A Secular Somali State?

[ailamos]

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.

[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.

[ailamos]

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?

[Jacpher]

Allow me to ask you a simple question. Would it be against democracy and 'modern standard' (need definition here) if a county chooses the Sharia due to majority vote? 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? Does the separation of church and state a universal constitution for all countries similar to the international law and court for genocide and human right abuse.

 

Is democracy and freedom of choice a one way street? Where you do draw the line.

[Chocolate and Honey]

and when is the turn of Muslims nations to wake up and reform their religion up to modern standards?

First of all, welcome to the forum. I hope you enjoy your stay. All opinions are welcome here.

Second, you lost me here. You seem to think that the Sharia Law is not upto "modern" standards. I'm waiting for your response to the previous poster's answers.

[ailamos]

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.

[ailamos]

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.

[ElPunto]

^Jacphar, the poster is not questioning whether people can choose their own system of governance but whether this system is better than the secular model in the first place.

 

Originally posted by ailamos:

quote: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?

Properly applied to me means by people who have both worldly knowledge and religious knowledge and who have gained experience and wisdom in a variety of capacities and settings. Religion(Islam) is the backbone and wellspring of basic human decency and civility. The combination of Islamic belief and governance reinforces and infuses the political system with the aforementioned decency and civility. Religion also inspires its adherents to a higher moral and ethical plane than non-theistic belief/governance systems.

 

Edit: I think when you characterize some punishments as not modern you head into a slippery slope.

[Jacpher]

^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.

[ailamos]

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.

[Chocolate and Honey]

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.

[ailamos]

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.

[ailamos]

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

[ailamos]

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.

[Chocolate and Honey]

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

First of all, I don’t know how you can exact rape from the word “should” and “curse.” It doesn’t exactly say he should tower over her, slap her a couple of times and take her by force now does it? And you’re right, it can be interpreted that way by someone with someone like you who already decided it to be “inhumane” treatment.

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.

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.

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.

OK, will continue later, it's getting late... night night