Somalia Forever

[Blessed]

First of all Britain does not keep religion out of public life and education. The Church of England has a say on political and legal matters and the government is constantly poking it's nose in peoples religious believes and practice.. Let's also not forget the on going religious conflict in NI!

 

I find it interesting that the writer acknowledges that short comings of secular states like Ethiopia but still endorses it's rulings as ideal because he 'hopes' that the situation will improve but fails to be as generous with Muslim countries. I sense bias here because Ethiopia isn't the only secular state that fails to live up to secular / democratic ideals or respects the rights of it's people. There are many more.

 

Further more, he fails and so many who push secular laws also fail to actually discuss the pros and cons of Secular ideals and Islamic ideals theoratically. It's always America is good and Saudi is bad- so lets ditch Islamc law!!

 

Somalia was secular since it's independence he said, was that without problems, corruption, dictatorship, genocide which lead to it's eventual collapse?

 

As I said in your other post Aliamos, you'd do well to compare nations that are similar in culture. Sadaams secular state was no different to King Fahads theocratic monarchy, both were tribal, intolerant and dictatorial but err. actually Fahad killed less. Tunisa and UAE are also similar in the way they engage with their people, both states are dictatorships though one pays lip service to democratic ideals. However, on a postitive note both states are developing and making positive progress in economic / social development.

 

Yet, in Tunisia there's a strong opposition to the forced secularity because even here there is government involvement in the religious practice of individuals, ironically due to the States secular ideals.

 

 

Which brings me to the concept of democracy, isn't the basic principle that of choice? Iraqis today, though not missing secular Sadaams blood baths don't want an secular American lead democracy but sharia in their laws. Iranis after their revolution voted for sharia law, they don't want a hard lined government but they are still very attached to their Ayatollahs. Saudis call for a different interpretation of sharia not a complete removal of it. In fact most Muslims societies, from Malaysia to Nigeria want the sharia or elements of sharia law in their lives - if applied correctly.

 

Coming back to Somalia, there laws in SL and PL are based on principles from Sharia, there are no religious freedoms in Puntland and Somalia – Homosexuality, alcohol and most things that oppose the sharia are illegal. These are not secular states by definition! I understand that Al Shabaab are harsh in their implementation of the sharia but if we look back at the short era of the IUC which brought a grass roots Islamic movement, it was welcomed by most Somalis.

 

As Muslims we believe that the Quran is the true universal message of God. The Quran has both legislative elements and commands that requires one to promote Islamic values to the public at individual and macro levels - how do we reconcile this with secular ideals that oppose these fundamental tenets of the Quran?

 

 

Finally, the migrants that 'flood into western secular' countries are from all sorts of countries, many of which are corrupt / dictatorial secular states. I don'' know why you brought that into this debate as very few are from countries which apply sharia law- I've never in my life met a Saudi / Irani refugee. The vast majority of immigrants in the west are economic migrants rather than political refugees – most none Muslim. Ironically, there are many Western economic immigrants in this wealthy, sharia based Muslim country that I live in..

[Ibtisam]

^^Money knows no religion dhee.

 

Although I am not sure your idea that everyone wants the correct sharia is true. I would argue that people want their version of Sharia, which is why they have so much mess as a result. Compare the Sharia law of Iran, Malaysia, Neigeria and any other country which claims to rule by sharia and tell me, really is any of them sharia compliant, or even close enough for us as Muslim to put our eggs in their basket.

 

Of course I can say the same for any western country struggling to follow the model.

 

Aliamos okay then, as you were.

 

P.s. Aliamos reminds me of Castro when he first joined. It is the strangers thing. :eek:

[B]

Originally posted by Blessed.*:

First of all Britain does not keep religion out of public life and education. The Church of England has a say on political and legal matters.

I completely disagree. The C of E is not a public body. C of E has no political or legal role. Its largely ceremonial. It has privileged advisory role but this is only persuasive. Like when Rowan Williams in his speech called for sharia courts to have a place in the UK judicial system, this was dismissed outright and he quietly retreated back to his sanctuary lol.

 

It is the established church but is a political construct that allows the country to function because of the anachronistic system of governance. C of E is not amenable to Judicial review.

[Blessed]

^The CoE does have a legislative role. It does run state maintained schools. Give me an official document that says otherwise..

[B]

Legislative is law making. Running schools is an entirely thing all together. There are Jewish and Muslim schools, but they are not endorsed by the state, whereas C of E schools are supported by the state, but there is a trend to decrease the number of C of E supported schools as the country heads towards the grey abyss that is secularism. The C of E has no legislative role, the small number of clergy in the house of lords don't legislate acts, they merely debate it, even by then the House of Commons has the final say.

[ailamos]

Good piece of writing Blessed, quite the opposite from Tuujiye and the rest, including myself, have posted

 

Originally posted by Blessed.*:

First of all Britain does not keep religion out of public life and education. The Church of England has a say on political and legal matters and the government is constantly poking it's nose in peoples religious believes and practice..

It is true that a certain number of the archbishops of the Church of England are allowed to sit in the upper house of the British Parliament and they number less than 4% of the total parliament and they normally do not vote and have little political influence.

 

As I said in your other post Aliamos, you'd do well to compare nations that are similar in culture. Sadaams secular state was no different to King Fahads theocratic monarchy, both were tribal, intolerant and dictatorial but err. actually Fahad killed less. Tunisa and UAE are also similar in the way they engage with their people, both states are dictatorships though one pays lip service to democratic ideals. However, on a postitive note both states are developing and making positive progress in economic / social development.

As for the comparison of the countries that are culturally similar, you bring about valid similarities between Saudi and Iraq under repressive systems of governance. And as I'm sure you've read, and hopefully understood, in my earlier posts, that I don't side with either and I am not for repression of any kind Islamic or otherwise. The confusion here is that when I mention secularism, people jump the gun and assume I'm talking about secularization as both do not offer the same conclusion to the subject of religion in society.

 

Further more, he fails and so many who push secular laws also fail to actually discuss the pros and cons of Secular ideals and Islamic ideals theoratically. It's always America is good and Saudi is bad- so lets ditch Islamc law!!

There certainly are pros and cons of both systems, no system is perfect... However, in my opinion, a society based on the entire reasoning that certain things must be made illegal because God ordained it without leaving the choice to the individual (after all it is they who are going to hell) is not somewhere I personally would live in. I am for the opinion to leave the judging to God and leave religiosity (or the lack of) to the individual. Period. I do not like the forcing of people into something they do not want, whether its Sharia or otherwise. If the greater Somali populace votes for a form of Sharia, then nothing I can say or do would matter because the people want it... However from what I can tell from these forums is that there is a mixed opinion and there is no definite consensus on the matter.

 

Finally, the migrants that 'flood into western secular' countries are from all sorts of countries, many of which are corrupt / dictatorial secular states.

Many are also from corrupt dictatorial religious states as well...

 

I don'' know why you brought that into this debate as very few are from countries which apply sharia law- I've never in my life met a Saudi / Irani refugee.

You haven't met an Irani asylum seeker? I take it you haven't heard of the Iranian Refugees Alliance based in New York City. There are many Irani refugees in the US and Europe.

 

Ironically, there are many Western economic immigrants in this wealthy, sharia based Muslim country that I live in.

Are they driving your taxis, serving you shawarmas and cleaning up after you?

 

As Muslims we believe that the Quran is the true universal message of God. The Quran has both legislative elements and commands that requires one to promote Islamic values to the public at individual and macro levels - how do we reconcile this with secular ideals that oppose these fundamental tenets of the Quran?

A very good question, the answer to which I currently do not have and would like to know if someone else does.

[Blessed]

*sigh* Must resist slapping B... must resist!

 

 

 

Christian religious leaders have had an active role in the legislative affairs of the country since before the formation of the Church of England. Prior to the 11th century feudal landlords and religious leaders were regularly consulted by Saxon kings. In the 14th century, religious leaders and landed gentry formed the ‘Upper House’ (the Lords) as, respectively, the Lords Spiritual and Lords Temporal. Local representatives formed the ‘Lower House’ (the Commons). Apart from a brief interruption following the English Civil war, religious leaders have played an active role in parliament ever since. The continuing place of Anglican bishops in the Lords reflects both this historic fact and our enduring constitutional arrangement, with an ‘established’ Church of England and its Supreme Governor as Monarch and Head of State. The Bishopric of Manchester Act of 1847 limited the number of places for Lords Spiritual. It is currently fixed at 26 and, in an Upper House of 742 members, the Lords Spiritual now constitute 3.5% of its membership.

CoE

 

Role of Church of England BBC.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by *Ibtisam:

P.s. Aliamos reminds me of Castro when he first joined. It is the strangers thing. :eek:

hahahahahaha (just imagined myself in the early Castro beard)

 

But, I have no intention of ruling anyone, I just want my country to be a place people flock into rather than flock out of

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Blessed.*:

*sigh* Must resist slapping B... must resist!

that just cracked me up!!!!

[ailamos]

Copying from the British parliament, I wouldn't mind having this in a future Somali parliament hahaha

 

The number of sheikhs is currently fixed at 26 and, in an Upper House of 742 members, the Lords Spiritual now constitute 3.5% of its membership.

 

What do the sheikhs do in Parliament?

 

There is always a Lord Spiritual in the House of Lords when it is sitting. The reading of prayers in the House is determined on a weekly rota basis and Lords Spiritual will also attend the House for debates and votes when matters of interest and concern are before it. When sheikh's retire (compulsory at 70), their membership of the House also ceases. Some have then become life peers and it is traditional for ulama to become so.

 

Who do they represent in Parliament?

 

There is no ‘Sheikh's Party’ and as non-aligned members, their activities in the Upper House are not subject to a whip. Like all other members of the Lords, they do not represent a constituency. They sit as individual Lords Spiritual, and as such they have much in common with the Crossbenchers and independent peers, who are not party-affiliated. Their presence in the Lords is an extension of their general vocation as sheikhs to preach God's word and to lead people in prayer. The sheikh's provide an important independent voice and spiritual insight to the work of the Upper House and are a voice for all people of faith, not just Muslims.

[Tuujiye]

^^^ wale waxaa kaa raaye Norfe lool no wonder he was just writing to you one liner lool..

 

I have nothing against you sxb, is just when you attack Islam and bring your Fox news views...

 

is ok to be a gaal saaxiib just respect other diins and if you have hard time understanding it, go read and do your own research..stop listning to gaalada...

 

ilaahey haku soo hanuunsho saaxiib because your not ****** and you know whats right... iinsha allah one day you will see the truth clear....

 

 

I'm done here....

 

 

Wareer Badanaa!!!

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Tuujiye:

^^^ wale waxaa kaa raaye Norfe lool no wonder he was just writing to you one liner lool..

looool... seems like you havent been following the thread, Norf is being ignored until he answers th question (see above) Period.

 

I have nothing against you sxb, is just when you attack Islam and bring your Fox news views...

you havent been following my posts. Awoowe the prescription on your eyeglasses has expired... get a new one and follow the conversation...

 

you're Fox news turned Muslim, so please spare me your bigotry...

 

is ok to be a gaal saaxiib just respect other diins and if you have hard time understanding it, go read and do your own research..stop listning to gaalada...

Certainly there is nothing wrong in being a gaal... but your idea of "respect other diins" is the conformation to your thoughts and convictions...

 

 

I'm done here....

Good riddance

[B]

^ dont frustrate people my friend.. the loudest one is not the right one. you need a good slap on the face.

 

Wareer Badanaa!!!

[BUKURR]

Ailamos I salute you.

 

I came across this article written by African Christian studies -am NOT Christian, it argues that Christianity must not merely collaborate with modernity, but must surpass it or transcend it. The new evangelisation has to bring about a social transformation, in which social responsibility and solidarity replace economic rationalism as the dominant motivation. This, in turn, depends on an internal transformation within Christianity itself.

 

If you need to read the full article, here is the link: http://www.sedos.org/english/shorter.htm

 

I am fully aware this has nothing to do with Somalis in particular, but its a good example how religious Christians are racing with religious Muslims to confront the secular way of living -think before you take this last part out of context. In honest I must say, some aspects that have been put forward by different sides to explain ones point of view are daring to consider.

 

B what you talking about :confused:

[Tuujiye]

Ailamos lool ileen waxba iskuma heysid lool duqa waxaan kuu qabay nin culus oo caqli yar leh laakiin waa dhiiqootay...

 

Saaxiib waxaan secular iyo qurafaadka aad ku dhuumaneysid iska dhaaf.. the only reason aad u rabtid noloshaas xaaraanta ah is to live the life aad ku halaagtamtay...

 

diintaadi ayaad ka tagtay markaas buu buufis kugu dhacay.. you came here looking for a reason and found few young people oo aqoontooda diinta daciif tahay markaas baad isku qabtay in aad cilmaani tahay..... saaxiib dadka aad aqoontooda iyo respectigooda aad maanta raacday oo aad naftaada u dhiibatay waa dad adiga wiligaa kuu arki doonaa wax ka hooseeya...umad aan nijaasada iska dhaqin oo wax kaste xalaaleystay ayaad dhahday maanta waa dad aqoon yahan ah... don't blame your problems iyo your weak qalbi the rest of the muslim world saaxiib ee sida isku dhaam waad liidataayee...

 

I asked you a simple question and you said yes that you want to live under a secular government which you think will let you be as gaal as you could be..but the sad part is, you are somalian and you will never have that life....

 

I been following you and other gaalo in SOL for sometime now and everyone sees that..and my goal was to show people your true iner intention.... you all run away from the truth.... your all cofused and need help and have a little knowledge of what ever you believe too...

 

saaxiib since aad isiisay weynaan aan kaa weynahay somalida waxee ku maah maahday "nin gu' kaa weyn, kaa waayo aragsan" I live next to gaalo adiga oo kale ahi and work with them..and yes waa somali.... wax macno iyo xigmad lehina kuma hadlaan... bax Fox news hoos fadhiiso and enjoy your Glen Beck stories...

 

 

Wareer Badanaa!!!