shabeel: My question for this debate is one I have asked on multiple occasions on this board, only to have it ignored time and time again. Why is evolution automatically associated with atheism? Why the refusal to reconcile belief in a Higher Being with the mechanism of life? Because dear boy, God created Adam from clay and Eve from Adams ribs. This I'm assured by many, is only to be taken literally and if you've an ounce of common sense you would throw god and his stooges to the dogs and say 'I will not equate rational, reasoned, scientific argument to magical thinking, they're not as valid as each other, they're not as valid as each other, they're not as valid as each other, they're simply NOT as valid as each other' after which you'll take a healthy swig of whiskey (any will do) for even further clarity and smack yourself for ever thinking religion was a necessary precursor to you leading a happy existence. I don't think Sherban was alluding belief in a higher being as necessarily believing in that particular bit of scripture you mentioned guerilla but as a more general belief in a higher being (say... God, Yahweh, Allah, Shiva, etc.) that created life through evolution. Anyway, that's not why I posted but rather to play devil's advocate and post the comparison between the clay theory of abiogenesis and the Quranic version of the origin of humans. "Clay's matchmaking could have sparked life" - New Scientist, October 2003 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4307 [23:12] Translation: "And certainly did We create man from an extract of clay." For those of you who are not familiar with abiogenesis, here's an excellent primer from Jelle Kastelein of the University of Amsterdam: http://student.science.uva.nl/~jckastel/html/abiogenesis.pdf In the end it falls down to personal choice, although religion fueled many if not all of the strife humanity underwent over the last 2000 years, there are many people who lead righteous and peaceful lives based on their faith and who are educated professionals of science while being practicing religionists. Personally though and as a Somali, I think the issue of secular, scientific thinking is crucial to us Somalis should we have a stable homeland again. Islamic fanaticism has usurped our country; I do not want to go back to a Somalia that has Shariah as the main mode to disseminate justice even if we have peace. Check out this interesting interview where Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, a Chandler Professor of Law at Emory University and author of "Islam and the Secular State" advocates the secularization of governments in Muslim countries: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/video/2009/06/05/VI2009060501276.html

This debate seems to have died but I will add my two cents which basically revolve around the comment posted by Raamsade. We are not ethnically Arab, we are Cushites much like the Oromo, Afar and Saho, if those people are referred to as African then so are we. To understand what I mean, just take a look at this graphic: I think we should obliterate this "myth" as Raamsade put it because being Muslim and being Arab are not necessarily synonymous.

I think both partners should engage in child-raising, being a parent doesn't mean only putting money on the table. A woman has every right to pursue a career and fulfill her ambitions just as much as a man and in order to raise a family both partners must find an amicable solution whereby both of them can raise the children AND work, of course this depends on the benefits the country you live in provides. For example in certain European countries, Germany, Austria and I think France for example, the parents can split the amount of family leave after the child is born... so the mother stays home the first year and receives a certain portion of her salary and then the father can switch with her for another few months and he receives a portion of his salary. The matter of religion is a personal choice, I'm not particularly religious so it's not as much of a priority for me as is teaching them to become decent human beings.

"The arabs look toward toward the europeans to develop their economy and infrastructure and what do we do? We look toward the arabs who can offer nothing." So true! Additionally, they consider us inferior because of our skin color, preferring instead to listen to an uneducated white hillbilly than to a black PhD holder. It incenses me when they talk about "Muslim unity" and all that nonsense. I've lived in the UAE, US and now in Europe and I would prefer the latter two to a life in an Arab country, although there is racism it's not cloaked in a false sense of belonging.

No offence to the poster but I don't like how the following statement: "How can we force them to change their dress and behaviour to reflect not shaming us further?" is formulated. Isn't it enough that men have forced Somali women to completely blanket-up, stopping "un-Islamic" wedding celebrations and even banning them to wear bras for God's sake! Before this wave of fanatic Islamization of our country women wore traditional outfits that were simply beautiful. Just compare the following two photographs. See how we have stooped so low from this: to this: "Forcing" our women to conform to any type of Islamofashion is not the way forward. I think a simple return to our secular Islamic traditions is in order. Time to throw away those blankets and start looking like Somalis... not Saudis.