Renouncing Qabiil and Qabyaalad

[juba]

Did Qabiil really exist since the begining of time? i don't think so. So it must have had a begining. When? How? and Why? maybe if we explore the origins of this "primitive" system we can understand how to get rid of it to an extent. If it was because of paranoia and suspicion why did we mistrust each other so much? Do we REALLY need it in politics and the affairs of a nation? why is it that other cultures and races do just fine without tribalism and we can't? ( an example i had in mind is the West) What other system did we have before Qabiil? that is going FAR back but we must have had a different way of running things. My point i guess is that we can learn from our history and maybe bring it back.

[Miskiin-Macruuf-Aqiyaar]

Salaan...

 

To some, their lives revolve around qabiil. Indoctrinated in their clan’s unfounded and unquestioned myth the day they spoke, you can’t reason with them. Their cocooned lives were unfortunately constrained to "clan-circle"--friends being the same clan, avoiding the "strangers" and being hardly suspicious about other Soomaalis, it isn’t easy to reason with them.

 

They are enthusiastic to know one’s qabiil before they befriend with the person. Those characteristics are embodied by the feelings of mum the moment an "outsider" randomly joins their not-so unsuspecting group {read clan} conversation. The discerning ones are quick to change the subject, others’ uncomfortable silences say it all. For the folks like those, you can let them live in their cocoons, which they have every right to. They are largely minority, but, alas, they have a well-constructed vocal voice that few can confront. Marka we will see where it goes.

 

I, however, personally do not give a crap about clan loyalty, starting with my own. I can proudly say that I never ever paid clan "qaaraan," which you never know where it goes, even if it is advertised positively. The bizarre border where clan loyalty stops is never questioned until a brother kills his blood brother. The moment the suspicious "stranger" factor is out of the picture, I against my brother begins.

 

This qaaraan episode reminds what happened to this individual I personally know in London a several years ago. A sick warlord came for a medical check-up to London, and "clan-circle" started a grand qaaraan lagu daaweeyo. He got well, went back to his fiefdom. A few months later, he and his minions clashed, the same major clan-circle, this time disoriented into sub-clan level, broke into two groups, each vying the support of one side, organized two separate qaaraan to support the erstwhile sick warlord and his opponents {or even take him out of the picture ( read "kill")}. My friend was summoned up to pay his share, this time in sub-clanish level. He protested, telling them it was only a short while ago that they were paying his medical bills, saving his life and now they want to terminate him. What a world! What a tribal nonsensical world!

[Baashi]

Qabyaalad or Qabiil is all the same in the Somali sense of the word and the two go hand in hand. Renouncing one will lead to the elimination of the other.

Eliminate qabiil and qabyaalad will disappear! I got it and I’m all for it. I have my doubts though. Your intentions are noble and your efforts are admirable but impractical. You see Somalis are organized into clan communities. This is how our society is structured. You just cannot do away the building blocks of the society. I can’t emphasize this point enough. One has to understand the fact that Somalis are not organized into classes (economic), ethnic groups, ideological parties (political), etc.

 

The closest superficial divisions that I can think of are the two main groups the pastoralists and the agriculturalists and to lesser extent the nomads and urbanites. The problem is even within agrarian communities in the river belt are organized into clans. Do you know that in the Shabeeleda Hoose, the land is owned collectively by the clan. For instance, in Arbow Heeroow township and its surroundings, the land is collectively owned by one clan. In the drought months, when pastoralists come for water (at the far west bank of Shabeele river), the communities that reside the land sometimes refuse to let them through. These disputes are not between individuals but between sub-clans.

 

With this background, the question becomes how can one go about denouncing this deep-rooted social structure. Mere declaration of how primitive and backward this system is won’t do any good. The dramatic and symbolic funeral former regime staged comes to mind. In that historic state funeral, the leadership at the time buried the qabiil six feet under. They were motivated and inspired by the communism and its egalitarian ideals. They ignored the social dynamics of the society they were ruling. In the end, they employed the negative tribalism to stay in power!

 

How ironic! the system invites manipulation and since politics is full of intrigue and calcalution the ruling regime, opposition, and foriegners exploited the system and used as a tool. So there we are in agreement of the destructive nature of the tribalism. Our difference is that this is too complicated than you seem to think. Ours is tribal society after all.

 

Now I think, in my humble opinion, that it is impractical to denounce the qabiil structure. What one can do is to make qabiil irrelevant. Let it be the identity it has always been but make it totally irrelevant: irrelevant in the security, employment, and justice system domain. Make it useless in these areas and it becomes harmless! How you do that? That’s the challenge you need to take up. One place you need to start is the government. It has to be legitimate government. To be legitimate it must drive its authority from the clans’ consent. To have their consent, the system must be fair to all interests. Once you have a government conceived in justice and bound by unity then and only then would you be able to do away this qabyaalad thing and you don’t have to denounce the qabiil.

 

Note: I'm not defending the qabiil and honestly would love to see it disappear from the political map but I just don't think that's feasible.

[Paragon]

You see Somalis are organized into clan communities. This is how our society is structured. You just cannot do away the building blocks of the society. I can’t emphasize this point enough. One has to understand the fact that Somalis are not organized into classes (economic), ethnic groups, ideological parties (political), etc.

Baashi, dont you think the clan structure is circumstantial, in that the initial purpose of its constructs is purely economic. Economic welfare determines how social order is constructed. And with economic progress the clan structure can be rendered useless. When the Tumaal or artisan clans achieved success in their individualistic economy, their relience on clan structures deteriorated. However, the problem they faced was in form of all Somali clans failing to follow suit. Thus the maintenance of clan unity by some has undermined the individual successes of the midgaan clans. And as NGONGE mentioned, the key to the abandonment of the clan structure is achieved through economic progress of the inidivual.

 

Originally by NGONGE: The Arabs of the Gulf States were fiercely into tribalism but once they found wealth and each man was able to fend for himself, tribes have been relegated to mere folklore and something to boast about (like owning a nice car or house). Yemen though is the closest example to Somalia. The tribes there still exist, still wield some power in government and parliament (cardboard parliament of course). However, nationality to them comes before tribe! This might be due to the huge efforts the government put into glorifying the unity of the country without demeaning or belittling the tribal concepts.

[Baashi]

You have point there.

 

But you can't have economic order without political stability and security. So political order comes first and it is this order that guarantees security. Now economic order in return has profound influence on the social dynamics and ultimately it serves as the agent that creates social stratification.

 

This is the textbook stuff. Back to the realities on the ground in Somalia, what you have is not special interest based on economic order. What you have is clan groups vying for power. So the interest groups in this context are not labor unions, agricultural industry, etc. They are clans and the only leadership that can emerge is one that is based on the clan interest. I'm in the view that one exception is the religious movement which is a viable force within Somali politics.

 

Let's take two steps back and ask what is it that this clan thing is based on? Blood, lineage partiarchial order! This is hard thing to eliminate methinks. Why would anyone want to eliminate it? What is the purpose here anyway?

 

I'm taking of in minutes...will continue later sxb.

[Paragon]

But you can't have economic order without political stability and security. So political order comes first and it is this order that guarantees security.

Dear Baashi, for what purpose do political stability and security exist to begin with? One does not need security if he/she has nothing (no resource) to protect or secure. Let us start from there. No one protects those who have nothing worthy.

[Baashi]

I beg to differ there sxb. To answer your question, government exist to help us get alone. One has one’s freedom to protect and the list is long…the freedom of worship (of speech, of thought, etc). What government does first is to protect its people from aggression (any). It also provides the freedom for each person consistent with the freedom of every other person.

 

Here is simple example (I’m simple guy and like simplicity) a dispute about a play in a soccer game. This has nothing to do with economic resources. Yet it can get out of hand; argument could become severe and end up in violence. I wonder what you would do if your cousin were involved in this dispute! (each party to the dispute thinks he is right). You need some sort of authority to settle the dispute. Without it there would be no way of resolving the dispute.

 

My understanding is that freedom comes first. Establishing authority out of the freewill of free people is the second logical step. Making laws of the land is the third step. Here is where the difficulty arises. For the law to have teeth, it must be just. Man is imperfect being and man-made laws reflect that fact. So it all comes down to the concept of justice and its application.

 

If the folks that are entrusted with making laws are (deep down in their heart) seeking the justice to which the law in its making should conform, then that authority would have guaranteed the political stability for the community it represents. Now the distribution of resources falls under the jurisdiction of the legislators noh? See the legislators are not economic body they are political body hence the supremacy of the political order over economic order.

 

My guess is that what you r getting at is the fact that social inequality is a source of conflict. True that. If I’m not mistaken what you and Ngonge are saying is that affluent communities are less likely to disrupt their mode of life – not for mere tribal sentiment. True that too. But there is a long way between where we are at and the affluence you have in mind.

 

Now lets go back to the topic and ask why would we want to denounce qabiil which is the basis in which our society is organized? What do we want to achieve by doing that? And how we go about doing that?

 

Just a thought! Excuse the rambling mzee Jamaal.

[LANDER]

Originally posted by Baashi:

 

With this background, the question becomes how can one go about denouncing this deep-rooted social structure. Mere declaration of how primitive and backward this system is won’t do any good. The dramatic and symbolic funeral former regime staged comes to mind. In that historic state funeral, the leadership at the time buried the

qabiil

six feet under. They were motivated and inspired by the communism and its egalitarian ideals. They ignored the social dynamics of the society they were ruling. In the end, they employed the negative tribalism to stay in power!

 

 

You mean the fake revolution. Where they really motivated by egalitrianism? or was it simply rhetoric to gain and maintain support from the USSR?

 

 

Originally by NGONGE: The Arabs of the Gulf States were fiercely into tribalism but once they found wealth and each man was able to fend for himself, tribes have been relegated to mere folklore and something to boast about (like owning a nice car or house). Yemen though is the closest example to Somalia. The tribes there still exist, still wield some power in government and parliament (cardboard parliament of course). However, nationality to them comes before tribe! This might be due to the huge efforts the government put into glorifying the unity of the country without demeaning or belittling the tribal concepts.

Wealth might have quelled some of the tribalism, but tribal allegiance is far from irrelevancy in the arab states. For example Iraq is a tribal society, specially within its central population where even Saddam Hussein only trusted immediate members of his small tribe from Tikrit. Another example would be Syria where the same tribe is said to enjoy the highest rankings of government structure due to their tribal ties with the Al-Asad family. Yet another example might be the UAE, although wealth might have blurred some of those tribal boundaries, I think the emirates themselves are divided up in a family/tribal concept. So to say that economic welfare might put an end to tribalism, is not quite accurate or at least history hasn't shown it to be so. What wealth does is give people less to argue and fight over all the while maintaining there usually mistrust and rivalries.

[NGONGE]

Lander, in all three cases that you’ve cited tribalism is not (comparatively speaking in Iraq’s case) relevant or important as in the case of Somalia. For example, you mentioned the UAE and the difference between the different Emirates! It’s true that they have many tribes that exist to this day. The rulers of Abu Dhabi and Dubai for example both hail from the Bani Yas tribe (sub clans of this main tribe). They don’t put too much emphasis on that fact though, nor do many of the urbanites in the UAE. It is, like I already said, a source of historic pride and nostalgic heritage rather than a political tool.

 

In Iraq, the religious divides are more apparent than the tribal distinctions. I was surprised to recently find that the current president of Iraq was the sheikh of a tribe that counts Sunni and Shica in its ranks! Still, as you can see with the constant news about Iraq (in the west and the Arab world), the main topic of discussion is the dangerous sectarian divides (Sunni, Shica and Kurds) rather than tribal unrest!

 

Even with Syria, Hafiz Al Asad was an Alawi and the whole political tension is one of different “faith†groups rather than tribes.

 

Yes, “families†rule these countries but if there is a revolution tomorrow and these “families†are put to the sword, the whole country is not likely to collapse because the average person in the street does not strongly identify with these families along tribal lines.

 

This is why I asked all those questions at the start of this thread, saaxib. What compels someone to be loyal to a tribe? If everyone is economically independent and the country is (relatively speaking) peaceful, why would people toe the tribal line?

[Baashi]

Lander,

 

That is debatable sxb. Some would say the regime was genuine (in the early days of the revolution) in all of its programs including the war against tribalism. Some would go further and say the regime had a compelling interest in that campaign considering the fact that the old order was well positioned to dominate political landscape if the regime had not acted and suppressed the tribal sentiments. As I said this is debatable.

 

Ngonge,

 

If the country is peaceful and prosperous and everyone is well off financially but the political system is corrupt; If the leadership practices nepotism, favoritism, and justice becomes an institution that requires political support. If this happens in a tribal society and certain clans feel disenfranchised, it follows that malcontents feel compelled to stick together and protest against the injustice. What other recourse do they have if the justice system failed them and leadership is consolidating power and wealth at their expense? If the political system provides no other venue (like courts) that could be utilized to channel these grievances, then negative tribalism fills the vacuum and becomes the vehicle for change noh?

 

Suppose that Faarax is well off businessman in Buuloxuubeey. He is well educated and got a lot going on for him. His assets are mainly in the real estate business. The people around him are pretty much independent and everyone do what he does best. The survey folks at the municipal office make habit to confiscate Faarax’s property and justify their actions that the city planners deemed necessary to run main roads through this property. Police department, they say, needs to use another junk of Jamac’s land (Faarax’s cousin) for inbound parking purpose; the department of Tourism has to have another property that belongs to Faarax’s brother. There is no compensation.

 

Then Faarax notices a trend; all the folks whose property are confiscated belong to one sub-clan and the people who make decisions belong to another sub-clan. Now armed with this information and the fact that the price for the common good are only paid by one side, he files grievances at the local court. The judge cites a local ordinance that supports the city planners action. The city council that passes these laws happens to be from the same clan. Faarax, the law-abiding citizen that he is, tries to run for office in order to change this trend. The folks at the top rigg the election and everyone knows about it. Now all folks whose properties are illegally confiscated join their forces together and start staging protests. However, the police arrest the organizers (leaders), throw them in prison, and deny them their rights to challenge the authority.

 

Now Buuloxuubeey local paper tells the news as it is. It has deep pockets and has inside information. The editor-in-chief, Faarax’s brother-in-law, is accused of incitement. The paper is closed and he is arrested without due process. Buuloxuubeey residents, an affluent community, feel discriminated because of its clan affiliation. In the court of public conscious (this is tribal society after all), one clan is trying to dominate the political discourse and this clan is using the awesome institution of government to advance its interest at the expense of everyone else. Violence is imminent if the justice is not restored.

 

In this fictional scenario, the fact that the country was enjoying relative peace and the resident of Buuloxuubeey were well off financially has no bearing!

 

What say you sage Ngonge? Don’t you think this is what happened in our beloved Somalia? Do you think the ones that protested violently did it for the violence sake? Do you think if the justice were there, the people would be compelled to take up arms against the authority because of poverty?

[Gabbal]

I have followed this debate interestingly and I happened to have found the best and msot honest quote from all the posts written here. All have contributed positively and this is a debate I will always look back to, but a quote from Guardian n Protector's post really stuck out to me:

 

What is wrong is not for me to claim I belong to a certain clan, but to discriminate against others for belonging to a different one

[Faarax-Brawn]

^You lucky you even got a quote.

 

I have yet to see anything substantial. All i see is quetsion after quetsion.

 

 

i will clap when i hear something that resonates with me

[NGONGE]

Ngonge,

 

If the country is peaceful and prosperous and everyone is well off financially but the political system is corrupt; If the leadership practices nepotism, favoritism, and justice becomes an institution that requires political support. If this happens in a tribal society and certain clans feel disenfranchised, it follows that malcontents feel compelled to stick together and protest against the injustice. What other recourse do they have if the justice system failed them and leadership is consolidating power and wealth at their expense? If the political system provides no other venue (like courts) that could be utilized to channel these grievances, then negative tribalism fills the vacuum and becomes the vehicle for change noh?

I agree saaxib. This is what happened with the former regime and even if the current regime sincerely tries its best to uphold justice and fairness, people will still be suspicious and carry on toeing the tribal line! How many in Xamar though seemingly happy about the recent political settlements are still muttering about the president’s “closeness†to Puntland? How many in Somaliland think their president is merely a puppet of one of Somaliland’s sub-clans? How many believe the opposition leader of that entity will favour his own sub-clan if he ever managed to wrestle power from Ryaale?

 

In the short to medium terms, I agree with you, justice has to be implemented by those at the top, with probably a very heavy campaign of positive propaganda. This will still be a risky business because of the entangled state of our tribes/clans and politics. However, it’s the only choice. We might manage to keep peace for a year or two (maybe even a decade or two). But, because we will still have these tribes and because every man with a grievance will always blame a whole clan instead of blaming his wrongdoer, the possibility of this house of cards collapsing any minute will forever stare us in the face!

 

Our ultimate goal will have to be individuality and personal economic independence (this independence while it might not extend to the cronies of a president or a Minster, will at least (hopefully) reach members of their tribes). In such an atmosphere, if justice is not served, people can at least blame the president, his political party or the incompetent judiciary. All can be replaced without the whole state completely falling into anarchy again.

 

If however, people insist on keeping the status que! Then that itself needs some reformation in order for justice to prevail. In my earlier questions in this thread, I asked about the structure of tribes and clans. The only person that replied to me was Ayuub! Even then, he didn’t seem sure of a solid existing structure. This confusing way of belonging to a tribe/clan/sub-clan/sub-sub-clan or even branch and not knowing the supposed leaders of all these groupings (at each stage). Yet vehemently declaring one’s total allegiance to each and every one of them (according to your ancestry of course) is not helpful at all! Neither is it conducive to the consistency of justice. When I say leaders, I mean arbitrators that can and should spread justice in their spheres of control. I believe that if tribalism is going to work, it will have to work along those lines. The “Odey†in your town (and I’m talking your adopted town) that you go to seek advice from, should also be able to issue an order that all those under him would follow blindly. He in turn should adhere to the orders of those above him. In this way, everyone will be accountable for all they do. Sadly, this is not what we have today. No “Odey†can force anyone to do what he (as a recognised and accepted “Caaqilâ€) deems correct! Accountability does not exist!

[Paragon]

Baashi: Now lets go back to the topic and ask why would we want to denounce

qabiil

which is

the basis

in which our society is

organized?

Baashi, this is an organization which is imposed upon us. It stands contrary to reason and logic; it legitimizes use of force to irreponsible actors; its corner stone is emotional blackmail via blood ties; it limits individual production and success; it encourages underdevelopment by stigmatizing artisanship and farming. All these things are deliberately created to enable the effective operation of the clan structure, which is faulty from the outset. The initial purpose for doing so is the control of societal wealth.

 

The mechanism with which to achieve such an outcome is what is known as politics, or what I call the management (control) of wealth amongst individuals and communities. Unlike other structural systems, the clan's operation is blood driven, in that blood ties were created via inbreeding.

 

Inbreeding (such as marriage to close relatives, i.e. cousins) shifts allegience and loyalty towards the clan, and assures that one is put in dilema when he/she is confronted with either morals or reasons, wrongs or rights and truths or fallacies. Its this that the saying 'blood is thicker than water' rightfully describes. It is painful to choose what is right over your clan for doing so will endanger the clan welfare. So the individual must adopt "Gar iyo Gardarro" philosophy. For once, it would be wonderful if reason and morality can be presented to Somalis without the pinalization of the clan.

 

What do we want to achieve by doing that?

Illumination

 

NGONGE: What compels someone to be loyal to a tribe? If everyone is economically independent and the country is (relatively speaking) peaceful, why would people toe the tribal line?

NGONGE, the clan serves many purposes, and one these purposes is 'protection' from total (economic and political ) ruin; 'insurrance' in the face of 'loss' or commision of crime to/or by one and its subsequent 'compensation'. And since 'imprisonment in the Somali culture is virtually non-existent ( due to inability to maintain it) wrongs (killings) committed against others is only settled via joint compensation of the clan. One then cannot afford - literary- to be disloyal or shift allegience away from the only hope he/she has on meeting life's ends. It is a clever sytem; it second to Somali nature and there is no escaping it unless one is economically independent. There is so much intricacy involving the clan system.

[Muhammad]

After reading all that has been said, my mind keeps taking me back to the story of the blind men and the elephant.

 

A community of blind men once heard that an extraordinary beast called an elephant had been brought into the country. Since they did not know what it looked like and had never heard its name, they resolved to obtain a picture, and the knowledge they desired, by feeling the beast - the only possibility that was open to them! They went in search of the elephant, and when they had found it, they felt its body. One touched its leg, the other a tusk, the third an ear, and in the belief that they now knew the elephant, they returned home. But when they were questioned by the other blind men, their answers differed. The one who had felt the leg maintained that the elephant was nothing other than a pillar, extremely rough to the touch, and yet strangely soft. The one who had caught hold of the tusk denied this and described the elephant as, hard and smooth, with nothing soft or rough about it, more over the beast was by no means as stout as a pillar, but rather had the shape of a post ['amud]. The third, who had held the ear in his hands, spoke: "By my faith, it is both soft and rough." Thus he agreed with one of the others, but went on to say: Nevertheless, it is neither like a post nor a pillar, but like a broad, thick piece of leather." Each was right in a certain sense, since each of them communicated that part of the elephant he had comprehended, but none was able describe the elephant as it really was; for all three of them were unable to comprehend the entire form of the elephant.

This subject is not a easy one that can be comprehended in this thread. I find myself agreeing with one poster then another. so to ease my mind I'll try and clarify the different point-of-views I think that have been raised;

 

first there are two camps:

 

1. One believes that Qabiil should be uprooted totaly!

 

2. Another believes that Qabiil must not be uprooted for two reasons, (a) it is not possible to totaly uproot Qabiil from Somalis. (a) it is not necessary to uproot qabiil inorder to kill Qabyaalad.

 

 

In the first camp, there is little disagreement, every one agrees that Qabiil and Qabyaalad are one and the same, a tree and his roots. And inorder to Kill Qabyaalad, Qabiil must be uprooted from the heart and mind of all Somalis.

 

but In the second camp there is some disagreement in how to get rid of Qabyaalad. Some believe that to get rid of Qabyaalad, then;

 

1. There must be fair and stable political system that provides security.

2. Then there must be economic developement for all.

3. These two will then beget a society that is free from Qabyaalad (i.e. Tola'ayeey) and promotes independent indivituals.

 

Others hold the view that economic well-being comes first, then stable goverment, then qabyaalad-free society.

 

 

now that I have drawn a some what simpler map than the issue actually is, I must ask myself which camp do I belong to?

 

I think I lay somewhere in the second group. First I don't believe Qabiil itself is the root of Qabyaalad. And also Islam does accept Tribe and the use of Tribe in doing good. So please don't say that Qabiil has no place in Islam. When Allah(swt) said in the Qur'an,

"Mankind! We created you from a single soul, male and female, and made you into nations and tribes, that you may come to know one another. Truly, the most honored of you in God's sight is the greatest of you in piety. Surely Allah is Knowing, Aware." Translation of the Quran 49:13

"tribes" here don't mean the whole of Somalia, it means Qabiil, Somalia is a Nation, reer-galool is a tibe.

 

Hence, at the time of the prphet, when the Muslims waged a Jihad, they were seperated into tribes, each being lead by a commander from their own tribe. you can't say this is a weakness, actually I believe it was an advantage for the Muslims. There could be some doubt and shaytaan's waswaas in their hearts if they for example were mixed up and one tribes happens to be the majority in one platoon.

 

Few weeks ago I was watching PBS, and they were investigating why members of a group in the animal kingdom would sacrafice their own lifes in protecting their fellow members. It turns out that genes play a great role, because genes are copied from parent-to-offsprings, actually the Animal is trying to save his own genes. So there is a wisdom why the Sahabah were seperated into tribes, because they became more effective fighters in the cause of Allah.

 

So my point is that Qabiil can co-exist with Islaam, and it has at the time of the prophet(saw).

 

My view is that:

 

1. First comes the Purification of the people thru Islam.

2. from the above, we can milk the right Political and Economic system, one or the other doesn't have to come first, they can go hand-in-hand, but if one must come first, then I think it has to be politics.

 

3. Everything will exist in Equilibrium. Qabiil will be part of it, but in due-proportion.

Amani

 

Allah Knows Best!