A Secular Somali State?

[ailamos]

^ Thanks for the tip Blessed. I just looked up the Tunisian system and noticed the following important points:

 

 

Personal Status:

 

Upon promulgation, on August 13, 1956, the Personal Status Code redeemed the place of the Tunisian women in the family and in society through:

 

* The Tunisian Republic guarantee the inviolability of the human person and the freedom of conscience, and protects the free exercise of beliefs

 

* abolition of polygamy

 

* institution of the judicial divorce

 

* institution of equality between men and women in the use of the right to divorce

 

* granting the mother the right to guardianship of her children under age on death of the husband

 

* inheritance laws follow Shari'a law, which grants a larger share of inheritance to sons than to daughters

 

In 1993 the Personal Status Code underwent several substantive amendments:

 

* abolition of the wife's duty of submission to the husband by substituting the duty of mutual respect;

 

* co-responsibility in managing the affairs of the couple and the family;

 

* reinforcement of the mother's prerogatives in the area of decision-making and guardianship;

 

* granting guardianship to the mother in the event of default by the father;

 

* granting majority to the wife under age (age 17 to 20) regarding civil and commercial acts.

 

Two laws promulgated in 1998 granted women:

 

* the right to give her name to her child born of unknown filiation;

 

* the right to choose the system of joint ownership upon marriage.

It'll be a matter of time until the Sharia-based inheritance system is scrapped altogether as well: http://tinyurl.com/yde9bna. According to one study "Given women's advancements in the labor field and state efforts to enhance women's economic participation, such a (unjust) policy seems anachronistic. As a fairly large proportion of Tunisian women draw on personal savings to start a business, the reform of inheritance laws could help to spur women's entrepreneurship."

[genius pauper.]

^^ to single out part of the islamic sharia as a failed time tested issue, may render one miss his faith.

 

if anyone, for any reason thinks that securality is an option for islamic shariah, he/she must be a product of western wave tailored to question the rationality of ethics and morality.

 

deep insight may render ailamos and the like mided folks ask for the sake of 'rational criticism'~~^^^

[Mavericksky]

Bismillah and blessings be upon His Chosen (swt).

 

Ailamos, many thnx for an stimulating thread.

 

Indeed, it's most wonderful to see so many somali brothers and sisters by in large debating in such energetic/passionate manner.

 

Just quick points from me;

 

1. The issue of definations has not been resolved, i.e; do we mean secularism as merely the ''seperation between the church and the state'' or is there more to that terminology?

 

2. Ofcourse it goes without saying that, 'secualrism' at least in its above definition arose from specific cultural and historical

background. i;e, from european post reformation society where the church was throughly corrupt, oppressive and stifling to progress of any form.

 

(by the way the leaders of the Protestant Reformation namely Martin luther, Klein etc were students of islamic works. Islamic theology greatly influenced their thinking. Therefore, the one who says Islam needs a reformation - should understand that indeed IT was and stiill IS the original reformation of the previous/older religions)

 

3. its indeed fully understandible that populations became hostile to Christianity/Church i;e it regressively meddling in their affairs.

 

4. Ofcourse, one most not forget that most populations in those feudal societies had very limited rights if any (until, in the grander scale of time VERY RECENTLY). Infact, it was the ruling elite who were instigating the sidelining of the all powerful church as this meant they became free of the 'pope' imposed taxes.

 

5. Economic decisions have always determined the direction of any serious 'progress' towards what it is now 'hailed' as the holly grail of secualr democartic system.

 

6. For example slavery was supposedly abolished in its original from, because of its long term economic unsustainability (i have already noted what was said about Islam and Slavery).

 

7. On the otherhand, Islamic Society overall (not talking just about somalia here) had a totally different history to the west and therefore its unique problems cant be easilly solved with imported foreign solutions. other wise it will exactly a 'one size fits all' and as agreed previouslly, only clothes come in the right size.

 

i) There never was a Church i;e: Islam theologically is completly different from the catholic Church. Thereby, by default it never had caused the populations the problems that the Church caused in its realm. Hence, the vast majority of muslims don't have a problem with the potential dominance of the SHARIA (which they believe in - wholestically anyway)

 

ii) Muslim Scholars never took part in any oppression of the populace ( I challenge anyone to find me a viable historical proof of other wise)

 

iii) Paradoxiclly, the ruling elite caused and STILL is causing oppression and were & are ridden with corruption, because they were & are precisely morally secualr, but crucailly paid & still pay lip service to the actualities of the faith and Allah's Sharia law.

 

iv) Whenever, the sincere scholars were in the prominance, the Islamic society expereinced tremendous vibrancy and progree (in the Golden age for the Islamic Science - the vast majority of the BRILLIANT scientists, mathmaticians, doctors, engineers, estronomers etc were also AUTHORITIES on Islam - so no contradiction thre)

 

v)What corrupted and is still holding back the islamic societies is precisly the prevalent ignorence of its RELIGION (complete way of life) and the lack of confidence in its self, where one is totally taken and subdued by the envogue western dominance. But, as history demonisterated too many times before CHANGE IS ALWAYS AROUND THE CORNER.

 

Also, the victors of any particular battle usually seem the ideal of that moment (for example, had Hitler won 1945 he and his policies would have been seen as the shinning glory and the best of human achievement --- by the easilly impressed ofcourse)

 

A great deal more could be said but i leave the floor for now.

 

O Allah I ask thee for forgivness and sencerity - Ameen

[Che -Guevara]

Originally posted by poiuyt:

Good thread.

 

Here's the issue though: I think an appreciation for the rule of law -- for the necessity of a government-- must precede democratic secularism.

 

Consider the fact that nearly all European countries were monarchies for the longest time where the common man was not free at all to have a voice in the creation of laws. But the rule of law was always forced upon the non-elite so that after hundreds of years they became culturally dependent on it. It was in no one's interest to have everything devolve into anarchy. And it isn't just European countries that this is true of. Consider Japan and China. Both countries had systems of government that enforced rigid laws for, in the case of Japan, at least 1.5 thousand years and in China's case considerably longer. These sort of governments are obviously far from today's ideal but at least they were governments, and they had a lasting and deep impact on the culture of the people. There is also the issue of literacy. A significant portion of the population of these people -- Europeans and Asians -- could read and write for hundreds of years. This also had an effect on their governments and laws.

 

Somalis on the otherhand had practically never known of the concept of government (and literacy!) before the arrival of Europeans. Sure, we had our own indigious form of conflict resolution and so on, but our way of life didn't necessitate any form of central government.

 

To go from this chaotic state to a secular democracy is, simply, too much of a jump. The cultural inertia from our pre-European contact years was simply too strong against the systems the Europeans gave us and, therefore, the military dictatorships and eventual disolution of the government was inevitable. You're talking about hundreds of years of clans and tribalism. This cultural inertia is still strong today because quite frankly there remain entirely rational reasons for your average Somali to cling to it: if he or she doesn't, he or she would lose any protection that clan/tribe offers. In the olden days your possessions and sheep and camels were protected by your fellow clan/sub-clan members against other clans. How could anyone in such a circumstance forsake his tribe/clan? How can anyone in Somalia today forsake his tribe/clan? It simply isn't rational to do so.

 

And yet, the clan/tribe system doesn't really make sense in a world where people have united as NATIONS to further their interests. The nation is the ultimate tribe.

 

Somalis need to come to understand first the benefits of nationhood, and a people cannot achieve secular democracy without having been prepared in the rule of law and literacy for hundreds of years.

The only person that made any sense thus far,

[Raamsade]

^Are you agreeing with Piouyt that as their countries become economically developed, Muslims will reject Sharia for secular democracy? That's the gist of what Piouyt is saying.

 

Originally posted by ailamos:

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.

I'm glad we both agree that Sharia should never become the law of any civilized country (it's not a coincidence that no civilized country today has Sharia as its constitution).

 

But how do you know that people refuse secularism? Vladamir Lenin once said "they are voting with their feet." Referring to the mass desertion of Russian troops in WW1 against Germany and thereby "voting" for peace with Germany by deserting.

 

Today the term "voting with their feet" is popular to mean, instead, that where people migrate to is good indication of their likely vote. And where have people been migrating lately? To Sharia bastions like Al Shabaabland, Talibanistan, Hizbollaland, Iran, Saudi Arabia...? or to the EU, N. America, Australia & New Zealand -- the secular and democratic "dens of kafirdom" that are rife with binge drinking, scandalously clad women, apostasy, blasphemous cartoonists that should be beheaded preferably with axe, fathers pimping their daughters and swingers clubs for moms.

 

When given the opportunity Muslims, time and again, gravitate towards den of Kafirdom which indicates that they favor Secular Democracy over Sharia Theocracy.

 

Don't be fooled by Jihadi propaganda that all Muslims want Sharia. It's a lie. Only a vocal but significant minority of Muslims want Sharia. Most don't. They simply want a better life. But they must pay lip-service to wanting Sharia else they risk being labeled apostates and summarily executed or are emotionally blackmailed from years of religious indoctrination.

 

You're also correct to observe that more education is the solution. When people are truly educated on Sharia -- the demystified and unvarnished version -- they'll reject it or call for reforms. Sadly, the Jihadis sensing this have already declared war on education -- from Nigeria to Indonesia.

[burahadeer]

The fact is nomads never came under any sort of

authority,(let alone a rigid one)even during the

colonial period with the exception of around two

towns,Mogadishu & Jabouti.And for those 2 it was

mostly lenient compared to many other parts of

Africa & infact around the world.The 21 years under Barre was really bad between 77-90-a mere

12 yrs.I don't recall an Islamic gov't in modern

times that is frankly be called tolerant & democratic.If you take Sudan,well,see Darfur.

Saudi Arabia,Iran.O read between the lines.As one

who visited stable parts of Somalia recently,I was comfounded by what I have witnessed,the way these Islamists are trying to recruit young men

into a death trap.

For those who are advocating such a government,

accept to be accountable for any good or bad that

comes out of it.

 

 

At times,it helps to believe in evolution

and that man is not yet finished.

Maine News.

[genius pauper.]

posted by ramsade

''Don't be fooled by Jihadi propaganda that all Muslims want Sharia. It's a lie.''

 

i wonder why the lie of others bothers him, while he himslef is more liar than them bye the fact he is a liar by any standard.

 

if on earth anyone was fooled, i bet it MUST BE YOU. for they pumbed non-sense in the name of non-faith in you.( i guess u wont ask whom i refer them to)

 

''When given the opportunity Muslims, time and again, gravitate towards den of Kafirdom which indicates that they favor Secular Democracy over Sharia Theocracy. ''

i wonder when such weak indication amounts to your sound observations, and for others you see as fallacy.(my point is how does it indicate)

 

raamsade, i thought you know, secular democracy is not a branch of atheism, then i end up asking why all this energy.

 

as for you, till we finish the other thread about GOD, its immature to talk about system of governance, because you even dont know why your here, i mean on earth!!!!

[Mr. Somalia]

I found the following article on the council of foreign relations website which I thought I might share with you lot...

 

Sharia vs. Secularism

 

In a 2007 University of Maryland poll (PDF), more than 60 percent of the populations in Egypt, Morocco, Pakistan, and Indonesia responded that democracy was a good way to govern their respective countries, while at the same time, an average of 71 percent agreed with requiring "strict application of [sharia] law in every Islamic country." Whether democracy and Islam can coexist is a topic of heated debate. Some Islamists argue democracy is a purely Western concept imposed on Muslim countries. Others feel Islam necessitates a democratic system and that democracy has a basis in the Quran since "mutual consultation" among the people is commended (42:38 Quran). John L. Esposito and John O. Voll explain the debate in a 2001 article in the journal Humanities.

 

Noah Feldman, CFR adjunct senior fellow, writes in a 2008 New York Times Magazine article that the full incorporation of Islamic law is viewed as creating "a path to just and legitimate government in much of the Muslim world." It places duplicitous rulers alongside their constituents under the rule of God. "For many Muslims today, living in corrupt autocracies, the call for [sharia] is not a call for sexism, obscurantism or savage punishment but for an Islamic version of what the West considers its most prized principle of political justice: the rule of law," Feldman argues.

 

On the other hand, some Muslim scholars say that secular government is the best way to observe sharia. "Enforcing a [sharia] through coercive power of the state negates its religious nature, because Muslims would be observing the law of the state and not freely performing their religious obligation as Muslims," says Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'im, a professor of law at Emory University and author of a book on the future of sharia. Opinions on the best balance of Islamic law and secular law vary, but sharia has been incorporated into political systems in three general ways:

 

*

Dual Legal System.

Many majority Muslim countries have a dual system in which the government is secular but Muslims can choose to bring familial and financial disputes to sharia courts. The exact jurisdiction of these courts varies from country to country, but usually includes marriage, divorce, inheritance, and guardianship. Examples can be seen in Nigeria and Kenya, which have sharia courts that rule on family law for Muslims. A variation exists in Tanzania, where civil courts apply sharia or secular law according to the religious backgrounds of the defendants. Several countries, including Lebanon and Indonesia, have mixed jurisdiction courts based on residual colonial legal systems and supplemented with sharia. Ahmad Nizar Hamzeh of the American University of Beirut says only Qatar has an official dual legal system where Adlia courts, or civil courts, are independent of the sharia system and legislate secular laws. Western countries are also exploring the idea of allowing Muslims to apply Islamic law in familial and financial disputes. In late 2008, Britain officially allowed sharia tribunals (NYT) governing marriage, divorce, and inheritance to make legally binding decisions if both parties agreed. The new system is in line with separate mediation allowed for Anglican and Jewish communities in England. Criminal law remains under the gavel of the existing legal system. "There is no reason why principles of sharia law, or any other religious code, should not be the basis for mediation," Britain's top judge, Lord Nicholas Phillips, said in a July 2008 speech (PDF). Supporters of this initiative, such as the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, argue that it would help maintain social cohesion (BBC) in European societies increasingly divided by religion. However, some research suggests the process to be discriminatory toward women (BBC). Other analysts suggest the system has led to grey areas. Britain's Muslims come from all over the world, Ishtiaq Ahmed, a spokesperson for the Council for Mosques in England, told the BBC, noting that this makes it hard to discern at times "where the rulings of the sharia finish and long-held cultural practices start."

 

*

Government under God

. In those Muslim countries where Islam is the official religion listed in the constitution, sharia is declared to be a source, or the source, of the laws. Examples include Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates, where the governments derive their legitimacy from Islam. In Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, and Iraq, among others, it is also forbidden to enact legislation that is antithetical to Islam. Saudi Arabia employs one of the strictest interpretations of sharia. Women are not allowed to drive, are under the guardianship of male relatives at all times, and must be completely covered in public. Elsewhere, governments are much more lenient, as in the United Arab Emirates, where alcohol is tolerated. Non-Muslims are not expected to obey sharia and in most countries, they are the jurisdiction of special committees and adjunct courts under the control of the government.

 

*

Completely Secular.

Muslim countries where the government is declared to be secular in the constitution include Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, Chad,

Somalia

, and Senegal. Islamist parties run for office occasionally in these countries and sharia often influences local customs. Popular Islamist groups are often viewed as a threat by existing governments. As in Azerbaijan in the 1990s, secularism is sometimes upheld by severe government crackdowns on Islamist groups and political parties. Similar clashes have occurred in Turkey. Under the suspicion that the majority party, the Islamist Justice and Development Party, was trying to establish sharia, Turkey's chief prosecutor petitioned the constitutional court (Economist) in March 2008 to bar the party from politics altogether. One of the politicians indicted, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, told Newsweek, "Turkey has achieved what people said could never be achieved--a balance between Islam, democracy, secularism and modernity." Secular Muslim countries are a minority, however, and the popularity of Islamist political parties are narrowing the gap between religion and state.

 

Read the entire article here:

This article shows that in many place around the world, it has been possible to blend Shariah based laws with other types of secular law. And in fact even in Somalia today, most people still use a form of a hybrid set of Shariah/Customary laws to govern their relationships with one another.

[ailamos]

Originally posted by genius pauper.:

posted by Raamsade

"Don't be fooled by Jihadi propaganda that all Muslims want Sharia. It's a lie."

 

i wonder why the lie of others bothers him, while he himslef is more liar than them bye the fact he is a liar by any standard.

 

if on earth anyone was fooled, i bet it MUST BE YOU. for they pumbed non-sense in the name of non-faith in you.( i guess u wont ask whom i refer them to)

 

"When given the opportunity Muslims, time and again, gravitate towards den of Kafirdom which indicates that they favor Secular Democracy over Sharia Theocracy."

i wonder when such weak indication amounts to your sound observations, and for others you see as fallacy.(my point is how does it indicate)

 

Raamsade, i thought you know, secular democracy is not a branch of atheism, then i end up asking why all this energy.

 

as for you, till we finish the other thread about GOD, its immature to talk about system of governance, because you even dont know why your here, i mean on earth!!!!

People let's not make this thread run into a dead-end like other threads that talk about religion+politics on this forum.

 

genius pauper and Raamsade please let's keep it civil, attack the poster's point(s), not the poster.

 

Mr. Somalia thanks for sharing that piece. Mavericksky and poiuyt have brought up some good points. Let's keep it at that level.

[genius pauper.]

!!~~^^ ailamos, iga wareeji noo

[ailamos]

Originally posted by Raamsade:

I'm glad we both agree that Sharia should never become the law of any civilized country (it's not a coincidence that no civilized country today has Sharia as its constitution).

I'll try not to go in the "civilized vs. uncivilized" direction. The notion of "civility" (I tend to put it in quotes because it's quite relative) is labeled from an outsider-looking-in perspective with a strong ethnocentric connotation. What's civilized to one may seem barbaric to another and vice versa.

 

But how do you know that people refuse secularism? Vladamir Lenin once said "they are voting with their feet." Referring to the mass desertion of Russian troops in WW1 against Germany and thereby "voting" for peace with Germany by deserting.

That's a good question. I don't know. But what I do know is that some Muslims (both men and women) prefer to be governed by divine law rather than "man-made" laws. Although I advocate secular governance, I am against depriving religious people from practicing and abiding by the rules of their respective religions.

 

Today the term "voting with their feet" is popular to mean, instead, that where people migrate to is good indication of their likely vote. And where have people been migrating lately? To Sharia bastions like Al Shabaabland, Talibanistan, Hizbollaland, Iran, Saudi Arabia...? or to the EU, N. America, Australia & New Zealand -- the secular and democratic "dens of kafirdom" that are rife with binge drinking, scandalously clad women, apostasy, blasphemous cartoonists that should be beheaded preferably with axe, fathers pimping their daughters and swingers clubs for moms.

I think that's a misconception. The choice of where to migrate to is not necessarily out of love of secularism, but for economic reasons. If a country is economically attractive and offers opportunities (e.g. UAE or Netherlands) then it's the target for migrants rather than a country that doesn't (e.g. Pakistan or Ukraine).

 

Don't be fooled by Jihadi propaganda that all Muslims want Sharia. It's a lie. Only a vocal but significant minority of Muslims want Sharia. Most don't. They simply want a better life.

I don't know if most Muslims want Sharia just as I don't know if most Muslims don't want Sharia. My premise is to give the choice to the people under a system that accomodates that. The freedom to choose is the essence of a good life.

[Mavericksky]

Bismillah,

 

Ailamos i cammand you for correting the gross generalisations made raamsade

[LayZie G.]

^is it gross generalization that those who shout the loudest for Sharia Law are made up of mostly of asylum seekers?

 

 

Is it gross generalization that those same group of asylum seekers are the first to jump at a chance to escape their impoverished lives for new beginnings and take oaths to obey and protect the secular constitution of their adopted country? Where is Sharia then? Sharia is nowhere to be found when they are crossing oceans if given the chance to escape the harsh realities that religion and theocratic rule has condemned them to, eh?

 

C'mon, tell me, where is the gross generalization ya maverickyyyyyyyyyyyy?

 

 

Ailamos, a long time ago, myself and others argued for a federal system, where the SOmali constitution would grand individual tuulos/provinces semi-autonomy based on regional relations, the right for these tuulos to self-govern, including but not limited to implementing strict sharia law for as long as the residence of those various tuulos vote on it.

 

We argued for the tuulos to be custodians of their laws, criminal or civil matters, at the same time recognize the federal court as the final authority as the highest court will be the custodian of the somali constitution but that the day to day affairs of these tuulos would be on the hands of its officials, nominated and elected locally by the people. (whether they be elders or qualified candidates)

 

We argued for the right of tuulos to take federal funds and build Islamic schools(madras) and such side by side with public schools and universities, for as long as the people had a say in the development of such institutions.

 

We believed then, as we believe now this could work for as long as people are given the voice to argue for or against the mutual co-existence theory of secular(federal system) with the implementation of sharia based on the wants and needs of the umma for such faith led legal system.

 

 

The question isn't about whether or not proponents of secular state will limit the freedom of the individual but whether or not faith-heads will grant the fundamental freedoms of the individual?(right to express one's religion , belief, expression, guarantee rights for women,democratic rights, for everyone one of legal age to vote, freedom of the press, freedom to grant political parties, etc, etc)

[Mavericksky]

Bismillah,

 

LAZIE,

 

yes,its exactly a gross generalization to claim asylum seekers shout the loudest for Sharia law.

There are people who are not asylum seekers (e;g because they live in their birth countries) who shout even louder for the Sharia.

 

There are also those who are economic migrants, others who were oppressed by secular regimes and there are also those who shout extremely loudly for Sharia Law wherever they may be. why? because, THEY HAVE FAITH IN ALLAH AND HIS RELIGION AND THEREFORE KNOW FOR CERTAINTITY THAT ALLAH'S DEVINE LAW IS UNCOMPROMISINGLY SUPERIOR TO ANY MAN MADE

TEMPORAL/IN-COMPREHENSIVE CONCOCTION, REGARDLESS OF WHATEVER ITS TEMPORAL POPULARITY/SUCCES MAYBE.

 

Its, however, fully understandible for an atheist to not comprehend the commitment that Muslims have for the application of Sharia Law... BECAUSE ITS MATTER OF CONVICTION.... you are not convinced by the divine nature of this law and we are.

 

Therefore, regardless of wherever a devoute muslim may be and regardless of the circumstances that got them at that specific place, rest assured that they remain committed to Allah's law over whatever the envogue ideology maybe at the time.

 

It is an indisputable fact that Muslims throughout the world are largely impoverished directly or indirectly by the foreign policies that are carried out by your 'enlightent' secular atheistic countries. This is what drives them to immigrate in order to order to gain a little from their enemies capture. At the same time often times these same muslims grow deeper in their faith and grow in disdain of the decadence and shallowness of their hosts. They live under an immoral system but yearn for the day when Allah's law reigns supreme somewhere/anywhere.

 

BTW:

 

What moral high ground can a system that inspires to dominate, plunder and impoverish other societies possible claim??

 

How can you deny the legacy of slavery, colonialism and profound racism that is the direct fruit of this system?

 

How can you advocate for a corrupt man made system that is constantly shifting its goal posts and its ready to revoke at any moment its much praised so called 'civil liberties' at the very slightest threat??

 

Its of wisdom not to throw rocks at peoples houses when your own is made of glass. Certainly, this system leaves much to be desired.

[burahadeer]

Colonialism,colonialism.Atheist,atheist.I heard

all before,very too often.Slavery was started

long before the west by the Arabs(Muslim).Find out the word" ENUCH";it means slaves castrated

in Mecca.

Now,there are many religions,Christian,

buddist,pagan,etc.etc.Why only Islamic fundamentalists are in such a state of mind.

Keep on carrying the gun,& at the end of the day

only right will prevail.

 

The art of acting consists in

keeping people from coughing.

 

Sir Ralph Richardson.

 

 

Is he an Infidel I don't have to quote.