A Secular Somali State?

[ailamos]

A quick review of the book is also found here: http://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_7.pdf

[BUKURR]

Didn't follow the whole discussions, but keep going people, it benefits even to talk about it... we are progressing..

 

Heela heeela allah 3ala el Somaliya.. c'mon guys push :cool:

[Ibtisam]

Ailamos,I got it as a gift from a friend, I never finished reading it because someone took it off to read and never gave it back.

 

From what I read, (I've not read his predictions or how these laws could be used currently); there were laws and processes in there that even I did not know. He also based his whole book on the area his wife's family lived, so I'm not sure if all the rules and processes are the same across the country.

 

Reminds me to start asking for my books back.

[Khayr]

Cicero said:

 

There has to be an impermeable 'wall of seperation' between religion and state so as to guuarantee principles of equality, freedom, and justice in society.

Why must that be the case? If you espouse for equality and freedom, why can't muslims be dictated by the Islamic tradition. Why can't you accept their traditions, if you espouse equality, freedom and justice? Are you and the likeminded individuals, the Definers and Legislators of what is good for Muslims?

[Naxar Nugaaleed]

I never understood this double standard, perhaps some of you pro Shariah people can clear it up for.

As a religious minority, you (All of you) more then any should see the wisdom of Secularism. What if the

people of these countries (West) we live in thought like you. We would be living in christian nations not being able practices our faith or faiths as we see fit. Is not a malicious hypocrisy to enjoy the freedom of religion you have here but advocate theocracies. How do you reconcile this?

[BUKURR]

Alright, so where do we go from here?

[ailamos]

Yeah, it seems this thread has died... But I think the consensus is that some Muslims want to be governed by Sharia while other Muslims (and people from other religions) would prefer a secular system.

 

So, an adequate system, in my opinion, would be one that is dualistic whereby the country is governed by a secular law but if a Muslim(s) wants to settle an issue (e.g. inheritance, dispute, etc.) through Sharia, then that would be made available. This way everyone is treated equally and it gives choice to the people. Similar to the system in Britain where the decisions of the courts of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal are enforced through the British judicial system. See here: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article4749183.ece

 

But the question is, what if two Muslims are locked in dispute and one of them wants to settle it through Sharia and another wants to settle it through the secular system. Then what happens?

[Raamsade]

Originally posted by ailamos:

So, an adequate system, in my opinion, would be one that is dualistic whereby the country is governed by a secular law

but

if a Muslim(s) wants to settle an issue (e.g. inheritance, dispute, etc.) through Sharia, then that would be made available.

There is no way this sort of arrangement will work in the Muslim world. Don't conflate post-enlightenment Europe with the contemporary Islamic world. The Enlightenment has convinced Europeans that dogma was NOT a virtue. And from that paradigm shift was born liberal democracy.

 

The accommodation of religious courts in some Western countries may give one the illusion of dual law possibility but that is not the truth. The religious courts you find in Britain are similar to the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) that is widely used in business and civil cases. But make no mistake, Secular Law is still law of the land and has the final say. Criminal law is delimited by secular law and ADRs have no jurisdiction over it. So there is one obvious problem there. Who gets to write the Criminal Act of the country? In Britain, it is the parliament.

 

Another obvious problem would be the Zhimmi institution in Islamic law. Muslims would rightly ask what's the need for a new parallel system when Islam already has a parallel system - one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims provided you are a member of "people of the book" and willing to abide by discriminatory laws, otherwise you'll be put to death.

 

 

Originally posted by ailamos:

But the question is, what if two Muslims are locked in dispute and one of them wants to settle it through Sharia and another wants to settle it through the secular system. Then what happens?

They'll do what they've always done -- battle it out with winner taking all. This has been the pattern of Islamic history from the death of Mohammed to the present.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Raamsade:

There is no way this sort of arrangement will work in the Muslim world. Don't conflate post-enlightenment Europe with the contemporary Islamic world. The Enlightenment has convinced Europeans that dogma was NOT a virtue. And from that paradigm shift was born liberal democracy.

The situation of Muslims in Britain has shown that there is a preference of Sharia Law, even when civil law is the law of the land, Muslims are going to their local sheikh's to seek judgement over certain cases. Although I disagree with Sharia being the law of the country, imposing a secular system on a people that refuse to be governed by it is not a solution. And when I say a dual system I mean only the judicial system, and not law enforcement.

I think people should be given a choice and that any dual Sharia system should be open to scrutiny and not behind closed doors. People should be well informed of their rights, they should be told what civil law says and what Islamic law says about particular cases, sort of a legal consultation. The more they are educated and see that Islamic law is not fair in certain situations (e.g. inheritance) the more they are likely to adopt civil law.

[genius pauper.]

^^^nin noloow maxaa aragti kuudhiman.^^^

 

alxamdulilah.

[Khayr]

The accommodation of religious courts in some Western countries may give one the illusion of dual law possibility but that is not the truth. The religious courts you find in Britain are similar to the Alternate Dispute Resolution (ADR) that is widely used in business and civil cases. But make no mistake, Secular Law is still law of the land and has the final say. Criminal law is delimited by secular law and ADRs have no jurisdiction over it. So there is one obvious problem there. Who gets to write the Criminal Act of the country? In Britain, it is the parliament.

The idea of a two "equal" parallel systems is an oxymoron. When ADR is being offered to those seeking resolution of civil law issues through their own particular civil regilious laws and their is a personal conflict, a disagreement with the arbitrators decision or a direct conflict to secular norms and laws, then the latter triumps the former.

 

 

The Enlightenment has convinced Europeans that dogma was NOT a virtue. And from that paradigm shift was born liberal democracy.

Which of itself is a dogma - liberal democracy that is and most are, dare i say - fantatical about the entire world's populations adhering to their liberal demo values.

 

Another obvious problem would be the Zhimmi institution in Islamic law. Muslims would rightly ask what's the need for a new parallel system when Islam already has a parallel system - one for Muslims and one for non-Muslims provided you are a member of "people of the book" and willing to abide by discriminatory laws, otherwise

you'll be put to death

.

This explains your 'objective' analysis of religion and islam - particular.

[Khayr]

I say a dual system I mean only the judicial system, and not law enforcement.

A very limited "dual" system.

[Cara.]

^I can see it now. Young men in ill-fitting pants walking around Hyde Park beating women with sticks for "dressing immodestly"

 

Is Britain ready for that kind of law enforcement?

[Khayr]

^^^^

 

Sadley enough, you lack any ability to discern between "corporal" punishment aka hudud and shariah. Shariah is not what is advertised on Channel 4, Skynews, Fox and CNN.

 

Shariah covers all aspects of the muslim life from what to do when a baby is born .....to how to how to treat your neighbour...to tort law....

[Blessed]

Comparing Saudi to Britain is a huge leap and quiet silly TBH. It would be fair and more useful for the Somali context if comparison was made between sharia based and other tribal but secular Arab states, like Saddams Iraq or even Tunisia.